My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002514
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
G
>
GERTRUDE
>
300
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545189
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002514
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2020 1:10:15 PM
Creation date
1/16/2020 11:58:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0002514
RECORD_ID
PR0545189
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005174
FACILITY_NAME
SUSD-FRANKLIN HIGH SCHOOL
STREET_NUMBER
300
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
GERTRUDE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
14331006
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
300 N GERTRUDE AVE
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
002
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.
/
65
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
I <br /> - AFIMIEX-�-1fAffFA <br /> Mr. Charles Leubner <br /> 10 October 1991 <br /> Page 8 <br /> sheeting. The piping will be connected to a vapor extraction system fitted with carbon <br /> canisters similar to that proposed for Alternative 1. If the area where the vapor <br /> extraction will occur can be located beyond 1,000 feet from the nearby school, the air <br /> emissions permitting process should not include parental notification or a public hearing. <br /> The estimated cost for Alternative 3 is $53,000 savings <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Although the in-situ vapor extraction alternative appears to be the least costly, obtaining <br /> an air emissions permit would be more complicated than for the other alternatives. It <br /> is also possible that if the volume of soil requiring remediation is less that the estimated <br /> quantity, this alternative would not be as cost effective. Because of the relatively small <br /> volume of soil Alternative 3, excavation of contaminated soil and treatment by <br /> aboveground vapor extraction at the District's Corporation Yard, would not provide <br /> savings over the direct disposal alternative because of the high cost of the vapor <br /> extraction equipment. If the material could be aerated in stages to limit the mass of <br /> emissions produced on a daily basis, the cost for this alternative would be approximately <br /> $18,000 less and would be less than the in-situ soil venting alternative (Alternative 1). <br /> It is recommended that this alternative (aeration of the soil at the Corporation Yard <br /> without vapor recovery) be explored with the San Joaquin County Public Environmental <br /> Health Division to determine if the proposed remedial action will be adequate to address <br /> the site conditions and if a workplan detailing this next phase of remedial activity needs <br /> to be prepared. <br /> If you have any questions regarding the results of this investigation, please do not <br /> hesitate to call us. <br /> Sincerely yours, <br /> HE K & LERNER INC. <br /> John S. Russell <br /> Project Geologist <br /> Noel M. Lerner <br /> Project Manager <br /> CE 39,708 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.