Laserfiche WebLink
__ _ __ <br /> V <br /> E <br /> ASS U C I ATE S INC <br /> ♦ Criterion 6: <br /> The long term effectiveness would be considerable if the entire area of impacted soil is <br /> removed from the site, preventing any possibility of additional contamination of groundwater. <br /> The groundwater contamination would be significantly reduced. <br /> F: ♦ Criterion 7: <br /> This alternative would have implementability difficulties due to the proximity of impacted soil <br /> f` to buildings and utilities. <br /> ♦ Criterion 8: <br /> The immediate impact to the nearby community would be considerable. Negative impacts <br /> F: would include noise, traffic congestion, dust, and volatilization of the contaminants. These <br /> inconveniences may hinder community acceptance of this alternative. ! <br /> r <br /> F>� 8.3 In-Situ Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction <br /> F � <br /> = ♦ Criterion 1: <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks. Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from <br /> �- extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to humans. <br /> r <br /> Groundwater would be monitored periodically to ensure that reduction is occurring. The <br /> potential fire or explosion hazard is minimal due to the relatively low levels of documented <br /> <� residual hydrocarbons, and would be further minimized with a properly designed system and <br /> regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance. <br /> r p <br /> ,::.i ♦ Criterion 2: <br /> j Vapor extraction and air sparging would reduce the level of toxicity, mobility and volume of <br /> contaminants in the soil and groundwater to levels acceptable to regulatory agencies. A pilot <br /> r=1 test would have to be conducted to determine if this is a feasible alternative for remediation of <br /> �-= the site. <br /> 1 Criterion 3: <br /> !=' This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> =! ♦ Criterion 4: <br /> ` The soil vapor extraction and air sparging remediation alternative would require the installation <br /> of three vapor extraction wells, an air sparge well, and the abatement equipment. A pilot test <br /> would be conducted to determine if this remedial option is feasible. If the pilot test indicates <br /> this remedial option is feasible, vapor-phase carbon can be used for treatment of of-gases. It <br /> may be necessary to utilize another off--gas abatement method, which would require <br /> �= considerable capital outlay. Additional costs to the client would be incurred for permitting, <br /> leasing, and installing the vapor extraction equipment and treatment compound, and operation <br /> " and maintenance of the system. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be between <br /> $140,000 and $220,000. <br /> w:D5I221reportslparcap.doc 12 <br />