My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2001-CURRENT
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
5400
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0522692
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2001-CURRENT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/2/2020 3:01:51 PM
Creation date
4/2/2020 2:25:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
2001-CURRENT
RECORD_ID
PR0522692
PE
2957
FACILITY_ID
FA0015465
FACILITY_NAME
FORMER MONTGOMERY WARDS AUTO SRV CTR
STREET_NUMBER
5400
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
APN
10227008
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
5400 PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
701
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 2 of 2 <br /> y , <br /> Hi Mike, <br /> I have a question about what methods you would approve of for the destruction of 26 VEW wells <br /> associated with the Former Unocal/Montgomery Ward/Chevron comingled plume at the intersection of <br /> Pacific Ave and Robinhood Drive in Stockton.The specific wells in question are wells VEW-1(both A and <br /> B)through VEW-13 (both A and B)for a total of 26 wells. I have attached the only analytical data that I <br /> have been able to find on GeoTracker which is essentially limited lune 1999 groundwater data from four <br /> of the VEW wells and some vapor VOC readings. Other than that, I have been unable to find any boring <br /> logs or soil data for any of these wells. <br /> I would prefer to destroy these wells via pressure grout/overdriII/mushroom cap but I understand that <br /> county standards say that in order to do so there must be no known or suspected contamination <br /> remaining. I feel that the lack of recent analytical data specifically from the VEW wells shouldn't <br /> automatically mandate that the all the VEW wells be completely overdrilled when we have recent <br /> groundwater data from adjacent monitoring wells that shows non-detect concentrations. I would argue <br /> that VEW wells south of well MW-4 (specifically VEW-1A/B,VEW-3A/B through VEW-9A/B) are fit to be <br /> destroyed via mushroom cap as wells MW-1, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6 and MW-81)all indicate that the <br /> surrounding groundwater is contamination free. The remaining VEW wells would be drilled out as the <br /> analytical data for MW-2 and MW-3 would suggest. How does this idea sit with you? <br /> Also,on a side note,what's your call on MW-16.The most recent groundwater analysis for MW-16 <br /> showed reported non-detect results for everything but benzene and chloroform which reported as very <br /> low values that the lab noted were just estimates. It's a similar question to the one above where on one <br /> hand,yes, a chemical was reported/estimated in the well but I would hardly consider that an area of <br /> known or suspected pollution. <br /> Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or comments about any of this. <br /> Cheers, <br /> -Josh Ewert I Senior Staff Geologist <br /> Geocon Consultants, Inc. <br /> 3160 Gold Valley Drive Suite 800, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 <br /> Tel 916.852.9118 Fax 916.852.9132 <br /> www._geoconinc_co.m <br /> 8/17/2011 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.