SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mr. Patrick D. Riddle - 3 - NOV 16 ?009 DISCUSSION The facts of this case were set forth in detail in the FDD and Revised FDD, which are incorporated by reference. The extent of petroleum contamination from Petitioner's 250-gallon waste oil UST was fully defined by December 2000, after the installation of eight soil borings and monitoring wells MWA through MW-4. In addition to the petroleum contamination, PCE contamination was found at the site. Monitoring wells MW-5 through MW-7 were determined necessary "to further investigate the lateral extent of chlorinated solvents in the.groundwater beneath the site." (Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. (GZA), Workplan for Additional Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation, April 4, 2002, p. 2.) In the FDD dated October 3, 2006, the Division concluded that the PCE at the site was unlikely to have been released from Petitioner's waste oil UST. There is substantial evidence in the record to support that conclusion. For instance, Petitioner's consultant provided a narrative description of groundwater monitoring results for the second and fourth quarters of 2003, stating, "The distribution of PCE in groundwater beneath the site . . . suggests that there may be an off-site source of PCE contamination in groundwater." (Letter from Marla Nahorn, Environmental Closures, Inc., to State Water Board, March 1, 2004, attachment, pp. 1-2.) By the first quarter of 2004, Petitioner's consultant stated "GZA concludes that the,primary source of PCE contamination in groundwater beneath the site is an off site source located northwest of the facility." (Reimbursement request package no. 11, from Environmental Closures, Inc. to State Water Board, November 2, 2004, Narrative Work Description, p. 2.) San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department (SJCEHD) agreed with this conclusion, stating that monitoring data acquired over time appeared to support the model of an off-site source of PCE. (Letter from Donna Heran, Lori Duncan, and Nuel Henderson, SJCEHD, to Petitioner, June 12, 2006, p. 1.) Petitioner acknowledges that costs for cleanup of PCE from an off-site source are not eligible for reimbursement from the Fund. (Petition, October 31, 2006, p. 6.) Petitioner also acknowledges that its consultant has stated that an off-site PCE source is the suspected cause of the PCE contamination at issue. (Id., p. 5.) Nonetheless, Petitioner asserts that PCE cleanup costs are eligible for reimbursement because a specific off-site source has not been identified, PCE is commonly found in waste oil in de minimus quantities, and Petitioner did not place PCE into the waste oil UST as a method of disposal. Assuming that the PCE contamination originated from the waste oil UST and the PCE was not placed into the tank for disposal, Petitioner's contention is without merit because the amount of PCE in the UST would have been, by definition, more than de minimis. As previously mentioned, the Federal Register defines a de minimis amount of another hazardous substance mixed with petroleum as that amount in which the additional hazardous substance does not alter the detectability, effectiveness of corrective action, or toxicity of the petroleum to any significant degree. In Petitioner's case, assuming the PCE was released from the waste oil tank, the PCE has clearly altered the effectiveness of corrective action, and therefore cannot be called de minimis. Except for the petroleum contamination in'the area of MW-3, PCE contamination has been driving the corrective action at the site. Thus, if the PCE originated from the waste oil tank, the amount of PCE in the mixture of petroleum and PCE would not be de minimis, the waste oil tank would not meet the Act's definition of a UST, California Environmental Protection Agency