ARCHIVED REPORTS_2011 REVISED FEASABILITY STUDY

Home Browse Search

Nestle USA, Inc.—Ripon, CA January 28, 2011 2011 Revised Feasibility Study containment. Combinations of general response actions form alternatives that address RAOs for the Study Area. The general response actions considered for groundwater in the Study Area are: • No Action, • Containment, • In-situ Treatment, and • Institutional Controls. The following diagram depicts how groundwater general response actions are addressed and which technology types are applicable (further discussed in the next sections). MediaImpacted ResponseGeneral Tec 1pes Pump Impermeable Permeable Water Supply Muni Pumping and Treat Barrier Reactive Barrier Replacement Coordination WellGroundwater Recharge Destruction Coordination Physical Treatment Chemical Treatment Intrinsic(Bioaugmentation)Remediation 8.1 No Action No Action is included as a baseline from which to compare all other general response actions. The No Action response at the Study Area does not meet all three RAOs presented in Section 5. 8.2 Containment Containment actions involve placing a barrier around the target treatment areas to stop COC mass from leaving or to reduce the flux of COCs from the treatment area. Containment barriers can be hydraulic (via groundwater injection or extraction), physical (e.g., impermeable slurry walls), or, chemical (permeable reactive barriers (PRBs)) in nature. Physical technologies might include pump- and-treat systems or impermeable barriers. A chemical treatment barrier usually refers to a permeable reactive barrier that allows groundwater to pass through while preventing COCs from passing through, by contained media that destroy, sorb, or otherwise immobilize dissolved COCs. Some containment technologies act to hold the COCs in place, but do not remove them from the subsurface (although they are removed from flowing 22