ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0000979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

` Water samples from CPT#1 were much higher in both BTEX and TPHg than soil samples (see attached recap of sample analysis) • CPT42 yielded soil samples with lower gasoline contamination levels than CPT#l. Groundwater samples in CPT#2 at or greater than 80 feet bgs. had higher contamination levels than CPT#1 (see attached recap of sample analysis). Soil behavior type on both CPT's varied from clays to gravelly sand (see CPT printout attached). It should.be noted that soil behavior type may differ from actual soil classification. Soil samples were visually classified as they were removed from the soil sampler. Printout soil behavior types were in the same range as visual soil classification. CONCLUSIONS The UVIF (volts) shown on the CPT printout had no relation to the soil sample analysis for BTEX or TPHg. The highest of all UVIF readings, at CPT4l@55, was not the highest level by sample analysis. The UVIF readings may indicate a carbon chain that was not within the scope of the EPA 602 or EPA 8260 test methods. The soil profile produced by the CPT's was reflected in the actual soil samples.The CPT soil profile should be considered acceptable data for any future remediation actions. The final report on the CPT work will be completed when the Caltrans perm;t for CPT#3 has been issued and CPT#3 installed(see copy of permit application attached). Any questions on this report should be directed to Ervin Rifenburg,at Foothill Engineering 209/368- 9381. Respectfully submitted, Foot me S%�, Rtr�/q� J�� f C° nr r Ervin fe g, P, P. ; cc: Olivarez 3