Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 89
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT of Twin Boro Field Block 1105,
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
of
Twin Boro Field
Block 1105, Lot 15
Borough ofDumont
Bergen County, New Jersey
i
I
Prepared For:
Borough of Dumont
50 Washington Avenue
Dumont, New Jersey
07621
I
June 16, 2010
Our File No: A·660·016·001
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

2.7

3.5

4.3

2.7 3.5 4.3 Geotechnical Evaluation and Limited Phase II Enviro/lmental Site Assessment of Twin Bo/"o Field

Geotechnical Evaluation and Limited Phase II Enviro/lmental Site Assessment of

Twin Bo/"o Field Borough ofDumont Bergell Coullly, New Jersey

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 .0

2.0

INTRODUCTION

 

1

1.1

Scope of Work

1

SITE DESCRIPTION

u

.u

2

2.1 Location

 

2

2.2 Topography

2

2.3 Geology

2.4 Soil Conditions

2.5 Hydrology

2.6 Land Use

Utilities

,

, ,"' , 2 "., , , , 2 " 2 ."", " "", 2
,
,"'
,
2
".,
,
,
,
2
"
2
."",
"
"",
2
"
',
""",2

3.0

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION

3

3.1 Field and Laboratory Testing Program

3

3.2 Subsurface Conditions

4

3.3 Discussion of Geotechnical Results

5

3.4 Site Maintenance/Improvement Alternatives

6

Additional Subsurface Evaluation

7

4.0 UMITED PHASE II

4.1 Environmental

4.2 Laboratory

ESA: SITE Il\'VESTIGATION

Testing Program

8

8

"",8

" , I " , , " " ,', , " , ,""', ,',
"
,
I
" ,
,
"
" ,',
,
"
,
,""',
,',

10

I

12

12

12

12

13

13

13

14

14

14

15

15

15

Analysis

Discussion of Analytical Results

Additional Environmental Evaluation

4.4

5.0

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Limitations

5.1.1 Geotechnical Evaluation

5.1.2 Limited Phase II: Site Investigation

5.2 Conclusions 5,2, I Geotechnical Evaluation

5.2.2

5,2,3

Limited Phase II: Site Investigation Areas ofConcern

5.3 Recommendations 5,3.1 Environmental Reporting .

,

5.3.2

Remedial

Investigation

"

"

5,3,3 Remedial

Action

"

5.3,4

Restricted Use

"

"

"

"

Geotechnical Evaluatioll amI Limited Phase II Ellvirollmelltaf Site Assessmellt of Twill Bom Field Borough ofDI/mollt Bergell COlll/ty, New Jersey

Bom Field Borough ofDI/mollt Bergell COlll/ty, New Jersey Tllble Descriptioll LIST OF TABLES Page Table I

Tllble

Descriptioll

LIST OF TABLES

Page

COlll/ty, New Jersey Tllble Descriptioll LIST OF TABLES Page Table I Summary of Subsurface Conditions 4

Table I

Summary

of Subsurface

Conditions

4

Table 2

Summary of Analytical

Results

9

Table 3

Comparison to Historic

Fill

Database

11

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Description

Page

Database 11 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Description Page Figure 1 Boring Location Sketch LIST OF APPENDICES

Figure 1

Boring Location Sketch

LIST OF APPENDICES

after 15

1 Boring Location Sketch LIST OF APPENDICES after 1 5 Appelld/xA Borillg Logs Appelldlx B Laboratory

Appelld/xA

Borillg Logs

Appelldlx B

Laboratory Data Deliverables

Geotechnical Evallllltioll alUl Limited Phase II Euvlronmental Site Assessment of Twill Bom Park,. Block 1105, Lot 15 Borough ofDUmollt Bergen CO/tilly, New Jersey

Lot 15 Borough ofDUmollt Bergen CO/tilly, New Jersey 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Alaimo Group was retained by

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

Aladdin Avenue via Darcy Lane.

15 on the Dumont Borough Tax Assessment Map (sec Figure 2) and is accessible from

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.

1.1 Scope Of Worl,
1.1 Scope Of Worl,

The geotechnical evaluation consisted of the installation of six (6) test 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 I0 from the Alaimo Group. The work was completed in substantial compliance with the accepted proposal.

- J

-

Geotechllicaf Evaluatioll olld Limited Phose IIEllvirollmental Site Assessmellt of Twill Bo/'o Field Borollgh ofDUlllout Bergel! COllllty, New Jersey

Field Borollgh ofDUlllout Bergel! COllllty, New Jersey 2.0 SITE DESCItlPTION 2.1 Location T h e Phase

2.0 SITE DESCItlPTION

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
2.2 Topogl'aphy
2.3 Geology

The Site topography can be characterized as gently sloping to east/nOlthcast.

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.

2.4 Soil Conditions

20-25 feet below the ground surface. 2.4 Soil Conditions The soils on the Site are mapped

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
2.5 Hydrology

There are no flood pI'one areas or wetlands within the limits of the Site.

2.6 Land Use Context

The Site is gcncmlly located in a residential area ofmedium intensity and is bordered to the north by single-family detached residences; to the cast by a high rise apartment buiIding; 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 LimitedPbase IIEllvirollmelltal Site Assessment of Twill Boro Field Borough ofDumont Bergen Coullty, New Jersey

Twill Boro Field Borough ofDumont Bergen Coullty, New Jersey 3.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATlON The geotechnical evaluation of

3.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATlON

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.

3.t Field and Laboratory Testing Program
3.t Field and Laboratory Testing Program

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 12,20 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 AppelldixA 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.

with the soil cuttings and sand from an onsite stockpilc. Excess soil was mounded above each

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-

S�

M�,

Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough Geoteclmi�.�1Evaluation and Limited PUa§e lJ ESA Rep011 June 16,2010 Page4
Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough
Geoteclmi�.�1Evaluation and Limited PUa§e lJ ESA Rep011
June 16,2010
Page4
3.2 SubsUl'face Conditions
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:cIl:.:1t",lm=T(I""rL.::,o �;;;- ;- _ � --, SII'alum App"oxlmate
,-_=-:
;-
_-,--"S:cIl:.:1t",lm=T(I""rL.::,o
�;;;-
;-
_
--,
SII'alum
App"oxlmate
Generalized Description
thickness "fc:
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",i",st�
--i
--
C
4.0
Orange-brown, brown, red-brown fine to medium SAND, some to trace
silt/clay, little to Irace gravel, trace Coarse sand (moist to wet, loose to
f-;;::m-
--I_
e r
de
se )
_ -;-;;-;;-
--
v
,
n
m;g""s::.:
S "
---:-
t--;
S",pc>,
---.-;o-
:;; �
_
D
1.0-2.0
ORGANICS (Le., roots, leaves); black fine to medium SAND; some
+ -;;- o r
anies (Le., ro o ts ) ;}ittle silt; (wet)
- +�
E
9.0
--
Red, brown, white, black SILT/CLAY, some to trace fine to medium
sand, trace coarse sand, tracc gravel (Moisl to wet, medium to stiff
--"--,c",o=nsisteney);
USCS;lvI
.
.:: L ::J,c:
C L
:::: "--
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.
4,
5,
Stratum C not encountered during test boring TB-5 and noljitJly pene/m/ca in lest borings TB-4 (I11d TB-6,
So'aluItT D only enCOllltlered in lest borings TB-2 and TO-5.
S!.!:r!!Jlt!L.fionly ellcoll1Y�t�d ill test bOJi!!g�--,!]J-l and TB-�_gt!.dJ!ot/iJllypen_t:!�qj�4JtJ test bOJ'illg]!t:�.�

Subsur ac e COfldit."ioc::.':.;./'\

"tL-+

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 P 5 "- m a g,,, e
Geote<;hnical EYal1!ation and Limited 1'111\�e II ESe. Report
P
5
"-
m
a g,,, e '
_��

3.3 Discussioll of Geotechnical Results

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 Geotechnic�1 Ev�luation al!!lJjmited Phase II ESA Report

June 16,2010

3.4 Site MailltcnancelImpfovement Alternatives
3.4 Site MailltcnancelImpfovement Alternatives

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.

in serving the Borough's recreational needs. • R e moval and Replacement of fill. One option

Re moval 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 couId 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.

be installed without concern about continued settlement. In-place Densification. The in-place densification of tile

In-place Densification. The in-place densification of tile shallow subsurface conditions may be considered a practical means of improving the subsurface conditions. The purpose of the densification process would be to induce the settlement of underlying materials into void spaces and thereby reduce the magnitude of future settlement and to identify yielding conditions. The geotechnical subconsultants have indicated that to achieve the required subgrade improvement, the site would be densified with at least20 passes of a IS-ton (minimum) vibratory roller. (A "pass" equals up and back.) Ten passes would be performed in a north-south direction and ten passes would be performed in an east-west direction. Once this densiftcation process was completed, the areas whel'C settlement has been induced would be stripped of topsoil and filled with suitable granular material in loose lifts as needed to establish grade. Areas that have been identified as yielding or areas where otherwise unsuitable sllbgrade conditions are encountered would be undercut to fil<m subgrade conditions and backfilled with compacted fill. The fill material would be compacted to a firm condition before the placement of topsoil. It is anticipated that even after this procedure is completed, some continued settlement would likely continue to occur as a result of decomposition of the organic and debris containing matel'ial that has been identified. Therefore, this option will significantly reduce, but not eliminate, settlement and the need for future maintenance.

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.

and backfilled with compacted fill. The fill would be compacted to a finn condition prior to

-6-

Twin Bom Field: DUlIlont Borough

Juno 16,2010

GCQtecll(licalEv . "lua!ioll .JlllitcdYhase J ILESA RCllo P a g e 7 �
GCQtecll(licalEv . "lua!ioll
.JlllitcdYhase J ILESA RCllo
P a g e 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.

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.

In simplistic terms,

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. one factor that affects this option is whether the excavated material requires disposal due to its

environmental quality.

3.5 Additional Subsurface Evaluation

The

Additional subsurface evaluation is recommended prior to the selection of the improvement option to morc fully define the extent of the fill layers containing debris and organics and to identifY the presence, orientation, and relative size of any below grade voids, obstructions, or surface irregularities. A non-destructive geophysical survey utilizing ground penetrating radar (GPR) or electromagnetic conductivity (EM) methods would be employed for this purpose. The geophysical survey should be supplemented with shallow test borings that will confirm the subsurface conditions. Based 011 the survey and the shallow test borings, the area and depth of the undercutting and the placement of compacted fill can be morc full determined.

-7-

Geotechnical Emll/ation (/1/(1 Limited Phase II Ellvirolllnel1ta/ Site Assessment of Twin Boro Field Boraugh ofDumOflf Berge/f COI/llty, New Jersey

4.0 LIMITED PHASE II: SITE INVESTI GATION 4.1 Envimnmen tal Testing Program
4.0 LIMITED PHASE II: SITE INVESTI GATION
4.1 Envimnmen tal Testing Program

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:

• • 4.2 Laboratory Analysis
4.2 Laboratory Analysis

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-

B:

Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough

June 16, 2010

Geoteehnical Evaluation and Limited Ph� . e II ESA Re",port

Page 9

Table 2 Summary ofAllalytcal Results

I'PL SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) in m , _ --, -o- ,- --== Accnapl;iii,iie· ······ Nil
I'PL SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (SVOCs) in m
,
_ --,
-o-
,- --==
Accnapl;iii,iie·
······
Nil
O.II
J
ND
0.20
J
3,400
37,000
NO
0.097
J
Nil
Nil
NA
300,000
�ph'Il1'lcl1e
N
O
.2 ;; 4_ --'J
ND
0.26
J
17,000
30,000
Anlhracene
I
_
- -.;,
"'
;-
--t
_ .;; O "
NO
1
O .2 8
J
-
BCl1zo[njnnlhfll.,,,,IO
O
3 8
O
.6 O
I-
� ", ;-
I
"
7
+-
"
:�
+
-;C
0 :c-l
DelllO[n!pyreno
ND
0.69
NO
0.41
0.20
I
0.20
�?.olb!flno
nlhcnc
Nil
0.82
NO
059
0
O
.0 :
:d
;;;. 6 �
+
=", 2
"
-
1
Ben zQii!:h.liiierYl cne
NO
0.68
N Il
_
_�_
380,OOO
30,000
m
;-
+
Bcn701�!flno",I�(iemc
ND
0.30
NO
0.23
6.0
23
ND
0.21
J
0.12
J
0.19
J
35
140
liifz:ethYlhc�l1lJ'I1!llal"t"
Chryscllc
Dlbenz a h)anthrncene-
Nil
0.96
NO
0.56
J
62
230
ND
0.13
ND
ND
0,20
0 , 20
�l1lnlhene
NO
_ t
--
-i-L;c8� _
N7
2,.3QZ��
24,OOO
+-�
-;-
1.3
Flnorene
ND
0.15
J
ND
0.44
J
2,300
24,000
--l!' d e noJI,2,3,C<!Jt>yre"
---i'
N
O :--
I---B
N
4
'" � ---� --o;;o;c .
+
0
1
6
O
2 0
6 '-- --
-f,
*
:
Cf ,
+
ND
ND
1.8
300,000
I.�anthrel\c
:
1.5
NA
PYrrne
j
NO
1.5
NO
0.79
J
1,700
18,000
.c:.+
No othcrSYOC
etected-,----I--'-=---+
-
+-'=
+-� . �� � _
-",=+-
s d
C'
�I,.PESTICIIlESfPOLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) in m Ikg
4,4'·DDD
ND
0.055
NO
ND
3.0
13
4,4'-DDif····· - �······ � ····
2.0
9.0
N "' D --
ND
O:
;:0
6 - �P-t - �
+-
-
c O "'
';;
8 - �-,- t- D
OO '" 8
�-�+--- --i'i:-l
;;)i;:ODT
ND
0.029
N
D
N
.O O:; I
2.0
8.0
-=-+--f,
+--';
"'
D ;-
I-
-;�+---_f:;;;
�hlordal1e
ND
0.17
p
D
ND *
1.7
0.20
l.O
ND
0.0055
J p
'
:;:-
- _t---, O "
O 2 " ,, 8 '
:c. N
Dieldrin
0.040
0.20
ND
NO
0
NO
,,
16 ,
J
_
gamma-BHC(Lindanc)
0.40
2
mm
,l
No other pesticides or PCBs detected.
,
X i'£, �J ET A LS h'JlIg!"'k g'-
Arsenic
-
4.5
1.9
19
19
+
-
t;
1. :;; 4
- -
-+
:
3.2
m �Cry1lium
ND
0.37
J
J
0.20
I
J
NO
16
'
140
�h!.��l,--
_
NO
0.98
1.1
J
78
78
9.�
Chromium
4.6
-t
�;;--
17.9
_
6.7
NA
NA
_
��-
71.8
22.0
3,100
45,000
----
251
222
800
Lead
400
0.22
0.31
23
6$
,
J
11.9
7"0
J
7.0
J
1,600
23,000
137
Nil
4.9
H
Nil
NO
39Q
5,700
19.2
31.3
152
23,000
110.000
Zinc
-
·······
c
�r�I

k" ,-,-;,-;g

+--;,O.�7

2 ".

--c0",.4 ", 6--,--,J'

D :-"�+--' 0 7.

+--';O.e;6

n"'c

---'_00°.

e ported.

f.7N"o"'o tC"he

Notes.

1.

2.

3,

Allalytical results arc cOlllparoo to Ihc guidance values to the NJDEPr Residential and Non-Residential Direct ContactSoil Cleanup Criteria

pursuant to N J. A.C , 7:26D, lnst am ended on N o vembe r 4. 2009.

Bo ld type with light shading indicntcs the results exeeeds Residential Difl"Ct ContactSoil Cleanup Criteria

Bold l)'PC

with Imedium sbading indicates the re:suHs excce<Js R csideJHial and No n-Residential Direct Contact Soil Cleanup Critcrm

Recoyery Qr RPD exceeds control limits

J:

p :

NA:

mglkg:

Compound was found in the blank and sample.

Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal 10 the MO L and the concentration is an approxi mate vaiuc.

The %RPD hctw\-"eo the: primary and continuation coluum/dcicdoris .40%. TIle lower value has been r

Cliteria not establish e d.

Milligrams per Idiogram

-9-

-cal

� � �cl c l

cl

,e s I

Twin Bol'

Field: Dumont Borough

June 16,20 10

Geotechnical Evaluation and Limited Ph,!se II ESA Report � �_� . Page 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.

was above the Non-Residential Cleanup Criteria. The analysis of the sample from test boring TB-5 indicated

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.

4.3 Discussion of Analytical Results
4.3 Discussion of Analytical Results

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-

-1\-

Twin Bora Field: Dumont Borough Geo e"ht1jcaL!�yaluf\JiQILal!!!1i!l1iteQJ'has�!tESA RSl101t

June Hi, 2010

_l'!!g e II �_�� �_� ��
_l'!!g e II
�_��
�_�
��

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

1. Hislol'h� database values arefrom Appendix D a/the NJDEP Requirements 2. Sire value shown is
1. Hislol'h� database values arefrom Appendix D a/the NJDEP Requirements
2. Sire value shown is Ihe highest concentration reporfed/or samples fi'DlII TB�2 or TB�5;

4.4

A ddi tio nal Environmental Evaluation

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.

Geotechnical EvaluatiOlI and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of Twill Bora Field BOI'ol/gll ofDUll/alit Bergell COUllty, New Jersey

BOI'ol/gll ofDUll/alit Bergell COUllty, New Jersey 5.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Limitations 5.1.1

5.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Limitations

5.1.1 Geotechnical Evaluation

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.

5.1.2

Euvirollmental Evaluation

2J,2.1 Phase I ESA BackgrounQ
2J,2.1 Phase I ESA BackgrounQ

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 andfiller 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-purposefield 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 historicfill activities".

5.1.2.2 Limited Phase II ESA (Site Investigation)
5.1.2.2 Limited Phase II ESA (Site Investigation)

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 GeoteelUlical Evaluation and LimiJed :rha�e lIES

Re1)QfL!
Re1)QfL!

5.2

Conclusions

5.2.1 Geotechnical Evaluatiou

June 16,2010

P a !,w 13 _�.
P a !,w 13
_�.

The key findings of the geotechnical evaluation can be summal'ized as follows:

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.

5.2.2 Limited I'hasc II ESA: Site Investigation
5.2.2 Limited I'hasc II ESA: Site Investigation

The key findings of the Phase IISite 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 Q!'�Q1ej:hnical i';yalul\tion !lnd Limit,!! Ph;tJic 1l1lS� RePQlt __

June 16, 20 I0

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).

5.2.3 Areas of Concern

Based on the limited Phase II investigation, the Areas of Concern can be identified as follows:

I.

2.

the Areas of Concern can be identified as follows: I. 2 . H i s t

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.

fi'om 1-3 feet and in depth from 3 to 7 feet bgs. Pe�sticit!l< disposal. The analysis

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 material 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

It is recommended that the following actions be undettaken to reduce the Borough's environmental liability, to comply with applicable regulations, and to improve the recreational facility.

5.3.1 Environmental Reporting
5.3.1 Environmental Reporting

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 Geotechn icl\1 Evuluatio.l1 and Limited Phase II ESA Rcpo"'rt'--- June
Twin Boro Field: Dumont Borough
Geotechn icl\1 Evuluatio.l1 and Limited Phase II ESA Rcpo"'rt'---
June 16, 2010
Page 15
5.3.2 Remedial Investigation
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.

It is recommended that geophysical techniques be used to identify the extent of subsurface anomalies and that a geoprobe be used to confirm the presence of organic contaminants. A geoprobe is capable of installing shallow probes and collecting samples of fill material in a time efficient manner. Samples should be collected within the fill area and used to define the horizontal and vertical extent of the contamination. These methods arc suitable since the depth ofthe fill iayel' of concern ranges from 3 to 7 feet bgs.

5.3.3 Remedial Actioll

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 oftile contaminated materials. The factors that affect the selection of the most suitable option are construction cost and the quality of the recreational facility desired.

The remedial action that is to be selected will depend upon the results of the Remedial Investigation; a final determination on whether the fill 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. lfthe 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 fac i 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 recrea tional 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.

5.3.4 Restricted Use

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.

-15-

Geolecllllical Eva/llalioll alUl Limited Pllase II Environmenlal Sile Assessmellt of Twin Bom Field Bomugh ofDllmolll
Geolecllllical Eva/llalioll alUl
Limited Pllase II Environmenlal Sile Assessmellt of
Twin Bom Field
Bomugh ofDllmolll
Bergen CO/lilly, New Jersey
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
DUFFIELD TEST BORING TB-1 ASSOCIATES Cons!J/rants in tho Geosciences (Page f of f) Geotechnical and
DUFFIELD
TEST BORING TB-1
ASSOCIATES
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)
Tw;n 8oro field
logged by
:
BJS
Du mon!, New Jersey
'A'eather
Borough of
:
Rain, 50's
Project No. 8387.GBiEC
Exc, Con[(actoI
;
Mike Granese!Gfa �� se Drilling, Inc .
Sample Coodllian
Waler Levels
_�
During ExcaVation
0
Augers.at 10 ft
:
Depth
Layer
I
Sample
in
De P tn
Number
Remarks
feel
rect
DESCRIPTION
i
<:J
0
14
inches)
0.3
Fill:
Brown fine to medium sand. some to fittle silt,
�:
8-1
trace gravel, trace debffS {e.g"
crushed stone, organics)
- ---� - - - -----
----
2
20
f(
----- ---
\
'
Poss,ble Fill·
Orange-brown fine 10 medium SAND,
S-2
0.0
trace silt, trace gravel
F··
SP
SAME
S-3
r
0.0
(
a
6.0 Pi'i+l---,
----·�·------··�·------ --i
Red, brown SilT, some 10 little fine to mediu m sand.
trace gravel
SAA
0.0
Ml
a
0.0
S-5A
8-5B
10
0_0
12
Cl
Red etAY, liUle sil!, trace fine to coarse sand
8-6
I
0.0
1.
ia
--------------
18
16.0 �
13-7
NU RECOVERY-
20
i
22
NOTES;
1.
2,
3,
8orin9 terminated approximately 18,0 feet belO'N existing grQund $urrace (b.e.g.s,)
Wet on Spoon encountered al ap pro xlmal e:fy 7,6 reel b.e.g.s.
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 TEST BORING TB-2 ASSOCIATES Consultants in Uu: Geosciences (Page 1 of 1) Geotechnical and
DUFFIELD
TEST BORING TB-2
ASSOCIATES
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
Borough of Dumont. New Jersey
Wealher
: Rain, 50's
Project No. 8387.0BIEC
Exc. Conlfactor
: Mjke GranesefGranese Dolling, Inc.
:
Sample CondiVon
Waler Levels
During Excavation
Deptn
Layer
in
Depth
feel
feel
DESCRIPTION
o
I r 5 InCneS)
0.4
·
Fill: Red-brown, black fine sand. some silt, trace
·
gravel, trace coarse to medium sand
·
2 •
:xs:
"
0.0
.'
SAME
S·2A
3.3
� - -
"
I} t'UI:
B rown. Ian fine to medium
SAND, some
S·28
0.0
silt, trace gravel, trace medium to coarse sand
4
. '
:,1
SM
S·3A
0.0
16.4
30.1
SAME (wet)
.Ii
·
" '
, �
·
5.0
S·38
0.0
FilfSrown,red flnetomedium SAND and
·
SM
• Sl - l � , trace fine gravel
r---------------------------
6
6.0
:.\: .
_'. '/
' ::
Possible Fill:
Black fine to medlum SAND, some
SP
SA
0.0
organics (e.g., roots), HUle silt
<:\-;:
8
S·5
6.0 ::2c- - - --NORECOVERY- - - - - - - -
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
NOTES:
1.
Boring terminated approximately 10.0 feet oolow ex/sling ground surface (!.i.e.g.s.)
5,
2. Wet on Spoon encountered at approximalety 5.0 (€ill !.i.e.g.s.
surface,
After approximately 1 hout the hOle was observed to be approximately 15 inches in
diameter at the ground surlaoo
3. Groundwater not observed during drilling.
6.
4.
Auger hole appeared 10 enlarge during drHling. Hole approxlmatety 12 Inches In
diameler atSl.lrface and approximately 15 inches In diameter oonealh the ground
Boring backt1l!ed with auger cuUiogs and stOCkpiled sand obtained from Borough 0'
Dumont
;" """ ASSOCIATES DUFFIELD TEST BORING TB-3 Consultants in the Geosciences (Pag. 1 of 1)
;"
""" ASSOCIATES
DUFFIELD
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
Borough of Dumont, NO\v Jersey
Weather
;
Rain, SO's
Project No, e357,GBIEC
Exe. Contractor
; Mike GraneselGranese Drilling, Inc:.
Sample CondItion
Water levels
1 DUling EXcalJation
At completion
'"
1 Augers 316ft
Depth
layer
:c
PID
Sample
in
Deplh
Number
(d.u.)
Remarks
feei
feet
DESCRIPTION
C)
o
"":
' '
I ti ,ncnes)
.
.
0.5,
FILL:
BlOwn-orange fine kl. medium sand, little to trace
.
S-1
0.0
slit, trace debris (e.g., wife
ln�"I�ti;"';'\
'
1---+---------------.---.-
------
2
2.0
.
Possible Fill:
Brown fine SAND. sam. sill. trace
SM
S-2
19.4
25.4
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.
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.

=t1=.=\:=-======�=�===�==t=====

·· .=

::;!·;;;��ib��L

ne ;nch;

=i

= = Iit

-oo:jr--O-'5i[L""i�:::i,}: ==

DUFFIELD TEST BORING TB-4 ASSOCIATES (page 1 of 1) Consultants in the Geosciences ----�-
DUFFIELD
TEST BORING TB-4
ASSOCIATES
(page 1 of 1)
Consultants in the Geosciences
----�-
-=---=-�--�--="--�'�-c'-
eo1ecnnlcal and Environmental
Dale Started
:
May t2, 2010
Drilling Equipment
.
Truck-mounted Mobile 8-59
G
Consulting Ser
vices
Date Comple1ed
:
May 12, 2010
Drilling Methods
.
SPT (ASTM DfSS6, HSA)
; BJS
Twin
Boro �le!d
logged by
BorQugh of Dumont, New Jersey
Weather
:
Rain. 50's
::':�
Mike Granese/Granese Drilling, Inc.
Exc. Contraclor
;
'1
G
'':8'':3
:'
::
B I '
'
-
- -
-
!
I
m
I e
C
Q
jl
n
:
Waler leve!s
P
OO
Jo
I
I
1
During EXcavation
!
r: • iii
!
--.1!_
Augels at 10 ft
. -'
layer, I
i
i
Depth
en:
i
---
PtD
Moisture
Percent I
���
Sa'l1plQ
in
Depth
--
--
:� �
Number
(d.".)
Conlant
Passing:
Remarks
feet
teet
a:.::
DESCRIPTION
200Sievo,
C>
:::>
(%)
:::t
c---
F :�P�:�:�
r ::��:TnCfii�
to ;:;'��
=
·
d
u =
m S A D
N
trace silt, trace fine grave!
8-1
0.0
2
1:":
SAME, little sill
S-2
0.0
4
SP
to PossibTe trace silt Fill: (moist) Orange-brownfine to me d iumSAND, little
Possible FiIr: Blacl<fine fo mediumSAND, trace silt
0.0
S-3A
5-36
0_0
6
Brown-tan, yellow fine to mediumSAND, trace silt
S-4
0.0
1'' :.,/
8
8,0
----.- .---
--- •.
.---
.
----
trace Brown"orange, clay (wet) Tedfine to mediumSAND, some sm.
S-5
10
Q,O
12
:j
SM
Brown-gray SAME, trace fine gravel
S-6
14
,'
'
,
0.0
16
18 -
Red�brow(\SAME, tittle coarsesand
S-7
20
--i
20,0
22
1
-.L.-----'---1
"
'--
NOTES:
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 teel b,e .g.s.
4. Boring grouted and capped with $(};! cuttings !ol:O'Ning drilling.

-"'I--"p':'l:;'je=�::1

:;'N::O'

DUFFIELD TEST BORING TB-5 ASSOCIATES Consullants in the Geosciences (Page 1 of 1) -: -Tr-u-ck
DUFFIELD
TEST BORING TB-5
ASSOCIATES
Consullants in the Geosciences
(Page
1
of
1)
-: -Tr-u-ck ·-�'Uflt d
Geotcchl1ical and
Environmental
Date
Started
:
May 12,2010
Drilling Equlpmen-I
Mob'le
13-59····�
Drilung Methods
Consulting SI)Nices
Date Completed
;
May 12, 2010
: $p r (ASTM D1586.I"iSA)
Twin 130ro Field
Logged by
:
BJS
Borough of DumoC\� New Jersey
Weather
;
Rain, 50's
/-
,-_
:
projec t No. 6387,GB/EC
-= E : :: XC
::C.::
r
:: c!o
r
Mke Grane$efGr �.� ese Orrlling, Inc.
:
_
.
I
i
Sample Condition
Water levels
i
During Excavallon
SL
AI completion
0
1
Augers at 10 1t
Oepth
layer
i'
P1D
Sample
Moist ure
Porcent
"-
-
in
Depth
tii
(ct.u.)
Content
Number
Passing
feet
feel
DESCRIPTION
:
(%i
200 Sieve
(!)
0
t:.:r.'.
0.0
""V!
+r�. ;;o';-p"S";;O:"I
L".
1"".P1'£oxlmately5ln9hes)
:
0.4
�ILl:
,
to coarse sand, trace gravel, trace debris (e.g" organics, i
coal fragments)
B(own-orange fine sand, some sill, trace medium
S-l
0.0
11.3
28.7
2
0.0
Brown fine sand, gome sill, little medium sand
S-2A
S-28
ORGANICS (e.g., roots, leaves)
--
,H
' #
--- -
------------------
-
4
4.0
NO RECOVERY
8-3
0.0
6
Gray�white clayey SILT, ftace fine to medium s and,
ML
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�
�L.I
2 2
f--
_
L-
NOTES:
1. Bering term inated �pproxlmately 10 feel below existing ground surface (b.e.g.s.)
2. Wet on Spoon encountered at 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.
4. Upon comp le tion , water level observed at approximately 8.3 reel p.e.g.s .
I
t11
5. Borfng grouted and capped Vwith soil c
following drililng.
� --------- DUFFIELD TEST BORING TB-6 ASSOCIATES Consultants in the Geosciences (Page 1 of 1)
---------
DUFFIELD
TEST BORING TB-6
ASSOCIATES
Consultants in the Geosciences
(Page
1
of
1)
-
�---�-
Geotechnlcal and Environmental
Date Started
:
May
12, 2010
Drilling Equipment :
Truct;-mounted MobHe 8·59
Consulting Services
Date Completed
:
May 12, 2010
Drilling Melhods . SPT (ASTM 01566, HSA)
Twln Boro Fjeld
Logged by
BJS
.
Borough of Dumont, New Jersey
Weather
Rain, 50's
Project
No . 8387.GB/EC
Exc.Contf3ctor
- Mike GraneselGranese Drilling, Inc.
Sample Condition
Water Levers
Du ring Excavation
At rornpleUon
U
AUgers at 10 fi
Depth
layot
J:
Pl0
Sample
Moisture
Percent
if)
In
Depth
U
Number
(d.n.)
Content
Passing
Remarks
fee!
feel
Vl
DESCRIPTION
('%.)
(!)
::;;
200 Si';;.
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
Possible Fill:
Brown-orange fine to medium SAND,
4
8-2
0,0
15,5
22.1
some slit, trace coarse sand, trace grave!
:' ---�+-�--�-�----
Black, fed fine to medium SAND, mUe sm, liUle fine to
medium gravel
8-3
0,0
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
",
SAME, tlace fine gravel
S-7
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 10feel 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
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
Laboratory Data Deliverables
ANALYTICAL REPORT Job Number: 460-13139-1 Job Description: Dumont Fields - Twin Boro For: Duffield Associates

ANALYTICAL REPORT

Job Number: 460-13139-1

Job Description: Dumont Fields - Twin Boro

460-13139-1 Job Description: Dumont Fields - Twin Boro For: Duffield Associates 5400 Limestone Road Wilmington,

For:

Duffield Associates 5400 Limestone Road

Wilmington, DE

19808

Attention: Mr. Bradley Summerville

Road Wilmington, DE 19808 Attention: Mr. Bradley Summerville ApPfC)l.wfone\eue, Jam",C,>"lci

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.

be directed to the TestAmerica Edison Project Manager. TestAmerica Edison Certifications and Approvals:

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

TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

TestAmerica Edison

777 New Durham Road, Edison, NJ

08817

Edison 777 New Durham Road, Edison, NJ 08817 Tel (732) 549-3900 Fax (732) 549-3679

Tel (732) 549-3900 Fax (732) 549-3679 �l\w'.tesla,r:!.leri�;&QG.,�Qm

Page

1

of

623

NJ 08817 Tel (732) 549-3900 Fax (732) 549-3679 �l\w'.tesla,r:!.leri�;&QG.,�Qm Page 1 of 623 06/03/2010

06/03/2010

14

154

Table of Contents

Cover Title

Page

.

.

Data

.

.

.

.

Report Narrative

 

Sample

Executive Summary

.

.

.

Method

Method I Analyst

Sample Datasheets ,

Surrogate

QC Data

Data

QC Association Summary

Lab Chronicle.

.

.

.

Organic Sample

GC/MS

Method 82608

Method 82608 QC SummaI)' " " . Method 82808 Sample Data Standards Data Method 82608
Method 82608 QC SummaI)'
"
" .
Method 82808 Sample Data
Standards Data
Method 82608 ICAL Dala
Method 82608 CCAL Data
Raw QC Data "
Method 8260B Tune Data
Method 82608 Blank Dala , , , ••
,
Method 82608 lGSItGSD Data •
•••
Method 8260B Run logs.

Page

2

of

623

1

6

6

8

9

12

13

62

66

95

97

101

106

106

106

107

114

142

142

157

157

165

171

185

06/03/2010

Table of Contents

Method 8260B Prep Dala • •• . .• . . • •.• GC/MS Semi VOA
Method 8260B Prep Dala • ••
.
.•
.
.
•.•
GC/MS Semi VOA
Method 8270C
•.
Method 8270C QC Summary
,
Method 8270C Sample Data, .
Standards Data .•
,
,
Method 8270C ICAl Dala
Melhod
8Z70C
CCAl Dala
RawQC Data
,'
Method 8270C Tune Oata ,
Method 8270C Blank Du!a •.
Method 8270C lCSllCSD Data
.••••
Method
8270C MSiMSD
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•.
•.
Method S27DC Run Logs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MethodB270C Prop Dale
,
,
.
'"
,
••• "

GC Semi VOA

Method 8081A

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

,

.•.

,

,

.

.

.

,

.

.

.

.

.

 

,

,

.

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

,

,

,

.

.

,

,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Method 8OS1A QC Summary

. •. lCSILCSD Dala
.
•.
lCSILCSD
Dala

Molhod 8081A Sample Data

Slandards Data.

Method SOB1A [CAl Dala .

Method 8081A PEM Dala .

Method 8081A CCAl Dala .

RawQC Data

Method 8081 A Blank Data

Method 8081A

Page

3

of

623

187

189

189

190

202

298

298

309

312

312

320

329

336

340

342

344

344

345

360

389

389

409

417

425

425

431

06/03/2010

Table of Contents Method8081AMSIMSD Data Method B081ARun Logs Method808tA Prep Data. • Method8082 QC Summary

Table of Contents

Method8081AMSIMSD Data Method B081ARun Logs Method808tA Prep Data. • Method8082 QC Summary •••••
Method8081AMSIMSD Data
Method B081ARun
Logs
Method808tA Prep Data.
Method8082 QC Summary •••••
Method8002
Sample Deta
.
.
Standards Data
.
, , . ,
,
.
Method8082 ICAl Data
.
.
.•.
••.
•.•.•
••
••.
••.•••.
.••••.
.
.
.••
.
Method8082
CCAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
• •
.
.
.
Raw QC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Method8082
Blank Data
Method8082
LCSILCSD Data
.
Method8082 MSIMSD Data
••••
Method8082 Run
Logs
Melhod8082
Prep
Daia
.
,
,
_
_",
.

Method 8082

Inorganic Sample Data

Metals Data

Met Cover Page

Met Sample Data

Met QC Data

•.

.

.

MellCVICCV .•.

Met Blanks, .

••• . . . . . . . " . . . . . .
•••
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Met ICSAlICSAB

Mel MSIMSDIPDS ••••.•

Met Duplicates, . ,

Mel

LCSfLCSD

Page

4

of

623

441

445

448

450

451

464

488

488

538

546

546

552

563

567

570

572

572

573

574

578

578

580

584

588

589

590

06/03/2010

Table of Contents

Mel Serial Dilution

Met MDL

Met Linear Ranges

Met Preparation Log

Met Analysis Run Log

Met Prep Data

General Chemistry Data

Gen Chern Cover Page

Gen Chern MDL

Gen Chern Analysis Run Log

Gen Chern Prep Data

Shipping and Receiving Documents

Client Chain of Custody

. Sample Receipt Checklist

.

.

.

.

.

Page

.

.

5

.

of

623

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

592

593

595

596

598

600

603

604

605

606

61 3

621

622

623

. . Page . . 5 . of 623 . . . . . . .

06/03/2010

CASE NARRATIVE Client: Duffield Associates Project: Dumont Fields - Twin Boro Report Number: 460·13139·1 This

CASE NARRATIVE

Client: Duffield Associates

Project: Dumont Fields - Twin Boro

Report Number: 460·13139·1

This case narrative is in the form of an exception report, where only the anomalies related to this report, method specific performance 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
RECEIPT

The samples were recefved on 05/13/2010: Ihe samples arrived fn good condmon, properly preserved and on ice, coolers at receipt was 3.3 C.

The temperature of the

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 in 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. limits have been adjusted accordingly.

The reporting

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.

dilulions may be required dependent upon anaiyte levels in the samples.

Refer to the analytical rasults forms for dilutions,

Furthor

No other difficulties were encountered during the metals analyses,

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.

No difficulties were encountered during the mercury analyses.

All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.

ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES

within the acceptance limits. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES Samples 460-13139-2. 460�13139-4. 460�1313S�5 and

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.

No other difficullies were encountered during the pesticides analyses,

All other quality control parameters were w1thin the acceptance limits,

Page

6

of

623

06/03/2010

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (GC-MS)
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS)
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (GC-MS)

Samples 460-13139-2, 460-13139-4, 460-13139-5 and 460-13139·7 were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 8082. The samples were prepared and analyzed on 05/14/2010.

No difficulties were encountered during the PCBs analyses.

All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.

Samples 460-13139-2, 460-13139-4, 460-13139-5 and 460-13139-7 were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (GC-MS) in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 8260B. The samples were prepared on 05/14/2010 and analyzed on 05/18/2010.

No difficulUes were encountered during the volatiles analyses.

All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.

SEMIVOLATILE ORGAN(C COMPOUNDS (GC-MS) PERCENT SOLIDS
SEMIVOLATILE ORGAN(C COMPOUNDS (GC-MS)
PERCENT SOLIDS

Samples 460-13139-2, 460-13139-4, 460-13139-5 and 460-13139-7 were analyzed for semlvolatile organic compounds (GC-MS) in accordance with EPA SW-846 Method 8270C. The samples were prepared on 05/17/2010 and analyzed on 05118/2010.

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.

No other difficulties were encountered during the semivolaliles analyses.

All other quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.

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.

No difficulties were encountered during the % solids analyses.

All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits.

during the % solids analyses. All quality control parameters were within the acceptance limits. Page 7

Page

7

of

623

06/03/2010

Client: Duffield Associates SAMPLE SUMMARY Job Number: 460-13139-1 DatelTime DatefTime lab Sampte ID Client Sample

Client:

Duffield Associates

SAMPLE SUMMARY

Job Number:

460-13139-1

DatelTime DatefTime lab Sampte ID Client Sample ID Client Matrix Sampled Received
DatelTime
DatefTime
lab Sampte ID
Client Sample ID
Client Matrix
Sampled
Received

460-13139-1

T8-3 2-3

Soil

460-13139-2

T8-36-7

Soil

460-13139-3

TB-2 2-3

Soil

460-13139-4

TB-2 5-6

Soil

460-13139-5

TB-1 2-3

Soil

460-13139-6

TB-1 5-6

Soil

460-13139-7

T8-53-4

Soil

460-13139-8

T8-46-7

Soil

TestAmerica Edison

Page

8

of

623

05/1212010

0900

05/13/2010

1830

05/1212010 0945

0511312010

1830

05/1212010 1030

0511312010

1830

05/1212010

1045

0511312010

1830

05/12/2010

1125

05/13/2010

1830

0511212010 1145

05/1312010

1830

0511212010 1230

0511312010 1830

0511212010

1340

0511312010

1830

1145 05/1312010 1830 0511212010 1230 0511312010 1830 0511212010 1340 0511312010 1830 06/03/2010

06/03/2010

Clieni: Duffield Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY· Detections Job Number: 460·13139·1 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID

Clieni:

Duffield Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY· Detections

Job Number:

460·13139·1

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Reporting Analyle Result J Qualifier Limit Units Method 460·13139·1
Lab Sample ID
Client Sample ID
Reporting
Analyle
Result J Qualifier
Limit
Units
Method
460·13139·1
18.32·3
17.9
Percent Moisture
1.0
%
MOisture
Percent Sol1ds
82.1
1.0
%
Moisture
460·13139·2
18-36·7
Benzota]anthracene
Bis(2·ethylhexyl) phthalate
28
J
41
ug/Kg
8270C
120
J
410
ug/Kg
8270C
Arsenic
1.9
1.2
mg/Kg
6010B
Beryllium
020
J
0.46
mglKg
601 0B
Chromium
9.1
mglKg
60108
Copper
13.9
5.8
mglKg
6010B
2.3
Lead
1 7 .5
1.2
mglKg
6010B
NlcI<el
7.0
J
9.3
mglKg
6010B
Zinc
31.3
7.0
mglKg
60108
Percenl;
Moisture
1 8.8
1.0
%
Moisture
Percent Solids
81.2
1.0
%
Moisture
460·13139·3
18·22-3
Percent Moisture
13.9
1.0
%
Moisture
Percent Sollds
86.1
1.0
%
Moisture
TestAmerica Edison

Page

9

of

623

06/03/2010

Jp

Jp Client: Duffield Associates EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections Job Number; 460-13139·1 Lab Sample ID Client Sample

Client:

Duffield Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Detections

Job Number;

460-13139·1

Lab Sample ID

Client Sample 10

Reporting

Analyle

Result I auallfier

Limit

Units

Method

y l e Result I auallfier Limit Units Method 4 60 · 1 3 1 3904

460·1313904

18·25·6

Acenap/lU1ylene

 

97

Aoonaphthene

110

Fluorene

150

Phenanthrene

 

1500

Anthracene

 

240

Fluoranthene

 

1800

Pyrena

1500

Benzo[a]anthracene

 

710

Chrysene

9 60

Bis(2·ethylhexyl) phthalate

2 10

Benzo[b]fluoranlhene

820

8enzo(k)fluoranthone

 

300

Benzo[alpyrono

690

Indeno!1,2,3-cdJpyrene

610

Dibenz{a,h)anthracene

130

Benzo{g,h,i)perylene

6BO

Chfordane

1 10

4,4'-DDD

55

4,4"DDE

8.6

4,4'-DDT

29

Oleldrin

5.5

Arsenic

4.5

Beryllium

0.37

Cadmium

0.98

Chromium

 

17.9

Copper

71.8

lead

251

Nickel

11.9

SiNer

4.9

Zinc

137

Mercury

0.22

Percent Moisture

 

12.B

Percent Solids

87.2

460·13139·5

18-1 2-3

Arseni c

1.4

Chromium

 

4.

6

Copper

7.2

lead

7.9

Nickel

5.4

Zinc

19 .2

Percent

Moisture

6 .5

Percent SOlids

 

93.5

TestAmerica EdisQrt

J

J

J

J

J

p

P

J

J

B

J

Page

10

of

623

380

ugfKg

8270C

380

ug/Kg

8270C

380

ug/Kg

8270C

380

uglKg

8270e

380

u Oi Kg

8270e

380

uglKg

8Z70e

380

uglKg

aZ70e

38

ugIKg

8Z70e

380

u Oi Kg

aZ70e

380

uglKg

8270e

38

ugl KO

8270e

38

ug/Kg

8270e

38

ug/Kg

8270C

38

uglKg

a210e

38

ug/Kg

8210C

380

ug/Kg

8270C

71

ug/Kg

BOB1A

1.1

ug/Kg

80B1A

7.1

ug/Kg

80B1A

7.7

ug/Kg

B08t A

7.7

ug/Kg

aOB1A

1.1

mg/Kg

6010B

0.46

mg/Kg

601DB

1.1

mg/Kg

6010B

2.3

mg/Kg

6010B

S.l

mglKg

6010B

1. 1

m OiKo

6010B

9.2

mg/Kg

6010B

2 .3

mglKg

6010B

6.9

mglKg

6010B

0.035

mglKg

1471A

1.0

%

Moisture

1.0

%

Moisture

1.0

mglKg

6010B

2.8

mg

lK g

60108

5.0

m o lK o

6010B

1.0

m o l Ko

6010B

8.1

mg/Kg

6010B

6.1

mg/Kg

6010B

1.0

%

MoIsture

1.0