PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT · PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT-For property...

PHASE II

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

PREPARED FOR PROPERTY

KNOWN AS

TOM’S TRUCK CENTER

2 , 3 , and 4 STREETSND RD TH

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701

APRIL 29, 2016

PHASE II

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

-For property known as-


2 , 3 , and 4 STREETSND RD th

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701

CENTEC PROJECT #0515036

-Prepared for-

MR. K. C. HEIDLER


-Prepared by-

CENTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4299 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 107

Newport Beach, CA 92660

(949) 476-8922

Steven N. Collins, REA

Principal

Dan Louks, P.G., P.E.

Project Manager

APRIL 29, 2016

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4.0 LABORATORY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6.0 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

APPENDIX

SITE PLANTABLE 1 - Summary of Soil Vapor Sample ResultsEXHIBIT A - Laboratory Analytical Results - Soil Vapor

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Centec Engineering, Inc. (Centec) is pleased to present the following information inresponse to authorization by Mr. K. C. Heidler, owner of Tom’s Truck Center, toconduct a subsurface investigation at Tom’s Truck Center, located at 905 East 2nd

Street, 927-1001 and 936-1002 East 3 Street, and 1008-1028 East 4 Street inrd th

Santa Ana, California 92701. This investigation was intended to assist Mr. Heidler inplans for possible redevelopment of the property. 2.0 BACKGROUND

The purpose of this work was to establish whether significant spillage or leakage ofhazardous wastes may have occurred at the site from the long-time use of the site byvarious business and activities over the past 50 years. Based on Centec’s ownenvironmental activities at the site, including completion of Phase I Environmental SiteAssessments (ESAs) in July 2006 and June 2015, a Phase II Subsurface Investigationat the former Rice Auto Parts at the southwest quadrant of the property (905 East 2nd

Street) in August 2006, and review of additional environmental reports prepared forthe subject property by others, Centec is aware that various known and suspectedenvironmental concerns have been associated with the overall property. Specificconcerns have included:

1) Former Rice Auto - a currently vacant lot of 1.75 acres comprisingapproximately 30% of the overall property area, located at the southwestquadrant of the site. This property, bounded by 2 Street, Garfield Street andnd

3 Street, and formerly addressed as 905 East 2 Street, operated as an autord nd

wrecking and parts, business from approximately 1935 to 2006. Due to thepresence of spills and leaks over the years, the site was extensively investigatedand was then remediated in 2007-2008 by excavation of the impacted soilsunder regulatory supervision by the Orange County Health Care Agency(OCHCA). Based on the results of confirmation soil and groundwater samplingthe case was closed by OCHCA, with review and concurrence by the Santa AnaRegional Water Quality Control Board, in February 2008. The identifiedcontaminants of concern were petroleum hydrocarbons, certain heavy metals,and certain fuel-related volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The closure wasgranted for a “commercial/industrial” setting based on isolated remnant “shallowresidual contamination” allowed to be left in place because it was deemed“unlikely to pose any significant threat to human health, safety, or theenvironment.”

2) Tom’s Truck Center operations - Tom’s Truck Center, with various differentbusiness activities, has occupied some or all of the remainder of the propertysince the 1970's. The main truck service area is east of the former Rice Autoextending to Standard Avenue, and is addressed as 928-1000 East 3 Street.rd

Truck service and maintenance utilizes certain hazardous materials and

2

generates certain wastes (primarily oils and other vehicle fluids), and a smallunderground storage tank (UST) was removed from the east side of this parcelin the past. The remainder of their operations are along the north side of 3rd

Street, and include a towing and impound lot on the west side (927 East 3rd

Street), a truck and engine wash rack, which formerly included a UST, in thecentral area, an office and storage sheds (1008 East 4 Street), and a largeth

storage building previously used by Barr Lumber and Arden Farms decades agoin the northeast quadrant of the property (1022-1028 East 4 Street). Thisth

building includes another wash rack area with a clarifier and reportedly a spraybooth in 1970.

Based on the long-time use of the site with hazardous materials, USTs, and clarifiersas part of business operations, Centec was retained to conduct a soil vaporinvestigation to better assess the environmental integrity of soils across the site. Thisreport details the activities and findings of the investigation.

3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES

On February 16, 2016, Centec conducted the field investigation. Sample locations forthe investigation were chosen to representatively collect data from accessible samplinglocations near the various and likely “worst case” locations to assess the condition ofthe subsurface soils. Fifteen borings, identified as SV1 through SV15, werecompleted at that time, with soil vapor samples collected at 5 feet below groundsurface (bgs). An aerial Site Plan is included in the Appendix depicting the locationsof Centec’s soil vapor samples.

The soil vapor sample locations were installed and the vapor samples were collectedby Optimal Technology, a soil-vapor sampling vendor approved by DTSC and theCalifornia RWQCB. Optimal was supervised by a Professional Geologist during thesampling activities. The vapor probes were installed by Optimal personnel utilizing anelectric rotary hammer drill to core through the concrete or asphalt at each of thesample locations. A soil gas probe was then driven to the desired sample depth andsealed with hydrated bentonite to ground surface. After a period of equilibrationfollowing installation, the gas probe was connected by clean (unused) Nylaflow tubingto a low-flow electric vacuum pump, which was used to purge the tubing of air anddraw a soil gas sample from around the area of the probe. A tracer gas was used atthe surface to ensure the seal was tight and the sample was not diluted by ambientair. As recommended by DTSC, 3 purge volumes were removed from each probe priorto sample collection. Gas-tight syringes were used to draw the vapor samples oncethe purging had been completed, and each sample was immediately injected into theon-site Hewlett Packard gas chromatograph equipped with a Mass Spectra Detectorand a Tekmar Purge and Trap for analysis. All 16 of the soil vapor samples (the 15samples plus one duplicate sample for quality control purposes) were immediatelyanalyzed on-site by Optimal Technology in their state-certified laboratory by EPAMethod 8260B to detect Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline, gasoline-related

3

compounds (benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylene - BTEX), and commoncleaning and degreasing solvents used in vehicle maintenance, such astetrachloroethene (PCE, trichloroethene (TCE), and other volatile organic compounds(VOCs).

The first four samples were collected in the former Rice Auto site. The locations werechosen based on the former areas that were most significantly contaminated prior toremediation and where petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) appeared to be left in slightlyhigher concentrations. Based on this review, samples SV1 and SV4 were collectedin the northwest and west area of the site where the vehicle crushing was conductedand SV2 and SV3 were collected in the east and southeast areas where remnant TPHwas indicated. Samples SV5 and SV6 were collected in the impound yard whereminor surficial staining and a low spot were noted. Sample SV7 was collectedbetween the clarifier and the former UST that had been located adjacent to the clarifierin the central wash rack area. Sample SV8 was collected adjacent to the clarifier inthe northeast wash rack area, which also appeared possible to have been the formerlocation of the spray booth in 1970, based on limited information. Sample SV9 wascollected from inside the metal building at the northeast corner of the property (1028East 4 Street) where some staining and cracks in the concrete were noted. Theth

remaining 5 samples were collected in and around the main truck service area,including SV10 on the east side (along Standard Avenue) where removal of a UST hadbeen indicated, SV11 and SV12 inside the main truck service building, SV13 inside thesmaller west service building, and SV14 and SV15 adjacent to the bermed hazardouswaste and used oil AST storage area outside the west wall of the main service buildingand parts area.

4.0 LABORATORY RESULTS

The primary known or suspected contaminants of concern were TPHg, BTEX andvarious solvents (VOCs) utilized in cleaning and degreasing. Accordingly, EPA Method8260B was used to analyze all of the soil vapor samples collected.

The laboratory analytical results of the soil vapor samples identified no TPHg in any ofthe samples and no VOCs of any kind in most of the samples. The only VOC detectedwas PCE in two of the samples. Trace concentrations of PCE were detected in SVII(0.56 µg/L) and SV12 (0.38 µg/L) collected from within the main truck servicebuilding. Both of these concentrations are well below the current environmentalscreening level for PCE of 2.0 µg/L (commonly and previously known as the CaliforniaHuman Health Screening Level, or CHHSL), which is conservatively derived by theDTSC to establish levels protective of human health from long-term exposure of VOCsthat may enter a confined space through vapor intrusion. No other VOCs weredetected in these or other samples. All of the laboratory results are summarized onTable 1 in the Appendix.

4

The laboratory data sheets and details of Optimal’s work for this investigation can befound in Exhibit A in the Appendix.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Centec Engineering has conducted a Phase II site investigation (soil vapor survey) atTom’s Truck Center, a large facility along 2 , 3 and 4 Streets in Santa Ana,nd rd th

California. The investigation was intended to identify whether significant leakage ofhazardous wastes has occurred from the long-time use of the property for truck serviceand other business activities.

The investigation consisted of soil vapor sampling at 15 locations considered the mostlikely “worst case” locations on the property, which has been in long-term use fortruck service and maintenance, as well as auto impounding and a portion of theproperty for auto wrecking and sale of used parts. Analytical results of the vaporsampling across the property identified no detectable concentrations of TPHg in anyof the samples, and no VOCs in most of the samples. The only contaminant detectedwas PCE at trace concentrations (0.38 and 0.56 µg/L) in the two samples collectedat 5 feet bgs inside the main truck service building at 936-1000 East 3 Street. Theserd

concentrations are both below the regulatory screening level for PCE in acommercial/industrial site, and may therefore suggest that the spillage or leakage ofPCE does not represent a significant hazardous waste condition. Both of the detectedconcentrations do exceed the screening level for PCE in a residential setting (0.24µg/l). If any higher confidence level is required in this area, further investigation maybe prudent to better define the lateral and vertical migration of this apparent minorleakage.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

This Limited Subsurface Environmental Site Investigation was performed in accordancewith generally and currently accepted engineering practices and principles. Theinvestigation was necessarily limited by time and expense to the number of samplelocations and laboratory analyses completed. Although efforts were made to obtainresults that would be indicative of subsurface conditions, no further conclusionsregarding the absence or presence of subsurface contamination at the site should beconstrued or inferred other than those expressly stated in this report. The conclusionsmade are based on information obtained from visual observations, independentlaboratory analytical results, and from relevant Federal, State, regional, and localagencies. Although Centec Engineering believes that the information contained hereinis reliable, no guarantee is made as to the accuracy of information provided to Centecby others. This report was prepared for the use of Mr. K. C. Heidler and Tom’s TruckCenter.

APPENDIX

SITE PLAN

TABLE 1 - Summary of Soil Vapor Sample Results

EXHIBIT A - Laboratory Analytical Results - Soil Vapor

SITE PLANTOM’S TRUCK CENTER

905 E. 2ND St., 927-1002 E. 3rd St., 1008-1028 E. 4th St.Santa Ana, CA 92701

Centec Project #0515036

SV8

SV9SV7

SV2

SV11

SV5SV6

SV4

SV1

SV3

SV13SV12

SV10

= Soil Vapor Sample 2/16/16

905

Gate

SCALE (not to scale)

927

10221008 1028

936-1000928

1002

N

SV15SV14

TABLE 1SUMMARY OF SOIL VAPOR SAMPLE RESULTS

Tom’s Truck Center, 2nd/3rd/4th Streets, Santa Ana, California

Analytical results reported in µg/L

Sample I.D.

Depth(ft. bgs) TPHg/BTEX PCE TCE

OtherVOCS

SV1 5 ND ND ND ND

SV2 5 ND ND ND ND

SV3 5 ND ND ND ND

SV4 5 ND ND ND ND

SV5 5 ND ND ND ND

SV6 5 ND ND ND ND

SV7 5 ND ND ND ND

SV8 5 ND ND ND ND

SV9 5 ND ND ND ND

SV10 5 ND ND ND ND

SV11 5 ND 0.56 ND ND

SV12 5 ND 0.38 ND ND

SV13 5 ND ND ND ND

SV14 5 ND ND ND ND

SV15 5 ND ND ND ND

NOTES: Samples collected and analyzed 2/16/16. EPA Method 8260B used for all analysesTPHg/BTEX = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as gasoline/Benzene, Toluene,

Ethylbenzene, XylenesPCE = TetrachloroetheneTCE = TrichloroetheneVOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds (other than PCE or TCE)ft. bgs = Feet below ground surfaceND= Not Detected at or Above Method Detection Levels (MDL)

EXHIBIT A

Laboratory Analytical Results - Soil Vapor

Optimal Technology Report

February 17, 2016 Mr. Steven Collins Centec Engineering 4299 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 107 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Collins: This letter presents the results of the soil vapor investigation conducted by Optimal Technology (Optimal), for Centec Engineering on February 16, 2016. The study was performed at 1008 E. 4th St., Santa Ana, California. Optimal was contracted to perform a soil vapor survey at this site to screen for possible chlorinated solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons. The primary objective of this soil vapor investigation was to determine if soil vapor contamination is present in the subsurface soil. Gas Sampling Method Gas sampling was performed by hydraulically pushing soil gas probes to a depth of 5.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). An electric rotary hammer drill was used to drill a 1.0-inch diameter hole through the overlying surface to allow probe placement when required. The same electric hammer drill was used to push probes in areas of resistance during placement. At each sampling location an electric vacuum pump set to draw 0.2 liters per minute (L/min) of soil vapor was attached to the probe and purged prior to sample collection. Vapor samples were obtained in SGE gas-tight syringes by drawing the sample through a luer-lock connection which connects the sampling probe and the vacuum pump. Samples were immediately injected into the gas chromatograph/purge and trap after collection. New tubing was used at each sampling point to prevent cross contamination. All analyses were performed on a laboratory grade Hewlett Packard model 5890 Series II gas chromatograph equipped with a Hewlett Packard model 5971 Mass Spectra Detector and Tekmar LSC 2000 Purge and Trap. An SGE capillary column using helium as the carrier gas was used to perform all analysis. All results were collected on a personal computer utilizing Hewlett Packard's 5971 MS and chromatographic data collection and handling system.

1667 Cross Bridge Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-62352369 Rutland Place, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 • Toll Free (877) SOIL GAS (764-5427) • (818) 734-6230 • Fax (818) 734-6235

OPTIMAL TECHNOLOGYSpecializing in Environmental Field Services

Optimal Technology LH.indd 1 8/26/2008 2:46:55 PM

of 3

Quality Assurance 5-Point Calibration The initial five point calibration consisted of 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 ul injections of the calibration standard. A calibration factor on each analyte was generated using a best fit line method using the HP data system. If the r2 factor generated from this line was not greater than 0.990, an additional five point calibration would have been performed. Method reporting limits were calculated to be 0.01-1.0 micrograms per Liter (ug/L) for the individual compounds. A daily calibration check and end of run calibration check was performed using a pre-mixed standard supplied by Scotty Analyzed Gases. The standard contained common halogenated solvents and aromatic hydrocarbons (see Table 1). The individual compound concentrations in the standards ranged between 0.025 nanograms per microliter (ng/ul) and 0.25 ng/ul.

TABLE 1 Dichlorodifluoromethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chloroethane Trichlorofluoromethane 1,2-Dichloroethane Benzene 1,1-Dichloroethene Trichloroethene Toluene Methylene Chloride 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Ethylbenzene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene m-/p-Xylene 1,1-Dichloroethane Chloroform o-Xylene cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Vinyl Chloride 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Freon 113 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone Cyclohexane Acetone Chlorobenzene 2-Butanone Isobutane

Sample Replicates A replicate analysis (duplicate) was run to evaluate the reproducibility of the sampling system and instrument. The difference between samples did not vary more than 20%. Equipment Blanks Blanks were run at the beginning of each workday and after calibrations. The blanks were collected using an ambient air sample. These blanks checked the septum, syringe, GC column, GC detector and the ambient air. Contamination was not found in any of the blanks analyzed during this investigation. Blank results are given along with the sample results. Tracer Gas Leak Test A tracer gas was applied to the soil gas probes at each point of connection in which ambient air could enter the sampling system. These points include the top of the sampling probe where the tubing meets the probe connection and the surface bentonite seals. Isobutane was used as the tracer gas. No Isobutane was found in any of the samples collected. Purge Volume The standard purge volume of three volumes was purged in accordance with the July 2015 DTSC/RWQCB Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations.

of 3

Shut-in Test A shut-in test was conducted prior to purging or sampling each location to check for leaks in the above-ground sampling system. The system was evaluated to a minimum measured vacuum of 100 inches of water. The vacuum gauge was calibrated and sensitive enough to indicate a water pressure change of at least 0.5 inches. Scope of Work

To achieve the objective of this investigation a total of 16 vapor samples were collected from 15 locations at the site. Sampling depths, vacuum readings, purge volume and sampling volumes are given on the analytical results page. All the collected vapor samples were analyzed on-site using Optimal’s mobile laboratory. Subsurface Conditions Subsurface soil conditions at this site were predominately silty-sand from ground surface to 5.0 feet bgs. These soil conditions offered sampling flows at 0” water vacuum. Depth to groundwater was unknown at the time of the investigation. Results

During this vapor investigation two samples contained levels of Tetrachloroethene (PCE). PCE levels ranged from 0.38 ug/L to 0.56 ug/L. None of the other compounds listed in Table 1 above were detected above the listed reporting limits. A complete table of analytical results is included with this report.

Disclaimer All conclusions presented in this letter are based solely on the information collected by the soil vapor survey conducted by Optimal Technology. Soil vapor testing is only a subsurface screening tool and does not represent actual contaminant concentrations in either the soil and/or groundwater. We enjoyed working with you on this project and look forward to future projects. If you have any questions please contact me at (877) 764-5427. Sincerely,

Attila Baly Project Manager

SOIL VAPOR RESULTS

Site Name: 1008 E. 4th St., Santa Ana, CA Lab Name: Optimal Technology Date: 2/16/16

Analyst: A. Baly Collector: A. Baly HP-5890 Series II

Method: Modified EPA 8260B HP-5971 Mass Spectrometer Page: 1 of 3

BLANK-1 SV-1 SV-2 SV-3 SV-4 SV-5 SV-6 SV-7

Sampling Depth (Ft.) N/A 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Purge Volume (ml) N/A 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Vacuum (in. of Water) N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Injection Volume (ul) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L)

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chloroethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Trichlorofluoromethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Freon 113 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methylene Chloride 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chloroform 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Trichloroethene (TCE) 0.10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 0.10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Acetone 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Butanone (MEK) 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Cyclohexane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Benzene 0.03 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Toluene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chlorobenzene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Ethylbenzene 0.40 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

m/p-Xylene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

o-Xylene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

TPH-g 5.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Note: ND = Below Listed Reporting Limit

Inst. ID:

Detector:

SAMPLE ID




SOIL VAPOR RESULTS




SV-8 SV-9 SV-10 SV-11 SV-12 SV-13 SV-14 SV-15

Sampling Depth (Ft.) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Purge Volume (ml) 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500

Vacuum (in. of Water) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Injection Volume (ul) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Dilution Factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L) CONC (ug/L)

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chloroethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Trichlorofluoromethane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Freon 113 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Methylene Chloride 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Chloroform 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Carbon Tetrachloride 0.02 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Trichloroethene (TCE) 0.10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 0.10 ND ND ND 0.56 0.38 ND ND ND



Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Acetone 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

1,1-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2-Butanone (MEK) 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Cyclohexane 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Benzene 0.03 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Toluene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Chlorobenzene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Ethylbenzene 0.40 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

m/p-Xylene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

o-Xylene 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

TPH-g 5.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1.00 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND


Inst. ID:

Detector:

SAMPLE ID




SOIL VAPOR RESULTS




SV-15 Dup

Sampling Depth (Ft.) 5.0

Purge Volume (ml) 1,500

Vacuum (in. of Water) 0

Injection Volume (ul) 50,000

Dilution Factor 1

COMPOUND REP. LIMIT CONC (ug/L)

Dichlorodifluoromethane 1.00 ND

Chloroethane 1.00 ND

Trichlorofluoromethane 1.00 ND

Freon 113 1.00 ND

Methylene Chloride 1.00 ND

1,1-Dichloroethane 1.00 ND

Chloroform 1.00 ND

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1.00 ND

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.02 ND

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.04 ND

Trichloroethene (TCE) 0.10 ND

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.00 ND

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 0.10 ND

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.00 ND

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.00 ND

Vinyl Chloride 0.01 ND

Acetone 1.00 ND

1,1-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND

2-Butanone (MEK) 1.00 ND

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.00 ND

Cyclohexane 1.00 ND

Benzene 0.03 ND

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 1.00 ND

Toluene 1.00 ND

Chlorobenzene 1.00 ND

Ethylbenzene 0.40 ND

m/p-Xylene 1.00 ND

o-Xylene 1.00 ND

TPH-g 5.00 ND

Isobutane (Tracer Gas) 1.00 ND


Inst. ID:

Detector:

SAMPLE ID




PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT · PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT-For property...

Documents

Transcript of PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT · PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT-For property...