Laserfiche WebLink
�t. <br /> L � <br /> THE <br /> Newark Sierra Paperboard Car-P. _ `' NEWARK <br /> 800 West Church Street A Newark Group,Inc.Company GROUP <br /> Stockton,CA 95203 Products from Recycled Fibers <br /> f, <br /> 209/466-5251 '' <br /> Fax 209/942-1214 <br /> November 3, 1997 <br /> Ms. Margaret Lagorio <br /> Supervising REHS <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Re: Newark Sierra Paperboard Corp. SITE CODE 1063 <br /> 800 West Church Street <br /> Stockton, CA 95203 <br /> Dear Ms. Lagorio: <br /> During our telephone conversation in late September, I was surprised to learn that our site was <br /> considered "contaminated." To my knowledge everything that we had done over the years had <br /> been agreed to by both either the Regional Board or County Environmental Health. <br /> Since receiving your letter of September 30, 1 have written to Elizabeth Thayer of the <br /> CVRWQCB requesting a closure letter on the solvent tanks removed in 1986. Hopefully,this <br /> oversight can be resolved in the near future. <br /> However, the courtyard tanks are another matter. I have discussed the 1993-94 closure of the <br /> courtyard tanks and sump with our people and the contractor that performed the work. I can't <br /> find anyone who was told that we had to do further sampling (laterally and vertically) in order to <br /> close the site. I did find the enclosed January 14, 1994, letter to Pam Violet from RESNA <br /> requesting approval for cessation of further excavation. This request was granted. <br /> From viewing the clean-up of the spill, we had about 7 or 8 years ago, No.6 oil just doesn't flow. <br /> This material is like mercury. It doesn't absorb into the ground at all. Furthermore, its melting <br /> point is at 60-70 degrees Fahrenheit. <br /> It would have been very easy at the time to excavate and/or sample further. You mentioned in <br /> your voice mail message to me that the letter that you thought had gone out at the time, never <br /> did. Is it possible that it was decided that what we had done was sufficient in light of the fact that <br /> we are dealing with No.6 fuel oil. I want to point out that lateral migration is rather limited. The <br /> sump area was bordered on the south and west by the building and its substantial foundation <br /> within a matter of a couple feet. The day tanks bordered the sump to the north at a depth of <br /> approximately 12 feet and we have the reservoir to the east within 8 feet. <br /> We were planning to pave throughout this area. This has been held up; however, paving would <br /> prevent any possibility of rainwater carrying the contamination any deeper. Is this an <br /> alternative? <br />