Laserfiche WebLink
6.2.2 Screening of Remedial Alternatives <br /> The preliminary alternatives described in Section 6.2.1 were subjected to <br /> an initial screening process to eliminate those that could quickly be <br /> determined to be inappropriate for the former AFPC site. As described in <br /> Section 5.2, the following screening criteria were used: technical, <br /> environmental, public health, institutional and order-of-magnitude cost. For <br /> each criterion, a numerical rating of 1 to 5 was assigned. A score of 5 <br /> indicates a high or favorable rating for that criterion, a score of 1 <br /> indicates a low or unfavorable rating. in scoring costs, those having the <br /> lowest order-of-magnitude cost were given a 5 and those with the highest were <br /> given a rating of 1. The cost ranges and their respective ratings, based on <br /> the restricted remediation, were as follows: <br /> Cost Rating <br /> $0 - $250,000. . .. . . . ... .. . . .. . 5 <br /> $250,000-$500,000. .. . . . . . .. .. 4 <br /> $500,000-$750,000. . . . .. .. .. .. 3 <br /> ] $750,000-$1,000,000. . .. .. .. .. 2 <br /> Greater than $1 :pillion.. .. .. 1 <br /> Values for each criterion were then summed to give a total score for that <br /> alternative. All scores were assigned relative to other alternatives being <br /> considered. <br /> Table 6-1 contains the scores for each criterion. For the technical <br /> criterion, most alternatives scored relatively high. Because all remedial <br /> alternatives involving excavation would, in general, be highly reliable, these <br /> alternatives received technical ratings of five. The No Action and Capping <br /> alternatives, however, would not meet the remedial objectives and both were <br /> therefore rated at 4. <br /> 1 6-7 <br /> BS/0204b <br />