Laserfiche WebLink
• 1957.10-15 15:47 2MC #S61 P.02/06 <br /> • <br /> Tann uwb"comply <br /> . r SbnRv dxa l9 %3 <br /> sm r+m.�.ewss,.s!Sala <br /> VGPOM 51t 272W0 <br /> FlAMM4:aj&M-Tall <br /> TOSCO Enw o mwwl clllvlallu <br /> men! <br /> October 14, 1997 <br /> Mr. Dave Deaner <br /> State Water Resources Control Board <br /> Division of Clean Water programs <br /> UST Cleanup Fund <br /> P.O. Box 944212 <br /> Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 <br /> Re: Notice of Case Review <br /> Unocal Station 96981 (Site Code 1217123) <br /> 4707 Pacific Avenue <br /> Stockton, Califomia , <br /> Dear Mr. Deaner- <br /> Tosco Marketing Company by this letter provides notice of a petition to the Fund <br /> Manager for review of the subject case. We request review consistent with Health and <br /> Safety Code Section 25299.39.2 (b)whereby"an owner or operator that has a tank case <br /> who believes that the owner's or operator's corrective action plan for the site has been <br /> satisfactorily implemented, but where closure has not been granted,may petition the <br /> fluid manager for review of the case." We will provide a technical submittal by October <br /> 31, 1997,which is consistent with the State Board's January 3, 1997 guidance <br /> memorandum. <br /> Pacific Environmental Group (PACIFIC) has provided Tosco with a recommendation <br /> that the site be reviewed by the State Board. PACIFIC's correspondence to Tosco <br /> (attached)develops the rationale for the review. <br /> San Joaquin County Environmental Health(PHS/EHD)requested an amended work <br /> plan be submitted by October 15, 1997. This amendment was requested in response to a <br /> work plan previously submitted by Tosco on September 12, 199"1. Representatives of <br /> Tosco and PACIFIC met with PHS/EHD staff on October 10, 1997 to understand the <br /> PHS/EHD requirements. After the meeting, and in consideration of the PHS/EHD <br /> requirements and in consideration of site conditions,Tosco based upon PACIFIC's <br /> opinion chose to use the State Board's review process rather than attempt to continue <br /> PHS/EHD negotiations toward an acceptable work plan. <br />