Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I,,w <br /> <br />would be expected to be similar to existing groundwater contaminants, it will be <br />difficult to distinguish or monitor for Site P contaminants. <br /> <br />Siting criteria for landf'flls includes knowledge of contaminant migration pathways, <br />monitoring feasibility, and remediation feasibility. Given the long span of time, the <br />large number of borings and weil-s, and the high costs for the ARSL RI/FS process, <br />with no remediation system yet installed, it could be argued that this location is not <br />suitable on the basis of these siting criteria. <br /> <br />Other <br /> <br />1. Groundwater quality should be addressed in the EISo <br /> <br />The barrier well system for ARSL contamination has not been installed, and <br />therefore has not been proven successful. It is not valid to assume that this system <br />would remediate potential groundwater contamination resulting from Site P. <br /> <br />Several ARSL monitoring wells are located within the proposed fill area for Site P <br />and presumably would have to be abandoned. The impact of loss of monitoring <br />locations for the ARSL should be discussed in the EIS. <br /> <br />2.3. SITE D: PAGES D-5 TO D-73 <br /> <br />Section A: Project Description <br /> <br />No comments. <br /> <br /> <br />