Laserfiche WebLink
. Teic cert and Son -.3- March 24, 2008 <br /> Claim No. 51 <br /> r ' <br /> B. In-Situ Soil Remediation: none identified <br /> • METHOD: soil vapor extraction <br /> DURATION; Dec 94 through 1996 <br /> C. Groundwater Remediation: <br /> ,. •r METHOD: air sparging <br /> • DURATION: Dec 94 through 1996 ;, <br /> D. Groundwater Trends: <br /> • Benzene trends are shown below: <br /> _ Claim 31.,. <br /> 'y. <br /> 40 <br /> 35 <br /> .25A <br /> c 20 <br /> m 10 - <br /> 5 � <br /> 0 <br /> - M M M V �r V Lo U7 Lfi- CD W cD 1,. PL N <br /> 0 Co t'O O C. o o O O O Co o d o 0 <br /> O. O O P O O O O O- O _ O O O O O <br /> - <br /> ` CO 00 0D OD 00 aO 00 Cp QO ap 10 a`p CO GO GO <br /> [7 [�7r- <br /> 1� Time � f <br /> D <br /> VII. SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY: no wells identified within '/2 mile of the site <br /> VIII. COMMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> A.' Site Description- construction company <br /> B. Site History: the extent of groundwater contamination is defined <br /> C.. Groundwater Monitoring Summary- strong monitoring history <br /> D. Remediation Summary: soil vapor extraction and air sparging <br /> E. Contaminant Exposure Pathway Evaluation: unknown <br /> F., Recommendation: Based on the following criteria, the Fund recommends this <br /> site be considered for closure providing the potential for soil.vapor migration is <br /> assessed and determined safe for prescribed site activities, public participation <br /> and fee title notifications are conducted, and the monitoring wells are <br /> appropriately abandoned. <br /> California Environmental'Protection Agency <br /> Recycled Paper, <br />