Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> , r z <br /> Appendix A <br /> AGE-NC Project No 95-0142 <br /> r <br /> The January 2002 report stated that the soil at the site has a high percentage of fine-grained matrix <br />' and overall is homogenous and mostly fine-grained In general this soil type has a high adsorption <br /> capacity and low permeability, and thereby could potentially limit migration of dissolved <br /> ,,hydrocarbons However,despite the fine-grained nature of the soil,the feasibility test results showed <br />' that ground water extraction should be effective on the site The ground water extraction rates during <br /> 'full-scale remediation are not likely to exceed the pilot test extraction rate(five gallons per minute), <br /> and may be less for effective ground water extraction and stabilized drawdown <br /> In the report, AGE recommended the use of ground water extraction as an alternative ground water <br /> remediation technique at the site Ground water extraction should provide adequate capture of the <br />' dissolved hydrocarbons, based on site-specific hydrogeologic conditions and hydrocarbon <br /> distribution The limited areal distnbution ofhigh concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons near the <br /> source of the release favors capturing the mayor portion of the dissolved hydrocarbons on the site <br />' A ground water extraction system in the source area,along the down-gradient portion of significantly <br /> impacted ground water, should effectively address the plume of impacted ground water AGE <br /> recommended preparation of a remedial action work plan for the installation of additional ground <br />' water extraction wells around the former UST area in order to increase 1)the efficiency-of-operation <br /> of a ground water extraction treatment system and 2)the effectiveness ofthe ground water extraction <br /> systems ability to address the dissolved hydrocarbons <br /> The AGE-prepared Final Remediation Plan, dated 23 April 2002, recommended the use of ground <br />' water extraction as an alternative ground water remediation technique at the site, along with soil <br /> vapor extraction EHD letter, dated 26 July 2002, issued a denial FRP and requested an additional <br /> cost analysis of remediation technologies <br />' I The Ground Water Extraction Clean Up Analysis, dated 31 August 2002, supported the idea that the <br /> limited areal distribution of high concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbons near the source of the <br />' release favors an aggressive approach for removing the d,issolved hydrocarbon on-site AGE <br /> recommended a ground water extraction stem in the source area and along the historical down- <br /> YS gradient portion of significantly impacted ground water <br /> EHD approval letter of FRP technoloy date 28 May 2003 A Final Remediation Plan Addendum, <br /> , 3 <br /> dated 18 July 2003, was approved by the EHD on 29 July 2003 <br /> z <br /> y <br /> t r <br />' Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc <br /> r r <br />