My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
B
>
BANNER
>
6437
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0526345
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/5/2019 3:57:12 PM
Creation date
2/5/2019 3:45:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0526345
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0017827
FACILITY_NAME
FLAG CITY SHELL
STREET_NUMBER
6437
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
BANNER
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
LODI
Zip
95242
APN
05532019
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
6437 W BANNER ST
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
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.
/
411
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
Brian Newman - 2 - • 19 April 2006 <br /> processes, and that monitoring data is available to demonstrate this. If additional effluent <br /> limitations and/or monitoring and reporting requirements need to be included for this <br /> discharge, the General Order would not be appropriate, and an individual Order would <br /> need to be adopted. Based on my initial review, I believe an individual Order will be <br /> necessary for this discharge. <br /> 4. The location of the proposed discharge is unclear. The Discharger indicates that the <br /> discharge would be to a storm drain leading to White Slough. However, I believe any <br /> storm drain from the development would lead to Highline Canal or to Dredger Cut. The <br /> Discharger needs to provide clarification regarding the discharge location. <br /> 5. 1 understand that there is also a discrepancy between the Groundwater Pumping Test <br /> Results Report and the NPDES application regarding the flow rate needed for the <br /> remediation. The NPDES application indicates that the discharge flow will be between 25- <br /> 35 gallons per minute as a combined flow for all extraction wells, whereas the report <br /> indicates says that this much flow must be pumped from each of 5 extraction wells in order <br /> to depress the water table sufficiently for plume capture. The NPDES application indicated <br /> the treatment process is not designed for this flow rate, and it is not clear whether the <br /> storm drain is designed to handle these flows during storm events. <br /> 6. While I have not made a detailed review at this time, the effluent characterization appears <br /> to be incomplete with regard to the analyses needed to assess compliance with the Policy <br /> for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and <br /> Estuaries of California (State Implementation Policy or SIP), as well as constituents for <br /> which drinking water MCLS have been prescribed in the California Code of Regulations. <br /> We can provide a more detailed analysis of this deficiency at a later time, but the <br /> Discharger may need to conduct additional sampling prior to issuing a NPDES permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.