Laserfiche WebLink
' r) <br /> Buck&Mendoza Property July 20,,2005 <br /> Phase I Environmental Assessment <br /> Page: 8 <br /> E <br /> 3.10 Radon <br /> Radon is not suspected to be present in the San Joaquin County area so tests were not <br /> conducted. EPA and the California Department of Health Services have tested for Radon <br /> in'this area and have found no evidence of levels exceeding health standards. In parts of <br />! the country where Radon is of concern it usually only involves structures with basements. <br /> Radon testing is relatively inexpensive and can be performed if requested for little or no <br /> charge depending on the number of samples required. However, we feel that this testing <br /> is unnecessary. <br /> 3.11 Land tilling <br /> There are no listed landfills or abandoned landfills on or near the subject site. There is no <br /> evidence of the buried household or industrial materials on the property. <br /> 4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS AUDIT <br /> The following is a list of documents reviewed for the subject property and surrounding <br /> vicinity within a one (1) mile radius: <br /> CERCLIS EPA Superfund <br /> NPL EPA National Priority List <br /> LIENS Federal Superfund Liens <br /> SWIS Solid Waste Information System List <br /> RCRA EPA Hazardous Waste Generators <br /> LUST CWRCB Underground Leaking Tanks <br /> CORTESE CWMB, WRCB, CDHS,Hazardous Waste Substance Sites <br /> TANNER CDHS Hazardous Waste Generators &Disposal Data <br /> BOP CDHS - California Bond Expenditure Plan <br /> ASPIS CDHS - Abandoned Site Program <br /> The subject property was not found on any of the above lists. There are no active <br /> contamination sites within a half mile of the subject property. A detailed report of all the <br /> facilities on the above lists can be found in Appendix E. <br /> 5.0 CONCLUSIONS <br /> The Buck and Mendoza Properties, described above as the subject property, have been <br /> used for e and residential dwellings since the 1930's. Evidence of significant <br /> contain' a ' n fro hazardous materials on the two parcels or the su 'e ortion of the <br /> parcels w not di closed during the assessment. The subject properti s did not ppear on <br /> any co t inate site list and does-not appear to warrant further asse sment. However, <br /> fuel pipelin uch as the oil pipeline," runs diagona across the dol <br /> parcel, <br /> have historically had problems with leaks and seepage. f the development is to be <br />