Laserfiche WebLink
June 30, 1995 *000, .,.. <br /> Page 12 <br /> 5.2.1. Technology Screening <br /> 1. Monitoring data collection, institutional controls, well installations <br /> are not remedial alternatives. <br /> In accordance to Resolution 92-49 and specifically within the contain- <br /> ment and isolation alternative of this resolution, the use of these tools <br /> are necessary along with the use of engineered health and safety <br /> management controls, to manage the health and safety of the public <br /> and environment. These tools are used when natural attenuation is <br /> selected as the remediation method. <br /> 5.3 Recommended Remedial Alternative <br /> 5.3.1 Natural Attenuation <br /> 1. Natural attenuation is not viable because institutional controls are <br /> not possible; this alternative also has not been shown to be effective <br /> in reducing groundwater plumes of this size or concentration to <br /> appropriate cleanup levels. <br /> Natural attenuation has been recognized by the EPA, the RWQCB - <br /> San Francisco Bay Region, and researchers universally. Plume size <br /> and concentration are factors which effect the time frame which is <br /> required to reach clean up levels. Engineered health and safety <br /> management controls (formerly institutional controls) are possible as <br /> previously discussed. <br /> 5.4 Alternative Evaluation <br /> I. The effectiveness of SVE/air sparging and its relation to the <br /> chlorinated plume was confusing; would SVE effectiveness be reduced <br /> or take longer due to the presence of the chlorinated plume. <br /> Additional system design, system abatement, and system operation and <br /> maintenance requirements would be necessary due to the presence of <br /> the chlorinated plume. These efforts will result in an increase in time <br /> and cost to operate a SVE/air sparging system. <br /> 32013570CAPLET.DOC.doc <br />