My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMPLIANCE INFO_1987-1998
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
CENTER
>
430
>
2300 - Underground Storage Tank Program
>
PR0231425
>
COMPLIANCE INFO_1987-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2022 1:58:10 PM
Creation date
6/23/2020 6:47:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2300 - Underground Storage Tank Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
1987-1998
RECORD_ID
PR0231425
PE
2361
FACILITY_ID
FA0003838
FACILITY_NAME
Frontier California Inc.: Manteca CO
STREET_NUMBER
430
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
CENTER
STREET_TYPE
St
City
Manteca
Zip
95336
APN
217-021-04
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
430 W Center St
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\UST\UST_2361_PR0231425_430 W CENTER_1987-1998.tif
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.
/
387
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
11. A mechanical line leakA&ector <br />�)was <br />Owas not <br />present in the majority of the pipeline systems used in the evaluation. <br />12. Please specify how much time elapsed between the delivery of product and the start of the <br />data collection: <br />)N 0 to 6 h (time after completition of circulation and start of test) <br />to12h <br />)12to24h <br />24h or more <br />Temperature Conditions <br />This r■ was evaluated under therange of rrr conditions ■. ■ ■ in Table <br />1. The difference between the temperatureof ! product r through thepipeline f• <br />or <br />moreand i. r + temperaturethebackfill ! i r between and 12 r from <br />pipeline is mimmari ed in Table 1. If Option 1, 2 or 5 was used, a more detailed summary of <br />the product '... rr !conditions! i for he evaluation is presented r Attachment <br />Option or i no artificial ! <br />•. i•rr • rr <br />Mn i •■••ii �• r• ••r <br />• i r � • w �r i � <br />rrr .r r r i • • • r �• <br />' • ` • ♦ .. <br />r <br />♦ <br />r u• ■ • • . ril ..• • r r1111: ' • <br />si r • r r r .. c ri <br />y. L ! • r'+ i �• <br />occWTit Uc LEM • / ♦ Ai i:..• • • rY ! rr. it ! •" '/! If • r r •.. r' .1r • • ,.. • • <br />to the coaduct of +nand the s r• r Y. of r • rrr .fi • soilsunro=ding the • i.: <br />■ • • - r rr - r i t■ RMI <br />induced13. The ►• the test results used to estimate theperformance of r rr <br />are summarized in Attachment Were any• ■■ i • from the data set? <br />%M <br />U yes, please specifythe r! and include with Attachmentmore ! . r one test was <br />removed, specify each reason •. <br />r r • •. ` .... . .i <br />Page 3 of S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.