SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE FILE 2

Home Browse Search

Kriston D. Qualls, Esq. -4- CJr,;, 2005 responsible is still available, is an abuse of the authority granted to the local agency." In essence, petitioner contends it should only be held secondarily responsible for the release at the site. Following the petition, in May 2003, Tracer Research Corporation performed an enhanced leak detection(ELD) test on the UST systems at the site. The report detailing the test results concluded that"intermediate"level releases of tracer compounds associated with Tanks 1 and 2 (diesel and premium grade gasoline, respectively)were detected and that a"highly significant release . . . "of the tracer compound associated with Tank 3 (regular grade gasoline)was detected, as well as concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons." The report concluded that the data rymggested,a vapor phase release,and poly a Maid rebmse,had occurred from petitioner's USTs,probably located near the Tank 3 sump. The closest well downgradient of the current operating system is VEW3. Based on these results,the County filed another URR identifying petitioner as the responsible party on May 21, 2003. On July 28, 2004,petitioner sent a letter to the SWRCB noting that an inspection conducted at the site in March 2004 indicated that five of the eight on-site monitoring wells were not being properly maintained, including well VEW3. Petitioner reiterated its contention that the contamination found at the site might have come from contaminated surface water entering the subsurface through the wells, rather than from its USTs. DISCUSSION Petitioner contends the County acted arbitrarily when it named it a primary responsible party because there is insufficient evidence to suggest that its UST systems have had a release. Petitioner suggests that the significant rise in petroleum hydrocarbons discovered in VEW3 beginning in February 2002 could have been caused by: (1)A surface spill at the site that reached the subsurface through poorly maintained wellheads;(2) Two upgradient off-site UST facilities, at least one of which has a history of petroleum hydrocarbon impact;or (3) Fluctuations in groundwater elevations which may have desorbed residual petroleum hydrocarbons in soil related to the older Exxon releases is substantial evidence in the record to indicate that a release from petitioner's USTs occurred at the site during petitioner's ownership. Petitioner's contention that its USTs have not had a release, and its three alternate explanations for the presence of petroleum constituents detected on site beginning in February 2002 are not persuasive. The water quality data for well VEW3 indicate that a significant and somewhat sudden release occtWed at the site during the latter half of 2001 or early 2002. Samples from the well in February and May 2001 tested non-detect for BTEX and less than five ppb for MTBE. Samples were not collected in August and November 2001 because the groundwater elevation had declined to below the bottom of the well(10 feet bgs). When sampled again in February 2002, constituent concentrations had risen precipitously. Specifically, MTBE, TPHg, TBE, TAME, California Environmental Protection Agency CRecycled Paper