Laserfiche WebLink
George's Service <br /> Remedial Action Work Plan <br /> Project No.425.2 <br /> June 30,2011 <br /> 5.7. Summary of Remedial Technologies <br /> Remedial Addresses Soil Addresses Constraints/Considerations Acceptable for <br /> Technology Contamination Groundwater Site <br /> Contamination <br /> Excavation Yes Yes Excavation has already been Yes,but not <br /> implemented to address the feasible for <br /> core of the highly contaminated residual <br /> soil. Not feasible to address contamination <br /> residual contamination. that remains. <br /> Pump& No Yes Extracted groundwater must be No. <br /> Treat treated and/or disposed of. Will <br /> not address soil contamination <br /> that will continue to source the <br /> groundwater plume. <br /> ISCO Yes Yes Monitoring during ozone No. <br /> sparging pilot testing conducted <br /> in 2005 indicated that <br /> hexavalent chromium was <br /> resent in groundwater. <br /> Monitored Yes Yes Does not meet regulator Not currently <br /> Natural definition of reasonable acceptable. <br /> Attenuation timeframe. <br /> Air Sparging No Yes The intrinsic permeability of Yes. <br /> the gravel used to backfill the <br /> excavation area can be <br /> effectively utilized with this <br /> remedial technology. <br /> Predominantly fine grained <br /> subsurface soils will limit the <br /> effectiveness of this technology <br /> outside of the excavation area. <br /> Vapor Yes No This technology has been pilot Yes. <br /> Extraction tested at the site in 2009,and <br /> found to be a feasible remedial <br /> technology for the site. <br /> Geological Technics Inc. 14 <br /> 4252 RAP.docx <br />