Laserfiche WebLink
1 � <br /> A <br /> 1 � <br /> ASSOC I A T E S INC <br /> + Criterion.5 <br /> The alternative would be effective in the short term because it results in the direct removal <br /> 1 of the contamination source Excavation would increase health-based risks to humans via <br /> exposure of the impacted soil to the air and inhalation of and direct dermal contact with dust <br /> during site activities The time required to complete this alternative is estimated at less than <br /> 1 3 months <br /> 1 ♦ 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 <br /> 1 groundwater The groundwater contamination would be significantly reduced <br /> ♦ Criterion 7 <br /> 1 This alternative would have some mmplementabmlmty difficulties due to the proximity of <br /> impacted soil to the property line <br /> ♦ Criterion 8 <br /> The immediate impact to the nearby community would be considerable Negative impacts <br /> would include noise, traffic congestion, dust, and volatilization of the contaminants These <br /> inconveniences may hinder community acceptance of this alternative <br /> 5.3 In-Situ Soil Vapor Extraction with Groundwater Extraction and Treatment <br /> ♦ Criterion I <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from <br /> 1 extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to <br /> humans Petroleum hydrocarbons are also removed from the extracted groundwater prior to <br /> 1 discharge to the local sewer system eliminating the risk of exposure to humans <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 <br /> and regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance <br /> 1 ♦ Criterion 2 <br /> Vapor extraction and groundwater extraction and treatment would reduce the level of <br /> toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants in the soil and groundwater to levels <br /> 1 acceptable to regulatory agencies This method would also limit the migration of <br /> contaminants off-site and may be able to bring contaminated groundwater back on site for <br /> extraction and treatment A pilot test would have to be conducted to determine if this is a <br /> 1 feasible alternative for remediation of the site <br /> ♦ Criterion 3 <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines <br /> w 1625001reports\CAP doc 8 <br /> 1 <br />