My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WILSON
>
102
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545890
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2020 11:01:28 AM
Creation date
7/22/2020 10:49:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0545890
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0025958
FACILITY_NAME
ROEK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
STREET_NUMBER
102
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
WILSON
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15502065
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
102 S WILSON WAY
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
227
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FILE COPY <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT <br /> OPp U,i.N C SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY Unit Supervisors <br /> Donna K.Heran,R.E.H.S. 304 East Weber Avenue,Third Floor Carl Borgman,R.E.H.S. <br /> Mike Huggins,R.E.H.S.,R.D.I. <br /> Director <br /> Douglas W.Wilson,R.E.H.S. <br /> Al Olsen,R.E.H.S. Stockton, California 95202-27 <br /> .p• Program Manager Telephone: (209) 468-3420 Margaret Lagorio,R.E.H.S. <br /> • cq�ico R`'� Laurie A.Cotulla,R.E.H.s. Fax: (209) 464-0138 Robert McClels,R. .H.S. <br /> Program Manager <br /> Mark Barcellos,R.E.H.S. <br /> HAROLD & DENA KNOWLES SEP 0 4 2003 <br /> C/O PATRICK RIDDLE <br /> 7574 SHORELINE DR <br /> STOCKTON CA 95219 <br /> RE: 102 S. Wilson Way <br /> Site Code: 9031 <br /> Stockton, CA <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has reviewed <br /> Second Quarter 2002 Groundwater Sampling and Vapor Extraction Report, <br /> dated 27 June 2002, Monitoring Well Installation and 1st Quarter 2003 Sampling <br /> Report, dated 24 June 2003, and data from other reports prepared on your behalf <br /> by Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. (GZA) for the above referenced site to evaluate <br /> GZA's recommendations to remove the soil vapor extraction (SVE) system <br /> currently installed on the site referenced above and to reduce the quarterly <br /> ground water monitoring requirements. <br /> GZA conducted intermittent rebound testing of the system during the first two <br /> quarters of 2002, each test of the system lasting approximately one week with <br /> approximately one week of non-operation between tests. The system was <br /> reported to have operated a total of 1,186 hours, removing an estimated 520 <br /> pounds of hydrocarbons, approximately 4% of the total 13,200 pounds of <br /> hydrocarbon removed. GZA estimated the cost of hydrocarbon removal to have <br /> been $ 240 per gallon. GZA did not provide the cost basis to demonstrate the <br /> estimated cost per gallon for removal. GZA estimated the hydrocarbon removal <br /> rate to be 5.5 pounds per day at the conclusion of the tests. <br /> During February 2001, GZA installed five confirmation borings designated CB1 <br /> through C65. Vadose zone and saturated zone soil samples were collected from <br /> CB1 through CB4, saturated zone soil samples were collected from all five. <br /> borings, and a grab ground water sample was collected from CB5. The vadose <br /> zone soil samples generally yielded nondetectable hydrocarbon and oxygenate <br /> concentrations, while several saturated zone soil samples yielded significant <br /> TPH-g concentrations. Most of the confirmation borings were not advanced <br /> directly adjacent to borings with previously acquired analytical data, but were <br /> located between one boring with impacted soil and a second boring with no soil <br /> data or nondetectable concentrations, leading to some ambiguity as to whether <br /> the confirmation borings are outside, along, or well within the margins of the <br /> plume of impacted soil. The most directly comparable sample pair was from C134- <br /> 40 and VW1/VW4, approximately 5 feet apart, which suggests a TPH-g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.