|
|
Enron Mail |
it's possible that we could get pulled into the chevron matter but with our
limited usage - i doubt it. i would not look any further. Duke probably is required to facilitate the TW remediation but likely is not required to maintain the lease...roger - is it possible to contact Duke and find out what their plans are and if they intend to abandon - possibly get them to assign or sublease a portion of the site to us??? From: George Robinson 11/01/2000 07:11 PM To: Louis Soldano/ET&S/Enron cc: Roger Westbrook/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Cutty Cunningham/OTS/Enron@Enron Subject: TW N. Crawar Remediation Lou, In advance of installing several off-site wells for a remediation system at the N. Crawar site, Roger Westbrook has contacted the property owner in order to obtain off-site access for the installation of wells and other associated activities. I believe Roger offered $2500 for a five year term. The property owner has indicated that Duke Energy (the current facility owner) has indicated that Duke plans to release the property lease since they no longer utilize this facility. Furthermore, the property owner has put off entering into an access agreement with TW pending further information regarding Duke's plans for the lease. Roger suspects that the property owner wants more for damages to replace the lost revenue that was generated by the lease. This brings up the following questions. Does Duke have an obligation to maintain the lease until TW is done with remediation activities? If Duke releases the lease, does TW need to obtain a lease for remediation activities? Another issue related to this site. The property owner asked Roger about the quantity of water that would be recovered in the course of remediation at this site. Apparently the town of Crane, Texas owns the water rights in this area and has a pending suit against Chevron and the property owner for contamination of the aquifer. I have noticed several monitor wells in the area just east and northeast of the TW site. These wells are spaced out over quite a large area. My best guess would be that Chevron had a problem with one or more injection wells to create such a widespread problem. We've got good monitoring data that shows that the lateral extent of affected groundwater at the TW site is very limited. Do we run the risk of getting pulled into something bigger just for being there? Is this an issue that needs to be investigated further? Last year sometime I asked someone at the RRC District 8 office about the Chevron monitor wells and they were not familiar with them.
|