Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br /> The reporting limit differences for the two sets of results for well MW-3 are not considered <br /> ' significant as samples from this well have been consistently high with respect to the other wells <br /> Interference from highly concentrated analytes, in this case benzene, typically deter the <br /> resolution of closely eluting but less concentrated analytes, such as ethylbenzene and total <br /> ' xylenes, therefore these differences, as reported for MW-3 analyses, are not considered <br /> significant <br /> ' Table i <br /> Benzene Concentrations for All Sampling Events <br /> (concentrations in ug/L) <br /> ' We 22 February 1994 24 October 1994 Relative <br /> 119 ND=<0.3 ND=<0 3 Change <br /> 1 20 ND -20 <br /> 2 3 5 072 -278 <br /> 3 13,000 8,800 -4,200 <br /> = compared to ND as 0 <br /> It seems reasonable to conclude that the general lowering of analyte concentrations in each of the <br /> three wells (with minor exceptions) may be in response to a slightly lower water table The exact <br /> reason for this trend is not yet apparent Further monitoring may serve to clarify these results <br /> The initial detection of benzene in well MW-1, the upgradient well, is not yet explained by the <br /> available analytical results Further monitoring will also serve to clarify groundwater conditions <br /> at this locality <br /> Downgradient impact appears to extend farther than the assessment locations installed to date <br /> Further downgradient definition is warranted at this Site <br /> 1 <br />' 366-401 -9- <br />