SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

Page 3 of 5 i Subject: RE : KI soil spread , new email address? both work or should I use this one from now on ? good idea . . get the data in the table please . show all COC in the tables for ALL the borings , all bore holes had bottom samples taken , right? . a lot of the sample data as listed would fail the LUFT leaching potential , assuming it can be used when DTW is <5 feet. It really can 't but we use it as a guideline , short of requiring a true leaching test with DI or tap water. Sometimes an acid leach is required . I ' m checking . A discreet sampling event may be required . . . . also checking . But some levels exceed the allowable limits even if the gw was 5 - 25 deep . Typically, fail the leaching potential , fail the ability to spread . If not hauling it off is your first choice for proper handling , then encapsulation may be your answer. but think about the precautions , the extra gw monitoring and testing that will probably be required . You 'll need to prove to the EHD that your soil ' remediation ' is cost-effective and feasible , as compared to other ' remedial '/soil treatment- disposal . The CUF will be interested in all the costs . I ' m concerned that the area for spreading is either somewhat on , or very very close to property NOT owned by the Marina folks . I can 't clearly see the boundry and the area on the maps is very close if not somewhat ON the County ROW . as for the cost savings , naturally always a extra plus . but not at the expense of exposure (vapor to the folks living there or impacting the gw near the trailer domestic well ) . With reimbursement available for this site , I 'm not too overly convinced with this rationale . . . . unless you can support feasibility and cost-effectiveness . Due date states field work. That's drilling . not development or gw sampling . This phase wasn 't for collecting gw data . It was for gw data later with mw installations and that means soil data now , gw later. Your soil collecting and well construction ended May 21 . Sixty days from that is July 21 and 45 days after this is Sept 4 . It took nearly a year just to enact the work plan . Not a good thing . I 've been answering questions to the CUF why this site is still NOT in remediation and with a very sensitive receptor so endangered/so close . Not even interim has them unhappy, and me too . . . . The 5-year eval CUF folks have this site on their radar and want the EHD to direct remediation and achieve WQO in a timely manner. that means no delays . that's the 7/16/2008