REMOVAL_1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J. H. KLEINFELDER & ASSOCIATES File: 24-2038-1/28:725 December 10, 1986 Page 5 6.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 6.1 Soil Sample Results During the drilling and collection of soil samples, there was no ` indication of petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or ground water. Two soil samples collected from just above the water table were submitted for chemical analyses. Soil samples B-1 (35.5-36.0), collected from soil boring MW-1, and B-2 (35.5-36.0), collected from soil boring MW-2, were analyzed for volatile aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylene) by EPA Method 8020, total petroleum hydrocarbons by GC-FID, ethylene dibromide, and total lead. Other than lead being detected at typical background concentrations, all constituents analyzed for were below detectable limits. Results of the soil sample analyses are included in Appendix B of this report. 6.2 Water Sample Results Water samples MW-1 and MW-2 were chemically analyzed for volatile aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylene) by EPA Method 602 and total petroleum hydrocarbons by GC-FID. As there was no indication of petroleum hydrocarbons from field operations or chemical analysis of soil samples B-1 and B-2, the two water samples were not additionally analyzed for ethylene dibromide or total lead. All constituents analyzed for were below detectable limits in water samples MW-1 and MW-2. Results of the water sample analyses are included in Appendix B of this report. 7.0 DISCUSSION Petroleum hydrocarbons or related constituents were not detected by the analytical laboratory in the soil or water samples submitted from the two soil borings. The soil and ground water observed by the field geologist were void of any hydrocarbon odor, scent, or fluid cut. No volatile constituents were detected from the PID field screenings. Based on the information obtained from soil borings MW-1 and MW-2, the underground fuel storage tank does not appear to have an adverse impact on the adjacent soils and groundwater.