SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mr- Michael-Infiirna * . May 22, 1996 Page 5 Under the terms of this settlement, the FDIC and the settling defendants agreed to pursue the conditional closure option presented by Ms. Hinson. As;noted above,the Order directed Texaco to tape the lead in securing such conditional closure from PHS-EHD. V. CLOSURE IS A TECHNICAL DECISION, TO BE BASED ON AN EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK Iri our meeungon .aAuary;22, 1 !96,Ms, Hinson confirmed chat the305 &, Hutchins site is ppropriate fibr clr sure, either conditionally or unconditionally,under the SWRCB Guidance and the'Conclusions of the I I.NL R',eport, Borrie of the factors pertinent to that decision are that the source ofcorntamination has been removed,there is no free product in the soil the groundwater xs not of concern for the reasons discussed above,and the subsurface soil corntwhination is separated frorn the surface - and therefore separated from: potential surface receptors -by approximately twenty feet of clean soil; In summary,this is:a soil-only;,low risk site.a In addition to:these technical concerns,;however, as we discussed Ms.Hinson. also expressed some concerns regarding the desires of the current;property owner, Ms. Staudenraus,who purchased theproperty from the FDIC in late 1993. Ms.Hinson's: .memorandum ofthe January meeting indicates that if Ms. Staudenraus does not abject to the residual contamination remaining,PHS-EHD would agree to grant conditional_closure. Howoer,.M - H nson's memo does not say what the PHS-EHD would do if Ms. Staudenraus objected to conditional:closure. Although we discussed on January 22 the possibility that either Ms. Staudenraus,the current tenant, or a member of the public might object to conditional closure(as,Ms. Staudenraus has novo done), we slid not resolve,noir did ids.. Hinson decide, what the PHS=EHD would do in response to an objection. The County PHS-EHD,.like all environmental regulatory agencies, is often required to make regulatory decisions in the face of conflicting viewpoints and public comments. At the time of our January 22'meeting with IVIS. Hinson,neither the County, the FDIC,nor the litigation defendants,knew.Ms. Staudenraus' views with respect to conditional 41 realize that you are already very familiar with the investigations and remedial wort performed on the property to date, and thus I have not attempted to summarize that: information here. However, we would of course be pleased to prepare such a;summary if would assist the conditional closure process.