My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FIELD DOCUMENTS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
ENTERPRISE
>
355
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544728
>
FIELD DOCUMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2019 5:06:17 PM
Creation date
8/1/2019 4:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
FIELD DOCUMENTS
RECORD_ID
PR0544728
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0003802
FACILITY_NAME
ACCURATE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
STREET_NUMBER
355
STREET_NAME
ENTERPRISE
STREET_TYPE
PL
City
TRACY
Zip
95304
APN
21221008
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
355 ENTERPRISE PL
P_LOCATION
03
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
U <br /> Subsurface Investigation_ 315 Enterprise Place <br /> January 13, 2000 Tracy, California <br /> pounds of diesel fuel is inferred to be present onsite, with'a similar or greater volume on the <br /> property to the west. <br /> The source of contamination has been removed from the adjoining Site. While little <br /> or no risk to human health is apparent due to the lack of BTEX compounds in high <br /> concentrations, further work will-be required to assess theEs full extent of the contamination, <br /> .p <br /> particularly on the adjoining property, and to assess the need for mitigation of contamination. <br /> This responsibility rests with the owner of the adjoining property, which is out of compliance <br /> with County directives to proceed with the assessment investigation. Assuming that <br /> compliance can be re-established,the adjacent property owner should be eligible for <br /> reimbursement of costs by the State SB2004 LUST Cleanup Fund. We found no evidence <br /> that activities on the subject property have contributed to or exacerbated the contamination <br /> found in this investigation <br /> 4.0 REMEDIAL OPTIONS <br /> i <br /> Three potential options are viable for this site. They include no further action, <br /> excavation and disposal or onsite treatment of the contaminated soil, and in situ treatment of <br /> the contaminated zone. Selection of the appropriate remedial action is dependent on <br /> regulatory acceptance and requirements, and must involve coordination between the two <br /> property owners. <br /> 4.11 No Further Action <br /> No further action may be an acceptable response if it can be clearly demonstrated that <br /> the site presents no significant risk to the health and safety of the site occupants or the public <br /> (including no nearby water supply wells), if the source.has been removed, if the extent of <br /> contamination has been established, and if it can be shownthat contamination levels are <br /> stable and/or decreasing with time. In this case,the risk levels are low based on low BTEX <br /> concentrations. The source has been removed. However, the extent of contamination has not <br /> been established on the adjoining property. <br /> Costs for this would include those associated with construction of three to five <br /> i <br /> monitoring wells to verify contamination degree and extent and to evaluate trends over time, <br /> or$10,000 to $20,000. <br /> 9015-025 4- <br /> .g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.