Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> r � <br /> O Criterion 4 <br /> The soil vapor extraction remediation alternative would be cost effective to the client <br /> because vapor extraction wells are in place and the abatement equipment can be <br /> easily installed A thermal oxidize- is initially recommended for treatment of <br /> offgases due to high initial contaminant influent concentrations observed during the <br /> vapor extraction test Offgas treatment by catalytic oxidation and carbon adsorption <br /> would follow as vapor concentrations decrease with time Costs to the client would <br /> be incurred for permitting, purchasing and installing the vapor extraction equipment <br /> and treatment compound, and operation and maintenance of the system The cost of <br /> this alternative is estimated to be between $100,000 and $300,000 <br /> O Criterion 5 <br /> This alternative potentially could remediate subsurface contaminants to acceptable <br /> regulatory levels within 18 to 36 months of implementation Some uncertainty exists <br /> 6 <br /> about the effectiveness of the vapor extraction system in removing all the <br /> documented gasoline hydrocarbons to the shallower less permeable soil However <br /> SICPHS-EHD has indicated they will negotiate site specific cleanup standards for <br /> soil beneath the site based on an evaluation of additional benefit for costs incurred <br /> o Criterion 6 <br /> The long term effectiveness for soil remediation would be good depending upon the <br /> degree of contaminant removal Groundwater would be monitored periodically until <br /> f <br /> soil is remediated to ensure that groundwater impact is declining <br /> n Criterion 7 <br /> This alternative has some minor nrmpiememtability problems due to the tune involved <br /> in obtaining permits from the APCD for the vapor extraction system Permitting <br /> could take as much as 180 days dependant upon APCD work load, but is typically <br /> completed in 60 to 90 days <br /> a Criterion 8 <br /> F l <br /> Impact to the businesses during installation and other site activities will be minimal <br /> The treatment compound would interfere with site use and development Noise is a <br /> typical complaint This method has been shown to be effective in similar soil types <br /> and regulatory acceptance is expected <br /> k <br /> yrnun&ce reek cap 16 <br /> I <br /> I <br />