My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0000026 SSCRPT
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MACARTHUR
>
20169
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
MS-01-09
>
SU0000026 SSCRPT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2020 11:27:34 AM
Creation date
9/6/2019 9:54:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSCRPT
RECORD_ID
SU0000026
PE
2622
FACILITY_NAME
MS-01-09
STREET_NUMBER
20169
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
MACARTHUR
STREET_TYPE
DR
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
ENTERED_DATE
8/8/2001 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
20169 S MACARTHUR DR
RECEIVED_DATE
3/2/2001 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\M\MACARTHUR\20169\MS-01-09\SU0000026\SSC RPT.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
i <br /> Spreckels Sugar Tracy, California JOB 96017 <br /> f <br /> (5) APPL Laboratories of Fresno would be the certified laboratory <br /> performing the testing. The groundwater sample would be tested for <br /> TPH calibrated against a Bunker C standard. Because the County has <br /> tentatively classified the site as an unknown fuel, the laboratory <br /> would test for TPH(g) , BTEX, TPH(d) , MTBE, TBA, DIPE, ETBE and TAME by <br /> Method 8250, as well as total lead by Method 7420 . <br /> (6) An evaluation of the risk associated with the site in its existing <br /> condition would be performed, using the ASTM Risk Based Corrective <br /> Action method. The Sugar Cut ditch and the factory wells would be <br /> evaluated as exposure points for groundwater. <br /> (7 ) No further action would be recommended if it can be established j <br /> that the hydrocarbon concentrations would not present a hazard risk or <br /> carcinogenic risk at the exposure points . Passive bioremediation <br /> (i . e . natural biodegradation) would be the Best Available Technology <br /> for the final remediation.. According to the test results to date, the <br /> hydrocarbons are biodegrading, with the latest set of results being <br /> none detected. That clearly indicates that the no further action i <br /> option may be feasible. <br /> Table 1 indicates the items which would be included in the final <br /> report . <br /> If you have any questions or comments in this regard, please do not <br /> hesitate to contact me. <br /> i <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Jo M. Minney, Consulting Engineer <br /> John M. Minne <br /> CE 32537 <br /> GE 502 <br /> REA 00212 <br /> JMM/bf <br /> Enclosures . Figure 1, Site Plan <br /> Figure 2, Proposed Soil Boring Location <br /> Table 1 - Checklist of Required Data for No Further Action j <br /> opROFSS'p�'9 �ROFESS'a�� <br /> ---- <br /> LU <br /> cr_ No. 32537 I No. 6ng <br /> CO <br /> `:�� i <br /> } ; <br /> Exp. 06/ 30%01 Exp. 40/3:)/01 1_ ? No. �J2�� <br /> r , ua ! <br /> 3 °� I <br /> -- I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.