Laserfiche WebLink
Treadwell&Rollo <br /> 4.4.8 Community Acceptance <br /> Given that OU 1 and OU 2 are located in industrial/commercial areas, it is likely that community <br /> acceptance of any treatment alternative would be received. Likely community concerns are <br /> noisy equipment,transport of contaminated water through and traffic from maintenance <br /> operations. <br /> It is not likely that the No Action Alternative would receive regulatory acceptance. The <br /> Monitoring Only Alternative is possibly acceptable. <br /> 4.4.9 Cost <br /> The relative costs of the various treatment alternatives are moderate to high, with the least <br /> expensive engineered alternatives being air sparging and ozone sparging. Hydrogen peroxide <br /> injection, vacuum extraction, and groundwater collection and treatment are moderate to high in <br /> • cost. In relative terms,the costs of each system, in order of increasing cost, are: air sparging, <br /> ozone sparging, hydrogen peroxide injection, vacuum extraction, and groundwater collection and <br /> treatment. All of the costs presented in this section pertain to the treatment of fuel hydrocarbons <br /> in groundwater. <br /> The No Action and Monitoring Only estimated costs are low compared to any of the treatment <br /> alternatives, although long-term groundwater monitoring at all the sites could after several years <br /> approach the cost of treatment. <br /> Air Sparging <br /> Air sparging systems include injection wells,piping, blowers and monitoring wells. <br /> Engineering, equipment, and installation costs of a five-well sparging system with single blower <br /> and three monitoring wells range from $50,000 to $80,000. Monthly operations and <br /> maintenance costs typically range from $2,000 to $5,000. Operation life is often 12 to <br /> • <br /> 37 <br /> 25970318.PGS 15 November 2000 <br />