SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

5708 N. Hwy 99, Stockton Page 2 The EHD received a letter from you dated July 1, 2004, that stated "have our well water tested". The EHD informed you in a letter dated July 7, 2004, that your environmental consultant should submit a work plan describing the well sampling option for comment and/or approval by the EHD. You were also informed that the EHD must be present at the well sampling so the sampling date and time had to be scheduled with EHD. On July 28, 2004, the EHD did witness the collection of a water sample from your well. The results of the water sample were provided with a letter from High Tech Enterprises, dated November 1, 2004. In a letter dated November 8, 2004, the EHD informed you that the letter from High Tech Enterprises did not evaluate whether the drinking water could become contaminated by the chemicals disposed in the septic system; it only stated the well was free of contamination. The EHD letter again advised you that an appropriately registered professional must sign the report of the site investigation. The EHD letter explained that the consultant's report must include a migration evaluation and a determination that no threat to the drinking water exists, along with a finding that no further investigation is needed. In a letter dated December 4, 2004, High Tech Enterprises provided a summary of the site information. Included in the summary was a statement that a local septic tank company pumped the septic tank sometime in early June 2004, and that the contents were disposed of in a routine manner. This was the first notification received by the EHD that the tank had been pumped. Because the EHD was not notified, inspection of the tank for cracks and leaks did not occur. The name of the facility receiving the contents of the septic tank was not provided. A confirmation from the facility that received the material must be provided along with an acknowledgement that they were aware that the load contained chemically contaminated waste. In addition, the tank must again be pumped so that the EHD can inspect the tank for cracks and leaks. The contents should be sampled and the results provided to EHD, the septic tank pumping company, and the receiving facility. If chemical contamination is present and a disposal facility will not accept the sewage, it must be stored and treated on-site until a facility will accept the waste. In the December 2004 High Tech Enterprises summary, Mr. Finucane stated that his credentials were not sufficient to allow him to provide opinions on the subsurface hydrologic matters at your site. Therefore, he is not an appropriately registered professional, who has the expertise to assess the site-specific factors and recommend closure of a UIC site. The EHD reviewed all of our agency information recently and provides the following information so that you can understand our concerns about your site. The well that serves this facility was installed in 1940. It is very unlikely that the well is protected with a grout seal between the casing and the borehole wall, since it was not a requirement at the time the well was constructed. Although the depth to first water is currently below 60 feet, in the past, the water table has been at 50 feet and perhaps shallower. At least two 60-inch diameter, 25 feet deep, seepage pits are part of the septic system that serves that portion of the motel. Therefore, it is possible that there is only 25 feet of soil, or less, between the bottom of the seepage pits and the groundwater. The direction of groundwater flow at service stations north of this site, near Hammer Lane, has been to the southwest. If contamination were to leach from the soil surrounding the septic