WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4.0 Identification and Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives Notwithstanding results from the pending investigation into the hydrocarbon plume extent, ' several treatment alternatives have been screened and identified as potentially applicable and appropriate alternatives for the site. These alternatives are: • Alternative 1 — Groundwater pump -and -treat • Alternative 2 — Air sparging with SVE • Alternative 3 Alternative — Biosparging • 4 — In-situ chemical oxidation These alternatives are described further in Sections 4.1 through 4.4. Each alternative is also evaluated against technical effectiveness, implementability, and cost effectiveness. In technical effectiveness, each alternative is evaluated based on its ability in (1) reducing the bulk mass of the hydrocarbons in the treatment plume and (2) time required to meet the target treatment goals for the COPCs in groundwater. In implementability, each alternative is evaluated based on its readiness and ease of execution, including equipment and resource availability, lead-time requirements and constraints for treatment system construction, and potential community concern and acceptance. In cost effectiveness, major capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost items are highlighted. Since detailed system designs for the alternatives are not available at this stage to allow their full-scale treatment costs to be more precisely determined, a rough order -of - magnitude (ROM) cost or a cost range is presented where practicable. The ROM cost is also based on prior experience with similar system applications and is provided herein for comparison purposes only. Additionally, the cost of developing planning documents, including design, is not included in the discussion as the cost difference among the alternatives identified for design and document preparation is most likely minimal by comparison. General management and administrative costs are also not included for the purpose of alternative comparison. Evaluation results are ranked qualitatively as "high," "moderate," and "low" for later comparison and selection of the preferred alternative in Section 5.0. In technical effectiveness and implementability, a "high" means that the alternative(s) is/are very effective in meeting the treatment objectives or goals, and easily as well as readily implementable without logistic issues and/or constraints. A "low" in technical effectiveness, on the other hand, indicates that the alternative is ineffective in achieving the treatment objective; similarly, a "low" in implementability suggests difficulty in implementing the alternative due to certain site constraints or conditions. For consistency, in cost effectiveness, a "high" suggests the least costly, and a "low" suggests the most costly. FS_OnsitePetroleum Hydrocarbon Remediation.doc 4-1 Shaw Environmental, Inc.