PR0535342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LFR Levine-Fricke Based on soil characterization results, surficial soil beneath the ash has been classified as a non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(non-RCRA)hazardous waste due to total metal concentrations and zinc leachability. Table 1 provides a summary of soil characterization data used to classify the soil as a Class I non-RCRA hazardous waste. Groundwater samples were collected from the four on-site groundwater monitoring wells(MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4) on December 13, 2001 (EEI 2002). Groundwater samples collected from wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-4 contained higher concentrations of aluminum, arsenic,barium, chromium, cobalt, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, silver, vanadium, and zinc than the sample collected from an upgradient well (MW-3). Several metals (aluminum, antimony [estimated], arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium-total, lead [estimated], manganese, and nickel)were reported at concentrations exceeding their respective California maximum contaminant levels (MCLS)in the four monitoring wells. The remedial action objective(RAO) for the Site is to remove or mitigate the source of contamination based on visual inspection of burnt material present in the 34 burn piles. The goal of the remedial action is to maximize removal of Class I non-RCRA hazardous waste, Class II designated waste, and potentially discolored soil from the project site. Remedial alternatives were evaluated relative to their effectiveness in meeting the RAO for the Site. Excavation of burned tires, ash, and pyrolytic oil-and metals-affected soil directly beneath the burned material followed by disposal at a state- permitted Class I or Class II landfill is the proposed alternative that best meets the project objectives. Pyrolytic oil-and metals-affected soil and ash and other residual materials such as tire steel radials will be excavated and disposed of to remove the source of contamination and mitigate potential impact on groundwater beneath the Site. Site conditions will be further evaluated during the comprehensive RI/FS to be conducted following completion of the source removal action. The other alternatives considered in this RAP were: no action, capping, on-site stabilization prior to disposal, and on-site stabilization for placement back on site. The public can be involved in the remedy selection process by contacting the DTSC representative, Ms. Heidi Nelson, for more information at(916)255-3575. Page iv Final_RAP_Tracy_9.18.03(final).doc