Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br /> 1 4. The UST was removed on February 28, 1989. I. <br /> 2 understand from SG&D that the confirmatory samples taken after <br /> 3 the excavation of limited soil contamination indicated the <br /> 4 presence of only trace levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. <br /> 11 <br /> 5 Further, two surveys of existing agricultural supply wells <br /> 6 conducted by SG&D in October 1989 and January 1990 indicated that <br /> 7 no contaminants in 'levels of concern were present in the <br /> 8groundwater. Nonetheless, the San Joaquin county Public Health. <br /> 9 Services, Environmental Health Division ("Health Department") <br /> 1.0 indicated that additional work would be necessary in order to <br /> 11 close the case. <br /> 12 6. Accordingly, on October 8, 1990, Color Spot spent <br /> 13 additional money to drill four borings at the site and sample <br /> 14 soil at 30, 80 and 90 feet to further assess the presence of <br /> 15 diesel contamination in the deeper ;soils beneath the UST. A <br /> 16 groundwater sample was taken from one of the borings since only <br /> 17 one boring was able to be coverted to a monitoring well (MW-1). <br /> 18 and the monitoring well was dry. Although both soil and water <br /> 19 samples did not indicate diesel contamination_, the Health <br /> 20 Department refused to close the case.. <br /> 21 7. Although color Spot was informed that adequate. <br /> 22 sampling had been conducted to demonstrate that the UST closure <br /> 23 had been clean and that no further action was required,, in order <br /> 24 to cooperate with the Health Department's demands, Color Spot <br /> 25 again sampled the groundwater. on May 22, 1991, SG&D took a. <br /> 26 sample from MW'-1, which was now a viable well.. This sample <br /> 27 indicated that only trace amounts of toulene were present;. I <br /> 28 understand from SG&D that these levels of toulene do not warrant <br /> 2 VMCICOLORSFTIADAMS:DEC <br />