Laserfiche WebLink
scale <br /> sparging) and pure oxygen inj ction do not require WDRs or berr <br /> testing (BST) , due to the associated low reactivity within the aquifer. <br /> However, ozone as one of the more reactive reagents (Fenton's Reagent, <br /> etc. ) normally require BST and pilot studies, to show whether <br /> degradation of water quality is occurring as a result of the injection, <br /> how long that degradation will persist after cessation of treatment, and <br /> whether there are risks to sensitive receptors which make a specific <br /> treatment unacceptable. Pilot studies are also normally required prior <br /> to full scale implementation to show the effectiveness of a treatment, <br /> unless the data show that expedited, interim treatment is necessary to <br /> reduce the risk from a release. <br /> That being said, I cannot presume that all of these concerns were <br /> addressed at the adjacent site, since we only began asking for BSTs and <br /> geochemical evaluation of the data in the last few years. And as <br /> geologists, we try to find correlations related to geologic and <br /> geochemical data when transferring results from one site to another. <br /> Prior to any meeting, I would need to review the geologic cross sections <br /> and determine whether the two sites share a similar lithology and <br /> chemistry, and evaluate soil and groundwater investigation data that <br /> also include metals and general minerals (hexavalent <br /> chromium, bromide, bromate, etc. ) . We use the ITRC guidance for Insitu <br /> Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) , which should be followed as applicable and <br /> referenced in any ISCO workplan. I am concerned that the mobile unit <br /> may present a health hazard to the public, due to the potential for <br /> exposure to a toxic gas if the unit is inadvertently damaged. Finally, <br /> the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department will be the <br /> agency to approve the Corrective Action, if it is appropriate and <br /> necessary. <br /> Jim Barton <br /> James L.L. Barton, P.G. <br /> Engineering Geologist <br /> California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, <br /> 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 office (916) <br /> 464-4615 <br /> fax (916) 464-4704 <br /> >>> "Sarah Salcedo" <ssalcedo@stratusinc.net> 10/10/2007 11:22 AM >>> <br /> Good morning Jim and Vicki- <br /> As you may know, Stratus is providing environmental consulting services <br /> to the Parkinson's for this site. We have finally (mostly) straightened <br /> things out with the Cleanup Fund for the Parkinson's and I wanted to <br /> re-open some dialogue with you both on moving the site forward toward <br /> remediation and closure. The previous consultant (Shaw) had submitted a <br /> CAP on October 26, <br /> 2004 providing a cost evaluation of several remedial alternatives and <br /> selecting ozone sparging as the preferred remedial alternative. In a <br /> letter to Parkinson dated May 27, 2005, San Joaquin County EHD approved <br /> this CAP and concurred with Shaw's proposal to install an ozone system <br /> at the site, contingent upon the RWQCB's approval of this plan. <br /> We have reviewed the site and the groundwater data collected in the past <br /> few years since the CAP was written and approved, and although <br /> concentrations have decreased significantly since that time, we concur <br /> that ozone sparging could be a good choice for remediation at the site. <br /> Further, at the property immediately adjacent (east) of the site at 3202 <br /> Hammer Lane, ozone sparging has been successfully ongoing for more than <br /> three years (May 2004) . <br /> Because of the already-implemented ozone sparging on the adjacent <br /> parcel, I would assume there would be little need for geochemical <br /> testing for valence state conversions of chromium, bromine, etc and/or <br /> pilot testing of this technology. <br /> I would like RWQCB's approval to submit a work plan to proceed with <br /> 3 <br />