Laserfiche WebLink
Corrective Action: Directly respond to the question regarding the use of more wells <br /> and air strippers. <br /> 148. Response 12 <br /> The text implies that there will be a "decision to continue or stop" the remediation at <br /> five years. However, the purpose of the five year review is to evaluate whether the <br /> remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the <br /> environment. It is unlikely that the remedy will have achieved its target cleanup <br /> levels in five years. The response should not mislead the public as to the purpose of <br /> the five year review or as to the likelihood of being able to stop at five years. <br /> Corrective Action: Revise the text to include the purpose of the five year review. <br /> 149. Response 15 <br /> Rather than EPA, DDRW-Tracy, as the lead federal agency, has the authority to <br /> secure access to private property (under CERCLA Section 104), to characterize <br /> contamination and the extent of the plume and to conduct remediation, if necessary. <br /> A statement of this legal authority would be more responsive to the public comment. <br /> The response can be tempered by stating that DDRW-Tracy would not exercise this <br /> authority unless it was necessary. [Note: Authorities of the state may or may not be <br /> diminished by the fact that DDRW-Tracy is the lead federal agency. DDRW-Tracy <br /> should discuss this matter with the state prior to finalizing any response.] <br /> Corrective Action: Revise the text to respond more completely to the public inquiry. <br /> Obtain input from the state on how they view their authority to gain access. <br /> 150. Comment 16 <br /> It is not clear if the commenter is asking about "missing a hit" with the system of <br /> monitoring wells or the system to monitor the remedial action (i.e., influent and <br /> effluent. <br /> Corrective Action: Please provide the context of the question and revise the response <br /> if necessary. <br /> 151. Response 18 <br /> It would seem that the response could make a more definitive statement as to the <br /> removal efficiency of the air stripper (e.g., can the text state that the air stripper <br /> will be designed for 99.5 percent efficiency?). Also, it is not clear to EPA whether <br /> DDRW-Tracy plans to obtain a permit from the San Joaquin Valley APCD or meet <br /> the substantive requirements of the permit. <br /> Corrective Action: Revise the text to be more definitive on the efficiency of the air <br /> stripper. Revise the text if DDRW-Tracy plans to meet permit requirements without <br /> EPA/R9 June 7, 1993 37/40 <br />