Laserfiche WebLink
Final RAR do not state who will perform this assessment. In addition, the table of <br /> institutional controls (ICs) in the response addresses demolition or construction activities <br /> that would remove the cover, but it does not address demolition or construction activities <br /> in the western portion of DSERTS 67, where contamination above ROD cleanup <br /> standards was left in place. Please explain who will enforce the ICs and how the existing <br /> ICs address the portion of the site that was not covered with AB. <br /> 3. Specific Comment 5: The response appears to partially address this comment. The <br /> response appears to be incorporated correctly in Section 6.3 as stated, but the end of the <br /> Executive Summary still recommends "no further remedial action". Please revise the <br /> recommendation in the Executive Summary to include institutional controls as the <br /> remedy for DSERTS 67. <br /> 4. Specific Comment 7: The response appears to partially address this comment. The new <br /> Section 8.0 appears to provide the requested cost information, but a more detailed <br /> Appendix A, Cost and Performance Summary, was not provided as recommended in the <br /> Guidance. Please add Appendix A to the next version of the RAR or explain why it is not <br /> necessary. <br /> 5. Specific Comment 10: The response does not appear to address this comment. The <br /> response states that the variances were minor and did not require regulatory agency <br /> approval. However, it appears that residual contamination above ROD cleanup standards <br /> remains at the site, and that the reduction in the area of AB cover was not presented to the <br /> public in the ESD. Please document the change in area of the remedy at DSERTS 67 in a <br /> CERCLA decision document, or explain why a CERCLA decision document is not <br /> required. <br /> 2 <br />