My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012210
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
4707
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545229
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012210
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2020 12:54:44 PM
Creation date
1/24/2020 12:02:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0012210
RECORD_ID
PR0545229
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0003903
FACILITY_NAME
TOSCO CORPORATION #31258
STREET_NUMBER
4707
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
APN
10816004
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
4707 PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Remedial System Enhancement Plan—Former-Tosco(Unocal)Service Station No 6981 <br /> !' August 8,2001 <br /> depth to groundwater has risen from approximately 51 to 53 feet bgs in 1993 to 27 to 29 feet bgs on March <br /> 7,2001 Groundwater flow has been to the northeast with the hydraulic gradient ranging from 0 002 to 0 013 <br /> feet/feet <br /> I <br /> REMEDIATION OPTIONS <br /> The VES at the site has been in operation since September 1994 and is currently operating in pulse mode The <br /> data indicates that asymptotic levels were reached in February 2000 No petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations <br /> have been detected in the influent since December 2000 This indicates that VES is no longer an effective <br /> treatment method for this site <br /> GR has evaluated the site data and reviewed various remedial enhancements or modifications that are still <br /> available for the subject site,considering prior remediation activities and current conditions The following <br /> is a brief description and comparison of those options reviewed <br /> Option#1 - No Remedial Action/Long Term Monitoring <br /> COST Low <br /> TIME FRAME Long term <br /> . ADVANTAGES 1) Low annual cost <br /> 2) Minimal disruption of site operations <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) Potential liability <br /> 2) No defined project completion/closure <br /> 3) Potential migration of contamination <br /> CONCLUSION Not a suitable approach for this site at this time <br /> Option#2 -Excavation Of Impacted Soil <br /> COST , Medium to high <br /> TIME FRAME Short term <br /> ADVANTAGES 1) Potential for quick efficient source removal if site conditions <br /> are favorable <br /> DISADVANTAGES 1) Excavation does not address groundwater contamination, <br /> therefore,contamination in the capillary fringe zone would be <br /> expected to return <br /> 2) Equipment limits depth of potential excavation <br /> 14012A 10 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.