Laserfiche WebLink
` <br /> t <br /> P9 I <br /> KLEINFE1pER <br /> } Y <br /> 4 SOIL PILE ASSESS�jgT � <br /> F <br /> During the remova.! of the two underground tanks, approximately 100 cubic <br /> yards of tank backfily material and native soil were excavated. The <br /> stockpiled sand and.--lay were stored on the east side of the property. <br /> 1 <br /> To assess possible disposal alternatives, the soil pile was characterized <br /> 6 i by a. PTD field survey on April 31, 1988. Ten survey paints were :screene?_ <br /> g with the PID to provide a qualitative indication of petroieam hydrocarbon <br /> 1 f contamination. Soil samples were collected in brass bubea from eight of <br /> 1 ; the 10 survey points (Plate 5, Soil Pile Survey) <br /> Soil samples collected from six of the survey punts were submitted-under s <br /> k c'.iain-of-custody f <br /> y to. Lhemaest Analytical <br /> Laboratories, Inc. The six <br /> t. <br /> samples. werr:- composited by the laboratory� . Y in:i.o three samples and analyzed <br /> for TPv extractable by GC-FID and BTS by EPA Method 8020. The samples <br /> f <br /> -: <br /> were comosited to provide a quanitative assessment of the soil pile <br /> .amples with similar PID readings were composited into one sample. Table <br /> presents the results of the PID survey and.the.chemical ars,`•_yses. <br /> +� <br /> Laboratory.data sheets and chain-of-custody are included in'Appendix ,B. . <br /> } Upon completion of the soil pile sampling the pile was covered with <br /> f plastic and secured toprevent uncontrolled <br /> aeration. <br /> i <br /> � <br /> t <br /> { ; 97-88-502 y r <br /> S <br /> �aS <br />