My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE_2007 & 2009 ONLY
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
L
>
LOVELACE
>
2323
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440013
>
CORRESPONDENCE_2007 & 2009 ONLY
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2025 12:16:34 PM
Creation date
7/3/2020 11:15:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
2007 & 2009 ONLY
RECORD_ID
PR0440013
PE
4445
FACILITY_ID
FA0001434
FACILITY_NAME
LOVELACE TRANSFER STATION
STREET_NUMBER
2323
STREET_NAME
LOVELACE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
20406020
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
2323 LOVELACE RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\cfield
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\SW\SW_4445_PR0440013_2323 LOVELACE_2007-2009.tif
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
164
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
Page 1 of <br /> Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] <br /> From: Gebrehawariat, Tadese [TGebrehawariat@ciwmb.ca.gov] <br /> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:19 AM <br /> To: Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] <br /> Cc: Karl, Christine <br /> Subject: RE: Lovelace Transfer Station <br /> Hi Natalia - Nice to meet you, at least by e-mail initially. For your information, for all permitting type of questions <br /> from your jurisdiction the contact Board staff is my colleague, Christine Karl [916.341-6405] or <br /> ckarl@ciwmb.ca.gov. <br /> With regards to the question of the TPR Amendment you approved on May 18, 2007, it sounds like you are <br /> indicating that the operator has decided not to implement the change(s) they had proposed in the Amendment. <br /> Did you require the TPR Amendment, or did the operator proposed it for their needs? What will be the impact on <br /> the design and/or operation of the facility, if the operator fails to implement the change(s)? Would it be their wish <br /> to withdraw the TPR Amendment application, if they are not planning to implement it? However, if it was your <br /> requirement that they submit the TPR Amendment and relocate the electronics recycling from the south to the <br /> northeast area of the station for your reasons, it becomes a different issue. <br /> At this point, it is still a discussion among the three of us -you, Christy, and me. So, give us a bit more <br /> information regarding why the TPR Amendment application was submitted and processed. Why they don't want <br /> to implement the change (if I understand your message correctly)? And what would be your preferred approach, <br /> under the circumstances? <br /> From: Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] [mailto:nsubbotnikova@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:02 AM <br /> To: Gebrehawariat,Tadese <br /> Subject: Lovelace Transfer Station <br /> Hi Tadese, <br /> I have a question regarding Lovelace Transfer Station.After my last inspection at this facility on 6/25/07 1 got an <br /> impression that very possible they are not going to follow the Notice of Change to the TPR. <br /> Just a quick reminder, on May 18, 2007 we approved the amendment to the TPR. The amendment proposes to <br /> relocate the current electronics recycling area from the recycling materials staging area south of the station, which <br /> is also used for appliance processing, to the staging area northeast of the station to free-up space due to multiple <br /> diversion activities. <br /> If this is the case, what would be the best way to deal with this situation? <br /> Thanks. <br /> 7/19/2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.