ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0009675 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 1 8 January 1993 (GeoAudit CV 45-49C5-1. 10) Page 5 of 7 No organic vapors were detected in the auger returns or soil 1 samples (see attached boring logs. ) A strong petroleum odor and hydrocarbon sheen were noted in groundwater samples from MW--1, but no evidence of groundwater contamination was observed in samples from MW-2 or MW-3 . Three soil samples from MW-2 and MW-3 were analyzed for TPH as gasoline, TPH as diesel and BTE&X. No contamination was detected in ' any of the six samples. The soil sample analyses are summarized in Table 3. The laboratory analysis and chain of custody are included in Appendix A. TPH as gasoline was detected in the water sample from MW-1 at a concentration of 220 Mg/l. Benzene was detected at 15 gg/l, and I toluene at 0. 30 µg/1. TPH as diesel was reported at a concentration of 140 µg/1 in sample MW-3/11-24-92 , but there may have been a laboratory error in sample handling. The attached letter from Mr. Stuart Podolsky of WEST Laboratories suggests that sample MW-1/11- 24-92 may have been mislabelled as MW-3/11-24-92 . The geologist noted no evidence of contamination in MW-3/11-24-92 when it was collected. The replacement sample collected from MW-3 showed no TPH as diesel contamination. The water sample analyses are summarized in Table 4. The laboratory reports and chains of custody are included in Appendix B. 1 Table 2 shows the relative casing elevations and depth to groundwater. The elevation of the water table is slightly less in MW-1 than in the other wells, indicating that it is the ' downgradient well. The hydraulic gradient is 0. 008, oriented N 41°W (Figure 2) . TABLE 2 GROUNDWATER DATA ' 24 November 1992 Relative Relative Casing Depth to Ground Water Well No. Elevation Water Elevation ' MW-1 101. 62 42 .71 58.91 MW-2 101.59 42 .03 59.56 MW-3 102.07 42 .72 59.35 � 1