Laserfiche WebLink
g .. <br /> d <br /> ends with teflon liner, cooping with p <br /> ]antic end caps, and sealing <br /> e, <br /> The tubes were labeled. and �aCaliforred on ice <br /> zia <br /> the tubes with duct tap Environmental La�coratory companied by <br /> for transport to American story) ac <br /> Department of Health Services certified labor <br /> chain-of-custody documentation. <br /> prepared from auger return material and <br /> logs were P p ed according to the Unified <br /> Detailed boring 9 Registered <br /> split-spoon samples. The soil was log TPE California <br /> Soil Classification System by a <br /> Geologist. <br /> transported to the TP-1 and TP-2 tank <br /> All drill cuttings were storage on site, <br /> ile for temporary <br /> excavation soil stockpile round surface with <br /> Both borings were sealed to within two feet of g <br /> a neat cement grout. <br /> relative to hollow-stem -auger drilling and sail <br /> TPE's protocolswaste handling and decontamination <br /> sampling procedures and <br /> procedures are included as Appendices D and E. <br /> 3,2,3 Chemical Analytical Results <br /> for chemical analysis a d STEX1(EFA�Method <br /> Soil samples selectngs BI <br /> ed ZPHG (F)HS Method) <br /> and B2 were tested for analyses are summarized in <br /> i of the soil boring <br /> 8020) . The results endix A. <br /> Table 2 and attached as App <br /> 3.2.3.1 Soil Boring B1 at depths of <br /> were performed on soil samples taken <br /> Chemical analyseswas detected at concentrations of 8 ppm' <br /> TPHG were non- <br /> 36, 46, and 51 feet; actively. BTEX constituents <br /> 7 ppm, and 9 pPm, resp <br /> detectable for each of the samples tested. <br /> 3.2.3.2 Soil Boring B2 <br /> analyses were taken at depths <br /> les submitted for chemical yes were non- <br /> Soil same rade. All of the samp� <br /> 36, and 40 feet below g they were tested. <br /> of 30, constituents for which <br /> detectable for each of the con <br /> 7 <br />