Laserfiche WebLink
obtaining a permit. <br /> 152. Response 20 <br /> Note: typographical error, "groundworks" or "groundwater." Also, this response <br /> states, in reference to the use of bioremediation, that this alternative "could delay <br /> start-up of the remediation." However, this potential problem was not stated in the <br /> FS when this alternative was evaluated. The FS Section 3.0 rejected this option due <br /> to higher costs and unproven technology. <br /> Corrective Action: Delete text regarding potential delays. <br /> 153. Response 21 <br /> The first paragraph of the response does not answer the question. The second <br /> paragraph of the response appears to be unnecessary. <br /> Corrective Action: Revise the text to respond more directly to the question. <br /> 154. Response 24 <br /> The response erroneously implies that the remedy would include disposal <br /> mechanisms to the water supply district (and for irrigation uses) and to the sanitary <br /> system ponds. <br /> Corrective Action: Delete the references to this disposal scenarios. <br /> 155. Response 25 <br /> The text states that the placement of the extraction and injection wells is designed to <br /> "maximize the dilution of contaminants." It should not be an objective of the design <br /> to dilute the contamination and thereby increase the volume of groundwater which <br /> must be treated. <br /> Corrective Action: Revise this text to correct this misunderstanding. <br /> 156. Response 27 <br /> Bioremediation is not included in the selected remedy. This design was included in <br /> one of the other alternatives and is not the alternative selected by this ROD. <br /> Corrective Action: Delete the text which states "the possibility of future use of <br /> bioremediation . . . is incorporated in this alternative." <br /> 157. Response 28 <br /> The text states that the Proposed Plan for OU #1 "is primarily concerned with the <br /> EPA/R9 June 7, 1993 38/40 <br />