Laserfiche WebLink
Response To Comments--July 8, 1988 (DHS Comments To M&B April 1988 <br /> Revised Work Plan Attached To J. Allen Letter) <br /> Item Paragraph Response <br /> Task 1 1 The intent of this paragraph is un- <br /> clear, please provide further <br /> details. <br /> 2 <br /> No response to statements. <br /> 3 The statement that DSW-2 wells show <br /> elevated metals is unclear. Our in- <br /> terpretation of the data shows that <br /> metals levels are not elevated. <br /> Please provide a specific data re- <br /> ference. <br /> 4 We did not state that deeper wells <br /> specifically at DSW-6 and DSW-7 would <br /> be installed if the C zone showed con- <br /> tamination. The program we are follow- <br /> ing is to provide the necessary wells <br /> to delinate groundwater contamination <br /> sufficiently to proceed with feasi- <br /> bility studies. After contamination <br /> was found at DSW-6 and DSW-7, the next <br /> agreed to locations for wells were at <br /> OS-1 and OS-4 where six wells were <br /> installed. We have therefore in- <br /> stalled those wells, in part as a re- <br /> sult of the findings at DSW-6 and <br /> DSW-7. <br /> 5 A conceptual model was presented in <br /> the work plan which we feel is suffi- <br /> cient to locate the next offsite wells. <br /> Task 6 1 DHS statements were noted and no re- <br /> Background Soil sponse was considered necessary. We <br /> Sampling do not agree with the DHS calcula- <br /> tions. If the median value is used <br /> for background, as suggested by the <br /> DHS, then by definition one-half the <br /> values will be above background and, <br /> therefore, one-half the background <br /> soils will be classified as contam- <br /> inated. This conclusion would be <br /> erroneous. <br />