Pecan Hollow/FP-CS 900719TICKLER FILE FOR:
REVISED DATE:
INITIATED BY:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
( date )
ACTION ~EQUESTED: P~ ~3~. ~
~~. (date)
. (
~s~o.~ .~o ~o~o~ ,~. ~ ~/~ ~
7.19.9o
A~-
TECHNIQUE
NCo
CONSUl.TING SPECIAIASTS IN:
ENVIIIONM ENTAi. ASSESSMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAl. ENGINEERING
SOILS & FOUNI)ATION ENGINI']EII. ING
CONSTRUCTION MATEIIIAI~S TESTING
COMMERCIAL & INI)IJSTIIIAI~ INSPECTI{)N
"Excellence by Experiettce"
LEVEL TWO ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
PECAN HOLLOW ADDITION
CITY OF COPPELL
COUNTY OF DALLAS
STATE OF TEXAS
PREPARED FOR:
EiATEWAY., USA
C/O CAMARO DEVELOPMENI'
DALLAS, TEXAS
JULY 2~ 1990
90-272
2 I ! E. Worth St. · (;ral.,vi,,c, Texas 76051 · Pho,n': 817 / 329-0281
Pac~e 1
~'age 2
Page
Page
Page
F'a,~e
5
'7
lntroouctory Let. ter
................................................. I ntrod~.~.ct i on
....................................... IntroOuctlon Cont 1 nue~
......................................... Level 'lwo Ubject~ves
...................................... In~tlal Sl{e As~essmen~
....................................... Excavation and Removal
....................................... Excavation anO Removal
Con{ i hued
....................................... ExcavaCion and ~emovai
Con~ i nue~
........................................... Laboratory Testing
............................................ beneral Site Plar~
....................................... E.F' ioxicity Metals ~.~-l
............................. Or,..-~an och 1 or 1 n at e~ Pesticides
............................. Mass Spectrometry Laboratory 5-1
EP I'oxlcity
EP "['ox~city
~F' 'l'oxicity
EF' Toxicity
Or,ganoc~torinated Pesticides
Mass Spectrometry Laboratory
EP 'loxiclty Metals
EF' '/"oxicity MetaLs
-. ............................ Or,janochiorlnat. ed.. Pestlcloes
Metals
Metals
Me%ais ~-4
Metals ~-5
S-5
5-5
5-6
b- /
~-?
............................. Mass SpectromeCry La~orator¥ 5-7
GEO-
TECHNIQUE
INC.
SOILS & FOUNDATION ENGINEERS ·
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TESTING ·
FIELD INSPECTION ·
"Excellence by Experience"
,July 2, 1990
Gateway, USA
c/o Camaro Development Company
16250 North Dallas Parkway
Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75248
Attn: Mr. Doyle Cameron
Re: Debris Removal Supervision
and Environmental Assessment
Pecan Hollow Addition
Coppell, Texas
90-272
Dear Mr. Cameron:
We are pleased to present to you our level two environmental
assessment report covering construction debris excavation and removal
on the Pecan Hollow Addition, (former Oenco Nurseries Tract) located
in the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas.
The enclosed material describes the abatement activities necessary to
bring the above referenced site into compliance with all standardm set
forth by all affected environmental governing agencies.
Again, it is our pleasure to serve you in our capacity and your
complete satisfaction is our goal.
Respectfully submitted,
Geo-Technique, Inc.
Louis L. Hargis, F'.E.
Presi dent
211 E. Worth St. · Grapevine, Texas 76051 · Phone: 817/329-0281
GEO-
TECHNIQUE
NCo
CONSULTING Slq'~(]ALISTS IN:
ENVIRONMENTAI, ASSESSMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAI, ENG IN EERING
SOII,S & F(H~NI)ATI(~N EN(;INEEIIING
CONSTI{Ii(]'I(}N MATERIAI,S TESTING
COMMERCIAL & INI~USTRIAI,
"Excellence by Experience"
LEVEL TWO ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION
PROdECT NAME: Pecan Hollow Addition
CITY: Coppell COUN'¥Y:
CLIENT: Camaro Development
Dallas
RESEARCHER:
I)ATE: 07-02-90
STATE: Tex ass
David W. Martin
INTRODUCTION
GENERALa
Volumes have been written, including results of generous assortments
of physical and analytical testing; soil borings and monitoring wells
have been placed at strategic locations across the tract; test pits,
to augment the findings of the borings have been dug and re-dug in
order to produce samples for additional testing.
Aerial and site photographs were produced and examined in order to
depict changes in topography. Geological surveys were studied to
estimate possible natural boundaries for undesirable fluids created by
unclassified buried waste.
Federal~ state and local agencies were contacted to determine if any
statute violations were on file and finally, interviews with
knowledgeable individuals were documented to further verify the mass,
type and location of unclassified buried debris.
Three independent surveys were performed on-site~ beginning with the
sub-surface soils investigation performed by D-FW Engineering and
Testing~ Inc., in January~ 1987s ~ollowed by an "Environmental Audit"
produced by Staal~ Gardner and Dunnes Inc., January, 1989~ and
finally~ "Preliminary Site Assessment" provided by Dames & Moore in
January~ 1990.
211 E. Worth St. · Grapevine, Texas 76051 · Iq,om': I;17 / 329-O281
Pecan Hollow Addition
Level Two Environmental
June 2, 1990
Page Two
Investigation
All three reports were produced for separate and non-related clients,
but, surprisingly enough, all reports reinforced, not contradicted,
each other. These published documents are classified as "Level One"
environmental studies. We commonly refer to them as "S.F.D.~s";
search, find and describe reports.
The combined efforts of these reports located and defined the chemical
composition of unclassified buried debris. The overall significance
of these documents is that:
]'here was less actual buried debris than anticipaZed. D-FW~s
report estimated as hi~h as 56,000 cubic yards of waste. A
total of 50,000 cubic yards were actually hauled off-site.
The chemical analysis of various elements proved non-hazardous.
No noxious odors were present. The wa~er, both ground anO
pond~ was ,~iven a clean bill of health accordin,~ to Texas Water
Commission (TWC) standards. The toZal petroleum hydrocarbon
test results~ conducted by three indepenOent engineerin.~ ~irms,
revealed the total count to be less ~han the 100 parts per
million maximum allowable level as set by ~he TWC.
No citations, or assessments, were on record from any of the
,~overnmental agencies. The tract was not reported to be in
violation of any federal, state or local statures.
In conclusion, Level One S.F'.D. has been completed. Level Two
assessmenZ and removal must be accomplished in order to reclaim %he
land.
Our position in the site reclamation process was to provide
supervision and inspection of the excavation and removal process, in
simple terms, the site must be cleaned up to our satisfaction. All
known areas of debris must be excavated beyond previously sta~ed
limits to remove any doubts o+ the extent of waste. The existing
ponds must be drained, mucked and cleaned to a stable dry bottom prior
to any backfill activities. In addition, the soils unOerying the
ponds must be visually inspected, and the soils subjected to chemical
analysis to determine if the soils are contaminated.
Additionally, we were comforted by the positive test results from the
previous reports and reasonably sure that no hazardous waste was
anywhere on site. However., in order to remove any doubt, we would
periodically procure additional random test samples and sub]ect them
to our own analysis.
Pecan Hollow Addition
Level Two Environmental Investigation
June 2, 1990
Pa.ge Three
As mentioned in our preliminary report., prior to commencement on the
present contract, clean-up activities were performed by Janco
employees on all nursery related facilities. We re+er to a "General
Site Plan", Plate 1, produced by Staal~, Gardner and Dunne, Inc..,
January, 1989, on which they detail stock fields, shade houses,
potting sheds, pesticide storage, and vehicle maintenance areas. All
of these facilities had been removed at. the time of our investigation.
Only a few shells and an old abandoned house remained.
For convenience purposes, we will continue to refer to the "General
Site Plan" provided by others., and au,gment this plan wit~ our own
f 1 nd 1 ngs.
James B. Arnold Construction Company was retained to provide equipment
and personnel +or the performance of the Level Two abatement program.
The excavated material was loaded onto trucks supplied by D & D
TransportatiOn Company, and transported to the BRI Landfill in
Lewisville, Texas. Actual load counts were tabulated anO recorded
during all p~ases of the excavation activities. Each load was
documente~ at the job site, and receipts were issued anO collected at
the land~ill. All o~ the excavated materials were removed ~rom
site. Work commenced on April 5, 1990, on the east end of the
referenced area, Disposal Area No. 2.
]'he initial process involved the use of a truck propelled back ~oe
which dug trenches in a "zipper" pattern from east to west until the
buried debris area had been "daylighted", or completely defined.
'The water table was extremely shallow this time of year, due to the
unusually heavy spring rains, which complicated t~e excavation anO
removal process. Excavated debris was stock piled along individual
cuts and allowed to drain and dry prior to any removal. This process
was necessary throughout the entire project.
The significance of the composition of the removed waste is that it
was primarily nursery related. We found tree trunks, pottin.g buckets
and other plastic items wOich denote nursery activities. We Ol~ not
find any industrial waste, or any indication of buried stock:piles o,f
pesticides or insecticides.
Pecan Hollow AOdition
Level Two Environmental Investigation
June 2, 1990
Page Four
The biggest commercial influence, by ~ar, was the preponderance o~ old
junk automobile and truck tires. These tires were in evidence both
above and below ground. '[his debris was excavated, loaded~ and
transported off-site, under the parameters cited in the precedin,~
section. Excavation continued until native soils were encountered.
Chemical analysis of these soils revealed no contamination.
Rainfall played an important role in the early stages o~ this project.
The water table remained high and the surface remained saturated,
making truck hauling impossible. A total of eleven (11) days were
lost to excessive rainfall. The only positive note from this
excessive moisture is that it allowed the back hoe to stockpile
massive amounts of waste for removal once the material dried
sufficiently for transport. An approximate total of 8,000 cubic yarOs
of soil and debris was removed from Disposal Area No. 2.
Disposal Area No. 1 was a small isolated area in the southwest corner
of the tract and totally Jen¢o related. This was t~e final dump
ground for the nursery before ceasing business activities. ]'his area
presented no problems, trash or water wise, and virtually cleaned up
in two days. '[he great preponderance of this debris comprised
discarded tires, plastic shrubbery containers, and plastic sheeting.
No evidence of any hazardous and/or toxic wastes were detected, either
visually~ olfactory, or analytically. An approximate total of
cubic yards of soil debris was removed from Disposal Area No. 1.
Disposal Area No. :3 was discovered durin,~ excavation activities. It
was omitted, or overlooked, in the Phase I reports. The error of
omission is relatively simple. There were thousands o~ old Junk tires
situated around and in the small pond area. Investigators were told
and assumed that the waste was purely surface oriented and no buried
debris existed under the tires. ]'his line of reasoning proved false.
Several thousand cubic yards o~ debris was excavated and removed ~rom
Disposal Area No. 5. The debris encountered in this area was
indentical to the debris described in Disposal Area No. 1. Excavation
continued until native soils were encountered. Again, soil samples
were extracted and subjected to chemical analysis. An approximate
total o+ 20,000 cubic yards of soil and debris was removed +rom
Disposal Area No. 5.
Pecan Hollow Addition
Level Two Environmental
June --, 1990
Page Fi ye
Investigation
As of this report date, all known unclassified debris has been
excavated and removed form this tract. Disposal Areas [)ne, 'lwo and
Three are now clean and ready for backfill.
PONDS:
Two large ponds and one small pond dotted the landscape o+ this
original tract. De-watering activities began with t~e southeast pond
which was the largest of the three. Pumping began on April 5, 1990,
by pumping water from the southeast pond through an existing pipe
culvert to the northeast pond. ]'he water then drained from the
northeast pond along a rough cut ditch off-site to an existing
drainage canal.
Rainfall hampered early pumping activities to the extent t~at they
were discontinued for several days. Run-off and groundwater refilled
the pond as fast as it could be pumped.
Notable progress on de-watering and cleaning of the southeas~ pond was
not significant until May 11, 1990. At that time a small coffer dam
was placed about the mid-point, east and west, so the southern hal+
could be dried. This, and ceasing rain~all~ enabled the contractor to
re-claim the pond bottom.
A back hoe excavated the bottom muck, while a dozer spread the
material ~o dry. Surprisingly~ the bottoms of all ponds were
virtually clear o~ deOris and only slightly organic. All excavateO
bottom muck, once allowed to drain and dry, proved suitable for
back~ill.
The excavation and drainage process progressed from the south of the
southeast pond, around the corner to the west on the south side of the
old entrance road, then across to the east side of the northeast pond.
Water was funneled into t~e northwest corner of the northeast pond
and then eliminated altogether.
'['he small pond in the north central part of the site, near the north
boundary~ had dried up on its own prior to any excavation or clean-up
in t~at area, thus de-watering was not required.
Pond clean-up and bottom reclamation of all ponds was completed by
July 1, 1990. These areas stand ready for backfill activities.
Pecan Hollow Addition
Level Two Environmental Investigation
June 2, 1990
Page Si x
Introduced earlier were volumes of test results. Results, we are
pleased to verify, were not hazardous materials, merely exposed
unwanted burie0~ unclassified materials. These materials were
subjected to every applicable know analysis. The overall conclusion
of this massive testing program soowed that the deOris, once
excavateO~ required no special handling or disposal area.
Geo-Technique, Inc. personnel were not involved in the Level One
testing pro,gram. We did, however, in order to further verify the
non--hazardous status of the excavated material~ test seven additional
areas during the Level 'Two pro,gram.
Areas Tested: (Results Included in Appendix)
1. East End of Disposal Area No. 2 (8~ deep)
2. South End of Southeast Pond (bottom muck)
5. West End of Disposal Area No. 1 (6' deep)
4. Northeast End o~ Southeast Pond (below muck)
5. West End o~ Disposal Area No. 2 (10~ deep)
6. West End of Disposal Area No. 3 (4~ deep)
7. East End of Disposal Area No. 5 (5~ deep)
The results of our testing program revealed no surprises. The sites
we tested were areas that should have proved non-compliance for metals
and hyOrocarOons, if any areas of non-compliance existed. As can be
seen from the laboratory reports, all samples tested proved hazard
free.
Five (5) metals; arsenic, cadium, chromium, selenium, an0 silver were
detected in levels exceeding the Oetection limits. ]"his does not
infer that these soils are contaminated. These metals occur naturally
in soils, o~ which the levels Oepend upon the re.gion. None of t~e
levels detected are considered hazarOous, dangerous~ or o~ any concern
by either the Texas Department of Health, or the United 5{ates
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
F'ecan Hollow Addition
Level Two Environmental Investigation
June 2, 1990
Pa,ge Seven
CONCLUSION:
The excava%ion of unclassified debris, de-watering and clean-up of the
ponds, and ~ne overall site abatement activities are now completed.
The site is ready for backfill and grading construction. We
inspected, supervised and tested all phases of this environmental
assessment and removal program. We conclude, to the best of our
knowledge based upon our visual and analytical testing; the previously
referenced published results of reports issued by Staal, Gardner and
Dunne, Inc., and Dames & Moore, Inc.; that the Pecan Hollow Addition
to the City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas, to be in compliance with
current federal, state and local regulations. All unclassified debris
discovered during the course of the three (5) investigations has been
analyzed, excavated, and disposed of off-site. Pecan Hollow Addition,
in our opinion~ is environmentally suitable for residential housing
construction.
Mart i n
Da~e
APPENDIX
FUTURE
RESIDENTIAL
TRACT ~ ~ --,~
J '= R : OND
~¢~v~V ~ x/ ~ ~'~ ~.: .,~,~ -~/
/ ~o~ F _ ~,~o I ~ I1:/ ~~ I I
~ GR~VEL,~~ I~11~/ 0~ ~~ I I / /
/ P~ / [.,~..~ ~ I I// FIELD SHADE I I
' ' -- ' HOUSES I I ABANDONED
VACANT ElBE
PASTURE PROPERTY
Vc. NICLE
I MAIN~ ENAN(~ I
rid
O
O
SAMPLE I.D.: S-1 DATE: 04-10-90
SAMPLE TYPE: 5oll LOCATION: ~.0 +ee~i
EX-rRACTION METHOD: EPA Method 1510 TEST METHOD: EPA SW-846
DETECTION AMOUNT
EPA LIMIT DE-I-ECl'ED
METAL METHOD (mg/1) (mg/1)
Arsenic 7061 0.05 < O. 05
Barium 60i0 0. I < O. 1
Cadmium 6010 O. 01 O. 08 ?
Chromium 6010 O. 05 < 0. ('~5 ~
Lea~ 6010 0.02 < O. 02
Mercury 7471 0. 001 < O. 001
Selenium 7741 0.01 0. 10 '
Si lver 7760 0.01 < O. O1,
TOTAL F'ETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
TEST DETECTION LIMIT RESULTS
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 10.0 mg/~:'.,~ < 10.0 m,g/~.g
EPA MethoO 418.1
C._]E:.C_]_Ar,/o_.c~F_i~=r-~R 'r .?,lAZED PEE:..T
SAMPLE !.D.: S-1
SAMF'LE TYPE: Soil
EPA METHOD: EF'A SW-846
D A T E: 04 - ! O- ? 0
LOCAT!ON: 8.Ci feet
PARAMETER
DETECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT - DETECTED
(u,~/kg) (u,~/k,~)
Aldrin ..............................
alpha-BHC ...........................
beta-BHC ............................
gamma-BHC (LINDANE) .................
delta-BHC ...........................
Chlordane ...........................
4~4'-DDD ............................
4~4'-DDE ............................
4,4'-DDT ............................
Dieldrin ............................
Endosul{an I ........................
Endosul~an II .......................
EndosulCan sulfate ..................
Endrin ..............................
Endrin aldehyde .....................
Heptach!or ..........................
Heptach!~r ep~xide ..................
Me~hoxychl~r ........................
PCB 1016 ............................
PCB 122! ............................
PCB 1232 ............................
PCB 1242 ............................
PCB 1248 ............................
PCB 1~4 ............................
PCB !260 ............................
Toxaphene ...........................
40 Ill
10 .................... < 10
10 .................... < ! 0
! 0 .................... '":1 10
1 C) .................... < 10
! 0 .................... < 10
2n .................... < 20
20 .................... < 20
20 .................... < 20
2(:) .................... < 20
1 A .................... < ! 0
20 .................... < 20
10 .................... < 10
50 .................... < 50
! 0 .................... < 10
20 .................... < 20
! 0 .................... < 10
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 5C,
50 .................... < 50
< 50
< 50
50 ....................
50 .................... < 50
< 50
50 ....................
.................... · ::1 400
HERBICIDES ANALYSIS
TEST
REQUESTED
DETECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT - DETECTED
(ug/1) (u,~/1)
2,4 - D .............................
2,4 - D methyl ester ................
2,4,5 - T ...........................
~ 4,5 - T methvl ester ..............
Silvex ..............................
Silvex methyl ester .................
< 50
~0 ....................
< 50
50 ....................
~ 0 .................... < 50
-:" 50
50 ....................
:1 50
~ 0 ....................
< 50
50 ....................
MASS SPECTROMETR'/ LABOPATOR'F
GC/MS QUANT!TAT!ON REPORT
SAMPLE !.D.: S-1
SAMPLE TYPE: Soi!
EPA METHOD: 8240
Pur,geable Compounds
DATE
EXTRACTED:
LOCATION:
04- 10-90
8.0 feet
PARAMETER
DETECTION
LIMIT -
( u,g / k ,g )
AMOUNT
DETECTED
( u,g / k ,g )
Benzene ............................. 5.0
Bromof orm ........................... 5.0
Bromomethane ........................ 10.0
Carbon tetrachloride ................ 5.0
Chl orobenz ene ....................... 5.0
Chl ordi bromomethane ................. 5.0
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ............ ~.~ 6)
Chl oroethane ........................ 10.0
Chloroform .......................... 5.0
Chloromethane ....................... 10.0
Dichl orobromomethane ................ 5.0
2-Dichi orobenzene. ~,. 0
1., 3-DJ chl orobenz ene. ~ 5.0
1,4-DJ chl orobenzene .................
!, 1-DJ chl oroethane .................. 5.0
1,2-Dichloroethane .................. = 0
1, 1-DJ chl oroethene .................. 5.0
trans- 1,2-Di chl oroethene ............ 5.(])
2-DichI oropropane. 5.0
¢i s-1,3-Di chl oropropene ............. 5.0
trans-l, 3-Di chl oropropene ........... 5.0
ethyl benzene ........................ 5.0
Methylene chloride .................. 25.0
2~ 2-Tetrachl oroethane. 5.0
1~1~ ..........
Tetrachloroethene ................... 5.0
Toluene ............................. 5.0
1~ 1~ 1-Trichloroethane ............... 5.(])
I ~ I., 2-Tr i chl oroethane ............... 5.0
Tri chloroethene ..................... 5.0
Tri chl orof i uoromethane .............. 10.0
Vinyl chloride ...................... 10.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 10.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 1 0.0
................... < 5.0
~. (.')
"-" 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
':" 5.0
-:" 5. (5
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... <.-'~5 . (-).
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
................... < 5.0
.:" ,_,. (')
................... < 5.0
................... <: 10.0
................... < 10.0
S/aMPLE I.D.: S-2 DATE: 05-15-90
S~MF'LE "I'YP'E: 5oil LOCATION: Bottom Muck
EXTRAC'I'IDN M~_'I'MUD: EPA Method 1510 TEST METHOD: EPA SW-846
DE'I' EC'F I ON AMOUNT
EPA L I M I T DE-I'EC]'ED
ME'rAL ME'tHUD (mg/l) (mg/1)
Arseni c 7061 0. £)5 O. 07
Bar ium 6(]) 1 (] 0. 1 < ('). 1
Cadmium 6010 0. (])1 < 0.01
Chromium 6010 0.05 0. 1:3
Lea~ 6010 0.02 < 0.02
Mercury 7471 0. 001 < 0.00
Selenium 7741 0.01 < 0.01
Si lver 77~0 0.01 < 0, O1
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYD~:OCARBON
]'EST DETECTIUN LIMIT RESULTS
Total Petrol eum Hydrocarbon
EPA Method 418.1
1 (-). (-) m,_]/K,.]
5 7. ~ m,p / K,.~
EP -I"OXICITY ME]ALS
SAMF'LE I.D.:
SAMPLE I'YPE: Soil
EXTRACTION METHOD: EF'A Method 1310
DA'rE: 05-3n-90
LOCATION: 6.0 feet
TEST METHOD: EF'A SW-846
EPA
METAL METHOD
DETECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT DETECTED
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Arsenic 7061
Barium 6010
Cadmium 6010
Chromium 6010
Lead 6010
Mercury 7471
Selenium 7741
Silver 7760
TOTAL F'ETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
I'EST DETECTION LIMIT RESULTS
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
1(').0 mg/Kg
54.3 mg/K,~
EPA Method 418.1
SAMPLE I.D.: S-4
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
EXTRACTION METHOD: EPA Method 1310
DATE:
LUCAT I ON:
TEST METHOD:
06- 08 - ? 0
Below Muc ~::
EPA SW-846
EPA
METAL METHOD
DETECT I ON AMOUNT
LIMIT DETECTED
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Arsenic 7061
Barium 6010
Cadmium 6010
Chromium 60i0
Lead 6010
Mercury 7471
Selenium 7741
Silver 7760
TOTAL F'E'rROLEUM HYDROCARBON
TEST DETECT 1 UN L I M I T RESULTS
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
10.A rog/Kg 15.6 mQ/K,.~
EPA Method 418.1
EP TOXICITY METALS
SAMPLE I.D.: S-5 DATE: 06-08-90
SAMPLE ]'YPE: Soil LOCATION: 10.0 feet
EXTRACTION METHOD: EPA Method 1310 TEST METHOD: EPA SW-~46
DETECTION AMOUNT
EPA LIMIT DEI'ECTED
METAL METHOD (mg/1) (mg/1)
Arsenic 7061 0.05 < O. 05
Barium 6010 0.1 < 0.1
Cadmium 6010 O. 01 < 0.01
Chromium 6010 0.05 < 0.
Lead 601A 0.02 < 0.02
Mercury 74'71 0. 001 < 0. 001
Selenium 7741 0.01 0.03
Silver 7760 0.01 < 0.01
TOTAL F'ETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
TEST DETEC'¥ION LIMIT RESULTS
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 10.0 mg/~O~ 66.7 m,~/K,~
EPA Me~hod 418.1
ORGANOCHLOF:!NATED PESTICIDES
SAMF'LE I.D.: S-5
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
EPA METHOD:
EPA SW-846
D A T E: 06- 08- 90
LOCATION: 10.0 feet
PARAMETER
DETECTION
LIMIT -
( u g / k g )
AMOUNT
DETECTED
(ug/kg)
Aldrin ..............................
alpha-BHC ...........................
beta-BHC ............................
gamma-BHC (LINDANE) .................
delta-BHC ...........................
Chlordane ...........................
4,4'-DDD ............................
4~4'-DDE ............................
4~4'-DDT ............................
Dieldrin ............................
Endosulfan I ........................
Endosulfan II .......................
Endosulfan sulfate .................. 50
Endrin .............................. 10
Endrin aldehyde ..................... 20
Heptachlor .......................... 10
Heptachlor epoxide .................. 50
Methoxychlor ........................ 50
PCB 1016 ............................ 50
PCB 1221 ............................ 50
~3~ ............................ 50
PCB 1~ ~
PCB 1242 ............................ 50
PCB 1248 ............................ 50
PCB 1254 ............................ 50
PCB 1260 ............................ 50
Toxaphene ........................... 400
10 ....................
10 ....................
10 ....................
10 ....................
20 ....................
20 ....................
20 ....................
20 ....................
! 0 ....................
20 ....................
! 0 ....................
HERBICIDES ANALYSIS
TEST
REQUESTED
DETECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT - DETECTED
(ug/1) (ug/1)
2~4 - D .............................
2,4 - D methyl ester ................
2,4,5 - T ...........................
2,4,5 - T methyl ester ..............
Silvex ..............................
Silvex methyl ester .................
5 0 .................... < 5 0
5 0 .................... < 5 0
50 . ................... < 50
5 0 .................... ;:] 5 0
50 .................... < 50
5 0 .................... ':" 5 0
MASS SPECTROMETRY LABORATORY
GC/MS QUANTITATION REPORT
SAMPLE I.D.: S-5
SAMPLE TYF'E: Soil
EPA METHOD: 824(:)
Purgeable Compounds
DATE
EXTRACTED:
LOCATION:
06 - 08 - 90
10.0 feet
PARAMETER
DETECTION
LIMIT -
( u g / k ,g )
AMOUNT
DETECTED
(ug!kg)
Benzene ............................. 5.0
Bromoform ........................... 5.(])
Bromomethane ........................ 10.0
Carbon tetrachloride ................ 5.0
Chlorobenzene ....................... 5.0
Chlordibromomethane ................. 5.0
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ............ 5.0
Chloroethane ........................ !0.0
Chloroform .......................... 5.0 ................... <
Ch!~romethane ....................... 10.0 ................... <
Di chi orobromomethane ................
1 ~ 2-Di chi orobenz ene .................
1., 3-DJ ch 1 orobenz ene .................
i, 4-DJ ch 1 orobenz ene .................
1 ~ 1-Dichl oroethane ..................
1,2-DJ chloroethane ..................
1., 1-Dichloroethene ..................
trans-l, 2-Dichloroethene ............
1., 2-DJ chl oropropane .................
tis-1,3-Di chl oropropene .......... '...
frans-l, 3-Dichloropropene ...........
ethyl benzene ........................
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5. A ................... .::]
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
Methylene
l~l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...........
letrachloroethene ...................
Toluene .............................
1,1,!-Trichloroethane ...............
l~l,2-Trichloroethane ...............
Trichloroethene .....................
Trichlorofluoromethane .............. 1
Vinyl chloride ......................
chloride ~s 0 <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5.0 ................... <
5. (') ................... <
5.0 ................... <
0.0 ................... <
0. (:) ':'
5.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5. (:~
! 0.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5. o
5.0
5.0
5. (:)
5.0
25.0
5. (')
5. 0
5.0
5.0
5. (;)
5.0
10.0
10.0
SAMPLE I.D.: S-6 DATE: 06-22-~0
SAMPLE TYF'E: Soil LOCATION: 4.0 feet
EXTRACTION MEFHOD: EPA Method 13lA -[EST METHOD: EPA SW-846
DETECT I ON AMOUNT
EPA LIMIT DETECTED
METAL METHOD (re,g/1 ) (mg/1)
Arsenic 7061 0.05 O. ¢)9
Barium 6010 0.1 < c).1
Cadmium 6010 0.01 < 0.01
Chr omi um 6010 0. o5 < ~'). 05
LeaO 6010 0.02 < 0.02
Mercury 7471 0. 001 < O. 001
Selenium 7741 0.01 0. (')6
Si lver 7760 0. O1 < 0.01
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
TEST DETECTION LIMIT RESULTS
Total F'etroleum Hydrocarbon io.O m,g/~::.,g 6~.7 mg/X.,g
EPA Method 418.1
EP TOXICITY METALS
SAMPLE I.D.: S-7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
EXTRACTION METHOD: EPA Method 1510
DATE:
LOCATION:
TEST METHOD:
06-29-90
5.0 feet
EPA SW-846
EPA
METAL METHOD
DETECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT DETECI'ED
(mg/1) (mg/i)
Arsenic 7081
Barium 6010
Cadmium 6010
Chromium 60i0
Lead 6010
Mercury 7471
Selenium 7741
Silver 7760
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
TEST DETECTION LIMIT RESULTS
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
10.0 m,..] / I<.,...]
66.7 mg/K,.g
EPA Method 418.1
ORGANOCHLORINATED PESTICIDES
SAMPLE I.D.: S-7
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
EPA METHOD:
EPA SW-846
DATE: 06-29-90
LOCATION: 5.0 +eet
PARAMETER
DETECTION AMUUNT
LIMI'[ - DETECTED
(ug/kg) (ug/
Aldrin ..............................
alpha-BHC ...........................
beta-BHC ............................
gamma-BHC <LINDANE) .................
Qelta-BMC ...........................
Chlordane ...........................
4,4~-DDD ............................
4~4~-DDE ............................
4~4~-DDT ............................
Dieldrin ............................
En~osul~an I ........................
Endosul~an II .......................
Endosulfan sulfate ..................
En~rin ..............................
Endrin aldehyde .....................
Heptac~lor ..........................
Heptachlor epoxi~e ..................
Methoxychlor ........................
PCB 1016 ............................
PCB 1~21 ............................
PCB 12~2 ............................
PCB 1242 ............................
PCB 1248 ............................
PCB. 1254 ............................
PCB 1260 ............................
Toxaphene ...........................
10 .................... < 10
10 .................... < 10
10 < 10
1 0 .................... { 1 0
10 .................... < 10
20 .................... < 2(i)
20 .................... < 20
20 .................... < 20
20 .................... < 20
10 .................... < 10
20 .................... < 20
10 .................... < 10
50 .................... < bO
10 .................... (. 10
2(3 .................... < 20
10 .................... < 10
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 5A
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
50 .................... < 50
400 .................... < 4(1)(])
HERBICIDES ANALYSIS
TEST
REQUESTED
DETECTION
LIMIT -
(ug/1)
AMOUNT
DE'I'EC'I'ED
(ucj/1)
2,4 - D methyl ester ................
2 4,5 - T ...........................
~,4,5 - T methyl ester
Silvex ..............................
Silvex methyl ester .................
5(]) ....................
5(]) ....................
5(i) ....................
5(i) ....................
5(.] ....................
5cZ)
bC)
b 0
5C)
bO
MASS SPECTROMETRY LABORATORY
GC/MS ~UANTITRTION REPOR]"
SAMPLE I.D.: S-Z
SAMPLE TYPE: Soil
EPA METHOD: 82~0
Purgeable
Compounds
DATE EXTRACTED:
LOCATION:
06-29-90
5.0 ~ eet
PARAMETER
DE]'ECTION AMOUNT
LIMIT - DETECTED
(ug/kg)
Benzene.... ................ . .... ....
Bromo~orm ...........................
Bromomethane ........................
Carbon tetrachloride ................
Chlorobenzene .......................
Chlordibromomethane .................
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ............
Chloroethane ........................
Chloroform ..........................
Chloromethane .......................
Dichlorobromomethane ................
1,2-Dichloro~enzene .................
l~3-DichloroOenzene .................
1,4-Dichlorobenzene .................
l~l-Dichloroethane..' ................
1,2-Dichloroe~ane ..................
1,1-Dichloroethene ..................
trans-l~2-Dlc~loroethene ............
1,2-Dichloropropane .................
cis-l,5-Dichloropropene .............
trans-l,5-Dichloropropene ...........
ethylbenzene ........................
Methylene chloride ..................
1,1~2~2-Tetrachloroethane ...........
Tetrachloroethene ...................
Toluene .............................
l,l,l-Trichloroethane .......... ? ....
l,l~2-Trichloroethane ...............
Trichloroethene .....................
Tric~loro~luoromethane ..............
Vinyl chloriOe..~ ...................
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
10.0 ................... < lO. 0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
10.0 ................... < 10.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
10.0 ................... < 10.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
25.0 ................... < 25.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
5.0 ................... < 5.0
10.0 ................... < 10.0
10.0 ................... < 10.0