Laserfiche WebLink
SECTION 4 <br /> EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> 1 ' <br /> In this section, an evaluation of remedial alternatives is presented for <br /> the affected soils and ground water delineated at Former Tank Sites #1 <br />' and #2 As discussed previously, the affected media at Sites #1 and #2 <br /> have been fully characterized No remedial action is required at <br /> Site #3 <br /> 1 The first subsection describes the criteria used to screen the <br /> alternatives The following two subsections present a description of <br />' the remedial alternatives screened for soil and ground water, including <br /> an evaluation of each alternative based on the screening criteria The <br /> final subsection identifies the preferred alternatives for the sites <br /> Screening Criteria <br /> Alternatives for the remediation of hydrocarbon-containing soils and <br /> ground water were screened and evaluated based on the following four <br /> criteria <br />' • Effectiveness, <br /> • Implementability, <br />' • Cost, and <br /> • Timeliness of Implementation <br />' The effectiveness, im lementabilit and cost criteria are components <br /> P Y� P <br /> of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and were used because these <br />' criteria provide a systematic method of alternatives evaluation <br /> Timeliness of implementation was included as an additional criterion <br />' to accommodate site-specific requirements Each criterion is described <br /> below <br /> The effectiveness criterion evaluates the ability of the alternative to <br /> address the specific chemical compounds present at the site It <br /> measures the reliability and effectiveness of the alternative for <br /> 4-1 <br /> I <br />