SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

r Noe r like being a bankruptcy trustee) , the FDIC does not have unlimited funds available to expend on th]5 project... You can understand, therefore, why I; am so concerned, that the FDIC not be made responsible for defining the parameters of contamination from off-site sources. It is an unfortunate reality Of our legal system that the FDIC must advance investigatory and litigation costs in order to compel those who caused contamination arising from the site to clean it up. It 'would be unduly burdensome., however, if the FDIC were ;obliged to advance additional: costs, that could. and should be borne by others, to solve problems: stemming from off--site sources. Looking at the data generated at the site thus far, we are quite concerned by the repeated _findings of XTBE an the ground water under. the property:. As you know, MTBE isa: gasoline additive that was first used in the 1980s.` The tanks at our site were pulled in 1979 and the. site was converted to a fast food. restaurant.:.. Therefore, it would appear that the MTBE is not costing from an. on- site source. We anticipate that the additional work being done by Geocon will allows us to identify the source of the A't'BE contamination. once we have that information, we will forward it .o you for your consid ation:. I look forward. t. working with you to develop a: reasonable:, cost- effective solution to the problems on the site. Should you require any further information concerning this matters please feel free to give me a ca1-1. Sincerely, Tom Mason Enclosures; Uriah report dated. 4--8-91, (includes Sl:,, 521 S3 baring data) Geocon 9-30-94 report, (includes DTBl and DTB2 borings done by EPM on 4-1-94) Lab analyses of EPM samples taken 4-1-94 Amended Complaint (pending litigation) Status Report (on pending litigation)