FIELD DOCUMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

indication of contamination. Samples were extracted using a tube sampler with 1.5" stainless steel sample tubes. Each end of sample tube was covered with Teflon sheets and a plastic sample tube cap. Samples were kept on ice and transported under chain of custody to the on site laboratory. All push bores were logged for soil texture classification and any other visible characteristics(See recap sheet for soil classification). Sample Analysis All push bore samples were analyzed by GC/MS EPA Method 8260 in a mobile laboratory located on the site. Samples taken by hand from the excavator bucket from under tank #3 and the north excavation wall on August 21, 1998 were delivered to Onsite's laboratory in Fremont, California (Results of re-sample analysis are located on the recap sheet attached). These four samples were analyzed by EPA Method 8260. Findings All push bore samples taken on August 10& 11, 1998 were found to be below the detection limit for all compounds analyzed. On August 21, 1998 the soil under tank#3 was re-sampled at a depth of 21 feet. This sample was analyzed for TPHg with results of 120 mg/Kg, which is a major reduction from 4400 mg/Kg for TPHg of the original tank sample. This re-sample was non-detect for MTBE. A re- sample of the north wall was taken 7 feet below the original tank pull sample. It was analyzed at 3.6 mg/Kg for TPHg with non-detect for MTBt. CONCLUSION Pipeline Area Contamination Push bore samples taken directly below pipeline, P-24', P-44', and P-7-6' were analyzed at non- detect for all compounds. The contamination shown on these pipeline samples must have resulted from a very small spill of short duration that did not penetrate to lower depths. These spills did not contaminate soils below eight feet in depth and will not place the underground water supply in danger. Fuel Tank Area Contamination The amount of contamination of the soil under the south end of tank#3 was shown to be in inverse proportion to the depth of the sample. The sample at 14 feet of depth was 4400 mg/Kg for TPHg, while the sample at 21 feet was 120 mg/Kg, a reduction ratio of 36 to 1. The soil classification for the sample taken at 21 feet is a silty sand. The soil classification in PB#4 starting at 28 feet is a dense silt proceeding to a sandy silt hardpan at 31 feet. The low,permeability of the soil directly under the 21 foot sample will prevent any contamination of the water table. None of the samples in PB#4, located six feet south of tank#3, showed any evidence of contamination. Lateral movement of the spill was confined to tank expavation. The tanks may have been backfilled with higher permeability soil than the surrounding area. A sample taken eight feet to the east of re-sample TK#3@21' showed levels of TPHg at only 24 mg/Kg, which is below normal action levels. This indicates that lateral movement of the contamination was low. At the time these tanks were removed, the daily inventory did not show a loss of gasoline from any of the tanks. North wall contamination area was re-sampled at 11 feet, which is 7 feet below the original sample (N-SIDE WALL @ 4'). TPHg for this re-sample was 10%of the original sample. A low permeability layer of hardpan was found at a depth of 26.5 feet in PB#5, which is located 10 feet to the northwest 2