WORK PLANS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 29 January 2002 ' AGE-NC Project No. 98-0466 Page 10 of 25 ' sample. The pH of the samples were 7.9 and 7.6. Kleinfelder indica ed that the contamination detected was not significant considering the type of hydrocarbons (pitch and light oil) and that hydrocarbons were not detected in the second sample, located three feet from the first (Kleinfelder, ' 1992). A copy of the original report of findings was not available to AC E. ' 2.4.5. Drain Sump North of the 44x120 Storage Building ' Kleinfelder reported that the sump located north of the 44x120 Storagd Building was a collection point for surface and washdown water in this area and that hydrocarbons vere the potential concern. Total hydrocarbons were not detected in a sediment sample collected from the bottom of the sump ' (Kleinfelder, 1992). A copy of the original report of findings was not avWable to AGE. ' 2.5. STORM WATER RETENTION BASINS (PONDS) As shown on the 1983 Plot Plan and reported by Kleinfelder,three storm water ponds, located in the north, central and south portions of the property, have been utilized for storm water runoff. 2.5.1. North Storm Water Basin The north storm basin receives surface runoff from the northern half of the site and possibly may ' have received traces of-wastes. Kleinfelder(1992)summarized analysis of iwo surface water samples collected from the north storm pond for PCP, formaldehyde, lead zinc, chromium, volatile halocarbous and volatile aromatics. PCP was detected in one sample at 1.5 ppb, formaldehyde was t detected at 47 and 60 ppb and zinc at 14 and 21 ppb. According to Ke" elder, the pond contained reeds, small fish and aquatic life at the time of sampling. Kleinfeld= interpreted the detected concentrations to not indicate a significant discharge ofwaste and no furth r assessment was deemed ' necessary. A copy of the original report of findings was not available to GE. 2.5.2. South and Cental Storm Water Basins ' The central and southern storm water basins were utilized to collect pl t runoff and occasionally were used as burn pits for wood waste. Review of documents provided to AGE did not indicate that any assessment of these features has been performed or is warranted As no potential sources of I ' contaminants have been identified for the two more southemly ponds othe r than occasional burning, Advanced Geolinvironmeniai,Inc.