ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012576 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 'cS' s ✓a sir r .fin i'" mad . °'lY..... , t � v gv� for TEPH. The sail was returned to hole as before. 1989 - The reSUlts of the laboratory analysis on September 20, (Table 2: the above sample, showed the sample t❑ be clean. 29 19139 •- Thorpe Oil submitted a Site AsSes5Wpr4 September , outlining Report to the SJLHD, Environmental suits of Health Divison,, done, andstating that because howed non�detectablehlevelsl ofRTEPH,�pany taken on P rise a threat remaining contamination that might exist does not P to the environment, and no further wort: is recommended. November 7, 1989 - The 'San Joaquin County Public eeOilhCaersRSAFt, Environmental Health Divison, responded to tingThorthat a preli.mary (Exhibit D,1 listing 7 deficiences, and ` report should be prepared prior to coonductinducti ng further field investigative work. Some of the comments were etim) but rily procedural, (involvement of a Registered Geologist, others need to be addressed: Item 3 states that site maps should b2 included t❑ illustrate above configuration of the plume- Based on the results of s-nceabali laboratory analyses, a "plume" does not stored contamination has been removed. The product storedanin-the chemical was diesel fuel , which because of its density composition, does not migrate any great distance. Item 4 •- Groundwater depth; covered fully in this report. t during any of Item 5 - Site stratigraphy; there was no RG present resent a the excavation operations, so it is not possible to p detailed d geologic description of the sediments penetrated during e geologic sections were prepared work at the location. Detailconducted at dg '??9 Moffat Blvd, for the groundwater investigation less that 250' from this site, which should be representative of the geology in the area; (rafer to Exhibits E, F, °x G- ) Item 6 states: "Although an immediate source removal absentt,�ken we place and residual soil contamination app ears to becannot agree with the Conclusion that be contradictory; if not necessarsit evaluation is y. " This statement appears and residual soil the source has been removed, (would�S further evaluation be contamination is absent, y necessary? The 14 groundwater monitoring wells that were pieced as a result 4rauld detect any possible of contamination at: 229 Moffat and are all dnwngradient from this property, (Exhibit Fi, this site. The two wells contamination_which might be caused by 4 t;