My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
N
>
NAVY
>
0
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009171
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/30/2020 11:50:21 AM
Creation date
3/30/2020 11:19:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0009171
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004011
FACILITY_NAME
PORT OF STOCKTON-FUEL TERMINAL
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
NAVY
STREET_TYPE
DR
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
NAVY DR
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
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.
/
577
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
Wendy L. Cohen • -2- • 1 December 1984 <br /> Comment: The report implies that the proposed site assessment was not conducted but does <br /> not state why not. <br /> 4. Page 1-4, Item 1.3.3, Tasks 5 and 6, CPT and Hydropunch Program <br /> Report: The downgradient extent of dissolved petroleum hydrocarbons was not estimated to <br /> the east of PS/CPT-5 in the C-zone. D-zone impacts were partially defined in the vicinity of <br /> PS/CPT-4. <br /> Comment: The extent of contamination in these areas needs to be defined. Definition can be <br /> done independently of the remediation program that initially is addressing the A-zone <br /> contamination which has been defined already. <br /> 5. Page 1-5, Item 1.3.4, Task 7, Monitoring Well (MW) Installation <br /> Report: Fifteen MWs up and downgradient from STTC facilities were proposed but only nine <br /> wells within STTC lease property were installed. The locations of uninstalled wells are shown <br /> in Drawing No. 4. <br /> Comment: The report should state the rationale for the proposed location of these uninstalled <br /> wells to allow us to determine whether or not these wells should still be installed. <br /> 6. Page 2-4, Item 2.3.2, Historical Evaluation of Land Use, POSSEF Power Company <br /> Report: EMCON recommends obtaining WDRs for this company. <br /> Comment: The WDRs for the POSSEF Power Company are enclosed. <br /> 7. Page 2-4, Item 2.3.3, Historical Evaluation of Land Use, The Learner Lease Company <br /> Report: Leamer Lease is an unlikely contributor to STTC contamination because it is <br /> downgradient of STTC facilities. <br /> Comment: Nonetheless, EMCON and I should get a copy of the preliminary endangerment <br /> assessment report. <br /> 8. Page 2-4, Item 2.3.4, Historical Evaluation of Land Use, Unocal Bulk Terminal <br /> Report: Based on PHS files and Environmental Risk Information and Imaging Services report, <br /> it appears that the Unocal Bulk terminal is a potential contributor to the STTC plume. <br /> However, the RWQCB recommended site closure dated 6 June 1994. <br /> Comment: The STTC has all the investigation reports for Unocal. I consulted with EMCON <br /> and STTC Chairman Roy Thun regarding Unocal's request for closure. Both EMCON and <br /> Mr. Thun concurred with my position that Unocal did not appear to be a contributor to the <br /> STTC plume. <br /> 9. Page 2-5, Item 2.3.5, Historical Evaluation of Land Use, Riverside Cement Co. <br /> Report: It appears that the ground water at the site is not impacted and is not a current <br /> contributor to the STTC plume. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.