Laserfiche WebLink
suspected sites and the plume. <br /> 11. Paragraph 1.1.0.0.2, 'Purpose," Page 1-2 <br /> The first bullet on this page suggests that it is more appropriate to handle UST sites <br /> outside of CERCLA. For the information of DDRW-Tracy, however, it is becoming <br /> more common for facilities to opt to handle petroleum-excluded-USTs under the FFA. <br /> Some facilities believe that this approach minimizes the number of documents to <br /> develop/review. All parties to the FFA would have to concur on this approach. <br /> 12. Paragraph 2.4.0.0.3 <br /> The text should note that the facility is not permitted to discharge pond water to the <br /> local drainage ditch when the IRM is operating. [Similarly, the ROD for OU-1 does <br /> not consider this disposal option.] <br /> 13. Paragraph 2.8.2.10 <br /> The text provides incorrect information regarding the OU-1 cleanup levels. The <br /> correct cleanup levels in 4g/1 are DCE 6, TCE 5, and PCE 5. <br /> 14. Figure 2-4 <br /> The three horizons are incorrectly associated with the Upper Tulare, Corcoran, and <br /> Lower Tulare Zones, respectively. <br /> • The three horizons should be shown within the Upper Tulare Zone, only. <br /> Please correct. <br /> 15. , Figure 2-7 <br /> The patterns for "CL" and "NII.,, SM, SC" appear to be reversed in the legend. <br /> • Please check and correct, as necessary. <br /> 16. Table 3-4 <br /> Large differences are shown in permeability values, i.e., between Kin and Kout in the <br /> same well. The ratio ranges from 0.2 to 42. (It would seem that 0.5 to 2 would be a <br /> preferred range of minimal acceptability, and 0.75 to 1.25 would be good.) <br /> • The text should provide an explanation of the high variation in permeability <br /> values observed from the same well. <br /> EPA 14FEB94 5/10 <br />