ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0011165 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�r assembly was inserted into the hollow flights, and pushed to 21 1/2 ' with the rigs drawworks. Because of the angled hole, it was not possible to drive the core barrel with the rig hammer, and therefore blowcounts could not be measured. When the cure barrel was removed, and opened up , it was noted that the inside of the barrel was coated with what appeared to be a light machine oil . It apparently had been used to protect the inside of the barrel , and was not mated when used. Core recovery consisted of 18" of buff to light brown clay. Because of the possibility of contamination from the oily film, it was decided to take another core. A second core barrel was filled with clean brass tubes, and driven to 2.:, feet with the rig drawworks. When removed and opened up, it was noted that recovery was about 6--?" of brown to tan sticky clay. There was no evidence of any contamination or odor in the soil sample, and the inside of the barrel was clean. The brass tube containing the sample was quickly capped with teflon tape and plastic caps, sealed with duct tape, and placed on ice pending transport to the laboratory for analysis. Refer to Plate II for a lithologic plat of the auger hole. The drill cuttings were placed in a sealed drum and stored on location. The auger hole was grouted with cement under the direction of Mr. Collins. The sample was transported to F'GL Environmental by Mr. Hunter under proper chain of custody, with instructions to test for the "short list" of metals, (ICAP--S` ) using EPA Method 6010 (TTLC) . RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results of that analysis, listed on Table i, revealed that Cadmium was below detection levels, Chromium was 44 mg/kg, Lead was 5 mg/kg, nickel was 50 mg/kg , and Zinc was 53 mg/kgs After reviewing the results, Mr. Collins of the County EHD stated that the levels shown for chromium and Nickel exceeded those allowed by the County, and requested that a waste extraction test, {5TLC, ) be run for those two metals. The results of that test is shown on Table 2, which revealed that Chromium was below detection levels and Nickel was 1 . 6 mg/l . Refer to Exhibit E for copies of the laboratory analysis results and chain of custody. It should be mentioned here that there are no specific values ii.sted in either the LOFT Manual or the Tri--Regional Guidelines L concerning the metals analyzed in this report. However, the EHD