Laserfiche WebLink
7 Y <br /> ;i <br /> samples from the 21000 gal. diesel tank, the site was reentered <br /> an August 1, 1989, and reexcavated under a workplan submitted by <br /> Thorpe Cil & approved by the County EHD. Refer to Exhibit V for <br /> a copy of that workplan. <br /> Five (5) soil samples were taken, one from each sidewall and one <br /> +ram the bottom of the excavation, with instructions to test for <br /> STEX, EDB, TVPH, TEPH, & organic lead. <br /> The results of the laboratory tests, (Table Y & Exhibit H) showed <br /> that the soil sample taken from the west wall contained 110 mg/kg <br /> TEPH; all other tested substances were below detection levels in <br /> `A all samples. <br /> On September 18, 1989, Thorpe Oil <br /> ag inl amatory the <br /> excavatio) <br /> and Canonie d a soil sample was taken by <br /> personel from approximately the same location as the previous one <br /> which had revealed some minor contamination. That sample was <br /> . s tested for TEPH, which revealed it to be below detection limits. <br /> Refer to Table 1 for details. <br /> a <br /> A Site Assessment Report was prepared by Thnrpe Cil and submitted <br /> to the Count/ EHD on September 29, 198'. It stated that all con- <br /> tamination had been removed from the site, and no further work <br /> was necessary. Refer to Exhibit E for a copy of that report. <br /> The County EHD staff responded to that report, stating that they <br /> did no concur with the SAR conclusions, and believed that further <br /> work was required. At that point, Wm. J. Hunter & Assoc. were <br /> retained to review the situation & respond. <br /> After an analysis of the prior work, Hunter & Associates prepared <br /> a PAR & SAR which was submitted to the County EHD in July, <br /> Refer to Exhibit F for a copy of that report. <br /> On Janury 3, 1991, The County EHD staff responded to the above <br /> -- report, stating that a groundwater investigation was stili <br /> required, but that because the gradient had been well established <br /> by the 14 monitoring wells placed on and around the adjacent <br /> property at 229 Moffat, only one (1) well would be needed, it <br /> should be placed within 10 feet of the removed 21000 gallon UST <br /> in a down gradient direction. A copy of that letter is included in <br /> _ Exhibit L. <br /> After numerous discussions with County staff concerning the need <br /> for a groundwater-investigation at this site....a-workplan.. .or_._ _ .__..... __....._. <br /> n property was prepared by Hunter & <br /> installing a monitoring well ❑ - <br /> 3 <br /> t <br />