Laserfiche WebLink
r tJr. <br /> was then placed in a cooled ice chest. The preserved soil was then described on the boring <br /> log(attached). <br /> Extruding the 12-foot sample was unusually difficult, and on the first attempt the sample <br /> was lost. The second attempt was successful, but due to the relatively small size of the <br /> sample and the potential for vaporization of any hydrocarbons that might be present, the <br /> sample was quickly "sniffed" but not tested with the.photo-ionization detector. It was then <br /> capped and placed in the ice chest. <br /> The groundwater sample was also collected through the augers,,using a small-diameter <br /> plastic bailer. Three EPA-approved vials were collected and labelled.Prior to collection, the <br /> depth to water was measured to the nearest 0.1 inch using a Solinst water level meter. <br /> I I ; <br /> After the samples had been collected, the boring was backfilled to within 1 foot of the <br /> ground surface with neat cement. The small amount of drill cuttings (<5 gallons) was stored . <br /> on plastic sheeting next to the garage. <br /> 4.0 LABORATORY ANALYSIS <br /> All samples were transported under chain-of-custody documentation to Excelchem <br /> Environmental Laboratories in Roseville for analysis. The samples were analyzed for total <br /> petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene, and methyl- <br /> tertiary-butyl-ether. The laboratory report is attached to this report. <br /> 5.0 RESULTS <br /> Boring B-1 penetrated moist, loose, generally moderately well-sorted coarse-grained brown <br /> sand. A thin zone of somewhat silty or clayey sand is present between 4 and 6 feet: The <br /> capillary fringe was encountered at approximately 8 feet, and saturated conditions were <br /> present below 9.7 feet.No hydrocarbon vapors were noted in any of the cuttings or samples, i <br /> and no vapors were detected by the PID. <br /> The laboratory detected no hydrocarbons above standard reporting limits in either the soil or <br /> water samples. This confirms the ' field evidence that the area is free of gasoline <br /> contamination, and implies that the 1990 sample was collected from a very limited area of <br /> contamination or that the contamination has naturally attenuated in the intervening six <br /> years. In either event, the evidence indicates that there is no signficant risk to public health. <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ,i <br />