Laserfiche WebLink
- 03/10/2005 15:57 530676E-q5 STRATUS NQ CALIF PAGE 09110 <br /> -Battelle In situ and On-Sita Bioxe0led"6'5} 4sijYm,taste -9 2443 <br /> Evaluation of potential for Fl an Migration. Mass flux estimates at multiple transects <br /> Ev <br /> across a. contaminant plume can be used to evaluate the potential for plume Migration' <br /> for multiple <br /> k <br /> This analysis can also be used !tto asses <br /> s pl <br /> sampling events. Borden et al. (19,9 7)describe <br /> a mass flux approach t ime stability ifconducted <br /> intrinsic <br /> . Changes in ss flllx <br /> bioremediation coefficients for a stable,-di oedrst gasoline <br /> r decay coefficients for aNlTT�3 <br /> versus distance were used to Estsznate effectivemcxocQsms. <br /> and BTEX in the field and compared to biodegradation.results ire laboratory <br /> approximately 2500 feet ('750 in) iii length. <br /> Case Study 3: At Site A the 1VSTBF plume is alap �' <br /> Mass flwe estimates were conducted for each of lot for mass flux versus distance,for tree transects (TI,T2, and T3)of wo <br /> level monitoring wills. 'Figure 4 is a serni c,p <br /> sampling events. <br /> 100 �Feb-02 � <br /> V <br /> lo <br /> yr <br /> w <br /> t- <br /> '� 1 <br /> 1900 20004 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 <br /> distance from source(ft) <br /> ;E <br /> FIGURE 4.Site A l TBi mass flux versus distance for multiple transects <br /> The plots:for 'mass flux. <br /> versus distance demonstrate little change between the <br /> February and September 2002 sampling events. Future monitoring events will be used t <br /> evaluate the plume.torah guration(shrinking,stabler etc.) at Site A. <br /> Site Prioritization. In this analysis, mass fiBE mass <br /> fluxes for these sites are provided <br /> The maximum 1`vl' BE concentrations and MT <br /> i in Table l below. l his summary suggests that mass flux estimatesate preferred to a <br /> concentration-tared approach for site prioritization. For example, the maximum MTBE <br /> i' concentration at the San 1Qse former station (6,600 g ) <br /> is more than three times greater <br /> I. <br /> i <br /> than at Los Banos (2,000 µa1L}. However, the mass flux at Us Banos is more than 20 <br />� times that of the San lose site:r There are no current supply wells in the vicinity of the <br /> ould be less severeSan 3cse site; if any receptor wells did exist, the impact e mass fluxely estzznateincvrpir is <br /> at LOS Banos (assuming the stone pumping rate}. Ila <br /> reliable prioritization tool than a <br /> site specific hydrogeologic c8 diit ons and is a more <br /> concentration-based:approach,: <br />