Laserfiche WebLink
1 F <br /> 4W(09kjt Teelsnics!Kc Page 4 <br /> Sinclair&Thompson Property <br /> Soil Gas Survey Report <br /> t� January 29,2007 <br /> On June 24, 2003, GTI prepared and submitted the Monitoring Well Installation & GeoProbe <br /> Investigation Work Plan. Ms Duncan approved the work plan in the letter dated July 18, <br /> 2003, with several caveats. <br /> The following work was performed in accordance with the June 2003 Monitoring Well <br /> Installation & GeoProbe Investigation Work Plan. On November 12, 2003, GTI supervised <br /> La the installation of one shallow groundwater-monitoring well (MW-5). To further investigate <br /> the lateral extent of soil impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons, GTI advanced ten (10) <br /> GeoProbe boreholes on November 10 and 12, 2003. On February 20, 2004, GTI submitted <br /> the Additional Site Characterization and 4rh Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report <br /> discussing the work performed at the site in November 2003. <br /> 46w On April 26, 2004, GTT prepared and submitted a Feasibility Study Addendum (Cost <br /> Comparisons). In a letter dated May 19, 2004, Ms Duncan, expressed concerns about several <br /> ' items discussed in the June 2003 Initial Site Conceptual Model and the April 2004 Feasibility <br /> Study Addendum (Cost Comparisons). <br /> After review of the May 19, 2004 SJCEHD letter, GTI met with Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair to <br /> determine the course of remediation for the site. The driving factor for Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair <br /> is time due to property issues with family members, making accelerated remediation at the <br /> site essential. It was decided during the meeting that excavation would be the remedial <br /> ,,. alternative that best fits the needs for the ST site. <br /> GTI prepared and submitted the Addendum to the Site Conceptual Model, Feasibility Study <br /> L. and Corrective Action Plan on July 12, 2004. In a letter dated August 3, 2004, Ms Duncan <br /> requested some modifications to the proposed corrective action plan. GTI prepared and <br /> submitted the final Remedial Action Work Plan dated September 20, 2004. In a letter dated <br /> LW October 4, 2004, Ms Duncan approved the proposed remedial action plan with minor caveats. <br /> ' The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) denied most of the costs associated <br /> 4.0 with the work in a letter dated November 8, 2004. In a phone conversation on December 16, <br /> 2004, Mr. Trommer (SWRCB) stated he felt it was a groundwater problem and not a soil <br /> contamination problem. Mr. Trommer stated that if there was obvious soil contamination a <br /> L. reasonable amount of soil could be removed, but he thought 1,500 cubic yards was excessive. <br /> Mr. Trommer placed a written 150 cubic yard and a verbal 300 cubic yard limitation on sail <br /> excavation. <br /> LW <br /> Details of the soil excavation and monitoring well installation activities are discussed in the <br /> GTI Remedial Action Report dated August 11, 2005. In a letter dated September 2, 2005, Ms <br /> Duncan directed a recalculation of the contaminant mass at the site, both before and after the <br /> remediation activities, and that all available site data be used in the calculations. The new <br /> calculations were submitted in the Revised Remedial Action Report — Mass Estimate <br /> Lo Recalculations dated November 1, 2005. <br /> LW <br />