Laserfiche WebLink
U <br /> f she trusts that she believes can handle it for her. <br /> 05-23-95 PHS-EHD receives a letter from RP stating that she has hired another <br /> f consultant to act as the Site Project Manager on her behalf for the <br /> environmental work at the site. All technical issues are to be directed to <br /> II them. <br /> 06-14-95 PHS-EHD sends letter to Site Project Manager discussing concerns on , <br /> system and requests a true and accurate "as built" be submitted with an <br /> explanation as to why the previous drawings of the system do not reflect <br /> the observed configuration as well as an explanation as to why the <br /> actual system is not performing up to original specifications as put forth <br /> in the original CAP. <br /> 07-10-95 PHS-EHD receives an inadequate response from the consultant. <br /> 08-18-95 PHS-EHD sends letter to Site Project Manager in regarding the <br /> inadequate response from the consultant. The letter asks for <br /> engineering calculations to be performed showing friction loss over the <br /> length of the piping of the current configuration and to compare with a <br /> more efficient system configuration to determine if any changes to the <br /> system configuration would be beneficial. Also, because the SWRCB <br /> cleanup fund determined PHS-EHD was not satisfied with the remedial <br /> system at the site, they suspended payment until the problems with the <br /> system are corrected. <br /> 09-21-95 PHS-EHD receives a fax from Site Project Manager stating that the <br /> calculations she performed show that the friction loss can be reduced by <br /> 15% to 37% if the piping configuration is changed. However, the wells <br /> which would show the greatest improvement were the wells with very <br /> low initial hydrocarbon recovery rates and the overall benefit to <br /> reconfiguring the system would not be evident. <br /> 09-27-95 PHS-EHD is informed that the Site Project Manager has taken over as <br /> the consultant for the site through to closure. <br /> 02-29-96 PHS-EHD receives closure report. The vapor extraction system was <br /> operational from 02-00-95 to 01-18-96, when the system was shut down <br /> clue to limited hydrocarbon removal rates. The system removed an <br /> estimated 190 pounds of hydrocarbons from the subsurface. Based on <br /> the initial soil levels and the amount of material removed by vapor <br /> extraction, no confirmation soil borings were requested by PHS-EHD. <br /> PHS-EHD staff concur that appropriate corrective action measures have <br /> been implemented at the site and that no further action is warranted. <br /> 4 <br />