Laserfiche WebLink
1117 Lone Palm Ave,Suite 201 <br /> Modesto,CA 95351 <br /> (: <br /> Phone:209-579-2221 VYJ%TC <br /> Fax: 209-579-2225 <br /> 4.1 Criterion Evaluation <br /> r ♦ Criterion 1: <br /> l.r This alternative appears to have low health-based risks. Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted <br /> groundwater would also be extracted from the subsurface, treated, and used as a carrier for <br /> injection of in-situ treatment. The petroleum hydrocarbons dissolved in groundwater would <br /> be removed from the groundwater prior to re-injection. Additionally, groundwater would be <br /> monitored periodically to ensure that remediation is progressing appropriately, and regular <br /> operation and maintenance activities would be conducted on the remediation system to <br /> insure appropriate operation. Adverse effects of soil treatment are not anticipated. <br /> ♦ Criterion 2: <br /> The groundwater extraction remediation would most likely reduce the level of toxicity, <br /> mobility and volume of contaminants to levels acceptable to the regulatory agency. The <br /> groundwater extraction and reinjection system would also reduce, to the extent possible, the <br /> C migration of contaminants off-site, and may also remediate contaminated groundwater off- <br /> site. As proposed this system will be designed to address soil contamination levels via <br /> biological infiltration and flushing of suspended contamination into the groundwater for <br /> extraction. Aquifer groundwater pumping and slug tests will be conducted to determine if <br /> this is a feasible alternative for remediation of the site. Additionally, heterotrophic plate <br /> counts for soil and groundwater will be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of biological <br /> augmentation. <br /> ♦ Criterion 3: <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> ♦ Criterion 4: <br /> The groundwater extraction remediation alternative would require the installation of multiple <br /> groundwater extraction wells, and injection gallery, conveyance piping, and remediation <br /> equipment. Biological filtration and/or liquid-phase carbon could be used to treat extracted <br /> groundwater. Additional costs would be incurred for permitting,purchase,renting or leasing <br /> +� the remediation equipment, remediation system installation, and operation and maintenance <br /> of the system. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be.$300,000 to$600,000. <br /> ♦ Criterion S: <br /> Short-term remedial success is anticipated. Significant mass reduction is anticipated within <br /> the initial 12 months of operation, effectively reducing the concentrations of <br /> contaminants on-site, and also capturing contaminants which have have off-site. Site <br /> hydraulic properties will determine, in part, the potential effectiveness of off-site plume <br /> capture. <br /> ii <br /> s:\environmental\22493\reports\feasibility.doc 1 1 <br />