4.3. SR 10-18-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e APPARENT ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES AND SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION CHANGFS FOR THE CORRECTIVE ACTION INVESTIGATION REPORT 210-0W A: The interpretation on Figures 9 A and 91 shows outwash in the upper sequence of the boring with a soil classification of SM. The boring log indicates till throughout this portion of the boring which is consistent with the criteria established in the Field . Procedures Report. The cross sections should be corrected to be consistent. with the boring log. 209-QW A: The interpretation shown on Figures 9A and 91 does not match the boring log. It appears that the till unit was inferred from the gamma log. If this is the case. additional till units are suggested both above and below this interval. A revised interpretation results in the two SM units classified as till and the remainder outwash with the exception of the till at the base of the boring. e 208-0W A: The screened interval of this well is classified as SM. yet it is interpreted as outwash. This is inconsistent with the criteria established in the Field Procedures Report. 206-0W A: The SM unit present below the upper till unit is interpreted as outwash. 205-0W A: The units classified as SP-SM above the well screen are shown as till while the boring log indicates otherwise. P-43C: Cross section D-D' presents a different interpretation of the P-43C boring than is shown on cross section J-J' . 202-0W A: The interpretation presented on Figure 9D conflicts with the lithologic log for this boring. A suggested interpretation revision shows the upper ML unit as the only upper till unit. The lower till is continuous downward from the lean clay unit. e 203-0W A: On Figure 9D the poorly graded sand unit is shown as till an interpretation that conflicts with the lithologic log and the criteria presented in the Field Procedures Report.