Laserfiche WebLink
I. H. KLEINFELGcR&ASSOCIA FES <br /> 4.3 GROUND WATER SAMPLE ANALYSIS <br /> -4, <br /> t . Three <br /> to ground water samples <br /> one from each monitoring well, were submitted <br /> California Analytical Laboratories Inc. for <br /> # petroleum hydrocarbons b chemical analysis o€ total <br /> .' y GC'pzb and for total aromatic hyd-ocarbons (BTX) <br /> by EPA Method 602, <br /> 4.4 FINDII"- <br /> { t <br /> k The analytical results for the three ground water,samples taken <br /> MW-21 and MW-3 are sho-m 3n Table 6. Relativelyfrom <br /> tt contaminants were high concentrations of <br /> t3 detected, in monitoring well MW <br /> concentrations weredetected 1 (B-10) and low <br /> &� <br /> in MW-2 (B-12) and MW-3 (B-13). <br /> it TheF <br /> water table elevation survey indicates the local ground water flow is ` <br /> southeasterly. This <br /> is inconsistent with the regional <br /> Is and indicates g ground water flow r <br /> the first ground water is <br /> the r either a separate water zone from <br /> <� egional aquifer or a <br /> local anomaly, This local anomalous flaw <br /> direction is more <br /> likely due to local variations in geology be influenced by the high rats and may also <br /> f g extraction wells located <br /> mile east of the site. approximately 1/2 <br /> The <br /> unexpected m <br /> uacimum gradient <br /> situated direction results in the lack of wells <br /> upgradient and .directly down radient'o£ <br /> j' Additional wells do g the suspected �tources. <br /> . wngradien.t of the suspected sources are needed to map <br /> the distribution of the contaminants in the underlying ground water. <br /> E , <br /> Lit <br /> E • <br /> --------- ------ <br /> 38-87-43 <br /> IM1101001 MIR Me OMEN= am aRms <br /> 1 _ <br />