Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Elena K. Manzo [EH] <br />From: Elena K. Manzo [EH] <br />Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 11:47 AM <br />To: 'Holly Mendez' <br />Subject: RE: PFJ #618 Ripon <br />A <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, RENS <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@jonescovey.com] <br />Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 9:29 AM <br />To: Elena K. Manzo [EH] <emanzo@sjcehd.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 />Ofa!!rj D. W&rdeY <br />Environmental Compliance <br />6^�� )ONES COVEY GROUP, INC. <br />ce cIRuMTtm►cra-txnONS&AM s <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 />Holly@JonesCovey.com <br />