Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />lJ <br />2.4 Sample Analysis <br />The methods utilized in the analysis the piping sample were modified EPA method 8015 for total <br />petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline and diesel and EPA method 8020 used for benzene, <br />toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) distinction. <br />Results of the soil sample analysis indicate that all tested constituents were below method <br />detection limits (Table 1). A copy of the laboratory report is included as Appendix C. <br />2.5 Backfilling <br />Upon review of the analytical data on July 19, 1999, regulatory approval to backfill the piping <br />excavation was granted by Mr. Parker of the SJCPHS-EHD. The original overburden material <br />and newimported fill were used as backfill. Proper compaction and resurfacing were <br />subsequently completed by representatives of Balch. <br />3.0 Conclusions <br />3.1 Observations <br />The removed piping and the exposed UST both appeared to be in excellent shape. No petroleum <br />odors or staining were noted around the piping or the UST. Groundwater was not encountered <br />during the piping replacement activities. No detectable petroleum hydrocarbons or fuel <br />oxygenates were encountered upon analysis of a soil sample collected beneath the former piping. <br />Based on these observations and analytical results, no further actions regarding the piping <br />replacement appear warranted. <br />3.2 Reporting Requirements <br />Copies of this report and its attachments should be forwarded to the following regulatory <br />agency: <br />Mr. Matthew Parker <br />San Joaquin County Public Health Services, Environmental Health Division <br />304 East Weber Avenue, Third Floor <br />Stockton, California 95202 <br />M7'08-17-"/UST/"-0005.wpd 3 <br />