Laserfiche WebLink
Please correct this error. <br /> 45. Section 3 . 3 . 3 . 1. 1, Page 3-21 <br /> Reference to the drawing should be changed from Figure 3 . 3-4 <br /> to Figures 3 . 3-4A, 3 . 3-4B, and 3 . 3-4C. <br /> 46. Section 3 . 3 . 3. 2 . 1, Page 3-22 <br /> It would be more appropriate to use one computer program, <br /> CAPZONE, to evaluate the effectiveness of alternatives 1, 2 , <br /> and 3 . Comparison of the effectiveness of these <br /> alternatives using different programs introduces a <br /> perception of bias into the evaluation. <br /> 47 . Section 3 . 3 . 3. 2 . 1. 1, Page 3-22 <br /> Locating the extraction wells along the eastern edge of <br /> Figure 3 . 3-4A, where the contamination plume is not <br /> completely defined, and claiming that this location is the <br /> downgradient edge of the plume is presumptive. <br /> The plume must be defined before placement of the <br /> downgradient wells is attempted. <br /> 48 . Section 3 . 3 . 4 . 2 . 1. 1, Page 3-25 <br /> The stated design maximum influent concentration for the air <br /> stripper is 500 µg/L (see Page 3-4) . The GAC treatment <br /> system should use the same influent concentrations for <br /> design. <br /> 49 . Table 3 . 2-1 <br /> The table gives the aquifer thickness for the upper, middle, <br /> and lower horizons as 20, 25, and 25, respectively. <br /> However, Appendix Q defines the depths of the horizons as <br /> 30, 20, and 20 feet. What is the relationship between <br /> aquifer thickness and horizon depth? <br /> 50. Section 3 . 4 . 1. 2 . 1, Page 3-32 <br /> Under the revised structuring of the alternatives, the text <br /> in this section will need to be modified. <br /> • Suggested language is: "All alternatives with the <br /> exception of the "no action" and "institutional <br /> controls" alternatives use standard construction . . . <br /> 11 <br /> 51 . Section 4 . 1 . 3 . 1, Page 4-5 <br /> 12 <br />