Laserfiche WebLink
' Criterion 8: <br /> It is believed that the three approaches will all receive regulatory and community acceptance The <br /> degree of disruption (visual, traffic, odors, noise) in the immediate site area is significantly greater <br /> for the excavation alternatives, however, this would be expected to last only 2 to 4 weeks It is not <br /> ' anticipated that this temporary disruption would result in loss of community acceptance, however, the <br /> less intrusive in-situ approach is preferable <br /> ' Criterion 9: <br /> The three alternatives are all comparable in terms of impacts upon water conservation <br /> 7.1 Recommended Remediation Option <br /> Based on the nine criteria discussed above, soil remediation using vapor extraction is the proposed <br /> remediation alternative for gasoline soil contamination at the site This remediation option will be <br /> evaluated by the installation of the vapor extraction system and by conducting a short vapor extraction <br /> test While excavation approaches would be effective in mitigating the impacts of hydrocarbon <br /> impacted soils, the vapor extraction approach is capable of removing hydrocarbons that may have <br /> migrated beneath the sidewalk on the east side of the property and the building Excavation would <br /> not be feasible in this area due to the roadway The most important factors in selecting vapor <br /> extraction in lieu of a soil removal approach are as follows <br /> a The geological setting at the site is expected to be favorable for vapor extraction and <br /> ' this approach is significantly more cost effective <br /> ' b Soil removal results in the release of more hydrocarbons to the environment due to the <br /> process of excavation and stockpiling During this process it is impossible to prevent <br /> the natural volatilization of the gasoline constituents Additionally, these constituents <br /> ' may be dispersed by wind or precipitation <br /> R 042992 TJJ_ 13 <br />