preliminary site investigation report - dot.ca.gov · 4.3 monitoring well ... this preliminary site...

PREPARED FOR:

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – DISTRICT 1ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING OFFICEP.O. BOX 3700EUREKA, CALIFORNIA 95501

PREPARED BY:

GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742

GEOCON PROJECT NO. S9300-06-89TASK ORDER NO. 89, EA NO. 01-436400CONTRACT NO. 03A1368

Smith River Dr. Fine BridgeReplacement Project

State Route 101 PM 36.1Del Norte County, California

PRELIMINARYSITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2009

C O N S U L T A N T S, I N C.

G E O T E C H N I C A L ■ E N V I R O N M E N T A L ■ M A T E R I A L S

3160 Gold Valley Drive, Suite 800 ■ Rancho Cordova, California 95742 ■ Telephone (916)852-9118 ■ Fax (916)852-9132

TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description and Proposed Improvements.........................................................1 1.2 General Objectives .......................................................................................................1

2.0 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................1 2.1 Waste Determination Criteria – Petroleum Hydrocarbons...........................................2 2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ......................................................................................2

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.............................................................................................................3 3.1 Pre-field Activities........................................................................................................3 3.2 Field Activities .............................................................................................................3

4.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ................................................................................................4 4.1 Boring Location Rationale ...........................................................................................4 4.2 Soil Sampling ...............................................................................................................4 4.3 Monitoring Well Construction .....................................................................................5 4.4 Well Development........................................................................................................5 4.5 Groundwater Sampling.................................................................................................5 4.6 Waste Disposal .............................................................................................................5 4.7 Traffic Control..............................................................................................................5 4.8 Laboratory Analyses.....................................................................................................6

4.8.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons .................................................................................6 4.8.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos .........................................................................6

4.9 Field and Laboratory QA/QC Methods........................................................................6 5.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS .............................................7

5.1 Soil and Hydrogeologic Conditions .............................................................................7 5.2 Laboratory Results .......................................................................................................7

5.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons .................................................................................7 5.2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos .........................................................................7

5.3 Laboratory Data Validation..........................................................................................8 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................9

6.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons ..............................................................................................9 6.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos ......................................................................................9

6.2.1 NOA-containing Materials Management ........................................................9 6.2.2 Asbestos Worker Protection ..........................................................................10

7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................11 FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

TABLES 1. Summary of Soil Analytical Results – Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2. Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results – Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3. Summary of Asbestos Analytical Results APPENDICES A. SHN November, 2008 Report for Granite Facility B. Boring/Well Logs C. Monitoring Well Development Data Sheet D. Laboratory Reports and Chain-of-custody Documentation

Smith River Bridge Replacement Project, Task Order No. 89 Caltrans Contract No. 03A1368, EA 01-436400 Project No. S9300-06-89 - 1 - September 30, 2009

PRELIMINARY SITE INVESTIGATION REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Preliminary Site Investigation Report for the Smith River Dr. Fine Bridge Replacement Project was prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. under California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Contract No. 03A1368, Task Order (TO) No. 89 and EA No. 01-436400.

1.1 Project Description and Proposed Improvements

Caltrans is proposing to replace the Smith River Dr. Fine Bridge along State Route 101(SR-101) approximately 12 miles north of Crescent City, at Post Mile (PM) 36.1 (the Site) in Del Norte County, California. The approximate project location and limits are depicted on the attached Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and Site Plan (Figure 2).

1.2 General Objectives

The objective of this investigation was to determine whether petroleum hydrocarbons are present in soil and groundwater within Caltrans right-of-way from adjacent leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) previously located at the Granite Construction (formerly North Coast Paving and Rock) facility (Granite Facility); to collect soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis by Caltrans; and to determine the potential presence of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in the site soils. Caltrans will use the investigative results for preliminary project scoping and to inform the construction contractor(s) if petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil and groundwater or NOA are present within the project boundaries for health, safety, management and disposal evaluation purposes. The fieldwork, sampling, laboratory analysis, and related tasks were performed in general accordance with Caltrans Contract 03A1368 requirements.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, related to a previous documented release, is present in soil and groundwater at the Granite Facility, southeast of the Smith River Bridge. According to information on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker website, a leak was reported on the Granite Facility in July 2000. SHN Consulting Engineers and Geologists, Inc. (SHN) initiated an investigation of the Granite Facility, and between 2001 and 2005 performed a series of investigations and installed six monitoring wells. Reported contaminants on the Granite Facility included total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in the gasoline (TPHg), diesel (TPHd), and motor oil (TPHmo) ranges, as well as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene compounds (BTEX), and the fuel oxygenate compounds methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and tertiary-amyl methyl ether (TAME). According to an SHN November 2008 report for Granite Facility (included as Appendix A), TPHg, TPHd, TPHmo, MTBE, and TAME are still present in the groundwater and free-phase light non-aqueous phase liquid


(LNAPL) is present in one well on the Granite Facility. Samples from the Granite Facility reported to contain TPHd and TPHmo were reanalyzed using a silica gel preparation to help filter out non-petroleum organic compounds eluting in the diesel and/or motor oil range. The silica gel cleanup generally resulted in a 50% or greater decrease in reported TPHd and TPHmo. Due to the potential presence of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination within the Caltrans right-of-way at the southeast quadrant of the Site, Geocon was contracted to perform sonic borings to 40 feet at two locations where Caltrans planned to perform mud-rotary drilling for geotechnical sampling. Six-inch-diameter casings were left in two 40-foot borings performed by Geocon to allow Caltrans to perform geotechnical borings to 200 feet without disturbing soils with possible petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. In addition, a monitoring well was installed in the third sonic boring completed to 30 feet.

2.1 Waste Determination Criteria – Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Currently, regulatory criteria for the classification of wastes based solely on the concentrations of TPH such as diesel and motor oil has not yet been promulgated. Disposal of TPH-impacted soil and groundwater is generally regulated by disposal facility permit and acceptance criteria.

2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulations for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations that may disturb natural occurrences of asbestos outlined in Title 17 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 93105. CCR Section 93106 regulates NOA in road surfacing applications. These regulations are also known as Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs). NOA potentially poses a health hazard when it becomes an airborne particulate. The roadway improvement activities proposed could disturb NOA-containing rock and soil, if present, thereby potentially creating an airborne asbestos hazard. Mitigation practices can reduce the risk of exposure to asbestos-containing dust. The primary mitigation practice used for controlling exposure to potentially asbestos-containing dust is the implementation of engineering controls including wetting the materials being disturbed. If engineering controls do not adequately control exposure to potentially asbestos-containing dust, the use of personal protective equipment including wearing approved high efficiency particulate air filter equipped respirators is required during construction activities. Asbestos dust control methods similar to those in Title 17 CCR, Section 93105 are outlined in Title 17 CCR, Section 93106 for airborne asbestos in road surfacing applications. Ultramafic rock, materials that contain 10% or more ultramafic rock, and materials that contain 0.25% or greater asbestos are defined as “restricted material” by Title 17 CCR, Section 93106. Using “restricted material” for surfacing applications is not permitted by Title 17 CCR, Section 93106. Engineering controls, such as wetting of material or the application of a surface sealant, are recommended to minimize the aerial dispersion of


asbestos when disturbing NOA-containing materials. Reuse or disposal of NOA-containing or restricted materials is allowed by Title 17 CCR, Section 93105 and Title 17 CCR, 93106, if it is buried under at least 0.25 foot of material that contains less than 0.25% NOA.

3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES

The following scope of services was performed in general accordance with TO No. 89 as requested by the Caltrans Quality Assurance (QA) Manager:

3.1 Pre-field Activities

• Conducted a TO meeting by phone on May 26, 2009, to discuss the TO scope of services. Present on the call were Caltrans QA Manager Steve Werner and Geocon TO Manager Dave Bieber. The purpose of the TO meeting was to identify and discuss the project boundaries and existing site conditions and to review the scope of work.

• Prepared a Health and Safety Plan dated May 29, 2009, to provide guidelines on the use of personal protective equipment and the health and safety procedures to be implemented during the field activities.

• Steve Werner of Caltrans marked the approximate project limits and boring locations in white paint for subsequent utility clearance notification through Underground Service Alert (USA).

• Provided 48-hour notice to USA prior to the field sampling activities.

• Retained the services of Boart Longyear, a C57-licensed drilling company located in Yuba City, California, to advance the sonic borings.

• Retained the services of Kiff Analytical LLC (Kiff), a Caltrans-approved and California-certified analytical laboratory, to perform the chemical analyses.

• Retained the services of EMSL Analytical, Inc. (EMSL), a Caltrans-approved and California-certified analytical laboratory, to perform the asbestos analyses.

3.2 Field Activities

On June 9 through 11, 2009, Boart Longyear advanced three 8-inch-diameter sonic borings to depths of 30 and 40 feet and installed one monitoring well at the Site. We performed the following services during the field activities:

• Collected continuous soil samples for logging purposes to the maximum depth of each boring using a 6-inch-diameter core barrel.

• Collected soil samples for petroleum hydrocarbons and geotechnical properties analysis using 2.0-inch or 1.5-inch split spoon samplers at 5-foot intervals.

• Collected soil samples for asbestos fiber analysis at 10 feet and 30 feet from borings B1 and B2.

• Installed one 2-inch-diameter monitoring well to a depth of 30 feet in boring MW1. Well was constructed using 2-inch-diameter schedule 40 casing and 0.010 screen.


• Developed monitoring well MW1 using a disposable bailer to remove ten casing volumes of groundwater.

• Collected groundwater samples from well MW1 and boring B2.

4.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS

The following sections describe our investigative methods.

4.1 Boring Location Rationale

The Caltrans QA Manager designated the boring locations based on the proposed bridge foundation improvements, ease of access, safety, and potential utility conflicts. The coordinates of the boring locations were determined using a recreational-grade, hand-held global positioning system (GPS) with a maximum accuracy of approximately 10 feet. The latitude and longitude of the boring locations are depicted on Figure 2.

4.2 Soil Sampling

Continuous soil samples for logging purposes were collected from the sonic borings using a 6-inch-diameter, 5-foot-long core barrel. Soil samples for petroleum hydrocarbon laboratory analysis were additionally collected at approximate 5-foot intervals utilizing a 2.0-inch-diameter by 18-inch-long split spoon sampler equipped with three 6-inch-long by 2.0-inch-diameter stainless steel sample tubes to contain the samples. Soil samples collected for geotechnical analysis were collected using a 1.5-inch-diameter by 18-inch-long split spoon sampler. Upon retrieval of the sampler from the borings, the 2.0-inch-diameter split spoon was separated, and the apparently least disturbed sample tube was capped with Teflon tape and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) caps, labeled and chilled pending transport to Kiff utilizing chain-of-custody (COC) protocol. Soil samples collected for geotechnical analysis from the 1.5-inch split spoon sampler were placed in resealable plastic bags and labeled pending transport to Caltrans for geotechnical analysis. Soil samples for asbestos analysis were collected from the 6-inch-diameter core barrels, placed in resealable plastic bags and labeled pending transport to EMSL utilizing COC protocol. Each boring was logged by a California Professional Geologist (PG) utilizing the Unified Soil Classification System. The soil samples from borings MW1 and B2 were field screened with a photo-ionization detector to assess possible qualitative indicators of volatile organic compounds and the readings noted on the field boring logs. Copies of the boring logs are presented in Appendix B. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures provided during the field exploration activities included cleansing/rinsing of the sampling equipment and steam cleaning core barrels prior to and following each boring. Cleansing/rinsing of the sampling equipment was performed by washing the equipment with an Alconox™ solution followed by subsequent tap water and deionized water rinses.


4.3 Monitoring Well Construction

Monitoring well MW1 was constructed to 30 feet using flush-threaded, 2-inch-diameter Schedule 40 PVC well casing. The well was constructed using 20 feet of 0.010 inch-slotted screen and #2/12 Monterey silica sand filter pack. The screen was placed from approximately 10 to 30 feet, and the filter pack was placed from approximately 9 feet to the bottom of the boring. A 2-foot-thick bentonite well seal was placed from 7 to 9 feet. The remaining annular space of the well was grouted to the surface with a Portland cement slurry and fitted with an 8-inch-diameter traffic-rated, flush-mounted well box set in concrete. Boring logs and well construction details are shown on the boring/well logs in Appendix B. The boring and well locations are depicted on Figure 2.

4.4 Well Development

On June 11, 2009, we developed well MW1. Prior to development, we measured the depth to groundwater using an electric water level indicator. Approximately ten well volumes of groundwater (18 gallons) were hand-bailed from well MW1 during the development activities. This information is included on the Monitoring Well Development Data Sheet presented in Appendix C.

4.5 Groundwater Sampling

A groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well MW1 using a disposable Teflon© bailer. Ten casing volumes, approximately 18 gallons, were purged from the well prior to sampling. The groundwater sample was transferred from the bailer directly into laboratory-supplied containers, which were then labeled and placed in a cooler pending delivery to the analytical laboratory. A grab groundwater sample was additionally collected from boring B2 using a disposable Teflon© bailer. The groundwater sample was transferred from the bailer directly into laboratory-supplied containers, which were then labeled and placed in a cooler pending delivery to the analytical laboratory.

4.6 Waste Disposal

The purged groundwater, soil cuttings generated during drilling, and the associated decontamination and rinse water were contained in eleven Department of Transportation (DOT)-approved, 17-H, 55-gallon drums, labeled and temporarily stored onsite for disposal following regulatory protocol. On June 22, 2009, the drums were removed from the Site by KR Environmental and transported to their facility in Sacramento, California, for disposal.

4.7 Traffic Control

We provided traffic control using “SHOULDER WORK AHEAD” advanced warning signs and orange traffic cones during soil sampling and monitoring well installation activities along the eastbound shoulder of South Bank Road.


4.8 Laboratory Analyses

4.8.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Soil and groundwater samples for petroleum hydrocarbon analysis were submitted to Kiff on a standard seven-day turn-around-time (TAT) for the following analyses:

• TPHd and TPHmo following United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Test Method 8015 modified.

• TPHg, BTEX, and MTBE following EPA Test Method 8260B.

The chemical data laboratory reports and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.

4.8.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Four samples were submitted to EMSL for asbestos fiber analysis on a six to ten-day TAT basis. Each of the NOA samples was analyzed by the polarized light microscopy (PLM) method for asbestos by CARB Method 435 (CARB 435). The analytical sensitivity of the PLM analysis was 0.25% by area. Each of the samples for asbestos analysis was subjected to the CARB 435 preparation method prior to analyses. The CARB 435 preparation includes milling the sample to a -200 mesh size which also homogenizes the sample. The asbestos data laboratory reports and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.

4.9 Field and Laboratory QA/QC Methods

QA/QC procedures were conducted as applicable for each method of analysis with specificity for each analyte listed in the test method’s QA/QC. The laboratory QA/QC procedures included the following:

• One method blank for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent.

• One sample analyzed in duplicate for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent.

• One spiked sample for every ten samples, batch of samples or type of matrix, whichever is more frequent, with spike made at ten times the detection limit or at the analyte level.

The COC documentation was reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submitting soil and groundwater samples to the laboratories. The laboratories were instructed to handle, analyze and conduct QA/QC procedures in accordance with Caltrans Contract 03A1368 as applicable. Copies of the laboratory analytical reports including the applicable QC summary and COC documentation are presented in Appendix D.


5.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE RESULTS

5.1 Soil and Hydrogeologic Conditions

Site soils consisted of alluvial materials to the maximum depth explored of 40 feet. Materials encountered generally consisted of loose to medium dense poorly graded sand, silty sand, clayey sand, gravels, and cobbles. Poorly graded sand and clayey sand were encountered in borings MW1 and B1 to depths of 16 feet. Poorly graded sand with gravel and poorly graded sand with gravel and cobbles were encountered to 30.5 feet. Boring B2 encountered silt with sand and silty fine sand to 10 feet, and cobbles and poorly graded sand to 40 feet. Boring logs depicting soil conditions, groundwater levels, and soil sample depths are presented in Appendix B. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 20 feet during drilling activities for boring MW1 on June 9, 2009. Depth to groundwater was measured at 19 feet before developing well MW1 on June 11, 2009. Groundwater was encountered in borings B1 and B2 at depths of 20 and 8.5 feet, respectively. It should be noted that groundwater levels fluctuate due to variations in seasonal rainfall, temperature, snowmelt, and other factors. Therefore, it is possible that during construction groundwater may be higher or lower than the levels encountered during this investigation. We did not find indications of hydrocarbons such as soil discoloration or hydrocarbon odors in our field samples. Field PID reading were negative for the presence of hydrocarbons.

5.2 Laboratory Results

The following sections discuss results of the requested laboratory analysis.

5.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

BTEX, MTBE, and TPHg were not reported at concentrations greater than their respective laboratory reporting limits (RLs) for the soil and groundwater samples analyzed. TPHd was reported for each groundwater and soil sample analyzed. TPHd was reported at respective concentrations of 150 and 570 micrograms per liter (µg/l) for groundwater samples MW1 and B2, and 1.7 and 1.1 milligrams per kilogram for soil samples MW1-21.5 and B2-10. TPHmo was reported at respective concentrations of 280 and 580 µg/l for groundwater samples MW1 and B2. Laboratory report notes that “hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical diesel fuel.” Petroleum hydrocarbon laboratory data is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

5.2.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos

Chrysotile asbestos was reported below the regulatory limit of 0.25% for three of the four samples analyzed. Sample NOAB1-10 was reported to contain 0.25% chrysotile asbestos. A summary of asbestos results are presented in Table 3.


5.3 Laboratory Data Validation

The laboratory-provided case narratives for the chemical analyses stated “matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate results associated with sample MW1-21.5 for the analyte methyl-t-butyl ether were outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias for the sample that was spiked. Since the LCS recoveries were within control limits, no data are flagged…surrogate recovery for sample B2 for test method Mod. EPA 8015 was outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias in the analysis due to the samples matrix or an interference from compounds present in the sample.” A review of the QA/QC data indicates acceptable non detects and recoveries for method blanks and duplicates. Based on this limited data review, no additional qualifications of the soil and groundwater data are necessary, and the data are of sufficient quality for the purposes of this report.


6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons

We did not encounter field indicators (i.e. soil staining, odors, elevated PID readings, etc.) of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil during the field sampling activities. TPHd was detected at concentrations above the 1.0 mg/kg reporting limit, at 1.7 and 1.1 mg/kg for the soil samples obtained from well MW1 and Boring 2, respectively. The samples were not reanalyzed using a silica gel cleanup since they were collected for screening purposes only. These soil samples were obtained near or below the groundwater surface. We will be resampling MW1 and analyzing the sample collected with and without a silica gel cleanup to help determine whether the reported diesel-range organics are petroleum based.

6.2 Naturally Occurring Asbestos

NOA was reported to be present in site soils at average concentrations below the regulatory limit of 0.25%. As ultramafic rock is present in the site soils and chrysotile asbestos was detected in each of the samples submitted to EMSL, it is recommended that site soils to be used for surfacing applications or to be sold to another party be analyzed for asbestos fiber content. If site soils are to be used as fill on Caltrans property and will be buried under at least 0.25 feet of material that contains less than 0.25% asbestos, no additional asbestos fiber analysis is required. Although site soils encountered are reported to contain asbestos below the regulatory limit of 0.25%, work with these materials may fall under regulatory jurisdiction of the California Division of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) under CCR Title 8 Section 5208. An asbestos compliance plan may also be required by Cal-OSHA for activities that will disturb these asbestos-containing materials. Under CARB’s Title 17, Section 93105, offsite disposal of material containing asbestos at or above regulated levels requires asbestos content notification. Facility-specific landfill acceptance criteria should be determined for disposal of asbestos-containing soil materials.

6.2.1 NOA-containing Materials Management

NOA is a State of California regulated substance and is reported on the Site at levels up to the CARB regulatory limit of 0.25%. Though asbestos was reported to be present, the asbestos content does not render these materials unsuitable for reuse within the Caltrans project boundaries. However, construction/maintenance activities involving these asbestos-containing materials may fall under regulatory jurisdiction of Cal-OSHA under CCR Title 8 Section 5208. Mitigation measures during construction/maintenance activities should be utilized to minimize releases of NOA to air (dust control) and surface waters (stormwater discharge). If reused within the Caltrans right-of-way, the material from areas where asbestos was reported to be present at or above regulated levels, or ultramafic rock is present, cannot be used in such a way as to fall under the definition of surfacing material as defined in


CARB's Title 17, Section 93106. NOA-containing material must be covered by at least 0.25 foot of material that contains less than 0.25% NOA.

6.2.2 Asbestos Worker Protection

Currently, regulatory exposure limits and health hazard data are not available for NOA in soils. Federal regulations governing asbestos define it as the asbestiform variety of the amphibole minerals actinolite, amosite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, and tremolite, and the asbestiform variety of serpentine, chrysotile. Asbestos fibers occurring in industrial materials are considered by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as potential occupational carcinogens. Prudence is recommended; therefore, in dealing with soils containing NOA. Engineering controls such as wet suppression should be utilized to minimize aerial dispersion of NOA fibers in planned work areas during excavation and road construction activities. Under Title 8 Section 5208 of the CCR, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials requires wet working methods and possible respiratory protection and air monitoring. The CARB has established protocols outlined in Title 17, CCR Section 93105 for the implementation of worker health, safety and monitoring plans for excavation, grading and transport of NOA-containing soils. The excavation contractor should consult Title 17, CCR Section 93105 and contact Cal-OSHA to establish the appropriate regulatory protocol and actions necessary for excavation and/or disturbance of asbestos-containing soils.


7.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared exclusively for Caltrans. The information contained herein is only valid as of the date of the report and will require an update to reflect additional information. This report is not a comprehensive site characterization and should not be construed as such. The findings as presented in this report are predicated on the results of the limited sampling and laboratory testing performed. In addition, the information obtained is not intended to address potential impacts related to contaminant sources other than those specified herein. Therefore, this report should be deemed conclusive with respect to only the information obtained. We make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the content of this report or any subsequent reports, correspondence or consultation. We strived to perform the services summarized herein in accordance with the local standard of care in the geographic region at the time the services were rendered.

0 5 10

N

101

101

101

197

199

199

199

101

169

Lake

Earl

Dr.

ElkVa

lley

Rd.

South

Fork

Rd.

Rowdy Creek Rd.

O R E G O NC A L I F O R N I A

D E L N O R T E C O .H U M B O L D T C O .

E. Washington Blvd.

Parkway

Dr.North

cres

tDr

.

SutterCoast

Hospital

101

101

CrescentCity

SmithRiver

Klamath

Gasquet

L.Earl

P A C I F I C

O C E A N

See InsetFor Hospital

Location

Scale in Miles

Figure 1

Del Norte County,California VICINITY MAP

Dr. Fine Bridge

GEOCON Proj. No. S9300-06-89

Task Order No. 89 September 2009

P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 23 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2

PROJECTSITE

N

Figure 2

Del Norte County,California SITE PLAN

Dr. Fine Bridge

GEOCON Proj. No. S9300-06-89

Task Order No. 89 September 2009

P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 23 1 6 0 G O L D VA L L E Y D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2

LEGEND:

Approximate Boring Location

Approximate Monitoring Well Location

Latitude and Longitude Locations Shownin Degrees and Decimal Minutes

B1

MW1

B1B141˚ 52.708'-124˚ 08.232'

41˚ 52.707'-124˚ 08.232'

41˚ 52.708'-124˚ 08.232'

41˚ 52.707'-124˚ 08.232'

SM

I TH

RI V

ER

SM

I TH

RI V

ERHWY. 101

HWY. 101

DR. FINE BRIDGE

DR. FINE BRIDGE

0 200

Scale in Feet

MW1MW1

GraniteConstruction Co.

ApproximateGranite

Construction Co.Boundary

GraniteConstruction Co.

ApproximateGranite

Construction Co.Boundary

B241˚ 52.737'-124˚ 08.225'41˚ 52.737'-124˚ 08.225'

B2

ApproximateRight-of-Way

Boundary


Boundary


Boundary


Boundary

ApproximateRight-of-Way Boundary

ApproximateRight-of-Way Boundary

Project No. S9300-06-89September 30, 2009Page 1 of 1

SAMPLE ID SAMPLE TPHg TPHd TPHmo MTBE Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Total XylenesDATE (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

MW1-21.5 6/9/2009 <1.0 1.7 <10 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

B2-10 6/11/2009 <1.0 1.1 <10 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

Notes:MW1-9

Top of sample (depth in feet)Boring identification number

TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPHd = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as dieselTPHmo = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oilMTBE = Methyl tert-butyl ethermg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram < = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limit

TABLE 1SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

SMITH RIVER BRIDGEDEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA


SAMPLE ID SAMPLE TPHg TPHd TPHmo MTBE Benzene TolueneEthyl-

benzeneTotal

XylenesDATE (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l)

MW1 6/11/2009 <50 150 280 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

B2 6/11/2009 <50 570 580 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

Notes:TPHg = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPHd = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel TPHmo = Total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oilMTBE = Methyl tert-butyl etherµg/l = Micrograms per liter< = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limits

TABLE 2SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS - PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS



Notes:CARB 435 = Polarized light microscopy by California Air Resources Board Method 435< = Less than the indicated laboratory reporting limit

TABLE 3SUMMARY OF ASBESTOS ANALYTICAL RESULTS


SAMPLE I.D. SAMPLETYPE

ANALYTICAL METHOD ASBESTOS % ASBESTOS TYPE

NOAB1-10

Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM <0.25 Chrysotile

Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM 0.25 Chrysotile

<0.25 ChrysotileNOAB2-10

NOAB2-30 Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM

NOAB1-30

<0.25 Chrysotile

Alluvium CARB 435 - PLM

MONITORING WELL DEVELOPMENT DATA SHEET

Project Name: Smith River Bridge Project Number: S9300-06-89

Well No.: MW1 Date: 6/11/09

Well Diameter: 2 in. Field Personnel: IS

Casing Length: 30 feet Screened Casing Length: 20 feet

Well Elevation:

PURGE CHARACTERISTICS

Water Depth Before Purging: 19 feet 2 in. = .1632 Gal/ft. 4 in. = .6528 Gal/ft.

Calculated Water Column Volume: 1.8 Gal. Volumes Purged: 10

Start Purging Time: 0725 End Purging Time: 0743

Total Time: 18 min. Flow Gauge: to

Total Volume Purged: 18 Gal. Avg. Flow Rate: gpm

Water Depth After Purging: Time:

Dissolved Oxygen: mg/l Free Product: No

SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS

Purging Method: Disposable Bailer Sampling Method: Disposable Bailer

Laboratory Analysis: TPHg, TPHd, TPHmo, BTEX, MTBE TIME TEMPERATURE

(°C) CONDUCTIVITY

(umhos/cm) pH Gallons

Purged

0730 5

0735 5

0740 5

0743 3

0810 Sample

Comments: cloudy, no sheen or odor.

Joel Kiff

Geocon Consultants, Inc.3160 Gold Valley Road, Suite 800Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

Smith River BridgeS9300-06-

Project Name :Project Number :

03A1368P.O. Number :

Dear Mr. Bieber,

Chemical analysis of the samples referenced above has been completed. Summaries of the data are contained

on the following pages. Sample(s) were received under documented chain-of-custody. US EPA protocols for

sample storage and preservation were followed.

Kiff Analytical is certified by the State of California (# 2236). If you have any questions regarding procedures

or results, please call me at 530-297-4800.

Sincerely,

Dave Bieber

Report Number : 68850

Date : 06/15/2009

Subject : 1 Soil Sample

2795 2nd Street, Suite 300 Davis, CA 95618 530-297-4800

Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate results associated with sample MW1-21.5 for the analyteMethyl-t-butyl ether were outside of control limits. This may indicate a bias for the sample that wasspiked. Since the LCS recoveries were within control limits, no data are flagged.

Subject : 1 Soil SampleSmith River BridgeS9300-06-


03A1368P.O. Number :

Case Narrative


Date : 06/15/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/15/2009

MW1-21.5

06/09/2009

Parameter Value UnitsAnalysisMethod

DateAnalyzed

MethodReportingLimit

Measured

Sample :

Sample Date :

SoilMatrix : 68850-01Lab Number :

Benzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Toluene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009Total Xylenes < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

TPH as Gasoline < 1.0 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

1051,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/10/2009103Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

TPH as Diesel 1.7 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil < 10 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009

75.8Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/12/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/15/2009


DateAnalyzed

Method

LimitMeasured

QC Report : Method Blank Data


DateAnalyzed

Method

LimitMeasuredReporting Reporting

< 1.0TPH as Diesel 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009< 10TPH as Motor Oil 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009

76.1Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/12/2009

< 0.0050Benzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Ethylbenzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Toluene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009< 0.0050Total Xylenes 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

< 0.0050Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

< 1.0TPH as Gasoline 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/10/2009

1041,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/10/200999.7Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/10/2009


KIFF ANALYTICAL, LLC

Parameter Value Units Method Analyzed

Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/15/2009

SpikedSample

Sample Spike Level

SpikeDup.Level

Spiked SampleValue

Spiked SampleValue

Duplicate

Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.

Duplicate

RelativePercentDiff.

Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.Limit

RelativePercentDiff.Limit

Analysis Date

QC Report : Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

68823-02TPH as Diesel <1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 20.0 18.3 18.8 91.5 93.8 2.45 60-140 25

68822-01Benzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0405 0.0400 0.0288 0.0289 71.2 72.3 1.53 70-130 2568822-01Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0406 0.0401 0.0260 0.0266 63.9 66.3 3.71 70-130 2568822-01Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0400 0.0395 0.0286 0.0285 71.5 72.3 1.17 70-130 25



Parameter Units Method Analyzed

Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/15/2009

Spike Level

Percent Recov.

Percent Recov.Limit

Analysis Date

QC Report : Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

LCSLCS

TPH as Diesel mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 86.7 70-130

Benzene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0406 89.3 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0407 80.2 70-130Toluene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/10/090.0401 91.0 70-130



Joel Kiff

Geocon Consultants, Inc.3160 Gold Valley Road, Suite 800Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

Smith River BridgeS9300-06-89


Dear Mr. Bieber,

Chemical analysis of the samples referenced above has been completed. Summaries of the data are contained

on the following pages. Sample(s) were received under documented chain-of-custody. US EPA protocols for

sample storage and preservation were followed.

Kiff Analytical is certified by the State of California (# 2236). If you have any questions regarding procedures

or results, please call me at 530-297-4800.

Sincerely,

Dave Bieber


Date : 06/17/2009

Subject : 1 Soil Sample and 2 Water Samples


Surrogate Recovery for sample B2 for test method Mod. EPA 8015 was outside of control limits. This mayindicate a bias in the analysis due to the sample's matrix or an interference from compounds present inthe sample.

Subject : 1 Soil Sample and 2 Water SamplesSmith River BridgeS9300-06-89


Case Narrative


Date : 06/17/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009

MW1

06/11/2009


DateAnalyzed


Measured

Sample :

Sample Date :

WaterMatrix : 68898-01Lab Number :

Benzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Toluene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Total Xylenes < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

TPH as Gasoline < 50 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

98.01,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009115Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

TPH as Diesel 150 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil 280 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009

106Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/15/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009

B2-10

06/11/2009


DateAnalyzed


Measured

Sample :

Sample Date :

SoilMatrix : 68898-02Lab Number :

Benzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Toluene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009Total Xylenes < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009

Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.0050 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009

TPH as Gasoline < 1.0 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/12/2009

1011,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/12/2009103Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/12/2009

TPH as Diesel 1.1 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/13/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil < 10 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/13/2009

80.2Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/13/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009

B2

06/11/2009


DateAnalyzed


Measured

Sample :

Sample Date :

WaterMatrix : 68898-04Lab Number :

Benzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Toluene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Ethylbenzene < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009Total Xylenes < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) < 0.50 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

TPH as Gasoline < 50 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

95.21,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009116Toluene - d8 (Surr) % Recovery EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

TPH as Diesel 570 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009(Note: Hydrocarbons are higher-boiling than typical Diesel Fuel.)TPH as Motor Oil 580 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009

368Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % Recovery M EPA 8015 06/15/2009


Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009


DateAnalyzed

Method

LimitMeasured

QC Report : Method Blank Data


DateAnalyzed

Method

LimitMeasuredReporting Reporting

< 1.0TPH as Diesel 1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009< 10TPH as Motor Oil 10 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 06/12/2009

76.1Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/12/2009

< 50TPH as Diesel 50 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009< 100TPH as Motor Oil 100 ug/L M EPA 8015 06/15/2009

101Octacosane (Diesel Surrogate) % M EPA 8015 06/15/2009

< 0.0050Benzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Ethylbenzene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Toluene 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009< 0.0050Total Xylenes 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009

< 0.0050Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009

< 1.0TPH as Gasoline 1.0 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 06/11/2009

1041,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/11/2009104Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/11/2009

< 0.50Benzene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Ethylbenzene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Toluene 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009< 0.50Total Xylenes 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

< 0.50Methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

< 50TPH as Gasoline 50 ug/L EPA 8260B 06/13/2009

94.61,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/13/2009115Toluene - d8 (Surr) % EPA 8260B 06/13/2009



Parameter Value Units Method Analyzed

Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009

SpikedSample

Sample Spike Level

SpikeDup.Level

Spiked SampleValue

Spiked SampleValue

Duplicate

Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.

Duplicate

RelativePercentDiff.

Percent

Spiked Sample

Recov.Limit

RelativePercentDiff.Limit

Analysis Date

QC Report : Matrix Spike/ Matrix Spike Duplicate

68867-04Benzene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0396 0.0400 0.0337 0.0328 85.1 82.1 3.51 70-130 2568867-04Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0397 0.0401 0.0316 0.0308 79.7 76.8 3.64 70-130 2568867-04Toluene <0.0050 mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0391 0.0395 0.0339 0.0331 86.8 84.0 3.26 70-130 25

68823-02TPH as Diesel <1.0 mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 20.0 18.3 18.8 91.5 93.8 2.45 60-140 25

BLANKTPH as Diesel <50 ug/L M EPA 8015 6/15/091000 1000 894 928 89.4 92.8 3.72 70-130 25

68870-03Benzene <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.6 40.6 37.2 36.6 91.6 90.2 1.51 70-130 2568870-03Methyl-t-butyl ether <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.7 40.7 46.0 45.4 113 112 1.16 70-130 2568870-03Toluene <0.50 ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.1 40.1 45.1 44.4 112 111 1.55 70-130 25



Parameter Units Method Analyzed

Project Name :

Project Number :



Date : 06/17/2009

Spike Level

Percent Recov.

Percent Recov.Limit

Analysis Date

QC Report : Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

LCSLCS

TPH as Diesel mg/Kg M EPA 8015 6/12/0920.0 86.7 70-130

Benzene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0397 86.0 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0398 91.7 70-130Toluene mg/Kg EPA 8260B 6/11/090.0392 87.1 70-130

Benzene ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.5 92.4 70-130Methyl-t-butyl ether ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.6 115 70-130Toluene ug/L EPA 8260B 6/13/0940.0 113 70-130



preliminary site investigation report - dot.ca.gov · 4.3 monitoring well ... this preliminary site...

Documents