Document g596QEYNm0wN0njmQgYqJqd3

AR226-2415 ^^ Y (^f^-^ PENNY, HERE ARB THE RESULTS FOR THB C-8 IH WATER SAMPLES THAT YOU AND TERRY COLLECTED. I SHOW A COMPARISON OF EXP STATION VS CH2MHILL. TWO OF EXP STATIONS SAMPLES WERE NOT REPORTED, I^LL CHECK OH THIS. RESULTS ARE VERY INTERESTING. I^LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO FORWARD TO TERRY, DAVE, ROGER, WALT, AMD BILL AMDERSOH SINCE YOU DID THB WORKI I'LL BBND TO CRUM AND COIN IN POLYMERS. MIKE ^ ##***d**#*********************************************************** EXPERIMENTAL gTATIOH^ (PPB .C-8) CH2MHILL ^ TEST WELL #27 7.3. 1.2 WELL #331 0.1 WELL MW-4 0.2 OHIO RIVER -1 OHIO RIVER -1 DUPLICATE OHIO RIVER -2 OHIO RIVER -2 DUPLICATE OHIO RIVER -3 (NEAR OUTFALL) OHIO RIVER -3 DUPLICATE < 1 < 1 < 1 3.9 19.6 16.8 NOT DETECTED NOT DETECTED NOT DETECTED NOT DETECTED 11.0 12.0 OHIO RIVER -4 5.2 0.8 OHIO RIVER -4 DUPLICATE 3*1 1*1 OHIO RIVER -5 OHIO RIVER -5 DUPLICATE OHIO RIVBR -6 OHIO RIVER -6 DUPLICATE NEW LUBECK WELL -F NEW LUBECK WELL -F DUPL NEW LUBECK WELL -B NEW LUBECK WBLL -B DUPL OLD LUBBCK WELL -1 OLD LUBECK WELL -1 DUPL 4,2 2.8 ? <\ 2.0 < 1 < I < 1 < 1 8.8 4.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.6 NOT DETECTED NOT DETECTED ^ S 0.3 ^0- NOT DETECTED o n* a DESTROYED 1.1 OLD LUBECK WELL -4 OLD LUBBCK WELL -4 DUPL 4.2 0.9 2.9 1.7 A/6^r/,C<s-/or m/ n-<-' F^-^ ^T^.-^ BID103027