WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5.1.1.2 Useful Life Removal action alternatives were evaluated on their permanence and reversibility. A consideration of useful life is durability, or the projected length of time that the design level of effectiveness could reasonably be expected to be maintained. Alternatives providing long-term solutions without significant deterioration would receive a higher relative numerical rating than alternatives whose effectiveness deteriorates over time. 5.1.2 Cost Criteria Cost ratings are assigned to each alternative comparatively. The most expensive alternatives are ranked 1, and the least expensive alternatives are ranked 4. The error associated with the alternatives is in the range of +30 percent to -50 percent. This level of detail is adequate for comparative purposes when performing feasibility studies (EPA, 1988). A more detailed cost estimate will be performed for the selected alternative during the plans and specifications development stage, prior to implementation. 5.1.3 Institutional Requirements The institutional requirements are listed below. 5.1.3.1 Permitting and Other Factors Affecting Start-Up Alternatives that must undergo lengthy environmental impact analysis and permitting are rated numerically lower than alternatives which reach the same results using existing permits. Similarly, alternatives that require variances to existing regulations would be rated lower than alternatives that do not require variances. Implementability pertains to the relative ease of conducting the removal and operational time required to achieve a given level of response. Ease of implementation refers to the ease of construction and the time required to achieve beneficial results. Conditions external to the site may also affect implementability. These include the availability and acceptability of off-site disposal sites, and the equipment available for construction. Factors considered also included required levels of personnel experience and training. 16