Laserfiche WebLink
5.2.1 Technology Screening <br /> Resolution 92-49 was consulted for applicable technologies, as was available literature. Only <br /> technologies that would apply to site-specific conditions were considered, and technologies <br /> were eliminated from further consideration on the basis of technical implementability. Table 2 <br /> lists the technologies considered, along with comments regarding the screening of each <br /> technology. Technologies that passed the screening process and were found suitable for <br /> constructing remedial alternatives were: <br /> Remediation Technologies <br /> • Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)/Air Sparging <br /> • Bioreclamation; Stimulate Intrinsic Biodegradation <br /> • Remediation Monitoring/Data Collection <br /> • Institutional Controls <br /> • Drilling/WellInstallation <br /> Abatement Technologies <br /> • Vapor-Phase Adsorption using Granulated Activated Carbon(GAC) <br /> • Catalytic/ThermalOxidation <br /> Remediation monitoring/data collection was chosen in association with each of the response <br /> actions identified. Monitoring will provide information necessary to demonstrate plume <br /> containment, evaluate remediation progress, and demonstrate intrinsic remediation. SVE, <br /> GAC adsorption, catalytic thermal oxidation, and bioreclamation were technologies chosen to <br /> address Response Action 2. The aforementioned technologies were chosen because they are <br /> established mass removal technologies. Engineered health and safety management controls <br /> are included to prevent use of, or exposure to, groundwater associated with the residual <br /> plume. <br /> Examples of engineered health and safety management controls that could be applied to the <br /> site include: 1) monitoring the containment of the dissolved hydrocarbons that underlay the <br /> site through a network of monitoring wells, 2) regular analyses of groundwater parameters to <br /> confirm the remediation of hydrocarbons through natural processes, 3) documentation which <br /> demonstrates no foreseeable land use changes that would allow public use or contact of the <br /> potential nuisance, and (4) the Water Code; The Water Code provides enforcement <br /> mechanisms in the case that clean up criteria are not appropriately implemented. <br /> 3201357B/CAPREV 1 12 June 29, 1995 <br />