Laserfiche WebLink
t-�4rl <br /> PE"mAi <br /> w <br /> 42n <br /> Each of the 3 groundwater remediation alternatives have been <br /> compared and ranked Egair_st one another for each of the nine <br /> qualifying criteria. The relati_ve rankings are shown on Table 3 <br /> along with a cumulative "score" fcr each approach. <br /> The scoring rationale for each criterion is discussed below. <br /> Criterion l, : <br /> Each of the alternatives provides <br /> the environment. Both of the the of human health and <br /> severely compromised b pump and treat approaches are <br /> Y the inability to produce significant <br /> quantities of nater from -the chief zone of Contaminant mass from <br /> aPnroximately 30-37 feet below grade: Pur!. <br /> Bio National yielded less than ,l ping from this zone by <br /> wells completed in the same zone aspt+W6yc could Probahe bly <br /> y Although <br /> long term, this zone is not contaminated and Y held .5 qpm <br /> ng would only <br /> serve to induce downkard migration, thereby increasing mobility. <br /> Additionally, no baneficial uses for the shallow <br /> beneath the site have been established„ groundwater zone <br /> Criterion 2. : The pump and treat remediation system and the pump <br /> and treat system with a bioremediation Component (I and 2) might be <br /> somewhat more effective in <br /> volume of contaminants hawevtoxicity reduction, and reducing 'th <br /> z this effect would be sme e <br /> capping (3) may be marginally less er.r ll. Site <br /> mobilit Y ,ective in rod,icing toxicity, <br /> , and volume but the slow velocity of g,rvundwater <br /> 32 feet per year) ind:c• :es signif <br /> expecicant im acts should not to <br /> lted and can be dete"ced and P be <br /> prevented by monitoring. <br /> Criterion 3.; A31 three approaches can be conducted within <br /> regulatory guidelines. <br /> .. Criterion 4. : The pimp and treat system would be <br /> in terms Of capital and operating costs. Site cappingthe most costly <br /> closure monitoring :raa.�.d ba she most cost effective aternativewith post- <br /> Criterion s.: All three approaches are <br /> short term effectiveness, comparable in terms of <br /> Criterion 6. : Each of the alternatives are in terms of <br /> long term effectiveness. equivalQ <br /> Criterion 7. : Implementation of the monitorin <br /> a cap alternative would be the most giprorh a forwardi <br /> Implementation of an effective pump and treat strag <br /> system would be <br /> difficult. <br /> Crjterion 8. : It is believed that the three a to <br /> receive regulatory and cormunity acceptance, P aches.,can all <br />