Laserfiche WebLink
California Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> Central Valley Region <br /> Karl E. LongleN, SCD, P.E., Chair <br /> Linda S.Adams Arnold <br /> 1 1020 Still Cell112,I X i N e*2U0. R ill i c h I?C o rd o\a.(it I 11*6 rn i a 9 7(1-6 114 <br /> .�ellel'lrl /or Schovarzenegger <br /> 11hone(1)16)4h4-32Q1 - FAX(916)464-464 <br /> lirirprnor <br /> Imp \\\%\N %,,iitcrhoard,ca 20\ ccnirakallc% <br /> TO: Brian Newman, UST Program Manager FROM: Jim Barton <br /> James Munch, Senior Engineer Engineering Geologist <br /> File UST Unit 2 <br /> DATE: 6 April 2009 SIGNATURE: Original signed by J. Barton <br /> SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO RUSSELL CHAPIN LETTER <br /> Summary <br /> 1 Mr. Chapin's 17 February 2009 letter to Governor Schwarzenegger does not provide a <br /> complete record of Regional Board (RB) staff comments and actions in meetings <br /> regarding his site at 1766 Monte Diablo Ave., Stockton. Mr. Chapin states that that <br /> Regional Board staff attended a meeting on 15 October 2003 with San Joaquin County <br /> staff and his consultant Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc (AGE), and that he was not <br /> invited to attend. The meeting was actually one of the routine interagency (RB and <br /> County) meetings to discuss a number of sites. AGE showed up at the County offices <br /> and requested to meet with RB and County staff regarding Mr. Chapin's site. To RB <br /> staff's knowledge no meeting had been preset prior to AGE's showing up. Further, <br /> during the meeting, AGE informed RB and County staff that Mr. Chapin was aware of <br /> their intent to meet with RB and County staff and that he (Mr. Chapin) was unable to <br /> attend. Mr. Chapin also states that RB staff made an assessment of the Groundwater <br /> Pump and Treatment (GWP&T) system effectiveness being used at the site. A more <br /> detailed accounting of the meeting can be found in detail in a 16 February 2005 RB <br /> staff memo ('attached) and from the County in their letter dated 25 January 2005 <br /> (attached). In addition, Mr. Chapin's recent comments about the 2004 modeling report <br /> recommendation for immediate closure without additional sampling were also <br /> addressed in the 16 February 2005 RB staff memo. and in the 25 January 2005 County <br /> letter response to his 2004 closure appeal to SVVRCB. Mr. Chapin's new position that <br /> there has been 95% removal of contaminants, is addressed in detail by 19 March 2009 <br /> County response letter (attached). The County calculates a 62% removal based on the <br /> available data, to which Regional Board staff concurs. Mr. Chapin also mistakenly lists <br /> the Regional Board as the regulatory body denying his 2004 closure petition in a <br /> SVVRCB letter dated 17 February 2005 (his petition was denied by the S\NRCB). Also, <br /> Mr. Chapin appears to have confused the RB Executive Officer's 21 November 2008 <br /> letter requesting Responsible Parties, while under unusual circumstances due to the <br /> SVVRCB UST Cleanup Fund's current fiscal problems. to work with RB project <br /> managers to keep cases moving towards closure-, with the two October 2008 SVVRCB <br /> UST Cleanup Fund letter notices to Responsible Parties announcing delays or <br /> suspension of payments. <br /> California Environmental ProlectionAgency <br />