Laserfiche WebLink
The range of cleanup "levels" is not a concern. <br /> What demonstration needs to take place within Philip Isorena's <br /> constraints, in other words, is there RWQCB flexibility with <br /> the pump and treat proof within the feasibility study vs proof <br /> in the field? <br /> Concerns regarding the schedule - Stop spending $$ on <br /> Stockton. <br /> Fran Anderson: How do we do "things" differently to reach solutions? Identify <br /> these "things". <br /> Fernando Amador: Identify data gaps. <br /> Desires a clear understanding of the cleanup process. <br /> Concerns include past agreements and the level of effort with <br /> respect to justification. <br /> Philip Isorena: Desires agreement on project goals and cleanup levels. <br /> Tricia Sullivan: Desires understanding of agency expectations regarding level <br /> of effort during feasibility study. <br /> Desires understanding of level of characterization needed. <br /> Do the data gaps need to be addressed prior to the FS? <br /> An example of miscommunication was brought up regarding the May 22, 1996 meeting. <br /> There was a different understanding on the part of PG&E and DTSC of the use and results <br /> of the VLEACH meeting. DTSC apparently thought the VLEACH model was a good tool but <br /> that it had not been used for the purpose that they would have like to have seen. PG&E's <br /> impression from the May 22, 1996 meeting was that DTSC was not happy with the use of <br /> VLEACHfor the project. It was made obvious that more direct communication needs to take <br /> place for both parties to have a clear understanding of expectations. <br /> 2.2 Remedial Action Objectives and Goals <br /> Questions: <br /> • What is needed to finalize these? <br /> • What is your understanding of what the FS process will produce? <br /> Responses: <br /> Fran Anderson: Starting point is "background", look at several goals and look <br /> at range of options with respect to the goals. <br /> 2 <br />