My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHEROKEE
>
16
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0522479
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 2:14:40 PM
Creation date
5/17/2019 2:01:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0522479
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0015299
FACILITY_NAME
GEWEKE LAND DEVELOPMENT & MARKETING
STREET_NUMBER
16
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CHEROKEE
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
04323013
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
16 S CHEROKEE LN
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\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.
/
568
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
{ <br /> 3 _ 19 February 1993 <br /> Memorandum <br /> Geweke, 16 S. Cherokee, Lodi <br /> 3. The consultant preparing remediation proposals must have the most <br /> current soil and ground water data in order to design effective <br /> remediation systems. <br /> 4. No explanation was given for not proposing the ng <br /> useion the <br /> the exist <br /> 1nnew extraction <br /> extraction well , EW1 . A map <br /> well was not provided. <br /> 5. The proposal to use MW2 for reinjection was not accompanied by a <br /> discussion of the merits and drawbacks of using an existing well , nor <br /> did it include estimates and maps of the projected zone of influence. <br /> Recent laboratory results showed contamination in MW6, upgr <br /> adient of <br /> MW2. It may be necessary to install an additional well specifically for <br /> injection so that adverse impacts on the contamination plume can be <br /> minimized. <br /> because not <br /> 6 The constiarterlytuentswreportsere submied,tthereforeted by WeGeweke iseke are coutlOfecompliance with <br /> l <br /> the C&A. The. existing monitoring program is inadequate because several <br /> wells have not been sampled for several years. <br /> 7. Some of the constituents that have not been analyzed as required are <br /> denser than water and have a tendency to sink, unlike the petroleum <br /> constituents that are lighter than water and tend to remain near the <br /> water surface. Several of these dense constituents were detected in a <br /> previous sampling event. If the analyses had been conducted as <br /> required, we would have additional information to determine whether <br /> monitoring wells are necessary to determine the vertical extent of <br /> contamination. Once we have additional data, deeper monitoring wells <br /> may be necessary. <br /> 8. It may be necessary to install additional monitoring wells to define the <br /> upgradient extent of contamination. Additional monitoring wells would <br /> also refine the extent of downgradient contamination and may make the <br /> extraction/injection system more efficient. However, the extraction <br /> system could be designed to impact the current downgradient clean wells. <br /> 9. Geweke was initially informed in a letter dated 9 September 1991 that <br /> additional aquifer/pumping tests were required if they proposed to <br /> reinject but no additional aquifer/pumping tests were conducted and none <br /> have been proposed. <br /> 10. No other remediation options were discussed or presented to us. <br /> 11. No feasibility studies were conducted to determine the best remedial <br /> options. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.