My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007892
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WEBER
>
1325
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545007
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0007892
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/5/2019 2:37:23 PM
Creation date
12/5/2019 1:48:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0007892
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.
/
194
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 mayor capital cost items and <br /> operating cost items associated with implementation of the <br /> alternative In the following evaluation, the cost of an alternative <br />' was based on past experience and vendor quotes and should be used <br /> for 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 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 <br /> are discussed only briefly. The remaining alternatives were <br />' evaluated according to the four criteria described above. <br /> Excayadon <br /> Excavation consists of the removal of the hydrocarbon-containing <br /> soils from the site with conventional excavation equipment (e g , <br />' backhoe). Clean soil would be imported to backfill the excavated area. <br /> Given the presence of confined ground water conditions at the site, <br /> some dewatering may be required during excavation activities if the <br />' excavation approaches the depth of the silt-clay/sand contact. A <br /> reduction in the thickness of the silt-clay layer overlying the <br /> saturated sand zone may result in a localized inducement of vertical <br /> tground water flow into the excavation. <br /> Excavation by itself is effective in removing the affected soils from the <br />' site to limit potential migration of the hydrocarbons. However, it is <br /> not effective in remediating the affected soils unless further <br /> treatment or disposal is undertaken Excavation would therefore be <br /> 7-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.