Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> e:a <br /> Mal <br /> ' E <br /> upward migration of volatiles from the central <br /> plume. <br /> b) Soil contamination found at MW-1 and MW-2 is minor <br /> and might be attributed to the upward migration of <br /> volatile contaminants from the groundwater <br /> contamination plume. Therefore, MW-1 and MW-2 do <br /> not appear to transect the primary soil <br /> contamination plume, and those locaticns will be <br /> useful for any necessary future soil plume <br /> definition. <br /> c) The shallow groundwater underlying the Site has <br /> been impacted by gasoline constituents. Gasoline <br /> contamination was confirmed to be present in each <br /> of the three on-site monitoring wells. <br /> Based on the findings, field observations and analytical <br /> results, ETS makes the following .recommendations; <br /> 1) Further definition will be necessary to determine <br /> the areal extents of soil and groundwater. <br /> > contamination at the Site. <br /> 2) The three existing monitoring wells should be <br /> sampled on a quarterly basis to check for changes in <br /> i ' . contamination levels. The groundwater gradient and <br /> flow direction should also be calculated quarterly <br /> to indicate any possible changes in contaminant <br /> —� r migratory paths. <br /> 3) The highest groundwater contamination levels were <br /> found at monitoring well 1 which is apparently up- <br /> gradient from the former UST pit and product lines. <br /> Therefore, a monitoring well should be placed <br /> further up-gradient (in the direction of MW-1) from <br /> the former UST pit. <br /> This additional well would be useful in the <br /> verification of whether the contamination at MW-1 is <br /> possibly coming from an off-site source. <br /> ETS ENVIRONMENTAL & ASSOC. <br /> PRUJ::CT 305, PAGE 12 <br /> i> <br />