Laserfiche WebLink
Aw <br /> Working To Restore Nature <br /> o Criterion 2: <br /> This alternative would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants in <br /> ' the groundwater Due to the fine-grained nature of impacted soils, the effectiveness <br /> in reducing contaminants in soil within a reasonable timeframe is doubtful. <br /> 1 <br /> o Criterion 3. <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> O Criterion 4• <br /> This alternative would require some capital outlay on the part of the property owner <br /> ' Capital costs are associated with installation of extraction wells and treatment <br /> systems, and could approach $150,000 to $200,000 Ongoing operation and <br /> tmaintenance costs could approach $30,000 to $50,000 per year. The inherent <br /> characteristics of the impacted soils at the site tend to limit vapor transport through <br /> the soil and, therefore, will likely render vapor extraction inefficient with respect to <br /> ' performance and cost. <br /> ' o Criterion 5. <br /> The alternative should have an immediate impact on reducing the volume and degree <br /> ' of contamination in the groundwater <br /> ' o Criterion 6: <br /> The long term effectiveness for groundwater remediation would be considerable <br /> ' depending upon the degree of contaminant removal. The estimated timeframe to <br /> achieve cleanup is two to seven years This estimate is based upon the removal of <br /> ' 10 to 40 pore volumes of water from the area of impaction at 15 gallons per minute. <br /> It is questionable that vapor extraction at this site will accelerate the reduction in <br /> ' contaminants sufficiently to justify the cost <br /> 15oo3MxMirrskcwr-0794 DRF 20 <br /> 1 <br />