My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 3
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LARCH
>
425
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0541913
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2020 5:53:25 PM
Creation date
2/13/2020 11:52:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 3
RECORD_ID
PR0541913
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0024043
FACILITY_NAME
FRONTIER TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
STREET_NUMBER
425
STREET_NAME
LARCH
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95304
APN
21220009
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
425 LARCH RD
P_LOCATION
03
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
. • Page 1 of 2 <br /> Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> From: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:45 PM <br /> To: 'Javad Masoudi'; Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Cc: GOsterkamp@osterkampgrp.com; DZumberge@hotmail.com <br /> Subject: RE: Frontier Transportation Facility, Tracy, SJCEHD Case#2251 <br /> Good afternoon Javad, <br /> Thank you for taking the time to meet with Nuel and me to discuss the Frontier Transportation Facility in Tracy, <br /> California. Nuel and I agree that the information presented at the meeting yesterday indicates that you <br /> have given careful thought to evaluating the current conditions at the Frontier Transportation Facility and we look <br /> forward to receiving the work plan. <br /> In your email below, you have proposed destroying some of the wells that have a history of groundwater being <br /> non-detect for chemicals of concern. We have no objection to destroying superfluous or damaged wells, but you <br /> must demonstrate that such is the case. Concerning the need to sample the groundwater prior to the well <br /> destruction would depend on the history and location of the well proposed to be destroyed. As this would require <br /> a work plan, permits, and a mobilization charge, we recommend that it would be less expensive to destroy the <br /> wells at one time when the site is being closed and all the wells will be destroyed since the County charges <br /> a permittinspection fee of$375.00 per parcel to issue well destruction permits. <br /> Vicki McCartney, Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 1868 East Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, California 95205 <br /> Phone: (209)468-9852 <br /> Email: vmccartnev(@sicehd.com <br /> 2 <br /> From: Javad Masoudi [mailto:jmasoudi@emscorp.us] <br /> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:42 AM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH]; Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Cc: GOsterkamp@osterkampgrp.com; DZumberge@hotmail.com <br /> Subject: Frontier Transportation Facility,Tracy, SJCEHD Case # 2251 <br /> Good morning Vicki and Nuel, <br /> Thank you very much for your time for meeting with my client and I The meeting was very productive <br /> with good outcome. <br /> I forgot to bring up one more item in the meeting and that was abandonment of un-necessary wells.As <br /> you know, there are 39 wells at the site, several of them were non-detect for a long period of time. I do <br /> not see any need to keep them any longer.Would you have any objection if I talk about closing the un- <br /> necessary wells in my plan of action? Does your agency require one more final sampling of wells before <br /> removal/abandonment? <br /> 6/27/2013 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.