My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
1665
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545638
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2020 11:44:53 AM
Creation date
5/5/2020 10:57:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0545638
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005998
FACILITY_NAME
UNION OIL SS#2859
STREET_NUMBER
1665
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95204
APN
13702031
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1665 PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
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.
/
656
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
Sent by: CQAA/SJOA EPU 209 468 9794; 11/16199 1 :12PM;kjrAx #345;Page 6/19 <br /> underground tank site corrective actions,the statewide impliegions would be enorTnous,well I <br /> I <br /> agree. But first of all,we do not consider that 130,000 parts per billion of TPH gasoline and <br /> 9,700 pasts per billion of ben2ene in ground water that's 50 to 60 feet deep is trace amounts. <br /> Secondly, this site has already been shown to be amenable to soil vapor extraction: A vapor <br /> extraction system was operated on this site for less than l year and our understanding,is it was ' <br /> taken out of service because they were exceeding the air pollution control standards as far as <br /> emissions from this site,but that it wasn't working effectively at the time. We wonder or we <br /> question why excavation is the only corrective action that's mentioned in the staff report and <br /> while we're discussing soil excavation that's.been a contention a contentious issue,we note that <br /> the supporting facts mentioned considerable contaminated soil bas already been removed,any <br /> debate regarding;the exact quantity of soil removed aside,the staff report mentioned.several <br /> times that the highest levels of soil contamination were located in the area of the dispenser <br /> islands,since no over excavation occurred in this area,it seems logical to conclude that the soils <br /> with the highest contaminant levels were not excavated and therefaore remained a source. Our <br /> agency has repeatedly requested complete characterization of the site,preparation of a feasibility i <br /> study to evaluate the options for remediation and closure as you will know,those can include <br /> natural attenuation do nothing, those types of actions or inaction. And apparently it was <br /> considered more feasible to petition a board than it was to comply with our actions. Mr. Anton's <br /> already mentioned the MTB C. that is sort of contentious with us but it's not an issue that we're <br /> going to discuss Dere today. With regard the overall impact of undergTound'tank clean-ups in our <br /> particular area,we have IS7 ground water contamination site$from underground tanks in the <br /> City of Stockton that we're working on currently that our staff's involved in, 13 of these sites <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.