Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> ' 11 Thid #700-50 l;lqc s 11IN 11 0111 k 11 r'SI <br /> Rtemc ditI It,isilxlm It,i Rrlxnl Ikhiuu� >> '0U, <br /> 20 feet bgs) to 3,100 mg/kg (at 30 feet bgs) to 1,800 mg/kg (at 50 feet bgs) Extractable fuel <br /> hydrocarbons (diesel) were present at concentrations of 640 mg/kg (at 20 feet bgs) and 520 mg/kg (at <br /> ' 520 feet bgs) Additionally, volatile organic compounds, including BTEX, were present at varying 7,Dt'A <br /> LiV <br /> concentrations at all three soil sample horizons (20, 30, and 50 feet bgs) Ethanol and methanol, <br /> ' however, were not detected in any of these soil samples <br /> ' The soil and groundwater laboratory analytical results for biofeasibility analysis are summarized in <br /> Tables 11 and 12, respectively A copy of the laboratory analytical report for the biofeasibility soil <br /> ' samples is presented in Appendix C A copy of the laboratory analytical report for the biofeasibility <br /> groundwater samples is presented in Appendix 7 <br /> 442 Biofeasibili Conclusions <br /> ' Based on the results of soil and groundwater sample analysis, bioremediation at the site may not be a <br /> viable remedial method given the current bacterial and nutrient levels This conclusion is based solely <br /> !� on the results of samples collected at specific intervals in one soil boring However, given that bacterial <br /> densities are likely not homogeneous across the site and that hydrocarbon degrading bacteria may exist <br /> ' elsewhere in the subsurface, the implementation of a full-scale bioremediation system may not be as cost <br /> effective or as reliable as VE/AS for this site <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br /> ' 19 <br /> 1 <br />