ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0003097 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Criterion 3: All three approaches can be conducted within regulatory guidelines Criterion 4: Conservative estimates for both capital and operating costs for each of the three alternatives indicate excavation (with treatment or off-site disposal) would be at least twice as expensive as vapor extraction This does not include certain costs associated with excavation which are presently ' unknown including the loss of rent, the cost of removing and temporanly storing clean soil from the excavation, and a potential treatment cost surcharge for soils with moisture content greater than 18% ' When these factors are accounted for the total cost of excavation approaches 100 to 200% greater than in-situ treatment Criterion 5: All three approaches are comparable in terms of short term effectiveness, although excavation would result in increased exposure or release of gasoline hydrocarbons due to physically exposing soils to the atmosphere In terms of remediation completion, both excavation approaches require approximately 2 to 4 weeks, while vapor extraction is estimated to require at a minimum 5 to 6 ' months ' Criterion 6: All three approaches are comparable in terms of long term effectiveness The technical feasibility of ' excavation has been demonstrated at many sites The technical feasibility of a vapor extraction system is favored by the underlying geology at the project site 1 Criterion 7: The excavation alternatives have certain difficulties associated with supporting the excavation walls dunng soil removal, the depth needed to remove the impacted soil, and with a lack of space to store removed material (both clean and contaminated) The proximity of California Street, Jackson Avenue tand the adjacent parking lot to the northwest side of the property also make excavation undesirable R 042992 TH, 12