SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

-IEALTH SERViCES PUBLIC SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Ernest M. Fujimoto, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer ��i,Foap 445 N. San Joaquin Street + P.O. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 95201-0388 (209) 468-3420 C (OPY JAMES GIOTTONINI PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY OF STOCKTON 425 NORTH EL DORADO STREET STOCKTON CA 95202 'JAN 311, 3995 RE: 110 WEST SONORA STREET SITE CODE: 1253 STOCKTON CA San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) has completed the review of the "Final Remediation Plan for Soil and Groundwater" (FRP) dated November 17, 1994, prepared by RESNA, and has the following comments for your consideration. Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations specifies corrective action requirements for underground storage tank sites. Section 2725 discusses the requirements for the Corrective Action Plan (copy enclosed). The FRP submitted for this site lacks the following elements: an assessment of the impacts, applicable cleanup levels, and an evaluation of at least two active remedial alternative for feasibility, efficiency and cost effectiveness. The inclusion of site specific costs for the different remedial alternatives being considered is imperative to the evaluation process. Any site within the Central Valley Region of Califomia must refer to the Basin Plan for this region (Region 5) when establishing cleanup goals. Based on the Region 5 Basin Plan, the initial cleanup level for all sites within this region must be nondetect levels in groundwater using acceptable detection limits (Tri-Regional Guidelines). Soil Characterization The geological cross sections in the report are suitable for a larger view of the total site. However, these cross sections fail to adequately present the known area of soil impact. The area to the north of the former tank pit, where the majority of the vapor extraction welre Is have been in and whe most of the documented soil contamination has been identified, was not presented in the cross sections. This area should be presented in cross sections showing levels of contamination, sol! lithology, and well completion details, In addition, soil borings SB#4, SB#5, and SB#6 were sampled between approximately 30 to 40 feet below ground surface. Because data is lacking in the shallower zone, these soil borings may or may not represent a zero line for the soil contaminant plume. The area inferred to be the limits of the soil contaminant plume based on these soil borings may not be entirely accurate. The analytical soil sample results from the most recent tank removals did not show soil contamination. However, odor and discoloration were observed and these areas may indeed be impacted with hydrocarbons. A W'San.140aquin C'mmnty Health care Scrvicv.