SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2

Home Browse Search

Mr. William Bergvall Former American Forest Products 2801 N. West Lane Page 2 of 3 • Well construction details in Table 1 for MW-1 through DMW-7 appear to be incorrect. They are inconsistent with specifications noted in the soil boring logs and tables in previous reports. This issue was previously noted by EHD by letter dated May 5, 2005 and has not been corrected or commented on by URS. The 2005 Report, prepared by URS, included the QMR data for all four quarters in the year 2005. This report was submitted to the EHD only as a hardcopy and was not submitted to Geotracker, the State Water Resources Control Board internet database system. In this report URS concludes there to be downward contaminant concentration trends for all wells (as noted in the NFAR) exce t for DMW-9. The well construction detail errors previously noted by the EHD were still not corrected in the 2005 QMR. Included in this report was a recommendation hat closure status be decided upon results of quarterly data collected during year 2006. EHD has not received any QMRs in Geotracker for the years 2005 or 2006. The DWP, prepared by URS, contains a proposal o advance soil borings and install two new monitoring wells 30 to 90 feet down gradient of DMW-9 with screen intervals similar to those of DMW-9. Provide.the EHD a site plan with the proposed well locations and a cross section showing the dissolved plume extent and inferred migration pathways in the downgradient direction so the EHD can evaluate t e revised work plan. EHD directs that all documents submitted to the EHD since January 2005, including workplans, investigation reports, and QMRs, be submitted by April 13, 2007 to Geotracker. Please include in the reports the torr ct well construction details for DMW- 1 through DMW-7. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23, Section 2652 (d) requires responsible parties to submit reports to the local agency (EHD) every three months (quarterly) until investigation and clean-up of the site are complete. CCR Title 23, Section 3890 — 3895 requires responsible par,les to submit reports on Geotracker. Quarterly monitoring and reporting is to continuE until the site is closed or you are directed otherwise by the EHD. On February 27, 2007 the EHD met with Tony. Minc ling, Professional Geologist for URS, and William Bervall of the former American Forest Products to discuss the current status of the site and how to proceed toward closure. During the meeting,. Mr. Mindling provided hard copies of figures for 1,2-DCA concentration trends in DMW-2, DMW-5, , DMW-6, and DMW-9 that included groundwater analytical results for the. Year 2006. IrI The. DMW-9 graph showed an increasing trend Df 1,2-DCA while DMW-2, DMW-5, l DMW-6, and DMW-9 graphs all showed decreasing trends of 1,2-DCA. Mr. Mindling proposed additional site investigation by installing two new monitoring wells down gradient from DMW-9. The EHD considered this roposal to be inadequate. DMW-9 has elevated dissolved 1,2-DCA between 60 and 70 feet below surface grade (bsg) as does monitoring well DMW-6 between 30 and 52 feet bsg and there are potential lateral data gaps in these areas in those intervals. Therefore, more data should be collected to fully delineate the lateral and vertical extent of 1,2-DCA and to produce a hydrogeological site conceptual model (SCM). P for to preparing or conducting any further investigation, Mr_ Mindling agreed to condu t a file review, generate an SCM to also be submitted to Geotracker, submit all requirec documents issued since January 1, 2005 to Geotracker, and revise the DWP to conduct additional site investigation (based on SCM data and information). The SCM shOL Id include plume maps and cross sections showing site lithology, permeable pathways, well screens, data points, and