Laserfiche WebLink
7`2 Alternative 2-Air Sparging with Soil Vapor Extraction <br /> ♦ Criterion ]: <br /> This alternative has minimal health-based risks. Petroleum hydrocarbons are removed from <br /> extracted vapor prior to release to the atmosphere eliminating the risk of exposure to <br /> humans. Groundwater would be monitored periodically to ensure that reduction is <br /> occurring. The potential fire or explosion hazard is minimal with a properly designed <br /> system and regularly scheduled monitoring and maintenance. <br /> ♦ Criterion 2: <br /> Vapor extraction and air sparging would reduce the level of toxicity and volume of <br /> contaminants in the soil and groundwater to levels acceptable to regulatory agencies. This <br /> Z method does not do anything to limit the migration of contaminants off-site. A pilot test <br /> • would have to be conducted to determine if this is a feasible alternative for remediation of <br /> the site. <br /> ♦ Criterion 3: <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines. <br /> ♦ Criterion 4: <br /> The soil vapor extraction and air sparging remediation alternative would require the <br /> installation of additional vapor extraction and sparge wells, air injection and vapor <br /> extraction equipment, and the abatement equipment. A thermal oxidizing unit or catalytic <br /> oxidizing unit can be used initially for the treatment of off-gases but may be changed to <br /> vapor-phase carbon after concentrations are reduced. Additional costs to the client would <br /> be incurred for permitting, leasing, and installing the vapor extraction and air sparging <br /> equipment and treatment compound, and operation and maintenance of the system. The <br /> cost of this alternative is estimated to be between$200,000 and$350,000. <br /> ♦ Criterion S: <br /> This alternative should effectively remediate subsurface contaminants to acceptable <br /> regulatory levels within 1 to 3 years of implementation. <br /> ♦ Criterion 6: <br /> The long term effectiveness for soil and groundwater remediation possibly might not be <br /> acceptable to the regulatory agencies because this method would not address the continued <br /> migration of contaminants off-site. Groundwater would be monitored periodically until soil <br /> and groundwater is remediated to ensure that concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are <br /> being reduced. <br /> S A224931re*orts\CAP.doc 1 f1 <br />