Laserfiche WebLink
This treatment alternative is an effective and proven method of treating <br /> hydrocarbon-contairung soils The technology is also easily implemented <br />' because it only requires conventional construction equipment In <br /> addition, the area of the site can easily accommodate the treatment <br /> process The affected site soils consist of semi-consolidated clays which <br /> tmay require several weeks or months to dry before aeration could <br /> proceed <br />' Approval from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control <br /> District (APCD) would be required prior to implementation of on-site soil <br /> aeration APCD regulations restrict the rates of volatile hydrocarbon <br />' emissions from the stockpile based on the concentration levels present in <br /> the soils According to APCD requirements, if the concentration of <br />' volatile hydrocarbons in the soils is less than 5,000 mg/kg (ppm), volatiles <br /> can be aerated directly to the atmosphere No collection and/or treatment <br /> of the volatilized hydrocarbons would be necessary Since investigation <br />' data have demonstrated that hydrocarbon-containing soils at Site #2 are <br /> well below 5,000 ppm, on-site soil aeration would be a cost-effective and <br /> easily implemented remedial alternative To meet APCD requirements, it <br />' would still be necessary to aerate discrete portions of the stockpile over <br /> time to control the rate of volatile emissions <br /> ERM estimates that this alternative would cost approximately $34,000 to <br /> implement ($69,000 including excavation and dewatering) <br />' Off-Site Soil Treatment <br />' This alternative would involve excavation and transportation of the <br /> affected soils to an off-site treatment facility The excavated area would <br /> then be backfilled with imported fill The soils would be treated to <br />' remove the hydrocarbon constituents and allow either reuse or disposal of <br /> the clean soil Examples of off-site treatment include recycling of the <br /> hydrocarbon-containing soil as a raw material in the production of road <br />' base material, low temperature thermal desorption, and soil fixation with <br /> reuse as daily landfill cover <br />' This alternative would effectively remediate the soils at the site and could <br /> be easily and quickly implemented However, the transportation costs <br />' associated with this alternative could make it less cost-effective than <br /> equally effective available on-site treatment alternatives <br />' ERM estimates that this alternative would cost approximately $20,000 to <br /> implement ($55,000 including excavation and dewatering) <br /> • <br /> 4-4 <br /> 1 <br />