My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
B
>
BROADWAY
>
1011
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0539578
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2019 5:15:45 PM
Creation date
2/8/2019 4:25:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0539578
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0022650
FACILITY_NAME
SPINGOLO TRUCKING
STREET_NUMBER
1011
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
BROADWAY
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205
APN
14324013
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
1011 N BROADWAY AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
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
f <br /> y <br /> Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH]. <br /> From: John Yoakum [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday,January 06, 2014 3:44 PM <br /> To: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: Spingolo Trucking, 1011 Broadway, Stockton <br /> Adrienne, <br /> To the best of my knowledge, we have not destroyed any wells at this location. <br /> I have not issued any permits for this site, nor have I ever been on this site. <br /> Johnny Yoakum <br /> Senior REHS <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Environmental Health Department <br /> From: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH] <br /> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 11:18 AM <br /> To: John Yoakum [EH]; Barton, Jim@Waterboards (jim.barton(dwaterboards.ca.gov) <br /> Cc: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Subject: FW: Spingolo Trucking, 1011 Broadway, Stockton <br /> The letter I wrote to them to destroy the wells required the destruction to happen by now. Do you know if they.were? <br /> Thanks <br /> Adrienne <br /> From: Nuel Henderson [EH] <br /> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:23 PM <br /> To: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH], <br /> Subject: RE: Spingolo Trucking, 1011 Broadway, Stockton <br /> Odd results yes, but 69 mg/kg TPHg at 60 feet bsg seems real enough; the 65-ft data may be due to cross contamination <br /> from shallower depth—but then the well bore will still have passed through an impacted zone. Assuming the well <br /> casing/screen extends to or through 60,Feet bsg, we'd require removal of the well contents. Many wells penetrate or are <br /> screened in impacted soil but yield ND analytical results for water samples.I think there are several-possible contribution <br /> factors that may account for this: <br /> 1) The sorbed contaminants in soil have been reduced by natural attenuation and,dissolving into water such that the <br /> flux rate is equaled or exceeded by the natural attenuation rate; <br /> 2) The water sampled in the well was derived primarily from un-impacted zone(s)which diluted what contaminants <br /> did flux into water below the detection limit; or <br /> 3) A combination of 1) and 2); or <br /> 4) The well screen is submerged, the well is pumped at the bottom, but fails to evacuate the casing, and the sample <br /> was collected by bailer, which essentially samples unpurged casing water long.subjected to biological <br /> degredation. <br /> Nuel <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.