Laserfiche WebLink
acidic or alkaline conditions, rather than hydrocarbons This treatment <br /> is not effective for hydrocarbons Therefore, neutralization has been <br /> eliminated as a potential soil treatment alternative <br /> No Action <br /> In the no action alternative, no measures would be taken to contain or <br /> 1 treat the hydrocarbons in site soils This passive response would <br /> employ natural biodegradation as the only treatment <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 and 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 <br /> Ground Water Remedial Alternatives <br /> This section presents a description and evaluation of potential ground <br /> water remedial alternatives for the sites The ground water remedial <br /> alternatives evaluated included those listed in the PAR guidelines <br /> Due to site-specific conditions, some of these alternatives were not <br /> appropriate for remediating the site The inappropriate alternatives are <br /> discussed only briefly The remaining alternatives were evaluated <br /> according to the four criteria described above <br /> L <br /> Physical ConllinmCnt <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 of containment <br />' technologies could be used, including slurry walls, grout curtains, and <br /> sheet piling <br /> rContainment alternatives would not be easily implementable at the <br /> site due to the proximity of the affected areas to warehouses on the <br />' 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 In <br /> addition, the migration over time of hydrocarbons in ground water at <br /> Sites #I and #2 does not seem to be a significant issue since the extent <br /> 4-6 <br /> 1 <br />