SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 1

Home Browse Search

08/16/2000 17:18 20953858F-- GEOLOGICAL TECHNTrS PAGE 07 Mr. Raynold Kablanow, California Registered Geologist 45234, believes that defining the vertical extent of the contamination in the source area is warranted prior to installing the down gradient wells. 5. July 20, 2000 —PHS/EHD issues a facsimile correspondence to Mr. Morita directing that an addendum to the GTI work plan must be submitted by July 31, 2000_ The fax includes the following statements: ":Monitoring wells) should be installed in the southeastern direction from the source area", "This scope of work must include components of the May 3, 2000 directive letter from PHS/EHD". GTI believes that our July 7, 2000 work plan met the requirements of the original PHS/EHD directive. As I highlighted in paragraph 1 above, the directive in the May 3 PHS/EHD letter was ",Installation of additional wells will be necessary_..", and our workplan met this directive by including provisions for the deep well. The other two comments noted above in the PHS/EHD letter were "recommendations" and in our opinion, not directives. We acknowledged that additional down gradient wells were warranted and proposed addressing them in an addendum after the deep well has been installed. This was evidently not acceptable to PHS/EHD staff as evidenced by their request for an addendum which reiterated the recommendation for down gradient investigation. Our subsequent addendum (44 above) reiterated the opinion of our registered geologist that the location, number and screened interval of the additional down gradient wells be determined after the deep well has been installed. The PHS/EHD response, paragraph 5 above, again used the words "should" and"must". It is necessary to examine these words in the context of the UST regulations promulgated in the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and in regards to the UST Cleanup Fund Program (USTCFP). A responsible parry is subject to civil and criminal prosecution if he or she does not comply with LOP agency directives. Furthermore, in order to receive cost pre-approval for reimbursement from the USTCFP, responsible parties must be in compliance with LOP directives. With this in mind, it is essential that directives to responsible parties be clear, otherwise they may be in legal jeopardy. The use of the words "should" and "recommends" by a government regulator, implies that an alternative course of action may be possible. To resolve this question of"directive'' versus "non-directive" language I called and spoke to the author of the PHS/EHD communications,Ms. Carol Oz,this morning. When I asked Ms. Oz if a "recommendation" by PHS/EHD was in fact a lawful directive she replied to the affirmative. She stated that since our clients would not receive site closure until PHS/EHD's recommendations were addressed, that they are essentially directives. When I asked her if we could a statement in writing to effect that these recommendations are in fact directives, she referred me to her supervisor-Ms. Magaret Lagorio. I put the same question to Ms. Lagorio- are recommendations the same as lawful directives? Ms. Lagorio's comments were similar to Ms. Oz's, that PHS/EHD recommendations are stating what staff believes they need prior to issuing site closure. When I asked if GTI and our clients could get a statement to the effect that PHS/EHD recommendations are lawful directives, she declined and I asked her for your phone number. As I've outlined above, our clients face punitive circumstances if they fail to comply with County directives. In an effort to avoid this occurrence, we have submitted a work plan and addendum that clearly identify a course of action which will address both the directives and recommendations of the initial PHS/EHD letter. Since this has not satisfied Ms. Oz, we are asking for your help to resolve the question—are recommendations the same as directives, and if so, can we please get it in writing? Doing so will enable us to meet PHS/EHD requirements in a