Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Prepared For:
Borough of Dumont
50 Washington Avenue
Dumont, New Jersey 07621
Alaimo Group
200 High Street, Mt. Holly, NJ 08060 Tel: 609 267·8310 Fax: 609 267·0301
2 Market Street, Paterson, NJ 07501 Tel: 973 523-6200 Fax: 973 523-1765
Geotechnical Evaluation and
Limited Phase II Enviro/lmental Site Assessment of
Twin Bo/"o Field
Borough of Dumont
Bergell Coullly, New Jersey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Scope of Work ..... . .. . .......... .. ......... ... ....... . ... . .. . .. ............. .. ..... ... ...... .... ...... 1
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION . ...... . ........... ............ . . .... . . ........ .. ...... . .......
. . .. u . . . . . .. .. . . u ..... 2
2.1 Location ................ .................................................................................. 2
2.2 Topography ......... .. .
. ...... . ... .
.. . ... . . . .. .. ........ . .. ... . ... .... . . . . ...... ... . ... . .... .......... . 2
.
2.4 Soil Conditions . ... . ..... ..... ...... . ... "., ......... , .. , ............... , ............................. 2
.
3.3 Discussion of Geotechnical Results .... ... . . ... ..... . ........ . .... . ... . .. .
. . . . ....... .. .. 5
. .
4.4 Additional Environmental Evaluation ....... .. . ........ .. . . ........ . ... .. . ... . ......... II
5.1.1 Geotechnical Evaluation . . ... . ......... . . .... .... .. . ...... ... . ..... .... . ...... . .. 12
..
5.3,4 Restricted Use . .. . .. . ...... . " .............. "..... " ............................... " .. 15
.
Geotechnical Evaluatioll amI
Limited Phase II Ellvirollmelltaf Site Assessmellt of
Twill Bom Field
Borough of DI/mollt
Bergell COlll/ty, New Jersey
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Alaimo Group was retained by the Borough of Dumont to perform this Geotechncial
Evaluation and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of Borough owned property
known as Twin Bol'o Field, which is part of Twin Bol'o Park. The subject property is denoted as a palt of
Block 1 !O5; Lot 15 on the Dumont Borough Tax Assessment Map (sec Figure 2) and is accessible from
Aladdin Avenue via Darcy Lane.
The purpose of this evaluation is (0 follow-up on the findings of the Phase I ESA which found
evidence of differential soil stability apparently due to historic filling activities.
The geotechnical evaluation consisted of the installation of six (6) t est borings to asceltain the
sllbslHfacc conditions and the limited Phase II ESA involved the sampling of fill from those borings for
the presence of environmental contaminants.
The scope of work for the Limited Phase II Site Investigation was outlined in a letter proposal
dated March 30, 20 I 0 from the Alaimo Group. The work was completed in substantial compliance with
the accepted proposal.
- J -
Geotechllicaf Evaluatioll olld
Limited Phose II Ellvirollmental Site Assessmellt of
Twill Bo/'o Field
Borollgh ofDUlllout
Bergel! COllllty, New Jersey
2.1 Location
The Phase I ESA was conducted of the entire tract, known as Block 1105, Lot 15, but the limited
Phase II Site Investigation has focused on Twin Boro Field where historic filling repOltedly occlIl'red.
2.2 Topogl'aphy
2.3 Geology
According to regional geologic mapping. the Site is underlain by at least 10 feet of Rahway glacial
till which is characterized as reddish brown to reddish yellow silty sand. The underlying bedrock is
denoted as the Passaic Formation and consists of sandstone and siltstone about 20-25 feet below the
ground surface.
The soils on the Site are mapped as .!ldorthents.loamy (9-8 percentJ'l2p�f�uently l1.9od<&l
UdkffB and are classified as well-drained soils with a moderately low-to-moderately high capacity to
transmit water. The typical profile consists of 12 inches of loam underlain by 48 inches of silty clay.
2.5 Hydrology
There are no flood pI'one areas or wetlands within the limits of the Site.
The Site is gcncmlly located in a residential area of medium intensity and is bordered to the
north by single-family detached residences; to the cast by a high rise apartment bui Iding; to the west
by the remainder of Twin Boro Park; and to the south by lands owned by Bergenfield Borough llsed
for public and recreational purposes. The Site consists of a multi-purpose field known as Twin Boro
Field. Other recreational fucilities in Twin Boro Park include a street hockey rink and a swim club
that is leased to a non-profit organization.
2.7 Utilities
The area is served by public water and sewer, electricity, phone, and other utilities.
-2·
Geotechnical Evaluation amI
Limited Pbase II Ellvirollmelltal Site Assessment of
Twill Boro Field
Borough ofDumont
Bergen Coullty, New Jersey
The geotechnical evaluation of the Twin Boro Field was undertaken by the Alaimo Group in
conjunction with a geotechnical subsconsultant, Duffield Associates of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A total of six (6) Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were performed at the Twin Boro
Field in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 on May 1 2,20 I O. The test borings were installed to
a maximum depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface. The test boring locations are shown
on Figure 1. The test boring locations were se lected to evaluate the four corners of the field as well
as the approximate center of the field.
The test borings were performed by Granese Drilling Inc. of Shrewsbury, New Jersey
utilizing a truck mounted Mobile B-59 drill rig with hollow stem augers. All work was performed
under the direct supervision of the geotechnical subconsultanL Test boring Jogs prepared by Duffield
Associates describing the conditions encountered are presented in Appelldix A oHhis report.
At the completion of the drilling, the boreholes were tremie grouted with a bentonite-cement
grout with the exception of TB-2. During the execution of TB-2, the subconsultant observed that the
sidewalls of the borehole had caved during drilling and the borehole had incl'cased in size to a
diameter of approximately 15 inches. A representative of the Borough of Dumont was contacted and
material was provided by the DPW for the backfilling of the TB-2 borehole. After the auger was
removed, the borehole was backfilled with the soil cuttings and sand from an onsite stockpilc.
Excess soil was mounded above each test boring location to compensate for potential future
settlement at the boring locations. No additional compactive effort or site restoration was performed.
Additional settlement and softening of the grout and soil placed in the boreholes may occur resulting
in a depression or hole in the ground surface. Consequently, future maintenance and restoration of
the boring locations may be required to prevent uneven surface conditions.
Soil samples were obtained during the field exploration program and used for subsequent
laboratory testing for geotechnical properties and environmental contaminants. The geotechnical
testing consisted of determining the natural moisture content (ASTM D 2216) and the percent
passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM sill1c1ay fraction) for a total of seven samples obtained from the
test borings. The results of the geotechnical laboratory testing were used to aid in the classification of
the soils encountered that are summarized on the boring logs.
During the field investigation, each of the soil samples obtained form the borings was field
screened using a photoionization detector (PID). Additional environmental lahoratory testing was
performed 011 several soil samples obtained during the test borings. The results of the laboratory
analyses are presented in Section 4.0 of this report.
-3-
Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough June 16,2010
Geoteclmi�.�1 Evaluation and Limited PUa§e lJ ESA Rep011 Page4
Beneath a layer of topsoil, the subsurface conditions encountered on the Site can generally be
described as apparent and possible fiI! material consisting of loose to medium density silty sand
ranging in depth from three (3) to six (6) feel below ground sW'face (bgs). The apparent fill material
was determined to overlay natmal fine-grained material (silt and clay) of mediuIII to very stiff
consistency and loose to very dense sand with varying amounts of silt and clay.
The apparent fill stratum was observed to contain small amounts of miscellaneous debris
(e.g., crushed stone, organics, wire insulation, coal fi'agments) in test borings TB-I, TB-3, and TB-5.
In addition to this stratum of miscellaneous debris, a layer containing small amounts of organic
materials (e.g., roots and leaves) was obselved in test borings TB-2 and TB-5 at depths ranging from
six (6) to eight (8) feet and fi'Om three (3) to foul' (4) feet bgs, respectively.
Refusal (0 the advancement of the drilling augers was encountered in several of the borings
pelformed during this evaluation. Shallow refusal to the advancement of tbe drilling augers was
obselved at a depth of 8 feet during the construction of test boring TB-2. The reason for refusal is not
known but appeared to be a subsurface obstruction rather than geologic rock. Auger and split spoon
refusal on apparent massive rock was obselved at depths ranging fi'om 17 to 18 feet bgs in test
borings TB-I and TB-3. Drilling refusal was not encountered during the perfolmance of test borings
TB-4, TB-5, and TB-6 to the depth of the borings. The general subsurfltce conditions encountered
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
,-_=-:___..,._;-_-,--"
S o:, Subsur ace COfldit."oic:':.;.:. /'\,..
:cIl:.:1t",lm=T(I""rL.: · �;;;-_�;-_______--,
SII'alum App"oxlmate G eneralized Description
thickness "fe c: et" L-+
A 0.3-0.5 TOPSOIL :-:-���� ..........- - ---;���-
1.5 Apparent FILL: brown, orange brown, black, red-brown fine to medium
sandj some to trace silt, trace coarse sand, trace gravel, trace debris (ie.,
�nr-----+-----c-=-- ---f.. crushed stone, organics, ..wire insulation} coal fragments); � :::o st�
",i", --i __
NOTES:
1. Soil descriptions utilized herein mrd ou tlte test boring logs are defined in the (lunched General Notes.
2. Stratum B not encountered during lest borings TB-4 and TB-6.
3. Stratum C not encountered during test boring TB-5 and noljitJly pene/m/ca in lest borings TB-4 (I11d TB-6,
4, So'aluItT D only enCOllltlered in lest borings TB-2 and TO-5.
5, S!.!:r!!Jlt!L.fi only ellcoll1Y�t�d ill test bOJi!!g�--,!]J-l and TB-�_gt!.dJ!ot /iJllypen_t:!�qj�4JtJ test bOJ'illg]!t:�.�
__ ........
� ________
�
Groundwater obselvations during the performance of the test borings are indicated 011 the test
boring logs. In general, groundwater was encountered in tbe test borings ranging from 4.8 to 9.0 feet
below the existing ground sUiface.
-4-
Twin Bol'o Field: Dumont Borough June 16,2010
Geote<;hnical EYal1!ation and Limited 1'111\�e II ESe. Report _��..... .. �______ ,,,e-"'
Pmag
"- '5
.
The northern palt of the field (borings TB·\ and TB·5) exhibited the characteristics of
granular fill material to a depth of 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface, underlain by natural silt,
clayey silt, and clay to the depth of the borings (10·18 feet bgs). The fill layer contained trace debris
near the surface and significant quantities of organic materials in the nOltheast cornel' of the Site (TB·
5) in a layer at a depth of 3 to 4 feet bgs.
The central part of the field (borings TB-2 and TB-6) exhibited the characteristics of granular
fill material to a depth of 5 to 8 feet below the ground surface, underlain by natural sand to the depth
of the borings (20 feet bgs). The filliayel' contained significant quantities of organic materials in one
of the two test borings (TB-2) at a depth of 6 to 8 feet below the ground surface. Directly below this
fiUlayer with organics, auger refusal occurred, apparently as a result of a subsurface obstruction.
The southem part of the field (borings TB·3 and TB-4) exhibited the characteristics of
granular fill material to a depth of approximately 6 feet below the ground surface, underlain by
natural sand to the depth of the borings (17-20 feet bgs). The fiUlayer contained evidence of trace
debris near the surface.
The presence of apparent fill over the entire field is of concel'll from a geotechnical
evaluation perspective for the following reasons:
•
The method placement is unknown.
•
The condition of the suhgrade priOl' to placement of the fill is unknown.
•
The consistency of the fill soils is unknown.
The placement of fill materials in an uncontrolled manner can result in differential 01' uneven
settlement. If the fill materials were not placed in an engineered manner or if the fill materials were
not consistent, settlement will occur. The rate of settlement will tend to diminish with time. In this
patticular case, there has been considerable time since the conversion of the site to recreational use.
In addition, due to the predominately granular (sand) consistency of the fill material, it is probable
that the majority of the settlement has occurred.
Nevertheless, continued settlement may occur in areas of fill containing significant quantities
of debris 01' organic materials. At this Site, a layer with significant quantities of organic materials was
observed at 6 to 8 feet below the ground surface in test boring TB-2 and at 3 to 4 feet below ground
in TB-5. The areal extent of this organic layer has not been determined but its presence is consistent
with the information presented in the Phase I ESA based on the key site manager interview.
Based on the conditions observed, the continued development of "depressions" in the field
will be primarily associated with the organic and debris layers that have been identified. Settlement
will occur as gradual depressions 01' as sudden changes in the ground surface due to the collapse of a
soil laycr. In fact, very loose conditions and a possible subsurface void were observed during the
performance of test boring TB·2 when the sidewalls of the borehole were observe to cave and the
borehole increased in diameter to approximately 15 inches.
-5-
Twin Boro Field: DUlllont Borough June 16,2010
Geotechnic�1 Ev�luation al!!lJjmited Phase II ESA Report Page 6
The geotechnical sllbconsliitants have developed several options regarding the maintenance
and improvement of the recreational field. The option that is selected will depend upon the inlital
construction cost, long-tenn maintenance cost, and the importance of the facility in serving the
Borough's recreational needs.
•
Removal and Replacement of fill. One option is to completely remove the previously
placed fill material and replace it with suitable material placed in controlled lifts with
proper compaction. The geotechnical subconsultants have estimated that up to 5 feet of
fill material would need to be undercut in areas of the field where debris and/Ol' organics
were evident. Shallow test bodngs would be needed to delineate the extent of the organic
and debris areas. The removal of the previously placed fill materials would also allow
confirmation that firm subgrade conditions were present prior to placement and
compaction of suitable fill in controlled lifts. The site cou Id be regraded to improve
surface drainage and, if necessary, underdrains could be installed. An in-igation system
for the field could also be installed without concern about continued settlement.
• Continued Periodic Maintenance. The least cost option for the Borough is to continue to
periodic regrading and filling of depressions in the ground surface in response to
differential settlement. This appl'Oach would address the settlement of the pl'Cviously
placed fiU containing debris and organics but is not preventive. While this option would
reduce the initial cost, it would necessitate continued maintenance costs and will not
reduce the potential for settlement. At a minimum, the surface would be stripped of
topsoil and granular fill would be placed in loose lifts with a maximum thickness of eight
inches. Yielding or othelwise unsuitable subgrade conditions that encountered would be
undercut to firm subgrade conditions and backfilled with compacted fill. The fill would
be compacted to a finn condition prior to the placement of topsoil.
-6-
Twin Bom Field: DUlIlont Borough Juno 16,2010
GCQtecll(licalEv ."lua!ioll@..Q.
J JlllitcdYhase ILESA RCllorl._... __� ._. . _ . __ .. ..
. Page 7
The factors that need to be considered in selecting an improvement option are the quality of
the desired recreational facility and the capital cost needed to achieve that facility.
The least cost alternative is a continuation of the frequent maintenance activities needed to
fill voids and depressions that develop over time. However, the differential settlement detracts from
the quality of the recreational field and undoubtedIy impacts the safety of the participants.
The denisilication process will improve the facility and substantially reduce the occurrence of
differential settlement by improving the compaction of the shallow surface layer. In simplistic terms,
this method will reduce, but not eliminate, differential settlement. It also has the advantage of not
exposing the fill materials of questionable quality that have been detected.
The best and morc costly alternative would be to remove several feet of unsuitable material
and replace it with suitable compacted fill on a stable subgrade. This approach would effectively
eliminate any future settlement and enable the development of an excellent recreational facility. The
one factor that affects this option is whether the excavated material requires disposal due to its
environmental quality.
-7-
Geotechnical Emll/ation (/1/(1
Limited Phase II Ellvirolllnel1ta/ Site Assessment of
Twin Boro Field
Boraugh ofDumOflf
Berge/f COI/llty, New Jersey
In order to determine the quality of the subsurface materials, the tests and procedures described in
this section were undel1aken.
A photoionization detector (PID) was used during the installation of all six (6) test borings and did
not detcct potential volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in any of the test borings.
As noted above, physical observations of the borings revealed the presence of a layer containing
significant quantities of organic materials in test borings TB-2 and TB-5 at depths ranging from 6 to 8 feet
and 3 to 4 feet respectively.
A total of four (4) soil samples were collected and submitted to the laboratory for analysis. Two
(2) samples were collected for analytical testing fi'om the layers containing significant quantities of
organic material. These samples were obtained from the 5 to 6 foot below the ground surface (bgs)
interval in TB-2 and from the 3 to 4 foot bgs interval in TB-5. The l\vo other samples selected for
analytical testing were fl'om were from the 2 to 3 foot interval in TB-1 and from 6 to 7 feet bgs interval in
TB-3.
The four samples were sent to Test America Inc. of Edison, New Jersey for the following
analyses:
Priority Pollutant List (PPL) metal by the EPA Methods SW-846 60 I OB and 7470A;
PPL VOCs by EPA Method SW-846 8260B;
PPL semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method SW-846 8270D;
•
PPL pesticides by EPA Method SW-846 8081A; and,
•
PPL polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method SW-846 8082;
The Test America analytical reports are presented in Appendix A and are summal'ized in this
section as well as on Table 1. The analytical results shown in Table 1 are compared to the NJDEP
guidance values for Residential and Non-residential Direct Contract New Jersey Soil Remediation
Standards Soil Cleanup Criteria as published in the NJAC 7:26D Remediation Standards last revised 011
November 4, 2009.
-8-
Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough June 16, 2010
Geoteehnical Evaluation and Limited Ph�.�e II ESA Re",p�or�t ___ Page 9
Table 2
Summary ofAllalytcal Results
�
Lead 251 222 400 800
, 0.22 0.31 23 6$
J 11.9 7"0 J 7.0 J 1,600 23,000
Nil 4.9 H Nil NO 39Q 5,700
Zinc �
19.2 137 31.3 152 .......... 23,000 110.000
a c--s cd�lc �c�lc �e<c-l -�·······
f.7N"o"'o�tC"he �r�I1�,e�I-cl
Notes.
1. Allalytical results arc cOlllparoo to Ihc guidance values to the NJDEPr Residential and Non-Residential Direct ContactSoil Cle anup Criteria
pursuant to N J. A.C, 7:26D, lnst am ended on N o vembe r 4. 2009.
2. Bo ld type with light shading indicntcs the results exeeeds Residential Difl"Ct Contact Soil Cleanup Criteria
3, Bold l)'PC with Imedium sbading indicates the re:suHs excce<Js R csideJHial and Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Critcrm
Recoyery Qr RPD exceeds control lim its
B: Compound was found in the blank and sample.
J: Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal 10 the MO L and the concentration is an ap proxi ma te vaiuc.
p: The %RPD hctw\-"eo the: primary and continuation coluum/dcicdoris .40%. TIle lower value has been reported.
NA: Cliteria not established.
mglkg: Milligrams per Idiogram
-9-
Twin Bol'o Field: Dumont Borough June 16,20 10
Geotechnical Evaluation and Limited Ph,!se II ESA Report __� �_� . Page 10
The analysis of the samples from TB-I and TB-3 indicated the presence of semi-volatile organic
compounds and metals. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) pesticides, or PCBs were not detected above
the detection limit in these samples. Furtbermore, the concentrations of tlle SVOCs and metals were
determined to be well within the Residential and Non-residential Clean up Criteria and arc not a cause fOl'
regulatory concern or action.
The analysis of the sample from test boring TB-2 indicated the presence of semi-volatile organic
compounds, pesticides, and metals above laboratory detection limits. Volatile organic componnds (VOCs
were not detected above the detection limit in this sample. The concentrations reported lor
benzo(a)anthracenc, benzo(b )fiuroanthene, indeno( 1,2,3,-cd)pyrene were above the Residential Cleanup
Criteria and the concentration repotted for benzo(a)pyrene was above the Non-Residential Cleanup
Criteria.
The analysis of the sample from test boring TB-5 indicated the presence of semi-volatile organic
componnds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, PCBs, and metals above
laboratory detection limits. In addition, the concentrations reported for benzo(a)pyrene and the pesticide
chlordane were above the Non-Residential Cleanup Criteria.
The analytical test results of the samples obtained from test borings TB-2 and TB-5 suggest that
the subsurface conditions associated with the observed organic materials have been impacted. The
analytical results of the samples colleeted of the organic materials indicate the following:
•
Benzo(a)anthracenc, bcnzo(b)fiuroanthene, indeno( 1 ,2,3,-cd)pyrcne arc present at
concentrations above the Residential Cleanup Criteria in one (TB-2) of the two samples
collected;
•
Benzo(a)pyrene is present at concentrations abovc the NOll-Residential Cleallup Criteria in
both samples.
•
Chlordane is present at concentratiolls above the Non-Residential Cleanup Criteria in one
(TB-5)of the two samples collected;
•
Other semi-volatile and priority pollutants are present in borings TB-2 and TB-5 at
cOllcentratiolls that are bclow the cleanup critel'ia but are above the detection limit.
Concentrations of contaminants that are above the NJDEP Cleanup Criteria must be repOited to
the NJDEP under the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA).
The fill material may be characterized as historic fill matel'ial pursuant to the NJDEP Technical
Requirements which is defined as "non-indigenous material, deposited to raise the topographic elevation
ofthe site, which was contaminated prior to emplacement and is in no way connected with the operations
at the location ofthe emplacement and which includes, without limitation, construction debris, dredge
spoils, incinerator residue, demolition debris, fly ash or non-hazardous solid waste."
- 10-
Twin Bora Field: Dumont Borough June Hi, 2010
Geo�e"ht1jcaL!�yaluf\JiQILal!!!1i!l1iteQJ'has�!tESA RSl101t __�_��__�_� _____�� _ l'!!ge I I
Tile Technica I Requirements provide limits based on the historic fi Il database at the NJDEP of
specific compounds. Table 3 compares the SVOCs concentrations reported on the Site with the Historic
Fill Database values repOlted in Appendix D of the Technical Requirements. As the Table indicates, all of
the onsite values are below the average reported in the historic fill database.
Tubie .>
Compul'isoll to Historic Fill Database
The presence of contaminants above the accepted cleanup criteria triggers the need for further
onsite investigation. In accordance with NJDEP regulations, a Remedial Investigation (RI) is required to
delineate the vertical and horizolltal extent of contamination. This follow-up work can be done in an
expedited manner because the fililaycr of concern is relatively shallow. Geophysical methods may also
help define the limits of subsurface anomalies.
-1\-
Geotechnical EvaluatiOlI and
Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of
Twill Bora Field
BOI'ol/gll ofDUll/alit
Bergell COUllty, New Jersey
5.1 Limitations
The geotechnical evaluation was limited in scope and was intended to ascertain the general site
conditioos that are present on the Site. The number of borings was kept to a minimum since the purpose
was to characterize the general site conditions, A detailed geotechnical investigation would be necessary
pl'ior to detailed design of Site improvements.
The Phase I ESA prepared for Twin Bol'o Park rep0l1ed that the Site had been used as an inter
municipal sewage disposal facility in the 1950's and that when that use was terminated, the site was split
between Bergenfield and Dumont and eventually converted by the respective municipalities to
recreationalllse. An interview of a person knowledgeable of the site's history (Irwin Buchheister)
revealed that the site was repOltedly the subject of exteusive filling operations as shown by the following
excerpt:
Mr. Huchlleister recalls Ihal extensive waste disposal activilies occurred On the site after the sewage disposal use
was lerminated. Reporledly. tire sludge pils werefilled in will, aI/types of wasIe malerials. While the sludge pils
and filler bed were located on the eastern fringe of Ihe subject property, Mr. Buchheister recalls that the waste
disposal and fill activities occurred over much ofwhal is now occupied by tbe multi-purpose field and parking
101.
Based on this information, the Phase I ESA concluded that there was no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the prope11y with the exception of "potentiai residual
contaminants associated with historic fill activities".
The limited Phase II ESA was undertaken to ascertain the validity of the reported historic fill
activities on the site. The scope of the Phase II was to determine whether unsuitable materials were
present in the fill stratum and to determine the chemical composition of this material relative to accepted
soil cleannp criteria. The scope did not include defining the extent of any contamination, which typically
occurs in a Remedial Investigation, or undertaking any remedial action plans.
-12-
Twill Bora Field: Dumoll! Borough June 16,2010
GeoteelUlical Evaluation and LimiJed :rha�e lIES.... Re1)QfL! ___ ..__ .. __... __ .. _�. Pa !,w 13
5.2 Conclusions
•
The presence of granular fill material with trace debris and organics was confirmed over
the entire Twin Boro Field site ranging in depth from about three (3) to eight (8) feet
beneath tlte topsoil layer. The presence of fill is of concern from a stability standpoint
because of the unknown method of placement, the unknown condition of the subgrade
prior to placement, and the potential presence of unsuitable materials within the fill
stratum.
•
The granular fi II material was determined to be composed of a variety of materials and of
loose density. A layer of significant quantities of organic materials was observed in two of
the six borings a few feet below the surface. The differential settlement that has been
experienced ovcr the years is due to the fact that the fill was not placed in a controlled
manner and was not composed of suitable fill material.
•
Section 3 of this report identifies methods of reducing or eliminating the differential
settlement that has occurred, and will continue to occur, at this Site. These options have
been categorized as complete removal and replacement of the unsuitable material,
densification of the material, or continued periodic maintenance.
The key findings of the Phase II Site Investigation can be summarized as follows:
•
The laboratory analysis of samples collected from the fill layers where significant organic
materials were observed detected the presence of semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) above the NJDEP Residential and Non-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup
Criteria. The elevated concentrations of SVOCs were fOllnd in one quadrant of tne
recreational field at a depth of at least 2 feet below the ground surface. There is no
indication that users of (he facility have been exposed to the contaminated fill.
•
The contaminated fill material appears to satisfy the definition of "historic fill" which is
fill material that was contaminated at the time of emplacement. The characterization of
the fill material as "historic fill" has significance with regard (0 remedial action
alternatives.
• Furthclmore, the analysis of the sample collected from one of the test borings detected
an elevated concentration of the pesticide chlordane which appears to be an isolated and
distinct Area of Concern.
Based on the observation of tile subsurface conditions and the analysis of samples collected
from test borings, it can be concluded that the fill material that was used when the site was changed
from a wastewater treatment facility to a recreational complex was contaminated prior to emplacement
-13-
Twin Bol'O Field: Dumont Borough June 16, 20 I0
Q!'�Q1ej:hnical i';yalul\tion !lnd Lim it,!! Ph;tJic 1l1lS� RePQlt�� ��_ �����
_ ��___ _ __��_ 1l.\gu'1
or was contaminated during emplacement and appears to satisfy the definition of "historic fill". These
fill activities occUlTed about 50 years ago. There is no indication that the subsurface conditions have
been impacted by actions during the intervening time.
The concentration of the detected contaminants in the fill material was found to be below the
average concentration reported in the NIDEP historic fill database presented in Appendix D of the
NIDEP Technical Requirements. This determination will need to be confirmed by additional analytical
data compiled during a remedial investigation of the Site. If the historic fill characterization is
confirmed, the person responsible for conducting the remediation of historic fill material shall do so
pursuant to NJ.A.C. 7:26£.6.2(d).
Based on the limited Phase II investigation, the Areas of Concern can be identified as follows:
I. Historic Fill. The filling activities that were reported in the Phase I ESA have been
confirmed by observations of split spoon samples and by the analysis of soil samples. The
nature and depth of the fill is variable across the site. Semi-volatile organic compounds were
detected in two of the four samples above the NIDEP Cleanup Criteria but below the
average concentration reported in the NIDEP historic fil[ database. A remedial investigation
is needed to determine the extent of the contaminated fill. It appears that the historic fill of
concern is a thin layer of material ranging in thickness fi'om 1-3 feet and in depth from 3 to 7
feet bgs.
2. Pe�sticit!l< disposal. The analysis of one of the four samples detected an elevated
concentration of the pesticide chlordane. Chlordane is an organochlorine compound that was
used as a pesticide in the U.S. until 1983. Because of concern about damage to the
environment and harm to human health, the (EPA) banned ail uses of chlordane in 1988. The
presence of a pesticide at the repOlted level is not typical of historic fil[ and may be due to
the disposal of a waste m aterial during the historic emplacement. The presence of this
contaminant is being treated as an Area of Conccl'l1 that is distinct from that of historic fill
remediation.
5.3 Recommendations
The detection of contaminants above the Cleanup Criteria must be repOltcd to the NJDEP in
accordance with the Site Remediation Reform Act. The Alaimo Group will coordinate with the Borough
on the notification proccdure.
-14-
Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough June 16, 2010
Geotechn icl\1 Evuluatio.l1 and Limited Phase II ESA Rcpo"'
rt'--- _______ Page 1 5
The presence of contaminants and the identification of Areas of Concern necessitates that a
Remedial Investigation be undertaken to fully define the horizontal and vellical extent of the
contamination and the concentration of the contaminants. The need for a Remedial Investigation will
also require that all environmental reports be configured to fully adhere to the NJDEP Technical
Requirements.
Once the extent of the contamination is fully defined, a remedial action wOfk plao will need to
be developed by the person responsible for the site remediation. The remedial action a lternatives may
range from the imposition of a deed restriction to enable site-specific use standards to the complete
removal and proper disposal o f tile contaminated materials. The factors that affect the selection of the
most suitable option are construction cost and the quality of the recreational fac i lity desired.
The remedial action that is to be selected will depend upon the results of the Remedial
Investigation; a final determination on whether the fi l l material can be characterized as h istoric fil l; and
a decision by the Borough on whether the recreational field should be upgraded concurrent with the site
remed iation. l fthe Borough decides to completely remove and replace the fi ll material in order to
establish a finn subgrade for the field, the contaminated material that is excavated would be d isposed of
at a suitable disposal faci l ity. The complete removal and replacement of unsuitable materials within five
(5) feet of the surface appears to be the most viable option from a geotechnieal and environmental
perspective but also the one with the h ighest eost.
In the event that the Borough chooses to remediate the site but not to make substantive
improvements to the recreational field, the use of institutional controls may be considered for the
historic fill provided that other Areas of Concern within the historic fill are remediated. In this regard,
the elevated concentration of the pesticide chlordane identified in the TB-2 sample would likely need to
be remediated. In this case, the remedial actions would entail continued periodic maintenance of the
field in response to selllement and the imposition of a deed restriction to enable the approval of site
specific recreational use standards.
It is recommended that a deed restriction be imposed on the property to enable the development
of a site-specific Recreational Land Use standard that more accurately reflects the risk to human health.
The site-specific standard would be less stringent than the Residential direct contact soil cleanuJl criteria
and would reflect the l'isk that call be reasonably attrihuted to the site conditions.
- 1 5-
Geolecllllical Eva/llalioll alUl
Limited Pllase II Environmenlal Sile Assessmellt of
Twin Bom Field
Bomugh of Dllmolll
Bergen CO/lilly, New Jersey
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-1
Cons!J/rants in tho Geosciences (Page f of f)
Geotechnical and Environmen!al Dale Started : May 12, 2010 Olinng £qu:pmenl : Truck�mounted Mobile B·5�
Consulting ServiO)s Dale Completed : May 12, 2010 Oliliing Methods : SPT (ASTM 01586, HSA)
Pro ject No. 8387.GBiEC .... � Exc, Con[(actoI ; Mike Granese!Gfa��se Drilling, Inc.
......
Sample Coodllian Waler Levels
_� During ExcaVation
0 � Augers.at 10 ft
: Layer I
�<:J
Depth
Sample
in DePtn
Number Remarks
feel rect DESCRIPTION
i
(f�:
0
0.3 14 inches)
Fill: Brown fine to medium sand. some to fittle silt,
8-1
trace gravel, trace debffS {e.g" crushed stone, organics)
\
�
'
2 20 - --- - - - -- - -- ----- -- - --- -
• F·· SP
10
0_0
12
I
Cl
Red etAY, liUle sil!, trace fine to coarse sand 8-6
0.0
1.
�ia
18 16.0 � NU RECOVERY-
--- ------- - ---
13-7
20
i
22
•
NOTES;
1. 8orin9 t e rminated approximately 18,0 feet belO'N existing grQund $urrace (b.e.g.s,)
2, Wet on Spoon encountered al ap proxlmal e:fy 7,6 reel b.e.g.s.
3, Waler level at approximately 8.0 ree:tb,e,Il.S. wilh augers at 10 feel b,e,s}-s.
4, Boring grouted and capped with soll cuttings following dlilling,
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-2
Consultants in Uu: Geosciences (Page 1 of 1)
Geotechnical and Environmental Dale Started : May 12,20:10 Drilling Equipment : Truck-mounted Mobile 8,59
Consulting Services Date Compleled : May 12,2010 Drilling Methods : SPT (ASTM 01586, HSA)
Twin Bora Fleld Logged by : BJS
Deptn Layer
•
in Depth
feel feel DESCRIPTION
o
I r 5 InCneS)
0.4
Fill: Red-brown, black fine sand. some silt, trace
·
2•
" :xs:
0.0
SAME S·2A
.'
"
3.3 � --
I} t'UI: B rown. Ian fine to medium SAND, some S·28
' silt, trace gravel, trace medium t o coarse sand 0.0
4 .
:,1 SM
SAME (wet) S·3A 0.0 16.4 30.1
·
' .Ii
·
5.0
"
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
NOTES: surface,
1. Boring terminated approximately 10.0 feet oolow ex/sling ground surface (!.i.e.g.s.) 5, After approximately 1 hout the hOle was observed to be approximately 15 inches in
2. Wet on Spoon encountered at approximalety 5.0 (€ill !.i.e.g.s. diameter at the ground surlaoo
3. Groundwater not observed during drilling. 6. Boring backt1l!ed with auger cuUiogs and stOCkpiled sand obtained from Borough 0'
4. Auger hole appeared 10 enlarge during drHling . Hole approxlmatety 12 Inches In Dumont
diameler atSl.lrface and approximately 15 inches In diameter oonealh the ground
;" DUFFIELD
""" ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-3
Consultants in the Geosciences (Pag. 1 of 1)
Geotechnical and Environmental Date Slarted : May 12, 2010 DrlHing Equipment : Truck�molJnted Mohl!e 8·59
ConsulUog Servicos Da!e Completed : May 12, 2010 Drilling Methods ' SPT (ASTM 015S8, HSA)
T....in Boro f!eld t09ged by : BJS
5L.. At completion
2 2.0
. ' 1---+---------------.---.- ------
Possible Fill: Brown fine SAND. sam. sill. trace S-2 19.4 25.4
SM
medIum to coarse sand
20
22 ,
NOTES:
1. Borinl) lermlnated approximately 17.0 feel below exlsling ground surface (b.e.g.s.)
2, Wet on Spoon encol.lntered al approximalely 4.8 reel b.e.g.s.
3, Water level at approximately 5.2 feet b.e.g.s. with augers al 5.0 feel b.e.g.s..
4. Upon completion, weier leve! obseNed at approximalely 5.2 feel b.e.g.s,
5, Boring grouted and capped with soil cuLtfngs following drill:ng.
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-4
Consultants in the Geosciences
----�-..... -=---=-�--�--="--�'�-c'-
(page 1 of 1)
Dale Started : May t2, 2010 Drilling Equipment . Truck-mounted Mobile 8-59
Geo1ecnnlcal and Environmental
Consulting Ser vices Date Comple1ed : May 12, 2010 Drilling Methods SPT (ASTM DfSS6, HSA)
; BJS
.
r:
I
I I
mP I e C Q OOjlJon : Waler leve!s !
1 During EXcavation
! !
i
iii
layer, �I �
--.1!_ Augels at 10 ft -'
•
i
.
Depth
PtD Moisture
i en:
--- Sa'l1plQ Percent I
in Depth ���
�
:�
[i }
Number (d.".) Conlant Passing: Remarks
...._-- --
:::t
:, : == ::;!��
5' L""
-oo:jr--O-i �::i � nen; ch; to;:;'�� di= um= =S=A=N·D·=.=Iit=1t .= \=:=-==== ==�=�== =�==t===
c---
2
1:":
SAME, little sill S-2 0.0
4
SP
PossibTe Fill: Orange-brown fine to medium SAND, little
to trace silt (moist)
0.0
S-3A
6 •
Possible FiIr: Blacl< fine fo medium SAND, trace silt 5-36
0_0
12
:j
14 SM Brown-gray SAME, trace fine gravel S-6
'' ,,
0.0
16
18 -
22
NOTES:
______ ..... ___ " �_ _ _..l.._ _ ___ '-- __ .1...
___ 1 _ .... -.L.-----'---1
1. Boring tennlnated approxl<fialoiy 20,0 feel be!ow existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.)
2. Vltel on Spoon encountered at approxImately 7.5 feel b.e.g.s.
3. Water leve! at approximately 8J) feet tUMP. with augers at 10.0 te el b,e .g.s.
4. Boring grouted and capped with $(};! cuttings !ol:O'Ning drilling.
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-5
Consullants in the Geosciences (Page 1 of 1)
i
i Sample Condition Water levels
� During Excavallon
SL AI completion
0 1 Augers at 10 1t
i' Moist ure
tii
Oepth layer
"- Sample P1D Porcent
in Depth ---_ ....-
S-28
ORGANICS (e.g., roots, leaves)
'# ,H --- - - ------------------ --
4 4.0
ML
Gray�white clayey SILT, ftace fine to medium and, s S-4 0.0 23.4 69.7
- trace coarse sand
6
:\E
- Red-brown clayey SILT, trace fine sand (W<lI) 5-5 24.1 94.0
..
- -- - -------
... -- ----
10 10.0
-_ ----�,-.
.
12
14
16
18
20�
2
2
f--_
NOTES:
�LI. ___ L-
1. Bering term inated �pproxlmately 10 feel below existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.)
at
2. Wet on Spoon encountered approximately 8.1 feet b.e.g,$.
3. Water level at approximale/y 8.5 (eel b.e.g,$. wah augers at 10 feel b.a.9.s.
at
4. Upon comp le tion , water level observed approximately 8.3 reel p.e.g.s.
5. Borfng grouted and capped Vwith soil uc t11fl,9s following drililng. I
�... -------
DUFFIELD
ASSOCIATES TEST BORING TB-6
Consultants in the Geosciences (Page 1 of 1)
-
: Truct;-mounted MobHe 8·59
�---�-
Geotechnlcal and Environmental Date Started : May 12, 2010 Drilling Equipment
SPT (ASTM 01566, HSA)
.
Consulting Services Date Completed : May 12, 2010 Drilling Melhods
....sL. At rornpleUon
U �v... AUgers at 10 fi
Depth layot J: Pl 0 Moisture Percent
if) Sample
In Depth
U (d.n.)
fee! feel �
(!)
Vl
::;;
DESCRIPTION
Number Content
('%.)
Passing
200 Si';;.
Remarks
0"
- ,w·:· TOPSOIL (approximately 6 inches)""
05 : '.' ; 0.0
- '.,") :
" .- ..
';' ':
2 - :i ::. " Possible Fill: Brown-red tine to medium SAND, little silt S-l 0.0
"
...., '; SM
:' ---�+-�--�-�----
Black, fed fine to medium SAND, mUe sm, liUle fine to
8-3 0,0
medium gravel
6 Brown fine SAND, little medium sand. ffUle silt S·4 0,0
10 Brown. red, �Iack nne to medium SAND, lillie sHi (wei) S-5
0,0
: "
':.., .
" '
12
"
.. ; SM
; ... �',
'.
'. Red-brown nne to medium SAND, lillio clayey sill, lillie
14 S-6
fine to medrum gravel, trace coarse sand
- :. '.'
0.0
18
�
"
18
20 - -----------------�-,-j
22 • •
NOTES:
1, 80riog temlinated appfOximataly 20.0(eet be!ow exisUng ground suIface {b.e.g.s.)
2. VVet on Spoon enccuntered at approximately SA foot b.e.g.s.
3. water level at approximately 9.0 feet b.e.!:}.s.wilh augers at 10 feel b.e.g.s.
-1. Upon completion, walet level observed at approximately 8.7 feet b.e.9.s.
5. Boring grouted and capped wjth SOtl cuttings 'o!lowlng drllling.
Geotecllllical Evaltltltioll a/l(l
Limited Phase II Ellvirolllllellfal Site Assessment of
Twill Boro Field
Borollgh ofDurnrmt
Bergen COI/llty, New Jel'lIey
APPENDIX B
For:
Duffield Associates
5400 Limestone Road
Wilmington, DE 19808
ApPfC)l.wfone\eue,
Jam",C,>"lci
ProjectM"".,-1
1i/3I2()10355 PM
Jamie Capaci
Project Manager I
jamie.capaci@testamericainc.com
06/03/2010
The test results in this report meet all NELAP requirements unless specified within the case narrative. Pursuant to
NELAP, this report may not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. All questions
regarding this report should be directed to the TestAmerica Edison Project Manager.
TestAmerica Edison Certifications and Approvals: Connecticut: CTDOH #PH-0200, New Jersey: NJDEP (NELAP)
#12028, New York: NYDOH (NELAP) #11452, NYDOH (ELAP) #11452, Pennsylvania: PADEP (NELAP) 68-00522 and
Rhode Island: RIDOH LA000132
Data Summaries. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. 6
........
Method 82808 Sample Data
114
Standards Data
142
Method 82608 ICAL Dala ..
142
Method 82608 CCAL Data ....
154
Raw QC Data " . . .... . .
157
Method 8260B Tune Data
157
Method 82608 Blank Dala , , ,
165
• • . . , • . . . .
Method 8270C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .
189
Method 8270C QC Summary ... ,
190
Method 8270C Sample Data, .
202
Standards Data
298
. • . . . , , . . . •
Method 8081 A . . . . . . . , , . . . • . . . . , . . . . . . , . • . , , . . . , . . . .
. . . . , , , . . , , . . . . . . . . . .
344
Method 8OS1A QC Summary .......
345
.
Method 8082 . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
450
Method8082 QC Summary • • • • • . . . . . . . .
........... 451
488
Method8082 CCAL Oat. . • . . . . • . . • . . . • • • • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . • . • • • • . . . • • . . ... . . 538
Raw QC Data. . .. . . . . . ...... . . . . . .
546
. • • • • . . . . . . . . . • • • • • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . • .
Met QC Data . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
578
MellCVICCV ............. ............
578
. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . .
Met Blanks, .
580
Met ICSAlICSAB ....
584
Mel MSIMSDIPDS
588
• • • • . • . . .
Met Duplicates, . ,
589
. . . . . . .
Met Linear Ranges . .. .. ... ... . .. . ... . . ... .... . .. . . . . .. . .... .... . .. . ... .... 595
Met Preparation Log ... . . . . . .. .. ... ... .. .... ... . . . . . .. . . . ... ..... . . . .... .. 596
Gen Chern MDL .... ... .... . ...... .. .. . . .... . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .... . . . 605
Gen Chern Analysis Run Log . . ... .. . . ... . .. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . ... 606
Gen Chern Prep Data .. .. . . ... .. . . . . ...... . ... . .. ...... . .... .. . . . ......... 61 3
Client Chain of Custody. . .. . . . . . . ... . ... . .... . ... . . .. . .... . ..... .. 622
form of an exception report, where only the anomalies related to this report, method specific performance
This case narrative is in the
and/or QAJQC issues are discussed. If there are no issues to report, this narralive will include a statement that documents that there are
no relevant data Issues,
It should be noted thai samples wilh elevated Reporting limits (RLs) as a result of a dilution may not be able to satisfy customer reporting
limits in some caSes. Such increases in the Rls are unavoidable but acceptable consequence of sample dilution that enables
quan1lflcation of target analytes or Interferences which exceed the calibraUon railge of the inslrument.
Calculations are performed before rounding to avoId round�off errors in carculated resulls.
Ail holding times were met and proper preservation noted for the methods performed on these sampres, unless otherwise detailed in the
indlvfdual sections below.
RECEIPT
The samples were recefved on 05/13/2010: Ihe samples arrived fn good condmon, properly preserved and on ice, The temperature of the
coolers a t receipt was 3.3 C.
Nole: AI! samples whlcil require thermal preservation are considered acceplable if the arrival femperalure Is wilhin 2C of the required
temperalure or method specified range. For samples with a specffied temperature of 4C, samples with a temperature ranging from just
above freezfng temperature of water to 6C shall be acceptable. Samples Dmt are hand delivered immediately following collecUon may not
moo l lhese criteria, however they wW be deemed acceptable according to NELAC standards. if there is evidence that the chilling process
has begun. such as anival on ice, 131(;.
TOTAL METALS
Samples 460-13139-2. 460-13139-4, 460-13139-5 and 460-13139-7 were analyzed for total metals i n accordance with EPA SW.s46
Method 6010B. The samples were prepared on 0511412010 and analyzed on 0511812010.
The matrix splke(MS) recoveries for antimony in batch 37477 was outside control llmits. The associated laboralory control sample (lCS)
recovery met acceptance criteria ,
Samples 460-1313S-2(4X). 460-13139-4(4X). 460-13139-5(4X) and 460-13139-7(4X) reGuired dilution prior 10 analysis. The reporting
limits have been adjusted accordingly.
As a standard practice all soil samples and reiated QC sample� (i.e MS. leS, Dup, MS, SO) are diluted 2X�4X prior to analysis. Furthor
••
dilulions may be required dependent upon anaiyte levels in the samples. Refer to the analytical rasults forms for dilutions,
All other quality control parameters were Within the acceptanco Ilmlts,
TOTAL MERCURY
Samples 460-13139-2, 460-13139-4, 460-13139-5 and 460-13139-7 were analyzed for total mercury- 1n accordance with EPA SWM846
Method 7471A, The samples were prepared and analyzed on 05114/2010.
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
Samples 460-13139-2. 460�13139-4. 460�1313S�5 and 460·1313S�7 were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides in accordance with EPA
SW-846 Melhod a081A The samples were prepared on 05f14/2010 and analyzed on 05117/2010.
DeB surrogate recovery for the following sampJe(s) was outside control Itmlts: 460�131394 on the primary column. Evidence of matrix
interference Is present; therefore, re�extracUon and/or fe-analysis was not performed.
All other quality control parameters were w1thin the acceptance limits,
The laboratory control sample (LCS) for balch 37564 was oulstde conlrol limits for the following analyte: Benzidine.
The matrix spike I matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) precision for batch 37564 was outside control limits for Benzidine.
The matrix spike I matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for batch 37564 were outside conlrollimits for 2,4-Dinilrophenol,
4,6-01nitro-2-melhylphenol and Benzidine.
All other quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.
PERCENT SOLIDS
Samples 460-13139-1 through 460-13139-8 were analyzed for percent solids in accordance with ASTM 02974-87 Modified. The samples
were analyzed on 05/14/2010 and 05/1712010.
DatelTime DatefTime
lab Sampte ID Client Sample ID Client Matrix Sampled Received
TestAmerica Edison
460·13139·1 18.32·3
460·13139·2 18-36·7
460·13139·3 18·22-3
TestAmerica Edison
TestAmerica EdisQrt
460·13139-7 T8·53-4
TestAmerica Edison
Matrtx: Solid
Lab Reference.:
Method References:
SW846= "'Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, PhyslcaUChemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986And Its Updates.
TcstAmerica Edlsof'i
TestAmerica Edison
Qualifier MDl RL
U���--·� -O�97�-·
Bromomeihane 1.5 U 0.63
Vinyt chloride 1.5 U 0.36
Chloroethane 1.5 U 0.61
Melliylene Chloride 1.5 U 0.72
Trichlorofluoromethane 1.5 U 0040
1,1-Dichloroethene 1.5 U 0.56
1,1-Dichforoethane 1.5 U 0.39
trans-1,2-0ichtoroethene 1.5 U 0.43
cis-1,2-DI'chloroelhene 1.5 U 0.36
Chloroform 1.5 U 0.36
1,2wDichloroethane 1.5 U 0.60
1,1.1-Tricl1loroefhane 1.5 U 0.29
Carbon tetrachloride 1.5 U 0.15
Bmmodichloromethane 1.5 U 0.46
1,2-Dlchforopropane 1.5 U 0.49
cis-1.3-Dichloropropene 1.5 U 0.31
Trichloroethene 1.5 U 0.55
Dlbromochlofomelhane 1.5 U 0.66
1, 1,2�Ttichloroethane 1.5 U 0.91
Benzene 1.5 U 1.1
trans-1,3·0ichloropropene 1.5 U 0.34
2·Chloroethy1 vinyl ether 7.6 U 1.9
Bromoform 1.5 U L1
T elrachloroothene 1.5 U 0.50
1,1.2.2-Tetrach!oroethane 1.5 U 1.2
Toluene 1.5 U 0.46
Chlorobenzene 1.5 U 0.74
Ethylbenzene 1.5 U 0.29
Xylenes, Tolal 4.6 U 1.2
SUIT?9�!: __
�
," .. " .---�- �
t!I/j)Rec
.--�---��
Qualifier ._.��...
�.
:Ac:-;ceptance
�
Limits
1.2-Dichloroethane·d4 (SUIT) 95 - 138
T oluene-d8 (SUIT) 89 66 - 126
Bromo(!uorobenzene 105 72 -132
U 1:r 1.7
Bromomethane 1.7 U 0,71 1.7
Vinyl chloride 1.7 U 0,41 1.7
Chloroethane 1.7 U 0,69 1.7
Methylene Chloride 1.7 U 0,82 1.7
Trichtorofiuoromethane 1.7 U 0.45 1.7
1.1-Dichloroethene 1.7 U 0.64 1.7
1,1-0ichloroelhane 1.7 U 0.44 1.7
1rans-1,2-Dichroroothone 1.7 U 0.49 1.7
cls·1,2-Dichloroethene 1.7 U 0.41 1.7
Chloroform 1.7 U 0.41 1 .7
1,2-Dichloroethane 1.7 U 0.68 1.7
1,1,1-Trichloroeihano 1.7 U 0.32 1.7
Carbon tetrachloride 1.7 U 0,17 1.7
Bromodich!oromethane 1.7 U 0.53 1.7
1,2-Dichloropropane 1.7 U 0,55 1.7
cis·1.3-Dlchloropropen e 1.7 U 0.35 1,7
Trich!oroethene 1.7 U 0.63 1.7
Dibromochloromethane 1.7 U 0.97 1,7
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.7 U 1.0 1.7
Benzene 1.7 U 1.3 1,7
trans·1,3-Plchloropropene 1.7 U 0.38 1.7
2-Chforoethy1 vlnyl ether 8.7 U 2.2 8.7
Bromoform 1.7 U 1.2 1.7
Tettachloroethene 1.7 U 0.57 1.7
1.1,2,2-T elrachloroethane 1.7 U 1.3 1.7
Toluene 1,7 U 0.52 1.7
Chlorobenz.ene 1.7 U 0.83 1.7
Ethylbenz.ene 1.7 U 0.33 1.7
Xylenes, Tota! 5.2 U 1.4 5 .2
100 70 - 138
Toluene-dB (Surr) 90 66 -126
Bromofluorobenzene 108 72 - 132
1100
2·8ut8non8 (MEK) 3.23 220
Unknown 10.68 28 TJ
/
Tf3stAmerica Edison Page 21 of 623 06/0 3 2010
Analytical Data
Phenol-<:l5 82 41 -118
Terphenykl14 100 16 -151
2.4.6�T ribromopheno! 78 10 - 120
2-Fluorophenol 76 37 ·125
2-Fluorobfphonyl 78 40 - 109
Qualifier
Analyle
... __ _____ Y."t c:.()""':t,,d:"l'
IJr� __
Result (uglKgJ
'380'----- QuaUfier MDL RL
pf)enol--
2�Chlorophenol 380 U 51 3BO
2�Nitrophanol 380 U 62 3BO
2,4-Dimethytpheno! 3BO U 61 380
2.4�D1c.hloroph eno' 380 U 61 380
4-Chloro-3-mothylphenol 3BO U 63 3BO
2.4,6-Tlichlorophonol 380 U 6B 380
2,4-Dinilrophenol 1100 U 80 1100
4-Nltrophenol 1100 U 97 1100
4,,6·Dinilro-2 -methylplienol 1100 U 180 1100
Pentachlorophenol 1100 U 180 1100
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 3BO U 39 380
Bis{2�chforoelhyl)ether 38 U 1.9 38
1.3-Dichlorobenzene 3BO U 52 3BO
1.4-Dlchlorobenzene 380 U 56 380
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 380 U 60 380
N· Nltrosodi-n·propylamlne 38 U 5,0 3B
Hexachloroethane 38 U 6A 38
Nilrobenzene 38 U 8,5 38
Isophorone 3BO U 43 380
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 380 U 54 3BO
1,2,4-Trichforobenzeno 38 U 6,2 38
Naphthalene 3BO U 55 380
Hexach!orobutadiene 11 U 15 11
Hexach!orocyclopentadiene 3BO U 110 380
2-Chforonaphthalene 3BO U 53 3BO
Dimelhyt phfhalate 380 U 51 3BO
AcenaphthyJene 97 J 54 380
2.6�Djnitroto!uene 77 U 9,6 11
Acenaphlhene 110 J 54 380
2,4-DfnitrotoJuene 11 U 11 71
Dlethyl phthalate 3BO U 51 380
4-Chrorophenyl phenyl elher 380 U 65 380
Fluorene 150 J 54 3BO
N·Nltrosodlphenylamine 3BO U 62 380
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 380 U 67 380
Hexach!orobenzene 38 U 5,2 38
Phenanthrene 1500 66 380
Anthracene 240 J 67 380
DI..,·butyt phthalate 380 U 58 380
Fluoranthene 1800 63 3BO
Pyrene 1500 65 380
Benzidine 380 U' 80 3BO
Butyl benzyl phthalate 380 U 44 380
3,3'-Dichlorobenzldine 110 U 84 110
Benzo[a]anthracene 710 7,0 38
Acceptance Limits
��r rog�_�._,�. �'�.T�r._'_�_"'�"'__ �" '"'
%Rec
59
-'-""�''''
Qualifier
�-''- ''''-�'''''-''-''- ' ' ' ' ' '-''-'--''- - TOfr�--'"
Nitrobenlene-dS 38
Phenol--d5 60 41,118
Terphenyl--d14 74 16- 151
2,4,6�Tnbromophenol 53 10·120
2�Fluorophenol 55 37 ·125
2�FluQrobiphenyi 67 40 - 109
C
C15H12PAH-2 9.25 440 TJ
C15Hl01C15H12 PAHs 9.33 550 TJ
C15H12PAH·3 9.36 320 TJ
84-65-1 9,10-Anthracenedione 9.54 510 TJN
C16H14 PAH 9.77 330 TJ
C17HI2PAH-l 10A9 370 TJ
C17HI2PAH-2 10.60 380 TJ
C20H12PAH 13.25 500 TJ
51 350
Bls(2-elhylhexyl] phthalate 350 u 47 350
Di-n-octyl phthalate 350 u 42 360
Benzo[b)fluoranthono 35 u 5.3 35
Benzo(k1f1uoranthene 35 u 4.9 35
8enzo(a)pymne 35 u 4.3 35
Indeno!1.2.3·cdJpyrene 35 u 5.7 35
Dibenz(a.h}anlhraccno 35 u 4.3 35
Benzo[gMlpefy1ene 350 u 37 350
bls (2--chlorolsopropyl) ether 350 u 46 350
RT Qualifier
Chrysena 560
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) ph thalate 190 J 110 860
Df�n-octyl phthalate 860 U 100 860
8enzo[b]Huoranthene 590 13 66
Benzo(k)ftuoranth ene 230 12 86
Benzo[a}p},rene 410 11 86
Indeno[1,2,3-cdjpyrene 460 14 86
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene 86 U 10 86
Benzo(g, h.iJperylene 460 J 91 860
bis (2-chloroisopropyt) ether 860 U 110 860
Phenol-d5 41 41 -118
T erphenyl-<l14 54 16 -151
2,4 6, �Tnbromophenol 52 10 -120
2 -Fluorophenol 39 37 -125
2�Auorobipheny1 60 40 -109
U
��,�-�- -�-� - ---���"�- ------>�'--��
l 22 -141
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl 155 10,165
Analyte
Aldrin ��'-"P
Surrogate
T-etfaChI(;ro::m.xYlene�� �-..
Aldrin 17 3.8
alpha-BHC 17 U 3.2 17
bela-BHC 17 U 2.4 17
della-BHC 17 U 2.7 17
gamma-BHC (Lindane) 16 Jp 2.0 17
Chlordane 1700 38 170
4,4'-000 17 U 2.1 17
4,4'-00E 18 P 3.4 17
4,4'-00T 17 U 2.2 17
Dieldrin 28 3.4 17
Endosulfan 1 17 U 3.7 17
Endosulfan II 17 U 2.6 17
Endosulfan sulfate 17 U 2.2 17
Endrin 17 U 2.4 17
Endrin aldehyde 17 U 4.3 17
Heptachlor 17 U 2.5 17
Heptachlor epoxide 17 U 3.5 17
Toxaphene 170 U 36 170
T etrachloro-m-xylene 76 22 -141
DCB Decachlorobiphenyl 75 10 - 165
108 65
Surrogate %Rsc
phen'Yi
DCSbecaChlorobi
- "'-�-"�" -�,
��-';106
- .. '-�-�
-- 7
Areclar 1221 72 u 22 72
Aroclor 1232 72 u 41 72
Aroclor 1242 72 u 14 72
Aroclar 1248 72 u 19 72
Aroclor 1254 72 u 24 72
Aroclar 1 260 72 u 8.0 72
Aroel.r 1 262 72 u 12 72
Aroclor 1268 72 u 12 72
%Rec QUalifier
" �"�A'_'________._
113
Qualifier
1%Rec limlls
M
---�7---��--" - --�----· ---��-�-.
%Rec Qualltier
Analyte
Antimonym�""� __ �---�
Mercuty U 0.030
D MOL
Analyl�
_ _�._ �..__ .. � � '!"".t C,,:r�,:I:<l.: .:r...
_. _.. __ �.ResuI11mfll.K�) Qualifier RL
Antimony 2,3
�.�_ .
Antimony �t.i-
Arsenic 3.2 1.8 2.5
Beryllium 1.0 U 0.45 1.0
Cadmium 1.1 J 0.40 2.5
Chromium 6.1 3.0 5.1
Copper 22.0 2.1 12.1
Lead 222 1.3 2.5
Nickel 1.0 J 1.4 20.4
Setonl um 5.1 U 2.4 5.1
SIlver 5.1 U 0.39 5.1
Thallium 5.1 U 2.5 5.1
Zinc 152 2.5 15.3
o.31� - ··�-·-·-
Generaf Chemistry
General Chemistry
General Chemistry
General Chemistry
Analyte Result
128 - Qual Units RL RL Oil Method
Percent "Mo'i'sture-- " Moistu re
-�- - -'- -
---�.�.--- ----- ��-- --�-�-- --.--.----�.-- .�_.�---�_._ ._._��_._--"----'"_..__ .-
" --,,--. -�--. -
_ % 1.0 1.0 1.0
Analysis Batch: 460-37508 Date Analyzed: 0511412010 2147 DryWt Corrected: N
Percent Solids 87.2 % 1.0 1.0 1.0 Moisture
Analysis Batch: 460-37508 Date Analyzed: 0511412010 2147 DryWt Corrected: N
G(fneral Chemistry
General Chemistry
Percent Moisture
�-�-- ----,--
1 1 .9 % 1 .0 1.0 1 .0 MoIsture
Analysis Balch: 460-37508 Dale Analyzed: 05/14/2010 2147 DryWI Corrected: N
Percent Solids 88.1 % 1.0 1.0 1 .0 MoIsture
Analysis Balch: 460·37508 Date Analyzed: 05/14/2010 2147 DryWt Corrected: N
General Chemistry
General Chemistry