SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

� Thank you your review ofthe records. Weshould beone our last set offilters toachieve Low Risk Closure Criteria, and ! this is the perfect time to get our administrative duties correlated and up to date. Please bear inmind every time 1 someone new bintroduced tothe project |get adifferent punch list. �i | have the following answers for your questions. : ' ! | ? EHDwas unable tolocate MVV-1R, ZR,3Kand EVV-1boring logs.All boring logs should bemade available un | GeoTracker. Please provide these---------------When I took over this project I made a concerted effort tmuodate | ' l the borings and I found that MW-1, 2 and 3 were installed by the CLEAR WATER GROUP and Foothill Engineering i didn't have acopy ofthe log ofborings. |fEHDhas them | would appreciate acopy. MW-1R,IR&3Nvvhene installed at the request of the EHD because the ground water had risen above the initial screening and | replacement wells were simply"spun to depth" based on the adjacent wells 5' away. K8yrecollection isthat EVV-1was similar. The center of the plume was estimated from the adjacent borings and simply spun to depth without logging. ? Third Quarter 2014 Monitoring Report:There are discrepancies with all screen intervals, except MW-7S, K4VV-10 and MW-11, between the tables in the report and with EHD records/boring logs. Please review and make corrections onfuture reports. --'--------- mP|��sebrin�acopyufth� EHDnecord�onth� S and |will review them. | did make aaneffort tmupdate the data and would like to see what EHDhas. 7 GeoTrockec c MW-2 was re-surveyed, but the resurvey data has not been uploaded to GeoTracker in Geo—Z format. Please upload the current survey data.----------| check itout. o EHD letter June 5, 2012 requested upload of all Geo—Well data since 2005, but it appears this has not yet been completed-------------The project was initiated with a relative bench rna/k. | was instructed to | bring in an elevation from a County Benchmark and that was the data to be in Geotracker. That was i done on12/1�/O9 and the data that could beupdated vvas. | see there are updates fromn2OOG. The | . . | relative data didn't fit into the way Geotracker compiled the data on the regulator's page. My i understanding isthat | anmuptodate with what works. |fthere |ssomething specific please let moe ! / know. |sitjust 2OOSyour not seeing? Based onthe lack ofreports | believe 2OO5was the year Foothill ! was fired in favor of someone else peddling remediation services, but couldn't work with the limited resources available. � o Remediation reports have not been uploaded. Is there more information/reason regarding this? ---|n order to conserve financial resources we have been combining the monitoring and the remediation | reports. ? Sampling: it appears total depth values have been used for several years according to Geo _Well data on GeoTracker.Total depths should be measured for wells during the sampling event to ensure proper calculation | of purge volume and adequate groundwater recharge (80%) prior to sampling----------The well doesn't move i after itisset. We should be using the initial record depth established at time of well development. Purge i volume and recharge should not be curtailed by sediment volume since sediment is 80%water, Cross contamination iscritical atamonitoring well. |only allow the quick dip needed tmsound the immediate water surface. I would not allow a tape and weight to be run the entire water column prior to purge or sampling. / Like I said now is the time to get this administrative stuff in order since it appears this current set of filters should achieve the low risk criteria. After the fund gets caught upafter the last filter exchange there will beresources � available todothe soil gas investigation, put not right aLthis minute. � -Mike ' � From: Gabriel Gonzalez [EH] � � Sent: Wednesday, February 25, ZO1S12:D2PM 1 . Subject: RE: 3DUSouth California Street ^ ~ ^ � 2 : � � U