Laserfiche WebLink
Message a �, Page 2 of 3 <br /> I approved the plan and only added one recommendation . It was not a directive . <br /> Do what you think best . EHD will focus our attention on the SCM . <br /> and you should know EHD will be expecting the SCM here within 60 days of the <br /> end of the field work > If not, a directive letter will be issued and require it here <br /> within 30 days . <br /> btw, I heard back from Reid Campbell at PW/COS . . . Charter Way west of I- 5 is <br /> CalTrans property and any encroachment is their call , not the City's . <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Art Deicke [mailto:adeicke@advgeoenv.com] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5 : 18 PM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: Re: Nomellini WP approval <br /> Mike, <br /> I've received your email with the work plan approval letter. Thank you, we'll start working on the <br /> various permits as soon as possible. I've a couple of comments/questions: <br /> Regarding SJCEHD's suggestion in the letter dated 18 April 2006, for an additional boring <br /> south of the former UST pit. Prevailing ground water gradient direction has been to the northeast <br /> and over 90% of gradient direction has been north clockwise through east. Please refer to figure 3 <br /> (Ground Water Elevation for HUI) in the AGE-prepared First Quarter 2006 monitoring report <br /> dated 14 April 2006 in which we included a rose diagram of the historical gradient direction. It <br /> seems unlikely that the southern portion of the plume needs further delineation. However, if <br /> further lateral delineation is required to the south of the UST pit, is SJCEHD suggesting a boring <br /> and water samples north or south of Charter Way? A boring north of Charter Way would be <br /> approximately 35 feet south of well MW- 1 , while a boring south of Charter Way would be over <br /> 130 feet south of well MW-1 <br /> We agree water sampling of the air sparging wells (air sparing wells' screened location in HU2) <br /> could provide valuable information about the hydrocarbon impact within HU2, but may prove <br /> unnecessarily redundant due to the close proximity of air sparging wells AW- 1 through AW-5 to <br /> each other. AGE recommends collecting one water sample from each air sparging well and <br /> including or eliminating the additional sampling of individual air sparging wells from periodic <br /> monitoring dependent on the analytical results of the water samples. <br /> Additionally, AGE has recommended reassessing the entire inventory of the site wells <br /> as discussed in the AGE-prepared 1st QM 2006 monitoring report dated 14 April 2006 section <br /> 5 .0 as follows: <br /> An overall reassessment of the current inventory of ground water monitoring, ground water <br /> extraction, air sparging and vapor wells at the site. AGE recommends removing redundant wells <br /> from quarterly monitoring activities. Additionally, selected air sparging wells screened within <br /> hydrogeologic unit 2 should be considered for inclusion in ground water monitoring program. <br /> Finally, regarding your comment in the SJCEHD letter of April 2005 and phone discusssions <br /> concerning the reasoning for termination and current status of the site's SVE system, I've included <br /> 4/19/2006 <br />