Laserfiche WebLink
The soil' samples acquired from MW-1 and MW-2 borings had no odor, <br /> while the soil samples collected' from. MW-3 had a hydrocarbon odor. <br /> The analysis of the soil samples collected in the advancement of <br /> MW-1 and MW-2 indicate no detectable levels of hydrocarbon <br /> contamination in the soil. The Xylene concentration of 2 ppm is in <br /> the saturated zone. The analysis of the soil samples collected in <br /> the advancement of MW-3 indicate high levels of TPH contamination <br /> in the soil. No Benzene was detected in any of the soil samples. <br /> Moderate concentrations of Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene were <br /> detected in the soil samples taken from the boring of MW-3 . <br /> WELL SAMPLING AND ANALYSES <br /> The monitoring wells were purged and sampled on November 4, 1993 . <br /> The wells were purged to dryness. Field data are presented in <br /> Appendix C. The surge tool jammed in MW-3 at approximately 52. feet <br /> below grade. <br /> No floating product or sheen was detected in the groundwater <br /> samples collected from the three monitoring wells. The groundwater <br /> sample collected from MW-3 had a very slight odor. <br /> The groundwater samples were collected by a clean, dedicated, <br /> disposable bailer for each well and placed in laboratory clean 40 O <br /> ml VOAs. The samples were transported to Sparger Technology Inc. <br /> (a State Certified Laboratory) in a cooled ice chest under chairjm',� t�`� <br /> of-custody (COC) procedures. A copy is included in Appendix B. � f,, <br /> The groundwater samples were analyzed for TPH (Stoddard) and BTEX. <br /> The laboratory results are summarized in Table 2 . The certified <br /> laboratory report with detection limits is presented in Appendix B. <br /> TABLE 2 <br /> Sample I D Contaminant (ppb) <br /> TPH B T E X <br /> MW-1 660 3 .4 ND 4 . 3 3 . 9 <br /> MW-2 880 ND ND 4 .3 6.2 <br /> MW-3 41000 29 ND 120 610 <br /> ND = Not Detected. <br /> l� <br /> 6 <br />