Laserfiche WebLink
APPENDIX VIII <br /> EXAMPLE OF THE USES OF THE <br /> REMEDY SELECTION CRITERIA <br /> The example below is provided to demonstrate how the nine criteria can <br /> be utilized when evaluating remedial alternatives . This example is <br /> for a soil operable unit in a draft RAP. <br /> SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES AGAINST. THE NINE CRITERIA <br /> An evaluation of the eight alternatives in relation to the nine <br /> decision making criteria is summarized below. <br /> 1 . Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> All of the alternatives, with the exception of the "no action" <br /> alternative, meet this criterion by minimizing or eliminating the <br /> risks from direct contact with soils and by minimizing or <br /> eliminating the source of groundwater contamination. <br /> 2 . Commliance with Arnlicable Reauirements <br /> All of the alternatives, with the exception of the "no action" <br /> alternative, meet this criterion. Applicable requirements are <br /> not applied to the "no action" alternative since no activity is <br /> taking place . <br /> Since the "no action" alternative is not protective of human <br /> health and the environment, it will not be discussed further in <br /> the criteria analysis . <br /> 3 . Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence <br /> The alternatives involving treatment or removal of the upper <br /> layers of soil as well as treatment of the lower layers of soil, <br /> provide the highest degree of long-term effectiveness . <br /> The selected alternative, Alternative #3 , would leave waste in <br /> place in the upper layers . However, the waste will be isolated <br /> by the cap and slurry walls, thus eliminating direct contact with <br /> the waste material and minimizing leaching to groundwater. The <br /> selected alternative will undergo a review every 5 years to <br /> insure protection of human health and the environment as required <br /> by EPA when waste is left in place. <br /> 41 - 11/16/95 <br />