Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAWWT-ER <br />' G R O U P <br /> Environmental Serwees <br /> Remedial Media Remedial <br /> Option Affected ITechnologyEvaluated <br /> Option 5 Soil Excavation w/Soil Aeration <br /> Groundwater Enhanced Bioremediation(iSOC) <br />' Option 6 Soil Enhanced Bioremediation(iSOC) <br /> Groundwater Enhanced Bioremediation(iSOC) <br />' The technical ment and approximate cost of each remedial technology is discussed below in light <br /> of site conditions The costs have not been rigorously determined, but are approximations based <br /> on a brief assessment of the equipment and operation involved in each option The costs assume <br /> operation for one year, however, operation of an engineered system may extend beyond one year <br /> and result in higher operation and maintenance costs Actual costs could be approximately 25% <br /> higher or lower Additionally, the costs shown do not account for any additional investigative or <br /> groundwater monitoring costs <br />' 6.2 Remedial Alternatives for Soil <br /> I6 2 1 Soil Excavation <br /> Excavation of contaminated soil is often the most effective remedial option in situations where <br /> the contamination is primarily restricted to areas at or above the water table, accessible from the <br /> surface and less than 30 feet bgs Excavating to depths greater than 30 feet bgs, or in saturated <br /> soils becomes increasingly cost prohibitive due to shoring necessities, equipment access to the <br /> excavation (ramping), and hauling and disposal or treatment costs of large volumes of potentially <br /> highly contaminated soil It should be noted that due to the fluctuation in groundwater table <br /> elevations at the site, excavation would be best performed during the summer or fall months <br />' when the water table is relatively low (i e approximately 12 feet bgs) Excavation would be <br /> impractical if executed during the periods of high water table (i a spring, approximately 7 feet <br /> bgs) <br /> At this site, excavation of the contaminated soil beneath the former UST pit would be a costly <br />' and not easily accomplished alternative because the sorbed-phase contamination resides in the <br /> saturated zone Excavation in this area would require extensive dewatering of the excavated <br /> area, necessitating water disposal or pretreatment prior to discharge, and probably shoring of the <br /> sidewalls Excavation would likely have a direct impact on future groundwater contamination, as <br /> I <br /> ZB171C CAP 12 November 20,2002 <br />