Laserfiche WebLink
' Environmental <br /> Mr Harlin Knoll Resources <br /> 25 September 2002 Management <br /> t Page 2 <br /> 1 <br /> Method 8020) Analytical results for ground water for the current and <br />' previous sampling events within the former Tank 1 area and the former <br /> Tank 2 area are summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively Ground <br /> water elevation measurements taken during the sampling event are <br />' included in Table 3 Copies of the laboratory analytical results are <br /> attached <br />' The ground water sampling results are summarized below <br />' Former Tank 1 Area Location <br /> No detectable concentrations of chemicals were reported at MW-3 or <br />' MW-7(Figure 1) Hydrocarbon concentrations at MW-4 were within the <br /> range of historical values MW-1 reported hydrocarbon concentrations <br /> that were approximately one order of magnitude greater than previous <br /> data After verifying these results with the project laboratory, ERM <br /> resampled MW-1 on 14 August 2002 The samples collected during this <br /> resampling event,however, were centrifuged prior to analysis It was <br /> lie determined that during the last few sampling events, samples were <br /> similarly centrifuged prior to analysis to minimize the effects of <br />' hydrocarbon sorption to fine-grained sediments within the samples The <br /> results of the centrifuged sample are within or below the range of <br /> historical sample concentrations <br /> Fortner Tank 2 Locatcon <br /> As shown on Figure 2, no detectable concentrations of hydrocarbons <br /> were observed within monitoring wells MW-2, MW-5, and MW-8 <br /> I Monitoring well MW-b, located adjacent to the former fuel tank pit, <br /> contained hydrocarbon concentrations that are within historical ranges <br /> ICONCLUSIONS <br />' The results of ground water samples indicate that chemical <br /> concentrations in each former tank area are generally stable The <br /> I apparent increase in hydrocarbon concentrations observed in MW-1 <br /> during the June 2002 sampling event, when compared to previous data <br /> and the August 2002 sampling event, were due to differences between <br /> centrifuged and uncentnfuged samples, and simply indicate a high <br /> degree of sorption within the fine-grained aquifer matrix Centrifugation <br />