The analysis of alternatives under review shall reflect the scope and complexity of site problems and alternatives being evaluated and consider the relative significance of the factors within each criteria:

• (A) Overall protection of human health and the environment. Alternatives shall be assessed to determine whether they can adequately protect human health and the environment, in both the short- and long-term, from unacceptable risks posed by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the site by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to levels established during development of remediation goals consistent with Sec. 300.430(e)(2)(i). Overall protection of human health and the environment draws on the assessments of other evaluation criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
• (B) Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal environmental laws and state environmental or facility siting laws or provide grounds for invoking one of the waivers under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
• (C) Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternatives shall be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate, include the following:
  • (1) Magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste or treatment residuals remaining at the conclusion of the remedial activities. The characteristics of the residuals should be considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into account their volume, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate.
  • (2) Adequacy and reliability of controls such as containment systems and institutional controls that are necessary to manage treatment residuals and untreated waste. This factor addresses in particular the uncertainties associated with land disposal for providing long-term protection from residuals; the assessment of the potential need to replace technical components of the alternative, such as a cap, a slurry wall, or a treatment system; and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the remedial action need replacement.
• (D) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume shall be assessed, including how treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site. Factors that shall be considered, as appropriate, include the following:
  • (1) The treatment or recycling processes the alternatives employ and materials they will treat;
  • (2) The amount of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that will be destroyed, treated, or recycled;
  • (3) The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of the waste due to treatment or recycling and the specification of which reduction(s) are occurring;
  • (4) The degree to which the treatment is irreversible;
  • (5) The type and quantity of residuals that will remain following treatment, considering the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous substances and their constituents; and
  • (6) The degree to which treatment reduces the inherent hazards posed by principal threats at the site.
• (E) Short-term effectiveness. The short-term impacts of alternatives shall be assessed considering the following:
  • (1) Short-term risks that might be posed to the community during implementation of an alternative;
  • (2) Potential impacts on workers during remedial action and the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures;
  • (3) Potential environmental impacts of the remedial action and the effectiveness and reliability of mitigative measures during implementation; and
  • (4) Time until protection is achieved.
• (F) Implementability. The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives shall be assessed by considering the following types of factors as appropriate:
  • (1) Technical feasibility, including technical difficulties and unknowns associated with the construction and operation of a technology, the reliability of the technology, ease of undertaking additional remedial actions, and the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the remedy.
  • (2) Administrative feasibility, including activities needed to coordinate with other offices and agencies and the ability and time required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits from other agencies (for off-site actions);
  • (3) Availability of services and materials, including the availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage capacity, and disposal capacity and services; the availability of necessary equipment and specialists, and provisions to ensure any necessary additional resources; the availability of services and materials; and availability of prospective technologies.
• (G) Cost. The types of costs that shall be assessed include the following:
  • (1) Capital costs, including both direct and indirect costs;
  • (2) Annual operation and maintenance costs; and
  • (3) Net present value of capital and O&M costs.
• (H) State acceptance. Assessment of state concerns may not be completed until comments on the RI/FS are received but may be discussed, to the extent possible, in the proposed plan issued for public comment. The state concerns that shall be assessed include the following:
  • (1) The state’s position and key concerns related to the preferred alternative and other alternatives; and
  • (2) State comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
• (I) Community acceptance. This assessment includes determining which components of the alternatives interested persons in the community support, have reservations about, or oppose. This assessment may not be completed until comments on the proposed plan are received.