SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Sections 6, 7 , and 8 do not clearly discuss how OU-1 should be addressed as part of the final remedy at DDRW Tracy. Section 4 . 2 provides a complete analysis and discussion of the OU-1 and how it blends into the final remedy. Section 9 also addresses OU-1, but not in it's entirety. The Draft ROD should be revised to include OU-1, the ESB and remaining ground water issues manner that merges all aspects of ground water remediation into a comprehensive presentation. 2 . The decision summary was not included 4) Estimated risk within multi-site exposure units (EU) : The estimated risk should pertain to all sites within a multi-site EU. However, Section 6. 5 uses only one site within EU 10 to exceed a 10 to -4 health risk and does not list the estimated risk for other sites within EU 10. As written, the Draft ROD does not clearly explain or depict EUs. The section should be re-written to properly explain and use EUs. The health risks for other sites within EU 10 should be included and discussed as part of the overall risk for the EU. 5) Consistency of discussions throughout the Draft ROD: The use of the terms "cleanup levels", "goals", and "objectives" are used throughout the Draft ROD to signify the same or similar definitions. The Draft ROD should be revised and simplified by using one term throughout the document to signify a cleanup level. 6) Potential no further action (NFA) sites: The Draft ROD presents 8 SWMUs as NFA sites. All documents that were part of the decision making process for these sites should be identified in the Draft ROD. 7) Description of Remedial Alternatives: The description of remedial alternatives is vague. The Draft ROD should be revised to provide all the specific details of each alternative. The alternatives should be presented completely in one section. Specific Comments 1. Section 1. 2 should list the herbicides used and their concentrations. JP.bdi m:\smp-omf\hang\pinasco\JP33W.077