SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 2 Vicki McCartney [EH] From: Tim Cuellar[tcuellar@advgeoenv.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:04 PM To: Vicki McCartney [EH] Cc: Nuel Henderson [EH]; Vicki McCartney [EH] Subject: Grewal's Market, 4100 E. Fremont St., Stockton Attachments: Grewals 1107 Site Plan.pdf; Grewal's 0308 Site Plan.pdf; EHD add mon wp 01-18-08.pdf Vicki, I received your letter for Grewal's Market, dated 17 March 2008. Thank you for your quick response. In your letter, you stated that EHD does not approve the relocation of MW-5 from county right-of-way to private property (716 Oro Street). AGE has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in securing an off-site access agreement for the location of MW-5, and therefore, I would like to further discuss this. I have attached site plans depicting the original and revised locations of proposed well MW-5. Previously, EHD approved the location and the installation of MW-5 in a letter dated 01-18-08 (see attached 1107 site plan). The work plan for installation of monitoring well MW-5 was approved based on a June 2007 meeting between AGE, Rick Grewal, Nuel Henderson, Margaret Lagorio and yourself. During the meeting, Nuel had stated that a downgradient, repeatable monitoring point was necessary for this site, as well as cross gradient grab samples. It was mutually decided that AGE would prepare a work plan based on the results of the meeting. After submitting the work plan and receiving EHD approval to perform the work, I came to realize that the boring and well locations in San Joaquin County right-of-way would not be feasible due to the road being very narrow, due to heavy traffic congestion, due to over-head electrical, and due to existing underground conduits beneath the proposed work areas. Therefore, I submitted a revision to the work plan and proposed relocating boring P-17 and well MW-5 on adjacent private properties. Comparing the above referenced 1107 and 0308 site plans, MW-5 was hardly moved towards the east (maybe 5 to 10 feet). Your March 2008 letter states that by moving the well this distance towards the east, that we `have further removed the well from being downgradient of MW-4'. While I agree with your letter that there has historically been a strong SW ground water component, there has also been a strong S ground water component. Additionally, I doubt that by moving the well some 5-10 feet towards east of the EHD-approved location, that it would have any impact on the ground water results. The newly proposed location of well MW-5 will still serve it's purpose, to define 1,2-DCA impact towards the south-southwest; this is a reasonable area to locate the well. Additionally, even if the proposed CPT borings P-16 or P17 should detected 1,2-DCA in water, the MW-5 well location will still more than likely be required to delineate this area. Conversely, if P-15/16/17 and MW-5 should all be ND for 1,2-DCA, this may be enough for assessment. was caught off-guard that the slight location adjustment was denied; when you get the opportunity, I would like to further discuss. Thanks -tim Timothy J. Cuellar Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 3/20/2008