SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

N San Joaquin County OPq U, IN C Environmental Health Department DIRECTOR Donna Horan, REHS 1868 East Hazelton Avenue ¢: 'I PROGRAM COORDINATORS m. { Stockton , California 95205-6232 Robert McClellon, REHS _ Jeff Carruesco, REHS, RDI • C'q . . ��P • Website: wwwsjgovorg/ehd Kasey Foley, REHS 4 � oR Linda Turkatte, REHS Phone: (209) 468-3420 Fax: (209) 464-0138 October 10, 2012 Ms. Marion Canepa Canepa's Car Wash 1536 North Hunter Stockton , California 95204-5915 Subject: Canepa's Car Wash 6230 Pacific Avenue Stockton, California 95207-3712 Dear Ms. Canepa : By letter dated 18 September 2012, the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) notified you to attend a meeting on 23 October 2012 at 10: 00 a. m . at the EHD office building at 1868 East Hazelton Avenue in Stockton, California. The meeting had been scheduled to discuss possible solutions concerning the need for additional remediation of the methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) groundwater plume and a work plan to determine the extent of the MTBE plume that originated from unauthorized releases of petroleum hydrocarbon at your site. On 21 September 2012, the EHD received Additional Site Assessment Work Plan (work plan), dated 21 September 2012, submitted by your consulting firm, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc, (AGE), on your behalf. In the work plan, AGE proposed advancing four borings eastinortheast of monitoring well MW-3 at locations illustrated on Figure 2 of the work plan . AGE proposed to advance three of the borings off-site and one on-site. Although AGE proposed collecting soil samples at five-foot intervals beginning at 30 feet below surface grade (bsg), the total depth of each boring was not defined. AGE did propose collecting grab groundwater samples from each borehole at approximately 35 feet bsg to assess the groundwater in the upper water table and at approximately 55 feet bsg to assess the groundwater deeper in the aquifer; and AGE proposed analyzing soil and groundwater samples for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-g) ; however, it is unclear what compounds from the Method 82608 list would be reported. AGE stated in the work plan that the feasibility study that the EHD had directed to be submitted to this agency, beginning in 2008 , would be prepared under separate cover. AGE indicated in an email dated 21 September 2012 to the EHD that "The work plan did not include a feasibility study as we feel the data collected from the assessment is necessary to be evaluated prior to preparation of the (feasibility) study. At this time, we do not believe a meeting is necessary. ' The EHD received another email dated 05 October 2012 from AGE, again expressing the opinion that a meeting is not necessary at this time . I