Laserfiche WebLink
the same for both alternatives What tips the scale in favor of Alternative 2 <br /> is that it will have a greater effect on groundwater remediation (i e, it will <br /> increase the hydrocarbon volatilization rate and oxygen influx rate) One <br /> negative long-term aspect of Alternative 1 is that hydrocarbon-affected soil <br /> is merely transferred, not treated All alternatives allow for a reduction in <br /> toxicity, mobility, and volume of hydrocarbon-affected media Based on the <br /> foregoing discussion, Alternative 2 appears to be the most appropriate for <br /> implementation with respect to technical criteria Implementation of <br /> Alternative 2 would result in the least amount of properly disruption, and <br /> would leave soil in place instead of moving it to another location <br /> • Institutional. It is anticipated that implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 <br /> would be consistent with applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements, <br /> however, community acceptance of the heavy construction associated <br /> Alternative 1 may be weak With respect to treating impact versus moving <br /> it, the regulating community favors treatment Alternative 2 relies on <br /> treatment and does not promote moving impact Finally, regulatory <br /> oversight would be more complex for Alternative 1 Because of factors <br /> described above, Alternative 2 was ranked above the other alternative with <br /> respect to institutional criteria <br /> • • Human Health and Environmental Protection. Both alternatives would <br /> provide protection of human health and the environment, however, when <br /> compared to Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase <br /> the potential for exposure to hydrocarbon-affected media and risk of mjury <br /> The increase in risk stems from construction activities, and transporting <br /> relatively isolated hydrocarbon compounds Consider that excavation <br /> would be performed to decrease impact exposure risk of death to 1 m <br /> 1,000,000 (assuming one could be exposed to impact that is now relatively <br /> isolated) at the expense of implementing activities that carry a risk of 1 in 23 <br /> (accidental death) to 1 in 250 (death on the fob, 40 years oil company) <br /> Additionally, transferring impacted media to another location <br /> (Alternative 1) does not address long-term environmental safety On this <br /> basis, Alternative 2 was favored over Alternative 1 <br /> • Economic. Based on economic analysis, alternatives were ranked from <br /> most economical to least economical Alternative 1 is associated with <br /> considerable capital outlay, and an incrementally shorter operation period <br /> (when operation and maintenance of the WQLZ is also considered) It was <br /> estimated that implementation of Alternative 1 would cost $600,000 It was <br /> assumed the lifespan of Alternative 1 would be 3 years Alternative 2 is <br /> 3201337B/1918REV 25 August 31, 1995 <br />