My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0006056
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
N
>
NAVY
>
1624
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0516942
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0006056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2020 3:38:40 PM
Creation date
3/23/2020 3:36:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0006056
RECORD_ID
PR0516942
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0012945
FACILITY_NAME
DON INVESTMENTS (TENANTS)
STREET_NUMBER
1624
STREET_NAME
NAVY
STREET_TYPE
DR
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
16337007
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1624 NAVY DR
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.
/
63
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
1 <br /> October 4,2002 <br /> NOA ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT NUMBER: LE00-429 <br /> According to the site closure requirements of the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for <br /> Preliminary Evaluation and Investigation of Underground Tank Systems, the total petroleum <br />' hydrocarbon levels must be less than 100 ppm in soil samples taken within the first two feet of native <br /> soil beneath the tank The NOA Environmental samples were taken at rune (9) feet down in the <br /> region ofthe former UST This depth should be reasonable because Mr Knott,in his 1987 Inspection <br />' Report, stated that he took soil samples"8-10 feet below surface"(Appendix C), it can be assumed <br /> therefore that the tank pit was approximately this deep The extractable hydrocarbon levels in the <br /> samples taken by NOA Environmental were reported at a maximum of 1 9 ppm at this level, well <br /> 1 below the 100 ppm maximum for TPH <br /> Additionally,BTEX was found to be non-detectable at a reporting limit of 0 0050 ppm Site closure <br />' was initially denied because the BTEX detection limit of 0 2 ppm was too high for shallow <br /> groundwater (Appendix C), the test results from Sequioa Analytical should dismiss any lingering <br />' concerns regarding BTEX contamination <br /> Finally, the soil at the site has low permeability As stated above in section IV, the soil is <br /> predominantly clay with silty clay, silty clay loam, loam, and hardpan in places <br /> The following points are also worthy of mention when considering this site for closure, pursuant to <br /> Table#3 of the Tri-Regional Board guidelines(see Mr Knoll's Inspection Report in Appendix C for <br /> confirmation) <br /> • No obviously contaminated soil was noted by Mr Knoll at the site of the former UST, <br /> consequently, no additional soil sampling was necessary <br /> • Sampling and analytical protocols conformed to the standards described in the Tri-Regional <br /> Board guidelines <br /> • Appropriate laboratory analyses were determined based upon the requirements of Table 2 of <br /> the Tri-Regional Board guidelines, these analyses and QA/QC are included in Appendix E <br /> • No note was made in the Inspection Report of a need for sidewall sampling <br /> • No mention was made in the Inspection Report of water found in the excavation pit during <br /> the tank removal <br /> • No underground piping was indicated in the Inspection Report <br /> ' The depths and locations of the soil samples taken are submitted in Appendix F <br /> 1 <br /> ' 11 <br /> 1 � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.