FIELD DOCUMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

jL; r 09 September 1999 AGE-NC Project No. 99-0608 Page 4 of 5 4.1. 'SOIL PROFILE 6 Pea gravel backfill material was encountered from surface grade to a total depth of approximately fi 8 feet bsg. A light brown to brown, damp, fine sandy silt/silty sand was encountered to a depth of approximately 15 feet bsg. Light brown, damp, medium sand with silt was encountered at 20 feet bsg. Saturated soil was first encountered in the boring at a depth of approximately 21 feet bsg. Boring logs are included in Appendix A. 4.2. FIELD EVIDENCE OF HYDROCARBON-IMPACTED SOIL OR GROUND WATER Organic vapor was not detected in soil sample duplicates. Discoloration and staining,was not visible in soil duplicates. Nether petroleum hydrocarbon odor nor petroleum sheen were detected during the collection of the grab ground water sample. 4.3. GROUND WATER DEPTH AND GRADIENT Based on field data collected during the ground water sampling, onsite ground water depth was approximately 22 feet bsg. This coincides with information extracted from the map San Joaquin County Flood Control And Water Conservation District - Lines of Equal Depth To Groundivater Fall 1997. The ground water flow direction is inferred to be toward the east-northeast based on the map San Joaquin County Flood Control And TFater Conservation District-Lines of Equal Elevation { of Groundwater Fall 1997. But, both ground water depth and flow direction can be locally influenced. i 4.4. RESULTS OF SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS Soil samples 13I-15' and B1-20'-from boring BI were submitted for analysis for TPH-g, TPH-d, TPH-mo, BTEX and MTBE. The laboratory results reported no petroleum hydrocarbons detected above the Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) for either soil sample analyzed. Analytical results of soil samples are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory reports and chain-of-custody forms are included to Appendix B. Adranced CcoEnriroumcntaI,Inc. I