My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
>
CS_Courthouse Square
>
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2012 7:47:33 AM
Creation date
9/6/2011 10:03:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Building
RecordID
10302
Title
Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)
BLDG Date
8/19/1997
Building
Courthouse Square
BLDG Document Type
Committee
Project ID
CS9601 Courthouse Square Research
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
430
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
their work plan to see who fits the project, if time is available for this option. Dan replied we may <br />have the time. Randy's interest is in saving money and we have struggled with this for two weeks. <br />~ Let's table this item for now and continue to run through the agenda and revisit this area later on <br />today. <br />Environmental <br />At last Friday's meeting with the county, we concluded our approach to environmentaZ issues would be <br />to limit the amount of overall excavation to 12-16 feet. This would get through the clay into river <br />rock. We would propose our scenarios to the DEQ and get a buy off and then propose to Chevron for <br />their direction. DEQ is working with both Statesman Journal and Marion County equally. There is <br />concern that there would be different standards for both sites. The Statesman has questions on <br />chemicals ident~ed in the test well. They found perk at below DEQ clean-up levels. Kathleen's <br />discussion with DEQ reveals they are not enthused with leaving the impact in place. DEQ's request <br />would be if going to 16 feet keep de-watering and go all the way to 22 feet to remov~e it. DEQ has <br />given similar directions to both sites: dig it all out or add additional subsurface remedial work. The <br />difficulty of going to 22 feet would be backfill and compaction to meet building speca. It is not that <br />big of an area, but looking at about $40,000 difference in environmental costs, and the backfill and <br />compaction costs are unknown at this time. Discussions followed about the size of the impacted area <br />and working on backfill and compaction costs. <br />Concerns were expressed about what this would buy us in the DEQ's eye. You could get a No Further <br />Action (NFA) at 22 feet but won't get one at 16 feet. We need more assurance that w~ can get NFA. <br />What happens if you don't get out of impacted soils at 22 feet? You continue ta monitor. The <br />borings say that we are out of it at 22 feet. Seasonally groundwater is at 11-18 feet. Statesman hit <br />groundwater at 12 feet. Curt added that the water noticed last week on the site was from hitting a line. <br />~ Kathleen has no ' <br />difficulty going either way. Chevron is looking at stopping at the 16 foot level. <br />DEQ is pushing to go to 22 feet. There aze other systems to use for venting and/or percolating and <br />run anywhere from $120,000-200,000. There is no direct path just insinuation from DEQ. <br />Randy dcesn't have enough information to support going below the 16 foot level and there are not <br />enough assurances that if we go the extra mile and spend the dollazs of what DEQ will do. Digging <br />to 16 feet, we will have monitoring wells on both Church and Court. If we don't do e~ough chemical <br />analysis now, DEQ could come back later and make additional requirements. By leaving impacted <br />soils in place, we could cap, cover and monitor. There are enough laws, rules, and provisions to make <br />a strong case to cover our basis for choosing this option. Even if we dig to 22 fe~t, take all the <br />samples and do all the proper steps, we will still need to monitor for a period of time. Why is the <br />requirement there if you have gone through and removed all impacted areas? It is included in <br />Oregon's Administrative Rules that if you impact groundwater, which our site dces, then you monitor <br />for one yeaz, drill out the wells and then you get NFA. You won't get an NFA for one yeaz no <br />matter which option you choose. You are really mechanically speaking of dollazs and people. The <br />impacted area works like an upside down umbrella. <br />Chevron is in agreement with the approach to dig to 16 feet. Kathleen is negotiating with Chevron <br />on costs. Chevron will pay 100% of waste oil tank removal at about $10,000-$13,000, That leaves <br />about $115,000 from the $128,000 ball pazk figure to clean up Chevron. Chevron is comfortable with <br />paying 2/3rds of the costs. They are also paying costs to remove their system next week. That leaves <br />about $40,000 for the county to pick up, plus the $81,000 bid for Staton, plus what Pence/Kelly comes <br />up with for backfill and compaction back to 12 feet. Ending future liabilities is very attractive for <br />Page 2 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.