SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

• • Page 1 of 3 Margaret Lagorio [EH] From: Tony MARTIN [tmartin@kleinfelder.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:29 PM To: Margaret Lagorio [EH] Subject: RE: File Status(Spreckels Sugar Plant#2, Manteca) Margaret, Thanks you for returning my 8/15 phone call this morning, about my request to meet with EHD about the Spreckels project. In your voicemail you stated that you feel that EHD completed everything they said they were going to do in the written agreements. Margaret, my files are very large on this project, and I have been trying to get attention from EHD staff on issues dating back to 1997, so I don't know off hand if those were the only SB1248 agreements that were fin4,;z_d with Ron Rowe or not. Also, EHD staff told us at that time that the process was to get everything to a point that we agreed it warranted closure, then the SB1248 letters would be done to give EHD the approval to sign off on the work. I will have to take the time to look into our files to see if there are more finalized SB1248 letters. Irrespective of whether or not there are other finalized agreements, the facts are that: 1) Prior to submitting workplans, EHD staff toured the facility with the client and I and said they could provide oversight on the project. 2) EHD staff approved and commented on all this investigation work prior to initiation. In some instances EHD staff requested additional work be conducted in their conditional approval. 3) A Master File Record was implimented with the County, and EHD staff billed our client for past oversight activities on this project. Which were paid, but the services were never completed by EHD. 4) Following submission of all of the initial 1997 reports, an EHD staff member met with my client, I, and others at the project site. He outlined to my client and I what additional sampling he felt was required to obtain closure (if results were positive of course). 5) My client then authorized this additional work at an expense to them of over$100,000. 6) The results of that work was reported to EHD staff. Some of those investigations were subsequently given closure by EHD staff. Although some of the 1997 reports submitted to EHD are still not reviewed by staff 9 years after submittal. 7) EHD staff told us at that time that the process was to get everything to a point that we agreed it warranted closure, then the SB1248 letters would be done to give EHD the approval to sign off on the work. Unfortunately, as you know, prior to finishing all of his report reviews, that EHD staff member (Ron Rowe) left the County's employ. But the balls were clearly in EHD's court. 8) In your voicemail to me this morning you state that my client could always take these projects to the RWQCB or DTSC for oversight. In my mind that would be ridiculous. EHD staff commented on the work, approved the work, asked for additional work in some instances, and failed to complete the process. Changing agency oversight 9 years after the fact(even if it was only 1 year after the fact) is crazy. RWQCB or DTSC may have wanted to pursue the investigations totally differently. Now EHD staff is leaving my client in the cold after they expended considerable time and money. Short staffed or not, I am sure had EHD continued to work with us over the last 9 years, this would have all been done. I am also confident that had Ron Rowe remained in EHD's employ, we would never be having this "conversation"today. 9) I further find it ironic that EHD refuses to even meet with us. And instead we are left to exchanging voicemails and emails. I can not believe that EHD would refuse to meet with a taxpayer and their consultant 8/17/2006