Laserfiche WebLink
7. COMPARISON OF UVB VERSUS OTHER TECHNOLOGIES <br /> There are several technologies which address groundwater remediation All technologies have <br /> more or less limited success, depending on site conditions, contaminant levels, and cleanup <br />' goals Table 1 shows a list of remedial options for groundwater remediation at former Exon <br /> 7-3942 This table is a technology comparison based on the effectiveness of source removal, <br /> migration control, ease of implementation, capital cost, and operating costs <br /> TABLE 1 SCREENING OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER <br /> REMEDIATION AT FORMER EXXON RS-7-3942 <br />' <br /> Effectiveness- Effectiveness. Cost <br /> Remedial Source Migration Implement- Cost: O&M/ Passes <br /> Option Removal Control ability Capital Monitoring Screening <br /> No Action Not Effective Not Effective Implementable None Low No <br /> Natural Not Effective Not Effective Implementable None Low No <br />' Biodegradation <br /> Vertical Not Effective Effective Implementable Medium Low No <br /> Barrier <br /> Containment <br /> I <br /> Soil Vapor Not Effective Not Effective Not Medium Medium No <br /> Extraction Implementable <br /> Air Sparging Not Effective Not Effective Implementable Low Low No <br /> Pump and Not Effective Effective Implementable High High No <br />' Treat <br /> Magnesium Not Effective Effective Not Low Low No <br /> Oxide Implementable <br /> Bioremediation <br /> Barrier Zone <br />' UVB I Effective Effective Implementable Medium Low Yes <br />' As shown by Table 1, not all technologies are a viable alternative for the groundwater <br /> remediation program for former Exxon 7-3942 The first remedial option, No Action, in not <br /> effective Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater require remedial action <br />' Therefore, this option is used as a baseline against which to compare all other options <br />' WP61 73942 WP1096 TX 5 12 <br />