SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r' �•State of California Department of Heclth Services ` • memo r nd ur-n Date . August 5, 1982 To James Pappas Permits , Surveillance and Subject: ASP Inspection, Enforcement Section Beaver Chemical , Stockton, CA From Judy Henley Abandoned Site Project Site Cleanup and Emergency Response Section On August 2, 1982, 1 conducted an inspection of Beaver Chemical Plant in. Stockton. Accompanied by Ayn Schmit, (ASP staff from Bob Joaquin County)k, Vice we arrived at the site at 10:00 a.m. and were met by dent. We met in his office briefly to explain our project , goals , and why we ny wished to obtain samples of their evaporation pond. Mr. Mark ay ifathe sam- questions regarding the Hazardous Waste Tax he would have to pay pies indicated hazardous wastes were being sent to the pond. He requested'a copy of our previous inspection report and sample analysis from March, 1980• pond , we found it to be approximately 2/3 _ Upon inspection of the evaporation acre in size and Mr. Mark informed us hard aasphalts clay ,like led iptaround wthe operi- see no evidence of this) . meter which extends over each side about two feet. At the west end of the pond is a pump mechanism which draws in the 1pond d liquid alongtandhat side (seesprays it back toward the pond through nozzles (6-8) at- tached diagram). When we entered the pond area; we noticed a very strong , noxious odor. I obtained three samples of the pond contents at the positions indicated in the attached diagram. Initially, Mr. Mark informed me I was not allowed to c take a sample at the discharge point (sample #1 on diagram) as he did not feel it would accurately represent the pond ' s constituents . I likewise explained to him I was interested in obtaining samples from various spots around the pond and the point of discharge should be especially representative of what goes into the pond. 1 also explained that California Administrative Code al- ed lows us to take samples at our discretion. He finally samconcleseXl and #dl, but 2 with us to note his objection: it is hereby noted. I splitP him so that he could run his own analyses. While on-site, the spray mechanism was operating and with the slightest breeze I was sprayed with the pond water. Since Mr. Mark had informed us the pond was "almost dry" prior to our visit , I had not donned protective cover- alls. My arms and face were exposed to the spray. While taking sample ,y2a man approac`ed us from outside the fence. He was an employee with the , eaand EnfRromithedpondsdriftskontonou - their side the pond enclosure. Hetoldusthespray