Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
EA 2014-1002 La Quinta Square - Tank Pressure Test Results (Attachment A)
ATTACHMENT A -TANK PRESSURE TEST RESULTS RECEIVED. AUG 272014 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO FROM = PHONE NO. : 915625909795 DEC. 8.1998 10:18AM P 5 PHONE NO. : 6193475988 g06t�' i �►,'��[V2C1C Job site: uatria3l place SIKON !MOTORS 81-99 70-611 HUY 111 India,!.' -calif . 92201 La Quints, Calif. 92253 Atto�; on Nov. 14th, 1997 we completed precision testing three tsimOtatlR't the above location. The tank* were tested with the TAL16-A �ZU overfill testing system. All technicians are licas and equipment approved by the State Water Resources Coati Board. A, The, 4 gallon 30 wt• oil system (A) PASSED with a leak rate of 4 gallon per hour. Tharp gallon ATF e7stom (Z) PASSED with a loch rate of .O36 jFlagallon per hour, Qq. gallon Coolant systam (C) PASSED With a leak rate of Th -.:67 4allon per hour. Thai 'tl ak testing criteria established by the N-IF-P.A. of -050 i or T gallon per hour is a mathematical calculation based on ac ua ,liquid volume change, and temperature change, and is no i - tided as a permission of a leak. Alj.tOot results are attached. plt;eall if you have any questions. (909) 927-3056 � TO FROM 'FOR-: sit ADDRESS: 78- LA PHONE NO: (71 -- - 3O--------------- O= PHONE NO. 915625908795 DEC. 8.1996 10:19AM P 6 PHONE NO. : 6193475988 TANK ID G( QQFr- ' VR(A) .0034 -ANC _ENT 4676PS • 1 . A 30 OIL 0.2005 2. B ATF 0.1213 lHWY 111 TA, CA. 92253 3. C COOLANT 0.1201 0.0000 �.� 2-280 TKS.) VINCE S: 0.0000 6 0.0000 46_23A-----------------------Q� ---- ----- �eN K 0 R Fa 17 J- f :I ra /�;' i•-_ --------------- _-P1-----� - --------------- LEVEL LEVL;I'I.GAIN+ LEVEL TEMP TEMP TEMP TEMP FINAL START END! I1 'LOSS- RESULT START END GA/LO RESULT RESULT ---------------------------------------------------------_ c-5 9 G!. n 074 0.004 -�0 •UOhB =.O- 5 0�6 0.005..2. --Qs 05 -- :, LEAK AN SCALE E -1 RESUI o . 0000 ; �CCIt(ffftf -0.0008 !£t!£lrrrr TS --- t= t= JANDARD DE -0 .0017 ;£ r 1 I r! r C!£ Ir 09.5% CON_ :rrr £rr 'PALIM IT -0.0025: f f f f££ r t -0 .0034 , £ I £ E ! I £ I JPPER CONFID _ NT A : -O 039 -0.0042; ! ! I ! C f S �. s:;r TEL-A-LEAK- (tM,), .;: NUFACTURED BY SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS, INC. J'. ., PASS #90-1040 TO PHONE NO. : 915625908795 DEC. 8.1998 10:19RM F FROM PHONE NO. : 6193475998 - - �• ,: ' TANK ID - CC :NTS COE. Vft(��) .00. a rf FOR:. SIMQN j .- TORS _.:4C . 1 _ A 30 vIL 0.2005 2 B ATN 0.1213 ADDRESS: 78- 1 i'IWY 111 ITA A. CA - 92253 3. C COOLANT 0.12.01 0.0000 LA (1_ 51 2-280 TKS.) VINCE 4 . 0.0000 ' 5, 0.0000 PHONE NO_-(76� ` 46-2345 6. ---------------------------------------------=_ r f: TEMP TEMP TEMP FINAL LEVEL LEVEL ?JAAIN+ LEVEL TEMP START END GA/LO I �[=SUI.7 Rir.SULT - START END ; .!lRESULT --------------------------------------------- --------------------;'LOSS- -�-;- -------------- MOO .a �►L R •. N �LCiL�L 0.0000 'rtrtrr.trrt. -0.00071, jrrrtrrrrt -0.0015 ; rttr.crrrtE r t r t ;rrtrL ttr -0 .0022 ; r rrrrr r t r r t �trr r r -0.0030 ; t j c -0.0037', [ r t t t TEL-A-LEAK (tm �fUf=ACTURED BY SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS. INC. ,. I PASS #90-1040 i I. TO FROM FOR'.. N ADDRESS: LA V PHONE NO: (76 a' ----------------- LEVEL LEVEL' START END i- I PHONE NO. 915625909795 DEC. 8.1999 10:20RM P S PHONE NO. : 61934759BG TORS •C TANK ID CO"'TENTS Wbi- r . " (A) . Vkf34 . 1. A 3G., IL 0.2005 lWY 111 2. 3 B C ATF COOLANT 0.1213 0.1201 �dTA , CA . 92253 . 4. 0.0.000 9 2-280 TKS.) VINCE 0.0000 5. 0.0000 �46-2345 -------- -------------------.---------------- ---------------- OAZN+ LEVEL TEMP TEMP TEMP GA/LO TEMP RE:S FINAL RESULT LOSS— RESULT START END --- '!r------------------------ -n 0042 i MCA FZNA� Sl T.S 0 .0000 ;frfr.rtr.ttt —0.0007;Crrrrrrrrr f f C t t£ t t f t TAN � —o.0014;EFA t f C t t t£ t C rr t rfrtrCr —0 .0021 ; £ t £ £ £ £ t £ t 1. — ,�. —0.002a' r£ t a rccrr. r t tt t c£ t LOWER gQNFX f - -0.0035, TEL—A—LEAK (tm�,..'UFACTURED BY SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS, INC. i • PASS #90-1040 c TO FROM 1 . } PHONE NO. : 915625909795 DEC. 2.1998 10:16AM P 2 PHONE NO. : 6193475998 t SUVICE Job miter D industrial Place SIX010 MOTORS Calif. 92201 78-611 MFY 111 La Quinta, Calif. 92253 tt�p Tom Yeb. 24th, 1995 we completed precision testing three t at the above looation. The tanks were tested with the -LZAK overfill testing system. All equipment and t. iaians are certified by the state stater Resources C#..®1 board. wt. Oil system (A) PABSED with a leak rate of -.0064 ►�l ' per hour. TIP system (a) PASSED with a lean rate of -.0096 gallon. our. ',0oola�nt system (C) PASSED with 8 leak rate of -.0114 "J,fton , per hour. #a�t4*k testing criteria established by the N.F.P.A. of .050 •ql,- gallon per hour is a mathematical calculation based on sa1K liquid volume change, and temperature change, and is A04-4otended as a permission of a leak. 1 11,�ert reoults are attmohed. (909) 927-3056 1 a call if you have any question*. rr $ elg, 1 �I� , 1 II� '• CONTINUE FROM PREUIOUS PRGE 001 ,• J2iB7i1'�91?�Y��J�3 i FROM BOEN'S MAINTENANCE TO 5643480 P.04 �gOKF'�Q�P'� AN��--Y�3� -f-C>0 9EY r•2EFr�L�FaT" .�K �- L-�.AM; 0074 f 1, TANK ID CONTENTS COEFF . VR(A) . FOR; $Nd N MOTORS INC. 1. A 30 OIL U.1237 2, g ATF 0.1271 11 }{WY 111 ADORES9=tLOQUINTA,92253 3. C COOLANT 0.1943 CA. 4 0.0000 i g6 , 2-280 TKS .) ' 8. 0.0000 PHONE NO:�tk?) 346-234S------------------------------------------- b 0.0000 -,,,..---- A T i ;i I. �'paNK E3 = i® -----------------------..--- ------------ ---- LEVEL ii�'�L GAIN+ LEVEL TEFSP TEMP P GAMLO TEMP FINAL RESULT RESULT START 1g, LOSS— RESULT START END ___-- ------------ TEL-A-LEAKI i nnf n nnom - —*.0024 70.- • • • dj•i 0.0000,m(�f�C�f=C=tIIt=i.=C=fn ££(£f££�C( 1 -0.0016INTERY AL/HOUR-0.0025 + ——0.0033 ; 30 0.00411 f MANUFACTURED 6Y SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS, INC. TO PHONE NO. : 915625909795 DEC. 8.1998 10:17AM P 3 FROM PHONE NO. : 6193475998 r F� • K H A t'9 sec ' .1�t`dK L-�.lAK HhlAL_Y�IS F?c-:f-;,0hZT •• ipON MOTORS INC. TANK ID CONTENTS COEFF. VR(A) .0034 FOR: 1. A 30 OIL 0.1237 V ADDRESS:1 ;, I�-611 HWY 111 2, 8 3. C ATF COOLANT 0.1271 0.1943 py AUINTA� CA. 92253 0.0000 x-1550 . 2-�280 TKS .) 4 , 0.0000 6 . PHONE NO!a, ;J' $9) 346-2345 6 .----------- O 0000---------- - --- i- •;p 1'AFViG C o - 20 FREAdS--4 /9S-------- GOCS ----------4i -------------------- ------------- I 1` LEVEL ! r L GAIN+ LEVEL TEMP TEMP TEMP GA/LO TEMP RESULT FINAL RESULT START ' - LOSS- RESULT START END - • ..a...--..,--- I-*------�.------- "-..---=-_--_.-n - nn7 n AA04 —0.0009— I._ m l 7� 67 nn� n.nnn4 .=JLLMt1 _ • ••NVA • �_ • _ • • • • •••• _ _ • •• • r1• • ••• - v • • • W •••• •• - • 0.0000 i DATA._ t f(Cfi£CF . -0 .0008 S A bA� Qf I�jJ m 0_. Q014 -0.0016! f f 4 ' ` -0 .0024 ; £ LEAK RATE+ ' r � t 60WER co -0.0040; I c TEL-A-LEAK1. Nf I MANUFACTURED 8Y SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS, INC. I .I • i t.. i ; W.i TO FROM PHONE NO. : 915625909795 DEC. 8.1999 10:17AM P 4 PHONE NO. : 6193475998 ;:),A(--K OmbM ate T'OOMey ,. Z NC: _ K L-F:AK AN^L-YSSS PREP•'OFL"r FOR: ipk1N MOTORS INC. TANK ID CONTENTS COEFF. VR(A) .0034 1. A 30 OIL 0.1237 AODRESS1 � 611 HWY 111 2. 8 ATF 0.1271 ! OUINTA, CA. 92253 3. C COOLANT 0.1943 !-660 , 2-280 TKS .) 4. 0.0000 S . 0.0000 PHONE ND�+ 9) 306-234b 6. 0.0000 ..--_-3O.. _ --------- ?— TANK A _--- 3.0 i�EAE>!S_- -----------•' -T�� - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --------- t LEVEL !LII L GAIN+ LEVEL TEMP TEMP TEMP TEMP FINAL START 0 LOSS- RESULT START END GA/LO RESULT RESULT -----------dit.11'------------------------- ------------------- -------------------- ACA1 F FINAL RESUL15 Q61A . 0 .0000 { jA �. j. j,o j•■ f= j= £= f� j= n: 0.0411-0.0008; 1 r 1 TERVALS-0.0016; AL/M R 1 [ t -0.0024: £ + OR - O _0011 COALZUR ; rl -0.0032; TERVALt—0.0097 j TERVA*- .003-0.0040 1 TEL-A-LEAK (,ifi 11*ANUFACTURED BY SCHUSTER INSTRUMENTS, INC. UNDERGROUND STORAGE *.,JK UNAUTHORIZED RELEASE (LEAK) i -.011TAMINATION SITE REPORT EMERGENCY REPORT HASSTATEOFFICEOFEMERGENCY SERVICES W ❑ YES NO ❑ YES NO ISM nN PAM REPORTUATE LA 2,j 2 J 2J9 A 3 9e-1182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NAME OF INDIVIDUAL FUM REPORT PHONE S RE WAYNE P ROY 1(619) 86Y-8976 2 REPRESENTING ❑ OWNERIOPERAXOR ❑ REGIONAL BOARD COMPANY OR AGENCY NAME v R Lu a LOCAL AGENCY ❑ OMR RIVERSIDE COMM MMTRON?1ENTAL RMTH/HAMAT ADDRESS 47923 OASIS STREET, #E4 MID CA 922; CrAlm E CONTACT PERSON 01 SIMON MOTORS, INC. ❑ UNI00OWN THOMAS r CRAFT 1(619) 346-2345 a., to ADDRESS 1A QUINTA Lu cc 78-611 RAM RWY Ill cnv 11mum WATE CA 92201 FACILITY NAME (F APPLICABLE) OPERATOR PHONE SI?%w MOTORS, INC I-FRED J S=N, SR 1(619) 346-234.5 !2 ADDRESS § U,an 78611 snau MY Ill L& QUINTA =.,,jRIVMSTDE 9223.1 I= - STREETmp WASHINGTON STREET 2 LOCALAGENCY AGENCY NAME CONTACTPERSON PHONE 99 w u RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL H EALTR WAYNE P ROY (619) 863-8976 ,2 uj REGIONAL BOARD PHONE COWRADD RIM BASIN STEVE GUARINO (619 )346-7491 go 0) NAME allANMLOST MMLONM GASOLINE zz z DATE DISCOVERED HOW OL DISCOVERED )E3 INVENTORY CONTROL ❑ SUBSURFACE MONITORING C:] NUISANCE CONDITIONS IaJgJ 2d2 o 93 YJ TAN KTEST [3 TANKREMOVAL ❑ OTHER REGULAR TANK TESTING PROCEDU DATE DISCHARGE BEGAN METHOD USED TO STOP DISCHARGE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) [:) REMOVE IJ 2 J 2 al I J 9 A 3 Ow" CONTENTS (:DCLOSE TANK A REMOVE gg REPAIR PIPING ❑ REPAIR TAW ❑ CLOSE TANK & FILL IN PLACE 71 Comm PROCEDURE HAS DISCHARGE BEEN STOPPED 7 YES C] NO FYmOAw I ;j 24 7g 9,1 3,f, ❑ REPLACETAw ❑ OTHER SOURCE OF DISCHARGE CAUSEM f7 TAM LEAK ❑ UNKNOWN ❑ ovERFiLL 0 RuPTuRFiFAjwRE CD SPILL K] PIPING LEAK ❑ OTHER ❑ CORROSION Lwojoww ❑ OTHER Lu Aul CHECKONEONI.Y El UNDSTEIVUHM FX] SOLONLY [1] GROUNDWATERC] DRINKING WATER. (CHECK ONLY IF WATER WELLS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN AFFECTED) CHECICONE ONLY Lu F1 NOACTIONTAIMN M PAMMMWSfMASSESSMOiTWOMMLANSUBMMM ❑ POLLIMN CHARACMRIzATION LEM 13EM CONFIRMED rM PRmmwA;wsrmA$MSSMENTUMDERWAY ❑ PCSTCLIEANUPMONITORING INPRDGRM ❑ REMEDIATION PLAN ❑ CASE CLOSED AEANUP COMPLETED OR UNNECESSARY) ❑ CLEANUP UNDERWAY CHECKAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS) F7 EXCAVATE DISPOSE (EC) 'REMOVE FREE PRODUCT (FP) ❑ ENHANCEDSIODEGRAIDATION(M g F7CAP SITE (CD) M EXCAVATE & TREAT (ET) C:3 PUMP & TREAT GROUNDWATER (GT) ❑ REPLACE SUPPLY (RS) uj -c❑ CONITAINMENT BARRIER (C13) ❑ NO REQUIRED (NA) ❑ TREATMENT ATHWmjp M s E] VENT OIL (VS) M VACUUM EXTRACT oTHER(m TO BE DETERMINED Z)MALL LZAK FUU..— IN FIPE FROM TANK TO PUMP WHILE -CONDUCTING ROUTINE TANK TESTING. c* z INVENTORY LOSS SHOUTS VERY LEITTLE LEAKAGE —REPAIRING VERY SMALL SEEPAGE. SECOND UAR WAS SUBMITTED DUE TO LAM 09 SIGNATURE. 12/29/93 FAR RIVERSIDE OFFICE TO RE?RRT PROP 65. Hsc cs;&90 -�v ATTACHMENT C - 1997 GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS uj m �.O I— `�Q N C0 Q MO O u T v J C) CLr O = J J2 O CD Z CL M CL T- o ti CD LU d J N LO u r H O_cl dJ t4 = M O VI J � ~ Z C. CO O cc Z Lr1 0 . to C T v O Q 00 M E J ) U cc cc cc E� Na E J o x m O � C6 J J O C cu J Q L � C O O C E J C O ftf Q) = I.a E x a) O U _ E cu Q E C m r m E E V c a�i o a) c rn Q Q O U O O m O C C U cn " O aa) O n" c o c a� E c°n CD a> E cc 0U o °� o O C (t< 3: C a) CDLiJ CD cc U C/i C� C6 4 'CLAIMNUMBER 9110 - gr not d.1 VOW _ t d 1 C I ; 1 too AW � t I S J , PET- fION FOR CLOSURE PURSUANT-110 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 25299.39.2 BY SIMON MOTORS, INC CLAIM NUMBER 9110 Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 25299.39.2, Simon Motors, Inc. ("Petitioner"), hereby petitions the Manager of the Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund ("Manager") to review and recommend closure of the investigation and remediation of releases associated with two underground storage tanks that were formerly located at 78611, Hwy 111, La Quinta , California (the "Site"). Petitioner operates a car dealership at the Site. The tanks contained gasoline and were removed in 1994 after a piping leak was detected in a routine test. Petitioner requests closure of the Site because: (1) Petitioner has excavated the shallow soil contamination associated with the tank release at the Site; and (2) no detectable concentrations of any contaminant are currently present in the soil column for 80 feet above a single contaminated groundwater sample. The sole issue that has impeded closure is the detection of minor levels (i.e., 26 parts per billion) of methyl tert-butyl ether ("MTBE") in a single groundwater sample at approximately 137 feet below ground surface ("bgs"). The County reasons that the absence of any MTBE in the soil above the contaminated groundwater can be explained by a drop in the water from 80 feet bgs in 1978 to approximately 124 feet bgs today. According to the County, the contamination may have "followed" the water table without leaving residue in the soil column. Assuming this were true, given MTBE's mobility and the twenty year interval since the release, any significant MTBE plume would presumably have already reached a downgradient well located 500 feet from the Site. That well, however, shows no detectable concentrations of any MTBE or any other contaminant. 010326.0001\480366.1 Moreover, the conceriaration of MTBE at the Site (and immediately below the suspected source of the MTBE) is well within the state and federal health related standards established for MTBE (although it slightly exceeds taste and odor standards established by California for drinking water). Finally, the MTBE detected in the groundwater at the Site was detected using sampling analysis EPA Method 8020. It is widely acknowledged that EPA Method 8020 may result in false positives for MTBE. Thus, the groundwater data is not only inconsistent with the other data collected at the Site, the data is highly suspect. This suspect data should not impede closure. At a minimum, before additional drilling and monitoring is required, a groundwater sample should be collected from the single location where MTBE was detected a11d analyzed again using EPA Method 8240. The County has rejected Petitioner's request that County close the Site and has insisted that.additional monitoring wells should be installed. The County has failed, however, to provide meaningful guidance to Petitioner about where the wells should be placed or what the overall strategy is for the placement of the wells and investigation of the Site. At one point, the County directed Petitioner to drill a groundwater well at a location that would have required demolishing the building where Petitioner conducts its business. Although the County eventually backed off this request, Petitioner has spent considerable time and money submitting workplans in response to requests from the County only to have the County reject the workplans. At present, the County has directed Petitioner to install and sample two groundwater monitoring wells. Even if samples from these monitoring wells do not show any detectable concentrations of MTBE, the County has indicated that additional wells must be installed until MTBE is found. In addition, the County has also informed Petitioner that the County will require yet more wells for the purpose of determining groundwater flow at the Site. Installing 2 010326.0001\480366.1 wells for the purpose of determining regional groundwater flow is unnecessary; the regional groundwater flow has already been measured by reference to three wells in the immediate vicinity of the Site. Nor should Petitioner have to drill monitoring wells around the Site until MTBE is detected. The MTBE directly below the suspected source is present in trace amounts, and there is no evidence to suggest there is any MTBE plume* at the Site. Finally, the cost of installing additional monitoring wells at the Site is significant. The estimated cost of drilling, sampling, and reporting on each monitoring well at the Site is $10,000...: Given the County's current directions, Petitioner could spend tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, installing monitoring wells in hopes of finding what may be a non-existent MTBE plume. THEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Manager recommend to -the State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board") that the County close this Site and issue a closure letter. In the alternative, if the Manager is unwilling to require closure, Petitioner asks the Manager to provide specific guidance to the County, as specifically requested below, regarding the need for and placement of additional monitoring wells and the point at which closure is appropriate. DISCUSSION General Background The Site is owned and operated by Petitioner as a car dealership. The two underground storage tanks at the Site stored gasoline and were used by Petitioner for the fueling of cars. One tank was a 2,500 gallon tank and the other tank was a 5,000 gallon tank. Exhibit A at 3 and Figure 2. The tanks were adjacent to each other and used common piping attached to a dispenser pump immediately adjacent to the building located on the Site. Id. On December 12, 1993, Simon Motors conducted a tank tightness test and detected a small leak in the piping from 010326.0001\480366.1 the tank to the dispensing pump. Exhibit B. On December 24, 1993 Petitioner reported the release to the County. Id. Based on a report filed by Mr. Hoy of the County, the leak was a "small leak" and the "inventory loss shows very little leakage." Id. The piping was repaired. Id As discussed in detail below, Petitioner collected soil samples around the tank invert at the time of the tank removal and removed the contaminated soil. Exhibit A.' Petitioner then conducted a subsurface investigation of the soil down to 80 feet bgs. Id Next, Petitioner conducted an additional subsurface investigation at the same locations, however, this time Petitioner also collected a groundwater sample. Exhibit Q.2 Based on the data collected during these investigations, only a single location — downgradient from the suspected piping leak — show any detectable concentrations of contamination below the immediate'shallow soil around the tank invert. This single location shows anomalous results, with several feet of clean soil atop a single groundwater sample with trace amounts of MTBE and benzene. Tank Removal On June 20, 1994, Petitioner removed the tanks (and a small waste oil tank) under the supervision of the County. Exhibit C. Based on the underground storage tank closure inspection report, the small waste oil tank and the 5,000 gallon gasoline tank (designated as "#1" and "#3" respectively) were reported as being in "ok" condition when removed. Id The smaller, 2,500 gallon gasoline tank (designated as "42"), however, was noted as having a "seeping scratch. Id. A "black stain w/ liquid" was noted around the excavation area of the 1 Petitioner could not locate the report with this sampling data; however, the data was summarized in a subsequent report, which is referred to herein. This subsequent report is included in its entirety with the exception of the Health and Safety Plan. 2 This report is also included in its entirety with the exception of the Health and Safety Plan. 4 010326.00011480366.1 2,500 gallon gasoline tank. Id. The excavation area around the waste oil tank was noted as being "ok" and around the 5,000 gallon gasoline tank was noted as being "rusty." Id Subsurface Investigation Soil Sampling from Tank Invert At the time of the tank removal, Petitioner's consultant, NTS Environmental ("NTS") collected soil samples from the tank invert. Exhibit A at 3. Soil samples were collected at two and six foot intervals below the tank inverts. Id. All samples were tested for the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbon as gasoline ("TPH-G") by EPA Method 8015M. Id. In addition, one sample (at two feet below the tank invert) was analyzed by EPA Method 8020 for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (`BTEX"). Id. All samples showed elevated concentrations .of TPH-G and the single sample tested for BTEX showed elevated levels of BTEX. Exhibit A at Table 1. In addition, sampling was conducted in the location of the former dispenser location for TPH-G and no detectable concentrations of TPH-G were identified. Exhibit A at 3. Contaminated soil was removed from the excavation pit and the excavation was backfilled with imported soils. Id. Based on elevated levels of contaminants in the shallow soil, the County directed Petitioner to conduct an additional investigation. Id In August 1994, Petitioner's consultant, Amwest Environmental ("Amwest") submitted a workplan for the site assessment to the County. Exhibit A at 20. On August 23, 1994, the County approved the workplan. Exhibit A at 3. In September of 1994, Amwest conducted the additional site assessment, which results were reported to the County in December 1994, in a report entitled "Site Assessment Report." Initial Subsurface Investigation Amwest collected twenty soil samples from three borings at depths ranging from 10 feet to 85 feet bgs. Exhibit A, Table 3. Soil Boring B-1 was located approximately at the center of 5 010326.0001\480366.1 ti the former tank invert. Exhibit A at 4. Soil Boring B-2 was located approximately fifteen (15) feet south of the center of the former 5,000 gallon tank (Tank #1). Id. Soil Boring B-3 was located approximately six (6) feet north of the tank pit. Id Soil Boring B-3 was located in the direction of local groundwater flow and in the area of the pipelines connected to the former dispenser (i.e., where the piping leak had been detected). Id Amwest noted that the regional groundwater flow in the area was southeast but due to the proximity of the VvUtewater River and pumping wells in the area, the local groundwater flow may be "to north or northeast toward the river or production wells."3 Exhibit A at 11. All of the samples were analyzed for TPH and for BTEX. See Exhibit A, Table 3. According to Amwest, sampling locations within these three borings were determined oa the basis of screening results by a Photo Ionization Detector (PID). See Exhibit A at 12-13. Because the initial soil sampling analyses for certain samples did not conform to field readings screened with the PID, selected samples were sent to a different laboratory for reanalysis. Exhibit A at 14, 15. The results are discussed below. In summary, at Soil Boring B-1, there were no detectable concentrations of TPH or BTEX at any sampling depth (i.e., 45, 65, 70, 78, 80, and 85 feet bgs). Exhibit A, Table 3. Nor were any contaminants detected in any of the sampling depth locations at Soil Boring B-2 (i.e., 10, 45, 65, 70, 75 and 80 feet bgs). At Soil Boring B-3, however, the results were somewhat unusual. TPH and BTEX were detected in four samples. Very high levels of TPH (i.e., 81,700 mg/kg) and gasoline constituents (e.g., 1,210 mg/kg of benzene) were detected in shallow soil at 10 feet. Exhibit A, Table 6. s A subsequent report by Targhee, Inc. determined, on the basis of measurements taken from three groundwater wells in the immediate area, that the groundwater flow was in fact in the east -northeasterly direction. Exhibit Q at 5. . 6 010326.0001\480366.1 There were, however, non -detectable concentrations of any other compounds in the EPA 8020 series at 10 feet bgs. Exhibit A, Table 6. The next depth at which samples were collected was 45 feet bgs, which showed only moderately elevated levels of TPH and BTEX (e.g., 100 mg/kg of TPH-G and 178 mg/kg of benzene). Exhibit A, Table 3. At 55 feet bgs, these levels tapered off significantly (e.g., 17.2 mg/kg of TPH-G and 0.026 mg/kg of benzene). Id. And at 60 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet, and 75 bgs there were no detectable concentrations of any contaminants. Id At 80 feet bgs, however (the deepest sample collected during this round of sampling), the contaminants suddenly appear again, with levels of TPH-G at 475 mg/kg and of benzene at 4.83 mg/kg. Id Thus, in Soil Boring B-3, there was a twenty-five foot interval of clean soil above the contaminated sample at 80 feet. Because the sampling results did not correlate to PID readings, selected samples from the three borings were reanalyzed. Based on the new analysis, there were no BTEX constituents detected in Soil Boring B-3 at 45 feet bgs, and there were only minimal BTEX constituents detected at 80 feet bgs (i.e., 5 mg/kg of benzene in contrast to the earlier results of 38.1 mg/kg of benzene). Exhibit A, Table 4. Amwest concluded, among other things, that: • There was "mottled, stiff, plastic clay at 75 feet" but that the contaminants seem to have migrated below the clay lens in Soil Boring B-3. • The analytical data indicates that soils are not contaminated with gasoline or BTEX below 45 feet in Soil Borings B-1 and B-2. Exhibit A at 18. Amwest concluded that additional borings were required to delineate the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination around Borehole B-3. Exhibit A at 19. 7 010326.0001 \4803 66.1 Additional Workplans Submitted On December 19, 1994, the County informed Petitioner that "additional samples are needed to further delineate the contamination in the area of Borehole B-3." Exhibit D. The County concluded that at least one boring must be completed as a groundwater well. Id. The County requested that the workplan be submitted within 30 days. Id. On January 6, 1995, Petitioner's counsel requested an extension until February 14, 1995 to submit the workplan, and informed the County that Petitioner was evaluating the data to respond to the County's request. Exhibit E. On February 13, 1995, Amwest submitted an Additional Site Investigation Workplan for additional soil investigation of the site. Exhibit F. The objective of this workplan was to identify the vertical and horizontal extent of hydrocarbons in the vadose zone in the vicinity of Soil Boring B-3. Exhibit G at 3. The workplan did not propose to drill to groundwater. Amwest's workplan noted the anomalous results in Borehole B-3: Clay normally retards the migration of fluids (contaminants); therefore usually one would expect the soil above the clay to exhibit higher concentrations of hydrocarbons, if any. In Borehole B-3, however, there were non -detectable concentrations immediately above the clay at 75 feet — and detectable concentrations below the clay. If the hydrocarbons detected at 80 feet were associated with a release of hydrocarbons detected at 45 feet and 55 feet, one would not expect to have an intervening 20 feet of non -detectable concentrations of hydrocarbons. At this time, Amwest does not have an explanation for the presence of hydrocarbons at 80 feet in Borehole B-3. Exhibit G at S. On February 15, 1995, the County provided comments on the workplan. Exhibit H. The County directed that additional analysis should be conducted between 15 and 40 feet bgs from Soil Boring B-1 and Soil Boring B-3. According to the County, additional sampling was required at these locations because the previous PID screenings showed relatively high readings between 15 and 40 feet bgs. In addition, the County also requested that Petitioner submit the 8 010326.0001 \480366.1 analysis that accounted for the decision not to complete one boring as a groundwater monitoring well. Id. On July 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a report to the County prepared by Targhee, Inc. ("Targhee"). Exhibit I. Targhee concurred with the County that the subsurface between 15 and 40 feet bgs had not been adequately characterized. Id. at 2. However, Targhee also concluded that drilling to groundwater was not appropriate at this time. Id Targhee noted that the sampling results in Soil Boring B-3 at 80 feet bgs were anomalous with the sampling results at this same location at 45 feet bgs. Targhee cited to recent studies indicating that "the downward vertical migration of contaminants cannot occur without leaving residues throughout the soil column." Exhibit I at 1. Thus, Targhee proposed that the sampling results at 80 feet bgs-may be the result of laboratory error. Exhibit I at 2. Moreover, Targhee concluded that there were some environmental risks associated with drilling to groundwater, which risks were not appropriate to take at this time. Id. Thus, Targhee proposed taking additional samples from the 15 to 40 feet bgs depths at all previous boring locations, to resolve the technical ambiguities "prior to drilling to groundwater." Id. After submitting this report to the County, a year passed and Petitioner did not hear back from the County. On June 25, 1996, Petitioner reminded the County that Petitioner had not yet received a response to its proposal. Exhibit J. On July 8, 1996, the County informed Petitioner that the County and the Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board") were still concerned about the soil sample taken at 80 feet bgs. Exhibit K. According to the County, this sample showed 474 ppm of TPH-G and 38.1 ppb of benzene. Id In fact, although the first round of sampling at this depth showed 38.1 ppb of benzene, this sample was retested because the results were believed to be suspect. Supra at 6. As noted above, the second round 9 010326.0001 \4803 66.1 of sampling at a different laboratory showed only 5 ppb of benzene at 80 feet bgs at this location. Id The County concluded that data obtained from the Coachella Valley Water District show that "the water level in municipal wells located 1/4 mile upgradient and % mile downgradient has dropped from 80 feet bgs in 1978 to 124 feet bgs today." Exhibit K. The County reasoned that the petroleum hydrocarbon soil plume "followed the water table down when it dropped, causing smearing and contamination of the groundwater." Thus, the County requested that a water sampled be taken from the Soil Boring B-3 location. Id Petitioner then submitted a proposal for additional subsurface investigation, which included a groundwater monitoring well, and which the County then accepted on AugustI, 1996. Exhibit L. On August 23, 1996, Targhee submitted an Addendum to the Additional Site Investigation Workplan previously submitted by Amwest. Exhibit M. The workplan proposed to place a boring in the vicinity of former Boring B-1 and collect soil samples between 15 and 25 feet. In addition, a boring would be placed in the vicinity of the former Boring B-3, and samples collected at ten foot intervals down to 110 bgs. Finally, a temporary groundwater well would be set in Boring B-3 and a groundwater sampled collected. Exhibit M at 2. On August 27, 1996, the County approved the workplan addendum submitted by Targhee. Exhibit N. Three months later, on November 25, 1996, the County informed Petitioner (apparently with no intervening communications) that Petitioner was "recalcitrant." Exhibit O. In response, on December 5, 1996, Targhee informed the Regional Board that drilling was scheduled to commence on January 15, 1997. Id. (see handwritten notes). Second Subsurface Investigation and Groundwater Sampling On February 12, 1997, Targhee submitted the results of the sampling to the County in its Phase H Subsurface Soil Investigation Report. Exhibit P. This investigation involved collecting 10 010326.0001 \480366.1 additional soil samples from Soil Boring B-1 and B-3 and a groundwater sample from the location of former Soil Boring B-3. Exhibit Q, 'fable 1. Because earlier sampling of Soil Boring B-2 had shown non -detectable concentrations of any contaminant in either shallow soil or at 80 feet bgs (and in the intervening intervals), no additional samples were collected from B-2. Limited sampling was conducted at Soil Boring B-1. Soil Boring B-1 had previously been sampled extensively at depths from 45 to 85 feet bgs, and in the shallow soil at 15 feet bgs; however, no samples had been collected in the interval between 15 and 45 feet. Thus, the additional subsurface investigation involved sampling soil at 25 and 35 bgs, to confirm that the extent of shallow soil contamination had been detected. The samples were tested for TPH-G and BTEX. In addition, this time, the samples were also collected for MTBE, using EPA -Test Method 8020. Exhibit Q at 2. No contaminants were detected in any of the soil samples collected from B-1. Exhibit Q, Table 1. Thus, the results confirmed that the contamination previously detected was confined to the shallow soil at around 15 feet. More extensive sampling was conducted at B-3 — the location with such peculiar sampling results during the initial investigation. First, because the previous sampling results at 10 feet were considered suspect, a sample was collected again at this depth. The results again showed elevated levels of TPH-G and BTEX constituents, however, at levels significantly below the levels previously reported at this depth. Id Second, to fill out the picture as to the interval between 10 and 45 feet (an interval that had not been tested at all during the initial investigation), sampling was conducted at four different depths in this interval. The results were again somewhat unusual. At 30 and 35 feet bgs, there were non -detectable concentrations of either TPH-G or benzene and only minor levels of other BTEX constituents. Id. Based on previous sampling conducted at this location, however, there were moderately elevated levels of these same contaminants at 45 and 55 feet bgs — ten feet below the clean soils. 11 010326.0001 \480366.1 Third, samples were collected from the soil at and below the earlier limit of 80 feet bgs at depths of 85 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, 110 feet, 120 feet, and 130 feet bgs. In addition a groundwater sample was collected at 137 feet. It is this boring and this particular sampling interval and results that have hampered the closure at this Site. Thus, these results are explained in detail. A sample was collected at 80 feet bgs because the earlier sample collected at this same depth and in the same location was, as discussed above, considered suspect. Although the previous round of sampling showed concentrations of 475 ppm of TPH-G and low levels of the BTEX constituents, this second round of sampling at 80 feet bgs showed no detectable concentrations of any contaminant, including MTBE. Exhibit Q, Attachment IV at 7. Moreover, the samples conducted at 90 feet, 100 feet, 110 feet, 120 feet, and 130 feet also showed non -detectable concentrations of any contaminant. Id. In the groundwater at 137 feet, however, the levels suddenly spike, showing 660 ppb of TVPH-G, l 1ppb of benzene, and 26 ppb of MTBE. Exhibit Q, Attachment IV at 6, 9. The MTBE in groundwater is completely anomalous with the ten samples collected immediately above the groundwater sample which show non -detectable concentrations of MTBE at 10 feet, 20 feet, 30 feet, 80 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, 110 feet, 120 feet, and 130 feet. Exhibit Q, Attachment IV at 7. Although 2.2 ppm of MTBE was detected at 40 feet, this level is so low and so incompatible with other results that it could be attributable to laboratory error — particularly because the analysis used was EPA 8020, which often results in false positives for MTBE. See infra at 21. Targhee concluded that: [t]he areas of concern associated with the former UST have been investigated. The analytical data indicate that there are over 80 feet of clean soil above the sampled groundwater. Based on this information, it appears that the use of the former UST is not a source of hydrocarbons in groundwater or a "significant threat" to the groundwater. Targhee believes the subject property is a low risk site, and therefore requests closure for the subject property." Exhibit Q at 6. 12 010326.0001 \480366.1 Additional Workplans Submitted On April 23, 1997, the County informed Petitioner that after conferring with the Regional Board and the Cleanup Fund, it was determined that further assessment must be performed to delineate the groundwater contamination before site closure could be considered. Exhibit R. On May 29, 1997, however, Ms. Shurlow of the County informed Targhee that Petitioner's file was being transferred to another office for reassignment, and that Targhee would receive further direction at that time but that there was no need to take any action until that time. Exhibit R (see handwritten notes). On December 11, 1997, Ms. Shurlow informed Simon Motors that she had been reassigned to the case. Exhibit S. On June 12, 1998, Targhee submitted a Workplan Addendum for Groundwater Well Installation in which Petitioner proposed to drill a groundwater monitoring well at a location downgradient from the former underground storage tank location. Exhibit T at 4. As can be seen in the map attached to the workplan, the Simon Motors administration building and showroom is located immediately downgradient of the former tank location. Exhibit T, Attachment B. Thus, Targhee proposed to locate the monitoring well on the other side of the building. Id. Targhee proposed to test for TPH-G, and BTEX and for MTBE (this time using EPA Method 8260). Id On June 18, 1998, the County provided its comments on the workplan. Exhibit U. In particular, the County objected to the well location. Id. The County did not propose in its letter where the well should be located. Id. In conversations with Targhee, however, the County informed Targhee that it believed the monitoring well should be installed 20 to 30 feet down - gradient of the former tank. Exhibit V at 2. According to Targhee, drilling to groundwater at this Site would require the use of a drill rig with a mast approximately 30 feet high. Id. Thus, it would not be possible to drill to this depth at the Site without destroying the building used by 13 010326.0001\480366.1 Simon Motors for its showroom and administrative purposes. Targhee proposed as an alternative to drill the monitoring well on the other side of the building at the very edge of the building, which would be approximately 100 feet down -gradient of the former tank location. Id. The County again stated that this distance was too great an interval. Id. Moreover, the County also indicated to Targhee that even if the downgradient well showed non -detectable concentrations of any contaminant, additional monitoring wells would be necessary to identify the plume. Id. Thus, the County insisted the well must be located at a point where it was impossible to drill without taking the roof of Petitioner's showroom and administrative building. In light of these developments, Targhee withdrew its workplan and requested a meeting with the County to discuss the situation. Exhibit W. On July 30, 1998, Targhee met with the County and the Regional Board to discuss the situation. Exhibit X., The -County and the Regional Board informed Targhee that the State has determined that MTBE is a threat of unknown proportions and that no sites will be closed without adequate and thorough assessment, without regard to the levels of MTBE detected. Id. at 3. Targhee informed the County and the Regional Board that it was requesting sampling data from the Coachella Valley Water District, a municipal well located 500 feet downgradient from the Site. Exhibit X at 2. The County and the Regional Board informed Targhee that it would not consider the sampling results from this well. Id. The County requested that Targhee submit a workplan for two groundwater monitoring wells at the Site within 90 days 4 Id. On October 15, 1998, Targhee submitted an Workplan Addendum for Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation. Exhibit V. In this workplan, Targhee proposed to drill two monitoring wells. One monitoring well would be located approximately 80 to 100 feet 4 The County later contended that the County had requested the workplan within 60 days of the meeting. As evidenced by Targhee's letter to Petitioner, Petitioner (and Targhee) believed in good faith that the workplan was due in 90 days. 14 010326.0001\480366.1 downgradient from the former tank location; the other monitoring well would be located at the former tank location. Exhibit Y at 4 and Attachment B. Targhee noted that the direction of groundwater flow beneath the site is generally toward the east with some variation toward the east-northeast and east-southeast. Exhibit Y at 3. On December 11, 1998, the County mailed its response to Targhee and Petitioner (in a letter dated October 28, 1998). Exhibit Z. The County did not approve the workplan. The County concluded that the location of the well northeast of the tank site on the north side of the building may have to be "reevaluated" in light of the variable groundwater flow. Id. Petitioner's counsel, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean ("Wendel") responded to this letter. Exhibit AA. Wendel informed the County that Targhee had proposed the'well location with full knowledge of the variable groundwater flow at the Site. According to Targhee, the variable groundwater flow in the area, resulting from the pumping of different municipal wells in the area, would result in smearing any contaminants in the groundwater. Wendel informed the County, however, that Petitioner was open to any suggestions from the County as to where the well should be placed. Wendel requested that the County close the Site, or, in the alternative, approve the workplan so that the Petitioner could seek pre -approval for the workplan. Wendel also pointed out that the County's letter had been misdated, and enclosed the postmarked envelopes in which the County's letter had been sent to both Targhee and Petitioner.5 Under separate cover on the same date, Wendel requested closure of the Site. Exhibit BB. On February 3, 1999, the County informed Petitioner that the County and the Regional Board had determined that the Site was not yet ready for closure. Exhibit CC. The County did not, however, approve the workplan. On June 10, 1999, Wendel contacted the County to remind the County that the County had not yet responded to the workplan. Exhibit DD. On June 16, 15 010326.0001 \480366.1 1999, the County responded to that request. Exhibit EE. The County stated that it would approve the installation of the well where proposed, however, "additional wells will be needed to triangulate the direction of groundwater flow." In addition, the County suggested that prior to commencing work the Petitioner contact the State Cleanup Fund Program to determine whether the project would be reimbursed by the State Fund. dd. Request for Closure The County has requested that Petitioner investigate releases associated with the tanks pursuant to its authority under the underground storage tank law6 The County has not issued a formal order to Petitioner. As is documented in this Petition, Petitioner has been cooperating with the County on a voluntary basis. The County has, however, informed Petitioner's — consultant, Targhee, that the County may issue a cleanup and abatement order if Petitioner does not voluntarily conduct the work as directed by the County — and that recalcitrance may jeopardize Petitioner's ability to recover funds from the Cleanup Fund. Exhibit X at 2. As documented in this Petition, Petitioner has made good faith efforts to comply with the County's directions. The County administers the underground storage tank program in the County pursuant to the local oversight program ("LOP") under Section 25297.1 of the Health & Safety Code. Pursuant to H&S Code § 25299.39.2(b), owners and operators may petition the Manager for 5 Petitioner does not suggest that County deliberately misdated the letter; however, Petitioner wants to set the record straight about its response time to the County. 6 The County has not referred to specific statutory authority under which it has requested that Petitioner investigate and/or monitor releases associated with the tank. However, the County is aware that the Petitioner has been approved by the Cleanup Fund for the investigation associated with the releases and has advised Petitioner to request approval for the work now contemplated. Moreover, Petitioner understands that the County has been overseeing the work on this project pursuant to the local oversight program under H&S Code § 25297.1, which applies to underground storage tank releases. 16 010326.0001\480366.1 review when the owner or operator believes that a corrective action plan has been satisfactorily implemented but closure has not been granted. In this case, Petitioner has already completed the corrective action at the facility, which consisted of excavating contaminated soil around the tank invert. Closure should be granted because there is no indication that the minor levels of MTBE and benzene detected in the groundwater present a health threat.? Under California's UST law, correction action shall ensure protection of human health, safety and the environment. California Health & Safety ("H&S") Code § 25299.37. Under the state's corrective action requirements, corrective action must be "cost-effective." 23 CCR § 2726. In addition, petroleum releases are governed by State Board Resolution 92-49, Policies and Procedures for Investigation and Cleanup and Abatement of Discharges Under Water Code Section 13304 ("Resolution 92-49'). Under Resolution 92-49, corrective action should be consistent with the probable future beneficial use of affected water. The Colorado River Regional Board Water Quality Control Plan ("Basin Plan") designates existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater in the Coachella Valley as municipal supply, industrial supply, agricultural supply, and as freshwater replenishment to surface water. Basin Plan at 2-18. The Basin Plan further provides that groundwater for use as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain taste or odor -producing substances in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. For purposes of health based standards, the California Department of Health Services ("DHS") set an interim action level of 35 ppb for MTBE.. DHS Memorandum, Standards and Technology Unit, Office of Drinking Water, February 19, 1991. More recently, DHS established 7 Nor have other potential sources been considered. According to Targhee's investigation, "several sites which historically stored petroleum hydrocarbons exist upgradient from the subject property (e.g., Happy Valley Ranch, former service station). Exhibit Q at 6. 17 010326.000I\480366.1 secondary maximum contaminant levels ("MCLs") for MTBE of 5 ppb for purposes of satisfying consumer criteria, including taste and odor. 22 CCR § 64449. Resolution 92-49 does not require, however, that the requisite level of water quality be met at the time of site closure. Even if the requisite water quality has not yet been attained, a site may be closed if the level will be attained within a reasonable period. Resolution 92-49, III A. The source of the source of the release (i.e., the UST and associated piping) was removed in 1994. With the exception of a single positive but suspect analytical result at 80 feet bgs, no soil contamination was detected below 55 feet bgs. Thus, there is no continuing source of release and soil sampling results confirm that there is no further migration occurring from the soil to the groundwater. Indeed, as to MTBE; which Petitioner understands to be the County's major concern, there are non -detectable concentrations of any MTBE in the soil column above the groundwater sample for up to 80 feet. Id. The only gasoline constituent that exceeds the MCL for drinking water established under California and federal law is benzene, which is present at 11 parts per billion. The MCL for benzene is 1 ppb. The October 1995 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ("LLNL") study of leaking underground storage tanks determined that benzene plumes tend to stabilize at relatively short distances (less than 250 feet) from the release site. Based on the LLNL report, the low levels of benzene found in the groundwater beneath the Site are not a threat to the Coachella Valley Water District's Well No. 5712, located 500 feet downgradient from the Site. See Exhibit V. In a recent case, the State Board held that closure was appropriate even when the levels of contaminants at the site did not currently meet water quality objectives in the regional basin plan. According to the State Board, acceptable levels would be met through natural attenuation over a significant period of time. In Re Matthew Walker, WQ-98-04 UST (August 26, 1998). 18 010326.0001\480366.1 The contaminant in question here, MTBE, is present at only 26 ppb. The minor levels of MTBE in the groundwater at the Site, located only a few feet downgradient from the presumed source, have obviously already degraded significantly and will naturally attenuate even further. Moreover, if the County's assessment of the situation is correct — that the hydrocarbon contamination dropped with the water table, when the water table dropped from 80 feet in 1978 — this release is almost twenty years old. See Exhibit K. Because MTBE is highly soluble and travels relatively quickly in water, any MTBE released from the Site should already have reached the downgradient water well, 500 feet away from the Site. Sampling results from this water well, however, indicate no detectable concentrations of MTBE. Exhibit FF. Moreover, the sampling analysis used to detect the MTBE was EP'A 8020, a sampling series which is known to result in false positives for MTBE. Memorandum, -New Guidance on Groundwater Monitoring of MTBE From Active LUFT Cases, Allan Patton, UST Manager, August 22, 1996, citing to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Comparison of EPA 8020 and EPA 8240. Thus, these minor levels could well be attributable to laboratory error — particularly given the clean column of soil directly above the groundwater. At a minimum, before additional groundwater monitoring wells are required, the location where MTBE was detected should be resampled using EPA Method 8240. Finally, given the variable groundwater flow in the area and the anomalous sampling results discovered to date, any additional sampling and drilling conducted in the area will be on a "hit or miss" basis. Even if other MTBE exists in the groundwater at the Site, it is unlikely that the MTBE plume could ever be identified without extensive groundwater sampling, which could easily result in tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of drilling to 130 and 140 feet bgs, in the absence of any genuine health threat, is prohibitively expensive 19 010326.0001\480366.1 and not warranted by the minor levels of MTBE discovered to date — particularly when the down gradient water well shows non -detectable concentrations of any contaminant. Request for Guidance If the Manager will not recommend closure of the Site, Petitioner requests some guidance regarding future sampling and drilling at the Site. The County has indicated that additional wells must be drilled to determine groundwater flow. Exhibit EE. Thus, even if Petitioner drills the two monitoring wells, and even if the results show no detectable concentrations of any MTBE, Petitioner must still drill yet more monitoring wells for purposes of establishing the groundwater gradient. This is not necessary because there are three existing wells in the immediate vicinity of the site, all of which appear to have been drilled to the same aquifer, and all of which have been measured. Exhibit Q at 5. On the basis of these measurements, Targhee has already determined the current groundwater flow in the area. Id. Moreover, it is well known that the pumping activities of the different water wells in the area cause the flow to change from time to time. There is little purpose served in measuring a groundwater flow that has already been measured and which is, in any event, subject to change. The County has informed Targhee that sampling and drilling will be required until the MTBE plume is detected and that any detectable level of MTBE presents a concern and will prevent closure of the Site. In short, the County is asking Petitioner to prove a negative. As Petitioner currently understands the County's position, Petitioner could drill ten wells, at a cost in excess of $100,000, and would still have to keep drilling even if no MTBE were detected in these ten wells. Drilling activities are not only prohibitively expensive, they are disruptive to the business operating at the Site. Finally, the County has not provided meaningful guidance to Petitioner's good faith proposals and requests for information. At the County's request, Petitioner submitted a proposal 20 010326.0001\480366.1 for the drilling of a monitoring well downgradient from the former tank location. Exhibit R. The County rejected Petitioner's workplan without proposing an alternative location for the well or otherwise providing any guidance. Exhibit U. Based on oral communications between the County and Petitioner's consultant, Petitioner then proposed yet two other monitoring well locations. Exhibit Y. The County again rejected the workplan, concluding that the location of the well would need to be "reevaluated" given the variable groundwater flow. Exhibit Z. Again the County offered no guidance for where the wells should be placed. In fact, the variability of the groundwater flow was known to the County and documented by Petitioner as early as 1994. Exhibit A at 11. Petitioner's counsel also requested information from the County, requesting a brief explanation of the reasons that the County will not close the Site. Exhibit BB at 3. In particular, Petitioner requested that the County indicate whether it believes the levels of MTBE detected in the groundwater are acceptable if samples collected from other wells confirms that this level (i. e, 26 ppb) is representative. Id. Or, in the alternative, does the County take the position that any levels of MTBE are unacceptable, even the 26 ppb detected at the Site? Id Petitioner did not receive a response to these inquiries. Without at least a brief response to these questions, Petitioner is still operating in the dark as to what the County expects and what Petitioner can do to close this Site. As the situation currently stands, Petitioner has little choice but to seek review of this situation. Petitioner has made good faith efforts to respond to the County's requests for workplans and proposals and incurred significant expenses in doing so. For several years, however, Petitioner has been unable to determine exactly what the County expects Petitioner to do or what results will serve to satisfy the County. Given the very low levels of MTBE at this Site, the expense that has already been incurred at this Site is simply unreasonable; moreover, there appears to be no end in sight. 21 010326,0001\480366.1 Conclusion For the above reasons, Petitioner requests closure of the Site. If the Manager does not recommend closure, Petitioner requests specific guidance from the Manager on the amount and extent of investigation necessary to close the Site. 22 010326.0001 \480366.1 7602420203 P.05 OCT-13-1999 09:06 :' FT Attac meet to Form 4279-3, "Conditional Commitment („Business & Industry)" 3 of 3 . SIMON PROPERTIES, LLC 04-033-0330860871 B&I $ 6,950,000.00-Guamnteed Business & Industry (B&I) Loan Note Guarantee Approval Date: DRAFT CONDITIONS ONLY 9. i. The lender must certify that by accepting this Conditional Commitment for a guarantee, the lender understands that the intent of RD lnsm=don 4279 B, §4279. 18 1 (m),, is that no adverse change may occur during the period of time from the Agency issuance of the Conditional Commitment to the issuance of the Loan Note Guarantee relating to the borrower, regardless of the cause or causes of the change and whether the change or cause(s) of the change were within the lender's or borrower's control. 0. The lender is to provide evidence of approval by state and/or local environmental enforcement authorities of the closure of the known environmental problems associated with the security property -- specifically, those findings contained within the Phase I report dated 12/23/98. If this cannot be accomplished, the lender is to provide evidence of approval by state and/or local environmental' enforcement authorities of the remediation and/or monitoring plans, along with a budget showing the costs of the plan do not impair repayment ability for the loan. 11. All facilities that are accessible to the public must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which became effective January 26, 1992: ORA" Confirmation Report— Memory Send Time Dec-09-99 11:26am Tel line 760-918-5571 Name FIRST COMMUNITY BANK Job number 636 Date Dec-09 11:24am To 917144356679 Document pages 02 Start time Dec-09 11:24am End time Dec-09 11:26am Pages sent 02 Status OK Job number 636 SEND SUCCESSFUL FIRST COMM7 JNITI' SAN1i SSf1 DEPARTMENT .Z902 1WRZG7HTPZAC£, SUITE' 200 C 4IZ>_SSA�, CA 92008 Te/apbo�+er (760) 975-5570 Far: ('760) 928-SS77 �ACSIIVIILE TRANSI{aTTAL .DATE: �v� - 9 - 99 FAX NO: �� �% - y •� � � � � TO: NtTMSE'R OF PAG7FS (IlVCZ �D2?VG COVER) 1f?ESSt10E: 1'l��L-� Confirmation Report— Memory Send Time Dec-09-99 11:24am Tel line 760-918-5571 Name FIRST COMMUNITY BANK Job number 635 Date Dec-09 11:23am To 93201115 Document pages 02 Start time Dec-09 11:23am End time Dec-09 11:24am Pages sent 02 Status OK Job number 635 SEND SUCCESSFUL FIRST CGMMUNl'TY SANS SSA DEPARTMENT Z902 zIrRIG13TPLACE SUITE ZOO � fl RT S]SAD, C 4 92008 Trlrpfione: (760) 9ZS-5570 Fax: (760) 915-557I FACSIMILE TRANS1VlITTAL TOr / FROM: NU1V1S£R OFPAGL�'S (INCL1?DZNl3 CO 1VIESSAG.E: i SCIPP Environmental Questionnaire Borrower: SIMON PROx ,RTIES , LLC Property Address: 78-611 HIGHWAY 111, LA QUINTA, CA I. Does the Borrower own X The Land and/or X The Building? Land and building are -lease to 2. Does the Borrower lease The Land and/or The Building? principal, Fred J . Simon, Sr.'s ne & us d GM closely —held corporation, 3. Describe the current use of the property: au o deager Simon Motors, Inc. 4. Do you know of any prior uses for the property? X Yes No If yes, please list: the subject property was undeveloped until 1982 when the dealership was constructed 5. Please describe any improvements to the property: Auto showroom, office, auto repair, storage and free—standing car wash. 6. Do any of the following tenants occupy the property: Dry Cleaner Yes X No Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator X Yes No Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Yes X No Manufacturing Facility Yes X No 7. Have you received any information and/or notification from any city, state or government agency or any public, private or non-profit group that deals with any environmental problem on the property? X Yes No If so, please describe: Please see attached Phase One report, Petition for Closure and other correspondence. the 8. Is there, or have there ever been, any of the following on or beneath the property? Please see Phase One report. a. Underground Storage Tank(s) ' _ Yes No If yes, how many to Phase One b. Above Ground Storage Tank(s) Yes No If yes, how many L. pil,s numerous barrels If you answered yes to either of the above questions, please continue below with question ( c ). If you answered no to both of the above questions please go to section ( 9 ). c. Have the-tank(s) been removed? X Yes No The motor fuel UST was removed in 1994. d. Are the tanks) registered? Yes No ? The 3 other USTs are no longer used. e. What is (was) the tank's contents? 1 arh nil transmi eci an fluid and coolant f. When was the tank installed? . g. Have the tank(s) been integrity tested? X Yes No See Phase One report. Did they pass the integrity test?y-- Yes No When was the integrity test? During their former use. h. Has there ever been anv evidence of leaks? X Yes No If yes, please describe corrective action taken See attachments i. Are the tank(s) covered by a separate insurance policy? Yes No ? j. Are the tank(s) covered by a state fund? x Yes No k. Are the tank(s) in compliance with current UST/AGST regulations? Yes No ? 1. Above Ground Storage Tank(s) only: Is there secondary containment? X Yes No The fuel, oil, ATF & coolant tanks 9. The applicant represents that the above statements and facts are true and that no material facts have been are pictured i suppressed or misstated. Phase One repc Legal Borrower (please print or type) Property Owner (please print or type) Signature Date Signature LENDER: F' st Community Bar. i Date T � ` aura E. Shiver P.O. BOX 9428.19 SACRA_MENTO, CA 94249.0080 319-2080 DISTRICT OFFICES: 73.710 FRED WARING DRIVE -- SUITE 112 PALM DESERT CA 92260 (760)568.0408 1101 AIRPORT DRIVE, SUITE J IMPERIAL, CA 92251 (760)355.2433 E-mail: Jim.Bahin®asm.ca.gov Homepage: hltpl/ivww.assembly.ca.govlbaltin October 27, 1999 ..C-lD DLiLLI►1ll ��rli�aralitt ���tslttfata:�e :ASSEMBLYMAN, EIGFITIETH DISTRICT Mr. William Attwater Chief Counsel State Water Resources Control Board Office of the Chief Counsel P.O. Box'100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Dear Mr. Attwater: AGING AND LONGTERM CARE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ` PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF REPUBLICAN CAUCUS COMMUNICATIONS rl — In December 1993, it was brought to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health that Simon Motors, an automobile dealership in La Quinta, California had failed its annual tank tightness test. This conclusion was based on reports that exposed piping had allowed a leak to occur. The leak was repaired on June 20, 1994 and the underground tanks in question were removed and,assessed for damage. At that time, up to 8,500 ppm TPHg was detected under the tanks. ; i i:, ; r: Cir Simon Motors'proceeded .with the assessment that -was required, --The State-Wate'r Resources Control Board (WRCB) indicated, through written communicadon-of May-20,-1998 that Simon Motors would be reimbursed for the cost of the soil tests. They understood from the letter that the WRCB Cleanup Fund had a $5,000 deductible.and would reimburse Simon Motors for claims llp to $1 million. To date, Simon Motors has not received.a reimbursement check, as was promised. I am requesting that WRCB honor its original commitment and I would like a specific date of when Simon Motors can expect to receive their. reimbursement. In addition, in September of 1994, three soil borings were drilled at the site in question. Samples were taken at a variety of depths in all three borings. The first boring tests detected no concentrations in any of the sampling depths (45 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet, 78 feet, 80 feet and 85 feet). The second boring test netted the same conclusions at the sampling depths (10 feet, 45 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet, 75 feet and 80 feet). Boring three produced elevated levels of contaminants in the first sampling at a depth.of 10 .feet. The next sampling which was taken at a depth of 45 feet produced only moderately elevated levels of TPH and-BTEX. At a sampling of the next level, 55 feet, the levels tapered off significantly. At 60 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet.and 75 feet, there were no detectable concentrations of any contaminants. At the depth of 80 feet, the deepest sampling, the contaminant appearej again. Continued Serving Eastern Riverside and Imperial Counties . Printed on Recycled Paper Simon Motors .Case Pg. 2 of 2 The soil test results showed a sizable difference in depth between the level at which contaminated water was found and ground level. Furthennore, the results showed the vertical extent could not be defined, and therefore an additional assessment was ordered. The Department requested that a groundwater monitoring system be installed. On January 15, 1997, another boring was drilled and a water sample was taken. On Febiliary 12, 1997, the findings of this survey were submitted to Riverside County. On April 23, 1997, the County informed Simon Motors that additional assessments would be required before a definite determination could be made. After the case was reassigned to the County, Simon Motors made several attempts to get their plans approved so they could proceed with the installation of a groundwater monitoring system. To date, the County has still not approved their plans. Because the contamination in 5 oundwatcr beneath the site is below current health standards for drinking water and because Simon Motors does not believe the contamination is attributable to Simon Motors' operations, Simon Motors is requesting the site be closed. If site closure is not an option at this point, Simon Motors requests specific guidance on the site closure process. Please contact me directly with your response. If I can assist with any further information, you may reach me at my office at (760) 568-0408. Sincerely, � semblyman, ;thBATTIN District JB/dg CC,-JNTY OF RIVERSIDE e H1���EAL'i- I SERVICES AGENCY . r q L..J + YJL Y ��t �, *" -f i l S�Zfi .� 7_11. N �`�a 4' �I fr1 L} �T 7 g .l l 'L�J�' 11='.NyY.+ June 16, 1999 Mr. Randy Rodriguez Simon Motors, Inc. 78611 Hwy 111 La Quinta CA 92253 RE: Simon Motors at 78611 Hwy 111, La Quinta Site 93-1182 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division has received a letter from Catherine Johnson of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, LLP asking for a' response to your workplan for the above referenced site. This office will allow the installation of the proposed well with the knowledge that the groundwater direction at this site has not been determined and additional wells will be needed to triangulate the direction of groundwater flow. The groundwater monitoring wells should be developed a minimum of 72 hours after well construction and sampling of the groundwater should occur no sooner than 72 hours after well development. Prior to commencing work, it is recommended that you contact the State Water Resources Control Board, UST Clean -Up Fund Program to see whether the project you are proposing will be fully reimbursed by the State Fund. Their telephone number is 1-800-813-FUND. If you have any questions concerning this matter, contact me at (760) 863-8976. Our office address is: 47923 Oasis, Indio, CA, 92201. Our fax number is (760) 863-8303. Sincerely, Linda D. Sha o HS Hazardous Materials Management Specialist III cc: Catherine Johnson, Wendel, Rosen, Black, and Dean, LLP Charles Lindeman, Targhee, Inc. Abdi Haile, CRRWQCB file i 47-923 Oasis Street 4065 County Circle Drive, Rm. 123 1370 S. State Street, #101 Indio, CA 92201 Riverside, CA 92503 San Jacinto, CA 92583 Fax (760) 863-8303 Fax (909) 358-5017 Fax (909) 487-0328 (760) 863-8976 (909) 358-5055 - (909) 791-2220 Department Web Site - www.rivcoeh.org REIMBURSEMENT REQ( ;T - UNDERGROUND STORAGE INK CLEANUP. FUND CLAIM NO: 9110 REGION: 7 REIMBURSEMENT NO: Z CLAIMANT. SIMON MOTORS INC CO -PAYEE: NONE JOINT- CLAIMANT: NONE C/O: ATTN: CLAIMANT ADDRESS: CONTAMINATED SITE: ADDRESS: PAUL MADSEN 78-611 HWY 111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 SIMON MOTORS INC , 78-611 HVVY 111 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LETTER OF COMMITMENT. $ 36,000 AMENDMENT NO: 0 PROJECT COSTS INCURRED TO DATE (This Section to be completed by claintant) 1. CORRECTIVE ACTION COSTS (Costs entered here must be cumulative, Total -to -date, NOT INCREMENTAL.) 2. THIRD PARTYJUDGEIIIENT 3. ADJUSTi1IENT 4. DEDUCTIBLE (Subtract) $ I8 l�©. $ S (p) g $ ( 5,000 ) TOTAL $ 13, 10049 I1 $ APPR0YED FOR PAYHENT (TO DATE) (State Use Only) . CERTIFICATION: t have read and agree with the "Conditions of Payments" (Exhibit]), listed on the reverse side of this document. NOTE: This request CANNOT BE PROCESSED unless the "Conditions of Payments" are included on the reverse side when submitted. The costs claimed have been incurred and have been paid or will be paid within thirty (30) days of receipt of the fluids requested hereby. If such costs have not been paid within 30 days, fiords received under this request will be returned to the State Water Resources Control Board. CLAIMANT SIGNATURE: j��,L j�� DATE: STATE USE ONLY. APPROVAL FOR PAYMENTS S LESS S = S Approved for Payment to Date Previous Payments Amount Due Reviewed Br: Approved Ar: Title: Title: Ct u y e Date: Date: CARGHEE, INC. NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING October 1, 1998 Mr. Fred.Simon Simon Motors, Inc. P.O. Box 1461 La Quinta,- California 92253 Re: Supplemental Summary Report of July 30, 1998 Meeting Regarding Simon Motors, 78-611 Hwy. 111, La Quinta, CA Dear Mr. Simon: Per your request, T_ have attempted to address the -concerns voiced to me regarding Targhee's August 5, 1998 summary report of the July 30, 1998 meeting between Targhee, the.Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, and the Colorado River Regional . Water Quality Control' Board (11RWQCB11). Please keep the. following points in mind: o Simon Motors is currently eligible for cost. reimbursement through the.Leaking..Underground Storage Tank Cleanup.Furid.' o Continued attempts to delay.the work.will likely jeopardize Simon Motors' -eligibility for cost reimbursement. o The .-RWQCB is not happy with the pace of the=investigation and intends to issue a Clean-up, and Abatement Order .(11 COA" ) to Simon Motors if this continues. The'RWQCB is fully authorized by law'to.issue a "COA": We. believe.this should be avoided, as ,ultimately they .can and will demand that the work be done. The COA protocol -exposes. Simon Motors to legal and public censure as well -as significant costs and fines that can be avoided.through prompt.action. If the inte_ nde'd :use of these summaries - is to support legal action, I.would ask that your attorneys please contact Targhee to more fully discuss all -aspects of the situation before proceeding.' If you have any questions or comments, please call meat 562-435- 8080. Sincerely, Charles Lindeman R. E. A. -No. .07225 enclosure 110 Pine Avenue, Suite 925. • Long Beach, CA 90802-4426 (562) 435-8080 FAX (562) 590-8795 CARGHEE, INC.. ,NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY REPORT This report is intended to. address concerns raised by Mr. Fred Simon regarding the July 30, 1998 meeting between Ms. Linda Shurlow of the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health ("DEH"), Mr. Stephen Guarino of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"), Mr. David L. Bauer, President of Targhee, and.myself-on behalf of Simon Motors. Targhee's support of site closure and opposition to the regulatory agencies' additional work requirements for the Simon Motors site is implicit in Targhee's:.August 5, 1998 summary of the meeting. However, this report has been prepared to more fully explain Targhee's position at the meeting. To start the meeting, the following. points were made by Targhee in support of. the position that the Simon:Motors site.is a low -risk underground. storage tank ("UST".) -contamination site; and therefore a candidate for closure: o The UST and associated piping were removed -in 1994:and. replaced by aboveground equipment (i.e., source .removal) .- o With the exception of a.positive, but suspect,. -analytical result showing minor contamination at,8..0 feet below ground surface ( "bgs" ) , no soil- contamination was. detected below 55, feet bgs'. o Levels -of ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes detected in the .groundwater are all below their respective Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") for drinking water,.. and methyl. tert-butyl ether ("MTBE")--is below the State's current'Interim Action Level. o The gasoline constituent benzene. is, the only chemical which slightly exceeds its MCL for drinking water. The October 1995 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory' VILLNL") study of leaking USTs determined that benzene plumes tend to stabilize at'relatively short distances (less. than 250.feet) from the release site. Based on the LLNL report, the .low levels of benzene found in the groundwater beneath the Simon Motors site are not a threat to the Coachella Valley' Water. District's ("CVWD") Well No. 5712 located 500-feet downgradient from the site.. o Based on the large volumes of groundwater beneath the site, the location of the nearest drinking water well (CVWD Well No. 5712 located 500 feet downgradient), and the depth and construction of CVWD's Well No. 5712 (concrete seal.from 0 to 110 Pine Avenue, Suite 925 ° Long Beach, CA 90802-4426 • (562) 435-8080 FAX (5.62) 590-8795 Supplemental Summary Report Simon Motors, La Quinta, CA October 1, 1998 Page 2. 450 feet bgs; screened from 500'to 900 feet .bgs), the low'. levels of MTBE detected in the groundwater at 140 feet bgs are not a threat to the area's drinking water supply. . The DEH -and RWQCB reply was simply that numerous MTBE releases have adversely, affected groundwater in the State and that the RWQCB is concerned with the threat to the area's drinking water posed by MTBE.' The RWQCB is not granting closure. to -sites with elevated levels of MTBE in*the groundwater. [Which means this is a policy issue and. -is not open to discussion.). Additional- points were raised -by the DEH and the RWQCB during. the meeting.. These points and Targhee's counterpoints are as follows: o Ms. Shurlow stated that high levels ofgasoline aiid its constituents were detected in .'1994' -in soils 10 feet- below' ground surface (Amwest Boring - B3 ) adjacent to the: former fuel . dispenser and that low -levels of gasoline and its e =constitunts were detected in soils . from the -'same ' boring at, 80. feet . bgs and in the. groundwater. The detectable amounts of. MTBE .are ..of - major concern, and this concern applies to.any .level:of MTBE.. Targhee conceded the first part to be .-true.; however, Targhee argued that a' January 1997. soil sample -collected . from 10 .feet : bgs .in Boring B3-A (located adjacent. to Amwest Boring B3). showed.a significant decrease in Total -Volatile .Petroleum Hydrocarbons'.: ("TVPH").and BTEX levels (i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,.and xylenes). Additionally, the - January 1997. sample collected'from.'20 feet bgs in Boring B3-A showed dramatic decreases in-TVPH and ETEX levels (i.e.., two to three. orders of magnitude) with depth. Therefore, natural attenuation of the contaminated- .:soil is occurring.. Furthermore, the January.1997 sample collected: from 80 -feet:-bgs. in.:' Boring B3-A was*"None Detected" for all*: constituents. This brings into question the positive analytical -results obtained in 1994 from.. 80 feet-bgs '(Amwest .Boring B3) The high levels of TVPH-and BTEX detected .at 10 feet. bgs-in 1994 (which have .attenuated in 1997) and the low .and .none- detected. results .from .samples collected from 80-feet bgs. in 1994, -and 1997 . repectively,. should not -be considered .a threat .to groundwater• located at approximately.140 feet bgs. o Mr. Guarino stated that the State of California Department'of` Health Services had just lowered the action level for.MTBE in drinking water from 35 parts per billion ('.'ppb") to 14 parts' per billion. Supplemental Summary Report Simon Motors, La Quinta, CA October 1, 1998 Page 3 There was not much Targhee could say about this at the time of the. meeting. At that' time, this 'implied that the levels of MTBE detected in the groundwater. beneath Simon Motors exceeded 'the lowered action level of 14 ppb. However; a subsequent review of.:. the State's document indicates that the Office of Environmental Health- Hazard Assessment '("OEHHA") has only issued, a. draft. technical support document for a proposed public health goal of 14 ppb for MTBE in drinking water, Public health goals established by the-.OEIM are not regulatory in nature and -represent only non -mandatory goals: The Department -.of Health Services has not yet lowered the action level for MTBE to 14 ppb. However, all this means is that the decision -making process continues to be in the hands of each of the regional .boards.'' Hence, the use of 14 .ppb as - an action level by this group could - still be perceived as reasonable if justified by -`this region. o Mr. -Guarino was .informed that the CVWD 'is currently analyzing-.. Well No. 5712 .-for. Volatile*. Organic Compounds=.("VOCs"), including MTBE. Mr. Guarino replied that the-RWQCB will not use the VOC analytical `'results from .Well No. .5712 In'. their.. . evaluation-of.the.Simon Motors site.. Ms. Shurlow.-stated that she has 'been .informed -by'"Higher -Ups " that water production-. wells "will not be used ' as .monitoring wells'.,' -and --that such , data are irrelevant ;to -their -decision -.making processes Targhee chided Mr. Guarino for' his short-sight.edness and. -his' -:non technical approach of choosing',to ignore. valuable :data. Targhee.... contended that all analytical results -are useful and all should be.,.. considered as -anyone -trained in the-sciences'would choose'to do. [Analytical results -provided Ito Targhee'.:by the -Coachella Valley:-. Water , District ,.a month. after.. this meeting took. place - reveal no de-ecta-ble'-amo,. z!ts '•.of BTEX _ �-detection limit of Q : 5 ppb) or -MTBE (detection limit of 5. ppb) in' CVWD Well No. 5712.1 o Ms...Shurlow.stated that several production wells. within. the. DEH's jurisdiction have- been adversely .affected -by MTBE releases .and that there is.,a heightened concern regarding the MTBE threat within the regulatory community. Ms: Shurlow further stated that the groundwater beneath Simon Motors is:' used for drinking . water - and that MTBE .- is a . threat ' to the... drinking water supply. Targhee restated the fact that the levels' of'MTBE detected in the, groundwater (i.e., 26 ppb) *are:below the State Water -Resources Control Board's current Interim Action -Level for MTBE of 35 ppb: However, the DEH and RWQCB are currentlyy-using the -mere presence.of MTBE in the groundwater as -the force driving additional. work. Supplemental Summary Report Simon. Motors, La Quinta, CA October 1, 1998 Page 4 Their. former concern for benzene in the groundwater is now secondary and," for all practical purposes, nonexistent. o Ms. Shurlow and Mr. Guarino concur that the MTBE detected in the groundwater beneath Simon Motors is .the major concern They contend that MTBE contamination emanating from the Simon Motors site has not been adequately assessed.' Therefore the RWQCB is recLuirincr additional assessment of the site Ji . e . two monitoring wells and quarterly monitoring). It is obvious .the DEH-and RWQCB are concerned about any level, of MTBE in -the groundwater, as well.as the dearth of information regarding the extent.of the contaminated groundwater plume beneath the site. Their reasoning is ..strongly .influenced by serious situations, occurring elsewhere in the, -region and in .the State. While these situations have little -technical'-..relevance to -your site, the DEH and RWQCB are adamant and confident in their decision and approach. - The. LLNL reports addressing leaking USTs and MTBE in the State. both recommend assessmen:and monitoring to granting .sit te. closure. This is what the DEH and.RWQCB are''currently-requiring of Simon:Motors: additional'assessment'and-monitoring.. Environmental Site Assessment APPENDIX F QUALIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL/ LIABILITY INSURANCE 0dic Environmental Mr. Hvuna Kim, PE - Principal Consultant REA, CEM, CHMM, M.S., LEED-AP Mr. Kim oversaw the entire aspects of environmental assessment and consulting/engineering operations, playing a pivotal role in client services, representing the company to potential financial & real estate institutes as a technical marketing director, and took charge of in-house QA/QC management in remedial action design, contamination assessment, hazardous material management and real estate due diligence assessment. With strong educational and professional background in hazardous waste management, environmental regulatory compliance and engineering/assessment planning, he plays a pivotal role in the overall operation of client marketing and environmental project management. He oversees and trains most of the in-house technical staff and directs environmental planning, abatement, engineering, assessment, and remediation projects with assistance from R.G, REA, I.H., CAC, P.E. and other environmental certified professionals. Environmental Site Assessment Phase I / Transaction Screen Due Diligence He has managed nearly 8,000 ESA projects performed nationwide since 1999, with full responsibility as the Chief Signatory Assessor over QA/QC on subcontractors, in-house staff assessors, engineers and consultants. Projects include mainly industrial and commercial properties, facility compliance audit, NPDES permitting, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, RCRA and CERCLA regulatory compliance assessments, Fannie Mae & HUD project due diligence, and many more high -caliber commercial portfolio assessment. Phase 11 Subsurface Investigation & Pollution Characterization Co -managed over 150 subsurface investigation in CA, NJ, NY, TX, WA, MD, CO, AZ, with PE, RG and RHG, involving various types of drilling such as geo-probe / direct -push, hollow -stem (limited access to high torque) or solid -stem auger, bucket auger, air rotary or percussion hammer, hydro -punch, limited access drilling, hand -auger, soil vapor probing, etc. Extensively trained in hydrogeology by RHG and RG for southern California region, handled groundwater contour estimation, recharge rate monitoring, surveying, monitoring and extraction wells, including water table wells, upper and lower aquifer characterization wells, vertical profile cluster wells, multiport vapor piezometer wells, multipurpose groundwater and vapor piezometer wells, constructed using PVC, stainless steel. Phase III Environmental Site Remediation & Cleanup Dodge World, Torrance (2002-2004) — SVE/Carbon Adsorption, Cost $130K Shin Brother Body, L.A. (1997-2005 projecting) — SVE/Air Sparging, Cost $175K Mira Loma Gas Station, Mira Loma, (2002) — SVE, Cost $75K San Pedro Car Wash, San Pedro (2002-2005 projecting) — SVE/Air Sparging/Duai Phase Dr. J Cleaner, Sherman Oaks (2001-2004) — DPVE (pilot), Cost $220K Ducammon Facility in Monrovia — Continuing Soil Vapor Extraction Operation & Maintenance San Gabriel Water Quality Authority, representing Baldwin Park Operable Unit as one of responsible parties for San Gabriel Valley NPL Superfund Program Groundwater Well Investigation 17700 Roscoe, Northridge, CA — Soil Vapor Extraction and Groundwater Monitoring, Operation & Maintenance Managed and worked with RGs and PEs on mass transfer calculation from pilot testing, vapor radius of influence, assisted C.E. in VES design calculation, calculation of mass removal rate, pore volume exchange time, length of SVE operation, or Soil Vapor Extraction and Dual Phase High Vacuum Extraction remediation projects. He also calculated and work with Registered Hydro -Geologist to conduct remedial action plan, feasibility study, pilot remediation testing study involving evaluation and calculation of transmissivity, storativity, hydraulic conductivity, specific storage, seepage velocity, groundwater capture zone ROI and other hydrologic parameters. Underground Storage Tank/Clarifier Abandonment & Regulatory Closure Managed over 50 site abandonment including gas service station, private fueling station, industrial clarifier, from permitting, regulatory compliance, sampling & reporting, degassing/dryicing/certificate, contract management, AQMD Rule 1166 excavation monitoring via PID and FID. Closed over 50 UST sites in various cities in Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. Managed four sites (Huntington Park, Gardena, City of Industry, Vernon) of UST abandon in place and subsurface investigation projects upon regulatory preapproval due to structural complication with abandonment via removal. Conducted over 10 industrial pretreatment clarifier closure under County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works jurisdiction entailing plan check, permitting, closure, soil sampling and reporting according to CLDPW enforcement regulation. Asbestos/Lead/IAO/Mold Assessment & Abatement 1996-2000 managed over 120 public & private abatement projects with CACs, CIH and DHS Inspectors. With hands-on experience from identification of hazardous material thru inspection and survey to actual abatement and disposal management of such wastes including recycling of mercury vapor and PCB ballasts, Mr. Kim has been the key technical and managerial representative in more than 100 public works involving public projects. Prepared IIPP, H&S, Respiratory Protection Plan, QAQC abatement procedures and regulatory compliance. Mold abatement, IAQ inspection with CIH, AQMD permitting of Negative Air Machines, HEPA Vacuum, preparation of abatement work plan, Procedure 5 emergency abatement plan with CAC Architectural/Engineering Due Diligence Has managed more than 75 ASTM E2018 Property Condition Assessment projects and Probable Maximum Loss (Seismic Evaluation Assessment) calculations in accordance with ASTM E-2026 Estimation of Building Damageability procedures for mainly institutional investors and conduit lenders. Projects include pre-securitization due diligence for Conduit Portfolio, in accordance with Fannie Mae Guidelines and other institutional investment due diligence guidelines. Professional Affiliation / Certification California Professional Civil Engineer - 75083 General Engineering Contractor "A" Member of AICHE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) Member of EAA (Environmental Assessment Association), Certified Environmental Manager #73547 California Registered Environmental Assessor #07252 Institute of Hazardous Material Management, CHMM Master Level #012554 Cal OSHA Hazwoper Training Certificate Uniform Fire Code Training for CUPA Inspectors CUPA Hazardous Waste Inspector Training 8 Hours UST Inspector Training, CUPA, 8 Hours California Real Estate License Nevada State Certified Environmental Manager #2057 LEED AP, USGBCI Education BS, Chemical Engineering, California State University, Long Beach MS, Civil/Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California Princeton Groundwater, Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology, Certificate of Completion, 2004 Professional Civil Engineering Service - Certificate of completion, 2007 Vapor Intrusion and Health Risk Assessment — Professional Training, 2009 Storm -water Pollution Prevention Training — ProfessionaI Training, 2009 John P. Winkler California Professional Geologist California Registered Environmental Assessor Summary Mr. Winkler has over 18 years of professional experience in the environmental field. He is experienced in the areas of hazardous materials management, Phase I environmental site assessments, underground storage tank closures, Phase II subsurface site assessments, groundwater monitoring, subsurface site assessments, and remedial action projects. He has been responsible for the coordination, scheduling, field work, and management of site assessments and remediation projects. Mr. Winkler has worked with a diverse group of clientele, including small government agencies, transportation companies, financial institutions, large oil companies, property management companies, industrial companies, and independent business owners. Relevant Experience Mr. Winkler maintains extensive experience in hazardous materials management and geology. At various stages in his career, Mr. Winkler has been involved directly in work plan development, permitting, field work, report writing, project management, and site closure requests and negotiations with regulatory agencies. This experience has given Mr. Winkler effective skills and knowledge in many aspects of the environmental profession. His experience is summarized as follows: Hazardous Materials Management • Prepared emergency response plans for transportation and industrial facilities. • Scheduled and coordinated hazardous materials handling, storage, and recycling for numerous types of facilities. Developed hazardous waste management plans. • Completed certification training in hazardous materials management for storage, transportation and disposal practices, emergency response, and fire control. Phase I Environmental Assessments • Conducted Phase I assessments for numerous industrial sites including former and existing dry cleaners, machine shops, automotive repair shops, gasoline stations, and large industrial facilities in California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, and Oregon. Has reviewed and provided opinions to clients on numerous Phase I ESA's conducted in other states. Phase II Subsurface Investigations • Involved with numerous sites where soil gas surveys were conducted to evaluate volatile organic compounds in soil at shallow depths. Conducted field work, prepared reports, and prepared recommendations for further assessment if warranted. • Involved with numerous site assessments where drilling, excavation, and trenching were conducted to evaluate contaminants in soil and groundwater. Conducted field work, prepared reports, and prepared recommendations for further assessment or remediation if warranted. • Involved with groundwater monitoring programs at numerous sites where groundwater contamination was being monitored. Conducted well purging and sampling and prepared reports. Conducted aquifer testing under the direction of Hydrogeologists. Remediation Projects • Involved with field work, report writing, and project management of in -situ vapor extraction systems of volatile organic compounds in soil. Installed vapor extraction wells; arranged disposal of hazardous materials; and, prepared system monitoring reports. • Involved with field work, report writing, and project management of free -phase product recovery and groundwater treatment for water treatment systems. Installed groundwater recovery wells; arranged disposal of hazardous materials; and, prepared monitoring reports. • Involved with field work, report writing, and project management of above ground bioremediation projects with petroleum -contaminated soil. Supervised construction activities; conducted verification sampling; and, prepared closure reports. • Involved with field pilot testing, report writing, and project management of sites undergoing natural attenuation monitoring. Prepared workplans; supervised monitoring programs; and, prepared reports. John P. Winkler, PG, REA Page 2 Industry Experience • Mr. Winkler has extensive experience in assessment and remediation of oil industry facilities including oil well sumps and oil field sumps, tank farms, bulk terminals, marine terminals, and refineries. • Mr. Winkler has also developed his expertise in assessment and remediation activities in the transportation industry including bus terminals, air fields, aeronautic manufacturing, historic rail yards, and light rail transportation corridors. • Mr. Winkler brings additional experience in working with developers, city planning departments, and municipal business redevelopment programs to develop assessment and cleanup plans that promote redevelopment and protect human safety and the environment. Education B.S. Geology, State University of New York at Cortland, 1983 Certificate in Hazardous Materials Management, University of California at Santa Barbara Extension, 1994 Registrations California Professional Geologist, No. 7456 California Registered Environmental Assessor, No. 5599 Professional Training OSHA CFR 1910.10 Hazardous Waste Operations and annual update training, 1989- 2009 California Certified Volunteer Fire Fighter No. 503540, 1998 Hazardous Materials First Responder Operational CCR Sect. 8574.20, 1998 DOT Hazardous Materials Handling, company -sponsored training, April 1994 Los Angeles Refinery Safety Training, 2001, 2003 First Aid and CPR for the Professional Rescuer, 1997 Standard First Aid and CPR 1989, 1992, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 Mike Miller — REA Senior Environmental Assessor Mr. Miller has over 15 years of environmental consulting and risk assessment experience, and, in the past, has provided diverse loss environmental consulting services to American International Group (AIG), one of the 10 largest companies in the U.S. His other experiences include evaluating environmental liability, general liability, product liability and fleet liability loss exposures. He also oversaw account portfolios comprised of a broad spectrum of manufacturing facilities, HUDMAP, land developers, pharmaceutics firms, property management firms, and contractors. In his career as an environmental consultant, Mr. Miller prepared and reviewed Phase I and Phase II reports, generated recommendations regarding liability risk management and risk reduction, provided mold/water intrusion management consulting services, and developed and implement presentations and training programs. Education and Professional Credentials M.S. (Biology) University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA — 1982 -1985. B.S. (Biology- Cum Laude) State University of New York, Buffalo, NY —1978 - 1982. California Secondary Education Teaching Credential, 1987. Certificate: Environmental Auditing, University of California -Irvine, 1989. Certificate: Toxic & Hazardous Materials Management, UCLA, 1990. Certificate: OSHA 40-Hr Hazardous Waste Operations & Emergency Response, 1991. Certificate: AHERA Asbestos Building Inspector / Management Planner, 1988. Certificate: AHERA Asbestos Contractor Supervisor, 1995. Certificate: Indoor Air Quality Manager, American Indoor Air Quality Council, 2002. Certificate: Microbial Remediation Supervisor, American Indoor Air Quality Council, 2002. Registered Environmental Assessor, REA No. 02651 Registered Environmental Professional, REP No. 2797 Member: American Indoor Air Quality Council OP ID: MT '4�� CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MYY) 10/11/1Y1N1 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER 800-746-0048 Van Oppen 8r Co. 2 P.O. Box 793 303-232-6738 Teton Village, WY 83025 CONTACT Marlyse Taylor PHONE FAX A/C xt No Ell: 800-746-0048 A/C No): 303-232-6738 E-MAIL service//��vnoaenco2.com ADDRESS: V PP PRODUCER ODICE-1 CUSTOMER ID #: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURED ODIC Environmental 3255 Wilshire Blvd., #1510 Los Angeles, CA 90010 INSURER A: Starr Indemnity & Liability 38318 INSURER 13: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. 19682 INSURER C INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE DDL WVID UBR I POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM DDfYYYY POLICY EXP MMIDD LIMITS GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY SISlEIL70063711 10/21/11 10/21/12 A A E O RENTED PREMISES Ea occurrence $ 300,000 CLAIMS -MADE Fx_1 OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 X CPL GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000 X POLICY PRO LOC $ A AUTOMOBILE X LIABILITY ANY AUTO SISIPCA08215911 09/14/11 09/14/12 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ 1,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ X SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ $ X NON -OWNED AUTOS X UMBRELLA LIAB X OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ 4,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 4,000,00 A EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE SISIXNV71026111 10/21/11 10121/12 DEDUCTIBLE $ $ X RETENTION $ 0 B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE Y / N 57 WEC VV8104 04/01/11 04/01 /12 XI WC STATU- OTH- TORY LIMITS ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT Is 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? ❑ (Mandatory in NH) N / A E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT 1 $ 1,000,000 A Professional Liab SISIEIL70063711 10l21/11 10/21/12 Ea Claim 1,00o,o00 "Claims Made" SUBJECT TO GL AGGREGATE Aggregate 2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) Umbrella policy provides additional limits/coverage over primary General Liability, Contractors Pollution Liability, Professional Liability, Auto Liability and Employer's Liability CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE General Info THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE f� pt i1 © 1988-2009 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2009/09) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD