Laserfiche WebLink
mentation of Alternative 2 would increase the potential for exposure to hydrocarbon- and <br /> chlorinated compound-affected media and risk of injury. The increase in risk for Alternative 2 <br /> stems from construction activities, and transporting/processing relatively isolated hydrocarbon <br /> compounds. On this basis, Alternative 1 was favored over Alternative 2. <br /> Economic. Based on economic analysis, alternatives were ranked from most economical to <br /> least economical. The economic considerations are based on past experience at similar sites <br /> and EPA estimates. Alternative 1 is associated with a lower initial capital outlay and a longer <br /> operational period when compared to Alternative 2. Implementation of Alternative 1 could <br /> cost between $20,000 to $110,000 to complete, and implementation of Alternative 2 could <br /> cost $120,000 to $200,000 to complete. The estimation of cost for Alternative 2; however, <br /> may likely increase significantly due to the presence of the chlorinated plume which will <br /> require additional design, construction, and abatement materials. The most cost effective <br /> alternative will minimize the burden of remediation on the people of the State, and on this <br /> basis Alternative I was ranked over Alternative 2. <br /> Considering the data presented, PACIFIC recommends application of Alternative 1. Imple- <br /> mentation of Alternative 2 was rejected primarily because the expected costs (tangible and <br /> intangible) are not consistent with the intended effect: reduction of hydrocarbon mass at the <br /> most reasonable cost. It was found that 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 1. Using technical, environmental safety, and <br /> 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 15 June 29, 1995 <br />