Laserfiche WebLink
Theodore 1. Wi:tmayer <br /> Attorney at Law <br /> 1024 West Robinhood Drive A <br /> Stockton, California 95207 <br /> Telephone 957-9160 <br /> FES 10 1999 <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH <br /> February 9, 1993 PERMIT/SERVIC 5 <br /> Laurie A. Cotulla, REHS <br /> Program Manager <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> Public Health Services <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> P O Box 2009 <br /> Stockton CA 95201 <br /> RE: Montgomery Ward, 5400 Pacific Ave. Stockton, CA 95201 Site Code: 2163 <br /> Dear Ms. Cotulla: <br /> Following receipt of the Work Plan for Phase V Subsurface Investigations dated September <br /> 25th, 1992 and Amendment to Phase V Subsurface Investigation Work Plan, dated <br /> December 31st, 1992, Montgomery Ward Auto Service Center, 5400 Pacific Ave., Stockton <br /> CA, site code 2163 from Environmental Audit, Inc., Stone Bros. retained Weston ofW. <br /> March Ln., Ste 12, Stockton CA to review the Work Plan for Phase V Subs ace <br /> Investigation and also Amendment to Phase V Subsurface Investigation Work Plan. W ston <br /> has completed its review and has submitted its letter report dated January 27, 1993 to Stone <br /> Bros. A copy of such letter report is enclosed herewith. <br /> The matter of proper site closure and remediation of a release has been an on going tissue <br /> since the underground storage tanks were removed in June of 1986. At all times during the <br /> period commencing with the removal of the underground storage tanks and continuiag to <br /> the present, Stone Bros: objective is to obtain proper site closure and remediation of all <br /> contamination resulting from the release of hazardous substances. This includes removal <br /> of product piping and the concrete slab on which the underground storage tanks were <br /> located,in accordance with what I understand to be the policy of San Joaquin County HD. <br /> The proposed work plan and amendment thereto, as I understand Mr. Sengebush's analysis, <br /> does not result in accomplishment of this objective nor does it address the iss a of <br /> contamination to the concrete slab. On several occasions Stone Bros. has requested that <br /> Montgomery Ward remove the product piping and the concrete slab. I have also stated on <br /> several occasions that, as a matter of economy, of both time and cost, the best interests of <br /> all parties would be served if both the product piping and the concrete slab were removed <br /> from the site. The most recent amendment requested by EHD confirms this observation <br /> with respect at least to the product piping. I have no doubt that this same approact with <br /> respect to the concrete slab would show similar savings in both time and cost. It also <br />