Appendix B RFI Sampling Program Summary (appears on CD only)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Appendix B RFI Sampling Program Summary (appears on CD only)"

Aleesha Fields
6 years ago
Views:

1 Appendix B 2013 RFI Sampling Program Summary (appears on CD only)

2 APPENDI B 2013 SOIL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY 1. Background By letter dated February 26, 2013, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (together the Agencies ) requested that FMC Corporation (FMC) submit a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI) Work Plan for Operable Unit 9 (OU-9) of FMC s Middleport, New York RCRA Facility. The Agencies identify OU-9 as comprising soil at the Former Research and Development Property (Former R&D Property). FMC submitted the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Work Plan Former Research and Development Property (Operable Unit 9) (RFI Work Plan) to the Agencies on April 26, 2013, proposing investigation activities to supplement existing data from prior investigation programs. The RFI Work Plan was approved by the Agencies by letter dated May 1, 2013, and investigation activities were conducted during the summer of In summary, the work scope included soil sampling in the former locations of five greenhouses, with field screening for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and laboratory analysis for the potential presence of herbicides and to further evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of arsenic. This Appendix describes the sampling and analysis activities conducted under the RFI Work Plan in 2013, as follows: Task 1 Pre-Sampling Activities Task 2 Sample Collection and Analysis Task 3 Data Validation and Presentation 2. Task 1 Pre-Sampling Activities From May to July 2013, FMC coordinated with the Agencies, the Niagara County Brownfield Development Corporation, and the Village of Middleport to obtain access to the Former R&D Property. After access permission was obtained from the Village of Middleport, FMC provided the Agencies with oral and written notification of the planned schedule for sampling activities. The five sample locations proposed in the RFI Work Plan (purple dots on Figure B-1) were surveyed, staked in the field, and recorded by a New York State licensed surveyor (McIntosh & McIntosh) using a global positioning system (GPS) surveying unit to establish the horizontal and vertical coordinates (Table B-1). Buried utilities in the vicinity of the proposed borings were identified through: 1) review of historical utility and building plans for the Former R&D Property available in FMC records; 2) notification through Dig Safely New York and the Village of Middleport; and 3) ground penetrating radar (GPR). 3. Task 2 Sample Collection and Analysis Soil sampling was conducted by ARCADIS on July 24, 2013, using direct-push methods (i.e., Geoprobe ) and disposal liners, following the methods and procedures referenced in the RFI Work Plan. The weather conditions were dry during sampling. A representative of the NYSDEC was present during a portion of the sampling activities. G:\Project Docs\Div20\lryfun \LAR13\FMC Middleport\RFI Vol. III\Appx B\ _Appendix B.doc Page 1 of 3

3 Soil cores were collected at each location continuously from surface grade to refusal on presumed bedrock (depth varied from 6.5 to 7.0 feet below surface grade). No staining or odors indicative of impacts were associated with any of the soil samples. All soil samples were screened in the field for total VOCs using a hand-held, portable photoionization detector (PID), and no detectable concentrations of VOCs were identified in any of the samples. Therefore, consistent with the RFI Work Plan, no samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs. A physical description of the soil samples is provided in Table B-1. Soil samples were collected from each boring at 6-inch depth intervals from surface grade to refusal for laboratory analysis (47 samples total). To evaluate the potential presence of herbicides at the former greenhouse locations, soil samples collected from surface grade to a depth of 24 inches from each boring (20 samples total) were analyzed for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) by EPA Method Samples collected deeper than 24 inches were held at the laboratory for potential analysis of herbicides, but were not analyzed because no detectable concentrations were identified in the first 20 samples. To further evaluate the horizontal and vertical extent of arsenic in soil at the property, all 47 samples were analyzed for arsenic by EPA Method In addition to the primary field samples, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were submitted for laboratory analysis, including one duplicate, one matrix spike, and one matrix spike duplicate for every 20 primary field samples analyzed. A summary of the samples analyzed is provided in the table below. Sample Depth Interval Primary Samples Herbicides QA/QC Samples Primary Samples Arsenic QA/QC Samples 0 to 6 inches to 12 inches to 18 inches to 24 inches inches to refusal (12-inch intervals) Totals Sample analyses were conducted by New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certified laboratories qualified to perform the required analyses, including Pace Analytical, Inc. of Schenectady, New York (ELAP ID #11078) for arsenic and Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. of Albany, New York (ELAP ID #10709) for herbicides. Laboratory analysis methods and procedures, including quality assurance and quality control requirements, were conducted in accordance with the RFI Work Plan. G:\Project Docs\Div20\lryfun \LAR13\FMC Middleport\RFI Vol. III\Appx B\ _Appendix B.doc Page 2 of 3

4 4. Task 3 Data Validation and Presentation The laboratory analytical results for the primary field samples and the QA/QC samples were validated by ARCADIS as specified in the RFI Work Plan. All sample results were found to be acceptable for use. The data validation reports and the laboratory analytical data reports are provided as Attachments B-1 and B- 2, respectively. Tables comparing the soil results to screening values and figures showing the horizontal and vertical distributions of arsenic are provided in RFI Report Volume III. G:\Project Docs\Div20\lryfun \LAR13\FMC Middleport\RFI Vol. III\Appx B\ _Appendix B.doc Page 3 of 3

5 Attachments (appear on CD only) Table B-1 Figure B-1 Attachment B-1 Borehole Stratigraphy Summary Soil Sample Locations Data Validation Reports Attachment B-2 Laboratory Analytical Data Reports

6 TABLE B-1 BOREHOLE STRATIGRAPHIC SUMMARY FORMER R&D PROPERTY (OU-9) RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION REPORT VOLUME III FMC CORPORATION - MIDDLEPORT, NY Boring ID B3 Northing C C3 Easting Elevation (feet) B C1 Survey Coordinates Depth of Boring (feet) Sample Description 0' - 1.0' Grey till material, medium to coarse SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. 1.0' - 1.5' Brown medium to coarse SAND, some fine sand, trace silt, moist. 1.5' - 2.1' Dark brown SILT, some fine sand, trace silt, moist. 2.1' - 4.0' Brown fine to medium SAND, trace silt, moist to wet. 4.0' - 6.5' Brown SILT and CLAY, some medium to coarse sand embedded, moist. 6.5' - 7.0' Brown SILT and CLAY, some medium to coarse sand embedded, with some medium to coarse gravel, moist. 0.0' - 0.6' Dark brown fine to coarse GRAVEL, some silt and fine to medium sand, roots. 0.6' - 1.5' Brown medium to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, little silt, moist. 1.5' - 4.0' Brown SILT, some clay, slightly plastic, little fine to medium sand and fine to coarse gravel embedded, moist to wet. 4.0' - 6.5' Brown SILT, some clay, slightly plastic, little fine to medium sand and fine to coarse gravel embedded, moist to wet. 0.0' - 1.0' TOPSOIL 1.0' - 1.4' Medium to coarse SAND and GRAVEL, trace fine sand and silt, moist. 1.4' - 4.0' Brown fine to medium SAND, trace silt, moist. 4.0' - 4.3' Fine to medium SAND, wet, little silt. 4.3' - 6.5' Brown SILT and CLAY, some medium to coarse sand embedded moist to wet. 6.5' - 7.0' Brown SILT and fine SAND, little clay, moist. 0.0' - 0.6' Grey medium to coarse SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL, trace silt, moist. 0.6' - 1.7' Brown fine to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, moist. 1.7' - 2.4' Brown fine to medium SAND, little fine gravel, trace silt, moist. 2.4' - 4.0' Brown SILT and CLAY, some fine to coarse gravel and medium to coarse sand embedded, moist. 4.0' - 6.5' Brown SILT and CLAY, some fine to coarse gravel and medium sand embedded, trace fine sand, moist to wet. 0.0 ' - 0.8' Dark brown fine to coarse GRAVEL, some silt and fine to medium sand, roots. 0.8' - 1.5' Brown medium to coarse SAND, some fine to coarse gravel, little silt, moist. 1.5' - 4.0' Brown SILT and CLAY, some medium to coarse gravel and medium to coarse sand embedded, moist. 4.0' - 7.0' Brown SILT and CLAY, some medium to coarse gravel and medium to coarse sand embedded, moist. Notes 1. All borings advanced using direct push methods on All borings terminated at refusal on presumed bedrock. 9/17/2013 G:\Project Docs\Div20\lryfun \LAR13\FMC Middleport\RFI Vol. III\Appx B\ _table B-1 Page 1 of 1

$CITY: SYRACUSE, NY GROUP: ENVCAD DB: G. STOWELL, P. LISTER LD: P. LISTER PM/TM/TR: D. WRIGHT LYR: ON=*;OFF=REF, (FRZ) G:\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\B0037778\0000\00001\DWG\37778B02.$

7 CITY: SYRACUSE, NY GROUP: ENVCAD DB: G. STOWELL, P. LISTER LD: P. LISTER PM/TM/TR: D. WRIGHT LYR: ON=*;OFF=REF, (FRZ) G:\ENVCAD\SYRACUSE\ACT\B \0000\00001\DWG\37778B02.DWG LAYOUT: B-1 SAVED: 9/11/2013 9:26 AM ACADVER: 18.1S (LMS TECH) PAGESETUP: ---- PLOTSTYLETABLE: PLTFULL.CTB PLOTTED: 9/11/2013 9:27 AM BY: LISTER, PAUL REFS: IMAGES: PROJECTNAME: ---- ROUTE 31 C1 C2 C3 B1 B3 SOUTH VERNON STREET FMC CORPORATION - MIDDLEPORT, NEW YORK RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION REPORT VOLUME III SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS FIGURE B-1

8 Attachment B-1 Data Validation Reports

9 Imagine the result FMC- Middleport Data Usability Summary Report (DUSR) MIDDLEPORT, NEW YORK Metals Analyses SDG # Analyses Performed By: Pace Analytical Services Schenectady, New York Report #20139R Review Level: Tier III Project: B

10 SUMMARY This data quality assessment summarizes the review of Sample Delivery Group (SDG) # for samples collected in association with the FMC-Middleport Site. The review was conducted as a Tier III evaluation and included review of data package completeness. Only analytical data associated with constituents of concern were reviewed for this validation. Field documentation was not included in this review. Included with this assessment are the validation annotated sample result sheets and chain of custody. Analyses were performed on the following samples: Sample Sample ID Lab ID Matrix Collection Parent Analysis Date Sample VOC SVOC HERB MET MISC C-1 (0-6) AQ19608 Soil 7/24/ C-1 (6-12) AQ19609 Soil 7/24/ C-1 (12-18) AQ19610 Soil 7/24/ C-1 (18-24) AQ19611 Soil 7/24/ C-1 (24-36) AQ19612 Soil 7/24/2013 C-1 (36-48) AQ19613 Soil 7/24/2013 C-1 (48-60) AQ19614 Soil 7/24/2013 C-1 (60-72) AQ19615 Soil 7/24/2013 C-1 (72-84) AQ19616 Soil 7/24/2013 C-1 (84-89) AQ19617 Soil 7/24/2013 B-1 (0-6) AQ19618 Soil 7/24/ B-1 (6-12) AQ19619 Soil 7/24/ B-1 (12-18) AQ19620 Soil 7/24/ B-1 (18-24) AQ19621 Soil 7/24/ Note: 1. Matrix spike/laboratory duplicate was performed on sample location C-1 (0-6). 2. Herbicide analysis were performed by Adirondack Environmental Services, Inc. and evaluated in DV report 20156R. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 1

11 ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGE DOCUMENTATION The table below is the evaluation of the data package completeness. Performance Reported Acceptable Items Reviewed No Yes No Yes 1. Sample receipt condition 2. Requested analyses and sample results 3. Master tracking list 4. Methods of analysis 5. Reporting limits 6. Sample collection date 7. Laboratory sample received date 8. Sample preservation verification (as applicable) 9. Sample preparation/extraction/analysis dates 10. Fully executed Chain-of-Custody (COC) form 11. Narrative summary of QA or sample problems provided 12. Data Package Completeness and Compliance QA - Quality Assurance Not Required G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 2

12 INORGANIC ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Analyses were performed according to United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) SW-846 Method 6010B. Data were reviewed in accordance with USEPA National Functional Guidelines of July The data review process is an evaluation of data on a technical basis rather than a determination of contract compliance. As such, the standards against which the data are being weighed may differ from those specified in the analytical method. It is assumed that the data package represents the best efforts of the laboratory and that it was already subjected to adequate and sufficient quality review prior to submission. During the review process, laboratory qualified and unqualified data are verified against the supporting documentation. Based on this evaluation, qualifier codes may be added, deleted, or modified by the data reviewer. Results are qualified with the following codes in accordance with the USEPA National Functional Guidelines: Concentration (C) Qualifiers U B The analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The associated value is the analyte instrument detection limit. The reported value was obtained from a reading less than the contract-required detection limit (CRDL), but greater than or equal to the instrument detection limit (IDL). Quantitation (Q) Qualifiers E N The reported value is estimated due to the presence of interference. Spiked sample recovery is not within control limits. * Duplicate analysis is not within control limits. Validation Qualifiers J UJ The analyte was positively identified; however, the associated numerical value is an estimated concentration only. The analyte was not detected above the reported sample detection limit. However, the reported limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actual limit of detection. UB Analyte considered non-detect at the listed value due to associated blank contamination. R The sample results are rejected. Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" flag means that the associated value is unusable. In other words, due to significant quality control (QC) problems, the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not. "R" values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data but any value potentially contains error. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 3

13 METALS ANALYSES 1. Holding Times The specified holding times for the following methods are presented in the following table. Method Matrix Holding Time Preservation SW B Water 180 days from collection to analysis Cool to <6 C; preserved to a ph of less than 2 s.u. Soil 180 days from collection to analysis Cool to <6 C. All samples were analyzed within the specified holding times. 2. Blank Contamination Quality assurance (QA) blanks (i.e., method and rinse blanks) are prepared to identify any contamination which may have been introduced into the samples during sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Rinse blanks measure contamination of samples during field operations. A blank action level (BAL) of five times the concentration of a detected compound in an associated blank (common laboratory contaminant compounds are calculated at ten times) is calculated for QA blanks containing concentrations greater than the method detection limit (MDL). The BAL is compared to the associated sample results to determine the appropriate qualification of the sample results, if needed. Analytes were not detected above the MDL in the associated blanks; therefore detected sample results were not associated with blank contamination. 3. Calibration Satisfactory instrument calibration is established to provide that the instrument is capable of producing acceptable quantitative data. An initial calibration demonstrates that the instrument is capable of acceptable performance at the beginning of an experimental sequence. The continuing calibration verifies that the instrument s continuing performance is satisfactory. 3.1 Initial Calibration and Continuing Calibration The correct number and type of standards were analyzed. The correlation coefficient of the initial calibration was greater than for all non-icp analytes and all initial calibration verification standard recoveries were within control limits. All continuing calibration verification standard recoveries were within the control limit. 3.2 CRDL Check Standard The CRDL check standard serves to verify the linearity of calibration of the analysis at the CRDL. The CRDL standard is not required for the analysis of aluminum (Al), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), and potassium (K). The criteria used to evaluate the CRDL standard analysis are presented below in the CRDL standards evaluation table. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 4

14 A CRDL standard was not analyzed with sample locations associated with this SDG. 3.3 ICP Interference Control Sample (ICS) The ICS verifies the laboratories interelement and background correction factors. All ICS exhibited recoveries within the control limits. 4. Matrix Spike (MS)/Laboratory Duplicate Analysis MS and laboratory duplicate data are used to assess the precision and accuracy of the analytical method. 4.1 MS Analysis All metal analytes must exhibit a percent recovery within the established acceptance limits of 75% to 125%. The MS recovery control limits do not apply for MS performed on sample locations where the analyte s concentration detected in the parent sample exceeds the MS concentration by a factor of four or greater. In instance where this is true, the data will not be qualified even if the percent recovery does not meet the control limits and the laboratory qualifier N will be removed. The MS performed on sample location C-1 (0-6) exhibited acceptable recoveries. 4.2 Laboratory Duplicate Analysis The laboratory duplicate relative percent difference (RPD) criterion is applied when parent and duplicate sample concentrations are greater than or equal to 5 times the CRDL. A control limit of 20% for water matrices and 35% for soil matrices is applied when the criteria above is true. In the instance when the parent and/or duplicate sample concentrations are less than or equal to 5 times the CRDL, a control limit of one times the CRDL is applied for water matrices and two times the CRDL for soil matrices. The laboratory duplicate sample results exhibited RPD within the control limit. 5. Field Duplicate Analysis Field duplicate analysis is used to assess the precision and accuracy of the field sampling procedures and analytical method. A control limit of 50% for soil matrices is applied to the RPD between the parent sample and the field duplicate. In the instance when the parent and/or duplicate sample concentrations are less than or equal to 5 times the RL, a control limit of three times the RL is applied for soil matrices. A field duplicate was not performed on a sample location associated with this SDG. 6. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Analysis The LCS analysis is used to assess the precision and accuracy of the analytical method independent of matrix interferences. The analytes associated with the LCS analysis must exhibit a percent recovery between the control limits of 80% and 120%. The LCS analysis exhibited recoveries within the control limits. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 5

15 7. Serial Dilution The serial dilution analysis is used to assess if a significant physical or chemical interference exists due to sample matrix. Analytes exhibiting concentrations greater than 50 times the MDL in the undiluted sample are evaluated to determine if matrix interference exists. These analytes are required to have less than a 10% difference (%D) between sample results from the undiluted (parent) sample and results associated with the same sample analyzed with a five-fold dilution. The serial dilution performed on sample location C-1 (0-6) exhibited %D within the control limit. 8. System Performance and Overall Assessment Overall system performance was acceptable. Other than for those deviations specifically mentioned in this review, the overall data quality is within the guidelines specified in the method. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 6

16 METALS: SW DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST FOR METAL Reported Performance Acceptable No Yes No Yes Not Required Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission (ICP) Tier II Validation Holding Times Reporting limits (units) Blanks A. Instrument Blanks B. Method Blanks C. Rinse Blanks Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Matrix Spike (MS) %R Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) %R MS/MSD Precision (RPD) Field/Laboratory Duplicate (RPD) ICP Serial Dilution Reporting Limit Verification Raw Data Tier III Validation Initial Calibration Verification Continuing Calibration Verification CRDL Standard ICP Interference Check Transcription/calculation errors present Reporting limits adjusted to reflect sample dilutions %R Percent recovery RPD Relative percent difference G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 7

17 SAMPLE COMPLIANCE REPORT G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 8

18 SAMPLE COMPLIANCE REPORT Sample Delivery Group (SDG) Sampling Date Protocol Sample ID Matrix Compliancy 1 VOC SVOC HERB MET MISC /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (0-6) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (6-12) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (12-18) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (18-24) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (24-36) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (36-48) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (48-60) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (60-72) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (72-84) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 C-1 (84-89) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 B-1 (0-6) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 B-1 (6-12) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 B-1 (12-18) Soil Yes /24/2013 SW846 B-1 (18-24) Soil Yes - Noncompliance 1 Samples which are compliant with no added validation qualifiers are listed as "yes". Samples which are non-compliant or which have added qualifiers are listed as "no". A "no" designation does not necessarily indicate that the data have been rejected or are otherwise unusable. G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 9

19 VALIDATION PERFORMED BY: Joseph C. Houser SIGNATURE: DATE: September 6, 2013 PEER REVIEW: Dennis Capria DATE: September 13, 2013 G:\Project_Data\AIT_PVU\2013\ \20139\20139R.docx 10

Imagine the result Sediment Sampling Plan. 1½-Mile Reach of the Housatonic River. General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts

Imagine the result Sediment Sampling Plan. 1½-Mile Reach of the Housatonic River. General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts Imagine the result General Electric Company Pittsfield, Massachusetts 2012 Sediment Sampling Plan 1½-Mile Reach of the Housatonic River March 2012 2012 Sediment Sampling Plan 1½-Mile Reach of the Housatonic