TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Response … · Vandals removed portions of the security...

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Response Action Effectiveness Report

Cover Page Regulatory ID number (Solid waste registration number, VCP ID number, etc) VCP 2751 check one: X Initial RAER submittal for this on-site property Subsequent RAER submittal Report date: March 30, 2019 TCEQ Region No.: 12 TCEQ Program (check one) Corrective Action (Mail Code 127) Superfund PRP Lead (Mail Code 143) X Voluntary Cleanup Program (Mail Code 221) Municipal Solid Waste Permits (Mail Code 124) Petroleum Storage Tank Program (Mail Code

137)

On-Site Property Information

On-Site Property Name: CES Environmental Services

Street no. 4904 Pre dir: Street name: Griggs Street type Road Post dir:

City: Houston County: Harris County Code: 101 Zip: 77021

Nearest street intersection or location description: Latitude: Degrees, Minutes, Seconds OR Decimal Degrees (circle one) North 29° 41’ 49.64” Longitude: Degrees, Minutes, Seconds OR Decimal Degrees (circle one) West 95° 20’ 35.03”

Off-Site Affected Property Information

Off-Site Affected Property Name:

Street no. Pre dir: Street name: Street type: Post dir:

City: County: County Code: Zip: X Check if no off-site properties affected

Contact Person Information and Acknowledgement

Person (or company) Name: CES Griggs Road PRP Group

Contact Person: Tony Saturni Title: CES Griggs Road PRP Group Project Manager

Mailing Address: 29400 Lakeland Boulevard

City: Wickliffe State: OH Zip: 44092 E-mail address [email protected]

Phone: (440) 347-4570 Fax: 440.347.4790 By my signature below, I acknowledge the requirement of §350.2(a) that no person shall submit information to the executive director or to parties who are required to be provided information under this chapter which they know or reasonably should have known to be false or intentionally misleading, or fail to submit available information which is critical to the understanding of the matter at hand or to the basis of critical decisions which reasonably would have been influenced by that information. Violation of this rule may subject a person to the imposition of civil, criminal, or administrative penalties.

Signature of Person Tony Saturni Name, print:

Tony Saturni (on behalf of the CES Griggs Road PRP Group) Date:

03/25/2019

Executive Summary Page _2__ of 15

ID No. VCP 2751 Report Date: March 30, 2019

Check the reports/forms previously submitted:

Remedy Standard A Self-Implementation Notice Submittal date: Response Action Plan - Approval date:

Remedy Standard B X Response Action Plan - Approval date: September 24, 2018 List all media (surface soil, subsurface soil, groundwater, sediment, surface water, air) that contained or contains a PCLE zone and specify the response action that has been or will be taken for each media. Indicate the type of removal, decontamination, physical control, or institutional control action used in the response action.

Media COCs1 Removal Decontamination Physical Control

Institutional Control

Modified Response Objective2

PMZ WCU TI

Groundwater CVOCs X X Soil Manganese, Vanadium X

Current land use of the on-site affected property: Residential X Commercial/industrial Projected future land use of the on-site property (if known):

Residential X Commercial/industrial

Briefly describe the affected property and PCLE zones, the conclusions from the assessment activities, identify any affected or threatened receptors, and describe any other major site conditions. If any portion of the response action is necessitated due to an aesthetic or nuisance condition, identify the nature of that condition and identify that portion of the response action conducted to address it. If any media that contains a PCLE zone is not being addressed in this response action, provide justification. This Response Action Effectiveness Report (RAER) addresses the concentrations of groundwater chemicals of concern (COCs), chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs), that exceed the critical protective concentrations levels (PCLs) in the vicinity of a sump located at the CES Griggs Road VCP Site (the “Site”) (Attachment 1A-1). Groundwater is impacted from CVOCs released from Site historical operations. The PCL exceedance (PCLE) zone for the CVOCs, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride, is being addressed with a plume management zone (PMZ) as defined in Remedy Standard B (30 TAC §350.33). The CVOC affected property is limited to the Site property and there are no drinking water wells located within 0.5-radius of the Site property boundary. The Response Action Plan (RAP) approved September 24, 2018 (CES, 2018b) describes the remedy. In addition, this RAER documents the groundwater monitoring program for the affected soil property containing total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) with the potential to leach to underlying groundwater. The completion of the affected soil property response action was documented in the Response Action Completion Report (RACR) submitted March 15, 2019 (CES, 2019b).

1 Specify either a specific COC or, if the response action is the same for all COCs in one type, specify the type of COC (for example, VOCs, SVOCs, metals). 2 If a modified groundwater response objective is being used, check the type(s) of modifications.



Chronology CES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, Harris County, Texas

This section is a summary of abatement, assessment, and remedial activities conducted at the affected property listed in chronological order beginning with the most recent activity. The date of actions taken and a brief description of release abatement activities, assessment activities, and response actions conducted are presented below.

Date(s) of Activity Description of Activity March 30, 2019 Submitted groundwater Response Action Effectiveness Report (RAER). March 15, 2019 Submitted soil RACR. February 11, 2019 Filed institutional controls with the Harris County Clerk. January 29 to February 11, 2019

Complete Remedy Standard A response action: excavation and off-site disposal of soil containing manganese and vanadium above residential PCLs.

January 18, 2019 Submitted Waste Closure Report to TCEQ. October 19, 2018 Completed the second of six semi-annual groundwater sampling events in accordance

with the RAP. Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01, MW-05, MW-06, MW-09, and MW-10 for CVOCs. Analyzed groundwater from MW-08 for TPH.

September 24, 2018 TCEQ approved RAP. May 28, 2018 Submitted revised RAP. May 16 and 23, 2018 Installed and sampled two permanent monitoring wells (MW-09 and MW-10) to

delineate the CVOC plume. MW-10 designated as the Point of Exposure (POE) well. April 23, 2018 Completed the first of six semi-annual groundwater sampling events in accordance with

the RAP. Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01, MW-05, and MW-06 for CVOCs. Analyzed groundwater sample from MW-08 for TPH.

March 7, 2018 Submitted the RAP to the TCEQ. January 18-19, 2018 Installed temporary wells on-site and on Grace Lane and collected groundwater

samples CVOC analyses. Collected six subsurface soil samples for pre-confirmation excavation delineation of manganese and vanadium.

November 7, 2017 TCEQ approved the revised Affected Property Assessment Report (APAR). November 7, 2017 Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01 through MW-

08 for CVOCs. Analyzed groundwater from MW-03 for dibenz(a,h)anthracene. Analyzed groundwater from MW-04 and MW-08 for TPH.

October 16, 2017 Submitted response letter with second transmissive zone data to the TCEQ. October 11, 2017 Submitted response letter with revisions to Section 4 and 11 to develop residential

critical PCLs for manganese and vanadium in the right-of-way at 5910 Wayland Street. October 10, 2017 Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from second transmissive zone

temporary well for CVOCs. October 6, 2017 Submitted laboratory reports and data usability summaries (DUS) for February, May,

and August 2017 sampling events to the TCEQ. September 21, 2017 Submitted groundwater gauging event data from July 26, 2017 and groundwater

analytical results from the February, May, and August 2017 sampling events to the TCEQ.

August 10, 2017 Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01 through MW-08 for CVOCs. Analyzed groundwater from MW-03 for dibenz(a,h)anthracene.

July 26, 2017 Gauged monitoring wells located at the Site and the Former Joy Tabernacle VCP 2729 site to assess groundwater gradients in the area.

May 31, 2017 Implemented waste closure activities for container storage areas, tanks and sumps.



Date(s) of Activity Description of Activity May 16, 2017 Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01 through MW-

08 for CVOCs. April 18, 2017 Submitted the revised APAR to the TCEQ. February 1, 2017 Received TCEQ approval to proceed with the waste unit closures. January 24 – March 7, 2017

Six cone penetrometer test (CPT) locations were installed on 4904 Griggs Road to evaluate the depth to and thickness of the clay aquitard between the transmissive zones. Installed one soil boring on 4904 Griggs Road for lateral delineation of manganese. Installed five soil borings on 5910 Wayland Street for lateral and vertical delineation of manganese, and benzo(a)pyrene as needed. Installed one monitoring well (MW-06) for delineation of the CVOC plume. Installed two monitoring wells (MW-07 and MW-08) to evaluate potential impacts from TPH to groundwater. Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01 through MW-08 for CVOCs, TPH, 1-methylnaphthalene, and selected metals. Collected and analyzed confirmation groundwater samples from MW-01, MW-05, and MW-06 for CVOCs.

November 30, 2016 TCEQ provided concurrence with the PRP Group Response to Comments Letter dated August 20, 2016.

September 30, 2016 Submitted the Waste Unit Closure Plan. August 20, 2016 Submitted a response to comments on the APAR to TCEQ. June 24, 2016 TCEQ provided response letter to APAR submittal. June 7, 2016 Collected and analyzed groundwater samples from monitor wells MW-01 through MW-

05 for CVOCs. March 31, 2016 The PRP Group submitted the APAR to the TCEQ. January 4, 2016 Installed nine soil borings on 4904 Griggs Road. Soil samples were collected from

each boring and analyzed for selected metals, VOCs, and TPH, as needed for delineation. Installed 14 soil borings on 5910 Wayland Street. Soil samples were collected from each boring and analyzed for selected metals as needed for delineation. Installed five shallow monitoring wells (MW-01 to MW-05) for the assessment and delineation of CVOCs. Collected and analyzed groundwater samples for CVOCs.

December 22, 2015 Performed Drinking Water Survey. Determined that drinking water wells do not exist within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site.

October 27, 2015 TCEQ approved the Historic Report Summary for the 5910 Wayland Site. September 23, 2015 Submitted the Historic Report Summary for the 5910 Wayland Site to the TCEQ. September 16-23, 2015

Installed three soil borings on 4900 Griggs Road, 23 soil borings on 4904 Griggs Road, and six soil borings at 5910 Wayland Street. Samples were collected from each boring and analyzed for metals, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), TPH, and VOCs.

June 10, 2015 TCEQ approved the VCP application and the Site was accepted into the VCP. May 15, 2015 Submitted VCP application to the TCEQ. August 2014 EPA collected 9 surface soil samples from residential yards along Kingsbury Street

following the storm water release from the Site. Samples were analyzed for herbicides, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), SVOCs, metals, TPH, and VOCs.

August 2014 EPA and their emergency response contractor mobilized to initiate the removal and disposal of hazardous wastes and substances contained in approximately 22 above-ground storage tanks (ASTs), two roll-off boxes, 12 frac tanks, 11 vacuum boxes, two tanker trailers, 224 totes/drums, and other containers located at the Site.

Late July and early August 2014

Vandals removed portions of the security fence, opened a valve on a tanker truck trailer, and released the tanker contents. An off-site release occurred after a heavy rainfall. Response actions were conducted by the City of Houston, the TCEQ, and EPA. Response actions included the removal and disposal of the waste, the construction of physical controls to prevent off-site releases, and the repair of the security fence.



Date(s) of Activity Description of Activity May 2014 Vandals damaged the security fence and emptied several containers onto the ground.

Subsequently, heavy rainfall resulted in the surface release of material to off-site areas. The Bankruptcy Trustee constructed a berm in the low-lying areas of the Site to prevent further off-site releases and repaired leaking containers.

January 2014 The Bankruptcy Trustee collected four surface soil samples from the North and South Tank Farms for the analysis of metals, SVOCs, and VOCs.

December 2010 TGE Resources, Inc. (TGE) conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the former Holiday Townhomes property, located immediately west of the Site.

August / October 2010

On August 13, 2010, CES filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and operations at the Site appear to have ceased at that time. On October 13, 2010, the bankruptcy case was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.

July 2010 Enercon Services conducted a Phase II ESA to evaluate property conditions for Bank of America.

October 2009 TCEQ collected eight surface soil samples (0 to 6-inches) around the perimeter of the Site. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals.

September 1996 A Phase I and limited Phase II ESA was conducted on the Site when it was owned by Younger Brothers and operated as a truck terminal.

Checklist for Report Completeness Page _6__ of 15


Checklist for Report Completeness

Use this checklist to determine the portions of the form that must be submitted for this report. Answer all questions by checking Yes or No. If the answer is Yes include that portion of the report. If the answer is No, do not complete or submit that portion of the report. All form contents that are marked "Required" must be submitted. Form contents marked with an asterisk (*) are not included in the blank form and are to be provided by the person.

Report Contents

Required Cover Page

Required Executive Summary

Required Checklist for Report Completeness

Required Worksheet 1.0 Response Action Objectives

Required Attachment 1A* Maps and Cross Sections

Required Attachment 1B*

Graphs

Required Attachment 1C* Response Action Diagrams

No Is a plume management zone being used as part of the response action?

Yes Worksheet 2.0

Plume Management Zone

Attachment 2A*

Map of Plume Management Zone

No Was an area of technical impracticability approved for use as part of the response action?

Yes Worksheet 3.0

Technical Impracticability

Attachment 3A* Map of Technical Impracticability

No Are institutional controls used or required as part of the response action?

Yes Worksheet 4.0 Institutional Controls

Required Worksheet 5.0

Performance Measures and Problems

No Have any operation and maintenance activities been conducted?

Yes Worksheet 6.0 Operation and Maintenance

No Has there been any change to the plans for post-response action care from that submitted in the RAP?

Yes Worksheet 7.0 Post-Response Action Care

No Was any information for this report obtained from outside sources?

Yes Appendix 1*

References

No Is an ESA and/or Compensatory Restoration being used as part of the response action?

Yes Appendix 2* ESA and Compensatory

Restoration

No Are institutional controls or landowner concurrence required in the response action?

Yes Appendix 3* Institutional Controls and Landowner Concurrence

Checklist for Report Completeness Page _7__ of 15


Report Contents

No Is there data or boring/monitor well information not previously submitted?

Yes Appendix 4* Data Tables, Boring Logs, and

Well Completions

No Did sampling procedures differ from those described in the RAP?

Yes Appendix 5* Sampling Procedures

No Has any sampling been conducted for which the analytical results were not previously submitted?

Yes Appendix 6* Laboratory Data Packages

No Were statistics or geostatistics used in the response action?

Yes Appendix 7* Statistical Methodology

No Were any wastes generated that were not reported through STEERS?

Yes Appendix 8* Waste Disposition

Response Action Objectives RAER Worksheet 1.0 Page __8_ of 15

ID No. 2751 Report Date: March 30, 2019

Use this worksheet to describe the response action objectives in each media. Response Action Objectives What is the selected remedy standard for this affected property? A X B

List the environmental media to which this applies Groundwater Repeat this section for each medium that had a different response action objective. Provide a detailed description of the response action. Describe the removal actions, decontamination actions, treatment system(s), and/or physical or institutional control actions that have been conducted in each media and indicate if there were any differences between the actions taken and the actions proposed in the SIN or RAP. The response action objectives are based on a PMZ as defined in Remedy Standard B (30 TAC §350.33) for dissolved phase CVOCs observed in Site monitoring wells. The objective is to control and prevent use of exposure to groundwater within the PMZ. Monitoring the natural attenuation of CVOCs coupled with groundwater restrictions will prevent potential unprotective conditions that could result during the remedial period. In accordance with 30 TAC §350.33(a)(1), the use of groundwater monitoring and institutional controls at the Site addresses the response action objectives. Describe how the response action has, or is working towards, achievement of the property-specific response objectives for the PCLE zone in each medium in the context of the response objectives set forth in §350.32 or §350.33, as applicable. Explain how the response action is appropriate based on the hydrogeologic and COC characteristics. Describe any unprotective conditions that continued or resulted from the remedial actions and the actions taken to mitigate unprotective conditions. Attachments 1A-2 and 1A-3 depict the potentiometric surface for the April 2018 and October 2018 sample events, respectively. Appendix 4 contains the groundwater elevations for the February 2016 to October 2018 sample events. Groundwater flow direction at the Site is south-southeast and has been consistent over all gauging events. These two events represent two of six anticipated semi-annual groundwater sampling events in accordance with the approved RAP. Attachment 1A-4 depicts the CVOC distribution for the 2018 semiannual sampling events. As shown in the concentration-trend graphs provided in Attachment 1B, COC concentrations are stable for the groundwater ingestion pathway (GWGWIng) in the eight monitoring events conducted between February 2016 and October 2018. As shown in Attachment 1A-5, TPH has not been detected in groundwater samples collected from MW-08. MW-08 is downgradient of the soil affected property identified at the South Tank Farm. This demonstrates TPH in the soil affected property is not leaching to groundwater. Appendix 4 contains the CVOC and TPH data summary tables. Appendix 5 contains the field sampling forms for the April, May, and October 2018 sample events. Appendix 6 contains the April, May, and October 2018 laboratory reports and the data usability summary (DUS). The groundwater PCLE zone is located on-site and no drinking water wells located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site property boundary. The institutional controls and response action are effective in removing potential human exposure to affected groundwater (CES, 2019a). The limited potential for exposure at this affected property make the use of a PMZ a viable and appropriate response action for the shallow groundwater. As described in the approved APAR (CES, 2017a; 2017b), Site conditions include: i) a shallow groundwater-bearing unit; ii) no groundwater use within a 0.5-mile radius of the Site; iii) drinking water supplied by the City of Houston to the Site and surrounding residents/properties; and iv) multiple rounds of groundwater sampling which demonstrate plume stability and limited plume extent. If different from the information provided in the RAP, explain how the COCs have been handled, treated,



disposed, or transferred to another medium and document that the response action has not resulted in any additional exposure conditions due to response action activities. The PMZ for the groundwater PCLE zone does not involve any potential exposure through treatment, disposal, or transfer to another media. Explain whether the response action is achieving, or will achieve, the objectives within the reasonable time frame. Institutional controls were implemented to prohibit groundwater usage to prevent exposure to on-site commercial/industrial receptors (CES, 2019a). CVOC concentrations in the monitoring events conducted between February 2016 and October 2018 are summarized in Appendix 4. Attachment 1B contains the concentration-time graphs along the groundwater PCLE zone for four CVOCs, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, cis- 1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. Concentrations are decreasing along the groundwater PCLE zone from the source well at MW-01 to downgradient wells MW-06 and MW-10 (Attachment 1B-1). The time frame is based on the following: a) eight rounds of groundwater data from February 2016 to October 2018 which demonstrate plume stability and limited plume extent; b) restricted land usage to commercial/industrial; c) the upper groundwater-bearing unit is not a drinking water aquifer; d) the City of Houston supplies drinking water to the Site and surrounding residents/properties; and e) prohibiting groundwater usage. The institutional controls and response action are effective in preventing the potential for human exposure to affected soil which may leach TPH to groundwater in concentrations exceeding the commercial/industrial GWGWIng PCL. The source of TPH was removed during the emergency response action conducted in 2014. In addition, the tanks located within the South Tank Farm were removed and the containment floor was decontaminated during waste closure activities. TPH data available from several groundwater sampling events indicate TPH concentrations are not detected above the sample detection limit. Because of these removal actions and analytical data, it is reasonably anticipated that groundwater concentrations will not exceed the commercial/industrial GWGWIng PCL. Are physical controls part of the response action? Yes X No If yes, describe the type and purpose of the physical control and discuss how the physical control has proven effective. Not applicable. Soil Response Action Objectives When using removal and/or decontamination with controls or controls only, demonstrate that the physical control or combination of measures is reliably containing, and will continue to contain, COCs within and/or derived from the surface soil and subsurface soil PCLE zone materials over time. Not applicable; see Response Action Completion Report submitted March 15, 2019.



Explain how the removal or decontamination action is reducing the concentration of COCs to the critical surface soil and subsurface soil PCL throughout the soil PCLE zone and preventing COC concentrations above the critical soil PCLs from migrating beyond the original boundary of the soil PCLE zone. Not applicable; see RACR submitted to the TCEQ on March 15, 2019. Groundwater Response Action Objectives Name of groundwater-bearing unit to which this information applies

Shallow groundwater-bearing unit

Repeat this section for each groundwater-bearing unit for which a different response action is being conducted. Groundwater classification 1 X 2 3 Is a modified groundwater response action being used for any part of the groundwater PCLE zone (§350.33(f)(2), (3), or (4))?

X Yes

No

If yes, complete the appropriate portions of this report. Explain how the removal or decontamination actions are reducing the concentration of COCs to the critical groundwater PCL throughout the groundwater PCLE zone and preventing COC concentrations above the critical groundwater PCL from migrating beyond the original boundary of the groundwater PCLE zone. If COC concentrations above the critical groundwater PCL have ever migrated beyond the original boundary of the groundwater PCLE zone, explain the actions taken to address the increase in the PCLE zone. The response action for management of the groundwater PCLE zone is addressed through the PMZ which allows for monitored natural attenuation of the CVOCs coupled with groundwater use restrictions. The primary lines of evidence of decontamination in the groundwater PCLE zone are:

1. A well-defined and limited extent of the on-site CVOC plume. 2. Stable concentrations of parent compounds tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene in the source area well, MW-01; and 3. Stable parent and daughter (cis-1,2-dichloroethene and vinyl chloride) concentrations in monitoring wells MW-01, MW-05, and MW-06.

As shown in the concentration-time trend graphs provided in Attachment 1B, CVOC concentrations are stable for the groundwater ingestion pathway (GWGWIng) in the eight monitoring events conducted between February 2016 and October 2018. Attachment 1A-4 depicts the CVOC distribution for the 2018 semiannual sample events. Appendix 4-1 contains the historical CVOC data. Explain how the response actions are preventing COCs from migrating to air at concentrations above the PCLs for air if the groundwater-to-air PCLs (AirGWInh-V) were exceeded. Not applicable. COC concentrations are less than the groundwater-to-air (AirGWInh-V) PCLs, therefore no response action is necessary to control this exposure pathway. Explain how the response actions are preventing COCs from migrating to surface water at concentrations above the PCLs for groundwater discharges to surface water if surface water was a factor. Not applicable. As discussed in the APAR (CES, 2017a), the nearest surface water body, Kuhlman/Belmont Gully, is located approximately 760 feet northeast of the Site and is upgradient from the groundwater PCLE zone.



Explain how the response actions are preventing human and ecological receptor exposure to the groundwater PCLE zone. Drinking water is supplied to the Site by the City of Houston. Human receptors are protected by institutional controls placed on the affected property to prevent usage of the shallow groundwater-bearing unit. Ecological receptors are protected since there is no exposure to groundwater within the boundary of the affected property and the nearest surface water body is approximately 760 feet northeast and upgradient of the groundwater PCLE zone. Waste Management Describe the volume and final disposition or reuse location of waste or environmental media that has been removed from the affected property during the response action, if not previously reported under STEERS. Provide copies of all manifests, other documentation of disposition, and landowner consent for reuse of soil in Appendix 8. Not applicable.

Plume Management Zone RAER Worksheet 2.0 Page _12__ of 15


Complete this worksheet when a PMZ is being used as part of the response action. Include in Attachment 2A a map of the PMZ with alternate POE(s) and attenuation monitoring points identified and the current groundwater PCLE zone (if applicable). If a PMZ was not used, do not submit this worksheet. Groundwater-bearing unit: Shallow Groundwater Bearing Unit Repeat this worksheet for each groundwater-bearing unit for which a PMZ is being used. Groundwater classification: X 2 3 Is/was NAPL present? Yes X No If so, describe how the response action is achieving the performance criteria in §350.33(f)(4)(E). Not applicable. If this is a Class 2 groundwater, explain how the response action has ensured that leachate from the surface soil and subsurface soil PCLE zones will not increase concentration of COCs greater than the measured concentrations at time of RAP submittal. (§350.33(a)(2)) A surface or subsurface soil PCLE zone was not identified for the CVOCs. Soil concentrations were below the GWSoilIng residential assessment level. Therefore, leachate will not increase COC concentrations above those measured at the time of the RAP submittal (CES, 2018b). In addition, potential sources of targeted constituents have been removed from the Site. Provide documentation that the COCs have not migrated beyond the downgradient boundary of the PMZ at concentrations above the critical PCL. Include supporting documentation in Attachments 1A, 1B, and 2A. The primary source area for the CVOC PCLE zone was identified in the APAR as the drum cleaning sump (Notice of Registration Unit 001) located on the western side of 4904 Griggs Road near MW-01. The waste code for this unit was 9014206H (Halogenated hydrocarbons). As shown in Attachments 1A-2 and 1A-3, the groundwater gradient is to the south-southeast from the source area. Appendix 4 contains the groundwater elevations and Attachment 1A-4 shows the CVOC distribution for the 2018 semiannual sample events and Appendix 4-1 contains the historical data. Attachment 1B depicts CVOC concentration time trends for the groundwater ingestion pathway (GWGWIng) in the eight monitoring events conducted between February 2016 and October 2018. Concentration time trends are stable. The following factors support the management of the groundwater PCLE zone with a PMZ response action:

1. The eight sampling events conducted between February 2016 and October 2018 provide sufficient data to demonstrate plume extent and stability. 2. The primary lines of evidence (stability of COC concentrations) show decontamination in the groundwater PCLE zone. 3. The plume is well-defined and limited in areal extent (shown on the map in Attachment 2A).

List the attenuation action level determined for each attenuation monitoring point. Illustrate the attenuation monitoring points, initial, maximum, and groundwater PCLE zones (or groundwater concentrations if less than the critical PCL) on the map in Attachment 2A.

COC Attenuation Monitoring Point

(well number)

Attenuation Action Level

(mg/L)

Maximum concentration measured at the

attenuation monitoring point (mg/L)

Tetrachloroethene MW-01 0.0074* 0.0067 MW-05 0.0056 <0.00030

MW-06 (POE) 0.0050** <0.00030 Trichloroethene MW-01 0.022* 0.013 MW-05 0.0088 0.0014

Plume Management Zone RAER Worksheet 2.0 Page _13__ of 15


COC Attenuation

Monitoring Point (well number)

Attenuation Action Level

(mg/L)

Maximum concentration measured at the

attenuation monitoring point (mg/L)

MW-06 (POE) 0.0050** 0.0028 cis- 1,2-Dichloroethene MW-01 0.15* 0.11 MW-05 0.092 0.082

MW-06 (POE) 0.070** 0.059 Vinyl Chloride MW-01 0.0087* 0.0072 MW-05 0.0041 0.011

MW-06 0.0056* 0.0058 MW-09 TBD 0.00082 J MW-10 (POE) 0.0020** <0.00020

*- Maximum concentrations adjusted by 10% to account for normal sampling and analytical variations. ** - Critical PCL Maximum concentrations from 2018 sample event. POE – Point of Exposure TBD – To be determined

Institutional Controls RAER Worksheet 4.0 Page _14__ of 15


Complete this worksheet if an institutional control will be or has been used as part of the response action. Include in Appendix 3 copies of filed institutional controls and drafts of the proposed institutional controls, copies of landowner concurrences, and a list of landowners from whom landowner concurrence will be requested. Specify the property for which this applies: 4904 Griggs Road Repeat this worksheet for each different property for which an institutional control will be used.

Institutional Control Type of Institutional Control3 Property Ownership Anticipated or

actual filing date4 Deed notice

Restrictive covenant

VCP Certificate of Completion

Equivalent zoning or

governmental ordinance

Check if pertinent tract

of land is owned by the

person

Check if the pertinent tract of land is owned

by an innocent owner or operator

Document use of commercial/industrial land use (§350.31(g))

X X February 11, 2019 (Submitted to TCEQ on February 20, 2019

Document use of physical or institutional control under Remedy Standard B §350.31(g))

X X See above

Document notice of on-going long-term response action (§350.31(h))

Document use of occupational inhalation criteria as RBELs (§350.74(b)(1))

Document variance from the default exposure factors (§350.74(j)(2)(L))

Document the use of a non-default soil exposure area (§350.51(l)(3)&(4))

Document WCU exclusion area (§350.33(f)(2))

Document establishing a PMZ (§350.33(f)(4)(C)(I)) X X See above

Document the demonstration of technical impracticability (§350.33(f)(3)(F))

Relocation of soils containing COCs for reuse (§350.36(b)(4) and (c)(4))

Other (specify)

3 Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate the type of institutional control required for the response action. 4 Specify date or amount of time after RAP approval.

Performance Measures and Problems

RAER Worksheet 5.0 Page _15__ of 15


Performance Measures List and describe the performance measures for each environmental medium containing a PCLE zone that are being used to determine if reasonable progress is being made by the response action in a timely manner. Provide documentation that these performance measures are being met. Attach additional information if necessary. Residential Soil PCLE Zone for Manganese and Vanadium: No performance measures are needed for this soil PCLE zone. The submittal of the RACR on March 15, 2019 documents the completion of the Remedy Standard A closure. Commercial/Industrial Soil PCLE Zone - TPH: The performance measure for this soil PCLE zone is monitoring groundwater for TPH. If groundwater concentrations in MW-08 increase above 1.5 mg/L (one-half of the critical PCL of 2.9 mg/L), the PRP Group will evaluate the need for additional response actions. TPH has not been detected in multiple groundwater samples collected from MW-08. Groundwater PCLE Zone - CVOCs: CVOC concentrations are monitored semiannually to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy in controlling the groundwater in the critical PCLE zone. A continued stable and/or decreasing trend in CVOC concentrations indicate that natural attenuation is occurring and is an effective response action. Problems Complete the table for the response action. When the response action consists of several components or multiple actions, complete one table for each major component or action. Response Action Name/Designation: Plume Management Zone List the problems that have been encountered during the response action, describe the impact of each problem, and the response to the problem.

Description of the Problem Impact Did this cause a

response action

failure?

Corrective Response

Yes No None

ATTACHMENTS


ATTACHMENT 1A-1 AFFECTED PROPERTY AND PCLE ZONE MAP ATTACHMENT 1A-2 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP, 1ST SEMIANNUAL EVENT (APRIL 16, 2018) ATTACHMENT 1A-3 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP, 2ND SEMIANNUAL EVENT (OCTOBER 19, 2018) ATTACHMENT 1A-4 PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE, 2018 GROUNDWATER CVOC CONCENTRATION MAP ATTACHMENT 1A-5 2018 GROUNDWATER TPH CONCENTRATION MAP ATTACHMENT 1B CVOC CONCENTRATION VERSUS TIME GRAPHS ATTACHMENT 2A PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE MAP

01

1112

14

131017

1816

01

15

02

03

4900 Griggs Rd.

4904 Griggs Rd.

02

02

24

25

29

29A

07

09

08MW-02

MW-08

MW-07

MW-6*

MW-9*

TWGW-03

3132

CPT-05

CPT-06

CPT-04

CPT-03

CPT-02

21

23

07

22

0630

13

TMW-3

TMW-4

CPT-01

HA-02

HA-01

05

14

18

HA-06

HA-07

HA-10

HA-11CPT-7-2

HA-08

HA-0904

26MW-01

MW-05

MW-06

TMW-2

05

09 19

20

08

5910 Wayland St.

01

03

04

06

03

27

28

12

10

17 11

03A

16

1504A

MW-04

MW-03

MW-10*

TWGW-02

TWGW-01

HA-04 HA-05

HA-03

MW-10

MW-09

01

in

30404020ATTACHMENT

1A-10

2019-03-05

AJD

AJD

KW

BB

CES GRIGGS ROAD VCP SITEHOUSTON, TEXAS

CES GRIGGS ROAD PRP GROUP

AFFECTED PROPERTY AND PCLE ZONE MAP TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECT

CLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\te

xark

ana\

data

\Pro

ject

s - H

oust

on\4

020

- CES

Site

\201

9-3

Mar

ch\

| Fi

le N

ame:

ATT

1A-

1 - A

ffect

ed P

rope

rty a

nd P

CLE

Zon

e M

ap.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-05

Tim

e:5:

04:0

8 PM

| P

rinte

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-05

Tim

e:5:

04:2

3 PM

0

FEET

75 150

1'' = 150'

LEGEND

APPROX. PROPERTY BOUNDARY

MONITORING WELL LOCATION

MONITORING WELL LOCATION (BY OTHERS)

TEMPORARY MONITORING WELL LOCATION

SAMPLE LOCATION

CPT LOCATION

REFERENCE(S)

BASE MAP TAKEN FROM GOOGLE EARTH, IMAGERY DATED JULY 31, 2015.

SOIL CRITICAL PCLE ZONE (ON-SITE)(NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RACR)SOIL CRITICAL PCLE ZONE (OFF-SITE)(ADDRESSED IN THIS RACR)GROUNDWATER CRITICAL PCLE ZONE(NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS RACR)

4900 Griggs Rd.

4904 Griggs Rd.

5910 Wayland St.

MW-02

MW-04

MW-03

MW-08

MW-07

MW-01

MW-05

MW-06

MW-09cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

MW-09

Tetrachloroethene

Date:0.041

TrichloroetheneVinyl Chloride

0.0047<0.00020

0.0056

5/23/18

MW-10 0.03010/19/18

0.00610.00082J

0.0082

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene

MW-10

Tetrachloroethene

Date:0.0012


0.0013<0.00020

0.020

5/23/180.0021

10/19/18

0.0047<0.00020

0.027


MW-05

Tetrachloroethene

Date:


10/19/180.080

<0.00020.0087

<0.0003

4/16/180.082

0.00140.011

<0.0003


MW-01

Tetrachloroethene

Date:


10/19/180.11

0.0026

4/16/180.11

0.00230.011

0.00230.013

0.0072


MW-06

Tetrachloroethene

Date:


5/23/180.043

<0.00030

4/16/180.050

<0.00030<0.00020 0.0026

10/19/180.059

<0.000300.0028

DUP0.058

<0.000300.0058

0.0029 0.0038 0.0026 0.0056

01

in

18110032ATTACHMENT

1A-40

2019-03-15

AJD

AJD

KW

BB

PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE2018 GROUNDWATER CVOC CONCENTRATION MAP

TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECT

CLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: C:\A

utod

esk\

Tem

p-D

wg\

AcPu

blis

h_23

056\

| F

ile N

ame:

Atta

ch 1

A-4

- Plu

me

Man

agem

ent Z

one-

GW

CVO

C C

onc

Map

201

8.dw

g |

Las

t Edi

ted

By: a

diam

ond

Dat

e: 2

019-

03-1

4 T

ime:

3:38

:52

PM |

Prin

ted

By: a

diam

ond

Dat

e: 2

019-

03-1

4 T

ime:

3:39

:53

PM

0

FEET

75 150

1'' = 150'



LEGEND



REFERENCE(S)


Critical PCL

0.07cis-1,2-Dichloroethene0.005Tetrachloroethene0.005Trichloroethene0.002Vinyl Chloride

Critical Pathway

Critical PCL(mg/L)Analyte

GWGWIngGWGWIngGWGWIngGWGWIng

CRITICAL PCLE ZONE

PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE

1. ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.2. J - DATA IS ESTIMATED.3. HIGHLIGHTED CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITICAL PCL.

NOTE(S)

4900 Griggs Rd.

4904 Griggs Rd.

5910 Wayland St.

MW-02

MW-04

MW-03

MW-08

MW-07

MW-01

MW-05

MW-06

MW-09

MW-10

nC6 - nC12

MW-08Date:

<0.204/16/18 10/19/18

<0.20<0.20<0.20

<0.20<0.20<0.20<0.20

>nC12 - nC28>nC28 - nC35TPH nC36 - nC35

01

in

18110032ATTACHMENT

1A-50

2019-03-20

AJD

AJD

KW

BB

2018 GROUNDWATER TPH CONCENTRATION MAP TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECT

CLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\te

xark

ana\

data

\Pro

ject

s - H

oust

on\1

8110

032

- CES

\201

9-03

Mar

ch R

AER

\ |

File

Nam

e: A

TT 1

A-5

- Plu

me

Man

agem

ent Z

one-

GW

TPH

Con

c M

ap 2

018.

dwg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-20

Tim

e:9:

02:1

9 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-20

Tim

e:9:

03:0

4 AM

0

FEET

75 150

1'' = 150'



LEGEND



REFERENCE(S)


Critical PCL

2.9nC6 to nC122.9>nC12 to nC282.9>nC28 to nC35-TPH nC36 to nC35

Critical Pathway

Critical PCL(mg/L)Analyte

GWGWIngGWGWIngGWGWIngGWGWIng

CRITICAL PCLE ZONE


1. ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.2. J - DATA IS ESTIMATED.3. HIGHLIGHTED CONCENTRATIONS EXCEED CRITICAL PCL.

NOTE(S)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Concen

tration (m

g/L)

MW‐01 MW‐05 MW‐06

Attachment 1B‐1 CVOC Concentration vs. Time

cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0.008

Concen

tration (m

g/L)

MW‐01 MW‐05 MW‐06

Attachment 1B‐2 Concentration vs. Time forTetrachloroethene

PCL (0.0050 mg/L)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

Concen

tration (m

g/L)

MW‐01 MW‐05 MW‐06

Attachment 1B‐3 Concentration vs. Time forTrichloroethene

PCL (0.005 mg/L)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

Concen

tration (m

g/L)

MW‐01 MW‐05 MW‐06

Attachment 1B‐4 Concentration vs. Time for cis‐1,2‐Dichloroethene

PCL (0.070 mg/L)

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

Concen

tration (m

g/L)

MW‐01 MW‐05 MW‐06

Attachment 1B‐5 Concentration vs. TimeVinyl chloride

PCL (0.002 mg/L)

4900 Griggs Rd.

4904 Griggs Rd.

MW-02

MW-08

MW-07

MW-01

MW-05

5910 Wayland St.

MW-03

AMP

AMP

MW-04 MW-10

MW-09AMP

POE

MW-06AMP/POE

01

in

18110032ATTACHMENT

2A0

2019-03-20

AJD

AJD

KW

BB



PLUME MANAGEMENT ZONE MAP TITLE

PROJECT NO. REV.

PROJECT

CLIENT

IF T

HIS

MEA

SUR

EMEN

T D

OES

NO

T M

ATC

H W

HAT

IS S

HO

WN

, TH

E SH

EET

SIZE

HAS

BEE

N M

OD

IFIE

D F

RO

M: A

NSI

B

CONSULTANT

PREPARED

DESIGNED

REVIEWED

APPROVED

YYYY-MM-DD

Path

: \\te

xark

ana\

data

\Pro

ject

s - H

oust

on\1

8110

032

- CES

\201

9-03

Mar

ch R

AER

\ |

File

Nam

e: A

TT 2

A - P

lum

e M

anag

emen

t Zon

e M

ap.d

wg

| L

ast E

dite

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-20

Tim

e:9:

08:1

8 AM

| P

rinte

d By

: adi

amon

d D

ate:

201

9-03

-20

Tim

e:9:

08:3

9 AM

0

FEET

75 150

1'' = 150'

LEGEND



CRITICAL PCLE ZONE

REFERENCE(S)


MW-01 AMPMW-05 AMPMW-06 AMP (VINYL CHLORIDE ONLY)

POE (TETRACHLOROETHENE, TRICHOROETHENE, CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE)MW-09 AMPMW-10 POE (VINYL CHLORIDE ONLY)

AMP ATTENUATION MONITORING POINTPOE POINT OF EXPOSURE

NOTE(S)


APPENDIX 1 REFERENCES


CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2017a. Revised Affected Property Assessment Report. April 2017. http://www.cesgriggsrd.com/?page_id=251

CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2017b. Response to June 16, 2017 Comments on Revised APAR: Comment 3 Groundwater Gradient Information and Comment 5 Expanded List of Analytes in Groundwater. October 6, 2017. http://www.cesgriggsrd.com/?page_id=251

CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2018a. Response Action Plan. March 7, 2018. http://www.cesgriggsrd.com/?page_id=251

CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2018b. Response Action Plan Amendment Revised Figures and Tables. May 28, 2018. http://www.cesgriggsrd.com/?page_id=251

CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2019a. Institutional Controls. February 20, 2019.

CES Griggs Road PRP Group (CES). 2019b. Response Action Completion Report – Soil Remedy Standard A – Offsite Property. March 15, 2019.

APPENDIX 4 DATA TABLES


Appendix 4‐1 ‐ CVOC Groundwater Data SummaryCES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, Texas

4904‐TMW01*4904‐

TMW01*DupMW-01 160224

MW-01 Dup 160224

MW‐01 160607

MW‐01 170202

MW‐01 Dup 170202

MW‐01 170307

MW‐01 170516

MW‐01 170810

MW‐01 171107

MW‐01 180416

MW‐01 181019

2/1/2016 2/1/2016 2/24/2016 2/24/2016 6/7/2016 2/2/2017 2/2/2017 3/7/2017 5/16/2017 8/10/2017 11/7/2017 4/16/2018 10/19/2018cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (AAL 0.15)

156-59-2 mg/L 0.070 0.12 0.13 0.096 0.099 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.089 0.10 0.11 0.11

Tetrachloroethene (AAL 0.0074) 127-18-4 mg/L 0.0050 NA NA 0.0057 0.0067 0.0066 0.0033 0.0032 0.0022 0.0022 0.0012 0.0036 0.0026 0.0023

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 mg/L 0.10 NA NA 0.0011 0.0013 0.0011 0.0017 0.0018 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 < 0.0002 < 0.0002Trichloroethene (AAL 0.022)

79-01-6 mg/L 0.0050 NA NA 0.015 0.017 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.018 0.011 0.013

Vinyl chloride (AAL 0.0087) 75-01-4 mg/L 0.0020 NA NA <0.00020 0.0044 0.0060 0.0078 0.0079 0.0075 0.0060 0.0052 0.0069 0.0023 0.0072

MW-05 160224 MW‐05 160607

MW‐05 Dup

MW‐05 170201

MW‐05 170307

MW‐05 170516

MW‐05 170810

MW‐05 171107

MW‐05 180416

MW‐05 181019

2/24/2016 6/7/2016 6/7/2016 2/1/2017 3/7/2017 5/16/2017 8/10/2017 11/7/2017 4/16/2018 ########cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (AAL 0.092) 156-59-2 mg/L 0.070 0.076 0.066 0.068 0.080 0.089 0.076 0.067 0.071 0.080 0.082

Tetrachloroethene (AAL 0.0056)

127-18-4 mg/L 0.0050 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 mg/L 0.10 0.0024 0.0023 0.0022 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033 0.0026 0.0030 0.0029 0.0033Trichloroethene (AAL 0.0088)

79-01-6 mg/L 0.0050 0.0025 0.0029 0.0029 0.0036 0.0038 0.0029 0.0025 0.0021 <0.00020 0.0014

Vinyl chloride (AAL 0.0041)

75-01-4 mg/L 0.0020 0.0068 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.012 0.010 0.0083 0.010 0.0087 0.011

MW‐06 170201 MW‐06 170307MW‐06 Dup

MW‐06 170516

MW‐06 Dup 170516

MW‐06 170810

MW‐06 Dup 170810

MW‐06 171107

MW‐06 Dup 171107

MW‐06 180416

MW‐06 180523

MW‐06 181019

MW‐06 Dup 181019

2/1/2017 3/7/2017 3/7/2017 5/16/2017 5/16/2017 8/10/2017 8/10/2017 11/7/2017 11/7/2017 4/16/2018 5/23/2018 10/19/2018 10/19/2018cis-1,2-Dichloroethene (POE) 156-59-2 mg/L 0.070 0.034 0.040 0.042 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.043 0.044 0.044 0.043 0.050 0.059 0.058Tetrachloroethene (POE) 127-18-4 mg/L 0.0050 0.0018 0.0026 0.0023 <0.00030 <0.00030 0.0010 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 mg/L 0.10 0.00090 J 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0013 0.0012 0.0010 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.0019Trichloroethene (POE) 79-01-6 mg/L 0.0050 0.0061 0.0063 0.0063 0.0048 0.0047 0.0040 0.0044 0.0028 0.0028 < 0.00020 0.0026 0.0028 0.0026Vinyl chloride (AAL 0.0056)

75-01-4 mg/L 0.0020 0.0037 0.0051 0.0050 0.0037 0.0040 0.0042 0.0046 0.0046 0.0047 0.0029 0.0038 0.0058 0.0056

MW‐09 180523 MW‐09 1810195/23/2018 10/19/2018

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 mg/L 0.070 0.041 0.030Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 mg/L 0.0050 0.0056 0.0082trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 mg/L 0.10 <0.00020 <0.00020Trichloroethene 79-01-6 mg/L 0.0050 0.0047 0.0061Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 mg/L 0.0020 <0.00020 0.00082 J

MW‐10 180523 MW‐10 1810195/23/2018 10/19/2018

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-59-2 mg/L 0.070 0.0012 0.0021Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 mg/L 0.0050 0.020 0.027trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 156-60-5 mg/L 0.10 <0.00020 <0.00020Trichloroethene 79-01-6 mg/L 0.0050 0.0013 0.0047Vinyl chloride (POE) 75-01-4 mg/L 0.0020 <0.00020 <0.00020

AAL ‐ Attenuation Action Level; AMP ‐ Attenuation Monitoring Point; POE ‐ Point of ExposureNA ‐ Not Analyzed* Designated as MW‐01 in subsequent sampling events< or U ‐ Analyte not detected at associated reporting limit; J ‐Data are estimatedCritical PCL: Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Protective Concentration Levels (PCL), March 31, 2017Concentration exceeds; MW‐10 is not part of the groundwater monitoring program for the CVOC plumeConcentration exceeds Attenuation Action Level (AAL)

ANALYTECAS

NUMBERUNITS GWGWIng

POE WELL ANALYTECAS

NUMBERUNITS GWGWIng

CAS NUMBER

AMP WELL ANALYTE UNITS

GWGWIng

(Critical PCL)

AMP and POE WELL ANALYTECAS

NUMBERUNITS GWGWIng

AMP WELL ANALYTECAS

NUMBERUNITS GWGWIng

1 of 1 190319 Appendix 4 ‐ Groundwater Data Summary.xlsx: Appendix 4‐1 VOCs

Appendix 4‐2 ‐ TPH Groundwater Data SummaryCES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, TexasMW‐01 170202

MW‐01 Dup 170202

MW‐02 170201

MW‐03 170201

MW‐04 170201

MW‐04 171107

MW‐05 170201

MW‐06 170201

MW‐07 170202

MW‐09 180416

HS17020115‐01‐01

HS17020115‐01‐01

HS17020115‐03

HS17020115‐04

HS17020115‐05

HS17110365‐04

HS17020115‐06

HS17020115‐07

HS17020115‐08

HS18040763‐05

2/2/2017 2/2/2017 2/1/2017 2/1/2017 2/1/2017 11/7/2017 2/1/2017 2/1/2017 2/2/2017 4/16/2018Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsnC6 to nC12 TPH‐1005‐1 2.9 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.19 < 0.20 < 0.21 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20>nC12 to nC28 TPH‐1005‐2 2.9 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.19 < 0.20 < 0.21 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20>nC28 to nC35 TPH‐1005‐4 2.9 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.19 < 0.20 < 0.21 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20TPH nC36 to nC35 TPH‐1005 ‐‐ < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.19 < 0.20 < 0.21 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20 < 0.20

MW‐08 170201

MW‐08 171107

MW‐08 170201

MW‐08 181019

HS17020115‐09

HS17110365‐09

HS18040763‐05

HS18101113‐01

2/1/2017 11/7/2017 4/16/2018 10/19/2018Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsnC6 to nC12 TPH‐1005‐1 2.9 < 0.20 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20>nC12 to nC28 TPH‐1005‐2 2.9 < 0.20 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20>nC28 to nC35 TPH‐1005‐4 2.9 < 0.20 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20TPH nC36 to nC35 TPH‐1005 ‐‐ < 0.20 <0.19 < 0.20 < 0.20

All results in mg/L.NA ‐ Not Analyzed‐‐ Not available< or U ‐ Analyte not detected at associated reporting limitJ ‐ Data are estimated; JL ‐ Data are estimated with a potential low biasCritical PCL: Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Protective Concentration Levels, April 27, 2018

ANALYTECAS

NUMBER

GWGWIng

(Critical PCL)

ANALYTECAS

NUMBER

GWGWIng

(Critical PCL)

1 of 1 190319 Appendix 4 ‐ Groundwater Data Summary.xlsx: Appendix 4‐2 TPH

Appendix 4‐3 ‐ Groundwater Field Parameters Data SummaryCES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, Texas

Temperature Conductivity pH ORP DO Turbidity

(oC) (mS/cm) (SU) (mV) (mg/L) (NTU)MW-01 2/1/2016 26.38 1.19 6.77 119 0.45 14.2

2/24/2016 22.80 0.017 6.86 163.7 6.71 2.216/7/2016 26.32 1.192 6.55 27.7 0.35 0.732/2/2017 24.90 0.84 6.79 73 0.69 2.23/7/2017 21.40 1.19 6.71 -8.1 0.24 0.985/16/2017 28.22 1.03 6.17 22 0.00 0.48/10/2017 33.33 1.08 6.92 -21 0.14 0.011/7/2017 28.52 1.04 6.86 28 0.43 3.44/16/2018 25.62 1.11 6.47 -2 1.79 9.110/19/2018 27.80 1.12 7.23 -31 0.00 0.0

MW-02 2/24/2016 21.80 0.012 6.45 9.1 5.93 11.96/7/2016 26.90 0.985 6.54 -26.8 0.22 1.432/1/2017 26.10 1.12 6.43 -67.8 0.0 1.315/16/2017 26.51 0.94 5.96 -85 0.0 0.08/10/2017 28.53 0.855 6.54 -60 0.04 0.011/7/2017 28.77 0.805 6.76 -91 1.09 0.0

MW-03 2/24/2016 21.90 0.011 6.66 196.9 5.19 2.336/7/2016 24.66 2.129 6.79 491 1.08 0.322/1/2017 22.70 1.96 6.56 280.4 0.0 29.85/16/2017 24.77 1.96 6.04 83 0.0 0.08/10/2017 26.41 1.94 6.84 57 0.7 1.011/7/2017 25.91 2.08 6.67 57 1.5 0.6

MW-04 2/24/2016 21.80 0.001 6.70 184.3 6.28 0.676/7/2016 26.54 3.034 8.01 10.7 1.15 0.272/1/2017 26.20 3.04 6.64 150.4 0.0 0.795/16/2017 26.61 2.74 6.03 134 0.0 0.58/10/2017 30.60 2.60 6.79 91 0.26 011/7/2017 29.32 2.61 6.72 94 0.35 0

MW-05 2/24/2016 21.50 0.002 6.65 169.3 6.81 2.686/7/2016 27.70 1.504 6.43 -13.5 0.36 0.622/1/2017 26.60 1.49 6.48 50.4 0.0 0.723/7/2017 21.70 1.52 6.56 10.2 0.51 0.645/16/2017 27.44 1.39 6.01 -46 0.0 0.08/10/2017 30.26 1.34 6.78 -38 4.56 0.011/7/2017 29.77 1.36 6.78 -55 0.28 1.74/16/2018 23.39 1.44 4.67 -43 6.36 0.010/19/2018 27.58 1.44 7.03 -7 0.00 1.8

MW-06 2/1/2017 24.30 1.66 6.57 142.8 0.76 10.23/7/2017 19.60 1.76 6.60 25.0 0.35 8.405/16/2017 25.39 1.62 6.01 6.0 0.0 1.68/10/2017 28.55 1.58 6.43 43.0 0.08 011/7/2017 27.90 1.57 6.68 1.0 0.21 174/16/2018 19.97 1.65 4.77 49.0 6.29 18.65/23/2018 22.79 1.37 6.55 234.0 4.78 1.210/19/2018 25.44 1.48 6.91 75.0 1.50 8

MW-07 2/2/2017 25.30 0.94 6.54 85.5 1.90 2.455/16/2017 26.22 1.08 5.94 -34 0.0 1.38/10/2017 28.18 1.08 6.77 -14 0.64 011/7/2017 28.00 1.13 6.76 -68 0.38 23.1

MW-08 2/1/2017 24.30 2.16 6.62 220.6 3.49 2.325/16/2017 26.81 2.50 6.03 30 0.0 1.18/10/2017 30.29 2.42 6.81 5 0.1 011/7/2017 28.18 2.47 6.71 -16 0.29 6.44/16/2018 19.97 2.64 3.88 1 4.17 010/19/2018 24.32 2.66 7 59 0.00 5.9

MW-09 5/23/2018 23.90 1.80 6.67 61 0.90 0.010/19/2018 26.20 2.06 7.12 -7 0.00 0.0

MW-10 5/23/2018 23.78 2.47 6.71 113 1.45 1.310/19/2018 25.41 3.16 7.02 10 0.00 0.0

Well ID Date

1 of 1 190319 Appendix 4 ‐ Groundwater Data Summary.xlsx: Appendix 4‐3 Field Para

Appendix 4-4 - Groundwater ElevationsCES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, Texas

Well No.Gauging

Date

Monitoring Well Depth

(ft bgs)

Screened Interval (ft

bgs)

Top of Casing Elevation

Depth to Water (ft

btoc)

Total Depth (ft

btoc)

Corrected Elevation of

Water

Depth to LNAPL (ft

btoc)

Elevation of LNAPL *

LNAPL Thicknes

s (ft)

02/24/16 25.42 --- 16.07 --- --- ---

06/07/16 24.94 33.49 16.55 --- --- ---

02/01/17 24.90 33.49 16.59 --- --- ---

03/07/17 24.94 --- 16.55 --- --- ---

05/16/17 24.95 --- 16.54 --- --- ---

07/26/17 25.06 --- 16.43 --- --- ---

08/10/17 25.18 --- 16.31 --- --- ---

11/07/17 24.78 33.47 16.71 --- --- ---

04/16/18 24.76 --- 16.73 --- --- ---

10/19/18 24.71 --- 16.78 --- --- ---

02/24/16 18.76 --- 17.09 --- --- ---

06/07/16 17.97 28.07 17.88 --- --- ---

02/01/17 18.63 28.04 17.22 --- --- ---

03/07/17 18.74 --- 17.11 --- --- ---

05/16/17 18.88 --- 16.97 --- --- ---

07/27/17 19.11 --- 16.74 --- --- ---

08/10/17 19.16 --- 16.69 --- --- ---

11/07/17 18.60 28.01 17.25 --- --- ---

04/16/18 18.58 --- 17.27 --- --- ---

10/19/18 18.72 --- 17.13 --- --- ---

02/24/16 23.55 --- 17.34 --- --- ---

06/07/16 23.10 32.14 17.79 --- --- ---

02/01/17 23.41 32.04 17.48 --- --- ---

03/07/17 23.45 --- 17.44 --- --- ---

05/16/17 23.56 --- 17.33 --- --- ---

07/27/17 23.81 --- 17.08 --- --- ---

08/10/17 23.87 --- 17.02 --- --- ---

11/07/17 23.33 32.03 17.56 --- --- ---

04/16/18 23.21 --- 17.68 --- --- ---

10/19/18 23.31 --- 17.58 --- --- ---

02/24/16 26.32 --- 15.00 --- --- ---

06/07/16 25.82 30.88 15.50 --- --- ---

02/01/17 25.27 30.88 16.05 --- --- ---

03/07/17 25.30 --- 16.02 --- --- ---

05/16/17 25.21 --- 16.11 --- --- ---

07/27/17 25.26 --- 16.06 --- --- ---

08/10/17 25.33 --- 15.99 --- --- ---

11/07/17 25.16 30.83 16.16 --- --- ---

04/16/18 25.09 --- 16.23 --- --- ---

10/19/18 24.98 --- 16.34 --- --- ---

MW-03 (Casing 34.9 inches above

ground)

30 19 - 29 40.89

MW-04 (Casing 33.6 inches above

ground)

30 17 - 27 41.32

MW-01 (Casing

39.25 inches above

ground)

30 15 - 30 41.49

MW-02 (flush mount)

30 18 - 28 35.85

‐‐ Not Measured ft bgs ‐ feet below ground surfaceft btoc ‐ feet below top of casing

1 of 2 190319 Appendix 4 ‐ Groundwater Data Summary.xlsx: Appendix 4‐4 GW Elevations

Appendix 4-4 - Groundwater ElevationsCES Griggs Road VCP Site

Houston, Texas

Well No.Gauging

Date

Monitoring Well Depth

(ft bgs)

Screened Interval (ft

bgs)

Top of Casing Elevation

Depth to Water (ft

btoc)

Total Depth (ft

btoc)

Corrected Elevation of

Water

Depth to LNAPL (ft

btoc)

Elevation of LNAPL *

LNAPL Thicknes

s (ft)

02/24/16 21.45 --- 15.77 --- --- ---

06/07/16 20.96 28.03 16.26 --- --- ---

02/01/17 20.81 28.03 16.41 --- --- ---

03/07/17 20.83 --- 16.39 --- --- ---

05/16/17 20.80 --- 16.42 --- --- ---

07/27/17 20.94 --- 16.28 --- --- ---

08/10/17 21.02 --- 16.20 --- --- ---

11/07/17 20.67 28.01 16.55 --- --- ---

04/16/18 20.64 --- 16.58 --- --- ---

10/19/18 20.63 --- 16.59 --- --- ---

02/01/17 21.31 25.96 16.12 --- --- ---

03/07/17 21.30 --- 16.13 --- --- ---

05/16/17 21.23 --- 16.20 --- --- ---

07/27/17 21.35 --- 16.08 --- --- ---

08/10/17 21.39 --- 16.04 --- --- ---

11/07/17 21.15 25.93 16.28 --- --- ---

04/16/18 21.10 --- 16.33 --- --- ---

10/19/18 21.09 --- 16.34 --- --- ---

02/01/17 19.02 28.24 17.17 --- --- ---

03/07/17 19.11 --- 17.08 --- --- ---

05/16/17 19.24 --- 16.95 --- --- ---

07/27/17 19.44 --- 16.75 --- --- ---

08/10/17 19.51 --- 16.68 --- --- ---

11/07/17 19.00 28.27 17.19 --- --- ---

04/16/18 18.98 --- 17.21 --- --- ---

10/19/18 19.03 --- 17.16 --- --- ---

02/01/17 23.28 25.26 14.77 --- --- ---

03/07/17 23.28 --- 14.77 --- --- ---

05/16/17 23.26 --- 14.79 --- --- ---

07/27/17 23.38 --- 14.67 --- --- ---

08/10/17 23.43 --- 14.62 --- --- ---

11/07/17 22.98 25.23 15.07 --- --- ---

04/16/18 22.97 --- 15.08 --- --- ---

10/19/18 22.90 --- 15.15 --- --- ---

05/23/18 22.12 29.74 16.24 --- --- ---

10/19/18 22.18 --- 16.18 --- --- ---

05/23/18 21.46 27.46 16.32 --- --- ---

10/19/18 21.53 --- 16.25 --- --- ---

NOTES:

MW-09 (flush mount)

30 15-30 38.36

MW-10 (flush mount)

37.7818-2828

MW-08 (flush mount)

30 15-25 38.05

MW-07 (flush mount)

30 18 - 28 36.19

MW-06 (flush mount)

30 16-26 37.43

MW-05 (flush mount)

30 18 - 28 37.22

‐‐ Not Measured ft bgs ‐ feet below ground surfaceft btoc ‐ feet below top of casing

2 of 2 190319 Appendix 4 ‐ Groundwater Data Summary.xlsx: Appendix 4‐4 GW Elevations

APPENDIX 5 FIELD DATA


APPENDIX 6 LABORATORY DATA PACKAGES


Data Usability Summary

To: Tony Saturni, CES PRP Group Date: April 30, 2018

From: Brenda Basile, Ph.D. File: CES GW 180430 DUS.doc

RE: Quarterly Groundwater Sampling 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 April 16, 2018. The reports were 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 these sample events was to provide data for the Response Action Plan (RAP).

Samples were analyzed using the following methods:

SW-846 8260B - Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS)

TX 1005 – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

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 April 2018 groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) and TPH as shown in Table 1. 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 blanks.

SURROGATE RECOVERIES

The laboratory flags recoveries using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Surrogate recoveries were within the RG-366/TRRP-13 acceptance criteria of 60-140 percent recovery (%R) for CVOCs and 70-130 %R for TPH. No data were qualified

INTERNAL STANDARD RECOVERIES

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

CES GW 180430 DUS.Doc 2

April 30, 2018

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES

The laboratory flags recoveries and precision using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Laboratory control sample (LCS) and laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) (if analyzed) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 70-130%R for TPH. LCS recoveries were within the 60-140% criteria for CVOCs. LCS/LCSD precision (as relative percent difference [RPD]) was within the RG-366/TRRP-13 criteria. No data were qualified.

MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE

Batch or non-project sample data were not evaluated. The laboratory flags recoveries and precision using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 60–140%R for VOCs. No data were qualified.

SUMMARY

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

Table 1 Cross-Reference Field Sample Identifications and Laboratory Identifications

Field Identification

Laboratory Identification

TPH CVOCs Comment

Trip Blank HS 18040763-01 X Trip Blank

MW-01 180416 HS 18040763-02 X

MW-05 180416 HS 18040763-03 X

MW-06 180416 HS 18040763-04 X

MW-08 180416 HS 18040763-05 X

FB-01 180416 HS 18040763-06 X Field Blank

FB-02 180416 HS 18040763-07 X Field Blank


To: Tony Saturni, CES PRP Group Date: May 31, 2018


RE: Quarterly Groundwater Sampling 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 May 23, 2018. 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 these sample events was to provide data for the Response Action Plan (RAP).




Introduction

The May 2018 groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) as shown in Table 1. 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





BLANKS



The laboratory flags recoveries using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Surrogate recoveries were within the RG-366/TRRP-13 acceptance criteria of 60-140 percent recovery (%R) for CVOCs.




The laboratory flags recoveries and precision using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries were within the 60-140% criteria for CVOCs.


May 31, 2018


Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 60–140%R for VOCs.

SUMMARY




Laboratory Identification

CVOCs Comment

Trip Blank HS18051152-01 X Trip Blank

MW-06 180523 HS18051152-02 X MS/MSD

MW-09 180523 HS18051152-03 X

MW-10 180523 HS 18040763-04 X


To: Tony Saturni, CES PRP Group Date: March 15, 2019


RE: Semi-Annual Groundwater Sampling CC:

Golder Associates Inc (GAI) (formerly Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC) reviewed one laboratory report for the analyses of groundwater samples collected by Golder (Houston, Texas) at the CES Griggs Road VCP Site on October 19, 2018. The reports were 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 data for the Response Action Effectiveness Report (RAER).



TX 1005 – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)


Introduction

The October 2018 groundwater samples were analyzed for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) and TPH as shown in Table 1. 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





BLANKS



The laboratory flags recoveries using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Surrogate recoveries were within the RG-366/TRRP-13 acceptance criteria of 60-140 percent recovery (%R) for CVOCs. Surrogate recoveries for MW-08 181019 exceeded the acceptance criteria of 70-130 %R for TPH. TPH was not detected in the sample; no data were qualified


March 15, 2019




The laboratory flags recoveries and precision using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Laboratory control sample (LCS) and laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) (if analyzed) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 70-130%R for TPH. LCS recoveries were within the 60-140% criteria for CVOCs. LCS/LCSD precision (as relative percent difference [RPD]) was within the RG-366/TRRP-13 criteria. No data were qualified.


Batch or non-project sample data were not evaluated. The laboratory flags recoveries and precision using statistically derived control limits as a reference. Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries (%R) were within the acceptance criteria of 60–140%R for VOCs. No data were qualified.

FIELD PRECISION

Field duplicate precision is summarized in Table 2. Field duplicate precision is evaluated using 30 RPD or ±2 times the method quantitation limit (MQL) for aqueous samples.

SUMMARY



Field Identification Laboratory

Identification TPH CVOCs Comment

MW-08 181019 HS18101113-01 X

MW-10 181019 HS18101113-02 X

MW-09 181019 HS18101113-03 X

MW-06 181019 HS18101113-04 X

MW-05 181019 HS18101113-05 X

MW-01 181019 HS18101113-06 X

MW-06 DUP 181019 HS18101113-07 X Field duplicate of MW-06

Trip Blank HS18101113-08 X Trip Blank

Table 2 Field Precision


Analyte Sample Result

Duplicate Result

RPD Qualification

MW-06 181019 / MW-06 DUP

181019

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene < 0.00020 0.0019 NA A (MQL)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.059 0.058 1.7 A

Trichloroethene 0.0028 0.0026 7.4 A

Vinyl chloride 0.0058 0.0056 3.5 A

RPD = ((SR - DR)*200)/ (SR + DR) A – Acceptable MQL – Method quantitation limit NA – Not applicable

April 20, 2018

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 7 sample(s) on Apr 16, 2018 for the analysis presented in the following report.

Laboratory Results for: CES Griggs Rd

Dear Brenda,

Work Order: HS18040763

Generated By: JUMOKE.LAWAL

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 26

Client:TRRP Laboratory Data Package Cover PageProject:

WorkOrder:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd HS18040763

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 Houston, Corp Date: 20-Apr-18

Page 2 of 26


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 26

Laboratory Review Checklist: Reportable Data

Laboratory Name: ALS Laboratory Group LRC Date: 04/20/2018 Project Name: CES Griggs Rd Laboratory Job Number: HS18040763 Reviewer Name: Corey Grandits Prep Batch Number(s): 127422,R314723 #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

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 4 of 26

Laboratory Review Checklist: Supporting Data Laboratory Name: ALS Laboratory Group LRC Date: 04/20/2018 Project Name: CES Griggs Rd Laboratory Job Number: HS18040763 Reviewer Name: Corey Grandits Prep Batch Number(s): 127422,R314723 #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 26

Laboratory Review Checklist: Exception Data Laboratory Name: ALS Laboratory Group LRC Date: 04/20/2018 Project Name: CES Griggs Rd Laboratory Job Number: HS18040763 Reviewer Name: Corey Grandits Prep Batch Number(s): 127422,R314723

ER#5 Description

No Exceptions


Page 6 of 26

Client: Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

Work Order: HS18040763Project: CES Griggs Rd SAMPLE SUMMARY

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

HS18040763-01 16-Apr-2018 11:15VBLKW-041318-1

16-Apr-2018 12:18Trip Blank Water

HS18040763-02 16-Apr-2018 11:04 16-Apr-2018 12:18MW-01 180416 Groundwater




HS18040763-06 16-Apr-2018 08:43 16-Apr-2018 12:18FB-01 180416 Water

HS18040763-07 16-Apr-2018 09:30 16-Apr-2018 12:18FB-02 180416 Water

ALS Group Houston, Corp 20-Apr-18Date:

Page 7 of 26

Client:Project:Sample ID:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd Trip Blank

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-01

16-Apr-2018 11:15 Matrix:Water

ANALYTICAL REPORT

ANALYSES RESULT MQLDILUTION FACTORUNITS

DATE ANALYZEDQUAL SDL

LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:310.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:310.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:310.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:310.00020Trichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:310.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 19-Apr-2018 15:31107 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 19-Apr-2018 15:31101 81-113

Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 1%REC 19-Apr-2018 15:31101 77-123

Surr: Toluene-d8 1%REC 19-Apr-2018 15:31106 82-127

20-Apr-18Date: ALS Group Houston, Corp

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

Page 8 of 26


Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd MW-01 180416

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-02

16-Apr-2018 11:04 Matrix:Groundwater

ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 16:200.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.11

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 16:200.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.0026


1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 16:200.00020Trichloroethene 0.00100.011

1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 16:200.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.0023







Page 9 of 26



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-03


ANALYTICAL REPORT





1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 16:450.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.0029









Page 10 of 26



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-04


ANALYTICAL REPORT





1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 17:090.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.0010









Page 11 of 26



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-05


ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Method:TX1005 Analyst: MBGPrep:TX1005PR / 17-Apr-2018

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 01:470.20nC6 to nC12 0.51U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 01:470.20>nC12 to nC28 0.51U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 01:470.20>nC28 to nC35 0.51U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 01:470.20Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 0.51U

Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1%REC 18-Apr-2018 01:4785.0 70-130

Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene 1%REC 18-Apr-2018 01:4787.7 70-130



Page 12 of 26


Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd FB-01 180416

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-06


ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Method:TX1005 Analyst: MBGPrep:TX1005PR / 17-Apr-2018

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 02:160.20nC6 to nC12 0.50U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 02:160.20>nC12 to nC28 0.50U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 02:160.20>nC28 to nC35 0.50U

1mg/L 18-Apr-2018 02:160.20Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 0.50U

Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1%REC 18-Apr-2018 02:1677.6 70-130

Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene 1%REC 18-Apr-2018 02:1677.3 70-130



Page 13 of 26


Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd FB-02 180416

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18040763HS18040763-07


ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:560.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U




1mg/L 19-Apr-2018 15:560.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U







Page 14 of 26

WEIGHT LOG

HS18040763CES Griggs Rd Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

WorkOrder:Project:Client:

Batch ID: 127422 Method: LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 TX 1005_W PRPrep:

ContainerSampIDSample Wt/Vol

Final Volume

Prep Factor

HS18040763-05 1 29.7 3 (mL) 0.101HS18040763-06 1 29.91 3 (mL) 0.1003


Page 15 of 26

Client:CES Griggs Rd Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLC

WorkOrder:Project:

HS18040763DATES REPORT

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

Batch ID 127422 Test Name : LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Matrix: Water

17 Apr 2018 11:56 18 Apr 2018 02:16HS18040763-06 16 Apr 2018 08:43 1FB-01 180416

Batch ID 127422 Test Name : LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Matrix: Groundwater

17 Apr 2018 11:56 18 Apr 2018 01:47HS18040763-05 16 Apr 2018 08:53 1MW-08 180416

Batch ID R314723 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: Groundwater

19 Apr 2018 16:20HS18040763-02 16 Apr 2018 11:04 1MW-01 180416

19 Apr 2018 16:45HS18040763-03 16 Apr 2018 10:18 1MW-05 180416

19 Apr 2018 17:09HS18040763-04 16 Apr 2018 09:41 1MW-06 180416

Batch ID R314723 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: Water

19 Apr 2018 15:31HS18040763-01 16 Apr 2018 11:15 1Trip Blank

19 Apr 2018 15:56HS18040763-07 16 Apr 2018 09:30 1FB-02 180416


Page 16 of 26


WorkOrder: HS18040763

Test Code: TX1005_W_LowInstrumentID: FID-11

METHOD DETECTION / REPORTING LIMITS

AqueousMatrix:Test Number: TX1005Test Name: Low-level Texas TPH by TX1005

Units: mg/L

Type Analyte DCSCAS MDL PQLDCS SpikeA 0.21TPH-1005-1 0.20nC6 to nC12 0.500.25

A 0.22TPH-1005-2 0.20>nC12 to nC28 0.500.25

A 0.21TPH-1005-4 0.20>nC28 to nC35 0.500.25

A 0.21TPH 0.20Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 0.500.25

S 0321-60-8 02-Fluorobiphenyl 00

S 098-08-8 0Trifluoromethyl benzene 00

Page 17 of 26



Test Code: 8260_LL_WInstrumentID: VOA2


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

Units: mg/L

Type Analyte DCSCAS MDL PQLDCS SpikeA 0.00050156-59-2 0.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.00048127-18-4 0.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.00043156-60-5 0.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.0005179-01-6 0.00020Trichloroethene 0.00100.00050

A 0.0003675-01-4 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 18 of 26

Client:Project:

Pastor, Behling & Wheeler, LLCCES Griggs Rd


QC BATCH REPORT

Batch ID: 127422 Instrument: FID-11 Method: TX1005

Sample ID: MBLK-127422 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 17-Apr-2018 16:09

Run ID: FID-11_314553 SeqNo: 4523405 PrepDate: 17-Apr-2018 DF: 1

Analyte SPK ValMQLResultSPK Ref

Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref

Value %RPDRPD Limit Qual

MBLK

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 U 0.50

>nC12 to nC28 U 0.50

>nC28 to nC35 U 0.50

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon U 0.50

1.759 2.5 0 70.4 70 - 1300Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl

1.806 2.5 0 72.2 70 - 1300Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene

Sample ID: LCS-127422 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 17-Apr-2018 16:38



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 28.9 25 0 116 75 - 1250.50

>nC12 to nC28 24.61 25 0 98.4 75 - 1250.50



Sample ID: LCSD-127422 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 17-Apr-2018 17:07



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCSD

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 28.38 25 0 114 75 - 125 28.9 1.84 200.50

>nC12 to nC28 24.34 25 0 97.4 75 - 125 24.61 1.09 200.50

2.16 2.5 0 86.4 70 - 130 2.024 6.5 200Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl

2.289 2.5 0 91.6 70 - 130 2.175 5.08 200Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene

Sample ID: HS18040663-01MS Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 17-Apr-2018 18:05



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 28.19 24.95 0 113 75 - 1250.50

>nC12 to nC28 24.03 24.95 0 96.3 75 - 1250.50





Page 19 of 26

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: HS18040663-01MSD Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 17-Apr-2018 18:33



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 25.88 25.04 0 103 75 - 125 28.19 8.56 200.50

>nC12 to nC28 23.35 25.04 0 93.3 75 - 125 24.03 2.86 200.50



The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS18040763-05 HS18040763-06



Page 20 of 26

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT

Batch ID: R314723 Instrument: VOA2 Method: SW8260

Sample ID: VBLKW-180419 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 19-Apr-2018 13:05

Run ID: VOA2_314723 SeqNo: 4526773 PrepDate: DF: 1


Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


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

54.05 50 0 108 70 - 1231.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

50.57 50 0 101 82 - 1151.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

50.6 50 0 101 73 - 1261.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

52.61 50 0 105 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: VLCSW-180419 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 19-Apr-2018 12:16



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 47.57 50 0 95.1 75 - 1221.0

Tetrachloroethene 42.17 50 0 84.3 76 - 1191.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 43.42 50 0 86.8 72 - 1271.0

Trichloroethene 47.26 50 0 94.5 77 - 1211.0

Vinyl chloride 45.57 50 0 91.1 70 - 1301.0



48.34 50 0 96.7 73 - 1261.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

51.22 50 0 102 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8



Page 21 of 26

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: HS18040339-04MS Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 19-Apr-2018 17:33



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS

Client ID:



trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 44.15 50 0 88.3 70 - 1301.0


Vinyl chloride 49.64 50 0 99.3 70 - 1301.0




51.19 50 0 102 82 - 1271.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: HS18040339-04MSD Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 19-Apr-2018 17:58



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 44.99 50 0 90.0 70 - 128 47.53 5.49 201.0

Tetrachloroethene 42.8 50 0 85.6 70 - 130 43.36 1.29 201.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 43.27 50 0 86.5 70 - 130 44.15 2.02 201.0

Trichloroethene 46.25 50 0 92.5 70 - 129 48.05 3.83 201.0

Vinyl chloride 45.81 50 0 91.6 70 - 130 49.64 8.03 201.0

55.15 50 0 110 70 - 126 56.12 1.75 201.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

52.23 50 0 104 81 - 113 52.01 0.41 201.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

47.41 50 0 94.8 77 - 123 49.52 4.37 201.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

50.75 50 0 101 82 - 127 51.19 0.87 201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS18040763-01 HS18040763-02 HS18040763-03 HS18040763-04 HS18040763-07



Page 22 of 26

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 23 of 26

CERTIFICATIONS,ACCREDITATIONS & LICENSES

Agency Number Expire Date

California 2919 2016-2018 31-Jul-2018

Illinois 004112 09-May-2018

Kentucky 123043 30-Apr-2018

North Dakota R193 2017-2017 30-Apr-2018

Oklahoma 2017-088 31-Aug-2018

Texas T104704231-17-19 30-Apr-2018

North Carolina 624-2018 31-Dec-2018

Louisiana 03087 2017-2018 30-Jun-2018

Arkansas 88-0356 27-Mar-2019


Page 24 of 26

JRM

16-Apr-2018 12:18Date/Time Received:

HS18040763

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

1.2c/0.7c U/c IR11429124/16/18 13:55

Yes No No VOA vials submitted

Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Checklist completed by: Paresh M. GigaDateeSignatureDateeSignature

16-Apr-201816-Apr-2018

ClientGroundwater/Water 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

20-Apr-18Date:

Page 25 of 26

May 31, 2018

Brenda BasileGolder Associates Inc.11231 Richmond AvenueSuite D104Houston, TX 77082




Sincerely,

ALS Environmental received 4 sample(s) on May 23, 2018 for the analysis presented in the following report.

Laboratory Results for: CES Griggs Rd

Dear Brenda,


Generated By: JUMOKE.LAWAL

Dane J. Wacasey



Page 1 of 19


WorkOrder:

Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd HS18051152













ALS Group Houston, Corp Date: 31-May-18

Page 2 of 19


WorkOrder:


Dane J. Wacasey




Page 3 of 19


Laboratory Name: ALS Laboratory Group LRC Date: 05/30/2018

Project Name: CES Griggs Rd Laboratory Job Number: HS18051152

Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): R316946

#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


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 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 4 of 19

Laboratory Review Checklist: Supporting Data





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


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


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 19

Laboratory Review Checklist: Exception Data




ER#5 Description

No Exceptions


Page 6 of 19

Client: Golder Associates Inc.

Work Order: HS18051152Project: CES Griggs Rd SAMPLE SUMMARY


HS18051152-01 23-May-2018 12:10VBLKW-052218-1

23-May-2018 13:25TB 180523 Water

HS18051152-02 23-May-2018 12:00 23-May-2018 13:25MW-06 180523 GW

HS18051152-03 23-May-2018 09:45 23-May-2018 13:25MW-09 180523 GW

HS18051152-04 23-May-2018 09:03 23-May-2018 13:25MW-10 180523 GW

ALS Group Houston, Corp 31-May-18Date:

Page 7 of 19


Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd TB 180523

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18051152HS18051152-01

23-May-2018 12:10 Matrix:Water

ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 26-May-2018 03:400.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 26-May-2018 03:400.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 26-May-2018 03:400.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 26-May-2018 03:400.00020Trichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 26-May-2018 03:400.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 26-May-2018 03:4097.3 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 26-May-2018 03:40100.0 81-113

Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 1%REC 26-May-2018 03:40106 77-123

Surr: Toluene-d8 1%REC 26-May-2018 03:40106 82-127

31-May-18Date: ALS Group Houston, Corp


Page 8 of 19


Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd MW-06 180523

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18051152HS18051152-02

23-May-2018 12:00 Matrix:GW

ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 26-May-2018 04:290.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.050

1mg/L 26-May-2018 04:290.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.0010U


1mg/L 26-May-2018 04:290.00020Trichloroethene 0.00100.0026

1mg/L 26-May-2018 04:290.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.0038

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 26-May-2018 04:2999.3 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 26-May-2018 04:29101 81-113





Page 9 of 19



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18051152HS18051152-03


ANALYTICAL REPORT




1mg/L 26-May-2018 06:070.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.0056



1mg/L 26-May-2018 06:07J 0.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.00078

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 26-May-2018 06:07100 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 26-May-2018 06:0799.7 81-113





Page 10 of 19



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18051152HS18051152-04


ANALYTICAL REPORT




1mg/L 26-May-2018 06:310.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.020



1mg/L 26-May-2018 06:310.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 26-May-2018 06:31100 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 26-May-2018 06:31102 81-113





Page 11 of 19

Client:CES Griggs Rd Golder Associates Inc.

WorkOrder:Project:



Batch ID R316946 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: GW

26 May 2018 04:29HS18051152-02 23 May 2018 12:00 1MW-06 180523

26 May 2018 06:07HS18051152-03 23 May 2018 09:45 1MW-09 180523

26 May 2018 06:31HS18051152-04 23 May 2018 09:03 1MW-10 180523


26 May 2018 03:40HS18051152-01 23 May 2018 12:10 1TB 180523


Page 12 of 19






Units: mg/L





A 0.0004875-01-4 0.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.00050




S 02037-26-5 0Toluene-d8 0.00100

Page 13 of 19

Client:Project:

Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd


QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: VBLKW-180525 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 26-May-2018 03:15



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MBLK

Client ID:






49.05 50 0 98.1 70 - 1231.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4


52.66 50 0 105 73 - 1261.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

53.67 50 0 107 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: VLCSW-180525 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 26-May-2018 02:26



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:



trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 50.79 50 0 102 72 - 1271.0


Vinyl chloride 49.77 50 0 99.5 70 - 1301.0




50.99 50 0 102 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8



Page 14 of 19

Client:Project:

Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd


QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: HS18051152-02MS Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 26-May-2018 04:53



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS

Client ID: MW-06 180523

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 95.26 50 49.85 90.8 70 - 1281.0


trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 54 50 0 108 70 - 1301.0

Trichloroethene 52.95 50 2.577 101 70 - 1291.0

Vinyl chloride 53.22 50 3.804 98.8 70 - 1301.0




51.74 50 0 103 82 - 1271.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: HS18051152-02MSD Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 26-May-2018 05:18



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD


cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 94.94 50 49.85 90.2 70 - 128 95.26 0.332 201.0

Tetrachloroethene 48.81 50 0 97.6 70 - 130 49.68 1.78 201.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 53.19 50 0 106 70 - 130 54 1.52 201.0

Trichloroethene 53.31 50 2.577 101 70 - 129 52.95 0.662 201.0

Vinyl chloride 52.19 50 3.804 96.8 70 - 130 53.22 1.96 201.0

51.63 50 0 103 70 - 126 50.86 1.5 201.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4


50.55 50 0 101 77 - 123 49.75 1.6 201.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

51.42 50 0 103 82 - 127 51.74 0.62 201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS18051152-01 HS18051152-02 HS18051152-03 HS18051152-04



Page 15 of 19





a Not accredited

















MBLK Method Blank



MS Matrix Spike




SD Serial Dilution





Page 16 of 19



California 2919 2016-2018 31-Jul-2018

Oklahoma 2017-088 31-Aug-2018


Louisiana 03087 2017-2018 30-Jun-2018

Arkansas 88-0356 27-Mar-2019

Kansas E-10352 2017-218 31-Jul-2018

Texas T10470231 30-Apr-2019

North Dakota R193 30-Apr-2019


Page 17 of 19

JRM

23-May-2018 13:25Date/Time Received:

HS18051152

PBW - Houston

Work Order:

Client Name:


Received by:













Cooler(s)/Kit(s):




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

3.1C/2.5C UC/C IR # 25440165/23/2018 15:15


Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Checklist completed by: Pablo MarinezDateeSignatureDateeSignature

31-May-201823-May-2018

ClientWATER Carrier name:Matrices:




Comments:

Corrective Action:

Yes


31-May-18Date:

Page 18 of 19

October 29, 2018

Brenda BasileGolder Associates Inc.11231 Richmond AvenueSuite D104Houston, TX 77082




Sincerely,

ALS Environmental received 8 sample(s) on Oct 19, 2018 for the analysis presented in the following report.

Laboratory Results for: CES Griggs Rd GW

Dear Brenda,


Generated By: DAYNA.FISHER

Dane J. Wacasey



Page 1 of 27


WorkOrder:

Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd GWHS18101113













ALS Houston, US Date: 29-Oct-18

Page 2 of 27


WorkOrder:


Dane J. Wacasey




Page 3 of 27



Project Name: CES Griggs Rd GW Laboratory Job Number: HS18101113

Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): 133734, R325940


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 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


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 27

Laboratory Review Checklist: Supporting Data



Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): 133734, R325940 #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


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


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 27

Laboratory Review Checklist: Exception Reports



Reviewer Name: Dane Wacasey Prep Batch Number(s): 133734, R325940

ER#5 Description

1

Low-Level Texas TPH by TX 1005, samples MW-08 181019, surrogates 2-Fluorobiphenyl and Trifluoromethyl benzene recovered above

the upper control limit. No target analytes were detected in the sample.


Page 6 of 27

Client: Golder Associates Inc.

Work Order: HS18101113Project: CES Griggs Rd GW SAMPLE SUMMARY


HS18101113-01 19-Oct-2018 10:13 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-08 181019 GW

HS18101113-02 19-Oct-2018 10:54 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-10 181019 GW

HS18101113-03 19-Oct-2018 11:34 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-09 181019 GW

HS18101113-04 19-Oct-2018 12:15 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-06 181019 GW

HS18101113-05 19-Oct-2018 12:55 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-05 181019 GW

HS18101113-06 19-Oct-2018 13:36 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-01 181019 GW

HS18101113-07 19-Oct-2018 12:17 19-Oct-2018 14:51MW-06 DUP 181019 GW

HS18101113-08 19-Oct-2018 00:00VBLKW-101818-01

19-Oct-2018 14:51Trip Blank Water

ALS Houston, US 29-Oct-18Date:

Page 7 of 27


Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd GWMW-08 181019

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-01

19-Oct-2018 10:13 Matrix:GW

ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Method:TX1005 Analyst: MBGPrep:TX1005PR / 22-Oct-2018

1mg/L 23-Oct-2018 15:200.20nC6 to nC12 0.50U

1mg/L 23-Oct-2018 15:200.20>nC12 to nC28 0.50U

1mg/L 23-Oct-2018 15:200.20>nC28 to nC35 0.50U

1mg/L 23-Oct-2018 15:200.20Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 0.50U

Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1%REC 23-Oct-2018 15:20S170 70-130

Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene 1%REC 23-Oct-2018 15:20S166 70-130

29-Oct-18Date: ALS Houston, US


Page 8 of 27



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-02


ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 13:000.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.0021

1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 13:000.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.00100.027

1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 13:000.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 13:000.00020Trichloroethene 0.00100.0047

1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 13:000.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U

Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 1%REC 22-Oct-2018 13:0090.9 70-126

Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 22-Oct-2018 13:00100 81-113

Surr: Dibromofluoromethane 1%REC 22-Oct-2018 13:0096.7 77-123

Surr: Toluene-d8 1%REC 22-Oct-2018 13:0092.6 82-127



Page 9 of 27



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-03


ANALYTICAL REPORT







1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 16:50J 0.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.00082


Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 1%REC 22-Oct-2018 16:5096.9 81-113





Page 10 of 27



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-04


ANALYTICAL REPORT




1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 17:140.00030Tetrachloroethene 0.0010U



1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 17:140.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.0058







Page 11 of 27



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-05


ANALYTICAL REPORT





1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 17:390.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.0033









Page 12 of 27



WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-06


ANALYTICAL REPORT














Page 13 of 27


Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd GWMW-06 DUP 181019

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-07


ANALYTICAL REPORT





1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 18:280.00020trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.00100.0019









Page 14 of 27


Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd GWTrip Blank

WorkOrder:Lab ID:

Collection Date:

HS18101113HS18101113-08

19-Oct-2018 00:00 Matrix:Water

ANALYTICAL REPORT



LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Method:SW8260 Analyst: AKP1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 18:520.00020cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.0010U



1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 18:520.00020Trichloroethene 0.0010U

1mg/L 22-Oct-2018 18:520.00020Vinyl chloride 0.0010U







Page 15 of 27

WEIGHT LOG

HS18101113CES Griggs Rd GWGolder Associates Inc.

WorkOrder:Project:Client:

Batch ID: 133734 Method: LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 TX 1005_W PRPrep:

ContainerSampIDSample Wt/Vol

Final Volume

Prep Factor

HS18101113-01 1 30.18 3 (mL) 0.0994


Page 16 of 27

Client:CES Griggs Rd GWGolder Associates Inc.

WorkOrder:Project:



Batch ID 133734 Test Name : LOW-LEVEL TEXAS TPH BY TX1005 Matrix: GW

22 Oct 2018 08:30 23 Oct 2018 15:20HS18101113-01 19 Oct 2018 10:13 1MW-08 181019


22 Oct 2018 18:52HS18101113-08 19 Oct 2018 00:00 1Trip Blank

Batch ID R325940 Test Name : LOW LEVEL VOLATILES BY SW8260C Matrix: GW

22 Oct 2018 13:00HS18101113-02 19 Oct 2018 10:54 1MW-10 181019

22 Oct 2018 16:50HS18101113-03 19 Oct 2018 11:34 1MW-09 181019

22 Oct 2018 17:14HS18101113-04 19 Oct 2018 12:15 1MW-06 181019

22 Oct 2018 17:39HS18101113-05 19 Oct 2018 12:55 1MW-05 181019

22 Oct 2018 18:03HS18101113-06 19 Oct 2018 13:36 1MW-01 181019

22 Oct 2018 18:28HS18101113-07 19 Oct 2018 12:17 1MW-06 DUP 181019


Page 17 of 27



Test Code: TX1005_W_LowInstrumentID: FID-13


AqueousMatrix:Test Number: TX1005Test Name: Low-level Texas TPH by TX1005

Units: mg/L

Type Analyte DCSCAS MDL PQLDCS SpikeA 0.24TPH-1005-1 0.20nC6 to nC12 0.500.25

A 0.27TPH-1005-2 0.20>nC12 to nC28 0.500.25

A 0.24TPH-1005-4 0.20>nC28 to nC35 0.500.25

A 0.24TPH 0.20Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon 0.500.25

S 0321-60-8 02-Fluorobiphenyl 00

S 098-08-8 0Trifluoromethyl benzene 00

Page 18 of 27






Units: mg/L





A 0.0005175-01-4 0.00020Vinyl chloride 0.00100.00050




S 02037-26-5 0Toluene-d8 0.00100

Page 19 of 27

Client:Project:

Golder Associates Inc.CES Griggs Rd GW


QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: MBLK-133734 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 23-Oct-2018 10:00

Run ID: FID-13_326205 SeqNo: 4791003 PrepDate: 22-Oct-2018 DF: 1


Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MBLK

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 U 0.50

>nC12 to nC28 U 0.50

>nC28 to nC35 U 0.50

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon U 0.50

2.774 2.5 0 111 70 - 1300Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl

2.788 2.5 0 112 70 - 1300Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene

Sample ID: LCS-133734 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 23-Oct-2018 10:29



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 25.26 25 0 101 75 - 1250.50

>nC12 to nC28 28.67 25 0 115 75 - 1250.50



Sample ID: LCSD-133734 Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 23-Oct-2018 10:58



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCSD

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 24.33 25 0 97.3 75 - 125 25.26 3.73 200.50

>nC12 to nC28 26.37 25 0 105 75 - 125 28.67 8.37 200.50



Sample ID: HS18101140-02MS Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 23-Oct-2018 12:54



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 27.84 24.33 0 114 75 - 1250.49

>nC12 to nC28 25.17 24.33 0 103 75 - 1250.49




Page 20 of 27

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: HS18101140-02MSD Units: mg/L Analysis Date: 23-Oct-2018 13:23



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD

Client ID:

nC6 to nC12 29.51 24.59 0 120 75 - 125 27.84 5.81 200.49

>nC12 to nC28 27.85 24.59 0 113 75 - 125 25.17 10.1 200.49

2.766 2.459 0 112 70 - 130 3.002 8.19 200Surr: 2-Fluorobiphenyl

2.862 2.459 0 116 70 - 130 2.994 4.5 200Surr: Trifluoromethyl benzene

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS18101113-01


Page 21 of 27

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: VBLKW-181022 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 22-Oct-2018 11:47



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MBLK

Client ID:







48.63 50 0 97.3 82 - 1151.0Surr: 4-Bromofluorobenzene


46.54 50 0 93.1 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: VLCSW-181022 Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 22-Oct-2018 10:58



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


LCS

Client ID:

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 20.8 20 0 104 75 - 1221.0

Tetrachloroethene 20.51 20 0 103 76 - 1191.0


Trichloroethene 20.77 20 0 104 77 - 1211.0

Vinyl chloride 18.85 20 0 94.3 70 - 1301.0




45.21 50 0 90.4 81 - 1201.0Surr: Toluene-d8


Page 22 of 27

Client:Project:



QC BATCH REPORT


Sample ID: HS18101113-02MS Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 22-Oct-2018 16:01



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MS


cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 21.35 20 2.094 96.3 70 - 1281.0

Tetrachloroethene 45.1 20 26.54 92.8 70 - 1301.0


Trichloroethene 24.91 20 4.744 101 70 - 1291.0

Vinyl chloride 19.12 20 0 95.6 70 - 1301.0




44.83 50 0 89.7 82 - 1271.0Surr: Toluene-d8

Sample ID: HS18101113-02MSD Units: ug/L Analysis Date: 22-Oct-2018 16:26



Value %RECControl

LimitRPD Ref


MSD


cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 21.36 20 2.094 96.3 70 - 128 21.35 0.0555 201.0

Tetrachloroethene 43.65 20 26.54 85.5 70 - 130 45.1 3.27 201.0

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 19.71 20 0 98.5 70 - 130 20.62 4.55 201.0

Trichloroethene 24.22 20 4.744 97.4 70 - 129 24.91 2.81 201.0

Vinyl chloride 17.61 20 0 88.0 70 - 130 19.12 8.25 201.0

47.4 50 0 94.8 70 - 126 46.89 1.07 201.0Surr: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4


49.12 50 0 98.2 77 - 123 47.09 4.21 201.0Surr: Dibromofluoromethane

45.43 50 0 90.9 82 - 127 44.83 1.33 201.0Surr: Toluene-d8

The following samples were analyzed in this batch: HS18101113-02 HS18101113-03 HS18101113-04 HS18101113-05 HS18101113-06 HS18101113-07 HS18101113-08


Page 23 of 27





a Not accredited

















MBLK Method Blank



MS Matrix Spike




SD Serial Dilution





Page 24 of 27




Arkansas 88-0356 27-Mar-2019

Texas T10470231-18-21 30-Apr-2019

North Dakota R193 2018-2019 30-Apr-2019

Illinois 004438 29-Jun-2019

Louisiana 03087 30-Jun-2019

Dept of Defense ANAB L2231 22-Dec-2018

Kentucky 123043 - 2018 30-Apr-2019

Kansas E-10352 2018-2019 31-Jul-2019

Oklahoma 2018-156 31-Aug-2019


Page 25 of 27

PJM

19-Oct-2018 14:51Date/Time Received:

HS18101113

PBW - Houston

Work Order:

Client Name:


Received by:













Cooler(s)/Kit(s):




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

0.9C/0.6C UC/C IR # 254299310/19/2018 19:00


Yes No N/A

Yes No N/A

Checklist completed by: Pablo MarinezDateeSignatureDateeSignature

29-Oct-201819-Oct-2018

ClientWATER Carrier name:Matrices:




Comments:

Corrective Action:

Yes


ALS Houston, US 29-Oct-18Date:

Page 26 of 27

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Response … · Vandals removed portions of the security...

Documents

Transcript of TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Response … · Vandals removed portions of the security...