ARCHIVED REPORTS_1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The "no action" alternative is considered low in permanence of solution. Since this alternative does not reduce leachate generation or migration of leachate-impacted groundwater, a more rigorous long-term monitoring program would likely be required. The source control and physical barrier alternatives are both considered medium in permanence, since these alternatives prevent additional leachate from being generated or prevent migration of leachate, but do not remove or treat the existing leachate or leachate-impacted groundwater. Long-term monitoring would also likely be required to determine the effectiveness of these controls. However, once demonstrated to be effective, the monitoring frequency could potentially be reduced. Since these alternatives are essentially passive systems, there are no O & M requirements other than minimal erosion control. The remaining alternative, groundwater extraction and treatment is considered highly permanent when combined with source control because, in addition to reducing leachate generation, it treats the leachate or leachate-impacted groundwater to remove or destroy the contaminants. The long-term monitoring requirements of this alternative are likely to be similar to those of the source control and physical barrier technology. This alternative, being an active system, has considerable operation and maintenance requirements. These requirements are likely to include monthly site visits and periodic replacement of chemicals or other consumables (GAC for groundwater extraction and treatment), and incur utility costs (electricity for blowers, motors, and controls,etc.). 4.2.4 Regulatory Acceptance The regulatory acceptance criterion is an assessment of whether the alternative would be g r3' P accepted by the agencies regulating the site. Some agencies have not universally accepted certain solutions or technologies. Other agencies may not allow certain technologies to be implemented due to previous experiences or wanness of failure or worsening the problem. For example, some agencies are reluctant to allow reinjection of treated groundwater due to concerns of spreading the contaminant plume. The source control alternative is ranked high and considered likely to be accepted by the regulatory agencies since the most recent WDR Order No. 94-259 specifically states "closure and capping will serve as part of corrective action." The"no action" alternative is ranked low and considered unlikely to be accepted by the regulatory agencies. As stated above, the WDR specifies that closure and capping be part of corrective action. Groundwater extraction and treatment, and physical barriers are all rated as high in terms of regulatory acceptance because of their previous history of regulatory acceptance at similar landfills. SAC\N-\PJU0939\09390031.9BG-94\sd :1 Rev.0 420/95 0939-003.19 4-