My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MINER
>
135
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0541800
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2026 9:58:25 AM
Creation date
3/5/2026 9:49:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0541800
PE
2960 - RWQCB LEAD AGENCY CLEAN UP SITE
FACILITY_ID
FA0023969
FACILITY_NAME
CANCUN RESTAURANT
STREET_NUMBER
135
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
MINER
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
13908010
CURRENT_STATUS
Active, billable
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Supplemental fields
Site Address
135 E MINER AVE STOCKTON 95205
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
Bioventing <br /> In-situ bioventing has not been considered as a remedial alternative because bioventing is most <br /> often used at sites with mid-weight petroleum products such as diesel fuel, because lighter <br /> products such as gasoline, tend to volatilize readily and can be removed more rapidly using <br /> vapor extraction. As such, bioventing is not considered to be the most cost-effective method of <br /> remediation at the Site. <br /> Soil Excavation <br /> Soil excavation with off-Site recycling or on-Site treatment of excavated soils was not <br /> considered because removing the contaminated soil would be extremely expensive due to the <br /> location of impacted soil (within the sidewalk and adjacent to Miner Avenue and the Site <br /> building, which would require extensive shoring and public right-of-way encroachment) and the <br /> impact to the Site business. The petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil beneath the Site can be <br /> reduced by other less expensive and less disruptive remedial methods. <br /> RETAINED REMEDIAL METHODS <br /> The remediation alternatives retained in the initial screening were further evaluated in a <br /> feasibility test. The feasibility test consists of developing an evaluation matrix whereby the <br /> chosen alternative(s) can be compared against pertinent criteria. Where appropriate, a <br /> combination of two remediation alternatives has been evaluated. The evaluated alternatives <br /> were: <br /> 1) Soil vapor extraction <br /> 2) In-situ chemical injection/oxidation <br /> Each alternative was based on the following criteria: <br /> - Risk to human health and the environment, <br /> - Effectiveness to reduce petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the soil and groundwater, <br /> - Ease of implementation and operation, <br /> - Cost effectiveness, <br /> - Compliance with regulatory guidelines, <br /> - Short-term effectiveness, <br /> - Long-term effectiveness, and; <br /> - Community acceptance. <br /> An evaluation matrix for the retained remediation alternatives is presented in Table 5. Based on <br /> the above evaluation factors, soil vapor extraction was found to be the best remedial alternative <br /> to reduce concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons safely, effectively and within regulatory <br /> guidelines. <br /> FREY Environmental, Inc. 1092-01 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.