ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0000194 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R10/71-51-1C 7 5 5 Comparison of Remaining Remedial Action Options ' 7 5 5 1 Remedial Action Options for Soil ' Only In situ containment (Option 2) was carried further into this step of the study from section 7 4 Therefore, no comparison was done For Shop 10, in situ containment will consist of maintaining in good repair the asphalt pavement Containment in the vertical ' and bottom boundaries of the sod contamination is not envisioned for Shop 10 ' 7 5 5 2 Remedial Action Option for Groundwater Three options identified for groundwater remediation passed the screening in Section 7 4 ' These options are as follows o Option 7A - Pump and treat and biological treatment of extracted groundwater o Option 713- Pump and treat and air stripping of extracted groundwater And o Option 7D- Pump and treat and aqueous phase absorption of extracted groundwater tTechnical Feasibility - with respect to technical feasibility, all three options -7A, 713, and 7D would compare favorably with each other All treated water discharge options ' (discharge to POTW, discharge to storm water sewer, or recharge/irrigation on site) are technically feasible However, the least technically feasible is recharge/irrigation due to the clays and silts in the soil ' I cost-Tables 19A through 19D resent cost estimates for the options 7A, 7B, Reasonable g p P and 7D It appears that Option B has the lowest cost estimate and therefore the most ' cost-effective option ' Institutional considerations - with respect to this factor, permitting will be required for all three options for the discharge of the treated water For the three options, different permits and requirements will be required for the treated water discharge alternative ' selected This is discussed in Section 7 3 3 2 Regardless of the discharge method, all three options could possibly realize acceptable cleanup of the groundwater within approximately five years of continuous treatment Assuming system failure, there could 44