My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002834
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARBOR
>
1805
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0508461
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002834
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2020 5:28:32 PM
Creation date
1/29/2020 3:41:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0002834
RECORD_ID
PR0508461
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0008092
FACILITY_NAME
CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO
STREET_NUMBER
1805
STREET_NAME
HARBOR
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
14502005
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1805 HARBOR ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
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.
/
44
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
Tri Regional Recommendation Page 15 of 24 <br /> y Appendix A <br /> (i e) local water supply wells,buildings • Excavation, <br /> or utilities impacted or potentially threat- 0 Soil vapor extraction, <br /> ened) • Bioventmg, <br /> • Bioremediation (bio barriers), <br /> • A risk assessment will be necessary to Groundwater extraction and treat- <br /> demonstrate that the site poses no unac- ment, <br /> ceptable risks to human health or the Biosparging, <br /> environment The site-specific risk as- In-situ oxidation, <br /> sessment must use the Office of Envi- Dual-phase extraction and treatment <br /> ronmental Health Hazard (OEHHA) and <br /> toxicity date(cancer slopes) This in- Monitored natural attenuation <br /> formation may streamline the considera- 2 The rationale for selecting the preferred <br /> tion of remedial alternatives and the remedial alternative for restoring and pro- <br /> timeline for implementation tecting impacted or threatened waters <br /> • Appropriate conclusions and recommen- 3 A timeframe for achieving remedial goals <br /> dations for the next phase of work <br /> An updated Site Conceptual Model illus- 4 A cost comparison for remedial alterna- <br /> trating site conditions showing the extent tives evaluated <br /> of known soil and groundwater impact With minimal investigation and explanation, <br /> relative to the leaking UST system and some remedial alternatives may be eliminated as <br /> the relationship between contaminants simply not feasible for the site For instance, <br /> . and potential receptors (See Figure 1 be- soil vapor extraction is practical in sandy soils <br /> low for an example) but difficult to justify for tighter clay soils where <br /> excavation and landfill disposal may be more <br /> 4 2 Feasibility Study (FS)Report effective in meeting cleanup levels <br /> The FS Report provides a summary of remedial Note If the proposed alternatives include either <br /> alternatives evaluated to address applicable soil disposal to a landfill, groundwater discharge <br /> cleanup levels for affected or threatened human to the sanitary sewer, or venting vapor to the <br /> health and/or waters of the State The FS Report atmosphere, etc , the discharger must include <br /> must include a cost evaluation for at least two assurances from each appropriate regulating <br /> remedial alternatives and a recommendation for agency that the proposed activity is acceptable <br /> the preferred remedial action The FS should and permissible <br /> identify the preferred remedial technologies and <br /> may recommend pilot testing of the selected re- <br /> medial technologies before full-scale design <br /> The FS Report is to include the following mini- <br /> mum information <br /> 1 An evaluation of remedial alternatives <br /> that have a substantial likelihood to <br /> achieve cleanup of all impacted soils <br /> and/or soils and groundwater At a mini- <br /> mum,two of the following technologies <br /> must be evaluated for implementability, <br /> 40 cost and effectiveness, (other technologies <br /> not listed may also be evaluated) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.