Laserfiche WebLink
- ,, <br /> and found to be 33 . 33 feet below the tag of the well casing <br /> (which is eery nearly flush with around surface) - These .,ate- <br /> levels were :sere comparable to those noted during construction <br /> 04, of bc' th :;i1-3 and MW-3 , and discussed further in Section 4 . 5 . <br /> 4 . 3 SOILS ANALYSIS <br /> a. <br /> w . <br /> The results of bath soil physical and chemical analyses are <br /> presented in the Appendix and described below. <br /> r. <br /> 4. 3 . 1 Physical Analyses <br /> 14 Grain size analyses (Phase I only) are presented in Table 4-3, <br /> and plotted against depth in Figure 4-4. Although grain size <br /> r.x analyses were performed only for selected samples, they <br /> } ? generally confirm field descriptions. <br /> fA <br /> � . 4 . 3 . 2 chemical Analyses <br /> Results of the soil chemical analyses are presented in Table <br /> ;f j 4-4 . with 1,41e exception of one soil sampAe, collected at a <br /> depth of 55 it below ground surface (MW-1 ) , and two at 30 a:>d <br /> V4 35 ft (M1,1-2.7 , the soils were typically free of hydrocarbons <br /> t� and lead. These results are compared with California <br /> ( designated levels in Table 4-5. <br /> 1! <br /> 4 .4 GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY <br /> � The results of ,the ground 'rater analysis are presented in r <br /> Table 4--6. Benzene, toluene, xylene, and total hydrocarbon <br /> levels of 6. 8, 17, 4 . 1 and 78 milligrams per liter (mg/L) , <br /> respectively, were detected in the around water sample <br /> E " collected from M1+1-1 . Corresponding levels of these <br /> E.b <br /> constit+gents at both 14W-2'an;3 MIP-3 were less than the <br /> 4etection' iimit. These concentrations are compared with <br /> 4 California Water Quality Goals in Table 4-7. <br /> VIP <br /> 4-10 ; <br /> �x' <br />