My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012656
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEBER
>
1325
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545007
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012656
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2019 5:31:51 PM
Creation date
12/3/2019 4:50:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0012656
RECORD_ID
PR0545007
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0025604
FACILITY_NAME
CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
STREET_NUMBER
1325
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
WEBER
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1325 W WEBER AVE
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
该页面上没有批注。
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
914
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
Ism <br /> k ✓. <br /> also evaluates the uncertainties associated with the long-term <br /> reliability of the alternative. <br /> The implementability criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative <br /> to be implemented based on technical and operating experience, <br /> physical site constraints, availability of services, and administrative <br /> limitations. <br /> The cost criterion evaluates the major capital cost items and <br /> operating cost items associated with implementation of the <br /> alternative. Because the cost of an alternative is affected by soil <br /> volume, further information is required to accurately evaluate this <br /> criterion. In the following evaluation, the cost of an alternative was <br /> based on past experience and vendor quotes and should be used for <br /> comparison purposes only. <br /> The timeliness criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative to <br /> meet governmental or regulatory agency-imposed deadlines. A <br /> remedial action may be required in a relatively short period of time; <br /> therefore, it must be possible to implement the selected alternatives <br /> within this timeframe. <br /> Identification and Screening of Soil Remedial Alternatives <br /> This section presents a description and evaluation of potential soil <br /> remedial alternatives for the site. The soil remedial alternatives <br /> evaluated included those listed in the PAR guidelines. Due to site- <br /> specific conditions, some of these alternatives were not appropriate <br /> for remediating the site. The inappropriate alternatives are <br /> discussed only briefly. The remaining alternatives were evaluated <br /> according to the four criteria described above. <br /> . _fav_ atian <br /> Excavation consists of removal of the hydrocarbon-containing <br /> ai backhoe). <br /> soils <br /> from the site with conventional excavation equipment (e. <br /> Clean soil would be imported to backfill the excavated area. <br /> Excavation by itself is effective in removing the affected soils from the <br /> site to limit migration of the hydrocarbons. However, it is not <br /> effective in remediating the affected soils without further treatment <br /> or disposal. Excavation would therefore be appropriate as part of <br /> other alternatives, but will not be considered viable as a separate <br /> remedial alternative for the site. <br /> 6-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.