SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER … · Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CA Page 1 of 19 1. INTRODUCTION A Subsurface Investigation of Soil and Ground

i.

SUBSURFACEINVESTIGATION OF SOILAND GROUNDWATERQUALITY

US Army Corps of EngineersSouth Pacific Division Laboratory25 Liberty Ship WaySausalito, California 94965

December 1, 2004(Revised December 20, 2004)

Project No. U04-2732

Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CAPage ii of 19

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION of SOIL andGROUND WATER QUALITY for

US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSSOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION LABORATORY

25 LIBERTY SHIP WAYSAUSALITO, CALIFORNIA 94965

DECEMBER 1, 2004(Revised December 20, 2004)

Prepared for:

Veterans Administration HospitalSan Francisco, California

Prepared by:

Advanced Solutions Group, LLC1205 West Flint Meadow Drive, #3

P.O. Box 125Kaysville, Utah 84037

(801) 444-0029

Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CAPage iii of 19

Table of ContentsSection Page

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS................................................12.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................12.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ..................................................................................12.3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND QUARTERLY GROUND WATER MONITORING.....................1

3. FINDINGS FROM RECENT INVESTIGATION ....................................................................33.1 FIELD METHODS ...................................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Utility Clearance ......................................................................................................33.1.2 Boring Advancement ...............................................................................................33.1.3 Soil Sample Collection Methods .............................................................................43.1.4 Grab Groundwater Sample Collection Methods......................................................43.1.5 Sample Analytical Methods and Results .................................................................4

3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS .........................................................................................................53.2.1 PCBs in Soil Samples ..............................................................................................53.2.2 TRPH in Soil Samples .............................................................................................53.2.3 VOCs in Ground Water ...........................................................................................53.2.4 PCBs in Ground Water ............................................................................................6

4. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS .........................................................................................64.1 APPLICABLE REGULATORY CRITERIA ...................................................................................64.2 SOIL CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................74.3 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS..............................................................................................7

5. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................8

Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CAPage iv of 19

List of TablesTable 1 – Soil Samples Analytical Results – November 2004

Table 2 – Grab Ground Water Samples Analytical Results – November 2004

List of PlatesPlate 1 – Site Location Map

Plate 2 – PCB Concentrations in Soil

Plate 3 – TRPH Concentrations in Soil

Plate 4 – Ground Water Analytical Results

List of AppendicesAppendix A – Tables of Previous Analytical Results

Appendix B – Soil Boring Logs

Appendix C – Laboratory Reports and Chains-of Custody

Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CAPage 1 of 19

1. INTRODUCTION

A Subsurface Investigation of Soil and Ground Water Quality (Report) for the property locatedat 25 Liberty Ship Way in Sausalito, California (Site) was conducted by ASG. The purpose ofthe recent investigation, which was performed during November 2004, was to confirm the resultsof previous activities and to investigate areas not previously characterized. Prior to November2004, two investigations and one remedial effort were previously performed at the Site.

This Report presents the findings from the recent investigation and incorporates relevant findingsfrom previous investigations. The sampling performed at the Site followed the Work Plan toInvestigate Soil and Ground Water Quality On-Site (Work Plan) defined by the Department ofVeteran Affairs Medical Center, Project No. 662-04-118, September 2004.

2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Site consists of a former United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) facility. TheSite has been used as a railroad yard, ship building facility, environmental laboratory, andgeotechnical laboratory.

2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

The Site is underlain by clay, silt, sand, and gravel lenses. The ground water potentiometricsurface was measured approximately 6 feet to 12 feet below ground surface. In some areas, theground water appears to be confined beneath clays and silts and in other locations ground wateris under water table conditions. The ground water gradient direction is likely to the northeastand towards the San Francisco Bay. Previous ground water quality data indicate specificconductance above 5,000 µmhos/cm and/or total dissolved solids above 3,000 mg/l. Based onthe data and in accordance with California State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63, the ground water beneath the Site appears to be a non-potable resource.

2.3 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND QUARTERLY GROUND WATER MONITORING

Previous investigations of soil quality revealed measurable concentrations of petroleumhydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and polynuclear aromatic


hydrocarbons (PAHs). Previous investigations of ground water quality revealed measurableconcentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Previousinvestigations of soil gas revealed VOCs. Copies of summary analytical tables are included inAppendix A. The following briefly summarizes findings from previous investigation andremediation reports prepared by Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA (ITSI).

Preliminary Site Assessment (1998) identified:

Historical operations including Northwest Pacific Railroad yard that included an oilabove ground storage tank (AST), oil house, electric car shop, and machine shop.

Recent operations including a USACE machine shop, geotechnical testing laboratory,environmental chemical laboratory, storage of acids, bases, solvents, and otherchemicals.

Current facility features include sumps, floor drains, holding tank, expansion joints andcracks in concrete pad, electrical and various equipment pads.

Preliminary Site Investigation (1999)

Sampled soil and ground water in areas identified in the Preliminary Site Assessment(1998): two sumps (other sumps were not sampled), chemical storage area, and theholding tank area.

Soil samples revealed petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, and arsenic.

Ground water samples revealed tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and various metals.

Recommendations included delineating PCBs in soil and evaluating background soilarsenic concentrations.

Phase II Remedial Investigation (2003)

Investigation was performed in response to DTSC’s request for additional samplingbased on the findings from the Preliminary Site Investigation (1999).

Investigation included borings and test pits, soil and soil gas and ground water sampling,and a radiological survey. Soil samples were collected mainly to delineate PCBs in soil.Sediment was sampled from four sumps in the lab.

The remediation effort included cleanup of surfaces around the lab and chemical storagebuilding. Housecleaning: Sumps and tanks were cleaned. Floors were pressure washed.Floor drains flushed. ASTs were removed. Miscellaneous debris was removed frommany rooms.

Radiological survey revealed all samples consistent with background.

Ground water samples revealed PCE, toluene, xylenes, petroleum hydrocarbons, carbondisulfide, PCP, and arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, andthallium. Concluded that ground water was a non-potable resource and was notsignificantly impacted.

Soil samples revealed total extractable (recoverable) petroleum hydrocarbons widespreadin soil. Concluded concentrations did not require remediation.


Soil samples revealed PCBs and low concentrations in two of nine background samples.Concluded PCBs elevated generally near holding tank.

3. FINDINGS FROM RECENT INVESTIGATION

The following investigation activities were completed:

• Advanced 30 soil borings to approximately 2 feet bgs.

• Collected 60 soil samples from depth 0.5 feet and 2 feet below ground surface.

• Analyzed 60 soil samples for PCBs and 20 soil samples for total recoverable petroleumhydrocarbons (TRPH).

• Collected and analyzed 6 grab ground water samples for volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and PCBs.

Field work was performed on November 11 and 12, 2004 under the direct supervision of aRegistered California Geologist. The following describes the investigation methods and theanalytical results.

3.1 FIELD METHODS

3.1.1 Utility Clearance

Pursuant to the requirements of California Assembly Bill AB 73, Underground Services Alert(USA) located utilities entering the Site. A private underground utility locating contractoridentified utilities near areas proposed for investigation.

3.1.2 Boring Advancement

Following the utility survey, twenty borings (A1 through A20) were advanced outside thebuilding and ten borings (A21 through A30) were advanced inside the building. Some of theexterior borings and all of the interior borings were advanced after concrete coring providedaccess through the concrete slab. Twenty-four borings were advanced to 2 feet bgs and sixborings (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A21, A25) were advanced approximately 15 feet bgs and intoground water. Twenty-two borings were advanced using direct hydraulic push equipmentoperated by Vironex, Inc. of San Leandro, California. Due to access constraints eight borings(two outside and six inside) borings were advanced using hand auger techniques. Figure 2depicts the locations of all of the borings.


The sampling locations were selected to (1) confirm previous analytical results, (2) characterizeresidual conditions following previous remediation activities, (3) characterize areas outside thatwere not previously investigated, and (4) characterize areas inside the building next to anddowngradient from sumps, floor drains, and pipelines.

Soil samples were collected from the borings for the purpose of geologic descriptions accordingto the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Soil samples were also screened for volatileorganic compounds using a photo-ionization detector. Boring logs are included in Appendix B.

All borings were abandoned using tremie grouting techniques. The grout consisted of a mixtureof neat cement and bentonite clay.

3.1.3 Soil Sample Collection Methods

Soil samples were collected between ground surface and 0.5 feet bgs, and from between 1.5 feetand 2 feet bgs. The soil samples advanced using direct push equipment were collected in 2-inchdiameter acetate liners cut at the selected sample interval. The borings advanced using handauger equipment were collected in brass tubes. The ends of each tube were covered with plasticcaps and each tube was labeled and placed in an ice chest containing ice. Samples weretransported to the laboratory under standard chain-of-custody protocols.

3.1.4 Grab Groundwater Sample Collection Methods

Six grab ground water samples were collected at the Site. The samples were collected from 1-inch diameter PVC piezometers temporarily placed in the boring. The sample was retrievedfrom the borehole using a peristaltic pump. The ground water was placed in laboratory preparedbottles, labeled, and placed in an ice chest containing ice. Samples were transported to thelaboratory under standard chain-of-custody protocols.

3.1.5 Sample Analytical Methods and Results

Analytical Sciences of Petaluma, California, an analytical laboratory certified by the CaliforniaDepartment of Health Services, performed the chemical analyses of the soil and ground watersamples. The soil samples were analyzed for PCBs by EPA Method 8082 and based on theresults, 20 soil samples collected from 10 borings were additionally analyzed for totalrecoverable petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 5520. The grab ground water sampleswere analyzed for volatile organic compounds using EPA Method 8260 and for PCBs by EPAMethod 8082.

Copies of laboratory analytical reports and chain-of-custody forms are included in Appendix C.


3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

3.2.1 PCBs in Soil Samples

Sixty soil samples were collected from 30 boring locations from depths of 0.5 feet and 2 feet bgs.All sixty samples were analyzed for PCBs and twenty samples were analyzed for TRPH.

None of the soil samples revealed the PCB Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1262or 1268. However, eleven soil samples collected from eight locations revealed measurableconcentrations of PCB Arochlor 1260, the only type previously detected in soil samplescollected from the Site. Arochlor 1260 was measured in five samples collected from 0.5 feet bgsand in six samples collected from 2 feet bgs. The concentrations of PCB Arochlor 1260 rangedfrom the detection limit of 0.1 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) up to 13 mg/kg. The soilsamples revealing the two highest concentrations of Arochlor 1260, 13 mg/kg and 2.1 mg/kg,were collected from 2 feet bgs.

Table 1 summarizes the PCB analytical results. Figure 2 depicts the distribution of PCBs in soilcollected at the Site.

3.2.2 TRPH in Soil Samples

The process of analyzing PCBs in soil includes an extraction of organic chemicals. Thelaboratory reported that the PCB analysis generated a dark to black colored extract consisting ofnon-PCB oil. Analysis of the non-PCB oil as total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH)was performed on twenty samples collected from ten locations. The locations were selectedbased on (1) the laboratory’s indication of the darkest colored extract and (2) distribution acrossthe Site.

Nineteen of the twenty soil samples revealed TRPH above the reporting limit and up to 18,000mg/kg. Ten soil samples revealed TRPH above 500 mg/kg, of which seven soil samples werealso above 1,000 mg/kg TRPH.

Table 1 summarizes the PCB analytical results. Figure 3 depicts the distribution of totalpetroleum hydrocarbons, extractable and recoverable, in soil samples collected at the Site.

3.2.3 VOCs in Ground Water

Five of the six grab ground water samples did not reveal VOCs. The ground water samplecollected at A5 revealed benzene at 1.4 µg/l, toluene at 1.0 µg/l, and naphthalene at 86 µg/l.

Table 2 summarizes the analytical results of ground water samples. Figure 4 depicts thedistribution of chemical concentrations in ground water samples.


3.2.4 PCBs in Ground Water

The six grab ground water samples did not reveal concentrations of PCBs above the reportinglimit.

Table 2 summarizes the analytical results of ground water samples. Figure 4 depicts thedistribution of chemical concentrations in ground water samples.

4. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

The soil and ground water samples collected at the Site revealed measurable concentrations ofpetroleum hydrocarbons. The following interprets the analytical results with respect toapplicable regulatory criteria.

4.1 APPLICABLE REGULATORY CRITERIA

Site cleanup goals must be protective of both human health and the environment. Therefore, thedetermination of site cleanup goals includes the potential impact to ground water from chemicalsin soil, potential human health risks posed by chemicals in soil and ground water, and protectionof the beneficial uses of the water resource. However, in lieu of site-specific risk evaluations,regulatory guidance and/or screening levels can be used to identify conditions of potentialconcern. The USEPA Region IX Preliminary Remedial Goals (PRGs) are used herein to screenconcentrations in soil for human health risk. Similarly, the California Regional Water QualityControl Board – San Francisco Bay (“Regional Board”) environmental screening levels (ESLs,July 2003) are used herein to evaluate the concentrations of chemicals recently measured in soiland ground water at the Site.

The RWQCB Basin Plan and Board Resolution No. 88-63 Sources of Drinking Water state thatground water with electrical conductivity above 5,000 µmhos/cm and/or total dissolved solids(TDS) above 3,000 µg/l may not be suitable to supply a public water system. Previousinvestigations have revealed electrical conductivity of ground water above 5,000 µmhos/cm andthe TDS above 3,000 µg/l. Therefore, the ground water appears to be source of non-potablewater supply and does not appear to be a reasonable source of potable water. The area is servedby a public drinking water supply district.

Based on an industrial/commercial land use, PRGs for industrial land use settings have beenused to screen the environmental conditions at the Site. The ESLs further differentiate withrespect to potable and non-potable ground water resources and based on the findings, ESLs fornon-potable ground water resources in a commercial/industrial setting are used herein to screenenvironmental conditions.


For reference, the PRGs and ESLs commercial/industrial land uses with non-potable groundwater are posted on Tables 1 and 2. For comparison, PRGs and ESLs for residential land usesare also provided on the Tables.

4.2 SOIL CONDITIONS

The soil samples revealed PCBs up to 13 mg/kg, above the industrial PRG of 0.74 mg/kg.However, most of the sixty samples did not reveal measurable concentrations of PCBs. The 95%upper confidence limit (UCL) of the recent PCB concentrations is 0.70 mg/kg; this calculationsubstituted one-half the reporting limit for those samples with results indicated as below thereporting limit. Because the 95% UCL of 0.70 mg/kg is below the PRG of 0.74 mg/kg, PCBs insoil at the Site do not appear to pose a significant risk to human health. However, because the95% UCL of 0.70 mg/kg exceeds the residential PRG for PCB of 0.22 mg/kg, the Site may notbe suitable for residential land use without additional remediation.

The RWQCB’s ESLs for PCBs are similar to the PRGs and incorporate protection of groundwater resources. The lack of PCBs in ground water further indicates that PCBs in soil do notpose a significant risk to ground water quality.

PRGs have not been published for TRPH. However, the RWQCB has published an ESL forTRPH, or TPH as motor oil, as 1,000 mg/kg for the protection of ground water and 2,500 mg/kgfor protection from nuisance odors in an industrial land use setting. Seven of the twenty soilsamples revealed TRPH above the ESL of 2,500 mg/kg. This result is indicative of a potentialnuisance risk to human health. The TRPH also appears to pose a risk to ground water qualitybecause TPH has been measured above the soil ESL of 500 mg/kg.

4.3 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS

The recent ground water samples did not reveal concentrations of PCBs above the reportinglimit. Five of the recent ground water samples did not reveal measurable concentrations ofVOCs. Although one sample revealed measurable VOCs, the concentrations were well belowESLs. Similarly, previous ground water samples collected by others did reveal measurableconcentrations of VOCs at concentrations below ESLs.

Previous investigations revealed TPH in ground water above the ESL of 640 µg/l, whichindicates that residual TRPH in soil may have affected ground water quality at the Site.

Based on the recent results, ground water quality does not appear to be significantly impacted byconditions at the Site.


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Three soil and ground water investigations and one remediation effort have been performed atthe Site. Based on the analytical results and relevant PRGs and ESLs, the following conclusionsare provided regarding the conditions at the Site:

Soil has been affected by the PCB Arochlor 1260 and TRPH.

The 95% UCL of PCB concentrations in soil is below the industrial PRG of 0.74 mg/kgand above the residential PRG of 0.22 mg/kg. Therefore, PCBs in soil does not appear topose a significant risk to humans in an industrial land use scenario.

Concentrations of TRPH in soil exceed the ESL of 1,000 mg/kg for protection of non-potable ground. Concentrations of TRPH in soil also exceed the ESL of 2,500 mg/kg forprotection of humans in an industrial land use scenario from nuisance odors. Capping theSite could minimize potential risks to human health and ground water posed by TRPH insoil.

VOCs are present in ground water at the Site, but at concentrations below ESLs. Thesource(s) of VOCs to ground water is not known.

TRPH has been measured in ground water above the ESL of 640 µg/l. However, thedistribution appears to be limited. The source of TRPH to ground water may be thewidely distributed TRPH in shallow soil.

The source of the soil contamination (i.e. USTs, chemical storage, etc.), if any, as relatedto the former building operations, appears to no longer be located at the Site. Therefore,contamination levels that may have been caused by former building operations should notincrease.

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are offered:

Previous reports were submitted to the California Department of Toxic SubstancesControl (DTSC). DTSC apparently commented on the initial findings in 1999 andrequested additional investigation, which appears to have been performed in 2003.However, it is not clear if DTSC received and commented on the findings in 2003.Accordingly, DTSC should be contacted and be requested to review the previous andrecent investigations. In light of the findings, prior to property transfer, the Site owner(i.e. US Army Corps of Engineers) should contact the DTSC to verify that no furtheractions are required at the Site. In addition, DTSC should include the RWQCB in thereview and comment process.

Given the current unknown regulatory status of the Site and the apparent lack ofsignificant risk to human health and ground water quality, no additional investigations orremedial efforts are recommended.


Note that the owner would be responsible to address the groundwater and soil qualityissues at the Site.


REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Guide for Remediation of Ground Water byNatural Attenuation at Petroleum Release Sites, Designation: E 1943–98, 1998.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region, Screening forEnvironmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater; July 2003.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region, Memorandum - RegionalBoard Supplemental Instructions to State Water Board December 8, 1995, Interim Guidance onRequired Cleanup at Low-Risk Fuel Sites, January 5, 1996.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Basin –Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), June 1995.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region; Functional EquivalentDocument Proposed Groundwater Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)Final, April 2000

California State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 88-63, Adoption of Policy Entitled"Sources of Drinking Water,” 1988.

Innovative Testing Solutions, Inc., Preliminary Site Assessment, 1998.

Innovative Testing Solutions, Inc., Preliminary Site Investigation, 1999.

Innovative Testing Solutions, Inc., Phase II Remedial Investigation, 2003.

United States Geological Survey; Geologic Materials of the San Francisco Bay Region; 1997.

TABLES

DepthArochlors 1016, 1221,

1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1262, & 1268

Arochlor 1260Total Recoverable

PetroleumHydrocarbons (TRPH)

(feet) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 6302 <0.10 <0.10 170

0.5 <0.10 0.91 3,3002 <0.10 13 150

0.5 <0.10 0.1 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.15 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 18,0002 <0.10 <0.10 710

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 2,7002 <0.10 2.1 7,900

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.29 11,0002 <0.10 <0.10 35

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.24 6,1002 <0.10 <0.10 55

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 6,9002 <0.10 <0.10 <20

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 0.18 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-14

A-15

A-16

A-17

A-18

PCBs

TABLE 1Soil Sample Analytical Results - November 11, 2004

25 Liberty Ship Way, Sausalito, California

Sample

Page 1 of 2 Environmental Resource Group, Inc.

Depth

Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242,

1248, 1254, 1262, & 1268

Arochlor 1260

Total Recoverable Petroleum

Hydrocarbons (TRPH)


0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 6302 <0.10 <0.10 170

0.5 <0.10 0.91 3,3002 <0.10 13 150

0.5 <0.10 0.1 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.15 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 18,0002 <0.10 <0.10 710

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 2,7002 <0.10 2.1 7,900

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.29 11,0002 <0.10 <0.10 35

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.24 6,1002 <0.10 <0.10 55

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 6,9002 <0.10 <0.10 <20

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 0.18 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

A-7

A-8

A-9

A-10

A-11

A-12

A-13

A-14

A-15

A-16

A-17

A-18

PCBs



Sample


Depth

Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242,

1248, 1254, 1262, & 1268

Arochlor 1260


Hydrocarbons (TRPH)


PCBs



Sample

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.35 1602 <0.10 0.26 210

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 2802 <0.10 <0.10 520

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 882 <0.10 0.14 110

0.74 - 210 0.74 --0.22 - 6.3 0.22 --

ESLs - industrial and nonpotable GW 0.22 0.22 1,0000.74 0.74 500

Note:mg/kg : milligrams per kilogramPCBs : Polychlorinated Biphenyls

BOLD : above residential screening criteriaBOLD : above industrial screening criteriaPRGs : Preliminary Remedial Goals (Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Region IX)ESLs : Environmental Screening Levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board)

A-19

A-20

A-27

A-28

A-21

A-22

A-23

A-24

Criteria

A-29

A-30

A-25

A-26

PRGs (industrial)PRGs (residential)

ESLs - residential and nonpotable GW


Depth

Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242,

1248, 1254, 1262, & 1268

Arochlor 1260


Hydrocarbons (TRPH)


PCBs



Sample

Many sample revealed a high boiling point, non-PCB oil that was typically very darkly colored and in some cases black. The laboartory recommended method SM5520F to quantify Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.


Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

htha

lene

MTB

E

(feet) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l)

A-1 15 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

A-2 15 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

A-3 15 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

A-5 15 1.4 1.0 86 <1.0 <1.0

A-21 15 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

A-25 15 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

20,000 400 210 1,800 160

46 130 24 8,000 0.014

1 40 17 5 0.014

1 150 -- 13 0.5

5 1,000 -- -- 0.5

Note:µg/l : micrograms per liter

PCBs : Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Arochlors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, 1262 &1268ind : industrialres : residential

BOLD : above residential screening criteriaBOLD : above industrial screening criteriaESLs : Environmental Screening Levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board)

TABLE 2Grab Water Samples - Analytical Results - November 11/12, 2004


Criteria

Volatile Organic Compounds

Dep

th

Bor

ing

Pol

ychl

orin

ated

B

iphe

nyls

(PC

Bs)

USEPA MCL (primary)

ESLs - nonpotable GW (odors)

ESLs - nonpotable GW (estuary)

ESL - Potable

CA MCL (primary)


DepthArochlors 1016, 1221,

1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1262, & 1268

Arochlor 1260Total Recoverable

PetroleumHydrocarbons (TRPH)


PCBs



Sample

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 0.35 1602 <0.10 0.26 210

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 2802 <0.10 <0.10 520

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 --2 <0.10 <0.10 --

0.5 <0.10 <0.10 882 <0.10 0.14 110

0.74 - 210 0.74 --0.22 - 6.3 0.22 --

ESLs - industrial and nonpotable GW 0.22 0.22 1,0000.74 0.74 500

Note:mg/kg : milligrams per kilogramPCBs : Polychlorinated Biphenyls

BOLD : above residential screening criteriaBOLD : above industrial screening criteriaPRGs : Preliminary Remedial Goals (Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Region IX)ESLs : Environmental Screening Levels (Regional Water Quality Control Board)

A-19

A-20

A-27

A-28

A-21

A-22

A-23

A-24

Criteria

A-29

A-30

A-25

A-26

Many sample revealed a high boiling point, non-PCB oil that was typically very darkly colored and in some cases black. The laboartoryrecommended method SM5520F to quantify Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

PRGs (industrial)PRGs (residential)

ESLs - residential and nonpotable GW


PLATES

ERGEnvironmental Resource Group

Former USACE Soils Lab25 Liberty Ship Way, Sausalito, California

Plate 1.

SiteLocation

N 0 2000ft

Lib

erty

Sh

ipW

ay

MarinshipWay

Bu

rkel

lPl

um

bin

g

ERG

Envi

ronm

enta

l Res

ourc

e G

roup

Fo

rmer

US

AC

E S

oils L

ab

25 L

ibert

y S

hip

Way, S

au

salito

, C

alifo

rnia

Sit

e p

lan

ad

ap

ted

fro

m In

no

vati

ve T

ech

nic

al S

olu

tio

ns, In

c. 2001

Pla

te 2

.

PC

B C

once

ntr

atio

n

in S

oil

N

Appro

xim

ate

Pro

pert

y L

ine

06

0ft

Sa

mp

le L

oca

tio

n

De

pth

(ft)

PC

B C

on

ce

ntr

atio

n

in S

oil

(mg

/kg

)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

0.5

1.0

0.9

5

<0.5

BK

G-1

SB

-19

SB

-18

SB

-17

SB

-16

SB

-15

SB

-14

SB

-12

SB

-13

SB

-11

TP

-2S

X

1999 S

oil

Boring L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

PC

B )

1999

Test P

it L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

PC

B)

2001 S

oil

Boring L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

PC

B)

2001

Test P

it L

ocations

2001 B

ackgro

und S

oil

Sam

ple

Locations

Nov.

11-1

2, 2004 S

oil

Sam

plin

g L

ocations

Nov 1

1-1

2, 2004 S

oil

and G

round W

ate

r S

am

plin

g L

ocations

0.5

1.0

1.6

<0.5

BK

G-2

0.5

<0.5

BK

G-3

0.5

<0.5

BK

G-4

0.5

<0.5

BK

G-5

0.5

1.0

<0.5

<0.5

BK

G-6

0.5

<0.5

BK

G-7

1 3

2.2

<0.5

TP

-11.5

2 3

<0.5

110

<0.5

TP

-2

1 3

>0.5

>0.5

TP

-5

1 3

<0.5

>0.5

TP

-6

1 3

<0.5

>0.5

TP

-7

1 3

>0.5

>0.5

TP

-8

1 1-D

up

3

<0.5

<0.5

0.0

38

TP

-3

1 3 3-D

up

0.3

9

<0.5

<0.5

TP

-4

1.5

1.5

Dup

3

2.4

10.1

<0.5

TP

-9

1.5

3

<0.0

36

<0.0

36

TP

-10

1.5

3

<0.0

39

<0.0

39

TP

-11

1 2.5

3

<0.5

<0.5

<0.5

TP

-12

1 3

0.0

4

<0.0

36

TP

-13

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-10.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-3

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-4

0.5

2

0.9

1

13

A-5

0.5

2

0.1

<0.1

0

A-6

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-7

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-8

0.5

2

<0.1

0

2.1

A-9

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

10.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

0 0.5

2

0.2

9

<0.1

0

A-1

2

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

3

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

4

0.5

2

0.2

4

<0.1

0

A-1

5

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

6

0.5

2

<0.1

0

0.1

8

A-1

7

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

8

0.5

2

0.3

5

0.2

6

A-2

00.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-1

9

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

8

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

7

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

9

0.5

2

88

110

A-3

0

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

4

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

6

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

3

0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

2 0.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

10.5

2

<0.1

0

<0.1

0

A-2

5

PC

B C

on

ce

ntr

atio

n s

ho

wn

in

re

d w

he

re

co

nce

ntr

atio

n e

xce

ed

s la

bo

rato

ry d

ete

ctio

n lim

its

PC

B C

oncentr

ations s

how

n in b

lue a

re c

om

prised

entire

ly o

f A

rochlo

r 1260.

1.0

300

TP

-1S

3'

37

TP

-3S

4.5

0.1

80

SB

-13.5

<0.0

24

SB

-3

60.0

39

SB

-4

4.5

7

0.2

9

<0.0

24

SB

-5

5.0

<0.0

24

SB

-7

4.5

0.2

30

SB

-6

4.5

<0.0

24

SB

-10

Lib

erty

Sh

ipW

ay

MarinshipWay

Bu

rkel

lPl

um

bin

g

ERG

Envi

ronm

enta

l Res

ourc

e G

roup

Fo

rmer

US

AC

E S

oils L

ab

25 L

ibert

y S

hip

Way, S

au

salito

, C

alifo

rnia

Sit

e p

lan

ad

ap

ted

fro

m In

no

vati

ve T

ech

nic

al S

olu

tio

ns, In

c. 2001

Pla

te 3

.

Tota

l P

etro

leum

Hydro

carb

on

Conce

ntr

atio

n i

n S

oil

N

Appro

xim

ate

Pro

pert

y L

ine

06

0ft

Sa

mp

le L

oca

tio

n

De

pth

(ft)

TP

H C

on

ce

ntr

atio

n

in S

oil

(mg

/kg

)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

BK

G-1

SB

-7

SB

-6

TP

-2S

TP

-3S

TP

-1S

X

1999 S

oil

Boring L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

TP

H )

1999

Test P

it L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

TP

H)

2001 S

oil

Boring L

ocations

2001

Test P

it L

ocations (

not te

ste

d for

TP

H)

2001 B

ackgro

und S

oil

Sam

ple

Locations (

not te

ste

dfo

rT

PH

)

Nov.

11-1

2, 2004 S

oil

Sam

plin

g L

ocations

Nov 1

1-1

2, 2004 S

oil

and G

round W

ate

r S

am

plin

g L

ocations

BK

G-3

BK

G-4

BK

G-5BK

G-6

BK

G-7

TP

-5T

P-6

TP

-7

TP

-8

TP

-4

TP

-9

TP

-10

TP

-11

TP

-12

TP

-13

SB

-3

A-1

0.5

2

630

170

A-4

0.5

2

3,3

00

150

A-5

0.5

2

18,0

00

710

A-8

0.5

2

2,7

00

7,9

00

A-9

0.5

2

11,0

00

35

A-1

2

0.5

2

6,1

00

55

A-1

5

0.5

2

6,9

00

<20

A-1

6

0.5

2

160

210

A-2

0

0.5

2

88

110

A-3

0

0.5

2

280

520

A-2

5

No

tes:

NA

: N

ot A

naly

zed

TP

H w

as c

alc

ula

ted fro

m T

P-

and S

B-

sam

ple

s fro

m

the s

um

of T

PH

(moto

r oil)

and T

PH

(die

sel).

TR

PH

was d

irectly m

easure

d for

A-

sam

ple

s.

BK

G-2

A-2

A-3

A-6

A-7

A-1

0A

-11 A-1

3

A-1

4

A-1

7

A-1

8

A-1

9

A-2

1A-2

2

A-2

4

A-2

3

A-2

6

A-2

7

A-2

9

A-2

8

4.5

4.5

-dup

12

NA

SB

-10

12.0

7.4

SB

-11

10.0

10.0

-dup

6.2

NA

SB

-12

3.5

8.0

31

6.9

SB

-13

11.5

3.6

SB

-14

8.0

11.5

16.0

<5.7

<6

<6.1

SB

-15

4.5

14.0

<5.7

<6.3

SB

-16

4.0

10.0

<5.8

<5.8

SB

-17

3.5

16.0

53

<6.1

SB

-18

6.0

18.0

18.0

dup

470

2.5

1.9

SB

-19

1'

200

TP

-1

2<

71

TP

-2

3<

75

TP

-3

4.6

7.0

<79

<0.0

48

SB

-5

6<

93

SB

-4

4.5

<72

SB

-1

Lib

erty

Sh

ipW

ay

MarinshipWay

Bu

rkel

lPl

um

bin

g

ER

GE

nvi

ron

men

talR

esou

rce

Gro

up

Fo

rmer

US

AC

E S

oils

Lab

25 L

iber

ty S

hip

Way

, Sau

salit

o, C

alif

orn

ia

Sit

e p

lan

ad

apte

d f

rom

Inn

ova

tive

Tec

hn

ical

So

luti

on

s, In

c. 2

001

Pla

te 4

.G

roun

dW

ater

Ana

lytic

alR

esul

ts

N

App

roxi

mat

e P

rope

rty

Line

060

ft

Sam

ple

Loca

tion

Ana

lyte

Con

cent

ratio

n in

Gro

und

Wat

er (

µg/l)

TE

PH

Tolu

ene

Xyl

enes

PC

P

380

2.5

2.0

<0.2

300

1.8

<2.0

<2.0

SB

-15W

1S

B-1

5W3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

BK

G-1

SB

-7

SB

-6

TP

-2S

TP

-3S

TP

-1S

X

1999

Soi

l Bor

ing

Loca

tions

1999

Test

Pit

Loca

tions

2001

Soi

l Bor

ing

Loca

tions

2001

Test

Pit

Loca

tions

2001

Bac

kgro

und

Soi

l Sam

ple

Loca

tions

Nov

. 11-

12, 2

004

Soi

l Sam

plin

g Lo

catio

ns

Nov

11-

12, 2

004

Soi

l and

Gro

und

Wat

er S

ampl

ing

Loca

tions

BK

G-3

BK

G-4

BK

G-5BK

G-6

BK

G-7

TP

-5T

P-6

TP

-7T

P-8

TP

-4

TP

-9

TP

-10

TP

-11

TP

-12

TP

-13

SB

-3

A-4

A-8

A-9

A-1

2

A-1

5

A-1

6

A-3

0

BK

G-2

A-6

A-7

A-1

0A

-11 A-1

3

A-1

4

A-1

7

A-1

8

A-1

9

A-2

2

A-2

4

A-2

3

A-2

6

A-2

7

A-2

9

A-2

8

SB

-10

SB

-16

SB

-17

SB

-18

SB

-19

TP

-1T

P-2T

P-3

SB

-5

SB

-4

SB

-1

VO

Cx

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

thal

ene

MT

BE

PC

Bs

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

A-1

-W

A-2

0

VO

Cx

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

thal

ene

MT

BE

PC

Bs

<1.0

1.4

1.0

86 <1.0

<1.0

A-5

-W

VO

Cx

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

thal

ene

MT

BE

PC

Bs

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

A-2

1-W

VO

Cx

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

thal

ene

MT

BE

PC

Bs

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

A-2

5-W

VO

Cx

Ben

zene

Tolu

ene

Nap

thal

ene

MT

BE

PC

Bs

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

A-3

-WV

OC

xB

enze

neTo

luen

eN

apth

alen

eM

TB

EP

CB

s

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

A-2

-W

TE

PH

Tolu

ene

Xyl

enes

PC

P

<200

01.

5<2

.0<0

.2

SB

-11W

1

TE

PH

Tolu

ene

Xyl

enes

PC

PSB

-13W

1

TE

PH

Tolu

ene

Xyl

enes

PC

P

<130

2.5

2.5

<0.2

SB

-14W

1

TE

PH

Tolu

ene

Xyl

enes

PC

P

SB

-12W

1S

B-1

2W3

490

<1.0

<2.0

0.08

4

730

<1.0

<2.0

0.05

63

340

<1.0

<2.0

<0.2

PC

E2.

1S

B-3

CS

24.

2S

B-6

APPENDIX A

TABLES OF PREVIOUSANALYTICAL RESULTS

APPENDIX B

BORING LOGS

Documents

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER … · Subsurface Investigation – USACOE – Sausalito, CA Page 1 of 19 1. INTRODUCTION A Subsurface Investigation of Soil and Ground