My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHARTER
>
1313
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0544237
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2019 9:15:10 PM
Creation date
3/6/2019 4:44:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0544237
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0003765
FACILITY_NAME
AIRPORT SHELL*
STREET_NUMBER
1313
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
CHARTER
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15137007
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1313 E CHARTER WAY
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
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
CONESTOGA:ROVERS <br /> &ASSOCIATES <br /> April 9,2009 Reference No.241511 <br /> -3- <br /> Cost of Operation <br /> During our system performance evaluation we looked at the cost to remove 1,2-DCA and <br /> prepared a graph(Figure 4) which depicts the cumulative costs to operate the GWE system <br /> versus the mass of 1,2-DCA removed. The graph shows that to remove 0.07 pound of 1,2-DCA <br /> we have spent approximately$76,000. Further evaluation of the cost indicates that the median <br /> cost to remove 1 pound of 1,2-DCA at this site would t e approximately$1,338,000. As <br /> mentioned above, as the mass removal rate declines (d e to declining 1,2-DCA concentrations <br /> at the site) the cost per pound to remove 1,2-DCA will increase. This cost per pound indicates <br /> that this is not a cost effective remedial approach for t11 is site. <br /> Summary <br /> We request that GWE system at this site be shutdown for the following reasons: <br /> • Operation of the GWE system has reduced the concentration of 1,2-DCA in groundwater <br /> beneath the site. <br /> • The mass removal rate for this GWE system is very low. <br /> • The GWE system is not cost effective to operat . <br /> CASE CLOSURE REQUEST <br /> Along with reviewing the GWE system performance d recommending shutdown of the <br /> system,we also looked at the need to evaluate alterna ve remedial approaches for this site. We <br /> concluded that additional remediation at this site is no warranted and that case closure may be <br /> appropriate for this site. The reasons for this are press ited below. <br /> • Site investigation activities have been complete at this site and the extent of petroleum <br /> hydrocarbons in soil beneath the site is defined j <br /> I <br /> • Quarterly groundwater monitoring has been performed at this site since January 2003 <br /> and the extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in gi oundwater beneath the site is primarily <br /> limited to the vicinity of well MW-1. All other site wells do not contain,or contain only <br /> low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. <br /> • 1,2-DCA is the primary contaminant of concern at this site. The horizontal and vertical <br /> extent of 1,2-DCA has been delineated by quarterly groundwater monitoring data and <br /> I <br /> Wa rides de Engineering,Environmentat,Construction,and IT Services <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.