My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LINCOLN
>
55
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009302
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2020 5:43:41 PM
Creation date
2/13/2020 3:16:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
RECORD_ID
PR0009302
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004002
FACILITY_NAME
MORTON-ALCO
STREET_NUMBER
55
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
LINCOLN
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13737004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
55 S LINCOLN 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.
/
72
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
• <br /> 7kadwell&Rollo <br /> 4.2.7 Regulatory Acceptance <br /> On-site containment, off-site removal and the two treatment options are acceptable to federal, <br /> state, and local regulators, and have been successfully permitted and implemented for similar <br /> sites in California. It is unlikely that the No-Action alternative would receive regulatory <br /> acceptance. <br /> 4.2.8 Community Acceptance <br /> Given that OU 1 and OU 2 are located in industrial/commercial areas, it is likely that community <br /> acceptance of any of the remedial options would be forthcoming. Likely community concerns <br /> are exposure to contaminated soil through fugitive dust emissions during site construction, <br /> transport of contaminated soil through neighborhoods (for the off-site disposal alternative), and <br /> possibly concern over the encapsulation of contaminated soil should the capping alternative be <br /> selected. Noise from vacuum blowers may be excessive. However, given that the OU 1 parcels <br /> • are essentially abandoned and unsecured, and work at OU 2 parcels has started, remediation and <br /> closure of the contamination will likely be welcomed. <br /> It is not likely that the No Action alternative would receive regulatory acceptance. <br /> 4.2.9 Cost <br /> 4.2.9.1 Operable Unit 1 <br /> Soil contamination is the sole cause of both cancer and non-cancer risk at the OU 1 sites <br /> (Areas 10, 11, and 20). As the sites are currently empty, access to the sites is excellent and there <br /> are several feasible approaches to soil remediation <br /> A permanent cap over the current site soil would eliminate the exposure pathway to most <br /> populations. It would also effectively deal with the predominantly background arsenic <br /> concentrations which when included, drive many of the risk calculations. Construction of a <br /> • permanent cap is cost-effective and relatively simple. The estimated cost to grade and cover <br /> 26 <br /> 25970318.PGS 15 November 2000 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.