SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

j i� Re: taudenraus/305 S."Hutchins, Lodi, California December 23, 1996 Page-2- Un October 24, 1956, the Technical Review Committee of PHS-EHD concluded that the responsible parties fc k the above-noted site had satisfied the investigative and remedial._ i actions in response to a zel from, under round tanks � g previously Totaled at the site. Enclosed"is a copy of a letter dated December 13, 1:996 from PHS-EHD which. will provide you veith more`background and technical information regarding the issues being;studied On November.A* 1.996, another Cil-EPA agency, the Department of Toxic.Substances. Control (DDIS , ide�tlfi�d my client, Ms. Staudentaus as 'a Responsible fatty, based solely upon her ownership of the property, and required that she conduct soil gas investigations to dernune levels of PCE and WE as well as 1,2-DCA at the site On December 9 X996, a mare %:bequest"from l3'1'SC'was seat to both Ms. Studenraus and Texaco. To our knowledge, Texaco;is ignoring this request, and DT'SC has.urged Ms Staudenraus to perform the scud.gas anWsis. Enclosed also are copies of''those two letters from�DTSC F which provides ho :detiRed technical information for you consideration. REQIT FOR DESIGNATION. Purs uant'to. ealtfc and Safety Code Section 2562(c}(2)(D); it is requested that your con�tmxtte select the localtagency to be the administering agency for this site, PHS-EHD. The+utdy diU" source of release at the site is underground stoirage tanks fair which. the foregoing agency was,,responsible.. Their conclusion, as noted in their leaner of December ,13i,1996, was that there was no eevidence,of any extensive groundwater contm.-tion at the site. Furthermore, that agency had accepted responsibility for underseeing the site invesfi ' gatrort and remetiudI-action,. Furthermore, this:agency has:agreed to oversee this.site.. There is an apparent conflict between the goals of DTSC and:continuing remediation at the site, and the:goals of PHS-MID Mi requesting site closure. 'iMs. Staudenraus as a responsibleparty solely o> the basis of her ownership, iscaught in an administrative catch- 22, in the sense:that she is being forced to do remediation, ;when the party most responsible for the subject site, Texaco'alis taking no action. Furthermore, she is getting mixed:requests � --,.s from two, different agenciis. � r It is therefore felt that it is appropriate for one agency to be assigned by your ; committee to be responsible for this site and ultimately provide site closure, which the FDIC had assured my client woJId be accomplished at the time of,the sale. We;are therefore requesting a stay of pending actions•Y on this site for 45 days from the date that this request is received by your office pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25262(x). E a 04906 21597 W1.A 213955 y