Laserfiche WebLink
San Joaquin County Public Health Services-Environmental Health Division <br /> MEMO OF MEETING <br /> NAME: See Attached Attendance SheetDATE. 1122196 <br /> FIRM: TIME: 10.00 a.m. <br /> PERSON IN MEETING: DIANE HIN.SON <br /> SITE CODE: 9149 <br /> PHONE <br /> SUBJECT: 305 S::HUTCH1NS OD1 TOGC?'S <br /> MESSAGE. <br /> Texaco objects to continuinglinitlallzing VES because of their interpretation of"low risk" <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons at this site. Discussion focused on thedeferment issue;performing the <br /> secondary source removal now under aggressive VES or allowing long-term natural attenuation to <br /> take its course over geologic time. Three YES wells exist onsite,but would need to undergo <br /> pipeline trenching for connection to an emission control unit(which is not on site).: <br /> 1f the current property owner and tenant have no objections to the residual contaminatloo <br /> remainingand Possibly p lY posing$potential problem should the land use change or land <br /> development take place,PM�would agree to,granting conditional closure of the site with no <br /> ,groundwater remediation necessary: <br /> We discussed the probable need to notify area residents of the change in correctitre sic#on;only: <br /> to determine that corrective action had not been formally selected for this site to Bete. Notification <br /> will then be limited to the property owner, tenant,and all agencies involved with redevelopment <br /> andlor planning issues(City of Lodl, County of San Joaquin). <br /> Therefore, at the conclusion of our meeting, Craig Allison will contact the current property'to <br /> arrange a meeting(if necessary)with PHS-EHD to explore possible;objections 16.4 condl#onal <br /> closure. tour summary letter,which will be mailed to the Central Valley Regional Watet Quality <br /> Control Board(C.YR:WQCB)fora 30-day comment period, will Indicate the results Iof the Praper* <br /> owner's input,acral contain a detailed description of the condltlons remalningr st tits+slt+e,0e <br /> recommendation for:a waiver of groundwater rem+edlation due to thepresence of.TCEIP'CE,a <br /> greater aquifer contaminant which is not related to the USTs formerly housed 4tthiq <br /> propert36 an <br /> the requirement'for monitoring and VES well destructions. Should tfierCVRWG`ICB<have hoobjections tb;our recommendations,site certification will be/,$sued fotlowing the 0-day comMent` <br /> period and the destruction of the wells. <br />