Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Teichert and Son <br /> ,March 24, 2008 <br /> Claim, No. 51 - <br /> x <br /> B. In-Situ Soil Remediation: none identified <br /> METHOD: soil vapor extraction <br /> • DURATION: r Dec 94 through-1996 y"= i <br /> C. Groundwater Remediation: <br /> • METHOD: air sparging <br /> • DURATION- Dec 94 through 1996 <br /> D. Groundwater Trends: rf <br /> • I .� , } <br /> • Benzene trends are shown below: y <br /> claim 51 <br /> 40 <br /> 35 I <br /> 25 <br /> i 20 +1VIIIV 13 <br /> Ik N <br /> Q 1J - <br /> 10 5 <br /> 0 . <br /> ' C7M, M 'T V to u'} U') W SD CO r_ r� r� <br /> CD O O O O0 O O O O Q O O O <br /> O- O O O 0 Q O O O 0 p O p O O <br /> CV Q Q N N CV N N N N Q N Q N [moi <br /> tl`o <br /> co co co co 00 CO Go co W CD W coc0 GO <br /> T_ <br /> co iz <br /> s Time <br /> VII, SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY: no wells identified within Y2 mile of the site ' <br /> .. s <br /> Vlll. COMMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> A. Site Description: construction company <br /> B. Site History: the extent of groundwater contamination is defined <br /> C. Groundwater Monitoring Summary: strong monitoring history <br /> D.' Remediation Summary: soil vapor extraction and air sparging <br /> E. Contaminant Exposure. Pathway Evaluation:. unknown. <br /> ,i <br /> F. Recommendation: Based on the following criteria, the.Fund recommends this i <br /> site be considered for closure providing the potential for soil vapor migration is <br /> assessed and determined safe for prescribed site activities, public participation <br /> and fee title notifications are conducted, and the monitoring wells are <br /> appropriately abandoned. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> CIS Recycled Paper ]] <br /> r <br />