Laserfiche WebLink
Antonia Vorster -2- 28 October 1981 <br /> 3. The report recommends that since the source nor the extent of the plume is <br /> known, no immediate cleanup is required. It further states: "if reqaired, a <br /> Problem Assessment Report should determine the source and extent of contamina- <br /> tion." <br /> The objective of this report should be to identify the entire problem and to <br /> propose mitigation measures to eliminate the problem. The Site Assessment <br /> Report has failed to meet these objectives. Therefore, a "Problem Assessment <br /> Report" is required. <br /> 4. The report states that there is no threat to existing or potential water <br /> supplies. The separation of the upper and lower water bearing zones has not <br /> been shown nor has the extent of the plume been determined. This conclusion <br /> has no merit. <br /> 5. The report recommends that further on-site monitoring wells are not necessary. <br /> This recommendation may be true only to the extent that the monitoring wells <br /> needed downgradient, will have to be located off-site to fully define the <br /> plume. <br /> In conclusion, this Site Assessment Report has not met the objectives of such <br /> a report. It has failed to delineate the extent of the plume. The contention <br /> that the source is from an upgradient source, is so far totally unsubstan- <br /> tiated. <br /> Additional site assessment work (i .e. , problem assessment) should meet the <br /> following objectives: <br /> a. The vertical and horizontal extent of the contamination should be identi- <br /> fied. <br /> b. Cleanup alternatives should be considered and a best alternative should be <br /> selected. <br /> c. A time schedule should be included for the implementation of the remedial <br /> action phase of the project. <br /> DLB:ej <br />