ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0004744 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i s 24 August 1995 AGF-NC Project No 95-0144 ' Page 7 of 8 , ' xylenes were detected to MW-5 However, hydrocarbons were detected in the ground water sample collected from probing GP17 to the west of MW-2 Hydrocarbons were also detected in the ground water sample collected from GP 16, northwest of the former USTs Only xylenes were detected in the ground water sample collected from GP 14, defining the eastern extent of impacted ground water The estiirated extend of impacted ground water is shown on Figure 4 ' We recommend the installation of four additional monitoring wells One well should be installed east ofMW-4 m Madison Street The second well should be installed in the sidewalk southeast of MW-1 If access permits, this well should be installed inside the repair shop south of MW-1 The third well should be installed near the location of probing GP 17 The fourth well should be installed northwest of GP 16 The proposed monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 4 ' 5 2 HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED SOIL ' No petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the three probings surrounding tank:No 1, indicating-, a limited lateral extent hydrocarbon-impacted soil Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at shallowo, depths in probing GP5, located in the center of the former UST location However, no petroleum,- hydrocarbons etroleum,-hydrocarbons were detected at depths of 20 feet or 25 feet Phenol was detected in samples from pi obings GP5 to GP8 The presence of phenol does not appear to be related to the former UST - ' Phenol was also detected in four of the seven samples analyzed from probings GP9 to GP 12 As with probings GP5 to GP8, the presence of phenol does not appear to be related to the former UST Y y Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in soil samples collected from probings GP 1 to GP4 However, strong hydrocarbon odors were observed during the installation of probings GP 1 and GP2 ' The lateral extent of impacted soil is most likely limited to the former UST location, extending toward GP2 Petroleum hydrocarbons were also not detected in the ground water sample collected from GPI Due to the limited lateral and vertical extent of impacted soil in the vicinity of former UST Nos l and. ` 8, overexcavation appears to be a viable remediation alternative Only low concentrations of two ' semivolatile organic compounds were detected in sod samples from probings GP9 to GP 12 No other petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in these probings Therefore, remediation in the vicinity of former UST No 2 should not be necessary ' The concentrations of the five LUFT metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc) are consistent throughout all simples analyzed, and appear to be background concentrations All concentrations are well below TTLG regulatory limits