November 8, 2012 Mr. Ed Jones Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452 Re: Progress Report – July through September 2012 Art Brass Plating, Seattle, Washington Agreed Order No. DE 5296 Project No. 050067-009A-02 Dear Ed: This progress report summarizes activities conducted on the Art Brass Plating project for the period July through September 2012. This work is being completed per the referenced Agreed Order between Art Brass Plating (Art Brass) and the Department of Ecology (Ecology). Activities during Reporting Period Activities completed during the reporting period are summarized below. Remedial Investigation The following RI activities were completed during this reporting period: On September 27, 2012, Aspect submitted a revised draft of the Remedial Investigation report to Ecology. The third quarter of groundwater monitoring was completed September 17 through 25, 2012. Results will be provided in the next progress report. Art Brass coordinated in advance with PSC and Blaser Die Casting prior to making a round of water level measurements on August 10, 2012. Water level measurements collected by Art Brass are provided in Table 1 and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 1. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the water table, shallow, and intermediate intervals are provided on Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively. EcoChem, Inc has validated data from the June groundwater sampling event. Validated results are presented in Table 2. Lab certificates and the EcoChem validation reports are provided in Appendix A. Figures 5 through 8 depict groundwater concentrations of COCs. For monitoring well locations, the June 2012 value is presented in Figures 5 through 8. Previous results from prior groundwater grab samples as well as data from Blaser Die Casting and Capital Industries are also presented on the figures. Where multiple grab samples were collected within a given sampling interval, the highest reported value for that interval is depicted on the figure. earth + water Aspect Consulting, LLC 401 2nd Avenue S. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206.328.7443 www.aspectconsulting.com
152
Embed
Activities during Reporting Period - Aspect Consulting
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
November 8, 2012
Mr. Ed Jones Washington State Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, Washington 98008-5452
Re: Progress Report – July through September 2012 Art Brass Plating, Seattle, Washington Agreed Order No. DE 5296 Project No. 050067-009A-02
Dear Ed:
This progress report summarizes activities conducted on the Art Brass Plating project for the period July through September 2012. This work is being completed per the referenced Agreed Order between Art Brass Plating (Art Brass) and the Department of Ecology (Ecology).
Activities during Reporting Period Activities completed during the reporting period are summarized below.
Remedial Investigation The following RI activities were completed during this reporting period:
On September 27, 2012, Aspect submitted a revised draft of the Remedial Investigation report to Ecology.
The third quarter of groundwater monitoring was completed September 17 through 25, 2012. Results will be provided in the next progress report.
Art Brass coordinated in advance with PSC and Blaser Die Casting prior to making a round of water level measurements on August 10, 2012. Water level measurements collected by Art Brass are provided in Table 1 and monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 1. Groundwater elevation contour maps for the water table, shallow, and intermediate intervals are provided on Figures 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
EcoChem, Inc has validated data from the June groundwater sampling event. Validated results are presented in Table 2. Lab certificates and the EcoChem validation reports are provided in Appendix A.
Figures 5 through 8 depict groundwater concentrations of COCs. For monitoring well locations, the June 2012 value is presented in Figures 5 through 8. Previous results from prior groundwater grab samples as well as data from Blaser Die Casting and Capital Industries are also presented on the figures. Where multiple grab samples were collected within a given sampling interval, the highest reported value for that interval is depicted on the figure.
e a r t h + w a t e r Aspect Consulting, LLC 401 2nd Avenue S. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206.328.7443 www.aspectconsulting.com
Washington State Department of Ecology November 8, 2012 Project No. 050067-009C-02
Page 2
Interim Action Measures The following activities were completed during this reporting period:
The SVE system generally ran continuously during this reporting period. No significant adjustments were made to individual SVE flow rates.
The AS system has remained off since December 2011 as part of planned pulse testing and rebound assessment.
Quarterly groundwater monitoring in September at select near-facility locations to assess rebound potential and in accordance with the approved site-wide groundwater monitoring program.
On September 27, 2012, Aspect submitted a revised draft of the Interim Measure Evaluation to Ecology as an appendix to the Remedial Investigation report.
Performance monitoring of the SVE system was conducted in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan, including:
Monthly monitoring of soil vapor extraction system operating parameters, including air flow rate, vacuum, and VOC/TCE concentrations at each SVE well, vapor sump, trench, and off-gas treatment system;
Monthly monitoring of pressure at soil vapor monitoring points using a micro-manometer;
Monitoring of TCE concentrations at soil vapor monitoring points exhibiting positive pressure, using low-level detector tubes;
Monthly air sampling for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15 laboratory analysis from the treatment system effluent; and
Quarterly air sampling for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15 laboratory analysis from the treatment system influent.
In accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan, this progress report includes interim performance monitoring data, comparison of the effectiveness of the interim measures with design goals, and recommendations to improve system effectiveness, where appropriate.
Interim Performance Monitoring Data – Performance monitoring data for April 2012 through September 2012 are discussed below. Monthly monitoring data are summarized in Tables 3 through 12 for the past year of operation to show trends in performance.
220 Findlay Vapor Mitigation System – The vapor mitigation system at 220 Findlay has operated continuously during the past six months. Vapor migration monitoring at sub-slab monitoring points has consistently demonstrated a negative pressure field extension below the building and no TCE has been detected below the slab.
SVE Operation – The SVE system generally operated continuously over the past six months with the exception of brief shut downs for periodic maintenance.
Washington State Department of Ecology November 8, 2012 Project No. 050067-009C-02
Page 3
SVE Flow Rate and Vacuum – In general an increase in total flow and decrease in vacuum was observed from the end of the previous six month reporting period. During the summer months, lower water table elevation increases length of exposed SVE well screen and there is less condensation in SVE piping to restrict air flow. SVE flow rates and vacuums are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
AS Operation, Flow Rate, and Pressure – The AS system was shut down at the beginning of December 2011 and has remained off as part of a planned pulse testing and rebound assessment. AS flow rates and pressures are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
AS/SVE Balance – The ratio of SVE to AS flow rates has not been a concern because the AS system has remained off since December 2011. AS:SVE flow ratios are summarized in Table 7.
TCE Removal – TCE concentrations extracted by the SVE system have continued to decline without the AS system operating. Only two wells had detectable concentrations of TCE (SVE-3A and SVE-5A) at the end of September 2012. A total of 0.4 pounds have been removed in the past six months as compared to 2 pounds in the previous six month period. TCE concentrations at individual wells are summarized in Table 8. Overall mass removal is summarized in Table 9.
GAC Treatment Effectiveness – There has been no detection of TCE in the effluent vapor stream during the past six months. Effluent TCE concentrations, measured on a monthly basis using SUMMA canisters, are summarized in Table 9. Influent TCE concentrations, measured on a monthly basis using detector tubes and on a quarterly basis using SUMMA canisters, are also summarized in Table 9. Analytical results from influent and effluent samples collected using SUMMA canisters and analyzed for site-specific VOCs by method TO-15 are summarized in Table 10.
SVE Condensate – Based on field observations, condensate does not accumulate at a significant rate in the storage tank. Over the past six months, a negligible amount of condensate has been generated during manual draining of SVE lines using drain valves installed at low points in piping.
Vapor Migration Monitoring – A number of monitoring points have exhibited positive pressure in the past six months of operation. None of these points have had detectable TCE vapors and no corrective action has been taken since the AS system is already off. Vapor pressures and TCE concentrations from vapor migration monitoring are summarized in Tables 11 and 12, respectively.
Vapor Intrusion Groundwater monitoring results were evaluated with respect to VI considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan. The completed
Washington State Department of Ecology November 8, 2012 Project No. 050067-009C-02
Page 4
evaluation worksheets using results of the September monitoring round are attached as Appendix B.
Public Communications The project website was updated with an electronic copy of the previous progress report and the revised Remedial Investigation report. No other public communications were completed during this period.
Anticipated Work in the Upcoming Quarter Work anticipated to be performed during the next progress reporting period (October through December 2012) is summarized below.
Remedial Investigation The following RI activities are anticipated to be performed during the next reporting period:
Negotiate an interim Agreed Order with Ecology to continue monitoring and interim action activities pending negotiation of an Agreed Order for the planned Feasibility Study;
Submit proposed 2013 groundwater monitoring plan to Ecology; and
Complete quarterly groundwater monitoring in December 2012.
Interim Action Measures The following interim measure activities are anticipated to be performed during the next reporting period:
Groundwater monitoring results from April and June indicated a partial rebound in TCE concentrations near the Art Brass facility. The results from September groundwater monitoring will be evaluated to determine whether the trend will continue or level off.
If TCE concentrations continue to rebound, the AS system will remain off through quarterly groundwater sampling in December to further assess whether the trend continues or tapers off. If TCE concentrations show signs of leveling off, the AS system will be restarted as part of planned pulsed operations.
Quarterly groundwater sampling in December at select source area monitoring wells as part of ongoing pulse testing and in accordance with the approved site-wide groundwater monitoring program.
Performance monitoring of the AS/SVE system in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan, including:
Monthly monitoring of soil vapor extraction system operating parameters, including air flow rate, vacuum, and VOC/TCE concentrations at each SVE well, vapor sump, trench, and off-gas treatment system;
Washington State Department of Ecology November 8, 2012 Project No. 050067-009C-02
Page 5
Monthly monitoring of air sparging system operating parameters, including air flow rate and pressure, if the system is re-started as part of planned pulsed operations;
Monthly monitoring of pressure at soil vapor monitoring points using a micro-manometer;
Monitoring of TCE concentrations at soil vapor monitoring points exhibiting positive pressure, using low-level detector tubes;
Monthly air sampling for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15 laboratory analysis from the treatment system effluent; and
Quarterly air sampling for VOCs by EPA Method TO-15 laboratory analysis from the treatment system influent.
Vapor Intrusion December 2012 water table monitoring well sampling results will be evaluated with respect to VI considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the Groundwater Monitoring Plan.
Groundwater Monitoring The next groundwater monitoring event is scheduled for December 2012. The proposed 2013 groundwater monitoring plan will be submitted to Ecology.
Public Communications The project website will be updated with an electronic copy of this progress report. No other public communications are anticipated in the next quarter.
The next progress report, which will summarize activities completed from October through December, will be submitted on or before February 8, 2013. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report or the project, please call at your earliest convenience.
Washington State Department of Ecology November 8, 2012 Project No. 050067-009C-02
Page 6
Attachments Table 1 – Water Level Measurements Table 2 – Validated June 2012 Groundwater Data Table 3 – SVE System Parameters - Flow Rate Table 4 – SVE System Parameters - Vacuum Table 5 – AS System Parameters - Flow Rate Table 6 – AS System Parameters - Pressure Table 7 – AS:SVE Flow Ratio Table 8 – SVE System Parameters - TCE Concentrations Table 9 – TCE Mass Removal and Condensate Monitoring Table 10 – Influent/Effluent Vapor Monitoring Using SUMMA Canisters Table 11 – Soil Vapor Migration Monitoring - Pressure Table 12 – Soil Vapor Migration Monitoring - TCE Concentration Figure 1 – Monitoring Well Location Plan Figure 2 – Groundwater Contour Map, Water Table Interval – August 2012 Figure 3 – Groundwater Contour Map, Shallow Interval – August 2012 Figure 4 – Groundwater Contour Map, Intermediate Interval – August 2012 Figure 5 – Tetrachloroethene (PCE) Occurrence in Groundwater Figure 6 – Trichloroethene (TCE) Occurrence in Groundwater Figure 7 – Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (DCE) Occurrence in Groundwater Figure 8 – Vinyl Chloride Occurrence in Groundwater Appendix A – EcoChem Validation Report and Laboratory Certificates of Analyses Appendix B – VI Evaluation Worksheets using September 2012 Groundwater Quality Results
cc: Mike Merryfield, Art Brass Plating, Inc. William Joyce, Salter Joyce Ziker Tong Li, Groundwater Solutions
Email with link to electronic copy on project website: Janet Knox, Pacific Groundwater Group Peter Jewett, Farallon Consulting Bill Carroll, Arrow Environmental Bill Beck, PSC
V:\050067 Art Brass Plating\Progress Reports\2012 Q3\ABP Progress Report Q3 2012.doc
Table 1 - Water Level MeasurementsArt Brass Plating - 050067
* Groundwater elevations calculated using Serfes method for a 72-hour tidal cycle
For the December 2008 groundwater monitoring event, the air sparging component of the remediation system was on. This has influenced some of the water levels in wells located within or near the facility.
Based on data available from surrounding water table wells, the water level measured at PZ-1 appears anomalous. The piezometer will be redeveloped and water levels will be reassessed during the May area-wide water level measurement event.
"NM" = Not measured
Aspect Consulting11/8/2012V:\050067 Art Brass Plating\Progress Reports\2012 Q3\Table 1 - Water Level Measurements
Table 1Page 2 of 4
Table 1 - Water Level MeasurementsArt Brass Plating - 050067
* Groundwater elevations calculated using Serfes method for a 72-hour tidal cycle (10/24-26/2010)
For the December 2008 groundwater monitoring event, the air sparging component of the remediation system was on. This has influenced some of the water levels in wells located within or near the facility.
Based on data available from surrounding water table wells, the water level measured at PZ-1 appears anomalous. The piezometer will be redeveloped and water levels will be reassessed during the May area-wide water level measurement event.
"NM" = Not measured
Aspect Consulting11/8/2012V:\050067 Art Brass Plating\Progress Reports\2012 Q3\Table 1 - Water Level Measurements
MetalsDissolved Cadmium in ug/L 0.25 0.25 0.1 U 0.1 UDissolved Copper in ug/L 3.1 3.1 0.9 0.5 UDissolved Nickel in ug/L 8.2 8.2 0.9 0.5 UDissolved Zinc in ug/L 81 81 4 U 4 UTotal Cadmium in ug/L 0.25 0.25 0.1 U 0.1 UTotal Copper in ug/L 3.1 3.1 7.2 3.7Total Nickel in ug/L 8.2 8.2 7.8 2.5Total Zinc in ug/L 81 81 35 33
Volatile Organic Compounds1,1,1‐Trichloroethane in ug/L 11 11 0.4 U 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.4 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 4.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 0.4 U 4.0 U 20 U 0.4 U 40 U 0.2 U 10 U1,1‐Dichloroethane in ug/L 47 47 1.2 0.8 1.0 U 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.2 1.4 2.4 2.6 4.0 U 6.5 J 22 5.2 5.6 1.4 21 26 16 34 J 0.2 U 211,1‐Dichloroethene in ug/L 25 25 0.5 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.1 J 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.3 J 0.4 0.1 J 4.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 3.0 J 3.0 J 3.9 2.4 J 20 U 0.4 U 40 U 0.2 U 10 U1,2‐Dichloroethane (EDC) in ug/L 13 25 0.4 U 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.4 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 4.0 U 10 U 1.0 4.0 U 4.0 U 0.4 U 4.0 U 20 U 0.4 U 40 U 0.2 U 10 UChloroethane in ug/L 461 461 0.4 U 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.4 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 4.0 U 10 U 1.1 4.0 U 4.0 U 0.4 U 4.0 U 20 U 1.6 40 U 0.2 U 10 Ucis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene (DCE) in ug/L 590 590 800 3.6 30 17 9.8 2.3 3.8 9.3 1.7 11 880 270 19 520 550 69 160 92 0.9 220 0.2 U 82Tetrachloroethene (PCE) in ug/L 3.3 3.3 0.4 U 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.4 U 0.2 U 0.2 U 4.0 U 10 U 1.0 U 4.0 U 4.0 U 0.4 U 4.0 U 20 U 0.4 U 40 U 0.2 U 10 Utrans‐1,2‐Dichloroethene in ug/L 56 3,500 14 0.2 J 1.0 U 0.8 0.5 0.2 J 0.1 J 0.9 0.2 U 0.2 J 25 10 U 1.0 U 3.0 J 3.4 J 5.6 2.0 J 20 U 0.4 U 40 U 0.2 U 10 UTrichloroethene (TCE) in ug/L 6.8 30 260 4.1 32 40 22 36 39 120 16 38 760 1,600 1.0 U 110 120 100 1,100 3,600 0.4 U 8,200 0.5 1,900Vinyl chloride in ug/L 1.3 2.4 0.3 J 0.2 U 1.0 U 0.2 U 0.5 0.2 U 0.2 U 0.2 J 0.2 0.3 4.0 U 5.5 J 97 19 19 28 22 41 68 28 J 14 30Total Chlorinated Ethenes in umol/L 10 0.074 0.58 0.49 0.28 0.3 0.34 1.0 0.15 0.41 15 15 1.8 6.6 7.0 2.0 10 29 1.1 66 0.23 16
(1) TCE concentrations measured using detector tubes, unless TO-15 analysis was available. Concentrations shown in italics were measured using TO-15 analysis.
(2) Total air discharge volume values are estimated using the vacuum recorded at the blower and the blower curve.
(3) Where detector tubes indicated non-detect results for influent TCE concentrations, half the detection limit was assumed (0.0625 ppm). Starting in January 2012, the previous TO-15 analysis result was assumed if it was lower than the detection limit of the detector tube.
Period Start
Hours of operation per
period
Cumulative hours of
operationPeriod End
Total air discharge volume in
scfm (2)
Cumulative TCE mass
extracted in pounds
TCE concentration(1)
Condensate Collected (gallons)
Aspect Consulting11/8/2012V:\050067 Art Brass Plating\Progress Reports\2012 Q3\Table 9_mass removal
Table 9Page 1 of 1
Table 10 - Influent/Effluent Vapor Monitoring Using SUMMA CanistersArt Brass Plating Interim Action
1/3/2012 -0.957 0.344 -0.426 -0.180 -0.015 -0.001 -0.007 -0.046 -0.404 0.000 0.660 -1.789 -1.159 -0.089 0.084 <-3 -1.387 -0.149 AS system shut down in December
3/30/2012 water <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
4/27/2012 water <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
6/1/2012 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
6/29/2012 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
8/2/2012 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
9/4/2012 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125 <0.125
9/25/2012 <0.125 <0.125
Notes:
(2) Bold values indicate an increase in TCE concentration from baseline.
(3) Baseline measurements were taken before system startup.
(4) Shaded cells indicate monitoring not performed.
(5) water = water in tubing
(1) Sampling conducted with low-level TCE detector tubes (125 ppb detection limit). Where non-detect, sampling was conducted with 1-Liter SUMMA canisters on 8/14/2008 and analyzed for VOCs using TO-15. Sample purge rates were approximately 100 mL/min for VP monitoring points, and 3000 mL/min for MW monitoring points (1000 mL/min for MW-6).
Aspect Consulting LLC11/8/2012V:\050067 Art Brass Plating\Progress Reports\2012 Q3\Tables 11-12_vapor migration
Table 12Page 1 of 1
@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A@A
@A
@A@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A @A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A@A@A
@A
@A@A@A
@A@A
@A@A@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A@A
@A@A@A
@A@A@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A@A
@A
@A @A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A
@A@A
@A
@A@A
@A@A
@A@A@A@A@A@A
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY STOH
IO AV
E S
5TH AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S BRANDON ST
2ND AVE S
PZ-01
MW-24
MW-16
MW-15
MW-14
MW-13MW-12
MW-11MW-10
MW-09
MW-08
MW-07 MW-06
MW-05
MW-04MW-03MW-02
MW-01
MW-24-50MW-24-30
MW-23-50MW-23-30
MW-22-50MW-22-30
MW-21-75MW-21-50
MW-19-60MW-19-40
MW-18-70 MW-18-50
MW-17-60MW-17-40
MW-16-75MW-16-40
MW-11-30
MW-08-70MW-08-30
MW-06-30
AB-CG-142-70
AB-CG-140-70
PSC-CG-151-25
PSC-CG-145-35
PSC-CG-144-35
PSC-CG-143-WTPSC-CG-143-40
PSC-CG-142-WTPSC-CG-142-40
PSC-CG-140-40PSC-CG-140-30
PSC-CG-139-40
PSC-CG-138-WT
PSC-CG-138-70PSC-CG-138-40
PSC-CG-135-50PSC-CG-135-40
PMW-01
CI-MW-08
CI-MW-07 CI-MW-06
CI-MW-05
CI-MW-04CI-MW-03
CI-MW-02
CI-15-60CI-15-40
CI-14-WTCI-14-70CI-14-35
CI-12-WT
CI-12-60CI-12-30
CI-10-WT
CI-10-65CI-10-35
CI-09-WT CI-09-70CI-09-40
CI-08-60CI-08-40
CI-07-60CI-07-40
BDC-11-WTBDC-11-60BDC-11-40
BDC-10-60BDC-10-40
BDC-06-WT
BDC-04-WT
BDC-03-WTBDC-03-60
BDC-03-40BDC-02-WT
BDC-01-WT
CI-MW-01-WTCI-MW-01-60
PSC-CG-141-WT
PSC-CG-141-50PSC-CG-141-40
PSC-CG-137-WT
PSC-CG-137-50PSC-CG-137-40
PSC-CG-136-WTPSC-CG-136-40
BDC-06-60BDC-06-30
CI-MW-01-40
MW-27
MW-26-55MW-26-40
MW-25-75MW-25-50 MW-20-60
MW-20-40
MW-03-50MW-03-30
PSC-CG-134-WTPSC-CG-134-40
PSC-CG-131-WTPSC-CG-131-40
PSC-CG-130-WT
GIS Path: T:\projects_8\Artbrass\RI_Workplan\Delivered\Progress_Reports\Nov2012\01_MW_Loc_Plan.mxd || Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 10/30/2012 || User: pwittman || Print Date: 10/30/2012
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
1OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 200 400
Feet
Monitoring Well Location PlanArt Brass Plating RI
Quarter 3 2012 Progress ReportSeattle, Washington
Well Locations@A Art Brass Plating Network Wells @A Network Wells Monitored by Others
Art Brass Plating RIQuarter 3 2012 Progress Report
Seattle, Washington
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
4OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:DFR / PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 300150
Feet
Well ID
water levelelevationin feet †‡
† Water level measurements from 08/10/2012. Vertical datum is NAVD88.MW-24-30 (5.58*)
Wells Locations andWater Level Measurements:
Water level measured by:Art Brass PlatingBlaser Die CastingCapital Industries
!H
!H
!H
Well labels:
0.5 ft Groundwater Elevation Contours†!9.0
NOTES:
Duwamish Channel Circa 1917
‡ An asterisk (*) following a groundwater elevation label indicates that that elevation is tidally-averaged.
Duwamish Waterway
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
") ") ") ") ") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")")
")")") ")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")")
")
")")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")")")
")")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ") ") ") ")")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")")
") ")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")")")")")")")
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.0
8.0
8.5
5.5
9.0
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE SE MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
1
26
0.6
0.8
6.2
0.5
1.7
0.4J
0.3J
0.3J
0
9323
26
2.8
0.1
0.1
1.80.4
0.10.1
0.3
0.1
0.8
1.4 3.49.6 6.6
0.2J
0.2J
GIS Pa
th: T:
\proj
ects_
8\Art
brass
\RI_W
orkpla
n\De
livere
d\Pro
gress
_Rep
orts\
Nov2
012\
05_P
CE.m
xd
||
Coord
inate
Syste
m: N
AD 19
83 St
atePla
ne W
ashin
gton N
orth F
IPS 46
01 Fe
et |
| D
ate Sa
ved:
10/3
0/20
12
||
User:
pwittm
an
||
Print
Date
: 10/
30/2
012
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)Occurrence in Groundwater
Art Brass Plating RIQuarter 3 2012 Progress Report
Seattle, Washington
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
5OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 400 800
Feet
WATER TABLE INTERVAL
") ")
")
")")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
6.06.5
7.07.5
5.5
8.0 8.5 9.09.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
0
0
2731
0.1
SHALLOW INTERVAL
")")
")")")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
9.59.08.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
1.7
0.1
INTERMEDIATE INTERVAL
Groundwater Sample Locations:Geoprobe data shown on this map reflectsthe maximum concentration detected at thatsample location in the given interval.Sample Location Symbol Color:
Well!( Geoprobe")
Not Detected, No Exceedance$%
Detected, No Exceedance$%
Data Notes:
Well data shown on this map reflects themost recent sample collected at that well inthe given interval.Data Labels:Locations with detections are labeledwith the concentration (in µg/L).
Wells Geoprobes
Half-foot Groundwater ElevationContours from August, 2012Site-Wide Monitoring Event(NAVD88 Vertical Datum)
0 400 800
Feet
0 400 800
Feet
8.0
Water Table IntervalScreening Levels:
PCE: 3.3 µg/L(
TCE: 6.8 µg/L(
Shallow IntervalScreening Levels:
PCE: 3.3 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
Intermediate IntervalScreening Levels:
PCE: 3.3 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
PCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
Detected Above Screening Level$%
Not Detected(Detection Limit > Screening Level)$%
TCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
")100!(100 ")0.8!(0.8
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
")") ") ")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
") ") ") ") ")")
")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")")
")") ")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")
")
")
") ") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")
")")")")")
") ") ")
")
")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.0
8.0
8.5
5.5
9.0
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE SE MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
0
62
13
20
1039
36 224032
38
16
19
87
59
10
23
36
2735
6.2
1.1 0.2
9.9
0.3
760120 4.15.6
0.4
3.44.44.6
1.30.6
140
1
00
3
2
84
40
66
0J0J 0J0J
0J
0J0J
0J
0J58 49
2410
13
3411
444018
41 65 21 3538
74
1.3
2303.3
0.9 0.49.3
4.2
0.93.5
5308.2
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.5
8.8
2.8
145
666
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.40.4
0.1 1.72.33.3
0.2
2.87.4
1.80.1
0.1
0.1
2.5
4.6
9.6
4.41.5
0.20.6 0.4
120370
510100 1.5
8.9280
0.3
520410
230
0.2
2.3
1000 1800
19.1
47.70.6J
GIS Pa
th: T:
\proj
ects_
8\Art
brass
\RI_W
orkpla
n\De
livere
d\Pro
gress
_Rep
orts\
Nov2
012\
06_T
CE.m
xd
||
Coord
inate
Syste
m: N
AD 19
83 St
atePla
ne W
ashin
gton N
orth F
IPS 46
01 Fe
et |
| D
ate Sa
ved:
10/3
0/20
12
||
User:
pwittm
an
||
Print
Date
: 10/
30/2
012
Trichloroethene (TCE)Occurrence in Groundwater
Art Brass Plating RIQuarter 3 2012 Progress Report
Seattle, Washington
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
6OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 400 800
Feet
WATER TABLE INTERVAL
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
") ")") ") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
") ") ")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
") ")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(6.06.5
7.07.5
5.5
8.0 8.5 9.09.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
22
69
31
4.1
100
120
980
2.49.6
6.3
1100
1600
0
11
0
12
98
3191
103910
14
21
710
570
0.6
390
920
220
6.1
410
1203.4
2.2
473 536
1.3
307
4.9
0.1
0.1
0.3
1502.1 1.1
1.8130
730
9.1
0.2
230
39001800
0.3J
5500
1900
2100
0.1J
150078.6
12.5
0.6J14000
SHALLOW INTERVAL
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
9.59.08.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
1
580 36
0.70.2
1.4
0.1
1.5
2700
54
1.4
2.2
17000.5
73
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4J
12 13
1J
87
800 11000
0.6
3600
4.21900
76
INTERMEDIATE INTERVAL
Groundwater Sample Locations:Geoprobe data shown on this map reflectsthe maximum concentration detected at thatsample location in the given interval.
Well!( Geoprobe")
Data Notes:
Well data shown on this map reflects themost recent sample collected at that well inthe given interval.Data Labels:
Half-foot Groundwater ElevationContours from August, 2012Site-Wide Monitoring Event(NAVD88 Vertical Datum)
0 400 800
Feet
0 400 800
Feet
8.0
TCE: 30 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
TCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)Sample Location Symbol Color:
Not Detected, No Exceedance$%
Detected, No Exceedance$%
Water Table IntervalScreening Level:
Shallow IntervalScreening Level:
Intermediate IntervalScreening Level:
Detected Above Screening Level$%
Not Detected(Detection Limit > Screening Level)$%
TCE: 6.8 µg/L(
Locations with detections are labeledwith the concentration (in µg/L).
Wells Geoprobes")100!(100 ")0.8!(0.8
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")")
")
")
") ")
")
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")")")")
") ") ") ")
")")
")
")")")
")")
")") ")")")
")
")
")
")
") ")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
") ")")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
") ")
")
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.0
8.0
8.5
5.5
9.0
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE SE MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
2
46
31
15
1730
11
53
24
11
11
31
83
1.2
0.5
1.6
2.4
8809.33.8
2.39.8 3.61.7
0.5
2.90.8
3.3
3.9
1.80.3
9.86.6
0.2
0.4J
2
1
5
26455
2
80
24
8024
24
15
2625 35
63
3313
10
25482215
20 25 50
11
28
3549
5622
2.7
0.30.40.5
0.90.5
180
2.20.40.30.30.2
210
7.2
9.3
2.3
6.9
1501.4
5.7
7.2
6.2
2.1
1.1 4.2
425
5.8
1.7
6.5
8.9
7.6
1.54.6
0.70.2
1.3
2.6
4.8
120 0.6
430150
280150
140
1.6
1.5
2.6
4.1 8.6
250110
3.8
42.6
0.2J
40.2
33.6
30.5
0.6J
0.5J
0.5J
22.60.3J
0.1J
0.6J
1.8J
GIS Pa
th: T:
\proj
ects_
8\Art
brass
\RI_W
orkpla
n\De
livere
d\Pro
gress
_Rep
orts\
Nov2
012\
07_D
CE.m
xd
||
Coord
inate
Syste
m: N
AD 19
83 St
atePla
ne W
ashin
gton N
orth F
IPS 46
01 Fe
et |
| D
ate Sa
ved:
10/3
0/20
12
||
User:
pwittm
an
||
Print
Date:
10/3
0/20
12
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (DCE)Occurrence in Groundwater
Art Brass Plating RIQuarter 3 2012 Progress Report
Seattle, Washington
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
7OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 400 800
Feet
WATER TABLE INTERVAL
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")")")")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
")
")")
") ") ")
")
")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
6.06.5
7.07.5
5.5
8.0 8.5 9.09.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
7
4
36
12
69
19
18
1950
22
26
21
20
13
1.7
4.37.2
5.80.7
160
550
270
120
5.8
2.5
1.2
1.2
0.4
5.3
9.8
0.1J
0.1J
0.1J
0.1J
3
3
53
539
59
22
49
61
31
3642
49
23
27
37
61 774212
17
3143
12
3729584827165599
23 40 1214
92 53 49 26 28 15
31
41
11
1125
18
11
21
34
25
54
15
54
120
2.61.4
170
230
220
260
0.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
3.6
110580
160
268
3.5
109
6.9
1.53.2
107
3.44.6
1.6150120
0.5
8.5
240
7.6
2.5
0.1J
30.9
12.8
15.8
35.2
10.5
24.8
1.8J
SHALLOW INTERVAL
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(9.59.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
70
18
82
92
0.8
220
2.3
0.9
1.4
3.7
0.3
0.6
1.72
036
93
63 1151
97
7529
63J
110
7.9
2.6
1.2220
180
0.4
0.2
340
1.4
7.5
3.4
0.5
3.1
8.3
0.830.1
INTERMEDIATE INTERVAL
Groundwater Sample Locations:Geoprobe data shown on this map reflectsthe maximum concentration detected at thatsample location in the given interval.
Well!( Geoprobe")
Data Notes:
Well data shown on this map reflects themost recent sample collected at that well inthe given interval.Data Labels: Half-foot Groundwater Elevation
Contours from August, 2012Site-Wide Monitoring Event(NAVD88 Vertical Datum)
0 400 800
Feet
0 400 800
Feet
8.0
DCE: 590 µg/L(
TCE: 6.8 µg/L(
DCE: 590 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
DCE: 590 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
DCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
Sample Location Symbol Color:
Not Detected, No Exceedance$%
Detected, No Exceedance$%
Water Table IntervalScreening Levels:
Shallow IntervalScreening Levels:
Intermediate IntervalScreening Levels:
Detected Above Screening Level$%
Not Detected(Detection Limit > Screening Level)$%
TCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
Locations with detections are labeledwith the concentration (in µg/L).
Wells Geoprobes")100!(100 ")0.8!(0.8
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")")")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")") ")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ") ") ")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")")")")")")")
")
")
")")
") ")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
") ")
") ")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
") ")")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")")
")")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")")
") ") ") ") ")
")
")")
")
")
")")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")")
") ") ")
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.0
8.0
8.5
5.5
9.0
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE SE MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
00
0
0
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.40.3
0.7
3.6
5.3
0.10.1
0.2J 0.3J
0
8
1
0
0
0
5
1
646
3 75
4
99
0J
0J0J
0J
0J
0J
27
15
1.63.2
0.81.1 0.2
0.4
0.8
0.5 0.6
3.4
2.6
0.7
104
0.3
1.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.70.3
0.10.1
0.60.7
1.7
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.2
5.1
0.32.52.6
0.3
15.6
71.1
33.6
17.915.8
1.4J1.1J
1.8J
0.8J
GIS Pa
th: T:
\proj
ects_
8\Art
brass
\RI_W
orkpla
n\De
livere
d\Pro
gress
_Rep
orts\
Nov2
012\
08_V
C.mxd
||
Co
ordina
te Sy
stem:
NAD
1983
State
Plane
Was
hingto
n Nort
h FIPS
4601
Feet
||
Date
Save
d: 10
/30/
2012
||
Us
er: pw
ittman
||
Pr
int D
ate: 1
0/30
/201
2
Vinyl ChlorideOccurrence in Groundwater
Art Brass Plating RIQuarter 3 2012 Progress Report
Seattle, Washington
C O N SU LTI N G
FIGURE NO.
8OCT-2012PROJECT NO.050067
BY:PPW
REV BY:- - -
0 400 800
Feet
WATER TABLE INTERVAL
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
") ") ")
")
") ") ") ") ") ") ") ")
")
")
") ") ") ")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
6.06.5
7.07.5
5.5
8.0 8.5 9.09.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
5
1
2
32
0J
72
61
11
12
22
28
22
19
97
38
55
1327
0.6
4.1
170
4.9
1.5
0.5
8.35.5
2.2
5.3
1.5
2.3
0.3
2.7
1.8
0.8
9.3
6.6
0.8
2.2
8.3
5.5J
4
6
8
5
41
9239
41
18
58
61
2J
18
18 5032
19
2913
6274
1111451518811941
621J 11 41 20 11 24
67
65
11
28
1111
1329
48
41
13
26
140
19J
6.9
0.6
0.4
200
2.2
73J
2.6
5.1
2.8
2.8
3.3
2.7
168
4.45.5
597
3.1 9.2
7.59.8
150120
170220260
780
290 110 120
0.87.9
130
270
130
120120J
11.116.8
60.677.9
58.8
12.1
32.8
58.2
79.8
11.528.6
SHALLOW INTERVAL
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
") ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
") ") ")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
9.59.08.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
DUWAMISH WATERWAY
S LUCILE ST
S ORCAS ST
S MEAD ST
S FIDALGO ST
6TH AVE S
4TH AVE S
1ST AVE S
S FINDLAY ST
2ND AVE S
OHIO
AVE S
5TH AVE S
DENVER AVE S
E MARGINAL WAY S (HWY 99)
S FIDALGO ST
S FIDALGO ST
S LUCILE ST
5
2
4
30
1432
68
41
99
12110
0.8
1.1 0.30.6
0.2
0.6
6.50.4
2.4110
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
2.3
2.2
1.8
37
56
20
40
91
15
45
2650
1444
61
11
12
17
2469200
1.4
6.2
1.1
8.4
0.3
6.6
290
8.2
0.10.4
2.8
1.6
6.1
3.3
7.43.3
0.5
0.32.9
130
270
1.9
1.2
0.3J
190J
23.3
29.5
INTERMEDIATE INTERVAL
Groundwater Sample Locations:Geoprobe data shown on this map reflectsthe maximum concentration detected at thatsample location in the given interval.
Well!( Geoprobe")
Data Notes:
Well data shown on this map reflects themost recent sample collected at that well inthe given interval.Data Labels: Half-foot Groundwater Elevation
Contours from August, 2012Site-Wide Monitoring Event(NAVD88 Vertical Datum)
0 400 800
Feet
0 400 800
Feet
8.0
VC: 1.3 µg/L(
TCE: 6.8 µg/L(
VC: 2.4 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
VC: 2.4 µg/L(
TCE: 30 µg/L(
VC Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
Sample Location Symbol Color:
Not Detected, No Exceedance$%
Detected, No Exceedance$%
Water Table IntervalScreening Levels:
Shallow IntervalScreening Levels:
Intermediate IntervalScreening Levels:
Detected Above Screening Level$%
Not Detected(Detection Limit > Screening Level)$%
TCE Isoconcentration Line(at Screening Level)
Locations with detections are labeledwith the concentration (in µg/L).
Wells Geoprobes")100!(100 ")0.8!(0.8
APPENDIX A
EcoChem Validation Report and Laboratory Certificates of Analyses
EcoChern, INC. Environmental Dolo QUClllty
DATA VALIDATION REPORT
Art Brass Plating Groundwater Monitoring - 2nd Quarter 2012
Approved for Release:
Prepared for:
Aspect Consulting 350 Madison Avenue North
Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110
Prepared by:
EcoChem, Inc. lO l l Western Avenue, Suite lOll
Seattle, Washington 98104
EcoChem Project: C22802-16
June 8, 2012
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Basis for Data Validation
This report summarizes the results of compliance review (EPA Stage 2A) performed on groundwater, field quality control (QC), and laboratory QC data for Art Brass Plating quarterly monitoring. A complete list of samples is provided in the Sample Index.
Samples were analyzed by Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI), Tukwila, Washington. The analytical methods and EcoChem project chemists are listed below.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) SW 9060M Alkalinity, Bicarbonate, Carbonate, Hydroxide SM 2320
Chloride, Ortho-Phosphate, Sulfate EPA 300.0
Sulfide EPA 376.2 Total Cyanide SM4500-CN-E
Mary Sam Michela Powell-Hernandez
The data were reviewed using guidance and quality control criteria documented in the analytical methods; the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Art Brass Plating (Sept. 25, 2008); National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (USEPA 1999), and National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review (USEPA 1994 & 2004).
EcoChem’s goal in assigning data validation qualifiers is to assist in proper data interpretation. If values are estimated (assigned a J), data may be used for site evaluation purposes; but reasons for data qualification should be taken into consideration when interpreting sample concentrations. Data that have been labeled as do-not-report (DNR) should not be used for any purpose. Values with no data qualifier meet all data measurement quality objectives and are acceptable for use.
Data qualifier definitions, reason codes, and validation criteria are included as Appendix A. A Qualified Data Summary Table is included in Appendix B. Data Validation Worksheets and communications will be kept on file at EcoChem, Inc. A qualified laboratory electronic data deliverable (EDD) is also submitted with this report.
cjw 6/8/2012 i EcoChem, Inc. \\505-sv1\finaldoc\aspect 228\22802 abp\22802016\22802016_cover.docx
SAMPLE INDEXAspect Consulting - Art Brass Plating
SDG Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix VOCTotal
MetalsDissolved
MetalsTotal
Mercury Cyanide
O-PhosphorousSulfate
Chloride Sulfide Alkalinity TOCUP03 MW‐16‐40‐040212 12‐5864‐UP03A Water UP03 MW‐16‐75‐040212 12‐5865‐UP03B Water UP03 MW‐16‐040212 12‐5866‐UP03C Water UP03 MW‐8‐70‐040212 12‐5867‐UP03D Water UP03 MW‐8‐040212 12‐5868‐UP03E Water UP03 MW‐8‐30‐040212 12‐5869‐UP03F Water UP03 MW‐8‐30‐040212‐D 12‐5870‐UP03G Water UP03 MW‐3‐50‐040212 12‐5871‐UP03H Water UP03 MW‐3‐30‐040212 12‐5872‐UP03I Water UP03 MW‐3‐040212 12‐5873‐UP03J Water UP03 MW‐3‐040212‐D 12‐5873‐UP03K Water UP03 MW‐6‐30‐040312 12‐5875‐UP03L Water UP03 MW‐6‐040312 12‐5876‐UP03M Water UP03 MW‐2‐040312 12‐5877‐UP03N Water UP03 MW‐1‐040312 12‐5878‐UP03O Water UP03 MW‐4‐040312 12‐5879‐UP03P Water UP03 MW‐5‐040312 12‐5880‐UP03Q Water UP03 MW‐17‐60‐040312 12‐5881‐UP03R Water UP03 MW‐17‐40‐040312 12‐5882‐UP03S Water UP03 TB‐1‐040312 12‐5883‐UP03T Water UP03 MW‐16‐40‐040212 12‐5884‐UP03U Water UP03 MW‐16‐75‐040212 12‐5885‐UP03V Water UP03 MW‐16‐040212 12‐5886‐UP03W Water UP03 MW‐8‐040212 12‐5887‐UP03X Water UP03 MW‐8‐30‐040212 12‐5888‐UP03Y Water UP03 MW‐8‐30‐040212‐D 12‐5888‐UP03Z Water UP03 MW‐3‐50‐040212 12‐5890‐UP03AA Water UP03 MW‐3‐30‐040212 12‐5891‐UP03AB Water UP03 MW‐3‐040212 12‐5892‐UP03AC Water UP03 MW‐6‐30‐040312 12‐5893‐UP03AD Water UP03 MW‐6‐040312 12‐5894‐UP03AE Water UP03 MW‐2‐040312 12‐5895‐UP03AF Water UP03 MW‐1‐040312 12‐5896‐UP03AG Water
6/8/20123:00 PM\\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016 SI QDST.xlsSI Page 1 of 3 EcoChem, Inc.
SAMPLE INDEXAspect Consulting - Art Brass Plating
SDG Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix VOCTotal
MetalsDissolved
MetalsTotal
Mercury Cyanide
O-PhosphorousSulfate
Chloride Sulfide Alkalinity TOCUP03 MW‐4‐040312 12‐5897‐UP03AH Water UP03 MW‐5‐040312 12‐5898‐UP03AI Water UP53 MW‐9‐040412 12‐6133‐UP53A Water UP53 MW‐13‐040412 12‐6134‐UP53B Water UP53 MW‐15‐040412 12‐6135‐UP53C Water UP53 MW‐15‐040412‐D 12‐6136‐UP53D Water UP53 MW‐11‐040412 12‐6137‐UP53E Water UP53 MW‐11‐040412‐D 12‐6138‐UP53F Water UP53 MW‐11‐30‐040412 12‐6139‐UP53G Water UP53 MW‐7‐040412 12‐6140‐UP53H Water UP53 PMW‐1‐040412 12‐6141‐UP53I Water UP53 MW‐14‐040412 12‐6142‐UP53J Water UP53 MW‐12‐040412 12‐6143‐UP53K Water UP53 MW‐27‐040512 12‐6144‐UP53L Water UP53 PSC‐CG‐135‐50‐040512 12‐6145‐UP53M Water UP53 MW‐10‐040512 12‐6146‐UP53N Water UP53 MW‐19‐60‐040512 12‐6147‐UP53O Water UP53 MW‐19‐40‐040512 12‐6148‐UP53P Water UP53 MW‐25‐75‐040512 12‐6149‐UP53Q Water UP53 MW‐25‐50‐040512 12‐6150‐UP53R Water UP53 PSC‐138‐70‐040512 12‐6151‐UP53S Water UP53 PSC‐138‐WT‐040512 12‐6152‐UP53T Water UP53 MW‐9‐040412 12‐6153‐UP53U Water UP53 MW‐13‐040412 12‐6154‐UP53V Water UP53 MW‐7‐040412 12‐6155‐UP53W Water UP53 MW‐14‐040412 12‐6156‐UP53X Water UP53 MW‐12‐040412 12‐6157‐UP53Y Water UP53 MW‐27‐040512 12‐6158‐UP53Z Water UP54 MW‐18‐70‐040612 12‐6159‐UP54A Water UP54 MW‐18‐50‐040612 12‐6160‐UP54B Water UP54 MW‐26‐55‐040612 12‐6161‐UP54C Water UP54 MW‐26‐40‐040612 12‐6162‐UP54D Water UP54 MW‐21‐75‐040612 12‐6163‐UP54E Water
6/8/20123:00 PM\\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016 SI QDST.xlsSI Page 2 of 3 EcoChem, Inc.
SAMPLE INDEXAspect Consulting - Art Brass Plating
SDG Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix VOCTotal
MetalsDissolved
MetalsTotal
Mercury Cyanide
O-PhosphorousSulfate
Chloride Sulfide Alkalinity TOCUP54 MW‐21‐50‐040612 12‐6164‐UP54F Water UP54 PSC‐142‐WT‐040612 12‐6165‐UP54G Water UP54 PSC‐142‐40‐040612 12‐6166‐UP54H Water UP54 AB‐142‐70‐040612 12‐6167‐UP54I Water UP54 TB‐2‐040612 12‐6168‐UP54J Water UP54 MW‐3‐040612 12‐6169‐UP54K Water UP54 MW‐3‐040612‐D 12‐6169‐UP54L Water UP73 MW‐23‐30‐040912 12‐6272‐UP73A Water UP73 MW‐23‐50‐040912 12‐6273‐UP73B Water UP73 PSC‐151‐25‐040912 12‐6274‐UP73C Water UP73 MW‐22‐30‐040912 12‐6275‐UP73D Water UP73 MW‐22‐50‐040912 12‐6276‐UP73E Water UP73 MW‐24‐040912 12‐6277‐UP73F Water UP73 MW‐20‐60‐041012 12‐6278‐UP73G Water UP73 MW‐20‐40‐041012 12‐6279‐UP73H Water UP73 AB‐140‐70‐041012 12‐6280‐UP73I Water UP73 PSC‐140‐30‐041012 12‐6281‐UP73J Water UP73 MW‐24‐30‐041012 12‐6282‐UP73K Water UP73 MW‐24‐50‐041012 12‐6283‐UP73L Water UP73 TB‐3‐040912 12‐6284‐UP73M Water
6/8/20123:00 PM\\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016 SI QDST.xlsSI Page 3 of 3 EcoChem, Inc.
This report documents the review of analytical data from the analysis of groundwater samples and the associated laboratory and field quality control (QC) samples. Analytical Resources, Inc., Tukwila, Washington, analyzed the samples. Refer to the Sample Index for a list of the individual samples.
SDG Number of Samples Validation Level UP03 17 Groundwater, 1Trip Blank EPA Stage 2A UP53 20 Groundwater EPA Stage 2A
UP54 10 Groundwater, 1 Trip Blank EPA Stage 2A
UP73 13 Groundwater, 1 Trip Blank EPA Stage 2A
I. DATA PACKAGE COMPLETENESS
The laboratory submitted all required deliverables. The laboratory followed adequate corrective action processes and all anomalies were discussed in the case narrative.
II. EDD TO HARDCOPY VERIFICATION
Ten percent (10%) of the results in the laboratory electronic data deliverable (EDD) were verified by comparison to the laboratory data package. No errors were noted.
III. TECHNICAL DATA VALIDATION
The QC requirements that were reviewed are listed below.
Sample Receipt, Preservation, and Holding Times 1 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSD) 1 Blanks (Method and Field) 1 Field Duplicates 1 Surrogates 2 Reported Results Laboratory Control Samples (LCS/LCSD) Reporting Limits
1 Quality control results are discussed below, but no data were qualified. 2 Quality control outliers that impact the reported data were noted. Data qualifiers were issued as discussed below.
Blanks
SDG UP03: One Trip Blank, TB-1-040312, was submitted. No target analytes were detected in this blank.
SDG UP54: One Trip Blank, TB-2-040612, was submitted. No target analytes were detected in this blank.
SDG UP73: One Trip Blank, TB-3-040912, was submitted. No target analytes were detected in this blank.
Surrogates
The surrogate percent recovery (%R) control limits are 80-120%.
SDG UP03: The %R value for the surrogate compound toluene-d8 (156%) was greater than the upper control limit in the original analysis of Sample MW-17-60-040312. The recoveries for the other three surrogates were acceptable; therefore no action was taken.
SDG UP53: The %R value for the surrogate compound toluene-d8 (279%) was greater than the upper control limit in the original analysis of Sample MW-25-50-040512. The recoveries for the other three surrogates were acceptable; therefore no action was taken.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates
SDGs UP54, UP73: Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analyses were not performed for these SDG. Precision and accuracy were evaluated using the laboratory control sample/laboratory control sample duplicate (LCS/LCSD) results.
Field Duplicates
The relative percent difference (RPD) control limit is 35% for results greater than five times the RL. For results less than five times the RL, the difference between the sample and duplicate must be less than the RL.
SDG UP03: One set of field duplicates were submitted: MW-8-30-040212 and MW-8-30-040212-D. All field precision criteria were met.
SDG UP53: Two sets of field duplicates were submitted: MW-15-040412 & MW-15-040412-D and MW-11-040412 & MW-11-040412-D. All field precision criteria were met.
Reported Results
SDG UP03: In the initial analyses of samples MW-1-040312, MW-17-60-040312, MW-16-40-040212, and MW-17-40-040312, the target analytes cis-1,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene exceeded the linear range of the instrument. The results were flagged with an “E” by the laboratory. The samples were re-analyzed at dilution; both sets of data were reported. The results that exceeded the linear range were flagged as do-not-report (DNR-20). Results for all other analytes in the dilutions were flagged do-not-report (DNR-11).
SDG UP53: In the initial analyses of samples PMW-1-040412 and MW-25-50-040512, the target analytes cis-1,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene exceeded the linear range of the instrument. The results were flagged with an “E” by the laboratory. The samples were re-analyzed at dilution; both sets of data were reported. The results that exceeded the linear range were flagged as do-not-report (DNR-20). Results for all other analytes in the dilutions were flagged do-not-report (DNR-11).
SDG UP54: In the initial analyses of Sample MW-26-55-040612, the target analyte trichloroethene exceeded the linear range of the instrument. In Sample MW-26-40-040612, the target analytes cis-1,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene exceeded the linear range. The results were flagged with an “E” by the laboratory. The samples were re-analyzed at dilution; both sets of data were reported. The results that exceeded the linear range were flagged as do-not-report (DNR-20). Results for all other analytes in the dilutions were flagged do-not-report (DNR-11).
SDG UP73: In the initial analyses of Sample MW-22-30-040912, the target analyte cis-1,2-dichloroethene exceeded the linear range of the instrument. In Samples MW-20-60-041012 and MW-20-40-041012, the target analyte vinyl chloride exceeded the linear range. The results were flagged with an “E” by the laboratory. The samples were re-analyzed at dilution; both sets of data were reported. The results that exceeded the linear range were flagged as do-not-report (DNR-20). Results for all other analytes in the dilutions were flagged do-not-report (DNR-11).
IV. Overall Assessment
As was determined by this evaluation, the laboratory followed the specified analytical method. With the exceptions noted above, accuracy was acceptable as demonstrated by the LCS/LCSD MS/MSD, and surrogate recoveries and precision was acceptable as demonstrated by the LCS/LCSD, MS/MSD, and field duplicate RPD values.
Data were flagged as do-not-report (DNR) to indicate which result, from multiple reported analyses, should not be used.
Data flagged DNR should not be used for any purpose. All other data, as reported, are acceptable for use.
DATA VALIDATION REPORT Art Brass Plating
Groundwater Monitoring - 2nd Quarter 2012 Total and Dissolved Metals by Methods 200.8, SW6010C, SW6020A
and Mercury by Method 7470A
This report documents the review of analytical data from the analysis of groundwater samples and the associated laboratory and field quality control (QC) samples. Analytical Resources, Inc., Tukwila, Washington, analyzed the samples. Refer to the Sample Index for a list of the individual samples.
SDG Number of Samples Validation Level UP03 20 Groundwater EPA Stage 2A
UP53 6 Groundwater EPA Stage 2A
UP54 2 Groundwater EPA Stage 2A
I. DATA PACKAGE COMPLETENES
The laboratory submitted all required deliverables. The laboratory followed adequate corrective action processes and all anomalies were discussed in the case narrative.
II. EDD TO HARDCOPY VERIFICATION
Ten percent (10%) of the results in the laboratory EDD were verified by comparison to the laboratory data package. No errors were noted.
III. TECHNICAL DATA VALIDATION
The QC requirements for review are listed below.
Sample Receipt, Preservation, and Holding Times 2 Laboratory Duplicates
1 Quality control results are discussed below, but no data were qualified. 2 Quality control outliers that impact the reported data were noted. Data qualifiers were issued as discussed below.
Matrix Spikes
The percent recovery (%R) control limits are 75-125% for samples where the results do not exceed four times the spike level.
SDG UP03: For QC Sample MW-8-30-040212, the silicon matrix spike was not recovered. The silicon results for all associated samples were estimated (J-8) to indicate a potential low bias.
SDG UP54: A matrix spike was not analyzed for this SDG. Accuracy was evaluated using laboratory control sample (LCS) results.
cjw5/25/2012 MET - 1 EcoChem, Inc. \\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016_MET Report.doc
cjw5/25/2012 MET - 2 EcoChem, Inc. \\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016_MET Report.doc
Laboratory Duplicates
The relative percent difference (RPD) control limit is 20% for results greater than five times the reporting limit (RL). For results less than five times the RL, the difference between the sample and duplicate must be less than the RL.
SDG UP03: Sample MW-8-30-040212 was extracted and analyzed in duplicate. The RPD value for silicon exceeded the control limit (51.5%). Results for this compound were estimated (J-9) for all associated samples.
Field Duplicates
The RPD control limit is 35% for results greater than five times the RL. For results less than five times the RL, the difference between the sample and duplicate must be less than the RL.
SDG UP03: One set of field duplicates was submitted: MW-8-30-040212 & MW-8-30-040212-D. Field precision was acceptable.
SDG UP54: One set of field duplicates was submitted: MW-3-040612 & MW-3-040612-D. Field precision was acceptable.
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
As determined by this evaluation, the laboratory followed the specified analytical methods. With the exceptions noted above, accuracy was acceptable as demonstrated by the matrix spike and laboratory control sample recoveries and precision was acceptable as demonstrated by the laboratory and field duplicate RPD values.
Results were estimated based on matrix spike recovery and laboratory duplicate precision outliers.
This report documents the review of analytical data from the analysis of groundwater samples and the associated laboratory and field quality control (QC) samples. Analytical Resources, Inc., Tukwila, Washington, analyzed the samples. Refer to the Sample Index for a list of the individual samples.
SDG Number of Samples Validation Level UP03 18 Groundwater EPA Stage 2A
The analytical tests that were performed are summarized below:
Parameter Method Total Organic Carbon EPA 9060M
Alkalinity, Bicarbonate, Carbonate, Hydroxide SM 2320
Chloride, Ortho-Phosphorous, Sulfate EPA 300.0
Sulfide EPA 376.2
Total Cyanide SM4500-CN-E
I. DATA PACKAGE COMPLETENESS
The laboratory submitted all required deliverables. The laboratory followed adequate corrective action processes and all anomalies were discussed in the case narrative.
II. EDD TO HARDCOPY VERIFICATION
Ten percent (10%) of the results in the laboratory EDD were verified by comparison to the hardcopy laboratory data package. No errors were noted.
III. TECHNICAL DATA VALIDATION
The QC requirements for review are listed below.
Sample Receipt, Preservation, and Holding Times Laboratory Duplicates Method Blanks 1 Field Duplicates Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Reported Results
1 Quality control results are discussed below, but no data were qualified. 2 Quality control outliers that impact the reported data were noted. Data qualifiers were issued as discussed below.
The percent recovery (%R) control limits are 75-125% for samples where the results do not exceed four times the spike level.
SDG UP03: For QC Sample MW-8-30-040212, the matrix spike (MS) recovery for ortho-phosphorous (70%) was less than the lower control limit. The ortho-phosphorous results for all associated samples were estimated (UJ/J-8) to indicate a potential low bias.
Sulfate was not spiked in the MS sample due to the high sulfate concentration (1150 mg/L) in the native sample. No qualifiers were required.
Reference Materials
The following reference materials were analyzed:
ERA #200610: Ortho-Phosphorus ERA #P114506: Alkalinity (Total) ERA #0523-11-05: Total Organic Carbon ERA #11107: Cyanide (total) ERA #160111: Sulfate ERA #411010: Chloride
All recoveries were within the acceptance limits.
Field Duplicates
The relative percent difference (RPD) control limit is 35% for results greater than five times the reporting limit (RL). For results less than five times the RL, the difference between the sample and duplicate must be less than the RL.
SDG UP03: Samples MW-3-040212 and MW-3-040212-D were identified as field duplicates. All field duplicate precision criteria were met.
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT
As determined by this evaluation, the laboratory followed the specified analytical methods. With the exception noted above, accuracy was acceptable as demonstrated by the matrix spike, laboratory control sample, and reference material recoveries. Precision was acceptable, as demonstrated by the laboratory and field duplicate relative percent difference values and sample replicate percent relative standard deviation values.
Results were estimated based on a matrix spike recovery outlier.
All data, as qualified, are acceptable for use.
APPENDIX A
DATA QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS, REASON CODES, AND CRITERIA TABLES
JC 06/14/95 10:12 AM L:\Integral 221\APPENDIX .DOC
4/16/09 PM EcoChem, Inc. T:\Controlled Docs\Qualifiers & Reason Codes\NFG Qual Defs.doc
DATA VALIDATION QUALIFIER CODES Based on National Functional Guidelines
The following definitions provide brief explanations of the qualifiers assigned to results in the data review process.
U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit.
J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.
NJ The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been “tentatively identified” and the associated numerical value represents the approximate concentration.
UJ The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However, the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in the sample.
R The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze the sample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analyte cannot be verified.
The following is an EcoChem qualifier that may also be assigned during the data review process:
DNR Do not report; a more appropriate result is reported from another analysis or dilution.
DATA QUALIFIER REASON CODES
1 Holding Time/Sample Preservation
2 Chromatographic pattern in sample does not match pattern of calibration standard.
3 Compound Confirmation
4 Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) (associated with NJ only)
6/8/20123:01 PM\\505-sv1\finaldoc\Aspect 228\22802 ABP\22802016\22802016 SI QDST.xlsqdst Page 3 of 3 EcoChem, Inc.
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
25 June 2012
Eric Marhofer Aspect Consulting 401 Second Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Client Project: 050067, Art Brass Plating ARI Job: UY79
Dear Eric:
IL \!
. Please find enclosed the original chain of custody records and the final results for samples from the project referenced above. Analytical Resources, Inc. accepted twenty water samples and one trip blank in good condition on June 14, 2012. The samples were analyzed for VOAs as requested.
There were no incidents of note associated with these analyses.
Copies of these reports and all raw data will be kept on file at ARI. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
>CO{ I) (!;ck/ Mark D. Harris-" Project Manager 206/695-6210 [email protected]
Enclosures
cc: File UY79
MDH/mdh
Page 1 of _Lt...l-L\--'--__
4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100 II Tukwila WA 98168 II 206-695-6200 II 206-695-6201 fax
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request J.\RJ:A~~i~ned,:N~~b~~:::::::>\~n~H.:~:::::::: Turn-around Requested Standard Date: ly \' Analytical Resources, Incorporated :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.' .. :: ... : .... :~ j:::::::: Analytical Chemists and Consultants ARI Client Company: Phone: Page: of ; 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100
Aspect ConsultinQ 206-838-6582 Tukwila, WA 98168 Client Contact:
See Mark Harris for special -) c;:... ~ I t.r- S-+ (t.d er reporting list for vac analysis Company:
)fZ;.~uA--Company:
Aed Company: Company:
.,.. Dissolved metals are field Dar;rt~ 'IL
Date & Time: Date & Time: Date & Time:
filtered. (ISS ifl'1·Jl., I) .s-S'
Limits of Liability: ARI will perform all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology following ARI Standard Operating Procedures and the ARI Quality Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. The tota/liability of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, or successors, arising out of or in connection with the requested services, shall not exceed the Invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI from any liability in excess thereof. not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contract, purchase order or CO-Signed agreement between ARI and the Client.
Sample Retention Policy: Unless specified by workorder or contract, all water/soil samples submitted to ARI will be discarded or returned, no sooner than 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission of hardcopy data, whichever is longer. Sediment samples submitted under PSDDAIPSEP/SMS protocol will be stored frozen for up to one year and then discarded.
I
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request
t~m~~\r::~~'N~Tbf~>?<2:LG?7t5T Turn-around Requested Standard Date: [o(I2,[IL Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants ARI Client Company: Phone: Page:
l-of
~ 4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100
Aspect ConsultinQ 206-838-6582 Tukwila, WA 98168 Client Contact:
N N 'N CilN 00 00 rn • :2 . ...: >- >- ~Z 'OZ .c .c <D ·0 <D ·0
Sample ID Date Time Matrix No. en rn :2::JN >::IN
Containers 0 0 00 COO 0 0 ca . CO en .CO > [) -'0 rn'O
~ 0 >- .- 0 >-0 '-' .c o ,-,.c
1\t\V\J -~ ·-00 1 2--1 L ~(IZ./t~ tWO W 3 X tv\ IN - tz.. - Oli? ! 7-IL \3 00 . 3 X M V\J - 'l-C l.o I z. i 2.. \ V IL\L\ c::J 3 )< \V\w- --:r -Olp 13 j L- 1101 IL 09c?v 3 >< !V\ - L - Dw 131L \ Icy,? 3 X I~!YIW - ! -OC9(/-) /2- 1/2..5 3 X !v\ \;\;- I - 0 <0 I 3 I 2- 't;~o .5 )(
1M W -LC ·-It;O -00/31 L IL\ I I.,) 3 'f.
M W - 2.0·-'--lO ~Clo 13 i 2- iY40 3 .'/ \V\\N - 11 - Y 0·-o(P 131 L ,II iS2.,? ~'" 3 l\ Comments/Special Instructions ~:~:t~~e:y:( J7~
Print~ vi -h c..e Printed Name: :.f;r, Printed Name: Prinled Name: See Mark Harris for special -r. dV) ~-?-,...- Y c.~ reporting list for vac analysis Company:
~V~ Company:
f->. ;z;4 Company: Company:
,.. Dissolved metals are field
D;;ri:t IlL' Date & Time: Date & Time: Date & Time:
filtered. itS'S c:- Jf...J-J-t.- (iSs
Limits of Liability: AR/ will perform all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology following ARI Standard Operating Procedures and the ARI Quality Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. The total liability of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, or successors, ariSing out of or in connection with the requested services, shall not exceed the Invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by AR/ release ARI from any liability in excess thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contract, purchase order or CO-Signed agreement between ARI and the Client.
Sample Retention Policy: Unless specified by workorder or contract. all water/soil samples submitted to ARI will be discarded or returned, no sooner than 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission of hardcopy data, whichever is longer. Sediment samples submitted under PSDDAIPSEP/SMS protocol will be stored frozen for up to one year and then discarded.
I
Analytical Kesources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants Cooler Receipt Fori'll
COC No(s) ___________ _ NA Delivered by' Fed-Ex UPS Courier Hand @red Other: ---1.."- Y 7 1'4 Assigned ARI Job No. ________ -'--_I.I~I- Tracking No: ___________________ NA
Preliminary Examination Phase:
Were intact, properly signed and dated custody seals attached to the outSide of to cooler?
Were custody papers included with the cooler?
Were custody papers properly filled out (ink, signed, etc.) .
Temperature of Cooler(s) (T) (recommended 2.0-6.0 °C for chemistry) ..
... " ...... .
~,]
YES
~ If cooler temperature is out of compliance fill out form 00070F Temp Gun 10#:
Cooler Accepted by: ________ -7../-(...:;~=___ ______ Date <:" I r 1"2--- Time: ---,'-\'--~_~,c..-.')'--__ _
Complete custody forms and attach a/l shipping documents
Log-In Phase:
Was a temperature blank included in the cooler? ... Bubble Wrap Wet Ice 'G"7"I'P' ·a·····s·· Baggl'es ~am B.L ck What kind of packing material was used? ... ~ ~ Paper
Was sufficient ice used (if appropriate)? ................. .
Were all bottles sealed in individual plastic bags?
Did all bottles arrive in good condition (unbroken)? ..
Were all bottle labels complete and legible? ....
Did the number of containers listed on COC match with the number of containers received? ""
Did all bottle labels and tags agree with custody papers?
Were all bottles used correct for the requested analyses? .
Do any of the anal,.ses (bottles) require preservation? (attach preservation sheet, excluding VOCs) ..
Were all VOC vials free of air bubbles?
Was sufficient amount of sample sent in each bottle?
Date VOC Trip Blank was made at ARI. ..
NA
~ NA
YES Other:
@ YES
~ ~
~ YES
YES
~
G0 NO
NO
NO
NO
~ NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
® NO
Was Sample Split by ARI : NA YES Daterrime: _____ _ Equipment: _______ _ Split by: ___ _
- Notify Project Manager of discrepancies or concerns **
Sample 10 on Bottle Sample 10 on COC Sample 10 on Bottle
Additional Notes, Discrepancies, & Resolutions: M W--2. 5-} S OG1t
By:
S.ITI~lt Air EMJole$
. ..
0016F 3/2/10
-,;i.m<n ;r. . ..
it; Date:
Pea'bubbles' :i"":mm
• • • • .. C-/~ - ~
LAr:GE Air l$vbbt!e~ • Small ~ "sm" ;>-4 mm
Pea bubbles -7 "pb" • • •• Large ~ "Ig"
Headspace -7 "hs"
Cooler Receipt Form
Sample 10 on COC
$c, ,7.,.
1/
pi fl
Revision 014
Reference ANALYTICAL _
Sample ID Cross Report RESOURCES INCORPORATED
ARI Job No: UY79 Client: Aspect Consulting
Project Event: 050067 Project Name: Art Brass Plating
ARI ARI Sample ID Lab ID LIMS ID Matrix Sample Date/Time VTSR
I. MW-22-30-061112 UY79A 12-11209 Water 06/11/12 11: 25 06/15/12 11: 55 2. r·1W-22-30-0 61112-0 UY79B 12-11210 Water 06/11/12 11: 30 06/15/12 11: 55 3. MW-24-30-061112 UY79C 12-11211 Water 06/11/12 12:15 06/15/12 11: 55 4. IvlW-26-55-061112 UY790 12-11212 Water 06/11/12 13:05 06/15/12 11: 55 5. f'lW-2 6-4 0-0 61112 UY79E 12-11213 Water 06/11/12 13: 30 06/15/12 11: 55 6. MW-25-50-061112 UY79F 12-11214 Water 06/11/12 14:20 06/15/12 11: 55 7. MW-25-75-061112 UY79G 12-11215 Water 06/11/12 14:45 06/15/12 11: 55 8. MW-8-061212 UY79H 12-11216 Water 06/12/12 10:20 06/15/12 11:55 9. MW-9-061212 UY791 12-11217 Water 06/12/12 10:50 06/15/12 11: 55 10. MW-5-061212 UY79J 12-11218 Water 06/12/12 11: 20 06/15/12 11: 55 1I. MW-4-061212 UY79K 12-11219 Water 06/12/12 12:00 06/15/12 11: 55 12. MW-12-061212 UY79L 12-11220 Water 06/12/12 13: 00 06/15/12 11: 55 13. MW-7-061212 UY79M 12-11221 Water 06/12/12 14:45 06/15/12 11: 55 14. MW-27-061312 UY79N 12-11222 Water 06/13/12 09:50 06/15/12 11: 55 15. MW-2-061312 UY790 12-11223 Water 06/13/12 10:45 06/15/12 11: 55 16. PMW-1-061312 UY79P 12-11224 Water 06/13/12 11: 25 06/15/12 11: 55 17. MW-1-061312 UY79Q 12-11225 Water 06/13/12 11: 50 06/15/12 11: 55 18. MW-20-60-061312 UY79R 12-11226 Water 06/13/12 14:10 06/15/12 11: 55 19. MW-20-40-061312 UY79S 12-11227 Water 06/13/12 14:40 06/15/12 11: 55 20. MW-17-40-061312 UY79T 12-11228 Water 06/13/12 15:25 06/15/12 11: 55
Printed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 1
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 2/14/2011
Inorganic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
N
NA
H
L
Duplicate RPD is not within established control limits
Reported value is less than the CRDL but ~ the Reporting Limit
Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits
Not Applicable, analyte not spiked
The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible
Analyte concentration is ::55 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPD
Organic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
J
D
E
Q
Flagged value is not within established control limits
Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one-half of ARI's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample.
Estimated concentration when the value is less than ARI's established reporting limits
The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution
Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid instrument calibration range. A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte.
Indicates a detected analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria «20%RSD, <20%Drift or minimum RRF).
Page 1 of 3
S
NA
NR
NS
M
M2
N
y
EMPC
C
P
x
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid quantification of the analyte
The flagged analyte was not analyzed for
Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference
The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample
Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC-MS analyses
The sample contains PCB congeners that do not match any standard Aroclor pattern. The PCBs are identified and quantified as the Aroclor whose pattern most closely matches that of the sample. The reported value is an estimate.
The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification"
The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration. The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference. The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit.
Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) defined in EPA Statement of Work DLM02.2 as a value "calculated for 2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for which the quantitation and lor confirmation ion(s) has signal to noise in excess of 2.5, but does not meet identification criteria" (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column
The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by 2:40% RPD with no obvious chromatographic interference
Analyte signal includes interference from polychlorinated diphenyl ethers. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Z Analyte signal includes interference from the sample matrix or perfluorokerosene ions. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Page 2 of 3
8 An,'yt'''' R,m"e,"" Incocpoe",d Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Geotechnical Data
A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to report total fines when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size with sample weight.
F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination
SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations
SS Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines" required to perform the pipette portion of the grain size analysis
W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighting
Page 3 of 3
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Volatiles by purge & Trap GC/MS-Method SW8260C Page 1 of 1
Sample ID: MB-061812A METHOD BLANK
Lab Sample ID: MB-061812A LIMS ID: 12-11209 Matrix: Water
QC Report No: UY79-Aspect Consulting Project: Art Brass Plating
050067 Data Release Authorized: Reported: 07/10/12
Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PKC Date Analyzed: 06/18/12 11:56
EPA SW-846 indicates that vinyl chloride and styrene may degrade in the presence of acid preservative.
FORM I
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Sample ID: LCS-061812A
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INCORPORATED
Volatiles by Purge & Trap GC/MS-Method SW8260C Page 1 of 1 LAB CONTROL SAMPLE
QC Report No: UY79-Aspect Consulting Lab Sample IO: LCS-061812;; L HIS ID: 12 - 112 0 9 Project: Art Brass Plating ~jatri:c Water 050067 Data Release Authorized: Date Sampled: N;; Reported: 06/23/12 Date Recei ','ed: NA
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
27 June 2012
Eric Marhofer Aspect Consulting 401 Second Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Client Project: 050067, Art Brass Plating ARI Job: UY80
Dear Eric:
Please find enclosed the original chain of custody records and the final results for samples from the project referenced above. Analytical Resources, Inc. accepted four water samples and one trip blank in good condition on June 14, 2012. The samples were analyzed for VOAs and total and dissolved metals as requested.
A small amount of copper was detected in the method blank associated with the dissolved metals analyses of these samples. Copper was detected in both samples associated with this blank. Both samples were re-prepared and re-analyzed. The reanalyses proceeded without incident of note. The results for the re-analyses only have been submitted.
There were no further incidents of note associated with these analyses.
Copies of these reports and all raw data will be kept on file at ARI. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
77CL/ QryClti;-Ma~ D. Hams Project Manager 206/695-6210 [email protected]
Enclosures
cc: File UY80
MDH/bc
Page 1 of :;J ~
4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100 CIt Tukwila WA 98168 CIt 206-695-6200 It 206-695-6201 fax
Chain of Custody Record & Laboratory Analysis Request
tm\ r~s~f~::~:Nu.m~r: :::??::: :::Q1.i.Q::}TUrn:around Requested Standard
ARI Client Company: Phone:
Aspect ConsultinQ 206-838-6582 Client Contact:
Frir. M--'- _L.
Client Project Name:
Art Rra!':!': Platina Client Project #:
050067
Sample 10
M \I\l - -\0 0 - OCo! :t, i
IMV\J-3 141
M -~ --O{£;14
'3-- v(OlY
--I
Comments/Special Instructions
** O.2ppb MRL
See Mark Harris for special reporting list for vae analysis "1t Dissolved metals are field
alN ~ .~ "OZ al ·0 >::IN cOo I/) .CO 1/)"0 .- 0 >. o ___ .0
~
{-+{'c-e..J..if
/I {5
Received by:
(Signature)
Printed Name:
I Company:
Date & Time:
Analytical Resources, Incorporated
Analytical Chemists and Consultants
4611 South 134th Place, Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98168 206-695-6200 206-695-6201 (fax)
Received by:
(Signature)
Printed Name:
Company:
Date & Time:
Notes/Comments
'-r1?-1
Limits of Liability: ARI will perform all requested services in accordance with appropriate methodology following ARI Standard Operating Procedures and the ARI Quality Assurance Program. This program meets standards for the industry. The total liability of ARI, its officers, agents, employees, or successors, ariSing out of or in connection with the requested services, shall not exceed the Invoiced amount for said services. The acceptance by the client of a proposal for services by ARI release ARI from any liability in excess thereof, not withstanding any provision to the contrary in any contract, purchase order or co-signed agreement between ARI and the Client.
Sample Retention Policy: Unless specified by workorder or contract, all water/soil samples submitted to ARI will be discarded or returned, no sooner than 90 days after receipt or 60 days after submission of hardcopy data, whichever is longer. Sediment samples submitted under PSDDAIPSEP/SMS protocol will be stored frozen for up to one year and then discarded.
COC No(s) __ -----_____ _ NA Delivered by: Fed-Ex UPS Courier Hand @.red c:Jther: ---Assigned ARI Job No: _____ iA'---=-_'j-""~'_O"___ Tracking No: ------_____________ NA
Preliminary Exami nation Phase:
Were intact, properly signed and dated custody seals attached to the outside of to cooler?
Were custody papers included with the cooler? .
Were custody papers properly filled out (ink, signed, etc.) .
Temperature of Cooler(s) (,C) (recommended 2.0-6.0 °C for chemistry) ...
If cooler temperature is out of compliance fill out form 00070F
YES
~ G9)
NO
NO
-- ------- .
Cooler Accepted by: ________ --7;.../ ~~ _______ Date (," I Lc 1"2---
Temp Gun 10#: 169 L/ m ~ Time \ \ '2 'i
Complete custody forms and attach all shipping documents
Log-In Phase:
Was a temperature blank included in the cooler? ... Bubble Wrap Wet Ice 'G'/I' ·p·a···· "s" Baggl'es F ~am' ck What kind of packing material was used? '" ~~' Paper
Was sufficient ice used (if appropriate)? ., ............. .
Were all bottles sealed in indi,idual plastic bags? .
Did all bottles arrive in good condition (unbroken)? .
Were all bottle labels complete and legible? ..
Did the number of containers listed on COC match with the number of containers received? ..
Did all bottle labels and tags agree with custody papers? .
Were all bottles used correct for the requested analyses? .
Do any of the ana lyses (bottles) require preservation? (attach preservation sheet, excluding VOCs) ..
Were all VOC vials free of air bubbles? ..
Was sufficient amount of sample sent in each bottle? .
NA
NA
NA
NA Date VOC Trip Blank was made at ARI. .....
Was Sample Split by ARI : ~ YES DatefTime: _____ _ Equipment _______ _
Project Event: 050067 Project Name: Art Brass Plating
ARI ARI
ANALYTICAL _ RESOURCES'ifII!I INCORPORATED
Lab ID LIMS ID Matrix Sample Date/Time VTSR
UY80A 12-11247 Water 06/13/12 15:45 06/14/12 UY80B 12-11248 Water 06/14/12 11: 15 06/14/12 UY80C 12-11249 Water 06/13/12 06/14/12 UY80D 12-11250 Water 06/14/12 10:20 06/14/12 UY80E 12-11251 Water 06/14/12 10:55 06/14/12 UY80F 12-11252 Water 06/14/12 10:20 06/14/12 UY80G 12-11253 Water 06/14/12 10:55 06/14/12
Printed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 1
11: 55 11: 55 11: 55 11: 55 11: 55 11: 55 11: 55
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 2/14/2011
Inorganic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
N
NA
H
L
Duplicate,RPD is not within established control limits
Reported value is less than the CRDL but ~ the Reporting Limit
Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits
Not Applicable, analyte not spiked
The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible
Analyte concentration is :55 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPD
Organic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
J
o
E
Q
Flagged value is not within established control limits
Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one-half of ARl's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample.
Estimated concentration when the value is less than ARl's established reporting limits
The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution
Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid instrument calibration range. A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte.
Indicates a detected analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria «20%RSD, <20%Drift or minimum RRF).
Page 1 of 3
S
NA
NR
NS
M
M2
N
y
EMPC
C
P
x
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid quantification of the analyte
The flagged analyte was not analyzed for
Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference
The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample
Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC-MS analyses
The sample contains PCB congeners that do not match any standard Aroclor pattern. The PCBs are identified and quantified as the Aroclor whose pattern most closely matches that of the sample. The reported value is an estimate.
The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification"
The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration. The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference. The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit.
Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) defined in EPA Statement of Work DLM02.2 as a value "calculated for 2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for which the quantitation and lor confirmation ion(s) has signal to noise in excess of 2.5, but does not meet identification criteria" (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column
The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by ;:::40% RPD with no obvious chromatographic interference
Analyte signal includes interference from polychlorinated diphenyl ethers. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Z Analyte signal includes interference from the sample matrix or perfluorokerosene ions. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Page 2 of 3
8 An,'yt'''' Re,ouece" 'ocoepoco'ed Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Geotechnical Data
A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to report total fines when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size with sample weight.
F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination
SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations
SS Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines" required to perform the pipette portion of the grain size analysis
W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighting
Page 3 of 3
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Volatiles by Purge & Trap GC/MS-Method SW8260C Page 1 of 1
Sample ID: MB-062112A METHOD BLANK
Lab Sample 10: MB-062112A LIMS 10: 12-11247 Matrix: Water ~ Data Release Authorized: ~ Reported: 06/22/12
QC Report No: UY80-Aspect Consulting Project: Art Brass Plating
050067
Instrument/Analyst: NT2/PKC Date Analyzed: 06/21/12 11:11
• Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytica l Chemists and Consultants
29 June 2012
Dana Cannon Aspect Consulting 401 Second Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Client Project: 050067, Art Brass Plating ARI Job: UZ33
Dear Dana:
JUL - 3 2012
Please find enclosed the final results for samples from the project referenced above. These samples were analyzed for total metals as requested on 06/19/12.
A matrix spike (MS) was prepared and analyzed in conjunction with sample SP-32-23-24. The percent recovery for nickel was slightly low following the analysis of the MS. Since the percent recovery for nickel was within acceptable QC limits for the corresponding LCS, it was concluded that the sample matrix was the cause of the low MS recovery. No corrective actions were taken.
A matrix duplicate (MD) was prepared and analyzed in conjunction with sample SP-32-23-24. The RPD for copper was high following the analysis of the MD. Since the percent recovery for copper was within acceptable QC limits for the corresponding LCS, it was concluded that a lack of sample homogeneity was the cause of the high RPD. No corrective actions were taken .
There were no further incidents of note associated with these analyses.
Copies of these reports and all raw data will be kept on file at ARI. If you have questions or require additional information, please feE?l free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
ANALYTICAL RESOURCES, INC.
Y(0(~cvc Mark D. Hams Project Manager 206/695-6210 m a rkh@arilabs .com
Enclosures
cc: File UZ33
MDH/mdh
Page 1 of _ \>--.::8-__ _
46 11 South 134th Place, Suite 100 • Tukwila WA 98168 • 206-695-6200 • 206-695-6201 fax
Hi 11ark-I was hoping ,.ou all still had some soil samples that we put on hold. If so, we would like to run them for metals - Cd, Cu, Ni, & Zn (the same suite that we requested of the other samples). The samples we would like run are:
*
*
Thank Dana
SP-32-23-24 from lab group UQ43
SP- 31-23-24 from lab group UQ8 1
,.ou ,
Dana Cannon I Hydrogeologist I Direct: 206.838 . 5832 I Cell: 206.718.9547 Aspect Consulting LLC I 401 Second A enue S, Suite 201, Seattle 98104 I . ~" "" .: "-;p r.ct". ·~o" : __ , "" .ti.' J . ":;C!l ( :--L ~ p : i h. ' .. ; . ", .=: r 'ct- C( 11 :=".1 1 t.:.w . c c·' I:> Bainbridge Island - Sea ttle - Wenatchee - Yakima
Sample 1D
1. SP-32-23-24 2. SP-31-23-24
Sample ID Cross Reference Report
ARI Job No: UZ33 Client: Aspect Consulting
Project Event: 050067 Project Name: Art Brass Plating
AR1 AR1
ANALYTICAL ta. RESOURCES~ INCORPORATED
Lab 1D L1MS 1D Matrix Sample Date/Time VTSR
UZ33A UZ33B
12-11632 Soil 12-11633 Soil
04/13/12 11: 15 04/17/12 15:25
Printed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 1
04/18/12 13:31 04/18/12 13: 31
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Data Reporting Qualifiers Effective 2/14/2011
Inorganic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
N
NA
H
L
Duplicate RPD is not within established control limits
Reporte~ value is less than the CRDL but;:: the Reporting Limit
Matrix Spike recovery not within established control limits
Not Applicable, analyte not spiked
The natural concentration of the spiked element is so much greater than the concentration spiked that an accurate determination of spike recovery is not possible
Analyte concentration is ::;5 times the Reporting Limit and the replicate control limit defaults to ±1 RL instead of the normal 20% RPD
Organic Data
U Indicates that the target analyte was not detected at the reported concentration
*
B
J
o
E
Q
Flagged value is not within established control limits
Analyte detected in an associated Method Blank at a concentration greater than one-half of ARl's Reporting Limit or 5% of the regulatory limit or 5% of the analyte concentration in the sample.
Estimated concentration when the value is less than ARI's established reporting limits
The spiked compound was not detected due to sample extract dilution
Estimated concentration calculated for an analyte response above the valid instrument calibration range. A dilution is required to obtain an accurate quantification of the analyte.
Indicates a detected analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria «20%RSD, <20%Drift or minimum RRF).
Page 1 of 3
S
NA
NR
NS
M
M2
N
y
EMPC
C
P
x
Analytical Resources, Incorporated Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Indicates an analyte response that has saturated the detector. The calculated concentration is not valid; a dilution is required to obtain valid quantification of the analyte
The flagged analyte was not analyzed for
Spiked compound recovery is not reported due to chromatographic interference
The flagged analyte was not spiked into the sample
Estimated value for an analyte detected and confirmed by an analyst but with low spectral match parameters. This flag is used only for GC-MS analyses
The sample contains PCB congeners that do not match any standard Aroclor pattern. The PCBs are identified and quantified as the Aroclor whose pattern most closely matches that of the sample. The reported value is an estimate.
The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to make a "tentative identification"
The analyte is not detected at or above the reported concentration . The reporting limit is raised due to chromatographic interference. The Y flag is equivalent to the U flag with a raised reporting limit.
Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration (EMPC) defined in EPA Statement of Work DLM02.2 as a value "calculated for 2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for which the quantitation and lor confirmation ion(s) has signal to noise in excess of 2.5, but does not meet identification criteria" (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
The analyte was positively identified on only one of two chromatographic columns. Chromatographic interference prevented a positive identification on the second column
The analyte was detected on both chromatographic columns but the quantified values differ by :2:40% RPD with no obvious chromatographic interference
Analyte signal includes interference from polychlorinated diphenyl ethers. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Z Analyte signal includes interference from the sample matrix or perfluorokerosene ions. (Dioxin/Furan analysis only)
Page 2 of 3
. *-"-..... . ....". ~.". """~
8 Aoo'yt'''' R""ucc". Incocpomted Analytical Chemists and Consultants
Geotechnical Data
A The total of all fines fractions. This flag is used to report total fines when only sieve analysis is requested and balances total grain size with sample weight.
F Samples were frozen prior to particle size determination
SM Sample matrix was not appropriate for the requested analysis. This normally refers to samples contaminated with an organic product that interferes with the sieving process and/or moisture content, porosity and saturation calculations
SS Sample did not contain the proportion of "fines" required to perform the pipette portion of the grain size analysis
W Weight of sample in some pipette aliquots was below the level required for accurate weighting
Page 3 of 3
INORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET TOTAL METALS Page 1 of 1