Upload
vanmien
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PREPARED FOR:
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – DISTRICT 1ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING OFFICEP.O. BOX 3700EUREKA, CALIFORNIA 95501
PREPARED BY:
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742
GEOCON PROJECT NO. S9300-06-89TASK ORDER NO. 89, EA NO. 01-436400CONTRACT NO. 03A1368
Smith River Dr. Fine BridgeReplacement Project
State Route 101 PM 36.1Del Norte County, California
PRELIMINARYSITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2009
C O N S U L T A N T S, I N C.
G E O T E C H N I C A L ■ E N V I R O N M E N T A L ■ M A T E R I A L S
3160 Gold Valley Drive, Suite 800 ■ Rancho Cordova, California 95742 ■ Telephone (916)852-9118 ■ Fax (916)852-9132
TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description and Proposed Improvements.........................................................1 1.2 General Objectives .......................................................................................................1
2.0 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................1 2.1 Waste Determination Criteria – Petroleum Hydrocarbons...........................................2 2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ......................................................................................2
3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.............................................................................................................3 3.1 Pre-field Activities........................................................................................................3 3.2 Field Activities .............................................................................................................3
4.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ................................................................................................4 4.1 Boring Location Rationale ...........................................................................................4 4.2 Soil Sampling ...............................................................................................................4 4.3 Monitoring Well Construction .....................................................................................5 4.4 Well Development........................................................................................................5 4.5 Groundwater Sampling.................................................................................................5 4.6 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................5 4.7 Traffic Control..............................................................................................................5 4.8 Laboratory Analyses.....................................................................................................6
4.8.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons .................................................................................6 4.8.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos .........................................................................6
4.9 Field and Laboratory QA/QC Methods........................................................................6 5.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS .............................................7
5.1 Soil and Hydrogeologic Conditions .............................................................................7 5.2 Laboratory Results .......................................................................................................7
5.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons .................................................................................7 5.2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos .........................................................................7
5.3 Laboratory Data Validation..........................................................................................8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................9
6.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons ..............................................................................................9 6.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ......................................................................................9
6.2.1 NOA-containing Materials Management ........................................................9 6.2.2 Asbestos Worker Protection ..........................................................................10
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................11 FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
TABLES 1. Summary of Soil Analytical Results – Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2. Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results – Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3. Summary of Asbestos Analytical Results APPENDICES A. SHN November, 2008 Report for Granite Facility B. Boring/Well Logs C. Monitoring Well Development Data Sheet D. Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-custody Documentation
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 1 - September 30, 2009
PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Site Investigation Report for the Smith River Dr. Fine Bridge Replacement Project was prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. under California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Contract No. 03A1368, Task Order (TO) No. 89 and EA No. 01-436400.
1.1 Project Description and Proposed Improvements
Caltrans is proposing to replace the Smith River Dr. Fine Bridge along State Route 101(SR-101) approximately 12 miles north of Crescent City, at Post Mile (PM) 36.1 (the Site) in Del Norte County, California. The approximate project location and limits are depicted on the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and Site Plan (Figure 2).
1.2 General Objectives
The objective of this investigation was to determine whether petroleum hydrocarbons are present in soil and groundwater within Caltrans right-of-way from adjacent leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) previously located at the Granite Construction (formerly North Coast Paving and Rock) facility (Granite Facility); to collect soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis by Caltrans; and to determine the potential presence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in the site soils. Caltrans will use the investigative results for preliminary project scoping and to inform the construction contractor(s) if petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater or NOA are present within the project boundaries for health, safety, management and disposal evaluation purposes. The fieldwork, sampling, laboratory analysis, and related tasks were performed in general accordance with Caltrans Contract 03A1368 requirements.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, related to a previous documented release, is present in soil and groundwater at the Granite Facility, southeast of the Smith River Bridge. According to information on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker website, a leak was reported on the Granite Facility in July 2000. SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. (SHN) initiated an investigation of the Granite Facility, and between 2001 and 2005 performed a series of investigations and installed six monitoring wells. Reported contaminants on the Granite Facility included total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the gasoline (TPHg), diesel (TPHd), and motor oil (TPHmo) ranges, as well as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene compounds (BTEX), and the fuel oxygenate compounds methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and tertiary-amyl methyl ether (TAME). According to an SHN November 2008 report for Granite Facility (included as Appendix A), TPHg, TPHd, TPHmo, MTBE, and TAME are still present in the groundwater and free-phase light non-aqueous phase liquid
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 2 - September 30, 2009
(LNAPL) is present in one well on the Granite Facility. Samples from the Granite Facility reported to contain TPHd and TPHmo were reanalyzed using a silica gel preparation to help filter out non-petroleum organic compounds eluting in the diesel and/or motor oil range. The silica gel cleanup generally resulted in a 50% or greater decrease in reported TPHd and TPHmo. Due to the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination within the Caltrans right-of-way at the southeast quadrant of the Site, Geocon was contracted to perform sonic borings to 40 feet at two locations where Caltrans planned to perform mud-rotary drilling for geotechnical sampling. Six-inch-diameter casings were left in two 40-foot borings performed by Geocon to allow Caltrans to perform geotechnical borings to 200 feet without disturbing soils with possible petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. In addition, a monitoring well was installed in the third sonic boring completed to 30 feet.
2.1 Waste Determination Criteria – Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Currently, regulatory criteria for the classification of wastes based solely on the concentrations of TPH such as diesel and motor oil has not yet been promulgated. Disposal of TPH-impacted soil and groundwater is generally regulated by disposal facility permit and acceptance criteria.
2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulations for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations that may disturb natural occurrences of asbestos outlined in Title 17 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 93105. CCR Section 93106 regulates NOA in road surfacing applications. These regulations are also known as Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs). NOA potentially poses a health hazard when it becomes an airborne particulate. The roadway improvement activities proposed could disturb NOA-containing rock and soil, if present, thereby potentially creating an airborne asbestos hazard. Mitigation practices can reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos-containing dust. The primary mitigation practice used for controlling exposure to potentially asbestos-containing dust is the implementation of engineering controls including wetting the materials being disturbed. If engineering controls do not adequately control exposure to potentially asbestos-containing dust, the use of personal protective equipment including wearing approved high efficiency particulate air filter equipped respirators is required during construction activities. Asbestos dust control methods similar to those in Title 17 CCR, Section 93105 are outlined in Title 17 CCR, Section 93106 for airborne asbestos in road surfacing applications. Ultramafic rock, materials that contain 10% or more ultramafic rock, and materials that contain 0.25% or greater asbestos are defined as “restricted material” by Title 17 CCR, Section 93106. Using “restricted material” for surfacing applications is not permitted by Title 17 CCR, Section 93106. Engineering controls, such as wetting of material or the application of a surface sealant, are recommended to minimize the aerial dispersion of
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 3 - September 30, 2009
asbestos when disturbing NOA-containing materials. Reuse or disposal of NOA-containing or restricted materials is allowed by Title 17 CCR, Section 93105 and Title 17 CCR, 93106, if it is buried under at least 0.25 foot of material that contains less than 0.25% NOA.
3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following scope of services was performed in general accordance with TO No. 89 as requested by the Caltrans Quality Assurance (QA) Manager:
3.1 Pre-field Activities
• Conducted a TO meeting by phone on May 26, 2009, to discuss the TO scope of services. Present on the call were Caltrans QA Manager Steve Werner and Geocon TO Manager Dave Bieber. The purpose of the TO meeting was to identify and discuss the project boundaries and existing site conditions and to review the scope of work.
• Prepared a Health and Safety Plan dated May 29, 2009, to provide guidelines on the use of personal protective equipment and the health and safety procedures to be implemented during the field activities.
• Steve Werner of Caltrans marked the approximate project limits and boring locations in white paint for subsequent utility clearance notification through Underground Service Alert (USA).
• Provided 48-hour notice to USA prior to the field sampling activities.
• Retained the services of Boart Longyear, a C57-licensed drilling company located in Yuba City, California, to advance the sonic borings.
• Retained the services of Kiff Analytical LLC (Kiff), a Caltrans-approved and California-certified analytical laboratory, to perform the chemical analyses.
• Retained the services of EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL), a Caltrans-approved and California-certified analytical laboratory, to perform the asbestos analyses.
3.2 Field Activities
On June 9 through 11, 2009, Boart Longyear advanced three 8-inch-diameter sonic borings to depths of 30 and 40 feet and installed one monitoring well at the Site. We performed the following services during the field activities:
• Collected continuous soil samples for logging purposes to the maximum depth of each boring using a 6-inch-diameter core barrel.
• Collected soil samples for petroleum hydrocarbons and geotechnical properties analysis using 2.0-inch or 1.5-inch split spoon samplers at 5-foot intervals.
• Collected soil samples for asbestos fiber analysis at 10 feet and 30 feet from borings B1 and B2.
• Installed one 2-inch-diameter monitoring well to a depth of 30 feet in boring MW1. Well was constructed using 2-inch-diameter schedule 40 casing and 0.010 screen.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 4 - September 30, 2009
• Developed monitoring well MW1 using a disposable bailer to remove ten casing volumes of groundwater.
• Collected groundwater samples from well MW1 and boring B2.
4.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The following sections describe our investigative methods.
4.1 Boring Location Rationale
The Caltrans QA Manager designated the boring locations based on the proposed bridge foundation improvements, ease of access, safety, and potential utility conflicts. The coordinates of the boring locations were determined using a recreational-grade, hand-held global positioning system (GPS) with a maximum accuracy of approximately 10 feet. The latitude and longitude of the boring locations are depicted on Figure 2.
4.2 Soil Sampling
Continuous soil samples for logging purposes were collected from the sonic borings using a 6-inch-diameter, 5-foot-long core barrel. Soil samples for petroleum hydrocarbon laboratory analysis were additionally collected at approximate 5-foot intervals utilizing a 2.0-inch-diameter by 18-inch-long split spoon sampler equipped with three 6-inch-long by 2.0-inch-diameter stainless steel sample tubes to contain the samples. Soil samples collected for geotechnical analysis were collected using a 1.5-inch-diameter by 18-inch-long split spoon sampler. Upon retrieval of the sampler from the borings, the 2.0-inch-diameter split spoon was separated, and the apparently least disturbed sample tube was capped with Teflon tape and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) caps, labeled and chilled pending transport to Kiff utilizing chain-of-custody (COC) protocol. Soil samples collected for geotechnical analysis from the 1.5-inch split spoon sampler were placed in resealable plastic bags and labeled pending transport to Caltrans for geotechnical analysis. Soil samples for asbestos analysis were collected from the 6-inch-diameter core barrels, placed in resealable plastic bags and labeled pending transport to EMSL utilizing COC protocol. Each boring was logged by a California Professional Geologist (PG) utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil samples from borings MW1 and B2 were field screened with a photo-ionization detector to assess possible qualitative indicators of volatile organic compounds and the readings noted on the field boring logs. Copies of the boring logs are presented in Appendix B. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures provided during the field exploration activities included cleansing/rinsing of the sampling equipment and steam cleaning core barrels prior to and following each boring. Cleansing/rinsing of the sampling equipment was performed by washing the equipment with an Alconox™ solution followed by subsequent tap water and deionized water rinses.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 5 - September 30, 2009
4.3 Monitoring Well Construction
Monitoring well MW1 was constructed to 30 feet using flush-threaded, 2-inch-diameter Schedule 40 PVC well casing. The well was constructed using 20 feet of 0.010 inch-slotted screen and #2/12 Monterey silica sand filter pack. The screen was placed from approximately 10 to 30 feet, and the filter pack was placed from approximately 9 feet to the bottom of the boring. A 2-foot-thick bentonite well seal was placed from 7 to 9 feet. The remaining annular space of the well was grouted to the surface with a Portland cement slurry and fitted with an 8-inch-diameter traffic-rated, flush-mounted well box set in concrete. Boring logs and well construction details are shown on the boring/well logs in Appendix B. The boring and well locations are depicted on Figure 2.
4.4 Well Development
On June 11, 2009, we developed well MW1. Prior to development, we measured the depth to groundwater using an electric water level indicator. Approximately ten well volumes of groundwater (18 gallons) were hand-bailed from well MW1 during the development activities. This information is included on the Monitoring Well Development Data Sheet presented in Appendix C.
4.5 Groundwater Sampling
A groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well MW1 using a disposable Teflon© bailer. Ten casing volumes, approximately 18 gallons, were purged from the well prior to sampling. The groundwater sample was transferred from the bailer directly into laboratory-supplied containers, which were then labeled and placed in a cooler pending delivery to the analytical laboratory. A grab groundwater sample was additionally collected from boring B2 using a disposable Teflon© bailer. The groundwater sample was transferred from the bailer directly into laboratory-supplied containers, which were then labeled and placed in a cooler pending delivery to the analytical laboratory.
4.6 Waste Disposal
The purged groundwater, soil cuttings generated during drilling, and the associated decontamination and rinse water were contained in eleven Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved, 17-H, 55-gallon drums, labeled and temporarily stored onsite for disposal following regulatory protocol. On June 22, 2009, the drums were removed from the Site by KR Environmental and transported to their facility in Sacramento, California, for disposal.
4.7 Traffic Control
We provided traffic control using “SHOULDER WORK AHEAD” advanced warning signs and orange traffic cones during soil sampling and monitoring well installation activities along the eastbound shoulder of South Bank Road.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 6 - September 30, 2009
4.8 Laboratory Analyses
4.8.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Soil and groundwater samples for petroleum hydrocarbon analysis were submitted to Kiff on a standard seven-day turn-around-time (TAT) for the following analyses:
• TPHd and TPHmo following United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8015 modified.
• TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE following EPA Test Method 8260B.
The chemical data laboratory reports and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.
4.8.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Four samples were submitted to EMSL for asbestos fiber analysis on a six to ten-day TAT basis. Each of the NOA samples was analyzed by the polarized light microscopy (PLM) method for asbestos by CARB Method 435 (CARB 435). The analytical sensitivity of the PLM analysis was 0.25% by area. Each of the samples for asbestos analysis was subjected to the CARB 435 preparation method prior to analyses. The CARB 435 preparation includes milling the sample to a -200 mesh size which also homogenizes the sample. The asbestos data laboratory reports and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.
4.9 Field and Laboratory QA/QC Methods
QA/QC procedures were conducted as applicable for each method of analysis with specificity for each analyte listed in the test method’s QA/QC. The laboratory QA/QC procedures included the following:
• One method blank for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent.
• One sample analyzed in duplicate for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent.
• One spiked sample for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent, with spike made at ten times the detection limit or at the analyte level.
The COC documentation was reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submitting soil and groundwater samples to the laboratories. The laboratories were instructed to handle, analyze and conduct QA/QC procedures in accordance with Caltrans Contract 03A1368 as applicable. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports including the applicable QC summary and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 7 - September 30, 2009
5.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS
5.1 Soil and Hydrogeologic Conditions
Site soils consisted of alluvial materials to the maximum depth explored of 40 feet. Materials encountered generally consisted of loose to medium dense poorly graded sand, silty sand, clayey sand, gravels, and cobbles. Poorly graded sand and clayey sand were encountered in borings MW1 and B1 to depths of 16 feet. Poorly graded sand with gravel and poorly graded sand with gravel and cobbles were encountered to 30.5 feet. Boring B2 encountered silt with sand and silty fine sand to 10 feet, and cobbles and poorly graded sand to 40 feet. Boring logs depicting soil conditions, groundwater levels, and soil sample depths are presented in Appendix B. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 20 feet during drilling activities for boring MW1 on June 9, 2009. Depth to groundwater was measured at 19 feet before developing well MW1 on June 11, 2009. Groundwater was encountered in borings B1 and B2 at depths of 20 and 8.5 feet, respectively. It should be noted that groundwater levels fluctuate due to variations in seasonal rainfall, temperature, snowmelt, and other factors. Therefore, it is possible that during construction groundwater may be higher or lower than the levels encountered during this investigation. We did not find indications of hydrocarbons such as soil discoloration or hydrocarbon odors in our field samples. Field PID reading were negative for the presence of hydrocarbons.
5.2 Laboratory Results
The following sections discuss results of the requested laboratory analysis.
5.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
BTEX, MTBE, and TPHg were not reported at concentrations greater than their respective laboratory reporting limits (RLs) for the soil and groundwater samples analyzed. TPHd was reported for each groundwater and soil sample analyzed. TPHd was reported at respective concentrations of 150 and 570 micrograms per liter (µg/l) for groundwater samples MW1 and B2, and 1.7 and 1.1 milligrams per kilogram for soil samples MW1-21.5 and B2-10. TPHmo was reported at respective concentrations of 280 and 580 µg/l for groundwater samples MW1 and B2. Laboratory report notes that “hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical diesel fuel.” Petroleum hydrocarbon laboratory data is presented in Tables 1 and 2.
5.2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
Chrysotile asbestos was reported below the regulatory limit of 0.25% for three of the four samples analyzed. Sample NOAB1-10 was reported to contain 0.25% chrysotile asbestos. A summary of asbestos results are presented in Table 3.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 8 - September 30, 2009
5.3 Laboratory Data Validation
The laboratory-provided case narratives for the chemical analyses stated “matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate results associated with sample MW1-21.5 for the analyte methyl-t-butyl ether were outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias for the sample that was spiked. Since the LCS recoveries were within control limits, no data are flagged…surrogate recovery for sample B2 for test method Mod. EPA 8015 was outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias in the analysis due to the samples matrix or an interference from compounds present in the sample.” A review of the QA/QC data indicates acceptable non detects and recoveries for method blanks and duplicates. Based on this limited data review, no additional qualifications of the soil and groundwater data are necessary, and the data are of sufficient quality for the purposes of this report.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 9 - September 30, 2009
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons
We did not encounter field indicators (i.e. soil staining, odors, elevated PID readings, etc.) of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil during the field sampling activities. TPHd was detected at concentrations above the 1.0 mg/kg reporting limit, at 1.7 and 1.1 mg/kg for the soil samples obtained from well MW1 and Boring 2, respectively. The samples were not reanalyzed using a silica gel cleanup since they were collected for screening purposes only. These soil samples were obtained near or below the groundwater surface. We will be resampling MW1 and analyzing the sample collected with and without a silica gel cleanup to help determine whether the reported diesel-range organics are petroleum based.
6.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOA was reported to be present in site soils at average concentrations below the regulatory limit of 0.25%. As ultramafic rock is present in the site soils and chrysotile asbestos was detected in each of the samples submitted to EMSL, it is recommended that site soils to be used for surfacing applications or to be sold to another party be analyzed for asbestos fiber content. If site soils are to be used as fill on Caltrans property and will be buried under at least 0.25 feet of material that contains less than 0.25% asbestos, no additional asbestos fiber analysis is required. Although site soils encountered are reported to contain asbestos below the regulatory limit of 0.25%, work with these materials may fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the California Division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) under CCR Title 8 Section 5208. An asbestos compliance plan may also be required by Cal-OSHA for activities that will disturb these asbestos-containing materials. Under CARB’s Title 17, Section 93105, offsite disposal of material containing asbestos at or above regulated levels requires asbestos content notification. Facility-specific landfill acceptance criteria should be determined for disposal of asbestos-containing soil materials.
6.2.1 NOA-containing Materials Management
NOA is a State of California regulated substance and is reported on the Site at levels up to the CARB regulatory limit of 0.25%. Though asbestos was reported to be present, the asbestos content does not render these materials unsuitable for reuse within the Caltrans project boundaries. However, construction/maintenance activities involving these asbestos-containing materials may fall under regulatory jurisdiction of Cal-OSHA under CCR Title 8 Section 5208. Mitigation measures during construction/maintenance activities should be utilized to minimize releases of NOA to air (dust control) and surface waters (stormwater discharge). If reused within the Caltrans right-of-way, the material from areas where asbestos was reported to be present at or above regulated levels, or ultramafic rock is present, cannot be used in such a way as to fall under the definition of surfacing material as defined in
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 10 - September 30, 2009
CARB's Title 17, Section 93106. NOA-containing material must be covered by at least 0.25 foot of material that contains less than 0.25% NOA.
6.2.2 Asbestos Worker Protection
Currently, regulatory exposure limits and health hazard data are not available for NOA in soils. Federal regulations governing asbestos define it as the asbestiform variety of the amphibole minerals actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and tremolite, and the asbestiform variety of serpentine, chrysotile. Asbestos fibers occurring in industrial materials are considered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as potential occupational carcinogens. Prudence is recommended; therefore, in dealing with soils containing NOA. Engineering controls such as wet suppression should be utilized to minimize aerial dispersion of NOA fibers in planned work areas during excavation and road construction activities. Under Title 8 Section 5208 of the CCR, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials requires wet working methods and possible respiratory protection and air monitoring. The CARB has established protocols outlined in Title 17, CCR Section 93105 for the implementation of worker health, safety and monitoring plans for excavation, grading and transport of NOA-containing soils. The excavation contractor should consult Title 17, CCR Section 93105 and contact Cal-OSHA to establish the appropriate regulatory protocol and actions necessary for excavation and/or disturbance of asbestos-containing soils.
Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 11 - September 30, 2009
7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared exclusively for Caltrans. The information contained herein is only valid as of the date of the report and will require an update to reflect additional information. This report is not a comprehensive site characterization and should not be construed as such. The findings as presented in this report are predicated on the results of the limited sampling and laboratory testing performed. In addition, the information obtained is not intended to address potential impacts related to contaminant sources other than those specified herein. Therefore, this report should be deemed conclusive with respect to only the information obtained. We make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the content of this report or any subsequent reports, correspondence or consultation. We strived to perform the services summarized herein in accordance with the local standard of care in the geographic region at the time the services were rendered.
0 5 10
N
101
101
101
197
199
199
199
101
169
Lake
Earl
Dr.
ElkVa
lley
Rd.
South
Fork
Rd.
Rowdy Creek Rd.
O R E G O NC A L I F O R N I A
D E L N O R T E C O .H U M B O L D T C O .
E. Washington Blvd.
Parkway
Dr.North
cres
tDr
.
SutterCoast
Hospital
101
101
CrescentCity
SmithRiver
Klamath
Gasquet
L.Earl
P A C I F I C
O C E A N
See InsetFor Hospital
Location
Scale in Miles
Figure 1
Del Norte County,California VICINITY MAP
Dr. Fine Bridge
GEOCON Proj. No. S9300-06-89
Task Order No. 89 September 2009
P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 23 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2
PROJECTSITE
N
Figure 2
Del Norte County,California SITE PLAN
Dr. Fine Bridge
GEOCON Proj. No. S9300-06-89
Task Order No. 89 September 2009
P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 23 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2
LEGEND:
Approximate Boring Location
Approximate Monitoring Well Location
Latitude and Longitude Locations Shownin Degrees and Decimal Minutes
B1
MW1
B1B141˚ 52.708'-124˚ 08.232'
41˚ 52.707'-124˚ 08.232'
41˚ 52.708'-124˚ 08.232'
41˚ 52.707'-124˚ 08.232'
SM
I TH
RI V
ER
SM
I TH
RI V
ERHWY. 101
HWY. 101
DR. FINE BRIDGE
DR. FINE BRIDGE
0 200
Scale in Feet
MW1MW1
GraniteConstruction Co.
ApproximateGranite
Construction Co.Boundary
GraniteConstruction Co.
ApproximateGranite
Construction Co.Boundary
B241˚ 52.737'-124˚ 08.225'41˚ 52.737'-124˚ 08.225'
B2
ApproximateRight-of-Way
Boundary
ApproximateRight-of-Way
Boundary
ApproximateRight-of-Way
Boundary
ApproximateRight-of-Way
Boundary
ApproximateRight-of-Way Boundary
ApproximateRight-of-Way Boundary
Project No. S9300-06-89September 30, 2009Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE ID SAMPLE TPHg TPHd TPHmo MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total XylenesDATE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
MW1-21.5 6/9/2009 <1.0 1.7 <10 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
B2-10 6/11/2009 <1.0 1.1 <10 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Notes:MW1-9
Top of sample (depth in feet)Boring identification number
TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPHd = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as dieselTPHmo = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oilMTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ethermg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram < = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limit
TABLE 1SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
SMITH RIVER BRIDGEDEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Project No. S9300-06-89September 30, 2009Page 1 of 1
SAMPLE ID SAMPLE TPHg TPHd TPHmo MTBE Benzene TolueneEthyl-
benzeneTotal
XylenesDATE (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l)
MW1 6/11/2009 <50 150 280 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
B2 6/11/2009 <50 570 580 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Notes:TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPHd = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel TPHmo = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oilMTBE = Methyl tert-butyl etherµg/l = Micrograms per liter< = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limits
TABLE 2SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
SMITH RIVER BRIDGEDEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Project No. S9300-06-89September 30, 2009Page 1 of 1
Notes:CARB 435 = Polarized light microscopy by California Air Resources Board Method 435< = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limit
TABLE 3SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SMITH RIVER BRIDGEDEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
SAMPLE I.D. SAMPLETYPE
ANALYTICAL METHOD ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS TYPE
NOAB1-10
Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM <0.25 Chrysotile
Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM 0.25 Chrysotile
<0.25 ChrysotileNOAB2-10
NOAB2-30 Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM
NOAB1-30
<0.25 Chrysotile
Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM
MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT DATA SHEET
Project Name: Smith River Bridge Project Number: S9300-06-89
Well No.: MW1 Date: 6/11/09
Well Diameter: 2 in. Field Personnel: IS
Casing Length: 30 feet Screened Casing Length: 20 feet
Well Elevation:
PURGE CHARACTERISTICS
Water Depth Before Purging: 19 feet 2 in. = .1632 Gal/ft. 4 in. = .6528 Gal/ft.
Calculated Water Column Volume: 1.8 Gal. Volumes Purged: 10
Start Purging Time: 0725 End Purging Time: 0743
Total Time: 18 min. Flow Gauge: to
Total Volume Purged: 18 Gal. Avg. Flow Rate: gpm
Water Depth After Purging: Time:
Dissolved Oxygen: mg/l Free Product: No
SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS
Purging Method: Disposable Bailer Sampling Method: Disposable Bailer
Laboratory Analysis: TPHg, TPHd, TPHmo, BTEX, MTBE TIME TEMPERATURE
(°C) CONDUCTIVITY
(umhos/cm) pH Gallons
Purged
0730 5
0735 5
0740 5
0743 3
0810 Sample
Comments: cloudy, no sheen or odor.
Joel Kiff
Geocon Consultants, Inc.3160 Gold Valley Road, Suite 800Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-
Project Name :Project Number :
03A1368P.O. Number :
Dear Mr. Bieber,
Chemical analysis of the samples referenced above has been completed. Summaries of the data are contained
on the following pages. Sample(s) were received under documented chain-of-custody. US EPA protocols for
sample storage and preservation were followed.
Kiff Analytical is certified by the State of California (# 2236). If you have any questions regarding procedures
or results, please call me at 530-297-4800.
Sincerely,
Dave Bieber
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
Subject : 1 Soil Sample
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate results associated with sample MW1-21.5 for the analyteMethyl-t-butyl ether were outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias for the sample that wasspiked. Since the LCS recoveries were within control limits, no data are flagged.
Subject : 1 Soil SampleSmith River BridgeS9300-06-
Project Name :Project Number :
03A1368P.O. Number :
Case Narrative
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
MW1-21.5
06/09/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
MethodReportingLimit
Measured
Sample :
Sample Date :
SoilMatrix : 68850-01Lab Number :
Benzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Toluene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Total Xylenes < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
TPH as Gasoline < 1.0 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
1051,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/10/2009103Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
TPH as Diesel 1.7 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil < 10 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
75.8Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
Method
LimitMeasured
QC Report : Method Blank Data
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
Method
LimitMeasuredReporting Reporting
< 1.0TPH as Diesel 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009< 10TPH as Motor Oil 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
76.1Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
< 0.0050Benzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Ethylbenzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Toluene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Total Xylenes 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
< 0.0050Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
< 1.0TPH as Gasoline 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
1041,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/10/200999.7Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/10/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC
Parameter Value Units Method Analyzed
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
SpikedSample
Sample Spike Level
SpikeDup.Level
Spiked SampleValue
Spiked SampleValue
Duplicate
Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.
Duplicate
RelativePercentDiff.
Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.Limit
RelativePercentDiff.Limit
Analysis Date
QC Report : Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate
68823-02TPH as Diesel <1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 20.0 18.3 18.8 91.5 93.8 2.45 60-140 25
68822-01Benzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0405 0.0400 0.0288 0.0289 71.2 72.3 1.53 70-130 2568822-01Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0406 0.0401 0.0260 0.0266 63.9 66.3 3.71 70-130 2568822-01Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0400 0.0395 0.0286 0.0285 71.5 72.3 1.17 70-130 25
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC
Parameter Units Method Analyzed
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-
Report Number : 68850
Date : 06/15/2009
Spike Level
Percent Recov.
Percent Recov.Limit
Analysis Date
QC Report : Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
LCSLCS
TPH as Diesel mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 86.7 70-130
Benzene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0406 89.3 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0407 80.2 70-130Toluene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0401 91.0 70-130
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC
Joel Kiff
Geocon Consultants, Inc.3160 Gold Valley Road, Suite 800Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Project Name :Project Number :
Dear Mr. Bieber,
Chemical analysis of the samples referenced above has been completed. Summaries of the data are contained
on the following pages. Sample(s) were received under documented chain-of-custody. US EPA protocols for
sample storage and preservation were followed.
Kiff Analytical is certified by the State of California (# 2236). If you have any questions regarding procedures
or results, please call me at 530-297-4800.
Sincerely,
Dave Bieber
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
Subject : 1 Soil Sample and 2 Water Samples
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Surrogate Recovery for sample B2 for test method Mod. EPA 8015 was outside of control limits. This mayindicate a bias in the analysis due to the sample's matrix or an interference from compounds present inthe sample.
Subject : 1 Soil Sample and 2 Water SamplesSmith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Project Name :Project Number :
Case Narrative
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
MW1
06/11/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
MethodReportingLimit
Measured
Sample :
Sample Date :
WaterMatrix : 68898-01Lab Number :
Benzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Toluene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Total Xylenes < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
TPH as Gasoline < 50 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
98.01,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009115Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
TPH as Diesel 150 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil 280 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
106Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
B2-10
06/11/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
MethodReportingLimit
Measured
Sample :
Sample Date :
SoilMatrix : 68898-02Lab Number :
Benzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Toluene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Total Xylenes < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009
TPH as Gasoline < 1.0 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009
1011,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/12/2009103Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/12/2009
TPH as Diesel 1.1 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/13/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil < 10 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/13/2009
80.2Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/13/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
B2
06/11/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
MethodReportingLimit
Measured
Sample :
Sample Date :
WaterMatrix : 68898-04Lab Number :
Benzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Toluene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Total Xylenes < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
TPH as Gasoline < 50 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
95.21,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009116Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
TPH as Diesel 570 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil 580 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
368Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
Method
LimitMeasured
QC Report : Method Blank Data
Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod
DateAnalyzed
Method
LimitMeasuredReporting Reporting
< 1.0TPH as Diesel 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009< 10TPH as Motor Oil 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
76.1Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/12/2009
< 50TPH as Diesel 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009< 100TPH as Motor Oil 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
101Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/15/2009
< 0.0050Benzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Ethylbenzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Toluene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Total Xylenes 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009
< 0.0050Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009
< 1.0TPH as Gasoline 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009
1041,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/11/2009104Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/11/2009
< 0.50Benzene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Ethylbenzene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Toluene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Total Xylenes 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
< 0.50Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
< 50TPH as Gasoline 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
94.61,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/13/2009115Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/13/2009
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC
Parameter Value Units Method Analyzed
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
SpikedSample
Sample Spike Level
SpikeDup.Level
Spiked SampleValue
Spiked SampleValue
Duplicate
Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.
Duplicate
RelativePercentDiff.
Percent
Spiked Sample
Recov.Limit
RelativePercentDiff.Limit
Analysis Date
QC Report : Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate
68867-04Benzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0396 0.0400 0.0337 0.0328 85.1 82.1 3.51 70-130 2568867-04Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0397 0.0401 0.0316 0.0308 79.7 76.8 3.64 70-130 2568867-04Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0391 0.0395 0.0339 0.0331 86.8 84.0 3.26 70-130 25
68823-02TPH as Diesel <1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 20.0 18.3 18.8 91.5 93.8 2.45 60-140 25
BLANKTPH as Diesel <50 ug/L M EPA 8015 6/15/091000 1000 894 928 89.4 92.8 3.72 70-130 25
68870-03Benzene <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.6 40.6 37.2 36.6 91.6 90.2 1.51 70-130 2568870-03Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.7 40.7 46.0 45.4 113 112 1.16 70-130 2568870-03Toluene <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.1 40.1 45.1 44.4 112 111 1.55 70-130 25
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC
Parameter Units Method Analyzed
Project Name :
Project Number :
Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89
Report Number : 68898
Date : 06/17/2009
Spike Level
Percent Recov.
Percent Recov.Limit
Analysis Date
QC Report : Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)
LCSLCS
TPH as Diesel mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 86.7 70-130
Benzene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0397 86.0 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0398 91.7 70-130Toluene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0392 87.1 70-130
Benzene ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.5 92.4 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.6 115 70-130Toluene ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.0 113 70-130
2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800
KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC