SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r Mr, William H. Crooks N4 %./ 'November 12, 1996 Page.2 investigated, and performed>remediation of, petroleum hydrocarbon conon the site, The FDIChassued a;number ofpotentially responsible parties, including the serce 9400 operators.identified above„to recover its investigation and remediation.costs, The Mc sold the property to api vote individual in late 1993,having first drso sed the existence 0f contamination, and then Agreeing to a purchase price reduction as a result. Tn late 1"995 a number of parties to the litigation(which include past and resent o erators.of the p �' gasolii. ne station across the street, discussed,below) expressed.;strong interest in settling the litigation. However, the uncertainty regarding the extent and cast of any future investigation and remedial work which the Lead Agency might;r+egpire prevented a settlement from occurring. In January 1990, several parties met,with the Lead Agency:to discuss the:;site.. The:Lead Agency stated that it would not require removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from the shallow(50-55°) groundwater layer beneath the site,since that same groundwater contains far more serious solvent contamination which is being addressed: separately by the Department of Toxic Substances Control as part of the regional Lodi solvent plume situation. The Lead Agency also stated that it would consider closing the site without requiring any further action;pursuant to the Lawrence Livermore report and recommendations (October 1995) and the resulting State Water Resources Control Board interim guidance(December;1995), and consistent with the Central Valley RWQCB underground tante site closure procedures. Based on this meeting with the Lead Agency the litigants reached a tentative settlement, which was contingent on obtaining site closure. As part of the settlement, Texaco agreed to take the lead on behalf of the many settling parties in seeking closure from the Lead:Agency. Accordingly, the federal court stayed the litigation for 150 days to allow the closure process to proceed. Texaco submitted a closure request to the Lead Agency in May 1990,and subnntted a Closure Plan in August, which plan was formatted per Append x;B ("Requests for C sure.." of the Thr Regional Board Staff Reconunenda#ions for Preliminary Invesd.g;a an valuatic ri..of UST sites. On September 16 weprovided.the Lead Agency wxtlt additional information m response to its request; On September 19 the Lead Agency determiridd that all appropriiate respcinse actions had been taken, and that no further investigation, remedial`action::or monitoring is required. It then scheduled th+e matter for a. TR:P hearing on 00ober 24... As noted above, the TRC evaluated all,of thel voluminous technicat:ev dente, and vow:to close the site.