ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0011677 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

United Parcel Service March 16, 1992 Page 4 to minimize foundation disturbance. Soil removed during excavation/sampling would l; be placed within the existing waste oil tank soil stockpile. r A reasonable effort would be made to obtain samples of excavation-bottom soils from the center of the bottom and the midpoint of each sidewall's intersection with the bottom. The five samples would be collected from freshly excavated soil within the backhoe bucket and would be field screened with a photoionization detector (PID). Alconox cleansed and thoroughly rinsed brass tubes would be hand driven into the excavated soil and would be covered with foil, capped, and then be sealed with duct tape. The samples would immediately be placed on ice and logged onto a chain-of- custody form. The samples would be relinquished to a State-certified chemical laboratory and would be analyzed for the following: (1 ) BTEX by the EPA 8020 method; (2) TPH as .m gasoline by the modified EPA 8015 analysis; and, (3) barium (Ba), vanadium (V), copper (Cu), and nickel (Ni) for total/TTLC comparison. If the total metal concentration for any metal exceeds the Title 22 STLC, a California Waste Extraction Test (W.E.T.) would be performed. i #2 -- EXCAVATION BACKFILL Immediately following excavation/sampling work and PID screening, the excavation would be backfilled so that foundation disturbance is minimized during the analysis which will take two to three days as a minimum. Backfill would consist of aggregate base material placed and compacted in shallow lifts in accord with sound engineering practice. #3 — STOCKPILE CHARACTERIZATION UPS wishes to consider alternatives to landfill disposal of the soil. On-site spread aeration is not an option because of spacial constraints and County regulations. An on-site controlled vapor extraction mound may be possible, although it is difficult to predict time requirements and it's cost would be high. On-site bioremediation also would not be feasible, although, depending upon characterization data it could potentially be accomplished off-site with appropriate consent and agency approval. Off-site thermal treatment at a fixed facility is a reasonable alternative, although it also is relatively costly. We would obtain two soil samples from each approximate 50 cubic yards of the available soil for laboratory compositing. We would anticipate a total of five ' composites. Given the remediation options, the following analyses would be necessary and would be performed: (1 ) TPH analysis and characterization by the modified EPA 8015 procedure; (2) BTEX analysis by the EPA 8020 method; (3) Title ■ Geotechnical