5132 ELM ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

M &D Builders, Inc. July 13, 1994 Page 2 4. Evaluate potential contamination at the site per WAC 173-340-310(2). If indications of contamination aze encountered, arrange for chemical testing. 5, Prepaze a shott letter with the results of our evaluations of the southeast pazcel (southeast comer of I.ot 2) for the city of Everett Planning Department. SITE CONDITIONS Surface conditions were observed at the site (the southeast corner of Lot 2) by a geologist from our staff on July S, 1994. The site is level from the eastern boundary at Elm Sueet westwazd to the top of slope which is approximately 120 feet west of Elm Street at the south boundary of the site and 160 feet west of Elm Street at the north boundary of the site. From the top of slope the site slopes to the southwest toward Pigeon Creek No. 2. Vegetation consists of small aldec trees and blackberry bushes. A geologistfrom our staff evalua!ed subsurface conditions by observing excavation offour test pits by a rubber-tired backhoe at the site and one test pit immediately r.orth of the site. The test pics ranged in depth fcom 4.0 feet to 8.0 feet. Native soiis consist of organic topsoil underlain by medium dense sands with varyinE amounts of gravel and silt. The thickness of topsoil ranged from 0.2 feet to 13 feet. W e staked the position of the nztive top of slope at ihree test pit locations at the site and immediately north of the site that intersected the top of slope. Fill materials were not observed on the level poRion of the site. Approx�mate!y 2 feet of silty sand and gravel fill was observed downslope from the location of the test pit along d�c south site boundary. The GeoEngineers representative tested soil samples obtained from surface locatie-u and the test pit excavations using field screening techniques. GeoEngineers' field screening results • aze usetl as a general guideline to delineate azeas of possible petroleum-related contamination. In addition, screening results can be used to aid in the selection of soil samples for chemical analysis. The screening methods used include(1)visual screening, (2)•.vater sheen screening and (3) headspace vapor screening. Visual screening consists of inspecting the soil for stains indi:ative of petroleum-related contamination. Visual screening is generally more effective when c�ncamination is related to heavy petroleum hydrocarbons, such u motor oil, or when hydrocazbon concentrations aze high. Water sheen screening and headspace vapor screening are more sensitive methods that have been effective in detecting contamination at concen�rations less than regulatory cleanup guidelines. The presence or absence of a sheen or headspace vapors does not necessarily indicate the presence or �bsence of petroleum hydrocarbons. Water sheen screening involves placing soil in water and observing the water surface for signs of sheen. Sheen screening may detect both volatile and nonvolatile petroleum hyurocazbons. G e o E n g i n e e t � File No.3831-001-R06