Laserfiche WebLink
E��F <br /> iCi <br /> Ms. Evelyn Hubei <br /> February 25, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> soil excavationactivities, two quarterly groundwater monitoring events were required to <br /> establish site closure and closure would be granted if the December 1998 groundwater <br /> I monitoring results showed a decreasing trend. <br /> A variety of materials were observed onsite during ENSR's Phase I site inspection, including <br /> ASTs labeled as new oil, five 55-gallon drums labeled as non-hazardous waste, three rusted, <br /> abandoned 55-gallon drums with unknown contents, and two air compressors. Each of the <br /> items encountered has the potential to release hazardous constituents to the subsurface. ! <br /> i <br /> Summary of Phase II Investigation <br /> a E <br /> f On February 8 and 9, 1998, ENSR advanced .18 soil borings (SB-1 through SB-18) at the <br /> subject site. Nine borings were placed adjacent to the nine floor drains and advanced to <br /> approximately 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Five borings were placed adjacent to the # <br /> hydraulic auto body lifts and advanced to approximately 10 feet bgs. Two borings were placed <br /> adjacent to the former UST locations and advanced to 10 feet bgs. One boring was advanced <br /> to 5 feet bgs adjacent to the new oil AST. One boring was advanced to 5 feet bgs adjacent to <br /> the non-hazardous waste drum storage area. Boring locations are shown on Figure 2 in <br /> Attachment 1. I <br /> Collected soil samples were screened for petroleum hydrocarbons with a photo-ionization <br /> detector (PID) and visually examined for obvious signs of staining. At a minimum, one soil <br /> sample collected from each soil boring was selected for laboratory analysis. Generally, the soil <br /> sample exhibiting the highest PID values were selected for analysis from each boring. ` <br /> Upon collection,' each sample was sealed, labeled, recorded on a chain-of-custody record, and <br /> transferred to the onsite mobile laboratory for analysis. Soil samples submitted to the offsite j <br /> laboratory were-handled and labeled in a similar manner and placed in a cooler maintained at <br /> approximately 4°C while awaiting transport to the offsite laboratory. <br /> t <br /> Twenty-six soil samples were tested for Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) <br /> using EPA Test Method 418.1 and chlorinated VOCs using EPA Test Method 8010 and 8020 <br /> by the onsite mobile laboratory (Transglobal Environmental Geochemistry, Inc.). Based on the <br /> analytical results provided by the mobile laboratory, 2 soil samples were submitted to the offsite <br /> laboratory (McCampbell Analytical, Inc.) for Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TEPH) <br /> analysis using EPA Test Method 8015M. In addition to the tests described above, 1 soil sample <br /> fY� collected from each boring advanced adjacent to the 5 hydraulic lifts was tested for PCBs using <br /> EPA Test Method 8080. Soil samples collected adjacent to the 9 floor drains, USTs, and drum <br /> k <br />