Laserfiche WebLink
47. Section 5.3.1 <br /> The State believes that there is probably an off-Base source of dieldrin. EPA stated <br /> that an off-Base source is certainly possible. However, EPA stated that the more <br /> important point to be made is that the data also suggests an on-Base source. <br /> 48. Section 5.3.3 <br /> The State requested clarification on this comment. The State posed no further <br /> clarification following EPA's explanation. <br /> 49. Table 5.2-1 <br /> EPA explained that the need for this table can be obviated by the inclusion of the <br /> table requested by EPA. The State has agreed. <br /> 52. Section 6.2.5.2 <br /> The State concurred with EPA's comment but would also like to add the statement <br /> "If risks are posed by dieldrin, this risk would be addressed in the Comprehensive <br /> RI/FS. <br /> 63. Section 7.2.1.1 <br /> The State concurs that there is uncertainty with regard to obtaining agency <br /> agreement to an interagency agreement. As an option the State believes that <br /> references to the interagency agreement can be deleted. <br /> 69. Section 7.3 <br /> After a brief discussion, the State concurred that they have no problem with this <br /> comment. <br /> 76. Section 7.3.2.3 <br /> The State believes that since the effluent is to be monitored there is no need to <br /> monitor the influent. After a brief discussion, EPA concurred. Comments of similar <br /> nature appear several more times in EPA's comments. <br /> 109. Section 9.1.2.2.: <br /> The State wishes that this issue be discussed between State and EPA attorneys. <br /> 124, Section 10.3.2 <br /> Again, the State believes that monitoring of the effluent will suffice. EPA concurs. <br /> 133. Table 10.2-2 <br /> C. The State believes that parts of this regulation apply and are ARARs. State <br /> counsel will provide more specific citations to clarify how this regulation <br /> applies. <br /> EPA/R9 21 Jun 93 3/4 <br />