SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

�� Mr. Doug Wilson and Ms. Margaret Logario May 27, 1998 Page 2 unauthorized release, the release site, and the surrounding area possibly affected by the unauthorized release, if any of the following conditions exists: (1) There is evidence that surface water or ground water has been or may be affected by the unauthorized release; (2) Free product is found at the site where the unauthorized release occurred or in the surrounding area; (3)There is evidence that contaminated soils are or may be in contact with surface water or ground water; or (4)The regulatory agency requests an investigation, based on the actual or potential effects of contaminated soil or ground water on nearby surface water or ground water resources or based on the increased risk of fire or explosion." Our understanding is that the groundwater in the Linden area in which the tanks were located is in the range of 160 to 200 feet down, that there was no free product found at the site of the tanks, that there is no reasonable basis for a belief that there has been or will be any contamination of groundwater or any increased risk of fire or explosion. As you are aware all of the test results indicated a complete absence of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, gasoline or xylene. The additional tests requested and completed on May 20, 1998, indicated that in the three areas tested the method 3550 LUFT test had a result of 5.8 mg/Kg in a category which includes both diesel and oil in an area described as "dispenser @ 3 t/z"' and none detected at both the area described as"Pipeline#1 @ 5"' and "Pipeline 92 @ 3 '/2"'. The initial test results on the initial test using method 3550 LJFT had indicated "weathered diesel" in the 450 - 1500 mg/Kg range on six samples, and lead in the 7 through 30 mg/Kg range on three samples. While we trust that the provision of the additional testing requested will provide you with sufficient information to be able to close this matter and issue a letter stating that no further action is being required, Mr. Wilson's letter has caused some confusion. To the extent that fitrther action is indeed being required, we would ask that you identify the further action you are requiring, that you state the basis for your requirement, and that you direct such request to the "responsible parties" as defined by 23 CCR§ 2720, that is "(2) [i]n the case of any underground storage tank no longer in use, any person who owned or operated the underground storage tank immediately before the discontinuation of its use".