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 /> Feasibility Study Report <br /> • 1140 W Hammer Lane, Stockton, CA <br /> Criterion 7 Cost <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 /> I operation Capital costs are associated wth installation of extraction wells and treatment systems, and <br /> could approach $200,000 to $300,000 Ongoing operation and maintenance costs could approach <br /> $40,000 to $80,000 per year The estimated cost to implement this alternative can vary greatly and <br /> is expected to be at least $300,0004500,000 <br /> Criterion 8 State acceptance <br /> This is a common technology that should meet state acceptance <br /> Criterion 9 Commune , acceptance <br /> This alternative would result in relatively minor impact to any site business due to the location of <br /> the 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 /> 7.3 Alternative 3—Enhanced Natural Attenuation <br /> Criterion l. Overall-protection of human health and the environment <br /> The enhanced natural attenuation alternative has no immediate health based risks The impacted media <br /> exist at depths greater than 35 feet so the possibility for exposure to humans by volatilization, dust, or <br /> dermal contact with impacted soil is minimal, with little or no fire or explosion hazard This shallow <br /> aquifer is currently classified as a drinking water source but is not generally used as such The ORC <br /> material to be added through direct injection to the subsurface or in ORC socks is a non-hazardous, <br />' food grade material <br /> Critenon 2 Compliance with ARARs <br /> • ORC has been utilized in approximately 1,000 sites in California and should, therefore, meet ARARs <br /> G\Data\(IROUND7_FIKNOWLLS HAM WTOR'IM!"LavbddyR�poa dna <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.