Laserfiche WebLink
September 1994 served to define the extent of soil impacts and did not require any further <br /> investigations at that time. <br /> 3. The Closure Evaluation Report presents data and evaluations that supports the <br /> obvious conclusion that groundwater resources are not threatened. Since the preparation <br /> and implementation of a Corrective Action Plan is unnecessary, feasibility studies as part <br /> of a Corrective Action Plan are not necessary as well. <br /> 4. RTD does not concur that a nuisance condition exists at the site, specifically, it is <br /> not clear how hydrocarbon impacts to soil and/or groundwater meet the following <br /> requirements defined in the Water Code Section 13050 (m): <br /> (m) "Nuisance "means anything which meets all of the following requirements: <br /> (1) Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction <br /> to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or <br /> property. <br /> (2) Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any <br /> considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage <br /> inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. <br /> (3) Occurs during or as a result of the treatment or disposal of waste. <br /> If the SJCPHS believes that the preceding nuisance requirement has been met for the site, <br /> RTD recommends that they provide facts to Ultramar, suitable for admission to a court of <br /> law, to support their assertion that a nuisance condition exists. <br /> 5. RTD does not concur that the hydrocarbon impacts to soil and/or groundwater can <br /> be characterized as contamination, given the following requirement defined in the Water <br /> Code Section 13050 (k): <br /> (k) " Contamination " means an impairment of the quality of the waters of the state <br /> by waste to a degree which creates a hazard to the public health through poisoning or <br /> through the spread of disease. " Contamination " includes any equivalent effect <br /> resulting from the disposal of waste, whether or not waters of the state are affected. <br /> If the SJCPHS believes that the preceding requirement to characterize contamination has <br /> been met for the site, RTD recommends that they provide facts to Ultramar, suitable for <br /> admission to a court of law, to support their assertion that contamination is present. <br /> There is absolutely no evidence that public health has been or could possibly be threatened <br /> by the minor hydrocarbon impacts formerly and remaining in the subsurface soils on the <br /> site. In addition, RTD has not seen any evidence that the hydrocarbon impacts could <br /> possibly be characterized as pollution, given the following requirement defined in the <br /> Water Code Section 13050 (1): <br /> (1) " Pollution " means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by <br /> waste to a degree which unreasonably affects either of the following: <br /> (1) The waters for beneficial uses. <br /> (2) Facilities which serve these beneficial uses. Pollution " may include <br /> "contamination. " <br /> If the SJCPHS believes that the preceding requirement to characterize pollution has been <br /> met for the site, RTD recommends that they provide facts to Ultramar, suitable for <br /> - 4 - <br />