Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 20.
Published in final edited form as: J Clean Prod. 2021 Sep 20;316:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128347

Table 3.

Summary of the detailed analysis of alternatives presented in the hypothetical case study in Appendix A of EPA (1988b) used to develop the datasets for this case study.

Balancing criteria
Alternative Long-term effectiveness and permanence Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment Short-term effectiveness Implementability Cost
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5
Alternative 1 - Natural attenuation Potential for exposure from residual contamination because institutional controls such as deed restrictions are not effective. The risk for carcinogens is at the high end of the protective risk range (2 × 10_4) and the HI is above 1.0. No treatment; no destruction; no reduction of MTV; residual contamination is high. Presents a higher risk to the community over the short-term; does not cause exposure to workers; does not cause environmental impacts; the restoration time frame is 40 years. Deed restrictions are unreliable; ease of taking additional actions is high; ability to monitor is high; ability to obtain approvals from other agencies is high; no coordination problem. 500,000 $
Alternative 2 - Pulsed pumping, 3 well points, air-stripping, enhanced biodegradation Residual risk is 10_ 5 for carcinogens, and the HI for systemic toxicants is 1.0. Contaminants are treated; quantitative residual contamination is below clean-up levels. Reduces risk to the community over the short-term; potentially small exposure to workers; does not cause environmental impacts; the restoration time frame is 12 years. Biodegradation may not work;, ease of undertaking additional actions is good; ability to monitor is high; other approvals can be obtained; coordination with other agencies is moderate. 3,000,000 $
Alternative 3 - Pulsed pumping, 7 well points, air-stripping, reinjection, enhanced biodegradation Regional risk is 10_ 5 for carcinogens, and the HI is 1.0. Contaminants are treated; quantitative residual contamination is below clean-up levels. Reduces risk to the community over the short-term; potentially small exposure to workers; does not cause environmental impacts; the restoration time frame is 10 years. Biodegradation may not work; ease of undertaking additional actions is poor; ability to monitor is uncertain because of difficulties in predicting the effect of reinjection; approval of underground injection is questionable; coordination with other agencies is moderate. 5,000,000 $