My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1995-2004
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CENTER
>
535
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0524492
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1995-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2019 6:15:28 PM
Creation date
2/25/2019 2:39:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1995-2004
RECORD_ID
PR0524492
PE
2959
FACILITY_ID
FA0016428
FACILITY_NAME
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
STREET_NUMBER
535
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
CENTER
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95203
APN
13732002
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
535 S CENTER ST
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
WNg
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.
/
355
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
0 0 <br /> James L. Tjosvold, P.E. <br /> August 19, 1996 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Comment: <br /> 4. All nine of the Federal criteria must be used in evaluating remedial action alternatives in <br /> the FS. Section 8.2 of the FS identifies these nine criteria, and proposes to address the <br /> remaining two once the public community and supporting agency have reviewed the FS and <br /> draft RAP. Section 8 of the FS must include application of the State acceptance criteria and <br /> public acceptance in the evaluation of alternatives. <br /> Response: <br /> 4. Section 8 of the combined soil and groundwater FS will include application of all <br /> nine Federal criteria, including the State acceptance criteria and public acceptance in <br /> the evaluation of alternatives. <br /> Comment: <br /> 5. A supplemental soil investigation was conducted to provide additional characterization at <br /> areas where elevated levels of contaminants were detected in previous investigations, and in <br /> areas where data had not been collected. Section 3.1.3 of the FS indicates results obtained <br /> from the field screening analyses did not correlate well with laboratory analytical results. <br /> Consequently, the FS only uses the laboratory results which consists of approximately 50 <br /> of all the supplemental soil samples collected. DTSC is concerned that the use of only 50% of <br /> soil supplemental sample results has resulted in data gaps remaining and thus the sampling <br /> objective not being met. Please provide a discission on the supplemental sampling results <br /> including an evaluation of results, identification of data gaps, and applicability of results. <br /> Response: <br /> 5. The objective of the supplemental soil investigation was to further characterize <br /> the extent and nature of MGP and underground tank residues in identified source <br /> areas for the purpose of providing information needed to develop and evaluate <br /> potential remedial alternatives. This objective was met as soil borings were drilled <br /> and sampled within, immediately outside and in between the four identified source <br /> areas. Residues and other information observed with depth were logged for each <br /> soil boring. Three more borings were drilled than planned to confirm the outside <br /> extent of some of the former MGP structures. Additional samples were sent for <br /> laboratory analysis than planned as described below. <br /> As discussed in the workplan for the Supplemental Soil Investigation (submitted <br /> June 12, 1995), the field analytical measurements (Hanby kits) were used to analyze <br /> the samples collected from each soil boring. The field test kit results were used to <br /> determine which samples should be sent to the laboratory for confirmation of the <br /> field results. Since the field test kit and laboratory results did not correlate well, the <br /> laboratory results were used in addition to field observations for evaluating the soil <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.