Laserfiche WebLink
Shell Oil Products Company <br /> Environmental Claims Management <br /> P O Box 2099 <br /> Houston TX 77252 <br /> OCTOBER 24, 1996 <br /> Thomas F.Maher <br /> Tek. (/13)241-0434 <br /> Mr. Michael Infurna, Senior REHS Fax: (713)241-6926 <br /> LOP/Site Mitigation Unit IV <br /> San Joachin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> Post Office Box 388 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201-0388 <br /> SUBJECT: Former Shell Service Station Located at 1265-1267 Country Club <br /> Boulevard, Stockton, CA 95204 <br /> Dear Mr. Infurna: <br /> I have reviewed the letter you sent me on this subject dated October 11, 1996, in <br /> which you reiterated your earlier request that the Shell Oil Company ("Shell") <br /> perform a further investigation of the premises at 1265-1267 Country Club <br /> Boulevard in Stockton. Shell will submit a work plan to perform a further <br /> investigation of the premises provided the current owner agrees. <br /> Your October 11 letter raised one significant concern and some minor points that <br /> require explanation or clarification. I will first address the concern I have as to <br /> verification of underground tank removal and then briefly discuss the minor items. <br /> TANK REMOVAL VERIFICATION <br /> Shell cannot provide any further evidence that the tanks were removed. The Fire <br /> Department permit issued on March 5, 1974 for the removal of the 8000 gallon tank <br /> coupled with the fact that it would have interfered with the building foundation <br /> should be ample evidence that this tank was removed. The 8000 gallon tank was <br /> the only tank that Shell owned on the premise. The other tanks were owned by our <br /> lessor, the then owner of the premises and Shell had no legal right to remove them <br /> when we ceased operating the site as a service station. Shell further believes that <br /> the existence of a clause in Bank of the West's purchase agreement requiring <br /> removal of the remaining tanks coupled with the fact that they would have <br /> interfered with the building foundation is ample evidence that these tanks were also <br /> removed. Since there is good reason to believe that all tanks were removed and no <br /> evidence that suggests otherwise, the extensive subsurface investigation required <br /> to prove conclusively that no tanks were present is not warranted. We ask that you <br /> withdraw this portion of your request for further investigation of the site. <br /> j:\mktgeng\envclaim\maher\RC371LR2.DOC <br />