Laserfiche WebLink
EPA Comments <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin California, <br /> Tracy Site <br /> Amendment to the Sitewide Comprehensive Record of Decision <br /> May,2001 <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> 1. The Amendment to the Sitewide Comprehensive Record of Decision(the ROD Amendment) <br /> does not appear to mention the Defense Logistics Agency's(DLA's)plans to prepare a revised <br /> Proposed Plan, which is specified in "A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans,Records <br /> of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Documents"(EPA 540-R-98-031,July 1999).EPA <br /> Guidance states"When fundamental changes are proposed to the ROD, the lead agency must <br /> conduct the public participation and documentation procedures specified in the NCP <br /> §§300.435(c)(2)(ii) and 300.825(a)(2). This would include issuing a revised Proposed Plan that <br /> highlights the proposed changes."Please add a discussion of the DLA's plans to prepare a <br /> revised Proposed Plan to the next version of the ROD Amendment,or if a revised Proposed Plan <br /> has already been prepared,discuss the public participation that has occurred. <br /> 2. Institutional controls are proposed for Defense Site Environmental Reporting and Tracking <br /> System(DSERTS) 72 but they were not fully evaluated in this ROD Amendment.EPA considers <br /> institutional controls to be a remedy. As such they must undergo a comparative analysis of <br /> alternatives, including presentation of all alternatives considered for the DSERTS 72 site and <br /> evaluation of the alternatives against the nine criteria specified in the National Oil and Hazardous <br /> Iz-1—tarce Pollution Contingency Plan(NCP). Since DSERTS 72 was identified after the ROD <br /> was signed,it would not have been evaluated previously in the Feasibility Study(FS)or ROD. <br /> Please provide an evaluation of the various alternatives considered for DSERTS 72, including the <br /> No Action alternative,against the nine NCP criteria in the next version of the ROD Amendment, <br /> including cost estimates,or specify why the analysis is not required. <br /> 3. The description of contamination for DSERTS 72 would benefit from further detail.Although <br /> the contaminants are described in general terms in the text in Section 4,no concentrations are <br /> provided and the location of the soil stockpiles is not shown on the figure.Please provide a <br /> summary of contaminant concentrations and a figure showing the location of the soil stockpiles <br /> in the next version of the ROD Amendment. <br /> 1 <br />