Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County DIRECTOR <br /> Environmental Health Department Donna Heran,REHS <br /> c0 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR <br /> 600 East Main Street Laurie Cotulla,REHS <br /> a � <br /> .{ w Stockton, California 95202-3029 PROGRAM COORDINATORS <br /> Mike Huggins,RENS,RDI <br /> `• p Margaret Lagorio, REHS <br /> Website: www.sjgov.org/ehd Robert McClellon, RENS <br /> Phone: (209)468-3420 ,teff Carruesco,REHS, RDI <br /> Fax: (209) 464-0138 Kasey Foley, REHS <br /> 23 April 2009 <br /> Mr. John & Ms. Maxine Ferraiolo <br /> PO Box 757 <br /> Lodi CA 95242 <br /> Subject: Harry's Auto RO#: 0276 <br /> 2662 N. Wilson Way CUF#: 15094 <br /> Stockton, CA 95205 APN: 11706033 <br /> The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD) has received and <br /> reviewed Delay of Pilot Test (DPT), dated 14 April 2009, prepared by Ground Zero <br /> Analysis, Inc. (GZA). DPT was prepared to provide a technical justification to delay, <br /> until reimbursement <br /> of your corrective action <br /> costs by the California State Water <br /> Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Cleanup Fund (CUF) has been reestablished, <br /> implementation of a pilot test of soil vapor extraction SVE and in situ air s ar in <br /> ( ) P g g <br /> (IAS) for remediation of soil and groundwater impacted by the unauthorized release from <br /> the former underground storage tank (UST) system formerly on your site. The DPT <br /> concludes that a delay in implementing the SVE pilot test will not adversely impact the <br /> public or groundwater quality because: <br /> • Impacted soil is constrained to your site; <br /> • Impacted groundwater is constrained to your site and the Wilson Way roadway; <br /> • The groundwater plume is stable; <br /> • Groundwater flow is predominantly toward the northwest and northeast; and <br /> • Water supply wells within 2,000 feet of the site are not likely to be impacted by <br /> the groundwater plume.' <br /> Assuming that the above conclusions are correct, the EHD considers them adequate to <br /> show that the urgency for immediate action is not as great as if there were a sensitive <br /> receptor like a municipal well threatened on an adjacent parcel, but the EHD had already <br /> determined that remediation was needed to bring your site toward closure in a reasonable <br /> time frame; and the SWRCB expects the EHD to keep sites moving steadily toward <br /> closure; thus the EHD can approve a reasonable delay of a few months, but cannot <br /> approve an unspecified delay period of perhaps several years for reestablishment of CUF <br /> reimbursements for your site. <br /> Work Suspension Request Response 0409 <br />