Laserfiche WebLink
Ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis is not retained for further <br /> evaluation, so the statement that "all are therefore <br /> retained for further consideration" is incorrect. <br /> 32 . Section 2 . 4 . 3 . 4 . 4 , Page 2-45 <br /> Text says that moderate capital costs will be incurred to <br /> injection trenches, while Table 2 . 4-2 says that high capital <br /> costs will be incurred. <br /> • Please correct the discrepancy. <br /> 33 . Section 2 .4 . 3.4 . 5, Page 2-45 <br /> Text says that an injection trench is a possible selected <br /> process option; Table 2 .4-2 says an injection trench is <br /> dismissed. <br /> • Please correct the discrepancy. <br /> 34 . Section 2 . 4 . 3 . 4 . 5, Page 2-45 <br /> Text implies that other disposal options were not selected, <br /> but Table 2 . 4-2 says that evaporation ponds were retained. <br /> Please clarify the discrepancy. <br /> 35. Table 2 . 2-3 , Page 1 of 11 <br /> The FS follows EPA' s preliminary list of ARARs closely. <br /> However, in a high number of instances the status of the <br /> particular potential ARAR is listed as "to be determined. " <br /> In order to make the ARARs table a more useful tool to the <br /> project managers and to the public, EPA is requesting the <br /> following revision. <br /> • Add a new column between the "Description" column and <br /> the "Comment" column entitled "Applicable and/or <br /> Relevant and Appropriate. " For each potential ARAR <br /> note in this column whether the item is "applicable, " <br /> "relevant and appropriate, " "not applicable, " or "TBC. " <br /> Contact EPA' s RPM should you have difficulty in <br /> identifying the status of the AKAR for OU-1. <br /> 36. Table 2 .2-3 , Page 1 of 11 <br /> The text under the National Primary Drinking Water Standards <br /> needs to include the MCLs for the specific chemicals of <br /> concern in OU-1. <br /> a <br /> 9 <br />