My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WASHINGTON
>
1214
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009004
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2020 5:34:49 PM
Creation date
9/17/2020 4:58:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0009004
PE
2954
FACILITY_ID
FA0004061
FACILITY_NAME
MCCORMICK & BAXTER CREOSOTING
STREET_NUMBER
1214
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WASHINGTON
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95201
APN
14520001
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1214 W WASHINGTON ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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
Air Study <br /> Page 2 <br /> APR 2 6 1989 <br /> DHS will be collecting samples on particulate filters <br /> with an organic trap as a backup. The trap will be a <br /> three inch PUF (polyurethane foam) plug. Analysis of the <br /> PUF plug will aid in determining the amount of semi- <br /> volatile compounds stripped from the particulates. <br /> 4 � The location of the downwind sampler is not directly <br /> downgradient of the operation area (assumed to be highest <br /> contamination) . The predominant wind (>40%) is from the <br /> northwest and only intersects the office area with the <br /> sampler. <br /> 5. The location of the upwind sampler appears to be near a <br /> highly contaminated area (former waste disposal area) . A <br /> more suitable location away from any potential influences <br /> of the facility would be preferable. <br /> Report Format <br /> DHS has reviewed the format of the report and has provided <br /> comments which will be used in evaluating our own report on <br /> the Stockton facility. <br /> 1 . Laboratory analytical data and quality control data was <br /> not included in the report. This information would be <br /> necessary to validate the results. <br /> 2 . Further clarification in the report should be provided <br /> for: <br /> a) Table 9 states "micrograms compound per filter <br /> portion" . Are these values for the entire filter or <br /> the one-eighth that was to be analyzed? <br /> 'b) Table 9 describes results for filter number A71. <br /> Appendix D describes A71 at site #1, the upwind <br /> station. Is this correct? <br /> 3 . Table 10 describes metal concentration in the <br /> particulates but does not provide comparison to onsite <br /> soil concentrations. <br /> 4 . No analytical data has been provided for upwind concen- <br /> trations in either soil or airborne particulate, unless <br /> filter A71 is the upwind data. , <br /> Jeff Van Slooten <br /> Associate Hazardous Materials <br /> Specialist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.