Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> �. H. KLEINFELDER &ASSOCIATES <br /> f evaluations of the site conditions and are based upon the available data <br /> (reference previous J1iK&A reports). <br /> l <br /> The work elements in Section 3.6 have been completed and have provided a <br /> G-R <br /> screening of remedial alternatives for decontaminating the ground water. <br /> i <br /> Three acceptable alternatives remain at this time: <br /> k'A <br /> o Ground water extraction and treatment via air stripping <br /> i <br /> o Ground water extraction and treatment via carbon adsorption <br /> o Ground water extraction and treatment via a combination of air <br /> stripping and carbon adsorption <br /> During the implementation stage of this work plan, a comparative <br /> .a evaluation of these alternatives will be accomplished once the additional <br /> field information is available. Specifically, more data is required on <br /> aquifer pumping and recharge rates, reservoir calculations, and ground <br /> water quality. This data will be incorporated into the three proposed <br /> alternatives to determine the most appropriate technology selection. The <br /> details of this evaluation process follow: <br /> s <br /> COMPARATIVE EVALUATION -OF_ACCEPTA.BLE ALTERNATIVES. <br /> j OBJECTIVE <br /> ti <br /> This evaluation will compare the screened and analyzed alternatives to <br /> determine the most cost effective remedial alternative(s). <br /> y ; <br /> APPROACH <br /> The results of the various evaluations performed under Task 3.6 will be <br /> compared. The feasible alternatives will be compared according to their <br /> expected ability to cost effectively provide reliable remediation results <br /> ' with a high level of certainty. The results of the ground water modeling <br /> efforts provide key information with regard to treatment system size and <br /> w <br /> 33-87-887 18 <br />