Laserfiche WebLink
map, to include subsurface storm-drain routing as well as surface <br /> flow routes. <br /> Response No. 23 <br /> On-site water well Nos. 1, 2 , 3, 4 , 5, 6, and 7 were identified <br /> in the Draft Work Plan for Well Evaluation and Abandonment at <br /> DDRW-Tracy. These wells must also be addressed as potential, <br /> inadvertent pathways for vertical migration of contaminants. The <br /> results of the abandonment and sampling of these wells will be of <br /> importance in determining their possible contributions to Lower <br /> Tulare contamination. <br /> Response No. 24 <br /> Adequate, but see comments for #23 , above. <br /> Response No. 25 <br /> Adequate, but historic data is also recommended. <br /> Response No. 29 <br /> DDRW-Tracy should address historic as well as current land-use. <br /> Response Nos. 31 and 32 <br /> DDRW-Tracy did not address EPA's concern involving the rationale <br /> for selecting background locations, statistical rationale for <br /> sampling frequencies, comparability of data, or defining <br /> background. <br /> DDRW-Tracy does not address specific questions regarding the <br /> variability in soil sampling intervals with respect to boring <br /> SB30. These issues will need to be addressed in the <br /> Comprehensive RI/FS Work Plan. <br /> Response No. 33 <br /> Background levels for metals (both filtered and unfiltered) in <br /> groundwater will need to be addressed in the RI for OU No. 1. <br /> Response No. 39 <br /> The Draft RI/FS Report reads as if the source in the western part <br /> of Contaminant Area 1 were known (but not identified in the <br /> report) . In comment #39, they refer to the source as "most <br /> likely a spill at the location of boring SB38. " If this is the <br /> case, then DDRW-Tracy needs to specify the nature of the source - <br /> - be it drums, underground solvent tanks, etc. , the volume of the <br /> spill, and where their information was obtained (manifests, <br /> etc. ) . <br /> I-3 <br />