Laserfiche WebLink
0 9 <br /> Kaprealian Engineering 07/15/92 report (copy attached) . According to <br /> the owner's Construction Manager, there was no reported encounter with <br /> MW9 either by his personnel, or by the sub-contractors. Had MW9 been <br /> observable above-ground or marked, the crews could have taken special <br /> precautions to protect it. As it was, however, there was no indica- <br /> tion of a well in the area, nor did the crews report finding one. <br /> Construction work on the new building itself did not commence until <br /> April 1990, under the supervision of Max Stone and Robert Romero. Mr. <br /> Romero has been an employee of the owner for over fifteen years. Mr. <br /> Romero remembers seeing MW4 and MW5 before the soil remediation exca- <br /> vation. They were gone when the site was returned to the owner after <br /> the remediation excavation project. Mr. Romero never saw MW3 or MW9, <br /> either before or after the excavation project. None of the subject <br /> wells (MW3, MW4, MW5, or MW9) were encountered in the course of con- <br /> struction, so it was assumed they were all destroyed during the exca- <br /> vation project. <br /> Mr. Romero has prepared a statement (copy attached) regarding MW3, <br /> MW4, MW5 and MW9. He has also marked the attached map titled "Re- <br /> covery Well, Monitoring Well and Soil Boring, Location Map" by J. H. <br /> Kleinfelder & Associates, dated June 12, 1987. This is the map <br /> referred to in Mr. Romero's statement. <br /> Recent Site Activities <br /> As noted in KEI's report of July 15, 1992, HEI has attempted, without <br /> success, to locate MW3, MW4, MW5, and MW9. Three of the wells (MW3, <br /> MW4, MW5) were covered over with stockpiled excavated dirt and have <br /> not been seen since. They were not found during the building con- <br /> struction and their locations all appear to be under the new building. <br /> The other well (MW9) appears to have been north of the excavation and <br /> new building (under the parking lot) , but was not discovered when the <br /> site was graded and the parking lot installed. KEI was unable to <br /> detect it using ground penetrating radar. <br /> Conclusion and Recommendations <br /> After reviewing all of the evidence available, it appears to the <br /> owners, that MW4 and MW5 were destroyed during the soil remediation <br /> excavation project. They have not been seen since, and the new <br /> commercial building appears to cover the area where these wells were <br /> purportedly installed. The new building's floor is constructed of <br /> reinforced concrete, and is bordered on the east side (where MW4 and <br /> MW5 are purported to have been located) by reinforced concrete walks. <br /> This is also the location of the load-bearing columns for the build- <br /> ing. It would be cost prohibitive and unrealistic to attempt, at this <br /> point, to penetrate or remove the concrete and the columns in an <br /> effort to locate these wells, even if their precise location could be <br /> identified. It is the owner's recommendation that MW4 and MW5, be <br /> left as is. <br /> b: \mwj-#12\Site-Rep.ort <br /> Printed: September 22, 1992 Page 3 <br />