Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> giving 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 /> some contamination, 9 .6 and 16 mg/kg, also are far below the <br /> limits indicated above . Although the spoil could have some <br /> portions that would test higher than the above samples, the <br /> mixing of the spoil by excavation and moving to a pile has <br /> on average, likely lowered the concentrations to within safe <br /> limits . <br /> CONCLUSIONS k <br /> ( 1 ) The tank excavation site can be closed because it is <br /> unlikely that any contaminated soil remains in sufficient <br /> ! quantity to endanger groundwater. <br /> f <br /> (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 /> t as the hole were being refilled. Any spoil obviously <br /> l contaminated could then be hauled to a proper class <br /> " landfill . <br /> (3) The filling of the excavation, and the disposal of soil <br /> if necessary, will be done by Jim Thorpe oil , Inc . , site <br /> excavation contractor. <br /> F- <br /> (4) . An addendum should be made to this report after the <br /> excavation is filled, detailing the nature of the fill <br /> material and the disposition of the spoil . <br /> Dennis R. AllenI-s3 <br /> c�ar�: �D J <br /> WM. J. HUNTER & ASSOCIATES � <br /> h �OF Cp'o2 y <br /> April 29, 1992 <br /> 1 <br /> h <br /> J <br /> M <br /> YY ii <br /> sl <br /> R , <br /> i <br /> f <br /> I ' <br /> I <br />