ARCHIVED REPORTS_2013_7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 24 Summary of Corrective Action Technology Ranking Scores VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TECHNICAL COST TOTAL SCORE SCORE SCORE No. 1: Final Cover Extension 190 51 241 No. 2: Landfill Gas System Expansion 198 76 274 No 3: Injected Air Sparging/Vapor Extraction System 170 0 170 No.4: Intrinsic Remediation 126 87 213 No.5: Groundwater Extraction/Air Stripping 126 30 156 No.6: Groundwater Extraction/GAC Treatment 106 18 124 These three alternatives were judged to be superior on the basis of the relative ease of construction, effectiveness at reducing the source of VOCs to groundwater, regulatory acceptance of the technology, cost of construction, and long-term maintenance and operational costs. At this time, Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 were deemed too technically complicated and expensive without providing significant technical advantages in water quality protection, particularly in light of the absence of groundwater users in the vicinity of the landfill. 6.0 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL RESPONSE This section describes the recommended corrective action system for the site and proposes a plan to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of proposed corrective actions. 6.1 RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL APPROACH Based on the analysis of viable remedial options presented herein, it is recommended that the County proceed with remedial action in increments (Figure 12). The first increment is to pursue a three-part corrective action response. They are: • Extension of the final cover system, • Installation of additional landfill gas extraction wells, • Incorporating the three EMP monitoring wells as part of an intrinsic remediation monitoring network. Engineering Feasibility Study Geo-Logic Page ■ 32 Corral Hollow Sanitary Landfill ASSOCIATES January 25,2013