Laserfiche WebLink
1 interfere with the beneficial uses of water and are well below <br /> 2 the established levels of concern, no further action is <br /> 3 warranted. In re County of Santa Clara SWRCB Order No. WQ 86-8 <br /> 4 at pp. 27-31. <br /> 5 2. COLOR SPOT'S UST DID NOT CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO <br /> GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION. <br /> 6 <br /> In its August 10, 1993 letter (Exhibit A-2) , the Health <br /> 7 <br /> Department justified its Order for installation of three <br /> 8 <br /> groundwater monitoring wells and quarterly sampling based on the <br /> 9 <br /> following data: <br /> 10 <br /> 11 5/91 - Monitoring Well Sample .0006 ppm toluene <br /> (immediately below tank pit) (MCL = .1 ppm) <br /> 12 <br /> 13 1/90 Agri. 'Supply Well Samples .0006 to .005 ppm toluene <br /> (500 to 2,000 feet from UST) (MCL = .1 ppm) <br /> 14 <br /> and <br /> 15 <br /> .0001 to .0004 ppm, benzene <br /> 16 (MCL = .001 pp=) <br /> 17 No substantial evidence exists that these sample results are <br /> 18 associated with the UST. Johnson (Levine Fricke) Decl. at p. 5. <br /> 19 a. No Tank Leakage Was Observed During Removal. The <br /> 20 field observations during the tank removal indicate that the tank <br /> 21 did not leak. SG&D reported that the tank appeared intact and <br /> 22 structurally sound when it was removed. No tank defects, holes, <br /> 23 rusting or pitting was observed. Neither the inspector nor SG&D <br /> 24 reported any evidence of a release such as the presence of free <br /> 25 product in the excavation. In fact, all present noted only a <br /> 26 minor amount of soil contamination, which subsequent field work <br /> 27 confirmed was limited to the excavated soils. SG&D concluded <br /> 28 <br /> -6- H\VNC\C0L0RSPT\APPEAL.PL4(5P2) <br />