SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Corrective Action: Please cite the source of the assertion that the 5 year review is an opportunity to reevaluate the cost-effectiveness of the remedy, or delete the statement. 114. Section 9.1.2.3.1 While it is reassuring to state that effluent standards will be maintained that will not cause degradation of the aquifer, the ROD must explain how monitoring of the influent will be performed to assure that should other chemicals of concern be detected at levels which might cause degradation of the aquifer, it may be necessary to establish additional effluent standards. Corrective Action: Add to the text a commitment to monitor influent for all potential contamination and to establish additional effluent standards as necessary. 115. Section 9.1.2.3.3 It is not correct to state that at the end of remediation there will be "no risk" Corrective Action: Modify the text to state that at the end of remediation risks will be reduced to acceptable levels (i.e., to the range stated in the NCP). 116. Section 9.1.2.3.3 The text which states "if remediation is to be terminated before all cleanup standards are met . . ." does not belong in this ROD. There is no reason to believe that this action will be terminated at that point. Corrective Action: Delete this sentence. 117. Section 9.1.2.6.1 The statement that "required permits are obtainable" is not relevant to this CERCLA remedial action since permits are not required. Corrective Action: Modify this sentence to read that the substantive requirements of permits can be met. 118. Section 9.1.2.9.1 The text states that this alternative "appears to be generally acceptable to the community." However, based on public input during the comment period, a more definitive statement can be made. k Corrective Action: Revise the text to state that based on comments received during the pubic comment period, the selected alternative is acceptable to the community. EPA/R9 June 7, 1993 26/40