Laserfiche WebLink
a, �� �z- �07§_RMMi +<;-, `€'„ <br /> ` I. H. KLEiNEELDER &ASSOCIATES <br /> (2) Disposal <br /> ,. a Soil to ground water could be removed and disposed of at Class 1 <br /> landfill. Disposal of soil other than at a Class 1 facility is <br /> unlikely due to the high concentration of hydrocarbons <br /> dosmgradient to the 31—foot level. <br /> o Some segregation of soil could be employed to retain part of the <br /> soil with lower levels of contamination. This soil could be <br /> landfarmed on—sate. Since the mass of hydrocarbons which could <br /> be emitted per day is reduced significantly, a permit may not be <br /> y <br /> required. <br /> F <br /> F (3) Soil—vapor extraction and/or in-situ biological treatment may be <br /> feasible but pilot work would be needed to evaluate this option <br /> further. The alternative(s) may become more viable and economical if <br /> landfarming alternatives are not allowed, significantly limited, <br /> r rejected by DOHS and/or the air pollution control district, or <br /> monitoring and regulatory requirements make the alternative(s) too <br /> expensive. In such an event, pilot work should be considered. <br /> r (4) Teichert may 'wish to consider the evaluation and development of a <br /> treatment/soil—aeration system utilizing their aggregate production ; <br /> facility. The facility could be used to aerate contaminated soil with! <br /> properly designed air emission controls. The system could be applied <br /> for soil from this facility and if a permit could be obtained, service <br /> .� <br /> to other facilities/companies with hydrocarbon contaminated soil could <br /> be provided. Further details on Teichert's aggregate production <br /> facility and an engineering evaluation would be required to assess the <br /> feasibility of this alternative. <br /> 4 ' <br /> 38-87-43 . 17 <br />