Laserfiche WebLink
Agenda Item No. 7 <br /> Page 2 <br /> August 18, 1987 <br /> There are two mitigation options available to Renown <br /> and Texaco, i .e. , removal or leaving the soil in place . <br /> If the soil is removed the regulatory agencies would <br /> require the following: <br /> o Ongoing water monitoring <br /> o Site characterization after removal <br /> o Transfer of liability to the repository. <br /> In this option the transfer of liability is of <br /> particular concern. If the material is removed to a <br /> Class I site, which is certified by the State to handle <br /> the material , liability and containment occurs <br /> consistent with the code . The Class I site also <br /> charges accordingly for the provision of these <br /> services . If the material were to be removed to the <br /> City/County Landfill the regulatory agencies would <br /> require ongoing monitoring and containment at a site <br /> that is not certified to handle it. The County has <br /> indicated they will not assume the liability or relieve <br /> Renown and Texaco of their statutory responsibility. <br /> If the material is moved to the landfill without the <br /> County' s consent, they would move to enjoin the City <br /> immediately. <br /> If the soil is left in place the regulatory agencies <br /> would require the following : <br /> o Ongoing water monitoring <br /> o Site characterization <br /> o Mitigation plan. <br /> The regulatory agencies are particularly concerned with <br /> land use if the material is left on site because of <br /> the potential health and ground water contamination <br /> risks . DHS has indicated a preference for land uses <br /> that are commercial in nature rather than residential . <br />