Laserfiche WebLink
5.1 Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil 5.0 CONCLUSIONS <br /> that all hydrocarbon impacted soil was removed at the time of the <br /> It is our understanding y p <br /> UST removal No hydrocarbon impacted soil was encountered during installation of MW-2 <br /> and MW-3. Therefore, further investigation of the soil 1s not warranted <br /> 5.2 Hydrocarbon Impacted Groundwater <br /> Groundwater gradient calculations indicate that MW-3 is the downgrad�ent well No TPH <br /> or BTE&X were detected in water samples from MW-2 and MW-3 on January 30, 1995 <br /> IHowever, TPH as diesel was detected in MW-1 at 150 ppb during the January 1995 <br /> monitoring event. <br /> It appears that impacted groundwater is localized around MW-1 Therefore, GeoAudit <br /> recommends redevelopment and resampling of MW-1 to confirm impacted groundwater. <br /> Furthermore, a second sample should be collected from MW-2 and MW-3 to confirm that <br /> the January 1995 results GeoAudit will schedule a monitoring event before April 1995. <br /> . 6.0 LIMITATIONS <br /> Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily <br /> exercised by environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities The findings <br /> were based upon analytical results provided by an independent laboratory Evaluations of <br />' the geologic/hydrogeologic conditions at the site for the purpose of this investigation are <br /> made from a limited number of available data points (i a monitoring wells, soil samples) <br /> and subsurface conditions may vary away from these data points No other warranty, <br />' expressed or implied, ;s made as to the professional recommendations contained in this <br /> report. <br /> 1 <br /> 1 <br /> Add U..� 1.0 9 <br /> Cti4Wwi PMM0531h.IM <br />