Laserfiche WebLink
I; r. �44- <br /> �F.a+ ;.rr# W - .y <br /> - .°�.�s: :.�,, t�w��� <br /> r <br /> 4 <br /> lead. Laboratory analysis revealed th3L all tested components <br /> were below detection levels; refer =o - ble Il & Exhibit S for <br /> details. <br /> in <br /> tered <br /> Because of the minor amount of tank <br /> s'iteewas reentered an <br /> samples from 2,000 gal. diesel tank, <br /> August 1, 1989, and reexcavated undeEH'-ti�mR�Peanto_Exhibit 0yfor <br /> Thorpe Oil & approved by the County <br /> _• a copy of that workplan. <br /> Five (5) soil samples were taken, one from each sidewall and ane <br /> exnrvatc <br /> tinlead <br /> ,rwith <br /> instructions to test for <br /> from the bottom Of the <br /> BTEX, EDD, TVPH, TEPH, gi <br /> the laboratory tests, CTablfl 1 &_Exhibit EJ showed <br /> The results of <br /> takenample h <br /> that the soil <br /> 5 testedsubstancesweresl <br /> belowdetectiondlevelsging <br /> TEPH; all <br /> all samples. <br /> On September 18, 1989, Thorpe oil again reentered t(now^Weston,) <br /> and a sail sample was taken by GanoniB laboratory, <br /> personel from approximately the same location as the Prlwas <br /> which had revealed some one <br /> minor contamination. That sample <br /> tested for TEPH, which revealed it to be below detection limits. <br /> Refer to Table 1 acrd ExhibitF for details. <br /> epared by Thorpe Oil and submitted <br /> r A Site Assessment Report t� pmberr29 1999. It stated that all con— <br /> to the County EHD on Sep <br /> Lamination had been removed from the site, and Of that <br /> was necessary. Refer to Exhibit G for a copy <br /> 4tia 1984, stating that <br /> The County EHD staff responded on November 7, <br /> they did no concur with the SAR conclusions, and believed 0faat that <br /> �. further wort: was required. Refer to Exhibit <br /> h for a copy <br /> document- <br /> Can dune 7, 1990, the EHD issued a formal letter stating that a <br /> groundwater investigation workplan must be prepared and submitted <br /> t � Site Assessment Report <br /> within 14 days. A Preliminary Repor <br /> was prepared by Wm. J. Hunter & Associates and submitted to the <br /> County staff in July, 1990- Refer to Exhibit r for a cflpy of <br /> that report. <br /> On Janury 31 1791, The County EHD staff responded to the above <br /> report, stating that a groundwater investigation was still <br /> required, but that because the gradient had been well established <br /> by the 14 monitoring wells placed on and around the adjacent <br /> 3 <br />