My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0009222
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
TILLIE LEWIS
>
1444
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0540506
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0009222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/11/2020 12:28:00 PM
Creation date
6/11/2020 12:19:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
XR0009222
RECORD_ID
PR0540506
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0023166
FACILITY_NAME
MONBERG PROPERTY
STREET_NUMBER
1444
STREET_NAME
TILLIE LEWIS
STREET_TYPE
DR
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95206
APN
16335003
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1444 TILLIE LEWIS DR
P_LOCATION
01
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
0 <br /> t <br /> Ms Linda Turkatte <br /> December 11, 1995 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Comparative Evaluation of Remediation Alternatives <br /> Remediation alternatives are evaluated according to number of criteria including <br /> 1) Level of protection of human health and the environment, <br /> 2) Reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants, <br /> 3) Compliance with regulatory guidelines, <br /> 4) Cost effectiveness/public benefit, <br /> 5) Short term effectiveness, <br /> 6) Long term effectiveness, <br /> 7) Implementability, <br /> 8) Regulatory and community acceptance <br /> Remediation alternatives that are typically considered for a site with groundwater impaction include <br /> 1) Groundwater pump and treat technology, <br /> 2) Air spargmg with soil vapor extraction, <br /> 3) Bioventing, <br /> 4) Passive remediation <br /> Each of first three approaches are more appropriate for sites with significant groundwater impaction <br /> because they require substantial capital outlay and operation & maintenance (O&M) costs Passive <br /> remediation should be considered for sites with low-level soil and/or groundwater contamination or for <br /> sites in which active remediation has been used and is no longer effective <br /> In general, each of the active remediation alternatives have greater short-term effectiveness and have <br /> generally broader regulatory and community acceptance than passive remediation because they show <br /> active and immediate progress However, active remediation alternatives generally have some <br /> implementability problems because of permitting and disruption to business, while passive remediation <br /> requires only periodic monitoring of groundwater quality Active remediation alternatives also generally <br /> involve greater costs than passive remediation Active remediation alternatives typically require capital <br /> costs of $50,000 to $200,000 with annual O&M and groundwater monitoring costs of $50,000 to <br /> $100,000 By comparison, groundwater monitoring in conjunction with passive remediation, if <br /> required, entails estimated cost of approximately $5,000 to $25,000 annually <br /> For this particular project, active remediation alternatives pose no additional benefit because passive <br /> remediation has effectively reduced residual contamination to levels which are below laboratory <br /> detection limits Current groundwater monitoring costs associated with passive remediation at the site <br /> are approximately $2,000 per quarter, or $8,000 per year <br /> groundzel1aid1awlphs1295 jpl <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.