Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> o Criterion 3 <br /> This alternative would not immediately remediate soil or groundwater to levels <br /> ' acceptable to regulatory agencies <br /> D Criterion 4 <br /> 4 <br /> This alternative would entail minimal cost associated with periodic monitoring <br /> ' Additional measures may be required to address subsurface contaminants which have <br /> migrated offsite or if regulatory agencies find this alternative unacceptable <br /> a Criterion 5 <br /> r This alternative is only partially effective in reducing toxicity and volume of <br /> ' contaminants and mimmizing the health-based risks in the short term Exposure to <br /> humans by contamination releases to the air due to dust, or through ingestion or <br /> dermal exposure to impacted soil would be mmunal during well monitoring or <br /> destruction activities but is otherwise nonexistent Some potential for exposure of <br /> humans to contaminated groundwater exists through potential migration of gasoline <br /> hydrocarbons into the deeper aquifer used for drinking water supply <br /> 0 Criterion 6 <br /> The long term effectiveness of this alternative is ultimately good This alternative <br /> ` would reduce the toxicity and volume of the contaminants in the soil and groundwater by natural biodegradation, but the rate of reduction is not known <br /> a Criterion 7 <br /> Of all the alternatives the passive remediation approach is the easiest to <br /> � pP implement <br /> F The required monitoring wells are already in place and accessible for monitoring <br /> o Criterion 8 <br /> Since minimal activity would be conducted at the site, the impact on the community <br /> would be very minor and not disruptive to the proposed onsite parking facility or <br /> businesses located nearby However, regulatory agencies may be hesitant to approve this alternative due to the long term duration of this alternative <br /> I � <br /> ground=1 rock,c* -3 <br />