Laserfiche WebLink
O-VI81/96 11:30 UST CLEANUP FUND 912094640138 N0.910 D04 <br /> k R <br /> . <br /> George Lockwood <br /> State Water Resources Control. Board <br /> January 26, 1996 <br /> Page 3 <br /> was caused by a reckless act, it was obliged to snake that determination long before this point. <br /> You requested a number of documents its the narrative to the Payment Surnmary, <br /> many of which are in the materials previously submitted. The tank tester's report is attached <br /> hereto as Exhibit "B". A casaal review of the test report will establish that the tank had been <br /> te4ed previously and had failed,indicating a loss of product from the tank before the helium test. <br /> The purpose of the helium test was to make a determination as to whetter there <br /> was a low level tank leak or an upper level leak(e.g. a plug or fitting at the top of the UST or <br /> possibly a leak in the non-liquid piping such as the vent or vapor recovery piping or an air trap <br /> at the top of the tank,) The results of the helium tint may have proven the failed precision test <br /> was due to a non-liquid defect as opposed to a lower level leak that would have resulted in <br /> contamination and immediate corrective action. <br /> The helium test was performed to determine the accuracy of the prior test and to <br /> further delineate the characteristics of the loss of product from the tank. The condition of the <br /> tank at the time of its removal was documented on videotape, a copy of which can be made <br /> available for inspection. The tank was rusted through in several spots and was obviously very <br /> old. Photos of the tank are attached hereto as Exhibit "P". The negligence that was ultimately <br /> alleged against ITIS was simply that it failed to do a "stick test" after its helium test to <br /> determine whether any product had leaked as a result of the helium test. <br /> 'The fact's are that the helium test did not cause the leak. The tank was already <br /> leaking before the lieliurn test was performed. The helium test may have exacerbated the <br /> problem, but it was not the primary cause of either the leak or the contamination. <br /> In any event,there was extensive expert witness testimony taken during discovery <br /> which left unresolved the question of whether or not the helium test administered by ITTS <br /> worsened the existing loss of product. What was not in dispute, however, was that petroleum <br /> was leaking into the soil before the helium test. <br /> If you have any basis whatsoever for asserting that the contamination of the soil <br /> and groundwater at the Langston,property was the result of gross negligence,an intentional act <br /> or recklms behavior, please share it immediately. None was ever found during litigation by a <br /> virtual. army of attorneys and experts. Unless there is some evidence,T trust that this objection <br /> to the Reimbursement Request will be withdrawn. <br /> As for your request for copies of litigati{m documents, the settlement documents <br /> have already been requested and are in your files. The litigation files,evert the complaints in the <br /> r'�. case, are voluminous. The Langston matter involved four parties on three sides and numerous <br />