Laserfiche WebLink
sanded zone would be expected to provide some hydraulic connection <br /> with his is <br /> ct that <br /> total drawdownnin observation Twell MWS was C approated xi the a <br /> approximately times <br /> � greater than in MW1. <br /> The general agreement between the transmissivity (T) value <br /> Calculated from the MW6 recovery data and the MW5 drawdown data <br /> supports the interpretations of an average formation traThe calculated <br /> in the range of 200-2000 gallons per day per <br /> in th ty i• 3.2-32 ft per year using range of calculated <br /> the pumping test data. These <br /> transmissivity values from ; <br /> calculations are shown in Attachment I. ' <br /> The sampling and hydrologic data developed by WaterWork together <br /> wit* the previous investigationand remediation <br /> options for the site.in the evaluation of na <br /> The remedial action plan must address both soils and groundwater <br /> impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons associated with the former <br /> underground storage tanks on the property- The options considered c <br /> for soil remediation inalu4s, <br /> (1) the excavation of the }) <br /> hydrocarbon impacted soils followed by on-site treatment, (2), 1 <br /> excavation of the hydrocarbon impacted soils followed by disposal <br /> to an appropriate solid waste facility, and (3), the in-situ <br /> removal o! hydrocarbons from the affected soil are using vapor <br /> extraction techniques, (�). soil capping, <br /> che <br /> bioremediation. Me have considered three&p t_reat system= <br /> groundwater remediation including, (l), a D <br /> ump(2), a pump and treat system with a bioremediation Component, and <br /> (3), post closure monitoring as part of a soil capping alternative. <br /> The above remediation alternatives were evaluated according to the <br /> following criteria: <br /> 1. Leval of protection of human health and the <br /> environment, including beneficial uses of <br /> ground and surface waters. <br /> 2. Reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume of k <br /> contaminants. 4 <br /> 3. Compliance with regulatory guidelines. <br /> 4. Cost effectiveness. <br /> 5. Short term effectiveness. E <br /> 6. Long term effectiveness. <br /> 7. implementability. <br /> S. Regulatory and community acceptance. + <br /> q. impacts on water conservation. <br /> 2 <br /> �nsw.e�.N <br />