ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0012646 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-M-T' Vil i Kenneth Olds November 15, 1988 202/799-5055 Page 4 static water level in the well was about 2.5 feet above the top Of the screened interval. This caused dissolved hydrocarbon levsituation is thought to have els in from MW-1 to be non-representative of the water sample collected in the upper part of the aquifer. hydrocarbon concentrations Dissolved TPH asdi; esel concentrations ranged from 72 AAb in -1 and 50 ppb in M,1-4 to non-detectable in wells. These levels the indicate no si remainin g three gnificant contamination of groundwater by diesel in the existing was detected in the analyzed water samplestoand gtotal slead o EDB were either below or near the method detection levels - limits. In summary, hydrogeolo the five a gic and chemical data obtained g wells in November 1988, indicatedcated 1987 and September/oc ober that m the dissolved TPH as gasoline plume did not extend during this period to gradient from the tank and MW-4, which are located u tank pit, nor did it extend northward P hward to However, down gradient from the. tank � �-5' diesel tank, the impact on Pit and from the underground groundwater, if any, is not defined. In order to define hydrocarbon the dowrzgradient extent of the dissolved plume, GTI recommends drilling three additional boreholes and installing the ro monitoring wells in them. Locations of A posed monitoring wells are shown in Figure 1 . Selected soil samples collected during drilling of the boreholes would be analyzed for TPH as gasoline and diesel, and BTEX concentrations.--- The three new we.3l,s__ would--- ---- y for elevation control. A round of groundwater monitoring and sam !in of well; associated with the A g all monitoring sam les Project would be performed. The water A would be analyzed for BTEX and TPH as � - gasoline and diesel. The updated hydrogeologic and chemical data would