My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
1665
>
3500 - Local Oversight Program
>
PR0545638
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/5/2020 11:44:53 AM
Creation date
5/5/2020 10:57:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
3500 - Local Oversight Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0545638
PE
3528
FACILITY_ID
FA0005998
FACILITY_NAME
UNION OIL SS#2859
STREET_NUMBER
1665
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95204
APN
13702031
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
1665 PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
LSauers
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.
/
656
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
Sent by: CDAAISJDA EPU 209 48B 9754; 11116199 i :11PM;)J& #345;Page 3 <br /> exploration and monitoring iS that these ultimately would be charges against the clean-up fund <br /> and then thepair would be warranted from that aspect. Gym since San Joaquin County objected <br /> to this,Unocal basically said that they wanted to proceed and let the Board consider what we <br /> have clone,the staff report for you does recommend what I had proposed. That we differ closure <br /> for another year. Just within this last week I got a copy of report prepared by Gar},6urOO GW" <br /> acid Miller,a geologic firm that has reviewed the work we have done and came to the conclusion <br /> that the work that the staff geologist had done was correct. I guess 1 wouldn't--I'm not surprised <br /> since it was a consultant for the oil company. Um just last nigbl I learned that.San Joaquin <br /> County had filed a lawsuit against Unocal. We received a copy of it this mousing,it alleges a <br /> variety of things. 1 believe the copies have been provided to you,basically they allege that <br /> Unocal has not done a---has not been diligent in pursuing clean-up and they also allege a variety. <br /> of other things. In discussions with the San Joaquin County District Attorney's staff,they raise <br /> some allegations that IT mention briefly,they bring them up some more,some of the more <br /> important ones is, in the staff report, we mention that the MTBE levels are essentiatly a <br /> background. We probably are mischaracterizing that, but it's a more accurate position to <br /> characterize that the MTBE levels that are found are low,they're not necessarily indicative of a <br /> release fro n this site,they are also indicative of the potential of municipal area where <br /> potentially spills and leaks of fuel containing MTBE may have raised the level in the surrounding <br /> area and I mention this because they are low,they're found both upstream,downstream, <br /> crosscurrent to the site and don't seem to fit a pattersâșthat associated directly with the release. <br /> Um we slill recommend the order as drafted,but I'm sure there are some peapfe here that would <br /> like,to discuss it with you. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.