Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br /> time and place of the meeting. Gil Moore <br /> ---Original Message----- <br /> From: Margaret Lagorio [EH] [mailto:MLagorio@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 12:50 PM <br /> To: gilmoore@newwestpetroleum.com <br /> Cc:jennifer@apexenvirotech.com;jbarton@waterboards.ca.gov; Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: FW: New West report <br /> Mr. Moore, <br /> As we just discussed in a telephone conversation, I am forwarding this E-mail and providing the <br /> response to you. <br /> I talked to Jim Barton at the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board <br /> (CVRWQCB)today and he met with representatives from Apex,your consultant, last Thursday. <br /> Your consultant told Jim Barton that you would be requesting that the CVRWQCB become the lead <br /> agency that oversees the investigation and remediation of the contamination at your site, 6437 W. <br /> Banner Street, Lodi. Health &Safety Code Section 25299.37(c)(7)states that the responsible <br /> party may request the designation of an administering agency. If that is your intent, please submit <br /> a written, signed request to our agency and we will transfer your site to the CVRWQCB as the lead <br /> agency. You may scan the letter and E-mail it to me in PDF format if you like. <br /> Apex in this E-mail is requesting that the meeting the Environmental Health Department <br /> (EHD)scheduled for March 30, 2006, be cancelled. If you send the letter requesting CVRWQCB <br /> be the lead agency,we will cancel the meeting. If you are not requesting a change in the lead <br /> agency and cannot attend the March 30,2006, meeting, please provide a time and date when you <br /> will be available. The meeting is necessary because your site is not compliance with the directives <br /> provided in the EHD letter dated January 9, 2006. Specifically, pumping tests utilizing the <br /> extraction wells and treatment equipment were to be done by February 15, 2006. <br /> Although pumping tests were performed, the treatment equipment has not been used so the <br /> feasibility of its use has not and can not be evaluated. A report on this work was to be submitted to <br /> EHD by March 16, 2006. The report was submitted on March 24, 2006, and of course has no <br /> evaluation of the treatment equipment since it has not been tested. EHD also directed that other <br /> remedial alternatives be evaluated since disposal of the extracted water is problematic and there <br /> was no discussion on other alternatives in the report. <br /> Barbara Rempel from the State Water Resources Control Board Cleanup Fund reviewed the EHD <br /> file on your site on March 16,2006. EHD has not signed the confirmation of corrective action form <br /> since you are not in compliance. <br /> Jim Barton plans to attend the March 30, 2006, meeting <br /> m at ED. f you th s re not goingmediately t wtttend or <br /> are requesting CVRWQCB be the lead agency, please <br /> cancel the meeting. <br /> Thank you for your attention. <br /> Margaret <br /> ---Original Message----- <br /> From: Jennifer Worsley [mailto:jennifer@apexenvirotech.com] <br /> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 2:10 PM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> Subject: RE: New West report <br /> I apologize that the report was a few days late. You were supposed to have received it early <br /> 3/27/2006 <br />