SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

MICAAEL COLuNS Co -n& i`, . . �'' �' JUNE 2, 1994 Page 29 Page 31 1 when you knew there was no contamination to 40 fact from 1 that depth? 2 the five boring samples—I'm sorry,from the five 2 IA. There were samples taken prior to that. I'm ! 3 borings? 3 trying to find everything here. 4 A. I knew that we had circumscribed the problem 4 3�Q. Take your time. 5 itself. After the borings are drilled and the augers 5 g Would you care for some more water? 6 are removed,the holes,which,lite I said,are 6 '�A. Please. 7 approximately 40 feet deep are backfilled with cement. 7 8 Q. Concrete? 8 (Brief recess) 9 A. Concrete. And I have some pictu ms of the 9 10 excavation and some of the cement. 10 ;, THE WITNESS: This excavation occurred 11 Q. Do you know when those photos were taken? 11 from December 1st through December 3rd. Samples were 12 A. They were taken the day of the second time 12 taken at the-- samples weru taken and the results were 13 we went out for excavation,which I don't think we've 13 rushed back to us at that point. 14 gotten to that point yet. 14 MR.HASTINGS: Q.Okay. What were the 15 Q. In our discussion,you mean? 15 -results of the samples taken? 16 A. Yes. 16 A. Most significantly, there was 2,200 TPHg at 17 Q. Big hole. 17 21 feet. This is on the western side. Theme was 500 18 Okay. After you made the borings then and 18 TPHg at 17 feet. We had a clean bottom sample at 30 19 those samples turned out to have nondetectable amounts 19 feet so we were primarily dealing with the side wall at F 20 of contamination,did Quorum or somebody else on behalf 20 that point. 21 of the owners submit an additional addendum to the work 210 As I said,the samples were rushed. Gave us 22 plan? 22 information as to where we needed to go to get a clean 23 A. The report carne in for the borings that 23 pit.1 So we excavated out to the concrete,the abandoned 24 stated they were nondetect on November 6th, 1992. 24 soil borings. 25 Q. Oe you know when the borings were wdone? 25 Q. So the 21-.foot and the 17-foot samples were - Page 30 R — Page 32 1 A. Yes, October 19, 1992. 1 taken out of the side wall of the pit? 2 Q. Okay. What was done next? 2 ''A. That's correct. 3 A. The over-excavation was continued on 3 Q. Did it seem unusual to you that at 22 feet 4 December 1st, 1992 by sHN. 4 there is still noticeable contamination by visual 5 Q. Is that somebody different than on the site 5 inspection as well as odor? 6 before? 6 € MR.PAPAS: object to the question on 7 A. Yes. Quorum Environmental at that point was 7 Sgrounds it's vague and ambiguous. 8 defunct,I guess is the correct term. They split up. 8 MR HASTINGS: I haven't finished the 9 SHPT took over at that point. 9 question yet. 10 Q. Okay. So sHN over-excavated to what depth, 10 !. MR.PAPAS: I am sorry. I apologize. 11 then, at that point? I I MR,HASTINGS: Q.Anticipating that 12 A. Thirty feet, 27 to 31 feet. 12 objection,did it seem an issue to you that at 22 feet 13 Q. Okay. Again,enlarging or just deepening 13you could still see and smell the contamination but that 14 the entire pit area to that depth? 14 at apparently 30 feet,it appeared to be clean? 15 A. Just in the area where the contamination was 15 MR.PAPAS: wait a minute now. 16 noted on the western side. 16 ;F MR-HASUNGS: Question mark. 17 Q. Okay. 17 MR.PAPAS: okay. I abject to it on 18 A. The excavation occurred on the western side 18 theigrounds that it's vague and ambiguous. 19 and actually extended to the columns of cement after 19 Go ahead and answer it, if you understand 20 they had been backfilled. So we knew that we had 20 THE WITNESS: It didn't seem unusual to 21 extended out on the area where the soil had been tested 21 mer 22 nondetect from-- 22 ,; MR.HASTINGS: Q.Do you know where in 23 Q. The borings? 23 thepitfloor the samples were taken, the ones that 24 A. Yes. 24 showed that it was clean? 25 Q. Okay. And then were there samples taken at 25 'A. I'd like to state that these pits are PORTALE & ASSOCUTES DEPOSMON REPORTERS Page 29 - Page 32 f �