Laserfiche WebLink
u <br /> 1 <br /> Each <br /> of the g groundwater remediation alternatives have been <br /> or <br /> each of the n <br /> compared andi anked againstThe on relative <br /> are shown on Table3 <br /> qualifying i <br /> along with a cumulative "score" for each approach. <br /> The scorir.l rationale for each criterion is discussed below. <br /> Criterion 1. : - <br /> Each of the alternatives provides protee pump a d °�raat of human <br /> approaches are <br /> the environment. Both the hinabi]ity to produce significant <br /> severely compromised by <br /> om <br /> ter from the chief zone of cant�romathisazone rby <br /> quantities of wa <br /> approximately 3Q-37 feet below grade. Dumping term. Although <br /> Bio National yielded less thzonnelas�t4W6 couldm over eprobably yield .5 9PM <br /> wells completed in the same z would only <br /> long term, this :one is not contaminated e��e sing mobility. <br /> servA to induce downward migration, thereby <br /> Additionally, no beneficial user for the shallowgroundwater zone <br /> beneath the site have been established. <br /> Criterion 2. : The pump and treat remediation system and the pubR <br /> mp <br /> and treat yy©tem with a bioremexdiDtton reduction,omponent {and n reducing <br /> tthe <br /> somewhat. more effective in toxicity <br /> volume of contaminants however this effect ve a n d LA <br /> ucingltoxicity, <br /> capping (3) may be marginally lens offez: Cf groundwater (3.2 to <br /> mobility, and volume but the sl avelocity impacts should not be <br /> 32 <br /> feet per year) indicatessignificant <br /> ed and prevented by monitoring. <br /> expected and can be detect <br /> Criterion 3.: Al2. three approaches can be conducted within <br /> regulatory guidelines. <br /> Criterion 4. : The pump and treat systE.m would ha the most costly <br /> pest <br /> in terms of capital <br /> rrouldoperating <br /> moststc;. Site cc)st effective alternative. <br /> closure mani',-,orint� <br /> Criterion 5. : All three approaches are comparable in terms o£ <br /> C <br /> short term effectiveness. <br /> Criterion 6. : Each of the alternatives are equivalent in terms of <br /> long term effectiveness. <br /> monitoring program as part <br /> of <br /> Criterion 7.: Implementation of thestraight forward. <br /> a cap <br /> �slternative would be he Most and treat system would be <br /> Implementation of an effective Pump <br /> difficult. <br /> Criterion 8. : It is believed that th nee thrOe apFroaches Can all <br /> receive regulatoz and community <br /> 6 <br /> - y HBLR{02.up _ <br /> I <br />