Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 17 2016 <br /> Hello Holly <br /> I just came across your email and I couldn't tell if we spoke before or after this email.To answer your question, since no <br /> secondary containment parts were installed, no secondary containment retest will be required for this permit with the <br /> exception of failed UDC, for which you are submitting the revised scope of work for a new penetration installation, that <br /> one will require a 6-month retest. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Elena K. Manzo, REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> 1868 E. Hazelton Ave. <br /> Stockton,CA 95205-6232 <br /> Voice: (209)953-7699 <br /> From: Holly Mendez [mailto:holly@ionescovey.com] <br /> Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 9:29 AM <br /> To: Elena K. Manzo [EH] <emanzo@sicehd.com> <br /> Subject: PFJ #618 Ripon <br /> Hello Elena, <br /> Following up on our conversation regarding the SB989 testing to close out the permit from Franzen Hill. If we <br /> conduct the required SB989 testing to close the permit out only and do the required tri-annual full SB989 testing <br /> in November can we do the 6-month retest from the permit during the same time? That would be cutting the <br /> actual 6-month testing to 4-months. Let me now, thanks <br /> q04 -D, xewlxy <br /> Environmental Compliance <br /> SONES COVEY GROUP,INC, <br /> 9595 Lucas Ranch Road#100 <br /> Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 <br /> (888)972-7581 Office <br /> (909)484-0300 Fax <br /> (909)229-2932 Cell <br /> Hold@JonesCovey.com <br /> 4-0%4 - <br /> 2 <br />