Laserfiche WebLink
No significant environmental impacts were predicted for existing site <br /> conditions, however, alternatives that did not involve removal of any <br /> contaminated soils were rated as 3. Alternatives which involve leaving soils <br /> with diesel beneath the building were rated as 4. <br /> All alternatives that had the potential for reducing concentrations <br /> on-site below the health-based remedial objective of 10,000 ppm received <br /> public health scores of 4 or higher. The 1000 ppm and 10,000 ppm cleanups <br /> were rated as 5 to reflect the increased safety margin inherent in these <br /> cleanup levels. The off-site disposal alternatives were also rated 5. <br /> Alternative 2 was rated at 2 because an asphalt cap does not represent a <br /> significant change from existing site conditions. <br /> Institutional scores were used to reflect the amount of permitting <br /> requirements and existing precedents of cleanup levels set by agencies. Thus, <br /> Alternatives 3 and 4 rate one point higher than Alternative 7. Alternative 2 <br /> scored 2 because regulatory agencies would resist implementation of an <br /> alternative which did not meet stated remedial goals. <br /> Many alternatives that rated high in all other fields rated low in cost. <br /> Alternatives 3 through 5, the 1000 ppm cleanup level alternatives, all scored <br /> 1 based on the amount of soil required to be excavated and treated. <br /> The following four alternatives were not considered for further analysis: <br /> 1 <br /> o Capping only (Alternative 2) <br /> o Excavation up to 1000 ppm with Landfill disposal (Alternative 4) <br /> o Accessible 1000 ppm excavation with landfill disposal (Alternative 6) <br /> o Accessible 10,000 ppm excavation with landfill disposal <br /> (Alternative 10) <br /> Alternative 2 was eliminated based on its low public health and institutional <br /> scores, and Alternative 4 was eliminated because of the high cost. <br /> 6-8 <br /> HS/0204b <br />