f: docs amipro 96021r02 - vermont · initial site investigation document no....

aandreoli

Text Box

DOOLEY RESIDENCE 44 EAST TERRACE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT INITIAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT Prepared for: Ms. Sandy Dooley 44 East Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 [email protected] Project No. 08-220832.01 March 2014 Prepared by: ECS 1 Elm Street, Suite 3 Waterbury, VT 05676 tel: 802-241-4131 www.ecsconsult.com

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report details the results of an Initial Site Investigation (ISI) performed by Environmental

Compliance Services, Inc. (ECS) at the Dooley Residence located at 44 East Terrace, South Burlington,

Vermont (Figure 1). The ISI was performed at the request of Mr. Gerold Noyes of the Vermont

Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) following the discovery of petroleum-

contaminated soil during the removal of a 275-gallon underground storage tank (UST). During the UST

removal photoionization detector (PID) readings as high as 916 parts per million (ppm) were encountered.

Because of space limitations and the close proximity of the UST to the foundation (less than 5 feet) the

full extent of contamination could not be determined; and therefore, all soils were backfilled, thus

requiring the need for an ISI.

The ISI was conducted in general conformance with ECS workplan and cost estimate dated 18 November

2013 and the VT DEC approval e-mail dated 25 November 2013. However, only three soil borings were

installed (SB-1, 2, 3). A downgradient soil boring could be installed due to the unknown location of

underground sewer and water pipes. The locations of the water and sewer lines were not identified as Dig

Safe had contacted the wrong department to do so. The findings of the ISI are as follows:

PID soil headspace readings ranging from 0.0 (background) to 12.4 ppm were obtained from soil

samples collected from soil boring SB-3, installed along the west side of the former UST

excavation. The highest PID reading was detected at a depth of 4 ft. below the ground surface

(bgs), and decreased to background at 8 to 12 feet bgs, where refusal was encountered on

assumed bedrock or dense glacial till.

A soil sample was collected from SB-3 at 4 feet bgs and submitted for laboratory analysis for

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8021b and total petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH) by EPA Method 8015 DRO. Naphthalene was detected at 98.9 micrograms per kilogram

(µg/kg), which is below the Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential soil of 3,600 µg/kg.

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 759 µg/kg, which is below the RSL for residential soil of

78,000 µg/kg. TPH was detected in the soil at 4,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) which

exceeds the Vermont Soil Screening Value (SSV) for residential soil of 200 milligrams per

kilogram (mg/kg).

There were no detections with the PID above 0.0 ppm in soil borings SB-1 and SB-2; installed

outside the former UST excavation area in the upgradient and cross gradient directions of the

former UST location.

Based on the findings stated above, it is the opinion of ECS that the site does not meet the criteria of a

Site Management Activity Completed (SMAC) designation due to the presence of VOCs in the soil

greater than 10 ppm and TPH greater than 200 mg/kg. The full extent of contamination could not be

determined and may extend beneath the building. ECS recommends the following:

1. Perform hand installed soil borings and/or soil gas points in the basement area to define extent of

contamination. If contamination is identified beneath the basement slab, then additional borings

may be needed on the east side of the house to delineate the downgradient extent of

contamination.

2. Once full extent of contamination is determined then perform source area removal of fuel oil

contamination at the location of the former UST by either excavation or Soil Vapor Extraction

ii

(SVE). This activity would likely reduce the potential for future vapor intrusion (TPH > 100

mg/kg and VOCs >10ppm with a PID within 5 feet of a structure) or contaminants leaching into

groundwater or beneath the building. Upon remediation the site may be eligible for a SMAC

designation.

3. A summary report will be prepared detailing the results of the additional soil investigation and

remediation, and make recommendations for further action, if necessary.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 SITE HISTORY & CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ............................................................................................ 1

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................ 1

2.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES AND RESULTS ................................................................................. 3 2.1 SOIL BORING INSTALLATION ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 SOIL-SCREENING RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY AND RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 5 3.1 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 6

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 7

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Site Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A Boring Logs

Appendix B Field Notes

Appendix C Photodocumentation

Appendix D Laboratory Analytical Reports

Initial Site Investigation Document No. 220832.01.ISI.Report.doc

Dooley Residence 21 March 2014

44 East Terrace, South Burlington, VT Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report details the results of an Initial Site Investigation (ISI) performed by Environmental

Compliance Services, Inc. (ECS) at the Dooley Residence located at 44 East Terrace, South Burlington,

Vermont (Figure 1). The ISI was performed at the request of Mr. Gerold Noyes of the Vermont

Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) following the discovery of petroleum-

contaminated soil during the removal of a 275-gallon underground storage tank (UST). During the UST

removal photoionization detector (PID) readings as high as 916 parts per million (ppm) were encountered.

Because of space limitations and the close proximity of the UST to the foundation (less than 5 feet) the

full extent of contamination could not be determined. The ISI was conducted in general conformance

with ECS workplan and cost estimate dated 18 November 2013 and the VT DEC approval e-mail dated

25 November 2013.

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PHYSICAL SETTING

The site is located at 44 East Terrace in South Burlington, Vermont. The property is a private residence,

located in a residential area. (Figure 2). The property is served by natural gas and town water and sewer.

The former UST was located along the west side of the building, adjacent to the foundation and basement

wall. The property slopes gently from west to east.

According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Natural Resources Atlas, the site is 1,500 feet

from the nearest surface water (an unnamed brook) and there are no water supply wells are located within

½-mile of the site.

1.2 SITE HISTORY & CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

On 3 September 2013, ECS completed a closure assessment during the removal of one 275-gallon UST.

The UST was found to be in poor condition with several small holes and rust. The UST was greater than

25 years old and has been out of use since the installation of natural gas at the site. PID readings ranged

from 0.0 to 916 ppm, and olfactory evidence of contamination was observed. Due to space limitations

and the proximity of the UST to the foundation of the house, the maximum depth of excavation was 6 feet

below the ground surface (bgs) and the vertical limits of contamination were not defined. PID readings at

the base of the excavation were as high as 402 ppm. The soil consisted of very dry fine sand with trace

silt. Groundwater was not encountered in the excavation. All soils were backfilled and clean fill was

brought in to bring the excavation back to grade.

The basement of the residence was inspected and screened with a PID along the west wall, just inside

from where the UST was located. The PID reading in the gap of the foundation where the feed line

entered the basement was 0.2 ppm. The ambient air in the basement was 0.7 ppm. No petroleum-related

odors were observed in the basement by ECS during the screening or historically by the homeowner.

1.3 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK

The objectives of the site investigations were to:

Evaluate the degree and extent of petroleum contamination in soil in the vicinity of the

former UST;

Determine if groundwater has been impacted;




Qualitatively assess the risks to environmental and public health via relevant sensitive

receptors and potential contaminant migration pathways; and,

Identify appropriate monitoring and/or remedial actions based on the site conditions.

To accomplish these objectives, ECS has:

Supervised the advancement of three soil borings;

Screened subsurface soils from soil borings for the possible presence of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) using a PID;

Identified sensitive receptors in the area, and assessed the risk posed by the contamination to

these potential receptors; and,

Prepared this summary report, which details the work performed, qualitatively assesses risks,

provides conclusions, and offers recommendations for further action.




2.0 INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

2.1 SOIL BORING INSTALLATION

On 23 December 2013, ECS supervised the completion of three soil borings. The soil borings were

advanced using a direct-push geoprobe drill rig operated by ENPRO Services Inc. All three soil borings

(SB-1 through SB-3) were advanced on the west side of the residence where the former UST was located.

The exact locations of the underground water and sewer lines were unknown; and therefore, borings were

not completed on the east side or down gradient side of the building with respect to overburden

groundwater flow. ECS had planned to install soil borings on the east side of the residence to determine

if fuel oil contamination had migrated under the house; however Dig Safe had contacted the wrong water

and sewer department to mark the site. See Figure 2 for boring locations. A description of each soil

boring is provided below.

Soil boring SB-1 was advanced between the former UST grave and East Terrace, in the presumed

upgradient direction. The soil consisted of varying amounts fine sand, silt and gravel. The

boring was terminated at refusal nine feet bgs.

Soil Boring SB-2 was advanced approximately 10 feet north of the former UST tank grave. Soil

consisted of fine sand and silt with trace gravel to a depth of 12 feet. Between 12 and 14 feet was

a dense clay layer with trace gravel and roots. The soil transitioned to what looked like a till layer

at 14 feet. The boring was terminated at 14 feet due to refusal on presumed bedrock or till.

Soil Boring SB-3 was advanced approximately five feet from the house in the upgradient end of

the former UST tank grave. Soils between zero and four feet appeared to be a mix of native

material and backfill. Between four and 10 feet was fine sand and silt with trace gravel. Between

10 feet and 13.5 feet was dense clay. Below the clay to 14 feet was fine to coarse sand. A thin

zone of groundwater was encountered at the bottom of the boring, 14 feet bgs. The boring was

terminated at 14 feet due to refusal on presumed bedrock or till.

No groundwater monitoring wells were installed. The borings encountered refusal and PID soil

headspace readings were 0.0 ppm prior to encountering overburden groundwater sufficient for

groundwater monitoring wells.

Boring logs are included in Appendix A. Field notes are presented in Appendix B. Photodocumentation

is presented in Appendix C.

2.2 SOIL-SCREENING RESULTS

An ECS field scientist screened soil samples from discrete intervals in each soil boring for the possible

presence of VOCs using a Phocheck Tiger portable PID. The PID was calibrated in the field with an

isobutylene standard gas to a benzene response factor. Soil samples were placed into a polyethylene bag,

which was then sealed, agitated, and allowed to equilibrate. The PID probe was inserted into the

headspace, and the highest reading was recorded.

PID readings ranging from 0.0 to 12.4 ppm were obtained from soil samples collected from source area

boring SB-3. The highest PID reading was detected at a depth of 4 ft. bgs, which was a mix of native and

backfill material. The PID Reading dropped to 0.0 ppm at 8 feet bgs.




There were no detections of VOCs in soil head space samples with the PID above 0.0 ppm in soil borings

SB-1 and SB-2; indicating that soil contamination does not extend to the North or West beyond the

immediate area of the former UST.

A soil sample collected from SB-3 at 4 feet bgs was submitted for laboratory analysis for VOCs by EPA

Method 8021b and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by EPA Method 8015 DRO. Naphthalene was

detected at 98.9 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg), which is below the Regional Screening Level (RSL)

for residential soil of 3,600 µg/kg. 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 759 µg/kg, which is below the

RSL for residential soil of 78,000 µg/kg. No other VOCs were detected above laboratory reporting limits.

TPH was detected in the soil at 4,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which exceeds the Vermont Soil

Screening Value (SSV) of 200 mg/kg for residential soil (Refer to Appendix D).

Soil samples were transported under chain of custody in an ice-filled cooler to Spectrum Analytical, Inc.

in Agawam, MA, for analysis. No quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were submitted.

Samples were shipped via FedEx to the lab on Friday for Saturday delivery. The sample cooler arrived

on Monday at 12.2°C, which is above the preservation temperature of 4°C (±2°C). Soil samples results

may be biased low due to the elevated temperature; however it is the opinion of ECS that the data are

usable for the purposes of this report.




3.0 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY AND RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR SURVEY

ECS conducted a survey to identify sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the spill that could potentially be

impacted by contamination associated with the site. The following sensitive receptors were identified in

the vicinity of the property.

The soil and groundwater beneath the former UST;

The Basement at 44 East Terrace

3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT

ECS qualitatively assessed the risks that the residual soil contamination poses to the receptors identified

above. In general, human exposure to petroleum-related contamination is possible through inhalation,

ingestion, or direct contact while impacts to environmental receptors are due either to a direct release or

contaminant migration through one receptor to another or along a preferential pathway.

Soil and Groundwater Beneath the Former USTs- VOCs were detected with a PID in soil

samples collected from the source area soil boring SB-3 up to 12.4 ppm at 4 feet bgs. The

source area PID reading reduced to background at 8 feet bgs. Groundwater was encountered

in the boring at the refusal depth of 14 feet bgs and therefore it is unlikely that groundwater

has been impacted at this time.

The Basement at 44 East Terrace– The UST was located within five feet to the foundation

and basement wall on the west side of the building. During the UST removal, PID readings

ranged from background to 916 ppm. All PID readings in the basement and cracks in the

foundation during the ISI were 0.0 ppm. Paint cans that were present in the basement during

the UST removal screening were removed for this screening event, which may account for

the previous detection in this area. The close proximity of contaminated soils (up to 916

ppm) to the basement represents a potential for vapor intrusion.

geroldn

Highlight

geroldn

Highlight




4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the site investigation described above, ECS concludes the following:

PID soil headspace readings ranging from 0.0 (background) to 12.4 ppm were obtained from soil

samples collected from soil boring SB-3, installed along the west side of the former UST

excavation. The highest PID reading was detected at a depth of 4 ft. below the ground surface

(bgs), and decreased to background at 8 to 12 feet bgs, where refusal was encountered on

assumed bedrock or dense glacial till.

A soil sample was collected from SB-3 at 4 feet bgs and submitted for laboratory analysis for

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8021b and total petroleum hydrocarbons

(TPH) by EPA Method 8015 DRO. Naphthalene was detected at 98.9 micrograms per kilogram

(µg/kg), which is below the Regional Screening Level (RSL) for residential soil of 3,600 µg/kg.

1,3,5-trimethylbenzene was detected at 759 µg/kg, which is below the RSL for residential soil of

78,000 µg/kg. TPH was detected in the soil at 4,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) which

exceeds the Vermont Soil Screening Value (SSV) for residential soil of 200 milligrams per

kilogram (mg/kg).

There were no detections with the PID above 0.0 ppm in soil borings SB-1 and SB-2; installed

outside the former UST excavation area in the upgradient and cross gradient directions of the

former UST location.




5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings stated above, it is the opinion of ECS that the site does not meet the criteria of a

Site Management Activity Completed (SMAC) designation due to the presence of VOCs in the soil

greater than 10 ppm and TPH greater than 200 mg/kg. The full extent of contamination could not be

determined and may extend beneath the building. ECS recommends the following:

4. Perform hand installed soil borings and/or soil gas points in the basement area to define extent of

contamination. If contamination is identified beneath the basement slab, then additional borings

may be needed on the east side of the house to delineate the downgradient extent of

contamination.

5. Once full extent of contamination is determined then perform source area removal of fuel oil

contamination at the location of the former UST by either excavation or SVE. This activity

would likely reduce the potential for future vapor intrusion (TPH > 100 mg/kg and VOCs

>10ppm with a PID within 5 feet of a structure) or contaminants leaching into groundwater or

beneath the building. Upon remediation the site may be eligible for a SMAC designation.

6. A summary report will be prepared detailing the results of the additional soil investigation and

remediation, and make recommendations for further action, if necessary.

FIGURES

Environmental Compliance Services, Inc.

www.ecsconsult.com44 East Terrace, South Burlington, VT44 East TerraceSouth Burlington, VT 05403 Figure 1: SITE LOCUS

1 Elm Street, Suite 3

Waterbury, VT 05676

Phone 802.241.4131 Fax 802.244.6894

Base Map: U.S. Geological Survey; Quadrangle Location: Burlington, VT

Lat/Lon: 44 28' 3" NORTH, 73 11' 24" WEST - UTM Coordinates: 18 643971.3 EAST / 4925392.4 NORTH

Generated By: Rick Starodoj

APPENDIX A

SOIL BORING LOGS

APPENDIX B

FIELD NOTES

APPENDIX C

PHOTODOCUMENTATION

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Environmental Compliance Services, Inc.

1 Elm St., Suite 3

Waterbury, Vermont 05676

Client Name:

Sandy Dooley

Site Location:

44 East Terrace

South Burlington, Vermont

ECS Project #:

08-220832.01

Photograph #1

Description:

Installation of SB-1

Photograph #2

Description:

Installation of SB-2

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS

Report Date:

08-Jan-14 11:23

ü Final Report

Re-Issued Report

Revised Report

SPECTRUM ANALYTICAL, INC.

Featuring

HANIBAL TECHNOLOGY

Laboratory Report

Environmental Compliance Services

1 Elm St. Suite 3

Waterbury, VT 05676

Attn: Jeff Girard

Project:

Project #:

Dooley Residence - South Burlington, VT

08-220832.01

Laboratory ID Client Sample ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received

SB82657-01 SS-1 Soil 23-Dec-13 10:30 30-Dec-13 09:25

I attest that the information contained within the report has been reviewed for accuracy and checked against the quality control

requirements for each method. These results relate only to the sample(s) as received.

All applicable NELAC requirements have been met.

Massachusetts # M-MA138/MA1110

Connecticut # PH-0777

Florida # E87600/E87936

Maine # MA138

New Hampshire # 2538

New Jersey # MA011/MA012

New York # 11393/11840

Pennsylvania # 68-04426/68-02924

Rhode Island # 98

USDA # S-51435

Authorized by:

Nicole Leja

Laboratory Director

Spectrum Analytical holds certification in the State of New York for the analytes as indicated with an X in the "Cert." column within

this report. Please note that the State of New York does not offer certification for all analytes. Please refer to our website for specific

certification holdings in each state.

Please note that this report contains 9 pages of analytical data plus Chain of Custody document(s). When the Laboratory Report is

indicated as revised, this report supersedes any previously dated reports for the laboratory ID(s) referenced above. Where this report

identifies subcontracted analyses, copies of the subcontractor's test report are available upon request. This report may not be

reproduced, except in full, without written approval from Spectrum Analytical, Inc.

Spectrum Analytical, Inc. is a NELAC accredited laboratory organization and meets NELAC testing standards. Use of the NELAC logo however does

not insure that Spectrum is currently accredited for the specific method or analyte indicated. Please refer to our "Quality" web page at

www.spectrum-analytical.com for a full listing of our current certifications and fields of accreditation. States in which Spectrum Analytical, Inc.

holds NELAC certification are New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida. All analytical work for Volatile Organic and Air

analysis are transferred to and conducted at our 830 Silver Street location (NY-11840, NJ-MA012, PA-68-04426 and FL-E87936).

Please contact the Laboratory or Technical Director at 800-789-9115 with any questions regarding the data contained in this laboratory report.

Headquarters: 11 Almgren Drive & 830 Silver Street � Agawam, MA 01001 � 1-800-789-9115 � 413-789-9018 � Fax 413-789-4076

www.spectrum-analytical.comPage 1 of 9

CASE NARRATIVE:

Data has been reported to the RDL. This report excludes estimated concentrations detected below the RDL and above the MDL

(J-Flag).

The samples were received 12.2 degrees Celsius, please refer to the Chain of Custody for details specific to temperature upon receipt.

An infrared thermometer with a tolerance of +/- 1.0 degrees Celsius was used immediately upon receipt of the samples.

If a Matrix Spike (MS), Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) or Duplicate (DUP) was not requested on the Chain of Custody, method

criteria may have been fulfilled with a source sample not of this Sample Delivery Group.

All VOC soils samples submitted and analyzed in methanol will have a minimum dilution factor of 50. This is the minimum amount of

solvent allowed on the instrumentation without causing interference. Soils are run on a manual load instrument. 100ug of sample

(MEOH) is spiked into 5ml DI water along with the surrogate and added directly onto the instrument. Additional dilution factors may

be required to keep analyte concentration within instrument calibration range.

Method SW846 5035A is designed to use on samples containing low levels of VOCs, ranging from 0.5 to 200 ug/Kg. Target analytes

that are less responsive to purge and trap may be present at concentrations over 200ug/Kg but may not be reportable in the methanol

preserved vial (SW846 5030). This is the result of the inherent dilution factor required for the methanol preservation.

See below for any non-conformances and issues relating to quality control samples and/or sample analysis/matrix.

8015DM

Spikes:

1331264-MS2 Source: SB82657-01

Sample dilution required for high concentration of target analytes to be within the instrument calibration range.

The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS

recovery.

Diesel Range Organics (DRO)

The surrogate recovery for this sample cannot be accurately quantified due to interference from coeluting organic compounds

present in the sample extract.

1-Chlorooctadecane

1331264-MSD2 Source: SB82657-01


The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable LCS

recovery.

Diesel Range Organics (DRO)

The surrogate recovery for this sample cannot be accurately quantified due to interference from coeluting organic compounds

present in the sample extract.

1-Chlorooctadecane

Duplicates:

1331264-DUP2 Source: SB82657-01


Samples:

SB82657-01 SS-1

This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the cover page .

* Reportable Detection Limit Page 2 of 908-Jan-14 11:23

8015DM

Samples:

SB82657-01 SS-1


SW846 8260C

Calibration:

1312038

Analyte quantified by quadratic equation type calibration.

Naphthalene

This affected the following samples:

S315022-ICV1

Samples:

SB82657-01 SS-1

Elevated Reporting Limits due to the presence of high levels of non-target analytes.



Sample Acceptance Check Form

Client:

Work Order:

Project:

Sample(s) received on:

Received by:

Environmental Compliance Services - Waterbury, VT

Dooley Residence - South Burlington, VT / 08-220832.01

SB82657

12/30/2013

Jessica Hoffman

Were samples properly labeled (labels affixed to sample containers and include sample ID, site

location, and/or project number and the collection date)?

ü

Yes No N/A

Were sample containers received intact?

Were samples accompanied by a Chain of Custody document?

Did sample container labels agree with Chain of Custody document?

Were samples received within method-specific holding times?

Were samples received at a temperature of 6°C?

Were samples cooled on ice upon transfer to laboratory representative?

Were custody seals present?

Were custody seals intact?

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

The following outlines the condition of samples for the attached Chain of Custody upon receipt.

Does Chain of Custody document include proper, full, and complete documentation, which shall

include sample ID, site location, and/or project number, date and time of collection, collector's name,

preservation type, sample matrix and any special remarks concerning the sample?

ü

7.

6.

8.

9.

10.

11.

3.

4.

1.

2.

5. Were samples refrigerated upon transfer to laboratory representative? ü



SS-1

Sample IdentificationMatrix

23-Dec-13 10:30

Collection Date/Time Received

30-Dec-13

Client Project #

08-220832.01 SoilSB82657-01

Result AnalyzedMethod Ref. Cert.BatchPreparedDilutionAnalyte(s) Units *RDLFlagCAS No. AnalystMDL

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOC Soil ExtractionN/AField

extracted

VOC Extraction 1 1331247DJB

Volatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS R05

Initial weight: 22.12 gPrepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (high level)

SW846 8260C 02-Jan-1402-Jan-14µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.971-43-2 Benzene 100 1400026GMA30.6

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.9106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 100 ""68.2

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.9107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane 100 ""59.0

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.9100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 100 ""54.8

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.91634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether 100 ""56.4

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D98.991-20-3 Naphthalene 100 ""40.1

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.9108-88-3 Toluene 100 ""61.3

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.995-63-6 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 100 ""30.8

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D759108-67-8 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 100 ""35.2

" ""µg/kg dry 180D< 180179601-23-1 m,p-Xylene 100 ""121

" ""µg/kg dry 89.9D< 89.995-47-6 o-Xylene 100 ""22.6

Surrogate recoveries:

70-130 % " " ""4-Bromofluorobenzene 108 "460-00-4

70-130 % " " ""Toluene-d8 101 "2037-26-5

70-130 % " " ""1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 107 "17060-07-0

70-130 % " " ""Dibromofluoromethane 105 "1868-53-7

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Diesel Range Organics GS1

Prepared by method SW846 3550C

8015DM 02-Jan-1431-Dec-13mg/kg dry 59.7D4,30068476-30-2 Fuel Oil #2 2 1331264SEP34.7

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.768476-31-3 Fuel Oil #4 2 ""6.0

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.768553-00-4 Fuel Oil #6 2 ""35.7

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.7M09800000 Motor Oil 2 ""32.6

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.7J00100000 Aviation Fuel 2 ""14.9

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.7Unidentified 2 ""14.9

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D< 59.7Other Oil 2 ""6.0

" ""mg/kg dry 59.7D4,300 XDiesel Range Organics

(DRO)

2 ""34.7

Surrogate recoveries:

40-140 % " " ""1-Chlorooctadecane 97 "3386-33-2

General Chemistry Parameters

SM2540 G Mod. 30-Dec-1330-Dec-13%88.4% Solids 1 1331237DJB



Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control

Result Units

Spike

Level

Source

Result %REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

LimitFlagAnalyte(s) *RDL

Batch 1400026 - SW846 5035A Soil (high level)

Blank (1400026-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 02-Jan-14

µg/kg wetD< 50.0Benzene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.01,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.01,2-Dichloroethane 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.0Ethylbenzene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.0Methyl tert-butyl ether 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.0Naphthalene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.0Toluene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.01,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 50.01,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 50.0

µg/kg wetD< 100m,p-Xylene 100

µg/kg wetD< 50.0o-Xylene 50.0

30.0 70-130Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 30.6 µg/kg wet 102

30.0 70-130Surrogate: Toluene-d8 29.6 µg/kg wet 98

30.0 70-130Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 31.4 µg/kg wet 104

30.0 70-130Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 31.9 µg/kg wet 106

LCS (1400026-BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 02-Jan-14

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD18.2 91Benzene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD20.3 1021,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD19.2 961,2-Dichloroethane

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD19.7 99Ethylbenzene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD19.6 98Methyl tert-butyl ether

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD16.9 85Naphthalene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD18.6 93Toluene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD21.1 1061,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD21.1 1061,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

40.0 70-130µg/kg wetD39.9 100m,p-Xylene

20.0 70-130µg/kg wetD19.6 98o-Xylene





LCS Dup (1400026-BSD1) Prepared & Analyzed: 02-Jan-14

20.0 3070-130 2µg/kg wetD17.8 89Benzene

20.0 3070-130 8µg/kg wetD22.1 1101,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)

20.0 3070-130 0.1µg/kg wetD19.2 961,2-Dichloroethane

20.0 3070-130 3µg/kg wetD19.1 95Ethylbenzene

20.0 3070-130 0.4µg/kg wetD19.6 98Methyl tert-butyl ether

20.0 3070-130 15µg/kg wetD14.5 73Naphthalene

20.0 3070-130 0.9µg/kg wetD18.4 92Toluene

20.0 3070-130 4µg/kg wetD22.0 1101,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

20.0 3070-130 5µg/kg wetD22.2 1111,3,5-Trimethylbenzene

40.0 3070-130 3µg/kg wetD41.2 103m,p-Xylene

20.0 3070-130 2µg/kg wetD19.3 96o-Xylene







Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Quality Control

Result Units

Spike

Level

Source

Result %REC

%REC

Limits RPD

RPD

LimitFlagAnalyte(s) *RDL

Batch 1331264 - SW846 3550C

Blank (1331264-BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 31-Dec-13

mg/kg wet< 26.5Fuel Oil #2 26.5



mg/kg wet< 26.5Motor Oil 26.5

mg/kg wet< 26.5Aviation Fuel 26.5

mg/kg wet< 26.5Unidentified 26.5

mg/kg wet< 26.5Other Oil 26.5

mg/kg wet< 26.5Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 26.5

3.32 40-140Surrogate: 1-Chlorooctadecane 2.41 mg/kg wet 73

LCS (1331264-BS2) Prepared & Analyzed: 31-Dec-13

666 40-140mg/kg wet535 80Fuel Oil #2 26.6


LCS Dup (1331264-BSD2) Prepared & Analyzed: 31-Dec-13

666 20040-140 0.8mg/kg wet531 80Fuel Oil #2 26.6


Duplicate (1331264-DUP2) GS1 Prepared: 31-Dec-13 Analyzed: 02-Jan-14Source: SB82657-01

5023mg/kg dryD 43003430Fuel Oil #2 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Fuel Oil #4 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Fuel Oil #6 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Motor Oil 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Aviation Fuel 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Unidentified 60.1

50mg/kg dryD BRL< 60.1Other Oil 60.1

5023mg/kg dryD 43003430Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 60.1

3.76 40-140Surrogate: 1-Chlorooctadecane 3.45 mg/kg dry 92

Matrix Spike (1331264-MS2) GS1 Prepared: 31-Dec-13 Analyzed: 02-Jan-14Source: SB82657-01

752 40-140mg/kg dryQM7, D 43003750 -74Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 60.0

3.76 40-140Surrogate: 1-Chlorooctadecane 9.75 mg/kg dryS02 259

Matrix Spike Dup (1331264-MSD2) GS1 Prepared: 31-Dec-13 Analyzed: 02-Jan-14Source: SB82657-01

752 20040-140 NRmg/kg dryQM7, D 43004460 21Diesel Range Organics (DRO) 60.0

3.76 40-140Surrogate: 1-Chlorooctadecane 11.9 mg/kg dryS02 316



Notes and Definitions

Data reported from a dilutionD

Sample dilution required for high concentration of target analytes to be within the instrument calibration range.GS1

The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the MS and/or MSD. The batch was accepted based on acceptable

LCS recovery.

QM7

Elevated Reporting Limits due to the presence of high levels of non-target analytes.R05

The surrogate recovery for this sample cannot be accurately quantified due to interference from coeluting organic

compounds present in the sample extract.

S02

RPD Relative Percent Difference

dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

Not ReportedNR

Interpretation of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Report

Petroleum identification is determined by comparing the GC fingerprint obtained from the sample with a library of GC fingerprints

obtained from analyses of various petroleum products. Possible match categories are as follows:

Gasoline - includes regular, unleaded, premium, etc.

Fuel Oil #2 - includes home heating oil, #2 fuel oil, and diesel

Fuel Oil #4 - includes #4 fuel oil

Fuel Oil #6 - includes #6 fuel oil and bunker "C" oil

Motor Oil - includes virgin and waste automobile oil

Ligroin - includes mineral spirits, petroleum naphtha, vm&p naphtha

Aviation Fuel - includes kerosene, Jet A and JP-4

Other Oil - includes lubricating and cutting oil, and silicon oil

At times, the unidentified petroleum product is quantified using a calibration that most closely approximates the distribution of

compounds in the sample. When this occurs, the result is qualified as Calculated as.

Laboratory Control Sample (LCS): A known matrix spiked with compound(s) representative of the target analytes, which is used to

document laboratory performance.

Matrix Duplicate: An intra-laboratory split sample which is used to document the precision of a method in a given sample matrix.

Matrix Spike: An aliquot of a sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample

preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix.

Method Blank: An analyte-free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in sample

processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. The method blank

is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process.

Method Detection Limit (MDL): The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence

that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix type containing the

analyte.

Reportable Detection Limit (RDL): The lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and

accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. For many analytes the RDL analyte concentration is selected as the lowest

non-zero standard in the calibration curve. While the RDL is approximately 5 to 10 times the MDL, the RDL for each sample takes

into account the sample volume/weight, extract/digestate volume, cleanup procedures and, if applicable, dry weight correction. Sample

RDLs are highly matrix-dependent.

Surrogate: An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical

process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. These compounds are spiked into all blanks, standards, and

samples prior to analysis. Percent recoveries are calculated for each surrogate.

Continuing Calibration Verification: The calibration relationship established during the initial calibration must be verified at periodic

intervals. Concentrations, intervals, and criteria are method specific.



Validated by:

June O'Connor

Kimberly Wisk



f: docs amipro 96021r02 - vermont · initial site investigation document no....

Documents