Permits & Development - Encroachment(EP)/Driveway(DW) Permits - 2012_PS-1201501 thru PS-1202000_ - PS-1201992

Home Browse Search

Monitoring Well Destruction Work Plan NEW WEST PETROLEUM #1003 (FLAG CITY SHELL) 6437' West Banner Street, Lodi, California 1.0. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Mr. Gil Moore of the Gil Moore Oil Company, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc (AGE) has prepared this work plan for decommissioning monitoring wells associated with the New West Petroleum #1003 (Flag City Shell) investigation at 6437 West Banner Street, Lodi, California (site).The location of the site is illustrated on Figure 1. A plan of the site is illustrated on Figure 2. On 31 January 2012, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board -Central Valley Region (CRWQCB-CVR) issued a directive letter for the Flag City Shell site; the directive letter stated that all wells installed as a result of the investigation and/or remediation of the Flag City Shell site should be properly decommissioned. Based on the directive letter,AGE has prepared this work plan for well destruction in accordance with CRWQCB-CVR guidelines for the investigation of underground storage tank (UST) sites. Prior to submitting this Monitoring Well Destruction Work Plan, or obtaining the appropriate well destruction permits from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (EHD), a letter was submitted to the EHD (dated 27 February 2012) requesting that all 42 wells be allowed to be decommissioned by pressure grouting techniques. However, the EHD responded by email (dated 16 April 2012) that a total of 14 wells (MW-3B, MW-3C, MW-4A, MW-413, MW-4C, MW-613, MW-6C, MW-7A, MW-713, MW-813, EW-813, EW-913, MW-20A, MW-20B)were located in areas of known or suspected contamination and would have to be drilled out. As a result, a meeting was held on 11 May 2012 at the EHD office, to discuss destruction alternatives for the above 14 wells in question. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was determined that the EHD would consider other options for well destruction of the 14 wells in question, if supplied adequate technical justification to deviate from the EHD well code. Thereafter, a letter (dated 11 June 2012) was submitted to the EHD for consideration of additional options for abandonment of 12 of the 14 wells in question (i.e. MW-4A, MW-413, MW-4C, MW-6B, MW-6C,MW-7A, MW-713,MW-813, EW-813, EW-913,MW-20A, MW-20B); options included utilizing ,a 'popsicle' method of pressure grouting, a well destruction method which had previously been allowed at other sites in San Joaquin County. As a result, the EHD responded by letter dated 13 July 2012 that the proposed 'popsicle' method would be allowed provided the casing was successfully removed with the entire cement seal attached on the removed casing. If the casing was not removed entirely, then the well and boring must be over-drilled to full depth (Appendix A). Advancer/GeoEnvironmental,Inc.