My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO_1996-2003
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
9069
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440001
>
COMPLIANCE INFO_1996-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/7/2021 8:55:58 AM
Creation date
7/3/2020 10:39:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
1996-2003
RECORD_ID
PR0440001
PE
4433
FACILITY_ID
FA0004514
FACILITY_NAME
AUSTIN ROAD/ FORWARD LANDFILL
STREET_NUMBER
9069
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95215
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
9069 S AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sfrench
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\SW\SW_4433_PR0440001_9069 S AUSTIN_1996-2003.tif
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
623
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
Austin Road Landfill Landfill GG_Qration and Control Evaluation <br /> III. LFG Control Options <br /> Two general approaches to the expansion of the gas extraction system were considered. <br /> Alternative 1: Installation of perimeter extraction wells along the northern boundary on the east <br /> side of the site with a separate treatment unit such as a flare or catalytic device. <br /> Alternative 2: Installation of perimeter extraction wells along the northern boundary at the same <br /> locations considered for Alternative 1,with those wells tied into the existing system. <br /> The precise location of the perimeter extraction wells will be identified during the design phase of <br /> the project. Itis anticipated that the wells will be sufficiently south of the landfill boundary to be <br /> installed through the full extent of the waste fill below ground surface. The objective is to provide <br /> control,or containment,of LFG migration offsite and to extract relatively high quality gas,in terms <br /> of BTU value,by limiting the draw of oxygen into the system. <br /> A summary of the evaluation of the two alternatives is provided below in Table 4. Evaluation <br /> criteria are defined as follows: <br /> 1. Effectiveness of the modified system to control LFG migration. <br /> 2. System ease of operability in terms of integrating the two operational objectives— <br /> perimeter control and maximizing energy recovery. <br /> 3. Cost of construction and operation of the expanded system. <br /> Table 4 <br /> Alternative Evaluation <br /> Migration Control Operability Cost <br /> Effectiveness <br /> 1. Perimeter wells in Highly effective as a gas Complex operation with High cost with new <br /> the northeast extraction system two independent well treatment units. <br /> portion of the site devoted to perimeter fields in the same Requires permitting new <br /> with new treatment control. landfill. treatment facilities <br /> unit. through the San Joaquin <br /> Valley Unified Air <br /> Pollution Control District. <br /> 2. Perimeter wells in Effective as gas Relatively easy to Relatively low cost-no <br /> the northeast withdrawal is increased operate as the new new treatment facilities <br /> portion of the site at points of non- wells are part of an required. <br /> tied into existing compliance. existing system and will <br /> system. run continuously. <br /> CDM Camp Dresser&McKee 4 <br /> W98/2500/015 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.