ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0011879 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V %TC � ff1 r E-3 A 5 SO C I ATE S INC . ♦ Criterion 8: Since minimal activity would be conducted at the site, the impact on the community would be very minor and not disruptive to the businesses located on the site and nearby. 8.2 Soil Excavation ♦ Criterion 1: This alternative significantly increases the exposure of humans through volatilization of the contaminants and inhalation of and dermal exposure to dust and vapors created during excavation activities. The potential fire or explosion hazard should be minimal due to the relatively low levels of documented residual hydrocarbons. ♦ Criterion 2: E=:3 This alternative would not reduce the concentration of contaminants in the soil unless aeration r 4' of impacted soils occurs during transport and landfilling activities. It would not be possible to remove all the impacted soil without destruction of the building on site due to the proximity of the former USTs to the building. Soil excavation would effectively eliminate the contaminants in the soil and would eliminate additional impacts on groundwater at the site by removing the secondary source of contamination. Groundwater would seep into the pit during the soil f= - excavation. The groundwater would be pumped into vacuum trucks and recycled at an appropriate facility. This would significantly reduce the quantity of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater. ♦ Criterion 3: This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. ♦ Criterion 4: This alternative is the.least cost effective of the three alternatives due to high costs associated G_3 with implementation. The fact that the impacted soil extends to a depth of 25 feet make this alternative economically unfeasible. The building on site would be destroyed or extensive shoring would be required. Costs associated with treating the soil on site or disposal of contaminated soil to an appropriate landfill, backfilling the excavation with clean material, and pumping and disposing of the groundwater from the pit also increase the total cost of remediation. The cost of this remediation alternative is estimated.to be between$200,000 and $400,000. ___ ♦ Criterion 5: The alternative would be effective in the short term because it results in the direct removal of the contamination source. Excavation would increase health-based risks to humans via exposure of the impacted soil to the air and inhalation of and direct dermal contact with dust during site activities. The time required to complete this alternative would be less than b months. w:W51221reporN\parcap.doc l i