Laserfiche WebLink
v �� 1117 Lone Palm Avenue, Suite B <br /> Modesto, CA 95351 <br /> www.atcassociates.com <br /> 209-579-2221 <br /> ASSOCIATES I NC . Fax 209-579-2225 <br /> Environmental, Geotechnical and Materials Engineers <br /> ♦ Criterion 3: <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> ♦ Criterion 4: <br /> The groundwater extraction remediation alternative would require the installation of multiple <br /> groundwater extraction wells, and remediation equipment. Air stripping or liquid-phase carbon <br /> could be used for treatment of extracted groundwater. Additional costs would be incurred for <br /> permitting, purchase, renting or leasing the remediation equipment, remediation system <br /> installation, and operation and maintenance of the system. The cost of this alternative is <br /> estimated to be $600,000 to $900,000. <br /> ♦ Criterion 5: <br /> This alternative should in the short term, within the initial 12 months of operation, effectively <br /> reduce the concentrations of contaminants on-site, and also capture some contaminants <br /> which have migrated off-site. Although, in the long term, 60 to 120 months, it will be <br /> difficult to reach closure criteria due to the equilibrium of absorption/desorption processes in <br /> the saturated zone. <br /> ♦ Criterion 6.0 <br /> This alternative can be reasonably implemented given the current site use and conditions. <br /> Regulatory acceptance of this alternative is generally positive, given similar site conditions. <br /> During construction of the remediation system there would be disruption to on-site activities. <br /> The equipment compound aesthetics and operation and maintenance activities are minimal and <br /> are not likely adverse to the community. <br /> 4.2 Ozone Sparging <br /> ♦ Criterion 1 : <br /> This alternative appears to have low health-based risks. Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted <br /> groundwater would be remediated in-situ by ozone sparging. Groundwater would be monitored <br /> and sampled periodically to ensure that remediation is progressing appropriately, and regular <br /> operation and maintenance activities would be conducted on the remediation system to insure <br /> appropriate operation. <br /> ♦ Criterion 2: <br /> The ozone sparging remediation system would most likely reduce the level of toxicity, <br /> mobility and volume of contaminants to levels acceptable to the regulatory agency. The <br /> remediation system would reduce, to the extent possible, the migration of contaminants off-site. <br /> The system may not remediate contaminated groundwater off-site. An ozone sparging pilot test <br /> would have to be conducted to determine if this is a feasible alternative for remediation of the <br /> site. <br /> s:\environmental\28349\reports\fenibility.doc <br />