HomeMy WebLinkAbout0333 EEL RIVER ROAD - HAZMAT i
,
a ji t"' fi, ,+
m
� i }' � � i !�.`i4 ceA i i � �� f 5i i A d,•` � r?' �1
off:,,: t
i -a
, : k
n. •.r 'r'-� A �t�� s` �.;Mj � �, Rt: � s �A� � 5'f r,e is '�'�'^ �m" �� ^"�
.,� t�, �„ S , +Z.� � =rf ��,k a's m)3 �f I �'• � e H �";✓ � 4:� �w-• � S. �a>ti;m'Sr
�y
r:o .:�„ bA ^� a5'\ i Y4:' �1 : N'A�Ari}� l ^< F �'; r ,� �� �" !•� � � ��i
r,.
a �r � �,,.;w �.' .'-izr ,s � r�... f. >�•tr.�� u;�; �.,t Fia t"�„x tyq;,
z`
y L
i
m1 .
s Y ":1E AAA'"• $ i� � Q b} �� m.! A� �,�� {� � r� � '? f '�* #i,�p�,r2 5 1:� 3 i
,.. - >... c.. ,. ,. "' �., s..:: ... ...:.. w',:.:- e,.' � r°..:,:.,. ,-,�:,:;, .,kv z.,- � +:r,°�::. t'k� '•��.:'x '�, T "x�",�{ t r a'r t'r�; r..."t ?�! ;(> ,pr M�t'' "4 �lG_', >«'`w,�;n.`" 7�
a#i`+��'
., ;.;a y .....r �:. .: .: ,A ,.,•.,., t ...... ,'.., r,� ,.. ,,.: F�.r. 9#..r .�^✓ .x x.�, .�: 4 �,w.r i�'�
A F•'e'.. S� ���� � f r
it
a a �
A
a
e..
i '
t
CLASS A RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME
i PHASE V COMPLETION STATEMENT
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
' MA DEP # 4-15283
Birmingham Residence
' 333 Eel River Road- Osterville, MA 02537 --�a
Project#B099-2533
' FEBRUARY 2,2003
l
Eli NETT AT0'R%.E1Lt±Y, Inc.
Engineering, Environmental & Surveying Services 1573 Main Street _
Sanitary 21E/Site Remediation Property Line PO Box 1667
Site Development Hydrogeologic Survey Subdivision Brewster,MA 02631
' Waste Water Treatment Water Quality Monitoring Land Court 508-896-6630
Water Supply Licensed Site Professional Trial Court Witness 508-896-4687 Fax
1
BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC.
Engineering & Environmental Services LETTER OF
1573 Main Street, P.O. Box 1667
Brewster,MA 02631 RANSMITTAL
(508) 896-6630
FAX (508) 896-4687 FED 4
2003
TO:
DATE: yFq<y'��'sr �� JOB NUMBER:
Mr.Dan Craftons,Case Officer 2/20/03 B099-2533
MA DEP(SERO) BWSC/ERS
20 Riverside Dr.
Lakeville,MA 02347 REGARDING:
Birmingham Residence-RTN#4-15283
333 Eel River Rd.
We are sending you: Osterville,MA
Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement
Phase V Completion Statement
COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION
1 2/2/03 Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement-Phase V Completion Statement
1 Response Action Outcome(RAO) Statement...Transmittal Form BWSC-104
1 Comprehensive Response Action Transmittal Form&Phase I Completion Statement
1 2/19/03 Check#13481 $750.00-copy
Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement-Phase V Completion Statement Supporting Documentation
For review and comment: ❑ For approval: ® As requested:❑ For your use:❑
REMARKS:
cc: Jack&Karen Birmingham
Barnstable Fire Dept.
Barnstable Health Dept.
Barnstable Chief Municipal Officer
Patricia Bligh-CHUBB Insurance
From:
David C. Bennett,LSP.
If enclosures are not as noted,kindly notify us at once
1
I 1
ENNET T AT E I L LY, Inc.
Engineering, Environmental & Surveying Services 1573 Main Street
1 Sanitary 21E/Site Remediation Property Line PO Box 1667Brewster, MA 02631
Site Development Hydrogeologic Survey Subdivision
Waste Water Treatment Water Quality Monitoring Land Court 508-896-6630
' Water Supply Licensed Site Professional Trial Court Witness 508-896-4687 Fax
1 B099-2533
February 2, 2003
1 Mr. Dan Crafton, Case Officer
MA. Department of Environmental Protection
' Southeast Regional Offices, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section$
20 Riverside Drive - Lakeville, MA. 02347
1 RE: CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT
PHASE V COMPLETION STATEMENT
Birmingham Residence- RTN#4-15283:
' 333 Eel River Road - 0sterville, MA.
Dear Mr. Crafton,
1 BENNETT & O,REILLY, INC., has prepared the following Report, and Supporting
1 Documentation,as representing the Phase V Completion Statement and Class A-2 Response Action
Outcome(RAO)Statement,for the above referenced property on behalf of the property owners,John
and Karen Birmingham. The environmental monitoring conducted under Phase V has been used to
' evaluate critical exposure ;pathways and Significant Risk as the basis of this Class A-2 RAO for
project completion and regulatory closure as a permanent solution,in accordance with the provisions
of 310 CMR 40.1036(2). As such,this document should be considered an addendum to,and essential
element of the Comprehensive Response Actions (CRA) conducted at the property as previously
1 represented in the "Release-Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan" [1/31/00], RAM Status Reports
[6/15/00,12/27/00],the"Class C Response Action Outcome Statement/Remedy Implementation Plan
1 [1/8/01], and subsequent Remedy Operation Status Reports [8/3/01, 2/28/02].
In accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0193, and as consistent with 310 CMR
1 40.0810(5),(6)and(7),the sum of the information contained in these reports meets the performance
standards in providing site description, site history,hydrogeological characterization,magnitude and
extent of environmental.. impact, identification of exposure routes and receptors and risk
1 characterization as required in the Phase I and Phase II Site Assessments. Furthermore, the
information contained in the Phase III Comprehensive Remedial Action Alternative and the Phase
IV Remedy Implementation Plan investigations have reviewed remedial alternatives and selected
' appropriate remedial strategies with the prescription of the operation, maintenance and monitoring
1 . 1
1
' FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGHAIvf RESIDENCE/BO99-2533
PAGE 2 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' of such actions under Phase V. For the purpose of this report wherein a Phase V Completion
Statement with a Class A-2 RAO is presented in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0896(1),the previous
' information gathered throughout the Preliminary and Comprehensive Response Action conducted
since October 7, 1999 are summarized. The reader should review the individual documents for
specific details of such investigations.
' All work has proceeded with LSP oversight in a manner consistent with 309 CMR 4.02(2),
the MCP Response Action Performance Standards (RAPS) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.191 and the
QA/QC policies of BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC. The facts and statements herein, to the best of
our knowledge,are a true and accurate representation of the site activities,remedial response actions
and environmental conditions associated with the project at the time of this report. As such, this
document serves as the technical justification and rationale for the LSP Opinions represented by the
certifications on the Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Transmittal Form [BWSC-104] and
Comprehensive Response Action Transmittal Form [BWSC-108] attached.
SITE DESCRIPTION [Refer to Appendix A]
' The subject property, identified on Barnstable Assessor's Map 115 as Parcel 2, is located
approximately 1 mile south ofthe center of Osterville at 333 Eel River Road(Longitude: 70°23'27"E,
' Latitude 41°36'55") [Refer to Figure 1]. The parcel contains some 2.10 acres of land originally
developed in the early 1920's. The site presently contains a single family residential dwelling,
detached garage and a shed. Access to the area of release is unrestricted. The surrounding
neighborhood is moderately developed with similar residential dwellings.
The site and surrounding area are serviced by municipal water supply with no known private
' well within 500' of the release area. The site is not located within the Zone II-Protective Radius of
any public water supply or within 200' of any surface water reservoir. Groundwater was discovered
at 15' below grade in the area of release with significant tidal influence. Site specific groundwater
contours indicate a northwesterly to southwesterly groundwater flow direction towards Eel River,
adjacent to the property, and out to West Bay. Eel River, located some 160'+/- west of the area of
release, is considered the closest wetland and has been identified as the primary environmental
treceptor [Refer to Figure 2].
The occupants of the on-site dwelling have been identified as potential receptors. As such,
under Method 1 Risk Characterization the GWA, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater categories are
considered applicable in review of current and future foreseeable activities and uses. The applicability
' of the GW-1 standards is based upon the location of the Site within the Sole Source Aquifer of Cape
Cod and its designation as a Potential Drinking Water Source Area(PDWSA)by the MA DEP [Refer
to Figure 3]. The Site and surrounding area, however, are currently serviced by town water with no
' private potable drinking water wells within 500' and are not designated as within a Potentially
Productive Aquifer. Furthermore,the USGS Water Supply Investigation[Identification of Potential
Water-Supply Areas of the Cape Cod Aquifer(GIS 1994)] excludes the area from potential water
' supply development on the premise of salt water intrusion from the abutting Eel River and West Bay
FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/13099-2533
PAGE 3 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' [Refer to Figure 4]. As such, the applicability of the GW-1 criteria relative to potential human
exposures for ingestion can be challenged under the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0935 (5)(b) and(d).
' Based upon frequency and intensity of use for soils below Tin an unpaved area,the S-2,Method 1 -
Risk Characterization soil categories are applicable to current site specific conditions and the most
restrictive S-1 soil categories are reviewed for all foreseeable future exposure risks.
Because of the persistence of residual groundwater impact in a finite area marginally
P g P �
exceeding the GW-1, Method 1 -Risk Characterization standards for potential ingestion exposures
' within an area serviced by municipal water supply, within the prescribed setback for the separation
between septic systems and private wells in an area documented as subject to saltwater intrusion, a
Method 3 Risk Characterization was conducted by Risk Management Inc. (Peter Woodman) in the
' review of a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome as could be supported under the provisions of 310
CMR 40.0935 (5).
Hydrog eologic Conditions
The subject property and surrounding areas are mapped as being within the Mashpee Pitted
Plain glacial deposits(Oldale, 1986). Soils in this area consist primarily of unconsolidated stratified
sands and gravel associated with glacial outwash. These sands and gravels were deposited by
' meltwater in front(south)of the Buzzards Bay and Sandwich moraines during the Pliestocene period
some 15,000 years ago.
A series of eight hand borings, and five deep test borings to groundwater, have been
conducted at the site. Borings show that stratified glacial sands are predominant in the area with no
silt and clay strata encountered[ Refer to Borehole Logs - Appendix B]. The stratified sands and
' gravel displayed high permeability and groundwater in the shallow aquifer was noted as unconfined.
Groundwater in the area of release is located some 15' (EL 2 +/-) below the existing grade.
As part of our investigation, a series of slug tests was conducted to measure site specific
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. The AQTESOLV software developed by Geraghty&Miller
was used to enter field measurements of rising head to compute an average hydraulic conductivity
' of 215 ft/day. With an averaged hydraulic gradient of 0.0029ft/ft and an assumed porosity of 25%,
a groundwater flow velocity of2.49ft/day was established. Based on a 20%retardation factor,"Time
of Travel'from the area of release to the down gradient monitor wells MW-4 and MW-5 is estimated
' at 40 days and 42 days, respectively.
Static water level measurements of monitoring wells MW-1 through MW-5 has shown
' significant tidal influence and moderate seasonal influence in generally a westerly groundwater flow
direction,as consistent with regional groundwater contours,generally varying fromN49°W to S 15°W
' [Figure 3].
' FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRNIINGHAM RESIDENCE/BO99-2533
PAGE 4 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
Sensitive Receptors/Exposure Routes
' Based upon the residential use of the property with unrestricted access, the occupants and
visitors to the site have been identified as the primary human receptors for any potential contaminant
exposures. Given the coastal location of the developed property and groundwater flow direction,the
Eel River has been identified as the primary environmental receptor to any potential contaminant
exposures.
' Laboratory analyses of sidewall and bottom of hole soil samples collected at the extent of
excavation reported an exposure point concentration of EPH fractional compounds and target PAH
analytes as significantly below the appropriate S-2/GW-1, and most restrictive S-1/GW-1, Method
1 -Risk Characterization standards. As such,excavation of petroleum impacted soils had successfully
mitigated ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact exposure hazards to all human and environmental
receptors and has effectively eliminated the contaminant source for further leaching to groundwateras
' represented in Table 1.
' TABLE i
SUMMARY OF EPH ANALYSIS FOR
METHOD 1-RISK CHARACTERIZATION: SOIL
' SAMPLE EPH'w/target S-1 Soil Standard S-2 Soil Standard S-3 Soil Standard
LOCATION PAHs (PP-) (pp-) (pp-)
(mg/kg-pp-) 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(a) 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(b) 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(c)
MADEPMethod GW-I/GW-2/GW-3 GW-1/GW-2/GW-3 GW-1/GW-2/GW-3
SW-N:6-15' C9 to Cis 110 1,000/1,000/1,000 2,50012,500/2,500 5,00015,00015,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<30) 2,500/2,500/2,500 5,000/5,000/5,000 5.000/5,000/5,000
' C11 to C22 39 200/800/800 200/2,000/2,000 200/5,000/5,000
All target PAHs<0.56 >4/>1001>100 >4/1,000/1,000 >4/1,000/1,000
SW-E:6-15' C9 to Cl8 41 1,000/1,000/1,000 2,500/2,500/2,500 5,00015,00015,000
C19 to C36 BRL.(<30) 2,500/21500/2,500 5,000/5,000/5,000 5,00015,00015,000
CI to C22 BRL.(<30) 200/800/800 200/2;000/2,000 200/5,000/5,000
All target PAHs<0.50 >4/>I00/>100 >4/1,000/1,000 >4/1,000/1,000
SW-W:6-15' C9 to CIS 480 1,000/1,000/1,000 2,500/2,500/2,500 5,00015,00015,000
C19 to C36 64 2,300/27500/2,500 5,000/5,000/5,000:. 5,000/5,000/5,000
Cl1 to C22 160 200/800/800 200/2,000/2,000 200/5,000/5,000
All target PAM<1.3 >4/>100/>100 >411,000/1,000 >4/1,000/1,000
SW-S:6-15' C9 to C18 42 1,000/1,000/1,000 2,500/2,500/2,500- 5,000/5,000/5,000
Cl9 to C36 BRL 2,500/2,500/2,500 31000/5,00015,000. 5100015,00015,000
1 C I I to C22 BRL 200/800/800 200/2,000/2,000 200/5,000/3,000
All target PAHs<0.56 >4/>100/>I00 >4/1,000/1000 >4/1,000/1,000
BOH:16' C9 to C18 BRL 1,000/1,000/1,000 2,500/2;500/2,500 5,00015,00015,000
C19 to C36 BRL' 2,500/2,500/2,500 5;000/5;000/5 000 5,000/5,000/5,000
Cl I to C22 BRL 200/800/800 200/2;000/2,000 200/5,000/5,000
All targetPAHs<0.56 >4/>100/>100 >4/1,000/1 000 >4/1,000/1,000
EPH'=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
BRL=Below Reporting Limits
Shaded areas represent applicable Method 1-Risk Characterization Standards
1
FEBRUARY 2.2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/13099-2533
PAGE 5 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' Laboratory analyses show that groundwater impact formerly documented at the MW-1 and
MW-2 monitoring well locations was mitigated by the removal of soils and the use of the oxidant,
' Oxygen Release Compound (ORC), to promote bioremediation as part of the Immediate Response
Actions undertaken at the property. Residual low level impact at the MW-3 monitoring well was
identified as isolated to the immediate vicinity of that well with background conditions documented
' at the MW-4 and MW-5 monitoring wells further downgradient. With contaminant concentrations
measured in groundwater at the MW-3 monitoring well as significantly below the GW-2 standards,
no inhalation exposure to occupants and visitors is associated with the potential accumulations of
' organic vapors in the dwelling from impacted groundwater underlying the dwelling. Based upon
contaminant concentrations measured in groundwater at the MW-3 monitoring well as significantly
below the GW-3 standards, and background conditions documented in the MW-4 and MW-5
monitoring wells,through the projected solute transport,as downgradient and intermediate to the Eel
River, no exposure to environmental receptors is associated with the migration of impacted water to
the wetland resource.
All of Cape Cod has been identified as a Sole Source Aquifer. By virtue of this designation
and definitions within the MCP, all areas of Cape Cod are categorized as Potential Drinking Water
Source Areas unless specifically exempt under the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0935 or as presented
as Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Areas (NPDWSA); as represented on the MA DEP GIS
' (BWSC) overlay maps. The subject property and abutting sites are serviced by the Barnstable
municipal water supply. There are no private potable wells located within 500'of the subject site and
the area is not within 1000' of the Zone II Protective Radius for any municipal well. In the absence
' any private potable wells within 500' of the release area, outside the Zone II - Protective Radius of
any public water supply wells,and USGS Investigation excluding the area as a potential area of future
water supply development, there is no practical exposure route for the ingestion of groundwater
specific to the location of the MW-3 monitoring well. In regards to regulatory compliance pursuant
to 310 CMR 40.0924, however, each monitoring well represents a discrete exposure point and the
GW-1 criteria specified for Potential Drinking Water Source Areas within the Sole Source Aquifer
and exclusive of 310 CMR 40.0935 (5) (b) and (d), the well is evaluated for potential human
exposures for ingestion of drinking water under Method 3.
' ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING/PHASE V COMPLETION(Refer to Appendix B&E]
As documented in the Remedial Operation Plan Status Report 2 dated February 28, 2002,
' semi-annual EPH testing of all monitoring wells conducted on January 10, 2002 reported a slight
increase in the fractional EPH aromatic compounds at MW-3 with a concentration of 280mg/Kg,and
' a slight decrease in 2-methylnaphthalene to 27 ug/L. These concentrations continued to marginally
exceed the applicable GW-1 Method 1 -Risk Characterization standards and indicated that although
the chemical oxidant applications conducted in the Fall of 2001 had reduced aromatic concentrations
by approximately 40%, the reaction had ceased. As such, two supplemental hydrogen peroxide
' injections were recommended and conducted as the most effective and efficient course of action to
establish a permanent solution for the filing of a Class A - RAO under Method 1 - Risk
' Characterization.
i
FEBRUARY 2.2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCEB099-2533
PAGE 6 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
The first of two supplemental hydrogen peroxide injections was conducted on April 25,2002
' with 600 gallons injected per event, as specified by Lessard Environmental, Inc., (LEI) for effective
contaminant oxidation. Approximately 2 pounds of catalyst were dissolved in water and distributed
with three-quarters of the solution administered to the SVE port, and the remaining solution split
evenly between monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3. The chemical injection subsequently
commenced with the even distribution of 600-gallons of 35%hydrogen peroxide in each of the four
injection points. Various parameters including temperature and total organic vapor (TOV)
' concentrations were continuously monitored by Lessard personnel to ensure that the chemical
reaction was occurring within an optimal temperature range. The final injection occurred on May 9,
2002 with the catalyst solution added to each of the four points, followed by the application of
' approximately 225-gallons of hydrogen peroxide distributed between MW-1,MW-2 and MW-3 and
some 375-gallons into the SVE port. Again, various parameters were continuously monitored to
ensure that the chemical reaction was occurring within an optimal temperature range.
Monitoring well, MW-3, was sampled for EPH with PAH analysis on May 21, 2002.
' Laboratory analytical received June 5,2002 reported a fractional aromatic concentration of 460ug/L.
All PAHs, however, were reported below the reportable limit (BRL) of the analyses.
BENNETT&O'REILLY,INC.,personnel returned to the subject property on June 1 S,2002
to conduct semi-annual testing of all on-site monitoring wells, as well as groundwater quality
sampling at downgradient monitoring wells MW=3,MW-4 and MW-5,as through the Time of Travel
from the final injection, in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0046. Laboratory analytical received July
3,2002 reported a fractional aromatic concentration of 270ug/L at MW-3,only marginally exceeding
the applicable GW-1 standard. Fractional EPH concentrations at each of the other monitoring wells,
' and all PAHs at all wells were reported as BRL. The analytical data for groundwater analysis
conducted over the past 40 months is summarized on Table 2 with the applicable Method 1 -Risk
Characterization standards for the GW-1,GW-2 and GW-3 categories. This data demonstrates that
' low level reidual grondwater impact is restricted to the MW-3 monitoring well only as within 5' of
the area of soil removal.
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EPH ANALYSIS
METHOD 1-RISK CHARACTERIZATION: GROUNDWATER
' DATE/ GROUNDWATER FRACTIONS 1\4W-1 MW-2 V1W-3 MW-4 MW-5 STANDARDS (ttg/L)
310-CMR 40:0974(2)
-?.
' 0
C9 to to C18 BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) NA NA 4000/1,000/201000
C19 to C36 BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 5,000/NA/20,000.
Cl1 to c22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 370 200%1;000izQ000'
4/6/00
' C9 to CIS BRL(<520) BRL(<540) BRL(<530) NA NA 4400/1 000/20,0W
C19 to C36 BRL(<520) BRL(<540) BRL(<530) 5;000/NAl20,000
Cl 1 to czz BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 610 200/1,000/20,000,
M-Naphthalene
Naphthalene BRL(<5) BRL(<5) 87 M-Naphthalene 10
' Phenanthrene Others BRL( ) (
<10 Others BRL <71) Others BRL(<10) - :All targets>20
Acenaphthene
FEBRUARY 2-2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/13099-2533
PAGE 7 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
1 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EPH ANALYSIS
METHOD 1-RISK CHARACTERIZATION: GROUNDWATER
' 5/30/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<560) BRL(<590) BRI,(<530) BRI,(<530) BRI,(<530) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<560) BRI,(<590) BRL(<530) BRI,(<530) BRI,(<530) 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to e22 BRI,(<200) BRL(<200) 360 BRI,(<200) BRI,(<200) 200/1,000/20,000
7/20/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<500) BRI,(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRI,(<500) BRI,(<530) BRI,(<530) BRL(<500) BRI,(<530) 5,000/NA/20;000-_..
' Cl I to e22 BRI,(<200) BRI,(<200) 390 BRI,(<200) BRI,(<200) 200/1,000/20,000
11/22/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<630) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<560) BRL(<500) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<630) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRI,(<560) BRL(<500) 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to C22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 570 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 200/1,000/20,000
M-Naphthalene BRI,(<6) BRL(<5) 48 BRI,(<6) BRL(<5) M-Naphthalene 10
All Others OthersBRL(<13) Others BRL(<11) Others BRL(<I1) Others BRI,(<11) Others BRL(<10) All targets>20
7/10/01
C9 to C18 'BRL(<530) BRI,(<520) BRL(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) 4.00011,000/20,000
' C19 to C36 BRI,(<530) BRI,(<520) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) 5,000/NA/20,000
CI I to C22 BRI,(<170) BRL(<170) 380 BRL(<160) BRI,(<160) 200/1,000/20,000
10122/OI
' C9 to C18 BRL(<560) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 NT NT BRL(<560) NT NT 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to C22 380 200/1,000/20,000
M-Naphthalene 38 M-Naphthalene 10
All Others Others BRI,(<11) All targets>20
11/13/01
C9 to C18 NT NT BRL(<530) NT NT 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<530) 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl1 to C22 230 200/1,000/20,000
12/17/01
C9 to C18 BRL(<560) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 NT NC BRL(<560) NT NT 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to C22 220 200/1,000/20,000
' M-Naphthalene 34 M-Naphthalene 10
All Others Others BRI,(<l l) All others>20.
1/10/02
C9 to C18 BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<530) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRL(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<530) 5,000/NA/201000
CI I to C22 BRL(<160) BRI,(<160) 280 BRL(<160) BRI,(<I60) 200/1 0o0R000
M-Naphthalene 27 M-Naphthalene 10
Acenaphthene All BRI,(<0.5) All BRI,(<0.5) 1.4 —,-I BRL(<0.5) All BRI,(<0.5) All other PAHs>20
Fluorene 1.6
Phenauthrene All BRI,(<1) All BRL(<1) 0.9
All BTEX All BRI,(<I) All BRI,(<I) AB BRL(<l) All BTEX>5
5/21/02
' C9 to C78 BR1(<560) 4,000/1000f20000
C19 to C36 NT NT BRL(<560) NT NT 5,000/NA/20;000
Cl I to C22 460 200/1,000/20,006
M-Naphthalene BRL(<6) M-Naphthalene 10:-
All other PAM All BRI,(<11) AB'others`>20
' 6/19/02
C9 to C18 BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<530) 4 000/1 000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<500) BRI,(<530) 3,000/NA/20,900
C11 to C22 BRI,(<160) BRI,(<160) 270 BRI,(<160) BRI.(<160) 200n;000/20,000
' M-Naphthalene BRI,(<5) BRL(<5) BRL(<5) BRL(<5) BRL(<5) M-Naphthalene 10
All other PAHs All BRL(<10) All BRL(<10) All BRL(<10) All BRL(<10) All BRL(<10) All other PA)Is>zo
F,PH'=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
BRL=Below Reporting Limits/NT=Not Tested/NA=Not Available
Shaded area'represents applicable Method 1-Risk Characterization Standards
BOLD text indicates concentrations exceeding applicable standards
' MBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/BO99-2533
PAGE 8 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
In accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0040 wherein remedial additives are
introduced,groundwater quality was measured. Groundwater quality analysis received July 1,2002
indicated groundwater quality relatively consistent with baseline conditions with marginal increases
' at MW-3 in dissolved oxygen, total organic carbon(TOC) and hydrogen peroxide concentrations
over sampling conducted in January 2002. A slight decrease in chloride and sulfate was also noted.
' All other parameters remained consistent with background concentrations. A significant decrease in
chloride relative to baseline conditions at MW-4 was reported. This discrepancy is likely associated
with salt water intrusion from Eel River at the time of the original baseline sampling and does not
represent an actual change in
Groundwater Quality Parameters at MW-3 groundwater quality relative to
Remedial Additive Assessment the chemical oxidant used. An
50 _0 increase in the sulfate
s:, pH concentration reported at MW-4
a0 in January 2002, noted in the
' u in
ROP Status Report 2 [2/28/02]
{� lo
30 Chloride as likely associated with the
m catalyst application, appears to
E -- Sulfate have moderated as approaching
20- baseline conditions. All other
`.
�\ Do parameters at MW-4, as well as
10 ' _ r _.._ all parameters at MW-5 were
' Pemade
reported as consistent with
0 roc baseline conditions. As such,this
' 02-60-01 22-Oc1-01 13-Nov-01 10-Jan-02 18-Jun-02
Date most recent sampling
substantiated no significant
' GRAPH 3:A review of the most recent groundwater quality analysis at Mw- degradation of groundwater
3 indicates all reported parameters are relatively consistent with baseline associated with the use of the
data, substantiating no significant degradation of groundwater associated chemical oxidant as represented
with the use of the chemical oxidant.
on Graph 3.
In review of technical feasibility to meet a Class A,Response Action outcome,the numerous
remedial strategies implemented at the subject site including soil removal,bioremedial additives, air
sparging,and chemical oxidation,were evaluated in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0860. While each
of these technologies have been proven effective at other disposal sites, none has reduced the
' persistent aromatic concentrations at MW-3 to meet the applicable GW-1 Method 1 - Risk
Characterization standards for"No Significant Risk". As such, site specific risk under a Method 3 -
Risk Characterization application is reviewed below as presented by Risk Management Inc. (Peter
Woodman), Acton, MA as represented in the report entitled "MCP METHO 3 RISK
CHARACTERIZATION Birmingham Residence..."dated December 2002 as included in its entirety
in Appendix D and as summarized in the following section of this report.
' FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCEIB099-2533
PAGE 9 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' RISK CHARACTERIZATION [Refer to Appendix D and E]
' Method 1 - Risk Characterization
Soil
On February 10, 2000, BENNETT & O'RE]LLY, INC., supervised and inspected the
removal of some 124 yards of contaminated soil from a 20' x 15' x 9' [6-15' bgs] (D) area.
Confirmatory soil samples were subsequently collected from each sidewall, as representing the
discrete 6-15'interval, and at the bottom of hole(BOH)at 16'bgs for quantitative laboratory analysis
of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons(EPH)and target polynucleur aromatic hydrocarbon(PAH)
analytes, in accordance with the provision of the"MA DEP VPH/EPH Implementation Approach"
guidance policies in effect at the time.
' As previously represented, the S'-2/GW-1 soil category is applicable based upon frequency
and intensity of use for soils below T in an unpaved area. Laboratory analytical results received
February 15, 2000 reported low level residual contamination in each of the four sidewalls as well
' below the S-2/GW-1 Method.I - Risk Characterization standards, as well as the most stringent S-
1/GW-1 category considered applicable for all foreseeable uses. The BOH sample was reported as
Below Reportable Limits (BRL<33mg/Kg), again well below the S-2/GW-1 and S-1/GW-1
standards. These analyses substantiate that the contaminant source was eliminated and that a
condition of"No Significant Risk" under Method 1 - Risk Characterization is associated with soil
conditions at the site as summarized in Table 1.
Groundwater
' In review of Method 1 - Risk Characterization, the most restrictive GW-1 standards are
considered applicable as the Site is located within the designated Sole Source Aquifer of Cape Cod.
The Site, however, is not necessarily located within a Potentially Productive Aquifer, and in fact, as
subject to saltwater intrusion as represented in the USGS"Water-Resources Investigation Report 94-
4156" (Harris/Steeves 1994) presented as Figure 4, in Appendix A of this report. This issue,
' combined with non-zoning controls for private well setbacks to septic systems excludes the on-site
development of a private potable water within the finite area of residual groundwater impact. As
such,the applicability of GW-1 standards could be challenged,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0932(5)(b),
' so that only GW-2 and GW-3 standards would apply.
The most recent groundwater testing conducted June 18,2002 reported fractional aromatic
concentrations marginally exceeding the potentially applicable GW-1 standards at the discrete MW-3
location. Background conditions have been established in all remaining monitoring wells with no
impact reported following contaminated soil removal for source ellimination in February 2000. It
should be noted that at no time have contaminant concentrations in groundwater exceeded the GW-2
or GW-3 standards in any location as representing any exposure threat of inhalation, dermal contact
or significant environmental impact.
' FEBRUARY 2.2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/13099-2533
PAGE 10 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
Method 3 -Risk Characterization [Refer to Appendix D]
The services of Mr. Peter W. Woodman, PhD from Risk Management Incorporated (RMI)
were retained for Method 3 -Risk Characterization. This review was conducted as a conservative
measure to qualify the practical risk associated with residual groundwater impact at MW-3 for all
' foreseeable activities and use of the property in the unlikely event the Site be developed as source of
drinking water (GW-1). Through this application, a Conceptual Site Model was developed for the
identification ofhuman and environmental receptors and to identify potential exposure routes relative
i to ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact, independent, yet consistent with the findings of
BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC..
The site was characterized by RMI as a residential dwelling with children present. The limited
area of groundwater impact was accurately represented with the depth to groundwater noted at 15'
below grade surface (bgs). The Site and surrounding area are serviced by municipal water with no
known private potable drinking water wells within 500'. Based upon these site features, soil and
groundwater categories were established as consistent with those represented under Method 1 with
the GW-1, GW-2 and GW-3 groundwater standards noted as applicable, and the S-1/GW-1 soil
' standards as the most conservative and to assess the need for an Activities and Use Limitation(AUL).
It was represented in the Method 3 application that under current conditions, the pathways
for either direct or indirect exposure to any residual OHM impact in subsurface soils at the Site are
incomplete. Furthermore, with the use of municipal water and the absence of any private potable
' wells within 500'of the Site, direct exposure to groundwater impact are also considered incomplete.
In addition, while depth to groundwater across the Site is approximately 15' bgs, residual
groundwater concentrations of fractional aromatic compounds detected in MW-3 have never
exceeded GW-2 standards. Therefore, indirect exposure to organic vapors associated with
groundwater impact is considered incomplete. Finally,the potential for direct off-property exposures
of human and environmental receptors to OHM is negligible based on a preponderance of evidence
which substantiates that the down gradient monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5 have never been
impacted.
Foreseeable future activities and uses were also considered. Such foreseeable uses specifically
included re-development of the Site exposing subsurface residual contaminants currently in the 6-15'
bgs exposure stratum,installation of a private potable well on the subject or abutting property,and/or
construction or utility work involving the trenching or excavation of subsurface soils down to the
groundwater table. These exposure pathways are considered potentially complete and as such, pose
the greatest risk to human and environmental receptors. In order to assess this risk,the MA DEP#2
Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform for Residential Exposures and the most recent toxicity values for
the VPH/EPH fractions were utilized.
' The Hazard Identification defined the nature and extent of contamination in soils as
corresponding to the four composite soil samples[SW-N, SW-E, SW-W, SW-S]and bottom of hole
samples collected February 2000 following the removal of grossly impacted soils. Similarly,
' FEBRUARY 2.2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/BO99-2533
PAGE 11 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
groundwater data for EPH, target PAHs, and VOCs analyses collected at monitoring wells MW-1
through MW-5 from October 1999 through June 2002 were averaged,as representing exposure point
concentration(EPCs). In such consideration,the subchronic EPC was based on the last two months
of groundwater monitoring, while chronic and lifetime EPCs were based on the past twelve months
of monitoring. Based on the low detection limits for acenaphthalene and flourene noted in the latest
' round of groundwater monitoring data, and the report of 2-methylnaphthalene as non-detect in the
last two rounds of monitoring, no EPCs were developed for these contaminants.
i In review of indoor air quality, depth to groundwater averages 15'bgs across the Site and no
contaminant concentrations have exceeded the GW-2 Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards
at the upgradient MW-3. As such, the exposure pathway for potential outdoor air inhalation
' exposures is negligible. Likewise, potential impact to surface water and sediments at Eel River, in
consideration of non-detect contaminant concentrations in the down gradient, intermediate
monitoring well;MW-4 and MW-5,is considered unlikely. A potential down gradient surface water
EPC for the Method 3 - Risk Characterization for the Environment was derived, however, in
accordance with 310 CMR 40.0932(2), which deemed the associated risk to be negligible.
Dose Response Assessment considered non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects as
Reference Doses (RfDs) for oral and dermal exposures and Reference Concentrations (RfEs) for
inhalation exposures. These values provide an estimate of the daily dose of a contaminant to which
an individual may be exposed without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects. Relative
Absorption Factors (RAF) were applied to account for differences in RfD and ROC values as
established by site-specific routes of exposure. This Hazard Assessment found that none of the
contaminants associated with the Site and its release are identified as carcinogenic, and as such, do
not require evaluation under Method 3-Risk Characterization.
To characterize the risk of harm to human health from potential exposures to the residual
contaminants identified at the Site, non-carcinogenic risks were characterized for each contaminant
at each exposure point for each receptor, and the cumulative receptor risk values compared to the
MA DEP Risk Limit to assess the condition of"No Significant Risk". In addition,the condition of
"No Significant Risk" was evaluated through comparison of the calculated EPCs to Applicable or
Suitably Analogous Health Standards. The Total Site Hazard Indices (His) calculated for potential
exposures to fractional aromatic compounds in potentially accessible soils and groundwater used as
a continuous source of potable water are 0.3 for subchronic effects and 1.0 for chronic effects.
Neither HI value exceeds the MA DEP Cumulative Non-Cancer Risk Limit of 1.0. Specific risk
characterization considerations were further applied to Public Welfare, Public Safety and the
Environment. In each case, the findings of such consideration was a condition of"No Significant
Risk".
As such, based on the utilization of the MA DEP Residential Short Form (Version 2.1,
' 2002h), a Method 3 - Risk Characterization was conducted and completed in compliance with the
provisions of 310 CMR 40.0990. This Method 3 Risk Assessment was conducted by a qualified
professional as established by education,training and experience. The result of this assessment was
' FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGFIAM RESIDENCEBO99-2533
PAGE 12 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' the determination of"No Significant Risk" to identified human and environmental receptors for all
ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact exposures to soil, groundwater and air. In such findings,
public health, safety, and the environmental were considered for current and foreseeable future
' activities and uses. These findings are not qualified by any such restrictions as representing a
permanent solution supporting a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome. In accordance with the
' provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2)and 3309 CMR 4.03(2),these findings have been relied upon and are
the basis of the opinions offered herein.
FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION
A review of cost and feasibility to meet background conditions in soil and groundwater has
' been considered in accordance with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0860. Laboratory analytical
reported residual impact identified at the extent of excavation below the most stringent S-1/GW-1
category considered applicable for all foreseeable uses,as representing a condition of"No Significant
Risk". As such, time and expense to meet background conditions in all areas was considered
excessive based on calculated risk for even the most restrictive soil category used in the Method 1 -
Risk Characterization. M
Numerous remedial strategies have been implemented at the subject property in an effort to
reduce groundwater impact. These measures,which have included air sparging,bioremediation and
' chemical oxidation, total approximately $100,000.00 to date and have failed to eliminate fractional
aromatic impact at MW-3. Through a combination of Method 1 and Method 3 - Risk
' Characterization, however, it has been determined that a condition of"No Significant Risk" exists
for on-site groundwater in the absence of additional remedial action. Therefore, further remedial
response actions associated with additional groundwater treatment were deemed excessive based on
' calculated risk for even the most restrictive groundwater category used in the Method 3 Risk
Characterization.
Finally, in consideration of the Method 3 application, John and Karen Birmingham were
consulted and presented with the preliminary feasibility investigation prepared by Risk Management,
Inc. Based on the Birmingham's review of the technical data and personal considerations,RMI was
authorized to proceed with the knowledge that residual contaminant impact would remain as above
background conditions following site closure. Based on such technical feasibility, cost to benefit
analysis, and the property owner's interest, the Class A-2, Response Action Outcome is presented
' with the Phase V Completion Statement.
CONCLUSIONS
Remedial response actions completed at the Birmingham Residence are represented by the
excavation of 123 cubic yards of contaminated soils. Soil analysis of sidewall and bottom of hole
' samples at the extent of excavation reported petroleum concentrations as below the S-1/GW-1
Method 1 - Risk Characterization standards for each discrete exposure point, as representing a
' condition of"No Significant Risk". Furthermore, Method 1 and Method 3 -Risk Characterization
FEBRUARY 2,2003 BIRMINGHAM RESIDENCE/E099-2533
PAGE 13 OF 13 CLASS A RAO-RTN 4-15283
' applications have now been used to establish a condition of"No Significant Risk"for groundwater,
achieving closure objectives for a Class A-2 Response, Action Outcome. As such, a permanent
solution has been achieved and a Class A-2 RAO is applicable for the former area of the abandoned
UST, as noted on the Site Plan RAO-3, with no restriction of activity or use of the site.
' The findings of this investigation, as represented herein, set forth the rationale and technical
justifications for the determination of"No Significant Risk"for the concurrent filing of the Class A-2
Response Action Outcome with the Phase V Completion Statement as consistent with the provisions
of 310 CMR 40.0894, as a permanent solution. The LSP Opinions offered herein,are established by
the certifications made on the attached BWSC-104 and BWSC-108 Transmittal Forms. The LSP
Opinions rendered rely upon the available data obtained by competent professionals under my
' direction and the regulations in effect at the time of this reporting.
This report has been copied to the individuals as noted below to satisfy the Public Involvement
irequirements of 310 CMR 40.0428(1). If you have any questions regarding the project or need
additional information, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
TT 'REILLY, INC.
l/LP
W. ettP Kara Risk, ES H
Director of Environmental Services Project Manager
encl: -CLASS A-2 RAO Prepared b BENNETT& O'REIL,LY,INC.,Dated February 2, 2003
p y I
-Transmittal Forms, BWSC-104, BWSC-108
cc: Jack and Karen Birmingham, Homeowners
Barnstable (COMM)Fire Department
' Barnstable Health Department
Barnstable Chief Municipal Officer
Patricia Bligh - CHUBB Insurance
CLASS A RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME
PHASE V COMPLETION STATEMENT
' SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
MA DEP # 4-15283
' Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road - Osterville, MA 02537
' Project#B099-2533
FEBRUARY 2,2003
' Prepared B3L.
BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC.
1573 Main Street- P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
David C. Bennett, LSP.
Prepared For:
MA. Department of Environmental Protection
Southeast Regional Offices, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup/Emergency Response Section
20 Riverside Drive - Lakeville, MA. 02347
On Behalf Of:
John& Karen Birmingham
333 Eel River Road - Osterville, MA 02655
APPENDIX A: Reference Plans
Figure 1: Site Locus Plan(USGS Topographic Quad.,Osterville, MA).
- Figure 2: Hydrologic Map (CCPEDC, 1993)
- Figure 3: MA DEP BWSC GIS Map(1997)
' - Figure 4: Identification of Potential Public Water-Supply Areas GIS Map
- Site Plan , "Class A - Response Action Outcome/Phase V Completion Statement",
Prepared by BENNETT & O'REILLY, INC., Dated 1/3/02 (Last Rev. 1/30/03)
' APPENDIX B: Field Reports
- Field Inspection Reports [#31 through#33 (5/9/02 through 6/18/02)]
- Monitor Well Sampling Logs [6/18/02]
' APPENDIX C:Environmental Records/Permits
- Chemical Oxidation Application Summary- Lessard Environmental
- Response Action Outcome Statement Transmittal Form, BWSC-104
- Comprehensive Response Action Transmittal Form, BWSC-108
' APPENDIX D: Method 3 Risk Characterization
APPENDIX E: Laboratory Analysis
-Fractional Aromatic Tracking Chart- Groundwater Analysis (10/99 - 6/02)
' - Laboratory Analysis (6/5/02, 7/3/02 GWA, 7/1/02 ETL)
APPENDIX F: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan
i
i
i
� APPENDIX A
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
� P
S�
"fi t } hAC��: P 'k�:' 2' k f• _r I • ► .fir; � Ri i�
•� �,r�y tax 4� ,, rR .� se. k • - i ,?. �r 4 a�. 1
i y �'� t�• �+s..i5 .,,, uti f R ✓7r ,�'{'._ � w ,• � r�r,• kpp �� g
V00. r •�h4 '�," i.� - i •c , J i
• � f ti , a • + 4 r, �z;•
t i ♦'�i r.. •r r.� i'R � c t
I � � �. . r ±'�t�v v'�S'- d 'Y r y ���i'` • +i. 'e�e,(��ta-�,•y, � �� P �+�,, v„
T �♦ .. r,rT lr,� ♦ } r }. .`x�. ,v - ryi 3 .r f� .,'� F
a4� • ,y �}.�,f .4 _ � • rtrt�i/ s. 4*1 �IIy�;:��1',�'�`� .�#�'C+i( ���i i�{a,l'f'��'., id
4f�d^' .�� �'�:;}:� a }•.` J, 5 .�'� V� °R• 0� �`�• i4'S'i i�;�°� +}q� F,s�'
fd� "A G•f Q
�f.. L A•V � � I� M {' y�.s,P�, fir,R+.:ri.,'* r.,3. #a* ��ti
v�ti` ••� �. �9%� �5 f ai.f ` v.�
�;;'�r_iLL'�'' f �� t TT 1/YT}Is � �•Yd`. 470'•f �0 ��4I�� � �Ct�:�46
kli�it V�M1 ��.f �!O V V� qk P .1,>>:r� { ti .j' j-�i,•
4
f'•.e •.r
ti }
1 � � `j f� � f•Y�
lYY J t� ! !�* •i � -Ik -�r5i
r f f , r Siti'�i k l�i,S'r,. �Ff R�{ti�y��t•-��;� ���''`� i�. ,�,t /� .'
'a,� 1. '•. s vrr x,� �a tat � d �,�s �+„' �,��• � .
,c '� - �._ fi4'+^��Myy d y i'V* � P'�+yy yam•` n � (��ti.• y{j•'�� �4
IJ4.1t4. 4XV,
, i 1
70
rr: fj r t rs� r,( a-�� .�y'eCl 4'.11'��' �•0� � .+ n
/�f nn4•r �1ffr� 14'' � 1F•{�'},M1 d l� S 'S�JJ 0
i ! � •�o T<G74r� i '. c� `' r •s�,'tVr1 ^� � r*� � r�`s� a` I
Printed from TOPO! @ 1998 Wildflower Productions(www.ta o.com)
' FIGURE 1: The subject site, located at 333 Eel River Road, contains a single family residential dwelling,a
detached garage,and a shed on some 2.01 acres of land. The site is directly adjacent to Eel River and
West Bay, which abut the property to the west. The surrounding neighborhood is moderately
developed with similar residential dwellings.
t
1 a i i
' �., o�4 17`""3' :M. `'� 7�T� �h -'•�5.4'tl. -�Ce �`e��wa.:_..`'�\ "e'
� � v „+° .�• ,# fib
-6 c �!)( Micah i'�•
Jr
f�/o• " " r $ �� , .. •1.• J
on� � 4Sy • ��. H fl `..
• � a • � 's � •�� l 8 o a'r, •p � 1
ap �8 s U"11 • A-
T,6P• � �"rl�;,�' s..,y g6',�Y e< q�� 111�Ve
�A � �h � a `•• p II
• o �' �;5 I'bwd
- LOCUS o = o o
�L.�' \�\ � 1. �nv1.�Ps •� / /
FIGURE 2: Groundwater was discovered at 15' below grade at the point of release. Regional groundwater
contours indicate a southerly groundwater flow direction toward Nantucket Sound,with strong tidal
influence stemming from West Bay. West Bay,located adjacent to the property,approximately 160'
west of the area of release,is also considered the closest wetland.
MA DEP - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' SITE NAME: Site Scoring Map: 500 feet &0.5 Mile Radii
Birmingham R d6nC6
333 Eel River Roil 6 ft Io nm ana•eroh at 1m n dm a•
TC �
BARNSTABLF,MA 02655 .r van.o.Pu•••e.erer n rM l►7
013654n7023298W Sitilocadon mi,.oveaee•eivw.oaoei,mem. •rdrre.ar.asblr.+.r�,/:.-m
�.�
i
�'�� :�. it �X l ,� ��`� � i, �!� ,� �) � � �"�•
i•
n i ii ff
9 r 15
TA 7L+��+ N I ` l
p 4Q YYGw71 '•"' � � I I I� (�� I
B ..� I � ( �I
•��;1 I. i � !!!��I f '
i ( @
n I ,.:AJ
(11I1I1 f.I �d..Ps #i t .q... ..�..
: 1�
: � 11
t ft. , •1, ' 4 •f• l 1�. � I �Ii�.�.I.I 1.�f.f•p.' -
1,1, 11 1,}.
Rods:Lh*W Access,DWdd.Meer Pod,Cornoto6&rest,Track,Id EPA Sole Source Aquifer,PEMA WO-year fleodpldn
Public Wear Supplies:Groud.StrfacoMon Cmmunhy
Ibudrles:Ibm'Coady,DEP Region;gain:fb•wlrn;Plpo6r;Aqueduct Apprmd Zon2;IW1Yt;Surface Wota S4PIy Zen A ®®
&sins.Main hub;Snare ilmmid,htamittem.Men Mds Shore.Demo Hyrography:Water Fsaure°'Rublio Surface Wafer Stpi* ...(�_ W 8
r _ _ VAtla dr Fnah,Selt,N1E6P YtWards Halite .......=(��
ibternlaty ProdstlM Aquifers:McBarrtHlgh Ylekf ..........O( protected Open Space:ACEC ............................
tbnd ''Water Bow Auer.M@ckmHlO Yak Q®DEPFwmr Bold WWoohaides;CvOed 11rnd Pooh .,-. 8
SCALE 1:15000 00 o e: Y'amNFrFmt �I Septemb®r 13,2002
i
' FIGURE 3: MA DEP BWSC maps indicate the site is not located within the Zone II - Protective
Radius of any public water supply wells or within 200' of any surface water reservoir. The nearest public
water supply well field is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north.
S� f
4,a
'•<� VRISWYAPIW WNw1B. AL
wwx wAre�swwv �� / ✓ Y �w. �d'r�f�f r J
ARMS wfI111lgnATIMS . '� !' _ ✓x 7 ti-"
ax nre wrvvriu.wx r r ♦ ../.� r ,r �! Y'� J..ru � ,�r
., worx wAYcaswn.v �y/' r. r /
r r' 7_..
Afi.� J ✓
,t'•i Al t1Q6 / Pon
X r
1.''4
Sruxn.Wky lmdme.ue •-#" d �+ � r r, f' A
amo.a.m.•.n.m�.�. r, `(gip JI 1/
Mvnw,emmimlwFm m. r .r ✓ 54�' � �. ,
� ✓ / r, HJ+;f, ft
/ �f
✓ .�y
r i J � r ✓
I • � r /
1 1( I
r �
r
Y
rc f
y Mo
LOCUS
Box
46
(Yx m.: .,•„"" _. .^'�e�' d .. ..'y' �a � �' _. .�"v a �Yeld._ �' �° a .+�'`Y'�l�'M�':. � �wSr.y1l�N
i
FIGURE 4: According to the Identification ofPotential Water-Supply Areas ofthe Cape Cod Aquifer(GIS-1994),
the subject property at 333 Eel River Road,is located well within a potential salt water intrusion zone.
As such, the area is noted as having the greatest degree of limitation associated with its potential
development as a public water supply.
r.
Fi
}it
row F.I ju
.aROUNDWATE-k WELL +'i I peL. �v
kATY/Weu T L, PPW VV4 rM F`
4,1-c WN-
"q AA E rz_
lox "-)ALL'510k)
16 ,Z 7
14-0 14,25
A ,
0-44
14 ILEA 4F l, PX-And?l VA OsTmVILLf M4
.
1 It.73 #5 A wA OF IcA r-m-I CA L
i 4,44 Ut 0 (it re ki
r;A1lJT A L I 4A
N
-4
+
W
ar 15A
M 1
40 1 i�'
mw- it/a o
3 1 to S,
mw.4
I LT T I
4.41 r-
-4 Waft.* VE11M 404ALf 1" 5 'AEi.L
G 4 PA F-
14,48 2, t)
MVY 7 wV
I to,4 1 14AS
AX
MWA F—
,i*-S A I I
-IN
'4
V / 1 /1 V
V)
I Z/m A
1z 1 4111 A
Ci
Tr rV M�N �L
(fut,�, FAI-EWHP-)
Zd(L);IC I
N Nil
FAv,iv�-- -:,vE- j�yc-,rr-m
oApAnop,) Ti�E-ATME--)JT,
V.
T13 1:0/ -.5
bqq
T E: - VI
6MOVOIDWA-T
MARY ZICALE . I
Z;60 (;A G PROJECT
to
f
r' LOW
pip-e c-rov M11r;1WILAE M4.
TV VMVq TITLE -LAst A e)UT-eeVE P71,11*44roJ8,�,
400 4�AL'$ 7
(oS 44C-5 PC--,e GNAW
"A
BENNETT O'REILLY, Inc.
Engineering & Envirotimctital Services L;
(o,Do 6iA L,
mw 15";.MamStr"t - Route 6A
P.O Box 1667
508-896-6630 Office Brewster, MA 0261! i08-896-4687 Fax
it 711111
6;A t-e
DATE. SCALE: By CHECK
JOB
NUMBER:
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX B
I
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
BENNETT & O'REILLY Inc. REPORT NUMBER: 31
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
' INSPECTORS DAILY RECORD OF WORK PROGRESS
Job Number: B099-2533 Date: 5/9/02
' Job Name: Birmingham
Feature: Remedy Operation Plan
' Contractor: Lessard Environmental,BENNETT&O'REILLY,Fleet Environmental
Type of Work: Insitu Chemical Oxidant Treatment
Weather Conditions: Sunny,mild Temperature: 60'
' Contractor's Work Force (Indicate classification, including Subcontractor personnel)
BENNETT&O'REILLY: Kara Risk-Environmental Scientist II/Project Manager; Lessard Environmental: 1 Project Manager, 1
Technician; FLEET ENVIRONMENTAL: 1 Laborer
' Equipment in use or idled (identify which)
Plastic tubing,garden hose, pump, venting hose, monitoring equipment(Lessard)
' Materials or equipment delivered, quantity or pay items placed
12 - 55 gal. drums H2O2 (600 gal.)
tNon-conforming materials or work, field problems, inspections of previously reported deficiencies
None
t
Summary of construction activities
' 11:00 am BENNETT&O'REILLY personnel arrive on site for inspection of injection activities being conducted by Lessard. Met by Lessard
Project Manager to discuss progress of work to date. Note 180 gal. divided between MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 and the SVE port with 10-15
gal. added to each well and 50 gal.to SVE in rounds. A total of 600 gal. to be added overall. Lessard Project Manager indicated 2 gal.of
' catalyst added prior to injections today.
Speak to homeowner regarding activities today and prospective sampling date. Indicates SVE vent an issue of aesthetics. Will review with
' LSP. _
11:20 am Leave site.
BENNETT & O'REILLY Inc. REPORT NUMBER: 32
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
' INSPECTORS DAILY RECORD OF WORK PROGRESS
Job Number: B099-2588 Date: 5/21/02
' Job Name: Birmingham
Feature: Remedy Operation Plan
Contractor: BENNETT&O'REILLY,INC.
' Type of Work: _ Assessment
Weather Conditions: Mild,clear Temperature: 600
Contractor's Work Force (Indicate classification, including Subcontractor personnel)
Genghis Burdulis-Environmental Technician
' Equipment in use or idled (identify which)
None
' Materials or equipment delivered, quantity or pay items placed
1 EPH with PAR
' Non-conforming materials or work, field problems, inspections of previously reported deficiencies
None
Summary of construction activities
' BENNETT&O'REILLY personnel arrive on site. Purge and sample MW-3 for EPH analysis
Leave site.
1
BENNETT & UREILLY Inc. I REPORT NUMBER: 33
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
' INSPECTORS DAILY RECORD OF WORK PROGRESS
Job Number: B099-2533 Date: 6/18/02
' Job Name: Birmingham
Feature: Remedy Operation Plan
' Contractor: BENNETT&, O'REILLY,INC.
Type of Work: Assessment
Weather Conditions: Sunny,mild Temperature: 70'
Contractor's Work Force (Indicate classification, including Subcontractor personnel)
BENNETT&O'REILLY: David Bennett-LSP,Kara Risk-ES II,Todd Everson-ET
' Equipment in use or idled (identify which)
HNU PI-101,water level meter, dissolved-oxygen meter,pH meter,conductivity/temp meter
' Materials or equipment delivered, quantity or pay items placed
5 EPH with PAH,3 groundwater quality samples(wet chem.)
Non-conforming materials or work, field problems, inspections of previously reported deficiencies
None
i
Summary of construction activities
9:00 am BENNETT&O'REILLY personnel arrive on site to collect final round of groundwater samples. Gauge screen and sample all
monitoring wells. Remove venting line and turbine from SVE. Cap at grade. Remove road boxes at MW-1,-2,-4 and-5. Cut wells below
grade and cap. Backfill. (See attached monitor well sampling log)
' 1:00 pm Leave site.
BENNETT & OREILLY, Inc. MONITOR WELL SAMPLING LOG 1573 Main Street, P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
Engineering and Environmental Services
g g (508)896-6-6630
FAX(508)896-4687
CLIENT Birmingham DATE(S) 6/18/02 TIME: 9:30 am TIDE:Ebb, Low
LOCATION 333 Eel River Rd., Osterville JOB NUMBER B098-2533
SAMPLER Kara Risk-ES II, Todd Everson-ES, David Bennett-LSP MEASURING POINT GROUND SURFACE OR T.O.C: T.O.C.
Elev. of Total Depth to Static Standing Water Volume HNU Dissolved
Well reference Depth Water Table Conductivity Temperature
Water Volume Purged PI-101 pH Oxygen Comments:
Number point of Well (feet) Height Elevation (gallons) (gallons) (ppi10 (mg/L) (F)
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
MW-1 .16.58 20 14.48 5.52 2.10 0.88 3 BDL 5.2 10.7 254/234 59.8 Trace petroleum odor, no sheen
MW-2 16.27 20 14.21 5.79 2.06 0.92 3 3.8 5.4 1.9 170/155 58.9 Trace petroleum odor, no sheen
MW-3 16.49 20 14.45 5.55 2.04 0.88 3 0.4 5.8 5.8 327/327 60 Trace petroleum odor, no sheen
MW-4 15.39 20 13.42 6.58 1.97 1.05 3 BDL 5.4 0.7 105/97 58 No odor, no sheen
MW-5 16.37 20 14.38 5.62 1.99 0.89 3 BDL 5.2 0.6 161/158 57 No odor, no sheen
NOTES:
Gauge, screen and sample all monitoring wells.
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L
1
1
Lessard E vironma Eta'! Inca www.tassard-Pnvironment l.cor"
BRANCH OR9GE Ta. 401 53.7066
' 1920 Mineral Springs Ave,SultO 5V10 FAX 401-353-7667
IV. PmWdOnca,Rhode Island 029U4
t
FAX
t
Date August 21,.2002
' Numher of pages including cover sheet 9
To- Kara Risk From: C. Glod
Company Benmekt and O'Reilly _-
J
RE: Qsteryille,MA
' i�hnne,
FaN Rhone 50"96-4687 Phone 401.-353-7%6
Fax Phone 40I-353-7067
t
Kara,
Here is the 05tervilte report. Please contact me with any questions. Thanks.
('hri4
3
I
1
LessardEnvironmental, Inc. Ww o,-t 5 ard-f t I;WOf I(71r.!,Q DrT'
' ;'r;:q RJrn,.rj;Snrrr1e;S Averwe.SUIle 9!10
Pmvfe,?t?.-. Rhod'Island 02904
Au", st 20, 2002
NAr. David N-mriett
Bennett&CYReffly, Inc.
157,, Main Street
PC), &)x 1667
Brewstcr,MA 02361
Via First Class Mail and Facsimile-. 5OM96-W7
Subject. -Chemical Oxidation Application Summary
Birmingham Estate
333 Eel River Road, Osterville, MA
RTN 4-15283
I' '
Dear Mr- Bennett:
Lessard Environmental, Inc- (LEI) s i s
� pleased to present the following'summaTy
of the chemical. oxidation.applications performed at the Birmingham Estate
kxated at 333 Eel River Road in the Town of Osterville, MA_ LEI,has completed
two additional chemical oxidation injection events. The Most recent injection
e.vents were supplemental to the first two injection events completed by LEI in
Cktober 2001. The latest two injection events occurred on April 25 and May 9,
2002 and consisted of the injection of a chemical catalyst(ferrous sulfate) and
chemical oxidant (hydrogen peroxide) into strategically placed injection points.
A summary of the work performed at the Site is provided below.
Cheinical Oxidation Event#1 April 25,2002
LEI personnel were present at the Site to perform the third chemical oxidation
injection. A representative of Fleet Environmental Services was present at the
Site to assist with the chemical oxidation injection. Fleet personnel delivered
approximately 600-gallons of 35% hydrogen peroxide to the Site. Subsequent to
a Health and Safety meeting outlining the day's 'lamed activities, LEI
performed pre-injection baseline monitoring at wells MWA, MW-2, MW-3, MW-
4, and MW-5. Pre-injection results are presented as follows in Table 1.
CORPORATE H@4()QUARTERS- Danvers, Massachusetts 01923
Professional Environmental Services and Consultation
liir:mingharn Estate August 21, 21002
Chemical Oxidation Summary
' Approximately 2 pounds of catalyst, dissolved in water, was distributed to each
of the four injection points;'/a of the solution administered to the SVE port and
' the remaining solution was split evenly between the three monitoring wells.
Table 1 .
Pre-Chemical Oxidation Monitoring-A nd 25,2002
0
' PMWA W1,3-42.72 5.9 0.5 0 <200
MW-2 ' 12.3 2,35 6.1 i 0.5 1 0 <200
MW-3 12.5 1.47 5.9 0.5 0 <200
' MW4 12.5 1.37 6.0 0.5 0 <200
MW-5 12.3 2.93 6.2 0.5 0 1 <200
LEI commenced the chemical oxidation -injection at approximately 1 1:20 AM.
The injection of hydrogen peroxide was completed at approximately 12:45 PM.
U1 monitored temperature and total organic vapors (TOV) at the injection
points and ambient air within and downgradient of the exclusion zone
' continuously during the injection process. No detectable concentrations of TOVs
were measured in ambient air within or downgradient of the exclusion zone.
' Monitoring wells MW-4 and 14W-5 located downgradient of the injection area
Were monitored in the field for pH, dissolved oxygen, Zion, sulfate, and
hvdrogen peroxide during the injection process. LET personnel remained at the
' Site to perform monitoring until Site conditions were stabilized. Groundwater
monitoring data collected during the injection process is presented as follows in
' Table 2. Injection point monitoring data is presented in Table 3_
Page 2
' Birmingham i_state August 21,2002
Chemical(: xidation Summary
' Table 2
Clternical Oxidation Groundwater Monitoring Data-April 25,2002
Tem 12.5 16.3 15.0 15.1 16.1
' 00 1.37 1.76 1.89 .1.76 1.79
tv1 w-4 1-1202 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
l-I 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.3
Iran 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfate <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
Tem 12.3 15.5 14.3 15.0 15.1
1 DO 2.93 2.24 2.58 2.56 2.78
NIW 5 H2O2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
H 6.2 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.3
' Iron 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfate <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
Table 3
Injection Point Monitoring Data-April 25,20M
I
Temp. (C) 13A 19.9 21.6 22.5 22.2 19.2 18.5 24.7 18,6 18.6 13.1 12.2
TOV
1.8 5.6 11.7 30.8 6.2 5.6 9.7 0.0 o.0 NT gr Kl-
mv
(C) 12.3 18.8 21.5 23.6 24.5 24.0 25.0 32.2 14.8 14,8 14.0 1.1.9
MW-2 TOV
mv) 33.7 35.8 38.4 15.5 352 NT AS 39.4 34.8 25.9 2.4 NT NT
' Temp. (C) 12.5 20.9 22.7 26.7 21A 22.9 25.3 31.0 13.2 13,21 14.0 15.1
�11N x TOV
0.0 1.3 3.3 4.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 NT NJ NT
(PPMV)
' Temp, (C) 13.3 22.0 16.8 18.4 18.6 15.9 13.0 .16.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.5
TOV 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0,0, NT NTNT
m
NT-not tested;SVE temperatures represent vapor measurements.
Page 3
' Birmingham Ustate August 21,2002
C hcmiral cNkiation Summary
' Chemical Oxidation Event#4 MMI 9, 2002
LEI personmel were present at the Site to perform the forth chemical oxidation
' injection. A.representative of Fleet Environmental Services was present at the
Site to assist with the chemical oxidation injection. Fleet personnel delivered
approximately 600-gallons of 35% hydrogen peroxide to the Site in two 300-
gallon totes. Subsequent to a Health and Safety meeting outlining the day's
pian.ned activities, a pre-injection baseline monitoring round was performed at
' wells MW4, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and MW-5. A total of approximately 2
pounds of catalyst, dissolved in water, was applied to each of the four injection
' points at the Site. Results of the pre-monitoring data are presented as follows.
Table 4
Pre-Chemical 0 ddation lVMonitorin -May 9, 2002
' <10 0 1<20WO
MW-3 12.5 19.49 6
MW-2 12.5 >19.99 6 <10 0
' MW-3 12.6 >19.99 6 2.0 0
M.W4 1 16 1 1.53 6 0.5-2.0 0 <200
MW-5 16 2.63 6 0.5 0 <200
LEI commenced the chemical oxidation injection at approximately 11:00 AM.
Approximately 225-gallons of hydrogen peroxide was applied to MW-X, MW-2,
NNW-3 and Approximately 375-gallons into the SVE point. The injection of
' hydrogen peroxide was completed at approximately 1:30 PM. LEI monitored
temperature and total,organic vapors (TOV) at the injection points and ambient
air within and downgradient of the exclusion zone continuously during the
injection process. No detectable concentrations of TOVs.were measured in
ambient air within or downgradient of the exclusion zone. Monitoring wells
' MW4 and MW-5 located downgradient of the injection area were monitored in
the field for pH, dissolved oxygen,Iron, sulfate, aad hydrogen peroxide during
' the injection process. LEI personnel remained at the Site to perform monitoring
until Site conditions were stabilized. Groundwater monitoring data collected.
during the injection process is presented as follows in Table 5. Injection point
monitoring is presented in Table 6. _
Cage 4
' Fiir:rtc.in,ham Estate �1u�rtst 21,2(x)2
Chemical Oxidation Summary
Table 5
' Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Monitoring Data- May 9,2002
Tem 16 15.8 15.0 1.4.2 13.8 13.8
C0 1.53 1.35 1.35 1.29 1.12 1.56
M4V 4 H2O2 0.5-2 0.5. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
' H 6 6 6 6 6 6
Iron 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sulfate <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200
' Temp 16 15.4 14.4 13.8 12.8 13.1
DO 2.63 2-71 3.00 3.48 2.60 2.67
' MW 5 H2O2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
H 6 6 6 6 6 6
Iron 0 0 0 0 0 0
' Sulfate <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <2t10
' Table 6
1n'ecti.on Point Monitorin Data- Ma 9, 2002
Temp. (C} 12.5 16.9 21.9 23.4 23.1 26.6 26.9 28.1 28.0 12,8 12;1
' A164'-T
OV (ppmv 0.0 5.1 1�.1 5.3 8.4 8.2 7.7 3.4 1.7 2.7 0.0
Temp, (C) 12.5 21.1 19.0 18,8 19.2 18.8 18.8 17.8 17.4 11.0 11.3
M1V-_
' OV(p my 0.0 3.8 4.7 4.9 4.6 5.1 10.3 8.3 11.9 b.7 2.2
Temp.(C) 19.3 2.9 19.1 19.7 --20.3 23.7 66.9 13.0 14.7 17.9 12.4
OV(pprov) 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.6 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.6 0.0 .
' Temp, (C) 18.6 18.6 19.6 21.5 16.5 15.1 14.8 13.9 13.1 13.5 13;8
SV�
OV(pprlrty 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 3S 10.0 7.2 5.5 7.1 10,2 5.2
NT-not tested;SVE temperatures represent vapor measurements.
t
1
Page-5
Mrntingham F C.tte August 21,2002
' C:h ntical Oxidation Surpmary
' Suintnary and.Recommendations
lnjection point monitoring results collected during the two injection events
' indicate that the temperature and TOV data observed during both of the
treatment 6 ents was within the range of an effective reaction. The highest
recorded injection point temperature observed during the third chemical
oxidation event was 32.2 degrees Celsius the reading was measured at MW-2.
This reading is well within.the desired range, and indicates that the oxidation of
contaminates took place instead of the less efficient volatization of contaminat(YS.
The highest:temperature measured during the forth-chemical oxidation event
' Nvas 66.9 degrees Celsius the reading was taken at MW-3. .Although, this
temperature was above the optimal temperature range the reading represented a
rapid increase followed by a rapid decrease in temperature. The entire length of
time that the temperature was above the optimal range was less than 30 minutes.
' TOV measurements recorded during the third chemical oxidation event, as well
a-', those rnt�asured during the forth event were within the optimal range. They
treasured TOV concentration in MW-2, observed prior to commencement of the
third treatment were higher than previously observed pre-chemical oxidation
concentration,-,of TOV's_ It is unclear why a higher TOV reading was observed at
' this time. However, an increase in TOV concentrations was not observed at any
of the other: injection points. Additionally,TOV measurements taken at MW-2
' priory to the.forth oxidation event didn't exhibit similar results as those observed
prier to the third event.
' Pre- injection groundwater monitoring results taken prior to commencement of
the forth chemical oxidation event, indicated DO and hydrogen peroxide levels
in monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3 above the pre-injection results
obtained prior to initiation of the third chemical oxidation event_ Each of the
three monitoring wells that displayed the elevated levels was previously used as
a chemical oxidation injection point. The residence time for hydrogen peroxide in
groundwater ranges from a couple of days to a couple of weeks depending on
' the concentration of the peroxide and the amount of peroxide employed. The
elevated DO results are directly related to the presence of non-degraded
' hydrogen peroxide that remained in the monitoring wells. The detection of
peroxide one week following a treatment indicates that the hydrogen peroxide
Page 6
Birmingham Estate. August 21, 2002
' (,iivmical Oxidation Summary
likely did not decompose rapidly,and was instead able to migrate from beyorld
' the injection. points to a larger area.
' Groundwater monitoring results for monitoring wells MW-4 and MW-5
recorded prior to commencement of the third chemical oxidation treatment
' indicate no significant change when compared to the results of the final
ge•oundwat(,,,r monitoring round conducted following completion of the third
chemical oxidation event. Similar results were obtained during the forth
' chemical oxidation event.
! Bennett and O'Reilly personnel sampled all on-site groundwater monitoring
Wells on. JuPe 18, 2002, These post injection.samples were submitted to an
environmental laboratory for extractable petroleum hydrocarbon analysis (EPH).
The laboratory results indicated that the only monitoring wells to exhibit EPH
contaminate levels, specifically C11--C22 aromatic hydrocarbons, above the
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protections (MA DEP)
groundwater category GW-1 standard was MW-3_ Historically, MW-3 has
exhibited the highest concentrations of petroleum impact. Analytical results
indicated a concentration of 270 ppb for the C11-C22 aromatic hydrocarbons in
MW-3, This concentration remains above the MA DEP Method 1 GW-1 Standard
of 2,100 ppb and represents only a slight decrease from prior analysis conducted in
January_ 2002.
It is our experience from previous sites to observe a more significant decrease in
' groundwater concentrations between.chemical oxidation events_ LEI
recommends that additional sampling rounds take place at the Site to monitor
site concentrations. Since the remaining concentrations approach GW-1
Standards,.per our discussion with you, LEI will evaluate whether a Method 3
Risk Characterization would support a condition of no significant risk under
present conditions. We will forward these results to you within the next week.
Page 7
i
i Birmingham Estate August 21.2002
Chcmical Oxidation Summary
' We how that this information is suitable to allow you to complete your
evaluation of the chemical oxidation process and for the completion of the
upcoming status report. if you .have any questions, please feel free to call our
i offices.
' Sincerely,
Lessarri Enoirontnental,Inc.
Christopher D. Glod
Senior Projoct Manager
�11
1
1
Page 8
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT& Release Tracking Number
DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM
D4❑ - 15283
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180(Subpart B),40.0580(Subpart E)&40.1056(Subpart J)
' A. SITE OR DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY LOCATION:
Site Name:(optional) Ai rmi nciham RPs i dPnce
' Street: VA-4 F.P1 River Rnad Location Aid: AcGrG Man 1 1 S� T nt 2
City/Town: C)StPrviIIP ZIPCode: 02F55-0000
❑ Check here if this Site location is Tier Classified.If a Tier I Permit has been issued,state the Permit Number:
' Related Release Tracking Numbers that this Form Addresses:
If submitting an RAO Statement,you must document the location of the Site or the location and boundaries of the Disposal Site subject to this
' Statement. If submitting an RAO Statement for a PORTION of a Disposal Site,you must document the location and boundaries for both the
portion subject to this submittal and,to the extent defined,the entire Disposal Site. If submitting a Downgradient Property Status Submittal,
you must provide a site plan of the property subject to the submittal and,to the extent defined,the Disposal Site.
B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check all that apply)
' ® Submit a Response Action Outcome(RAO)Statement(complete Sections A,B,C,D,E,F,H,I,J and L).
® Check here if this is asevised RAO Statement. Date of Prior Submittal: 01.111 /01
' Check here if any Response Actions remain to be taken to address conditions associated with any of the Releases whose Release Tracking
Numbers are listed above. This RAO Statement will record only an RAO-Partial Statement for those Release Tracking Numbers.
Specify Affected Release Tracking Numbers:
® Submit an optional Phase I Completion Statement supporting an RAO Statement or Downgradient Property Status Submittal
(complete Sections A,B,H,I,J,and Q.
Submit a Downgradient Property Status Submittal(complete Sections A,B,G,H,I,J and K).
' Check here if this is a revised Downgradient Property Status Submittal. Date of Prior Submittal:
Submit a Termination of a Downgradient Property Status Submittal(complete Sections A,B,I,J and L).
' Submit a Periodic Review Opinion evaluating the status of a Temporary Solution(complete Sections A,B,H,I,J and L).
Specify one: For a Class C RAO For a Waiver Completion Statement indicating a Temporary Solution
t Provide Submittal Date of RAO Statement or Waiver Completion Statement:
You must attach all supporting documentation required for each use of form indicated,including copies of
any Legal Notices and Notices to Public Officials required by 310 CMR 40.1400.
tC. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (check all that apply)
Assessment and/or Monitoring Only Deployment of Absorbant or Contaminent Materials
Faemoval of Contaminated Soils ® Temporary Covers or Caps
' ® Re-use,Recycling or Treatment ® Bioremediation
O On Site ® Off Site Est.Vol.: 121 cubic yards ® Soil Vapor Extraction
' Describe: asphalt hatrhi ncr ® Structure Venting System
Landfill O Cover O Disposal Est.Vol.: cubic yards Product or NAPL Recovery
' Removal of Drums,Tanks or Containers Groundwater Treatment Systems
Describe: Air Sparging
' ® Removal of Other Contaminated Media Temporary Water Supplies
Specify Type and Volume: 1 .4g4 gallons imnac-tPd q-water Temporary Evacuation or Relocation of Residents
❑ Other Response Actions ® Fencing and Sign Posting
' Describe:
SECTION C IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.
' Revised 417/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010(in part) Page 1 of 4
Do Not Alter This Form
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT& Release Tracking
DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM
15283
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180(Subpart B),40.0580(Subpart E)&40.1056(Subpart J)
' C. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (continued)
Check here if any Response Action(s)that serve as the basis for this RAO Statement involve the use of Innovative Technologies. (DEP is
interested in using this information to create an Innovative Technologies Clearinghouse.)
Describe ORC, Mi cro-Rac inn - 1 a inn rhPmi ra 1 nxi dat-i nn
D. TRANSPORT OF REMEDIATION WASTE: (if Remediation Waste was sent to an off-site facility,answer the following questions)
' Name of AqqreqatP Ind as rigs/O1 son's Greenhcnises
TownandState: So h Dennis, MA/Raynham MA
Quantity of Remediation Waste Transported to 123_-8 ci hi c yards soi 1 /1 ,4 4 al 1 ons of qro undwatar
' E..RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME CLASS:
Specify the Class of Response Action Outcome that applies to the Site or Disposal Site. Select ONLY one Class:
❑ Class A-1 RAO: Specify one of the following:
�onuammanon nas oeen reauceo�o oacKgrouno O O A Threat of Release has been eliminated.
' ® Class A-2 RAO: You MUST provide justification that reducing contamination to background levels is infeasible.
Class A-3 RAO: You MUST provide both an implemented Activity and Use Limitation(AUL)and justification that reducing
contamination
to background levels is infeasible.
' If applicable,provide the earlier of the AUL expiration date or date the design life of the remedy will
Class B-1 RAO: Specify one of the following:
O Contamination is consistent with background levels O Contamination is NOT consistent with background levels.
' Class B-2 RAO: You MUST provide an implemented AUL.
' If applicable,provide the AUL expiration
Class C RAO: Check,here if you will conduct post-RAO Operation,Maintenance and Monitoring at the Site.
Specify One: O Passive Operation and Maintenance O Monitoring Only
OActive uperauon ano Maintenance toenneo at o iu uiviN
An nnnai
F. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME INFORMATION:
' W If an RAO Compliance Fee is required,check here to certify that the fee has been submitted. You MUST attach a photocopy of the payment.
Check here if submitting one or more A.ULs. You must attach an AUL Transmittal Form(BWSC-113)and a copy of each implemented AUL
related to this RAO Statement. Specify the type of AUL(s)below: (required for all Class A-3 RAOs and Class B-2 RAOs)
' O Notice of Activity and Use Limitation O Grant of Environmental Restriction Number of AULs attached:
Specify the Risk Characterization Method(s)used to achieve the RAO described above and all Soil and Groundwater Categories applicable to the Site.
More than one Soil Category and more than one Groundwater Category may apply at a Site.
Be sure to check off all APPLICABLE categories,even if more stringent soil and groundwater standards were met.
Risk Characterization Method(s)Used: ® Method 1 ® Method 2 ® Method 3
' Soil Categqry(ies)Applicable: ® S-1 ® S-2 S-3
Groundwater Category(ies)Applicable: ® GW-1 ® GIIV-2 ® GW-3
' > When submitting any Class A-1 RAO or a Class B-1 RAO where contamination is consistent with background levels,do NOT specify a
Risk Characterization Method.
> When submitting any Class A-2 RAO or a Class B-1 RAO where contamination is NOT consistent with background levels,you cannot
' use an AUL to maintain a level of no significant risk. Therefore,you must meet S-1 Soil Standards,if using Risk Characterization
Method 1.
Revised 4/7/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010(in part) Page 2 of 4
Do Not Alter This Form
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT & Release Tracking
DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL.FORM ❑
� 4 -Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180(Subpart 6),40.0580(Subpart E)&40.1056(Subpart J) 15283
G. DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS SUBMITTAL:
❑ If a Downgradient Property Status Submittal Compliance Fee is required,check here to certify that the fee has been submitted. You MUST
attach a photocopy of the payment.
' ❑ Check here if a Release(s)of Oil or Hazardous Material(s),other than that which is the subject of this submittal,has occurred at this property.
Release Tracking
' O Check here if the Releases identified above require further Response Actions pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000.
Required documentation for a Downgradient Property Status Submittal includes,but is not limited to,copies of notices provided
to owners and operators of both upgradient and downgradient abutting properties and of any known or suspected source properties.
' H. LSP OPINION:
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with this transmittal form,including any and all
documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of(i)the standard of care in 309 CMR
' 4.02(1),(ii)the applicable provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2)and(3),and(iii)the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(5),to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief,
> if Section B indicates that a Downgradient Property Status Submittal is being provided,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this
submittal(i)has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)
' is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)asset forth in 310 CMR 40.0183(2)(b),and(iii) -
complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,-and approvals identified in this submittal;
> if Section B indicates that either an RAO Statement,Phase i Completion Statement and/or Periodic Review Opinion is being provided,the
response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable
' provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)
as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,
permits,and approvals identified in this submittal.
' I am aware that significant penalties may result,including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,if I submit information which I know to
be false,inaccurate or materially incomplete.
❑ Check here if the Response Action(s)on which this opinion is based,if any,are(were)subject to any order(s),permit(s)and/or approval(s)
issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked,you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable provisions thereof.
LSP Name: David C. Bennett LSP#: 4303 Stamp:
�.
Telephone: 508-896-6630 Ext.: !.
FAX:(option 1) Ft 7
V 9 Q/8TS
1
'
fi
Signature: �..
417-E Date:
' I. PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL:
Name of Birmingham Residence
Name of Tc)hn and/nr Karen Ri rmingham Title: Owner
' Street: 333 Rel River Road
City/Town:. Ostervi 11 State: MA ZIPCode: 0265S-0000
' Telephone: SOS-732-2685 Ezt.: FAX:
J. RELATIONSHIP TO SITE OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: (check one)
' ® RP or PRP Specify: O Owner O Operator O Generator O Transporter Other RP or PRP:
❑ Fiduciary,Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.2)
' ❑ Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.50))
❑ Any Other Person Submitting This Form Specify
' Revised 4/7/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010(in part) Page 3 of 4
Do Not Alter This Form
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-104
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT& Release Tracking
DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS TRANSMITTAL FORM
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0180(Subpart B),40.0580(Subpart E)&40.1056(Subpart J) - 15283
' K. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON SUBMITTING DOWNGRADIENT PROPERTY STATUS SUBMITTAL:
1, ,attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(i)that I have personally examined and am
familiar with the information contained in this submittal,including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form;(ii)that,based on my
' inquiry of the/those individual(s)immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained herein is,to the best of my
knowledge,information and belief,true,accurate and complete;(iii)that,to the best of my knowledge,information and belief,I/the person(s)or
entity(ies)on whose behalf this submittal is made satisfy(ies)the criteria in 310 CMR 40.0183(2);(iv)that 1/the person(s)or entity(ies)on whose
behalf this submittal is made have provided notice in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0183(5);and(v)that I am fully authorized to make this attestation
on behalf of the person(s)or entity(ies)legally responsible for this submittal. I/the person(s)or entity(ies)on whose behalf this submittal is made
is/are aware that there are significant penalties,including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,for willfully submitting false,
By: Title:
' (signature)
For: Date:
(print name of person or entity recorded in Section I)
' Enter address of the person providing certification,if different from address recorded in Section 1:
Street:
City/Town: State: ZIP Code:
Telephone: Ext.: FAX:(optional)
L. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL`.
If you are completing only a Downgradient Property Status Submittal,you do not need to complete this section of the form.
1, John and/or Karen Birmingham attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(i)that I have personally examined and am
' familiar with the information contained in this submittal,including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form,(ii)that,based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained in this submittal is,to the best of
my knowledge and belief,true,accurate and complete,and(iii)that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally
responsible for this submittal. I/the person or entity on whose behalf this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significant penalties,
tincluding,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,for wi{tfullyy submitting false,inaccurate,or incomplete information.
VVI . IIV�(G'WVL
gy. Title: ProTLy Owners
2'
(siigttn�Ia�It,,,urte) n t7�, / 11,t /p � r. I 2
For.-J_0 W F.���/ C+"�- IV w 1 . 7�V�V II V ftk�-A Y v l Date
(print name person or entity recorded in Section 1)
' Enter address of the person providing certification,if different from address recorded in Section l:
Street:
' City/Town: State: ZIP Code:
Telephone: Ext.: FAX:(optional)
' YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF
YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM,YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING
A REQUIRED DEADLINE,AND YOU MAY INCUR ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE FEES.
I
' Revised 4/7/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-004 and 010(in part) Page 4 of 4
Do Not Alter This Form
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-108
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE ACTION TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking Number
FORM & PHASE I COMPLETION STATEMENT _ 15283
A. SITE LOCATION: Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0484 (Subpart D)and 40.0800(Subpart H)
'.
Site Name:(optional) Fti rmi ncram Reai Bence
' Street: '133 F.P1 River Rnad Location Aid: Accrc Map 11 S, Lot 2
City/Town: nGt-PrvillP ZIPCode: 02655-0000
Related Release Tracking Numbers that this Form Addresses:
' Tier Classification: (check one of the following) ❑ Tier IA Tier IB Tier IC Tier II Not Tier Classified
If a Tier I Permit has been issued,state the Permit Number:
' B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check all that apply)
Submit a Phase I Completion Statement,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0484(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
Submit a Phase II Scope of Work,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0834(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
' Submit a final Phase II Comprehensive Site Report and Completion Statement,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0836
(complete Sections A,B,C,D,G,H,I and J).
' Submit a Phase III Remedial Action Plan and Completion Statement,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0862(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
Submit a Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0874(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
Submit an As-Built Construction Report,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0875(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
❑ Submit a Phase IV Final Inspection Report and Completion Statement,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0878 and 40.0879
(complete Sections A,B,C,E,G,H,I and J).
' ❑ Submit a periodic Phase V Inspection&Monitoring Report,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0892(complete Sections A,B,C,G,H,I and J).
® Submit a final Phase V Inspection&Monitoring Report and Completion Statement,pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0893
(complete Sections A,B.C,F,G,H,I and J).
You must attach all supporting documentation required for each use of form indicated,including copies of
any Legal Notices and Notices to Public Officials required by 310 CMR 40.1400.
C. RESPONSE ACTIONS:
' ® Check here if any response action(s)that serves as the basis for the Phase submittal(s)involves the use of Innovative Technologies. (DEP is
interested in using this information to create an Innovative Technologies Clearinghouse.)
Describe Technologies: nRr with Mi rrnRar r„l r„red harteri a/rhemi cal Oxidation
' D. PHASE II COMPLETION STATEMENT:
Specify the outcome of the Phase It Comprehensive Site Assessment:
Additional Comprehensive Response Actions are necessary at this Site,based on the results of the Phase It Comprehensive Site Assessment.
' The requirements of a Class A Response Action Outcome have been met and a completed Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)
will be submitted to DEP.
' The requirements of a Class B Response Action Outcome have been met and a completed Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)
will be submitted to DEP.
Rescoring of this Site using the Numerical Ranking System is necessary,based on the results of the final Phase II Report.
E. PHASE IV COMPLETION STATEMENT:
Specify the outcome of Phase IV activities:
Phase V operation,maintenance or monitoring of the Comprehensive Response Action is necessary to achieve a Response Action Outcome.
(This site will be subject to a Phase V Operation,Maintenance and Monitoring Annual Compliance Fee.)
The requirements of a Class A Response Action Outcome have been met. No additional operation,maintenance or monitoring is necessary to
ensure the integrity of the Response Action Outcome. A completed Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)will be submitted to
DEP.
' a The requirements of a Class C Response Action Outcome have been met. No additional operation,maintenance or monitoring is necessary to
ensure the integrity of the Response Action Outcome. A completed Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)will be submitted to
DEP.
SECTION E IS CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE
' Revised 3/30/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-010(in part)and 013 Page 1 of 3
Do Not Alter This Form
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-108
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE ACTION TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking.
FORM & PHASE I COMPLETION STATEMENT a _ 15283
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0484 (Subpart D)and 40.0800(Subpart H)
' E. PHASE IV COMPLETION STATEMENT: (continued)
The requirements of a Glass C Response Action Outcome have been met. Further operation,maintenance or monitoring of the remedial
action is necessary to ensure that conditions are maintained and that further progress is made toward a Permanent Solution. A completed
' Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)will be submitted to DEP.
Indicate whether the operation and maintenance will be Active or Passive. (Active Operation and Maintenance is defined at 310 CMR
OActive Operation and Maintenance O Passive Operation and Maintenance
(Active Operation and Maintenance makes the Site subject to a Post-RAO Class C Active Operation and Maintenance Annual Compliance Fee.)
F. PHASE V COMPLETION STATEMENT:
Specify the outcome of Phase V activities:
® The requirements of a Class A Response Action Outcome have been met and a completed Response Action Outcome Statement
(BWSC-104)will be submitted to DEP.
The requirements of a Class C Response Action Outcome have been met. No additional operation,maintenance or monitoring is necessary
to ensure the integrity of the Response Action Outcome. A completed Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)will be submitted to
DEP.
The requirements of a Class C Response Action Outcome have been met. Further operation,maintenance or monitoring of the remedial
action is necessary to ensure that conditions are maintained and that further progress is made toward a Permanent Solution. A completed
Response Action Outcome Statement(BWSC-104)will be submitted to DEP.
Indicate whether the operation and maintenance will be Active or Passive. (Active Operation and Maintenance is defined at 310 CMR
' O Active Operation and Maintenance O Passive Operation and Maintenance
(Active Operation and Maintenance makes the Site subject to a Post-RAO Class C Active Operation and Maintenance Annual Compliance
G. LSP OPINION:
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this transmittal
form,including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of(i)the
standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1),(ii)the applicable provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2)and(3),and(iii)the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(5),to the
best of my knowledge,information and belief,
' > if Section B indicates that a Phase I,Phase 11,Phase 111,Phase IV or Phase V Completion Statement is being submitted,the response action(s)
that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.
21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the
' applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and
approvals identified in this submittal;
> if Section B indicates that a Phase 11 Scope of Work or a Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan is being submitted,the response action(s)that
is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)has(have)been developed in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR
40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of
M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals identified in this
submittal;
' > if Section B indicates that an As-Built Construction Report or a Phase V Inspection and Monitoring Report is being submitted,the response
action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal(i)is(are)being implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and
310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable
provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and(iii)complies(y)with the identified provisions of all orders,permits,and approvals
' identified in this submittal.
I am aware that significant penalties may result,including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,if I submit information which I know
to be false,inaccurate or materially incomplete.
Check here if the Response Action(s)on which this opinion is based,if any,are(were)subj ,t (s),permit(s)and/or approval(s)
' issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked,you MUST attach a statement identifying tl�e',��liff ns thereof.
LSP Name: David C Renn t- LSP#: 4103 Stamp: a ',� 13AVID `
- - � v
Telephone: Ext.: �^ ���O�' I �
FAX:(optiona
> TE Pt s
Signature: k .. ,n'1.
Date:
' Revised 3/30/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-010(in part)and 013 Page 2 of 3
Do Not Alter This Form
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection BWSC-108
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
' COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE ACTION TRANSMITTAL Release Tracking
FORM & PHASE I COMPLETION STATEMENT 15283
Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0484 (Subpart D)and 40.0800 (Subpart H)
H. PERSON UNDERTAKING RESPONSE ACTION(S):
Nameof Birmingham Residence
' Name of Jnhn and/or Karen Bi rmi ngham Title: Property Owner
Street: 333 Eel River Road
' City/Town: ostervi 1 1 e State: MA ZIP Code: 02655-0000
Telephone: 5 0 8-4 2 8-2(;SS Ext.: FAX:
❑ Check here if there has been a change in the person undertaking the Response
Action.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO SITE OF PERSON UNDERTAKING RESPONSE ACTION(S): (check one)
® RP or PRP Specify: ® Owner O Operator O Generator O Transporter Other RP or PRP:
Fiduciary,Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.2)
Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.50)).
' Any Other Person Undertaking Response Action Specify
J. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON UNDERTAKING RESPONSE ACTION(S):
I, Jnhn and/or Karen F1 i rmi ngham attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(i)that I have personally examined and am
' familiar with the information contained in this submittal,including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form,(ii)that,based.on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained in this submittal is,to the best of
my knowledge and belief,true,accurate and complete,and(iii)that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally
responsible for this submittal. I/the person or entity on whose behalf this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significant penalties,
' including,but not limited to,possible fines and imprisonment,for willfully ubmitting false,inaccurate,or incomplete information.
By:13pAUA " 01A• Klt—Title: Propert-y Owner
(signature)
FcrJ12 4N ./ (IF, YV C M Date: 10 2 Lid 3
(print name of person or entity recorded in Section H)
' Enter address of the person providing certification,if different from address recorded in Section H:
Street:
' City/Town: State: ZIP Code:
Telephone: Ext.: FAX:(optional)
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF
YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM,YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING
A REQUIRED DEADLINE.
' Revised 3/30/95 Supersedes Forms BWSC-010(in part)and 013 Page 3 of 3
Do Not Alter This Form
1
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX D
1
I '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MCP METHOD 3
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
■ RTN 4-15283
■
' Prepared for
Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc.
1573 Main Street
P.O. Box 1667
' Brewster, MA
Prepared by
1 Risk Management Incorporated
27 Stoneymeade Way
Acton, MA
December 2002
1
1 •
1
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOF APPENDICES.................................................................................................................v
LISTOF TABLES.........................................................................................................................vi
' LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................ viij
...
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND & SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................2
3. PRELIMINARY STEPS
3.1.1. CURRENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE SITE ACTIVITIES AND USES.4
3.1.1 Current Activities and Uses................................................................................. 4
3.1.2 Future Foreseeable Activities and Uses............................................................. 5
3.2 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION............................................6
3.2.1 Soil Category Classification....................................................................._.......... 6
3.2.2 Groundwater Category Classification:............................................................... 6
3.2.3 Lowest Applicable Site Soil and Groundwater Categories................................ 6
3.3 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................8
4.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ...............................................................................8
' 4.1 NATURE AND EXTENT.................................................................................................8
4.1.1 Soil....................................................................................................................... 8
4.1.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................ 9
i
4.1.3 Indoor Air............................................................................................................ 9
4.1.4 Outdoor Air......................................................................................................... 9
' 4.1.5 Surface Water and Sediments............................................................................ 10
4.2 CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN ...................................................................... 10
4.2.7 Soils................................................................................................................... 11
4.2.2 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 11
4.2.3 Indoor Air.......................................................................................................... 11
4.2.4 Outdoor air......................................................................................................... 11
' 4.2.5 Surface Water..................................................................................................... 11
4.3 TOXICITY PROFILES ................................................................................................... 11
5.0 DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT.....................................................................12
i
5.1 NON-CARCINOGENIC DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT............................................... 12
5.2 CARCINOGENIC DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ....................................................... 1.2
11
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
6.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT.................................................................................13
6.1 EXPOSURE PROFILES................................................................................................. 13
6.2 EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS AND QUANTITATIVE ESTIMATES OF EXPOSURE.............. 14
6.2.1 Current ChildlAdult Resident.................................:.......................................... .14
6.2.2 Future ChildlAdult Resident.............................................................................. 14
6.2.3 Surface Water Bodies........................................................................................ 15
6.2.3.1 Human and Aquatic Receptors................................................................................................................15
6.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS........................................................................ 16
6.3.1 Soil..................................................................................................................... 16
6.3.2 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 17
6.3.3 Surface Water.................................................................•................................... 17
6.4 ESTIMATION OF CHEMICAL INTAKE.......................................................................... 17
7.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................18
7.1 NON-CARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION...................................................... 18
7.1.1 Hazard Indices for the ChildlAdult Resident.................................................... 19
7.2 CARCINOGENIC RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................................... 19
7.3 APPLICABLE OR SUITABLY ANALOGOUS PUBLIC HEALTH STANDARDS ..................20
8.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS...............................................................................20
8.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION .........................................................................................21
8.2 DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT............................................................I.....................21
' 8.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT...........................................................................................22
8.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................................23
9.0 PUBLIC WELFARE RISK CHARACTERIZATION......................................23
10.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF RISK TO SAFETY..........................................24
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION...................................24
1.1.1 STAGE I ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING.................................................................25
12.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................26
12.1 HUMAN HEALTH....................................................................................................27
' 12.1.1 Current Site Conditions....................................................................................... 27
12.1.2 Future Site Conditions......................................................................................... 28
12.2 PUBLIC WELFARE...................................................................................................29
12.3 SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT..........................................................................30
12.4 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................30
13.0 LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................30
14.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................32
iii
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 .E ?�
LIST OF APPENDICES
' Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets for Soil Samples
Appendix B Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets for Groundwater Samples
Appendix C Toxicity Profiles
1
1
1
1
� 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
iv
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1 Summary of Residual Soil Analytical Data (0-15 ft. bgs)
Table 2A Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data
Table 2B Summary of Most Recent Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data
Table 2C Summary of Most Recent Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data for Monitoring
Well MW-3 & Comparison to MCP Method 1 Groundwater Standards
Table 3 Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern and Soil, Groundwater, and Surface
Exposure Point Concentrations
' Table 4A MADEP Shortform Data Input for Subchronic Exposures
Table 4B MADEP Shortform Data Input for Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
' Table 5 MADEP Shortform Toxicity Information
Table 6 MADEP Shortform Summary - Soils
' Table 7A MADEP Shortform Summary— Drinking Water(Groundwater Source): Subchronic
Exposures.
Table 7B MADEP Shortform Summary — Drinking Water(Groundwater Source):
' Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
Table S MADEP Shortform Summary— Indoor Air(Only When Site Impact on Indoor Air
' is Demonstrated)
Table 9A MADEP Shortform Summary—Comparison of EPCs to Drinking Water Standards:
Subchronic Exposures
Table 9B MADEP Shortform Summary—Comparison of EPCs to Drinking Water Standards:
Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
' Table I OA MADEP Shortform Summary—Comparison of Site Concentrations to Upper
Concentration Limits: Subchronic Exposures
Table 10B MADEP Shortform Summary—Comparison of Site Concentrations to Upper
Concentration Limits: Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
Table 11 MADEP Shortform Summary —Cumulative Receptor Risk (Residential Scenario)
Table 12 Comparison of COPC Groundwater& Surface Water EPCs to Applicable or Suitably
Analogous Standards and Criteria
1
v
PEW
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 Gomm
LIST OF FIGURES
' Figure 1 Site Locus Plan Showing Birmingham Residence at 333 Eel River Road,
Osterville, MA 02655. USGS Topographic Quadrangle, MA.
Figure 2 MADEP - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Birmingham Residence at 333 Eel
River Road, Osterville, MA Site Scoring Map: 500-ft. & 0.5-Mile Radii. 13
September 2002.
Figure 3 Remedial Operation Plan Modification. Birmingham Residence at 333 Eel River
Road, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283. 3 January 2002.
1
1
1
vi
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern
ADD Average Daily Dose
' AP Averaging Period
AUL Activity and Use Limitation
bgs Below Ground Surface
BWSC Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulations
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
cu. yds Cubic Yards
ELCR Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPC Exposure Point Concentration
' EPH Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
ft. Feet
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
IRA Immediate Response Action
Kg Kilogram
L Liter
' LADD Lifetime Average Daily Dose
LOAEL Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level
MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MCP Massachusetts Contingency Plan
mg Milligram
mL Milliliter
MTBE Methyl-tort-Butyl Ether
MW Monitoring Well
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effects Level
NSR No Significant Risk of Harm
OHM Oil and Hazardous Material
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon
ppb Parts Per Billion
ppmv Parts Per Million (by Volume)
' PCs Petroleum Contaminated Soil
RAF Relative Absorption Factor
RAO Response Action Outcome
RAPS Response Action Performance Standard
RfC Reference Concentration
RfD Reference Dose
RMI Risk Management Incorporated
' RTN Release Tracking Number(MADEP)
TOV Total Organic Vapor
µg Microgram
UCL Upper Concentration Limit
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VPH Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbon
1
vii
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings of a Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Method 3
Risk Characterization prepared by Risk Management Incorporated (RMI) for an historical
release of No. 2 Fuel Oil. from an abandoned 1,000-gallon Underground Storage Tank
(UST) at a residence constructed on the property located at 333 Eel River Road,
Osterville, MA. The portion of the property impacted by this fuel oil release is
hereinafter referred to. as the "Site" and is identified by the MADEP' Release Tracking
Number (RTN) 4-15283.
1 The information presented in this Risk Characterization is designed to meet the MCP
Response Action Performance Standard (RAPS) defined in 310 CMR 40.0191 (MADEP
' 1999a). Risk of harm to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment from
potential exposures to the Oil and Hazardous Material (OHM) detected in the fuel oil
release at the Site has been characterized to provide quantitative and qualitative
' information with which to evaluate the need for any additional remedial action(s) and to
select the appropriate Response Action Outcome (RAO) pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000.
Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc. (B&O) will file the RAO with MADEP on behalf of their client
John & Karen Birmingham, the current owners of the property.
This Risk Characterization has been conducted in accordance with:
o 310 CMR 40.0900. Subpart 1. Risk Characterization and updates through 29
October 1999 (MADEP 1999a);
o guidelines laid out in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection's Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization (MADEP
1995a; 1996a; and updates 2002c-t);
❑ information presented in MADEP's Background Documentation for the
Development of the MCP Numerical Standards (MADEP 1994a) and
Proposed MCP Method 1 Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Standards (MADEP
2002b);
o MADEP's petroleum policies and VPH/EPH' methodologies (MADEP 1991;
1 •
1994b; 1996b; 1997; 1998 a,b,c,d; 1999b; 20021);
o MADEP's Residential Shortform - Residential Scenario for Chemicals
(MADEP 1992); No. 2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (MADEP 1997;
' 1999b; 2002g); and Gasoline Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002h);
o MADEP's air quality guidelines (MADEP 1990, 1995b; 2002a) and APH'
methodology (MADEP 1999c; 20021); and
' o current risk.assessment practices in the geographical area.
i
MADEP—Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
' VPH/EPH - Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons
' 3 APH—Air Phase Petroleum Hydrocarbons
1
F oq
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
2.0 BACKGROUND & SITE DESCRIPTION
RMI understands h s s that the release Site is part of the residential property located at 333 Eel
River Road, Osterville, MA and resulted from an historical, OHM subsurface release of
No. 2 Fuel Oil from an abandoned 1,000-gallon Underground Storage Tank (UST) (see
Figure 1. Site Locus Plan and Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO
Statement. B&O 01-03-02). The property is approximately 2.1 acres in size and contains
the single family residential dwelling, detached garage and a shed. Access to the area of
the OHM release (Site) is unrestricted and the surrounding neighborhood is moderately
developed with similar residential dwellings.
Following removal of the UST and the excavation and off-site disposal of petroleum-
contaminated soils from a 20 ft. (L) x 15 ft. (W) x 6-15 ft. (D) area, Oxygen Release
Compound (ORC) was mixed with soils at the bottom of the former tank grave to
enhance remediation of residual contamination in soil and groundwater. Depth to
groundwater across the Site was estimated at approximately 15 ft. below ground surface
(bgs) (B&O 2000; 2001a,b).
1 Prior to backfilling the excavation, a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system was installed at
the bottom to serve as both a sub-slab venting.,system for residual Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) and to promote oxygenczchange and to facilitate natural attenuation
F
i ' and dilution in the saturated zone The SVE was;also retrofitted to allow supplemental
application of remedial add rtrves or,for flushing,.,.,of the area with groundwater to address
petroleum residuals in the capillary fringe and groundwaterfB&O 2000, 2001a,b).
s 9y t 3
The Site and residential pro 6es in,°the surroundtiigarea are serviced by municipal
water and there are no known pnuate wells wtthn'S00 ft. of the Site. Based on the
iMADEP Bureau of Waste Site"Cleanup Site Scoring Map, dated 13 September 2002 (see
Figure 2), the Site is not part of an.MCP-designated one II for a Public Water Supply or
within 200 ft. of a Zone A for a Class A Surface Drinking Water Source (310 CMR
40.0006). In addition, the Site is not designated as part of a Potentially Productive
Aquifer or a Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area. However, the Site is part of the
USEPA4 Sole Source Aquifer for Cape Cod (pursuant to §1424(e) of the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act; U.S. EPA 1987) and could be considered an MCP-designated
Potential Drinking Water Source Area (PDWSA) (see 310 CMR 40.0932(5)(b)). Based
on the PDWSA-designation, the MCP GW-1 Groundwater Category (310 CMR
40.0932(4)) is considered potentially applicable to the Site under future foreseeable site
activities and uses. However, pursuant to 31.0 CMR 40.0932(5)(b)(2), the MCP GW-1
Groundwater Category could be challenged, since the Site is part of a property that
borders Eel River, a marine estuary to West Bay, and thus subject to saltwater intrusion.
This could potentially result in brackish groundwater conditions at the Site that would
prevent development of a private potable water supply.
4 USEPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency
2
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-1.5283
' The Site also lies within a FEMA 100-year floodplain, which also borders the coast lines
of West Bay and Wianno Beach, each of which lies within the MCP-designated 0.5-mile
radius around the Site.
The primary direction of groundwater flow across the Site is from the northeast to the
' southwest towards the Eel River, which is. located approximately 160 ft. west of the
former UST grave and area of OHM release and is considered the primary environmental
receptor for this OHM release (see Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO
Statement. B&O 01-03-02): Based on these observations, the MCP GW-3 Groundwater
Category for groundwater to surface water discharge is applicable to the Site under both
current and future foreseeable Site activities and uses.
Parker Pond, a freshwater surface body, is located upgradient and to the northeast of the
Site between.the MCP-designated 500-ft. and 0.5-mile radii around the Site; also present
are freshwater wetlands to the east of the pond and Protected Open Space, which abuts
the pond to the south southwest and then extends westwards across Eel River Road (see
Figure 2. MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Site Scoring Map, dated 13 September
2002). Additional freshwater wetlands are situated outside the MCP-designated 500-ft.
radius around the Site to the east southeast (near Sea View Avenue) and saltwater
wetlands are present along the coast of West Bay to the west south,,vest of the Site.
The Site is not art of or within 500 ft. of a Natural Heritage & Endangered Species
P g � P
' Program (NHESP) Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife, a Certified Vernal Pool, or
Priority Habitat for Rare Species (see Cotuit Quad - NHESP 2001) and no surface water
classification is apparent for the Eel River (see Table 31 and Figure 31. Cape Cod
Coastal Drainage Area (96); 314 CMR 4.06(3)154 and 154.4).
Current groundwater quality at the Site indicates the presence of only one residual OHM,
the EPH C„-C,, aromatic fraction, which was detected in Monitoring Well MW-3 (see
r Table 2B). Since the latter monitoring well is located upgradient of and within 30 ft. of
the residence (see Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement. B&O
01-03-02), depth to groundwater is approximately 15 ft. bgs, and the house is currently
occupied, the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Category (310 CMR 40.0932(6)) is considered to
apply under both current and future foreseeable Site conditions.
1 Comparison of residual OHM (EPH -C,s and C19-C36 aliphatic and C„ aromatic
fractions) levels detected in, composite soil samples taken from the walls (6-15 ft.,bgs)
and a discrete sample collected from the bottom of the former UST grave to current
applicable MCP Method 1 Soil Standards indicates a condition of "No Significant Risk"
(see Table 1). None of the residual OHM levels detected exceed their S-1, S-2 or S-3
Standards for the GW-1, GW-2 or GW-3 Groundwater Categories (see Table 1).
3
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 Dom
Based on the above findings, RMI has chosen to use the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel
Residential Shortform (version 2.1; MADEP 2002g), updated with the new VPH/EPH
' toxicity values MADEP 2002i), as a conservative "Shortcut" to screen for risk of harm
to human health, and an MCP Method 3 Risk Characterization to address public welfare
and the environment consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0900 and MADEP
Guidance for Risk Characterization (1995a, 1996a; 2002c-f). Risk of harm to Safety is
evaluated in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0960.
3. PRELIMINARY STEPS
3.1.1. Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Site Activities and Uses
A conceptual Site Model was developed for potential exposure scenarios at the Site to
' identify human and environmental receptors and complete pathways and routes of
exposure to the residual OHM(s) present in the soil and groundwater.
The exposure scenarios identified are based on current and reasonably anticipated future
activities and uses of the Site as a residential dwelling, so that any requirement to
implement an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL), as defined in 310 CMR 40.1012, to
' maintain a condition of "No Significant Risk," may be determined for unrestricted use of
the Site.
3.1.1 Current Activities and Uses
Under current conditions, the Site is represented by the impacted area of residual soil and
groundwater contamination in front of the existing, occupied, residence on the property
located at 333 Eel River Road, Osterville, MA (see Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area
of Class C RAO Statement. B&O 01-03-02). Residual OHM contamination in soil is
present in the vadose zone at a depth of approximately 6-15 ft. bgs and is covered in part
by a stone driveway and in part by landscaping. The Site also includes the area of
impacted.groundwater denoted by the presence of residual groundwater concentrations of
the EPH C„-C-,, aromatic fraction in Monitoring Well MW-3 located upgradient of the
residence in the release area (see Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO
Statement. B&O 01-03-02). Depth to groundwater in the area of the release is
1 approximately 15 ft. bgs. The residence currently receives potable water from a
municipal service and sewage is discharged on the property in front of the residence
through a leach field.
Consequently, under current conditions, the pathways and routes for potential direct
(incidental ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation of fugitive dusts or vapors) or indirect
(inhalation of vapors in indoor air) exposures to any residual OHMs in subsurface soils at
the Site are incomplete. Depth to groundwater across the Site is approximately 1.5 ft. bgs;
however, residual groundwater concentrations of the EPH C„-C?� aromatic fraction
detected in Monitoring Well MW-3 located upgradient of the residence have not
exceeded the MCP Method 1 GW-2 Groundwater Standard (see Table 2A).
' 4
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
Consequently, the pathway and route for indirect (inhalation of vapors in indoor air)
exposures to any residual OHMs in groundwater both at the Site and downgradient of the
property are considered incomplete. In addition, with the use of municipal water at the
residence and in the absence of any private wells used as a potable water supply within
500 ft. of the Site, the pathway and route for direct exposures to the OHM in groundwater
at the Site and its environs via drinking and showering are also considered incomplete.
Further, the potential for direct off-property exposures (incidental ingestion, dermal
contact or outdoor inhalation of vapors) of human and environmental receptors to OHMS
in surface waters and sediments in the downgradient marine environment of the Eel River
estuary, as a result of off-property discharge of groundwater to surface water, is also
expected to be negligible, based on the documented absence of OHM contamination in
the downgradient Monitoring Wells MW-4 and MW-5 (see Table 2A and Figure 3. Site
Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement. B&O 01-03-02).
' 3.1.2 Future Foreseeable Activities and Uses
In contrast, under future foreseeable Site conditions, one or more of the aforementioned
. pathways and routes for direct and indirect exposures could be completed primarily
through : a) re-development of the Site, in which subsurface soils in the 6-15 ft. bgs
exposure stratum could be brought to the surface, used in an on-site garden for
homegrown fruits and vegetables, and a new residence constructed over the COPC-
contaminated soil and groundwater; b) installation of a private well on the property
located at 333 Eel River Road, Osterville, MA or on abutting properties, for use of
groundwater as.a continuous source of potable water; and/or c) construction/utility work
involving trenching activities or excavation of subsurface soils down to the groundwater
1 . table.
Specifically:
❑ future child/adult residents at the Site could potentially be exposed both directly
to residual OHMs in the air and exposed subsurface soils via incidental ingestion,
dermal contact or inhalation of fugitive dusts and/or vapors, and/or exposed
indirectly to residual OHMs in soil through ingestion of homegrown fruits and
vegetables cultivated in on-site residential garden soils contaminated with OHMS
in the root zone (0-0.5 ft. bgs);
❑ future child/adult residents at the Site or on abutting properties could be
potentially exposed directly to OHM in groundwater obtained from private wells
installed for use as a continuous source of potable water for drinking and
showering by ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation of vapors; and
❑ construction/utility workers involved in trenching activities or subsurface
excavation down to the water table could potentially be exposed directly to OHM
in the air, soil and/or groundwater via incidental ingestion, dermal contact or
through inhalation of fugitive dusts (soil only) and/or vapors.
5
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
However, off-property exposures of significance to the OHM detected in groundwater on
the property are again expected to be negligible.
3.2 Soil and Groundwater Category Classification
3.2.1 Soil Category Classification
' Based on the Conceptual Exposure Model for the Site, and the potential for accessibility
to any residual subsurface soil OHMs under foreseeable future Site activities, which
could involve high frequency, high intensity exposures of both children and adults, an S-
1 Soil Category (as defined in 310 CMR 40.0933(5)) is considered the most applicable
soil category classification with which to assess the need for an AUL and to establish any
requirements that must be met for unrestricted uses and activities at the Site in the future.
3.2.2 Groundwater Category Classification
Because the Site is considered.part of a PDWSA for this Risk Characterization, the MCP
Groundwater Category GW-1 is applicable to the Site (pursuant to 310 CMR
40.0932(4)(b)). In addition, based on the average depth to groundwater across the Site of
15 ft. bgs and the presence of the OHM, the EPH C„-C» aromatic fraction, in
groundwater in Monitoring Well MW-3, which is upgradient of and within 30 ft. of the
I ' occupied residence on the property, the MCP GW-2 Groundwater Category (as defined in
310 CMR 40.0932(6)) is considered applicable to the Site under either current or future
' foreseeable conditions, activities and uses. Discharge of on-Site groundwater in the
overburden to surface water is assumed to occur; in this case to the downgradient Eel
River marine estuary, and, ultimately, to West Bay; hence, an MCP GW-3 Groundwater
Category (as defined in 310 CMR 40.0932(2)) is also considered applicable.
3.2.3 Lowest Applicable Site Soil and Groundwater Categories
Thus, based on the above soil and groundwater categorizations, the lowest, most
applicable MCP Soil and Groundwater Category classifications with which to determine
the need for an AUL are S-1/GW-1, S-1/GW-2 and S-1/GW-3. The exposure
assumptions for human and environmental receptors encompassed by these MCP Method
1 Standards for Soil and Groundwater are addressed in the Method 3 Risk
Characterization's Conceptual Exposure Model developed for this Site and through the
use of the conservative MADEP Shortform for evaluating risk of harm to human health
from potential exposures to residual No. 2 Fuel Oil OHMS under the residential scenario
(MADEP 2002g) for: a) incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soil; b) use of
groundwater as a continuous source of potable water for drinking and showering, and c)
inhalation of indoor air (when Site impact on indoor air quality is demonstrated) and
through comparison of OHM MCP-compliant Exposure Concentrations (EPCs) to
Drinking Water Standards and Upper Concentration Limits for Soil and Groundwater.
6
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
3.3 Background
The EPH fraction currently detected in groundwater (see Table 2B) is considered to be of
anthropogenic origin. Consequently, the background concentration of this OHM in
groundwater is assumed to be zero at the Site and the requirement to establish
"background" (as defined in 310 CMR 40.0904(2)(b)) is not considered applicable.
This assumption is also applicable to the three EPH fractions detected in soil (see Table
1). Accordingly, the requirement to establish "background" for these OHMS is not
' considered applicable.
4.0 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
' For the Hazard Identification the sampling analytical data for the residual EPH
Y P g
fraction(s) defected in soil and/or groundwater, which were collected from 333 Eel River
Road, Osterville, MA by B&O from October 1999 through June 2002, were reviewed to:
a) evaluate the nature and extent of residual OHM contamination at the Site; b) model
potential surface water concentrations of dissolved groundwater OHM(s); c) identify the
' COPCs; and d) document toxicity information for the Dose-Response Assessment
(Section 5).
4.1 Nature and Extent
' 4.1.1 Soil
The analytical data for four residual composite soil samples (SW-N; SW-E; SW-W; and
SW-S) taken in February 2000 by B&O from the walls of the excavation of the former
UST grave at 6-15 ft. bgs, plus one discrete sample (BOH) collected from the bottom of
the excavation at 16 ft. bgs, are presented in Table 1 for each OHM in the form of its
Chemical Abstracts Service Number (CASN); sample identification; date and depth of
collection; frequency of OHM detection; and arithmetic average and maximum OHM soil
levels.
In the absence of readily definable data sets for the development of MCP Method 3
Exposure Points for the 0-3 ft., 0-6 ft. and 0-15 ft. bgs strata pursuant to the requirements
of 310 CMR 40.0926, the data set collected for 6-16 ft. bgs was used to represent the 0-
15 ft. bgs Exposure Point Stratum. Sample locations for the soil borings are shown in
Figure 3 (Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement., B&O 01-03.02).
Arithmetic averages were calculated using one-half of the Sample Detection Limit for
Non-Detects pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0926(3)(b)(2)(a) for the
development of MCP-compliant EPCs in the form of arithmetic averages. The
Laboratory analytical data sheets for each soil sample are presented in Appendix A.
7
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
4.1.2 Groundwater
The groundwater analytical data evaluated in this Risk Characterization were collected at
the Site by B&O from October 1999 through June 2002. The data for the EPH, Targeted
' PAH and VOC analyses of samples collected from Monitoring Wells MW-1 through
MW-5 are presented in Table 2A, along with .CASNs; sample identification; sampling
date; frequency of detection and maximum concentrations detected. Table 2B presents
analytical data for the most recent round of sampling in June 2002 for these Monitoring
Wells; only one OHM, specifically the EPH C„-C-,-, aromatic fraction, was detected and
only in one Monitoring Well, MW-3. The locations of Monitoring Wells MW-1 through
' MW-5 are shown in Figure 3 (Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement.
B&O 01-03-02).
MCP-compliant EPCs for groundwater for comparison to Drinking Water Standards were
derived in accordance with U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 2000) and MADEP Guidance (MADEP
1995a, 1996a and updates 2002c-0. Subchronic EPCs were the arithmetic average
concentrations of the last two months of groundwater monitoring data; chronic and
lifetime EPCs were the annual arithmetic averages for the last twelve months of
' monitoring data. The MCP-compliant EPCs for the EPH C„-C�-, aromatic fraction of 365
µg/L and 317 µg/L for subchronic and chronic/lifetime exposures, respectively, are
shown in Table 2C.
Based on the latest round of groundwater monitoring data and the low detection
frequencies (i.e., 1/7) for Acenaphthene and Fluorene in Monitoring Well MW-3, no
EPCs were developed for these OHMS. In the case of the OHM, 2-MethyInaphthalene,
t groundwater concentrations in MW-3 have trended downwards from 87 [,g/L in April
2000 to Non-Detect in the last two rounds of monitoring in May and June of 2002 (see
Table 2C); consequently, no EPCs were developed for this OHM. The analytical
laboratory data sheets for each groundwater sample are presented in Appendix B.
' 4.1.3 Indoor Air
No indoor air monitoring data were collected at the Site and no impact on indoor air
quality has been demonstrated or reported. The Site (release area) is upgradient of and
' away from the residence. Depth to groundwater across the Site averages 1.5 ft. bgs and no
OHM groundwater concentrations detected in Monitoring Well MW-3, upgradient of the
occupied residence, have exceeded MCP Method 1 GW-2 Groundwater Standards (see
Table 2A).
4.1.4 Outdoor Air
Completion of the pathway and route for potential outdoor air inhalation exposures to
residual OHM vapors in soil at 6-15 ft. bgs and/or groundwater at 15 ft. bgs is considered
a remote possibility during any future subsurface excavation activities within the release
area (Site).
8
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
Incidental ingestion and dermal contact with residual petroleum-contaminated soils is
' expected to pose the greatest risk during these activities and is addressed using the highly
conservative MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (version 2.1 MADEP
2002g) for Residential Exposures and the most recent, more conservative toxicity values
tfor the VPH/EPH fractions (MADEP 2002i).
4.1.5 Surface Water and Sediments
' Based on the absence of OHMs other than the volatile EPH C„-C-,-, aromatic fraction
detected in groundwater (see Tables 2B and 2C), then pursuant to the requirements of 310
I ' CMR 40.0904(c)(1-6), transportation of contaminant concentrations of potential
ecological significance from the Site to the receiving waters of the Eel River estuary and
' West Bay is considered unlikely and no surface water or sediment samples have been
collected. This opinion is consistent with the observations that: a) none of the volatile
OHM concentrations detected in groundwater in Monitoring Well MW-3, following
source removal and bioremediation, have exceeded MCP Method 1 GW-3 Groundwater
Standards (see Table 2A); and b), the furthest, downgradient Monitoring Wells MW-4
and MW-5 have consistently been non-detect for Site-related OHMs.
However, to address the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0932(2), a potential downgradient
surface water EPC for the Method 3 Risk Characterization for the Environment was
derived from the most recent OHM groundwater analytical data (see Tables 2B and 2C)
' using the default MADEP Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF) of 100 for the EPH C„-C11)
aromatic fraction (MADEP 1994a; 2002b,i). The derivation of this EPC is presented in
' the next section.
4.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern
1 COPCs to be carried through the Risk Characterization process should include
contaminants detected during the site investigation, provided the samples of the evaluated
media are sufficiently representative of current and potential future exposure areas.
In addition, standard procedures must have been used in the collection of the samples,
and the samples must have been analyzed by a certified laboratory in accordance with
appropriate methodologies and established protocols. Starting from the list of OHM
detected, constituents may be eliminated as site COPCs, provided certain criteria are met.
Constituents that can be justifiably eliminated as COPCs include:
❑ OHM with low detection frequencies and very low concentrations;
❑ OHM levels less than or consistent with available or applicable "Background"
' values;
❑ OHM that are field or laboratory contaminants not related to the OHM release;
and
❑ OHM levels that are below Reportable Limits (i.e., Non-Detects).
I
9
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
4.2.1 Soils
' Based on the detection of OHM soil contamination at 6-1.5 ft. bg s, the data in Table 1
were used to represent the 0-15 ft. bgs soil stratum for the development of EPCs pursuant
to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0924(2)(b). No OHMS were excluded from
consideration as COPCs based on comparison of maximum soil levels to current MADEP
Background Concentrations for "natural" soils (MADEP 2002f— Table 1). Soil COPCs
with MCP-compliant EPCs are shown in Table 1 as shaded values and listed in Tables 3,
and 4A and 4B for the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform; the EPCs are
arithmetic average soil levels.
4.2.2 Groundwater
Based on the available groundwater data presented in Table 2A, only the most recent
groundwater analytical data for Monitoring Well MW-3 were selected to represent
current Site:conditions (see Table 2B). Only one OHM in Table 2B with a detection
ifrequency > 0 was considered a COPC, namely the EPH C„-C,,., aromatic fraction.
Consistent with MADEP Guidance for characterizing risks posed by potential exposures
to OHM in groundwater used as a source of drinking water (MADEP 1995a), EPCs were
developed for subchronic, and chronic/lifetime exposures (see Table 2C). The
groundwater COPC and the EPCs (arithmetic average groundwater concentrations) used
' in the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform are presented in Tables 3, and 4A
and 4B.
4.2.3 Indoor Air
As discussed above, the indoor air inhalation pathway and route of exposure is
considered incomplete and no indoor air COPCs are identified or EPCs developed for use
in the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (see Tables 4A and 413).
4.2.4 Outdoor air
' As discussed above completion of the outdoor air inhalation pathway and route of
P P Y
exposure is considered unlikely and any risks posed by residual volatile OHMs in soil
and/or groundwater are considered less significant than those posed by the oral and
dermal routes of exposure, which are addressed in the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel
Residential Shortform (see Tables 4A and 4B).
4.2.5 Surface Water
' Each COPC identified in-groundwater was considered a COPC for potential surface water
exposures, namely the EPH C„-C,., aromatic fraction (see Table 3).
4.3 Toxicity Profiles
Toxicity Profiles, describing the potential human health effects posed by exposures to the
EPH fractions identified as COPCs in Section 4.2, are provided in Appendix C.
10
1
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
5.0 DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
The Dose-Response Assessment is designed to evaluate the potential non-carcinogenic
(threshold) and carcinogenic (non-threshold) effects of the COPCs and describes the
effects observed in humans and/or laboratory animals following the intake of a specific
dose of the compound. The information from the Dose-Response Assessment is used in
conjunction with information from the Exposure Assessment (Section 6) to estimate the
risk generated by each COPC from an exposure (Section 7).
5.1 Non-Carcinogenic Dose-Response Assessment
The toxicity values used in this Dose-Response Assessment of COPCs producing non-
carcinogenic effects are the Reference Doses (RfDs) for oral and dermal exposures, and
the Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for inhalation exposures. RfD and RfC values
provide an estimate of the daily dose of the COPC to which an individual may be exposed
without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects, including organ damage or
reproductive effects, appearing during their lifetime. RfD and RfC values assume that a
threshold dose exists below which there will be minimal risk for adverse effects to occur.
' The chronic RfD and RfC values are based upon a 70-year lifetime exposure, and are
approximate doses derived from an available No Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL) or the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). Subchronic RfD
values are based on defined, less than lifetime exposures, usually less than 7 years.
Uncertainty factors, which account for varying sensitivities among populations and
extrapolation of data from animal studies to humans, and modifying factors, which reflect
' professional judgment of the toxicity information available, are applied to the NOAEL or
LOAEL to determine RfD and RfC values. These safety factors reflect the quality of the
' data used and build conservatism into the Dose-Response Assessment.
In addition, Relative Absorption Factors (RAFs) are used to account for differences
between the method of administration in the study on which the RfD or RfC is based and
the site-specific routes of exposure addressed in the Risk Characterization.
The RAF values vary with the medium and with the route of exposure. The RFD, RfC
' and RAF values used in this Risk Characterization for the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel
Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002g) are listed in Table 5. In addition, Table 5 lists
the MADEP Default Drinking Water Multipliers used for the dermal and inhalation
' routes in the Residential Drinking Water Exposure Scenario.
5.2 Carcinogenic Dose-Response Assessment
The toxicity value used in the dose-response assessment of compounds producing
carcinogenic effects is the Cancer Slope Factor (CSF). Unlike the RfD or RfC value, the .
I ' CSF is based on the assumption that there is no threshold dose for carcinogenicity (i.e.,
no dose at which there is no risk of developing cancer) and is derived by the U.S. EPA
using data obtained from animal studies or human epidemiological studies.
' 1l
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
By estimating the upper 95% confidence limit of the slope of the dose-response curve
' extrapolated to low doses, the CSF is considered a measure of the cancer causing
potential of a substance as a result of continuous exposure to a chemical throughout a
lifetime (70 years). CSF values are available for both the inhalation and oral routes of
exposure.
' The U.S. EPA has developed a system for classifying chemicals according to the
likelihood that the compound is a human carcinogen. This system groups chemicals into
five classes based upon the weight-of-evidence (of carcinogenicity) of the available data.
Consistent with current risk assessment practices in the geographical area and MADEP
Risk Characterization Guidelines (MADEP 1995a; 1996a; 2002c-f), only Class A or B
carcinogens are evaluated in a Method 3 Risk Characterization. Current weight-of-
evidence classifications for the COPCs identified in the Hazard Assessment (see Table 5)
indicate that none of the COPCs listed in Table 4 are Class A or B carcinogens.
6.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
To characterize the risk of harm from contact with a COPC, an Exposure Assessment is
conducted to identify Exposure Profiles and to estimate the EPCs.
Consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0923, the Exposure Assessment
requires the identification of all current and reasonably foreseeable future activities and
uses associated with a site and its surrounding environment, and a description of how
these uses and activities could result in the exposure of human or environmental receptors
to the COPCs present. The latter descriptions are known as Exposure Profiles and are
developed to provide an estimate of the type and magnitude of potential exposures to
COPCs, the frequency and intensity of the exposure, the pathways and routes by which
receptors may be exposed to the COPC, and to provide an estimate of the EPC.
' For the characterization of risk of harm to. human health under a Method 3 Risk
Characterization, the Exposure Profile and EPC are used to estimate a Chemical Intake
from which the Hazard Index and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk may be calculated. The
' Exposure Profiles and the estimation of Chemical Intake are integral parts of the
Exposure Assessment and are discussed below.
' 6.1 Exposure Profiles
For this Risk Characterization, the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform
(MADEP 2002g) was used as a "Shortcut" MCP Method 3 Screening Risk
Characterization for human health for the conservative residential exposure scenario,
which addresses potential child/adult residential exposures to COPCs in soil, drinking
' water (from groundwater) and indoor air by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes and
pathways of exposure.
' 12
e
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
6.2 Exposure Assumptions and Quantitative Estimates of Exposure
6.2.1 Current Child/Adult Resident
Based on: a) the subsurface nature of the OHM release away from the occupied residence
' at 6-1.5 ft. bgs beneath the current stone driveway and landscaping; b) an average depth to
groundwater of 15 ft. bgs; and c) with no ongoing construction/utility work that could
expose the residual petroleum-contaminated soil, residents (or Site Visitors and/or
Trespassers) are not exposed directly to the residual COPCs in the subsurface soils
through incidental ingestion, dermal contact,or via inhalation of vapors or fugitive dusts
' entrained from friable, COPC-contaminated soils. However, it should be noted that,
currently, MADEP does not consider the inhalation.of fugitive dusts a significant route of
exposure in the residential scenario, relative to the incidental ingestion and dermal
1 contact routes of exposure. Consequently, inhalation of fugitive dusts is not evaluated in
the updated MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002g). Further, in
the absence of a demonstrated impact of volatile OHM on indoor air quality, inhalation of
' vapors is also not evaluated in this MCP Method 3 Shortform Screening Risk
Characterization. Finally, with no private well on the property or within 500 ft. of the
' Site, residents are not.exposed directly to COPCs by ingestion, dermal contact, or
inhalation of vapors from use of the groundwater as a continuous potable source for
drinking, bathing or cooking and this exposure scenario is not evaluated under current
Site conditions, activities and uses.
6.2.2 Future Child/Adult Resident
In contrast, under future foreseeable Site conditions, COPC-contaminated soils in the 6-
15 ft. bgs stratum within the release area away from the residence could be exposed and
brought to the ground surface and the aforementioned pathway and direct routes of
exposure completed.
In addition, these COPC-contaminated soils could end up in the root zone of any future
' residential garden on the property, resulting in additional, potential indirect exposures to
COPCs through the consumption of homegrown fruits and vegetables.
However, MADEP does not now consider this indirect pathway and route of exposure
significant for VPH/EPH fractions and targeted VOCs and PAHs, and it is not evaluated
in the updated MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002g).
' However, a new private well could be installed on the property within the residual
impacted area of groundwater in the vicinity of Monitoring Well MW-3, potentially
completing the direct pathway and route of exposure to COPCs in groundwater used as a
continuous potable source of drinking water. It should be noted that the installation of a
well in this area is considered unlikely, based on the setback of 150 ft. required from the
septic system by the Town of Barnstable's Board of Health (BOH 1974; also see 150 ft.
' radius shown in Figure 3 Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement. B&O
01-03-02).
i
13
1 Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 d
Any private well installed on the property would have to be located to the north or west
of the current residence, either in the vicinity of the current irrigation well or Monitoring
Wells MW-4 and MW-5, both of which have not been impacted by the OHM release on
the property.
MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform default assumptions used to evaluate the
direct soil exposure scenarios are provided in Table 6. Subchronic, chronic, and lifetime
' exposures are assumed to occur 153 days/year, over a one-year, 7-year and a 30-year
period, respectively. Potential receptors are identified as children and adults, 10.5-Kg,
' 16.8-Kg and 62-Kg average body weights, involved in low to moderate physical
activities, equivalent to an inhalation rate of 4.23 m'/event to 20 m'/event. Averaging
periods are 1 year, 7 years, and 75 years, respectively. Incidental ingestion and skin
' contact rates for soil are normalized for each age group and average body weight and
dermal contact with COPCs in soil is assumed to occur via the hands, arms, legs and face.
Ingestion rates for drinking water are set at I L/day for subchronic and chronic exposures,
and at 2 L/day for lifetime exposures. COPC-specific MADEP-default drinking water
multipliers for the dermal and inhalation routes during showering are shown in Table 5.
' Body weights and ventilation rates for the drinking water exposures are the same as those
used to evaluate the exposures to COPCs in soil (see Tables 7A and 7B).
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0993(3)(a) for the MCP GW-1
' Groundwater Category, which is conservatively considered potentially applicable to this
Site under future foreseeable activities and uses, the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential
' Shortform compares drinking water (groundwater source) COPC EPCs to Massachusetts
Drinking Water Quality Standards promulgated in 310 CMR 22.
6.2.3 Surface Water Bodies
6.2.3.1 Human and Aquatic Receptors
' Because the Eel River estuary is downgradient of and within the MCP-designated 500-ft.
radius of the Site (see Figure 2. MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Site Scoring
1 Map, dated 13 September 2002), groundwater discharge from the Site to this surface
water body is possible. However, the furthest downgradient wells from the Site, MW-4
and MW-5, are non-detect for Site-related OHMs (see Table 2A), indicating that this
' exposure pathway is incomplete. It should be noted that pursuant to 314 CMR 4.06 —
Cape Cod Drainage Area 96 (Figure 31; Table 31), the Eel River estuary drains to the
West Bay but has no apparent surface water classification.
' Consequently, as a conservative measure and also to meet the requirements of 310 CMR
40.0932(2), a potential downgradient surface water EPC for a Method 3 Risk
' Characterization for the Environment was derived from the maximum groundwater EPC
for the COPC, the EPH C„-C22 aromatic fraction, detected in Monitoring Well MW-3
(see Table 12), using the MADEP Default DAF of 100 (MADEP 1994a; 2002i) to
' evaluate potential risk of harm to the aquatic environment.
' 14
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
Pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0995(3)(b) for a Stage I Environmental
Screening, COPC EPCs' must be compared to Applicable, Available or Suitably
Analogous Standards, Criteria or Guidelines. For the MCP Method 3 Environmental
' Risk Characterization, these are identified as: a) Massachusetts.Surface Water Quality
Standards (as promulgated in 314 CMR 4.00); b) U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (U.S. EPA 1999) (applied pursuant to 314 CMR.4.05(5)(e)), and c) MADEP
' Water Quality Guidelines for the VPH/EPH fractions (MADEP 2002i).
A summary of the Exposure Pathways, Points and Receptors evaluated in this Risk
Characterization under current and _future foreseeable Site activities and uses are
presented in the text table below. The question mark (?) indicates a low probability for
completion of this exposure pathway.
' 6.3 Exposure Point Concentrations
' EPCs represent the COPC concentration in a medium that a receptor may come in contact
with at the exposure point. Depending on the exposure scenario, the exposure point may
consist of an area or zone of potential exposure, or a single exposure point. EPCs for this
I ' Risk Characterization were derived from the analytical soil and groundwater OHMS data
tabulated and summarized in Tables 1, 2C and 3.
' EXPOSURE POINTS, ROUTES AND PATHWAYS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE
Receptor Exposure Point Exposure Pathway and Route Current Future
Conditions Conditions
Child/Adult Soil Impacted Soil:
' Resident: Area away from ❑ Incidental Ingestion Incomplete Complete
Site Visitor/ residential ❑ Dermal Contact Incomplete Complete
Trespasser building footprint
' Drinking Water Groundwater Source:
❑ Ingestion incomplete Complete?
❑ Dermal Contact Incomplete Complete?
❑ Inhalation of Vapors Incomplete Complete?
Marine Aquatic Eel River Groundwater/Surface Water:
' Life Acute and chronic exposures Complete? Complete?
6.3.1 Soil
' For the child/adult resident, the arithmetic average COPC soil levels were used as the
EPCs (consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0926(3)(b)(2)(a)) to evaluate risk
for direct soil exposures in the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (see Tables
' 4A and 4B). Based on the available residual soil sampling depths (see Table 1), the EPCs
for the MCP Exposure Point Stratum (0-15 ft. bgs) were also used to assess the 0-3 ft. bgs
1 and 0-6 ft. bgs MCP Exposure Point Strata.
15
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
The COPC MCP-compliant soil EPCs listed in Tables 4A and 4B were also used to
ievaluate the risk of harm to Public Welfare through comparison to the Upper
Concentration Limits (UCLs) for soil pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.09996
' (see Tables 10A and 10B).
6.3.2 Groundwater
For the child/adult resident, average COPC groundwater EPCs were used to evaluate risk
for direct subchronic (<7 years) and chronic (>7 years)/lifetime (75 year) exposures in the
MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (see Tables 2C, 3, 4A and 4B).
Specifically, the subchronic EPC for the EPH C„-C,, aromatic fraction was based on the
arithmetic average of the two groundwater concentrations detected over the last several
' months (May and June 2002 —see Table 2C) to approximate the 3-month exposure period
indicated in USEPA (2000) and MADEP (1995a) Guidance; in contrast, the
chronic/lifetime EPC for the EPH C„-C» aromatic fraction was based on the arithmetic
' average of the groundwater concentrations detected over the last 12 months (July 2001
through June 2002 —see Table 2C) to approximate the average annual exposure indicated
in USEPA (2000) and MADEP (1995a) Guidance. In addition, these COPC groundwater
' EPCs were used to evaluate risk of harm to Human Health through comparison to
Drinking Water Standards (see Tables 9A and 9B) and risk of harm to Public Welfare was
evaluated through comparison to the UCLs for groundwater (see Tables IOA and JOB).
6.3.3 Surface Water
' Surface water EPCs were derived for the one COPC from the maximum groundwater
EPC of 365 µg/L using the MADEP-default DAF of 100 for the EPH C„-C-', aromatic
fraction (MADEP 1994, 2002i).
6.4 Estimation of Chemical Intake
' To evaluate the risk of harm to human health, the intake of each COPC must be estimated
by determining the amount of material in contact with the receptor and the amount
actually available for absorption by the body. This assessment is achieved through the
calculation of an Average Daily Dose (ADD) for each non-carcinogenic COPC and a
Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD) for each carcinogenic COPC for the oral and
dermal routes of exposure, and the corresponding Average Daily Exposure (ADE) and
Lifetime Average Daily Exposure (LADE) for the inhalation route of exposure.
Compound-specific and exposure route-specific Relative Absorption.Factors (RAFs) and
body weights are used in the ADD and LADD equations to convert an exposure (amount)
to a dose (amount per unit body weight). The RAFs used in this Risk Characterization
are listed in Table 5.
16
�. Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
Although there may be variations in the formula for each route of exposure, the general
' ADD/LADD equation is as follows and is consistent with those provided in MADEP's
Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization,July 1995 (MADEP 1995a; 2002c-0.
ADD/LADD = Total Amount of Chemical Taken In
(Body Weight) * (Averaging Period)
' The averaging period (AP), or period of time over which the total intake of contaminant
is averaged, can be adjusted to calculate the ADD for an acute exposure (AP = 1 day or
' less), for a subchronic exposure (AP = few days - less than seven years), for a chronic
exposure (AP = more than seven years - somewhat less than lifetime), and for a LADD, a
lifetime exposure (AP = 70 years). The equations, exposure frequencies, exposure
durations and averaging periods used in this Risk Characterization are listed in Tables 6
and 7A and 7B and correspond to the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform
values (MADEP 2002g). USEPA's default body weight of 70-Kg and daily respiration
' rate of 20 m3 are used for the conversion of an RfD to an RfC when no RfC value is
available.
' The ADD/ADE and LADD/LADE values calculated for subchronic/chronic, and lifetime
exposures are compared to the applicable toxicity values (i.e., RfDs, RfCs; Oral Cancer
Slope Factors; and Unit Risk Values) discussed in Section 5. This comparison provides a
' numerical estimate of the non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic levels of risk, and the
potential for adverse health effects to occur due to exposure to COPCs, as described in
the next section. Since no COPCs were identified as Class A or B carcinogens, no
carcinogenic risk analyses were conducted for the human health assessment.
7.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
To characterize the risk of harm to human health from potential exposures to the residual
COPCs identified at the Site, non-carcinogenic risks were characterized for each COPC
' present at each exposure point for each receptor, and the cumulative receptor risk values
compared to the applicable MADEP Risk Limit to assess the condition of"No Significant
Risk."
In addition, the condition of "No Significant Risk" to human health was evaluated
through comparison of EPCs for the COPCs to Applicable or Suitably Analogous Health
' Standards.
7.1 Non-Carcinogenic Risk Characterization
To estimate non-carcinogenic risk, the Hazard Quotient (HQ) for each COPC is
calculated by dividing the ADD or ADE computed in the Exposure Assessment (Section
' 6.4) by the Reference Dose or Concentration (RfD or RfC), respectively, identified in the
Dose-Response Assessment (Section 5).
' 17
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 .v
The Total Site Risk for each receptor (i.e., Child/Adult) is subsequently calculated by
' summing the Hazard Indices (HI) for each route (e.g., oral, dermal, inhalation) and
applicable exposure medium (i.e., soil, drinking water from groundwater source). The
Total Site Hazard Indices are then compared to the Cumulative Non-Cancer Risk Limit or
' Hazard Index of 1 established in 310 CMR 40.0902(2)(b) to characterize the risk of harm
to human health, and to determine whether a condition of"No Significant Risk" exists at
' the Site as defined in 310 CMR 40.0993(7)(c).
7.1.1 Hazard Indices for the Child/Adult Resident
' The Total Site Hazard Indices (Hls) calculated for potential exposures to COPCs in
potentially accessible soils and groundwater used as a continuous source of potable water
1 are shown in Table 11. The Total Site Hls (the cumulative sums of each route and
pathway evaluated) are 0.3 (subchronic threshold effects), and 1 (chronic threshold
effects). Neither HI value rounded to one significant figure exceeds the MADEP
' Cumulative Non-Cancer Risk Limit of 1 (310 CMR 40993(6)). The individual COPC
route-specific Hazard Quotients (HQs) calculated from the Chemical Intake Values (i.e.,
ADDS) for soil are shown in Table. 6 and those for drinking water (groundwater source)
' for subchronic and chronic/lifetime exposures are presented in Tables 7A and 713,
respectively.
7.2 Carcinogenic Risk Characterization
For carcinogens, risk is estimated as the incremental probability of an individual
developing cancer over a lifetime (70-75 years) as a result of exposure to the potential
carcinogen. The excess lifetime cancer risk for each COPC is calculated by multiplying
' the lifetime average daily dose (LADD) estimated in the Exposure Assessment by the
cancer slope factor (CSF) or Unit Risk (UR) value identified in the Dose-Response
Assessment (see Table 5). As with the non-carcinogenic risk, the excess lifetime cancer
risk (ELCR) for each COPC is summed to calculate the Total Cancer Risk for each
' exposure route (e.g., Cancer Risk for dermal contact with soil). The Total Cancer Risk
for each applicable exposure route is then summed to yield the Total Risk from each
medium (e.g., Total Cancer Risk from soil). Finally, the Total Cancer Risk from each
medium is summed to yield the Total Site Cancer Risk for each receptor (e.g., Total Site
Carcinogenic Risk for the adult resident). The value is then compared to the Cumulative
' Cancer Risk Limit of an ELCR of 1 x 10-5 (1 in 100,000) established by the MCP at 310
CMR 40.0902(2)(b), to characterize the risk of harm to human health, and to establish
whether a condition of "No Significant Risk" exists,. as defined in 310 CMR
' 40.0993(7)(b).
In this MCP Method 3 Screening Risk Characterization, no Class A or, B carcinogens
' were identified (see Table 5). Consequently, no ELCRs were calculated.
' ' 18
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
7.3 Applicable or Suitably Analogous Public Health Standards
As part of the evaluation of the condition of No Significant risk of harm to human
health, as defined in 310 CMR 40.0993(7), the MCP requires a comparison of COPC
EPCs to available Applicable or Suitably Analogous Public Health Standards (310 CMR
40.0993(3)).
Such standards include, but are not limited to: Massachusetts Drinking Water Quality
Standards promulgated in 310 CMR 22.00 (MADEP 2001), which are considered
' applicable to groundwater resource areas (310 CMR 40.0932); Air Quality Standards
promulgated in 310 CMR 6.00; Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
promulgated in 314 CMR 4.00; and U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (314 CMR
' 4.05(5)(e)) and U.S. EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria — Correction.
EPA 822-Z-99-001 (U.S. EPA 1999) for human consumption of fish.
As noted in Sections 2.0 and 3.2 of this Risk Characterization, the Site is considered to be
part of a groundwater resource area pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0932(4)(b). Consequently,
comparison of COPC MCP-compliant groundwater EPCs to MADEP Drinking Water
' Standards as Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards (consistent with the
requirements of 310 CMR 40.0993(3)) is required for the evaluation of"Significant Risk"
of harm to human health. There are no Drinking Water Standards (pursuant to 310 CMR
' 22; see MADEP 2007) for the one non-carcinogenic residual COPC detected on-site in
groundwater (see Tables 9A and 9B).
Finally, no Applicable or Suitably Analogous Air Quality Standards were identified for
the volatile OHM identified as COPCs. Hence, no comparison of COPC atmospheric
EPCs to any Air Quality Standard could be made as part of the evaluation of the
condition of"No Significant" risk of harm to human health.
' 8.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
Risk Characterizations are subject to a number of uncertainties. As a result, risk
estimates derived from the equations and assumptions used in this Risk Characterization
should not be interpreted as absolute estimates of the risks of harm to human health,
safety, public welfare or the environment, posed by potential exposures to COPCs
identified at the Site and within its environs.
General sources of uncertainty include:
❑ adequacy of the Site characterization;
❑ adequacy of the sampling plan and analytical methods;
❑ quality and treatment of the analytical data;
' ❑ modeling of EPCs;
❑ accuracy of the exposure assumptions; and
' ❑ development of toxicity values (i.e., RfDs, RfCs and CSFs).
19
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 It
vG
Specific uncertainties and steps to reduce these levels of uncertainty are discussed below.
8.1 Hazard Identification
' Sampling of the soil and groundwater at the Site has been performed over a three-year
period from 1999 to the present to: a) characterize the nature and extent of the petroleum
' release; b) evaluate the effects of remediation on the petroleum release; and c) to
characterize current (i.e., existing) conditions in preparation for Site closure. During this
sampling and analysis, uncertainty associated with the reproducible quantification of the
levels of individual EPH fractions and targeted analytes detected in petroleum-
contaminated soils and groundwater can be introduced.
' Since the introduction of the MADEP methodology for VPH/EPH analysis of soil and
groundwater samples in August 1995, refinement of the analytical protocols has occurred
and is continuing as laboratories strive to improve performance standards (MADEP
' 1996b7 1997a, 1998 a-d). In addition, the MADEP Guidance for "Characterizing Risks
posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH
Approach" has been updated and recently released as Final Policy WSC#-02-411
(MADEP 20021), reflecting MADEP's continuing efforts to refine the risk
characterization process and to reduce uncertainty.
Uncertainty can also exist and potential risks overestimated, if no effort is made to
differentiate between background levels of certain soil OHM detected at the Site, such as
PAHs associated with local fill materials, and those PAHs considered Compounds of
Investigatory Interest for known releases, such as gasoline and/or No. 2 Fuel/Diesel Oil
(MADEP 1991). This uncertainty is now more readily addressed through comparison of
maximum PAH soil levels to the recently published MADEP Background Level for
"natural" soils or soils' containing either coal ash or wood ash associated with fill
material, or other material consistent with the regulatory definition of Background
' (MADEP 2002f). However, for this Risk Characterization no PAHs were reported in the
residual soils lining the walls and the bottom of the excavation of the former UST grave;
hence, no PAHs were identified as COP-Cs.
8.2 Dose-Response Assessment
In the Dose-Response Assessment, the use of an Uncertainty Factor and a Modifying
Factor, which are applied by the U.S. EPA to toxicity information to obtain RfD and RfC
values, are used to account for the following uncertainties, which, in turn, can add to the
overall uncertainty of the Risk Characterization findings:
❑ the use of dose-response information from effects observed at high doses to
predict the adverse health effects that may occur following exposure to the
low levels expected from human contact with the COPCs in.the environment;
20
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 NNW
❑ the use of dose-response information from short-term exposure studies to
' predict the effects of long-term exposures, and vice-versa;
❑ the use of dose-response information from animal studies to predict adverse
health effects in humans;
' ❑ the use of dose-response information from homogeneous animal populations
or healthy human populations to predict the adverse health effects likely to be
observed in the general population, consisting of individuals with a wide
range of sensitivities;
❑ the use of oral RfD or CSF values as surrogate toxicity values for the dermal
and inhalation routes of exposure;
' ❑ the use of surrogate RfD, RfC and CSF values for those compounds without
assigned values; in the case of the MADEP EPH fractions, n-Nonane,
Eicosane, and Pyrene were used as surrogates for the aliphatic and aromatic
fractions' RfD and RfC values. It should be noted that proposed changes to
these values were recently finalized as part of Policy WSC#-02-411 (MADEP
20021) ;
❑ the use of surrogate physico-chemical values for modeling the partitioning and
migration of volatile EPH fractions from soil and groundwater to ambient air;
❑ the application of a RAF of 1 for COPCs without an assigned RAF. This
assumes that the entire amount of the compound inhaled, ingested or in
contact with the skin is absorbed (i.e., 100 percent absorption) and available
to exert its toxic action-, and
❑ the use of MADEP default Drinking Water Multipliers for the dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure in the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential
Shortform (MADEP 2002g), as opposed to the development of COPC-specific
uptake values for the dermal route and use of the Foster & Chrostowski
Shower Model for the inhalation route (MADEP 2002b).
' 8.3 Exposure Assessment
The Exposure Assessment focuses on the evaluation of non-carcinogenic and
carcinogenic effects for an individual who is maximally exposed to the COPCs.
Generally, conservative exposure assumptions are used for EPCs, frequency, and duration
of exposure.
' These conservative assumptions can overestimate risk and result in compounding
conservatism in determining the potential risk of harm from exposure to the COPCs, thus
contributing to the uncertainty of the Risk Characterization. Hence, a Risk
Characterization finding of "No Significant Risk" of harm, using these conservative
assumptions, is considered highly protective of human health, public welfare, and the
' environment. Pursuant to the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0924(2) and to reduce
uncertainty, groundwater COPC EPCs for subchronic and chronic/lifetime exposures
were developed from monitoring data collected over the last 2-3 and 12-month periods,
respectively, for comparison to Drinking Water Standards and/or Guidelines (see Tables
9A and 9B) and to evaluate cumulative receptor risk for the Child/Adult residential
exposure scenario (see Tables 4A and 4B).
' 21
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
8.4 Risk Characterization
In the preliminary assessment of non-cancer risk, it is assumed that each COPC exerts the
same toxicity by each route of exposure. Hence, when the cumulative receptor HI's for
subchronic or chronic exposures do not exceed unity, the finding of "No Significant
Risk" of harm to human health is considered highly conservative. In contrast, when the
' HI value exceeds unity, it is appropriate to evaluate the cumulative risk on the basis of the
COPC's endpoint of toxicity by each route of exposure, in order to reduce the uncertainty
associated with this conservative assumption. For the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel
' Residential Shortform, which uses highly conservative exposure assumptions, neither the
non-cancer cumulative risk HI for subchronic exposures nor the HI for chronic exposures
exceed unity (see Table 11), establishing a highly conservative finding of"No Significant
' Risk" of harm to human health, specifically the most sensitive receptor, the Child/Adult
resident.
9.0 PUBLIC WELFARE RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Risk of harm to Public Welfare from potential exposures to COPCs detected at the Site is
' characterized in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0994, under the current and reasonably
foreseeable Site activities and uses identified in Section 3.1.
Factors evaluated included: nuisance conditions (e.g., odors); loss of active or passive
property uses; any non-pecuniary effects not otherwise addressed elsewhere in this Risk
Characterization that may accrue due to the degradation of public resources and is
directly attributable to the release or threat of release of OHM or the remedial alternative;
and degradation of public or private drinking water resources as a result of the OHM
release. In addition, arithmetic average soil levels and groundwater EPCs (based on
arithmetic averages) detected at the Site were compared to their respective Upper
Concentration Limits (UCLs) listed in 310 CMR 40.0996(7) or calculated in accordance
' with 310 CMR 40.0996(8). None of the COPC soil levels or groundwater concentrations
detected at the Site exceeds their respective UCLs (see Tables 10A and 10B).
Further, based on discussions with B&O, there are: no persistent, noxious odors in the
breathing zone of the ambient air at the Site; no reports of degradation of public or
private drinking water resources in the area as a result of the release of the OHMs; no
' livestock have been impacted by the release of OHMs at the Site; and no current impact
on the community is likely to occur from the OHM release.
Hence, based on the above findings and the absence of Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(NAPL) at the Site (B&O 2000, 2001a,b), plus the observation that none of the COPC
' soil levels or groundwater concentrations exceed their respective UCLs, the Site is
considered to meet the condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to Public Welfare as
defined in 310 CMR 40.0994 both under current and"afuture foreseeable Site conditions,
' activities and uses.
' 22
Joao
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
10.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF RISK TO SAFETY
Risk of Harm to Safety, associated with the release of COPCs at the Site, was evaluated
' in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.094](2) and 310 CMR 40.0960.
The evaluation process is considered consistent with the MCP RAPS as defined in 310
CMR 40.0191.
The evaluation was based on discussions with B&O. COPC-related safety hazards
evaluated under current and future foreseeable site conditions in this Risk
' Characterization included: the presence of open pits; lagoons; uncontained corrosive,
flammable/ignitable, reactive, or infectious 'materials; threat of fire or explosion,
including the presence of explosive vapors; weakened berms; and rusted or corroded
' drums or containers.
Based on the absence of the aforementioned potential physical/chemical safety risks, a
condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to Safety is considered to exist under both
current and reasonably foreseeable future Site conditions, activities and uses. Further
' evaluation of risk of harm to Safety through comparison of site conditions to Applicable
or Suitably Analogous Safety Standards (e.g., Lower Explosive Limits) is not considered
applicable to this Site. Consequently, a condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to
Safety is considered to exist at the Site.
1
11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION
' Characterization of the risk of harm to the Environment associated with the release of
COPCs under the current and reasonably foreseeable Site activities and uses identified in
' Section 3.1 was conducted using a Stage I Environmental Screening (as defined in 310
CMR 40.0995(3)) to assess the potential impact of COPCs on biota and habitat(s) that
could be present at or within the environs of the Site, as well as through the application of
UCLs, as described in 310 CMR 40.0995(5).
A condition of "No Significant" risk of harm to the Environment (310 CMR
' 40.0995(3)(a)(1,2)) was evaluated, based on: a) the absence of complete exposure
pathways between the COPCs and any environmental receptors identified at the Site or
within its environs; b) comparison of COPC EPCs in groundwater and surface water to
the MADEP Ambient Water Quality Guides (MADEP 2002i), the MADEP Surface
Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00), and the U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality
Criteria (314 CMR 4.05(5)(e)) and U.S. EPA National Recommended Water Quality
' Criteria — Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001 (U.S. EPA 1999); and c) the absence of
significant "Readily Apparent" environmental harm, as described in 310 CMR
40.0995(3)(b)(1).
' 23
I �
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
11.1 Stage I Environmental Screening
' Environmental receptors that may be impacted by COPCs at the Site, either directly or
indirectly through off-site migration of the COPCs, can include habitats and biota, such
' as ACECs and threatened and/or endangered species or species of special concern. Based
on discussions with B&O and a review of the MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
Site Scoring Map, dated 13 September 2002 (see Figure 2), which was provided by
B&O, the following observations about the Site and its environs are reported:
❑ The Site lies within a FEMA 100-year floodplain, which also borders the coast
' lines of West Bay and Wianno Beach, each of which lies within the MCP-
designated 0.5-mile radius around the Site.
❑ No visible signs of stressed vegetation were noted within the environs of the
Site, which includes the grounds and landscaped areas outside the footprint of
the residence.
' ❑ Based on the MADEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Site Scoring Map, dated
13 September 2002 (see Figure 2), except for the Eel River estuary, which lies
to the west of the Site, there are no other environmental receptors (as defined
' in 310 CMR 40.0922) of potential concern within the MCP-designated 500-ft.
radius around the Site. Specifically, there are no Protected Open Spaces,
Vernal Pools, ACECs, or Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife or Rare Species
(see Cotuit Quad - NHESP 2007). The primary direction of groundwater flow
across the Site is from the northeast to the southwest towards the Eel River,
which is located approximately 160 ft. west of the former UST grave and area
' of release and is considered the primary environmental receptor for this OHM
release (see Figure 3. Site Plan. RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement.
B&O 01-03-02). No surface water classification is apparent for the Eel River
' (see Table 31 and Figure 31. Cape Cod Coastal Drainage Area (96), 314
CMR 4.06(3)154 and 154.4).
❑ Parker Pond, a freshwater surface body, is located upgradient and to the
' northeast of the Site between the MCP-designated.500-ft. and 0.5-mile radii
around the Site; also present are freshwater wetlands to the east of the pond
and Protected Open Space, which abuts the pond to the south southwest and
then extends westwards across Eel River Road (see Figure 3. Site Plan.
RAOC-2. Area of Class C RAO Statement. B&O 01-03-02). Additional
' freshwater wetlands are situated outside the MCP-designated 500-ft. radius
around the Site to the east southeast (near Sea View Avenue) and saltwater
wetlands are present along the coast of West Bay to the west southwest of the
I ' Site.
❑ Based on the subsurface nature of the release at 5-16 ft. bgs outside the
footprint of the residence, covered in part by a stone driveway and in part by
landscaping, the completion of any exposure pathway between wildlife
indigenous to the area, and soil and groundwater COPCs is considered
unlikely.
' 24
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
❑ Consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 40.0932(2), which assumes that
all groundwater shall discharge to surface water, risk of harm to the
Environment must be evaluated by comparison of environmental EPCs to
' MADEP VPH/EPH Water Quality Guides (MADEP 2001a), Massachusetts
Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00), and U.S. EPA Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (314 CMR 4.05(5)(e) and 310 CMR 40.1516; U.S.
EPA 1999). The COPC surface water EPC for the C„-C?? Aromatic Fraction,
does not exceed the available criterion for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity
to freshwater and/or marine organisms (see Table 12).
' ❑ Finally, B&O indicates that, based on their monitoring of the groundwater
quality at the Site, no NAPLs are present at a thickness of greater than one-
half inch.
I ' Based on the findings of the above Stage I Environmental Screening, current and future
g g g�
foreseeable Site conditions pose "No Significant" risk of harm to the Environment, as
tdefined in 310 CMR 40.0995(3).
In addition, no Stage II Environmental Risk Characterization (as defined in 310 CMR
' 40.0995(4)) is required to evaluate "Significant Risk" of Environmental Harm or
"Evidence" of Environmental Harm from potential COPC exposures.
' 12.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
An MCP Method 3 Risk Characterization has been conducted for a subsurface release of
' No. 2 Fuel Oil at the subject Site in accordance with the requirements of 310 CMR
40.0990. The analytical sampling data for EPH fractions and Targeted PAHs detected in
soil and/or groundwater were collected from 333 Eel River Road, Osterville, MA by
B&O from October 1999 through June 2002 and were used to determine current
' (existing) Site conditions following excavation of petroleum-contaminated soils and
chemical and biological remediation of the residual OHMS in soil and groundwater. No
' impact on indoor air quality at the residence was reported and the surface water
concentration in the downgradient the Eel River was estimated from the maximum
groundwater EPC for the only COPC detected (in groundwater) using a conservative
default MADEP-DAF(MADEP 20020.
The MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002g) was used as a
' conservative "Short Cut" to screen for human health risks associated with potential
exposures to residual COPCs under current and future foreseeable residential activities
and uses of the Site. A summary of non-cancer cumulative receptor risks calculated for
' the residential scenario are presented in Table 11.
Medium- and route-specific risks for soil and drinking water (groundwater source) are
' shown in Tables 6, and 7A and 7B, respectively. No residual COPCs were identified as
A Class or B carcinogens; consequently, no excess lifetime cumulative receptor risks
were calculated in this Risk Characterization.
' 25
1 Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
A qualitative interpretation of the overall cumulative human health risk findings from
' Table 11 is shown below in Text Table A. Findings of "No Significant Risk" of harm
under current or future foreseeable Site conditions for each receptor and individual
exposure route and pathway are denoted in the text table by NSR. This means that the
cumulative receptor Total Site Risk Hazard Indices (HI) for Non-carcinogenic COPCs do
not exceed the MADEP Cumulative Non-Cancer Risk Limit of 1 (310 CMR 40993(6)).
IEP denotes an Incomplete Exposure Pathway.
12.1 Human Health
' 12.1.1 Current Site Conditions
Under current (existing) conditions, residual petroleum-contaminated soils are located at
' approximately 6-15 ft. bgs in an area upgradient of and within 30 ft. of the occupied
residence. The release area is currently covered in part by a stone driveway and in part
by landscaping. Depth to groundwater across the Site is approximately 15 ft. bgs.
' Consequently, there are no exposed.COPC-contaminated subsurface soils or groundwater
at the Site. In addition, there is no ongoing release of petroleum contamination, no off-
property Substantial Release Migration (SRM), no construction/utility work, and no
' Critical Exposure Pathway (CEP) for vapor intrusion into the residence and inhalation of
COPC-impacted indoor air. The Site is conservatively considered part of a GWA
Groundwater Resource Area; however, there is no private well on the property or within
500 ft. of the Site and two downgradient Monitoring Wells, MW-4 and MW-5, have not
been impacted by petroleum-related OHMS.
' Text Table A. Summ ry of Human Health &.Environmental Risk Findin s
Current Future
' Receptor Exposure Exposure Pathway and Route Conditions Conditions
Point
Child/Adult Indoor Air Air:
Resident ❑ Inhalation of Volatiles IEP IEP
t Site Visitor/
Trespasser Potentially Soil:
Accessible ❑ Incidental Ingestion IEP NSR
Soils ❑ Dermal Contact IEP NSR
❑ Inhalation of Fugitive Dust IEP NSR*
Drinking Groundwater Source :
Water ❑ Ingestion IEP NSR
❑ Dermal Contact IEP NSR ,
' ❑ Inhalation of Vapors IEP NSR
Marine Aquatic Eel River/ Groundwater/Surface Water:
Life Wetlands ❑ Acute and chronic exposures NSR NSR
' Legend: IEP = Incomplete Exposure Pathway
NSR = "No Significant Risk"
*NSR = Based on the NSR finding for the more significant oral and dermal
' routes of exposure evaluated for the resident.
' 26
Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 r
' Consequently, under current Site conditions, the potential for the completion of direct
and/or indirect exposure pathways of significance between residents, visitors, trespassers,
or downgradient residential abutters, and any residual COPCs in subsurface soils and
' groundwater is considered negligible. Accordingly, under current Site activities and uses,
a condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to human health is considered to exist.
' 12.1.2 Future Site Conditions
Under future foreseeable Site activities and uses, the cumulative non-cancer risk findings
' from the MADEP #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (MADEP 2002g) for the
Child/Adult resident indicate a condition of "No Significant Risk" of harm to human
health from potential subchronic or chronic exposures to residual COPCs in soil and
groundwater. These include: a) direct exposures via incidental ingestion and dermal
contact with exposed subsurface soils; and b) direct exposures via ingestion, dermal
' contact and: inhalation of vapors from use of on-site groundwater in the vicinity of
Monitoring Well MW-3 as a continuous potable source for drinking water and showering.
Comparison of the only groundwater COPC (i.e., the EPH C„-C,-, aromatic fraction)
EPCs for subchronic and chronic/lifetime exposures to available Massachusetts Drinking
' Water Standards and/or Guidelines (MADEP 2001) also indicates a condition of "No
Significant Risk" of harm to human health from potential subchronic/chronic and lifetime
' exposures to the residual COPC in groundwater used as a continuous potable source of
drinking water.
12.2 Public Welfare
Based on:
o a comparison of the COPC soil levels and groundwater concentrations detected at
the Site (see Tables 10A and 10B) to their respective UCLs (see Table 6, dated
10129199 in 310 CMR 40.0996(7)) or UCLs derived in accordance with 310 CMR
I ' 40.0996(8));
❑ the absence of NAPL at the Site;
1 ❑ no persistent, noxious odors in the breathing zone of ambient air at the Site;
❑ no reports of degradation of public or private drinking water resources in the area
or at the Site; and
❑ no current impact of the Site OHM releases on the community ;
current and future foreseeable Site conditions, activities and uses pose "No Significant
Risk" of harm to Public Welfare and a Permanent Solution (as defined in 310 CMR
40.0006) is indicated.
' 27
1 �
Risk Birmingham Residence,,Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 :� d
12.3 Safety and the Environment
Risk of harm to Safety and the Environment is considered "Not Significant" under both
' current and reasonably foreseeable future Site conditions. No visible signs of physical
(e.g., lagoons, pits, rusted drums) or chemical hazards (e.g., corrosive,
flammable/ignitable, reactive materials) are present at the Site, and the estimated COPC
surface water EPC for the EPH C„-C," aromatic fraction does not exceed available US.
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (U.S. EPA 1999) or MADEP Water Quality Guides
(MADEP 20021) for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity. In addition, based on the
' subsurface nature of the residual contamination on the property, the completion of
exposure pathways is considered unlikely between COPCs detected in soil and
groundwater and other environmental receptors, which could include terrestrial wildlife.
' 12.4 Summary and Recommendations
Based on the above MCP Method 3 Risk Characterization findings, potential exposures
to residual COPCs detected in soil and groundwater at the Site pose "No Significant Risk
' of Harm" to Human Health, Public Welfare, Safety, and the Environment under both
current and future foreseeable Site activities and uses.
Accordingly, no AUL is required to maintain a condition of"No Significant Risk" under
' future foreseeable Site activities and uses and a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome
(RAO) (as defined in 310 CMR 40.1036(2)) is indicated.
Use of this RAO does not assume that all on-site Monitoring Wells will be
decommissioned to eliminate any future foreseeable exposure points to groundwater.
However, use of this RAO class will require justification (as required in 370 CMR
40.0190(5) and 310 CMR 40.1020(1)) for why reduction to Background at the Site (as
defined in 310 CMR 40.0006) is not feasible.
13.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations of this Method 3 Risk Characterization are based
solely on the limited work scope conducted and the sources of information referenced in
this report. Any additional information that becomes available concerning this Site
' should be provided to Risk Management Incorporated so that our conclusions and
recommendations may be reviewed and modified as necessary.
Our conclusions regarding the Site are based solely on the soil and groundwater chemical
analysis program performed for the Site evaluation by B&O. Therefore, the conclusions
' regarding this Risk Characterization do not represent a warranty that all areas within the
Site are of the same quality as those sampled and that, upon additional sampling, the data
would render the same conclusions.
28
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
The work performed by Risk Management Incorporated has been undertaken in
accordance with generally accepted environmental risk practices in the geographical area.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The contents of this report may not be
' copied, provided, or otherwise communicated to any other party, for any purpose, in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Risk Management Incorporated.
1
29
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
14.0 REFERENCES
B&O 2000 Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc. Letter: "Release Abatement Measure
Status Report. Birmingham Residence RTN 4-15283, 333 Eel
River Road, Osterville, MA" to Mr. Dan Crafton, Case Officer,
MADEP, SERO, BWSC/ERS, 20 Riverside Drive, Lakeville, MA
02347 from Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc, 1573 Main Street, P.O. Box
1667, Brewster, MA 02631, dated 15 June 2000.
B&O 2001 a Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc. Letter: ""Class C — Response Action
Outcome Statement. Remedy Implementation Plan: Phase I
through Phase IV CRA. RTN 4-15283. Birmingham Cape
' Residence, 333 Eel River Road, Osterville, MA" to Mr. Dan
Crafton, Case Officer, MADEP, SERO, BWSC/ERS, Lakeville,
MA from Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc, 1573 Main Street, P.O. Box
1667, Brewster, MA 02631, dated 8 January 2001.
B&O 2001 b Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc. Letter: "Remedial Operation Plan Status
Report. Birmingham Residence - RTN 4-15283, 333 Eel River
Road, Osterville, MA" to Mr. Dan Crafton, Case Officer, .MADEP,
SERO, BWSC/ERS, Lakeville, MA from Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc,
1573 Main Street, P.O. Box 1667, Brewster, MA 02631, dated 3
August 2001.
' BOH 1974 Board of Health. Town of Barnstable. 397 Main Street, Hyannis,
MA 02061. Adoption of Provisions of Section 31 and Section
' 127A of Chapter I I I of the Generals Laws, Regulation 2 of Article
I and Regulation 3 of Article XI, of the Sanitary Code of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
' LSPA 1999 Licensed Site Professional Association. Methods for Evaluation
Application of the Coal Ash and Wood Ash Exemption Under the
1 Massachusetts Contingency Plan. LSP Association, One Walnut
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02108-3616. 19 October 1999.
MADEP 1990 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of
Research and Standards. The Chemical Health Effects Assessment
Methodology and the Method to Derive Allowable Ambient Limits.
' No. 90-1, Volumes I & II, May 1990.
MADEP 1991 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Waste Site Cleanup. Policy for the Investigation, Assessment, and
Remediation of Petroleum Releases. Policy #WSC-401-91. April
1991.
' 30
1 Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 00 p,a n
' MADEP 1992 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of.
Research and Standards and the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup.
' Documentation for the Risk Assessment Shortform Residential
Scenario, Version 1.6. Policy WSC/ORS-142-92. October 1992.
' MADEP 1994a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards.
Background Documentation for the Development of the MCP
Numerical Standards. April 1994.
MADEP 1994b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Interim
Final Petroleum Report: Development of Health-Based Alternative
to the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) Parameter. Prepared
' by Office of Research and Standards and ABB Environmental
Services, Inca August 1994.
MADEP 1995a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
' Waste Site Cleanup and the Office of Research and Standards.
Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization in Support of the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan. BWSC/ORS-95-141. July
1995.
MADEP 1995b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Waste Site Cleanup, Office of Research and Standards and
Division of Air Quality Control. Revised Air Guidelines:
' Massachusetts Threshold Effects Exposure Limits (TELs) and
Allowable Ambient Limits (AALs) for Ambient Air. .December
1995.
' MADEP 1996a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Waste Site Cleanup and Office of Research and Standards.
' Environmental Risk Characterization. Guidance. WSC/ORS-95-
1.41., March 1996.
MADEP 1996b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Issues
Paper: Implementation of VPH/EPH Approach. Public Comment
' Draft,,May 1996.
MADEP 1997 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of
Research and Standards and the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup.
Documentation for the#2 Fuel/Diesel Risk Assessment Shortform
Residential Scenario, Version 2.0. Policy WSC/ORS-142-92. 22
December, 1997.
31
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283 _ a
MADEP 1998a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
' of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Final VPHIEPH Methods: Report
on Round Robin Evaluation. 14 January, 1998.
MADEP 1998b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Method for the Determination of
Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH). January 1998.
MADEP 1998c Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
' of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Method for the Determination of
' Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH). January 1998.
MADEP 1998d Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
' of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Report on the Results of the Fall
1997 VPHIEPH Round Robin Testing Program. 12 January, 1998.
MADEP 1998e Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of
Research and Standards. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Updated 10 July 1998.
MADEP 1999a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
' Waste Site Cleanup. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan. 310
CMR 40.0000. 29 October 1999 updates.
' MADEP 1999b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Supporting Spreadsheets for
1 Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites:
Implementation of MADEP VPHIEPH Approach. 25 May 1999.
MADEP 1999c Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Air Phase Petroleum
' Hydrocarbons. Final Report on Laboratory Method Validation
Study for Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Indoor Air. ENSR# 9892-084-000. June 1999.. Errata: 24 August
1999.
1 32
e
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283
MADEP 2001 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Massachusetts Drinking Water Quality Standards - as promulgated
in 310 CMR 22.00; Spring 2001.
' MADEP 2002a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division
ision
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Indoor Air Sampling and
Evaluation Guide. WSC Policy #02-430. April 2002.
' MADEP 2002b Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Proposed Method 1 Soil and
' Groundwater Standards. Draft, 15 February 2002 and Proposed
GW-2 Changes 24 April 2002.
' MADEP 2002c Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. "Weighted Skin-Soil Adherence
Factors." Update to: Appendix B Guidance for Disposal Site Risk
Characterization in Support of the Massachusetts Contingency
' Plan. BWSC/ORS-95-141. July 1995. April 2002.
MADEP 2002d Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. "Characterization of Risks Due to
Inhalation of Particulates by Construction Workers." Update to:
' Section 7.3 and Appendix B Guidance for Disposal Site Risk
Characterization in Support of the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan. BWSC/ORS-95-141. July 1995. April 2002.
' MADEP 2002e Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division
P ,
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. "Calculation of Enhanced Soil
Ingestion Rate." Updates: Appendix B Guidance for Disposal Site
Risk Characterization in Support of the Massachusetts
' Contingency Plan. BWSC/ORS-95-141. July 1995. April 2002.
' MADEP 2002f Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. "Background Levels of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil." Updates: Section 2.3
Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization in Support of the
C Massachusetts Contingency Plan. BWSC/ORS-95-141. July 1995.
May 2002.
' 33
' Risk Characterization: Birmingham Residence, Osterville, MA. RTN 4-15283o T
' MADEP 2002g Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MADEP
Bureau of Strategic Policy and Technology, Office of Research
and Standards. #2 Fuel/Diesel Residential Shortform (version 2.1
' Working Draft),1 June 2002.
MADEP 2002h Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of
Research and Standards. Gasoline Residential Shortform (version
2.1 Working Draft), 1 June 2002.
MADEP 2002i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Environmental Analysis, Office of Research and Standards,
Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup. Characterizing Risks Posed by
' Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of MADEP
VPH/EPH Approach. Final Policy #WSC-02-411. 31 October
2002.
NH ESP 20001 National Heritage & Endangered Species Program. Massachusetts
Natural Heritage Atlas. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, &
Environmental Law Enforcement. 2000-2001 Edition. Valid 1
October 1999 through 31 December 2001.
TPHCWG 1997 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series.
Volume 3. Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on
Fate and Transport Considerations. Gustafson JB, Griffith Tell G,
and Orem D. July 1.997.
U.S. EPA 1987 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Priority
WetlandslWaterbodies in New England, September 1987.
U.S. EPA 1999 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Correction. EPA 822-Z-
99-001. U.S. EPA. April 1999.
U.S. EPA 2000 U.S. Environmental Protection A enc . Office of Water 4304
g Y � )
Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. EPA-822-B-
00-00; Summer 2000.
' 34
1
1
1
t APPENDICES
1
I
1
1
1
' APPENDIX A
1
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA SHEETS:
SOIL SAMPLES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
PRIME
PLACEHOLDER FOR
1
' SOIL ANALYTICAL SAMPLING DATA FOR
' SW-N
SW-E
SW-W
SW-S
' BOH
1
1
1
1
GROUNDWATER Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
P.O. Box 1200
ANALYTICAL 228 Main Street
' Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
Telephone(508)759-44ai
FAX(508)759-4475
February 15, 2000
D'y �1 r r� � 2000
RE
Ms. Kara Shumway
' Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc.
P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
Project: Birmingham/BO99-2533
Lab I D: 31487
Sampled: 02=10-00
Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Diesel Range Organics Analyses
performed for the above referenced project. This project was processed for Rush turnaround.
' This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
report. This report contains a project narrative indicating project changes and non-conformances, a
' brief description of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
and a statement of our state certifications.
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
' immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material contained in this report is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.
' Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jonathan R. Sanford
President
' )RS/awc
Enclosures
II '
GROUNDWATER
ATER
ANALYTICAL
' Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GGFID
Field ID: SW-N: 6-15' Laboratory ID: 31487-01
' Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
Container: 250ml-Glass Received: 02-11-00
' Preservation: Cool Extracted: 02-11-00
Matrix: Soii Analyzed: 02-14-00
Moisture. 3 Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
EPH'Ranges.,, w'.: Concentration U'nitsw, Reportirg unit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons` _ 110 mg/Kg 30
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t _ _ BRL mg/Kg 30 -
n-C1 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons r`' 39 mg/Kg 30
' Unadjusted n-Cl 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 39 mg/Kg 30
CAS Number Target.Anal ytes Concentration (< Units, i Reporting-Limit
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene _ BRL mg/Kg 0.50
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
QCSurrogate Compounds Recovery QC limits
Fractionation: i 2-Fluorobiphenyl _ 84 % I 40- 140
2-Bromonaphthalene _ 84 % j 40- 140
' Extraction: ;—Chloro-octadecane --- -__ 76 % -- �— 40- 140
ortho-Terphenyl 85 % 40- 140
- QA/QC Certification
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3.1.1? Yes
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Results are calculated
on a dry weight basis. Method modified by use of microwave accelerated solvent extraction technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution,percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
i
� _ Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
1
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/ElD
Field ID: SW-W: (3-15' Laboratory ID: 31487-02
' Project: Birmingham/BO99-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Client: Bennett &O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
Container: 250ml-Glass Received: 02-11-00
Preservation: Cool Extracted:. 02-11-00
Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 02-14-00
Moisture: 3 Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
EPH Ranges, - Ci)ncentration:u'-' . " _; ' Units [Reporting.Limit
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons ' 480 mg/Kg 30
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons r 64 mg/Kg 30
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons r� 160 mg/Kg _ 30
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons ' _ 170 mg/Kg 30
CAS Number f Target Analytes Concentratiom Units Repor6nglimit
_91-20-3 \faphthalene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
' 91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene _ 1.3 mg/Kg 0.50
85-01-8 Phenanthrene _0.54 mg/Kg 0.50 _
83-32-9 Acenaphthene _ BRL mg/Kg 0.50
QC:Surrogate Compourids Recovery;~ QC Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl _ 94 % 40- 140
_ 2-Bromonaphthalene _ 91 % __ 40- 140
' Extraction: _Chloro-octadecane —_ - 61 % -- __-__ -40- 140%—
oaho-Terphenyl 93 % 40- 140
QA/QC'Certification-
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 1 1.3.1.1? Yes
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
' and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Results are calculated
on a dry weight basis. Method modified by use of microwave accelerated solvent extraction technique.
' Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine-laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution,percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
I�
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL .
' Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: SW-S:.6-15' Laboratory ID: 31487-03
' Project: Birmingham/BO99-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Client: Bennett& O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
Container: 250mL Glass Received: 02=11-00
' Preservation: Cool Extracted: 02-11-00
Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 02-14-00
% Moisture: 14 Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
EPH Ranges Concentration. "` '.Units Reporting Limit
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t 42 _- mg/Kg ' _ 34
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons + BRL mg/Kg 34
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons'° BRL _ mg/Kg _ 34
' Unadiusted n-CI1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL mg/Kg 34
CAS Number TargeYAnalytes Concentration Units, Reporting Limit
91-20-3 Naphthalene __ BRL _ mg/Kg 0.56
' 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene _ BRL mg/Kg 0.56
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL _ mg/Kg __ 0.56
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL mg/Kg 0.56
' QC Surrogate.Compounds Recovery QC:Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 84 % _40- 140
2-Bro_monaphthalene 81 % _ 40- 140 %
' -Extraction:-----_Chloro-octadecane __ '-_—_ — -78%— -- _ ' _40-_140 %
ortho-Terphenyl 84 % i 40_140 %
QA/QC Certification —---- _ --_-- _
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant.modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3.1.1? Yes
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
' and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.--- —
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Results are calculated
on a dry weight basis. Method modified by use of microwave accelerated solvent extraction technique.
t Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution, percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting ir
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FlD
Field ID: SW-E: 6-15' Laboratory ID: 31487-04
' Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
Container: 250mL Glass - Received: 02-11-00
' Preservation: Cool Extracted: 02-11-00
Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 02-14-00
% Moisture: 4 Dilution Factor. Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
'EPH"Ranges• Concentration, Units- Reporting.,Limitl
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons T 41 _ mg/Kg 30
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL i mg/Kg 30
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL mg/Kg _ 30 _
' Unadiusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t BRL mg/Kg 30
CAS Number: j Target"Analytes. Concentration Units I Reporting:Limit
91-20-3 Naphthalene _ _ BRL mg/Kg_ 0.50
' 91-57 6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL — mg/Kg 0.50
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
' QC Surrogate Compounds - Recovery QC:Limits.
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl _ _ 79 % I 40- 140 %
2-Bromonaphthalene 78 % _ 40 140
Extraction: ' _Chloro-octadecane — — -- 76% - --j 40- 140 °o _
' ortho-Terphenyl -------- - 83 % ------ I— 40- 140 %--
QA/QC Certification
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 1 1.3.1.1? Yes
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
' and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter. ---�
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Results are calculated
on a dry weight basis. Method modified by use of microwave accelerated solvent extraction technique.
' Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution, percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
t that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations,
o
e
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/IFI D
Field ID: -BOH: 16' Laboratory ID: 31487-05
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
Container: 250mL Glass Received: 02-11-00
' Preservation: Cool Extracted: 02-11-00
Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 02-14-00
Moisture. 12 Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
"EP,HRanges•. I Concentration: Units Reporting-Limitl
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL mg/Kg 33
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t — BRL _ mg/Kg - 33
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons'° _ _ BRL -mg/Kg 33
' Unadjusted n-CI 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons _ BRL - mg/Kg 33 _
CAS Number Target Analytes Concentration. Units Reporting Limitl
91-20-3 Naphthalene__— _ -- _ BRL mg/Kg _ 0.56
' 91-57-6— 2-Methyl naphthalene _ - _ BRL _ mg/Kg 0.56
85-01-8 Phenanthrene - _ - _BRL _ _ mg/Kg _ _0.56
83-32-9 Acenaphthene _ _ _-_ BRL _—_ - mg/Kg _ 056
' QC-Surrogate-Compourids _ Recovery;`. _ _ _ QC Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl _ — 87 % — -_ 40_140 % -
2-Bromonaphthalene - -_ - _ 85%_ -- - ;- -40- 140 %--.- _-
' ' Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 79 % 40- 140 %
ortho-Terphenyl 83 % 40 140
QA/QC Certification._
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3.1.1? Yes
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Results are calculated
on a dry weight basis. Method modified by use of microwave accelerated solvent extraction technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution, percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
e
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8100 (Modified)
Diesel Range Organics by GC/FlD
' Field ID: Overburden Stockpile Laboratory ID: 31487-06
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: HP-1281-M
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 02-10-00
' Container: 250ml-Glass Received: 02-11-00
Preservation: Cool Extracted: 02-11-00
Matrix: Soil Analyzed: 02-14-00
% Moisture: 4 Dilution Factor: 1
Analyte� Concentration Units... Reporting limit;
Diesel Range Organics BRL mg/Kg 60
opound Recovery Limits';QCSurrogateC i
' ortho-Terphenyi, 86 % 60- 140 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846,Third Edition, Update III (1996). Analytical
protocol modified to quantify total petroleum hydrocarbons. Results are quantified on the basis
' of 5a—androstane. Results are reported on a dry weight basis.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
e
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
ANALYTICAL
1 Project Narrative
' Project: Birmingham/13O99-2533 Lab ID: 31487
Client: Bennett & O'Reilly Received: 02-11-00
' A.. Physical Condition of Sample(s)
' This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The sample(s) were received
undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
' B. Project Documentation
This project was accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation. The sample container
label(s) agreed with the Chain of Custody.
' C Analysis of Sample(s)
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
Sample(s). All data contained within this report are released without qualification.
o
. B x 1200 228 Main Street Buzzards Ba , MA 02532
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O o Y
IM M M r M � M r M M M M M M M M r M M
228 Main Street,P.O.Box 1200
GRL7UN13WATER Buzzards Bay,MA02532 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
ANALYTICAL Telephone(508)759-4441 AND WORK ORDER N9 39449
FAX(508)759-4475
ojectrName: Firm:
' I TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
Volatile. Senti"latilca Pe51/Ilea/Pell[ Malata Phial,111 arowaea Has. Gehemi Chemlrt y Other
❑ STANDARD(10 Business Days) ,o-< hl va. wane
Project Nu bet: Address: �J ❑ PRIORITY(5 Business Days)
10� I `-`� PO eN 16� I RUSH(RAN- 'x s Z e E ,
a
(Rush requires Rush Aulhorizauon Nwnbeq ) I n ml n ; n
Sampler Name: City/State/Zip: g A
/'nL7 ), . (j '� 1 Please FAXES ONO o
l/ CTrC/� ^ I 4 �/ o s o r
FAX Number:�l�.r�[_ _— M1 w 2 � O S
Project Manager: Telephone: BILLING r a $
n n n n n ❑ g
V30 Purchase Order No.: GWAReferenceNo.: ❑ J e s c 2
is
INSTRUCTIONS:Use sap to line for each container(except replicates). W' I g m m - - =as
Sampling Metrlx Type Contalner(s) Preservation Fiji.,. o o $ 21
n n $ $ n n 6 al ois
4 ❑ -
SAMPLE - '" 9 ,��, LABORATORY w - _ e £ 8 p n 9 o o o 0 9
IDENTIFICATION `� g a - - - NUMBER F? ' ❑ E
(Lab Use O 3 nly) m N ,a C o o n s n s o € s
�` f � nr. n n m - i rl 0 � ai a .o0 __
� I, n e ❑ ❑ n o o n ❑ n n n c�.o nr
I
NO -b"I '
It
—
lap ;.I I S -
2= S c
-------------
------------
1+1-1-1-17—1 F
REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Regulatory Program Project Specific OC NOTE:All samples submitted subject to Standard Terms and Conditions on reverse hereol.
❑Sale Drinking Water Act Man regulatory programs and EPA methods require project !Re n i❑MA DEP Form yg ryp0 q P iampler. Date Time Received by: Receipt Temperature:
Specific Spikes.
Project specific OC includes Sample Duplicates,
❑NPDES/Clean Water Act Matrix Spikes,and/or Matrix Spike Duphcales,Laboratory OC is
Specify Slate; not project specific unless prearranged.Project specific OC
❑RCRA/Haz.Waste Char. samples are charged on a per sample basis.For water samples, Relinquished by Date Date Time R ceive by: Shipping/Airbill
MA MCP(310 CMR 40) each MS,MSD and Sample Duplicate requires an additional 11 Number:
Reportable Conc///888,(,ations sample aliquot Gv� 1l OD /,ZY U
❑RCGW-1�(J RCS-1 Project Specific OC Required Selection of OC Sample MR ;2bQ IDIJIX Time eceived ab r lcry: Custody Seal❑RCGW-�❑RCS-2 Cooler Serial❑MA Dredge Disposal ❑Sample Duplicate ❑Selected by laboratory �..(Z ( „�`!(�� Number:
Matrix Spike O Please use sample
: Method ipment: I WA Courier ❑Express ail ❑Federal Expres
❑NH❑RIQCT❑ME
Specify Category: ❑Matrix Spike Duplicate
_ UPS ❑Hand 0
Ir
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A. Program O�ervrew
Groundwater Analytical conducts an active Quality Assurance program to ensure the production of high
quality, valid data. This program closely follows the guidance provided by Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, US EPA QAMS-005/80 (1980), and Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846, Update III (1996).
Quality Control protocols include written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed for each
analytical method. SOPS are derived from US EPA methodologies and other established references.
Standards are prepared from commercially obtained reference materials of certified purity, and documented
for traceability.
Quality Assessment protocols for most organic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control sample,
' one method blank; one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation batch.
All samples, standards, blanks, laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and sample duplicates are spiked
with internal standards and surrogate compounds. All instrument sequences begin with an initial calibration
verification standard and a blank; and excepting GC/MS sequences, all sequences close with a continuing
' calibration standard. GUMS systems are tuned to appropriate ion abundance criteria daily, or for each 12
hour operating period, whichever is more frequent.
Quality Assessment protocols for most inorganic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control
sample, one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation
batch. Standard curves are derived from one reagent blank and four concentration levels. Curve validity is
verified by standard recoveries within plus or minus ten percent of the curve.
r
B. Definitions
is unit for uali Assessment. A Batch is defined as twenty or fewer samples of
Batches are used as the basic Q ty
the same matrix which are prepared together for the same analysis, using the same lots of reagents and the
same techniques or manipulations, all within the same continuum of time, up to but not exceeding 24 hours.
Laboratory Control Samples are used to assess the accuracy of the analytical method. A Laboratory Control
Sample consists of reagent water or sodium sulfate spiked with a group of target analytes representative of the
method analytes. Accuracy is defined as the debree of agreement of the measured value with the true or
expected value. Percent Recoveries for the Laboratory Control.Samples are calculated to assess accuracy.
Method Blanks are used to assess the level of contamination present in the analytical system. Method Blanks
' consist of reagent water or an aliquot of sodium sulfate. Method Blanks are taken through all the appropriate
steps of an analytical method. Sample data reported is not corrected for blank contamination.
Surrogate Compounds are used to assess the effectiveness of an analytical method in dealing with each
sample matrix. Surrogate Compounds are organic compounds which are similar to the target analytes of
interest in chemical behavior, but which are not normally found in environmental samples. Percent
Recoveries are calculated for each Surrogate Compound.
r
GY
roundwater Anal tical Inc. P.O. Box 1200 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Quality Control Report
Laboratory Control Sample
Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Matrix: Soil
' Units: mg/Kg
CAS Number° Arialyfe I> Spiked. " Measurfd&' �Recoveryz- s;;:QCL'imitsr•=
111-84-2 n-Nonane(C9) 5.0 2.6 51 % 40- 140 %
' 629-59-4 n-Tetradecane(C,.,) 5.0 — 3.6 72 % 40- 140 °o
629-92-5 n-Nonadecane(C19) 5.0 3.9 79 % .40- 140
1 12-95-8 n-Eicosane(CO) 5.0 4.2 84 % 40- 140
630-02-4 n-Octacosane(C28) 5.0 4.1 81 % 40- 140 %
91-20-3 Naphthalene 5.0 3.2 63 % 40- 140 %
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 5.0--- 3.5 _ 70% _ 40- 140 %
QC Surrogate:Compounds -- Recovery QC:Limits
Fractionation: '2-Fluorobiphenyl 76 % 40- 140
2-Bromonaphthalene 75 % _ _40- 140 %
Extraction: Chloro-o_ctadecane 77 % 40- 140 _
ortho-Terphenyl _ _ 80 % _ _ 40- 140 %
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons, MA DEP 0998).
' Report Notations: All calculations performed prior to rounding. Quality Control Limits are defined by the methodology,
or alternatively based upon the historical average recovery plus or minus three standard deviation units.
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Control Report
Method Blank
' Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-0854-M
Matrix: Soil
EPH Ranges: Concent'ratiorn' - Untts, j,R°eporting l;mitl
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons r„ ( BRL mg/Kg 30
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons r BRL mg/Kg 30
' n-C1 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons i° BRL _ mg/Kg 30 —
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL mg/Kg 30
CAS'.Number I Target<.Analytes Concentration Units Reporting Limitl
' 91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL mg/Kg 0.50
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL _ mg/Kg _ 0.50
85-01-8 _ Phenanthrene BRL _ mg/Kg 0.50
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL _ _mg/Kg _0.50—
QC'Surrogate Compounds Recovery QC Limits _
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 79 % _—_ 40- 140 %
' 2-Bromonaphthalene _ - _ 68 % _ _- -_ __ 40- 140 % ----
Extraction: I Chloro-octadecane 85 % __ __- --40 140 %_
------ --ortho-Terphenyl . — -- — 83 % ---- -— - 40= 140 % -- --
' Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998).
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analvte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
' Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution, percent moisture and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-Cl1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
ANALYTICAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Laboratory Control Sample Recovery
' Category: EPA Method 8100 (API Modified)
Batch ID: HF-1281-MLS
Matrix: Soil
' Units : mg/Kg
Laboratory Control Sample
SPIKE SPIKED PERCENT QC
ANALYTE ADDED RESULT RECOVERY LIMITS
Diesel Fuel 130 93 70 % 60-140
' Calculations performed prior to rounding. Quality Control Limits are defined by the methodology, or
alternatively based upon the historical average recovery plus or minus three standard deviation units.
i
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Method Blank
Category: EPA Method 8100 (API Modified)
Batch ID: HF-12.81-MB1
1 Matrix: Soil
' PARAMETER CONCENTRATION REPORTING LIMIT
(mg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
Diesel Range Organics BRL 60
QC SURROGATE COMPOUND SPIKED MEASURED RECOVERY QC LIMITS
1 o-Terphenyl 2.7 2.3 94 % 60 - 140
i
1
1
1
BRL = Below Reporting Limit. Calculations based on dry sample weight. Quantification based on a Diesel
1 component standard. Method Reference: Method 8100 - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA SW-846, Third Edition (1986). Modification based on Method for
Determination of Diesel Range Organics, American Petroleum Institute (1990).
1 �
ANALYTICAL
Certifications and Approvals
' CO�NNECTlCUT Department of'Health Services, PH-0586
Potable Water,Wastewater/Trade Waste, Sewage/Effluent, and Soil
' pH,Conductivity,Acidity,Alkalinity,Hardness,Chloride,Fluoride,Ammonia,Kjeldahl Nitrogen,Nitrate,Nitrite,Orthophosphate,Total Dissolved
Solids,Cyanide,Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Total Chromium,Hexavalent Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,
Magnesium,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Potassium,Selenium,Silver,Sodium,Thallium,Tin,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,Purgeable
Halocarbons,Purgeable Aromatics,Pesticides,PCBs,PCBs in Oil,Ethylene Dibromide,Phenols,Oil and Grease.
�MAINE,. Department of Human Services, MA103
Drinking Water
I ' Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for drinking water analytes.
Waste Water
Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for waste water analytes
MASSACHUSMS, Department of Environmental Protection, M-MA-103
Potable Water
Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Copper,Lead,Mercury,Nickel,Selenium,Thallium,Nitrate-N,Nitrite-N,Fluoride,
Sodium,Sulfate,Cyanide,Turbidity,Residual Free Chlorine,Calcium,Total Alkalinity,Total Dissolved Solids,pH,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organic
Compounds, 1,2-Dibromoethane,1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,Total Coliform,Fecal Coliform,Heterotrophic Plate Count,E-Coli
Non-Potable Water
' Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Selenium,
Silver,Strontium,Thallium,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,pH,Specific Conductance,Total Dissolved Solids,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,
Sodium,Potassium,Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Kjeldahl-N,Orthophosphate,Total Phosphorus,Chemical
Oxygen Demand,Biochemical Oxygen Demand,Total Cyanide,Non-Filterable Residue,Total Residual Chlorine,Oil and Grease,Total Phenolics,
Volatile Halocarbons,Volatile Aromatics,Chlordane,Aldrin,Dieldrin,DDD,DDE,DDT,Heptachlor,Heptachlor Epoxide,Polychlorinated
Biphenyls(water),Polychlorinated Biphenyls(oil).
MICHIGA 4, Department of Environmental Quality
Drinking Water
Trihalomethanes,Regulated and Unregulated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 524.2; 1,2-Dibromoethane,1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane by EPA Method 504.1
NEW HAMPSHIRE, Departmentof Environmental Services,,20279&'
Drinking Water
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,Nitrite-N,Orthophosphate,Residual Free Chlorine,Turbidity,Total Filterable Residue,Calcium
Hardness,pH,Alkalinity,Sodium,Sulfate,Total Cyanide,Insecticides,Herbicides;Base/Neutrals,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organics,Vinyl
Chloride,DBCP,EDB,Nitrate-N.
Wastewater
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,pH,Specific Conductivity,TD5,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,Sodium,Potassium,
Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Orthophosphate,TKN,Total Phosphorus,COD,BOO,Non-Filterable Residue,
Oil&Grease,Total Phenolics,Total Residual Chlorine,PCBs in Water,PCBs in Oil,Pesticides,Volatile Organics,Total Cyanide.
RIiODE tShLAND De�artmentof�Health,es4r
' Surface Water,Air,Wastewater, Potable Water, Sewage
Chemistry: Organic and Inorganic
i
' Groundwater Analytical Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
TABLE 1:SUMMARY OF EPH ANALYSIS
METHOD I-RISK CHARACTERIZATION:GROUNDWATER
' DATE/ GROUNDWATER Standard
FRACTIONS MW-I MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 (ug/ )
310 CMR 40.0974(2)
G W-1/G W-2/G W
' 1029/99
C9 to C18 BRL(<530) BRL(<630) BRL(<540) NA NA 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<530) BRL(<630) BRL(<540) 5,000/NA/20,000
CII to c22 240 210 380 200/1,000/20,000
' 229/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) NA NA 4,000/1,000/20,000
C 19 to C36 BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 5,000/NA/20,000
' C I I to c22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 370 200/1,000/20,000
4/6/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<520) BRL(<540) BRL(<530) NA NA 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<520) BRL(<540) BRL(<530) 5,000/NA/20,000
C1 I to c22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 610 200/1,000/20,000
M-Naphthalene BRL(<5) BRL(<5) 87 M-Naphthalene 10
Naphthalene All others All targets All others All targets>20
Phenanthrene BRL(<10) BRL(<1 1) BRL(<10)
Acenaphthene
t 5/30/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<560) BRL(<590) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) 4,000/1,000120,000
C 19 to C36 BRL(<560) BRL(<590) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) 5,000/NA/20,000
CI I to c22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 360 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 200/1,000120,000
' 7/20i00
C9 to Cl 8 BRL(<500) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<500) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<500) BRL(<530) 5,000/NA/20,000
I ' CI I to c22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 390 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 200/1,000/20,000
1 1/22/00
C9 to C18 BRL(<630) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<560) BRL(<500) 4,000/1 000120,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<630) BRL(<530) BRL(<530) BRL(<560) BRL(<500) 5,000MA/20,000
C I I to C22 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 570 BRL(<200) BRL(<200) 200/1,000/20,000
M-Naphthalene BRL(<6) BRL(<5) 48 BRL(<6) BRL(<5) M-Naphthalene 10
All Others All others All others All others All others a"others All targets>20
BRL(<13) BRL(<II) BRL(<ll) BRL(<11) BRL(<10)
C9 to C18 BRL(<530) BRL(<520) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 4,000/1,00020 000
C19 to C36 BRL(<530) BRL(<520) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) BRL(<500) 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to C22 BRL(<170) BRL(<170) 380 BRL(<160) BRL(<160) 200/1,000120,000
' 1 to C1 I
C9 to C18 BRL(<560) 4,000/1,000/20,000C19 to C36 NT NT BRL(<560) NT NT 5,000/NA120,000
C11 to C22 380 200/1,00020,000
M-Naphthalene 38 M-Naphthalene 10
' All Others All others All targets>20
BRL(<I 1)
11/13/01
' C9 to CI8 NT NT BRL(<530). NT NT 4,000/1,000/20,000
C19 to C36 BRL(<530) 5,000/NA20,000
C11 to C22 230 200/1,000/20;000
12/17/01
C9 to C18 BRL(<560) 4,000/1,000/20,000 C19 to C36 NT NT BRL(<560) NT NT 5,000/NA/20,000
Cl I to C22 220 200/1,00020,000
M-Naphthalene 34 M-Naphthalene 10
All Others All others All targets>20
' BRL(<1 I)
EPH'=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
BRL=Below Reporting Limits/NT=Not Tested/NA=Not Available
Shaded area represents applicable Method I-Risk Characterization Standards
BOLD text indicates concentrations exceeding applicable standards
Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
GROUN13WATEft P.O.Box 1200
ANALYTICAL Buz Main Street
Buzzards Bay.MA 02532
' Telephone(508)759-4441
FAX(508)759-4475
December 8, 2000
Ms. Kara Shumway �, , ram= -•,,- �.
Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc. — 'r= -_
P.O. Box 1667
' Brewster, MA 02631 c` I
JM 1 62002
Project: Birmingham113099-2533 �✓
' Lab ID: 37571
Sampled: 11-22-00
' Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organics Analyses performed
for the above referenced project. This project was processed for Standard Two Week turnaround.
' This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
report. This report contains a project narrative indicating project changes and non-conformances, a
' brief description of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
and a statement of our state certifications.
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material contained in this report is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.
' Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
' Jonathan R. Sanford
President
' J RS/amb
Enclosures
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021 B
1 Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC/PID
Field ID: MW-1 Laboratory ID: 37571-01
Project: Birmingharn/13099-2533 QC Batch ID: VG2.1837-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 11-22-00
Container: 40mL Glass Vial Received: 11-22-00
Preservation: HCl/Cool Analyzed: 12.04-00
Matrix: Aqueous Dilution Factor 1
--
-- ;Eoneentratiorr -- �}fstts. Rejsfortingairtiit
CAS Number Awalyte
71-43-2 Benzene BRL ug/L i 1
108-88-3 Toluene BRL
! ug/L t
' 108-90-7 -F_Chl- ---orobenzene BRL I ug/L ! 1
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ! BRL j ug/L 1
108.38.3!106.42.3 meta-Xylene and para-Xylene BRL ! ug/L 1
95-47-6 ortho-Xylene BRL ug/L 1
_._.
541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL ! ug/L � 1
10&46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL _ug/L 1
95 50 1 1,2=Dichlorobenzene BRL -- ug/L 1
--- - —C.Surm to und. Recovery.= Q�lLimit :
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene - 9-� % _ 70 130
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-846,Third Edition, Update III(1996). Analyte list
as formerly specified by EPA Method 8020A.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, it any, is below reporting limit for analyte.. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC/PID
Field ID: MW-5 Laboratory ID: 37571-02
Project: Bi rminihan,;11099-2533 QC Batch ID: VG2-11836-W
Client: Bennett&0"Reilly Sampled: 11-22-00
Container: 40mL Glass Vial Received: 11-22-00
Preservation: HCI/Cool Analyzed: 12-01-00
Matrix: Aqueous Dilution Factor: 1
CAS-Number - Analyte= Cgncentrsfto
i 7143-2 Benzene BRL ug1
108-88-3 Toluene BRL uiglL
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene BRL ug/L
1 OG-414 Ethylbenzene BRL ug/L
108-38-3/106-42-3
meta-Xyfene and Para-Xylene BRL ug/L
95-47-6 BRL
ortho-X yl er.e ug/L
541-73-1 j 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L i
106-46-7 1 4 Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L
i 93-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L
QC-.Sur.ropte Compound QC:Limit;
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene 97 % 70- 130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid'Waste, US EPA, SW-846. Tnird Edition. Update 111 (1996). Analyze list
as formerly specified by EPA Method 8020A.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantilied under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021 B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GCIPID
Field ID: MW-4 laboratory ID: 37571-03
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: VG2-1836-W
' Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 11-22-00
Container: 40mL Glass Vial Received: 11-22-00
Preservation: HCI/Cool Analyzed: 12-01-00
Matnx: Aqueous Dilution Factor: 1
j -CAS Number `.� Analgt _. CQiieentraC4on �„ Utflds- f Rc ,rting_um1t
--�-- --
71-43-2 Benzene BRL h ug/L _---- 1
i 108-88-3 Toluene BRL ug/L 1
' 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene BRL ugJL I 1
100-41-4 i Ethylbenzene BRL ug/L 1
108-38-3/106-4-1-3 meta-Xylene.and Para-Xylene BRL ug/L 1
95-47-6 ortho-Xylene BRL ug/L 1
-----
541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL _ _ ug/L t
10&4&7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L 1
95-30-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL _ ug/L t
QC Surrogate Corsl�qund._.._ _; . . -: :=Recovery- - _ _ — -QC Limits
a,a,a-Triflucrotoluene 98 % 70- 130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-846, Thtrd Edition, Update III (1996). Analyte list
' as formerly specified by EPA Method 8020A.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte- Repomng limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200. 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay. MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC/PlD
Field ID: MW-2 Laboratory ID: 37571-04
Project: lllrmln,han,,111099-2531 QC Batch ID: V62-1836-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 11-22-00
Container: 40mL Glass Vial Received: 11-22-00
Preservation: HCl I Cool Analyzed: 12-01-00
Matrix: Aqueous Dilution Factor: I
---.-CA5:Nurnber
71-43-2 Benzene BRL ug/L 1
108-88-3 Toluene BRL ug/L I
108-90-7 - Chlorobenzene BRL ug/L 1
100-41-4 '- 'F—Ethyli>enzene BRIL
108-38-3/lb6-42-3 meta-Xylene and para-Xyl ene BRL i 41- 1
95-47-6 I ortho-Xylene BRL iu&tL 1
541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L 1
106-46-7 1,4-C)ichl_o_r_obenzene' --.--BRL ug/L 1 1
95-50-1 1,24Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L
' -._— iYh d :R��ovy 7.QC Surrogate Compo
_T Q011m is., : -� —
a,a,a-Trifi ucirotoluene 99 % 70- 130 */o
Method Reference, Test methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-846,Third Edition, Update 111 (1996). Analyte list
as formerly specified by EPA Method 8020A.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, it any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory Operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sampie dilution and sample size.
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
' ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021 B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC/PID
Field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 37571-05
Project: Birmingham7B099-2533 QC Batch ID: VG2-1836-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly Sampled: 11-22-00
Container. 40mL Glass Vial Received: 11-22-00
Preservation: HCI/Cool Analyzed: 12-01-00
' Matrix: Aqueous Dilution Factor 1
CAS Number Anal a Concentration : Units ` .Repgrtin9 Limit
71-43-2 ! Benzene BRL ug/L 1
108-88-3 Toluene i BRL ug/L 1 _
' 108-90-7 I Chlorobenzene BPL ug/L 1
100 41 4 Ethylbenzene BRL ug/L 1
109-38-3/106-42-3 -X meta lene a-Xylene
-- --_.Y_...--and L._ar_ — BRL ---.-l_ ug/L 1
95-47-6 ortho-X lene BRL -- - ug/L 1
541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L 1
j 106-46-7_ 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL ug/L 1
-- --
95-50-1 i 1,2=Dichlorobenzene BRL --ug/L 1
QC Surrogate:Coinpound' ---_.. .Recovery. —
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene _ 93 % i 70- 130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SV61.846,Third Edition, Update III (1996). Analyte list
as formerly speclfied by EPA Method 8020A.
' Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowrct
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
1
t
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
� 1
Groundwater Analytical,Inc.
GROUNDWATER P.O.Box 1200
u
ANALYTICAL B Main Street
Buzzards Say, MA 02532
Telephone(508)759-4441
FAX(508)759-4475
January 18, 2002
Ms. Kara Risk
Bennett & O'Reill,i, Inc.
P.O. Box 1667i
Brewster, MA 02 531
' Project: Birnriingham/13099.2533
Lab I D: 47562
Sampled: 01.10-02
Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Analyses performed for the above referenced
' project. This project was proce-ised for Priority One Week turnaround.
This letter author zes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
' report. This repoit contains a p-oject narrative indicating project changes and n,on-conformances, a
brief description Of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
and a statement of our state certifications.
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for ortaining the information, the material contained in this report is, to
' the best of my kn Dwledge and belief, accurate and complete.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
' Sincerely,
Jonathan R. Sanford
President
RS/nc
Enclosures
�
�
�
GROUNDWATER
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FlD
Client: Beineft&O'Reilly,Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container: I L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic-1 Aromatic:I
t 9!i
2. Were all performarce/accepiance stan Jards for tht-required QAIQC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were.any significant modifications Made to the.method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method n on-con forma nces indicated abo,,e are detailcd below on thi,
,rdata report, or in the accompanying project narrative
nd project quality coiarol report. Releas�of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
,—The accompa2ying co—er letter,project ni,rra d qyallityr control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference- Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: E RL Indicates con-entration, if any,
is below reporting limit for andlYte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentmtio-i that can be reliably quantitied under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Rp.poning lir)its are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon ringe data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards elutinX ir
that range.
0 n-C1 I to n-(:22 Aromatic Flydrocarbons range data excludes the method target anaiyte concentrations
Groundwater Analytical, |nc, P.O Box l20O 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, M\0ZS32
�
/
�
'
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: M%V-2 Laboratory ID: 47562-02
Project: Birmingharrv'8099-2533 QC Batch ID: . EP-0973-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: 1-125041 Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic:1
EPH Ramses .... -_ _ _ —_ - - -- -- _Li
mit
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon:; BRL ug/L 500
r'Z 9 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons' BRL ug/L _ 500
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons� BRL ug/L 160
Unadjusted n-C1 I to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 160
--- - --C.Sun�e tappt3ds e _._
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl _.--....—.—_. ..____...91 % v p �40- 140 %
2-6romonaphthalerre 82 % 40- 140 %
Extraction: C Moro-octadecane 78 % 40- 140 %
° ortho-Terphenyl 86 % 40-140 %
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? — Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
j 3. Were any significu t modifications ma-le to the method,as specified in Section 1 1.3? No
Method non-conforrna ices indicated abos a are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
' and project quality conntrol report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter. ;
The ac_c:ompanyinq co'er letter,protect narrative and ualit control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
"tilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, ii any, is below reporting limit for analyze. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbor range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GR12UNLIM ATER
ANALYTICAL
' Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
' Field ID: M1V-3 Laboratory ID: 47562-03
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02.
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
Matrix: Aq jebus Analyzed: 01-1&02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic:1 Aromatic:1
-_ - -� -
fRH Ranges ttsK�:Jtq—wdling Lirriit
_n-C9_to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon_7 _ _ _ _BRL ug/L 500_ _ I
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons T _ BRL ug/L 500
n-Cl 1 to n C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbo 15 fT 280 ug/L 160
UnadiuslPd n Cl—1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hyd ncarbons ' 330 — ug/1- -- 160 -
QC Surr ogatm�il[sa es. _.=f _ - teeovQC ira;r
_.
Fractionation: j 2•Fluorobiphenyl — - 96 % 40-140 % i 2713romonaphthalene 83 % 40-140 %
- - - -
Extraction: C iloro octadecane 76 % 40- 140 %
ottho-Terphenyl 90 % 40- 140 %
I. Were all QA/QC procedures required Iry the method followed? Yes —�
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
I 3. Were any significar t modifications made to the method,as specified In Section 1 1.3? No
I, i
Method non-conforma ices indicated abo%e are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Releaser of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The a<.rompany�n�ca er letter project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report
Method Reference: hiethod for the Dete urination or Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons, MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
itilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRI. Indicates con(entration, it any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbor range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting ii
' that range.
o n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc_, P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GMUNL]ALTER
ANALY71C
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: M'vV-4 Laboratory ID: 47562-04
Project: 9i-mingham/8099-::S33 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container. 1 I.Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: 11::11141 Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-17-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic:1
- —.. :.—aimIrCL,_---_ _ - =-Re�ia5 Limit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydnocarbars __ BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t __ _ BRL _— L 500
n-C11 to n-C22 Aro vatic Hydrocarbons'° _ BRL -)— ug/L_� 160
tlnustrd n-Cl 1 to r--22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons`� BRL �— ug/L 160
adi
Fractionation: I -Fluorobiphenyl 88 % 40- 140%
Bromonaphthal(.ne 64 % 40- 140%
Extraction: Chloro-0ctadecanr: 79 % - 40- 140 9U ;
crtho-Terphenyl — 82 % _ 40- 140%
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Ware any signifies nt modifications m tde to the method, as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non ronform+nces indicated above are deta,led below on this data report,or,in the accompanying project nanative
and proiect quality ccntrul report. Relea;e of this dzta is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter. prolect rarrative ano uality control report art.considered ta p rt of this da reprt.o _
----
' Method Reference: method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing reparatory funnel technique.
t Report Notations: BRL indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyze. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentrati)n that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting I mits are adiusted for sample oilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or Internal standards eluting it
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.Q. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: MIN-5 Laboratory ID: 47562-05
' Project: Birmingharn1B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container: 1 I.Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: H::SO4/Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-17-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic:1
EPH Ranges ':: .:..- -__ ettdik
Jrt _ enrten8 Cirtiit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t _ BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Alipnatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L S00
n-C1 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t° BRL ug/L ! 160
' Unadiustt•d nCi 1 ton-C22 Aromatic H c rocarbons BRL — - ug/L 160
S2Cr^pgaCoptTtu>a rt = R — - _ C
— -
Fractionation: 2•Fluorobiphenyl- 84 % 40 140 %
2-Bromonaphthalene 73 % 40-140 %
Extraction: C hloro-octadecane 73 % 40- 140 %
ortho-Terphenyl �_— 76 % 40- 140 %
— �-- f —
— _ _ teaett
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were a!I performanc"Jacceptance stardards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significait modifications m;tde to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conform::nces indirz:ed above are detailed below on this data report, or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality co itrol report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanyiD -ccver letter, project narrative and quality control re rt are considered part of this data report_
Method Reference: Method for t:ie Determination(,f Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons, MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separator,funnel technique.
' Report.Notations: 15RL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be.reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting li nits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrxarbo-i range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
o nCl 1 to n-_-22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the.method target analyte concentrations.
Ground,vater Analytical. Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GR13UN17WATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8270C (Modified)
MA DEP EPH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GC/MS-SIM
Field ID: MW-1 Laboratory ID: 47562-01
Project: Bi rmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID- EP-0973-F
Client: B,!nnett&O'Reiill�, Inc. Sampled; 01-10-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Dilution Factor: 1
m4er-.
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ug/L 0.5
91-57-6 ---J.'�-MetiWl naphtha I ene BRL ug/L 0...5-
__:2:0:8-90-8 'cenaphthylene BRL ug/L 0.5
83-32-.9 kcenaphthene BRL ug/L
86-73-7 Fluorene BRL ug/L 0.5 i
85-01-8 ftenanil�rene L ug/L 0.5
120-12-7 ".knthracene BRL ug/L 0.5
206-44-0 Fluoranthene BRIL ug,/L__. 0-5
!;�rene
129-OG-0 BRL ug/L---. .0.5
56-55-3 i 13enzo(alanth race)e BRIL ug/L 0.1
i 218-01-9 1-hrysene BRIL
ug/L. 01
205-99-2 3enzo[b]fluorantf-ene BRL I ug/L 0.1
207-08-9 3enzo[k1fluctrantl-ene BRL 0.1
UG/L-
50-32--8 3enzo[alpyrene BRL ug/L 0.1
193-39-5 ndeno[1,2,3-c,d]l)yrene BRL ug/L 0.1
53-70-3 3ibenzola,h1anth-acene BRL ug/L 0.1
Lj91-24-2 _T-;e—nzo[�h,i]peryJ4!ne BRL ug/L 0.1
V
��O-Itlho-Terphenyl 83 40- 140 %
Method Reference: est Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste., US EP�,SW-846.Third Edition.Update 111(1996). Analvie list
as sDecified by the target analvtes of the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
Hvdrocarbons. M,�thod modif led bv use of seiected ion monitoring(SIM)in accordance with Section 7.5.5
of the method. wthod protocol modified to include acidification and the sunxwte compound in accordance
with the MA DEP iAethod for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
Report Notations: 5RL Indi(3tes cor centration, if anv, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably auantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adiusted for sarnDle dilution and sample size.
Groundm-ater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' EPA Method 8270C (Modified)
MA DEP EPH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GC/MS-SIM
' Field ID: hIW-2 Laboratory ID: 47562-02
Project: Birmingham/B099.2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client. Bennett&0'Reill,.1, Inc. Sampled: 01 10-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: '01-11-02
' Preservation: l-'2SO4/Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Di I ution Factor. 1
--CAS Nymbe>•=.,..
91-20-3_ Naphthalene BRL ug/L —0.5
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L�— 0.5_
208-96 S —� Acenaphthyfene BRL ug/L j 0.5
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL ug/L 0.5
S6-73-7 Fluorene BRL ug/L 0.5
850
1-8 P.henanthrene BRL L 0.5
12012-7 Anthracene BRL ug/L 0.5
206 44 0 1 Fluoranthene BRL ug/L 0.5
129-00-0 Pyrene BRL ug/L 0.5
56-55-3 —r Benzo[a]anthracene BRL ug/L 0.1
218-01-9 Chrysene BRL ug/L _ 0.1
L ' -- _ --- -- — �- --
i 205-99-2 � Benzo[b]fluorantiene BRL ug/L 0.1
207-08-9 Benzo[k]fluorantliene BRL ug/L 0.1
50-32-8 Senzo[a]pyrene BRL ug/L 0.1_
i 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-c,d.pyrene BRL uglL 0:1
53-70-3 I Dibenzo(a,h]antliracene BRL I ug/L 0.1
r191-24-2 Benzo[g,h,i]pery ene BRL ug/L 0.1
-- -- 4 140 %
ortho-Terphenyl. 0---- 78 % _—. --- .
Method Reference: Test Methods for E ialuating Solid Waste. US EPA,SW-846,Third Edition. Update III (1996). Analyte list
as specified by th,target analvtes of the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons. Method modified by use of selected Ion monitoring(SIM)in accordance with Section 7.5.5
of the method. Method protocol modified to include acidification and the surroxate compound in accordance
with the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
Resort Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analvte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentrat on that can be reliably ouantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.-
' Reporting limits are adjusted for samole dilution and sample size.
Ground-nrater Analytica, Inc., P.U. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 ,
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8270C (Modified)
MA DEP EPH Pohynucletiar Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GC/MS-SIM
Field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 47562-03
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: Bi.-nnett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: H 2SO4/Coal Extracted: 01-15-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Dilution Factor: 1
- �_, _ -
'= Y=a
Number .��� gilt�;v�
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL u JAL 0.5
91-57-6 ''-Methylnaphthal 2ne 27 ug/L 1.0
_208-9_6-8 Acenaphthyle_ne BRL ug/L
83-32-9 kcenaphthene 1.4 i uglL 0.5
8_6-73-7 _ Fluorene 1.6 ug/L 0.5 _
85-01-8 I'henanthrene 0.9 ug/L 0.5
' 120-12-7 -Anthracene BRL _ ug/L 0..5 1
206-44-0 -_LI:luoranthene BRL ug/L 0.5
- --. .- -
129-00-0 I'yrene BRL ug/L 0.5
56 5S-3 13enzo[alanthracene BRL ug/L 0.1
' 218-01-9 Chrysene BRL ug/L 0.1
205-99-2 lienzo[b]fluoranthene BRL ug/L ! 0.1
207-08-9 lienzo[k]fluoranthene BRL ug/L 0.1
5032-8 Ben7o[alpyrene BRL_ ug/L O.t
. . .-
193-39-5 � Indeno 1,2,3-t, r rene -- BRL -_ -- --
53-70-3 IDibenzo[a,h]anthacene _ BRL 0.1
191-24-2 Itenzo h i) e It:ne BRL 0.1 u L
_.... [S, , _pry — --
orrho-Terpheny-1— 79 % 40- 140
Method Reference: -est Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA. SW-846,Third Edition, Update III(1996). Analvte list
as specified!bv the target anaKtes of the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
' Hydrocarbons. Method modified by use of selected ion monitoring(SIM)in accordance with Section 7.5.5
of the method. Mrrthod protocol modified to include acidification and the surrogate compound in accordance
with the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reoorting limit for analyte. Reportine limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably ouantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
, Reporting li nits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
Groundmater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8270C (Modified)
MA DEP EPH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GOMS-SIM
Field ID: AtW-4 Laboratory ID: 47562-04
' Project: B irmingharn1B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: 8 ennett&O'Reill-t, Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
Preservation: fl2SO41 Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
' Matrix: 2.queous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Dilution Factor. 1
91-20-3 i Naphthalene BRL "_2el- 0.5��
_91-57-6 2-MethyInapht—ha lene BRL
208-9_6-8 Acenaphthylene BRL --ug/L 0.5 —
83-32-9 Acenaphthe BRL g/L 0.5
-- —. —
86-73-7 Fluorene —_ _ BRL ug/L 0.5 _
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L 0.5
120-12-7 Anthracene BRL ug/L 0.5
�_.. _ _._
206-44-0 Fluoranthene —_- j BRL ug/L 0.5
I BRL u L 0.5
129-00-0 f'yrene _.. P�
56-55-3 Benzo[a]anthracene BRL ug/L 0.1 —
218-01-9 Gene BRL _ ug/L 0.1
205-99-2 I Benzo[b]fluoranthene BRL ug/L _ 0.1
207-08-9 Benzo[k]thuoranthene BRL ug/L _ 0_1-
50-32-B — Benzo[a]pyrene --- -- BfzL' .1
I ug/L . 0 193-39-5 Indeno[1,2,3-c,dlpyrene-- BRL ug/L 0.1
53-70-3 Dibenzo[a,hlantltracene BRL ug/L 0.1
191-24-2 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene BRL ug/L _. _0•.1_-..
ortho-TerphenE 75 % I — 40- 140 % —
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste.US EPA-SW-846.Third Edition. Update III (1996). Analyte list
as specified by the tanzet anaMes of the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons. Method modified by use of selected ion monitoring(SIM)in accordance with Section 7.5.5
' of the method. Method protocol modified to include acidification and the surrogate compound in accordance
with the MA DEF Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons. .
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration,if any. is below reporting limit for analvte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adiusted for sample dilution and sample size.
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
yt
' GROUNCIWATER
ANALYTZ14L
' EPA Method 8270C (Modified)
MA DEP EPH Pollrnuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons by GC/MS-SIM
Field ID: MW-5 Laboratory ID: 47562-05
Project: Birmingham/6099-1533 QC Batch ID: EP-0973-F
Client: 13 nnett&O'Reilly,.Inc. Sampled: 01-10-02
Container. 1 L Amber Glass Received: 01-11-02
' Preservation: H:_'SO41 Cool Extracted: 01-15-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 01-16-02
Dilution Factor. 1
t:W:C;aIS P[in%b_er- : -- 'a:�t�t�--— ='-s �--_�.�►� --- �R�imit_i
91-20-3 Naphthalene _ _ BRL u L
91-57-6 :-Methyl naphtha[ene BRL ug/L 0.5 -
208-96-11 i�cena hth lene BRL ug/L 0.5
' 83-32-9 /�cenaphthene BRL ug/L o:5
86-73-7 f luorene BRL ug/L 0.5
85-01-8 f'henanthrene BRL ug/L 0.5
' 120-12-7 i%nthracene BRL ug/L 0.5
2o- Iluoranthene BRL ug/L 0.5
I 129-00-0 Pyrene BRL ug/L 0.5
1 56-55-3 Uenzo[a)anth racer e BRL ug/L 0.1
' 218-01-9 Chrysene BRL ug/L 0.1
205-99-2 I nzo[b) uorantane BRL ug/L 0.1
Ite fl h
—�...- - --1
207-08-9 kenzo[klfluoranth!ne BRL ug/L 0.1
i 50-32-8 1-1
Itenzo[alpyrene BRL ug/L 0.1
193-39-5 1ndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene BRL ug/L 0.1
P19-1-24-2
3-70-3 3I)ibenzo[a,h)anthtacene BRL ug/L 0.1
_._.._. Ilenzo[g,h,i]perne _ BRL ug/L- 0.1
ortho-Terphenyl— T - 70 % 40- 140 %
Method Reference: 1 est Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846,Third Edition. Update III (1996). Analvte list
as specified by the target analvtes of the MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
' Hydrocarbons. MEthod modified by use of selected Ion monitoring(SIM) in accordance with Section 7.5.5
of the method. Method protocol modified to include acidification and the surroxate compound in accordance
with the MA DEP MMhod for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
Report Notations: L'RL Indicates con-entration, if anv. is below reporting limit for analyze. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentraticn that can be reliably ouantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adiusted for sample dilution and sample size.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main,Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYT fCAL
-Project Narrative
Project: Birmingham1B099-2533 Lab ID: 47562
Client: Bennet &O'Reilly, Inc. Received: 01-11-02
A. I?hysicZndiiow v-fmpte{s) _
This project was -eceived by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The samples) were received
' undamaged in appr)priate cantain(!rs with the correct preservation.
B..P,w.)ec Qociime ation.
This project was accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation, with the following
amendment(s) or correction(s!:
1. Samples 4i 562-01 tl-rough —05 for analysis by MA DEP Method for the Determination.pO+xtractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons, were filtered by the laboratory prior to analysis, as per the Chain of
Custody.
C. Analysis of am 4eW,-.
No analytical anomalies or non-cc-n forma nc:es were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
sample(s). All data zontained within this report are released without qualification.
I
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
L _
rr r� rr r rr r� rr ■r rr r� r rr r� rr rr r rr rr �r
� M� Buzzards
arils StreBay. P.O.Box 1200
Buzzards Bay,MA02532 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD •i
ANALY�f/�/� Telephone(508)759A441 AND WORK ORDER Na 057850
TICAL I►CAL FAX(508)759-4475
Project Name: Firm: TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
`� `il O YWtlln 9uwdnllu ro' Mrbtr 47
e u wade An H fUenl CIi mINrT OIMr
u STANDARD(10 Business Days) 11,
Pro t Nu r: A •PRIORITY(5 Business Days)
— { di��I T J RUSH(RAN• — ...._.—) i 3 k p
P
(quyl regWres Rwh Autnatratbr.Numbd, C n r. 1 fl C
Se)nplerNam city/State/Zp: F n
f���/ (�) / � �I Please FAX YES NO - J' 1 t �(/ I I ( S 6 4
FAX Number 1
Pmiect Mane er. TelephonQe:. / 3� BILLING �, A n o n - o :Ia i
Purchase Order N❑: GWA Reference No.:
INSTRUCTIONS:Use separate line for each container(except replicates). : # F 'e a 3 ❑ ,�
a � ® 3 � � � an ,R � � . Fas ❑ E
Sampling Matrix pe ConWner(s) Pree*rvatlon rw ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c ❑ ❑ ❑ @ v, 7 a ! f
Q � p LABOR ATORV k I g
SAMPLE ' k 9 S Ntil EE
IDENTIFICATION 3 0 a z - (Lb Ilea Onty) o y o o
r s .
ga [s !! nyID1 ° a
:� 7 n 9 ! r ,L'
o u u u n n - n q n n r 7 n 5 n ;? n n
UY X3 lit
'
t tI� ,,.1
I
11
i
REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Regulatory Program Project Specific QC NOTE:All samples submitted subject to Stardard Terms and Cared§ors on reverse hereol.
J Safe Drinlang Water Act r utal rams and EPA methods r
[MA DEP Form Many �� aCuire project Rellnq.,lshed tr�Sampler. Date Tlme Received by:y� RecNpt Temperature:
A-
sprtiGc OC.°road sped!ic CC Includes Sample Duptka;es. I.
�-., �•�,k!,�I I 'I 7NPDES'geanVlate'Ad Matrix Spikes,andror MaNx Spik❑Duplkalias,LaWratoryOC Is
U r•. '-}y.�.,1.0L. �� SpeUty State: not project spudic unless prearranged.Project specific QC
C)RCRA4iu.Waste Char. samples are charged on a per sample basis.For water samples. Reknq Isn y: le Time Received by:. Shipping/Airuill
/��. each MS.MSO and Sample Duplicate requires an additional % 'mar' i
4.c� i�1 A MCP(910 CMR 40)
L sample sllquoL
mie Goncl;rHrationa
1 lf�("� Relinquished D�: Date Tlme RRcc v b, L onto Custody Seat/
RGGW•t ]RCS-1 prolecy SpecYlc OC RequYad Selection d OC Semple � / ry Conlnr Serial
RGGW-2 7 RCS-2 We by b y Number./ - OSam e � 0Selw d tabcxr '
C' f�,� C.MA Dredge Disposal
S �}s; c� "' O NH O RI LS CT]ME DMnr�Spiv, J Pieaen use sampw: Method of S7upnrenti GWA Courier ]Express Nall G Fa eral press
l t Specify Category: ❑Mans Spike Dupi�. a ... :p UPS]Hand❑ ... .I
r
14
' Groundwater Analytical,Inc.
GROUNDWATER P.O.Box 1200
ANALYTICAL Buzzards Main Street
1 Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
Telephone(508)759-4441
FAX(508)759-4475
January 25, 2002
Ms. Kara Risk
' Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc.
P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
' Project: Birmingham/B099-2533
Lab I D: 47725
Sampled: 01-10-02
1 Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the 'Volatile Organics Analyses performed for the above referenced project. This
project was processed for Priority One Week turnaround.
This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results,and should he considered a part of this
report. This report contains a project narrative indicating project -:hang��s and non-conformances, a
brief description of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
' and a statement of our state certifications.
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my nquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the mate -ial ccntained in this report is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do Itot he dtate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jonathan R. Sanford
1 President
RS/kh
' Enclosures
GRDUAI TER
ANALYTICAL
' EPA Method 8021 B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GCIPID
Field ID: MVV-1 Labora ory ID: 47725-01
1 Project: Biri-ningham/BO99-2533 QC B,a ch ID: VG2-2098-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. SampjE d: 01-10-02
Container: 40 mL VOA Vial Receiv,rJ:, 01-18-02
Preservation: HCI/Cool Analyz�d: 01-23-02
Matrix: Aqueous DiIutiJl Facto 1 —
CAlumberfh y RiWo
S t irtt .
71-43-2 Bvnzene BRL u L 1
108-88-3— Toluene BRL ug/L 1
10041-4 Etnylbenze—ne BRL - ug/L t l
108-38-3/106-A2-3 meta-Xylene and Para-X lene I BRL ug/L 1
95:7-6 ortho-Xylene BRL ugl 1
1 _ - - --�---_
m -
�
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluen? _— 112 % 70-130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-846,Third E iition, t tpdate III (1996).
Report Notations: Bf:L Indicates concentration,if any, is below reporting limit for a ialyte. teporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routin,> laboratc ry operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and samp =size.
1
r
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street Buzzi�rds Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GCIPID
Ii8ld ID: MVI-2 Laborai ory ID: 47725-02
Project: Bironingharrit/13099-2533 QC Bat ch I D: VG2-2098-W
Client: Berinett&O'Reilly, lrbc. SamplE A: 01-10-02
Container: 40 rnL VOA Vial Rece11/t!d:. 01-18-02
Preservation: HCI I Cool Analy.Z Ki: 01-23-02
Matrix: Aqtjeous Dilutio i Facto 1
CA5 e, n
B(!nzene BRL--- uWL 1
108-88-3 Toluene DRL uS/L 1
100414 Ethyllbenzene BRL ug/L I
108-38-3/in6.42-3 m�ta-Xyiene and para-Xylene BRIL ug/L 1
�-5-47-6-- ortho-X yiene BRIL ug/L
='T
r asatv�- t
iQ
�,,�,�Jrifluorotoluene 113 % 70- 130 %
Method Reference: Teit Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-.&46,Third E lition, L 1pdate 111 (1996).
Repont Notations: BF.L Indicates concentration,If any, is below reporting limit ror a)alyte. eporTing limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routim� aboratc ry operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sampi size.
Groundwater Analytical, inc., P.C. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzz;rds Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021 B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by Gl--[PI D
Field ID: MV✓-3 Labora ory ID: 47725-03
Project; Binningham/BO99-2533 QC Ba ch ID: VG2-2098-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sample d: 01-10-02
Container: 40 mL VOA Vial Receiv,-.d: 01-18-02
Preservation: HCl/Cool Analyz A: 01-23-02
Matrix: Aqueous DiIutio 1 Facto: 1
�SNutnbet =.: xtirt$iiiiiit.
71-43-2 Benzene BRL ug/L 1
108-88_3_ _ Toluene BRL _—_ ug(L 1
100 41-4 �rEtiylbenzene BRL _ ug/L 1
108.3&3/10642.3 meta-Xylene and para-Xylene SRL ug/L 1
i— — s t —
95 47-6 ortho-Xylene BRL ug/L
Its. - —
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluene _ 107 % 70- 130%
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846,Third E dition, t ipdate III (1996).
Report Notations: BF.L Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for a mlyte. teporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratc ry operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and same a size.
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street Buzz;irds Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' EPA Method 8021 B
Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC CPI D
Field ID: MVJ-4 Laboratory ID: 47725-04
' Project: Binningham/BO99-2533 QC Balch ID: VG2-2098-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sample 1: 01-10-02
Container: 40 mL VOA Vial Receive-.d:. 01-18-02
' Preservation: HCI/Cool Analy.t c1: 01-23 02
Matrix: Aqueous Dilutio i Facto 1
�z.. _ .��.�•� �-;�---,sue �-.--p.—
71-43-2 Bvnzene BRL ug/L 1
108-86-3 Toluene BRL ug/L 1
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL ug/L 1
108-38-3/10"2-3 m eta-Xylene and para-Xylene BRL _ ug/L 1
95-47-6 ortho-Xylene BRL _ ug/L 1
- — --
-QC.Surragatj@K.-
a,i -TriFluorotoluern! 107 % - 70- 130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,5W-846,Third E iition, t update 111(1996).
Report Notations: BF L Indicates concentration,if any, is below reporting limit for a lalyte. teporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine, iaboratc ry operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sampl size.
t
1 Groundwater Analytical, Inc. P.O. Box 1200 228 Main Street Buzz rds Bay, MA 02532
Yt Y,
GRDUNDIVATER
ANALYTICAL
EPA Method 8021 B
' Aromatic Volatile Organics by GC'PID
Field ID: MV1-5 Laborat 3ry ID: 47725-05
' Project: Birmingham/6099-2533 QC Bath ID: VG2-2098-W
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sample 1: 01-10-02
Container: 40 ml.VOA Vial Receivt d:. 01-18-02
Preservation: HCI/Cool Analyz-:d: 01-23-02
Matrix: Aqueous Dilutio i Facto i
ril�er - -triaije �:.: °trait- •:-- -- Etmit
71-43-2 Benzene -- BRL ug/L 1 --—
_ —
� 01 8-88-3 Toluene BRL u L 1
ug/L 1
100-41-4 Eth !benzene BRL _ _._
m sta-Xylene and Para-Xylene BRL _ ug/L 1
10&38-3/t 06•a2-3 --
95 47-6 ortho-Xylene BRL ug1L 1
_. -
r., t2Ci€rogate_C- inc = $etrY.- __ k,mite
a,a,a-Trifluorotoluent� _i 107 % - 70 130 %
Method Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846,Third E iition, t ipdate Itl (1996).
Report Notations: BF.L Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for a i<ilyte. Zeporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratc y operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and same size.
I
i
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Streel, Buzz irds Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Project Narrative
' Project: Birmingham/8099-2533 lab ID: 47725
Client: Bennett tic O'Reilly, Inc. Received: 01-18-02
A h sicaf CdiiditioR o S e#si
This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory conditi >n. ''he sample(s) were received
undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
1
B. .Koject Qocume atiori - _
--
This project was accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody docum�ntation, with the following
amendment(,) or co(rection(s):
Samples 471-62-01 through —05 for analysis by EPA Method 8021 Aromatics were taken off hold and
processed for Priority Turnaround due 01-25-02, per Dave Bennett, 01-18-02.
' -- -
_ C. Analysis-of Sdmple(s)"
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances were noted by the laboratory ,luring the processing of these
sample(s). All data contained within this report are released without qu.i ificatic•n.
t
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.a Box 1200, 228 Main Stre4� , Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
A 1 OZ
228 Main St el.P.O.Box 1200
GRMHOWA7ER Buzzards BaY,MA02512 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
ANALYTICAL Telephone(508)759-4441 AND WORK ORDER Ne 057850
FAX(50e)759-4475
Project Name: Firm:
/ n- TIIbMn(7nl nrn
• r (j t NIVHLI JIJ REQUEST
�t " `/'/"'"y",j-"t�"Jt, V••'•^'t V V r'y 1'e hlirtl Snnlvddlirl rl 111t1eh /We4rnM lid rrOH H11. G-nel elenrthy
STANDARD(10 Business Days) m
Project Num r: A e ii RIORITY 5 Business Days)
❑RUSH(RAN- _) " i h
(Rush on dn:5 n.11-1xNitanon NJriiM:l (1 O O [ li n ❑ 3
n nlerNerttp�n Cll ISte'� ar
-Ii Please FAX YES/ �+(l��NO $ � �K
FAX Nurrbor_ k�0 / y '� F s 2 E F
P 'ac1 FAana er: --- Tel honQe�: �`/ / / BILLING s 2 e e
Purchase Order No.: GWA Rekrence No.: S F Q # a : a ;
INSTRUCTIONS:Use aeparalo line for each container(except replicates). t -� 3 e ` " j ° a b F E c " x r
Sampting Matrix Type Contalne s -._1 A u 1=1 n F e e e r o E g cl rO Prrserretlon 11, rr�I O ❑ c ❑ o r 0 3 u n ❑ o i n F
�ISA PLE LABORAT
- .rx� c G v e�i c
NTIFICAMON e' '�^ 5 4 a L ! $ -.- NIM6€R Ws i� L o } a i £ 2 t� i ❑ y F I
L C gas a x 2 ° fi (dab Usti Only) $ f gd y 4 z Y 'u 1j 1
e $o5Y e 0 0o �e u o c� sa 03r0
� n ec c� fre r ❑U :
—
2
3
a' I
1 111!a I YII.G I I I IAI/1 1 1 1 1 1 Izl I I ! I I I IYI 1 I I I IAI / I I 1 1 1 1 1-I I -1_--- I I V\[
- .._
I
I UWq IJ ---
r47
I -
REMARKS!SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DATA QUALITY OBJECT S IVE CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
r Regulatory Program Project Specific OC u
NOTE:All samples submitted subject to Standard Terms and Conditions on reverse hereof.
c.�•{�'b V 1 C Safe Drinking Water Act Many regulatory programs and EPA methods reatare projod Rel Qulshed Sampler. Date Time Received by: Recaipl Temperature:
Ch`C� N DE DEP Form SpecifiMatrix
Spikes,
Project specifr Malik OC includes Semple Dupricales, r .
I L 1 [ NPDES,K)1ear,'Water. Act Matrix ekes,and/or Matrix Spike 1 �y� �O o 'Sp' P Duplicates f_abOr 9lor QC is 7-�
Specify State:_.__ not prolect spacitrc unless larearmnged P,oject specific OC IU Cl- .11
r O RCRAA tar.Waste Char. samp:es are wargeo on a per sample basis For Water samples, eerie ns - y: to Time Received bv- Shiopinq,AirbN
' �/j\i/ {^;. I -t^..� �,a �1'MA MCP(310 CIAR 40) each MS.MSO acd Sample Dupica+a requires an addilmnal I j Number. '
I '�" lAs�? , ✓�ReportaWe Concenlmtions sample°llqu°1. L �r(!Z �`S
N,},I�j
RCGW-I C RCS-1 Protect SpeclficOCRegWroe S.bcuonolocS-ple Retinnulshedby: Date Time h•Recrvv. ,L craloty: Cust3dySeaP
UARCG11'-2 DRCS•2 C3rler�Se•ial
C Sampk Or�e4ate O$61.gCJ q at.,.aw,y
D MA Dredge Disposal u Number:
OM°Irix Spike r.I Pit aseusa sarx
N ❑NH O RI O C,O ME Me1hoC of Shipmenl. -PWA Courier❑Express Mall O Fe eml press
' 1 UluSeed Cale nr flMalnx SpYe D,pliate --
i s1 P Y 9�Y 17UPS p Hand
2:3E)Ud 031UaOdaODNI 1N3W39UNdW ASIa:GI WdZS::OI a9M 2002-S-Nnf
G� OWA� Groundwater Analytical,Inc.
I'U-Box 1200
' ANALYTICAL 13u Main Street
� z�res Say,MA 02532
Ulephone(S08)7504441
FAX(5(M)759-4475
June 5, 2002
M5. Kara Risk
Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc.
P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
' Project: BirmingharTV8099.2533
Lab ID: 51037
Sampled: 0..5.21-0
Dear Kara.
Enclosed is the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Analysis performed for the above referenced
project. This project was processed for Standard Two Week turnaround.
This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
' report, This report contains a project narrative indicating project changes and non-conformances,a
brief description of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
and a statement of our state certifications.
' I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the information, the material contained in this report is, to
.the best of my knowledge and belief,accurate and complete.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric H.Je se
' Operatio anager
EHJ/pcl
Enclosures
Ed wuzE:oT z00z so unr 2-89V 968 80S: ON Xdd A 1I9d,0+119NNN39: WMId
:SJdd 03iUaO&1O3NI 1N3W39dNHW NSId:QI WdL2:0Z 03M 2002-S-Nflr
1
G
ANALYTICAL
' Mi, mchusetts DIEP EPH Method
(Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GCIRD
' field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 31037-01
Project: Hirmingharnl6099-2533 QC Bathe to: EP-1052-F
Client: Bt nett&O-Reilly,Inc. Sampled: 05-21-02
Container: 1 I.Amber Glass Received: OS-21-M
' Pteservatlon: H2SO4 I Cool Extracted: 05.31-02
Matrix; Aqueous Analyzed: 0&-04.02
Dilution Factor. Allphatk:l Aromatic:1
�. KPH Rstg4es -'....-------_�:--�--•-----r-?--'-. - _- __ .. _ —_,- -
j.n-0)to n-C18 All tit H rocarborts t 8RL ug/L 560
rs-C19 to n-C36 Allphatic Hydrocarbons' BRL -- ug(L 560 _
n�1—It o Arorruitic Hydrocarbons 460 _ Ug/L 180
hoed ijigal n-Cl1 to n•C22 Aromatic Hy4roarbons 4b0
-- _-
' CAS Number :t ee . .. y ` = ___ Catcentlat _ !"_M
...'- �::::.:�,..::;-;• -`!� to ;:Illapdit
t1f :::; f U.
�t)1 ZU-3 I Naphthalene BRL uy 11
91"57-6 2-Methylna_thalerte_ BRL _ u L 6
l 85-01_8 Phenanihrene BRL ug/L 11
— _ ...
j 83 32-9 Acenaphthene BRL uWL 1 t
. - !16 9t, 40- 140 91r
Fracttonatlox,: T 2-Fluorobi¢henyl ._
2-eromonaphthalene 77% 40 140%
Extr sction: Chlora ocia_decane -__ 75 % 40- 146 9
ortho-7erphenYl.-.- 94 .. -"-.-- ..
yr, _ _ 4_0-140%
gAM
__.. :r_.. ..
1. Wese all QAIQC procedures required by the method followed?
2. Were all performdnce/acceptancw 4andard5 for the required QA.'QC procedures achieved; Yes
' I Were any siHnlficant modification,,made to the method,as specified in Section 11.31 No
Method non-conformances indlc:rted:,bone are detailed below on this data rrpEA,or in the accompanying project narrative
! and project quaitty control report. Release of this data is authorized W the accompanying signed project cover letter.
j The:aewm�anylnR cover letter,pTjtci narrative andAgggy control report are considered part of this data resort
' Method Rtference: Method(or the Determination of Extracuble Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). rrtrac:tlon performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Nola am: t3RL lndkalt wnLtntrelion,if any,l5 below reporting limit for analyse- Reponim;limit IS the lowest
cericentr2tion that can be reliably Cuaitifled under routine laboratory opemunR conditions.
' riepoding Itmit7 o t adjusted for sample dilution and sample size,
t klydrocarbon range data excludes cunerntratiaru Of any SUffMte($)and/or internal Standards eluting h
that range.
4 n-C1 I to 6.C22 Aromatic HvdrsxArbun5 range data exdudc%the methal tarRot analyte CWcequations.
'
Groundwater Analytical, .O.Box 1200,228 Main Street,Buzzards gay,MA 02532
yt Inc.,,
2d Wd2Z:OI EOOE S0 'un f 2-89P 968 8OS: 'ON Xkid A-n 13d r 0+113NN39: WONJ
t-:SJdd =Ul :!OdNODNI 1N3W39UNdW >ISIa:GI Wti82:0Z 03M 2002-S-Nnf
ANALYTICAL
Project Narrative
' Project: Birmingham/8099.2533 Lab ID: 51037
Client: Bennet&O'Reilly,Inc. Received: 05.21.02
A. Physical.Condition of Satnpk+s)
This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The sample(s) were received
' undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
Projjecl 0octu .&TU.tion
This project was accornpanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation, with the following
' amendment(s)or correction(s):
1. Sample 510374,1, for analysis by MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, was filtered prior to analysis,as indicated on the Chain of Custody.
C. Analysis of Sample(s)
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
san,ple{s). All data Contained within this repor#are released without quailfication.
t
' Gmundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200,228 Main Street,Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
' 'urn
bd WH£Z'0T Z00Z S0 f 2-89b 968 805,: 'ON XHd J,1-1I8i'I,O+110NN89: WO�U
' FROM :BENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :508 8% 4687 Jul. 08 2002 03:39PM P2
' RECEIVED JUL 0 c MR
GROUNDWATER P.O.
Analytlral,Inc.
P0.fox 1200
ANALYTICAL Bu Main Street
Buzzards any.Mn 02532
Telophone(508)/59-4441
FAX(508)759-447 5
July 3, 2002
' Ms. Kara Risk
Bennett &O'Reilly, Inc.
P.O, Box 1667
' Brewster, MA 02631
LABORATORY REPORT
' Project: Birmingham113098-2533
Lab ID: 51884
Received: Ob-19-02
Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the analytical results for the above referenced project. The project was processed for
Standard tumaround.
This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
' report. This report contains a sample receipt report detailing the samples received, a project
narrative indicating project changes and non-contormances, a quality control report, and a
' statement of our state certitications.
The analytical results contained in this report meet all applicable NELAC standards, except as may
' be specifically noted, or described in the project narrative. This report may only be used or
reproduced in its entirety.
' I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
immediately responsible for obtaining the intormation, the material contained in this report is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.
' Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
' Sincerely,
Mjlonathan #� Ad
President
J RSAmd
Enclosures
_ .1111 -3-2002 MnN P17:S4PM Tn-PTP1C MANAGPMPNT TNf nPPnPQ)TFn PAGE:2
' FROM :BENNETT+O`REILLY FAX NO. :509 896 46e7 Jul. 08 2002 03:39PM P4
' GROUNMATER
ANALYTICAL
' Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/Fip
Field ID: MW-1. Laboratory ID: 51894-01
Project: Birmingf> WBO98-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly,Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
' Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic:1 Aromatic:1
-
Units Re par
U t- tKltlrh�l0p rt) Limit
pa !!8:
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons _ BRL ug/L 500
r1-Cl1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 200
-- -
— -
.U.t i4ust d n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 200
AS'Number. :`.' Target_Anal�ei "._... _....._. Con[ertti<ation Units Reporting limn-
.
91-20-3 Na hthalere BRL ug/L — 10
- j
91-57-6 2-Meihylnaphthalene BRL ug/L 5
65-01 8 Phenanthrene- — BRL ug/L 10
j 83-32-9 Acenaphthene-- BRL ugf L-_ 10
QE:Sucrogate C R QC I.imtts
' — am_pounds -- ----.._....._
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 91 % 40-140% -
2-Brornonaphthalene_...._..-----.--....._...----._-. 77 % - 40.140
Extraction: Chloro-octaderane 82 %
ordto-Terp'rtenyl 91 % 40-140 96
- ---------— QA/QC Certirkatiosl
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made,to the method,as specified in section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed Flow on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter,
The accompanying cover letter�p�ect narative and quali control report am considered part of this data report.
' Method Reference: Method for tha Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations- BRL Indicates concentration,if any,is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
' 0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
1
u
' Groundwater Analytical,Inc., P.O.Box 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
JUL-8-2002 MON 03:54PM ID:RISK MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED PAGE:4
' FROM :BENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :5W 896 4687 Jul. 08 2002 03:40PM P5
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GCIFID
' Field ID: MW-2 Laboratory ID: 51884-02
Project: Birmingham/6098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-106&F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly,Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container. 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2504/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed- 07-02-02
Dilution factor: Aliptratic:1 Aratwdc:1
-:EPH--Uroges.. . . ........_.. .troncetiffr�itieit -- —Units eportitij;_Limit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 500
— �...
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons —_ --__ _ BRL _—u9/ _500
Ln�l 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydmcarb�s BRL _ 4L 160
_ — ---. — —_ _
. usted J
Unldj nil l to n•C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons' BRL ugh 160
.
;'G15:NudStieC:' Ta'getAnalytes C4r►ceritratiort Uni IRepo i lmlt
91.20-3 Naphthalene BRL ugft 10
i
91-57-6 uglL 5
85-01-8 1 Phenanthrene —_ BRL 1— ug/L 10
83-32-9 - 1 Acenaphthene BRL ` ugll 10
_.... — -
QC:Surkdate Compounds
' Fractionation: _2•fluorobiphenyf — 82 % — 40-140%
2-Bromonaphthalt ne 78 °A _ — a0
.....- ----hale— - —
Extraction: gloro-octadecane 73 % ao-14o% _
ortho-Terphenyl 85 % 40- 140 96
_QA/QC Certi*266n
1. Were all QNQC procedures required by the method followed? —- Yes
2- Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? yes
3- Were any significant modifications made to the.method,m specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project duality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
' The accompanying cover letter,project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique
' Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration,if any,is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogates)and/or internal standards eluting it
' that range-
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
-
' Groundwater Analytical,Inc.,P.O.Box 12oo,228 Main Sweet, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
31 11 -R-PPOP mnKi Gl7�SSPM Tn•ATQV MnrJn(-'CMCrJT Tn1('nD1D C)nTCrl PAf F[S
' FROM :BENNETT+O`REILLY FAX NO. :508 e% 4G87 Jul. 08 2002 03:40PM PG
' G'R 7UN13WATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GOVI17
Field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 51884-03
Project: eirmingham/8098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly,Inc. Sampled- 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
' Presdrvation: H2SO4/Coot Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor_ Aliphatic-1 Aromatic:I
•'EPkIRI! �s;`: •.: +�ceatlrsftititi --- Units__ RtepornirtIl llmit
u L ..
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic H BRL ydrocarbons — _._.. — _ .500._
n-Cl9 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL-- .UFA 500
_ � _
n-CI I to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 270 ug/L 160
' -—--- - -------.. - -. .. ----Lim
.U�naej�sted n-C C1 11 to n- 2 Aromatic Hydrocarbons' 280 ugft 160
GAS'Number` Taet Analytes - Ccifiiit! ratitm
Units it
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL f ug/L 10
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL — l ug/L S
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ugk 10
BRL 10
83-32-9 Acenaphthene j _ ug/L
..::_.. �. �C:Sotrngate Compounds"
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 91 % 40- 140%
2-Bromonaphthalene 90 % 40-140...
Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 32 % _ 40- 140%
- —_— -ortho-Terphenyl 140%
Q 93 % 40- -
AIQC:Certi
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? yes
2. Were all performanreJacceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or In the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accornpagying cover letter,_projeq narrative and quality control-report are considered part of this data report_ —...... J
Method Reference: Mr4hod for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons;MA DEP(1998). Extraction perfonnpA
utilizing separatory funnel technique,-
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration,if any,is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
' 0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O.Box 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
' FROM :BENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :Sly 896 4687 Jul. 08 2002 03:40PM P7
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
tMassachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FI D
Field 10: MW-4 Laboratory ID: 51884-04
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly,Inc• Sampled: W18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received:' 0619-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic:1 Aromatc:l
EPH?, eg:; Ct>'rirkAudn . . Units Reporgrig Limit
' n-C9 to r,,C18 Aliphatic H dro^arbons 8RL ug/L 500
_.Y
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons} dRt 1 41- 500
n-Cl1 to n-C22 Aromatic H rocarbons BRL ug/L 160
� adluSted n C11 to n C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L _ 160
.C.A.5,Nili4►K- Tatget AnalyMs CbrlcKRrafion Unitti KeportlgE Limit
91-20-3 _ Naphthalene BRL u9 .-d10
91-57-6 2-methyl naphthalene BRI. ug/L 5
8501-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L 10
83-32-9 Acenaphthene - BRL —_ _ ug/L 10
QC So a compounds aecoviry - C Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluoraksiphenyl — 91 % 40.140 1/6
2-Bromonaphthalene 82 % -- 40-140% i
Extraction: Chloro octadecane 7q °� I 40.1 q0°1°
ortho-Terphenyl 8s % _ �—--_40-140
- —
_..._.QAJQCCefifraition ---------- ----- ---
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance.standards for the required QA/QC procedures athieved7 Yes
' 3. Were any significant modificAtions made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the acrompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter. —
The accompanying cover letter_project-narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbom,MA DEP(1998). Extraction perfonnod
utilizing,reparatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration,if any,is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory oporaiing conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
' 0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations,
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc.,P.O- Box 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
JI ll -R-PARP Mr1N A7:55PM Tr):RTFK MANAr7FMFNT TNicng.Pf1P.ATF-D_ PAGE:7
FROM :IENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :508 896 4607 Jul. 08 2002 03:41PM PO
iGRi0jLI11 j1QWiATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
' Field ID: MW-5 Laboratory ID: 51884-05
Project: Birmingham/8O98-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client. Bennett&O'Reilly,Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container. 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
' Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix• Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic:1 Aromatic:1
ntt4 R
R tt:s:..
n-C9 to rrC18 Aliphatic Hydrouirbons — BRL ug/L — 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons — BRL ug L 500
n-C11 to r>C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons — BRL ug/L -160
r lJ.nadtusied n-Cl1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL
CAS Number �arget_Anaes. _ -- ConCeddbtion _... .._ Unita Re�arttrt6 Llmi'
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ug/L 10
' 91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L - -� 5
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL I ug/L 10 I
83-32-9 Acenaphthene j BRL ug/L— 10
_ C Surro&a COMPOUnds _. ..Recovery. _— _ Mill
--=.. .
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl - 92 °k 40-140 qo
2-Bromonaphthalene 81 % t�::40-140%
Extraction: I Chloro-odadecane 77 % i 40-140%
ortho-Terphenyl 82 % _ __�' 40-140% --
QWt
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? yP5
' 2. Were all performanrplarreptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conforrnarices indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release.of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanving cover letter,project narrative and quality mntro!report are considered pan of this data
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction perfonmed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: 8RL Indicates concentration,if any,is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
f Hydrocarbon rangy data pxrludes conmtrations of any surrogate($)andlor internal standards eluting it
that range..
o n-Cl l to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target onalvte concentrations.
1
17
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O- Box 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Ray, MA 02532
JHL-8-2002 MON 03:56PM ID:RTPK MANAGFMFNT TNf'npPnPATFD PAGE:8
' FROM :BENNETT+O`REILLY FAX NO. :500 096 4607 Jul. 00 2002 03:41PM P9
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
1
Project Narrative
' Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 Lab ID: 51884
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Received: 06-19-02
._ A. Physical Condition of 5ampleW
This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The samples) were received
r undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
B. Project Documentation
This project was'accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation, with the following
' amendment(s)or correction(s):
1, Sample 51884-01 through —05 for analysis by MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons were filtered prior to analysis as indicated on the Chain of Custody.
C. Analysis of Samples)
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
sample(s). All data contained within this report are released without qualification,
w
a
Groundwater Analytical,Inc.,P.O.Box 1200,228 Main Street,Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
n u n nnra^i mr)kl n7.CCCM Tn-OTCV MnK1nGCMCb1T TF.I(noiDnQ0Tr:n PACE:9
J
_ o
i 3
0
i
D Z
0 Z
u -m
D
T O
m
13 8 Main Sheet P.O.Btor 1200 r
eruzards (&17p253z CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD �a 053ds0
r W Talept,a�(cos}ass as ei AND WORK ORDER U ANAL7 l CAL � FAX�SCS 759d475
Pr ' Yarme:
0 t TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
pima 9rNp'mler M rLif2u Webb Mfem. N Ha. rkw4i!lan*1 Cqs
STANDARD(10 Business Days) �55 •�
F�4)BCNM1kJmt doss,' � G PRIORITY(5 2us ress Darya)
EN? fC,�(fly�` T O RUSH RAN-
iRwh reGvlraa R...h kft'c".bon Nbrm-) o c a c = p
3 SVRj
C' /Sra1e!21p: j
z C ��•'+ - O�� Please FAX NO s {f
D FAXN—ber:_ [�
t Man r; phone: 81LL1NG l a " iE £ X
3 ( �Q
n ] ] ❑ G J c
T1 t f� 4 Q �a[`o Purchase Ordar Nm: GWA PeI-rence No.:
Z �, 22 � add '� � 9 o
INSTPIIFCTtCNS:Use separate Ilna for each tonlalneT{except reprttatesJ. [� S i B ti g a
z T-51
9 Matrlx Can4rneHA) PnurvNton
SAMPLE g LABORATORY 1 f 1 + i , k t n a '. x LU
01DdNTIrICATION - 7 J i g ! M mile'. b} Q t q� 7 - . )
O y 6 x a y Jai a a ! si a [4b UsetOcrw,yy) 9 y q y P { € a 3D I! 5 3 >� i9 � O t i q 9 j� 0�5 / l 3 � all 1 } i : 3 i Y a -
m �` I r = S
o ri a r. n c c ] G :r n n n u n c
o .(j� m
5 -fill I IT
ti
m
ry
REMARKS I SPECIAL INSTRU"ONS DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES CHAIN-OF Clf5TO01r RECORD 1 D i
c^ Regubdory Wograrn Proo"Spechic OC NOTE_Al sarrplas srbrn::MW sdilea to Stamdardl Terms and Condhicn&on re.Ere hereof.
7 SafeCM DrirldngWsoerAct J�
Marry r=galatdry pro7rxms am EFri rnalhms regale Project Reli!#yishad t--`Gt 0EP form Y byirnper: Dery Tine q� +ed G1 R.acHpt TernFeratr.ra:
specixx:QC.Pran& sPeallc 40 irr_L:es SarnPle Dupli, •n
rrrY�f��i�. ? �� � �NPDES•+:Ices'/.`eler P.7. hlacix Saires aoe�v Natr.•
p. per:-.. P s. 1 sP=:Mc GC .'O f`oZ Jv �J t%t- /'2.'S C •'�
-'S t. „+n''-�• ± r-at ro!Ocl s is u•rl�ss 'Ea.'2�'�e=P'n'a�:�
CRA+Haz Yiaeeeehan samples are cto-190 err a per sanple basis.Fu^V.er sampler Relinquished bq. ❑ to TNrs9 n r+�dt _ ShbPirlyAirbil
RepcRatls TaConctMsations sarrpse0 and Sample Duplkate requlr�ar arY.niutal /1 zrlqucL `� IC C l /r /� 1 NuntBr: m
m -CGW-T p P.C. -1 Pro'l OC Nugatred s4esxJa a GC 5mp3e Rr
try: r ///��, Tmrz 6N�t-0Cy/ Utoralory. Cusiody Sera
-nRCGW-2 ]RGS-2
F-' r75amoe Oupiir�N OSsrrcMd�•b6cralory �+ i Cooler SerLil
C" CO MA NH� pCT 7AE ❑M.rnr Spke _Pease�o eamTAe: M1SeVrcdri�}( ,9 J �� Number:
r.� `?+Fm= GWA Gbcder E Express Mail 0 Fod_rat Express
Specify C-eSw-- C kb:a S;>ka a.Trca-e v /$
:J 13'$ GHand❑ I
' FROM :BENNETT+0`REILLY FAX NO. :508 096 4607 Jul. 08 2002 03:42PM P11
GROUNDWAT?
ANALYTICAL
1
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
A. Program overview
' Groundwater Analytical conducts an active Quality Assurance program to ensure the production of high
quality, valid data. This program closely follows the guidance provided by Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, US EPA QAMS-005/80 (1980), and Test
' Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA,SW-846, Update 111(1996).
Quality Control protocols include written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) developed for each
analytical method. SOPS are derived from US EPA methodologies and other established references.
' Standards are prepared from commercially obtained reference materials of certified purity, and documented
for traceability.
Quality Assessment protocols for most organic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control sample,
one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation batch.
All samples, standards, blanks, laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and sample duplicates are spiked
with internal standards and surrogate compounds. All instrument sequences begin with an initial calibration
verification standard and a blank; and excepting GC/MS sequences, all sequences close with a continuing
' calibration standard. GC/MS systems are tuned to appropriate ion abundance criteria daily, or for each 12
hour operating period,whichever is more,frequent.
Quality Assessment protocols for most inorganic analyses include a minimum of one labofatory control
sample, one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation
batch. Standard curves are derived from one reagent blank and four concentration levels. Curve validity is
verified by standard recoveries within plus or minus ten percent of the curve.
I - - B. Definitions ----�
Batches are used as the basic unit for Quality Assessment. A Batch is defined as twenty or fewer samples of
the same matrix which are prepared together for the same analysis, using the same lots of reagents and the
same techniques or manipulations, all within the same continuum of time, up to but not exceeding 24 hours,
Laboratory Control Samples are used to assess the accuracy of the analytical method. A Laboratory Control
Sample consists of reagent water or sodium sulfate spiked with a group of target analytes representative of the
method analytes. Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of the measured value with the true or
expected value. Percent Recoveries for the Laboratory Control Samples are calculated to assess accuracy.
Method Blanks are used to assess the level of contamination present in the analytical system. Method Blanks
consist of reagent water or an aliquot of sodium sulfate. Method Blanks are taken through all the appropriate
' steps of an analytical method. Sample data reported is not corrected for blank contamination.
Surrogate Compounds are used to assess the effectiveness of an analytical method in dealing with each
sample matrix. Surrogate Compounds are organic compounds which are similar to the target analytes of
' interest in chemical behavior; but which are not normally found in environmental samples. Percent
Recoveries are calculated for each Surrogate Compound. .
L_M
' Groundwater Analytical,Inc.,P.O- Box 1200,228 Main Street,Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
1 TI 11 1 "'I111 -1 11.---- I----- ...-..-.+.-...-.- T. _+_m-
1 FROM :IENNETT+OrREILLY FAX NO. :50e 896 4687 Jul. 08 2002 03:42PM P12
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Control Report
Laboratory Control Sample
' Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Matrix: Water
' - Units: ug/L _•_
Arai- 3 ..__---. .. Aleasure�l Recov erY__ - QC Limits
111 42 n-Nonane O) - 50 25 50% 40-140%
629-59-4 n-Tetradecane(C14) 50 32 64% 40-140%
629-92-5 n-Nonadecane(if 19) 50 39 78% 40-140 16
112-95-8 n-Eicosanc(CZO) 50 - - 39 78% 40- ---
140'� _
630-024 n-Octacosane(C28) 50 --� 34 68'Y qO-140'
- •- ---------- _... _ _--- -
91-ZO 33 Naphthalene 50 33 fib Ya 40-140 "/o
1 83-32-9 Acenaphthene _ 50 38 75 96 40-140 "k
_QC Snrrogatd Compounds Recov q __...-- QC Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl_ _- 96 % 40-140-%
2-8romonaphthalene 77 % 40-140%Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 73 % 40-140 96
t__._...._. ortho-Terphenyl-- 89 % 40-140°lo - 1
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998).
Report Notations: All calculations performed prior to rounding- Quality Control Limits arp defined by the methodology,
' or alternatively based upon the historical average recovery plus or minus three standard deviation units. .
r
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
JLIL-8-2002 MON 03:57PM ID:RISK MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED PAGE:12
' FROM :BENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :508 896 4687 Jul. 08 2002 03:42PM P13
1 GNiC WDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Control Report
Method Blank
' Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-1066-4--
Matrix: Water
- •• — Ca ion ,Units Reporting.t.imit
BRL i _
n-C9 to n-C10 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons ug/L 500___.•
I1 C19 to n•C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon 7 —_ gRL uP� $�
' n Ct 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons�� — BRL _._.ug/L 160
_�..
UnadiuSteCl n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic.Hydrocarbons 8RL
CAS.`Number�—Target Anat_e» C6nceitt►ation Units Reporting Limit
' 91-20-3 — Naphthalene — BRL ug/L 10
91-57-6 2-Mothylnaphthalene — BRL —_— ttg/I- ___•• __.._ 5
--
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L — 10
' 83-32-9 I Acena hthene BRL 10
— _-QC Surrogate Compounds —_ .....___Re arwry
Fractionation: i 2-fluorobiphenyl 89 % 40-140%
2-Bromonaphthalene 68 % 40-140%
Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 69 % 40- 140%
l._...... ......... ortho-Terphenyl........ ------------- 88 % 40-
' Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(I"A).
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration,if any,it glow reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and 5amplti size.
' t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogates)and/or internal standards eluting ii
that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
II
1
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O-Box 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 025,12
TI_II -A-PROP Mr1N 17I7:57PM. Tn-PTPK MANAGFMFNT TN(-.nPPf1PATF=n PACaE:13
' FROM :BENNETT+O'REILLY FAX NO. :508 896 4687• Jul. 08 2002 03:43PM P14
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
1
Certifications and Approvals
' F_ CONNECTICUY,Department of Health Services, PH-0586
Potable Water,Wastewater/Trade Waste,Sewage/Effluent,and Soil
' pl-1,Condluctiv ly,Acidity,Alkalinity,lardness,Chloride,Fluoride,Ammonia,Kieldahl Nitrogen,Nitrate,Nitrite,Orthophosphate,Total Dissolved
Solids,Cyanide,Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Barium.Beryllium,Cadmium,Total CJtromium,Hexavaleol Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,
Magnesium,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Potassium,Selenium,Silver,Sodium,Thalliurn,Tin,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,Purgeable
Halocarbons,Purgeable Aromatics,Pesticides,PCBs,PCBs in Oil,Ethylene D-bromide,Phemis,Oil and Grease,
1 C. MAINE,Departmert of Human Services, MA103
Drinking Water
' Reciprocal cenffication in accordance with Massachusetts certification for drinking ware,analytes-
Waste Water
Reciprocai certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for waste water anatytes.
' D. MASSACHUSMS, Departlneint of Environmental Protection,WMA-103
Potable Water
' Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Copper,Lead,►,sercury,Nickel,Selenium,Thallium,NitratrN,Nitrite-N,Fluoride,
Sodium,Sulfate,Cyanide,Turbidity,Residual Free Chlorine,Calcium,Total Alkalinity,Total Dissolved SoliRls,pH,Trihalnmethanes,Volatile Orttanic
Compounds,1,2-Dibromoethane,1,2-Dibmnx>3-chloroproparie,Total Coliform,Fecal Colifoan,Heterotrophic Plato Count,E-Coll
Non-Potable Water
Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Cobalt Copper.Iron,Lead,Manganese,Mercury.Molybdenum,Nickel,Selenium,
Silver,Strontium,Thallium,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,pH,Specific Conductance,Tout Dissolved Solids,Total 1 la Vness,Callum,Magnesium,
Sodium,Potassium,Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,AmrrMnia-N,Nimo.-N,Kieldahl-N,Orthophosphate,Total Phosphorus,Chemical
Oxygen Demand,Blochemica)Oxygen rN.-rota i,Total Cyanide,Non-Filte.able Residue,Total Residual Chlorine,Oil and Cre Total Phenolics,
Volatile Halocarbons,Vulatil,-Ansrnatics,Chlordane,Aldrin,Dieldrin,DOD,DOE,00T,Heptachlor,Hept.frhlor fpnxide,Polychlorinated
Siphenyls(water),Pulychlorinaled Biphenyls(oil). -
E. MICHIGAN,Department of Environmental Quality
' Drinking Water
Trihalomelhanes,Regulated and Unregulated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 524.2;1,2•01bromnethane,1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane by EPA Method 504,1
T. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Department of 5Mronmental Services, 202798
Drinking Water
' Metals by Graphite Fum,1Ce,Metals by IC?,Merrunl.Nitrite N,Onhophasp►tate,Residual Free Chlorine,Turbidity,Total Filterable Residue,Calcium
Hardness,pH,-Alkalinity,Srxlium,Sulfate,Total Cyanide,Insecticides.Herbicides,BaserNeutrals,Trihalortlethanm,Volallle Organics,Vinyl
Chlorite,DBCP,EOR,Nitrate-N.
Wastewater
' Metals by Graphite Fttinace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,pH,Specific Conductivity,TOS,Total Hardness,Caleir,m,Magnesium,Sodium,Potassium,
Total Alkalinity,Chlnrde,Fluoride,Sulfate,AmmoniaN,Nilra",Orthophosphate,TKN,Total Phosphorus,COD,BOD,Non-Filterable Residue,
Oil A Grease,Total Phenolics,Total Residual Chlorine,PCBs in Water,PCBs in Oil,Peslicidm Volatile Organics,Total Cyanide.
RHODE 11SIAND, Department of Health,S4 1
Surface Water,Air,Wastewater,Potable Water,Sewage
Chetniwy: Organic and Inorganic
' Groundwater Analytical,Inc_,P.O. Sox 1200,228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
TI11 MnK1 ril7-E70MM Tr1•DTCV Kinking ma'kIT TKi fIDOrIon-rc:1 DO�'C• 1a
APPENDIX C
1
TOXICITY PROFILES
1
1
i
1
1
1
b
' VOLATILE AND EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
FRACTIONS
' GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Approximately fifty percent of all Massachusetts DEP(MADEP) Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup sites are
' the result of spills and releases of petroleum, while an additional ten percent of all sites are contaminated
with petroleum-related target analytes(MADEP, 1994). Traditional approaches to petroleum sites risk
characterization have focused on the identification and evaluation of specific indicator compounds(i.e.,
' benzene), however this approach does not necessarily provide risk assessors with information regarding the
composition or relevant toxicity of the petroleum product and in some cases may result in the
overestimation of site risk.
' In light of the toxicological,fate and transport, and risk characterization limitations posed by traditional
petroleum risk assessment approaches, in 1994 the MADEP devised a new petroleum site characterization
approach. Under this approach, the toxicity of petroleum contaminated media is defined by(1) the
individual concentrations of targeted petroleum constituents, such as BTEX and PAH compounds, and (2)
collective concentrations of(remaining)aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons within defined hydrocarbon
ranges(MADEP, 1996). This new approach is achieved by fractionating the petroleum product into
collective aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons. In support this new approach, the MADEP has also devised
' analytical methods for the determination of'Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons(VPH)and Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons(EPH)(MADEP, 1998, 1998a, respectively), as well as identified_surrogate
indicator chemicals and associated toxicity values with which to characterize risk to human health and the
environment.
Under this new approach, the non-cancer toxicity of petroleum-contaminated media is established by(1)
determining the collective concentrations of specified ranges of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and
' (2)assigning a toxicity value(e.g., Reference Dose)to each range(MADEP, 1997). Cancer effects are
evaluated separately,via the identification and quantification of those specific hydrocarbon compounds
(e.g., benzene,caPAHs)that have been designated as carcinogens by the USEPA.
' This Toxicity Profile summarizes threshold effects information for the petroleum hydrocarbon fractions of
interest,as they relate to the Volatile and Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon fractions of concern.
Threshold effects information is provided for specific surrogate"indicator"compounds, as selected by the
MADEP, representative of all compounds within select hydrocarbon ranges. For toxicological purposes,
petroleum products have been broken down into four(4) key ranges of interest. Even though the non-
cancer toxicity of petroleum media can be adequately described by fractionating into four hydrocarbon
' fractions,the MADEP has chosen to fractionate petroleum hydrocarbons into six(6)fractions of interest(3
detected by VPH and 3 detected by EPH methods), mainly because of analytical and program
considerations, as identified in Table 1 (MADEP, 1997). Information supporting the new petroleum
hydrocarbon assessment approach is summarized in the table below.
Table 1
Hydrocarbon Fractions of Interest and Associated Analytical Methods and Toxicity Surrogate Compounds
Toxicologically- Analytical-Defined Analytical Toxicity Surrogate
Defined Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon Method Compound
' Fraction Fraction
C5-Cs Aliphatics C5-Cs Aliphatics VPH n-Hexane
C9-C18 Aliphatics C9-C12 Aliphatics VPH n-Nonane
C9-Cis Aliphatics EPH n-Nonane
' C19-C36 Aliphatics C19-C36 Aliphatics EPH Eicosane
C9-C22 Aromatics C9-Cio Aromatics VPH Pyrene
C11 - C?,)Aromatics EPH P rene
' MADEP has integrated this new petroleum hydrocarbon assessment approach into the Massachusetts
Contingency Plan(MCP)by developing and promulgating risk-based soil and groundwater Standards for
six analytically-defined hydrocarbon fractions. These Standards, which became effective in October 31,
' 1997,enable parties undertaking cleanup to more expeditiously address risks associated with petroleum
products in the medium of concern.
VOLATILE AND EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS ANALYTICAL
METHODOLOGY
The MADEP VPH method is a purge and trap, GC/PID/FID procedure, whereby collective concentrations
' of C;-Cs aliphatic, C9-C12 aliphatic, and C9-Ci„aromatic compounds can be quantified in soil and water
matrices. In addition to these petroleum fractions, the VPH method can be used concurrently to identify
and quantify the individual concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, methyl-tert butyl
' ether, and naphthalene.
The MADEP EPH method is a solvent extraction/fractionation GC/FID procedure,whereby collective
concentrations of Co- Cia aliphatic and'Cl 1 - C aromatic compounds can be quantified in soil and water
matrices. In addition to these fractions, the VPH method also has the capability to be used concurrently to
identify and quantify the individual concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH)target
analytes.
THRESHOLD EFFECTS FOR SURROGATE COMPOUNDS
' The following summarizes observed threshold effects for the selected VPH and EPH surrogate compounds.
Effects for the target analytes are provided in separate Toxicity Profiles contained within this Appendix.
n-Hexane
N-Hexane, a highly volatile constituent in the paraffin fraction of crude oil and natural gas, has been
selected by the MADEP as the surrogate representative of the C5-.Cg aliphatic hydrocarbon fraction.
Through epidemiological studies on n-hexane-exposed workers,sensory neuropathy has been observed as
' the main toxic effect of long-term exposure(MADEP, 1994). Other effects noted as a result of long-term
exposure include: cranial neuropathy,blurred vision, and abnormal color vision. Occupational studies
conducted by Sanagi et al. (1980)and Dunnick et al. (1989)are considered the best source of information
' with respect to establishing actual exposure levels(EPA, 1,998). The Sanagi study, involving factory
workers exposed to n-hexane vapors over an average exposure duration of 6.2 years, identified an
inhalation Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)of 58 ppm (MADEP, 1994). The Dunnick
' study identified a LOAEL very similar to that derived by Sanagi, in addition to identifying a No Observed
Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)of 500 ppm, based on mild inflammatory lesions of the nasal epithelium
(EPA, 1998). Several animal studies have demonstrated that n-hexane poses no teratogenic effects
following exposure.
' The following toxicity values have been identified for n-hexane: (1)a chronic oral Reference Dose of 0.06
mg/kg/day,(2)a subchronic oral Reference Dose of 0.6 mg/kg/day, and (3)a chronic inhalation Reference
' Concentration of 200 ug/m3.
n-Nonane
' N-nonane, a constituent in the paraffin fraction of crude oil and natural gas,has been selected by the
MADEP as the surrogate representative of the C9-C„aliphatic and C9-C,s aliphatic hydrocarbon fraction.
Evidence of cerebellar dysfunction and damage to cerebellar neurons suggests that the Central Nervous
' System (CNS)is a target organ for n-nonane. Exposure of Harlan-Wistar rats to 1,500 ppm of nonane for
65 days,six hours per day,for five days/weeks resulted in mild tremors, slight coordination loss and low
irritability of the eyes and extremities. No ill effect was reported at 590 ppm.
The following toxicity values have been identified for n-nonane: (1)a chronic oral Reference Dose of 0.6
mg/kg/day, (2)a subchronic oral Reference Dose of 6.0 mg/kg/day, and(3)a chronic inhalation Reference
Concentration of 2,000 ug/m3.
' Pyrene
' Pyrene has been selected by the MADEP as the surrogate indicator representative of the C,)- C1()aromatic
and C11 - C,aromatic hydrocarbon fraction. Pyrene has been-reported to be a human skin irritant
(MADEP, 1994),while the EPA reports"kidney effects: such as decreased kidney weights)as critical
effects following pyrene exposure. An EPA(1989)oral subchronic toxicity study considered a dose of 75
' mg/kg/day as the LOAEL, while 125 mg/kg/day was considered the LOAEL for nephropathy and
decreased kidney weights.
' The following toxicity values have been identified for pyrene: (1)a chronic oral Reference Dose of 0.03
mg/kg/day, (2)a subchronic oral Reference Dose of 0.3 mg/kg/day, and (3)a chronic inhalation Reference
Concentration of 60 ug m3.
Eicosane
Eicosane has been selected by the MADEP as the surrogate representative of the Cl,)- C36 aliphatic
' hydrocarbon fraction. Eicosane, representative of the larger alkanes, is likely to cause little neurotoxicity in
humans(MADEP, 1994). Even though toxicity studies could not be located for these types of alkanes,
information drawn from toxicity testing conducted for Shell Oil by Hernandez(1989)on white mineral oil
(a complex mixture of C15 - C50 saturated carbons) may be employed to draw conclusions regarding
' eicosane's toxicity. The Shell Oil study did not identify pathological effects resulting from mineral oil
exposure, therefore no LOAELs were identified resulting in the need to use NOAELs for the derivation of
a Reference Dose. The highest NOAEL reported is equivalent to 6,000 mg/kg/day in a lifetime dietary
feeding study.
The following toxicity values have been identified for pyrene: (I)a chronic oral Reference Dose of 6.0
mg/kg/day, and (2)a subchronic oral Reference Dose of 60 mg/kg/day. A chronic inhalation Reference
Concentration was not calculated,given the low likelihood of a volatilization for this heavier alkane
fraction.
' REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute(API). 1992. API Mineral Oil Review. Departmental Report. No. DR
' 21;January.
Dunnick,J.K., D.G. Graham,R. S. Yang, S.B. Harber, and H.R. Brown. 1989.Thirteen-week Toxicity
Study of n-Hexane in B6C3F1 Mice after Inhalation Exposure.Toxicology.57(2):163-172.
' Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1998. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). On-line
toxicological database. March.
' EPA. 1989. 13-Week Mouse Oral Subchronic Toxicity with Pyrene.TRL Study#042-012. Study
conducted by Toxicity Research Laboratories,Muskegon, MI for the Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, DC.
' Hernandez, L.E. 1989.Toxicological Overview of H YP P g er ha ocytic Granuloma Associated with
g
Medicinal White Oil and Related Materials. Study conducted for Shell Oil Company: Health, Safety
' and Environment-Toxicology.Also presented as Appendix 5 to API, 1992. December.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 1998. Method for the
Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons(VPH). Division of Environmental Analysis.
Office of Research and Standards.January.
t
' MADEP. 1998a. Method for the Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons VPH . Division
Y � )
of Environmental Analysis. Office of Research and Standards. January.
MADEP. 1997.. Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of
MADEP VPH/EPH Approach. Public Comment Draft. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
' October.
MADEP. 1996. Issues Paper: Implementation of VPH/EPH Approach. Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup.
Public Comment Draft. May.
' MADEP. 1994. Development of Health-Based Alternative to the Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH)
Parameter. Office of Research and Standards. Interim Final Report. August
' Sanagi, S., Y. Seki, K. Sugimoto, and M. Hirata. 1980. Peripheral Nervous System Functions of
Workers Exposed to n-Hexane at a Low Level. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health. 47:69-79.
III
II
i
� I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
Table 1
Summary of Soil Analytical Data(0-15 ft.bgs)
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4.15283
SAMPLE:IDENTIFICATION/DEPTH bgs/DATE
Arithmetic CurrentlProposed Applicable MCP Method 1 Standards(mg/Kg)
OHM(mg/Kg) SW-N SW-E SW-W SW-S BOH Detection Average Maximum
6-15 ft. 6-15 ft. 6-15 ft. 6-15 ft. 16 ft. Frequency (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) S1 S2 S3
2/1/00 2/1/00 2/1/00 2/1/00 2/1/00 GW-1 GW-2 GW-3 GW-1 GW-2 GW-3 GW-1 GW-2 GW-3
EPHs/PAHs
C9-C,BAliphatics 110 41 480 42 15 4/5 .138 480 1,000/1,000 1,000/1,000 1.000/1,000 2,500/2,000 2,500/2,000 2,500/2,000 5,000/2,000 5.000/2,000 5,000/2,000
C19-Cie Aliphatics 15 15 64 15 15 1/5 20 64 2,500/3,000 2.500/3.000 2,500/3.000 5,000/5,000 5,000/5,000 5,000/5,000 5,000/5,000 5,000/5,000 5,000/5,000
C11 C22 Aromatics 39 15 160 15 15 2/5 .r. 34 160 200/20 800/1,000 800/1,000 200/20 2,000/3,000 2,000/3,000 200/20 5,000/3,000 5.000/3,000
Targeted PAHs 0.28 0.25 0.65 0.28 0.28 0/5 - - - - - - -
Notes&Abbreviations:
1.OHM=Oil&Hazardous Material;mg/Kg=milligrams per Kilogram;bgs=below ground surface.
2.EPHs/PAHs=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
3. Bolded values represent detected levels. Numbers in italics and underlined represent one-half of the Sample Detection Limits.
4. -=Not applicable.
5.Current MCP Method 1 Soil Standards Table 5,310 CMR 40.0975(6)(a),(b),and(c)dated 10/29/99 and Proposed Standards(MADEP 2002b).
6.MGP Compliant Exposure Point Concentrations derived pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0924(2)(b).
Birmingham Residence-Tablel
1
r
�f
r
r
Table 2A Summary of Grpuntlwa[er MOnrtpnng Analytical Data
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road _
- Osterville.MA - - - -
r RTN 4 15283
SAMPLEMENT61C-T MON-1-1ELLLOCA-1 SCREENNGDEPTNI DATE OF SAMPLING
Chemical
OHM(yglL) Abstracts MIN, MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 Detection Masi mum Alwlic-MCP Groundwele.S....,W.L1 MCP upper
Service Frequency Conc. Co�rr.metmn Limaa
Number r in G.o-ev.weM.1029199 229N0 4/6/00 5/30/00 ]20/00 1/22/00 ]/10/O/ 1//0/02 6I18/02 1029/99 229I00 4/6/00 5/30I00 ]20/00 1122I00)/10/Ol 1//0/O2 6/18/02 10/29/99 229/00 4/6100 5/30/00 )20I00 1/22/00 ]710p1 1022/Ol 11/13/Ot 12/1]/Oi 1/t0102 52//02 6/18/02 5/30/00 ]20/00 1122/00 ]/10/O/ 1/10/02 6/18/02 5/30/00 720/00 .1122/00 ]/17/1-1 1/10/02 6/18IO2 U1g/L) GIN, GW-2 GW-3 (,4L)
EPHsI PAHs
Cy CieA lipll cs .. 265. 265 260 265 JL- 315 265 250 250 215 250 270 295 265 265 260 250 250 270 250 265 265 265 265 250 2H0 265 280 250 260 250 265- 250 280 250 250 250 265 250 250 250 250 250 0/43 4,000/4,G00 1.000/5.000 20.000/20,000 100.0CU100.000
Cog C�Aliphanes .- 265 265 260 265 250 315 265 250 250 315 270 295 265 265 260 250 250 2)0 250 265 265 265 265 250 280 265 280 250 280 250 265 250 280 250 250 250 265 265 250 250 250 250 0143 - 5,000/5000 -- 20,00020.000 IOO.GC{;1100,000
C. C,Aromatics .. 240 100 100 100 100 100 85 80 I00 210 100 100 too t00 too 85 80 80 380 370 610 360 390 570 380 380 230 220 280 460 270 100 t00 100 80 80 80 100 too 1W 80 80 80 15/43 610 200/200 50,000/50.000 30,000/30.000 1O00C1u.lw.o00
r Acenaphmene 83-329 5 6_5 0.25 5 5_5 5-5 025 5 5 5555 5_5 5_5 1.4 55 5 5_5 025 5 5_0 025 5 1/21 1A 20/80 NA 10002110 50CC-f0,2000
Fluorene 86-73 7 5 6_5 0.25 5_5 5_5 0.25 5 5_5 5_5 5_5 1-6 5_5 0.25 5_0 025 1120 1.6 300/90 NA 3.00OI60 30..010I900
- 2 Memylnaphtnalene 9157E - 2_5 - 3 - 025 25 - - 25 - - J - 025 25 - - 87 - - ae - 38 34 27 3 25 - - 3 - 025 25 - - 2_5 - 025 25 5/21 87 10/10 10.000/6,000 3.00011,000 100.�C1O/o'0000
Naphtrlalene 91-20-3 - - 5 - - 6_5 - 0.25 5 - - 5_5 - 5_5 - 0.25 5 - - 5 - 5_5 - 55 5_5 0.25 5_5 5 - - 5_5 - 0.25 5 - - 5_0 - 0.25 5 021 20/140 6,"Y20,000 6.000/1,000 60,0001-1000,000
PhenanNrene 85-01-8 - 5 - - 6_5 - 0,25 5 - 5_5 - - 5_5 - 0.25 5 - - 5 - 5_5 - 5_5 - 5_5 0.9 5_5 5 - 5_5 0.25 5
5_0 - 0.25 5 1/21 0.9 300/100 NA 50160 3.0010'1000
VOC-
Benzene 71-432 - - 0_5 - 0_5 - 2-5 05 - - 0_5 - - - 0_5 0_5 - 0_5 - - - 0_5 0_5 0/11 5/5 2,000/40.000 7.000/5.000 70.O0M.100.000
Ethylbenzene 100414 - - - 0_5 - 0_5 - - - - 0_5 05 - - - - 0_5 - - - 0_5 - - - 0_5 - 0_5 - - - 05 - 05 - 0/11 - 700f700 '30,000120,000 9000190 100.0001'I oo.000 Toluene 108-88-3 - - - 0_5 - 05 - - - - 955 0_5 - - - - - - 0_5 - - - 0_5 - - - 0_5 - 0_5 - - - 0_5 - OS - 0/11 - 1,00011,000 6000/50.000 50,000/50,000 100.(K -100,G00
Total%ylenes 1330.20-7 - - - - 05 - 0_5 - - - - - 0_5 - 0_5 - - - - - 05 - - - 05 - - - 0_5 - 0_5 - - - 05 - 0_5 - 0/11 - f0.000/10,000 6.000/50,000 50.000/7,000 100.0=.100,00)
Notes 8 Abbreviahons:
1.OHM=Oil 8 Hazardous Material;yg/L=rn-grams per Her:-=Not Analyzed. - -
r 2.EPHs/PAH$ Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons:V s Volat le Organic Compounds -
3.Bolded I W ent detected levels Numbers in italics and underlined represent one lia//p{Me sample Dels-0 Limits
4.NA=NotApPilcabi..
5.MCP Method O G ndwner Standards 310 CMR 40.0974(2)Table 1 dated 1029M and Proposed!Standards(MADEP 2002),
6.Upper Concentration Limit values hpm 310 CMR 40.0996(7)(as of t029/99).
r �I
r
(
i
1 - a
r .II
r &rmegnem Resider:eAle 2A
Table 2B Summary of Most Recent Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION: MONITORING WELL
Chemical LOCATION/SCREENING DEPTH/DATE OF SAMPLING Maximum Applicable MCP Groundwater Standards(Ng/L)
MCP Upper
Abstracts Detection
OHM (Ng/L) Conc. Concentration Limits
Service MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 Frequency (jig/L) In Groundwater(Ng/L)
Number GW-1 GW-2 GW-3
6/18/02 6/18/02 6/18/02 6/18/02 6/18/02
EPHs/PAHs
C9-C1B Aliphatics 250 250 250 250 250 0/5 4,000/4,000 1,000/5,000 20,000/20,000 100,000/100,000
C19-C3s Aliphatics 250 250 250 250 250 0/5 5,000/5,000 20,000/20,000 100,000/100,000
C11-C22 Aromatics 100 80 270 80 80 1/5 270 200/200 50,000/50,000 30,000/30,000 100,000/100,000
Acenaphthene 83-32-9 5 5 5 5 5 0/5 - 20/80 NA 5,000/200 50,000/2,000
Fluorene 86-73-7 - - - - - 0/5 300/90 NA 3,000/60 30,000/900
2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 2_5 2_5 2_5 2_5 2_5 0/5 10/10 10,000/6,000 3,000/1,000 100,000/60,000
Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 5 5 5 5 0/5 20/140 6,000/20,000 6,000/1,000 60,000/1000,000
Phenanthrene 85-01-8 5 5 5 5 5 0/5 300/100 NA 50/60 3,000/1,000
Notes&Abbreviations:
1. OHM= Oil&Hazardous Material;Ng/L=micrograms per liter;-=Not Analyzed.
2. EPHs/PAHs=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons;VOCs=Volatile Organic Compounds.
3. Bolded values represent detected levels. Numbers in italics and underlined represent one-half of the sample Detection Limits.
4. NA= Not Applicable.
5. MCP Method One Groundwater Standards 310 CMR 40.0974(2)Table 1 dated 10/29/99 and Proposed Standards(MADEP 2002).
6. Upper Concentration Limit values from 310 CMR 40.0996(7) (as of 10/29/99).
Birmingham Residence-Table 2B
Table 2C Summary of Most Recent Annual Groundwater Monitoring Analytical Data for Monitoring Well MW-3&Comparison to MCP Method 1 Groundwater Standards
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Oslerville,MA
RTN:4-15283 -
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION:MONITORING WELL LOCATION SCREENING DEPTH DOTE OF SANPLIND Annual PP
osed Current/ProP Applicable MCP Method 1
Chemical 3-b c Month Arithmetic Groundwater Standards(pg/L) MCP Upper
OHM(pg/L) Su
Abstracts MW-3 Detection Average for Concentration
Service Frequency Exposures Chronic/ GW-1 GW-2 GW-3 Limits
In
Number Lifetime Groundwater(pg/L)
10/29/99 2/29/00 4/6/00 5/30/00 7/20/00 11/22/00 7/10/01 10/22/01 11/31/01 12/17/01 1/10/02 5/21/02 6/18102 Exposures
EPHs/PAHs
C9-C,e Aliphatics - 270 250 265 265 265 265 250 280 265 280 250 280 250 O/13 - - 4,000/4.000 1,000/5,000 20.000/20,000 100,000/100,000
C,e-Cea Aliphatics - 270 250 265 265 265 265 250 280 265 280 250 280 250 0/13 - - 5.000/5.000 - 20,000/20.000 100,000/100,000
C„-C22 Aromatics - 380 370 610 360 390 570 380 380 230 220 280 460 270 13/13 385 - 317 200/200 50.000/50.000 30.000/30.000 100.000/100.000
Acenaphthene 83-32-9 5 5_5 55 5_5 1.4 5_5 5 1/7 - - 20/80 - 5,0001200 50.000/2,000
Fluorene 86-73-7 _5 5.5 5.5 5.5 1.6 - - 1/7 - - 300/90 - 3,000/60 30,000/900
2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 87 48 38 34 27 3 2_5 5/7 - - 10/10 10.000/6,000 3.000/1,000 100.000/60,000
Naphthalene 91-20-3 5 5_5 5_5 5_5 0.25 5_5 5 0/7 - - 20/140 6,000/20,000 6.000/1,000 60,00011000.000
Phenanthrene 85.01-8 5 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.9 5.5 5 1/7 - - 300/100 - 50/60 3,000/1,000
VOC's
Benzene 71.43-2 0_5 Oil - - 5/5 2 000/40.000 7.000/5,000 70,000/100,000
Elhylbenzene 100-41-4 0.5 - 0/1 - - 700/700 30.000/20.000 4.000/90 1=000/100,000
Toluene 108-88-3 0_5 0/1 - - 1.00011,000 6,000/50,000 50.000/50,000 100,000/100.000
Total Xyienes 1330.20-7 0_5 0/1 - - 10,000/10,000 6,000/50,000 50,000/7,000 t00,000/100.000
Notes&Abbreviations:
1. OHM= Oil&Hazardous Material;Ng/L=micrograms per liter;-=Not Applicable,
2. EPHs/PAHs=Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons/Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons;VOCS,=Volatile Organic Compounds.
3. Bolded values represent detected levels. Numbers in italics and underlined represent one-half of the sample Detection Limits,
4. Current MCP Method One Groundwater Standards 310 CMR 40.0974(2)Table 1 dated 10/29/99/Proposed MADEP February 2002.
5. Upper Concentration Limit values from 310 CMR 40.0996(7)(as of 10/29/99).
;6,Shaded OHM concentrations exceed shaded.MCP,Method;l Groundwater Standards;it
7. Drinking Water Exposure Point Concentrations are based on average concentrations to which a user is likely to be exposed over the period of concern(i.e.,subchronic,chronic,and lifetime exposures),
as long as there is no evidence for an increasing trend in the concentration of contamination. If no evidence of increasing trend,then current annual average of contaminant level
can be used as an estimate of the chronic and lifetime exposures. (see MADEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, Section 7.3.3.7.Interim Policy WSC/ORS-95.141,July 1995).
8. For the EPH C„-Cii aromatic fraction,the annual average groundwater concentration for chronic and lifetime exposures was estimated using the analytical data collected from 7/10/01 to 6/18/02:
the exposure point concentration for subchronic exposures was conservatively based on the last two rounds of groundwater analyses(i.e..5/21/02 and 6/18/02).
9. For 2-Methylnaphthalene,a decreasing trend in groundwater concentrations to Non-Detect is apparent;consequently the most recent value is considered to represent current site conditions(I.e.,Non-Detect or zero).
Birmingham Residence Table 2C
Table 3
Summary of Chemicals of Potential Concern and Soil, Groundwater, and Surface Water Exposure Point Concentrations
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN: 4-15283
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Subchronic Chronic/Lifetime
Compounds of Average Residual Exposures - Exposures - Surface Water
Potential Concern Soil Levels(0-15 ft. bgs) Groundwater Groundwater Concentration
(mg/Kg) Concentration Concentration (Ng/L)
(Ng/L) (Ng/L)
EPHs
C9- C18 Aliphatics 138 - - -
C19- C36 Aliphatics 20 - - -
C11 - C22 Aromatics 34 365 317 4
Notes & Abbreviations:
1 . COPCs =Compounds of Potential Concern; mg/Kg = milligrams per Kilogram; Ng/L = micrograms per liter.
2. EPHs = Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.
3. MADEP Default Dilution Factor of 100 used to derive Surface Water Exposure Point
Concentration for the EPH C11-C22 Aromatic Fraction pursuant to MADEP Final Policy #WSC-02-411
and for the development of MCP Wave 2 Proposed Method 1 GW-3 Groundwater Standards (MADEP 15 February 2002).
Birmingham Residence -Table 3
Table 4A
MADEP Shortform Data Input for Subchronic Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
Exposure Exposure Exposure
Point Point Point
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL note CAS Concentration # Concentration # Concentration #
NUMBER SOIL DRINKING WATER INDOOR AIR
mg/kg pg/liter Ng/m'
BENZENE (1,3) 71432 ,
ETHYLBENZENE (1,3) 100414
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER (1,3) 1634044
TOLUENE (1,3) 108883
XYLENES (1,3) 1330207
ACENAPHTHENE (1.2) 83329 Less likely to be found in air
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE (1.2) 91576
NAPHTHALENE (1,2,3) 91203
PHENANTHRENE - (1,2) 85018 Less likely to be found in air
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON (4) generic
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
C5-CB Aliphatic (5) VPH
C9-C12 Aliphatic (5) VPH
C9-C1B Aliphatic EPH 138,
C19-C.Aliphatic EPH 20. Less likely to be found in air
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
-- C9-C,o Aromatic (5) VPH
C11-C22 Aromaticl I EPH 1 34. 1 365. -
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
See"Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of MADEP VPH/EPH Approach"
for additional detail and caveats about notes 1 through 4.
(1) BTEX compounds,MtBE and PAHs are Target Analytes in GW-1 areas.
(2) Test for PAHs in soil if TPH>500 Ng/g.
(3) Test for BTEX,MTBE and naphthalene in soil if TOV is greater than or equal to 100 ppmv.
(TOV=total organic vapors of soil headspace sample)
(4) TPH by an appropriate analytical method. Cannot be used in combination with fraction-specific concentrations.
(5) Test for VPH fractions in FRESH Diesel/k2 Fuel releases(soil/gw with TOV headspace=,>100 ppmv)only.
(TOV=total organic vapors of soil headspace sample)
$ Concentrations in Soil,Groundwater or Air which are demonstrated to be less than typical background levels .
may be excluded from this evaluation. See Section 2.3 of Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization(July 1995)and
Technical Updates.
- Additional Notes for the Data Entry Table:
1. The User should check to determine whether the Exposure Point Concentration identified for a chemical or fraction is less than
or equal to background levels. The MADEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization will provide soil background
levels for PAHs in urban soil when current draft guidance is final. The Residential ShortForm(1992)provides indoor air
"'background"levels for some VOCs.Site specific soil,air and groundwater background levels may also be employed.
2. The calculated Exposure Point Concentrations should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section 5.8 of the Guidance
for Disposal Site Risk Characterization.
Table 413
MADEP Shortform Data Input for Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
Exposure Exposure Exposure
Point Point Point
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL note CAS Concentration # Concentration # Concentration #
NUMBER SOIL DRINKING WATER INDOOR AIR
mg/kg pg/liter pg/m3
BENZENE (1,3) 71432
ETHYLBENZENE (1,3) 100414
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER (1,3) 1634044
TOLUENE (1,3) 108883
XYLENES (1,3) 1330207
ACENAPHTHENE (1.2) 83329 Less likely to be found in air
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE (1.2) 91576
NAPHTHALENE (1,2,3) 91203
PHENANTHRENE (1,2) 85018 ., Less likely to be found in air
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON (4) generic
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
CS-Ca Aliphatic (5) VPH
Cg-C,z Aliphatic (5) VPH
Cy-C,a Aliphatic EPH 138.
C,9-C,6 Aliphatic EPH 20. Less likely to be found in air
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-CIO Aromatic (5) VPH
C„-C22 Aromatic EPH 1 34. 1 317.
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
See"Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of MADEP VPH/EPH Approach"
for additional detail and caveats about notes 1 through 4.
(1) BTEX compounds,MtBE and PAHs are Target Analytes in GW-1 areas.
(2) Test for PAHs in soil if TPH>500 Ng/g.
(3) Test for BTEX,MTBE and naphthalene in soil if TOV is greater than or equal to 100 ppmv.
(TOV=total organic vapors of soil headspace sample)
(4) TPH by an appropriate analytical method. Cannot be used in combination with fraction-specific concentrations.
(5) Test for VPH fractions in FRESH Diesel/#2 Fuel releases(soil/gw with TOV headspace=,>100 ppmv)only.
(TOV=total organic vapors of soil headspace sample)
# Concentrations in Soil,Groundwater or Air which are demonstrated to be less than typical background levels
may be excluded from this evaluation. See Section 2.3 of Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization(July 1995)and
Technical Updates.
Additional Notes for the Data Entry Table
1. The User should check to determine whether the Exposure Point Concentration identified for a chemical or fraction is less than
or equal to background levels. The MADEP Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization will provide soil background
levels for PAHs in urban soil when current draft guidance is final. The Residential ShortForm(1992)provides indoor air
background"levels for some VOCs.Site specific soil,air and groundwater background levels may also be employed.
2. The calculated Exposure Point Concentrations should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section 5.8 of the Guidance
for Disposal Site Risk Characterization.
h
1
: . Table 5
MADEP Shortform Toxicity Information
Birmingham Residence )
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN:4-15283
SUBCHRONIC REF CHRONIC REF SUSCHRONIC REF CHRONIC REF CLASS REF CLASS REF REF
- ORAL ORAL INHALATION INHALATION ORAL INHALATION DERMAL DRINKING WATER
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REFERENCE REFERENCE REFERENCE REFERENCE CANCER CANCER CANCER RAF_SC RAF-SC RAF_Ch RAF_Ch RAF-Ca RAF-Ca RAF-SC RAF_Ch RAF-Ca MULTIPLIERS
DOSE DOSE CONC CONC SLOPE UNIT SLOPE SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL SOIL WATER WATER WATER
(OR SUBSTITUTE) (OR SUBSTITUTE) (OR SUBSTITUTE) (OR SUBSTITUTE) FACTOR RISK FACTOR INGEST DERMAL INGEST DERMAL INGEST DERMAL INGEST INGEST INGEST Dermal Inhalation
mg/kg/day mg/kg/day N9/m' Ng/m' 1/(mg/kg/day) 1/(p9/m') 1/(mg/kg/day)....
BENZENE 5.0E-02 4 5.0E-03 4 3.2E+01 4 9-OE+00 3 5.5E-02 A 1 7.8E-06 A 1 5.5E-02 1a 1 0.08 1 0.08 1 0.08 1 1 1 0,2 1
.j ETHYLBENZENE 1.0E+00 5 1.0E-01 1 1.0E+03 5 1.0E+03 1 D 1 D 1 1 0.2 - 1 0.2 NC NC 1 1 NC 1 1
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER 1.0E+00 5 1.0E-01 5 3.0E+03 ib 3.0E+03 1 1 0.1 1 0.1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 1
TOLUENE 2.0E+00 2 2.0E-01 1 4.0E+02 5 4.0E+02 1 D 1 D 1 1 0.12 1 0.12 NC NC 1 1 NC 1 1
.�.1 XYLENES 4.0E+00 5 2.0E+00 1 6.0E+01 .1 6.0E+01 1 D 1 D 1 1 0.12 1 ..0.12 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 1
ACENAPHTHENE 6.0E-01 2 6.0E-02 1 NOT VOLATILE .NOT VOLATILE 0.36 0A 0.36 0.1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 N/A
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 2.0E-01 2a 2.0E-02 2b 3.0E+01 3b 3.0E+00 3a 0.36 0.1 0.36 0.1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 0.5
NAPHTHALENE 2.0E-01 1 2.0E-02 1 3.0E+01 1 3.0E+00 1 D 1 O 1 0.36 0A 0.36 0.1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 1
PHENANTHRENE 4.0E-01 1 4.0E-02 1 NOT VOLATILE NOT VOLATILE D 1 0.36 0-1 0.91 0A NC NC 0.91 0.91 NC 0.2 N/A
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON 3.0E-01 7 3.0E-02 7 7.1E+02 7 7.1E+01 7 0.91 0.18 0.91 0.18 NC NC 0.91 0.91 NC 0.2
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
CS-Ca Aliphatic 4.0E-01 6a 4.0E-02 6 2.0E+03 6a 2.0E+02 6 1 1 1 1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2
C9-CQ Aliphatic 1.0E+00 6a - 1.0E-01 6 2.0E+03 6a 2.0E+02 6 1 0.5 1 0.5 Nc NC 1 1 NC 0.2 1
Cg-C1a Aliphatic 1.0E+00 6a 1.0E-01 6 2.0E+03 6a 2.0E+02 6 1 0.5 1 0.5 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 1
C19-C36 Aliphatic 6.0E+00 6a 2.0E+00 6 NOT VOLATILE NOT VOLATILE 1 0.1 1 0.1 NC NC 1 1 NC 0.2 N/A
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Cg-C10 Aromatic 3.0E-01 6a 3.0E-02 6 5.0E+02 6a 5.0E+01 6 1 0.5 NC NC 0.91 0.91 NC 0.2
C11-Cn Aromatic 3.0E-07 6a 3.0E-02 6 5.0E+02 6a 5.0E+01 6 0.36 0.18 0.36 0.1 NC NC 0.91 0.91 NC p_p 7
Notes 8 Abbreviations:
1. USEPA's Integrated Risk Information System(IRIS)
1.a. Oral slope factor used to evaluate dermal exposure-from USEPA's IRIS.
2. USEPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables(HEAST) I
2.a. The subchronic oral RfD(from IRIS)for naphthalene has been used as the subchronic oral RfD equivalent.
-- 2.b. The chronic Oral RfD for naphthalene(from IRIS)has been used as the chronic oral RfD equivalent.
3. Allowable Threshold Concentration(ATC)developed by MADEP 1
3.a. The chronic inhalation RfC for Naphthalene has been used as the chronic inhalation equivalent.
i
' 3.b. The subchronic inhalation RfC for Naphthalene has been used as the subchronic inhalation equivalent.
4. Developed for the Residential ShortForm by MADEP. Documentation provided in Appendix D of that document. 1
5. This chronic or subchronic value has been withdrawn from HEAST.
6. Final Policy kWSC-02-411:Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection"Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach." October 2002.
6.a. The subchronic value is taken to be ten times the chronic value.
7. As a conservative screeningapproach,the toxicity values for the C C Aromatic fraction has been adopted for generic TPH. '
PP Y n- xz P
N/A Not Applicable.
• 1
t
Table 6
' MADEP Shortform Summary-Soils
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
Exposure SUSCHRONIC CHRONIC ELCR
Point HAZARD INDEX HAZARD INDEX
' Concentration SOIL SOIL SOIL
SOIL INGESTION& INGESTION& INGEST&
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL mg/kg DERMAL DERMAL DERMAL
' BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER
TOLUENE
XYLENES
' ACENAPHTHENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE F.
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE `—
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON 4._
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
Cs-CB Aliphatic
C9-C,2 Aliphatic
' Ca C,d Aliphatic I.38E+02 2.6E 03 -2.3E-02 .
Ct9-C,6 Aliphatic 2.00E 01 22E-05 5.4E-05
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C.r-C,o Aromatic
' C„-C„Aromatic 3.40E+01 7.6E-04 4.3E-03
TOTALS: 3.4E-03 2.7E-02...
' METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY. ?t:
4y
EGUAT10NS:
' Subchronic Hazard Index: (EPCS/RfD)x((3.4 x RAForal)+(30.6 x RAFdermal))/1,000.000 .—
Chronic Hazard Index: (EPC/RfD)x((2.51 x RAForal)+(28.5 x RAFdermal))/1,000.000
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk: (EPC x((0.37 x RAForal)+(7.3 x RAFdermal))x CSF/1,000,000
Where:
EPC= Exposure Point Concentration,column B
RfO= Reference Dose, subchronic(Toxicity sheet column 8)or chronic(Toxicity sheet column D)
RAF= Relative Absorption Factor,oral or dermal(Toxicity sheet columns R through W)
' CSF=Cancer Slope Factor(Toxicity sheet column J)
3.4=Normalized Average Daily Soil Intake Rate,subchronic,threshold effects
30.6=Normalized Average Daily Soil/Skin Contact Rate,subchronic,threshold effects
2.51=Normalized Average Daily Soil Intake Rate,chronic,threshold effects
28.5=Normalized Average Daily Soil/Skin Contact Rate,chronic,threshold effects
0.37=Normalized Lifetime Average Daily Sail Intake Rate,nonthreshold effects
' 7.3=Normalized Lifetime Average Daily Soil/Skin Contact Rate,nonthreshold effects
1,000,000=Conversion Factor,mg/kg
0
Table 76
MADEP Shortform Summary-Drinking Water(Groundwater Source):Chronic/Lifetime Exposures iV
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
SUBCHRONIC CHRONIC
Exposure HAZARD INDEX HAZARD INDEX ELCR - -
Point- DRINKING WATER DRINKING WATER DRINKING WATER
Concentration INGESTION, INGESTION, INGESTION, ,(
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DW DERMAL& DERMAL& DERMAL& -
pg/L INHALATION INHALATION INHALATION
BENZENE - 1
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER - -
TOLUENE
XYLENES '
ACENAPHTHENE- _
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE -
- NAPHTHALENE _ -
PHENANTHRENE ,t
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS rti
Cs-CB Aliphatic
Cg-C,z Aliphatic -
Cy-C,a Aliphatic
C19-C36 Aliphatic -
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Cg-C,o Aromatic
C„-C22 Aromatic 317 1.3E+00
t
TOTALS :2 6t-Q1 -1 E+00
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
EQUATIONS:
Subhronic Hazard Index: ((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)/(RID x BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x MULTI x C)!(RID x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RIC)
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)x(1+MULTI)/(RID x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RIC)
((EPCx1 x RAF xI xI x1 x0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RIDx 10.5x 1))+((((EPC x.1 x1 x1 x1)/(10.5 x 1))x MULT2 x(10.5/4.32))/RIC)
((EPC x RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RID x 10.5))+((EPC x MULT2)/(4.32 x RfC))
- EPC x(((RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(10.5 x RfD))+(MULT2/(4.32 x RfC))) -
Chronic Hazard Index: ((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x MULTI x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))!RIC)
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)x(1+MULTI)/(RID x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RIC)
((EPC x 1 x RAF x 1 x 1 x 7 x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RID x 1,6.8x7))+((((EPCxI xt xt x1)/(16.8 x 1))x MULT2 x(16.8/10))/RfC) -
((EPC x RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RfD x 16.8))+((EPC x MULT2)/(10 x RIC))
EPC x(((RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(16.8 x RfD))+(MULT2/(10 x RfC))) - -
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk: ((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C x CSF)/(BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF xEF x ED x EP x MULTI x C x CSF)/(BW x AP))+(((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)!(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR)x UR),.. .
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C x CSF)x(1+MULTI)/(BW x AP))+(((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR)x UR) -
((EPC x 2 x RAF x 1 x 1 x 30 x 0.001 x CSF)x(1+MULTI)/(62 x 75))+(((EPC x 2 x 1 x 1 x 30)/(62 x 75))x MULT2 x(62/20)x UR) -
((EPC x RAF x 0.06 x CSF)x(1+MULTI)/4650)+((EPC x 60 x MULT2 x UR)/1.500)
EPC x(((RAF x CSF x 0.06)x(1+MULTI)/4650)+(MULT2 x 0.04 x UR))
Where: -
EPC= Exposure Point Concentration,column B
VI= Volume Ingested,1 Liter/day for the subchronic and chronic HI,2 Liters/day for ELCR
RAF= Relative Absorption Factor,oral,Toxicity sheet,columns X,Y and Z _ d
EF= Exposure Frequency,1 event/day -
ED= Exposure Duration,1 day/event
EP= Exposure Period,1 yr for subchronic HI,7 yrs for chronic HI,30 yrs for ELCR
MULTI= Chemical-specific,depending upon permeability(Guidance Document,page 7-69),Toxicity sheet column AF -
MULT2= Chemical-specific,depending upon Henry's Law Constant(Guidance Document,page 7-70),Toxicity sheet column AG -
C= 0.001 mg/pg
RID= Oral Reference Dose,subchronic or chronic,Toxicity sheet,columns B and D - -
BW= Body Weight,10.5 kg for subchronic HI,16.8 kg for chronic HI,62 kg for ELCR
AP= Averaging Period, 1 yr for subchronic HI,7 yrs for chronic HI,75 yrs for ELCR
VR= Ventilation Rate,4.32 m3/d for subchronic HI,10 m3/d for chronic HI,20 m3/d for ELCR -
RIC= Inhalation Reference Concentration,subchronic or chronic,Toxicity sheet,column F and H -
CSF= Oral Cancer Slope Factor,Toxicity sheet column J - -
UR= Inhalation Unit Risk Value,Toxicity sheet column M
NOTE:Acenaphthene,Phenanthrene and the C,9-C36 Fraction are not evaluated for the inhalation component of this
total drinking water exposure due to'their low volatility. This may slightly underestimate potential risks. - -
yr
Table 7A
MADEP Shortform Summary-Drinking Water(Groundwater Source): Subchronic Exposures r
' Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road t
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
SUBCHRONIC CHRONIC
Exposure HAZARD INDEX HAZARDINDEX ELCR t
Point DRINKING WATER DRINKING WATER DRINKING WATER
Concentration INGESTION, INGESTION, INGESTION,
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DW DERMAL& DERMAL& DERMAL& -
Ng/L INHALATION INHALATION INHALATION
BENZENE yyr
ETHYLBENZENE 1
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER
TOLUENE
XYLENES
ACENAPHTHENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS t
Cs-C6 Aliphatic
C9-C,i Aliphatic
C9-C,6 Aliphatic
C,6-C36 Aliphatic
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-C,o Aromatic
C„-C22 Aromatic 365 3.0E-01
' TOTALs �.oe-uti y SE+oo �'
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY. .
EQUATIONS:
Subhronic Hazard Index: ((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x MULTI x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RfC)
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)x(1 +MULTI)/(RfD x-BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RfC)
((EPCxI x RAF x1 x1 x1 x0.001)x(I+MULTI)/(RIOx 10.5x 1))+((((EPCx1 x1 xt x1)/(10.5 x 1))x MULT2 x(10.5/4.32))/RIC) -
((EPC x RAF x 0.001)x(i+MULTI)/(RfD x 10.5))+((EPC x MULT2)/(4.32 x RIC))
- EPC x(((RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(10.5 x RfD))+(MULT2/(4.32 x RfC))) .
Chronic Hazard Index: ((EPC x Vt x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x MULTI x C)/(RfD x BW x AP))-+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(SW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RfC)
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C)x(1+MULTI)/(RfD x BW x AP))+((((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR))/RfC)
((EPC x 1 x RAF x 1 x 1 x 7 x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RfD x 16.8 x 7)).+((((EPC x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1)/(16.8 x 1))x MULT2 x(16.8/10))/RIC)
((EPC x RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(RfD x 16.8))+((EPC x MULT2)/(10 x RfC))
EPC x(((RAF x 0.001)x(1+MULTI)/(16.8 x RfD))+(MULT2/(10 x RfC))) _
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk: ((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C x CSF)/(BW x AP))+((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x MULTI x C x CSF)/(SW x AP))+(((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR)x UR)
((EPC x VI x RAF x EF x ED x EP x C x CSF)x(1+MULTI)/(BW x AP))+(((EPC x VI x EF x ED x EP)/(BW x AP))x MULT2 x(BW/VR)x UR)
((EPC x 2 x RAF x 1 x 1 x 30 x 0.001 x CSF)x(1+MULTI)((62 x 75))+(((EPC x 2 x t x 1 x 30)/(62 x 75))x MULT2 x(62!20)x UR)
((EPC x RAF x 0.06 x CSF)x(1+MULTI)/4650)+((EPC x 60 x MULT2 x UR)/1500)
EPC x(((RAF x CSF x 0.06)x(1+MULTI)/4650)+(MULT2 x 0.04 x UR))
Where:
EPC= Exposure Point Concentration,column B
VI= Volume Ingested,1 Liter/day for the subchronic and chronic HI,2 Liters/day for ELCR
' RAF- Relative Absorption Factor,oral,Toxicity sheet,columns X,Y and Z -
EF= Exposure Frequency,1 event/day
ED= Exposure Duration,1 day/event
EP= Exposure Period,1 yr for subchronic HI,7 yrs for chronic HI,30 yrs for ELCR
MULTI= Chemical-specific,depending upon permeability(Guidance Document,page 7-69),Toxicity sheet column AF
MULT2= Chemical-specific,depending upon Henry's Law Constant(Guidance Document,page 7-70),Toxicity sheet column AG
C= 0.001 mg/pg
RfD= Oral Reference Dose,subchronic or chronic,Toxicity sheet,columns B and D
BW= Body Weight,10.5 kg for subchronic HI,16.8 kg for chronic HI,62 kg for ELCR
AP= Averaging Period, 1 yr for subchronic HI,7 yrs for chronic HI,75 yrs for ELCR
VR= Ventilation Rate,4.32 m3/d for subchronic HI,10 m3/d for chronic HI,20 m3/d for ELCR '7
- RIC= Inhalation Reference Concentration,subchronic or chronic,Toxicity sheet,column F and H
CSF= Oral Cancer Slope Factor,Toxicity sheet column J
UR= Inhalation Unit Risk Value,Toxicity sheet column M
NOTE:Acenaphthene,Phenanthrene and the C19-C36 Fraction are not evaluated for the inhalation component of this
total drinking water exposure due to their low volatility. This may slightly underestimate potential risks. -
1
Table 8
MADEP Shortform Summary- Indoor Air (Only When Site Impact On Indoor Air Is Demonstrated)
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN: 4-15283
EXPOSURE SUBCHRONIC CHRONIC
z_ POINT HI HI ELCR
CONC INDOOR INDOOR INDOOR
INDOOR AIR AIR AIR AIR
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Ng/m3 INHALATION INHALATION INHALATION
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER
TOLUENE
XYLENES
ACENAPHTHENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
PHENANTHRENE
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
C5-C8 Aliphatic
C9-C12 Aliphatic
C9-C18 Aliphatic
C19-C36 Aliphatic
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-C10 Aromatic
C11 -C22 Aromatic
TOl'ALS
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
Table 9A
MADEP Shortform Summary-Comparison of EPCs to Drinking Water Standards:Subchronic Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
' RTN:4-75283
EXPOSURE
POINT DRINKING WATER EXCEEDS
CONC STANDARDS DRINKING WATER
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DW (310 CMR 22) STANDARD?
p9/L pg/L
BENZENE 5
' ETHYLBENZENE 700
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER Not Available
TOLUENE 1000
XYLENES 10000
ACENAPHTHENE Not Available
' 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE Not Available _
NAPHTHALENE Not Available
PHENANTHRENE Not Available
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON Not Available
' ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS -
05-CB Aliphatic Not Available
Cg-C,z Aliphatic Not Available
Cg-C,a Aliphatic Not Available
C,y-C�Aliphatic Not Available
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
Cg-C,o Aromatic Not Available
C„-Cn Aromatic 365 Not Available
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
Table 96
MADEP Shortform Summary-Comparison of EPCs to Drinking Water Standards:Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
EXPOSURE
i ' POINT DRINKING WATER EXCEEDS
CONC STANDARDS DRINKING WATER
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DW (310 CMR 22) STANDARD?
p9/L p9/L
BENZENE 5
' ETHYLBENZENE 700
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER Not Available
TOLUENE 1000
XYLENES 10000
ACENAPHTHENE Not Available
' 2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE Not Available
NAPHTHALENE Not Available
PHENANTHRENE Not Available
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON Not Available
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
' Cs-Ca Aliphatic Not Available
C�-C,z Aliphatic Not Available
C,-C,e Aliphatic Not Available
C,g-C.Aliphatic Not Available
' AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-C,o Aromatic Not Available
C„-C.Aromatic 317 Not Available
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY- -
Table 10A
MADEP Shortform Summary- Comparison of Site Concentrations to Upper Concentration Limits; Subchronic Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN: 4-15283
UPPER UPPER
SITE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS SITE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
CONCENTRATION LIMIT GW CONCENTRATION LIMIT SOIL
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER UCL? SOIL SOIL UCL?
pg/liter pg/liter mg/kg mg/kg
BENZENE 70,000 2,000
ETHYLBENZENE 100,000 10,000
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER 100,000 5,000
TOLUENE 100,000 10,000
XYLENES 100,000 10,000
ACENAPHTHENE 50,000 10,000
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 100,000 10,000
NAPHTHALENE 20,000 10,000
PHENANTHRENE 400 10,000
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON 100,000 10,000
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
C5-CB Aliphatic 100,000 5,000
C9-C,2 Aliphatic 100,000 20,000
C9-C18 Aliphatic 100,000 138 20,000
C19-C36 Aliphatic 100,000 20 20,000
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-C,o Aromatic 100,000 5,000
C11 -C22 Aromatic 365 100,000 34 10,000
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
Table 10B
MADEP Shortform Summary-Comparison of Site Concentrations to Upper Concentration Limits: Chronic/Lifetime Exposures
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN: 4-15283
UPPER UPPER
SITE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS SITE CONCENTRATION EXCEEDS
CONCENTRATION LIMIT GW CONCENTRATION LIMIT SOIL
OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER UCL? SOIL SOIL UCL?
pg/liter pg/liter mg/kg mg/kg
BENZENE 70,000 2,000
ETHYLBENZENE 100,000 10,000
METHYL t-BUTYL ETHER 100,000 5,000
TOLUENE 100.000 10,000
XYLE N E S 100,000 10,000
ACENAPHTHENE 50,000 10,000
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 100,000 10,000
NAPHTHALENE 20,000 10,000
PHENANTHRENE 400 10,000
TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON 100,000 10,000
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
C5-CB Aliphatic 100,000 5,000
C9-C12 Aliphatic 100,000 20,000
C9-C18 Aliphatic 100,000 138 20,000
C,9-C38 Aliphatic 100,000 20 20,000
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
C9-CIO Aromatic 100,000 5,000
C1,-C22 Aromatic 317 1 190,000 1 1 34 110,000
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY,PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
Table 11
MADEP Shortform Summary - Cumulative Receptor Risk (Residential Scenario)
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville, MA
RTN: 4-15283
EXCESS
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE SUBCHRONIC CHRONIC LIFETIME
MEDIUM ROUTES HAZARD HAZARD CANCER
INDEX INDEX RISK
SOIL INGESTION \
DERMAL / 3.4E-03 2.7E-02
DRINKING INGESTION \
WATER DERMAL > 2.6E-01 1 .3E+00
INHALATION /
INDOOR AIR JINHALATION 1>
TOTAL. 3E 01 1 EtOQ
METHOD 3 ASSESSMENTS MUST CONSIDER SAFETY, PUBLIC WELFARE AND THE ENVIRONMENT SEPARATELY.
TOTAL SITE FIGURES ROUNDED TO ONE SIGNIFICANT FIGURE FOR COMPARISON TO MADEP RISK LIMIT OF 1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH MADEP GUIDANCE (MADEP 1995;1996).
Table 12
Comparison of COPC Groundwater 8 Surface Water EPCs to Applicable or Suitably Analogous Standards and Criteria
Birmingham Residence
333 Eel River Road
Osterville,MA
RTN:4-15283
Ecological Benchmarks
Maximum Surface Water AOUIRE Lowest
Compounds of Potential Groundwater Exposure Point Ecological NAWOCI'1 Toxicity Valuel°I Lowest Tier 11 MADEPI"
Concern Exposure Point Concentration rn ul
Concentration Freshwater Saltwater Lowest Lowest Chronic or Chronic or Estimated Chronic Chronic
(Yg/L) Urg/L) CMC(FW) CCC(FW) CMC(SW) CCC(SW) NAWOC Estimated Chronic Acute Chronic Chronic("
(Ng/L) (,ug/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) if acute basis - (pg/L) (pg/L) (pg/L) (Pg/L) (pg/L) (Ng/L)
EPHs/PAHs
C„-C22 Aromatics 365 4 1200
Abbreviations: '
1. Surface Water Exposure Point Concentration derived from default Dilution Factor developed for groundwater to surface water discharge of EPH fractions pursuant to
"Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach." Final Policy W SCa-02-411 October 2002.
2. ACUIRE=Aquatic Toxicity Information Retrieval Database http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/
3. CCC=Criterion Continuous Concentration;pgiL=micrograms per liter.
4. CIVIC=Criterion Maximum Concentration
5. FW=Freshwater
6. NAWQC=National Ambient Water Quality Criterion
7. SW=Saltwater -
Notes:
e Based on Massachusetts Office of Research and Standards Guideline for naphthalene(MADEP Srping 2001).
'All values from EPA(1999)unless specified otherwise
x All Tier It values from Suter and Tsao(1996)unless specified otherwise
Lowest chronic values from Suter and Tsao(1996)unless specified otherwise
°All values from AQUIRE unless specified otherwise
5 MADEP value from"Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach." Final Policy IIWSC-02-411. October 2002.
(see Table 4-12 of Policy HWSC-02-411). Value corresponds to highest EPH Reporting Limit for the C„-C,z Aromatic Fraction(see Table 2A of this report).
Birmingham Residence Table 12
1 -
1
1
� ncuxH.s
---------------
1 PLACEHOLDER FOR
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCUS PLAN
1
1
1
i
47'i^
i .ate• • a� >^LSt
1 jj! .,�; .4 �.. ' � i(F f ��,�' -:,� i .r �• • 'kL` i�,Q�+''�� i -�9tl,
a#d
$' � d:'4 s, • , • •RI
•• fi? Q 11+• ir +a rah •Ja
4;.' ' • � 'rq �' fF. •i.f• • l °� � 'kd fa�� � !r if4¢
,.� _ +.• R �� �'�5 '`, ,'� I�<` .- S.:' 7� }r � �3i �. .i pr =���lqqC�i
zl
1�� re r f� ,� '� �..�'f .� '� 75 sf1�� ��.• � ;P `} •Nsy-` {"�+ i i i,,..l..
����'�n� •'* �. � M1a � � �� r{��� i i � •ram!*'� r�
71,
I{�tyy.,.+�:� 'j��-j si. -. r � `� ��i,�'jY4�.+t4 �'�1J�' •y I� � '.,�'.,
I 1,�y�/�� y}.,�}^S'!� yJ� �'• y .. w 'M �' '• , LfO��N ��4 TL¢. 1 {\lei�Y?r � .p, 1 .1���.+/��ff�� '•f�� '*S'
' ✓�S .,F� fY � r ,r,�R �� j.f `•. ( ij r� '11�� Fp v?'74
f ' .
ViuO
a y o,• 6'� ��,v q a J;" w T {4i Ih �*
"R,
Oki
... �r i.� �H, F 1 �}KVS �rt �'ln t z, f:JJve ,%•sti,1 � i'
•' //1f h �' 4 6 i A h i's.,fy�'pv •,$ 4 .R11 I&NI7�T'0 .
".A a 7 it
fop
,.
i
nyp� R
-/..mac
�i.�'T.'mf's,i��. f o � J._ •�. �P,
Printed from TOPO! m1998 WMflower Productions(www.to o.com)
' FIGURE 1: The subject site, located at 333 Eel River Road, contains a single family residential dwelling,a
detached garage,and a shed on some 2.01 acres of land. The site is directly adjacent to Eel River and
West Bay, which abut the property to the west. The surrounding neighborhood is moderately
developed with similar residential dwellings.
Mai DEP - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
S4TE NAME: Site Scoring Map: 500 feet & 0.5 Mile Radii
' Birmingham Residence "he .oFinatron mown on ch.s'ac \
333 Eel River Road "'rOf hr
p " �\� 1
�s the est avartaure a:the aate CagropWc
BARNSTABLE,MA 02655 -;w:n;:na.Pease'Prer,me
sy-
413654n 702329ew Site Location data sri,.ce ae<cr'[tiliGns aocumenl. MwaYr.tlbEm�vtiorO�vdC�avd�dAQ�•-SOOt .. �—�
— —
i
FEI
----------------
H"'O Ng -
+—
- - ' 3 °> HF
"t..s ��_ .,�t F7 _ N(iG i Z �HOq`Fyn
LI:T7`LE IS flilL� — °9, 9oi f N
..t. t :-?sue.•: UNNAMED-RHU-�t+v t.� •
a �)J 4. z �i
l
r 1
�.� i } s} f .1 - `�••' WEE -1 r`
-7
3.
�1 4
l t k
I g } S _
L }� r ai
{
1 } 1
3
- -�.:.
3 4 -
0-0
i _' �•s-.-gF
3 J""LSi r t '` - a`..a H- -:+�xs�' >; e
S :..�y'v "'�'• si.. ,� t„�'x\'{' _ i* _t.. i�rF' 'ti °yS.I�Y a x n +i
Roads:Linited Access,Divided,Major Road,Connector,Street,Back,Trail EPA Sole Source N
Aquifer;FEMA 100-year fioodplarn
--- -- - PUAC Water Supplies:Cround,Sufacemon Cornm rtity Q
Boundaries:Town,County,DEP Region;Bain;Fbwerine;Pipeline;Aqueduct Approved Zone2; B
APPro IWPA;Surface Water Supply Zone A ®®
Basins:Maio.Sub;Streams:Perennial,trrtermittent,Man Made Shore,Darns HydrO¢aphy'Water Festues.RA&Surface Water Supply ...
Wetlands:Fresh,Salt,NHESP Wetlands Habitat .=C
Fbtentialy Productiva Aquifers:MsdiunLHigh Yield .......... Protected Open Space;ACEC
Non-Fbtentiel Drinking Water Sou 9e Area:Msdiurn,High Yield : DEP Perrtrtted Said Waste Facilities;Cartifiod Vernal Pbola "S S
' SCALE 1:15000 0 112 KllAMErERet September 13, 2002
1
1 APPENDIX E
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fractional Aromatic Tracking Chart
C 11 to C22
700
600
S oil Chem-Ox Chem-Ox
RemoveYORC ORC Air Sparging A!licroBac Application Application
600
400
J
�1
300
200
100—
Oct-99 Feb 00 June-00 Oct-00 Feb-01 6ct-01 Feb-02 June-02
Date
--o— MVO-1 —o— MW-2 — MW 3
1 Groundwater Analytical, Inc.
GROUNDWATER
P.O.Box 1200
ANALYTICAL Bu Main Street
Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' Telephone(508)759-4441
FAX(508)759-4475
it June 5, 2002
Ms. Kara Risk
Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc.
' P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
' LABORATORY REPORT
Project: Birmingham/B099-2533
' Lab ID: 51037
Sampled: 05-21-02
' Dear Kara:
Enclosed is the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Analysis performed for the above referenced
project. This project was processed for Standard Two Week turnaround.
This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
report. This report contains a project narrative indicating project changes and non-conformances, a
' brief description of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedures employed by our laboratory,
and a statement of our state certifications.
' I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
immediately respo-tsible for obtaining the information, the material contained in this report is, to
' the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
' Sincerely,
Eric H. Jens n
' Operations a ager
E H J/pcl
' Enclosures
i
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
' Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GGFID
Field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 51037-01
' Project: Birmingham/B099-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1052-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 05-21-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 05-21-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 05-31-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 06-04-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
EPH Ranges _ Concentration Units Reporting limit
n-C9 to n-Cl8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t — BRL ! ug/L 560
—. l - .. -- - - ----.- -, -—- ----------- - -
-----
n-C9 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 560
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 460 ug/L 180
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 480 ug/L 180
' CAS Number -Target Analytes Concentration Units Reporting Limit
---
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ug/L 11
91.57-6- 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L 6
85 01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L 11
- ---- - --- - - -- - - - - - - -- -
83-32-9 Acena hthene BRL ug/L 11 '
QC Surrogate Compounds Recovery QC Limits
' Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 86 % 40- 140 /o
2-Bromonaphthalene 77 % 40- 140
_. _. ----- _ _.. -- - ---._._ -- ------ ..
-- -- --
Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 75 % 40- 140 %
' ortho-Terphenyl 94 % 40 140 %
QA/QC Certification
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter, project_narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
I ' 0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
I
t
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Project Narrative
Project: Birmingham/13099-2533 Lab ID: 51037
tClient: Bennet &O'Reilly, Inc. Received: 05-21-02
A. Physical Condition of Sample(s)
This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The sample(s) were received
undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
B. Project Documentation
This project was accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation, with the following
amendment(s) or correction(s):
' 1. Sample 51037-01, for analysis by MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, was filtered prior to analysis, as indicated on the Chain of Custody.
F- C. Analysis of Sample(s)
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
sample(s). All data contained within this report are released without qualification.
II
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
I
®� 228 Main Street,P.O.Box 1200
G9"'�®®U/`�D ATE �'g�► vtOz Buzzards Bay,MA 02532 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
ANALYTICAL �1 Telephone(508)759-4441 AND WORK ORDER �� 055?�(l
FAX(508)759-4475
roje,qt Name: Firm:
'(�(� 1 TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
Lot
(1 py'STANDARD(10 Business Days) Voletiles semivolallles Pes erb/PCBs Metals PetroleumH erocarbon Ha General Chemistry other
Project Numbe. dress: /-� y ) ig exlmctab a vol. Ext.tPH vol.rP waste
I—q D ❑ PRIORITY(5 Business Days) _ o � = -
Np �C W ❑ RUSH(RAN- ) E z
(Rush requires Rush Authorization Number) o O ❑ a 3' ❑ O z
�f45
S��ample'rn/Name: City/State/Zip: (� / C
`'1 6, 3� Please FAX r� YES e - 6
NO
/� 3 s
FAX Number: m ❑
Project Mana er-.
1 Telephon�er�/ BILLING a
�Ql f d�L O-(IULtLJ ❑ ❑ 0
P��u/rcJy/h(/a��sr/e Order No.: GWA Reference No.: ^ m o A -
INSTRUCTIONS:Use separate line for each container(except replicates). 3� a m m a z_
Sampling e e a 9 a _ o ❑ a o o o
Matrix Type Container(s) Preservation Petered ❑ o o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ a o 0 0 ' '� ❑ E
IDENTIFICATION - - - - - _ -SAMPLE LABORATORY W $ A .e ❑ _ o ❑ o
w w ��-, > a v o 0 6 _ - A NUMBER W = W _ _ N a _ s 4 a Q ❑ o
a w o w > > j a 5 (Lab Use On m r= m QIiJ e e a ° _ o o p 1 €
C F 3 — a g E E E E E E a — ? u ¢ o o a o ❑ E o o ❑
3'z5 - S U3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o ❑ o a o o a o 0 0 a ❑ ❑ ❑
_LN IT
I ——+
REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Program gram DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
❑Sale Drinking Water Act Pro
.I_,• 11
ject Specific GC NOTE:All samples submitted subject to Standard Terms and Conditions on reverse hereof.
PVC _
❑MA DEP Form Many regulatory programs and EPA methods require project I' quished by Sampler: Date Time Received by: Receipt Temperature:
specific OC.Project specific OC includes Sample Duplicates,
❑NPDES/Clean Water Act Matrix Spikes,and/or Matrix Spike Duplicates.Laboratory OC is t.�- f� ;3 O
Specify State: not project specific unless prearranged.Project specific OC / A—,
O RCRA/Haz.Waste Char. samples are charged on a per sample basis.For water samples, eli q i d b at Time Received by: Shipping/Airbill
1 MA MCP(310 CMR 40) each MS,MSD and Sample Duplicate requires an additional ,, / Number: _r�
• Reportable Concentrations sample aliquot. ,Y71 �c�i�.,(i% 2
tCGW-1 ❑RCS-1 Project Specific OC Required Selection of OC Sample R linquishe �V //
/❑RCGW-2 O RCS-2 P �7 D e Time Rece bbV Laboratory) Custody Seal/
O Sample Duplicate ❑Selected by laboratory ! � � Cooler Serial
❑MA Dredge Disposal TTT -S-lJJ��7 � ,l,(, ''��c/� Number:
O NH❑RI O CT❑ME Q Matrix Soike U Please use sample:
Method of ShipmennM GWA Courier❑Express Mail 0 Federal Express
Specify Category: f.]Matrix Spike Duplicate 0 UPS 0 Hand 0_
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Assurance/Quality Control
' A. Program Overview
Groundwater Analytical conducts an active Quality Assurance program to ensure the production of high
' quality, valid data. This program closely follows the guidance provided by Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, US EPA QAMS-005/80 (1980), and Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW,-846, Update III (1996).
Quality Control protocols include written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) developed for each
analytical method. SOPs are derived from US EPA methodologies and other established references.
Standards are prepared from commercially obtained reference materials of certified purity, and documented
' for traceability.
Quality Assessment protocols for most organic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control sample,
one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation batch.
' All samples, standards, blanks, laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and sample duplicates are spiked
with internal standards and surrogate compounds. All instrument sequences begin with an initial calibration
verification standard and a blank; and excepting GC/MS sequences, all sequences close with a continuing
calibration standard. GC/MS systems are tuned to appropriate ion abundance criteria daily, or for each 12
hour operating period, whichever is more frequent.
Quality Assessment protocols for most inorganic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control
sample, one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation
' batch. Standard curves are derived from one reagent blank and four concentration levels. Curve validity is
verified by standard recoveries within plus or minus ten percent of the curve.
i
B. Definitions
' Batches are used as the basic unit for Quality Assessment. A Batch is defined as twenty or fewer samples of
the same matrix which are prepared together for the same analysis, using the same lots of reagents and the
same techniques or manipulations, all within the same continuum of time, up to but not exceeding 24 hours.
' Laboratory Control Samples are used to assess the accuracy of the analytical method. A Laboratory Control
Sample consists of reagent water or sodium sulfate spiked with a group of target analytes representative of the
method analytes. Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of the measured value with the true or
' expected value. Percent Recoveries for the Laboratory Control Samples are calculated to assess accuracy.
Method Blanks are used to assess the level of contamination present in the analytical system. Method Blanks
consist of reagent water or an aliquot of sodium sulfate. Method Blanks are taken through all the appropriate
' steps of an analytical method. Sample data reported is not corrected for blank contamination.
Surrogate Compounds are used to assess the effectiveness of an analytical method in dealing with each
sample matrix. Surrogate Compounds are organic compounds which are similar to the target analytes of
' interest in chemical behavior, but which are not normally found in environmental samples. Percent
Recoveries are calculated for each Surrogate Compound.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Control Report
Laboratory Control Sample
Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-1052-F
Matrix: Water
Units: ug/L
' CAS Number I _ Analyte Spiked I MeasuredlE RecoveryF QC Limits
1 11-84-2 n-Nonane(C9) 50 f 27 55 % 40- 140
629-59-4 n-Jetradecane(C14) _ 50 _ 35 70% 40- 140 %
629-92-5 n-- - - -Nonadecane(Cl 9)--__-- _- _50 _-----_-39----____-_- 78 % ----_' 40- 140
1 12-95-8 n-Eicosane(C20) _50_ 40 81 %_ 40- 140
630-02-4 n-Octacosane(C28) 50 40 79 % 40- 140
91-20-3 Naphthalene 50 37 73 /° 40- 140 %
83 32 9 Acenaphthene _ 50 43 85 % 40- 140 %
QC Surrogate Compounds _ Recovery QC Limits
' Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 91 % 40- 140
2-Bromonaphthalene 89 % 40- 140
Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 76 % 40- 140
ortho-Terphen yl 98 % 40- 140
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998).
Report Notations: All calculations performed prior to rounding. Quality Control Limits are defined by the methodology,
or alternatively based upon the historical average recovery plus or minus three standard deviation units.
1
z
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
it
GROUNDWATER
' ANALYTICAL
Quality Control Report
Method Blank
Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-1052-F
Matrix: Water
EPH Ranges Concentration Units Reporting Limitl
' n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL — _I ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 500
n_C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons r° I BRL _ ug/L — 160
' Unadfusted n-CI1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons' BRL -- —ug/L 160
CAS Number Target Analytes _ Concentration - Units Reporting Limit;
i� 91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ug/L 10
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L 5
85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L 10
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL ug/L 10
_QC Surrogate Compounds r ___Recovery_ QC Limits
Fractionation 2-Fluorobiphenyl 92 % 40- 140
2 Bromonaphthalene 90 % 40- 140 %
E-- - - - - —_ - .. - —--- --- --
Extraction: Chloro--octad—e-c—a n e- -
87 %-- 40- 140
ortho-Terphenyl 101 % 40- 140 %
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998).
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
J n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
tCertifications and Approvals
CONNECTICUT, Department of Health Services, PH-0586
Potable Water,Wastewater/Trade Waste, Sewage/Effluent,and Soil
pH,Conductivity,Acidity,Alkalinity,Hardness,Chloride,Fluoride,Ammonia,Kjeldahl Nitrogen,Nitrate,Nitrite,Orthophosphate,Total Dissolved
Solids,Cyanide,Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Total Chromium,Hexavalent Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,
Magnesium,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Potassium,Selenium,Silver,Sodium,Thallium,Tin,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,Purgeable
Halocarbons,Purgeable Aromatics,Pesticides,PCBs,PCBs in Oil,Ethylene Dibromide,Phenols,Oil and Grease.
' C. MAINE, Department of Human Services, MA103
Drinking Water
Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for drinking water analytes.
Waste Water
Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for waste water analytes.
D. MASSACHUSETTS, Department of Environmental Protection, M-MA-103
Potable Water
Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Copper,Lead,Mercury,Nickel,Selenium,Thallium,Nitrate-N,Nitrite-N,Fluoride,
' Sodium,Sulfate,Cyanide,Turbidity,Residual Free Chlorine,Calcium,Total Alkalinity,Total Dissolved Solids,pH,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organic
Compounds, 1,2-Dibromoethane,1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,Total Coliform,Fecal Coliform,Heterotrophic Plate Count,E-Coli
Non-Potable Water
Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Selenium,
' Silver,Strontium,Thallium,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,pH,Specific Conductance,Total Dissolved Solids,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,
Sodium,Potassium,Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Kieldahl-N,Orthophosphate,Total Phosphorus,Chemical
Oxygen Demand,Biochemical Oxygen Demand,Total Cyanide,Non-Filterable Residue,Total Residual Chlorine,Oil and Grease,Total Phenolics,
Volatile Halocarbons,Volatile Aromatics,Chlordane,Aldrin,Dieldrin,DDD,DDE,DDT,Heptachlor,Heptachlor Epoxide,Polychlorinated
Biphenyl,(water),Polychlorinated Biphenyls foil).
E. MICHIGAN, Department of Environmental Quality
Drinking Water
Trihalomethanes,Regulated and Unregulated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 524.2; 1,2-Dibromoethane, 1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane by EPA Method 504.1
' F. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Department of Environmental Services, 202798
Drinking Water
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,Nitrite-N,Orthophosphate,Residual Free Chlorine,Turbidity,Total Filterable Residue,Calcium
' Hardness,pH,Alkalinity,Sodium,Sulfate,Total Cyanide,Insecticides,Herbicides,Base/Neutrals,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organics,Vinyl
Chloride,DBCP,EDB,Nitrate-N.
Wastewater
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,pH,Specific Conductivity,TDS,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,Sodium,Potassium,
Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Orthophosphate,TKN,Total Phosphorus,COD,BOD,Non-Filterable Residue,
Oil&Grease,Total Phenolics,Total Residual Chlorine,PCBs in Water,PCBs in Oil,Pesticides,Volatile Organics,Total Cyanide.
' RHODE ISLAND, Department of Health, 54
Surface Water,Air,Wastewater, Potable Water, Sewage
Chemistry: Organic and Inorganic
i
1 .
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
' Groundwater Analytical; Inc.
GROUN13WATER
P.O.Box 1200
ANALYTICAL Buz Main Street
Buzzards Bay,MA 02532
Telephone(508)759-4441
FAX(508)759-4475
' July 3, 2002
Ms. Kara Risk
Bennett & O'Reilly, Inc.
P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
' LABORATORY REPORT
Project: Birmingham/113098-2533
Lab ID: 51884
Received: 06719-02
1 Dear Kara:
Enclosed are the analytical results for the above referenced project. The project was processed for
Standard turnaround.
This letter authorizes the release of the analytical results, and should be considered a part of this
report. This report contains a sample receipt report detailing the samples received, a project
narrative indicating project changes and non-conformances, a quality control report, and a
' statement of our state certifications.
The analytical results contained in this report meet all applicable NELAC standards, except as may
' be. specitically noted, or described in the project narrative. This report may only be used or
reproduced in its entirety.
I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, based upon my inquiry of those individuals
1 immediately responsible for obtaining the intormation, the material contained in this report is, to
the best of my knowledge and beliet, accurate and complete.
' Should you have any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
1 Sincerely,
Vf
onathan Sanford
President
J RS/smd
Enclosures
1
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Sample Receipt Report
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 Delivery: GWA Courier Temperature: 12.8'C
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Airbill: n/a Chain of Custody: Present
Lab ID: 51884 Lab Receipt: 06-19-02 Custody Seal(s): n/a
•Lab.rD L Field,ID. Matriz - - Sampled' Method' Notes
51884-1 MW-1 Aqueous 6/18/02 9:30 IMA DEP EPH with 4PAHs j
Con ID Container j Vendor QC Lot Presery j QC Lot I Prep Ship
CO22425.1 1 L Amber Glass Proline BX3110 H2SO4 j R-3275C 03-20-02 03-22-02
C082187 1 L Amber Glass i Proline BX3595 H2SO4 R-33146 05-10-02 05-13-02
Lab ID" I Field ID, r. `- Matrix Sainpled� 1 .-Method. . Notes:. .
51884-2 I MW-2 Aqueous 6/18/02 11:00!MA DEP EPH with 4PAHs
i Con ID Container Vendor QC Lot Presery QC Lot j Prep Ship L
' I C082886 1 L Amber Glass Proline BX3595 H2SO4 R-3314B I 05-10- 22 05-13-02 —I
C101353 ! IL Amber Glass j Proline I BX3626 ! H2SO4 R-3275B i 05-01-02 05-13-02 j
Lab ID Feld ID' Matrix;., ;'Sampled �. Method Notes
51884-3 MW-3 Aqueous 6/18/02 10:30 jMA DEP EPH with 4PAHs
i
j Con ID Container I Vendor QC Lot Presery QC Lot Prep Ship
C101355 1 L Amber Glass Proline BX3626 H2SO4 R-3275B 05-01-02 I 05-13-02
C082881 i 1 L Amber Glass Proline BX3595 H2504 R-3314B 05-10-02 I 05-13-02 I
Lab ID Field ID Matrix. Sampled (,:.:Method. Notes
518844 MW 4 Aqueous 6/18/02 10:15 jMA DEP EPH with 4PAHs
Con ID Container Vendor j QC Lot Presery I QC Lot Prep Ship
' C101357 1 L Amber Glass ! Proline BX3626 H2SO4 I R-32758 05-01-02 05-13-02 j
C101352 1 1 L Amber Glass Proline j BX3626 H2504 R-32758 I 05-01_02 05_13-02
Lab ID Field ID Matrix. Sampled ,g; Method- Notes.
—=-- --
51884-5 j MW-5 Aqueous 6/18/02 11:10 MA DEP EPH with 4PAHs
' Con ID —Container_ ! Vendor j QC Lot Presery QC Lot i Prep j Ship
C101354 j 1 L Amber Glass Proline BX3626 H2504 R-32758 05-01-0_2 05-13-02
�4 —- --
C101356 j 1 LAmberGlass Proline BX3626 H2504 j R-332758 05-01-02 OS-13-02
1
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
t Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: MW-1 Laboratory ID: 51884-01
I ' Project: Birmingham/8098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic:1
EP,HiRanges w - Concent'rafron u."Units Reportinj;L°int
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 1 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 500
n-C1—1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t° BRL ug/L�— 200 1
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 200
-
CAS-Number; Target-Analytes Concentration. Units R ortin Limit
eP S
91-20-3 Naphthalene _BRL ug/L I _ 10
91-57-6 j 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L' I _ 5 1 85-01-8 Phenanthrene — _ BRL — ug/L 10 1
83-32-9 Acenaphthene BRL ug/L j 10
C.:Surro ate Com ounds Recover
y, QC Limits
Fractionation: I 2-Fluorobiphenyl _ 91 % 40 140 % j
2-Bromonaphthalene _ _ 77 % 40- 140
Extraction: I Chloro-octadecane — — 82 % 40- 140
�ortho-Terphenyl 91 % 40- 140
QA/QC Certification _ ---
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes I
' ! 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
' Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-CI1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUN13WATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: MW-2 Laboratory ID: 51884-02
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
i `.FPHrRanges` °`w' „ .;_:. Concentration Units " 'Reporting limit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons' BRL ug/L ( 500 I
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 500
n-C1 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t° — BRL ug/L j 160
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 160
CAS;;Number:` ' !-Target Analytes Concentration Units Reporting Limit'
91-20-3 Naphthalene _ _ BRL ug/L i 10
i 91-57-6 :2-Methyl naphthalene' __ BRL ug/L 5 85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL ug/L i 10
83-32-9 Acenaphthene ---!------BRL ug/L 10
' QC�Surrogate Compounds ---- Recovery- QC Limits I
Fractionation: 12-Fluorobiphenyl 82 % 40 140
2-Bromonaphthalene 78 % 40- 140
—T— --- _
Extraction: j Chlo_ro-octadec_ane _ 73 %_ i 40- 140
-- ortho Terphenyl -- :'_ _—-_ _85 % --- —� 40- 140
QA/QC Certification.
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
' 3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter,project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report. j
' Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
i
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FI D
Field ID: MW-3 Laboratory ID: 51884-03
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic:1 Aromatic: 1
I:-- EPHjRanges- ,.x r" Concentration- Units Reporting Cimt
. �,
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 500
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t° 270 ug/L I 160
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t 280 ug/L 160
i� GASrNumber, TargetwAnalytes -Concentration< Units Rep_ortinj>,:l'imit
91-20-3 i Naphthalene BRL �_ ug/L 10
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene BRL ug/L 5
' 85-01-8 j Phenanthrene BRL j ug/L j 10
83-32-9 Acenaphthene i _BRL ug/L 10
' I ,- .. QC"Surrogate Comp6urids — Recovery - QC Limits
Fractionation: 2-Fluorobiphenyl j 91 % 40- 140
2-Bromonaphthalene - 90 % 40- 140 %
} Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 82 % _ _ 40- 140
' ` _ ; ortho-Terphenyl 93 % 40- 140
QA/QC Certification
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes I
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 1 1.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter, project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons, MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
II
' Groundwater Analytical, P.O. Box 1200 228 Main Street Buzzards Ba MA 02532
Y � Inc., � Y,
I
GROUNDWATER
' ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
tExtractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: MW-4 Laboratory ID: 51884-04
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
�.,t 'EPHfR�nges . C'on certratton Urits . Reporting Limit
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons' BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 500
I n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons r- BRL ug/L 160
Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL j ug/L 160
CASiNumber_ Target Analyfes. Concentration Units Reporting Limit
91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ( ug/L 10 _
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene j BRL j ug/L 5
85-01-8 j Phenanthrene BRL_ ug/L I 10 j
83-32-9 Acenaphthene j BRL ug/L 10 j
"QC`Surrogate Compounds: Recovery QG'Limits
Fractionation: �2-Fluorobiphenyl -91 % 40- 140
2-B_ro_monaphthalene _ _- 82 % _ 40- 140 %°
r Extraction: Chloro-octadecarie 74 % _� 40- 140 %
- - - - - -
ortho-Terphenyl _ 85 % 40- 140
I QA/QC Certification _
j 1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
Method non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
I and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
' I The accompanying cover letter project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report. I
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
' that range.
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
I
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Massachusetts DEP EPH Method
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by GC/FID
Field ID: MW-5 Laboratory ID: 51884-05
' Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Client: Bennett&O'Reilly, Inc. Sampled: 06-18-02
Container: 1 L Amber Glass Received: 06-19-02
Preservation: H2SO4/Cool Extracted: 07-01-02
' Matrix: Aqueous Analyzed: 07-02-02
Dilution Factor: Aliphatic: 1 Aromatic: 1
i EPH RAnges.-. _ Concentration—, uhitsi ReporUn Liirr►t
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons r BRL ug/L 500 1
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons ! BRL ug/L 500 j
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons — _ BRL j ug/L 160
' Unadjusted n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 160
i CAS':Number Target Analytes Concentration '.Units - Reporting Limit
i 91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL ug/L 1 10
91-57-6 -2=lvlethylnaphthalene BRL ug/L 5
I ' 85-01-8 Phenanthrene j BRL ug/L j 10 j
i 83-32-9 ' Acenaphthene BRL j ug/L 10
.QC Surrogate Compounds• .`' `:, Recovery "` QC Limits
1 Fractionation: i 2-Fluorobiphenyl I 92 % 40- 140 % !
2-Bromonaphthalene 81 % 40-140
Extraction: Chloro-_octadecane 77 % _ 40- 140 %_
ortho-Terphenyl _ I 82_% I 40- 140
_ QA/QC Certification
1. Were all QA/QC procedures required by the method followed? Yes
' 2. Were all performance/acceptance standards for the required QA/QC procedures achieved? Yes
3. Were any significant modifications made to the method,as specified in Section 11.3? No
iMethod non-conformances indicated above are detailed below on this data report,or in the accompanying project narrative
and project quality control report. Release of this data is authorized by the accompanying signed project cover letter.
The accompanying cover letter,project narrative and quality control report are considered part of this data report.
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998). Extraction performed
utilizing separatory funnel technique.
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
I ' concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range. j
0 n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
1
1 Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
I'
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Project Narrative
Project: Birmingham/B098-2533 Lab ID: 51884
Client: Bennett &O'Reilly, Inca - Received: 06-19-02
A. Physical Condition of Sample(s)
This project was received by the laboratory in satisfactory condition. The sample(s) were received
' undamaged in appropriate containers with the correct preservation.
' B. Project Documentation
This project was accompanied by satisfactory Chain of Custody documentation, with the following
1 amendment(s) or correction(s):
1. Sample 51884-01 through —05 for analysis by MA DEP Method for the Determination of Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons were filtered prior to analysis as indicated on the Chain of Custody.
C. Analysis of Sample(s)
No analytical anomalies or non-conformances
were noted by the laboratory during the processing of these
sample(s). All data contained within this report are released without qualification.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER �3 228 Main Street,P.O.Box 1200
Buzzards Bay,MA 02532 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
ANALYTICAL �{Nko' Telephone(508)759-4441 AND WORK ORDER No 053Qgp
FAX(508)759-4475
Pro' c)Name:
TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
Pro ect Numb V STANDARD(10 Business Days) u°lawea Semiv°Iatiles Pesl/Herb/PCBs PelroleumHydmcarbon Her.
Erlr.I/a b V°I. Metals xt. PH VaI.TPH Waste General Chemistry Other
j _2533 �Ad ss: / ❑ PRIORITY(5 Business Days) - _ c o= o ILA/UI L�(I/) �j(c� ❑ RUSH(RAN- ) r� _ Q
(Rush requires Rush Authorization Number) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ y 3 p ❑ z:
Sampler e: City/State/Zip -
�> Please FAX C)CYES ❑ NO - z
/JT tx w J lJl�_bbJJ e r
FAX Number:_ la 4(��,`} m a e g ❑ .= o
Projenct�M/an'a er:Q T ephone:OW / BILLING a s a a
T N
�Purcghase Order No.: GWA Reference No.: ❑ LL
INSTRUCTIONS:Use separate line for each container(except ), l�J I ��� m m n_ o o o ❑ _( P replicates �.L
Sampling Matrix Type Container(s) Preservation Filtered o o o o 0 o a o n o a 6 - o .E € o
IDENTIFICATION - - s -SAMPLE aw = _ LABORATORY W _ _ = m o ❑ _ ❑ p " f
w w " ' E w^ o f °. _ NUMBER W = S l _ _ i _ U - B x �t o ❑
F- s - (Lab Use Only) o -
o e J �X L/ a o a U t2 s e a o 0 _ m - E ❑ ❑ _ -
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ '� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
II%u-0 2
�- 3
IS U1
u -J 5-
--- ----------------------- I+
------------------------
------------------------
!,
-----------------------
REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
i D Regulatory Program Project Specific OC
NOTE:All samples submitted subject to Standard Terms and Conditions on reverse hereof.❑Safe Drinking Water Act q❑MA-DEP Form require co regulatory programs and EPA methods re
�`- Reli ished by ampler: Date Time b eived Receipt Temperature:
r specific OC.Project specific OC includes Sample Dupro
Plicaecl
Ites,
(1 ' ❑NPDES/Clean Water Act Matrix.Spikes,and/or Matrix Spike Duplicates.Laboratory QC is G` ti-Specify State: not project specific unless prearranged.Project specific OC
CRA/Haz.Waste Char. samples are charged on a per sample basis.For water samples, Relinquished by. D to Time ReceivJby Shipping/Airbill
MA MCP(310 CMR 40) each MS,MSD and Sample Duplicate requires an additional NumberReportable Concentrations sample aliquot. /% c J e)C�iCGW-1 ❑RCS-1 Project Specific oC Required Selection of OC Sample Relinqui adpy D to Time ceivratory: Custody Seal/
❑RCGW-2❑RCS-2 ❑Sam le Duplicate !-/i� h Cooler Serial
P P ❑Selected by laboratory / Number:
❑MA Dredge Disposal •'�� ✓ /`� p���/� r
❑NH RI CT ME Matrix Spike ❑Please use sample:
I O ❑ Method of$ISipment: GWA Courier p Express Mail p Federal Ex ress
Specify Category: ❑Matrix Spike Duplicate � UPS 0 Hand 0,_ P
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
' Quality Assurance/Quality Control
' A. Program Overview
Groundwater Analytical conducts an active Quality Assurance program to ensure the production of high
' quality, valid data. This program closely follows the guidance provided' by Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, US EPA QAMS-005/80 (1980), and Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, US EPA, SW-846, Update III (1996).
Quality Control protocols include written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) developed for each
analytical method. SOPS are derived from US EPA methodologies and other established references.
Standards are prepared from commercially obtained reference materials of certified purity, and documented
for traceability.
Quality Assessment protocols for most organic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control sample,
one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation batch.
All samples, standards, blanks, laboratory control samples, matrix spikes and sample duplicates are spiked
with internal standards and surrogate compounds. All instrument sequences begin with an initial calibration
verification standard and a blank; and excepting GUMS sequences, all sequences close with a continuing
1 calibration standard. GUMS systems are tuned to appropriate ion abundance criteria daily, or for each 12
hour operating period, whichever is more frequent.
Quality Assessment protocols for most inorganic analyses include a minimum of one laboratory control
1 sample, one method blank, one matrix spike sample, and one sample duplicate for each sample preparation
batch. Standard curves are derived from one reagent blank and four concentration levels. Curve validity is
verified by standard recoveries within plus or minus ten percent of the curve.
B. Definitions
Batches are used as the basic unit for Quality Assessment. A Batch is defined as twenty or fewer samples of
the same matrix which are prepared together for the same analysis, using the same lots of reagents and the
' same techniques or manipulations, all within the same continuum of time, up to but not exceeding 24 hours.
Laboratory Control Samples are used to assess the accuracy of the analytical method. A Laboratory Control
Sample consists of reagent water or sodium sulfate spiked with a group of target analytes representative of the
method analytes. Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of the measured value with the true or
expected value. Percent Recoveries for the Laboratory Control Samples are calculated to assess accuracy.
Method Blanks are used to assess the level of contamination present in the analytical system. Method Blanks
consist of reagent water or an aliquot of sodium sulfate. Method Blanks are taken through all the appropriate
steps of an analytical method. Sample data reported is not corrected for blank contamination.
Surrogate Compounds are used to assess the effectiveness of an analytical method in dealing with each
sample matrix. Surrogate Compounds are organic compounds which are similar to the target analytes of
interest in chemical behavior, but which are not normally found in environmental samples. Percent
Recoveries are calculated for each Surrogate Compound.
' Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Quality Control Report
Laboratory Control Sample
' Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch I D: EP-1066-F
Matrix: Water
Units: ug/L
' ;;• `"CAS"Number Analyte Spiked = Measured' Recovery_" ;°QC Limifs,TM:-
111-84-2 n-Nonane(0) 50 25 50% 40- 140%
1
629-59-4 _ j n-Tetradecane(C14) _ 50 - 32 64 % 40- 140 %
j 629-92-5 n-Nonadecane(C19) 50 ._---39 78% 40- 140 % j
112-95-8 j n-Eicosane(C20) 50 39 78% 40- 140 %
630-02-4 n-Octacosane(C28) _ 50 34 68% 40- 140 %
91-20-3 i Naphthalene -- 50 - - 33 �j 66% 40- 140 %
183-32-9 Acenaphthene _ _ 50 - 38 _75 % 40- 140
QC.Surrggate.Compounds i_ Recovery _ . : QC Limits
Fractionation: ! 2-Fluorobiphenyl -96 % _ 40- 140 %
2-Bromo nap hthalene 77 % 40- 140 %
Extraction: Chloro-octadecane 73 % _40- 140 %
' ! ortho-Terphenyl 89 %-- _ - ! _ 40 140%o J
Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DE (1998).
Report Notations: All calculations performed prior to rounding. Quality Control Limits are defined by the methodology,
or alternatively based upon the historical average recovery plus or minus three standard deviation units.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
rQuality Control Report
Method Blank
Category: MA DEP EPH Method
QC Batch ID: EP-1066-F
Matrix: Water
EPH Ranges,:::. Concentration 11ep6riiii. imif
n-C9 to n-C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 500
n-C19 to n-C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL ug/L 500 j
n-C11 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons"° _ BRL _ ug/L 160 !
Unadjusted n-CI1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons t BRL ug/L 160
CAS-Number Target'Analytes- ' Concentration. I Units I.Reporting;Lirnit
' 91-20-3 Naphthalene BRL j ug/L i 10
91-57-6 2-Methyl naphthalene _ BRL _ j ug/L 5
85-01-8 Phenanthrene _ _ BRL ! ug/L j _ 10
1 _83-32-9 Acenaphthene — BRL ug/L 1 10
QC Surrogate Compounds 77777F Recovery - QC Limits
Fractionation: ! 2-Filu_orobiphenyl _ ! 89 % 40- 140_% _
_ `2-B romonaphthalene — _ _— ---_ 68 % _ __ ! _--_ 40- 140 %
Extraction: ChPoro-octadecane 69 % i 40- 140
i ortno-Terphenyl 88 % 40- 140
' Method Reference: Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons,MA DEP(1998).
Report Notations: BRL Indicates concentration, if any, is below reporting limit for analyte. Reporting limit is the lowest
concentration that can be reliably quantified under routine laboratory operating conditions.
Reporting limits are adjusted for sample dilution and sample size.
t Hydrocarbon range data excludes concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting it
that range.
0 n-Cl 1 to n-C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons range data excludes the method target analyte concentrations.
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
I '
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL
Certifications and Approvals
CONNECTICUT, Department of Health Services; PH-0'586
Potable Water,Wastewater/Trade Waste, Sewage/Effluent,and Soil
pH,Conductivity,Acidity,Alkalinity,Hardness,Chloride,Fluoride,Ammonia,Kjeldahl Nitrogen,Nitrate,Nitrite,Orthophosphate,Total Dissolved
' Solids,Cyanide,Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Total Chromium,Hexavalent Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,
Magnesium,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Potassium,Selenium,Silver,Sodium,Thallium,Tin,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,Purgeable
Halocarbons,Purgeable Aromatics,Pesticides,PCBs,PCBs in Oil,Ethylene Dibromide,Phenols,Oil and Grease.
' F_
C. MAINE, Department of Human Services, -MA103
Drinking Water
Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for drinking water analytes.
' Waste Water
Reciprocal certification in accordance with Massachusetts certification for waste water analytes.
D.- MASSACHUSETTS, Department of Environmental Protection,M-MA-103
Potable Water
Antimony,Arsenic,Barium,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Copper,Lead,Mercury,Nickel,Selenium,Thallium,Nitrate-N,Nitrite-N,Fluoride,
' Sodium,Sulfate,Cyanide,Turbidity;Residual Free Chlorine,Calcium,Total Alkalinity,Total Dissolved Solids,pH,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organic
Compounds,1,2-Dibromoethane, 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane,Total Coliform,Fecal Coliform,Heterotrophic Plate Count,E-Coli
Non-Potable Water
Aluminum,Antimony,Arsenic,Beryllium,Cadmium,Chromium,Cobalt,Copper,Iron,Lead,Manganese,Mercury,Molybdenum,Nickel,Selenium,
Silver,Strontium,Thallium,Titanium,Vanadium,Zinc,pH,Specific Conductance,Total Dissolved Solids,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,
Sodium,Potassium,Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Kjeldahl-N,Orthophosphate,Total Phosphorus,Chemical
Oxygen Demand,Biochemical Oxygen Demand,Total Cyanide,Non-Filterable Residue,Total Residual Chlorine,Oil and Grease,Total Phenolics,
Volatile Halocarbons,Volatile Aromatics,Chlordane,Aldrin,Dieldrin,DDD,DDE,DDT,Heptachlor,Heptachlor Epoxide,Polychlorinated
Biphenyls(water),Polychlorinated Biphenyls(oil).
E. MICHIGAN, Department of Environmental Quality
Drinking Water
Trihalomethanes,Regulated and Unregulated Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 524.2;1,2-Dibromoethane,1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane by EPA Method 504.1
F. NEW HAMPSHIRE, Department of:Environmental Services,202798
Drinking Water
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,Nitrite-N,Orthophosphate,Residual Free Chlorine,Turbidity,Total Filterable Residue,Calcium
Hardness,pH,Alkalinity,Sodium,Sulfate,Total Cyanide,Insecticides,Herbicides,Base/Neutrals,Trihalomethanes,Volatile Organics,Vinyl
Chloride,DBCP,EDB,Nitrate-N.
Wastewater
Metals by Graphite Furnace,Metals by ICP,Mercury,pH,Specific Conductivity,TDS,Total Hardness,Calcium,Magnesium,Sodium,Potassium,
Total Alkalinity,Chloride,Fluoride,Sulfate,Ammonia-N,Nitrate-N,Orthophosphate,TKN,Total Phosphorus,COD,BOD,Non-Filterable Residue,
Oil&Grease,Total Phenolics,Total Residual Chlorine,PCBs in Water,PCBs in Oil,Pesticides,Volatile Organics,Total Cyanide.
RHODE ISLAND; Department'of,Health, 54
Surface Water,Air,Wastewater, Potable Water,Sewage
Chemistry: Organic and Inorganic
Groundwater Analytical, Inc., P.O. Box 1200, 228 Main Street, Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
- ENIIIROTECH LABORATORIES, INC. 16
' MA CERT.NO.:M-MA 063
449 RTE. 130
SANDWICH, MA 02563
' 509(999-6460) 1-900-339-6460
FAX(509)999-6446
' July 1, 2002
Bennett& O'Reilly, Inc.
1573 Main Street
' P.O. Box 1667
Brewster, MA 02631
Project Name: Birmingham
Project Number: B099-2533
Location: Monitoring wells
Sample Date: 6/18/02
Sampled By: KMR/TME/DEB
Lab/D#: W0206074A-C
Date Received: 6/18/02
Results of Analysis: MW-4 MW-5 MW-3
Lab ID#: A B C
Parameters Units Method MDL Date Analyzed
H pH units 5.89 5.62 6.30 4500 H+ NA 6/18/02
Dissolved Iron m /L ND ND ND 200.7 0.1 6/20/02
Chloride m /L 12.8 23.8 36.6 300.0 3.0 6/19/02
' Sulfate mg/L 7.3 9.3 19.1 300.0 3.0 6/19/02
Dissolved Oxygen m /L 5.15 6.37 11.53 4000-OC 1.0 6/18/02
Hydrogen Peroxide m /L ND ND 5.0 titration 0.3 6/20/02
Total-Organic Carbon"* m /L 2.0 2.4 6.4 10129 0.5 06/27/02
Sample Time 10:15 AM 11:10 AM 10:30 AM
ND=None Detected
' *"see attached
By
`1? ald J. Saari
ILa oratory Director
R.I. Ana
lytical
Specialists in Environmental Services
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
Envirotech Laboratories, Inc.. Date Received: 6/21/02
Attn: Mr. Ron Saari .Date Reported: 6/27/02
449 Route 130 P;6. #:
Sandwich, MA 02563 Work Order #: 0206-07876
DESCRIPTION: BIRMINGHAM THREE MONITORING WELL SAMPLES
Subject sample(s) has/have been analyzed by our laboratory with the attached results.
Reference: All parameters were analyzed by U.S. EPA approved
' methodologies. The specific methodologies are listed in the
methods column of the Certificate Of Analysis.
' Data qualifiers (if present) are explained in full at the end of a given sample's analytical results.
Certification #: RI-033, MA-RI015, CT-PH-0508, ME-RIO15
H-253700 A & B, USDA S-41844, NY-11726
If you hay any es ions regarding this work, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact us.
Approv d by:
' PauV Perro'
Dat Repo i� Man ger
' en : Chai f Cus dy
41 Illinois Avenue,Warwick, RI 02888 131 Coolidge Street, Bldg 2, Hudson, MA 01749
Tel: (401) 737-8500 Fax: (401) 738-1970 Tel: (978) 568-0041 Fax: (978) 568-0078
Page 2 of 2
R.I. Analytical Laboratories, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
' Envirotech Laboratories, Inc.
Date Received: 6/21/02 Approved by:
Work Order# 0206-07876 R.I. Analy cal
Sample#: 001
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: W0206074A MW-4 GRAB 06/18/02
iSAMPLE DET. "� ANALYZED
PARAMETER RESULTS LIMIT UNITS METHOD DATE/TIME ANALYST
' TOC LOW LF.vF1, 2.0 0.5 EPA 415.1 6/27/02 9:30 RGM
Sample#: 002
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: W0206074B MW-5 GRAB 06/18/02
' SAMPLE DET. ANALYZED
PARAMETER RESULTS LIMIT UNITS METHOD DATE/TIME ANALYST
TOC LOW LEVEL 2.4 0.5 mg/1 EPA 415.1 6/27/02 9:30 RGM
i
Sample#: 003
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: W0206074C MW-3 GRAB 06/18/02
SAMPLE DET. ANALYZED
' PARAMETER RESULTS LIMIT UNITS METHOD DATE/TIME ANALYST
TOC LOW LEVEL 6.4 0.5 mg/1 EPA 415.1 6/27/02 9:30 RGM
1
1
1
1
1 APPENDIX F
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
� I
1
i �
1
tO ' RE
BENNET T A111 n
Engineering, Environmental & Surveying Services 1573 Main Street
' O
Sanitary 21E/Site Remedialion Property Line PO Box 1667
Site Development Hydrogeologic Survey Subdivision A Brewster, MA 02631
Waste Water Treatment Water Qualitydvlonitoring Land Court 508-896-6630
1 Water Supply Licensed Site Professional Trial Court Witness 508-896-4687 Fax
1 QUALITY ASSURANCE & QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
1 Quality Assurance & Quality Control Program
For Soil and Groundwater Sampling
1
INTRODUCTION
1 The Quality Assurance & Quality Control (QA/QC) Program outlines the purpose, policies,
organization and operations to support sampling work conducted by BENNETT&O'REILLY,INC..
1 The procedures and protocal represented herein are consistent with the MA DEP "Standard
References for Monitor Wells" [WSC-310-91], and the recommendations of a MA certified
laboratory. Implementation of this program will help to ensure the validity of data used to provide
1 professional engineering and environmental opinions to clients.
The following definitions are used in the QA/QC Program:
Quality Assurance refers to the concepts used in defining a system for verifying and
1 maintaining a desired level of quality in a product or process.
Quality Control is a specific,step-by-step description of how the Quality Assurance Program
1 will be carried out.
This QA/QC Program guides field sampling activities. Project specific QA/QC Programs are
1 adopted when warranted. Modifications to the QA/QC Program may be made only after specific
approval by the QA/QC Officer (Project Manager).
1
i
1 1
1
' The specific objectives of the QALQC Program are to:
1. specify the level of quality of each field procedure used in collecting samples;
' 2. identifydeficiencies in field procedures which m'
p fight affect the quality of data: and
' 3. require sufficient documentation to verify the credibility of the sampling methods
employed.
' PROGRAM ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
The Project Manager of BEi�NETT & UREILLY, INC., is responsible for the quality of work
produced. The Project Manger directs the QA/QC Program to document the control of field efforts
and resulting,data.
In this capacity, the Project Manager is expected t d the following:
� g p o 0y
' 1. prepare detailed QC Plans;
2. obtain analytical and sampling procedures reference materials;
J. ensure that all field test and measurement equipment is maintained and calibrated
properly;
4. monitor quality assurance activities to ensure conformance with authorized policies,
' procedures, and sound practices, and recommend improvements as necessary,
5. ensure that all field sampling is conducted in accordance with guidelines contained
' herein,
6. oversee all field sampling efforts to detect conditions which might directly or
' indirectly jeopardize the utility of resulting.analytical data, such as improper
calibration of equipment or cross-contamination through improper storage of
samples;
' 7. ensure that sample handling Procedures are adequate for the sample types received;
8. inspect the quality of purchased sampling materials.
1
' 2
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT COLLECTION AND PREPARATION
Introduction
' Sample management and stringent documentation are essential for successful quality assurance. The
procedures in this section are designed to ensure collection of samples which truly represent the
matrix being sampled by eliminating trace levels of contaminants from external sources.
' Sample Management
The management of samples, up to the point of delivery to the laboratory for analysis, is under the
supervision of the Project Manager, who shall ensure that samples are collected, labeled,preserved,
stored, and transported according to the prescribed methods. If significant deviations from the
sampling protocol occur, resulting in a suspected compromise of the sample integrity, all samples
collected during the sampling effort prior to correction of the procedure will be discarded and fresh
samples collected.
Sample Collection
' Groundwater
Monitoring wells will be sampled in accordance with the following sampling procedures:
' l. Identify the well and record the well number on the groundwater sampling record an
an Monitoring Well Sampling Log (attached).
' 2. Open the well cap and measure total organic volatile TOV
P g ( ) concentrations at the
wellhead with the use of a portable photoionization detector. Record levels detected.
3. Measure groundwater level to the nearest 0.01 foot from the top of the well casing
using a water level indicator. Record water level on a Monitoring Well Sampling
' Log (attached). Water level indicators will be decontaminated between wells.
4. The volume of standing water in the well casing will be calculated and recorded on
' the Monitoring Well Sampling Log. At least three well volumes will be purged
either by pump or disposable bailer. Newly installed monitoring wells will be
developed by purging at least ten volumes. Purging of wells will be complete when
either dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity or temperature has stabilized relative to
previous sampling rounds. Once the purging is complete,wells will be screened for
each of the above parameters and recorded on-the Sampling Log .
5. Samples will be collected using either a disposable bailers or pump. Samples will
' be transferred into appropriately sterilized/preserved containers, taking care to
minimize agitation of the sample [Refer to attached "Recommended Sample
Containers..." Groundwater Analytical].
' 6. Sample containers will be proper labeled with tags provided by the laboratory.P P P Y g P
Samples will be logged in on a chain-of-custody form.
' 7. Samples taken for precipitate metal analysis will be acidified
p p p y feed to a pH of less than 2.0
' in the field.
When sampling water for volatile compounds, care must be exercised to prevent loss of
' compcund through evaporation, and to control susceptibility to outside contamination.
Precautionary measures include:
' 1. avoiding engine exhaust,gasoline containers,degreasing solvents,solvent-laden rags
and non-compatible decontamination agents;
sampling bottles will only be opened at the time of sampling and quickly closed after
collecting the sample. preventing aeration of the sample with the atmosphere or any
other gas;
J. slowlyfilling bottles to capacity with sample and securing cap without g 'g p p � p thout entraining air
bubbles;
4. inverting the bottle while tapping lightly to check for air bubbles;
' 5. adding additional sample to eliminate air bubbles if present, repeating steps 3 and 4;
' 6. placing samples on ice (approximately 4°C) immediately after collection in a dark,
dry location;
7. segregating samples with a secondary barrier such as zip-lock bags, etc.; and
8. analyzing sample as soon as possible within the specific holding times after
collection.
Pump tubing will be decontaminated as follows:
' 1 Pump non-phosphate detergent solution through system for two minutes.
2. Pump clean hot tap water through system for two minutes or until clear, whichever
is longer.
3. Pump analyte-free water through system for two minutes.
' 4. Seal tubing ends; wrap and label with date of cleaning.
4
I
II
Soils
When collecting and screening soil samples, the procedures to be used are:
1. Prior to sampling surficial locations,surface vegetation,rocks,leaves,and debris will
' be cleared from the sample point to allow collection of a clean soil sample. _lf
surficial soil samples are to be collected, a hand trowel or shovel and spatula will be
used. The sampling equipment will. be decontaminated as outlined below.
2. Boringsamples will be collected via drilling rig-operated s lit s oon procedures.P gP P P ores.
Soil samples collected from excavations or test pits will be collected directly with an
auger (if necessary) from grade to approximately four feet below grade. Samples
collected at deeper depths will be obtained directly from the bucket of the backhoe.
A stainless steel spatula will be used to remove soil from the backhoe bucket for
' placement in the appropriate sample containers.
3. Soil samples collected for TOV screening will be placed in glass soil jars with.
' aluminum foil placid,under the screw cap. Samples will be allowed to warm to
ambient temperature before screening or will be screened in a heated vehicle after
warming. The jar will be shaken for fifteen seconds prior to warming and after
warming to ensure proper headspace development. Total organic vapors will be
measured via a portable photoionization detector (PID) and their concentration
' recorded either on a Geological Borehole Log or field log.
4. Soil samples will be stored and shipped in appropriate sealed containers.
5. Sample containers will be marked to indicate sampling date, time, location, and
depth. Samples will be logged in on chain-of-custody forms (copy attached).
1 6. The stratigraphy of each soil boring and test pit excavation, and the construction of
each monitoring well will be recorded by the on-site geologist on the appropriate
Geologic Borehole Log or test pit field log (copies attached).
When sampling soils for volatile compounds, care must,be exercised to prevent loss of compound
and to control susceptibility to outside contamination. Precautionary measures include:
' 1. avoiding engine exhaust,gasoline containers,degreasing solvents,solvent-laden rags
and non-compatible decontamination agents;
2. opening sampling bottles only at the time of sampling and quickly closing after
collecting the sample;
' 3. placing samples on ice(approximately 4° Q immediately after collection in a dark,
dry location;
' 5
' I
1
4. segregating samples with a secondary barrier such as zip-lock bags, etc.; and
5. analyzing sample as soon as possible within the specific holding times after
collection.
Soil sampling equipment (shovel, auger, etc.) will be decontaminated between each sampling
location with a potable water rinse, alconox soap wash, and a final potable water rinse.
Drilling and excavating apparatus (augers, rods, casing, core barrels, backhoe bucket, and other
equipment coming in contact with the borehole or excavation)will be decontaminated between each
boring and excavation via steam cleaning. If necessary, an alconox soap wash followed by a steam
cleaning will be included.
Sample Preservation
To prevent or retard the degradation/modification of chemicals in samples during transit and storage,
' the samples will be refrigerated at or below 4° C in appropriately preserved containers. Samples
will be delivered to the laboratory by courier or by overnight delivery service.
IDATA MANAGEMENT
ILogging of Samples
The accountability of a sample begins when the sample is taken from its natural environment.
I Sample handling (chain-of-custody) records must be completed at the time of sampling. The
following chain-of-custody procedure must be implemented by the Field Team Leader to assure
sample integrity.
I1. The samples are under custody of the Field Team Leader if-
a.
Y
a. they are in his (or her) possession;
b. they are in view after being in possession:
c. they are locked up or sealed securely to prevent tampering; or,
d. they are in a designated secure area.
2. The"original",of the sample handling form must accompany the samples at all times
after collection. A copy of the sample handling form is kept by the Field Team
Leader.
3. When samples are transferred in possession, the individuals relinquishing and
receiving will sign, date, and note the time on the form.
6
The Sampling Handling Record will contain information to distinguish each sample from any
' other sample. This information will include:
' 1. the project for which sampling is being conducted;
2. the matrix being samples (air, groundwater, soil, etc.);
3. the sampling date and time;
P g
' 4. field sample identification number and chain-of-custody identification number;
5. the number and type of containers and the type of preservative used (if any); and,
6. signature
g of the person performing the sampling.
' Each sample will be assigned a unique identification number, which will be marked on the sample
container. The sample handling record will be forwarded to the laboratory with the samples. As a
' precaution against this record being lost or altered, the sampling personnel will retain a cgpy of the
sampling handling record documenting all information up until the first change of sample custody.
This record will be filed by the Project Manager. y
' Sample Identification Numbers
' Reporting of date to the data management system will require the assignment of a unique
identification number to each sample collected (including quality control samples). A record will
be maintained by the Project Manager to associate the field sample with the various identification
' numbers used to analyze the field sample. Specific sample identification procedures are developed
for each field sampling effort by the Project Manager.
1
1
1
1
1
� 1
ffJ[L\7 SAMPLES
' t 1573 Main Street, P.O. Box 1667
BENNETT & 0 REILLY, Inc.. Brewster, MA 02631
Engineering and Environmental Services (508) 896-6630
MONITOR WELL SAMPLING LOG
CLIF, i .,.,DATE(S)
LOCATION JOB #
!MEASURING POINT
SAMPLER GROUNDSURFACE OR T.O.C.
Well Elev.'of Total Depth to Standing Water Static Volume KNU Comments
Number reference Depth of Water Water Table Volume Pureed 13I-101
point Well (Feet) Height Elevation (gallons) (gallons) (ppm)
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
' TOTES:-
I ,
i
t 1573 Main Street, P.O. Box 1667
BENNETT & 0 REILLY, Inc. Brewster, MA 02631
' Eno,ineerinQ and Environmental Services (508) 896-6630
MONITOR WELL SAMPLING LOG
RESPIRATION ANALYSIS
CLIENT DATE(S)
' LOCATION JOB rr
SAMPLER
Weil Total,.. Approx. S(andins Length ut HNU Methane Ox}een Carbon Comm enis:
' Number Depth of Depth to Water screen P1-101 (oCH;) (°o O., Dioxide
Well Water Height above (ppm) (%C0.,
(feet) (feet) (teet) SWL
' NOTES:
BENNETT & O'REILL' Y Inc.
� Sheet of
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
' Job Number: Date: Time: Test Hole Number:
Job Name:
' Witness:
Casing I. D. Ground Elevation:
Reference Elevation (TOC): Falling Head ❑ Rising Head ❑
Aquifer Saturation Thickness (If Confined): Depth of Boning (A):
' Well Screen Length (L): Length of Test Section(L):
Depth of Groundwater Table (H): Depth of Top of Test Section (B):
' Type of Material in Test Zone:
Notes:
2r'
TIME ELAPSED WATER ACTIVE
(sec.) TIME (sec.) h/Ho DEPTH(x) HEAD(h)
X
1 H 771
B STATIC
A
T
L
—I 2R F-
h = H-X (falling head)
or
h =X-H (rising head)
Ho= H-Xo (falling head)
or
Ho=Xo-H (rising head)
Xo =X at t=0
' A, B, H & L are defined
above.
r r r r � rr� r r r r r r �r r■� r r rr rr r
Job Nam Job Num er: Date:
Location: Weather:
Witness: Start Date: ------ --
Pump & f low Rate
Location: TOC: Location: TOC: Location: TOC: NOTES:
Time Time Depth to Water Static Water Lv. Draw Down Depth to Water Static Wale(Lv Draw Down Depth to Water Static Water Lv Draw Down pH /Cond./Temp.
(sec). o - --- - _ . ..--- --- - -
3
5 --- - - -
6 - - ---- - --- --- -
9 - - -- -- -
15 - -- --- - -- --30
(sec.) 45 -
- - __ --- ------ -- -- -- -
- --- - -------- ---- -
(min) 1
3 ----- - -- ----
7 - - -- -- -- - -
= 8 -- - - - -- - --
9 -------- -. _
10 - -- - -
20 - -- ------- - -
30
40
50
60
70
80 — - . -- - - __..
- - -
90
—— 0
190
-- -
460
550
640
730
820
110 - - -- -- ------ -. --- -- -:---
i
BENNETT c& OTTILLY Inc. Sheet of
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
Sieve Analysis Data and Computation Sheet
Job Number: Date:
Job Name:
Sample Number:
Sample Collected By:
Sample Tested By:
' Notes
SIEVE WEIGHT PERCENT CUMULATIVE PROJECT
OPENING SIEVE RETAINED RETAINED PERCENT MANUAL
MILLI- MESH IN GRAMS (Cumulative) FINER SPECIFICATION
METERS_ (Cumulative)
i
PASSED MESH SIEVE
TOTAL
Sample Weight Wet:
Sample Weight Dry:
Percent Moisture:
Sample Weight Passed Through Sieves:
BENNE & U LYInc.
TT REIL , I Sheet of
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
Job Number: Date:
Job Name:
SAND GRAVEL SILT SAND Test Hole Number:
a Witness:
Drilling Contractor:
PEAT CLAY Sampling Method:
1
GEOLOGIC BOREHOLE LOG
Type s Well Lithologv/Sediment
Blows per °'o of
' Lithology Depth o Depth Specification& Remarks Description
Sampie 6" Drive Recovery
PID Response
5 (PPm)
' 10
' 15
' 20
25
SWL:
30
1
35
40
45
�. 50
BENNETT & OI
REILLY2 Inc. REPORTNUivtBER:
1573 Main Street 508-896-6630
' PO Box 1667 508-896-4687 Fax
Brewster, MA 02631
INSPECTORS DAILY RECORD OF WORK PROGRESS
Job Number. Date:
Job Name:
Feature:
1 Contractor:
Type of Work:
Weather Conditions: Temperature:
' Contractor's Work Force(Indicate classification. including Subcontractor personnel)
Equipment in use or idled(identify which)
' Materials or equipment delivered,quantity or pay items placed
Non-conforming materials or work, field problems. inspections of previously reported deficiencies
Summary of construction activities
II
rr �r rr rr r � rr - rr rr wr r �r �r �r rr rr rrl r� r�
OALYTICAL
OUNDWATER Buz
Main Street,P.O Box 1200
BuizardsBay.MA02532 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD NO- @49825
Telephone(508)759-4441 AND WORK ORDER
FAX(508)759-4475
roject Name: Firm: TURNAROUND ANALYSIS REQUEST
Volarllns $ninlvul alllns Pnil4lnr B/PLBf Malals P.b N. lly,im...Ean If.,. General Ch.mkiq airier
❑ STANDARD(10 Business Days) Fruanpm V-1 y, I was a
ject Number: Address:
❑ RUSH(RAN-
o g
(Rush requuas Rush A,,11—aahon
ro ❑ PRIORITY(5 Business Days)Number) n n n n 8 3' n n e 2 mpler Name: City/Stale/Zip: s
Please FAX ❑ YES ❑ NO s €
$FAX Number: 3 B - 3
roject Manager: Telephone: BILLING s ' s g
❑ ❑ n'. n n n n n r $
❑ n
Purchase Order No.: GWA Reference Plo.: ❑ g € m €
STRUCTIONS:Use separate line for each container(except replicates). o s _
a > € o n 's ` E
tripling Matrix Type Contalner(s) Preservation Fur...i n n n n n n n n n n n n - n a o s 2 = 4 h
SAMPLE = LA90MBEflRy 4 aS - e i s $ J ' ❑ n �' n
IDENTIFICATION a a _ - ❑ ��
(Lab Use Only) 3 z = y os_ s § o s € e ❑ o ., o
~ n n n n n n n n i� n n n n n n n n n n n a n .. n n n n n n n ❑ ❑ n n
------------ --
------------------
MIT
REMARKS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS DAJ A QUALITY OBJECTIVES CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY RECORD
Regulatory Program Project Specific CC
( P NOTt.All samples submilled subject l0 Standard
1 I S a lard Teens and Conditions on reverse hereof.
❑Sale Drinking Water Act
ElMA DEP Form Many regulatory programs and EPA methods require project Relinquished by Sampler Dale Time Received
s
by: Receipt Temperature:
erature:ecifc QC.Project specific CC includes Sample Duplicates,
❑NPDES/Clean Water Act Matrix Spikes,and/or Matrix Spike Duplicates,Laboratory CC is
Specify Slate: not project specific unless prearranged.Project specific CC
❑RCRA/Haz.Waste Char. samples are charged on a per sample basis.For water samples. Relinquished by: Date Time Received by: Shipping/Airbifl
❑MA MCP(310 CMR 40) each MS.MSD and Sample Duplicate requires an addilional Number:
Reportable Concentrations sample aliquot
❑RCGW-1 ❑RCS-1 Prolecl Speclllc-OC Required So-ilon o1 QC Sample Relinquished by. Dale Time Received by I-aboratory: Custody Seal/
❑RCGW-2❑RCS-2 ❑Sam la Du licale Cooler Serial
P P ❑Sulecmd by laoaatory
❑ Number
MA Dredge Disposal ❑Matrix Sp,ka - 11 Please use sample-.
Cl NH Oil R1 0 CT ❑Main,Swko Duplicate I III land I'I El ME Method of Shipment I G S Ij Express Mail [-I FederalExpress
r
r ENVIROTEM LABORATORIES, INC.
449 RCUM 130
RICH, NA 02563 PFIC+IE: (5O8)888-6460 FAX: (508)888-6446
WATER ANALYSIS REQUISITION:
DATE: DATE REC. 'D: SAMPLE NO. : TIME: NO. COPIES_
NAME: RUSH-24HR. TURNAROUND (ex.chg.) MAIL:
PHONE: FAQ{: WATER LOCATION:
rMAILING ADDRESS:
PAYMENT/AMT. REC'D. : SAMPLED BY:
BILL TO/A-fT. : WELL SPECS. :
1
ANALYSIS REQUEST: WATER SAMPLE TYPE:
_COLIFORM BACTERIA
_pH * NEW WELL
_CONDUCTANCE * _FASTING WELL
_SODIUM * _TOWN WATT
_NITRATE-N * FIITER/CONDITIONER
_IRON * MISCEIIANECUS
MANGANESE *
_PD=SS _POOL _SPA CHOLORINE
_SULFATE
i _POTASSIUM _COLIFORM BACTERIA
_ALKALINITY _PSEUDOMONAS
=1 RIDE _ST_ANDARD PLATE COUNT'
TURBIDITY
_COLOR
COPPER OTHER ANALYSIS REQUESTED:
1 LEAD
ODOR FECAL COLIFORM
_AMMONIA-N _VOLATILE ORGANICS
SULFIDE METHOD:
I MAGNESIUM METALS
CALCIUM METHOD:
* INDICATES PARAMETERS, FOR A POTABLE WATER TEST.
INSTRUCTIONS:
' BACTERIA SAMPLE - Obtain sterile sample bottle. Remove strainer/airator
from faucet. Turn on cold water. Allow it to run (5) five minutes. 'Fill
container. Do not touch the inside of the bottle or the cap with anything.
POTABLE WATER SAMPLE - Follow instructions .above- (Bottle size - 500ml)
LEAD - Call lab for instructions.
1 VOLATILE ORGANICS/METALS - Call lab for instructions.
r ti 11 :Ail Arorr,o,lr-1 rn, I,.,,to�n 1, •u,l j r,.v r.r......,..0 :Aq r»,rlr.bvltaU
—A if !Ail .r, .rr ..sl :A. nl'Il :All quill 011(l ;All r+�,,�lnbvllall
'A.I I—I,r„r„n1111 !. u.,...s, :Ail l,as,aiall •u'll. •la(.1 r. rrr fSJ 'All l -f44rvn"iI11
-------- — — -- -----
Iyr.w:ll .,I .s, .,.nirlun ) uvll.7o1 u„ll.l$ 61 3� •"l_ COI,
1)[a(,1
(u �u
IU IU —
,1
►ua�rJ I�alo rd .oN 1O1I
-- — --- -- — (111c1:1.iII AM)I !�rl:l :Jcl 1JIV11") --- U99-96B 0?09)
1,9I11 Mill Woo ) XV.,I "JN]. ` ill"II 121 , 0 '8 112NN M NW!,J
091-9 GIT OMI I . 091 Il Uiii1 (U(1(J)
l;!)Sid;OrV`1`V '1j::rl(n)lI11%I([;` r)CI i ( ) I I
`� � ■.\..� 11, `�r .l. .�. .R.�t'��I,IJ`lI-�A.A.NLI
1
1
1
1
1
1 rEcrcicaL REFERENCE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
Volatile Organic Analyses
1 Minimum Recommended Required Holding
oty.' Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
Category Methods
Aqueous Samples
Volatile Organics 601/8010 40 mL 3 x 40 mL Glass Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
602/8020 Vials w/terlon HCI to pH<24
624/8260 septum cans12 Remove Chlorine'
502.2
524.2
Acrolein and Acryionitrile 603/8030 40 mL 3 x 40 mL Glass Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
Vials w/terlon Check pH;Adjust 4-5-
septum caos12 Remove Chlonne
Solid Samples
' Volatile Organics 8010/8020 10 g 1 x 125 mL Glass Cool to 4'C' 14 Days
8260 Vial w/teflon
septum cap'2
1 OR 2 x 40 mL Glass
Vials w/terlon
septum caps ;z
Acrolein and Acrylonitrile 8030 log 1 x 125 mL Glass Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
Vial w/teflon
' septum cap"-
OR 7 x 40 mL Glass
Vials w/terlon
1 septum caps 12."
Se--nivolatile Organic Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods aty. Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
Aqueous Samples
Semivolatile Organics 625/8270 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days'
Glass Bottle Remove Chlorine
' witeflon liner"
Semivolatile Organics 8270 2 L 3 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days'
(Low-level,both Acid Modified Glass Bottle Remove C.11orine'
and Base/Neutral fractions) witeflon liner"
' Semivolatile Organics 8270 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days'
(Low-level,only one fraction Modified Glass Bottle Remove Chlorine
Acid or Base/Neutral) w/teflon liner"
Semivolatile Organics 525.2 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days"
(Drinking Water) Glass Bottle HCI to pH<21
w/teflon liner" Add Sodium Sulfite24
2,3,7,8-TCDD(Dioxin) 1613 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days'
(Drinking Water) Glass Bottle
1 w/teflon liner"
Polynuclear 610/8100 1 L 2 x1 L Amber Cool to 4'C' 7 Days'
Aromatic 8270 Glass Bottle Remove Chlorine'
Hydrocarbons w/teflon liner'
1 Solid Samples
Semivolatile 8270 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 41C' 14 Days10
Organics w/teflon liner"
Polynuclear 8100 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 14 Days'0
Aromatic 8270 w/teflon liner"
Hydrocarbons
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL 27
1
' Pesticide and Herbicide Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
1 Category Methods Oty:' Container(s)2 Preservation Holding
Aqueous Samples
Carbamate Pesticides 531.1 60mL 2 x 125 G12SS Bottle Cool to 41C' 28 Days
(Drinking Water) w/teflon liner" Add Sodium Thiosulfatee5
' Adjust pH to 3 with
Monochloroacetic Acid Buffer
Pesticides O sonic hlorine 608/8080 1 L 2 x L Amber Cool to 41C3 7 Days'
es& PCBs Glass Bottle Check pH:Adjust 5-96
1 wrteflon liner' Remove Chlorine'
Organochlorine Pesticides 508 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4'C' 7 Days'
& PCBs Glass Bottle Add Sodium Thiosulfatee5
(Drinkino Waterl w/teflon liner-
Polychlorinated Siphenyls 508A 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to a=C' ;4 pays Ge
by Perchlorinaiion Glass Bottle
(Drinkino Waterl witeflon liner-
Orcanchalice FFssticices 505 410 mL 3 x 40 mL Glass Vials Cool io 4'C' 7 13,
' & GCBs wrteflon secia cans Add Sodium Thiosulfate.-
(Drinking Water!
Organophosphorus 614;8 i 40 1 L 2 x 1 L Amoer Cool to A'C' 7 Days'
Pesticiees Glass Sottle Check pH:Adjust 6-86
w/teflon liner Remove Chlorine'
Chlorinated 615i8150 1 L 2 x 1LAmber Cool to 4'C' 7 Days=
Herbicides Glass Bottle Remove Chlorine,-
w/teflon liner'-
' Chlorinated Herbicides 515.i L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4'C' 14 Days e7
(Drinking Water) Glass Bottle Add Sodium
witeflon liner Thiosulfatee5
Giyphcsate 54; 40 mL 2 x 40 mL Glass Cool to 4'C'
' (Drinking Water) Vial w/teflon liner Add Sodium Days
Thiosulfatezo
Endothall 548.11 100 mL 2 x 125 mL Class Cool to 41C' 7 Days'-'
(Drinking Water) Bottle witeflon liner' HCI to pH <21
' Add Sodium ThiosulfateG6
Diouat and Paraquat 549.1 250 mL i x 1 LAmcer Cool to 41C' 7 Days2'
(Drinking Water) Glass Bottle HzSO,to pH<2`
witeflon liner`- Add Sodium Thiosulfatee5
EDB and DBCP 504.1 40 mL 3 x 40 mL Glass Cool to 41C' 14 Days
(Drinkino Water) Vials w/teflon Add Sodium Thiosulfatez5
seota caps t2.
ED6 ano DBCP 8011 40 mL 3 x 40 mL Glass Cool to 41C' 14 Days
Vials w/teflon HCI to pH <21
septa caps 12 " Remove Chlorine,-
Solid Samples
Organochlonne 8080 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 14 Days"
' Pesticides& PCBs w/teflon liner"
Organophosphorus 8140 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 41C' 14 Days"
Pesticides w/teflon liner"
Herbicides 8150 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 4'C' 14 Days"
w/teflon liner"
EDB and DBCP 8260 log 1 x 125 mL Glass Cool to 4'C' 14 Days
Vial w/teflon
septa cap i2-"
QR_2 x 40 mL Glass
Vials w/teflon
septa caps 12•11'17
i
1
28
1
Hydrocarbon Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Cagegory Methods City.' Container(s)2 Preservation Timed
Aqueous Samples
Hydrocarbon D3328-78 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4°C' 7 Days
Fingerprint Glass Bottle H,SO,to pH <2
(GC/FID) witerlon liner"
Total Petroleum 418.1 1 L 2 x 1LAmber Cool to 4°C' 28 pays
Hydrocarbons Class Bottle H,SO,to pH <2
(TPH-1R) witerlon liner
Gil and Grease 413.1 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to 4'C' 28 Days
413.2 Class Bottle H,SO,to pH <2
witerlen liner
_ Gasoline Range 8015iAPl 40 mL 3 x-0 mL Class Cool to 4°C' 1 a Days
Organics Vials ,viterlon HCI to pH <24
septa c20s2
Diesel Ranae 8100/API 1 L 2 x 1 L Amber Cool to ,`C, 7 Davv
Crcanics Glass Bcttle H,SO,to off <2
wrzerien liner-
VIA DEP Volatile 8015iMA DEP =0mL 3 x -'0 mL Glass Coal to 4°C' Days
Petroleum Hydro- Vials witef!on HCI or H,SO,to off<2'
caroons(VPH) septa-caos
MA OE?Extrac:aoie 8100/MA DE? 2 L 3 x 1LAmoer Coal to 4'C' 4 pays
Petroleum Hydrocarbons(EPH) 8270 Mod Gass Bottle H-SO,or HCl to off<2'
with!ow-leve! PAHs (GC;MS-SIM) wlterlcn liner'
Solid Samples
Hydrocarbon 03328-78 30 o Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 11 Days',
Fingerprint Modified witerlon liner'?
iGC Fi0)
Total Petrc!eam 18.1 30 c Gass Jar Cool to 4`C' !-I Days,
Hvcrocarbcns Modified witerlon liner
(TPH-IR)
Cii anc Grease 413.1 30 g Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 1 Days,
413.2 w/teflon liner
Modified
Gasoline Range 8015r'API 100 1 x 125 mL Glass Cool to 4"C' 14 pays
Organics Vial witeflon
' septa cap 'Z
Diesel Range 8100/API 30 a Class Jar Coal to 4`C' 14 Days"
Organics witeflon liner''
' MA DEP Volatile Petroleum 8015/MA DEP 50g 1 x 125 mL Glass w/50mL Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
Hydrocarbons(VPH) Methanol and Glass Jar
without Methanol.
' MA DEP Extractable 8100/NIA DEP 30g Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
Petroleum Hydrocarbons(EPH) w/teflon liner"
' Metals Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Qty.' Container(s)2 Preservation Timed
Aqueous Samples
Total Metals 200s 100 mL Plastic Bottle HNO3 to pH<2 180 Days
(except Mercury) 6010 Cool to 4°C'
7000s
Dissolved Metals 200s 100 mL Plastic Bottle Filter First" 180 Days
' (except Mercury) 6010 HNO,to pH<2
7000s Cool to 4°C'
Total Mercury 245.1 100 mL Plastic Bottle HNO3 to pH<2 28 Days
7470 Cool to 40C3
1
GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL 29
• fill I 4klv*� , III • , , • • ® 9
Metals Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required' Holding Category Methods Oty.' Container( Preservation Time g
Dissolved Mercury 245.1 100 mL Plastic Bottle Filter First'' 28 Days
7470 HNO,to pH <2
Cool to 4°C3
SDWA Lead and 200.9 1 L 1 x 1 L Plastic Cool to 40C' 180 Days
Copper Rule 200.7 Bottle
Chromium. 218.1-5 200 mL Plastic Bottle Cool to 4°C3 24 Hours
Hexavalent
Solid Samples
Total Metals 6010 2 c Glass Jar Cool to 4°C3 80 Days
(except Mercury) 7000s wrteflon liner
Total Mercury 245.5 0.60 Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 28 Days
7471 wtefion liner
Hazardous Waste Characterization Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
' Category Methods Cty.' Container(s)' Preservation Time
Solid Samplesi8
TCLP Volatile 1311 150 g 2 x 125 mL Glass Cool to 4-.=C-- ;4 Days°
Orcanics 3260 Viai w1teilon
sedum cao'°
TCLP Metals. 1311 300 c Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' 28 Days'°
Semivolatiies. 6010 w;teilon liner i4 Days"
Pesx:ces and 7000s
Heroicides 8080
8150
8270
Icnitaoiii[y 1010 1000 Plastic or Glass Cool to 4°C3 None
' Modified Jar
Corroswity 9045 20 g Plastic or Glass Jar Cool to 4°C' None
aeacuvity SW-846 20 g Plastic or Glas Jar`5 Cool to 4°C' None
Paint Filter 9095 100 p Plastic or Glass Jar None None
' Conventional Physical Properties Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Oty.' Container(s)' Preservation Time
Aqueous Samples
Color 110.1-3 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C3 48 Hours
Conductance 120.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C3 28 Days
' Hardness 130.1-2 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Adjust pH <2" 180 Days
Cool to 4°C'
Odor 140.1 200 mL Glass Bottle Only Cool to 4°C3 24 Hours
pH 150.1 25 mL. Plastic or Glass Bottle None Analyze
' Immediately
Solids,Total 160.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4'C3 7 Days
Dissolved(TDS)
Solids,Total 160.2 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 7 Days
Suspended(TSS)
Solids:Total(TS) 160.3 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 7 Days
Solids,Total 160.4 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 40C3 7 Days
Volatile(TVS)
Solids,Settleable 160.5 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C3 48 Hours
(SS)
Turbidity 180.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 48 Hours
i
30
Conventional Inorganic Analyses
g ly
Minimum Recommended, Required
Category Methods city. Container(s) Holding
Preservation Time
Aqueous Samples
Acidity 305.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
' Alkalinity 310.1-2 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4'C' 14 Days
Bromide 320.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle None 28 Days
------------------
Chloride 325.1-3 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle None 28 Days
Chlorine, 330.1-5 200 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle None Analyze
Total Residual Immediately
Cyanides 335.1-3 500 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Remove Sulfide" 14 Days
NaOH to pH>12
Cool to 41C'
Fluoride 340.1-3 300 mL Plastic Bottle Only None 28 Days
Iodide 345.1 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 24 Hours
Nitrogen,Ammonia 350.1-3 400 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle' H,SO, to pH <2 29 Days Cool to 4`C'
Nitrocen. 35 1.1-4 500 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle H-SO to pH <2 28 Days
Total Kjeidahl Cool to 4°C'
Nitrooen. 353.1-3 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle H,SO, to pH <2 29 Days
Nitrate plus Nitrite Cool to 4°C'
Nitrogen. 353.2-3 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 18 Hours
Nitrate(Wastewater)
Nitrogen, Nitrate 353.2-3 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 28 Days
' (Chlorinated Drinking Water)
Nitrogen. Nitrate 353.2-3 100 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 14 Days
(Non-Chlorinated Drinking Water) H-SO, to pH <2'
Nitrogen, 353.2-3 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' !8 Hours
' Nitrite
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Oty.1 Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
Aqueous Samples
Orthophosphate 365).1-3 50 mL Glass Bottle Only Filter(0.45 µm) 48 Hours
Cool to 4°C'
Oxygen, Dissolved 360.1 300 mL Glass Bottle Only None Analyze
' Phosphorous,Total 365.1-4 50 mL Glass Bottle Only H Immediately
2 SO to pH<2 28 Days
Cool to 4'C'
Silica 370.1 50 mL Plastic Bottle Only Cool to 4°C' 28 Days
' Sulfate 375.1-4 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 28 Days
Sulfide 376.1-2 500 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle NaOH to pH>9 7 Days
2 mL Zinc Acetate
Cool to 4°C'
Sulfite 377.1 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle None Analyze
Immediately
Conventional Organic Analyses
' Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods city.' Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
Aqueous Samples
Biochemical 405.1 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 4°C' 48"Hours
Oxygen Demand
(5 Day BOD)
Chemical 410.1-4 50 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle H,SO,to pH<2 28 Days
Oxygen Demand Cool to 4°C'
' (COp) -
' GROUNDWATER
ANALYTICAL 31
Conventional Organic Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Qty.' Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
' Aqueous Samples
Organic Carbon, 415.1 .25 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle H.SO,to pH<2 28 Days
Total.(TOC) Cool to 41C3
Phenolics 420.1-3 500 mL Glass Bottle Only HZSO to pH <2 28 Days
Cool to 41C3
Surfactants 425.1 250 mL Plastic or Glass Bottle Cool to 41C3 48 Hours
(MBAS)_
Microbiological Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Qty.' Container(s)2 Preservation Time'
Aqueous Samples
Coliform, Various 100 mL Sterilized Bottle Cool to 4°C3 6 Hours
Total(Wastewater) Remove Chlorine?
Coliform, Various 100 mL Sterilized Bottle Cool to 41C3 6 Hours
Fecal (Wastewater) Remove Chlorine
Coliform, Various 100 mL Sterilized Bottle Cool to 41C3 30 Hours
Total(Drinking Water) Remove Chlorine'
Coliform. Various 100 mL Sterilized Bottle Cool to 41C3 30 Hours
1 Fecal (Drinking Water) Remove Chlorine'
E.Coll Various 100 mL - Sterilized Bottle Cool to 4°C3 30 Hours
(Drinking Water) Remove Chlorine'
Radiological Analyses
Minimum Recommended Required Holding
Category Methods Qty.' Container(s)2 Preservation Time _.
Gross Aloha and Beta 900.0 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle HCI or HNO,to pH <2 180 Days
Radium-226 903.1 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle HCl or HNO,to pH <2 180 Days
Radium-228 904.0 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle HCI or HNO,to pH <2 180 Days
Strontium-90 905.0 1 L Plastic or Glass Bottle HCI or HNO- to pH<2 180 Days
' Tritium 906.0 1 L Glass Bottle None 180 Days
32 ....
SAMPLING NOTES
1. The minimum quantity specified is the minimum amount of sample material the vial.The cap should then be gently placed on the vial,taking care not to
necessary to perform the analysis.This quantity allows for no margin of disturb the crown of liquid,and firmly rotated light.The vial should then be
error. examined to verify the absence of all air bubbles.
For some analyses,Groundwater Analytical recommends specific types and Solid samples for Volatile Organic Analyses(VOA)must also be collected
numbers of containers(e.g.,an Aqueous Volatile Organic sample requires 3 with a minimum of headspace or air pockets.Sample vials should be packed
x 40 mL Glass Vials w/teflon septum caps).In such cases,the recommended fully and tightly sealed.Vial threads should be wiped clean prior to capping
container(s)allow for an adequate margin of error. for best seal.When packing vials,however,avoid excessive manipulation of
the sample material which may result in a loss of volatile organics.A wide
For other analyses,Groundwater Analytical only recommends a general type mouth 125 mL Glass Via(w/teflon septum cap is the preferred sample con-
of container(e.g.,a Solid Semivofadle Organic sample reauires a Glass Jar tainer.
witeflon liner).In such cases.it is strongly recommended that twice the mini- .
mum quantity of sample material be collected in the recommended type of 13. Solid samples for Volatile Organic Analyses may be collected in 40 mL Glass
container. Vials that have been acidified with Sodium Bisulfate(NaHSO,),Hydrochloric
Acid(HCI)or Sulfuric Acid' (HZSO,).The presence of acid in the container will For solid samples, in addition to the minimum quantities required (or indi- have no detrimental effect on the sample.
vidual analyses, each sample also requires 20 g of sample material for a
percent solids(or percent moisture)determination.Example:A soil sample 14. Maximum holding time is 24 hours'Nhen Sulfide is present.Samples may be
collected for TPH-IR(30 g),8 RCRA Metals(2.6 g)and PCBs(30 g)requires tested with lead acetate paper before the pH adjustment in order to deter-
a minimum of 62.6 g of material for the desired analyses.and 20 g of material mine if Sulfide is present.If Sulfide is present,it can be removed by the addi-
' for percent solids(or percent moisture),for a total required minimum of 82.6 tion of Cadmium Nitrate powder until a negative spot test is obtained.The
g of material.It is then recommended that this minimum by doubled.and at sample is then filtered,and NaCH is added to adjust the PH>12.
least 165.2 g of sample material be collected in a Glass Jar witeflon liner.
15. Adjust to pH<2 with Nitric Acid(HNO)or Sulfuric Acd(H.SO,).Acidification
For solid samples, all minimum quantities are calculated net of all foreign retards biological action,reduces absorption effects and-revents the forma-
objects.such as sticks.leaves and rocks. tion of precipitates and/or complexes.
2. Only sample containers pre-cleaned according to US EPA protocols are rep 16. Samples should be collected with a minimum of aeration.The sample bottle
ommended.Aoproonate pre-cleaned and pre-preserved containers are avail- should be filled completely,excluding all headspace,and capped.
able from Groundwater Analytical.Pre-cleaned sample containers should not
be prennsed with sample prior to sample collection. Prerinsing may cause 17. Extractable organic samples are susceptible to Phthalate ester contamina-
elevated results. tion. Phthalate ester contamination is generally caused by sample contact
with a plastic material,particularly flexihfe plastics.Use care to avoid sample
3. Samples should be immediately cooled.stored and shipped refrigerated.4°C contact with any plastic.other than Teflon.
(34°F)is the recommended temperature.Refrigeration retards biological deg-
radation,reduces the volatility of compounds,retards the hydrolysis of non- 18. Specfied quantities of sample material are for only single phase solid samples
' aoueous compounds, reduces absorption effects and prevents continuing (i.e.no free liquids).Liquid phase or multiple phase samples require different
chemical reactions. quantities of sample material.Contact laboratory for advice oner to collecting
4. Adjust to pH<2 with Hydrochloric Acid(HCI).Acidification retards biological liquid phase or multiple phase samples for TCLP analyses.
action,reduces absorption effects and prevents the formation of precipitates 19. Samples for TCLP Volatile Organics analysis must be leached within 14 days
' and/or complexes.Sulfuric Acid(H,SO)or Sodium Bisulfate(NaHSO,)may of collection.The leachate must then be analyzed within 14 days of leaching.
be substituted for HCf in EPA Methods 8010,8011,8020 and 8260.
Samples for TCLP Metals analysis must be leached within 28 days of collec-
5. Adjust a a of fo 5.0 with Hydrochloric Acid(HCI),Sulfuric acid tion,if Mercury is being analyzed.The leachate must then be analyzed within
(H,SO)or Sodium
Hydroxide(NaOH). 28 days of leaching.if Mercury is not being analyzed,then samples for TCLP
Metals must be leached within 180 days of collection,and the leachate ana-
6. If sample will not be received by laboratory within 24 hours of collection,then lyzed within 180 days of leaching.
adjust to specified pH range with Sulfuric Acid(H,SO)or Sodium Hydroxide
(NaOH).The pH adjustment may be omitted if it is penormed uoon receipt at Samples for TCLP Semivolatile Organics,TCLP Pesticdes.and TCLP Her-
the laboratory within 24 hours,and may be omitted it the sample is extracted bicides analyses must be leached within 14 days of collection.The leachate
within 48 hours of collection. must then be extracted within 7 days of leaching.The extract must then be
7. If free chlorine is present in the sample,then Sodium Thiosulfate(Na.S,O,) analyzed within 40 days of extraction.
should be added. Free chlorine can react with organic compounds to form 20. Samples must be analyzed within 7 days of collection.However,if Heptachlor.
chlorination by-products. Free chlorine is likely to be found in chlorinated is not being determined,sample holding time to analysis may be extended to
municipal drinking waters and treated wastewaters.Sodium Thiosulfate,a 14 days.
reducing agent,is added to remove the free chlorine.For most levels of free
chlorine,add 4 drops of 10%Sodium Thiosulfate to samples in 40 mL vials, 21. Samples must be extracted within 7 days of collection.Extracts must then be
and add 5 mL of 10°1.Sodium Thiosulfate to samples in 1 L Bottles. analyzed with 14 days of extraction.
8. The listed Holding Time is the maximum of time a sample may be held be- 22. Samples must be extracted within 14 days of collection.Extracts must then
tween collection and initiation of analysis or extraction, be analyzed with 30 days of extraction.
9. Samples must be extracted within 7 days of collection.Extracts must then be 23. Samples must be extracted within 14 days of collection.Extracts must then
analyzed within 40 days of extraction. be analyzed with 28 days of extraction.
10. Samples must be extracted within 14 days of collection.Extracts must then 24. Add 40-50 mg of Sodium Sulfite to each liter of sample to reduce free chlo-
be analyzed within 40 days of extraction. rine that may be present.Free chlorine can react with organic compounds to
form chlorination by-products. Free chlorine is likely to be found in chlon-
11. Samples for dissolved metals must be filtered prior to preservation with Nitric hated municipal drinking waters and treated wastewaters.Alternatively,use
Acid (HNO'). Filtration must be done with a 0.45 micron membrane filter. 40-50 mg of Sodium Arsenite.Do not use Sodium Thiosulfate,as it may pro-
Feld filtration and preservation is preferred. I duce a residue of elemental sulfur which may interfere with the determination
However,if field filtration is not possible,samples should be cooled to 4°C of some analytes.
and shipped to the laboratory for filtration and preservation.Filtration must be 25. Samples must be extracted within 7 days of collection.Extracts must then be
done as soon as practical after collection.Groundwater Analytical recom- analyzed with 30 days of extraction.
mends that filtration be done within 24 hours of collection.If samples are not
going to be field filtered,do not preserve samples with Nitric Acid(HNO). 26. Add Sodium Thiosulfate to reduce free chlorine that may be present.Free
' 12. Aqueous samples forVolatile Organic Analyses VOA must be collected chlorine can react with organic compounds to torn chlorination by-products.
r9 Y (VOA) Free chlorine is likely to be found in chlorinated municipal drinking waters.
out any headspace or air bubbles.Volatile organics dissolved in water tend to Use approximately 80 mg of Sodium Thiosulfate per liter of sample.
volatilize readily and will fill any air bubble available in the vial. Particularly
with low level samples,this results in a loss of material upon opening the vial. 27. Samples must be extracted within 7 days of collection.Extracts must then be
' VOA vials must be filled slowly until the liquid forms a meniscus on the rim of analyzed with 21 days of extraction.
GRDUNDWATEF?
ANALYTICAL 33
1
i
1
COM-Mot'wcLTE OF M-,SSACHUSETTS
DE?3RTMt'NT OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
STnNDe.RD RE-ERENCES FOR MONITORING WELLS
SECTION 1.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.2
Page i
' January 1991
' SECTION 1 .2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
i1.1 Foreword.
1.2 Table .cf Contents
1.3 Definitions
2.0 First Steps
' 2 . 1 Reconnaissance Surveys
2.2 work and Cost Plans (Reserved)
2 .3 Health and Safety-Plans
' 3.0 subsurface Investigations
3 .1 Exnlcratcry Test Pits
3 .2 Drilling Techniques
3 .3 Bcrings in Contaminated areas
3 .4 in-situ Sampling of Soil
3.5 Soil Classification
3.6 In-situ sampling of Rock
3.7 Rock Classification
' 3 .8 Laboratory Tests for Soil
3 .9 Plugging Bcreholes
4 .0 Piezcmeters, Observation wells and Monitoring wells
t
4. 1 Mcnitoring well Network Design
4.2 Selection of well Construction Materials
4.3 well Installation Procedures
4.4 As-built Notes and Records
4.5 well. Development
4 .6 Decommissioning of Monitoring wells
5.0 Interpretation of Ground Water and Aquifer Characteristics
' 5.1 Water Level Measurements
5.2 Ln-situ Hydraulic conductivity Tests
5 .3 Pumping Tests
5.4 Packer, Tests
5.5 surveying and Datum Planes
6.0 sampling of Monitoring wells
6 .1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
6 .2 Sampling Techniques
' 6 .3 Sample Handling
6.4 Chain of Custody
6 .5 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment
Section 1.2
?age ii
' January 1991 -
I
�I
Section 1.2 "_'able of Contents
(continued)
7.0 computer Hcdels (Reserved).
' 8.0 Geophysical Technicues (Reserved)
'I
i '