My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0008192
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
E
>
EL DORADO
>
1448
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544673
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0008192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2020 3:39:47 AM
Creation date
7/18/2019 3:44:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0008192
RECORD_ID
PR0544673
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0006182
FACILITY_NAME
REGAL STATION #604
STREET_NUMBER
1448
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
EL DORADO
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1448 N EL DORADO ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
R604 -UPDATE 20 7-16--1993 <br /> INTRODUCTION <br /> This report includes the results of events occurring at this site <br /> since the 19th Update Status Report, from May 14, to July 7, <br /> 1993 During this time San Joaquin County Health had completed a <br /> review of the Update Status Reports through #16, dated February <br /> 25, 1993 and Results of Sampling of the Vapor Extraction System <br /> through the April 30, 1993 report, see Appendix A. <br /> SAN cTOAQUIN COUNTY REVIEW ANSWERS (COMMENTS) <br /> Groundwater <br /> Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells, MWI, MW4, <br /> MW5 and MW7 on December 7, 1992 Monitoring wells MW2, MW3 and <br /> MW6 did not contain enough water to sample. Samples collected <br /> from MWI and MW4 were not analyzed for TPG-gasoline. Only the <br /> sample collected from MW5 contained detectable petroleum <br /> hydrocarbon contamination, 160 ppb TPH-gasoline, 1 . 2 ppb <br /> ethylbenzene, and 35 ppb xylene. <br /> As of May 21, 1993 PHS/EHD has not received the sample results <br /> from the samples obtained on March 30, 1993 PHS/EHD does not <br /> recommend the destruction of monitoring wells at this time. <br /> COMMENTS : Since the December 7, 1992 sampling round the site has <br /> been undergoing recharge and samples have been collected from all <br /> wells during the March 30 and June 16, 1993 sample rounds <br /> Samples collected from MW1 and MW4 during the December 7, 1992 <br /> sampling round were analyzed for TPH--gasoline, both were below <br /> detection limits of <0 05 mg/L. <br /> SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION <br /> The results indicated that hydrocarbons continue to be removed <br /> from the soil at a rate of 8. 65 lbs per day PHS/EHD recommends <br /> the continued operation of the vapor extraction system with <br /> consideration given to pulsing the system to allow equilibration <br /> of soil vapor concentrations <br /> CONTENTS: The pounds per day rate of hydrocarbon removal is <br /> greatly influenced by flow rate The concentration of the vapor <br /> stream is more apparent to the results of the vapor extraction <br /> system. Figures 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E and 7F are charts- of the TPH- <br /> gasoline range concentrations as compared to hours operational <br /> for the influent, VSB3, VSB5, MW5, VSB9 and VSB11 respectively. <br /> These charts show a steady decline in concentration with time and <br /> all concentrations as of June 18, 1993 , are less than 1 0 mg/L <br /> vapor. These newly installed vapor extraction wells (July, <br /> 1992) , show a dramatic decline in the concentrations since <br /> originally started on the vapor extraction system The total <br /> influent concentrations, Figure 7A at 2700 hours of operation <br /> (addition of VSB3 , VSB5, VSB9 and VSB11 into extraction system) <br /> 8 53 mg/L to June 18, 1993, 10562 hours of operation = 0 . 82 mg/L <br /> vapor. This is a 90 . 4%r reduction in the vapor stream <br /> concentration. Figure 7A also shows percent CO2 being removed <br /> page 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.