Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> ' 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br /> ' A summary of the analytical results from current and past well samplings is presented <br /> in Table 1 . Based on the water-level data for December 21, 1995 (Table 1), Smith <br /> Environmental has interpreted the groundwater gradient and flow directions for the <br /> upper and lower aquifers, as shown on Figures 3 and 4, respectively. In the local <br /> ' upper aquifer (Monitoring Wells MW-5, MW-6 and MW-7), the groundwater level rose <br /> an average of 0.08 feet, ranging from 0.04 feet in Monitoring Well MW-6 to 0.1 1 feet <br /> in Monitoring Well MW-5. In the local lower aquifer (Monitoring Wells MW-1 R, MW-2, <br /> ' MW-3, and MW-4), the groundwater level rose an average of 0.07 feet, ranging from <br /> 0.01 feet in Monitoring Well MW-3 to 0.14 feet in Monitoring Well MW-2. The <br /> ' apparent groundwater flow direction in the local upper aquifer is southeasterly at a <br /> gradient of approximately 0.007 (Figure 3). The apparent groundwater flow direction <br /> ' in the local lower aquifer is easterly at a gradient of approximately 0.002 (Figure 4). <br /> Laboratory analyses of water samples collected on December 21 , 1995 from <br /> Monitoring Wells MW-1 R, MW-2, MW-5, MW-6, and MW-7, indicated that TPH-G and <br /> ' BTEX were not detected in any of these samples. Wells MW-3 and MW-4 were not <br /> sampled because they are located upgradient of the underground storage tanks, and, <br /> historically, TPH-G and BTEX have not been detected in the groundwater from these <br /> ' wells. The next quarterly groundwater sampling is scheduled for March 1996. <br /> 1 <br /> i <br /> MV1w:194-27314-gtr.rpl Ilan 29,9Sj <br /> 1 <br />