CORRESPONDENCE_2012 #1 (JAN-APRIL)

Home Browse Search

Page 1 of 3 Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] From: Young, Glenn [Glenn.Young@CalRecycle.ca.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 9:18 AM To: Walker, Scott Cc: Ambrose, Sabra; 'Beth Abramson-Beck'; Mindermann, Wes; Botan, Mustafe; Levine, Steve; Oldfield, Mark; De Bie, Mark; Robert McClellon [EH]; Natalia Subbotnikova [EH] Subject: City of Lodi Landfill Investigation: Developer& HOA Meeting 8 Feb 2012 Scott—here are notes from yesterday's meeting with Bob Jones(Ford Construction)the developer for the River Pointe Subdivision and the meeting with the River Pointe Homeowners Association: Meeting with Robert Jones and Nick Jones of Ford Construction—Developer for River Pointe Subdivision (office at 639 East Lockeford Street, Lodi,CA) • Met with Bob&Nick Jones(Father&Son)owners of Ford Construction that performed clean-up and development of the River Pointe Subdivision adjacent to the City of Lodi Landfill; (Sabra Ambrose and Steve Levine also attended, Beth Abrahamson Beck(Ninyo& Moore)teleconferenced in and two members from the HOA were also present) • Steve Levine provided an explanation of the property access authorization agreement(for River Pointe) for the investigation and also explained CalRecycle and the LEAs role in enforcing state minimum standards for pre-regulations landfills and disposal sites • Bob Jones provided a set of plan drawings for the subdivision that showed a topographic drawing of the pre-developed site(Jefferies Engineering—January 1993—the drawing had to have been done from an aerial photograph). The plan drawing showed an uneven topography with an excavation and piles(the excavation was probably due to removing contaminated soil and the underground concrete tank); there were cut and fill calculations(presumably to attain a flat topography)for a final grade to accommodate residential parcels,streets and drainage • Bob Jones said that to clean-up the site that a pug mill was used to process 8000 cubic yards of contaminated materials; he stated that no contaminated materials were disposed of off-site. The winery structures,tanks, piping, utilities and other facilities associated with winery operations were demolished by the project(was C&D from the demolition disposed of off-site?). A report(prepared by Thorpe) provided a description of the clean-up including verification testing of soils performed after the site was cleaned-up(either removed and relocated,or removed, processed and replaced). Note: Beth had stated that verification samples(from the Thorpe Clean-up Report) had been composited—and even with compositing had several samples containing elevated constituents(including TPH) • Demolition of the winery, underground storage tank(s), buildings,above ground tanks, piping,etc. would have resulted in metals(from tanks and piping),wood (from the structures), plastics,concrete (foundation, pavements,tanks, etc.)and petroleum contaminated soils. Also the holding or detention ponds would have had sludge,sediment and soils(potentially contaminated with salts,TPH, metals— residuals from winemaking wastewater). • The engineered embankment that runs parallel to the rail road tracks(west side)appears to have received much of the concrete debris from the clean-up(and potential soils from the holding pond area)according to Bob Ford; he provided a drawing that showed a cross section of the embankment fill -he recommend that Beth review the construction drawings for the embankment before performing drilling or trenching(the embankment is compacted to 90%and contains concrete debris, e.g. potential refusal conditions); he also stated that a forced fuel pipeline and fiber optic cable are in the rail road easement on the east side of the tracks(have USA confirm and mark these utilities); based on the utilities and shoring requirements of UPRRR-I recommend that we minimize any significant excavation 2/9/2012