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
I <br /> microbes, and reinfected upgradient of the extraction point. For <br /> reinfection, ground water could be trickled into an infiltration gallery <br /> (e.g., trenches) located within the hydrocarbon-containing soils, <br /> which would also enhance the biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil <br /> (this option assumes that hydrocarbon-containing soils would not be <br /> excavated as part of another soil remedial strategy). For ex situ <br />' biotreatment, the water would be extracted and treated in a bioreactor <br /> (the treated water could also then be reinfected via an infiltration <br /> gallery to enhance biodegradation of hydrocarbons in soil). <br /> Both in situ and ex situ biotreatment could effectively remediate <br /> ground water at the site. Ex situ treatment of ground water in a <br />' bioreactor would be more expensive than the other alternatives and <br /> was therefore eliminated. However, both in situ biotreatment <br /> alternatives would be potentially effective remedial alternatives for <br />' the site. <br />' Chemical02ddaf g <br /> This alternative would involve either in situ or ex situ treatment of <br /> the hydrocarbons in ground water via chemical oxidation This <br />' technology utilizes a chemical oxidant (e g. hydrogen peroxide or <br /> ozone) to oxidize the organic chemicals in ground water to carbon <br /> dioxide and water For in situ treatment, the appropriate chemical <br /> oxidant could be injected directly into the affected ground water. For <br /> ex situ treatment, the ground water would be extracted and treated in <br /> a reactor vessel. <br />' Both in situ and ex situ chemical oxidation could effectively <br /> remediate ground water at the site. However, in situ chemical <br />' oxidation can be potentially difficult to control and monitor, and ex <br /> situ chemical oxidation would be even more costly than ex situ <br /> biotreatment. Therefore, both chemical oxidation alternatives were <br />' eliminated from consideration. <br />' <br /> Chemical <br /> Chemical neutralization involves treating the ground water to <br /> neutralize the compounds present. Neutralization -is only used for <br />' ground water affected by audit or alkaline conditions, rather than <br /> hydrocarbons This treatment alternative is not effective for <br /> hydrocarbons and therefore has been eliminated. <br /> No Action <br />' In the no action alternative, no measures would be taken to contain <br /> or treat the hydrocarbon-containing ground water at the site. No <br /> 7-8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.