Laserfiche WebLink
07/14/2000 16:53 2095385+852 GEOLOGICAL TECHNICS l PAGE 02/03 <br /> `geo(osk4d 2'ec!mits 27c. <br /> Ptc ject#425.2 <br /> Pagel <br /> Geologica(Technics Inc. <br /> 2741�fraer <br /> 'I�odtrla,CaCtfornra 95.352 i. <br /> (S09)538-,942*T*,&538-5852 <br /> I <br /> r <br /> July 14, 2000 <br /> Project No.: 425.2 <br /> Project Name: George's Service(Durham Ferry) <br /> Carol Oz, Senior REDS <br /> Environmental Health Division, San Joaquin County <br /> Public Health Services <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Re: Remedial Alternative Evaluation Work Plan.dated 6/20/00 <br /> Dear Ms. Oz: <br /> We received your letter dated July 5, 2000 disapproving the Remedial Alternative Work PIan <br /> dated June 20, 2000 sent by Geological Technics Inc. on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Teranishi. You t <br /> sited the following reasons for not approving the.Work Plan. <br /> L Elements in a letter from PHS/EHD dated May 5, 2000 and September S, 1999 were not <br /> addressed in the work plan. <br /> + Your September 8, 1999 letter asked the following: <br /> ❑ That all domestic well within a 2000-foot radius be plotted on a map and that <br /> construction detail be provided where available. A report of the revised receptor <br /> survey will be submitted shortly. <br /> ❑ That two remedial alternatives to be evaluated. We provided a general evaluation of <br /> five remedial alternative, gave reasons why three of therm would not be effective and <br /> recommended that the other two be evaluated in more detail. Thus.meeting that ' <br /> request. <br /> ❑ That the domestic well 1600.A, be investigated and evaluated for contaminant impact. � <br /> We addressed that is Section 3.3 in the June 20, 2000 work plan. <br /> I <br /> + Your May 5, 2000 letter asked the following: <br /> ❑ That quarterly groundwater monitoring reports be submitted "within 30 days of <br /> completing the sampling event". This was addressed in Section 3.1. 1 <br /> ❑ Fate and transport modeling has not been performed. We can include that as a <br /> remedial alternative to evaluate. However, it is our opinion that removing <br /> contaminants from the soil and groundwater is the preferred method, not just evaluate <br /> the risk they pose to the domestic water wells. <br /> ❑ A report of the revised receptor survey will be submitted shortly. <br /> ❑ DW 1600A. is in use for shop purposes, not for house or drinking purposes. The <br /> house is not in use. We address this issue in Section 3.3.: <br />