My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 1
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
N
>
NOWELL
>
26200
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545614
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2020 3:58:29 PM
Creation date
4/27/2020 3:43:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
CASE 1
RECORD_ID
PR0545614
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0009531
FACILITY_NAME
UFP Thornton LLC
STREET_NUMBER
26200
STREET_NAME
NOWELL
STREET_TYPE
Rd
City
Thornton
Zip
95686
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
26200 Nowell Rd
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
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.
/
260
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
� r <br /> r <br /> PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO: <br /> ]T"'IWENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES <br /> VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1211 <br /> GROWERS. MODESTO,CALIFORNIA 95353 <br /> October 9, 1991 <br /> Ms. Laurie Cotulla <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division 0 C T <br /> P. o. Box 2009 <br /> NVIRC)NMENTAL lei:ALTH Stockton, CA 95201 PI"RMIT/Si=RVICES <br /> Dear Mg. Cotulla: <br /> I am enclosing RESNA's response to San Joaquin County Public Health Services/Environmental <br /> Health Division(PHSTHD)letter of September 10, 1991. Z would like to add additional comments to item <br /> numbers 5, 7 and S. <br /> The open pit was a safety hazard and I wrote a letter to the San Joaquin Local Health District <br /> (SJLHD) in 1987 requesting a decision and instruction from SJLHD to return the excavated soil if the <br /> analytical analysis show no contamination I received no response. ENSCO Environmental Services followed <br /> up with a letter to Mr.Gordon Boggs,CVRWQCB,on July 1, 1988, outlining a proposal to collect eight soil <br /> samples from the pile and to have the laboratory composite the eight samples and run an analysis on the <br /> composite sample, We received no response. As stated in RESNA's re$ponsc, "at the time and currently in <br /> some areas,one composite sample was/€s considered adequately representative for a volume of soil considerably <br /> less than 50 cubic yards". The eight samples were drawn,composited and analysed. The result of the analysis <br /> showed no contamination. The results were reported to CVRWQCB and PHS/EHD and we received no <br /> comments. the piled soil was returned to the pit in 1990. <br /> I have been involved with this project from its inception and have made every effort to comply with <br /> PHS/EHD requirements for the remediation of this contamination. I fail to understand why additional <br /> sampling and explanation is necessary every time a new staff member is assigned to the project. An example <br /> is Item 7. If there was a problem,it should have been addressed at the time and not four years later. <br /> P.0. Box 7714, 1255 Battery St., San Francisco, California 94120-7114 Phone: (415)445-1600 Telex:27-9046 FAX: (415)445-1628 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.