My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
J
>
JACKSON
>
1702
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545315
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/11/2020 12:05:30 PM
Creation date
2/11/2020 9:46:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0545315
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0003572
FACILITY_NAME
DAVES UNION SERVICE
STREET_NUMBER
1702
STREET_NAME
JACKSON
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
ESCALON
Zip
95320
APN
227-14-011
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1702 JACKSON ST
P_LOCATION
06
P_DISTRICT
005
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.
/
211
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
1 r <br /> PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES pQu,N <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION Ta: <br /> Ernest M. Fujimoto, M.D., M.P.H., Acting Health Officer <br /> 445 N. San Joaquin Street • P. O. Box 388 • Stockton, CA 95201-0388 <br /> 209/468-3420 U <br /> JOHN LANE <br /> SMITH ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> 1710 E MAIN STREET MED JUN 141995 <br /> ESCALON CA 95320 <br /> RE: Ekholm Property SITE CODE: 1955 <br /> 1702 Jackson Street <br /> Escalon, Ca <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) has completed <br /> the review of the Quarterly Monitoring Report dated May 14, 1995, submitted by Clearwater Group, <br /> and has the following comments for your consideration. <br /> The "as built" drawing of the soil vapor extraction system (figure 5) is misleading and in error. The <br /> configuration of the system is not as pictured in this figure. The reported configuration appears to be a <br /> more efficient design for the piping from the wells to the vacuum pump than the actual configuration at <br /> the site. Please provide a true and accurate "as built' drawing to PHSIEHD. Please also include <br /> a site specific schematic of the system in a format similar to the attachment to this letter. <br /> Please provide an explanation as to the discrepancy between the reported configuration and <br /> the actual configuration of the system. <br /> It is unclear why influent and effluent readings (flow, vacuum and contaminant concentrations) are <br /> being obtained as the carbon has been removed from the system. <br /> It is also unclear whether the inappropriate vacuum gauges have been replaced. If so, what units do <br /> they measure in and where are they now located on the system? <br /> It appears that the inappropriate, nonfunctional flow meters have been removed from the system. <br /> However, it does not appear that they have been replaced. Please provide an explanation as to why <br /> there are no in-line flow meters on the system. <br /> It is unclear how FID, flow, and vacuum measurements are being obtained from the small sample <br /> holes near the well heads of vapor wells VW#1 through V►N#3. The reliability and confidence <br /> associated with results obtained by portable field measuring devices is dependant on the <br /> demonstration of the proficiency and expertise of the person using the devices as well as adequate <br /> documentation of their proper care and calibration. The methods observed by PHS/EHD used to <br /> obtain the data documenting the operation of the vapor extraction system at the site to date are <br /> dubious. <br /> The values being reported for air flow are in units of standard cubic feet per minute. The flow rates <br /> being measured in the field using a portable flow meter are assumed to be in units of nonstandardized <br /> cubic feet per minute. Please explain why the values are the same for both types of units. <br /> Please also provide the calculations used to convert the units. <br /> Past correspondence has indicated that the design flow rate for the system at the site is 100 standard <br /> A Division of San Joaquin County Health Care Services <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.