Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> ' u El <br /> PUB�LI HFA <br /> SAN jOAQUIN COUNTY U <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION ;:. <br /> ;f <br /> Karen Furst, M.D., M.P.H., Health Officer <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue,Third Floor • Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> 2091468-3420 <br /> AUG 2 7 2001 <br /> RICHARD BELTHOFF <br /> COMPASS GROUP USA <br /> 2400 YORKMONT RD <br /> CHARLOTTE NC 28217 <br /> Site Code: 1727 <br /> RE: Canteen Corporation Facility ROM 000104 <br /> 1500 Shaw Road <br /> Stockton CA. 95205. <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS-EHD) <br /> has reviewed the "Problem Assessment Report" (PAR) dated July 10, 2001 submitted <br /> by Applied plied Earth Sciences Inc., on July 13,.2001 and has the following comments. <br /> On January 22, 2001 PHS-EHD directed you to either submit a work plan by March 1, <br /> 2001 to complete your site investigation field work or submit a complete PAR (including <br /> at least the minimum requirements listed within the Tri-Regional Guidelines, Appendix <br /> A) by July 16, 2001. <br /> Since a work plan for further Investigation was not submitted by March 1, 2001, PHS- <br /> EHD expected to receive a complete PAR by the due date established in the January <br /> 2001 directive correspondence. Unfortunately, the PAR that was received on July 13, <br /> 2001 did not contain the remedial testing results as detailed in the Tri-Regional <br /> Guidelines Appendix A list of inclusions for this type of report. <br /> The PAR did include supported conclusions that the lateral and vertical extent of the soil <br /> contamination and groundwater hydrocarbon plume have been delineated. The PAR did <br /> propose remedial alternatives to clean up the site, but as the Tri-Regional Guidelines <br /> lists, the "preliminary pumping test and soil analysis results necessary to investigate the <br /> remedial alternatives"were not included. <br /> This PAR as formatted under the Tri-Regional Guidelines is incomplete. Without <br /> remedial field-tested data included, PHS-EHD cannot agree with your.consultant's <br /> conclusion that In-Situ Air Sparging, In-Situ Well Aeration, and Enhanced <br /> Bioremediation are the only remedial technologies considered effective for this site.. It is <br /> possible that after field testing has been completed, other remedial technologies will <br /> prove to be more cost-effective in comparison with the three technologies selected. <br /> Rather than submit a revised PAR, PHS-EHD concurs with the recommendations . <br /> included in the PAR to conduct pilot studies for the remedial alternatives your consultant <br /> concluded should work for this site. At.the conclusion of the pilot testing, the test data, <br /> conclusions, and recommendations for the remedial alternative chosen to be most cost- <br /> effective should be submitted to PHS-EHD in the Corrective Action Plan (CAP). <br /> F <br /> Servi <br /> A Division of San Joaquin county Health Care ces <br />