My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARDING
>
1112
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545263
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2020 11:31:26 AM
Creation date
2/3/2020 10:40:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0545263
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005108
FACILITY_NAME
EGGIMANS HYDRAULIC GARAGE
STREET_NUMBER
1112
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
HARDING
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15102101
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1112 E HARDING WAY
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
V <br /> The advantages of SVE with groundwater extraction and treatment include: <br /> • Short treatment times; usually 2 to 6 years under optimal conditions. <br /> • Readily available equipment and easy installation. <br /> • Implementation with minimal disturbance to above ground activities. <br /> • Cost competitive. <br /> • Can be used under buildings and other locations that cannot be excavated. <br /> In order to determine the effectiveness of SVE and groundwater extract; n and treatment, a pilot <br /> scale study'would first need to be performed at the site. <br /> 7.0 REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION <br /> Each of the alternatives presented above were evaluated according to the following criteria:' <br /> 1. Level of protection of human health and the environment <br /> 2. Reduction of toxicity,mobility and volume of contaminants <br /> 3. Compliance with regulatory guidelines s <br /> 4. Cost effectiveness/public benefit <br /> 5. Short term effectiveness <br /> 6. Long term effectiveness <br /> 7. Implementabiliry <br /> 8. Regulatory and community acceptance <br /> 7_1 Alternative 1 -Natural 'Attenuation with Groundwater Monitoring <br /> ♦ Criterion 1: <br /> The natural attenuation alternative has no immediate health based risks. The site is surfaced <br /> with asphalt and concrete so the possibility.for exposure to.humans.by volatilization, dust, <br /> or dermal contact with impacted soil and groundwater is minimal, with little or no free or <br /> explosion hazard. Several potential receptors have been identified south of the site. The <br /> nearest receptor is approximately 1,000 feet south of the site. The shallowest aquifer is <br /> located approximately 50 feet below ground surface and is impacted. This aquifer is <br /> currently classified as a-drinking water source and the downgradient municipal drinking <br /> water well is screened from 79 to 99 feet bgs. <br /> ♦ Criterion 2. <br /> This alternative would reduce the existing-•levels and volume. of impacted soil and <br /> groundwater over time by natural degradation and attenuation, but the rate of reduction is <br /> not known. The possible migration.of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil caused by surface <br /> water flushing contaminants into the groundwater is low due to the asphalt and concrete <br /> surface on site. The groundwater gradient direction has been consistently south with a <br /> 5:\22493\reports\CAP.doc g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.