Laserfiche WebLink
June 30, 1995 .r <br /> Page 2 <br /> • The physical and chemical characteristics of the hazardous <br /> substance or its constituents, including their toxicity, persistence, <br /> and potential for migration in water, soil, and air,(this data is <br /> provided as Table 1 of the CAP revision). <br /> • The hydrogeologic characteristics of the site and the surrounding <br /> area where the unauthorized release has migrated or may migrate <br /> (this data is provided in Section 2.4 of the CAP revision). <br /> • The proximity and quality of nearby surface water or groundwater, <br /> and the current and potential beneficial uses of the waters (see <br /> Sections 2.1, 2.6, and 3.1 of the CAP revision). <br /> • The potential effects of residual contamination on nearby surface <br /> water and groundwater(see Section 4.0 of the CAP revision). <br /> In regards to the feasibility studies, two alternatives were addressed in <br /> the CAP in compliance with Section 2725 (d) of Division 3 (see <br /> Section 5.0). For clarification, Section 2725 of Division 3.0 states that <br /> "The responsible party shall conduct a feasibility study to evaluate <br /> alternatives for remedying or mitigating the actual or potential adverse <br /> effects of the unauthorized release. Each alternative shall be evaluated <br /> for cost effectiveness and the responsible party shall propose to <br /> implement the most cost effective corrective action." <br /> EXECUTNE SUMMARY <br /> 1. Why was alternative 2 (SVE/air sparging) rejected because it was <br /> determined that it was less incrementally effective than natural <br /> attenuation when it was stated that SIDE/air sparging would be more <br /> effective in the short term. <br /> Implementation of Alternative 2 was rejected primarily because the <br /> expected costs (tangible and intangible) are not consistent with the <br /> intended effect: reduction of hydrocarbon mass at the most reasonable <br /> cost. It was found that the short term advantage\effectiveness (initial <br /> mass removal rate) of alternative 2 would diminish quickly as various <br /> factors work to limit hydrocarbon vapor transport. These factors <br /> include variations in air permeability, changes in residual hydrocarbon <br /> composition, and different soil adsorption factors. Because of <br /> transport limitation, the short term effectiveness would not <br /> 32013570CAPLET.DOC doc <br />