SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Frank Dellechai• • Page 2 January 24, 1989 The discussion shifted to Soil Sample Collection. Rationale for the nine background locations was discussed. The contractors said they chose the four proposed background surface soil sample locations outside of the inner fenced perimeter area because this area had never been part of the plant operation. DHS noted that there were no proposed sample locations in either the eastern or southern areas of the facility. The contractor said that the eastern boundary was covered by asphalt and that soil samples from the southern boundary had been taken by a previous contractor. DHS asked if it were possible to substitute one of the proposed locations along the northern boundary for a proposed location along the eastern boundary near the carport, and add an additional location along the southern boundary. The contractors agreed to this change. DHS then asked what protocols would be used for the analyses. The contractors said that these soils were to be analyzed for metals (6010) but not organics. A lengthy discussion by both parties ensued about whether or not the proposed background surface soil samples should/would be analyzed for organics. DHS pointed out that the purpose of the assessment is to collect data and that this data is needed to establish whether or not there are solvents on site, and that this approach is being taken at other sites. It was agreed that both protocols, 6010 and 8010, would be done. This analysis also applies to the proposed surface soil sample locations in the depression area. The discussion then moved to the subject of the eleven newly proposed wells and their locations. The contractors emphasized that the facility was in an assessment monitoring mode and not in a detection monitoring mode, and as such the goal is to collect data to assess the problem so that they can design a solution to the problem. The contractors said they were going to instrument three wells (TP-1A, TP-2A, TP-3A) to see how often the gradient changes and if those changes are related to pumping in the area by the California Water Service production wells, or if the changes in gradient are regional. DHS noted that there was a lack of wells north of the site and south of the site. More specifically DHS saw the northern and southern boundaries of the facility as being open, and proposed that a cluster of wells be established north of Alpine Road, and south of the railroad spur (south of Pond 1) . The contractors said that putting a cluster of wells to the north and to the south was a logical avenue to pursue as a follow-on to their current plan. They also said that this