My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-2003
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
R
>
ROTH
>
850
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506824
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_1993-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/7/2020 3:15:47 PM
Creation date
4/7/2020 2:41:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1993-2003
RECORD_ID
PR0506824
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007648
FACILITY_NAME
DDRW - SHARPES
STREET_NUMBER
850
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
ROTH
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LATHROP
Zip
95330
APN
19802001
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
850 E ROTH RD BLDG S-108
P_LOCATION
07
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
491
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
dispersivity be tested with the FEMWATER contaminant transport model to assess the <br /> effect on the transient calibration and capture zone estimates. Or, if this step has already <br /> been completed and the results were unsatisfactory in terms of model calibration, please <br /> provide documentation in Appendix D to indicate that higher longitudinal dispersivity <br /> values were tested and they did not improve model calibration. <br /> 2. Appendix D,Flow Verification, Page D19: This section documents the flow <br /> verification that was performed using the June 2002 data set. However, it is not indicated <br /> in this section if any adjustments to the flow model were required to achieve acceptable <br /> calibration. Please indicate if any changes to the model were required to achieve <br /> acceptable calibration. Also, as described in a general comment, one of the best ways to <br /> verify a model is to perform a transient calibration with a time-dependant data set. Please <br /> indicate if a transient flow model calibration has been performed with the FEMWATER <br /> model and if not, consider performing a transient calibration. <br /> 3. Appendix D, TCE Transport analysis (30 years) for June 2002 Condition,Page D26: <br /> This section describes a capture zone problem between wells EWCC3 and EWCC4. It <br /> appears from the information provided that this area may be a zone of stagnation between <br /> two extraction wells that eludes capture. However, without evaluating travel times for <br /> individual particles it is difficult to evaluate this area. Please provide a more detailed <br /> explanation for this observed model response and indicate if the plume velocity in this <br /> area appears to slow down compared to other areas in the model. <br /> 4. Appendix D, Limitations, Page D34: This section describes the model limitations. <br /> However, absent from this list are the following items: direct measurements of surface <br /> water elevations from the canal, direct knowledge of the influence of agricultural wells on <br /> capture zone estimates and uncertainties in the site conceptual model in the vicinity of <br /> basins 1 and 2. Please add these items to the list of model uncertainties. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.