My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0005114
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MOFFAT
>
229
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545566
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0005114
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2020 12:38:23 AM
Creation date
3/17/2020 4:38:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0005114
RECORD_ID
PR0545566
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005479
FACILITY_NAME
MANTECA BEAN CO
STREET_NUMBER
229
STREET_NAME
MOFFAT
STREET_TYPE
BLVD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
229 MOFFAT BLVD
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
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.
/
496
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
i <br /> I <br /> Closure Report 8 <br /> Golden Grain Manteca Bean Faeflhty,299 Moffat Boulevard,Manteca,California July 15,1996 <br /> ' <br /> 30 SITE REMEDIATION <br /> This section summarizes the remediation activities of the site The following subsections 31, 32, <br /> and 3 3 present the feasibility evaluation,treatment system selection, design and implementation, <br /> and the remediation system effectiveness, respectively <br /> ' 3.1 Feasibility Evaluation <br /> ' On December 21, 1989, a Problem Assessment Report (PAR)was submitted to SJCPHS and to the <br /> RWQCB (Groundwater Technology 1989) In addition to presenting the results of the assessment <br /> work completed at the site,the PAR also included a feasibility evaluation for remedial action at the <br /> site Possible Best Available Technologies were identified and were evaluated for technical and <br /> economic feasibility as treatment options for the site Specifically,the following options were <br /> ' reviewed <br /> ■ no action <br /> ■ physical containment <br /> ■ soil excavation <br /> ■ vapor extraction and treatment <br /> ' ■ groundwater extraction and treatment <br /> ■ bioremediation (in situ) <br /> ' The feasibility evaluation resulted in a recommendation to Implement soil vapor and groundwater <br /> extraction and treatment systems These two alternatives were chosen based on the capacity to <br /> control plume migration and actively remove hydrocarbons from the subsurface Limiting factors <br /> affecting the technology selection were contaminant distribution, space available at the site, and <br /> cost/benefit factors <br /> Following the submittal of the PAR, additional site baseline data for remediation were collected <br /> ' These data were collected through the completion of a soil vapor extraction pilot test and a <br /> groundwater pumping test The results of the soil vapor extraction pilot test were presented in the <br /> Final Remedial Plan dated September 17, 1990 (Groundwater Technology 1990b) The result of the <br /> ' groundwater extraction pumping test was presented in the Addendum to Final Remedial Plan dated <br /> February 6. 1991 (Groundwater Technology 1991) <br /> [20213 GR <br /> FLUOR DANIEL GTI <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.