Laserfiche WebLink
1 . The soil investigation should be directed <br /> so as to provide information from which <br /> remedial actions can be taken, including <br /> the vertical and horizontal extent of <br /> contamination. <br /> 2. STLC and TTLC levels are not appropriate <br /> in the case of MCTC, rather CAM levels <br /> should be used. <br /> 3. Suggested that the SAP did not address <br /> contaminant transfer to air or biota. <br /> 4. Stated that the SAP did not determine <br /> the potential for environmental media <br /> transfer. <br /> All of the above will be reviewed. <br /> Ground Water Assessment Plan <br /> A report was submitted August, 1985 to the Water Board, EPA, and <br /> DOHS. The Water Board replied Jan. 15, 1986 with the following <br /> comments and with comments by MCTC. <br /> 1 . Chemical Quality of the ground water was <br /> described, delineating the quality of <br /> Chromium, Arsenic, Copper, and Nitrates. <br /> 2. It was pointed out that information would <br /> have to satisfy the requirements of HAP <br /> under the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act. <br /> Action - This will be done in as much <br /> as is possible. <br /> 3. Informational Needs. <br /> a. The Water Board requested that the lateral <br /> and vertical extent of the Cr VI plume must <br /> be more adequately defined. <br /> Action <br /> Six wells were drilled in Dec. 1985 and <br /> Jan. 1986. Reports of the findings in <br /> those wells will be forth coming soon. <br /> Another six wells will be drilled, as soon <br /> as the drilling contractor is available, to <br /> find the horizontal and vertical limits of <br /> the Cr VI plume. <br />