SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

William S. Peters Peters Enterprises Page 2 of 4 Chevron site, it is unrealistic to expect that contaminant concentrations will decrease to non-detect levels in all Kwikee wells within a few months, or that they will decline consistently every quarter and that increases will not occur occasionally." UEC then concludes that the data from the May monitoring event confirms the validity of the statement, that absent remediation on the former Chevron site, ground water can resume its eastward flow and hydrocarbons can resume their migration from the Chevron site to the Kwikee site. • UEC reiterated its contention that the site should be closed with no further action and that natural attenuation and remediation at the Chevron site will restore the Kwikee site. In the 10 September 2002 correspondence, UEC stated their belief that EHD has 30 days to comment on recommendations under the "County-State Local Oversight Program" and that lack of written comment by EHD implies concurrence with those recommendations. UEC is mistaken. Specifically, UEC believes that lack of written comment from EHD is concurrence with UEC's recommendation that responsibility for the contamination on the Kwikee site be transferred to the responsible party for the former Chevron site and that the monitoring wells on the Kwikee site be destroyed. EHD has disapproved the work plan for destruction of the wells by letter dated 01 October 2002. The Local Oversight Program contract contains no language specifically addressing review and comment periods for recommendations contained in quarterly reports. In the interest of minimizing environmental contamination and promoting prompt cleanup of sites, the Health & Safety Code and UST regulations do allow implementation of a work plan after submittal of the work plan before receiving regulatory approval, but implementation may not begin sooner than 60 calendar days after submittal of work plan. EHD does not believe that any of UEC's quarterly report recommendations meet any of these conditions; they do not constitute a work plan and they were not proposed to prevent environmental contamination or to promote prompt clean up of the site. EHD does not concur with either recommendation at this time and directs that quarterly monitoring be immediately reinitiated at this site and be continued until specifically directed in writing to discontinue monitoring. Under State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 88-23 responsible parties may petition the State Board for review of the action or decision a local agency makes, a copy of which will be sent to you if requested. Regarding other conclusions and recommendations of the Second Quarter 2002 Report, EHD comments as follows: • The first three conclusions posited by UEC, and noted above, relate to a hypothesized interaction between the dual phase extraction (DPE) remediation on the former Chevron site, ground water flow direction and