TERRESTIAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SURVEY …subsites.bp.com/caspian/ACG/Eng/esia1/ape10a.pdf ·...

URS Corporation7 St George's House, 2nd Floor 5 St George's Road Wimbledon London SW19 4DR

TERRESTIAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SURVEY SANGACHAL OIL TERMINAL, BAKU, AZERBAIJAN FOR BP

URS CORPORATION 2

This page is intentionally blank.

URS CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.1 INTRODUCTION I 1.2 BACKGROUND I 1.3 SCOPE OF WORK II 1.4 OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS II 1.5 CONCLUSIONS III

2 TERRESTIAL SOIL & GROUNDWATER SURVEY REPORT 1 2.1 INTRODUCTION 1

2.1.1 BACKGROUND 1 2.2 OBJECTIVES 1 2.3 BACKGROUND 2 2.4 STRUCTURE OF REPORT 2

3 SCOPE OF WORKS 3 3.1 PREAMBLE 3 3.2 TASK 1: FIELD INVESTIGATION 3

3.2.1 DRILLING OF BOREHOLES 3 3.2.2 SOIL LOGGING & MONITORING 4 3.2.3 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING 4 3.2.4 SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS 4 3.2.5 SOIL & SEDIMENT SAMPLING 5 3.2.6 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION 5 3.2.7 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 6

3.3 TASK 3: CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 7 3.4 TASK 4: RISK ASSESSMENT 7 3.5 TASK 5: REPORTING AND PRESENTATION 7

4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 8 4.1 SITE LOCATION & DESCRIPTION 8 4.2 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS 8 4.3 SITE TOPOGRAPHY 8 4.4 SITE CONDITIONS 9

4.4.1 SURFACE COVER 9 4.4.2 MADE GROUND 9 4.4.3 GEOLOGY 9 4.4.4 SITE GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES 9

4.5 SITE HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 10 4.6 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT MIGRATION PATHWAYS 10 4.7 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS 10

5 ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 11 5.1 INTRODUCTION 11 5.2 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 11

5.2.1 LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 11 5.2.2 INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 11

5.3 FIELD OBSERVATIONS 12 5.4 SOIL, SURFACE SEDIMENT AND GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 12

5.4.1 INTRODUCTION 12 5.4.2 SOIL ANALYSIS 13 5.4.3 SURFACE SOIL/SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 13 5.4.4 GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS 14

6 CONCLUSIONS 15

URS CORPORATION ii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Borehole Logs Appendix B Analytical Results

URS CORPORATION i

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction The Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), operated by BP, proposes to begin development of Phase 1 of the Full Field Development of the Azeri, Chirag and Deep Water Gunashli (ACG) contract area located at the Sangachal Terminal. The Phase 1 project will develop the central part of the Azeri reservoir, to the south east of Chirag-1 and will consist of: § production, drilling and quarters platform (PDQ); § bridge-linked compression and water platform (C&WP) for gas and water injection to the

reservoir; § 30” sub-sea oil pipeline from the PDQ to shore; § potential new 30” gas line to shore, or, conversion of the existing 24” sub-sea oil pipeline

from Chirag-1 to gas service; § expansion of the Sangachal Terminal to receive the increased production and export

requirements. URS Dames & Moore was commissioned by BP to complete a baseline assessment of the soil and groundwater conditions beneath the Sangachal Terminal during May/ June 2001. Sangachal Terminal is located 1.5 km west of the Caspian shoreline approximately 40 km south of the Azerbaijan capital of Baku. Current activities at the terminal comprise the reception of oil from Early Oil Project (Chirag 1) totalling some 125,000 bpd with gas export to the local market of around 100 million standard cubic feet per day (MMscfd). The purpose of this report is to establish the baseline soil and groundwater conditions prior to terminal expansion and upgrade of the facilities for the Phase 1 development. 1.2 Background The Sangachal region, including the terminal site, is located close to the centre of a flat, low-lying basin that occupies an area of around 32 km2 along the margin of the Caspian Sea. Within the basin area the land surface is typically 12 to 14 m below the world ocean datum (taken to be the Baltic Sea in Former Soviet Union (FSU) countries) and is therefore, approximately 10 to 12 m above the local sea level. The land rises sharply to the north of the basin to form a range of steeply sloped hills with a maximum elevation of 300 to 400 m above the world ocean datum. Ground surface elevations rise more gradually from the Sangachal terminal to the north-west. Ground surface topography in the vicinity of Sangachal terminal is fairly uniform with gentle undulations of less than a metre spread over a large area. A railway and road run parallel with the coastline generally less than 100 m inland. From the road, the terrain slopes moderately down to a beach front approximately 10 m lower. In addition to the rail and road infrastructure, the area also comprises number of underground and aboveground pipelines (oil, water and gas), as well as a number of poorly abandoned exploration wells. A previous investigation of the area conducted by Fugro in 1996 indicated the site to be underlain by low permeability estuarine clays to a depth of at least 50m. Regionally, the geological structures of this region are the result of the epeirogenic uplift and depression associated with the Caucasus orogenic belt and later marine transgressions and regressions during the Quaternary period. The landscape has been modified as a result of denudation associated with anthropogenic activities and precipitation processes.

URS CORPORATION ii

There does not appear to be any significant groundwater body present in the immediate vicinity of the site. The regional groundwater appears to be present at significant depth (i.e. greater than 50 m below ground level) and is confined by a significant thickness of relatively impermeable clays. From the limited data available it is likely that the associated regional groundwater gradient is towards the Caspian Sea. Samples were taken from the one installed well in order to provide a general indication of the quality of near surface groundwater units in the vicinity of the site – but this is unlikely to be representative of a regional groundwater body. 1.3 Scope of Work URS’ baseline assessment comprised a site walkover and the construction of 6 soil borings, which were completed as groundwater monitoring wells (to depths of approximately 20m), the collection of soil samples from these borings and the collection of 22 surface sediment samples from a variety of locations within a 5Km radius of the site. In addition, to maximise field survey efficiencies the borings and associated samples were subjected to geotechnical testing in order to establish soil properties for construction purposes. Groundwater was detected in only one of the 6 wells installed and a groundwater sample was obtained from this well (URSBH1). The soil and groundwater samples were dispatched to the Caspian Environmental Laboratory, operated by Environment & Resource Technology Ltd.. The samples were transported to the laboratory under full chain of custody for the analysis of a range of determinands including total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size analysis. 1.4 Observations and Findings During the site walkover, 3 areas were identified where visual or olfactory indications of contamination were noted. These were located in the vicinity of a former oil well where ashy soils were observed, stained sediments in a wadi to the south of the site, and ash located between the railway tracks and the coast road. Analytical results were compared to the Dutch Intervention Values (DIV) adjusted by using site specific soil data collected as part of the baseline assessment (TOC and clay content – PSD results). Where the DIV were not available USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remedial Goals for Industrial Soils were used as the screening criteria to assess the significance of the results. This procedure is typically referred to as a Tier 1 assessment and is consistent with standard risk assessment practice. The soil samples obtained from the soil borings were analysed for TPH. PAHs were also analysed for in the near surface samples (less than 0.5mbgl) and metals. None of the samples from the soil borings exceeded the Tier 1 screening criteria. None of the soil samples results for TPH and PAH exceeded the Tier 1 screening criteria. For the metals analyses, barium was reported in the near surface sample from SS3 (0.5mbgl) collected from the wadi to the south of the site; elevated concentrations of copper were reported in the near surface from SS7 located between the railway and the coast road and also in the near-surface sample from SS16 near the former oil well where ashy soils were observed; iron was also reported at concentrations above the screening criteria (100,000 mg/kg) in the near surface samples at the following locations: SS7 and SS15-18 inclusive. Particle size analysis (PSA) was conducted on the twenty surface sediment samples to determine the size distribution of particles. Carbonate and organic content of these samples was determined. This analysis indicated that SS1, SS2, SS3 and SS4 located at or near the beach and intertidal area comprised well-sorted fine to medium sands with a high carbonate but low organic content. The remaining sediment samples from the inland area comprised fine

URS CORPORATION iii

to medium silts with a low average organic content of 3.75% and a low average carbonate content of 27.72%.

Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in five of the boreholes in order to determine the consistency and cohesive nature of the sub soils. The number of blows ‘n’ indicates an approximation of the strength of the soils and is recorded on the borehole logs. The field tests indicate that the upper clay unit clay had ‘n’ counts of between 10 –12 blows per 0.3 m indicating a firm consistency and an inferred cohesion value of 40-75 kN/m3. The lower clay unit had ‘n’ counts of between >50 blows per 0.3 m indicating a hard consistency and an inferred cohesion value of >200 kN/m3. Groundwater collected from URSBH1 was analysed for heavy metals and TPH and none of the reported values exceeded the screening criteria. A trace concentration of TPH was detected in the groundwater. 1.5 Conclusions The principal conclusions from the baseline assessment are as follows: • Consistent with the finding from the previous investigation, groundwater was not detected

in the borings to any significant extent with the exception of a moist layer, which produced a modest amount of groundwater in one well (BHURS1).

• The results of the analysis of groundwater do not indicate a significant impact by potential pollutants. It is likely that any regional groundwater flow takes place towards the Caspian Sea although there is little direct evidence to support this;

• The soils in the vicinity of the site have been slightly impacted in localised areas as a result of past activities and most probably, earlier oil exploration and production activities. Identified contamination was not however, significant and is not considered to have resulted from AIOC activities at the EOP Sangachal terminal.;

• The geotechnical properties of the soils the upper clay unit clay had ‘n’ counts of between 10 –12 blows per 0.3m indicating a firm consistency and an inferred cohesion value of 40-75 kN/m3. The lower clay unit had ‘n’ counts of between >50 blows per 0.3m indicating a hard consistency and an inferred cohesion value of >200 kN/m3.

URS CORPORATION iv


URS CORPORATION 1

2 TERRESTIAL SOIL & GROUNDWATER SURVEY REPORT 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Background This report presents the findings of an intrusive environmental site assessment conducted in the area of the existing Sangachal Oil Terminal (the site) and the area of proposed expansion. The terminal is located approximately 40km south of Baku, Azerbaijan, as shown on Figure 1. URS Dames & Moore on behalf of BP, undertook the work in accordance with URS’ tender submission, Proposal 8.08 - ACG FFD Phase 1 and Shah Deniz Gas Export Stage 1 Upstream Environmental and Socio-economic Impact Assessment (E-00-BPCS-23453). Figure 1 – Location of existing Sangachal terminal

Location of Sangachal in respect to Azerbaijan and Caspian Sea.

2.2 Objectives The primary objective of the environmental assessment was to investigate the surface sediments, subsoil and groundwater in order to assess the nature and extent of any potential contamination within a 2.5 km radius of the existing and proposed terminal developments. The findings of this study will be incorporated into the ADG and SD Environmental, Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (ESIAs) as baseline data. In addition, as part of the technology transfer element of the ESIA projects, URS Dames & Moore trained three local consultants in site investigation and sampling procedures.

URS CORPORATION 2

2.3 Background Fugro Environmental Limited conducted an intrusive investigation in 1996, prior to construction of the Early Oil Project (EOP) terminal. These results indicated that the facility is underlain by a series of recent marine low permeability clays, to a depth of at least 50 metres. Laboratory analysis of soil samples indicated concentrations of TPH at <300mg/kg. Groundwater was not encountered during this previous survey although, historic hydrogeological maps of the area indicate the groundwater table to be between 10 and 20m around the terminal site. The estimated direction of groundwater flow was reportedly towards the sea. An intrusive investigation was recommended to allow for a further evaluation of the potential environmental liabilities and also to determine the hydro-geological setting of the site. 2.4 Structure of Report The report is presented in the following sections: • Section 2 describes the scope of works for the site investigation and environmental

assessment; • Section 3 describes the site’s environmental setting, including the geological and

hydrogeological regime. These have been assessed to provide a review of potential contaminant migration pathways and receptors at the site;

• Section 4 discusses the results of the chemical analysis of the soil and groundwater samples. A review of current relevant soil and groundwater quality criteria is also included in this section, and the analytical results are compared to these criteria to access the significance of the results; and

• Section 5 discusses the conclusions of the investigation.

URS CORPORATION 3

3 SCOPE OF WORKS 3.1 Preamble The scope of work developed to meet the objectives of the investigation described in Section 1.2 was divided into the following tasks:

• Task 1: Field Investigation; • Task 2: Laboratory Analysis; • Task 3: Tier 1 Qualitative Risk Assessment; and • Task 4: Data Assessment and Reporting.

The activities undertaken by URS Dames & Moore to accomplish these tasks are detailed in the following sections. 3.2 Task 1: Field Investigation The field investigation was conducted at the site between 26th May 2001 and 02 June 2001. Site works were conducted and managed by Mr Ed Dennis of URS Dames & Moore in the company of Mr Kevin Richardson of BP, a site engineer from GIBB, Mr Gamlet Mailov of the Geological Committee and Mr. Rovshan Seidbalayev of ASPI. 3.2.1 Drilling of Boreholes Six boreholes, BHURS1 to BHURS6, were drilled to a maximum depth of 20m below ground level (mbgl) to gain an understanding of the subsurface stratigraphy. Sampling locations were selected based in relation to the proposed terminal boundaries and to target areas of potential contamination (identified during the initial site walkover) in order to provide characterisation of any potential contaminants present and to provide site coverage. The location of each borehole is shown in Figure 2. Prior to drilling the investigation locations were checked for underground services using available site plans and discussions with on-site personnel. Where necessary an inspection pit was hand dug to a depth of at least one metre below ground level to further check for underground services and the boreholes were drilled within the inspection pits. The boreholes were drilled by Tekar, a local drilling contractor, using a continuous flight auger drilling (CFA) rig. This track-mounted diesel-powered rig was used to advance a 200mm external diameter steel auger by rotating to the required depth below ground level. The auger comprises a flighted solid central rod, which displaces the soil by the action of rotation. Disturbed soil samples were brought to the surface by the rotating action of the auger. On completion of drilling, the auger was removed from the hole, allowing the installation of monitoring wells as required. All downhole boring and drilling equipment was carefully washed prior to and between drilling each borehole using mains potable quality water. No oils, grease or similar type lubricants were used on boring or drilling tools or casing.

URS CORPORATION 4

3.2.2 Soil Logging & Monitoring Soils at each borehole location were logged in accordance with BS539, the British Standard for soil descriptions by a qualified geologist from URS Dames & Moore. The borehole logs are provided as Appendix A and provide a detailed record of site observations and all field measurements. During the site works the drilling returns were monitored for ionisable volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as follows: • Soil samples were taken from the flight auger using a pre-cleaned stainless steel spatula

and placed directly into plastic bag which was then sealed; and • After five minutes a headspace reading was taken using a Photo Ionisation Detector

(PID), the results of which were noted on the borehole logs (Appendix A). 3.2.3 Geotechnical Testing In-situ standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in five of the six boreholes in order to determine the consistency and cohesive nature of the sub soils. Using the CFA drilling rig, a standard split barrel sampler was driven 0.30m into the ground using a hammer. The number of blows ‘n’ indicated an approximation of the strength of the soils. SPTs were conducted approximately every half metre and at lithological changes and were recorded on the borehole logs (Appendix A). 3.2.4 Surface Sediment Sampling Locations

Twenty surface sediment samples were collected within the proposed terminal boundary after a brief walkover of the area. The survey was designed to give broad coverage and to focus on potential areas of concern. The investigation locations are shown in Figure 2 and described in the Table 1 below. Table 1 – Surface soil sample inventory

Sample ID Easting Northing Comments

SS1_0.05 9371078 4451050 Beach

SS2_0.05 9371171 4451094 Beach

SS3_0.05 9371370 4451151 Beach

SS4_0.05 9371545 4451110 Intertidal Zone

SS5_0.05 9371706 4451487 Wadi

SS6_0.03 9371666 4451589 Wadi- 100m N of SS5 (black staining), beneath Railway Crossing

SS7_0.03 9371522 4451459 150m W of SS6 between coast road and railway - dark grey silty ash

SS8_0.05 9371636 4451407 300m N of Railway, 500m of Terminal road

SS9_0.05 9371520 4451401 West of SS8, adjacent to Terminal Road

SS10_0.05 9371276 4452404 1km N railway, 1km E of Terminal road

SS11_0.05 9370954 4452240 Adjacent to Terminal Road 1km N railway

SS12_0.05 9371628 4453431 100m E BHURS5

SS13_0.05 9371322 4453783 300m N of Terminal bund - in-line with cracking tower

SS14_0.05 9370518 4453843 480m ESE of BHURS2

SS15_0.05 9370221 4453572 Ashy silt 50m NE BHURS2

SS16_0.05 9370221 4453572 Ashy silt 50m NE BHURS2 (DUPLICATE OF SS15)

SS17_0.25 9370221 4453572 Ashy silt 50m NE BHURS2 - 0.25m depth

SS18_0.05 9370175 4453468 Ashy silt 50m SW BHURS2

SS19_0.05 9369815 4452990 700m WSW BHURS2 en route BHURS3

SS20_0.05 9370241 4452363 600m S SS19 level with SW corner Terminal bund

URS CORPORATION 5

Figure 2 – Sampling and Drilling Locations

3.2.5 Soil & Sediment Sampling Soil samples from the boreholes and surface sediments were collected for detailed laboratory analysis. All samples were taken using a pre-cleaned stainless steel spatula directly from the surface of the steel hand auger or steel flight auger. All samples were collected in accordance with URS Dames & Moore’s Field protocols (based on US EPA) protocols as follows: • samples were placed directly into pre-cleaned glass vessels with teflon-lined screw-top

lids; • surgical-type gloves were worn for sampling and a fresh pair was used for each sample

to minimise cross-contamination of samples; • sample jars were labelled with a unique sample code which was also included on a

Chain of Custody Form in triplicate; • samples were stored on-site in cooler boxes containing ice packs and were transferred

to a refrigerator at 3 - 4°C at the end of each field sampling day; • samples were finally transferred under Chain of Custody protocols (with custody seals

in cool boxes containing ice packs) by carrier to the sub-contractor laboratory. 3.2.6 Monitoring Well Installation To facilitate the sampling of the groundwater, monitoring wells were installed in each of the six boreholes. The following monitoring well materials were used:

URS CORPORATION 6

• slotted well screen - 50 mm ID PVC, screw fitting slot size 1 mm geowrap • solid well screen - 50 mm ID PVC, screw fitting • bottom caps - PVC screwcap • top cap - polypropylene push on cap • filter pack - 1 to 2 mm rounded graded granular material • bentonite seal - compactonite (activated bentonite) pellets • cement grout - cement/sand mix • protective metal cover with locking screw Each monitoring well was installed with a slotted casing length forming a screened section. From the top of the screened section, solid casing was installed to ground level. A filter pack was placed around the screen above which a bentonite seal (of at least 0.5 m thickness) was placed up to ground surface. At ground surface the annulus was sealed with cement grout, which was used to secure a protective cover.

3.2.7 Groundwater Sampling Groundwater samples were collected for detailed laboratory analysis from one well installed by URS in the terminal area, in accordance with URS Dames & Moore’s field protocols (based on US EPA) as follows; • The borehole lid and cap was removed and any observations of odour or organic vapour

were made; • The diameter of the standpipe was recorded in mm. The depth to groundwater relative

to the ground surface and the total depth of the well was recorded using a dip meter; • The volume of the water in the well was calculated from the water column height and

stand pipe diameter (Πr2h); • The newly installed wells were ‘developed’ in order to settle the gravel pack and

cleanse the water bearing strata in the immediate vicinity (of the borehole of debris resulting from the drilling process). Well development was undertaken using disposal bailers, with one bailer dedicated to each well. The bailer was lowered to the full depth of the borehole to allow sorting of the sand pack and removal of fines. Groundwater was removed from each well until it was sediment free and field parameters such as pH had stabilised. Upon completion of development,, the wells were left several days prior to purging and sampling;

• Standing water in the well was ‘purged’ by removing a minimum of three well volumes using dedicated bailers. This ensured that the groundwater sample collected was representative of the aquifer and was not a ‘stagnant’ sample;

• All groundwater samples were collected using a dedicated disposable bailer. The bailer was lowered gently into the water column and allowed to fill before being gently raised to the surface. Excessive disturbance of the of the groundwater during sample recovery and transfer to the laboratory bottles was avoided in order to preserve sample integrity;

• samples were placed directly into pre-cleaned glass vessels with teflon-lined screw-top lids;

• surgical-type gloves were worn for sampling and a fresh pair was used for each sample to minimise cross-contamination of samples;

• sample jars were labelled with a unique sample code which was also included on a Chain of Custody Form in triplicate;

• samples were stored on-site in cooler boxes containing ice packs and were transferred to a refrigerator at 3 - 4°C at the end of each field sampling day; and

URS CORPORATION 7

• samples were finally transferred under Chain of Custody protocols and with custody seals in cool boxes containing ice packs by carrier to the sub-contractor laboratory.

3.3 Task 3: Chemical Analysis Soil, surface sediment and groundwater samples were dispatched to the Caspian Environment & Resource Technology Environmental Laboratory for analysis of the following analytes: • Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, iron, mercury and zinc); • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) – PAH analysis was undertaken on the near

surface soil samples from soil borings; • Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (soils and surface sediments), • Particle Size Distribution (surface sediments); and • Salinity (groundwater). The range of analyses performed on the samples is presented in Table 1. The results of the analyses are presented in Appendix B. 3.4 Task 4: Risk Assessment A qualitative risk assessment was undertaken at the site forming the first tier of the two-tiered approach to data interpretation in line with the generally accepted risk assessment practice. This risk assessment phase was qualitative, comprising; • identification of pollutant linkages present at the site and development of a conceptual

site model (CSM); and • a comparison of detected chemical concentrations with suitable generic criteria, where

published. This qualitative evaluation was automatically undertaken upon completion of the site investigation works and allowed conclusions to be reached regarding the need for, and extent of, a quantitative risk assessment. 3.5 Task 5: Reporting and Presentation This report will include the site investigation results and observations, the analytical results and the lithological records from the soil borings. The risk assessment methodology and are also included.

URS CORPORATION 8

4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.1 Site Location & Description Sangachal Terminal is located 1.5 km west of the Caspian shoreline approximately 40 km south of the Azerbaijan capital of Baku as shown in Figure 1. Development of the area immediately around the terminal site is limited and comprises railway lines and the main Baku – Alyaty highway. In addition, approximately six poorly abandoned Soviet exploration wells exist to the north and northwest of the terminal area, the closest being 600 m from the terminal boundary. A number of utility lines and pipelines are also routed along the coast parallel to the highway and railway line as follows: • Communication – 6 • Gas pipelines – 6 • Oil pipelines – 2 • Condensate pipeline – 1 • Water pipelines – 6 • Overhead high-voltage lines – 5 • Unidentified lines - 3 4.2 Previous Site Investigations URS Dames & Moore has reviewed the following reports of works conducted at the proposed Sangachal Terminal: • Environmental Assessment - Sangachal Terminal and Waste Disposal Facilities Chirag

1 Early Oil Development Project Report No. K-2435/031, Fugro Engineering B.V. 4.3 Site Topography The Sangachal region, including the terminal site, is located close to the centre of a flat, low-lying basin that occupies an area of around 32 km2 along the margin of the Caspian Sea. Within the basin area the land surface is typically 12 to 14 m below the world ocean datum (taken to be the Baltic Sea in Former Soviet Union (FSU) countries) and is therefore, approximately 10 to 12 m above the local sea level. The land rises sharply to the north of the basin to form a range of steeply sloped hills with a maximum elevation of 300 to 400 m above the world ocean datum. Ground surface elevations rise more gradually from the Sangachal terminal to the north-west. Ground surface topography in the vicinity of Sangachal terminal is fairly uniform with gentle undulations of less than a metre spread over a large area. A railway and road run parallel with the coastline generally less than 100 m inland. From the road, the terrain slopes moderately down to a beach front approximately 10 m lower.

URS CORPORATION 9

4.4 Site conditions The regional geology is typical of a marine environment with a substantial thickness of marine clays near surface. The subsurface conditions encountered during the site investigation are summarised below: • Loose silty surface cover with limited vegetation • Limited Made Ground; • A stiff clayey-silty sequence; and • Further stiff to hard marine clays.

4.4.1 Surface Cover Limited vegetation was noted during the site investigation and the surface soils generally comprised dry, loose, light brown silts and or fine silty sands with limited organic content. These soils have been formed in desert climate conditions with accompanying 150 mm of winter precipitation and high summer temperatures, leading to a high rate of disintegration of organic matter. Twenty surface sediment samples were collected as shown in Figure 2. The samples indicated that the sediments ranged from beach sands and clays to fine silts. 4.4.2 Made Ground Made ground (i.e. imported fill material) was generally absent across the site and was encountered only in one borehole, BHURS1, located in the vicinity of a former oil well. This borehole is located to the northwest of the existing terminal. The made ground was encountered to a depth of 0.6 mbgl and comprised dry, loose brown silt. 4.4.3 Geology The geology encountered in the boreholes during drilling generally comprised a stiff to very stiff, light brown to brown, laminated clayey-silty sequence with occasional seams of fine to medium grained sands varying in thickness to a maximum of 12 mm from the ground surface to approximately 13mbgl. Gypsum (crystals and powder) was noted throughout the unit. The underlying sequence comprises a very stiff to hard grey clay. Occasional bi-valve fossils were encountered and appeared to confirm a marine provenance of the deposits. A dry, very dense, grey brown, poorly cemented fine sandstone band was encountered in BHURS2 from 5.4 to 6.0 mbgl. Slightly moist, very dense, brown, clayey/silty fine sand unit with occasional laminations was encountered in BHURS1 from 6.0 to 10.00 mbgl. The maximum depth drilled during this investigation was 20 mbgl in BHURS1. The base of the Clay units was thus not proven in any of the locations. Detailed descriptions of the geology encountered are provided in the borehole logs (Appendix A). 4.4.4 Site Geotechnical Properties Standard penetration tests (SPTs) were conducted in five of the boreholes in order to determine the consistency and cohesive nature of the sub soils. The number of blows ‘n’ indicates an approximation of the strength of the soils and is recorded on the borehole logs. The field tests indicate that the upper clay unit clay had ‘n’ counts of between 10 –12 blows per 0.3m indicating a firm consistency and an inferred cohesion value of 40-75 kN/m3. The

URS CORPORATION 10

lower clay unit had ‘n’ counts of between >50 blows per 0.3m indicating a hard consistency and an inferred cohesion value of >200 kN/m3. Full field results are presented on the borehole logs (Appendix A). 4.5 Site Hydrology and Hydrogeology The nearest surface water feature to the site is the Caspian Sea, located 1.5 km to the east of the proposed Sangachal Terminal. Seasonal wadies are located to the north and south of the investigation area and were dry at the time of the site investigation. No groundwater was encountered in the boreholes during drilling. However, a slightly moist, clayey/silty fine sand unit was encountered at 8.5 m below ground level in borehole BHURS1. During the sampling event groundwater was encountered in BHURS1 suggesting low permeability with slow ingress of water. Groundwater recovery was recorded as low to moderate, which indicates that the unit is not significantly transmissive or productive. The remaining five boreholes were dry and the presence of groundwater in only one of the wells suggests that any groundwater present near surface beneath the site is not extensive and does not present any significant potential with respect to groundwater resources. The groundwater does not therefore represent a significant pathway by which contaminants may be transported below surface. Although limited groundwater elevation data was available a general groundwater gradient across the site towards the Caspian Sea may be inferred, broadly similar to the site topography. 4.6 Potential Contaminant Migration Pathways The principal potential contaminant migration pathways that should be considered given the surrounding land use and the underlying geology are as follows: • Migration of hydrocarbon or solvent vapours in the unsaturated zone; • Dust migration from exposed shallow soil during construction; • Contaminated surface water runoff during storm events into the natural drainage system

and the Caspian Sea. The wadies and their surrounds provide a low resistance pathway for the migration of contaminants across the site and ultimately off site; and

• Lateral migration of contamination, above the stiff clays flowing within any permeable Made Ground, or sandy deposits.

4.7 Potential Receptors The potential on-site receptors that may be exposed to contamination arising from the site via the pathways described in Section 3.6 are: • Shallow perched groundwater in the more permeable deposits • On-site workers, especially during intrusive site works. The potential off-site receptors that may be exposed to contamination arising from the site are: • The Caspian Sea, via potential discharge from the wadies; • Off-site workers in neighbouring sites, for example shepherds and fishermen; and • Ecological receptors.

URS CORPORATION 11

5 ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION 5.1 Introduction This section describes the results of laboratory analyses of soil, surface sediment and groundwater samples and includes a discussion of field observations. The discussion is structured as follows: • a discussion of the soil and water assessment criteria, including the legislative

background; • field observations recorded during drilling and groundwater sampling; • description of the analytical results; and • a discussion of the results in terms of the assessed extent of contamination and its likely

impact on receptors. 5.2 Criteria for Assessment of Soil and Groundwater Contamination The following section presents a review of the relevant environmental standards and guidelines used for this assessment in order to provide a context for discussion of the results and to enable their significance in terms of potential environmental liability to be evaluated. The assessment criteria have been used to screen soil and groundwater quality results to enable identification of the general condition of the soil and groundwater. 5.2.1 Legislative Background There is no current soil and groundwater legislation in Azerbaijan, which provides guidance on the risk assessment of soil and groundwater contamination. In the absence of any locally applicable standards, the analytical results of the soil and groundwater baseline assessment have been compared to internationally accepted screening standards. The standards used in this assessment are Dutch Intervention Values (DIV), which have been adjusted in accordance with standard practice for total organic content and clay content of the local soil types encountered. Where a DIV is not available for a particular compound, the USEPA Region 9 reference value for industrial soils has been used. The DIV were developed in the Netherlands to protect the multi-functionality of soils and are themselves divided into “intervention values” and “target values”. For soils, the former are based on human toxicological and ecotoxicological considerations and their exceedence triggers a need for clean up in the Netherlands when applied appropriately, with the urgency of remediation being based on a site-specific risk assessment. For groundwater, intervention values are typically based on the soil values and appropriate partitioning relationships. The target value is the ideal clean-up level for soil and groundwater in the Netherlands, although this is typically decided on a case-by-case basis. It is important to note that the DIV have no legal status in Azerbaijan although the application of these criteria for such a purpose is an internationally accepted practice. 5.2.2 Initial Site Assessment Criteria In line with internationally accepted best practice, a tiered approach to the assessment of contamination has been adopted. In this context an initial tier (Tier 1) risk-based approach has been used to assess the detected levels of soil and groundwater contamination at the proposed Sangachal Terminal Site. The Tier 1 assessment is of a simple nature and has involved the comparison of measured chemical concentrations with the criteria mentioned

URS CORPORATION 12

above which are considered to be protective of human health and the environment at, and near to, the site. In accordance with internationally accepted practice, a source-pathway-target approach has been used to assess the potential for a significant risk of significant harm, or, of pollution of surface and groundwaters to exist. The receptors for assessment in regard to significant harm are humans, sensitive ecological receptors and property (including livestock and buildings). Except for a modest showing in one boring, groundwater was not encountered during the current investigation which suggests therefore that groundwater is not present in significant quantities near surface and therefore has not been subject to analytical assessment other than an assessment of salinity for potential potability assessment. However, it should be noted that this groundwater unit would not produce a sustainable yield for supply purposes. 5.3 Field Observations The following visual and olfactory observations were made during the site investigation: • ashy silt was noted on the ground surface near BHURS2 possibly indicating a fire in the

vicinity of the former oil well (surface soil samples SS15 – SS18); • black stained surface sediments were noted in the wadi located south of the site (surface

soil samples SS5 and SS6); • dark grey silty ash was encountered between the railway tracks and coast road (surface

soil sample SS7); and • a sulphurous odour was noted on the groundwater abstracted from BHURS1. This

odour was considered to be a natural odour rather than an indication of potential contamination.

No further evidence of visual or olfactory contamination was noted during the investigation. 5.4 Soil, Surface Sediment and Groundwater Analytical Results 5.4.1 Introduction The following sections describe the analytical results obtained for the soil, surface sediment and groundwater samples collected during the site investigation. The laboratory test certificates for the investigation are presented in Appendix B. Analytical tests performed are shown in Table 1 and are summarised below: • Soil Analysis:

o Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 18 No. samples o PAHs where elevated concentrations of TPH were reported 6 No. samples o Metals 18 No. samples

• Surface Sediment Analysis: o Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 20 No. samples o Metals 20 No. samples o Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 20 No. samples o Carbonate Content 20 No. samples o Particle Size Distribution 20 No. samples

• Groundwater Analysis: (samples include duplicate and blank) o Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 3 No. samples o Metals 3 No. samples o Salinity 3 No. samples

URS CORPORATION 13

5.4.2 Soil Analysis The results of the analyses performed on soils collected from the soil borings are presented below: Metals A total of 18 soil samples were analysed for Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Mercury, and Zinc. No cadmium was detected and only trace concentrations of the remaining metals were detected with 0 exceedances of their relevant Tier I criteria. TPH Trace concentrations of TPH were detected in the eighteen soil samples. The maximum concentration was detected in BHURS1 at 13 m. No TPH concentrations were detected that exceeded the relevant Tier 1 criteria. PAHs Although TPH was not detected in any significant concentration, PAHs were analysed in all six of the near surface soil samples collected from the borings. None of the analytical results for PAHs exceeded the relevant Tier 1 criteria. 5.4.3 Surface Soil/Sediment Analysis The results of the analyses performed on soils collected from surface locations including the beach, wadi systems and other areas of surface staining are presented below: Metals A total of 20 surface sediment samples were analysed for Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Mercury, and Zinc. Trace concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead and zinc were detected. An elevated barium concentration of 1,519.20 mg/kg was detected in SS3 at 0.05mbgl located near the mouth of the wadi on the beach. Barium is a constituent of drilling muds and the high concentration may indicate historic contamination. Elevated concentrations of copper (578.2 mg/kg) and iron (328.45 mg/kg) were detected in SS7 at 0.03mbgl, located near the railway. Elevated iron concentrations were also detected in SS15 at 0.05 mbgl, SS16 at 0.05 mbgl, SS17 at 0.25 mbgl and SS18 at 0.05 mbgl, located in the vicinity of the former oil well near BHURS2. During sampling it was noted that these sediment samples comprised ashy silts that may relate to a former fire in the vicinity of the former oil well.

URS CORPORATION 14

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) During the investigation a total of 20 surface sediment samples were analysed for TPH. Trace concentrations were detected in each sample but the adjusted DIV of 5000mg/kg was not exceeded in any of the samples. The maximum concentrations were detected in SS15 at 0.05 mbgl, SS16 at 0.05 mbgl, and SS17 at 0.25 mbgl at concentrations of 338 mg/kg, 363 mg/kg and 358 mg/kg respectively. Carbonate Content The maximum carbonate content of 75.99 % was encountered in SS4 located in the intertidal zone. High percentage concentrations were encountered in SS1, SS2 and SS3, which comprised beach sands. In general a carbonate content of less than 50% was encountered in the silty sands of the remaining surface samples. Organic Content A maximum organic content of 6.18% was encountered in SS17, which comprised ashy silt. In general organic content of the samples was below 3%. Particle Size Distribution Particle size analysis indicated that the surface samples collected at the beach and intertidal zone, SS1, SS2, SS3 and SS4, comprised well sorted fine to medium sands. The remaining samples comprised moderate to poorly sorted fine to medium silts. 5.4.4 Groundwater Analysis The presence of groundwater in the 6 wells was monitored during the period of the site works. At the time of sampling, five days after installation, groundwater was encountered only in BHURS1; the remaining boreholes were found to be dry. A duplicate sample and a blank sample disguised as BHOFFSITE and BHONSITE respectively, for QA purposes was also collected from BHURS1. The absence of groundwater in the area of the site was also reported in the previous investigation of the site. Metals Trace concentrations of copper, iron, lead and zinc below their respective Tier 1 guidelines were detected in BHURS1. No metals were detected above the method detection limit in the groundwater sample from BHURS1. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Trace concentrations of TPH were detected in two of the three groundwater samples. However, in BHURS1 a maximum concentration of 68.6 µg/l was detected in BHURS1, which is below the relevant assessment criteria of 120 µg/l Salinity The salinity analysis results indicate that the three groundwater samples contain greater than 10% total dissolved solids (TDS) and are thus saline.

URS CORPORATION 15

6 CONCLUSIONS The principal findings of this baseline assessment are as follows:

• there is no significant groundwater bearing unit within 20 m of the surface beneath the site

• the analyses of soil samples collected from the site do not indicate that there has been a significant impact to soils at the site with respect to activities taking place there;

• the surface sediment samples collected from the vicinity of the site do not show any significant impacts with respect to the activities taking place at the site. However, slight impacts appear to have occurred as a result of former drilling operations and potentially a fire assumed to have taken place near the former oil well;

• the geotechnical properties of the soils beneath the site indicate that the upper clay unit clay had ‘n’ counts of between 10 –12 blows per 0.3m indicating a firm consistency and an inferred cohesion value of 40-75 kN/m3. The lower clay unit had ‘n’ counts of between >50 blows per 0.3m indicating a hard consistency and an inferred cohesion value of >200 kN/m3. Full field results are presented on the borehole logs (Appendix A).

7 Limitations of Report URS Dames & Moore has prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted consulting practices and for the intended purposes as stated in the related contract agreement. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice in this report. The accuracy of the interpretation and conclusions drawn in the report is partly dependent upon the accuracy and reliability of information drawn together from a number of sources. Only limited attempts have been made to independently verify information supplied by others. Field investigations carried out by URS Dames & Moore have been restricted to a level of detail appropriate to the study. It is important therefore that these limitations be clearly recognised when the findings of this study are being interpreted. The qualitative risk assessment has been carried out using currently available site investigation data, and standard assumptions applicable to the site. Should additional site investigation be undertaken, it may be necessary to revise the risk assessment. To the best of our knowledge information contained in this report is accurate at the time of issue. Subsurface conditions, including groundwater levels and contaminant concentrations may vary spatially with time. This should be borne in mind if the report is used without further confirmatory testing after a significant delay.

URS CORPORATION 16


2556R/08092-049-401/RF Final Interpretative Report

08 May 2002

Appendix A

BOREHOLE LOGS

URS CORPORATION 2

Appendix B

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

2556R/08092-049-401/RF Final Interpretative Report

08 May 2002

Appendix 10 Soil & G'water Report FINAL.doc 1

Subject: Trace metal analysis Analysis Reference: 1612

1 OVERVIEW 1

2 ANALYTICAL METHODS 1

3 RESULTS 2

8 Overview Soil and ground water samples were analysed for: • Arsenic • Cadmium • Copper • Barium • Chromium • Lead • Iron • Zinc • Mercury

9 Analytical methods Pre-weighed samples were digested in nitric acid in a Teflon flask using a “Mars-5” microwave digester. Analysis of the acid extracts for mercury concentrations was completed by cold vapour atomic fluorescence, for arsenic by hydride generator spectroscopy, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, zinc by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS).

2

10 Results 1.1 Trace metal analysis

Concentration expressed as ugg-1 Sample ID Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Copper Iron Lead Mercury Zinc

BHURS 1-1.0 8.7 320.9 <2.5 41.4 22.3 24,143 19.7 0.03 53.8 BHURS 1-4.0 17.7 290.6 <2.5 47.6 26.6 26,179 11.8 0.08 68.8 BHURS 1-13.0 24.6 431.0 <2.5 44.4 40.1 29,389 17.7 0.03 73.3 BHURS 1-13.0 16.8 347.5 <2.5 62.4 42.3 35,825 27.2 0.04 93.4 BHURS 2-4.0 19.0 325.8 <2.5 58.5 36.5 33,064 20.0 0.05 86.7 BHURS 2-15.0 13.3 252.5 <2.5 64.0 36.4 38,375 26.9 0.04 90.5 BHURS 3-4.0 9.8 287.5 <2.5 56.2 38.4 32,750 19.8 0.02 87.2 BHURS 3-10.5 11.6 257.5 <2.5 74.9 49.0 44,075 25.0 0.06 99.4 BHURS 3-14.5 10.2 260.0 <2.5 75.2 48.8 33,975 20.8 0.04 98.7 BHURS 4-2.0 14.0 264.3 <2.5 50.0 31.6 30,467 18.8 0.05 77.5 BHURS 4-8.0 10.9 311.2 <2.5 61.5 54.4 32,059 25.8 0.04 97.6 BHURS 4-15.0 13.0 311.1 <2.5 59.0 48.5 36,545 22.1 0.04 86.7 BHURS 5-2.0 10.3 205.0 <2.5 48.7 35.4 28,175 21.8 0.04 76.1 BHURS 5-5.0 11.8 210.0 <2.5 57.9 42.5 34,775 18.6 0.05 87.6 BHURS 5-10.5 10.7 213.2 <2.5 63.3 41.2 32,549 20.3 0.04 89.5 BHURS 6-3.0 11.8 317.5 <2.5 62.4 47.1 36,750 29.4 0.02 104.4 BHURS 6-10.0 10.3 335.0 <2.5 56.5 34.0 44,175 21.0 0.02 81.8 BHURS 6-13.5 5.8 37.7 <2.5 8.8 7.8 7,479 1.9 0.01 14.8 SS 1-0.05 25.3 603.4 <2.5 14.6 11.9 8,053 17.2 0.00 19.0 SS 2-0.05 20.1 575.0 <2.5 13.6 11.9 7,763 17.3 0.01 18.8 SS 3-0.05 19.4 1,519.2 <2.5 15.1 12.5 8,123 33.6 0.01 20.1 SS 4-0.05 15.9 466.7 <2.5 14.3 12.1 6,992 22.5 0.01 18.2 SS 5-0.05 9.7 257.5 <2.5 29.7 21.0 17,250 17.8 0.02 50.9 SS 6-0.05 12.6 301.4 <2.5 60.4 43.6 34,412 25.2 0.04 95.6 SS 7-0.03 12.5 30.0 <2.5 13.8 578.2 328,450 17.4 0.03 141.0 SS 8-0.05 11.2 335.7 <2.5 68.5 44.4 34,314 34.6 0.05 105.4 SS 9-0.02 13.4 338.8 <2.5 60.4 41.2 29,279 17.0 0.03 99.1 SS 10-0.05 12.0 286.7 <2.5 59.6 41.9 34,461 21.0 0.05 92.6 SS 11-0.05 9.3 262.5 <2.5 48.8 31.6 27,125 24.8 0.03 68.3 SS 12-0.05 18.4 386.7 <2.5 48.2 32.0 29,352 20.8 0.04 67.9 SS 13-0.05 15.2 367.5 <2.5 46.2 30.8 27,625 34.7 0.03 69.3 SS 14-0.05 16.4 312.5 <2.5 55.2 35.6 31,775 23.7 0.07 80.2 SS 15-0.05 8.8 130.0 <2.5 25.1 186.2 158,950 21.3 0.06 139.8 SS 16-0.05 10.9 143.5 <2.5 24.7 202.5 154,117 26.5 0.05 141.0 SS 17-0.05 5.8 115.0 <2.5 29.4 136.9 150,075 17.3 0.04 126.5 SS 18-0.05 10.9 382.4 <2.5 43.9 125.5 117,107 26.2 0.05 139.5 SS 19-0.05 13.9 352.5 <2.5 54.6 39.3 34,575 20.0 0.04 88.9 SS 20-0.05 11.9 311.2 <2.5 61.3 44.5 33,235 21.4 0.02 99.2


Subject: Particle Size Analysis Analysis Reference: 1612

1 OVERVIEW 1


3 RESULTS 2

11 Overview Soil samples from the Sangachal Terminal Area as part of the ACG Phase 1/Shah Deniz Stage 1 ESIA. Origin of samples shown in Table 1. Table 1 Sample ID and description

Sample ID Sample Depth (m) Date Sampled

SS 1 0.05 02.06.01 SS 2 0.05 02.06.01 SS 3 0.05 02.06.01 SS 4 0.05 02.06.01 SS 5 0.05 02.06.01 SS 6 0.03 02.06.01 SS 7 0.03 02.06.01 SS 8 0.05 02.06.01 SS 9 0.05 02.06.01 SS 10 0.05 02.06.01 SS 11 0.05 02.06.01 SS 12 0.05 02.06.01 SS 13 0.05 02.06.01 SS 14 0.05 02.06.01 SS 15 0.05 02.06.01 SS 16 0.05 02.06.01 SS 17 0.25 02.06.01 SS 18 0.05 02.06.01 SS 19 0.05 02.06.01 SS 20 0.05 02.06.01

12 Analytical methods Particle Size Distribution Analysis - undertaken on oven-dried soil. The analysis is divided into two stages:

• Sieve analysis of the sand fraction (all the material retained by a 63 um sieve) • Pipette analysis of the silt/clay fraction (all the material passing through a 63

um sieve) to determine the percentage of silt (63-3.9 um) and clay (<3.9 um) in each sample. This analysis is carried out if the silt/clay constitutes 5% or more of the total weight of the sample

Carbonate & Organic analysis - the carbonates present in the soil samples are removed by treatment with hydrochloric acid, after this procedure the amount of organic matter present is determined by ashing the sample at 6000 C. The proportion of carbonate and organics present are determined gravimetrically.

2

13 Results 13.1 Particle Size analysis result Station Number

Mean diameter

Carbonate Organic Silt/Clay Silt Clay Mean diameter

Standard deviation

Skewness Wentworth scale

Sorting index

Xµm % % % % % X f S f Skq f

SS1 263 71.10 0.34 0.36 0.02 0.34 1.92 0.74 1.31 Medium sand Very good

SS2 293 69.19 0.68 0.34 0.02 0.32 1.77 1.30 -1.48 Medium sand Good

SS3 236 64.73 0.92 0.60 0.07 0.53 2.09 0.84 1.42 Fine sand Very good

SS4 401 75.99 0.56 0.49 0.03 0.46 1.32 1.40 -0.18 Medium sand Good

SS5 29 44.83 2.53 52.69 28.16 24.53 5.10 2.42 0.08 Medium silt Poor

SS6 8 23.35 4.92 83.63 25.18 58.45 7.02 1.96 -0.99 Very fine silt Moderate

SS7 30 23.24 0.01 64.79 58.15 6.64 5.08 1.74 -0.24 Medium silt Moderate

SS8 6 28.70 5.57 96.58 35.00 61.58 7.38 1.67 -2.13 Very fine silt Moderate

SS9 18 30.49 4.12 91.02 88.79 2.22 5.78 1.01 -2.43 Medium silt Good

SS10 11 26.53 3.95 83.16 36.57 46.59 6.48 2.38 -1.08 Fine silt Poor

SS11 11 31.33 4.17 85.15 44.66 40.49 6.57 1.92 -0.84 Fine silt Moderate

SS12 30 32.34 3.21 60.98 29.23 31.75 5.04 3.28 -0.74 Medium silt Extremely poor

SS13 17 26.86 3.37 71.97 42.29 29.68 5.86 2.22 -0.53 Medium silt Poor





SS18 14 31.52 4.00 75.87 40.39 35.48 6.20 2.05 -0.42 Fine silt Poor

SS19 14 25.69 4.15 72.92 31.49 41.42 6.16 2.33 -0.55 Fine silt Poor

SS20 9 24.21 5.04 94.37 46.64 47.73 6.86 1.28 0.88 Fine silt Good


Particle size histograms, 01/612 URS Dames&Moore SS 1 SS 4

>4 mm

>2.8 mm

>2 mm

>1.4 mm

>1 mm

>710 um

>500 um

>355 um

>250 um

>180 um

>125 um

>90 um

>63 um

>3.9 um

<3.9 um

>4 mm

>2.8 mm

>2 mm

>1.4 mm

>1 mm

>710 um

>500 um

>355 um

>250 um

>180 um

>125 um

>90 um

>63 um

>3.9 um

<3.9 um

SS 2 SS 5

SS 3 SS 6

4

SS 7 SS 10

SS 8 SS 11

SS 9 SS 12


SS 13 SS 16

>4 mm

>2 mm

>1 mm

>500 um

>250 um

>125 um

>63 um

<3.9 um

SS 14 SS 17

SS 15 SS 18

6

SS 19 SS 20


Subject: Hydrocarbon analysis of soils Analysis Reference: 1612

1 OVERVIEW 1


3 RESULTS 2

14 Overview Soil and ground water samples were analysed for total hydrocarbon content. 15 Analytical methods Pre-weighed samples were extracted by dichloromethane using ultrasonic bath. The extracts were further cleaned up by silica gel chromatography. Total hydrocarbons content were determined by gas chromatography with flame ionisation detector.

8

16 Results 16.1 Total hydrocarbon analysis

Concentration expressed as ugg-1 No. Station Identification

THC UCM 1 BHURS 1-1.0 2.1 0.7 2 BHURS 1-4.0 2.0 0.7 3 BHURS 1-13.0 47.1 39.9 4 BHURS 2-1.0 11.3 8.9 5 BHURS 2-4.0 12.8 10.8 6 BHURS 2-15.0 4.5 3.1 7 BHURS 3-4.0 4.9 2.8 8 BHURS 3-10.5 5.7 3.7 9 BHURS 3-14.5 16.5 11.2 10 BHURS 4-2.0 3.0 1.6 11 BHURS 4-8.0 2.6 1.5 12 BHURS 4-15 13.4 10.1 13 BHURS 5-2.0 3.3 1.7 14 BHURS 5-5.0 5.2 2.7 15 BHURS 5-10.5 13.7 9.5 16 BHURS 6-3.0 2.1 1.0 17 BHURS 6-10.0 6.6 3.2 18 BHURS 6-13.5 11.3 7.8 19 SS1 –0.05 51.2 24.5 20 SS2 –0.05 21.4 18.3 21 SS3 –0.05 6.5 5.1 22 SS4 –0.05 22.0 18.3 23 SS5 –0.05 17.6 13.5 24 SS6 –0.03 10.7 8.0 25 SS7 –0.03 9.9 7.3 26 SS8 –0.05 15.4 10.1 27 SS9 –0.05 50.6 39.8 28 SS10 –0.05 6.9 4.8 29 SS11 –0.05 6.8 3.5 30 SS12 –0.05 6.3 4.4 31 SS13 –0.05 2.6 0.5 32 SS14 –0.05 2.3 0.9 33 SS15 –0.05 337.8 303.5 34 SS16 –0.05 363.4 327.2 35 SS17–0.25 357.7 317.7 36 SS18 –0.05 111.6 113.3 37 SS19 –0.05 12.6 8.9 38 SS20 –0.05 12.1 9.4 THC1 –total hydrocarbons, UCM 2 –unresolved complex mixture


GC chromatograms BHURS 1-10

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0002.D)

BHURS 1-4.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0003.D)

10

GC chromatograms

BHURS 1-13

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0004.D)

BHURS 1-2.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0005.D)


GC chromatograms BHURS 2-4.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0006.D)

BHURS 2-15.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0007.D)

12


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0008.D)

BHURS 3-10.5

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0009.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0010.D)

BHURS 4-2.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0011.D)

14


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0012.D)

BHURS 4-15

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0013.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0014.D)

BHURS 5-5.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0015.D)

16


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0016.D)

BHURS 6-3.0

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0017.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0018.D)

BHURS 6-13.5

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0019.D)

18

GC chromatograms SS 1-0.05

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

6

8

10

12

14

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0020.D)

SS 2-0.05

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0021.D)


GC chromatograms SS3

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0022.D)

SS4

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0023.D)

20


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0024.D)

SS6

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0025.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0026.D)

SS8

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0027.D)

22


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0028.D)

SS10

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0029.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0032.D)

SS12

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0033.D)

24


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0034.D)

SS14

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0035.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0036.D)

SS16

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

0

50

100

150

200

250

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0037.D)

26


min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

0

50

100

150

200

250

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0038.D)

SS18

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

20

40

60

80

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0039.D)



min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0040.D)

SS20

min15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

pA

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

FID1 A, (01-612\SAMP0041.D)

TERRESTIAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SURVEY …subsites.bp.com/caspian/ACG/Eng/esia1/ape10a.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of TERRESTIAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER SURVEY …subsites.bp.com/caspian/ACG/Eng/esia1/ape10a.pdf ·...