Laserfiche WebLink
b <br /> FRED V.CUMMINGS LAW OFFICES OF BEND R.AIKEN 1879-1955 <br /> RUSSELL L.BARLOW <br /> JOHN A.HARKAVY AIKEN, KRAMER & CUMMINGS <br /> BAUER ER <br /> BRUCE G.HEROLD <br /> INCORPORATED BEND R.AIKE IKENN,JR. <br /> ELIZABETH M.ENGH <br /> MATTHEW F.GRAHAM ONE KAISER PLAZA,SUITE 550 RETIRED <br /> STEVEN J.CRAMER <br /> OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612-3629 <br /> SUZANNE WYATT <br /> LY NETTE M.FREDIANI TELEPHONE (415) 834-6800 <br /> BARON J.DREXEL <br /> TELECOPIER (415) 834-9017 <br /> May 2, 1991 <br /> Laurie A. Cotulla, REHS, Program Manage , ? ''•: ' <br /> Environmental health Division MAY <br /> Public Health Services <br /> San Joaquin County ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> P. O. Box 20098 PEP,MITI e <br /> Stockton, California 95201 ERVi �1 ' <br /> Dear Ms. Cotulla: <br /> This firm represents The Customer Company. <br /> We have your letter of April 25, 1991 addressed to that <br /> company regarding the Food and Liquor store at 890 N. Main, <br /> Manteca, California 95336. <br /> Our stalemate appears to be that you will not agree that if <br /> we do what you ask us to do, and no contamination is found, you <br /> will close the file. It appears to us that this request is <br /> reasonable. Wells were originally drilled on this site in March <br /> of 1987 . Low levels of benzene were found in two of the wells. <br /> Less than two months later all of the contamination had <br /> disappeared. These findings were reconfirmed in a test May 27, <br /> 1988, and again on October 24, 1990. We think the evidence is <br /> overwhelming that there is not any contamination at this site. <br /> Nevertheless, we are willing to comply with your request that <br /> another well be drilled, and do quarterly monitoring for one <br /> quarter of the new well (once when drilled, once three months <br /> later) , if you will agree that if the tests show no detectable <br /> amounts of benzene the site will be closed. <br /> It is this last point that has been the sticking point in <br /> our negotiations. In your last letter you state "further site <br /> assessment is required before the above referenced site can be <br /> evaluated for closure. " But this just evidences again your <br /> unwillingness to say how much is enough. If the new well tests <br /> clean twice we are not willing to have you come back and say no, <br /> you've decided that ' s not enough, you want it monitored for two <br /> years or ten years or until the sun falls into the ocean. The <br /> client has spent in excess of $95, 000 to date, in addition to the <br /> cost of the new tanks, on what is a minor problem. We have dealt <br /> with the tainted soil in accordance with your directions. The <br /> contamination was discovered only because we voluntarily <br /> installed new double-walled tanks in order to prevent a pollution <br /> problem. We are attempting to provide economically a service to <br /> the public which needs gasoline to run its cars; we can' t do that <br /> if every minor cleanup is treated as a major environmental <br /> disaster. The CVRWQCB will eventually have to convince some <br />