My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
6131
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545003
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/27/2019 11:04:58 AM
Creation date
11/27/2019 10:58:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
FILE 2
RECORD_ID
PR0545003
PE
3526
FACILITY_ID
FA0002324
FACILITY_NAME
Pacific Service Station
STREET_NUMBER
6131
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
APN
09746418
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
6131 PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\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.
/
251
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
6131 Pacific, Stockton Page 3 of 4 <br /> According to law, we only have jurisdiction over UST owners which is why we wrote the Notice to <br /> Abate to the owner. Our concern does apply to every UST within San Joaquin County and I can <br /> assure you this is not the first time we have required someone working over a UST system to obtain <br /> a permit from our department. <br /> Although,we may have a concern about working near a UST system, we would not ordinarily <br /> require a permit be obtained for that unless we have reason to believe a portion of the UST system <br /> was at risk. In this specific instance,work was being performed over part of the UST system (vent <br /> or vapor lines were exposed)and it is our belief those line could have been compromised. We are <br /> asking the UST owner to test the secondary containment over the section of lines that were <br /> exposed. <br /> In order for us to witness the testing and review the results we must charge a fee to cover our <br /> time and that is the reason a permit is required from our office. <br /> I have spoken with Margaret Lagorio, the Program Coordinator of the UST Cleanup Unit(known as <br /> Unit IV), who has agreed to add language to her Unit's approval conditions requiring a permit be <br /> obtained from our Unit(known as Unit III) if any part of the UST system is exposed, <br /> compromised, or concrete is broken over the system. <br /> I hope I was able to answer all of your questions. If you have any other concerns, please contact <br /> me. <br /> Thank you. <br /> ------------------------------------------------------- <br /> Kasey L. Foley, R.E.H.S., Program Coordinator <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department <br /> 304 E. Weber Avenue <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> (209)468-3451 <br /> (209)468-3433 Fax <br /> kfoley@sjcehd.com <br /> -----Original Message----- <br /> From: denis.1.brown@shell.com [mailto:denis.l.brown@shell.coml <br /> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:16 PM <br /> To: Raymond von Flue [EH1 <br /> Cc: dlescure@cambria-env.com <br /> Subject: 6131 Pacific, Stockton <br /> Dear Mr. Von Flue, <br /> It is my understanding that because of some work unrelated to the UST system <br /> performed at the above address by Shell, will now require the owner to perform a <br /> UST and Line leak test after our work is completed? My understanding that the <br /> premise for this is because we were saw cutting or trenching near the lines and/or <br /> USTs, and because this may potentially cause disturbance to the system, a UST <br /> pressure test would now be required for the owner? Please correct me if this is <br /> inaccurate or I am misunderstanding. <br /> 12/6/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.