SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

OU No. 1 RI/FS. " ReSVOnSe No. 11 DDRW-Tracy should state when EPA can expect delivery of these "relevant logs. " These logs will be necessary for our timely completion of the review and comments on future reports. Response No. 12 Perhaps the statement in 2 . 1. 1 of the Draft RI Report should more accurately read, with the likely exception of Site 6 and 23, no evidence of a major source of contaminants migrating off-site . . . has been associated with any of these sites that have thus far been investigated in some detail. Much more investigation will be required. Response No. 16 Shallow sampling should be addressed in light of the possibility of continued surface spillage. Soil-gas and shallow soil borings with sample description and vacuum pressure data could provide a wider range of useful data for determination of shallow surface soil contamination and point source location. Also, the arguments of summer temperatures and length of time since exposure do not hold true for all contaminants at the DDRW- Tracy site. Metals, for example, should still be sampled and analyzed for in the shallow subsurface. Response No. 17 Adequate if the specific areas of concern, mentioned in the EPA review comments, as well as EPA Comments on the Draft SWMU Engineering Report, are addressed (i.e. , the SWMUs mentioned in General Comments #2 and #4 , the vitrified clay pipeline, and the solvent tank in Building 10) . Response No. 18 The second paragraph is adequate, assuming that the response to Comment 4 implies that off-site wells will be sampled. Response No. 19 DDRW-Tracy should include smaller scale maps. Response No. 22 Since DDRW-Tracy assumes that surface spills were historically major sources of contamination, surface storm drainage is of sufficient importance to require a surface water drainage flow I-2