Laserfiche WebLink
- : <br /> ON <br /> Naming Lawson Assoclatbg <br /> mitment from the District to accept continuous disposal of <br /> con-taminated water, and therefore we reject this alternative. <br /> < . Discharge to subsurface - Treated ground water would be <br /> discharged into the area from which it was withdrawn. Recharge <br /> or injection wells would be installed immediately outside of the <br /> radii of influence established by the withdrawal wells. These - <br /> r <br /> wells would be screened in the same zone from which the contami- <br /> hated water was drawn. permits would be required from the SJLHD <br /> to install of injection wells. <br /> The practicality of this alternative depends on subsur <br /> face characteristic4. Becausethe 'shallow sandy,'forma4ion -odes <br /> k �t <br /> not, appear to be a high yielding formation, removal of:;water .from <br /> 4 -. <br /> the.,.zon$ .wduld.,,pro}aably :e, difficult, and reinjection .iotas would <br /> probably 1ae` unsatisfactary. This alternative does not appear <br /> practical and will not be given further consideration. <br /> Off-site disposal of round water - This alternative <br /> would involve collecting extracteI contaminated ground water and <br /> Y hauling it off site for treatment and disposal. <br /> This alternative is very reliable for water contami.- <br /> µW <br /> ! hated with hydrocarbons. A number of existing facilities will <br /> accept and--treat_ these -fluids. Ground water would be placed in. <br /> .i contciners on the situ a secured storage area would be .needed: <br /> If the water were hauled frequently enough that it would not be <br /> stored for .mare than 90 days, RW <br /> QCB permits for storage would not <br /> y �'? be required. <br /> 12 <br /> r <br /> v. <br />