SU0007737 SSCRPT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

§ 4.0 EVALUATION OF PAST AND CURRENT SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION IDENTIFIED AT OR NEAR THE SITE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION J§ 4.1 Evaluation of each potential and/or known source of contamination identified in the above Sections have been discussed in the respective Sections to facilitate the transfer of information to the reader. § 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS § 5.1 Evaluation of each point source potential contamination described (i.e., the waste oil storage tank and the two above ground fuel storage tanks, the LUFF and UST sites to the north, the electrical transformers, and the on-site septic tanks) and non-point sources (i.e., agrichemical application and non-target drift, nitrate and possibly DBCP in the underlying groundwater, and possible DDT soil concentrations) pose a very low-to-insignificant risk to the subject property and human health. Septic system density in this locale can be considered very sparse. Consequently, the degree of nitrate-nitrogen impact from this source can be considered extremely small. It is impossible that any of the referenced LUFr sites, or non-point sources (other than nitrate) could affect groundwater under the subject property. There are no observable USTs immediately surrounding the property. Therefore, it may be considered highly unlikely that any tanks in this locale may affect the property because of the distances involved. The ASTM E-1527-00 Document referenced on Page 2 refers to de minimus environmental conditions. De minimus conditions generally do not present a material risk to public health or to the environment and generally would not include an enforcement action if observed by the appropriate governmental agencies. Household hazardous materials may be considered de minimus concerns if there has been no spillage or dumping. Typical household "hazardous materials" include gasoline, paint thinners, new and used motor oil, antifreeze, etc. Spillage or dumping of hazardous substances were not observed. In fact, the property is exceptionally clean. It is noted in the Environmental Questionnaire that there was apparently never an underground storage tank on the property for as long as the Polk families have owned the property. Section 9-905.12 of San Joaquin County Development Title states "Corrective Action: If the report indicates there are surface and subsurface contamination, corrective action shall be recommended in the report and concurred with by Environmental Health prior to the issuance of the building permit." Therefore, it is my professional opinion that no corrective action is required on the subject property, as assessed and observed. The subject property is exceptionally clean in comparison to some other agricultural/farming/confined animal operations within the County. Page-7- Chesney Consulting