Laserfiche WebLink
Y %woe <br /> On October 8, 1998. the stored spoil was transferred to the Forward Inc. landfill for <br /> disposal by Jim Thorpe Oil personel & equipment. Copies of the waste haul <br /> manifests are included as EXHIBIT D. <br /> REVIEW OF WORK DONE TO DATE: <br /> 1. 200 cubic yards of contaminated soil has been removed from the sites occupied by <br /> the UST's, product lines, and pump island. <br /> 2. 8 soil/water geoprobes and 3 groundwater monitoring wells have defined the limits <br /> of the soil and groundwater plumes. <br /> 3. None of the monitoring wells have ever revealed any contamination since they <br /> were installed in October, 1996. <br /> 4. The latest work, (see PLATE V,) shows that the only significant remaining soil <br /> contamination is on the west side of the excavation & appears to extend beneath the <br /> building. <br /> 5. The water sample taken from the bottom of the excavation revealed the presence <br /> of BTEX, TEPH (as diesel,) and MTBE, (below the State allowable of 25 ug/L.) The <br /> groundwater sample was contaminated by the dirty soil being removed from the hole. <br /> MW-2, located about 10 feet south of the excavated area, has never revealed any <br /> contamination in water samples taken both before and after this work. <br /> 6. S13-3, which is the closest downgradient point from the pump island, did not <br /> measure any soil contamination from a sample taken at 10' 6" bgl. A water sample <br /> from that hole revealed only diesel compounds. MW-3, which is also downgradient, <br /> did not measure any soil contamination, and all water samples have been ND. <br /> 7. Depth to water was measured at an average depth of 9.24' bgl on September 8, <br /> 18 days after completion of this latest work. All wells were ND. The hydraulic <br /> gradient continues to be to the northwest. <br /> CONCLUSIONS: <br /> • None of the three monitoring wells have ever recorded any contamination in water <br /> samples taken from four sampling events. <br /> • The water sample taken from the bottom of the excavation was contaminated by <br /> soil which had not yet been removed. It it not representative of conditions beyond <br /> �..r the hole. <br /> 6 <br />