Loading...
Modified TAC package RE_ Suggested Materials for TAC - incl draft final FS Workplan with RAO ...FW_ D1712508 Item 10.1 Feasibility Study WorkplanFrom:Sachi Itagaki To:Ivo Bergsohn Cc:Sachi Itagaki Subject:Modified TAC package RE: Suggested Materials for TAC - incl draft final FS Workplan with RAO ...FW: D1712508Item 10.1 Feasibility Study Workplan Date:Monday, October 22, 2018 5:05:30 PM Hi Ivo – I taken a look at the materials and have updated with your suggestions – attached is a replacement set - will give you a call after 5- Sachi ____________________________________________________ Sachi Itagaki, P.E., QSD | Principal, One Water Practice Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Direct: 650.852.2817 | Cell: 415.350.7803 From: Ivo Bergsohn <Ibergsohn@stpud.dst.ca.us> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 11:45 AM To: Sachi Itagaki <SachiItagaki@kennedyjenks.com> Subject: RE: Suggested Materials for TAC - incl draft final FS Workplan with RAO ...FW: D1712508 Item 10.1 Feasibility Study Workplan Hi Sachi- Thanks for sending over the suggested materials; I took a close look at them this morning and have some thoughts and material mark-ups (attached). FS Workplan/RAO Objectives Table May want to revisit Draft Table1 in order to address DFA Questions (attached) Clean-Up Level: Based on discussions with DRI, it appears that Mass Removal would be the best metric to use as it is easily measured with model. Should be flexible to align with differences in Approach. Differing clean-up levels would likely be developed for Well-Head Treatment vs. Replacement Well vs. Mid- Plume Remediation. Area of Attainment: Can this be most easily answered using a figure showing the limits of South Y Plume Extent?; with regard depth this could may also need to be flexible as clean-up levels may change depending on approach. For example, Well Head Treatment may be most concerned with PCE concentrations within Layer 2; Replacement Well may be most concerned with PCE concentrations in Layers 2 and 3; and Mid-Plume Treatment may be most concerned with PCE concentrations in Layer 1. Remediation Time Frame: What is KJ’s timeframe for life-cycle cost estimates to be used for FS?; DRI Model Time periods for Transient Predictive runs are on the order of 50 years (2017-2066). Remedial Scenario Definition Attached is a .pdf of the 2018 and 2024 Model-simulated PCE Contours (lyr 1) from SR for Handout C use Draft Replacement Well Map See my mark-up showing Colorado Test Hole site. If time available, may want to add comment with site descriptor and location as done for RW-F. DRI Cross Section Could nor open .GIF; so I made a .pdf of what was provided by DRI (attached) I have a meeting at 4:00 PM today; if available feel free to call me anytime between 1:30 – 3:30 to discuss/finalize these items. Ivo Bergsohn, PG, HG Hydrogeologist South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (530)543-6204 From: Sachi Itagaki [mailto:SachiItagaki@kennedyjenks.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 6:07 PMTo: Ivo BergsohnCc: Sachi ItagakiSubject: Suggested Materials for TAC - incl draft final FS Workplan with RAO ...FW: D1712508 Item 10.1Feasibility Study Workplan Hi Ivo – Per your draft agenda – I’ve suggested some handouts (I couldn’t get to Handout C): MOU Update (T. Carter) FS Work Plan (KJC submit to Grant Manager) – see draft final attached (Handout A) RAO discussion – how to address DFA comments would be helpful – see below Remedial Scenario Definition Update (KJC/DRI) PCE Contour comparison Draft 2016-2018 field data (handout B) vs GW model PCE (handout C) Draft Alternatives matrix (handout D – pdf of alts table only – updated to reflect accurate reference to model layers) Draft Replacement well map (Handout E) and DRI cross section (Handout F) LBWC 4 replacement? Draft Pumping for Capture LBWC 5/Replacement LBWC 4/TKWC 2 Max pumping rates for capture and water usage Approach to Modeling Remediation Refer to PCE contour, discuss vertical integration and scale challenges Propose mass based approach Status of other items Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment – under preparation Public Meeting 3 (11/7/2018 – tentative) Other? I’m out of the office Mon am (I am on cell til 9 am, in a meeting til about 11:30, then likely available after 1 or so- We can discuss first thing Mon am- Have a good weekend! Sachi ____________________________________________________ Sachi Itagaki, P.E., QSD | Principal, One Water Practice Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Direct: 650.852.2817 | Cell: 415.350.7803 From: Carter, Tricia@Waterboards <Tricia.Carter@Waterboards.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2018 1:23 PM To: ibergsohn@stpud.dst.ca.us; Grey, Brian@Waterboards <brian.grey@waterboards.ca.gov>; Jason Burke <jburke@cityofslt.us>; Jennifer Lukins (jennifer@lukinswater.com) <jennifer@lukinswater.com>; Kirk Wooldridge (kwooldridge@tahoekeyspoa.org) <kwooldridge@tahoekeyspoa.org>; Reeves, Robert@Waterboards <Robert.Reeves@waterboards.ca.gov>; Rezvani, Ali@Waterboards <Ali.Rezvani@waterboards.ca.gov>; Richard Robillard (RRobillard@tahoekeyspoa.org) <RRobillard@tahoekeyspoa.org>; Turrubiartes, Salvador@Waterboards <Salvador.Turrubiartes@waterboards.ca.gov> Cc: Sachi Itagaki <SachiItagaki@kennedyjenks.com>; Lynn Nolan <lnolan@stpud.dst.ca.us>; Heidi Baugh <hbaugh@stpud.dst.ca.us> Subject: RE: D1712508 Item 10.1 Feasibility Study Workplan Hello Ivo, The Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) has reviewed the Feasibility Study (FS) Work Plan, submitted on 13 September 2018, for the South Tahoe Public Utility District’s Planning Project (D1712508). DFA has the following comments on the draft FS Work Plan. DFA staff has comments on the Remedial Action Objectives and the data necessary to evaluate potential cleanup alternatives. 1. Page 1, Feasibility Study Steps – Step 1, Data Review with Feasibility Study Kick-off Meeting – Item B lists a number of recent reports that will be reviewed/considered when preparing the Feasibility Study. Please include the report that summarizes the groundwater analytical data from the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association well profiling event conducted in September 2018, if completed. Item D identifies recent monitoring events conducted by other entities. Please list the entities and monitoring event dates for which groundwater analytical data will be reviewed/considered when preparing the Feasibility Study. 2. Page 6, Remedial Action Objectives (RAO) Table – RAO 5 (Cleanup Level); RAO 6 (Area of Attainment); and RAO 7 (Restoration Time Frame) RAO number five is specific to a cleanup level/objective. Please determine which Proposition 1 metric of success (e.g., contaminant reduction, mass removed, etc.) could l be achieved to satisfy this this RAO. RAO number six is specific to an area of attainment. Please identify the project area that will be addressed as part of the Project. RAO number seven is specific to a restoration timeframe. Please identify an estimated timeframe in which the metric of success in RAO number five could be achieved. Other South Y Specific Objectives Other objectives are listed in the table and can be deleted as they will be satisfied by other tasks identified in the grant agreement and/or as part of implementing the recommended alternative (e.g., preserve ability to recover response costs, preference for beneficial use of any extracted groundwater resource, reduce costs for groundwater remedial wellhead treatment to retail customers, perform community outreach). Thank you, Tricia Carter Water Resource Control Engineer Division of Financial Assistance Groundwater Grant Unit, Bonds Section State Water Resources Control Board P: 916.319-8259 F: 916.449-5655 Tricia.Carter@Waterboards.ca.gov From: Ivo Bergsohn <Ibergsohn@stpud.dst.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:10 PM To: Grey, Brian@Waterboards <brian.grey@waterboards.ca.gov>; Jason Burke <jburke@cityofslt.us>; Jennifer Lukins (jennifer@lukinswater.com) <jennifer@lukinswater.com>; Kirk Wooldridge (kwooldridge@tahoekeyspoa.org) <kwooldridge@tahoekeyspoa.org>; Reeves, Robert@Waterboards <Robert.Reeves@waterboards.ca.gov>; Rezvani, Ali@Waterboards <Ali.Rezvani@waterboards.ca.gov>; Richard Robillard (RRobillard@tahoekeyspoa.org) <RRobillard@tahoekeyspoa.org>; Turrubiartes, Salvador@Waterboards <Salvador.Turrubiartes@waterboards.ca.gov>; Carter, Tricia@Waterboards <Tricia.Carter@Waterboards.ca.gov> Cc: Sachi Itagaki <SachiItagaki@kennedyjenks.com>; Lynn Nolan <lnolan@stpud.dst.ca.us>; Heidi Baugh <hbaugh@stpud.dst.ca.us> Subject: D1712508 Item 10.1 Feasibility Study Workplan Hi All- Attached is a copy of the draft Feasibility Study Work Plan prepared by Kennedy Jenks Consultants for the Feasibility Study of Remedial Alternatives to Mitigate Tetrachloroethylene Contamination in South Lake Tahoe, CA (D1712508). As a member of the Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC), a draft copy of this workplan is provided for your review and comment. Please send your comments by email or embed them directly into the attached workplan, using track changes. In order to keep this project moving, I ask that send your review comments to me by no later than Wednesday, October 3rd, 2018. Thank you again for your time and participation on the TAC. Ivo Bergsohn, PG, HG Hydrogeologist South Tahoe Public Utility District 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (530)543-6204 This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast.