Laserfiche WebLink
<br />surface could create a mound, which would make it mOTe likely that contaminated soil will be <br />. accidentally exposed and the irregular land surface might furtheT limit use of the property. <br /> <br />The Army suggests alternative 4 is less expensive but gave no cost estimates. Future costs that result <br />from instituting land use controls need to be considered, This could include, but are not limited to, <br />upkeep of fencing, monitoring wells, etc. The possibility of unforeseen damage to health and safety must <br />be considered. <br /> <br />The preferred option is one that would convert the property into its best possible condition fOT use and <br />pTovide maximum protection for health and safety. <br /> <br />We suggest a modified option that combines Alternatives 1 and 4, but with a thicker cover. The <br />contaminated soils should be Temoved to the wateT table, coveTed with a minimum of 4 ft of clean fill, <br />the Temaining contamination characterized, long term monitoring instituted, and institutional controls be <br />put in place. Any solvent contamination encounteTed must be removed to the water table and the <br />boundaries of the contamination must be established. GTound water data on hydrocarbons must be <br />obtained. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />