Laserfiche WebLink
Mr.Michael Harper <br /> r <br /> January 10, 1997 <br /> r <br /> Page 3 yk. <br /> The conch ions reached with Ms. Hinson were as fellows. First,Ms. Hinson <br /> stated that'PHS-EHD would not require any remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in the <br /> groundwater beneath the site under any circumstances. M .Hinson concluded that the <br /> hydrocarbon levels are not serious, and will degrade over time through passive <br /> bioremediation. In addition,the groundwater is also contaminated with solvents associated <br /> with the large,regional solvent plume in the Lodi area which is not related to the former gas <br /> station operations at this property. The solvent.:levels are far more environmentally serious <br /> than the hydrocarbon levels. Also,the solvent plume is being addressed through a larger, i <br /> � regional teffort: Consequently,Ms. Hinson concluded that there was no point-in targeting the � <br /> relatively minor hydrocarbon levels for active remediation: Second,Ids.Hinson concluded <br /> that the existing subsurface soil contamination does not pose any threat to human health or <br /> r_ <br /> the:environment given the current use of the property and the fact that there.is approximately <br /> twenty feet of clean:soil dibave the zone:of residual contamination. <br /> T <br /> Based on the information learned from Ms.Hinson, and the closure options. <br /> she presented,the parties focused their efforts on settling the litigation. They met v4 ith U.S. <br /> r IVlagistrate Judge Hollows in early April, 1996 and reached a tentative, conditional settlement <br /> which is memorialized rola Court Order. Under the terms 6f the Order,the FDIC and the. <br /> settling defendants agreed to pursue closure:with PHS-EI3D,with Texaco agreeing to take <br /> the Zead.on behalf of all in!volved parties. The Court agreed to temporarily put the Iitigation <br /> on hold m order to allowhe closure process to proceed. 'The litigation stay expires on <br /> January 1;5, 199'7,though1the parties are.see khag an extension <br /> of that deadline. <br /> C. The Closure Process i <br /> :Ina letter.to PHS-EHD dated May 22, 1996,;Texaco requested conditional ' <br /> closure Othe site on behalf of all involved parties. On June 7 PHS EHD requested certain. <br /> technical;information,.,including.a closure Plan formatted per Append B{"Requests for <br /> Closure')of the Tri-Regional Board Staff Recommendations for Preliminary Investigation <br /> r <br /> K <br /> &a of Underground Storage Tank Sites. Texaco submitted the Closure Report on <br /> August 11, and providedAidditional information on September 16. On September 19,the <br /> PHS-EI-ED determined that all appropriate response actions"had been taken,all acceptable <br /> remedial:practices had been implemented, and that no furth er investigation,r emedial action <br /> or rnonxtoz�rrg was required. �� , <br /> Ir <br /> On October 24, 1996,PHS-EHD convened a meeting of`its Technical Review <br /> Curnrnittee{"TRC". to Fhuate the closure request. Two s aff members from the <br /> CVgWQCB participated in that meeting. Following a teclhtiical presentationAnd extensive <br /> f <br /> I <br />