Laserfiche WebLink
ME <br /> b <br /> with cores taken every 5 feet according to the approved workplan. <br /> No oder or free product was noted in any care or cuttings from <br /> borehole #4 or 45. Upon completion of the boring operation, the <br /> remaining holes were properly grouted to the surface. All cares <br /> were properly sealed, labeled and stored on ice, and transported by <br /> -the geologist to the laboratory under proper chain of custody; <br /> (refer to Exhibit B for details. ) <br /> GEOLOGIC REVIEW OF AUGER HOLE DATA <br /> Using the Unified Soil Classification System, the lithologic <br /> description of the sediments penetrated were plotted an strip logs, <br /> with the locations of each core sample indicated. Plate VII shows <br /> the results of that work, A fence diagram was then constructed <br /> using the strip log plots, and connecting the various identifiable <br /> litholagic units with each other. Plate VIII is the result of that <br /> work, which shows that there is a good correlation between the 5 <br /> holes. It also reveals that the three core samples that had <br /> detectable levels of contamination; (SH #1- 25' , BAH #12 - 34' , & BH <br /> #5 - 25' ,) were restricted to, or immediately above, a sticky <br /> blue-grey clay bed overlying fine to coarse sands & gravel. All 5 <br /> borings bottomed in that sand & gravel bed, and laboratory results <br /> obtained from that layer revealed that levels of tested contaminants <br /> were below detection levels. <br /> RESULTS OF LABORATORY rah;; _vZS j <br /> Table III summarizes ;:he results of the laboratory analyzes <br /> performed an the corE samples obtained from the auger holes. only <br /> three (3) of the 44 core. samples analyzed showed detectable levels <br /> of tested contaminants; bore hole #'_ at 25' , bore hole #2 at .301 , <br /> and bore hole #5 at 25'. All of the other samples tested were below <br /> detection limits. Because of the presence of residual <br /> contamination, further evaluatian was perf^rmed, using the LUFT <br /> Manual as a guide. The results of those analyzes are discussed <br /> below. <br /> GENERAL RISK APPRAISAL WORKSHEET <br /> The General Risk Appraisal worksheet, (Table 2-3 of the LUFT <br /> Manual ,) was filled out using the relavant data from this project; <br /> (refer to Table IV,) which indicated that further analysis might be <br /> helpful. <br /> LEACHING POTENTIAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET RESULTS <br /> Table 2--1 of the LUFT Manual was filled out using data from this <br /> Project, (Table V; ) the result was a total of 43 points, which <br /> w <br /> a : <br />