Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br /> Jennifer Frase [EH] <br /> From: Motmans, Bill [bmotmans@CIWMB.ca.gov] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:32 PM <br /> To: Jennifer Frase [EH]; Robert McClellon [EH] <br /> Cc: Strough, Barbara <br /> Subject: RE: Tom Daniels Materials <br /> Jenni and Robert, <br /> I have reviewed what you have sent me and have the following questions/observations: <br /> It would appear that Paul H. conducted an inspection on 4/29/08 and issued an NOV for a 5/30/08 <br /> follow up. Apparently independent of that report, he then proceeded to continue to conduct inspections <br /> (6/25), meetings (6/26), site visits (7/11), contacts (8/4), and re-inspections (8/22), all on the same <br /> inspection form, which is dated 8/22. Is that correct? (or was he documenting what occurred leading <br /> up to 8/22?) If so, that would explain why I wasn't able to find any inspection reports in WTMS. <br /> Do you have the photos, as the report indicated? <br /> Apparently, on 4/10 and 4/11, there were inspections scheduled with Daniels. What prompted those <br /> attempts to inspect? Documented? <br /> As a result of the 4/29 inspection, he was given a 5/30 date for compliance, but nothing happened until <br /> 6/25. On 6/26 Paul H. had a meeting with Daniels. Among other things, "I was told to inform him that if <br /> he chose to self haul the tires that a representative from the Environmental Health Department would <br /> need to be present and that our hourly rate of$98.00 would apply." Could you tell me where to find that <br /> law/statute? <br /> I do not understand, as I believe I mentioned in a prior discussion, the NOTICE TO ABATE <br /> IMMEDIATELY which was dated 8/4. <br /> Let me address what I think needs to happen. <br /> The re-inspection which took place on 8/22 noted a violation, but there was no tire count. Even if there <br /> were, that information, now over 3 months old, is stale. At minimum, a fresh inspection needs to take <br /> place. <br /> If there is a violation(s), issue him an NOV. Given all the past contacts, I would make the time for <br /> compliance, normally 30 days, considerably shorter (though I do not want to eliminate your ability to <br /> use discretion). <br /> At the end of the time set forth above, conduct another inspection. I realize other projects compete for <br /> your time, but your inspection should be as timely after the compliance date as possible. <br /> If the violation(s) have not been abated at the time of inspection, refer it to CIWMB, said referral <br /> including the form found on our web site. <br /> As I'm sure you'll agree, there is a lack of timeliness to this matter, as well as some'fapses in <br /> procedure. In the future, if you find someone out of compliance, issue them an NOV. If they fail to <br /> comply at the end of the time period allotted, and you can see no reason to grant an extension, refer <br /> the matter to CIWMB. <br /> 12/"2/2008 <br />