My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002075
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HAMMER
>
1120
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545244
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002075
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2020 10:39:37 AM
Creation date
1/30/2020 8:56:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0002075
RECORD_ID
PR0545244
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0024606
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER KNOWLES STATION
STREET_NUMBER
1120
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
HAMMER
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95209
APN
07749027
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1120 W HAMMER LN
P_LOCATION
01
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.
/
126
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 <br />' Feasibikty Study Report <br /> 1140 W Hammer Lane, Stockton, CA <br />' Criterion 6 Im lementabilit <br /> This alternative has some minor problems with implementation due to the time involved in <br />' obtaining permits from the appropriate agencies Permitting could take as much as 180 days <br /> dependent upon response from the appropriate agencies <br /> Criterion 7 Cost <br /> The groundwater extraction and treatment system is generally inefficient and can be very costly <br /> Costs would be incurred for permitting and installing the extraction well(s), performing a pilot test, <br />' permitting, purchasing (or leasing), and installing the extraction and treatment equipment and <br /> treatment compound, and operation and maintenance of the system Additional costs include <br />' energy costs to power the system and continued groundwater monitoring and reporting during <br /> operation Capital costs are associated with installation of extraction wells and treatment systems, and <br /> could approach $150,000 to $250,000 Ongoing operation and maintenance costs could approach <br /> $40,000 to $80,000 per year The estimated cost to implement this alternative care vary greatly and <br /> I • is expected to be at least $300,0004500,000 <br /> Criterion 8 State acceptance <br /> This is generally considered an inefficient remediation alternative, but is often employed for <br /> controlling plume migration <br /> Criterion 9 _Community acceptance <br /> This alternative would result in relatively minor impact to site business due to the location of the <br /> impacted area within an unused portion of the property Operation and maintenance of the <br /> treatment system would impact site occupants and neighbors, due to noise and potential odors <br /> 72 Alternative 2 - Groundwater Extraction with Air Sparging/Sod Vapor Extraction <br /> Criterion I Overall protection of human health and the environment <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from extracted <br /> groundwater and vapor prior to discharge minimizing the risk of exposure to humans The potential <br /> fire or explosion hazard would be minimized with a properly designed system and regularly scheduled <br /> G M-1-V,R0UNUZr_IKV0W[J..S HAWRLPORrskr,iivbdjtyRcportdo, <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.