My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHRISMAN
>
25700
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0508450
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 11:58:23 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 11:10:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0508450
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0008087
FACILITY_NAME
DDJC-TRACY
STREET_NUMBER
25700
STREET_NAME
CHRISMAN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
25207002
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
25700 CHRISMAN RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
标签
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
该页面上没有批注。
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2212
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
13. Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3: The tables show a comparison between design flow rates for the <br /> extraction wells and actual flow rates. However, the Report does not discuss why the <br /> actual flow rates are much lower than the design flow rates. For clarity, please revise the <br /> Report to include an explanation for why the actual flow rates are so much lower than the <br /> design flow rates. <br /> 14. Table 5.44: As already pointed out in our review of the 1999 Annual.Monitoring <br /> Report, the table indicates that the stripping tower packing material for both treatment <br /> plants is unavailable. Since the packing material is an essential component of the air <br /> stripper design, please revise the Report to provide the type of packing material. <br /> 15. Section 6.4.1, Page 6-2 and Section 6.4.2, Page 6-3: The Report states that EWOIOAU <br /> should be abandoned because it is located 400 feet west of the nearest VOC plume and is <br /> not needed for hydraulic control. Before a decision regarding the abandonment of an <br /> extraction well is made, the remedial objectives (RAOs) for that drove the installation of <br /> the well should be presented and it should be determined whether the RAOs have been <br /> met or need to be modified. If it is determined that based on the original RAOs <br /> groundwater extraction from the well is no longer required, then the well should be <br /> proposed for abandonment. For clarity,please indicate what the RAOs for EWOIOAU are <br /> and whether they have been met or should be modified. The same comment applies to the <br /> evaluation of the need for replacing well EW036AU(i.e., what were the RAOs for well <br /> EW036AU and why is a well to replace EW036AU no longer needed). <br /> 16. Table 6.4-1 and Section 1.1.3, Page 1-1: Table 6.4-1 shows that wells IW001, IW002 <br /> and IW003 are scheduled for abandonment during 1Q00. However, the table also states <br /> that these wells were abandoned in the 4th quarter of 1999 and text in Section 1.1.3 also <br /> indicate that these wells were abandoned in the 4th quarter of 1999. For clarity,please <br /> revise the Report to indicate whether wells IW001 through IW003 were abandoned in <br /> 1999 or 2000 and, if these wells were abandoned,why they are still listed as part of the <br /> recommendations for 2001. <br /> 17. Table 6.4-1: The table does not list the installation of well LM175AU and the well near <br /> LM081 C. For completeness,please include these wells in the table. <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.