Laserfiche WebLink
State of California Department of ToAc Substances Control <br /> ;A a rn o r a n d u m • • <br /> ENCLOSURE 1 <br /> To oats: August 12, 1991 <br /> David Wang, P.E. , Chief <br /> Federal Facilities Unit <br /> RECEIVE <br /> Flom Site Mitigation Branch AUG 14 1991 <br /> 10151 Croydon way, Suite 3 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> 855-7873 PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> Subject: Comments On Ground Water Feasibility Study <br /> On June 18 , 1991, the Defense Distribution Region, West <br /> .Sharpe Site (Sharpe) , submitted to the Department of Toxic <br /> Substances Control (Department) the following document: <br /> "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Sharpe <br /> Site, Groundwater Feasibility Study Report" , <br /> Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. , June 1991 <br /> (hereinafter "Draft Final Ground Water FS") and <br /> "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Sharpe <br /> Site, Risk Assessment Report" , Environmental Science <br /> and Engineering, Inc. , June 1991 (hereinafter "Risk <br /> Assessment Report") . <br /> Previously Sharpe submitted a secondary document to the <br /> Draft Final Ground Water FS. Comments on that document, the <br /> Focused Feasibility Study, were provided to Sharpe in a <br /> March 15, 1991, letter. Those comments were considered during my <br /> review of the Draft Final Ground Water FS . <br /> SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED <br /> Treatment technologies considered for volatile organic compounds <br /> (VOCs) were: <br /> 1. Air Stripping with Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) emissions <br /> control ; <br /> 2 . GAC treatment; <br /> 3 . Ozonation with hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet light; <br /> 4. Biological treatment towers; and <br /> 5 . No action. <br /> optional treatment technologies considered for arsenic were: <br /> 1. Activated alumina adsorption; and <br />