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
remove the hydrocarbon constituents and allow either reuse or <br /> disposal of the clean soil Examples of off-site treatment include <br /> recycling of the hydrocarbon-containing soil as a raw material in the <br /> production of road base material, low temperature thermal desorption, <br /> and soil fixation with reuse as daily landfill cover <br /> This alternative would effectively remediate the soils at the site and <br /> could be easily implemented However, the transportation costs <br /> associated with this alternative make it less cost-effective than equally <br /> effective available on-site treatment alternatives Therefore, off-site <br /> treatment alternatives are not presently considered as options for the <br />' site <br /> Landfilling <br /> This alternative involves the excavation of affected site soils and <br /> subsequent off-site disposal in an appropriate landfill The excavated <br /> area would be backfilled with clean material <br /> Although this alternative would be effective and could be <br /> implemented in a timely fashion, it is not cost-effective Landfilling <br /> costs for the soils at the site would be approximately $150 to $210 per <br /> cubic yard In addition, landfilling does not provide treatment of the <br /> affected soils, and therefore is not preferred by the public or regulatory <br /> agencies For these reasons, landfilling has been eliminated as an <br />' alternative <br /> Soil VcntinWYapor Extractio <br /> This alternative involves eitherP assive or active removal of soil <br /> vapors from unsaturated soils without excavation Passive soil <br /> rventing would consist of the installation of perforated pipes into the <br /> affected sods to allow the volatile hydrocarbon constituents to vent <br /> The specific site soils would probably not respond quickly enough to <br />' passive treatment due to their low permeability In vapor extraction, a <br /> vacuum is applied to the perforated pipes to remove hydrocarbon- <br /> laden vapors from the soil pores The vapors are then either treated <br /> (via an air stripper or granular activated carbon unit) or released <br /> directly to the atmosphere (with an approved air permit) <br /> This soil treatment technology is implementable since it only requires <br /> the use of conventional drilling equipment and a vapor treatment <br /> unit Vapor extraction has also been proven to be effective at <br /> numerous saes and over a wide range of operating conditions <br /> However, vapor extraction is only effective for affected soils above the <br /> 4-4 <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.