Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> DIRECTOR <br /> Pp U.IN Environmental Health Department Donna Heran,REHS <br /> 2'p,� c°? 600 East Main Street PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> Stockton, California 95202-3029 Robert McClellon,REHS <br /> .;, Jeff Carruesco,REHS,RDI <br /> r Kasey Foley,REHS <br /> 6....�_rc Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Linda Turkatte,REHS <br /> q %FOR ' Phone: (209) 468-3420 <br /> Fax: (209) 464-0138 <br /> December 30, 2011 <br /> Messrs. Kirk Larson, PG, and Robert Trommer, CHG <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Financial Assistance <br /> 1001 1 Street <br /> Sacramento CA 95814 <br /> Subject: 101 Wilson Way S., Stockton, CA <br /> 2011 Annual 5-Year Review Update Response CUF Claim No 8479 <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has received and <br /> reviewed the fourth annual five-year review update letter dated 07 November 2011 from <br /> Kirk Larson of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cleanup Fund (CUF) <br /> for above-referenced site. The CUF recommended that the EHD direct the responsible <br /> party (RP) to implement a more cost-effective technology to achieve water quality <br /> objectives in a more timely manner. <br /> A soil vapor extraction (SVE) was operated on the site from 31 August 2004 to 31 <br /> December 2008, removing approximately 23,000 pounds of petroleum hydrocarbons; <br /> during the last quarter of its operation, approximately 1,680 pounds were removed. <br /> Operation of the SVE system was suspended, reportedly due to unreimbursed expenses <br /> of $170,000 and the deaths of the RPs. A permit to construct was received by the <br /> consultant last week from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to <br /> reconstruct the SVE system, and implementation of its operation is anticipated to begin <br /> in mid- to late January 2012. <br /> A groundwater extraction (GWE) system operated on the site from November 2004 <br /> through December 2008, removing approximately 840 pounds of petroleum <br /> hydrocarbons from water, the operation was suspended at the same time as the SVE <br /> operation with the same reason given. GWE was reinitiated on the site in October 2010, <br /> and has since removed an additional 170 plus pounds of hydrocarbons. <br /> As the infrastructure for both remediation systems is already in place, it would appear <br /> the combined operation of SVE and GWE would be the most cost-effective technologies <br /> for contaminant mass removal at this time; however it may be beneficial to implement a <br /> supplemental technology, such as insitu air sparging (IAS) to augment the mass removal <br /> rate. The EHD will direct an evaluation of additional or possible replacement remediation <br /> technologies. <br /> 2011 Annual 5-Year Review Update Response CUF Claim No 8479.doc <br />