Laserfiche WebLink
I development of additional evidence in this matter. An extension <br /> 2 up to and including October 15, 1993 was granted. <br /> 3 BACKGROUND <br /> 4 On February 28, 1989, Petitioner removed a 4,000 gallon <br /> 5 underground storage tank ("UST"} which had stored diesel fuel <br /> 6 from the Site. The tank removal was observed by an inspector <br /> 7 from the Health Department. According to Petitioner's lead <br /> 8 consultant, Staal, Gardner and Dunne, VISG&DII) , the tank was <br /> 9 intact when removed. However, after the removal, the Health <br /> jo Department nevertheless required substantial further <br /> 11 investigation of the Site. <br /> 12 The first round of sampling, which was conducted in <br /> 13 October 1989 and January 1990, consisted of a soil vapor survey, <br /> 14 six confirmatory soil samples taken in the walls and base of the <br /> 1511 tank excavation, and two surveys of four existing agricultural <br /> 16 supply wells on the Site. None of the results of the first round <br /> 17 of sampling indicated that further investigation was warranted. <br /> 18 The soil vapor survey confirmed that contamination which <br /> 19 SG&D had concluded had resulted from overspill was limited to <br /> 20 excavated soils. The confirmatory soil samples in the tank grave <br /> 21 indicated that any remaining petroleum hydrocarbons (toluene at <br /> 22 .0006 ppm, total xylenes at .091 ppm and TPH diesel at 15 ppm) <br /> 23 were substantially below the 100-300 ppm standard typically <br /> 24 applied in determining whether additional remediation is <br /> 25 necessary. The October 1989 sampling of the agricultural supply <br /> 26 wells showed no constituents at levels of concern. Only one <br /> 27 sample from an upgradient well contained benzene (at less than <br /> 28 1f 10th of one part per billion) . The January 1990 sampling of <br /> -2- H\VMC\COLORSPT\APPEAL.PL4(5P2) <br />