SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

MICHAEL COLLINS CondenseItr"` ]UNE 2, 1994 Page 41 Page 43 1 our regulation because it is contaminated. 1 Safi Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, I 2 Q. Okay. So could they have removed it to a 2 have a date at the top of the letter that it's dated 3 different site owned by Save-Mor? 3 July the 8th, 1993. 4 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was that when the permit was applied for or 5 Q. So I guess the limitation is putting it on 5 do your records show that? 6 somebody else's property? 6 A. This is an approved permit. 7 A. Correct, It could also have been removed to 7 Q. Okay. So that was the date it was approved 8 a landfill after they had properly characterized it with 8 by the County? 9 chemical analysis. 9 A. That's correct. And since, subsequent to 10 Q. So i guess that actually could have been 10 that date,apparently it's been tested. The soil was 11 done during the excavation period itself? I 1 sampled on February 28th, 1994 by sHN under my ` 12 A. That's correct. 12 oversight. ' I3 Q. Has anybody else told you why that was not 13 Q. Okay. So you were there? 14 done? 14 A. Yes. 15 _ , _NtR.PAPAS: You.mean during-the :. - ..�..- .- 15 - }Q:=-And that came back no detected levels of 16 excavation? 16 contamination or acceptable Ievels? 17' MR.HASTINGS: Q.Let me ask you this: 17 A. Acceptable levels of TPHg and BTEX. 18 Do you know whether the soil has been removed as of 18 Q. At that point does the County's involvement 19 today? 19 with the soil end? 20 A. Yes,.I know whether it's been removed. 20 'A. Yes, at that point we notified Save-Mor. l 21 Q. Okay. What do you know about that? 21 Q. What kind of a notification? 22 A. It's still behind the store or the side of 22 �A. 1 believe the notification was actually to t 23 thet store behind a fence. It's no longer contaminated. 23 SHN that the soil was no longer under our regulation or 24 Q. How do you know that? 24 oversight. ,25 A. We've sampled it. We've overseen the 25 Q. Approximately,how much soil was there when Page 42 Page 44 I sampling. 1 you saw it on December 28th? 2 Q. What happened to the contamination? 2 MR.PAPAS: When he saw it on 3 A. The gasoline constituent went--TPHg gas 3 December 28th? 4 and especially BTEx are very volatile and if you leave 4 MR.HASTINGS: Q.I'm sorry. February 5 the soil out for a long period of time,it will aerate 5 28th, 1994? 6 and volatize out. 6 A. There were actually three small piles, a 7 Q. Okay. Is there a permit required for the 7 three cubic yard pile, an eighty cubic yard pile and a 8 aeration of contaminated soil? 8 hundred and fifty cubic yard pile. 9 A. Yes. I'd like to state,a permit is 9 Q. That seemed to be all the soil that was 10 required for intentionally aerating soil,by spreading 10 removed from the contaminated site? I 1 it out and going through a formal process of aerating 11 A. Yes. 12 it. There are a lot of sites around the county that the 12 Q. Okay, And at some point the County issues 13 soil is just sitting out and it is aerating,you might 13 some form of a closure letter? 14 say,unintentionally,but now-- 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Presumed unintentionally? 15 Q. Or document. What's the name of that 16 A. No permit is required if it is just sitting 16 document? 17 out and you are not formally trying to aerate it, spread 17 A. We call it a site closure letter. it 18 it out,you might say. 18 Q. Okay. When was that issued for this 19 Q. And I guess this soil got aerated not 19 project? 20 formally? 20 A. April 14, 1994. 21 A. This soil actually did get aerated formally. 21 Q. And could that only be issued after the soil 22 Q. Was there a permit? 22 that had been excavated was clean? 23 A. There was a permit. 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. When was the permit obtained for aeration? 24 Q. If that soil had been removed to a different 25 A. Permit for aeration are obtained through the 25 location,either a landfill site or other Save-Mor PORTALS & ASSOCIATES DEPOSITION REPORTERS is Page 41 - Page 44 i