SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

s 171 November 2, 1994 ' flow r _ - Tom Mason 1994 FDIC � r: P% 0. Box 7549 ENVIRONIVEN1'AL I?EA'.; Newport Beach, CA 92658 3 PERMITISERVICES Mike Infurna Environmental Health Division of Public Health Services P. O. Box 388 k: Stockton,. CA 9520.1. !4 Dear Mr. Infurna ,j After our telephone conversation on October 14, 1994, 1 searched i through our files and located all of the data we have on the borings you mentioned during our call. I have enclosed tabbed copies of the reports in which the data is found in case you have not received the reports previously: it 51., S2, S3 lab analyses from 19;91., Uriah report dated 4-8-91 Borings DTB1 and DTB2 soil sample analyses, Geocon report. dated 9-4-94. (These samples were taken by EPM on April 1, 1994 and then reported ;by Geocon, whom we hired to take over the project. ) Also included Us the lab analyses documentation. In thinking back over our call, I was troubled by your suggestion that you had-not received all of the data generated on this site. The FDIC certainly has no intention of keeping data from you and, to my knowledge, has not done so. 1 Although the enclosed information may not facilitate detailed cross sectional drawings of the site, it is all that we received on .these three borings from the failed City Thrift and Loan and the contractors it hired. Regarding your questions concerning the status of the litigation, I am enclosing copies of the FDIC's first amended complaint and most recent status report:. As you can' see, Texaco, Union Oil Company, ARCO, Douglas oil Company, and Mel Bokides Petroleum, Inc:. (the owner of the Exxon station across the; street) are all named as defendants in the litigation and. are believed to have contributed to the contamination on the site. Unfortunately, only the FDIC has taken any steps to address the contamination problems thus far. This is somewhat ironic, as well as unfair', given that the FDIC did ; not cause the contamination and involuntarily acquired the site as a result of the failure of City 'Thrift and Loan. The FDIC is hopeful that it will be able' to obtain a court order : requiring one or more of the defendants to take over the: remediation, once the next phase of Geocon's site assessment is completed. ' If not, some sort of cost sharing agreement may need to be negotiated so that remediation efforts can continue at the site. As the receiver for the failed thrift and ' loan (which is something a f� 1 1