Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Maurice Benson <br /> February 3, 2003 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 9. Page 4-9, section 4.3.4, last sentence; Please describe in the report why these <br /> wells were not accessible. <br /> 10. Page 4-11, section 4.5.1.5, second sentence; Please provide rationale in the <br /> report on why only five Monitoring Wells (MWs) and eight Extraction Wells (EWs) <br /> were sampled when sampling was originally scheduled for ten MWs and sixteen <br /> EWs. <br /> 11. Page 4-11, section 4.5.1.7, second sentence; Please discuss in the report if the <br /> increased concentrations of hexavalent chromium in DW002, EWNA5, and <br /> MW418AR represents a real problem in the SB. <br /> 12. Page 4-17, table 4.1-1; Please describe why the samples were not collected <br /> besides the vague description of "no access." <br /> 13. Page 4-18, table 4.1-2; MW437C shows a detection of TCE at a concentration of <br /> 650 ppb. in 1 Q02, which contradicts page 4-7 stating the concentration was <br /> detected in 3Q02. Please correct this discrepancy in the report with the correct <br /> detection date. <br /> 14. Page 5-4, section 5.3.2.5; Please list in the report the percentage of the TCE <br /> plume in the SB B-zone not captured in 3Q02. <br /> 15. Page 5-4, section 5.3.2.7; This section states that EWCC3 and EWCC2 were not <br /> operational in 3Q02. Conversely, appendix E has sampling results for EWCC2 <br /> and EWCC3. In addition, appendix G, page 4 states that EWCC2 and EWCC3 <br /> were in operation in March 2002 through September 2002. Please correct this <br /> discrepancy in the report. <br /> 16. Page 6-1, section 6.2.1, last sentence; Please remove the hypothesis of the ten <br /> extraction wells not affecting the plume capture until the final modeling results <br /> are received and approved by the regulatory team. <br /> 17. Page 6-6, section 6.6.3, last sentence; This sentence states that an aggressive <br /> pump and treat remediation system will not be considered unless there is a large <br /> volume of groundwater exceeding 500 ppb. Please discuss in this section why <br /> the aggressive pump and treat still isn't considered especially when MW437C <br /> had a recent detection of 650 ppb in the CA in addition to MWs in the vicinity also <br /> showing "significant" increasing trends. <br />