ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0006289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Alternative 1 was chosen on the following basis Technical. Technical criteria considered included short- and long-term effectiveness, reduction in the toxicity, mobility, and volume of affected media, and implementability With regard to implementability, Alternative 1 is favored because implementation is not expected to significantly disrupt the site, or the community In terms of effectiveness, Alternative 2 is anticipated to be incrementally more effective in the short-term The benefit that ranked Alternative 2 above Alternative 1 in the short term was the increase in short-term effectiveness associated with the higher mass reduction rate. The actual effectiveness of this alternative, however, may be reduced due to the presence of the VOCs beneath the site which likely will prolongate the duration of the alternative It should be noted that the benefit described for the short-term may be superficial in the long-term Since plume degradation appears to be occur- ring naturally and migration is mirumal, application of Alternative 2 over the long-term would provide little benefit over that provided by Alternative 1 It was determined that both altema- Lives allow for a similar degree of reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume of hydro- carbon-affected media Given the discussion above, Alternative 1 was ranked over Alterna- tive 2 Institutional. It is anticipated that implementation of either alternative would be consistent with applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements, however, community acceptance of the heavy construction associated with Alternative 2 may be weak and the complexity of m compliance would be higher than for Alternative 1 Additionally, Alternative 2 would require more resource commitment from the regulatory community Because of these factors, Alter- native 1 was ranked above Alternative 2 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 1, imple- mentation of Alternative 2 would increase the potential for exposure to hydrocarbon- and e VOC-affected media and risk of injury The increase in risk for Alternative 2 stems from construction activities, and transporting/processing relatively isolated hydrocarbon compounds On this basis, Alternative 1 was favored over Alternative 2 Economic. Based on economic analysis, alternatives were ranked from most economical to least economical The economic considerations are based on past experience at similar sites and EPA estimates Alternative 1 is associated with a lower initial capital outlay and a longer operational period when compared to Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 1 could cost between $20,000 to $110,000 to complete, and implementation of Alternative 2 could cost $120,000 to $200,000 to complete The estimation of cost for Alternative 2, however, may likely increase significantly due to the presence of the VOCs which will require additional design, construction, and abatement materials The most cost effective alternative will mini- 3201357B1CAP 13 April 4 1995