My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003574
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
Y
>
YOSEMITE
>
2072
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0505553
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003574
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2020 4:35:02 PM
Creation date
7/23/2020 3:35:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0003574
RECORD_ID
PR0505553
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0006856
FACILITY_NAME
FRANKS FOOD MART
STREET_NUMBER
2072
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
YOSEMITE
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
MANTECA
Zip
94336
APN
22202001
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
2072 W YOSEMITE AVE
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
3 .4 System 'Effectivenes <br /> As an interim remediation system, the system was somewhat effective <br /> during its operation There were, however, significant problems <br /> First, the system was extremely expensive to operate During the <br /> operation, the system cost an average of $14,230 per month or a total of <br /> $1,854 per gallon of gasoline removed This is not considered a cost- <br /> effective means of operation, especially compared to the cost of the <br /> ASNE system, which costs $297 per gallon of gasoline removed <br /> Second, the hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater showed little <br /> change during the period of P&T system operation, although free-floating <br /> hydrocarbon present at the site during this period may have skewed the <br /> results <br /> Third, as the operation of the system continued, significant bio-fouling of <br /> the recovery wells occurred, interfering with the system operation <br /> During the final months of operation, the bio-fouling became excessive <br /> and the P&T system became extremely inefficient Since the bio-fouling <br /> slime consisted of hydrocarbon degrading bacteria, it would have been <br /> counterproductive to kill the bacteria, even though it was interfering with <br /> the system operation As a result, ASE redeveloped the wells to remove <br /> the slime on a regular basis, but still encountered decreasing groundwater <br /> flow with time and decreased pumping efficiency This slime is still <br /> present in these wells and is likely more effective in site remediation than <br /> the operation of the P&T system <br /> Fourth, the P&T system did not remove any hydrocarbon mass from the <br /> vadose zone, which like all pump and treat systems, minimizes the long- <br /> term effectiveness of the system without vadose zone remediation <br /> 3 . 5 Recommendations lRegardina the "Pump and Treat" Sys <br /> Since only very low hydrocarbon concentrations remain in groundwater <br /> on-site, and since the "pump and treat" system will not be able to pull <br /> back contaminated groundwater that has already impacted wells across <br /> West Yosemite Avenue, ASE does not recommend any further use of the <br /> "Pump and treat" remediation system at the site <br /> Frank's One Stop interim Effectiveness Report -- November 2003 <br /> -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.