Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dave Lewis <br /> October 13, 1986 <br /> Page 3 <br /> tion 1,A <br /> Excavation (4000 cubic yards ) 400,000.00 <br /> Disposal (Class I - 1040 cubic yards) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208,000.00 <br /> Professional Services 45 ,000.00 <br /> TOTAL $653,000.00 <br /> Option 1S <br /> Excavation (4000 cubic yards ) 400,000.00 <br /> Soil Treatment (1040 cubic yards ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,000.00 <br /> Professional Services 45,000.00 <br /> TOTAL $507,000.00 <br /> Option 2. Soil Venting - The installation of a soil venting <br /> system would facilitate the volatilization of hydrocarbons within <br /> the pore spaces of subsurface soils. A comprehensive soil venting <br /> system would consist of a number of vertical vapor extraction <br /> well points in the area of the highest soil contamination (See <br /> figure 2 ) . These vapor wells would! be connected to a high vacuum <br /> vapor control system which is designed for subsurface ventilation <br /> applications that require low flow/high vacuum capabilities. The <br /> effluent air stream would be discharged to the atmosphere in <br /> compliance with air quality management requirements. <br /> It has been Groundwater- Technology's experience that in <br /> excess of 90 percent of .volatile gasoline constituents can be <br /> removed from subsurface soils through soil venting. The 'radius <br /> of influence affected by the vapokJextraction system is difficult <br /> to calculate without conducting field tests, ' but previous systems <br /> installed in soil types similar those at the study site suggest <br /> that an approximate 20 foot radiuslof influence can be achieved. <br /> Advantages of the soil venting option include the following: pro- <br /> tection of existing buildings from1hydrocarbon vapor impaction; <br /> yF <br />