SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

got I have reviewed the recent letter dated 29 October 2008 from Vic Cherven, with Upgradient Environmental, to Mike Infurna, with the San Joaquin Co. Health Dept. (SJCEHD), regarding the Valley Motors unauthorized release case. The letter refers to a discussion I had with Clyde Hebbron, not Vic Cherven, and offers inaccurate statements as to said discussion. During a recent telephone conversation with Clyde, I was informed that he was working on a site that he felt was ready for closure but that SJCEHD wanted additional work on and requested an opinion (emphasis on opinion). I took the address and said I would do a brief review and call him at a later date. Following a brief review, which consisted of only review of the latest document found on Geotracker and the last couple of "activity" entries into Geotracker by SJCEHD staff (Mr. Infurna), I called Clyde back. I informed Clyde of the following: 1. The concentrations of contaminants were too elevated and, although have shown to be somewhat stable did not show a reasonable declining trend such that even if the oversight of the case were changed to the Regional Board closure could be considered, and additional remedial actions were necessary. 2. That SJCEHD staff has already received and approved actions (additional pilot testing) that both economically and time wise (provided that the work be conducted in a cost-effective manner) the best path for his client. Further, that the proposed, and approved, work would provide valuable additional data, and that the limited additional remediation that would occur that it may be enough to create a demonstrated declining trend . Further that the deadlines established by SJCEHD were timely. 3. That any location and sizing of the extraction wells needs to be adequate to ensure the optimal success as he (Clyde) was attempting to impact a small area, as an example - 4" instead of 2" wells, and the location of the wells should be in the heart of the plume, not on a fringe. 4. That I supported SJCEHD directive, and that he should begin as soon as possible so as to obtain the additional data that may prove assistive to him in a future case closure request to SJCEHD. 5. That I was working on a similar pilot test and based upon the data during the test was requested by the consultant (and was approved) to continue the test past the previous establish timeframe due to the remedial success occurring. Based on this, I suggested he be prepared to run the test longer as data dictated. 6. That our discussion was an opinion, based on limited data ONLY. And reiterated that he should proceed as directed by SJCEHD as it appeared to be the best course of action for his client overall. I am greatly disturbed to even see my opinion being used as is apparent, that I was not informed that the aforementioned letter was going to be prepared, that I did not speak at any time of this case with Vic Cherven (author of said letter), and more importantly that my statements were not accurately presented. I did not contact SJCEHD staff regarding my contact with Clyde as I fully supported the � KWA, vw�Vx lt�5�b%