Laserfiche WebLink
r X;�OM :CITY OF RIPON 209-599-2685 1999.03-11 04:20 #041 P.03/05 <br /> Mr.Dale R=ey, PE <br /> March 10, 1999 <br /> Page 2 <br /> S. It is itrtportant to keep in mind that while PHSXHD may approve this plan,the approval does not <br /> guarantee that the project will be aged effectively; that a No Further AMim tetter well be <br /> obtained; or that the City's casts will be minimia ed. The contents of this woftlat;itidicate to <br /> me that Wright may not undeWand the overall objectives of the project, <br /> speeime Comments <br /> Section 2.1: listed as 3.1 in tgt Geology and Hydrogtology,Page 4 <br /> 1. I agree there is flatness in the water table at the site. I disagree that the groundwater flow direction <br /> has chased 1840 from June 1999. It is important to kap in mind that water level measurements,at <br /> best, at made to an accuracy of 0.1 foot; however, detecting 0.01 foot is difficult. in these cases, <br /> experience dictates a look at the contaminant migration as an indication of gmundwater flow, A <br /> review of the diesel in groundwater data collected to date clearly shows the northerly ta4*19n of <br /> contammotion. A more refaW vwtstouring on Figure 9,which I did cursorily,also eonfims this. <br /> Section 3.1: l'raicct Planning,Pae 6 <br /> 1. This section is missing the following essential topics: subcot<ttacting (itwluding jobwatk and <br /> contracts management).shoring seibmittal review,and 000rdimtion of all activities with the City and <br /> Russell Nelson_ <br /> 2. The USA inspcotion will likely not include onsite utilities. This must be don=by a prtyate utilities <br /> surveyor, as we did during our investigation. This should have already been done for Wright's <br /> previous work. <br /> Section 3.2: Excavation Shot +,Pa'e 7 <br /> 1. This section does not present a coherent shoring concept, The shoring should be sheet piles, and <br /> must have four interlocked aides for support. 'The eonsult4nt Should not do the design. The contt=t, <br /> documents should clearly state that the contractor would submit a detailed shoft design, stamped <br /> by a licensed civil,geotechnical,or structural engineer,for review prior to mobilization. <br />'I 2. The proposal to excavate the niskim snl amount of impacted soil is of concern. Of course,the most <br /> contaminated soil should be removed; however, a large line item cost could be the disposal of the <br /> soil if it cannot be reused. The eftava ed soil should therefore be mlaimwd,aince the City does not <br /> want to incur unnecessary costs; and the PHSl$HD hay already agreed that the Temming diesel <br /> contamination will tint pose a sighificant threat to potable Water supplies(the only exposure routs). <br /> 09-Or Wz'd 050-1 4Q61A66S16 d5 Zt3?1I38h 58D:utcld QS 91 6S-QI-SWI <br />