My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WORK PLANS
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
F
>
FREMONT
>
4343
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545181
>
WORK PLANS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 3:13:39 PM
Creation date
1/14/2020 2:25:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
WORK PLANS
RECORD_ID
PR0545181
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0010425
FACILITY_NAME
Pacific Paper Tube
STREET_NUMBER
4343
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
FREMONT
STREET_TYPE
ST
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95215
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
4343 E FREMONT ST
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
Emcon ,.� <br /> 1921 Ringwood Avenue•Son Jose.California 95131-1721 •(408)453-7300• Fox(408)437-9526 <br /> February 13, 1996 <br /> Project 22074001.001 <br /> Mr. Binayak Acharya <br /> Nesti6 USA, Inc. <br /> Environmental Strategy/PIanning <br /> 800 North Brand Boulevard <br /> Glendale, California 91203 <br /> Re: Response to San Joaquin County comments; letter dated January 3, 1996 <br /> Dear Mr. Acharya: <br /> This letter responds to comments from San Joaquin County Public Health Services, <br /> Environmental Health Division (PHS/EHD) on Revised Remedial Action Plan (EMCON, <br /> August 1995), for the former Nestl6 USA, Inc. (Nestl6), site in Stockton, California. The <br /> comments were documented in a January 3, 1996, letter from the PHS/EHD and are <br /> discussed below. <br /> AGENCY COMMENTS <br /> Comment No. 1. The PHS/EHD indicated that it did not consider the estimated carbon <br /> content of 1 percent used for the modeling to be conservative. They requested fhat the <br /> potential threat to groundwater be reassessed based on carbon contents ranging between <br /> 0.06 and 2.3 percent. <br /> Comment No. 2. PHS/EHD also provided a copy of field notes that were apparently <br /> recorded during the collection of soil samples S 1, S2, and S3 on June 25, 1986. PHS/EHD <br /> believes that samples S 1 and S2 were not from stockpiled soil, but were collected in the <br /> excavation for the oil/water separator, and sample S3 was collected along the roadside. <br /> PHS/EHD requested that these results be incorporated into the residual soil fate and <br /> transport analysis. <br /> In addition to the comments described above, the PHS/EHD requested a summary of all <br /> analytical results obtained during groundwater sampling. All analytical results from <br /> groundwater sampling were presented in Appendix B and summarized in Table 2 of <br /> Revised Remedial Action Plan. <br /> I:TJ21MAS00918_DDC-%-1 Ic:3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.