SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

igGETTLER - RYAN INC. July 9, 2001 Mr. Michael J Infurna Jr. San Joaquin County Public Health Services Environmental Health Division 304 East Weber Avenue,Third Floor Stockton, California 95202 Subject Tosco (Former BP) Service Station No. 11192, 1403 Country Club Boulevard, Stockton, California. Mr. Infurna: At the request of Tosco Marketing Company (Tosco), Gettler Ryan Inc. (GR) has prepared this letter to follow up on our phone conversation on June 25, 2001. GR is surprised to learn that the San Joaquin County Public Health Services — Environmental Health Division (PHS-EHD) considers the subject site to be "out of compliance" considering the following recent submittals prior to or on your requested deadlines: • Work Plan for Subsurface Investigation, dated March 14, 2001, proposing a scope of work for vertical and lateral definition of MTBE impact as requested in the PHS-EHD letter dated February 9, 2001. • Current Site Plan for Tosco (Former BP Oil) Service Station No. 11192, dated March 14, 2001. The following items were requested in the PHS-EHD letter dated March 29, 2001 and completed on time: • Evaluation of Interim Remedial Action,dated April 13, 2001. • The fieldwork proposed in the Work Plan for Subsurface Investigation, dated March 14, 2001, was performed in April 2001 under proper permits. • Subsurface Investigation Report, dated June 8, 2001 (submitted June 7, 2001), submitted within 45 days of the completion of the Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) work. This report also documents the results of the Sensitive Receptor Search. In addition to the previously outlined on-time submittals. GR submitted a letter dated April 13, 2001 documenting our phone conversation on April 11, 2001. During that conversation, we agreed that a "30-45 day timetable" constituted an aggressive approach for submission of work plans and reports for the necessary investigative phases leading up to the Problem Assessment Report (PAR). This timetable is described in Paragraph 4 on Page 2 of your February 9, 2001 letter. As the extent of hydrocarbon impact at this site cannot be foreseen, several phases of investigative work may be required to provide the level of definition required for the PAR. This is the reason for the 30-45 day timetable. Since GR received no verbal or written comment on the April 13, 2001 letter, we were forced to assume that you concurred with the proposed timetable. In addition, during phone conversations concerning permitting and scheduling of the CPT work, you failed to mention that we were considered out of compliance. On the contrary, my records 6747 Sierra Court , Suite J • Dublin , California 94568 • ( 9 2 5 ) 551 -7555