Laserfiche WebLink
01 <br /> Remedial Action General Response <br /> Media Objectives FActions Technology Types Evaluate Process Technologies Develop Alternatives <br /> Completed,No <br /> Air Further Action <br /> Required <br /> Soil <br /> Completed,No <br /> Vadose Zone Further Action <br /> Required No Action No Action Use for baseline scenario Alternative 1 <br /> Saturated Zone <br /> (see groundwater) <br /> Prevent Pump,Treat, Migration control Alternative 2 <br /> Exposure of Dischar e <br /> COCs to Human <br /> Receptors Containment Impermeable Barrier Source containment <br /> Alternative 4 <br /> Permeable Reactive <br /> Barrier Migration control <br /> Groundwater Contain/Capture <br /> COCl <br /> In Situ Physical Clay layer prevents vapor collection and <br /> Treatment removal <br /> In Situ Intrinsic Remediation Modeling show efficacy;minimal infrastructure Alternative 3 and 4 <br /> Treatment <br /> Reduce COC In Situ Chemical/ Feasible for source removal assuming Alternative 3 and 4 <br /> Extent LLBiological Treatment adequate delivery/contact is achievable <br /> Air Sparging <br /> i� <br /> Water Supply <br /> Replacement <br /> Prevents receptor exposure <br /> Local Ordinance/Deed <br /> Restriction <br /> Institutional <br /> Controls <br /> Well Destruction Prevents vertical plume migration Alternatives 2,3 and 4 <br /> Municipal and Other Counters artificial plume migration <br /> Pumping Coordination <br /> Notes: <br /> 0=Technology ruled not feasible Former Nestle USA, Inc. FacilityAlternative Development Process <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL COST MANAGEMENT,INC. Figure <br /> Feasibility Study e <br /> Ripon, CA 3525 Hyland Avenue Suite 200•Costa Mesa GA 92626 January 2011 <br /> p Tel (7ta)662-2759•Fax J714)652,2758 2011 Revised Feasibility Study 7 <br />