Laserfiche WebLink
60 CONCLUSIONS <br /> Based on the information presented in this report, no further actions are <br />' required at the former tank sites and the sites should be closed The <br /> following items support the rationale for site closure <br />' • The source of the petroleum hydrocarbons (i e , the tanks) has been <br /> removed <br />' ® The petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil at each former tank site has <br /> been removed, such that little to no further ground water impacts are <br /> anticipated <br /> r • Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted ground water in the area <br /> immediately beneath the former tank locations has been extracted and <br />' treated <br /> • The vertical and lateral extent of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted <br />' ground water at each former tank site has been delineated and the <br /> ground water impacts at the sites are extremely limited As shown by <br /> historical monitoring data, the zone of ground water impact is lirruted <br /> to the immediate vicinity of the former USTs, and has not migrated <br /> over time, <br />' o Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in ground water have <br /> decreased since monitoring began at the site <br /> e Site ground water is not a source of drinking water <br /> • The results of the HRA indicate that the residual concentration of <br /> chemicals in soil and ground water at the former tank sites do not pose <br />' an unacceptable human health risk under current or realistic future <br /> land uses <br />' • Evaluation of the bioremediation capacity of the sites indicates that <br /> bioremediation is occurring and will continue to occur This naturally <br /> occurring activity will further reduce the presence of petroleum <br /> thydrocarbons in the subsurface <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br />' ERM 25 HEINZ USA-3374 60-3/27/00 <br />