Laserfiche WebLink
rte, <br /> 118,10 11 wgg M <br /> onowL <br /> i <br /> 2.3 DISCUSSION <br /> Results of the shallow vapor samples indicate that the soil from <br /> 3 to 23 feet below land surface does not contain significant <br /> hydrocarbon levels. <br /> F <br /> The absence of hydrocarbon vapor in the soil at the site suggests <br /> that recently increasing contamination found in the ground water <br /> did not emanate from the confines of the site. The apparent <br /> T' product line leak in November 1985, was followed by excavation of <br /> k the site and removal of contaminated soils surrounding the tanks <br /> s Li and line trenches. The S'VCA results indicate that any soil <br /> contamination from the on-site leak was either removed during <br /> F excavation or naturally biodegraded in the past 2 years. At the <br /> .� <br /> r time of excavation, the tanks were noted to be in good condition <br /> ?n (GTI 1986) . <br /> Subsequent well monitoring has shown decreasing contaminant <br /> levels in wells 2 and .3 located on the downgradient border (NE) <br /> s <br /> of :the site and in the former tank field, respectively. This <br /> 4 suggests that through biodegradation and/or dilution, that <br /> constituents introduced to the ground water via on-site losses f . <br /> have dissipated. Well number 1, however, located on the ` <br /> upgradient border of the site (SVS) has recently exhibited higher i <br /> r; Fxa hydrocarbon concentrations. Based on available data it seems <br /> Lid unreasonable that these newly elicited contaminant levels are the <br /> result of downgradient site losses which occurred 2 years prior. <br /> i This data could, _howeve.r, _sugges. ..that.--an..off sits cor.camanant <br /> - -.. <br /> plume is moving onto the siteinfluenced by. the local. <br /> northeasterly groundwater gradient. <br /> - y IIY���iii <br /> - <br /> EXXON9:84L 11 . <br /> { X <br />