My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0011036
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FILBERT
>
110
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545039
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0011036
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2019 2:38:50 PM
Creation date
12/10/2019 11:46:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0011036
RECORD_ID
PR0545039
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0010186
FACILITY_NAME
DEL MONTE FOODS PLNT #33 - DISCO WH
STREET_NUMBER
110
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
FILBERT
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
15702009
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
110 N FILBERT ST
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.
/
176
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
i <br />: f <br /> 10 years or so. Therefore, replacement of an air stripper/vapor-phase GAC system with a ) <br /> liquid-phase GAC system after a 10-year service life is a viable long-range treatment scheme. <br /> The treatment system selected for cost estimating of Option B consists of air stripping <br /> followed by vapor phase GAC. <br /> Long-Term Monitoring and Contingency Plan <br /> Long-term monitoring and reporting will occur until data indicate that the site may be clean <br /> + enough to seek closure. A set of criteria will be established that will initiate a contingency <br /> plan if (1) the plume migrates beyond the compliance monitoring points, (2) constituent <br /> concentrations are not degrading at a satisfactory rate, or (3) the risk to human health <br /> increases significantly. The contingency plan will consist of more aggressive remedial <br /> intervention that may require augmentingmentin <br /> the natural rate of contaminant removal through <br /> groundwater aeration or nutrient addition. <br /> Remediation Options Evaluation <br /> The two groundwater remediation options were evaluated by considering the following <br /> } <br /> criteria: <br /> • Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> (4 . Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Contaminant Mass or Volume <br /> Short-Term Effectiveness (ability to demonstrate initial progress) <br /> • Long-Term Effectiveness (reliability) <br /> • Implementation (technical and administrative feasibility) <br /> • Cost Effectiveness <br /> t The extent to which each remediation option satisfies these criteria is summarized in <br /> Table 4-1. Cost estimates for each option are presented in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. The primary <br /> differences and similarities between Options A and B with respect to the evaluation criteria <br /> are listed below. <br /> Overall Protection of Health and the Environment <br /> Migration is controlled in either option. ' The mechanism of control is passive in. Option A <br /> and active in Option B. Option B creates a slightly greater risk of human contact with <br /> contamination. <br /> Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, Contaminant Mass, or Volume <br /> l <br /> Reduction in toxicity and mass removal occurs with either option. Option A would produce <br /> evidence of natural biodegradation through enhanced sampling and analysis. The same <br /> natural biodegradation would occur under Option B, but without the documentation. Option <br /> B would have added removal through stripping of 1.0 gpm of groundwater. <br /> r <br /> SF010030983.DOC 4-8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.