Laserfiche WebLink
40 BESTAVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY <br /> As described in Sections 2 and 3, soil and ground water remediation was <br />' completed at former tank sites 1 and 2 This section discusses the use of <br /> the best available technology in those remediation activities <br /> 4.1 SOIL REMEDIATION <br /> The soils at the sites have low permeabilities and high moisture contents <br /> This combination prevents the effective use of other conventional <br /> technologies, such as in-situ soil vapor extraction In addition, the limited <br /> extent of soil impacts at each former tank location minimized the volume <br /> (and therefore costs) required for excavation and removal of impacted <br />' soils Therefore, soil excavation and off-site disposal was the best <br /> available technology for remediating petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted <br />' soils at the former tank sites <br /> 4.2 GROUND WATER REMEDIATION <br /> Two technologies were used in ground water remediation activities at the <br />' sites As discussed :n Sect-ions 2 and 3, ground water was extracted <br /> during the tank and soil excavation activities and subsequently treated <br /> prior to disposal As discussed in Sections 2 and 3, ORC injection was <br /> rused following tank removal to stimulate bioremediation of petroleum <br /> hydrocarbons in ground water downgradient of each former tank <br /> The ground water extraction and treatment performed during soil <br /> excavation activities facilitated soil removal and removed the most <br /> heavily impacted ground water from beneath the former tank location <br /> For facilitating soil removal, ground water extraction was the only feasible <br /> option For removal of the most heavily impacted ground water beneath <br /> each former tank location, extraction of water from the open tank <br /> excavations was the easiest and fastest way to remediate impacted ground <br /> water Therefore, for these two purposes, extraction and treatment was <br /> the best available technology <br /> For remediating site ground water downgradient of each former tank site, <br /> ERM evaluated several potential remedial technologies Use of extraction <br /> and treatment was evaluated but was found to be ineffective due to the <br /> low permeability of soils at each tank site and the high cost associated <br /> ERM 16 HEINZ USA-3374 60-3/27/00 <br />