My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003676
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
Y
>
YOSEMITE
>
2072
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0505553
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003676
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2020 4:47:50 PM
Creation date
7/23/2020 4:08:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0003676
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.
/
43
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
. dissolved oxygen in groundwater are infection of hydrogen peroxide and <br /> one-time application of Oxygen Releasing Compound (ORC) Advantages <br /> for this type of remediation include (a) it is very low cost, (b) it is a <br /> passive, unintrusive method for groundwater remediation, (c) there is no <br /> equipment to maintain, and (d) it often works very quickly <br /> Disadvantages include (a) it is not effective at all sites since it is very <br /> dependent on groundwater flow rates, (b) soil remediation is also <br /> required using these methods, (c) in-situ bioremediation is not a s <br /> effective on MTBE as on other hydrocarbons, and (d) additional <br /> applications may be required if using ORC <br /> Based on numerous conversations with Mr Ron Rowe of the San Joaquin <br /> County PHS-EHD regarding in-situ bioremediation projects in the site <br /> vicinity, bioremediation using such methods have been relatively <br /> unsuccessful in this area This could be due to a number of factors ASE's <br /> experience with in-situ bioremediation shows limited success with MTBE <br /> remediation Even when TPH-G and BTEX concentrations decrease <br /> dramatically, the MTBE concentrations may drop 50%, which although a <br /> significant decrease, will not satisfy the cleanup objectives at this site <br /> given the large number of off-site domestic wells <br /> . For these reasons, ASE is not considering the use of in-situ bioremediation <br /> for remediation of this site at this time <br /> 5 . 0 SELEC'T`ION OF REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES <br /> Based on the site conditions and cleanup objectives discussed with the San <br /> Joaquin County PHS-E141) and RWQCB, ASE recommends air sparge/vapor <br /> extraction to remove the bulk of the hydrocarbon mass under the site In <br /> addition, ASE recommends that the existing "pump and treat" <br /> groundwater remediation system be modified to more effectively capture <br /> contaminated water leaving the site to the north and west This <br /> remediation plan does not include any off-site remediation to the north <br /> More soil and groundwater assessment is needed prior to designing an <br /> effective remediation strategy for these off-site areas <br /> i <br /> Frank's One Stop Remedial Action Plan — August 2001 <br /> -16- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.