My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WP0038696
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
THIRD
>
15890
>
4200/4300 - Liquid Waste/Water Well Permits
>
WP0038696
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2022 4:51:59 PM
Creation date
9/12/2022 4:39:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4200/4300 - Liquid Waste/Water Well Permits
RECORD_ID
WP0038696
PE
4377
STREET_NUMBER
15890
STREET_NAME
THIRD
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
LATHROP
Zip
95330-
APN
19807801
ENTERED_DATE
8/23/2018 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
15890 THIRD ST
P_LOCATION
07
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Wong,Jeff [EHD] <br />To: Shih, Steven [EHD] <br />Subject: RE: Meeting with Septic and well contractors <br />SS <br />I didn't reply to everyone since some may find sensitive, but you can share if you want: <br />Wells (site mitigation) <br />1. 1 think Mike got some push back from municipals for treating test wells under site mitigation (usually just gw <br />depth, but I think some do test for water quality), and has allowed some test wells to go under normal well <br />permit (s/c as test hole I believe). Continue? <br />2. May be after we streamlined site mitigation in both complexity and cost, the above may be easier to enforce for <br />test wells under site mitigation? <br />_._..--3-- Well Standards requires completely remove all materials within the original boring when in an area of pollution <br />C',•+ or suspected contamination (13.17.6). That covers all site mitigation (but not necessary site assessment unless �Ait's confirmed there's contamination.) However, Mike (and 1) had been getting a lot of push backs for perimeter <br />wells which the consultants claim not, or no longer, to be contaminated. I tried holding the line many times, <br />but a few (Groundzero, Condor Earth, even bigger companies) have made it a habit of speaking to Mike directly <br />and he's allowed some to pressure grout instead. (Mike's rationale is based on history and groundwater flow <br />direction). So continue with this somewhat mercurial policy? <br />4. Lots of difficulty in destroying nested wells (not too many of those but they're around) or wells using small <br />tubing (1 or 1.5 inch) when pressure grout is allowed. Insist on overdrilling? May be explosives? <br />5. What is our policy when the contractor failed to properly pressure grout (i.e., they couldn't get the amount of <br />grout per calculation base on well casing volume and the sand pack volume (30% of the column, optimistically) <br />From: Sok, Tiffany [EHD] <tsok@sjgov.org> <br />Sent: Thursday, March 11, 20219:54 AM <br />To: Shih, Steven [EHD] <sshih@sjgov.org>; Afonskaia, Daria [EHD] <dafonskaia@sjgov.org>; Ballwahn, Shannon [EHD] <br /><sballwahn@sjgov.org>; Ruiz, Francisco [EHD] <fgarciaruiz@sjgov.org>; Ruvalcaba, Cesar [EHD] <cruvaIca ba@sjgov.org>; <br />Salinas, Aldara [EHD] <asalinas@sjgov.org>; Wong,Jeff [EHD] <Jwong@sjgov.org>; Naidu, Muniappa [EHD] <br /><Mnaidu@sjgov.org>; Kang, Jasjit [EHD] <jkang@sjgov.org> <br />Subject: RE: Meeting with Septic and well contractors <br />Yes, I can take notes for this meeting Mr. Shih. <br />Ti f faM.y S&k. I Senior Office Assistant <br />San Joaquin County — Environmental Health <br />1868 E. Hazelton Ave., Stockton, CA 95205 <br />u (209) 468-9996 (209) 464-0138 tsok@sigov.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.