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


-------