Laserfiche WebLink
stipulated that all these different soil remedial actions <br /> are to be evaluated for sites with both soil and groundwater <br /> contamination, but no similar evaluation would be done for <br /> UST sites requiring only soil remediation in previous <br /> Section 5. 1. 2 . 1. This difference probably results from use <br /> of the Tri-Regional Guidance which is primarily intended to <br /> protect groundwater. DDRW-TRACY should use a similar <br /> evaluation for sites requiring soils remediation. <br /> 4 . Section 5.2 <br /> Section 5 . 2 presents the FS approach to sites other than <br /> USTs. This Work Plan reiterates an outline of the EPA <br /> guidance in stipulating what will be done. The Work Plan is <br /> largely generic and is not specific to the site being <br /> investigated. The reviewer is given a skeleton of what will <br /> be done, but little information about how the tasks will be <br /> done and what the products might look like. For example, <br /> how will the FS remedial alternatives tie together the <br /> various types of "sites" that require remediation? How will <br /> the cost estimates be developed and checked? These types of <br /> "how" questions should be considered in the FS Work Plans. <br /> 5 . Page 5-5, third bullet, third sentence <br /> This is not a good example. Both biological and thermal <br /> treatment would usually be eliminated if the contaminants of <br /> concern are metals. <br /> III-2 <br />