Laserfiche WebLink
F I } <br /> 28 February 1997 <br /> + AGE-NC project No 95-OI44 <br /> page 8 of 20 <br /> a <br /> 2 EX-SITU TREATMENT OF IMPACTED CTED SOIL , <br /> HYdrocarbon-impacted sola can <br /> be exe, <br /> recycling/disposal Qn_slte treatment alternatavaives ex_ <br /> and treated on=site or trans <br /> extraction, and thermal destruction All are feasible methods for ported off-site far <br /> ( situ) include aeration, bioremediation, vapor <br /> contaminated with r aboveground remediation of soil A <br /> gasolene Off-site disposal generally involves the transportation o <br /> = soil to a licensed treatnlenddrsposaa faclalt <br /> f the Impacted <br /> N f �' <br /> 5 2 l EXCAVATION ; <br /> r <br /> ,All of the mentioned methods of ex-situ treatment require generally the fastest and most effective Inc <br /> _ _ �l Ire excavation of the Impacted soil, which Is <br /> soil Is generally stockpiled on_Site'for treatment or transported shod for soil remediation Once excavated, the impacted <br /> and the hydrocarbon concentrations can be Teduced t <br /> P d for disposal If soil Is treated on-site <br /> non-detectable concentrations, the sola can be used to backfill t <br /> Impacted soil Is disposed of off site, mat o concentrations set by the Iead agency or to <br /> material must be Importedhe excavation If the hydrocarbon- <br /> to backf al the excavation <br /> S 2 2 FEASIBILITY OF EXCAVATION <br /> Excavation of Im acte <br /> F d soil,followed by ex-Saul treatment and/or disposal Is a very <br /> of remediation Theoretically, all or at least the majority of <br /> chain hydrocarbons are also easily remedlated with eeffective method <br /> Y the Impacted saga Is removed <br /> or In However, excavation costs can be excessive If ' where r1� situ methods arelower <br /> significant or If the z�ertical extent ofsoll Impact exceeds zQ_2 the volume of the Impacted soil Is <br /> ' 4 special equipment Y I <br /> or shirring 5 feet, resulting In requirements for` <br /> + Impacted soil extends to a depth of less than 20 feet bs <br /> r Solvent-like odor was detected durin th <br /> laboratory analysis of soil samples did not detect installation ofprobrngs near forme Of former UST No l <br /> " lateral extent of Impacted soil le the vicinityotetroleum hydrocarbons at the reporting No $ However, <br /> r excavation a viable alternative AJthough <br /> former USTs No Ianl�mlts The <br /> extends under the building, though Impacted soil extends east fromle fol�neris also lUST No aklxlg <br /> most of the Impacted soli could be addressed b 1, and <br /> No special eq p y excavation <br /> P uI ment would be required to reach ground water depth S However, flowing sand Is present below a depth ofa ro <br /> to the recent rise III ground water, excavation be p fOr excavation at the subject <br /> also present In the smear zone PP xlmately IS <br /> feet bsg at the site Due <br /> low this depthrwould be difficult Impacted <br /> and saturated zone Heal-the former location,of USTs soil Is <br /> 5 Excavation In hrough <br /> the area of the former USTs IV°. 3 through g 6 would require the extensive removal - <br /> r 9 <br /> \ S <br /> t <br />