SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

z Mike Infurna [EH] From: Adrienne Ellsaesser(EH] . Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:15 PM To: Mike Infurna [EH] Cc: Nuel Henderson [EH] Subject: RE: DOBLER PROPERTY, 13588 GRANTLINE RD. TRACY Well Done! -----Original Message----- From: Mike Infurna [EH] . Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 201.1 1:02 PM To: 'G Stahl' Cc: Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH]; Rodney Estrada [EH] Subject: RE: DOBLER PROPERTY, 13588 GRANTLINE RD. TRACY Greg, It is my understanding the EIR-is a draft. If the final document duplicates the requirements listed in the last pages of the draft EIR, it appears a soil, vapor, and possibly a groundwater sampling event is to be conducted to close the data gaps and bring the current status of the site into perspective. The EHD was listed many times in the draft EIR as the agency to be contacted to conduct the sample collection. The EHD can assist you with your request to conduct an investigation...note here, "your request"...the EHD is NOT requiring an investigation at this time. If soil, gw, and/or vapor sample collection is planned, then a.work plan, permit application, other forms and fees must be submitted to the EHD for processing. If results of-the investigation indicates a significant change from the 1999 investigation's data, then the site will`be referred to another agency for comment/lead. If the site data indicates NO change or non-detect for CDCs, then the 1999 letter stands as is and no additional investigation will be required by the EHD. The EHD has no authority to require an additional investigation or comment on the.results of a NON,UST site investigation. As for your other questions, the EHD maintains the policy noted in the 1999 letter... wlo 'additional' information to modify the site's status, the 1999 letter of"no.further investigation needed" continues to adequately define the status of the site. To be very clear here, the EHD is NOT requiring any additional investigation at this site at this time. That said, I can state that the EHD has -no,authority to comment on or evaluate your first three questions below. Contaminant soil amouts, migration, exposure, and evaluations are not a function f of the EHD at non UST sites. I .advised you that the DTSC was the agency you need to talk to. Groundwater concerns are to be directed to the CVRWQCB for non-UST sites. The Soil Management Plan (SMP) was generated by Chevron Environmental Management Company (CEMC) and was/is not a requirement of the EHD. Questions regarding the SMP should.be directed to CEMC. I sincerely hope you can understand that the EHD is not the agency you need to discuss your concerns with since we cannot provide you with any clearances; waivers, or closure documents you may need to proceed with,developing this site. We can help you get a boring.permit to collect the samples to assist you with determining if the status of the'site has changed since 1999. But the i