CORRESPONDENCE_2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Harprit S. Mattu [EH] From: Robert McClellon [EH] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 11:20 AM To: William Little Cc: Harprit S. Mattu [EH] Subject: FW: 17100 Murphy Parkway Attachments: PNA PCLU - Boring and Trenching Logs Waste Area.pdf Bill, here is Glenn's email. I am sharing it with you. I am not sure that Glenn is ok with that. So, please keep is under your hat. The vented foundation is technically could be required. I want to talk with Glenn about why he thinks it is something that should be implemented here considering the amount of waste and the type found. Robert From: Young, Glenn@CalRecycle[mailto:Glenn.Young@CalRecycle.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 7:48 AM To: Robert McClellon [EH] Cc: Ambrose, Sabra@CalRecycle Subject: Fw: 17100 Murphy Parkway Robert - the map, boring logs and trench log are a great start. Is there a way we can get Bill and the RP to put these into a landfill investigation report and include all the analytical data from sampling from trenches and boring logs- along with phase I site background information, sampling procedures, sampling QA/QC. Also it is apparent from the work that Bill has done that there are more disposal areas outside the "glass landfill". What additional work needs to be done to define these other areas? A proposed scope of work to clean -close the glass landfill and construct the proposed commercial building on engineered fill is a good plan - however due to the other disposal sites in the vicinity and no LFG data - the building should comply with the 21190 requirements for foundation barrier, vent layer and continuous monitoring system. Note that disposal areas outside the landfill appeared to contain disposal debris which should be checked for LFG and Soil Gas VOCs. While I understand that the RP (developer) may not feel the off-site (property) disposal areas are their problem (or part of the scope of developing their property) - the other disposal sites could potentially impact the RP's project (both short term and long-term). Given that the PNA property is an industrial use property - there could be other uncharacterized hazardous substance release issues that exist at the site. The PNA property has not undergone any type of formal CERCLA RI/FS/RA process to date (overseen by either the RWQCB or DTSC) - and is now a closed industrial facility. I would recommend that any PCLU at the site be reviewed by the RWQCB, DTSC and other responsible agencies (see 27 CCR 21190 - (c) All proposed postclosure land uses, other than non -irrigated open space, on sites implementing closure or on closed sites shall be submitted to the EA, RWQCB, local air district and local land use agency. The EA shall review and approve proposed postclosure land uses if the project involves structures within 1,000 feet of the disposal area, structures on top of waste, modification of the low permeability layer, or irrigation over waste) Glenn From: William Little <wlittle@advgeoenv.com> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:06 PM