Laserfiche WebLink
No receptors appeared to be threatened by the gasoline compounds in soil and groundwater <br /> beneath the site. <br /> i On May 3, 2004, EHD requested that a site conceptual model be submitted so that the case could <br /> be evaluated for regulatory closure. On.Juiy 30, 2004, Ramage Environmental published Site <br /> Conceptual Model. <br /> 1.2.4 Additional Site Investigation <br /> On February 16, 2007, Ramage Environmental published Additional Site Investigation and <br /> Groundwater Monitoring Report, which documented the soil.and groundwater analytical results <br /> from three direct-push soil borings (B-4, B-5 and.B-6) and depth-discrete groundwater analytical <br /> 4` results from an on-site cone penetration test (CPT) boring (CPT-1). The soil boring and CPT <br /> locations are shown on Figure 3. <br /> In the nine soil samples analyzed from the three soil borings, concentrations of gasoline <br /> compounds were not detected above laboratory reporting limits: The cumulative soil sample <br /> analytical results are summarized in Table 1. � <br /> In the three soil borings to first groundwater,and in the depth-discrete groundwater sample <br /> collected from below the groundwater table, only MTBE was detected. MTBE was detected in B-4 <br /> at 0.6 micrograms per liter (µg/I), in B-5 at 2.5 µg/l, in B-6 at 1.3,µg/l, and in CPT-1 at 3.1 µg/l. <br /> The groundwater sample analytical results are summarized.in Table 2. / <br /> i <br /> r <br /> I <br /> 6 <br /> I <br />