My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MARCH
>
2701
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545517
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2020 3:12:05 AM
Creation date
3/11/2020 11:00:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0545517
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0003798
FACILITY_NAME
MARCH LANE 76*
STREET_NUMBER
2701
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
MARCH
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95219
APN
11619007
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
2701 W MARCH LN
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
274
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
Page 7 of 14 <br /> Same for the hottest "D" or "T" soil boring data....no soil samples since <br /> supporting that the contam has been cleaned up/removed....The "HA" <br /> soil samples were taken mostly around 3' bgs and NO gw grabs. but <br /> the gw in 1997 was 8' bgs. any soil contam is only single digit feet from <br /> it....12 mg/kg of MtBE with a solubility of 44K mg/I, well it's scary.. j <br /> to be honest, your reports just zoom by the idea any residual soil ! <br /> contam/mass remains onsite. NOT KNOWN to me...can you prove it?.. <br /> I attempted to use the AS well installs of 2002 as proof the soil has <br /> cleaned up. What else can l use?? AS-4 or AS-5 could have been used <br /> with a little stretch, but from what I read in the ERI April 22, 2002 <br /> report of the AS well installs, NO soil samples from ANY of the AS <br /> wells were analyzed !....only drill cuttings/stockpiled soil from the <br /> installation process are in the report.. <br /> am I to understand NO boring samples from the AS wells were <br /> analyzed??? <br /> really? <br /> am I missing something here.?.. <br /> Ben, let me know what happened to the 5500 mg/kg of TPHd in "D-24" <br /> on July 27, 1995.. and the 3400 mg/kg of TPI-Ig in "T-6-4" that also <br /> contained Napth and 2-methylNapth, and the 12 mg/kg of MtBE in HA- <br /> 3 ? <br /> A-3 ? <br /> Can you/COP provide any technical support that this contam has <br /> attenuated/been mitigated/, is NOT still there??? <br /> E <br /> typically, when I can support it, I require confirmation soil borings....I'm <br /> meeting with my PG next weekto.see about it. I'd like to have your <br /> answers by Tues if you can.. <br /> thanks. i <br /> i <br /> have a nice weekend. <br /> From: Chevlen, Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Chevlen@stantec.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 20115:07 PM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: 76 #5886 <br /> Mike— Section 4.7.3 of Delta's 2006 report documents the collection of sidewall <br /> and tank bottom samples. The sample locations are shown on Figure 10, while <br /> the soil data is included in Table 8; copies of the laboratory report are <br /> .supposedly in Appendix C, however, I did not see them when I scrolled through <br /> the report. Table 8 was also included as page 271 of Stantec's NFAR, <br /> however, a copy of the historical site plan showing the tank pit sampling i <br /> locations was inadvertently omitted. <br /> Benjamin Chevlen,P.G. <br /> 3/14/2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.