Laserfiche WebLink
Each water sample was sealed in threi 40-milliliter volatile organic analysis VOA) vials <br />' with p e VOA vials were completely filled so that no head's ace existed <br /> . Teflon septa lined Lids Th p y p <br /> between the $$ample and the lids The samples were labeled with the sample point identification, <br />' preservativewadded, if any, date, time and EAI pro�t number, and immediately placed into <br /> ice chest chilled using frozen blue and crushed ice The samples were kept chilled unl <br /> delivered to the laboratory for analytical testing All samples were logged on a chain of custody <br />' record form (see Appendix B) <br /> 23 SAMPLING EQUIPMENT CLEANING PROTOCOL <br />' The submersible pump and hose system (Equipment), used only to purge the wells prior <br /> to sampling, was decontaminated between each event using the following procedure <br /> ■ The Equipment was flushed with tauter, <br /> I <br /> ■ The Equipment was washed in a solution of Alcofio/ <br /> x detergent and tap water, and <br />' ■ The Equipment was flushed with tap/water <br />' 24 EFFLUENT HANDLING <br /> All effluent generated during /purging, sampling and equipmen�tt decontamination <br /> activities was sealed in one labeled 55-gallon drum The drum is stored/on the Montgomery <br /> Ward site pending proper disposal <br /> IF-- 3.0 ANALYTICAL TESTING <br /> The samples were delivered for analytical testing to BC Analytical, a state certified <br /> hazardous waste testing laboratory (Certificate No A353) e samples were tested for <br /> halogenated volatile organic compoundsng EPA Method 8010,benzene, toluene, xylenes and <br /> ethylbenzene using EPA Me hod 8020 and total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline using <br /> modified EPA Method 8015/The results of the testing are shown on Table 2 The laboratory <br /> reports are contained in Appendix C <br /> i <br /> 4.0 DISCUSSION <br /> i <br /> The current gauging data indicate that the ground water elevations in the wells have risen <br /> on average approximately six feet as compared to the previous quarter's measurements (see <br /> Table 1) interpretation of The ground Wdler e1GVcttlVn leap 111d11.aMb t11dt L11e prGUVJJM1aL1t <br /> direction of ground water flow, at the time of measuement, was generally gutheasterly (i e , <br /> approximately S30;�) at a hydraulic gradient of 0 002 feet/feet (see Figure 2) This represents a <br />' change from the previous quarterly monitoring periods where the direction of ground water flow <br /> was reported to be Autherly <br />' Project No 1232 2 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC @ <br />