Laserfiche WebLink
GO <br /> Color Spot, Inc. <br /> July A. 1993. <br /> Mr..Kevin Adams pap 2. <br /> However, the datai obtained from, 17 additional: soil samplescollectedand <br /> chemically <br /> analyzed in the vicinity: the former ydars, -i limits <br /> substantially lower of the er UST over the past 4: zing detection <br /> thea the-applied action level Drinking Water Standard (DWS) for benzene; <br /> indicate th;;.:Aoenzeneb concentration tran n has been detected. No benzene concentration in-excess of <br /> :. : <br /> the DWS has. been &.0;;ed :in :the soils in the vicinity of. the <br /> former. UST. For additionat <br /> information.pertaining to these additional soil samples and additional assessmentconducted at tFie <br /> : <br /> site, please re er-:to .the fallowing environmental assessment/remediation.pro ;.ts:perf ed at*e. <br /> site.. <br /> Sol-1 1 VapdrSurvey Assessment conducted August 15, 1999; <br /> Remediation of Diesel Fuel Contaminated Soil conducted January 199t- and <br /> Supplemental.Site Assessment conducted October 1990,. <br /> In addition in our March 1984 report, we stated that the additional contarn.i na..r.its which were <br /> detected at the site (toluene, ethylbenzen'e and xylenes) were: "widespread.:" This statement was <br /> made without the benefit of the subsequent chemical analysis of soil samples collected following <br /> the excavation of additional soils in the vicinity of the former UST. used on SGD's field <br /> observations and the results of the chemical analysis of the:verification soil samples collected, it is <br /> clear that (a) all contaminated soil associated with the UST has apparently been removed and <br /> disposed of, (b)the detected fuel constituents(which did not include benzene)were limited in extent <br /> and were apparently caused by overfilling of the UST, not leaking of the UST; and (c) the soils <br /> remaining in the walls and floor of the resultant UST excavation following soils remediation., <br /> activities are free of actionable concentrationsof fuel contaminants. <br /> Therefore, it is our profession;,} opinion that the following can be concluded: <br /> Concentrationsof benzene, have not beendetectedthe soils surrounding and <br /> adjacent to the.:former UST; <br /> The s o which was observed during the time of the UST <br /> contamination n whi h <br /> removal. and:,req e di has been excavated.an.d:d* d9d o.f, .and <br /> required d <br /> The UST his not contributed to the regional benzene contaminated ground <br /> water problem which.ch. exists in the area. <br />