Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dale Clemens <br /> July 31, 2001 <br /> Page 2 <br /> groundwater and stormwater monitoring activities, which are part of the remedy, <br /> and should be included in the total cost for each alternative. <br /> Section 2.4.7.2 should be corrected to indicate the cost for Alternative 3a to be <br /> $78,000 instead of $778,000. <br /> 3. Pages 3-5 and 3-6, Section 3.3.3 — It is unclear how the anticipated disposal rate <br /> of 87 gallons per minute (gpm)/acre will be affected during the winter season and <br /> what provisions would be implemented, should the disposal rate decrease, to <br /> manage the flow volume during this period. <br /> Additionally, it is calculated that approximately 7.9 acres would be required for <br /> the overland-flow disposal area based on an increase in flow capacity of 689 <br /> gpm. This seems to be inconsistent with the numbers contained in Section <br /> 3.4.5.2, which indicate a need for an additional 1,050 gpm of disposal capacity, <br /> requiring approximately 12 acres for the disposal area. Please clarify. <br /> 4. Page 3-10, Section 3.4.8 —The costs identified in the referenced Appendix A, <br /> Table A-3, should reflect the costs associated with implementation of the entire <br /> full-scale remedy and not just the addition to the remedy. <br /> 5. Page 4-2, Section 4.3.1 — The referenced NCP citation should be corrected from <br /> 40CFR30 to 40CFR300. <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Amendment. If you have any <br /> questions regarding the above comments, please contact me at (916) 255-3571. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> L � <br /> Eric Hon E. <br /> Chief <br /> Federal Fa ' ities Unit <br /> cc: Mr. Rich Howard <br /> Tech Law, Incorporated <br /> 1211 H Street, Suite E <br /> Sacramento, California 95814 <br />