COMPLIANCE INFO_2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TARGET 0 [RECEVE10 September 28, 2010 ENVIRuly vitiv i HEALTH Michelle Henry, Registered Environmental Health Specialist PERMIT/SERVICES County of San Joaquin Department of Environmental Health 600 E. Main St. Stockton, CA 95202 Re: Response to August 30, 2010 Letter Regarding Certification of Return to Compliance Target Store T0738 Tracy,CA Dear Ms. Henry.- This enry:This responds to your letter, dated August 30, 2010, regarding the compliance status of Target Corporation's ("Target") store located in Tracy, California(T0738). As you know, Target previously submitted its return to compliance letter on May 18, 2010. We reviewed the subject inspection report and documented the absence of violations or our return to compliance for every asserted violation. For over three months we did not hear from your agency in response to our return to compliance letter. In early September, we received your letter dated August 30, which fails to acknowledge receipt of our May 18 letter or the documents enclosed with that letter. Instead, your August 30 letter repeats verbatim the list of violations asserted on March 12, either ignoring or uniformly rejecting every aspect of Target's actual compliance or its return to compliance measures. There is no explanation provided to inform us of the basis of your positions. For example, your letter rejected the docurnentation we provided to comply with the directions in alleged violations 59, 60, 62, 85, and 999. These documents were included in Target's May 18, 2010 return to compliance letter. We believe our documents were directly responsive to your request, and if your agency believes otherwise, we cannot discern that information from your letter. For another example, Target provided a detailed explanation of how its Environmentally-Sensitive Items Management ("ESIM") program complies with the storage and labeling requirements set forth in 22 C.C.R. 66262.34(1) in response to alleged violation No. 20. Your letter communicates that your agency either has ignored or does not accept that explanation, but does not explain why, nor provide an explanation of any specific step that Target should undertake to return to compliance with your undisclosed interpretation of the regulations. In a good-faith attempt to resolve this matter, we called and attempted to obtain clarification about why our responses were not satisfactory or if they were even considered. We understand based upon that verbal conversation that you will not discuss the letter on the telephone. Instead, your agency will only discuss the matter in a face-to-face meeting at the subject store. We are not aware of any regulation or of any practice by any CUPA in California that places such a logistical impediment to resolving a dispute or an alleged violation. Imposing such a requirement seems particularly onerous where the asserted violations concern documentation that has been provided and the uniform labeling of containers that other CUPAs have concluded comply with the State's regulations. . This matter is complicated by litigation brought by the People of the State of California which is currently pending in Alameda County Superior Court. Because of the pendency of this litigation, both your agency and Target may need to communicate regarding this matter with legal counsel familiar with the litigation. We suggest a conference call involving these parties will be the best way to facilitate a prompt discussion and exchange of communications regarding our return to compliance letter. Corporate Risk and Responsibility, 1000 Nicollet Mall, TPS-2074, Minneapolis. MN 55403