Laserfiche WebLink
S d �bS rM '+1 � f � � •� � � f� <br /> _ 4r S if <br /> for TEPH- The soil was returned to hole as before. <br /> Septew'oer 20, 1989 - The results of the laboratory analysis on <br /> the above sample, (Table 2) showed the sample to be clean. <br /> September 29, 1989 - Thorpe Oil submitted a Site A�sL ssme.-It <br /> Report to the SJLHD, Environmental Health Divison, outlining work <br /> done, and stating that because results of the final soil samples <br /> taken an. September 18 showed non-detectable levels of TE.F'.", any <br /> remainin4 contamination that might exist does not pose a. threat <br /> to the environment, and no further work is recommended. <br /> November 7, 1989 - The San Jaxquin County Public Health Services, <br /> Environmental Health Divisor?, responded to Thorpe Oil Co. 's SAR, <br /> (Exhibit q,) listing 7 defaciences, and stating that a prelimary <br /> report should be prepared prior to conducting further field <br /> investigative work. Some of the comments were primarily <br /> procedural, (involvement of a Registered Geologist, etc. ,) but <br /> others need to be addressed: <br /> Item 3 states that site maps should be included to illustrate <br /> configuration of the plume. Based on the results of the above <br /> tit laboratory analyses, a "plume" does not exist, since all <br /> :r contamination has been removed. The product. stored in the tank <br /> was diesel <br /> fuel, which because of its density and chemical <br /> composition, does not migrate any great distance.' ` <br /> Item 4 - Groundwater :de th• cove .3' <br /> p , red fully in this report. <br /> Item 5 Site stratigraphy, there was no RG present during any of <br /> the excavation operations, so it is not possible to present a <br /> detailed geologic description of the sediments penetrated during i <br /> work at the location. Detailed geologic sections were prepared <br /> for the groundwater investigation conducted at 229 Moffat Blvd, <br /> less that 250' -From this site, which should be representative of <br /> y, the gaology in the area; (refer to Exhibits E, F, & 6.) <br /> ui <br /> Item states: "Although an immediate source removal has taken <br /> place and residual soil contamination appears to be absent, we <br /> cannot agree with the conclusion that further sit evaluation is <br /> j- not necessary." This statement appears to be contradictory; if <br /> the source has been removed, (the UST,) and residual, soil <br /> contamination is absent, why would further evaluation be <br /> The 14 groundwater monitoring wells that were elaceg <br /> of ccnxamination at o a d vd. are all downgradient from <br /> this or an wau e <br /> } contamination which might becaused_.-Ery site. The two wells <br /> 4 <br /> Y <br />