Laserfiche WebLink
CLEAkiWA'TER <br /> G R O U P <br /> •� Environmental 5ervices <br /> O tion Media Remedial Technical Comments Total Option <br /> Affected Technology Efficacy Cost Selected <br /> 5 Soil Excavate w/ Excellent Rapid clean-up, difficult conditions, $136,600 <br /> Aeration uncertainty in final excavation size <br /> Groundwater Enhanced 99? Needs additional testing to determine $80,575 <br /> bioremed viability <br /> tSOC <br /> 6 Soil Enhanced T?1� Needs additional testing to determine $161,150 X <br /> bioremed viability <br /> i$oC <br /> Groundwater Enhanced IM Needs additional testing to determine <br /> bioremed viability <br /> iSOC <br /> Option 6 appears to be the least expensive Although further testing is needed to determine if <br /> enhanced bioremediation is a viable option for groundwater remediation at the site, it seems a <br /> worthwhile expense to perform a pilot study Due to site conditions, conventional methods are <br /> Idifficult and expensive to initiate, and to operate and maintain If it turns out that enhanced <br /> bioremediation is not feasible, Option I (SVE w/ catox, GWE and AS) would be considered as <br />' the second best choice Excavation at the site is the least desirable option, as it would be <br /> expensive, the final size uncertain, and it would be incomplete as a portion of the sorbed-phase <br /> plume underlies a building and the street All options except Option 6 would severely disrupt <br /> normal business operations, possibly even temporary shut down at the site Further there is a <br /> hidden cost in engineered remediation systems, that of system removal once remediation is <br /> rcomplete <br /> Therefore, based on unknown technical feasibility and cost, Clearwater recommends Option 6, <br /> enhanced bioremediation, as the preferred interim remedial alternative Such a system would <br /> likely require over a year of operation due to the inherently slow process of remediation through <br /> natural attenuation on sorbed-phase hydrocarbons However, in case studies dramatic reductions <br /> in dissolved-phase plumes has been documented over a short period of time Through continued <br /> partitioning from sorbed- to dissolved-phase, if site conditions are favorable, it would be the least <br /> intrusive and most effective choice A more accurate cost estimate for this option will be <br /> possible after completion of a pilot study <br /> i <br /> i <br /> ZB178C CAP 19 November 20,2002 <br />