Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> .5.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br /> I' 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 September 26, 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 fell <br /> an average of 0.89 feet, ranging from a drop of 0.84 feet in Monitoring Well MW-6 <br /> to a drop of 0.99 feet in Monitoring Well MW-5. In the local lower aquifer (Monitoring <br /> Wells MW-1 R, MW-2, MW-3, and MW-4), the groundwater level fell an average of <br /> 1 .00 feet, ranging from a drop of 0.95 in Monitoring Well MW-3 to a drop of 1 .05 <br /> feet in Monitoring Well MW-1 R. The apparent groundwater flow direction in the local <br /> upper aquifer is southeasterly at a gradient of approximately 0.009 (Figure 3). The <br /> apparent groundwater flow direction in the local lower aquifer is southeasterly at a <br /> gradient of approximately 0.003 (Figure 4). <br /> Laboratory analyses of water samples collected on <br /> - y y p September 26, 1995 from <br /> ' Monitoring Wells MW-1 R, MW2, 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 December 1995. <br /> • <br /> MVIw:594.273%3-gtr.rpt INov 7.961 � � <br />