My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002480
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FRESNO
>
1817
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0540859
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002480
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 4:14:00 PM
Creation date
1/15/2020 3:04:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0002480
RECORD_ID
PR0540859
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0023361
FACILITY_NAME
PLAY N PARK (FORMER BARNES TRUCKING)
STREET_NUMBER
1817
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
FRESNO
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1817 S FRESNO AVE
P_LOCATION
01
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.
/
112
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
CLEARWATER <br />' G a o u P <br /> En Vrronmrn}NI Srrvrcrs <br /> I <br /> remediate the dissolved plume, approximately half the number of wells and iSOC equipment <br />' would be required <br />' Remediation through natural attenuation (RNA) pilot testing has not been performed at the site <br /> It may be prudent, regardless of the chosen remedial technology, to collect base line RNA data <br />' for future reference If microbial activity at the site is sufficient, it could effect the contaminant <br /> concentration reduction level goals of the more aggressive technologies discussed earlier, and <br /> enable calculations of natural attenuation once the contaminant concentration returns no longer <br />' justify the cost of operating the more aggressive systems <br />' 6.4 Summary and Selection of Remedial Alternative <br /> The technical and economic effectiveness of implementing each of the above options at this site <br />' for one year are summarized in the table below, and detailed cost breakdowns for each option are <br /> included in Appendix D <br />' Option Media Remedial Technical Comments Total Option <br /> Affected Technology Efficacy Cost Selected <br /> 1 Soil SVE w/catox* Moderate Subsurface not well suited, test results $96,550 <br /> To Poor moderate in conjunction w/air sparge <br /> Or/carbon $68,650 <br /> Groundwater Air Sparge& Moderate Subsurface not well suited, test results $151,810 <br /> GWE To poor moderate GWE necessa w/SVE <br />' 2 Soil Excavate w/ Excellent Rapid clean-up difficult conditions, $247,600 <br /> Treatmant uncertainty if final excavation size <br /> Groundwater GWEw/GAC Moderate Not efficient at removing contarrunant $122,900 <br />' mass, o k for polishing <br /> 3 Soil Excavate w/ Excellent Rapid clean-up, difficult conditions, $136,600 <br /> aeration uncertainty in final excavation size <br /> Groundwater GWE w/GAC Moderate Not efficient at removing contaminant $122,900 <br /> mass, o k for polishing <br /> 4 Soil Excavate w/ Excellent Rapid clean-up difficult conditions, $277,600 <br />' Treatment uncertainty if final excavation size <br /> Groundwater Enhanced Needs additional testing to determine $80,575 <br /> bioremed viability <br />' iSOC <br /> I <br />' ZB 178C CAP 18 November 20,2002 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.