SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

nviisiyb 11:51 UST GLERNUP FUND 912094640138 NU.910 D05 George Lockwood State Water Resources Colttrol Board January 26, 1996 Page 4 attorneys substituting in and out of the case. There were no fewer than seven complaints,cross- complaints and amended complaints and cross-complaints. These documents are only viarginally relevant at best to your inquiry, but if you insist drat they will be relevant and actually read and considered,please call me inttnediately at (2p9) 544-3688 and they will be provided. As to your request for information regarding : "A complete description of who, what, where, when, why and how the release occurred.._% this information was previously provided and is covered in the materials previously submitted and in the documents attached as Exhibit "C". FRE-APPROVAL OF E CAVATI N BY THE COUNTY. The next issue raised in the Payment Summary is: 1 was Linable to find the pre-approval not the bids for the excavation. Documents necessary for review are cost-pre-approval and/or bids, written documentation from the lead oversight agency directing the excavation, feaMbility study determining excavation as the appropriate method of snil remedial action and a properly usage description before and aftet the excavation- 1 will start with the simplest question first - the property usage description before and after the excavation. As is stated in numerous places in the narrative previously submitter) to the USTCF and San Joaquin County at various times,the property usage prim to the excavation was as a convenience store and gasoline station. Because tate tanks were adjacent to the store building and pumps,and because the contamination started at and spread under these structures, they were removed prior to excavation. The property is not used far any purpose at present. Your second issue involves the taking of bids and the submission of those bids to the USTCF. Bids were solicited and were submitted as part of the package of documents with which you are already Familiar. I refer you. to Tabs 7 and 8 of Volume 1 of the second Reimbursement. Request. Your third issue involves the pre-approval of the work performed. As troubling as your assertion of"reckless" conduct by JrrS is the suggestion that the lead oversight agency, the San Joaquin County Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division ("the LOA") did not pre-approve excavation at the site. In fact, in speaking with Michael I.nfurna of the LOA, l have been told it is presently the stated position of the LOA that they did not approve over-excavation at the site,but only approved trenching to discover the extent of contatoinatiom Mr. lnfurna now claims to have been surprised that overexca.vation was undertaken at the site.