My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
B
>
BROADWAY
>
1905
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0518600
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2018 10:53:10 AM
Creation date
12/7/2018 10:30:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0518600
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0013996
FACILITY_NAME
CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES
STREET_NUMBER
1905
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
BROADWAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
14315004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1905 N BROADWAY
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
TMorelli
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.
/
626
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
. MEMORANDUM <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD • CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 Routier Road, Suite A <br /> Sacramento, CA 95827-3098 Phone: (916) 255-3000 <br /> CALNET: 8-494-3000 <br /> TO: 1905 N. Broadway file FROM: Wendy Wyels <br /> 'Agricultural Unit <br /> DATE: 5 March 1997 SIGNATURE: <br /> SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE GROUNDWATER CLEANUP REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES <br /> DOCUMENT <br /> Per staff's request, Unocal has submitted a document titled "Evaluation of Alternatives for <br /> Remediation of I,2-Dichloropropane in Groundwater" for the former PureGro/Brea Ag facility at <br /> 1905 N. Broadway, Stockton. The document was submitted in August 1996, but was not reviewed <br /> until recently. The delay occurred because staff could not review this document without knowing the <br /> fate of the State Board's Containment Zone Policy (formally known as "Amended Resolution No. 92- <br /> 49 [amended October 1996]). The policy was adopted by the State Board on 2 October 1996, but not <br /> approved by the Office of Administrative Law until January 1997. <br /> The report has been reviewed in the context of the policies for groundwater investigation and <br /> remediation as set forth in the State Board Amended Resolution No. 92-49 and the Regional Board <br /> Basin Plan. <br /> My general comments are as follows: <br /> 1. The authors of the document conclude that there is no practical way to remediate the 1,2-DCP in <br /> the groundwater, and recommend that no action be taken to remediate the groundwater. <br /> State policy will not allow staff to approve this recommendation. The discharger has not shown <br /> that it is technically or economically infeasible to remediate this site. If technical or economic <br /> infeasibility is shown, then the Board may consider adopting a "Containment Zone" designation <br /> for this site. However, Amended Resolution No. 92-49 (enclosed) states that containment zones <br /> are more appropriate for sites which have a strong sorption of pollutants to soils, pollutant <br /> entrapment (as in the case of dense non-aqueous phase liquids [DNAPLs]), or complex geology. <br /> None of those cases appear to apply here. <br /> The discharger needs to complete a full feasibility study, as described in the Basin Plan. An <br /> excerpt from the Basin Plan regarding groundwater remediation is enclosed). <br /> 2. The document only addresses the chemical 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP). As shown in the <br /> table below, nine additional chemicals have been found in the groundwater at concentrations <br /> exceeding their regulatory level of concern. The feasibility study must cover the remediation of <br /> all ten chemicals. <br /> 3. In order to determine groundwater cleanup levels that are protective of human health, as well as <br /> of beneficial uses, a human health risk assessment is necessary. The risk assessment is to follow <br /> Board guidance (enclosed), and must be approved by toxicologists from either DTSC or OEHHA. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.