Laserfiche WebLink
f 0 <br /> ' r TOSCO MARKETING COMPANY <br /> A DIVISION OF TOSCO CORPORATION <br /> TQ s�i ! �.'-� 1, ��'� I I6 POST OFFICE BOX 62084 <br /> Marketing PHOENIX,ARIZONA 85072-2084 <br /> C O rT1 pan y PHONE: 602-530-5135 <br /> FAX: 602.530-5147 <br /> W.THOMAS SKOK <br /> ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL <br /> November 7, 1997 <br /> via FAX: 209-464-0138 <br /> Original in Mail <br /> Margaret Lagorio, REHS, Supervisor <br /> San Joaquin County Public Health Services <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> 304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor <br /> Stockton, California 95202 <br /> Re: 76 Service Station 6981 <br /> 4707 Pacific Avenue Stockton California <br /> Dear Ms. Lagorio: <br /> Reference is made to your letter of October 30, 1997 to Tosco Marketing Company's Ed Ralston <br /> and Unocal Corporation's Bob Boust. The following is a response by Tosco to several issues in <br /> your letter. <br /> During a September 5, 1997 meeting with Deputy District Attorney David Irey on behalf of Tosco I <br /> indicated that all operating 76 branded service stations in the state of California were acquired by <br /> Tosco Corporation from Union Oil Company of California on March 31, 1997, including the subject <br /> service station. There have been no releases from the UST system and related piping since <br /> Tosco acquired its interest in the service station premises from Unocal,. However, pursuant to its <br /> contractual agreements with Unocal, Tosco is performing the on going remediation arising from <br /> pre-March 31 uses of the premises by Unocal and its independent dealers. <br /> Consistent with the requirements of the State's Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund Review <br /> procedures, Tosco's consulting firm, Pacific Environmental Group , prepared a letter to Dave <br /> Deaner and James Munch of the State of California Water Resources Board requesting their <br /> review of this project. I am advised that your office had been advised by Tosco on or about <br /> October 14 that it would be filing for this review process, and my copy of the Pacific Environmental <br /> report indicates your colleague, Mary Maeys received a copy of their report to Messrs. Deaner and <br /> Munch. It appears that Pacific Environmental's letter of October 30, 1997 and yours of the same <br /> date have crossed in the mails---thus, it is possible you hadn't seen Pacfici Environmental's <br /> submission to the State by the time your letter was prepared. <br /> =2=21 O <br />