Laserfiche WebLink
Charles Skobrak -3- April 21, 2011 <br /> Claim No. 1028 <br /> B. In-Situ Soil Remediation: <br /> • METHOD: soil vapor extraction <br /> • DURATION: May 08 through present, intermittent <br /> • MASS OF TPH-G REMOVED: 7,025 lbs (Dec 2010) <br /> • RATE OF TPH-G REMOVAL: <1 pound/day (Dec 2010) <br /> C. Groundwater Remediation: <br /> • METHOD: air sparging <br /> • DURATION: approved, pending <br /> D. Groundwater Trends: Benzene trends are shown below, source area <br /> BENZENE Results for VW4 <br /> 160000- - r26 <br /> t40000 --_ _____ . _ 28 <br /> 120000 ___ --_ a--- --30 <br /> 100000 —_ ____ .._. _.— _.__ _—. 32 . <br /> 80000 <br /> 60000 — - _. 36 <br /> 40000 — - <br /> 20000---- -- 00 <br /> .. <br /> 42 <br /> } <br /> U <br /> r BENZENE Depth to Wa[er l <br /> VII. COMMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION <br /> A. Site Description: retail gasoline station <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; air sparging is pending <br /> E. Contaminant Exposure Pathway Evaluation: unknown <br /> F. Recommendation: <br /> In May 2008, the Responsible Party has proposed to install a soil vapor <br /> extraction system. The Fund concurs with the need to implement soil vapor <br /> extraction to reduce contaminant mass. The Fund recommends that the <br /> San Joaquin County LOP direct the Responsible Party to assess the feasibility of <br /> a groundwater remediation technology such as air sparging. The Fund will <br /> review this site next year to track progress. <br /> UPDATED, May 2009, the Fund recommends that the soil vapor extraction <br /> system be restarted as soon as practical. In addition, the Fund recommends that <br /> the San Joaquin County LOP direct the Responsible Party to assess the <br /> California En vironmental Protection Agency <br /> Z,", <br /> Recyc/ed Paper <br />