Laserfiche WebLink
7h3adwe11&Ro110 <br /> • <br /> Alternatives must meet criteria 1 and 2. Criteria 3 through 7 are considered"primary balancing <br /> criteria," and criteria 8 and 9 are "modifying criteria". Each are discussed in this section. <br /> 4.2.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> All of the alternatives are, with the exception of the No Action alternative,protective, in that <br /> they minimize or eliminate direct contact with contaminated soil. <br /> 4.2.2 ARAR Compliant <br /> All of the alternatives are, with the exception of the No Action Alternative, compliant with all <br /> ARARs and TBCs. <br /> 4.2.3 Long-Term Effectiveness <br /> • Capping and on-site relocation are each effective in the long-term, provided that adequate <br /> maintenance of the containment is provided and that there is no contaminant transport. In the <br /> case of capping, this is typically addressed in the design stage to provide for a well-drained <br /> finished surface with adequate clean fill over the contaminated soil to isolate the contamination <br /> from the environment, and with institutional controls to maintain the integrity of the cap. On-site <br /> relocation of contaminated soil to areas under planned structures and paved areas is similarly <br /> effective when properly planned and executed. <br /> Source area removal is highly effective in the long-term as the contamination is excavated and <br /> transported to an appropriately permitted facility under manifest documentation. Institutional <br /> controls are typically not required. <br /> Biodegradation is effective provided adequate nutrients are available. Vacuum extraction is <br /> similarly effective, provided the contaminants are volatile and subsurface conditions are <br /> appropriate. <br /> • <br /> 23 <br /> 25970318.PGS 15 November 2000 <br />