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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-Environmental Protection Agency PETE WILSON, Govemor <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD <br /> CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 Routier Road,Sufte A --- <br /> Sacramento,CA 95827-3098 8 <br /> PHONE:(916)255-3000 <br /> FAX:(916)255-3015 <br /> arun <br /> 14 December 1995 <br /> Mr. Fernando Amador <br /> Department of Toxic Substances Control <br /> 10151 Croydon Way, Suite 3 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95827-2106 <br /> COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SOIL OPERABLE UNIT FEASIBILITY STUDY, PG&E <br /> FORMER MANUFACTURED GAS PLANT, STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> I have reviewed the November 1995 Draft Soil Operable Unit Feasibility Study for PG&E's former <br /> manufactured gas plant in Stockton. My comments are presented below. <br /> General Comments <br /> 1. The site maps using air photos should be replaced with regular computer aided drawing (CAD) <br /> maps. The air photos are appropriate when identifying former structures which could be <br /> potential sources of contamination. Once these structures have been identified, a CAD map with <br /> a convenient scale and incorporating these structures should be used. For example, Figure 2-5 <br /> which is a CAD, is much easier to look at than Figure 4-5. Figure 2-5 provides the essential <br /> information which is described in the text while Figure 4-5 has extraneous components which <br /> really do not add value to the information being presented but in fact blurs the picture because of <br /> shadows and different shades of gray. Labeling the essential components also presents a <br /> problem because of the varying shades of light and dark. <br /> 2. References to directions in the Specific Comments assume that north is towards the top of the <br /> page. <br /> Specific Comments <br /> 1. Pages 2-2 and 2-3, Sections 2.1.3 and 2.1.4, Geology and Hydrogeology <br /> The FS should include the geologic and hydrogeologic cross-sections which provide a graphic <br /> representation of the subsurface conditions. The cross-sections should include data from the <br /> additional soil investigation conducted this past summer. <br /> 2. Page 2-13, Section 2.2.2, Former MGP Facilities <br /> The second to the last sentence of the section describes former aboveground oil tanks. The <br /> locations of these tanks are not shown on Figure 2-3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.