Bioremediation Treatability Study for Remedial Action at Popile, Inc., Site, El Dorado. Arkansas. Phase II. Pilot-scale Evaluation by Lance Hansen, Cathy Nestler, Mike Channell, Dave Ringelberg, Herb Fredrickson and Scott Waisner U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station 3909 Halls Ferry Road Vicksburg,MS39180-6199 For Ted Eilts, Joseph Sensebe, Gary Brouse, and Reuben Mabry U.S. Army Corp of Engineers New Orleans District The Foot of Prytania Street New Orleans, LA, 70160 Ju^ m •
198
Embed
BIOREMEDIATION TREATABILITY STUDY FOR REMEDIAL …semspub.epa.gov/work/06/145333.pdfEngineering Apprentice Program. This study was conducted under the direct supervision of Mr. Norman
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
Bioremediation Treatability Study forRemedial Action at Popile, Inc., Site, ElDorado. Arkansas.
Phase II. Pilot-scale Evaluation
by Lance Hansen, Cathy Nestler, Mike Channell, Dave Ringelberg, Herb Fredricksonand Scott Waisner
U.S. Army Corps of EngineersWaterways Experiment Station3909 Halls Ferry RoadVicksburg,MS39180-6199
For Ted Eilts, Joseph Sensebe, Gary Brouse, and Reuben Mabry
U.S. Army Corp of EngineersNew Orleans DistrictThe Foot of Prytania StreetNew Orleans, LA, 70160
Figure 27. LTU 2. Water and nutrient additions, and tilling
5.4 Data Analysis
Contaminant reduction
When the percent reduction from the initial concentration is calculated, they indicate an
8% greater reduction in overall PAH in LTU 2 than LTU 1 (Table 12). This difference is
even more apparent when the BaP equivalents are calculated. Then it becomes an 11.3%
difference in reduction.
56
Table 12. Reduction (%) from Initial Concentrations ofPAHs and BaP Equivalents
Contaminant
PAH (overall, avg)
NAPHTH (2-ring)
ANTRAC (3-ring)
PHENAN (3-ring)
PYRENE (4-ring)
B-GHI-PY (6-ring)
BaP Equivalents
CHRYSE (4-ring)
BAANTHR (4-ring)
BAP (5-ring)
I-123-PY (6-ring)
% Reduction
LTU1
27.21
95.95
37.12
27.66
19.89
16.32
4.45
19.40
22.63
10.88
17.30
LTU2
35.5
99.17
17.26
29.10
12.37
17.79
15.76
8.31
13.76
17.85
18.86
57
Degradation Kinetics
The degradation kinetics (Table 13 and Table 14) show that, based on zero-order
degradation, at the present rate of decrease, it will take 1.69 years to reduce the overall
PAH burden of the Popile soil to 5 ppm if it's given no treatment (LTU 1). To reach the
goal of 5 ppm BaP equivalents, however, will take 9.86 years. For LTU 2, the average
PAH reduction will require 1.3 years. The BaP goal, however, will only take 2.79 years.
Degradation ofPCP described in Section 5.2.3 (p. 36-38) of this report discusses the
relationship between soil pH and PCP concentration. The PCP concentration in LTU-1
reached a peak after 126 days and then declined throughout the duration of the study (Day
168). In LTU 2, the peak of PCP concentration was attained earlier in the study (at 42
days) and maintained until Day 126, when it began a slow decline. The apparent rise and
fall in PCP concentration in the LTUs appears to be an artifact of soil pH changes. The
time elapsed between the respective PCP peak concentrations and Day 168 was
insufficient to separate artifact from true degradation and attain reliable kinetic data.
58
Table 11. The Degradation Kinetics ofPAHs in LTU 1 and 2
Contaminant
PAH (avg)
NAPHTH (2 ring)
PHENAN (3 ring)
ANTRAC (3 ring)
PYRENE (4 ring)
I-123-PYR (6 ring)
Degradation Kinetics
k (ppm/day)
20.36
12.98
6.28
4.60
1.46
0.03
Time (yr)
1.69
0.48
1.66
1.24
2.31
2.20
xnrm
k (ppm/day)
28.02
12.42
5.95
1.53
0.85
0.03
Time (yr)
1.3
0.46
1.58
2.66
3.70
1.98
59
Table 12. The Degradation Kinetics ofBaP Equivalent Compounds in LTU 1 and 2
Contaminant
BaP EquivalentsCHRYSE (4 ring)
BAANTHR ((4 ring)BAP (5 ring)
B-GHI-PY (6 ring)
Degradation Kinetics
k (ppm/day)
0.0280.370.390.050.02
Time (yr)
9.862.362.013.702.42
k (ppm/day)
0.0990.150.220.070.02
Time (yr)
2.795.363.332.392.01
60
6 Summary and Conclusions
Based on the objectives of treatment goals, kinetics and leaching potential, this study
suggests:
• the ROD treatment goals will not be met using a six-month lift design in a
landfarming system
• the ROD treatment goals for BaP may be met by extending the duration of each lift
treatment. The duration of the study was too short to demonstrate conclusive
biodegradation ofPCP.
• the cultivation associated with landfarming did not increase the leachability of
contaminants in the Popile soil. The leach data supports the groundwater model
showing that the contaminant is not moving from the site under these test conditions.
However, in time some change could occur that would render the conraminant mobile
and it could migrate to the groundwater.
Beyond meeting the stated objectives of the study, the following pertinent observations
were made:
The high concentration ofhydrophobic contaminants inhibited aqueous phase nutrient
additions. Slow-release nutrients applied in a solid form should be a more effective
method of maintaining appropriate C:N:R: ratios.
The increase in microbial biomass and the change in community makeup in LTU 2 by the
end of the study suggest biodegradation of the more recalcitrant PAHs since LTU 2 saw a
greater reduction in benzo(a)pyrene and other 4 and 5-ring PAHs. Cultivation had a
positive impact on the degradation kinetics shown by the greater overall decrease in
contaminant in LTU 2 over LTU 1.
61
7 Recommendations
The Waterways Experiment Station (WES) recommends that New Orleans District
consider continued leveraged funding ofPopile, Phase III, pilot scale activities. The
WES is the center of the Federal Integrated Biotreatment Research Consortium (FIBRC),
a research and development project of the Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Project (SERDP). Remediation of PAH contaminated material is a thrust
of FIBRC. Dr. Hap Pritchard of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is the Thrust Area
Leader. Dr. Pritchard has observed the development of pilot scale landfarming expertise
between the WES and the USACE-New Orleans District. This has resulted in a request
for a collaborative continuation between WES, FIBRC, and USACE-N.O. of the Popile
study.
The FIBRC plan is to innoculate the treated Popile soil with known PAH-degrading
bacteria from NRL. These microorganisms have been isolated and cultured as part of the
SERDP-FIBRC effort. The FIBRC will contribute to the cost of this effort.
The benefit to New Orleans District, EPA and the State of Arkansas, Department of
Environmental Quality is a potential treatment protocol that will meet the ROD goals and
further develop an emerging technology consistent with the objectives of the USACE
Innovative Technology Advocate Initiative.
62
References
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994. Toxicological profile forpentachlorophenol (update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public HealthService.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological profile for polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public HealthService.
ASTM D-1973-91. Standard Guide for Design of a Liner System for Containment of Wastes.
dark, A.J. and Michael, J. 1996. Regulatory Programs Enhance Use ofBioremediation for ContaminatedEnvironmental Media. J.Soil Contam.5(3):243-261.
Dibble, J.T. and Bartha, R. 1979. Effect of Environmental Parameters on the Biodegradation of OilSludge. AppI.Environ.Micro. 37(4): 729-73 9.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984. Health Effects Assessment for Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons (PAH). EPA 549/1-86-013. Cincinnati, OH. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Frisbie, A. and Nies, L. 1997. Aerobic and Anaerobic Biodegradation of Aged Pentachlorophenol byIndigenous Microorganisms. Bioremediation Journal 1:65-75.
Golueke, Clarence G. and Diaz, Luis F. 1989. Biological Treatment for Hazardous Wastes. Biocycle: 58-63.
Harmsen, Joop. 1991. Possibilities and Limitations of Landfarming for Cleaning Contaminated Soils InOn-Site Bioreclamation. Processes for Xenobiotic and Hydrocarbon Treatment. R.E. Hinchee and R.F.Olfenbuttel (eds.) pp. 255-272. Battelle Memorial Institute. Butterworth-Heinemann, Stoneham,Massachusetts
Hurst, C.J, Sims, R.C., Sims, J.L., Sorensen, D.L., McLean, J.E. and Huling, S. 1997. Soil Gas OxygenTension and Pentachlorophenol Biodegradation. J.Environ.Eng.4:364-370.
King, B. 1992. Applied Bioremediation-An Overview In Practical Environmental Bioremediation, pp.11-27. Lewis Publishing, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Lee, L.S., Rao, P.S.C., Nkedi-Kizza, P. and Defmo, J.J. 1990. Influence of Solvent and SorbentCharacteristics on Distribution of Pentachlorophenol in Octanol-Water and Soil-Water Systems.Environ.Sci.Technol. 24:654-661.
Lyon, T.L., Buckman, H.O., and Brady, N.C. 1952. The Nature and Properties of Soils. McMillan Inc.,New York.
63
McGinnis, G.D., Borazjani, H., Hannigan, M., Hendrix, F., McFarland, L., Pope, D., Strobel, D. andWagner, J. 1991. J.Haz.Mat. 28:145-158.
McGinnis, G.D., Dupont, R.R., Everhart, K. and St. Laurent, G. 1994. Evaluation and Management ofField Soil Pile Bioventing Systems for the Remediation ofPCP Contaminated Surface Soils.Environ.Technol. 15(8):729-740.
Nisbet, C., and LaGoy, P. 1992. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for Polycyclic AromaticHydrocarbons (PAHs). Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 16:290-300.
Park, K.S., Sims, R.C., Dupont, R.R., Doucette, W.J. and Matthews, J.E. 1990. Fate of PAH Compoundsin Two Soil Types: Influence of Volatilization, Abiotic Loss and Biological Activity.Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 9:187-195.
Petry, Thomas, Schmid, Peter, and Schlatter, Christian. 1996. The Use of Toxic Equivalency Factors inAssessing Occupational and Environmental Health Risk Associated With Exposure to Airborne Mixturesof Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Chemosphere 32 (4): 639-648.
Reisinger, H.J. 1995. Hydrocarbon Bioremediation-An Overview In Applied Bioremediation ofPetroleum Hydrocarbons. R.E. Hinchee, J.A. Kittel, H.J. Reisinger (eds), pp. 1-9. Battelle Press,Columbus, Ohio.
Ringelberg, D.B., Davis, J.D., Smith, G.A, Pfifmer, S.M.,Nichols, P.D., Nickels, J.S., Hensen, M.J.,Wilson, J.T., Yates, M., Kampbell, D.H., Read, H.W., Stocksdale, T.T. and White, D.C. 1989. Validationof Signature Polar Lipid Fatty Acid Biomarkers for Alkane-Utilizing Bacteria in Soils and SubsurfaceAquifer Materials. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 62:39-50.
Ringelberg, D.B., Stair, J.O., Almeida, J., Norby, R.J., O'Neill, E.G., and White, D.C. 1997.Consequences of Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels for the Belowground Microbiota AssociatedWith White Oak. J. Environ. Qual. 26(2): 495-503.
Shane, B. 1994. Principles ofEcotoxicology In Basic Environmental Toxicology. L.G. Cockerham andB. Shane (eds)., p. 11-47. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, andSludges at Wood Treater Sites. EPA/540/R-95/128.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. GRACE Bioremediation TechnologiesDaramend™ Bioremediation Technology. Innovative Technology Evaluation Report. EPA/540/R-95/536.
White, D.C. and Ringelberg, D.B. 1998. Signature Lipid Biomarker Analysis In: Techniques InMicrobial Ecology. R.S. Burlage, R.Atlas, D. Stahl, G.Geesey, and G. Sayler, eds. Oxford UniversityPress, Inc. New York. p. 255-272.
64
Appendix A Contaminant Structures
Pentachlorophenol
Name Abbreviation Structure
pentachlorophenol PCP
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
2-Ring Compounds
Name Abbreviation Structure
Napthalene NAPHTH
2-methylnaphthalene 2-MeNAPH
66
3-Ring Compounds
Acenaphthylene ACENAY
Acenaphthene ACENAP
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
FLUORE
PHENAN
Anthracene ANTRAC
4-Ring Compounds
Name Abbreviation Structure
Fluoranthene FLANTHE
Pyrene PYRENE
Chrysene CHRYSE
Benzo(a)anthracene BAANTHR
68
5-Ring Compounds
Name Abbreviation Structure
Benzo(b)fluoranthene BBFLANT
Benzo(k)fluoranthene BKFLANT
Benzo(a)pyrene BAP
Dibenzo(a,h,)anthracene DBAHANT
6-Ring Compounds
Name Abbreviation Structure
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene B-GHI-PY
Indeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene I123PYR
70
Appendix B LTU Data
£~PA FILE
AR5oe1
US Army Corps of Engineers
SCAPS Investigation ReportPopile, Inc. Superfund SiteEl Dorado, Arkansas
November 17, 1997
Table Of Contents
1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................22.0 Site Description..................................................................................................23.0 Investigation Equipment and Procedures.............................................................44.0 Field Investigation..............................................................................................45.0 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................66.0 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 8
Table Of Figures
Figure 1.1 Site Map Showing SCAPS Grid Point Locations........................................3Figure 5.1 View of Soil Classification Cutting Plane at Elevation 177 ft..................... 9Figure 5.2 View of Soil Classification Cutting Planes from the Northeast................. 10Figure 5.3 View of Soil Classification Cutting Planes from the Northwest..._.............. 11Figure 5.4 View of fluorescence intensity at isosurfaces of 400 and 1000 counts from
the ground surface........................................................................................... 12Figure 5.5 View of Fluorescence Intensity at Isosurfaces of 400 and 1000 Counts
from the Northwest........................................................................................... 13Figure 5.6 View of Fluorescence Intensity at Isosurfaces of 400 and 1000 Counts "
from the Northeast...........................................................................................14Figure 5.7 View of Soil Classification Cutting Planes from the Northeast with
fluorescence isosurface at 400 Counts Embedded in It...................................... 15Figure 5.8 LIF Shots on Soil Samples at OG ...........................................................16Figure 5.9 LIF Shots on Soil Samples at OK............................................................ 16Figure 5.10 LIF Shots on Soil Samples at ID .........................................................17
List of Tables
Table 4.1 SCAPS Grid Locations and Elevations.......................................................5Table 5.1 Results of Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples........................................ 17
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
1
1.0 Introduction
The New Orleans District Corps of Engineers (CEMVN) tasked the Tulsa District Corpsof Engineers (CESWT) to perform site characterization activities at the PopileSuperfund Site in El Dorado, AR. El Dorado is located in southeastern Arkansas andthe site is an inactive wood preserving operation that used creosote,pentachlorophenol and petroleum distillates in its processes. A site map is shown inFigure 1.1
The Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) was deployed atPopile from 9 September through 18 September. Data from a total of 52 subsurfacepenetration events (49 for sensing and 3 for sampling) were collected in this timeperiod. Total footage pushed was 1924 feet and the maximum depth pushed was 70feet.
The investigation activities were generally performed according to the SCAPS FieldSampling Plan for Groundwater Investigation and Modeling, Remedial Action atPopile, Inc. Site, August, 1997 (SCAPS Field Sampling Plan}. The objective of theinvestigation activities was to use the SCAPS rapid site assessment capabilities tocollect additional hydrogeologic and analytical site data to support groundwaterinvestigation and modeling for the site. The data would be used by a Corps TotalEnvironmental Restoration Contract (TERC) contractor in developing a detailedsubsurface stratigraphic map of the aquifer immediately underlying the site. Inaddition the SCAPS data would be used by the contractor to detect and delineate anypotential non-aqueous phase liquid plume(s) within the aquifer.
2.0 Site Description
The Popile Inc. site is an inactive wood preserving operation that used creosote,pentachlorophenol and petroleum distillates in its processes. Past product and wastehandling practices resulted in contamination to surface and subsurface soil,groundwater, surface water and sediments. The site is located on South WestAvenue, approximately */4 mile south of the intersection of South West Avenue andU.S Highway 82 near El Dorado, Union county, AR. The property comprises about 41acres, bordered on the west by South West Avenue, the Ouachita Railroad on the eastand Bayou de Loutre on the north. These three boundaries intersect on the north endof the site. A forested highland area borders the site on the south. The site isapproximately % mile south of the El Dorado city limits. El Dorado has a populationof approximately 25,000. The surrounding area is rural and residential/commercial,although no homes are located along the site perimeter.
A summary of the previous site investigations as well as an assessment of the geologyat the site may be found in Section 1.3 of the SCAPS Field Sampling Plan prepared byNew Orleans District in August 1997.
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
2
Figure 1.1 Site Map Showing SCAPS Grid Point Locations
SCAPS Investigation ReportNovember 1997
Popile Superfund SiteEl Dorado, AR
3.0 Investigation Equipment and Procedures
The SCAPS is based on a custom-engineered 20 ton truck capable of hydraulicallypushing an instrumented probe to a maximum depth of 100 feet. The truck housestwo separate, protected work spaces to allow access to contaminated sites withminimal risk to the work crew. One of the work spaces contains the pcnetrometertool, pushpipe, and hydraulic controls for leveling the truck and advancing thepenetrometer tool. The other work space houses optical systems (laser sources andspectrometers), chemical analysis equipment, and the digital data acquisition,processing and display equipment. The focus of this study was to use the SCAPSLaser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) sensor to detect creosote contamination in soils.
The SCAPS LIF probe consists of a nitrogen laser source of pulsed ultraviolet light(337 nm, 1.4mJ at 0.8 ns pulse width, lOHz) located in the SCAPS instrumentationcompartment; a fiber optic link to deliver the laser energy to the soil adjacent to theprobe window; a collection fiber to transmit fluorescence emission signals to thesurface for spectral analysis via a spectrometer/optical multichannel analyzer system;and a microcomputer for data acquisition, analysis display and storage. In additionto the optical sensors, the probe also incorporates geophysical sensors that providecontinuous soil classification and stratigraphy during the penetrometer push. Whenoperated at a 2 cm per second push rate, the LIF probe collects contaminantinformation and soil classification data with a spatial resolution of 4 cm.
4.0 Field Investigation
The SCAPS was deployed at El Dorado from 8 September through 19 September (12days). Nine working days were devoted to site investigation using the SCAPS LIFsensor, one day was devoted to obtaining verification samples and two days weredevoted to mobilization and demobilization. The SCAPS pushed at a total of 53locations. LIF and CPT data were collected at 49 locations and soil samples werecollected from 3 locations. Total footage pushed was 1924 feet and the maximumdepth pushed was 70 feet below ground surface.
During the investigation, the site was visited by two gentlemen from ArkansasDepartment of Pollution Control and Ecology. These were Devon Hobbie and RyanWakeland. Three individuals from EPA Region VI also visited the site. These were JoeKordzi, Glenn Celerier and Bruce Pivet.
Prior to the SCAPS investigation, the sampling locations were laid out on a 100 foottriangular grid. A map of the sample points and their locations is shown in Figure1.1. A table showing the grid point designation and location, the surface elevationand the depth pushed is shown in Table 4.1.
The LIF probe was operated with the soil classification sensors to collect subsurfacestratigraphy data in accordance with procedures described in ASTM Method D3441.Normal operating procedures include calibration of both the soil classification and LIFsensors. The soil classification sensors consist of strain gauges mounted in the conepenetrometer (CPT) tip and sleeve. These gauges are calibrated at the beginning of
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
each site investigation and checked periodically during normal operations. The LIFsensor is calibrated using an aqueous solution of Rhodamine before and after eachpenetration event to monitor LIF system response and document any system drift.
After each penetration was completed, the push rods were decontaminated with theonboard hot water pressure washer, and the open penetration holes were eithergrouted through the probe tip during sensor retraction or tremie pipe.
CPT and LIF sensor responses were displayed in real-time during each penetration.These data allowed the operator to observe the soil classification and fluorescenceresponse as the probe advanced into the soil. At the end of each penetration, thesensor data were then plotted as a function of depth and archived. Plots for allpenetrations performed at Popile are found in Appendix A. A zip disk of the data filesfor these pushes was provided to CEMVN on 20 October 1997. The sensor data wereprocessed at Waterways Experiment Station to produce three-dimensional graphicalrepresentations of subsurface stratigraphy and contaminant distribution. These arediscussed in detail in Section 5 of this report.
Standard operating procedures for the SCAPS LIF sensor include verification of thefluorescence response for some of the data collected at the site. Verification isaccomplished by collecting soil samples and conducting traditional laboratoryanalyses for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and total petroleumhydrocarbons (TPH). Soil samples were obtained with a direct push soil sampler(Mostap™) advanced to the desired sampling depth using the SCAPS truck. Soilsamples were obtained at depths that had previously exhibited high fluorescenceintensity immediately adjacent to sensor penetrations (approximately 1.5 feethorizontally offset).
Verification samples were homogenized in the field by mixing with a stainless steelspatula in a stainless steel pan. Samples were placed in precleaned 250- or 500-mlglass jars equipped with Teflon-lined caps and stored at 4°C until analyzed. TheSCAPS LIF response was obtained for each homogenized soil sample by pressing thesoil against the sapphire window of the SCAPS sensor probe and collecting tenreplicated emission spectra. This procedure was carried twice for each soil sampleobtained. In addition soil analyses for SVOCs (EPA Method 8270) and TPH as diesel(EPA Method 801.5) were performed at an analytical laboratory. These analyticalresults and their comparison to LIF output are presented in Section 5.
The SCAPS investigation resulted in the generation of six drums of decontaminationwater. The drums were labeled, placed on pallets, covered with a plastic tarp and leftat the site for future disposal.
5.0 Results and Discussion
The soil classification data obtained from the cone penetrometer indicates that the sitegenerally consists of layers of sands and gravel and gravelly sands and clayey sands.Figures 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 show horizontal and vertical profiles across the site. Thesefigures also indicate a large pocket of clay at the north end of the site from the ground
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
6
surface to about seven feet below ground surface. There also appears to be a nearsurface silty clay layer just north of the two holding cells (along the G and Hgridlines). This may be a result of the earth moving that took place when the cellswere created. The blue coloring at the tops of the probes in Figure 5.2 indicate thatmany of the penetrations encountered a thin clay layer near the surface.
The SCAPS Field Sampling Plan indicates that, based on a RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study performed in 1992, there is a silty clay layer, believedto be continuous, whose top is between 38 and 57 feet below ground surface. Figures4 and 5 of the SCAPS Field Sampling Plan show the elevation of the top of this layer ataround an elevation of 150 feet. Several pushes made by the SCAPS reached depthsbelow elevation 150 feet (OB, OC, -1C, -2C, 2D, OD, -ID, -2D, OE, OG, AND OH), butthe CPT did not indicate any notable change to silty clay or clay either in the raw dataor in the figures.
Figures 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 present spatial visualizations of the fluorescence intensitymeasured at the site. The isosuriaces shown are 400 counts and 1000 counts. Asshown in Figure 5.4 the SCAPS encountered two distinct plumes north of the debrisholding cells. Grid line E appears to mark the separation between the plumes. Thereare other smaller plumes as shown on Figure 5.4, one located southeast of theholding cells that shows intensity counts over 1000.
Figure 5.7 shows the isosurface of 1000 counts fluorescence intensity superimposedon the soil stratigraphy data visualization.
No effort has been made to correlate peak fluorescence intensity nor the wavelengthsat which it occurs to actual contaminant type or contaminant level. However, prior todemobilization from the site, the SCAPS did take several soil samples to analyze thetypes of contaminants that existed where high fluorescence intensity had beenencountered. Six samples were taken at various depths at grid points OG, OK and ID.The samples were shipped to Pace Analytical Services, Inc. in St. Rose Louisianawhere they were analyzed for SVOCs using method SW8270 and TPH as diesel usingmethod SW8015. The chains of custody and data for these analyses are included inAppendix B, and Table 5.1 summarizes the data in a single table.
As shown on Table 5.1 grid point OG was sampled at a depth of 9 feet and showselevated levels of every SVOC analyzed. The peak fluorescence intensity of thissample was measured twice and was between 1000 and 1200 counts (Figure 5.8).The peak intensity during the actual push at this location was greater than 2000counts.
Grid point OG was also sampled at a depth of 2 feet where the peak SCAPSfluorescence intensity during the push was around 400. Figure 5.8 shows thesample's peak fluorescence intensity to be between 100 and 300 counts. No SVOCsor diesel was detected during analysis.
Grid point OK was sampled at depths of 5 feet and 9 feet with the objective ofquantifying the large intensity peaks seen during the push. This corresponds to thearea of high intensity shown on Figure 5.4 south of the holding cells. Sampleanalysis failed to confirm the presence of SVOCs there, but did detect TPH at 362
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
7
ppm and 2,670 ppm at depths of 5 and 9 feet respectively. The peak fluorescenceintensities of the samples, all less than 600 counts, were significantly lower than thepeak of 4000 counts seen during the push. See Figure 5.9.
Grid point ID was sampled at depths of 6 andl6 feet. The ID-6 analysis was done toquantify contaminants corresponding to a peak of 1800 counts of fluorescenceintensity encountered during the push. The only SVOC hit at this sample was 2-methylnaphthalene at 3,510 ppm. The concentration ofTPH in this sample was2,790 ppm. The peak fluorescence intensity of the sample is shown in Figure 5.10and was measured between 1100 and 2100 counts.
The ID-16 sample was taken at a location where the push indicated an intensitycount of around 100. This sample successfully confirmed that there is no SVOC ordiesel contamination when the count is at this level, and its peak intensity countswere below 200.
6.0 Conclusion
The SCAPS investigation at the Popile Superfund Site met the objective of collectingadditional hydrogeologic and analytical site data. The SCAPS pushed an average of37 feet deep to an average elevation of 157 feet which penetrated well into the aquifermaterial. CPT data obtained for 49 holes provide an insight into the aquifercharacteristics and will be used by the TERC contractor for groundwater modeling.The graphical visualizations provided in this report will enhance the conceptual modelfor the site. Additional visualizations may be obtained through Ricky Goodson atWaterways Experiment Station at 601-634-2469.
The LIF data provided an indication of where the contamination plumes are likely toexist as well as their relative magnitude. Verification samples confirmed at least onelocation of SVOC contamination and three locations ofTPH. Correlation of theintensity counts to contaminant level was beyond the scope of this report, however thedata provided on the zip disk may enable this as part of the modeling effort.
Critical project requirements of rapid execution, minimal aquifer disturbance andwaste minimization were fully met using direct push technology provided by theSCAPS. Time and cost savings using this method over conventional drilling have notbeen quantified but are significant.
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
8
Figure 5.1 View of Soil Claulflcation Cutting Plane at Elevation 177 ft.
SCAPS Investigation Report Poplle Superftmd SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
9
Figure 5.2 View of Soil Cl&uiflcation Cutting Pl&nec from the Northe»«t.
x-plane: Bl 106632y-plane: N1500659z-pl&ne: elevation 177.4 ft
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
10
Figure 5.3 View of Soil Classification Cutting Plane* from the Northwest.
x-pl&ne: El 106632
y-plane: N1500559
SCAPS Investigation Report Poplle Superfund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
11
aoooo1000 00
\ ,, \
/ / ^^ /
,/\
\ \„/.
/' // •'/••
Figure 5.4 View of fluorescence intenxity at i»o«urface» of 400 and 1000 counfrom the ground surface.
Figure 5.5 View of Fluorescence Intensity at Isosurfaces of 400 and 1000Counts from the Northwest.
SCAPS Investigation ReportNovember 1997
Popile Superfund SiteEl Dorado, AR
13
Figure 5.6 View of Fluorescence Intensity at Isosurfaces of 400 and 1000Counts from the Northeast.
SCAPS Investigation ReportNovember 1997
Popile Superfund SiteEl Dorado, AR
14
Figure 5.7 View of Soil Classification Cutting Planes from the Northeast withfluorescence isosurface at 400 Counts Embedded in It.
x-plane: El 106632y-plane: N1500559
SCAPS Investigation Report Popile Super-fund SiteNovember 1997 El Dorado, AR
15
Figure 5.8 LIP Shots on Soil Samples at OG
750
500
450 500 550 600 050 700 750
Wavelength
Figure 5.9 LIF Shots on Soil Samples at OK.
SCAPS Investigation ReportNovember 1997
Popile Superfund SiteEl Dorado, AR
16
500 550 600
Wiveleaftb
Figure 5.10 LIF Shots on Soil Samples at ID
Table 5.1 Results of Laboratory Analysis of Soil Samples
in in in in-»-' >• •u •o 'o 'o10 ID '-1 c. c. c01 •-' •" ID 10 IDa u en ui 01 u)
0 1 2 3 4 5i.-i.-i.-i..
Fluartscence IntensityHor» Countt - Mei BKGMD
0 500 1000 1SOO 2000
X:4Ja0)a
Fluorescence Intensity
Nor*. Counts - No WSMa
100 1000010 i 1000
• •", • "A '. —. • •••350
Wavelength
at Peak (nm)
400 450 500 550-I.. •I
CPT: OASTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
Project: Popile
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
ELEVATION
0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance
QC (tons/ft21
1 10010
-i-ffl
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')
0 Z 4 6 B 10
••-i •i-i tOs z
in in in in4-1 >• 4-1 •O T3 'O10 10 «-< C C C01 1-1 •i-i 10 ID 10a u <n in 01 in
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluorescence IntensityNor« Counts - No BKGMO0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fluorescence IntensityNorn. Counf - No BKGNO
10 | 1000• I " , ' '"I ! •". • •!•
330
Wavelength
at Peak (nin)400 450
^L500
.L
Project: PopileSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )0
NORTHING ( f t . )0
ELEVATION0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
U)1—1
in rn n*
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in«—i
CPT based SGII).CLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
r
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in in01 0)L L3 3
Cone Resistance
Qc (tons/ft')
1 10010 | 100
i JWl Z '•• Z JU
z zSleeve Frictionf, (tons/ft*)
2 4 6 8 10
in in in in4-1 >• •u 'o 'o '0m n) •-i c c cQJ 1—1 .f-« (0 (0 IDQ. u 01 in (n in
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluorescence IntensityMor« Counf - tuto BKGM)
Mavelengtnat Peek (nm)
350 400 <50 500 550
Project: PopileSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
NORTHING ( f t . )0
ELEVATION ( f t . )0
rCPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone ResistanceQc (tons/ft')1 100
10 |HWUM
m in0) 0)t- L3 3JJ JJx x
•»-* •»-<z z
ca
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')} 5 4 6 8 10
in cn in in4-1 >• -i-i •o •o •o10 <o •-« c c ca) •-< "< 10 ID 10a. u en in 01 w
0 1 2 3 4 5..'••••I-
Fluoreactnce Int«nsityNoi-r. Counts - No BKGMO
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fluoriscenc* IntensityNorii. Counts - No BK6NO
HBvelengtnat Peak (nm)400 450 500 550
• ' • • • • ' • • • • I 0
PopileSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
ELEVATION
0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
tft
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
<n in0) 01C. L3 3
Cone ResistanceQc (tons/ft2I
1 10010 | 1000
JEM f tl
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft ')
) 5 10 15 SO 25• 1 . . . 1 . . . 1 .
••-> ••-> t3Z Z
in in in in4J >• .U •D T3 1310 10 rt C C C0) —" "< 10 ro IDo. u w w m in
0 1 3 3 4 5..I....!
Fluorescence IntensityNOPK. Count! - No BKGNO
0 SOO 1000 1500 SOW
Fluor»sc»nc« lnt«n»tt»Horn Count! - No BKGNO
1 100 10000
Wavelengthat Peak (nm)
350 JOO 450 SOO 550
-1—4-0
CPT: 3 E Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
01 U101 01I- t-3 3
Cone Resistance
q<; (tons/ft2)
1 10010 I 1000
"•'I'
us
Project: Popile
Wavelengthat Peak (nml<00 ••SO 500 550^L
<
STATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
NORTHING ( f t . ) ELEVATION ( f t . )
0 0
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance
He (tons/ft '1)
1 10010 J1 4t»j ; tn|
in in 01w w >L L ID
JJ JJ 0X X
-1-1 -i-i iff•K. Z
w m in inJ-l >. 4J •O •O •O10 TO «-i c c cQ) 1—1 -i-* n> *o *oo. t-> in in in v)
0 1 2 3 4 5
luorBSCBHc* IntensitNarr. Counts - No BKGNC
1 100 lot10 | 1000
• •••> • •••I • •", • •••
I • 1 1 • ••
y1
-0 ^
•
Wavelength
at Peak (nm)
50 Wa 450 500 55
r^
i
1 " ' " | |'
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
one Resistanc^ ( tons/f t 2
1 10010 | 10
; JIM 1 <M ; «M
1
' ' "| ' ' "| ' ' "
e
00 0
-
•
Sleeve Friction
f, ( tons / f t ' )
2 4 6 B 1
\
\
" ' ' ' '
0
•
-
•
in in a)0) 0) >L. C- 103 3 C-4-14-1 0X X. .„ iaz z
in in in in4-1 >• 4-1 •O •O •OID ID 1-1 C C CQJ •—* -^ ID fD 10o. u vi tf) (n v)
0 1 2 3 4 E
^
""'""""""""""""
Fft
5 o
• •
• -
• •
uorescence Intensit>Jorc. Count • • No eKCNO
500 1000 1SOO 20
t
' ' '
Fluorescence IntensityNor'iw. Counts - No BKGNO
Have lengthat Peak (nm|
350 400 450 500 550
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
m m ai0) 0) >c- c. <o3 3 C.4-1 -H 0
Cone Resistance .2 .2 caq^ (tons/^1
0-
•
•U0)0)»»-
"' 5-i-•Ua.«"Q
10-
10010 1 10
; <«« 2 JUJ i <W
1
' " •1 • " 1 ' " '
)
z z(n in in in
00 0
• •
- -
• •
• •
Sleeve Friction
f, ( tons/ft ' )Z 4 6 8 1
\
\
1 1 1 1
0
U >. •t-1 •O •0 010 10 "-< C C Ca) <-i —I (o n} IDa u (n (n in in
0 1 3 3 4 S
?S
f1
'""""'" " "••••""
FNc
5 c
luortsccnce Intent itDrill. ClHints - Auto BKEN
D 500 1000 1500 201. . . > . . . i . . . i . . .
. i i
F
y Nc0
00
luorescence Infnsitarm. Count! - «uto WW
100 1010 I 1000
• •••• • •"I • •••I • •"
1 ( 1
ya
000 y
Havelengtn
at PeaK (nm)
50 400 450 500 S
l • i l
50
-0
'4JUW^
-5 '"c.4-1Q.0)0
- 10
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in in ww w >C. C. 103 3 t-•i-i-i-i 0
Cone Resistance -S .S iaq, (tons/ft2) m u, 3: 2 a, m
'w 0-0) :»*-
JC :
S 1 0 -o a
1 10010 | 10
; JM| ? «B(j i JM
7-. , . . , . . . . , . , , .
I00 I: :
: :
'
Sleeve Friction
f. (tons/ft')
5 10 15 SO 2...i...i...i...i...
)
" i • • • i • i ' • "
5
4J >. 4J •O T3 •O10 10 •-i C C CQ) r-1 .r1 ID ID 10
a u w in in (/)0 1 2 3 4 E
....!....1....1....1....1....
""'""'"""""""'"""
F
5 c
luorescenct Intensit•Urm Count! - N0 gKGNO
500 1000 )»0 SO,.^,,,,,,
i i i
F
y
00
luortsctnct IntensitNOPr Counts - -1 BKGNO
100 10010 1 1000
""" ^ "
l i l
y
v"> 35
Mavelengtn
at Peak (nm)
50 JOO 450 500 5!
1 1 1
50 —
- 0 1u0)^-
: c
1 - 1 0 g
CPT: 2.£ Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
C
q
l
0-
4JOJ0)
*fc-
^ 5-c•Ua
a
1 0 -
one Besistanc
c (tons/ft')
100
10 | 10; •W Z JMI Z <M
?1
' •"| • "•| ' •"
e
00 0
• •
- -
• •
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')
5 4 6 8 1
)
•"l"'l"'l"'l' "
0
-
m m ID0) 0) >L. I. 103 3 C-J-> JJ 0x x•ii ••- usz z
in in OT in•u >. *J •o 'o •oID 10 •-• C C CQ) 1-1 -n 10 10 IDQ. u in in in in
0 1 2 3 4 5
(
I
..... 1 ,.,
F
' 0
'
\
uoresctnce Inttnsitnor". Counts - No WWO
500 1000 1300 ZOt
\
' ' '
luorescence IntensitNw. Counts - Ho BKGNC
1 100 lOt10 l 1000
! '", • •••1 • "!, ! •••
}
• 1 1
y
000 „
Wavelength
at Peak (nm)
50 400 450 500 S
l l l
50
-0
<->0)01
M-
-5 "
C4-1Q.
5
- 10
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance
Qc (tons/ft2)
1 1001000
vi ui0) 01C- 1.3 3JJ 4-1X X
•»•» ••-*
z zSleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft1)
* 6 B 10
W I
in 01 in u)4J >. *> T3 •0 •O10 10 rt C C C0) rt rt 10 10 10o. u in (n ui in
0 1 2 3 4 5
FluorescBncB IntensityHarm. Counti - No DKGMO
) 100 1000010 l 1000
! !!!l ! ;;« i ,!;l i !!;
Wavelength
at Peak Inin)
3SO 400 <50 500 550
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
»
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
m
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
ffl
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance1.2 '
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')
0 5 10 15 50 25
m m 01as as >t- t- ID3 3 L.
J-> •k> 0x x. .rt la3E Z
in in in in•u >. *> •o •o •oID ID rt C C CID 1—1 •1^ (0 ID f0a u ui (n ui ui
0 ) 3 3 4 5
Fluorescence IntensityNorn. Count! - No BKGND
0 500 )000 ISOO 3000
Fluorescence IntensityNor». Counts - No BKGNO
Wavelengthat Peak (nuil
10 '" 1000 "T" 350 <00 00 500 550
CPT: 2F Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
Cone Resistance
Qc (tons/ft")
1 10010
i 4M i• • "I •
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')
3 5 10 15 20 £5• ' • • • ' • • • ' • • • I -
in inV 0)c. c-
0)>ID
13
tS
3 3J-> 4Jx x•*1 •l-l
3: SU) in in in4-' >« •" •o 'O •O10 10 <-» C C C(I) •— •— 10 10 10a u in (n (n (n
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluofscinct IntensityMorn. Counts - No BKGMD0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fluorescence Intensitynorm. Counts - No BK6K1I KM 10000
10 i 1000! !!!l ! ;;n ! t!;l ! i
Wavelengtnat Peak (nm)
350 400 450 500 550
CPT: OF Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone ResistanceQc (tons/ft2)
1 1001000
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft'14 6 8 10
in ui0) 0)t- c.3 3
4-1 4-1X X
in in m m•U >. •U •O n Q10 (0 «-f C C Cd) ^ ,1 (0 t0 10Q- (-> w in in v»
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluorescence IntensityHorn Caunf - No BKGNO
Q.0)a
Wavelengthat Peak (rim)400 450 500 550
CPT: OFSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
Project: Popile
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
ELEVATION
0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance
Qc (tons/ft2)
1 10010 | 1000
Sleeve Friction
», (tons/ft ')
0 5 10 15 20 25
in in 010) 0) >C- (- 103 3 LJJ JJ 0
X X•i-i •ii tS3: X
m m m m•'-' >• •u •o •o •oID 10 «-< c -c cM •-'••-' 10 10 10Q. (-> in oi oi (/)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluorescence IntensityNOT-. CBuntS - NO BKCNO
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fluorescence IntensityNorr. CountI - No BKGNO
1 100 100001000 3S<110 | 1000
• •H. 1 •••I • ; • • • • •
Have lengthat Peak (nm)400 450 500 550
-i—4-O
•i""i""r
CPT: 46 Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
m
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone Resistance
qc (tons/ft2)
1 10010
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft')
•) 5 10 15 SO 35
in in01 <uL c-3 a•i-i -i-iX X
0)>ID
t3
t3•X. Z
m m m m•K >« 4-1 •o 'O •o10 10 -< c c cQJ r-* •r^ (Q (0 10a u in w (D in
0 1 2 3 4 5
Fluortscenct IntensityNQr«. Counts - No BKGNO
Fluorescence IntensityNOTM. Count! - Ho BKGNO
100 10000350
Wavelength
at Peak (nm)
<00 <50 500 550
CPT: 1G Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Fluoriscencc Intensity
Norn. Counts - No BKGHO
1 100 1000010 | 10000 | 1000
• •••I • •". • •••
Wavelengthat Peak (nm)wo <50 soo aso
CPT: 5HSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
Project: Popile
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
ELEVATION
0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Cone ResistanceQc ( tons / f t 2 )
l loo10 | 1000
f •W I fW» 1 4M|_i—mJ—i i ill—i * 1 1 |
JC-1-1a.uQ
Sleeve Frictionf, (tons/ft')
} 2 4 6 B 10
in inw 0)L L3 34-' -Ux x
t3•S. •S.
m m m m•u >. *» •o •o •o10 ID '-l C C C0) ^ rt 10 (0 naa. u w w in ui
0 1 2 3 4 5
FluorRSCBncR XntRnsityHorm. Counts - No WGNO
0 SOO 1000 1500 2000
luorescence Intenaitnorii Count* - No BKEND
| 100 10010 l 1000
• •". ! •••I • •". • •••;
y
00 35
Wavelengthat Peak Inm)
50 400 450 SOO 5S
CPT: 4H
STATE COORDINATES:EASTING ( f t . )
0
Project: Popile
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
ELEVATION
0
( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
Fluorescence IntensityNorr Counti - No BKGNO
Mavelength
at Peak (nm)
10 J
! :!!l ! !!«350 400 4SO 500
J-
Project: PopileSTATE COORDINATES:
EASTING ( f t . )
0
NORTHING ( f t . )0
ELEVATION
0( f t . )
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in OT01 01L c-3 3
Cone Resistance
Qc (tons/ft2)
1 1001000
•rt "< iaz z
in in m m.i-> >• 4-1 •o T3 •o10 10 rt c C C(u 1-1 •i-i in (D 10Q. (J (n io i/) en
0 1 2 3 4 5
ELEVATION ( f t . )
0
NORTHING ( f t . )
0
--• 7V - T'llii i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 -
STATE COORDINATES
EASTING ( f t . )
0
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
VI
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
m m (u0) 0) >C- t- ID3 3 C.•u •u o
Cone Resistance x S ,.•»•< -rt ^3
Qc (tons/ft ') in in 2 z in in
1
0-
t; 10 -0)**-
n '•4->S 20-ua :
30-
100
10 | 102 4(11 ; fS» t JM
<?1/jij^^' ' " i ' ' " i ' ' "
00 a
:
J
^
'
', '.
Sleeve Friction
f, (tons/ft*)
5 10 15 20 2
\?
s•
,. ,,,..,...,. .,,...
5
•i-' >•••-' 'O '0 '010 10 '-' C C CCD •-• —i io m loa. u in 01 in in
0 1 2 3 * E
5s3
^s^^i
5^-E>,
..,.,. .... , .... ., .
FlM
3 0
: :
J
•
^"
- —
;
•
uorescence Intent itUrm. Counts - No BK6NO
300 iooo 1500 ro
1
' ' '
F1
100
luorctcence IntensitMorn. count! - No BKGNO
100 10C10 l 1000
• •!h • ••d • •". ! •"
i . .
y
OO 3.
Navelengtri
at Peak (nm)
50 100 J50 500 5;
l i l
50
-0
- 1 0 ^OJ**-
C.•U
- 20 Q
0): Q
-30
CPT: 01 Project: Popile
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
in
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
inr-<
4
CPT based SOILCLASSIFICATION
inf—i
in in ID0) 0) >c- t- <o3 3 t-
4-1 J-> 0
Cone Resistance .2 .S 13q<: ( tons/ft2) u, in x z in in
Sleeve Friction ^ S'^ ? ? ? Fluorcscenti intensity Wavelength1 lou f , ( tons/f t1) £ ^ - ro ro TO •-iuor.,c.nc« int.nsuy H»-. <^nt, - N. «K6No at Peak (nm)
10 I 1000 a u (n u) in (o ' '"'•"• counn - NO wens „„ igoin, °>• •—"- "'°"; .^|; ...I . ...i 0 5 i0 15 20 35 0 1 S 3 4 5 » m im ,w> wo , , ..j°. .,J "M ,.i 'f ^JSLT
40- i • i i [ i ...i i • • i - 1"-r"i"-r- ' r" l 1n»i....i...„„„„„„„..[ 1 • • • i • • • i • • • • • • • 1 ^——i • • • • i • •••i——t- 4—l""i""i—4-40
ItopTlinX R«|.CAS Number r*nm««r Dilution RMUII Qu Limit Limit
n/a TPH • Dinil Rang* Orpnici I ND 11.6
I WillBftUBflllf tPMC
ro I IMII KM DIUI M w •ftim «• BJ)wli4 n»«111« ••ILDr««MinDltwfa«Fl«lwrBlrML Tfce Nwp F——f t—ii* >f I —i •—iHr —ipHriae.• i uUBM I. BA* Ik ——^rt^ •i ^^klft •&^ J «tek •a^ ••kU—— •i l«w IfA ftB^BBJ*•i pB^Mf u—— • wr^d— ^^ •Mi — •ft • •n M —— ——wr« ^—^ n •fy—miQ«teil«MlllRh lrrtlkwllll*H*nJrfk—fc««ruifrfM«rwMluif«i«clii>——MiMn—liliMi«wi—diw»Uwirin«iwmM<»HMabic.
tOft^) II:i6;l<
Report of Laboratory AnalysisPace Analytical Service!, Inc. • New Orleani
Single Simple • Protocol
CIlMitID: 'OG9 Cli.nt! vs. Asasv CORPS OF ENGiNms.N.o.
Project:
Lib ID:
Description:
Mithod:
Prep Factor:
CA» Numb
CALL 00013
JAP-002
(M'-lM'lLow Soil SWU(CU.C14)
1.00
•r P«ram«(«r
ISM TPH DterI R»nec Orui
Leached: a/*
Site: KflHt
Ephode: JAP
Matrix: Sofi
liSL Batch: 23216
Prepared; 19.Sep.97
Dilution Ruult Qu
Sample Qu:
% Moltturt:
Ualti:
Analyzed:
R(p»nln{ R«c.Uoill Limit
•
21mg/ka
2&SfiB^2 2i32 LSK
n/i TPH • DieccI Rui{e Oi-pnic*
I —rMk«» nynil
50 13600 Dl 660
N6 *•«» MM Bm(M« •I «r thw* (IM •4«uJ n|Mlhw l—h.OrJ—MBUiillcFutWfHinei. TtemyrMurcwiibrrw-midM—fitM.• inl«|l lall li •ii rH fir ni|li ila rtniiln •nl •ilnin •in iri|i|llrili^1 PMC miN k" •pMiRC lMiMHWCMi—l N W— —I—' —H
M6<rf 1241; 11
Report of Laboratory AnalysisPace Analytical Service*, Inc. • New Orleans
Single Sample • Protocol
Client ID; :flK£ CHarti U.8. ARMY CORPS OP ENGMCElISJf.Q.
W <«»im Mniihii tuHM N gmn. 'nirnpFM«WMniiMifcriin-twUM—pl>ii«i•ipHtaf Unll b •HMri fcr—»-•IM. JUMlw |*J ••Ilin——M If •rWMkQitaC—lMm. lMriftlwlUinin«HlMl«lll«««*r«rr«M«.fir —hutfi nxM. •ii ••—• (—h k •i •HXM* fcr • H«n •H Ut «•— ni »»lh»fcl>.
Report of Laboratory AnalysisPace Analytical Servicw, Inc. - New Orleani
Single Sample • Protocol
CllrotID: Ififi Client: V.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENG1NEERS.N.O.
ProJKt: £AU.W913 Site: Kflnt
LabIDi JAP.OOS Ephodc: JAP SampltQu;
D-cription: fft-O'-?^') . Matrix: Sofi % Mobtuni IS
Reportial Rec.CAS Number Peremeier Dilution R«uh Qu Limit Lloili
ND 13.3rvi TPH • D«c*cl R«n(c Oriwici
1 ••r»»ll» Mrrcl
MD J<WM NM ftMMM M U «km ft* *«|<HM r«M*« llBk.Or iolo BOidw FMM> •r«fU««. Tbt Itw FMIW M——U fcr i MITMdK — It Utt.
» fcu viMm. HuMi mIKWn T« NO>N na* •« •ft r»«n.
Pace Analytical Services, Inc. -New OrleansLaboratory Quality Control Definitions
Our laboratory employs quality control (QC) measures to cncuro the quality of our analyticaldata by defining if accuracy and precision. Presentation of the QC data with the reportallowx the data user the opportunity to evaluate these reculu aad to gauge the methodperformance. la order to assist the understanding of these data, routine components of bur QCprogram are defined below.
BATCH • A batch is a group of 20 samples or less of a givea matrix and analysis by a specificprotocol or analytical method.
B1ANK • A method blank k a'dean'laboratory sample carried through the entire analytical.process. One or more method blanks arc prepared with each batch.of samples. The analysis ofmethod blanks demonstrates thai method interferences caused by contaminants, reagents andglassware are known and minimized. A method blank should not contain any analytes of interestabove the reporting limit. There are method allowances for common laboratory artifacts such asmethylene chloride, acetone and bis-2-ethylhexyt phthalate.
LABORATORY CONTROL SPIKE • A laboratory control spike (LCS or blank spike) Is a blankwhich hu been spiked with known concentrations of target analytes. The LCS is carried throughthe entire analytical process. One or more LCS are prepared with each batch of samples. Thepercent recovery of the spiked analyies provides a measure of the accuracy of the analyticalprocess in the absence of matrix eITeeis.
MATRIX SPIKE • A matrix spike (MS) is a client sample which is spiked with known concentrationsof largel analytes. The MS is carried through the entire analytical process. One or morematrix spikes are prepared with every batch of samples. For organic methods, a matrix spikeduplicate (MSD) is also prepared. The percent recovery of the spiked analytes provides ameasure of the method accuracy in the selected sample and matrix.
DUPLICATE-A duplicate is a sample for which replicate aUquouts are carried through (heeotire analytical process. Comparison of the original results to those of the duplicateresults provides a measure of the method precision in the sample and matrix By convention,precision is measured for inorganic analyses using a sample and a sample duplicate, whereas fororganics analyses, an MS/MSD are used.
SURROGATE • A surrogate is a noo-target analyte which is added to all samples and QC samplesprior to extraction or aaalysis. The percent recovery of the surrogate providec a measure ofthe method accuracy in each sample tested. Surrogates arc used for organics methods only.
QC LIMITS • QC limits specify the expected percent recovery range for a spiked compound. QClimits may be set by method criteria or calculated from laboratory generated data. For manymethods, these limits are advisory and do-not require corrective action if exceeded.
Report of Quality ControlPace Analytical Services, Inc. - New Orieani
Ml wlk* •wi—mllMi «n MI •Mi«md f» ••him* •MIIMI •( IW wIM wk.WM1 \'tMM
Report of Batch Surrogate RecoveryPace Analytical Service!, Inc. • New Orleans
Organic Protocol. Single Bitch
Method: l s
Lab ID
23637B1
23637B223637B321637MS
23637MSD23637S11WP-001
IWM02IWT.001
1WT-002
1WT-003
IZC-001
JAP-001JAP-002
JAP-002DLJAP-002DL2 0 D
JAP-003
JAP-003REJAP-004
JAP-005JAP'006
QCUmlu:
SurliSur2:SuritSur4!
^tIGC/MSSemiveltl
Surl%R«c
717267
65
517143
6873
7S
!«
68
630 D
0 D
SO49
736267
23-120
SS NlirobenunfrdSWl-FlirroblplunyiSST«rpk«Ayl-dl4SSPhenoMS
lie Ornnici
8ur2%Itoe
7566
7472
521241
74
7559
61
71
69
0 D
0 D
0 D
54
55887t
74
3 0 - 1 1 5
Sur6:
Rur3%R«c
IS77
9392
73
93
6116
9313
12
11
19
0 D0 D
O D90
92931094
11 • 137
Epbo
Bat
Sur«%R*«
75
7568
75
54
1253
7367
58
6871
630
0
0S1
5074
62
71
24.113 2S.U1
Surd
de; JAP
ch; 23637
SurS%ftK
70
72
6273
507648
66
5855
62
6761
D 0 D
D 0 D
D 0 D
49
46
795968
SS 2-FluorephnolSS2,4,6-Trlbramoph(Mil
SwrC%RM
1 173
70
7951
1)
4372
6254
73
6S60
O D0 D
O D71
73
10989
II
19-122
Sir 7%Rw
Surl%R*c
1^ h •M k •rQC a«hi ••• u impta «lkU*«. ii h 1*1 cuiMmo u MwnlMi.* Lib ID MMlMb| •ri MMk MINT 1U l • rffll b l •KM kMkA l«» ia •Mittel •fi k«u* uBtar •a* • • Mini 11 • LCLA Lik 10 •Ml * Ml Ulflb It I •Urti fite.« U» ID •ltt « MSB-lib b I •Mri* wDu &>pU«u-
Report of Method BlankPace Analytical Service!, Inc. - New Orleans
Orfnie Protocol • Single Batch
Lab ID: 23637B1
Deteriptlon: Law Soil Method Blank
Method: Law Sftll PC/MS Scmtvolatik QMMitt
Prep Factor! 1 Leachtdi .J |
Epiiodt: ^AE
Batch: 23637
Prepared: Qg-Sro'0?
•/•Moisture: n/a
Unite ysQsi
Analyzed: ll.Sep.97 22iaii[&
ItepoitlirLimitDilution QuCAS Numb«r Panmeur
M.32.9
201-964
120-12-7i(-SS-3205-99-2207-01-09
65-IS.O
191-24.2
(0-32.8100-S1-6101-SS-311-68-7
106-47.1
111.91.1
111-44-4lOg.60.1
Sfl.50-7
91-51.7
9S.S74
7005.73.3
2114)4$1-70.3132.A4.9
14-74-295-S0.1
S41.73.110&-46.7
91-94-1
120-13-2
1446-2105^7.9
131.11.3
S34-12.1S1.28.5121.14.3
606.20-2117.144
1 1 7 . 1 1 . 7
206^4.0
NO 4iM<M NM DMKU* N •r itaf lk* M»*Rb| UiBll.BF —MMI DUldMl fMUf,
«*»rociD iair •ITI»» |—»«) h wWi «fOC ••to *« X ••>1* Oath*, irf b «« •»»MCTd M nainto*.« IJ* m——hlte( •f* kMA •—far •Uk • • •lh h I ••*•« ktekA U» 0 •u*U« 1 • kM •—Nr •kk « f •flii k » LCt.« Uft ID •la i Ml nflU h • •ufk—Ik*.4 Lik IR •tek f Mt6 llffil b • •Mrb wHu JMfltau.
Report of Method BlankPace Analytical Sarvket, Inc." New Orleans
Organic Protocol • Single Bitch
Lflb ID: 2374ml
DMcripHon; Low Son Method Blank
Method: Low SoH GC E»r«ct»blc TPH
Prep Factor: 1 L—ch«di fl a
Epiiode: JAP
Batch: 23716
Prepared: 19-S«p-97
•/oMohture: n/a
Unit*: fflgZlU
Analyzad: lS.Sae-97 ffiil2 LSX
R—orilniLbniiDUutianCAS Numbtr P«tm*l*r Rwit Qu
TPH • DIccel Rince Olfniet 10.0 NDn/»
I IMIpWMHI'
ND <(•—> N- D—cu* M M ib t ik* n^ntuf H»k,W ••MC MliUM fMi«r.M, ——I- MBph •wnki| Ltak.QllbUfMtefc (——k««dlll«fWlMtwJuik«i4«f«lKi«pri.
Report Qualifier!Pace Analytical Servicii, Inc. - New Orleair
• SiBfIc Epteode
Epiiode: JAP
Qualifier Qualifier Dicriptim
A 10 N-Nlmxodiphcnybuiune if npomd u dipheaylamlnt.
Dl The «Mly*i( wu pufemud « a dilution du» u lh« hlfb walyle eoneenuxion.
D2 The vrlyili wu pnfonncd •t • dilution du« to th« prnmcc ofnutrix infttwnei,
. 04 Oil ttnfe orpnici pmeni in the umpte nry contribute * U(h biu u the dicwl ru|C orfknict vilu* npemd.
M2 The nmplf required icoulytii du« to fainnal itindtfd reipenr ouuidc ih» QC limit*. RMiulyilt yielded (imilir rewht. indicttin( i nmpitmatrix «IT«ct. The twulu reporud ire from (he orifinil «n*ly»ii.
P2 The Mmpic •xinci could not b« coMotnted «o the method tpteilkd fin*l volume. The reponiol limli if •Icvaud •ceordm|ly.
Q I The murix fpike rccoveriec art poor. Acceptable method perfonrumce for thil analyte hu be«o d*moniBU«d by th« laboBtofy control umplencovery.
WMW \w-»
Chesi/Temp.
Soil SAMPLESCHAIN OF CUSTODY
U.S. Army Corpt ofEngiB—nTul» District
Project: Poplle. Inc.
Pate- /eSentl997
5^
Sample ID: ^S 61. Time: /O/O
^ ,y 5^Project POC;. KuSKt} ^W fbone:JS^Z3£&—— Pue Date;_2^JLs
CONTAINERS
filass Plastic Yiflls Cheat #_ Custody SeaLg
_ »= r_ ^J-io ?/fl7
PARAMETERS SAMPLED
•'' Semi-Volatile Organics
T?^ -3^tf.S&/ ^ACT/OfJ
^noA^\
eo/sr^
—l?•' ^7
1 '
* Containers: () " 1 L Amber Glass [ ] " 1 L Plastic { } - 40 mL Vials
CUSTODY RECORD
/\ J&®AinM»hed By Received By Date Time..£B^^y ———•——^-^fez ISJBB.^ ^ i^D^^A y/y^7 ^3:0r T