My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012190
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
W
>
WILSON
>
102
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545890
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2020 12:23:34 PM
Creation date
7/22/2020 11:28:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0012190
RECORD_ID
PR0545890
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0025958
FACILITY_NAME
ROEK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
STREET_NUMBER
102
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
WILSON
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15502065
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
102 S WILSON WAY
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
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.
/
257
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
1 <br /> 3.2.5 Alternative 5 - Soil Vapor Extraction with Groundwater Extraction <br /> This alternative involves remediation of impacted soils by vapor extraction with remediation <br /> of groundwater by extraction and subsequent treatment Initiation of these systems would <br /> include the following activities preparing plans and specifications, obtaining necessary <br /> permits, and installing the vapor and groundwater extraction piping, treatment compound(s), <br /> and treatment device(s) (Thermal oxidizer, air stripper, and/or granular activated carbon) <br /> The extraction system(s) would be monitored at least monthly or at the frequency specified <br /> by the appropriate permits Groundwater monitoring would continue on a regular basis until <br /> project completion <br /> ' 3.3 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 <br /> 4 Cost effectiveness/public benefit <br /> 5 Short term effectiveness <br /> 6 Long term effectiveness <br /> 7 Implementability <br /> 8 Regulatory and community acceptance <br /> 3.3.1 Alternative 1 - Passive Remediation <br /> ' o <br /> Criterion 1 <br /> The passive remediation alternative has no immediate health based risks The <br /> impacted media exists at depths greater than 15 feet, and since the site is paved, the <br /> possibility for exposure to humans by volatilization, dust or dermal contact with <br /> impacted soil is minimal, with little or no fire or explosion hazard The aquifer is <br /> currently classified as a drinking water source but is not generally used as such <br /> a Criterion 2 <br /> This alternative would reduce the existing levels and volume of impacted soil and <br /> groundwater over tune by natural degradation, but the rate of reduction is not <br /> known The possibility of ongoing migration of gasoline hydrocarbons in soil <br /> caused by surface water flushing contaminants into the groundwater exists in the <br /> short term until the existing excavation is backfilled and an asphalt cap is installed <br /> across the site surface <br /> A6 <br /> grourndne roek%cap <br /> ' 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.