developed in accordance with the New York State Environmental Co+servation Law (ECL) and 6 NYCRR Part 375, NYS Inactive Hazardous Waste Sit Remedial Program. The ROD is consistent with the Comprehensive Environme tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U C Section 9601, et., seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reau horization Act Of 1986 (SARA). The criteria which were used in evaluating tihe Potential remedial alternatives can be summarized as follows: i C o m ~ l l a n c rwith ADcd+caJle or Relevant and AD~rooriateNew York State Standarda.~ (SCGs)--SCCs are divided into the categories of chemical-specific le.a.. standards). action- . aroundwater specific (e-g., design 03 a landfill), and l o ~ a t i o n ~ $ ~ e ic' c i fie.g., protection of wetlands). protection of Human Health and the overall and final evaluation of the health and mental impacts to assess whether each alternative is protective. is based upon a composite of factors assessed under other short/) mg-term effectiveness and .. Short-term Im~actsand Effectiveness--The potential hort-term adverse impacts of the remedial action upon the community, t e workers, and the environment is evaluated. The length of time needed to achieve the remedial objectives is estimated and compared with her alternatives. Lona-term Effectiveness and Permanence--If wastes or residuals will remain at the site after the selected remedy has bee implemented, the following items are evaluated: 1) the magnitude an nature of the risk presented by the remaining wastes; 2 ) the ade controls intended to limit the-risk to protective le+ls; and 3 ) the reliability of these controls. Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv. and give preference to alternatives that reduce the toxicity, mobility, and This includes assessing the fate of treating the wastes at the site. alternative, the reliability of the technology, and tFe ability to effectively monitor the effectiveness of the remedy. Administratively, the availability of the necessary personnel and material is evaluated along with potential difficulties in obtaining special permits, rightsof-way for construction, etc. ---Capital and operation and maintenance costs are estimated for the lthough cost is alternatives and compared on a present worth basis. the last criterion evaluated, where two or more alter$ativee have met the requirements of the remaining criteria, lower cosq can be used as the basis for final selection. d The overall objective of the remediation is to reducethe levels which concentrations of contaminants and the routes of exposure are protective of human health and the environment. The siUe-specific goals for remediating the site can be summarized in general as fdllows: 40 o Reduce, control, or eliminate the generation of Leachates within the fill mass. o Reduce or eliminate the uncontrolled emission of landfill gases and to prevent uncontrolled combustion'of landfill gases. o Eliminate the potential for direct human or animdl contact with the waste mass and leachate seeps. o Reduce, control, or eliminate the potential impacts to the ecological environment of the Croton Marsh. The following section addressee the alternatives that were evaluated to achieve theee goals. VI. SUMMARY OF TEE EVALUATION OF REW3DIAL ALTERNATIVES A. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES The CPSL has been evaluated as a single "operable unit." That is, the site consists essentially of a single contaminated area and the ev+luations would not benefit from dividing the site into separate pieces. R ediation of the CPSL entails addressing the waste mass, contaminated leacha es, gaseous missions and sediments/aoila of concern. The FS initiallyscreened many different technologies either individually or in combination &ith other technologies for technical implementability in'achieving the r edial goals. uore complete descriptions of the screening and development of echnoloaies into alternatives can be found in chapters-4 and 5 of the FS repod. Detailed evaluations of these alternatives are contained in Table 6 presents the feasible alternatives developed for CPSL site. The following alternatives were subjected to t 9 - Altasnative 1: No Action With Institutional Controls: For all inactive hazardous waste sites, the evaluation of alternative is carried through to the end of the analysis purposes. The No-Action alternative is inappropriate for a has not achieved the current closure requirements presented 360: Solid Waste Management Facilities. Included in the no action alternative, is an environmental monitoring program of the remedial alternative selected. This air from the site on a regular basis. This program will be evaluated periodically to ensure it remains and applicable based on the site data. This review will occur at of every five years for a minimum period of thirty years. Institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions on the use bf groundwater beneath the site and limitations on land uses are inclukd. Physical improvements in the form of enhanced fences and posting of the property, vegetation establishment and maintenance, and continugd stormwater/leachate recirculation (as necessary durina storm events) are also included. - -