Laserfiche WebLink
' �✓ aJ <br /> RECEIVED ,. . : <br /> OQ �O <br /> MAR 11 1993 pert of Stockton <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL <br /> ��' <br /> PERMIT/SERVICES SERV CES HEALTH CA 95201-2089 <br /> P General Offices: P.O. Box 2089, Stockton, <br /> (209) 946-0246 / FAX (209) 465-7244 / TELEX 35-9467 <br /> March 9, 1993 <br /> Mr. Ron Valinoti, Director <br /> Environmental Health Division <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Puhiic Health Services <br /> 445 N. San Joaquin Street <br /> Stockton, CA 95202 <br /> Re: Port of Stockton, Berth #9 <br /> UST Removal Site Code 12829 <br /> Dear Mr. Valinoti: <br /> I am in receipt of a letter copy dated March 5, 1993, from William Hunter <br /> and Associates, addressed to you, concerning the referenced subject. I am also <br /> aware that a report prepared for Mr. Hunter by Mr. Dennis Allen, a registered <br /> geologist with the State of California,was included. <br /> The facts contained in Mr. Hunter's and Mr. Allen's reports are accurate <br /> and substantiate the Ports ongoing contention that a viable reason for denying <br /> permanent site closure does not exist. In your discussions with Mr. Krygsman last <br /> January, you stated the can used for sampling was not a proper type and for this <br /> reason you could not approve a permanent site closure. Mr. Allen, in his report <br /> states, "the container used was clean to sight and smell, although, this is no <br /> guarantee that it was free of hydrocarbon contamination. The decision to use it was <br /> made on site with the knowledge that if the sample showed contamination, it could <br /> be due to either water contamination or possibly contamination from the sample <br /> can, and the results could not be trusted. Because the samples taken with the can <br /> tested clean, then it is not hard to deduce that neither the can nor the water samples <br /> collected were contaminated." Furthermore, the sample taken was of water which <br /> had seeped into the pit. Both Mr. Allen and Mr. Hunter state that the detection of <br /> contamination in such a situation is more likely than one might get from bore hole <br /> sampling. This fact was stated by Mr. James Maughn, RWQCB, who was present <br /> when the samples were taken. In fact, he stated that this situation (water seepage) <br /> was a worst case scenario and that if the samples tested clean, there could be no way <br /> that a permanent closure could be denied. <br /> GENERAL OFFICE: 2201 W. WASHINGTON ST., STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br />