Laserfiche WebLink
09-28-94 PHS-EHD sends letter to RP approving workplan for two additional <br /> vapor wells but maintaining that the other three wells should be utilized <br /> as well. <br /> 10-00-94 Two additional VWs installed. <br /> 10-11-94 PHS-EHD receives faxed notification that vapor extraction testing is <br /> scheduled for 10-13-94. <br /> 10-13-94 PHS-EHD receives telephone call from consultant. Vapor extraction <br /> testing inadvertently performed yesterday. <br /> 02-09-95 Vapor extraction system started up on this date. Several problems with <br /> configuration of the system, the monitoring equipment on the system <br /> and the methods used to obtain the air samples were observed by PHS- <br /> EHD. <br /> Although PHS-EHD continued to express concerns over the <br /> configuration and monitoring of the system, the consultant took no <br /> corrective measures. <br /> 02-24-95 PHS-EHD sends letter to RP requesting copies of the original design <br /> specifications for the system, including the name and professional <br /> registration of the person who designed the system, a corrected Table 2 <br /> from a letter report which originally showed conversion errors, and a <br /> response to the concerns of PHS-EHD on the configuration of the <br /> system. The letter also directs the RP to hook up the original three <br /> vapor wells as this had never been done even though directed by this <br /> agency. <br /> 03-29-95 PHS-EHD visits site. The three original vapor wells are hooked up to <br /> the system but the piping configuration is questionable. There appears <br /> to be overlapping lengths of pipe and more elbows than needed. This <br /> immediately raises the question of efficiency to these wells. <br /> 04-00-95 PHS-EHD receives a system"as built" from consultant that is in no way <br /> representative of the true configuration of the system observed at the <br /> site. <br /> 05-16-95 PHS-EHD discusses with the RP the problems at the site with the <br /> consultant and the quality and performance of the system operating at <br /> the site. PHS-EHD explains to RP that repeated requests to justify the <br /> system at the site have not been received by PHS-EHD. RP states she <br /> cannot handle these technical issues on her own but has a consultant <br /> 3 <br />