Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> approximately 74 feet below grade and flows to the north-northeast under a gradient of 0.0016 <br /> ft/ft or 8 4 feet per mile. A groundwater gradient map is presented on Figure 3. <br /> 1 I <br /> 4.0 CONCLUSIONS <br />' 4.1 Soil Contamination <br /> Laboratory analyses and field PID readings from soil borings (MW2-MW4) advanced at the site <br /> idid not detect the presence of hydrocarbon constituents, suggesting potential soil contamination, <br /> if present, is apparently limited to a relatively small area near the former line leak. Laboratory <br />' results for soil are summarized on Table 1. Laboratory reports and chain of custody <br /> documentation are included in Appendix M. <br /> 1 <br /> 4.2 Groundwater Contamination <br /> iLaboratory analysis of groundwater samples collected from site monitoring wells detected no <br /> dissolved hydrocarbon constituents in MW2, MW3, and MW4. Laboratory results for <br />' groundwater are summarized in Table 2. Laboratory reports and chain of custody documentation <br /> are included in Appendix III. <br /> 5.0 REFERENCES <br /> 0 San Joaquin Flood Control and Water Conservation District Semi Annual Groundwater <br />' Report, Spring 1992, San Joaquin County Flood and Water Conservation District. <br />' • San Joaquin County Groundwater Investigation, Bulletin No. 146, July 1967. <br /> • State of California, Department of Water Resources, 1981, Water Well Standards: State <br /> of California, Bulletin 74-81, 92pp <br /> 1 <br /> • U.S Geological Survey, 1986, Professional Paper 1401-C, Geology of the Fresh <br />' Ground-water Basin of the Central Valley, California, with Texture Maps and <br /> Sections. <br />' PAR-0593 FNL 6 <br />