Laserfiche WebLink
surface waters. MCTC should also address concerns for surface <br /> migration from the North Yard, in addition to the South Yard. <br /> S . Site characterization activities performed as part of the <br /> remedial investigation should also generate data for determining <br /> the need for contaminant source control measures. MCTC <br /> describes several source control measures which have already <br /> been performed such as lining the retort pit and constructing <br /> curbing near the retort area to contain drainage from freshly <br /> treated wood. Another potential contaminant source which <br /> does not appear to have been addressed is the storm water <br /> drain lines in the North Yard which discharge into the storm <br /> water retention pond. All potential sources of contamination <br /> should be investigated. <br /> Feasibility Study Activities: <br /> 1 . The general outline presented by MCTC in the mitigation plan <br /> appears to address the requirements for evaluating remedial <br /> action alternatives and developing a remedial action program <br /> as described in the National Contingency Plan. <br /> 2. MCTC states that during the initial screening of alternatives, . <br /> "Technologies will be eliminated from further consideration <br /> if they cost substantially more than others . <br /> criterion for initial screeningof ' . . " Cost is a <br /> al <br /> alternatives. However, it should beokept lin mirmed <br /> ndthataanion <br /> alternative must be demonstrated to be an order of magnitude <br /> or greater than alternatives providing similar protection <br /> to public health and the environment before being removed <br /> from consideration. In addition, more expensive alternatives <br /> which provide greater protection of public health and the <br /> environment should be included in the feasibility study. <br /> F'a <br />