SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mary Meays .411W `.. 13 August 1991 San Joaquin County Environmental Health Dept. Page 2 RE. Union Ice Company well through the former tank location to see if ground water has been impacted. If ground water is found to be impacted, we will then propose a larger scale investigation of the site. We see no reason to further define any soils contamination as all discolored soils were removed from the excavation. We will, however, obtain soil samples every five feet (5') beginning at 30 feet below the surface when we install the well. 4. We have enclosed a letter from SEMCO with the dates that soils were moved from 425 No. Union Street to 1320 W. Weber Street in Stockton, which is another site of 13 acres owned by the Union Ice Company. This transport activity was agreed upon as a reasonable solution to cure a logistics problem at the 425 No. Union Street site by Darlene Reuss, of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. The soils were interfering with normal operations at the Union Street site. The County gave permission to move the soil to Weber Street, via Darlene Reuss. 5. The amount of soil aerated was not 100 yards per day. This was a typograph- ical error. We have enclosed a copy of the aeration logs as per your request. 6. The comments made under item 6 suggest that WHF was remiss in not com- municating its intentions to the County and/or State Regulatory personnel in regards to the soils. This is not accurate. We had several discussions with Darlene Reuss. she informed WHF that the County was not overseeing any soils remediation activities, at that time and, in fact, had no interest whatsoever in what happened to the soils. We asked her to verify those statements with Laurie Cotulla, or Diane Hinson, also with the County. The response was the same. We informed Darlene that we would be moving the soils to 1320 W. Weber Street to do both aeration and bioremediation of the soils, as the spoils pile was interfering with normal business activities at the site, and she said "go ahead, no problem from the County's standpoint". In addition to this, WHF called two State agencies regarding the movement and treat- ment of the soils. We called DHS Toxic Substances Division and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Both agencies stated that they had no problem with the pro- posal as long as we complied with local air pollution guidelines and the Local Enforce- ment Agency (LEA). WHF specifically asked the Regional Board if they wanted anything in writing and the response was "no". We asked Darlene Reuss if she wanted anything in writing and her response was "no". WHF makes every effort to cooperate with local and State agencies, and complies with all requirements being enforced at the time of remediation of any site we are working on. Item 6 may be a lack of communi- cation by Darlene Reuss to both WHF and her own department. We sincerely regret any ill will that may have resulted from that lack of communication.