Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> O Cntenon 3: <br /> This alternative can be implemented within regulatory guidelines <br /> O Criterion 4 <br /> ' This alternative is the least cost effective of the three alternatives due to high costs <br /> associated with implementation. The fact that the impacted soil extends to a depth of 45 <br /> ' feet make this alternative economically infeasible The building on site and a portion of <br /> ' the adjacent street would be destroyed or extensive shonng would be required Costs <br /> associated with disposal of contaminated soil to an appropriate landfill and backfilling the <br /> ' excavation with clean material also increase the total cost of remediation The cost of <br /> this remediation alternative is estimated to be between $200,000 and $500,000 <br /> ' O Criterion 5 <br /> The alternative would be effective in the short term because it results in the direct <br /> removal of the contamination source Excavation would increase health-based risks to <br /> humans via exposure of the impacted soil to the air and inhalation of and direct dermal <br /> contact with dust during site activities The time required to complete this alternative <br /> would be less than 6 months <br /> ' O Criterion 6 <br /> The long term effectiveness would be considerable if the entire area of impacted soil is <br /> removed from the site, preventing any possibility of contamination of groundwater <br /> ' O Criterion 7 <br /> This alternative would have implementability difficulties due to the proximity of impacted <br /> ' soil to buildings, utilities, and the nearby highway which is heavily travelled by trucks <br /> as well as local and through traffic <br /> r <br /> 150047\REPORMCAP 0694 FNL 13 <br />