Laserfiche WebLink
' ?ecfmics 2nc. �"� Page 2 <br /> �operties <br /> Summary Report <br /> Project No. 8.2 <br /> February 28, 1997 <br /> 4. Lead is either below test method detection limits or is present at extremely low <br /> concentrations. <br /> 5. Monitoring wells in the up-gradient (MW-1 & 3) and down-gradient (MW-4) direction of <br /> groundwater flow from the former UST location do not contain components of gasoline. <br /> 6. Groundwater elevations have only fluctuated approximately one foot during the monitoring <br /> events since 1987. The average groundwater elevation is about 88.5 feet above mean sea <br /> level (MSL) or about 11.5 feet below ground surface(BGS). <br /> 7. Groundwater gradient has consistently flowed to the southwest with an average slope of <br /> 0.003 ft/ft. <br /> It is concluded that a minor amount of residual gasoline remains in the soil around the former <br /> tanks which is continuing to leach into groundwater and be transported to the immediate down- <br /> gradient well (MW-2) where it is detected during the monitoring events. The rate of gasoline <br /> leaching into groundwater, however, is slow enough that the groundwater plume appears to be <br /> stere. Even thou 'has not been monitored since 3unq.: , it - _ Wit. <br /> groundwater impacted by gasoline compounds does not migrate off site and is in a shrinking <br /> mode. <br /> The site has been approved for cleanup under the UST Claim No. 006499 in the amount of <br /> $180,000 (1987 estimate of costs). This figure has escalated to about $240,000 in 1997 , due to <br /> prevailing inflation rates since 1987. This is a priority Class C Claim, awaiting funding. <br /> Approval is expected this year. <br /> The data clearly indicates that the minor amounts of hydrocarbon residuals are diminishing and <br /> are not migrating off-site. With the source of contamination long since removed 16 years ago, <br /> the bioremediation process will continue to attenuate the residual gasoline and eventually return <br /> the site conditions to non-detect levels (See data sheets). <br /> We strongly suggest that utilizing UST cleanup funds to perform engineered remediation at this <br /> site is a gross waste of funds that should be directed to cleanup sites that pose a real threat public <br /> health or the environment. This site does not warrant further expenditure for corrective action <br /> work. It is neither practical nor cost-effective. <br /> In view of the forgoing, it is recommended that the files for this site be reviewed and this site be <br /> considered for closure. <br />