Soil Testing.pdf

nelsonlc Typewritten Text Project Number 980636

December 17, 2010

SFA Architects, Inc.

120 West Second Street Suite 1800 Dayton, Ohio 45402

Attention: John Rademacher, AIA

Re: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment

(Subsurface Soil Sampling) Wright Patterson Air Force Base Building 30089, Fairborn, Ohio TesTech Project: 27431

Dear Mr. Rademacher:

TesTech, Inc. (TesTech) is pleased to submit the findings of the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) regarding the above referenced subject property.

The findings, results, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report are based on conditions encountered during the subsurface investigation conducted at the subject property on November 23, 2010.

This investigation has relied on the accuracy and completeness of the analytical laboratories, private databases, and other sources in preparing this report. While TesTech has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of this report, it does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of such information, which was attained from outside sources in connection with the conclusions of this study.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer these services to you. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance to you, please contact our office at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully yours, Reviewed by:

TesTech, Inc.

Joseph Saunders Janice Denney, CPG Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Department Manager

8534 Yankee Street, Suite C 5769 Park Plaza Court 8164 Executive Court Suite C Dayton, OH 45458 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Lansing, MI 48917 Tel: 937-435-3200 Tel: 317-845-3133 Tel: 517-622-1002 Fax: 937-291-6549 Fax: 317-845-3131 www.testechinc.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary 3

2.0 Introduction

2.1 Purpose 4

2.2 Scope of Work 4

2.3 Limitations 4

2.4 Reliance 4

3.0 Background Information

3.1 Site Location 5

3.2 Site and Vicinity Conditions 5

3.3 Regional Geology 5

3.4 Groundwater 6

4.0 Field Activities - Sampling Procedures

4.1 Methodology 7

4.2 Laboratory Results 8

4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 9

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 10

6.0 References 11

Table 1 PID Readings 7 2 Organic Analytical Results Summary 8 3 RCRA Metals Analytical Results Summary 8

Appendices

A Site Location Map B USGS Map C Soils Map D Boring Location Plan and Soil Boring Logs E Analytical Laboratory Report F Regulatory Comparison Criteria G Qualifications of Assessors

8534 Yankee Street, Suite C 5769 Park Plaza Court 8164 Executive Court Suite C Dayton, OH 45458 Indianapolis, IN 46220 Lansing, MI 48917 Tel: 937-435-3200 Tel: 317-845-3133 Tel: 517-622-1002 www.testechinc.com

Fax: 937-291-6549 Fax: 317-845-3131

Limited Phase II ESA Report December 17, 2010 (Subsurface Soil Sampling) WPAFB-Building 89 TesTech, Inc. # 27431

1.0 Executive Summary

TesTech, Inc. (TesTech) has completed a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on the interior of Building 30089 (Building 89) located on Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) in Fairborn, Greene County, Ohio (subject property). TesTech performed the borings at various locations within the building to investigate potential environmental impacts to the subsurface soils from historic use of the building.

The boring locations were advanced in the following approximate locations:

• Four (4) borings were advanced in the two (2) large open bays

• Two (2) borings were advanced in the two (2) former garage areas

• Each borings was advanced to a maximum depth of six (6) feet bgs

TesTech conducted the Limited Phase II ESA on November 23, 2010. As part of this investigation, six (6) soil borings were advanced at various locations throughout the interior of the building on the subject property to a maximum depth of six (6) feet each by using direct push techniques. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the boring locations; therefore, no groundwater samples were collected. The borings were advanced at the approximate locations illustrated on the Boring Location Plan included in Appendix D. One (1) soil sample from each boring location was submitted for laboratory analysis. The six (6) soil samples were submitted to the laboratory to be analyzed for the following chemicals of concern (COC):

• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8082

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) by

EPA Method 8015 Modified

• TPH, Diesel Range Organics (DRO) by EPA Method 8015 Modified

• RCRA Metals (Various Methods)

Laboratory analysis of the six (6) soil samples submitted from this study indicated that concentrations of VOCs, PCBs, TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO (COC) were not detected at levels above the method detection limits. Various concentrations of several RCRA Metals were detected in each of the soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis from this study. The concentration of arsenic detected in two (2) of the borings (Boring 2 and Boring 6) exceeded the “Table I: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Residential Land Use Category”. The levels detected were less than the “Table II: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Commercial and Industrial Land-Use Categories” and the “Table III:

Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Construction and Excavation Activities Category” criteria.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Purpose

TesTech understands that Building 30089 is slated for demolition. This Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted to investigate potential environmental impacts to the subsurface soils from historical activities that have been conducted within Building 30089 (subject property). TesTech understands that the building has historically been used for many different purposes throughout it’s history, including vehicle service and dry cleaning operations.

2.2 Scope of Work

On November 23, 2010, TesTech conducted a Limited Phase II ESA on the subject property.

The scope of services for this study consisted of advancing six (6) soil borings at selected locations within the building on the subject property to address potential recognized environmental conditions associated with the site. Continuous soil sampling was conducted at each of the boring locations. One (1) soil sample from each boring location was submitted for laboratory analysis for the specified COC.

2.3 Limitations

The findings, results, recommendations, and conclusions presented in this report are based on conditions encountered during the limited subsurface investigation conducted on November 23, 2010. This investigation has relied on the accuracy and completeness of publicly available sources, private databases, independent laboratories, and other sources in preparing this report. While TesTech has taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of this report, it does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information that was attained through outside sources in connection with the conclusions contained in this study.

2.4 Reliance

This report has been prepared solely for SFA Architects, WPAFB and their respective successors and assigns. This investigation was performed in accordance with contractual agreements between TesTech Inc., and the Client, SFA Architects,. This investigation is warranted only to SFA Architects, WPAFB and their respective successors and assigns.

3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 Site Location

Building 30089 (subject property) is located within the confines of WPAFB in Fairborn, Greene County, Ohio. A Site Location Map depicting the location of the subject property is included in Appendix A.

For the regional location, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map for Fairborn, Ohio was reviewed and is included in Appendix B.

3.2 Site and Vicinity Conditions

The subject property is located within an active military land-use area of Fairborn, Greene County, Ohio.

3.3 Regional Geology

Greene County is located within the glaciated till plains of Ohio and in the Central Lowland Physiographic province. Greene County has been covered by continental glaciers at least three

(3) times. The oldest till is Kansan in age, the next oldest is Illinoian, and the youngest of the three tills was deposited during the Tazwell or Iowan substage of the Wisconsinan stage.

Glacial till is the dominant geologic parent material of the soils in this region. Till commonly is a mixture of boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt, and clay carried southward by an advancing glacier and deposited directly on the surface during glacial retreat. Wisconsin age glacial drift consists of till, outwash, loess, and alluvium washed from these materials.

The subject property lies within the Paleozoic Era, Ordovician System, Upper Ordovician Series.

The soils found across the subject property are of the Miamian – Celina association. The soils in this association are deep, mainly gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained and moderately well drained soils that have moderately fine textured and fine textured subsoil;

formed in thin loess and glacial till.

Specifically, the topsoil found across the subject property consists of Warsaw Urban Land Complex, nearly level.

A copy of the Soils Map for the subject property is included in Appendix C.

WcA – Warsaw Urban Land Complex, nearly level

Soil Characteristics – The Warsaw series consists of nearly level, well drained soils that formed in loamy glacial outwash over sand and gravel. These soils are located on terraces along the major streams and their larger tributaries. Available water capacity is moderate. Permeability is moderate in the upper part and rapid in the underlying sand and gravel.

3.4 Groundwater

The groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other sources of information such as: surface topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic data collected on nearby properties and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).

According to the Groundwater Resources of Greene County, Ohio, (ODNR, 1986), the subject property is located in an area of Greene County where wells may yield from 100 to 500 gallons per minute from regionally thick, permeable deposits of sand and gravel at depths of approximately 80-feet.

4.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES - SAMPLING PROCEDURES

4.1 Methodology

On November 23, 2010, TesTech conducted a Limited Phase II ESA at the subject property.

The scope of services for this study consisted of advancing six (6) soil borings at the approximate locations indicated on the Boring Location Plan included in Appendix D.

A CME Model 55X tracked drill rig was used to advance the soil borings. The sampling tool (split spoon) was pushed to the desired sample depth which minimized the generation of investigation-derived wastes (soil cuttings). The CME Model 55X rig uses 2.0-inch diameter, stainless steel split spoons that are each two (2) feet in length to collect soil samples. The split spoons were decontaminated before sampling began and between each sample.

Each soil sample interval was split, with one-half of each sample being placed in a re-sealable plastic bag for field screening with a Photo-Ionization Detector (PID) and the other one-half placed into the appropriate 4-ounce glass sample jars for submittal to the laboratory. Each of the soil samples that were placed into the re-sealable plastic bags were field-screened with a PID, a device capable of detecting certain ranges of organic vapors. The PID results were recorded on the individual boring logs and the readings from this study are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: PID Readings (ppm)

Boring

Identification

Sample Depth

(Feet below ground surface)

0-2’ 2-4’ 4-6’

B-1 0.1 0.4* 0.3

B-2 0.2 0.8* 0.5

B-3 0.6 0.7 0.9*

B-4 0.6 1.2 1.6*

B-5 0.3 0.4* 0.2

B-6 0.3 0.6 1.1*

*Indicates samples submitted for laboratory analysis

Soils encountered during the Phase II ESA were generally composed of brown sandy clay with varying amounts of silt and gravel. One (1) soil sample from each boring that exhibited the highest PID reading was submitted for laboratory analysis. Boring Logs describing the soils encountered in each of the borings are included in Appendix D. Excess soil cuttings were not generated from the subsurface investigation and no soil cuttings were returned to the borings.

The boring voids were back-filled with hydrated bentonite chips after the samples were collected. Each boring location was then sealed with concrete.

WPAFB-Building 89 TesTech, Inc. # 27431

The 4-ounce glass jars containing the soil samples were labeled, sealed and transported in an iced cooler, under chain-of-custody, to TestAmerica Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio. The soil samples from this investigation were analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Gasoline Range Organics (GRO) and Diesel Range Organics (DRO), by EPA Method 8015 Modified and the eight RCRA Metals (arsenic. barium, cadmium. chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and silver) by various EPA methods.

Groundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings during the subsurface investigation.

4.2 Laboratory Results (Soil)

Laboratory analysis of the six (6) soil samples collected for this study indicated that concentrations of the organic chemicals of concern, PCBs, VOCs TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO were not detected at levels above their respective method detection limits. A summary of the soil organic analytical sample results are presented in Table 2 below.

A copy of the complete Analytical Laboratory Report is included in Appendix E. Copies of the “Table II: “Generic Direct Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern – Residential Land Use Category” is included in Appendix F.

Table 2: Organic Analytical Results Summary

PCBs

(mg/Kg)

TPH-DRO

(mg/Kg)

TPH-GRO

(mg/Kg)

VOCs (μg/Kg)

Sample ID

B-1 (2-4’) All <BDL* All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

B-2 (2-4’) All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

B-3 (4-6’) All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

B-4 (4-6’) All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

B-5 (2-4’) All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

B-6 (4-6’) All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

IDW All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL All <BDL

BDL*: Indicates sample results below detection limit

All RCRA Metals, with the exception of selenium, were detected at varying concentrations in the six (6) soil samples submitted from this investigation. The analytical results were compared to OEPA’s “Table I: Generic Direct Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern – Residential Land Use Category”. The analytical results were also compared to OEPA’s “Table II: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Commercial and Industrial Land-Use Categories and the “Table III: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Construction and Excavation Activities Category.

Table 3: RCRA Metals Analytical Results Summary

Arsenic (mg/Kg)

Barium (mg/Kg)

Cadmium (mg/Kg)

Chromium (mg/Kg)

Lead (mg/Kg)

Mercury (mg/Kg)

Selenium (mg/Kg)

Silver (mg/Kg)

Residential 6.7 15,000 72 110,000 400 7.6 380 380

Comm/Indust 82 370,000 2,300 1,000,000 1,800 290 15,000 15,000

B-1 (2-4’) 5.73 35.3 3.87 10.2 17.1 0.0402 BDL BDL

B-2 (2-4’) 8.81 65.1 BDL 9.56 20.1 0.0535 BDL 0.125

B-3 (4-6’) BDL* 12.9 BDL 3.08 3.28 BDL BDL BDL

B-4 (4-6’) BDL 17.1 BDL 3.50 4.32 0.0122 BDL BDL

B-5 (2-4’) BDL 14.5 BDL 3.93 4.92 0.0112 BDL BDL

B-6 (4-6’) 11.5 81.8 BDL 16.1 14.5 0.0496 BDL 0.154

IDW BDL 30.9 6.32 8.07 36.3 0.0876 BDL BDL

BDL*: Indicates sample results below detection limit

The results of two (2) of the soil samples collected from B-2 (2-4’ depth) and B6 (4-6’ depth) exceeded OEPA’s “Table II: Generic Direct Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern – Residential Land Use Category” for arsenic.

The results were less than OEPA’s “Table II: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Commercial and Industrial Land- Use Categories and the “Table III: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Construction and Excavation Activities Category.

The arsenic soil concentrations reported from this investigation are well within the background range of arsenic concentrations in Ohio soils, as documented in the report entitled “Study of State Soil Arsenic Regulations” conducted by the Association for the Environmental Health of Soils in Amherst, Massachusetts. This document reported arsenic soil concentrations from studies completed in a total of 34 states (including Ohio) as of December 1, 1998. This study included data from several Ohio RCRA facilities that were required to establish background concentrations for arsenic as part of their site investigation and cleanup efforts. This study documents that in Ohio, Arsenic background concentrations range from “Non Detect” to 30 parts per million (ppm) or mg/Kg. For reference, select pages from the “Study of State Soil Arsenic Regulations” report are provided with the “Regulatory Comparison Criteria” in Appendix F.

4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

As part of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for this subsurface investigation, soil samples were collected in 2.0-inch diameter stainless steel split spoons. The split spoons were decontaminated with a stiff brush and a non-phosphate soap solution. The split spoons were rinsed with clear water and allowed to air-dry between sample locations. To prevent cross-contamination of samples, the TesTech Environmental Specialist donned a new set of disposable nitrile gloves between each soil sample. Samples selected for laboratory analysis were labeled, sealed and transported in an iced cooler, under chain-of-custody, to TestAmerica Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

Qualifications of the Assessors participating in this Limited Phase II ESA are included in Appendix G.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Soil Sample Results

Laboratory analysis of the six (6) soil samples submitted for analysis from this study indicated that concentrations of the organic COCs (PCBs, VOCs TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO) were not detected at levels above their respective method detection limits.

The results of two (2) of the soil samples collected from B-2 (2-4’ depth) and B-6 (4-6’ depth), exceeded OEPA’s “Table II: Generic Direct Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern – Residential Land Use Category” for arsenic. The results were less than OEPA’s “Table II: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Commercial and Industrial Land-Use Categories and the “Table III: Generic Direct-Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non-Carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern - Construction and Excavation Activities Category”.

The arsenic soil concentrations reported from this investigation are well within the background range of arsenic concentrations in Ohio soils, as documented in the report entitled “Study of State Soil Arsenic Regulations” conducted by the Association for the Environmental Health of Soils in Amherst, Massachusetts. This study documents that in Ohio, Arsenic background concentrations range from “Non Detect” to 30 parts per million (ppm) or mg/Kg.

Based on laboratory analytical results from this Limited Phase II ESA, concentrations of PCBs, VOCs, TPH-DRO and TPH-GRO were not detected in the soils above their respective method detection limits in the respective areas sampled from this investigation.

The exceedances of arsenic in the two (2) soil sample locations should not present an environmental concern to the subject property with respect to worker direct contact during construction. Since the subject property is located on a military installation, as long as there are no plans for constructing residential structures on, or around, the existing building site, the arsenic exceedances from this study should not impact the proposed demolition project.

TesTech understands that removal of soil from the subject property will not be required as part of the demolition of the existing building. If future plans necessitate removal of soil from the subject property, sampling of the soils for waste characterization purposes may be required prior to taking the soils off-site.

It should be noted that this subsurface investigation was very limited in scope and the boring locations were selected with no specific information available regarding historic use of the building. The results obtained from this study may not be indicative of the environmental condition of other areas of soil on the subject property. There is a potential that environmentally impacted soil may be encountered in other areas during demolition activities on the subject property.

6.0 REFERENCES

- ASTM E-1903-02, Standard Guide for Environmental Site Assessments:

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Process

- United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils Survey of Greene County, Ohio

- Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Voluntary Action Program: Generic Direct Contact Soil Standards for Carcinogenic and Non carcinogenic Chemicals of Concern – Residential Land Use Category

- U.S. Geological Survey, Ground Water Atlas of the United States

- U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map –Fairborn, Ohio.