Laserfiche WebLink
Message Page 1 of 3 <br /> Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> From : Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9 :34 AM <br /> To: 'adeicke@advgeoenv.com' <br /> i Subject: RE: Nomellini WP approval <br /> EHD considers the current situation of free phase product in the core area (VW- 1 <br /> I and EW- 1 ) a concern that needs to be addressed . <br /> As for our recommendation of a southerly boring , EHD has evaluated the plume <br /> and considers VW - 3 as defining HU - 1 to the south but HU - 2 to the south is only <br /> defined by MW - 9 , X180 ' away. If you/AGE feels this is adequate, than EHD will <br /> interpret the area [ impact ' interpreted ' zero line for HU - 2 to be much closer to <br /> MW- 9 than the closest HU - 2 representation well , VW- 1 . It was a recommendation <br /> with hopes of narrowing the isocons for HU - 2 . AGE may have other plans to <br /> address this so EHD will wait and evaluate the SCM data/conclusions and comment <br /> as needed . You should know that EHD considers areas/conclusions NOT having <br /> data to support them as " uncharacterized/undefined " and could require additional <br /> investigations to gather the needed support/data . It's been our experience with <br /> the CUF that re- mobilizations for data not collected when recommended can cause <br /> reimbursement problems for the RP . <br /> Just so you know, EHD held off commenting on other boring placements in this <br /> work plan after we ( Nuel and I) realized this proposal/ phase will probably NOT <br /> answer all of our delineation concerns or complete this sites ' investigation . More <br /> exactly : <br /> -The offsite boring ( B- 20 ) to the west appears too southerly based on the ground <br /> water rose diagram . No 'west' direction was noted in the rose yet boring B- 20 is <br /> proposed west of MW- 7 . The rose diagram did show a small NW direction trend . <br /> With HU - 2 undefined to the NW, we thought it would be better to place B- 20 to <br /> the NW of MW- 7 , but decided you have your reasons , although not included , so <br /> we decided to let the data support your conclusions when they get here in the <br /> SCM . <br /> -Additionally, based on historical ground water gradient direction of NNE , the high <br /> concentrations in MW- 2 are not currently or adequately defined to the North and <br /> NE of this well . HU - 2 and HU - 4 to the North of MW - 2 to CPT-4 is 80 linear feet of <br /> a unknown . And with MW-4 to the NNE and nearly as contaminated as MW - 2, an <br /> isocon map of the plume from MW- 2 would have the N - NW iso lines all <br /> dotted/inferred . EHD has concerns with the large area inbetween CPT- 4, MW- 8, <br /> MW- 4 and your proposed MW- 11 . This phase of investigation does not appear to <br /> address that and will be addressed after the SCM is reviewed . When the cross- <br /> section ( S to N ) from boring 13- 1 (south of the UST pit) N and NE thru the core, <br /> 9 thru 13- 6 and up to MW - 8 is included in the SCM , EHD will be very interested in <br /> this area currently with no data existing or proposed to <br /> support delineation/characterization conclusions . <br /> a <br /> I- <br /> 4/19/2006 <br />