Laserfiche WebLink
gorpo,orry Depot <br /> Table 1. Summary of Evaluated Remedial Alternatives <br /> Remedial Alternative mplememabiliNTE11minged: <br /> Screening Status Rank <br /> Eliminated: Will not meet the goal to practicably <br /> 1 No Remedial Amon Law g CogLNAPL to pursue LRC. LNAPL will remain <br /> ial .Monitoretl Natural etl: Will not meet the goal to Practicably <br /> ion (Groundwater Low HIgh LNAPLto pursue LRC. LNAPLwill remain <br /> tel .In Situ Injection (e g., tetl: Chemical Injection Into LNAPL will likely <br /> roxide, Ozone, Potassium larger dissolved plume due to <br /> g Pe Low/Metl Mad a cM1emical dynamics and is not an advisable <br /> Permangange, Regerox, e <br /> ORC, or similar] <br /> Metl/HigM1 <br /> Auger Excavation (On SiteHig High ($924,000 for Retained <br /> Landfurring/Blepiling) 2 months) <br /> Auger Excavation (Off Site NISM1 HigM1 Metl Retained <br /> 4B Disposal $850,000 <br /> In Situ Stabilization H situ Med/NIgM1 Restainstred. Effectiveness lowered as it might develop <br /> rotational5 counter auger Metl HigM1/Metl ($721,000) incomplete mixing or packets. <br /> fm - <br /> stabillzanusingslurry) <br /> Low Retained. Approximate dewatering volume was <br /> BA Open Pit Excavation (On Site HIgM1 HigM1 ($258,OOo for estimated based an sitespe<'rfic aquifer parameters 2 <br /> Landfarming/ Biopiling) 11 months end soil cM1aracteristia. <br /> Kate inea. Approximate dew iitering volume was <br /> OP r it a on lOff- Low timetetl based an sitnspeciflc aquifer parameters 1 <br /> [e O'spostal)vat HigM1 HgM1 ($500,0007 and soil characteristics. <br /> Popes a)1 <br /> aAma EnVlrOnmMmi, prc <br />