Laserfiche WebLink
Creologkal rechnxs t" Page 6 <br />' Groundwater Monitoring Report <br /> Project No 770 2 <br /> • April 25,2005 <br /> ' to low water level in the well The plot in Figure 6 suggests that a previously direct <br /> relationship between groundwater elevation and contaminant concentrations has reversed <br /> ' since June 2002 <br /> Well MW-5 continues to contain the highest concentrations of detected contaminants (see <br /> ' Figure 8) It is not down gradient of the former UST location and the reason for this anomaly <br /> is not known, but could be related to geologic units that slope to the west <br /> MW-4 <br /> Well MW-4 lies adjacent to the former UST field Figure 7- MW-4 TPH-D vs Groundwater <br /> Elevation suggests that a predominantly inverse relationship exists between groundwater <br /> ' elevation and contaminant concentrations In this figure the sudden increase in diesel <br /> concentrations for August 2004 coincides with the same phenomenon observed in MW-5 <br /> The cause is unknown at this time, but the concentration of diesel has decreased since that <br /> ' event <br /> MW-105 <br /> TPH-D was not detected in MW-105 during this monitoring event Detection of TPH-D in <br /> the last two quarters of year 2004 indicated that the contamination has moved vertically <br /> downward in an oblique angle to the northwest from the source In Figure 9—MW-5 & MW- <br /> 105 TPH-D versus Groundwater Elevation, well MW-5 contaminant concentrations have <br /> previously exhibited a weak correlation with changes in the water table Since September <br /> 2001 the relationship has been reverse Well MW-105, screened below the water table, <br /> exhibits a typical on/off trend (alternating between detecting diesel at —100 Rg/1 to ND<50 <br /> µg/1), thus suggesting that the vertical extent of the diesel plume is near the depth interval of <br /> ' MW-105 <br /> Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of diesel in the deeper wells TPH-D was not detected in <br /> the deep wells so an iso-concentration diagram was not developed <br /> GTI makes the following recommendations <br /> ' 9 Maintain the quarterly monitoring schedule <br /> • In response to the comments from SJCEHD on the site conceptual model report, we C � <br /> recommend that an additional site characterization work plan (in progress) and interim <br /> ' remedial action plan be implemented ASAP <br /> s <br /> 1 6. <br /> 3.0 LIMITATIONS <br /> This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of care and <br /> practice in effect at the time Services were rendered It should be recognized that definition <br /> and evaluation of environmental conditions is an inexact science and that the state or practice <br /> of environmental geology/hydrology is changing and evolving and that standards existing ats/cam <br />