Laserfiche WebLink
IT CORPORATION <br /> • Mr. J. Kelly Williamson <br /> Kayo Oil Company <br /> April 17, 1985 <br /> Page 4 <br /> the parameter with the greatest uncertainty, since only a few concen- <br /> trations are known for each site. Therefore, the amount of product in <br /> the soil at any particular site will tend to be overstated, especially <br /> if the volume of soil involved is large. The graph shows hypothetical <br /> volumes of contaminated soil 20,000 and 40,000 cubic feet. Note that a <br /> small difference in the assumed concentration of hydrocarbons will <br /> dramatically effect the predicted volume of hydrocarbons present. The <br /> larger the volume of soil involved, the more dramatic this relationship <br /> will be. <br /> REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES <br /> The contamination is associated with the tanks and the soils immediately <br /> around the tanks. Since the water table appears to be below the extent <br /> of contamination, a pumped recovery system would not be appropriate for <br /> dealing with the plume. The data suggest that no contamination has <br /> penetrated deeper than 25 to 30 feet. Excavation of the contaminated <br /> soils around the tanks is the most effective way of dealing with this <br /> contamination should remediation be required. <br /> RECOMMENDATION <br /> Two additional ground water monitor wells should be installed at the <br /> locations shown in Figure 3 and sampled to verify that there is no <br /> ground water contamination. These will also allow the water table <br /> gradient to be determined. <br /> If no ground water contamination is found, IT Corporation recommends <br /> that the tank inlets be equipped with spill prevention devices to pre- <br /> . <br />