My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007887
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEBER
>
1325
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545007
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007887
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2019 2:30:56 PM
Creation date
12/5/2019 1:43:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0007887
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
treatment or disposal of the hydrocarbons at the site This criterion <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 operating <br /> cost items associated with implementation of the alternative In the <br /> following evaluation, the cost of an alternative was based on past <br /> experience and vendor quotes and should be used for comparison <br /> purposes only <br />' The timeliness criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative to meet <br /> governmental or regulatory agency-imposed deadlines A remedial <br />' action may be required in a relatively short period of time, therefore, it <br /> must be possible to implement the selected alternatives within this <br /> time frame <br /> Identification and Screening of Soil Remedial Alternatives <br /> This section presents a description and evaluation of potential soil <br />' remedial alternatives for the two tank sites The soil remedial <br /> alternatives evaluated included those listed in the PAR guidelines <br /> Due to site-specific conditions, some of these alternatives were not <br /> appropriate 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 /> Excavatisn <br />' Excavation consists of the removal of the hydrocarbon-containing soils <br /> from the site with conventional excavation equipment (e g , backhoe) <br />' Clean soil would be imported to backfill the excavated area Given the <br /> presence of confined ground water conditions at the site, some <br /> dewatering may be required during excavation activities if the <br /> t excavation approaches the depth of the silt-clay/sand contact A <br /> reduction in the thickness of the silt-clay layer overlying the saturated <br /> sand zone may result in a localized inducement of vertical ground <br /> water flow into the excavation <br /> 4-z <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.