Laserfiche WebLink
EPA Comments on the <br /> "Explanation of Significant Differences to the Selected Remedies in the ROD for SWMUs <br /> 2, 3, 4, 7 and 33, Building 30 Drum Storage Area and the Northern Depot Soils Area" <br /> dated January 2001 for Tracy Defense Depot <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> 1. It appears that all of the previous EPA comments have been addressed or were made <br /> moot by the removal of SWMU 4, which will be addressed in a ROD amendment. <br /> However, additional concerns arose as a result of the restructuring of the document. <br /> 2. Significant changes were made to the Draft Final version of this document when <br /> compared to the Draft, such as the removal of sections 2.0 and 5.0. Readers may have <br /> difficulty finding where modified or new text proposed in the response to comments table <br /> is located in the revised document. We recommend that the response to comments table <br /> be revised to include the page number and/or section number where text was modified or <br /> added. Although SWMU 4 was removed from the ESD, it remains in the title. SWMU 4 <br /> should be removed from the title. <br /> 3. The cover letter states that the RPMs would be briefed on the apatite mineralization <br /> approach for the Northern Depot Soils Area. In fact, the briefing was delayed until the <br /> April RPM meeting. We agree with the statement in Appendix E that "additional <br /> background information and discussion may be necessary for acceptance by the USEPA, <br /> State, and other stakeholders." We are concerned that since the document is shown on <br /> the FFA schedule as being Final by April 19, 2001, and the next RPM meeting is <br /> scheduled for April 25, 2001, the RPMs will not have a chance to thoroughly review and <br /> discuss the proposed technology before it is included in the Final ESD. We recommend <br /> that ari alternative process to the review of he E-� prep sed for evaluatic of apatite <br /> mineralization. <br /> 1 <br />