My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MARIPOSA
>
2132
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0541650
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2020 8:17:58 PM
Creation date
3/11/2020 2:34:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0541650
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0023868
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER USA GASOLINE SERVICE STATION 110
STREET_NUMBER
2132
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
MARIPOSA
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
1730635
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
2132 E MARIPOSA RD
P_LOCATION
01
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
279
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
Memorandum STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br /> REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD o CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 Routier Road Sacramento,California 95827 -3098 Phone: 916/361-5600 <br /> To: Regulatory Staff FROM: Gordon L Boggs <br /> Undergro ind Tank <br /> Progral Coordinator <br /> DATE: 24 March 1987 SIGNATURE: <br /> SUBJECT: CONSULTANT REPORTS FOR ASSESSING GROUND WATER <br /> PROBLEMS AT SITES CONTAMINATE BY . LEAKING <br /> UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (LUSTs) <br /> In the course of our work we may review several proposals submitted by <br /> consultants on behalf of an underground tank owner to either initiate work to <br /> determine if a problem exists or, if one is found, the extent and appropriate <br /> remedial actions needed to alleviate the problem. Often we find that a report <br /> format has omitted essential information or the information has not been prepared <br /> in a manner that allows the local implementing agency (LIA) or us to review the <br /> proposal expeditiously. Such delays are neither cost effective for us or the tank <br /> owner. The problem is not necessarily one of the consultants' but a collective <br /> result of us all trying to accomplish a monumental task of permitting and cleaning <br /> up sites in a constricted time schedule. Our process should be one which would <br /> help minimize downtime for the tank owner. <br /> To facilitate and streamline our operations for providing tank owners and their <br /> consultants with our requirements for determining the s�gmficance of a tank <br /> system leak, a consistent reporting procedure is indicatedWhen ground water has <br /> i <br /> been shown to be contaminated as a result of a tank leak, t would seem that three <br /> (3) reports should be sufficient to describe the problem and suggest remedial <br /> actions that would mitigate or eliminate the problem: <br /> 1. A Prelirninary Reoort to assess the site and problem with suggessted <br /> boreholes and monitor wells needed to determine site status; <br /> 2. A Problem Assessment Reoort to describe the lateral and vertical extent <br /> of a problem and propose mitigative or remedial actions to clean up a site. <br /> and; <br /> 3. The Final Remedial Plan acceptable to the regulatory <br /> agencies and tank owner for implementation on a time schedule. <br /> This consistent approach should help reduce costs to the tank owner by reducing <br /> the number of interactions with the regulatory agencies for interpretations and <br /> guidance and sampling Iterations needed by the consultant to complete their work. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.