Laserfiche WebLink
FEB-27-94 SUN 9:04 P, 02 <br /> BREMR, PATRIDGE, Gr=HLOMES & HERRICK <br /> THOMAS F. BREWER An Assocledfer. of Attomeays <br /> JOHN I PATRIDOE 25M W69 March Lane, Sulte 200 <br /> JEANETTE DG.(AERLAMES POSt Oftlae BUK 703W <br /> JOHN H. HERRICK Stoc;Mon, Calffomla 95 <br /> Tebp a k4m) 474-1 roti <br /> Fax(209)4749701 <br /> February 18, 1994 <br /> David J. Irey, Esq. <br /> Deputy District Attorney <br /> Environmental Prosecutions Unit <br /> District Attorney, San Joaquin County District <br /> P. o. Box 990 <br /> Stockton, CA 95201 <br /> Re: Zuckerman-Mandeville, Inc. <br /> McDonald Island Cleanup <br /> Dear Mr. Irey: <br /> This letter is to confirm our meeting of February 16, 1994, <br /> with Mr. Doug Wilson regarding the above matter. I have now had <br /> an opportunity to review the matters we discussed with my client <br /> and with the contractor which has been handling the cleanup. The <br /> following are Z-M's responses to the issues praised at the meeting. <br /> 1. Cost of monitor. As per my September 27, 1993 letter to <br /> you, the cost of the monitor from PHS is to be $78 per hour for <br /> four and one-half hours per day for a total of 20 days. Subsequent <br /> to these 20 days, the rate reverts to the originally agreed to <br /> amount of $15 per hour. Although the. parties may need to come to <br /> further agreement for the few instances when a monitor was <br /> requested to only view the removal of materials from the site <br /> (i.e. , whether or not this should be counted as one of the 20 <br /> days) , we see no reason to alter the agreed to rates. Although <br /> there may be other areas and issues wherein the parties disagree, <br /> those should have no bearing on the agreed to rate for the monitor. <br /> 2. Has any item been discovered that triggers the additional <br /> $25,040 fine? You specifically noted items 1 C and D of Section <br /> A of the Falcon Energy McDonald Island Cleanup Report of January <br /> 1994 ("Report") . I am informed those items were from staked areas <br /> (I will forward references to the field nates that confirm this) . <br /> A visual examination revealed the fluids to be water with a thin <br /> layer of oil on the surface. As per our original agreement, the <br /> to percent volume of a five gallon or larger Container needs to be <br /> 10 percent of the hazardous material (the oil) not water, in order <br /> to trigger the additional gine. Z-X proposes to test the fluids <br />