Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2004 <br /> STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD <br /> BOARD MEETING—OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL <br /> MAY 20, 2004 <br /> ITEM 9 <br /> SUBJECT <br /> IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHEVRON PRODUCTS COMPANY <br /> (TECHNICAL REPORT ORDER FOR 4000 PORTOLA DRIVE, SANTA CRUZ), CENTRAL <br /> COAST REGION <br /> SWRCB/OCC FILE A-1343 <br /> LOCATION <br /> Santa Cruz County <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> The proposed order would vacate a Regional Board investigation letter order issued under Water <br /> Code section 13267. The Regional Board had ordered Chevron to conduct investigation and <br /> cleanup activities at the site of a former Chevron service station in Santa Cruz. The Chevron site <br /> was added to an investigation of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination already underway at <br /> another former service station across the street. Chevron complied with initial investigation <br /> orders but argued that the data gathered from those activities demonstrated an off-site source <br /> migrating onto its former site. Chevron claims that the Regional Board erroneously found <br /> evidence of two separate plumes. Chevron asked the State Board to determine that it is not <br /> responsible for continuing investigation and cleanup of what it claims to be a single plume of <br /> contamination originating from the site across the street. <br /> The draft order concludes that Chevron is correct. State Board technical staff evaluated the data <br /> produced thus far and concluded that there is not substantial evidence indicating that the <br /> contamination originates from the Chevron site and that it is not reasonable to require Chevron to <br /> conduct further investigation or remediation at its site. This conclusion is based upon the <br /> direction of groundwater flow, the distribution of contaminants in soil and groundwater, and <br /> personal observations of persons involved with excavations at the former Chevron site. The draft <br /> order acknowledges that Regional Board authority to order investigation under section 13267 is <br /> broad. Nonetheless,the draft order would find that where earlier investigation orders have <br /> produced a body of data demonstrating that no appreciable release of contamination has occurred <br /> from a site, further responsibility for investigation by that party is inappropriate. <br /> POLICY ISSUE <br /> Should the State Water Board adopt the proposed order remanding the permit to the Regional <br /> Board? <br />