Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> C)Sl ice in the same manner as those taken earlier Although the <br /> vertical limits of the apparent contamination had not been <br /> determined, it was decided that dr3_] ling would not continue at <br /> this time The drilling crew did not have sufficient clean auger <br /> ' flights to go deeper, and considerable additional costs would be <br /> incurred in standby time for the rig & crew, geological super- <br /> vision, and laboratory analysis Refer to PLATE-IX for details <br /> of lithology, core recovery, and blow counts. . <br /> The remaining sail borings were grouted under the supervision of <br /> the County EHD, and the soil samples were transported by the goo - <br /> , to ;i:,t ander chain of custody to FGL laboratory w-Lth instructions <br /> to test for BTEX, TEPH, 8010 , & tCAP ( 10 metals ) That document <br /> is included as EXjt15 T_M: <br /> DISCU ETON &TANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF ABOVE WORK: <br /> ' The results of the laboratory analysis of the soil samples ars <br /> summarized on 'TABLES V VI &.__VL the report sheets are included <br /> as EXHIBITS I�thxu _L- All samples were below detection, limits for <br /> EPA 8010 , (chlorinated solvents, ) cadmium & lead were ND, and <br /> h measured levels of chromium, nickel & zanc are indicative of <br /> native components <br /> t TPH-D was below detection levels in all samples, BTEK & TPF]-G <br /> were. ND in all samples et et�t the one taken at 36' in; soil <br /> boring #2 It revealed very minor amounts of 13TEX & TPEI--G, this <br /> analysts zs consistent with field observat.Lons <br /> ' A study of the fence diagram, L1?1 KCh_KU.L) reveals that while <br /> there is some variation in the sediments penetrated by the soil <br /> ' bori-ngs, there does not appear to any apparent lithol.ogic <br /> differences to explain the contamination encountered in SB 02. <br /> However, none of the other so.j_1 borings went deeper than 31 ' 6" , <br /> which was the depth at which evidence of the contamination was <br /> noted .in SB ##7 <br /> The results of the laboratory analysis indicates that the waste <br /> oil tank is not the source of the contamination encountered; <br /> TPS}-G & lead was absent in all samples, along with other compo- <br /> nents that mould indicate such a source if the source had been <br /> the removed gasoline UST' s, SB #1 :should have shown significant <br /> Levels of those contaminants, since at apparently penetrated into <br /> the backtill meter-al used to fill the excavation. In addition, <br /> ' .90..11 samples taken from below the removed gasoline tanks did not <br /> shown any contamination SB #'? is over 10 .feet away from those <br /> tanks, but is very close to the sewer line that was encountered <br /> during drilling operations However, _Lt is doubtful .if that .lane <br /> 7 <br />