Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> west at the Union Pacific rail line right of way, and to the north and east at the edge of <br /> the existing ice manufacturing building. Confirmation samples collected from the <br /> sidewalls and floor of the excavation indicate no detectable BTEX and up to 138 mg/kg <br /> of TPH as kerosene (TPH-k) in the north.and west sidewalls at a deptht of approximately <br /> 1•� 20 feet bgs. <br /> Groundwater monitoring at the site indicate that the wells in the!vkinity of <br /> Tank #4, MW-5 and MW-3, have not had detectable BTEX concentrations) and have <br /> i <br /> had TPH-d concentrations up to 0.4' mg/L. The wells in the vicinity of Tank #3, MW-1 <br /> and MW-2 have had TPH- detected at a to 1.3 m TPH-d u to 0.2 m benzene <br /> � g ps! � p - � <br /> up to 50 µg/L, toluene up to 9 µg/1-, ethylbenzene up to 40 µg/L, and xylenes up to <br /> ; 63 M&J— <br /> The water level in Well MW-4 indicates that this well may be downgradient of <br /> �. <br /> both the Tank #3 and the Tan_ k #1 and #2:vicinities (Figure 2). However, MW-4 was <br /> k � <br /> not surveyed at the same time as the other.w�,iiells, andthe other wells were not resurveyed <br /> when this well was surveyed. For this reason the groundwater gradient data obtained <br /> from this well has only been used.qualitatively, and it proposed that a.level survey be <br /> conducted to establish an accurate top-of-casing reference elevation for MW-4 (see <br /> Section 3). <br /> Lk 3.0 PURPOSE <br /> The objectives .of this investigation:-are 1) to identify the source(s) of aromatic <br /> hydrocarbons impacting groundwater at the.site; 2) to evaluate the lateral and vertical <br /> LI extent of hydrocarbons in the vadose zone to allow for the preliminary design of a soil <br /> treatment system, if further remediation is deemed necessary, and 3) to gain information <br /> t The first sample collected from MW-5 in October, 1994 indicated benzene present at the detection limit of 5 µg/I4 <br /> however, benzene was not detected in the duplicate sample from the sariie monitoring event (less than I µg/L) nor in any <br /> subsequent samples (less than 0.5 µg/L,). The sinble detection is therefore suspected to be'a laboratory artifact. <br /> I R4182OA-625960-3 <br /> LsoilvapIpin 3 <br /> ` <br />