4.2       OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation criteria for Alternatives 1 through 8 are based on
statutory requirements of CERCLA as amended by the Superfund
Amendment Reauthorization Act (SARA), Section 121; the NCP; and
the existing "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies under CERCLA" dated October 1988 (Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER] Directive No. 9355.3-01).  
The seven criteria used for evaluating alternatives are
discussed below.

     Overall protection of human health and the environment --
     This criterion describes how each alternative, as a whole,
     protects human health and the environment and indicates how
     each contaminant source is to be eliminated, reduced, or
     controlled.

     Compliance with ARARs -- This criterion evaluates each
     alternative's compliance with ARARs, or, if an ARAR waiver
     is required, how the waiver is justified.  ARARs consider
     location-specific, chemical-specific, and cleanup action-
     specific concerns.

     Long-term effectiveness and permanence -- This criterion
     evaluates the effectiveness of alternatives in protecting
     human health and the environment after the remedial action
     is complete.  Factors include magnitude of residual risks,
     adequacy of release controls, and reliability of release
     controls.

     Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
     -- This criterion evaluates the anticipated performance of
     the specific treatment technologies to reduce the toxicity,
     mobility, or volume of contaminants.  As stated in CERCLA
     Section 121(b)(1), "remedial actions in which treatment
     permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity
     or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
     contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred
     over remedial actions not involving such treatment."

     Short-term effectiveness -- This criterion examines the
     effectiveness of alternatives in protecting human health and
     the environment during the construction and implementation
     period.  Four factors are considered when assessing the
     short-term effectiveness of an alternative:  protection of
     the community during remedial actions, protection of workers
     during remedial actions, environmental impacts, and time
     required to complete remedial action.

     Implementability -- This criterion evaluates the technical
     and administrative feasibility of each alternative and the
     availability of required resources.

     Cost -- This criterion evaluates the capital, O&M, and
     present worth cost of each alternative.  The present worth
     cost is presented as the net present value.  Cost estimates
     for the alternatives were prepared from cost information
     included in EPA's "Compendium of Costs of Remedial
     Technologies at Hazardous Waste Sites," the 1992 Means
     Construction Cost Data Guide, EPA's "Remedial Action at
     Waste Disposal Sites Handbook," estimates for similar
     projects, estimates from processes demonstrated under EPA's
     SITE program, and estimates provided by equipment
     manufacturers.  The estimated costs are primarily based on
     available cost data for implementing existing, constructed
     treatment systems used to treat soil and sediment.  Cost
     savings may be achieved by designing and constructing larger
     systems that are suited to site-specific wastes.  However,
     little cost data is available concerning treatment of solid
     wastes with alternative treatment technologies.  Therefore,
     actual costs may significantly increase based on the wastes
     encountered and treated.  Capital and O&M cost estimates are
     order-of-magnitude level estimates; that is, the cost
     estimates have an expected accuracy of -30  to +50 percent. 
     The estimated present worth of remedial alternatives is
     based on 7.5 percent discount rates (as specified in Office
     of Management and Budget  Circular A-94) and a 30-year life. 
     

     Cost tables for each alternative are presented in the text
     of this report.  The costs in these tables are rounded to
     three significant figures, and the present worth costs are
     rounded to two significant figures.  Detailed cost tables
     are presented in Appendix C.

The two nontechnical criteria of state and community acceptance
are not addressed in this FS report because the report will not
be used as a decision document.  Community acceptance will be
addressed after public comments are received on this FS report.

In the sections below, each alternative is developed and
described, assessed against the seven evaluation criteria, and
comparatively analyzed to assess the relative performance of each
alternative with respect to these criteria.