Laserfiche WebLink
f� <br /> for TEPH. The soil was returned to hole as before. <br /> September 20, 1989 - The results of the laboratory analysis on <br /> the above sample, (Table 2) showed the sample to be clean. <br /> September 29, 1989 -- Thorpe Oil submitted a Site Assessment <br /> Report to the SJLHA, Environmental Health Division, outlining work <br /> done, and stating that because results of the final soil samples <br /> an September 18 showed no <br /> takers n_detectable levels of TEPH, any <br /> remaining contamination that might exist does not pose a threat <br /> to the environment, and no further work is recommended. <br /> November 7, 1989 - The Sari Joaquin County Public health Services, <br /> Environmental Health Bivison, responded to Thorpe Oil CR- 's SAP, <br /> (Exhibit D,) listing 7 deficiences, and stating that a prelimary <br /> report should be prepared prior to conducting further <br /> field <br /> investigative work. Some of the comments were primly <br /> procedural, (involvement of a Registered Geologist, etc. ,) but <br /> others need to be addressed: <br /> " Item 3 states that site maps should be included to illustrate <br /> configuration of the plume. Based on the results of the above <br /> laboratory analyses, .a "plume" does not exist, since all <br /> contamination has been removed. The produot stared in the tank <br /> was die.=.e1 fuel, which because of its density and chemical <br /> composition, does nog_ migrate any great distance. <br /> Item 4 - Groundwater death; covered fully in this report. <br /> Item - Site stratigraphy; there was no R3 present during any of <br /> the excavation operations, sc it is not possible to present a <br /> detailed geologic description of the sediments penetrated during <br /> work at the location- Detailed geciogic sections were prepared <br /> for the groundwater investigation corduct.ed at 229 1,9offat Blvd, <br /> less that _SO" from this site, which s.`,o:sld be representative of <br /> the geology in the area; (refer to Exhibits E, E, & G-) <br /> ^ Item n states: "Although an immediate sourceremoval absent,taken <br /> place and residual soil contamination app - <br /> ars to becannot agree with the conclusion that further sit evaluation is <br /> not neces:;ary. " This statement appears to be contradictory; if <br /> the source has been remove, (the USfurtherd residutl soil <br /> contamination is absent, y <br /> be <br /> necessary? <br /> ------ ----- - .-_- ----- -- -The--14-groundwater_-mnnitaring welis that were placed as a result <br /> r Blvd. are all " downgradrpo - - <br /> rom <br /> of contamination at 229 Moffat -- - - <br /> this property, (Exhibit H, ) and would detect any possible <br /> contamination which r: .ght be caused by this site. Thn two wells <br /> 4 <br />