Laserfiche WebLink
FW Elk River Landfill - Review of Phase ITI Report for MSw Expansion.txt <br />From: Matthew Ledvina [mlledvina@nrginc.com] <br />sent: Thursday, ~u1y.22, 2004 9:21. AM <br />To: ddehn@wm.com; jeidem@geomatrix.com; tjohnson8@wm.com <br />Cc: srohlf@ci.elk-river.mn.us <br />Subject: FW: Elk River Landfill - Review of Phase Y/TI Report for MSW Expansion <br />T am forwarding my original comments from May concerning the wydrogeo Report for the <br />south expansion area. These were initially sent to the MPCA and Sherburne County. <br />z apologize for not sending these to you directly before this time. <br />Terry, Thanks for meeting yesterday. r think we need to discuss a phased approach <br />to LF monitoring in more detail. T would like to also have the benefit of .john <br />Elks' opinion on the topic. Maybe a conference call is appropriate. <br />Matt Ledvina, P.E. <br />ml l edvi na@n rgi n c .cam <br />612.339.2316 Direct <br />61.2.325.8589 cell <br />612.347.6780 Fax <br />From: Matthew Ledvina <br />Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:58 PM <br />To: dave.1ucas@co.sherburne~.mn.us; Curtiss.hoffman@pca.state.mn.us; -cathy <br />Holland-Hanson (E-mail); `john.elks@pca.state.mn.us' <br />Cc: srohlf@ci.elk-river.mn.us; Rebecca Haug (rhaug@ci.elk-river.mn.us) <br />subject: Elk River Landfill - Review of Phase ~/TI Report for Msw Expansion <br />Steve Rohlf requested that Y provide comments to you concerning the Phase I/zI <br />Report for MSW Ex ansion. The report was prepared by,GeoMatrix for wMZ. The City <br />developed a detailed comment letter (9/24/02) concerning the Work Plan for this <br />effort. Although wMS never formally responded to the comments provided, the scope <br />of the field work was expanded to address concerns expressed. As requested, the <br />number of borings was expanded from 36 to 50 and the depth of select borings was <br />increased to establish an extensive soil boring data set. The physical testing <br />program was greatly expanded to verify the subtle differentiation of soil deposits. <br />z am comfortable that the field program has substantially met the goals intended and <br />the site has been characterized with a few exceptions noted herein. <br />The geology of the site is complex. The report does a very food job of presenting <br />the field results. All the data that was collected was used in the development.of <br />the hydrogeologic interpretations presented. Future work efforts at the site will <br />bridge the data gaps that have been identified. The interpretations contained in <br />the report are comprehensive and are presented in a straight-forward meaningful way <br />with the use of conceptual models and dimensional graphics. <br />Specific comments: <br />page 7, surface water: several statements are made concerning the surface water <br />management. It is indicated that the wetland in the southwest portion of the site <br />Page 1 <br />