ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012678 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inn u - 7. Implementability. � N, 8. Regulatory and Community acceptance. 9" Impacts on water conservation. Criterion 1: The excavation approaches (1 and 2) provide a lower level of pro- tection for human health and the environment and also represent an additional threat to the shallow groundwater. Generally, the process of excavation results in human exposure to hydrocarbon compounds due to direct volatilization and contact with soils and dust. Given the levels of hydrocarbons detected in samples, this effect may be large. Also, there is potential for further impaction of the shallow _ groundwater during the soil removal process. A potential for impacting groundwater immediately adjacent to the extraction wells during vapor extraction also exists, however, this effect is small. Criterion 2: NT Alternatives 1 and 3 will both result in reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants. Alternative 2 may reduce mobility but would not reduce toxicity or volume. 4 Criterion 3: All three approaches can be conducted within regulatory guidelines. Criterion 4: Conservative estimate.a for both capital and operating costs for each ' of the three alternatives indicate excavation (with treatment or off-mite disposal) would be at least twice as expensive as vapor . extraction. This does not include certain costs associated with excavation which are presently unknown including: the loss of rent, the cost of removing and temporarily storing clean soil from the 1 excavation, and a potential treatment cost surcharge for soils with moisture contentg reater than 18%. When-these-factors-are__accounted---- ---- --.-- --=-- --s-: ------�-------- ---- for the total cost of excavation approaches- ---- -' --- --- �,� E 100 to 200% greater than { in-situ treatment. 60 Mmbor Point PrOPOrty- 475 A"05PI.TLP 9 -.