Laserfiche WebLink
_ � �. _i r .s b ri �� ^rt.{� � y�Y'"." �. 1 r` nw�T'..•wSr - t,. � z. ..m_ � T�&, <br /> e <br /> GYX <br /> �2 <br /> .were analyzed for aromatic <br /> p�romatic Hydrocarbons samples collected les. <br /> roundwater samples were detect;'d in these same <br /> ~�. All three No aromatic by <br /> hydrocarbons• les submitted <br /> Fecal Coltitorm <br /> were not deter-ted in any of the ramp <br /> Fecal Coliform bacteria <br /> (Table 3). TpHD and <br /> environment by <br /> REGULATORS AgSESSMEl`lTcontamin', to the compounds detected have <br /> k acts of is. None of the comp Threshold Limit <br /> In California, imp e.b case bas C� and/or Soluble lotions, <br /> gTEX are evaluate Lima case.-by-case <br /> ntration Title 26, California Cade of Regu <br /> a Total ThreshSTdLC) value reported in les for <br /> Concentation ( 6668('• k TPH as a mint;r,um criteria in soil samples <br /> DHS <br /> Division 22,Section fuel tank cases. <br /> ,The RWQCB uses ,d mgr i underground one thousand mg/kg <br /> characterization of groundwater in leaking 'On- 1. <br /> kg as a minimum criteria forote al ig on• HS EHD, use the <br /> uses 1,000 mgr virtue of its p as SaCp / Sites. <br /> TFH is considered hazardous by LiAs), such cleanup of L1FST <br /> lementing agencies ( Category 1, no <br /> Many local imple, in the assessment and categories' and Category <br /> Ig89) as guidanceation categ <br /> LUF-f Manual ( nixes three site investig <br /> . Manual recog Category 2.known sort contamination, <br /> The LLIFT M• contamination; Dilution. Analytical results for soii991)and <br /> roundwater Technology,known soil <br /> evidence of soil suspected groundwater UrS'Ts (G Cate or;� 2 <br />' 3, known or susp vat of the <br /> the removal be classified under g <br /> obtained during t the site can Manual) was <br /> I, this investigation inl .,- Table 2-2� LUFT <br /> diesel ( depth of 25,0-7,x.5 feet below <br /> coittainination)• potential analysis for B-1 at a and 0.600 mg/kg <br /> A leaching 4 le collected from 00 mg/kg TPHD <br /> ` far the same analysis (Appendix D)' the <br /> performed This sample contained 6'8 oteniial analy <br /> ` ground surface. ording to the leaching P LUT.x. Manual) <br /> �,,� tna be left in the subsurface is 100 mg/kg <br /> ethylbenzene, .1,pH levels that Y ,tables ?-2 and 2-3, are acceptable <br /> maximum allowable criteria ( hydro tion <br /> roundwater <br /> The general risk assessment of aromatic by <br /> concentrations for protection of g �and <br /> ollutant mass accumulations) ethylberi (3 PP.,); <br /> 2 7 in the <br /> indicates that the following toluene (6 Pp o Tables 2-4 throng 14.1 <br /> contamination le' m).benzene{0 Ppm)' recipitatiari( <br /> at qualified sites: P levels were calculated uzverage annual p Sample to <br /> T17C5, assumptions: distance from <br /> xylene(20 PPm)' 43,; feet); 1g.5 feet) <br /> LOFT Manual and the dep pito groundwater ( xylene) and <br /> 1991} le to groundwater <br /> ' from same benzene, toluene, t ination <br /> inches) (NOAA, and distance 1 are non-detect ( table contain <br /> surface (25.0 feet); in Sample B- <br /> BTEX concentrations <br /> Titus B• }{levels are below accep <br /> ' 0.600 ppm(ethylbenzene}. <br /> levels. <br /> ! �rtt.IsYt3z.zifooa3�'° <br /> 6 <br /> G <br />