Here is DTSC's response DTSC to ENU response to Feb letter to our comment letter filed in February included in the ENU Blog Post Feb 16 2015. The timing is a little confusing as we received it just hours after we sent our most recent April 22, 2015 letter. We hope in the future, DTSC can let us know if and when they will respond to issues so we can have more seamless coordination.
At any rate, based on this response, it appears some of our comments and concerns were not well understood and some of the responses are disappointing.
We are especially frustrated that the September, 2014 promise to take additional action if the contamination went south of Via Rancho is, now, not being pursued. We will have more to say in the future about this.
And, just to reiterate, ENU did not make up the claim that sampling was not allowed to two wells on the Oak Creek site, we merely quoted the PRP Group's report that states '...property owners did not grant access..' (p. 6) and the results Table 5 which lists (No Access) as the status for the three wells on the Oak Creek site. DTSC's letter seems to miss one of our points that there is a regular plan for assessing the contamination and two of these wells were part of it and should have been sampled in October! Even if it is worked out for the April sampling, the data set is compromised. This seems particularly important given all the comments about the 'pulsing' of the contamination elsewhere in DTSC's response.
We will have more comments once our most recent letter and questions have been responded to but we wanted to be sure anyone interested had a chance to see this letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment