Former Berkeley Chervon Service (Gateway) Station #9-0171
L A Wood, April 5, 1995

Last Thursday I spoke to you about the remediation process at 1101 San Pablo ave., Berkeley. Subsequent to our conversation I also reviewed the site file and have spoken directly to Mark Miller of Chervon. I write this letter to express my concern over the current and future toxic clean-up at this location.

As you are aware, in mid 1993 the Zoning Adjustments Board issued an Use Permit (#A2081) for the 1101 San Pablo site which incorporated a Negative Declaration. I was quite surprised to see that this could happen given the high levels of contamination occurring both on-site and off-site.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings on the site contamination and remediation stated: Pursuant to Section 2108.6 of the Public Resources Code, a reporting program has been adopted and incorporated into the conditions of project approval, in order to report on completion of mitigation measures which are intended to avoid significant effects on the environment.

At present, there are no assurances that anymore on-site or off-site remediation will take place though the CEQA report clearly reflects the need for a follow-up on the approved site work plan. It appears that the City of Berkeley is allowing another contaminated property to enter into a "pseudo-closure" The city has failed to enforce Chervon's obligation to the remediation work plan for 1101 San Pablo (especially for off-site efforts) while allowing for development of the site.

The site work plan calls for an implementation of the remediation concurrent with the site development. The new property owner, C&H Development Company was to plan for and construct a building for a combined GW/SVE system. This remediation system was to be installed on the roof. The current owner is perhaps exempt from the CEQA findings but the use permit does not exempt Chervon from its obligation to off-site remediation.

Chervon is actively involved in the planning or the implementation of the final phase of the clean-up as the site begins development. The First Quarter report of 1995 indicates the existence of considerable off-site contamination. Benzene levels, detected at monitoring well A-4, are over 7000 ppb. Accompanying this site report was a communication from Mr. Miller dated March 9, 1995. In this letter he states that Chervon is "studying the potential benefits, if any, of continuing to operate a remedial system in the future once development of the site is complete".

In my own discussion with Chervon, Mr. Miller indicated that Chervon had done enough or spent enough since 1981 to affect a clean-up of the site. In addition he was under the impression that no current technologies are available to get the site any cleaner. I did suggest that most bio remediation methods (such as was employed at this site) generally require more time and only work when afforded' full implementation. And that this has not been the case at the old Chevron fueling station.

The groundwater remediation system used at the site was in operation barely four years and experienced some down time. The installation of the groundwater system was purposely linked to the development of the property to insure the successful completion of the remediation.

On March 1, 1994 the City of Berkeley gave a Notice of Violation to Chervon, stating that it appears that Chervon was in violation of Section 2652 of detailed site activities title 23 of the California Code of Regulations. In a response to the notice of violation Chervon stated that the current groundwater system would remain in place until the combined GW/SVE system was installed. This has not been the case. The groundwater remedial system was recently removed along with a dozen or more on-site monitoring wells. On-site development should run concurrent with both on-site and off-site remediatiori efforts. It would seem that Chervon,lnc. and the site have once again fallen out of compliance.

The Chervon overall site remediation plan has shown a failure to recognize the mixed residential use of the surrounding area. This has been particularly evident in Phase II when such a large volume of contaminated soils were spread across the site and its toxic vapor allowed to vent into the community. Again, the apparent reluctance of Chervon to pursue further remediation is suggestive of this same failure. It is incumbent upon Chervon to begin immediate steps to incorporate the remediation plan into the development project.

In the last month residents have complained of the smell of gasoline coming from near or around the storm drain closely associated to the site. In responding to complaints, Chervon inspected the site, and indicated that they found no problem. This site investigation was not accompanied by any sufficient testing. The city of Berkeley should make an independent investigation of this matter because of its possible connection to the site contamination and remediation process. Perhaps they can make a more definitive statement concerning the source of the smells.

Several years ago Chervon began to sell the idea of a *special" on roof remediation system which would be integrated into the site development. It has become clear that this discussion was only engineered for the purpose of site development and not directed at their obligation for both on-site and off-site contamination. The current site development project is only compatible with the community if the remediation is designed and implemented within the use permit process. The city of Berkeley has an regulatory obligation to this end.