My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE_1982-1983
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
9999
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440005
>
CORRESPONDENCE_1982-1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2023 4:12:38 PM
Creation date
10/6/2022 3:15:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1982-1983
RECORD_ID
PR0440005
PE
4433
FACILITY_ID
FA0004516
FACILITY_NAME
FORWARD DISPOSAL SITE
STREET_NUMBER
9999
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
20106001-3, 5
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
9999 AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\cfield
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.
/
626
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
called to his attention by BAX on April 8, 1982. (Note that <br /> when the Area Engineer wrote his letter of March 2, 1982 to Mr. <br /> C. E. Dixon, County Administrator for San Joaquin County, he <br /> was unaware of this violation) <br /> The omission of the monthly data on the leachates in the Grade <br /> 1 Trenches turns out to be extremely important in the evaluation <br /> of the safety of the Grade 1 Trenches, and whether they are allowing <br /> toxic substances to leak into the groundwater system. An explanation <br /> of its importance follows: <br /> The quarterly report of Forward, Inc. dated January 15, 1980 <br /> states that "The sump pipes in the ends of all trenches in the Group <br /> 1 Disposal Area were checked for the presence of accumulated fluids. <br /> This inspection disclosed the presence of approximately 6 feet of <br /> fluid in the riser pipes. The sumps will be pumped and the leachate <br /> transferred to the newly constructed evaporation ponds following their <br /> inspection by State regulatory authorities." Then, the November 12 <br /> 1980 report states, " During the first week in April, Trenches #1 and <br /> #2 were dry and approximately 450 barrels of water were pumped from <br /> Trench #2 and transferred to Evaporation Pond #l. . ." <br /> This information raises several important questions. First, did <br /> the six feet of water continue to the the toxic wastes from January <br /> until April? This question is important because the longer the toxic <br /> substances in the trench were inundated, the greater the opportunity <br /> for them to become dissolved and then leave the trench in the water, <br /> either by seepage into the groundwater system, or by being pumped out. <br /> The second question about the water in the Grade 1 Trench is <br /> whether a substantial portion of it did not seep into the groundwater <br /> system. BAX is inclined to think that it did, because the January 1980 <br /> report says that there was approximately 6 feet of fluid in the riser <br /> pipes. (please note that the word "pipes" is plural--suggesting that <br /> more than one trench contained 6 feet of water in January) On the <br /> other hand, the may 10, 1980 report says, in part, ". . .On April 10, <br /> 1980.. .The sump in Trench #1 was dry and the sump in Trench #2 contained <br /> approximately.3.5 feet of fluid." in other words, Trench #2 had ap- <br /> proximately 6 feet of fluid in it in January, but by April, this <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.