The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMITIGATION (8) 330 W, Bay Street, Suite 140 Casta Mesa, California 92627 [949] 642-0245 . FAX [949) 642-4474 ~ GEOMATRIX June 14,2001 5382 Ms. Amy E. Green, REHS County of Kern Environmental Health Services Department 2700 "M" Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield, California 93301-2370 Subject: Assessment. of Soil Conditions Borings B9 and B 1 0 Area of Impound Section Former Pick Your Part Facility 2120 South Union Avenue Bakersfield, California (,,~ ~ ~ I.:" Dear Ms. Green: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) has prepared this letter report on behalf of Pick Your Part to present the findings of soil assessment activities conducted at the former Pick Your Part facility located at 2120 South Union Avenue in Bakersfield, California (the site, Figure 1). The assessment activities completed included trenching and sampling and analysis of soil samples. These activities were performed pursuant to a November 16; 2000 letter from the County of Kern Environmental Health Services Department (CKEHSD) that requested additional actions required for site closure. The assessment activities were conducted in accordance with the February 15,2001 Revised Work Plan for Assessment of Soil Conditions, prepared by Geomatrix and approved by CKEHSD in a letter to Geomatrix dated February 16,2001; and subsequent discussions between Geomatrix and CKEHSD. f'" (~~ BACKGROUND A subsurface investigation was performed at the site by Contamination Cleanup of California (CCC) in April 1994 to comply with a CKEHSD order. Forty-eight shallow soil borings were drilled and samples were collected from depths of approximately 1 and 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) at each boring location and submitted for laboratory analysis. The investigation identified areas at the site where soil contained elevated concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons and lead. In August 1998, CCC submitted a Remediation Plan for Contaminated Soil to CKEHSD outlining remediation goals for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) of 1000 milligrams per kilogram (mglkg) and total and soluble lead of 50 mglkg and 5 mg/liter, respectively. I In May 1999, approximately 437 cubic yards of soil were excavated from the site and transported to a Class I facility for disposal. Soil was removed from four areas: the vehicle crusher area; the engine pile area; the storage sheds area of the impound section; and adjacent to the service building. Thirteen soil samples were collected to confirm remediation goals' had been achieved. Two samples, S7 in the vehicle crusher area and S 12 in the storage sheds area, had TPH and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. Engineers, Geologists, and Environmental Scientists li~j,¡, ~ I (:. I [~ ~ GEOMATRIX Ms. Amy E. Green County of Kern June 14,2001 Page 2 soluble lead reported above cleanup goals. Additional soil was excavated in the areas of S7 and 812; however, no confirmation samples were collected. In April 2000, four soil borings were drilled to depths of approximately 25 feet bgs, two in the vicinity of 87 and two in the vicinity of 8 12, to collect soil samples to confirm remediation goals had been met during the additional soil removal. Soil samples were collected from these borings at intervals of approximately five feet and submitted for laboratory analysis. Reported concentrations of TPH in the samples collected from a depth of approximately 5 feet bgs from the two borings drilled in the vicinity of previous boring 812 (B9 and B10) were above remediation goals for TPH. Reported concentrations of lead in these samples were below remediation goals. It was noted on the chain-of-custody records for these samples that the samples contained asphalt material. On November 16,2000, CKEHSD issued a letter to Pick Your Part indicating that in order to receive closure for the site, soil in the area of borings B9 and B 1 0 must be removed to a depth of 5 feet bgs for proper disposal. As an alternative, a risk assessment could be completed to demonstrate that the remaining soil in excess of the remediation goals does not pose a risk to current and future property use. In February 2001, Geomatrix submitted a work plan to CKEH8D to further assesS soil conditions in the vicinity of borings B9 and B10. This work was proposed to further assist Geomatrix in selecting an appropriate remedial approach that would address the elevated levels of TPH previously reported in samples collected from these borings from an approximate depth of 5 feet bgs. The work plan was approved by CKEHSD in a letter to Geomatrix dated February 16, 2001. ,Subsequent to approval of the work plan, CKEHSD requested by telephone that collected soil samples should be analyzed for total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) by EP A Method 418.1, as opposed to TPH by EPA Method 8015M as specified in the workplan. In addition, CKEHSD indicated that collected samples did not need to be analyzed for lead, as samples collected in April 2000 by CCC were below remediation goals for total and soluble lead. , In addition, Geomatrix proposed analyzing collected soil samples for TRPH, then following the initial analysis, analyzing just the portion of each sample that passed through a No. 60 sieve for TRPH. The purpose of the sieving is to analyze only those soil materials that represent completed exposure pathways for dermal and incidental ingestion, thus providing data suitable for risk evaluation. According to Driver et al. (1989), soil particles larger than a No. 60 sieve, will not adhere to skin surfaces and are unlikely to be ingested. A copy of the Driver et al. (1989) paper is attached. CKEH8D indicated they would consider both results when evaluating the data. P:\SS382IdocsITask LIReport,doc ~ GEOMATRIX Ms. Amy E. Green County of Kern June 14,2001 Page 3 OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH As described in the February 15,2001 Work Plan for Assessment of Soil Conditions, and subsequently modified in discussions between Geomatrix and CKEHSD, the objectives of the assessment activities were: I§.1 It~ · to assess the vertical and horizontal extent of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil in the vicinity of borings B9 and BI0; -, t~ · to assess the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil with particles smaller than a No. 60 sieve, thus providing data suitable for risk evaluation; and · to select an appropriate remedial approach to address elevated levels of TPH previously reported in samples collected from borings B9 and B 1 0 from an approximate depth of five feet bgs. The approach for this assessment included: · excavating five test pits to approximately five feet bgs; · visually observing the soil and collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis; · backfilling the test pits with excavation spoils; and · analyzing soil samples for TRPH and analyzing the portion of the samples that passes through a No. 60 sieve for TRPH. I D"" , , "n SCOPE AND METHODS A description of the scope and methods of the assessment activities including pre-field activities, test pit excavation and soil sampling, laboratory analysis, and data and remedial alternative evaluation is provided in the following subsections. Pre-field Activities Prior to initiating field activities, Geomatrix prepared a Site Health and Safety Plan and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) of the intent to perfonn excavation and sampling activities at the site. Test Pit Excavation and Soil Sampling 'Five test pits were excavated using a backhoe to depths of approximately 5 feet bgs by Innovative Construction Solutions, Inc. (ICS) of Huntington Beach, California on March 20, 2001. All test pits were dug under the observation of CKEHSD personnel. The test pits were located in the vicinity of previous borings B9 and BIO immediately in front of two sheds located P:\S5382\docs\Task L\Report.doc ~ GEOMATRIX Ms. Amy E. Green County of Kern June 14,2001 Page 4 ~¡ iI ~ r~1,~ in the impound section of the site. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 2. Visual observations were made during trenching activities and soil samples were collected from the bucket of the backhoe from soil excavated from an approximate depth of 5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil samples were collected using laboratory-provided sampling jars, and were labeled and placed in an ice-filled cooler for subsequent delivery to the analytical laboratory. After completion of soil sampling activities from a trench, the trench was backfilled with excavation spoils prior to moving to a new location and excavating the next trench. Laboratory Analyses Collected soil samples were submitted to Associated Laboratories of Orange, California, (Associated) under Geomatrix chain-of-custody procedures. Associated is state-certified to perfonn the analyses requested. All soil samples were analyzed by Associated for TRPH using EP A Method 418.1. Following the initial analyses, Associated passed each sample through a No. 60 sieve and the portion of each sample that passed through the No. 60 sieve was analyzed for TRPH using EP A Method 418.1. FINDINGS This section presents the findings of the soil assessment activities including visual observations made during test pit trenching and soil analytical results. Visual Observations During Trenching The following observations were made during test pit trenching activities. For test pit and soil sample locations, see Figure 2. ~ 1m P' ,/."!> ..'-y . Test Pit TPl: No asphalt was observed in any of the excavation spoils or along trench sidewalls or bottom. No stained soil was observed. A possible contact between two fill types was present at approximately 4 feet bgs. Fill below 4 feet bgs contained debris ' including bottles, metal, wood, and concrete. One soil sample was collected from the bucket of the backhoe from soil excavated fro.m an approximate depth of 5 feet bgs, the total depth ofTPl. . Test Pit TP2: Excavation spoils contained..several asphalt pieces approximately 1 foot in diameter. No asphalt pieces were observed below an approximate depth of2.5 feet bgs. No stained soil was observed. General debris, as found in TP 1 below an approximate depth of 4 * feet bgs, was observed in TP2 below an approximate depth of 2.5 feet bgs. The east sidewall ofTP2 contained debris; however, the west sidewall did not appear to contain debris. One soil sample was collected from the bucket of the backhoe from soil excavated from an approximate depth of5 feet bgs, the total depth ofTP2. I. I P:\S5382\docs\Task L\Report.doc L. ~ GEOMATRIX Ms. Amy E. Green County of Kern June 14,2001 Page 5 · Test Pit TP3: No asphalt was observed in TP3 to an approximate depth of2 feet bgs. Several pieces of asphalt. J to 2 feet in diameter, were observed in cuttings arid sidewalls '* from approximately 2 to 5 feet bgs. No stained soil was observed. Two soil samples were collected from the bucket of the backhoe from soil excavated from approximate depths of 5 feet bgs, the total depth ofTP3. ~";'" w ~ · Test Pit TP4: No asphalt was observed in any of the excavation spoils or along trench sidewalls or bottom. No stained soil was observed. The western-most 1 foot ofTP4 contained automobile debris including metal and rubber as well as few pieces of asphalt. "'*' Two soil samples were collected from the bucket of the backhoe from soil excavated from approximate depths of 5 and 5.5 feet bgs. The total depth ofTP4 was approximately 5 feet bgs at its east end and 5.5 feet bgs at its west end. ~ · Test Pit TP5: Abundant pieces of asphalt weIe observed in excavation spoils and along trench sidewalls. No stained soil was observed. No soil samples were collected from TP5, ~ as approved in the field by CKEHSD personnel present. The total depth of TP5 was approximately 5 feet bgs. Soil Analytical Results A total of six soil samples (one from TPl and TP2 and two from TP3 and TP4) were analyzed for TRPH using EPA Method 418.1. Each sample was first analyzed unsieved for TRPH, then following the initial analysis, each sample was passed through a No. 60 sieve. The portion of each sample that passed through a No. 60 sieve was then analyzed for TRPH using EP A Method 418.1. Copies of the laboratory reports and chain-of-custody records are attached. The results of the 418.1 analyses of soil samples are presented in Table 1. I TRPH was detected in each of the samples submitted for analysis. TRPH was detected in the unsieved samples between concentrations of 18 and 2500 mg/kg. TRPH was detected in the sieved samples between concentrations of 12 and 930 mglkg. The highest reported concentration ofTRPH was in the sample collected from TP2 at an approximate depth of5 feet bgs. TRPH detected in this sample at a concentration of2500 mglkg in the unsieved sample and 930 mglkg in the portion of the sample that passed through a No. 60 sieve. f"~ I' l SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Although TRPH was detected at concentrations exceeding the site cleanup goal in samples analyzed unsieved, TRPH was not detected above the site cleanup goal in any of the samples analyzed that had been passed through a No. 60 sieve. This suggests that the TRPH reported in 'the samples is primarily due to the presence of larger asphalt particles that do not represent completed exposure pathways for dermal and incidental ingestion, and thus are not suitable for risk evaluation. P:\S5382\docs\Task L\Reportdoc ~ GEOMATRIX Ms. Amy E. Green County of Kern June 14, 2001 Page 6 On the basis of the forgoing, we request CKEHSD grant closure for the soil in, the vicinity of the storage sheds in the impound section of the site. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned at (949) 642-0245. f,,: If]] ~ Sincerely, GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ {f$ ;;--~~ ¿ ?;~M-t;- ~othY S. Simpson, P.E. Principal Engineer Timothy F. Wood, R.G., C.HG. Senior Geologist Attachments: Table 1 - Analytical Results for Soil Samples Figures - Site Location Map, Site Plan Driver, Et AI. (1989) Paper Laboratory Report cc: Ms. Cindi R. Galfin, Pick Your Part Marcelle S. Strauss, Esq., Galfm & Passon, LLP I' r~ P:\SS382\docs\Task L\Report,doc ~ GEOMATRIX ¡~" b~ ~:s~ TABLE m r:~~ I rf',' :' ('; i I' TABLE 1 ANAL YTICÀL RESULTS FOR SOIL SAMPLES March 20, 2001 Former Pick Your Part Facility 2120 S. Union Street Bakersfield, California Results in milligrams per kilogram (mglkg) ~ Pl., f!?-' Test Pit ill Sample ill Sample Depth TRPHt TRPH (feet) (neat)2 (sieved)' TP 1 TP 1-5' 5 18 12 TP2 TP 2-5' 5 2500 930 TP3 TP 3-5' Al 5 1860 750 TP3 TP 3-5' B1 5 1880 820 TP4 TP 4-5' A 5 46 46 TP4 TP 4-5.5' B 5.5 1100 680 1. TRPH = total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 418.1. 2. neat = sample analyzed neat. 3. sieved = portion of sample that passed through a No, 60 sieve analyzed. I ~,'i,::" [: P:\S382\DOCSTask LlsoiJresults ~ GEOMATRIX ~ GEOMATRIX k,~," bI ~ FIGURES I L I ~'; '~-;~j", " I, , þ)~~ ",''; .¡o~ I ~','0'~ '~ '-t~ ;- ¡ l';t:; I [ :. 1 i 1 Ü , ~ '3 ~ ~] J~ Jt ~~ l O! j ! I ~ ,r~ Ì( Basemap modified from U,$,G,$. 7_5 minute Quadrangle Map Gosford 1954, California, Photo-revised 1973, Lamont 1992. California, Flgunt By dmm Map No, -. .------,,'. ¡- ....-~... ~...... l';:::~~ :~;: ..' .. ......... ~ ",.'~ ~ t.~: ~~~;. ; :':f ...., : : -'·1 ~ "". t :: ~:~ ;; "., t ..)..... :. H& _4.;;;::;'»' U ." 19 f". .' If .,::,..... . ~. .. ROAD ~ -N- ~ o 1200 2400 ~ I APPRaXl1IIA TE SCALE IN FEET ~ GEOMATRIX SITE LOCATION MAP PICK YOUR PART 2120 SOUTH UNION AVENUE Bakersfield, California Dale 06/14/01 o Project No, 5382 FIgure 1 ... ..-..---- ,;-, -- ,c ::: S' r---- ;;, ~·r:?,é ~~é' i\~'... I,";' ~;,~cJ: -;~tpØ.f\~ ' .-'~' . .' -';' "."'...~. .....-. -- -. ,-' " z o ,::: « z « -' 0.. x w " -,' -' ,-- .-J ~ .-J ~ Cv ~ x .. « ll) n. a.. f- ~D UJ Z -.J UJ U Z UJ LL. t, ..- cc ll) ~~ f- ~-,- o «I a..f- UJO t!¡CC a:::a:::~ UUJ(J) ZOO OZUJ U::)I ~(J) L ll) I ..- a.. f- ~dl . cc ll) I N a.. f- ~dl . o UJ J: (J) cc ll) L!i I <:t a../ f- UJ ::) Z f- ~,~ Za:::«E :s~Z~ o...a:::QJ ::)Z W 0 ::) 3;2- ¡->-IW _~f-'5; U)U::).... -OW a..(J)-æ oCC N ..- N --. -~-l - -- .. /?~ GEOMAT~IX DRIVER ET AL. (1989) PAPER Bull. Environ Contam Toxicol. (1989) 43:814-820 it) 1989 Spring~r-\'c:rlag New York Inc, "j En\lir-onrnentaJ C ontBr'nf nation and "1bxlcology Soil Adherence to Human Skin Jeffrey H, Driver, James J, Konz. and Gary K, Whitmyre Versar tnc" 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, Virginia 22i 51, USA Dermal exposure to soils contaminated '.',Iith toxic chemicals represents a potential public health hazard. These soils, contaminated with chemicals such as PCBs and dioxins, may be found at various locations throughout the U.S. (EPA 1987). Furthermore, dermal contact with pesticide- containing particles and contaminated soil particles is of importance for exposures to agricultural workers who reenter fields after pesticide application (Knaak et al. 1989). Dermal exposure estimates based on the dislodgeable residue procedures for measuring the transfer of pesticide residues to workers includes pesticide residues present on contamina:ed particulate materia! that adheres to foliage. Particles present on sprayed foliage sunaces can consist of dried pesticide deposits from liquid formulation, granular formulations, and dust or clay particles, especially when they are used as inert carriers in the applied formulation. It has been suggested that differences in soil type, particle size distribution, and crop foliage may affect exposures obtained during reentry (Nigg et aL 1984). Because of the wide geographical distribution of agricultural and hazardous waste sites, soil characteristics (e.g., particle size distribution, organic content, moisture content, pH) may vary significantly. With respect to dermal exposure to pesticide-contaminated particulate matter, several occurrences of human toxicity to ethyl parathion in citrus groves have been reported. These exposures resulted from dermal contact with high concentrations of the toxic transformation product paraoxon in soil dust contaminated as a result of application of pesticide to the overhead foliage of trees (Gunther et a!. 1976). Soil dust can serve as a vehicle for transfer of paraoxon to various parts of the body (e.g., hands, arms, legs. feet) of workers harvesting fruit (Iwata 1980). Such contact has resulted in human toxicity even in the presence of levels on treated foliage presumed to be safe based on an adequate time interval before reentry. Similarly, dermal exposure of strawberry -. haNesters and weeders to captan has been thought to be related to resuspended, contaminated dust (Zweig et al. 1985), Send reprint requests to Jeffrey H, Drive., RiskFocuS® Division, Versar Inc" 6850 Versar Cenrer, Springfield, VA 22151. 814 To assess dermal exposure to chemically-contaminated soil at sites of concern, dermal adherence of soil must be determined prior to the assessment of dermal absorption. Several studies have been reported which measured either directly or indirectly, soil adherence to skin. Lepow et a!. (1975) employed adhesive tape to sample 21.5 cm" of skin on an area of the hand, This method yielded approximately 11 mg of material on the skin surface. Assuming all the materia! recovered was soil and the method yielded a substantial portion of the soil adhering to the skin, approximately 0,5 mg of soil was determined to be adhering to 1.0 cm2 of skin. In another study I the amount of lead adhering to the hands of children (average age of 11 years) was determined during school yard activities (Roe!s et a!. 1980). The amount of lead adhering to the hand was determined by pouring 500 ml of dilute nitric acid over the palm. The lead content of the hand rinse and of representative soil samples from the school yard was determined. An estimate of the amount of soil (g) on the hand was calculated by dividing the hand lead amount (µg) by the soil lead amount (µgjg). The mean soil amount adhering to the hand was 0.159 g. The California Department of Hea!th Services, Toxic Substances Control Division (1986) used this estimate and the average surface area of the hand of an eleven year old - 307 cm2 (Anderson et a!. 1985, McDougal 1978, Lund and Browder 1944), to estimate the amount of soi! adhering per unft area of skin - 0.9 m~jcm2. This estimate assumed approximately 60 percent (185 em) of the hand was sampled by the method employed by Roels et al. (1980). Que Hee et a!. (1985) used soil in particle sizes ranging from 44 to 833 µm diameters, fractionated into 6 size ranges to estimate the amount of soH adhering to skin. For each range of particle sizes, the amount of soil that adhered to the palm of the hand of a small adult was determined by applying approximately 5 9 of soil for each size fraction and measuring the difference in weight before and after soil application. Several assumptions were made including: soil is composed of particles of the indicated diameters, all soil types and particle sizes adhere to the skin to the degree observed in this study, and an equivalent weight of particles of any diameter adhere to the same surface area of skin. On average, 31,2 mg of soil adhered to the small adult palm. Assuming the surface area of the palm of a small adult (approximately 14 yéars old with an ' average total body surface area of 16,000 cm2 and a hand surface area of 400 em) is approximately 160 cm2 (Anderson et a!. 1985), 0.2 mg of soil adhered to 1 cm2 of skin. The purpose of the experiment reported herein was to determine the amount of soil (mgjcm) that adheres to adult hands under various soil conditions. These conditions include the type of sail, the organic content of the sail, and the particle size of the soil. 815 MATERIALS AND METHODS The experiments involved the use of various soil types collected from sites in Virginia. A total of five soil types or "series" were collected: Hyde, Chesapeake, Panorama, Jackland, and Montalto, Both top soils and subsoils were collected for each soil type. The soils were also characterized by cation exchange capacity, organic content, clay mineralogy, and particle size distribution. The soils were dry sieved to obtain particle sizes of S 250 µm and 5. 150 µm. For each soil type the amount (mg) of soil adhering to adult mate hands, using both sieved and unsieved soils, was determined using the following methods: 1) A known weight (mg) of soil was placed into a pre-cleaned, tared plastic container; adult hands were then placed in the soil for a 30 second contact period; during the 30 second period the hands were constantly agitated in the soil; the weight (mg) of adhered soil was then determined by subtracting the soil post-contact weight from the pre-contact weight. 2) Triplicate adherence weight (mg) measurement determinations were made for each soil type at the 5. 150 µm size, the 5. 250 µm size, and for unsieved samples. 3) The'surface area of adult hands was estimated using the following equation (Anderson et al. 1985): SA = (0.0257) ryt,m) (HO,2\8) where, = surface area of adult male hands in m2, body weight in kg, and height in cm. SA W H = = 4) Pre- and post-contact weights were determined with the same temperature and humidity conditions using an analytical balance. ' 5) The adult male hands were cleaned wtth soap and water followed by triplicate rinses with double-distilled, deionized water. The hands were allowed to "air dry." The same hands were used for all experiments. - ' 6) To determine the recovery efficiency for net soil loss after skin contact the following procedure was employed: from a known amount (mg) of sail, a sample was removed and' weighed. The original soil was then reweighed to compare the net Joss by subtraction versus the net loss by direct weighing. Net loss by subtraction differed from net loss by direct weighing by less than 1 %. 816 Two-factor analysis of variance experiments were performed on soil adherence data. The two experimental factors were soil type and soil particle size. The experiment involved a total of eleven soil samples (from five soil types) and three particle sizes (unsieved, ~ 150 µm, and 5 250 µm). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Mean soil adherence values (mg/cm) are presented in Table 1 for all soil types, including top soils and subsoils. Data are presented for both sieved and unsieved samples. The analysis of variance statisûcs are shown in Table 2. The most important factor affecting adherence variability was particle size with a variance (F) ratio far in excess of the 0.999 significance value (p < 0.001). The next most important factor was soil type and subtype with an F ratio also in excess of the 0.999 significance value (p < 0.001). The interaction factor of soil type and particle size was also significant, but at a lower 0.99 significance level (p < 0.01). The standard error for comparing the difference between soil type means was 4)1 (2 x 0.0344/9) = 0.087. Twice this standard error was greater than the difference between some, but not all, row means. This implies that some, but not all. soil type and subtype means were not significantly different at the 0.95 significance level. The standard error for comparing the difference between particle size means was 4)1 (2 x 0.0344/33) = 0.046. Twice this standard error was far less than the difference between any two column means implying that ail such means were clearly distinct. This confirms that particle size was the most important factor of variability in the experiment. Another experiment was conducted using two soil types: a high organic content soil of the Hyde series and a ¡ow organic content soil of the Chesapeake series. Two particle sizes (unsieved and 5 150 µm) were used for each soil type. Mean soil adherence values from this experiment are shown in Table 3, and the analysis of variance statistics are shown in Table 4. Again, the most important factor affecting experimental variability was particle size with an F ratio in excess of the 0.999 significance level (p < 0.001). The soil type factor was also significant, but at a lower 0.99 significance level (p < 0.01), and the interaction factor was not significant at a/I. The standard error for comparing the difference between both row and _ column means was 0.054. Since the difference between the column means (= 0.4) was about twice the difference between the row means, this confirms that, again, particle size (columns) was the most important element of variability in the experiment. The importance of dermal exposure assessment for chemically- contaminated soils has been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). For example, although inhalation exposure 817 Table 1, Soil adherence means (mg soil/cmL skin) Soil Adhe~ence bY Partiçle size % organic Row Soil tvDe 1 marter Unsieved < 250 jJ.m < 150 µm Means 1A 3.04 0,5957 1.2268 1.5423 1.1549 1E 0,92 O,716ô 1.2041 1.85 1 5 1.2574 1 ar 0.22 0,3701 0.8041 1.1883 O,78ì7 2A , ,83 0,7390 1 . , 630 1.6914 1.1978 25 0.31 0,2347 1.0669 1,4625 0,9213 3A 1.46 0.543 1 0,9106 1.1155 0.8554 38 0.61 0,' 738 0.5140 0,7552 0.4810 4A 17.19 0,5826 0,8730 0,9762 0,8106 48t N,O, 0.8955 0,9868 1,6808 1. 1 880 SA 10.03 0.7737 0,9012 1 ,6262 1,1003 58t 1,31 0,7901 0,7594 1.3940 0,9811 Column means: 0, 58 21 0,9463 1,3986 I ì Montalto Series 4 Hyde Series Letters following soil type 2 Panorama Series 5 Chesapeake Series designate soil horiZons. 3 Jacktand Series N.D. = Not Determi~d. Table 2, ANOVA statistics for skin adherence factors of soil type and particle size Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Signi- Variance freedom sauares square F ratio ficance 1m- Soil type 10 4.914 0,491 14.299 < 0.001 Particle size 2 11.012 5.506 160.229 < 0.001 rnteraction 20 1.737 0.087 2.527 < 0.01 Error 66 2,268 0,034 Table 3. Soil adherence means (mg soiljcm2 skin) for high and tow organic content soils SOil Adherence by Partiçle Size Soil tYDe % orç¡aniç Unsieved < 1 50 Um Row means Hyde 19,35 0,3627 0.7925 0,5776 Chesapeake 0.77 -0.5955 0.9728 0.7841 Column means: 0.4 791 0,8826 Table 4, ANOVA statistiC$ for skin adherence factors of soil type and pa~jcle size using high and low organic content soils Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean F Sign¡· Variance freedom square square ratio ficance .ú2L- Soil type 1 0,1280 0,1280 14,447 < 0,01 Particle size 8 0,4886 0,4886 55.142 < 0.001 Interaction , 0,0021 0,0021 0.234 Error 8 0,0709 0,0089 818 to vapor phase and particulate residues occurs during pesticide worker reentry activities, it has been reported to represent less than one percent of dermal exposure in field situations (USEPA 1984), To prevent adverse heatth effects for workers by residues of some of the most toxic pesticides, EPA has established waiting times for reentry known as reentry intervals. The basis for determining a reentry interval is a dissipation study that examines the decrease in residue levels in the field after applic.aüon due to environmental transformation processes (e.g., photolysis, hydrolysis). Subdivision K of the EPA's pesticide assessment guidelines directs that when contaminated soil residues are expected to be a major source of exposure for workers during reentry activities, a dissipation study must be performed for soil residues using soil samples of particle sizes ~ 147 µm. The implications of the soil adherence values for unsìeved and sieved soils in exposure assessment are important to consider. Dermal exposure scenarios should be related to soil-specific characteristics (e.g., particle size distributions, soil type) to accurately determine exposure levels for a given toxicant. It is also important to consider soil characteristics (e.g., organic content) because of their influence on dermal absorption (Umbrerr et al. 1986, Shu et a1. 1988). Site-specific soil adherence values should be determined, if possible, based upon soil characteristics at the site. Further, soil adherence data should be developed for additional particle size intervals. This will allow the estimation of total soil adherence based on weighted adherence values (Le., weighted according to the predominance of each particle size interval at a specific site). Once developed, soil adherence values will allow more accurate estimation of dermal exposure to chemically-contaminated soil. Acknowledgments. The authors acknowledge the technical assistance of Arthur Clarke, Senior Statistician, and the laboratory assistance of Terri ScottI Environmental Scientist. This study was funded by EPA Contract No. 68-02-4254. REFERENCES Anderson E, 8rC?wneN. Duletsky S, Rar:nig J, Wam T (1985) Development of statistical " distribUtIons or ranges of standard factors used In exposure assessments, Final report. Washíngton, DC: U,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. EPA Contract No, 68-{)2·3997, Work Assignment No, 2, P8 85·242667 California Department of Health Services (1986) The development of applied action levels for soli contact: a scenario for the exposure of humans to soil in a residential setting, Toxic Substances Control Division. Department of Health Services.. State of Califomia, Sacramenlo, CA Gunther FA, Carman GE, and Iwata Y (1976) Worker reentry safety in citrus groves, Department of Entomology, Univershy of California, Riverside, California Department of Food and Agriculture Contract No, 4288, {as cited In Knaak et aI. 1989} Iwata Y (1980) Minimizing occupational exposure to pesticides: reeentry field data - a recapitulation, Residue Rev 75:127-147 (as cited In Knaak at al. 1989) 819 Kimbrough RD, Fa!k H, Stehr P (1984) Health Implications of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlcrodibelLZodloxin (rCDD) contamination of residential soil. J Toxieol Environ Health 14:47-93 Knaak JB, Iwata Y, and Maddy KT (1989) The worker hazard posed by reentry into pesticide-treated foliage: development of safe re-entry times wtth emphasis an chlorthiophos and carbosulfan. In: Paustenbach DJ (ed), The risk assessment of environmental and human health hazards: a textbook of case studies, New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp.797 - 842 Lepow ML Sruckman L, Gillette M, MarkowItz S, Rubino R, Kapish J (1975) Investigations into sources of lead in the environment of urban children. Environ Res 10:415-426 Lund CC, Browder NC (1944) The estimation of areas of burns, Surg GynecoJ Obstet 79:352-358 McDougal WS, Slade CL, Pruit1 SA (1978) Comprehensive manual of surgical specialties, Vol. 2. Manual of Burns, New York: Springer Verlag Nigg HN, Stamper JH, and Queen RM (1984) The development and use of a universal model to predict tree crop harvester pesticide exposure. Am lnd Hyg Assoc J 45:182- 186 (as cited in Knaak et al. 1989) Poiger H. Schlatter C (1980) Influence of solvents and adsorbents on dermal and Intestinal absorption of rCDD, Fd Cosmet Toxicol 18:477-481 Que Hee SS, Peace B. SCOt1 CS, Boyle JR, Bornschein RL. Hammond P8 (1985) Evolution of efficient methods to sample lead sources, such as house dust and hand dust. in the homes of children, Environ Res 38:11-95 RoeJs HA, Suchet JP, Lauwerys RR, Bruaux P, Claeys-Thoreau F, Lafontaine A. Veiduyn G (1980) Exposure to lead by orat and the pulmonary routes of children IMng in the vicinity of a primary lead smelter. Environ Res 22:81-94 Shu H, Teitelbaum P, Webb AS, Marple l, Brunck B, Dei Rossi D. Murray FJ, Paustenbach D (1988) BioavaiIabiIity of soil-bound TCDO: dermal bioavailabTIity in the rat. Fundamental Appl Toxlcol1 0:335-343 Umbre'rt TH, Hesse EJ, Gallo MA (1986) BloavaiIability of dioxIn in soli from a 2.4.S-r manufacturing sIte, Science 232:491-499 USEPA (1984) V,S, Environmental Protection Agency. Pesticide assessment guidelines subdivision K, exposure: reentry protection, Springfield. Virginia: National Technical Information Service, NTIS Publication No. PB85-120962 VSEPA (1987) U,S, Environmental Protectton Agency. National dioxin study. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530·SW-87~25 Zweig G. Leffingwell JT, and Popendorf W (1985) The relationship betv.'een dermal pesticide exposure by fruit harvesters and dislodgeable foliage residues. J Environ Scl Health B20 (1): 27-59 Received April 1. ,1989; accepted May 10, 1989. 820 ~ GEOMATRIX ¡:. LABORATORY REPORT ¡~ ;. ~;,;;;;,; ~~ ~ ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES 806 North Batavia - Orange, California 92868 - 714/771-6900 FAX 714/538-1209 CLIENT Geomatrix Consultants A TTN: Tim Wood 330 W, Bay Street Suite #140 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (5973) LAB REQUEST 69632 REPORTED 04/03/2001 RECEIVED 03/21/2001 PROJECT #5382 L ;:::~i SUBMITTER Client COMMENTS Added EPA 418,1 to at! soil samples except order #253170 and 253] 72, If any sample has a detection above the reporting limit, please sieve the sample using a #60 sieve and analyze the material that passes through the sieve for SPA 418,1, This laboratory request covers the followin~ listed samples which were analyzed forthe parameters indicated on the attached Analytical Result Report, All analyses were conducted using the appropriate methods as indicated on the report, This cover letter is an integral part of the final report, ~..: ,:~ t:U Order No. 253167 253168 253169 253170 253171 253172 253173 253174 255611 Client Sample Identification TP 1-5' TP 2-5' TP 3-5' Al TP 3-5' A2 TP 3~5' BI TP 3-5' B2 TP 4-5' A TP 4-5,5' B TP1-5'-S Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to your company, Please feel tree to call ¡fthere are any questions regarding this report or if we can be offurther service, NOTE: Unless notified in writing, all samples will be discarded by appropriate disposal protocol 30 daysfrom date reported. The reports of the Associated Laboratoriesare con fidential property of our clients M~ not be reproduced or used for publication in part or in full without our written permission, This is for the mutual protection of the public. our clients, and ourselves, TESTiNG & CONSULTING Chemical Microbiological Environmental Lab request 69632 cover, page I of2 CUENT Geomatrix Consultants A TTN: Tim Wood 330 W, Bay Street Suite #140 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (5973) LAB REQUEST 69632 REPORTED 04/03/2001 RECEIVED 03/21/200 I PROJECT #5382 L SUBMITTER Client COMMENTS Added EP A 418,1 to all soil samples except order #253170 and 253172, If any sqmple has a detection above the reporting limit, please sieve the sample using a #60 sieve and analyze the material that passes through the sieve for EPA 418,1. ff~~ This laboratory request covers the following listed samples which were analyzed for the parameters indicated on the attached Analytical Result Report, All analyses were conducted using the appropriate methods as indicated on the report, This cover letter is an integral part of the final report, Order No. 255612 255613 255614 255615 255616 Client Sample Identification TP 2-5' - S TP 3-51 Al - S TP 3-5' B I - S TP 4-5' - S TP 4-5,5' B - S ~ Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to your company, Please feel tree to call if there are any questions regarding this report or if we can be offurther service, ASSOC~BO,~ Edwak. Ph.D. Vice President NOTE: Unless notified in writing. all samples will be discarded by appropriate disposal protocol 30 days from date reported, The reports of the Associated Laboratories are confidential property 0 f our clients ~ not be reproduced or used for publication in part or in full without our written pennission, This is for the mutual protection of the public, our clients, and ourselves, TESTING & CONSULTING Chemical Microbiological Environmental Lab request 69632 cover, page 2 of2 Order #: I 2531671 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 12:15 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 1-5' Log Date: 03/21!::. Result Date/Analyst DLR Units ----.---------- 418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons __Total Recoverab¡~Petroleum Hydrocarbons -- L__~__~Q__mg/Kg 03/29/01 TN Order #: I 2531681 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 13:15 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 2-5' Log Date: 03/21/2C Result DLR Units Date/Analyst "':"!'j ::""418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons -" ---------- -_._--_._-~--_. -".-.-------.-,..------.-----..---- --- "-------- -."-.---.------..-- ---.-----,- __I9l~.ßeco~rabl~?~_trol~~E1 HY<l!"oc_arbo~___~_, 2,500L.-----.lQo,o._I!1Æ.~L-..~/29/~ __ Order #: I 2531691 .\'latrix: SOLID )ate Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 13:50 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 3-5' A1 Log Date: 03/21/20 Result DLR Units Date/Analyst 118.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons ---.--- .----- ----_._--~._---_._-------------~~._._-------_._._------ ------.--------- ---~----_._----. -----.-1:ot~~~~..Yer~þle£~~!ol~l!E!.!:!¿:9!ocarbo~__ _.._J______.__...2 !~~_ __~ºº_,-º- ____l!!gLI<;g____03/22{Q l_._.~___ __ Order #: I 2531711 ~,;;.¡'1atrix: SOLID liJate Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 14:00 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 3_5' Bl Log Date: 03/2l/20 Result DLR Units Date/Analyst ----- \g.l Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons ------- ._--'------------_._-~----- ___ T otalRecovera_ble Petroleum,.!jydrocarbons .-l.___~ 100,0 ~Kg -ºlIJJi.~ TN ____ DLR = Detection limit for reporting purposes, NO = Not Detected below indicated detection limit ß _A,ÇSOClA TRn 1,,4 RORA TOR1RS Analvtical Results Report Lab Request 69632 results, page 1 of 3 Order#: I 2531731 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 14:45 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 4-5' A Log Date: 03/2 112 ( Result DLR Units Date/Analyst 418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons ~ 03/29/01 TN 10 ~Kg Order #: I 2531741 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 15:00 t ;.'.~ Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 4-5,51 B Log Date: 03/21/20 Result DLR Units Date/Analyst !';]]:.: ;::'418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons -----------_.~- .----- .-----------~-_._---------------_._-- Total Recoverabl~ Petrol~l!m Hydrocarbon~____~ 1,100L__ .J-º--_.E1~ß.&._,-º-~29/ºL_~_ Order #: I 2556111 \1atrix: SaUD )ate Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 12:15 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 1·5' - S Log Date: 04/03/20 Result Date/Analyst DLR Units 18.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons --~..__.._, -- -_._--_._-_._,------_._--------~------_._._-- -, -----~ -----.-------.------------- _ Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydro_carbons _____L___BL- 10 04/05/01 TN mg/KL_ --- Order #: I 2556121 &~iJatrix: SOLID til!ate Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 13:15 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 2-5' - S Log Date: 04/03/20 Result DLR Units Date/Analyst [8.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons - '~--'---- ~.__~f!!g[~ 04/05/01 TN ~ DLR = Detection limit for reporting purposes, ND = Not Detected below indicated detection limit 8 _ 4.(¡SOCT A TRn T.A RnR A TOR TRS Analytical Results Report Lab Request 69632 results, page 2 of3 Order#: I 2556131 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/200\ Time Sampled: 13:50 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 3-5' A I - S Log Date: 04/03/= Result DLR Units Date/Analyst --- 418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons -~------- L 75Q/ 04/05/0 I TN 10 mg/Kg Order #: I 2556141 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 14:00 ':,:.'. Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 3-5' B I - S Log Date: 04/03/2C Result DLR Units Date/Analyst :~ ~;;>"418.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons - .,----~_._------ ---- .,-- ~- - --- ~ <-.-. -----_._---- -' -.---------.-..-----------.-..-- ---- ------ ,.___Total~e~?vera~l~ Petroleum _.HYdrQ.c~I~ons________L __.__--ª201__._._~.._~_~L~~05/ºl_,_TN.__ Order #: I 2556151 Matrix: SOLID Date Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 14:45 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 4_5' - S Log Date: 04/03/20 Result Date/Analyst DLR Units 118.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons -'-..-" -..---.------.,.. - -- -. .-----.- --- ..-._. -~--_._._~--_.--_.._----_. .- -.. --- -.----- --. - -------- - ~--- ------ - -.. .-_.~'- ,.-... ___ Total Recoverable Petr.ol~um ~droc~bons____J__.__~Æ___,__1Q_. mg/Kg__---º-~05/0.l TN___ Order#: I 2556161 \~tllatrix: SOLID æate Sampled: 03/20/2001 Time Sampled: 15:00 Analyte Client Sample ID: TP 4-5.51 B - S Log Date: 04/03/20 Result DLR Units Date/Analyst 18.1 Total Recoverable Petroleum Hvdrocarbons __ Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbo_ns L___ 680L__~~g 04/05/0 I TN DLR := Detection limit for reporting purposes, ND = Not Detected below indicated detection limit ß 4SS0CTA TRD rA ßOR4TORTRS Analytical Results Report Lab Request 69632 results, page 3 of3 ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES QA REPORT FORM QC Sample: LR 69632-253167 --,-.,-..-.--- ----- Matrix: SOLID -------,- Prep. Date: 03/29/01 --------- -- Analysis Date: 03/29/01 ._ ,.__..-__._0_.- lD#'s in Batch: LR 69632, 69927, 69954 ------ N MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULT Reporting Units = mg/Kg Sample Spike Matrix Matrix %Rec %Rec Test Method Result Added Spike Spk. Dup MS MSD RPD TRPH 418,1 ND 38.15 40 36 104.8 94.4 10.5 RPD '" Relative Percent Difference of Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate 'YoREC-MS & MSD '" Percent Recovery of Matrix Spike & Matrix Spike Duplicate %REC LIMITS = 70 - 130 RPD LIMITS = 30 PREP ARA TION BLANK I LAB CONTROL SAMPLE RESULTS tif~~ PREPBL LCS Value Result True %Rec L.Limit H.Limit ND 92 100 92.0 80% 120% Value = Preparation Blank Value; ND = Not-Detected LCS Result = Lab Control Sample Result True'" True Value olLCS L.Limit / H.Limit = LCS Control Limits 04/03/200 I 418, Urph_0329s,xls ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES QA REPORT FORM QC Sample: LR 69632-253167 _._._----~-- -------.--..-.---..-. Matrix: SOLID ~----- Prep. Date: 04/02/0 1 --- Analysis Date: 04/02/01 --.._---- ID#'s in Batch: LR 69632, 70115 ------ ---.----- ---.------ ~ ..... MATRIX SPIKE / MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RESULT (,.'" Reporting Units == mg/Kg Sample Spike Matrix Matrix %Rec %Rec Test Method Result Added Spike Spk. Dup MS MSD RPD TRPH 418.1 ND 38,15 36 40 94.4 104.8 10.5 RPD = Relative Percent Difference of Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate %REC-MS & MSD = Percent Recovery of Matrix Spike & Matrix Spike Duplicate l}/aREC LIMITS := 70 - 130 RPD LIMITS = 30 PREPARATION BLANK I LAB CONTROL SAMPLE RESULTS /,": eLi:, PREP BL LCS Value Result True %Rec L.Limit H.Limit ND 95 100 95.0 80% 120% ;-' Value = Preparation Blank Value; ND = Not-Detected LCS Result = Lab Control Sample Result True = True Value ofLCS L.Limit / H.Limit = LCS Control Limits 04/03/200 418,l_trph_0402s,xls -- U.)I ~UI VJ. . H.: lot l'AÃ 949 642 447-1 GEOMATRIX NB ~OOl ~ -= GECMATRJX 11 C1 ü;. =)2- FAX li-cm Seoní8t:'rlx Cc:ansuh:øn1:ø. Ing. I 330 Wes'C Say stnaeI:. Suite 140. Cos1:a Mesa. CA. ees27 , .............v.QaOlT!~~.com I Date: '5 - ~, - ~ ( \ To: I I J ::::,ono: Number of pages including cover sheet: ~ The infcrmation irJ thIs /s/ecopy Is fntsnded lor /he namerl recJpien/(s) only. It may c:onteln privileged and conHdentla/ matter. If yov hal/8 received MIs /eleCQPY in snof. plas3e notify (he sender Immediste/y. Thank YO/l. þ~ ; elf t: Ro be.J't.-:> ~s~a4kl h:,,6K~f'-J t)~ <- I c/l From: (T1Vl L1J~& c! ;'11.{- 5'SS-l~O' 11 t.{ - t-~( - 6 f~o Fax Phone: 949-642-4474 949·642-0245 .¿ 3e;/ e -r-'~e r-a-wof4,+rïX..C¿p-1 5'5B~ '- .ftlP fa'J'~,Ifue, .&t~f:N Phone: Direct dial: Email: Project No.: Project Name: cc: REMARKS: D Hard copy to follow 0 I Urgent or your review 0 Reply ASAP o Please comment ..II t:i~ ~ ¡ , ~c:. Sðs.1 ~~/es ~ke¿ ~ eNð. ~4 Sø ) (~k~~ ~ re H Ð '- D ~ ,., 3./ð-£ ( ¿J ( I -fd,-r if 1/ f,pf)- Pt~J. 4(~f(, ~..ç:.. ~7 s~/e ¿.e+e~ 41»x-¡he r-tP~ I ~ M ~.¡.., /I~e I s: ~K 1'h.,( S~/( ttSi VL5 ~ IIld. 6 0 ~: eve ~ d. II a. M/..,-s e. -¡¡.., t' JVlaf.e-r¡ " I -f/AA-I- fM S" <i1 7> 1h 1/9 ~h. 7t.. 't' $1 , ~ 11fd. ( ~ ,'p{"~*5e 4.41..,11~e. ~If) rt:~utl-:> w¿t{ bt: ¡ I a,l)ßi( t:l b( -e .før q;."" r ftAI: e(,f) . =A :1- c,tX. e k (J-(' l ~'$ S' ~ pr eA'> e. "111. e t:{~ç?t. e e! S ~ÞM¡,Ift:.J, c9Y\ aV1.øt/~"$ e CðC ./AÆ I(,~ hilS A OaJ<:land. CA . S:tJn t.esndl'O, CA . Fr-eeno. CA. . SacramsMW. CA . t:Or;;QI MMe. CA . Auadn. ìX . HOLJe~Qn. TX MlnneSPClds, MN . OIlllI:rQÏ1:, MI . BUl'l'ðlo. NY . OiCQC¡o. Il . Nlagllll"\J( FeIlB. ON . Kh;.t;hIlll1&\1'"·Wat:ar1ca, aN fam~1 ~ _ ~ ~- .... -" ~.......~ _...,~,.". ,',;,!',.,.',~,·.·.~-""f, "..:,:_'::..,_J. ,,' -':~.' ; ",,=...~ .- ::-~~:- ...~ ~...:.-...:..: - '!': ... ~ h Chain~of.:~ustody Record. .~ ?.!:..~-""'-f . "', ,~"'!' :'" ":'_"~:'--":-'''~'!:--f<~_~:~'~J.:,-::;tÄ:~;).~~,,:;~~ -:.:~? :f, ;:,,:..,,,., "-i'." ,: .::,f.-.'.¡,.....y~,:}<:~?';.o~~,~~~~~;.::<,.~:;.-::~;<;-¥'>:,:~ :'::~':. 'I' ~ ~ ... 'l' s:~, 0 0 '0 0 Z'£, '0' ~ ~ " '- 0 ,<U 'Q) CD ~ fl L. '0 ''c '''0' 'D ro 0 0 0' 0 0 s;; 6 £ï 5 '5 .~ QI' G1 '(J 11) ø 0 ':E' ž _ ~ ~ == u c( ~. ,tC ~ ß'~, ft::fu ~ fu >- >- .c .Q t;»,u J: :\:. no a. I- ...' ª ~ '0 .~ c a), '0 o r:: ... ~ X « 'a. .g¡ ... Date' Time S3/T1ple,Number ~ ~ ..... ~ Eo< ;l o ~ {.! . . ~'1cI(.I-t s s ~ , . , ~ t- -.so ..." :-¡ "" :::) ~ ~ ~ '~ ~' Results'to:' --- II"\. RsllJiQulsbed .by ISJgnawreJ: wøJ Printed nåm~: ~ -.. <: Y. ,TIme: - 1Ð:t{5 Compal}y: .~ . . ,D3te:" R~ce1ved·'\jY·(Slgnature): '-,,~/ .: '... ~ I .prlnted;Nàme: 'çOmpimy: .. -:- 3 "- .-. ,^, "- '. -~ -...-----. -, - ":0- V' " page I of ,~~:...p~'':..-.....:v-.:.S!.~ ;: -,f\l:'~.7"~"1!:"""~:-":":""..:; :·"-"-:::-·':::-·:·~··2":...·~..·-· =-::;;-~~~~~ :~~::.' AddItional Comments f.! iii C ~ C u 8 11) Ii: .... 'õ 0 :ü Ò « z Totar No. of contaIners: * \10fJ, -for 5úbs~ a 1A..t:l./7 --,. S _ 7PW - 3(~/" { 1"1+(éO( pelfú iX"J{. H( be ~)CeJ. ft~c>e tA...Þ1a/73 e ,~ Sa.~If?S ~. TfH fLS~ 6-PA Mef1.aðcL L/,l9../. U A. S~{"C k..~... d~ .~ ~ ~pøf'f,"'?-(" '(~-e. r-e.-~ ã-il-c "'''' ç.1P ~ P-S"Þ '.....? ~ "l *'60 ~: e~ ....d. ~""'1 ß 4rlkM-- pe.'S.:;es 1'1\ 1IP~t,. .J- ".s~ t411'> :....:t weefc. MethoD of shipment: ' - , If b ~c ft -f.( fJ laboratory comments and Log No.: , Da~e: ' .RèrlnQúisbèd'.bV.(slgnãture): --- -- -Date: PJ1nted' n,ame: Tlm~ Time: Company: Date: Recelved.by {signature): Date: pj1nterr Name: /)QC:::= Geomat'rlx Cansultent:s 330 W. Bay S~. Suite 140 Casta Mass, Callfopn;s S28~7 lIme; , Time: ,Cbl1)panv: ~-----