Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> frr�_✓ <br /> CHRONOLOGY <br /> Chevron Service. Station 9-1452 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 11/18/04 Date of letter from the EHD directing the responsible party to submit a <br /> work plan for an ozone-injection pilot test after consulting the Central <br /> Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) concerning <br /> bench-scale studies involving oxygen injections. <br /> 11/24/04 Date of Work Plan for Additional Assessment submitted by SECOR, <br /> proposing the installation of two off-site monitoring wells and <br /> performance of a UST tracer leak detection test. <br /> 12/21/04 Date of Response of Regulatory Letter submitted by SECOR in response <br /> to the EHD letter dated November 18, 2004. SECOR stated that because <br /> ozone is an oxidizer, ozone could compromise the integrity of the USTs <br /> and therefore, should not be considered as a feasible alternative. SECOR <br /> also stated that Chevron's remedial system review team recommended <br /> additional soil investigation to define the lateral and vertical extent of a <br /> possible non--aqueous-phase-liquid (NA-PL) source and implementation of <br /> soil vapor extraction. <br /> 01/19/05 Date of Work Plan for Additional Assessment in which SECOR proposed <br /> advancing six Geoprobe borings to investigate a possible NAPL source. <br /> 04/01/05 Date of letter from the EHD directing additional information be provided <br /> concerning the two proposed monitoring wells and proposed tracer test, <br /> and directing the advancement for six proposed Geoprobe borings be <br /> postponed until after results from the leak test have been provided. <br /> 07/28/05 Date of Work Plan Addendum for Additional Assessment submitted by <br /> SECOR in which additional information was provided concerning the <br /> installation of two off-site monitoring wells. <br /> 08/29/05 Date of letter from the EHD approving one monitoring well at 338 East <br /> Main Street, Ripon, California. This well was never installed. The EHD <br /> did not approve the second monitoring well because the proposed location <br /> for the well installation was approximately 400 feet west of the site and <br /> too distant for the data to have a clear context with this site. <br /> 07/19/07 Date of No Further Action Request submitted by Conestoga-Rovers and <br /> Associates (CRA). <br />