Laserfiche WebLink
✓/ C� NEUMILLER & BEARDSLEE <br /> A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION•ATTORNEYS&COUNS Pli l CC hl ttIL.0 ESTABLISHED 1903 <br /> �'jcovd1 , FRVICG <br /> 95 MAY,-9 PM 1409 75376-17093 <br /> KARYA E. EIAR"IGFELD <br /> $TOCKrON OFFICE: <br /> 509 W.WEBER AvE. <br /> SmwrON,CA May 8 , 1995 <br /> 95203-3166 <br /> (209)948-8200 <br /> (209)948-4910 FAX <br /> MAILING ADDRESS: <br /> P.O. Ms . Linda A. Turkatte <br /> $TOciaoNKTON,CA <br /> 95201-3020 Senior REHS, Site Mitigation Unit <br /> MODEnvironmental Health <br /> (209)5n-azoo 0 Division <br /> San Joaquin County, Public Health Division <br /> zo9) <br /> (209)577-4910 FAx Post Office Box 388 <br /> Stockton, California 95201-0388 <br /> Re : Top Fillincr Station/101 South Wilson Way <br /> Dear Ms . Turkatte: <br /> I am in receipt of your letter to the Endich Brothers <br /> regarding review of the Endichs' "Preliminary <br /> Investigation and Evaluation Report" and I have a number <br /> of concerns . <br /> First, you indicate that " [t] he underground storage <br /> tank (s) found during this last phase of field work must be <br /> removed in a timely manner. " Was this tank just <br /> discovered? Did the Endichs' have knowledge that this <br /> tank existed? Did the tank appear to be intact? Where <br /> was this tank located on the site? The recent discovery <br /> of an abandoned underground storage tank (s) causes me <br /> great concern in light of the fact that the some member of <br /> the Endichs' family has owned, occupied, and operated this <br /> site since 1920 . <br /> Furthermore, when you state that the tank "must be <br /> removed in a timely manner, " I assume that it will be done <br /> with the customary oversight and testing by Environmental <br /> Health to assure that contamination to the soil and/or <br /> groundwater has not been caused by this tank. <br /> Secondly, you state that " [t] he need for additional <br /> assessment with regard to the origin of the groundwater <br /> contaminant plume on this property is unwarranted at this <br /> time. " I strongly disagree with this conclusion. The <br /> letter states that the historic directional flow of the <br /> groundwater is towards the Roek site, but without any <br /> other substantive analysis, inappropriately concludes that <br /> each site has a separate source area for the <br /> contamination. <br /> 34590-1 <br />