ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0010143 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i Mr Donald Kirk Page 7 ' September 22, 1997 igoals if applicable Exceedance of a PRG suggests that further evaluation of ' potential risks posed by a particular contaminant may be appropriate Results presented in the table indicate that the volatile aromatic hydrocarbon ethylbenzene exceeded the industrial soil PRG in samples UST1N-7, UST2N-7, ' and UST2S-7 Also, the total xylenes concentration in sample UST2S-7 exceeded the industrial soil PRG ' Ground Water Sampling Following collection of soil samples from each borehole, ERM collected one ground water grab sample, using the HydroPunch technique, from the downgradient boring in each of the four locations, UST1, UST2, FS, and FN The downgradient ground water direction was assumed to be north/northeast based ' on information from the ERM Phase I ESA To collect ground water grab samples, the Geoprobe rod was advanced approximately four feet below the depth of first encountered ground water (approximately 8 feet bgs) to ensure ' that a sufficient quantity of water would flow into the HydroPunch casing ERM submitted a total of four ground water samples to the laboratory for ' analysis These samples were not field filtered prior to being submitted to the lab in keeping with the objectives for screening level sampling (i e , to define lie "worst-case" ground water conditions at the site) The 40 ml VOA vials sent by the laboratory were preserved with hydrochloric acrd (HCl) to increase potential sample holding times However, during collection of the first ground water ' sample it was noticed that the HCl reacted strongly with the ground water as it was poured into the vial This created numerous bubbles which precluded eliminating headspace gas in the vials After consultation with a Quanterra ' laboratory manager, it was determined that the acid preservative was probably reacting to high calcium carbonate levels in the ground water To prevent this reaction, the Iaboratory recommended that the VOA vials be rinsed twice in the ' field with ground water to remove the HCI prior to filling with the ground water sample This change in sampling procedure was recorded on sample labels, ' chain of custody forms, and field notes Ground water samples from the presumed former UST locations were analyzed ' for TPH-gasoline, TPH-diesel, and BTEX, whereas groundwater samples from the fork lift locations were analyzed for TPH-Full Range (including gasoline, diesel, and motor oil), and for VOCs using EPA Method 8260 In addition, a ' laboratory prepared trip blank consisting of two VOAs was analyzed for VOCs using EPA Method 8260 Results for ground water samples are summarized in Table 2, Attachment A ' VOC detectionsresented in Table 2 are compared with primary maximum P p contaminant levels (MCLS) established for drinking water supplies by the State 1