Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> w/ <br /> Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:45 PM <br /> To: 'Clint Harms' <br /> Subject: RE: CP circle k 1205 CAP <br /> now if all this was in the report, I'd be done with my review and this file would have been off my desk already. <br /> it's not that I agree with your explanation, but you'll need to make it official. <br /> Now send me a revision of the plan that includes this and I'll comment/approve it. <br /> From: Clint Harms [mailto:charms@secor.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 12:47 PM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Cc: Rusty Benkosky; Borgh, Bill: <br /> Subject: RE: CP circle k 1205 CAP <br /> Mike—We didn't include air sparge as one of the five remedial technologies evaluated in our CAP because <br /> it is such a similar technology to the ozone sparge that was recommended. We compared OS to AS prior <br /> to doing the CAP, but just didn't document in the CAP. The following are the reasons ozone sparge was <br /> chosen. The disadvantage of using air sparge at this site are: 1)we would have to expand the vapor <br /> extraction system layout to have an radius of influence (ROI)encompassing the sparge layout because of <br /> volatilization caused to aggressive air sparging, 2)larger VE equipment would be needed if AS was used <br /> due to larger well field (ConocoPhillips has limited space at this site for a remedial compound), and 3)the <br /> VE system would have to operate as long as the AS was operating to capture volatilization. These items <br /> would offset the costs of using ozone sparge. Based on the shallow vadose zone at the site (ranging from <br /> 9 to 15 feet logs), it is anticipated that the SVE system operation should be a maximum of two years. With <br /> the low flow nature of ozone sparge systems (in-situ destruction of hydrocarbons as opposed to <br /> volatilization), an ozone sparge system can continue to operate after SVE is complete and continue <br /> remediation of dissolved phase hydrocarbons. <br /> Clinton Harms <br /> Senior Scientist <br /> SECOR International <br /> 916.384.0715 <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] [mailto:MInfurna@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:29 PM <br /> To: Clint Harms <br /> Cc: Rusty Benkosky <br /> Subject: CP circle k 1205 CAP <br /> hey guys, <br /> I got a chance to look at the CAP dated July 10 for this active site in Lathrop/San Joaquin County. What <br /> you did include in it seems ok, but I gotta ask, WHY no evaluation of IAS (in-situ air sparge)? <br /> wasn't even mentioned? My experience with cost and effectiveness of ozone vs air sparge is that ozone is <br /> about 3X more expensive on sites with high levels of TPH (MW-5 at 22,000 ug/1)than just ambient air. To <br /> say nothing of the WDR evaluation required by the CVRWQCB. Don't you think with all this sand at this <br /> site and mostly localized plume, a good air blow, suck and burn would be cheaper, easier, quicker??? <br /> 3/21/2008 <br />