Laserfiche WebLink
gy <br /> NEE I <br /> backfilled with imported Fill. This treatment alternative would be <br /> effective for treating the soils at the site; however, it is not as cost <br /> effective as some of the on-site treatment alternatives presented <br /> earlier (incineration costs range from $150 to $250 per cubic yard). <br /> Therefore, incineration is not considered appropriate ror the site. <br /> EQ-&q= <br /> For the no action alternative, no measures would be taken to contain <br /> or treat the hydrocarbons in site soils. This passive response would <br /> allow natural biodegradation to be the only treatment that would take <br /> place. <br /> This alternative is easily implementable as no action is required. It <br /> would also be the least expensive alternative. However, this <br /> alternative may not effectively remediate the site. It would not satisfy <br /> the timeliness criterion. Therefore, the no action alternative is not <br /> considered an appropriate alternative for this site. <br /> Identification and Screening of Ground Water Remedial <br /> Alternatives <br /> This section presents a description and evaluation of potential <br /> ground water remedial alternatives for the site. The ground water <br /> remedial alternGtives evaluated included those listed in the PAR <br /> guidelines. Due to site-specific conditions, some of these alternatives <br /> were not appropriate for remediating the site. The inappropriate <br /> alternatives are discussed only briefly. The remaining alternatives <br /> were evaluated according to the four criteria described above. <br /> n <br /> Physical containment would involve installing subsurface physical <br /> barriers to impede or prevent the horizontal migration of <br /> hydrocarbons in ground water. Several types o containment <br /> ainm t <br /> technologies could be used including slurry walls, grout ns <br /> and sheet piling. <br /> This containment alternative would not be easily implementable at <br /> the site due to the proximity of the affected areas to warehouses on <br /> the property. In addition, containment only reduces or prevents the <br /> migration of chemicals; it does not remediate the affected ground <br /> water. It is therefore less effective than other alternatives and is not <br /> considered-appropriate as- a—separate__alternative-for the site. <br /> n <br /> However, the site is adjacent to the Stockton Deep Water Chanel, so <br /> n-6 <br />