Laserfiche WebLink
' SECTION 7 <br /> ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF <br /> REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES <br />' In this section, an evaluation of remedial alternatives is presented <br /> for the affected soils and ground water delineated at Former Tank <br /> Saes #1 and #2. As discussed previously, the affected media at Sites <br /> #1 and #2 have been fully characterized. No remedial action is <br /> required at Site #3 <br />' As required by the PAR guidelines, this section evaluates the <br /> alternatives identified for the remediation of hydrocarbon-containing <br /> soils and ground water at Former Tank Sites #1 and #2. The first <br /> subsection identifies the criteria used to screen the alternatives The <br /> following two subsections present a description of the remedial <br /> alternatives screened for soil and ground water, including an <br />' evaluation of each alternative based on the screening criteria. The <br /> final subsection identifies the preferred alternatives for the saes. <br /> Smwning Giri#eria <br /> Alternatives for the remediation of hydrocarbon-containing soils and <br /> ground water were screened and evaluated based on the following <br /> ' four criteria. <br /> • Effectiveness, <br /> • Implementability, <br /> Cost, and <br /> Timeliness of Implementation. <br /> The effectiveness, implementability, and cost criteria are components <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 <br /> requirements Eachs included as an criterion <br /> itional <br /> criterion to accommodate site-specific <br /> is described below <br /> ' The effectiveness critenon evaluates the ability ofpresent e the sate a to <br /> It <br /> address the specific chemical compounds <br /> measures the reliability and effectiveness of the alternative for <br /> 7-1 <br />