Laserfiche WebLink
t <br /> IR <br /> } <br /> _ Clayton <br /> Eel?RON.v.ENT4i <br /> CONSULT-MS <br /> Clayton discussed these soil samples with Ms. Hinson on the telephone on March 28, 1991. <br /> The conversation was confirmed in a letter to OSH from the SJC/EHD. At Ms. Hinson's <br /> request, we reanalyzed the sample from 4 feet bgs to determine the leaching potential of the <br /> . constituents. The sample was reanalyzed by the following methods: <br /> p Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 801513550, for diesel fuel <br /> • Standard Method 5520F, for hydrocarbons <br /> • Standard Method 55WE, for total oil and grease <br /> These analyses revealed the following fractions of hydrocarbons in the soil: 3 ppm diesel fuel, <br /> 280 ppm of hydrocarbons, and 660 ppm of oil and grease. <br /> CIayton recommended, and the SJCIEHD concurred, that five boreholes be installed around <br /> MW-3B to determine the extent of hydrocarbons in the surrounding :oils. Soil samples were <br /> collected from 4 feet and 9 feet below grade and analyzed for hydra:arbons by EPA Method ; <br /> j 5520F. Hydrocarbons were not detected in any of the samples. <br /> Although reanalysis of the MVV-33 soil sample revealed oil and grease, diesel, and � <br /> hydrocarbons at 4 feet below ground surface, analysis of the soil sample collected from 9 feet <br /> bgs revealed significantly.lower concentrations of petroleum constituents. Also,we did not <br /> detect these constituents in the soil samples taken from any of tree five surrounding <br /> C <br /> boreholes., These constituents do not leach easily from soils, and analysis of groundwater <br /> } samples from MW-3B did riot reveal detectable concentrations. Because the analysis of soil <br /> 1 samples from the adjacent boreholes demonstrated the limited extent of the petroleum <br /> constituents in the surrounding soils, Clayton recommended no further soil remediation at the. <br /> subject site. <br /> 14 <br /> Ori <br /> i <br /> f I $ <br /> i <br />