My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
G
>
GRANT LINE
>
502
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0528085
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2020 3:32:58 PM
Creation date
1/22/2020 3:19:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0528085
PE
2959
FACILITY_ID
FA0019016
FACILITY_NAME
PG&E TRACY SERVICE CENTER
STREET_NUMBER
502
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
GRANT LINE
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376
APN
25027008
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
502 E GRANT LINE RD
P_LOCATION
03
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
ATTACHMENT I <br /> Responses to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> Comments on the Work Plan for the Tracy Service Center Underground Tank <br /> Investigation. <br /> The following responses are provided to comments received from the Central Valley <br /> Regional Water Quality Control Board (June 16, 1987) regarding our work plan. The <br /> Regional Board's comments are duplicated below followed by our responses. <br /> Comment: 1. Has the underground tank in question been removed? If so, was the <br /> surrounding soil contamination delineated and mitigated: If not, <br /> these tasks should be initiated immediately. The work plan does <br /> not discuss this aspect of the project. <br /> Response: 1. The underground tank can be scheduled for removal in October 1987 <br /> pending confirmation by the San Joaquin Local Health District. <br /> Comment: 2. A report and proposal for specific well locations should be <br /> prepared after Phase I soil gas work and submitted for regulatory <br /> concurrence. Phase II work should not be initiated until approval <br /> is received. <br /> Response: 2. The report and proposed well locations are included as part of this <br /> submittal . Phase II work will not be initiated until approval is <br /> received from the San Joaquin Local Health District. <br /> Comment: 3. Although two-inch wells are acceptable, four-inch wells have the <br /> advantages of better development, easier purging and sampling, are <br /> much more useful for aquifer testing, can possibly be used for <br /> extraction/recovery wells, and can be installed using the same <br /> drilling technique. I recommend that PGandE consider installing <br /> four-inch monitoring wells on-site. <br /> Response: 3. PGandE prefers to install two-inch wells with the understanding <br /> that we may need to install larger diameter wells if <br /> extraction/recovery wells are necessary. Some of the advantages of <br /> two-inch wells are that they take less time to recover after <br /> purging (particularly in clayey soils which are present at the <br /> service center) , less soil is removed from the ground during <br /> installation (larger augers must be used to install four-inch <br /> wells) and much less water must be removed during purging and <br /> development. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.