Laserfiche WebLink
5E M - Wil. <br /> 70 - ' w <br /> �,. e � W .. �„ � -.:.,rr � `�.,..s < v' - ate,- `• � <br /> !. H. KLEINFELDER &A550CI,, E5 <br /> the total hydrocarbons. Removal of soil beyond this depth would be <br /> expensive and increases the probability that side sloping andJor shoring <br /> of the excavation would be required to protect adjacent and nearby <br /> structures. Backfilling and asphalting the area to minimize percolation <br /> of rainwater through the soil and anticipated subsequent operation of a <br /> r ground water remediation system should control potential migration of the <br /> remaining hydrocarbons. <br /> The following treatment options would be evaluated during Lhe interim <br /> storage period for applicability to the Teichert site: <br /> o Landfarming <br /> o Aeration <br /> o Bioremediation <br /> o Aeration and bioremediation. <br /> j <br /> These options would be evaluated in two phases: (1) comparative <br /> feasibility analysis and (2) preliminary design requirements. <br /> i <br /> - <br /> i � <br /> { - The feasibility and preliminary design tasks of the evaluation phases will <br /> include assessment of technical effectiveness; physical site 11mitations; <br /> s capital, operation and maintenance costs; institutional requirements and <br /> limitations; and operational factors. Recommendations with supporting <br /> { rationale will be provided to Teichert for final selection of a remedial <br /> y . <br /> alternative. <br /> After a remedial alternative is selected by Teichert, a system design will <br /> be prepared. The final design report will consist of: <br /> o Plans and specifications <br /> o An operations and maintenance manual <br /> tA. <br /> o Start-up program requirements <br /> , i <br /> o Performance monitoring criteria <br /> a Additional permit requirements or variance applications, as <br /> - requixed:— - -------,--- <br /> 3 <br /> a • <br /> 38-87--43 1r. <br /> c <br />