Laserfiche WebLink
Evaluation of Alternatives <br /> In this section, the remedial alternatives are evaluated with respect to constraints of <br /> implementation, relative advantages and disadvantages, and potential costs <br /> Soil Excavation and Disposal <br /> Advantages Soil excavation and disposal is effective at removing petroleum-impacted <br /> soils at shallow depths and is relatively inexpensive Installation and operation of <br /> remediation equipment is not required in cases where removal of soil containing <br /> petroleum impacts above regulatory action levels can be achieved <br /> Disadvantages Areas of impacted soil defined during site assessment activities are <br /> adjacent to Navy Drive and extend to depths greater than 20 feet The proximity to <br /> Navy Drive hinders additional excavation because of road stability issues and public <br /> safety For these reasons, additional soil excavation and disposal are impractical at the <br /> site <br /> Approximate Cost and Time Frame The approximate cost for implementation depends <br /> upon the volume of material excavated and distance to the disposal facility The <br /> estimated costs are approximately $60 to $80 per cubic yard to excavate and dispose of <br /> petroleum-impacted soil and backfill with clean soil If large diameter augers are used, <br /> the cost may be $150 per cubic yard. If 1,000 cubic yards of material were generated, the <br /> anticipated cost may be $60,000 to $150,000 The time required for soil excavation is <br /> shorter than other alternatives and could be completed within 1 month <br /> Soil Excavation and Treatment <br /> Advantages If treatment attains regulatory remediation goals and is approved for use as <br /> backfill, the treated soil is used to backfill the excavation This is usually practical at <br /> Inactive facilities or locations where the facility is closed for UST upgrades Transport <br /> and disposal costs would not be incurred <br /> Disadvanta ems Soil excavation and treatment Is impractical given the locations of <br /> impacted soil and the vertical extent of impacts Soil aeration is not effective at <br /> remediating the non-volatile constituents of diesel fuel Soil washing generates wastes <br /> and spent solvents requiring disposal Potentially long time frames may be required for <br /> ex situ bioremediation of diesel-impacted soil <br /> SAC\N 1P]212794Q794I000 ICS-Mcbell 8 Emcon <br /> E-3 Rev o,815198 <br />