SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_FILE 1

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wendy Cohen April 18, 1996 Page 3 5) Remediation Alternatives Previously approved remediation alternatives incorporated excavation/ex-situ biodegredation procedures that are economically prohibitive and inappropriate given the nature and extent of the residual hydrocarbons. Additional information regarding the rational for not implementing these alternatives will be presented to the RWQCB in future submittals. ' 6) Remaining Contaminants The rationale for leaving"soil and groundwater contaminants" in place have been outlined in Geomatrix's Response to Comments and Recommendations from RWQCB, dated March 20, 1996. It is the understanding of CPL that the RWQCB - Central Valley Region is currently producing environmental guidelines for potential "low risk" sites such as Dividend,and that these guidelines will outline any additional information that may be required beyond that presented in Geomatrix's March 20, 1996 response letter. 7) Property Owner Acceptance The attached Consent Judgment and Decree No. 245459 outlines the terms and conditions of CPL's (acting on behalf of Chevron Corporation) and Texaco's agreement with the property owner, Dividend Development Corporation. The terms of the remediation are outlined in Section 4. The agreement states CPL and Texaco have full authority to conduct a risk assessment under the guidance of the RWQCB and obtain closure from the RWQCB. A report describing the results of the monitoring well installation and sampling, along with items requested by the RWQCB but not provided herein, will be submitted in July 1995. Please contact Mr. Martin Bloes (510/842-6855) or me (510/842-6877) if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Katie L. Hower Environmental Specialist Attachments (3) i S bloe\dividend\closreq.ltr cc: Stephen DiZio - DTSC Michael Infuma - SJV-EHS I Karen Polyniak - Texaco Trading and Transportation Inc. Dawn Zemo - Geomatrix/San Francisco i