Laserfiche WebLink
%00r <br /> 10 October 1997 <br /> AGE NC Project No. 97-0298 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> 4.2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLES <br /> TPH-g, BTE&X, and MTBE were not detected in the thirteen soil samples analyzed. Analytical <br /> results of soil samples are summarized on Table 1. The laboratory reports (OEL Lab ID number <br /> — 1D035-02 through 1D035-14), QA/QC report and chain-of-custody are in Appendix B. <br /> 4.3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF THE GROUND WATER SAMPLE <br /> TPH-g and BTE&X were not detected in the grab water sample analyzed. Analytical results of the <br /> water sample are summarized on Table 2 -Analytical Result of Grab Ground Water Sample. The <br /> laboratory report (OEL Lab ID number 1D035-01), QA/QC report, and chain-of-custody are in <br /> y, Appendix B. <br /> 5.0. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> The following conclusions were drawn from the results of this investigation: <br /> • Hydrocarbon-impacted soil was not detected in soil samples collected from beneath the <br /> former UST excavation to a depth of 30 feet bsg.No apparent hydrocarbon-impacted soil is <br /> present beneath or south of the former UST area. <br /> • Petroleum hydrocarbons were not detected in the grab ground water sample collected from <br /> beneath the former UST area. <br /> 6.0. RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> Based on the results of this investigation, AGE recommends the following: <br /> • AGE does not recommend further subsurface investigation at the site. <br /> 7.0. LIMITATIONS <br /> Our professional services were performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by <br /> environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities. The findings were based mainly <br /> upon analytical results provided by an independent laboratory. Evaluations of the geologic <br />