SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

A grab sample from seepage into the pit can be looked at as similar to a sample taken in a well bore of 10" diameter, except that the diameter of the pit was 8 or 10 feet at the bottom. Drainage into the pit was circular and represents a better sample of formation water that might be obtained from several small test borings . The only time such a sample would be at a disadvantage would be if a contamination plume existed. The sample then would not delineate plume direction whereas borehole sampling might. When such a sample tests clean, it is the writer' s opinion that it is superior to test samples that might be obtained from a bore hole . There was no evidence of contamination in the groundwater at Wharf 9 and if the EHD insists upon a test well program, I recommend that a meeting be requested with the Regional Water Quality Control Board where State water quality experts can render an opinion. Further test . programs are not warranted in view of the fact that a program approved by the EHD showed no contamination of either the soil or groundwater. As to the responsibilities of WJH referred to by Mr. Tollini , these were all carried out in full and with good operating practice while implementing the JTO plan approved by both the Port of Stockton and the EHD. There are times when all operations in a field project cannot be predicted, such as the unsafe slumping conditions of the pit and substitute or emergency procedures must be used. I would welcome an opportunity to present these data to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I recommend that copies of this letter be sent to the Port of Stockton, The EHD, JTO and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Copies of my June 12, 1991 report, and the letters from the Port of Stockton and the EHD should be attached. The June, 1991 report had a copy of the JTO proposal attached, therefore a separate copy of the JTO proposal is not needed. Dennis R. Allen 3