My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MAIN
>
224
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545393
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2020 1:56:50 PM
Creation date
3/5/2020 1:22:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0545393
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005072
FACILITY_NAME
DIAMOND LUMBER INC
STREET_NUMBER
224
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
MAIN
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
04308301
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
224 N MAIN ST
P_LOCATION
02
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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
r <br /> ` MEMORANDUM <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD • CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 Routier Road, Suite A <br /> Sacramento, CA 95827-3098 Phone: {916) 255 3000 <br /> CALNET: 8-494-3000 <br /> TO: GORDON L. BOGGS FROM: ELIZABETH A. THAYER <br /> UGT Program Coodinator Associate Engineer <br /> DATE: 17 November 1994 SIGNATURE:-21 � f <br /> SUBJECT: DIAMOND LUMBER, 120 EAST LOCKEFORD ST. (AKA 224 NORTH MAIN ST.), <br /> LODI, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> In a letter, dated 1 July 1994, to the Board, San Joaquin County staff recommended that the <br /> Diamond Lumber site in Lodi be closed and requested our concurrence. I have reviewed the file <br /> for Diamond Lumber in Lodi. <br /> This site is located on the south side of East Lockeford Street between Stockton Street on the east <br /> and Main Street on the west. Railroad tracks run between East Lockeford and the site. In <br /> February 1985, a diesel tank (size not reported) and a 500 gallon gasoline tank were removed. <br /> The gasoline tank had a hole in the bottom, approximately 1'/2 by 1/4 inches, and was leaking <br /> product during tank removal. Soil was excavated to about 13 feet and disposed off site. Clean fill <br /> was placed in the excavation. <br /> Also in February 1985, a boring was drilled to a depth of 21 feet adjacent to the tank pit. Ground <br /> water was not encountered, but soil contamination at a depth of 15 feet was quantitated as 7 ppm <br /> benzene, A second boring was drilled through the tank pit to a depth of 20 feet. Odor was <br /> encountered in samples from 13 and 17 feet. However, no contamination was detected. <br /> In March 1985, a temporary well point was installed south of the pit. At a depth of 17 feet, <br /> 3 ppm xylene and 23 ppm benzene were detected and at 25 feet, 6 ppm benzene were detected in <br /> soil. A water sample collected from the temporary well did not contain detectable BTX, however, <br /> the detection limit was 20 ppb. <br /> In November 1991, three monitoring wells were installed. No BTEX was detected in soil from the <br /> borings. In ground water samples, 0.82 ppb toluene was detected in MW2 and 0.63 ppb was <br /> detected in MW3. Lead was detected in MW1, however, the laboratory was not certified to <br /> perform the lead analysis. No other contaminants were detected in ground water. In December <br /> 1991, the temporary monitoring well was destroyed. <br /> In April and September 1992, no ground water contamination was detected except for lead, which <br /> was detected in all three wells up to 260 ppb. In February 1993, MW2 had 0.3 ppb benzene and <br /> MW3 had 0.7 ppb ethylbenzene and 0.4 ppb xylene. Up to 122 ppb lead was also detected in ail <br /> three wells. <br /> In June 1993, BTEX and TPHg were not detected in any of the three wells. In only MW2, 18 ppb <br /> lead was detected in an unfiltered sample. In filtered samples, no lead was detected. In <br /> November 1993, BTEX and TPHg were not detected. Up to 80 ppb lead was detected in all three <br /> wells in unfiltered samples. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.