Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Geological Technics kc Page 6 <br /> Groundwater Monitoiing Report <br /> Project No 425 2 <br /> • May 20, 2002 <br /> ' groundwater pumping, would move into deeper portions of the aquifer at the negative <br /> vertical gradient In low pumping periods of the year the contaminants would move <br /> ' back to a shallower depth at the positive vertical gradient <br /> 5 The shallow water table groundwater plume is laterally defined except to the west <br /> ' However, the data indicate that the contamination does attenuate toward the west <br /> 6 Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the groundwater at the site fluctuate with each <br /> monitoring event The residual contamination in soil up-gradient of MW-2 remains a <br /> ' significant source of impact to the groundwater plume <br /> 7 The deeper groundwater plume is defined vertically since MW-102 and MW-202 <br /> remain non-detect for contaminants <br /> 1 8 The three domestic wells sampled for the event remain non-detect <br /> 9 The core of the contaminated soil in the vicinity of the foriner UST field was excavated <br /> during the week of July 23, 2001 Residual hydrocarbons remain in the ground around <br /> ' MW-2, 102, 202, under the shoulder of Durham Ferry Road and under the building <br /> Recommendations <br /> ' The following recommendations are made <br /> 1 The current quarterly monitoring schedule should be maintained to determine <br /> contaminant trends <br /> 2 The 12 monitoring wells and 3 domestic wells should be sampled for natural attenuation <br /> parameters during future monitoring events so that it can be determined if remediation <br /> by natural attenuation is occurring This testing should be performed six to nine months <br /> after the excavation is complete <br /> 3 Prior to backfilling the excavation, bio-venting piping was installed and the gravel <br /> ' poured in around it This bio-venting system should be installed to continue the <br /> contaminant removal in the vicinity of MW-2 A revised work plan for this activity was <br /> submitted on May 13, 2002 <br /> 4.0 LIMITATIONS <br /> ' This report was prepared in accordance with the accepted standards and practices of the <br /> field of environmental geology, groundwater hydrology and good business practices It <br /> ' should be recognized that definition and evaluation of environmental conditions is a <br /> difficult and inexact science Judgments leading to conclusions and recommendations are <br /> generally made with an incomplete knowledge of the site-specific conditions present <br /> The tasks proposed and completed during this project were reviewed and approved by the <br /> local regulatory agency for compliance with the law No warranty, expressed or implied, is <br /> ' made <br />