Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> From: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 9:23 AM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Mn sampling at ozone site <br /> Mike, <br /> I believe EHD authority covers the products and their components released from the <br /> UST systems - investigation, characterization, etc, and approval of the most cost- <br /> effective remedial technology. Jim of course, has authority through the WDRs of <br /> approving what agents are injected into the subsurface and how to monitor them and <br /> their products. In this case, I believe Jim is making a judgment related to the ozone <br /> injection and the products of that injection. <br /> Jim raises a good point; if ozone injection caused the increased dissolved Mn <br /> concentrations, cessation of the injection should lead to at least stable, but probably <br /> decreasing concentrations of MN. On the face of it, one may interpret the increased <br /> concentrations to be related to other causes. Further study of the details of the <br /> remedial design and site characteristics are needed before I can begin to interpret the <br /> cause and effect. <br /> Other info I'd be interested in seeing, but suspect has not been collected: <br /> What is the distribution of dissolved Mn concentrations relative to the injection points? <br /> Do we have a bulls eye on the injection points? <br /> Are upgradient wells so affected? <br /> Has the injection been effective on hydrocarbon concentrations? <br /> The answers to these questions would guide me in making a decision on whether to <br /> proceed with the injections; Jim appears to have given his blessing to proceed should <br /> we elect to do that. The dissolved MN is his concern and responsibility, the dissolved <br /> hydrocarbons ours. <br /> Nuel <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 2:33 PM <br /> To: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Subject: FW: Mn sampling at ozone site <br />