March 8, Re: Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan Addendum No. 2 Former Duncan Refinery Duncan, Oklahoma. Dear Ms. Downard:

Transcription

1 March 8, 2013 Ms. Sara Downard Environmental Programs Specialist Land Protection Division Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 707 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK Project No Environmental Resources Management Capitol Tower 206 East 9 th Street Suite 1700 Austin, Texas (512) (512) (Fax) Re: Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan Addendum No. 2 Former Duncan Refinery Duncan, Oklahoma Dear Ms. Downard: This Work Plan Addendum has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management (ERM) on behalf of Phillips 66 (P66) to provide an update on the approach and methodology to be used in the upcoming Phase 2 Direct-Push Evaluation, which is part of the Site-Wide Characterization at the Former Duncan Refinery. ERM will conduct this revised scope of work on behalf of P66. The goal of the Phase 2 Direct-Push Evaluation is to refine the conceptual site model (CSM) by characterizing the nature and extent of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) and dissolved-phase constituents in ground water in Focus Areas identified using the Phase 1 Soil Gas Survey (SGS) results (provided under separate cover) and historical site data. PHASE 2 FOCUS AREAS Phase 2 Direct-Push Evaluation activities will focus primarily on the following five Focus Areas identified following interpretation of the Phase 1 SGS results and historical LNAPL and ground water data: Northern Area Areas of elevated SGS results and historical LNAPL presence in the northwestern/northern portions of the site; Central Area Areas of elevated SGS results and historical LNAPL presence in the central portion of the site; LNAPL Trench Area Areas of elevated SGS results and LNAPL presence in the eastern portion of the site (includes area historically referred to as the LNAPL Seep ); Phenol Area Areas of affected ground water in the southeastern portion of the site (includes area historically referred to as the Phenol Seep ); and Southern Area Areas of slightly elevated SGS results in the downgradient direction of the Central Area.

2 March 8, 2013 ODEQ \A5322 Rpt.doc Page 2 Environmental Resources Management UPDATED PHASE 2 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Phase 2 of the Site-Wide Characterization will utilize two direct-push high-resolution characterization technologies. A cone penetrometer testing (CPT) direct-push rig equipped with a laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) sensor will be used in Focus Areas (described above) that are likely affected by LNAPL. The CPT technology will provide detailed stratigraphic data, and the LIF technology will be used to infer the presence and delineate the lateral and vertical extent of LNAPL within the alluvium. A percussion hammer direct-push rig (e.g., Geoprobe) equipped with a Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS) will be used in Focus Areas where data on dissolved-phase constituents is desired along the site boundary and near potential receptors such as Claridy Creek. The Waterloo APS technology will facilitate real-time identification of the distribution of dissolvedphase constituents in the ground water. The Waterloo APS will collect multiple discreteinterval ground water samples from each boring for analysis of various constituents of concern using fixed and/or field laboratories. This tool will be focused on collecting high-resolution dissolved-phase constituent data to support refinement of the CSM; specifically, potential for constituent transport to receptors and design of a long-term monitoring well network at the site. Table 1 summarizes the proposed locations for the Phase 2 activities and the rationale for their selection. Table 2 summarizes the proposed analytical program, including analytical methods, for the Phase 2 activities. Table 3 provides the specific list of proposed analytes and the expected reporting limits. Figure 1 shows the locations of proposed CPT-LIF borings and proposed Waterloo APS borings on the site map. A general description of each direct-push technology is presented below. A selection of vendors to execute the Phase 2 activities will be made on the basis of their technical qualifications, cost and other contractual considerations. CPT Equipment CPT is a method for characterizing subsurface soil conditions by measuring the tip resistance and sleeve friction as drill tools are advanced through the subsurface. The CPT tooling is advanced through the soil at a relatively constant rate by application of a hydraulic press mounted in a large, heavy truck or all-terrain vehicle (ATV). The tip resistance and sleeve friction measurements, along with the ratio of these two parameters, have been correlated to a wide range of soil types. Accordingly, CPT vendors have developed software that converts the CPT measurements to known soil types, resulting in real-time development of continuous digital logs of recorded measurements and soil types with depth. LIF Tool The LIF sensor provides real-time, continuous field screening measurements of petroleum, oil, and lubricants, if present, in soil and ground water. A commercial version of the LIF sensor is the rapid optical screening tool (ROST TM ). The ROST TM will be advanced using a CPT platform. The ROST TM technology provides data on the in-situ distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons by measuring the fluorescence induced in the aromatic hydrocarbon compounds. The ROST TM system is capable of detecting these compounds in the soil matrix throughout the vadose, capillary fringe, and saturated zones. The system identifies the type and relative concentration

3 March 8, 2013 ODEQ \A5322 Rpt.doc Page 3 Environmental Resources Management of petroleum hydrocarbons present through variations in the wavelength and intensity of the fluorescence. Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS) Tool The Waterloo APS is a direct-push, real-time measurement tool that provides hydrostratigraphic data and allows for discrete-interval water sampling to better understand preferential migration pathways and the nature of dissolved-phase constituents in ground water. The Waterloo APS generates a continuous log of relative permeability data. The Waterloo APS can also collect discrete-interval ground water elevation data and samples from geologic units exhibiting hydraulic conductivity values of approximately 10-4 centimeters per second or higher (i.e., fine sand or coarser). During advancement of the tool through relatively homogeneous geologic material exhibiting adequate hydraulic conductivity values, ground water samples can be collected at approximately 5-foot intervals. The Waterloo APS is capable of collecting ground water samples at multiple intervals as the tool is advanced, without having to withdraw the tool for sample collection or decontamination. Ground water samples are collected for analysis using either a peristaltic pump for water depths less than 25 feet or a double-valve pump for sampling at greater depths. If the geologic conditions are heterogeneous, ground water samples can be collected at interfaces between relatively high and relatively low permeability units (i.e., the samples will be collected from the higher permeability zone). The interval between ground water samples is usually determined by geologic conditions (i.e., the thickness of relatively low permeability zones from which ground water samples are not able to be collected). Samples collected via the Waterloo APS tool can be analyzed in either a portable field laboratory to facilitate real-time decision making or in a fixed laboratory. The original Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Direct-Push Evaluations (SOP-1) has been updated to include the Waterloo APS technology. The updated SOP is provided in Appendix A. FIELD APPROACH The CPT-LIF field program will be implemented using a tiered approach. Tier 1 (primary) CPT- LIF boring locations were defined based on the presence of elevated soil gas readings (see Phase 1 SGS report) and/or previous detections of LNAPL in existing monitor wells. The presence of LNAPL in a Tier 1 boring would trigger the advancement of one or more Tier 2 (step-out) CPT- LIF borings in proximity to the Tier 1 location to enable delineation of the lateral extent of the LNAPL. If significant LNAPL is observed in a Tier 2 boring, the need and location for further step out locations will be determined during the course of the field program, on a case by case basis. Forty-four (44) Tier 1 CPT-LIF borings and up to 59 possible Tier 2 CPT-LIF borings are proposed in Figure 1, with Tier 2 locations to be adjusted in the field. A primary objective of the Waterloo APS program is to improve understanding of the potential for dissolved-phase constituents to impact the primary receptors identified for ground water at

4 March 8, 2013 ODEQ \A5322 Rpt.doc Page 4 Environmental Resources Management the site (i.e., human and wildlife users of Claridy Creek, the downgradient recipient of ground water discharge). Waterloo APS locations were therefore selected to characterize the potential for offsite migration of constituents at downgradient site boundaries. All ground water samples collected using the Waterloo APS tool will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using a portable field laboratory. In addition, all ground water samples collected using the Waterloo APS tool will be analyzed for arsenic and lead at a fixed laboratory and selected samples collected from the Phenol Area will be analyzed for phenolic compounds (e.g., phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, and 2-, 3-, and 4- methylphenol) at a fixed laboratory. The specific analyte list (Table 3) includes the organic constituents for which site-specific Risk Based Remediation Goal Limits (RBRGLs) have been developed, as well as additional constituents that meet the following criteria: (1) were detected relatively frequently in ground water during prior investigations (e.g. polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and BTEX); and/or (2) were within the analytical capabilities of the field lab and included in Table B-1C Ground Water Analytes, RBRGLs and Screening Standards from the approved Sampling and Analysis Plan. The inorganics selected for analysis are those for which RBRGLs have been identified. Sampling and analyses in the portable field laboratory and the fixed laboratory will follow Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures per the EPA SW-846 protocols and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in the approved Site-wide Characterization Work Plan, with the following exceptions. As the ground water sampling method used with the Waterloo APS tool varies from standard monitor well sampling procedures described in the Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan, minor modifications to QA/QC sample frequency may be necessary due to the limitations of ground water recovery volumes and rates from the target intervals, especially for QA/QC samples that require additional volume (e.g. field duplicates and matrix spike samples). In addition, field blanks, as described in the QAPP, are not applicable to this method, and will not be collected during Waterloo APS sampling (equipment blanks and trip blanks will be collected and analyzed as appropriate). Waterloo APS sampling will be focused on site boundaries, therefore, the need for APS locations in addition to those presented on Figure 1 is not anticipated. During the field activities, additional locations may be installed in proximity to the initial locations based on a comparison of the laboratory analysis results to site-specific benchmark values. Relevant benchmarks that provide a range of values to support decision-making include the established RBRGLs and the site-specific screening standards for constituents lacking RBRGLs (values are provided in the Initial Subsurface Investigation Summary Report, Weston 2009). Note that by virtue of the way the APS sample is collected (i.e., over a 6-inch vertical interval), concentrations in the Waterloo APS sample will likely be biased high relative to results obtained from a typically constructed/screened monitor well. For this reason, the results are considered useful for screening evaluation and for eliminating potential areas of concern. However, quantitative risk evaluation in support of corrective action decisions will be based upon the additional data to be collected in Phase 3 (Monitor Well Installation and Ground Water Sampling) and Phase 4 (Additional Soil Borings) of the site-wide characterization. Thirty eight (38) Waterloo APS borings are proposed in Figure 1.

5 March 8, 2013 ODEQ \A5322 Rpt.doc Page 5 Environmental Resources Management Each CPT-LIF and Waterloo APS boring will be advanced from ground surface to refusal. CPT, LIF and Waterloo APS measurements will be collected continuously. Ground water samples for analysis will be collected at approximately 5-foot vertical intervals. Each CPT-LIF and Waterloo APS boring will be plugged in accordance with State rules and regulations. It is anticipated that most borings will collapse after tool withdrawal below the saturated interval. However, the selected field vendors will be required to attempt to fully plug each boring, to the extent possible, in accordance with Oklahoma drilling regulations. All borings will be flagged and labeled for surveying. All locations will be surveyed immediately after installation by field personnel with a hand-held GPS unit. This step will ensure that an accurate location for each is recorded, in case the survey flag is lost or the surface changed in such a way that the location cannot be re-established for surveying later. Additionally, all locations will be surveyed by an Oklahoma-licensed professional land surveyor for vertical elevation and horizontal position. All elevations and boring coordinates will be tied into the existing site elevation and coordinate systems. Upon receipt of ODEQ approval of this Work Plan Addendum and the Phase 1 Soil Gas Survey Results report (submitted under separate cover), an updated site investigation schedule will be provided to the ODEQ and scheduling and implementation of Phase 2 activities will commence. Upon completion of Phase 2 activities, results and a summary of the work will be reported to the ODEQ in a manner similar to reporting of previous phases. If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this Work Plan Addendum, please contact me or Mitch Zimmerman at Sincerely, Environmental Resources Management Katrina Patterson, P.G. Project Manager Cc: Thomas R. Wynn Program Manager Phillips 66 Company, Remediation Management

6 Tables

7 Table 1 Summary of Proposed Direct Push Evaluation Locations Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan Addendum No. 2 Former Duncan Refinery Phillips 66 - Duncan, OK Focused Area Proposed Location(s) Approximate Depth (feet) Sampled Intervals COCs Analyzed Rationale Phase 2 Locations (See Figure 1) Northern Area Approximately 16 Tier 1 and 27 Tier 2 CPT-LIF 5-50 CPT - 5 feet below ground surface to refusal; LIF - vadose zone to refusal LNAPL Approximately 8 APS APS - vadose zone to refusal VOCs; PAHs; Arsenic; Lead Areas of elevated SGS results and LNAPL presence in the northwestern/ northern portions of the site Central Area Approximately 25 Tier 1 and 27 Tier 2 CPT-LIF 5-50 CPT - 5 feet below ground surface to refusal; LIF - vadose zone to refusal LNAPL No APS APS - vadose zone to refusal VOCs; PAHs; Arsenic; Lead Areas of elevated SGS results and LNAPL presence in the central portion of the site LNAPL Trench Area Approximately 3 Tier 1 and 5 Tier 2 CPT-LIF 5-50 CPT - 5 feet below ground surface to refusal; LIF - vadose zone to refusal LNAPL Approximately 8 APS APS - vadose zone to refusal VOCs; PAHs; Arsenic; Lead Areas of elevated SGS results and LNAPL presence in the eastern portion of the site Phenol Area No CPT-LIF NA NA NA Approximately 12 APS APS - vadose zone to refusal VOCs; PAHs; Phenolics; Arsenic; Lead Areas of affected ground water in the southeastern portion of the site Southern Area No CPT-LIF NA NA NA Approximately 10 APS APS - vadose zone to refusal VOCs; PAHs; Arsenic; Lead Areas of slightly elevated SGS results in the downgradient direction of the Central Area NOTES 1) Phase 2 delineation will be completed through the use of two direct-push high-resolution characterization technologies. A cone penetrometer testing (CPT) direct-push rig will be equipped with the laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) technology. A percussion hammer direct-push rig will be equipped with the Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS) technology. 2) LNAPL - Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids; VOCs - Volatile Organic Compunds; PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Phenolics (phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-methylphenol, 3-methylphenol and 4-methylphenol). ERM Page 1 of \A5322 Tbl 1.xls

8 Table 2 Summary of Direct Push Evaluation Analytical Components Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan Addendum No. 2 Former Duncan Refinery Phillips 66 - Duncan, OK LNAPL COCs LNAPL VOCs PAHs Phenolics Metals Sample Type Matrix EPA 8260 EPA 8270 EPA 8270 EPA 6010 Phase 2 - CPT-LIF soil/water 103 Phase 2 - APS water Total Samples NOTES 1) Numbers of samples indicated are approximate - actual sample numbers are dependent upon field conditions and sample selection judgment exercised by the team. 2) Phenolics = phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 2-methylphenol, and m&p-cresols; Metals = arsenic and lead 3) VOCs and PAHs will be analyzed in a portable field laboratory by Environmental Chemistry Consulting Services. 4) Phenolics and Metals will be analyzed in fixed laboratories by Environmental Chemistry Consulting Services and Pace Analytical Services. 5) QA/QC samples are not included in this table because these samples are dependent on the number of sampling days and the number of sample shipping containers. ERM \A5322 Tbl 2.xls

9 Table 3 Summary of Phase 2 Ground Water Analytes Site-Wide Characterization Work Plan Addendum No. 2 Former Duncan Refinery Phillips 66 - Duncan, OK Constituents by Category Expected Reporting Limit (mg/l) Metals (mg/l) Arsenic Lead Semivolatile Organic Compounds (mg/l) 1-Methylnaphthalene Methylnaphthalene Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benz(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Phenolics (mg/l) 2,4-Dimethylphenol Methylphenol m & p-cresol(s) Phenol ERM Page 1 of \A5322 Tbl 3.xls

10 Constituents by Category Expected Reporting Limit (mg/l) Volatile Organic Compounds (mg/l) 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ,1,1-Trichloroethane ,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ,1,2-Trichloroethane ,1-Dichloroethane ,1-Dichloroethene ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ,2-Dichloroethane ,2-Dichloropropane ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Hexanone Methyl-2-pentanone Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane cis-1,3-dichloropropene Dibromochloromethane Dibromomethane Dichlorodifluoromethane Ethylbenzene Methyl ethyl ketone Methylene chloride Styrene Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-dichloroethene trans-1,3-dichloropropene trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane Vinyl chloride Xylene (Total) NOTES 1) Sample-specific reporting limits may vary due to sample size, dilution or other matrix-specific factors. ERM Page 2 of \A5322 Tbl 3.xls

11 Figures

12 Legend Proposed CPT-LIF Boring Location (103) Central Area (52) Northern Area LNAPL Trench Area (8) Northern Area (43) Proposed APS Boring Location (38) LNAPL Trench Area (8) Northern Area (8) Phenol Area (12) Southern Area (10) Phenol Recovery Trench LNAPL Recovery Trench Area Boundaries Site Boundary Central Area LNAPL Trench Area Southern Area 1 1 Phenol Area DESIGN: CHECKED: SCALE: FIGURE 1 PROPOSED FI TITLE PHASE 2 BORING LOCATIONS Former Project Duncan Name Refinery Some Phillips Client, 66 Inc. Duncan, Oklahoma AAA AAA AS SHOWN Some County, State DRAWN: DATE: REVISION: I Tobar 3/5/ FILE: N:\Projects\ConocoPhillips\Duncan\Models_GIS\MXD\ Proposed_LIF_APS_Programs\DRAFT_LIF_APS_Locs_Boundaries.mxd ,000 Feet Basemap Source: ESRI Basemaps, Bing Maps Hybrid, Copyright: 2010 Microsoft Corporation and its data suppliers. Environmental Resources Management

13 Standard Operating Procedure Appendix A March 2013 Project No Environmental Resources Management 206 E. 9 th St., Suite 1700 Austin, Texas T:

14 Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Direct-Push Evaluations (SOP-1) (Updated March 2013)

15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SCOPE OF PROCEDURE PURPOSE OF PROCEDURE SCOPE COVERED BY SOP RELATED PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTS TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS EXECUTION CONE PENETROMETER TESTING (CPT) Rate of Penetration Interval of Readings Dissipation Tests Calibration and Maintenance CPT Interpretation LASER-INDUCED FLUORESCENCE (LIF ) Response to Different Petroleum Hydrocarbons Matrix Effects Spectral Interferences Calibration WATERLOO ADVANCED PROFILING SYSTEM (APS) Matrix Effects Calibration REFERENCES 8 ii \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

16 1.0 SCOPE OF PROCEDURE 1.1 PURPOSE OF PROCEDURE Standard Operating Procedure-1 (SOP-1) describes the standard operating procedures for use of direct-push technologies for conducting environmental evaluations. These technologies include Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT), Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF), and Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS). 1.2 SCOPE COVERED BY SOP-1 Cone Penetrometer Testing Laser-Induced Fluorescence Waterloo Advanced Profiling System 1.3 RELATED PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTS Geologic Logging and Material Classification Procedures (SOP-3) Soil Probe Operations (SOP-5) Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 1.4 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT): CPT is a method for characterizing subsurface stratigraphy by testing the response of soil to the force of a penetrating cone-tipped system of steel rods. CPT usually employs sensors mounted in the tip ( cone ) to measure the soil s resistance to penetration. The cone is advanced through the soil at a constant rate by application of a hydraulic press mounted in a large, heavy truck. Parameters measured typically include, at a minimum, tip resistance and sleeve friction. These two measurements, when combined with their ratio, may be correlated to a wide range of soil types that have been tested at multiple locations throughout the U.S. (Chiang, 1992; USEPA, 1997b). CPT vendors have developed software to perform soil identifications automatically, resulting in a digital log of recorded measurements and soil types with depth. Other soil and fluid measurements can be achieved with the CPT through addition of various specialized sensors to the cone assembly, including piezometric head transducers (piezocones), resistivity sleeves, nuclear logging tools, and ph sensors. Recent equipment developments include sensors that measure the type and relative concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons in the ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

17 subsurface, e.g. laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and fuel fluorescence detectors. Electronic signals from the detectors in the cone tip are transmitted through electric and/or fiber optic cables that are run inside the cone rods to a computer in the CPT truck at the ground surface, where they are processed and recorded. CPT cone sensors are commonly arrayed together to measure multiple parameters simultaneously. The CPT support platform is typically a 20 ton, all-wheel drive, diesel-powered truck, though it may also be mounted on a tracked all-terrain vehicle. The dimensions of the truck require a minimum width access of 10 feet and a height clearance of 15 feet. Access limits for the CPT truck are similar to those for conventional drilling rigs and heavy excavation equipment. Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF): The LIF sensor provides real-time field screening of the physical and chemical characteristics of aromatic petroleum hydrocarbons, if present, in soil and ground water penetrated at the location where it is applied. The technology is designed to quickly and cost-effectively distinguish aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated areas from uncontaminated areas. The LIF system mounted on a standard CPT truck is also capable of acquiring real-time geologic information and has the added benefit of reducing the amount of investigation-derived waste. This capability allows further investigation and remediation decisions to be made efficiently and reduces the number of samples submitted to laboratories for analysis. A commercial version of the LIF sensor is the rapid optical screening tool (ROST TM ), developed by Loral Corporation and Dakota Technologies, Inc. through a collaborative funding effort by the U. S. Army, Navy and Air Force. Fugro Geosciences, Inc. acquired rights to the ROST TM technology in May 1996, which offers it as an integral service with their CPT systems. A complete description of ROST TM and evaluation of its efficacy is provided in Bujewski and Rutherford (1997). The technology provides data on the in situ distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons by measuring the fluorescence induced in the aromatic hydrocarbon compounds. These compounds are components of many hydrocarbon mixtures, including the crude oils and refined products anticipated to be present on the subject site. The ROST TM system is capable of detecting these compounds in the soil matrix throughout the vadose, capillary fringe, and saturated zones. The system identifies the type and relative concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons present through variations in the wavelength and intensity of the fluorescence. Detector response is recorded digitally in the onboard CPT truck computer. Waterloo Advanced Profiling System (APS): The Waterloo APS is a real-time measurement tool that provides hydrostratigraphic and physiochemical data to define preferential migration pathways and delineate the extent of dissolvedphase contamination in ground water. During advancement of the tool using percussion-hammer or direct-push technology, the Waterloo APS generates a ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

18 continuous log of relative permeability data. The Waterloo APS can also collect discrete-interval ground water elevation data and samples from geologic units exhibiting hydraulic conductivity values of approximately 10-4 centimeters per second or higher (i.e., fine sand or coarser). During advancement of the tool through relatively homogeneous geologic material exhibiting adequate hydraulic conductivity values, ground water samples can be collected at approximately 5-foot vertical intervals. Exposedscreen samplers are capable of collecting ground water samples at multiple intervals as the tool is advanced, without having to withdraw the tool for sample collection or decontamination. Ground water samples for analysis are collected using either a peristaltic pump for water depths less than 25 feet or a doublevalve pump for sampling at greater depths. These ground water samples can be analyzed at an off-site laboratory and/or portable field laboratory. If the geologic conditions are heterogeneous, ground water samples will be collected at interfaces between relatively high and relatively low permeability units (i.e., the samples will be collected from the higher permeability zone). The minimum interval between ground water samples will be 5 feet. The maximum interval between ground water samples will be determined by geologic conditions (i.e., the thickness of relatively low permeability zones from which ground water samples are not able to be collected). ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

19 2.0 EXECUTION 2.1 CONE PENETROMETER TESTING (CPT) Rate of Penetration The standard rate of penetration is 2 cm per second, which is approximately 1 inch per second. Hence, a 60-foot sounding can be completed (start to finish) in about 30 minutes. The cone results are generally not sensitive to slight variations in the rate of penetration Interval of Readings Electric cones produce continuous analog data. However, most systems convert the data to digital form at selected intervals. Most standards require the interval to be no more than 8 inches (200 mm). In general, most systems collect data at intervals of between 1 to 2 inches (25 50 mm), with 2 inches the most common Dissipation Tests During a pause in penetration, any excess pore pressure generated around the cone will start to dissipate. The rate of dissipation depends upon the coefficient of consolidation, which in turn, depends on the compressibility and permeability of the soil, and therefore a dissipation test provides a measure of compressibility and permeability. A dissipation test can be performed at any required depth by stopping the penetration and measuring the decay of pore pressure with time. If equilibrium pore pressures are required, the dissipation test should continue until no further dissipation is observed. This can occur rapidly in sands, but may take several days in plastic clays. Because the dissipation also depends on the diameter of the cone, dissipation is faster for smaller cones Calibration and Maintenance Calibrations should be carried out at regular intervals (approximately every 3 months). For major projects, calibrations should be carried out before and after the field work, with functional checks during the work. Functional checks should include recording and evaluation of zero-load measurements CPT Interpretation The tip resistance, friction ratio, and pore pressure values from CPT profiles can be used to determine a soil stratigraphy profile. Plots of normalized tip resistance versus friction ratio and normalized tip resistance versus penetration pore pressure can be used to determine soil classification (Soil Behavior Type, SBT) as a function of depth. ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

20 Zone Qt/N Description Sensitive, Fine Grained Organic Soils-Peats Clays-Clay to Silty Clay Silt Mixtures-Clayey Silt to Silty Clay Sand Mixtures-Silty Sand to Sandy Silt Sands-Clean Sand to Silty Sand Gravelly Sand to Sand Very Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand * Very Stiff Sand, Fine Grained * (*) Heavily Over-consolidated or Cemented Figure 1. Normalized Friction Ratio Classification Chart. ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

21 2.2 LASER-INDUCED FLUORESCENCE (LIF ) Response to Different Petroleum Hydrocarbons The relative responses of the LIF sensor depend on the specific analyte being measured. The instruments sensitivity to different hydrocarbon compounds can vary by as much as two orders of magnitude Matrix Effects The in-situ fluorescence response of the LIF sensor to hydrocarbon compounds is also sensitive to variations in the soil matrix. Matrix properties that affect LIF sensitivity include soil grain size, mineralogy, moisture content, and surface area. Each of these factors influences the relative amount of analyte that is adsorbed onto or absorbed into the soil. Only the relative fraction of analyte that is optically accessible at the window of the probe can contribute to the fluorescence signal Spectral Interferences Calibration The LIF sensor is sensitive to any material that fluoresces when excited with ultraviolet wavelengths of light. Although intended to specifically target petroleum hydrocarbons, the excitation energy produced by the LIF system s laser may cause other organic contaminants and naturally occurring substances to fluoresce as well. Initial system setup will require the calibration of a number of components including, but not limited to, the laser, the detector, and strain gauges (when used in conjunction with CPT). An evaluation of the sensitivity of the LIF sensor and contamination encountered at the site is completed by collecting a number of confirmation soil samples from various depths, and either analyzing these samples on-site or at an analytical laboratory. The field or laboratory analytical tests should adequately characterize the soil sample for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants, especially polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Acceptable methods include, but are not limited to, EPA method 418.1, modified 8015, and modified Due to the nature of the in-situ measurement, duplicate samples cannot be measured by LIF. Soil heterogeneity and variation in contaminant distribution can be significant over short distances both horizontally and vertically. A number of soil samples will be collected at various depths and locations to allow a range of contamination levels to be analyzed and evaluated. Select soil samples will be homogenized. One portion of the homogenized sample will be containerized and submitted for laboratory analysis. Another portion will be ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

22 containerized and stored until the LIF probe has been retracted into the push room. At that point, the sample will be placed upon the LIF tool's sapphire window and fired upon. The spectral data collected from that shot may then be compared to the laboratory analytical results. 2.3 WATERLOO ADVANCED PROFILING SYSTEM (APS) Matrix Effects Calibration The Waterloo APS tool generates a continuous log of relative permeability data. The ability to efficiently collect ground water samples, however, is dependent on the hydraulic conductivity of the geologic units. Geologic units exhibiting hydraulic conductivity values of approximately 10-4 centimeters per second or higher (i.e., fine sand or coarser) are capable of producing sufficient sample volume over a reasonable time frame (less than 15 minutes). Geologic heterogeneity and variation in contaminant distribution can be significant over short distances both horizontally and vertically. The minimum vertical interval between ground water samples will be 5 feet. The maximum vertical interval will be determined by geologic conditions (i.e., the thickness of relatively low permeability zones from which ground water samples are not able to be collected). Waterloo APS tool calibrations should be carried out before and after the field work. Therefore, initial system setup will not require any field calibration. Due to the nature of the Waterloo APS tool measurements and the method of advancement of the tool (percussion hammer direct-push), duplicate hydrostratigraphic data measurements cannot be provided by Waterloo APS. Due to the method of ground water sample collection, however, duplicate samples can be collected for laboratory analysis (physiochemical data). ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc

23 3.0 REFERENCES Bujewski, Grace and Rutherford, Brian, US EPA, The Rapid Optical Screening Tool (ROST) Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) System for Screening of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Subsurface Soils, Innovative Technology Report, Sandia National Laboratories National Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas Nevada. Robertson, PK, Guide to In-Situ Testing, Gregg Drilling and Testing Inc. January U.S. EPA., Standard Operating Procedure for Site Characterization and Analysis Pentetrometer System/Laser Induced Fluorescence (SCAPS/LIF), SOP No. M- 003-SWT-03, December ERM \A5322 App A. SOP 1.doc