Laserfiche WebLink
$100' <br /> 1 UST ever contained benzene. The UST was used for the storage of <br /> 2 diesel, not gasoline. Hildebrand Decl. at p. 3. All soil <br /> 3 samples taken from the Site were analyzed for benzene, but no <br /> 4 benzene was found in the contaminated soil excavated from the <br /> 5 tank pit nor in any other soil sample. Johnson (Levine Fricke) <br /> 6 Decl. at p. 5. Summerlin (SG&D) Decl. at p. 3. <br /> 7 Furthermore, in its February 2 , 1993 letter the Health <br /> 8 Department admits that the "lateral extent" of any contamination <br /> 9 associated with the UST has been adequately determined and the <br /> 10 only question within its jurisdiction is whether contamination <br /> 11 has reached the groundwater below the UST. (Exhibit A-1) . In <br /> 12 addition, no benzene was detected in either the groundwater grab <br /> 13 sample or the MW-1 groundwater sample extracted immediately below <br /> 14 the UST, and benzene was detected at the site only at <br /> 15 concentrations below .0004 ppm, which is over ten times less than <br /> 16 the accepted action level for benzene. Summerlin (SG&D) Decl. , <br /> 17 Exhibit F. <br /> 18 Such data is clearly not "substantial evidence" of <br /> 19 contamination associated with the UST nor indicative of <br /> 20 groundwater contamination sufficient to justify costly additional <br /> 21 investigation and monitoring. Exxon USA and U.S. Cellulose, <br /> 22 infra. In this regard, the Department of Toxic Substances <br /> 23 Control has a a published policy that innocent owners of property <br /> 24 who have not caused or contributed to contamination of concern <br /> 25 should not be punished. See Exhibit-B attached. In this case, <br /> 26 Petitioner's UST did not cause or contribute to the contamination <br /> 27 the Health Department cited as a justification for its order. <br /> 28 The mere fact that an UST was present at the Petitioner's Site <br /> 1 -9- M\VMC\COLORSPT\APPEAL.PL4(5P2) <br />