Laserfiche WebLink
0 6 <br /> ' ~ <br /> The concern is that the sump bstoring liquid, and while there is ameans of removing the liquid, it isnot being utilized <br /> bvthe owner oroperator, except during annual testing. <br /> It is the EHD's belief that liquid should not be stored in the sump and I find no compelling explanation to remove this <br /> violation. <br /> Respectfully, <br /> KaseyFo|ey REHS <br /> Program Coordinator, CUPAPrograms <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department <br /> 1860East Hazelton Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA95385 <br /> (209)468-3451 <br /> From: Samuels, Sarah <br /> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:13 PM <br /> To: Vicki McCartney [EH] <br /> Cc: Garrett Backus [EH]; Stacy Rivera [EH]; Michelle D. Henry [EH]; KasayFoley [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: ARCO 5458 (1617 Fremont, Stockton, CA) 'Annua| Inspection 7/26/16 <br /> Thanks very much forgetting back tome,Vicki! <br /> With respect, my concern here is that there is nowhere for water to have come from outside of the sump. Asyou know, <br /> there has been norain inmonths and the water table isnot high enough tobe an issue. The regulation specifically <br /> addresses water intrusion from outside sources (which this was not), but then goes one step further and provides a <br /> remedy in the form of a 'means of monitoring for water intrusion and for removing the water by the owner or <br /> operator'. <br /> Thus, there are two issues here: <br /> 0 l) The water was condensation that naturally arose inside the closed sump environment and <br /> was exacerbated by the introduction of additional vvarrn air after opening the system for <br /> testing. This does not fa|l under the scope of the regulation cited. There is no evidence that <br /> the accrual noted would have occurred at all absent the system being opened for <br /> testing. Therefore' this violation is akin to citing rain accumulation due tua passing shower <br /> while the system was open during testing. <br /> and <br /> * Z) Even if the condensation could be considered 'infiltration' and come within the regulation, <br /> the site is still in compliance, as it does have a means of monitoring for and removing any <br /> water. The sumps are all fully monitored and set to not only alarm, but to shut down the site <br /> upon liquid detection. Furthermore, in this specific situation, the technicians were not only nn <br /> site at the time of the accunnu|atiVn, but removed all appreciable collection during the <br /> inspection while the system was open for testing. Therefore, the site cannot be accused of <br /> 2 <br />