Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton <br /> i <br /> were removed and disposed of during the remediation activities were not <br /> ' present. It does appear that some materials might have been stored on <br /> the vacant property, outside of the fenced yard at the time of the 1973 <br /> photo <br /> ' SITE WALK <br /> A visual inspection of the vacant lot was conducted by two Kennedy/ <br /> i ,lenWs/Chilton representatives on 31 May 1990. The field apparently is <br /> ■ occasionally turned as new vegetative growth was limited. Two areas, <br /> along the eastern and southern edge of the fenced yard appeared to be <br /> ' slightly lower topographically than the yard and surrounding field. <br /> However, ponding water was not present in the apparent low spots in <br /> spite of heavy rain the previous day. Ponding water was observed within <br /> the fenced portion of the yard. No other significant features were <br /> ' observed. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> ' Based on the available information, no potential environmental problems <br /> were identified during the evaluation of the additional acreage In <br /> addition, surface soil samples collected in the vacant field south of <br /> ' the fenced yard did not contain concentrations of pesticides exceeding <br /> health-based criteria These samples were collected adjacent to the <br /> area in the yard where the highest concentrations of pesticides were <br /> detected. Therefore, based on the sampling results, review of <br /> historical records, and the site walk, further work on the property <br /> outside of the fenced yard does not appear warranted <br /> i <br /> I <br /> ' WPI13 4 2 882526.01 <br /> M <br />