Laserfiche WebLink
L' <br /> e-• <br /> cost-effective manner. The required implementation time for any <br /> remedial action alternative will ultimately affect its cost. The <br /> preferred alternative will optimize the implementation schedule <br /> and will minimize long-term monitoring and maintenance work. <br /> In evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various remedial alterna- <br /> tives, costs for each alternative will be identified by taking <br /> into consideration capital and investment costs, labor and <br /> overhead expenses, operating costs, and any long-term maintenance <br /> costs. <br /> j <br /> 3.2 Technology Screening <br /> Based on the results of the field investigation, the following <br /> technologies will be evaluated for groundwater remediation: ! <br /> o No action. <br /> o Extraction and treatment. <br /> o In-situ biodegradation. <br /> o Physical containment, <br /> o In-situ chemical treatment <br /> �- 3.4 Cleaning Criteria <br /> Table 3-1 presents the California Department of Health Services <br /> MCL levels for BTX&E compounds in water delivered to any use of <br /> public drinking water. Additional information gained from <br /> literature review and regulatory agencies should reveal whether <br /> or not this criteria applies to the subject site. <br /> i <br /> s <br /> } <br /> 1 <br /> i <br /> i <br /> ' 3 - 3 <br />