Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> associated with moderate capital outlay, it was assumed the alternative <br /> lifespan would be approximately 8 years (cost $200,000) The most cost- <br /> effective alternative will minimize the burden of remediation on the people <br /> of the State, and on this basis Alternative 2 was ranked over Alternative 1 <br /> (Appendix C) <br /> Considering the data presented, PACIFIC recommends application of Alternative 2 Imple- <br /> mentation of Alternative 1 was refected pnmanly because the expected costs (tangible and <br /> intangible) are not consistent with the intended long-term effect reduction of hydrocarbon <br /> mass at the most reasonable cost It was found that the short-term advantage (mnmtial mass <br /> removal rate) of Alternative i would not marginally change the degree or pace of capillary <br /> fringe and groundwater cleanup Instead, factors such as variations in permeability to air and <br /> groundwater flow, changes in residual hydrocarbon composition, the chemical characteristics <br /> of impact, and adsorption/absorption factors will control the pace and degree of cleanup <br /> Because of transport limitations, the short-term advantage of Alternative 1 would not signifi- <br /> cantly change the remediation lifespan relative to that expected for Alternative 2 Using <br /> technical, environmental safety, and economic criteria it was shown that implementation of <br /> Alternative 1 would not be cost-effective <br /> Alternative 2 was favored because it is known to be effective, the costs to public health and <br /> • safety are less than those associated with Alternative 1, and the resource cost to the public is <br /> more reasonable than that for Alternative 1 It was shown that Alternative 2 numumnmzes the <br /> potential burden on the people of the State with the expense of remediation <br /> 3201337B/1918REV 26 August 31, 1995 <br />