Laserfiche WebLink
Neumiller & Beardslee <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> MAILING ADRESS: <br /> ASHLEY OUNDED AS S NEUMILLER ATTORNEYS AND COTTNSELORS P.O.BOX <br /> STO ONTO N.CALIFORNIAA <br /> 96201-3020 <br /> JANUARY1903 <br /> FIFTH FLOOR WATERFRONT OFFICE TOWER II TELEPHONE 12o B1 e4e-9200 <br /> FAX 12091 99B-9 BI0 <br /> JEANNE M. ZOLEZZI 509 WEST WEBER AVENUE <br /> STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95203 <br /> August 5 , 1992 <br /> '�.P 4N'" <br /> Ms. Linda Turkatte k t'. VA <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Public Health Services '`' <br /> Environmental Health Division AUG O 6 X992 <br /> Post office Box 2009 rNViRONN�ENTAL HEALTH <br /> Stockton, California 95201 L ?�����1��� 4�1 <br /> Re: Roek Brothers/102 South Wilson Way <br /> File No. <br /> Dear Linda: <br /> Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on July <br /> 31 , 1992 regarding the Roek Brothers site at 102 South Wilson <br /> Way. This letter will simply confirm in writing the steps <br /> which will be undertaken regarding this site. <br /> 1 . Separation Of Soil and Groundwater. We will be <br /> separating the soil remediation and consideration of <br /> groundwater remediation on this site. This will expedite <br /> remediation of the soil. <br /> 2. Soil Remediation. <br /> a. Existing Stockpile. The most recent tests of <br /> the existing stockpile showed that it is well below the <br /> standard of 50 ppm exemption from permitting for aeration. <br /> We will be notifying the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution <br /> Control District that we will be moving this soil pile. We <br /> will shortly test the pile to confirm that it has not <br /> detectable levels of BTX, with the ultimate goal of returning <br /> the stockpiled soil to the existing excavation. <br /> b. Documented Contamination. Kennedy/Jenks <br /> Consultants will be preparing a workplan for soil <br /> remediation. Upon completion of the workplan it will be <br /> submitted to you for review and approval. We will also <br /> undertake to obtain any needed permits from the SJVAPCD. <br /> 3. Groundwater. As we discussed in our meeting, it <br /> is our belief that we have sufficiently characterized the <br /> site contamination. Despite significant testing, there is no <br /> indication that the existing groundwater contamination is <br />