Laserfiche WebLink
From: Waite, Brian A [mailto:BWaite0i)chevron.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 12:06 PM <br /> To: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH] <br /> Cc: John Yoakum [EH]; Gabriel Gonzalez [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: 242 Sutter <br /> Adrienne, <br /> I appreciate you getting back to me on this. When we reviewed the most recent analytical results for MW- <br /> 5, the groundwater analytical results indicated that TPHd was ND utilizing Silica Gel Cleanup and 66 ppb <br /> without using silica gel cleanup. The 66 ppb detected without using silica gel cleanup is polar compounds <br /> not associated with diesel. As for MW-6D, I see that there was 140 ppb of TPHg detected in that <br /> well. Based upon the results of the silica gel cleanup in MW-5, I am wondering if you would consider <br /> changing your mind on that well and allowing us the pressure grout via blast perforation? <br /> Regards, <br /> Brian A. Waite, P.G. <br /> Project Manager <br /> Chevron Environmental Management Company <br /> Marketing Business Unit <br /> 6101 Bollinger Canyon Road <br /> San Ramon, CA 94583 <br /> Tel 925-790-6486 <br /> bwaite@chevron.com <br /> <image001.jpg> <br /> From: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:34 AM <br /> To: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH] <br /> Cc: Gabriel Gonzalez [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Explosives proposed for these destructions <br /> Last sampled 6/25/2013; <br /> MW-1 D contained 22 ppb TPH-GRO; DL=22 <br /> MW-5 had 66 ppb TPH-DRO; DL=50 <br /> MW-6D impacted by 140 ppb TPH-DRO; DL=50 <br /> The results are in the last monitoring report, but the EDF has not been uploaded to GeoTracker. <br /> From: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:44 PM <br /> To: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH]; Gabriel Gonzalez [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Explosives proposed for these destructions <br /> Adrienne, <br /> 2 <br />