Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> 3.3 Mitigation of Contaminated Groundwater Plume <br /> The Public Health Services of San Joaquin County has recommended the current <br /> owner of the property, the Roeks, to consider remedial alternatives to mitigate the <br /> migration of the contaminated groundwater offsite. We will conduct an evaluation of <br /> existing technologies to achieve this mitigation. <br /> 3.3.1 Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives <br /> This evaluation is aimed at identifying conceptual remedial technologies which are <br /> appropriate for application at 102 S Wilson Way, Stockton,California. It recognizes <br /> that the contaminated medium is groundwater(to a depth of at least 45 feet) <br /> Groundwater within I mile of the site is used by domestic wells Therefore, this <br /> analysis assumes that 1990 DOHS Action Levels for Dnnking Water and EPA <br /> Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's) apply This evaluation therefore considers <br /> technologies which are appropriate for the removal or hydraulic control of these <br /> contaminants and allows in situ treatment From the RWQCB Central Valley Region <br /> Manual for Addressing Fuel Leaks, the following technologies were considered. <br /> 1) Groundwater extraction and treatment by aeration, carbon filtration, pump to <br /> POTW <br /> 2) Physical containment <br /> 3) Chemical neutralization <br /> 4) No action <br /> Screening Cntena <br /> The alternative technologies were screened for technical feasibility, technical maturity, <br /> environmental impact, regulatory compliance and cost effectiveness. We considered <br /> constraints to implementing the technologies, the levels of cleanup which may be <br /> achieved, and the situations in which the technology has found successful application <br /> Following are listed specific screening criteria <br /> Te&hnical Technologies must be able to control or reduce contamination to comply <br /> with the requirements of the responsible regulatory agencies In assessing the technical <br /> ments of each technology, the following factors were considered <br /> 1) Feasibility <br /> 2) Maturity <br /> 3) Public Health and Environmental Protection <br /> 11 <br />