Laserfiche WebLink
f" ,,✓ Wright <br /> Environmental <br /> Services, Inc. <br /> Construction ♦ Engineering ♦ Remediation <br /> REC �� � <br /> March 8, 2000 <br /> MAR 14 2000 <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL t-EALTH <br /> PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Clean Water Program <br /> Ms.Nina Ciani <br /> 2014 T. Street <br /> Sacramento, CA 95814 <br /> RE: PRE-APPROVAL OF CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS, CLAIM NO. 9444 <br /> SITE ADDRESS: 595 EAST 11TH ST.,TRACY <br /> Dear Ms. Ciani: <br /> Enclosed is a summary of our conversation on March 1, 2000, relating to the referenced claim and <br /> clarifications to the questions posed in your letter dated 2-17-2000. <br /> During our conversation, I indicated the workplan,which was approved by County oversight, included <br /> certain elements(potholing,monitoring well,feasibility study)that were alluded to in oversight agency <br /> letter dated November 24, 1999,and clarified in subsequent phone conversations with the case officer for <br /> this site. Once clarified they were then included in our workplan and subsequent pre-approval request to <br /> your office. As to the questions and concerns expressed in your letter, the following explanation is offered <br /> in justification for projected costs to implement the approved workplan. <br /> Excessive labor concern: Currently the borings depths are undefined however,each boring will occur to <br /> depths feasibility for direct push drill rig, to vertically define extent of contamination in soil, groundwater. <br /> and aquitard as required under direct oversight of PHS-EHD representative in field. There will be <br /> potholing to at least 5 feet for each of the borings around the subsurface irrigation pipeline. Wright <br /> Environmental Services, Inc. (Wright) must locate a 4' diameter irrigation pipeline that is buried on that <br /> site where the borings are to be placed without damaging this line. <br /> Professional service labor hours are also associated with feasibility study work and associated costs <br /> projections for remedial alternatives,which was required by PHS-EHD. Monitoring well installation will <br /> only be done if it is required by PHS-EHD and as determined by field conditions the day borings are <br /> installed as agreed to in my phone conversation with oversight agency case officer during workplan <br /> development. <br /> The apparent high cost in laboratory analysis was due to the number and type of analysis required As <br /> indicated in our conversation,we did incorrectly estimate the cost for analysis. The correct cost for 72 <br /> samples should be around$8.142.00. There will be 16 soil samples and 8 water samples for TPHG/BTEX. <br /> VOC, and Oxygenates if all 8 borings(which were approved in by the case officer)are required based upon <br /> conditions encountered during fieldwork. As emphasized in our conversation the only way this number of <br /> samples will be analyzed is if we install all borings and if worst-case site conditions exist. However, we <br /> had to budget for pre-approval some amount for laboratory analysis costs and choose worst case instead of <br /> optimistic best case. <br /> 67 E. 10th Street . Tracy, CA 95376 <br /> 209.833.0758 • Fax 209.832.5152 <br /> wrighff inreach.com Lia #651501 A-BHacMat i% <br /> websit http.11home.inreach.com/Wright <br />