Laserfiche WebLink
p <br /> IS r <br /> givingi` further reasons why some contaminants can be left in <br /> place without threatening groundwater. <br /> ! The two composite samples of the spoil , both of which showed <br /> !i some contamination, 9 . 6 and 16 mg/kg, also are far below the <br /> limitslindicated above . Although the spoil could have some ' <br /> portions that would test higher than the above samples , the t <br /> mixing'lof the spoil by excavation and moving to a pile has <br /> on average , likely lowered the concentrations to within safe <br /> f <br /> limits" <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> ( 1 ) The tank excavation site ca'n be closed because it is <br /> Ei unlikely that any contaminated soil remains in sufficient <br /> ! quantity to endanger groundwater,. <br /> .y (2 ) The decision as to the feasibility of refilling the <br /> !� excavation with the spoil removed is not a part of this <br /> investigation; however, it is likely that this could be done <br /> safely! at least in part , if the spoil were examined closely <br /> as thO hole were being refilled . Any spoil obviously <br /> �i contaminated could then be hauled to a proper class <br /> landfi:l 1 . <br /> ( 3) The filling of the excavation, and the disposal of soil <br /> if necessary, will be done by Jilm Thorpe Oil , Inc . , site i <br /> excavation contractor . <br /> (4) . An addendum should be made to this report after the <br /> excavation is filled, detailingthe nature of the fill <br /> material and the disposition ofl',the spoil . <br /> is � �� <br /> E' bennislI R. Allen <br /> WM . J . HUNTER & ASSOCIATES , <br /> April 29, 1992 <br /> i! l <br /> Ej <br /> 1 <br /> i; <br /> ii <br /> i3 <br /> 6 <br /> 9 �� <br />