Laserfiche WebLink
k� <br /> 4648 Waterloo Road <br /> Page 2 �p <br /> I <br /> The questions regarding the evaluation of excavation,,vs. soil vapor extraction as <br /> the preferred remedial option must be addressed prior to final approval of the site's <br /> corrective action plan. The evaluation must include all soil`data and volumes of soil <br /> necessary to remediate so that groundwater will no longerlbe impacted by residual <br /> soil contamination. } ' <br /> Since the costs of vapor extraction are dependent ons ystem design, PHS/EHD <br /> i recommended that consideration be given to the number and construction design I <br /> of vapor extraction wells. Costs associated with theiinsta(lation of additional wells. <br /> to be used for vapor extraction, often outweigh the additional costs of operation <br /> and maintenance associated with a less efficiently designed system. Please <br /> jprovide additional analysis of vapor extraction as one of the remedial alternatives <br /> under consideration. <br /> In the interest of clarification, please submit a revised corrective action plan (CAP), M <br /> rather than another addendum addressing PHS/EHD`s comments. Also, to minimize <br /> any potential miscommunication, PHSIEHD suggests that a meeting be scheduled <br /> to discuss the contents of the revised CAP. <br /> ii <br /> If you have any questions, comments or wish to schedule a meeting, please <br /> contact me at (209) 468-0337. !� <br /> Donna Heran, RENS, Director <br /> Environmental Health Division I} <br /> Il <br /> `�1n-moi _ <br /> Mary Meays, Senior REHS M'argare agorio, REH <br /> Site Mitigation Unit Supervisor <br /> ji <br /> MM/4648WAT <br /> l <br /> t �1 <br /> cc: Elizabeth Thayer, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> cc: Ismael Jacobo SWRCB Cleanup Fund �1 <br /> ! <br /> cc: Tim Cuellar, Advanced GeoEnviron mental j# <br /> } <br /> i� <br /> . i k <br /> I .3 <br />