Laserfiche WebLink
3.3.2 Alternative 2 - Soil Excavation and Off-site Disposal <br /> ' o Criterion 1 <br /> This alternative significantly increases potential for exposure of humans through <br /> ' volatilization of the contaminants and inhalation of and dermal exposure to dust <br /> created during excavation activities Potential fire or explosion hazard may exist <br /> due to the relatively high levels of documented residual hydrocarbons <br /> ' o Criterion 2 <br /> I <br /> ' This alternative would not reduce the concentration of contaminants in the soil <br /> unless aeration of impacted soils occurs during transport and landfilling activities, <br /> nor would it decrease the toxicity or volume of contaminants but would supply <br /> ' transfer them to another location (landfill or atmosphere) Soil excavation would <br /> effectively eliminate the soil contaminants from the site, and would eliminate <br /> ' potential future impacts on groundwater at the site by removing the secondary source <br /> of contamination However, soil impacted by gasoline hydrocarbons would probably <br /> remain in place beneath Market Street immediately north of the site <br /> o Criterion 3 <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines <br /> o Criterion 4 <br /> This alternative is the least cost effective of the five alternatives due to high costs <br /> associated with implementation The fact that the impacted soil extends to a depth <br /> ' of 60 feet make this alternative technically and economically infeasible The <br /> adjacent street (Market Street) would be destroyed or extensive shoring would be <br /> required The heavy equipment and trucking would seriously congest adjacent <br /> ' thoroughfares resulting in a large intangible public cost Costs associated with <br /> disposal of contaminated soil to an appropriate landfill and backfilling the excavation <br /> with clean material also increase the total cost of remediation The cost of this soil <br /> ' remediation alternative is estimated to be between $300,000 and $600,000 <br /> o Criterion 5 <br /> The alternative would be effective in the short term because it results in the direct <br /> removal of the contamination source Excavation would increase health-based risks <br /> ' to humans via exposure of the impacted soil to the air and inhalation of and direct <br />` dermal contact with dust during site activities The time required to complete this <br /> alternative would be less than 6 months <br /> ' gruun&Ce roL4.lc2p 14 <br />