Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> Each of the 3 groundwater remediation <br /> coned another for eacheof have <br /> nine <br /> n compared and ranked Q <br /> alifying criteria. The relative rankings are shown on Table 3 <br /> alch• <br /> ong with a cumulative "score" for each approa <br /> The scoring rationale for each criterion is discuased below. <br /> Criterion i.: <br /> Each of the alternatives provides protection of human health and <br /> the environment. Both of the pump and treat approaches are <br /> severely compromised by the inability to produce significant <br /> quantities of water from the chief zone of contaminant mass from <br /> approximately 30-37 feet below grads. Pumping from this zone by <br /> sio National yielded less than .1 grm over the long term. Although <br /> wells completed in the same zone as Mw6 oould probably yield .5 gpm <br /> long term, this zone is not contaminated and pumping would only <br /> servo to induce downward migration, thereby increasing mobility. <br /> Additionally, no beneficial uses for the shallow groundwater zone <br /> beneath the site have been established. <br /> Criterion 2.s The pump and treat remediation system and the pump <br /> and treat system with a bioremediation component (1 and 2) might bei <br /> somewhat more effective in toxicity reduction, and reducing the <br /> volume of contaminants however this effect would be small. Site <br /> I r.� capping (3) may be marginally less affective in reducing toxicity, <br /> nobility, and volume but the slow velocity of groundwater (3.2 to <br /> 32 feet expected amend year) <br /> be and indicates siprevented b impactsificant not be <br /> monitoring. <br /> Criterion 3.1 All three approaches can be conducted within <br /> regulatory guidelines. <br /> Criterion 4.: The pump and treat system would be the most costly <br /> in terms of st- <br /> closure monitoringiwontd bbeerthenmostsCost effectisite ve alternatwith ive. <br /> Criterion 5.s All three approaches are comparable in terms of <br /> short term effectiveness. <br /> Criterion 6.s Each of the alternatives are equivalent in terms of <br /> long tors effectiveness. <br /> Criterion 7.: Implementation of the monitoring program as part Of � <br /> a cap alternative would bo the most straight forward. <br /> implementation of an effective pump and treat system would be <br /> difficult. <br /> Criterion 8. s it is believed that the three approaches can all , <br /> receive regulatory and community acceptance. <br /> 5 . <br /> � P <br />