PR0535342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LFR Levine-Fricke addition of cement to the soil may affect the quality of the soil as potential flora and fauna habitat. Compliance with Federal and State Requirements. As this is an interim activity, state and federal requirements will not be used to establish a final cleanup goal for the Site at this time. The Final RAP will meet final cleanup goals established after the comprehensive RI/FS is completed. However, the interim remedial action will be consistent with other state and federal requirements. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence. Removal of the pyrolytic oil-affected soil and excavation, treatment, and replacement of the metals-affected soil will provide moderate to high long-term effectiveness and permanence. The effectiveness of the on- site treatment in reducing leachable concentrations of metals over the long-term and the plans to restore the Site to functional habitat would need to be demonstrated by long- term monitoring. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume through Treatment. Toxicity and mobility of metals-affected soil would likely be reduced by treatment in this alternative. Toxicity and mobility of pyrolytic oil-affected soil would not be reduced by treatment. The volume of affected soil would not be reduced through treatment. Short-Term Effectiveness. This alternative would provide moderate to significant short- term effectiveness. Implementability. This alternative could be implemented but would entail planning and coordinating with an additional remediation contractor, thus adding time to the project schedule. Separation of pyrolytic oil-affected soil for transportation versus metals- affected soil for on-site treatment and replacement could be difficult. Stockpiling soil on-site before treatment would not require obtaining permits from the DTSC because the Site is a CAMU. Cost. The total capital cost for Alternative 5 is considered high. Costs include soil excavation, off-site disposal of pyrolytic oil, treatment of metals-affected soil, replacement of the treated soil, grading, and drainage. Costs also include long-term groundwater monitoring to demonstrate treatment effectiveness in protecting groundwater quality. Cost savings realized through treating soil for on-site placement rather than disposing of the soil off site may be offset by costs to demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment. The present worth of operation and maintenance costs, including 30 years of monitoring and reporting, is relatively high. The total net present worth of Alternative 1 is high. Regulatory Acceptance. This alternative may be accepted by DTSC, CIWMB, and RWQCB because it actively remediates or mitigates the source of contamination. Community Acceptance. The community may accept this alternative on the basis of input received to date from the public on the recently completed, neighboring, and similar project named the Westley Tire Fire Site(CIWMB, 2003). However, the risk Final_RAP_Tracy_9.18.03(final).doc Page 15