Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE 5 <br /> ' Assessment Matrix of Ground Water Remediation Alternatives <br /> ' REMEDIATION TECHNICALLY COST LIMITATIONS AND <br /> OPTION FEASIBLE EFFECTIVE REMARKS <br /> ' Soil vapor extraction of NO NO Will require additional welts High <br /> volatile components from cost of operation due to tight sods <br /> ground water Only partially effective on ground <br /> water unless used with air sparging <br /> field test indicates method not <br /> ' feasible for TCS site <br /> Bioremediation of NO NO In-situ ground water remediation is <br /> contaminants in ground expensive Used best in conjunction <br /> water in-situ with other technologies Low <br /> ' permeability of site soils makes in- <br /> situ bioremediation infeasible <br /> However natural biodegredation will <br /> occur over time Used in conjunction <br /> ' with other technologies <br /> Physical containment by NO NO Large area to be contained,may not <br /> installing a barrier around protect from vertical migration of <br /> contaminant plume contaminants Not cost effective, <br /> does not remove problem <br /> Neutralization of chemical NO NO Neutralization of petroleum <br /> I compounds in soil and hydrocarbons not feasible <br /> ground water <br /> Air sparge to remove NO NO Used in conjunction with sod vapor <br /> volatiles from ground water extraction option Used to enhance <br /> in-situ bioremediation technologies <br /> Low permeability of site soils makes <br /> air sparging infeasible <br /> Do noihmg YES YES Contaminant plume may grow larger <br /> over time Natural degradation of <br /> contaminants will occur but may <br /> take many years <br /> i <br /> 1 <br /> ,i <br /> it <br /> 3 • <br /> American Geological Services, Inc <br /> CA95DE-029 <br /> 17 <br />