SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Pagel of 2 Frank Girardi [EH] From : Nuel Henderson [EH1 Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 9:24 AM To : Frank Girardi [EH] Subject: FW: 1901 South Center Street Frank, I called Bill and discussed this with him ; he's sticking to his opinion that all this is unnecessary, but will generate a short document addressing the cost-effectiveness concern . I told him we were not looking for him to consider methods other than what has been considered to date, but to state in one document what is or is not likely to be effective and which is cost effective. Told him I was concerned that the CUF may decide the cost-effectiveness issue had not been properly considered and not fully reimburse some claims in the future and we are only trying to fulfill our due diligence on this issue and to protect his and the RP's interest. Nuel From: William Little [mailto :wlittle@advgeoenv.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 2: 09 PM To: Frank Girard! [EH]; Nuel Henderson [EH] Cc: acolavita@advgeoenv.com Subject: 1901 South Center Street Frank and Nuel, This request for a feasibility study is unnecessary, as the letters from your office and site conditions have indicted our current approach and course of action is appropriate. Your office letter from 11 March 2005, recommends remediation and directed immediate interim remediation in 2005 . The May 2005 letter for the work plan approval, conflicts with the March letter and directs additional feasibility analysis for ground water extraction. (removing in-situ air sparging as feasible). As stated in the 2005 EHD letter, removal of high concentration from ground water is recommended by the SWRQCB. The pilot tests : for ground water extraction (and oppositely for DPE) have demonstrated the unsuccessful mass of contamination recovered by ground water extraction and the method was not determined to be not feasible and your office agreed. If mass cannot be recovered by GWE what is not understand regarding its lack of feasibility (removing GWE as feasible). Therefore, what is the befit of this required document after feasibility has been supported by proof of concept (field test). As this technology is rightly names, duel phases of contaminates are removed; therefore regardless of the residual mass disposition, the method works to recover available contaminants. The mass at 1901 South El Dorado Street is greater than can be allowed for closure, therefore, remediation is required. As your office letter dated December 2006 has already approved Soil vapor extraction, regardless of the mass distribution. I Please review your directive within your letters for the site. The EHD letter date 11 May 2010 directed interim remediation. 7/6/2010