My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0001629
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CHEROKEE
>
16
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0522479
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0001629
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 3:43:00 PM
Creation date
5/17/2019 2:13:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0001629
RECORD_ID
PR0522479
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0015299
FACILITY_NAME
GEWEKE LAND DEVELOPMENT & MARKETING
STREET_NUMBER
16
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CHEROKEE
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
04323013
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
16 S CHEROKEE LN
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\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.
/
81
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
In GeoAudit ' s experience, the cost of bioremediation compares <br /> favorably to the estimated costs for vapor extraction. Very little <br /> maintenance is required; therefore operating costs are minimal . <br /> From economic concerns alone, bioremediation is often the most <br /> attractive method, though each site must be considered on a siteā¢- <br /> specific basis. <br /> 5.2 Groundwater Remediation <br /> GeoAudit has considered two alternative methods of groundwater <br /> remediation at the site. Pumping and treatment of groundwater was <br /> proposed in the PAR submitted by PES Environmental and was <br /> subsequently endorsed by GeoAudit in the January 1992 FRP. <br /> Bioremediation provides an alternative to pumping. The following <br />' sections briefly discuss the theory, feasibility, cost and <br /> estimated time of completion for each method. <br /> 5.2 . 1 Pump and Treat <br /> IThere are several variations of this technique, but all involve <br /> extraction of contaminated groundwater from the aquifer for <br /> M treatment above ground. To extract the contaminated water a <br /> pneumatic pump system is usually employed. The pump system is <br /> controlled automatically to maintain capture characteristics in the <br /> aquifer and to assure process requirements are maintained. <br /> A typical method of treatment of extracted water is carbon <br /> filtration, but many other methods are available. The treated water <br /> is usually discharged to a storm drain or sanitary sewer system. A <br /> waste discharge permit is usually required. <br /> The cost of any pump and treat method can be high, especially when <br /> a productive aquifer is involved. Equipment and set-up costs can be <br /> in the neighborhood of $50, 000 to $150, 000 or more. Tests, <br /> monitoring, extraction well installation and maintenance can push <br /> the price of remediation to over $1, 000, 000. <br /> The key objection to employing pump and treat technology is that <br /> the method is usually not very effective, and remedial objectives <br /> are rarely met. <br /> I5.2 . 2 Bioremediation <br /> The same biological processes come into play for in-situ <br /> bioremediation of groundwater as for soil treatment. Existing <br /> I monitoring wells can be used to inoculate bacteria . Additional <br /> nutrients may not be needed. Additionally, the bacteria have the <br /> ability to migrate in the groundwater with the contamination plume. <br /> At a site in Ukiah, California (silty sand soil type) both <br /> groundwater and soil contamination was present. Since the soil was <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.