| Action Date |
Action |
Description |
DEC Staff |
| 9/30/1985 |
Update or Other Action |
Phase I Records Search: The initial landfill area used by the installation is uncertain due to lack of records and long-term employees. An area designated as Landfill No. I on the back side of the mountain ridge north of the Lower Camp. One interviewee noted dumping had occurred in this area on the north slope of the ridge at some time in the past. The time period when this was used is not established. Snow depths during the on-site visit precluded visual confirmation of this site. However, a 1973 installation document refers to an "open dump a few miles from the site" was used for garbage and refuse.
The distance to the area designated Landfill No. I is in the one to two mile range.
Recommended action Perform a basic study: sample the drainage courses above the site and at 2 locations downstream from the site. Take both water and sediment samples. Additional sampling and testing may be needed if positive results are obtained. |
Louis Howard |
| 4/30/1992 |
Update or Other Action |
Air Force Preliminary Assessment: Identifies LF02 as Source 9, Landfill No. 1 located on the back side of the mountain ridge, north of Lower Camp. Actual operation dates of this site are unknown and the contents of the landfill may be similar to that of Landfill No. 2. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 6/30/1992 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
This letter is to inform you that EPA, Region 10 has reviewed the Preliminary Assessment submitted for the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar site, Cape Romanzof, Alaska. The documents have been evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 300, Appendix A, which is EPA's Hazard Ranking System (HRS) used to evaluate federal facilities for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The reviewed documents indicate that the site does not score high enough to be proposed for inclusion on the NPL. Therefore, a recommendation of no further remedial action planned (NFRAP) on the EPA's part will be included in our Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket tracking system. If new or additional information becomes available that suggests your facility may score high enough to be proposed for the NPL, EPA must reevaluate your facility accordingly.
EPA's NFRAP designation does not relieve your facility from complying with appropriate Alaska state regulations.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986(a) (4) requires federal facilities to comply with state cleanup requirements and standards when not listed on the NPL. This facility will not be removed from the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, but as noted earlier, will be listed for no further action by EPA. |
Jennifer Roberts |
| 2/10/1993 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
RI/FS comments to Air Force: ROM-9 Landfill #1-Page ES-2, Paragraph 7 notes ROM-9 was inspected and withdrawn from the investigation program because it could not be located, the area appeared clean, or access to the site was too difficult to attain. Please submit a map and potential landfill contents to support the DRAFT no further action document (NFAD) of June 8, 1992. At that time DEC will review the documents submitted for final NFAD. |
Louis Howard |
| 3/23/1993 |
Site Closure Approved |
Certified letter No. P521 088 842 to Scott Hansen - No Further Action Decision (NFAD) for
ROM-1D (LF12 the old 5099th Landfill),
ROM-4 (OT05 Road Oiling Sites),
ROM-6 (SS01 Waste Accumulation Area #2),
ROM-7 (Dump),
ROM-9 (LF02 Landfill No. 1),
ROM-11 (OT06 White Alice Site), and
conditional NFAD for ROM-2 Well no. 3 (SS10 Weather Station Wells & Spill Site #4).
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) received this document on February 26, 1992, reviewed it within the 30 day time period, and has the following comments:
DEC concurs with the NFAD request for Cape Romanzof sites ROM-1D, ROM-4, ROM-6, ROM-7, ROM-9, and ROM-11. If in the future, additional contamination is discovered at these sites, further investigation and/or remedial actions may be required by DEC. DEC concurs with the conditional NFAD for the Cape Romanzof site ROM-2 contingent on the closure of Well No. 3 in 1993. A workplan must be submitted and approved by DEC detailing closure procedures before closure of Well No. 3 commences. DEC will review the final closure documents for Well No. 3 before the final NFAD will be approved. Signed Jennifer Roberts DOD Project Manager.
NOTE to file from IRP RI/FS Stage 1 WCC June 1990 2nd Draft Report July 1989-May 1990 USAF Contract# F33615-850-4544 Deliver order# 5:
ROM-2. The well was inaccessible for sampling because the pumping system was inoperable, and the pump and piping were abandoned in place. This would have required disassembly, which was beyond the scope of work. Reconnaissance of the area around the well failed to produce evidence of contamination. Fuel storage tanks are located approximately 200 feet away and downgradient From the well. Thus it is improbable that these fuel storage tanks could have been the source of contamination at this well.
ROM-6. After reconnaissance, no evidence was found that this site was ever a drum storage area. No evidence of contamination and no odors were observed.
ROM-7 This site was previously identified as a landfill. It could not be located after the reconnaissance. A former Station Manager, Tom Hull, who worked at Cape Romanzof periodically since 1977, was not aware of a landfill existing here (T. Hull, personal communication,1989). No evidence of contamination(e.g., no odors or stains) was observed.
ROM-9. This site was previously identified as a landfill. It could not be located after the reconnaissance. Former Station Manager Hull was not aware of a landfill existing here (T. Hull, personal communication, 1989). No evidence of contamination (e.g. no odors or stains) was observed.
ROM-11. The Former White Alice site has been demolished. All structures have been removed and debris buried in unknown, unrecognizable landfills. The area has been graded effectively, removing any evidence of past building locations and any visible signs of contamination.
|
Jennifer Roberts |
| 1/31/2000 |
Update or Other Action |
Draft Proposed Plan: Landfill No. 1 (LF02) was reportedly an open dump used for garbage and refuse. Debris picked up during cleanups performed in 1976, 1977, and 1984 may have removed the only evidence of this former landfill location.
Field workers in 1985 could not determine the location of LF02 due to lack of records and absence of long-term employees who could identify the area. The recollection of an interviewee who noted that dumping had occurred in an area on the north slope of the ridge, north of Lower Camp, at some time in the past. The 1989 field team looked for disturbed areas on both the north and south side of the road between Upper and Lower Camps. They found one area on the south side of the road, approximately half way between the two camps, that appeared to have received fill material. The 1989 field team was not able to find any other areas off the road that showed debris, fill-covered areas, stains, or any other indications of a present or past dump or landfill. Because no contamination was observed, no laboratory samples were collected.
The LF02 location could not be determined and no visible signs of contamination were found. Site is recommended for no further action. The rationale for this alternative is that the waste has already been removed and no residual contamination was indicated. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/23/2001 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff commented on the proposed plan for remedial action at Cape Romanzof LRRS dated April 2001. ADEC requests the Air Force identify the preferred alternatives on the introductory pages. Seven sites are being designated at no further remedial action and in fact have been approved as requiring no further action by ADEC in 1993. Three sites require some type of action and it should be stated briefly in the introduction what the preferred alternative is for each site.
D11: Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
LF02: Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
LF12: Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
OT06: Please clarify where the asbestos came from in the asbestos landfill that was observed, staked and placarded. Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
SS01: Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
SS10: Change text to state: The rationale for this alternative is that cleanup levels were not exceeded in the groundwater, which would allow for it to be used for drinking water. Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
OT05:Add text which states ADEC concurrence regarding the Air Force's request for no further action was granted by ADEC in a 1993 letter. This document (Proposed Plan) formalizes that no further action decision.
For SS07, SS08 and LF12: Please conduct a detailed analysis of alternatives for each site. This analysis would consist of an assessment of individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis that focuses upon the relative performance of each alternative against those criteria. The nine evaluation criteria are as follows:
(A) Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Alternatives shall be assessed to determine whether they can adequately protect human health and the environment, in both the short- and long-term, from unacceptable risks posed by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the site by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to levels established during development of remediation goals consistent with Sec. 300.430(e)(2)(i).
(B) Compliance with ARARs. The alternatives shall be assessed to determine whether they attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal environmental laws and state environmental or facility siting laws or provide grounds for invoking one of the waivers under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(C) Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternatives shall be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that the alternative will prove successful.
D) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. The degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume shall be assessed, including how treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site.
(E) Short-term effectiveness. The short-term impacts of alternatives shall be assessed.
(F) Implementability. The ease or difficulty of implementing the alternatives shall be assessed.
(G) Cost.
(H) State acceptance. Assessment of state concerns may not be completed until comments on the RI/FS are received but may be discussed in the proposed plan issued for public comment. The state concerns that shall be assessed include the following: (1) The state's position and key concerns related to the preferred alternative and other alternatives; and (2) State comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
(I) Community acceptance. This assessment includes determining which components of the alternatives interested persons in the community support, have reservations about, or oppose. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/10/2005 |
Site Added to Database |
Site duplicated from Cape Romanzof SS10/01,DP11,LF02,OT6, Reckey 199125X123801. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/10/2005 |
Site Ranked Using the AHRM |
Site AHRM Ranking duplicated from Cape Romanzof SS10/01,DP11,LF02,OT6, Reckey 199125X123801. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/11/2005 |
Update or Other Action |
File number updated. Issued 1/13/05. |
Aggie Blandford |
| 5/22/2006 |
CERCLA Proposed Plan |
This Proposed Plan describes the proposed site closure of six (6) Environmental Restoration
Program (ERP2) sites located at the Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (Cape Romanzof). The six sites are listed below:
• Waste Accumulation Area No. 2 (SS001),
• Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS008),
• Landfill No. 1 (LF002),
• Road Oiling (OT005),
• White Alice (OT006), and
• 611th Disposal Pit/Debris Landfill (LF012).
The six subject sites of this Proposed Plan do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment; therefore, the United States Air Force (USAF) is recommending site closure
under its CERCLA authority.
Landfill No. 1 (LF002), formerly known as ROM-9, was identified during the Phase I site
investigation by an interviewee who noted that dumping of garbage and refuse had allegedly
occurred in an area on the north slope of the ridge, north of Lower Camp, at some time in the
past prior to the interviewee’s time at the facility. However, the existence of this
landfill has never been visually confirmed during any remedial investigation or environmental restoration site visit.
Furthermore, the reported location on the north slope of the ridge would be an illogical and
dangerous choice for a landfill location. This location is very steep and requires significant
effort to dispose of garbage and refuse. During wintertime, it is virtually inaccessible. Cover
material does not appear to be available. Given the lack of evidence that this site ever
existed, samples were never taken. Based upon the results of the remedial investigations, USAF
believes the interviewee who located LF002 was actually referring to the location of DP11.
Proposed Remedy-There is no action required to protect human health or the environment at Landfill No. 1 (LF002). Site closure is recommended. |
Louis Howard |
| 11/30/2006 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (the department), Contaminated Sites Federal Facilities Restoration Program, received the draft Record of Decision (ROD) dated October 2006 on November 3, 2006.The ROD stipulates no further action under CERCLA for Waste Accumulation Area No. 2 (SS001), Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS008), Landfill No. 1(LF002), Road Oiling (OT005), White Alice (OT006), 611th Disposal Pit/Debris Landfill (LF012). The department agrees with the overall selected remedy in the ROD and has the following comments described below.
1.5 Statutory Determinations Page 1-2: The text states "The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of previously undiscovered contaminants or exposures that may cause unacceptable risk to human health or the environment." The department requests the Air Force revise the text to read:
"The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contamination, waste, or exposure that may cause an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment."
1.7 Authorizing Signatures Page 1-4: The department requests the Air Force revise the text to be revised to state: "This signature sheet documents the United States Air Force's and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's approval of the remedy selected in this Record of Decision for sites: SS001, SS008, LF002, LF012, OT005, and OT006 at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. This decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of contamination, waste, or exposure that may cause an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment."
2.6.2 Nature and Extent of Contamination Page 2-13: The text states no contamination remains above ADEC Method Two soil cleanup levels or ADEC Table C groundwater cleanup levels at any of the six ERP sites. The department requests the Air Force change the text to read: "...no evidence of contamination remains above 18 AAC 75.341 Table B1, Method Two soil cleanup levels or 18 AAC 75.345 Table C groundwater cleanup levels at any of the six...."
2.9.1 Soil and Groundwater Page 2-24: The text states: "For the six sites discussed in this PLAN, USAF..."
The department requests the Air Force correct the text to state: "For the six sites discussed in this ROD, USAF..."
The text in this section does not mention whether or not sample results for groundwater at the six sites addressed in this ROD (not "Plan", the word "Plan" appears to be a holdover from the Proposed Plan-check document for word "Plan" and substitute "ROD" as appropriate, i.e. see also sections 2.9.2 and 2.9.3) exceeded ADEC 18 AAC 75.345 Table C groundwater cleanup levels. The department requests the Air Force provide text clarifying whether or not contaminant levels in groundwater samples exceed or do not exceed Table C values.
2.13 Statutory Determinations Page 2-26: The text does not state if the selected remedy (site closure) complies with state and federal environmental laws and regulations with regards to concentrations in groundwater exceeding or not exceeding levels allowed in 18 AAC 75 Table C for groundwater. The department requests clarification on whether or not groundwater contaminant levels are being exceeded by the six subject Cape Romanzof LRRS ERP sites.
4.0 References Page 4-1: The reference for Water Quality Standards "ADEC, 2006. 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 70 Water Quality Standards, as amended through June 13, 2006" is incorrect. The Water Quality Standards should be listed as being amended through September 1, 2006.
The department requests either including as a reference listing or as an appendix, the department's letter of March 23, 1993 to 611 CES/CEVR's predecessor 11 CEOS/DEVR (Mr. Scott Hansen) from Jennifer Roberts. Subject of the certified letter no. P 521 088 842 : No Further Action Decision (NFAD) for ROM-1D, ROM-4, ROM-6, ROM-7, ROM-9, ROM-11 and conditional NFAD at ROM-2 Well No. 3. The department concurred with the request for NFAD at ROM-1D, ROM-4, ROM-6, ROM-7, ROM-9, and ROM-11. |
Louis Howard |
| 5/7/2007 |
Cleanup Complete Determination Issued |
John Halverson signs the Record of Decision for LF002 along with five other sites at Cape Romanzof LRRS. The six subject sites do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment; therefore, a no action response is the selected final remedy. The subject sites are available for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Waste Accumulation Area No. 2 (SS001), Waste Accumulation Area No. 3 (SS008), Landfill
No. 1 (LF002), 611th Disposal Pit/Debris Landfill (LF012), Road Oiling (OT005), and White
Alice (OT006) are six of 15 ERP sites at Cape Romanzof LRRS. Closure of the six ERP sites
addressed in this ROD is consistent with the overall USAF cleanup goal of closing sites that do
not pose unacceptable risk to human health or the environment and does not affect the cleanup
strategy for the other Cape Romanzof LRRS ERP sites.
Landfill No. 1 (LF002), formerly known as ROM-9, was identified during the Phase I site
investigation by an interviewee who noted that dumping of garbage and refuse had allegedly
occurred in an area on the north slope of the ridge, north of Lower Camp, at some time in the
past prior to the interviewee’s time at the facility (USAF, 1985).
However, the existence of this landfill has never been visually confirmed during any remedial investigation or environmental restoration site visit. Furthermore, the reported location on the north slope of the ridge would be an illogical and dangerous choice for a landfill location. This location is very steep and requires significant effort to dispose of garbage and refuse. During wintertime, it is virtually inaccessible.
No remedial activities have occurred at Landfill No. 1 (LF002). Cover material does not appear to be available. Given the lack of evidence that this site ever existed, samples were never taken. Based upon the results of the remedial investigations, USAF believes the interviewee who located LF002 was actually referring to the location of DP011.
There is no further action required to protect human health or the environment at the six subject Cape Romanzof LRRS ERP sites (SS001, SS008, LF002, LF012, OT005, and OT006). Therefore, no remedial alternatives were evaluated. There is no further action required to protect human health or the environment at the six subject Cape Romanzof LRRS ERP sites (SS001, SS008, LF002, LF012, OT005, and OT006). Therefore, no response action is the final action selected for each of these sites.
By signing the ROD, it documents the decision made for sites SS001, SS008, LF002, LF012,
OT005, and OT006 at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. ADEC concurs with the Air Force's
selected remedy. The decision may be reviewed and modified in the future if new information becomes available that indicates the presence of undiscovered contaminants or exposures that may cause an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. If additional contaminants are discovered, USAF and ADEC will determine the compliance levels for soil and groundwater cleanup actions. |
John Halverson |
| 5/7/2007 |
CERCLA ROD Approved |
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the Final Selected Remedies for the six Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) sites listed above at Cape Romanzof LRRS, Alaska. There are no Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substances identified as contaminants of concern (COCs) at the six subject sites; therefore, a no action response is the appropriate and selected remedy for these sites under CERCLA. There are also no non-CERCLA (e.g., petroleum) substances present above levels allowed by Alaska regulations or at levels posing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment; therefore no action is necessary under Alaska State regulations (including but not limited to Title 46 of the Alaska Statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder). This is an integrated ROD documenting no action under CERCLA and unconditional site closure under Alaska State laws and regulations.
This ROD is issued by the United States Department of the Air Force (USAF) in accordance with and satisfying the requirements of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), 10 United States Code (USC) 2701 et seq.; CERCLA 42 USC 9601 et seq.; Executive Order 12580, 52 Federal Register 2923 (23 January 1987); National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300; and, Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Control Act, 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 75. The State of Alaska concurs with the selected remedies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been consulted consistent with the requirements of 10 USC 2705 and has chosen to defer to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for regulatory oversight of the ERP at Cape Romanzof LRRS.
Under CERCLA §121 (as required by NCP §300.430(f)(5)(ii)), the lead agency must select a remedy that is protective of human health and the environment, complies with ARARs, is cost effective, and uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, CERCLA includes: 1) a preference for remedies that employ treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as a principal element; and 2) a bias against off site disposal of untreated wastes.
The selected remedy (no action) is protective of human health and the environment, because there has been no contamination detected at the six subject Cape Romanzof LRRS ERP sites (SS001, SS008, LF002, LF012, OT005, and OT006) at levels that pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
The selected remedy (no action) complies with state and federal environmental laws and regulations. There has been no contamination detected at concentrations exceeding levels allowed by Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations (18 AAC 75.341 Tables B1 and B2 for soil). Surface soil PCB concentrations are below the 1 mg/kg concentration allowed in TSCA for residential use. There has been no groundwater investigation at the subject sites, because the low levels of soil contamination suggested that groundwater investigation was not warranted.
The CERCLA requirements for cost-effectiveness and utilization of permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable are not applicable for a no action (site closure) final remedy.
Pursuant to CERCLA §121(c) and NCP §300.430(f)(5)(iii)(C), because the selected remedy will
not result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a statutory review will not be required within five years after initiation of the remedial action to verify that the remedy is, or will be, protective of human health and the environment.
|
John Halverson |
| 6/28/2011 |
Exposure Tracking Model Ranking |
Initial ranking with ETM completed for source area id: 72323 name: auto-generated pm edit Cape Romanzof LF02 Landfill #1 |
Louis Howard |
| 5/21/2013 |
Document, Report, or Work plan Review - other |
Staff provided comments on the draft 5YR.
1.2 Authority for Conducting the Five-Year and Periodic Review
Add text as the first sentence to the first paragraph:
“Executive Order 12580 delegated lead agency status to the Department of Defense for all CERCLA remedial actions. Authority was further delegated to the USAF which is the lead agency for remedial actions at Cape Romanzof Long Range Radar Site (LRRS).”
10.1 Page 10-1
LF003 Landfill No. 2
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Record of Decision?
The question should either be answered: Yes or No. Any discussion on functioning of the remedy or its performance should be discussed under “Remedial Action Performance.” Please address this issue for each source area.
Restate the text as follows:
Answer: No
Remedial Action Performance: The remedy is not functioning as intended by the 2002 ROD for Interim Remedial Action. The USAF identified that a new remedy was necessary in the First Five-Year Review (USAF 2008b), and a new ROD was approved and signed by the USAF and ADEC in March 2013.
The NOAA Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs) have been revised since 1999. Please update to latest version which is 2008. The screening criteria for PCBs in freshwater sediment at 0.0341 mg/kg is still relevant.
Page 10-2
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Changes in Standards to be Considered: The ADEC cleanup level for PCBs in surface water has changed from 0.0005 mg/L to 0.000014 mg/L (ADEC 2012b).
The question should either be answered: Yes or No.
Restate text as follows:
Answer: Yes
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: The ADEC cleanup level for PCBs in surface water has changed from 0.0005 mg/L to 0.000014 mg/L (24 hr. average ADEC 2012b).
Page 10-3
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Yes. The current remedy is not protective as implemented. The new ROD was approved and signed the USAF and ADEC in March 2013. The protectiveness of the new LF003 site remedy will be evaluated in the next Five-Year Review.
Restate as follows:
Answer: Yes
The current remedy is not protective as implemented. The new ROD was approved and signed the USAF and ADEC in March 2013. The protectiveness of the new LF003 site remedy will be evaluated in the next Five-Year Review.
10.2 SS013 Diesel Seep Area
Page 10-3
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Decision Document?
Remedial Actions: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate as follows:
Answer: Yes
Remedial Action Performance: “The results of the August 2012 site inspection and review of the documents, ARARs, and risk assumptions indicate that the remedy is functioning as intended…”
Page 10-5
Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Changes in Standards to be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
The question should be answered Yes or No.
Restate text as follows:
Answer: Yes
Changes in Standards and To Be Considered: “The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAO used at the time of the remedy selection…”
Page 10-6
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
No new information is available that would question the protectiveness of the remedy at SS013.
Restate as follows:
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
Answer: No
|
Louis Howard |
