Laserfiche WebLink
`T_ y�r r'ar�W W � - r NO ME z a T % 'a° s #'F 'W <br /> "rY ' i yip • rv`'"` <br /> i <br /> �nra.����� $ � 'r' . x.V' •r%�,xwx.s '^'^' _ <br /> k <br /> rT►c'7� . <br /> compared and <br /> MIS <br /> the nine qualifying <br /> Each of the 5 soil remediahern fore each <br /> alternative os have baiseen their <br /> ranked against one ono given 1 _ 3 points given for <br /> criterion. Alternatives are ect3ves. one point is g o�nts <br /> mast effectively, three p <br /> ability to meet criteria objectives <br /> The <br /> alternatives that meet criteria crit1' along with a cumulative <br /> given for alternatives sown ont'�ablee2 a most effectively. <br /> g s are <br /> relative ranking roach. <br /> "score" for each app <br /> The scoring rationale for each criterion is discussedprovide a+ lower <br /> Th 1 and 'it) P <br /> Criterion 1• : the excavation app <br /> zoaches <br /> Of further groundwater contamination <br /> el of protection for humin �Zealth and the environn h$tcap also <br /> leo potential threa at <br /> represent a p of soil hydrocarbons are results in human <br /> since the majority the process of excavation <br /> fringe. Generally <br /> In situ removal of hydrocarbonschniques from <br /> or <br /> sure to hydrocarbon compounds due to direct volatilization an <br /> exposure extraction t <br /> contact with soils and <br /> vapor fitly higher level of <br /> the affected soil would have a slightly <br /> bioremediation then environment. Neitherof T°carbonstheseha everiboth <br /> protection for the extremely low soil <br /> exposes humans to direct vol limited nby by of the soils with a <br /> of these approaches arelimiting the <br /> permeability to both vapor and water. Capping erly <br /> cover is an effective method ilsr If prof <br /> low Permeability in the underlyingnatural <br /> migration of hydrocarbons <br /> he cap would isolate ted soils and <br /> tt'Gessescwould further mitigate <br /> maintained t degradation pro <br /> Chem: and biol acts ic lag in <br /> the Potential imp 3 and 5 will each result <br /> Alternatives l� and volume of contaminants <br /> Criterion - - toxicity, mobility <br /> reduction Of•th_ reduce mobility but <br /> u mention above in-situ tuldtboth will have limited <br /> although, .a and 4 wo <br /> efficacy• p,1.te natives 2 <br /> would rely <br /> nn 11atural degradation processes to reduce co <br /> toxicity and volume• implemented within <br /> All fivapPyoilches c%+n be <br /> Criterion 3. : e and <br /> rec�ulatil guicle7.ines. capital <br /> Conservative estinates for both Cap <br /> Criterion • : This l include <br /> sctl ,reme3iation indicate than excavation would <br /> operating costs fog zternatives. <br /> o f these a- ?xcavati.on which ars. presently <br /> and <br /> be the Most ao-tly the comet of removing <br /> certain costs asvocia l with and the threat to <br /> unknown including, the lass of use, <br /> Clean soil :phi ch s renov�3, in_situ treatment <br /> temporarily <br /> storing c_ v of buildings .bn-site. <br /> the structural. Integrity 11mi'catiar�s would be more Costly than <br /> methods due to permeability <br /> a capping apPrcac.Yi. <br /> 3 <br /> 1111 2M <br /> Hd�n�oz.w <br /> rads <br />