Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> Mr. Harlin Knoll CAMBRIA <br /> January 13, 1997 <br /> Well Materials: Monitoring well MW-1 was constructed using two-inch diameter, schedule <br /> 40 PVC pipe with a 0.010" screen slot size. Fine to medium-grained <br /> flowing sands were encountered during drilling. Therefore,Cambria covered <br /> the screened casing with a filter sock and used the natural sand as the filter <br /> pack,except for the top two feet of the screened interval,where#3 sand was <br /> used(Attachment Q. <br /> Screened Interval. Since ground water stabilized in well MW-1 at 21 ft depth, we screened the <br /> well between 16 and 34 ft depth. <br /> Well Development) Monitoring well MW-1 was developed on October 18, 1996 using a Whale <br /> Sampling submersible pump. Since the well developed quickly,Mr. Knoll approved <br /> sampling on October 18, 1996 as well. <br /> Ground Water Analyses: Ground water sample from the well MW-1 was analyzed for TPHg/BTEX <br /> by modified EPA method 8015180.20. The analytic results are presented as <br /> Attachment C. <br /> Ground Water Depth: Static water level in MW-1 was at 21 ft depth. <br /> i INVESTIGATION RESULTS <br /> Hydrocarbon Distribution in Soil <br /> TPHg were detected in soil borings SB-3 and SB-4,located west and north of the tank pit, respectively. The <br /> highest hydrocarbon concentration detected was 100 ppm TPHg at 10 ft depth, in soil boring SB-3. Only 1.1 <br /> ppm TPHg and 0.009 ppm xylenes were detected at 10 ft depth in soil boring SB-4,located north of the tank <br /> pit. No hydrocarbons were detected in the deeper samples. <br /> a <br /> Hydrocarbon Distribution in Ground Water <br /> No hydrocarbons were detected in ground water collected from MW-1 (Table 2). <br /> a <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> Based on our soil and ground water investigation,the extent of hydrocarbons in soil is defined and appears <br /> confined to the area immediately west of Tank Pit 2 and to above 10 ft depth, 11 ft above the water table.The <br /> ground water beneath.and adjacent to Tank Pit 2 does not appear to contain hydrocarbons in solution because <br /> no hydrocarbons were detected in the ground water sample. This data suggests that the site poses no current <br />+ 4 <br />