Laserfiche WebLink
State of California • • Department of 4601th Svvk*s <br /> Memorandum <br /> To David Wang, P.E. Date : August 21, 198 <br /> Senior Waste Management Engineer <br /> 55,,,,�� COMMENTS ON <br /> SHARW� ,RMY DEPOT - <br /> DRAFT SAMPLE PLAN <br /> Toxic Substances Control Program <br /> From 4250 Power Inn Road <br /> 924-2139 <br /> The Department has reviewed: "Remedial Investigation/Feas ilility <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) arid was <br /> submitted to the Department on 21 June 1989 . The report <br /> specifies additional work for the Remedial Investigation/ <br /> Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at Sharpe. <br /> The Department has the following comments: <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. This ha been <br /> discussed previously with USATHAMA staff. The signed docum nt is <br /> required by state law and as a guarantee of quality assu ance. <br /> An addendum to the Sample Plan that provides assurances that the <br /> plan was developed under the direction of a California regi tered <br /> Civil Engineer or Geologist is to be submitted within 10 d ys of <br /> the date of this letter. This addendum is to includ the <br /> signature and registration number/stamp of the registered <br /> professional. Additionally, all future draft documents are to be <br /> signed by a registered professional prior to submittal to the <br /> Department. <br /> 2) The Sample Plan did not include a Health and Safety Plan, as <br /> was specified in the Interagency Agreement. This has been <br /> discussed previously with USATHAMA staff. Additionally, US THAMA <br /> staff has been provided with the Health and Safety gu'dance <br /> documents developed by the Department. A Health and Safety Plan <br /> is to be submitted, as soon possible. <br /> 3) Page 3-41 - Groundwater Monitoring - The Army has apparently <br /> failed to address the Department's and the Regional Board's 15 <br /> February 1989 comments. The proposed well locations do not <br /> appear to have been sufficiently modified in response to the <br /> February comments. The Army should address the Fe ruary <br />