Laserfiche WebLink
a <br /> a <br /> e <br /> i <br /> 4 <br /> t <br /> 9 <br /> 1 <br /> E <br /> E <br /> E <br /> Criterion 9. : Tho three alternatives are all comparable in terms <br /> of impacts upon w,3Lter conservation. <br /> Of <br /> groundwater remedied m alternatives for <br /> The analysis o.. "'il and g designed and maintained cap <br /> this swtQ indicate a properly is the most effective <br /> re rovide e, low perm8ab.1iity <br /> barrier <br /> conjunction with post <br /> should u F monitoring Ga4Lyon 2581 of Chapter <br /> approach. <br /> 'The GaP <br /> equivalent to cover specified in Article 8, The <br /> 15 4p CCE1. This cap might i,r.�cluda a :flrrsible asphalt system with <br /> ' preventing infiltration and <br /> an undarliner such as the able o f MCF-1212 (Attachment <br /> installed system must be capable <br /> inspection report including <br /> directing surface drainage• air measures would be a Part of the <br /> recommended maintenance and rep <br /> monitoring grog <br /> S <br /> i <br /> 6 <br /> netR�os.+a <br /> `!. 9t SII <br />