Laserfiche WebLink
Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> From: Harlin Knoll [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 4:33 PM <br /> To: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Cc: Margaret Lagorio [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Chapin Bros Letter of 15 October 2003 <br /> Nuel: <br /> When you finish reviewing of the Conrady site at 1012 Yosemite can we met w/Margaret to go over the Chapin project? <br /> Any time this week would be fine w/me. <br /> Hk <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Nuel Henderson[EH] <br /> Sent: Wednesday,October 22,2003 1:09 PM <br /> To: Harlin Knoll [EH] <br /> Subject: Chapin Bros Letter of 15 October 2003 <br /> Harlin, I think several points in Bill's letter should be responded to, not that I think they're really big deals, but I hate <br /> leaving things in print that are not exactly on point. The items are as follows: <br /> 1) No additional comment, but I thought the number of gallons pumped was 1.3 million - I do have a shoddy memory <br /> so... <br /> 2) While contaminant concentrations may have declined in the wells monitored, the degree of decline was not as much <br /> as was expected, raising concern that there is an unrecognized adsorbed mass of contaminants in soil that is <br /> continually impacting the water, thereby maintaining high dissolved concentrations. <br /> 3) It was not generally agreed that the remaining impacted soil under the building was the source impacting <br /> groundwater, it is only the primary suspected location for an unassessed mass of impacted soil. Nobody is requiring <br /> SVE or excavation of impacted soil under the building at this time; the first step is to assess it and make a <br /> determination whether or not it should be addressed. <br /> 4) Continued GWE was discussed, but there was no formal proposal to which "the Board" could concur with or against <br /> anyone else. The Board didn't make a determination that this site would be better addressed by SVE vs. GWE, but <br /> only made the point that SVE is generally more effective if a known mass can be addressed by SVE. As far as the <br /> dual-phase and rebound testing, my memory fades. <br /> 5) No additional comments. <br /> 6) 1 think I know what Bill is saying here, but it's not complete. My position is that to properly evaluate the effectiveness <br /> of remediation so far, the initial and current masses should be compared. This would involve some confirmation <br /> sampling designed to properly determine the current mass. If the current mass plus the removed mass do not equal <br /> the initial mass, this would have some implication regarding the presence of an unassessed and unquantified mass. <br /> Obviously the numbers will not add up exactly, we'd be looking at the magnitude of the masses. <br /> I think the SCM should be carefully reviewed by AGE and evaluated for the potential presence of unassessed <br /> hydrocarbons. The assessment of soil underlying the building and confirmation sampling can include sampling <br /> localities where unassessed contaminants might occur. <br /> Also discussed at the meeting was a kind of containment zone approach to the impacted ground water at the site. It <br /> was affirmed by the Board and EHD that this approach cannot be undertaken without a policy revising for the Central <br /> Valley Basin Plan and that ground water in the area would have to be formally determined to not be of Beneficial Use. <br /> 1 <br />