Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Sample S-1: This sample was collected in the former pesticide mixing area. Pesticides <br />were reportedly mixed vvith "crop oil," aparaffinic-based sticking agent, prior to loading <br />' the aircraft. The location for sample S-1 was chosen because the ground surface was <br />heavily stained, possibly from multiple spills. A strong pesticide odor is present in the <br />ambient air at this location. <br />' Sample S-2: This sampling location is immediately in front of one of the former <br />pesticide storage sheds. Some discoloration of the ground surface was noted at location <br />' S-2 that was more apparent than elsewhere in front of the storage sheds. A faint odor of <br />pesticides was detected in the ambient air above ground at this location. <br /> Sample S-3: Sample S~-3 was obtained from the middle of the gravel taxiway where it <br />' approximately intersect:> the runway. The rationale for this location was to detect <br /> whether any leakage or slop from full tanks on the aircraft, or residual mixtures dripping <br />' from the spray nozzles after landing, had penetrated the graveled surface. <br /> Sample S-4: This sample was collected at the edge of a burn pile between the runway <br /> and the storage sheds. A sizeable quantity of various materials and debris was burned <br />' at this location, including a number of plastic containers suspected to have contained <br /> pesticides. <br />t Sample S-5: This location was chosen because it's in the general area where mining <br />will commence. It is unlikely that surface contamination exists at this location, and this <br />sample's purpose is to document the absence of contamination several inches below <br />' ground surface in an ansa away from the mixing and storage sheds. <br />Sample Collection Methods <br />The specific tools used to collect the samples varied among the different samples <br />because of location-specific conditions such as presence of large cobbles that prevented <br />' the advance of the hand auger, or frozen ground. However, a consistent methodology <br />was used for each as described below. <br /> All sampling equipment was thoroughly cleaned and decontaminated prior to sampling <br />' by washing with anon-phosphate detergent, rinsing with clean tap water, rinsing with <br /> distilled water, and there lightly rinsing with denatured alcohol, and allowed to dry. The <br /> equipment used included a shovel, hand trowel, stainless steel hand auger, stainless <br />' steel mixing bowls, and stainless steel mixing spoons. To further minimize the risk of <br /> cross-contamination from the sampling equipment, the samples were collected in the <br /> order S-5, S-4, S-3, S-1, S-1. This sampling order was expected to range from <br />' uncontaminated soils to the most heavily contaminated. <br /> Plastic sheeting was placed on the ground beside each location to prevent tools and <br /> sample jars from contacting the ground surface. A clean shovel was used to remove <br />' surficial debris and the top several inches of soil from an area approximately 18 inches <br /> by 18 inches. Sample !i-4 was an exception to this; only the burned debris was scraped <br /> off until native soil was exposed. Once surficial material was cleared, the samples were <br /> obtained using either the stainless steel hand auger or a hand trowel. The auger or <br /> trowel was emptied into a stainless steel mixing bowl for homogenization and logging of <br /> the material. The sample was then transferred into clean sample jars provided by the <br />' analytical laboratory. The jars were labeled, taped, and placed in an iced cooler for <br />' zzsia-ooo~:ovzvoo 3 <br />