Laserfiche WebLink
it ( 46 <br /> 1 though the soil had been excavated and removed somewhere <br /> Lr'C� 2 else and the hole clean backfilled, you couldn ' t issue <br /> 3 the site closure letter even though someone looking at <br /> 4 the property wouldn ' t have any idea whether or not there <br /> 5 had been contamination there orinot? <br /> 6 A . That ' s correct . <br />' 7 Q . Because soil is still under that <br /> 8 .jurisdiction? <br /> I <br /> 9 A . That ' s correct . <br /> 10 Q . On the day they removed that, you weren ' t <br /> 11 there that day . Do you have ani`opinion as to how the <br /> .12 contamination got underneath the tanks when the tanks <br /> 13 apparently had tested clean or tested through precision ' <br /> 14 testing that apparently there had been no leaks <br /> 3 <br />` 15 detected? That wasn ' t a very good question . Let me ask <br /> 3 <br /> 16 that again . <br /> t I� <br /> 17 Do you have an opinion as to how the <br /> 18 contamination occurred below the tanks when on the <br /> 5 i <br /> 19 inspections dating back into 1986 apparently indicated <br /> '9 <br /> 20 that the tanks were not leaking? <br /> 21 NMR . PAPAS : I ' ll object to the extent <br /> i� <br /> 22 it calls for speculation . I think he previously stated <br /> 23 that the lost test was in November 1990 . <br /> 24 But go ahead and you can answer . <br /> I` <br /> 25 THE WITNESS : I don ' t have an opinion . <br /> I� <br /> PORTALS & ASSOCIATES i( 209 ) 462-3377 <br />