Laserfiche WebLink
1cvv <br /> 0 <br /> A S S O C I A T E S I N C <br /> from the appropriate agencies and the wells would be destroyed by overdrilling the well <br /> casing and sand pack and pressure grouting the boring to the surface when concentrations <br />' have been reduced to an acceptable level <br /> ♦ Criterion 8 <br />' Since minimal activity would be conducted at the site, the impact on the community would <br /> be very minor and not disruptive to the businesses located on the site and nearby <br />' $_2 Groundwater Extraction and Treatment <br />' ♦ Criterion 1 <br /> This alternative only moderately increases the exposure of humans through filtration of the <br /> contaminants from the groundwater as pumped groundwater is filtered with activated <br />' carbon The potential fire or explosion hazard should be minimal due to the relatively low <br /> levels of documented residual hydrocarbons <br />' ♦ Criterion 2 <br /> This alternative would not reduce the concentration of contaminants in the soil The extent <br /> of impacted soil is limited to the area around well MW2 Impacted groundwater would be <br /> pumped and filtered until concentrations of contaminants had reached acceptable levels <br /> This would reduce the quantity of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater over time <br /> ® Criterion 3 <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines <br /> ♦ Criterion 4 <br /> This alternative is not very cost effective due to high costs associated with implementation <br /> The fact that the TPHd impacted groundwater extends more than 120 feet from well MW2 <br /> make this alternative economically unfeasible The information obtained during the 24- <br /> hour pump test indicated that groundwater pumping would have only a 40-foot radius of <br /> ' influence It would be necessary to install at least two groundwater extraction wells to <br /> ensure that the majority of the impacted groundwater was removed from the aquifer Costs <br /> associated with installing two dedicated groundwater pumps, installing groundwater <br /> extraction lines and a treatment system, negotiating with the City of Ripon to discharge <br /> treated groundwater to the sewer system, and weekly or biweekly maintenance trips to the <br /> site, and frequent changing of activated carbon also increase the total cost of remediation <br /> ' The cost of dus remediation alternative is estimated to be between$100,000 and $180,000 <br /> ' ♦ Criterion 5 <br /> This alternative should effectively remediate subsurface contaminants to acceptable <br /> regulatory levels within 18 months of implementation <br /> w\130991reportslsumwc1i doc 11 <br />