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
7 <br /> ♦ Criterion 7: <br /> This alternative has some minor implementability problems due to the time involved in <br /> obtaining permits from the APCD for the vapor extraction system. Permitting could take as <br /> much as 180 days depending upon APCD work load, but is typically completed in 60 to 90 <br /> days. <br /> ♦ Criterion 8: <br /> Impact to the site occupants and surrounding businesses during installation and other site <br /> activities will be moderate. This method has been shown to be effective and regulatory <br /> acceptance is expected. <br /> 7.3 Alternative 3-Vapor Extraction with Groundwater Extraction and Treatment <br /> ♦ Criterion 1: <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks. Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from <br /> extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to <br /> humans. Petroleum hydrocarbons are also removed from the extracted groundwater prior to <br /> discharge to the local sewer system eliminating the risk of exposure to humans. <br /> Groundwater would be monitored periodically to ensure that reduction is occurring. The <br /> potential. fire or explosion hazard is minimal due to the relatively low levels of documented <br /> residual hydrocarbons, and would be further minimized with a properly designed system <br /> and regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance. <br /> ♦ Criterion 2: <br /> Vapor extraction and groundwater extraction and treatment would reduce the level of <br /> toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants in the soil and groundwater to levels <br /> acceptable to regulatory agencies. This method would also limit the migration of <br /> contaminants off-site and may be able to draw contaminated groundwater back on site for <br /> extraction and treatment. A pilot test would have to be conducted to determine if this is a <br /> feasible alternative for remediation of the site. <br /> ♦ Criterion 3: <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> ♦ Criterion 4: <br /> The soil vapor extraction and groundwater extraction and treatment remediation alternative <br /> would require the installation of three vapor extraction wells, one groundwater extraction <br /> well, and the abatement equipment. A pilot test would be conducted to determine if this <br /> remedial option is feasible. If the pilot test indicates this remedial option is feasible, vapor- <br /> phase carbon can be used for treatment of off-gases and liquid-phase carbon can be used for <br /> treatment of extracted groundwater. It may be necessary to utilize another off-gas <br /> abatement method, which would require considerable capital outlay. Additional costs to the <br /> S A224931reports\CAP.doc II <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.