SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2

Home Browse Search

Ron Rowe Registered Environmental Specialist February 2, 2000 Page 8 The SWRCB Guidance dictates that in cases where discontinuance of use of the tank occurred before November 8, 1984, "[d]iscontinuance of use means that: (1) product was neither placed in the tank or removed from the tank . . . and (2) circumstances indicated that there was no further intent to use the tank." Del Monte bought the gas station facilities intact and in operable condition. It kept these facilities operable even after it removed all of the petroleum product from the USTs, and it admittedly removed product from the USTs after purchasing the Property. All of these events show that there was not a "discontinuance of use" as defined in the Guidance. Finally, the presence of TBA in the concentrations observed in 1997 and 1998 groundwater samples indicate that the tanks were used subsequent to Calpak/Del Monte's purchase of the Property in 1976. As noted in footnote 4, and based on a report submitted by Exceltech on behalf of Del Monte, the gasoline station was taken out of service by Del Monte subsequent to the 1976 purchase. Even if Del Monte could substantiate that the tanks were not used after April 1, 1976 (and this has not been done through competent evidence), Del Monte's actions in maintaining and preserving the gas station improvements for nine years shows a conscious decision to reserve the ability to use the tank if needed. (In 1976,when Calpak/Del Monte purchased the Property,underground storage tanks were considered an asset.) If Del Monte did not intend to use the tanks or did not have use for the tanks, Del Monte would have taken active steps to fill the tanks or close the tanks. The fact that Del Monte failed to remove, close, fill the tanks, disconnect the piping, or pave over the intakes and vent, indicates that Del Monte considered the tanks to be useful. At a minimum,Del Monte made a conscious decision not to take the tanks out of service. Under the guidelines, the fact that it removed product and filled the USTs with water at least once establishes that the USTs had not been discontinued as of the date the station was sold to Calpack in 1976. The SWRCB Guidance also provides for naming a responsible party if there is a"reasonable basis for conclud[ing] that an unauthorized release occurred during or prior to the time that the person was an owner, operator, or otherwise had control of the tank or Property" SWRCB Guidance, p. 2. There is no historical documentation indicating that a release occurred while Parmaceast owned the Property. There are no industry-wide operational practices or evidence of poor management practices that suggest that the discharge occurred while Parmaceast owned the Property. Because Parmaceast did not operate or manage the tanks, it would have evidence regarding the management of the tanks, manifests, or any other records. No reports, complaints, or agency records have been produced by Del Monte or the County that would support the premise that a release occurred while Parmaceast owned the Property. 761778.3