ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0012568 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«�' m'a*� v� .� � �� 3 .sr' `., �r,� .r _ ,�,_ �'�+- •r•` �4" 'c} �£ �4�j1,,,; �.rra*!7 ata .r Ju i k t �S •4 i Each of the a soil ranked against remediation alternatives hatia been compared and criterion one another for each of the nine ability for are given 1 - 3 qualifying to meet criteria points based upon their alternatives that riteat criteria objectives. One paint is given for alternatives that meet criteriafmosiv effectivelven for relative rankings Y, three paints "snore" for each a are shown an Table 2 along with a cumulative approach. The scaring rationale for each criterion is discussed below. . Criterion 1. : The excavation a proaches (I and 2)level of protection for human health and the en ironment Provideand also a lower represent a potential threat of further since the majoritygroundwater contamination fringe. of soil hydrocarbons are at the g Generally the capillary exposure to hydrocarbon Compounds due to direct vola process of excavation the in human contact with soils and dust, do situ the affected soil a removal of hydrocarbons from bioremediation area using vapor extraction techniques or t 3 and 5) would have a slightly Protection for the •environment, higher level of exposes humans to direct volitization Of hydrocarbons of these techniques Of these approaches are limited Ydrocarbons however both low eability to both vapor and water.bY Vie extremely low soil Permeability Capping of the soils with a migration of and in the underlying cover is an effective method for liils. miting the maintained the cap would isolate the impactedsoilsand natural chemical and biologic If properly the potential impacts degradation Processes would further mitigate Cril:erian 2. : reduction of Alternatives the toxicity, mok,ilit and 5 will each result in although, as mention above in-siiu treatment will and VcQuine ( contaminants efficacy. Alternatives 2 and 4 would bothhave would re reduce mobility toxicity rely an natural degradation processes to reduce contamibut nant Y and volume. Criterion 3. : All five approaches can be regulatory guidelines. implemented within Criterion 4. : Conservative operating costs for soil remediatianiindicateothatoexcacapital andwould be the most costly of these alternatives. This certain costs associated with excavation which are o res unknown inciudin Include the temporarily storing clean lsail ohich is removed usep t of removing the structural Integrityg and of buildings and the threat to methods due to g an-sits. In.-situ treatment a capping permeability limitations would be more costly than