Laserfiche WebLink
O Criterion S <br /> The immediate impact to the nearby community would be extensive Negative impacts <br /> ' would include noise, traffic congestion, dust, and volatilization of the contaminants <br /> These inconveniences may hinder community acceptance of this alternative In addition, <br /> ' it may be difficult to obtain encroachment permits from state and local agencies for such <br /> a large excavation <br /> 1 <br /> ' 8.3 Alternative 3 - Soil Vapor Extraction with Groundwater Monitorin <br /> O Criterion 1 <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed <br /> from extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure <br /> ' to humans If necessary, groundwater could be monitored periodically to ensure that <br /> degradation of existing or potential beneficial uses has not occurred The potential fire <br /> or explosion hazard is minimal due to the relatively low levels of documented residual <br /> hydrocarbons, and would be further minimized with a properly designed system and <br /> ' regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance <br /> to Criterion 2 <br /> Vapor extraction would reduce the level of toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants <br /> ' in the soil to levels acceptable to regulatory agencies Pilot testing has proven vapor <br /> extraction to be a feasible alternative for remediation of the site <br /> a Criterion 3 <br /> ' This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines <br /> o Criterion 4 <br /> The soil vapor extraction remediation alternative would be cost effective to the client <br /> ' because vapor extraction wells are in place and the abatement equipment can be easily <br /> installed Vapor phase carbon can be used for treatment due to low initial contaminant <br /> 150047\REPORTSICAP 0694 FNL 14 <br />