Laserfiche WebLink
3) Norma Farrow - 440 North Main Street: <br /> This facility is located across Main Street amd 500 feet southeast of the subject <br /> site. In February 1987, one abandoned 500-gallon UST (empty but formerly used <br /> to contain leaded gasoline) was removed from this location. An Unauthorized <br /> Tank Release report was filed with the EHS on March 4, 1989. The one soil <br /> sample taken at the tank excavation location tested negative for BTXE; however, <br /> it tested positive for lead at 18 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and total <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons (C6-C10 range) at 1.3 mg/kg. Further assessment was <br /> requested by the EHS based on these laboratory results. However, there is no <br /> file documentation of further assessment, or County requests of Ms. Norma <br /> Farrow (the property owner) to conduct a subsurface investigation. Based on the <br /> absence of EHS action regarding this facility, its crossgradient location relative <br /> to the subject site, and the low levels of soil contamination detected, this facility <br /> appears to have a low potential for environmental impairment to the subject site. <br /> Based on ATEC's review of the above files, the three facilities which reported <br /> tank leaks do not appear to present an immediate environmental threat to the site. <br /> As both the Beacon and former Jackpot Gas stations are located hydraulically <br /> downgradient, and have been conducting quarterly groundwater sampling which <br /> has indicated non-detectable to very low contaminant levels in most wells <br /> sampled, these facilities do not appear to pose a concern to the subject site and <br /> no further investigation of these facilities appears warranted at this time. The <br /> third facility, located southeast of and crossgradient to the site, does not appear <br /> to be presently under order to remediate low-level soil contamination previously <br /> discovered there. Because groundwater is not known to be impacted at this <br /> property, the soil contamination alone does not appear to present an <br /> environmental threat to the subject site. Therefore, no further investigation of <br /> this facility appears warranted at this time. <br /> 13 <br />