—!

JAN '0 1984Lujiaaii — ~

January 16 , 1 9 8 4*>• •

Gary D. Schroeder, P . E . , ChiefSolid Waste and Spill Response SectionEnforcement and Field Operations Divisionp. 0. Box 1 3 0 8 7 , Capitol StationAustin, TX 787 1 1Dear Mr. Schroedar:

On June 28, 1 9 8 3 , the Texas Department of Water Resourcesrequested that Great Southern Life Insurance Company {herein-after referred to as the cl ient) investigate the possibilitythat a source of hazardous waste may have existed on propertyowned by them located at 2001 Cavalcade in Houston, Texas (here-inafter referred to as the property) . The company respondedimmediately to the request by retaining an environmental con-sultant on July 7, 1 9 8 3 as evidenced in previous correspondence.

An investigative team was assembled including myself, Southwestern Laboratories and W. F. Guy ton and Associates representatives.A historical background for past operation on the property wasdeveloped in an effort to narrow down the area of investigation.„It was determined, through the aid of aerj^l_pliQ.£ociraphs and per-jspnal—.ln£fljc views , thjat only the northerly porJLipn_of_ the propertycould_have been _af fectetPEy a wood "preserving facility that hadexistecT 1'n the 1 9 4 0 ' s . However, it was determined that onlyoffices of the past operation existed on the property. Keepingthe above i.n mind, a decision was made to locate three test holeson or close to the northern border of the property.

Please find enclosed a report from Southwestern Laboratoriesdated September, 1 9 8 3 , The report entitled "Geotechnical and En-vironmental Testing At 200 1 Cavalcade - Houston, Texas" discussesthe field investigation that was undertaken on September 17, 1 9 0 3and all subsequent analytical test ing. The report outlines drillingoperations, visual and olfactory observations, soil stratigraphy,sample handling and analytical procedures and results . Also en-closed is a report issued by Will iam F. Guyton and Associatestitled "Investigations Of Shal low Subsurface Conditions At 2 0 0 1Cavalcade Street - Houston, Texas " . This report outlines thehistorical background, shallow geology, shallow groundwater andcontaminants in the area of the property.

Eased on the information in the enclosed reports, no_cori-._1££e eQcpuntered that_ could__be_Identified by "visual

__ factory observations. As indicated in the enclosed South- 'western LaboratorTes"report, select samples of shallow sands wereanalyzed for phenols and PNA ' s , which resulted in concentrations

OOOGOOli

000408

Mr. Schroeder, Con ' tJanuary 1 6 / 1 9 8 4Page 2

below the detectable limit of the GC/MS. As^noted in__bothreports, _a_n .odor was J.deati£iad~.Ln. boring tH-2~between/theinterval of 1 9 . 5 feet to ZQ.Q^feet. However, no odor wasdetected above or below that interval. Therefore, it isassumed that the observation of product at the interval1 9 . 5 - 2 0 feet is due to an influence outside of the propertyand is moving across the property in a southwesterly direc-tion in the limited aquifer.

If contamination had existed or the property, it wouldhave beer, detected during the field investigation and thesubsequent analytical testing. Therefore, it is my contentionthat Great Southern Life Insurance Company's property is nota source of hazardous waste contamination as identified inthe June 28, 1 9 8 3 rne^ ting, Howexer, it is my opinion thatthe company's property is being influenced by a source out-side of their boundaries . I believe the above statements,along with the enclosed reports, should re lease the GreatSouthern Life Insurance Company from all liability under theRCRA regul ations .

Should you have any questions concerning the above orthe enc losures , please contact me at 4 0 9 - 3 8 - 5 - 4 6 3 3 .

Sincerely yours,V.

Randy V. Dorman,Consultant For:Great Southern Life Insurar

RVD: c p

Enccc: Great Southern Life Ins . Co . (2)

Texas Dep.i-nment of water ResourcesAustin, TX (2)

000409

.1

INVESTIGATION OF SHALLOW SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT 200 1 CAVALCADE STREET

HOUSTON, TEXAS

Prepared forGreat Southern L j fe Insurance Company

Houston, Texas

ByWill iam F. Guyton Associates, Inc.

Consulting Ground-Water HydrologistsAustin - Houston, Texas

January 1 9 8 4

000410

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of an investigationof shallow geologic and ground-water conditions in the vicin-ity of Great Southern Life Insurance Company's property (here-inafter referred to as the property) located at 2001 CavalcadeStreet in Houston, Texas . The objective of this investigationwas to try to determine if the activities in the northernmostpart of the property of a wood^treating facility that occupiedthe area in the mid- 1950's and early 1960 's had contaminatedsurface soils or underlying sands . The location of the prop-erty is shown on Figure 1.

used creosotemicaly was located mostly on land immediately

north and northeast of the^ property , but it also included thevery north portion of the property. The facility apparentlybegan operations between 1945 and 1953 and ceased wood-treatingoperations by about the m i d - 1960' s .

Information for the wood-treating facility was developedfrom examination of aerial photographs of the property areataken i n 1 9 3 5 , 1 9 4 5 , 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 9 , a n d 1 9 8 2 , a reviewof data obtained from the Texas Department of Water Resources(TDWR) , and vis its with local residents. The TDWR data in-cluded a report, "Contamination Survey, Cavalcade Yard andShop," that McClelland Engineers, Inc. prcj .ired for the Metro-politan Transit Authority (MTA) in 1 9 8 3 . Bas_ed_mi aerial photo-graphs and conversations with 1 oca presidents , an office and

000411

a few small buildings Cor the wood-treating facility were lo-cated on the very north part of the land now owned by GreatSouthern Life Insurance Company. _Tt also appea.r _̂th.aJ^-the-wood-treating area for the facility (the area in ..which- the-treating cylinders were located) was about 200 to 300 feeteast-northeast of the northeast corner of the property.aerial photographs also indicate that a l_apond was located about 150 to 200 feet north of the northboundary line of the property. These observations were con-firmed by discussions with people who live just northwest ofthe property,

Data presented in the report prepared by McClellandEngineers, Inc. for MTA shew that creosote contaminants arepresent in varying concentrations in seme of the formationsair.pl es and water sarr.pies col lected from monitor wells locatednorth and northeast of the property. Therefore, thrree. testholes ranging in depth from 1 . 3 . 5 to 2 1 . 5 feet were drilled onthe property to determine if any shallow creosote contamina-tion existed and if it resulted from past wood-treating acti-vities on the property. Deep test holes wore not dril ledbecause had contamination occurred as a result of past wood-treating operations on the property now owned by Great South-ern Life Insurance Company, it would still be detectable inthe shallow materials. Locations of the three test holes, de s-ignated TH-1 , TH-2 , and TH-3, and locations of nearby monitorwells for wh i ch data from the McCle l land Engineers report arepresented or discussed in thir; report are nhown on Figure 1.

000412

3Drilling of Test Holes 1 through 3 and laboratory test-

ing of selected formation samples were performed by South-western Laboratories, Inc. (SWL) of Houston, Texas. Personnelof William F. Guyton Associates, Inc. were present during thedrilling and sampling operations. Complete_j3ej3criptlons ofthe formation samples obtained from the test holes .and^-theresults of laboratory te.a±-ing_.are contained in a report thatSWL sjal3jn4t£e^L-4^3—-G^^ . In-formation from the report by SWL has been used in evaluatingshallow ground-water and geologic conditions and in preparingthis report. Selected parts of data from the report by SWLare reproduced herein.

000413

SHALLOW GROUND WATER

Data from the three test holes drilled during this in-vestigation and water-level data presented in the McClellandEngineers, Inc. report show that the shallow sand or siltyand clayey sand that is present in the area is saturated withwater. While fluid levels in the open holes at Test Holes Iand 3 were five feet or less below land surface, accuratefluid levels could not be obtained because of the large amountof sand, silt, and clay that was mixed with ground water duringaugering. An accurate fluid level could not be obtained at.T£StJ^e_2Jie_c£i1SjLj!,^^ Q;

the tost hole. Three monitor wells (OW-3 , OW-4 , and OW-7) thatMcClel land Eng ineer s drilled for MTA in the vicinity of theproperty screen the shallow sand. No water-level or completioninformation was given for Well SL-5 in the McClelland report.Screened intervals, depths to water, and water-level elevationsfor the throe shallov monitor wells are shown on Figure 2. Thewater levels shown on Figure 2 were reported to be measured onMay 17 , 1 9 8 3 .

Ba_sed_on the- information presented on Figure 2, it ap-pears jhat the hydraulic jradient slopes downward generally totheses,.. Thus , tha direction of ground-water flow also is gan-erally to the west .

A fault, cal led the Pecore East Fault, has been mappedby the U. S. Geological Survey as pass ing through the propertyin an almost east to west direction. The fault is evident at

000414

the surface, and its approximate location is shewn on Figures1 and 2. Displacement along the fault is not known, but thewater-level data and stratagraphic correlation of data formonitor wells and test holes in the area indicate that thefault has little, if any, effect on shallow ground-water orgeologic conditions.

Contaminants entering the shallow sand zone ,'ould betransported down-gradient with the ground water. 3 .nee thedirection of ground-water movement is generally in a westerlydirection, the source of any contaminant that is present inthis sand zone probably would be located in the area east ofwhere it is detected. In addition ^o down-gradient movement,dispersion and diffusion also would take place and widen thedown-gradient path in which contamination night be detected.If the specific gravity of the contaminant is greater than thatfor water in the sand zone, the contaminant would tend to set-tle to the bottom of the sand zone and move down-gradient alongthe floor Lhat is provided by the underlying clay.

000415

ICONTAMINATION

Continuous Shelby tube samples were taken of all, mater-ials penetrated by the three test holes. The samples wereexamined as they were collected and again in the laboratoryto determine if there was visual or olfactory evidence ofcreosote contamination. A formation sample from each testhole was also analyzed in the laboratory for any phenol orpolynuclear aromatic compounds.

Field and laboratory examination of soil samples fromthe test holes show there was no contamination of the claysand sandy clays encountered to depths of 12 to 1 3 . 5 feet.This is confirmed by the results of chemical analyses thatwere made of one shallow soil sample from each of the threetest holes. The results of these chemical analyses which weremade by SWL and show no detectable contamination are given inTable 2. ^ detai led descr ipt ion of sample preparation andanalytical procedures is included in the report submitted bySWL.

The only indication of contamination was for a samplecollected irom between the .deaths., of 19.-5_and 20-.5-fcct.-in-.JTestt Mole 2. A slight creosote odor was detected for thissample which was taken from the base of the shallow sand zone.There was no visual or olfactory evidence that contaminationwas present in soil samples from shallower or deeper depths inthis test hole.

000416

As noted earlier, if past wood-treating activities onGreat southern Life Insurance Company's property resulted incontamination of subsurface materials, evidence of contamina-;ion would be expected to be found in the materials near theland surface. Since none of the near-surface samples show thepresence of contamination, it is concluded that there has beenno detectable contamination as a result of past wood-treatingactivities on the property. While the level of the contamina-tion that was detected at the base of the shallow sand zone atTest Hole 2 was not determined, it is believed that the sourceof this contamination is located outside Great. Southern LifeInsurance Company's property, possibly to the northeast, andthat through dispers ion, diffusion, and ground-water movement,it has been transported to beneath the property. Had the con-tamination or ig inated on the property, it would have been de-tected in samples taken from shallow depths in the test holes.

000417

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF TEST HOLE LOGS(See geotechnical and environmental testingreport by Southwestern Laboratories, Inc.

for complete test hole logs. )

Boring Number: TH-1Depth(feet)

I/0 - 0 . 50 . 5 - 5

5-121 2 - 1 3 . 5

oring "umber: TH-2Depth(feet)I/

Summary of Detailed LogAsphalt and limestone.Clay, gray and tan, becoming silty withdepth.Clay, sandy, tan and light gray.Sand, silty and slightly clayey, gray andtan.

0 - 0 . 50 . 5 -21 - 1 3 . 51 3 . 5 - 2 0

2 0 . 5 - 2 1Boring Number: TH-3

Depth(feet)

I/

Summary of Detailed LogAsphalt and 1 irnestone.Clay, dark gray and black, becoming siltyClay, sandy, gray and light tan.Sand, silty and slightly clayey, lightgray and tan.Clay, light gray and red-brown.

0-12

12- 14

FOOTNOTE: -

Summary of Detailed LogClay, sandy, brown and light gray, becominglight tan and yellow.Sand, clayey, gray, tan, and brown.

Depth datum is land surface. Boringdrilled on September 17, 1 9 8 3 .

000418

JABLE 2. CHEMICAL ANALYSES

GREAT SOUTHERN LIFEPhenols and PNA*« Analyses

October 10 . 1 9 8 3

Southvettrrn t*botr»cort**. Inc.Houston. T*x«*C.lEAT SOUTHERN UFE INSURAHCE CQHPAKTSWL Project No. 54-1 15$September, 1983Analysed of Soils for Phenols ordPolynucle«r Aromatic Compounds

E NO.13', ,L. 5S30

L 5329TK-j, s.sniL

PVtENOLS oom C w t . ) POLYNUCt FAR Aflr«»Tl« ..*.» P«* \A

< l

< I

< L

—L— —————

B^.^

< 1

< i

_____

C< i

«1

< 1

1 —————

—————

0 6< i 1 <t< 1

< L

t

< A

< L

F< l

< i

< 1

G< 1

< t

< I

PCP' i

< 1

< l

A«i

< i

< t

B< i

< t

< L

C< 1

< 1

< l

D< 1

< 1

< 1

— -"""""I

E< I

< i

< 1

p.< 1

< i

< i

C 1 W

< !

< t< *< 1

,<i< ,< l

. . , „ ) . , „

< ,<l

K< l«J

LEGEND:PHENOLS: A « phs!»!. B - 2-chlorophenol, C - 2,« dliwithvphwot, D - 2t« d I cM oropharvo I, £ - 4-chloro 3-nwthyIphtnol, F * 2,4,6 trtchlorophanol.G - 2,4 dinttrophanoi, PCP - pentachlorophsnol

APOHftTICS: A » naphthel'ena, D • acenophtrtolwna, C « pJwnartthren*, D * ar>tftrac»r», £ • f Iuor5f*then*, F • b«nz(a»htttRthrocon«. G "H « &enrc(b^f (uoranthena, t - benroEalpyrene^ J » tndenoC l »2 ,3) c,d pyran*, K • dtbw\zCala«thracw>»

000419

-00 200SCALE 'N FEET

300

OJow-i

\

^

1* O- 71« -a r,- S-» o

WOOD'* ' Q R E A 7 S O U T H E R N L 'FE^4SURA>iCE COMPANYPROPERTY BOUNDARY. Sl__5 »., OW-3

:̂ T™~2

APPROX IMATE LOCAT IONOF PECORE EAST FAULT

EXPLANAT ION

TH- t TEST HOLE NUMBER^ TEST HOLE LOCATION

OW = 4 WELL NUMBERO WELL LOCATION

* WELL DRILLED 8V METROPOL ITANTRANSIT A U T H O R I T Y

LOCATIONS OF TEST HOLES AND MONITOR WELLSFigure

000420

5 > - 1 r n 33 r~ rn < rn r~ o > 5

_

\ \ I,£ O O o -<

_. . ._ ...

i ~ ^

---

-- -

..>-

\ MA

URY

STRE

ET"

•" ^\

/-\

-» »

» -. .

,— »

.- *

»

i.-??

(CCD

CI

M £.

//

<?\??

33S

2-S

*: ^

;5 X "^ > I" r~

1? £2

^^

-si -

Z . ̂°

[~ Z

• m

m T

1 > «

;• o c:

_g

oO

gJgg

COST

5

=S2

-{>C

DCD

E M

> m ™ r± ™

<* 5 m

-*

^ o

-°"2

S

m * r- 2

0 <*

Cm

1 >* $<

£ r

-r, z r

nw

* n

en r~

c= "n n

m _

5 S -^

> r

°- ^

r-nT T

rn x _

-a _

or-

, *• 5

> _ « f

g o»-

^ 0

,

V •N l\ ! i -/" - I* f

i s / ^/ 1S

- ... -

— ,___

_„._ _

._

TJ ~

0

"- ,

33 Z

35

r- -

- -

o "

rnT> % >

i rn g

-t1

-n >

I 2

z cn

, O

3

' ^

^ [^

\ s

i KS°

\ 5

i §S2

\ i

iisI

« 1

o 2 z

\ '

fr 5 r-

\ f

a 5

C\

t -<

-c -n

i\.r l/ m

i !

i /g,

, t_ . v_ _...._._,

/of

/ '

V

-* 0

>/m/

/

/ \

x -n

-D/

/ '

i \

J>

"U

fe ///

V ass

/?/ ;

/

V / g

s

^~

HOUS

TON

BELT

& T

ERMI

NAL

RAtLR

QAQ

in o » p. m z •nO

!l1^

m« A

gi*?

» To

CD r\

j x»

o 8 t\t o o t>l o orn <

< t-

ru

\ \ V I , \- \en r

-i O ii r* o

CD (

"V

^^v***'

W

000421

GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL, AT

2001 CAVALCADE STREETKGUSTON, TEXAS

'ESTING

GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYHouston, Texas

September, 1933

SWL Customer No . 2 - 3 2 6 2 - 0 0SWL Pro jec t No. 5 4 - 1 1 5 5

This study was conducted by theEnvironmental Engineering Serv i ce s Divis ion

oi Southwestern Laboratories, !nc.Houston, Texas

in conjunct ion with theGeote«hnical Engineering Services Division

of Southwestern Laborator ies , Inc.Beaumont, Texas

SOU TMWF.3 TE.SW L.ABOFIA TOR 'CS

000422

SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIESMaterials, rni-triHtineiitiit ami tftnu-t Inmnf t m.-nirrrmi,'. mi/H/omn f/ir, nit itiHm^it til tint! <tiift!\litttl <,, nifi'\

223 Cavalcade St • ^G Brix B7Ge Houston Texas 7TS<3 • 7 13692-9 15 1

October 21, 1983

Re: Geotechnical and EnvironmentalTesting at2001 Cavalcade StreetHouston, TexasSWI, Customer No. 2 -3262-00SWL Pro j e c t No. 54- 1 155

Mr. Daryl K. HannaGREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY? . C . B o x 1972Houston, Texas "7001Hear Mr. Hanna,

We hereby submit our test report for the above referencedp r o j e c t . Test ing was performed in accordance with the Scope ofWork descr ibed in our proposal of services dated August 29,1 9 - 3 3 .

We apprec iate the opportunity of working with you or, thispro j e c t . Please contact us if you have any questions regardingthe report, ci if we can be of further serv i ce .

Sincerely,OUTHWESTERN/ 3<ABORATORiES , INC.

Will iam J . ^Go-Te, P . E .ManagerEnvironmental Engineering Services

WJC:pmCopie s Submitted: (1) Great Southern Life Ins. Co.

(5) Randy V. Dorman/Environmental Consultant( 1 ) Wi l l i am F . Guyton As s o c . , Inc.(1) SWL/Beaumont

000423

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

SOILS SAMPLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LABORATORY INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sample Preparat ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .GC Analyses o f Extracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Qual i ty Assurance ~ GC Analyses . . . . . . . . . . .Data Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX

Boring Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Log o f Boring TH-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L o g o f Eor ing TH-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .L o g o f Boring TH-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Key to So i l Class if i cat ion Terms and SymbolsAnalyt i ca l Report Data .-beet . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

1334567

A-lA-2A-3A-4

.-.-6

000424

B===9

*

Testing v/as conducted at the GREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCECOMPANY property located at ^001 Cavalcade Street, Hous-on,Texas, in accordance with testing protocol described inSouthwestern Laboratories, Inc. (SWL) proposal of services datedAugust 29, 1983.

Testing was performed to investigate the presence of wa^teproducts from a wood preserving process which formerly occupiedthe project s ite. Field sampling was conducted September 17,1983 . Chemical analyses of field samples were later performer inthe laboratory.

This report descr ibes :I . Soi ls Sampling2 . Laboratory Investigation

SOIL . .SAKPLKJGThree soil borings were performed on September 17, 1982 at

tne site at 20G1 Cavalcade i:. Houston, Texas . The specific boring".. Dcat. i ons were as follows:

Eo r i ngTH1

TH2

TH3

L_oc at ion41 Ft. West of East Property Line;17 Ft. acuth ot North Property Lir.e167 Ft. West of East Property Line,-17 Ft. South of North Property Line1 4 . 5 Ft . East of West Property Line;1 5 . 5 Ft. oouth of North Property Line

The approximate locations are shown on the Boring Plan, Plate A-lof the Appendix.

KN L * BO ** A r O n i E i ———

000425

The borings were perrormed using truck-mounted rotarydrilling equipment. Borings TH1 and TH3 were advanced to depthsof 1 3 . 5 and 14 feet, respectively, by "dry augering". Boring TH2was augered dry tc 1 7 , 5 feet and below that depth was advanced byrotary wash methods to 2 1 . 5 feet.

Soil samples were obtained continuously throughout the depthof the boring by pushing 3 .0- i n c h O . D . Shelby tuba samplers.Portions of each sample were carefully prepared in the field. Oneportion was wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in a plasticsleeve for storage and possible future testing. Samples forchemical testing were selectively taken by an environmentaltechnic ian. The outer port ion was trimmed away and the innerportion was sealed in a steri l ized glass jar and labeled. Knivesand spatulas used in trimming were carefully washed in freon toavoid cross-contaminat ion of the samples .

The soil samples were visually inspected and logged in thefield by a registered profess ional engineer. In addition tov i sua j soil c lass i f i cat ion , the sampies were carefully inspectedfor the presence of weed preserving product.

Logs of the borings are included on pages A-2 through A-4 ofthe Appendix A. A key to terms and symbols used en the logs isgiven on page A-5 . As shown on tne logs, product was not detectedin TH1 and TH3 , In TH2, only a slight odor was detected in the-.ample recovered between 1 9 . 5 to 2 0 . 5 feet. The product was notvisible at this depth. Also , product was not visible or odordetectable in the sand above 1 9 . 5 feet or in the clay below 2 0 . 5feet.

• S O U T H W E S T E R N L A H O n A T o n i t S

000426

Upon completion of the bor ings , ~he boreholes v* ,r? grouted'ith cement/bentonite grout.

LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONreamble

Field samples were -ogged into the "Samples Received"notebook on return to t^e laboratory. This notebook is maintainedin the Environmental Engineering Services (EE3 ) laboratory ofSouthwestern Laboratories, Inc. located at 222 Cavalcade,Houston, Texas . Samples wer-* under the custody of Mr. Randall J.r. ichert, Environmental Sc ient i s t , directed ^y Mr. Will iam J.Cole, P . E . , Manager of Southwestern Laboratories, Inc. SESdivis ion. Analytical testing was performed under ^he direction ofDr . Rober t s . James .

After examining each sample and discussing sample selectionwith Mr. George Cozart, SWL Beaumont and Mr. Randy V. Dorr:.an,Environmental Consul tant , sample analyses were performed onsamples l isted on the Analytical Report Oata Sheet . Analyses wererr.ade on the sand portion of the selected samples due to the basencecf visual or odorous contaminants in each cf the three borings. Itbeing reasoned that should contaminant migration be occurring,the sand would contain traces ot wood preserving contaminants.

Sample analyses for Phenolic and Polynuclear Aromaticcompounds were performed on the fol lowing samples:

s o u T H W E S T E N N * TO" ' Es

000427

TK-1 13 'TH-2 13. 5* - 14*7H-3 3 . ^ ' - 9 '

Test results are listed on the Analytical Report Data Sheet.The procedures for extraction and analysis of samples

generally fol lowed the guidelines of methods found in the EPAmanual, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, July, 1982, 3W-646. Extract ion of soils was done by direct solvent extraction ofdried, finely ground sample mater ia l s . For extraction of phenols,dry soils were acidified with dry potassium bisultate.

Compour: is to be analyzed were based on che SPA hazardouswa^te des ignat ion, K001 , 40 CFR 2 6 C . (See the table for names ofccrpcunds ) .

The analyt ical prcqrar. descr ibed be lew cons isted of samplepreparat ion , 735 chrorr.otographic analysis and quality assurance .An external standard method of re calibration was used whichprovided init ial -jc results in terms of component concentrationsin ~r.e extract . Weight of extracts weie determined just pr ior toanalys i s because of "he high volat i l i ty of methyiene chloride.

Portions of soil samples were an-dried; then finely groundusir.;; mor tar? .-ind pes t l e s . For the base/neutral extract ion(analys is for polynuciear aromatics) , 5 grams of sample was mixedwith 1 grain Na-CO then e>.tracted for 30 minutes with 1Cmilli i iters (m i ) methylene ol i ioride ( shak ing ) . The extract wasdecanted off through a filter and collected, rinsing the sample

000428

twice with 5 ml portions of CH-C1 which were also poured throughthe fi lter. The extract was evaporated down to 1,0 ml volume(except for sample product concentrations) by a nitrogen streamblown into the sample collection bottle under the hood.

For phenol analysis, 2 g of HKSO (an acid salt) was added to5 g of ground sample. Organic constituents were then extracted byshaking for 30 minutes with 10 ml. CH^Cl^ . The extract was decanted

JL» £*

cff through a filter and subsequently rinsed twice with two 5 mlportions of methylene chloride. Samples were concentrated by blowdown with nitrogen. Since no heat is applied in this step, (samplechills because of solvent evaporating) the potential forvolatilizing phenols is eliminated.

One hundred mil l i l i ter quantit ies of water were extracted byliquid-liquid extract ion with 20, 10, and 10 ml portions in seriesof metnyiene ch lor ide . In some cases , saturated sodium sulfatesolution was added to break an emulsion.

1 ' ' 3 fe 3 U £ IIX t L* el C t S

Methyiene chloride sample extracts were analyzed on aShirr.adzu ?A gas chromatcyraph equipped with a dual flameicr.i zation detector I FID j and capi llary injection port.Chromatographic separat ions were effected on a 12 meter BP-S ( SGE )narrow bore t'SOT column. Peak integrations and calculations wereperformed with a Spectra-Fhys j . cs SP -4270 computing inegrator.The gc integrator system was calibrated using standards of knownconcentrat ions of polynuclear aromatic and phenolic compounds.

s ou t nwe s r EON i , ABO«A T O R I E S

000429

All of the standards were :nade gravimetrically, starting withindividual pure compounds.

Standards for Polvnuc lear AromatizesNaphthaleneAcenaphthalenePhenanthreneAnchraceneFluorantheneChrysene

Benz (a ,h ) anthraceneBenzo (b) FluorotheneSenzo (a) Pyren&Indeno ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) cd PyreneDibenz (a) Anthracene

" Phenol ic Coumpounds2 , 4 , 6 Trichlorophenol2,4 DinitrophenolPC? fentachlorophenol

Phenol2 Chiorophenol2.4 - Dimethylphenol2 , 4 - Dichlorophenol4 - Chloro 3 - Methylphenol

Qual i ty Assurance - GC AnalysesThe following analytical quality assurance measures were

carried out :.1 . Multiple in ject ions of standards prior to cal ibration

to demonstrate reproducibi i i ty.2. Analysis of a relatively clean sample, then spiking and

repeating extraction and analysis .3. Analys is of a dup l i cate a.r.rj extract (separate port ionscf samp l e s ) .4. Preparation and analysis of blanks.5. Repl icate in ject ions on a few samples .6. Da i l y or more freque.it cal ibration of yc-H ' ID-

i n tegrator .

Reproducib i i i ty cf peak areas of known compounds, asdemonstrated by exercise (1) were typically within * 10%.Variation of sensitivity, q . a . item (6) was found to be within theerror band of injection reproducibiiity.

l. ABORATOn ti -——

000430

: . iissi...141Results of duplicate extract ions for acid extractions

• 'phenols) ~nd base/nautral (PNA 1 s) were inconclusive as to thereprcducibility between samples because the samples chosencontained low levels (•• 1 ppm) of contaminants with no major peaks-o use for valid comparison. In any case, none of the set showedresults significantly different. Replicate injections of samplesshowed reprociucibility of pea]-: areas comparable to that forstandards.

DATA JTJMHAKYAll three samples tested were found to contain less than (^l

ppm) of phenolic and pclynuclear aromatic compounds. Therebyconf irming our observat ions that no visible or odorous compoundswere present in the soil samples .

1 S O U T W « 6 3 T E R N LA B O R * T O H i e »

000431

SOIL BORINGSCALE I"- 100'

CAVALCADE ST.

BORING PLAN2001 CAVALCADE ST. - HOUSTON .TEXAS

SWL PROJECT NQ 83-57930UT«we iTenN

000432

LOG OF BORING TH-IContamination Evaluation; 2001 Cavalcade, Houston, Texas

17-83 Auger LOCAT ION S e e Boring PlanW A T C H SAUPtE STAMOAftO

PENETNATtON

DESCR IPT ION

SURFACE ELEVATION Existing GradeAsphalt ( 1/2" ) 6 limestone base 6"

Stiff gray & t;:n clay with shell fragments & sand pockets (fill)without cdor or product-becomes Heht erav clavev si lt, sl ishtlv sandv ^ 2*

Firm tan & light gray sandy clay with sand pockets without ocioror product-with ferrous nodules 3 7 (

-becomes very sandy •! 1 1 ' , color changes to light gray & tan

Light gray & tan silty fine sand, slightly clayey, without odor1 3 'or product-with c lav seams

SORING TERMINATED

000433

»-bJU

XfA.Uo

, A,

joA3V

IA111_la.Tt<in

)

t^itea*r>^

^ rr H M STANOAROT WATEft Q SAMPLE £J P£M«TIIAT)OII

DESC f t t PT IOH

su«fACC ELEVATIO« ; Existing Grade

?«OJ£CT

DATE' 9- 17-83

LOG OF BOR ING TH-EContamination Evaluation; 2001 Cavalcade, Houston* Texas

Auger to 1 7 . 5 caa R«,J«^ *•.-.: „. 0 .. ,, . LOCATION See B°ring Planthen Rotary Wash

_A_sp.i^.3IE 1.J>_t, J^ijftgstone Bjase 5 .5 " _ ______ ___________Stiff dark gray 6 black clay with sTTelf & glass ("flll j"without ..odor or product r-2 laver black. fine-sapd without odor or product @ 1 /* » p p r * o T * ' O c r * | " i v * O ' ' " c n ' i | r . ' FStiff gray & light tan sandy clay, slightly silty, with sand seatns& pockets without odor or product-becomes more clayey with depth-color changes to tan & light pray ? V-with ferrous nodules •$ 5 f~ ~. '-with numerous ferrous nodules '* 8-color changes to light gray 6 tan 10*-becomes very sandy ? 1-'-becomes more sandy with depth

Light grayor odor

tan silty fine sand, sl ightly clayey, without product-becomes clayey fine sand $ 1 4 . 5 ' , color changes to light gray-becomes si lty fine sand, s l leht lv clayey -3 16' , with tan silt pockets-w;th clav, seams & rart jngs C ; ' 1 S . 5 '-with sli'gnt odor v? 1 9 . 3 \ product not visiblebecomes mo reodor t o 2 0 . 5

.- s i g n oo r \ . , product n o t visible-becomes more clayev, clayey sand to very sandv clav, with sl ichtnrfnr r n / O S 1 'Red-brouTi & 1 i g h t g r a y c 1 a y w it h si i c k en s I <£=Ts T""**" it he u,1~J pr oiru c todor

BORING TERMINATED

000434

LOG OF BORING TH-3Contamination Evaluation; 2001 Cavalcade, Houston, Texas

9-17-83 TV*£; Auger LOCATION See Boring PlanWATCH STANOA*B

PENETRATION

DESCRIPTION

ELEVATION^ Existing Grade

15

L.^.i m^p

11 n • ••*

Stiff brown & red-brown sandy clay without odor or product (fill?)-color changes to brown & light gray, slightly silty-color changes to light tan & yellow with sand seams &ferrous nodules

-becomes more sandy with more ferrous nodules @ 8'

Light gray, tan & brown clayey fine sand, without odor or products '-becomes more sandy with depth

BORING TERMINATED

000435

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION TERMS AND SYMBOLS

SOIL OR ROCK TYPESSANDY

SILTY

CLAYEYORGANIC

SHALE

SANDSTONE

LIMESTONE

GRAVEL

SAMPLER TYPES

SHELBY DISTURBED SPUTTUBE (AUGER) SPOON NORECOVERY

DENISON PISTON PITCHER ROCK CORE

CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS(MAJOR PORTION PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE)

RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS(MAJOR PORTION RETAINED ON NO 200SIEVE)

DESCRIPTIVE TEftMVERY SOTT

SOFTFIRMSTIFF

VERY STIFFHARD

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH. KIPS ./SO FOOTLESS THAN 025

025 TO 0505 TO 1-010 TO 2.02 0 TO 4.0

GREATER THAN 40

DESCRIPTIVE TERMVERY LOOSE

LOOSEMEDIUM DENSE

DENSEVERY DENSE

RELATIVE DENSITY, %LESS THAN 15

15 TO 3635 TO 6565 TO 65

GREATER THAN 85

WATER LEVELSSL - GROUNOWATER LEVEL AFTER 34 HOURS(u«LESS OTHERWISE NOTED)-£- - DEPTH GROUNDWATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING

TERMS DESCRIBING SOIL STRUCTURE

Poring

Femxn

poper ihn n size

I/8"' 3" ingreater than 3" m Ihiakneucontaining appreciable rjuoMifiei of colaumcarbonate.defaming opp^eciab'e quanfrties of iron.having wide range f\ grom sire 9 «ubsJortiolomountt o( ail vntermediote

Fssured'

PooHy- Graded- predominate^ one groin ure w having oof tuet with some intermediate sae* musing

conto>n.ng ihrirfcjac crochi, frequenlly filledwith (me m nd cr till, uualty more V teftt v*r*tcolcomposed ofotternofe layere of dfferent toiltypes

Lommated- compoted of fhm (oven of varying color andhaving (nclmed pCones of weakneu the* are ctck8 glossy m appearance, ,Ctoys possessing riicttemided or fissured structuremoy e«̂ W lower unconfined ttrength than mdicateflabove Consistency of tuch soit i» interpreted utmgthe unconfined strenetri alona with pocket oeneironyferresults

NOT

SOUTHWESTERN LABORATORIES

000436

CREAT SOUTHERN LIFEPhenols and PNf t ' s Analyses

October 10. 1983

Southwestern Laboratories* Inc.Houston, TexasTREAT SOUTHERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYSWL Project No. H-U55September, 198'jAnalyses of Soils for Phenol* andPalynuciear

iAMPLE MO.5 S 3 1

TH-l 13 '

5B3DFH-2 1 3 . 5 / 1 4

5829TH-) 8 .5/9

PHENOLS com Ut.)Af l

<l

<l

&<l

,1

< I

C< s

<l

<l

D< j

< t

< 1

E<: t

el

< i

F< 1

< t

< 1

G< !

« t

< I

PCP< 1

< 1

< I

A< I

^

< !

B< j

< J

< 1

C< I

< I

< I

0c t

< }

< t

E< !

< f

< 1

I,,,< 1

^ »

<\

ftfiT(SS_{

< 1

< i

< t

mm Ttft. . . & . „ .

< i

< »

< 1

.i . , „,1< t

< f

< l

jM< i

< 1

K< i

< t

< t

PHENOLS: A * pNenot, B » 2-chIoropheno{, C = 2,4 dlfnethyphenol r D - 2,4 dlchlorophanot, E » 4-chloro 5-roathytphenol, F • 2,4,6 trtchlorophenot.G •= 2,4 dinlfrophenoS, PCP = pentachforophenotPOLYNXLEAR^AROMATICS: A = naphthalene, B = acanaphthalene, C * ^enanthrene, D » anttirac&ne, E = f tuoranthene, F • benz<a»h)anthracene, G • chrytens,

H = benzo(b)fluora^thene, I = benzo£a)pyrene, J = tndenoC1 ,2,3) c^d pyrene, K *

000437

77*7

U-Hocos^u'vtcn •/* \f

000438