Laserfiche WebLink
LFR Levine-Fricke <br /> of keeping treated soil on site may affect public opinion. An increase in truck traffic on <br /> the transportation route might be necessary due to the addition of stabilizing material. <br /> 5.3 Comparison of Remedial Alternatives <br /> The following section compares and ranks the five alternatives to each evaluation <br /> criterion. <br /> Criterion 1: Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> Each alternative, other than Alternative 1, offers some degree of protection of human <br /> health and the environment. Alternatives 3 and 4 would involve excavation and off-site <br /> disposal of the source of contamination at the Site. These alternatives would therefore <br /> significantly reduce the potential toxicity or mobility of present contaminants present at <br /> the Site, and offer a relatively high degree of protection of human health and the <br /> environment. Alternatives 2 and 5 would also offer protection of human health and the <br /> environment and reduce the potential mobility of the contaminants. However, since <br /> both of these alternatives would involve leaving source material at the Site, they are <br /> considered less effective than Alternatives 3 and 4 in meeting the RAO. Excavation and <br /> off-site disposal offers the highest degree of protection. <br /> The alternatives are ranked from most to least protective relative to overall protection <br /> of human health and the environment: Alternative 3, 4, 5, 2, and 1. <br /> Criterion 2: Compliance with State and Federal Requirements <br /> The interim remedial actions to be conducted under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would <br /> be consistent with state and federal requirements. As this is an interim activity, state <br /> and federal requirements will not be used to establish a final cleanup goal for the Site at <br /> this time. The Final RAP will meet final cleanup goals established after the <br /> comprehensive RI/FS is completed. Alternative 1, no action, would not comply with <br /> state and federal requirements. <br /> Criterion 3: Long-term Effectiveness and Performance <br /> The five proposed alternatives offer varying degrees of long-term effectiveness and <br /> performance. Removal and off-site disposal of the source of contamination under <br /> Alternatives 3 and 4 would provide maximum long-term effectiveness and permanence. <br /> These alternatives would involve significantly less long-term environmental monitoring <br /> than Alternative 5, which would involve placement of treated material back on site, and <br /> Alternative 2, which would involve capping the material on site. <br /> The alternatives are ranked from most to least effective relative to long-term <br /> effectiveness and performance: Alternative 3, 4, 5, 2, and 1. <br /> Page 16 Final_RAP_Tracy_9.18.03(final).doc <br />