A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business TTI Environmental Incorporated 1253 N. Church Street Moorestown, New Jersey 08057 Tel: 856-840-8800 Fax: 856-840-8815 Providing Sound Environmental Solutions For Business & Industry www.ttienv.com June 27, 2013 Mr. Christopher Eyre TD Bank, N.A. 2059 Springdale Road Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Reference: Phase II Investigation Alan R. Cantrell Block 538, Lots 13-18 45 Juliustown Road Browns Mills, Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey TTI Project No. 12-1272 TD Project No. 12-006370-03-1 Dear Mr. Eyre: TTI Environmental, Inc. (TTI) is pleased to provide you with this Phase II Investigation for the above referenced facility. For your ease of review, the report is organized in the following manner: 1.0 Background 2.0 Technical Overview 3.0 Site Assessment Summary 4.0 Recommendations & Conclusions 1.0 BACKGROUND TTI completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) of the above referenced property on September 26, 2012. The purpose of the assessment was to identify historical, existing or potential areas of environmental concern. The Phase I was conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Figure 1.0 depicts the location of the subject site on a USGS topographic map. The following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) requiring further investigation were identified: • Abandoned In Place Heating Oil UST • Surficial Staining • Former Dry Cleaning Operation A summary of the Phase I conclusions regarding these areas of concern is provided below.
93
Embed
TTI Environmental Incorporated 1253 N. Church Street ...
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
A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business
TTI Environmental Incorporated 1253 N. Church Street Moorestown, New Jersey 08057 Tel: 856-840-8800 Fax: 856-840-8815
Providing Sound Environmental Solutions For Business & Industry
www.ttienv.com
June 27, 2013 Mr. Christopher Eyre TD Bank, N.A. 2059 Springdale Road Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08003 Reference: Phase II Investigation
Alan R. Cantrell Block 538, Lots 13-18 45 Juliustown Road Browns Mills, Pemberton, Burlington County, New Jersey
TTI Project No. 12-1272 TD Project No. 12-006370-03-1 Dear Mr. Eyre: TTI Environmental, Inc. (TTI) is pleased to provide you with this Phase II Investigation for the above referenced facility. For your ease of review, the report is organized in the following manner:
1.0 Background 2.0 Technical Overview
3.0 Site Assessment Summary 4.0 Recommendations & Conclusions
1.0 BACKGROUND
TTI completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) of the above referenced property on September 26, 2012. The purpose of the assessment was to identify historical, existing or potential areas of environmental concern. The Phase I was conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Figure 1.0 depicts the location of the subject site on a USGS topographic map. The following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) requiring further investigation were identified:
• Abandoned In Place Heating Oil UST • Surficial Staining • Former Dry Cleaning Operation
A summary of the Phase I conclusions regarding these areas of concern is provided below.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 2 of 9
1.0 BACKGROUND (CONTINUED) 1.1 Abandoned In Place Heating Oil UST
According to Alan Cantrell, the property owner, the site formerly utilized a No. 2 heating oil UST of unknown capacity. The UST is currently abandoned in place on the southeast exterior of the subject building. Pemberton Township construction records indicate a tank removal occurred in 2006 by a contactor identified as Mr. John Donelson. No additional information was provided to TTI regarding the abandonment event. USTs represent and area of concern as a failure or leak in the system can impact subsurface soil and water. It is TTI’s opinion that this environmental consideration is a recognized environmental condition (REC). TTI recommended further investigation of this REC.
1.2 Surficial Staining
TTI observed staining on the concrete floor within the subject building in the vicinity of the oil burner and associated return/feed lines. Granular Oil-Dry was used as an absorbent in and around the staining. TTI did not observe any actively leaking petroleum; however, the observed staining was in close proximity to a nearby wall-floor seam. In addition, the amount and duration of the staining is unknown. It is TTI’s opinion that this environmental consideration is a recognized environmental condition (REC). TTI recommended further investigation of this REC.
1.3 Former Dry Cleaning Operation
Mr. Cantrell indicated that the portion of the subject building occupied by the tobacco shop formerly operated as an offsite dry cleaning operation. As part of this assessment, TTI submitted a request to review records from the Pemberton Township Tax Assessor’s Office and Construction Departments. TTI received information from the Assessor’s office include the site’s property record card, ownership information, historic use, etc. According to the records provided, the former dry cleaning operation was located on site in 1973. Dry cleaners represent an environmental concern as the release of hazardous dry cleaning materials could cause soil and/or groundwater contamination. At this time, TTI cannot confirm that the operation did not engage in onsite dry-cleaning operations. In addition, TTI suspects the dry cleaner could have operated on site. It is TTI’s opinion that this environmental consideration is a recognized environmental condition (REC). TTI recommended further investigation of this REC.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 3 of 9
2.0 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW TTI personnel involved in the collection of samples were Ms. Kristin Kaeser, TTI Environmental
Project Supervisor (NJDEP Certification No. 236270) and Mr. Max Demianovich, TTI Environmental Assistant Project Manager.
2.1 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey
Prior to field sampling activities, TTI conducted oversight of a GPR survey of the subject site in the vicinity of the abandoned in place UST. The survey was conducted to evaluate the potential presence and/or evidence of historic underground storage tanks at the property. The survey results were also utilized to guide the sample location points. The GPR survey was performed by Enviroprobe Service, Inc. of Moorestown, NJ (Enviroprobe). To complete this investigation, Enviroprobe utilized a Radiodetection RD1000 cart-mounted Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) unit with a 250 MHz antenna, a Radiodetection 8000T10 multi-frequency transmitter, a Radiodetection 8000 receiver, and a Fisher TW-6 metallic locator. Areas of interest were marked out using spray paint. Upon completion of this survey, one (1) anomaly was identified in the area of the suspected UST. The anomaly was approximately five (5) feet by eight (8) and located approximately three (3) feet below grade. The size and location of this anomaly appeared consistent with an abandoned in place UST between 1,000 gallons and 1,500 gallons in capacity. A copy of the geophysical investigation report prepared by Enviroprobe pertaining to the subject site GPR survey is included herein as Appendix A.
2.2 Soil Sampling Methodology
The soil borings for this Phase II Investigation were installed using a direct push hydraulic sampling unit. Soil samples were collected using dedicated plastic sleeves in the unit’s macro core sampling device. A concrete core drill was utilized to facilitate interior sampling as necessary. Soil cores were continuously field screened using a Photoionization detector (PID) for organic vapor concentrations. Soil selected for chemical analysis from each core was transferred from the sampling device into laboratory supplied sample containers. Samples were shipped to the designated laboratory in ice packed coolers under chain-of-custody documentation.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 4 of 9
2.0 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW (CONTINUED)
2.3 Groundwater Sampling Methodology
Groundwater sampling activities were conducted in general conformance with N.J.A.C. 7:26E – Technical Requirements for Site Remediation and the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual, August 2005. Two (2) temporary well points were placed using a GeoProbe direct push hydraulic unit in order to assess groundwater quality in the historic dry cleaner area. The well point consisted of a 1.5 inch diameter PVC casing and screen. The well point was removed from the ground within 48 hours of installation and the probe holes filled with native soil, sand, and bentonite. Both well points were advanced to a total depth of approximately 12 feet below grade and completed using 10 feet of PVC screen. Groundwater samples were collected using disposable, single use bailers. Each bailer was allowed to travel to the bottom of the temporary well point prior to sample collection. The groundwater samples were transferred directly into laboratory supplied sample containers and transported to the laboratory in ice packed coolers under Chain of Custody documentation.
2.4 Analytical Methodology
Samples collected for analysis were submitted to Alpha Analytical of Westborough, Massachusetts (NJDEP Certification No. MA935). The following methodologies were used: Soil
The WG609456-3 Method Blank, associated with L1308954-01 and -02, has a TIC concentration above the reporting limit. The results of the original analysis are reported and are qualified with a "B" for any associated sample concentrations that are less than 5x the blank concentration for this TIC. NJ Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Total)
The WG609036-5 Laboratory Duplicate RPD (56%), performed on L1308954-05, is outside the acceptance criteria. The elevated RPD has been attributed to the non-homogeneous nature of the sample utilized for the laboratory duplicate. None of these nonconformance issues have impacted the quality of the data. The final laboratory report (L1308954) is attached is attached as Appendix B.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 5 of 9
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Limitations: TTI’s investigation was limited due to the presence of subgrade utilities in the vicinity of exterior sample locations. Additionally, the UST being investigated was abandoned in place; as such, sampling directly below the tank centerline was not feasible. Finally, the location of the surficial staining sample location was limited due to the presence of stockpiled material and interior shelving units. The location of all sample points and anomalies identified during the GPR survey are depicted on Figure 2.0. 3.1 Abandoned In Place Heating Oil UST
TTI performed an investigation of the abandoned in place heating oil UST using the NJDEP’s Technical Guidance for the Investigation of Underground Storage Tank Systems v1.0 dated April 12, 2012 for guidance. Based on the suspected capacity of the UST (between 1,000 and 1,500 gallons) one (1) sample was collected from each side of the tank for a total of four (4) soil samples. The sample depths were selected at the suspected invert of the tank and/or based on positive bias (olfactory/visual observation and PID screening). A total of two (2) of these samples were submitted for EPH Category 1 analysis. The selection of samples UST-3 and UST-4 for analysis was based on a petroleum odor detected during borehole advancement. Each sample was collected from the half foot interval directly above the observed soil-groundwater interface. A summary of the results is provided below in Table 1.0.
Table 1.0: UST Investigation Soil Analytical Data (mg/kg) Sample
Location Depth (ft) Date PID EPH
Result NJDEP Further Action
Criteria
UST-3 8-8.5 05/16/2013 ND 375 1,000 mg/kg – Further
ppm = parts per million; ND = None detected; EPH (Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Category 1); PID = photoionization detector A review of the data indicates that no EPH category 1 results were detected above the NJDEP further action criteria of 1,000 mg/kg. As such, no samples were selected for contingent analysis.
3.2 Surficial Staining
TTI performed a subsurface investigation in the vicinity of surficial staining observed near the site’s current oil fired boiler. Subsurface soils were sampled after exposure via concrete core drilling. The sample was collected from the half foot interval directly below the building’s concrete slab floor and submitted for EPH Category 1 analysis. A summary of the results is provided in Table 2.0 on the following page.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 6 of 9
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
3.2 Surficial Staining – Continued
Table 2.0: Surficial Staining Investigation Soil Analytical Data (mg/kg) Sample
Location Depth (ft) Date PID EPH
Result NJDEP Further Action
Criteria
I-1 0.5-1.0 05/16/2013 ND 40.8
1000 mg/kg – Further Action Criteria
5100 mg/kg = Remedial
Criteria mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram; ND = None detected; PID = photoionization detector; EPH (Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Category 1); A review of the data indicates that no EPH category 1 results were detected above the NJDEP further action criteria of 1,000 mg/kg. As such, no samples were selected for contingent analysis.
3.3 Former Dry Cleaning Operation
TTI installed two (2) borings to investigate this REC. A soil sample was collected from each borehole at the half foot interval directly above the observed soil/water interface. The samples were submitted for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) analysis. The borings were advanced to a total depth of 12 feet below grade. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 7.5 to eight (8) feet below grade. A summary of the soil results is provided below in Table 3.0.
Table 3.0: Former Dry Cleaning Operation Soil Analytical Data (mg/kg)
A review of the data indicates that no targeted VOCs were detected. Additionally, tentatively identified compounds (TICs) for each sample were detected at a concentration of less than one (1) mg/kg.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 7 of 9
3.0 SITE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY (CONTINUED)
3.3 Former Dry Cleaning Operation – Continued
At the conclusion of soil sampling, each bore hole was converted to a temporary well point to facilitate ground water sampling (DC-1 was converted to TWP-1 and DC-2 was converted to TWP-2). Each well point was purged to clear via a peristaltic pump prior to sampling. The samples were submitted for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) analysis. A summary of the groundwater results is provided below in Table 4.0.
Table 4.0: Former Dry Cleaning Operation Groundwater Analytical Data (ug/L)
A review of the data indicates that no targeted VOCs were detected. Additionally, tentatively identified compounds for TWP-2 were detected at a concentration of 52 ug/L. This value is below the groundwater remedial standard for total tentatively identified compounds of 500 ug/L.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 8 of 9
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TTI’s Phase II investigation evaluated the potential environmental impact from an abandoned in place heating oil UST, surficial staining, and a former dry cleaning operation. The investigation was conducted in general conformance with NJDEP requirements. With regard to this Phase II, TTI concludes the following: Abandoned In Place Heating Oil UST: UST-3 produced an EPH result of 375 mg/kg at 8.0 – 8.5 feet below grade. Based on the fact that the EPH Category 1 result was not above the NJDEP further action criteria of 1,000 mg/kg and no signs of impact to groundwater were observed, i.e. sheen/product in groundwater, groundwater odor, etc., TTI is recommending no further action or investigation with regard to this recognized environmental condition. Surficial Staining: Soil sampling in the vicinity of observed interior surficial staining produced an EPH Category 1 result of 40.8 mg/kg. This result is below the NJDEP EPH Category 1 further action criteria of 1,000 mg/kg. As such, TTI is recommending no further action or investigation with regard to this recognized environmental condition. Former Dry Cleaning Operation: TTI’s soil/groundwater investigation identified no targeted or tentatively identified VOCs above applicable NJDEP standards. As such, TTI is recommending no further action or investigation with regard to this recognized environmental condition.
TD Bank, N.A. TTI Project No. 12-1272 June 27, 2013 Page 9 of 9
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Thank you for allowing TTI to provide you with professional environmental consulting services. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at any time.
Max Demianovich TTI Environmental, Inc.1253 North Church Rd.Moorestown, NJ 08057
PREPARED BY:
Ken LindesGeophysical Technician
Enviroprobe Service, Inc.908 N. Lenola Road
Moorestown, NJ 08057(856) 858-8584(800) 596-7472
May 25, 2013
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. (Enviroprobe) is an environmental investigation services firm which provides monitoring well installation (HSA), Geoprobe (DPT) drilling services and Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (EEG) services to the environmental consulting and engineering community.
Enviroprobe conducted a subsurface geophysical investigation at the subject property within client-specified areas of concern. Due to conditions and objectives, the investigation utilized a Radiodetection RD1000 cart-mounted Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) unit with a 250 MHz antenna, a Radiodetection 8000T10 multi-frequency transmitter, a Radiodetection 8000 receiver, and a Fisher TW-6 metallic locator.
Ground penetrating radar (commonly called GPR) is a geophysical method that has been developed over the past thirty years for shallow, high-resolution, subsurface investigations of the earth. GPR uses high frequency pulsed electromagnetic waves (generally 10 MHz to 2,000 MHz) to acquire subsurface information. An EM wave is propagated downward into the ground by a transmitting antenna. Where abrupt changes in electrical properties occur in the subsurface, a portion of the energy is reflected back to the surface. This reflected wave is detected by a receiver antenna and transmitted to a control unit for real time processing and display. The penetration depth of the RD1000 unit varies from several inches to tens of feet according to site-specific conditions. The penetration depth decreases with increased soil conductivity. The penetration depth is the greatest in ice, dry sands, and fine gravels. Clayey, highly saline or saturated soils, areas covered by concrete, foundry slag, or other highly conductive materials greatly reduce GPR penetration. GPR is a method that is commonly used for environmental, engineering, archaeological, and other shallow investigations.
The Radiodetection (RD) transmitter and receiver are commonly used for pipe and cable locating. The multi-frequency transmitter can be directly connected, clamped, or used to induce a signal in a target line while the multi-frequency receiver is used to measure the signal from energized lines.
The Fisher TW-6 metallic locator is designed to find pipes, cables and other metallic objects such as underground storage tanks (USTs). The TW-6 transmitter generates an electromagnetic field that induces electrical currents in the subsurface. These currents produce a secondary electromagnetic field that is measured by the TW-6 receiver. One surveyor can carry both the transmitter and receiver together to search for underground metallic objects, although the TW-6 response can also be affected by the electrical properties of non-metallic materials in the subsurface.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
On May 16, 2013, a geophysical technician from Enviroprobe Service Inc. was mobilized to the subject property to perform a geophysical investigation. The purpose of
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. 3
this investigation was to detect possible USTs, designate underground conduits/utilities, and investigate proposed boring locations within all accessible exterior portions of the subject property. The ground surface of the survey area consisted of paved, concrete, landscaped, and natural soil surfaces.
3.0 SURVEY RESULTS
The survey was conducted using a cart-mounted GPR unit, a Fisher TW-6 metallic locator, and a RD unit. The RD unit was used to trace common utilities from sources in and around the survey area. The RD receiver was also used in the passive mode to search for live underground electrical power cables and other utilities emitting 60Hz electromagnetic signals. When possible, the locations of utilities were confirmed with the GPR. Whenever possible and necessary, the manhole covers in and around the survey area were opened and the manholes were visually inspected for underground utilities. A GPR survey was also performed in a grid pattern in at least two orthogonal directions to search for underground utilities. Designated utilities were marked on-site with spray paint using the following colors; blue – water and white – vent line.
The GPR and TW-6 were used in a grid pattern over all client-specified areas of the property. Based on the results of the GPR and TW-6 surveys, a metallic anomaly consistent with an UST was identified adjacent the eastern side of the main building. This rectangular anomaly measured approximately 5 ft by 8 ft and was located at a depth of approximately 3 ft. The approximate extent of this anomaly was designated on-site with white spray paint.
Proposed boring locations were investigated with the GPR, TW-6, and RD receiver. When possible, an area of approximately 10 ft by 10 ft surrounding each boring location was scanned. In some cases, obstructions prevented an investigation of the entire 10 ft by 10 ft area. All designated anomalies were marked on-site with spray paint.
4.0 LIMITATIONS
The client-selected areas of the property had obstructions including debris, landscaping, and walls. These objects prevented a thorough investigation of the spaces beneath and immediately adjacent to them.
Due to surface conditions and subsurface content, the GPR signal penetration was estimated at 4.0 feet in the majority of the survey area. This penetration was reduced in areas of concrete cover.
The TW-6 survey was kept up to 6 feet away from above ground objects containing metals depending on the sizes, shapes and positions of the metal objects. The TW-6 survey was not effective in areas with reinforced concrete.
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. 4
Due to the dielectric properties of the subsurface, plastic polymer and fiberglass utilities may not have been detected.
All field services were conducted in compliance with the industry standard of care guidelines found in ASCE 38-02 (Level B).
5.0 WARRANTIES
The field observations and measurements reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope for this project. Enviroprobe Service, Inc. warrants that the findings and conclusions contained herein have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted environmental engineering methods. There is a possibility that conditions may exist which could not be identified within the scope of this project and were not apparent during the site activities performed for this project.
Enviroprobe represents that the services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants under similar circumstances. No other representations to Client, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended in this agreement, or in any report, document, or otherwise.
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. believes that the information provided in this report is reliable. However, Enviroprobe cannot warrant or guarantee that the information provided by others is complete or accurate. No other warranties or guarantees are implied or expressed.
GPR data is subject to signal anomalies and operator interpretation. The GPR data is intended to provide the locations of areas of concern requiring additional investigation or the approximate location of underground structures and utilities. Great care must be utilized when excavating and/or drilling around underground structures and utilities since GPR data can only be used for estimation purposes and GPR data is subject to misinterpretation. Enviroprobe can not guarantee that utilities, post-tension cables, and/or rebar will not be incurred during drilling, cutting, coring, or excavating activities.
This report was prepared pursuant to the contract Enviroprobe has with the Client. That contractual relationship included an exchange of information about the property that was unique and between Enviroprobe and its client and serves as the basis upon which this report was prepared. Because of the importance of the communication between Enviroprobe and its client, reliance or any use of this report by anyone other than the Client, for whom it was prepared, is prohibited and therefore not foreseeable to Enviroprobe.
Reliance or use by any such third party without explicit authorization in the report does not make said third party a third party beneficiary to Enviroprobe contract with the Client. Any such unauthorized reliance on or use of this report, including any of its
Enviroprobe Service, Inc. 5
information or conclusions, will be at the third party's risk. For the same reasons, no warranties or representations, expressed or implied in this report, are made to any such third party.
Certifications & Approvals: MA (M-MA086), NY (11148), CT (PH-0574), NH (2003), NJ NELAP (MA935), RI (LAO00065), ME (MA00086),PA (68-03671), USDA (Permit #P-330-11-00240), NC (666), TX (T104704476), DOD (L2217), US Army Corps of Engineers.
(856) 840-8800Phone:
The original project report/data package is held by Alpha Analytical. This report/data package is paginated and should be reproduced only in itsentirety. Alpha Analytical holds no responsibility for results and/or data that are not consistent with the original.
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 1 of 75
L1308954-01
L1308954-02
L1308954-03
L1308954-04
L1308954-05
L1308954-06
L1308954-07
L1308954-08
L1308954-09
L1308954-10
L1308954-11
Alpha Sample ID
DC-1
DC-2
UST-1
UST-2
UST-3 8-8.5
UST-4 7.5-8
I-1
TWP-1
TWP-2
UST-3 6.5-7
UST-4 6.5-7
Client ID
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
PEMBERTON, NJ
Sample Location
Not Specified
12-1272
Project Name:Project Number:
Lab Number: Report Date:
L130895405/28/13
05/16/13 10:15
05/16/13 10:40
05/16/13 10:54
05/16/13 11:02
05/16/13 11:22
05/16/13 11:31
05/16/13 10:42
05/16/13 11:50
05/16/13 12:13
05/16/13 11:18
05/16/13 11:32
Collection Date/Time
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 2 of 75
Not Specified
12-1272
Project Name:
Project Number:
Lab Number:
Report Date:L1308954
05/28/13
Case Narrative
The samples were received in accordance with the Chain of Custody and no significant deviations were encountered during the preparation
or analysis unless otherwise noted. Sample Receipt, Container Information, and the Chain of Custody are located at the back of the report.
Results contained within this report relate only to the samples submitted under this Alpha Lab Number and meet all of the requirements of
NELAC, for all NELAC accredited parameters. The data presented in this report is organized by parameter (i.e. VOC, SVOC, etc.). Sample
specific Quality Control data (i.e. Surrogate Spike Recovery) is reported at the end of the target analyte list for each individual sample,
followed by the Laboratory Batch Quality Control at the end of each parameter. If a sample was re-analyzed or re-extracted due to a
required quality control corrective action and if both sets of data are reported, the Laboratory ID of the re-analysis or re-extraction is
designated with an "R" or "RE", respectively. When multiple Batch Quality Control elements are reported (e.g. more than one LCS), the
associated samples for each element are noted in the grey shaded header line of each data table. Any Laboratory Batch, Sample Specific %
recovery or RPD value that is outside the listed Acceptance Criteria is bolded in the report. Performance criteria for CAM and RCP methods
allow for some LCS compound failures to occur and still be within method compliance. In these instances, the specific failures are not
narrated but are noted in the associated QC table. This information is also incorporated in the Data Usability format for our Data Merger tool
where it can be reviewed along with any associated usability implications. Soil/sediments, solids and tissues are reported on a dry weight
basis unless otherwise noted. Definitions of all data qualifiers and acronyms used in this report are provided in the Glossary located at the
back of the report.
In reference to questions H (CAM) or 4 (RCP) when "NO" is checked, the performance criteria for CAM and RCP methods allow for some
quality control failures to occur and still be within method compliance. In these instances the specific failure is not narrated but noted in the
associated QC table. The information is also incorporated in the Data Usability format of our Data Merger tool where it can be reviewed
along with any associated usability implications.
Please see the associated ADEx data file for a comparison of laboratory reporting limits that were achieved with the regulatory Numerical
Standards requested on the Chain of Custody.
HOLD POLICY
For samples submitted on hold, Alpha's policy is to hold samples free of charge for 30 days from the date the project is completed. After 30
days, we will dispose of all samples submitted including those put on hold unless you have contacted your Client Service Representative and
made arrangements for Alpha to continue to hold the samples.
Please contact Client Services at 800-624-9220 with any questions.
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 3 of 75
Case Narrative (continued)
Not Specified
12-1272
Project Name:
Project Number:
Lab Number:
Report Date:L1308954
05/28/13
Report Submission
This final report replaces the partial report issued earlier today, and includes the results of all requested
analyses.
All non-detect (ND) or estimated concentrations (J-qualified) have been quantitated to the limit noted in the
MDL column.
Volatile Organics
The WG609456-3 Method Blank, associated with L1308954-01 and -02, has a TIC concentration above the
reporting limit. The results of the original analysis are reported and are qualified with a "B" for any associated
sample concentrations that are less than 5x the blank concentration for this TIC.
NJ Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Total)
The WG609036-5 Laboratory Duplicate RPD (56%), performed on L1308954-05, is outside the acceptance
criteria. The elevated RPD has been attributed to the non-homogeneous nature of the sample utilized for the
laboratory duplicate.
I, the undersigned, attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and belief and based upon my personal inquiry of those responsible for providing the information contained in this analytical report, such information is accurate and complete. This certificate of analysis is not complete unless this page accompanies any and all pages of this report.
*Values in parentheses indicate holding time in days
L1308954-01A
L1308954-01B
L1308954-01C
L1308954-01D
L1308954-01E
L1308954-01F
L1308954-01G
L1308954-02A
L1308954-02B
L1308954-02C
L1308954-02D
L1308954-02E
L1308954-02F
L1308954-02G
L1308954-03A
L1308954-04A
L1308954-05A
L1308954-06A
L1308954-07A
L1308954-08A
L1308954-08B
L1308954-08C
L1308954-08D
L1308954-08E
L1308954-08F
L1308954-09A
L1308954-09B
5 gram Encore Sampler
5 gram Encore Sampler
5 gram Encore Sampler
Vial MeOH preserved split
Vial Water preserved split
Vial Water preserved split
Plastic 2oz unpreserved for TS
5 gram Encore Sampler
5 gram Encore Sampler
5 gram Encore Sampler
Vial MeOH preserved split
Vial Water preserved split
Vial Water preserved split
Plastic 2oz unpreserved for TS
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Vial HCl preserved
Vial HCl preserved
Vial HCl preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Vial HCl preserved
Vial HCl preserved
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
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
A AbsentCooler
Custody SealCooler Information
Not Specified
12-1272
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
TS(7)
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(2)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
NJ-8260HLW(14)
TS(7)
HOLD()
HOLD()
NJEPH-TPH-CAT1(14),TS(7)
NJEPH-TPH-CAT1(14),TS(7)
NJEPH-TPH-CAT1(14),TS(7)
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
8011(14)
8011(14)
8011(14)
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
Project Name:
Project Number:
L1308954Lab Number:
Report Date:
Sample Receipt and Container Information
Container ID Container Type Cooler pHTempdeg C Pres Seal
Container Information
Analysis(*)
05/28/13
Were project specific reporting limits specified? YES
Reagent H2O Preserved Vials Frozen on: 05/18/2013 01:01
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 65 of 75
*Values in parentheses indicate holding time in days
L1308954-09C
L1308954-09D
L1308954-09E
L1308954-09F
L1308954-10A
L1308954-11A
Vial HCl preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Vial Na2S2O3 preserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
Amber 250ml unpreserved
A
A
A
A
A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Not Specified
12-1272
8260-SIM(14),NJ-8260(14)
8011(14)
8011(14)
8011(14)
HOLD()
HOLD()
Project Name:
Project Number:
L1308954Lab Number:
Report Date:
Container ID Container Type Cooler pHTempdeg C Pres Seal
Container Information
Analysis(*)
05/28/13
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 66 of 75
Report Format: DU Report with "J" Qualifiers
GLOSSARY
Project Name:
Project Number:
Lab Number:
Report Date:
L1308954Not Specified
12-1272 05/28/13
Acronyms
EDL
EPA
LCS
LCSD
LFB
MDL
MS
MSD
NA
NC
NI
RL
RPD
SRM
Estimated Detection Limit: This value represents the level to which target analyte concentrations are reported as estimated values, when those target analyte concentrations are quantified below the reporting limit (RL). The EDL includes any adjustments from dilutions, concentrations or moisture content, where applicable. The use of EDLs is specific to the analysis of PAHs using Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME).Environmental Protection Agency.
Laboratory Control Sample: A sample matrix, free from the analytes of interest, spiked with verified known amounts of analytes or a material containing known and verified amounts of analytes.Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate: Refer to LCS.
Laboratory Fortified Blank: A sample matrix, free from the analytes of interest, spiked with verified known amounts of analytes or a material containing known and verified amounts of analytes.Method Detection Limit: This value represents the level to which target analyte concentrations are reported as estimated values, when those target analyte concentrations are quantified below the reporting limit (RL). The MDL includes any adjustments from dilutions, concentrations or moisture content, where applicable.Matrix Spike Sample: A sample prepared by adding a known mass of target analyte to a specified amount of matrix sample for which an independent estimate of target analyte concentration is available. Matrix Spike Sample Duplicate: Refer to MS.
Not Applicable.
Not Calculated: Term is utilized when one or more of the results utilized in the calculation are non-detect at the parameter's reporting unit.Not Ignitable.
Reporting Limit: The value at which an instrument can accurately measure an analyte at a specific concentration. The RL includes any adjustments from dilutions, concentrations or moisture content, where applicable.Relative Percent Difference: The results from matrix and/or matrix spike duplicates are primarily designed to assess the precisionof analytical results in a given matrix and are expressed as relative percent difference (RPD). Values which are less than five times the reporting limit for any individual parameter are evaluated by utilizing the absolute difference between the values; although the RPD value will be provided in the report.Standard Reference Material: A reference sample of a known or certified value that is of the same or similar matrix as the associated field samples.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Terms
Analytical Method: Both the document from which the method originates and the analytical reference method. (Example: EPA 8260B is shown as 1,8260B.) The codes for the reference method documents are provided in the References section of the Addendum.
Data Qualifiers
A
B
C
D
E
G
H
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Spectra identified as "Aldol Condensation Product".
The analyte was detected above the reporting limit in the associated method blank. Flag only applies to associated field samples that have detectable concentrations of the analyte at less than five times (5x) the concentration found in the blank. For MCP-related projects, flag only applies to associated field samples that have detectable concentrations of the analyte at less than ten times (10x) the concentration found in the blank. For DOD-related projects, flag only applies to associated field samples that have detectable concentrations of the analyte at less than ten times (10x) the concentration found in the blank AND the analyte was detected above one-half the reporting limit (or above the reporting limit for common lab contaminants) in the associated method blank. For NJ-Air-related projects, flag only applies to associated field samples that have detectable concentrations of the analyte above the reporting limit.Co-elution: The target analyte co-elutes with a known lab standard (i.e. surrogate, internal standards, etc.) for co-extracted analyses.Concentration of analyte was quantified from diluted analysis. Flag only applies to field samples that have detectable concentrations of the analyte.Concentration of analyte exceeds the range of the calibration curve and/or linear range of the instrument.
The concentration may be biased high due to matrix interferences (i.e, co-elution) with non-target compound(s). The result should be considered estimated.The analysis of pH was performed beyond the regulatory-required holding time of 15 minutes from the time of sample collection.
The RPD between the results for the two columns exceeds the method-specified criteria; however, the lower value has been reported
1 The reference for this analyte should be considered modified since this analyte is absent from the target analyte list of the originalmethod.
-
Footnotes
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 67 of 75
Report Format: DU Report with "J" Qualifiers
Project Name:
Project Number:
Lab Number:
Report Date:
L1308954Not Specified
12-1272 05/28/13
Data Qualifiers
M
NJ
P
Q
R
RE
-
-
-
-
-
-
due to obvious interference.
Reporting Limit (RL) exceeds the MCP CAM Reporting Limit for this analyte.
Presumptive evidence of compound. This represents an estimated concentration for Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs), where the identification is based on a mass spectral library search.The RPD between the results for the two columns exceeds the method-specified criteria.
The quality control sample exceeds the associated acceptance criteria. For DOD-related projects, LCS and/or Continuing CalibrationStandard exceedences are also qualified on all associated sample results. Note: This flag is not applicable for matrix spike recoverieswhen the sample concentration is greater than 4x the spike added or for batch duplicate RPD when the sample concentrations are lessthan 5x the RL. (Metals only.)Analytical results are from sample re-analysis.
Analytical results are from sample re-extraction.
J
ND
-
-
Estimated value. The Target analyte concentration is below the quantitation limit (RL), but above the Method Detection Limit (MDL) or Estimated Detection Limit (EDL) for SPME-related analyses. This represents an estimated concentration for Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs).Not detected at the method detection limit (MDL) for the sample, or estimated detection limit (EDL) for SPME-related analyses.
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 68 of 75
Alpha Analytical performs services with reasonable care and diligence normal to the analytical testinglaboratory industry. In the event of an error, the sole and exclusive responsibility of Alpha Analyticalshall be to re-perform the work at it's own expense. In no event shall Alpha Analytical be held liablefor any incidental, consequential or special damages, including but not limited to, damages in any wayconnected with the use of, interpretation of, information or analysis provided by Alpha Analytical.
We strongly urge our clients to comply with EPA protocol regarding sample volume, preservation, cooling,containers, sampling procedures, holding time and splitting of samples in the field.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
1
30
103
Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods. EPA SW-846. Third Edition. Updates I - IIIA, 1997.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA-AWWA-WPCF. 18th Edition. 1992.
Analysis of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (EPH) in Aqueous and Soil/Sediment/Sludge Matrices. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Site Remediation Program, (Version 1.1), Document # NJDEP EPH 10/08, Revision 3, August 2010.
Project Name:
Project Number:
Lab Number:
Report Date:
L1308954Not Specified
12-1272
REFERENCES
05/28/13
Serial_No:05281316:15
Page 69 of 75
Certificate/Approval Program Summary Last revised December 19, 2012 - Westboro Facility
The following list includes only those analytes/methods for which certification/approval is currently held.
For a complete listing of analytes for the referenced methods, please contact your Alpha Customer Service Representative.
8270D, 8270C-SIM, 8270D-SIM, 8330A/B-prep, 8082, 8082A, 8081A, 8081B, 3540C, 3546, 3580A, 5035A, MassDEP EPH, MassDEP VPH.) The following analytes are not included in our current NELAP/TNI Scope of Accreditation: EPA 8260B: Freon-113, 1,2,4,5-Tetramethylbenzene, 4-Ethyltoluene. EPA 8330A: PETN, Picric Acid, Nitroglycerine, 2,6-DANT, 2,4-DANT. EPA 8270C: Methyl naphthalene, Dimethyl naphthalene, Total Methylnapthalenes, Total Dimethylnaphthalenes, 1,4-Diphenylhydrazine (Azobenzene). EPA 625: 4-Chloroaniline, 4-Methylphenol. Total Phosphorus in a soil matrix, Chloride in a soil matrix, TKN in a soil matrix, NO2 in a soil matrix, NO3 in a soil matrix. EPA 9071: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease.