Laserfiche WebLink
>>> "Mike Infurna [EH] " <MIn�na@sjcehd.com> 9/20/2006 2 :34 9»> <br /> Jim, <br /> Attached is the Geological Technics Inc request to EHD for sampling for min/metals in lieu <br /> of a Bench Scale Test. . . <br /> EHD and Nuel and I realize that the CVRWQCB is the final approval for WDR eval for <br /> injectable oxidizers and we'd rather not approve a remedial alternative that puts you in a <br /> position to deny it later. <br /> I'd like your input on how to word our comment/denial on this attachment. <br /> For example, I was thinking of writing something like, "EHD has discussed this proposal <br /> with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) and it was <br /> concluded that the proposed sampling for minerals and metals would not/could not support <br /> an adequate approach in providing data in substitution of a Bench Scale test for oxidizer <br /> injection into the ground water as required for WDR. As recommended by the State Water <br /> Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Clean Up Fund in correspondence dated January 25, 2006, <br /> please "investigate other possible remedial alternatives". EHD requires you to submit an <br /> evaluation (cost-effective and feasibility study) for another remedial alternative at this <br /> site" . . . <br /> just one thought. I'm open to other ways to word it. <br /> 2 <br />