Laserfiche WebLink
�.y i .'_ �•���T§r �,.F. 'fig "C �rc.��� r ,a� �� _ x, �� <br /> and found to to 33 .33 feet telco+ the top of the well casing <br /> (which is eery nearly flush with gxeund surface ) . These Later <br /> levels were more cc;mparable to these noted during construction <br /> of both MIN-2 and MW-3, and discussed further in Section 4. 5 . <br /> 4 . 3 SOILS zN;�LYSIS <br /> t� <br /> The results of both soil physical and chemical analyses are <br /> presented in the Appendix and described below. <br /> ` 4 . 3. 1 Physical_ pity es <br /> wa Grain size analyses (Phase I only) are presented in Table 4-3 , <br /> and plotted against depth in ?ioure 4-4. Although grain size <br /> analyses were performed only for selected samples, ,.hey <br /> is generally confirm field descriptions. <br /> 4 . 3. 2 Chemical Analyses <br /> Results of the soil chemical analyses are presented in Table <br /> 4-4 . With the exception of one soil sample, collected at a <br /> depth of 55 ft below ground surface iMl:-1 ) , and two at 30 and <br /> 35 it (11w-2 ) , the soils were typically free of hydrocarbons <br /> and lead. These results are compared with California <br /> -designated levels in Table 4-5. <br /> 4 . 4 ; GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY <br /> The 'results of the ground water analysis are presented in <br /> Table 4-6. Benzene, toluene, xylene, and total hydrocarbon <br /> levels of 6.8, 17, 4. 1 and 78 milligrams per liter (mg/L), <br /> respectively, were detected in the ground water sample <br /> collected from MW--1 . Correcpondfng levels of these <br /> constituents at both W-1-2'a.nd 11W-3 wf-,re less than the <br /> f ' detection limit. These` cdncentrations are compared with <br /> California Nater Quality Goals in Table 4-7 . <br /> i <br /> 4-10 <br />