Laserfiche WebLink
Response to Comments <br /> Draft Project Closeout Plan <br /> (Remedial Action Report) Northern Depot Area (DSERTS 67) <br /> Cover Installation <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC) <br /> Tracy Site, Tracy, California <br /> The response to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments on the Draft <br /> Project Closeout Plan (Remedial Action Report, or RAR) for DSERTS 67 and the incorporation <br /> of responses in the Draft Final RAR were reviewed. It appears that the responses and <br /> incorporation in the Draft Final RAR addressed Specific Comments 1, 2, 6, 8, and 9. The other <br /> responses are discussed below. <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> 1. General Comment 1: The response appears to partially address this comment. The Draft <br /> Final RAR was, by and large, formatted to the requirements of the Guidance, however, a <br /> detailed Cost and Performance Summary was not provided (as Appendix A). Please <br /> revise the RAR or explain why Appendix A not provided. <br /> SPECIFIC COMMENTS <br /> 1. Specific Comment 3: The response appears to partially address this comment. <br /> Institutional controls were added to the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for <br /> DSERTS 67. However, the reduction in area covered was not specifically discussed in <br /> the ESD. In fact, Figure 3-1 shows that the entire area would be covered, and Section <br /> 3.4.2 of the ESD states "dimensions of the cover presented in the ROD are still <br /> appropriate." It still appears to be appropriate to implement the full extent of the AB <br /> cover as described in the ROD and ESD. If the remedy is not implemented, it appears that <br /> an additional ESD or a revision to the Amendment to the Record of Decision (ROD) that <br /> is currently in review may be required to inform the public of the remedy modification. <br /> Please document the change in area of the remedy at DSERTS 67 in a Comprehensive <br /> Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act(CERCLA) decision <br /> document,or explain why a CERCLA decision document is not required. <br /> 2. Specific Comment 4: The response appears to partially address this comment. The <br /> response states that the reference made to upgrading the aggregate base (AB)cover to an <br /> asphalt cover was removed because any proposed change in site activity would be <br /> assessed to determine how it affected the ROD remedy. However, the response and Draft <br /> 1 <br />