Laserfiche WebLink
..i <br /> 6.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> Alternative 1—In Situ Bioremediation—requires significantlymore time to implement than Altemative2. <br /> ` The cost to implement Alternative 1 is much greater than that for Alternative 2 and is not as likely to be <br /> effective at the site as Alternative 2 due to objectionable site characteristics. Alternative 1 would also cause <br /> ` disruption of community services and access to the basement/ground floor of the HSA building at 24 <br /> locations will be required. <br /> 4 Alternative 2—Data Gaps Sampling and Low Risk Site Closure—requires less time to implement than <br /> Alternative 1. The cost to implement Alternative 2 is much less than that for Alternative 1 and is more likely <br /> to be effective at the site than Alternative 1 in achieving site closure. Although Alternative 2 would also <br /> cause some disruption of community services,it will be for a much shorter time period than required to <br /> implement Alternative 1. <br /> 6.1 Recommended Remedy <br /> With an expedited site closure and minimal disruption ofcommunity services as the main goals ofthis CAP <br /> review,WESTON recommends Alternative 2 as the most cost-effective technology that will remediate the <br /> site in the shortest amount of time with the greatest chance for success and as little disruption as possible. <br /> 4 <br /> V <br /> 20 <br /> V <br />