My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE_1992-1993
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
H
>
HARNEY
>
14750
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440007
>
CORRESPONDENCE_1992-1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2021 4:34:37 PM
Creation date
5/7/2021 8:39:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1992-1993
RECORD_ID
PR0440007
PE
4434
FACILITY_ID
FA0000595
FACILITY_NAME
HARNEY LANE LANDFILL
STREET_NUMBER
14750
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
HARNEY
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
06503006
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
14750 E HARNEY LN
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\cfield
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.
/
277
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
File No. 20-1008-49.001 <br /> December 9, 1993 <br /> Mr. Gabriel Karam <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Building Department <br /> Post Office Box 1810 <br /> Stockton, CA 95204 <br /> Subject: RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD <br /> HARNEY LANE LANDFILL/TEST PAD RESULTS <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> Dear Mr. Karam: <br /> This letter is in response to a letter by Mr. Robert Evans of the California Regional Water <br /> Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) dated October 18, 1993, entitled "Test Pad CQA Results, <br /> Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill, San Joaquin County, California (Case No. 2598). At your <br /> request, we are providing clarification of our report "Summary of Test Pad Results, Harney <br /> Lane Landfill, San Joaquin County, California" dated July 8, 1993. <br /> The following explanations are in the order in which they are addressed in the CRWQCB letter: <br /> • Page 1, No. 1: The test pad foundation did meet compaction requirements. <br /> Although Test Nos. 1, 3, and 4 failed, these areas were reworked and retested as <br /> Test Nos. 6, 7, and 8, which were passing tests. These test results are listed on <br /> pages 1 and 2 of Table I in our report. <br /> • Page 1, No. 2: Although Test Nos. 21, 22, and 24 on the SM test pad did not <br /> initially meet the specified relative compaction, this test pad was reworked and <br /> retested. Retests of this test pad are Test Nos. 28, 29, and 30. There is an error <br /> in the reporting of the retest results in our report. Retest Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, <br /> and 30 should correspond to the failing Test Nos. 15, 16, 21, 22, and 24, <br /> respectively, and not to Test Nos. 20, 21, 26, 27, and 29 as shown on Table 1, <br /> page 3. We also propose to perform two compaction tests within the vicinity of <br /> the proposed SDRI test in the SM test pad to verify compaction. <br /> Copyright 1993 KLeinfelder, Inc. Page 1 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.