Laserfiche WebLink
6STA^.Q,OF CALIFORNIA - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION&Y • PETE WILSON, Gavrnor <br /> DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL <br /> Region 1 <br /> .10151 Croydon Way,Suite 3 �' <br /> Samrnento,CA 95827-2106 <br /> (916)855-7700 <br /> September 19 , 1991 <br /> Mr. David W. Bates " w <br /> The Marley Cooling Tower Company SEP 2. 3 10.011 <br /> 5800 Foxridge Road 1 �( r ,A� TH <br /> Mission, Kansas 66202NbIRONMK�d er _ I.: <br /> f'ERM!'fi'/UfVIC:LS <br /> Dear Mr. Bates: <br /> RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR EXTENSION <br /> The Department of Toxic Substances Control (formerly the <br /> Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Program) , <br /> has reviewed the request for extension of schedules submitted <br /> August 26, 1991, by Black & Veatch on behalf of the Marley <br /> Cooling Tower Company (MCTC) . For reference, the proposed <br /> schedules are attached. <br /> Pursuant to paragraph 6. 5 of the March 1, 1988, Remedial <br /> Action Order (RAO) , the Department will authorize an extension of <br /> twenty five (25) calendar days to Operable Units 3 & 4 (OU 3 & 4) <br /> construction completion dates presented in the June 29 , 1991, <br /> Remedial Action Plan (RAP) . This extension is based on the date <br /> MCTC received the Department ' s January 22 , 1991, stipulated <br /> approval letter for the design of OU 3 & 4 . <br /> As for an extension beyond 25 calendar days, the Department <br /> acknowledges soil flushing is an innovative technology. We <br /> further recognize from information gained during pilot scale <br /> flushing operations, difficulties have arisen in evaluating <br /> controlling parameters. Anomalies of the subsurface system have <br /> also occurred unexpectedly. Consequently, we consider your <br /> proposal to expand the review of the pilot scale operations as an <br /> appropriate action and thereby approve the attached OU 3 <br /> schedule. <br /> In response to revising the schedule for the ground water <br /> collection system (OU 4) , the Department notes that as with all <br /> RAP deliverable deadlines, the schedule for OU 4 was established <br /> by MCTC. Furthermore, because the technology incorporates <br /> standard construction practices, justification for extending the <br /> deadline beyond twenty five (25) days cannot be made. It is <br /> therefore the Department' s position that should construction of <br /> OU 4 extend beyond the revised deadline of October 10, 1991, a <br /> determination of non-compliance with the RAO and the December <br /> 1984 Settlement Agreement may be pursued. <br />