My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003206
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HUNTER
>
610
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0541693
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003206
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2020 12:02:45 PM
Creation date
2/6/2020 10:57:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0003206
RECORD_ID
PR0541693
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0023897
FACILITY_NAME
TOYOTA TOWN INC
STREET_NUMBER
610
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
HUNTER
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
APN
13906033
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
610 N HUNTER ST
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.
/
112
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
A S S O C I A T E S I N C <br /> and installing the groundwater and vapor extraction equipment and treatment compound, <br /> and operation and maintenance of the system The cost of this alternative is estimated to be <br /> 1 between $200,000 and $300,000 <br /> ♦ Criterion 5 <br /> This alternative should effectively remediate subsurface contaminants to acceptable <br /> regulatory levels within 2 to 4 years of implementation Groundwater extraction alone has <br /> proven to be ineffective in the short term but the addition of soil vapor extraction enhances <br /> its effectiveness <br /> 1 ♦ Criterion b <br /> The long-term effectiveness for soil and groundwater remediation would be fair to good <br /> depending upon the degree of contaminant removal Groundwater would be monitored <br /> periodically until soil and groundwater is remediated to ensure that concentrations of <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons are being reduced <br />' ♦ Criterion 7 <br /> This alternative has some minor implementabilrty problems due to the time involved in <br /> performing the groundwater extraction pilot test, obtaining permits from the Air Pollution <br /> Control District (APCD) for the vapor extraction system Permitting could take as much as <br /> 180 days depending upon APCD work load, but is typically completed in 60 to 90 days <br />' Performing and evaluating the groundwater extraction test could take as much as 90 to 150 <br /> days depending on the PHS/EHD review period <br />' ♦ Criterion 8 <br /> Impact to the site occupants and surrounding businesses during installation and other site <br /> activities will be moderate Groundwater extraction alone is generally ineffective in <br /> reducing concentrations but soil vapor extraction enhances this alternative Regulatory <br /> acceptance would be expected with some reservations <br />' 6 3 In-Situ Air S ap rging with Soil Vapor Extraction <br /> ♦ Criterion I <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from <br /> extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to <br /> humans Groundwater would be monitored periodically to ensure that reduction is <br /> 1 occurring The potential fire or explosion hazard is minimal with a properly designed <br /> system and regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance <br /> ♦ Criterion 2 <br /> . Vapor extraction and air sparging would reduce the level of toxicity, mobility and volume <br /> of contaminants in the soil and groundwater to levels acceptable to regulatory agencies <br /> W 1625961reportslp11otcap doc 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.