Laserfiche WebLink
x {_.r x t�a§. �sY •eco [. ..>. <br /> }'�: :i �P �.� _ w3 h to '3•ta o- dCA' .F <br /> w3,^,�-' �"� "" u yew Afi •-maw _ sew �, ., . <br /> KLEINFEL DER <br /> Possible explanations for the presence of low concentrations of an unidentified <br /> hydrocarbon mixture in ground water samples could include- <br /> 0 an offsite or unidentified source. This possibility is supported by the presence of <br /> TPH in wells which appear to be upgradient of the identified area of <br /> contamination. <br /> o cross-contamination or analytical errors. This possibility is suj:ported by the <br /> presence of TPH in wells which are not downgradient of the identified sour-,e and <br /> by the uncharacteristic chromatogram signature. However, this possibility appears <br /> utilikely because the sample from MW-8 and the bailer blank do not contain the <br /> hydrocarbon reported in other samples. <br /> o alteration of residual hydrocarbons in soil. Residual hydrocarbons may have been <br /> significantly altered during remediation and low concentrations of these altered <br /> hydrocarbons may be dissolving into the ground water. While this possibility could <br /> account for the uncharacteristic hydrocarbon signature, it does not appear to <br /> account for the presence of the hydrocarbon mixture in upgradient and lateral- <br /> gradient wells. <br /> Based on the data collected, it appears that the vapor extraction system has effectively <br /> dzlcontaminated the vadose zone and has significantly reduced 'the contaminate <br /> concentration in the ground water. Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations detected <br /> y in the ground water are below levels of concern. The original source of contamination has <br /> been removed and soil remediation successfully completed. Therefore, Kleinfelder <br /> recommends dismantling the VES and abandoning the eight monitoring wells located at <br /> -- the site. <br /> 113-88-908 13 <br />