|
• y H- � a.{ l.I - •1 � .. x - [ y 1 �� [�w I i 1f_I 4 l i fi�
<br /> �_ � ,S t-} F1' t~<.-[ •, .y .ice a. , f_.,,,. '' ,1„�,. 4...'t.����#..-y'>�.lir u�'� r s €rug!; !I, s� iD-t.S
<br /> �� E I �1 } tl - "c, , ! F _ u, as, J �• [1�� lyda.y�L "3` - (Irl i, 'r 1L �{tA�•11 I � ,.,.SIS.j
<br /> I IIx s # 1 x 1 -S'`` s � IF - ry ! i 1 .�, ` p .N � -�1• 1' 1�
<br /> i w I •' ,1: W,t.� ol. .-s. t'.1~ ..4. '_: �'i» y II,{, t.. ,.ri n ..r e!. 'e'
<br /> _ ,1 •Iti k ,.t r., • f»F.! I !` '` � Y f,t 1 h� t,t ! ; 'yY l+'' 1, �'..11; f! �.
<br /> ; 1
<br /> �r L 4I i1 .11
<br /> 04.1VMy2000 [' 4y s p yi. ?'"• a'3�' • " ' b-€1` '
<br /> �'• - 1.,` ,. .'. , ' ' 1' a 1' V t ,Q-.k, 1 jEr # r
<br /> nAGE-NC Project No. 95-01'14
<br /> w Page S of g , .,
<br /> mg/kg. �.
<br /> Analytical results for chlorinated hydrocarbon compo6bds in soil'samples`are summarized'm Table '
<br /> 3. The laboratory re ort for Jams Kiff Anal ical-re orty nurriber 15883 , AIQC,re ort'and'; "
<br /> ry P a'Y 1 yt P ) Q P 1f,.
<br /> chain-of-custody form are.included in-Appendix D.
<br /> 3•.4. GROUND WATER,GRADIENT AND DIRECTION "'` ' ' c
<br /> { The groundwater elevations were calculated'by subtracting the measured depth to.ground water
<br /> the surveyed casing elevations (Table l}. Ground water elevations',werelplotted arid'contoured on
<br /> .,., ,
<br /> A scaled site map.
<br /> The average ground water elevation at the site decreased approximately 0,42 feet between the;
<br /> September 1999 ,and January 2000 sampling'events.. During the' January 2000:,ground water
<br /> monitoring event, the depth to ground water.at the site ranged from 22.19to.23.06 feet below'tops
<br /> of the well casings.
<br /> .. -,. - ' • .. it , - 1. - - _ " .e 1 ,'
<br /> The groundwater gtadient.and flow direction were variable'across the site during the-January 2000
<br /> �. monitoring event. Groundwater flow direction.varied from northeast to southeast;,the greatest.
<br /> gradient was approximately 0.005'toward the northeast from well MW-4. H
<br /> Groundwater elevation data are summarized in Table 1. The relative ground water elevation for the
<br /> January 2000'ground water monitoring event is depicted in Figure 3. ;
<br /> Wells.MW-1 and MW-2 are screened between 34 and 54 feet bsg;wells MW-3R,MW-.4 and MW-S H;
<br /> are screened between 30 and 50 feet bsg; wells MW-6 and MW--7 are screened between 25 and'45
<br /> feet bsg. Ground water is more than l l.feet above.the tops of the screened-intervals of wells NIW 1
<br /> and MW-2;7 feet above the.tops of the screened intervals of wells MW-3R, MW-4 and 1\4W-5, and'
<br /> 2'feet above the fops 'of the screened intervals of wells MW=6"and MW-7 Therefore, samples' ;
<br /> collected from these wells may not be representative of ground water conditions at or near the top 1 '`
<br /> of the saturated-soil zone or capillary zone; where the greatest im act to ound water"is often.;
<br /> p rY . . g P gr
<br /> encountered.
<br /> 3.5. PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED GROUND WATER '
<br /> During the January 2000 monitoring event, TPH-ss.was detected in samples from monitonng.welIs
<br /> SIW-2"and-MW73 at concentrations of 960 micrograms per liter{µg11) and'3,500µg/1;respectively:;,,
<br /> TPH-ss was.not reported in the samples collected from wells -MW-1; MW-�4,' 'MW=5; MW-6
<br /> MW-7'during this samplin&event. Benzene and toluene were reported in the-water.'sample collected'
<br /> from monitoring well MW-T, at concentrations of 0.61 µg11 and 0.58:ug11, respectively .
<br /> x Advanced GeoEnvironmental,Inc.,:I
<br />
|