Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 2 <br /> referenced 1107 and 0308 site plans, MW-5 was hardly moved towards the east (maybe 5 to 10 feet). Your <br /> .March 2008 letter states that by movinghthe well this distance towards the east, that we `have further <br /> our agree removed the well from being downgradient of MW 4'. While I a with letter that there has <br /> 9 Y <br /> ;historically been a strong SW ground water component, there has also been a strong S ground water <br /> component. Additionally, I doubt that by,moving the well some 5-10 feet towards east of the EHD-approved <br /> location, that it would have any impact on the ground water results. <br /> The newly proposed location of well MW-5 will still serve it's purpose, to define 1,2-DCA impact towards <br /> the south-southwest; this is a reasonable area to locate the well. Additionally, even if the proposed CPT <br /> borings P-16 or P17 should detected 1,2-DCA in water, the MW-5 well location will still more than likely be I <br /> required to delineate this area. Coriversely, if P-15116117 and MW-5 should all be ND for 1,2-DCA, this may <br /> be enough for assessment. <br /> was caught off-guard that the slight location adjustment was denied; when you get the opportunity, <br /> would like to further discuss. Thanks -tim <br /> i <br /> Timothy J. Cuellar <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. <br /> Stockton • Santa Rosa • Monterey •.Brea <br /> 1-800-511-9300 <br /> t_cuclla c�adv_eoenv.corn <br /> www.advgcocnv.com i <br /> This email'fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and pdvileged <br /> information An_v rinarrthmized reg ie.v.use, disclosure ar distribution of this email/faN is prohibited.If you are riot the ` <br /> intended recipient,please contact the sender by email`fax a nd destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original 1 <br /> message. <br /> 3/20/2008 <br />