Laserfiche WebLink
JAMES GIOTTONINI <br /> PAGE 3 <br /> Conclusion <br /> The discussion above presents several areas of concern. Therefore, please address these concerns <br /> by providing an addendum to the FRP. Please include the following additional information: <br /> 1) Those elements required to be included in the FRP pursuant to the California Code of <br /> Regulations . At least one other remedial alternative must be evaluated for this site. The <br /> evaluation of all remedial alternatives being considered for this site must include site specific <br /> cost estimates (very important), the estimated length of remediation for soil and groundwater, <br /> and the estimated efficiency of the remedial alternatives. These elements must be considered <br /> for every alternative being used separately or.in conjunction. In addition to any other remedial <br /> alternative being considered, please at a minimum include an evaluation on the following <br /> alternatives: vapor extraction (please include the affects of any potential future vapor wells <br /> that may be needed to be installed), vapor extraction with groundwater extraction, and vapor <br /> extraction with the addition of passive air inlet wells. <br /> 2) Additional cross sections to reflect the area of impact more clearly. Please include the well <br /> design schematics of all wells in this area. <br /> 3) The results of the October 1992 groundwater pump test. <br /> Please submit the Addendum to the FRP to PHS/tHD by March 21, 1995. <br /> If you have any questions or wish to discuss this letter in more detail, please contact Linda Turkatte, <br /> Senior REHS, at (209) 468-3441. <br /> Donna Heran, REHS, Director <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> c <br /> Linda A. Turkatte, Senior REHS Diane kinson, REHS <br /> Site Mitigation Unit Supervisor <br /> LT <br /> c: CVRWQCB, Beth Thayer <br /> c: Jim Escobar, COS Public Works <br /> c: John Lane, Canonie Environmental Services <br /> I <br /> I <br />