Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> containers, tubing, and equipment Laboratory contamination is the most logical <br /> explanation for this finding, particularly in light of non-detect results for all tested <br /> constituents for all the other samples <br />' 25 LATERAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION <br />' Lateral extent of contamination is presented in Figures 3 and 4, and the vertical extent <br /> of contamination is presented in Figure 5 <br /> 26 MASS BALANCE CALCULATION <br />' Based on average total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPH-G) concentrations <br /> obtained from soil samples collected from the two contaminated areas, the soil <br />' excavation program removed a calculated volume of approximately 100 gallons of <br /> gasoline range hydrocarbons The low concentrations detected in the original well <br /> MW-3, coupled with the long history of non-detect results in groundwater samples <br /> and confirmed by the most recent "re-confirmation sampling! effort, all indicate that <br />' there are no significant concentrations of gasoline or its constituents remaining in the <br /> groundwater Similarly, the non-detect results for the soil re-confirmation samples <br />' would also suggest that no significant, or quantifiable, volume of hydrocarbons <br /> remains onsite Attempts to quantify a residual hydrocarbon volume by mass balance <br />' calculation, in light of only non-detect results, would not produce a meaningful piece <br /> of data <br /> 27 REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY <br /> Remediation technology consisted of excavation and removal and offsite landfilling of <br /> ' the hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Approximately 1 ,400 cubic yards of soil was <br /> removed from the site. Groundwater that collected in the UST excavation was purged <br /> 2168_R11 wplMarch 1996y <br /> 4 / littelhauser <br /> C <br /> 0 1 P 0 R A T1 0 N I <br />