My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS_FILE 1
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MAIN
>
800
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0539293
>
WORK PLANS_FILE 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2019 3:00:05 PM
Creation date
11/20/2019 2:56:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
FileName_PostFix
FILE 1
RECORD_ID
PR0539293
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0022465
FACILITY_NAME
VALLEY MOTORS
STREET_NUMBER
800
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
MAIN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95202
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
800 E MAIN
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
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.
/
19
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
and the device strips the vapors from groundwater. Thus,treatment occurs underground <br /> and no groundwater is pumped to the surface. The stripped vapors are piped to the <br /> surface for treatment,usually with GAC unless vapor concentrations are exceptionally <br /> high. The stripped groundwater is allowed to flow back down the well casing and annulus <br /> into the aquifer. A more detailed description of this method can be found at the following <br /> website: www.Artinwell.com. <br /> ATTRIBUTES OF THE TWO METHODS <br /> One of the advantages of evaluating these two contrasting methods is that they have quite <br /> different attributes. This simplifies the comparison of their cost-effectiveness. The <br /> advantages and disadvantages of both methods are listed in Table 1. <br /> One of the biggest advantages of groundwater extraction is that it is a well-established <br /> method with a proven track record of success.It has been utilized at thousands of sites <br /> across the U. S., and all regulatory agencies are familiar with it. However, specific <br /> characteristics of each site determine the degree of success and the cost-effectiveness of <br /> the method. The factors that limit its applicability are discussed in the next section. <br /> Another advantage of pump and treat systems is that they are relatively simple to install <br /> and maintain. They do not require highly intricate or unique equipment,equipment <br /> failures are relatively rare and easy to correct, and specialized skills or highly technical <br /> training are not required. This makes them quite flexible and adaptable, so that the system <br /> can be modified to meet changing conditions as the remedial operation proceeds. <br /> From a technical standpoint,a big advantage of pump and treat is that the withdrawal of <br /> groundwater causes a lowering of the water table in the vicinity of the pumping well. <br /> This creates a depression in the water table,and groundwater is thus induced to flow <br /> toward the pumping well under the force of gravity. As a result,contaminants are carried <br /> toward the extraction well and their tendency to spread outward from the contaminant <br /> source is reduced. Known as"plume control",this helps to prevent contaminant <br /> migration and reduce the time and expense needed to restore the site. <br /> One other advantage of the pump and treat method is worth noting.Although not as <br /> effective as larger diameter wells,the existing 2-inch diameter monitoring wells(VM-1 <br /> through VM4)could also be used for groundwater extraction. This would increase the <br /> cumulative pumping rate and likely speed up the remediation process to some extent. <br /> These wells are too small to be used in the in-well air stripping method. <br /> In-well air stripping has none of the attributes discussed above. It is a very new <br /> technology that is unfamiliar to most consultants and regulators, and it has a much shorter <br /> track record of success. It requires highly specialized technology that is apparently <br /> available from only one established vendor,and the design, installation, and monitoring <br /> of the system must be done by specialists trained in this method. Further,because it <br /> involves no groundwater extraction, its potential for plume control is limited,although in <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.