Laserfiche WebLink
1 Bala iral Ttelucirs lnc. Page 5 <br /> G g <br /> Sinclair Trucking <br /> SCM&CAP Addendum <br /> Project No. 1030.3 <br /> July 12,2004 <br /> ' 5. In situ injection is no longer the remedial activity proposed for the site. However, the <br /> following may answer some concerns. <br /> a. The number of injection wells anticipated (from discussions with an ISCO <br /> ' vender) was included in the Feasibility Study Addendum for cost comparison <br /> purposes. We wanted SJC/EHD to be aware of how we estimated the drilling <br /> and well construction costs. <br /> ' b. Placement of injection points, radius of influence testing, well construction <br /> details and other specifics would be addressed in the subsequent work plan if the <br /> technology were approved based on cost comparisons. We would discuss the <br /> site-specific issues with other professionals (chemist, contractors, vendors, etc.) <br /> prior to preparing and submitting the final work plan. <br /> 6. In situ injection is no longer the remedial activity proposed for the site. However, the <br /> ' following may answer some concerns. <br /> a. Section 3.0 in the Feasibility Study Addendum states that our goal is have the site <br /> closed in approximately one year. GTI and Advanced oxidation processes <br /> (AOP) vendors have seen positive results from this technology and we do not <br /> feel it should take several years. We realize the regulatory goals may differ from <br /> ours and this was discussed in Section 2.2.2 of the Feasibility Study Addendum. <br /> b. Section 2.2.2 of the Addendum states: "Costs related to monitoring will depend <br /> ' on the length of monitoring required and may range in the tens of thousands." <br /> c. Section 2.2.2 of the Addendum suggests the length of monitoring is subject to <br /> regulatory directives (length of monitoring required}. <br /> 2.3 Discussion <br /> ' <br /> Boring Logs and Cross Section <br /> Discrepancies between the original boring logs submitted to SJC/EHD and those submitted <br /> in the SCM have been evaluated by GTI. Work by the original project geologist, original <br /> documentation and available soil samples were reviewed. Borehole logs have been <br /> corrected and are attached as Appendix A. <br /> A revised site map showing the line of section as well as GeoProbe locations, soil borings <br /> and monitoring wells used in developing the cross section is included as Figure 1 (formerly <br /> Figure 2 of the June 2003 SCM). A revised cross section providing a more detailed view of <br /> the site lithology is included as Figure 2 (formerly Figure 7 of the June 2003 SCM). <br /> Feasibility Study Addendum <br /> In situ injection is no longer the remedial activity proposed for the Sinclair Trucking site. <br /> Section 2.2 should clarify the discrepancy and vagueness issues discussed in the May 19, <br /> ' 2004 SJC/EHD letter. <br /> Soil Excavation <br /> If the June 2003 Corrective Action Plan and the justifications for soil excavation are <br /> _ approved by SJCIEHDz GTI proposes to prepare and submit a detailed work plan outlining <br /> the soil excavation work to be performed. <br /> 1 <br />