ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012563 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E `4 Mz tixT FINAL REMEDIATION PLAN Shell OR Company 620 West Charter Way,Stockton,California Delta Project No.404M-586 Page 20 4.3 Emission ControlSystemsand Permlftin2 Specific r-ir discharge requirements mist be met when operating any soil or ground water remedial system that emits hydrocairbow to the air under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin County Air Pollution Cont rot District(APCD). The APCD requires the use of best available control technology. The pump and vapi-I extraction indicate that in order to meet the discharge limits,an einission control devicc'wil,'be t tlto site",,T?Lrw emission control dvim-granular activated carbon filters,a catsil Hb'ft&4, -4md'i the ziM'oajdi=lutye been evaluated. Appendix F gives more details on the rationale of emission control device selection. 4.3.1 Granular Activated Carbon Unit (VaMr-Phase) Activated carbon captures nearly 100 percent of the influent hydrocarbon.. Activated carbon would be a cost-effective emissions control alternative only at hydrocarbon vapor c-incentrations less than 20U ppm and at a flow rate of approximately 100 cfin. Siticetthe data obtained from the soil venting and ground water pump test indicate hydrombonconcmtmtions-at,laround JZ000 ppm,--this-altern2&6 Is nofie666midhl -during this phasd bf the project. 4.3.2 Catalytic Oxidizer Tle catalytic oxidizer incorporates the use of platinum catalyst to oxidize hydrocarbon vapors. Catalytic oxidizers normally operate with a hydrocarbon destruction efficiency of between 90 to 99 percent. The catalytic oxidizer is most economical for hydrocarbon vapor concentrations between 150 and 3,000 ppm. Since!he vapor hydrocarbon concentrations from the soil venting and ground water pumping test were found to be approximately-12,000 ppm,the use of the catalytic o)ddizer,would not be.economical. 64