|
JA14 1
<br /> Kriston D. Qualls, Esq. -3 - LC 3
<br /> In February 2002, a groundwater sample collected from VEW3 had reported concentrations of
<br /> MTBE,tertiary butyl alcohol(TBA), tertiary amyl methyl ether(TAME), TPHg, and benzene of
<br /> 30,300 ppb, 1,050 ppb, 80 ppb, 16,600 ppb, and 12 ppb, respectively, a significant increase from
<br /> the levels detected in February and May of 2001. After reviewing these sample analytical
<br /> results, Exxon suggested to the County that a new release had apparently occurred at the site and
<br /> requested that additional responsible parties be named.
<br /> Sampled again in May 2002, groundwater from well VEW3 had reported concentrations of
<br /> MTBE,TBA, and TPHg of 16,350 ppb, 1,060 ppb, and 12,900 ppb respectively.
<br /> ,A
<br /> s€a ol' c ase in constituent concentrations observed in the February 2002
<br /> groundwater sample and confirmation of that increase with the May 2002 groundwater sample, the
<br /> County completed an Underground Storage Tank Unauthorized Release (Leak)/Contamination Site
<br /> Report,dated July 30, 2002.
<br /> In February 2003, the County issued a Notice of Responsibility requiring petitioner to investigate
<br /> the presumed unauthorized release. By letter dated March 25, 2003,petitioner responded to the
<br /> County's Notice of Responsibility by petitioning the Board for review of the County's action.
<br /> In its petition,petitioner contends that there has been no release during its operation of the
<br /> station, as demonstrated by the fact that the facility was upgraded with double-walled tanks and
<br /> double-walled lines shortly before its purchase in November 1997, and that the systems at the
<br /> facility have never had any indication of a leak. Petitioner offers three explanations for the high
<br /> concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbon compounds collected from VEW3 in February and
<br /> May 2002: (1)A surface spill at the site could have occurred and reached the subsurface through
<br /> poorly maintained wellheads at the site; (2)Two upgradient off-site UST facilities, at least one of
<br /> which has a history of petroleum hydrocarbon impact, could have migrated onto petitioner's site;
<br /> and(3)Fluctuations in groundwater elevations could have desorbed residual petroleum
<br /> hydrocarbons in soil related to the older Exxon release. Petitioner also suggests that the lack of
<br /> BTEX constituents detected in VEW3 in February 2002 indicates that there has been no new
<br /> r+e) se during petitioner's ownership of the UST facility. Finally,petitioner requested a hearing
<br /> to present additional information. In its petition,petitioner requested that the Board reject the
<br /> County's assessment of responsibility and order Exxon to conduct further testing.
<br /> On April 4, 2003, the Board responded to the petition with a letter noting that as the current
<br /> property owner,petitioner was properly named as a responsible party pursuant to California
<br /> Code of Regulations, title 23, section 2720(3). Petitioner responded clarifying that its petition
<br /> was intended as a request for the Board to grant relief from the County's"arbitrary decision"to
<br /> require petitioner to incur expenses to review and investigate Exxon's release. Petitioner
<br /> recognized that as the current property owner, it may have to take responsibility if the party
<br /> responsible for the release goes bankrupt or flees, but argued that"to arbitrarily cause the current
<br /> property owner, who did not release the material, to incur these expenses, while the party directly
<br /> California Environmental Protection Agency
<br /> ;r�Renrfed Paper
<br />
|