SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

_ Page 1 of 2 Vicki McCartney [EH] From: Bill Cook [bcook@condorearth.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:57 AM To: Vicki McCartney [EH] Subject: RE: Work Plan for Raymond Investment Corporation That's great. The boring on the adjacent parcel will be helpful to reassure us that the extent'of contamination from that UST is positively limited rather than merely inferred to be limited. We already have authorization to proceed from the client. I will begin preliminary preparations based upon your guidance. Thank you. From: Vicki McCartney [EH] [mailto:vmccartney@sjcehd.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:28 AM To: Bill Cook Subject: RE: Work Plan for Raymond Investment Corporation Good morning, Bill. Don't bother sending a revised work plan. in the letter I have drafted in response to your work plan (that is currently going through the review process), our department is recommending that MW-5 be installed with a vertical boring screened between 25 and 45 feet bsg; MW-4D be screened between 60 and 70 feet bsg; MW-6 and, if needed, MW-8, MW-9, and MW-10 be screened between 25 and 45 feet bsg. Our department is not approving MW-7 at this time but is recommending the advancement of a boring south of the former UST on an adjacent parcel. Since our department is recommending that most of the wells be screened at a different interval than what was proposed in the work plan for Raymond Investment Corporation, I would not bother revising the work plan until you respond to the hardcopy letter that should be sent within a week. Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department 600 East Main Street Stockton,California 95202 Phone: (209)468-9852 Fax: (209)468-3433 Email: vmccartney atsjcehd.coan From: Bill Cook [mailto:bcook@condorearth.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 20099:04 AM To: Vicki McCartney [EH] Subject: RE: Work Plan for Raymond Investment Corporation You are quite right. I apologize for the inconsistency. The decision to propose wells to the deeper depth of 45 feet was made in the last draft and I did not carry the change through. Section 3.0 MW6-10 well screen depths should read 30 to 45 feet, not 40 feet as is in the work plan. And Table 1 total depths for MW640 should have been changed to 45 feet. On the other hand, the apparent inconsistency with regard to MW5 in section 3.0 and 4.2 is actually just a matter of wording. The complication arises from the angled well issue. In section 3.0 the well screen interval is described as "screen length of 35 to 50 feet from the surface". The length in section 3.0 is the actual linear distance down an angled hole, `along the diagonal', to an 10/8/2009 f