Laserfiche WebLink
The remedial technologies selected for evaluation included DPE, AS/SVE, excavation, <br /> and MNA. Excavation was determined to be the more cost-effective active remedial <br /> approach, but not viable at this time due to the on-going site use/infrastructure and not <br /> justified by any risk to receptors. Measures are in-place to manage the soil exposure <br /> pathway in the event site improvements occur. <br /> In consideration of the draft low-threat closure policy, MNA was deemed the most <br /> appropriate and sustainable remedial approach. Limited/cost-controlled excavation of <br /> source material is reasonable if the opportunity present itself during future site <br /> improvements and if warranted. <br /> 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Based on the information presented and the evaluation of remedial alternatives, CRA <br /> recommends implementing MNA. CRA also recommends collecting bioparameters for <br /> one hydrologic cycle to assess the subsurface biological conditions. <br /> It is understood that the Central Valley Water Board cannot make decisions based on a <br /> draft policy. A Wiling on the draft low-threat closure policy is slated to occur in 2012. <br /> Regardless of the draft policy, the risk-based, environmentally sustainable approach <br /> recommended is adequately protective of human health, safety, and the environment. <br /> At a minimum, tabling the requirement for active remediation until a ruling on the draft <br /> policy occurs is requested. We also extend ourselves for a face-to-face meeting to further <br /> discuss details of site conditions and active remediation versus the risk-based approach. <br /> 241729(33) 25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS&ASSocKTEs <br />