Laserfiche WebLink
' December 5, 2005 <br /> NOA Project Number: E05132C <br /> ' 4.1 Boring Location and Methods <br /> ' After inspection of the area by the on-site geologist, the sampling location was shifted slightly from <br /> that depicted in the workplan. One boring was advanced on November 15, 2005 at the location <br /> indicated on Plate 2. The boring was drilled by hand-augering with a three-inch diameter auger. <br /> ' The soil cuttings brought to the surface and examined by the on-site geologist. The soil consisted of <br /> brown silt with fine cobbles to a depth of 1.5 feet, followed by brown silt to a depth of ten feet bgs. <br /> No staining or hydrocarbon odor was observed in the cuttings. <br /> ' 4.2 Sample Collection <br /> ' One soil sample was collected from the boring at a depth of ten feet bgs. The soil sample was <br /> collected into a stainless steel tube which was sealed with aluminum foil and capped. The sample <br /> was immediately labeled,placed on ice, and transported under chain of custody to Argon <br /> ' Laboratories in Ceres, California. <br /> 4.3 Grouting of the Boring <br /> ' The boring was grouted using a mixture of six gallons of potable water per 94 pound sack of <br /> Portland cement. Lorrie Duncan of the EHD was present during the grouting of the boring. The <br /> ' grout filled the borehole to within three feet of the ground surface. The top three feet of the <br /> borehole were filled with soil. <br /> 4.4 Sample Analysis Methods <br /> The soil sample was analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons-gasoline (TPH-g) and benzene, <br /> toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes (BTEC by EPA Method 8015M/8021B and total extractable <br /> hydrocarbons (diesel and motor oil) by EPA Method 8015M. <br /> 4.5 Analytical Results <br /> None of the requested analytes were detected in the sample at levels above the laboratory reporting <br /> ' limit. <br /> 4.6 Discussion of Results <br /> Based on the analytical results and observations made at the time of drilling, no evidence of an <br /> impact to the Site from the former adjacent underground storage tank was identified. <br /> ' 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> ' No further investigation into the former agricultural use of the Site, the potential impact to on-site <br /> soils from lead-based paint, or the former adjacent underground storage tank are recommended. <br /> 8 .,04 <br />