WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5.1.3.2 Worker Safety Each removal alternative was evaluated with regard to minimization of risk, loss, and injury to workers associated with construction and operation of the alternative. The safety evaluation takes into consideration any long-term or short-term threats to the safety of nearby workers and the environment. 5.1.4 Environmental/Public Health Criteria An alternative selected for source control must adequately protect public health, welfare, and the environment. This requires documenting that the alternative minimizes both short-and long-term effects of any residual contamination and protects the public and the environment after implementation of the alternative. Alternatives that completely destroy the wastes or convert them to non-toxic forms would be rated numerically higher than alternatives that completely isolate the wastes. When selecting and evaluating a source control alternative, primary considerations are given to alternatives which attain applicable federal, state, and local environmental and public health standards. Alternatives meeting or exceeding acceptable environmental standards are rated with higher numerical value than those that do not attain the standards but which only reduce the likelihood of present or future threats from the hazardous substances. 5.2 COMPARISON OF REUSE/ABANDONMENTMEMOLITION ALTERNATIVES The reuse/abandonment/demolition alternatives were compared based on the following criteria: 5.2.1 Technical Criteria Cleanup techniques described in Section 4.0 are known to be effective for decontamination of similar facilities. However, the appropriateness of a cleanup operation as opposed to demolition depends on the severity of contamination of concrete walls in the sumps/pit and the projected end use of the facility. Deteriorated concrete surfaces allow the contaminants to migrate inside the walls, making cleanup operations technically difficult and non-detectable contaminant levels hard to achieve. Therefore, if a cleanup operation is established to be technically infeasible via alternative screening (Sections 5.3 and 6.0), demolition may be the preferred option. The 2.5-foot-deep sump in Area A contains a 1.5-foot-thick layer of lead and PCB- contaminated water and sludge. Over a period of time, the contaminants are expected to have migrated into the walls of the sump exposed to the sludge and water. Therefore, technically, a cleanup operation will not efficiently decontaminate the sump in Area A. However, the sump can be demolished relatively easily after the 17