Laserfiche WebLink
I02 March 2000 <br /> AGE-NC Project No 98-0452 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> 37 SURVEYING <br /> On 05 January 2000, the casing elevations of wells MW-1,MW-2, and MW-3 were surveyed to the <br /> nearest 0 O1-foot relative to San Joaquin County Bench Mark#DDCC-33 4D by representatives of <br /> Baumbach and Piazza, licensed surveyors (Appendix B) <br /> 4.0. FINDINGS <br /> Soil descriptions, ground water elevation, and flow direction were calculated from field data, <br /> hydrocarbon-impacted ground water was inferred from laboratory analysis of the ground water <br /> samples <br /> 41 STRATIGRAPHY <br /> Clay, silty, and poorly graded sand were the dominant components in soil samples collected Brown <br /> ty, P Y€�' p <br /> • to gray lean clay was also encountered at approximately 20 feet bsg in all three borings Boring logs <br /> are included in Appendix A <br /> 4 2 GROUND WATER GRADIENT AND FLOW DIRECTION <br /> The relative elevation of ground water in each well was calculated by subtracting the depth to ground <br /> water from the surveyed relative casing elevations (Table 1) Depths to ground water ranged from <br /> 5 21 feet to 5 85 feet below the tops of the well casings Relative ground water elevations at the site <br /> ranged from -1 64 feet in MW-1 to -1 8 8 in MW-3 relative to mean sea level The ground water <br /> gradient was calculated to be 0 003 ft/ft directed N 46° E <br /> I42 ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF WATER SAMPLES <br /> I TPH-g, TPH-d, and BTEX compounds were not detected above laboratory reporting limits in any <br /> of the ground water samples collected and analyzed <br /> MTBE was detected by EPA Method 8260 in the ground water samples collected from MW-1 and <br /> MW-3 at concentrations of 1 3 parts per billion (ppb, reported as micrograms per liter) and 17 ppb, <br /> respectively(Table 2) <br /> . Analytical results of ground water samples are summarized on Table 2 The laboratory report (MAI <br /> Advanced GcoEnvirunmental,Inc <br /> I <br />