Laserfiche WebLink
' 29 April 2005 <br /> '•.' SAGE-NC Project No. 98-0440 ; <br /> - Page 1 S o_f 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 far the site;and should not. <br />' be relied uponas the primary method for remediation of impacted ground water. <br /> Because-there appears to be'a low'feasibility,for-bioremediation and pump and treat;--AGE believes - <br />' that coupled with"the excavation of the hydrocarbon.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..Evaluatiolts of the geologic/hydrogeologic <br /> conditions at the site for.the purpose of this investigation'are made fr6m,,a limited number of ; <br /> available data points(i:e.-monitoring wells,soil borings an -samples)and subsurface conditions may. <br /> :vary away"from these data points. No,other'warranty,.expressed or implied,"is made as to the j <br /> professional interpretations, opinions-and•recommendations contained in this report. <br /> Advanced Geounvironmental,Inc. <br />