Laserfiche WebLink
KLEINEELDER <br /> 1 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS � <br /> 5.1 ANALYTICAL RESULTS <br /> ' S 1.1 Soil Sampling Results <br /> Soil samples were not submitted for chemical analysis because of the absence of PID readings, <br /> lack of visual soil staining and petroleum hydrocarbon odors Field-screened results are used as <br /> an Indicator of potential hydrocarbon presence and report qualitative and not quantitative results <br /> 5.1.2 Water Sampling Results <br /> P g <br /> Three Hydropunch IITm samples (from borings HP-1, HP-2 and HP-3), and one water sample <br /> from the adjacent channel water surface were submitted under chain-of-custody procedures to <br /> Sequoia Analytical Laboratory of Sacramento, California Sequoia is a State of California <br /> Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) certified laboratory for the analyses requested <br /> The laboratory data sheets and Chain-of-Custody records are in Appendix C <br /> The groundwater samples and channel surface water samples were analyzed for the following <br /> 0 TPH-Extractable fuel fingerprint (as diesel, lube oil,het fuel JP4,het fuel JPS, kerosene, and <br /> ' unidentified extractable hydrocarbons) by EPA Method 8015M <br /> • TPH-Purgeable (as gasoline), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX) by EPA <br /> Methods 8020/8015M <br /> • Volatile Organics by EPA Method 8240 <br /> a Acid/Base Neutral Organics by EPA Method 8270 <br /> Water samples collected from HP-1 and HP-2 were not analyzed for fuel fingerprint because of <br /> insufficient sample volumes <br /> ' The samples were analyzed on a normal laboratory schedule requiring approximately two weeks <br /> (ten working days) The channel surface sample was analyzed on a 3-day rush turnaround <br /> 20-1129-30/2017R3 14 Page 9 of 13 <br /> 0 1997,Kleinfelder Inc July 14, 1997 <br />