Laserfiche WebLink
LFR Levine-Fricke <br /> Criterion 4: Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment <br /> Only two of the proposed alternatives(Alternatives 4 and 5) include treatment of soil <br /> for reduction of toxicity and mobility. Alternative 4 offers treatment with off-site <br /> disposal, while Alternative 5 offers treatment with on-site storage of treated soil. <br /> Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 offer no treatment. None of the alternatives offer reduction of <br /> volume by treatment. However, Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 offer varying degrees of <br /> reduction of volume by removal. <br /> The alternatives are ranked from most to least effective relative to reduction of toxicity, <br /> mobility, and volume through treatment: Alternative 4, 5, 3, 2, and 1. <br /> Criterion 5: Short-term Effectiveness <br /> The five proposed alternatives offer varying degrees of short-term effectiveness. <br /> Alternative 1 offers no short-term effectiveness. Alternatives 2 and 5 offer moderate <br /> short-term effectiveness due to retention of potentially hazardous material. Alternatives <br /> 3 and 4 offer significant short-term effectiveness due to removal of hazardous <br /> materials. <br /> The alternatives are ranked from most to least effective relative to short-term <br /> effectiveness: Alternative 3, 4, 5, 2, and 1. <br /> Criterion 6: Implementability <br /> All of the remedial alternatives can be implemented; however, significantly varying <br /> degrees of resources and time would be required. Alternative 1 requires no planning <br /> and would be the easiest to implement. All other alternatives would entail significant <br /> planning and coordinating between contractors (SCI, LFR, and possibly others), <br /> vendors, and regulatory agencies (including the RWQCB, DTSC, CIWMB, San <br /> Joaquin County, and CDFG). <br /> The alternatives are ranked from most to least implementable: Alternative 1, 3, 2, 4, <br /> and 5. <br /> Criterion 7: Cost <br /> As with other evaluation criteria, the five proposed alternatives can be evaluated <br /> relative to cost. Of course, Alternative 1 would offer the lowest cost. The total capital <br /> cost, the present worth of operation and maintenance costs, and total net present worth <br /> of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 is moderate to high. Costs for implementing and <br /> verifying long-term effectiveness for Alternative 3 would be less than Alternative 4 and <br /> significantly less than Alternatives 2 and 5. Long-term environmental monitoring under <br /> Alternative 3 would be less than for Alternatives 4 and 5. <br /> The alternatives are ranked from least to most expensive: Alternative 1, 3, 4, 5, and 2. <br /> Final_RAP_Tracy_9.18.03(final).doc Page 17 <br />