ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0010194 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r A S S O C I A T E S I N C ♦ Cntenon 8 Since minimal activity would be conducted at the site, the impact on the community would be ' very minor and not disruptive to the businesses located on the site and nearby However, the rate of reduction of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater and soil concentrations does not appear to be acceptable to the regulatory agency 6.2 Groundwater Extraction with Soil Vapor Extraction ♦ Cntenon I This alternative has minimal health-based risks Extracted groundwater is discharged directly to the sanitary sewer via a closed system and petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from ' extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to humans Groundwater would be monitored periodically to ensure that levels of petroleum hydrocarbons ' do not exceed allowable levels and to ensure that reduction is occurring The potential fire or explosion hazard is minimal with a properly designed system and regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance ♦ Crrtenon 2 Groundwater extraction with vapor extraction would reduce the level of toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants in the soul and groundwater to levels acceptable to regulatory agencies Previous pilot testing indicated that this is a feasible alternative for remediation of the site ♦ Cntenon 3 This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines i ♦ Cntenon 4 The groundwater extraction with soul vapor extraction remediation alternative would require the installation of additional vapor extraction wells, and groundwater and soil extraction equipment Existing recovery well RW-1 would be used for groundwater extraction Pilot testing indicates that extracted groundwater could be discharged directly to the sanitary sewer Vapor-phase carbon can likely be used initially for the treatment of off-gases but may be removed after concentrations are reduced to levels acceptable to the regulatory agencies It may be necessary to utilize another off-gas abatement method, which would require ' considerable capital outlay Additional costs to the client would be incurred for permitting, leasing, and installing the groundwater and vapor extraction equipment and treatment compound, and operation and maintenance of the system The cost of this alternative is ' estimated to be between$150,000 and$300,000 ♦ Cntenon 5 ' This alternative should effectively remediate subsurface contaminants to acceptable regulatory levels within 1 to 3 years of implementation Groundwater extraction alone has proven to be • ineffective in the short term but the addition of soil vapor extraction enhances its effectiveness W 162174 Mpilot fa report doc 12