My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MOKELUMNE
>
838
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009040
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2019 4:59:08 PM
Creation date
10/1/2019 4:49:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0009040
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004009
FACILITY_NAME
CALIFORNIA FUELS/D ATWATER
STREET_NUMBER
838
STREET_NAME
MOKELUMNE
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
WOODBRIDGE
Zip
95258
APN
01509082
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
838 MOKELUMNE ST
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
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.
/
167
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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON Governor <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— <br /> CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 ROUTIER ROAD, SUITE A <br /> SACRAMENTO, CA 95827-3098 <br /> PHONE: (916) 361-5600 <br /> FAX: (916) 361-5686 <br /> 21 February 1992 2 5 5� <br /> r t <br /> hL t <br /> Mr. Dave Atwater <br /> California Fuels <br /> Post Office Box 1270 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> SOIL CLEANUP CONFIRMATION, CALIFORNIA FUELS, 838 MOKELUMNE STREET, WOODBRIDGE, <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> We have reviewed your 10 January 1991 response to our 17 October 1991 <br /> requirement, repeated on 19 December 1991, that you submit a Work Plan <br /> locating the soil samples necessary to establish whether you have completely <br /> removed or cleaned up the polluted soil at the subject site. Attached to our <br /> October and December letters was a memorandum which clearly describes the <br /> basis for our concern that substantial volumes of highly polluted soil may <br /> remain below ground on the site. <br /> Neither the November nor the January proposal responds to our concern. The <br /> November response described boreholes you drilled to evaluate the extent of <br /> the contaminated soil before treatment. Samples from these boreholes were <br /> clean, thereby establishing the extent of pollution. However, samples taken <br /> after excavation showed pollution still existed, with no confirmation that it <br /> was removed. <br /> In the inadequate January response, you propose to drill four of the five <br /> boreholes outside the excavation, at :bout the same distance from the <br /> excavation as the preliminary boreholes mentioned above. Therefore, you are <br /> proposing to sample soil already known to be clean. The proposal locates the <br /> fifth borehole inside the excavation. <br /> All the boreholes must be drilled within the excavation dug by your <br /> consultant, Aegis Environmental , Inc. The memorandum attached to both our <br /> October and December letters clearly explains the nature of our concern: after <br /> finding high pollutant concentrations in soil samples at two depths in the <br /> excavation, you should have sampled at the next deeper level directly beneath <br /> the "hot" samples. You should have continued sampling at deeper levels until <br /> samples no longer contained total petroleum hydrocarbons at concentrations <br /> exceeding the cleanup objectives. <br /> Therefore, in accordance with California Water Code §13267, by 13 March 1992 <br /> you are required to submit a work plan locating a sufficient number of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.