My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FREMONT
>
0
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0515453
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2019 5:02:52 PM
Creation date
12/11/2019 4:21:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0515453
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0012156
FACILITY_NAME
NORTH SHORE PARCEL
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
FREMONT
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
FREMONT ST
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.
/
150
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
1�dw�ell&Rolb <br /> Ms. Kitty Walker <br /> 31 August 2000 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 2. The report documenting the installation of the system, including soil boring logs, soil <br /> sampling and analytical data, and well construction details and pilot test check. <br /> 3. The system piping layout and process and instrumentation as-built diagrams. <br /> 4. Copies of required permits,including the San Joaquin Unified Air Quality Management <br /> District Permit to Operate(PTO), fire department, and municipal construction and <br /> electrical permits. <br /> 5. The SVE Operations and Maintenance manual. <br /> 6. Any other reports regarding the design or operation of the system. <br /> The treatment system began operation on 3 November 1999. However, after approximately <br /> 10 months of operation,we are not aware of any reports describing the operation, efficiency, or <br /> adequacy of the system. The following issues should be addressed: <br /> 1. Only three vapor samples are reported to have been collected for laboratory analyses <br /> during the first 5 months of operation. This is not sufficient to evaluate the efficiency of <br /> the treatment system. Additional samples should be collected at individual extraction <br /> wells and at the intake manifold to facilitate the performance of the system. <br /> 2. Table 7 of the 20 April AGE report summarizes organic vapor measurements using a <br /> photo-ionization detector(PID), flow rates, and vacuum measurements at individual <br /> wells. On all monitoring dates data is either missing or the well is labeled as closed <br /> without explanation. The missing data or its reason for omission should be given. <br /> 3. It also does not appear that site closure criteria,or the methods required to meet those <br /> criteria,have been established. These should be established, and a projected timeline to <br /> complete the remediation prepared. Common approaches include determining the <br /> asymptotic performance limit of the system, comparing the estimated mass of <br /> contaminants prior to remediation with the mass of contaminants removed by the SVE <br /> system, and running the system in Pulse-Mode Operation. Possible remedial <br /> confirmation sampling includes soil,water and soil gas sampling. <br /> At the current time, we cannot determine the risk associated with acquiring Areas 15 and 16. <br /> Resolving the issues described above will provide us with information on the likely future <br /> remediation activities required at the sites, and the cleanup goals that will be required to close <br /> them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.