Laserfiche WebLink
EPA Comments on the <br /> Draft Project Closeout Plan (Remedial Action Report) <br /> Northern Depot Area(DSERTS 67) Cover Installation <br /> Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DDJC)Tracy Site, <br /> September 2002 <br /> GENERAL COMMENTS <br /> 1. This document does not follow the current United States Environmental Protection <br /> Agency(EPA) guidance document"Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List <br /> Sites,"EPA 540-R-98-016, January 2000 (Guidance). Based on Exhibit 2-3 of the <br /> Guidance, it appears that all required sections for a Remedial Action Report are missing <br /> or incomplete in this document. Because so much information from the Guidance is not <br /> provided, we did not include specific comments for each missing or incomplete section. <br /> All of the information in the Guidance is requested, even if specific comments are not <br /> included below. Please revise the next version of this Remedial Action Report to follow <br /> EPA Guidance. <br /> SPECIFIC COMMENTS <br /> 1. Section 1.2, Regulatory Status, Page 1-1: The second paragraph refers to the"Draft <br /> Amendment to the Sitewide ROD" [Record of Decision], but the proper reference is to <br /> the Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD),which was issued as a revised Draft <br /> Final in June 2001. Please revise this paragraph to discuss the ESD in the next version of <br /> this Remedial Action Report. <br /> 2. Section 2.0, Site Background, Page 2-1: The section refers to cleanup standards without <br /> ever stating what they are. Please include the revised cleanup standards from the ESD of <br /> 48 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg) for arsenic and 812.5 mg/kg for manganese in the <br /> next version.of this Remedial Action Report. <br /> 3. Section 2.0, Site Background, Page 2-1, last paragraph: The first sentence states that <br /> the size of the cover was reduced based on the results shown on Figure 2-3, but the figure <br /> does not show two locations outside the cover to the northwest that had concentrations <br /> well above the revised cleanup standards from the ESD. SS086 had 89.3 mg/kg arsenic <br /> and 26,000 mg/kg manganese and SS087 had 13,700 mg/kg manganese. Please explain <br /> why the area represented by these two previous sampling locations was not included in <br /> the aggregate cover as specified in the ESD. <br /> 1 <br />