Laserfiche WebLink
Pacific Gas and Electric, Company Environmental Services <br /> P.O.Box 7640 <br /> San Francisco,CA 94120 <br /> 415/973-7000 <br /> Direct Dial 415/973- <br /> May 1, 1995 Telecopy415/973-9201 <br /> James L. Tjosvold, P.E. MAY 0 9 <br /> Acting Chief, Site Mitigation Branch 1995 <br /> California Department of Toxic Substances Control ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> 10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3 PERMIT/SERVICES LTH <br /> Sacramento, CA 95827 <br /> Attention: Mr. Fernando Amador <br /> Dear Mr. Tjosvold: <br /> Re: Docket#HSA 90/91/08 - Stockton Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site: <br /> Revised Work Scope and Project Schedule <br /> On April 24, 1995, representatives of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the <br /> Department of Toxic Substances Control(DTSC) conducted a conference call to discuss <br /> DTSC's and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB's) <br /> comments on the"Final Phase III Technical Memorandum, Stockton Former <br /> Manufactured Gas Plant Site, Pacific Gas and Electric Company" (comments were <br /> submitted to PG&E in a letter dated April 12, 1995). Prior to this conference call, <br /> PG&E's consultant, CH2M HILL, had been preparing a Phase IV groundwater <br /> investigation work plan to install additional groundwater monitoring wells at the site. <br /> However, both DTSC and the RWQCB had commented (in their April 12, 1995 letter) <br /> that studies to date had not adequately defined the groundwater flow direction in Zones A, <br /> B and C. Because of this, during our conference call, PG&E and DTSC agreed that <br /> installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells at this site should occur after <br /> additional groundwater level measurements are taken to further define the flow direction. <br /> Therefore, it was agreed that the Phase IV groundwater investigation work plan <br /> (originally schedule to be submitted on April 25, 1995)will be postponed until PG&E has <br /> collected at least six sets of monthly groundwater elevation measurements. <br /> During the conference call, DTSC requested that PG&E separate the soil and <br /> groundwater efforts to allow progress on soil remediation without waiting for further <br /> groundwater investigation. DTSC also asked PG&E to determine its preferred approach <br /> for accomplishing this task. PG&E's preference is to separate the soil and the <br /> groundwater into two operable units and proceed with a separate Feasibility Study and <br /> Remedial Action Plan for each operable unit. <br /> PG&E was also asked to provide a revised project schedule incorporating the new <br /> approach. The attached schedule incorporates our proposal to separate the soil and <br /> groundwater into two operable units. It also incorporates six months of groundwater <br />