ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0001486 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.r Mr Ronald Rowe CAM B R I A August 26, 1999 Table A—Reported Odor vs Actual TPHg Concentration Well Depth Comment TPHg Well Depth Comment TPHg SB-1 35 Slight Odor <10 MW-5 25 Slight Odor <10 SB-2 25 Moderate Odor 650 30 Moderate Odor <10 SB-3 5 Slight Odor <10 MW-6 35 Slight Odor <10 10 Slight Odor <10 MW-7 35 Slight Odor <10 15 Moderate Odor 2,500 MW-8 35 Slight Odor <10 25 Moderate Odor 1,900 MW-13 45 Degraded Odor <1 0 SB-4 10 Slight Odor <10 MW-14 35 Degraded Odor <1 0 20 Moderate Odor <10 40 Degraded Odor 37 MW-1 20 Moderate Odor 88 45 Degraded Odor 1 1 30 Strong Odor 680 MW-15 40 Slight Odor <1 0 MW-3 25 Moderate Odor <10 45 Degraded Odor 1 2 30 Moderate Odor <10 MW-17 30 Slight Odor <1 0 MW-4 30 Strong Odor <10 35 Slight Odor <1 0 40 Strong Degraded Odor <1 ❑ 45 Degraded Odor <] 0 Figure B As indicated in Figure B, the highest TPHg in Soil vs Sample Depth hydrocarbon concentrations were detected near 5 or above the water table at the time of drilling 10 No elevated hydrocarbon concentrations were s 25 30 detected below 35 fbg a 35 40 45 50 0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 Hydrocarbons in Groundwater Concentration(mg/kg) The water table has risen by about 20 ft since the wells were first installed During this time, Figure C hydrocarbon concentrations have steadily TPHg In Groundwater decreased As shown in Figure C, it is difficult (well MW-1) C 300 000 0 , to determine whether the decreasing 2 200,000 -10 hydrocarbon concentrations are due to natural c -620 y z 100 000ti 30 w -40 biodegradation or due to the rising water table 0 50 -1 h 1 ��J�SJ� .3�SJ� .J 0 pTPHg GWE Top of Screen 4