Laserfiche WebLink
Mikelnfurna <br /> From: Mike Infurna <br /> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:16 AM <br /> To: 'Devra Lewis' <br /> Subject: RE: Shell-Hansen Investigation Report <br /> I did receive it but since there are no monitoring wells associated with this site (so <br /> far) , we here at EHD take the "No Comment" approach on sites we don't have jurisdiction <br /> over, or who are already following another lead agency's direction or recommendations. <br /> If I were to recommend anything, it would be the Consistent Technical Approach procedure, <br /> previously under evaluation by Wendy Cohen and Chevron, and from what I hear, now <br /> transferred to the Fresno office for regulatory enactment. Excluding this, I am unable to <br /> comment to the RP officially. <br /> As for your comments, they seem very valid. Have you thought of monitoring wells <br /> (repeatable samples?) Other than that, it seems ok. I'll issue any permit after you <br /> approve the work plan. <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: Devra Lewis (mailto:LewisD@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov] <br /> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 7:01 AM <br /> To: MInfurna@sjcehd.com <br /> Subject: Shell-Hansen Investigation Report <br /> Good morning Mike - <br /> Have you had the opportunity to review the 2 January 2003 Investigation <br /> Report submitted by Clayton for the Shell pipeline at Hansen and <br /> Schultes Roads? I have reviewed it and I want to give you my thoughts <br /> and ask you to tell me what you think: <br /> 1. I think the extent is delineated laterally, but not vertically. <br /> 2. I think they need to propose remedial activities. <br /> 3 . I think it was a good report and my only comment on the report <br /> (other than above) is that they need to collect OVM readings. <br /> What are your thoughts on this? Because of the interest of the <br /> attorney, I would like to respond as quickly as possible. I appreciate <br /> your input! <br /> Devra <br /> 1 <br />