Laserfiche WebLink
7.0 EVALUATION OF FINAL CANDIDATE ALTERNATIVES <br /> This section presents an evaluation of each of the six final candidate <br /> alternatives. In accordance with the Decision Tree Manual, the following five <br /> criteria were used to evaluate each of the alternatives: technical <br /> feasibility, environmental and public health impact, institutional <br /> requirements, and cost effectiveness. The evaluation of each alternative <br /> comprises an analysis of each criterion followed by a qualitative ranking of <br /> each criterion on a scale from one to five. A rating of one indicates an <br /> unfavorable evaluation of the alternative for that criterion, while a rating <br /> of five indicates a favorable evaluation. A summary of the evaluation of the <br /> final candidate alternatives is presented below. <br /> 7.1 Technical Feasibility <br /> Technical feasibility evaluation consists of the following five elements: <br /> performance, reliability, implementability, time, and safety. A detailed <br /> technical feasibility evaluation of each of the six final candidate <br /> alternatives is presented in Appendix F. The qualitative ranking of the <br /> various alternatives is presented in Table 7-1. <br /> A brief description of each technical feasibility evaluation element is <br /> presented below: <br /> Perfgrmanct <br /> Two factors were used to evaluate this element: effectiveness and useful <br /> life. Effectiveness is defined as the ability of the alternative to reduce <br /> the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants, thereby achieving <br /> established remedial response criteria for the site. Useful life is a measure <br /> of the durability or permanence of a given alternative. The effectiveness of <br /> many technologies deteriorates with time, and some eventually require <br /> replacement. Operating, maintenance, and replacement data must be considered <br /> during evaluation of useful life. <br /> 7-1 <br /> GGA/0198b <br />