Laserfiche WebLink
James L. Tjosvold, P.E. <br /> November 5, 1996 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • On September 12, 1995, PG&E, DTSC and the RWQCB met to discuss technology <br /> screening for soil and groundwater; ARARs; the status of data needs for Areas I and H <br /> soils; and the installation of a Zone B groundwater monitoring well(s) along El Dorado <br /> Street(perimeter of Area II). <br /> • On October 11, 1996, PG&E, DTSC and the RWQCB met to discuss the results of <br /> sensitivity analysis performed on VLEACH input parameters; the details of the <br /> groundwater mixing cell model; and the use of the VLEACH model and mixing cell model <br /> during the FS. It was agreed that the parameters used in the VLEACH model are <br /> acceptable and that both the typical and"super run" scenarios will be used in evaluating <br /> areas for remediation. <br /> On July 9, 1996, PG&E received a letter from DTSC regarding the proposed FS approach <br /> (presented by PG&E in a June 6, 1996 letter) clarifying that DTSC considers background or <br /> non-detect to be the starting point for evaluating technologies in the FS. The letter also <br /> suggested that more information is needed to define soil source areas. PG&E prepared a <br /> response to this letter, dated August 6, 1996, which include agreement to do more soil <br /> borings in Area I to further define soil source areas. <br /> PG&E submitted its responses to DTSC and RWQCB comments received on the draft Soil <br /> OUFS (draft Soil OUFS submitted to agencies on November 7, 1995 and agency comments <br /> submitted to PG&E in a letter dated December 26, 1995) on August 19, 1996. <br /> PG&E received agency comments (July 9, 1996 letter) on the"Phase IV Groundwater <br /> Investigation Draft Report", which was submitted to the agencies on June 11, 1996. PG&E <br /> submitted a letter addendum to the Phase IV report addressing these agency comments on <br /> August 7, 1996. On September 6, 1996, DTSC and the RWQCB commented on our August <br /> 7, 1996 response. PG&E replied to these comments in a letter dated September 24, 1996. <br /> On October 10, 1996, PG&E submitted its"Workplan for Additional Soil and Groundwater <br /> Investigation during the Feasibility Study" to DTSC and the RWQCB. This Workplan <br /> includes additional soil borings in Area I to define Source Areas 2 and 4; conducting a DI <br /> WET analysis on selected soil samples from Area I; the installation of soil borings in Area II in <br /> the vicinity of a previous soil boring (MW-22R)where diesel was present in the groundwater; <br /> and the installation of a Zone B groundwater monitoring well(s) at the perimeter of Area II. <br /> The Workplan is being revised to reflect comments received during an October 30, 1996 <br /> conference call between PG&E,DTSC and the RWQCB. <br /> The results of quarterly groundwater monitoring done in September, 1996 were submitted to <br /> the agencies on October 31, 1996 in the"Quarterly Monitoring Report, PG&E Stockton <br /> Former MGP Site, Third Quarter 1996". <br />