REMOVAL_1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nov 10 99 08: 47a County Counsel 46Ei-u�i<e P PAGE TWO EXPLAINED THAT, IN FACT, I HAD NOT ONLY ENCLOSED THE FEES BUT HAD DONE SO WITH A POSTAL MONEY ORDER. FURTHER, I EXPLAINED THAT AS A RESULT OF PAST EXPERIENCE, I HAD THE CLERK AT THE POST OFFICE ACTUALLY PUT THE MONEY ORDER IN THE ENVELOPE AND SEAL IT AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TC PRODUCE A STATEMENT FROM HIM. I THEN INDICATED THAT I COULD FAX HER A COPY OF THE POSTAI. MONEY ORDER, WHICH I DID. I HAVE HAD NO FURTHER INQUIRIES ABOUT THE COUNTY FEES AND ASSUME THEY FOUND THE MONEY ORDER. ALSO ATTACHED IS A COPY OF MY FAX TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION IN THAT REGARD. ON 16 OCTOBER, 1999 I RECEIVED A LETTER DATED 13 OCTOBER, 1999 REGARDING THIS SITE. AFTER DISCUSSING THE LETTER WITH MY CLIENT, ALTHOUGH THEY DISAGREE WITH THE REQUESTS OF THE SITE INSPECTOR AS THERE ARE ISSUES OF LAW INVOLVED, MY CLIENT ASKED THAT I SIMPLY COMPLY WITH TWO (2) OF THE REQUESTS AS INDICATED IN ORDER THAT WE MAY GO FORWARD AND REMOVE THE TANK SO THAT THIS SITE MAY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AND THE OTHER WORK COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE RAINY SEASON. I THEREFORE RETURNED THE PAGE THREE (3) IN TRIPLICATE WITH CHANGES BUT AGAIN INDICATED THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER FOR REMOVAL OFF SITE OF ANY SOIL AS IT MAY BE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE THE SOIL OFF SITE. FURTHER, THE DECISION TO MOVE SOIL OFF SITE IS NOT A PART OF MY PROPOSAL AS I INITIALLY INDICATED. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY REQUIRES SUBMISSION OF A REMEDIAL WORKPLAN ONCE CONTAMINATION IS FOUND TO EXIST. FURTHER, SHOULD IT EVEN BE CONSIDERED, THE NATURE OF THE CONTAMINATION WOULD BE A FACTOR IN DETERMINING EVEN WHERE IT IAIGHT GO AND THE ACCEPTING SITE WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW LAB DATA AND ACCEPT THE SOIL. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT A PROPER QUESTION TO RAISE AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT'S A STUPID QUESTION AND IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE ANSWERED AT THIS TIME. THIS IS SO TYPICAL OF GOVERNMENT AND IS WHY THIS COUNTY MAINTAINS ITS WELL FOUNDED REPUTATION. ACTUALLY, THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ELIMINIATED FROM THE APPLICATION. FIND ATTACHED A LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER, 1999 FROM SAN JAOQUIN COUNTY WHICH IS IN ERROR. I HAVE NEVER SUPPLIED A FINAL DESTINATION FOR MY TAMC SUBMITTALS. THE OCTOBER 20, 1999 LETTER SUGGESTS THAT I ASSUME A WORST CASE SCENARIO. I PREFER TO ASSUME THAT THE SITE IS COMPLETELY CLEAN UNLESS THE SAMPLING PROVES OTHERWISE. FURTHER, I AM NOT BEING PAID TO DO ANY MODELING AT THIS SITE FOR CONTAMINATION. IF CONTAMINATION EXISTS, IT WILL BE DEALT WITH BY THE REMEDIAL WORK PLAN. FURTHER, I AM NOT AWARE THAT LINING THE TANK PIT AND COVERING THE STOCKPILE IS REQUIRED AS 15 SUGGESTED BY THE PLAN REVIEWER. IF 50, A POINT OR AUTHORITY SHOULD BE CITED. MY CLIENT IS DESIROUS OF GOING FORWARD AND COMPLETING THIS JOB AS SOON AS IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. I WOULD SO APPRECIATE YOM KIND ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW WE MAY FINALIZE THIS PERMIT APPLICATION. YOURS TRULY t JAMES J. HOBLITZELL, JJH/NB PRINCIPAL CC: MR. FLOYD SMITHSON