My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
33 (STATE ROUTE 33)
>
35100
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506447
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/20/2024 8:59:29 AM
Creation date
6/25/2020 3:42:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0506447
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007429
FACILITY_NAME
CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES VERNALIS FACILITY
STREET_NUMBER
35100
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
STATE ROUTE 33
City
VERNALIS
Zip
95385
APN
25518008
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
35100 S HWY 33
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
181
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
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS <br /> Ms. Amy Terrell <br /> 25 August 2003 <br /> Page 4 <br /> ■ physical constraints, such as proximity of the former tank farm area to the <br /> irrigation canal immediately east of the site and, the foundation and <br /> structure of the new dry fertilizer bins. <br /> Phytoremediation was rejected because of the lack of area for planting and growing <br /> trees or other high-nitrogen consumption plants. Excavation was rejected because the <br /> associated costs are potentially very high (due to the depth of the excavation that could <br /> be required; proximity to the irrigation canal, which could necessitate shoring; etc) and, <br /> WFS business operations could be significantly disrupted or stopped during the <br /> excavation and backfilling operations. <br /> Enhanced in situ bioremediation was identified as the most viable corrective action <br /> for nitrogen in soil at this site, given the known effectiveness of denitrification for <br /> nitrate-nitrogen, the minimal disruption to site operations for implementing an in situ <br /> corrective action program, and the potentially lower overall costs. The effect of this <br /> treatment on ammonium-nitrogen is less well understood. <br /> APPLICATION OF ENHANCED IN SITU BIOREMEDIATION FOR SOIL <br /> Feasible methods for implementing enhanced in situ bioremediation for soil include <br /> application of a carbon source via direct application to the surface soils, through <br /> induced horizontal hydraulic fractures, and by direct injection(e.g. GeoProbe). <br /> A candidate carbon source for soil application is HRC Primer, produced by <br /> Regenesis of San Clemente, California. HRC Primer is a combination of Hydrogen <br /> Release Compound (HRC) and lactic acid,which is more liquid than HRC, allowing for <br /> better injection results in the clay soils at the site. HRC Primer releases lactate,which is <br /> metabolized by naturally occurring microorganisms, in the presence of water. Since the <br /> injections will be in the unsaturated zone, the remediation will rely on infiltrating <br /> rainwater or water applications to distribute the HRC Primer and stimulate <br /> bioremediation. <br /> P:\PRJ2003REM\WFS\VER\Soil Plan 2003\RAP-Soil 8-25.doc <br /> RECYCLED AND RECYCLABLE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.