Idea Transcript
TARGETED SITE INVESTIGATION PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Borello Property Mission Avenida and Peet Road Morgan Hill, California
PREPARED FOR: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL SCHOOL PROPERTY EVALUATION AND CLEANUP DIVISION 8800 CAL CENTER DRIVE SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826 PREPARED BY: GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC. 3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800 RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742
GEOCON PROJECT NO. S9850-03-17
APRIL 2016
DISTRIBUTION LIST Mellan Songco, Project Manager (1 hard copy, 1 CD) California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division Casino Fajardo, Director of Construction and Modernization (2 hard copies, 2 CD) Morgan Hill Unified School District Noemi Emeric-Ford (1 CD) United States Environmental Protection Agency Dan Easter and Jim Brake, Project/Technical and Program Managers (project file) Geocon Consultants, Inc.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
PAGE
IDENTIFICATION FORM …………………………………………………………………….…….. i APPROVAL FORM …………………………………………………………………………….…….ii DISTRIBUTION LIST ………………………………………………………………………….…….iii TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………….……….iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………….………….vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. vii 1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Name ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Site Location ................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Responsible Agency ..................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Project Organization .................................................................................................... 2
2.0
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................... 4
3.0
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Site and Vicinity Description ....................................................................................... 5 3.2 Operational History ...................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Previous Investigations and Regulatory Involvement .................................................. 6 3.4 Records Review ........................................................................................................... 8 3.4.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources........................................................ 8 3.4.2 Site .................................................................................................................. 9 3.4.3 Offsite Properties ............................................................................................ 9 3.4.4 Orphan Summary .......................................................................................... 10 3.4.5 Historical Use................................................................................................ 10 3.4.6 City Directories ............................................................................................. 13 3.5 Geological and Hydrogeological Information............................................................ 13 3.6 Potential Environmental and/or Human Impact ......................................................... 15 3.7 Site Visit..................................................................................................................... 15
4.0
POTENTIAL PROBLEM AND TASKS................................................................................ 17
5.0
PROJECT AND DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ............................................................... 18 5.1 Screening Levels ........................................................................................................ 18 5.2 Project-specific Measurement Quality Objectives ..................................................... 18 5.3 Data Review and Validation ...................................................................................... 19 5.4 Data Management ...................................................................................................... 19 5.5 Assessment Oversight ................................................................................................ 19
6.0
FIELD ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 20
7.0
HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING EVALUATION .............................................................. 21 7.1 OCPs .......................................................................................................................... 21 7.2 Arsenic ....................................................................................................................... 21 7.3 Lead............................................................................................................................ 21 7.4 Cumulative Risk and Hazard Index ........................................................................... 22 7.5 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................. 23
8.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................... 24 iv
9.0
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 25
10.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 26
11.0
LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS .................................................................................... 28
12.0
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Organochlorine Pesticides Results 4. Arsenic and Lead Results 5. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Results 6. Site Conceptual Exposure Model TABLES 1. Summary of Soil Analytical Results and Screening Levels – Organochlorine Pesticides 2. Summary of Soil Analytical Results and Screening Levels – Metals 3. Summary of Soil Analytical Results and Screening Levels – Naturally Occurring Asbestos 4. Risk and Hazard Screening Evaluation 5. Summary of Findings PHOTOGRAPHS 1 through 6 APPENDICES A. TSI Grant Application from Morgan Hill Unified School District and DTSC Approval Letter B. List of Documents Reviewed for PEA Report C. Environmental Data Resources Site Reports D. Consultant Reports (CD) E. Parcel Maps
v
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 95UCL APN CAM COPC DQI DQO DTSC EPC ESA HERO HI HQ IQ kg μg/dl μg/kg mm mg/kg MS/MSD NFA OCP OEHHA PDF PEA PLM RL RSL TEM TSI USEPA USGS
95% upper confidence level of the mean Assessor’s Parcel Number California Assessment Manual chemical of potential concern data quality indicator data quality objective Department of Toxic Substances Control exposure point concentration environmental site assessment Office of Human and Ecological Risk Hazard Index hazard quotient intelligence quotient kilogram micrograms per deciliter micrograms per kilogram millimeter milligram per kilogram matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate No Further Action organochlorine pesticide Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment portable document format Preliminary Environmental Assessment polarized light microscopy reporting limit Regional Screening Level transmission electron microscopy Targeted Site Investigation United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Geological Survey
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Geocon Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Preliminary Environmental Assessment (PEA) report for the Borello property (the Site) in Morgan Hill, California. This PEA report was prepared for the Morgan Hill Unified School District (the District) under a Targeted Site Investigation (TSI) grant from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) with oversight by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The DTSC Site Code for this property is 202053 and its EnviroStor number is 6000224. This PEA report was prepared in accordance with DTSC Contract No. 15-T4072 and Work Order No. 1-072-1.0-202053. The TSI included: (1) a site visit, (2) document review (3) human health screening evaluation based on data reported by others, and (4) preparation of this PEA report. The purpose of the PEA was to determine whether current or past hazardous material management practices or waste management practices have resulted in a release or threatened release of hazardous materials, or whether naturally occurring hazardous materials are present, which pose a threat to children’s health, children’s learning abilities, public health, or the environment (California Education Code, Section 17210, Subdivision h). Additionally, the PEA was performed to further assess the lateral and vertical extent of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) related to past agricultural land use of the Site that have resulted in an unacceptable human health risk associated with future use of the Borello Property as an elementary school by the Morgan Hill Unified School District (the District). COPCs at the Site include organochlorine pesticides (OCP) and metals (arsenic and lead). Recent investigation of site soil has demonstrated that concentrations of some OCPs exceed health risk-based screening levels. Site agricultural (former crop field) soils were evaluated for OCPs and arsenic and soil in areas of the former and existing structures in the northwestern portion of the Site were evaluated for lead from leadbased paint and OCPs from potential termiticide application. The results of the PEA are intended to be used to determine if further investigation or remediation are warranted prior to development of the Site as an elementary school by the District. This PEA report was prepared based on a site visit and using existing data generated by others that is presented in various documents available on the DTSC’s EnviroStor website. Geocon did not generate any of the site soil data presented herein. The Site is located near the intersection of Peet Road and Mission Avenida in Morgan Hill, California, in Santa Clara County (Figure 1). The Site consists of an approximately 9-acre parcel and is the central and southern portion of the 14-acre Borello property. OCPs (primarily dieldrin) were identified in the soil at the Site at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for residential land use, which are the screening levels used for schools as well. Site soil was remediated in 2005 to reduce concentrations of OCPs. However, subsequent investigation in 2014 and in March 2016 confirmed that elevated concentrations of dieldrin remain in site soil. The lateral extent of elevated concentrations of dieldrin appears to include the majority of the proposed school site and vertically extends to a depth of 1 foot over most of the Site, but to 3 to 3½ feet in one area. vii
Concentrations of dieldrin in soil from the agricultural fields ranged from 1
Total Plotted
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
0 0 0
0 0 NR
0 0 NR
0 0 NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0.500 0.500
0 0
0 0
0 0
NR NR
NR NR
0 0
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
0.500 0.500 0.500
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
1
0
NR
1
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list NPL Proposed NPL NPL LIENS
1.000 1.000 0.001
Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL Federal CERCLIS list FEDERAL FACILITY CERCLIS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERCLIS-NFRAP
0.500
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS
1.000
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF
0.500
Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG RCRA-SQG RCRA-CESQG
0.250 0.250 0.250
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries LUCIS US ENG CONTROLS US INST CONTROL Federal ERNS list ERNS
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL RESPONSE
1.000
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ENVIROSTOR
1.000
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF
0.500
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST
0.500
TC4512224.2s Page 4
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search Distance (Miles)
INDIAN LUST SLIC HIST LUST
0.500 0.500 0.500
Target Property
>1
Total Plotted
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
NR NR
NR NR
0 1
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 NR 0 0 0
0 0 NR 0 0 0
NR NR NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
NR 0 0 NR 0 NR
NR 0 NR NR 0 NR
NR 0 NR NR 0 NR
NR NR NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.250 0.250 0.250
0 0 0
0 1 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
0 1 0
0.001 0.001 0.500
0 0 0
NR NR 0
NR NR 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists FEMA UST UST AST INDIAN UST
0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP VCP
0.500 0.500
State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS
0.500
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS
0.500
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites WMUDS/SWAT SWRCY HAULERS INDIAN ODI ODI DEBRIS REGION 9
0.500 0.500 0.001 0.500 0.500 0.500
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US HIST CDL HIST Cal-Sites SCH CDL Toxic Pits US CDL
0.001 1.000 0.250 0.001 1.000 0.001
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks SWEEPS UST HIST UST CA FID UST Local Land Records LIENS LIENS 2 DEED
Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS
0.001
TC4512224.2s Page 5
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search Distance (Miles)
CHMIRS LDS MCS SPILLS 90
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Target Property
>1
Total Plotted
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
0 0 0 0
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR 0 NR 0 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 NR 0 NR
NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR
NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Ascertainable Records RCRA NonGen / NLR FUDS DOD SCRD DRYCLEANERS US FIN ASSUR EPA WATCH LIST 2020 COR ACTION TSCA TRIS SSTS ROD RMP RAATS PRP PADS ICIS FTTS MLTS COAL ASH DOE COAL ASH EPA PCB TRANSFORMER RADINFO HIST FTTS DOT OPS CONSENT INDIAN RESERV UMTRA LEAD SMELTERS US AIRS US MINES FINDS CA BOND EXP. PLAN Cortese CUPA Listings DRYCLEANERS EMI ENF Financial Assurance HAZNET HIST CORTESE HWP HWT MINES MWMP NPDES
0.250 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.001 0.001 0.250 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.500 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.001 0.001 0.250 0.001 1.000 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.500 1.000 0.250 0.001 0.250 0.001
TC4512224.2s Page 6
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search Distance (Miles)
PEST LIC PROC Notify 65 SAN JOSE HAZMAT UIC WASTEWATER PITS WDS WIP
0.001 0.500 1.000 0.250 0.001 0.500 0.001 0.250
Target Property
>1
Total Plotted
< 1/8
1/8 - 1/4
1/4 - 1/2
1/2 - 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NR 0 0 0 NR 0 NR 0
NR 0 0 NR NR 0 NR NR
NR NR 0 NR NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 NR NR
0 NR NR
0 NR NR
NR NR NR
0 0 0
0 0
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
0 0
1
1
2
0
0
4
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records EDR MGP EDR Hist Auto EDR Hist Cleaner
1.000 0.125 0.125
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives RGA LF RGA LUST - Totals --
0.001 0.001 0
NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC4512224.2s Page 7
Map ID Direction Distance Elevation
1 SE < 1/8 0.045 mi. 240 ft. Relative: Lower Actual: 409 ft.
MAP FINDINGS
Site
Database(s)
SCVWD-COYOTE PUMP STATION 18300 PEET RD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
CUPA SANTA CLARA: Region: PE#: Program Description: Region: PE#: Program Description:
2 SE 1/8-1/4 0.208 mi. 1098 ft.
RADULOVICH DRYER 18145 PEET RD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
Relative: Higher
HIST UST: Region: Facility ID: Facility Type: Other Type: Contact Name: Telephone: Owner Name: Owner Address: Owner City,St,Zip: Total Tanks:
Actual: 411 ft.
CUPA Listings
Relative: Lower
SANTA CLARA BP13 HAZMAT STORAGE & HMBP FACILITY, 7-9 CHEMICALS
Actual: 405 ft.
HIST UST
U001601601 N/A
ENVIROSTOR VCP
S106568334 N/A
STATE 00000047703 Other APRICOT DRYER Not reported 4087799695 PETE RADULOVICH 18145 PEET RD. MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 0001 001 1 Not reported 00000350 PRODUCT UNLEADED Not reported Stock Inventor
BORELLO PROPERTY COCHRAN ROAD AND PEET ROAD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
ENVIROSTOR: Facility ID: Status: Status Date: Site Code: Site Type: Site Type Detailed: Acres: NPL: Regulatory Agencies:
S107145557 N/A
SANTA CLARA 2205 GENERATES 100 KG YR TO 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inches Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
1
0 inches
18 inches
loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils.
2
18 inches
44 inches
clay loam
3
44 inches
66 inches
gravelly sandy clay loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Granular materials (35 pct. or less passing No. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand.
Unified Soil
Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction micro m/sec (pH)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay. FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), silt. FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 14 Min: 4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Clayey sand.
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
TC4512224.2s Page A-6
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Map ID: 2 Soil Component Name:
ARBUCKLE
Soil Surface Texture:
gravelly loam
Hydrologic Group:
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Low Depth to Bedrock Min:
> 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inches Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
1
0 inches
20 inches
gravelly loam
2
20 inches
40 inches
gravelly loam
3
40 inches
59 inches
very gravelly sandy loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Silty Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Silty Soils. Granular materials (35 pct. or less passing No. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand.
Unified Soil
Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction micro m/sec (pH)
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Clayey sand.
Max: 14 Min: 4
Max: 6.5 Min: 5.6
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Clayey sand.
Max: 14 Min: 4
Max: 6.5 Min: 5.6
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Silty Sand.
Max: 42 Min: 14
Max: 6.5 Min: 6.2
Soil Map ID: 3 Soil Component Name:
PLEASANTON
Soil Surface Texture:
gravelly loam
Hydrologic Group:
Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep, moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Well drained TC4512224.2s Page A-7
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min:
> 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min:
> 0 inches Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
1
0 inches
18 inches
gravelly loam
2
18 inches
44 inches
gravelly clay loam
3
44 inches
66 inches
gravelly sandy clay loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Silty Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Granular materials (35 pct. or less passing No. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand.
Unified Soil
Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction micro m/sec (pH)
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Clayey sand.
Max: 14 Min: 4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Sands, Sands with fines, Clayey sand.
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
Soil Map ID: 4 Soil Component Name:
KEEFERS
Soil Surface Texture:
clay loam
Hydrologic Group:
Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.
Soil Drainage Class:
Well drained
Hydric Status: Not hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min:
> 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min:
> 183 inches
TC4512224.2s Page A-8
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
1
0 inches
22 inches
clay loam
2
22 inches
38 inches
gravelly clay loam
3
38 inches
59 inches
very gravelly clay loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils.
Unified Soil
Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction micro m/sec (pH)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 6.5 Min: 6.1
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.6
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS, Gravels, Gravels with fines, Clayey Gravel
Max: 4 Min: 0.42
Max: 7.8 Min: 7.4
Soil Map ID: 5 Soil Component Name:
SAN YSIDRO
Soil Surface Texture:
loam
Hydrologic Group:
Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer.
Soil Drainage Class:
Moderately well drained
Hydric Status: Partially hydric Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Moderate Depth to Bedrock Min:
> 0 inches
Depth to Watertable Min:
> 183 inches
TC4512224.2s Page A-9
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information Boundary
Classification
Layer
Upper
Lower
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
1
0 inches
20 inches
loam
2
20 inches
35 inches
clay
3
35 inches
50 inches
clay loam
4
50 inches
59 inches
sandy clay loam
Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Silty Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Silt-Clay Materials (more than 35 pct. passing No. 200), Clayey Soils. Granular materials (35 pct. or less passing No. 200), Silty, or Clayey Gravel and Sand.
Unified Soil
Saturated hydraulic conductivity Soil Reaction micro m/sec (pH)
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 14 Min: 4
Max: 6.5 Min: 5.6
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit 50% or more), Fat Clay.
Max: 1.4 Min: 0.42
Max: 7.3 Min: 6.1
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 8.4 Min: 7.9
FINE-GRAINED SOILS, Silts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50%), Lean Clay
Max: 4 Min: 1.4
Max: 8.4 Min: 7.9
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION DATABASE
SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS Federal FRDS PWS State Database
1.000 Nearest PWS within 0.001 miles 1.000
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION MAP ID
WELL ID
LOCATION FROM TP
TC4512224.2s Page A-10
GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION MAP ID
WELL ID
LOCATION FROM TP
No Wells Found
FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION MAP ID
WELL ID
LOCATION FROM TP
No PWS System Found Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION MAP ID
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
WELL ID
LOCATION FROM TP
CADW60000004122 9379 9378 9380 CADW60000004124 9377 19836 CADW60000004123
1/8 - 1/4 Mile WSW 1/2 - 1 Mile NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile North 1/2 - 1 Mile ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile SW 1/2 - 1 Mile NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile West 1/2 - 1 Mile SE
TC4512224.2s Page A-11
6 4 0
7 2 0 6
7 60
8 4 8 00 7 60 7 20 0
5
0 6 4
7 2 0 6 8 0
7
20
8 8 0 8 4 0 8 0 0
6 4 0
40 0
5 6 0 0 6 0
8
80
0
40
4 0 0
4 8 4 4 0 0
4 7 6 86 0 7 62 00 0
7 6 0
6
40
6
80
6 0 0
80
1 0 0 0 96 9 2 0 0
4 4 0 4 8 0 0 3 6
8 0 0
0 0 8 48 0 6 0 0 7 7 2
10 4 0
9 2 0
0 7 6 0 80 0 7 2 6 6 4
8 0 10
0 7 2
0
11
0 76
4 8 0 6 0 00 5 5 26 0
8 4 0 760 8 0 0 7 2 0 6 8 0 6 40
0 8 48 8 0 2 0 9
6 8 0
96 0
64 6 0 80
0
20
8 8 0
4 40 40
00 1 004800 11
1 20 11
0 0 0 65 6
64 0
12 0 8 0 1 60 0 1 01 0 0 04 0
10
8 8 0
0 0 84 80
720
20
0 6 4
8 0 0
1
3
0 8 8
0 06 0
72 0 80 0
6 0 552 0 6
9 0 2 8 0 07 0 6 7 20
6 8 00 6 4
0 4 8
40 0 0 6 8 72
0
00 7 0
6
8
8 40
6
0
440
0
5
60 0
5 2
48 0
8 8
8 8 8 0 8 04 0 0 7
00
0 6 8
4
60
0 72
6 0 6 4 0 600
6 8 0 7 2 0
80
0 44
4
5
0 52
400
8
5
4
00
360
CA
EDR Inc.
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID Direction Distance Elevation 1 WSW 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Lower Objectid: Latitude: Longitude: Site code: State well numbe: Local well name: Well use id: Well use descrip: County id: County name: Basin code: Basin desc: Dwr region id: Dwr region: Site id:
Database
EDR ID Number
CA WELLS
CADW60000004122
CA WELLS
9379
4122 37.15833 -121.64262 371583N1216426W001 09S03E09R004M ’09S03E09R004’ 1 Observation 43 Santa Clara ’2-9.02’ Santa Clara 80236 North Central Region Office CADW60000004122
2 NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 09S/03E-09M02 M FRDS Number: 4310006001 District Number: 05 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 371000.0 1213837.0 Source Name: BOYS RANCH WELL 01 System Number: 4310006 System Name: City of Morgan Hill Organization That Operates System: 17555 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Pop Served: 27948 Area Served: CITY OF MORGAN HILL Sample Collected: 09-MAR-11 Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
User ID: County: Station Type: Well Status: Precision:
HEN Santa Clara WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE Active Raw 100 Feet (one Second)
Connections:
9290
Findings:
590. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
09-MAR-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
22. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
24-MAY-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
19. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
20-SEP-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
19. MG/L
TC4512224.2s Page A-13
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
15-NOV-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
18. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
22-NOV-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
19. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
580. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
21. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
630. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 PH, LABORATORY
Findings:
7.67
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
220. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 BICARBONATE ALKALINITY
Findings:
270. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
279. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CALCIUM
Findings:
27. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 MAGNESIUM
Findings:
51. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SODIUM
Findings:
29. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CHLORIDE
Findings:
38. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)
0.13 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 BARIUM
Findings:
130. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Findings:
350. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
21. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 TURBIDITY, LABORATORY
Findings:
0.16 NTU
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: AGGRSSIVE INDEX (CORROSIVITY)
11.85
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)
4700. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR
1.7 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERROR
0.49 PCI/L
Findings:
Findings:
TC4512224.2s Page A-14
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 GROSS ALPHA MDA95
Findings:
2.6 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 MDA95
Findings:
0.76 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
17-JUL-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
18. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
15-OCT-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
17. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
20-MAY-13 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
18. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
. 19. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
09-FEB-15 CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT
Findings:
. 2.2 UG/L
3 North 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher
CA WELLS
Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 09S/03E-09F02 M FRDS Number: 4310006002 District Number: 05 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 371005.0 1213827.0 Source Name: BOYS RANCH WELL 02 System Number: 4310006 System Name: City of Morgan Hill Organization That Operates System: 17555 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Pop Served: 27948 Area Served: CITY OF MORGAN HILL Sample Collected: 09-MAR-11 Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
User ID: County: Station Type: Well Status: Precision:
HEN Santa Clara WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE Active Raw 100 Feet (one Second)
Connections:
9290
Findings:
660. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
09-MAR-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
14. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
650. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
14. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
660. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 PH, LABORATORY
Findings:
7.75
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
280. MG/L
9378
TC4512224.2s Page A-15
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 BICARBONATE ALKALINITY
Findings:
340. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
315. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CALCIUM
Findings:
18. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 MAGNESIUM
Findings:
66. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SODIUM
Findings:
24. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CHLORIDE
Findings:
31. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)
0.13 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 BARIUM
Findings:
110. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Findings:
370. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
14. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: AGGRSSIVE INDEX (CORROSIVITY)
11.84
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)
3100. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR
1.04 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228
Findings:
1.3 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERROR
Findings:
0.5 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 GROSS ALPHA MDA95
Findings:
1.7 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 MDA95
Findings:
0.77 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
20-MAY-13 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
11. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
. 12. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
09-FEB-15 CHROMIUM, HEXAVALENT
Findings:
. 9.6 UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
. 696. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 PH, LABORATORY
Findings:
. 7.6
Findings:
TC4512224.2s Page A-16
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
. 274. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 BICARBONATE ALKALINITY
Findings:
. 334. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
. 346. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 CALCIUM
Findings:
. 20. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 MAGNESIUM
Findings:
. 72. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 SODIUM
Findings:
. 25. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 POTASSIUM
Findings:
. 0.7 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 CHLORIDE
Findings:
. 33. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 BARIUM
Findings:
. 108. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
Findings:
. 17. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Findings:
. 420. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 LANGELIER INDEX @ 60 C
Findings:
. 0.42
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 Findings: LANGELIER INDEX AT SOURCE TEMP.
- 0.18
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
. 14. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 BROMIDE
Findings:
. 0.2 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 Findings: AGGRSSIVE INDEX (CORROSIVITY)
. 11.7
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)
Findings:
. 3500. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
. 650. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
18-MAY-15 TERT-BUTYL ALCOHOL
Findings:
. 4.1 UG/L
4 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 09S/03E-15B02 M FRDS Number: 4300842001 District Number: 73 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 370925.0 1213736.0 Source Name: WELL 01
CA WELLS
User ID: County: Station Type: Well Status: Precision:
9380
43C Santa Clara WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE Active Untreated 0.5 Mile (30 Seconds)
TC4512224.2s Page A-17
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
System Number: 4300842 System Name: DEER HILL MUTUAL WATER CO Organization That Operates System: PO 568 MORGAN HILL, CA 95037 Pop Served: 25 Area Served: Not Reported Sample Collected: 23-OCT-07 Chemical: NITRATE (AS NO3)
Connections:
16
Findings:
25. MG/L
5 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower Objectid: Latitude: Longitude: Site code: State well numbe: Local well name: Well use id: Well use descrip: County id: County name: Basin code: Basin desc: Dwr region id: Dwr region: Site id:
CA WELLS
CADW60000004124
CA WELLS
9377
4124 37.15214 -121.65008 371521N1216501W001 09S03E16F002M ’09S03E16F002’ 1 Observation 43 Santa Clara ’2-9.02’ Santa Clara 80236 North Central Region Office CADW60000004124
6 NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 09S/03E-09E01 M FRDS Number: 4310006003 District Number: 05 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 371010.0 1213832.0 Source Name: BOYS RANCH WELL 03 System Number: 4310006 System Name: City of Morgan Hill Organization That Operates System: 17555 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Pop Served: 27948 Area Served: CITY OF MORGAN HILL Sample Collected: 09-MAR-11 Chemical: SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
User ID: County: Station Type: Well Status: Precision:
HEN Santa Clara WELL/AMBNT/MUN/INTAKE Active Raw 100 Feet (one Second)
Connections:
9290
Findings:
650. US
TC4512224.2s Page A-18
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
09-MAR-11 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
9.2 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
600. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
31-JAN-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
9.7 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
650. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 PH, LABORATORY
Findings:
7.84
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
270. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 BICARBONATE ALKALINITY
Findings:
330. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
308. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CALCIUM
Findings:
29. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 MAGNESIUM
Findings:
57. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 SODIUM
Findings:
23. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 CHLORIDE
Findings:
34. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: FLUORIDE (F) (NATURAL-SOURCE)
0.14 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 IRON
Findings:
170. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 ALUMINUM
Findings:
99. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Findings:
370. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
8.6 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 TURBIDITY, LABORATORY
Findings:
0.2 NTU
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: AGGRSSIVE INDEX (CORROSIVITY)
12.13
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)
1900. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 Findings: GROSS ALPHA COUNTING ERROR
1.3 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 COUNTING ERROR
0.47 PCI/L
Findings:
Findings:
TC4512224.2s Page A-19
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 GROSS ALPHA MDA95
Findings:
2. PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
30-MAY-12 RADIUM 228 MDA95
Findings:
0.77 PCI/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
20-MAY-13 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
9. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 COLOR
Findings:
. 3. UNITS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 ODOR THRESHOLD @ 60 C
Findings:
. 5. TON
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
Findings:
. 697. US
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 PH, LABORATORY
Findings:
. 7.5
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 ALKALINITY (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
. 276. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 BICARBONATE ALKALINITY
Findings:
. 337. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 HARDNESS (TOTAL) AS CACO3
Findings:
. 319. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 CALCIUM
Findings:
. 29. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 MAGNESIUM
Findings:
. 60. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 SODIUM
Findings:
. 54. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 POTASSIUM
Findings:
. 1.5 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 CHLORIDE
Findings:
. 51. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 BARIUM
Findings:
. 188. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
Findings:
. 18. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 MANGANESE
Findings:
. 70. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
Findings:
. 371. MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 LANGELIER INDEX @ 60 C
Findings:
. 0.49
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 Findings: LANGELIER INDEX AT SOURCE TEMP.
- 0.1
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 NITRATE (AS NO3)
. 6. MG/L
Findings:
TC4512224.2s Page A-20
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 TURBIDITY, LABORATORY
Findings:
. 0.45 NTU
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 BROMIDE
Findings:
. 0.1 MG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 Findings: AGGRSSIVE INDEX (CORROSIVITY)
. 11.8
Sample Collected: Chemical:
19-MAY-14 NITRATE + NITRITE (AS N)
Findings:
. 1800. UG/L
Sample Collected: Chemical:
28-MAY-14 NITRATE (AS NO3)
Findings:
. 7. MG/L
7 West 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower
CA WELLS
Water System Information: Prime Station Code: 4300931-001 FRDS Number: 4300931001 District Number: 05 Water Type: Well/Groundwater Source Lat/Long: 370930.0 1213910.0 Source Name: WELL 01 System Number: 4300931 System Name: B & P Marine Organization That Operates System: P.O. Box 730762 San Jose, CA 95173 Pop Served: 25 Area Served: Not Reported
8 SE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower Objectid: Latitude: Longitude: Site code: State well numbe: Local well name: Well use id: Well use descrip: County id: County name: Basin code: Basin desc: Dwr region id: Dwr region: Site id:
User ID: County: Station Type: Well Status: Precision:
HEN Santa Clara WELL/AMBNT Active Raw 0.5 Mile (30 Seconds)
Connections:
1
CA WELLS
19836
CADW60000004123
4123 37.14892 -121.63066 371489N1216307W001 09S03E15L013M ’09S03E15L013’ 1 Observation 43 Santa Clara ’3-3.01’ Llagas Area 80236 North Central Region Office CADW60000004123
TC4512224.2s Page A-21
GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS RADON AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: CA Radon Radon Test Results
Zipcode ______
Num Tests ________
> 4 pCi/L ________
95037
21
0
Federal EPA Radon Zone for SANTA CLARA County: 2 Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L. : Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and meo f the cost-effective aerobic ireatruents are also effective in prod~tcing> 80$h reduction i n toxaphene content. The reduction in
M S L , Inc. Resoorce Techno!cgies/He/cules 4 Week Paw 2
toxapliene Ievels is based on an initial toxaphene concentration of 1500-2500 ppm (initial soil plus additives) and a measurccl conccntration of 300-500 ppm at 4 weeks. There appears to be no difference i i i the decrease of toxaphene o r a n increase in microbial activity between thc trcatnicnts \vith and without the added microbes after 4 weeks.
Plm
OV A d o n :
Upoil con~pletionof the toxaphene analyses for the 8 week sa&ples, we will evaluate the different treatments for their overall effectiveness in lowering
Loxaphenc levels. Rased on these findings, we will propose a field study at the same site where fhe soil samples were taken for this bench-study to determine the best time- and cost-effective aerobic treatment to reduce toxaphene levcis in thc field. In addition, we will propose a s i m i l ~ field r study to be perfomted at the adjacent S u p e r f ~ ~ nsite d w t w e the levels of toxaphene iirc higher.
L, lnc. Environmental Analysk Research & Deuelopment
Final Laboratory Report for Resource TechnoIogies '
Toxaphene Biodegradation in Soil 8 Weeks October 23, 1997
Valerie A. Paynter, PhD Norman D. Ellis Ellis Kline, PhD
300 Westinghouse Rd.
-
.
Pendleton, SC 29670
.
.
Tel: 864-646-7508 Fax: 864-646-8601
TOXAPHENE STUDY: FINAL REPORT
Introduction: MSL Inc. has completed a laboratory treatability study to determine the optimal conditions for indigenous microorganisms to biologically degrade toxaphene-contaminated soil. The soil was provided by Hercules from the New Brunswick site in Georgia. A n initial soil analysis was carried out to assess its basic profile in terms of pH, moisture, inorganic nutrients, toxaphene, chloride ion and microbial populations (total, viable, aerobic and anaerobic). Based on these findings, Factors I, I1 or III were added to the contaminated soil representing three different treatments. In addition, an inoculum of microorganisms (Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes) was added to the Fador I and II treatments so that the effect of the treatment with and without the added microbes could be determined. Two parallel studies were run for each treatment; one group was subjected to anaerobic conditions for 4 weeks followed by aerobic conditions for an additional 4 weeks; the other group was subjected to aerobic conditions only for the entire 8 weeks. AU treatments were carried out in duplicate. Control test units were run for both the anaerobic / aerobic and aerobic only studies in which no factors were added to the soil, but they were monitored and assayed at the same times as the treated test units.
Procedures: The contaminated soil was supplied by Hercules via CRT. It was mixed with the appropriate amendments (Table 1)and 3 Kg of each treatment were placed in glass bowls (22 cm diameter, 10 cm depth), numbered 1to 22. The odd numbered samples were subjected to 8 weeks of aerobic degradation, while the even numbered samples were subjected to 4 weeks of anaerobic degradation followed by 4 weeks of aerobic degradation. During the aerobic phase, the glass containers were kept at
ambient temperatures for the duration of the study. For the anaerobic phase the glass containers were enclosed in chambers. The soil was flooded with degassed, sterile water and the air in the chamber was replaced with nitrogen gas. Upon completion of the 4 week anaerobic phase, the soil was dried and monitored under aerobic conditions for 4 additional weeks. Initial samples were taken froni each test container and analyzed for pH, moisture, toxaphene, chloride ion and microbial populations (total and viable, aerobic and anaerobic). Soil moisture content was monitored throughout the study and moisture levels determined every week for the aerobic phase. Analyses for toxaphene concentration, chloride ion concentration, and pH were performed at 2 (aerobic only), 4, 6 and 8 weeks. Total and viable microbial populations (aerobic and anaerobic) were determined at 4 and 8 weeks. Inorganic nutrient levels were determined at 8 weeks. All determinations were made by approved EPA and ASTM methods.
I or
Results and Discussion:
The pH values (Table 2) indicated that the soils subjected to the combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions were consistently lower in pH, i.e. more acidic, than the corresponding soils which were exposed to aerobic conditions only. The increase in acidity can probably be attributed to COzproduction during the anaerobic phase which was trapped in the chambers and dissolved in the water. The chloride ion content of all treated soil samples showed a sharp increase in levels compared to controls after 4 weeks (Table 3). The aerobic soil samples containing Factor I1 were considerably higher in chloride ion content than either the other aerobic-treated soil samples containing factors I or IZI, or any of the anaerobictreated soil samples containing factors I, E, or m.This fact is clearly shown in the corresponding graphs of the data. Figure 1 shows that chloride ion release from
aerobic-treated soil samples at 4 weeks is greater for soil treated with factor I1 than either soil treated with factors I or 111, but all three are greater than control. This is also true for chloride ion release under anaerobic conditions (Figure 2) in which more chloride ion is released at 4 weeks for soil treated with factor II than for soil treated with factors I or 111, and all are greater than control. yowever, chloride ion release continues to increase through the sixth week for these anaerobic / aerobic treated soil samples with factor HI causing the greatest release. The presence or absence of inoculum (Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes) did not appear to have any effect on chloride ion release from soil treated samples containing factor I under either aerobic conditions (Figure 3) or the combination of anaerobic/ aerobic conditions (Figure 4). This was also true for soil treated with factor II. In general chloride ion release seemed to take place faster under aerobic conditions compared to the combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions for soil treated with factor I (Figure 5), factor II (Figure 6), or factor LU (Figure 7). The microbial assays indicated that the level of aerobically growing organisms remained relatively constant at values of 107 / G dry soil. Slightly more aerobic organisms were observed for soil treated with fador I1 under anaerobic conditions (Table 4). The initial level of facultative organisms which were able to grow anaerobically was approximately 105 / G dry soil and this number increased to 106 / G dry soil for all treated soil samples under aerobic conditions and to 107 / G dry soil under anaerobic conditions (Table 5). The total number of microorganisms present as determined by epifluorescent microscopy was in the order of magnitude of 108 and while the controls stayed at this level, the numbers increased for all treated soil samples to between 109 to 1010during the course of the study (Table 6). In general there was no significant increase observed in the number of aerobic, anaerobic or total numbers of microorganisms in the presence of the added inoculurn. The toxaphene content of all the soil samples over the 8 weeks is shown in Table 7 and expressed as a percentage loss of toxaphene content in Table 8. The study was continued for a further 5 weeks (total of 13 weeks) and the controls and
most effective treatment analyzed for toxaphene content. After 4 weeks the treated soil samples, which were subjected to the anaerobic conditions, all showed a large decrease in toxaphene content ranging from 77 to 86% compared to a decrease of 20% in the corresponding control. During this same time period the soil containing factor 11 under aerobic conditions also showed a decrease in toxaphene content of 7880%. Soils treated with factors I or LII under aerobic conditions showed a smaller decrease of 42-55% with a reduction of 24% in the control. These same trends were observed at 6 and 8 weeks (and at 13 weeks for soil treated with factor II). All the treated soil samples which had been subjected to the combination anaerobic / aerobic treatment showed between 83-94%reduction in toxaphene levels after 8 weeks with soil treated with factor I1 showing the greatest reduction of 94% and this reduction in toxaphene levels reached 97% after 13 weeks. However, soil treated with factor I1 under aerobic conditions for the entire study also showed a 95% reduction in toxaphene levels after 8 weeks with a 98% reduction after 13 weeks. This reduction was considerably more than the reduction observed for soils treated with factor I under aerobic conditions of 62% or with factor III under aerobic conditions of 58%. These effects can be clearly seen in the following graphs of the data. Figure 8 shows that soil treated with factor 11under aerobic conditions has a greater effect on toxaphene reduction than soil treated with factors I or 111under aerobic conditions, but that all three have a greater effect than the control. Soil treated with factors I, I1 or 111 seem to have a similar effect in reducing toxaphene levels compared to control under the combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions (Figure 9). It also appears that the presence of added inoculum in the form of Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes did not have any apparent effect on the reduction of toxaphene levels. This fact can be seen in the graph showing the effect of soil treated with factor I in the presence and absence of the inoculum under the combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions (Figure 10). There was little difference in toxaphene levels between the soil containing the added inoculum and the soil without. Similar results were obtained for soil treated with factor I under aerobic
conditions and for factor II under either aerobic or the combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions. The separate effects of Factors I, 11, or JII under aerobic or a combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions are shown in Figures 11-13. Factors I and IU show decreased toxaphene levels compared to controls with the combination anaerobic / aerobic condition causing greater reduction (Figures 11 and 13). However, in Figure 12, it can be seen that there is virtually no difference in the reduction of toxaphene levels obtained compared to the control whether the soil is exposed to aerobic conditions only or to a combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions. In either case a reduction level of 94-95% is obtained after 8 weeks which increases to 97-98% after 13 weeks. Conclusions: From this study it can be deduced that factor I1 added to toxaphenecontaminated soil can bring about a 95% reduction in toxaphene levels after 8 weeks (and a 98% reduction after 13 weeks) under the conditions described in this study. The fact that this reduction in toxaphene levels can be brought about under aerobic conditions is a significant finding since previous studies indicated that a combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions were necessary to produce this desired reduction. Toxaphene is a chlorinated camphene molecule consisting a mixture of numerous C,, polychloro derivatives and the removal of chloride ions is usually considered to be the first step in its biodegradation. While the number of chloride ions released can give an indication of microbial activity in the breakdown of toxaphene, it can also indicate the breakdown of other chlorinated compounds that may be present so that the level of chloride ions may not exactly parallel the toxaphene reduction, However, the increase in chloride ions does indicate that toxaphene reduction is taking place and therefore is a useful parameter to measure during the course of the study. It can also be concluded that the inoculum added to the soil samples (Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes) did not enhance the degradation of toxaphene.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
Toxaphene contaminated soil was divided into 4 groups: control and three different treatments. Treatments consisted of either factors I, 11 or III. In addition, an inoculum (Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes) was added to part of the soil receiving factors I or 11. Approximately 3 Kg soil added to each glass bowl for a total of 22 experimental units. All treatments in duplicate. Each control and treatment subjected to either aerobic conditions or a combination of anaerobic / aerobic conditions for 8 weeks. Study extended to 13 weeks for most effective factor.
# given to each experimental unit
Control tion Aerobic
bic / Aerobic
1
Factor I
Factor I + Factor Il inoculum
Factor 11+ inoculum 15,17
PH VALUES OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS
0 weeks
Control (N2) Factor I (A) Factor I (N) Fador I+M3 (A) Factor I+M (N) Factor II (A) Factor I1 (N) ;actor II+M (A) ;actor II+M (N) Tador IU (A) ;actor lII (N)
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
4 weeks
6 weeks
CHLORIDE ION CONTENT ( p MOLES/G DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS
l====== Treatment Coqtrol
0 weeks
2 weeks
I
6 weeks weeks
8 weeks
3
(A1)
13.10
Control (N2)
12.90 108.6 100.8 108.1
Factor I+M (N)
105.8 149.3 110.3
-I -t It-/ I Factor IItM (A)
151.9
Factor II;M (N)
L20.2
Factor III (A)
111.0
Factor 111 (N)
-55.2
I 1 Aerobic treatment
It
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment
3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
AEROBIC MICROORGANISMS (#CFU/ G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL FOR EACH
l
i
Treatment
0weeks
4 weeks
Factor I (N) Factor I+M3 (A)
t--
Factor I+M (N)
l I
Factor iI (N)
r I
Factor T[+M (A)
IIFactor H+M (N) II~actorJII (A)
I--
Factor 111(N)
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
18 weeks
1)
ANAEROBIC MICROORGANISMS (#CFU/ G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS
Treatment
0 weeks
4 weeks
t Control (A1)
63x105,
Control (N2)
1.7~105
l---TF Factor I+M3 (A) l . 4 X l O 6
Factor I+M (N) 4.2~105
I
I/~actor II (N)
1.1~10~
l----rFador II+M (A) 8.5~105
I
I
Fador II+M (N) 5.5~105
I
Factor III (N)
2.8~105 I
1 Aerobic treatment
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
TOTAL NUMBER MICROORGANISMS (PER G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS
0 weeks
4 weeks
Control (A1)
I------
Factor I (N)
It--
Factor ItM3 (A)
'
I
Facior I-,hI (N)
i
Factor 11(N)
1
h c t o r I I ~ M(A)
Factor II+M (N) Factor Ill (A)
Ir-
Factor 111 (N)
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
8 weeks
TOXAPHENE CONTENT (pGl G DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS* *(I3 weeks for control and factor 11treatment)
U Treatment
0 weeks
2 weeks 14 weeks
It--
Control (A1)
l---
r I L Factor I (A)
Factor I (N)
Factor I t M (N)
rFactor 11(A)
Il~actor11(N)
I--
Factor II+M (A)
i
r
Factor IItM (N)
I---Factor III (A)
1 I
week 13 1757
Control (N2)
-I
1 6 weeks 18 week:
Factor III (N)
1 Aerobic treatm
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
2084
% LOSS IN TOXAPHENE CONTENT OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS* * (13 weeks for control and factor I1 treatment) Treatment
-I
I 0 weeks / 2 weeks
4 weeks
6 weeks
Control (AT)
30.0
Control (N2)
41.7
Factor I (A)
59.8
t-+I
39.4
I--
Factor I+M3 (A)
Factor I+M (N)
Fador I1 (A)
I-
Factor IK (N)
Factor IK+M (A)
7
It---
Factor III (A)
2 Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment 3 Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
. .
..
P -
Factor li
U Factor Ill
0
2
'
.
4
6
Time (weeks)
8
HLORIDE ION CONC. CIVER TIME
4
6
Time (weeks)
CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME (ANAEROBIC)
I. Factor I (anaerobic) Factor I t inoc. (anaerobic)
'
Time (weeks)
OVER TIME (AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC)
n
r
Control (anaerobic) Factor I (aerobic) Factor I (anaerobic)
Time (weeks)
Figure 6
EFFECT OF FACTOR I1 ON CHLORIDE ION CONC.
-
Control (aerobic) --t-- Control (anaerobic) --n-- Factor l l (aerobic) .--O-- Factor II (anaerobic) w
Time (weeks)
EFFECT O F FACTOR Ill ON CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME (AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC)
-
. . ,
Control (aerobic)
i - Control (anaerobic) Factor Ill (aerobic) U Factor Ill (anaerobic)
Time (weeks)
TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION (pGIG DRY SOIL) IN S O L OVER TIME (AEROBIC)
U Control r Factor I (Aerobic) I Factor II(Aerobic) U Factor 111 (Aerobic)
0
2
4
6
Time (weeks)
8
10
TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION ( p ~ DRY / ~ SOIL) IN SOIL OVER TIME (AMAERQBIC)
* Control Factor I (Anaerobic) --+I-Factor I1 (Anaerobic)
Factor 111 (Anaerobic) 2000
1000
0 0
2
4
6
Time (weeks)
8
10
EFFECT OF TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION WITH AND WITHOUT INOC. ..
* Control (Anaerobic)
r
Factor I (Anaerobic)
Time (weeks)
EFFECT OF FACTOR I ON TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION OVER TIME (AEROBIC AND ANAEROBiC) 3000
r
s
Control (Anaerobic) I Factor I (Aerobic)
w
Factor I (Anaerobic)
.-0 2
C
5:
2000
:2 0 -0
OC3
a
2
g2 z
1000
a
m
X
z 0
0
2
4
6
Time (weeks)
8
10
EFFECT OF FACTOR I1 OM TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION OVER TIME (AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC) 3000
U Control (Aerobic) -r Control (Anaeroic) --E-Facior II (Aerobic) V Factor II (Anaerobic)
10
0
Time
(weeks)
20
Figure 13
EFFECT OF FACTOR ill ON TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION OVER TIME (AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC) 3000
Y Control (Aerobic) I
Control (Anaerobic) Factor Ill (Aerobic) Factor ili (Anaerobic)
2000
1000
Time (weeks)
2
Each interval represents 200 units
MSL, Inc.
Final L:ihoratory Report (0r Rcsoi~rceTechrloIogfes
Toxaplirlii: 810-degradation In Soil: Field S t u t i ~
Valei'ie A . Payntcr, PhD Norman D. Ellis
Ellis Kllne, PhD
TOXAPMENE BIODEGRADATION IN SOIL: FIELD STUDY FINAL REPORT
MSL inc. has completed a fieid trcatability study for Factor 11- induced m i c ~ ~ o o r p n i s mtns bii~logicallydegrade toxilphene-contaminatcd soil. Based o n the results of the previous successiul !aboratory study in degrading toxaphene, this field trst ueed only Factor I! as a synergist in the biodegradation process under aerobic
cor\ditions. The field study was carried out using toxaphene-contaminated soil provided by Hercules at the New 13runswicksite i n Georgia.
Four wooden boxes (,24"x?2"~12"j were constructed with un!rt;ated p'ood and the base was o c w e d with a thin Ltyer of tln. Five gallons of contan1i:lated soil were
placed in a ldrge cooler :vith the appropriate v o l i ~ n ~ofe Factor II and well mixed. TWO i i o ~ r sA , and
R contained lrtiated soils and the other !wo boxes, C an\! D contained
contaminated soil only iiontrols). Holes were dug in the site and the imxes placed in the I~cilrsso t h ~approxiniiltely t 2 of the boxes were above the soil level i d the site. Boxes A (treated) and D (control, were coverer1 with a curved metill sheet, leaving the ends
o p e n Boxes 0 itrei~tedj~ r. t dC (conrolj were left uncovered, Three 11c&s had been ~
p n e h e d i n the bottom of the boxes h f were k f t uncovered to allow for drainage. iVater was addcd to the soil in each box and mixed in to give adequate moisture level. Samples were taken irum each box initialty and after 3.5 and 7.5 weeks for chloride ion,
!n addition, a soil sample was takenat 7.5 weeks of moisture and f u x a p h c r ~~:i;iIyses. ~ tl)i,
contaniinated soil adjxen!. tc t h e boxes (E).The fluctuations in :emperatuses were
Since a comprehensive study on various parameters had been carried out on this toxilphe~:e-cuntamirlnted so11d i ~ r i n gthe previous laboratory study it was not considered necessary to reprat all these analyses. Consequently, pH, bi;ll pop~tl~tti011, we feel ci)nfidrlnt that Factor 11-induced
bhiegra.3dati0:1 ~f t0~;3pi\en$? is i irery re!~abli.,eiiective and environmentally friendly ;vay lo reinow tlosapimie on b i t e , X!so, ,is thr teinperat~iresincrease, the levels of
:,ix'>pht:ne rtxiuird
\ti!:
i:i;ri.aai.
wi:h A s o ~ w s p n d i i ~ decrcdse g in tlh: time it takes to
i m n g aboiit this i'hcici ii- indiit:d t,)~~;:j~i-wiw biure~nedi,~tion.
Table 1
CHLORIDE ION CONIENT (p MOLESiG DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOH EACH I ' R E r \ T I V ; E ~ OVEIi l~ 7.5 WEEKS
'Treatment ....
I O. . .wteks .......... .......
Covered box,
I
Control soil (c)
i 9.4 1.
. . .
.
-....
/
T
'
control soil (l.); i
.
Contaminated
.II 9. -1. 4
!
soil x+cent to I , hoxes I
..-............
i
.!
1 9.4 +...
b.6ll~tcoveredsol], ; 9.5
J
weeks -3.5 ......... . .
+
Covered box, treated soil (A) -....... Uncovered box, treated soil (B) ......
..
19.4
! 2.9
.
.+
I
1 11.2
4.
........
-
....
........................
7.0
L
j
2.0
1
8.3
_
-......... __.~ -
!
J
1.4
,-
iI
.-
i 7.5 weeks
.
I
j 11.2 .1.
-
I
.......
i
I
! "
'TOXAPHENE CONTENT ( ~ MOLES/G r DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOR EACH 'TREATMENT OVER 7 5 WEEKS
Table 3 :i i
.OSS IN 'I'OXAPHENE CONI'ENT ( p MOLES/G DRY SOIL) OF >OIL FOR EACH TREtI'TMEN'I' O V E R 7.5 WEEKS
--.
..........
...
I ioi! ~;nc"\~reci box,
. I i.:ovcred
. , .~. . .
j,
l!..,!ii (1.1) 7x=-7-~-W.m~*..,.
..
...... .......
h w , t.:rlr;~i-~: ; t I ! , i
J
.......
[J
. . . . . . .I. . . . . . . .
t
...
o
trc:;ltc J
inii. .(c) .. _- . .
7.5 r v e d e i - -- -.-..-...
................
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.
!
ti .,
....
...... . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........
(U)
- .-
1 il
...........
...
.
..
.
- .- .-
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FROM MSL USING OUR PROPRIETRY TECHNOLOGY, WE HAVE ENVIRONMENTALLY INCREASED THE DEGRADATION OF:
.-
Phmmihiene
CI&
(8
PAWS ( CREOSOTE)
PCP DIESEL, KEROSENE, OIL AND OTHER FOSSIL FUELS CELLULOSE (GENETIC ELEVATION OF 3 DIFFERENT CELLULASES)
I Ceiiobiose
B
Glucose
Amorphous region Cmslalline region
CONTAMiNATED SOIL: Added nutrients (Augmentation) -
\. +
+aa
-
Added microbes (Enhancement)
NUTRIENTS (Inorganic salts, eg. nitrates, phosphates)
,
-a
INDIGENOUS MICROORGANISMS (Aerobic & / or anaerobic)
ENZYMES TOXIC COMPOUNDS fusually C-containing compounds) e3. Petroleum hydrocarbons chloroform PDT PAH1s pentachlorophenoi (PCP) chiorinatea benzene derivatives
BREAKDOWN PRODUCTS (I lc 17-toxic)
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TOXAPHENE CONTAMINATED SOlL DIVIDED INTO 4 GROUPS GQNTROL -r- 3 DIFFERENT TREATMENTS (IN DUPLICATE) (FACTORS I, II OR Ill) INOCULUM (OPPENHEIMER FORMULA V MICROBES) ADDED TO SOME OF SOIL RECEIVING FACTORS IOR II EACH CONTROL AND TREATMENT SUBJECTED TO ElTHER AEROBIC CONDITIONS OR A COMBINATION OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC CONDITIONS FOR 8 WEEKS
STUDY EXTENDED FOR 13 WEEKS FQR MOST EFFECTIVE FACTOR EXPTAL UNK
AEROBIC
ANAEROBIG
CONTROL
1
2
SOIL 9 FACTOR I
3,5
4,6
SOIL + FACT I+ INOC.
7,9
8,10
SOIL + FACT0
11,13
12,14
SOIL + FACT 11 + INOC.
15,17
16,18
SOIL + FACTOR Ill
19,21
20,22
PARAMETER MEASURED
TIME (WEEKS1
pl-l
0,2,4,6 & 8
MOISTURE
EVERY WEEK
INORGANIC NUTRIENTS
8&8
TOXAPHENE
0,2,4,6 & 8
CHLORIDE ION
0,2,4,6 & 8
MICROBIAL POPULATION (TOTAL, AEROBIC & ANAEROBIC)
0,4&8
TOXAPHENE :CHLORINATED CAMPHENE CONSISTS OF A MIXTURE OF NUMEROUS Clo POLYCHLORO DERIVATIVES WITH AN APPROXiMATE OVERALL EMPIRICAL FORMULA OF CIO HIO Cl8 PRODUCED BY CHLORINATION OF CAMPHENE TO 67-6974 CHLORINE BY WEIGHT.
STRUCTURE OF CAMPHENE Cio His
Figure 1
CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME (AEROBIC)
Time
(weeks)
Figure 2
CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME (ANAEROBIC)
-
Control Factor I (anaerobic) Factor l l (anaerobic) Factor Ill (anaerobic)
Time (weeks)
Figure 3
CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME
-
Control Factor I (aerobic) Factor I + lnoc. (aerobic)
Time (weeks)
Figure 4
CHLORIDE ION CONC. OVER TIME (ANAEROBIC)
1 /
-+Factor I (anaerobic) Factor I t inoc. (anaerobic)
4
6
Time (weeks)
Figure 8
TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION (pG/G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL OVER TIME (AEROBIC)
U Control 1 Factor I (Aerobic)
6
.-
0
-5
l i F - Factor li (Aerobic) Factor IIi (Aerobic)
*
C
m
50
2000
g2 0 '0
0 0
ci
52
r a
1000
m
4
6
Time (weeks)
Figure 9
TOXAPHENE CONCENTRATION (pG/G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL OVER TIME (ANAEROBIC) 3000 I . Factor I (Anaerobic) Factor I1 (Anaerobic) Factor IiI (Anaerobic) 2000
1000
0
Time (weeks)
Table 6
TOTAL NUMBER MICROORGANISMS (PER G DRY SOIL) IN SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS
Il~reatment Control (A1)
10 weeks
14 weeks
) 8weeks
1.8~108
1.5~108
2.4~108
Control (Nz)
2.1~108
1.4~108
4.3~108
1.6~1010
9.6~109
1.2~109 1.6~1010
l.lxl0~0 1.4~1010
1.4~109
9.8~109
1 2.6~108
\1.4x1010
)1.0x1010
4.1~108
9.5~108
1.4~1010
5.3~108
4.1~109
l.Ox101o
3.4~108
7.6~108
1.7x101o
3.2~108
9.1~109
7.7~109
2.3~108 Factor I (A) 1.2~108 Factor I (N) Factor I+M3 (A) 3.2~108 Factor I+M IN) 2.3~108
IIFactor 11(A) Factor I1 (N) Factor II+M (A) Factor II+M (N) Factor I11 (A) IIFactor I11 (N)
1 2.5~108
1 6.3~108
1
Aerobic treatment
2
Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment
3
Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
( 7.0~109
)I
11
Table 7
TOXAPHENE CONTENT (pG/G DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS* *(I3weeks for control and factor I1 treatment)
Treatment
0 weeks
2 weeks 4weeks
6 weeks 8 weeks 13 weeks
Control (A1)
2488
2274
1881
1741
1664
1757
Control (Nl)
2488
1985
1451
2290
2084
Factor I (A) Factor I (N)
2487
1119
1000
944
339
263
419
Factor I+M3 (A)
2487
1225
721
934
Factor I+M (N)
2487
430
363
251
Factor I1 (A)
2071
410
144
103
50
Factor 11(N)
2071
470
152
129
61
1465
132
112
1 409
1173
1116
1931
2487 3190 1417
Factor II+M (A) 2071 I[FactorII+M (N) 1 2071
2931
I
1
Aerobic treatment
2
Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment
3
Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
1
Table 8
% LOSS IN TOXAPHENE CONTENT OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER EIGHT WEEKS' * (13 weeks for control and factor I1 treatment) -
v
Treatment
Oweeks 2 weeks 4 weeks
6weeks 8 weeks
13 weeks
Control (A1)
0
8.6
24.4
30.0
33.1
27.4
Factor I1 (A)
0
31.6
80.2
93.0
95.0
97.6
Factor I1 (N)
0
77.3
92.7
93.8
97.1
77.5
93.6
94.6
80.3
91.6
94.4
'
Factor I (N)
Factor IIiM (A) 0
0
Factor IIiM (N) 0
1
Aerobic treatment
2
Anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment
3
Oppenheimer Formula V Microbes
CONCLUSIONS
,FACTOR II WAS MOST EFFECTWE IN REDUCING TOXAPHENE LEVELS.
FACTOR II CAUSED A 95% REDUCTION ARTER 8 WEEKS UNDER AEROBIC CONDITIONS (98% AFTER 13 WEEKS).
FACTOR II CAUSED A 94% REDUCTION AFTER 8 WEEKS UNDER A COMBINATION OF ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC CONDITIONS (97% AFTER 13 WEEKS).
ADDITION OF OPPENHEIMER FORMULA V MICROBES DID NOT ENHANCE THE DEGRADATION OF TOXAPHENE.
Each interval represents 200 units
Each inlerval represenis 200 units
i
Each interval represents 200 units ~
.
.
. . . . . ... . . ,
.
.
.:
0 .
. ..
. P.. 0
;
a .
.
a
Toxaphene Field Study: Control 0 week, November 24,1997 Dilution Faclor: 500
5
lii
TIME (MIN)
- .- Toxaphene Field Study: Factor I1 0 week, November24,1997 Dilution Factor: 100
4 -I
4
7
Toxaphene Field Study: Factor I1 7 weeks, January8,1998 Dilution Factor: 100
I
I
5
1 5
1 0
TIME (MIN)
1
1
20
2f
% LOSS IN TOXAPHENE CONTENT (p MOLES/G DRY SOIL) OF SOIL FOR EACH TREATMENT OVER' 17 WEEKS
*From the time the samples were taken at 7.5 weeks to the next sampling time, at 17 weeks, the soil was allowed to remain fallow, i.e no mixing or addition of water other than natural rainfall.
CONCLUSIONS 1.
FACTOR I1 BROUGHT ABOUT 82% REDUCTION OF TOXAPHENE IN THE FIELD AFTER7.5 WEEKS.
2.
THE FIELD TRIALS WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THE WINTER MONTHS AT TEMPERATURES LESS THAN IDEAL FOR MICROBIAL ACTIVITY, BUT, NEVERTHELESS MICROBIAL DEGRADATION OF TOXAPHENE DID OCCUR.
3,
FACTOR 11-INDUCED BIODEGRADATION OF TOXAPHENE IS A VERY RELIABLE, EFFECTIVE AND ENVIRONMENTALLYFRIENDLY WAY T O REMOVE TOXAPHENE O N SITE.
-
TABLE 3 SUhIMARY OF CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL DATA . . ~ ~ ............ f i . i p ~ ~ .pH k : .(i?ifial) y";k:;,.. .$.:. : : ; r % ; ~: ~ .:~l&lini$:i$g~~~es~,$:?. $. :..