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
>
MARKET
>
22
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545536
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2020 12:38:56 AM
Creation date
3/12/2020 1:48:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0545536
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0001506
FACILITY_NAME
STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
STREET_NUMBER
22
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
MARKET
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
APN
14904001
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
22 E MARKET 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.
/
148
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
Working To Restore Nature <br /> 1710 Main Street <br /> Escalon, CA 95320 <br /> Phone: (209) 838-3507 <br /> FAX: (209) 838-3509 <br /> August 29, 1994 <br /> Ms. Mary Meays <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> P.O. Box 2009 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> Subject: Revised Correspondence <br /> Stockton Police Facility, Site Code 1178 <br /> 22 East Market Street, Stockton, California <br /> Ms. Meays: <br /> This letter is submitted on behalf of the City of Stockton in response to correspondence dated <br /> July 11, 1994 from Ms. Mary Meays of San Joaquin County Public Health Services, <br /> Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) regarding the above referenced site. <br /> RESIDUAL SOIL CONTAMINATION <br /> All accessible hydrocarbon impacted soil was removed through excavation. Further <br /> excavation was not possible due to the close proximity of the building. The location of the <br /> existing structure and its relation to the excavation and residual hydrocarbon impacted soil is <br /> shown on Figure 1. No evaluation as to the cost effectiveness of in-situ soil vapor extraction <br /> was not conducted because soil vapor extraction was dismissed as a viable remedial action due <br /> to the fine-grained nature of subsurface soil beneath the site (stiff silt to fat clay). <br /> Due to the high absorbency of the soil type (Jacktone Clay), the presence of fat clay at a depth <br /> of approximately seven feet below grade, the lack of residual hydrocarbons below <br /> approximately eleven feet, the depth to groundwater (>40 feet), and the presence of an <br /> asphalt cap, residual soil contamination is not expected to impact groundwater beneath the site. <br /> Preliminary contaminant fate and transport models such as the Leaching Potential Analysis <br /> from the LUFT Manual are simplistic models based upon generalized site characteristics such <br /> OW0148\Letters\L-082994.DOC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.