Laserfiche WebLink
• reported by the laboratory in well TT-2 Therefore, the sensitive receptor survey was conducted <br /> and the results were reported in the Second Quarter Report After reviewing the report, Ms Oz <br /> requested additional receptor information, including the addresses of all buildings that were <br /> visited during the drive-by survey and the names of the businesses or residents that were <br /> contacted <br /> 3.0 PROCEDURES <br /> Momtonng was performed on August 19, 1999 Upon arrival at the site, the wells were opened and <br /> allowed to equalize with atmospheric pressure A Solinst water level meter was used to measure the <br /> depth to groundwater in the monitoring wells Depth measurements were recorded on the Well <br /> Monitor Report (Appendix A) and are shown in Table 1 After water depths were measured, a <br /> Gr uidfos Redi-flow 2 submersible pump was used to purge the wells Approximately 20 gallons of <br /> water were pumped from each well and stored in plastic barrels During purging, a Corning pH, <br /> conductivity,temperature gauge was used to measure these parameters until they stabilized <br /> After purging, new disposable bailers were used to collect samples from each well Three 40-m1 <br /> vials and one 1-liter amber bottle were collected and placed in a cooled ice chest, and transported to <br /> Sequoia Analytical for analysis The laboratory report is included in Appendix B <br /> . 4.0 RESULTS <br /> 4.1 Depth to Groundwater <br /> On average, the depth to groundwater is almost three feet less than it was in June (Table 1) <br /> Currently, the depth averages 53 feet below grade <br /> 4.2 Groundwater Gradient <br /> Figure 3 illustrates the present hydraulic gradient and direction of groundwater flow, and <br /> includes a rose diagram (lower right cornier)that summarizes flow directions measured in <br /> previous monitoring events In general, the direction of flow has been to the south The present <br /> gradient is estimated to be 0 0055 ft/ft, which is slightly less than previously <br /> 4.3 Analytical Results <br /> The laboratory report is presented in Appendix B, and summarized in Table 2 Diesel was again <br /> detected in TT-2 at a very low concentration, but all other analytes were below detection limits It <br /> is possible that the laboratory erred when it reported benzene, toluene, MTBE, and TAME in this <br /> well in the second quarter No hydrocarbons were detected in either of the other wells <br /> . 2 <br />