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
1 <br /> 1 Nom <br /> In the no action alternative, no measures would be taken to contain <br /> or treat the hydrocarbons in site sods. This passive response would <br /> employ natural biodegradation as the only treatment. <br />' This alternative ;s easily implementable, as no action is required. It <br /> would also be the least expensive alternative However, this <br /> alternative may not effectively remediate the site and would not <br />' satisfy the timeliness criterion. Therefore, the no action alternative <br /> is not considered an appropriate alternative for this site. <br />' Identification and Screening of Ground Water Remedial <br />' Alternatives <br /> This section presents a description and evaluation of potential <br />' ground water remedial alternatives for the sites The ground water <br /> remedial alternatives evaluated included those listed in the PAR <br /> guidelines. Due to site-specific conditions, some of these alternatives <br />' were not appropriate for remediating the site The inappropriate <br /> alternatives are discussed only briefly The remaining alternatives <br /> were evaluated according to the four criteria described above. <br />' Physical containment would involve installing subsurface physical <br /> barriers to impede or prevent the horizontal migration of <br /> hydrocarbons in ground water Several types of containment <br />' technologies could be used, including slurry walls, grout curtains, <br /> and sheet piling <br />' Containment alternatives would not be easily implementable at the <br /> site due to the proximity of the affected areas to warehouses on the <br /> property. In addition, containment only reduces or prevents the <br /> migration of chemicals, it does not remediate the affected ground <br /> water. It is therefore less effective than other alternatives and is not <br /> considered appropriate as a separate alternative for the site. In <br /> addition, the migration over time of hydrocarbons in ground water at <br /> Sites #1 and #2 does not seem to be a significant issue since the extent <br /> of hydrocarbons in ground water has been shown to be very limited <br /> and relatively stable over time Therefore, containment strategies <br />' are not required for this site. <br /> 7-6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.