Laserfiche WebLink
-1 ri Regional Recommendation Pate 1 of 4 <br /> Appendix A <br /> F <br /> t - <br /> f <br /> It.e.} fatal eater supple wells. buildints l xi'aVauon: <br /> Or utilities imparted or potentially threat- Soil vapor emraction; <br /> erred). I3ioventi112: <br /> • <br /> Bioremediation (bio barriers): <br /> • I A risk assessmerit will be.necessar\.to- Groundwater extraction and treat- <br /> demonstrme ilial the site poses no-unac Herat <br /> ceptable risks to human-heallh or the 13iospaiging; <br /> environment. `I he.site-specific risk as- Ila-situ oxidation: <br /> sessnaent. must use the Office of Envi Dual-phase exu.action and treatment <br /> ronnierital.Health Hazard (0EFi -IA). and <br /> 'IOxicit�• date (cancer slopes).. This-111- • Monitored natural attenuation, <br /> Formation ntav streamline the consider2 -I'lle rationale for selecting the preferred <br /> tion of remedial alternatives and the <br /> remedial alternative for restoring and pro- <br /> timeline for implementation. tectine impacted or threatened waters. <br /> • Appropriate conclusions and recommen- 3,. A timeframe for achieving remedial goals. <br /> dations for-the next phase of work. <br /> 4. A cost comparison for remedial alterna- . <br /> • An updated Site.Conceptual Model illus- n.ves evaluated. <br /> traiing site conditions shOWine the extent <br /> of known soil and groundxvater impact \\ii'th minimal investigation and explanation, <br /> relative to the leak'i112 UST system and some remedial alternatives may be eliminated as <br /> the relationship between contaminants simply not feasible for the'site. For instance, <br /> and potential receptors. (See Figure 1 be, soil vapor extraction is.practical in sande soils <br /> lo\V for an example) but difficult to <br /> Justify for tighter clay soils where <br /> excavation and landfill disposal may be.more <br /> 4.2 Feasibility Studv [ S) Report 'effective iii meeting cleanup levels. <br /> l-he FS Report provides a summary Of remedial Note:.lf tfie proposed alternatives include either <br /> ,alternatives evaluated-to address applicable coil disposal to a landfill, gi-ounci vaier discharge <br /> cleanup levels for affected or threatened huniarato.the sanitary sewer, or venting vapor to the <br /> health andlor waters of the State. The FS Report ami.osphere, ei.c.. the discharger must.include <br /> must include a cost evaluation for at least two assurances front each appropriate regulating <br /> remedial alternatives:and a recommendation foraeenr> that the proposed activity is acceptable <br /> the preferred reniediaPaelion. The FS should and permissible. <br /> identify the preferred remedial fechnologies and <br /> may recommend pilot testing of the selected re <br /> medial technologies before full-scale design. <br /> The FS Deport is to.include the following mini-. <br /> mum information: <br /> 1. An evaluation of remediAl alternatives <br /> that have a subsiantial.like.11hood to <br /> achieve cleanupof all impacted soils - <br /> atid'orsoils and groundwater. Ata mini- <br /> mum. two of the�foll0wing technologies <br /> must be evaluated for implementabilit\. <br /> cost and effectiveness.(other technologies <br /> not listed may also be evaluated): <br />