Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> From: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:29 PM <br /> To: 'tcuellar@advgeoenv.com' <br /> Cc: Adrienne Ellsaesser[EH]; 'Barton, Jim@Waterboards' <br /> Subject: RE: Flag City Shell Well Abandonments <br /> Attachments: Well Specific Destruction Methods.doc <br /> Tim, <br /> I went out to the site to inspect the wells in question to determine whether or not there were safety issues that <br /> indicated an undue risk to drilling out wells in areas known or suspected to be in contamination. Frankly, all the <br /> traffic on the streets, parking lots and driveways seemed very light to me, visibility very good in most instances. <br /> Good traffic signage and placing the drill rig in the up-traffic direction would seem to provide the level of safety <br /> common for working in most areas with any kind of traffic. The fact that these wells were installed under pretty <br /> much the current street and traffic conditions and that the wells were monitored without the protection provided by <br /> a large drill rig between the samplers and traffic seems consistent with a safety risk common to environmental <br /> work with monitoring wells. <br /> I also spoke to a captain at the fire station who said they could position their equipment outside the building while <br /> the well in their parking lot is destroyed and not be impacted in their duties, and they wouldn't mind doing so. <br /> I also considered the contaminate concentration trends you provided graphs for. The data plotted on the graphs <br /> was collected during active groundwater extraction from EW-1 through EW-5 or later during extraction from all the <br /> extraction wells. You did a rebound test after a month of no GW extraction, but I'm uncertain that sufficient time <br /> passed to allow for significant groundwater movement, etc, to be evident in the monitoring wells. No data was <br /> collected after June 2011 when the system was officially shut down. When last sampled, MW-6B and MW-8B may <br /> even have been exhibiting some rebound. <br /> For the reasons stated above our office will not approve the requested waivers to pressure grout the wells. <br /> Also, during this review of the wells in question, it was noted that some wells previously approved for pressure <br /> grouting pass through impacted groundwater zones that require over-drilling of a companion cluster well; <br /> therefore the deeper wells are also in areas of known or suspected contamination and must also be drilled out. <br /> have attached a table identifying the wells and the justification for the well destruction method the EHD will <br /> approve. <br /> Please contact me with any questions. <br /> Nuel Henderson <br /> From: Tim Cuellar [mailto:tcuellar@advgeoenv.com] �a4 <br /> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 2:23 PM O\5 qac <br /> To: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Subject: Flag City Shell Well Abandonments <br /> Hi Nuel, <br /> I would like to give my client an update. Have you had a chance to review <br /> our 02/27/12 variance request letter for the Flag City Shell site. I need to <br /> submit a work plan for Jim Barton's review, but I need to get a handle on <br /> San Joaquin County's requirements before I can prepare the work plan. <br /> 5/10/2012 <br />