Laserfiche WebLink
t.0 i <br /> f <br /> August 16, 2010 <br /> Manna Pro Corp. -4` <br /> Claim No. 678 <br /> _ V11. COMMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION.;FORRECOMMENDED ACTION.-."i' <br /> {JI A. Site.Description: former retail-gasoline-station 1: <br /> B. Site History: the:extent of groundwater contamination is defined_y <br /> C. Groundwater Monitoring Summary strong monitoring,history t <br /> D. Remediation Summary: soil vapor extraction and air sparging <br /> I .E. Contaminant Exposure Pathway,Evaluation: failed human health risk <br /> assessment Y <br /> r <br /> I F. Recommendation: <br /> t <br /> In March 2008, the Fund recommends that the San Joaquin County LOP direct <br /> the Responsible Party to assess the effectiveness of the current treatment <br /> systems and evaluate the need for additional air sparging locations near MW-1 to <br /> achieve Water Quality Objectives more rapidly. The Fund will review this site <br /> next year to track progress. <br /> UPDATED, March 2009, by letter on 16 June 2008, San Joaquin'County LOP <br /> staff stated they intended to direct the Responsible Party to re-evaluate the <br /> treatment system and the 'potential for air sparging.near MW-1. No such <br /> directive has been referenced-in Geotracker. The Fund continues to believe the <br /> treatment system'should be re-evaluated and upgraded or altered to achieve <br /> Water Quality Objectives in a.timely manner. The Fundrivill review this site next <br /> year to track progress.` <br /> UPDATED, August 2010, the Fund concurs with the San Joaquin County LOP <br /> that active remediation continue to achieve Water Quality Objectives in a timely <br /> manner. The Fund will review this site next year to track progress. <br /> tTIiLko/o - <br /> Kirk arson, P.G. Date Robert Trommer, C.H.G. Date <br /> Technical Review UnitChief, Technical Review Unit <br /> (916) S41-566S (916) `341--,6684 <br /> N <br /> California Eo vironivental Protection Agency <br /> Prs�Recycled Paper'. <br />