My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014573 (3)
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
N
>
99 (STATE ROUTE 99)
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SU-86-10
>
SU0014573 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 1:59:10 PM
Creation date
1/4/2022 9:54:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014573
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
SU-86-10
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
STATE ROUTE 99
City
COLLIERVILLE
APN
00316001
ENTERED_DATE
12/8/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
HWY 99
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\jcastaneda
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
195
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
323 West Elm Street <br /> CEJ Lodi,California 95240 <br /> BAUMBACH & PIAZZA, INC. Phone(209) 368-6618 <br /> TO: File <br /> FROM: Terry Piazza <br /> DATE: October 20, 1986 <br /> SUBJECT: Woodson Estates II <br /> Meeting with Richard Hill and Chuck McLaughlin, State Department of Health <br /> Services, October 14, 1986. <br /> See attached for information taken from their file. <br /> Per State file, the depth to ground water is 88 feet, estimated clean up <br /> cost is $300,000.00 <br /> Lodi Airport was contaminated in two sites. <br /> a. Plane wash down area on South side of Jahant Road at Frontage Road <br /> "T" intersection. <br /> b. West end of runway. <br /> There were no dumping pits. Contamination was from agricultural chemicals <br /> dropped on ground or asphalt. <br /> State visited site in 1982-83 and 84 and tested soil and wash-down water. <br /> (tests attached) <br /> h <br /> Talk with McLaughlin: <br /> a. Asked him "if developer contributed $100,000.00 of the $300,000.00 <br /> required for clean-up, could this move us up in State priority list?" <br /> Answer was indirect and not encouraging. <br /> b. Told him of plans to test near by wells for contamination. He warned <br /> that the data obtained would only be useful if we knew which acquifer <br /> or acquifers that water was drawn from. <br /> c. State would probably want additional tests run according to the state <br /> manual . <br /> Talked to Nelson Laboratories yesterday. Costs of water tests are approximately <br /> $100.00 each + technician time. We have to determine well depth and stratas <br /> used. <br /> I contacted the Local Health District to getallowable levels of contamination <br /> of water. The allowable levels are in ppb. The attached tests are in ppm and <br /> are surface soil contamination. <br /> I suggest we attack the situation of determining hazards from the toxic <br /> waste site as follows : <br /> a. Test near by wells for water quality and not worry about which acquifer <br /> is supplying water. <br /> b. If the tests show contamination, we should consider stopping work. <br /> c. If the tests shown no contamination, we should find out what acquifers <br /> the wells are drawing from. <br /> d. We should then meet with Ron Valinoti , the toxics specialist from the <br /> Local Health District, and pool our data with the County's data from —5— <br /> the water used in the two nearby restaurants. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.