SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 1

Home Browse Search

4491 Durham Ferry Page 3 P Correspondence dated May 16, 1995 The correspondence was-prepared to respond to the May 15, 1995 telephone communication with PHS/EHD. It was stated that well development consisted of limited hand bailing. PHS/EHD would infer that this is the hand bailing that occurred during the "pre-pump testing planning".- Attempts to further explain the "yield testing" contained an error which was carried through the evaluation. Please note that�the recovery well was installed using a 10 inch auger; therefore, the installation of a 4 inch diameter casing would result in a 3 inch annulus, rather than a 2 inch annulus. With regardl to the vapor testing and oxygen concentrations, in a closed system, i.e. a sealed vapor extraction well,,one would assume that the concentrations of oxygen would be lowered because there was no flowthrough and possibly as a result of limited biological activity. PHS/EHD questions that the measurements collected would actually hinder the ability to test the feasibility of vapor extraction as a remedial alternative. The analysis included errors such as the statement that the shallow subsurface does not yield groundwater readily under bailing conditions. PHS/EHD has not noted that there has been a significant problem with monitoring wells dewatering during purging and sampling activities. The statement that the recovery well was only marginally developed during installation was false. The well was not developed to any extent during installation. It is unclear how the stagnant conditions of the wells will significantly affect the application of a vacuum to such an extent which would support the rational to extend the vapor extraction testing for five days. Correspondence dated May 19, 1995 The correspondence thanked PHS/EHD for-returning telephone calls and for the efforts made to schedule a meeting for the following Monday. The letter indicated that PHS/EHD suggested that Brooke Birkie accompany your consultant. For your information it. is PHS/EHD's position as is the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) that responsible parties are generally able to soley manage sites with regulatory guidance and therefore, costs associated with the management of sites are not r reimbursable under the SWRCB Cleanup Fund. In short, PHS/EHD would prefer to meet with you and your technical consultant. With regards to the scheduling of the proposed site activities, it should be evident that PHS/EHD was not able to quickly approve of the modifications to the scope of work. It was discussed that there would be no problem with regard to the well development since in fact it had never been developed. r iI 1 �_ 1