Laserfiche WebLink
David Wang, P.E. , Chief <br /> August 12, 1991 <br /> Page 6 <br /> Investigation Report indicate that a six month <br /> test-out/evaluation period would be undertaken. The <br /> Department previously concurred with this proposal. <br /> Considering that the treatment plant began operation in <br /> October 1990, the six month period has expired. Therefore, <br /> Sharpe should indicate when the evaluation report will be <br /> submitted. <br /> 9 . GROUND WATER/TREATMENT PLANT MONITORING - The Draft Final <br /> Ground Water FS, in numerous places, refers to quarterly <br /> monitoring of ground water wells, limiting analytes, <br /> generally, to trichloroethylene (TCE) , and weekly monitoring <br /> of the treatment plant (s) . It was assumed that the <br /> monitoring frequencies and compounds were recommended for <br /> the purposes of: <br /> (1) cost estimation; and <br /> (2) start-up and test-out phases of the <br /> treatment plant operation and <br /> maintenance. <br /> This is acceptable. However, specific monitoring programs <br /> must be developed and approved separately. As a part of <br /> that development/approval effort, the Department will work <br /> with Sharpe to help ensure adequate monitoring. <br /> 10. COST ANALYSIS - The source of the costs for the various <br /> remedial alternatives and the related sensitivity analysis <br /> should be provided. Are the costs based upon vendor <br /> information or other costing methods? <br /> 11. RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT - The Risk Assessment Report was <br /> reviewed by Yugal Luthra, Department Staff Toxicologist. <br /> Enclosed with this memorandum are Dr. Luthra's comments <br /> (Attachment 1) . His primary comment was that the Risk <br /> Assessment did not consistently follow the guidelines <br /> specified in the "Risk Assessment Guidelines for Superfund" <br /> (RAGS) (U.S. EPA, 1989) . The comments in Attachment 1 are <br /> to be addressed during the finalization of the Ground Water <br /> FS. <br /> SPECIFIC COMMENTS <br /> Draft Final Ground Water FS Volume 1 <br /> 1. Page 1-85, Paragraph 2 , Sentence 4 - The information <br /> provided in the previous sentences do not appear to support <br /> the conclusion of Sentence 4, that the arsenic in nearby <br />