REMOVAL_1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y Charlie Hunt was willing to look into Telic 's predicament and advise. On 3/15/91, Charlie Hunt contacted Telic and informed them he had contacted Wayne Pearson with the RWQCB and Larry Williams with SMUD. His findings were: 1 . RWQCB was too busy to bother with a sump closure. They would not provide him with closure recommendations or sign off on it. 2 . Larry Williams, SMUD, advised Charlie Hunt that Telic proposed to do much more than was necessary on a grease sand trap type of sump. Charlie Hunt suggested that if the owner, buyer, or lender requested soil analysis, he would witness the sampling for the SJCEHD fee of $35 . 00/hour. Otherwise the owner could continue to use the sumps, or the sump could be closed as recommended by Larry Williams SMUD. CONCLUSION The buyer, Mr An Vuong, can continue using the sump as a grease trap, as agreed by the aforementioned county regulators . Mr. An Vuong has signed an agreement to Gregorson and Associates, willing to to so. The sump contents removed by Telic will be properly disposed of as a non hazardous waste, in accordance with SMUD recommendations, and as approved by SJCEHD and Sacramento Regional Waste Control . There is no visual evidence, from the sumps interior, that prior use of the sump has environmentally impacted the surrounding soil . This fact, combined with SJCEHD findings that soil analysis is not required, leads Telic to conclude that analysis of the soil beneath the sump is not cost effective, nor necessary. LIMITATIONS Information presented in this report does not quarantee the absence of subsurface contamination on the property, but, as indicated that none has been identified and confirmed as a result of this investigation. Our professional opinions regarding the potential contamination are based on limited data; no other warrantee is given or implied by this report . A more thorough assessment would include a subsurface investigation and chemical analysis of soil and/or groundwater samples . 5