Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND WELFARE A NCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmor <br /> DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES <br /> TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION <br /> REGION t <br /> 4250 POWER INN ROAD <br /> SACRAMENTO,CA 95826 <br /> (916)739-3145 August 21 , 1989 <br /> Commander <br /> Sharpe Army Depot <br /> SDSSH-EM <br /> ATTN: Able W. Haines <br /> Lathrop, CA 95331-5000 <br /> Dear Mr. Haines: <br /> COMMENTS ON "REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY AT SHARPE <br /> ARMY DEPOT - DRAFT SAMPLE PLAN", LATHROP, SAN JOAQUIN COUNT <br /> The Department has reviewed: "Remedial Investigation/Feasibility <br /> Study at Sharpe Army Depot - Draft Sample Plan", hereinafter the <br /> Sample Plan. That document was prepared by Hunter/ESE for the <br /> U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) and was <br /> submitted to the Department on 21 June 1989 . <br /> Pursuant to the Interagency Agreement for Sharpe Army Depot, the <br /> Department is providing the Army with comments within the sixty <br /> day review period. Because of the extensive nature of the <br /> Department's comments, we have highlighted our major comments in <br /> this letter and provided detailed comments in the enclosed <br /> internal memorandum from Tracie Billington. <br /> The report specifies additional work for the Re dial <br /> Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at Sharpe. Hopefull at <br /> the completion of the Sample Plan the Army will be ab e to <br /> finalize the RI/FS at Sharpe. The Department has the foll wing <br /> primary comments: <br /> 1) The draft Sample Plan must be signed by a Civil Engineer or <br /> Geologist registered by the State of California. <br /> 2) The Sample Plan did not include a Health and Safety Plan, as <br /> was specified in the Interagency Agreement. A Health and Safety <br /> Plan should be submitted as soon as possible. <br /> 3) Groundwater Monitoring - The Army has apparently fail d to <br /> address the Department's and the Regional Board's 15 February <br /> 1989 comments. The proposed well locations do not appear to have <br /> been sufficiently modified in response to the February commants. <br /> The Army should address the February comments. <br />