SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PECK IRON AND METAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PORTSMOUTH, NORFOLK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Revision 03
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
U.S. EPA Contract: EP-S3-07-05
Work Assignment: 044RICOA3Z4
April 2015
~ HGL
~ HydroGeoLogic, tnc
-------
-------
SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PECK IRON AND METAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PORTSMOUTH, NORFOLK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Revision 03
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Prepared by:
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
801 Arch Street, Suite 504
Philadelphia, PA 19107
April 2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1-1
1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES 1-2
2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 2-1
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1.1 Site Location 2-1
2.1.2 Site Description 2-1
2.1.3 Adjacent Properties 2-4
2.1.3.1 Sherwin Williams 2-5
2.1.3.2 ARREFF Terminals, Inc 2-5
2.1.3.3 Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc 2-6
2.1.3.4 Norfolk Naval Shipyard 2-6
2.1.3.5 Atlantic Wood Industries 2-9
2.1.3.6 Paradise Creek Nature Park 2-9
2.1.3.7 Cradock Community 2-9
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES 2-9
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2-12
2.3.1 Topography 2-12
2.3.2 Soils 2-12
2.3.2.1 Native Soils 2-12
2.3.2.2 Fill 2-13
2.3.3 Geology 2-13
2.3.3.1 Regional Geology 2-13
2.3.3.2 Site-Specific Geology 2-14
2.3.4 Surface Water 2-15
2.3.4.1 Regional Hydrology 2-15
2.3.4.2 Site Hydrology 2-17
2.3.4.3 Site Flood Potential 2-18
2.3.5 Hydrogeology 2-19
2.3.5.1 Regional Groundwater 2-19
2.3.5.2 Site Groundwater 2-20
2.3.6 Ecology 2-21
2.3.7 Climate 2-22
2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 2-22
2.4.1 1994 SPSA-Navy PCDD/PCDF Soil Sampling 2-22
2.4.2 Environmental Site Assessment, November 1996 2-22
2.4.3 Groundwater Sampling, November 1997 2-23
2.4.4 Site Investigation, July 1999 2-23
2.4.4.1 Overview 2-23
2.4.4.2 Results 2-24
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP i HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
2.4.5 2001 Benthic Biological Monitoring of Elizabeth River
Watershed 2-25
2.4.6 2001 Ecological Risk Assessment of Paradise Creek 2-26
2.4.7 Test Pit Investigation, May 2003 2-27
2.4.8 2003 Site Characterization 2-27
2.4.8.1 Overview 2-27
2.4.8.2 Results 2-29
2.4.9 Site Characterization and Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup
Plan, October 2004 2-30
2.4.10 Paradise Creek PCB and PAH Sediment Sampling, January
2005 2-30
2.4.11 PCB Soil Sampling, February through May 2005 2-31
2.4.12 Extent of Contamination Study, October 2008 2-32
2.4.12.1 Overview 2-32
2.4.12.2 Soil Analytical Results 2-33
2.4.12.3 Groundwater Sampling Results 2-40
2.4.12.4 Sediment Sampling Results 2-41
2.4.13 2009 to Present 2-41
2.5 CONTAMINATION SUMMARY 2-42
2.5.1 Soil and Terrestrial Sediment Contamination Summary 2-42
2.5.2 Wetland Sediment Contamination Summary 2-43
2.5.3 Groundwater Contamination Summary 2-43
2.5.4 Aquatic Sediment Contamination Summary 2-43
2.5.5 Surface Water Contamination Summary 2-44
2.6 POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS.... 2-44
2.7 PROPERTY REUSE 2-44
2.7.1 Site Reuse 2-44
2.7.2 Paradise Creek Revitalization 2-45
2.8 DATA GAPS 2-45
PART 1: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
3.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM, RATIONALE, AND LOCATIONS 3-1
3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCE 3-1
3.2 SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION 3-1
3.2.1 Munitions Avoidance 3-1
3.2.2 Preliminary Gamma Radiation Survey 3-3
3.2.3 Surface Soil Sampling 3-5
3.2.4 On-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation 3-6
3.2.5 Hot Spot Assessment 3-8
3.2.6 Off-Site Soil Investigation 3-11
3.2.7 Background Soil Sampling 3-12
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP ii HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.3 SITE DRAINAGE SAMPLING 3-14
3.3.1 Sediment Sampling 3-15
3.3.2 Surface Water 3-16
3.3.3 Utility Search 3-17
3.4 SITE WETLAND INVESTIGATION 3-17
3.4.1 Wetland Delineation 3-18
3.4.2 Sediment Sampling 3-18
3.4.3 Subsurface Soils 3-19
3.4.4 Surface Water 3-19
3.4.5 Temporary Well Installations 3-20
3.5 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION 3-21
3.5.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Development 3-22
3.5.2 Existing Well Redevelopment 3-22
3.5.3 Groundwater Sampling 3-23
3.6 PARADISE CREEK 3-24
3.6.1 Channel Morphology Investigation 3-25
3.6.2 Wetland Sediments 3-26
3.6.3 Paradise Creek Aquatic Sediments 3-26
3.6.4 Surface Water 3-27
3.6.5 Bioassays 3-28
3.7 BUILDING INSPECTION 3-29
3.8 DUST MONITORING 3-29
3.9 IDW SAMPLING 3-30
4.0 FIELD ACTIVITY METHODS AND PROCEDURES 4-1
4.1 SITE MOBILIZATION 4-1
4.2 PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, AND
CONTAINERS 4-2
4.3 UTILITY CLEARANCE 4-2
4.4 GAMMA RADIATION SURVEYING 4-3
4.5 MD AVOIDANCE 4-3
4.5.1 MD Surface Avoidance 4-3
4.5.2 MD Subsurface Avoidance 4-4
4.6 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING 4-4
4.7 SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING 4-5
4.7.1 Test Pit Excavations 4-6
4.7.2 Soil Borings 4-7
4.7.2.1 Direct Push Technology Soil Sampling 4-7
4.7.2.2 Hand Auger Soil Sampling 4-8
4.7.2.3 Hollow-Stem Auger Soil Sampling 4-8
4.8 TERRESTRIAL SEDIMENT SAMPLING 4-9
4.9 AQUATIC SEDIMENT SAMPLING 4-9
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP iii HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.10 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING 4-10
4.11 PRE-PACK WELL INSTALLATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT 4-10
4.12 PERMANENT WELL INSTALLATIONS 4-12
4.13 WELL REDEVELOPMENT 4-12
4.14 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 4-13
4.15 WETLAND DELINEATION 4-13
4.16 BUILDING ASSESSMENT 4-14
4.16.1 Asbestos Inspection 4-14
4.16.2 Lead Wipe Sampling 4-14
4.16.3 PCB Wipe Sampling 4-15
4.17 SURVEYING AND SURVEYING OVERSIGHT 4-15
4.18 FIELD LOGBOOK DOCUMENTATION 4-16
4.19 SAMPLE COLLECTION, HANDLING, PACKAGING, AND
SHIPPING 4-16
4.19.1 Radiation Screening 4-16
4.19.2 Encore™ or Encore-like VOC Sampling 4-16
4.19.3 Hexavalent Chromium (Aqueous Samples) 4-17
4.19.4 Asbestos and Nitrate/Nitrite (Aqueous) 4-17
4.19.5 Grain Size 4-18
4.19.6 Asbestos (Soil) 4-18
4.20 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION 4-18
4.21 DUST SUPPRESSION 4-18
4.22 IDW MANAGEMENT 4-18
4.23 DEMOBILIZATION 4-19
PART 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
5.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 5-1
5.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION 5-1
5.1.1 Project Management Tearn 5-1
5.1.2 Responsibilities of Key Personnel 5-2
5.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 5-4
5.3 PROJECT DEFINITION 5-4
5.4 QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT 5-5
5.4.1 End Uses of the Data 5-5
5.4.2 Data Types 5-5
5.4.3 Data Quality Obj ectives 5-5
5.4.3.1 State the Problem 5-6
5.4.3.2 Identify the Goals of the Study 5-6
5.4.3.3 Identify Information Inputs 5-7
5.4.3.4 Define the Boundaries of the Study 5-7
5.4.3.5 Develop the Analytic Approach 5-8
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP iv HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.4.3.6 Specify Performance and Acceptance Criteria 5-9
5.4.3.7 Develop the Plan for Obtaining Data 5-10
5.5 DATA MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVES 5-10
5.5.1 Quality Assurance Guidance 5-10
5.5.2 Data Quality Indicators 5-11
5.5.2.1 Precision 5-11
5.5.2.2 Accuracy 5-11
5.5.2.3 Representativeness 5-11
5.5.2.4 Completeness 5-11
5.5.2.5 Comparability 5-12
5.5.2.6 Sensitivity 5-12
5.5.3 Field Measurements 5-12
5.5.4 Laboratory Analysis 5-13
5.6 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION 5-14
5.6.1 Site-Specific Training 5-14
5.6.2 Training Records Maintenance 5-14
5.7 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS 5-15
5.7.1 Field Logbook and Documentation 5-15
5.7.2 Laboratory Data 5-16
6.0 MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION 6-1
6.1 SAMPLE PROCESS DESIGN 6-1
6.2 SAMPLING METHODS REQUIREMENTS 6-1
6.2.1 Sampling Equipment Preparation 6-1
6.2.2 Sample Containers 6-1
6.2.3 Sample Collection 6-1
6.3 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS 6-2
6.3.1 Field Sample Custody and Documentation 6-2
6.3.1.1 Sample Identification and Labeling 6-2
6.3.1.2 Documentation and Reporting Requirements 6-3
6.3.1.3 Sample Custody 6-4
6.3.1.4 Sample Packaging and Shipment 6-4
6.3.1.5 Field Logbook(s) and Records 6-5
6.3.2 Laboratory Custody Procedures and Documentation 6-6
6.3.3 Corrections to and Deviations from Documentation 6-7
6.4 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 6-7
6.4.1 Field Duplicates 6-7
6.4.2 Equipment Rinse Blanks 6-7
6.4.3 Field Blanks 6-8
6.4.4 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) 6-8
6.4.5 Temperature Blanks 6-8
6.4.6 Trip Blanks 6-9
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP V HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
6.5 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES 6-9
6.6 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS 6-9
6.7 FIELD INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY 6-9
6.8 ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES 6-10
6.9 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENT DATA ACQUISITION
REQUIREMENTS 6-10
6.10 DATA MANAGEMENT 6-10
7.0 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT 7-1
7.1 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS 7-1
7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT 7-1
8.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY 8-1
8.1 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS 8-1
8.2 DATA EVALUATION 8-2
PART 3: DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.0 DATA MANAGEMENT 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.1.1 Objectives of Data Management Plan 9-1
9.1.2 Data Management Team Organization 9-1
9.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Data Management Team 9-2
9.1.4 Data Management Process 9-2
9.2 EXCEL DATABASE 9-2
9.2.1 Data Collection 9-3
9.2.1.1 Data Tracking Sheets 9-3
9.2.1.2 Database Log 9-3
9.2.2 Pre-Processing Non-Staged Electronic Data Deliverable Data 9-3
9.2.3 Processing Electronic Data Deliverables 9-3
9.2.4 Post-Processing 9-4
9.2.5 Reporting 9-4
9.3 GRAPHICS 9-4
PART 4: IDW MANAGEMENT PLAN
10.0 IDW MANAGEMENT PLAN 10-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1
10.2 IDW CONTAINERIZATION 10-1
10.2.1 Dry Solid Waste 10-1
10.2.2 Used Personal Protective Equipment 10-2
10.2.3 Soil Cuttings and Generated Water 10-2
U.S. EPA Region 3
Peck SMP Vi HGL 4/3/2015
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
10.3 IDW STORAGE UNIT 10-3
10.4 IDW SAMPLING 10-4
10.5 IDW REMOVAL 10-4
11.0 REFERENCES 11-1
APPENDIX A 2004 PCB and PAH Analytical Data
APPENDIX B Standard Operating Procedures
APPENDIX C Field Forms
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
vii
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Planned Project Deliverables Schedule
Table 2.1 Site Groundwater Elevations
Table 2.2 Dominant Taxa of Random Sample Locations within Paradise Creek
Table 2.3 SPSA-Navy PCDD/PCDF 1994 Soil Sampling Result
Table 2.4 1999 Site Inspection Soil Sampling Results
Table 2.5 1999 Site Inspection Groundwater Sampling Results
Table 2.6 2001 Summary of Physical Parameter Measurements - Paradise Creek
Table 2.7 2001 Summary of Benthic Community Parameters - Paradise Creek
Table 2.8 2003 Site Characterization Groundwater Sampling Results
Table 2.9 2003 Site Characterization Soil Sampling Results
Table 2.10 2004 Total PCB and Total PAH Paradise Creek Sediment Sampling Results
Table 2.11 2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Table 2.12 2008 Groundwater Analytical Results
Table 2.13 2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
Table 3.1 Surface Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.2 Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Test Pit Location Justification
Table 3.3 Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.4 Hot Spot Assessment Sample Location Justification
Table 3.5 Hot Spot Assessment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.6 Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.7 Background Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.8 Site Drainage and Wetland Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.9 Site Drainage and Wetland Surface Water Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.10 Proposed Monitoring Well Location Justification
Table 3.11 Groundwater Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.12 Wetland and Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.13 Paradise Creek Surface Water Analytical Sampling Scheme
Table 3.14 Proposed Ecological Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
Table 5.1 Key Project Personnel
Table 5.2 Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Table 5.3 Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Table 5.4 Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Table 5.5 Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening
Values
Table 5.6 Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential
Screening Values
Table 5.7 Wipe Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Table 5.8 Waste Characterization Sampling Analytical Parameters and Regulatory Values
Liquid Wastes and TCLP Extracts
U.S. EPA Region 3
ix HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 5.9 Waste Characterization Sampling Analytical Parameters and Regulatory Values
Solid Waste
Table 6.1 Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and
Holding Times
Table 9.1 Data Management Team Member Roles and Responsibilities
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
x
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Project Schedule, Peck Iron and Metal Superfund Site
Figure 2.1 Site Location
Figure 2.2 Site Layout
Figure 2.3 1937 to 2009 Historical Site Structures
Figure 2.4 1937 to 1998 Solid Waste Management Areas
Figure 2.5 1937 to 2009 Fill Areas, Debris Piles, and Ground Scars
Figure 2.6 1937 to 2009 Surface Water Impoundments and Drainages
Figure 2.7 1937 to 2009 Areas of Potential Releases
Figure 2.8 Site Topography
Figure 2.9 Site Soils
Figure 2.10 Areas of Disturbed Soil
Figure 2.11 Conceptual Geologic Model for AWI
Figure 2.12 Site Shallow Geologic Cross Section
Figure 2.13 100 and 500 Year Flood Zones
Figure 2.14 Hurricane Flood Zones
Figure 2.15 Shallow Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Figure 2.16 Wetland Coverage
Figure 2.17 1999 Site Inspection Soil Results
Figure 2.18 1999 Site Inspection Groundwater Results
Figure 2.19 2001 Benthic Community Monitoring Results
Figure 2.20 2003 Site Characterization Groundwater Results
Figure 2.21 2003 Site Characterization Soil Results
Figure 2.22 2004 Paradise Creek PCB-PAH Sampling Results
Figure 2.23 2005 Surface Soil (0 to 18 inches) PCB Sampling Results
Figure 2.24 2005 Shallow Subsurface Soil (18 to 36 inches) PCB Sampling Results
Figure 2.25A Human Health Screening Results, 2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils (0
to 18 inches bgs)
Figure 2.25B Ecological Screening Results, 2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils (0 to 18
inches bgs)
Figure 2.26 2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Figure 2.27A Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
Figure 2.27B Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Sediment
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
Figure 2.28 2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Figure 2.29A Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Cadmium Concentrations in
Soils (0 to 18 inches bgs)
Figure 2.29B Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Cadmium Concentrations in
Sediment (0 to 18 inches bgs)
Figure 2.30 2008 Cadmium Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xi
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure
2.31A
Figure
2.31B
Figure
2.32
Figure
2.33A
Figure
2.33B
Figure
2.34
Figure
2.35A
Figure
2.35B
Figure
2.36
Figure
2.37A
Figure
2.37B
Figure
2.38
Figure
2.39A
Figure
2.39B
Figure
2.40
Figure
2.41
Figure
2.42
Figure
2.43
Figure
2.44
Figure
2.45
Figure
3.1
Figure
3.2A
Figure
3.2B
Figure
3.3
Figure
3.4
Figure
3.5
Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Chromium Concentrations in
Soils (0 to 18 inches bgs)
Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Chromium Concentrations in Soil
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
2008 Chromium Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Lead Concentrations in Soils (0
to 18 inches bgs)
Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Lead Concentrations in Soil (0 to 18
inches bgs)
2008 Lead Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soil (0 to
18 inches bgs)
2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soils (0
to 18 inches bgs)
Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soil (0 to
18 inches bgs)
2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
Human Health Screening Results, 2008 Silver Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
Ecological Screening Results, 2008 Silver Concentrations in Soil (0 to
18 inches bgs)
2008 Silver Concentrations in Soils (18 inches bgs to Water Table)
2008 Groundwater Contaminant Concentrations
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Sample Residential Soil RSL
Exceedances
Generic Pathway Receptor Network Diagram for Human Health Risk
Assessment
Schematic Representation of Potential Ecological Exposure Pathways
Potential Future Site Uses
Proposed Background Soil Investigation Sample Locations
Proposed Surface Soil Sample Locations
Proposed Subsurface Soil Sample Locations
Proposed Site Drainage and Wetland Sample Locations
Proposed Paradise Creek Sample Locations
Dust Monitoring Stations
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xii
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABM
abrasive blasting material
ACM
asbestos containing material
amsl
above mean sea level
ARAR
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
ARREFF
ARREFF Terminals, Inc.
ASC
Analytical Services Coordinator
ASQAB
Analytical Services and Quality Assurance Branch
AST
aboveground storage tank
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWI
Atlantic Wood Industries
BERA
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
B-IBI
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
BTAG
Biological Technical Assistance Group
bgs
below ground surface
CBPA
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CHSD
Corporate Health and Safety Director
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
Commonwealth
Commonwealth of Virginia
COPC
contaminant of potential concern
COPEC
contaminant of potential environmental concern
cpm
counts per minute
CRDL
contract required detection limit
CRQL
contract required quantitation limit
CSM
conceptual site model
DAA
Draper Aden Associates
DAS
delivery of analytical services
DBA
Database Administrator
DMP
Data Management Plan
DNAPL
dense non-aqueous phase liquid
DO
dissolved oxygen
DOT
U.S. Department of Transportation
DPT
direct-push technology
DQO
data quality objective
DRO
diesel range organics
DU
decision unit
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xiii
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
EDD
electronic data deliverable
Eco-SSL
ecological soil screening level
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPC
exposure point concentration
EQuIS
Environmental Quality Information System
ERA
ecological risk assessment
ERP
Elizabeth River Project
ESA
environmental site assessment
ESAT
Environmental Services Assistance Team
eV
electron volt
F2L
Field Operations Records Management System II Lite
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FS
Feasibility Study
FSP
Field Sampling Plan
FTL
field team leader
FY
fiscal year
GPS
global positioning system
HASP
Health and Safety Plan
HGL
HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
HHRA
Human Health Risk Assessment
HI
hazard index
HRS
hazard ranking system
H-S
Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.
HSA
hollow stem auger
HWMU
hazardous waste management unit
ICS
incremental composite sample
ID
identification number
IDA
intensely developed area
IDW
investigation-derived waste
IRP
Installation Restoration Program
ISM
incremental sampling method
ITRC
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council
LNAPL
light non-aqueous phase liquid
LUC
land use control
Mg/kg
micrograms per kilogram
/xg/L
micrograms per liter
MARSSIM
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xiv
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
MCL
MD
MEC
mg/kg
mg/L
MIDLANT
mL
mRem/hr
MS
MSD
NAD
NAVFAC
Navy
ng/g
NNSY
NO A A
NPL
NTU
NWI
ORP
OSRTI
OSWER
OU
O/W
+
P&G
PAH
PARCCS
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PCP
Peck
PID
PM
PPE
PPm
ppt
pptr
Maximum Contaminant Level
munitions debris
munitions and explosives of concern
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
Mid-Atlantic
milliliter
milliRems per hour
matrix spike
matrix spike duplicate
North American Datum
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
U.S. Navy
nanograms per gram
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Priorities List
nephelometric turbidity unit
National Wetlands Inventory
oxidation-reduction potential
EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
operable unit
oil/water
plus or minus
Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, comparability,
and sensitivity
polychlorinated biphenyl
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
pentachlorophenol
The Peck Company, Inc.
photoionization detector
Project Manager
personal protective equipment
parts per million
parts per thousand
parts per trillion
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xv
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
PVC
polyvinyl chloride
QA
quality assurance
QAM
Quality Assurance Manual
QAO
Quality Assurance Officer
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC
quality control
RAC
Remedial Action Contract
RAS
request for analytical services
RBC
risk-based concentration
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF
refuse-derived fuel
RI
Remedial Investigation
ROD
Record of Decision
RMA
Resource Management Area
RPA
Resource Protection Area
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RPP
Radiation Protection Manager
RSCC
Regional Sample Control Center
RSL
regional screening level
RWSA
Radioactive Waste Storage Area
SEDD
staged electronic data deliverable
Site
Peck Iron and Metal Super fund Site
Skeo
Skeo Solutions
SLERA
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
SMO
Sample Management Office
SMP
Site Management Plan
SOP
standard operating procedure
SOW
scope of work
SPSA
Southeastern Public Service Authority
SSHO
Site Safety and Health Officer
SSL
soil screening level
SVOC
semivolatile organic compound
TAL
Target Analyte List
TCDD
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCE
trichloroethene
TCL
Target Compound List
TCLP
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
TEL
threshold effects level
TMDL
total maximum daily load
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xvi
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
TOC
total organic carbon
TR/COC
traffic report/chain-of-custody
TSCA
Toxic Substances Control Act
UCL
upper confidence limit
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
UST
underground storage tank
UXO
unexploded ordnance
VAC
Virginia Administrative Code
VDEQ
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VDH
Virginia Department of Health
VDWM
Virginia Department of Waste Management (precursor to VDEQ)
VOC
volatile organic compound
VRP
Voluntary Remediation Program
WA
work assignment
Wheelabrator
Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc.
WHO
World Health Organization
WQS
Water Quality Standard
.xml
Extensible Markup Language
XRF
x-ray fluorescence
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
xvii
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN
PECK IRON AND METAL
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PORTSMOUTH, NORFOLK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Site Management Plan (SMP) addresses Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study
(FS) activities to be conducted at the Peck Iron and Metal Superfund Site (Site) located in the
City of Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. The purpose of the RI/FS is to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site so that potential remedial alternatives to
eliminate, reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment can be evaluated, and
a preferred remedy can be identified. The RI/FS is being executed by HydroGeoLogic, Inc,
(HGL) under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 Remedial Action
Contract (RAC) II, Work Assignment (WA) 044RICOA3Z4. The EPA identification number
for the Site is VAN000306115.
The SMP has been prepared to describe the measurement, sample collection, sample handling,
and sample shipment procedures to be followed by HGL during the RI portion of the RI/FS
project. This SMP includes the following site-specific components:
• Current Conceptual Site Model (CSM) (Section 2.0);
• Field Sampling Plan (FSP) (Part 1, Sections 3.0 and 4.0);
• Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Part 2, Sections 5.0 through 8.0);
• Data Management Plan (DMP) (Part 3, Section 9.0); and
• Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) Management Plan (Part 4, Section 10.0).
References used and cited in the preparation of this SMP are listed in Section 11. The project
documents have been developed in accordance with the EPA-approved Work Plan (HGL,
2011) and provide specific details regarding the planned sampling scheme, field and laboratory
data quality objectives (DQOs), data management procedures, and IDW handling.
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Past Site operations have resulted in elevated concentrations of lead, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), arsenic, and other contaminants in environmental media at the Site including the
wetlands bordering the Site and within Paradise Creek. The objectives of the RI portion of the
RI/FS is to refine the CSM, address identified data gaps in the existing data, define the nature
and extent of contamination at the Site including off-site areas, and assess the potential risk to
human health and ecological receptors from identified site contaminants. The information
obtained from this RI will be utilized to determine the appropriate remedial measures to
address the site contaminants.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
1-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
This document presents a framework for providing personnel, services, materials, and
equipment required to perform an RI at the Site. The RI includes the following:
• Collect surface soil, subsurface soil, terrestrial and fluvial sediment, surface water,
and groundwater samples to determine the presence or absence of contamination
within the Site boundaries (tax parcels 03860026, 03860028, 03860029, 03860020,
and 03860025);
• Collect surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater samples to determine the
presence or absence of contamination on the following adjacent properties:
o ARREFF Terminals, Inc. (ARREFF) property (tax parcel 03860040);
o Sherwin-Williams property (tax parcel 03860027); and
o Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc. (Wheelabrator) (tax parcel 03860011).
• Collect and analyze off-site surface and subsurface soil samples in the vicinity of the
Site to determine background levels of inorganic constituents, organic compounds,
and gamma radiation.
• Collect surface soil, subsurface soil, terrestrial and fluvial sediment, surface water,
and groundwater samples to determine the presence or absence of contamination in
Site wetlands bordering Paradise Creek;
• Collect sediment and surface water samples from Paradise Creek upstream,
downstream, and adjacent to the Site wetlands to determine if Site contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs)/contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPECs)
are discharging to Paradise Creek and migrating upstream and/or downstream due to
tidal action and storm generated currents; and
• If determined to be necessary, collect aquatic fauna, including crabs, oysters, and fish
from Paradise Creek to obtain site-specific bioavailability and toxicity data to assess
whether Site COPECs are impacting the ecology of Paradise Creek.
1.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
Deliverables for the project and their corresponding deliverable dates are shown in Table 1.1.
For completeness, all RI/FS deliverables associated with this WA have been included. The
deliverable due dates are based on the project schedule provided by EPA in the scope of work
(SOW) (EPA, 2011b).
A project schedule is included as Figure 1.1.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
1-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
TABLE
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 1.1
Planned Project Deliverables Schedule
Project Deliverables
Deliverable D.ile
Draft Work Plan/Cost Estimate
Submitted September 2, 2011
Work Plan/Cost Estimate Revision 1
Submitted September 22, 2011
(approved December 19, 2011)
Work Plan/Cost Estimate Revision 2
Submitted September 24, 2011
(approved October 25, 2011)
Health and Safety Plan (HASP)
November 23, 2011
HASP RevOl
Submitted September 19, 2013
(accepted November 18, 2013)
HASP Rev02
Proposed: January 16, 2015
SMP
• Sampling Analysis Plan (FSP and QAPP)
• DMP
• IDW Management Plan
November 23, 2011
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
SMP RevOl
• Sampling Analysis Plan (FSP and QAPP)
• DMP
• IDW Management Plan
March 5, 2013
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Final SMP Rev02
• Sampling Analysis Plan (FSP and QAPP)
• DMP
• IDW Management Plan
Proposed: January 16, 2015
(EPA Review Period: 30 days)
Radiation Protection Plan (RPP)
September 25, 2014
(approved October 27, 2014)
RPP RevOl
Proposed: January 16, 2015
Delivery of Analytical Services (DAS) and Request
for Analytical Service (RAS) Requests
8 weeks before each field event
Weekly Field Reports
3 days after each field event
(EPA Review Period: 30 days)
Database Completion
30 days upon receipt of all validated analytical results
Data Evaluation Summary Report
30 days upon receipt of all validated analytical results
and inclusion in WA database
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Draft Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
(HHRA)
60 days upon receipt of all validated laboratory data and
inclusion in WA database
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Final Baseline HHRA
21 days upon receipt of EPA concurrence on the Draft
Baseline HHRA
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Draft Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
(SLERA)
60 days upon receipt of all validated laboratory data and
inclusion in WA database
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Final SLERA
30 days upon receipt of EPA comments on the Draft
SLERA
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Draft Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment (BERA)
Work Plan
60 days from receipt of EPA comments on Final
SLERA
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 1.1 (continued)
Planned Project Deliverables Schedule
Project Deliverables
Deliverable Dsile
Final BERA Work Plan
30 days from receipt of EPA comments on Draft BERA
Work Plan
Draft BERA
60 days upon receipt of all validated laboratory data and
inclusion in WA database
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Final BERA
21 days upon receipt of EPA comments on the Draft
Baseline BERA
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Draft RI Report
60 days upon receipt of all validated laboratory data
(EPA Review Period: 30 days)
Final RI Report
21 days upon receipt of EPA comments on the Draft RI
Report
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Remedial Alternatives Technical Memorandum
30 days from EPA approval of the Final RI Report
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation
30 days after EPA approval of the Remedial
Alternatives Technical Memorandum
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Draft FS Report
30 days after EPA approval of the Remedial
Alternatives Evaluation Report
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
Final FS Report
21 days upon receipt of EPA comments on the Draft FS
Report
(EPA Review Period: 60 days)
WA Closeout Memo
Upon completion of the WA
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
FIGURE
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
1
WA44 Recipt
1 day?
Thu 7/14/11
Thu 7/14/11
2
Work Plan Cost Estimate
918 days
Wed 7/20/11
Sat 1/24/15
3
WP/CE RevO
41 days
Wed 7/20/11
Wed 9/14/11
8
WP/CE Rev01
21.5 days
Thu 9/15/11
Fri 10/14/11
13
WP/CE Rev03.1
115 days
Tue 3/19/13
Wed 8/28/13
18
WP/CE Addendum 1
57 days
Thu 2/20/14
Fri 5/9/14
27
WP/CE Rev4
1 day
Fri 1/23/15
Sat 1/24/15
28
WAF Reciept - allowing Lab SOW procuring
1 eday
Fri 1/23/15
Sat 1/24/15
29
30
Project Plans
966 days
Fri 10/21/11
Sat 7/4/15
31
Site Management Plan
752 days
Thu 8/16/12
Sat 7/4/15
32
SMP RevO - Completed
111 days
Thu 8/16/12
Thu 1/17/13
33
Site Mangement Plan
49 edays
Fri 10/26/12
Fri 12/14/12
34
EPA Review SMP
111 days
Thu 8/16/12
Thu 1/17/13
35
ORSTI Rprt
1 eday
Thu 8/16/12
Fri 8/17/12
36
EPA Review
1 eday
Wed 1/16/13
Thu 1/17/13
37
Conference Call
0.5 edays
Thu 1/17/13
Thu 1/17/13
38
SMP Rev03 - Completed
115 days
Thu 1/17/13
Fri 6/28/13
43
SMP Addendum 01
59 days
Tue 4/14/15
Sat 7/4/15
48
SMP Addendum 02 - RAD FSP/QAPP
74 days
Mon 10/27/14
Thu 2/5/15
49
SMP Addendum 2 Submittal
0 edays
Mon 10/27/14
Mon 10/27/14
50
EPA Review
29 edays
Mon 10/27/14
Tue 11/25/14
51
SMP Addendum 2 Revision
52 edays
Tue 11/25/14
Fri 1/16/15
52
EPA Review
15 days
Fri 1/16/15
Thu 2/5/15
53
SMP Addendum2 Approved
0 edays
Thu 2/5/15
Thu 2/5/15
54
55
HASP
855 days
Fri 10/21/11
Thu 1/29/15
56
HASP RevOO - Completed
28 days
Fri 10/21/11
Wed 11/30/11
58
HASP Rev01 - Completed
52 days
Thu 9/5/13
Mon 11/18/13
63
HASP RevO2 - RAD issues
10 days
Fri 1/16/15
Thu 1/29/15
64
HASP Submission
0 edays
Fri 1/16/15
Fri 1/16/15
65
EPA/VDEQ Acceptance
10 days
Fri 1/16/15
Thu 1/29/15
66
67
Radiation Protection Plan
142 days
Tue 7/15/14
Thu 1/29/15
68
Rad Prot Plan RevO
67 days
Tue 7/15/14
Fri 10/17/14
69
Draft Radiation Protection Plan
21 edays
Tue 7/15/14
Tue 8/5/14
70
Draft Rad PP Submittal
0 edays
Thu 9/4/14
Thu 9/4/14
71
EPA Approval
43 edays
Thu 9/4/14
Fri 10/17/14
72
Rad Prot Plan Rev01
10 days
Fri 1/16/15
Thu 1/29/15
73
Submission
0 edays
Fri 1/16/15
Fri 1/16/15
74
EPA/VDEQ Acceptance
10 days
Fri 1/16/15
Thu 1/29/15
75
76
Biota Sampling WP (FSP/QAPP)
79 days
Mon 1/19/15
Fri 5/8/15
77
Development
21 edays
Mon 1/19/15
Mon 2/9/15
78
Submittal
0 edays
Mon 2/9/15
Mon 2/9/15
79
Regulator Review
60 edays
Mon 2/9/15
Fri 4/10/15
80
Biota Sampling WP revision
14 edays
Fri 4/10/15
Fri 4/24/15
81
Submission
0 edays
Fri 4/24/15
Fri 4/24/15
82
Regulator Review
14 edays
Fri 4/24/15
Fri 5/8/15
83
Regulator Approval
0 edays
Fri 5/8/15
Fri 5/8/15
84
85
Subcontracting
384 days
Mon 9/9/13
Thu 2/26/15
86
Gamma-Ray Surveyor (AVESI) - Procured
155 days
Thu 9/12/13
Wed 4/16/14
94
Gamma-Ray Surveyor (Rad Prot Program)
45 days
Thu 5/29/14
Wed 7/30/14
104
Test Pit Firm (Parratt-Wolff) - Procured
161 days
Mon 9/9/13
Mon 4/21/14
112
DPT Drilling Firm (Vironex, Inc.) - Procured
93 days
Mon 9/9/13
Wed 1/15/14
120
HSA Well Driller (Parratt-Wolff) - Procured
90 days
Mon 9/9/13
Sat 1/11/14
128
Asbestos Inspector - Procured
55 days
Mon 9/9/13
Sat 11/23/13
136
Utility Locator - Procured
55 days
Mon 9/9/13
Fri 11/22/13
X
April 2015
May 2015
July 2015
August 2015
4/5 I 4/12 I 4/19 I 4/26 I 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I 5/31 I 6/7 I 6/14 I 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26 I 8/2 I 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/2O
<^4/24
5/8
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Page 1
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
April 2015
Mav 2015
June 2015
July 2015
Auqust 2015
4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26
I 5/3
I 5/10 I 5/17 5/24 I
5/31 I 6/7
6/14 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26
I 8/2 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/23 I
144
Surveyor - Procured
55 days
Mon 9/9/13
Fri 11/22/13
152
Wetland Delineation Subcontractor - Procured
32 days
Mon 9/9/13
Tue 10/22/13
160
Field Office Trailer
41 days
Mon 11/4/13
Mon 12/30/13
168
Analytical Laboratory(ies)
24 days
Sat 1/24/15
Thu 2/26/15
169
SOW Generation
5 edays
Sat 1/24/15
Thu 1/29/15
170
ITB Submission
3 days
Thu 1/29/15
Mon 2/2/15
171
Lab Bidding
7 edays
Mon 2/2/15
Mon 2/9/15
172
Receipt of Bids/Bid Approval
3 edays
Mon 2/9/15
Thu 2/12/15
173
Subcontractor Avail able to Start
14 edays
Thu 2/12/15
Thu 2/26/15
174
Risk Identification and Assessment
Sat 9/17/16
176
Mobilization Activities
13 days
Mon 12/16/13
Thu 1/2/14
179
Field Event 1 - Field Activities Completed
72 days
Tue 9/3/13
Wed 12/11/13
197
Field Event 2 - Field Activities Completed
169 days
Tue 10/15/13
Fri 6/6/14
230
Field Event 3 - Isotope Investigation - Completed
998 days
Thu 7/14/11
Tue 5/12/15
256
257
Field Event 4 - Pre-locating/SS Sampling/Biding Asse
170 days
Sun 2/8/15
Fri 10/2/15
258
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
Sun 2/8/15
Sat 5/16/15
259
Development
1 eday
Sun 2/8/15
Mon 2/9/15
260
261
Submittal
CLP Procurement
0 edays
90 edays
Mon 2/9/15
Tue 2/10/15
Mon 2/9/15
Mon 5/11/15
262
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
Mon 5/11/15
Sat 5/16/15
FE 4 Field Work
80 days
Mon 5/18/15
Sat 9/5/15
264
Mob to Site
11 days
Mon 5/18/15
Mon 6/1/15
265
Travel
1 eday
Mon 5/18/15
Tue 5/19/15
266
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
Mon 6/1/15
Mon 6/1/15
W5/1
^5/1
267
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
Mon 6/1/15
Mon 6/1/15
268
Perimeter Dust Monitoring (for Bkg data col
2 days
Mon 6/1/15
Wed 6/3/15
269
Setup Detectors
2 edays
Mon 6/1/15
Wed 6/3/15
270
Daily Checks/Monitoring
0 edays
Tue 6/2/15
Tue 6/2/15
31/2
271
Utility Clearing
4 days
Mon 6/1/15
Sat 6/6/15
272
Subsurface Soil Sample Location Locating
2 edays
Mon 6/1/15
Wed 6/3/15
ChCrew =
Sampler; UXO Techs/ Rad Tech
273
Utility Clearing (Subc)
4 edays
Tue 6/2/15
Sat 6/6/15
274
Surface Soil Sampling Invest
2 days
Wed 6/3/15
Sun 6/7/15
275
Site - SS Samplling (estimate 20 samples
4 edays
Wed 6/3/15
Sun 6/7/15
276
Building Inspections
2 days
Sun 6/7/15
Tue 6/9/15
277
Asbestos Sampling (Subc)
2 edays
Sun 6/7/15
Tue 6/9/15
FTL oversight
278
Wpe Sampling
2 edays
Sun 6/7/15
Tue 6/9/15
HGL crew members; weekend work
279
Travel Home
0.5 edays
Tue 6/9/15
Wed 6/10/15
280
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
65 days
Sun 6/7/15
Sat 9/5/15
283
284
285
FE 4 Laboratory and Validation
Laboratory Analysis
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
Data Validation
FE 4 Project Data File Update
48 days
32 edays
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
Tue 6/9/15
Tue 6/9/15
Sat 7/11/15
Sun 8/16/15
Sat7/11/15
Sat 7/18/15
286
287
Sat7/11/15
Mon 8/17/15
Sun 8/16/15
Wed 9/2/15
4-
288
EDD Receipts
3 days
14 edays
22 days
Mon 8/17/15
Wed 8/19/15
\
290
FE 4 Related Reporting
Wed 9/2/15
Fri 10/2/15
291
Field Reporting
3 days
Thu 9/3/15
Mon 9/7/15
292
Trip Report
3 days
Thu 9/3/15
Mon 9/7/15
293
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
Mon 9/7/15
Mon 9/7/15
294
DE Report 4 (Field Event 4)
22 days
Wed 9/2/15
Fri 10/2/15
295
Report Generation
30 edays
Wed 9/2/15
Fri 10/2/15
296
Report Submittal
0 edays
Fri 10/2/15
Fri 10/2/15
297
Field Event 5 - PC SW/SD Sampling; Wetland Invest
160 days
Sun 3/8/15
Fri 10/16/15
299
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
Sun 3/8/15
Sat 6/13/15
-V
300
Development
1 eday
Sun 3/8/15
Mon 3/9/15
301
Submittal
0 edays
Mon 3/9/15
Mon 3/9/15
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Split
,,, Milestone
~
Page 2
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
April 2015 I May 2015 I June 2015 I July 2015 I August 2015
4/5 I 4/12 I 4/19 I 4/26 I 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I 5/31 I 6/7 6/14 I 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26 I 8/2 I 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/23~T
ID Task Name
302
"303"
"304"
~305~
~306~
"307"
309
310
~3ii~
"3iT
"31J"
""314"
"315"
~3W
"317"
"318"
"319"
"320"
"32T
"322"
"325"
"326"
"327"
~328~
"329"
"330"
"33T
~332~
"333"
"334"
"335~
"336"
"337"
"338"
"339"
"340"
"W
~342~
"343"
"344"
~345~
"346"
"347"
"348"
~349~
"350"
"35T
~352~
"353"
"354"
~355~
"356"
"357"
"358"
"359"
"360"
"36T
"362"
CLP Procurement
Laboratory Assignment
FE 5 Field Work
Mob to Site
Travel
Rad/UXO Crew Training
Boat Delivery
Sample Bottle Setup
Site SW/SD and Wetland Investigation
On site Drainage Sampling
Seep Surveying/Sampling
Site Wetland Sampling
Site Wetland Delineation
Wetland Delineation (Subc)
Oversight (rad/UXO/envScient)
Paradise Creek Investigation
Paradise Creek Wetland SD Sampling
Stream channel profiling
River Channel SW/SD sampling
Travel Home
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
FE 5 Laboratory and Validation
Laboratory Analysis
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
Data Validation
FE 5 Project Data File Update
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
FE 5 Related Reports
Field Reporting
Trip Report
Trip Report Submittal
DE Report 5 (Field Event 5)
Report Generation
Report Submittal
Field Event 6 - Test Pits
RAS/DAS Request
Development
Submittal
CLP Procurement
Laboratory Assignment
FE 6 Field Work
Mob to Site
Travel
Rad/UXO Crew Training
Sample Bottle Setup
Perimeter Dust Monitoring
Download Bkg Dust Readings (morning te;
Daily Checking
Wk1 = Site Subsurface Soil Investigation
DU SB Test Pitting
Travel Home
Test Pit Excavating (Subc)
Wk2 = Site Subsurface Soil Investigation
Travel
DU SB Test Pitting
Hot Spot SB Test Pitting
Travel Home
Duration
90 edays
5 edays
7 days
0 days
1 eday
0 edays
0 edays
0 edays
3 days
1 eday
1 eday
1 eday
2 days
2 edays
2 edays
3 days
1 eday
2 edays
2 edays
0.5 edays
0 days
48 days
32 edays
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
3 days
14 edays
81 days
3 days
3 days
0 edays
22 days
30 edays
0 edays
163 days
70 days
1 eday
0 edays
90 edays
5 edays
73 days
1 day
1 eday
0.5 edays
0 edays
9 days
0.5 edays
11 edays
4 days
4 edays
0.5 edays
4.5 edays
4 days
0.5 edays
1 eday
2 edays
0.5 edays
Start
Tue 3/10/15"
Mon 6/8/15
Sun 6/14/15
Sun 6/14/15
Sun 6/14/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Tue 6/16/15
Wed 6/17/15
Tue 6/16/15
Tue 6/16/15[~
Tue 6/16/15
Thu 6/18/15
Thu 6/18/15
Fri 6/19/15|
Sun 6/21/15
Tue 6/23/15
Sun 6/21/15
Tue 6/23/15
Tue 6/23/15
Sat 7/25/15|
Sat 7/25/15
Mon 8/31/15
Mon 8/31/15
Wed 9/2/15
Fri 6/26/15
Fri 6/26/15
Fri 6/26/15|
Tue 6/30/15
Wed 9/16/15
Wed 9/16/15
Fri 10/16/15[~
Sat 4/4/15
Sat 4/4/15
Sat 4/4/15|
Sun 4/5/15|
Mon 4/6/15|
Sun 7/5/15|
Sun 7/12/15
Sun 7/12/15
Sun 7/12/15[~
Mon 7/13/15
Tue 7/14/15|~
Tue 7/14/15
Tue 7/14/15|~
Tue 7/14/15
Tue 7/14/15
Tue 7/14/15|~
Sat 7/18/15|
Tue 7/14/15|~
Mon 7/20/15
Mon 7/20/15
Tue 7/21/15]"
Wed 7/22/15
FrT7/24/15
Finish
Mon 6/8/15
Sat 6/13/15
Tue 6/23/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Mon 6/15/15
Thu 6/18/15
Tue 6/16/15
Wed 6/17/15
Thu 6/18/15
Thu 6/18/15
"HTtu 6/18/15
Thu 6/18/15
Tue 6/23/15
Frf67i9/15
Sun 6/21/15
Tue 6/23/15
tue 6/23/15
Sun 6/21/15
Sun 8/30/15
Sat 7/25/15
Sat 8/1/15
Sun 8/30/15
Wed 9/16/15
Wed 9/2/15
Wed 9/16/15
Fri 10/16/15
Tue 6/30/15
tue 6/30/15
tue 6/30/15
Fri 10/16/15
Fri 10/16/15
Fri 10/16/15
Wed 11/18/15
Fri 7/10/15
Sun4/5/15
Sun 4/5/15
Sun7/5/15
FrT77iO/15
Thu 10/22/15
Tue 7/14/15
Mon 7/13/15
Tue 7/14/15
Tue 7/14/15
Sat 7/25/15
Tue 7/14/15
Sat 7/25/15
Sat 7/18/15
Sat77i8/15
Sat77i8/15
Sat77i8/15
Fri 7/24/15
tue 7/21/15
Wed 7/22/15
RT7/24/15
Fri 7/24/15
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 3
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
~~
ID Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
April 2015
May 2015
July 2015
4/5 I 4/12 I 4/19 I 4/26 I 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I 5/31 I 6/7 I 6/14 I 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19
August 2015
7/26 I 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23
363
"364"
"365"
"366"
"367"
370
~37T~
"372"
"373"
"374"
"375"
"376"
"377"
"378"
"379"
"380"
"38T
"382~
"383"
"384"
"385"
389
"390"
"39T
~392~
"393"
"394"
"395"
"396"
"397"
399
"400"
"40T
"402"
"403~
"406"
"407"
409
410
~4iT~
~412~
"413"
"414"
"415"
"416"
w
"420"
"42T
"422"
"423"
"424"
"425"
Test Pit Excavating (Subc) 3.5 edays Tue 7/21/15 Fri 7/24/15
IDW Removal | 64days| Fri 7/24/151 Thu 10/22/15
IDW Antic: no soil (back in tps); Decon Wa 90 edays Fri 7/24/15 Thu 10/22/15
IDW Disposal | 0 edays| Thu 10/22/1 s| Thu 10/22/15
FE 6 Laboratory and Validation 48 days Fri 7/24/15 Wed 9/30/15
Laboratory Analysis 32 edays Fri 7/24/15 Tue 8/25/15
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL 7 edays Tue 8/25/15 Tue 9/1/15
Data Validation | 36edays| Tue 8/25/1 s| Wed 9/30/15
FE 6 Project Data File Update 13 days Thu 10/1/15 Mon 10/19/15
EDD Receipts | 3days| Thu 10/1/1 s| Mon 10/5/15
E DD Data Downl oad 14 edays M on 10/5/15 M on 10/19/15
FE 6 Related Reports 22 days Mon 10/19/15 Wed 11/18/15
Field Reporting | 3 days Tue 10/20/15 Thu 10/22/15
~ Trip Report | 3days| Tue 10/20/1 s| Thu 10/22/15
Trip Report Submittal | 0edays| Thu 10/22/1 s| Thu 10/22/15
DE Report 6 (Field Event 6) 22 days Mon 10/19/15 Wed 11/18/15
Report Generation 30 edays Mon 10/19/15 Wed 11/18/15
Report Submittal | 0 edays| Wed 11/18/1 s| Wed 11/18/15
Field Event 7-Well Installations 139 days Sat 4/18/15 Thu 10/29/15
RAS/DAS Request 70 days Sat 4/18/15 Fri 7/24/15
Development 1 eday Sat 4/18/15 Sun 4/19/15
Submittal | 0edays| Sun 4/19/15| Sun 4/19/15
CLP Procurement 90 edays Mon 4/20/15 Sun 7/19/15
Laboratory Assignment 5 edays Sun 7/19/15 Fri 7/24/15
Field Work 14 days Sun 7/19/15 Thu 8/6/15
Mob to Site 1 day Sun 7/26/15 Tue 7/28/15
Travel | 1 eday| Sun 7/26/1 s| Mon 7/27/15
Rad/UXO Crew Training | 0.5edays| Mon 7/27/1 s| Tue 7/28/15
Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays Tue 7/28/15 Tue 7/28/15
Perimeter Dust Monitoring 7 days Tue 7/28/15 Wed 8/5/15
Download Bkg Dust Readings (morning te; 0.5 edays Tue 7/28/15 Tue 7/28/15
Dai ly Ch ecki n g 8 ed ays Tue 7/28/15 Wed 8/5/15
Well Installations | 7 days Tue 7/28/15 Thu 8/6/15
Hot Spot Soil Sampling/Well Installations 9 edays Tue 7/28/15 Thu 8/6/15
Non Hotspot Well Installations 0 edays Thu 8/6/15 Thu 8/6/15
Well Development 0 edays Thu 8/6/15 Thu 8/6/15
Oyster Seeding of Paradise Creek 4 days Sun 7/19/15 Fri 7/24/15
Seeding Oysters 5 edays Sun 7/19/15 Fri 7/24/15
Travel Home 0.5 edays Thu 8/6/15 Thu 8/6/15
IDW Removal-Not Applicable 0 days Thu 8/6/15 Thu 8/6/15
FE 7 Laboratory and Validation 48 days Thu 8/6/15 Tue 10/13/15
Laboratory Analysis 32 edays Thu 8/6/15 Mon 9/7/15
Receipt of Unvali dated Data 7 edays Mon 9/7/15 Mon 9/14/15
Data Validation 36 edays Mon 9/7/15 Tue 10/13/15
FE 7 Project Data File Update 13 days Tue 10/13/15 Thu 10/29/15
EDD Receipts | 3days| Tue 10/13/1 s| Thu 10/15/15
EDD Data Download | 14edays| Thu 10/15/1 s| Thu 10/29/15
FE 7 Related Reports | 59daysf~Mon 8/10/15 Thu 10/29/15
Field Reporting | 3 days Mon 8/10/15 Wed 8/12/15
~ Trip Report | 3days| Mon 8/10/1 s| Wed 8/12/15
~ Trip Report Submittal | 0edays| Wed 8/12/1 s| Wed 8/12/15
DE Report - not applicable (completed undei Odays Thu 10/29/15 Thu 10/29/15
Field Event 8 - Well Installations (continued) | 160days| Sun5/3/15| Sat 12/12/15
RAS/DAS Request | 70 days Sun5/3/15| Sat 8/8/15
Development 1 eday Sun 5/3/15 Mon 5/4/15
Submittal | 0edays| Mon 5/4/1 s| "Mon 5/4/15
CLP Procurement 90 edays Tue 5/5/15 Mon 8/3/15
<^5/4
~8
<^8/12
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 4
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
April 2015
May 2015
July 2015
4/5 | 4/12 I 4/19 I 4/26 | 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I 5/31 I 6/7 I 6/14 I 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26 8/2 I 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/23 f
426
"427"
"428"
"429"
"430"
"43T
"432"
"433"
~434~
"435"
"436"
"437"
"438"
"439"
"440"
"44T
"442"
"443"
"444"
"445"
"446"
"447"
"448"
"449"
"450"
"45T
"452"
"453"
"454"
"455"
"456"
"457"
"458"
"459"
"460"
"46T
"462"
"463"
"464"
"465"
470
47~
"472"
"473"
"474"
"475"
~476~
"477"
"478"
"479"
"480"
"48T
"482"
"483"
"484"
Laboratory Assi gn m ent 5 ed ays M on 8/3/15 Sat 8/8/15
FE 8 Field Work | 70 days Mon8/10/15| Mon 11/16/15
Mob to Site | 2 days Mon 8/10/15 Tue 8/11/15
Travel | 1 eday| Mon 8/10/1 s| Tue 8/11/15
Rad/UXO Crew Training 0.5 edays Tue 8/11/15 Tue 8/11/15
Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays Tue 8/11/15 Tue 8/11/15
Perimeter Dust Monitoring 6 days Tue 8/11/15 Wed 8/19/15
Download Dust Readings (morning test pit 0.5 edays Tue 8/11/15 Wed 8/12/15
Daily Checking 8 edays Tue 8/11/15 Wed 8/19/15
Remove Perimeter Dust Monitors 0 edays Wed 8/19/15 Wed 8/19/15
Well Installations 4 days Tue 8/11/15 Tue 8/18/15
Hot Spot Soil Sampling/Well Installations 4 edays Tue 8/11/15 Sat 8/15/15
Non Hotspot Well Installations | 0 edays| Sat 8/15/15 Sat 8/15/15
Well Development | 0edays| Sat 8/15/1 s| Sat 8/15/15
Temporary Well (TW21) Installation (HSa| 0.5 edaysf" Sat 8/15/15 Sun 8/16/15
Site Wetland Well Installations | 2 edays| ~ Sun 8/16/15 Tue 8/18/15
Existing Well Redevelopment 1.5 edays Tue 8/18/15 Wed 8/19/15
Travel Home | 0.5edays| Wed 8/19/1 s| Thu 8/20/15
[PW Removal | 64days| Tue 8/18/15 Mon 11/16/15
I DWAnticip at ed: drill cuttings; purge wate 90 edays Tue 8/18/15 Mon 11/16/15
IDW Disposal | 0 edays| Mon 11/16/1 s| Mon 11/16/15
FE 8 Laboratory and Validation 48 days Wed 8/19/15 IVlon 10/26/15
Laboratory Analysis 32 edays Wed 8/19/15 Sun 9/20/15
Reciept of Unvalidated Data 7 edays Sun 9/20/15 Sun 9/27/15
Data Validation 36 edays Sun 9/20/15 Mon 10/26/15
FE 8 Project Data File Update 13 days Tue 10/27/15 Thu 11/12/15
EDD Receipts | 3days| Tue 10/27/1 s| Thu 10/29/15
EDD Data Download | 14edays| Thu 10/29/1 s| Thu 11/12/15
FE 8 Related Reports | 80 days Mon 8/24/15 Sat 12/12/15
Field Reporting 3 days Mon 8/24/15 Wed 8/26/15
~ Trip Report | 3days| Mon 8/24/1 s| Wed 8/26/15
~ Trip Report Submittal | 0edays| Wed 8/26/1 s| Wed 8/26/15
DE Report 7 (FE 7 and 8) 21 days Thu 11/12/15 Sat 12/12/15
Report Generation 30 edays Thu 11/12/15 Sat 12/12/15
~ Report Submittal | 0edays| Sat 12/12/1 s| Sat 12/12/15
Field Event 9 - GW Qrtly Event 1 160 days? Sat 5/16/15 Fri 12/25/15
RAS/DAS Request 69 days Sat 5/16/15 Fri 8/21/15
Development 1 eday Sat 5/16/15 Sun 5/17/15
Submittal | 0edays| Sun 5/17/15| Sun 5/17/15
CLP Procurement 90 edays Mon 5/18/15 Sun 8/16/15
Laboratory Assignment 5 edays Sun 8/16/15 Fri 8/21/15
FE 9 Field Work 87 days? Thu 7/23/15 Sat 11/21/15
Mob to Site | 0days| Sun8/23/15| Sun 8/23/15
Travel 0.5 edays Sun 8/23/15 Sun 8/23/15
Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays Sun 8/23/15 Sun 8/23/15
Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays Sun 8/23/15 Sun 8/23/15
GW Sampling Event 1 9 days Sun 8/23/15 Fri 9/4/15
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 1st week 4 edays Sun 8/23/15 Thu 8/27/15
Travel home - week 1 | 0.5edays| Thu 8/27/15| ^Fri 8/28/15
Travel to Site - week 2 0.5 edays Sun 8/30/15 Sun 8/30/15
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 2nd week 4 edays Sun 8/30/15 Thu 9/3/15
Travel Home - week 2 0.5 edays Thu 9/3/15 Fri 9/4/15
Well Surveying (Subc) | 3 edays| Mon 8/24/15| Thu 8/27/15
PC Biota Sampling | 28days?| Thu7/23/15| Tue 9/1/15
~ Install Seeded Oysters | 1 day?| Thu 7/23/1 s| Thu 7/23/15
~ Set Traps | 3edays| Sun 8/23/1 s| Wed 8/26/15
Biota Sampling 5 edays Wed 8/26/15 Mon 8/31/15
Travel Home 0.5 edays Mon 8/31/15 Tue 9/1/15
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone
Page 5
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015
4/5 I 4/12 I 4/19 I 4/26 I 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I 5/31 I 6/7 I 6/14 I 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26 I 8IT
ID Task Name
August 2015
I 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/23 I"
IDW Removal
65 days
Sat 11/21/15
IDW anticipated - purge gw; decon water
90 edays
Water IDW Disposal
0 edays
FE 9 Laboratory and Validation
49 days
489
"490"
"49T
"492"
"493"
"494"
"495"
"496"
"497"
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
Data Validation
36 edays
FE 9 Project Data File Update
13 days
EDD Receipts
3 days
EDD Data Download
14 edays
Wed 11/11/15
Wed 11/25/15
FE 9 Related Reports
82 days
Field Reporting
3 days
Trip Report
3 days
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
499
"500"
"501"
~502~
"503"
"504"
"505"
"506"
"507"
"508"
~509~
W
"5TT
~5T2~
~5i3~
514
"515"
"516"
"517"
"518"
"519"
"520"
"52T
"522"
"523"
"524"
"525"
"526"
"527"
"528"
"529"
"530"
"53T
"532"
"533"
"534"
"535"
"536"
"537"
"538"
"539"
"540"
"54T
"542"
"543"
DE Report 8 (FE 9)
22 days
Report Generation
30 edays
Report Submittal
0 edays
Field Event 10 - GW Qrtly Event 2
160 days
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
Development
1 eday
Submittal
0 edays
CLP Procurement
90 edays
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
65 days
0 days
Travel
0.5 edays
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
GW Sampling
9 days
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 1st week
4 edays
Travel home - week 1
0.5 edays
Thu 11/12/15
Travel to Site - week 2
0.5 edays
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 2nd week
4 edays
Sun 11/15/15
Thu 11/19/15
Travel Home - week 2
0.5 edays
Thu 11/19/15
IDW Removal
65 days
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
IDW Disposal
0 edays
FE 10 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
Wed 1/27/16
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
Tue 12/22/15
Receipt of Unvali dated Data
7 edays
Data Validation
36 edays
Tue 12/22/15
Wed 1/27/16
FE 10 Project Data File Update
13 days
Wed 1/27/16
EDD Receipts
3 days
Wed 1/27/16
EDD Data Download
14 edays
FE 10 Related Reports
80 days
Mon 11/23/15
Trip Reporting
3 days
Trip Report
3 days
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
Wed 11/25/15
Wed 11/25/15
DE Report 9 (FE 10)
20 days
Report Generation
30 edays
Report Submittal
0 edays
Field Event 11 - DPT SB
168 days
RAS/DAS Request
69 days
Development
1 eday
Submittal
0 edays
Wed 10/14/15
Wed 10/14/15
CLP Procurement
90 edays
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
Wed 1/13/16
~ F4
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 6
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
Start
Finish
April 2015
Mav 2015
June 2015
Julv 2015
Auqust 2015
4/5 4/12 4/19 4/26
I 5/3 I 5/10 I 5/17 I 5/24 I
5/31 6/7 I 6/14 6/21 I 6/28 I 7/5 I 7/12 I 7/19 I 7/26
I 8/2 8/9 I 8/16 I 8/23 I
544
Field Work
76 days
Mon 1/11/16
Wed 4/27/16
545
Utility Clearance
4 days
Mon 1/11/16
Sat 1/16/16
546
Pre-Locating - travel
0.5 edays
Mon 1/11/16
Tue 1/12/16
547
Pre-locating
1.5 edays
Tue 1/12/16
Wed 1/13/16
548
Utility Clearing
2 edays
Wed 1/13/16
Fri 1/15/16
549
Travel home
0.5 edays
Fri 1/15/16
Sat 1/16/16
550
Mob to Site
1 day
Mon 1/18/16
Mon 1/18/16
551
Travel
0.5 edays
Mon 1/18/16
Mon 1/18/16
552
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
Mon 1/18/16
Mon 1/18/16
553
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
Mon 1/18/16
Mon 1/18/16
554
SB Soil Sampling
7 days
Mon 1/18/16
Wed 1/27/16
555
Offsite SB Boring Investigation
6 edays
Mon 1/18/16
Sun 1/24/16
556
Offsite SB Hand Auger Investigation
2 edays
Sun 1/24/16
Tue 1/26/16
557
BKG - SB Soil Sampling
1 day
Wed 1/27/16
Wed 1/27/16
558
BKG - SS Sampling
0 edays
Wed 1/27/16
Wed 1/27/16
559
Travel Home
0.5 edays
Wed 1/27/16
Thu 1/28/16
560
IDW Removal
64 days
Thu 1/28/16
Wed 4/27/16
561
IDWAnticip: soil cuttings and decon wate
90 edays
Thu 1/28/16
Wed 4/27/16
562
IDW Disposal
0 edays
Wed 4/27/16
Wed 4/27/16
563
FE 11 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
Wed 1/27/16
Mon 4/4/16
564
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
Wed 1/27/16
Sun 2/28/16
565
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
Sun 2/28/16
Sun 3/6/16
566
Data Validation
36 edays
Sun 2/28/16
Mon 4/4/16
567
FE 11 Project Data File Update
13 days
Tue 4/5/16
Thu 4/21/16
568
EDD Receipts
3 days
Tue 4/5/16
Thu 4/7/16
569
EDD Data Download
14 edays
Thu 4/7/16
Thu 4/21/16
570
FE 11 Related Reports
25 days
Fri 4/29/16
Thu 6/2/16
571
Trip Reporting
3 days
Fri 4/29/16
Tue 5/3/16
572
Trip Report
3 days
Fri 4/29/16
Tue 5/3/16
573
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
Tue 5/3/16
Tue 5/3/16
574
DE Report 10 (FE 11)
22 days
Tue 5/3/16
Thu 6/2/16
575
Report Generation
30 edays
Tue 5/3/16
Thu 6/2/16
576
Report Submittal
0 edays
Thu 6/2/16
Thu 6/2/16
577
578
Field Event 12 - GW Event 3
155 days
Mon 11/2/15
Sun 6/5/16
579
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
Mon 11/2/15
Sun 2/7/16
580
Development
1 eday
Mon 11/2/15
Tue 11/3/15
581
Submittal
0 edays
Tue 11/3/15
Tue 11/3/15
582
CLP Procurement
90 edays
Wed 11/4/15
Tue 2/2/16
583
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
Tue 2/2/16
Sun 2/7/16
584
Field Work
73 days
Sun 2/7/16
Thu 5/19/16
585
Mob to Site
0 days
Sun 2/7/16
Sun 2/7/16
586
Travel
0.5 edays
Sun 2/7/16
Sun 2/7/16
587
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
Sun 2/7/16
Sun 2/7/16
588
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
Sun 2/7/16
Sun 2/7/16
589
GW Sampling
9 days
Sun 2/7/16
Fri 2/19/16
590
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 - 1st week
4 edays
Sun 2/7/16
Thu 2/11/16
591
Travel home - week 1
0.5 edays
Thu 2/11/16
Fri 2/12/16
592
Travel to Site - week 2
0.5 edays
Sun 2/14/16
Sun 2/14/16
593
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 - 2nd week
4 edays
Sun 2/14/16
Thu 2/18/16
594
Travel Home - week 2
0.5 edays
Thu 2/18/16
Fri 2/19/16
595
IDW Removal
64 days
Fri 2/19/16
Thu 5/19/16
596
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
Fri 2/19/16
Thu 5/19/16
597
IDW Disposal
0 edays
Thu 5/19/16
Thu 5/19/16
598
FE 12 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
Thu 2/11/16
Tue 4/19/16
599
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
Thu 2/11/16
Mon 3/14/16
600
Receipt of Unvali dated Data
7 edays
Mon 3/14/16
Mon 3/21/16
601
Data Validation
36 edays
Mon 3/14/16
Tue 4/19/16
602
FE 12 Project Data File Update
13 days
Wed 4/20/16
Fri 5/6/16
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 7
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
iTask Name
Duration i
Start
Finish i
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
Auqust 2015
4/5
-t*
CD
I 5/3
I 5/10 | 5/17
5/24 |
5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21
6/28 ! 7/5
7/12 7/19 7/26
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 T
~~603
i EDD Receipts
3 days
Wed 4/20/16
Fri 4/22/16
~~604
i EDD Data Download
14 edays
Fri 4/22/16
Fri 5/6/16
~~605
i FE 12 Related Reports
20 days
Fri 5/6/16
Sun 6/5/16
~~606
i Trip Reporting
3 days
Mon 5/9/16
Wed 5/11/16
607
i Trip Report
3 days
Mon 5/9/16
Wed 5/11/16
~~608
i Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
Wed 5/11/16
Wed 5/11/16
~~609
I DE Report 11 (FE 12)
20 days
Fri 5/6/16
Sun 6/5/16
610
i Report Generation
30 edays
Fri 5/6/16
Sun 6/5/16
611
612
613
i Report Submittal
0 edays
Sun 6/5/16
Sun 6/5/16
i Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
165 days
Mon 2/1/16
Sat 9/17/16
614
i RAS/DAS Request
70 days
Mon 2/1/16
Sun 5/8/16
615
i Development
1 eday
Mon 2/1/16
Tue 2/2/16
616
i Submittal
0 edays
Tue 2/2/16
Tue 2/2/16
617
i CLP Procurement
90 edays
Wed 2/3/16
Tue 5/3/16
618
i Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
Tue 5/3/16
Sun 5/8/16
619
i Field Work
65 days
Sun 5/8/16
Sun 8/7/16
620
i Mob to Site
1 day
Sun 5/8/16
Mon 5/9/16
621
i Travel
1 eday
Sun 5/8/16
Mon 5/9/16
~~622
i Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
Mon 5/9/16
Mon 5/9/16
623
i Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
Mon 5/9/16
Mon 5/9/16
624
i GW Sampling
9 days
Mon 5/9/16
Sat 5/21/16
625
i Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 -1 st week
4 edays
Mon 5/9/16
Fri 5/13/16
~~626
i Travel home
- week 1
0.5 edays
Fri 5/13/16
Sat 5/14/16
627
i Travel to Site
- week 2
0.5 edays
Mon 5/16/16
Mon 5/16/16
628
i Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
4 edays
Mon 5/16/16
Fri 5/20/16"
~~629
i Travel Home
- week 2
0.5 edays
Fri 5/20/16
Sat 5/21/16
~~630
i IDW Removal
64 days
Mon 5/9/16
Sun 8/7/16
631
i IDW Antic: GW purge water: decon water
90 edays
Mon 5/9/16
Sun 8/7/16
632
i IDW Disposal
0 edays
Sun 8/7/16
Sun 8/7/16
633
i FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
Fri 5/20/16
Wed 7/27/16
~~634
i Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
Fri 5/20/16
Tue 6/21/16
~~635
i Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
Tue 6/21/16
Tue 6/28/16
~~636
i Data Validation
36 edays
Tue 6/21/16
Wed 7/27/16
637
i FE 13 Project Data File Update
13 days
Thu 7/28/16
Mon 8/15/16
~~638
i EDD Receipts
3 days
Thu 7/28/16
Mon 8/1/16
639
i EDD Data Download
14 edays
Mon 8/1/16
Mon 8/15/16
~~640
i FE 13 Related Reports
24 days
Tue 8/16/16
Sat 9/17/16
641
i Trip Reporting
3 days
Tue 8/16/16
Thu 8/18/16
642
i Trip Report
3 days
Tue 8/16/16
Thu 8/18/16
643
i Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
Thu 8/18/16
Thu 8/18/16
~~644
I DE Report 12 (FE 13)
21 days
Thu 8/18/16
Sat 9/17/16
~~645
i Report Generation
30 edays
Thu 8/18/16
Sat 9/17/16
~~646
647
~~648
i Report Submittal
0 edays
Sat 9/17/16
Sat 9/17/16
i Demobilization Activities
2 days
Sat 6/4/16
Wed 6/8/16
649
i Demob supplies
3 edays
Sat 6/4/16
Tue 6/7/16
~~650
651
652
i Remove Trailer
1 eday
Tue 6/7/16
Wed 6/8/16
¦Reports
690 days
Mon 10/5/15
Mon 5/28/18
653
~~654
655
i Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eacl
0 edays
Thu 8/18/16
Thu 8/18/16
i Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
75 days
Mon 10/5/15
Mon 1/18/16
~~656
I Draft SLERA
60 edays
Mon 10/5/15
Fri 12/4/15
657
I Draft SLERA Submitta
0 edays
Fri 12/4/15
Fri 12/4/15
~~658
i EPA Review of SLERA
45 edays
Fri 12/4/15
Mon 1/18/16
659
~~660
661
i EPA Approval
0 edays
Mon 1/18/16
Mon 1/18/16
I BERA Work Plan
39 days
Mon 1/18/16
Sun 3/13/16
Task iii
3 Progress
-0-
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
V
yf
cxieiiidi idbi\b
ucduiuie
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone 4^
Page 8
-------
ID iTask Name
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
April 2015
Mon 1/18/16 Wed 2/17/161
~~663
i EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP
25 edays
Wed 2/17/16
Sun 3/13/16
664
~~665
i Human Health Risk Assessment
130 days
Mon 9/19/16
Mon 3/20/17
~~666
I Draft HHRARpt
60 edays
Mon 9/19/16
Fri 11/18/16
667
I EPA Review of D.HHRA
45 days
Mon 11/21/16
Fri 1/20/17
~~668
I Final HHRA RPT
30 edays
Fri 1/20/17
Sun 2/19/17
669
i EPA Approval
21 days
Mon 2/20/17
Mon 3/20/17
670
671
i Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
130 days
Mon 9/19/16
Mon 3/20/17
672
I Draft BERA Rpt
60 edays
Mon 9/19/16
Fri 11/18/16
673
i EPA Review of D. BERA
45 days
Mon 11/21/16
Fri 1/20/17
~~674
I Final BERA Rpt
30 edays
Fri 1/20/17
Sun 2/19/17
675
i EPA Approval
21 days
Mon 2/20/17
Mon 3/20/17
676
677
i Remedial Investigation Rpt
130 days
Mon 9/19/16
Mon 3/20/17
678
I Draft Rl Rpt
60 edays
Mon 9/19/16
Fri 11/18/16
679
i Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
0 edays
Fri 11/18/16
Fri 11/18/16
~~680
i EPA Review of D. Rl
45 days
Mon 11/21/16
Fri 1/20/17
681
i Final Rl Rpt
30 edays
Fri 1/20/17
Sun 2/19/17
682
i EPA Approval
21 days
Mon 2/20/17
Mon 3/20/17"
683
~~684
i Remedial Alt Tech Memo
43 days
Mon 3/20/17
Thu 5/18/17
~~685
i Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo
30 edays
Mon 3/20/17
Wed 4/19/17
~~686
i Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo
30 edays
Mon 3/20/17
Wed 4/19/17
687
688
i EPA Approval
21 days
Thu 4/20/17
Thu 5/18/17
~~689
i Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo
43 days
Mon 5/22/17
Thu 7/20/17
~~690
i Tech Memo
30 edays
Mon 5/22/17
Wed 6/21/17
691
i EPA Approval
21 days
Thu 6/22/17
Thu 7/20/17
692
693
i Feasibility Study
130 days
Mon 7/24/17
Mon 1/22/18
~~694
i Draft FS Report
60 edays
Mon 7/24/17
Fri 9/22/17
~~695
i EPA Review of D FS
45 days
Mon 9/25/17
Fri 11/24/17
~~696
i Final FS Rpt
30 edays
Fri 11/24/17
Sun 12/24/17
697
698
i EPA Approval
21 days
Mon 12/25/17
Mon 1/22/18
~~699
i Proposed Plan/ROD
90 days
Tue 1/23/18
Mon 5/28/18
—700
i Proposed Plan/ROD Support
90 days
Tue 1/23/18
Mon 5/28/18
—701
—702
¦Work Assignment Closeout
1 day
Mon 5/28/18
Tue 5/29/18
1 eday Mon 5/28/18 Tue 5/29/181
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Page 9
External Tasks
External Milestone 4^
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 201
8/30 9/6 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 I 10/4 I 10/11 I 10/18 I 10/25
11/1 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 I '
1/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 12/20 I 12/27 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I
1/31 2/7 2/14
144
Surveyor - Procured
55 days
152
Wetland Delineation Subcontractor - Procured
32 days
160
Field Office Trailer
41 days
168
Analytical Laboratory(ies)
24 days
169
SOW Generation
5 edays
170
ITB Submission
3 days
171
Lab Bidding
7 edays
172
Receipt of Bids/Bid Approval
3 edays
173
Subcontractor Avail able to Start
14 edays
174
1352 days?
I ID
Kisk I dentin cation
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 201
8/30 I 9/6 I 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 I
0/4 10/11 10/18 I 10/25
11/1 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 I '
1/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 12/20 I 12/27 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I
1/31 2/7 2/14
302
CLP Procurement
90 edays
303
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
304
FE 5 Field Work
7 days
305
Mob to Site
0 days
306
Travel
1 eday
307
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
308
Boat Delivery
0 edays
309
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
310
Site SW/SD and Wetland Investigation
3 days
311
On site Drainage Sampling
1 eday
312
Seep Surveying/Sampling
1 eday
313
Site Wetland Sampling
1 eday
314
Site Wetland Delineation
2 days
315
Wetland Delineation (Subc)
2 edays
316
Oversight (rad/UXO/envScient)
2 edays
317
Paradise Creek Investigation
3 days
318
Paradise Creek Wetland SD Sampling
1 eday
319
Stream channel profiling
2 edays
320
River Channel SW/SD sampling
2 edays
321
Travel Home
0.5 edays
322
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
0 days
325
FE 5 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
9
326
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
327
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
7 edays
328
Data Validation
36 edays
329
FE 5 Project Data File Update
13 days
330
331
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
3 days
14 edays
¦
--
332
FE 5 Related Reports
81 days
333
Field Reporting
3 days
334
Trip Report
3 days
335
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
336
DE Report 5 (Field Event 5)
22 days
338
Report Submittal
0 edays
<^10/16
339
340
Field Event 6 - Test Pits
163 days
341
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
342
Development
1 eday
343
Submittal
0 edays
344
CLP Procurement
90 edays
345
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
346
FE 6 Field Work
73 days
347
Mob to Site
1 day
348
Travel
1 eday
349
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
350
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
351
Perimeter Dust Monitoring
9 days
352
Download Bkg Dust Readings (morning te
0.5 edays
353
Daily Checking
11 edays
354
Wk1 = Site Subsurface Soil Investigation
4 days
355
DU SB Test Pitting
4 edays
356
Travel Home
0.5 edays
357
Test Pit Excavating (Subc)
4.5 edays
358
Wk2 = Site Subsurface Soil Investigation
4 days
359
Travel
0.5 edays
360
DU SB Test Pitting
1 eday
361
Hot Spot SB Test Pitting
2 edays
362
Travel Home
I
Progress
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
~
Page 11
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
Sept em b er 2015 I October 2015
November 2015 I December 2015 I January 2016 I February 201
8/30 I
9/6 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 I 10/4 I 10/11 I 10/18 I 10/25
11/1 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 I '
1/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 12/20 I 12/27 I 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 1/24 I 1/31 I 2/7 I 2/14
363 Test Pit Excavating (Subc)
3.5 edays
364 IDW Removal
64 days
90 edays
0 edays
366
I DW Disposal
^ 10/22
367
FE 6 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
368
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
369
370
371
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
Data Validation
FE 6 Project Data File Update
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
372
373
EDD Receipts
3 days
14 edays
22 days
374
FE 6 Related Reports
r
375
Field Reporting
3 days
376 Trip Report
3 days
^ 10/22
377
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
378
379
380
DE Report 6 (Field Event 6)
Report Generation
Report Submittal
22 days
30 edays
0 edays
& 11/18
381
382
Field Event 7 -Well Installations
139 days
383
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
384
Development
1 eday
385
Submittal
0 edays
386
CLP Procurement
90 edays
387
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
388
Field Work
14 days
389
Mob to Site
1 day
390
Travel
1 eday
391
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
392
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
393
394
Perimeter Dust Monitoring
Download Bkg Dust Readings (morning te
7 days
0.5 edays
395
Daily Checking
8 edays
396
397
Well Installations
Hot Spot Soil Sampling/Well Installations
7 days
9 edays
398
Non Hotspot Well Installations
0 edays
399
Well Development
0 edays
400
Oyster Seeding of Paradise Creek
4 days
401
Seeding Oysters
5 edays
402
Travel Home
0.5 edays
403
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
0 days
406
407
FE 7 Laboratory and Validation
Laboratory Analysis
Receipt of Unvali dated Data
Data Validation
FE 7 Project Data File Update
48 days
32 edays
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
409
410
^
411
412
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
3 days
14 edays
^
413
FE 7 Related Reports
59 days
414
Field Reporting
3 days
415
Trip Report
3 days
416
417
Trip Report Submittal
DE Report - not applicable (completed unde
0 edays
0 days
~
0/29
420
421
Field Event 8 - Well Installations (continued)
160 days
422 RAS/DAS Request
70 days
423
Development
1 eday
424
Submittal
0 edays
425
CLP Procurement
90 edays
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task Pi ogi ess <¦ > Summary V V hxtemal I asks Deadline O
Split Milestone Project Summary v v External Milestone O
Page 12
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
~~
ID Task Name
Duration
September 2015
8/30 I 9/6 I 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 T
October 2015
10/4 I 10/11 I 10/18 I 10/25"
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 201
11/1 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 11/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 I 12/20 I 12/27 I 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I 1/31 I 2/7 I 2/14
426
"427"
"428"
"429"
"430"
"43T
432
433
434
"435"
"436"
"437"
"438"
"439"
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
"447"
448
449
450
"45T
"452"
"453"
454
"455"
"456"
"457"
"458"
"459"
460
"46T
"462"
"463"
464
465
470
471
"472"
"473"
"474"
"475"
476
"477"
"478"
"479"
480
"48T
"482"
"483"
484
Laboratory Assignment
FE 8 Field Work
Mob to Site
Travel
Rad/UXO Crew Training
Sample Bottle Setup
Perimeter Dust Monitoring
Download Dust Readings (morning test pit
Daily Checking
Remove Perimeter Dust Monitors
Well Installations
Hot Spot Soil Sampling/Well Installations
Non Hotspot Well Installations
Well Development
Temporary Well (TW21) Installation (HSA
Site Wetland Well Installations
Existing Well Redevelopment
Travel Home
IDW Removal
IDW Anti ci p ated: dri 11 cutti n g s; pu rg e wate
IDW Disposal
FE 8 Laboratory and Validation
Laboratory Analysis
Reciept of Unvalidated Data
Data Validation
FE 8 Project Data File Update
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
FE 8 Related Reports
Field Reporting
Trip Report
Trip Report Submittal
DE Report 7 (FE 7 and 8)
Report Generation
Report Submittal
Field Event 9 - GW Qrtly Event 1
RAS/DAS Request
Development
Submittal
CLP Procurement
Laboratory Assignment
FE 9 Field Work
Mob to Site
Travel
Rad/UXO Crew Training
Sample Bottle Setup
GW Sampling Event 1
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 1st week
Travel home - week 1
Travel to Site - week 2
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 2nd week
Travel Home - week 2
Well Surveying (Subc)
PC Biota Sampling
Install Seeded Oysters
Set Traps
Biota Sampling
Travel Home
5 edays
70 days
2 days
1 eday
0.5 edays
0 edays
6 days
0.5 edays
8 edays
0 edays
4 days
4 edays
0 edays
0 edays
0.5 edays
2 edays
1.5 edays
0.5 edays
64 days
90 edays
0 edays
48 days
32 edays
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
3 days
14 edays
80 days
3 days
3 days
0 edays
21 days
30 edays
0 edays
160 days?
69 days
1 eday
0 edays
90 edays
5 edays
87 days?
0 days
0.5 edays
0 edays
0 edays
9 days
4 edays
0.5 edays
0.5 edays
4 edays
0.5 edays
3 edays
28 days?
1 day?
3 edays
5 edays
0.5 edays
avel/weekend break dependent on need
r hex chrom sampling
51
m
Q 11/16
"9
12/12
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 13
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
September 2015 I October 2015 I November 2015
8/30 I 9/6 I 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 I 10/4 I 10/11 I 10/18 I 10/25 I 11/1 I 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22~l~1
December 2015 January 2016 February 201
1/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 I 12/20 I 12/27 I 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I 1/31 I 2/7 I 2/14
ID Task Name
Duration
485 IDW Removal 65 days
486 IDW anticipated - purge gw; decon water 90 edays
487 T Water IDW Di sp osal 0 ed ays
488 FE 9 Laboratory and Validation 49 days
489 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
490 Receipt of Unvalidated Data 7 edays
491 Data Validation 36 edays
492 | FE 9 Project Data File Update | 13 days
493 EDD Receipts 3 days
494 EDD Data Download 14 edays
495 FE 9 Related Reports 82 days
496 Field Reporting 3 days
497 Trip Report 3 days
498 r Trip Report Submittal 0 edays
499 DE Report 8 (FE 9) 22 days
500 Report Generation 30 edays
501 Report Submittal 0 edays
502 |
503 | Field Event 10 - GW Qrtly Event 2 | 160 days
504 RAS/DAS Request 70 days
505 Development 1 eday
506 r Submittal 0 edays
507 T CLP Procurement 90 edays
508 Laboratory Assignment 5 edays
509 Field Work 65 days
510 Mob to Site 0 days
511 Travel 0.5 edays
512 Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays
513 Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays
514 GW Sampling 9 days
515 Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 -1 st week 4 edays
516 Travel home - week 1 0.5 edays
517 Travel to Site - week 2 0.5 edays
518 Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 2nd week 4 edays
519 Travel Home-week 2 0.5 edays
520 | IDW Removal 65 days
521 IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water 90 edays
522 IDW Disposal 0 edays
523 FE 10 Laboratory and Validation 48 days
524 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
525 Receipt of Unvali dated Data 7 edays
526 Data Validation 36 edays
527 FE 10 Project Data File Update 13 days
528 EDD Receipts 3 days
529 r EDD Data Download 14 edays
530 FE 10 Related Reports 80 days
531 Trip Reporting 3 days
532 Trip Report 3 days
533 Trip Report Submittal 0 edays
534 | DE Report 9 (FE 10) | 20 days
535 Report Generation 30 edays
536 r Report Submittal 0 edays
537 |
538 Field Event 11 - DPT SB 168 days
539 h RAS/DAS Request 69 days
540 T Development 1 eday
541 Submittal 0 edays
542 | CLP Procurement 90 edays
543 Laboratory Assignment 5 edays
^9/7
1=
4} 11/21
1
travel/weekend break dependent on need
chrom sampling
12/25
^ 11/25
t-
2/6
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 14
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
January 2016 I February 20?
1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I 1/31 I 2/7 I 2/1~
ID Task Name
Duration
September 2015
October 2015
8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
November 2015
December 2015
11/1 I 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 I 11/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 I 12/20 I 12/27 I
544 Field Work 76 days
545 Utility Clearance 4 days
546 Pre-Locating - travel 0.5 edays
547 Pre-locating 1.5 edays
548 Utility Clearing 2 edays
549 Travel home 0.5 edays
550 Mob to Site 1 day
551 Travel 0.5 edays
552 Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays
553 Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays
554 SB Soil Sampling 7 days
555 Offsite SB Boring Investigation 6 edays
556 Offsite SB Hand Auger Investigation 2 edays
557 T BKG - SB Soil Sampling 1 day
558 BKG - SS Sampling 0 edays
559 Travel Home 0.5 edays
560 | jPW Removal 64 days
561 IDWAnticip: soil cuttings and decon wate 90 edays
562 r IDW Disposal 0 edays
563 FE11 Laboratory and Validation 48 days
564 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
565 Receipt of Unvalidated Data 7 edays
566 Data Validation 36 edays
567 | FE 11 Project Data File Update | 13 days
568 EDD Receipts 3 days
569 EDD Data Download 14 edays
570 FE 11 Related Reports 25 days
571 Trip Reporting 3 days
572 Trip Report 3 days
573 Trip Report Submittal 0 edays
574 DE Report 10 (FE 11) 22 days
575 Report Generation 30 edays
576 T Report Submittal 0 edays
577 |
578 Field Event 12 - GW Event 3 | 155 days
579 RAS/DAS Request 70 days
580 Development 1 eday
581 T Submittal 0 edays
582 r CLP Procurement 90 edays
583 Laboratory Assignment 5 edays
584 Field Work 73 days
585 Mob to Site 0 days
586 r Travel 0.5 edays
587 Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays
588 Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays
589 GW Sampling 9 days
590 Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 -1 st week 4 edays
591 Travel home - week 1 0.5 edays
592 Travel to Site - week 2 0.5 edays
593 I Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 - 2nd week 4 edays
594 Travel Home - week 2 0.5 edays
595 IDW Removal 64 days
596 IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water 90 edays
597 IDW Disposal 0 edays
598 FE 12 Laboratory and Validation 48 days
599 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
600 Receipt of Unvali dated Data 7 edays
601 Data Validation 36 edays
602 FE 12 Project Data File Update 13 days
fV
—QjFE held back to first of year
4^1/18
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 15
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
September 2015 I October 2015 November 2015 I December 2015 I January 2016 I February 20?
1/6 I 9/13 I 9/20 I 9/27 I 10/4 I 10/11 I 10/18 I 10/25 11/1 I 11/8 I 11/15 I 11/22 I 11/29 I 12/6 I 12/13 I 12/20 I 12/27 I 1/3 I 1/10 I 1/17 I 1/24 I 1/31 I 2/7 I 2/14
ID Task Name
Duration
8/30 I 9/6
603
604
605
606
"607"
608
"609"
610
1311
612
613
614
615
616
"617"
618
619
"620"
"62T
"622"
"623"
"624"
"625"
626
627
"628"
"629"
"630"
"63T
632
"633"
"634"
"635"
"636"
"637"
"638"
"639"
640
"64T
642
643
644
645
646
"647"
648
649
"650"
"65T
652
"653"
"654"
"655"
"656"
"657"
658
"659"
660
661
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
FE 12 Related Reports
Trip Reporting
Trip Report
Trip Report Submittal
DE Report 11 (FE 12)
Report Generation
Report Submittal
Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
RAS/DAS Request
Development
Submittal
CLP Procurement
Laboratory Assignment
Field Work
Mob to Site
Travel
Rad/UXO Crew Training
Sample Bottle Setup
GW Sampling
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 1st week
Travel home - week 1
Travel to Site - week 2
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
Travel Home - week 2
IDW Removal
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
IDW Disposal
FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
Laboratory Analysis
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
Data Validation
FE 13 Project Data File Update
EDD Receipts
EDD Data Download
FE 13 Related Reports
Trip Reporting
Trip Report
Trip Report Submittal
DE Report 12 (FE 13)
Report Generation
Report Submittal
Demobilization Activities
Demob supplies
Remove Trailer
Reports
Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eacl
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Draft SLERA
Draft SLERA Submittal
EPA Review of SLERA
EPA Approval
BERAWork Plan
3 days
14 edays
20 days
3 days
3 days
0 edays
20 days
30 edays
0 edays
165 days
70 days
1 eday
0 edays
90 edays
5 edays
65 days
1 day
1 eday
0.5 edays
0 edays
9 days
4 edays
0.5 edays
0.5 edays
4 edays
0.5 edays
64 days
90 edays
0 edays
48 days
32 edays
7 edays
36 edays
13 days
3 days
14 edays
24 days
3 days
3 days
0 edays
21 days
30 edays
0 edays
2 days
3 edays
1 eday
690 days
0 edays
75 days
60 edays
0 edays
45 edays
0 edays
39 days
kstart date based on EDD uploads
%
12/4
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 16
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID (Task Name
September 2015
October 2015
10/11 10/18 I 10/25
November 2015 I
11/8 11/15 11/22 ! 11/29 ! 12/6 I 12/13
December 2015
12/20
January 2016
! 1/10 1/17
February 201_
2/7 2/14
662
663
664
665
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
BERAWP
EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP
Human Health Risk Assessment
Draft HHRA Rpt
EPA Review of D. HHRA
Final HHRA RPT
EPA Approval
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
Draft BERA Rpt
EPA Review of D. BERA
Final BERA Rpt
EPA Approval
Remedial Investigation Rpt
Draft Rl Rpt
Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
EPA Review of D. Rl
Final Rl Rpt
EPA Approval
Remedial Alt Tech Memo
Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo
Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo
EPA Approval
Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo
Tech Memo
EPA Approval
Feasibility Study
Draft FS Report
EPA Review of D FS
Final FS Rpt
EPA Approval
Proposed Plan/ROD
Proposed Plan/ROD Support
702 Work Assignment Closeout
703 Closeout
30 edaysl
25 edays]
130 days!
60 edaysl
45 days]
30 edays]
21 days]
130 days]
60 edays]
45 days]
30 edays]
21 days]
130 days]
60 edays]
0 edays]
45 days]
30 edays]
21 days]
43 days]
30 edays]
30 edays]
21 days]
43 days]
30 edays]
21 days]
130 days]
60 edays]
45 days]
30 edays]
21 days]
90 days]
90 days]
1 day]
1 eday]
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Page 17
External Tasks
External Milestone •
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
March 2016
April 2016
Mav 2016
June 2016
July 2016
Au
2/21 2/28 3/6 I 3/13 I 3/20 3/27
4/3 4/10 4/17 4/24
5/1 I 5/8 I 5/15 I 5/22 I 5/29 I 6/5 I 6/12 I 6/19 I 6/26
7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24
7/31 8/7
144
Surveyor - Procured
55 days
152
Wetland Delineation Subcontractor - Procured
32 days
160
Field Office Trailer
41 days
168
Analytical Laboratory(ies)
24 days
169
SOW Generation
5 edays
170
ITB Submission
3 days
171
Lab Bidding
7 edays
172
Receipt of Bids/Bid Approval
3 edays
173
Subcontractor Avail able to Start
14 edays
174
1352 days?
I ID
KisK identification ano Assess
176
Mobilization Activities
13 days
179
Field Event 1 - Field Activities Completed
72 days
197
Field Event 2 - Field Activities Completed
169 days
230
Field Event 3 - Isotope Investigation - Completed
998 days
256
257
Field Event 4 - Pre-locating/SS Sampling/Biding Asse
170 days
258
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
259
Development
1 eday
260
Submittal
0 edays
261
CLP Procurement
90 edays
262
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
263
FE 4 Field Work
80 days
264
Mob to Site
11 days
265
Travel
1 eday
266
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
267
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
268
Perimeter Dust Monitoring (for Bkg data coll
2 days
269
Setup Detectors
2 edays
270
Daily Checks/Monitoring
0 edays
271
Utility Clearing
4 days
272
Subsurface Soil Sample Location Locating
2 edays
273
Utility Clearing (Subc)
4 edays
274
Surface Soil Sampling Invest
2 days
275
Site - SS Samplling (estimate 20 samples
4 edays
276
Building Inspections
2 days
277
Asbestos Sampling (Subc)
2 edays
278
Wpe Sampling
2 edays
279
Travel Home
0.5 edays
280
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
65 days
283
FE 4 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
284
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
285
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
7 edays
286
Data Validation
36 edays
287
FE 4 Project Data File Update
13 days
288
EDD Receipts
3 days
289
EDD Data Download
14 edays
290
FE 4 Related Reporting
22 days
291
Field Reporting
3 days
292
Trip Report
3 days
293
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
294
DE Report 4 (Field Event 4)
22 days
295
Report Generation
30 edays
296
Report Submittal
0 edays
297
298
Field Event 5 - PC SW/SD Sampling; Wetland Invest
160 days
299
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
300
Development
1 eday
301
Submittal
0 edays
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Split
,,, Milestone
project summary v
—V hxtemai Milestone v
Page 18
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
March 2016
April 2016
Mav 2016
June 2016
Juiv 2016
Au
2/21 2/28 3/6 I 3/13 I 3/20 3/27
4/3 4/10 I 4/17 I 4/24
5/1 I 5/8 I 5/15 I 5/22 I 5/29 I 6/5 I 6/12 I 6/19 I 6/26
I 7/3 I 7/10 7/17 7/24 I
7/31 I 8/7
485
IDW Removal
65 days
486
IDW anticipated - purge gw; decon water
90 edays
487
Water IDW Disposal
0 edays
488
FE 9 Laboratory and Validation
49 days
489
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
490
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
491
Data Validation
36 edays
492
FE 9 Project Data File Update
13 days
493
EDD Receipts
3 days
494
EDD Data Download
14 edays
495
FE 9 Related Reports
82 days
496
Field Reporting
3 days
497
Trip Report
3 days
498
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
499
DE Report 8 (FE 9)
22 days
500
Report Generation
30 edays
501
Report Submittal
0 edays
502
503
Field Event 10 - GW Qrtly Event 2
160 days
504
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
505
Development
1 eday
506
Submittal
0 edays
507
CLP Procurement
90 edays
508
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
509
Field Work
65 days
510
Mob to Site
0 days
511
Travel
0.5 edays
512
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
513
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
514
GW Sampling
9 days
515
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 1st week
4 edays
516
Travel home - week 1
0.5 edays
517
Travel to Site - week 2
0.5 edays
518
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 2 - 2nd week
4 edays
519
Travel Home - week 2
0.5 edays
520
IDW Removal
65 days
521
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
522
IDW Disposal
0 edays
523
FE 10 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
524
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
525
Receipt of Unvali dated Data
7 edays
526
Data Validation
36 edays
527
FE 10 Project Data File Update
13 days
528
EDD Receipts
3 days
529
EDD Data Download
14 edays
530
FE 10 Related Reports
80 days
531
Trip Reporting
3 days
532
Trip Report
3 days
533
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
534
DE Report 9 (FE 10)
20 days
535
Report Generation
30 edays
536
Report Submittal
0 edays
^ 3/13
537
538
Field Event 11 - DPT SB
168 days
539
RAS/DAS Request
69 days
540
Development
1 eday
541
Submittal
0 edays
542
CLP Procurement
90 edays
543
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 19
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
—
ID Task Name
Duration
April 2016
2/21 I 2/28 I 3/6 I 3/13 I 3/20 I 3/27 I 4/3 I 4/10 I 4/17 I 4/24
May 2016
July 2016
5/1 I 5/8 I 5/15 I 5/22 I 5/29 I 6/5 I 6/12 I 6/19 I 6/26 I 7/3 I 7/10 I 7/17 I 7/24 I 7/31 I 8/7
544 Field Work 76 days
545 Utility Clearance 4 days
546 Pre-Locating - travel 0.5 edays
547 Pre-locating 1.5 edays
548 Utility Clearing 2 edays
549 Travel home 0.5 edays
550 Mob to Site 1 day
551 Travel 0.5 edays
552 Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays
553 Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays
554 SB Soil Sampling 7 days
555 Offsite SB Boring Investigation 6 edays
556 Offsite SB Hand Auger Investigation 2 edays
557 T BKG - SB Soil Sampling 1 day
558 BKG - SS Sampling 0 edays
559 Travel Home 0.5 edays
560 | jPW Removal 64 days
561 IDWAnticip: soil cuttings and decon wate 90 edays
562 r IDW Disposal 0 edays
563 FE11 Laboratory and Validation 48 days
564 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
565 Receipt of Unvalidated Data 7 edays
566 Data Validation 36 edays
567 | FE 11 Project Data File Update | 13 days
568 EDD Receipts 3 days
569 EDD Data Download 14 edays
570 FE 11 Related Reports 25 days
571 Trip Reporting 3 days
572 Trip Report 3 days
573 Trip Report Submittal 0 edays
574 DE Report 10 (FE 11) 22 days
575 Report Generation 30 edays
576 T Report Submittal 0 edays
577 |
578 Field Event 12 - GW Event 3 | 155 days
579 RAS/DAS Request 70 days
580 Development 1 eday
581 T Submittal 0 edays
582 r CLP Procurement 90 edays
583 Laboratory Assignment 5 edays
584 Field Work 73 days
585 Mob to Site 0 days
586 r Travel 0.5 edays
587 Rad/UXO Crew Training 0 edays
588 Sample Bottle Setup 0 edays
589 GW Sampling 9 days
590 Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 -1 st week 4 edays
591 Travel home - week 1 0.5 edays
592 Travel to Site - week 2 0.5 edays
593 I Qrtly GW Sampling Event 3 - 2nd week 4 edays
594 Travel Home - week 2 0.5 edays
595 IDW Removal 64 days
596 IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water 90 edays
597 IDW Disposal 0 edays
598 FE 12 Laboratory and Validation 48 days
599 Laboratory Analysis 32 edays
600 Receipt of Unvali dated Data 7 edays
601 Data Validation 36 edays
602 FE 12 Project Data File Update 13 days
4) 1/27
kend break dependent on need
rom and nitrate/nitrite sampling
Ifc
5/19
6/2
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 20
-------
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID (Task Name
I Duration I I March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
Au
I
I l 2/21 I 2/28 3/6 3/13 j 3/20 j 3/27
| 4/3 I 4/10 | 4/17 | 4/24
5/1 5/8 5/15 ! 5/22 I 5/29 I 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26
"J 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 j
7/31 | 8/7
662 BERAWP
30 edaysi
664
665 Human Health Risk Assessment 130 days!
666 Draft HHRARpt
60 edaysl
667 EPA Review of D.HHRA ' 45 days!
668 Final HHRA RPT
30 edaysl
669 EPA Approval
21 days] i
670
671 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 130 days!
672 Draft BERA Rpt
60 edaysl
673 EPA Review of D. BERA 45 days)
674 Final BERA Rpt
30 edaysl
675 EPA Approval
21 days] i
676
677 Remedial Investigation Rpt 130 days!
678 Draft Rl Rpt
60 edaysl
679 Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
0 edaysl
680 EPA Review of D. Rl
45 days!
681 Final Rl Rpt
30 edaysl
682 EPA Approval
21 days] i
683
684 Remedial Alt Tech Memo
43 days)
685 Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo 30 edays]
686 Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo 30 edaysl
687 EPA Approval
CQQ
21 days! i
689 Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo 43 days]
690 Tech Memo
30 edays]
691 EPA Approval
21 days] I
692
693 Feasibility Study
130 days]
694 Draft FS Report
60 edays]
695 EPA Review of D FS
45 days]
696 Final FS Rpt
30 edays]
697 EPA Approval
698
21 days] i
699 Proposed Plan/ROD
90 days]
700 Proposed Plan/ROD Support 90 days]
701
702 Work Assignment Closeout
1 day!
703 Closeout
1 eday] i
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
I Deadline
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Split Milestone #
Project Summary
External Milestone O
Page 22
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
j Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
ust 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
8/14 8/21 8/2
8 9/4 I 9/11 I 9/18 I 9/25
I 10/2 10/9 10/16 I 10/23 10/30 I 11/6 I 11/13 I 11/20 I 11/27 I 12/4 I 12/11 I 12/18 I 12/25
1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29
144
Surveyor - Procured
55 days
152
Wetland Delineation Subcontractor - Procured
32 days
160
Field Office Trailer
41 days
168
Analytical Laboratory(ies)
24 days
169
SOW Generation
5 edays
170
ITB Submission
3 days
171
Lab Bidding
7 edays
172
Receipt of Bids/Bid Approval
3 edays
173
Subcontractor Avail able to Start
14 edays
174
1352 days?
I to
176
Mobilization Activities
13 days
179
Field Event 1 - Field Activities Completed
72 days
197
Field Event 2 - Field Activities Completed
169 days
230
Field Event 3 - Isotope Investigation - Completed
998 days
256
257
Field Event 4 - Pre-locating/SS Sampling/Biding Asse
170 days
258
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
259
Development
1 eday
260
Submittal
0 edays
261
CLP Procurement
90 edays
262
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
263
FE 4 Field Work
80 days
264
Mob to Site
11 days
265
Travel
1 eday
266
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0 edays
267
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
268
Perimeter Dust Monitoring (for Bkg data coll
2 days
269
Setup Detectors
2 edays
270
Daily Checks/Monitoring
0 edays
271
Utility Clearing
4 days
272
Subsurface Soil Sample Location Locating
2 edays
273
Utility Clearing (Subc)
4 edays
274
Surface Soil Sampling Invest
2 days
275
Site - SS Samplling (estimate 20 samples
4 edays
276
Building Inspections
2 days
277
Asbestos Sampling (Subc)
2 edays
278
Wpe Sampling
2 edays
279
Travel Home
0.5 edays
280
IDW Removal - Not Applicable
65 days
283
FE 4 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
284
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
285
Unvalidated Data Received by HGL
7 edays
286
Data Validation
36 edays
287
FE 4 Project Data File Update
13 days
288
EDD Receipts
3 days
289
EDD Data Download
14 edays
290
FE 4 Related Reporting
22 days
291
Field Reporting
3 days
292
Trip Report
3 days
293
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
294
DE Report 4 (Field Event 4)
22 days
295
Report Generation
30 edays
296
Report Submittal
0 edays
297
298
Field Event 5 - PC SW/SD Sampling; Wetland Invest
160 days
299
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
300
Development
1 eday
301
Submittal
0 edays
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 23
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
j Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
ust 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
8/14
1 8/21 I 8/2
8 9/4 I 9/11 I 9/18 I 9/25
I 10/2 10/9 10/16 I 10/23 10/30 I 11/6 I 11/13 I 11/20 I 11/27 I 12/4 I 12/11 I 12/18 I 12/25
1/1 1/8 1/15 1/22 1/29
603
EDD Receipts
3 days
604
EDD Data Download
14 edays
605
FE 12 Related Reports
20 days
606
Trip Reporting
3 days
607
Trip Report
3 days
608
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
609
DE Report 11 (FE 12)
20 days
610
Report Generation
30 edays
611
Report Submittal
0 edays
612
613
Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
165 days
614
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
615
Development
1 eday
616
Submittal
0 edays
617
CLP Procurement
90 edays
618
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
619
Field Work
65 days
620
Mob to Site
1 day
621
Travel
1 eday
622
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
623
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
624
GW Sampling
9 days
625
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 1st week
4 edays
626
Travel home - week 1
0.5 edays
627
Travel to Site - week 2
0.5 edays
628
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
4 edays
629
Travel Home - week 2
0.5 edays
630
IDW Removal
64 days
631
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
632
IDW Disposal
0 edays
633
FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
634
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
635
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
636
Data Validation
36 edays
637
FE 13 Project Data File Update
13 days
638
EDD Receipts
3 days
639
EDD Data Download
14 edays
¦
640
FE 13 Related Reports
24 days
641
Trip Reporting
3 days
642
Trip Report
3 days
643
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
8/18
644
DE Report 12 (FE 13)
21 days
645
Report Generation
30 edays
646
Report Submittal
0 edays
<£j
9/17
647
648
Demobilization Activities
2 days
649
Demob supplies
3 edays
650
Remove Trailer
1 eday
651
Reports
690 days
8/18
653
Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eacl
0 edays
654
655
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
75 days
656
Draft SLERA
60 edays
657
Draft SLERA Submittal
0 edays
658
EPA Review of SLERA
45 edays
659
EPA Approval
0 edays
660
661
BERAWork Plan
39 days
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 24
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
~~
ID Task Name
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
8/14 I 8/21 I 8/28 I 9/4 I 9/11 I 9/18 I 9/25 I 10/2 I 10/9 I 10/16 I 10/23 I 10/30 I 11/6 I 11/13 I 11/20 I 11/27 I 12/4 I 12/11 I 12/18 I 12/25
January 2017
1/1 1/8 I 1/15 I 1/22 1/29
662
663
664
665
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
BERAWP
EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP
Human Health Risk Assessment
Draft HHRA Rpt
EPA Review of D. HHRA
Final HHRA RPT
EPA Approval
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
Draft BERA Rpt
EPA Review of D. BERA
Final BERA Rpt
EPA Approval
Remedial Investigation Rpt
Draft Rl Rpt
Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
EPA Review of D. Rl
Final Rl Rpt
EPA Approval
Remedial Alt Tech Memo
Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo
Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo
EPA Approval
Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo
Tech Memo
EPA Approval
Feasibility Study
Draft FS Report
EPA Review of D FS
Final FS Rpt
EPA Approval
699 | Proposed Plan/ROD
700 Proposed Plan/ROD Support
701 |
702 Work Assignment Closeout
703 Closeout
30 edays
25 edays
130 days
60 edays
45 days
30 edays
21 days
130 days
60 edays
45 days
30 edays
21 days
130 days
60 edays
0 edays
45 days
30 edays
21 days
43 days
30 edays
30 edays
21 days
43 days
30 edays
21 days
130 days
60 edays
45 days
30 edays
21 days
90 days
90 days
1 day
1 eday
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 25
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
Mav 2017
June 2017
Julv 2017
2/5 I 2/12 I 2/19 I 2/26 I 3/5 I 3/12 I 3/19 I 3/26
4/2 4/9 I 4/16 I 4/23 I
4/30 5/7 I 5/14 5/21 I 5/28 I 6/4 6/11 I 6/18 I 6/25
I 7/2 7/9 I 7/16 I 7/23
603
EDD Receipts
3 days
604
EDD Data Download
14 edays
605
FE 12 Related Reports
20 days
606
Trip Reporting
3 days
607
Trip Report
3 days
608
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
609
DE Report 11 (FE 12)
20 days
610
Report Generation
30 edays
611
Report Submittal
0 edays
612
613
Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
165 days
614
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
615
Development
1 eday
616
Submittal
0 edays
617
CLP Procurement
90 edays
618
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
619
Field Work
65 days
620
Mob to Site
1 day
621
Travel
1 eday
622
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
623
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
624
GW Sampling
9 days
625
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 1st week
4 edays
626
Travel home - week 1
0.5 edays
627
Travel to Site - week 2
0.5 edays
628
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
4 edays
629
Travel Home - week 2
0.5 edays
630
IDW Removal
64 days
631
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
632
IDW Disposal
0 edays
633
FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
634
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
635
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
636
Data Validation
36 edays
637
FE 13 Project Data File Update
13 days
638
EDD Receipts
3 days
639
EDD Data Download
14 edays
640
FE 13 Related Reports
24 days
641
Trip Reporting
3 days
642
Trip Report
3 days
643
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
644
DE Report 12 (FE 13)
21 days
645
Report Generation
30 edays
646
Report Submittal
0 edays
647
648
Demobilization Activities
2 days
649
Demob supplies
3 edays
650
Remove Trailer
1 eday
651
Reports
690 days
653
Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eacl
0 edays
654
655
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
75 days
656
Draft SLERA
60 edays
657
Draft SLERA Submittal
0 edays
658
EPA Review of SLERA
45 edays
659
EPA Approval
0 edays
660
661
BERAWork Plan
39 days
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 26
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 I Mav2017 I June 2017 I Julv2017
2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26 3/5 3/12 3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/28 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23
662
BERAWP
30 edays
663
EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP
25 edays
664
665
Human Health Risk Assessment
130 days
666
Draft HHRA Rpt
60 edays
667
668
EPA Review of D. HHRA
Final HHRA RPT
45 days
30 edays
669
^370
EPA Approval
21 days
671
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
130 days
672
Draft BERA Rpt
60 edays
673
674
EPA Review of D. BERA
Final BERA Rpt
45 days
30 edays
675
676
EPA Approval
21 days
677
Remedial Investigation Rpt
130 days
678
Draft Rl Rpt
60 edays
679
Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
0 edays
680
681
EPA Review of D. Rl
Final Rl Rpt
45 days
30 edays
682
683
EPA Approval
21 days
684
685
Remedial Alt Tech Memo
Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo
Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo
EPA Approval
43 days
30 edays
30 edays
21 days
V
u
687
688
689
690
Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo
Tech Memo
43 days
30 edays
V
691
692
EPA Approval
21 days
r
693
Feasibility Study
130 days
694
Draft FS Report
60 edays
L_
695
EPA Review of D FS
45 days
696
Final FS Rpt
30 edays
697
EPA Approval
21 days
698
699
Proposed Plan/ROD
90 days
700
Proposed Plan/ROD Support
90 days
701
702
Work Assignment Closeout
1 day
703
Closeout
1 eday
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task Pi ogi ess <¦ > Summary V V External I asks Deadline O
Split Milestone Project Summary v v External Milestone O
Page 27
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
August 2017
September 2017
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 201
7/30 8/6 8/13 I 8/20 I 8/27
9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24
10/1 10/8 10/15 I 10/22 I 10/29 I 11/5 I 11/12 I 11/19 I 11/26 I 12/3 I 12/10 I 12/17 I 12/24 I
12/31 1/7 1/14
603
EDD Receipts
3 days
604
EDD Data Download
14 edays
605
FE 12 Related Reports
20 days
606
Trip Reporting
3 days
607
Trip Report
3 days
608
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
609
DE Report 11 (FE 12)
20 days
610
Report Generation
30 edays
611
Report Submittal
0 edays
612
613
Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
165 days
614
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
615
Development
1 eday
616
Submittal
0 edays
617
CLP Procurement
90 edays
618
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
619
Field Work
65 days
620
Mob to Site
1 day
621
Travel
1 eday
622
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
623
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
624
GW Sampling
9 days
625
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 1st week
4 edays
626
Travel home
week 1
0.5 edays
627
Travel to Site
- week 2
0.5 edays
628
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
4 edays
629
Travel Home
- week 2
0.5 edays
630
IDW Removal
64 days
631
IDW Antic: GW purge water; decon water
90 edays
632
IDW Disposal
0 edays
633
FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
634
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
635
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
636
Data Validation
36 edays
637
FE 13 Project Data File Update
13 days
638
EDD Receipts
3 days
639
EDD Data Download
14 edays
640
FE 13 Related Reports
24 days
641
Trip Reporting
3 days
642
Trip Report
3 days
643
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
644
DE Report 12 (FE 13)
21 days
645
Report Generation
30 edays
646
Report Submittal
0 edays
647
648
Demobilization Activities
2 days
649
Demob supplies
3 edays
650
Remove Trailer
1 eday
651
Reports
690 days
653
Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eacl
0 edays
654
655
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
75 days
656
Draft SLERA
60 edays
657
Draft SLERA Submittal
0 edays
658
EPA Review of SLERA
45 edays
659
EPA Approval
0 edays
660
661
BERAWork Plan
39 days
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Page 28
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
~~
ID Task Name
August 2017
September 2017
7/30 I 8/6 18/13 I 8/20 I 8/27 I 9/3 I 9/10 I 9/17 |~9/24
October 2017
November 2017
December 2017
January 201
10/1 10/8 10/15 10/22 10/29 11/5 11/12 11/19 11/26 12/3 12/10 12/17 12/24 12/31 I 1/7 I 1/14
662
663
664
665
670
"67T
"672"
673
"674"
675
"676"
"677"
"678"
"679"
680
"68T
"682"
"683"
684
685
689
690
691
"692"
"693"
694
"695"
696
"697"
"698"
699
"700"
"76T
"702"
703
BERA WP 30 edays
EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP 25 edays
Human Health Risk Assessment 130 days
Draft HHRARpt | 60 edays
EPA Review of D. HHRA | 45days
Final HHRARPT | 30edays
E PA App roval 21 d ays
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment 130 days
Draft BERA Rpt 60 edays
EPA Review of D. BERA 45 days
Final BERA Rpt 30 edays
EPA Approval 21 days
Remedial Investigation Rpt 130 days
Draft Rl Rpt 60 edays
Draft Rl Rpt Submittal 0 edays
EPA Review of D. Rl 45 days
Final Rl Rpt 30 edays
E PA App roval 21 d ays
Remedial Alt Tech Memo 43 days
Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo 30 edays
Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo | 30 edays
E PA App roval 21 d ays
Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo | 43 days
Tech Memo 30 edays
E PA App roval 21 d ays
Feasibility Study 130 days
Draft FS Report 60 edays
EPA Review of D FS 45 days
Final FS Rpt 30 edays
E PA App roval 21 d ays
Proposed Plan/ROD 90 days
Proposed Plan/ROD Support 90 days
Work Assignment Closeout 1 day
Closeout 1 eday
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 29
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
I February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
May 2018
June 2018
Jul
1/21 ! 1/28 I 2/4 1 2/11 I 2/18 2/25 I 3/4 I 3/11 I 3/18 I 3/25
4/1 4/8 4/15 ! 4/22 I 4/29 I 5/6 5/13 5/20 5/27
6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24
7/1 | 7/8
603
EDD Receipts
3 days
604
EDD Data Download
14 edays
605
FE 12 Related Reports
20 days
606
Trip Reporting
3 days
607
Trip Report
3 days
608
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
609
DE Report 11 (FE 12)
20 days
610
Report Generation
30 edays
611
Report Submittal
0 edays
612
613
Field Event 13 - GW Event 4
165 days
614
RAS/DAS Request
70 days
615
Development
1 eday
616
Submittal
0 edays
617
CLP Procurement
90 edays
618
Laboratory Assignment
5 edays
619
Field Work
65 days
620
Mob to Site
1 day
621
Travel
1 eday
622
Rad/UXO Crew Training
0.5 edays
623
Sample Bottle Setup
0 edays
624
GW Sampling
9 days
625
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 -1 st week
4 edays
626
Travel home
- week 1
0.5 edays
627
Travel to Site
- week 2
0.5 edays
628
Qrtly GW Sampling Event 4 - 2nd week
4 edays
629
Travel Home
- week 2
0.5 edays
630
IDW Removal
64 days
631
IDWAntic: GWpurge water; decon water
90 edays
632
IDW Disposal
0 edays
633
FE 13 Laboratory and Validation
48 days
634
Laboratory Analysis
32 edays
635
Receipt of Unvalidated Data
7 edays
636
Data Validation
36 edays
637
FE 13 Project Data File Update
13 days
638
EDD Receipts
3 days
639
EDD Data Download
14 edays
640
FE 13 Related Reports
24 days
641
Trip Reporting
3 days
642
Trip Report
3 days
643
Trip Report Submittal
0 edays
644
DE Report 12 (FE 13)
21 days
645
Report Generation
30 edays
646
Report Submittal
0 edays
647
648
Demobilization Activities
2 days
649
Demob supplies
3 edays
650
Remove Trailer
1 eday
651
Reports
690 days
652
653
Data Usability and Evaluation Report - Listed Under Eac
0 edays
654
655
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
75 days
656
Draft SLERA
60 edays
657
Draft SLERA Submitta
0 edays
658
EPA Review of SLERA
45 edays
659
EPA Approval
0 edays
660
661
BERAWork Plan
39 days
Project: 2015 0415-WA44projSchd
Summary lyimmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
"***9 External Tasks
Deadline
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Split
Milestone #
Project Summary
External Milestone O
Page 30
-------
Figure 1.1
April 15, 2015 Project Schedule
Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS, City of Portsmouth, VA
ID
Task Name
Duration
February 2018
March 2018
April 2018
Mav 2018
June 2018
Jul
1/21 I 1/28 I 2/4 I 2/11 I 2/18 I 2/25 I 3/4 I 3/11 I 3/18 I 3/25
4/1 I 4/8 I 4/15 I 4/22 I
1/29 1 5/6 1 5/13 I 5/20 I 5/27
I 6/3 I 6/10 I 6/17 I 6/24
7/1 I 7/8
662
BERAWP
30 edays
663
EPA Review and Approval of BERA WP
25 edays
664
665
Human Health Risk Assessment
130 days
666
Draft HHRA Rpt
60 edays
667
EPA Review of D. HHRA
45 days
668
Final HHRA RPT
30 edays
669
EPA Approval
21 days
^370
671
Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment
130 days
672
Draft BERA Rpt
60 edays
673
EPA Review of D. BERA
45 days
674
Final BERA Rpt
30 edays
675
EPA Approval
21 days
676
677
Remedial Investigation Rpt
130 days
678
Draft Rl Rpt
60 edays
679
Draft Rl Rpt Submittal
0 edays
680
EPA Review of D. Rl
45 days
681
Final Rl Rpt
30 edays
682
EPA Approval
21 days
683
684
Remedial Alt Tech Memo
43 days
685
Remedial Alt Screening Tech Memo
30 edays
686
Rem Alt Evaluation Tech memo
30 edays
687
688
EPA Approval
21 days
689
Remedial Alter Eval Tech Memo
43 days
690
Tech Memo
30 edays
691
EPA Approval
21 days
692
693
Feasibility Study
130 days
694
Draft FS Report
60 edays
695
EPA Review of D FS
45 days
696
Final FS Rpt
30 edays
697
EPA Approval
21 days
Zh
698
syy
700
Proposed Plan/ROD
Proposed Plan/ROD Support
90 days
90 days
701
1
702
Work Assignment Closeout
1 day
703
Closeout
1 eday
1
Project: 2015_0415-WA44projSchd
Date: Wed 4/15/15
Task
Split
Progress
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
External Tasks
External Milestone <£
Page 31
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 Site Location
The Site is an inactive 33-acre scrap metal facility located at 3850 Elm Avenue in the City of
Portsmouth, Norfolk County, Virginia. The Site is located at latitude 36°48'34.07"N and
longitude 76°18'31.76"W (EPA, 2009a). A site location map is provided as Figure 2.1. The
Site is currently owed by The Peck Company, Inc. (Peck), which acquired the property in the
late 1940s. The Site is situated in a mixed heavy industrial and commercial area within the
City of Portsmouth. The Site description will be refined as more information is developed
regarding areas where hazardous substances have been deposited, stored, disposed of, or
placed, or otherwise come to be located.
2.1.2 Site Description
The Site is a former scrap metal storage, processing, and recycling facility located on tax
parcels 03860020, 03860025, 03860026, 03860028, and 03860029. The Site is a U-shaped
property (Figure 2.2). For the purpose of describing the locations of Site operations and
sampling locations, the upper limbs of the Site have been informally designated as "western
arm" and "eastern arm." The base of the U-shaped property has been informally divided into
the "central section" and "southern section." These informal site description designations are
shown on Figure 2.2. The following property information on each tax parcel was obtained
from the City of Portsmouth Real Estate Assessors website
(http://www.portsmouthva.gov/assessor/data/ realestatesearch.aspx):
• Tax Parcel 03860020: This tax parcel comprises the east-central portion of the Site.
The address for this parcel is 3850 Elm Avenue in zip code 23704-7118 as part of the
Commercial District 3 neighborhood. The parcel is 2.72 acres in size and is zoned
industrial. The maintenance building, a one-story building constructed in 1950 and
totaling 3,312 square feet, is present on the parcel.
• Tax Parcel 03860025: This tax parcel comprises the eastern arm of the Site. The
address for this parcel is 3850 Elm Avenue in zip code 23704-7120 as part of the
Commercial District 3 neighborhood. The parcel is 3.175 acres in size and is zoned
industrial. No buildings are listed for this parcel.
• Tax Parcel 03860026: This tax parcel comprises the Site's western arm and southern
section. The address for this parcel is 3850 Elm Avenue in zip code 23704-7118 as
part of the Commercial District 3 neighborhood. The parcel is 22.87 acres in size
and is zoned industrial. The brick warehouse, a one-story building constructed in
1913 and totaling 54,204 square feet, is present on the parcel.
• Tax Parcel 03860028: This tax parcel comprises a portion of the central section of
the Site. The address for this parcel is "0" Old Burtons Point Road and is part of the
Commercial District 3 neighborhood. The parcel is 3.907 acres in size and is zoned
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
industrial. The shear building, a one-story building constructed in 1986 and totaling
828 square feet, is present on the parcel.
• Tax Parcel 03860029: This tax parcel comprises a portion of the central section of
the Site. The address for this parcel is "0" Old Burtons Point Road and is part of the
Commercial District 3 neighborhood. The parcel is 1.361 acres in size and is zoned
industrial. No buildings are listed for this parcel.
In 2004, Peck partnered with the Elizabeth River Project (ERP) to restore one acre of tidal
wetland at the Site and three acres of riparian buffer adjacent to the restored wetland (ERP,
2008). Additionally, Peck placed 6.2 acres of riparian buffer and wetlands along 600 feet of
shoreline into a permanent conservation with the ERP (ERP, 2008).
General site conditions were assessed during a February 22, 2012, site visit conducted by the
EPA's Region 3 Remedial Project Manager (RPM); EPA Region 3 technical staff; the EPA's
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and EPA's contractor,
HGL. The Site is a mixture of developed and undeveloped land. Buildings present on site
include the 54,204 square foot brick warehouse (brick warehouse) in the Site's western arm; a
3,312 square foot slab-on-grade cinderblock maintenance garage (maintenance garage) in the
east-central portion of the Site, and a 828 square foot small cinderblock building with attached
concrete pad (shear building) in the central portion of the Site. At the time of the site visit, the
floor of the maintenance garage was observed to be flooded with several inches of rainwater.
Several concrete pads, former building foundations, were observed along the western property
line and adjacent to the Site's eastern property line. The locations of the buildings are
depicted on Figure 2.2.
Miscellaneous surface debris is present on the surface across much of the Site. The debris
typically consists of brick, glass, wood, broken asphalt and concrete, plastic, and scrap metal.
The majority of the Site is unpaved. Shallow standing water was present in intermittent
puddles throughout much of the Site, particularly in areas south of the western arm. The
standing water was presumed to be the results of a winter storm that moved through the area
three days prior to the site visit.
A monitoring well network of 11 wells (MW01 through MW10 and MW01R) has been
installed on the Site. Wells MW01 through MW06 were installed in 1999 and appear to have
been completed as flush-mounted wells (i.e., flush to surface grade). Monitoring wells
MW01R and MW07 though MW10 were installed in 2008 as above ground stickup wells.
MW03 has not been observed since 1999 and is believed to have been buried beneath debris.
MW01R was installed as a replacement for monitoring well MW01 which was not observed
after 2003. During the 2012 site visit, monitoring wells MW02 and MW04 were also not
observed. Based upon an inspection of their well locations, MW02 and MW04 appeared to be
covered with materials and/or debris.
Vegetation (grasses and shrubs) were observed across most of the Site, with the exception of
the northern portion of the Site's western arm and the eastern arm. These areas were
primarily devoid of vegetation. During the site visit, a number of areas with phragmites
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
(perennial grasses found in wetlands) vegetation were identified on the east and west portions
of the Site, indicating more consistently wet conditions in these areas.
The portion of the Site bordering Paradise Creek lies within the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act (CBPA) boundary for Paradise Creek (Figure 2.2). The CBPA (Code of Virginia Chapter
21) was adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia (Commonwealth) General Assembly in
1988 to protect the Chesapeake Bay. The CBPA requires that:
• Counties, cities, and towns of Tidewater Virginia incorporate general water quality
protection measures into their comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and
subdivision ordinances;
• Counties, cities, and towns of Tidewater Virginia establish programs, in accordance
with criteria established by the Commonwealth, that define and protect certain lands
which if improperly developed may result in substantial damage to the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries;
• The Commonwealth make its resources available to local governing bodies by
providing financial and technical assistance, policy guidance and oversight when
requested or otherwise required to carry out and enforce the provisions of this
Chapter; and
• All agencies of the Commonwealth exercise their delegated authority in a manner
consistent with water quality protection provisions of local comprehensive plans,
zoning ordinances, and subdivision ordinances when it has been determined that they
comply with the provisions of this chapter.
As amended in 2006, the Code of the City of Portsmouth divides the CBPA into two
categories, a Resource Protection Area (RPA) and a Resource Management Area (RMA).
RPA means the component of the CBPA comprised of lands adjacent to water bodies with
perennial flow that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological
processes they perform or that are sensitive to impacts which may result in significant
degradation to the quality of state waters. Section 9.1-4(b)(l) of the Code of the City of
Portsmouth states the RMA includes, at a minimum, the following areas:
• Tidal wetlands;
• Nontidal wetlands connected by surface flow and contiguous to tidal wetlands or
water bodies with perennial flow;
• Tidal shores; and
• A 100-foot vegetated buffer area adjacent to the landward side of the above
components.
The RMA means the component of the CBPA that is not classified as RPA. An RMA includes
land types, that improperly used or developed, have the potential for causing significant water
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
quality degradation or for diminishing the functional value of the RPA. Section 9.1-4(b)(2)
defines the RMA as being adjacent to the RPA and shall be composed of the following:
• The 100-year flood plain as identified on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map dated September 25, 2009;
• Nontidal wetlands not connected by surface flow to tidal wetlands, water bodies with
perennial flow or other tidal waters; and
• Where the floodplain or nontidal wetlands exist outside of the RPA then the extent of
these features delineate the RMA. If these features do not exist or do not extend 530
feet beyond the RPA, the RMA is 530 feet from the landward edge of the RPA.
Section 9.1-4(b)(3) states that an Intensely Developed Area (IDA) is an overlay of the RPA
and the RMA. Modifications to RMA and the RPA must be approved by the City Council and
must be supported by documentation of the more accurate extent of the land and water
features. The IDA serves as a redevelopment area and shall have one of the following
characteristics:
• Development has severely altered the natural state of the area such that it has more
than 50 percent impervious surface;
• Public sewer and water systems, or a constructed storm water drainage system, or
both have been constructed and served the area as of the 1990 CBPA overlay
ordinance; or
• Housing density is equal to or greater than 10 dwellings per acre.
As shown on Figure 2.2, an RPA area lies adjacent to Paradise Creek, encompassing most if
not all of the Site wetlands. Based on the definition of an RPM in the Code of the City of
Portsmouth (Section 9.1-4(b)(l), all of the Site wetlands bordering Paradise Creek plus 100
feet of the landward portion of the Site is designated as RPA. The remaining portion of the
Site has been designated as RMA except for the far northwestern corner of the property. A
portion of the Site surrounding the brick warehouse and portions of the ARREFF property
have been designated as IDA.
2.1.3 Adj acent Properties
The Site is bounded to the north by Elm Avenue and ARREFF (tax parcel 03860040), to the
east by Victory Boulevard, to the southeast by Wheelabrator, to the west by the Norfolk Naval
Shipyard (NNSY) Scott Center Annex and Sherwin Williams (tax parcel 03860027), and to the
south by Paradise Creek. The Cradock neighborhood lies on the opposite shore of Paradise
Creek. Other nearby properties includes the NNSY, ancillary NNSY sites, and Atlantic Wood
Industries (AWI).
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.1.3.1 Sherwin Williams
Sherwin Williams is located at 3560 Elm Avenue (tax parcel 03860027) and borders the Site to
the northwest. The Sherwin Williams property is approximately 3.047 acres in size. A one-
story building constructed in 1975 (according to City of Portsmouth tax assessment records) is
present on the property and is approximately 28,271 square feet in size.
The Sherwin Williams property was historically owned by Peck (Malcolm Pirnie, 2008).
Based upon review of historical aerial photographs, the Sherwin Williams property was part of
Peck until at least 1970 (EPA, 2010a). A 1970 aerial photograph shows the presence of a
salvage yard, possibly a scrap metal salvage yard, in the northwestern quarter of the parcel
and solid waste debris in the central and southern portions of the tax parcel. In a 1980 aerial
photograph, the Sherwin Williams building is present. Neither the material in the salvage yard
nor solid waste debris were observed on the property in the 1980 aerial photograph
(EPA, 2010a).
2.1.3.2 ARREFF Terminals, Inc.
ARREFF is a transloading and bagging facility that services the Ports of Portsmouth and
Norfolk of most export cargoes and specializes in agricultural commodities. The facility is
located at 3600 Elm Avenue (tax parcel 03860040) and encompasses 21.419 acres. The
property is surrounded to the west, south, and east by the Site (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The
property is zoned industrial and contains several buildings totaling 103,234 square feet. All of
the buildings were constructed in 1963. According to the City of Portsmouth Real Estate
Assessor's website, ARREFF purchased the property on August 2, 2004.
The ARREFF property was formerly a Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company (P&G)
facility. As stated on the EPA's Mid-Atlantic Corrective Action website
(http: //www. epa. gov/reg3wcmd/ca/va/) P&G formerly operated a peanut butter manufacturing
and packaging facility on the property since 1961. ARREFF's EPA site identification is
VAD003174810. In 1994, P&G sold the property to Fred R. Langley of Knoxville,
Tennessee.
The P&G facility operated a hazardous waste management unit (HWMU) container storage
area with a capacity of 550 gallons (10 drums) from November 19, 1980 to June 30, 1993.
The HWMU container storage facility operated under Interim Status from November 19,
1980, until March 28, 1989, the date the facility requested closure verification site visit by the
Virginia Department of Waste Management (VDWM), a predecessor to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ). The HWMU container storage area operated
under both a large quantity generator and a small quantity generator status based on Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 (40 CFR) Section 262.34, until the P&G facility closed.
P&G deactivated the entire facility on May 22, 1995. A closure plan dated July 19, 1988, was
submitted by P&G. On August 7, 2009, EPA issued a Final Determination of Corrective
Action Complete without controls and no further action was required at that time.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.1.3.3 Wheelabrator Portsmouth, Inc.
Wheelabrator, a subsidiary of Waste Management of Houston, Texas, purchased the
Southeastern Public Service Authority's (SPSA) waste-to-energy power plant and refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) facility on April 28, 2010. The waste-to-energy power plant (tax parcel
03870070) is located east of the Site's eastern arm, on the opposite side of Victory Boulevard.
The RDF facility (tax parcel 03860011) borders the Site along the Site's southeastern property
boundary (Figures 2.1 and 2.2).
As stated on the Wheelabrator website (http: //wheelabratortechnologies. com/plants/waste-to-
engergy/wheelabrator-portsmouth), the RDF facility receives the initial shipments of waste
material. The waste is then sorted and metals are removed and recycled. Processable garbage
is transferred across Victory Boulevard to the Wheelabrator waste-to-energy power plant. The
trash is then subjected to a temperature of 2,000°F within large utility-type boilers. The
boilers recover thermal energy generated in the form of high-pressure steam; the steam is
converted into electrical energy in a turbine-generator. The four boilers at Wheelabrator
process up to 2,000 tons of municipal solid waste per day, which generates 600,000 pounds of
steam per hour and 60-megawatts of electricity. NNSY uses the steam in its ship repair
operations, while the excess power is sold into the electrical grid. Non-processable waste is
taken off site for disposal at landfills by Waste Management, Inc.
2.1.3.4 Norfolk Naval Shipyard
The NNSY is one of the largest ship repair facilities in the world. It is situated on 800 acres
with 4 miles of waterfront along the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. The NNSY
consisted of the main shipyard, four annexes, and two noncontiguous areas. Two of the
annexes, Scott Center and Southgate, are still used for activities associated with NNSY, but
operate under a separate U.S. Navy (Navy) command. The Scott Center Annex is located
along Paradise Creek. The Southgate Annex contains mostly warehousing and service
structures and a long-term radioactive material storage area (ATSDR, 2003). The other two
annexes are the St. Helena Annex, which is now owned by a shipbuilding company, and the
St. Julien's Creek Annex, which has been transferred to the Naval Station Norfolk. The two
noncontiguous areas include the New Gosport area, located south of the headwaters of
Paradise Creek, and the Paradise Creek Disposal Area (Paradise Creek Eastern and Western
landfills); located north of Paradise Creek, near the confluence of Paradise Creek and the
South Branch of the Elizabeth River.
Beginning in 1963, NNSY was authorized to overhaul nuclear ships. Between 1965 and 1980,
nuclear submarines and conventional powered surface ships ranging from destroyers to aircraft
carriers were repaired at NNSY. Since 1980, the shipyard has provided a full range of
industrial, manufacturing, and technological processes required for overhauling and repairing
the modern high technology Navy warships such as: minor and major valve repair, overhaul,
and replacement; repair and alteration of piping systems; calibration of mechanical and
electrical measuring instruments and equipment; overhaul of motors and generators; test and
inspection of components and systems; as well as refueling.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
In 1975, the Department of Defense initiated the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) to
study disposal activities for hazardous and toxic materials at Navy and Marine Corps facilities.
An Initial Assessment Study was conducted at NNSY in 1982, followed by more detailed
analyses in 1988 and 1992. Of the 19 sites investigated, eight were recommended for
additional study and they are currently under study in the IR Program. NNSY was listed on
the National Priorities List (NPL) on July 26, 1999. Four of the eight NNSY sites
recommended for further study under the IR Program are located either adjacent to the Site or
adjacent to Paradise Creek. These four areas are: Scott Center Annex Landfill, the New
Gosport Landfill, the Paradise Creek Disposal Area (Paradise Creek Eastern and Western
Landfills), and Site 10. The NNSY has not identified Paradise Creek as a site; rather,
Paradise Creek has been assessed during investigations conducted at the Scott Center Annex
Landfill, the New Gosport Landfill, and the Paradise Creek Disposal Area (Paradise Creek
Eastern and Western Landfills). The NNSY sites adjacent to Paradise Creek and/or the Site
are shown on Figure 2.1 and described below:
• New Gosport Landfill: This four-acre landfill is located on the south site of the
headwaters for Paradise Creek (Figure 2.1). The landfill contained abrasive blast
material (ABM), used in the 1970s, mixed with lead-based paint chips from the Navy.
Evaluation of soil sampling data identified lead in the soil at concentrations that could
pose an indeterminate public health hazard (ATSDR, 2003). Based on these findings,
remediation of the landfill was conducted. In 2001, the Navy excavated 55,000 tons
of the ABM residues and mixed soil (EPA, 2002). The excavated soil was
remediated by screening the soil/blast mix to removed extraneous material and then
stabilization of the screened material with phosphate fertilizer. The Navy created 1.9
acres of new tidal wetlands within the excavated former landfill footprint. Native
spartina grasses were planted in the new wetland to help reduce urban sedimentation
contamination in Paradise Creek and increase wetlands buffers in the Elizabeth River
watershed (EPA, 2002).
• Site 2 (Operable Unit 1 - Scott Center Annex Landfill): The Scott Center Annex is
located adjacent to the Site's western property boundary. Site 2 (Operable Unit
[OU] 1), a 1.7 acre landfill, is located along Paradise Creek, on the southern
boundary of the Scott Center Annex. The landfill was used intermittently during the
late 1950s for disposal of wastes generated from drydock operations. Wastes
discarded in the landfill include ABM with paint residues, sanitary wastes, and other
industrial wastes (NAVFAC MIDLANT, 2005). The majority of the material placed
at Site 2 was hydraulic fill, a material consisting of fine sand, silt, clay, and water
generated from dredging during maintenance of nearby waterways. The wastes were
approximately 5 to 7 feet thick and covered with approximately two feet of topsoil.
The volume of waste and waste-impacted soils at Site 2 was calculated to be
approximately 10,400 cubic yards (NAVFAC MIDLANT, 2005).
Potential risks to human health in the soil (surface and subsurface soil combined) at
Site 2 were identified as arsenic, iron, and manganese. Manganese was also
identified as presenting a potential human health risk in deep groundwater; however,
the risk is the result of naturally occurring concentrations because the RI found that
the deep groundwater had not been impacted by the Site 2 landfill (NAVFAC
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
MIDLANT, 2005). Metals were the principal contributors to human health risk from
exposure to shallow groundwater. An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was
conducted of Paradise Creek to identify Navy sources potentially contributing to
ecological risk in the creek and its adjacent marsh habitats. The primary focus of the
ERA was the potential release of contaminants to surface water and sediments from
Site 2 and other Navy sites on Paradise Creek. The ERA concluded that direct
exposure to metals and pesticides in the sediment in the vicinity of Site 2 could
potentially result in adverse effects to benthic-dwelling organisms (such as, clams and
mussels) (NAVFAC MIDLANT, 2005). The ERA also determined that there was no
potential risk to higher trophic-level receptors (birds and mammals) from site-related
(Site 2) chemicals in sediment and there was minimal potential risk to aquatic life
from site-related chemicals in surface water.
The NNSY selected no further action as the remedy for Site 2. A removal action was
conducted at Site 2 from October 2004 through April 2005. Approximately 28,775
tons of waste, soil, and marsh sediment were removed.
• Sites 3 through 7 (OU2 - Paradise Creek Landfill): Within the overall boundaries
of OU2 are Site 3, the Eastern and Western landfills; Site 4, liquid waste holding
ponds; Site 5, oil reclamation area; Site 6, former liquid waste disposal area; and Site
7, liquid waste holding area (also calcium hydroxide disposal area). Site 3 is a
former sanitary landfill that was used as the shipyard landfill from 1945 through
1983. Waste disposed at Site 3 includes salvage waste, ABM, boiler flyash and
bottom ash, residential trash, and industrial wastewater treatment plant sludge. Solid
waste disposal operations continued until approximately 1983, when the landfill's
permit expired. The risk to Paradise Creek was evaluated under Site 2, the Scott
Center Annex (OU1).
Based on the results of an RI, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals
in soil were present at levels posing a potential unacceptable risk requiring remedial
action. An Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis was completed in 2007 to identify,
evaluate and compare alternatives for OU2. The project contains three phases. Phase
I included excavation/restoration of the Site 7 marsh and was completed. A Record
of Decision (ROD) was signed in fiscal year (FY) 2010 (FY10) that addresses Phases
II and III. Phase II includes a soil cap for Site 3 (Eastern Landfill). Phase III
includes a soil cap for Sites 3 (Western Landfill), 4, 5, and 6. Phase II and III
construction was completed in FY10 and final documentation is scheduled for late
FY12. Groundwater under OU2 is being addressed as OU7.
• Site 10, 1927 Landfill (OU6): The 1927 Landfill and vicinity is located in the
southern portion of the Main Shipyard in an area covered with paved roads,
buildings, and parking lots. The landfill was utilized prior to 1927 until 1941.
Wastes disposed of at the site reportedly included various solid wastes generated by
the NNSY, salvage waste, ABM, flyash, and asbestos containing material (ACM).
Site 10 disposal area consists primarily of dredge fill material and small amounts of
construction debris rather than waste consistent with an industrial landfill. A RI/FS
was finalized in 2006 and a ROD was signed in October 2008. As stated in the ROD,
based on current land use, no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-8
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
were identified; however, future residential land use may result in unacceptable
exposure to lead in the soil (NAVFAC MIDLANT, 2008). Based on an evaluation of
site conditions, site-related risks, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), and the remedial action objective, the selected remedy at Site 10 was land
use controls (LUCs). LUCs to prohibit use of the site for residential housing, child
care, elementary and secondary schools, or playground facilities have been
implemented.
2.1.3.5 Atlantic Wood Industries
AWI occupies approximately 47.5 acres immediately east of the Site, across Victory
Boulevard. The AWI site is split into eastern and western portions by the Norfolk and
Portsmouth Beltline railroad and Burtons Point Road. Before August 6, 1991, AWI was an
active wood processing facility. Currently, AWI operates a pre-stressed concrete products
manufacturing facility on the property. AWI was added to the NPL in 1990. The EPA's site
identification for AWI is VAD990710410. Contamination exists at the site as a result of past
wood-treating operations and disposal and migration of waste and/or hazardous substances
from the NNSY. Arsenic, copper, lead, zinc, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and PAHs have been
detected in the site media (surface and subsurface soils, groundwater, surface water,
sediments) and in biota in the adjacent South Branch of the Elizabeth River.
2.1.3.6 Paradise Creek Nature Park
The Paradise Creek Nature Park opened to the public on December 28, 2012. The park is
located at 1141 Victory Boulevard, southeast of the Site and on the southern shore of Paradise
Creek. Development of the park was the result of the partnership between the ERP, the City
of Portsmouth, and the Virginia Port Authority. The ERP, a non-profit environmental
organization working to clean up the Elizabeth River and Paradise Creek, raised more than $3
million to buy the property and construct Phase 1 amenities. The City of Portsmouth will
operate the nature park and the Virginia Port Authority will restore 11 acres of wetlands.
2.1.3.7 Cradock Community
The Cradock Community is a residential community located on the opposite shore of Paradise
Creek from the Site. Cradock was one of the nation's first government built planned
communities. The community includes residential dwellings, schools, recreational areas, and
a commercial area. According to HomeFinder.com, Cradock has a population of 11,376 with
the median age of the residences being 31 years. Approximately 45.27 percent of the
community own properties while 45.74 percent rent. Approximately 53.26 percent of the
households have children.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The Site is a former scrap metal storage, processing, and recycling facility. From 1945 to
1999, Peck purchased, processed, stored, and shipped metal scrap from various military bases;
other federal, state, and local government agencies; and local businesses. Scrap metal handled
at the facility included damaged and obsolete equipment, attachments, and parts; and other
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-9
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
miscellaneous materials, including scrapped naval vessels. The Department of Defense
processed and sold scrap metal acquired from various military bases and Navy yards to Peck.
Large, nongovernment sellers to Peck included Virginia Electric and Power, various railroads,
landfills (sources of household appliances and miscellaneous scrap), and nearby ship repair
facilities. In addition, PCB-containing transformers were disassembled at the Site, and the
wiring was burned to remove insulation to recover copper wire.
Facility operations prior to the 1980s took place in and around the cinderblock buildings in the
center of the property. One of the buildings, assumed to be the shear building (Figure 2.2),
contained a hydraulic guillotine to shear cut steel. Another building served as a sorting and
storage room for nonferrous metals and contained a small furnace to melt aluminum scrap. A
locker room and machine shop building was located in the front of the sorting and storage
building. The location of the building containing the former furnace is unknown; however,
three smoke stacks were observed south of the brick warehouse in the 1937 though 1998 aerial
photographs (EPA, 2010a). Smoke stack emissions were noted in the 1954 aerial photograph
(EPA, 2010a). None of the smoke stacks or the building immediately around the smoke stacks
was standing at the time of the 2012 EPA site visit.
The EPA added the Site to the NPL on November 3, 2009, and RI/FS activities were initiated
in 2011. As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted an historical aerial photographic analysis of the
Site. The results of the study were summarized in an Aerial Photographic Analysis report
(EPA, 2010a). Figures 2.3 through 2.7 depict information obtained from this report. For
location reference, the Malcolm Pirnie 50-foot by 50-foot sampling grid has been included on
Figures 2.3 through 2.7.
• Figure 2.3 shows the locations of historical site structures that have been present on
Site since 1937. Structures formerly and currently present on site include multiple
standing and temporary buildings for unknown uses, railroad spurs, aboveground
piping, an above ground storage (AST) tank farm, clarifier, and equipment storage
areas that have been or are currently present on the Site. Detailed information
concerning the historical uses of the various Site buildings has not been located. As
shown on the figure, the majority of the site structures were present in the Site's
western arm, with temporary structures, the maintenance building, garage, and shear
building present in the central and south-central portions of the Site. Railroad spurs
crossing the ARREFF property and the Site's western and eastern arms provided
access to the central and south-central sections of the Site.
• Figure 2.4 depicts the extent of solid waste management activities, including scrap
metal storage areas on the Site and adjacent properties. As shown on Figure 2.4,
solid waste management/scrap metal storage began primarily in the Site's eastern arm
in 1937 and extended westward over time. The maximum extent of scrap metal
storage areas, which encompassed nearly the entire Site, occurred between 1970 and
1990. By 1998, solid waste management areas/scrap metal storage areas were limited
primarily to the west-central and southwestern portions of the Site. As shown on
Figure 2.4, scrap metal storage and solid waste management activities were conducted
almost up to the bank of Paradise Creek and impacting the tidal wetland area along
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-10
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Paradise Creek. Figure 2.4 also shows solid waste management activities occurring
primarily in the northern portion of the Sherwin Williams property.
• Figure 2.5 shows the locations of fill areas, debris piles, and ground scars that were
observed in the historical aerial photographs. Figure 2.5 also depicts the locations of
brick fill material, a burn pit (ARREFF), disturbed ground, and rubble piles. The
locations of refuse containers, derelict containers, storage tanks, and railroad cars are
also depicted. The Aerial Photograph Analysis report indicated that fill areas and
ground scars were present in 1937 and 1947. Between 1954 and 1958, ground
scarring was limited to the western portion of the Site and the Wheelabrator property.
Between 1963 and 1980, ground scars were observed in the western and southern
portions of the Site and the ARREFF property. The vast majority of the ground
scaring and debris on the Site was identified in the 1998 and 2009 aerial photographs.
In the 2009 photographs, objects were visible in the Site's western and eastern arms
and throughout the central and south-central sections of the Site.
• Figure 2.6 shows the locations of drainages, drainage ditches, and surface water
impoundments identified on the Site and on adjacent properties from 1937 to 2009.
As shown on the figure, two large surface water impoundments were present on Site.
The first was located in the far southwestern corner of the Site, on the parcel of land
that was donated to the ERP in 2003. This impoundment received surface water from
a drainage channel located on the western portion of the Site including a well defined
drainage channel along the Site's western property boundary. This drainage channel
potentially received water from the on-site clarifier located immediately south of the
Sherwin Williams property. As depicted on Figure 2.4 and as observed during the
2012 EPA site visit, the eastern portion of this surface water impoundment has been
filled in due to solid waste management activities. The second impoundment was
located in the central portion (tax parcel 03860028) of the Site, extending from the
Site/ARREFF's property boundary to the Site/Wheelabrator property boundary. This
impoundment was active primarily between 1947 and 1963. Small pools of surface
water in the footprint of this impoundment were documented in the 1998 aerial
photograph (EPA, 2010a). As observed during the 2012 EPA site visit, this surface
water impoundment has been backfilled to the surrounding grade. Multiple drainages
were documented in the aerial photographs and are shown on Figure 2.6. The
drainages along the Site/Wheelabrator property boundary do not appear to exist
currently, probably due to grading activities on the Site and on the Wheelabrator
property.
• Figure 2.7 illustrates areas where releases of contaminants may have occurred,
including drum storage areas; stained areas; light-, medium-, and dark-toned
materials; and possible underground storage tank (UST) areas. On the adjacent
properties, these areas were identified primarily in the 1937 to 1970 aerial
photographs and are typically associated with the construction of those properties and
railroad spurs. Potential release areas on Site were identified primarily in the 1998
and 2009 aerial photographs. These potential contamination release areas dominate
the central, south-central, and eastern portions of the Site. Other potential release
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-11
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
areas were identified in the northwestern arm near several former structures,
equipment storage areas, and drum storage areas.
As summarized from the Aerial Photograph Analysis (EPA, 2010a), the majority of the
buildings and temporary structures were present in the western arm of the Site and within the
central and east-central portions of the Site along with multiple railroad spurs criss-crossing
the Site. Equipment storage occurred primarily in the west-central and south-central portions
of the Site. Solid waste disposal activities occurred in the central and south-central portions of
the Site, and two surface water impoundments were present in the far southwestern corner of
the property and in the central portion of the Site. On-site drainages either discharged to the
impoundments and then to Paradise Creek, or flowed directly to Paradise Creek. Solid waste
disposal areas, primarily related to scrap metal storage, were located across the entire site;
starting in the Site's eastern arm in 1937 and extending across the entire Site and potentially
into the wetlands bordering Paradise Creek by 1990. By 1998, solid waste storage occurred
primarily along the western and south-central portions of the Site.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.3.1 Topography
The Site is located of the Norfolk South, Virginia 7.5 minute topographic map dated 1965 and
photorevised in 1986. Elevations ranged from sea level along the southern Site boundary, the
property boundary bordering Paradise Creek, to approximately 10 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) near the northern Site boundary (Figure 2.8). Wheelabrator, located southeast of the
Site, is situated on a topographic high ranging from 10 to 25 feet amsl.
2.3.2 Soils
2.3.2.1 Native Soils
According to soil survey data for the Tidewater Cities Area of Virginia available on a U.S.
Department of Agriculture website (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov), the soils underlying
96.7 percent of the Site are considered to be "Urban Land" (Figure 2.9). The soils
comprising the Site wetlands (3.3 percent of the Site) consist of the Bohicket muck on a 0 to 1
percent slope.
• Urban Land soil develops on slopes between 0 and 6 percent between mean sea level
and 150 feet amsl. The soil receives a mean annual precipitation of 37 to 52 inches,
experiences a mean annual air temperature of 57 to 61°F, and a frost-free period of
207 to 241 days per year. The depth to the water table typically ranges from 24 to 79
inches. Two minor soil components within the Urban Land series include the Nimmo
and Tomotley soils. Typically, the Nimmo and Tomotley soils series comprise 2
percent of Urban Land and develop on marine terraces.
• The Bohicket muck is present within tidal marshes and develops on loamy and clayey
alluvial sediments. Typically, the soil develops on 0 to 1 percent slopes, receives a
mean annual precipitation of 37 to 52 inches, and experiences a mean annual air
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-12
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
temperature of 57 to 61°F and a frost-free period of 207 to 241 days per year. The
soil drains very poorly and is frequently flooded. Groundwater is expected to be at or
just below the surface, and the soils are slightly to moderately saline (8.0 to 16.0
millimhos per centimeter). The soil has the following typical profile:
o 0 to 8 inches (0 to 0.7 feet below ground surface [bgs]) - silty clay loam, muck;
o 8 to 29 inches (0.7 to 2.4 feet bgs) - silty clay loam; and
o 29 to 65 inches (2.4 to 5.4 feet bgs) - silty clay.
Approximately 10 percent of the Bohicket muck consists of minor components, including Axis
and Johnston soils. The Axis soil typically forms in salt marshes while the Johnston soil
develops on floodplains.
2.3.2.2 Fill
Fill material has been identified across the Site. Visual characterization of the fill material
was conducted during installation of Site wells MW01 through MW06 (H-S, 1999). Fill
material encountered at the Site was described as primarily orange to black, medium- to
coarse-grained sand containing abundant fragments of metal, glass, rubber, slag, and wood.
Figure 2.10 specifies the thicknesses of the fill material encountered during the installation of
wells MW01 through MW06. In addition, the figure also shows the locations of former
surface water impoundments and fill areas as documented in the Aerial Photographic Analysis
report (EPA, 2010a) and areas where subsurface soil sampling equipment encountered refusal
during previous sampling events. Based on the information presented on Figure 2.10,
significant reworking and backfilling of the Site soils has occurred across the Site but
primarily in the central and southern portions of the Site. The locations identifying where
subsurface sampling equipment encountered refusal suggests the presence of buried debris
throughout the central and southern portions of the Site.
2.3.3 Geology
2.3.3.1 Regional Geology
The Site is located within the Virginia Coastal Plain, which extends from the Fall Zone
eastward to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 2.11). The Virginia Coastal Plain is underlain by a
thick wedge of sediments that increases in thickness from a featheredge near the Fall Zone to
more than 13,000 feet beneath the continental shelf (Figure 2.11 inset). These sediments rest
on an eroded surface of Precambrian to early Mesozoic rock.
The landscape of the Coastal Plain formed over the last few million years as sea levels rose
and fell in response to episodic melting and growth of large continental glaciers and as the
Coastal Plain slowly uplifted due to isostatic rebound from the northward glacial retreat.
During the glacial maxima, much of the continental shelf was above sea level and the
Susquehanna River flowed through the Chesapeake lowland and across the exposed shelf to the
sea a minimum of 50 miles to the east of Portsmouth, Virginia. The Chesapeake Bay was
created about 5,000 to 6,000 years ago when the lower course of the Susquehanna River
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-13
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
through the Chesapeake lowland was flooded as meltwater from the large Pleistocene
continental glaciers raised the sea level.
Lithologic characterization of the subsurface sediments beneath the Site has not occurred.
However, the subsurface geology beneath AWI, located immediately east of the Site, has been
defined. AWI is underlain by the following five stratigraphic units (Figure 2.12):
• The upper Columbia (upper Columbia Aquifer) sand consists of fine- to medium-
grained sand with discontinuous silt and clay layers.
• The Columbia clay (Columbia confining unit) is up to 40 feet thick on the eastern end
of the AWI Site and thins to the west. In the western and central portions of the AWI
Site, the clay unit may barely be present. The upper surface of the Columbia clay has
been incised by historic channels. These channels are filled with upper Columbia
sand and recent sediments.
• The lower Columbia sand (lower Columbia Aquifer) is absent beneath portions of the
AWI Site. This unit contains less silt and clay than the upper Columbia Aquifer.
• The Yorktown Clay (Yorktown confining unit) is thickest on the extreme western side
of the AWI, the side closest to the Site.
2.3.3.2 Site-Specific Geology
The Site is primarily underlain by the clay sand facies of the Sand Bridge Formation, a
Pleistocene-aged geologic unit (Barker and Bjorken, 1978). The portion of the Site underlain
by wetlands has been mapped as Holocene-aged Alluvium, consisting of sand and marsh
sediment. Peebles (1984) postulated that the Sand Bridge Formation correlates to the Tabb
Formation, which has since been correlated by Powers (2000) to the Columbia Aquifer.
Only the top 15 to 20 feet of the soils underlying the Site have been lithologically
characterized during previous investigations. Lithologic logging of the underlying sediments
has identified a highly variable stratigraphy across the site (Figure 2.12). A summary of the
lithology observed for specific sections of the Site is provided below:
• Western Section - The upper 5 feet of the Site soil consists generally of silty clay fill
with varying amounts of debris. Below the fill material, a fine- to medium-grained
sand is present. The sand unit is discontinuous and absent in the eastern portion of
the property. Where the sand unit is missing, clayey sand is present below the fill.
• Eastern Arm - Fill material was encountered to an average depth of 2 feet bgs;
however, fill material was encountered as deep as 8.5 feet bgs. The fill is underlain
by a clayey sand layer that is several feet thick and is underlain by a gray clay unit.
The deepest borings in this section of the Site went to a depth of 16 feet bgs.
• Eastern Portion of the Central Section - Fill material was encountered to a depth of
approximately 4 feet bgs. The fill material is underlain by clay from 4 to 8 feet bgs.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
The clay unit is underlain by a soft clay with sand unit to a depth of 12 feet bgs.
Borings in this area extended only to 12 feet bgs.
• Central Section - Fill material was typically present to a depth of 8 feet bgs, but has
been encountered as deep as 12 feet bgs at several locations. The fill material is
underlain by a sand unit with trace clay from 8 to 12 feet bgs. Borehole refusal was
encountered in isolated locations and in the south-central area of the Site; a concrete
pad was encountered approximately 6 feet bgs.
• Western Arm - Fill material was encountered to an average depth of 1.5 to 2 feet
bgs. Fine sand to sandy silt is present beneath the fill to 4 feet bgs. The sand/silt
unit is underlain by a stiff clay unit, ranging in depth from 3 to 8 feet bgs. The stiff
clay unit transitions to sandy clay. Below the sandy clay unit (approximately 8 feet
bgs), a sand unit was encountered to a maximum investigated depth of approximately
15 feet bgs.
• Western Property Boundary, South of the Western Arm - Refusal was encountered
frequently due to large amounts of brick and rock. Fill material was typically
encountered in the top 1 to 3 feet bgs. The fill material is underlain by soft clay to
soft sandy clay. In the southernmost area of the Site, fill material was encountered as
deep as 12 feet bgs. A fine sand unit is present at 11 feet bgs. Borings completed
closest to Paradise Creek contained mostly silty clay and were terminated between 0.5
and 1 foot bgs.
2.3.4 Surface Water
2.3.4.1 Regional Hydrology
The Site is located within the James River Basin and borders Paradise Creek. Paradise Creek,
a tidally influenced stream, is a tributary to the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River that
drains approximately 2.9 square miles. The creek and has been identified as a ti dally
influenced stream, (CH2M Hill, 2001). The Paradise Creek watershed is highly developed
and is covered almost entirely by industrial and residential development. Stormwater, from as
much as a third of the City of Portsmouth, discharges into Paradise Creek from 32 different
points along the creek (ERP, 2003). Urban/suburban surface runoff is expected to be an
important source of contaminants to Paradise Creek. In 2001, the depth of the creek ranged
between 2.3 feet to 36.4 feet deep with an average depth of 6.1 feet (Dauer, 2002). In the
vicinity of the Site, the depth of the creek was around 6 feet deep. The salinity and the
dissolved oxygen (DO) content of the surface water in Paradise Creek were also measured
August 30, 2001, to September 6, 2001. Salinity readings ranged from 17.4 parts per
thousand (ppt) to 22.6 ppt. DO readings ranged from 2.9 parts per million (ppm) to 5.3 ppm.
The silt-clay content ranged from 5.0 percent to 97.5 percent (Dauer, 2002). Grain size and
total organic carbon (TOC) sampling of Paradise Creek in the vicinity of the Site was
conducted in 2004 (Unger et al., 2005). The following grain size and TOC percentages were
recorded at several sample locations:
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-15
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Gravel content ranged from not being present to 18.2 percent;
• Sand content ranged from 0.6 percent to 50.4 percent;
• Silt content ranged from 16.8 percent to 61.9 percent;
• Clay content ranged from 14.6 percent to 73.1 percent; and
• TOC ranged from 2.49 percent to 6.67 percent.
The confluence of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River and Paradise Creek is
approximately 6,900 feet downstream of the Site. Tidal fluctuations have been documented
within Paradise Creek. The mean tidal range for the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River
equals 2.8 feet, and the spring tide range equals 3.4 feet. The Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River flows north from the confluence of Paradise Creek and the Southern Branch of
the Elizabeth River and combines with the east and west branches of the Elizabeth River
before joining the James River approximately 10 miles north of Paradise Creek. The James
River empties into the Chesapeake Bay approximately 2 miles from the point where the James
and Elizabeth Rivers converge. The Atlantic Ocean is less than 20 miles from the point where
the James River discharges into the Chesapeake Bay.
The Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is also part of the Intracoastal Waterway and is
used by a variety of vessels throughout the year ranging from recreational boats to larger
commercial and naval craft. The Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River flows through a
highly industrialized area. Despite the industrialized nature of the river, there are active plans
for the construction of residences (condominiums) across the river and downstream of Paradise
Creek. A city park with a boat ramp and much-used fishing pier are located at the confluence
of Scuffletown Creek and the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River. Other current
recreational activities on the river include boating and jet skiing.
The Commonwealth (pursuant to 9 Virginia Administrative Code [VAC] 25-260-10) has
designated all state waters and wetlands, including Paradise Creek and the Southern Branch of
the Elizabeth River, for the following uses:
[R]ecreational uses, e.g., swimming and boating; the propagation and growth of a
balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life, including game fish, which might
reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of edible and
marketable natural resources, e.g., fish and shellfish.
Virginia has designated the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River as Class IIB waters, which
signifies that the waters are estuarine and defines the water quality standards that are to be met
for pH, DO, and inorganic and organic pollutants. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
has issued the following advisories/restrictions for the South Branch of the Elizabeth River and
Paradise Creek:
• Taking of shellfish from the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is prohibited due
to the presence of Enterococcus bacteria;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-16
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• The eating of Blue Crab mustard (hepatopancreas only) is prohibited due to the
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and PCBs (crab meat is not subject to this
advisory);
• The eating of Gizzard Shad, Carp, Blue Catfish (32 inches or greater in size), and
Flathead Catfish (32 inches or greater in size) is prohibited due to PCBs;
• No more than two meals per month should be eaten of the following due to PCBs:
o
Blue Catfish (less than 32 inches in length);
o
Flathead Catfish (less than 32 inches in length);
o
Channel Catfish;
o
White Catfish;
o
Largemouth Bass;
o
Bluegill Sunfish;
o
American Eel;
o
Quillback Carpsucker;
o
Smallmouth Bass;
o
Creek Chub;
o
Yellow Bullhead Catfish;
o
White Perch;
o
Striped Bass;
o
Bluefish;
o
Croaker;
o
Spot;
o
Blueback Herring;
o
Hickory Shad; and
o
All other fish species not listed above.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to use monitoring data and other
information to develop a list of waters that will not meet water quality standards for a
particular pollutant. The states must submit this list every two years and develop total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to restore these waters. A TMDL is the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. In 2010, the
Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River including Paradise Creek was 303(d) listed due to the
presence of PCDD including 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (VA-G15E-01-01-
TCDD) and impaired biota (ID number: VA-G15E-01-01-EBEN). The TMDL for PCBs is in
development by VDEQ for the Elizabeth River Watershed and is scheduled to be issued in
2014. The Elizabeth River PCB TMDL could potentially be identified as a future ARAR for
the Site.
2.3.4.2 Site Hydrology
No surface water bodies with free standing water were observed on the Site during the 2012
EPA site visit, other than small puddles. Two drainage systems have been observed on the
Site (Figure 2.2).
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-17
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
The first drainage system, the western drainage system, drains the western section of the Site
and is comprised of two drainage channels. The westernmost drainage channel within the
western drainage system, is located along the western property boundary, starting near the
Sherwin Williams property, and discharges to Paradise Creek. This drainage channel,
informally designated as the western drainage channel, potentially receives surface water
runoff from the adjacent property, Scott Center Annex. The upper 150 feet of the western
drainage channel consists of a shallow, open ditch. The ditch becomes channelized into a
24-inch diameter terracotta surface drainage pipe. During the 2012 EPA site visit, the
northern portion of the terracotta pipe was connected by several junction boxes. The
terracotta pipe appeared to be discontinuous and broken in many places. The southern portion
of the terracotta pipe appeared to be in better condition and terminated at an outfall within the
Site wetlands. A drainage ditch runs from the western drainage channel's outfall to Paradise
Creek (Figure 2.2). The second drainage within the western drainage system is located east of
the first drainage and appears to receive surface water runoff from the more developed section
of the Site's western arm (Figure 2.2). This drainage was not informally named as the
channel is currently less defined, more braided, and appears to end within the Site wetlands.
No outfall or defined outlet to Paradise Creek was observed from this drainage channel.
Wetland-type vegetation was observed throughout the lower half of the drainage ditch and
within the Site wetlands. The eastern portion of the western drainage channel is more diffuse
and appears to discharge primarily as overland flow to the Site wetlands.
The second on-site drainage system is a concrete-lined drainage channel located along the
eastern edge of the Site's western arm. The channel is approximately 3 feet wide and 3 to 4
feet deep. The visible portion of the channel is shown on Figure 2.2. Surface water was
observed within the concrete-lined drainage channel during a 2011 site visit and during the
2012 EPA site visit. The source of the surface water within the drainage channel is unknown
but appears to be emanating from ARREFF. Surface water flow is to the north. The ultimate
discharge of the water within the drainage channel is unknown. City utility maps indicate the
presence of a storm drainage ditch paralleling Elm Avenue along the northern Site boundary
and northern boundary of the ARREFF property. Near the northeastern corner of the Site, at
the intersection of Elm and Williams avenues, the ditch discharges to a southward flowing
drainage pipe that parallels the Site's eastern property boundary.
2.3.4.3 Site Flood Potential
As documented in the City of Portsmouth 2010 Floodplain Management Plan (Holt et al.,
2010), the City of Portsmouth has experienced substantial flooding related to coastal storms or
hurricanes. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the greatest of the storms occurred in
1933. This storm resulted in the highest recorded tides in history at 8.9 feet amsl in the
harbor. In 1956, a low pressure system off the coast produced prolonged northeasterly winds
resulting in tides about 4 feet above normal. A maximum flood crest of 6.5 feet occurred,
resulting in flooding of much of the low-lying areas of the city. In 1960, a storm produced a
storm surge of 8 feet that resulted in flooding equivalent to the 1956 levels. In March 1962,
the Ash Wednesday Storm also caused flooding of the city. The storm track, slow movement,
and strong winds that did not allow the release of five tide cycles, resulted in a storm surge of
7.4 feet at Sewells Point. The last storm to affect the City of Portsmouth was the 2009
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-18
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
November Nor'easter, which exceeded the flood levels of the Ash Wednesday Storm and was
within 6 inches of the water levels observed during the 1933 storm. As of late June 2010,
after the 2009 November Nor'easter, 15 properties in the Cradock Community, all located
along the southern shore of Paradise Creek, have been listed as repetitive loss properties.
Repetitive loss properties are structures that have suffered flood damage on two or more
occasions during a 10-year period.
Based on the FEMA 2009 flood map, the Site is located within the 100 year and 500 year
flood zones. As shown on Figure 2.13, approximately half of the Site is within the 100 year
flood zone. The eastern arm and southern portion of the Site and a portion of the western arm
are all within the 100 year flood zone. The remaining portions of the Site, except for the
central section and the portion of the Site along the Site/Wheelabrator property boundary, lies
within the 500 year flood zone.
Based on a review of the Hurricane Storm Surge Map for Portsmouth, Virginia (Hampton
Roads Emergency Management Committee, 2006), the following flooding can be anticipated:
• For Category 1 hurricanes, a 4 to 5 foot storm surge can be anticipated. Flooding of
the Site will most likely be limited to the Site wetlands in the extreme southern
portion of the Site.
• For Category 2 hurricanes, a 6 to 8 foot storm surge should be expected at the Site.
Flooding of nearly the entire Site with the exception areas above the 500 year flood
zone should be anticipated.
• For Category 3 hurricanes, a 9 to 12 foot storm surge should be anticipated.
Flooding of the entire Site with the exception of the highest topographic elevations
along the Site/Wheelabrator property boundary should be expected.
• For Category 4 hurricanes, a 13 to 18 foot storm surge should be anticipated. The
entire Site will most likely experience flooding.
Hurricane flood zones for the Site are depicted on Figure 2.14
2.3.5 Hydrogeology
2.3.5.1 Regional Groundwater
The closest source of regional hydrostratigraphic data for the Site is the adjacent NPL site
AWI. Given the close proximity of the Site to AWI, it is anticipated that both sites have a
similar underlying hydrostratigraphic sequence. AWI is underlain by three naturally occurring
hydrostratigraphic units separated by two confining beds (CDM, 2006). From top to bottom,
these units are the upper Columbia Aquifer, the Columbia confining unit (Columbia Clay), the
lower Columbia Aquifer, the Yorktown confining unit (Yorktown Clay), and the Yorktown
Aquifer (CDM, 2006):
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-19
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• The Upper Columbia Aquifer is predominantly well-sorted sands with interlayered
silts and clays in the upper portion of the aquifer. The depth to groundwater ranges
from 1 to 5 feet bgs.
• The Columbia confining unit is present as plastic clay. The confining unit is up to 60
feet thick adjacent to the Elizabeth River and thins to the southwest (toward the Site)
where it grades into a sandy silt. Due to the unit's thinning and lithology change, it is
unknown whether the Columbia confining unit is present beneath the Site, and if
present, if it continues to act as a confining unit. Determination of this confining unit
beneath the Site and its influence on the local hydrogeology is not anticipated at this
time given known Site COPCs and the types of contaminant releases (surface to
shallow subsurface releases) anticipated due to former site activities.
• The Lower Columbia Aquifer is a fine- to medium-grained sand unit. Beneath AWI,
the presence of this unit is variable and is believed to have been eroded completely in
the central portion of AWI. The variability and potential for erosion of the unit
suggests that this unit is present beneath the Site but may be highly variable in
thickness.
• The Yorktown confining unit separates the Yorktown Aquifer from the overlying
Columbia Aquifer. The Yorktown confining unit has a maximum thickness of about
7 feet along the western edge of the AWI, the edge closest to the Site. This confining
unit is therefore anticipated to be present beneath the Site.
• The Yorktown Aquifer typically consists of interlayered, thick to massively bedded
shelly sands separated by thinner clay beds. Results of an aquifer performance test
indicate that the unit is semiconfining in the area of the AWI Site (CDM, 2006). It is
anticipated the semiconfining condition of the Yorktown Aquifer is consistent beneath
the Site.
Groundwater flow in the lower two aquifers beneath AWI is generally to the east, toward the
Elizabeth River, with a very shallow gradient (CDM, 2006). All of the aquifers are
influenced by tides, although tidal influence on the upper Columbia Aquifer is confined to the
area near the river. The upper Columbia Aquifer alternately discharges to the river and is
recharged by the river during the tidal cycle. The lower two aquifers discharge to the
Elizabeth River (CDM, 2006). Given the distance from the Site to the Elizabeth River and to
Paradise Creek, shallow groundwater flow at the Site is anticipated to be primarily to the
south, toward Paradise Creek. However, as identified during previous groundwater
monitoring events, an eastward groundwater flow is present across the eastern half of AWI.
Beneath AWI, vertical flow is downward across both confining units in the western portion of
AWI. It is anticipated, this downward vertical flow component will be present beneath Peck.
Given the size of the Elizabeth River to Paradise Creek, regional groundwater flow beneath
Peck is anticipated to be towards the Elizabeth River rather than towards Paradise Creek.
2.3.5.2 Site Groundwater
Depth to groundwater measured during previous groundwater sampling events and the
associated calculated groundwater elevations have been summarized in Table 2.1. The
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-20
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
groundwater elevations calculated from the 1999 and 2003 data are based on an assumed top
of the casing elevation for MW06 of 10.0 feet amsl. Groundwater elevations were provided in
the 2008 Malcolm Pirnie Extent of Contamination Report; however, the report does not
provide actual depth to water level measurements or indicate whether the groundwater
elevations are based on the assumed 10 feet amsl elevation for MW06.
Groundwater potentiometric surface contours derived from groundwater measurement events
on July 16, 1999, and July 24, 2008 are presented on Figure 2.15. The July 16, 1999,
groundwater data shows the presence of a groundwater ridge between wells MW02 and MW04
with the highest groundwater elevation occurring in well MW02. The ridge essentially creates
a flow divide; groundwater beneath the northern portion of the Site flows northeast toward the
main NNSY, and groundwater beneath the southern portion of the Site flows southward to
Paradise Creek. Groundwater elevations were also recorded for July 15 and 16, 1999. These
dates correspond to the collection of groundwater samples from the same six wells. It is
unknown whether the groundwater elevations reported for these days represent synoptic water
level measurements prior to groundwater sampling or water level measures collected
immediately prior to sampling individual wells. Consequently, the July 15 and 16, 1999,
groundwater data are not shown on Figure 2.15.
The 2008 groundwater elevation data shows the presence of the groundwater ridge between
01R and MW04; with the highest groundwater elevations present at MW04 (Figure 2.15).
The 2008 groundwater ridge indicates groundwater beneath the western half of the property
flows west and southwestward to the Scott Center Annex and Paradise Creek. The
groundwater beneath the eastern half of the Site flows northeastward toward NNYS. Well
MW08 was dry at the time of the 2008 investigation. The Malcolm Pirnie report (2008)
indicates MW06 and MW08 are not screened within the shallow groundwater aquifer (upper
Columbia).
2.3.6 Ecology
No information on terrestrial receptors has been found for the Site at the time this SMP was
prepared. Wetland locations present on and adjacent to the Site are shown on Figure 2.16.
The mapped wetland boundaries were obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to the wetland
coverage, freshwater forested/scrub wetlands have been mapped by the NWI along the
ARREFF and Site's eastern arm property boundary. Estuarine and marine wetlands have been
mapped by the NWI on Paradise Creek and the Site.
Paradise Creek is a tidally influence stream, characterized by a linear fringe of tidal marsh.
Much of the tidal marsh was identified as being severely degraded in 2001. The dominant
vegetation is common reed (Phragmites australis), which is a non-native invasive species
common in degraded wetlands. The riverine and marsh habitats are influenced by tidal range
and the seasonal influx of stormwater runoff from the highly urbanized watershed associated
with this water body (CH2M Hill, 2001). Terrestrial and aquatic life in Upper Paradise Creek,
with a few exceptions, is expected to be the same as in Lower Paradise Creek (CH2M Hill,
2001). The denser stands of emergent wetland vegetation noted to occur in Upper Paradise
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-21
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Creek may support more herbivorous wildlife than in Lower Paradise Creek, while the lower
salinity in Upper Paradise Creek may also allow amphibian populations to occur in some
drainages to Paradise Creek (CH2M, 2001). In 2001, a benthic community study of Paradise
Creek was conducted. The dominant taxa observed in the creek at biota sampling locations
within Paradise Creek are summarized in Table 2.2.
2.3.7 Climate
The climate for Portsmouth, Virginia, is considered mild humid subtropical and is temperate
and seasonal. The mean annual temperature is 65°F, with an average annual snowfall of 3
inches and an average annual rainfall of 47 inches. The wettest seasons are spring and
summer, although rainfall is fairly constant year round. The warmest months are typically
July, August, and September, while the coldest months are December, January, and February.
2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
2.4.1 1994 SPSA-Navy PCDD/PCDF Soil Sampling
In 1994, SPSA completed a soil sampling study for PCDD/polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDF) levels in the vicinity of the NNSY Steam Plant in response to EPA's Administrative
Orders to SPSA (Docket RCRA-3-007™) and the Navy (Docket RCRA-3-006™). The results
of the study, presented in a Soil Sampling Study (HDR Engineering and Zephyr Consulting,
1994), were as follows:
• Two nearby locations, Cradock Middle School (sample CRMS-1) and Cradock Fire
Station No. 11 (samples CRF-1 and CRF-2) were sampled.
• Two undisturbed soil locations, Crestwood Intermediate School (sample CWDS-1)
and a private property located east of I-64/I-68 interchange (DC-1) were sampled.
The results of the PCDD/PCDF soil sampling event are summarized in Table 2.3. As shown
in Table 2.3, total PCDD/PCDF detections in the near field locations ranged from 2,803 ppt
to 5,338 ppt. The exact locations of the PCDD/PCDF samples are unknown and are therefore
not shown on a figure.
2.4.2 Environmental Site Assessment, November 1996
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report was prepared by Hatcher-Sayre, Inc.
(H-S) in 1996. A copy of this report was not obtained for review prior to the development of
this SMP. As presented in the 2008 Malcolm Pirnie Extent of Contamination Report, the H-S
Phase I ESA included data collection and review conducted with the following agencies: an
independent records search company, City of Portsmouth courthouse deeds records, and
VDEQ. During an inspection of the Site, H-S noted unlabeled drums with unknown contents
at several locations on the Site. Locations of the drum storage areas were not provided in the
2008 Malcolm Pirnie report. According to the Malcolm Pirnie 2008 report, the ESA
identified the following soil stained areas:
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-22
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Adjacent to and at the northeast corner of the maintenance garage;
• Adjacent to and on the concrete pad by the shear building;
• Beneath an AST near the former P&G building (building location unknown); and
• South of the concrete building in the northwest corner of the Site (building location
unknown).
2.4.3 Groundwater Sampling, November 1997
According to the 2008 Malcolm Pirnie Extent of Contamination Report, H-S completed six
soil borings at the Site and collected two composite groundwater samples from the six
locations. The samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA
SW-846 Method 8260, semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA SW-846 Method
8270, and dissolved Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals by EPA
SW-846 Method 6010 (Method 7470 for mercury). Dissolved barium was the only constituent
detected in groundwater. Barium was detected at concentrations of 0.054 and 0.093
milligrams per liter (mg/L). The analytical data from this investigation was not obtained for
the development of this SMP; therefore, the results of the sampling event could not be verified
and the locations of the six borings remaining unknown.
2.4.4 Site Investigation, July 1999
2.4.4.1 Overview
A Site Investigation was completed at the Site by H-S in 1999 (H-S, 1999). The investigation
included the:
• Surface soil field screening using a portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) instrument;
• XRF confirmatory soil sample analysis;
• Surface soil sampling for PCB and diesel range organic (DRO) analyses;
• Drilling four soil borings;
• Installation of six monitoring wells (MW01 through MW06);
• Collection of 10 groundwater samples; and
• Slug testing of the monitoring wells.
On June 30 and July 1, 1999, H-S collected XRF readings from 39 surface soil sample
locations spaced across the Site on a 250-foot by 250-foot grid. The field screening point
locations were prepared for XRF screening by removing approximately two inches (0.16 feet)
of soil using a decontaminated stainless steel hand shovel. Soils from approximately 2 inches
(0.16 feet) to 1 foot bgs were excavated and placed in a small soil pile. H-S representatives
placed a portable Niton XRF instrument on top of the soil pile and collected a reading for
approximately 30 to 60 seconds, or until the measured readings stabilized. The portable XRF
instrument yielded arsenic, chromium (total), lead, mercury, and copper results. The XRF
field screening results are presented in Table 1 of the 1999 Site Investigation Report (H-S,
1999) and have not been included in this SMP.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-23
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Based on the results of the XRF field screening effort, 15 of the 39 XRF soil samples were
submitted to an off-site laboratory for confirmatory analysis. The samples were analyzed for
the RCRA 8 metals and copper by LabCorp of America Analytics Laboratory in Richmond,
Virginia, by EPA Method SW-846 Methods using inductively coupled plasma. The 1999 Site
Investigation soil sampling results are summarized in Table 2.4. The locations of the
confirmatory soil samples are depicted on Figure 2.17. For location orientation and
correlation with other historic sampling data, the 250-foot by 250-foot sampling grid is not
shown on Figure 2.17. Rather the 50-foot by 50-foot 2008 Malcolm Pirnie grid is shown on
Figure 2.17.
Six monitoring wells, MW01 through MW06, were installed to 15 feet bgs on July 12 and 13,
1999 (Figure 2.18). The wells were constructed using a 2-inch diameter 5-foot long polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) 0.010-inch slotted wells screen and riser pipe. All six wells were completed at
the surface with a flush mounted manhole cover set within a 2-foot by 2-foot by 6-inch
concrete pad. Four soil borings, B-l though B-4, were completed on July 13, 1999, to 8 feet
bgs (Figure 2.17). Soil samples were collected from each boring at the soil-groundwater
interface (Table 2.4). Groundwater samples were collected from the six monitoring wells and
from the four soil borings (Figure 2.18). The groundwater samples were analyzed for total
and dissolved RCRA 8 metals plus copper; PCB Aroclors; DRO; and VOCs. The
groundwater sampling results are summarized in Table 2.5.
2.4.4.2 Results
For sample location orientation and correlation with other historic sampling data, the 250-foot
by 250-foot H-S sampling grid is not shown on Figures 2.17 and 2.18. Rather the 50-foot by
50-foot 2008 Malcolm Pirnie grid has been included on both figures. According to the Site
Inspection report, the results of the investigation found the following analytes exceeded VDEQ
Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) Tier III screening levels and EPA Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and/or risk-based concentrations (RBCs) (predecessors to EPA
regional screening levels [RSLs]) in groundwater:
• Surface soil - copper, arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, PCB Aroclor 1254, PCB
Aroclor 1260,
• Subsurface soil - arsenic, lead, and PCB Aroclor 1260, and
• Groundwater - copper (total), arsenic (total), barium (total), cadmium (total and
dissolved), chromium (total), lead (total), mercury (total), selenium (total), PCB
Aroclor 1254; PCB Aroclor 1260; and seven VOCs.
Soils: Current screening criteria values have been included in Tables 2.4 and 2.5. Soil
samples collected from the top 2 feet of soil were screened against the EPA November 2012
residential soil RSLs, the lower of the EPA November 2012 soil-to-groundwater soil screening
levels (SSLs), and ecological screening criteria. Soil samples collected at depths deeper than 2
feet were screened against the EPA's November 2012 residential soil RSLs and the lower of
EPA's November 2012 soil-to-groundwater SSLs.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-24
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Aroclor 1254 and 1260 detections exceeded all screening criteria values. All nine metals
exceeded one or more screening criteria. Selenium and silver detections exceeded only soil-to-
groundwater SSLs. The metals concentrations were highest in the surface soil samples.
Exceedances of the current screening criteria have been included on Figure 2.17.
Groundwater: The groundwater analytical data in Table 2.5 were screened against November
2012 EPA tap water RSLs adjusted for a hazard index (HI) of 0.1. Analyte concentration
exceedances of the current screening criteria have been included on Figure 2.18. In addition,
the 1999 groundwater analytical data were screened against MCLs. The inclusion of MCLs in
the screening table was not to negate the results of the tap water RSL screening results; rather,
MCL screening was conducted because MCLs will be an ARAR for the Site.
Eleven VOCs, Aroclors 1254 and 1260, and 3 dissolved metals were detected at
concentrations exceeding EPA tap water RSLs. Of these analytes, 3 VOCs (benzene,
trichloroethene [TCE], and vinyl chloride), Aroclor 1254, Aroclor 1260, and dissolved arsenic
were detected at concentrations exceeding MCLs. The Aroclor exceedances occurred only in
groundwater samples retrieved from the soil borings; therefore, the elevated PCB detections
may be attributable to sample turbidity.
2.4.5 2001 Benthic Biological Monitoring of Elizabeth River Watershed
A study of the macrobenthic communities of the Elizabeth River watershed was initiated in the
summer of 1999. The three objectives of the Benthic Biological Monitoring Program of the
Elizabeth River watershed were:
• To characterize the health of the tidal waters of the Elizabeth River watershed as
indicated by the structure of the benthic communities.
• To conduct trend analyses on long-term data at 14 fixed-point stations to relate
temporal trends in the benthic communities to changes in water and/or sediment
quality.
• To produce an historical database that will allow annual evaluations of impacts to
biota by comparing trends in status within probability-based strata and trends at fixed-
point stations to changes in water and/or sediment quality.
In 2001, the benthic community of Paradise Creek was also sampled and characterized. The
health of the benthic communities of the Elizabeth River watershed was characterized in this
study by combining previously developed benthic restoration goals, the Benthic Index of Biotic
Integrity (B-IBI) developed for the Chesapeake Bay and probability-based sampling. In
general for the Elizabeth River watershed, species diversity and biomass were determined to
be below reference condition levels, but above reference condition levels for abundance.
Community composition was unbalanced; levels of pollution-indicative species were above
reference conditions, and levels of pollution-sensitive species were below reference conditions.
The results of the Paradise Creek benthic community sampling event were obtained from
Dauer (2002). Twenty-five random stations were collected from Paradise Creek (Figure
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-25
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.19). All physical, chemical, and sedimentary parameters obtained during the sampling event
have been summarized in Table 2.6. A summary of the benthic community parameters are
summarized in Table 2.7. The dominant taxa by abundance encountered within Paradise
Creek has been summarized in Table 2.2. Based on the results of the benthic community
monitoring program, in 2001, the level of degradation in Paradise Creek was 92 percent
compared to 52 percent for the entire Elizabeth River watershed. The higher levels of
degradation in Paradise Creek were associated with extremely high abundances, low species
diversity due to high dominance by a few species, and low levels of biomass and pollution-
sensitive species compared to the Elizabeth River watershed as a whole. Figure 2.19 presents
the condition of 3 of the 25 Paradise Creek benthic community study samples as provided in
Dauer (2002).
2.4.6 2001 Ecological Risk Assessment of Paradise Creek
In 2001, a bseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) was performed to evaluate the potential
risks to ecological receptors in Paradise Creek and adjacent Navy landfills from chemicals
originating from the three NNSY landfills (Scott Center Annex Landfill, Paradise Creek
Landfills, and New Gosport Landfill) (CH2M Hill, 2001). In addition, the BERA evaluated
ecological risks in adjacent upland areas based on consideration of the presumptive remedies
proposed for the Scott Center Annex Landfill and Paradise Creek Landfills and removal
actions completed during 2001 at the New Gosport Landfill. In determining ecological risks,
the BERA considered data collected during several investigations of the NNSY landfills. Site-
specific biological data (e.g., mussel and clam tissue residues previously collected) were used
for bioaccumulation and food chain evaluations.
The BERA determined the following potential risks to ecological receptors in Paradise Creek
(with regards to analytical data collected adjacent to and in the vicinity of the NNSY landfills):
• Surface Water (Direct Exposure)
o Upper Paradise Creek (west of George Washington Highway) - Potential for
localized adverse effects to aquatic life in upper portion of drainage adjacent to
the New Gosport Landfill. Risk is based on presence of elevated nickel
concentrations and pesticides in a single surface water sample.
o Lower Paradise Creek (east of George Washington Highway) - No potential for
adverse effects to aquatic life from direct exposure to chemicals in surface water.
• Sediment (Direct Exposure)
o Upper Paradise Creek (west of George Washington Highway) - Potential for
localized adverse effects to benthic organisms in upper portion of drainage
adjacent to the New Gosport Landfill. Risk is based primarily on presence of
elevated inorganic concentrations (copper, lead, and nickel) and pesticides
(endrin ketone and dieldrin) in a sediment sample collected from the upper
portion of this drainage.
o Lower Paradise Creek (east of George Washington Highway) - Potential for
localized adverse effects to benthic organisms at several isolated locations in
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-26
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Lower Paradise Creek. Risk is based primarily on presence of elevated inorganic
concentrations at two locations adjacent to the Scott Center Annex Landfill, one
location in the wetland area of the Paradise Creek Landfills, and two depositional
areas associated with the main body of Paradise Creek. One of these two
sediment sample locations is adjacent to the Site's western drainage system
outfall. Risk from pesticides detected at one location in Lower Paradise Creek
was determined not to be related to the NNSY site.
• Food Web Exposure
o Upper Paradise Creek (west of George Washington Highway) - No potential for
adverse effects to higher trophic-level receptors via accumulation in the food
web.
o Lower Paradise Creek (east of George Washington Highway) - No potential for
adverse effects to higher trophic-level receptors via accumulation in the food
web.
2.4.7 Test Pit Investigation, May 2003
Draper Aden Associates (DAA), a consultant for Peck, performed a subsurface investigation
in the southwestern corner of the Site. The purpose of the field study was to assess the area
for a possible stormwater retention basin and to identify the types of soil or fill materials there
for potential use as fill in other areas of the Site. Initial attempts to investigate the subsurface
through soil borings failed; three borings encountered refusal at depths shallower than 3 feet
bgs. A trackhoe was used to excavate 10 test pits to depths ranging from 2 to 6.5 feet bgs.
DAA observed sand/silt soils with brick fragments in the upper 2 feet, and these were
underlain by demolished building materials. The other materials consisted of scrap metal,
wood timbers, electrical conduits, metal pipes, concrete rubble, and pieces of concrete floor
slabs. The locations of the 3 soil borings where refusal was encountered and the 10 test pits
are unknown.
2.4.8 2003 Site Characterization
2.4.8.1 Overview
Site characterization investigations at the Site were conducted by DAA, a contractor for Peck,
in 2003 due to the potential purchase of the property by Pull-A-Part, Inc. In May 2003, DAA
collected groundwater samples from five of the six Site monitoring wells. The wells were
sampled for RCRA 8 metals plus copper and analyzed using EPA SW-846 methods.
Monitoring well MW03 was not found for the sampling event and was considered by DAA to
have been buried under debris. Upon completion of the groundwater sampling event, DAA
prepared a Site Characterization-Risk Assessment report (DAA, 2003a). According to the Site
Characterization-Risk Assessment report no inorganic constituents exceeded EPA MCLs or
RBCs (Table 2.8). The results of the groundwater sampling event are shown on Figure 2.20.
The risk assessment developed by DAA was generated using the existing on-site soils data
collected in 1999. Using VDEQ's Risk Exposure Analysis Modeling System, DAA estimated
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-27
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
that arsenic and lead were the primary contaminants of concern for on-site soils and would
require consideration in future development of the Site. DAA concluded that risk associated
with the Site groundwater was not a concern.
On June 4, 2003, VDEQ VRP personnel met on site with an H-S representative to view the
property in context of the site characterization report and the viability for developing the
property. In a letter from VDEQ to H-S dated June 18, 2003, additional sampling was
required to thoroughly characterize lead and PCB concentrations in the Site soils. The letter
integrated comments received from the EPA Region 3 Superfund Remedial Branch. The
following actions were presented:
• As an interim measure, it was recommended that Peck erect a security fence to reduce
the exposure risk to trespasser, incidental, or recreation use individuals.
• Further characterization of the lateral extent of PCB concentrations in the on-site soils
was deemed necessary and submittal of a sampling plan requested.
• Hot spots of lead contamination, exceeding 10 times the industrial screening level of
1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) should be removed before a remedial cap is
installed.
• Additional sampling should be conducted to determine the nature and extent of PCB
contamination in the soils and sediments of the parcel that was given to the ERP for
wetland reconstruction efforts.
In June 2003, DAA sampled the western edge of the property. Twelve soil samples were
obtained from 10 locations and analyzed for total lead (EPA Method 6010B) and PCBs (EPA
Method 8082). In addition, the five groundwater monitoring wells (MW01, MW02, and
MW04 through MW06) were sampled and analyzed for PCBs. The soil sample analytical
results are presented in Table 2.9. The groundwater analytical results are presented in
Table 2.8.
On August 4, 2003, DAA submitted a sampling plan as requested by VDEQ. DAA
subdivided the Site using a 150-foot by 150-foot grid, resulting in 60 grids. Seventeen of the
60 grids had been previously sampled by H-S as part of the 1999 Site Investigation. Thirteen
grids were therefore randomly sampled to yield 50 percent sample coverage of the Site. Three
of the 13 randomly selected grids were manually relocated due to point clustering. In
addition, three additional sample points were selected within the western drainage system: one
sample at the head of the drainage (sample 9,05); one sample at the discharge point (sample
9,02); and one approximately mid-way between samples 9,05 and 9,02 (sample 9,04). The
sampling locations are depicted on Figure 2.21. Sixty-four soil samples were tested using
immunoassay technology. The results of the immunoassay tests are not included in this SMP.
Thirteen confirmatory split samples were collected and submitted for off-site analysis of PCBs
using EPA Method 8082 (Table 2.9).
Hot spot soil delineation sampling was conducted at hot spot locations containing lead
concentrations exceeding 10,000 mg/kg and PCBs exceeding 100 mg/kg. Soil samples were
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-28
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
collected approximately five feet north, west, east, and south of the hot spot. For PCBs,
immunoassay and laboratory confirmatory sampling was conducted. For lead, off-site
confirmatory analysis for lead was performed
On October 1, 2003, at the insistence of the EPA, PCDD/PCDF sampling was conducted at
the Site. Samples for total 2,3,7,8-TCDD were collected from three areas identified by the
property owner where burning of copper cables may have occurred. Each area was
approximately 150 feet by 150 feet. A composite soil sample composed of 36 aliquots taken
from the top four inches of soil (0-0.25 feet soil interval) was collected from each area and
analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The reported noted that due to buried debris, not every aliquot
location was sampled. It is unclear from the report whether aliquot locations where refusal
was encountered were re-located or not sampled. The total 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are included
on Table 2.9.
Other samples collected in 2003 included:
• Two soil samples, SI and S2, collected for the portion of the Site located within the
CBPA RMA and submitted for PCB analysis.
• Four surface soil samples (HA-2N, HA-2E, HA-2S, and HA-2W) were collected as
part of hot spot sampling around location HA-2. The four samples were analyzed for
lead only.
• Sediment sampling of Paradise Creek was conducted on October 28, 2003, after a
PCB concentration of 17.7 mg/kg was reported by the Navy at a location immediately
below the drainage pipe outfall of the western drainage. Originally, the sediment
within the terracotta pipe was to be sampled; however, upon inspection, an
insufficient amount of sediment was observed. Consequently, sample location PC-1R
was relocated upstream approximately 125 feet north of the drain pipe inlet. Sample
P-2 was taken approximately 18 inches (1.5 feet) downstream of the drain pipe
outfall. Sample P-3 was taken where the discharge channel enters Paradise Creek at
low tide. Sediment samples were collected at each location from the top 0.5 feet of
sediment.
2.4.8.2 Results
Based on the site characterization analytical data, DAA (2003b) concluded the following:
• PCBs had not leached into the Site groundwater.
• The majority of the Site soils contained less than 1,000 mg/kg of lead.
• The majority of the Site soils contained less than 10 mg/kg of PCBs (Aroclors 1254
and 1260).
• The highest concentrations of lead (greater than 10,000 mg/kg) and PCBs (greater
than 10 mg/kg) occurred in the southern portion of the Site.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-29
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Dioxins in Site soils were well below the EPA remediation level at that time of 5 to
20 micrograms per kilogram (|ig/kg).
DAA proposed as part of the remediation of the Site that soils from areas with the highest PCB
concentrations be removed, then the areas backfilled; and that a 10-inch-thick compacted soil
cover be installed atop other areas.
As part of this SMP, the site characterization analytical data were screened against EPA's
November 2012 residential soil RSLs (adjusted for an HI of 0.1); soil-to-groundwater SSLs;
and ecological screening criteria. Only soil samples collected within the top 2 feet of soils
were screened against ecological soil screening criteria. Groundwater analytical data were
screened only against EPA tap water RSLs and MCLs. The results of the data screening have
been included in Tables 2.8 and 2.9 and are shown on Figures 2.20 and 2.21. Based on
November 2012 RSLs, Aroclors 1254 and 1260, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead and mercury were detected across the Site at concentrations exceeding EPA
residential soil RSLs, soil-to-groundwater SSLs, and ecological screening criteria (Table 2.9).
Selenium and silver were detected sporadically across the Site at concentrations exceeding
ecological screening levels. All nine metals were also detected at concentrations exceeding the
November 2012 soil-to-groundwater SSL values. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD soil sampling results at
all three locations exceeded the November 2012 residential soil RSL for 2,3,7,8 (4.5xl0~6
mg/kg).
Screening of the 2003 groundwater sampling results against current EPA tap water RSLs
identified the presence of total cadmium and total chromium at concentrations in all five wells
exceeding tap water RSLs. The hexavalent chromium tap water RSL was utilized for
screening.
2.4.9 Site Characterization and Self-Implementing PCB Cleanup Plan, October 2004
The 2004 DAA report characterizes the nature of the PCB contamination and provides a
cleanup plan for the Site. The report states that PCB contamination, Aroclors 1254 and 1260,
appears to exist intermittently in the soil across the Site from the ground surface to a maximum
depth of 2.5 feet bgs. Based on soil samples and immunoassay testing, the highest
concentrations (10 mg/kg to 560 mg/kg) occurred in the area where scrap metal was recycled
during facility operations and occupied less than 1.5 acres of the Site. The remaining areas
were reported to have had less than 10 mg/kg of PCBs. Groundwater was found to occur at
depths of 2 to 4 feet bgs. The presence of shallow groundwater beneath the Site indicated that
groundwater had the potential to encounter buried fill material and that the soil-to-groundwater
migration pathway could be complete.
2.4.10 Paradise Creek PCB and PAH Sediment Sampling, January 2005
In June 2004, sediment sampling of Paradise Creek in the area adjacent to the Site was
conducted by the ERP, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
USFWS. A total of 19 surface sediment samples and 1 core sample (divided into 3 depths)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-30
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
were collected from the creek and analyzed by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
(Figure 2.22).
Eight samples were selected for PCB and PAH analyses to evaluate the spatial distribution of
these compounds within Paradise Creek (Unger et al., 2005). Over 100 individual PCB
congeners were summed to get total PCB concentrations. Twenty-four individual PAH
compounds were summed to obtain total PAH concentrations. Total PCB and Total PAH
analytical results are summarized on Table 2.10 and Figure 2.22. The individual PCB
congener and PAH compound detections reported from this study have been attached to this
SMP as Appendix A.
In the top 0.5 feet of sediment, total PCB concentrations ranged from 345.9 nanograms per
gram (ng/g) (345.2 ng/kg) to 1,460 ng/g (1,460 |ag/kg). Total PCB concentrations in the top
0.5 feet of sediment exceeded the EPA residential soil RSL of 220 ng/kg and the ecological
screening value of 63.3 ng/kg for marine sediments. In the one deeper sediment sample, Q3,
the total PCB concentration was below screening criteria (1.1 ng/g [1.1 |ig/kg|). Total PAH
concentrations ranged from 11,174 ng/g (11,174 |ag/kg) to 52,371 ng/g (52,371 |ag/kg).
The highest total PCB and total PAH concentrations were detected in sample Ql, located
where the western drainage channel discharges to Paradise Creek. High total PCB and total
PAH concentrations were also detected in sample Nl, located just south of Ql, and in sample
H, located on the terrestrial edge of a cove cutting into the Site. Analyses of the PCB
congeners caused investigators to conclude that a common PCB source contributed to the
contamination at the various sampling sites.
2.4.11 PCB Soil Sampling, February through May 2005
An extensive PCB investigation was conducted by DAA, on behalf of Peck, in early 2005.
DAA sampled the southern and central portions of the Site using a 50- by 50-foot grid system.
During the investigation, a total of 524 samples were collected from nearly 20 acres of surface
soils (surface to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and approximately 7 acres of shallow subsurface
soils (18 to 36 inches [1.5 to 3 feet] bgs).
The results of the investigations were presented as figures. Copies of the surface soil data and
shallow subsurface soil data have been included as Figures 2.23 and 2.24, respectively. Based
on the results, Malcolm Pirnie (2008) estimated the following distribution of PCB
contaminants in the Site surface soils:
• 11 acres contained PCB concentrations less than 10 mg/kg;
• 8 acres contained PCB concentrations between 10 to 100 mg/kg; and
• 2 acres contained PCB concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg.
Malcolm Pirnie estimated the following distribution of PCB contaminants in the Site
subsurface soils:
• Four acres contained PCBs at concentrations less than 10 mg/kg;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-31
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Two acres contained PCB at concentrations between 10 mg/kg to 100 mg/kg; and
• One acre contained PCBs at concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg.
2.4.12 Extent of Contamination Study, October 2008
2.4.12.1 Overview
An extent of contamination investigation was conducted in accordance with an EPA Region 3
Administrative Order for Removal Response Action (EPA Docket No. CERC-03-2007-
0075DC) dated January 11, 2007 (the Order). As part of the investigation, the following
activities were performed:
• Collection of surface and subsurface soil samples from the Site based upon 50- by 50-
foot grids for PCB Aroclors and metals analyses;
• Collection of aquatic sediment samples from Paradise Creek based upon 50- by 50-
foot grids for PCB homologue and metals analyses;
• Installation of five groundwater monitoring wells (MW01R and MW07 through
MW10);
• Performance of one round of groundwater sampling from the nine Site monitoring
wells (i.e., MW03 not sampled) for total PCB homologues and metals; and
• Slug testing of eight of the nine Site monitoring wells.
Soil sampling was conducted from April 26 to October 17, 2007. Multiple delays were
encountered for various reasons including the presence of munitions debris (MD) encountered
during the sampling event. The following types of MD were encountered during the 2008
investigation:
• Three-inch Naval round, fuzed but not fired;
• High explosive antitank round;
• Inert/training .50 caliber Browning machine gun rounds;
• Machine gun rounds; and
• Shell casings
Surface soil (surface to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and subsurface soil (18 inches [1.5 feet]
bgs to the top of the saturated zone) samples were collected from each 50- by 50-foot sampling
grid. The soil sampling results are summarized in Table 2.11. The soil samples were
analyzed for targeted metals (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
silver) and PCB Aroclors. The metals samples were analyzed using EPA SW-846 Method
6010 (Method 7471 for mercury). The PCB Aroclor samples were analyzed using EPA
SW-846 Method 8082. The groundwater and sediment sampling results are summarized in
Tables 2.12 and 2.13, respectively.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-32
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.4.12.2 Soil Analytical Results
The NWI database indicates a portion of the Site is a freshwater wetland and a portion of the
Site is tidal wetlands (Figure 2.16). Although the boundaries of the wetlands have yet to be
defined, the 2008 soil analytical data was evaluated against several screening criteria based on
the wetland boundaries defined in the NWI database. The soil PCB and metal analytical
results are summarized on Table 2.11 and depicted on Figures 2.25 though 2.40.
• For soil analytical data collected in areas outside the defined NWI wetland
boundaries:
o Surface soil sampling data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential
soil RSLs adjusted for an HI of 0.1; soil-to-groundwater SSLs; and ecological
screening criteria; and
o Subsurface soil data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential soil
RSLs adjusted for a HI of 0.1 and soil-to-groundwater SSLs.
• For analytical data collected from sampling grids located within the NWI defined
freshwater forested/scrub wetland area:
o Surface soil sampling data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential
soil RSLs with a cancer risk of 10"5 and an HI of 1; soil-to-groundwater SSLs;
and EPA freshwater sediment screening benchmarks; and
o Subsurface soil data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential soil
RSLs with a cancer risk of 10"5 and an HI of 1, and against soil-to-groundwater
SSLs. Although ecological activitity can occur at depths greater than 18 inches
(1.5 feet bgs), the depth of the subsurface soil samples collected in 2008 is
unknown; therefore, the subsurface soil data were not screened against ecological
freshwater sediment benchmarks.
• For analytical data collected from sampling grids located within the NWI defined tidal
wetland area:
o Surface soil sampling data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential
soil RSLs with a cancer risk of 10"5 and and HI of 1; and soil-to-groundwater
SSLs. For ecological risk screening, the analytical data were compared to the
freshwater or marine sediment benchmark for each analyte, whichever is lower;
and
o Subsurface soil data were screened against EPA November 2012 residential soil
RSLs with a cancer risk of 10"5 and an HI of 1, and against soil-to-groundwater
SSLs. Although ecological activitity can occur at depths greater than 18 inches
(1.5 feet bgs), the depth of the subsurface soil samples collected in 2008 is
unknown; therefore, the subsurface soil data were not screened against ecological
sediment benchmarks.
Based on the data screening, the following results were obtained:
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-33
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• PCBs: The 2008 PCB analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures 2.25 (0 to 18
inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and 2.26 (18 inches [1.5 feet] to water table). Waste
materials contaminated with PCBs as the result of a spill, an intentional or accidental
release or uncontrolled discharges of PCBs, or other unauthorized disposal of PCBs
are called PCB remediation waste. Cleanup levels for an area contaminated with
PCBs depend on the degree of exposure to an area with residual contamination.
Exposure is measured by the amount of time that people will be spending in the area,
and the type of PCB contamination that will remain in place after remediation. There
are four types of PCB remediation waste:
o Bulk PCB remediation waste;
o Porous surfaces;
o Non-porous surfaces; and
o Liquid PCBs.
The PCB-contaminated soils at the Site are classified as bulk PCB remediation waste.
Areas that are in continuous or semi-continuous use are generally classified as "high
occupancy areas." High occupancy areas would consist of any location where the
annual occupancy for an individual not wearing dermal and respiratory protection is
335 hours or more (an average of 6.7 hours or more per week for bulk PCB
remediation waste). These areas include residences, day care centers, schools, and
single or multiple occupancy 40 hours per week work station. Areas that are used to
a limited extent are considered to be "low occupancy areas" (less than 335 hours per
week for bulk PCB remediation waste. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), which regulates PCBs, PCB-contaminated soils exceeding 10 mg/kg in areas
classified as high occupancy are required to be excavated and removed from the Site.
TSCA requires PCB contaminated soils exceeding 100 mg/kg in areas classified as
low occupancy to be excavated and removed from the Site.
Figures 2.25A and 2.25B depict PCB concentrations in the soil interval between 0 and
18 inches (0 to 1.5 feet). Figure 2.25A summarizes the results of the human health
screening evaluation presented in Table 2.11. As shown on Figure 2.25A, the
majority of the Site contains PCBs in soils at concentrations exceeding 0.22 mg/kg,
EPA's November 2012 residential soil RSL. PCB concentrations in the wetland
sediments sampled from the northeastern freshwater forested/scrub wetland also
exceeded the adjusted November 2012 residential soil RSLs as did 24 of the 47 PCB
detections within the tidal wetlands. Figure 2.25B summarizes the results of the
ecological screening evalution presented in Table 2.11. As shown on Figure 2.25B,
nearly every PCB detection in the Site soils exceeded the EPA Region 3 Biological
Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) ecological screening level of 0.1 mg/kg for total
PCBs. It should be noted that the EPA Region 3 BTAG ecological screening level
takes into account direct toxicity only and does not address bioaccumulation through
the food chain to upper trophic level receptors (such as, birds and mammals). Nearly
every PCB detection within the freshwater and tidal wetlands also exceeded the EPA
Region 3 freshwater sediment benchmark (0.0598 mg/kg) and marine sediment
benchmark (0.04 mg/kg) for total PCBs.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-34
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.26 depicts PCB concentrations in the subsurface soils from 18 inches (1.5
feet) bgs to the underlying water table. Refusal was encountered or groundwater was
too shallow for the collection of PCB samples in the extreme southwestern corner of
the Site, the Site wetland areas, and along most of the majority of the Site's
southeastern property line. EPA residential soil RSL exceedances occur primarily in
the central portion of the Site and the Site's eastern arm. PCB concentrations ranged
from nondetect to 6,090 mg/kg. The highest PCB concentrations in the subsurface
were detected in the central and south-central portion of the Site. Several other PCB
hot spots detected at grid location BB17; GG19, and D20/E21.
If the Site is classified as "high occupancy" all portions of the Site shaded in green,
yellow, orange, and red on Figures 2.25 and 2.26 would require excavation and
removal. If the Site is defined as low occupancy, all areas shaded in red would
require excavation and removal.
• Arsenic: The 2008 arsenic analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures 2.27A
and 2.27B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.28 (18 inches [1.5 feet] to
water table).
Arsenic concentrations in the top 18 inches (1.5 feet) of soil exceeded the November
2012 residential soil RSL value of 0.39 mg/kg for soils and 3.9 mg/kg for the
freshwater and tidal wetland sediments (Figure 2.27A). The majority of the surface
soils contained arsenic at concentrations exceeding 1.6 mg/kg the November 2012
industrial soil RSL. Additionally, arsenic concentrations in the wetland area that
receives surface water from the western drainage system exceeded the Eco-SSL for
plants. Eleven areas on the Site contained arsenic concentrations above 160 mg/kg-
more than a hundred times the November 2012 industrial soil RSL. These areas were
predominantly in the northwestern arm, along the western property boundary (grid
HH19), in the southern portion of the Site, and in the northeastern arm. The
background concentration for arsenic in surface soils at the Site is currently unknown.
As shown on Figure 2.27B, the ecological soil screening level (Eco-SSL) for arsenic
in plants is 18 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations exceeded 18 mg/kg across most of the
central portion of the site, parts of the western arm and most of the eastern arm.
Based on a sample depth of 0 to 18 inches (0 to 1.5 feet) bgs, it is assumed the
samples collected from the northern portion of the western drainage system
represented soils and not strictly sediment deposited within the western drainage
system. Arsenic concentrations in the freshwater wetland sediments exceeded the
EPA Region 3 freshwater sediment benchmark of 9.8 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations
in 36 of the 47 samples collected from the tidal wetland area exceeded the EPA
Region 3 marine sediment benchmark of 7.24 mg/kg.
Figure 2.28 depicts arsenic concentrations in the soil interval from 18 inches
(1.5 feet) bgs to the water table. The majority of the Site contained arsenic
concentrations ranging from 1.6 to 16 mg/kg; concentrations exceeding the November
2012 industrial soil RSL value of 1.6 mg/kg. Arsenic concentrations ranging from 16
to 160 mg/kg were detected sporadically across the Site. Multiple small areas,
typically 50- by 50-foot areas, exhibited arsenic concentrations greater than 100 times
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-35
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
the November 2012 industrial soil RSL value of 1.6mg/kg. None of these high
arsenic concentrations corresponded with high arsenic concentrations observed in the
soil interval from 0 to 18 inches (0 to 1.5 feet) bgs. The background concentration
for arsenic in Site subsurface soils is currently unknown.
• Cadmium: The 2008 cadmium analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures
2.29A and 2.29B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.30 (18 inches [1.5
feet] to water table).
Figure 2.29A shows the cadmium human health screening results for soil/sediment
samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 feet) soil interval. Cadmium
concentrations exceeding the November 2012 residential soil RSL value of 7 mg/kg
were detected primarily across the central portion, south-central portion, and
northeastern arm of the Site. Cadmium concentrations exceeding the November 2012
industrial soil RSL value of 80 mg/kg were detected primarily in the east-central and
northeastern arm of the Site. In addition, three hot spots of cadmium concentrations
exceeding the industrial soil RSL value were present in the southern portion of the
Site. Three of the 8 soil samples collected from the freshwater wetland area and 7 of
the 47 sediment samples collected from the tidal wetland area exceeded the soil RSL
value (HI = 1.0) of 70 mg/kg. The background concentration for cadmium in Site
surface soils is currently unknown.
Figure 2.29B shows the cadium ecological screening results for the soil/sediment
samples collected from the the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 feet) soil interval. Cadmium
concentrations in the Site soils exceeded the Eco-SSL of 0.36 for mammals. The
cadmium concentrations in all eight samples collected from the freshwater wetland
area exceeded the EPA Region 3 freshwater sediment benchmark of 0.99 mg/kg.
Cadmium concentrations in 36 of the 47 sediment samples collected from the tidal
wetland area exceeded the EPA Region 3 marine benchmark of 0.68 mg/kg.
Figure 2.30 shows the cadmium concentrations in the soil interval between 18 inches
(1.5 feet) bgs and the underlying water table. Cadmium concentrations exceeding the
residential soil RSL value of 7 mg/kg were present primarily in the central, south-
central, and east-central areas of the site, as well as in northeastern arm. Hot spots of
cadmium concentrations exceeding the November 2012 industrial RSL value of 80
mg/kg were limited in extent and primarily occurred in the central portion of the Site.
The cadmium industrial soil RSL exceedances in the subsurface soils did not
correspond with the cadmium industrial soil RSL exceedances in the surface soil.
The background concentration for cadmium in Site subsurface soils is currently
unknown.
• Chromium: The 2008 chromium analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on
Figures 2.31A and 2.31B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.32 (18
inches [1.5 feet] to water table). Because the chromium detected on site has not been
speciated between trivalent chromium and hexavalent chromium, screening was
conducted primarily against hexavalent chromium RSL values in Table 2.11, which
are the most conservative.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-36
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.31 A presents the chromium human health screening results for the
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 feet) soil interval.
Chromium concentrations across most of the Site exceeded the EPA's November
2012 residential soil RSL (0.29 mg/kg). Overall, chromium concentrations ranged
primarily from 56 mg/kg to 560 mg/kg (i.e., greater than 10 times the November
2012 hexavalent chromium industrial soil RSL of 5.6 mg/kg). Concentrations greater
than 560 mg/kg were detected sporadically across the entire site but occurred
primarily in the central portion, south-central portion, and northeastern arm of the
Site. Chromium concentrations in the Site surface soils was informally screened
against trivalent chromium November 2012 residential RSL (adjusted for a HI =
0.1). Chromium concentrations exceed the trivalent chromium November 2012
residential soil RSL (HI-0.1) along the western property boundary (grids HH-20,
HH-16, and HH12) as well as within the central portion of the Site (grid X-18). In
the freshwater wetland area, all 8 chromium detections exceed both the adjusted
(CR = 10"5) residential (2.9 mg/kg) and adjusted (CR = 10"5) industrial (56 mg/kg)
soil RSLs. In the tidal wetland area, all of the reported chromium concentrations
exceeded the adjusted (CR = 10"5) residential soil RSL (2.9 mg/kg). Chromium
concentrations in 24 of the 47 samples collected from the tidal wetland area exceeded
the adjusted industrial soil RSL of 56 mg/kg. The highest chromium concentrations
detected in the tidal wetland area were along the Site property boundary with the Scott
Annex.
Figure 2.3IB presents the chromium ecological screening results for the soil/sediment
samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 feet) soil interval. Chromium
concentrations in the Site soils across most of the site exceeded the EPA Region 3
Eco-SSL value of 26 mg/kg for avian species. In the freshwater wetland area,
chromium concentrations exceeded the freshwater sediment benchmark of 43.4 mg/kg
for chromium. In the tidal wetland, 30 of the 47 sediment samples contained
chromium at concentrations exceeding the freshwater sediment benchmark of
43.4 mg/kg.
Figure 2.32 presents the chromium concentrations detected in the Site subsurface soils
(18 inches [1.5 feet] bgs to the underlying water table). Chromium concentrations in
general exceeded the November 2012 residential soil RSL value of 0.29 mg/kg.
Concentrations of chromium between 56 mg/kg and 560 mg/kg were primarily
detected in the central and south-central portion of the Site and the Site's eastern arm.
Concentrations of chromium exceeding the November 2012 residential soil RSL for
trivalent chromium (12,000 mg/kg) were also detected along the western property
boundary (grid HH-17) and in the central portion of the Site (grids Y-18/X-18 and
grid Q-19). Only the trivalent chromium exceedance at grid X-18 in the subsurface
soils corresponded to a trivalent chromium exceedance in the surface soils.
• Lead: The 2008 lead analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures 2.33A and
2.33B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.34 (18 inches [1.5 feet] to
water table).
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-37
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.33A presents the results of the lead human health screening for soil/sediment
samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval. Lead
concentrations across most of the central portion of the Site and the Site's western and
eastern arms exceeded the November 2012 residential and industrial soil RSL values
of 400 mg/kg and 800 mg/kg, respectively. Lead concentrations greater than
10 times the November 2012 industrial soil RSL value (i.e., 8,000 mg/kg) were
detected primarily in the east-central portion and northeastern arm of the Site as well
as along the southeastern property boundary and around a former drum storage unit
located near grid Z-21.
Figure 2.33B presents the results of the lead ecological screening for soil/sediment
samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval. The majority of
the lead concentrations detected in Site soils exceeded the Eco-SSL of 11 mg/kg for
avian species. The lead concentrations detected in the sediment samples collected
from the freshwater wetland area exceeded the EPA Region 3 freshwater sediment
benchmark of 35.8 mg/kg and all but 4 samples collected from the tidal wetland area
exceeded the EPA Region 3 marine sediment benchmark of 30.2 mg/kg.
Figure 2.34 depicts the lead concentrations reported in the Site subsurface soils from
18 inches (1.5 feet) bgs to the underlying water table. Lead concentrations exceeding
the November 2012 residential and industrial soil RSL values of 400 mg/kg and
800 mg/kg were detected across the majority of the southern portion of the Site and
the Site's eastern arm. Lead concentrations exceeding 10 times the November 2012
industrial soil RSL value were observed in the southern portion of the Site (grids
Y-10, Y-7, and V-9), in the central portion of the Site (grid Q-15), within the
northeastern arm (grid C-22), and along the far eastern Site boundary (grids A-17,
A-18, and A-19).
• Mercury: The 2008 mercury analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures
2.35A and 2.35B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.36 (18 inches [1.5
feet] to water table).
Figure 2.35A presents the results of the mercury human health screening for the
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval.
The concentrations across most of the Site exceeded the November 2012 residential
soil RSL value of 1.0 mg/kg (adjusted for an HI of 0.1). Mercury concentrations
exceeding the November 2012 industrial soil RSL value of 4.3 mg/kg were detected
primarily along the central portion, east-central portion, south-central portion, and
northeastern arm of the Site. Sporadic mercury detections above 4.3 mg/kg were also
detected in the west-central and northwestern arm of the Site. None of the mercury
detections in the sediment samples collected from the freshwater wetland or tidal
wetland areas exceed the adjusted residential soil (10 mg/kg) RSL.
Figure 2.35B presents the results of the mercury ecological screening for the
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval.
Mercury concentrations in the soils samples collected across the entire Site exceeded
the EPA's BTAG mercury value of 0.058 mg/kg. All 8 samples collected from the
freshwater wetland area exceeded the EPA Region 3 freshwater sediment benchmark
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-38
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
of 0.18 mg/kg and all but 6 of the sediment samples collected from the tidal wetland
area exceeded the EPA Region 3 marine sediment benchmark of 0.13 mg/kg.
Figure 2.36 presents the mercury concentrations in the Sites subsurface soils from 18
inches (1.5 feet) bgs to the underlying water table. The concentrations exceeding the
November 2012 residential soil RSL value (1.0 mg/kg) adjusted for an HI of 0.1 were
present primarily in the east-central portion, south-central portion, and northeastern
arm, with sporadic detections in the western section and the northwestern arm.
Mercury concentrations exceeding the industrial RSL value of 4.3 mg/kg were
detected in the same areas as the residential exceedances. One mercury
concentration, 110 mg/kg, exceeded 10 times the industrial soil RSL value. This high
mercury concentration was detected in grid X-6, located in the far southern portion of
the Site.
• Nickel: The 2008 nickel analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures 2.37A and
2.37B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet- bgs) and Figure 2.38 (18 inches [1.5 feet] to
water table).
Figure 2.37A presents the results of the nickel human health screening for
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval.
Nickel concentrations in the soil samples collected from across the site primarily
exceeded the November 2012 residential soil RSL value of 150 mg/kg. Other
industrial soil RSL exceedances were identified in the central portion of the Site (grids
X-18, U-17, and S-18) and northeastern arm (grids B-24,B-32, and E-37). In the
wetland areas, nickel concentrations were detected in sediment samples at levels
above the adjusted residential soil RSL of 1,500 mg/kg in 8 of the 47 samples
collected from the tidal wetland area. These exceedances of the adjusted RSL
occurred in samples collected from along the Site's western property boundary.
Figure 2.37B presents the results of the nickel ecological screening evaluation for
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval.
Nearly all of the nickel concentrations reported in the surface soils exceeded the EPA
Eco-SSL for plants of 38 mg/kg. All 8 samples collected from the freshwater wetland
area contained nickel at concentrations exceeding the EPA Region 3 freshwater
sediment benchmark of 22.7 mg/kg. All but 4 of the 47 samples collected from the
tidal wetland area contained nickel at concentrations exceeding the EPA Region 3
marine sediment benchmark of 15.9 mg/kg.
Figure 2.38 presents the nickel concentrations detected in the Site subsurface soils
from 18 inches (1.5 feet) bgs to the underlying water table. The nickel concentrations
exceeding screening criteria were sporadic but occurred in the western, central,
south-central, and eastern portions of the Site as well as in the northeastern arm.
Exceedances of the November 2012 industrial soil RSL were limited to the western
property boundary, the central portion of the Site, and along the southeastern property
boundary.
• Silver: The 2008 silver analytical data (Table 2.11) are shown on Figures 2.39A and
2.39B (0 to 18 inches [0 to 1.5 feet] bgs) and Figure 2.40 (18 inches [1.5 feet] to
water table).
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-39
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.39A presents the results of the silver human health screening for
soil/sediment samples collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval.
Silver concentrations exceeding the November 2012 residential soil RSL value of
39 mg/kg were detected along the western property boundary (grid HH-22), the
south-central section of the Site (grid group BB-13/AA-13/Z-12), and the central
portions of the Site (grids T-21, M-21, H-18, and grid group H-20/G-21/F22). No
silver concentrations detected in the surface soils exceeded the November 2012
industrial soil RSL value adjusted for an HI of 0.1 (510 mg/kg). No silver
concentrations were detected in the wetland sediments at concentrations exceeding the
adjusted residential soil RSL value of 390 mg/kg.
Figure 2.39B presents the results of the silver ecological screening evaluation for
soils/sediments collected from the 0- to 18-inch (0 to 1.5 foot) soil interval. Silver
concentrations in the site soils exceeding the silver Eco-SSL value of 4.2 for avians
were detected sporadically across the Site; but, were detected primarily in the central
and eastern portions of the Site and in the Site's eastern arm. All eight sediment
samples collected from the freshwater wetland area contained silver at concentrations
exceeding the EPA Region 3 freshwater sediment benchmark of 1.0 mg/kg. Twenty-
five of the 47 samples collected from the tidal wetland area contained silver at
concentrations exceeding the EPA Region 3 marine sediment benchmark of
0.73 mg/kg.
Figure 2.40 presents the silver concentrations in the Site subsurface soils from
18 inches (1.5 feet) bgs to the underlying water table. Silver concentrations
exceeding the residential soil RSL value of 39 mg/kg were detected in the central
portion of the Site (grid V-21) and sporadically in the southern portion of the Site. A
silver concentration exceedance of the November 2012 industrial soil RSL value of
510 mg/kg (adjusted for a HI of 0.1) was detected in the far southern portion of the
Site (grid Y-4).
2.4.12.3 Groundwater Sampling Results
The 2008 groundwater analytical data has been summarized in Table 2.12 and presented on
Figure 2.41. Three PCB homologues, monochlorobiphenyl, dichlorobiphenyl, and
trichlorobiphenyl, were detected in the groundwater sample collected from well MW09 and
the PCB homologue trichlorobiphenyl was detected in wells MW07 and MW010. MW09 is
located south of the central portion of the Site. Wells MW07 and MW010 are located adjacent
to the Site wetlands and hydraulically downgradient of the central portion of the Site
(Figure 2.41).
Five metals were detected in the Site groundwater; arsenic, chromium, and nickel were the
only three metals detected in the dissolved phase at concentrations exceeding EPA November
2012 tap water RSLs. Arsenic was the only metal detected in the dissolved phase at
concentrations exceeding MCLs. The dissolved nickel tap water RSL exceedance occurred in
MW02, located near the Sherwin Williams property. The dissolved chromium tap water RSL
exceedances occurred in wells MW04 and MW07. Well MW07 is hydraulically downgradient
of MW04 based upon groundwater elevations mapped by Malcolm Pirnie (2008). Dissolved
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-40
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
arsenic exceedances of the tap water RSL were detected in every well except for MW02 and
MW07.
2.4.12.4 Sediment Sampling Results
The 2008 Paradise Creek sediment analytical data has been summarized on Table 2.13 and
presented on Figure 2.42. Two PCB homologues were detected in the Paradise Creek
sediments, Heptachlorobiphenyl and hexachlorobiphenyl. Heptachlorobiphenyl was detected
in only one sediment sample, SD-4. Sample location SD-4 was located just off shore from the
Site's western drainage systems discharge point. Hexachlorobiphenyl was detected in 3 of the
37 sediment samples: SD-4, SD-5, and SD-32.
Arsenic and chromium concentrations exceeded the EPA November 2012 for residential soil.
2.4.13 2009 to Present
On April 2009, EPA published a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) document for the Site (EPA,
2009a). The HRS is the principal mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on
the NPL. It is a numerically based screening system that uses information from initial, limited
investigations, to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the
environment. The HRS uses a structured analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach
assigns numerical values to factors that relate to risk based on conditions at the site. The
factors are grouped into three categories as follows:
• Likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances
into the environment;
• Characteristics of the waste (e.g., toxicity and waste quantity); and
• People or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.
Four pathways can be scored under the HRS:
• Groundwater migration (drinking water);
• Surface water migration (drinking water, human food chain, sensitive environments);
• Soil exposure (resident population, nearby population, sensitive environments); and
• Air migration (population, sensitive environments).
After scores are calculated for one or more pathways, the scores are combined to determine
the overall site score: an overall site score of 28.5 indicates the site can be listed on the NPL.
The site score can be relatively high even if only one pathway score is high. The HRS report
generated for Peck only scored the surface water migration pathway. The other three
pathways were not scored because the surface water pathway score of 97.05 was sufficient to
place the Site onto the NPL (EPA, 2009a). EPA placed the Site on the NPL on November 4,
2009.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-41
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
In May 2010, EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
conducted interview with local residents to gain their input on the development of a
Community Involvement Plan. ATSDR published a Public Health Assessment for the Site on
December 12, 2011. In developing the RI approach to the Site, EPA conducted the following:
• Performed an historical Aerial Photographic Analysis of the Site (EPA, 2010a);
• Conducted site visits to develop and refine RI sampling strategies on July 28, 2011,
and February 22, 2012;
• Developed an optimization review report, which summarized historical sampling data,
site conditions, and provided recommendations on optimizing RI sampling strategies
(OSRTI, 2012);
• Evaluated incremental sampling method (ISM) strategies to assess Site surface soil
quality (Singh, 2012); and
• Developed this SMP.
2.5 CONTAMINATION SUMMARY
2.5.1 Soil and Terrestrial Sediment Contamination Summary
Based on the analytical data available for the Site, contaminants were released to the Site's
surface soils. Surface and subsurface soils and terrestrial sediments (that is, sediments
deposited in intermittent drainages and never submerged) were determined to contain
concentrations of PCBs, heavy metals, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD at concentrations exceeding
November 2012 residential soil RSLs, November 2012 soil-to-groundwater SSLs, and Eco-
SSLs.
Soil contamination is widespread across the entire site, including the western drainage channel
system and Site wetlands. Contamination of the Site soils and terrestrial sediments is most
likely attributable to scrap metal storage activities; releases of PCB-containing oils during the
disassembling of PCB-containing transformers; and from the practice of burning the insulation
off wires in the transformers as a method for salvaging copper. Less documented Site
activities, including storage of liquids in 55-gallon drums and ASTs; vehicle and equipment
maintenance and storage activities; and the stockpiling of contaminated debris may also have
resulted in surface soil contamination. Once contaminated, reworking of the surface soils and
terrestrial sediments through flooding; overland surface water flow due to precipitation events;
wind erosion and dust deposition; and historical Site activities would have resulted in the
dispersal of surface soil contaminants.
Subsurface soils underlying the Site were most likely impacted due to:
• Reworking of Site soils from scrap metal storage activities and Site re-grading;
• Infiltration of contaminant-laden liquids and precipitation through the subsurface
soils; and
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-42
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Direct releases of contaminants from underground pathways (e.g., USTs and building
drain lines).
2.5.2 Wetland Sediment Contamination Summary
The site history and screening results of the freshwater and tidal wetland sediments indicate
that the sediments contain PCBs and heavy metals at concentrations exceeding November 2012
residential soil RSLs, November 2012 soil-to-groundwater SSLs, and ecological screening
benchmarks. Screening of the wetland sediments is based on the wetland boundaries defined
in the NWI database. Ground-truthing the presence of the wetlands and the extent of the
boundaries has yet to be conducted.
2.5.3 Groundwater Contamination Summary
Groundwater monitoring was limited to three main sampling events conducted in 1999, 2003,
and 2008. Groundwater samples were only analyzed for a select target analytes. Of the
analytes investigated, several VOCs including TCE, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl
chloride; PCBs; and several dissolved metals were detected at concentrations exceeding EPA's
November 2012 tap water RSLs.
The groundwater migration pathway has not been assessed. Groundwater elevation
measurements collected indicate a radial flow pattern from the center portion of the Site.
Groundwater beneath the western and southern portions of the Site flows toward Paradise
Creek. It is unknown whether the groundwater discharges to the Site wetland, to Paradise
Creek, or flows beneath Paradise Creek. The groundwater present beneath the northern and
eastern portions of the Site flow to the northeast, toward AWI and NNSY. The fate of the
groundwater from the northern and eastern portions of the Site is unknown.
2.5.4 Aquatic Sediment Contamination Summary
Paradise Creek sediments have been impacted by contamination from multiple sources adjacent
to Paradise Creek and discharging surface water to Paradise Creek. Contaminants identified
included PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, and metals. Sediment samples collected in the vicinity of
the Site have identified the presence of PCBs, PAHs, and several heavy metals along the Site's
shoreline along Paradise Creek and immediately downstream of the Site's western drainage
systems outlet.
Based on current data, it is unknown whether the Site is contributing to the contaminant load
within Paradise Creek. It is also unknown whether sediments discharging from the Site from
the western drainage system's discharge point are creating a delta within Paradise Creek or if
daily tidal currents and/or storm tidal surges distribute the Site sediment up and downstream of
the Site.
The presence of contaminated sediment and the fate of any sediment within the northwestern
drainage channel are also unknown.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-43
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.5.5 Surface Water Contamination Summary
Surface water sampling on Site has not been conducted. The presence of contaminants within
the Site surface water as well as the fate of any contaminants detected in the surface water is
unknown.
2.6 POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS
Generic pathway-receptor network diagrams for human health and ecological risks are shown
on Figures 2.43 and 2.44, respectively (OSRTI, 2012). The primary media and associated
potential receptors at the Site are:
• Soil: Human health risk likely exists due to potential ingestion, inhalation, and dermal
adsorption through direct contact of contaminated soil by site workers, construction
workers, and trespassers. Ecological risks that are likely posed by the soil include
foraging animal direct contact of soil, direct toxicity to soil invertebrates, food chain
exposure for receptors that feed on soil invertebrates, and foraging animals, and plant
uptake.
• Groundwater: Human health risk is likely low because groundwater is not used as a
source of drinking water supply; however, the risk will need to be evaluated to
determine whether LUCs are needed. An ecological risk may exist to indigenous
fauna as a result of the contamination of surface water and sediments from the
discharge of potentially contaminated groundwater.
• Sediment: Human health risk exists due to potential dermal adsorption through direct
contact and ingestion through consumption of contaminated finfish and shellfish.
Ecological risks posed by sediment include exposure/contact, food chain exposure,
and ingestion by indigenous fauna and flora.
• Surface Water: Human health risk may exist due to potential dermal adsorption
through direct contact and ingestion through consumption of contaminated fish and/or
waterfowl. Ecological risks posed by surface water include direct exposure/contact
and food chain exposure.
2.7 PROPERTY REUSE
2.7.1 Site Reuse
Reuse of the Site after completion of site remedial actions is currently unknown. According to
a Paradise Creek Industrial Corridor Concept Plan (Skeo, 2012), which is 75 percent
complete, use of the Site is anticipated to be industrial and commercial. Other uses for the
Site include additional parking for NNSY, and a potential access route to the Jordan Bridge
(Figure 2.45). A portion of the Site may be developed into a park (Skeo, 2012) while the
wetland area is designated for wildlife habitat restoration and long term conservation (ERP,
2008). The wetland areas bordering Paradise Creek will stay wetlands in accordance with the
CBPA.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-44
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.7.2 Paradise Creek Revitalization
The ERP was established in 1993 to restore the Elizabeth River to the highest practical level of
environmental quality though government, business, and community partnerships. In 2009,
ERP was one of the 10 mid-Atlantic winners of the EPA's first Environmental Achievement
Awards. A restoration plan for Paradise Creek was published on August 1, 2003. The key
goals of the plan for Paradise Creek are:
• Develop a plan to clean up creek sediments determined to pose a serious risk to
human and the ecologic receptors and begin implementation by 2008.
• Achieve a habitat corridor of restored and conserved open land, including wetlands,
forests, and meadows for 100 feet inland on the north shore of the creek and on the
southern shore as practical, with areas set aside as parks or nature preserves, as
practical.
• Implement innovative solutions to stormwater pollution to address those sub-
watersheds with highest impact on the ecology and provide maximum practical
stormwater treatment for new developments.
• Restore Navy landfill sites on Paradise Creek to productive use, helping achieve the
relevant goals in this plan for water quality, sediment quality, living resources, and
quality of life.
• Return at least three Superfund and/or Brownfield upland sites to productive use
through elimination of the risk to human and ecological health, resulting in increased
marketability of individual properties and the creek area as a whole, and preventing
re-contamination of restored sediments.
• Implement a comprehensive public relations and outreach plan to educate the citizens
about creek restoration, history, and stewardship opportunities.
Actions on restoring the creek have begun including replanting of wetland grasses within the
6-acre parcel of the former Site donated to the City of Portsmouth and at the Scott Center
Annex Landfill, installation of a half-acre oyster reef near the mouth of Paradise Creek, and
opening of the Paradise Creek Nature Park.
2.8 DATA GAPS
Based on the CSM derived from the investigations summarized is Section 2.4 and summarized
in Sections 2.5 and 2.6, the following data gaps requiring investigation have been identified
for completing an RI and assessing remedial alternatives for site remediation:
General:
• Previous sampling was limited primarily to target analytes associated with scrap metal
storage and PCB-fluid releases. Investigations of other potential contaminants
including PCDDs, PAHs, and VOCs were conducted but were very limited in scope.
Former Site activities identified in the 1999 Site Investigation, the 2010 Aerial
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-45
HGL 4/3/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Photographic Analysis report (EPA, 2010a), and Paradise Creek sediment sampling
data suggest other potential contaminants of concern in addition to those previously
investigated including phthalates, pesticides, other heavy metals, ACM, explosive
compounds, radioactive contaminated metals, and PCDFs may be present in the Site
media. The nature and extent of all Site COPCs and COPECs needs to be
determined.
• No investigation of potential contaminant releases associated with Site activities other
than scrap metal storage and PCB-fluid releases has been conducted.
• It is not known whether validation of the historical analytical data has occurred. The
collection and analysis of quality control (QC) samples, other than blind duplicates,
for evaluating field and laboratory procedures is unknown to have occurred.
Therefore, the quality of the analytical data is in question and therefore problematic
for use in completing human health and ecological risk assessments.
• The NWI has identified wetlands on and adjacent to the Site, which will impact the
selection of potential remedial actions. It is unknown whether wetlands on the Site
have been accurately delineated.
• Structures currently exist on the property and appear to be in use. It is unknown
whether historical Site activities released contaminants within the structures that could
potential pose a risk to personnel currently accessing the Site structures.
Soil/Terrestrial Sediments:
• Surface soil sampling was previously conducted on the top 18 inches (1.5 feet bgs) of
soil during the 2003 and 2008 investigations in an effort to delineate the relative
extent of contamination at the Site. However, this sampling approach may
underestimate exposure in the surface soils. While ecological exposure can occur in
the top 2 feet of soil and sediment, primary exposure occurs in the top 6 inches (0.5
feet), as this is the most biologically active layer. The 2008 soil sampling approach
could potentially underestimate concentrations and exposure since releases occurred
primarily at the surface.
• The presence of MD and potentially MEC in the Site soils and fill material is
unknown and needs to be determined for site worker and trespasser safety.
• The largest set of subsurface soil data was collected during the 2008 investigation.
Subsurface soil sampling during this investigation was conducted from 18 inches (1.5
feet bgs) to the water table. The depth of the water table was not documented in the
2008 report but is believed to vary across the Site based on information provided in
the 2003 Site Characterization report (DAA, 2003b). It is unclear from the 2008
report whether the subsurface soil sample was collected as a composite for the entire
soil interval sampled; as a discrete sample at the top of the underlying water table; or
from a depth half the distance between 18 inches (1.5 feet bgs) and the water table.
The analytical results obtained using this sampling approach is therefore questionable.
o If composite samples were collected, analyte detections below screening criteria
may be the result of dilution. This sampling approach could underestimate the
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-46
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
volume of impacted soils beneath the Site. In addition, this sampling approach
does not indicate if contaminants are present immediately above the water table.
o If a discrete sample was collected at the top of the water table, vertical
delineation to the water table would have been completed; however, if a discrete
sample was obtained from half the distance to the water table, then vertical
contaminant delineation would not have been completed for locations where
contaminants exceed screening criteria.
o None of the three subsurface soil sampling approaches investigated soil quality
differences between the fill material and the underlying native soils. The fill
material underlying the Site may be heavily contaminated with surface soil
contaminants due to re-working of Site soils from grading activities, stockpiling
and removal of scrap metal, and mounds of construction debris.
• No investigation of the soils underlying the Sherwin Williams property has been
conducted.
• No investigation has been conducted to assess off-site migration of Site soils onto
adjacent properties or from off-site properties onto the Site.
• Speciation of chromium detections has not been conducted; it is unknown whether
chromium concentrations on site are associated with trivalent or hexavalent
chromium.
• No background soil data has been collected. Background soil analytical data is
needed to determine metal contaminant loading to Site soils resulting from former Site
activities in order to accurately assess potential risks to human health and ecological
receptors.
• The Commonwealth is developing a TMDL for PCBs in Paradise Creek. The TDML
will most likely become an ARAR for site remedial measures. Currently, PCB
analyses have been primarily limited to Aroclor detections. Total PCB analysis is
needed to assess PCB loading to Paradise Creek.
• It is unknown whether contaminated sediment is migrating off site within the
northwestern drainage channel.
• Although, commercial and industrial use of the Site has been proposed, the risk to
potential residential receptors has not been determined and will need to be assessed in
order to determine if LUCs are required.
Groundwater:
• Monitoring well locations presented in the 1999, 2003, and 2008 investigation reports
vary between reports. For well MW06, the location variance is over 50 feet. To
accurately identify groundwater flow patterns, the locations of the existing monitoring
wells need to be accurately determined.
• Groundwater elevations presented in the 1999 and 2003 sampling investigations and
possibly the 2008 investigation (information not provided in the 2008 report) are
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-47 HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
based on an assumed elevation of 10 feet amsl for the MW06 casing. This approach
allows for a view of groundwater potentiometric surface but based on groundwater
elevation differences and not on actual groundwater elevation data. Actual
groundwater elevation data should be collected to accurately evaluate groundwater
flow paths beneath the Site.
• The 2008 Malcolm Pirnie report stated that MW06 and MW08 were not installed in
the shallow groundwater aquifer. If these wells were not in the correct water-bearing
zone, no monitoring wells exist on the Site's eastern property boundary to monitor the
shallow groundwater flowing off site. Additionally, if MW06 has been installed
inaccurately, the groundwater potentiometric surface beneath the Site presented in the
1999, 2003, and possibly the 2008 reports is inaccurate for the shallow groundwater
beneath the Site.
• It is unknown whether groundwater discharges to the Site wetlands.
• Paradise Creek's connection to the underlying groundwater system is unknown.
• Although groundwater usage at the Site is not anticipated, the risk posed by
contaminants in groundwater have not been determined. The risk posed by
groundwater contaminants to will need to be assessed to determine whether LUCs are
required.
Surface Water:
• It is unknown whether Site soil or groundwater contaminants are being released to
Site surface water and, if so, if the contaminants are being discharged to off-site
surface water (i.e., Paradise Creek and local storm sewer system).
• It is unknown whether contaminants were and potentially are still being discharged
from any drain lines within the existing Site structures.
• The fate of the surface water within the northwestern drainage channel is unknown.
Sediment:
• Within Paradise Creek, sediment sampling has been limited to a select number of
target analytical groups, PAHs, PCBs, metals, dioxins. If additional Site
contaminants (i.e., VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, all metals, hexavalent chromium,
ACM, and explosives) are detected in the Site media, sampling of Paradise Creek
sediments and surface waters should be performed to determine contaminant
migration pathways from the Site to Paradise Creek are complete.
• Sediment sampling within Paradise Creek has been primarily limited to the top 6
inches (0.5 feet) of sediment. Limited vertical delineation of contaminants within the
creek has been conducted. Additional vertical delineation should be conducted in
areas where potential deposition of contaminated sediments may occur. This
information is necessary in order to ascertain possible sediment.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-48
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Biota:
• Bioaccumulation and food chain evaluations were conducted on mussels and clams
within Paradise Creek as part of the NNSY 2001 BERA. The evaluation was
conducted only to assess potential effects associated with contaminants identified at
the three NNSY sites located adjacent to Paradise Creek on mussels and clams. No
other biological organisms in the creek were evaluated; this lack of evaluation is a
data gap for Paradise Creek. Additionally, another data gap for Paradise Creek will
exist if Site sampling determines that contaminants in addition to those evaluated in
the NNSY 2001 BERA are present.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
2-49
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.1
Site Groundwater Elevations
7/
3/1999
7/
5/1999
7/
6/1999
4/
7/2003
5/7/2003
5/9/2003
6/30/2003
7/I/200S
<;w
(;\v
GW
<;w
<;w
<;w
<;w
<;w
Monitoring
lnsl;illiilion
Klcvsition'1,
DTW
Kleviilion
DTW
Kleviilion
DTW
Kleviilion
DTW
Kk'Viilion
DTW
Kk'Viilion
DTW
Kk'Viilion
DTW
Kk'Viilion
DTW
Kk'Viilion
Well
Dsile
(I'l iimsl)
(I'l bj>s)
(I'l sinisl)
(I'l l)}js)
(I'l sinisl)
(I'l l)}js)
(I'l si nisi)
(I'l bj>s)
(I'l sinisl)
(I'l bys)
(I'l iimsl)
(I'l b«s)
(I'l si nisi)
(I'l bys)
(I'l sinisl)
(I'l b«s)
(I'l si nisi)
MW01
7/12-13/1999
12.04
6.71
5.33
2.12
9.92
2.10
9.94
3.00
9.04
2.58
9.46
2.47
9.57
2.90
9.14
XiH 1 .oca led
MW01R
5/28/2008
XiH hiMallal
XI'
4.39
MW02
7/12-13/1999
11.47
2.85
8.62
1.62
9.85
1.72
9.75
1.70
9.77
1.40
10.07
2.25
9.::
XI'
4.87
MW03
7/12-13/1999
8.77
5.24
3.53
3.07
5.70
3.18
5.59
XiH 1 .oca led
MW04
7/12-13/1999
13.58
6.71
6.87
2.03
11.55
2.00
11.58
2.00
11.58
1.91
11.67
1.55
12.03
2.15
11.43
NP
7.46
MW05
7/12-13/1999
12.55
7.51
5.04
3.79
8.76
3.76
8.79
3.92
8.63
3.21
9.34
3.65
8.90
NP
0.62
MW06
7/12-13/1999
10.00
7.40
2.60
4.11
5.89
3.03
6.97
2.00
8.00
2.02
7.98
1.85
8.15
2.10
7.90
NP
-5.37
MW07
5/28/2008
Nm hiMallal
NP
0.14
MW08
5/28/2008
XiH hiMallal
Dry
MW09
5/28/2008
XiH hiMallal
NP
6.37
MW10
5/28/2008
XiH hiMallal
NP
1.33
Notes:
(1) elevation assumed using MW06 as 10.00 ft amsl.
DTW = depth to water
GW = groundwater
NP = not provided
ft amsl = feet above mean sea level
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.2
Dominant Taxa of Random Sample Locations within Paradise Creek
Sample
AhuiidiiiKT
Local ion
Tiixon
(per in-)
1
Mediomastus ambiesta (P)
10368
2
Streblospio benedicti (P)
3261
3
Tubificoides heterochaetus (O)
1157
4
Laeonereis culveri (P)
867
5
Cyathura polita (I)
174
6
Leitoscoloplos spp. (P)
154
7
Tubificidae spp. (O)
149
8
Leucon americanus
134
9
Eteone heteropoda (P)
129
10
Tubificoides spp. Group I (O)
97
11
Heteromastus filiformis (P)
80
12
Capitella capitata (P)
76
13
Paraprionospio pinnata (P)
35
14
Nemertea spp. (N)
31
15
Hobsonia florida (P)
27
Data obtained from Table 10 in Dauer, 2001.
m2 = square meter
I = isopod
N - Nemertean
O = Oligochaete
P = Polychaete
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.3
SPSA-Navy PCDD/PCDF 1994 Soil Sampling Result
Siimplc
Lociilion
Siimplo
Descriplion
Soil CoiKTiili'iilion (pplr)
IoIjiI
i»t nn/i'cni
Del eel od
'lotal 2.37S
Isomers
Toxic
Kqui viilents
CFR-1
Near field
5,178
4,575
19
CFR-2 (1)
Near field
5,338
4,720
21
CRMS-1
Near field
2,803
2,245
19
CWDS-1
Bkg
12,804
12,554
16
DC-1
Bkg
3,878
3,591
8
(1) Duplicate sample
Bkg = background
SPSA = Southeastern Public Service Authority
pptr = parts per trillion
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofarans
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.4
1999 Site Inspection Soil Sampling Results
AiiiiMe
i:i»a
Resident i;il
Soil KSLs
i:i\\
Soil-
Screeniii"
Level
(soil-gw)
i:i\\
l-xologiciil
Screening
Level
(;4
113
12 [J
L2
A2
(0
14
<;3
II
(.2 A
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
jui-yy
Jul-W
Jnl-W
jui-yy
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-JW
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
VOCs (jH.i";k»)
Benzene
1100
0.2
100
Ethylbenzene
5400
1.5
100
Toluene
500000
590
100
m,p-Xylene
59000
180
100
o-Xylene
69000
190
100
PCBs fog/kg)
Aroclor 1016
390
92
100
500
U
500
U
500
U
500
U
500
U
Aroclor 1221
140
0.069
100
500
U
500
U
500
U
500
U
500
U
Aroclor 1232
140
0.069
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1242
220
5.3
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1248
220
5.2
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1254
110
OO
00
100
560,000
38,000
500
u
500
u
15,800
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
500
u
500
u
22,100
500
u
500
u
TOTAL MLTALS dim km
Arsenic
0.39
0.0013
18
23
12.3
13.2
8.22
2.75
25.3
2.87
4.3
14.8
8.01
Barium
1500
82
330
513
389
139
250
47.9
589
26
46.8
1,550
196
Cadmium
7
0.36
69.1
41.2
2.72
28.4
3.18
29.6
1.64
2.93
50.2
14.3
Chromium
0.29
0.00059
26
1,260
160
5740
296
24.3
206
108
20.8
766
108
Copper
310
22
28
2,280
4240
501
13,400
196
1,210
92.6
95.1
3,880
2,110
Lead
400
14
11
3,480
2560
70.2
2,390
161
12,800
76.1
109
9,950
1,990
Mercury
1.0
0.033
0.058
1.65
0.514
0.165
2.16
0.05
u
0.194
0.05
U
0.133
0.591
0.05
U
Selenium
39
0.26
0.52
2
u
2
u
2
U
2
u
3.74
2
u
2
U
2
U
2
U
16.9
Silver
39
0.6
4.2
1
u
1
u
1
U
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
U
1
U
1
U
M ISC TILL AMIOl S (/<.!¦ k»)
TPH-DRO 100,000 L 100,000 L 10,000 L 100,000 L
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.4 (continued)
1999 Site Inspection Soil Sampling Results
Aiml\te
i:i»a
Resident i;il
Soil KSLs
i:i»a
Soil-
Screenin»
Level
(soil-»\\)
i:i\\
l-xologiciil
Screening
Level
<;r>
ill
IX
l)S
cs
[J-l
15-2
15-3
15-4
MWOI
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Jul-99
jui-yy
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
S.I-S.6
9.0-9.5
10.4-10.9
9.1-9.6
11.2-11.7
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
VOCs (/<.!¦ I\!>)
Benzene
1100
0.2
100
100
U
100
U
170
Ethylbenzene
5400
1.5
100
250
U
250
U
250
U
Toluene
500000
590
100
250
u
250
u
250
U
m,p-Xylene
59000
180
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
o-Xylene
69000
190
100
250
u
250
u
250
u
I'CBs (/
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.4 (continued)
1999 Site Inspection Soil Sampling Results
MW02
MW03
MW04
MW05
\1\Y06
i:i\\ Soii-
i:i\\
Norniiil
Norm
ill
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
i:i»a
Screeiiiii"
Kcol()»ic;il
jui-yy
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
Residentiiil
Level
Screening
7.S-S.2
S.0-S.5
S.3-S.S
y.y-io.4
11.2-11.7
AiiiiMe
Soil RSLs
(soil-»\\)
Level
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qu.il
VOCs (/<.!¦ I\!>)
Benzene
1100
0.2
100
100
U
100
U
100
U
100
U
Ethylbenzene
5400
1.5
100
250
U
250
U
250
U
250
U
Toluene
500000
590
100
250
u
250
u
250
u
250
u
m,p-Xylene
59000
180
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
o-Xylene
69000
190
100
250
u
250
u
250
u
250
u
I'CBs (/("km
Aroclor 1016
390
92
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1221
140
0.069
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1232
140
0.069
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1242
220
5.3
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1248
220
5.2
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1254
110
OO
00
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
TOTAL MKTALS ks>)
Arsenic
0.39
0.0013
18
2
u
7.72
2
u
3
2
u
Barium
1500
82
330
16.9
230
31.1
20.8
13.9
Cadmium
7
0.36
1
u
2.84
1.1
1
u
1.41
Chromium
0.29
0.00059
26
8.36
9.41
16.3
8.61
5.53
Copper
310
22
28
2.71
45.1
331
3
2.8
Lead
400
14
11
5.14
80.6
110
7.42
10.2
Mercury
1.0
0.033
0.058
0.05
u
0.069
0.12
0.05
u
0.05
u
Selenium
39
0.26
0.52
2
u
2
u
2
u
2
u
2
u
Silver
39
0.6
4.2
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
MISC LLLANLOl S (/<.!¦ k»)
TPH-DRO
10,000
u
380,000
23,300
12,700
15,700
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1)
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
CR = cancer risk
HI = hazard index
fig/L = micrograms per liter
J - Constituent detected at a concentration above the method detection limit (MDL) but below the limit of quantitation, concentrations are estimated.
B - Constituent was detected in the method blank and sample.
U - Constituent was not detected
Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Residential Soil RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Soil-to-Groundwater Soil Screening Level
Underline analyte concentration exceeds ecological screening level (applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.5
1999 Site Inspection Groundwater Sampling Results
AiiiiMe
T
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.5 (continued)
1999 Site Inspection Groundwater Sampling Results
li-l
[J-.
y
15-3
15-4
MWIII
MW02
MW03
MW04
MW05
\1\Y06
Tup
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Noruiiil
Wilier
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-JW
jui-yy
jui-yy
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
Jul-W
AiiiiMe
RSL
MCL
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
DISSOLVED MKTALS 'l.)
Arsenic
0.045
10
5
U
6
5
U
10
10
5
U
8
5
U
5
U
17
Barium
290
2,000
80
U
85
278
169
80
U
80
U
0.331
91
100
225
Cadmium
0.69
5
7
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.5
u
0.5
U
0.5
U
0.7
0.6
Chromium
0.031
100
5
u
5
U
5
u
5
U
5
u
5
u
5
U
5
u
5
U
5
U
Copper
62
1,300
375
5
u
5
u
12
5
u
5
u
5
5
u
5
u
5
U
Lead
15
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
Mercury
0.063
2
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
0.5
u
Selenium
7.8
50
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
5
u
Silver
7.1
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
1
u
misc i:ll\m:oi s <,,.!¦u
TPH-DRO
500
u
500
u
500
u
1,840
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
500
u
830
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1)
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
fig/L = micrograms per liter
J - Constituent detected at a concentration above the method detection limit (MDL) but below the limit of quantitation, concentrations are estimated.
B - Constituent was detected in the method blank and sample.
U - Constituent was not detected
Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 tap water RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Underline analyte concentration exceeds MCL
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.6
2001 Summary of Physical Parameter Measurements - Paradise Creek
Wilier
Dissolved
Sill-Cln\
Yoliitile
Depth
Siilinih
()\\»en
Content
()r»iinics
SI ill ion
Diile
(reel)
ippu
(ppm)
(ff)
(ff)
08P01
9/6/2001
34.1
22.3
3.0
91.6
9.3
08P02
9/6/2001
36.4
22.6
2.9
96.7
9.8
08P05
9/6/2001
2.3
22.2
4.1
5.0
1.0
08P06
9/6/2001
6.6
22.3
3.5
96.9
9.5
08P07
9/6/2001
2.3
22.2
4.0
6.2
1.1
08P08
9/6/2001
3.9
22.3
3.9
54.4
7.5
08P10
9/6/2001
4.9
22.3
3.8
95.5
10.6
08P12
9/6/2001
2.3
22.1
4.1
23.0
3.3
08P13
9/6/2001
2.3
22.1
5.6
42.6
6.2
08P14
9/6/2001
4.9
22.2
4.7
97.5
10.7
08P15
9/6/2001
4.9
22.2
4.2
94.2
10.6
08P16
9/6/2001
4.9
22.2
4.3
93.3
10.6
08P17
9/6/2001
4.9
22.2
4.2
95.3
10.8
08P18
9/6/2001
3.3
22.1
4.9
15.6
1.7
08P19
9/6/2001
2.3
22.1
4.7
48.0
7.5
08P20
9/6/2001
3.6
19.9
4.2
81.6
12.2
08P21
8/30/2001
3.3
18.7
4.8
84.2
9.3
08P22
8/30/2001
3.0
17.6
5.3
74.1
11.6
osi>:.;
S 30 2001
18.7
4.2
83.3
10.6
ONl'24
N 30 2001
•-) <->
IS.5
3.9
94. N
1 1.0
ONl>25
S 30 2001
17.4
3.2
93.5
12.2
0SP20
N 30 2001
•-)
19.4
3.0
5S.I
8.3
08P27
8/30/2001
2.3
20.4
4.7
13.2
1.1
08P28
8/30/2001
3.6
21.5
4.6
51.7
4.2
08P29
8/30/2001
3.3
19.5
4.5
54.2
49.3
Data obtained from Table 7, Summary of physical parameters (Dauer, 2002).
Shaded cells indicate sample locations within the immediate vicinity of the Site,
ppt = parts per thousand
ppm = parts per million
% = percent
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
Table 2.7
2001 Summary of Benthic Community Parameters - Paradise Creek
Deep
Pollution
Pollution
Pollution
Pollution
Carnivore
Deposit
Shiinnon
Indicative
Sensitive
Indicative
Sensitive
Omnivore
I'eeder
SI ill ion
ii-im
AhlindilllCC
liioniiiss
Index
Ahundiince
Abundance
liiomass
liiomass
Ahundiince
Ahundiince
08P01
2.3
25,787
1.383
1.12
20.3
74.8
13.1
78.7
0.5
76.9
08P02
2.3
22,431
1.905
1.14
15.5
80.4
10.7
61.9
1.0
82.3
08P05
2.7
7,416
2.268
2.05
5.2
11.3
2.0
52.0
63.9
23.5
08P06
2.3
36,016
2.041
0.89
18.3
79.8
7.8
70.0
0.6
80.9
08P07
2.3
8,664
1.928
2.07
6.5
17.3
9.4
10.6
66.2
29.3
08P08
2.3
23,406
2.291
1.56
12.1
74.9
4.0
32.7
10.3
76.7
08P10
2.0
7,847
0.930
1.81
17.1
64.7
7.3
26.8
3.8
72.3
08P12
3.0
13,132
3.107
2.79
20.9
00
2.9
9.5
33.7
45.3
08P13
2.0
13,177
2.109
2.55
27.5
15.5
7.5
20.4
19.3
54.0
08P14
1.7
14,855
1.452
1.70
15.9
68.7
6.3
25.0
6.4
71.6
08P15
1.7
27,874
2.132
1.29
17.1
75.3
6.4
24.5
2.5
79.5
08P16
1.7
21,909
1.270
1.52
35.0
58.2
14.3
21.4
2.6
61.6
08P17
1.7
28,327
2.064
1.28
20.8
69.0
7.7
28.6
0.4
78.5
08P18
3.0
32,568
2.087
1.59
13.6
67.8
9.8
44.6
5.4
81.4
08P19
2.0
12,429
2.563
2.45
21.9
45.3
7.1
17.7
17.9
63.1
08P20
2.0
36,560
1.565
1.09
8.7
82.0
5.8
47.8
2.9
88.5
08P21
1.7
12,723
0.680
1.29
31.2
62.9
20.0
20.0
0.5
67.4
08P22
2.7
3,674
1.043
2.29
23.5
32.1
2.2
13.0
4.3
71.6
08P23
2.0
3,651
0.544
1.53
62.7
20.5
8.3
8.3
1.9
34.8
OSI'24
1.3
1 1.5*9
0.635
1.65
53.8
21.9
32.1
3.6
1.2
45.0
OKI'25
:.o
N.N9I
1.134
1.99
52.6
3.1
IM)
2.0
I3.S
34.2
1.3
6.66N
0.454
1.45
59.5
29.3
30.0
30.0
0.7
39.1
08P27
3.0
13,041
1.701
1.58
13.6
72.3
8.0
25.3
13.0
73.6
08P28
2.3
30,119
1.633
0.87
13.6
84.4
5.6
72.2
1.7
84.6
08P29
2.3
272
0.249
2.86
16.7
50.0
27.3
45.5
58.3
16.7
Mean
2.1
16,921
1.567
1.70
24.1
50.8
10.9
31.7
13.3
61.3
Std. error
0.02
428
0.029
0.02
0.7
1.1
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.9
Data obtained from Table 8, Summary of Benthic Community Parameters (Dauer, 2002).
Shaded cells indicate sample locations within the immediate vicinity of the Site.
B-IBI = Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.8
2003 Site Characterization Groundwater Sampling Results
AiiiiMe
'la |)
Wilier
RSL
MCL
MWOI
MW02
MW04
MW05
MW06
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Mii\-03
Ju 1-03
Mii\-03
Ju 1-03
Mii\-03
Ju 1-03
Mii\-03
Jul-03
Mii\-03
Jul-03
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
I'CBs (/<"-' 1.)
Aroclor 1016
0.11
0.5
0.227
U
0.227
U
0.227
U
0.227
U
0.227
U
Aroclor 1221
0.004
0.5
0.065
U
0.065
U
0.065
U
0.065
U
0.065
U
Aroclor 1232
0.004
0.5
0.216
u
0.216
u
0.216
u
0.216
u
0.216
u
Aroclor 1242
0.034
0.5
0.208
u
0.208
u
0.208
u
0.208
u
0.208
u
Aroclor 1248
0.034
0.5
0.122
u
0.122
u
0.122
u
0.122
u
0.122
u
Aroclor 1254
0.031
0.5
0.04
u
0.04
u
0.04
u
0.04
u
0.04
u
Aroclor 1260
0.034
0.5
0.186
u
0.186
u
0.186
u
0.186
u
0.186
u
TOTAL Mil I'M.S (,i!> 1.)
Arsenic
0.045
10
16.4
U
16.4
U
16.4
U
16.4
U
16.4
U
Barium
290
2,000
50.6
39.5
46.4
76.1
187.1
Cadmium
0.69
5
4
2.9
2.3
2.5
2.3
Chromium
0.031
100
1.8
1.6
1.5
1
1.4
Copper
62
1,300
5.9
10.2
16.9
6.7
5
Lead
15
4.8
U
8.9
10
4.9
4.8
U
Mercury
0.063
2
0.1
u
0.1
U
0.1
U
0.1
U
0.1
u
Nickel
30
Selenium
7.8
50
22.3
u
22.3
u
22.3
u
22.3
u
22.3
u
Silver
7.1
1.3
u
1.3
u
1.3
u
1.3
u
1.3
u
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1)
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
CR = cancer risk
HI = hazard index
fig/L = micrograms per liter
J - Constituent detected at a concentration above the method detection limit (MDL) but below the limit of quantitation, concentrations are estimated.
B - constituent was detected in the method blank and sample.
U - Constituent was not detected
Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 tap water RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Underline analyte concentration exceeds MCL
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.9
2003 Site Characterization Soil Sampling Results
AiiiiMe
i:i»a
Residentiiil
Soil RSLs
i:i\\ Soii-
Screening
Level
(soil-g\\)
i:i\\
l-xologiciil
Screening
Level
IIA-IA
IIA-2A
IIA-2N
IIA-2W
ii\-2i;
IIA-2S
IIA-3A
IIA-4A
IIA-415
IIA-5A
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Sep-03
Sep-03
Sep-03
Sep-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
1.5-2
0.5-1
Result
Quill
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qu.il
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Quill
PC lis (/ km
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD 4.5 0.26
AiiiiMe
i:i\\
Resi dent i ill
Soil RSLs
[¦:i\\ Soii-
Screening
Level
(soil-g\\)
i:i\\
l-xologiciil
Screening
Level
IIA-5B
IIA-6A
IIA-7A
IIA-SA
IIA-9A
IIA-I OA
1.06
5.04
5.06
5.06S
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Jnn-03
Aug-03
Aug-03
Aug-03
Aug-03
1-1.5
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0-0.5
Result
Quill
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
Result
Qiiiil
K'lis (/(.u-km
Aroclor 1016
390
92
100
8
U
8
U
8
U
8
U
8
U
8
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
Aroclor 1221
140
0.069
100
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
Aroclor 1232
140
0.069
100
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1242
220
5.3
100
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
7
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1248
220
5.2
100
4
u
4
u
4
u
4
u
4
u
4
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1254
110
8.8
100
36,600
246,000
740
6,700
5,600
2,200
7,130
15,800
2,970
683
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
23,900
109,000
4.7
u
2,800
7,500
1,300
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
TOTAL MLTALS dim km
Lead
400
14
11
3,430
2,710
196
736
1,220
348
I'CDDs di!> km
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD 4.5 0.26
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1)
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
fig/kg = micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram
CR = cancer risk
HI = hazard index
U - Constituent was not detected
Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Residential Soil RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Soil-to-Groundwater Soil Screening Level
Underline analyte concentration exceeds ecological screening level (applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.9 (continued)
2003 Site Characterization Soil Sampling Results
Aiml\te
i:i\\
Residential
Soil RSLs
[¦:i\\ Soii-
ScreeniiiR
Level
(soil-R\\)
i:i\\
IXOlORK'ill
Screeniiifi
Level
6.02
6.04
II3W
s.oy
9.02
9.04
9.05
10.06
IIA9N
S-l
S-l
Norniiil
Norniiil
Normal
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Norniiil
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Aur-03
Sep-03
Sep-03
0-0.5
0.5-1
0-0.5
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0.5-1
0-0.5
0.5-1
0-0.5
0-0.5
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Quill
Result
Qiiiil
IX'lis (/(.!• kl>)
Aroclor 1016
390
92
100
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
Aroclor 1221
140
0.069
100
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
33
U
Aroclor 1232
140
0.069
100
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1242
220
5.3
100
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1248
220
5.2
100
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1254
110
OO
00
100
2,340
41,700
33
u
8,050
33
u
33
u
2,790
1,520
5,990
33
u
33
u
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
33
u
33
u
278
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
33
u
TOTAL MLTALS km
Lead
400
14
11
I'C'DDs km
Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD
4.5
0.26
420
160
31
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1) MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
TCDD = tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin CR = cancer risk
HI = hazard index Mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram
U - Constituent was not detected Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Residential Soil RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Soil-to-Groundwater Soil Screening Level
Underline analyte concentration exceeds ecological screening level (applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
Table 2.10
2004 Total PCB and Total PAH Paradise Creek Sediment Sampling Results
S;impie Lociilion
Nov 2012
Kcolo»k';il
A
C
II
J
M
N2
Qi
Q3
Resitlenli.il
Screening
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5"
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.5
0-0.65
1.3-2
An;il\le
Soil RSL
Level
I nils
II l)»S
II l)»S
II l)«S
II l)»S
II l)»S
I I l)"s
11 l)»S
II l)«S
II l)»S
Total PCBs
220
40
ng/g dry
862.7
290.3
257.4
1,010
345.9
1387.7
346
1,460
1.1
Total PAH
1,610 (2)
ng/g dry
11,174
15,327
11,359
52,007
14,148
31,212
20,710
52,371
11,265
Gravel
%
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
18.2
0
Sand
%
31.5
10.9
7.1
13.1
30.7
29.2
50.4
0.6
Silt
%
41.9
51.1
61.9
48
40.8
38.7
16.8
26.3
Clay
%
26.6
38
31
38.9
28.5
29.5
14.6
73.1
Total Organic Carbon
%
5.62
6.67
5.01
5.77
5.61
4.94
3.22
2.49
(1) duplicate
(2) lowest ecological screening value for freshwater and marine sediments presented
Blank cell indicates analysis not performed
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
CR = cancer risk
HI = hazard index
ng/g = nanograms per gram (equivalent to /ig/kg)
Hg/kg = microgram per kilogram
% = percent
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
BTAG = Biological Technical Assistance Group
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Residential Soil RSL (CR=10-6; HI=0.1)
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds BTAG ecological screening level
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.11
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Me1.il An;il\les (m»/k»)
Ml* 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m»/k»)
Arsenic
C;idmiiim
Chromium
Lciid
Mercim
Nickel
Silver
Residenti;il Soil RSI.:
0
0..W
7
o.:y''
400
1.0
150
3y
liiduslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(ironnd\\ ;i(er SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
Kcoloyiciil Screening Yiilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i \aluc)
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (Ixn-SSI. a\ iain
1 1 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iain
0.058 ( UTA( i \aluc)
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iain
Siniiple Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
A IS
37
l.'J'J
18
20
20
IS
180
85
2500
8400
J..1"
1.1
lbO
890
4.3
1.7
A 19
1.76
1.68
30
31
3S
28
230
100
6500
11000
J..1"
2
170
190
2.7
1.6
A 20
3.1
0.47
16
45
5t y
32
46
85
(>40
5200
0.S()
2.3
SI
100
0.9
1.3
A 21
2.3
A 22
1.26
A 23
2 2
B 18
1
3.85
42
28
47
51
1900
230
7900
4700
4.9
3.5
2000
440
7,(>
3.6
B 19
4.17
0.15
28
2.7
2.5
150
21
2700
260
¦>
0.084
KrO
8
Lb
BDL
B 20
1.98
0.02
28
D
19
D
89
D
2500
680
1.5
D
190
D
4.S
D
B 21
16.4
B 22
7.8
0.37
1.9
8.4
0.S5
0.11
15
39
hi)
14
0.19
0.018
23
11
0.3
1.2
B 23
0.44
0
35
1.4
19
1.5
54
8.1
11000
130
1.3
0.033
wo
200
3.4
BDL
B 24
1.43
0.11
305
29
12.5
19
13000
200
450
7900
1.5
4.5
5850
500
7.92
3.7
B 25
1.14
0
22
1.7
47
0.97
92
43
2000
53
/.f>
0.03
S5
14
1.3
BDL
B 26
0.72
15
4.7
11
3.5
4.9
45
64
2S0
530
O.to
2
4S
120
0.22
0.24
B 27
0.7
0.15
11
2.8
4.2
0.58
250
46
220
33
0.32
0.1
ISO
25
f>
BDL
B 28
2.59
0.63
140
11
25
0.59
160
45
970
49
0.S7
0.42
200
18
0.98
BDL
B 29
1.34
0.04
27
15
10
BDL
100
45
1700
48
3.2
0.43
170
16
0.95
BDL
B 30
17. IS
0.02
12
2.2
II
BDL
96
24
920
13
2.S
0.016
150
9
1.6
BDL
B 31
2.11
0
31
4.8
7
BDL
360
32
540
30
2.1
0.02
1200
13
0.64
BDL
B 32
0.61
2.15
211
31
80.4
21
260
250
2(i)
1100
0.62
1.5
3070
1100
6.41
0.91
B 33
9.5
E
20
E
¦) ?
E
110
E
1300
E
¦)
E
3S0
E
3.1
E
C 18
29.8
C 19
23.5
2.38
17
32
19
50
140
200
1600
3600
6.2
5
150
280
3.9
2
C 20
30.8
2.96
32
28
49
39
290
170
11000
7900
5.8
3.1
450
140
(>.4
2.1
C 21
19.6
C22
24.9
0.54
8.4
7.1
5.7
0.89
94
42
5S0
180
I.I
0.61
95
18
1.1
1.1
C 23
26.3
12.1
11
25
21
38
280
160
3700
22000
5
3.5
620
310
4.3
2.4
C 24
65
C
44
C
53
C
980
C
7300
C
7.9
C
750
C
2.S
C
C25
65
0.15
32
199
330
5.69
280
47.9
5300
160
24
0.206
350
59.9
2S
5.18
C 26
50.6
1.28
34
3
f>3
0.62
330
26
6700
36
7.3
0.14
400
9
— i
BDL
C 27
30.8
0.21
39
5.2
83
0.73
510
53
3900
31
7.7
0.71
330
16
5. f>
BDL
C 28
62.52
1.01
43
120
f>2
2.7
700
110
3900
220
17
1.7
490
66
2.7
0.24
C 29
I.I
0.02
290
6.1
29
0.64
310
9
54000
150
4.5
BDL
230
6.8
3.7
BDL
C 30
7.36
0.17
34
10
59
0.61
430
33
2200
170
¦) ?
3.8
440
40
1.8
BDL
C 31
36.2
0.45
23
14
33
11
1500
96
2200
420
4.7
2.3
1300
200
4.5
0.25
C 32
14.4
5.31
14
46
IS
64
180
450
2800
3300
2.3
7.7
350
750
3.4
8.9
C 33
3.74
0.41
195
15
lh.9
30
148
52
220
700
0.32
1.9
12S
36
5.25
0.44
C 34
1.51
0.07
22
6.8
1.7
0.34
20
8.1
4U)
110
0.54
0.056
59
5.8
0.68
BDL
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V"1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i 1-co-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
C 35
0.03
0
4.3
2.1
0.63
BDL
17
31
120
11
0.41
0.027
9.1
11
BDL
BDL
C 36
0.02
0
6.6
5.7
0.29
BDL
15
37
HO
39
0.25
0.17
7.8
17
BDL
BDL
C 37
0.12
0
5.6
206
O.^S
5.21
18
62.3
340
14
0.22
0.102
14
67.5
0.18
4.98
D 18
12
1.08
33
8.1
31
14
170
39
2900
340
3.2
0.41
340
25
4.1
0.41
D 19
19.5
0
46
5.1
54
BDL
170
64
17000
20
!.(>
0.038
S30
14
14
BDL
D 20
3416
40.2
19
22
l(>
46
110
210
1700
3900
2.S
13
170
400
4.1
2.5
D 21
21
0.55
21
8.2
2S
0.3
210
21
4100
50
8.2
0.16
330
10
5.2
1.2
D 22
II.9
3.36
11
9.1
17
7.2
100
50
4900
1500
0.92
0.59
140
46
(>.7
1.8
D 23
15.1
9.1
12
55
17
100
93
200
1600
5800
2.1
3.2
HO
670
3.7
6.1
D 24
37.1
1.04
12
6.8
2S
1.6
76
13
1600
460
2.3
0.26
no
15
3.2
0.13
D 25
32.4
C
25
C
42
C
110
C
3000
C
3.S
C
150
C
2.4
C
D 26
53.6
0.18
120
11
120
4.6
480
36
12000
430
9.5
0.7
450
25
9.1
0.2
D 27
28.93
1.13
55
35
100
52
450
69
5400
1100
6.5
4.1
(>S0
120
h.9
1
D 28
7.3
0.15
58
14
100
13
340
48
6500
580
9.2
2
330
43
(k5
0.64
D 29
1.54
0.14
238
35
34.4
2.7
230
61
3700
560
3.1
8.2
ISO
26
(k2
0.14
D 30
21.2
1.71
18
20
2b
25
150
130
8400
1900
5.6
4.2
2()0
190
3.7
2.8
D 31
2.6
0.33
11
15
II
1.7
67
33
900
130
0.97
4.5
130
28
(>.1
0.25
D 32
0.07
0.4
1.4
11
nm.
8.4
9.1
150
14
530
0.02
9.3
6.1
160
BDL
1.2
D 33
2.78
0.26
2.9
23
4.S
48
53
120
320
2600
0.27
2.4
7()
330
1.1
12
D 34
1.27
0.7
2.9
8.9
2.(>
3.5
40
35
ISO
230
0.27
1.4
()()
48
0.35
0.18
D 35
0. f>7
0
37
7.1
'11
0.29
40
42
420
15
1
0.028
77
17
0.58
BDL
D 36
o.os
0
13
1.8
3
BDL
47
21
2S0
9.9
0. (i7
0.016
130
9.1
0.34
BDL
D 37
0.23
0.03
6.6
16
2.S
3.7
32
170
300
750
0.12
1.6
7(>
65
0.62
1.2
E 18
5.6
0.33
42
3.8
77
0.22
270
24
4200
49
4.8
0.088
350
12
1.2
E 19
8.3
0.79
6.9
17
().()
14
46
100
590
1200
0.92
1.2
65
230
1.2
0.67
E 20
10
1.92
34
206
41
10.2
300
80.1
5900
620
4.4
1.11
3(>0
84.4
f>. 7
5.19
E 21
240
132
13
9.2
110
5.5
190
48
1800
240
25
2.4
130
120
/.f)
0.26
E 22
46
1.45
27
8.9
_v>
3.7
170
55
6000
750
II
4.1
210
27
9.9
0.3
E 37
1.35
0.11
24
3.7
_v>
170
3100
110
300
54
0.24
0.2
2800
310
1.2
BDL
E 38
0.07
0.1
3.1
3.7
o.:s
0.35
14
13
50
59
0.2
0.16
S.I
7.8
BDL
BDL
F 18
36
0.89
47
11
99
9.9
400
54
24000
2800
6.7
2.3
3
1.4
380
30
4200
800
15.5
0.1
410
18
8.7
0.4
G 19
37
0
33
2.2
160
BDL
600
26
27000
11
5.1
0.022
530
10
29
BDL
G 20
124
0.42
27
1.3
U)
0.34
480
30
3100
80
13
2
550
16
7.8
0.12
G 21
17.5
13.91
24
17
190
40
550
81
6500
2200
II
10
1400
100
79
3.8
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i 1-co-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" ill \\T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
G 22
35
0
9.8
3.1
15
BDL
68
15
3400
6.6
1.5
0.027
95
5.9
2.7
BDL
H 18
149
1.47
32
3.3
6S
1.8
320
58
5300
300
6.2
1.4
650
39
J J
0.32
H 19
0.92
8.22
33
5.1
86
3.6
700
59
8700
390
11
2.7
600
160
21
0.89
H 20
14.1
7.6
43
1.8
82
0.68
650
19
15000
27
4.6
0.048
S10
9.8
150
0.12
H 21
40
0.44
34
5.8
95
1.6
340
19
4000
190
25
0.39
460
14
16
0.05
H 22
14.9
0.32
13
2.3
24
0.9
200
16
2800
130
4.1
0.09
390
10
11
1.4
I 18
69
15.82
27
6.3
370
5.9
430
52
6100
330
9.6
2
470
54
12
0.35
I 19
0.42
1.45
.1
5.6
J
1.9
.1
40
.1
240
.1
2.2
.1
26
.1
0.12
122
6
0.12
205
11
5. 57
0.38
43
39
590
24
0.224
0.071
60. S
14
5.34
BDL
J 18
44
19.8
23
223
6S
58
170
144
20000
790
II
7.76
170
215
II
8.45
J 19
14.4
0.99
5
3.2
4.2
2
98
53
940
270
7.2
2.6
120
24
0.6
0.19
J 22
361
0.44
22
10
¦> ?
0.21
210
36
6500
57
4.7
0.12
270
11
II
1.1
K 18
291
1.01
42
7.6
70
2.9
500
70
6000
850
37
2.1
660
41
14
0.49
K 19
9.2
0.95
J
4.1
.1
2
J
66
.1
330
J
2.9
J
35
J
0.74
K 20
26.7
0.01
3
8.8
O.S
BDL
12
30
240
12
0.13
0.022
15
8.3
0.19
BDL
K 21
31
K 22
76
33.72
19
7.7
71
34
310
85
210(H)
1000
7
2.3
630
160
40
6.8
L 17
2200
154
23
6.1
36
6.5
260
110
2000
460
5.1
12
470
420
20
3.2
L 18
1200
18.48
23
4.7
3S
6.1
290
49
6500
840
6.8
0.48
1400
150
32
1.8
L 19
21.3
0.01
28
3.9
81
BDL
380
16
10000
13
16
0.028
460
l.\
19
BDL
L 20
293
3.46
32
5.1
61
6.3
330
46
4300
610
6.9
3.3
S30
56
15
2.6
L 21
33.3
5.8
21
4.5
43
3.3
340
26
3800
160
5.8
0.15
410
22
29
0.69
L 22
290
0.39
19
2.2
49
1
280
12
3600
130
38
0.13
450
7.9
16
0.31
M 15
12.9
M 16
6
M 17
16.6
92
34
25
16
55
230
350
970
2800
2.3
4.6
400
690
19
21
M 18
2X00
4.3
30
7.9
43
9
390
120
5800
1000
4.8
6.8
720
210
6.S
1.1
M 19
45.7
27.2
51
4
130
2.5
140
110
5100
590
6.5
13
510
83
6.5
0.7
M 20
52.5
123.9
37
12
6S
21
940
130
17000
1200
8.7
9.8
S90
170
16
2.3
M 21
154
0.34
19
2.6
180
0.43
420
17
7500
74
2.3
0.098
1500
8.2
270
0.069
M 22
28.4
0
16
9.9
70
0.25
150
29
1800
12
3.S
0.03
300
8.1
9.7
0.054
N 14
II
N 15
14.6
N 16
9.2
N 17
30.5
0.17
16
21
2.5
160
42
110
310
1200
0.92
2.3
43
150
0.5
6.7
N 18
S3
3.27
20
7.6
4S
4.6
140
43
14000
2100
16
1.3
240
51
9.2
0.46
N 19
14
4.51
34
4.2
190
4.7
350
48
7400
800
17
1.6
510
55
28
0.61
N 20
6.8
18.6
30
7.8
130
13
340
74
76000
1200
6.2
1.2
330
77
23
4.7
N 21
14.7
0.51
110
7.4
~t ^
1.7
400
29
3200
980
4.2
0.52
400
24
12
0.42
N 22
22.1
0
5.2
2.9
5.9
0.41
130
16
1800
47
y.c>
0.11
74
8.3
0.71
0.99
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V"1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i 1-co-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
O 14
9.4
O 15
1.66
3.87
31
6
14
4.8
96
29
1300
670
2.4
1.2
ISO
60
(kS
1.2
O 16
20.9
29
12
6.4
S.2
2.4
77
35
470
180
3.7
0.6
120
37
C).7
0.96
O 17
22.6
0.16
7.8
8
3.5
3.1
30
46
410
500
I.I
1.1
23
54
0.S9
1.3
O 18
58
37.9
23
13
33
13
350
110
27000
3100
18
5.6
330
110
7.1
3.4
O 19
27.2
129.7
J
4.7
.1
4
.1
30
.1
150
.1
0.26
J
19
.1
0.48
O 20
26.8
0.58
15
5.7
70
1.9
180
34
4300
340
4.4
0.18
220
25
21
0.44
0 21
17.,S
0.59
10
5.5
10
1.6
160
31
2100
230
l.S
0.97
170
29
4.b
0.36
0 22
52
0.08
13
1.8
31
0.32
190
11
860
30
/.f>
0.053
750
4.1
3.9
1.2
P 13
14.4
P 14
().*(>
1.98
14
13
4.7
7.1
60
66
3S0
870
0.SI
1.4
f>7
120
1.6
1.2
P 15
9.7
1.61
14
7.6
53
2.3
110
30
980
320
1
0.86
150
48
II
0.36
P 16
26
41
20
17
29
6.7
320
48
2500
560
2.4
1.1
3(>0
170
15
0.77
P 17
6.5
1.3
26
14
S.3
4.1
110
75
920
840
1.5
2.5
100
130
1.3
0.9
P 18
145
160
19
8.1
51
2.9
1100
35
2900
340
9.6
0.47
S70
25
S.3
1.2
P 19
37
156
18
4
30
0.81
350
27
2100
240
4.8
1.7
200
17
2.3
0.15
P 20
40.2
151.9
13
15
19
59
230
300
5900
4400
¦> t
6
250
170
3.7
2.7
P 21
5.1
4.94
6.1
24
S.9
17
360
110
720
5600
1.9
1
210
89
1.8
4.4
P 22
2.H
0.89
15
5.8
13
3.7
80
57
1200
310
1.7
0.24
290
28
1.5
0.46
Q 12
106
Q 13
().(>!
Q 14
28.3
0
39
11
40
0.36
560
34
2800
400
2.(>
0.6
S40
75
3.2
0.15
Q 15
21.5
134.44
II
26
13
33
120
280
950
12000
0.2
1.2
100
2300
0.97
3.6
Q 16
27.2
440
.1
323
.1
57
.1
1000
.1
6100
.1
3.99
.1
630
J
10.1
Q 17
28
9.99
22
16
IS
12
120
130
1900
750
¦> 7
3.5
170
150
2.3
1.6
Q 18
139
2.88
22
4.4
(>5
0.71
2300
34
3000
66
9.4
1.1
970
14
S.I
0.17
Q 19
51
186
19
42
47
43
3700
31000
2800
4200
8.4
3
2000
12000
20
7.8
Q 20
22.6
2.84
20
10
33
4.3
600
330
2200
420
4.6
0.36
500
110
f>.3
0.78
Q 21
17
Q 22
3.17
0.38
16
2.5
¦) ?
0.56
380
12
1400
18
2.4
0.046
2(>0
3.7
4.7
1.1
R 11
32.1
R 12
67.9
R 13
10.5
160
9.3
238
2.1
33.1
30
242
420
1700
0.79
3
41
374
0.51
11.8
R 14
16.4
32.71
22
35
33
47
120
140
2000
5900
0.94
0.32
440
530
1.9
2.6
R 15
52.2
31.4
45
32
57
37
820
290
4800
2800
3.7
2.7
S40
810
5.8
2.2
R 16
31.5
96.14
52
41
100
640
640
4900
6700
5.8
3.2
5(i)
550
3.4
8.3
R 17
49
106
23
18
7.i'
12
520
210
6100
1700
32
4.6
710
110
9.9
1.9
R 18
43
11.82
18
16
()()
22
1100
440
5600
460
29
0.54
SI0
190
15
1.3
R 19
54.7
1.55
22
9
59
1.1
920
60
3000
270
6.1
0.76
550
34
4.1
0.18
R 20
23.5
0
16
K
90
K
790
K
1900
K
6.8
K
f>40
K
5.1
K
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercim
Nickel
Silver
Kcsidentiill Soil RSI.
0.22' 1
0.39
7
0.2 V'1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Value
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18 (Ixn-SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxn-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
R 21
19.1
R 22
0. 67
0.82
20
2.4
42
0.65
250
12
1300
21
0.017
240
13
27
1.3
S 10
101
S 11
34
S 12
5
1.32
67
5.8
39
0.83
220
84
3600
340
3.1
0.51
310
62
9.2
0.34
S 13
29.2
0
380
L
IS
L
160
L
64000
L
1.3
L
I'M)
L
5. f>
L
S 14
14.8
0
23
L
39
L
120
L
2300
L
0.62
L
270
L
1.3
L
S 15
69
0
27
L
(><)
L
270
L
4100
L
4.3
L
1200
L
4.4
L
S 16
109
27.3
37
K
T")
K
660
K
6000
K
7.8
K
WO
K
6.1
K
S 17
33
331
27
26
85
100
930
1400
11000
5900
14
13
(>l()
870
5.2
12
S 18
96
1.3
25
15
180
1.3
9000
85
11000
320
13
0.26
2900
48
43
0.13
S 19
190
1.66
33
16
33
2.9
610
170
2000
780
4.3
0.75
430
160
7.8
0.78
S 20
399
2.1
18
7.3
13
2.2
160
95
850
550
1.2
0.14
220
140
6
1.9
S 21
3460
1.04
17
5.6
35
2.6
300
110
1700
190
l.'J
2.6
370
86
2S
6.8
S 22
4.78
0.31
M
1.9
'12
0.058
580
22
3100
27
8.1
0.14
Mi)
7.9
6.1
1.1
T 9
39.6
T 10
0
157.2
25
255
II
32
150
2500
870
2400
1.7
14.2
250
2700
4.4
11.7
T 11
2.35
11.36
21
14
5.5
4.4
68
99
550
460
0.7
0.89
()()
87
0.97
3.5
T 12
136
4.48
21
18
77
3.7
160
1100
930
6300
1.4
6.2
420
530
4.4
2.2
T 13
8.81
17.8
16
33
II
19
160
230
1700
3400
2.4
4.4
120
230
1.5
5.3
T 14
67
265.68
23
26
44
69
260
280
3500
3700
3
M
290
300
6.2
31
T 15
85
260.56
25
31
3S
89
460
280
4200
4400
5
6.1
470
420
6.S
16
T 16
41
127
II
49
12
44
750
870
1100
3200
1.2
8.4
440
620
1.2
7.9
T 17
221
921
38
42
37
110
640
800
5600
5100
8.5
5.3
1100
580
2.9
21
T 18
37.5
9.8
20
18
21
6.4
300
150
1800
890
2.S
1.6
290
160
5.7
1.6
T 19
5.75
12.25
12
15
11
150
120
250
830
0.34
0.12
71
64
0.59
3
T 20
43.7
0.1
33
219
29
5.32
150
43.5
1700
12
2 J
0.0827
130
67.1
7. ^
5.48
T 21
7.2
0
40
K
120
K
440
K
4100
K
3.2
K
610
K
56
K
T 22
1.13
1.39
56
9.2
3*
1.9
480
96
4100
410
6.1
0.37
420
160
3S
4.4
U 5
22.1
U 6
0.82
U 7
8.2
U 8
15.7
U 9
26.1
U 10
0
0
27
6.4
4S
27.5
540
2030
3300
870
5.05
1.7
5 SO
2450
7.2
BDL
U 11
128
8.93
34
10
32
4.1
420
59
3100
360
4.5
1.8
670
65
3.4
2
U 12
3.89
23.56
9.S
25
3
25
47
410
370
2800
0.43
2.8
29
310
0.75
9.6
U 13
163
849.9
25
29
43
54
400
580
3500
4000
4.6
9.6
300
1400
9.2
7.3
U 14
122
1.07
22
6.3
45
3
320
64
2800
540
4.1
0.34
470
60
6.5
2.6
U 15
419
67.95
20
34
14
40
290
330
4400
6500
3.4
8.1
370
380
2.5
2.2
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Li'iid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
U 16
140
10.04
29
269
53
84
620
540
1800
1700
7.5
5.4
590
580
3.5
9.2
U 17
20.7
530
20
20
~i ~7
21
3900
360
4600
1600
2.'J
7.6
2300
320
S.h
27
U 18
34.8
1.4
11
7.5
0
32
850
1400
5(>0
990
0.')4
7.7
720
580
4.9
4
U 20
72
0.73
6.5
4.8
0.93
36
25
190
40
0.26
0.071
23
26
0.35
1.2
U 21
17.5
20.4
5.3
3.9
10
0.45
110
22
740
63
l.S
0.033
2'H)
12
20
0.65
U 22
1.11
1.92
16
4.2
1.5
0.53
150
34
810
21
6.9
0.15
120
27
1.6
1.4
Y 3
2.55
Y 4
8.48
V 5
2.34
Y 6
1
V 7
2.6
V 8
31.7
Y 9
0.01
160.3
55
257
(i)
78.9
980
1000
l(>
12000
14
5.7
S'H)
1090
S.4
15.7
V 11
30.2
15.02
20
10
3.S
13
44
110
330
890
0. 7(i
0.5
45
390
0.(>7
1.9
V 12
6.4
22.4
14
3.9
?7
2.9
360
30
1800
280
5.7
0.34
220
26
4.5
1.1
Y 13
222
14.92
27
5.4
3')
3.9
820
77
4300
1000
12
1.6
700
54
S.S
0.62
V 14
69
596.6
27
37
44
69
460
810
3400
7900
5.8
6.8
540
400
4.S
11
V 15
181
2.11
19
4.3
37
1.5
350
36
2500
170
6.4
0.29
450
26
5. f>
0.13
Y 16
171
217.56
7.6
42
2.4
170
80
450
2(i)
3100
0.44
5.8
57
780
0.62
7.2
V 17
470
19.32
23
18
(i~
7.7
610
470
3400
430
4.9
0.29
(>70
470
(k2
1.1
V 18
15.5
65.2
14
24
f>.7
0.99
690
26
500
48
1
0.029
330
12
1.1
0.046
Y 19
16.8
0.02
16
2.2
BDL
3200
22
1000
11
O.'JS
0.012
S(>0
5.1
1.7
BDL
V 20
7.7
5.21
22
6.5
85
12
250
70
soo
330
1.5
0.25
310
1400
35
5.2
V 21
280
5.73
13
5.8
2(>
5.2
180
94
810
380
1.7
0.21
230
39
10
180
W 2
10
W 3
1.51
W 4
0.89
W 5
4.1
21.42
15
21
7.8
29
62
810
240
2900
22
7.2
49
540
0.47
4.5
W 6
5.1
17.31
19
16
29
18
180
190
1700
1500
6.2
5.4
320
310
4.3
2
W 7
9.44
0
12
269
(>.2
84
170
620
4U)
800
9.2
9.89
220
590
1.3
9.2
W 8
22
14.12
27
11
14
5.1
510
51
1500
460
9
2.6
420
85
1.5
0.41
W 9
51.9
26.6
16
16
23
200
160
970
1100
5.5
8.7
390
320
4.3
1.6
W 10
1160.8
98.27
19
10
2(>
2.5
380
55
16000
220
5.3
1.4
3(>0
32
(hi
0.44
W 11
4.22
49.98
6.6
16
1.4
23
27
260
240
4000
0.23
2.2
16
280
0.094
11
W 12
27.5
28.62
16
9.1
25
2.5
300
130
2400
1000
5.1
2.1
300
250
S.2
1.7
W 13
14.5
1.22
21
7.6
23
5
240
170
3800
800
l.S
5.3
2()0
110
3.4
0.43
W 14
390
5490
12
16
23
38
220
270
1900
2100
9
6.2
350
380
2.6
4.7
W 15
21.8
178.35
25
27
S.4
33
160
1400
1100
3200
1.7
3.4
150
430
1.8
4
W 16
0
0
14
11
S.4
15
3300
450
1300
520
5
IS00
250
2.5
0.9
W 18
0.81
0.77
21
11
3.3
0.51
170
19000
1400
130
0.53
0.22
S9
4900
2.9
0.59
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 6 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V"1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
W 19
8.4
2.34
17
33
15
4.8
4200
12000
1300
750
1.8
0.8
1300
3500
3.7
1.4
W 20
0.25
0
18
K
2S
K
250
K
1200
K
6.6
K
450
K
5.6
K
W 21
2.31
0.02
7.3
8.6
12
0.19
96
30
4S0
20
2.4
0.056
S2
6.6
2.1
BDL
X 3
3.78
X 4
0.19
X 5
0.94
0
13
35
20
100
470
3300
310
7400
0.54
12
330
1800
5.1
16
X 6
8.4
609
9
23
S.4
21
120
140
500
1200
6
110
2S0
160
0.77
2
X 7
20.44
2.1
11
12
1.3
1.3
93
36
I'M)
140
0.29
0.43
SI
36
1.4
0.34
X 8
10.8
18.2
19
30
S.9
9.9
66
100
6600
1900
13
10
130
930
1.5
1.7
X 9
29.5
1.76
\
8.8
\
5.5
\
110
\
540
\
1.2
\
140
N
0.38
X 10
93.18
28.1
22
7.1
f)/
4.1
500
66
5900
350
6.8
0.92
710
61
13
0.75
X 11
0.07
22.3
4.6
49
0.73
23
25
310
no
2900
0.2S
6.1
17
480
1*1)1.
6.1
X 12
11.4
1.17
18
9.5
¦) ?
3.1
270
84
3100
620
4.4
0.59
4U)
110
S.4
1.3
X 13
2.58
6.65
19
16
7.1
3.9
190
230
1800
2400
l.S
1.7
430
510
3.8
3.6
X 14
28
0.1
37
3.3
3.2
0.67
350
15
1800
86
0.5 7
0.032
530
4.7
3.5
BDL
X 15
38.4
5.26
25
8.7
31
4.5
510
95
6400
500
4.7
0.61
470
95
2.9
0.51
X 16
45.1
0.14
41
24
7.5
1200
200
1500
1400
1.7
1
1100
190
5.9
1.1
X 17
12.3
6.4
26
13
34
1.3
370
2700
2200
180
1.4
0.19
250
570
¦) —
0.46
X 18
9.6
0.76
20
8
14
0.084
17000
22000
990
260
l.S
0.31
8300
3800
lh
0.77
X 19
5.47
0
17
2.7
f>./
BDL
7600
17
710
5.8
0.(>(>
0.011
930
2.7
1.7
BDL
X 20
1.39
0.48
15
7.1
3.S
1
130
91
230
120
0.2
0.11
SS
52
0.55
0.22
X 21
2.04
0.45
3.4
1.9
0.()3
0.15
24
76
71
21
0.14
0.065
24
18
0.071
1.1
Y 3
8.7
16.8
15
18
13
17
370
350
5200
1200
21
11
1300
610
1.2
6.3
Y 4
6.1
4.7
17
18
7.3
17
1100
360
5500
750
2.(>
4.1
340
270
1.6
960
Y 5
0.14
2.01
5
18
1*1)1.
3.7
270
120
54
610
0.14
1.3
120
160
BDL
0.26
Y6
3.24
1.54
213
5.7
S. ()()
9.4
210
59
210
190
0.535
0.58
197
36
9.29
0.35
Y 7
1.32
28.4
196
21
10.0
33
89.2
270
2S0
14000
I.I
8.6
HO
410
5.(>3
470
Y 8
112
58.8
34
16
54
18
410
160
17000
770
22
11
1200
420
10
3.7
Y 9
82
57.8
16
20
73
53
450
1400
4600
2300
II
7.6
(>70
1000
10
10
Y 10
2.15
17.8
18
6.9
35
16
280
160
8500
27000
5.6
1.7
430
240
5.1
4.3
Y 11
160
43.8
24
28
120
28
620
220
7400
3000
17
5.3
()50
900
12
71
Y 12
0
2.98
35
14
20
15
380
450
3500
1500
7.6
5
550
250
7.h
4.2
Y 13
0.03
0
51
K
S.2
K
350
K
3300
K
7.4
K
590
K
S.9
K
Y 14
1.53
1.02
53
16
II
0.45
290
75
5100
390
2.3
0.59
()50
93
4.1
0.58
Y 15
1.31
2.4
37
11
29
6.1
750
96
2600
940
4.9
1.5
620
75
4.S
0.59
Y 16
0
15.2
8.6
20
2.5
8.5
88
110
300
890
0.32
9.1
94
350
()
0.82
Y 17
0.5S
1.28
26
5.6
49
2.9
250
67
2900
280
4.4
0.22
230
47
5.4
2.1
Y 18
1.26
1.85
8.9
8.1
13
1.6
850
54
1300
210
1
0.23
270
210
4.5
6.7
Y 19
2.03
1.79
9.6
46
1.8
330
250
420
410
O.bS
0.16
130
100
1
0.43
Y 20
1.97
9.2
7.3
20
P
10
18
110
15
980
0.021
11
P
160
0.67
1.7
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 7 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
Y 21
AI
0.52
6.9
7.8
2.3
0.19
81
35
150
28
0.46
0.24
60
10
0.43
1.1
Y 26
0.01
0.35
4.7
4.7
0.53
0.52
8.4
21
HO
9.8
0.14
0.016
13
4.3
0.95
1
Y 27
0.65
Y 30
0. 45
0.2
6.8
7.7
4.9
1.7
290
48
1500
270
2.1
4.7
76
90
0.86
0.19
Y 31
0.21
0
13
6.1
2.4
BDL
50
27
120
15
0.64
0.011
22
6.4
0.14
BDL
Y 38
0
0
1.9
4
1*1)1.
BDL
17
24
9.6
8.9
0.021
0.011
4.5
18
BDL
BDL
Y 39
tf. / J
0
6.3
2
0. 79
BDL
13
25
50
14
0.17
0.016
10
6.8
BDL
BDL
Y 40
0.03
0
5.5
4.7
0.64
BDL
17
24
130
27
0.21
0.067
10
7
BDL
BDL
Y 41
0.14
0
26
184
6.3
4.72
11
27.1
160
97
0.15
0.023
17
49.3
BDL
4.69
Z 3
22 2
27.9
29
27
11
18
270
150
1400
1700
64
28
1100
390
2.9
1.4
Z 4
4
3.13
10
15
4.3
8.1
85
96
560
1600
3.6
5.8
220
430
1.1
5.8
Z 5
OAS
1.44
5.5
19
2.5
4.8
150
180
160
540
0.44
2.8
160
260
0.3
0.61
Z 6
2.17
3.54
2.5
7.6
0.63
5.4
59
150
35
680
0.096
0.79
43
270
0.5
4.1
Z 8
S4
293
292
33
55.2
61
504
340
3500
3100
11.1
20
600
580
20.9
9.8
Z 9
30.6
12.4
45
7.8
150
15
1500
130
4200
1100
5.7
2
1100
200
15
3
Z 10
32.5
130
22
20
32
37
330
300
2500
2700
5.9
4.2
400
430
6.9
5.7
Z 12
0.72
0.53
14
3
0.31
460
24
6300
110
2.9
0.32
560
15
120
0.22
Z 13
2.11
3.35
15
16
4
8.9
190
47
1600
1600
5.2
0.18
400
25
3.1
0.72
Z 14
10.6
0.73
17
6.1
23
1.7
99
26
1000
250
1.6
0.27
150
10
5.5
0.1
Z 15
0
0.32
7.4
226
7 7
20
110
470
1100
16
0.55
1.3
220
330
3.6
9.7
Z 16
1.2
0.42
3.6
9.6
0.35
0.1
13
12
56
43
0.17
0.11
8.2
5.9
0.055
1.3
Z 17
0.9
0
7.6
25
4.6
0.58
73
16
2100
190
0.51
0.037
42
17
0.44
BDL
Z 18
0.86
1
4.7
6
3.2
0.69
54
22
530
170
0.53
1.6
21
110
0.69
0.1
Z 19
63
2.28
8.5
4.1
11
1.3
94
53
530
120
1.5
0.2
, S3
90
0.86
0.36
Z 20
0.01
27.2
Q
11
1*1)1.
4.5
Q
602
8.8
1130
0.019
Q
Q
333
BDL
4.9
Z 21
19.6
2.13
21
14
,\S
1.3
430
160
15000
740
2.3
1.6
490
230
3S
1.3
Z22
1.11
0.66
R
4.9
R
1.7
R
43
3700
180
1.7
0.34
R
44
R
0.27
Z 24
0
0.34
8.6
77
J..1"
20
88
150
300
15
1
7.6
94
550
0.67
3.3
Z25
2.13
0.36
9.7
5.2
3.9
0.64
30
21
1200
81
0.1
0.075
390
51
0.3
1
Z 26
2.92
0.34
6.3
2.5
I.I
0.53
15
18
190
18
0.25
0.012
13
4.5
0.15
1.1
Z 27
4.4
0.32
4
2.7
0.59
0.56
24
17
34
11
0.06S
0.028
13
4.8
0.11
1.1
Z 28
0.3
0
2.9
E
0.95
E
26
E
30
E
0.16
E
65
E
BDL
E
Z30
3.54
0
4.6
16
2.1
0.27
49
37
54
9.3
0.24
0.0058
26
6.5
0.3
BDL
Z 31
1.5
0
12
2.8
~7
BDL
37
18
320
31
0.74
0.05
ISO
5.9
0.26
BDL
Z 38
0
0
1.8
205
151)1.
5.34
15
55.8
N.9
12
0.021
0.016
3.9
61
BDL
5.29
Z 39
13.4
0
5.4
2.1
0.56
BDL
18
26
S3
11
0.12
0.013
15
7.2
BDL
BDL
Z 40
0.02
0
8.2
195
0.29
4.98
14
56.5
73
11
0.12
0.0783
9.6
57.8
BDL
4.98
Z 41
0.06
0
49
219
0.S
5.29
69
62.3
SOO
20
0.76
0.016
2S0
62.9
0.25
5.3
Z 42
0. S3
0.06
140
27
3.3
BDL
63
4.7
690
30
0.S7
0.068
42
2.1
0.38
BDL
AA2
0. 65
0
44
B
2.3
B
51
B
5200
B
¦)
B
110
B
0.57
B
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 8 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
AA 3
4.74
0
26
B
21
B
140
B
1800
B
J
B
5(i0
B
5.3
B
AA 4
43.4
0
42
B
50
B
930
B
6500
B
9.2
B
S(i0
B
(1.(1
B
AA 5
21
0
12
B
32
B
430
B
2900
B
3.9
B
390
B
13
B
AA 6
0.d3
3.8
16
8.2
2.4
2.4
1100
190
340
240
I.I
1.7
S(i0
130
2
0.64
AA 7
5.05
9
5.4
17
0.9S
7.4
180
200
9S
1400
0.24
3.1
200
150
1.1
2.4
AA 8
0.44
0
15
7.5
3
BDL
45
17
2S0
25
0.49
0.011
33
7.3
0.32
BDL
AA9
6
1.09
19
4.6
(>.3
2
320
41
1300
430
¦)
0.51
450
43
4.3
0.62
AA 11
7.85
2.52
14
215
J
8.04
140
98.7
1700
670
2.4
0.277
100
108
1.5
5.64
AA 12
7
0.99
20
16
39
19
430
84
7500
1500
3.5
2.2
S10
240
37
8.3
AA 13
0.27
0.96
23
13
7?
5.9
400
57
3600
620
1.9
0.55
(i50
69
77
3.4
AA 14
20.6
7.35
37
12
43
4.1
470
50
3300
410
3.(i
0.3
4S0
46
4.3
0.53
AA 15
4.4
0.38
6.9
5.4
2.5
1.1
40
33
250
250
0.52
0.36
33
37
0.31
0.77
AA 16
3.6
1.19
A
206
S.I
14
380
6.6
3500
1100
l.S
0.089
210
64.2
7.(i
5.23
AA 17
10.1
0.59
13
8.8
7.4
6
110
110
900
530
0.77
0.32
150
110
1.6
3.7
AA 18
24.6
1.46
6.1
6.7
7.8
5.6
49
26
240
110
1
0.49
(i3
31
0.6
0.36
AA 19
100.6
0.45
35
4.8
()()
2.4
250
13
3200
55
4.7
0.14
(>90
9.8
2.6
1
AA 20
0.34
14.82
28
8.4
77
5.2
240
50
1300
330
¦> t
0.73
420
57
7.1
0.55
AA 21
19.78
0.49
19
4.9
14
0.55
180
12
710
34
3.0
0.17
200
7.3
3.1
1.1
AA22
1.47
AA23
0.17
2.34
12
5.8
3
1.8
34
26
220
200
0.S(i
0.93
(1(1
30
1.4
0.3
AA 24
1.24
0.67
12
3.3
7.4
0.6
55
17
240
34
1
0.12
(i4
8.6
1.3
1.1
AA25
8.2
0.46
31
18
l.S
0.94
22
25
140
61
0.2S
0.096
2(i
13
0.1
1.1
AA26
9.7
0.08
7.4
5.8
2.f>
BDL
69
43
5lM)
31
0.(i9
0.097
59
12
0.75
BDL
AA 27
38.29
0
4.8
C
7.8
C
150
C
71
C
0.22
C
69
C
1.1
C
AA 28
3.98
0
4.7
C
3.3
C
54
C
120
C
0.63
C
3d
C
0.59
C
AA29
11.3
0.13
4.2
3.3
0.S5
BDL
65
28
12
0.45
0.014
39
7.3
0.96
BDL
AA 30
0.89
0
11
C
0. sv
C
110
C
53
C
l.S
c
34
C
0.26
C
AA 31
0.(i9
0
9.8
3
5.1
BDL
34
9.7
270
140
0.3h
0.11
SI
6.7
1
BDL
AA 39
1.48
0
29
5
I.I
BDL
19
24
IdO
40
0.34
0.042
24
8.7
0.14
BDL
AA 40
0
0
6
3.8
I.I
BDL
69
38
(H)
40
1.5
0.14
2S0
9.3
0.13
BDL
AA 41
0.23
0
10
27
¦) I
BDL
200
23
2000
18
0.93
0.073
9(iO
13
0.85
BDL
AA 42
0.29
0.09
3.9
7.9
/
1.1
23
40
S9
530
0.3S
0.43
21
130
BDL
0.14
BB 3
0.42
0
4.9
B
0.39
B
6.3
B
B
0.0S2
B
16
B
0.13
B
BB 4
40
0
19
B
10
B
100
B
1200
B
4.7
B
170
B
4.5
B
BB 5
3.02
0
7.7
B
4.3
B
55
B
330
B
0.94
B
70
B
2.1
B
BB 8
1.21
0
14
17
~7 ~7
BDL
40
29
400
31
0.3 d
0.024
40
8.3
1.2
BDL
BB 9
1.24
0
7.9
E
3.7
E
69
E
830
E
1.4
E
SO
E
0.97
E
BB 10
5.76
2.47
6.4
95
3.3
120
87
410
250
6000
0.S4
2.1
5S
860
10
46
BB 11
6.8
0.35
15
25
S.(i
1.7
910
61
2500
520
2.S
4.2
IS00
83
(i
0.68
BB 12
1.04
13.79
29
23
51
49
410
350
3800
11000
4.1
8.9
730
1500
23
180
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 9 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplo Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
BB 13
0.99
0.84
31
19
95
3.5
350
35
3500
470
4.9
0.31
V20
49
51
1.3
BB 14
7.6
3.24
21
61
¦) ?
19
170
580
1800
4500
1.2
1.9
270
500
7.3
4.2
BB 15
0.46
0.34
77
26
4.5
0.64
150
48
2600
38
/.f>
0.56
2S0
200
3.3
1.1
BB 16
5170
0.39
13
11
II
0.36
160
30
1700
250
_\f>
0.26
V(>
36
1.5
0.14
BB 17
4.2
0.42
52
7.7
II
0.84
240
43
2300
210
2.S
0.45
400
46
13
0.96
BB 18
4.9
6090
12
9.1
15
0.65
89
28
Mi)
56
0.S2
0.21
200
9.7
0.9
1.1
BB 19
0.5S
BB 20
12.59
0
16
39
3.3
9.3
43
360
2()0
1900
0.4S
9.6
>2
490
0.46
5.4
BB 21
18. 12
0.41
18
5.8
II
0.53
57
16
430
7.7
1.3
0.0043
ISO
18
1.1
1.1
BB 22
1
0.36
5.4
6.8
y.c>
0.075
14
21
100
8.4
0.(>(>
0.011
:o
40
1
1
BB 23
59.02
0.32
18
4.3
3.4
0.56
33
14
2N)
13
0.71
0.057
43
6.4
1.1
1.1
BB 24
15.97
0.36
15
4.3
2.S
0.6
35
13
240
15
0.41
0.075
43
4.7
0.23
1.2
BB 25
1.98
0.37
27
5.2
3.3
0.092
31
12
230
30
0.62
0.067
4S
6.2
0.22
1.1
BB 26
0.82
2.07
8.2
4.1
1.7
1
27
23
140
77
0.4V
0.11
35
14
0.4
BDL
BB 27
0.97
1.5
3.7
4.7
0.52
BDL
23
31
120
20
0.4V
0.02
14
8.4
BDL
BDL
BB 28
1.73
0.02
2.2
1.5
0.S5
BDL
42
16
40
11
0.21
0.01
19
4.5
0.2
BDL
BB 29
0.93
0
3.9
C
0.S7
C
29
C
42
C
9.1
c
18
C
0.24
C
BB 30
2.54
0.12
9.9
8.2
¦>
0.41
91
29
100
23
6.9
0.63
65
8.1
0.44
BDL
BB 31
0
0
1.3
1.4
151)1.
BDL
8.3
9.6
21
26
0.0(>
0.059
2.9
2.9
BDL
BDL
BB 38
5 98
0.49
63
7.4
3.S
0.45
450
42
370
19
1.2
0.12
520
16
0.69
BDL
BB 39
0.09
0
6.2
2.9
1.7
BDL
150
36
1900
15
/.f>
0.1
7(r0
8.2
0.6
BDL
BB 40
0.(>3
0.03
9.1
2.6
I.I
BDL
63
28
(>70
11
0.41
0.018
230
6
0.26
BDL
BB 41
0.34
0.08
10
3.2
1*1)1.
0.64
240
47
2900
570
1.33
0.22
1200
170
1.4
1.2
BB 42
0.3S
0.02
7.4
7.7
¦)
0.7
75
71
670
63
0.45
0.084
V()
24
1.1
0.21
CC 4
0.91
B
12
B
1.2
B
74
B
220
B
0.0V7
B
3S
B
0.44
B
CC 5
1.25
B
7.4
B
2.4
B
33
B
210
B
0.44
B
V5
B
1.1
B
CC 8
0.92
5.5
8.6
13
3.4
5
54
85
220
880
I.S
1.9
51
200
0.68
2
CC 9
5
E
17
E
II
E
97
E
5V0
E
1
E
170
E
3.8
E
CC 10
3.15
E
13
E
E
210
E
530
E
O.S
E
150
E
(>.V
E
CC 11
8.9
4
16
30
20
27
230
270
1800
1900
4.5
2.7
300
380
(kS
9.5
CC 12
7.5
2.02
32
31
91
15
1200
290
4700
3000
3.V
7.5
1200
400
17
4.1
CC 14
0.82
0.56
30
19
')
6.8
230
110
2400
1600
1.2
2.4
210
110
2.6
1.4
CC 15
4.4
0.35
31
6.3
24
0.55
170
25
1600
21
2.4
0.11
150
7.1
3.2
1.1
CC 16
27
0.32
59
6.2
0.58
120
27
1200
70
¦) ?
0.081
V5
33
2.3
1.2
CC 17
10.1
0.34
9.6
9.4
2.3
0.12
79
55
(>5
23
0.21
0.012
57
32
0.14
1
CC 18
1.69
35
45
4.1
0
0.57
53
21
780
14
0.4b
0.035
70
5.4
0.48
1.1
CC 19
26.62
42.2
22
23
1 ~7
24
120
100
4900
860
2.3
1.6
ISO
150
7.3
6.4
CC 20
27.6
61.3
10
19
IS
30
92
170
570
1300
1.5
1.8
130
240
2.4
3.1
CC 21
3.9
5.34
11
12
17
8.2
110
53
2900
260
1.7
0.35
130
50
V. 4
0.43
CC 22
4.2
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 10 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsi(lentiill Soil RSI.:
0
0.39
7
0
2V"1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.:
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL:
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplc Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
CC 23
15.2
3.38
31
9.4
47
0.88
220
29
3800
110
1.1
0.055
430
18
15
0.6
CC 24
4.3
0.1
8.5
4.4
BDL
260
21
390
8.2
F
0.049
130
29
1.6
BDL
CC 25
4.9
0.86
35
7.8
(>.5
0.28
1100
42
570
68
I.I
0.071
300
15
0.68
0.046
CC 26
5.6
C
17
C
S.9
C
110
C
3(>
1.1
72
140
0.44
BDL
CC 29
0.99
0.4
12
232
3.3
6.37
120
82.5
230
93
0.63
0.96
73
81.8
1.7
5.65
CC 30
3.48
0.4
11
52
4.3
1
74
21
290
220
0.S2
0.25
59
19
0.67
BDL
CC 31
3.5
0
18
12
3
BDL
140
19
210
2100
2.6
0.021
78
24
1.4
0.17
CC 32
1.37
0.05
52
62
4.4
0.65
93
21
660
190
1.2
4.5
2S0
42
0.69
0.26
CC 33
0.29
0
219
4.9
S.35
BDL
223
23
2300
70
1.5
0.093
S3 6
24
6.04
BDL
CC 34
1.55
0
6.4
4.6
3.5
BDL
55
24
550
12
0.70S
0.02
190
6.7
0.37
BDL
CC 35
0. 16
0
15
7.2
1.3
BDL
17
25
2S0
22
0.66
0.038
41
7
0.21
BDL
CC 36
0.23
0
29
23
5. f>
BDL
2300
32
100
62
0.33
0.15
1400
20
3.8
BDL
CC 37
0.17
0.02
4.5
4.1
0.S9
0.24
55
25
160
53
0.3
0.063
75
67
0.18
BDL
CC 38
1.15
0
184
6
6. IS
0.24
106
33
860
27
0.54
0.016
401
10
5. IS
BDL
CC 39
0.84
0
60
3.2
3.9
BDL
81
9.9
560
36
0.72
0.014
160
3
0.46
BDL
CC 40
0.2S
0
5.5
4.1
3.3
BDL
120
35
940
13
1.3
0.016
3S0
6.6
0.42
BDL
CC 41
0.92
0
5
3.6
3
BDL
160
34
4200
39
0.S4
BDL
S90
13
2
BDL
CC 42
0.74
0.07
4.5
4.1
3.4
1.9
54
28
310
140
0.5
0.18
S9
73
1.4
0.25
DD 4
0.3^
B
6.8
B
0.37
B
21
B
100
B
0.33
B
23
B
1.2
B
DD 5
0.42
B
7.3
B
0.53
B
12
B
7 ¦)
B
0.13
B
17
B
0.1
B
DD 6
0.64
B
15
B
¦> 7
B
41
B
130
B
0.22
B
35
B
0.18
B
DD 7
0.47
0.16
4
7.8
151)1.
BDL
24
34
9.6
9.7
0.0S6
0.03
1
7.9
BDL
BDL
DD 9
0.59
0
8.4
E
I.S
E
60
E
130
E
0.44
E
>2
E
0.3
E
DD 10
3.06
0.34
26
6.5
6.9
BDL
96
34
510
18
0.S1
0.031
120
8.4
1.7
BDL
DD 12
9.5
0.09
22
12
34
1.2
410
34
3600
190
1.7
0.21
1300
61
5.1
0.21
DD 13
6.7
0.19
13
10
12
BDL
280
45
4300
110
3
0.14
IS00
50
3.5
BDL
DD 14
16.,S
1.3
11
6.3
19
4.4
160
58
4900
340
2.(>
0.66
210
49
3.7
0.82
DD 15
8.6
0.32
9.8
4.9
4.7
0.51
530
22
230
13
0.S3
0.068
S70
8.1
1.1
1
DD 16
27.5
0.33
39
3.8
9.3
1.1
360
92
1900
10
9.6
0.42
490
120
5.4
0.51
DD 17
25
0.34
26
5.8
S.5
0.54
370
32
1800
17
6
0.059
310
9.7
4.5
1.1
DD 18
1.81
0.5
5.7
6.7
0.64
0.16
42
28
360
62
0.23
0.15
51
17
0.44
0.099
DD 19
1.45
0.35
19
4.4
15
0.53
300
30
1500
56
2.3
0.15
290
13
4
0.2
DD 20
2.53
1.13
15
3.1
().()
0.53
140
19
970
15
0.61
0.019
290
7.5
1.9
1.1
DD 21
14
5.83
24
3.8
IS
0.17
620
54
1100
27
3.4
0.21
390
16
2.3
0.06
DD 22
0.3 7
0.35
2.2
5.1
0.54
0.54
17
32
32
23
0.03
0.017
7.7
15
1.1
1.1
DD 23
3.85
DD 24
6.4
0.31
11
3.7
9.3
0.53
540
18
460
11
0.36
0.035
300
9.7
0.98
1.1
DD 25
1.2
0.36
14
21
5.2
0.57
120
27
360
67
0.54
0.34
160
55
0.34
1.1
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 11 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsidentiill Soil RSI.
0.22' 1
0.39
7
0.2 V'1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Value
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18 (Ixn-SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxn-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i Ixo-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplo Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
DD 26
0.S2
0
222
5.9
6.16
BDL
55.6
21
210
17
0.363
0.028
134
7.4
5.43
BDL
DD 27
0.35
0.36
17
4.8
0.049
36
17
320
26
0.44
0.038
71
6.5
0.54
1.1
DD 28
0.08
0
7.1
4.7
1.3
0.23
20
21
150
190
0.27
0.23
32
43
0.21
BDL
DD 29
0.02
0
13
1.9
0. 77
BDL
22
12
ISO
38
0.24
0.069
32
12
BDL
BDL
DD 30
0.14
0
14
2.2
1.7
BDL
no
12
1700
150
0.3l>
0.043
700
4.3
2.5
BDL
DD 31
0.2b
0
5.3
3.7
1.4
BDL
83
14
1100
88
0.3
0.25
390
17
0.53
BDL
DD 32
0.34
0
3.8
1.8
1.9
BDL
28
13
2'JO
17
0.4
0.018
1H)
6
0.13
BDL
DD 33
3.09
0.02
5.9
3.4
J..1"
BDL
120
20
1200
23
1.9
0.023
440
12
0.47
BDL
DD 34
0.3 7
0
6.4
4.1
1.9
BDL
83
24
1000
28
0.42
0.02
190
5.9
0.38
BDL
DD 35
0. IS
0
4.9
2.9
1
BDL
160
18
950
46
6.9
0.03
290
15
0.31
BDL
DD 36
2.08
0
19
207
4.2
5.38
130
46.3
1300
50
1.4
0.068
1500
60.8
1.7
5.28
DD 37
0.53
0
11
9.8
4.1
BDL
36
23
ISO
37
0.3
0.042
OS
9
0.47
BDL
DD 38
0.50
0
5.1
9.5
S.I
BDL
43
23
230
60
0.00S
0.18
45
9.9
1.2
BDL
DD 39
2.01
0
13
2.1
7
BDL
230
17
2500
25
l.S
0.027
wo
9.4
2.8
BDL
DD 40
0.(>2
0
13
G
¦> 7
BDL
150
14
1200
9.4
1.4
0.0085
250
3.9
1.9
BDL
DD 41
0. (t
0.21
5.7
4.3
.\2
1.3
44
50
Mi)
350
0.62
0.35
()()
76
1.1
0.28
EE 3
0.51
B
12
B
0.29
B
26
B
430
B
0.21
B
22
B
1.5
B
EE 4
0.47
B
10
B
0.31
B
20
B
130
B
0.2V
B
17
B
1.3
B
EE 5
0.97
B
19
B
iJ
B
,m ;
B
340
B
0.32
B
/n
B
0.19
B
EE 6
0.5S
B
11
B
0.35
B
13
B
110
B
0.23
B
18
B
0.11
B
EE 7
0.59
E
14
E
2.9
E
47
E
I'M)
E
0.32
E
4b
E
0.67
E
EE 8
0.3
E
2.4
E
1.5
E
20
E
T")
E
1.0
E
14
E
0.37
E
EE 10
49.3
E
274
E
S.(>
E
140
E
0S0
E
0.4S(>
E
140
E
7.54
E
EE 11
9.01
E
22
E
51
E
630
E
2400
E
5
E
500
E
5.2
E
EE 12
11.3
0
38
6.6
23
BDL
350
33
3200
22
3
0.034
320
8.8
17
BDL
EE 13
1.41
0.03
13
208
3.S
5.13
56
59
370
12
0.49
0.0663
(>2
62.7
1
5.18
EE 14
2.39
0.61
47
2.9
(>.S
0.46
260
24
2200
46
0.11
0.6
300
27
7.8
BDL
EE 15
3
0
22
4.6
15
BDL
400
23
820
13
1.9
0.072
590
7.2
2.6
BDL
EE 16
3.3
0.38
1.5
5.4
0.52
1.6
9.2
140
21
8.2
0.049
0.033
29
no
1
1.1
EE 17
340
1.74
18
5.3
10
0.25
670
95
870
43
1 7
0.15
570
89
1.6
1.1
EE 18
2.3S
0.32
43
5.2
15
0.53
530
160
2800
32
1.3
0.028
wo
16
7.0
0.17
EE 19
1.34
2.61
26
16
S.I
0.38
2700
570
1200
120
0.91
0.24
550
77
3.6
0.18
EE 22
8.7
4.75
13
15
10
2.2
200
77
1100
560
l.S
1
310
62
3.5
2
EE 23
4.5
0.58
7.8
9.8
5.4
0.21
130
88
420
43
0.69
0.099
210
76
2.5
0.12
EE 24
4
0.32
2.7
3.7
0.16
0.52
22
24
40
12
0.0S4
0.041
16
7.8
0.13
1
EE 25
1.49
7.95
15
7.7
— ¦)
0.59
200
120
490
77
1
2.2
320
540
1.7
1
EE 26
3.S
0.17
10
3.8
3.4
BDL
52
22
2(>0
20
0.73
0.049
2(>0
87
2.3
BDL
EE 27
0.91
0
8.5
19
3.4
5.4
16
87
300
1100
0.42
2.3
IS
140
0.29
0.25
FF 7
0.4S
B
98
B
0.35
B
25
B
37
B
0.3S
B
33
B
1.5
B
FF 8
2.02
0
7.1
5.6
4.3
0.36
37
39
350
52
0.43
0.17
43
23
1.1
BDL
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 12 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
PC lis (m;>/k<>)
Mcliil An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Loiid
Mercun
Nickel
Silver
Kcsidentiill Soil RSI.
0.22' 1
0.39
7
0.2 V'1
400
1.0
150
39
Induslriiil Soil RSI.
0.74' 1
1.6
80
5.6''
800
4.3
2000
510
Soil-(iroiin(l\\iilor SSL
0.0088' 1
0.0013
0.38
0.0005V '¦
14
0.033
20
0.6
l-xolo$>ic;il Screening Value
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18 (Ixn-SSI. plains)
0.36 (Ixc-SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xn-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 iIxo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 i Ixo-SSI. plains)
4.2 i 1-co-SSI. a\ iani
Siimplo Deplh:
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" K« \\T
0 in 18"
18" K« \VT
0 in 18"
18" K« \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \VT
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 in 18"
18" in \\ T
0 m 18"
18" in \\ T
FF 9
0.9 /
E
229
E
S.S4
E
64
E
350
E
0.473
E
98.2 /
E
6.45
E
FF 10
0.08
E
4.4
E
1
E
28
E
V4
E
0.4V
E
19
E
0.23
E
FF 11
1.24
E
27
E
5.4
E
35
E
210
E
I.S
E
49
E
0.38
E
FF 12
6.8
E
25
E
32
E
230
E
1300
E
0.027
E
420
E
4.5
E
FF 13
1.6
0.1
12
3.8
1
0.23
620
39
2S0
27
0.7()
0.2
1400
77
0.54
BDL
FF 14
0
0
1.6
215
0.2s
5.25
18
58
7.9
9.2
0.029
0.0757
9.9
79
BDL
5.28
FF 15
1.01
0.43
12
6.6
2.5
BDL
330
34
74
9.5
1.2
0.1
390
21
0.32
BDL
FF 16
2.9
0.51
7.6
5.3
2.S
0.28
200
33
140
22
0.(>(>
0.026
ISO
29
1.9
0.77
FF 17
0
0.35
4.2
7.1
y.c>
0.52
140
25
no
7.9
7.1
0.033
120
110
0.72
1
FF 18
1.57
3.05
12
5.3
2.S
0.51
410
65
230
33
1.7
0.034
270
38
0.87
0.082
FF 19
5.97
7.74
13
10
5.S
6.2
1200
630
770
1300
0. 7(i
0.76
590
290
1.8
2.1
FF 22
20.9
FF 23
1.23
1.16
14
4.7
5. f>
0.11
240
31
1200
59
3.4
0.12
230
14
3
0.17
FF 24
3.5
0
51
4.6
II
0.85
120
27
340
180
3
0.14
40
250
14
0.12
FF 25
2.28
0.43
9.3
7.4
1.2
0.53
53
34
150
21
0.2V
0.043
320
20
0.9
1.1
FF 26
3
0.01
4.8
203
0.VI
4.95
29
38.6
32
7.2
0.43
0.055
150
200
0.3
5.24
FF 27
0.02
0
3.5
201
4.4
5.18
12
39.9
f>3
13
0.13
0.0658
S.I
56.2
BDL
5.14
GG 8
1.38
B
21
B
1.4
B
270
B
250
B
0.23
B
120
B
0.54
B
GG 9
0.78
B
17
B
0. (>5
B
55
B
120
B
0.42
B
44
B
0.16
B
GG 10
0. (>')
B
24
B
I.I
B
19
B
43
B
0.57
B
37
B
1.9
B
GG 11
6.05
E
18
E
5.S
E
68
E
470
E
I.V
E
91
E
1.2
E
GG 12
1.81
B
12
B
1.5
B
6200
B
140
B
0.(>V
B
IS00
B
0.51
B
GG 13
1.39
E
6.4
E
/.f>
E
170
E
350
E
0.4S
E
190
E
0.19
E
GG 14
0.0~
0.05
210
5.8
7.03
BDL
69.1
38
13
12
0.102
0.013
S9.3
30
5.43
BDL
GG 15
0.15
0
3.1
12
0.38
BDL
100
31
21
8
0.031
0.0054
87
21
BDL
BDL
GG 16
13.7
0.21
BDL
3.6
2.S
BDL
7700
44
130
15
0.3
0.029
3400
37
0.98
BDL
GG 17
25.13
0
10
4.6
'11
0.32
2400
39
350
22
¦) ?
0.078
2700
36
5.5
BDL
GG 18
26.8
GG 19
17.8
155
15
34
13
58
940
5000
3100
3800
M .•
3.8
1000
2900
V. 5
12
GG 20
104
GG 21
24.9
GG 22
24.2
GG 23
6.2
0.01
16
1.1
I.S
BDL
48
8.7
S3
34
H
0.044
H
7.6
0.51
BDL
GG 24
0.21
1.19
8.1
3.4
4.7
1.8
140
36
420
140
0.74
0.28
410
98
(>.4
2.5
GG 25
0.
0.33
6.6
5.6
1.3
0.57
28
20
170
28
0.41
0.024
190
310
0.48
1.1
GG 26
2.6
0.16
6.9
4.9
3
BDL
40
24
2V0
59
0.24
0.036
240
380
1.1
BDL
GG 27
0.13
0.02
8.3
3.9
2.3
0.22
27
11
130
13
0.3(>
0.027
()()
15
0.3
BDL
HH 10
0.67
B
6.4
B
0.19
B
24
B
5S
B
0.3S
B
4(>
B
0.13
B
HH 11
2.78
B
21
B
3.1
B
4000
B
2V0
B
0.(>(>
B
2100
B
1.1
B
HH 12
3.38
B
38
B
(k5
B
20000
B
490
B
I.I
B
7000
B
2.4
B
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 13 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
2.11 (continued)
2008 PCB and Metal Soil Analytical Results
Mel.il An;il\les (ni}>/k»)
MP 50-11 \ 50-11 (iritis
I'C lis (m;>/k<>)
Arsenic
C'iidmium
Chromium
Leic;il Screening Viilue:
0.100 ( UTA( i xaliici
18(1 ¦ o i-
SSI. plains)
0.36(lxc-
SSI. mammals)
26 (1 xo-SSI. a\ iani
1 1 i1 xo-SSI. a\iani
0.058 iUTA(i \alm.'i
38 11 x*( i-
SSI. plains)
4.2 (Eco
-SSI. a\iaii)
Siimplc Depth:
0 in 18"
18" in WT
0 in 18"
18" K« WT
0 in 18"
18" k« WT
0 in 18"
18" K« WT
0 in 18"
18" in WT
0 in 18"
18" in WT
0 in 18"
18" in WT
0 in 18"
18" in WT
HH 13
2.11
B
33
B
2.3
B
8100
B
4U)
B
1.2
B
7400
B
0.41
B
HH 14
0.9
E
15
E
E
280
E
220
E
1.4
E
310
E
0.84
E
HH 15
0.98
1.3
14
8.3
0.M
1.1
9700
1400
330
180
3.4
1.2
6700
3000
0.56
0.32
HH 16
3.5
0
BDL
5.5
7.1
1.3
19000
210
240
99
1.4
0.092
17000
290
5
BDL
HH 17
1.6
0.65
BDL
BDL
3.6
BDL
4800
21000
ISO
150
0.2S
0.25
28000
17000
3.3
0.92
HH 18
0
0.54
20
9
l(>
0.59
8400
950
1200
240
¦> t
0.19
7400
2100
3.2
0.093
HH 19
0.J')
0.63
255
6.4
32
0.4
2500
72
2700
22
14.2
0.23
2700
64
11.7
1
HH 20
41
0.44
34
5
4S
0.54
22000
320
2400
34
3.5
0.14
9300
160
5.5
0.052
HH 21
19
1.01
3.4
2.2
2.3
0.16
240
47
no
14
0.42
0.072
3'H)
38
0.')l
1
HH 22
7.8
15.08
41
12
58
0.53
2700
68
3400
24
4.5
0.28
5100
110
()()
1.1
HH 23
20.6
0.35
18
7.6
2S
0.82
830
20
2500
11
l.S
0.013
2400
130
5.9
1
HH 24
0
0.52
4.2
6
0.S(>
0.044
33
26
200
40
0.3 7
0.059
37
19
0.49
0.22
HH 25
2.04
1.92
14
I
1
I
1
I
1500
38
1
0.232
1
I
4.2
I
HH 26
0.12
0.07
188
5.7
4.S
0.34
33.1
13
23
47
0.0SS7
0.064
57.4
9.4
4.S
BDL
HH 27
0.08
0.28
194
4.1
(>. 35
3.7
41.1
24
140
130
0.17
0.23
SO. 1
29
5.07
BDL
Notes:
(1) Lowest of the Aroclor 1254 and 1260 RSL provided
BDL = Below Detection Limit
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
A = Not analyzed for Arsenic in surface soil (0" -18")
B = Marsh not sampled in subsurface soil (18" -water table)
C = Refused, subsurface debris
D = Lead is the only metal analyzed in subsurface soil (18" -water table)
E = Water table, unable to sample
F = Not analyzed for Mercury in surface soil (0" -18")
G = Not analyzed for Arsenic in subsurface soil (18" -water table)
H = Not analyzed for Mercury and Nickel in surface soil (0" -18")
I = Not analyzed for Cadmium, Chromium and Nickel in surface (0" -18") and
subsurface (18" -water table) soil, for Arsenic and Silver in subsurface soil
(18" -water table) and for Mercury in surface soil (0" -18")
BTAG = Biological Technical Assistance Group
Eco-SSL = ecological soil screening level
Underlined analytical value exceeded residential soil RSL (CR=10-6, HI=0.1)
Bolded analytical value exceeded industrial soil RSL (CR= 10-6, HI=0.1)
Italicized analytical value exceeded soil to groundwater RSL
Shaflql analytical value exceeded ecological screening value. Only 0 to 18" samples were screened against the ecological screening values.
(2) Hexavalent chromium screening criteria provided
WT = water table SSL = Soil Screening Level
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Level
J = Not sampled in surface soil (0" -18")
K = Not sampled in subsurface soil
L = Refusal at a depth of 18"
M = Not analyzed for Mercury in subsurface soil (18" -water table)
N = Sampled, no data
O = Not analyzed for Silver in surface soil (0" -18")
P = Not analyzed for Cadmium and Nickel in surface soil (0" -18")
Q = Not analyzed for Arsenic, Chromium and Nickel in surface soil (0" -18") and for Mercury in subsurface soil (18" -water table)
R = Lead and Mercury are the only metals analyzed in surface soil (0" -18")
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 14 of 14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.12
2008 Groundwater Analytical Results
Aiuihte
Tup
Water
RSL
MCL
va (;\v
i:i»a
Resion III
B l \(;
MW0IR
MW0IR 1)1 l»
MW02
MW04
MW05
MW06
MW07
MW09
MWI0
Jill-OS
Jill-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Jul-OS
Result
QikiI
Result
QikiI
Result
QikiI
Result
QikiI
Result
Qllill
Result
QikiI
Result
Qllill
Result
QikiI
Result
Qual
I'C'B ll()M()L()(;i KS (/is 1.)
Monochlorobiphenyl
0.5
-
0.000074
0.097
U
0.097
U
0.097
U
0.1
U
0.097
u
0.097
U
0.097
u
0.00S4
J
0.097
U
Dichlorobiphenyl
0.5
-
0.000074
0.097
u
0.097
u
0.097
u
0.1
u
0.097
u
0.097
u
0.097
u
0.17
0.097
u
Tiicliloiohiplicml
D.r>
-
0.000074
0.097
V
0.097
V
0.097
V
0.1
V
0.097
u
0.097
V
0.007
J
0.016
.1
0.014
J
TOTAL Mil I'M.S
Arsenic
0.045
10
50
5
9.5
J
11
10
L
20
22
19
28
6.9
J
10
u
Chromium
0.031
100
50
1.5
1.4
J
10
u
10
U
10
I
10
u
10
u
I.S
J
10
u
Lead
-
15
50
2.5
3.7
J B
5
u
5
U
"> H
L.I
J 13
4
JB
5
u
50
B
6.9
B
12
B
Mercury
0.063
2
0.05
0.016
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
U
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.24
0.2
U
0.1
J
Nickel
30
-
-
8.2
8.8
.1
6.5
.1
800
40
I
6.N
J
40
I
30
J
40
I
¦>
J
DISSOLVED MITALS
Arsenic
0.045
10
50
5
10
9.N
.1
10
U
21
17
20
10
U
6
J
3
J
Chromium
0.031
100
50
1.5
10
u
10
u
10
U
:. 6
.1
10
u
10
u
2.4
J
10
u
10
u
Lead
-
15
50
2.5
5
u
5
u
5
U
5
L
5
u
5
u
5
u
2.6
J
5
u
Mercury
0.063
2
0.05
0.016
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
U
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
u
0.2
u
Nickel
30
-
-
8.2
8.1
J
7.6
J
730
2.2
J
7.9
J
40
u
9.1
J
40
u
2.7
J
Notes:
RSL = November 2012 Regional Screening Levels (CR = 10-6; HI = 0.1)
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
fig/L = micrograms per liter
J - Constituent detected at a concentration above the method detection limit (MDL) but below the limit of quantitation, concentrations are estimated.
B - Constituent was detected in the method blank and sample.
U - Constituent was not detected
Blank cell = analysis not conducted
Underline analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 tap water RSL value (CR= 10-6; HI=0.1)
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds MCL
Italicized analytical value exceeded Commonwealth of Virginia Groundwater Quality Standards(VA GW)
Shaded analytical value exceeded EPA Region III Biological Technical Assistance Team (BTAG) ecological screening value. The lower of the freshwater and marine water benchmarks were used. Total chromium was used for chromium.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.13
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
SI)-1-0
SD-2-0
SD-3-0
SD-4-0
SI >-5-0
sn-6-o
SD-7-0
sn-s-o
AnjiMes
Kesideiiliiil Soil KSL
NOW SQuiR ls
liTU; Region III
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
pen ii()M()i.()(;i i:s i/is i
vS>
Heptachlorobiphenyl
110
21.0 (I'LL marine)
40
300 U
230 U
290 U
35 J
290 U
370 U
380 U
350 U
Hexachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
200 U
150 U
200 U
40 J
75 J
250 U
250 U
240 U
Nonachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
500 U
390 U
500 U
450 U
500 U
630 U
640 U
600 U
Octachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
300 U
230 U
290 U
270 U
290 U
370 U
380 U
350 U
Monochlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
98 U
75 U
96 U
88 U
97 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
500 U
390 U
500 U
450 U
500 U
630 U
640 U
600 U
Dichlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
98 U
75 U
96 U
88 U
97 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
Pentachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
200 U
150 U
200 U
180 U
200 U
250 U
250 U
240 U
T etrachlorobiphenyl
34
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
200 U *
150 U *
200 U *
180 U *
200 U *
250 U *
250 U *
240 U *
T richlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
98 U
75 U
96 U
88 U
97 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
Total PCBs:
220
40
ND
ND
ND
75
75
ND
ND
ND
MKTALS (ms l\S>
Arsenic
0.39
5.9 (TEL freshwater)
7.24
12
8.8
14
14
11
17
18
14
Cadmium
7.0
0.596 (TEL freshwater)
0.68
1.6
1J
2
1.9
2.6
3
2.4
2.1
Chromium
0.29
26 (LEL freshwater)
43.4
130
130
310
1,400
780
320
270
160
Lead
400
30.24 (TEL marine)
30.2
120
110
180
390
170
250
210
180
Mercury
1.0
0.13 (TEL marine)
0.13
0.083
0.19
2.2
0.72
0.43
0.97
1.1
0.62
Nickel
150
15.9 (TEL marine)
15.9
62
68
170
1,100
470
190
130
80
Silver
39
0.5 (LEL freshwater)
0.73
3
2.2 U
2.6 U
0.61 J
0.3 J
0.61 J
3.5 U
3.1 U
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.13 (continued)
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
sn-y-o
SI)-KM)
SIM 1-0
SIM 2-0
SIM 3-0
SIM 4-0
SIM 5-0
SIM 6-0
An;il\les
Kcsi(lentiill Soil KSL
NOAA SQuiRTs
li i \(;
(0-0.5 n b«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 n hf»s)
(0-0.5 II l)}>s)
(0-0.5 II l)»s)
pc b ii()M()LO(;i i:s (/is-ks>
Heptachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
330 U
310 U
370 U
340 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
350 U
Hexachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
220 U
210 U
250 U
230 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
230 U
Nonachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
560 U
520 U
630 U
580 U
610 U
610 U
610 U
590 U
Octachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
330 U
310 U
370 U
340 U
360 U
360 U
360 U
350 U
Monochlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
110 U
100 U
120 U
110 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
110 U
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
560 U
520 U
630 U
580 U
610 U
610 U
610 U
590 U
Dichlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
110 U
100 U
120 U
110 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
110 U
Pentachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
220 U
210 U
250 U
230 U
240 U
240 U
240 U
230 U
T etrachlorobiphenyl
34
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
220 U *
210 U *
250 U *
230 U *
240 U *
240 U *
240 U *
230 U *
T richlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
110 U
100 U
120 U
110 U
120 U
120 U
120 U
110 U
Total PCBs:
220
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MKTALS (ins ks)
Arsenic
0.39
5.9 (TEL freshwater)
7.24
14
13
14
14
15
14
14
13
Cadmium
7.0
0.596 (TEL freshwater)
0.68
1.9
1.6
2.5
2.2
3.3
2.8
3.1
2.3
Chromium
0.29
26 (LEL freshwater)
43.4
150
120
140
110
140
120
120
120
Lead
400
30.24 (TEL marine)
30.2
170
170
180
170
210
180
200
180
Mercury
1.0
0.13 (TEL marine)
0.13
1.1
0.62
0.94
1.1
0.98
0.79
0.99
0.74
Nickel
150
15.9 (TEL marine)
15.9
76
63
71
61
76
67
70
63
Silver
39
0.5 (LEL freshwater)
0.73
3 U
2.7 U
3.5 U
0.32 J
0.46 J
0.34 J
0.36 J
0.42 J
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.13 (continued)
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
SI)-17-0
sn-ix-o
SI)-19-0
SD-20-0
SD-21-0
SD-22-0
SD-23-0
SD-24-0
An;il\les
Kcsi(lentiill Soil KSL
NOAA SQuiRTs
li i \(;
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)»s)
pc b ii()M()LO(;i i:s (/is-ks>
Heptachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
400 U
390 U
340 U
350 U
590 U
720 U
770 U
840 U
Hexachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
260 U
260 U
230 U
230 U
390 U
480 U
510 U
560 U
Nonachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
670 U
660 U
580 U
590 U
1000 U
1200 U
1300 U
1400 U
Octachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
400 U
390 U
340 U
350 U
590 U
720 U
770 U
840 U
Monochlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
130 U
130 U
110 U
110 U
190 U
240 U
250 U
280 U
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
670 U
660 U
580 U
590 U
1000 U
1200 U
1300 U
1400 U
Dichlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
130 U
130 U
110 U
110 U
190 U
240 U
250 U
280 U
Pentachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
260 U
260 U
230 U
230 U
390 U
480 U
510 U
560 U
T etrachlorobiphenyl
34
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
260 U *
260 U *
230 U *
230 U *
390 U
480 U
510 U
560 U
T richlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
130 U
130 U
110 U
110 U
190 U
240 U
250 U
280 U
Total PCBs:
220
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MKTALS (ins ks)
Arsenic
0.39
5.9 (TEL freshwater)
7.24
14
15
16
21
13
12
14
15
Cadmium
7.0
0.596 (TEL freshwater)
0.68
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.5
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.3
Chromium
0.29
26 (LEL freshwater)
43.4
150
130
220
1,100
130
120
100
170
Lead
400
30.24 (TEL marine)
30.2
190
190
180
230
190
170
170
450
Mercury
1.0
0.13 (TEL marine)
0.13
0.85
0.85
0.75
1.8
0.54
1.3
1.2
0.78
Nickel
150
15.9 (TEL marine)
15.9
72
65
120
540
83
62
51
58
Silver
39
0.5 (LEL freshwater)
0.73
3.6 U
0.4 J
2.9 U
0.75 J
2.6 U
3.4 U
3.3 U
3.9 U
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.13 (continued)
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
SI >-25-0
SI >-26-0
SD-27-0
SD-2S-0
SI >-29-0
SD-30-0
SD-31-0
SI >-32-0
An;il\les
Kcsidentiill Soil KSL
NO A A SQuiRTs
li i \(;
(0-0.5 fl l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 II l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 I'l 1)j*s)
pc b ii()M()LO(;i i:s (/is-ks>
Heptachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
750 U
700 U
4000 U
880 U
1000 u
850 U
930 U
790 U
Hexachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
500 U
470 U
2600 U
590 U
680 U
570 U
620 U
140 J
Nonachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
1300 U
1200 U
6700 U
1500 U
1700 U
1400 U
1600 U
1300 U
Octachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
750 U
700 U
4000 U
880 U
1000 U
850 U
930 U
790 U
Monochlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
250 U
230 U
1300 U
290 U
330 U
280 U
310 U
260 U
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
1300 U
1200 U
6700 U
1500 U
1700 U
1400 U
1600 U
1300 U
Dichlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
250 U
230 U
1300 U
290 U
330 U
280 U
310 U
260 U
Pentachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
500 U
470 U
2600 U
590 U
680 U
570 U
620 U
530 U
T etrachlorobiphenyl
34
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
500 U
470 U
2600 U
590 U
680 U
570 U
620 U
530 U
T richlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
250 U
230 U
1300 U
290 U
330 U
280 U
310 U
260 U
Total PCBs:
220
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
140
MKTALS (ins ks)
Arsenic
0.39
5.9 (TEL freshwater)
7.24
14
15
12
18
17
16
17
12
Cadmium
7.0
0.596 (TEL freshwater)
0.68
2.2
2.3
2
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.7
2.1
Chromium
0.29
26 (LEL freshwater)
43.4
110
110
88
100
96
88
130
100
Lead
400
30.24 (TEL marine)
30.2
190
180
160
200
190
190
220
210
Mercury
1.0
0.13 (TEL marine)
0.13
0.85
0.69
0.65
0.82
0.74
0.72
0.75
0.67
Nickel
150
15.9 (TEL marine)
15.9
55
54
45
54
52
52
63
50
Silver
39
0.5 (LEL freshwater)
0.73
0.37 J
3.2 U
0.77 J
4 U
4.4 U
4.1 U
4.3 U
3.4 U
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 2.13 (continued)
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Results
SI >-33-0
SD-34-0
SD-34-0 1)1 P
SI >-35-0
SI >-35-0 I>L P
SI >-36-0
SI>-36-0 l>l'l»
SI >-37-0
SI>-37-0 l>l'l»
An.iMes
Resident i:il Soil RSL
NOAA SQuiRTs
ijtac;
(0-0.5 n hf»s)
(0-0.5 1*1 l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)«s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)}>s)
(0-0.5 fl hf»s)
(0-0.5 I'l l)f»s)
pc b ii()M()LO(;i i:s (/II*,kii)
Heptachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
730 U
700 U
640 U
760 U
760 U
3700 U
360 U
950 U
850 U
Hexachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
490 U
470 U
430 U
510 U
510 U
2500 U
240 U
640 U
570 U
Nonachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
1200 U
1200 U
1100 U
1300 U
1300 U
6400 U
610 U
1600 U
1400 U
Octachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
730 U
700 U
640 U
760 U
760 U
3700 U
360 U
950 U
850 U
Monochlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
240 U
230 U
210 U
250 U
250 U
1200 U
120 U
310 U
280 U
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
1200 U
1200 U
1100 U
1300 U
1300 U
6400 U
610 U
1600 U
1400 U
Dichlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
240 U
230 U
210 U
250 U
250 U
1200 U
120 U
310 U
280 U
Pentachlorobiphenyl
110
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
490 U
470 U
430 U
510 U
510 U
2500 U
240 U
640 U
570 U
T etrachlorobiphenyl
34
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
490 U
470 U
430 U
510 U
510 U
2500 U
240 U
640 U
570 U
T richlorobiphenyl
21.6(1) (TEL marine)
40
240 U
230 U
210 U
250 U
250 U
1200 U
120 U
310 U
280 U
Total PCBs:
220
40
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MKTALS (iii"-:l\")
Arsenic
0.39
5.9 (TEL freshwater)
7.24
13
14
12
13
12
13
12
14
14
Cadmium
7.0
0.596 (TEL freshwater)
0.68
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.8
2.1 J
2.2
Chromium
0.29
26 (LEL freshwater)
43.4
89
130
100
110
99
110
110
120
120
Lead
400
30.24 (TEL marine)
30.2
170
180
170
200
170
180
150
180
180
Mercury
1.0
0.13 (TEL marine)
0.13
0.66
1
0.57
1.1
0.75
0.81
0.58
1.1
0.7
Nickel
150
15.9 (TEL marine)
15.9
46
67
53
58
50
58
46
60
63
Silver
39
0.5 (LEL freshwater)
0.73
0.84 J
3.4 U
2.7 U
3.7 U
0.35 J
3.4 U
0.52 J
0.44 J
3.7 U
Notes:
(1) PCB sum screening value used as a surrogate
PCB = poly chlorinated biphenyls
RSL = Regional Screening Level
ND = not detected
NOAA = National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
SQuiRTs = Screening Quick Reference Tables
TEL = threshold effects level
LEL = lowest effect level
fig/kg = micrograms per kilogram
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
* = laboratory control sample/laboratory control duplicate sample exceeded control limits
Underlined analyte concentration exceeds NOAA SQuiRT value for Sediment (freshwater or marine, whichever is lowest)
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds lOx the November 2012 residential soil RSL value (CR= 10-6, HI=0.1)
Italicized analytical value exceeded EPA Region III Biological Technical Assistance Team (BTAG) ecological screening value. The lower of the freshwater and marine water benchmarks were used. Total chromium was used for chromium.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
FIGURES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.1
Site Location
Legend
Major Road
4—<- Railroad
] Site 10
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Paradise Creek Nature Park
Sherwin Williams
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Atlantic Wood Industries
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Property
Cradock Recreation Center
Landfill
Scott Center Annex Ball Fields
iXgst-mv-omgigisWe
-------
? ••** K^ '& '--S i l 1 #
Norfolk Naval Shipyard ^
wm^^m
Norfolk
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron andMetal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.2
Site Layout
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW01R Well Identification
Drainage
—i—<- Railroad
| | Building
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
J Peck Iron and Metal Site
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center Stud}' Area
Wetland
CBPA - Resource Protection Area
CBPA - Intensely Developed Area
CBPA - Regional Management Area
Notes:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
CBPA=Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-02)Site_Layout. mxd
6/13/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, NW1,
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
W
..v|
•»
' "¦?*—
1,1 W01 R"
'¦ *177.
Elm a
ff
Sherwin Williams
Clarifier-
Concrete
' r " '
H
Sfcr"£
-I - ? S "2 E Wliri. - ,-77 \ • r
I *£
01
-1" *-* =111
(a«
//C?£—jSMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
%
•V N*
v^.
"V"
•W#
Norfolk
F° Ik'Port,
J
• V* i
. i i' a.i
IggSS
Locker Rooms
Bath House V!
«
Garage
, Cradock
« Community
¦* ' " -"7 • "
! * 1 ^^58iW
N
Feet
Wheelabrator
rSE®$Tlm» L._JJ
S?s "*** *
¦¦itfl ¦ i
Figure 2.3
1937 to 2009
Historical Site Structures
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
L
Elm Avenue
environ menial mo
!—.—. Center Study Area
Historical Buildings and Structures (bv shape):
Aboveground Pipeline
—t—*- Railroad
| I Building, Aboveground Tank, Clarifier,
I 1 Building Foundation, or Heavy Equipment
ys-
JW""
Atlantic Wood
Industries
Notes:
B=Building
BF=Building Foundation
HE=Heavy Equipment
HT=Horizontal Tank(s)
TF=Tank Fami
VT=Vertical Tank(s)
! :'= i. t ^ -- ¦;
Last Known Year Feature Applies (by color):
1937
1947
1954
1958
1963
1970
1980
1990
1998
2009
Existing
Note:
Features outside of Peck Iron and Metal Site are shown in gray, regardless
of the last year for which the feature applies.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RlFS\
(2-03)Structures. mxd
6/13/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
-------
Elm a
ft* !==^S?±
I IX'MWOI R *Mwhl
ver>ue
i# ' TT
. «* I- if. ;
% m m"
I *
- 'i.H. •• •
I * - i '
< -. : .1 n? I 1 u1 Tri]1 T hin "rat far ''
<
31 s>
=
1
^r; I-I n I sftia'M v *
¦4H.4-:rn"tff" ;: * :v®i vp. v- -•»'
Norfolk
Naval Shipyard
<• \ v!*7i»1'
Norfolk P0rtSrn
m°u*h Belt i
^--Llne^ilroad
Iff
N
l»j|Wfr ?$fir
V'4-' lOlSV#^
11
Cu»
I
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.4
1937 to 1998
Solid Waste Management Areas
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
I—' Environmental Photographic Interpretation
—.—Center Stud}' Area
Historical Solid Waste Management Areas:
¦¦'''//. Solid Waste Area or Salvage Yard
Last Known Year Feature Applies
(by color and hatching):
1937
1947
1954
1958
1963
1970
1980
1990
1998
Note:
Features outside of Peck Iron and Metal Site are shown in gray, regardless
of the last year for which the feature applies.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-04)SWMAs. mxd
6/13/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
¦ .
S££l III i
m
uj
V- II ; • ' .^1
k |
Norfolk Navalv
Shipyard
V • *%. V«v IKLr,-/ "
_ i "i\ .v» •
p*. 0r*Sm°Wh8e,(
IMP.'? . * '
Elm Avenue
Atlantic Wood
Industries
Cradock
Community
N
¦Kfliffw >8e4 ^
era
r
—w
Notes:
Const Construction
font Container
DB=Debris
Der=Derelict
DG=Disturbed Ground
FA=FiIJ Area
OS Ground Scar
RB=Rubble
RRC=Railroad Car
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.5
1937 to 2009
Fill Areas, Debris Piles,
and Ground Scars
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
_ P Peck Iron and Metal Site
I — *—j Environmental Photographic Interpretation
L—J Center Study Area
Historical Fill Areas. Debris Piles, and Ground Scars
(by shape):
Linear Ground Scar
Brick Fill, Burn Pit, Circular Ground Scar,
Debris, Disturbed Ground, Fill Area,
| 1 Areal Ground Scar, Rubble, Smashed Slate,
I 1 Refuse Containers, Derelict Containers,
Derelict Storage Tanks, or Derelict Railroad
Cars
Last Known Year Feature Applies (bv color):
1937
1947
1954
1958
1963
1970
1980
1990
1998
2009
Note:
Features outside of Peck Iron and Metal Site are shown in gray, regardless
of the last year for which the feature applies.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-05)Fill^A re as. mxd
6/13/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
ffflrgz
' MW01R
«L
^ *£££*11$* 1
5 Nil • l -»•* *
A"!
y J * : ii
' :l x c-MiJ .*»'
/ twT"'
wsS^ii ' ! ' i¦ • 4
If r
38
L :• - IT- :•
.j »~>.*' u
'•' : 9 i
32
.
."3T, ¦
Sherwin
Williams
t /
Scott
Center
Annex
i
~ -•Ml
0
ARREFF
3
.. _lJ_CJu V r Norfolk Naval
Shipyard
' v..
tfcg&rtS/k.p
P tPOnS^8e((1
«te
"0
T I
W
1 1
I
i
MW05
¦RMs
Wheelabrator
tH£Eg r; ;w
t \
Elm Avenue __ ^
I *¦»«'
/
Atlantic Wood
"Industries
Wr
1'.
150 300
m
Feet
//C?£—jSMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.6
1937 to 2009
Surface Water Impoundments
and Drainages
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
.*—j Environmental Photographic Interpretation
—.—Center Study Area
Historical Liquid and Drainage features (bv shape):
> ~ Drainage Channel
Drainage Channel, Indeterminate Flow
~ Breach
———— Berm/Dike
Liquid / Impoundment
Last Known Year Feature Applies (bv color):
1937
1947
1954
1958
1963
1970
1980
• 1990
1998
2009
\lgst-siv-Omglgis^e<%\M®Bm'0>JUFS\
(2-06)Impoundments. mxd
6/13/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
-------
DTMM ElmAvenUe
LTMM
ir*f g
jL i
//C?£—jSMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
MWOlJ
» ¦
' I M
• 51
p*n u
LTMM
Sherwin
Williams
ii t 1 hi i
' f
mm
BlUfc I,
l™Q
I
- N~-
l BDIM
Norfolk
Naval
i Is'VK
LTMM
T
LTM
P mm
\r
w mi
LTM
-ST
DTMM
Burn Pit
MTMM
'• —
ARREFF
| Shipyard
ii . P ¦ ' *&£
V, i 0rfo//c porfcm„....
\-N°rfolk Port
mOW"8e,(u„(
1ST
IJ S T* » ¦ • ¦ ¥
ST
I2l
Ot-dtm
Mi
MW08—
;
Wheelabrator
K tT—* , * w
§ ~> * /.
-a
tsf
LTMM
-LTMM"
MW03-
' 3 tHmwio
jMtmr
Cradock
Community
N
i
A
*¦ ~ T1 * ¦
a* 5kf rffcfr
150 300
'
Feet
LTMM
IM
Elm Avenue
I Vv ^ "
Figure 2.7
1937 to 2009
Areas of Potential Releases
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
j _ j Peck Iron and Metal Site
Tax Parcel #
i*—; Environmental Photographic Interpretation
—»—Center Stud}' Area
Historical Areas of Potential Releases (bv shape):
Drum, Stain, Dark-toned Material,
| | Medium-toned Material, Light-toned
I 1 Material, Burn Pit, or Possible Underground
Storage Tank
±
Atlantic Wood
Industries
' sjjf LTM M ,
/
*8 a
-------
HGL—SMI'. Peek Iron and Metal RI/FS-City of Portsmouth, I.'l
¦W
11
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RlFS\
(2-08) USGS_Topo. mxd
3/1/2013 ST
Source: HGL,
USGS Quad Norfolk South,
Virginia 7.5 minute topographic map
v HGL
Legend
Peck Iron and
Metal Site
Notes:
USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle: Norfolk South, Virginia
1965, photorevised 1986.
Contour interval is 5 feet.
Figure 2.8
USGS
Topographic
Map
-------
HGL—SA'IP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS-City of Portsmouth, HI
Alor*,,,.
Brick
Warehouse
Sherwin
William's
Scott
Center
,nnex
Maintenance
..
vWheelabrator
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSl W\SMP_R1FS\
(2-09)Site_Soils. mxd
2/18/2013 ST
Source: HGL, NRCS,
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
~ ¦ iy Jrc-.GooLogic, Inc
Legend
Railroad
Building
Parcel
Peck Iron and
Metal Site
Altavista-Urban
land complex, 0 to 3 percent
Udorthents-Dumps complex
Urban land
Bohicket muck,
0 to 1 percent slopes,
very frequently flooded
Figure 2.9
Site Soils
-------
Elm a
venue
MW01 R
NP
Scott
Center
Annex
Norfolk
I
Feet
< Port;
S"">W
Lirie Railr
—-
m
Wheelabrator
Elm Avenue
antic Wood
Industries
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 2.10
Areas of Disturbed Soil
MW04
8.5
~
Legend
Existing Monitoring Well
Covered Monitoring Well
Well Identification
Thickness of Fill (feet)
Berm / Dike
Refusal Encountered in
Shallow Subsurface
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Area of Former
Liquid Impoundment
Historical Fill Area
Last Known Year for Fill Areas (by color):
1937
1947
1954
1970
1980
1990
Note:
NP=not provided
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SAdP_RIFS\
(2-10)Reworked_Soil. mxd
6/14/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, Darper Aden Associates,
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
East
West
Ele*/atia|p (Ft)
North
Elizabeth
River
Regular Stratigraphy
YORKTOWN EAST OWR AQUIFER
PORTSMOUTH
East
vt irocAi sour cac«iv rcwmmmifd
West
Vertical Exaggeration=15x
EXRANAHOM
AQURR
n CONFWWGUMI
| BEDROCK
UtfflECIlGN Of GROUNCWWAIER FLOW
10 2UWIOK rim
Exploded Stratigraphy
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis\Peck\_MSIW\SMPJUFS\
(2-11)A WI_Conceptual_GeologicJvlodel. cdr
2/22/2013 ST
Source: Figure 1-3 Conceptual Geologic Model (3D Oblique View), CDM,
2006. Final Feasibility Study for OUT2 Groudwater. Atlantic
Wood Indsutries, Inc. Superfund Site, Portsmouth, Virginia Sept.
13.
v HGL
Legend
~ Surface Fill
| | Upper Columbia Sands
Columbia Confining Unit
Lower Columbia Sands
Yorktown Confining Unit
Yorktown Aquifer
Note:
AWI=Atlantic Wood Industries
Figure 2.11
Conceptual Geologic Model
AWI
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Cross-Section Location
MW06*
MW04
MW09
MW10
?vaTI
- : ¦¦¦ -'-"v. ¦ ¦.
^ediurri^o-Rine^Sand;
•K^:-tGlayey^Sand>SM^#iWv
Jigsi'Siv-OmglgisiPeck\_MSimSMPjaFS^
GeolQgic_CrQss_Section*cdr
06/14/3013 GNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
"s*$ipRc>2$y'
v HGL
Boring
Screen Interval
MW10 Boring / Well Identification
Groundwater Elevation (ft amsl) (07/01/08)
Lithology Boundary (dashed where inferred)
Notes:
Vertical Datum is NGVD 1988.
ft amsl = feet above mean sea level
Inset Features:
Monitoring Well
Geologic Cross Section
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Figure 2.12
Site Shallow
Geologic Cross Section
Legend
Shallow Zone
Groundwater
Elevation (ft amsl)
Fill
Clayey Sand
1000
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1800
2000
-10
2100
Southwest
MW09
MW10
MW04
MW06
Northeast
Horizontal Scale in Feet
-------
¦61
Kl
m
2,h
' i?* a! '
Cradock
Community
£fil
N
i AWalflM
HHGG FF,EE DDCC BBAA
!?¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦«*¦¦¦
Iimi ¦¦¦¦¦¦gteMilBm
SWW® 1?©B® P®0E)Q, B«D 0
Feet
|
W
Norfolk Naval
Shipyard
WKeelabrator
:
Atlantic Wood
Industries
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.13
100 and 500 Year Flood Zones
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW04 Well Identification
| Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
nnV lronmeniai rno
Center Study Area
Building
100 Year Flood Zone
500 Year Flood Zone
Flood Zone Data Unavailable
Minimal Flood Risk
iXgst-mv-om%igisWe
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.14
Hurricane Flood Zones
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW-4 Well Identification
| Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center Study Area
Building
Hurricane Category Data Unavailable
Hurricane Category 1
(Storm Surge 4-5 ft)
Hurricane Category 2
(Storm Surge 6-8 ft)
Hurricane Category 3
(Storm Surge 9-12 ft)
Hurricane Category 4
(Storm Surge 13-18 ft)
lXsst-rnv-Om^lgisWe<^\JutSimSkIPJiIFS\
(2-14)Site_Drainage_Flood_Hazards. mxd
6/14/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
City of Portsmouth, VA GIS Department
v HGL
-*" HydroGeoLoqicr Inc.
-------
MW02
9.75
4.87
ARREFF
Center
Annex
MW04
11.58 >
jaq'
Wheelabrator
MW03
5*59
MW10
11.33
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
Atlantic Wood
Industries
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, ¥A
Figure 2.15
Shallow Groundwater
Potentiometric Surface
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW06 Monitoring Well Identification
6 9,; July 16, 1999 Groundwater Elevation
2008 Groundwater Elevation
_10_ 1999 Groundwater Elevation Contour (ft amsl)
(dashed where inferred, 0.5 ft contour interval)
2008 Groundwater Elevation Contour (ft amsl)
(dashed where inferred, 1 ft contour interval)
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Wetland
Notes:
The 1999 groundwater elevation data is based upon the assumption that the
MW06 top of casing has an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level.
Water levels measured on July 24, 2008.
MW06 and MW08 were not screened in the water table aquifer.
Vertical datum is NGVD 1988.
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
ft amsl=feet above mean sea level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW.SMP_RlFS\
(2-15)shallow_pot. mxd
6/14/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, Draper Aden Associates, Hatcher-Say er, Inc.
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
-*" HydroGeoLoqicr Inc.
-------
0
500
1,000
2,0(3
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron andMetal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
r-
i
i_.
! i
[IJ
Figure 2.16
Wetland Coverage
Legend
Railroad
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Site 10
Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center Study Area
Paradise Creek Nature Park
Sherwin Williams
Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc.
Atlantic Wood Industries
Norfolk Naval Shipyard Property
Cradock Recreation Center
Landfill
Notes:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands
Inventory branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
September 26, 2011.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-16) wetlands, mxd
3/5/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, NW1
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
Hydro Geologic, Inc.
-------
Analvte
C2A
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
8.01
Cadmium
14.3
Chroiniunn
108
Copper
2110
Lead
1990
Selenium
16.9
Analvte
E2
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result
Qual
pcbs (ne/ke)
Arodor 1260 | 22,100
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
8.22
Barium
250
Cadmium
28.4
Chromium
296
Copper
13.400
Lead
2.390
Mercury
2,16
Analvte
MW02
Normal
Jul-99
7.8-8.2
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Chromium I 8.36 \
Analvte
G3
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result I Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
4.3
Cadmium
2.93
Chromium
20.8
95.1
Lead
109
Mercury
0.133
Analvte
F1
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result I Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
14.8
Barium
1550
Cadmium
50.2
Chromium
766
Copper
3880
Lead
9950
Mercury
0.591
Analvte
F2B
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
13.2
Barium
139
Cadmium
2.72
Chromium
5740
501
Lead
7Q.Z
Mercury
0.165
Analvte
A2
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result I Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
2.75
Cadmium
318
Chromium
24.3
Copper
196
Lead
161
Selenium
3.74
MW01
Normal
Jul-99
11.2-11.7
Analvte
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Chromium
14.2\
MW06
Normal
Jul-99
11.2-11.7
Analvte
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Chromium
I Qual
B-2
Normal
Jul-99
9.0-9.5
Analvte
Result
Qual
PCBs (ng/kg)
Arodor 1260
2,620
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
2.3
Cadmium
1.07
Chromium
15.6
Copper
28.7
Lead
20.9
H3
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Analvte
Result I Qual
PCBs (ng/kg)
Aroclor 1254
38,000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
12.3
Barium
389
Cadmium
41.2
Chromium
160
4240
Lead
2560
Mercury
0.514
Analvte
G5
Analvte
G6
Normal
Normal
Jul-99
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
0.0-1.0
Result
Qual
Result
Qual
PCBs (ng/kg)
PCBs (Mg/kg)
Aroclor 1254 I 15,800
Aroclor 1254 I 129.000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
25.3
Arsenic
8.02
Barium
589
Barium
332
Cadmium
29.6
Cadmium
74
Chromium
206
Chromium
456
Copper
1210
Copper
27000
Lead
12800
Lead
7640
Mercury
0.194
Mercury
1.36
Analvte
C8
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Chromium
5.4
Lead
12.8
D8
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Analvte
Result
Qual
PCBs (Mg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
3,460
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
19
Barium
1270
Cadmium
20.2
Chromium
154
Copper
1090
Lead
3520
Mercury
13,1
Analvte
F8
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Result I Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
9.85
Barium
Z21
Cadmium
39.5
Chromium
452
Copper
3910
Lead
8930
Mercury
2*1Z
G7
Normal
Jul-99
0.0-1.0
Analvte
Result
Qual
PCBs (tig/kg)
Aroclor 1260
158.000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
11
Barium
723
Cadmium
66.6
Chromium
244
5460
Lead
5650
Mercury
0.127
Silver
5,1$.
B-4
Normal
Jul-99
9.1-9.6
Analvte
Result
Qual
VOCs(n*/kg)
Benzene
170
PCBs (ng/kg)
Aroclor 1260
127,000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Cadmium
3.53
Chromium
8.92
Copper
160
Lead
3380
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.17
1999 Site Inspection
Soil Results
~
B2A
~
AA
Legend
Existing Monitoring Well
Covered Monitoring Well
Surface Soil Sample
Soil Bormg
Sample Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot
Sample Grid
Grid Column x Row Identification
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Analyte
Nov 2012
EPA Res id
Soil RSLs
Nov 2012
S-GW Soil
Screening
Level
EPA
Ecological
Screening
Level
VOCs (fig/kg)
Benzene
1100 | 0.2 1 100
PCBs (fig/kg)
Aroclor 1254
110
CO
bo
100
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
TOTAL METALS (mg/k
?)
Arsenic
0.39
0.0013
18
Barium
1500
82
330
Cadmium
7
0.36
Chromium
0.29
0.00059
26
Copper
310
22
28
Lead
400
14
11
Me rcu ry
1.0
0.033
0.058
Selenium
39
0.26
0.52
Silver
39
0.6
4.2
Notes:
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Residential Soil
RSL value (CR=10-6; HI=0.1).
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds November 2012
Soil-to-Groundwater Soil Screening Level.
Underlined analyte concentration exceeds ecological screening level
(applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
RSL=Regional Screening Level
S-GW=Soil-to-Groundwater
|ig/kg=micrograms per kilogram
VOC=volatile organic compound
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RlFS\
(2-17)1999_Inspection_R esu lts_Soils. mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, Draper Aden Associates
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
. og c I
-------
MW01
Normal
Jul-99
Analvte
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (ufi/L)
Arsenic
15
Chromium
7.3
80
Dl SSOLVE D M ETALS (pg/L)
Arsenic
10
MW05
Normal
Jul-99
Analvte
Result
Qual
VOCs (|ig/i)
ci s-1,2- Di ch 1 oroeth en e
3.4
TOTAL METALS (ufi/L)
Arsenic
10
Cadmium
0.8
DISSOLVED METALS (ufi/L)
Cadmium
0.7|
Wheelabrator
Analyte
MWQ6
Normal
Jul-99
Result | Qual
Arsenic
20
Cadmium
0.7
DISSOLVED METALS (ufi/L)
Arsenic | lZl
Atlantic Wood
Industries
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.18
1999 Site Inspection
Groundwater Results
B-5
~
AA
Legend
Existing Monitoring Well
Covered Monitoring Well
Soil Boring
Sample Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot
Sample Grid
Grid Column x Row Identification
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Nov
2012 Tap
Water
Analyte
RSL
MCL
VOCs (ne/L)
Benzene
0.39
5
Chlorobenzene
7.2
100
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
0.42
75
cis-l,2-Dichloroethene
2.8
70
Ethylbenzene
1.3
700
Naphthalene
0.14
Trichloroethene
0.26
5
1,2,4-T rimethylbenzene
1.5
1,3,5-T ri methvl be nze n e
8.7
Vinyl Chloride
0.015
2
o-Xylene
19
PCBs (ng/L)
Aroclor 1254
0.031
0.5
Aroclor 1260
0.034
0.5
TOTAL METALS (ug/L)
Arsenic
0.045
10
Barium
290
2,000
Cadmium
0.69
5
Chromium
0.031
100
Copper
62
1,300
Lead
15
Mercury
0.063
2
DISSOLVED METALS (ng/L)
Arsenic
0.045
10
Cadmium
0.69
5
Copper
62
1,300
Notes:
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012 Tap Water
RSL value (CR=10"6;HHXt)
Underlined analyte concentration exceeds the MCL
(applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
RSL=Regional Screening Level
VOC=volatile organic compound
fj.g/L=micrograms per Liter
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SAdP_RlFS\
(2-18)1999_Inspection_R esu lts_G W mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, Draper Aden Associates
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
. og c, i
-------
ElmAvenue
Scott
Center
Annex
ARREFF
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, ¥A
Norfolk Naval
Shipyard
Norfolk
port
:smouth
Belt Lin
6 Bail,
r°ad
Wheelabrator
Elm Avenue
Figure 2.19
Paradise Creek
Benthic Community Study
Legend
B-iBl Station and Condition
¦ Severly Degraded
• Degraded
08P24 Station Location Identification
• Discharge Point
Drainage
J Peck Iron and Metal Site Boundary
Wetland
Notes:
B-IBI=Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
Atlantic Wood
Industries
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
\\Gst-*sr\T-01 \BGLGIS\Peck\Jil$IttntShlPJtIFS\
(2-19)Paradise_Creek_Benthic_Study. mxd
2/25/2013 ST
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
HydnoCieoLogiCi li
-------
Analyte
MW01
Normal
2003
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (pg/L)
Cadmium
4
Chromium
1.8
Analyte
MW06
Normal
2003
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (ng/L)
Cadmium
2.3
Chromium
1.4
Q)
3
v>
i
CD
13
C
CD
Wheelabrator
Analyte
MW05
Normal
2003
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (ng/L)
Cadmium
2.5
Chromium
1
/
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.20
2003 Site Characterization
Groundwater Results
*
MW05
~
AA
Legend
Existing Monitoring Well
Covered Monitoring Well
Sample Identification
Malcolm Pimie 50 foot x 50 foot
Sample Grid
Grid Column x Row Identification
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Analyte
Nov. 2012
Tap Water
RSL
MCL
TOTAL METALS (\xg
/L)
Cadmium
0.69
5
Chromium
0.031
100
Notes:
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012
tap water RSL value iC R 10 f'; III (II I
Underlined analyte concentration exceeds MCL
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
RSL=Regional Screening Level
|j.g/L=micrograms per Liter
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SAdP_RlFS\
(2-20)2003_Site_C har_R esults_G W. mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pimie, Draper Aden Associates
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
Analyte
6,04
Normal
Aug-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
41,700\
Analyte
5,04
Normal
Aufi-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
15.8QO\
Analyte
10,06
Normal
Aufi-03
0-0.5
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
1,520\
Analyte
9,05
Normal
Aufi-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
ZZM1
Analyte
H3W
Normal
Aug-03
0-0.5
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1260
2Z£ 1
Analyte
PC-3
Normal
Jul-99
0-0.5
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
44\ |
Analyte
6,02
Normal
Aug-03
0-0.5
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254 | 2,340\
Analyte
HA-10A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
2.200
Aroclor 1260
1.300
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
w
0
150
300
600
Feet
Analyte
HA-8A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
6.700
Aroclor 1260
2,800
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
736\
HA-6A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Analyte
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
246.000
Aroclor 1260
109,000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
2,710
Analyte
HA-3A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
55.6QO
Aroclor 1260
38,500
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead | 2.310
Analyte
HA-2A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
33.100
Aroclor 1260
11.5QO
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
23.4QO
Analyte
HA-2N
Normal
Sep-03
0.5-1 |
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
32,8001
Analyte
HA-2W
Normal
Sep-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
6,2901
Analyte
HA-2E
Normal
Sep-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
4,1301
Analyte
HA-2S
Normal
Sep-03
0.5-1
Result | Qual
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
5A2Q\
Analyte
HA-1A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
19,600
Aroclor 1260
10,900
TOTAL METALS (mfi/kfi)
Lead
Analyte
HA-5A
Normal
Jun-03
0.5-1
Result
Qual
PCBs (Hg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
44.100
Aroclor 1260
26,000
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead
14.500
Analyte
HA-5B
Normal
Jun-03
1-
1.5
Result
Qual
PCBs (pg/kg)
Aroclor 1254
36,600
Aroclor 1260
23,900
TOTAL METALS (mg/kg)
Lead | 3.430
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.21
2003 Site Characterization
Soil Results
A
9, 07
~
AA
Legend
DAA Sample
Hand Auger
Sample Identification
Malcolm Pimie 50 foot x 50 foot
Sample Grid
Grid Column or Row Identification
Dioxin Sampling Area
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Nov 2012
Nov 2012
EPAS-GW
EPA
Soil
EPA Ecological
Residential
Screening
Screening
Analyte
Soil RSLs
Level
Level
PCBs(ng/kg|
Aroclor 1254
110
CO
CO
100
Aroclor 1260
220
24
100
TOTAL METALS
mg/kg)
Lead
400
14
11
Notes:
Bold analyte concentration exceeds November 2012
Residential Soil RSL value (CR=10"d; III (U I
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds November 2012
Soil-to-Groundwater Soil Screening Level
Underline analyte concentration exceeds ecological screening level
(applied only to samples from top two feet of soil)
CR=cancer risk
DAA=Draper Aden Associates
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=Regional Screening Level
S-GW=soil-to-groundwater
jj.g/kg=micrograms per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SAdP_RlFS\
(2-21)2003_Site_Char_Results_Soils. mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pimie, Draper Aden Associates
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
. og c I
-------
C
0-0.5
0-0.5 (1)
Analyte
ft bgs
ft bgs
Total PCBs
345.9
257.4
Total PAH
15,327
11,359
MW04
•-•Bp:*4 ¦*:' '.-u ;,n-" t \,
11/ J> ¦
Analyte
H
0-0.5
ft bgs
Total PCBs
1,010
Total PAH
52,007
Analyte
J
0-0.5
ft bgs
Total PCBs
345.9
Total PAH
14,148
f ¦ // /
- as-
V
Wheelabrato;
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, Ei
Figure 2.22
2004 Paradise Creek
PCB - PAH Sampling Results
«
©
MW09
03860028
Legend
Sediment Sample
Existing Monitoring Well
Covered Monitoring Well
Discharge Point
Sample Identification
Drainage
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
Wetland
Analyte
Nov 2012
Residential
Soil RSL
Ecological
Screening
Level
Total PCBs
220
40
Total PAH
1,610(2)
Notes:
Concentrations are in jig/kg.
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds
November 2012 Residential Soil RSL(CR= 10"s; III O h
Italicized analyte concentration exceeds BTAG ecological screening level.
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
(1) duplicate
(2) lowest ecological screening value for freshwater and marine
sediments presented
BTAG=Biological Technical Assistance Group
CR=cancer risk
ft bgs=feet bgs
HI=hazard index
PCBs=polychlorinated biphenyls
PAH=polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
RSL=Regional Screening Level
ug/kg=microgram per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-22)2004_Paradise_Creek_Sampling.mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
HyrlroGf'fjLoq c, I
-------
100' RPA BuFrFR TO BE
PLANTED BY E R.P.
U.S. NAVAL RESERVATION
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16/17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 2.23
2005 Surface Soil (0-18 inches)
PCB Sampling Results
Legend
EXISTING
cmi
cmi
~
o
txi
-6-
f*
^MW-I
• G5
HA-10
~ 0,U
¦ 9,02
X
PC-2
BUILDING
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
CONCRETE *
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE CURB AMD GUTTER
CATCH BASINS/CURB INLET
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SANITARY SEWER CLEAN—OUT
WATER METER
VALVES
FIRE HTDRANT
POWER POLE
POWER POLE W/GUY WIRE
POWER POLE WITH LIGHT
OVERHEAD WIRES
FENCE
RAILROAD TRACKS
PCB CONCENTRATION Of <10 rng/kg
PCB CONCENTRATION >10 PPM BUT <100 mg/kg
PCB CONCENTRATION >100 mg/kg
100' RPA BUFFER
GROUNDWATER MON ITORING WELL
PREVIOUS SAMPLE LOCATIONS
(PERFORMED BY HATCHER-SAYER. INC, - 07/99)
HAND AUGER LOCATION (06/03)
DAA SAMPLE LOCATIONS (08/03)
DM SAMPl£ LOCATIONS FROM DRAINAGE DITCH (08/03)
DM SAMPLE LOCATIONS - IMUUNO ASSAY (08/03)
SOIL SAMPLE - PCBs (10/1/03)
DM SAMPLE LOCATIONS FROM STORM DRAW PIPE (10/20/03)
EPA SAMPLE (07/0-7/04)
SO* * SO' SAMPLING GRID
(FEB. - MAY 2005)
\ \gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-23)2005_PCB_Sampli ng_R esults. mxd
2/15/2013 ST
Source: HGL, 2005 Draper Aden Associates PCB Sampling Report (Sheet A-1)
~ HGL
37 !-| yi'l
-------
100' RPA BUFFER TO 0C
PLANTED BY E-R.P,
NOW OR FORMLKLY
UK?MCP®^ naval reservation
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16/17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3
7 38 39 40 41 42
GENERAL Slit DATA
TOTAL AREA: 3J. 22 ± Acres
USEABLE AREA: 25.33 ± Acres
EXISTING USE: Scrap Metal Yard
PROPOSED USE: AutornobBe Parts Recycling
EXISTING ZONING: M-2
PROPOSED PARKING: 271 ±
GENERAL PUN NOTES
All Landscaping and Buffering Shall be in accordance with City of Portsmouth Requirements.
Handicapped Parking to be in Accord with City of Portsmouth and ADA requirements.
Exact site layout and landscaping details to be determined at Site Plan stage
and approved by the City of Portsmouth.
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.24
2005 Shallow Subsurface Soil
(18-36 inches)
PCB Sampling Results
Legend
EZZD
~
o
©
-6-
0
ASPWN.T PAVtWEht
0-MW-!
• GS
HA-10
A 0,11
¦ 9,02
X
©
A PC-2
X
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE CUR9 AM) GUTTER
CATCH HASMS/CUR9 NLTT
5TOMM MANHOLE
SNflTASTY SEWER MANHOLE
$mtm S9*ER CLEAN-OUT
WATSR METER
VALVES
FK£ HYDRANT
POWtR POLL
POWER POLE W/GUY WIRE
POWER POLE WTH UCHT
OVERHEAD WKS
FENCE
RAJUWAD TRACKS
PCS CGNCOflWION Of <10 ma/kg
POT CONCENTRATION >10 PPM BUT <100 mg/ks
PCS CONCENTRATION >100 mg/kg
NOT ANALYZED
100* RPA BUFFER
CRCWNOWAIEH fcKJNncaSU WELL
PREVIOUS SAMPLE LOCATIONS
(PERFORMED BY HATCHER-SAYER.
HAND AUGER LOCATION (08/05)
DAA SAMPLE LOCATIONS (08/W)
MA SAMPLE LOCATIONS FROM DRAINAGE DfTCh (OS/as)
0M SAMPLE. L0GUKNS - MMUM3 ASSAY (00/05)
SML SAMPLE - PC8> (10/1/OS)
DM SAMPLE LOCATIONS FROM STORM DRAW PIPE (IO/28/I
ERA SAMPLE (07/07/04)
90" * 30* SAMPUNC GRID
(FTB. - MAY 2009)
NOTES
n
0-18* SAMPLE < 10PPM PCB;
M0 18"—3#" REQUIRED
R
SAMP1F REFUSED AT OR ABOVE
18; NO 18*-38" SAMPLE
C
CONCRETE SLAB
\ \gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RlFS\
(2-24)2005_PCB_Shallow_Subsu tface. mxd
2/26/2013 ST
Source: HGL, 2005 Draper Aden Associates PCB Sampling Report (Sheet B)
v HGL
-------
°'"hB°»UneRaill
'road
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
jo
120
240
480
Feet
80 X^HHGG FF EE DD CC BB AA Z\Y X, W^V? U T S^R
' ^ f
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.25A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
22
n
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
PCB Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
0.22-10
>10-25
>25-50
>50-100
>100
PCB Concentration. Site Wetland Sediments (mg/kg):
¦ 1.1-7.4
>7.4
Notes:
Site Soils
0.22 mgkg November 2012 Residential soil level
(Aroclor 1254 & 1260)(CR=10-6 )
>1.0 mg/kg=TSC A requires an appropriate cap
>10 mg/kg=TSCA requres removal (high occupancy)
>100 mg/kg=TSCA requires removal (low occupancy)
Site Wetlands
1.1 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
7.4 mgkg Industrial \o\ember 2012 RSL (CR=10 "5)
bgs=below ground surface
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
RSL=regional screening level
TSCA=Toxic Substance Control Act
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-25A)PCB_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
HydroGeot
-------
ffKilajWS
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.25B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Sanmle Decision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
PCB Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>0.10
PCB Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>0.0598
PCB Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments1
(mg/kg):
>0.04
Notes:
0.1 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 BTAG for total PCBs
0.04 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
0.0598 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
BTAG=Biological Technical Assistance Group
CR=cancer risk
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-25B)PCB_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
1°
120 240
48 ol
Feet
°U,hB°'«->neRaili
'road
I
' /
/
0m Avenue
; I
i«a
M
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.26
2008 PCB Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
PCB Concentration (mg/kg):
0.22-10
>10-25
>25-50
>50-100
>100
Notes:
0.22 mg/kg=November 2012 residential soil level
(Aroclor 1254 & 1260)(CR=10 "6)
>1.0 mg/kg=TSC A requires an appropriate cap
>10 mg/kg=TSCA requres removal (high occupancy)
>100 mg/kg=TSCA requires removal (low occupancy)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
CR=cancer risk
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
TSCA=Toxic Substance Control Act
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-26)PCB_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
HydroGi?oi
-------
South
Center
Annex
Wheelabrator
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.27A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
0
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
A10 Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Arsenic Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
0.39-1.6
>1.6-160
>160
Arsenic Concentration. Site Wetland Sediments (mg/kg):
3.9-16
>16
Notes:
Site Soils
0.39 mg/lcg=Residential November 2012 RSL (CR=10"6)
1.6 mg/kg=Industrial November 2012 RSL |CR=10"6)
160 mg/kg=100x Industrial November 2012 RSL
Site Wetlands
3.9 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSL (CR=10 5)
16 mg/kg=Industrial November 2012 RSL (CR=10 5)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
CR=cancer risk
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-27A)As_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
"• m1 ^
• ' MM r * ; $ L vn\ *'•# *
l0uth Belt Lin(:
* K, ¦&
jo
120
240
48 ol
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.27B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
0
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pimie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Arsenic Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>18
Arsenic Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>9.8
Arsenic Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments1
(mg/kg):
>7.24
Notes:
18 mg/kg=EPA Eco-SSL (Plant)
9.8 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
7.24 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-27B)As_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pimie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
I
if
Vw?^
ortsrn
0lJth Belt Liri(.
Baiti
To ad
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
1/
Lt/ f
i0
120
240
48 oj
Feet
I PMcM Bg/1
HGL SK4P, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I.'l
Figure 2.28
2008 Arsenic Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Arsenic Concentration (mg/kg):
0.39-1.6
>1.6-16
>16-160
>160
Notes;
0.39 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSL (CR = 10"*")
1.6 mg/kg=Jiidiistrial November 2012 RSL (CR = 10 "6 )
16 mg/kg=10x Industrial November 2012 RSL
160 mg/kg=100x Industrial November 2012 RSL
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
CR=cancer risk
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-28)As_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
riydroG^oLog c, Inc
-------
sailsMm
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.29A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Cadmium Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
~
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
A10 Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Cadmium Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
7-80
>80
Cadmium Concentration. Site Wetland Sediments
(mg/kg):
70-800
Notes:
Site Soils
7 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted for HI=0.1)
80 mg/kg=Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted for HI=0.1)
Site Wetlands
70 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSI (HI=1.0)
800 mg/kg=Industrial November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-29A)C d_Surf_HHS. rwcd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.29B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Cadmium Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
~
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Cadmium Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>0.36
Cadmium Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>0.99
Cadmium Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments1
(mg/kg):
>0.68
Notes:
0.36 mg/kg=EPA Eco-SSL
0.99 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
0.68 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-29B)C d_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
-------
p
120
240
48 ol
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.30
2008 Cadmium Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Cadmium Concentration (mg/kg):
7-80
>80
Notes:
7 mg/kg=Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted for HI=0.1)
80 mg/kg=Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted for HI=0.1)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-30)Cd_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
HydroG^oLog ]c, Inc
-------
N°rfolk pn.
tsm°uth Beit
Une ^S
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.31 A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Chromium
Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Chromium Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>0.29-5.6
>5.6-560
>560-12,000
>12,000
Chromium Concentration. Site Wetland Sediments
(mg/kg):
2.9-56
>56
Notes:
Site Soils
0.29 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Residential November 2012 RSL
5.6 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
(CR = 10"6)
560 mg/kg=100x Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
12,000 mg/kg=Trivalent Chromium Residential November 2012 RSL
(adjusted for HI=0.1)
Site Wetlands
2.9 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Residential November 2012 RSL
(adjusted for CR=10"5)
56 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
(adjusted for CR=10"5)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-31A)Cr_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
V
HGL
HydraGeolog c, Inc
-------
r
N°rfolk \
South
Center
Annex
ortsn
0lJth Belt ijne
Baiti
'road
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.3 IB
Ecological Screening Result
2008 Chromium
Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Chromium Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>26
Chromium Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>43.4
Chromium Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland '
Sediments (mg/kg):
>43.4
Notes:
26 mg/kg=EPA Eco-SSL Avian (total chromium)
43.4 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-31B)Cr_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
ou">s« |8H
Wheelabrator
South
Center
Annex
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.32
2008 Chromium
Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
0
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Chromium Concentration (mg/kg):
>0.29-5.6
>5.6-56
>56-560
>560-12,000
>12,000
Notes:
0.29 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Residential November 2012 RSL
5.6 mg/kg=Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
(CR = 10-6)
56 mg/kg=10x Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
560 mg/kg=100x Hexavalent Chromium Industrial November 2012 RSL
12,000 mg/kg=Trivalent Chromium Residential November 2012 RSL
(adjusted for HI=0.1)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-32)Cr_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
e Hroad
IKJ I. XI//'. Peck Iron and Metal RJ 'FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.33A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Lead Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Sarnnle Derision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Lead Concentration (mg/kg):
>400-800
>800-8,000
>8,000
Notes:
400 mg/kg=Lead Residential November 2012 RSL
800 mg/kg=Lead Industrial November 2012 RSL
8,000 mg/kg=10x Lead Industrial November 2012 RSL
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-3 3A)Pb_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
South
Center
Annex
~N°rfolki
ortsm,
1°
120 240
480
Feet
Ra§i
'road
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
,}
IKJ I. XI//'. Peck Iron and Metal RJ 'FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.33B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Lead Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
mo Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Lead Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>11
Lead Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>35.8
Lead Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments'
(mg/kg):
>30.2
Notes:
11 mg/kg=EPA Eco-SSL
30.2 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
35.8 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-33B)Pb_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
ou">e« ISH
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
gBfJeBdMcMb!
Feet
Liujun
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.34
2008 Lead Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Lead Concentration fmg/kg):
>400-800
>800-8,000
>8,000
Notes:
400 mg/kg=Lead Residential November 2012 RSL
800 mg/kg=Lead Industrial November 2012 RSL
8,000 mg/kg=10x Lead Industrial November 2012 RSL
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-34)Pb_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
-------
0lJth fie/f Lini
Wheelabrator
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.35A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
0
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
A10 Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Mercury Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
1.0-4.3
>4.3-43
>43
Notes:
Site Soils
1.0 mg/kg=Elemental Mercury Residential November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
4.3 mg/kg=Elemental Mercury Industrial November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
43 mg/kg=10x Elemental Mercury Industrial November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
Site Wetlands
10 mg/kg=Elemental Mercury Residential November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
43 mg/kg=Elemental mercury Industrial November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
bgs=below ground surface
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-3 5A)Hg_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
South
Center
Annex
ElniAver
°U,hB°'«->neRaili
'road
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 2.35B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
H
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
* S>ni1 Slnrrmlp Dpricirm
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Mercury Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>0.058
Arsenic Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>0.18
Mercury Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments1
(mg/kg):
>0.13
Notes:
0.058 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 BTAG (site soils only)
0.13 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
0.18 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
BTAG=Biological Technical Assistance Group
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-35B)Hg_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
ou">e« ISH
araaise
Western Landfill
i°
120 240
480
Feet
J I H G F E I
IeBdMcJbi
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.36
2008 Mercury Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Mercury Concentration (mg/kg):
1.0-4.3
>4.3-43
>43
Notes:
1.0 mg/kg=Elemental Mercury Residential November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
4.3 mg/kg=Elemental Mercury Industrial November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
43 mg/kg=10x Elemental Mercury Industrial November 2012 RSL
(adjusted HI=0.1)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-36)Hg_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
N°rfolk \
ortsm,
0lJth Belt Liri(.
Raiti
'road
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 2.37A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Samnio. Decision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Nickel Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
150-2,000
>2,000-20,000
>20,000
Nickel Concentration. Site Wetland Sediments (mg/kg):
¦ 1,500-20,000
>20.000
Notes:
Site Soils
150 mg/kg=Nickel Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
2,000 mg/kg=Nickel Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI = 0.1)
20,000 mg/kg=10x Nickel Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
Site Wetlands
1,500 mg/kg=Nickel Residential November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
20,000 mg/kg=Nickel Industrial November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
bgs=below ground surface
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-3 7A)Ni_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
. og c I
-------
¦ml
N°rfolk \
ortsm,
5a!
foaci
Wheelabrator
0m Avenue
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 2.37B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Samnio. Decision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Nickel Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>38
Nickel Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>22.7
Nickel Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments 1
(mg/kg):
>15.9
Notes:
38 mg/kg=EPA Eco-SSL(plants)
15.9 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
22.7 mg/kg= EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-37B)Ni_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
sailsMm
Wheelabrator
UlUWt
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.38
2008 Nickel Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
0
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Nickel Concentration (mg/kg):
150-2,000
>2.000
Notes:
150 mg/kg=Nickel Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
2,000 mg/kg=Nickel Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI = 0.1)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-38)Ni_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
nap
ou">e« ISH
//C?£—jSMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.39A
Human Health Screening Results
2008 Silver Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
ED
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Silver Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>39
Notes:
Site Soils
39 mg/kg=Silver Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
Site Wetlands
390 mg/kg=Silver Residential November 2012 RSL (HI=1.0)
bgs=below ground surface
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-39A)Ag_Surf_HHS. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
0l"hB Wm
Wheelabrator
1°
120
240
480
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.39B
Ecological Screening Results
2008 Silver Concentrations in Soils
(0 to 18 inches bgs)
ED
A10
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Wetland
I 22 Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Silver Concentration. Site Soils (mg/kg):
>4.2
Silver Concentration. Site Freshwater Wetland
Sediments (mg/kg):
>1.0
Silver Concentration. Site Tidal Wetland Sediments1
(mg/kg):
>0.73
Notes:
4.2 mg/kg=EPAEco-SSL(avian)
0.73 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Marine Sediment Benchmark
1.0 mg/kg=EPA Region 3 Freshwater Sediment Benchmark
(1) Tidal wetlands data screened against lower of the EPA Region 3
Freshwater and Marine Sediment Benchmarks.
bgs=below ground surface
Eco-SSL=ecological soil screening level
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-39B)Ag_Surf_Eco. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
l0lJth Belt Ljne
Wheelabrator
r
120
240
480
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 2.40
2008 Silver Concentrations in Soils
(18 inches bgs to Water Table)
~
A10
22
Legend
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
and PCB Concentration (mg/kg)
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decision Unit
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Silver Concentration (mg/kg):
>39-510
>510
Notes:
39 mg/kg=Silver Residential November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
510 mg/kg=Silver Industrial November 2012 RSL (adjusted HI=0.1)
bgs=below ground surface
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
HI=hazard index
RSL=regional screening level
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-40)Ag_Sub. mxd
6/17/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
I
MW01R
8-Jul
8-Jul
Analyte
Result
Qual
Dup
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (jig/L)
Arsenic
9.5
J
11
Chromium
1.4
J
10
U
Lead
3.7
JB
5
U
Nickel
8.8
J
6.5
DISSOLVED METALS (jig/L)
Arsenic
10
9.8
Nickel
8.1
J
7.6
J
i 1
-
4g
MW02
8-Jul
Analyte
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Nickel
800
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Nickel
730
MW07
8-Jul
Analyte
Result
Qual
PCB HOMOLOGIJES (ug/L)
T richlorobiph enyl
0.007
J
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
28
Chromium
21
Lead
50
B
Mercury
0.24
Nickel
30
J
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Chromium
2A
J
Nickel
9.1
J
03
3
(/)
t
CD
D
C
CD
Norfoik
MW10
8-Jul
Analjte
Result
Qual
PCB HOMOLOGIJES (ug/L)
Trichlorobiphenyl
0.014
J
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Lead
12
B
Mercury
0.1
J
Nickel
2
J
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
3
J
Nickel
2.7
J
j *.<
i
f
0
120
240
480
Feet
fort
SrnOutt,
BeltUn(
Rail,
road
Wheelabrator
0 m Avenue
l^||
MW09
8-Jul
Analyte
Res ult
Qual
PCB HOMOLOGIJES (jug/L)
Monochlorobiphenyl
0.0084
J
Dichlo robiphenyl
0.17
T richlo robiphenyl
0.016
J
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
69
J
Chromium
L8
J
Lead
6.9
B
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
6
J
Lead
2.6
J
Analyte
MW04
8-Jul
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
20
Lead
2.7
JB
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
21
Chromium
2.6
J
Nickel
2.2
J
MW05
8-Jul
Analyte
Result
Qual
TOTAL METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
22
Lead
4
JB
Nickel
6.8
J
DISSOLVED METALS (jug/L)
Arsenic
11
Nickel
7.9
J
S3
/ ,
<2?
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.41
2008 Groundwater Contaminant
Concentrations
MW08
— 4 —
Legend
Monitoring Well
Well Identification
2008 Groundwater Elevation Contour (ft amsl)
(dashed where inferred, 1 ft contour interval)
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Analyte
Tap
Water
RSL
MCL
VAGW
EPA
Region
m
BTAG
PCB HOMOLOGIJES (jug/L)
Monochlorobiphenyl
0.5
»
7E-05
Dichlo robiphenyl
0.5
»
7E-05
Trichlorobiphenyl
0.5
-
7E-05
TOTAL METALS (ug/L)
Arsenic
0.045
10
50
5
Chromium
0.031
100
50
1.5
Lead
-
15
50
2.5
Mercury
0.063
2
0.05
0.016
Nickel
30
-
-
8.2
DISSOLVED METALS (ug/L)
Arsenic
0.045
10
50
5
Chromium
0.031
100
50
1.5
Lead
-
15
50
2.5
Mercury
0.063
2
0.05
0.016
Nickel
30
--
--
8.2
Notes:
Underlined analvte concentration exceeds November 2012 tap water
RSLvalue iCR 10 ' ; III 0 1k
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds MCL.
Italicized analytical value exceeded VA GW.
Shaded analytical value exceeded EPA Region III BTAG ecological
screening value. The lower of the freshwater and marine water benchmarks
were used. Total chromium was used for chromium.
B=Constituent was detected in the method blank and sample
BTAG=Biological Technical Assistance Group
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
J=Constituent detected at a concentration above the method detection limit
(MDL) but below the limit of quantitation, concentrations are estimated.
MCL=Maximum Contaminant Level
RSL=Regional Screening Level
U=Constituent was not detected
VAGW=Virginia Groundwater Screening Level
}ig/L=micrograms per liter
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RJFS\
(2-41 )GW_Contaminants. mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
HGL
. og c I
-------
Analytes
SD-19-0
Result
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
16
Chromium
220
3
Analytes
SD-6-0
Result
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
17
Chromium
320
Nickel
190
Analytes
SD-9-0
Result
PCB HOMOLOGUES (Mg/kg)
Heptachlorobi phenyl
330 U
Hexachlorobi phenyl
220 U
Total PCBs:
ND
METALS (mg/kg)
Mercury
1.1
¦
SD-13-0
Analytes
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
»
Analytes
SD-12-0
Result
METALS (mg/kg)
Mercury | 1.1
.In US
SD-18-0
Analytes
Result
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
Analytes
SD-20-0
Result
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
21
Chromium
1,100
Mercury
1.8
Nickel
540
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, lc4
Figure 2.42
2008 Paradise Creek Sediment Sample
Residential Soil RSL Exceedances
SD-1
Legend
Sediment Sample
Discharge Point
Sample Location Identification
Drainage
Peck Iron and Metal Site Boundary
Malcolm Pirnie Sediment Sample Grid
Analytes
Residential
Soil RSL
BTAG
Region in
PCB HOMOLOGUES (pg/kg)
Heptach lo ro b ip h eny 1
110
40(1)
Hexach lo ro b iph eny 1
110
40(1)
METALS (mg/kg)
Arsenic
0.39
7.24
Chromium
0.29
43.4
Lead
400
30.2
Mercury
1
0.13
Nickel
150
15.9
Notes:
Bolded analyte concentration exceeds lOx the November 2012 residential
soil RSL Value iCR Id'. Ill I). I i.
Italicized analytical value exceeded EPA Region III BTAG
ecological screening value. The lower of the freshwater and
marine water benchmarks were used. Total chromium was used
for chromium.
(1) PCB sum screening value used as a surrogate
BTAG=Biological Technical Assistance Group
CR=cancer risk
HI=hazard index
mg/kg=milligrams per kilogram
PCB=polychlorinated biphenyl
RSL=Regional Screening Level
jig/kg=micrograms per kilogram
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-42)Sediment_Tags. mxd
6/19/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
—
-------
Primary
Source
Primary Release
Mechanism
Secondary
Source
Secondary
Release
Mechanism
Pathway
Exposure
Route
Rece
plors
Industrial
Worker
V
u
e »
11
|3
2
Construction
Worker
Recreational
User
Agriculture
Resident
Volatile
Emissions
Vapor Intrusion into
Buildings and Outdoor Air
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal
•
m
m
m
Infil ration/
Percolalion
Ingestion
o
Q
O
m
0
Groundwater
Subsurface soil to Groundwater
Inhalation
•
m
m
m
•
Dermal
•
m
m
•
m
•
Contaminated
Soil
Ingestion
m
o
0
Direct Contact with Soil
Inhalation
m
m
•
o
o
Dermal
m
•
•
io
0
Infiltration/
Percolalion
Surface Water
Irrigation
Surface soil to Groundwater
to Surface water as irrigation
Ingestion
Figure 2.43
Generic Pathway
Receptor-Network
Diagram for Human Health
Risk Assessment
Legend
Anticipated to be a Complete
Pathway
Not Anticipated to be a Complete
Pathway
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(2-43)OSRTIJig3. mxd
3/5/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Figure 3 ofOSRTI,2012
v HGL
— Hy-JraGcoLog-c, Inc.
-------
HYDRODYNAMICS & SEDIMENT DYNAMICS
BIOLOGICAL TRANSPORT & FATE
Paradise Creek
Inlwudal Root
Tributary lotw
Regional Groundwater Discharge
Figure 2.44
Schematic Representation of
Potential Ecological
Exposure Pathways
\ \gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSI W\SMP_RIFS\
(2-44)OSRTIJig4. mxd
2/25/2013 ST
Source: HGL, Figure 4 ofOSRTI,2012
v HGL
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron andMetal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, VA
Figure 2.45
Potential Future Site Uses
Legend
Possible Alternative Route
for Jordan Bridge (Skeo, 2012)
Railroad
Possible Industrial and
Commercial Use (Skeo, 2012)
Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act Boundary
Wetland
Parcel
Tax Parcel #
J Peck Iron and Metal Site
Note:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW.SMP_RlFS\
(2-45)Prop_Site_Reuse. rwcd
3/5/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, Paradise Creek Industrial Corridor Concept Plan, NW1
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
—^ HydroGeoLc
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
PART 1: FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
3.0 SAMPLING PROGRAM, RATIONALE, AND LOCATIONS
This FSP (Sections 3 and 4), together with the project QAPP (Sections 5 through 8), has been
developed to describe the sampling program for addressing data gaps identified in the existing
Site dataset. The following subsections detail the field investigation activities that will be
conducted and the samples to be collected for laboratory analysis. The collection and
submittal of quality assurance (QA)/QC samples including blind duplicates, trip blanks,
equipment blanks, field blanks, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) is not
discussed below. QA/QC sampling will be conducted at rates specified in Section 6.4.
3.1 UTILITY CLEARANCE
In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Title 56 Section 2165.17A, a contractor must notify
the state notification center (herein referred to as Miss Utility) prior to any excavation or
demolition. Utility clearance activities will be performed on all RI subsurface intrusive
sampling locations. Intrusive sampling is defined by the Commonwealth as any subsurface
disturbance, including sampling locations where soil disturbance is on the order of inches
below ground surface. A private utility-locating subcontractor will be required to mark
subsurface utilities around all subsurface soil sampling locations on private properties.
Utilities clearances at the site will be completed by Miss Utility personnel and a private utility-
locating subcontractor after MD avoidance (surface visual inspection) activities have been
completed.
3.2 SITE SOIL INVESTIGATION
Historical Site operations have resulted in contamination of Site soils, sediment, and
groundwater that could potentially pose a risk to human and ecological receptors. As
discussed in Section 2.8, data gaps in the Site's soil CSM have been identified. These data
gaps need to be addressed in order to assess the nature and extent of contamination at the Site,
surrounding properties, and within Paradise Creek; evaluate the potential risks to human and
ecological receptors; and assess possible remedial actions for Site reuse. The following RI
tasks are included under the investigation:
• MD avoidance;
• Surface soil sampling;
• Subsurface soil sampling;
• Hot spot investigation;
• Off-site contaminant delineation; and
• Background soil sampling.
3.2.1 Munitions Avoidance
Numerous surface and subsurface investigations have been conducted on the Site; the presence
of MD was identified only during the 2008 extent of contamination sampling event (Malcolm
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Pirnie, 2008). The 2008 report did not identify the location or placement of the encountered
MD. However, photographs of the MD in the report indicate the MD was scattered on the
surface and mixed with surrounding debris. Due to the documented presence of MD at the
Site, MD avoidance must be implemented for the safety of field crews, subcontractors,
authorized visitors, and trespassers.
MD was most likely received at the Site as scrap metal; therefore, MD avoidance practices
will be implemented where scrap metal was stored and stockpiled on the Site. Historical aerial
photographs (EPA, 2010a) show all undeveloped portions of the Site, save the wetlands
bordering Paradise Creek, were utilized for scrap metal storage or were modified with the
emplacement of berms, mounds of soil and debris (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). A 1970 aerial
photograph (EPA, 2010a) shows scrap metal debris stored on the Sherwin Williams property
(tax parcel 03860027) north and south of the existing building. During the 2012 EPA site
visit, the Sherwin Williams property was observed to be developed with manicured grounds
and paved surfaces. No evidence of former scrap metal storage was observed on the Sherwin
Williams property during the 2012 site visit.
Previous intrusive soil sampling at the Site identified fill material beneath the entire property,
ranging in thickness between 2 and 9.5 feet. The fill material was characterized as being
primarily orange to black sands that contained scrap metal, wood, debris, glass, plastic, and
slag. Historical aerial photographs of the Site indicate the Site soils have been reworked
(EPA, 2010a). The reworking of the Site soils may have resulted in the burial of MD beneath
the Site. Consequently, MD avoidance activities will be put into place where fill material
beneath the Site is encountered.
MD avoidance practices will be conducted in accordance with HGL SOP 15.12, Munitions and
Explosives of Concern Anomaly Avoidance Support as modified by site-specific actions detailed
in Section 4.5. A copy of HGL's SOP 15.12 is included in Appendix B. MD avoidance
activities will consist of an MD surface soil inspection and subsurface geophysical surveying.
The MD surface soil inspection will consist of a visual surface inspection over the
undeveloped portions of the Site and Sherwin Williams property. MD observed at the Site
will be visually inspected, photographed and its location surveyed using a handheld global
positioning system (GPS) unit. Potential MD items identified in the field will not be
disturbed, collected, stored or removed from the Site. The locations of all potential MD will
be visually marked using stakes, pin flags, or equivalent methods and located on a site map for
reference during health and safety tailgate meetings. All MD and potential munitions and
explosives of concern (MEC) locations will be avoided by field and subcontractor field crews
during future field activities.
If MD is identified on the surface of the Site during RI field tasks, the location will be flagged
and a 5- or 20-foot clearance perimeter, depending upon the type of MD observed, placed
around the item. Visual inspection of the MD will be very limited; therefore, a conservative
approach will be undertaken regarding implementation of safety perimeters around all
observed MD. For small caliber shell casings, a 5 foot perimeter will be installed around the
item. For large caliber casings or MD that are either of unknown origin or may be considered
dangerous by the trained UXO technicians, a 20 foot perimeter will be set around the item.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Because of the potential for MD within the fill material underlying the Site, all intrusive soil
sampling locations, including locations less than 0.5 feet deep, will require subsurface MD
clearance. MD downhole avoidance activities are anticipated for the following onsite RI tasks:
• Subsurface soil sampling;
• Hotspot investigation;
• Offsite soil sampling (Sherwin Williams property only); and
• Monitoring well installations.
MD subsurface clearance activities will consist of two trained unexploded ordnance (UXO)
technicians scanning each subsurface intrusive sampling location for magnetic and
magnetically susceptible materials with a Schonstedt handheld wand or downhole geophysical
survey instrument. Downhole geophysical surveying will be conducted incrementally during
the advancement of all subsurface soil sampling locations to the bottom of the fill material.
Incremental readings will be typically conducted every two feet starting at ground surface.
3.2.2 Preliminary Gamma Radiation Survey
Based upon historical site activities, the Site received scrap metal waste from the Navy.
Nuclear powered aircraft carrier and submarine maintenance activities have been conducted at
NNSY since the Navy's nuclear program began. The NNSY Southgate Annex has been
identified by the Navy as the shipyard's long term radioactive material storage area (ATSDR,
2003); however, because the Site received scrap metal from the Navy, a preliminary
radioactive survey of the Site needs to be conducted to verify the absence of radiologically
contaminated material. The preliminary radioactive survey will be conducted after the MD
surface visual survey and before any on-site soil sampling tasks.
The form of materials most likely associated with the radiological waste streams include metal
cruds, deposits of nuclear reactor corrosion products removed during the servicing of nuclear
ships; activated metal components; and possibly nuclear gauges; sources; or related radioactive
materials. Depending on the source material, radiological contaminants could include cobalt
60 (Co-60), nickel 59 (Ni-59), nickel 63 (Ni-63), cesium 137 (Cs-137), strontium 90 (Sr-90),
traces of plutonium isotopes, carbon 14 (C-14), and other radionuclides. At the Site,
radionuclide COPCs are expected to be bound to metals or entrained in the metal matrix in the
case of activation products such as C-14. The metal components would contain the
radioactivity and restrict release and transport of radionuclides. Thus, radiological
contaminants would be expected to be observed in relatively localized areas.
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation (MARSSIM) manual (Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, 2000) is the U.S. federal government interagency guidance to
conducting radiological surveys and making decisions based on the survey results. During the
planning phase of a MARSSIM survey, initial steps include the review and evaluation of data
inputs, such as Historical Site Assessment, scoping characterization survey, and remedial
action support survey. No radiological surveys have been conducted at the Site; therefore, a
preliminary gamma radiation survey, per MARSSIM, is necessary to determine whether
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
radiological contaminants exist in the Site media. MARSSIM provides a flexible, statistically
based approach to characterize radiological contamination. It sub-divides site areas into class
1, 2, or 3 based on knowledge of current or prior radiological operations that indicate
contamination in excess of "release criteria." MARSSIM Class 1 receives the highest level of
scrutiny and investigative effort; Class 1 areas receive a 100 percent surface coverage gamma
walkover survey and the highest density sampling and analysis effort. Class 2 areas receive 10
to 100 percent survey coverage and a lower sampling density. Class 3 areas have the lowest
potential impact from operations and receive limited investigative effort on a case by case
basis.
Each radionuclide described above does not emit gamma radiation, although several do. Some
radionuclides emit alpha, beta, gamma radiation or more than one type of radiation
simultaneously. Alpha and beta radiation are easily attenuated by soil or objects and have
limited range in air. The detection of alpha or beta radiation requires labor intensive survey
methods which are generally performed only to release materials from sites known to contain
radioactive materials. For these reasons, site walkover surveys generally measure gamma
radiation. Gamma ray detectors do not detect other types of radiation, but should detect
radiological COPCs from ship reactor crud or metal components.
Gamma ray field measurements are relative. The primary objective of the survey is to locate
areas containing elevated gamma radiation. The survey must include a background reference
area to measure the gamma ray signal coming from natural radioactivity in the soils or
sediments. The background reference area represents the native lithology and physical
characteristics of the survey area. For this gamma radiation survey, the background area
selected is the Cradock Recreational Center (Figure 3.1). Elevated radiation measurements
are defined by background data and site data, and may be described in terms of background
(e.g., two times background).
The proposed preliminary survey for the Site will consist of a field gamma survey that
provides partial coverage and gamma spectrometry tests from survey areas identified as
elevated gamma radiation. As described for MARSSIM Class 2, partial coverage field
surveys are allowable. The survey will be conducted by a field team consisting of two
surveyors and a data logger. Each surveyor will carry a 2-inch by 2-inch sodium iodide
scintillating detector connected to a count rate meter and GPS unit. The use of the GPS-lined
gamma ray measurements at one measurement per second is an efficient means of data
collection and provides superior location information.
A gamma radiation map indicating areas of elevated gamma radiation will be produced after
the initial survey walkover is completed. As part of the preliminary survey, surface samples
will be collected at flagged locations of elevated survey measurements and shipped to an EPA-
selected radiochemistry laboratory for gamma spectrometry analysis (ASTM International
Method CI402-04). Up to 15 soil samples, designated RAD1 through RAD 15, will be
collected for laboratory analysis if gamma anomalies are detected. Because the need for the
gamma spectrometry soil samples is unknown, these samples have not been included on any
analytical summary table or figure in this SMP.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.2.3 Surface Soil Sampling
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives for addressing several
of the data gaps presented in Section 2.8.
• Characterize the soil in the top 0.5 feet of soil underlying the Site in regards to
multiple potential analytes of concern. The analytes of concern are SVOCs,
pesticides, PCBs (Aroclors and total PCBs), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals,
mercury, cyanide, asbestos, explosives, and PCDD/PCDF;
• Determine whether hexavalent chromium is present in the Site surface soils;
• Determine if radioactive isotopes including Strontium 90 are present in the Site
surface soils; and
• Provide validated analytical data of sufficient quality for use in evaluating potential
risk to human and ecological receptors.
Discrete surface soil sampling will be conducted at the Site based on historical sampling data
and 2014 gamma spectroscopy/isotope identification scanning results (AVESI, 2014a). In
2008, Malcolm Pirine collected 550 soil samples as part of the Extent of Contamination
investigation (Malcolm Pirnie, 2008). This 2008 investigation provided a significant amount
of soil analytical data; however, the data was obtained from overly large vertical soil intervals:
• 0 to 18 inches bgs; and
• 18 inches bgs to the bottom of the fill material, or from 18 inches bgs to the
soil/water table interface if fill material was not encountered.
Although the soil data from the top 18 inches of soil could be utilized for ecological risk
assesments; typically, the data from the top 2 feet of soil is needed. For human health risk
screening, soil analytical data is needed from the top 0.5 foot of soil; so the data from the top
18 inches (i.e. 1.5 feet of soil) is inappropriate for assessing risk. Surface soil samples from
55 of the 2008 Malcolm Pirnie sample locations (10 percent) will be collected and analyzed.
The 2008 Malcolm Pirnie soil samples were collected from 50-foot by 50-foot sampling grids.
The Malcolm Pirnie grids designated for verification sampling (Figure 3.2A) were randomly
selected utilizing the random number generator within the Microsoft Excel program from the
following lead concentration ranges:
• Nondetect to 100 mg/kg,
• 100 mg/kg to 1,000 mg/kg,
• 1,000 mg/kg to 10,000 mg/kg, and
• Greater than 10,000 mg/kg.
All 55 surface soil samples will be submitted for Target Compound List (TCL) SVOCs, TCL
pesticides/PCBs (Aroclors), Total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, and soil
pH. At least one to three TOC samples per surface soil type observed at the Site, not to
exceed 35 samples, will also be collected.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
As shown in Figures 2.25 through Figures 2.39, not all of the known site contaminants have
the same distribution pattern as lead. Several of the 55 selected Malcolm Pirnie sample
locations were evaluated in order to assess high concentrations of hexavalent chromium,
PCDD/PCDF, explosives and asbestos. Sampling grids located in areas containing high to
moderate chromium concentrations in the upper 18 inch interval were selected for hexavalent
chromium speciation analyses. A total of 16 of the 55 Malcolm Pirnie sample locations have
been selected for hexavalent chromium analysis (Table 3.1). Sampling grids also were
selected from areas containing high to moderate PCB concentrations and areas where the site
owner had burned copper cables. As specified in Table 3.1, a total of 8 of the 55 Malcolm
Pirnie sampling locations have been selected for PCDD/PCDF sampling. Samples will be
analyzed for explosives from locations throughout the Site, targeting areas of known debris
deposition as well as the one Malcolm Pirnie grid location, U13, where UXO debris was
identified during the December 2013 UXO surface avoidance survey. A total of 12 of the 55
Malcolm Pirnie sample locations have been selected for explosive sampling. VOC analysis
will not be performed on the surface soil samples because the volatility of VOCs and the age
of any Site releases would minimize VOC concentrations. Up to 40 percent (i.e. up to 22
samples) of the 55 Malcolm Pirnie locations selected for resampling will be submitted for
asbestos, explosives, and hexavalent chromium analyses. Samples from up to 10 of the 55
Malcolm Pirnie locations will also be submitted for PCDD/PCDF analyzes.
Twelve additional surface soil samples plus quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples
will be collected for gamma spectroscopy and Strontium 90 analysis. The samples selected for
gamma spectroscopy/Strontium 90 analysis will be based on the results of the previous gamma
radiation scanning survey and isotope identification survey. Of the 12 soil sample locations
selected, 7 will correspond to previously sampled locations where the daughter products of
Radium 226, Bismuth 214 and Lead 214, were positively identified. These 7 locations
(SU1-04, SU1-07, SU2-02, SU2-08, SU3-02, SU3-05, and SU5-08) will be resampled for
gamma spectroscopy and Strontium 90. The gamma spectroscopy re-analysis is recommended
due to the heterogeneity of the Site soils in order to confirm the initial laboratory result as well
as provide gamma spectroscopy results associated with the Strontium 90 result. The
remaining 5 sample locations will be associated with previously identified gamma radiation
anomalies that have not been sampled before.. Specifically, these anomalies were at locations
SU2-04, SU3-01, SU3-03, SU3-04, and SU5-02.
3.2.4 On-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives for addressing several
of the general and soil CSM data gaps presented in Section 2.8:
• Characterize the soil quality of the soils underlying the Site and in contact with
groundwater in regards to multiple potential analytes of concern including VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs (Aroclors and Total PCBs), TAL metals, mercury,
cyanide, asbestos, explosives, and PCDD/PCDF of a quality sufficient for the
calculation of potential risks to human and ecological receptors;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Vertically delineate contaminant concentrations beneath the Site to obtain
contaminated soil volumes for use in selecting appropriate remedial measures;
• Determine whether hexavalent chromium is present in the Site's subsurface soils; and
• Provide validated analytical data of sufficient quality for use in evaluating potential
risk to human and ecological receptors.
The on-site subsurface soil investigation will be conducted by completing two test pits in 25 of
the 26 DUs. Test pits will be excavated to allow for subsurface MD geophysical surveying
and inspection to be conducted. Proposed test pit locations are depicted on Figure 3.2B.
Table 3.2 summarizes the test pit locations with respect to the Malcolm Pirnie 50-foot by 50-
foot sampling grid and the reasoning for selection of the test pit's location. Test pits will not
be excavated on the Sherwin Williams property (DU25) because excavation would damage a
large area of the property's pavement and landscaped areas. Rather, two soil borings will be
completed in DU25 in lieu of the Onsite Subsurface Soil test pits as part of the Offsite Soil
Investigation task (Section 3.2.6).
An excavator or backhoe with the capability to a reach a maximum depth of 16 feet bgs will be
utilized to complete this investigation. The MD surface soil visual inspection will be
completed prior to initiating the subsurface investigation. Each test pit will be scanned with a
Schonstedt magnetometer to confirm the lack of magnetically susceptible debris within the top
2 feet of soil. Upon UXO clearance, the backhoe/excavator bucket will be advanced into the
subsurface in 1 to 2-foot lifts. The sidewalls and floor of the test pits will be visually
inspected by trained UXO technicians continuously during test pit advancement. After each
lift, trained UXO technicians will place a downhole magnetometer (or equivalent) along the
individual test pit sidewalls and floor. If magnetic or magnetically susceptible debris is
present, the test pit location will be abandoned and re-located within 5 feet of its initial
location. This process will occur until 5 attempts are made or until the bottom of the test pit
has been advanced below the fill material and a minimum of 8 feet bgs have been achieved.
If, after 5 attempts, the test pit cannot be completed, the test pit location will be abandoned
since any re-location of the test pit will be outside of the 15-foot utility cleared area.
All excavated soils will be visually inspected, lithologically characterized, and field screened
with a photoionization detector (PID) and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or
equivalent). The presence and composition of the fill material will be noted along with any
indication of contamination including but not limited to the presence of fluids, soil staining,
and unusual odors. Soil samples will be collected from the following intervals for laboratory
analysis:
• 0.5 to 2 feet bgs;
• 2 to 4 feet bgs;
• 4 to 8 feet bgs; and
• 8 to 12 feet bgs if fill material is encountered deeper than 8 feet bgs in the test pit.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3 summarizes the sampling scheme for the on-site subsurface soil investigation. The
collected samples will be analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs
(Aroclors), total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, and soil pH. Up to 75 of
the subsurface soil samples, taken across all four sampling intervals, will be submitted for
TOC analysis. Up to 75 of the subsurface soil samples, taken primarily from the 0.5 to 2 feet
and 2 to 4 feet bgs interval will be submitted for hexavalent chromium speciation. Thirty-six
of the soil samples will be submitted for asbestos and explosive analyses. Fifteen subsurface
soil samples will be submitted for PCDD/PCDF. Approximately 25 percent of the soil
samples from the 0- to 2-foot bgs soil interval will be collected and analyzed for grain size.
The grain size soil samples will be collected from each soil type encountered at the Site. Up
to 30 percent of the soil samples will be submitted for gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90
analyses. Samples submitted for gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90 analyses will be
selected from soil intervals exhibiting gamma radiation at concentrations 2 times greater than
the Site-specific background value of 10,999 counts per minute (cpm).
Soils excavated from each test pit will be placed on plastic and stockpiled by the depth of the
lift. Plastic sheeting will be placed over the excavated soil pile if the stock piled soil is not
placed immediately back into the test pit upon completion. The excavated soils will be
backfilled into the test pit in the reverse order; deeper soils will be placed at depth and surface
soils will be placed at the surface. Soil compaction will be conducted by the excavator (or
equivalent) bucket head after every 2 feet. Due to the potential presence of unauthorized
visitors, no test pits will be allowed to stand open overnight. Remaining excavated soils that
will not fit back into the test pit as well as decontamination water will be drummed for
sampling and off-site disposal. The soil and water IDW will be disposed of as discussed in the
IDW Management Plan (Section 10).
3.2.5 Hot Spot Assessment
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives to address several of the
data gaps presented in Section 2.8:
• Characterize the soil quality of the soils adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity
of former Site locations where releases of contaminants could have occurred based on
former site activities. Areas being investigated include a former liquid clarifier,
multiple drum and tank storage areas, a potential UST associated with the
maintenance building, several solid waste disposal units, a former garage, and two
former surface water impoundments.
• Vertically delineate contaminant concentrations at these potential contaminant source
areas to determine contaminated soil volumes for use in selecting appropriate
remedial measures.
• Determine whether hexavalent chromium is present in the Site's soils as a result of
these source areas.
• Provide validated analytical data of sufficient quality for use in evaluating potential
risk to human and ecological receptors.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-8
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Soil and groundwater sampling of drum storage areas and soil staining in 1999 (H-S, 1999)
identified VOCs, PCBs, metals, and DRO in the soils and groundwater. As presented in
Figures 2.3 through 2.7 and discussed in the first bullet above, historical site activities may
have resulted in contaminant releases to the surrounding media. To adequately characterize
the nature and extent of contamination at the Site due to historical waste management
practices, an investigation into these potential source areas is required.
A total of 23 hot spot test pits/borings will be completed on Site:
• Twelve of the hot spot locations (HS01 through HS06 and HS08 through HS13) will
be investigated as test pits utilizing an excavator or backhoe. It should be noted that
hot spot location HS12 may be located within tidal wetlands. If the sample location is
determined to be within the tidal wetlands, the location will be assessed for
backhoe/excavator access. If HS12 can be reached with a backhoe/excavator without
damaging the wetlands, the location will be sampled with the backhoe/excavator. If
HS12 cannot be reached with the backhoe/excavator without driving through the
wetlands, HS12 will be completed with a hand auger, or similar equipment, in the
same manner as location HS07.
• Hot spot location HS07 will be completed with a hand auger, or similar equipment, to
minimize disturbance to the surrounding wetlands.
• Hot spot locations HS14 through HS23 are co-located with proposed monitoring wells
MW11, MW13, MW14, MW15, MW17, MW18, MW19, MW20, MW22, and
MW23 and will be sampled during well borehole advancement during the well
installation process.
• One temporary well, HSTW01, will be installed within or adjacent to the footprint of
the former garage.
Proposed hot spot sampling locations for surface soils are depicted on Figure 3.2A. Proposed
hot spot sampling locations for subsurface soils are depicted on Figure 3.2B. Table 3.4
summarizes the hot spot locations and justification for the selected locations.
Test pit advancement and sampling depths for laboratory analysis will be the same as
described above under the on-site subsurface soil investigation task. Soil borings completed
with a drill rig or hand auqer will be advanced into the subsurface in 1 to 2-foot lifts. After
each lift, trained UXO technicians will place a downhole magnetometer (or equivalent) along
the individual test pit sidewalls and floor. If magnetic or magnetically susceptible debris is
present, the borehole will be abandoned and re-located within 5 feet of its initial location.
This process will occur until 5 attempts are made or until the bottom of the borehole has been
advanced to a depth below the fill material and a minimum of 8 feet bgs have been achieved.
If, after 5 attempts, the borehole cannot be completed, the borehole will be abandoned since
any re-location of the test pit will be outside of the 15-foot utility cleared area.
All excavated soils from the boreholes will be visually inspected, lithologically characterized,
and field screened with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-9
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
equivalent). The presence and composition of the fill material will be noted along with any
indication of contamination including but not limited to the presence of fluids, soil staining,
and unusual odors. Soil samples will be collected from the following intervals for laboratory
analysis:
• Surface to 0.5 feet bgs (for hot spot sample locations HS01 through HS13 only);
• 0.5 to 2 feet bgs;
• 2 to 4 feet bgs;
• 4 to 8 feet bgs; and
• 8 to 12 feet bgs if fill material is encountered deeper than 8 feet bgs in the test pit.
The temporary well HSTW01 will be installed using a direct-push technology (DPT) drill rig
fitted with a 2-inch diameter macrocore sampler or solid stem auger. Standard MD downhole
geophysical surveying activities will be conducted during advancement of the soil boring. No
soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis. HSTW01 will be composed of a 10-
foot-long pre-pack well screen (i.e., two 5-foot-long pre-pack well screens flush jointed
together) and riser pipe. The pre-pack well screen will be composed of two 5-foot-long,
0.010-slotted well screens wrapped with wire mesh. The annular space between the well
screens and the wire mesh will be filled with clean silica sand sized appropriately for the
surrounding lithology. Upon collection of the groundwater sample, the pre-pack well will be
removed and the borehole properly abandoned.
Table 3.5 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for the Hot Spot Assessment task. The
collected samples will be analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs
(Aroclors), total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, and soil pH. Up to 16 of
the hot spot subsurface soil samples, taken across all four sampling intervals will be submitted
for TOC analysis. Up to 16 of the hot spot subsurface soil samples, taken primarily from the
0.5 to 2 feet and 2 to 4 feet bgs interval will be submitted for hexavalent chromium speciation.
Collection of hexavalent chromium samples will occur in areas identified in the 2008 extent of
contamination data (Malcolm Pirnie, 2008) as having high chromium concentrations. Fifteen
subsurface soil samples will be submitted for PCDD/PCDF. Several of the locations selected
for dioxin sampling (HS04, HS05, and HS09) are located in areas identified by the Site owner
has potentially used for burning of copper wires (DAA, 2003b). Asbestos and explosive
samples will be collected on a per boring basis if potentially asbestos containing materials or
MD are identified on the surface or within the soil boring. Approximately 25 percent of the
soil samples collected from the 0- to 2-foot bgs soil interval will be collected and analyzed for
grain size. The grain size soil samples will be collected from every soil type encountered at
the Site.
Up to 30 percent of the soil samples will be submitted for gamma spectrometry and Strontium
90 analyses. Samples submitted for gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90 analyses will be
selected from soil intervals expressing gamma radiation at concentrations 2 times greater than
the Site specific background value of 10,999 cpm.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-10
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.2.6 Off-Site Soil Investigation
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives for addressing several
of the data gaps presented in Section 2.8 by:
• Characterize the surface and subsurface soil quality at locations on offsite properties
but adjacent to and within the immediate vicinity of the Site in order to determine if
of-site migration of contaminants is occurring (i.e., migration of contaminants from
off-site onto the Site and from the Site to off-site properties).
• Provide validated analytical data of sufficient quality for use in evaluating potential
risk to human and ecological receptors.
Previous investigations conducted at the Site did not address the possible migration of
contaminants from the Site to off-site properties or from off-site properties to the Site. This
investigation task has been included to address this data gap.
For this investigation task, 47 soil borings will be completed as follows (Figure 3.2B):
• Borings ODOl though OD21 will be completed along the Site's/ARREFF property
boundary;
• Borings OD22 through OD37 will be completed along the Site's/Wheelabrator
property boundary; and
• Borings OD38 and OD39 will be completed on the Sherwin Williams property
boundary.
The off-site soil borings will be equally spaced along the length of each shared property
boundary. Two soil borings will be completed on the Sherwin Williams property because
scrap metal and waste management activities occurred in the northern, eastern, and southern
portions of the Sherwin Williams property and the Sherwin Williams building currently
occupies the majority of the former impacted areas (EPA, 2010a). The off-site soil borings
will be completed utilizing a DTP drill rig (or equivalent). If rig access is not feasible, the
soil borings will be completed to refusal or to the bottom of the borehole, whichever occurs
first, with a hand auger. Soil sampling will be conducted continuously during borehole
advancement for lithologic characterization, visual inspection, and field screening. The off-
site soil samples will be collected from the following intervals for laboratory analysis:
• 0 to 0.5 feet bgs;
• 0.5 to 2 feet bgs;
• 2 to 4 feet bgs;
• 4 to 8 feet bgs; and
• 8 to 12 feet bgs if fill material is encountered deeper than 8 feet bgs in the borehole.
The soil samples will be submitted to EPA selected laboratories and analyzed for TCL VOCs,
TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide,
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-11
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
and soil pH. Soil samples collected from the 0 to 0.5 foot bgs soil interval will not be
analyzed for TCL VOCs. The 0 to 0.5 foot bgs and the 0.5 to 2 feet bgs soil intervals for the
off-site soil borings completed on the ARREFF property (ODOl through OD21) will be
sampled for gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. These sampling intervals have been
selected since the primary contaminant migration pathways of concern across the Site's
property boundaries are wind-blown dust depositing contaminants on the surface soils and
sediment transport resulting from overland surface water flow from precipitation events and
Site flooding. The relief along the ARREFF/Site property boundary is sufficiently low to
allow surface water runoff generated on the Site to discharge to ARREFF. The 0.5 to 2 foot
bgs sample has been included in the analytical sampling scheme because sediment deposition
and sediment reworking due to flooding may have resulted in the burial of contaminated
sediments.
Off-site soil sampling for dioxins, hexavalent chromium, and explosives will only be
conducted if these analytes are detected in Site soils including ICS surface soil samples, on-site
subsurface soil samples, and hot spot soil samples. If samples of these analytes are collected,
up to 20 percent of the soil samples will be submitted for dioxin analysis. Explosive and
hexavalent chromium samples would be collected from up to 25 percent of the off-site soil
investigation samples. If collected for laboratory analysis, the samples submitted for dioxin,
explosives, and/or hexavalent chromium will be collected primarily from the 0 to 0.5 foot and
the 0.5 to 2 feet bgs. As with the gamma radiation samples, these sampling intervals have
been selected since the primary contaminant migration pathways of concern across the Site's
property boundaries are wind-blown dust depositing contaminants on the surface soils and
sediment transport due to overland surface water flow from precipitation events and Site
flooding. The 0.5 to 2 foot bgs sample has been included in the analytical sampling scheme
because sediment deposition and sediment reworking due to flooding may have resulted in the
burial of contaminated sediments. Approximately 25 percent of the soil samples from the 0- to
2-foot bgs soil interval will be collected and analyzed for grain size. The grain size soil
samples will be collected from each soil type encountered at the Site. Table 3.6 presents the
analytical sampling scheme for the off-site soil sampling task.
All soil cuttings and decontamination water generated during the Site investigations will be
drummed and stored on site as IDW. The soil and water IDW will be disposed of as discussed
in the IDW Management Plan (Section 10).
3.2.7 Background Soil Sampling
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives for addressing several
of the data gaps presented in Section 2.8 by:
• Obtain background metal soil concentrations for determining natural background
metal concentrations to be used in determining potential risks posed by Site
contaminants to human health and ecological receptors.
• Obtain natural gamma radiation measurements to determine the presence or absence
of radiation-contaminated materials.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-12
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Background data will be collected from the Cradock Recreational Center (Figure 3.1). The
background area was selected for the following reasons:
• The soils mapped at the Cradock Recreational Center includes the same soil type that
occurs at the Site.
• The Cradock Recreational Center is in close proximity to the Site and should yield
similar subsurface stratigraph and soil lithologic compositions. Samples from this area
should also help in assessing regional contaminant concentrations originating from
non-site-related sources.
• Historical aerial photograph analysis indicated the Cradock Recreational Center was
not utilized or impacted from potential sources of contamination including, but not
limited to, areas of buried fill, former drum storage units, and former buildings.
Background surface soil samples will be collected from eight locations. Background
subsurface soil samples will be collected from four soil borings. Four of the eight surface soil
sample locations are co-located with the four soil borings. Proposed background sampling
locations are shown on Figure 3.1.
Background soil sampling activities will be conducted in the same manner as the onsite soil
investigations. Discrete surface soil samples will be collected from the surface to 0.5 feet bgs.
The background surface soil samples will be submitted for TCL SVOCs, TCL
Pesticides/PCBs, TAL Metals, mercury, cyanide, soil pH, TOC, grain size, gamma
spectrometry and Strontium 90. In addition, the background surface soil samples will also be
analyzed for PCDD/PCDF, hexavalent chromium, explosives, and asbestos if these analytes
are detected in the Site soils,
The background soil borings will be completed in the same manner as the on-site subsurface
Soil investigation, except that a DPT rig or equivalent will be utilized to complete the borings.
The soil borings will be completed to 12 feet bgs to correspond to the maximum anticipated on
site investigation depth for this RI. Soil samples will be collected continuously during
borehole advancement for lithologic characterization, visual observations, and field screening
with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent). MD avoidance
activities will not be required for this investigation. Soil samples will be collected from the
following soil intervals for laboratory analysis:
• 0.5 to 2 feet bgs;
• 2 to 4 feet bgs;
• 4 to 8 feet bgs; and
• 8 to 12 feet bgs.
The background subsurface soil samples will be analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL
pesticides/PCBs, TAL metals, mercury, cyanide, soil pH, and TOC. Subsurface soil samples
collected from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs, from 2 to 4 feet bgs, and from 8 to 12 feet bgs will also be
submitted for gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. These three sampling intervals were
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-13
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
selected for background radiation sampling in order to assess natural and regional
anthropogenic radiation impacts. The two shallowest subsurface soil intervals were selected
for sampling in order to determine isotope concentrations in the near surface while the deepest
samples were selected to assess potential isotope concentrations from native soils. In addition,
approximately 20 percent of the subsurface soil samples will also be analyzed for
PCDD/PCDF, hexavalent chromium, explosives, and asbestos if detected in the Site soils.
Table 3.7 presents the analytical sampling scheme for the background soil investigation.
Upon completion of each borehole and soil sampling activities, bentonite will be placed into
the boring to a depth of one foot bgs. The bentonite chips will be hydrated for 15 minutes
before completing borehole abandonment. The remaining one foot of annular space will be
backfilled with like surface material.
All soil cuttings and decontamination water generated during the Site investigations will be
drummed and stored on site as IDW. The soil and water IDW will be disposed of as discussed
in the IDW Management Plan (Section 10).
3.3 SITE DRAINAGE SAMPLING
Limited sampling of the western drainage system was conducted during the 2003 Site
Characterization investigation (DAA, 2003b) and the 2008 extent of contamination study
(Malcolm Pirnie, 2008). No analytical sampling data has been obtained from the northwestern
drainage channel. In the EPA's optimization report (OSRTI, 2012) the following data gaps
associated with the Site drainages were identified:
• Potential impacts to the western drainage ditch surface water and sediment quality
from the upstream Sherwin Williams facility are unknown.
• Upstream sediment and surface water contributions to the western drainage ditch are
not adequately characterized.
• Confirmation of the direction of surface water flow within the northwestern drainage
ditch is necessary.
• The source and fate of water within the northwestern drainage ditch needs to be
determined as well as any buried Site sewer lines, drain tiles, or other structures that
may drain into this ditch.
• The water and sediment quality within a catch basin adjacent to the brick warehouse
is unknown.
This Site Drainage Sampling investigation has been devised to address these data gaps. The
investigation consists of sediment and surface water sampling of the western and northwestern
drainage system. In addition, utility maps, if available, will be reviewed to determine the fate
of water within the northwestern drainage system.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.3.1 Sediment Sampling
Sediment samples will be collected from both the western drainage system and northwestern
drainage channel. Sediment sample locations WDSD01 through WDSD04 will be located
along the western drainage system's channel and one location, WDSD05, will be located at the
western drainage system's outlet. Although sediment samples have been collected within the
immediate vicinity of the outfall during previous sampling event, the outfall will be sampled
during this event to assess sediment concentrations recently discharged to Paradise Creek.
Sediment sample locations NASD01 and NASD02 will be located within concrete-lined
northwestern drainage system. North of NASD02, the northwestern drainage system is
capped with a concrete cover. It is unknown whether the physical structure of northwestern
drainage ditch observed south of proposed location NASD02 changes to a buried drainage pipe
or remains the same with a concrete cover. Sediment sample location NASD03 is located
within the catch basin adjacent to the northwestern corner of the brick warehouse. Although
currently unknown, it is assumed that the catch basin is connected to or was at one time
connected to the northwestern drainage system. During one of the RI field events, a utility
locator will be utilized to determine if the catch basin and northwestern drainage system are
connected. During the two site visits, no access port to the drainage system north of sample
location NASD02 was observed. If an access port is identified or if the northwestern drainage
system discharges to an open drainage ditch, a fourth sediment sample, NASD04, will be
collected and analyzed. If more than one access port exists, then up to two sediment samples
(one sample in addition to NASD04) will be collected from the covered portion of the
northwestern drainage system. The locations of the sediment sample locations are depicted on
Figure 3.3.
Sediment samples will be collected from 0 to 0.5 feet bgs and from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs at each
location using a multi-stage sludge sampler, hand auger, or similar piece of equipment. The
collection and analysis of sediment samples from both intervals will evaluate contaminant
concentrations currently migrating through the drainage channel and contaminant
concentrations that have been deposited over time. In addition, the sampling intervals will
yield analytical data useful in evaluating potential risks to human and ecological receptors.
During sample collection, the collected sediment will be visually inspected, field screened with
a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent), and lithologically
characterized. A field instrument will be utilized to measure the sediment sample oxidation
reduction potential (ORP).
Table 3.8 summarizes the analyses to be performed on the Site drainage sediment samples.
The samples will be submitted to an EPA-selected laboratory and analyzed for TCL VOCs,
TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide,
soil pH, gamma spectrometry, and Strontium 90. The 0 to 0.5 foot soil interval will not be
analyzed for TCL VOCs. Two sediment samples, one from WDSD03 (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) and
one from WDSD05 (0 to 0.5 feet bgs) will be submitted for PCB congener analysis at the
request of VDEQ. In addition, if sediment sample NASD04 is collected, the 0- to 0.5-foot
sediment sample interval will be analyzed for PCB congener analysis by EPA Method 1668.
Approximately half of the drainage sediment samples will be analyzed for TOC. Up to half of
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-15
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
the samples will also be analyzed for PCDD/PCDF, hexavalent chromium, explosives, and
asbestos. Approximately 25 percent of the sediment samples collected from the 0- to 2-foot
bgs interval will be submitted for grain size analysis.
3.3.2 Surface Water
Surface water samples will be collected and analyzed to assess contaminant concentrations
within the surface water that is migrating offsite. The analytical data will also be utilized to
assess potential risks to human and ecological receptors.
Surface water samples will be collected from the same locations (or immediate vicinity) as the
Site drainage sediment sample locations (Figure 3.3). The surface water samples will be
collected if surface water is present during the field investigation. If necessary, a dry surface
water sample location will be revisited immediately after a rain event in order to collect
surface water samples. If the identified surface water sample is dry even immediately after a
rain event, the sampling location will be relocated for sampling. Small pools of surface water
that are not contained within a drainage system will not be sampled.
The samples will be collected utilizing hand dipping techniques if the drainage is accessible
and shallow or utilizing a remote sampling devise such as a dipper or discrete water sampler if
access to the drainage channel is a health and safety concern and/or the surface water body is
deeper than one foot. Water quality parameters including temperature, pH, conductivity,
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and ORP will be collected from each surface water sample
location. In addition, surface water samples will be field screened with a gamma radiation
detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent).
During the surface water sampling event, an inspection of the Site drainages will be conducted
to determine the presence or absence of seeps. An inspection of the Site/Wheelabrator and
Site/Scott Center Annex property boundaries will also be conducted for the presence of seeps.
If seeps are observed, a sample of the water discharging from the seeps will be conducted. Up
to six seeps will be sampled. The presence of the seeps will indicate if groundwater is
discharging directly to the wetlands and yield groundwater analytical data at a discharge point.
Table 3.9 summarizes the analyses to be performed on the Site Drainage surface water and
seep samples. The collected samples will be submitted to an EPA-selected laboratory and
analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals
including mercury and cyanide, hardness, gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. If surface
water turbidity is greater than 10 NTUs, then the TAL metals (including mercury) sample will
be field filtered prior to collection. Two surface water samples, one from WDSW03 and
WDSW05 will be submitted for PCB congener analysis at the request of VDEQ. If surface
water sample NASSW04 is collected from the northwestern drainage system, the sample will
also be analyzed for PCB congener analysis by EPA Method 1668. Up to 50 percent of the
samples will also be analyzed for PCDD/PCDF, hexavalent chromium, and explosives.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-16
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.3.3 Utility Search
As part of the Site drainage sampling investigation, public utility maps, if available, will be
reviewed to determine the source and fate of the northwestern drainage channel. Additionally,
information as to the source of the water within the drainage channel will be requested from
ARREFF. If the northwestern drainage channel is determined to flow into a storm sewer, an
inspection of the utility maps will be conducted to determine if an access point exists on the
line downline of the Site but upline of other stormwater contributing properties. If an access
point does exist, the line will be visually inspected for the presence of surface water and
sediment. Samples of each media will be collected if present using remote sampling
equipment (i.e., NASD04/NASW04). No field personnel will access the storm sewer. The
samples collected will be analyzed for the same parameters as the Site drainage sediment and
surface water samples (Tables 3.8 and 3.9).
3.4 SITE WETLAND INVESTIGATION
Under Clean Water Act Section 404, wetlands are defined as:
"Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface of groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."
The Site wetlands, for this investigation, consist of all wetlands located on the Site or that lie
immediately between the Site and Paradise Creek. According to the NWI database, freshwater
forested/scrub wetlands are present along the eastern property boundary shared between the
Site and ARREFF. Estuarine and marine wetlands have been identified in the NWI database
along the north and south slopes of Paradise Creek. This investigation has been developed to
address the following data gaps associated with the Site wetlands and adjacent wetlands:
• The presence, aerial distribution, and type of wetlands on Site needs to be
determined.
• COPCs/COPECs in the Site wetland's surface water and sediment needs to be
determined to assess potential risks to human health and ecological receptors.
• Method 1668 analysis of PCB congeners in wetland surface water and sediment is
required in order to assess Site impacts on Paradise Creek and estimate the Site's
contribution to the PCB TDML currently being developed by the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
• The subsurface soil quality beneath the wetlands needs to be assessed since historical
Site activities may have resulted in the burial of Site COPCs/COPECs.
• The groundwater/wetland interaction needs to be determined to assess potential
groundwater COPC/COPEC migration pathways.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-17
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.4.1 Wetland Delineation
The presence of wetlands on the Site will guide the assessment of risks to local receptors, the
development of cleanup goals, the selection of cleanup remedies, and future reuse of the Site.
Wetland delineation and classification will therefore be conducted on the Site and the
Site/ARREFF eastern property boundary in accordance with methods described in the 1987
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987), the
USACE Atlantic and Gulf Coast Supplemental guidance document (USACE, 2010), and the
Commonwealth's Wetland Management Handbook (Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
1993). In addition, the presence of surface water or evidence of surface water and ecological
receptors observed during the delineation will be noted.
3.4.2 Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling of the wetlands bounded between the Site and Paradise Creek will be
conducted to ascertain the sediment quality discharging from the Site and accumulating within
the wetlands. The sediment quality will be utilized in assessing potential risks to human and
ecological receptors. Additionally, the sediment data will be utilized to determine if PCB
contamination from the Site is discharging to Paradise Creek.
Sediment samples will be collected from 9 sample locations, designated WASD01 through
WASD09, located within the wetlands bordering Paradise Creek and from 4 sample locations,
designated WASD10 through WASD13, located within the freshwater forested/scrub wetland
area identified along the Site/ARREFF property boundary (Figure 3.3). The four freshwater
forested/scrub wetland sample locations will be located within the lowest topographic low
spots observed during the wetland delineation study. Two sediment samples will be collected
from each of these 13 locations: from 0 to 0.5 feet bgs and from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs. Samples
will be retrieved utilizing a decontaminated multi-stage sludge sampler, stainless steel hand
auger, or equivalent. The collected sediment samples will be visually inspected, field screened
with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent), and
lithologically characterized. A field instrument will be utilized to measure the sediment
sample ORP.
Table 3.8 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for the Site wetland sediment samples.
The sediment samples will be submitted through the CLP to an EPA-selected laboratory for
TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide,
gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. Approximately half the sediment samples will be
submitted for TOC. The samples collected from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs will also be analyzed for
TCL VOCs. As requested by VDEQ, sediment samples WASD04 (0 to 0.5) and WASD07 (0
to 0.5) will be submitted for PCB congener analysis. Approximately 25 percent of the
sediment samples collected from the 0 to 2 foot bgs interval will be submitted for grain size
analysis. Up to half of wetland sediment samples collected from locations WASD01 through
WASD09 will be submitted for PCDD/PCDF, hexavalent chromium, explosives, and asbestos
analysis. All four of the 0 to 0.5 foot bgs soil samples collected from the freshwater
forested/scrub wetland area will also be analyzed for hexavent chromium. If PCDD/PCDF is
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-18
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
detected in the Site soils within the vicinity of the freshwater forested/scrub wetland area, then
two of the 0 to 0.5 foot bgs soil samples will be analyzed for PCDD/PCDF.
3.4.3 Subsurface Soils
Subsurface soil samples will be collected to assess the subsurface soil quality beneath the Site
wetlands. Subsurface soil samples will be collected from 4 locations that are co-located with
Site wetland sediment sample locations WASD02, WASD03, WASD06, and WASD09
(Figure 3.3). Because the entire southern portion of the Site appears to have been heavily
modified during the history of the Site (EPA, 2010a), the subsurface soil sampling locations
were spatially distributed along the Site's entire southern property boundary. Subsurface soil
samples will be collected from 2 to 4 feet and 4 to 8 feet bgs using a decontaminated stainless
steel hand auger or equivalent sampling equipment. The collected subsurface soil samples will
be visually inspected, field screened with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum
2221/44-10 or equivalent), and lithologically characterized. A field instrument will be utilized
to determine the ORP of the sediment samples.
Table 3.8 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for the Site wetland subsurface soil
samples. The soil samples will be submitted through the CLP to an EPA-selected laboratory
for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including
mercury and cyanide. Approximately half of the sediment samples will be submitted for TOC.
Up to half of the soil samples will be analyzed for hexavalent chromium, explosives, and
dioxins if the analytes are detected in the Site soils.
3.4.4 Surface Water
Surface water samples will be collected from the Site wetlands in order to assess surface water
quality at the Site and evaluate potential risks to human and ecological receptors. Four of the
surface water samples will be collected from four of the Site wetlands sediment sample
locations; the surface water samples will be co-located with wetland area sediment samples
WASD04, WASD06, WASD07, and WASD09 (Figure 3.3). Consequently, the four wetland
area surface water samples will be numbered the same as the co-located sediment sample
location (i.e., WASW04, WASW06, WASW07, and WASW09). Because Paradise Creek is
influenced by tides, the wetland surface water samples will be collected on an outgoing tide as
close to low tide as possible to ensure that the water samples reflect surface water quality
emanating from the Site and not from Paradise Creek.
During the surface water sampling event, an inspection of the wetlands and the Site/wetland
topographic boundary will be conducted to determine the presence or absence of seeps. The
seep survey will be conducted during periods of low tide. If seeps are observed, a sample of
the water discharging from the seeps will be conducted. Up to six seeps will be sampled. The
presence of the seeps could indicate that groundwater is discharging directly to the wetlands
and yield groundwater analytical data at a discharge point, or the seeps could be the result of a
tidal discharge.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-19
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.9 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for the Site wetland surface water
samples. The surface water and seep samples will be submitted through the CLP to an EPA-
approved laboratory and analyzed for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total
PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, hardness, gamma spectrometry and
Strontium 90. If surface water turbidity is greater than 10 NTUs, then a TAL metals sample
will be field filtered prior to collection. In addition, half the samples will be analyzed for
hexavalent chromium, explosives, and dioxins. Surface water samples WASW04 and
WASW07 will also be analyzed for PCB congeners using EPA Method 1668. Water quality
parameters including temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, and ORP will be collected
from each surface water sample location as well as field screened with a gamma radiation
detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent).
3.4.5 Temporary Well Installations
Temporary monitoring wells will be installed within the Site wetlands to assess groundwater
flow directions and potential discharges to Paradise Creek. The temporary wells will be
constructed of 2-inch-diameter, 10-foot-long pre-pack wells screens and riser pipe. Each pre-
pack well screen will be constructed of two 5-foot-long 0.010 factory slotted wells screens
surrounded by wire mesh. The annular space between the well screen and wire mesh will
filled of clean silica sand sized appropriately for the underlying lithology. The temporary
wells will be installed in the soil borings completed within the Site wetlands, WATW01,
WATW02, WATW03, and WATW04. The groundwater elevation within the wetlands is
anticipated to be less than one foot bgs. To ensure an adequate surface seal around the
temporary wells, the bottom of the well screen will be installed to a depth of 8 feet bgs or until
refusal is encountered. The well screen will be placed to be situated at approximately 3 to 8
feet bgs. The annular space between the borehole side wall and the well screen, if any, will be
backfilled with clean silica sand. Approximately 0.5 feet above the well screen, bentonite
chips will be installed in the annular space to a depth of 1 foot bgs. The remaining foot of
annular space will be backfill with the surrounding soil.
The temporary wells will be developed between 12 hours and 36 hours from installation. Well
development will consist of purging the groundwater from the well to remove any fines that
may have accumulated at the bottom of the well. Water quality parameter readings will be
collected and recorded during the development process. Well development activities will be
considered complete when all sediment at the bottom of the well has been removed, to the
extent practicable, or a maximum of six casing volumes have been removed. The temporary
wells will be sampled quarterly as part of the groundwater investigation (Section 3.5).
The groundwater purged from the temporary wells during development will be containerized
in 55-gallon drums and stored onsite for characterization and offsite disposal in accordance
with the IDW Management Plan (Section 10). Per the IDW Management Plan and Radiation
Protection Plan (RPP) (AVESI, 2014b), all generated IDW will be field screened for
radioactivity before and after drum containerization.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-20
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.5 GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION
This sampling task has been designed to meet the following objectives to address the data gaps
identified in the groundwater portion of the CMS:
• Identify groundwater COPCs in Site groundwater;
• Identify groundwater COPECs if groundwater is determined to discharge to Site
wetlands and/or Paradise Creek;
• Determine the fate and transport of the COPCs/COPECs over the course of one year;
and
• Provide validated analytical data for use in identifying potential risks to human health
and ecological receptors.
Eleven groundwater monitoring wells are present on Site; however, two of the wells (MW01
and MW03) have been previously identified as being buried beneath debris. MW02 and
MW04 were not observed in 2011 or 2012 and may also be buried beneath stockpiled
materials (MW02) and debris (MW04). Previous groundwater investigations at the Site have
been limited primarily to evaluating for PCB and heavy metal contamination. Minimal
sampling for VOCs was conducted in 1999 as part of the Site Inspection (H-S, 1999). The
previous sampling events determined groundwater has been impacted due to former Site
activities. Development of the CSM for this SMP identified the following data gaps associated
with groundwater that need to be addressed to determine the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination, determine potential risks to human and ecological receptors, and evaluate
potential remedial options if determined to be needed:
• Analytical sampling has been limited to a small target list, full suite of analyses are
required to determine the groundwater contaminants of potential concern for the Site.
• Seasonal variability in groundwater contaminant concentrations and groundwater flow
directions has not been determined.
• Several source areas discussed in Section 2 of this SMP that may have resulted in
groundwater contamination have not been investigated.
• Groundwater elevations beneath the Site have been based on assumed and
approximate elevations. The potentiometric surface of the shallow groundwater needs
to be determined to assess groundwater flow directions and potential downgradient
releases of Site contaminants.
• It is unknown whether groundwater discharges to on-site drainages, Paradise Creek
wetlands, and Paradise Creek.
To address these data gaps the following field investigation events will be conducted:
• Installation of 13 new groundwater monitoring wells;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-21
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Development of the 13 new monitoring wells and redevelopment of the existing 9 site
wells; and
• Completion of four quarterly groundwater sampling events.
3.5.1 Monitoring Well Installation and Development
Thirteen permanent groundwater monitoring wells (MW11 through MW23) will be installed
across the Site in potential source areas. The locations of the 13 new monitoring wells are
depicted on Figure 3.2B and justifications their locations are summarized in Table 3.10. The
monitoring wells will be installed using a hollow stem auger (HSA) drill rig operated by a well
driller licensed in the Commonwealth. The well boreholes will be 4 inches in diameter (inner
diameter) and completed to a depth of 8 feet below the top of the underlying water table.
Downhole MD avoidance practices will be implemented during installation of the monitoring
wells.
Well development activities will be completed between 12 and 72 hours after installation of the
well's bentonite seal. Water quality parameter (e.g., temperature, pH, specific conductance,
turbidity, and ORP) readings and the sediment thickness at the base of each well will be
recorded every 3 to 5 minutes until no measureable sediment is present at the bottom of the
well and the groundwater turbidity is less than 50 nephlometric turbidity units (NTUs) or a
maximum of six casing volumes of water have been purged.
Soil and water IDW will be generated during the well installation and development process.
Per the RPP (AVESI, 2014b), generated IDW will be field screened with gamma radiation
detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) to determine if the IDW is potentially radioactive.
All generated IDW will be stored within 55-gallon drums and stockpiled in a designated area
for characterization and off-site disposal in accordance with the IDW Management Plan
(Section 10). As discussed previously, IDW generated will be field screened, per the RPP
(AVESI, 2014b), for radiation.
3.5.2 Existing Well Redevelopment
Prior to the collection of groundwater samples, the nine existing and accessible monitoring
wells (MW01R, MW02, MW04, MW05, MW06, MW07, MW08, MW09, and MW10) will
require redevelopment. The location of the nine wells is depicted on Figure 3.2. Locating,
redeveloping, and sampling wells MW01 and MW03 is not planned for this investigation
because existing wells MW01R and MW10 are located in the vicinity of MW01 and MW03,
respectively.
Redevelopment is required because the wells have sat undisturbed since 2008. Redevelopment
will allow for the removal of fine grained materials that may have accumulated at the base of
the well as well as within the well's filter pack. The removal of the fine grained material will
help yield analytical results indicative of the groundwater quality rather than the fine grained
material in the bottom of the well and within the filter pack.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-22
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Prior to redevelopment, the monitoring wells will be located and visually inspected for
evidence of tampering and surface water undercutting of the well pad. The wells determined
to be usable will be redeveloped using a whale pump and surging techniques. Each well will
be redeveloped by purging groundwater from the well. Water quality parameters (e.g.,
temperature, pH, specific conductance, turbidity, and ORP) readings will be recorded every 3
to 5 minutes until no measureable sediment is present at the bottom of the well and the
groundwater turbidity is less than 50 NTU or six well casing volumes of groundwater have
been removed.
Wells not located or determined to be compromised will not be redeveloped. If HGL
identifies a compromised well or cannot locate a well, the EPA RPM will be notified. Wells
determined to be compromised will be properly abandoned by a Commonwealth-licensed well
driller.
Water IDW will be generated during well redevelopment. The water IDW will be stored
within 55-gallon drums for classification and offsite disposal in accordance with the IDW
Management Plan (Section 10). As discussed previously, water IDW generated will be field
screened, per the RPP (AVESI, 2014b), for radiation.
3.5.3 Groundwater Sampling
Four quarters of groundwater sampling will be conducted to determine groundwater
contaminants of potential concern and seasonal groundwater flow directions. The first
groundwater sampling event will be conducted after all 13 new monitoring wells have been
installed, developed, and allowed to equilibrate for 2 weeks after well development. Site wide
groundwater sampling will occur once the permanent wells are installed and developed.
Groundwater sampling will be conducted on the nine existing and accessible monitoring wells,
the 13 new groundwater monitoring wells, and the four temporary pre-pack monitoring wells
installed in the Site wetlands. Groundwater purging and sampling activities will be conducted
utilizing a bladder pump with dedicated bladders, low-flow techniques, and an in-line water
quality meter and separate turbidity meter.
Table 3.11 summarizes the groundwater sampling analytical scheme for each sampling
quarter. Groundwater samples will be collected from each well and submitted to an EPA-
approved laboratory for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticide/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL
metals including mercury and cyanide, and hexavalent chromium. If groundwater turbidity is
greater than 10 NTU in a well, the associated groundwater sample from that well will be field
filtered prior to the collection of the TAL metals including mercury and cyanide samples.
Groundwater samples from all of the Site wells for the first quarter will be analyzed for
gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. Upon review of the gamma spectrometry and
Strontium 90 analytical results from sampling quarter 1, the need for further gamma
spectrometry and Strontium 90 analyses will be determined by the EPA.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-23
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Groundwater samples from wells MW7, MW9, and MW10 for the first two quarters will be
analyzed for PCB congeners. Upon review of the PCB congener analysis data from sampling
quarters 1 and 2, the need for PCB congener sampling of the three wells for quarters 3 and 4
will be determined by the EPA.
Twenty five percent of the groundwater samples per sampling event will also be submitted for
TOC analysis. PCDD/PCDF, asbestos, and explosives groundwater sampling will be
conducted only if the analytes are detected in the Site soils. The number of samples for each
analyte will be determined based on the distribution of the analytes' detections in the Site soils.
If asbestos and/or explosives are detected across the entire Site, 25 percent of the groundwater
samples will be submitted for the detected analytes. If PCDD/PCDF are detected across the
entire Site, 50 percent of the groundwater samples per quarter will be submitted for
PCDD/PCDF analysis. If the compounds are detected in specific areas of the Site,
groundwater samples from the wells in the vicinity of the soil detections will be submitted for
analysis. Not more than 50 percent of the groundwater samples will be analyzed for
PCDD/PCDF.
Groundwater samples collected during the third and fourth groundwater sampling events will
be analyzed for anions (chloride, nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, and sulfide), alkalinity, total
suspended solids, total dissolved solids, and groundwater gases (methane, ethene, and ethane)
if halogenated VOCs are detected in the first or second quarterly groundwater sampling
events.
Groundwater and decontamination water IDW will be generated during groundwater sampling
activities. All generated water IDW will be containerized for characterization and off-site
disposal in accordance with the IDW Management Plan (Section 10). IDW generated during
the first quarter of groundwater sampling will be field screened with a gamma radiation
detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) to determine if the groundwater IDW is
radioactive. Based upon field screening results and groundwater gamma spectrometry and
Strontium 90 analytical results, the EPA will determine if the groundwater IDW generated
during the second, third, and fourth sampling quarters will require field screening for
radioactivity.
3.6 PARADISE CREEK
As discussed in Section 2, multiple sampling investigations have been conducted on Paradise
Creek; however, the following data gaps have been noted with respect to determining if the
Site is contributing contaminants to Paradise Creek:
• Previous sampling data has been for a limited target set; several of the potential Site
contaminants including VOCs, SVOCs, explosives, hexavalent chromium, asbestos,
gamma spectrometry, and Strontium 90 have not been analyzed in the Paradise Creek
sediments and surface water.
• The morphology of the Paradise Creek channel and the influence the morphology has
on sediment transport is unknown.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-24
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Previous sediment sampling has been limited to the top 6 inches of sediment with
deeper sediments sampled in only one location near the Site.
• Flooding may have distributed Paradise Creek sediment contaminants up onto the
wetlands bordering Paradise Creek up and downstream of the Site.
• Contaminants from the Site may be adversely affecting the creek's biodiversity of the
creek and the lifespan of various species living within and around the creek.
The Paradise Creek sampling task has been designed to provide information to address the
above data gaps and will involve the collection of sediment, surface water, and tissue samples
from Paradise Creek and the collection of wetland sediment samples along the northern and
southern shores of Paradise Creek in the vicinity of the Site (Figure 3.4).
3.6.1 Channel Morphology Investigation
Sediment discharges to Paradise Creek most likely occurs from the Site via the western
drainage system including the channel's outfall and via overland surface water flow. Deposits
of contaminated sediment, therefore, may have accumulated in Paradise Creek where surface
water flow may have created deltas of contaminated sediment within Paradise Creek. To
assess the potential deposition of contaminated sediments within Paradise Creek adjacent to the
Site, the cross sectional depth of the channel will be measured along seven transects bisecting
the creek and one transect paralleling the long axis of the creek (Figure 3.4). Channel depth
measurements will be collected every 5 feet along transects crossing the creek. Channel depth
measurements will be collected every 20 feet along the transect paralleling the long axis of the
creek. The channel depth measurements will be utilized to select sediment sample locations
within Paradise Creek for laboratory analysis along with providing locations for collecting
creek flow measurements and providing data to be used in the collection of aquatic biota. To
the extent practical, a multi-stage sludge sampler will be utilize to collect a sample core of the
sediment at each channel bottom measurement location to determine sediment lithology and
sediment thickness at each location. The samples will be visually inspected and lithologically
logged. None of these samples will be submitted for laboratory analysis.
Surface water flow measurements will be collected approximately two feet from the channel
bottom, mid channel, and within two feet of the surface at every other channel depth
measurement location.
Before surface water flow measurements are taken, tidal charts from the closest measuring
station will be evaluated to determine outgoing and incoming tides as well as high and low
tides. Three series of surface water flow measurements will be collected from Paradise Creek:
• One during an outgoing tide and closest to low tide as practical;
• One during an incoming tide and closest to high tide as practical; and
• One during a slack tide.
The collection of these measurements should provide a range a range of low and high
velocities present in Paradise Creek. This measurement collection approach may require three
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-25
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
flow measurement series to be collected during different events depending on the local tidal
chart.
3.6.2 Wetland Sediments
To assess whether contaminated sediments were deposited in the wetland areas bordering
Paradise Creek due to flooding and tidal cycles, sediment samples will be collected from 18
locations, designated as PCWLSD01 through PCWLSD20 (Figure 3.4). The analytical data
collected from this investigation will also be utilized in assessing potential risks to human and
ecological receptors along Paradise Creek. Two sediment samples, collected from 0 to 0.5
feet bgs and from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs, will be collected from each location using a
decontaminated hand auger or equivalent sampling device. During the collection process, the
soils will be lithologically characterized and visually inspected. Additionally, wetland
sediment samples will be field screened using a gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10
or equivalent). A separate field instrument will be utilized to obtain ORP readings of the
wetland sediments.
The collected samples will be submitted through the CLP to an EPA-selected laboratory for
analysis. Table 3.12 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for these samples. The
Paradise Creek wetland sediment samples will be submitted for the following analyses: TCL
VOCs (the 0.5 to 2 foot bgs soil interval only), TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total
PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, soil pH, gamma spectrometry and
Strontium 90. Approximately 25 percent of the samples will be submitted for TOC analysis, .
20 percent of the samples will be submitted for dioxins and 25 percent of the samples will be
submitted for hexavalent chromium and explosives. Approximately 25 percent of the sediment
samples collected from the 0- to 2-foot bgs interval will be submitted for grain size analysis.
3.6.3 Paradise Creek Aquatic Sediments
To determine if contaminants are present in the sediment discharging from the Site, 12
sediment samples designated PCSD01 through PCSD12 will be collected from Paradise Creek.
Sediment samples will be lithologically characterized and field screened using a gamma
radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent). In general, the sediment sample
location will be dependent on areas of deposition bordering the Site (eight locations), as well
as upstream locations of the Site (two locations) and downstream locations of the Site (two
locations). The locations of the Paradise Creek sediment samples are shown on Figure 3.3;
however, the exact locations will be determined in the field after collection of channel bottom
depths and surface water flow measurements to assess flow regimes within the creek. This
sampling approach has been proposed due to the potential for higher current velocities in the
main channel transporting contaminants further upstream and downstream of the Site.
Table 3.12 summarizes the analytical sampling scheme for these samples. Sediment samples
will be collected utilizing multi-stage sludge samplers, core samplers, or ponar dredges and
submitted through the CLP to an EPA-approved laboratory for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs,
TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including mercury and cyanide, soil pH,
gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. Approximately 25 percent of the sediment samples
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-26
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
will be submitted for TOC analysis. Half of the sediment samples will also be submitted for
dioxins, hexavalent chromium, explosives, and grain size. Based upon the results of the Total
PCB analytical data, two samples will be submitted to an EPA-selected laboratory for PCB
congener analysis using EPA Method 1668. A PCB congener sample will be collected from
each sample location and submitted to the EPA laboratory where it will be stored at a
temperature at or below 6°C, without sample freezing, until EPA notifies the laboratory which
two samples will require analysis.
3.6.4 Surface Water
The surface water of Paradise Creek in the vicinity of the Site will be analyzed to:
• Assess current water quality and determine if Site contamination is adversely
impacting Paradise Creek;
• Fingerprint the PCB contamination in Paradise Creek to determine if the Site is a
contributor to the PCB contamination previously identified in Paradise Creek; and
• Assess the potential risks to humans and ecological receptors within and around
Paradise Creek.
Surface water samples will be collected from the 12 Paradise Creek aquatic sediment sample
locations (Figure 3.4); however, the exact locations of the samples will be determined in the
field and based on observed surface water/groundwater discharges and primary surface water
flow paths through Paradise Creek. Because Paradise Creek is tidally influenced, the surface
water samples to be collected from Paradise Creek will be collected on an outgoing tide as
close to low tide as possible. This sampling approach will be conducted to assess surface
water quality in the vicinity of the Site as opposed to assessing surface water moving upstream
and/or downstream by tidal action.
Water quality parameters temperature, pH, conductivity, turbidity, DO, and ORP will be
collected from each surface water sample location at three depths: just below the water
surface, at mid-depth, and immediately above the channel bottom. Flow measurements at
each depth will also be recorded. Collected surface water samples will also be field screened
with a gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent).
The surface water samples will be submitted through the CLP to an EPA-approved laboratory
for TCL VOCs, TCL SVOCs, TCL pesticides/PCBs, total PCBs, TAL metals including
mercury and cyanide, hardness, gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90 (Table 3.13). If the
surface water turbidity is greater than 10 NTUs, the TAL metals sample will be field filtered
prior to sample collection. Two surface water samples, PCSW02 and PCSW07 will also be
submitted for PCB congener analysis. Approximately 20 percent of the samples will be
submitted for dioxins if dioxins are detected in the Site soils. Approximately 25 percent of the
samples will be submitted for hexavalent chromium and/or explosives if either are detected in
the Sites soils.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-27
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
3.6.5 Bioassays
A BERA and benthic community study was conducted on Paradise Creek in 2001 to assess if
NNSY sites along Paradise Creek are affecting the creek's ecological habitat (CH2M Hill,
2001). Previous limited analytical sampling of the creek's sediment and surface water has
identified the presence of contaminants that could pose a potential risk to ecological receptors
in and around the creek. Toxicity testing of one or more of the species present within the
creek will most likely be required. Based on the results of a site-specific SLERA, a BERA
work plan will be generated. The BERA work plan will identify the species to be sampled,
the sampling protocols and methodologies to be employed, and the analytical and QC measures
to be implemented.
The Paradise Creek watershed is highly developed and is covered almost entirely by industrial
and residential development. Urban/suburban surficial runoff is expected to be an important
source of chemicals to Paradise Creek. Additionally, piped stormwater and industrial outfalls,
which occur at a number of locations along Paradise Creek, also could be contributing
chemicals to Paradise Creek. Paradise Creek is a tidally influence stream, characterized by a
linear fringe of tidal marsh. Much of the tidal marsh is severely degraded and the dominant
vegetation is common reed (Phragmites australis), which is a non-native invasive species
common in degraded wetlands. The riverine and marsh habitats are influenced by tidal range
and the seasonal influx of stormwater runoff from the highly urbanized watershed associated
with this water body. Terrestrial and aquatic life in Upper Paradise Creek, with a few
exceptions, is expected to be the same as in Lower Paradise Creek (CH2M Hill, 2001). The
denser stands of emergent wetland vegetation noted to occur in Upper Paradise Creek may
support more herbivorous wildlife than in Lower Paradise Creek, while the lower salinity in
Upper Paradise Creek may also allow amphibian populations to occur in some of the drainages
discharging to Paradise Creek (CH2M Hill, 2001).
Terrestrial plants, invertebrates, and animals could be exposed directly to the site surface soil
and shallow subsurface soil. Terrestrial animals could be exposed indirectly to soil
contaminants via bioaccumulation into the tissues of dietary items (plants, invertebrates, and
mammals) and consumption of these items. Terrestrial wildlife could also be exposed to
surface water contaminants via use of the wetland area and/or Paradise Creek as a source of
drinking water.
Benthic invertebrates can be exposed directly to contaminants in the sediment of the wetland
area and Paradise Creek. Aquatic receptors can be exposed directly to contaminants in the
surface water. Animals that forage near the wetland and along the creek can be exposed
indirectly to surface water and sediment contaminants via bioaccumulation into dietary items,
and directly via incidental ingestion of sediment and consumption of surface water.
Invertebrates and microorganisms that live deep within the sediment, in what is called the
transition zone, can be exposed to groundwater contaminants if the groundwater discharges
through the sediment into the creek. Based on this transport pathway, the transition zone
community is identified as a potential receptor.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-28
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Based on the above discussion, proposed preliminary assessment and measurement endpoints
are summarized in Table 3.14. The actual apoproach to the SLERA and the comparisons that
will be made will be finalized after approval of this SMP.
3.7 BUILDING INSPECTION
Several structures are present on site, including the brick warehouse, the shear building, and a
maintenance building. During the 2012 EPA site visit, the brick warehouse was observed to
be utilized by tenants and for the storage of vehicles, equipment, and several children's
bicycles. In addition, trespassers have been encountered on the property. Based on the age of
the site structures, there is a potential for ACM to be present in the site structures. Based on
previous site activities, lead dust and PCB residues may be present on various surfaces within
the structures. The potential risks to authorized personnel and trespassers utilizing the site
structures are unknown at this point.
An inspection of site structures will therefore be conducted in order to determine if current
conditions pose a risk to site workers and trespassers. The inspection will include an asbestos
inspection with confirmatory sampling, wipe sampling for lead dust, and PCB wipe sampling.
The asbestos inspection will include the collection and analysis of potential ACM consisting of
fibrous materials and non-fibrous materials that have degraded to an extent as to pose a
potential inhalation risk if containing asbestos. The asbestos inspection and sample collection
will be conducted by an asbestos certified inspector. Lead wipe sampling will be conducted in
areas where dust settling has occurred and in areas most likely to be frequented by authorized
personnel and trespassers. PCB wipe sampling will be conducted around electrical
transformers and in oil stained areas within the buildings.
3.8 DUST MONITORING
Dust monitoring will be performed to assess dust concentrations along the perimeter of the Site
prior to and during Site soil disturbing field investigation activities. The purpose of this dust
monitoring event is to provide the EPA with defensible knowledge that soil disturbing field
investigations did not result in a release of contaminated dust to off-site properties.
Consequently, only particulate counts will be collected for this investigation. Site field
investigation activities that will require dust monitoring include:
• Site subsurface soil sampling;
• Hot spot sampling; and
• Monitoring well installation.
Dust monitoring during the ICS surface soil sampling event and site drainage and wetland
sampling activities will not be required since soil disturbances for these investigations will be
minor.
Five stationary aerosol meters will be installed along the property boundary downwind, and
one mobile aerosol meter will be placed at the fenceline directly downwind of subsurface soil
disturbance activities (i.e., well installations, soil boring drilling, and test pit excavations) in
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-29
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
progress (Figure 3.5). The exact locations of the five stationary aerosol meters will be
determined once the associated field sampling events have been scheduled. During
implementation of the various field investigations, the field crew will periodically check on the
aerosol meters to ensure that the meters are working and collecting the needed data. No
laboratory analysis of the collected samples is proposed.
Per the RPP (AVESI, 2014b), dust monitoring immediately downwind of the exclusion zone
will be monitored during test pit excavating activities. Number of monitors required is
addressed in the RPP. Particulate dust will be capture by the dust monitors and field screened
using a gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent). No dust samples will
be submitted for analysis.
Former site activities including surface regrading, mounding of surface debris, relocating and
stockpiling of equipment most likely results in the generation of dust that had the potential to
migrate offsite. Minimal site activities are currently being conducted or will be conducted
during implementation of the RI field sampling tasks. Therefore, analysis of dust discharging
from the Site is not proposed at this Site. The impact from the potential deposition of
contaminated dust on the off-site properties is being investigated under the off-site soil
investigation task.
3.9 IDW SAMPLING
IDW including soil cuttings, purged groundwater, decontamination water, used disposable
sampling equipment, and used personal protective equipment (PPE) will be generated during
RI sampling activities. IDW management and sampling activities will be conducted in
accordance with the IDW Management Plan (Section 10) of this SMP.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
3-30
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
TABLES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Table 3.1
Surface Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed \n;ihsis
Surliicc
Soil
Sample
Locution
Sample
Depth
III l)l»S)
, /
£ 3
T( L
SVOCs
7
£ ~
y
— y
C3 QQ
P w
_£
-tf ¦&*
r QJ
et
CJ
!»*¦*
w
5/5 O*
w
y
1 ^
a Jn
5
/
I'C 1)1)
I'C 1)1
lk'\;n iilciil
Chromium
X
C/
p«»-
'/
jr
7
¦9
Zs
N
7
MP01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP02
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP03
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP04
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
X
MP05
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Oh
MP06
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
MP07
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP08
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
X
MP09
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
X
MP10
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
£
MP11
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
X
X
MP12
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
X
X
o
C/3
MP13
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
&
X
X
u
MP14
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP15
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
X
It*
MP16
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
X
X
C/3
MP17
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP18
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
It*
13
.a
MP19
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3.1 (continued)
Surface Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
"d
CfQ
CD
bo
o
<3
Co
I
>3
5'
5S
Oo
Proposed \n;ihscs
Surliicc
Soil
Sample
Locution
Sample
Dcplli
(I'l l>I»S)
TC 1.
VOCs
TC L.
SVOC s
7
* &
y
— J-
A QQ
(5 w
B A
< ¦&*
r- QJ
!>¦*
w
7 —
w
w
1 a.
« un
/
I'C 1)1)
I'C 1)1
s
a u
£
£ w
y.
<3J
/
y
4/
§
*7Z
w
MP31
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP32
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
X
X
MP33
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Oh
X
MP34
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
MP35
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP36
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
X
MP37
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
MP38
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
X
X
&
MP39
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
MP40
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
X
o
C/3
MP41
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
&
u
MP42
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP43
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
X
X
It*
MP44
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
C/3
MP45
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MP46
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
It*
X
X
X
.a
MP47
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table 3.1 (continued)
Surface Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
Surliicc
Soil
Siinipk*
Locution
Siiinple
Dcplli
(I'l l>I»S)
Proposed \n;ihscs
TCI.
VOCs
TCI.
SVOCs
7
* £
y
— y
A QQ
(5 w
_ A
y
r_" ^
**
w
7 —
w
w
1 a.
« un
r.
I'C 1)1)
I'd)!
s
a u
£
£ w
y.
/
X
4/
S
7
W
RAD19
(f. SU2-04)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD20
(f. SU2-08)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD21
(f. SU3-01)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD22
(f. SU3-02)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD23
(f. SU3-03)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD24
(f. SU3-04)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD25
(f. SU3-05)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD26
(f. SU5-02)
S.S.I.
X
X
RAD27
(f. SU5-08)
S.S.I.
X
X
Notes:
DU = decision unit
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
TCL = Target Compound List
Pest = pesticide
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
S.S.I. = soil surrounding item
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TAL = Target Analyte List
TOC = total organic carbon
TBD = to be determined
f. = formerly
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
-------
Table 3.2
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Test Pit Location Justification
Malcolm I'irnie 2008
Decision
Decision I nil
50-Hi l)\ 50-11
I nil
Description
lesi Pit ID
Sample (jrid
Reason lor Tesi I'ii Location Selection
1
Exposure Area DU
DU1TP1
MP Z-41
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
DU1TP2
MP BB-41/BB-42
2008 Ar, Cr, and Pb subsurface soil data
2
Exposure Area DU
DU2TP1
MP DD-36
2008 Ar subsurface soil data
DU2TP2
MP CC-34
2008 Ar subsurface soil data and spatial distribution
3
Exposure Area DU
DU3TP1
MP CC-31
2008 Ar and Pb subsurface soil data
DU3TP2
MP CC-29
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
4
Exposure Area DU
DU4TP1
MP Z-24
2008 Ar, Cd, Cr, and Hg subsurface soil data
DU4TP2
MP AA-26
2008 Cr subsurface soil data and spatial distribution
5
Exposure Area DU
DU5TP1
MP EE-27/FF-27
2008 Ar, Cr, Pb and Hg subsurface soil data
DU5TP2
MP EE-25
2008 Ar, Cr, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
£
Exposure Area DU
DU6TP1
MP GG-19
2008 PCB, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
0
DU6TP2
MP FF-21
No subsurface soil data in this area; spatial distribution
7
Exposure Area DU
DU7TP1
MP EE-16
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
DU7TP2
MP FF-14/FF-15
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
Q
Exposure Area DU
DU8TP1
MP Z-20
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
O
DU8TP2
MP BB-18
2008 PCB subsurface soil data
9
Exposure Area DU
DU9TP1
MP Y-20
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
DU9TP2
MP W-18/X-18
2008 Ar, Cr and Ni subsurface soil data
10
Exposure Area DU
DU10TP1
MP BB-14
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
DU10TP2
MP Z-15
2008 Ar, Cd, Cr, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
11
Exposure Area DU
DU11TP1
MP W-15
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
DU11TP2
MP W-14
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
12
Exposure Area DU
DU12TP1
MP BB-12
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
DU12TP2
MP Z-8
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg and Ni subsurface soil data
13
Exposure Area DU
DU13TP1
MP Y-10
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni and Ag subsurface soil data
DU13TP2
MP V-9
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
14
Exposure Area DU
DU14TP1
MP X-6
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU14TP2
MP Y-4
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Ni and Ag subsurface soil data
15
Exposure Area DU
DU15TP1
MP T-20
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
DU15TP2
MP Q-19
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
-------
Table 3.2 (continued)
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Test Pit Location Justification
Decision
I nil
Decision I nil
Description
lesi Pit ID
Malcolm I'irnie 2008
50-Hi In 50-11
Sample (jrid
Reason lor Tesi I'ii Location Seledion
16
Exposure Area DU
DU16TP1
MP T-15
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU16TP2
MP R-13
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
17
Exposure Area DU
DU17TP1
MP T-12
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU17TP2
MP T-10
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
18
Exposure Area DU
DU18TP1
MP 0-21
2008 Ar and Cr subsurface soil data
DU18TP2
MP M-20
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb,and Hg subsurface soil data
19
Exposure Area DU
DU19TP1
MP 0-15
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, and Hg subsurface soil data
DU19TP2
MP M-17
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
20
Exposure Area DU
DU20TP1
MP K-21
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg subsurface soil data
DU20TP2
MP J-18
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
21
Exposure Area DU
DU21TP1
MP G-21
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg subsurface soil data
DU21TP2
MP E-21
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, and Hg subsurface soil data
22
Exposure Area DU
DU22TP1
MP C-20
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU22TP2
MP A-19
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
23
Exposure Area DU
DU23TP1
MP C-23
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU23TP2
MP D-30
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
24
Exposure Area DU
DU24TP1
MP C-32
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU24TP2
MP E-37
2008 Ar, Cd, Cr, and Ni subsurface soil data
25
Exposure Area DU
DU25TP1
NA
Soil boring to be completed as part of the Offsite Soil Investigation
DU25TP2
NA
Soil boring to be completed as part of the Offsite Soil Investigation
26
Source Area DU
DU26TP1
MP Q-16
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, and Ni subsurface soil data
DU26TP2
MP P-17
2008 PCBs, Ar, Cr, Pb, and Hg subsurface soil data
Notes:
DU = decision unit
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
MP = Malcolm Pirnie
ID = identification
ft = foot
Ar = arsenic
Cd = cadmium
Cr = chromium
Pb = lead
Hg = mercury
Ni = nickel
NA = not applicable
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed Analyses
Decision
Sample
TCI.
Decision
I nil
Depth
TCI.
TCI.
I'esi
Tolal
TAI.
soil
I'CDI)
1 le\;n nlciil
Cianima
Cr;iin
I nil
Description
No. ol' Tesl I'ils
III bus)
VOCs
SVOCs
I'Clis
PC Bs
Meials
Mercur\
C\;mi(lc
1)11
roc
I'CDI
Chromium
Kxploshes
Asfoeslos
Spec
SR""
Size
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU1TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
O
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU1TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
££
O
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
DU2TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
2
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
*Oh
DU2TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
I
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
£
o
o
Oh
C/3
§
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
g
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
s
g
O
C/3
DU3TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
3
I
S-H
O
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
3
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
a
it*
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
DU3TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•*
3
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
O
O
S-H
o
DU4TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
H
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'Eh
4
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C3
.2
C/5
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU4TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
-o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU5TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
5
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1"
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/5
DU5TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3 (continued)
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed \n;il>ses
Decision
Sample
1 CI.
Decision
I nil
Dcplh
1 CI.
1 CI.
Pcsl
Tolnl
1 \l.
soil
PC 1)1)
1 lexsn iilenl
(iiimiiKl
Ciriiin
I nil
Description
No. ol' Tesl Pils
III bus)
VOC's
SVOC's
PC lis
PC'lis
Mel ills
Mercun
C'\;ini(le
pll
IOC
PC'DI
Chromium
Kxploshes
Asheslos
Spec
SR""
Size
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU6TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU6TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
O
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU7TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
££
O
7
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
DU7TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
-a
DU8TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
£
o
o
Oh
C/3
§
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
g
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
s
a
O
C/3
DU8TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
S-H
O
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
£
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
¦a
a
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
DU9TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•*
3
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>
o
C3
9
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.a
C3
O
O
S-H
O
DU9TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
CO
H
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'Eh
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C3
.2
C/5
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU10TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
-o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
10
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU10TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1"
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
DU11TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
11
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU11TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3 (continued)
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed \n;il>ses
Decision
Sample
1 CI.
Decision
I nil
Dcplh
1 CI.
1 CI.
Pcsl
Tolnl
1 \l.
soil
PC 1)1)
1 lexsn iilenl
(iiimiiKl
Ciriiin
I nil
Description
No. ol' Tesl Pils
III bus)
VOC's
SVOC's
PC lis
PC'lis
Mel ills
Mercun
C'\;ini(le
pll
IOC
PC'DI
Chromium
Kxploshes
Asheslos
Spec
SR""
Size
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU12TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
O
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU12TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
££
O
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
DU13TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
13
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
©
C/3
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
-a
DU13TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
£
o
o
Oh
C/3
§
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
g
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
s
a
O
C/3
DU14TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
S-H
O
Oh
O
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
£
14
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
¦a
a
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
DU14TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*8
3
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>
o
C3
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.a
C3
O
O
S-H
O
DU15TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
H
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'Eh
15
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C3
.2
C/5
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU15TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
-o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
S-H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l
DU16TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
16
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1"
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
DU16TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3 (continued)
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed \n;il>ses
Decision
Sample
1 CI.
Decision
I nil
Dcplh
1 CI.
1 CI.
Pcsl
Tolnl
1 \l.
soil
PC 1)1)
1 lexsn iilenl
(iiimiiKl
Ciriiin
I nil
Description
No. ol' Tesl Pils
III bus)
VOC's
SVOC's
PC lis
PC'lis
Mel ills
Mercun
C'\;ini(le
pll
IOC
PC'DI
Chromium
Kxploshes
Asheslos
Spec
SR""
Size
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU17TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU17TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
O
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU18TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
££
O
18
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
DU18TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
-a
DU19TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
£
o
o
Oh
C/3
§
19
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
g
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
s
a
O
C/3
DU19TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
S-H
O
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
£
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
¦a
a
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
DU20TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•*
3
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>
o
C3
20
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.a
C3
O
O
S-H
O
DU20TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
CO
H
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'Eh
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C3
.2
C/5
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU21TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
-o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
21
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
l
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU21TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1"
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
DU22TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
22
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DU22TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.3 (continued)
Onsite Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Proposed An;il\ses
Decision
Sample
TCI.
Decision
I nil
Dcplh
1 CI.
TCI.
Pcsl
Tolnl
TAI.
soil
PC 1)1)
1 lexsn iilenl
(iitmiiKt
Cimin
I nil
Description
No. ol' Tesl Pils
III l>i»s)
VOCs
SVOCs
PC lis
PC'lis
Meliils
Mercun
C\;ini(le
pll
IOC
PCDI
Chromium
Lxploshes
Asbeslos
Spec
SR""
Size
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
DU23TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
|
23
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C3
C/3
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-a
DU23TP2
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
M
c3 J
o
o
Oh
C/3
§
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
¦8 &
a
O
C/3
DU24TP1
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
>
1
S-H
O
Oh
O
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
| °
£
24
Exposure Area
2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
cs
oe o
5 ^
V,
DU
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.4
Hot Spot Assessment Sample Location Justification
Hot Spol
Assessment
Loot lion
II)
Malcolm
I'irnie 2008
(,rhl
Location
Reason lor Proposed Soil liorin.!>
Historical Site Acthities Conducted ill Proposed Soil liorin.!> Location
Soil
Assessment
(iroiindwater
Assessment
Historical Site Structures
Solid Waste Management Areas
I'ill Areas. Dehris Piles,
(irounil Scars
Impoundments and Drainages
Areas ol' Potential Releases
HS01
Z/AA-28/29
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Within former building
footprint (1998)
Near existing construction debris
pile (2009)
Soil stained area (2009)
HS02
EE-20
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Within former building
footprint (1963)
SWMA (1980, 1990, 1998)
Area of ground scaring (2009);
Adjacent to existing rubble pile
(2009)
Near former drum storage area
(1963); Soil stained area (2009)
HS03
EE-18/FF-18
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Former Vertical Tank area
(1963); near former railroad
spurs (1937, 1947)
SWMA (1980, 1990)
Adjacent to an area of ground
scaring (2009)
Stained Soil (1937); Light-toned
Mounded Material (1963); Near
Drum Storage Unit (1963)
HS04
BB-20
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Near former railroad spur
(1947, 1954, 1980)
SWMA (1970, 1980, 1990)
Within a ground scar (2009)
Soil stained area (1998)
HS05
U-17
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Adjacent to former railroad
spurs (1937, 1954); near
former tank farm (1963,
1970)
SWMA (1963, 1970, 1980, 1990)
Within former surface water
impoundment (1947, 1954, 1958)
Area of light-toned material
(1947)
HS06
U-ll
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
SWMA (1963, 1970, 1980, 1990)
Within a ground scar (2009)
Within former surface water
impoundment (1954, 1958)
Area of light-toned material
(1947)
HS07
HH-12
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Within a former southwestern
surface water impoundment
(1937, 1947, 1958, 1963, 1970,
1980); adjacent to western
drainage (1937 to Present)
HS08
z-n
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
SWMA (1970, 1980, 1990)
Former location of debris storage
(1947); former area of derelict
railroad car storage (1954);
Within a ground scar (2009)
Adjacent to soil stained area
(1998)
HS09
X-8/X-9
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
SWMA (1990)
Fill Area (1990); within a ground
scar (2009)
Adjacent to storm water drainage
feature (1970)
Area of light-toned material
(1937); Soil stained area (1998)
HS10
K-20
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Building (1937 to Present)
SWMA (1947, 1954, 1958, 1963,
1970, 1980, 1990)
HS11
E-18
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Adjacent to Railroad spurs
(1947, 1970)
SWMA (1937, 1947, 1954, 1958,
1963, 1970, 1980, 1990)
Soil stained area (1990, 1998)
HS12
EE-9
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
SWMA (1990, 1998)
Within the former southwestern
impoundment (1947-1980)
Near area of light-toned material
HS13
C-29
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
NA
Adjacent to Railroad spurs
(1990)
MW11
(HS14)
Z-36/Z-37
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Hydraulically downgradient of central
portion of Site
Within existing building
MW13
(HS15)
X-29
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Hydraulically downgradient of central
portion of Site
SWMA (1970)
Near former Burn Pit
Area of dark-toned mounded
material (1937, 1954); soil stained
area (1958)
MW14
(HS16)
AA-25
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Hydraulically downgradient of central
portion of Site
Former building footprint
(1937); Near former AST
Farm (1970)
SWMA (1970, 1980, and 1990)
Construction Rubble (2009)
Soil stained area (1954; 1998)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.4 (continued)
Hot Spot Assessment Sample Location Justification
1 esi I'ii
llol Spol
Assessment
II)
Malcolm
I'irnie 2008
(,rhl
Locution
Reason lor Proposed Soil lioriii!*
Historical Sile Acthities Conducted ill Proposed Soil liorin.!> Locution
Soil
Assessmeiil
(iroundwaler
Assessmeiil
Historical Sile Slriiclures
Solid Waste Management Areas
l;ill Areas. Debris Piles.
(Ground Scurs
Impoundments and Drainages
Areas ol' Potential Releases
MW15
(HS17)
HH-27
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Property boundary groundwater
sample point; Hydraulically
downgradient of Site's northwestern
arm and near former Site clarifier
Adjacent to a former clarifer
(1970)
Within a ground scar (1947, 1954,
1958, 1980)
Soil stained area (1998)
MW17
(HS18)
BB-16
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Hydraulically downgradient of known
high PCB and lead impacted area
Near former AST farm
(1963, 1970); adjacent to
former railroad spur (1980)
SWMA (1963, 1970, 1980, 1990)
Adjacent for debris pile (2009)
Near soil stained area (1947)
MW18
(HS19)
X-4
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Property boundary groundwater
sample point; Hydraulically
downgradient of known high PCB and
lead impacted area
SWMA (1990, 1998)
Fill Area (1990)
Near a former surface water
drainage pathway (1970)
MW19
(HS20)
Q-13
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Property boundary groundwater
sample point; Hydraulically
downgradient of known high PCB and
lead impacted area
SWMA (1954, 1958, 1963, 1970,
1980, 1990)
Fill Area (1947)
Adjacent to a former surface
water drainage pathway (1947)
MW20
(HS21)
X-20
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Adjacent to known high PCB and lead
impacted area
Within former tank farm
(1963, 1970)
SWMA (1970, 1980, 1990)
Adjacent to ground scar (1947,
2009)
Adjacent to surface water
impoundment (1990)
Soil stained area (1998)
MW22
(HS22)
K-17
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Within high PCB and lead impacted
area
SWMA (1947, 1954, 1963, 1970,
1980, 1990)
MW23
(HS23)
J-19
Soil Analysis/
Evaluation
Within high PCB and lead impacted
area
Adjacent to existing building
(1947 to Present)
SWMA (1947, 1954, 1958, 1963,
1970, 1980, 1990)
Possible existing UST location
HSTW1
C-17
Groundwater
Analysis/
Evaluation
Adjacent to footprint of former
garage; Property boundary
groundwater sample point;
Hydraulically downgradient of known
high PCB and lead impacted area
Within former garage
footprint (1963, 1970)
SWMA (1937, 1947, 1954, 1958,
1963, 1970, 1980, 1990)
Adjacent to ground scar (2009)
Adjacent to soil stained area
(1998)
Notes:
SWMA=Solid Waste Management Area
NA = not analyzed/not applicable
UST = underground storage tank
AST = above ground storage tank
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.5
Hot Spot Assessment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
Proposed An;il\M-s
lk'|)lh
ill.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
lolill
TAI.
soil
rcu
If 1)1)
lli-\;i\;ik-ni
(ii'iiin
1 lolspol li'sl I'ii
III l»liS)
\ ()( s
S\ ()( s
If Us
If Us
Mi'liils
Mmun
( \;ini(k-
1)11
IOC
( onm-iUT
It 1)1
( hromium
lA|)l(>siU'S
AslK'slos
S|K'C
sir1
Si A'
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HSTP01
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HSTP02
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C^H
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
HSTP03
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.a 1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i -b
o
u
3
o
§
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3 '>
$
C3
g
Oh
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Oh fc
X
X
©
u
2
o
s
a
o
C/3
HSTP05
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o o
o
X
X
3
1
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c§ £
x> 3
X
X
u
o
g
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3 C3
X
u
St)
¦a
a
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u %
s
•s
a
o
3
.a
HSTP06
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U itn
,o ..
C3
¦3
•c
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
a
a
o
-s
o
o
x>
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O o
S-H
s
C/3
.a
C3
o
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C3
o
X
CO
H
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x> g
C/3
u
-E
HSTP07
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
> o
> o
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.5 (continued)
Hot Spot Assessment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposi-ri Ansihsi-s
D(.'|)lh
ill.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
lolill
TAI.
soil
rcu
It 1)1)
lk-\;i\;ik-ni
(ii'iiin
llolspol IVsl I'il
(11 l»!is)
\ ()( s
S\ ()( s
It IJs
It IJs
Mi-liils
Mmiir*
C\;ini(k'
I'll
TOC
( (niiii'iu'i1
It 1)1
( hromium
Kxplosiu's
Aslk'slos
S|K'C
sir"
Si/*.'
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HSTP11
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
eb _
.3 3
££
HSTP12
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
cn
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.if
•o
O
O
o
X
o
_2
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OJ rH
o 5
.3
Q
HSTP13
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
£>
'5
C3
•o
S-H
£
C3
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.3
£
S-H
O
S-H
C/3
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r/5 D
C/3
O
Oh
§
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£ 5
2 S-H
Oh O
<4—(
S-H
8
O
C/3
*o
MW-11
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
C/3
s
l
C/3
S-H
O
Oh
*Oh
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u °
C/3
a
.a
<4—1
a
C3
8
S-H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
£
I
MW-12
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
¦s
>
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
•c
o
o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<4—1 ,±h
"S ^
o u
rH
^ o
£
a
o
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
s
B
MW-13
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CJ}
.a
_2
Q
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3 *.£
g 2
o
x>
C3
H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
S-H
o
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
% rt
8 3
IS
C/5
C3
o
C/5
MW-14
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
If
C/5
-o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3 Oh
C/5
cn &
912
CN
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
MW-15
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Oh
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-17
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.5 (continued)
Hot Spot Assessment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposi-ri Ansihsi-s
lk'|)lh
ill.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
lolill
TAI.
soil
rcu
It 1)1)
lli-\;i\;ik-ni
(ii'iiin
llolspol IVsl I'il
(11 l»!is)
\ < >Cs
S\ ()( s
It IJs
It IJs
Mi-liils
Mmiir*
C\;ini(k'
l>H
TOC
( (niiii'iu'i1
It 1)1
( hromium
l!\|)kisi\i's
Aslk'slos
S|K'C
sir"
Si/*.'
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rs
fl
fl
fl
MW-18
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rH i/3
s-l
-3 i/3
" fl 3
jJN
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$
O
S-H
i/3
O
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
M
o n
l"
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
O
«i
¦s &
i/3
o
&
MW-19
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.22 h fl
g
-B, °
a ^
o
fl en
'fl T3
i/3
o
i/3
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•3 o
O
1
S-H
O
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0 CO
^ M *0
-rt y u
1 i a
X
eo
MW-20
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 fl
lal idei
boring
¦a
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o +-*
i/3 ~ *5
X
Q 1
§ 1
i/3
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s I
U
3
2 2
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x> fl S
=3 ^ £
X
O
1
a ©
"O fl
<3 . -
o
o
MW-22
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'$ a °
X
o
i/3
O
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M 3
X
1"
i/3
O
§ 8
Q
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
&'o .3
fl 'Id
» S §
C/5
i/3
a
S fl
o
CO
H
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
* s
i/3
o
MW-23
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o|
"l—' i/3
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.6
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposcri An.il
SI'S
lk'|)lh
id
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
soil
IH 1)1)
Ciiimiiii
(MTsiu- Soil l{oi'in<>
(11 l»!is)
\ < >Cs
S\(H s
l'( IJs
lot ill l>( Its
TAI. Mil ills
Mmiir*
( \;ini(k'
l>ll
TOC
IH 1)1
( hromium
lAplosiU'S
S|)i'c
SR""
Ci'iiin Si/i-
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ODOl
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD02
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD03
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
"if1
o
If
o
If
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
o
C/3
o
C/3
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
X
X
o
OD04
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
§
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
'©
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
23
23
C/3
S-H
o
Oh
o
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.a
£
£
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
OD05
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
I
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
2
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
X
X
.B
OD06
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
a
S-H
a
H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
2
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
u
X
X
OD07
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
u
o
u
o
u
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD08
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD09
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.6 (continued)
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposcri An.il
SI'S
l>i-|>lh
TCI.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
soil
It 1)1)
(MTsiu- Soil l{oi'in<>
III l»liS)
\ < >Cs
S\(H s
I'CIJs
loliil IK'Us
TAI. Mil ills
Mmiir*
( \;ini(k'
1)11
TOC
It 1)1
( hromium
lAplosiU'S
S|K'C
SR""
Ci'iiin Si/i-
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ODIO
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD11
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD12
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
If1
o
If
o
If
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
o
C/3
o
C/3
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
X
X
o
OD13
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
§
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
'©
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
23
23
C/3
S-H
o
Oh
o
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
£
£
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD14
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
I
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
2
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
X
X
£
OD15
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
a
S-H
a
H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
2
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
u
X
X
OD16
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
u
o
u
o
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD17
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD18
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.6 (continued)
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposcri An.il
SI'S
l>i-|)lh
TCI.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
soil
It 1)1)
(MTsiu- Soil l{oi'in<>
III l»liS)
\ < >Cs
S\(H s
I'CIJs
loliil IK'Us
TAI. Mil ills
Mmiir*
( \;ini(k'
1)11
TOC
It 1)1
( hromium
lAplosiU'S
S|K'C
SU'"'
Ci'iiin Si/i-
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD19
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD20
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD21
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
"if1
o
If
o
If
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
o
C/3
o
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
u
OD22
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
§
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
*o
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
23
23
Oh
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
£
£
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD23
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
I
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
2
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
£
OD24
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
a
S-H
a
H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
2
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
u
OD25
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
u
o
u
o
o
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD26
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD27
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.6 (continued)
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiinpk'
lYoposcri An.il
SI'S
l>i-|)lh
TCI.
TCI.
TCI. IVsl
soil
It 1)1)
(MTsiu- Soil l{oi'in<>
III l»liS)
\ < >Cs
S\(H s
I'CIJs
loliil IK'Us
TAI. Mil ills
Mmiir*
( \;ini(k'
1)11
TOC
It 1)1
( hromium
lAplosiU'S
S|K'C
SI CH>
(ii';iin Si/c
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD28
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD29
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD30
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
"if1
If
o
If
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
C/3
o
C/3
o
C/3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
OD31
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
<4—1
S-H
§
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C/3
C/3
C/3
'©
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
23
23
Oh
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
.a
£
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD32
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
I
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
2
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
£
OD33
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
CO
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S-H
a
S-H
a
S-H
a
H
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
OD34
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
u
o
u
o
u
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD35
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD36
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.6 (continued)
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Investigation Analytical Sampling Scheme
(MTsiu- Soil liorin<>
Siiinpk'
l>i-|)lh
III l»liS)
lYoposcri An.il
SI'S
TCI.
\ < >Cs
TCI.
S\(H s
TCI. IVsl
I'CIJs
loliil IK'Us
TAI. Mil ills
Mmiir*
( \;ini(k'
soil
Dll
TOC
It 1)1)
It 1)1
lk-\;n ;ik-ni
( hromium
l'A|)losiu'S
Ciimniii
S|K'C
SR""
Ci'iiin Si/i-
OD37
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Collected at a rate of 20% if detected in
Site surface soil samples
Collected at a rate of 25 % if detected in
Site surface soil samples
Collected at a rate of 25 % if detected in
Site surface soil samples
TBD in field; 1 sample per soil type
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD38
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OD39
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8-12*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
* = to be collected for laboratory analysis only if fill material is encountered at depths greater than 8 ft bgs
% = percent
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
TCL = Target Compound List
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
Pest = pesticide
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TAL = Target Analyte List
TOC = total organic carbon
TBD = to be determined
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
Table 3.7
Background Soil Analytical Sampling Scheme
Sinn pie
Do pill
An
iil\lic»l Scheme
Itackground
TAL
l»tl)l)/
lle\;iv;ilenl
(iilllllllil
soil
Locations
(11 l)«s)
Moliils
Mercur\
Kxplosivos
Chromium
Asbestos
Spec
SR"
pll
BKG1SS01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
BKG1SB01
2-4
X
X
o
o
o
o
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
8-12
X
X
c/5
c/5
c/5
c/5
X
X
X
BKG1SS02
0-0.5
X
X
"S
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
.9
.9
.9
.9
X
X
X
BKG1SB02
2-4
X
X
&
&
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
o
&
o
&
o
o
X
8-12
X
X
X
X
X
BKG1SS03
0-0.5
X
X
0^
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
BKG1SB03
2-4
X
X
c3
u
cS
u
cS
§
cS
§
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
<4-i
<4-i
<4-i
?~l
X
8-12
X
X
o
o
o
CD
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
X
X
X
BKG1SB04
2-4
X
X
CD
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
8-12
X
X
5
5
5
X
X
X
BKG1SS08
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
TAL = Target Analyte List
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.8
Site Drainage and Wetland Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Site Western Dr;iin;i»e
Sediment Siimpie Location
Sample
Depth
(It l)gS)
Sample Analytical Scheme
TCL
YOCs
ICL
SYOCs
ICL
Pest/
PC" Us
l ot ill
l»C lis
TAL
Metals
Mercun
C\iini(le
soil
Pll
PCIi
Congener
IOC
Gamma
Spec
SR "
PC 1)1)/
PCDI
llexiiviilent
Chromium
L\plosives
Asbestos
Grain
Size
WDSD01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TBD in
field; 1
sample
per soil
type
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSD02
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSD03
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSD04
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSD05 (drainage system's
outlet)
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Site Northwestern Drainage
Sedimenl Siim pie Locution
S;imple
Depth
(It bgs)
Siimple Analytical Scheme
TCL
YOCs
TCI.
SYOCs
ICL
I'est/
PC lis
l ot ill
PC lis
TAL
Metiils
Mercun
C\iini(le
soil
PH
PCIi
Congener
IOC
Camilla
Spec
SR"
PCDI)/
PCDI
llcxavalcnl
Chromium
L\plosives
Asbestos
(iriiin
Size
NASD01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TBD in
field; 1
sample
per soil
type
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASD02
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASD03 (brick warehouse catch
basin)
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASD04 (stormwater line)
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.8 (continued)
Site Drainage and Wetland Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siimple Aiiiil>ticii
1 Scheme
Siimple
TCL
Site Weil;iml Sediment
IX> pill
TCL
TCL
Pest/
Total
TAL
soil
PC 15
Giimniii
PC 1)0/
1 lexiiviilenl
Grain
Siimple Locution
(I't l)j>s)
VOCs
SVOCs
PCBs
PCBs
Met sils
Mercun
C\iini(le
Pll
Congener
IOC
Spec
SR"
pcni
Chromium
L\plosives
Asbestos
Size
WASD01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD02 (WATWO 1)
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD03 (WATW02)
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD04
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TBD in
field; 1
sample
per soil
type
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD05
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD06 (WATW03)
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD07
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD08
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASD09 (WATW04)
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
% = percent
TCL = target compound list
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TAL = target analyte list
TOC = total organic carbon
TBD = to be determined
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofarans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.9
Site Drainage and Wetland Surface Water Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siimple AniiMiciil Scheme
Site Weslern Dminiige Sediment
TCL
TCL
TCL I'esl/
Toliil
TAL
It'll
(iiimniii
llexiiviilenl
Siimple Lociilion
VOCs
SVOCs
l»C Us
I'Clls
Meliils
Mercur\
C\iinide
Congener
lliirdncss
Spec
SR"
PC 1)1)/ I'CDI
Chromium
Lx plosives
WDSW01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSW02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSW03
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSW04
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSW05 (drainage system's outlet)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP01 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP02 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP03 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP04 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP05 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WDSEEP06 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Siimple Aiiiil.
kliciil Scheme
Sile Norlhweslern Driiiiiiige
TCL
TCL
TCL I'esl/
loliil
TAL
It'll
(iiimniii
1 le\ii viilenl
Sedimeiil Siimple Lociilion
VOCs
SVOCs
l»C Us
I't lis
Meliils
Mercur\
C\iinide
Congener
lliirdncss
Spec
SR"
I'CDI)/ I'CDI
Chromium
Lx plosives
NASW01
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASW02
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASW03 (brick warehouse catch basin)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NASW04 (stormwater line)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Siimple Aiiiil.
kliciil Scheme
Sile Well and Surface Water
TCL
TCL
TCL I'esl/
loliil
TAL
It'll
(iiimniii
1 lexii viilenl
Siimple Lociilion
VOCs
SVOCs
PC lis
I't lis
Meliils
Mercur\
C\iinide
Congener
lliirdncss
Spec
SR"
I'CDI)/ I'CDI
Chromium
Lx plosives
WASW04
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASW06 (WATW03)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASW07
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASW09 (WATW04)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP01 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP02 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP03 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP04 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP05 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WASEEP06 (1)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
ft bgs = feet below ground surface
(1) Sample if observed at the site
TCL = target compound list
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
Pest = pesticide
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TAL = target analyte list
TBD = to be determined
% = percent
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.10
Proposed Monitoring Well Location Justification
Proposed
liorin» II)
(.rid
Location
Kciisoii lor Proposed Soil liorin»
Historical Site Activities Conducted ill Proposet
Soil lioring Location
Soil Assessment
(I ronnd\\ = greater than
UST = underground storage tank
WT = water table
BDL = below detection limit
PCBs = poly chlorinated biphenyls
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.11
Groundwater Analytical Sampling Scheme
Monitoring
Well
Sitmpliiin
QRTR
C;roiiii(l\\;iler S;iiii|>liiii> \n;ihlic;il Scheme
TCI.
VOCs
TCI.
SVOCs
TCI. I'esi
I'C Bs
Tot ill
I'C Bs
I'M.
Mel ills
Mercun
C\;ini(le
I'CB
Conveners
roc
I'CDI)
I'CDI
Ciiimiiiii
Spec
SR""
1 le\;n ulenl
Chromium (1)
I'Aplushes (1)
Asbestos (1)
Anions
Alk;ilinil\
I SS I DS
Melliiine.
Klhiine.
I ll bene
MW-1R
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-2
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-4
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-5
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-6
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-7
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
X
MW-8
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-9
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
MW-10
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
X
X
MW-11
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-12
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.11 (continued)
Groundwater Analytical Sampling Scheme
Monitoring
Well
Sumpling
QRTR
Cironnriwiiler Sampling \n;il\lic;il Scheme
TCI.
VOCs
TCI.
SVOCs
TCI. I'esl
I'CBs
Tolnl
I'CBs
I'M.
Mel Ills
Mercun
C\;mi(le
I'C B
Congeners
IOC
PC 1)1)
I'CDI
(iitinniit
Spec
SR""
1 lexsn iilenl
Chromium (1)
l-A|)loshes (1)
Asbestos (1)
Anions
Alk;ilinil\
I SS I DS
Mellume.
Klhiine.
rilhene
MW-13
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-14
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-15
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-16
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-17
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if YOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-18
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-19
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-20
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-21
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MW-22
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.11 (continued)
Groundwater Analytical Sampling Scheme
Monitoring
Well
Sumpling
QRTR
(irounriwiilcr Sampling \n;il\lic;il Scheme
TCL
VOCs
TCI.
SVOCs
TCI. I'esl
IX'lis
Tolnl
IX'Us
TAL
Mel ills
Mercun
C\;mi(le
IX B
Congeners
IOC
IX 1)1)
IX'DI
(iitinniit
Spec
SR""
1 lexsn iilenl
Chromium (1)
L\ploshes (1)
Asbestos (1)
Anions
Alkiilinil \
TSS I DS
Mellume.
Llhiine.
Llliene
MW-23
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WAT WO 1
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WATW02
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WATW03
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WATW04
QRTR 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if detected in Site soils
QRTR 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
QRTR 3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
To be analyzed if VOCs detected in QRTRs 1
and/or 2
QRTR 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
(1) = If analyte is detected in Site soils, monitoring wells in the vicinity of soil detections will be sampled for that analysis.
(2) = Sampling will be determined by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) upon review of previous sampling results.
QRTR = quarter
TCL = target compound list
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
Pest = pesticides
PCBs = poly chlorinated biphenyls
TAL = target analyte list
TOC = total organic carbon
TSS = total suspended solids
TDS = total dissolved solids
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofarans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.12
Wetland and Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Siiniple Anahlical Scheme
I'iinidise Creek
Sample
TCI.
Welliind Sedimeiil
Depth
TCI.
TCI.
I'esi
Tolnl
I'M.
soil
(iamma
I'CB
I'CDI)
1 le\;n ulcnl
(jriiin
Sample Locution
III l).l»S)
VOCs
SVOCs
I'Clis
IX'Its
Mel ills
Mercun
C\;mi(lc
1)11
IOC
Spec
SR""
Cozeners
I'CDI
Chromium
I'Aploshes
Size
PCWLSD01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD02
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD03
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD04
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD05
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.9
CS
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD06
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD07
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD08
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD09
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
£
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
in
PCWLSD10
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
§
PCWLSD11
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
*S1
PCWLSD12
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
©
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD13
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD14
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.9
PCWLSD15
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q
CQ
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
PCWLSD16
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD17
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCWLSD18
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.12 (continued)
Wetland and Paradise Creek Sediment Analytical Sampling Scheme
Sample Anahlical Scheme
I'iinidise Creek
Sediment Sample
Locution
Sample
Depth
III l).l»S)
TCL
VOCs
TCL
SVOCs
TCI.
I'esl
I'CUs
Tot ill
IX''Its
TAL
Meliils
Mercun
C\iini(le
soil
1)11
IOC
(iamma
Spec
SR""
I'CH
Congeners
I'CDI)
I'CDI
1 le\iu iilcnl
Chromium
Lxploshes
(jriiin
Size
PCSD01
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSD02
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSD03
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
03
O
CLh
X
X
X
X
PCSD04
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
O
H
X
X
X
X
PCSD05
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
o
tsi
X
X
X
X
PCSD06
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSD07
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
&
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSD08
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
o
X
X
X
X
PCSD09
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
X
X
X
X
PCSD10
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1*
0.5-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSD11
0-0.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.13
Paradise Creek Surface Water Analytical Sampling Scheme
Piiriidise Creek
Siiinplc Aiiiilx liciil Scheme
Surface Wilier
TCI.
TCI.
TCI. I'esl
Tolnl
TAI.
PCB
Ciiiinniii
PC 1)1)
1 lc\iU iilenl
Siimplc Lociilion
Sample Deplli
VOCs
SVOCs
PC Bs
PC Bs
Mcliils
Mercun
C\iini(lc
Congener
lliirdncss
Spec
SR""
I'C 1)1
Chromium
Kxploshes
PCS WO 1
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW02
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW03
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW04
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW05
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW06
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW07
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW08
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW09
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW10
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW11
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PCSW12
Mid-depth
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes:
TCL = target compound list
VOCs = volatile organic compounds
SVOCs = semivolatile organic compounds
Pest = pesticide
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
TAL = target analyte list
% = percent
PCDD = polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
PCDF = polychlorinated dibenzofarans
Gamma Spec = gamma spectroscopy
SR90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 3.14
Proposed Ecological Preliminary Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
Assessment Kndpoinl
liiisis l-'or Assessment Kndpoinl
Mesisuremenl Kndpoinl
Receplor
TcriTslrhil 1 Inhibits
Grow ill, survival, and lvproducuoii of soil
invertebrate communities.
Soil mv Li'iL-hraiLS promoic dev clopmciu of a wLlKoiidiuoiiLd soil lo support plain grow ill. Soil
invertebrates are an important dietary component for a number of upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of ihc mean and maximum dckvicd ixuiLvnirauun m ihc lop iwo li_vi
of soil to benchmark values.
Soil hiv Liu-braks lyarihwunus;
Growth, survival, and reproduction of terrestrial
plant communities.
Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of wildlife receptors.
Comparison of the mean and maximum detected concentration in the top two feet
of soil to benchmark values.
Terrestrial plants
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
terrestrial herbivores.
Avian terrestrial herbivores are consumers of the nuts, seeds, and berries produced by plants, and
serve as prey species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to No
Observed Adverse Effects Levels (NOAELs) and Lowest Observed Adverse
Effects Levels (LOAELs) found in the literature.
Northern bobwhite
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
terrestrial insectivores.
Avian terrestrial insectivores are important consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey species
for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
American robin
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
terrestrial carnivores.
Avian terrestrial carnivores consume small birds and mammals, thereby ensuring balance in the
ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly vulnerable to compounds which bioaccumulate.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Red-tailed hawk
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial herbivores.
Mammalian terrestrial herbivores are consumers of the nuts, seeds, and berries produced by plants,
and serve as prey species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Prairie vole
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial insectivores.
Mammalian terrestrial insectivores are important consumers of soil invertebrates, and serve as prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Short-tailed shrew
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
terrestrial carnivores.
Mammalian terrestrial carnivores consume small birds and mammals, thereby ensuring balance in the
ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly vulnerable to compounds which bioaccumulate.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Red fox
Wclliiiiri mid \(|ii;ilic Ihihiiiiis
Growth, survival, and reproduction of
wetland/aquatic vascular plant communities.
Plants provide food and habitat for a multitude of wildlife receptors.
Comparison of the mean and maximum detected concentration in surface water
and sediment to benchmark values.
Wetland/
aquatic vascular plants
Growth, survival, and reproduction of benthic
invertebrate communities.
Benthic invertebrates recycle nutrients and condition the sediment. They are also important prey
species for upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of the mean and maximum detected concentration in the sediment to
benchmark values.
Benthic invertebrate Community
Growth, survival, and reproduction of aquatic
communities.
A healthy aquatic community is critical to maintenance of stream function. Members of this
community serve as prey species for upper trophic level receptors.
Comparison of the mean and maximum detected concentration in the surface
water to aquatic benchmark values.
Freshwater Aquatic Community
Growth, survival, and reproduction of transition
zone communities.
Transition zones can play important roles in terms of stream function. These areas may provide
spawning, feeding, and nursery habitats. These zones may provide areas of refuge for fish and
invertebrates during drought periods and floods, and provide habitat for insect and fish larvae.
Comparison of the mean and maximum detected concentration in the surface
water to aquatic benchmark values.
Transition Zone Community
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
piscivores
Mammalian piscivores consume fish and some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby providing
balance for the aquatic ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly vulnerable to bioaccumulative
chemicals.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Mink
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
aquatic/wetland herbivores
Mammalian aquatic/wetland herbivores are consumers of the nuts, seeds, and berries produced by
plants, and serve as prey species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Muskrat
Growth, survival, and reproduction of mammalian
aquatic/wetland omnivores.
Mammalian aquatic/wetland omnivores consume invertebrates, vertebrates, and plant material,
thereby ensuring balance in the ecosystem.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Raccoon
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
aquatic/wetland predator.
Avian aquatic/wetland predators consume fish, shrimp, crabs, aquatic insects, rodents and other small
mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and small birds. These receptors may be particularly vulnerable to
bioaccumulative chemicals.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Great Blue Heron
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
piscivores.
Avian piscivores consume fish and some types of benthic invertebrates, thereby providing balance for
the aquatic ecosystem. These receptors may be particularly vulnerable to bioaccumulative chemicals.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Belted kingfisher
Growth, survival, and reproduction of avian
aquatic/wetland insectivores.
Avian aquatic/wetland insectivores are important consumers of sediment and surface water
invertebrates, and serve as prey species for upper trophic level receptors.
Calculation of mean and maximum chemical intake and comparison to NOAELs
and LOAELs found in the literature.
Marsh wren
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
FIGURES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
•-BKG1SS05
BKG1SS06
BKG1SS04/
BKG1SB04
BKG1SS03/
BKG1SB03
Cradock
High School
•—BKG1SS07
BKG1SS02 /
BKG1SB02
BKG1SS01/
BKG1SB01
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal Rl/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
\\gspsr)--Ot\HGLGIS\Pecl(\_MmP^-IPjnFS\
(3-01 )Proposed_BG_Samples. mxd
11/12/2014 CNL
Source: HGL, ICS
VBMP Aerial Imagery
v HGL
HydraGeoU
Legend
Proposed Surface Soil Sample
Proposed Soil Boring
Figure 3.1
Proposed Background
Soil Investigation
Sample Locations
-------
;ei
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 3.2A
Proposed Surface Soil
Sample Locations
Legend
Proposed Malcolm Pirnie Sample Verification
Location
Proposed Radiological Surface Soil Sample
Proposed Hotspot Surface Soil Sample
Location
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW01R Well or Sample Location Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
24 Decision Unit Boundary
Wetland
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Notes:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
\ \gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(3- 02A)Proposed_Su rface_Samples. mxd
11/13/2014 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
VBMP Aerial Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
0
120
240
480
Feet
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, I1
Figure 3.2B
Proposed Subsurface
Soil Sample Locations
Legend
® Proposed Monitoring Well
• Proposed Hotspot Prepack Well
fit Proposed Offsite Soil Investigation Boring
¦ Proposed Hotspot Test Pit Location
B Proposed DU Test Pit
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
MW01R Well or Sample Location Identification
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
AA Grid Column or Row Identification
24 Decision Unit (DU) Boundary
Wetland
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Notes:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
\ \gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(3- 02B)Proposed_Subsu rface_Samples. mxd
11/13/2014 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA
VBMP Aerial Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
lWASD.11,
NASD01
WAS D10*
WD S DOS
WDSW05
Norfolk
Naval
Shipyard
Elm Avenue
Atlantic Wood
Industries
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
MW01R
NASD03
NASW03
NASD02
NASW02
MW02
Scott
Center
Annex
-MW05
WDSD01
WDSW01
~WATW04
WASW09
MW06-
I
WA3D13"- .
WDSD03
WDSW03
WDSD04
WASD03
WATW02 WDSW04
WASD02
WAIWQ1
ARREFF
WDSW02
/ WDSD02
NASW01
WASD06
WASD01
WASD04
WASW04
MW07
WASD05 WATW03
WASW06
WASD07
WASW07
MW10
MW09
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, ¥A
Figure 3.3
Proposed Site
Drainage and Wetland
Sample Locations
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
a Drainage Sediment Sample
O Surface Water Sample
-0- Temporary Well
WASD08 Sample Location Identification
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Wetland
Notes:
The location of NASD04/NASW04 will be determined after reviewing
city storm sewer utility maps and assessing appropriate sample locations.
Seep sample locations will be determined in the field after a seep survey
has been conducted.
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
*=Sample location to be determined upon results of wetland delineation.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(3-03)Site_Drainage_Samples. mxd
6/14/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, NW1
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
-*" HydroGeoLoqicr Inc.
-------
South Center
PCSW01
PCSD01
PCWLSD01
PCSW02
PCSD02
"N. PCWLSD02—
w
m
0}
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
PCWLSD15
PCWLSD16
PCSW11
PCSD11
At
Marina
PCSD12
pa*
PCWLSD17
PCWLSD18
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, II
Figure 3.4
Proposed Paradise Creek
Sample Locations
Legend
® Existing Monitoring Well
® Covered Monitoring Well
a Aquatic Sediment Sample Location
+ Sediment Sample Location
PCSD01 Sample Location Identification
Depth to Channel Bottom
Measurement Transect
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Wetland
Note:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
\ \gst-srv-01 \hglgis \Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(3-04)Prop_Wetlands_PC_Samples. mxd
6/14/2013 CNL
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, NW1
ArcGIS Online Imagery
~ HGL
¦33 HyriraGeoLogic, Inr
-------
Elm a
v&nue
Scott
Center
Annex
N°rfolk>
0i-tsni,
°uth
*eltL
me
Raiir0:
'ad
0m Avenue
Paradise Creek
Western Landfill
r
120 240
480
Feet
r 11 lifi - v
C N M L
¦m
¦n
kITjBBhIgM fJ eM dMcJ bWa!
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS
City of Portsmouth, US,
Figure 3.5
Dust Monitoring Stations
~
AA
24
Legend
Dust Monitoring Station
Malcolm Pirnie 50 foot x 50 foot Sample Grid
Grid Column or Row Identification
Increment Composite
Soil Sample Decesion Unit
Wetland
Peck Iron and Metal Site
Note:
Wetland areas are defined and digitized by the National Wetlands Inventory
branch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 26, 2011.
\ \Gst-srv-01 \HGLGIS\Peck\_MSIW\SMP_RIFS\
(3-05)DustMonitoring_Stations. mxd
2/25/2013 ST
Source: HGL, Malcolm Pirnie, EPA, NWI
ArcGIS Online Imagery
v HGL
—^ HydroG&oLogiC, Inc.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
4.0 FIELD ACTIVITY METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The following sampling-related tasks will be performed by HGL at the Site:
• Site mobilization/demobilization;
• Procurement of equipment, supplies, and containers;
• MD avoidance;
• Gamma radiation surveying;
• Surface soil sampling;
• Subsurface soil sampling;
• Terrestrial sediment sampling;
• Aquatic sediment sampling;
• Surface water sampling;
• Temporary well installations;
• Permanent well installations;
• Well development and well redevelopment;
• Groundwater sampling;
• Dust monitoring;
• Wetland delineation;
• Asbestos building inspections;
• Lead wipe sampling;
• PCB wipe sampling;
• Surveying and surveying oversight;
• Field logbook documentation;
• Sample collection, handling, packing, and shipping;
• Equipment decontamination;
• Dust Suppression; and
• IDW management.
Sampling activities will be conducted in accordance with the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Contract Laboratory Program Guidance for Field Samplers,
EPA 540-R-07-06 (EPA, 2007) and HGL SOPs. Where applicable, the subsections in this
section reference HGL SOPs. Only HGL SOPs previously not reviewed by the EPA have
been attached to this SMP as Appendix B. Field data sheets to be utilized during this
investigation are included in Appendix C.
4.1 SITE MOBILIZATION
HGL will identify and provide all necessary personnel, equipment, and materials for
mobilization and demobilization to and from the site for the purpose of conducting RI
sampling activities. A field equipment checklist, included in HGL SOP No. 1, General Field
Operations, will be completed per sampling event by the FTL and reviewed by the HGL
Project Manager (PM) and all associated field crew members. Equipment and supplies will be
stored in a secured area near the Site for the duration of the field event.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
As part of the mobilization task, the following tasks will be conducted:
• Verifying that EPA has obtained property access;
• Setting up the field office/storage container; and
• Notify the utility locator two week prior to the first subsurface soil investigation and
Miss Utility (800-552-7001) three days prior to conducting each subsurface
investigation; and
• Ensure all field investigation activities to be conducted in wetland areas meet the
requirements of any permits that would be required for working within wetland areas.
4.2 PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, AND CONTAINERS
Equipment and supplies needed for the RI field events include monitoring and sampling
equipment, health and safety supplies, decontamination materials, and field operation supplies
(such as, coolers, bottleware, and sample preservatives). All equipment to be used for this
project will be rented. Supplies required to implement sampling activities will be purchased
and are expected to be expended over the course of the investigation.
4.3 UTILITY CLEARANCE
HGL will contact Miss Utility of Virginia (811 or 800-552-7001) to arrange for public utility
clearances. HGL will meet with the Miss Utility personnel at the Site to identify sample
locations and potential utility conflicts. Sample locations will be pre-marked with white paint
in order to ensure subsurface utilities at all subsurface sampling locations in public areas are
identified Miss Utility.
Notification should be conducted a minimum of three days prior to any subsurface intrusive
sampling activities. Miss Utility is a free service open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.
Utility tickets are active for 15 working days from the day after notification and can only be
updated on time; meaning the life of a utility ticket is 30 days. The ticket search program on
the VA811.com website can be utilized to check on the status of a utility ticket. Upon arrival
at the site of the proposed subsurface intrusion location, the HGL field crew will inspect the
area for evidence of unmarked utilities. If clear evidence of unmarked utilities is observed, no
subsurface intrusive work will begin until three hours after a call to the notification center is
performed. The operator of any unmarked utility line should respond within the three hour
window.
A private utility locator also will be contracted to provide utility clearances for subsurface
sampling locations on private property. Sample locations will be pre-marked with white paint
in order to ensure subsurface utilities clearance activities are conducted at the right locations.
The HGL FTL will direct the utility-locating subcontractor in the field. The private utility-
locating subcontractor will utilize utility maps, if available, and standard approved methods to
obtain the horizontal locations of any subsurface utilities within a 15-foot radius of each
proposed soil and monitoring well boring and test pit. A 15-foot radius is deemed necessary
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
in case subsurface obstructions or MD is encountered, thus requiring relocation of the
sampling point. Located utilities will be demarcated with weather resistant surface markings.
Over the course of the investigation, HGL personnel will re-mark utility markings.
Subsurface verification of identified utilities will not be required. The HGL field team leader
(FTL) will direct the utility-locating subcontractor in the field.
4.4 GAMMA RADIATION SURVEYING
The gamma radiation survey will consist of three parts, a site reconnaissance, a gamma survey
walkover, and a more detailed gamma survey walkover where needed. The site
reconnaissance will be conducted by the survey team to note potential gamma survey obstacles
and layout out the survey boundaries. The survey will be subdivided into manageable survey
units and linear transects will be marked based upon the site reconnaissance. The coverage for
the initial survey walkover is 25 percent, which is obtained by covering one-fourth of the
accessible areas with the detectors at a fixed height above the ground surface. The walkover
survey will scan surface soils and sediments and will not cover obstacles such as trees,
standing buildings, or rubble piles. With the two detectors operating in tandem, the effective
field of view is one square meter, so transect lines will be spaced every four meters.
The instrument signal is inversely proportional to the distance between a radioactive source
and the detector. The survey team does not solely survey the transect lines, because the
probability of observing potential contamination lying between the transect lines is high. The
team will scan the linear transect and occasionally investigate areas of interest by conducting a
more detailed 100 percent scan of an area of interest. The data logger will flag certain areas
based on the field measurements.
If gamma anomalies are detected, up to 15 soil samples will be collected for laboratory
analysis and shipped to an EPA-selected radiochemistry laboratory for gamma spectrometry
analysis (ASTM International Method CI402-04). If the anomalies are localized, one soil
sample will be collected in the immediate vicinity of the gamma radiation anomaly source. If
an anomaly is widespread, suggesting either multiple sources or reworking of radiation
contaminated soils, up to three soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis. The
gamma radiation samples will be collected in accordance with HGL SOP No. 16, Surface and
Shallow Depth Soil Sampling. The samples to be collected will be obtained from the top 0.25
feet of soil in the immediate vicinity of the identified gamma radiation anomaly. The soil
samples will be collected in the same manner as terrestrial sediment samples using a
disposable sampling trowel or decontaminated spoon. All debris including scrap metals will
be removed from the sample prior to containerization. The collected samples will be
considered
4.5 MD AVOIDANCE
4.5.1 MD Surface Avoidance
Prior to the start of any subsurface activities, MD clearances will be conducted by UXO
technicians. MEC avoidance activities will be conducted in accordance with HGL SOP 15.12,
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
MEC Anomaly Avoidance Support (Appendix B). Any MEC observed at the site will be
inspected, photographed, and surveyed using a handheld GPS unit. The MEC will not be
disturbed, collected, containerized, or removed from the Site. A Schonstedt magnetometer
and downhole magnetometer will be used to conduct MEC avoidance.
4.5.2 MD Subsurface Avoidance
MD subsurface avoidance protocols will be followed at all onsite subsurface soil sampling
locations from the surface to two feet into the native soils underlying any encountered fill
material or until the bottom of the test pit/soil boring is reached, whichever is encountered
first. Subsurface soil MD avoidance will consist of the following tasks:
1. Visually inspect the surface of each subsurface sample location for MD and utilize a
Schonstedt magnetometer (or equivalent) to clear the top two feet of soil.
2. Upon determining the absence of magnetically and magnetically susceptible debris
within the top two feet of soil, begin advancing the test pit/boring to two feet bgs.
3. Upon reaching 2 feet bgs, all digging/drilling equipment will be removed from the
sampling location. The digging/drilling equipment will be relocated to a distance that
will not interfere with the downhole magnetometer and thereby yielding a false
positive magnetic response. A minimum of 10 feet is anticipated for equipment
relocation.
4. The trained UXO technician will then lower a downhole geophysical surveying
instrument (or equivalent) to the bottom of the test pit/soil boring (2 feet bgs). For
test pits, the side walls of the test pit will also be inspected.
a. If no anomalies are detected the test pit/boring will be advanced another two feet
into the subsurface. Steps 3 and 4 will be repeated until the test pit/soil boring is
completed to depth or 2 feet of native soil is encountered below the waste
material, whichever is encountered first.
b. If a magnetic anomaly is detected in the test pit/soil boring; the test pit/soil
boring will be relocated within 10 feet of the former location and Steps 1 through
4 will be repeated. If, after three attempts, a test pit/soil boring cannot be
completed due to the presence of subsurface anomalies, the test pit/soil boring
location will be abandoned and EPA will be notified.
4.6 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
Surface soil sampling will be completed for the following investigations:
• Site surface soil sampling; and
• Hot spot assessment.
Surface soil sampling locations are presented in Section 3.0 of the SMP and are shown on
Figure 3.2A. The following procedures will be utilized for the collection of a surface soil
sample:
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
1. Using a handheld GPS unit, the sampling crew will locate the first sample location.
2. The surface of the sample location will be visually inspected for the presence of MD.
A magnetometer will be utilized to verify the absence of magnetic anomalies in the
shallow subsurface soil. All surface debris and any vegetative matting will be
removed from the sample location. If the sample location is determined to be
inaccessible due (concrete pavement, beneath rubble pile, buried debris), the sample
location will be relocated to the nearest accessible location and the new location
surveyed with the handheld GPS unit.
3. The surface of the sample location will be inspected for the presence of radiologicals
using a handheld gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent). All
surface debris and any vegetative matting will be removed from the sample location.
If a radiological anomaly is detected, the anomaly will be visually inspected,
photographed, and removed from the area of investigation. The anomaly will be
transported in a bucket and placed inside an appropriate container within the
Radioactive Waste Storage Area (RWSA) for proper disposal.
4. A decontaminated hand auger or stainless steel shovel will be inserted into the
subsurface to a depth of 0.5 feet. The collected soil will be placed into a disposable
aluminum pan sized appropriately for the sample volume. This process will be
completed until a sufficient volume of soil has been retrieved for sampling.
5. The collected soil will be thoroughly mixed with all vegetative matter, rocks, and
debris removed. Soil present in vegetative root systems will be collected, as
practicable, and included in the soil collected for sampling.
6. Upon compositing, the soils will be placed within the appropriate sample containers
and shipped to the EPA-selected laboratories for the requested analyses.
7. During sample collection, the soils comprising the sample will be lithologically
logged, visually inspected, and field screened with a PID and handheld gamma
radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent). Surface soil lithologic logging
will be in accordance with HGL SOP No. 24, Geologic Borehole Logging.
8. Steps 1 through 7 will be repeated at each sample location.
4.7 SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
Subsurface soil sampling will be completed for the following investigations:
• On-site subsurface soil investigation;
• Hot spot assessment;
• Off-site soil investigation;
• Background soil investigation;
• Well installations; and
• Site wetlands investigation.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Subsurface soil sampling locations are presented in Section 3.0 of the SMP and are shown on
Figures 3.2B and 3.3.
4.7.1 Test Pit Excavations
Subsurface soil samples will be collect from test pits for the on-site subsurface soil
investigation and hot spot assessment. A backhoe (or equivalent) excavator with a maximum
depth reach of 14 feet bgs, 2 feet below the anticipated maximum sample depth, will be
utilized for test pit excavations. Test pits are anticipated to be approximately 3 to 4 feet wide
and 4 to 6 feet long to allow for visual inspection of the sidewalls during advancement of the
test pit. Test pit logging will be in accordance with HGL SOP No. 24, Geologic Borehole
Logging. No person will be allowed into a test pit deeper than 3 feet bgs. Due to the potential
for soil undercutting of test pit sidewalls, no personnel shall stand near the test pit opening
except for the UXO specialist conducting visual inspection for buried MD and a competent
person responsible for overseeing test pit excavation activities. The geologist/field technician
will approach the test pit only when necessary in order to document excavation progress and
characterize the test pit stratigraphy.
The following sampling procedures will be utilized for the test pit activities:
1. MD avoidance activities will be performed at the surface of each test pit location and
along the rig access path to each test pit location.
2. Once the top 2 feet of soil has been scanned with a magnetometer (or equivalent) and
no magnetically anomalies detected, the excavator bucket will be utilized to scrape the
subsurface soils in increments of 1 foot. A trained UXO technician will visually
inspect the test pit as excavation is occurring. Downhole geophysical surveying will
be conducted as specified in Section 4.5.2.
3. During test pit advancement, the soils will be visually inspected for debris and
evidence of contamination, field screened with a PID and gamma radiation detector
(Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent), and lithologically characterized.
4. The test pits will be advanced to a maximum depth of 8 feet bgs unless fill material is
still present; at which case, the test pit will be extended to 12 feet bgs.
5. Soil samples will be collected from sample intervals listed in Table 3.3. If a test pit is
completed to 12 feet bgs, the 8 to 12-foot soil interval will be sampled for laboratory
analysis. If the test pit is completed to 8 feet bgs, the 8 to 12-foot soil interval will
not be sampled.
6. The soil samples collected for laboratory analysis will be obtained from the center of
the backhoe bucket. The soil sample will be retrieved from the portion of the soil not
touching the backhoe bucket.
7. Because the test pit will be advanced in 1-foot lifts, a known volume of soil will be
collected from each lift comprising the same sample interval. The collected soil will
be placed in a sealable plastic bag until the entire sample interval is collected. After
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
all of the soil for the associated sample interval is obtained, the soil will be
thoroughly mixed and then containerized into the appropriate sample containers.
8. TCL VOC samples will be collected using Encore™ or Encore-like samplers. Soil
samples being submitted for TCL VOC analysis will not be collected from the
composited sample. Rather, the soil selected for TCL VOC analysis will be collected
from soil within the defined sample interval exhibiting possible contamination (e.g.,
soil staining, high PID readings, etc.). If soil contamination is not obvious within the
sample interval, the soil collected from the center of the sample interval will be
collected for TCL VOC laboratory analysis.
The excavated soils will be stockpiled adjacent to each test pit on plastic sheeting (or
equivalent). Once sampling of the test pits are completed, the excavated soils will be placed
back into the excavation at the same depth from which they were removed. This procedure
will allow for the storage of the excavated soils below and at ground surface while laboratory
analysis is performed to determine the PCB content of the soils; minimize any potential
generation of dust and runoff from stockpiled soils; and prevent unauthorized personnel from
falling into any open excavations. Upon receipt of laboratory analysis, the test pits soils may
need to be re-excavated and disposed off site per TSCA regulations.
4.7.2 Soil Borings
Soil borings will be completed at the Site using a variety of drilling equipment, including hand
augers, DPT rigs, and HSA rigs.
4.7.2.1 Direct Push Technology Soil Sampling
A DPT drill rig will be utilized to continuously collect subsurface soil samples from the
borings advanced during the off-site soil investigation (Figure 3.2B) and the background study
(Figure 3.1). Downhole MD avoidance practices, as discussed in Section 4.5, will be
implemented during advancement of the soil borings. DPT drilling activities will be
conducted in accordance with HGL SOP No. 27, Basic Geoprobe Operations. The macrocore
sampler head will be decontaminated prior to starting a new borehole and after each macrocore
sample interval. Decontamination methods are discussed under Section 4.20.
A 2-inch diameter, 4 to 5-foot long stainless steel macrocore sampler fitted with disposable
liners will be advanced into the subsurface at each boring location. Upon completion of the 4
to 5-foot deep push, the sampler will be removed from the subsurface. The sampler sleeve,
filled with soil, will be extracted from the sampler. The contained soil will then be removed
from the sleeve for visual inspection, field screening with a PID and gamma radiation detector
(Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent), and lithologic logging. Borehole logging will be
conducted in accordance with HGL SOP No. 24, Geologic Borehole Logging. The sampler
drive head will be decontaminated and a new liner placed into the sampler. This process will
be repeated until the boring is completed to a maximum depth of 8 feet bgs or to a depth of 12
feet bgs if the fill material is deeper than 8 feet bgs.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Following screening, soil samples will be collected and submitted to EPA-selected laboratories
for laboratory analysis in accordance with Section 3 tables. TCL VOC samples will be
collected directly from the soil cores into Encore™ or Encore-like samplers. The soil within
each sample interval selected for TCL VOC analysis will be the soil expressing the greatest
degree of contamination based on field screening results and visual observations. If no
evidence of contamination is identified within a specific sample interval (e.g., 2 to 4 feet bgs,
4 to 8 feet bgs, etc.), the TCL VOC soil sample will be collected from the center of the
sample interval. The remaining soil from the sample interval will be composited before being
placed into the appropriate sample containers for shipment.
After a soil boring is completed, the soil borings will be backfilled with bentonite chips to
within 1 foot of grade. The chips will then be hydrated before filling the remaining annular
space with like surface material (e.g., asphalt, concrete, soil). The generated soil and water
(decontamination water) IDW will be placed within 55-gallon steel drums and stockpiled on
Site until sampled and analyzed for off-site disposal.
4.7.2.2 Hand Auger Soil Sampling
Hand augers will be utilized in areas where a DPT drill rig cannot access. It is anticipated,
hand augers will be needed for off-site soil investigation borings located along the
Site/Wheelabrator property boundary due to heavy vegetation and steep slopes. Hand auger
borings are anticipated for the four Site Wetland soil borings and for Hot Spot Assessment soil
location HS07 in order to prevent damaging the wetlands. Every attempt will be made to
complete a soil boring with a DPT drill rig before opting to use a hand auger. Hand auger
borings will be advanced to 8 feet bgs, to the bottom of the fill material if deeper than 8 feet
bgs, or until refusal, whichever is encountered first.
The hand auger will be advanced in to the subsurface. Soils excavated with the hand auger
will be visually inspected, field screened with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum
2221/44-10 or equivalent) per the Regulator-accepted RPP (AVESI, 2014b), and lithologically
characterized in accordance with HGL SOP No. 24, Geologic Borehole Logging. Soil samples
will be collected in accordance with Section 3 tables. Hand auger heads will be switched out
or decontaminated prior to collecting a new sample but will not be switched out within the
same sample interval. Hand auger decontamination procedures are presented in Section 4.20.
Soil sample collection for laboratory analysis will be conducted in the same manner as
specified for DPT soil sampling. Excavated soils, generated decontamination water, and hand
auger soil borings will be handled in the same manner as specified for DPT soil borings.
4.7.2.3 Hollow-Stem Auger Soil Sampling
Soil sampling will be conducted as the well boreholes for proposed wells MW11, MW13,
MW14, MW15, MW17, MW18, MW19, MW20, MW22, and MW23 are advanced. The
monitoring wells where soil samples will be collected for laboratory analysis are listed on
Table 3.5. Soil samples for laboratory analysis will not be collected from wells MW12,
MW16, or MW21. All on-site monitoring well drilling will require downhole MD avoidance.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-8
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
A 2-inch to 3-inch diameter, 2-foot long, stainless steel split spoon sampler will be advanced
into the subsurface using a 140 pound hammer. The sampler will be fitted with a disposable
sand catcher to maximize sample retention within the sampler. In the wells where soil
sampling will be conducted, the sampler will be advanced from 0.5 feet to 12 feet bgs in 2-
foot increments. The sampler will be retrieved from the subsurface and the sample
containerized in a sealable plastic bag until the entire sample interval is collected. Soil
samples retrieved during borehole advancement will be lithologically characterized, visually
inspected, and field screened with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or
equivalent).
Soil sampling for laboratory analysis will be conducted in the same manner as specified for
DPT soil borings. Excavated soils and decontamination water IDW will be handled in
accordance with Section 10 of this SMP. Decontamination activities for the drill rig and
drilling equipment are specified under Section 4.20.
4.8 TERRESTRIAL SEDIMENT SAMPLING
Terrestrial sediment sampling will be performed in accordance with HGL SOP No. 16,
Surface and Shallow Depth Soil Sampling, unless otherwise noted. Terrestrial sediment
samples will be collected using a decontaminated stainless steel hand auger, decontaminated
stainless steel core barrel, decontaminated stainless steel slide hammer, multi-stage sludge
sampler, or disposable trowel. If surface water is present, a disposable trowel will not be
utilized. The exact sampling equipment and depths are presented in Section 3.0 of this SMP.
If vegetation is present at a sample location, the vegetation mat will be scraped from the
sample location making sure the soil surrounding the roots remains intact before collecting the
0- to 0.5-foot soil interval sample.
The collected soils will be placed in a sealable plastic bag and thoroughly mixed. The mixed
sample will then be lithologically characterized, field screened with a PID and gamma
radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) per the RPP, and visually inspected.
After inspection, the mixed soil will be placed win the appropriate sample containers, placed
on ice, and submitted to the appropriate laboratory. Samples being submitted for TCL VOCs
will be collected directly from the Site soil without mixing. These samples will be collected
using an Encore™ or Encore-like sampler.
4.9 AQUATIC SEDIMENT SAMPLING
Saturated sediment sampling will be conducted as part of the following field investigations:
• Paradise Creek investigation;
• Site drainage investigation (if drainages contain surface water); and
• Site wetlands investigation.
Sample locations and depths are discussed in Section 3.0 of the SMP and depicted on Figures
3.3 and 3.4. Sediment sampling activities will be conducted in accordance with HGL SOP
No. 17, Sediment Sampling.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-9
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Sediment samples will be collected using a decontaminated stainless steel hand auger,
decontaminated stainless steel core barrel, decontaminated stainless steel slide hammer, multi-
stage sludge sampler, or decontaminated clam-shell dredge. Samples collected for VOC
analysis will be collected directly from the surface of the removed soil core or directly from
the clam-shell dredge. The remaining sediment sample volume will be placed in a sealable
plastic bag and homogenized. The homogenized sediment sample will then be visually
inspected and lithologically characterized, and field screened with a gamma radiation detector
Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) per the RPP, prior to containerization.
4.10 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
Surface water sampling will be conducted during the following investigations:
• Paradise Creek investigation;
• Site drainage investigation (including seep sampling); and
• Site wetlands investigation (including seep sampling).
Surface water sampling activities will be conducted in accordance with HGL SOP No. 18,
Surface Water Sampling. The surface water samples will only be collected if surface water is
present. For surface water sample collection within the tidal wetland area of the Site and
within Paradise Creek, surface water samples will be collected during an outgoing tide and as
close to low tide as practical. Hand dipping techniques will be employed if the drainage is
accessible and shallow; otherwise, a remote sampling devise such as a dipper or discrete water
sampler will be utilized. For the Paradise Creek investigation, a discrete water sampler will
be utilized. A peristaltic pump fitted with disposable tubing to a 0.45-micron in-line filters
will be utilized for field filtering the TAL metals sample if the sample turbidity is greater than
10 NTUs.
During sample collection, surface water quality parameters including temperature, pH,
specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and ORP will be measured with a water
quality meter and separate turbidity meter. Water quality parameter measurements will be
collected in accordance with HGL SOP No. 31, Field Measurable Physical/Chemical
Characteristics. Surface water flow measurements will be collected from the wetland surface
water drainages and from Paradise Creek. Flow rates will be measured in accordance with
HGL SOP No. 15, Flow Measurements. All surface water samples will also be field screened
for radioactivity using a gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent).
4.11 PRE-PACK WELL INSTALLATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
Temporary wells will be installed as part of the following investigations:
• Hot spot assessment (HSTW01 [Figure 3.2B]);
• Off-site soil investigation (OD02 [Figure 3.2B); and
• Site wetland investigation (WATW01, WATW02, WATW03, AND WATW04
[Figure 3.3]).
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-10
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
During borehole advancement, a soil core will be continuously collected for lithologic
characterization, field screening with a PID and gamma radiation detector (Ludlum
2221/44-10 or equivalent), and visual inspection. Lithologic characterization activities will be
conducted in accordance with HGL SOP No. 24, Geologic Borehole Logging. Upon
achieving the desired depth, the temporary wells will be installed within the open borehole.
The temporary wells will be constructed of 2-inch-diameter, 10-foot-long pre-pack wells
screens and riser pipe. Each pre-pack well screen will be constructed of two 5-foot-long
0.010 factory-slotted wells screens surrounded by wire mesh. The annular space between the
well screen and wire mesh will filled of clean silica sand sized appropriately for the underlying
lithology. The well screen will be positioned to bracket the water table, 8 feet below the water
table and 2 feet above the water table. The purpose of straddling the water table is to identify
if light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) are present on the water table. Additional filter
media will be added to the annular space between the pre-pack well and the borehole sidewalls
as needed. A bentonite plug will be installed above the well screen to prevent surface
materials sloughing into the well screen interval.
Within 12 to 72 hours from installation, the pre-pack monitoring wells will be developed.
Well development will be in accordance with HGL SOP No. 10, Monitor Well Development.
Development will consist of surging and evacuating the groundwater with a whale or
equivalent submersible pump. Water quality parameters including temperature, pH, specific
conductance, dissolved oxygen, and ORP will be measured using a water quality meter every
3 to 5 minutes through the purging process. In addition, the groundwater's turbidity will be
measured with a turbidity meter. Water quality parameter measurements including turbidity
will be collected in accordance with HGL SOP No. 31, Field Measurable Physical/Chemical
Characteristics. The well's total depth and water level will be measured to the nearest 0.01
foot every 5 minutes during the development process using an electronic sounding water level
meter. Well development will be considered complete when no measureable sediment is
recorded on the well bottom and turbidity has dropped below 50 NTUs or a maximum of six
well casing volumes have been purged, whichever occurs first.
All soil and water IDW generated during the installation and development of the temporary
wells will be field screened for radioactivity per the RPP, containerized in 55-gallon drums for
waste characterization and disposed of in accordance with the IDW Management Plan (Section
10.0). Upon sampling of the temporary wells, the temporary wells will be removed from the
ground, washed off, deconstructed, and disposed of as municipal waste. The filter pack media
within the pre-pack wells will be containerized with the drill cuttings from the installation of
the temporary wells. The temporary well boreholes will be backfilled with grout to within 1
foot of the ground surface. The grout will be allowed to settle for approximately 24 hours.
After 24 hours have elapsed, the grouted borehole will be inspected. If the grout has dropped
more than a foot during the curing process, additional grout will be added to the borehole.
This process will be repeated until the grout level has stabilized. Upon grout stabilization, the
remaining 1 foot of annular space will be backfilled with like surface material.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-11
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
4.12 PERMANENT WELL INSTALLATIONS
Thirteen new permanent groundwater monitoring wells (MW11 through MW23) will be
installed as part of the groundwater investigation. The permanent wells will be installed using
an HSA drill rig to a maximum depth of 8 feet below the top of the water table and will be
constructed in accordance with HGL SOP No. 9, Monitor Well Installation. Downhole MD
avoidance practices as described in Section 4.5 will be conducted during installation of the
onsite monitoring wells.
The wells will be constructed as 2-inch-diameter wells with a 10-foot-long well screen
constructed of 0.010-slotted Schedule 40 PVC and flush jointed to a 2-inch-diameter PVC
riser. The annular space will be backfilled with clean silica sand to a depth of 2 feet above the
well screen. The remaining annular space will be backfilled to grade with bentonite chips if
the total bentonite chip thickness layer is less than 10 feet, and the wells will be completed
with aboveground steel protective casings and concrete pads. Bollards will not be installed. If
the bentonite chip layer will be greater than 10 feet in thickness, then only a 2- to 3-foot thick
bentonite chip layer will be installed above the clean silica sand filter pack. The remaining
annular space will be backfilled with grout.
For wells where the groundwater is within 3 feet of the surface, the top of the well screen will
be placed no shallower than 3 feet bgs. The filter pack will be installed no more than 0.5 feet
above the well screen. The remaining annular space will be backfilled with bentonite chips to
0.5 feet bgs. Concrete will be utilized to backfill in the remaining annulus.
Following the well installation, the wells will be developed within 12 to 72 hours if only
bentonite chips are utilized above the well filter pack. If grout is utilized in the well
construction, then well development will be conducted between 24 and 72 hours from
installation of the grout. Well development will be in accordance with HGL SOP No. 10,
Monitor Well Development and in the same manner as discussed above in Section 4.11. Water
quality parameters reading will be recorded every 3 to 5 minutes until no measureable
sediment is present at the bottom of the well and the groundwater turbidity is less than 50
NTU or until six well casing volumes of water have been removed, whichever occurs first.
4.13 WELL REDEVELOPMENT
All existing Site monitoring wells determined not to be compromised will be redeveloped with
a whale pump or equivalent. Well redevelopment activities will be conducted in accordance
with HGL SOP No. 10, Monitor Well Development and in the same manner as discussed
above in Section 4.11. The wells will be surged to remove any fine sediment that may have
settled at the bottom of the wells. The wells will then be purged until no measureable
sediment thickness is present at the base of the well and the groundwater turbidity is less than
50 NTUs or until six well casing volumes of water have been removed from the well,
whichever occurs first.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-12
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
4.14 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Four quarters of groundwater sampling will be conducted at the Site. Quarterly groundwater
samples will be collected from the four Wetland temporary wells and from 23 of the 25
permanent Site monitoring wells. Site monitoring wells MW01 and MW03 are assumed to be
still buried.
Synoptic water level measurements will be collected from the Site monitoring wells and
temporary wells prior to sampling. Depth to water and total well depth measurements will be
collected in accordance with HGL SOP No. 13, Water Level Measurement. An electronic
audible sounding water level meter will be utilized. Water level measurements will be
collected to the nearest 0.01 foot. If LNAPL or DNAPL are expected based on PID field
screening results or visual observations, a decontaminated oil/water interface probe will be
utilized. The top of the LNAPL/DNAPL and base of the LNAPL/DNAPL layer will be
measured to the nearest 0.01 foot.
Groundwater sampling will be conducted using low-flow techniques in accordance with HGL
SOP No. 12A, Groundwater Sampling for Low Flow Purge and Sampling. Groundwater
samples will be collected from the temporary and permanent monitoring wells using a bladder
pump. Water quality parameters including water level, temperature, pH, specific
conductance, DO, ORP, and salinity will be measured using an in-line water quality meter
every 3 to 5 minutes during the purging process. Turbidity measurements will also be
measured using a separate turbidity meter. Purging will be considered achieved if stabilization
of the water quality parameters is obtained, the well is purged dry, or a maximum of three
well casing volumes have been evacuated. Water quality parameter stabilization is considered
achieved when the parameter readings varied less than ±1 degree for temperature, ±0.1 pH
units for pH, ±3 percent for specific conductance, and ±10 percent for dissolved oxygen and
ORP for three consecutive readings. In addition, turbidity measurements must be less than 10
NTUs or have varied by less than 10 percent for three consecutive readings. Water quality
parameter measurements including turbidity will be collected in accordance with HGL SOP
No. 31, Field Measurable Physical/Chemical Characteristics.
If during the purging process the water level within the well drops more than 0.25 feet from
the initial reading, the well cannot be purged utilizing low-flow purging methods and three
casing volumes will be removed from the well. Water quality parameter readings will still be
collected every 3 to 5 minutes during the purging process. If the well is purged dry, the water
level within the well will need to recover approximately 90 percent of its initial elevation
before groundwater sampling can be conducted.
Purge water and development water will be containerized for waste characterization and
disposed of in accordance with the IDW Management Plan (Section 10.0).
4.15 WETLAND DELINEATION
Wetland delineation will be conducted in accordance with USACE's 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual (USACE, 1987) and USACE's 2010 Regional supplemental guidance document for
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-13
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
the Atlantic (USACE, 2010). Wetland delineation activities will be conducted on the entire
Site, targeting not only the areas identified as wetlands in the NWI database. The delineation
event will identify the types of soils present as well as the vegetation species.
4.16 BUILDING ASSESSMENT
Investigation into the presence of asbestos, lead dust, and PCB concentrations on nonporous
media will be performed in the on-site structures. At no time will inspection or sampling
activities will be conducted in enclosed areas where access is severely limited, compromised
air quality suspected, or the location meets the definition of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's definition of a Permit-Required Confined Space. By definition, a permit-
required confined space has one or more of the following characteristics:
• Contains or has the potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere;
• Contains a material with the potential to engulf someone who enters the space;
• Has an internal configuration that might cause an entrant to be trapped or asphyxiated
by inwardly converging walls or by a floor that slopes downward and tapers to a
smaller cross section; and/or
• Contains any other recognized serious safety or health hazards.
If confined space areas are encountered and need to be inspected and/or sampled, the field
crew(s)/subcontractors shall notify the HGL PM who will discuss the matter with the EPA.
4.16.1 Asbestos Inspection
In accordance with EPA's Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan, under the Asbestos Hazard
Emergency Response Act of 1986, a trained and accredited asbestos professional will be
utilized to conduct an asbestos inspection of the brick warehouse, shear building, and
maintenance building. Up to 15 samples of fibrous materials of potential ACMs will be
collected and submitted to an asbestos accredited laboratory for analysis. Fibrous potential
ACM includes insulation, insulation around piping and boilers, acoustical ceiling tiles, and
deteriorated vinyl floor tiles.
4.16.2 Lead Wipe Sampling
A visual inspection of the on-site structures will determine the most appropriate locations for
lead wipe sampling. Sampling areas will target locations typically used by authorized
personnel and trespassers including table tops, hand height doors and walls, and
walkways/flooring. Up to two locations per room, a maximum of four rooms per building
will be sampled (EPA, 2009b).
The following procedures will be followed for the collection of each lead wipe sample:
1. Using a new pair of gloves, remove a 2-inch by 2-inch gauze pad from its protective
packaging. Moisten the gauze pad with approximately 1 to 2 milliliters of distilled
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
water. Apply no more distilled water than necessary to moisten approximately
80 percent of the area of the gauze pad.
2. Place a 12-inch by 12-inch (1-foot by 1-foot) template over the area to be sampled.
3. Wipe the surface to be sampled with firm pressure, using 3 to 4 vertical S-strokes.
4. Fold the exposed side of the pad in and wipe the area with 3 to 4 horizontal S-strokes.
5. Fold the pad once more and wipe the area with 3 to 4 vertical S-strokes.
6. Fold the pad, exposed side in, and place it in a new plastic bag. Seal and label the
bag clearly.
7. Clean the template in preparation for the next wipe sample.
4.16.3 PCB Wipe Sampling
A visual inspection will be conducted of the brick warehouse, the shear building and adjacent
transformer pad, and the maintenance building. Areas of oily staining will be sampled. PCB
wipe samples will be collected from areas of oily stains if observed in three buildings in
accordance with HGL SOP No. 26, Chip, Wipe and Sweep Sampling and EPA's Wipe
Sampling and Double Wash/Rinse Cleanup guidance document (EPA, 1987).
Up to 15 PCB wipe samples not including any QA/QC samples will be collected from the Site
buildings. The following procedures will be followed for the collection of each PCB wipe
sample:
1. Using the appropriate sampling gloves, moisten a 3-inch by 3-inch gauze pad with
high performance liquid chromatography grade hexane. Hexane is to be used only if
the oil stain is visibly dry. If the oily stain appears to be wet, no solvent is needed.
2. Place a 10-inch by 10-inch template over the area to be sampled.
3. Wipe the surface to be sampled with firm pressure, using 3 to 4 vertical S-strokes.
4. Fold the exposed side of the pad in and wipe the area with 3 to 4 horizontal S-strokes.
5. Fold the pad once more and wipe the area with 3 to 4 vertical S-strokes.
6. Fold the pad, exposed side in, and place it in a new plastic bag. Seal and label the
bag clearly.
7. Clean the template in preparation for the next wipe sample.
4.17 SURVEYING AND SURVEYING OVERSIGHT
A Virginia-licensed surveyor will perform a survey of the existing and newly installed
monitoring wells. All existing and newly installed wells will be horizontally and vertically
located utilizing State Plan Virginia North and North American Datum (NAD) 1983,
respectively. One horizontal location (center of the well casing) and three elevations will be
obtained for each monitoring well. Elevations will be collected at the top of the PVC riser
pipe, at the northern edge of the steel well casing (if present), and at ground surface.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-15
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
All other sample locations will be horizontally located by the field crew utilizing a handheld
GPS unit and State Plan Virginia North and NAD 1983 coordinate systems.
4.18 FIELD LOGBOOK DOCUMENTATION
All field activities will be documented in a field logbook and on separate field data sheets.
Field data sheets to be utilized for this investigation are included in the SOPs. Documentation
activities will be performed in accordance with HGL SOP No. 6, Use and Maintenance of
Field Log Books.
4.19 SAMPLE COLLECTION, HANDLING, PACKAGING, AND SHIPPING
All sample collection, handling, packaging, and shipping activities for the EPA CLP
laboratories will be conducted in accordance with the OSRTI's 2007 Contract Laboratory
Program Guidance for Field Samplers (EPA 540-R-07-06). Field Operations Records
Management System II Lite (F2L) will be utilized to generate sample labels, sample tags, and
laboratory and regional copies of the traffic report/chain of custody (TR/COC) forms. Within
three days of sample shipment, the on-site Sample Manager will upload an .xml file of the
TR/COC to the F2LTR@fedcsc.com webportal. The on-site Sample Manager will submit a
copy of the email upload notification to the HGL PM.
All samples are anticipated to be shipped to the EPA-selected laboratories every other day or
as needed depending on analytical holding time requirements specified in Section 6 of this
SMP. Specific handling procedures for samples being submitted for uncommon and time-
sensitive analyses are provided below.
4.19.1 Radiation Screening
Per the RPP (AVESI, 2014b), all coolers will be field screened for gamma radiation with a
handheld radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) before submittal. Coolers
where gamma radiation readings exceeding two times the Site-specific background value
(10,000 cpm) will be repackaged in order to reduce gamma radiation measurements before
shiping of the sample cooler. If repackaging fails to reduce gamma radiation measurments,
the sample(s) emitting the radiation will be removed from the sample cooler. These samples
will then be repackaged separately and shipped in approved containers or, if radiation readings
are too high, placed within a RWSA for characterization and disposal.
4.19.2 Encore™ or Encore-like VOC Sampling
VOC soils samples will be collected using Encore™ or Encore-like samplers. No methanol
preservation activities will be conducted in the field. Rather, the VOC Encore™ or Encore-
like soil samples will be shipped daily to the appropriate EPA-selected laboratory.
Section 6 and Table 6.1 specified holding time requirements of the analyses requested. The
holding time for VOC Encore™ or Encore-like soil samples is 48 hours. If VOC soil samples
are not shipped out the day of collection for whatever reason, the HGL sample manager will
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-16
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
notify the SMO of the issue immediately upon discovery and will notify the SMO. The HGL
Sample Manager will provide the SMO with the following information:
• The laboratory case number;
• The number of VOC Encore™ or Encore-like soil samples that were not shipped out
the day of collection;
• For each VOC Encore™ or Encore-like soil sample not shipped out the day of
collection, the F2L sample identification number, HGL associated sample number,
and sample time; and
• The date and time of shipment along with the number of coolers, airbill numbers, and
associated TR/COC numbers.
The SMO will notify the appropriate EPA-selected laboratory to request immediate extraction
of the VOC Encore® soil samples upon receipt.
4.19.3 Hexavalent Chromium (Aqueous Samples)
Hexavalent chromium aqueous samples have a maximum holding time requirement of 24
hours. Consequently, aqueous hexavalent chromium samples will be shipped to the EPA-
selected laboratory the day of collection and will be shipped "first day" or "priority
overnight" if either shipping option is available for the EPA-selected laboratory location. To
prevent a holding time exceedance the following actions will be under taken by the field
sampling crew:
• Aqueous hexavalent chromium samples will be collected no earlier in the day than
10:30 am. This is to prevent holding time exceedances that could result from the
submittal of samples to laboratories not receiving sample shipments before 10:00 am
the next day.
• The HGL Sample Manager will notify the SMO of the sample shipment the night of
shipment, providing the laboratory case number, the number of samples, the time of
sample collections, the number of coolers, and the TR/COC numbers. The SMO will
notify the laboratory to expect the sample shipment that morning. This action will be
taken to prevent holding time exceedances due to samples stockpiled in a laboratory's
receiving area. This action will allow the laboratory to prioritize samples received in
the morning.
4.19.4 Asbestos and Nitrate/Nitrite (Aqueous)
Asbestos, nitrite, and nitrate have a maximum holding time requirement of 48 hours. All
three samples will be shipped out the day of collection. To prevent a holding time
exceedances the HGL Sample Manager will notify the SMO of the sample shipment the night
of shipment, providing the laboratory case number, the number of samples, the time of sample
collections, the number of coolers, and the TR/COC numbers. The SMO will notify the
laboratory to expect the sample shipment that morning. This action will be taken to prevent
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-17
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
holding time exceedances due to samples stockpiled in a laboratory's receiving area. This
action will allow the laboratory to prioritize samples received in the morning.
4.19.5 Grain Size
Grain size samples have a 14 day maximum holding time requirement. Grain size samples
will be shipped once a week (Thursdays or the last day of an event) to minimize sample
shipments and weekend shipment deliveries.
4.19.6 Asbestos (Soil)
There are no holding times or temperature control requirements for asbestos soil samples. All
of the asbestos samples will be shipped together at the end of each sampling event.
4.20 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION
Sampling equipment that is exposed to contaminated media will require decontamination.
Portable decontamination tools will be utilized to decontaminate small and large sampling
equipment. Decontamination activities will be conducted in accordance with HGL SOP
No. 11, Equipment Decontamination and the RPP (AVESI, 2014b).
4.21 DUST SUPPRESSION
The goal of the project is zero dust generation during RI activities. Dust generation can be
caused from field vehicles and wheeled equipment driving across the Site and during any soil
disturbing activities including test pitting, soil boring drilling, and well installations. To
eliminate or at least minimize dust generation the following steps will be under taken by field
crew members and subcontractors.
• Vehicle driving on the unpaved portions of the Site will need to occur but will be kept
at a minimum. Vehicle speeds will be kept to 5 miles per hour or lower. If dust is
generated, vehicle speeds should be lowered to the extent practicable. If when
stopping, dust is generated, personnel should allow the dust cloud to dissipate until
dust is no longer visible plus an additional 5 minutes.
• Low-powered 2-person electric vehicles should be considered for use on Site if
determined to be practicable in lieu of personal vehicles.
• During subsurface disturbance activities, potable water misters and spray bottles will
be used if dust is generated. If a dust cloud is generated, appropriate health and
safety measures should be implemented per the Health and Safety Plan.
4.22 IDW MANAGEMENT
IDW management activities will be conducted in accordance with Section 10.0 of this
document.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-18
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
4.23 DEMOBILIZATION
Upon completion of all field activities, the office trailer and field investigation supplies will be
removed from the Site. Municipal trash, as defined in the Section 10 of this document, not
contaminated by radiation, based upon gamma radiation field screening activities discussed in
the RPP (AVESI, 2014b), will be disposed at a local municipal landfill.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
4-19
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
PART 2: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
5.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
A QAPP provides QA and QC guidance for the proposed RI activities to be conducted at the
Site. This plan addresses data needs and DQOs for site sampling and analyses and provides
site-specific QA procedures and protocols pertinent to performing the RI/FS. The WA work
plan (HGL, 2011), which describes tasks to be performed and the schedule and budget,
combined with the SMP forms an integrated management information system against which
WA progress can be measured. The baseline plans are a precise description of how the work
assignment will be executed in terms of scope, schedule, and budget.
Part II (Sections 5.0 through 8.0) of the SMP comprises the project-specific QAPP. Section
5.0 covers the general areas of project management, project definition and objectives, and
roles and responsibilities of the project team. The elements of project management ensure that
the project's goals are clearly stated, that all participants understand the goals and the
approach to be used, and that project planning is documented. Section 6.0 describes data
acquisition processes. Section 7.0 addresses activities for assessing the effectiveness of project
implementation and the associated QA/QC activities. Section 8.0 presents the QA/QC
activities that will occur after completion of data collection.
5.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Project QA Organization and Responsibilities will be in accordance with the Generic Site-
Specific QAPP, EPA Region 3 RAC2 Contract, dated July 2007. HGL will provide the
technical staff necessary to perform the sampling and reporting components of this project.
Analytical services will be provided by EPA-designated laboratories through the CLP.
Responsibility for data validation services will be assigned by the EPA. HGL will not perform
or procure these services. Key personnel for performing the investigation are identified in
Table 5.1.
5.1.1 Project Management Team
Mr. Jan Kool, Ph.D., P.G., Program Manager, is the corporate officer responsible for HGL's
work for EPA Region 3. In his role as Program Manager, Mr. Kool ensures that the program
and each project meet its objectives and contractual requirements.
Brett Brodersen, P.G., is the HGL PM. Mr. Brodersen reports to the Program Manager and
is responsible for providing direction to the project staff, implementing QC processes, and
managing project activities. In addition, the PM serves as the point of contact for the EPA
Region 3 RPM. Supporting the PM are the FTL, the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO),
the Project Chemist, the Quality Assurance Officer (QAO), and technical and administrative
support staff. The FTL is responsible for on-site management during field activities.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
5.1.2 Responsibilities of Key Personnel
Individuals assigned to this project will possess the experience necessary to perform their
respective functions. Their specific responsibilities are discussed below:
• Program Manager - The Program Manager is responsible for the overall performance
of all HGL projects performed under the EPA Region 3 RAC II contract. He has the
authority to assign corporate resources to projects under the program and to resolve
any issues that cannot be resolved by the PM.
• PM - The PM is responsible for the overall management and coordination of the
following activities:
o Maintaining communications with EPA regarding the project status;
o Preparing monthly status reports;
o Supervising production and review of deliverables;
o Providing oversight of subcontractors;
o Receiving laboratory assignments;
o Reviewing analytical results and deliverables from subcontractors;
o Tracking work progress against planned budgets and schedules;
o Incorporating changes in the WA work plan and SMP, with appropriate
notification to EPA;
o Informing the Program Manager immediately of significant problems affecting
data quality or ability to meet project objectives;
o Scheduling personnel and acquiring material resources;
o Implementing and enforcing the provisions of the work plan, SMP, and the HGL
Corporate Quality Assurance Manual (QAM);
o Implementing corrective actions resulting from staff observations, QA/QC
oversight, or QA audits;
o Providing oversight of data management; and
o Providing oversight of report preparation.
• Field Team Leader - The FTL is responsible for all day-to-day aspects of the
proposed fieldwork. The primary responsibilities of the FTL are as follows:
o Ensuring that all field team members are familiar with the SMP (i.e., the FSP,
QAPP, DMP, and IDW Management Plan) and HASP;
o Ensuring that the fieldwork is completed in accordance with the SMP (i.e., the
FSP, QAPP, DMP, and IDW Management Plan) and HASP;
o Coordinating field team activities;
o Ordering equipment and supplies;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
o Ensuring that all site records relevant to the field investigations are complete and
correct;
o Ensuring that TR/COC forms and other sample documentation documents are
completed and that the samples are shipped to the laboratory identified for each
analytical method;
o Reporting to the PM on a regular basis regarding the status of all field work and
any problems encountered;
o Identifying problems at the site level and resolving any issues in coordination
with project QA staff and HGL management, including completing any required
documentation;
o Completing task modification requests, as necessary, for approval by the PM;
and
o Coordinating sampling activities with the Project Chemist.
• Radiation Protection Manager - The Radiation Protection Manager is delegated the
authority to implement the radiation protection program listed in the RPP (AVESI,
2014). The Radiation Protection Manager reports to the HGL PM and HGL SSHO
on health safety matters and on technical matters. The Radiation Protection
Manager's responsibilities are presented in detail in the RPP (AVESI, 2014b) and
include the following:
o Calculate or approve existing administrative and/or project limits, and document
the limits;
o Conduct radiation protection onsite training of all HGL and HGL Subcontractor
field crew members who will be onsite for 80 hours or more over the life of the
field investigation;
o Manage the personnel radiation dosimetry program;
o Assure that all radiological monitoring surveys are performed pursuant to the
Regulator-accepted RPP (AVESI, 2014b); and
o Provide on-site health physics support.
• SSHO - The SSHO reports to the HGL Corporate Health and Safety Director
(CHSD) on health safety matters and to the FTL and PM on technical matters. The
SSHO's responsibilities are presented in detail in the HASP and include the
following:
o Controlling specific health- and safety-related field operations, such as personnel
decontamination, monitoring of worker heat or cold stress, and distribution of
safety equipment;
o Ensuring that field team personnel and all subcontractors comply with all
procedures established by the HASP;
o Ensuring that all site health and safety recordkeeping and documentation is
complete and current;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
o Identifying assistant SSHOs or SSHO designees; and
o Terminating work if an imminent safety hazard, emergency situation, or other
potentially dangerous situation is encountered.
• Project Chemist - The Project Chemist is responsible for the following tasks:
o Completing RASs and DAS forms for EPA to review and approve;
o Ensuring that all laboratory services have been scheduled;
o Ensuring that all required paperwork for sample collection, custody, and shipping
are in place; and
o Tracking samples and coordinating with EPA Region 3 Regional Sample Control
Center (RSCC).
• QAO -The QAO is responsible for the following:
o Providing QA program guidance;
o Conducting field audits; and
o Conducting project QA audits.
5.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Site background information has been provided in Section 2.0. The purpose and objectives of
this SAP have been identified in Section 1.0. The purpose of this QAPP is to provide guidance
to ensure that all data collection procedures and measurements are scientifically sound, are of
known, acceptable, and documented quality, and are conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the project.
5.3 PROJECT DEFINITION
The overall objective of the sampling program is to obtain data of sufficient quality and
quantity to characterize the nature and extent of contamination in the Site's media; characterize
the nature and extent of Site contamination in the adjacent wetlands and Paradise Creek; and
identify potential risks to human health and ecological receptors associated with the Site
contaminants.
The primary data collection activities to be performed for this project are as follows:
• Identify and delineate COPCs/COPECs in the Site media including surface soils,
subsurface soils, terrestrial and aquatic sediments, surface water, and groundwater;
• Determine if Site COPCs/COPECs have migrated offsite into the adjacent wetlands,
Paradise Creek, and surrounding properties;
• Determine natural background metal and gamma radiation concentrations;
• Determine if offsite contaminants have or are migrating onto the Site;
• Perform a wetlands delineation survey;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Assess potential human health hazards within the standing on-site structures;
• Collect a sufficient amount of analytical data to complete a SLERA and determine if
biota tissue sampling will be required to complete a BERA; and
• Characterize IDW generated during the sampling events for disposal.
5.4 QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA FOR MEASUREMENT
5.4.1 End Uses of the Data
The end use of the field and analytical data is to characterize site contamination and risks in
order to assist the EPA in assessing remedial requirements and alternatives.
5.4.2 Data Types
Quality of analytical data is defined as either "definitive data" or "screening data with
definitive confirmation" in Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund, Interim Final
Guidance, EPA540-R-93-071 (EPA, 1993). For this project, the analytical data generated by
the EPA Region 3 selected laboratories will constitute definitive data. Data generated by the
sodium iodide scintillating detector will be screening data with definitive confirmation.
Some data for this project will be screening data that will not receive definitive confirmation.
Types of data that are included in the other category include PID field screening
measurements, gamma radiation screening results, water quality measurements taken with a
field meter, water level measurements, and GPS data. Some analytical data will be produced
by methods that are considered to be screening level methods by definition. These data
include titrimetric methods (alkalinity and sulfide), calculation methods (hardness),
geotechnical parameters (grain size), and direct-reading probe methods (aqueous and soil pH).
5.4.3 Data Quality Objectives
The development of DQOs focuses on the end use of the collected data and on determining the
corresponding data measurement objectives of precision, accuracy, representativeness,
completeness, comparability, and sensitivity (PARCCS) necessary to satisfy the end use (see
Section 5.5). The DQO process involves seven steps that are designed to ensure that the type,
quantity, and quality of data collected are appropriate for the intended application. Each step
supports the project efforts by clarifying the study objective, defining the most appropriate
type of data to be collected, and specifying acceptable levels of decision criteria. The steps
are defined in Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process,
EPA QA/G4, EPA/240/B-06/001, February 2006 (EPA, 2006c) as follows:
• State the problem;
• Identify the goals of the study;
• Identify information inputs;
• Define the boundaries of the study;
• Develop the analytic approach;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Specify performance and acceptance criteria; and
• Develop the plan for obtaining data.
The process is based on a framework that, through continual evaluation during project
activities, allows for DQO modification as project needs change. Different data uses such as
site characterization, risk assessment, and evaluation of remedial alternatives may require data
of varying quality. DQOs specific to this project are presented below.
5.4.3.1 State the Problem
The purpose of this step is to describe the problem to be studied so that the focus of the study
will be unambiguous.
The current problem is to complete site characterization to a degree that will support
preparation of an RI/FS that includes an assessment of site risks and a selection of a remedy
that eliminates, reduces, or controls risks to human health and the environment and meets the
requirements of the PCB TMDL currently being generated by the Commonwealth. Based on
the existing site data, a preliminary CSM was developed by Malcolm Pirnie (Malcolm Pirnie,
2008). A review of the CSM identified additional data needs that were required to allow for
the effective characterization of the Site and completion of the RI/FS process. An updated
CSM is presented in Section 2.0 of this SMP and describes the full extent of the problem at
the Site as understood based on all information available to date. Data gaps identified in the
current CSM are summarized in Section 2.8.
5.4.3.2 Identify the Goals of the Study
This step identifies the questions that the study will attempt to resolve and the actions that may
result. The principal study components and related questions are as follows:
Question 1 What is the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
sediment, and surface water contamination on the Site?
Question 2 What is the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
sediment, and surface water contamination in the wetlands adjacent to the Site?
Question 3 What is the nature and extent of sediment and surface water contamination in
Paradise Creek adjacent to the Site?
Question 4 Have former Site activities impacted the groundwater and if so are the
contaminants migrating offsite and/or discharging to surface water in the Site
wetlands and Paradise Creek?
Question 5 Does contamination at the Site, in the wetlands area, and/or in Paradise Creek,
pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment through direct
exposure and/or bioaccumulation?
Question 6 Does the IDW constitute a radioactive waste?
Question 7 Does the IDW constitute a TSCA-regulated PCB waste?
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Question 8 Does IDW constitute a RCRA hazardous waste?
5.4.3.3 Identify Information Inputs
The sampling program, briefly described in Section 5.3 and described in greater detail in
Section 3.0, is designed to provide the inputs to address the questions listed above. The
sampling program will be supplemented by existing project data and data reports.
Environmental investigations have been conducted on the property since the late 1990s; but,
the investigations were limited in scope, investigating only a few of the former site activities
that may have released contaminants to the Site media. The existing project data includes
analytical results that were generated using analytical methods capable of producing definitive
data; however:
• It is not known if the data underwent the levels of data review and validation required
to constitute data of known quality;
• Analyses performed where limited primarily to a few target analytes, no analysis of
all potential COPCs conducted;
• The soil samples were primarily collected from soil interval that are inappropriate for
use in risk screening and could potentially dilute calculated risk to human health and
ecological receptors; and
• An insufficient amount of data has been collected to meet the requirements of the
PCB TMDL when instituted by the Commonwealth (anticipated in 2014).
Because the issues with the existing data the data will be used as screening level data in order
to guide the planned investigation program. The existing data will not be used for
determinative decision-making such as defining the nature and extent of contamination or risk
assessment. The data obtained from the investigation described in Sections 3 and 4 will
provide definitive data that will be of known quality and usable for final decision-making.
5.4.3.4 Define the Boundaries of the Study
The contamination at the Site is thought to have accumulated over a 70-year period since scrap
and waste processing activities began in the 1940s. The horizontal spatial boundaries of the
study area include the Site, the adjacent properties (ARREFF, Wheelabrator, Scott Center
Annex, and Sherwin-Williams), the Site wetlands bordering Paradise Creek, and the portion of
Paradise Creek adjacent to the site. The vertical spatial boundaries are the ground surface and
the depth of the deepest site groundwater monitoring well, which is estimated to be
approximately 18 feet bgs.
The RI/FS will focus on current site conditions; therefore, the temporal boundaries include the
time frame of the Site Investigation (H-S, 1999), the Site Characterization Addendum (DAA,
2003b), the Extent of Contamination Study (Malcolm Pirnie, 2008), and the data to be
collected from this sampling effort.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
5.4.3.5 Develop the Analytic Approach
The data collected in the field investigations will be used to produce the RI/FS, including an
HHRA, a SLERA, and potentially a BERA. The data will be used in accordance with the
following decision rules developed for the project questions presented in Section 5.4.3.2.
Question 1: What is the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
sediment, and surface water contamination at the Site? The sampling scheme, target
parameters, and the analytical methods have been selected to ensure that the data population
parameters calculated on an analyte- and matrix-specific basis are representative of the site to
the greatest extent possible. The supporting information that will lead to this decision includes
qualitative interpretation of contaminant distribution (horizontal and vertical delineation) and
quantitative comparison of the population characteristics to human health and environmental
screening levels. The primary population characteristic will be the determination of the 95
percent upper confidence limit (UCL) of each contaminant detected at the site. These UCLs
will be calculated on a medium- and analyte-specific basis using the EPA's ProUCL program.
If there are seven or fewer detected results for an analyte, the median detected concentration
will be used as the population characteristic. Any analyte with a population characteristic that
exceeds the associated RSL or Eco-SSL will be considered to be a COPC or COPEC and will
be identified for further evaluation. Detected organic chemicals for which there are no
associated RSLs or SSLs will also be considered COPCs and/or COPECs.
The project target analytes are presented in Tables 5.2 through 5.7. These tables also present
the contract required detection limits/contract required quantitation limits (CRDL/CRQL),
RSL, and ecological SSL for each analyte; the MCL is also presented for aqueous matrices for
informational purposes. Note that the RSL presented are the current values published by the
EPA in November 2012; for the RI, the most recent RSLs will be used at the time of data
evaluation.
Question 2: What is the nature and extent of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater,
sediment, and surface water contamination in the wetlands adjacent to the Site? See
Question 1.
Question 3: What is the nature and extent of sediment and surface water contamination in
Paradise Creek adjacent to the Site? See Question 1.
Question 4: Have former Site activities impacted the groundwater and if so are the
contaminants migrating offsite and/or discharging to surface water in the Site wetlands and
Paradise Creek? See Question 1.
Question 5: Does contamination at the Site, in the wetlands area, or in Paradise Creek pose
an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment through direct exposure and/or
bioaccumulation? A baseline HHRA, a SLERA, and, potentially, a BERA will be performed
for each of these three matrices and will include all COPCs and COPECs identified in
addressing Questions 1 through 3 above. The baseline HHRA will determine if an
unacceptable risk to human health is present through current or future scenarios involving
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-8
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
exposure of adult and child receptors to the Site matrices. The SLERA will determine if there
is potentially unacceptable risk to ecological receptors based on current site conditions. If a
potential for unacceptable risk to ecological receptors is identified, a BERA will be completed
to determine if unacceptable risk to ecological receptors is present. The primary decision rule
for this RI/FS is if the risk assessments find that an unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment is present at the site, then specific remedial actions will be recommended to
address that risk. Total PCB results (from congener analysis) will be obtained from
strategically located groundwater, sediment, and surface water sampling locations. These
results, and the results from the more widely distributed PCDD/PCDF samples, will be
compared to the Water Quality Criteria established by the Virginia State Water Quality
Control Board. In addition, these results will be used to support Virginia's TMDL allocation
for PCBs.
Question 6: Does the IDW constitute a radioactive waste? If Site aqueous or solid IDW
contains isotopes meet federal radioactive waste classification standards in accordance with 10
CFR 61.55 (Waste Classification) or Commonwealth of Virginia Administrative Code
12VAC5-481 (Virginia Radiation Protection Regulations).
Question 7: Does the IDW constitute a TSCA-regulated PCB waste? If Site aqueous or solid
IDW contains PCBs at or above 50 ppm, it will be considered regulated PCB waste.
Question 8: Does IDW constitute a RCRA hazardous waste? Solid and aqueous IDW will be
tested in accordance with 40 CFR 261.21 through 24 to determine if the waste meets the
definition of a RCRA hazardous waste.
5.4.3.6 Specify Performance and Acceptance Criteria
In general, decision errors for projects involving environmental sampling fall into two
categories: false positive (Type I) and false negative (Type II). For this project, a Type I
decision error would result in deciding that contaminant concentrations in various media pose
an unacceptable risk when, in fact, they do not. A Type II decision error would result in
deciding that contaminant levels do not present an unacceptable risk to human health and the
environment, when, in fact, they actually do.
It should be noted that Questions 1 through 3 in Section 5.4.3.2 constitute estimation problems
and Questions 4 through 7 constitute decision problems, as defined by Guidance on Systematic
Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA, 2006c). The errors associated
with Questions 1 through 3 are associated with the decision made whether to retain an analyte
as a COPC or COPEC for additional evaluation. In this case, a Type I error will result in the
inclusion of an analyte as a COPC/COPEC for a medium when it is not present at a
concentration that is harmful to human health or the environment, and the Type II error will
result in the exclusion of that analyte from consideration as a COPC/COPEC when it is in fact
present at a concentration that may represent a threat to human health or the environment.
Type II errors are more serious than Type I errors because they could possibly mask
contaminant levels that may pose a risk. In order to manage the possibility of Type II errors,
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-9
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
site contaminant levels will be compared to RSLs and Eco-SSLs. Given that RSLs and Eco-
SSLs are inherently conservative, the risk of a Type II error occurring will be effectively
managed. Chromium analytical data collected as part of this RI will be screened using
hexavalent chromium RSLs until the presence or absence of hexavalent chromium is
determined.
5.4.3.7 Develop the Plan for Obtaining Data
This step identifies a resource-effective data collection design for generating data that are
expected to satisfy DQOs. The data collection design (sampling program) is described in
Section 4 and is summarized below.
• Identify and delineate COPCs/COPECs in the Site media including surface soils,
subsurface soils, terrestrial and aquatic sediments, surface water, and groundwater;
• Determine if Site COPCs/COPECs have migrated off site into the adjacent wetlands,
Paradise Creek, and surrounding properties;
• Determine natural background metal and gamma radiation concentrations;
• Determine if offsite contaminants have or are migrating onto the Site;
• Perform a wetlands delineation survey;
• Assess potential human health hazards within the standing on-site structures;
• Collect a sufficient amount of analytical data to complete a SLERA and determine if
biota tissue sampling will be required to complete a BERA; and
• Characterize IDW generated during the sampling events for disposal.
5.5 DATA MEASUREMENT OBJECTIVES
Data measurement requirements will be met by the following:
• Following standard QA guidance documents;
• Using indicators of data quality;
• Collecting reliable field measurements; and
• Using approved laboratories and standard analytical and validation methods.
5.5.1 Quality Assurance Guidance
The field QA program has been designed in accordance with HGL's corporate QAM
(HGL, 2009), EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives
Process (EPA, 2006c), and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans
(EPA, 2001). Laboratory analyses will be performed in accordance with the EPA organic and
inorganic SOWs for CLP analyses (EPA, 2006a and 2006b); analytical methods not covered in
the CLP SOWs will be performed in accordance with published analytical methodologies,
including the EPA's Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-10
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
SW-846 (EPA, 2005b) and Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
(EPA, 1983).
The EPA or an EPA-subcontractor will provide data validation services. The data validation
shall be conducted in accordance with the EPA National Functional Guidelines for organic,
inorganic, and dioxin methods (EPA, 2008, 2010b, and 2011a).
5.5.2 Data Quality Indicators
PARCCS parameters are indicators of data quality. The following PARCCS goals have been
established for this project to aid in assessing data quality.
5.5.2.1 Precision
The acceptable relative percent difference limit for field duplicates is less than or equal to
20 percent for aqueous samples and 35 percent for soil and sediment samples.
5.5.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy will be measured by percent recovery, which will be evaluated during data
validation in accordance with the CLP SOW and other analytical methodologies.
5.5.2.3 Representativeness
The representativeness of sample results will be assessed qualitatively by reviewing the
sampling and analytical procedures and quantitatively by reviewing the results of blank
samples. If an analyte is detected in a method, preparation, trip, or rinsate blank, any
associated positive result may be considered a false positive result and qualified as a potential
artifact of the sampling and analysis process.
5.5.2.4 Completeness
The completeness goal for this project is 90 percent, calculated for the entire project dataset.
Data rejected during the validation process will not be considered usable. If the completeness
goal is not met, the effect of not meeting this goal and potential corrective action will be
discussed by the HGL PM and the EPA Region 3 RPM. Data gaps caused by rejected results,
or by planned samples that could not be collected, will also be evaluated, even if overall
completeness goals are met.
Multiple data gaps currently exist in the available site data. The sampling activities proposed
in this SMP address these data gaps. Of the activities proposed, the most critical are the
following:
• Defining the nature and extent of all of the COPCs/COPECs in the Site media, in the
Site Wetlands, and within Paradise Creek;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-11
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• Assessing whether contaminated groundwater is discharging to the Site wetlands
and/or Paradise Creek;
• Determining if the Site COPCs/COPECs have impacted Paradise Creek ecological
receptors and pose a potential risk to human health and ecological receptors through
bioaccumulation; and
• Determining natural background metal and gamma radiation concentrations.
5.5.2.5 Comparability
To ensure comparability of results with those collected during previous sampling efforts
performed to support the RI/FS, data developed under this investigation will be from samples
collected and analyzed using standard EPA analytical methods and QC procedures.
5.5.2.6 Sensitivity
Analytical data will be compared to regulatory levels, RSLs, and ecological SSLs. These will
include the federal MCLs established by the Clean Water Act; the EPA RSLs established for
residential soil and tap water; and applicable surface water regulations. The analysis of waste
samples must also meet the sensitivity requirements established in 40 CFR 261.21 through
261.24 (hazardous waste), and the TSCA regulations in 40 CFR 761 (PCB waste). In
addition, Total PCB analytical data will be compared to Commonwealth water quality
standards (WQS) and to the PCB TDML when developed.
5.5.3 Field Measurements
Field measurements from several sources will be collected during the planned field activities:
• Water quality parameters including pH, specific conductance, temperature, ORP, and
DO will be measured during well development, groundwater sampling, and surface
water sampling activities.
• Turbidity measurements will also be collected for the groundwater sampling event.
• Surface water flow measurements will be collected during surface water sampling of
Paradise Creek.
• A depth to water level meter will be utilized to obtain groundwater elevation
measurements.
• An O/W interface probe will be utilized to measure LNAPL and/or DNAPL if
determined to be present in a monitoring well.
• A PID will be utilized to monitor organic vapors in the air around each subsurface
soil sample location.
• A gamma radiation detector (Ludlum 2221/44-10 or equivalent) will be utilized to
scan collected soils, sediment, surface water, groundwater (first quarterly sampling
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-12
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
event), soil cuttings, liquid IDW, subsurface intrusive sampling equipment, and all
equipment, supplies, and materials leaving the Site.
• An ORP field test kit will be utilized to measure ORP readings in Site drainage and
wetland sediment samples.
• A sodium iodide scintillating detector will be utilized to measure gamma-ray
measurements.
• A GPS unit will be utilized to locate northing and easting coordinates of sample
locations.
• A Schonstedt wand and downhole geophysical magnetometer will be utilized to
determine the presence or absence of buried metallic and magnetically susceptible
debris.
Manufacturer recommendations for calibration, handling, maintenance, and use will be
followed for the instruments used to make field measurements. Detailed descriptions of the
required field measurements per sampling event are provided in Section 4.0.
5.5.4 Laboratory Analysis
The data uses established for the Site require varying levels of QC requirements and analytical
methodology. The specific analyses that will be performed for each component of the
sampling are presented in Tables 5.2 (groundwater), 5.3 (soil), 5.4 (surface water), 5.5
(terrestrial sediment), 5.6 (aquatic sediment), 5.7 (wipes), 5.8 (liquid waste), and 5.9 (solid
waste).
CLP TCL organic compounds (VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, and PCBs) and TAL inorganic
elements (metals and cyanide) will be requested for samples through the RAS program.
Samples submitted for these parameters will be analyzed using current EPA CLP methodology
and will require full QC documentation from the laboratory. CRDL for TAL analytes and
CRQL for TCL compounds also will be requested.
Several samples will be submitted for analyses not performed under the RAS program and will
require submission under the DAS procurement system for special analytical services. This
will include the analysis for PCDDs/PCDFs under non-routine CLP SOW DLM02.2,
explosives, PCB congeners, hexavalent chromium, asbestos, grain size, TOC, soil pH, gamma
spectrometry, Strontium 90, and monitored natural attenuation parameters (i.e., nitrate, nitrite,
sulfate, sulfide chloride, alkalinity, hardness [surface water samples only], methane, ethane,
and ethene). Additionally, all analyses being conducted for the ICS soil samples will be
require submission under the DAS procurement system even though most of the analyses
would typically be conducted under the RAS procurement system. Analytical services
procured under the DAS program will require complete CLP data packages where applicable
as well as complete QC documentation in accordance with the associated method, where
applicable. The analytical methods provide details of sample preparation, extraction, analyses,
and detection limits.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-13
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
5.6 SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION
All project personnel receive technical and administrative training. Such training may include
attending project management training; technical writing courses; quality improvement process
awareness sessions; quality education process training; sessions or seminars in specific
technical areas (e.g., risk assessment, hydrogeology); and health and safety training. All
personnel involved in sample collection and tracking will be trained in (or be able to document
experience in) the use of F2L sample collection and documentation process.
As required under Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standard 29 CFR 1910.120,
HGL employees and subcontractors are required to obtain the appropriate level of training
prior to working at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
sites or at certain RCRA sites. HGL personnel are trained in accordance with the HGL
Corporate Health and Safety Program Manual. Subcontractors must provide documentation of
their compliance with 29 CFR 1910.120 training requirements.
All personnel who will be using the sodium iodide scintillating detector will be trained in the
proper use and maintenance of the instruments.
5.6.1 Site-Specific Training
HGL also requires site-specific health and safety training for all subcontractors before
initiation of any site work. The number of hours required for the site-specific training depends
on the Site, the task performed, and the role of the individual performing the specific task.
The project-specific HASP provides the basis for the site-specific health and safety training.
Documentation of site-specific training for each employee must be maintained in the
permanent site logbook.
Site-specific training will be supplemented with daily tailgate health and safety training
conducted by the SSHO. This training will address changes in site conditions, hazards
associated with specific tasks, and general health and safety awareness items.
5.6.2 Training Records Maintenance
HGL maintains documentation of each employee's date of initial health and safety training,
refresher training, and management/supervisory training in the health and safety database
maintained by the Human Resources Department in the Reston, Virginia, office. Written
documentation also is provided to all HGL personnel who successfully complete the training.
HGL personnel also participate in a medical monitoring program where baseline and annual
physical evaluations by an occupational physician are required. Fitness-to-work, respirator
qualification, and physical limitations summary evaluations are maintained by the HGL Human
Resources Department; the complete physical examination and evaluation results are
maintained by an occupational health management firm.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-14
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
5.7 DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS
Documents used or generated during the course of the project will be tracked and will become
a part of the project files upon completion of the task. Complete project file records will be
maintained in HGL's Reston, Virginia, office and will be updated by a project administrator
under the PM's direction. Project records included in the file may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• Sample identification documents and field logbooks;
• TR/COC records;
• Inventory of IDW;
• Project deliverables (such as test plans, operations manuals, design drawings, and
specifications);
• Copies of laboratory data packages, which may include, analytical logbooks,
laboratory data, calculations, graphs, control charts, field logs (to include instrument
identification numbers, calibration, and measurements), and software;
• Reports, responses to comments, and associated document transmittal letters;
• Communication logs;
• Records of deviation from the SMP and work plan; and
• Photographs.
5.7.1 Field Logbook and Documentation
Logbooks for sampling and field investigation purposes must meet the required procedures,
which will be outlined in the activity-specific work plans. The logbooks must be bound and
the entries recorded in waterproof ink. The logbook must contain sufficient information to
distinguish samples from one another and describe all site activities and conditions relevant to
the sample collection process. Logbooks can be supplemented by other documentation and
checklists, such as well stabilization forms, field sampling forms, and daily QC forms.
Logbook entries will be reviewed on a daily basis by the FTL to ensure that entries are
complete and properly formatted. The FTL will also use site documentation to verify
sampling completeness on an ongoing basis to ensure that all projected samples and analytical
fractions, including all required associated field QC samples, are collected and submitted for
analysis. Field logs and other field documentation will be completed in accordance with HGL
SOP No. 6, Use and Maintenance of Field Log Books. This SOP also presents requirements
for documenting site photographs.
At a minimum, the following information will be recorded in the site logbook:
• The name of the person to whom the logbook is assigned;
• The logbook number;
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-15
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• The project name;
• The project start date;
• The names and responsibilities of on-site project personnel, including subcontractor
personnel;
• The arrival/departure of site visitors;
• The arrival/departure of equipment;
• Sampling activities and sample log sheet references;
• A description of subcontractor activities;
• Sample pickup information including TR/COC numbers, airbill numbers, carrier,
time, and date;
• A description of borehole or monitoring well installation activities and operations;
• Health and safety issues; and
• A description of photographs including the date, time, photographer, roll and picture
number, location, and compass direction of the photograph.
The equipment used to collect the sample will be noted in the logbook, along with date and
time of sampling, sampler's name, sample description, sample location, and the volume and
number of containers collected. QC sample information will be appropriately recorded to
allow for the association of QC samples with field samples.
All entries will be written in ink, and no erasures will be made. If an incorrect entry is made,
the incorrect information will be indicated with a single strike line; the person making the
correction will initial and date the change. The correct information will be entered close to the
incorrect entry and in such a fashion that it is clear that this information replaces the crossed-
out entry.
5.7.2 Laboratory Data
Laboratory data will be submitted to HGL. Each report will contain a case narrative that
briefly describes the number of samples, the analyses performed, and any analytical issues or
QA/QC issues associated with submitted samples. Each laboratory data report will also
include signed TR/COC forms, cooler receipt/sample log-in forms, analytical data, a QC
package, and raw data. An electronic version of the data (in the form of a .pdf file or similar
format) will also be provided by the laboratories.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
5-16
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
TABLES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.1
Key Project Personnel
Nil me
Address/Phone
Responsibility
Debra Rossi
EPA
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-814-3228
EPA RPM
Paul Herman, P.E.
YDEQ
629 East Main Street
Richmond, YA 23219
804-698-4464
VDEQ RPM
Jan Kool, Ph.D, P.G.
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 736-4545
HGL RAC II Program
Manager
Elaine Shorter
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 736-4515
HGL RAC II Contracting
Officer
Brett Brodersen, P.G.
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 736-4526
HGL PM
TBD
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 326-7859
FTL
Ken Rapuano
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 736-4546
Project Chemist
TBD - Field Investigation Specific
HGL
SSHO
Jonathan Rihs
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
703-326-7803
Regional QC Coordinator
Steve Davis, CIH, CSP
HGL
11107 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 400
Reston, Virginia 20190
(703) 736-4561
Corporate Health and
Safety Director
David Lyerla, VP
AVESI
2534 Shawnee
Springfield, Illinois 62702
(618) 210-0631
Site Radiation Protection
Manager
TBD = To be determined
CIH = Certified Industrial Hygienist
CSP = Certified Safety Professional
RPM = Remedial Project Manager
RAC = Remedial Action Contract
PM = Project Manager
HGL = HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
SSHO = Site Safety and Health Officer
FTL = field team leader
QC = quality control
EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
VDEQ = Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
KPA
I'reshwjiler/
KPA
T;i|) W ilier
Mil rine
CAS
CRQL
MCL
rsi:1
lJenchm;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/'-«/!*)
(/'-«/!*)
TCL VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Trace Level)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
75-71-8
0.5
-
20 (n)
-
Chloromethane
74-87-3
0.5
-
19 (n)
-
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
0.5
2.0
0.019 (c)
930 (f)
Bromomethane
74-83-9
0.5
-
0.75 (n)
-
Chloroethane
75-00-3
0.5
-
2,100 (n)
-
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
0.5
-
110 (n)
-
1,1, -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
0.5
7.0
28 (n)
25 (f)
1,1,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-
76-13-1
0.5
-
5,500 (n)
-
trifluoroethane
Acetone
67-64-1
5.0
-
1,400 (n)
1,500 (f)
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
0.5
-
81 (n)
0.92 (f)
Methyl acetate
79-20-9
0.5
-
2,000 (n)
-
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
0.5
5.0
11 (n)
98.1 (f)
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
0.5
100
36 (n)
970 (f)
Methyl tert-butyl ether
1634-04-4
0.5
-
14 (c)
11,070 (f)
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
0.5
-
2.7 (c)
47 (f)
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
0.5
70
3.6 (n)
590 (f)
2-Butanone
78-93-3
5.0
-
560 (n)
14,000 (f)
Bromochloromethane
74-97-5
0.5
-
8.3 (n)
-
Chloroform
67-66-3
0.5
80<3)
0.22 (c)
1.8 (f)
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
71-55-6
0.5
200
1,300 (n)
11(f)
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
0.5
-
800 (n)
-
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
0.5
5.0
0.45 (c)
13.3 (f)
Benzene
71-43-2
0.5
5.0
0.45 (c)
110 (m)
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
0.5
5.0
0.17 (c)
100 (f)
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
2.0
-
0.78 (c)
-
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
0.5
5.0
0.28 (n)
21 (f)
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
0.5
-
-
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
0.5
5.0
0.44 (c)
-
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
0.5
80<3)
0.13 (c)
-
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
0.5
—
0.47 (c) (total
cis-+trans-)
0.055 (f)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
5.0
-
120
170 (f)
Toluene
108-88-3
0.5
1,000
110
2(f)
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
0.5
—
0.47 (c) (total
cis-+trans-)
0.055 (f)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
0.5
5.0
0.041 (n)
550 (m)
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
0.5
5.0
4.1 (n)
45 (m)
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
5.0
-
3.8 (n)
99 (f)
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
0.5
80<3)
0.17 (c)
-
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
0.5
0.05
0.0030 (c)
-
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
0.5
100
7.8 (n)
1.3(f)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
EPA
I'reshw siler/
i:i»a
T;i|) W.ilor
Murine
CAS
CRQL
MCI.
RSL1
liendim;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/uv'U
(/'.!»/1.)
u
(ah'U
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
0.5
700
1.5 (c)
25 (m)
o-Xylene
95-47-6
0.5
10,000
(total
xylenes)
19 (n)
13 (as total
xylenes) (1)
m,p-X ylene
179601-23-1
0.5
10,000
(total
xylenes)
19 (n) (total
xylenes)
1.8
(as m-xylene) (f)
Styrene
100-42-5
0.5
100
120 (n)
72 (f)
Bromoform
75-25-2
0.5
80<3)
9.2 (c)
320 (f)
Isopropylbenzene
98-82-8
0.5
-
45 (n)
2.6 (f)
1,1,2,2-T etrachloroethane
79-34-5
0.5
-
0.076 (c)
90.2 (m)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
0.5
-
-
28.5 (m)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
0.5
75
0.48 (c)
19.9 (m)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
0.5
600
30 (n)
0.7 (f)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
0.5
0.2
0.00033 (c)
-
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
120-82-1
0.5
70
0.40 (n)
5.4 (m)
1,2,3 -T richlorobenzene
87-61-6
0.5
-
0.7 (n)
8(f)
TCL SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Benzaldehyde
100-52-7
5.0
-
190 (n)
-
Phenol
108-95-2
5.0
-
580 (n)
4(f)
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
5.0
-
0.014 (c)
-
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
5.0
-
9.1 (n)
24 (f)
2-Methylphenol
95-48-7
5.0
—
93 (n) (as
cresols)
13(f)
2,2'-oxybis( 1 -Chloropropane)
108-60-1
5.0
-
0.36 (c)
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
5.0
-
190 (n)
-
4-Methylphenol
106-44-5
5.0
—
190 (n) (as
cresols)
543 (f)
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
621-64-7
5.0
-
0.011 (c)
-
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
5.0
-
0.69 (n)
9.4 (m)
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
5.0
-
0.14 (c)
-
Isophorone
78-59-1
5.0
-
78 (c)
-
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
5.0
-
-
1920 (f)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
5.0
-
36 (n)
-
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
5.0
-
5.9 (n)
-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
5.0
-
4.6 (n)
11(f)
Naphthalene
91-20-3
5.0
-
0.17 (c)
1.1(f)
4-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
5.0
-
0.36 (c)
232 (f)
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
5.0
-
0.3 (c)
0.3 (m)
Caprolactam
105-60-2
5.0
-
990 (n)
-
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
5.0
-
140 (n)
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
5.0
-
3.6 (n)
4.2 (m)
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
5.0
50
3.1 (n)
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
EPA
I'Yeshw siler/
i:i»a
T;i|) W.ilor
Murine
CAS
CRQL
MCI.
RSL1
liendim;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/uv'U
(/'.!»/1.)
u
(ah'U
2,4,6 -T richlorophenol
88-06-2
5.0
-
1.2 (n)
4.9(f)
2,4,5 -T richlorophenol
95-95-4
5.0
-
120 (n)
-
l,l'-Biphenyl
92-52-4
5.0
-
0.083 (n)
14 (f)
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
5.0
-
75 (n)
-
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
10
-
19 (n)
-
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
5.0
-
-
-
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
5.0
0.048 (c) (as
mixture of
isomers)
81(f)
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
5.0
-
53 (n)(4)
-
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
10
-
-
-
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
5.0
-
53 (n)
5.8(f)
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
10
-
3.9 (n)
-
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
10
-
-
60 (f)
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
5.0
-
0.79 (n)
3.7 (f)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
5.0
-
0.24 (c)
44 (f)
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
5.0
-
1,500 (n)
75.9 (m)
Fluorene
86-73-7
5.0
-
29 (n)
2.5 (m)
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
5.0
-
-
-
4-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
10
-
3.8 (c)
-
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
534-52-1
10
-
0.15 (n)
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
5.0
-
12 (c)
210 (f)
1,2,4,5 -T etrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
5.0
-
0.17 (n)
3(f)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
5.0
-
-
1.5 (f)
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
5.0
1.0
0.049 (c)
0.0003 (f)
Atrazine
1912-24-9
5.0
3.0
0.30 (c)
1.8(f)
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
10
1.0
0.04 (c)
0.5 (pH=7.8) (f)
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
5.0
-
12 (n)(5)
0.4 (f)
Anthracene
120-12-7
5.0
-
180 (n)
0.012 (f)
Carbazole
86-74-8
5.0
-
-
-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
5.0
-
90 (n)
3.4 (m)
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
5.0
-
80 (n)
0.04 (f)
Pyrene
129-00-0
5.0
-
12 (n)
0.025 (f)
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
5.0
-
16 (c)
19(f)
3,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
5.0
-
0.12 (c)
4.5 (f)
Benzo [a] anthracene
56-55-3
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
0.018 (f)
Chrysene
218-01-9
5.0
-
3.4 (c)
-
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
5.0
6.0
5.6 (c)
16 (f)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
5.0
-
20 (n)
22 (f)
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
205-99-2
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
-
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
207-08-9
5.0
-
0.34 (c)
-
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
5.0
0.2
0.0034 (c)
0.015 (f)
Indeno[l ,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
EPA
I'Yeshw siler/
i:i»a
T;i|) W.ilor
Murine
CAS
CRQL
MCI.
RSL1
liendim;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/uv'U
(/'.!»/1.)
u
(ah'U
Dibenzo [a, h] anthracene
53-70-3
5.0
-
0.0034 (c)
-
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
5.0
-
12 (n)(5)
-
2,3,4,6 -T etrachlorophenol
58-90-2
5.0
-
24 (n)
1.2 (f)
Total Monochlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
7(f)
Total Dichlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2 (f)
Total Trichlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
18(f)
Total Tetrachlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
1(f)
TCL Pesticides by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
alpha-BHC
319-84-6
0.050
-
0.0071 (c)
2.2 (f)
beta-BHC
319-85-7
0.050
-
0.025 (c)
2.2 (f)
delta-BHC
319-86-8
0.050
-
-
141 (f)
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
0.050
0.2
0.041 (c)
0.01 (f)
Heptachlor
76-44-8
0.050
0.4
0.002 (c)
0.0019 (f)
Aldrin
309-00-2
0.050
-
0.0046 (c)
0.13 (m)
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
0.050
0.2
0.0038 (c)
0.0019 (f)
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
0.050
—
10 (n)
0.2 (as mixed
isomers) (f)
Dieldrin
60-57-1
0.10
-
0.0017 (c)
0.056 (f)
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
0.10
0.23 (c)
see Total
DDD/DDE /
DDT
Endrin
72-20-8
0.10
2.0
0.23 (n)
0.036 (f)
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
0.10
—
10 (n)
0.2 (as mixed
isomers) (f)
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
0.10
0.031
see Total
DDD/DDE/
DDT
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
0.10
-
-
-
4,4'-DDT
50-29-3
0.10
0.23 (c)
see Total
DDD/DDE/
DDT
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
0.50
40
3.7 (n)
0.0019 (f)
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
0.10
-
-
-
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
0.10
-
-
-
alpha-Chlordane
5103-71-9
0.050
2.0
0.22 (c)
0.0022 (f)
gamma-Chlordane
5103-74-2
0.050
2.0
0.22 (c)
0.0022 (f)
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
5.0
3.0
0.015 (c)
0.0002 (f)
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.000011 (f)
TCL PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.11 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.004 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.004 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.034 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.034 (c)
see Total PCBs
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
An;il\le
CAS
Number
CRQL
(/uv'U
i:i»a
MCI.
(/'.!»/1.)
EPA
T;i|) W.ilor
RSL1
u
Region 3
I'Yeshw siler/
Murine
liendim;irks,:'
(ah'U
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.031 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.034 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.034 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
1.0
0.5 (PCBs)
0.034 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Total PCBs
NA
0.00005
0.5
0.00064
0.000074 (f)
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4
(ICP-AES)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
20
-
2,000 (n)
87 (f)
Calcium
7440-70-2
500
-
-
116,000 (f)
Iron
7439-89-6
100
-
1,400 (n)
300 (f)
Magnesium
7439-95-4
500
-
-
82,000 (f)
Potassium
7440-09-7
500
-
-
53,000 (f)
Sodium
7440-23-5
500
-
-
680,000 (f)
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4
(ICP-MS)
Antimony
7440-36-0
2.0
6.0
0.78 (n)
30 (f)
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1.0
10
0.052 (c)
3.1 (as Arsenic V)
(f)
Barium
7440-39-3
10
2,000
380 (n)
4(f)
Beryllium
7440-41-7
1.0
4.0
2.5 (n)
0.66 (f)
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1.0
5.0
0.92 (n)
0.12 (m)
Chromium
7440-47-3
2.0
100
0.035 (c) (as
chromium VI)
1.5 (as chromium
VI) (m)
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1.0
-
0.67 (n)
23 (f)
Copper
7440-50-8
2.0
1,300
80 (n)
3.1 (m)
Lead
7439-92-1
1.0
15(8)
-
2.5(7) (f)
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.0
-
43 (n)
120 (f)
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.0
-
39 (n)
5.2(7) (f)
Selenium
7782-49-2
5.0
50
10 (n)
1(f)
Silver
7440-22-4
1.0
-
9.4 (n)
0.23 (m)
Thallium
7440-28-0
1.0
2.0
0.02 (n)
0.8 (f)
Tin
7440-31-5
0.5
-
1200 (n)
73 (f)
Vanadium
7440-62-2
1.0
-
8.6 (n)
20 (f)
Zinc
7440-66-6
2.0
-
600 (n)
81 (m)
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4
(CVAA)
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.1
2.0
0.2 (n) (as
methyl
mercury)
0.004 (as methyl
mercury) (f)
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (Spectrophotometry)
Cyanide
57-12-5 10
200
0.15 (n)
1 (m)
Hexavalent Chromium by SW7196A<9)
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
10
100
0.035 (c)
1.5 (m)
Explosives by SW8330A<9)
1,3,5-T rinitrobenzene
99-35-4
0.17
-
59 (n)
-
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
0.17
-
0.2 (n)
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
EPA
I'Yeshw siler/
i:i»a
T;i|) W.ilor
Murine
CAS
CRQL
MCI.
RSL1
liendim;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/uv'U
(/'.!»/1.)
u
(ah'U
2,4,6 -T rinitrotoluene
118-96-7
0.17
-
0.98(n)
100 (f,m)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
0.34
-
0.24 (c)
44 (f)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
0.34
0.048 (as
mixture of
isomers)
81(f)
2-Amino-4,6 -dinitrotoluene
35572-78-2
0.34
-
3.9 (n)
1,480 (f)
2-Nitrotoluene
88-72-2
0.34
-
0.31 (c)
-
3-Nitrotoluene
99-08-1
0.34
-
0.17 (n)
750 (f)
4-Amino-2,6 -dinitrotoluene
19406-51-0
0.34
-
3.9 (n)
-
4-Nitrotoluene
99-99-0
0.34
-
4.2 (c)
1,900 (f)
HMX
2691-41-0
0.34
-
100 (n)
150 (f)
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
0.17
-
0.14 (c)
-
RDX
121-82-4
0.17
-
0.7 (c)
360 (f)
Tetryl
479-45-8
0.42
-
3.9 (n)
-
PCDDs and PCDFs by DLM02.2 (all concentrations in pg/L)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1746-01-6
10
30
see TEQ
0.0031 (f)
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
40321-76-4
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
39227-28-6
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
57653-85-7
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
19408-74-3
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
35822-46-9
50
-
see TEQ
-
OCDD
3268-87-9
100
-
see TEQ
-
2,3,7,8-TCDF
51207-31-9
10
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
57117-41-6
50
-
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
57117-31-4
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
70648-26-9
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
57117-44-9
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
72918-21-9
50
-
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
60851-34-5
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
67562-39-4
50
-
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
55673-89-7
50
-
see TEQ
-
OCDF
39001-02-0
100
-
see TEQ
-
Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ)<10)
NA
NA
NA
0.52 (c)
NA
0.051(11)
Radiological
Gamma emitters (including Ra-226
Gamma Spec
0.1 pCi/L or
5 pCi/L
0.000438
0.1 pCi/L (15)
+ daughters) by gamma
spectrometry - 21-day inGrowth
NAREL
MDC
pCi/L(14)
Strontium 90 + daughter products
by Method 905
Sr-90
1 pCi/L
8 pCi/L
0.468 pCi/L
(14)
570 pCi/L(15)
PCB Congeners by Method 1668<9)<12)
PCB Congeners (1 - 209)
NA
0.0005
0.5
0.00064°0
NA
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 6 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.2 (continued)
Groundwater Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
i:i\\
I'reshw siler/
i:i»a
T;i|) W.ilor
Murine
CAS
CRQL
MCL
RSL1
liendim;irks,:'
An;il\le
Number
(/>.}>/L)
L)
(/'-«/L)
(/*«/ L)
Miscellaneous
Asbestos
100.1
0.002 MFL
Water Quality Parameters'9'
Alkalinity (SM2320B)
ALK
10,000
-
-
-
Hardness (SM2340B or C)
HARD
10,000
-
-
-
Total Dissolved Solids (SM 2540C)
TDS
10,000
-
-
500,000(13)
Total Suspended Solids (SM 2540D)
TSS
10,000
-
-
Chloride (SW9056 or SM4110B)
16887-00-6
2,000
-
-
230,000 (f)
Sulfate (SW9056 or SM4110B)
14808-79-8
2,000
-
-
-
Nitrate (SW9056 or SM4110B)
14797-55-8
100
10,000
3,200 (n)
-
Nitrite (SW9056 or SM4110B)
14797-65-0
100
1,000
200 (n)
20 (cold water) (f)
Sulfide (SW9030B/9034)
7783-06-4
50
-
-
2 (f,m)
Total Organic Carbon (SM5310)
7440-44-0
1,000
-
-
-
pH (SW9040C)
pH
±0.1 SU
-
-
6.5-9.0 (f)
Methane (RSK-175)
74-82-8
5.0
-
-
-
Ethane (RSK-175)
74-84-0
5.0
-
-
-
Ethene (RSK-175)
74-85-1
5.0
-
-
-
(1) EPA Region 3 Tap Water May 2014 RSL table. Noncarcinogenic (n) RSLs based on hazard index of 0.1; carcinogenic RSLs (c) based
on a hazard quotient of 1 x 10 ~6.
(2) The lower of the Region 3 freshwater and marine benchmarks provided.
(3) EPA MCL for total trihalomethanes.
(4) The RSL for acenaphthene is used as a proxy.
(5) The RSL for pyrene is used as a proxy.
(6) The RSL for PCB-1260 is used as a proxy.
(7) Value corresponds to a hardness = 100 mg/L.
(8) Action Level
(9) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
(10) The TEQ is calculated on a sample-specific basis by summing the concentration of each detected 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF
isomer converted to the equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using the toxicity equivalent factors (TEFs) published by the World
Health Organization (WHO, 2005).
(11) Virginia Water Quality Criterion (WQC) calculated to protect human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. Comparison
of results to this criterion will be used to assess the potential impact on human health due to bioaccumulation in fish.
(12) This analytical method will only be requested for strategically selected sample locations. Results from this method will be used in order
to support Virginia's total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation for PCBs and can also be used to refine the conclusions of the site
characterization and risk assessment; however, these results will not be usable for determining nature and extent of contamination or in
the calculation of risk to human health or the environment.
(13) Commonwealth of Virginia public health supply value (9 Virginia Administrative Code 25-260).
(14) Calculated by EPA using PRG calculator for radionuclides in residential tap water (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/index.html).
(15) Los Alamos dataset, No Effects ESL value presented; Radium 226 No Effects ESL value used as surrogate for gamma spectrometry.
CRQL = Contract Required Quantitation Limit
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
RSL = Regional Screening Level (Nov 2012)
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TAL = Target Analyte List
VOC = volatile organic compound
CVAA = cold vapor atomic adsorption
(m) = marine
NA = not applicable
fig/L = micrograms per liter TSS = total suspended solids
pg/L = picograms per liter SU = standard units
TCL = Target Compound List (f) = freshwater
pCi/L = picocuries per liter MDL = method detection limit
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SSL = soil screening level
MFL = million fibers per liter
NAREL = National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 7 of 7 hgl 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
IT A
Resident isil
Region 3 Kcoloyiciil -
CAS
CRQL
Soil rsi:1.
SSL121
An;il\le
Number
(.««/ k«)
(fig/kg)
TCL VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
75-71-8
5
8,700 (n)
-
Chloromethane
74-87-3
5
11,000 (n)
-
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
5
59 (c)
300
Bromomethane
74-83-9
5
680 (n)
-
Chloroethane
75-00-3
5
1,400,000 (n)
-
T richlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
5
73,000 (n)
-
1,1, -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
5
23,000 (n)
-
1,1,2-Trichloro-l ,2,2-trifluoroethane
76-13-1
5
4,000,000 (n)
-
Acetone
67-64-1
10
6,100,000 (n)
-
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
5
77,000 (n)
-
Methyl acetate
79-20-9
5
7,800,000 (n)
-
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
5
35,000 (n)
300
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
5
160,000 (n)
300
Methyl tert-butyl ether
1634-04-4
5
47,000 (c)
-
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
5
3,600 (c)
300
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
5
16,000 (n)
300
2-Butanone
78-93-3
10
2,700,000 (n)
-
Bromochloromethane
74-97-5
5
15,000 (n)
3,000,000
Chloroform
67-66-3
5
320 (c)
300
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
71-55-6
5
810,000 (n)
300 (as trichloroethane)
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
5
650,000 (n)
-
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
5
650 (c)
300
Benzene
71-43-2
5
1,200 (c)
100
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
5
460 (c)
870
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
67
4,900 (c)
-
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
5
410 (n)
300
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
5
-
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
5
1,000 (c)
300
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
5
290 (c)
450
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
5
1,700 (c)
300
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
10
530,000 (n)
100,000
Toluene
108-88-3
5
490,000 (n)
100
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
5
1,800 (c)
300
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
5
150 (n)
300 (as trichloroethane)
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
5
8,100 (n)
300
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
10
20,000 (n)
-
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
5
730 (c)
-
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
5
36 (c)
-
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
5
28,000 (n)
100
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
5
5,800 (c)
100
o-Xylene
95-47-6
5
58,000 (n) (as
xylenes)
100 (as xylenes)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i»\
Residential
Region 3 Ideological -
CAS
C'RQL
Soil rsl 1
SSL121
AiiiiMc
Number
(,u«/k«)
(.uji/kji)
(,u«/k«)
//7,/;-Xylene
179601-23-1
5
55,000 (n) (as
///-xylene)
100 (as xylenes;
Styrene
100-42-5
5
600,000 (n)
100
Bromoform
75-25-2
5
6,700 (c)
1,147,000
Isopropylbenzene
98-82-8
5
190,000 (n)
-
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
5
600 (c)
300
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
5
-
-
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
5
2,600 (c)
100
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
5
180,000 (n)
100
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
5
5.3 (c)
-
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
120-82-1
5
5,800 (n)
100
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
5
4,900 (n)
100
TCL SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Benzaldehyde
100-52-7
170
780,000 (n)
-
Phenol
108-95-2
170
1,800,000 (n)
100
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
170
230 (c)
-
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
170
39,000 (n)
100
2-Methylphenol
95-48-7
170
310,000 (n)
100
2,2'-oxybis( 1 -Chloropropane)
108-60-1
170
4,900 (c)
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
170
780,000 (n)
-
4-Methylphenol
106-44-5
170
620,000 (n)(3)
100
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
621-64-7
170
76 (c)
-
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
170
4,300 (n)
-
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
170
5,100 (c)
-
Isophorone
78-59-1
170
560,000 (c)
-
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
170
-
-
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
170
120,000 (n)
100
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
170
18,000 (n)
-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
170
18,000 (n)
100
Naphthalene
91-20-3
170
3,800 (c)
100
4-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
170
2,700 (c)
-
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
170
6,200 (n)
-
Caprolactam
105-60-2
170
3,100,000 (n)
-
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
170
620,000 (n)
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
170
23,000 (n)
-
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
170
37,000 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T richlorophenol
88-06-2
170
6,200 (n)
100
2,4,5 -T richlorophenol
95-95-4
170
620,000 (n)
100
l,l'-Biphenyl
92-52-4
170
4,700 (n)
-
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
170
630,000 (n)
-
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
330
61,000 (n)
-
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
170
-
-
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
170
360 (c) (as mix
of isomers)
—
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i»\
Residential
Region 3 Ideological -
CAS
C'RQL
Soil rsl 1
SSL121
AiiiiMc
Number
(,u«/k«)
(.uji/kji)
(,u«/k«)
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
170
350,000 (n)(4)
100
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
330
-
-
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
170
350,000 (n)
100
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
330
12,000 (n)
100
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
330
-
100
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
170
7,200 (n)
-
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
170
1,700 (c)
-
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
170
4,900,000 (n)
-
Fluorene
86-73-7
170
230,000 (n)
100
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
170
-
-
4-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
330
25,000 (c)
-
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
534-52-1
330
490 (n)
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
170
110,000 (c)
-
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
170
1,800 (n)
100
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
170
-
-
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
170
330 (c)
-
Atrazine
1912-24-9
170
2,300 (c)
-
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
330
990 (c)
2,100
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
170
170,000 (n)(5)
100
Anthracene
120-12-7
170
1,700,000 (n)
100
Carbazole
86-74-8
170
-
-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
170
620,000 (n)
-
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
170
230,000 (n)
-
Pyrene
129-00-0
170
170,000 (n)
100
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
170
26,000 (n)
-
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
170
1,200 (n)
-
Benzo [a] anthracene
56-55-3
170
150 (c)
100
Chrysene
218-01-9
170
15,000 (c)
100
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
170
38,000 (c)
-
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
170
62,000
-
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
205-99-2
170
150 (c)
100
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
207-08-9
170
1,500 (c)
100
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
170
15 (c)
100
Indeno[l ,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
170
150 (c)
100
Dibenzo [a ,h] anthracene
53-70-3
170
15 (c)
100
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
170
170,000 (n)(5)
100
2,3,4,6 -T e trachlorophenol
58-90-2
170
180,000 (n)
100
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
29,000
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
1,100
TCL Pesticides by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
alpha-BHC
319-84-6
1.7
85 (c)
100,000 (as total BHC)
beta-BHC
319-85-7
1.7
270 (c)
100,000 (as total BHC)
delta-BHC
319-86-8
1.7
-
100,000 (as total BHC)
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
1.7
560 (c)
100
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i»\
Residential
Region 3 Ideological -
CAS
C'RQL
Soil rsl 1
SSL121
AiiiiMc
Number
(,u«/k«)
(.uji/kji)
(,u«/k«)
Heptachlor
76-44-8
1.7
120 (c)
-
Aldrin
309-00-2
1.7
31(c)
100
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
1.7
59 (c)
100
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
1.7
37,000 (n)
-
Dieldrin
60-57-1
3.3
33 (c)
4.9
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
3.3
1,600 (c)
21
Endrin
72-20-8
3.3
1,800 (n)
100
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
3.3
37,000 (n)
-
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
3.3
2,200 (c)
21
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
3.3
-
-
4,4'-DDT
50-29-3
3.3
1,900 (c)
21
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
17
31,000 (n)
100
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
3.3
-
-
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
3.3
-
-
alpha-Chlordane
5103-71-9
1.7
1,800 (c)
100
gamma-Chlordane
5103-74-2
1.7
1,800 (c)
100
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
170
480 (n)
-
TCL PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
33
400 (n)
-
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
33
150 (c)
-
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
33
150 (c)
-
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
33
240 (c)
-
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
33
240 (c)
-
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
33
110 (n)
-
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
33
240 (c)
-
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
33
240 (c)(6)
-
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
33
240 (c)(6)
-
Total PCBs
NA
0.01
120(11)
59.8
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES and CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
20
7,700 (n)
(8)
Antimony
7440-36-0
6.0
3.1 (n)
0.27
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1.0
0.67 (c)
18
Barium
7440-39-3
20
1,500 (n)
330
Beryllium
7440-41-7
0.5
16 (n)
21
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.5
7.0 (n)
0.36
Calcium
7440-70-2
500
-
-
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.0
0.3 (c) (as
chromium VI)
26
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.0
2.3 (n)
13
Copper
7440-50-8
2.5
310 (n)
28
Iron
7439-89-6
10
5,500 (n)
12
Lead
7439-92-1
1.0
400(7)
11
Magnesium
7439-95-4
500
-
-
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.5
180 (n)
220
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i»a
Residential
Region 3 l-A*olo<>iciil -
CAS
C'RQL
Soil rsl 1
SSL121
An;il\le
Number
(,u«/k«)
(.uji/kji)
(,u«/k«)
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.0
150 (n)
38
Potassium
7440-09-7
500
-
-
Selenium
7782-49-2
3.5
39 (n)
0.52
Silver
7440-22-4
1.0
39 (n)
4.2
Sodium
7440-23-5
500
-
-
Thallium
7440-28-0
2.5
0.078 (n)
0.001
Tin
7440-31-5
0.5
4,700 (n)
0.89
Vanadium
7440-62-2
5.0
39 (n)
7.8
Zinc
7440-66-6
6.0
2,300 (n)
46
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.1
0.78 (n) (as
methyl mercury)
0.058
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (Spectrophotometry)
all concentrations in mg/kg)
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.5
2.1 (n)
0.005
Hexavalent Chromium by SW7196A<9) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
0.020
0.3 (c) (as
chromium VI)
130
Explosives by SW8330A<9)
1,3,5-T rinitrobenzene
99-35-4
100
2,200,000 (n)
-
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
100
6,100 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T rinitrotoluene
118-96-7
100
36,000 (c)
-
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
200
16,000 (c)
-
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
200
7,200 (c) (as
mix of isomers)
—
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene
35572-78-2
200
150,000 (n)
-
2-Nitrotoluene
88-72-2
200
29,000 (c)
-
3-Nitrotoluene
99-08-1
200
6,100 (n)
-
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene
19406-51-0
200
150,000 (n)
-
4-Nitrotoluene
99-99-0
200
240,000 (n)
-
HMX
2691-41-0
200
3,800,000 (n)
-
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
100
48,000 (c)
-
RDX
121-82-4
100
56,000 (c)
-
Tetryl
479-45-8
250
24,000 (n)
-
PCDDs and PCDFs by DLM02.2 (all concentrations in ng/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1746-01-6
1.0
see TEQ
10,000
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
40321-76-4
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
39227-28-6
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
57653-85-7
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
19408-74-3
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
35822-46-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
OCDD
3268-87-9
10
see TEQ
-
2,3,7,8-TCDF
51207-31-9
1.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
57117-41-6
5.0
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
57117-31-4
5.0
see TEQ
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
An;il\U'
t AS
Nil 111 her
CRQL
(fiy/ka)
EPA
Kcsi(k'iili;il
Soil rsl 1
(,u«/k«)
Region 3 Lcolo<>ic;il -
SSL12'
(,u«/k«)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
70648-26-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
57117-44-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
72918-21-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
60851-34-5
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
67562-39-4
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
55673-89-7
5.0
see TEQ
-
OCDF
39001-02-0
10
see TEQ
-
Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ)<10)
NA
NA
4.5 (c)
-
Anions by SW9056 or SM4110B (mg/kg)<9)
Nitrate
14797-55-8
10
13,000 (n)
-
Nitrite
14797-65-0
10
780 (n)
-
Chloride
16887-00-6
10
-
-
Sulfate
14808-79-8
10
-
-
Radiologics
Gamma emitters (including Ra-226 +
daughters) by gamma spectrometry -
21-day inGrowth
Gamma Spec
0.003 pCi/g
or NAREL
MDL
0.0064 pCi/g (12)
0.21 pCi/g (13)
Strontium 90 + daughter (Method 905)
Sr-90
0.03 pCi/g
0.066 pCi/g(12)
150 pCi/g (13)
Other Inorganics (mg/kg)
Asbestos
ASTM
WK17170
0.1% by
weight
—
—
Sulfide (SW9030B/9034)<9)
7783-06-4
10
-
-
TOC (Instrument Method)<9)
7440-44-0
100
-
-
Grain Size (ASTM D 422)
NA
NA
-
-
(1) EPA Region 3 Residential Soil RSLs based upon May 2014 RSL table. Noncarcinogenic (n) RSLs based on hazard index of 0.1;
carcinogenic RSLs (c) based on a hazard quotient of 1 x 10~6.
(2) The lowest value from the EPA Region 3 Ecological SSLs derived for plant, soil invertebrate, avian, or mammalian receptors; where
this value is not available, the lower of the Region 3 Biological Technical Assistance Group soil screening level for flora or fauna has
been used.
(3) Some analytical systems are unable to resolve 3- and 4-methylphenol; if the data are reported as a sum of the two isomers, the
residential soil RSL for 3-methylphenol (620,000 fig/kg in May 2014) will be used as the screening value.
(4) The RSL for acenaphthene is used as a proxy.
(5) The RSL for pyrene is used as a proxy.
(6) The RSL for PCB-1260 is used as a proxy.
(7) EPA recommended value for residential soils (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/info/faq.htm)
(8) Aluminum should not be identified as a COPEC in soils with pH exceeding 5.5.
(9) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
(10) The TEQ is calculated on a sample-specific basis by summing the concentration of each detected 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF
isomer converted to the equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using the toxicity equivalent factors (TEFs) published by the World
Health Organization (WHO, 2005).
(11) RSL for 2,3',4,4'5-PCB 118 used as a proxy.
(12) Calculated PRG for residential soil (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/index.html).
(13) Los Alamos dataset, No Effects ESL value presented; Radium 226 No Effects ESL value used as surrogate for gamma spectrometry.
CRDL = contract required detection limit
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
Hg/kg = micrograms per kilogram
mg/kg = milligram per kilogram
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
RBC = risk-based concentration
TCL = Target Compound List
VOC = volatile organic compound
EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
pCi/g = picocuries per gram
CVAA = cold vapor atomic adsorption
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 6 of 7 hgl 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.3 (continued)
Soil Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
RSL = regional screening level
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram
TOC = total organic carbon
— = not applicable
NAREL = National Analytical Radiation Environmetal Laboratory
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy
COPEC = chemical of potential ecological concern
SSL = soil screening level
TAL = Target Analyte List
% = percentt
NA = not applicable
MDL = method detection limit
Sr-90 = strontium 90
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 7 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Tap Waier
I'resliwaler Marine
(AS
CRQI.
i:i'A MCI.
RSI.'1'
lieiH'limark':'
AnalMe
Number
(/
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Till) Wilier
l'"resh\wiier Murine
CAS
CRQI,
III'A MCI,
RSI,"'
lieiK-liniiirk':'
AiuilMe
Number
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Till) Wilier
l'"resh\wiier Murine
CAS
CRQI,
III'A MCI,
RSI,"'
lieiK-liniiirk':'
AiuilMe
Number
)
0.4
Anthracene
120-12-7
5.0
-
180 (n)
0.012
Carbazole
86-74-8
5.0
-
--
-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
5.0
-
90 (n)
19
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
5.0
-
80 (n)
0.04
Pyrene
129-00-0
5.0
-
12 (n)
0.025
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
5.0
-
16 (c)
19
3,3 '-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
5.0
-
0.12(c)
4.5
Benzo [a] anthracene
56-55-3
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
0.018
Chrysene
218-01-9
5.0
-
3.4 (c)
-
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
5.0
6.0
5.6 (c)
16
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
5.0
-
20 (n)
22
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
205-99-2
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
-
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
207-08-9
5.0
-
0.34 (c)
-
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
5.0
0.2
0.0034 (c)
0.015
Indeno[l ,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
5.0
-
0.034 (c)
-
Dibenzo [a, h] anthracene
53-70-3
5.0
-
0.0034 (c)
-
Benzo [g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
5.0
-
12 (n)(;>)
-
2,3,4,6 -T etrachlorophenol
58-90-2
5.0
-
24 (n)
1.2
Total Monochlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
Total Dichlorophenols
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.2
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Tap \Y'aler
I'reslm alerMarine
C AS
CRQL
III'A MCI.
RSI.'1,
lieiK'limark':'
AnalMe
Number
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Tap Wilier
rreslmaler Marine
CAS
CRQI,
III'A MCI,
RSI,"'
lieiK-limark':'
Anal\le
Number
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Region 3
Tap Wilier
l'"rcsh\wiler Marine
CAS
CRQI,
III'A MCI,
RSI,"'
licnclimark':'
Anal\le
Number
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.4 (continued)
Surface Water Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
(7) Value corresponds to a hardness = 100 mg/L.
(8) Action Level
(9) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
(10) The TEQ is calculated on a sample-specific basis by summing the concentration of each detected 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF
isomer converted to the equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using the toxicity equivalent factors (TEFs) published by the World
Health Organization (WHO, 2005).
(11) Virginia Water Quality Criterion (WQC) calculated to protect human health from toxic effects through fish consumption. Comparison
of results to this criterion will be used to assess the potential impact on human health due to bioaccumulation in fish.
(12) This analytical method will only be requested for strategically selected sample locations. Results from this method will be used in order
to support Virginia's total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation for PCBs and can also be used to refine the conclusions of the site
characterization and risk assessment; however, these results will not be usable for determining nature and extent of contamination or in
the calculation of risk to human health or the environment.
(13) Los Alamos dataset, No Effects ESL value presented; Radium 226 No Effect ESL value used as surrogate for gamma spectrometry.
(14) Calculated by EPA using PRG calculator for radionuclides in residential tap water (http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/index.html).
AWQC = ambient water quality criteria
CaC03 = calcium carbonate
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
fig/L = microgram per liter RSL = regional screening level
mg/L = milligram per liter
MCL = maximum contaminant level
SSL = soil screening level
PA = Pennsylvania
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
RBC = risk-based concentration
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TCL = Target Compound List
VOC = volatile organic compound
EPA = U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
— = not applicable
(f) = freshwater
(m) = marine
pCi/L = picocuries per liter
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy
ICP-MS = inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry
pg/L = pictograms per liter
TAL = Target Analyte List
NAREL = National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory
MDL = method detection limit
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 7 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'\
Residential Soil
Region 3 Kcolo.!>iciil
C AS
CRQL
RSI.1
SSL12'
.\llill\lc
Number
(}!!•/kl>)
(imkm
(uukm
TCL VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
75-71-8
5
8,700 (n)
-
Chloromethane
74-87-3
5
11,000 (n)
-
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
5
59 (c)
-
Bromomethane
74-83-9
5
680 (n)
-
Chloroethane
75-00-3
5
1,400,000 (n)
-
T richlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
5
73,000 (n)
-
1,1, -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
5
23,000 (n)
31
1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-
76-13-1
5
4,000,000 (n)
—
trifluoroethane
Acetone
67-64-1
10
6,100,000 (n)
-
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
5
77,000 (n)
0.851
Methyl acetate
79-20-9
5
7,800,000 (n)
-
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
5
35,000 (n)
-
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
5
160,000 (n)
1050
Methyl tert-butyl ether
1634-04-4
5
47,000 (c)
-
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
5
3,600 (c)
-
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
5
16,000 (n)
-
2-Butanone
78-93-3
10
2,700,000 (n)
-
Bromochloromethane
74-97-5
5
15,000 (n)
-
Chloroform
67-66-3
5
320 (c)
-
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
71-55-6
5
810,000 (n)
30.2
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
5
650,000 (n)
-
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
5
650 (c)
64.2
Benzene
71-43-2
5
1,200 (c)
-
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
5
460 (c)
-
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
67
4,900 (c)
-
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
5
410 (n)
96.9
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
5
-
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
5
1,000 (c)
-
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
5
290 (c)
-
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
5
1,700 (c)
0.0509
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
10
530,000 (n)
-
Toluene
108-88-3
5
490,000 (n)
-
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
5
1,800 (c)
0.0509
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
5
150 (n)
1240
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
5
8,100 (n)
486
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
10
20,000 (n)
-
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
5
730 (c)
-
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
5
36 (c)
-
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
5
28,000 (n)
8.42
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
5
5,800 (c)
1.1
o-Xylene
95-47-6
5
58,000 (n) (as
xylenes)
—
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5 (continued)
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Kesideuliiil Soil
Region 3 Kcologiiiil
(AS
C'RQI.
KSL1
SSL'21
An;il\le
Number
iimkm
(u»km
(imkm
m,p-X ylene
179601-23-
1
5
55,000 (n) (as
///-xylene)
25.2 (as m-xylene)
Styrene
100-42-5
5
600,000 (n)
559
Bromoform
75-25-2
5
6,700 (c)
654
Isopropylbenzene
98-82-8
5
190,000 (n)
86
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
5
600 (c)
1,360
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
5
-
4,430
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
5
2,600 (c)
599
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
5
180,000 (n)
16.5
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
5
5.3 (c)
-
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
120-82-1
5
5,800 (n)
2,100
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
5
4,900 (n)
858
TCL SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level
Benzaldehyde
100-52-7
170
780,000 (n)
-
Phenol
108-95-2
170
1,800,000 (n)
420
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
170
230 (c)
-
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
170
39,000 (n)
31.2
2-Methylphenol
95-48-7
170
310,000 (n)
-
2,2'-oxybis( 1 -Chloropropane)
108-60-1
170
4,900 (c)
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
170
780,000 (n)
-
4-Methylphenol
106-44-5
170
620,000 (n)<3)
670
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
621-64-7
170
76 (c)
-
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
170
4,300 (n)
1,027
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
170
5,100 (c)
-
Isophorone
78-59-1
170
560,000 (c)
-
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
170
-
-
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
170
120,000 (n)
29
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
170
18,000 (n)
-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
170
18,000 (n)
117
Naphthalene
91-20-3
170
3,800 (c)
176
4-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
170
2,700 (c)
-
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
170
6,200 (n)
-
Caprolactam
105-60-2
170
3,100,000 (n)
-
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
170
620,000 (n)
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
170
23,000 (n)
20.2
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
170
37,000 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T richlorophenol
88-06-2
170
6,200 (n)
213
2,4,5 -T richlorophenol
95-95-4
170
620,000 (n)
-
l,l'-Biphenyl
92-52-4
170
4,700 (n)
1,220
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
170
630,000 (n)
-
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
330
61,000 (n)
-
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
170
-
-
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
170
360 (c) (as mix
of isomers)
--
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
170
350,000 (n)<4)
5.9
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
330
-
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5 (continued)
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Resirienliiil Soil
Region 3 Kcolo.!>ii°iil
(AS
C'RQI.
RSI.'1'
SSL'21
An;il\le
Number
iimkm
(u»km
(imkm
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
170
350,000 (n)
6.7
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
330
12,000 (n)
-
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
330
-
-
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
170
7,200 (n)
415
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
170
1,700 (c)
41.6
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
170
4,900,000 (n)
603
Fluorene
86-73-7
170
230,000 (n)
77.4
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
170
-
-
4-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
330
25,000 (c)
-
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
534-52-1
330
490 (n)
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
170
110,000 (c)
2.68
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
170
1,800 (n)
1,090
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
170
-
1,230
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
170
330 (c)
20
Atrazine
1912-24-9
170
2,300 (c)
-
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
330
990 (c)
504
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
170
170,000 (n)(5)
204
Anthracene
120-12-7
170
1,700,000 (n)
57.2
Carbazole
86-74-8
170
-
-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
170
620,000 (n)
6,470
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
170
230,000 (n)
423
Pyrene
129-00-0
170
170,000 (n)
195
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
170
26,000 (n)
10,900
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
170
1,200 (n)
127
Benzo [a] anthracene
56-55-3
170
150 (c)
108
Chrysene
218-01-9
170
15,000 (c)
166
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
170
38,000 (c)
180
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
170
62,000
-
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
205-99-2
170
150 (c)
27.2 (total of [b] and [k]
isomers)
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
207-08-9
170
1,500 (c)
27.2 (total of [b] and [k]
isomers)
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
170
15 (c)
150
Indeno[l ,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
170
150 (c)
17
Dibenzo [a ,h] anthracene
53-70-3
170
15 (c)
0.033
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
170
170,000 (n)(5)
170
2,3,4,6 -T e trachlorophenol
58-90-2
170
180,000 (n)
284
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
76
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
190
TCL Pesticides by SOMOl.l/SOMfl
1.2
alpha-BHC
319-84-6
1.7
85 (c)
6.0
beta-BHC
319-85-7
1.7
270 (c)
5.0
delta-BHC
319-86-8
1.7
-
6,400
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
1.7
560 (c)
2.37
Heptachlor
76-44-8
1.7
120 (c)
68
Aldrin
309-00-2
1.7
31(c)
2.0
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5 (continued)
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Residential Soil
Region 3 Ideological
(AS
C'RQI.
RSI.1
SSL'21
AnalMe
Number
iimkm
(.Ilgkg)
(fig Kg)
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
1.7
59 (c)
2.47
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
1.7
37,000 (n)
2.14 (mix of isomers)
Dieldrin
60-57-1
3.3
33 (c)
1.9
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
3.3
1,600 (c)
3.16
Endrin
72-20-8
3.3
1,800 (n)
2.22
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
3.3
37,000 (n)
2.14 (mix of isomers)
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
3.3
2,200 (c)
4.88
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
3.3
-
5.4
4,4'-DDT
50-29-3
3.3
1,900 (c)
4.16
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
170
31,000 (n)
18.7
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
3.3
-
-
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
3.3
-
-
alpha-Chlordane
5103-71-9
1.7
1,800 (c)
3.24
gamma-Chlordane
5103-74-2
1.7
1,800 (c)
3.24
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
170
480 (n)
0.1
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
NA
NA
NA
5.28
TCL PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
33
400 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
33
150 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
33
150 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
33
240 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
33
240 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
33
110 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
33
240 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
33
240 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
33
240 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Total PCBs
NA
0.01
120(11)
59.8
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4
ICP-AES and CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
20
7,700 (n)
-
Antimony
7440-36-0
6.0
3.1 (n)
2.0
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1.0
0.67 (c)
9.8
Barium
7440-39-3
20
1,500 (n)
-
Beryllium
7440-41-7
0.5
16 (n)
-
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.5
7.0 (n)
0.99
Calcium
7440-70-2
500
-
-
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.0
0.3 (c) (as
chromium VI)
43.4
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.0
2.3 (n)
50
Copper
7440-50-8
2.5
310 (n)
31.6
Iron
7439-89-6
10
5,500 (n)
20,000
Lead
7439-92-1
1.0
400(7)
35.8
Magnesium
7439-95-4
500
-
-
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.5
180 (n)
460
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.0
150 (n)
22.7
Potassium
7440-09-7
500
-
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5 (continued)
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i'A
Residential Soil
Region 3 Ideological
(AS
C'RQI.
RSI.1
SSL'21
AnalMe
Number
iimkm
(.Ilgkg)
(fig kg)
Selenium
7782-49-2
3.5
39 (n)
2.0
Silver
7440-22-4
1.0
39 (n)
1.0
Sodium
7440-23-5
500
-
-
Thallium
7440-28-0
2.5
0.078 (n)
-
Tin
7440-31-5
0.5
4,700 (n)
-
Vanadium
7440-62-2
5.0
39 (n)
-
Zinc
7440-66-6
6.0
2,300 (n)
-
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4
CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.1
0.78 (n) (as
methyl mercury)
0.18
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (Spectrophotometry) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.5
2.1 (n)
0.1
Hexavalent Chromium by SW7196A (all concentrations in mg/kg)
8)
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
0.020
0.3 (c) (as
chromium VI)
43.4 (as chromium)
Explosives by SW8330A
1,3,5-T rinitrobenzene
99-35-4
100
220,000 (n)
-
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
100
620 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T rinitrotoluene
118-96-7
100
3,600 (c)
92
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
200
1,600 (c)
41.6
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
200
780 (c) (as mix
of isomers)
—
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene
35572-78-2
200
15,000 (n)
-
2-Nitrotoluene
88-72-2
200
3,200 (c)
-
3-Nitrotoluene
99-08-1
200
610 (n)
-
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene
19406-51-0
200
15,000 (n)
-
4-Nitrotoluene
99-99-0
200
25,000 (n)
4,060
HMX
2691-41-0
200
380,000 (n)
-
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
100
5,100 (c)
-
RDX
121-82-4
100
6,000 (c)
13
Tetryl
479-45-8
250
12,000 (n)
-
PCDDs and PCDFs by DLM02.2 (all concentrations in ng/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1746-01-6
1.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
40321-76-4
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
39227-28-6
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
57653-85-7
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
19408-74-3
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
35822-46-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
OCDD
3268-87-9
10
see TEQ
-
2,3,7,8-TCDF
51207-31-9
1.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
57117-41-6
5.0
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
57117-31-4
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
70648-26-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
57117-44-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
72918-21-9
5.0
see TEQ
-
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
60851-34-5
5.0
see TEQ
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.5 (continued)
Terrestrial Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
i:i»a
Residential Soil
Region 3 Ideological
(AS
C KOI.
RSL1
SSL12'
AnalMe
Number
(fig. kg)
(fig kg)
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
Citlculitled l»K(;
I'reslnwiler Marine
C AS
CRQL
or RSI. 1
lienchniiirk
AiuilMe
NiiihIkt
(imkm
(imkm
(imkn)
TCL VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Dichlorodifluoromethane
75-71-8
5
8,700 (n)(2)
-
Chloromethane
74-87-3
5
11,000 (n)(2)
-
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
5
59 (c)(2)
-
Bromomethane
74-83-9
5
680 (n)(2)
-
Chloroethane
75-00-3
5
1,400,000 (n)(2)
-
T richlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
5
73,000 (n)(2)
-
1,1, -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
5
23,000 (n)(2)
31
1,1,2-T richloro-1,2,2-
76-13-1
5
4,000,000 (n)(2)
-
trifluoroethane
Acetone
67-64-1
10
6,100,000 (n)(2)
-
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
5
77,000 (n)(2)
0.851
Methyl acetate
79-20-9
5
7,800,000 (n)(2)
-
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
5
35,000 (n)(2)
-
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
5
160,000 (n)(2)
1050
Methyl tert-butyl ether
1634-04-4
5
47,000 (c)(2)
-
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
5
3,600 (c)(2)
-
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-59-2
5
16,000 (n)(2)
-
2-Butanone
78-93-3
10
2,700,000 (n)(2)
-
Bromochloromethane
74-97-5
5
15,000 (n)(2)
-
Chloroform
67-66-3
5
320 (c)(2)
-
1,1,1 -T richloroethane
71-55-6
5
810,000 (n)(2)
30.2
Cyclohexane
110-82-7
5
650,000 (n)(2)
-
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
5
650 (c)(2)
64.2
Benzene
71-43-2
5
1,200 (c)(2)
-
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
5
460 (c)(2)
-
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
100
4,900 (c)(2)
-
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
5
410 (n)(2)
96.9
Methylcyclohexane
108-87-2
5
-
-
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
5
1,000 (c)(2)
-
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
5
290 (c)(2)
-
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
5
1,700 (c)(2)
0.0509
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
10
530,000 (n)(2)
-
Toluene
108-88-3
5
490,000 (n)(2)
-
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
5
1,800 (c)(2)
0.0509
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
5
150 (n)(2)
1240
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
5
8,100 (n)(2)
486
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
10
20,000 (n)(2)
-
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
5
730 (c)(2)
-
1,2-Dibromoethane
106-93-4
5
36 (c)(2)
-
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
5
28,000 (n)(2)
8.42
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
5
5,800 (c)(2)
1.1
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
C'iilculiiled l'K(,
I'Veslmnier Marine
C AS
( RQI.
or RSI. 1
lienchniiirk
\n;il\le
Number
(imkm
(imkm
(imkm
o-Xylene
95-47-6
5
58,000 (n) (as
xylenes)(2)
--
m,p-X ylene
179601-23-
1
5
55,000 (n) (as m-
xylene)(2)
25.2 (as m-xylene)
Styrene
100-42-5
5
600,000 (n)(2)
559
Bromoform
75-25-2
5
6,700 (c)(2)
654
Isopropylbenzene
98-82-8
5
190,000 (n)(2)
86
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
5
600 (c)(2)
1,360
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
5
-
4,430
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
5
2,600 (c)(2)
599
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
5
180,000 (n)(2)
16.5
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
5
5.3 (c)(2)
-
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
120-82-1
5
5,800 (n)(2)
2,100
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
5
4,900 (n)(2)
858
TCL SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level
Benzaldehyde
100-52-7
170
55,600 (n)
-
Phenol
108-95-2
170
167,000 (n)
420
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
111-44-4
1.0
1.36 (c)
-
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
10
2,780 (n)
31.2
2-Methylphenol
95-48-7
170
27,800 (n)
-
2,2'-oxybis( 1 -Chloropropane)
108-60-1
10
21.4 (c)
-
Acetophenone
98-86-2
170
55,600 (n)
-
4-Methylphenol
106-44-5
170
55,600 (n)
670
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
621-64-7
0.1
0.214 (c)
-
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
10
37.4 (n)
1,027
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
170
1,110 (c)
-
Isophorone
78-59-1
170
1,580 (c)
-
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
170
-
-
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
10
11,100 (n)
29
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
170
1,670 (n)
-
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
30
1,670 (n)
117
Naphthalene
91-20-3
30
3,800 (c)(2)
176
4-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
1
7.49 (c)
-
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
1
19.2 (n)
-
Caprolactam
105-60-2
170
278,000 (n)
-
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
170
55,600 (n)
-
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
10
2,220 (n)
20.2
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
170
3,340 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T richlorophenol
88-06-2
30
136 (n)
213
2,4,5 -T richlorophenol
95-95-4
170
55,600 (n)
-
l,l'-Biphenyl
92-52-4
30
187 (n)
1,220
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
170
44,500 (n)
-
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
170
5,560 (n)
-
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
170
-
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
C'iilculiiled l'K(,
l"reslm;iier'M;irine
C AS
CRQL
or RSI. 1
BcncliiiKirk
\iuil\le
Number
(imkm
(imkm
(imkn)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
0.2
0.998 (c)
-
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
1
33,400 (n)
5.9
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
170
-
-
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
1
33,400 (n)(4)
6.7
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
170
1,110 (n)
-
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
170
-
-
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
170
556 (n)
415
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
2
4.83 (c)
41.6
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
170
445,000 (n)
603
Fluorene
86-73-7
30
22,200 (n)
11.4
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
170
-
-
4-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
30
74.9 (c)
-
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
534-52-1
10
44.5 (n)
-
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
0.1
306 (c)
2.68
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
30
167 (n)
1,090
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
170
-
1,230
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
0.1
0.936 (c)
20
Atrazine
1912-24-9
1.0
6.51 (c)
-
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
1.0
3.74 (c)
504
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
30
16,700 (n)(5)
204
Anthracene
120-12-7
30
167,000 (n)
57.2
Carbazole
86-74-8
170
-
-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
170
55,600(n)
6,470
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
170
22,200 (n)
423
Pyrene
129-00-0
30
16,700 (n)
195
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
170
788 (n)
10,900
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
0.1
3.33 (n)
127
Benzo [a] anthracene
56-55-3
0.1
2.05 (c)
108
Chrysene
218-01-9
30
205 (c)
166
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
30
107 (c)
180
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
170
5,560
-
Benzo [b] fluoranthene
205-99-2
0.1
2.05 (c)
27.2 (total of [b] and
[k] isomers)
Benzo [k] fluoranthene
207-08-9
10
20.5 (c)
27.2 (total of [b] and
[k] isomers)
Benzo[a]pyrene
50-32-8
0.1
0.205 (c)
150
Indeno[l ,2,3-cd]pyrene
193-39-5
0.1
2.05 (c)
17
Dibenzo [a ,h] anthracene
53-70-3
0.1
0.205 (c)
0.033
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
191-24-2
170
16,700 (n))(5)
170
2,3,4,6 -T e trachlorophenol
58-90-2
170
16,700 (n)
284
Total Low Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
76
Total High Molecular Weight PAHs
NA
NA
NA
190
TCL Pesticides by SOMO 1.1/SOMA
1.2
alpha-BHC
319-84-6
1.7
0.238 (c)
6.0
beta-BHC
319-85-7
1.7
0.832 (c)
5.0
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 3 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
Calculaieri l»R(;
I'reslmaler-Marine
C AS
CRQL
or RSI. 1
benchmark
AnalMe
Number
(fig kg)
(fig kg)
(,IIg- kg)
delta-BHC
319-86-8
1.7
-
6,400
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
1.7
1.36 (c)
2.37
Heptachlor
76-44-8
1.7
0.333 (c)
68
Aldrin
309-00-2
1.7
0.0881 (c)
2.0
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
1.7
0.165 (c)
2.47
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
1.7
370,000 (n)
2.14 (mix of isomers)
Dieldrin
60-57-1
3.3
0.0936 (c)
1.9
4,4'-DDE
72-55-9
3.3
4.4 (c)
3.16
Endrin
72-20-8
3.3
167 (n)
2.22
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
3.3
370,000 (n)
2.14 (mix of isomers)
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
3.3
6.24 (c)
4.88
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
3.3
-
5.4
4,4'-DDT
50-29-3
3.3
4.4(c)
4.16
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
170
2,780 (n)
18.7
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
3.3
-
-
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
3.3
-
-
alpha-Chlordane
5103-71-9
1.7
16,000 (c)
3.24
gamma-Chlordane
5103-74-2
1.7
16,000 (c)
3.24
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
170
1.36 (n)
0.1
Total DDD/DDE/DDT
NA
NA
NA
5.28
TCL PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
33
21.4 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
33
0.749 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
33
0.749 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
33
0.749 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
33
0.749 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
33
0.749 (n)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
33
0.749 (c)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
33
0.749 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
33
0.749 (c)(6)
see Total PCBs
Total PCBs
NA
0.01
0.749 (6)
59.8
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES and CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
20
556 (n)
-
Antimony
7440-36-0
6.0
0.222 (n)
2.0
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1.0
0.000998 (c)
9.8
Barium
7440-39-3
20
111 (n)
-
Beryllium
7440-41-7
0.5
1.11 (n)
-
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.5
0.556 (n)
0.99
Calcium
7440-70-2
500
-
-
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.0
0.00299 (c) (as
chromium VI)
43.4
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5.0
0.167 (n)
50
Copper
7440-50-8
2.5
22.2 (n)
31.6
Iron
7439-89-6
10
389 (n)
20,000
Lead
7439-92-1
1.0
o
o
35.8
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 4 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
Region 3
Calculated l»R(;
1'reslmaler-Marine
CAS
CRQL
or RSI. 1
benchmark
AnalMe
Number
(fig kg)
(fig kg)
(,IIg- kg)
Magnesium
7439-95-4
500
-
—
Manganese
7439-96-5
1.5
77.9 (n)
460
Nickel
7440-02-0
4.0
11.1 (n)
22.7
Potassium
7440-09-7
500
-
-
Selenium
7782-49-2
3.5
2.78 (n)
2.0
Silver
7440-22-4
1.0
2.78 (n)
1.0
Sodium
7440-23-5
500
-
-
Thallium
7440-28-0
2.5
0.00556 (n)
-
Tin
7440-31-5
0.5
334 (n)
-
Vanadium
7440-62-2
5.0
2.8 (n)
-
Zinc
7440-66-6
6.0
167 (n)
-
TAL Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (CVAA) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.1
0.78 (n) (as
methyl mercury
0.18
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (Spectrophotometry) (all concentrations in mg/kg)
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.5
0.334 (n)
0.1
Hexavalent Chromium by SW7196A (all concentrations in mg/kg)
(8)
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
0.020
0.00299 (c) (as
chromium VI)
43.4 (as chromium)
Explosives by SW8330A
1,3,5-T rinitrobenzene
99-35-4
100
16,700 (n)
-
1,3-Dinitrobenzene
99-65-0
100
55.6 (n)
-
2,4,6 -T rinitrotoluene
118-96-7
100
49.9 (c)
92
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
200
4.83 (c)
41.6
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
200
0.998 (c)
-
2-Amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene
35572-78-2
200
1,110 (n)
-
2-Nitrotoluene
88-72-2
200
6.81 (c)
-
3-Nitrotoluene
99-08-1
200
55.6 (n)
-
4-Amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene
19406-51-0
200
1,110 (n)
-
4-Nitrotoluene
99-99-0
200
93.6 (n)
4,060
HMX
2691-41-0
200
27,800 (n)
-
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
100
1,110 (c)
-
RDX
121-82-4
100
13.6 (c)
13
Tetryl
479-45-8
250
1,110(n)
-
PCDDs and PCDFs by DLM02.2 (all concentrations in ng/kg)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1746-01-6
1.0
0.0115
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
40321-76-4
5.0
0.0115
-
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
39227-28-6
5.0
0.115
-
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
57653-85-7
5.0
0.115
-
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
19408-74-3
5.0
0.115
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
35822-46-9
5.0
1.15
-
OCDD
3268-87-9
10
38.4
-
2,3,7,8-TCDF
51207-31-9
1.0
0.115
-
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
57117-41-6
5.0
0.384
-
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
57117-31-4
5.0
0.0384
-
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 5 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
AnalMe
CAS
Number
CRQI.
(fig kg)
Calculated l'R(;
or RSI. 1
(fig kg)
Region 3
I'reslmaler Marine
Benchmark
(llg'kg)
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
70648-26-9
5.0
0.115
—
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
57117-44-9
5.0
0.115
—
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
72918-21-9
5.0
0.115
-
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
60851-34-5
5.0
0.115
-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
67562-39-4
5.0
1.15
-
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
55673-89-7
5.0
1.15
-
OCDF
39001-02-0
10
38.4
-
Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ)<9)
NA
NA
4.5 (c)
NA
PCB Congeners by Method 1668<8)<10)
PCB Congeners (1 - 209)
NA
0.01
0.034(10)
59.8
Radiologics
Gamma emitters (including Ra-226
+ daughters) by gamma
spectrometry - 21-day inGrowth
Gamma
Spec
0.003 pCi/g or
NAREL MDL
0.00142 pCi/g
1400 pCi/g (12)
Strontium 90 (Method 905)
Sr-90
0.03 pCi/g
0.0077 pCi/g
3400 pCi/g (12)
Anions by SW9056 or SM4110B (mg/kg)<8)
Nitrate
14797-55-8
10
13,000 (n)
-
Nitrite
14797-65-0
10
780 (n)
-
Chloride
16887-00-6
10
-
-
Sulfate
14808-79-8
10
-
-
Other Inorganics (mg/kg)<8)
Asbestos
ASTM
WK17170
0.1% by weight
—
—
Sulfide (SW9030B/9034)
7783-06-4
10
-
130
TOC (Instrument Method)
7440-44-0
100
-
-
Grain Size (ASTM D 422)
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Unless otherwise noted, calculated PRG provided . Calculated PRG concentraions provided were the lowest between PRG calculated
using the following equation: Tissue PRG / biological concentration factor * distribution coefficient.for:
a. fish consumption exposure pathways were calculated using assuming an ingestion rate of fish tissue at 150 g/day, the approximate
ingestion rate of subsistence fishers near the Site, as directed by EPA.
b. Crab consumption using an ingestion rate of 13.01 g/day provided in the Atlantic Wood Industries HHRA
c. Oyster consumption using an ingestion rate of 3.77 g/day provided in the Atlantic Wood Industries HHRA and the following
equation: Tissue PRG / biological concentration factor * distribution coefficient.
(2) EPA Region 3 Residential Soil RSLs based upon May 2014 RSL. Noncarcinogenic (n) RSLs based on hazard index of 0.1;
carcinogenic RSLs (c) based on a hazard quotient of 1 x 10~6.
(3) The lower of the EPA Region 3 freshwater and marine benchmark provided.
(4) The RSL for acenaphthene is used as a proxy.
(5) The RSL for pyrene is used as a proxy.
(6) The RSL for PCB-1260 is used as a proxy.
(7) EPA recommended value for residential soils (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/info/faq.htm)
(8) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL/CRDL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
(9) The TEQ is calculated on a sample-specific basis by summing the concentration of each detected 2,3,7,8-substituted PCDD/PCDF
isomer converted to the equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD using the toxicity equivalent factors (TEFs) published by the World
Health Organization (WHO, 2005).
(10) Los Alamos dataset, No Effects ESL value presented; Radium 226 No Effect ESL value used as surrogate for gamma spectrometry.
CRDL = contract required detection limit PAH = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
lig/kg = micrograms per kilogram TOC = total organic carbon
ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram RBC = risk-based concentration
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl RSL = regional screening level
PRG = preliminary remedial goal (f) = freshwater
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 6 of 7 hgl 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS—City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.6 (continued)
Wetland and Aquatic Sediment Sampling Analytical Parameters
and Potential Screening Values
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TAL = Target Analyte List
TCL = Target Compound List
VOC = volatile organic compound
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption
(m) = marine
pCi/g = picocuries per gram
NA = not applicable
SSL = soil screening level
NAREL = National Analytical Radiation Environmental Laboratory
ascopy MDL = method detection limit
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 7 of 7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.7
Wipe Sampling Analytical Parameters and Potential Screening Values
C'RDL/CRQL
Screeniiif* Level
AiiiiMo
CAS Number
(fi«''cni )
(,llf»/Clll )
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
1
< 10(1)
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
1
< 10(1)
Total PCBs
NA
1
< 10(1)
Lead
7439-92-1
0.02
0.05<2)
(1) PCB screening criteria obtained from Toxic Substance Control Act; high occupancy
(2) Dust Levels for Lead Hazard Screen Only (HUD, 2012).
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Service
CRDL = contract required detection limit
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
Hg/cm2 = micrograms per square centimeter
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
NA = not applicable
HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.8
Waste Characterization Sampling Analytical Parameters and Regulatory Values
Liquid Wastes and TCLP Extracts
CRQL/CRDL
Re}>ul;i1or\ Limit
AiiiiMc
CAS Number
(m»/L)
(mg/L)'1'
VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
1,1 -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
0.0005
0.7
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
0.0005
0.5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
10646-7
0.0005
7.5
2-Butanone
78-93-3
0.005
200
Benzene
71-43-2
0.0005
0.5
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
0.0005
0.5
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
0.0005
100
Chloroform
67-66-3
0.0005
6.0
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
0.0005
0.7
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
0.0005
0.5
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
0.0005
0.2
SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
2,4,5 -T richlorophenol
95-95-4
0.005
400
2,4,6 -T richlorophenol
88-06-2
0.005
2.0
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
0.005
0.13
Methylphenols (total)
1319-77-3
0.005
200
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
0.005
0.13
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
0.005
0.5
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
0.005
3.0
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
0.005
2.0
Pentachlorophenol
97-86-5
0.010
100
Pyridine
110-86-1
0.005
5.0
Pesticides by SOMOl.l/SOM
01.2
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
58-89-9
0.00005
0.4
Heptachlor
76-44-8
0.00005
0.008(2)
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
0.00005
0.008(2)
Endrin
72-20-8
0.0001
0.02
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
0.0005
10
Chlordane (total)
57-74-9
0.00005
0.03
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
0.005
0.5
PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
0.001
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
0.001
see Total PCBs
Total PCBs
NA
NA
50<3)
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.8 (continued)
Waste Characterization Sampling Analytical Parameters and Regulatory Values
Liquid Wastes and TCLP Extracts
CRQL/CRDL
Rcgiihilon Limit
AiiiiMc
CAS Number
(m»/L)
(nif»/L)'
Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES)
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.001
5.0
Barium
7440-39-3
0.010
200
Cadmium
7440-43-9
0.001
1.0
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.002
5.0
Lead
7439-92-1
0.001
5.0
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.005
1.0
Silver
7440-22-4
0.001
5.0
Mercury by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (CVAA)
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.0002
0.2
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES)
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.01
„<4)
Radiologicals
Gamma emitters (including
0.08 Ci/m3
Ra-226 + daughters) by
gamma spectrometry - 21-
day inGrowth
Gamma Spec
0.04 Ci/m3
(NRC 10 CRF §61.55 limits)
Strontium 90
901
0.02 Ci/m3
0.04 Ci/m3
(NRC 10 CRF §61.55 limits)
Sulfide by SW9030B/9034®
Sulfide
7783-06-4
0.05
..(4)
Corrosivity as pH by SW9040C<5)
pH
pH
±0.1 SU
2.0-12.5 SU
Flash Point by SW1010A or SW1020B®
Flash Point
NA
±0.1 °F
140 °F
(1) Toxicity characteristic concentration listed in 40 CFR 261.24 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Toxicity characteristic concentration for heptachlor plus heptachlor epoxide.
(3) The concentration at which a liquid is considered PCB-contaminated as defined in 40 CFR 761.3 ("PCB remediation waste").
(4) The reactivity characteristic (40 CFR 261.23) does not provide a characteristic concentration for cyanide and sulfide; detected results in
wastes will be evaluated for the potential to evolve harmful gases.
(5) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL/CRDL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
CAS = Chemical Abstract Service
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
CRDL = contract required detection limit
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
°F = degrees Fahrenheit
mg/L = milligrams per liter
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
SU = standard units
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
NA = not applicable
— = no value
VOC = volatile organic compound
Ci/m3 = curies per cubic meter
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 2 of 2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 5.9
Waste Characterization Sampling Analytical Parameters and Regulatory Values
Sol
id Waste
CRQL/CRDL
Re}>ul;ilor\ Limit
AiisiMc
CAS Number
(m»/kj>)
(m»/k»)
VOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Perform TCLP and analyze the extract for analytes listed in Table 5.6.
SVOCs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2 (Low Level)
Perform TCLP and analyze the extract for analytes listed in Table 5.6.
Pesticides by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Perform TCLP and analyze the extract for analytes listed in Table 5.6.
PCBs by SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2
Aroclor-1016
12674-11-2
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1221
11104-28-2
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1232
11141-16-5
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1242
53469-21-9
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1248
12672-29-6
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1254
11097-82-5
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1260
11096-82-5
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1262
37324-23-5
0.033
see Total PCBs
Aroclor-1268
11100-14-4
0.033
see Total PCBs
Total PCBs
NA
NA
50(1)
Metals by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES)
Perform TCLP and analyze the extract for analytes listed in Table 5.6.
Mercury by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (CVAA)
Perform TCLP and analyze the extract for analytes listed in Table 5.6.
Cyanide by ILM05.3/ILM05.4 (ICP-AES)
Cyanide
57-12-5
0.01
(2)
Radiologicals
Gamma emitters (including
Gamma Spec
0.04 Ci/m3
0.08 Ci/m3
Ra-226 + daughters) by
(NRC 10 CRF §61.55 limits)
gamma spectrometry - 21-
day inGrowth
Strontium 90
901
0.02 Ci/m3
0.04 Ci/m3
(NRC 10 CRF §61.55 limits)
Sulfide by SW9030B/90343'
Sulfide
7783-06-4
0.05
(2)
Corrosivity as pH by SW9045D<3)
pH
pH
±0.1 SU
2.0-12.5 SU
Ignitability by SW1030<3)
Ignitability
NA
NA
Positive test
(1) The concentration at which a solid is considered PCB-contaminated as defined in 40 CFR 761
(2) The reactivity characteristic (40 CFR 261.23) does not provide a characteristic concentration
wastes will be evaluated for the potential to evolve harmful gases.
(3) Not an analytical method in the CLP; the CRQL/CRDL is a reporting limit that is considered to be practical under the method.
.3 ("PCB Remediation Waste").
for cyanide and sulfide; detected results in
CAS = Chemical Abstract Service
CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CRDL = contract required detection limit
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
mg/kg = milligrams per liter
NA = not applicable
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
VOC = volatile organic compound
Ci/m3 = curies per cubic meter
ICP-AES = inductively coupled plasma-atomic absorption spectroscopy
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
SU = standard units
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 Of 1 HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
6.0 MEASUREMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION
This section covers sample process design, sampling methods requirements, sample handling
and custody, analytical methods, QC requirements, equipment maintenance, instrument
calibration, supply acceptance, non-direct measurements, and data management.
6.1 SAMPLE PROCESS DESIGN
The general goal of this sampling event is to quantify the presence or absence of contamination
in the sampling media and to determine several water and sediment quality parameters. The
underlying questions that this sampling event is intended to support answering are listed in
Section 5.4.3.2. The number, types, locations, and analyses of samples are presented in
Section 3.0.
6.2 SAMPLING METHODS REQUIREMENTS
The sampling equipment, containers, and overall field management are described below.
6.2.1 Sampling Equipment Preparation
Sampling equipment required for the field sampling program for environmental monitoring,
sampling, health and safety monitoring, equipment and personnel decontamination, and
general field operations are presented in Section 4.0.
Preparation for field activities will include a review of SOPs, procurement of field equipment
and supplies, coordination with laboratories, confirmation of site access, and field planning
meetings attended by field personnel, project management, and QA staff. Project related
SOPs have been included as Appendix B. Field sample data sheets anticipated for this project
are included within the individual SOPs.
6.2.2 Sample Containers
The environmental samples will be collected in the method-specific containers shown in
Table 6.1. This table also includes any required preservation requirements. Containers and
preservatives will be acquired by HGL and preservation will be performed in the field, with
the exception of aqueous samples for VOC. These samples will be collected in pre-preserved
sample containers.
6.2.3 Sample Collection
Samples collected during this field program include soil, groundwater, surface water,
sediment, IDW, and QC samples. All sample collection procedures are presented in
Sections 3.0 and 4.0.
Biota sampling will be discussed under a BERA Work Plan that will be generated separately
and only if a completed SLERA identifies a potential risk to ecological receptors is present.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
6.3 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY REQUIREMENTS
This section includes a discussion of sample handling, including TR/COC procedures,
shipment, and documentation. All sample handling issues will be conducted in accordance
with EPA 540-R-07-06, Contract Laboratory Program Guidance for Field Samplers (OSRTI,
2007).
6.3.1 Field Sample Custody and Documentation
The purpose and description of the sample identification and TR/COC records are detailed in
the following sections.
6.3.1.1 Sample Identification and Labeling
An alphanumeric coding system will uniquely identify each sample collected during the field
investigation. These identification codes will serve to identify the sample location, sample
type, sample date, and the depth of the collected soil sample. For sample fractions to be
analyzed by CLP methods using the RAS, the sample name will serve as the station location
name and will be used with the CLP sample number to identify specific samples. For sample
fractions that will not be analyzed through the RAS, the sample name will serve as the sample
number and station location. When applicable, existing sample location identifications will be
utilized (e.g., existing monitoring wells, re-sampled sediment locations).
Sample location names are specified in Section 3 and Section 3 tables. For soil and sediment
samples, the sample identification number (IDs) will consist of the sample location and a six
digit suffix identifying the sample depth interval. Examples of the soil and sediment sample
IDs include:
• HS02-005020 - Soil sample obtained from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs in sample interval from
hotspot test pit location 2;
• DU26TP2-0080120 - Soil sample obtained from 8 to 12 feet bgs in Decision Unit 26,
test pit 2;
• BKG1SB03-020040 - Soil sample obtained from 2 to 4 feet bgs from background
location 1, soil boring 3; and
• PCSD04-005020 - Sediment sample obtained from 0.5 to 2 feet bgs from Paradise
Creek sediment sample 4.
For surface water and groundwater samples, a six digit date will be added as a suffix to the
sample location name. Examples of the surface water and groundwater sample IDs include:
• MW02-040514 - Groundwater sample collected from MW02 on April 5, 2014; and
• PCSW12-081013 - Surface water sample collected from Paradise Creek location 12
on August 10, 2013.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
All duplicates will be submitted as blind samples but the duplicate sample IDs will reflect the
sample's investigation. An "FD" label will replace the sample location number. A three digit
sequential number will be added as a suffix identifying the number of blind duplicates
collected for that investigation task. For the groundwater quarterly monitoring event, a "Qn"
will be included behind the well designation; where n represents the sampling quarter (1, 2, 3,
or 4). Examples of blind duplicate sample nomenclature are:
• HSFD-003 - Blind duplicate sample number 3 collected from the hot spot assessment;
and
• MWQ3FD-001 - Blind duplicate groundwater sample number 1 collected during the
third groundwater sampling quarter.
Trip blanks, equipment (i.e., rinse) blanks, and field blanks will be designated with "TB,"
"EB," and "FB," respectively, followed by the date and a sequential number for that day.
For example, TB-042512-01 would designate the first trip blank collected on April 25, 2012,
and TB-042512-02 would designate the second trip blank collected on April 25, 2012.
6.3.1.2 Documentation and Reporting Requirements
All sample analyses to be performed for this project will be obtained through RAS requests
and through EPA's DAS program. HGL will utilize EPA's F2L software to prepare sample
documentation. This will include sample labels, CLP and Analytical Services and Quality
Assurance Branch (ASQAB) sample numbers, and TR/COC forms. Sample tags and labels
will be attached to each container. The FTL will ensure that site personnel are trained in the
use of F2L.
At least two custody seals will be placed across cooler openings in such a way that the seals
will be broken when the cooler is opened. The sampler or FTL will sign and date each
custody seal. Custody seals will not be placed on the lids of sample containers.
The FTL or designee will notify the RSCC Coordinator of all ASQAB sample shipments and
the Sample Manager of all CLP sample shipments. The following information will be
provided:
• Case number;
• Laboratory name;
• Shipment date;
• Overnight carrier and airbill number;
• Number of samples shipped, per matrix;
• Case status; and
• Sampler's name and telephone number.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
6.3.1.3 Sample Custody
Sample TR/COC procedures will follow the requirements set forth in HGL SOP #3, Chain of
Custody. F2L is the mandatory electronic format for the TR/COC for all CLP requests. The
TR/COC record is employed as physical evidence of sample custody and control. This record
system provides the means to identify, track, and monitor each individual sample from the
point of collection through final data reporting.
The TR/COC record is initiated with the acquisition of the samples and remains with the
sample at all times. The TR/COC includes the name of the field personnel assuming
responsibility for the samples and documents transfer of sample custody. To simplify the
TR/COC record and eliminate sample custody questions, as few people as possible will handle
the samples during the investigation.
A sample is considered to be under custody if one or more of the following criteria are met:
• The sample is in the sampler's possession;
• The sample is within the sampler's view after being in possession;
• The sample was in the sampler's possession and then was locked up to prevent
tampering; or,
• The sample is in a designated secure area.
In addition to the TR/COC record, custody seals are used to maintain the custody of samples
during shipment. Custody seals are adhesive seals placed on items (such as sample shipping
containers) in such a manner that if the sealed item is opened, the seal would be broken. The
custody seal provides evidence that no sample tampering occurred between shipment of the
samples and receipt of the samples by the laboratory.
A copy of the TR/COC, will be completed for each accepted sample that will be submitted to
the EPA Region 3 laboratory for analysis. The TR/COC will be completed by the field
sampling team. The field sampler will sign off on the TR/COC when the samples are
relinquished to the sample coordinator for packaging and shipping of the samples to the EPA-
approved laboratory.
The sample coordinator will sign the TR/COC when accepting custody of these samples, and
shall relinquish custody to Federal Express for shipment by noting "FedEx" and the FedEx air
bill number on the TR/COC form. The TR/COC shall be shipped to EPA selected
laboratories with the samples. A copy of the TR/COC shall be maintained by HGL and a
hardcopy and electronic copy will also be submitted to OASQA.
6.3.1.4 Sample Packaging and Shipment
Samples will be packaged and shipped promptly after collection. When sent by common
carrier, packaging, labeling, and shipping of hazardous materials are regulated by the U.S.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Department of Transportation (DOT) under CFR Title 49, Part 172. Samples will be handled,
packed, and shipped in accordance with HGL SOP No. 4, Sample Identification, Labeling and
Packaging, which includes applicable DOT requirements.
Key steps for packaging samples for shipment are outlined below.
1. Wrap glass containers in bubble wrap to protect them during shipment. Enclose and
seal labeled sample containers in appropriately sized plastic zip-top bags.
2. Place a large plastic garbage bag into a sturdy cooler in good repair. Pour two to
four inches of Styrofoam peanuts or bubble wrap into the plastic bag. Place the
sample containers in the bag with sufficient space to allow for the addition of more
packing material and ice between the sample containers.
3. Place ice in large sealed, double-bagged zip-top plastic bags. Place the ice on top of
and/or between the samples. Fill all remaining space between the sample containers
with packing material. Enough bagged ice should be included to maintain the samples
at up to 6°C, without freezing the sample, until the cooler arrives at the laboratory.
A temperature blank will be included in each cooler for the lab to verify the samples
arrival temperature is at or below 6°C. Seal the top of the garbage bag with fiber or
duct tape.
4. Complete shipping/sample documentation including air bill shipment forms for each
cooler. Seal TR/COCs inside a waterproof plastic bag and tape the bag inside the
shipping container lid. Include a return address for the cooler.
5. Close the shipping container, affix signed and dated custody seals, and seal the cooler
with nylon fiber strapping tape.
All samples will be shipped by an overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express) to the
designated laboratory. A copy of each air bill will be retained by HGL and the air bill number
will be recorded in the field logbook as well as on the associated TR/COC so the cooler can be
easily tracked if mishandled.
6.3.1.5 Field Logbook(s) and Records
Field Logbooks
An important element of field documentation is the proper maintenance by field personnel of
the site-specific field logbooks. Field logbook(s) will be maintained by the field team in
accordance with HGL's SOP No. 6, Use and Maintenance of Field Logbooks. The logbook is
an accounting of the accomplishment of scheduled activities, and will duly note problems or
deviations from the governing plans and observations relating to the field program. Logbooks
will be kept in the field team member's possession or in a secure place when not being used.
The HGL FTL will periodically check logbook entries to make sure the required information
is present as specified in the SOP.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Field Forms
In addition to the field logbooks, field forms will be used to record sampling activities and
measurements taken in the field. Field forms to be used during this project are included in
Appendix C. Information included on the field sheets will be repeated in the field logbook.
Each completed field sheet will be referenced in the field logbook, as appropriate. Field
forms include the following:
• Field Sampling Report (soil, water, IDW);
• Boring Log;
• Well Construction Details and Abandonment Form;
• Well Development Record;
• Waste Inventory Tracking Form;
• Monitoring Well Static Water Level Form;
• Monitoring Well Purging Form; and
• Groundwater Field Sampling Data Sheet.
At the conclusion of site activities or when the logbook is filled, the logbook and field forms
will be incorporated into the project file as part of HGL's document control procedures.
Completed field sheets also will be maintained in the project file.
Photographs
Field activities and sampling events will be documented using a digital camera. For each
photograph, the following items will be noted in a photographic record recorded in the
applicable field logbook:
• Date of photograph;
• Time of photograph;
• Signature of the photographer;
• Identification of the site or sample by sample number;
• General direction the photograph is oriented; and,
• Sequential number of the photograph recorded on the disk.
6.3.2 Laboratory Custody Procedures and Documentation
Laboratory custody procedures are provided in the laboratory's QA Manual. Upon receipt at
the laboratory, each sample shipment will be inspected to assess the condition of the shipping
cooler and the individual samples. This inspection will include measuring the temperature of
the cooler (if cooling is required) to document that the temperature of the samples is within the
acceptable criteria (at or below 6°C without freezing the sample) and verifying sample
integrity. The pH of the samples will be measured, if preserved. The enclosed TR/COC
record(s) will be cross-referenced with all of the samples in the shipment. Laboratory
personnel will then sign these TR/COC records and copies provided to HGL will be placed in
the project file. The sample custodian may continue the TR/COC record process by assigning
a unique laboratory number to each sample on receipt. This number, if assigned, will identify
the sample through all further handling. It is the laboratory's responsibility to maintain
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-6
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
internal logbooks and records throughout sample preparation, analysis, data reporting, and
disposal.
6.3.3 Corrections to and Deviations from Documentation
The procedures for correcting erroneous field entries are described in HGL SOP #6, Use and
Maintenance of Field Logbooks. If required, a single strikeout initialed and dated is required
to document changes. The correct information should be entered in close proximity to the
erroneous entry. The same procedure will be used on field logbooks, field sheets and
TR/COC records.
Deviations from the HGL's project plans (FSP, QAPP, SOPs) will be recorded in the project
field logbook. A field change request form included in Appendix C will be completed prior to
implementing the deviation from the HGL project plans. The field change request form will
be signed by the HGL FTL and PM. Significant deviations will additionally require signature
by the EPA RPM before the deviation is implemented. Completed field change request forms
will be included and discussed in the field investigation report.
6.4 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
The following types of QC samples will be collected in the field and shipped to the
laboratories for analysis:
• Field duplicates;
• Equipment rinse blanks;
• Field blanks;
• MS/MSD;
• Temperature blanks; and
• Trip blanks.
6.4.1 Field Duplicates
Field duplicates are samples that are divided into two portions at the time of sampling. Field
duplication sampling provides information regarding sample matrix homogeneity, handling,
shipping, storage, preparation, and analysis. Field duplicates will be submitted per matrix at a
frequency of one per every ten samples or one per sampling trip if fewer than ten samples are
collected. Duplicate samples will be submitted for the same analyses as the duplicated sample.
6.4.2 Equipment Rinse Blanks
Rinse or sampling equipment blanks are obtained under representative field conditions by
running analyte-free deionized/distilled water through sample collection equipment (e.g.,
bailer, split-spoon, corer) after decontamination and collecting the rinse water in the
appropriate sample containers for each analytical method. Rinse blanks will be used to assess
the effectiveness of decontamination procedures. Rinse blanks will be collected for each type
of non-dedicated sampling equipment used and will be submitted at a frequency of one per
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-7
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
every 20 samples per matrix per type of sampling equipment. This is in accordance with
Section 3.4 of the Sample Submission Procedures for the Office of Analytical Services and
Quality Assurance Laboratory Branch (EPA, 2005a).
Based on the proposed field activities, rinsate samples are anticipated for a discrete surface
water sampler; DPT macrocore sampler shoe; stainless steel hand augers, borers, and/or slide
hammers; and bladder pumps. Rinse blanks will be submitted for the same analyses as the
sample collected prior to the rinse blank.
6.4.3 Field Blanks
Field blanks are aliquots of analyte-free deionized/distilled water poured into laboratory-
provided sample bottles and handled as an environmental sample in the field under
representative field conditions. A field blank is used to determine whether contamination has
been introduced during sample collection, storage, and shipment, as well as sample handling
in the analytical laboratory. Field blanks will only be collected during the collection of
aqueous samples and will be collected at a frequency of one per every 20 samples, in
accordance with Section 3.4 of the ASQAB Sample Submission Procedures document (EPA,
2005a).
6.4.4 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD)
MS/MSD samples are required by the laboratory's CLP contract to check organic analysis. In
accordance with Section 3.4 of the ASQAB Sample Submission Procedures document (EPA,
2005a), MS/MSD samples will be collected for every 20 samples submitted for organic
parameters and every 10 samples submitted for inorganic parameters. MS/MSD samples will
not be collected for TCL VOCs or TCL SVOC analyses. For aqueous samples, a triple-
volume sample aliquot is collected in the field; for solid matrix samples, a double-volume
aliquot is collected.
The sample is identified with the same sample number as the environmental samples, and "Do
MS/MSD" or "Do QC" is noted on the TR/COC form. Note that the CLP inorganic methods
require an MS and a laboratory duplicate instead of an MS/MSD. For these analyses, the
laboratory will perform a matrix spike and a laboratory duplicate analysis on the same sample
designated for organic MS/MSD analyses.
6.4.5 Temperature Blanks
A temperature blank measures the temperature of the shipment upon arrival at the laboratory.
It is used to determine whether sufficient temperature control was maintained during the
shipping process. A temperature blank is prepared in the field from analyte-free water in a
container used to ship samples (a 40-milliliter [mL] vial is suggested) and marked
"Temperature Blank-Do Not Analyze." One temperature blank must be prepared and shipped
per cooler containing samples.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-8
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
6.4.6 Trip Blanks
Trip blanks are analyzed only for VOCs. They are prepared in a clean area in the laboratory
or in the field prior to sampling events. Once prepared, trip blanks must not be opened. Trip
blanks are transported over the Site with the sampling teams to evaluate field-derived
contamination and accompany samples through the entire shipping process. They are
submitted at a frequency of one per shipping cooler containing VOC samples.
6.5 LABORATORY QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
Samples accepted during this project will be analyzed in accordance with standard EPA and/or
nationally-accepted analytical procedures. The laboratory will adhere to all applicable QA/QC
requirements stated in the applicable method and its laboratory QA Plan.
Laboratory QC samples will include continuing calibration checks, method blanks, laboratory
control samples, laboratory duplicates, surrogate spikes, and matrix spikes are required by the
analytical method. Laboratory QC samples and rationale are discussed in the Generic Site-
Specific QAPP for EPA Region 3 RAC2 Contract, dated, July 2007. The EPA-approved
laboratory will analyze laboratory QC samples in accordance with its in-house QA plan and
method requirements.
6.6 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
All project deliverables will receive technical and QA review prior to being issued to the EPA.
These reviews will be conducted in accordance with HGL's QAM (HGL, 2009). Deliverable
review forms will be maintained in HGL's electronic corporate deliverable management
system and internet fileserver (sharepoint).
6.7 FIELD INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION AND FREQUENCY
Field instruments will be used to monitor aqueous water quality and well stabilization
parameters, determine lead concentrations of Site soils, monitor organic vapor concentrations
in the air, and monitor airborne dust concentrations associated with subsurface drilling
activities. It is the FTL's responsibility to ensure that each member of the field team is trained
in the calibration, use, and maintenance of all applicable field equipment.
Instruments used for health and safety monitoring, including the PID and the air particulate
monitor, will be calibrated at the beginning and end of each day in accordance with the
instrument manufacturer's instructions. Instruments used in the decision making and analysis
processes, including the water quality meter and sodium iodide scintillating detector, will be
calibrated at the beginning of the day, mid-day, and at the end of the day or as necessary in
accordance with the instrument manufacturer's instructions. Calibration will be documented
on an equipment calibration log or within the project's field logbook. During calibration, an
appropriate maintenance check will be performed on each piece of equipment. If damaged or
defective parts are identified during the maintenance check and it is determined that the
damage could have impact on the instrument's performance, the instrument will be removed
from service and clearly marked to ensure against further use until the defective parts are
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-9
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
repaired or replaced. It is the equipment operator's responsibility to verify that the instrument
is operating properly and holding calibration at all times. If the field instrument does not hold
calibration, it will be removed from service. The field logbook will clearly identify the
specific instruments used for each task.
Gamma radiation scanning detectors will be calibrated in accordance with the Regulator-
accepted RPP (AVESI, 2014b).
6.8 ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPLIES
Prior to acceptance, all supplies and consumables will be inspected to ensure that they are in
satisfactory condition and free of defects.
6.9 NONDIRECT MEASUREMENT DATA ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS
Nonmeasurement sources include site reconnaissance, historical databases, and literature
searches. The acceptance criteria for such data include a review by someone other than the
author. Any measurement data obtained from non-direct measurement sources will be utilized
only to the extent that those data can be verified.
Several previous environmental investigations have been conducted at the site. Where
applicable, the previously collected data has been utilized to develop the Site CSM and
determine where additional sampling should be conducted on the Site. Previously collected
analytical data have been summarized in Section 2 and used as inputs to develop the sampling
program described in Sections 3 and 4 of this SMP. The historical analytical data will not be
utilized in the development of the human health or ecological risk assessments.
6.10 DATA MANAGEMENT
All data management activities will be conducted in accordance with the project-specific DMP
provided as Section 9.0 of this SMP. Sample results and QC data will be delivered to HGL
and to the EPA's designated data validator as an electronic and hard-copy data report. Once
the data validation reports are transmitted to HGL, HGL will evaluate the dataset and
determine if all identified data needs have been met. If identified data needs have not been
met, the HGL PM will notify the EPA RPM. Validated data will be added to the project
database and managed in accordance with the analytical data management procedures
described in Section 5.0.
HGL's administrative staff is responsible for maintaining the document control system. This
system includes a document inventory procedure and a filing system. Project personnel are
responsible for project documents in their possession while working on a particular task.
Electronic copies of all project deliverables, including graphics, are maintained by project
number. Electronic files are routinely backed up and archived.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
6-10
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
TABLE
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Table 6.1
Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and Holding Times
N;i me
Analytical
Methods
Container '
Preservation
Mininuini Sample
Volume or Weight'2,
Maximum Holding Time
Aqueous Samples
ORP
ASTM D1498
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement)
Temperature
E170.1
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement)
Turbidity
E180.1
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement)
Dissolved oxygen
E360.1
G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement)
Hydrogen ion (pH)
SW9040C
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement
Conductance
SW9050A
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement)
TCL YOCs
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G (Teflon™-lined septum)
<6°C; HClto
pH<2
3 x 40 mL
14 days; 7 days if unpreserved
by acid
TCLSYOCs
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
1 liter
7 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
TCL organochlorine
pesticides and PCBs
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
1 liter
7 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
Total and dissolved® TAL
metals
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
P
HNOs to
pH<2, <6°C
500 mL
180 days
Total and dissolved mercury
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
G
HNOs to
pH<2, <6°C
200 mL
28 days
Total Cyanide
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
P
NaOH to ph> 12,
<6°C
200 ml
14 days
Hexavalent chromium
SW7196A
P, G
Field filter,
(NH4>S04 buffer
to pH 9.3-9.7,
<6°C
200 mL
28 days
Explosives
SW8330A
G
<6°C
1 liter
7 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
-------
Table 6.1 (continued)
Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and Holding Times
N;i me
Analytical
Methods
Container '
Preservation
Mininuini Sample
Volume or Weight'2,
Maximum Holding Time
PCDDs/PCDFs
DLM02.2
G
<6°C
1 liter
30 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
PCB Congeners
EPA Method 1668
G
<6°C
1 liter
1 year
Alkalinity
SM 2320 B
P
<6°C
500 mL
14 days
Hardness'4'
SM 2340C
P
HNCb to
pH<2, <6°C
500 mL
6 months
TDS
SM 2540C
P
<6°C
100 mL
7 days
TSS
SM 2540D
P
<6°C
100 mL
7 days
Anions
SW9056 or
SM4110B
G
<6°C
500 mL
48 hours (nitrate and nitrite);
28 days (chloride and sulfate)
Sulfide
SW9030B/SW9034
P
<6°C; NaOHto
pH > 9, 2 mL zinc
acetate
500 mL
14 days
TOC
SM 5310
P
H2SO4 or HC1 to
pH<2, <6°C
500 mL
28 days
Dissolved gases
RSK-175
G (Teflon™-lined septum)
<6°C; HClto
pH<2
2 x 40 mL
14 days
Asbestos
100.2
G
None
1 liter
48 hours
Gamma Spectrometry
Gamma
Spectrometry
P
HNOs to
pH<2, <6°C
3 liter
6 months
Strontium 90
Method 905
P
HNCb to
pH<2, <6°C
1 liter
6 months
Wipe Samples
Lead
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
G
<6°C
4 ounces
180 days
TCL PCBs
CLP SOM01.1/
SOM01.2
G (amber)
Hexane
4 ounces
14 days
Solid Samples
Grain size
ASTM D422
G of heavy plastic bag
None required
18 ounces (500 grams)
none
TCL YOCs (most soils)
CLP SOM01.1/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
4 x sealed core
samplers
48 hours until preservation or
analysis; if preserved, 14 days
from collection to analysis
-------
Table 6.1 (continued)
Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and Holding Times
N;i me
Analytical
Methods
Container '
Preservation
Mininuini Sample
Volume or Weight'2,
Maximum Holding Time
TCL YOCs (non-cohesive
material)
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
4 x 40 mL vial
48 hours until preservation or
analysis; if preserved, 14 days
from collection to analysis
TCL SYOCs
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
8 ounces
14 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
TCL organochlorine
pesticides and PCBs
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
8 ounces
14 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
TAL metals (includes percent
moisture)
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
G
<6°C
4 ounces
180 days
Total Cyanide
CLP ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
P
<6°C
4 ounces
28 days
Hexavalent chromium
SW7196A
G
<6°C
4 ounces
30 days
Explosives
SW8330A
G
<6°C
8 ounces
14 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
PCDDs/PCDFs
DLM02.2
G
<6°C
8 ounces
30 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
PCB Congeners
EPA Method 1668
G
<6°C
8 ounces
1 year
Total organic carbon
Instrument Method
(TOC analyzer)
G
<6°C
8 ounces
None
Asbestos
ASTM WK17170
G
None
4 ounces
None
Gamma Spectrometry
Gamma
Spectrometry
P (sealable bag)
None
500 g
None
Strontium 90
Method 905
P (sealable bag)
None
500 g
None
Waste Samples
Flash point (aqueous waste)
and ignitability (solid waste)
SW1020A or
SW1030
G
<6°C
500 mL or 4 ounces
7 days
Corrosivity to steel (solid
waste)
SW1110A
G
<6°C
500 mL or 4 ounces
7 days
-------
Table 6.1 (continued)
Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and Holding Times
N;i me
Analytical
Methods
Container '
Preservation
Mininuini Sample
Volume or Weight'2,
Maximum Holding Time
TCLP
SW1311 (prep)
G
<6°C
Sample size will
depend on analyses to
be performed after
extraction; consult with
laboratory to determine
appropriate sample size
prior to sampling
14 days to TCLP extraction and
14 days after extraction
(VOCs); 14 days to TCLP
extraction, 7 days to prep
extraction and 40 days after
extraction (other organics); 28
days to TCLP extraction and 28
days after extraction (mercury);
180 days to TCLP extraction
and 180 days after extraction
(metals)
TCL PCBs (aqueous waste)
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
1 liter
7 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
TCL PCBs (solid waste)
CLP SOMOl.l/
SOM01.2
G
<6°C
8 ounces
14 days until extraction and 40
days after extraction
Cyanide (aqueous waste)
SW9012B or CLP
ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
P
4°C; NaOH to
pH> 12, 0.6 g
ascorbic acid
500 mL
14 days
Cyanide (solid waste)
SW9012B or CLP
ILM05.3/
ILM05.4
G
<6°C
4 ounces
14 days
Sulfide (aqueous waste)
SW9030B/SW9034
P
<6°C; NaOH to
pH > 9, 2 mL zinc
acetate
500 mL
14 days
Sulfide (solid waste)
SW9030B/SW9034
P, G
<6°C
4 ounces
14 days
Hydrogen ion (pH) in water
SW9040C
P, G
None required
N/A
Analyze immediately (field
measurement
Paint filter test (solid waste)
SW9095B
G
<6°C
8 ounces
14 days
Gamma Spectometry (solid
and aqueous waste)
See above sections of Table 6.1 for bottle ware requirements
Strontium 90 (solid and
aqueous waste)
See above sections of Table 6.1 for bottle ware requirements
-------
Table 6.1 (continued)
Requirements for Containers, Preservation Techniques, Sample Volumes, and Holding Times
N;i me
Analytical
Methods
Container '
Preservation
Minimum Sample
Volume or Weight'2,
Maximum Holding Time
Air Monitoring
Organic vapors in air
None
None
N/A
N/A
Real-time field measurement
Airborne dust
None
None
N/A
N/A
Real-time field measurement
(1) Container composed of the specified material.
(2) Samples for methods with compatible container and preservation requirements may be able to combine in a single container. The contractor should coordinate with the laboratory prior to
sampling to determine what combinations are possible that still meet minimum sample size requirements
(3) Samples collected for dissolved metals and mercury analysis will be field filtered prior to preservation.
(4) If hardness is reported by calculation from metals results (SM Method 2340B), no separate sample container is required if the sample is also being analyzed for metals.
ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials
CLP = Contract Laboratory Program
°C = degrees Celsius
G = glass with Teflon™- lined cap (amber glass for water samples), unless otherwise noted.
HC1 = hydrochloric acid
HNCh = nitric acid
H2SO4 = sulfuric acid
mL = milliliters
N/A = not applicable
TDS = total dissolved solid
TSS = total suspended solid
NaOH = sodium hydroxide
(NH4)2S04 = ammonium sulfate
P = polyethylene with Teflon™- lined cap, unless otherwise noted.
PCB = polychlorinated biphenyl
SVOC = semivolatile organic compound
TAL = Target Analyte List
TCL = Target Compound List
TCLP = toxicity characteristic leaching procedure
VOCs = volatile organic compound
TOC = total organic carbon
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
7.0 ASSESSMENT AND OVERSIGHT
Assessment and oversight reports to management are discussed below.
7.1 ASSESSMENTS AND RESPONSE ACTIONS
The RAC II QA program includes self-assessments as checks on the quality of the data
generated on this WA. Self-assessments include management system reviews, trend analyses,
calculation checking, data validation, and technical reviews. Independent assessments include
office, field, and laboratory audits and performance audits.
HGL's QAM (HGL, 2009) is the master document driving internal QA/QC. This document
outlines the personnel responsibilities and makes possible the execution of all QA/QC
procedures, including adherence to plans and specifications, inspections, documentation, and
meeting schedules. The corporate QA/QC program outlined in the QAM provides a
framework and reference for company projects to be performed at an appropriate quality level.
The quality program is executed at the project level on site and in the office by the
individual(s) designated as QC PM or QC Technician.
Response actions will be implemented on a case-by-case basis to correct identified quality
problems. Minor response actions taken in the field to correct a quality problem in real time
will be documented in the field logbook and communicated to the HGL PM. Major response
actions taken in the field will be approved by the HGL PM and the EPA RPM prior to
implementation.
7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
QA reports will be provided to the project team whenever major quality problems are
encountered. Field staff will note any quality problems in a logbook or using other forms of
documentation. The HGL PM will inform the QA Coordinator upon encountering quality
issues that cannot be immediately corrected or that require corporate action to resolve.
If an audit is scheduled, details will be gathered immediately before audit performance to tailor
the audits to ongoing project activities. All audit findings will be transmitted to the corporate
QA and project management team for evaluation of corrective actions. If the field audit
reveals substantial QA deficiencies, a second field audit may be performed to ensure that
corrective measures have been implemented. If the field audit reveals few or non-substantive
QA deficiencies, no further field audits will be needed. Any corrective actions performed in
response to audits will be documented, and this documentation will be transmitted to the QA
Coordinator and to the project files.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
7-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
8.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
Laboratory results will be reviewed for compliance with project objectives. Data validation
and evaluation are discussed below.
8.1 DATA REVIEW, VALIDATION, AND VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Responsibility for data validation will be assigned by EPA Region 3. The actual content and
format of the validation report are based on the level of review performed. The levels of
validation available range from stringent QA/QC review of a complete data package to less
rigorous protocols. The EPA RPM is responsible for coordinating the level of data validation
required.
Because the analytical data obtained during the RI investigation will be utilized to determine
the nature and extent of contamination, these data must be of definitive data quality and be
legally defensible; because of this requirement, the highest level of data validation is proposed.
The exceptions include the water quality analytical results (e.g., alkalinity; methane, ethene,
ethane; sulfide) and soil/sediment geotechnical analytical results (grain size). The data
obtained from these parameter tests will only be required to be of screening level and will be
validated to a lower level. IDW data will not require validation and will be used as delivered.
Screening level data generated in the field will be evaluated by HGL as specified by the
analytical method.
Data validation for data obtained using CLP analytical methods will be performed in
accordance with the following data validation guidance:
• EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund
Organic Methods Data Review (EPA, 2008);
• EPA Statement of Work for Analysis of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and
Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDFs) Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration DLM02.2
(EPA, 2009c);
• EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic
Superfund Data Review (EPA, 2010b); and
• EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Chlorinated
Dioxin/Furan Data Review (EPA, 2011a).
Data obtained from non-CLP analytical methods will be validated in accordance with the most
similar CLP validation protocol, with method-specific adjustments for performance acceptance
criteria.
Data generated during the study will be reduced to a concise form for presentation in data
evaluation summary reports. The analytical results will be managed using an existing
computer program developed by HGL specifically for chemical databases. This program is
capable of handling all TCL organic and TAL inorganic chemicals and will be customized as
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
8-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
needed to accommodate all other parameters. QA procedures will be implemented to prevent
errors from occurring during data entry. The data entered into the program are checked by
the computer operator, and the printouts are checked against the original laboratory sheets by a
chemist.
8.2 DATA EVALUATION
The development of DQOs focuses on the end use of the collected data and on determining the
degree of certainty with respect to PARCCS necessary to satisfy the end use. One hundred
percent of the analytical data will be evaluated against PARCCS criteria as described in
Section 5.0. After validation and evaluation, HGL will determine if data are usable for the
intended purposes and if any limitations or gaps affect the overall usability of the dataset or a
data subset.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
8-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
PART 3: DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.0 DATA MANAGEMENT
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This DMP addresses the procedures to be followed for the assembly and manipulation of
laboratory and field data generated during sampling and analysis activities. RI sample
collection activities to be conducted at this Site will generate field and fixed laboratory data
from the analysis of samples from multiple media, survey data, field measurements, and other
site-derived information. The resulting data will be entered into a single data management
system for consistency in tracking samples, storing and retrieving data, evaluating analytical
results, visualizing data, and generating data tables and reports. The DMP presented in this
section was prepared to assist in implementing a successful data management strategy. The
DMP is augmented by the requirements and procedures for field sample collection detailed in
the FSP, and the sampling and analytical methodologies detailed in the QAPP.
9.1.1 Objectives of Data Management Plan
Successful data management results from coordinating data collection, control, storage,
access, reduction, evaluation, and reporting. This DMP documents the methodology that will
be employed during project execution to link the various data management tools, including
software packages, to assure that the various data and information types to be collected are
systematically collected and managed. The specific objectives of this DMP are:
• Standardize and facilitate the collection, formatting, and transfer of project data into
the data management system and components;
• Provide a structured data system that will support the end uses of the data, including
planning, decision making and reporting;
• Minimize the uncertainties associated with the data, data-derived products, and
interpretation of results through defined QC measures and documented processes,
assumptions and practices; and
• Provide data of know quality that are adequately documented with descriptive
information for technical defensibility and legal admissibility of the data.
9.1.2 Data Management Team Organization
A data management team has been established for the Site. The team will work together to
properly execute the DMP and ensure that the project objectives and scope are achieved. The
team is composed of specialists in each related discipline and technical resource. The HGL
PM is an integral part of the data management team, and has overall responsibility for assuring
the data are collected in accordance with the EPA-approved SMP. The members of the data
management team are as follows:
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
9-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
• PM;
• Data Manager;
• FTL;
• Project Chemist;
• Sample Manager; and
• Database Administrator (DBA).
The functional responsibilities of the data management team are described in Section 9.1.3.
One person may perform multiple roles on a project depending on the level of data to be
managed and analyzed.
9.1.3 Roles and Responsibilities of Data Management Team
The responsibilities of the members of the data management team are summarized in
Table 9.1. Should the scope of the data require a division of labor, the HGL PM in
consultation with the Data Manager will make assignments as appropriate to assure the best
work flow.
9.1.4 Data Management Process
The Data Management Process begins at the planning stages of the project as presented within
this DMP. QC steps are implemented at each step of the data flow in which data undergoes a
transformation. Transformations include conversion from hardcopy to electronic form,
uploads to the database, output queries from the database, etc. After each process step, a 10
percent QC check of the transformed data is performed against the original dataset to ensure
that no data were corrupted or lost.
The following are core concepts of the data management process:
• The Data Manager oversees the transfer of data from one member of the data
management team to another and serves as the link between each step in the process.
• All data passes through a single repository to minimize the chance that data are
duplicated or lost.
The post-processing (analysis) and reporting phases of the DMP create the majority of
deliverables. The Data Manager and PM are responsible for providing to the staff the
information needed to generate the required outputs. The Data Manager is not, in most cases,
involved in the creation of the deliverables.
9.2 EXCEL DATABASE
The project data will be stored in the Environmental Quality Information System (EQuIS)
database using the EPA Region 3 format. EQuIS is a product of EarthSoft, Inc. and is a broad
data structure with a robust toolset. The database will be stored locally on the HGL server in
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
9-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
the project folder. This will ensure that the database will undergo periodic back-ups to
prevent loss of information.
9.2.1 Data Collection
All analytical sample data will be received from the Environmental Services Assistance Team
(ESAT) following sample analysis as an electronic data deliverable (EDD) for inclusion in the
database. EDDs will be received as an Extensible Markup Language (.xml) file as required by
the EPA's ESAT. Only validated data, provided by the EPA, will be loaded into the project
database.
No lithologic logging data will be entered into the database. No historical data will be
included in the database. Field data entered into the database will include final water quality
parameter measurements, water level measurements, and survey coordinates.
9.2.1.1 Data Tracking Sheets
Once data have been collected, sample result packages will be checked by the Data Manager
for completion and entered onto a sample tracking sheet by the Sample Manager. A sample
tracking sheet will inventory samples collected and determine which results have not been
received from the laboratory. Sample tracking sheets will be developed by exporting TR/COC
forms generated through F2L into an Excel spreadsheet. F2L is the field sample
documentation program that will be used at the Site to track samples from collection to the
laboratory. If data are missing, the Data Manager will notify the HGL PM, who will contact
the ESAT coordinator to obtain electronic/hard copies of the missing data.
9.2.1.2 Database Log
During the data manipulation process, the Data Manager will maintain a database log updated
with project-specific assumptions and changes made.
9.2.2 Pre-Processing Non-Staged Electronic Data Deliverable Data
All data not received as an EDD will be entered into a separate Excel spreadsheet for loading
into the Site database, rather than directly keyed into the database through the user interface.
This is done so that the loading quality checks are uniformly applied, and to ensure that all
data pass through the same QC process. Data included in this step are sample collection
information, field parameters, survey information, and IDW information. All hand-entered
data will receive a 100 percent QC check before being loaded into the database.
9.2.3 Processing Electronic Data Deliverables
Each EDD will be loaded into the Excel database by the DBA using the data loading tools
provided in the software. Analytical data will be provided by EPA's data validation
subcontractor in staged EDD (SEDD) format and will not require revision to perform the
automated data review. All data in each EDD will be validated by the EPA's ESAT prior to
receipt by HGL.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
9-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
The electronically available data will be transferred into the project database and will be
considered 100 percent accurate. Per the EPA, no QA/QC checks of the imported EDD data
will be conducted. If a discrepancy between the ESAT's validation report and the EDD is
encountered during any step of the process, the EDD data will be revised to reflect the
ESAT's validation report.
9.2.4 Post-Processing
Data will be exported from the database for analysis and visualization. Database queries will
be conducted only when analytical data has been validated and entered into the database.
9.2.5 Reporting
Tables summarizing the results of sample analysis will be generated from the database after
the sampling effort is completed and validated analytical results have been received. These
tables will include results for all constituents analyzed and found in at least one sample along
with relevant sample collection information.
9.3 GRAPHICS
Upon completion of the project, all final versions of figures generated for the RI/FS will be
submitted in a format compatible with the EPA's ESRI geographical information systems
software.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
9-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
TABLE
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Table 9.1
Data Management Team Member Roles and Responsibilities
Te.im Member
Roles iiiul Responsibilities
PM
• Oversees preparation of the work plan; develops schedule and milestones.
• Coordinates efforts with the EPA RPM.
• Determines the needs and objectives for tasks.
• Assigns appropriate personnel to complete the project.
• Ultimately responsible for the completion of the project.
Data Manager
• Coordinates documents and reports on all data management activities.
• Acts as a liaison between the data users and the data holders, making certain that
data are provided to those who need it in the appropriate format.
• Loads staged EDD into Excel.
FTL
• Responsible for the collection and documentation of all field generated data.
• Reports collection efforts and information to the Sample Manager.
Project Chemist
• Works with HGL PM to develop RAS/DAS requests.
• Ensures that the EDD provided by ESAT meets the project requirements.
• Assists the HGL PM in communicating with the ESAT.
• Assists in the definition of regulatory criteria and threshold values, and
maintains the regulatory criteria in the database.
• Provides assistance to the HGL PM and technical staff in interpreting analytical
results.
Sample Manager
• Responsible for tracking samples from collection through analysis to their
inclusion in the project database.
• Conducts QC checks between anticipated collection and actual collection; the
accuracy of documentation; submission to and receipt from laboratories; and
submission to the database administrator.
Database Administrator
• Has overall responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the project
database.
• Responsible for the implementation, and evaluation of standard operating
procedures to ensure integrity of the database system.
Radiation Protection
Manager
• Responsible for managing the doisimetry monitoring program for the life of the
field investigation.
• Responsible for managing the radiation protection training requirements for all
onsite personnel who visit/work at the Site longer than 80 hours over the life of
the field investigation.
PM = project manager
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RPM = Remedial Project Manager
EDD = electronic data deliverable
HGL = HydroGeoLogic, Inc.
FTL = field team leader
RAS = request for analytical services
DAS = delivery of analytical services
ESAT = EPA's Environmental Services Assistance Team
QC = quality control
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
Page 1 of 1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
PART 4: IDW MANAGEMENT PLAN
10.0 IDW MANAGEMENT PLAN
This IDW Management Plan outlines the procedures that will be taken to ensure that IDW
generated during RI activities are handled, managed, and disposed of in accordance with
industry best practices and in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Every effort will be made to minimize the amount of IDW generated. The following
subsections describe procedures for ensuring that contaminants are not mobilized or released
by sampling activities, and handling of IDW includes proper storage, treatment, and disposal.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
RI field activities to be conducted include soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater
sampling and the installation of groundwater temporary and permanent wells. These field
activities will result in the generation of IDW including used PPE, dry solid waste, soil
cuttings, decontamination water, and purge groundwater. IDW from the RI field work will be
disposed in accordance with all applicable RCRA and TSCA regulations by a waste
removal/disposal firm under subcontract to HGL. IDW that is also shown to be radiologically
contaminated will be disposed of in a licensed commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility. All activities will follow the regulatory requirements of:
• 40CFR761;
• 10CFR61;
• 12VAC5-481;
• EPA guidance document, Guide to Management of Investigation-Derived Wastes,
9345-03FS, January 1992; and
• HGL SOP No. 8, IDW Management.
10.2 IDW CONTAINERIZATION
10.2.1 Dry Solid Waste
Dry solid wastes that do not come into contact with PCB contaminated wastes will be collected
in plastic trash bags. Any soils or sediment on the bulk materials will be scraped off prior to
bagging. This removed soils or sediment material will be collected and containerized with like
materials generated during the associated field event. The bagged solid wastes will be stored
within the temporary IDW storage unit until the end of each field event (see Section 10.3). At
the end of each field event, the dry solid waste material will be disposed at the local county
municipal landfill.
An exception may occur if radiological field screening results indicate that the dry solids may
be potentially radiologically contaminated. In this case, the dry solids will be containerized in
DOT-approved 55 gallon steel drums and stored in a separate portable storage container (i.e.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
10-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Conex box) that will be designated an RWSA, which will be posted and labeled according to
AVESI HP-24 as presented in the RPP (AVESI, 2014b). IDW containers will be labeled in
accordance with HP-24 as necessary. Control and collection of the IDW (i.e., Use of
Container Inventory Form) will be performed in accordance with AVESI HP-28 in the RPP
(AVESI, 2014b).
10.2.2 Used Personal Protective Equipment
Uused PPE will be collected placed 55-gallon, DOT-approved steel drums. Any soils or
sediment on the PPE will be scraped off prior containerization. The removed soils or
sediment material will be collected and containerized with like materials generated during the
associated field event. The drums will be stored within the temporary IDW storage unit until
removed by an IDW removal/disposal firm under contract with HGL. The filled IDW drums
will be stacked in rows of two and segregated by media if possible. Immediately upon placing
generated IDW into a drum, a wax pen will be utilized to mark the drum with the appropriate
labeling and EPA contact information.
If radioactive field screening results indicate that the PPE may be radiologically contaminated,
then potentially radiological contaminated PPE will be placed in DOT-approved 55 gallon steel
drums and stored in a separate portable storage container designated as an RWSA. The
RWSA which will be posted and labeled accordance with AVESI HP-24 as presented in the
RPP (AVESI, 2014b). IDW containers will be labeled in accordance with HP-24 as
necessary. Control and collection of the IDW (i.e., Use of Container Inventory Form) will be
performed in accordance with AVESI HP-28 in the RPP (AVESI, 2014b).
10.2.3 Soil Cuttings and Generated Water
Soil cuttings and water IDW will be containerized in 55-gallon, DOT-approved steel drums.
The drums will be stored within the temporary IDW storage unit until removed by an IDW
removal/disposal firm under contract with HGL. The filled IDW drums will be stacked in
rows of two and segregated by media if possible. Immediately upon placing generated IDW
into a drum, a wax pen will be utilized to mark the drum with the appropriate labeling and
EPA contact information.
If radioactive field screening results indicate that soil cuttings and water may be radiologically
contaminated, then these will be placed in DOT-approved 55-gallon steel drums and stored in
a separate portable storage container designated as an RWSA which will be posted and labeled
accordance with AVESI HP-24 as presented in the RPP (AVESI, 2014b). IDW containers
will be labeled in accordance with HP-24 as necessary. Control and collection of the IDW
(i.e., Use of Container Inventory Form) will be performed in accordance with AVESI HP-28
in the RPP (AVESI, 2014b).
All empty drums stored on site will be stored upside down and marked "Empty." Storage
upside down will help minimize the potential accumulation of rainwater.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
10-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
10.3 IDW STORAGE UNIT
Two IDW storage units will be necessary, one for chemical IDW and the other for radiological
IDW. The radiological IDW storage unit will be identified as an RWSA. Upon arrival at the
Site and before initiating field sampling activities, a portable storage until will be brought on
Site for the radiological IDW and a temporary storage unit for chemical IDW will be
constructed for the duration of the RI field event. Because storage of potentially PCB-
contaminated IDW is anticipated to occur for longer than 30 days from generation, per 40
CFR 761.65(b)(l)(i) to (b)(l)(v), the temporary IDW storage unit will be constructed of a
double thick layer of poly sheeting and a frame constructed of wood, hay, or equivalent that
yields a berm a minimum of 6 inches high. All four sides of the IDW storage unit will be
bermed. Based on the proposed activities, approximately 2 to 45 drums of IDW are
anticipated during the duration of each field event. The IDW storage yard will be constructed
to accommodate a minimum of 25 percent more drums that the maximum number of drums
anticipated for an individual sampling event (i.e., 57 drums). At the end of each day, the
IDW storage unit will be covered with weighted poly sheeting to eliminate the potential
collection of rain water during storm events.
The exact location of the IDW storage unit will be determined in the field; however, the
temporary storage unit will be located on-site and near a vehicle access path to allow for the
pickup and removal of containerized IDW. In addition, the storage unit will be located outside
of the 100 year flood plain (40 CFR 761.65(b)(l)(i) to (b)(l)(v)) and Category 1 Hurricane
flood zone. Based upon these criteria, the area south of former maintenance building is the
most likely candidate for IDW storage. Periodic flooding of the maintenance building
precludes the storage of the IDW within the building. The other onsite structures lie within
the 100 year floodplain and are therefore not qualified as storage areas (40 CFR
761.65(b)(l)(i) to (b)(l)(v)).
The RWSA will be locked at all times to prevent unauthorized access. Only those personnel
who are allowed to enter the RWSA will have a key. The RWSA will be located away from
the office trailer and chemical IDW storage unit so as not to pose a health and safety hazard to
field crew members. The RWSA will be labeled; a label will be located on the inside door of
the RWSA. Only personnel who are radiological monitored and have the appropriate
radioactive safety training will be allowed to access the RWSA. Radiological monitoring of
the RWSA will be conducted at least once a day if accessed that day. A posted roped area will
be installed around the RWSA at a distance where radiation is measured at 2 milliRems per
hour (mRem/hr). The distance between the rope and labelign and the RWSA will be
determined in the field. The minimum perimeter distance from the RWSA will be associated
with a radiological screening measurement less than 2 mRem/hr.
The IDW storage unit and any IDW containers stored within the unit will be inspected during
each field investigation but will occur a minimum of once every 30 days. Any deterioration of
the storage unit will be identified and fixed. The contents of drums determined to pose a
potential risk of releasing their contents will be recontainerized or the drum itself will be
placed within an overpack drum.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
10-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
10.4 IDW SAMPLING
Soil cuttings will be generated as IDW during soil contaminant delineation field events and
permanent groundwater well installations. Water IDW will be generated during all sampling
events with the highest volumes generated during the groundwater well installation and
development events.
All soil and water IDW generated during the RI field investigations will be sampled and
analyzed by an EPA-approved laboratory through the CLP for toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) VOCs, TCLP SVOCs, TCLP pesticides, TCLP metals including cyanide,
gamma spectrometry and Strontium 90. In addition, the soil IDW samples will be analyzed
for total PCBs, PCDD/PCDF, corrosivity and ignitability and the water IDW will be analyzed
for total PCBs and pH. One soil IDW sample composited from up to 10 drums of soil (or one
roll-off container) per event and one water IDW sample composited from up to 10 drums of
water (or one frac tank/storage tank) per event will be collected for IDW characterization.
10.5 IDW REMOVAL
All generated IDW will be removed from the site within one year from generation, including
any holding time requirements at the receiving disposal facility.
Pending the analytical results of the soil cuttings IDW sampling and gamma spectrometry field
screening results, decontaminated disposable sampling equipment and used PPE will be stored
in 55-gallon drums for offsite disposal at a PCB approved disposal facility. Used field supply
packing material will be recycled or disposed at a local county municipal landfill.
Soil boring drill cuttings and generated water will be picked up and transported off-site to an
EPA-approved landfill or disposal facility by an IDW removal/disposal firm under contract
with HGL. To minimize costs, IDW removal events will be kept at a minimum but taking into
account the maximum one year storage requirement. Excavated soils from onsite test pits will
be placed back into the excavated hole until remedial action is undertaken to address Site soils.
The edges of the test pits will be surveyed in with a handheld GPS unit to assist in locating the
former test pits if needed.
IDW identified as radioactive will be classified in accordance with 10 CFR Section 61.55
Waste Classification for disposal. Analytical results will be utilized to determine the
appropriate classification as well as determine if the radioactive waste contains other analytes
resulting in a hazardous classification or exceeds TSCA regulations.
All required paperwork (manifests, waste tickets, bills-of-lading, etc.) will be signed by HGL
on behalf of the EPA. Copies of the signed IDW will be filed in the project file on the HGL
server, as well as included as an attachment in the appropriate project reports.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
10-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
11.0 REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2003. Public Health
Assessments and Health Consultations, Public Health Assessment, Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia. December 29.
ATSDR, 2011. Peck Iron and Metal, Portsmouth, Virginia, EPA Facility ID:
VAN000306115. December 12.
AVESI, 2014a. Gamma Radiation Field Surveying and Field Sampling Results, Remedial
Peck Iron and Metal, Portsmouth, Virginia. June.
AVESI, 2014b. Radiation Protection Plan, Revision 0, Final, Remedial
Invesitgation/Feasibility Study, Peck Iron and Metal, Portsmouth, Virginia.
September. Regulator Approved October 27, 2014.
Barker, W.J., and E.D. Bjorken, 1978. Geology of the Norfolk South Quadrangle, Virginia,
Publication 9, Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, Division of Mineral Resources.
CDM, 2006. Final Feasibility Study, OU 2 Groundwater, Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.
Superfund Site, Portsmouth, Virginia. September 13.
CH2M Hill, 2001. Final Ecological Risk Assessment, Paradise Creek, Portsmouth, Virginia.
Prepared for Department of the Navy, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, Norfolk, Virginia. December.
Dauer, D.M., 2002. Benthic biological Monitoring Program of the Elizabeth River
Watershed (2001) with a Study of Paradise Creek. Old Dominion University,
Department of Biological Sciences. October.
Draper Aden Associates (DAA), 2003. Site Characterization - Risk Assessment Report,
Proposed Pull-A-Part Site. May 28.
DAA, 2003. Site Characterization Addendum. November 7.
The Elizabeth River Project (ERP), 2003. Paradise Creek Restoration Plan. August 1.
ERP, 2008. One Creek at a Time, Case Study: the Paradise Creek Model for Urban River
Restoration. June 30.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of
Portsmouth, Virginia (Independent City), Panel 91 of 94, Map Number 5155290091C).
September 25.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
11-1
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Hampton Roads Emergency Management Committee, 2006. Hurricane Storm Surge Map,
Portsmouth, Virginia.
Hatcher-Sayre, Inc. (H-S), 1999. Site Inspection Results, The Peck Company. July 29.
HDR Engineering and Zephyr Consulting, 1994. Soil Sampling Study.
Holt, P.D., III, et al., 2010. City of Portsmouth, Virginia, Floodplain Management Plan and
Repetitive Loss Plan.
HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL), 2007. Generic Site-Specific QAPP, EPA Region 3 RAC2
Contract. July.
HGL, 2009. Corporate Quality Assurance Manual. December.
HGL, 2011. Work Assignment Work Plan, Volume 1, Revision 1, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Peck Iron and Metal, Norfolk County, Virginia,
Revision 1. September 24.
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2012. Technical and Regulatory Guidance,
Incremental Sampling Methodology, February.
Malcolm Pirnie, 2008. Draft Extent of Contamination Study Report, Pursuant to January
2007 Administrative Order for Removal Response Action, Docket No. CERC-03-2007-
0075DC, Peck Iron and Metal Site, 3850 Elm Avenue, Portsmouth, VA 23704.
October 24.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Mid-Atlantic (MIDLANT), 2005. Final
Record of Decision, Operable Unit 1, site, 2, Scott Center Landfill, Norfolk Naval
Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia. September.
NAVFAC MIDLANT, 2008. Final Record of Decision, Site 10; Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Portsmouth, Virginia. September.
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 2000. Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site
Investigation (MARSSIM) Manual, Revision 1 (NUREG-1575,Rev 1; EPA 402-R-97-
016, Revl; DOE/EH-0624,Revl). August.
Office of Superfund Research and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), 2007. Final Contract
Laboratory Program Guidance for Field Samplers (EPA 540-R-07.06). July.
OSRTI, 2012. Draft Optimization Review, Peck Iron and Metal Superfund Site, Portsmouth,
Virginia. August 16.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
11-2
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Peebles, P.C., G.H. Johnson, and C.R. Berquist, 1984. The Middle and Late Pleistocene
Stratigraphy of the Outer Coastal Plain, Southeastern Virginia. Virginia Mineral, Vol.
30, No.2. May.
Powers, D.S., 2000. The effects of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater on the geologic
framework and the correlation of hydrogeologic units of southeastern Virginia, south of
the James River: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1622. February 2.
Singh, A., 2012. Draft: Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) Based Sampling Design to
Characterize Surface Soils and Estimate mean Contaminants Concentrations, Peck Iron
Super fund Site, Portsmouth, VA. December 11.
Skeo Solutions, 2012. Paradise Creek Industrial Corridor Concept Plan, Focus Group,
Working Session, July 12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1983. Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater, U.S. EPA number: 600479020. March.
EPA, 1987. Wipe Sampling and Double Wash/Rinse Cleanup as Recommended by the
Environmental Protection Agency PCB Cleanup Policy. June 23.
EPA, 1993. Data Quality Objectives Process for Superfund, Interim Final Guidance, EPA
540-R-93-071. September.
EPA, 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5)
EPA/240/B-01-003. March.
EPA, 2002. Norfolk Naval Shipyard Fact Sheet. May.
EPA, 2005a. Analytical Services and Quality Assurance Branch Sample Submission
Procedures for the Analytical Services and Quality Assurance Branch Laboratory,
Revision 9. August.
EPA, 2005b. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846.
EPA, 2006a. EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organics Analysis,
Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, SOMOl.l/SOMOl.2.
EPA, 2006b. EPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis,
Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, ILM05.3/ILM05.4.
EPA, 2006c. EPA Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives
Process (EPA QA/G-4), EPA/240/B-06/001. February.
EPA, 2007. Contract Laboratory Program Guidance for Field Samplers Final (OSWER:
6240.0-44/EPA 540-R-07-06). July.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
11-3
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
EPA, 2008. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (EPA-540-R-08-01). June.
EPA, 2009a. HRS Documentation Record, Peck Iron and Metal. April.
EPA, 2009b. Lead Dust Sampling Technician Field Guide. Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics. EPA-W-04-022. May.
EPA, 2009c. Statement of Work for Analysis of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and
Chlorinated Dibenzofurans (CDFs) Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration DLM02.2.
December.
EPA, 2010a. Aerial Photographic Analysis of Peck Iron and Metal Site, Portsmouth,
Virginia. Volumes 1 and 2, TS-PIC-21003598S. July.
EPA, 2010b. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Inorganic Superfund Data Review (OSWER 9240.1-51, EPA 540-R-10-011). January.
EPA, 2011a. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Chlorinated Dioxin/Furan Data Review (EPA-540-R-11-016). September.
EPA, 2011b. Work Assignment Form, Peck Iron and Metal, Modification 180. June 21.
EPA Region 3, 1993. Region 3 Modifications to Laboratory Data Validation Guidelines for
Evaluating Inorganics Analyses.
EPA Region 3, 1994. U.S. EPA Region 3 Modifications to the National Functional
Guidelines for Organic Data Review.
EPA Region 3, 1995. Innovative Approaches to Data Validation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. January.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012. Guidelines for Evaluation and
Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing. Office of Healthy Homes and Lead
Hazard Control, Second Edition. July.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Final Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, January.
USACE, 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region, Version 2. November.
Unger, M.A., G.G. Vadas, E. Harvey, and J. Rieger, 2005. Concentrations of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
11-4
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
HGL—SMP, Peck Iron and Metal RI/FS— City of Portsmouth, VA
Sediment Samples from Paradise Creek, a Tributary to the Elizabeth River in Virginia.
January.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science - Wetlands Program, 1993. Virginia Wetlands
Management Handbook. Second Edition.
Virginia State Water Control Board, 2011. 9 VAC-25-260 Virginia Water Quality Standards,
Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15 3a of the Code of Virginia with Amendments
Effective January 6, 2011. January.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2005. Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic
Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds, Toxicological Sciences
Volume 93(2), pages 223-241.
Peck SMP
U.S. EPA Region 3
11-5
HGL 4/2/2015
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX A
2004 PCB AND PAH ANALYTICAL DATA
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix A. PCB Concentrations (ng/g dry weight)
ERP PCB Sum Concentration (ng/g)
Congener ERP C ERP C rep ERP A ERP H ERP J ERP N1 ERP N2 ERP Q1 ERP Q3 Blank 1
PCB 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 2
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
PCB 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 4, 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 9, 7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 8, 5
0.5
0
0.8
1.6
0.8
2
0
3.1
0
0
PCB 19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 30 (ISTD)
25.4
23.5
15.2
29
27.2
22.6
23.7
16.7
13.7
4.1
PCB 18
1
0.8
1.8
4
1.3
2.9
1.3
16.5
0
0
PCB 17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 15
1.1
0.9
2
2.9
1.4
2.3
1.1
2.2
0
0
PCB 27, 24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 16, 32
0
0
2.1
0
0
5.2
1.1
7.4
0
0
PCB 34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 26
0
0
0.8
1.3
0
0.9
0
2.3
0
0
PCB 25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 28, 31
6.6
5.4
11.1
23.8
9.7
19.3
6.8
45.2
0
0
PCB 53
1
0.7
2.8
1.8
0.8
14.9
1.1
18.3
0
0
PCB 33, 20
1.9
1.3
3.4
5.7
0
9.1
0
0
0
0
PCB 51
0.7
0.7
6.6
0
0
21.1
1.6
38.1
0
0
PCB 22
1.3
1.4
2.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
0
0
PCB 46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 52
6.7
5.4
11.3
26.4
8.9
24.4
7 '
40.8
0
0
PCB 49
4.3
3.9
8.9
16.6
6
57.3
5.3
48.3
0
0
PCB 47, 48, 75
0
0
10.5
0
0
58.4
0
56.2
0
0
PCB 65 (ISTD)
28.1
26.3
15.1
30.2
27.4
18.1
24.3
17
14.3
4.8
PCB 35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 44
3.2
3
6.6
12.1
5.3
8.4
3.8
20.3
0
0
PCB 42, 59
0.6
0
1.5
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 37
0
0
3.9
0
3
0
0
7
0
0
PCB 41, 64
3.4
3.2
8.1
12.7
5.9
54.9
0
42.7
0
0
PCB 40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
0
0
PCB 100
0
0
2.7
0
0
0
0
9.9
0
0
PCB 67
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 74
2.5
2
4.2
7.2
3.5
5.9
2.4
7.6
0
0
PCB 70
8.9
7.6
15.1
36.2
12.1
39.2
9.5
44.9
0
0
PCB 95, 66
13.2
12
29.1
46.7
16.6
41.7
15.2
5.6
0
0
-------
PCB91
2.1
1.8
3.3
8.4
1.8
12.5
1.7
8.1
0
0
PCB 56, 60
0
0
3.4
4.9
0
0
0
7.8
0
0
PCB92
0
0
4.7
8.4
2.6
13.1
0
8.3
0
0
PCB 84
0
3.1
6.9
18
4.7
0
3.9
18
0
0
PCB 101, 90
16.1
13.5
35.7
63.7
19.3
91.2
19.1
72
0
0
PCB 99
4.1
3.7
7.4
9.5
5.2
24.5
5
6.9
0
0
PCB 119
0
0
0
0
0
6.5
0
3.9
0
0
PCB 83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 97
6
5.9
12.8
31.2
8.2
34
0
17.8
0
0
PCB 87, 115
5.4
4.8
13
26.4
7.6
18.3
6.7
22.5
0
0
PCB 85
0
0
7.1
16
0
10.1
0
12.9
0
0
PCB 136
0
0
8.4
0
0
0
0
17.2
0
0
PCB 110
17.3
14.9
34.9
71.2
25.8
69.2
20.3
58.9
0
0
PCB 77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 82
0
0
4.7
7.4
0
7.7
0
13.7
0
0
PCB 135
2.2
0
'7
4.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 151
0
0
2.9
0
0
3.2
1
2.3
0
0
PCB 107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 149
22.1
19.1
58.3
61.7
22
89.6
25.6
70.5
0
0
PCB 123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 118
13.5
12.1
27.9
37.4
15.5
79
10.6
43.3
0
0
PCB 134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 131
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 146
2.8
2.3
7.1
6
2.1
9.3
0
6.8
0
0
PCB 153
24.5
23.2
67.7
78.7
26.1
123.9
33.2
112.4
0
0
PCB 132
0
0
14.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 105
5.8
3.6
11.9
24.1
7
27.4
4.9
20.7
0
0
PCB 179
2.5
2.5
9.2
6.8
2.7
10.3
4.3
13.3
0
0
PCB 141
5.7
5.1
19.6
18.2
6.9
25.9
10.2
29.3
0
0
PCB 137
0
0
2.1
3.5
0
4.7
0
4
0
0
PCB 176
0
0
3.4
0
0
3.5
0
5.4
0
0
PCB 130
12.4
11
31.5
40
14.7
49.2
14.4
60.5
0
0
PCB 138, 158
28.6
26.1
71.8
91.3
33.2
89.1
32.6
113.9
0
0
PCB 178
0
0
4.9
1.3
0
0
0
6
0
0
PCB 129
0
0
6.9
0
0
8.8
0
0
0
0
PCB 175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 187
10.6
10.7
32.2
24.1
11
31.6
17.2
34.7
0
0
PCB 183
4
4.1
15
11.4
5.5
14.6
6.8
16.4
0
0
PCB 128
0
0
6.8
12.1
0
0
0
12
0
0
PCB 167
0
0
3.2
0
0
4.9
0
0
0
0
PCB 185
0
0
3.1
0
0
0
0
4.2
0
0
PCB 174
5.7
6.6
22.9
17
6.2
19.9
10.3
23.8
0
0
PCB 177
2.6
3.3
14.3
9.4
3.3
10.4
3.9
15.2
0
0
PCB 202
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 171
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 156
0
0
4.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 201
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 157
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 204 (ISTD)
21.8
21.6
14.2
18
20.4
13.9
16.8
10.6
14.6
6.8
PCB 172
0
0
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 197
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PCB 180, 193
15.4
17.1
55.1
43.5
17.9
54.1
27.6
67.1
0
0
PCB 191
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
PCB 200
0
0
2.3
0
0
4.4
0
5.4
0
0
PCB170, 190
8.6
9.8
43.6
28.2
8.5
43.2
16
51.8
0
0
PCB 199
9
3.7
11.7
16.9
11.9
16
14.5
20
0
0
PCB 189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
0
0
PCB 208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
0
0
PCB 195
0
0
6.5
4
0
8.3
0
13.1
0
0
PCB 207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
0
0
PCB 194
5.1
0
6.6
0
0
0
0
10.5
0
0
PCB 206
0
0
3.5
0
0
0
0
3.2
0
0
PCB 209
1.3
1.1
0.4
2.1
0.9
1.2
0
0.8
1.1
0
DCDE (ISTD)
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
344.3
Sum all peaks
365.6
328.8
907.2
1087.3
420.9
1442.3
410.8
1504.3
43.7
15.7
Sum PCBs
290.3
257.4
862.7
1010.1
345.9
1387.7
346
1460
1.1
0
Sample ERPCERPCrep ERP A ERPH ERPJ ERP N1 ERP N2 ERPQ1 ERPQ3 Blank 1
-------
Appendix B. ERP Sediment PAH
Results
11/18/2004
Analytes
BLK1
A
C
naphthalene
0.0
21.6
18.7
2-methyl naphthalene
0.0
34.7
30.7
1-methyl naphthalene
0.0
18.9
14.3
biphenyl
0.0
11.2
12.6
2,6 dimethylnaphthalene
0.0
45.2
45.1
acenaphylene
0.0
21.4
29.1
acenaphthene
0.0
41.2
33.4
2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene
0.0
24.4
20.0
fluorene
0.0
54.1
55.9
phenanthrene
0.0
795.6
588.5
anthracene
0.0
206.6
226.1
1-methylphenanthrene
0.0
210.7
156.0
fluoranthene
0.0
1620.3
2038.8
pyrene
0.0
1889.3
2163.0
benz (a) anthracene
0.0
335.0
529.3
chrysene
0.0
315.5
330.8
benzo (b) fluoranthene
0.0
622.7
829.7
benzo (k) fluoranthene
0.0
273.2
427.5
benzo (e) pyrene
0.0
578.9
882.5
benzo (a) pyrene
0.0
888.2
1332.1
perylene
0.0
544.5
981.0
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
0.0
1238.9
1938.3
di benzo(a, h)anthracene
0.0
134.4
198.6
benzo(ghi)perylene
0.0
1247.3
2445.1
Sum of PAHS (24 analytes)
0.0
11173.9 15327.1
Concentration (ng/g)
C rep
11.9
20.0
8.8
7.9
29.6
22.4
24.7
13.5
41.6
440.5
169.1
117.1
1678.7
1554.9
406.5
192.8
709.0
347.0
658.3
908.7
695.3
1796.9
119.9
1383.7
11358.9
H
39.2
66.5
39.7
27.5
92.6
46.4
349.1
58.8
544.4
5319.0
1304.9
909.2
6282.6
10864.7
823.7
840.5
1061.3
822.1
1305.6
6528.8
3738.6
2203.5
310.1
8427.7
52006.5
J
21.8
32.1
15.1
12.8
50.3
30.4
37.7
16.2
56.6
637.6
240.4
162.0
1904.7
2241.7
517.5
325.1
813.1
398.8
796.1
1434.7
951.6
1566.1
134.2
1750.9
N1
39.5
76.6
44.1
24.7
111.0
48.0
145.4
62.2
187.6
2449.9
596.3
580.0
2533.8
6436.0
762.8
673.9
858.6
782.6
1031.1
3592.0
2648.2
1781.3
503.2
5242.6
N2
20.1
32.3
15.9
11.1
41.1
35.2
38.1
17.9
59.1
747.2
256.6
243.7
2817.0
3936.1
613.9
516.0
796.6
476.5
884.5
2464.5
1460.0
1626.7
201.0
3398.8
Q1
73.2
150.3
104.0
46.2
211.2
53.3
311.7
172.8
333.5
3406.1
915.2
708.4
4547.9
12186.3
640.2
533.0
722.7
877.2
943.9
12058.9
4917.0
1353.8
364.4
6740.3
Q3
7.7
14.0
4.0
5.8
41.0
16.0
83.4
77.7
78.9
285.2
177.7
248.2
1238.2
949.0
304.7
300.5
513.6
268.5
483.4
614.1
3612.3
865.1
46.9
1028.8
14147.5 31211.6 20710.1 52371.4 11264.6
-------
APPENDIX B
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
1
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
S()l» No.: 15.12
SOI' (";iU\!»or\: MMKI'
Revision No.: 02
Dsile: March 2013
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this standard operating procedure (SOP) is to describe the procedures for
performing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) anomaly avoidance support during field
operations on environmental projects where there is a potential for encountering MEC hazards.
This MEC SOP discusses surface and subsurface anomaly avoidance procedures and techniques to
be used while conducting hazardous, toxic, radioactive waste (HTRW)-related activities during
investigative, design, and remedial actions. These procedures were developed using the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) Manual 6055.09-M DoD Ammunition and Explosive Safety
Standard, DoD Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) Technical Paper 18 Minimum Qualifications for
UXO Technicians and Personnel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) EM 385-1-97
Explosives Safety and Health Manual, USACE EP 75-1-2 Munitions and Explosives of Concern
(MEC) Support During HTRW and Construction Activities, USACE ER 385-1-92 Safety and
Occupational Health Requirements for HTRW Activities and USACE ER 385-1-95 Safety and
Health Requirements for MEC Operations. These procedures will be performed and adhered to by
all HGL and subcontractor personnel during HTRW field activities. HGL and its subcontractors
will work closely together to ensure a safe working environment and to ensure the equipment,
supplies, and other resources needed to provide MEC anomaly avoidance support are present on
site.
No intrusive work will be allowed during investigative phases where physical contact is NOT
planned or intended; for example, during Preliminary Assessments/Site Inspections (PA/SI).
Intrusive work also will not occur when a determination is made that the probability of
encountering MEC is moderate to high; specifically, current or previous land use leads to a
determination that MEC was employed or disposed of in the parcel of concern, such as open burn
and open detonation areas, impact areas, maneuver areas, and similar locations. Intrusive anomaly
investigation and/or MEC removal is not authorized unless stated in the current Performance
Work Statement (PWS) or Scope of Work (SOW). If a MEC removal action is authorized at a
later date, the policies and procedures for a MEC removal action will be contained in a separate
MEC Removal Action Work Plan (WP) and when in support of HTRW remedial action phase
(construction) the HGL SOP 15.13 MEC Construction Support will be implemented.
All work will be performed in a manner that is consistent with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration established standards and requirements. Refer to the site- or project-specific health
and safety plan for relevant health and safety requirements. All activities will be conducted in
conformance with the Site Health and Safety Plan.
2.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATIONS
3.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
1
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
Personnel who use this procedure must provide documented evidence to the Site Manager, Project
Manager, or Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS) that they have read and
understand this procedure by completing the SOP acknowledgment (Attachment 1). This
documentation will be retained in the project file.
Any deviations from specified requirements will be justified to and authorized by the project
manager and/or the relevant program manager and discussed in the approved project plans.
Deviations from requirements will be sufficiently documented to re-create the modified process.
4.0 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATONS
4.1 DEFINITIONS
Anomaly Avoidance: These are techniques employed on property known to contain or suspected of
containing MEC or other munitions, regardless of configuration, in high enough concentrations to
pose an explosive hazard, or munitions that contain chemical agent (CA). Examples of munitions
include discharged military munitions (DMM) and munitions constituents (MC). The avoidance
techniques focus on avoiding contact with potential surface or subsurface explosives or CA
hazards, which will then allow entry into the area for the performance of the required operations.
Anomaly avoidance techniques are implemented to avoid any potential surface MEC or MPPEH
and any subsurface anomalies. Anomaly avoidance techniques are primarily implemented during
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) project activities; for example, in support of
soil sampling or well installation activities where the specific site of the activity can be moved to
another location.
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Activities (HTRW): HTRW activities include those
activities undertaken for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program,
the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), including Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS), and Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at active DoD facilities, HTRW actions
associated with Civil Works projects, and any other mission or non-mission work performed for
others at HTRW sites. For the purposes of MEC support, HTRW actions during the
investigative/design phase of a HTRW project on a site with known UXO or unknown fillers
requires anomaly avoidance procedures. HTRW activities during the remedial action phase
(construction) of a HTRW project on a site with known or UXO with unknown fillers may require
either standby support or subsurface removal.
Material Potentially Presenting an Explosives Hazard (MPPEH): Material potentially containing
explosives or munitions; for example, munitions containers and packaging material; munitions
debris remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or final disposition; and range-related
debris). Also includes material potentially containing a high enough concentration of explosives
that the material presents and explosive hazard.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
2
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
Military Munitions: All ammunition products and components produced for or used by the armed
forces for national defense and security, including ammunition products or components under the
control of the DoD, the Coast Guard, the Department of Energy, and the National Guard. The
term includes confined gaseous, liquid, and solid propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical
and riot control agents, smokes, and incendiaries, including bulk explosives and chemical warfare
agents, chemical munitions, rockets, guided and ballistic missiles, bombs, warheads, mortar
rounds, artillery ammunition, small arms ammunition, grenades, mines, torpedoes, depth charges,
cluster munitions and dispensers, demolition charges, and devices and components thereof. The
term does not include wholly inert items, improvised explosive devices, and nuclear weapons,
nuclear devices, and nuclear components, except that the term does include non-nuclear
components of nuclear devices that are managed under the nuclear weapons program of the
Department of Energy after all required sanitization operations under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) have been completed (10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(3)(A)).
Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC): This term, which distinguishes specific categories of
military munitions that may pose unique explosives safety risks means: (1) UXO, as defined in
10 U.S.C. 101(e)(5)(A) through (C); (2) Discarded military munitions (DMM), as defined in
10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(2); or (3) Munitions constituents (such as, TNT or RDX), as defined in
10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(3), present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard.
Munitions Constituents (MC): Any materials originating from unexploded ordnance, discarded
military munitions, or other military munitions, including explosive and non-explosive materials,
and emission, degradation, or breakdown elements of such ordnance or munitions.
(10 U.S.C. 2710).
Munitions Debris: Remnants of munitions remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or final
disposition. Examples of munitions remnants include fragments, penetrators, projectiles, shell
casings, links, and fins. Also includes inert munitions-related material recovered during an MEC
removal.
Recovered Chemical Warfare Materiel (RCWM): Non-stockpile CWM that was previously
discarded, buried, or fired and discovered either unexpectedly or during planned environmental
restoration operations.
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): Military munitions that have been primed, fuzed, armed, or
otherwise prepared for action; have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a
manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installation, personnel, or material; and remain
unexploded either by malfunction, design, or any other cause. For the purpose of this project, the
definition of UXO is limited to items larger than 50-caliber.
UXO-Qualified Personnel: Personnel who meet the training requirements for UXO Technician and
Personnel and have performed successfully in military EOD positions or are qualified to perform
in the following service contract act contractor positions: UXO Technician II, UXO Technician
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
3
-------
SOI* No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Csileson: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: March 2013
Ill, and UXO Safety Officer (UXOSO), UXO Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS), and
SUXOS. Refer to DDESB TP 18 for detailed information for approved contract titles and
qualifications.
ABBREVIATIONS
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
DDESB
Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board
DoD
U.S. Department of Defense
DPT
direct push technology
FSP
Field Sampling Plan
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Site
GPS
global positioning system
HTRW
hazardous, toxic and radiological waste
IDW
investigated derived waste
IRP
Installation Restoration Program
MC
munitions constituents
MEC
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
PPE
personal protective equipment
SSHP
Site Safety and Health Plan
SOP
standard operating procedure
SSO
site safety officer
SUXSO
Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UXO
Unexploded Ordnance
UXOQCS
Unexploded Ordnance Quality Control Specialist
UXOSO
Unexploded Ordnance Safety Officer
WP
work plan
5.0 PROCEDURES
5.1 UXO TEAM
The senior UXO-qualified person will serve as the UXO Team Leader and has ultimate
responsibility for ensuring all MEC anomaly avoidance support activities are performed in
accordance with this SOP, the WP and/or the SSHP. The UXO Team Leader will direct all MEC
anomaly avoidance support during field operations.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
4
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
STEP ONE-The UXQ Team will:
A. Review any archival information available on the area where MEC anomaly avoidance is
required in an effort to determine the probable of types of MEC that may be encountered
and identify specific hazards and precautions.
B. Provide MEC recognition, location, and safety function for the prime contractor during
construction support and HTRW activities.
C. Conduct MEC safety briefing for all site personnel and visitors.
D. Conduct a surface access survey to locate all surface and near-surface anomalies.
E. The UXO Technician on the point position will conduct the initial surface sweep.
F. Establish and delineate surface MEC or subsurface anomaly-free ingress/egress lanes and
work areas.
G. Reporting of all MEC encountered to the appropriate authority, and coordinate final
disposition as directed by the Project Manager.
H. Work closely with the USACE personnel on all MEC-related matters.
I. Document all MEC discoveries following these procedures.
J. Coordinating and reporting MEC discoveries to the appropriate authority.
STEP TWO-Non UXO-qualified personnel responsibilities include:
A. Be trained to recognize the potential hazards imposed by MEC, which are fire,
fragmentation, and blast overpressure.
B. Remain with the UXO Technician all times unless otherwise cleared to proceed on your
own.
C. Follow the instructions given by the UXO Technician in the event of an accident.
D. Notify the UXO Technician immediately if witnessing something suspicious.
E. Exercise caution when walking on site and following UXO Technician directions.
F. Use the buddy-system at all times on the work site.
5.2 ANOMALY AVOIDANCE
A. Anomaly avoidance procedures will be used during HTRW-related field investigation
activities whenever there is a potential for encountering MEC. These activities include,
but are not limited to:
1. Ensuring site access and conducting MEC clearance survey;
2. Performing clearing and grubbing;
3. Completing land surveying and mapping;
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
5
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
4. Conducting PA/SI on Formerly Used Defense (FUDS) and Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Sites;
5. Performing geophysical surveying; and
6. Conducting environmental and natural resource assessments:
(a) surface soil sampling,
(b) subsurface soil sampling,
(c) boring and drilling,
(d) ground water monitoring, and
(e) test pits and trenches excavations.
B. The purpose of MEC anomaly avoidance is to keep away from any potential surface and
subsurface MEC hazards during these activities. For anomaly avoidance on an HTRW
site with potential MEC, HGL will provide an UXO Team consisting of a minimum of
two personnel, one of whom must be a UXO Technician II or above.
5.2.1 Site Access and MEC Clearance Surveying
In HTRW areas with known or suspected MEC the UXO Team will:
STEP ONE:
A. Use geophysical instrumentation capable of detecting the smallest known or anticipated
MEC to locate anomalies just below the surface that may be encountered through erosion
from rain or continual foot or vehicular traffic.
B. Conduct a geophysical instrument-assisted surface clearance access survey and/or a
subsurface survey for anomalies before any activities, such as site visits, field
investigations or PA/SI, commence, including footpath and/or vehicular traffic routes.
C. Ensure the access route both approaching and leaving is at least twice as wide as the
widest vehicle that will use the route. The route shall be clearly marked with flagging or
stakes for future entry control.
D. Make certain non-UXO qualified HTRW field personnel are escorted by UXO-qualified
personnel at all times in areas where there is any potential for encountering MEC hazards
until the UXO Team has completed the access surveys and the cleared areas are visibly
marked.
E. Ensure non-UXO-qualified personnel follow behind the UXO Technician.
F. Take appropriate steps if MEC hazards are detected; specifically, the UXO Technician
will halt the escorted personnel in place, select a course around the hazard, and instruct
escorted personnel to follow behind.
G. Make certain no personnel are allowed outside the surveyed and cleared areas.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
6
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
STEP TWO:
A. Complete an access survey of an area around the proposed investigation site that is large
enough to support all planned operations.
B. Determine that the size of the surveyed area is appropriate for the project and takes into
account factors such as, maneuverability of required equipment (drill rigs, excavation
equipment, and similar items), parking of support vehicles, and establishment of
decontamination stations.
C. Ensure that the surveyed area, at a minimum, has a dimension in all directions equal to
twice the length of the longest vehicle or piece of equipment to be brought on site and is
clearly delineated with flagging or stakes.
STEP THREE:
A. Mark any anomalies or surface MEC hazards encountered with flagging and relocate the
investigation area to avoid contact with the hazards.
B. Clearly mark the boundaries of the surveyed area using survey flagging or pin flags.
C. Establish a system of flagging colors that will distinguish anomalies, surface MEC, and
route boundaries from each other as well as from any utility markings used at the site.
D. Attempt to identify the hazard and will inform the appropriate project management
personnel. Under no circumstances will the team disturb the hazard in anyway.
E. Coordinate with the proper authorities for the final disposition of all MEC hazards.
Coordination will include the HGL PM and stakeholders addressed the project WP.
5.2.2 Clearing and Grubbing
Initial clearing and grubbing operations may be required for specific projects before HTRW field
activities. The objective of clearing and grubbing is to allow for unhindered access by the HTRW
field teams. In areas with potential MEC hazards, the UXO Team must:
STEP ONE:
A. Conduct an access survey of the routes to and from the proposed clearing and grubbing
area. The UXO Team will conduct a geophysical instrument-assisted clearance survey for
the entire area to be grubbed. When this step has been accomplished, the clearing and
grubbing operation may commence.
B. Ensure Qualified UXO Technicians accompany grubbing teams at all times.
C. Exercise caution when using mechanical grubbing equipment. Specifically, the lowest
part of the cutting deck of the grubbing equipment must remain at least 6 inches above
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
7
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
ground level to ensure that any possible surface MEC hazard that may have been missed
during the surface sweep is not contacted by the cutting blades of the equipment.
STEP TWO:
A. Stop all clearing and grubbing operations if a potential MEC hazard is encountered. The
clearing and grubbing team will immediately notify the accompanying UXO Technician.
No further action shall be taken until the UXO Technician has made all notifications and
the appropriate safety concerns are addressed, in accordance with the SSHP.
B. Avoid disturbing identified MEC hazards. The UXO Team Leader is responsible as
directed by the Project Manager for all coordination with the proper authorities for the
final disposition of all MEC hazards. After final disposition of the MEC hazard has been
coordinated, clearing and grubbing operations may continue.
5.2.3 Land Surveying and Mapping
During land surveying activities in areas with potential MEC, the survey team will have a
minimum of one UXO Technician II or above assigned to perform MEC anomaly avoidance. The
UXO Technician will:
A. Conduct an access clearance survey of the routes to and from the proposed survey site as
well as an area around the site, as described in Section 5.2.1.
B. Visually survey the surface of each proposed survey point for any indication of MEC or
MEC-related contamination.
C. Use a Schonstedt GA-52Cx magnetometer (or equivalent) to assess the presence or
absence of buried metallic anomalies at the locations where survey points/stakes will be
installed. If magnetometer responses indicate a buried metallic anomaly, no survey
point/stake will be installed at that specific location. An alternate location will be
selected.
D. Use GPS for location surveying in areas with suspected non-conventional MEC may
exist, for example, micro-gravel mines. Additionally, no intrusive survey markers will
be used, only traffic cones and paint will be used to mark locations.
5.2.4 Geophysical Surveying
Geophysical survey methods will consist of several progressive procedures to ensure the safe
collection of reliable quality data that can be used to relocate and investigate any anomalies
detected. When an area has been identified and selected for geophysical surveying, UXO sweep
personnel will:
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
8
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
STEP ONE:
A. Conduct a geophysical instrument-assisted surface clearance of the area to aid in locating
surface metal that may be obscured by vegetation.
B. Manage the surface clearance using a search system based on transects. To accomplish
this surface clearance, UXO sweep personnel will line up side by side, forming a sweep
line, and walk each geophysical survey area in an orderly manner.
C. When appropriate, divide the geophysical survey area into grids. An automated line-
marking system or physical lines will be used to ensure complete coverage within each
geophysical survey area or grid.
D. Use the geophysical instrument-aided surface clearance to determine the presence or
absence of surface MEC and provide increased safety to site personnel.
E. Remove surface debris during the surface clearance process support subsequent
geophysical mapping. Non-MEC metallic debris, which may interfere with the
subsurface geophysical survey, will be removed from the surface of the work area, to the
maximum extent possible, and consolidated for later disposition.
STEP TWO:
A. Stop all geophysical survey operations if the geophysical mapping team a potential MEC
item is encountered by the geophysical mapping team, all geophysical survey operations
will cease.
B. Immediately notify the UXO Team Leader when MEC items are encountered.
C. Do not disturb potential MEC items.
D. Cease activities until the UXO Team Leader has made all notifications and the
appropriate safety concerns are addressed, in accordance with the SSHP. The UXO Team
Leader is responsible as directed by the Project Manager for all coordination with the
proper authorities for the final disposition of all MEC hazards.
5.2.5 Sampling and Drilling
5.2.5.1 Surface Soil Sampling
The following paragraphs describe anomaly avoidance procedures for surface soil sampling
(between 0 and 12 inches below ground surface [bgs]) in areas with potential MEC. Soil sampling
at depths greater than 12 inches bgs will follow the procedures in Section 5.2.5.4 of this plan. The
UXO Team will:
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
9
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
STEP ONE:
A. Conduct a surface clearance and access survey of the routes to and from the proposed
investigation site as well as an area around the investigation site, as described in Section
B. Visually survey the surface of each proposed surface soil sampling site for any indication
of MEC or MEC-related contamination.
C. Conduct a survey of the proposed sample locations using hand-held geophysical
instruments.
A. Select an alternate location to collect surface soil samples if anomalies are detected at a
proposed sampling location or too many anomalies are detected in a general area of
B. Prominently mark any anomalies detected with survey flagging or non-metallic pin flags
for avoidance during HTRW sampling activities.
5.2.5.2 Subsurface Soil Sampling and Monitoring Well Installation
The following paragraphs describe anomaly avoidance procedures for subsurface soil sampling
and monitoring well installations in an area with potential MEC. Subsurface soil sampling is
defined as the collection of samples below a nominal depth of approximately 12 inches with a
split-spoon, Shelby tube, direct push sampler, or bucket auger (that is, hand auger) soil sampler
using drilling techniques. Drilling techniques also will be used to drill larger diameter soil borings
(for example, 4- to 8-inch outer diameter) and install groundwater monitoring wells for HTRW
investigations. The UXO Team will:
STEP ONE:
A. Conduct a surface clearance and access survey of the routes to and from the proposed
investigation site as well as an area around the investigation site, as described in Section
B. Complete a hand-held, geophysical instrument-assisted, subsurface survey of the
proposed drill-hole location(s).
STEP TWO:
A. Select a new borehole location if an anomaly is detected.
B. Prominently mark any anomalies detected with survey flagging or non-metallic pin flags
for avoidance.
5.2.1.
STEP TWO:
interest.
5.2.1.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
10
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
C. Incrementally complete the downhole geophysical survey to undisturbed soil depth If the
subsurface sampling depth is greater than the geophysical instrumentation (for example,
handheld geophysical instrument) detection capabilities. This process is outlined below.
5.2.5.3 Underground Utilities
Utility clearance and/or excavation permits, if required, must be obtained before beginning any
incremental subsurface geophysical survey activities by the UXO Team. The UXO Team Leader
is responsible for:
STEP ONE:
A. Verifying that all necessary excavation permits are on-site prior to commencing
operations.
B. Ensuring that the appropriate agencies or companies have marked the location of all
subsurface utilities in the investigation areas prior to commencing intrusive work.
C. Using high-visibility paint, pin flags, or other appropriate means to visually delineate
their approximate subsurface routing. The color shall not conflict with the colors used in
MEC avoidance activities.
STEP TWO:
A. Attempting to verify the location of subsurface utilities if their presence is suspected in
an excavation area.
B. Understanding that not all utility lines will be detectable with geophysical instrument
equipment. Not all utility lines are constructed of ferrous material.
C. Recognizing that utility clearance procedures and contact numbers are listed in the Field
Sampling Plan (FSP).
5.2.5.4 Pilot Hole and Incremental Geophysical Survey for Conventional MEC Clearance
For intrusive sampling (that is, subsurface sampling and well drilling) in areas with incremental
suspected conventional (metallic) MEC, pilot holes and geophysical surveying will be completed.
When an access survey has been completed, the team will install a pilot hole to undisturbed soil
depth at each proposed drill-hole location. During pilot hole installation, the team will:
STEP ONE:
A. Have non-essential personnel withdraw from the immediate area while the UXO team is
completing their geophysical survey.
B. Use manual or mechanical means to install the pilot hole.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
11
-------
SOI* No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Csileson: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: March 2013
C. Employ a geophysical instrument configured for down-hole utilization during installation
of the pilot hole to inspect for anomalies every 2 feet or unless otherwise specified by the
WP or SSHP.
STEP TWO:
A. Backfill the pilot hole if an anomaly is detected. Backfilling will be conducted in
accordance with project-specific procedures, and HTRW sampling personnel will select a
new drill-hole location.
B. Prominently mark any anomalies detected on the surface with survey flagging or pin
flags for avoidance.
STEP THREE:
A. Advance the pilot hole when no anomalies are detected. Advance to the maximum reach
of the auger or to the maximum depth of the proposed drill hole, whichever is less.
B. Inspect the pilot hole upon reaching the final depth. Provide a total clearance depth equal
to the pilot hole depth plus 2 feet.
C. Bring the drill rig on site if no anomalies are detected. Operate the rig to the total depth
of the proposed drill hole.
STEP FOUR:
A. Advance in 2-foot increments beyond the clearance depth of the pilot hole with the drill
rig when the pilot hole does not reach the proposed boring depth; for example, the
proposed depth of the drill hole is more than the maximum depth of the auger or the
team cannot penetrate the soils using the auger.
B. Have UXO personnel screen for anomalies at the end of each 2-foot increment. As
necessary with loose soils, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (minimum 3 inches inner
diameter) may be inserted to keep the hole open and to allow for incremental geophysical
instrument screening.
C. Cease incremental screening once the drilling has extended to depths greater than the
maximum estimated depth of MEC presence (as described in the WP), based on the
maximum depth of fill materials and maximum depth of MEC penetration.
D. Backfill holes in accordance with project-specific procedures.
5.2.5.5 Test Pits for Non-Conventional MEC Clearance
For intrusive sampling (subsurface and well drilling) in areas with suspected non-conventional
MEC (for example, non-metallic micro-gravel mines), MEC avoidance and location clearance
activities will also include test pits. The test pits will:
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
12
-------
SOI* No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Csileson: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: March 2013
STEP ONE:
Be dug by armored or remote-controlled equipment for each intrusive sampling location.
STEP TWO:
The procedure for test pit non-conventional MEC clearance will be as follows:
1. Conduct a geophysical instrument-assisted subsurface survey of the proposed boring
location to identify metallic anomalies. If an anomaly is detected, a new location will be
selected.
2. Withdraw all non-essential personnel to a distance not less than the MGFD established
for the site.
3. Use an armored or remote-controlled excavator to excavate a small area around the
proposed soil boring down to 2 feet. UXO Technicians will inspect the excavation and
excavated soil for non-conventional MEC. This process will continue at 2-foot intervals
until undisturbed soil is reached or until depths determined in the project WP.
4. Mobilize HTRW sampling personnel and equipment to the site after excavation
operations have ceased and begin intrusive soil sampling.
5.2.5.6 Soil Sampling with Direct Push Technology
The following paragraphs describe anomaly avoidance procedures for soil sampling and use of
direct push technology (DPT) in areas with potential MEC. Soil sampling with DPT typically
involves manual or mechanical penetration at the desired location, followed by withdrawal and
collection of a soil sample. The UXO Team will:
1. Conduct a surface clearance and access clearance survey of the routes to and from the
proposed investigation site as well as an area around the investigation site, as described
in Section 5.2.1.
2. Ensure soil sampling and DPT installations follow the same anomaly-avoidance
procedures as described previously for subsurface soil sampling and monitoring well
installations; specifically, incremental down-hole geophysical survey for metallic
anomalies and remote-dig test pits for non-conventional MEC. However, the actual
sampling and geophysical instrument screening will occur through the DPT borehole.
Following collection of the soil samples, the sampling location will be backfilled in
accordance with project-specific procedures.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
13
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
5.2.6 Test Pit and Trench Excavating
Test pits and trench excavations may be used to identify and characterize large subsurface HTRW
areas of concern. The following paragraphs describe MEC anomaly avoidance procedures for test
pit and trench excavations on a HTRW site with potential MEC. The UXO Team will:
STEP ONE:
A. Conduct a surface clearance and access survey of the routes to and from the proposed
investigation site as well as an area around the investigation site, as described in Section
B. Complete a subsurface geophysical survey of the proposed excavation locations.
STEP TWO:
A. Coordinate with HTRW sampling personnel to select a new excavation location if an
anomaly is detected
B. Prominently mark anomalies with survey flagging or pin flags for avoidance.
C. Perform an incremental geophysical survey as outlined by STEPS THREE, FOUR and
FIVE below if proposed excavation depths are greater than the geophysical
instrumentation detection capabilities.
5.2.6.1 Test Pits and Trenches MEC Avoidance
STEP THREE:
A. Begin excavation in 2-foot increments after an access survey has been completed. During
excavation, personnel not directly involved in the excavation activities should withdraw
to a distance of not less than the fragmentation distance of the MGFD established for the
site.
B. Screen for anomalies at the end of each 2-foot increment. If an anomaly is detected,
HTRW sampling personnel will modify the excavation locations to avoid the anomaly.
C. Prominently mark detected anomalies with survey flagging or pin flags for avoidance.
STEP FOUR:
A. Cease operations if a potential MEC hazard is uncovered in an excavation. The UXO
Team will attempt to identify the hazard.
B. Address appropriate safety concerns in accordance the SSHP and WP.
C. Resume excavations after final disposition of the MEC hazard has been completed.
5.2.1.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
14
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
STEP FIVE:
A. Use an armored or remote-controlled excavator for test pits and trenches in areas with
suspected non-conventional MEC, for example, non-metallic micro-gravel mines.
B. Visually inspect 100 percent of the material excavated, as well as the excavation, for
non-conventional MEC.
5.2.6.2 Waste and/or Other Materials Encountered
In the event potentially hazardous waste, debris, or drums are encountered during test pit or
trenching operations, excavation activities will cease. The HTRW SSO will:
A. Assess the situation and may direct a change to the personal protective equipment (PPE)
for site workers.
B. Notify the appropriate personnel in accordance with the WP or SSHP.
C. Handle wastes in accordance with the Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) Management,
Transportation, and Disposal Plan (IDW Plan).
5.2.7 Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring activities include measuring groundwater elevations, measuring free
product thickness, and collecting analytical samples. Unless a path is clearly marked, HTRW
sampling personnel must be escorted by UXO-qualified personnel when conducting groundwater
monitoring/aquifer characterization activities in areas with potential MEC.
5.2.8 Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection
Whenever HGL employees conduct PA/SI work on in areas where MEC may be encountered
UXO-qualified personnel will provide anomaly avoidance measures to prevent non-UXO-qualified
personnel from coming into contact with an MEC hazard.
5.3 MUNITIONS AND EXPLOSIVES OF CONCERN
5.3.1 MEC ENCOUNTERED
If MEC/UXO is encountered, the UXO Technician on point will direct the team to stop, point out
the hazard and mark the hazard with a high-visibility pin flag, paint, or surveyors tape. The UXO
Technician discovering the MEC hazard will inform the UXO Team Leader who then will notify
the Site Supervisor of the hazard and its location. The UXO Team Leader shall:
A. Attempt to identify the MEC hazard via markings and other external features such as
shape, size, and external fittings.
B. Record the MEC hazard item(s) location, record GPS coordinates if possible.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
15
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
C. Take a digital photograph of the hazard.
D. Notify the Site Supervisor and all other authorities of the MEC hazard(s) and collect the
necessary data. After these steps are taken, the team may proceed with their activities.
5.3.2 DISPOSITION
The disposition of MEC hazards will be implemented as specified by the applicable site WP,
SSHP or when applicable the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The senior UXO-qualified
person has the responsibility for coordinating with the proper authorities for the final disposition
of all MEC hazard(s) discoveries. Specific procedures for reporting MEC discoveries during a
PA/SI are covered by USACE Military Munitions Center of Expertise (MM CX) Interim
Guidance Document 06-05.
The HGL Senior UXO Operation Manager is responsible for ensuring this SOP is reviewed
annually for completeness, accuracy, and safety. The HGL UXO Safety Manager is responsible
for the maintenance, management, and annual review of this SOP for procedural, quality control
and safety issues. All questions, comments or recommendations regarding this SOP should be
directed to HGL's UXO Safety Manager.
Project Managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring all site personnel read, understand,
and follow this SOP. If any discrepancies are found with procedural steps or safety issues
pertaining to this SOP, they will be brought to the attention of the responsible supervisor for
corrective action. Anytime there is a potential for encountering MEC during HTRW-related
activities, a UXO Team will be assigned to provide anomaly avoidance support.
6.1 AUTHORITY
The senior UXO-qualified person on site has final on-site authority on all munitions and MEC
procedures and safety issues. This individual will have direct reporting and communications
responsibility with and as directed by the HGL Project Manager with all responsible authorities.
6.2 CERTIFICATIONS
HGL will provide UXO-qualified personnel who meet the certification levels specified by DDESB
Technical Paper 18 and USACE EP 75-1-2. The UXO Team will:
A. Consist of a minimum of two personnel for anomaly avoidance, one of whom must be a
UXO Technician II or above.
B. Be on-call during all investigative/design HTRW activities where there is a potential for
encountering MEC.
C. Conduct access clearance surveying activities:
6.0 QUALITY CONTROL
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
16
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
1. The second person can be a designated UXO Sweep Person (DDESB TP 18).
2. UXO Sweep Personnel are required to have undergone site specific training on the
potential hazards present.
D. Assess the need for additional UXO-qualified personnel. Staffing is dependent on project-
specific and task-specific conditions and requirements, certificates of training and
medical monitoring guidelines, and as specified in the Site Safety and Health Plan
(SSHP).
6.3 EQUIPMENT
Project equipment for MEC anomaly avoidance and construction support will come from HGL
sources, subcontractors, and local vendors offering equipment for lease or purchase. All
equipment, regardless of source, will be inspected and function checked to ensure completeness
and operational readiness. Any equipment found damaged or defective will be repaired or returned
for replacement. All instruments and equipment that require routine maintenance and/or
calibration will be inspected initially upon arrival and then periodically as required in the
manufacturer's equipment manual. Equipment required for daily usage shall be calibrated twice
daily (start and finish). This system of checks ensures that the equipment on site is functioning
properly. If an equipment function check indicates that any piece of equipment is not operating
correctly and field repair cannot immediately be accomplished, the equipment will be removed
from service until it can be repaired. Alternately, the equipment may be replaced with a like
model or an approved substitute. Replacement equipment will meet the same specifications for
accuracy and precision as the equipment removed from service.
6.3.1 Geophysical Equipment
A. The use of geophysical sweep equipment (magnetometers) will depend on site conditions
and the intended work to be conducted in that area. If the area is to be investigated only
on foot, it may suffice to conduct only a detector-aided visual search of the area. If
vehicular traffic is expected, the site will require a geophysical sweep for shallow
subsurface anomalies. For the purpose of anomaly avoidance, the following geophysical
equipment will be used:
1. For a geophysical sweep of an area, either the Schonstedt GA-52Cx or GA-72Cd or
the Subsurface ML-1 or ML-1M will be utilized. These units can be expected to
detect subsurface ferrous anomalies to a depth of 4 feet.
2. Additionally, the White's Spectrum XLT all-metals detector may be used. This unit
can be expected to detect subsurface ferrous and non-ferrous anomalies to a depth of
18 to 24 inches.
3. For down-hole surveillance, the Subsurface BHG-1, Schonstedt MG 220/230,
MAGEX 120 LW or the MK26 Forrester will be used. The down-hole geophysical
instrument used will depend on the diameter of the borehole. If direct push
technology (DPT) is used, then the MAGEX 120 LW, Subsurface BHG-1 or
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
17
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
Schonstedt MG 220/230 will be used. The MK 26 will not fit inside the typical
direct push borehole (for example, 1 to 1.5 inches outer diameter).
B. Additional equipment items that may be required for marking hazards are as follows:
1. Pin flags (as required)
2. Brightly colored surveyors tape (as required)
3. High visibility, biodegradable spray paint (as required)
6.3.2 Equipment Function Checks
A daily equipment function check will be performed on all geophysical instruments and global
positioning systems (GPS). The check will consist of using the geophysical instrument in the
demarcated function check area and verifying its response on a known designated target anomaly.
A record of the geophysical equipment/serial number function check will be noted in the logbook
or logged using an instrument maintenance and calibration log following each functionality test
describing the performance results.
6.4 TRAINING
As part of the anomaly avoidance support process, the senior UXO-qualified person or UXOSO,
as assigned, will perform project-specific training for all on-site personnel assigned to these
activities. The purpose of this training is to ensure that all on-site personnel fully understand the
operational procedures and methods to be used, including individual duties and responsibilities and
all safety and environmental concerns during investigation and excavation activities. Any
personnel arriving at the site after this initial training session will have to complete the training
before being allowed to work. On-site training will include the following topics:
A. Field equipment operation, including safety precautions and safety equipment, field
inspection of equipment, and maintenance procedures that will be used.
B. Procedures, guidelines, and requirements in relevant sections of the WP and the SSHP,
as they relate to the task being performed.
C. Site- and task-specific hazards, including physical, biological and chemical hazards.
D. Specific ordnance materials (for example, MEC, MC, explosive soil) potentially found
on-site and hazards awareness.
E. Public relations, including interactions with press and public.
F. Environmental concerns and sensitivities, including endangered/threatened species and
historical, archaeological, and cultural resources on site.
G. Emergency procedures and contact information.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
18
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
7.0 SAFETY
If MEC is encountered during any phase of work the HGL Project Manager, and when assigned
the Site Safety Officer or UXOSO will be immediately notified. In general, the following MEC
safety precautions and protocols will be followed:
• Always remain alert at all times for MEC, UXO and related scrap or MPPEH hazards.
• Observe this cardinal principle when work may involve ordnance, explosives,
ammunition, severe fire hazards, or toxic materials: limit the exposure to a minimum
number of personnel, for the minimum amount of time, to a minimum amount of
hazardous material consistent with a safe and efficient operation.
• Always assume MEC hazards contain a live charge until determined otherwise.
• Recognize that death or injury can occur from MEC/UXO and explosive related
accidents.
• Understand that the age or condition of a MEC hazard does not decrease the
effectiveness. MEC that has been exposed to the elements for an extended period of time
becomes more sensitive to shock, movement, and friction because the stabilizing agent in
the explosives may be degraded.
• Consider MEC that has been exposed to fire as extremely hazardous. Chemical and
physical changes to the contents may have occurred that render it more sensitive than it
was in its original state.
• DO NOT touch, move or jar any ordnance items regardless of the markings or apparent
condition. Under no circumstances will any MEC be handled during avoidance activities
or moved in an attempt to make a positive identification.
• DO NOT touch, pick up, kick, or move anything that is unfamiliar or unknown.
• DO NOT roll the item over or scrape the item to identify markings.
• DO NOT approach or enter a munitions site if an electrical storm is occurring or
approaching. If a storm approaches during site operations, leave the site immediately and
seek shelter.
• DO NOT transmit radios or cellular phones in the vicinity of suspect MEC hazards.
• DO NOT walk across an area that the ground surface cannot be seen that has not been
cleared of MEC hazards by the UXO Technician.
• DO NOT rely on color codes for positive identification of ordnance items nor their
contents.
• DO NOT drive vehicles into a suspected MEC area until anomaly avoidance techniques
have been implemented.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
19
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
• DO NOT carry matches, cigarettes, lighters or other flame-producing devices into a
• DO Not be misled by markings on the MEC item stating "practice bomb," "dummy," or
"inert." Practice ordnance can have explosive charges that are used to mark and/or spot
the point of impact; or the item could be marked incorrectly.
• The location of any ordnance item found anomaly avoidance activities will be clearly
marked so it can be easily located and avoided.
• Follow the procedures of the WP and SSHP; and upon locating any MEC hazards
immediately notify the UXO Technician so appropriate measures can be taken.
REMOVING OR TAKING ANY MUNITIONS, EXPLOSIVE OR UNEXPLODED ORNANCE
OR MUNITIONS-RELATED DEBRIS FROM THE SITE BY ANY EMPLOYEE IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED,
7.1 DAILY TAILGATE SAFETY MEETING
Before entering an area requiring MEC anomaly avoidance, the UXO Team Leader must conduct
a safety brief covering emergency procedures, operations, MEC hazards, and anomaly avoidance
Documentation generated as a result of this procedure is collected and maintained using the
following forms:
• SOP Acknowledgment (Attachment 1)
• HGL MEC Form 15.01 MEC Investigation Field Log (Attachment 2)
• HGL MEC Form 15.16 Instrument Maintenance and Calibration Log (Attachment 3)
• HGL MEC Form 15.19 Daily Tailgate Meeting Log (Attachment 4)
All forms also are available on the HGL SharePoint Website.
9.0 REFERENCES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004. Engineer Pamphlet 75-1-2 Munitions and
Explosives of Concern Support during Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)
and Construction Activities, August.
MEC site.
— WARNING —
procedures.
8.0 RECORDS
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
20
-------
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Anomaly Avoidance Support
SOI* No.: 15.12
SOI'Csileson: MMRI*
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Mitrcli 2013
USACE, 2006. Memorandum, Procedures for PA/SI Teams that Encounter UXO While
Gathering Non-UXO Field Data, Military Munitions Center of Expertise (MM CX)
Interim Guidance Document 06-05, March.
USACE, 2007a. Engineer Regulation 385-1-92 Safety and Occupational Health Requirements for
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Activities, May.
USACE, 2007b. Engineer Regulation 385-1-95 Safety and Health Requirements for Munitions
and Explosives of Concern (MEC) Operations, March.
USACE, 2008. Engineer Manual 385-1-97 Explosives Safety and Health Requirements,
September.
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Explosive Safety Board (DDESB) Technical Paper (TP) 18,
2004. Minimum Qualification for UXO Technicians and Personnel, December.
DoD Manual 6055-09-M, 2010. DoD Ammunitions and Explosives Safety Standards, August.
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
21
-------
SOI* No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Csileson: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Rcm isioii No.: 02
Dale: Decemher 2013
ATTACHMENT 1
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I have read, understand and agree to abide by the provisions as detailed in this standard operating procedure (SOP)
prepared by HGL. By signing below, I certify that I have had the opportunity to read and ask questions about this
SOP, and that I understand the procedures, equipment, and restrictions and agree to abide by them. Failure to comply
with this SOP may lead to disciplinary action and/or my dismissal from the work site and termination of employment.
Before beginning any work task associated with these SOPs, the Senior Unexploded Ordnance Supervisor (SUXOS)
or Senior Unexploded Ordnance Technician assigned to the project will discuss additional procedures to be
implemented, or any other site-specific conditions that may arise.
Print Name Signature Date
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
A-l
-------
SOP No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOP Category: MMRP
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Revision No.: 02
Date: December 2013
ATTACHMENT 2
8HGL
H HydroGeoLogic. Inc
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Investigation Field Log
UXO Technician:
Team:
Date:
Anomaly ID No.
Actual Anomaly Coordinates (Latitude^ Longitude=Y)
Object Depth (from center of mass):
Inches
Object length:
Inches
Object Diameter/Thickness:
Inches
Object Weight (Estimated):
Lbs.
Slope of terrain (Check one box):
~ <10°
~ 10° to 30°
l~l >30
Vegetation cover (Check one box):
~ Clear
~ Tundra
~ Swamp
Soil type (Check one box):
~ Sand
~ Clay
~ Rock
Inclination:
~ 0° ~ 45°
n 90°
~ 135° ~ 180°
Orientation:
N-S
NW-SE
E-W
SW-NE
Item Description/Justification/Comments:
Anomaly type categories (Check Appropriate Box)
~ mec
~ Other
Q Abandoned
~ No Find
~ Scrap
~ No Dig
~ Practice Ordnance
~ Rust Layer
~ Inert Ordnance
~ Dig Abandoned
~ Metal Waste
~ Target >4 ft
Was photo taken?
~ Yes
~ No
File Name:
Ordnance Positive Identification (If Known, Record Below and record fuze condition and disposition):
Quantity:
Ordnance Mark/Mod:
Nose Fuze Mark/Mod:
Tail Fuze Mark/Mod:
Ordnance Filler:
~ Explosive ~ Propellant ~ Pyrotechnic ~ Other
N.E.W.
Ordnance Category:
[~l Bomb
~ Cluster/Dispenser
~ Grenade
~ Guided Missile ~ Mortars
~ Land Mine ~ Projectiles
~ Misc. Explosive Device ~ Rockets
~ Pyrotechnics and Flares
~ Small Arms
~ Underwater Ordnance
Fuzing Types:
~ All-ways Acting DBase Detonating ~ Influence ~ Electric
~Mechanical Time [IlMechanicaMong delay DMT Super-quick ~Piezoelectric
QPoint-initiating, Base-detonating QPowder Train Time Fuze(PTTF) QPressure
~ impact
~ Point Detonating (PD)
~ Proximity (VT)
HGL ME Form 15.01 (Jul 2007)
1 of 2
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
A-2
-------
S()l» No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Ciileaon: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Revision No.: 02
Dale: December 2013
0
HGL
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Investigation Field Log
Status of MEC:
~ Armed
~ Unarmed
Physical Condition of MEC:
~ Broken Open ~ Soil Staining ~ Filler Visible ~ Soil Sample Taken
MEC/MPPEH Disposition:
Disposition: (Clarify Under Remarks)
~ Transport
~ Leave In Place O Other
Date:
Notifications To EOD By:
Signature
Date
Transported By:
Signature
Date:
Transferred To:
Signature
Date:
Storage Location:
Destroyed By:
Signature
Date:
Remarks:
SUXOSrtJXO Team Leader Signature:
EOD Personnel Signature (when applicable):
Abandoned—MEC that was disposed of by abandonment; may have been fuzed or armed, but was not employed.
Inert—Same physical features as an ordnance item but does not and never did contain energetic material.
MEC—Military munitions that may pose unique explosives safety risks, Unexploded ordnance (UXO), Discarded military
munitions (DMM), Munitions constituents (e.g., TNT, RDX); present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive
hazard.
MPPEH—Material potentially containing explosives or munitions (e.g., munitions containers and packaging material;
munitions documented as an explosive hazard (MDEH) or material document as safe (MDAS) remaining after munitions use,
demilitarization, or disposal; and range-related debris) or material potentially containing a high enough concentration of
explosives such that the material presents an explosive hazard.
IVIDEH-Material documented as an explosive hazard that contains an energetic material.
MDAS—Material documented as safe that does not contain an energetic material.
HGL MR Form 15.01 (Jul 2007)
2 of 2
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
A-3
-------
SOI* No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern
SOI'Csileaon: MMRI'
Anomaly Avoidance Support
Re\ isioii No.: 02
Dale: Dccc'iiihcr 2013
WHGL
v — •—
ATTACHMENT 3
Equipment/Instrument Calibration/Maintenance Log
Ir ^ tL> > dtiL.li 'KdJn-, "ltv aii'l Z^tate):
Contra etNo:
Team Number;
Instrument DescriptiaVType:
Equipment/Instrument Serial Number:
Date
Calibration
Standard
(example, lesj Pit)
Test results
i check box i
Pass Fail
Name of Individual
Comments or Observations
~
~
~
~
~
~
n
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
HGL MR Form 15.16 (Oct 2007)
of
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
A-4
-------
SOP No.: 15.12
Munitions and Explosives of Concern sop (aies-on: mmrp
Anomaly Avoidance Support Revision \o.: 02
Dale: December 2013
ATTACHMENT 4
"HGL.
I
Tailgate Safety Meeting Log
Date:
Time:
Tearn No:
Sile NameLocation:
Grid No:
1. SAFETY TOPICS DISCUSSED:
1 1 Site Description O Environmental Concerns/Hazards
1 I Site Controls 0 Emergency Procedures/Route
1 I Personal Protective Equipment Q First Aid Procedures
1 I Emergency Procedures / Equipment Q Injury Reporting
1 1 Site Evacuation O Safe Work Practices
1 1 Physical/Biological Hhz id Q Other:
Q Heat or Cold Stress Q Other:
1 I Communication/Radio Procedure Q Other:
2. TASK OPERATION AND RC"
MARKS:
3. ATTENDEES:
Print Name
Signature
Company
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
M eel tag Conducted by:
Signature:
HGl MR Fonn 15.19 (Nov 200"!
HGL—Standard Operating Procedure
A-5
-------
APPENDIX C
FIELD FORMS
-------
This page was intentionally left blank.
-------
HGL
T
BORING LOG
Sheet of
Borehole ID:
Project Name
PECK RI/FS
Investigation
Project Number
E10044
Co-located Location:
Drilling Company
Driller
Ground Elevation
Total Drilled Depth
Drilling Equipment
Drilling Method Borehole Diameter
Date/Time Drilling Started
Date/Time Total Depth Reached
Type of Sampling Device
Water Level (bgs)
First
Final
Sample Hammer
Hydrogeologist
_Drivm^\Vt^
_Dro^
Checked by/Date
Location Description (include sketch in field logbook)
Description
(Include lithology, grain size, sorting, angularity, Munsell color name &
notation, minerology, bedding, plasticity, density, consistency, etc., as
applicable)
Remarks
(Include all sample types & depth, odor,
organic vapor measurements, etc.)
-------
v H6L
BORING LOG (cont'd)
Borehole ID:
Sheet
of
Investigation
Project Number
E10044
Project Name
PECK RI/FS
Location Description (include sketch in field logbook)
O
£
Description
(Include lithology, grain size, sorting, angularity, Munsell color name &
notation, minerology, bedding, plasticity, density, consistency, etc., as
applicable)
Remarks
(Include all sample types & depth, odor,
organic vapor measurements, etc.)
-------
7 HGL WELL DEVELOPMENT RECORD sheet of
PROJECT NAME: PECK RI/FS PROJECT NO. : E10044 DATE:
WELL/PIEZOMETER ID DATE INSTALLED:
TOTAL DEPTH (FTOC) SCREEN LENGTH CASING DIAMETER
MEASURING POINT HEIGHT ABOVE/BELOW GROUND LEVEL
METHODS OF DEVELOPMENT
D Swabbing D Bailing
Equipment decomtaminated prior to development
Describe
EQUIPMENT NUMBERS:
pH Meter EC Meter Turbidity Meter Thermometer
CASING VOLUME INFORMATION:
Casing ID (inch)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.2
3.0
4.0
4.3
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Unit Casina Volume (A") teal/ft")
0.04
0.09
0.16
0.2
0.37
0.65
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.6
PURGING INFORMATION:
Measured Well Depth (B) ft.
Measured Water Level Depth (C) ft.
Length of Static Water Column (D) - = ft
(B) (C)
Casing Water Volume (E) + x = gal
(A) (D)
Total Purge Volume = (gal)
Time
Water Level
(FTOC)
Volume
Removed
(gal)
Temp
F or C
PH
EC
( )
Water
Color
Turbidity/
Sand (ppm)
Type, Size, and Amount of
Sediments Discharged
During Purging
n Pumping D Describe
~ Yes ~ NO
STATIC
ELEVATION
MEAN
¦ SEA
-------
H €3 L. WASXE INVENTORY tracking form
LOCATION :
PROJECT NAME:
ACTIVITIES:
Date Waste
Generated
Activity
Generating
Waste
(borehole # /
well #)
Description
of Waste
Field Evidence
of
Contamination
Estimated
Volume
Type of
Container
(storage ID#)
Location of
Container
Waste
Characterization
Comments
Note: Describe whether soil or water samples have been collected for waste characterization, include date, if known.
Signature:
-------
HGL MONITOR WELL STATIC WATER LEVEL FORM
PROJECT NAME: PECKRI/FS DATE:
WATER LEVEL INDICATOR ID # FIELD BOOK #
INVESTIGATION: PAGE #
Monitor
Well
Number
Total
Well
Depth
Well
Screen
Length
Measuring
Point Elev.
Time
Depth to
Static
Water Level
Sounding
Explosimeter
Reading
(above background)
PID Reading
(above background)
Note: Total well depth to be measured at time of gauging.
Comments:
Sampler
Observer
-------
7 HC5L
MONITOR WELL PURGING FORM
PROJECT : DATE:
LOCATION: EXPLOSIMETER BOREHOLE READING
WELL ID: PURGE VOLUME
(3 WELLBORE VOLUMES): (L)
WELL DEPTH:
Time
Depth to
Water (ft)
Flow Meter
Reading
Volume
Purged (L)
Temp.
(°C)
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
(mmho)
Turbidity
N.T.U
Comments
Note: Condition of the well:
pH - Calibrate at start and before last reading.
Sampler
Observer
-------
J _ SOIL FIELD SAMPLING REPORT
PROJECT: PECKRI/FS
INVESTIGATION:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE INFORMATION
SAMPLE ID:
CLP ID:
MATRIX
A5>5>ULIAIHL> gA/gU SA1WLL: YH5> ) NU( )
BEGINNING DEPTH
ftbgs
• DUP./REP. OF :
END DEPTH
ftbes
DUPCLPID:
DATE:
TIME:
• MS SAMPLE ID:
MSD SAMPLE ID:
MS CLP ID : MSD CLP ID :
GRAB( )
COMPOSITE ( )
SAMPLING METHOD
LABUKAI UK Y UA5>Hff:
CONTAINER
SAMPLE
Laboratory / TR-COC
SIZE
TYPE
#
PRES
ANALYSIS
TAGS
TCL VOCs
TCL SVOCs
TCL Pest/PCBs
TCL PCBs ("Total")
TAL Metals ("+Ha&Cn"l
Total Oraanic Carbon
PCDD/PCDF
Hexav. Chromium
PCB Conaeners
Explosives
Asbestos
Grain Size
Soil pH
NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
MISCELLANEOUS
COLOR:
ODOR:
USCS Classification:
Lithology:
PH
PID Reading:
ORP:
Specific Conductivity.
WEATHER: sun/clear _
SHIPMENT VIA: fed-x
COMMENTS:
GENERAL INFORMATION
OVERCAST/RAIN WIND DRIECTION
UPS
COURIER
AMBIENT TEMP
SAMPLER:
OBSERVER:
-------
HGL
WATER FIELD SAMPLING REPORT
PROJECT: PECKRI/FS
SAMPLE LOCATION:
INVESTIGATION:
SAMPLE INFORMATION
MATRIX
SAMPLE ID:
CLP ID:
BEGINNING DEPTH
END DEPTH
ft bgs
ft bgs
DATE: TIME:
GRAB ( ) COMPOSITE ( )~
SAMPLING METHOD
ASSOCIATED QA/QC SAMPLE: YES ( ) NO ( )
• DUP./REP. OF :
DUP CLP ID:
• MS SAMPLE ID:
MSD SAMPLE ID:
MS CLP ID :
MSD CLP ID :
LABORATORY CASE #:
CONTAINER
PRES
ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
TAGS
Laboratory / TR-COC
TCL VOCs
TCL SVOCs
TCL Pest/PCBs
TCL PCBs (Total)
TAL Metals (+Hg)
C^anid^
PCDD/PCDF
Hexav. Chromium
PCB_Congener^
ExjdIo
Asbestos
Hardness
TSS/TDS/Alkalmity
Methane/Ethane/Ethene
NOTABLE SAMPLE/SAMPLE LOCATION OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
MISCELLANEOUS
WATER CLARITY:
ODOR:
FLOW MEASUREMENT:
BIOTA PRESENT/TYPE:
pH
fpH nnits^l
Turbidity.
rNTIIsI
Temp_
Cunits=
ORP_
1 ("units =
- Specific Conductivity_
J (nnits=
GENERAL INFORMATION
WEATHER: sun/clear _
SHIPMENT VIA: fed-x
COMMENTS:
OVERCAST/RAIN
WIND DRIECTION
AMBIENT TEMP
SAMPLER:
OBSERVER:
D:\SHARE_ALL\AFCEE_TEMPLATES\FORMS-bIank.ppt
-------
HGL
IDW FIELD SAMPLING REPORT
PROJECT: PECKRI/FS INVESTIGATION:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE INFORMATION SAMPLE ID:
CLP ID:
MATRIX
ASSOCIATED QA/QC SAMPLE: YES ( ) NO ( )
BEGINNING DEPTH ftbgs * DUP./REP. OF:
END DEPTH ft bgs DUP CLPID:
DATE: TIME: " SAMPLE ID:
GRAB ( ) COMPOSITE ( ) MSD SAMPLE ID:
MS CLP ID : MSD CLP ID :
SAMPLING METHOD
LABORATORY CASE #:
CONTAINER
PRES
ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
TAGS
Laboratory / TR-COC
SIZE
TYPE
#
TCLP VOCs
TCLPSVOCs
TCLP Pesticides
TCL PCBs (Total")
TCLP Metals
Sulfide
Cvanide
Ianitabilitv
Corrosivitv
Flashpoint
NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
MISCELLANEOUS
COLOR:
ODOR:
USCS Classification:
Lithology:
PH
PID Reading:
ORP:
Specific Conductivity.
WEATHER: sun/clear _
SHIPMENT VIA: fed-x
COMMENTS:
GENERAL INFORMATION
OVERCAST/RAIN WIND DRIECTION
AMBIENT TEMP
UPS
COURIER
SAMPLER:
OBSERVER:
D:\SHARE_ALL\AFCEE_TEMPLATES\FORMS-blank.ppt
-------
v HGL.
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND ABANDONMENT FORM
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
TYPE OF FILTER PACK:
GRADIATION:
AMOUNT OF FILTER PACK USED:
DRILLING TECHNIQUE:
AUGER SIZE AND TYPE:
TYPE OF BENTONITE:
AMOUNT BENTONITE USED:
BOREHOLE IDENTIFICATION:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
WELL IDENTIFICATION:
TYPE OF CEMENT:
AMOUNT CEMENT USED: _
GROUT MATERIALS USED:
WELL CONSTRUCTION START DATE:
WELL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE DATE:
DIMENSIONS OF SECURITY CASING:
SCREEN MATERIAL:
SCREEN DIAMETER:
STRATUM-SCREENED INTERVAL (FT):
TYPE OF WELL CAP:
TYPE OF END CAP:
COMMENTS:
CASING MATERIAL:
CASING DIAMETER:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
(describe and draw)
WELL CAP-
SAND CELLAR
LENGTH
SECURITY CASING
CASING LENGTH ABOVE GROUND SURFACE
DIMENTION OF CONCRETE PAD _
¦ GROUND SURFACE (REFERENCE POINT)
n
LEGEND
GROUT
BENTONITE SEAL
DEPTH TO TOP OF BENTONITE SEAL .
DEPTH TO TOP OF FILTER PACK.
DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN-
END CAP
DEPTH TO BASE OF WELL-
BOREHOLE DEPTH
NOT TO SCALE
INSTALLED BY:
INSTALLATION OBSERVED BY:
DISCREPANCIES:
-------
v hgl, WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND ABANDONMENT FORM
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE:
DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
TYPE OF FILTER PACK:
GRADIATION:
AMOUNT OF FILTER PACK USED:
DRILLING TECHNIQUE: _
AUGER SIZE AND TYPE:
TYPE OF BENTONITE:
AMOUNT BENTONITE USED:
BOREHOLE IDENTIFICATION:
BOREHOLE DIAMETER:
WELL IDENTIFICATION:
TYPE OF CEMENT:
AMOUNT CEMENT USED: _
GROUT MATERIALS USED:
WELL CONSTRUCTION START DATE:
WELL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE DATE:
DIMENSIONS OF SECURITY BOX:
SCREEN MATERIAL:
SCREEN DIAMETER:
STRATUM-SCREENED INTERVAL (FT):
CASING MATERIAL:
CASING DIAMETER:
TYPE OF WELL CAP:
TYPE OF END CAP:
COMMENTS:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
(describe and draw)
WELL CAI
GROUND SURFACE (REFERENCE POINT)
SECURITY BOX
LEGEND
| | GROUT
¦
BENTONITE SEAL
• • •
• • •
FILTER PACK
DEPTH TO TOP OF BENTONITE SEAL
SAND CELLAR
LENGTH
DEPTH TO TOP OF FILTER PACK-
DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEbL
END CAP
DEPTH TO BASE OF WELL-
BOREHOLE DEPTH
NOT TO SCALE
INSTALLED BY:
INSTALLATION OBSERVED BY:
DISCREPANCIES:
-------
V HGL
V — — SURFACE SOIL COLLECTION REPORT
PROJECT: PECKRI/FS
INVESTIGATION: ICS SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE INFORMATION:
MATRIX: SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLE ID:
BEGINNING DEPTH: 0 ft bgs
CLP ID:
END DEPTH:
0.5 ft bgs
DATE:
TIME:
SAMPLING METHOD:
LABORATORY CASE #:
Increment
Sample
Collected
Increment
Sample
Collected
Increment
Sample
Collected
Increment
Sample
Collected
Increment
Sample
Collected
1
11
21
31
41
2
12
22
32
42
3
13
23
33
43
4
14
24
34
44
5
15
25
35
45
6
16
26
36
46
7
17
27
37
47
8
18
28
38
48
9
19
29
39
49
10
20
30
40
50
CONTAINER
ANALYSES TO BE
SAMPLE
SIZE
TYPE
#
CONDUCTED
TAG
LABORATORY/TR-COC
NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (Loc; USCS Classif; Color; Odor; Moisture Content, etc.)
MISCELLANEOUS
GENERAL INFORMATION
WEATHER:
( ) Clear
( ) Overcast/Rain
Wind Direction
Ambient Terno
Shipment Carrier:
Laboratory:
SHIPPING ADDRESS:
Comments
SAMPLER:
OBSERVER:
-------
~ HGL
HydroGeoLogsc, fnc HGL INCIDENT REPORT
Exceeding Expectation
Section 1 - General Information
Date of Occurrence
Date Reported
Reported to whom?
Time of Occurrence
Employee Name
Work Address
City, State, Zip Code
Work Phone Number
Date of Birth
Home Address
City, State, Zip Code
Home Phone Number
Occupation (Title)
Full time J | Part time
Temporary | |
Location of Occurrence
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of Incident (include what employee was doing, work process, cause, injury and body part)
Witness(es)
Address
City, State, Zip Code
Work Phone Number
Was First Aid given on-site? Yes | | No | | By whom?
Was employee taken to hospital? Yes | | No |
Ambulance Yes
I No | |
it so, provide name, aaaress, ana pnone numDer or nospitai ana name ot attending physician oeiow:
Name of Hospital:
Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Attending Physician:
Did employee seek medical attention other than an emergency room? Yes No
If so, provide practice name, address, phone number and name of attending physician below:
Practice Name:
Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Phone Number:
Attending Physician:
Did employee lose time on the job? Yes £
Was employee assigned light duty? Yes
No
If so, how many days after the initial injury date?.
No
If so, how many days after the initial injury date?.
Supervisor (print):
Signature:
Date:
Employee (print):
Signature:
Date:
Witness (print):
Signature:
Date:
Witness (print):
Signature:
Date:
Director, Health & Safety:
Signature:
Date:
Incident Report Form
1
HGL 12/1/2009
------- |