My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WASHINGTON
>
2201
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0527808
>
COMPLIANCE INFO_PRE 2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2021 11:16:36 AM
Creation date
5/4/2021 10:15:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
PRE 2019
RECORD_ID
PR0527808
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0018851
FACILITY_NAME
PORT OF STOCKTON-ROUGH & READY ISLAND
STREET_NUMBER
2201
STREET_NAME
WASHINGTON
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
14503001
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
2201 WASHINGTON ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\dsedra
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
333
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
CLEANUP AND ABATEMENT C: ER R5-2008-0710 -6- <br />HJ BAKER & BRO. INC AND THE PORT OF STOCKTON <br />MOLTEN SULFUR PROCESSING PLANT, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br />ponded sulfur-contact water seeping through the deteriorated asphalt surface has the <br />potential to discharge into the groundwater and is a threat to water quality. <br />27. Sulfur operations have been on-going at the facility for 30 years. These operations <br />have impacted groundwater. Groundwater samples obtained from an upgradient well <br />(MW-11) in 2007 had a sulfate concentration of 170 mg/L. In contrast, downgradient <br />samples (MW- 1, MW-3, MW-4, and C-11-25) obtained between 2005 and 2007 had <br />sulfate concentrations that range from 480-2,000 mg/L. <br />28. A comparison of groundwater data obtained in 1991 versus the data obtained in 2003 <br />and 2007 indicates that the shallow groundwater has been further degraded in the <br />intervening 12 years. In 1991, four groundwater wells were installed (MW-1, MW-2, <br />MW-3, and MW-4): sulfate concentrations in 1991 ranged from 87 mg/L to 440 mg/L, <br />and in 2003 ranged from 597 mg/L to 1,780 mg/L. Based upon Board staff <br />inspections conducted in 1998, 2005, 2006, and 2008, the sulfur-contact water and <br />sulfur piles are not adequately contained to protect the waters of the state. The <br />discharge of sulfur-contact water and sulfur prill at this facility has caused groundwater <br />concentrations of sulfate to increase to up to 2,000 mg/L. The table below shows the <br />upgradient/background well (MW-11), the downgradient wells, and the changes over <br />time to the sulfate concentration in shallow groundwater wells. <br />Historical Sulfate Concentrations (mg/L) <br />Date MW-11 <br />(Background <br />/Upgradient) <br />C11-25 <br />(165-feet <br />downgradient) <br />MW-1 <br />(Sidegradient) <br />MW-2 <br />(Downgradient) <br />MW-3 <br />(Downgradient) <br />MW-4 <br />(Downgradient) <br />28 Aug 1991 410 87 400 440 <br />23 Jun 2003 597 1,780 1,412 1,478 <br />10 Nov 2005 2,000 <br />15 Nov 2007 480 860 1,200 1,200 <br />14 Feb 2007 93 450 NA 1,100 NA <br />24 May 2007 170 410 NA 1,000 . NA <br />8 Aug 2007 450 NA 1,100 NA <br />Legend: <br />BOLD lettering sulfate concentration is above the comparison value of 250 mg/L (California Department of Health Services Secondary Maximum <br />Contaminate Level) <br />mg/L milligrams per liter <br />NA not analyzed/not reported <br />29. In a 12 April 2005 Central Valley Water Board letter, staff informed the operators of <br />the bulk storage facilities (i.e., Baker, Port, Martin Operating Partnership, and <br />Metropolitan Stevedore) that the inspection observations, inspection data, and the <br />case file review support the conclusion that the sulfur piles are not adequately <br />contained to protect waters of the state and that the facilities appear to have impacted <br />groundwater. Further, staff required submittal of a groundwater investigation work plan <br />by 1 June 2005. Follow-up reports were due by 1 September 2005, including the <br />results of the investigation, feasibility study and corrective action measures, and <br />Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD).
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.