ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012678 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 MW Criterion 5: t °. All three approaches are comparable in terms of short tern eifec- tiveness, although excavation would result in increased exposure or release of hydrocarbons due to physically exposing soils to the atmosphere. In terms of remediation completion, both excavation approaches require approximately 2 to 4 weeks, while vapor extraction r» is estimated to require 5 to 6 months. Criterion 6: All three approaches are comparable in terms of long terns effec- tiveness. The technical feasibility of excavation has been r- demonstrated at many sites. The technical feasibility of a vapor extraction system was demonstrated by the performance of a vapor extraction test. The Soil Vapor Extraction Test Report is presented ;w in Appendix II. The pilot study has verified the implementability of the vapor extraction approach. Criterion 7: The excavation alternatives have certain difficulties associated with both supporting the excavation walls during soil removal and with a i lack of space to store removed material (both clean and contaminated) .: during the process, The proximity of Channel Street and the required , . access to parking along the west side of the property also make excavation undesirable. Criterion B: It is believed that the three approaches will all receive regulatory and community acceptance. The degree of disruption (visual, traffic, odors, noise) in the immediate site area ii significantly greater for r the excavation alternatives, however, this would be expected to last only 2 to 4 weeks. It is .not anticipated that this temporary disruption would result in loss of community acceptance, however, the f- less-intrusive -in-situ-..-'a roach--is- referable�- - - -— --- - 4 ,✓ _V Haber paint Property.- 473 - 10 fU1POSf 1.E7? - - - - -