Laserfiche WebLink
6. Section 3.3: The text refers to analytical methodologies and references Table 1. EPA <br /> assumes that Table 1 is consistent with the methodologies already approved in the <br /> Comprehensive Work Plan and Work Plan Amendment. It would be unfortunate to <br /> discover at a later date that Table 1 conflicts with current understandings. <br /> 7. Section 3.4: The text suggests that site investigations will be based only on the <br /> recommendations of the Phase I report. This appears to be an unnecessary limitation. <br /> DLA may which to direct the contractor to complete additional work which was not <br /> formally recommended in the Phase 1 SCR EPA suggests that this text be modified <br /> to allow for more flexibility in assigning tasks. <br /> 8. Section 3.6: The text states that the RDFS will identify OUs. Please be aware that <br /> following the identification of an OU, the FFA requires that a draft schedule be <br /> submitted within a specified period. <br /> 9. Section 3.7: The text tasks the development of a Proposed Plan and a ROD. <br /> However, the text is silent on the development of the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet. Is the <br /> Fact Sheet to be developed by in-house staff? <br /> 10. Section 3.7: EPA HQs keeps an electronic library of all final RODs. Would it be <br /> possible to include a subtask for the contractor to provide a copy of the final ROD to <br /> EPA (on IBM-compatable diskette in WordPerfect'' 5.1 or 5.2)? <br /> 11. Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2: The text describes briefly the procedures to be followed for <br /> the handling of investigative-derived wastes. However, there is no mention of what <br /> ARARs are triggered by such waste. Nor does the text describe the procedures for the <br /> handling of wastes which are judges to be hazardous. Although the text refers to the <br /> establishment of a storage area, there is no description of the construction of the <br /> storage area (i.e., for the storage of hazardous wastes). It is common for facilities like <br /> DDRW-Tracy to develop a Waste Management Plan . Such a plan would provide <br /> more complete direction to the contractor and provide a point of concurrence for the <br /> regulatory agencies and DLA. Is DLA going to prepare a Waste Management Plan for <br /> DDRW-Tracy? Should the development of such a plan be included in this SOW? <br /> 12. Section 4.13: Please note that the schedule of deliverables in the SOW erroneously <br /> indicates that the draft ROD is due to the regulators on June 9, 1996. The FFA <br /> schedule requires the draft ROD on February 11, 1996. <br /> 13. Section 6.0: It is not understood why the QAPP requires an amendment. What is <br /> deficient in the current approved QAPP? <br /> 14. Section 6.1: It is not understood why the laboratory QA/QC plan is to be an appendix <br /> to the QAPP. Why is the laboratory not adopting the currently approved QA/QC <br /> procedures? <br /> EPA/10rEB94 2/3 <br />