Mr. Rodney Bryant VCP-CA Section, MC-221 Remediation ... · CES APAR Second Zone DUS.Doc . 2...

11231 Richmond Avenue

Suite D104 Houston, TX 77082 Tel (832) 916-3690

October 16, 2017

Project No. 4020

Mr. Rodney Bryant

VCP-CA Section, MC-221

Remediation Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM (VCP)

CES GRIGGS ROAD VCP SITE

4900 GRIGGS ROAD, 4904 GRIGGS ROAD, AND 5910 WAYLAND STREET

(VCP No. 2751; CN604824904; RN108370644)

RESPONSE TO JUNE 16, 2017 COMMENTS ON REVISED APAR – COMMENT 4

ADDITIONAL GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT

Dear Mr. Bryant:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC (PBW), on behalf of the CES Griggs Road PRP Group (the “Group”), has

prepared this response to Comment 4 on the revised Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR). The

APAR summarized the environmental assessment of the CES Griggs Road VCP Site (the “Site”) pursuant to

the requirements of VCP Agreement No. 2751. The VCP Agreement was executed between the Group and

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on June 10, 2015.

The revised APAR was submitted to TCEQ on April 17, 2017. Comments were provided to the Group by the

TCEQ on June 16, 2017. As quoted below, TCEQ requested an additional assessment of the second sand

(approximately 40-60 feet below ground surface (bgs)) in Comment 4.

“In addition, the TCEQ understands that cone penetrometer tests (CPT) were conducted to identify

the presence of a laterally continuous clay layer that could possibly separate the upper groundwater

bearing unit (GWBU) from a second sand unit. The TCEQ notes that the data located in the boring

logs for the CPT test do no indicate a continuous clay layer. The 20’ [foot] thick clay layer

identified contains numerous intermittent sands and clayey sands which may allow for vertical

migration of contamination and connection of the first and second sands. Additional assessment of

this second sand (approximately 40-60’ bgs) should be conducted to determine whether the

contamination identified in the shallow sand is also present in the second sand.”

In response to TCEQ’s comment, the Group conducted CPT sampling with a piezocone on October 10, 2017

to assess if chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs) detected in the on-Site upper GWBU had

migrated vertically into the second GWBU. The CPT location, CPT-7-2, was advanced in the presumed

source area between MW-1 and MW-5. A groundwater sample was collected after the second zone was

identified by CPT. Figure 1 presents the sample location.

The first GWBU was encountered at approximately 13 feet bgs in CPT-7-2. The top of the confining clay

underlying the first GWBU was encountered approximately 27 feet bgs with a thickness of approximately 16

Mr. Rodney Bryant

October 16, 2017

of 2

feet. These depths are consistent with the shallow GWBU depths observed from previous investigations. The

second GWBU was encountered at approximately 43 feet bgs. This depth is consistent with the previous CPT

investigation. The CPT was advanced to approximately 55 feet bgs to ensure the groundwater sample was

collected within the second sand zone (see CPT log in the Attachments). A groundwater sample and a

duplicate were collected (see the Photolog in the Attachments). The following table provides the results:

CPT-7-2 Chemical of

Concern

cis-1,2-

Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene

trans-1,2-

dichloroethene Trichloroethene

Vinyl

chloride Concentration

(mg/L) < 0.00020 < 0.00030 < 0.00020 < 0.00020 < 0.00020

Duplicate

concentration

(mg/L) < 0.00020 < 0.00030 < 0.00020 < 0.00020 < 0.00020

As shown in this table, all targeted cVOCs were below the limits of detection. The laboratory report is

provided in the Attachments.

Based on these results, the Group requests agency concurrence that the data presented in this letter report

demonstrate that additional assessment of the second sand zone at the CES Site has been completed.

With this letter report, coupled with the previous Group submittals dated September 21 and October 11, 2017,

the Group has submitted complete responses to all agency comments as provided by the TCEQ comment

letter dated June 16, 2017. Consequently, the Group requests agency approval of the revised APAR in order

to proceed with preparation of the Response Action Plan.

If you have any questions or comments, please call (832) 916-3691 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

PASTOR, BEHLING & WHEELER, LLC

Brenda P. Basile, Ph.D.

Senior Consulting Scientist

cc: CES Griggs Road PRP Group

Attachments: Figure 1 On-Site Property Map

CPT Log

Photolog

Laboratory Report

Mr. Rodney Bryant October 16, 2017

FIGURE

01

11

12

14

13

10

17

18

16

09

19

20

21

23

08

07

01

22

15

02

03

01

03

04

02

06

05

06

03

02

24

25

27

28

29

30

29A

14

18

13

12

10

17

11

03A

16

15

07

04A

09

08

MW-02

MW-04

MW-03

04

05

26

MW-01

MW-05

31

32

MW-08

MW-06

MW-07

CPT-05

CPT-06

CPT-04

CPT-01

CPT-03

CPT-02

HA-02

HA-01

HA-04

HA-05

HA-03

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

14

13

4900 Griggs Rd.

4904 Griggs Rd.

5910 Wayland St.

120600

Scale in Feet

DATE:

PROJECT:

PASTOR, BEHLING & WHEELER, LLC

CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS

REVISIONS

CHECKED:

BY:

Figure 1

AJD

BBJULY, 2017

4020

Source:

Imagery taken from Google Earth, photography dated July 31, 2015.

Approx. Property Boundary

PBW Sample Location

PBW Sample Location (Jan. 2017)

PBW Monitoring Well Location

PBW Monitoring Well Location (Jan. 2017)

CPT Location

Hand Auger Location

CES GRIGGS ROAD VCP SITE

HOUSTON, TEXAS

Office Building

Training Center/Locker Room (2008)/

Administrative (2010)

Industrial Waste Processing & Storage (2008)/

Main Processing (2010)

Old Cleaning Rack (1996)/

Tank Trucking Cleaning (2008)/Safe Wash (2010)

Equipment Cleaning (2008)/

Drum Cleaning (2010)

New Shop (1996)/Truck Maintenance (2008)

Cleaning Rack (1996)/Tank Truck Cleaning (2008)/

Equipment & Fleet Maintenance (2015)

Oil/Water Separating Tanks (2010)/

North Tank Farm (2015)

Oil/Water Separating Tanks (2010)/

South Tank Farm (2015)

Welding Shop

Fuel Storage Shed

WMU 126-128 (Frac Tanks)

Former Mechanic Shop (2010)/Field Services (2015)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

Hot Oil Heat System (2008)/

Drum-Tote Storage (2015)

10

Approximate Location Second Zone Groundwater Sample

AutoCAD SHX Text

N

AutoCAD SHX Text

ON-SITE PROPERTY MAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

%%uEXPLANATION

brenda basile

Oval

brenda basile

Oval

brenda.basile

Text Box

CPT-7-2


CPT LOG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Job Number: Operator: Location:

CPT Number:Date:Elevation:

Coordinates:Cone Number:

04.19170065Bobby BrandtHouston, TX

CPT-7-210-Oct-20170.00

29.69850 -95.34361CP15-CF75PB7SN2-P1E1 1629

Page 1 of 1

Sleeve Friction Fs (TSF) Cone Resistance qc (TSF) Pore Pressure U2 (TSF) Friction Ratio Rf (%)Soil Behavior

Type

(1) sensitive fine grained (OL-CH)

(2) organic material (OL-OH)

(3) clay (CH)

(4) silty clay to clay (CL-CH)

(5) clayey silt to silty clay (MH-CL)

(6) sandy silt to clayey silt (ML-MH)

(7) silty sand to sandy silt (SM-ML)

(8) sand to silty sand (SM-SP)

(9) sand (SW-SP)

(10) gravel to gravelly sand (SW-GW)

(11) very stiff fine grained* (CH-CL)

(12) sand to clayey sand* (SC-SM)

Robertson et al. 1986 *Overconsolidated or Cemented

0 4 0 300 -3 0 12 0 10 0 12


PHOTOLOG

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG

Client Name: CES Griggs Road PRP Group

Site Location: CES Environmental Services, 4904 Griggs Road, Houston, Texas

Project No. 4020

Photo No.

1 Date:

10/09/17 Looking northwest at the location of CPT-7-2. The red arrow points to the location of the second zone groundwater sampling point. The orange cone is sitting on top of MW-5.

Photo No.

2 Date:

10/10/17

View of the screen used during groundwater sampling at CPT-7-2.


LABORATORY REPORT

Data Usability Summary

To: Tony Saturni, CES PRP Group Date: October 13, 2017

From: Brenda Basile, Ph.D. File: CES APAR SECOND ZONE DUS.doc

RE: Second Zone Groundwater for 4904 Griggs CC:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC (PBW) reviewed one laboratory report for the analyses of groundwater samples collected by PBW (Houston, Texas) at the CES Griggs Road VCP Site on October 10, 2017. The report was reviewed for conformance to the requirements of SW-846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) guidance document Review and Reporting of COC Concentration Data (RG-366/TRRP-13). The purpose of this sample event was to provide second zone groundwater data for the Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR).

Samples were analyzed using SW-846 8260B - Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Quality control (QC) data were reviewed as described in RG-366/TRRP-13 and the results of the review are discussed in this data usability summary (DUS).

Introduction

The August 2017 samples were analyzed for chlorinated VOCs. Table 1 lists the sample identifications cross-referenced to laboratory identifications and the analyses performed for each sample. No data were qualified due to exceedances of QC criteria.

QC Results

ACCREDITATION

ALS Environmental is accredited under Texas certificate T104704231-17-19 for the matrices, methods and analytes discussed in this DUS.

PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES

Samples were received at the laboratory at temperatures less than 6C. Samples were prepared and

analyzed within method holding times.

BLANKS

No analytes were detected in field or laboratory quality control.

SURROGATE RECOVERIES

Surrogate recoveries were within the RG-366/TRRP-13 acceptance criteria of 60-140 percent recovery (%R) for VOCs.

INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES

According to the LRC, internal standard recoveries were within the method acceptance criteria.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES

Laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 60-140% criteria for VOCs.

CES APAR Second Zone DUS.Doc 2

October 13, 2017

MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE

Batch or non-project sample data were not evaluated. No project samples were spiked.

FIELD PRECISION

Analytes were not detected in the field duplicate samples so precision was not calculated. Field duplicate data are acceptable.

SUMMARY

Analytical data are usable for determining concentrations in second zone groundwater samples collected at the CES Griggs Road VCP Site.

Table 1 Cross-Reference Field Sample Identifications and Laboratory Identifications

Field Identification Laboratory Identification VOCs Comment

Trip Blank 171010 HS17100583-01 X Trip Blank

CPT-7-2 171010 HS17100583-02 X

CPT-7-2 171010 Dup HS17100583-03 X Field duplicate of CPT-7-2 171010

October 13, 2017

Brenda BasilePastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC11231 Richmond AvenueSuite D104Houston, TX 77082

The analytical data provided relates directly to the samples received by ALS Environmental and for only the analyses requested. Results are expressed as "as received" unless otherwise noted.

QC sample results for this data met EPA or laboratory specifications except as noted in the Case Narrative or as noted with qualifiers in the QC batch information. Should this laboratory report need to be reproduced, it should be reproduced in full unless written approval has been obtained by ALS Environmental. Samples will be disposed in 30 days unless storage arrangements are made.

If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

ALS Environmental received 3 sample(s) on Oct 10, 2017 for the analysis presented in the following report.

Laboratory Results for: CES Griggs Rd Quarterly GW

Dear Brenda,

Work Order: HS17100583

Generated By: Dayna.Fisher

Dane J. Wacasey

10450 Stancliff Rd. Suite 210 Houston, TX 77099 T: +1 281 530 5656 F: +1 281 530 5887

www.alsglobal.comRight Solutions • Right Partner

Page 1 of 18

Client:TRRP Laboratory Data Package Cover PageProject:

WorkOrder:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GWHS17100583

This data package consists of all or some of the following as applicable:

This signature page, the laboratory review checklist, and the following reportable data:

R1 Field chain-of-custody documentation;

R2 Sample identification cross-reference;

R3 Test reports (analytical data sheets) for each environmental sample that includes:a) Items consistent with NELAC Chapter 5, b) dilution factors, c) preparation methods, d) cleanup methods, and e) if required for the project, tentatively identified compounds (TICs).

R4 Surrogate recovery data including:a) Calculated recovery (%R), and b) The laboratory’s surrogate QC limits.

R5 Test reports/summary forms for blank samples;

R6 Test reports/summary forms for laboratory control samples (LCSs) including:a) LCS spiking amounts, b) Calculated %R for each analyte, and c)The laboratory’s LCS QC limits.

R7 Test reports for project matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates (MS/MSDs) including:a) Samples associated with the MS/MSD clearly identified, b) MS/MSD spiking amounts, c) Concentration of each MS/MSD analyte measured in the parent and spiked samples, d) Calculated %Rs and relative percent differences (RPDs), and e) The laboratory’s MS/MSD QC limits.

R8 Laboratory analytical duplicate (if applicable) recovery and precision:a) the amount of analyte measured in the duplicate, b) the calculated RPD, and c) the laboratory’s QC limits for analytical duplicates.

R9 List of method quantitation limits (MQLs) and detectability check sample results for eachanalyte for each method and matrix.

R10 Other problems or anomalies. The Exception Report for each “No” or “Not Reviewed (NR)” item in Laboratory Review Checklist andfor each analyte, matrix, and method for which the laboratory does not hold NELAC accreditation underthe Texas Laboratory Accreditation Program.

ALS Group USA, Corp Date: 13-Oct-17

Page 2 of 18

Client:TRRP Laboratory Data Package Cover PageProject:

WorkOrder:


Dane J. Wacasey

Release Statement: I am responsible for the release of this laboratory data package. This laboratory isNELAC accredited under the Texas Laboratory Accreditation Program for all the methods, analytes andmatrices reported in this data package except as noted in the Exception Reports. The data have beenreviewed and are technically compliant with the requirements of the methods used, except where noted bythe laboratory in the attached exception reports. By my signature below, I affirm to the best of myknowledge, all problems/anomalies, observed by the laboratory have been identified by the laboratory inthe Laboratory Review Checklist, and no information affecting the quality of the data has been knowinglywithheld.

Check, if applicable: [NA] This laboratory meets an exception under 30 TAC §25.6 and was last inspectedby [ ] TCEQ or [ ] ______________ on (enter date of last inspection). Any findings affecting the data inthis laboratory data package are noted in the Exception Reports herein. The official signing the cover pageof the report in which these data are used is responsible for releasing this data package and is by signatureaffirming the above release statement is true.


Page 3 of 18

Laboratory Review Checklist: Reportable Data

Laboratory Name: ALS Laboratory Group LRC Date: 10/13/2017

Project Name: CES Griggs Rd Quarterly GW Laboratory Job Number: HS17100583

Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): R303310

#1 A2 Description Yes No NA3 NR4 ER#5

R1 OI Chain-of-custody (C-O-C)

Did samples meet the laboratory’s standard conditions of sample acceptability

upon receipt? X

Were all departures from standard conditions described in an exception report? X

R2 OI Sample and quality control (QC) identification

Are all field sample ID numbers cross-referenced to the laboratory ID numbers? X

Are all laboratory ID numbers cross-referenced to the corresponding QC data? X

R3 OI Test reports

Were all samples prepared and analyzed within holding times? X

Other than those results < MQL, were all other raw values bracketed by

calibration standards? X

Were calculations checked by a peer or supervisor? X

Were all analyte identifications checked by a peer or supervisor? X

Were sample detection limits reported for all analytes not detected? X

Were all results for soil and sediment samples reported on a dry weight basis? X

Were % moisture (or solids) reported for all soil and sediment samples? X

Were bulk soils/solids samples for volatile analysis extracted with methanol per

SW-846 Method 5035? X

If required for the project, TICs reported? X

R4 O Surrogate recovery data

Were surrogates added prior to extraction? X

Were surrogate percent recoveries in all samples within the laboratory QC

limits? X

R5 OI Test reports/summary forms for blank samples

Were appropriate type(s) of blanks analyzed? X

Were blanks analyzed at the appropriate frequency? X

Were method blanks taken through the entire analytical process, including

preparation and, if applicable, cleanup procedures? X

Were blank concentrations < MQL? X

R6 OI Laboratory control samples (LCS):

Were all COCs included in the LCS? X

Was each LCS taken through the entire analytical procedure, including prep and

cleanup steps? X

Were LCSs analyzed at the required frequency? X

Were LCS (and LCSD, if applicable) %Rs within the laboratory QC limits? X

Does the detectability data document the laboratory’s capability to detect the

COCs at the MDL used to calculate the SDLs? X

Was the LCSD RPD within QC limits? X

R7 OI Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) data

Were the project/method specified analytes included in the MS and MSD? X

Were MS/MSD analyzed at the appropriate frequency? X

Were MS (and MSD, if applicable) %Rs within the laboratory QC limits? X

Were MS/MSD RPDs within laboratory QC limits? X

R8 OI Analytical duplicate data

Were appropriate analytical duplicates analyzed for each matrix? X

Were analytical duplicates analyzed at the appropriate frequency? X

Were RPDs or relative standard deviations within the laboratory QC limits? X

R9 OI Method quantitation limits (MQLs):

Are the MQLs for each method analyte included in the laboratory data package? X

Do the MQLs correspond to the concentration of the lowest non-zero calibration

standard? X

Are unadjusted MQLs and DCSs included in the laboratory data package? X

R10 OI Other problems/anomalies

Are all known problems/anomalies/special conditions noted in this LRC and

ER? X

Were all necessary corrective actions performed for the reported data? X

Was applicable and available technology used to lower the SDL and minimize

the matrix interference affects on the sample results? X

Is the laboratory NELAC-accredited under the Texas Laboratory Program for

the analytes, matrices and methods associated with this laboratory data package? X

Page 4 of 18

Laboratory Review Checklist: Supporting Data



Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): R303310 #1 A2 Description Yes No NA3 NR4 ER#5

S1 OI Initial calibration (ICAL)

Were response factors and/or relative response factors for each analyte within QC

limits? X

Were percent RSDs or correlation coefficient criteria met? X

Was the number of standards recommended in the method used for all analytes? X

Were all points generated between the lowest and highest standard used to

calculate the curve? X

Are ICAL data available for all instruments used? X

Has the initial calibration curve been verified using an appropriate second source

standard? X

S2 OI Initial and continuing calibration verification (ICCV and CCV) and

continuing calibration blank (CCB)

Was the CCV analyzed at the method-required frequency? X

Were percent differences for each analyte within the method-required QC limits? X

Was the ICAL curve verified for each analyte? X

Was the absolute value of the analyte concentration in the inorganic CCB < MDL? X

S3 O Mass spectral tuning:

Was the appropriate compound for the method used for tuning? X

Were ion abundance data within the method-required QC limits? X

S4 O Internal standards (IS):

Were IS area counts and retention times within the method-required QC limits? X

S5 OI

Raw data (NELAC section 1 appendix A glossary, and section 5.12 or ISO/IEC

17025 section

Were the raw data (for example, chromatograms, spectral data) reviewed by an

analyst? X

Were data associated with manual integrations flagged on the raw data? X

S6 O Dual column confirmation

Did dual column confirmation results meet the method-required QC? X

S7 O Tentatively identified compounds (TICs):

If TICs were requested, were the mass spectra and TIC data subject to appropriate

checks? X

S8 I Interference Check Sample (ICS) results:

Were percent recoveries within method QC limits? X

S9 I Serial dilutions, post digestion spikes, and method of standard additions

Were percent differences, recoveries, and the linearity within the QC limits

specified in the method? X

S10 OI Method detection limit (MDL) studies

Was a MDL study performed for each reported analyte? X

Is the MDL either adjusted or supported by the analysis of DCSs? X

S11 OI Proficiency test reports:

Was the laboratory's performance acceptable on the applicable proficiency tests or

evaluation studies? X

S12 OI Standards documentation

Are all standards used in the analyses NIST-traceable or obtained from other

appropriate sources? X

S13 OI Compound/analyte identification procedures

Are the procedures for compound/analyte identification documented? X

S14 OI Demonstration of analyst competency (DOC)

Was DOC conducted consistent with NELAC Chapter 5C or ISO/IEC 4? X

Is documentation of the analyst’s competency up-to-date and on file? X

S15 OI

Verification/validation documentation for methods (NELAC Chap 5 or

ISO/IEC 17025 Section 5)

Are all the methods used to generate the data documented, verified, and validated,

where applicable? X

S16 OI Laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs):

Are laboratory SOPs current and on file for each method performed? X Items identified by the letter “R” must be included in the laboratory data package submitted in the TRRP-required report(s). Items identified by the letter “S” should be retained and made available upon request for the appropriate retention period. O = Organic Analyses; I = Inorganic Analyses (and general chemistry, when applicable); NA = Not Applicable; NR = Not Reviewed; R# = Exception Report identification number (an Exception Report should be completed for an item if “NR” or “No” is checked).

Page 5 of 18

Laboratory Review Checklist: Exception Reports



Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): R303310

ER#5 Description

No Exceptions

Items identified by the letter “R” must be included in the laboratory data package submitted in the TRRP-required report(s). Items identified by the letter “S” should be retained and made available upon request for the appropriate retention period. O = Organic Analyses; I = Inorganic Analyses (and general chemistry, when applicable); NA = Not Applicable; NR = Not Reviewed; R# = Exception Report identification number (an Exception Report should be completed for an item if “NR” or “No” is checked).

Page 6 of 18

Client: Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

Work Order: HS17100583Project: CES Griggs Rd Quarterly GW SAMPLE SUMMARY

Lab Samp ID Client Sample ID Collection DateMatrix TagNo Date Received Hold

HS17100583-01 10-Oct-2017 10:45VBLKW-100617-01

10-Oct-2017 14:10Trip Blank 171010 Water

HS17100583-02 10-Oct-2017 10:00 10-Oct-2017 14:10CPT-7-2 171010 Groundwater

HS17100583-03 10-Oct-2017 10:05 10-Oct-2017 14:10CPT-7-2 171010 DUP Groundwater

ALS Group USA, Corp 13-Oct-17Date:

Page 7 of 18

Client:Project:Sample ID:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GWTrip Blank 171010

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS17100583HS17100583-01

10-Oct-2017 10:45 Matrix:Water

ANALYTICAL REPORT

ANALYSES RESULT MQLDILUTION FACTORUNITS

DATE ANALYZEDQUAL SDL

LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 12-Oct-2017 19:460.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 12-Oct-2017 19:460.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 12-Oct-2017 19:460.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 12-Oct-2017 19:460.00020Trichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 12-Oct-2017 19:460.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 19:46114 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 19:46100 81-113

Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 19:46103 77-123

Surr: Toluene-d8 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 19:46106 82-127

13-Oct-17Date: ALS Group USA, Corp

Note: See Qualifiers Page for a list of qualifiers and their explanation.

Page 8 of 18


Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GWCPT-7-2 171010

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS17100583HS17100583-02

10-Oct-2017 10:00 Matrix:Groundwater

ANALYTICAL REPORT









Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 20:1198.8 81-113





Page 9 of 18


Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GWCPT-7-2 171010 DUP

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS17100583HS17100583-03

10-Oct-2017 10:05 Matrix:Groundwater

ANALYTICAL REPORT









Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 12-Oct-2017 20:3797.2 81-113





Page 10 of 18

Client:CES Griggs Rd Quarterly GWPastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

WorkOrder:Project:

HS17100583DATES REPORT

Collection Date Prep Date Analysis DateClient Samp IDSample ID TCLP Date DF

Batch ID R303310 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: Groundwater

12 Oct 2017 20:11HS17100583-02 10 Oct 2017 10:00 1CPT-7-2 171010

12 Oct 2017 20:37HS17100583-03 10 Oct 2017 10:05 1CPT-7-2 171010 DUP

Batch ID R303310 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: Water

12 Oct 2017 19:46HS17100583-01 10 Oct 2017 10:45 1Trip Blank 171010


Page 11 of 18


WorkOrder: HS17100583

Test Code: 8260_LL_WInstrumentID: VOA4

METHOD DETECTION / REPORTING LIMITS

AqueousMatrix:Test Number: SW8260Test Name: Low Level Volatiles by SW8260C

Units: mg/L

Type Analyte DCSCAS MDL PQLDCS SpikeA 0.00078156-59-2 0.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.00064127-18-4 0.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.00078156-60-5 0.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.0008379-01-6 0.00020Trichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.0007475-01-4 0.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.00050

S 017060-07-0 01,2-Dichloroethane-d4 0.00100

S 0460-00-4 04-Bromofluorobenzene 0.00100

S 01868-53-7 0Dibromofluoromethane 0.00100

S 02037-26-5 0Toluene-d8 0.00100

Page 12 of 18

Client:Project:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GW


QC BATCH REPORT

Batch ID: R303310 Instrument: VOA4 Method: SW8260

Sample ID: VBLKW-171012 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 12-Oct-2017 11:24

Run ID: VOA4_303310 SeqNo: 4261531 PrepDate: DF: 1

Analyte SPK ValMQLResultSPK Ref

Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref

Value %RPDRPD Limit Qual

MBLK

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene U 1.0

Tetrachloroethene U 1.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene U 1.0

Trichloroethene U 1.0

Vinyl chloride U 1.0

54.35 50 0 109 70 - 1231.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

49.1 50 0 98.2 82 - 1151.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

51.8 50 0 104 73 - 1261.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

53.26 50 0 107 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: VLCSW-171012 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 12-Oct-2017 10:34



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 53.8 50 0 108 75 - 1221.0

Tetrachloroethene 51.83 50 0 104 76 - 1191.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 48.62 50 0 97.2 72 - 1271.0

Trichloroethene 50.42 50 0 101 77 - 1211.0

Vinyl chloride 53.96 50 0 108 70 - 1301.0

47.59 50 0 95.2 70 - 1301.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

51.48 50 0 103 82 - 1151.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene


53.76 50 0 108 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8



Page 13 of 18

Client:Project:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Quarterly GW


QC BATCH REPORT

Batch ID: R303310 Instrument: VOA4 Method: SW8260

Sample ID: HS17100397-07MS Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 12-Oct-2017 17:37



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 47.21 50 0 94.4 70 - 1281.0

Tetrachloroethene 46.15 50 0 92.3 70 - 1301.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 48.79 50 0 97.6 70 - 1301.0

Trichloroethene 45.3 50 0 90.6 70 - 1291.0

Vinyl chloride 44.71 50 0 89.4 70 - 1301.0

54.06 50 0 108 70 - 1261.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

51.52 50 0 103 81 - 1131.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene


52.85 50 0 106 82 - 1271.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: HS17100397-07MSD Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 12-Oct-2017 18:03



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 47.57 50 0 95.1 70 - 128 47.21 0.749 201.0

Tetrachloroethene 51.78 50 0 104 70 - 130 46.15 11.5 201.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 45.52 50 0 91.0 70 - 130 48.79 6.95 201.0

Trichloroethene 43.65 50 0 87.3 70 - 129 45.3 3.72 201.0

Vinyl chloride 43.63 50 0 87.3 70 - 130 44.71 2.44 201.0

50.62 50 0 101 70 - 126 54.06 6.56 201.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

53.49 50 0 107 81 - 113 51.52 3.76 201.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

49.19 50 0 98.4 77 - 123 50.13 1.89 201.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

53.93 50 0 108 82 - 127 52.85 2.02 201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS17100583-01 HS17100583-02 HS17100583-03



Page 14 of 18

QUALIFIERS, ACRONYMS, UNITS

Client:Project:WorkOrder:


Qualifier Description* Value exceeds Regulatory Limit

a Not accredited

B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank above the Reporting Limit

E Value above quantitation range

H Analyzed outside of Holding Time

J Analyte detected below quantitation limit

M Manually integrated, see raw data for justification

n Not offered for accreditation

ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit

O Sample amount is > 4 times amount spiked

P Dual Column results percent difference > 40%

R RPD above laboratory control limit

S Spike Recovery outside laboratory control limits

U Analyzed but not detected above the MDL/SDL

Acronym DescriptionDCS Detectability Check Study

DUP Method Duplicate

LCS Laboratory Control Sample

LCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate

MBLK Method Blank

MDL Method Detection Limit

MQL Method Quantitation Limit

MS Matrix Spike

MSD Matrix Spike Duplicate

PDS Post Digestion Spike

PQL Practical Quantitaion Limit

SD Serial Dilution

SDL Sample Detection Limit

TRRP Texas Risk Reduction Program

Unit Reported Descriptionmg/L Milligrams per Liter


Page 15 of 18

CERTIFICATIONS,ACCREDITATIONS & LICENSES

Agency Number Expire Date

Arkansas 17-027-0 27-Mar-2018

California 2919 2016-2018 31-Jul-2018

Illinois 004112 09-May-2018

Kentucky 123043 30-Apr-2018

Louisiana 03087 2017-2017 30-Jun-2018

North Carolina 624-2017 31-Dec-2017

North Dakota R193 2017-2017 30-Apr-2018

Oklahoma 2017-088 31-Aug-2018

Texas T104704231-17-19 30-Apr-2018


Page 16 of 18

CTB

10-Oct-2017 14:10Date/Time Received:

HS17100583

PBW - Houston

Work Order:

Client Name:

Sample Receipt Checklist

Received by:

Shipping container/cooler in good condition?

Custody seals intact on shipping container/cooler?

Custody seals intact on sample bottles?

Chain of custody present?

Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received?

Chain of custody agrees with sample labels?

Samples in proper container/bottle?

Sample containers intact?

Sufficient sample volume for indicated test?

All samples received within holding time?

Container/Temp Blank temperature in compliance?

Temperature(s)/Thermometer(s):

Cooler(s)/Kit(s):

Date/Time sample(s) sent to storage:

Water - VOA vials have zero headspace?

Water - pH acceptable upon receipt?

pH adjusted?

pH adjusted by:

Login Notes:

No Not Present

Yes No Not Present

Yes No Not Present

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

1.4c/0.6c uc/c IR154261010/10/2017 1900

Yes No No VOA vials submitted

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

CPT-7-2 171010 COC states 3 bottles, received 4. Extra vial is ~80% sediment

Checklist completed by: Cesar A. LiraDateeSignatureDateeSignature

11-Oct-201711-Oct-2017

ALS.HSWater Carrier name:Matrices:

Reviewed by: Dane J. Wacasey

Client Contacted: Date Contacted: Person Contacted:

Contacted By: Regarding:

Comments:

Corrective Action:

Yes

NoYesTX1005 solids received in hermetically sealed vials? N/A

ALS Group USA, Corp 13-Oct-17Date:

Page 17 of 18

Mr. Rodney Bryant VCP-CA Section, MC-221 Remediation ... · CES APAR Second Zone DUS.Doc . 2...

Documents

Transcript of Mr. Rodney Bryant VCP-CA Section, MC-221 Remediation ... · CES APAR Second Zone DUS.Doc . 2...