Laserfiche WebLink
> • 'Y • <br /> > Please read the emails that I received this morning. We need to <br /> > resolve the County's concerns with the proposed grout (I can accept <br /> > the coated bentonite pellets if there is no bridging in the boring) <br /> > and supply the details for the soil vapor probes. I suggest that <br /> > Closure Solutions email the missing vapor well diagram to Mike and I, <br /> > and address these concerns in an email. I will place the email and soil vapor well <br /> diagram in the file for future reference. <br /> > Thanks. <br /> > Jim <br /> > James L.L. Barton, P.G. <br /> > Engineering Geologist <br /> > California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, <br /> > 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 office <br /> > (916) 464-4615 <br /> > fax (916) 464-4704 <br /> >>>> "Mike Infurna [EHI " <MInfurnaQsjcehd.com> 9/13/2007 7 :38 AM >>> <br /> > PS. <br /> > Jim, <br /> > I can't find the details of the soil vapor probe well/points. The <br /> > diagram you asked for in your July 26th letter is NOT in the work plan <br /> > (revision) dated August 23. <br /> > I need to know how LONG the probes will be in the ground to determine <br /> > if a well box/cover is needed and if a destruction permit will be <br /> > needed too. I'm also concerned HOW these probes will be abandoned. <br /> > Please add these concerns to the ones I previously sent this am. . <br /> > From: Mike Infurna [EHI <br /> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 7 :17 AM <br /> > To: jbarton@waterboards.ca.gov <br /> > Subject: New West MW construction <br /> > Jim, <br /> > I got the ok to do overtime review on the New West work plan. <br /> > Seems the consultant is fixed to the idea of nested wells even with <br /> > all my resistance. I got him to sign a doc stating IF the wells are <br /> > required to be over-bored, an auger of adequate size to encompass ALL <br /> > of the original borehole will be used. This is ok with me. <br /> > WHat's NOT ok with me is on these nested wells the plan calls for <br /> > CEMENT GROUT between the bentonite seal of the deeper well and the <br /> > bottom of the sand of the upper casing. . . <br /> > This is a problem since ASTM and Bulletin 74-90 has minimum curing <br /> > times for certain grouts. . .for example, Types I and II calls for 24 hours. <br /> > Using the hottest mix of quick curing Type V is still 6 hours and NO <br /> > ONE uses hot mix on PVC anymore. <br /> > So I can issue the permit but I will NOT allow the construction of the <br /> > upper casing on nested wells until the minimum curing time has elapsed. <br /> > Building/constructing a deep well and leaving the augers in overnight <br /> > is a possibility, but this will require the driller to double or <br /> > triple up on his augers to get a full days work in. Besides I'm not <br /> > too sure the County PW Dept will allow augers in a hole overnight on their streets. . . <br /> > Other option is to use the time released bentonite pellets. .the TR-30 <br /> > or TR-60 ones. This is more expensive, but allows for nearly <br /> > continuous nested well construction. <br /> > Let me know how you want to handle this. <br /> 2 <br />