SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

' The question of pumping the contaminated water into the city sewer system arose and Marc B stated that they could possibly go through a manhole, but it would also depend on the volume of water generated by dewatering. Margaret suggested the City of Stockton look to the responsible parties to cover the costs. Bob M. stated we can't wait that long for an answer now, but could possibly pursue reimbursement later. Kevin noted that once you move the plume, you become the responsible party. Rick S presented the possibilities of micro tunneling, as the price is coming down or directional drilling (depending on the grades). It was generally agreed that alternatives can't be decided upon until we know what we are dealing with. Michael I. suggested we use the worst possible case scenario and go from there. The question of why we are replacing the line was brought up. Bob M. stated it is being replaced because it is very old. Margaret questioned whether we would be placing contaminated water into a leaking line if we chose to pump it into the city sewer system and thereby spreading the contamination. It was noted that there is no evidence that the line is leaking at all. There was additional discussion on the trench dewatering idea. Gary noted that there is a lot of risk involved with the possible pressure under the clay and sand layers. The pressure may boil up through the bottom and you could also lose the sidewalls. Mark M. stated the trench method would give more control and downsize the treatment system considerably. Gary stated it depends on the boiling. He noted that rock/gravel can be used for the bottom, but that will not solve the caving problem. Doug offered that a combination of dewatering and alternative methods can be used. Rick S stated 80% of the project should be able to be done as planned. He feels we need to determine the lengths involved in the contaminated zones. Kevin stated that you could also put wells on the properties of the responsible persons to contain the contaminated plume with the property. Michael I said there shouldn't be any need to be concerned with site 1850 as it is so far off on Roselawn and at the back of the lot. He said we shouldn't pull that plume.