ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0002666 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Institutional. It is anticipated that implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 would be consistent with applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements, however, community acceptance of the heavy construction associated with Alternative 1 may be weak With respect to treating impact versus moving it, the regulating community favors treatment Alternative 2 relies on treatment and does not promote moving impact Finally, regulatory over- sight would be more complex for Alternative 1 Because of factors described above, Alternative 2 was ranked above the other alternative with respect to institutional criteria • Human Health and Environmental Protection. Both alternatives would provide protection of human health and the environment, however, when compared to Alternative 2, implementation of Alternative 1 would increase the potential for exposure to hydrocarbon-affected media and risk of injury The increase in risk stems from construction activities, and transporting relatively isolated hydrocarbon compounds Consider that excavation would be performed to decrease impact exposure risk of death to 1 in 1,000,000 (assuming one could be exposed to impact that is now relatively isolated) at the expense of implementing activities that carry a risk of 1 in 23 (accidental death) to 1 in 250 (death on the fob, 40 years oil company) Additionally, transferring impacted media to another location (Alternative 1) does not address long-term environmental safety On this basis, Alternative 2 was favored over Alternative 1 • Economic. Based on economic analysis, alternatives were ranked from most economical to least economical Alternative 1 is associated with considerable capital outlay, and a similar operation period (when operation and maintenance of the air sparger is also considered) It was estimated that implementation of Alternative 1 would cost $694,000 It was assumed the lifespan of Alternative 1 would be 8 years Alternative 2 is associated with moderate capital outlay, it was assumed the alternative lifespan would be approximately 8 years (cost $405,000) The most cost-effective alternative will mimmize the burden of remediation on the people of the State, and on this basis Alternative 2 was ranked over Alternative 1 (Appendix D) Considering the data presented, PACIFIC recommends application of Alternative 2 Imple- mentation of Alternative 1 was refected primarily because the expected costs (tangible and intangible) are not consistent with the intended long-term effect reduction of hydrocarbon mass at the most reasonable cost It was found that the short-term advantage (initial mass removal rate) of Alternative 1 would not marginally change the degree or pace of capillary fringe and groundwater cleanup Instead, factors such as variations in permeability to air and 3201337B/CAP AND DOC 20 November 30, 1995