Laserfiche WebLink
PLUME RESPONSE ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORW� <br /> Alternative 104 Alternative 106 <br /> Alternative 104 utilizes well fences oriented Alternative 106 was alternative F with the <br /> approximately perpendicular to the direction of that the northwest fence (equipotential <br /> groundwater flow. The purpose of these in-plume alternative F) was aligned along flow pa <br /> wells was to provide capture of the plume alignment) for alternative 106. The purp� <br /> upgradient of the southernmost extraction fence. axial in-plume wells was to provide <br /> Treated water was returned using well fences within capture and mass removal of that port* <br /> the footprint of the plume. The reinjected water was plume upgradient of the southwest e <br /> tP xtracti <br /> introduced into the aquifer and within the plume. <br /> Considerations: <br /> Considerations; he extraction rate was approximately <br /> T PP y <br /> • J <br /> In-plume reinjection would cause alteration of (about 1.6 MGD greater than Alternati <br /> P <br /> the flow paths of the plume; there is�strong ■ <br /> Capture was less effective than Altern, <br /> potential for horizontal and vertical spreading of and F. <br /> the plume. <br /> • Removal of contaminants from the silt <br /> • Drawdown, mounding, and disruption of the <br /> west lobe of the plume was not as effe+ <br /> groundwater flow field would occur, especially <br /> Alternatives C1 and F. <br /> in the vicinity of the LF-I plume. <br /> ■ Impact of the additional in-plume extra <br /> • High capital (initial construction) costs would wells on the duration offume cleanu <br /> P I <br /> result due to the large number of extraction unknown at this time. <br /> wells,reinjection wells,and pipeline lengths. <br /> * The alternative has an estimated extraction rate <br /> of 12 MGI] with little additional plume capture <br /> (e.g., the pumping rate is 3.5 MGD greater than <br /> Alternative C1,which has similar capture). <br /> f <br /> I <br /> 8 <br />