My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0009069
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WASHINGTON
>
2825
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545822
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0009069
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2020 2:50:59 PM
Creation date
7/15/2020 1:28:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0009069
RECORD_ID
PR0545822
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005566
FACILITY_NAME
RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY
STREET_NUMBER
2825
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WASHINGTON
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
2825 W WASHINGTON ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
e Cement Company <br /> yR`�ersid <br /> Environmental Office Phone (909) 683-6458 <br /> 1490 Rubidoux Boulevard • Riverside California 92509 Phone (909) 683-3660 ext 405 <br /> Mailing Address P O Box 56040 • Riverside California 92517 Fax/Voice Mail (909) 686-5703 <br /> January 21, 1994 <br /> REUENEO JAW 2 1994 <br /> Margaret Lagono, Senior REHS <br /> Public Health Services <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> P O Box 2009 <br /> Stockton, CA 92501 <br /> RE Riverside Cement Stockton Gasoline Tank Site Closure <br /> Dear Margaret <br /> I enjoyed meeting you on January 11th and discussing the final closure aspects of the <br /> gasoline tank site with Bill Hunter As I am dust new on this project, I appreciate your <br /> • patience and consideration in working with me <br /> The current situation with the filled site, as Bill Hunter and I perceived it, is that the site <br /> was closed with clean sides and bottoms in addition to the clean water that seeped in <br /> overnight Our perception is that the testing constituted a clean closure and the subject <br /> would be closed with no further testing and no further costs <br /> However, you feel that the testing done to date, including the previous water testing, is <br /> not conclusive to prove closure, due to the close water table proximity to the site and <br /> that surrounding areas are already contaminated You recommended that further <br /> ground water investigation is required to prove clean closure and that a plan should <br /> preface the actual monitoring wcil (or wells' and the subsequent testing The short term <br /> plan, as well as future plans, need clarification from you <br /> 1 What specific chemicals/metals testing will provide evidence of clean <br /> closure') <br /> 2 Must all the first time monitoring well testings be N D to start the clean <br /> closure process9 <br /> 3 From the time the monitoring wells are in place and sampled, when can <br /> the re-sampling be done (providing the first sampling is satisfactory)9 <br /> 4 Will only two monitoring well tests of N D (or some other minute value) <br /> • be conclusive for clean closure9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.