My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CAMBRIDGE
>
16470
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544155
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/15/2019 2:31:10 PM
Creation date
2/15/2019 1:45:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0544155
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0000185
FACILITY_NAME
CITY GAS & LIQUOR
STREET_NUMBER
16470
STREET_NAME
CAMBRIDGE
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
LATHROP
Zip
95330
APN
19643032
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
16470 CAMBRIDGE ST
P_LOCATION
07
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
286
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
Page 2 of 3 <br /> Ns r/ <br /> From: Clint Harms [mailto:charms@secor.com] <br /> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:43 PM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Cc: Borgh, Bill: <br /> Subject: RE: CP 01205 Lathrop CAP <br /> Mike—After re-reading, the wording in section 6.1.6 is a little confusing. We are basically saying that OPE <br /> was effective and that in evaluating DPE conceptually as a remedial alternative for the site 6 wells would <br /> be required if this remedial alternative was chosen. Using 6 DPE wells and an estimated run time of 4 <br /> years for a DPE system,we generated the cost estimate in Table 3. However, SVE and ozone sparge are <br /> recommended because it is more cost effective than DPE. <br /> Clinton Harms <br /> Senior Scientist <br /> SECOR International <br /> 916.384.0715 <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] [mailto:MInfurna@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 1:11 PM <br /> To: Clint Harms <br /> Subject: CP 01205 Lathrop CAP <br /> Clint, <br /> I got a chance to review the Septl8, 2007 revised CAP you sent in. <br /> Thankyou for addressing IAS and your conclusions. I'm pretty much OK with the whole CAP thing <br /> except..... <br /> I was confused with DPE though... <br /> multiple places in the CAP eluded to DPE being effective and even stated "remediation of dissolved <br /> concentrations of TPHg, Benzene, and MtBE in the groundwater would effectively be addressed with a <br /> DPE system"(Section 6.1.6)and proposes six DPE installation. Then the remed alternative section (6.2) <br /> recm'd didn't call out DPE and discussed IAS vs ozone and SVE and detailed 15 ozone wells and four SVE <br /> well installations.... <br /> now when I think DPE wells, I think'stingee installations inside a SVE well with pumps, hoses, etc..what do <br /> YOU think of for DPE wells?. <br /> so, do you still plan on 6 DPE well installations onsite or not? <br /> Michael J. Infurna Jr. <br /> Senior RENS. CA Reg #5649 <br /> LOP/Site Mitigation Unit IV <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental <br /> Health Department(SJCEHD) <br /> 10/23/2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.