My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LINCOLN
>
55
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0009302
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2020 5:43:41 PM
Creation date
2/13/2020 3:16:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY 2000
RECORD_ID
PR0009302
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0004002
FACILITY_NAME
MORTON-ALCO
STREET_NUMBER
55
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
LINCOLN
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13737004
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
55 S LINCOLN ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
• <br /> Treadvvell&Rollo <br /> may be used in conjunction with groundwater pump and treat systems to expedite source area <br /> removal. Ozone sparging and hydrogen peroxide injection are both potentially applicable for <br /> remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated compounds. Relative capital and <br /> operations costs are medium for air sparging, vacuum extraction, and ozone sparging, and <br /> medium to high for hydrogen peroxide injection. <br /> For the purpose of this evaluation, the No Action, Monitoring Only, and Physical/Chemical <br /> Treatment options have been retained for additional evaluation. <br /> 4.3.4 Containment <br /> Slurry walls and grout curtains were considered as containment response actions for groundwater <br /> contamination. Slurry walls have been used to contain groundwater contamination at numerous <br /> sites, and grout curtains may have application at other sites where soil conditions allow the <br /> • economic injection of grout into the formation. Remediation of contained groundwater would <br /> likely be required after containment was established. However, neither of these applications is <br /> appropriate for either OU 1 or OU 2 as the relative capital, operation, and maintenance costs are <br /> high compared to the benefit gained. For this reason, neither of the containment alternatives was <br /> retained for further evaluation. <br /> 4.4 Comparison of Groundwater Remedial Alternatives <br /> Table 8 summarizes the comparison of the No Action, Monitoring Only, Collection and <br /> Treatment, and Treatment alternatives, using the nine evaluation criteria listed in Section 4.2. <br /> 4.4.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> All of the alternatives are, with the exception of the No Action Alternative, protective, in that <br /> they minimize or eliminate direct contact with contaminated groundwater. The Monitoring Only <br /> alternative maintains a degree of protectiveness by providing warning of contaminant movement <br /> • <br /> 34 <br /> 25970318.PGS 15 November 2000 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.