My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEST
>
2801
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0504943
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2020 4:13:46 PM
Creation date
6/17/2020 3:14:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 1
RECORD_ID
PR0504943
PE
2951
FACILITY_ID
FA0004032
FACILITY_NAME
AMERICAN MOULDING & MILLWORK (FRMR)
STREET_NUMBER
2801
STREET_NAME
WEST
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95204
APN
11709001
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
2801 WEST LN
P_LOCATION
99
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.
/
290
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
19/22/88 10:08 4&215 981 7553 AIC/ENVIRONMENTI. ipjvusruua <br /> Steve Sasson <br /> San Joaquin County PHS/EHD <br /> protocol for managing TPH-cont�ated sites in San Joaquin <br /> 2. What is your curt'rnt regulatory <br /> County? . <br /> 3. What is the current regulatory protocol in surrounding counties for managing TPH-contaminated <br /> sites? <br /> 4_ What level of TP3 contarzrination would trigger an immediate cleanup at the site? <br /> 5. Do you feel that the risk assessments and technical reports performed by Dames and Moore for <br /> American Forest Products justify leaving the residual contamination(up to 10,000 mg/kg)in <br /> plane without Wn-further consideration of any type of remediation? <br /> 6. The most recent i ound of monitoring performed at the site indicates that the groundwater level <br /> has risen to appr,:,ximately 52 feet below ground surface. In light of the variability of the <br /> groundwater levi:l,what da you think is the likelihood of your agency ordering Arneriean Forest <br /> Products to remc.ve/treat/contain the residual contamination? <br /> 7. What scenario(s, would cause you to require American Forest Products to remediate the residual <br /> contamination at the site? What type/level of remediation would you prefer/recommend? What <br /> ire? Would you accept insitu bioremediation? <br /> typellevel of remediation would you requ <br /> S. What is the role.)f the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in this situation? What <br /> is their opinion cf what's going on at the site? Can they require remediation separate from what <br /> your agency wol.dd require? <br /> 9. Dames and Moc re and American Forest Products' lawyers have indicated that based on the <br /> infamous "Lawrence Livermore"report,the residual contamination should be allowed to be left <br /> in place and no lurther actions are warranted(other than monitoring). What is this report? <br /> Could you get m e a copy of it? In a nut shell,what does it entail? Do you feel the report can be <br /> used to effectively defend the course of actions being taken at the site by American Forest <br /> Products? <br /> 10.What is your W.e on the other contamination issues at the site: 1. the solvent contamination in <br /> the groundwater and 2.the pentachlorophenol contamination? <br /> I really appreciate y sur help. If you have any questions or comments,please do not hesitate to <br /> contact Iris. <br /> 2 <br /> AIG Conndtonu,Inc. ss+arl".rmc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.