Laserfiche WebLink
Stantec Page 3 of 5 <br /> department responsible for obtaining access agreements, ConocoPhillips <br /> had been corresponding with the property manager, Adrienne Rishwain <br /> from August 2008 through March 2009. It was Adrienne Rishwain <br /> that stated the property owner had refused access. In April 2009, a <br /> conference call between ConocoPhillips, Stantec, SJCEHD, and Adrian <br /> Rishwain was conducted. From April 2009 until now, ConocoPhillips has <br /> been working with David Rishwain (attorney). David Rishwain while not <br /> denying the requests, has been unresponsive to both phone messages <br /> and emails sent. If you would like a more detailed chronology, let me <br /> know and I will have one prepared. Is the MW-9 cluster on City/public <br /> property or private? The MW-9 well cluster is installed on city property. <br /> An access agreement is required to stage the vacuum truck in their <br /> parking lot while the groundwater batch extractions are being performed. <br /> Stantec is of the opinion that staging the vacuum truck on March Lane <br /> presents not only a greater impact on traffic, but a greater risk to <br /> worker safety. <br /> I really don't have time to stop what I'm doing for the field work plans <br /> Monday and next week so I'll need you to verify some of these points. <br /> 1-Exactly what parcel is the MW-9 complex on.? get me the APN. The <br /> property we need access to is APN 118-020-05 <br /> 2- do you now have a signed access agreement for this well complex if it's <br /> NOT on Public/City land? NA <br /> 3- the name of the person denying access and when. Adrienne Rishwain <br /> indicating the property owners are not giving approval - email dated <br /> 9/5/08; hand written note received on 12-15-08; and hand-written noted <br /> received on 3/12/09. <br /> 4- is it conceivable that MW-11 may not have to be installed and only soil <br /> vapor issues in this area need to be addressed? Stantec is currently in <br /> the process of performing fate transport modeling for the remaining MTBE <br /> impact. Once completed, Stantec would be able to better determine if <br /> well installations (or at a minimum, grab-groundwater samples) should <br /> be completed in the vicinity of proposed well cluster MW-11. <br /> get back to me with the info on MW-9 date of installation, our permit #, <br /> and exactly who's property it's on. If is truly is the City's, then there <br /> should be an open/existin Revocable Permit and bond on file with the City <br /> and copies in your file. Well cluster MW-9 was installed on 4/8/99 by <br /> Environmental Resources Inc. (ERI) under San Joaquin County (permit <br /> number illegible; copy attached) and City of Stockton Encroachment <br /> Permit No. 99-09. <br /> if there's a signed access agreement by a private entity for MW-9, then I <br /> need to see who signed it and what conditions for entry are listed. No <br /> and lastly, is this site qualified for NFA if the gw and soil/vapor data in <br /> 12/10/2009 <br />