Laserfiche WebLink
29 April 2045 <br /> •; AGE-NC Project No. 98-0444 <br /> Pagel 8r of 18 <br /> that excavation would'be most effective for remediating impacted soil at-the site:Soil remediation_' <br /> .,methods, estimated durations and associated costs are summarized'on Table.5. <br /> 8.2. REMEDIATION•OF HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED GROUND WATER <br /> AGE concludes that an in-situ method would be more effective.in both cost and performance over <br /> a"pump and'•treat"method, However,due to limited regulatory acceptance, in-situ bioremediation <br /> of ground water may not be the.most cost'-effective remedial alternative for the site,and should not. <br /> be.relied upon.'as the primary method for remediation of impacted ground water. <br /> Because-there appears-to be-a lowfeasibility'for-bioremediation and pump and treat;--AGE believes <br /> that'coupled with-the excavation of the hydrdcarbon•source (impacted soil), monitored natural <br /> attenuation-would"be the most feasible method-for remediating impacted ground water at the site: <br /> Ground water,remediation alternatives, estimated durations and associated costs,'as applied to the', <br /> whole site, are summarized.on Table 5'. <br /> 9.0. LIMITATIONS <br /> Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by <br /> environmental'consultants practicing in this or similar localities. The .findings were based on-. <br /> analytical results provided by,an independent laboratory...Evaluatioris of the geologic/hydrogeolog_ic .- <br /> conditions at the site for.the purpose of this investigation'are made-from.-a limited number of <br /> ' availalile-data points(i:e::monitoring wells,soil borings and-samples)and subsurface conditions may. <br /> wary' away from these data points. No.other,warranty,.expressed or implied,"is .made as to the <br /> professional interpretations, optmons-and•.recommendaiions contained in this report. <br /> . Advanced Geounvironmentai,Inc. ' <br />