Laserfiche WebLink
07/14/2000 16.53 2095385A52 GEOLOGICAL TEC 5 PAGE 03/03 <br /> Ilk <br /> earrvgiwl7ecFrnres enc. Page 2 <br /> George$Service <br /> Project No.� 425.21 <br /> July 14,2000 <br /> 2. A,rose gradient diagram should have been included in the work plan. <br /> • This is addressed in Section 3.4. <br /> 3. Cost comparison of air sparging, vapor extraction, soil excavation and all supporting <br /> data, cross section, cost, etc. was not included in the work plan. <br /> • Our remedial alternative evaluation identified two alternatives that should be <br /> evaluated in further detail as requested above. However, it is not cost effective and is <br /> definitely not a useful effort towards the critical path of this project. To spend a lot <br /> of time and incur large costs providing supportive data for remedial methods that will <br /> not work at this site is not rational. We still recommend that we only spend time and <br /> money to compare the effectiveness of performing limited excavation of <br /> approximately 500 cubic yards as compared to use of Oxygen Release Compounds to <br /> mitigate this site. <br /> 4. {Completed well reception survey information is needed. <br /> • This report will be submitted with a few days. <br /> 5. It was noted that the domestic well does not need to be destroyed if used for drinking water <br /> and is non-detectable. <br /> • DW 1600A is in use for shop purposes, not for house or drinking purposes. The house is <br /> not in use. We address this issue in Section 3.3 <br /> b. Specific site data to support feasibility studies and remediation proposal needs to be included <br /> in the work plan. 4 <br /> • As we recommended in Section 2.6, design consideration, operational parameters, and <br /> cost of performing remediation by excavation and by ORC installation be corxpared. <br /> Specific site data and considerations will be presented. r <br /> i <br /> You requested a new workplan be submitted by July 14, 2000. if you want this work plan to <br /> address the longer list of remedial possibilities, then we will have to request approval for those <br /> costs from the fund prior to performing the work. <br /> Respectfully submitted, 1 <br /> I <br /> r <br /> GEOLOGIC,qL TECH90C5INC. <br /> Raynold I. Kablanow ll, Ph.D. <br /> RG, CHG <br /> ' I <br /> i <br /> k <br /> t <br />