Laserfiche WebLink
In addition to SVE, air sparging would be incorporated to remediate groundwater quality <br /> Combining both these technologies should provide metered and desired results with regard to <br /> reduction and containment of the soil and groundwater zone <br /> This technology may be applied prior to site development, and will not interfere with the <br /> proposed development at the site <br /> 5.4 Alternative Evaluation <br /> Technical, institutional, environmental safety, and economic criteria were used to evaluate the <br /> alternatives Because some remedial alternative elements were common to both alternatives, <br /> only the characteristic elements (described above) were considered during the evaluation <br /> process It was determined that Alternative 2 was the most feasible for long-term application <br /> Alternative 2 was chosen on the following basis <br /> • Technical. Technical criteria considered included short- and long-term <br /> effectiveness, reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of affected <br /> media, and implementability With regard to implementability, Alternative 2 <br /> is favored because implementation is not expected to significantly disrupt <br /> the site, or the community In terms of effectiveness, Alternative I is <br /> anticipated to be more effective in the short-term This is because affected <br /> soil would be immediately removed and hydrocarbon mass removal would <br /> be more extensive than would be using Alternative 2 It should be noted the <br /> EPA suggests that the volume of soil considered by this plan is greater than <br /> the volume limit considered technically feasible to handle using excavation <br /> Between Alternatives 1 and 2, long-term effectiveness is expected to be <br /> essentially the same because capillary fringe and groundwater impact would <br /> be reduced by intrinsic mechanisms For example, the conditions that limit <br /> the biodegradation rate (i e , compound availability for biodegradation, <br /> compound solubility, molecule branching, and molecular weight) would be <br /> the same for both alternatives What tips the scale in favor of Alternative 2 <br /> is that it will have a greater effect on groundwater remediation (i e , it will <br /> increase the hydrocarbon volatilization rate and oxygen influx rate) One <br /> negative long-term aspect of Alternative I is that hydrocarbon-affected soil <br /> is merely transferred, not treated All alternatives allow for a reduction in <br /> toxicity, mobility, and volume of hydrocarbon-affected media Based on the <br /> foregoing discussion, Alternative 2 appears to be the most appropriate for <br /> implementation with respect to technical criteria Implementation of <br /> Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of property disruption, and <br /> would leave soil in place instead of moving it to another location <br /> 3201337B/CAP_AMD DOC 19 November 30, 1995 <br />