Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON Go <br /> vemor <br /> CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— <br /> CENTRAL VALLEY REGION <br /> 3443 ROUTIER ROAD. SUITE A <br /> SACRAMENTO. CA 95627-3098 <br /> PHONE: (916) 361-5600 <br /> FAX: (916) 361-5686 <br /> 10 March 1992 MAR 10 1992 <br /> ENVIROINNtNTAL HEALTH <br /> PERMIT/SERVICES <br /> Mr. Steve G. Tostengard <br /> Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L. P. <br /> 888 South Figueroa Street <br /> Los Angeles, CA 90017 <br /> REQUEST FOR A TECHNICAL REPORT FOR SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINE PARTNERS, L. P. , <br /> PORT OF STOCKTON FUEL TERMINAL, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CASE NO. 3020 <br /> We are in receipt of your 13 February 1992 letter which responds to our 29 <br /> January 1992 letter to the Port of Stockton regarding the petroleum <br /> hydrocarbon contamination at the port's fuel terminal. Our comments on your <br /> response are presented below. <br /> 1. Technical Committee. As indicated in the enclosed memorandum (Attachment) , <br /> you have not provided adequate information to substantiate your claim that <br /> your facility has not contributed to the fuel hydrocarbon contamination at <br /> the port. Due to the proximity of the different facilities that use <br /> products which have been detected in the ground water underneath the <br /> terminal , it would be difficult to identify the actual sources of <br /> contamination. Intermingling and degradation of the released contaminants <br /> have occurred in the soil and ground water due to the facilities' proximity <br /> to each other. Thus, it is more reasonable to address contamination at the <br /> entire fuel terminal than at each site. We encourage you to join the TC in <br /> assessing and remediating the entire fuel terminal . <br /> 2. SFPP Investigations. As indicated in Item 1 , you have not provided <br /> adequate information to prove your facility is not a source of <br /> contamination at the fuel terminal . On the contrary, the reports you have <br /> submitted, which are described in the attached memo, suggest that your <br /> facility may be a source of contamination. <br /> You stated in your letter that since completion of the investigations in <br /> 1989, SFPP "has taken every opportunity to investigate and characterize any <br /> problem within our leased property. " We request that you send us all the <br /> work plans and the corresponding reports relating to these onsite <br /> investigations. <br /> 3. Product Skimming System. Your letter also states that a product skimming <br /> system was installed in one of your onsite wells; skimmed product goes to <br /> an oil/water separator for recycling; and the other three wells are <br /> monitored monthly for depth to ground water and product thickness. Which <br /> of the four onsite wells is being used for extraction? Where does the <br /> oil/water separator effluent go? Has the effectiveness of the extraction <br /> system been evaluated? Were alternatives considered prior to selection of <br /> a system? <br />