Laserfiche WebLink
• preparation and implementation of a contingency plan that includes <br /> engineered health and safety management controls. <br /> Implementation of Alternative 2 was rejected primarily because the expected costs (tangible <br /> and intangible) are not consistent with the intended effect: reduction of hydrocarbon mass at <br /> the most reasonable cost. It was found that the short term advantage\effectiveness (initial <br /> mass removal rate) of alternative 2 would diminish quickly as various factors work to limit <br /> hydrocarbon vapor transport. These factors include variations in air permeability, changes in <br /> residual hydrocarbon composition, and different soil absorption factors. Because of transport <br /> limitation, the short term effectiveness would not significantly change the remediation lifespan <br /> relative to that expected for Alternative I. Using technical, institutional, environmental safety, <br /> and economic criteria it was shown that implementation of Alternative 2 would not be cost <br /> effective. <br /> Alternative 1 was favored because its effectiveness is long-term, the costs to public health and <br /> safety are less than those associated with Alternative 2, and the resource cost to the public is <br /> more reasonable than that for Alternative 2. It was shown that Alternative 1 minimizes the <br /> potential burden on the people of the State with the expense of remediation. <br /> 3201357B/CAPREVI iii June 29, 1995 <br />