Laserfiche WebLink
;B" zone wells mould be screened in the next <br /> water bearing zone , after a lct <br /> ofthe site <br /> aquitard is pierced . fter knowedge <br /> characteristics 'to date , suggests that this "B" <br /> well may be less thanl60 feet deep . Although <br /> you expressed some reservations about PVC <br /> construction , we ' d like to reiterate oux belief <br /> that selection of an �alternate material is <br /> nature of the contaminants <br /> premature , given the <br /> of concern ( heavy methals and levelolatile <br /> aromatics ) , and expected to will not be <br /> concentrations . soil sampling which will <br /> performed during well installation , <br /> use mud rotary techniques Positions of the <br /> ed slightly from t <br /> wells have been modifirotosal <br /> originally proposed ( original workplan proposal <br /> of October 9 , Letter to John Livingston ) to <br /> tion in determination <br /> provide greater separaand <br /> a common groundwaterli plane , after surveying <br /> groundwater level determination . <br /> rding the need for aquifer <br /> o Discussions were he <br /> performance testing . <br /> Id FSa <br /> ESE raised a concern regarding the <br /> need to contain large voirumes of water ( unless pond <br /> f disposal was permitted ) . It is agreed that the <br /> requirement for such a test will dwated on <br /> andwill <br /> characteristics of the underlying <br /> of contamination <br /> be required only if signifs <br /> o All parties agreed that the combination of time <br /> constraints associated with waiting for receipt of RWQCB <br /> comments , selected drillr ' s conflicting field <br /> commitments , and desire to maintain personnel consistency <br /> posed field <br /> on the project prohibitsfstarting the pro <br /> investigation prior to December 1 . with analytical <br /> turnaround time on the order of 3-4 weeks ( plus impact of <br /> the holiday season ) , it ;was also agreed that submittalOf <br /> the final HAR would notlibe possible prior to January <br /> 1988 , as stipulated in tihe regulations . Based on our <br /> discussions however , itllwas my understanding that <br /> Southern Pacific would be considered " regulation <br /> compliant" as long as they continued to Thereforeshow good faith , <br /> and maintain project momentum . , both ESE and <br /> Southern Pacific are looking forward to your letter <br /> providing RWQCB comments on the proposed workplan , so - <br /> that we may proceed . <br /> I <br /> I <br /> Ii <br /> ti <br /> • I <br /> I <br />