Laserfiche WebLink
LFR Levine-Fricke <br /> Following completion of interim source of contamination removal/remediation <br /> activities, a comprehensive RI/FS will be conducted to evaluate environmental <br /> conditions. An additional groundwater monitoring well(MW-5)was installed during <br /> April 2003 and a groundwater monitoring program has been implemented at the Site <br /> and will be continued during the RI/FS. <br /> Five proposed remedial alternatives to address gross contamination(i.e., ash, burned <br /> material, and pyrolytic oil-and metals-affected soil)were developed for the Site. Each <br /> alternative is evaluated in this section using the criteria specified in the National <br /> Contingency Plan(NCP) and U.S. EPA guidance(U.S. EPA 1988). All of the <br /> alternatives except the "no action" alternative were developed to meet the Site RAO. <br /> Section 5.1 presents the proposed alternatives and nine criteria used in the assessment <br /> of remedial alternatives. In Section 5.2, the interim alternatives are defined and <br /> evaluated. The alternatives are then compared in Section 5.3 to identify their <br /> advantages and disadvantages. Based on this comparison, a single remedial alternative <br /> is recommended and described in Section 6. <br /> 5.1 Alternatives and Criteria <br /> A preliminary RI/FS was conducted at this site; however, no alternatives were <br /> recommended in the preliminary RI/FS report. The following alternatives are being <br /> considered for this RAP to address ash, burned material, surface soil, and pyrolytic oil: <br /> 1. No Action <br /> 2. Capping <br /> 3. Excavation of Pyrolytic Oil-and Metals-Affected Soil for Off-Site Disposal <br /> 4. Excavation of Pyrolytic Oil-and Metals-Affected Soil for Off-Site Disposal <br /> Following Stabilization of Metals-Affected Soil <br /> 5. Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Pyrolytic Oil-Affected Soil and Excavation, <br /> On-Site Stabilization, and Replacement of Metals-Affected Soil <br /> The following nine criteria were used to evaluate the remedial alternatives (U.S. EPA <br /> 1988): <br /> 1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment <br /> 2. Compliance with State and Federal Requirements <br /> 3. Long-term Effectiveness and Performance <br /> 4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through treatment <br /> 5. Short-Term Effectiveness <br /> 6. Implementability <br /> 7. Cost <br /> 8. Regulatory Agency Acceptance <br /> 9. Community Acceptance <br /> Page 8 Final_RAP_Tracy_9.18.03(final).doc <br />