iai b. c2 · -mercury 2-245.1 atomic absorption, 1.0 cold vapor method; sample digested with...

iaii k.

C2B. DNREC Reported MDLs

r

ftB383019

TO: Robert C. Pickert I™&£-"-- u- M .. h"Ji

FROM: Harry W. Otto^>& w Qf-Q - ----- v--'

r

L

«~ «-_.j

DATE: December 3t 1965 ^ l ( ":--::. ,^COKl'uiiATiG.V

SUBJECT: Additional Information on the DelawareSand & Gravel Landfill RI/FS

Attached is the additional information on the DelawareSand & Gravel project that was requested by you in our meeting onNov. 15, 1985. The attachment lists all of the parameters testedfor any of the samples received to date for that project, theanalytical method used, a brief summary of the method, and theminimum detection limit actually utilized during these analyses.

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance onthis matter.

HWO:dlh

Attachment

f cc: Richard T. Gardner, JrCharles M. J'Anthony

SR3'

Parameters. Analytical Methods and Detection Limitsfor the Delaware Sand & Gravel Landfill RI /FS

Parameter Methodand Units pef ereqce-D

WATER SAMPLES: INORGANIC

Ammonia-N, 2-350. 1leg /.I

Biochem- 2-405. 1ical oxygendemand —5-day/20'C,mg/1

Chloride, 2-325.2mg/1

Hydrogen 2-150. 1ion (pH> ,pH units

Organic 2"41 A _carbon-total<TOC), rag/1

\

Oxygen 2-360.2dissolved ,mg/1

Residue — 2-160.1Filterable,total, mg/1

Specific 2-120. 1conductance,u mhos /cm

December 3, 1965

Method Summary Detection Limit

ANAL YS I S

Colorimetric : 0.10automatedphenate

WinKler-azide 2.4modification

Colorimetric: 5.0automatedf erricyanide-AAII

Electrometric : Sensitivity = ±0.1 unitdetermined onsite

Persulfa=te .. ___. .. 5.0oxidation — UVpromoted , infra-red detection

Modified 0.0Winkler (fullbottletechnique)

Glass fiber 0.0filtration,followed bydryingat 180'C

Conductivity Sensitivity = ±1 seal©bridge at unit25*C

Turbidimetric: 5.0automatedbariumchloride

Parameter Methodand Onits Ref erenc'e-p Method Summary Detection Limit

Temperature, 2-170.1 Thermometric Sensitivity s +0.5CC*

Metals — 2-200.0 Atomictotal, Absorption—ug/1:

digestion_ with hot,

—Arsenic 2-206.2 strong mineral(furnace) acids and 30

_____._«.—. — — «——__«.»_«.•. tWOI O 10 ———~• —— — — — — — -•-.MV.__..._.

—Barium 2-208.1 concentration:(flame) choice of 100

—————————————————— direct aspira- —— —————————————•—Cadmium 2-213.1 tion or furnace

(flame) dependant upon 100——— —————————————— 1imit require- —————— —— ——— ———-—Chromium 2-218.1 ments for pro-

(flame) gram and sensi- 100_,».„__———————.——————.—— tivity of ——.-.-.-.——————•.-•—____.— Iron 2-236.1 method.

(flame) 100

—Lead 2-239.1(flame) 100

—Mangan&se 2-243.1(flame) 100

-Nickel 2-249.1(flame) 100

-Selenium 2-270.2(furnace) 5

-Silv&r 2-272.1(flame) 100

-Zinc 2-289.1<flame) 100

-Mercury 2-245.1 Atomic absorption, 1.0cold vapor method;sample digested withpermanganate and per-sulfate in sealedcontainer, then Hg ionreduced with stannouschloride to elemental form.

- 3 -

Parameter Methodand Units Reference-p Method Summary Detection Limit

WATER SAMPLES: TRACE ORGANIC ANALYSIS

Base/ 4-604 & Extraction 20.0Neutrals/ -610 followed by GC for allAcid, ug/1 analysis with in this

FID detector. grouping

Phenol 2-Nitrophenol2-Chlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol 4-Ch1oro-3-methy1phenol2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-DinitrophenolPentachlorophenol 4-Ni trophenol2-Methy1-4,6-dinitro- Hexachlorocyclopentadienephenol 1,2-DiphenylhydrazineAcenaphthene 2-ChloronaphthaleneAcenaphthylene N-NitrosodimethylamineAnthracene N-Nitrosodiphenylamine1(3-Dichlorobenzene Phenanthrene1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4-Bromophenyl phenyl etherHexachlorobenzene Di-n-butyl phthaiateBenzoCa)anthracene Butyl benzyl phthalateDibenzoCa,h)anthracene Diethy1 phthalateBenzo(b)fluoranthene bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalateBenzo(K)fluoranthene Dimethyl phthalateBenzoCg,h,i)perylene Di-n-octyl phthalateBenzo(a)pyrene PyreneChrysene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyreneHexachloroethane 2,4-Dinitrotoluenebis(2-Chloroisopropyl)- 2,6-Dinitrotoluene

ether FluorantheneFluorene

Benzidine N O T A N A L Y Z E D3,3-Dichlorobenzidine

Base/ 4-625 Extraction 20.. 0Neutrals/ followed by GC/Acid; Phthalate MS analysis,esters; FID, capillaryPhenols, ug/1 column.

Chlorinated 4-608 ExtractionPesticides followed by GCand PCB's, analysis withug/1 EC detector.

Aldrin Methoxychlor Heptachlor 0.1alpha-BHC Hexachlorobenzene Heptachlorbeta-BHC Mirex epoxideDieldrin Endrin

- 4 -

Parameter Methodand Uni ts Refer©nce-p Method Summary Detection Limit

o f p-DDD o,p-DDE o,p-DDT 0.1p,p-DDD p,p-DDE p,p-DDTLindane

Chlordane-cis isomer 0 .5Chlordane-trans isomer

PCB-1016 PCB-1242 PCB-1260 1.0PCB-1221 PCB-1246PCB-1232 PCB-1254

Acrylo- 4-603 NOT A N A L Y Z E Dnitnle

Purgeable 4-602 Purge and traparomatic followed by GChydrocarbons, analysis withug/1 photoionization

detector.

Purgeable 4-601 Purge and traphalocarbons, followed by GCug/1 analysis with

electrolyteconductivitydetector.

Benzene 1,1-Dichloroethylene 5.00Chlorobenzene 1,2-trans-DichloroethyleneVinylbenzene TetrachloroethyleneCarbon tetrachloride Trichloroethylen©Chloroform Bromodichloromethane1,1-Dichloroethane Chlorodibromomethane1,2-Dichloroethane Methylene chloride1,1,1-Trichioroethane 1f 2-Dichloropropane1,1,2-Trichloroethane Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether Toluene

Bromoform Chloroethane 10.00Chloromethane BromomethaneVinyl chloride

- 5 -

Parameter Methodand Units Reference-p Method Summary Detection Limit

SOIL & fitTpIMENT gflfyLES i INORGANIC ANALYSIS

Moisture, 2-160.3 Gravimetric, 1% dry at 103'C

Metals — 1-3050 Atomictotal, ug/g: Absorption—

—Arsenic 1-7060 digestion(furnace) with hot, 3.00

———————————-————— strong mineral ———————————————-—Barium 1-7060 acids: choice

(flame) of direct 10.0—-———--—---——---- aspiration or —---——-___——_—.—Cadmium 1-7130 use of furnace

(flame) dependant 10.0————————————— ———— upon 1 imi t ———— ——— ——————— ——Chromium 1-7190 requirements

<flame) for program, 10.0———————————-————— ancj sens it ivity————'•———— ——————— Iron 2-236.1 of method.

(flame) 10.0

—Lead 1-7420(flame) 10.0

—Manganese 2-243.1(flame) 10.0

—Nickel 1-7520(flame) 10.0

—Selenium 1-7740(furnace) 0.50

—Silver 1-7760(flame) 10.0

—Zinc 1-7950(flame) 10.0

—Mercury 1-7471 Atomic absorption, 0.40cold vapor method;sample digested withpermanganate and per-sulfate in sealed container,then Hg ion reduced withstannous chlorideto elemental form.

R3Q3025

- 6 -

parameter Methodand Units pef@rence-p Method Summary Detection Limit

SOIL & SEDIMENT SAMPLES: TRACE ORGANIC ANALYSIS

Base/ 1-3550 GC/MS, capillary 1000Neutrals/ 1-8270 column for allAcid, ug/kg in this

groupingPhenols, 1-8040 Extractionug/kg followed by GC

analysis withFID detector.

Phthalate 1-8060 Extractionesters, followed by GCug/kg analysis with

FID detector.

Phenol 2-Nitrophenol2-Chlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2,4-Dichlorophenol 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol2,4-Diraethylphenol 2,4-DinitrophenolPentachlorophenol 4-Nitrophenoi2-Methyl-4,6-dinitro- Hexachlorocyclopentadienephenol 1,2-DiphenylhydrazineAcenaphthene 2-ChloronaphthaleneAcenaphthylene N-NitrosodimethylamineAnthracene N-Ni trosodiphenylamine1,3-Dichlorobenzene Phenanthrene1,4-Dichlorobenzene 4-Bromophenyi phenyl etherHexachlorobenzene Di-n-butyl phthalateBenzidine Butyl benzyl phthalate3,3-Dichlorobenzidine Diethyl phthalateBenzo(a)a.nthracene bis< 2-Ethylhexyl) phthalateDibenzo(a,h)anthracene Dimethyl phthalateBenzo(b)fluoranthene Di-n-octyl phthalateB«nzo(k)fluoranthene PyreneBenzo(g,h»i)perylene Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyreneBenzo(a)pyren» 2,4-Dini tro tolueneChrysene 2,6-DinitrotolueneHexachloroethane Fluoranthenebis(2-Chloroisopropyl)- Fluorene

ether

Chlorinated 1-3550 & ExtractionPesticides 8080 followed by GCand PCB's, analysis withug/kg EC detector.

- 7

Parameter Methodand Units Reference-p Method Summarv Detection Limit

Aldrin Methoxychlor Heptachlor 4.0alpha-BHC Hexachlorobenzene Heptachlorbeta-BHC Merix epoxideDieldrin Encirin

o,p-DDD o,p-DDE o,p-DDT 4.0p,p-DDD p,p-DDE p f p-DDT Lindane

Chlordane-cis isomer 20Chlordane-traris isomer

PCB-1016 PCB-1242 PCB-1260 40PCB-1221 PCB-1246PCB-1232 PCB-1254

Acryloni- 1-8030 NOT A N A L Y Z E Dtrile, ug/kg

Purgeable 1-5030 & Purge and traparomatic 8020 followed by GChydrocarbons, analysis withug/kg photoionization

detector.

Purgeable 1-5030 & Purge and traphalocarbons, 8010 followed by GCug/kg analysis with

electrolyteconductivitydetector.

Benzene 1,1-Dichloroethylene 5.0Chlorobenzene 1f 2-trans-DichloroethyleneCarbon tetrachioride TetrachlproethyleneChloroform Tr ichloroethylene1,1-Dichloroethane Bromodichloromethane1,2-Dichloroethane Chlorodibromomethane1,1,l-Trichloro@thane Methylene chloride1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- Cis-1,3-Dichloropropeneethane Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene

Trichlorofluoromethane Toluene2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether

Bromoform Chloroethane 10Ch1or ome thane Br omomethaneVinyl chloride

Vinyl benzene NOT A N A L Y Z E D

r.

L

The method for the determination of sulfate in water is asfollows 2

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLDIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION

Analysis Method 049

Sulfate in Water and Wastewater

The automated procedure for the determination ofsulfate is an adaptation of that described ingtjtndajrd^Methgds (ref. 5) . The sample is reactedwith barium chloride in an acid medium to formbarium sulfate. At low concentrations, thissulfate precipitate exists as a suspension offine.particles. The turbidity of the suspensionis measured at 520nm. The applicable range ofthis method is 5-200ppm. This range may beextended with sample dilution. Silica over40Oppm and color in large amounts interfere.

Store at 4*C.

Auto Analyzer consisting of:

SamplerAnalytical cartridgeProportioning pump _Colorimeter equipped with 15mm tubular flow celland 520nm filtersRecorder

1. Buffered wash solution: Dissolve 6.75g ammoniumchloride in 500ml distilled water. Add 57mlconcentrated ammonium hydroxide and dilute to1 liter. Dissolve 40g of disodium EDTA into theabove solution.

2. Barium chloride: Dissolve 11.7g BaCl 2H20 in100ml distilled water. Gently heat and stir thesolution while adding 2.5g gelatin. Cool the-solution, add 4.2ml concentrated hydrochloricacid and dilute to 1 liter.

3. Sulfate stock solution, 1ml = Img SO.:Dissolve 1.48g of anhydrous sodium sulfate indeionized, distilled water and dilute to 1 liter.

A8303Q28

r

- 9 -

4. Dilute sulfate solution, 1ml = O.lmg SO •Dilute 100ml of sulfate stock solutionto 1 liter.

5. High-level working standards, 1 00-200mg/ 1 :Prepare high-level working standards by dilutingthe following volumes of stock standard to 100ml.

mi-Slock . . _ . . _ BaLL_§fi4

10 10015 15020 200

6. Low-level working standards, 5-50mg/l:Prepare low-level working standards by dilutingthe following volumes of dilute sulfate solutionto 100ml.

ml Stock mg/1 S0_——————— — ———— ,4

5 5.010 10.030 30.050 50.0

Allow colorimeter to warm up for 30 minutes.Meanwhile, wash the system with the sodium EDTA for 15 minutesprior to barium chloride reagent introduction.

Obtain stable baseline with the reagent. Placestandards in order of decreasing concentration. Complete loadingof sampler tray with unknown samples and begin analysis.

Prepare appropriate standard curve. Compute con-centration -of samples by comparing sample peak heights withstandard curve?.

reference 3 .

Test_Met|;iods_for_Evaiuat:i.ng_SolFid_Wastef "Physical/Chemical Methods , " U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, SW-646,2nd Edition, Washington, DC 20460 (July 1982).

2 . Methods_f or henjicai Anaiysis of _Wa.te£_and_Wastes , U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, EMSL-Cincinnati , EPA-600/4-79-020 (revised March 1983).

3. The base methodology for this procedure is the turbid-imetric method described on pp. 439-440 of the 15th j$ft3Q3Q29

- 10 -

edition of Siandard_Methods, wherein sulfate ion is pre-cipitated in a hydrochloric acid medium with bariumchloride, in such a manner as to form barium sulfatecrystals of uniform size. The specific procedure ispublished as "Industrial Method 39-69W," by the TechniconCorp,, Tarrytown, NY 10591 (1969).

Federal Register, Vol^_49f No, 209, "Methods for OrganicChemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMSL-Cincinnati , pp

r- 43234-43442 (Oct. 26, 1984).

Me_thods_f g£_ih©_Examinatign_gf _Water_arid—Waste_-. American Public Health Association, et al . f 15thedition, Section 104, Washington. DC (I960).

L

AR303030

r

C3

Summary of Analyses PerformedOn Samples Collected DuringThe Remedial Investigation

RR30303!

•1

1**!'

M !*•

j i*." Itoo s .C =±-H ?13 *Q *-o f-.

o 1OJ I

CO |

f IIJ-l S-.2 IS i2 i 'o 5I

I11s,

—

3

C

s

3i5

i

^2.i» b*

sisi2 =

a

-

. „ - -

SE3SR RSC;agSSSKa=S

a

«.-,S.M»

RSKESS^isS

-

s

UJ

s

o.r-S

Sil

-

i

L — M

ffffZ

««^

Ul ui Ui

u.

s s**

* 2 "* ** " B** *

iSiggiMiMiiMisM^MgiiSSi|

l01 dJ

CO

4-1

toa•H

13QJBRO14-4

0)-P-*

CO01CO

0)4-1COrs0)o

CO

U9O

M •

303033

MPiQJ

•U

bO

RO

03o>tni-ltO

MPiS4-J

GOd•Hj_i3O-oOJsRO4-1RUP-.CO0)W>.r-tCOc<1-1•HOcn<uCJto14-1R3Cfl

s*

•»a

a

CO

l J

i

•<Cl

e f

ta •*

CO'-'

a.

•i

ui— *o

.SI—m&

if£w

ns-«ae

Ul

<•Si•<!»*

«e-2s "C

2-=

§5tH •*4! VO-E

> —— ,

iman X

^. __ __ „ — __ „ __— J

.__________

«n at m tn S en tn en ul cn<n ut tn en inT

<

""*""" — — -

iiSs22i!£sf2£2 oe oe «c ae ae «c at oe ae ae ae «e ae a« ae •: oe ae ae oc ae oc ae ae oe

Ifi*§|-

a v

Isn1 * y

^ li^ uDO = *q z§

° I

•formed

IMIIIIillll*

CO j

*3 ^ .°3 S«C *S<3 s~to |

U io i* 1-i i •o iw i

s5

1

s

11fts «Jfe••»*

£

-**

i12

i

a

ETA 425

CtMi/NHO

sii.*•»—

<fM

—fiiif

I

•

;.

1

,_ _..

'•

1 —

1MI

.vrr

•WWXt i l

—

S3S

, ———

iiM

UMeJ

- - - — --

USSSSi3iSS*rlAS'PT3«SSE

1 t « T 1 > * 1 1 j'U"'* * ™ ' ' J, ' -L ' MM CM

i i i i I i i t i iii i i r I i i l l l 1 ii <»SSsX a iS 5 iS is is S Bis a gi is S is Si ig a ifc

» i i r i J. J, t i i J,i i ' J» '

V i i T i i t TJ* V*r VV^T'TV

•2-3

S.

5l*«* o"3

SlI

M303036

fl•H4-1aoCJ

CU.a4-1

bOC-HS-J3a-aa)SROiwRa)

a)ca

fl•HRO

•HOcn

.5

*

u

t=aui

tnto

Sdssrptioa

:Pirmtin

ai «•>a. •

•t

3*

|

O

£

2:3

m 423

(But/Miut)

Mil «•

-O!**

AUJ

cm —-ai MI

ii_|-|

llt

if

UIJ

-« - -

— - —

s«K£SSHSS3!K!5H?BZZ«-r*o» -. .a,0-0-««-r

i» en IM «n tn oi<n MCO ui uun a* «o ta «• en tn ui men wi a*

——— -

~~ ~

~

«-o,«*«-. .0.«-cs.«.« sao

«o <n <*» ca a> tn en to <a o> oo en en a) «• «» «« «n a» (n en tn en era tn CM en ot *» «n

< i i i l • i i i i i < i i i i i i t « i t i r *i Vi *i"ri i

"S

• s-f

KS.H U M

8303037

Soil Boring Analyses Performed During the RI (continued)

i-i*3 w>tiaiifiniiJtiiJi

2

Isifs €•• — i

sir13i *

*

illfltllMiU

MHWftlM I

f^rntin

l

-«2-

s3siS

,-f,5

M l_JtJ

————————

ill^?iiat i"S

i ieis i SIi = = =s i **s? •§C

**

*

|

,——

xi*SiifiSa=*s«***•1-3si

j, j_ .t .... _ . . . . . . . . .X .M? f ««jf--oj»2 -<vi -r«*f--r>« ''*'--' r~.i-j . £>— • — c**e-iE?ii -^s tnJt

* — te

1 si

S— c«*»"» «rw» -• » «• »• -• »*• tn*f >n -m rs.—• - — •*•*"-.•—-• c** ri« r* «M «*•?>* r«i rMHMVIIIIinMHIMjtUWinMMI^MMMMHtUlintiltnul

•

•• • M «B ••••••• «M« • M*B •»•• «B •••••• «•€•••••I I i 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 l T l l i * l l l * l l A,'

i Xtt3EZXZXZXZili*XiEEXXBSsS!5SiSssS3S

—— -

.

rvr-~r4r>< r~.r4F~.?>4 ->r<ip~{>4t-.fsiF-.4>jr>- 0-~-*ru<i4r'i>p'> wir>n-«.«

"SSS SgSgBSS HSBgCSSSSSR isSSSS

- -. -. .. SrGSSSSSSSgSKKISSaKISRJSKKSSin en «J»*n in J* M Ji J> «n Ji«i in «*«* «*•«» •» «» «!• « «Ji o» «}*•» wi «!•!*«• «• e> «>m M

iii i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i i i i t i i i i i i • • AA '

IBw

*> 5tsJJ5J5|II5 * M«***•»*.=5!TS.J— 3 eiui«5u

•C fcJ

R303038

4-1CoG

MAS

bO

COa>CO

COCJ

.•HRO

•HOCO

1—

oxntncn•ft*a<c«<n

5R3Q3039

1

r

u Parameter Group Listings

r;

List of Parameters Analyzed For In The EPA 200Priority Pollutant Heavy Metals Analysis

Antimony Chromium (Total) NickelArsenic Chromium (Hexavalent) SeleniumBeryllium Copper SilverCadmium Lead ThalliumCalcium Mercury Zinc

List of Parameters Analyzed For In The EPA 624Priority Pollutant Volatile Organics Analysis

Benzene 1,1-DichloroetheneBromodichloromethane trans-1,2-DichloroetheneBromoform 1,2-DichloropropeneBromomethane cis-1,3-DichloropropeneCarbon tetrachloride trans-1,3-DichloropropeneChlorobenzene Ethyl benzeneChloroethane Methylene chloride2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 1/1/2,2-TetrachloroethaneChloroform TetrachloroetheneChloromethane TolueneDibromochloromethane 1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,3-Dichlorobenzene Trichloroethene1,4-Dichlorobenzene Trichlorofluoromethane1,1-Dichloroethane Vinyl chloride1,2-Dichloroethane

ftR303.QM

-2-

List of Parameters Analyzed For In The EPA 625Priority Pollutant Acid Extractables Analysis

Phenol 4-Chloro-3-cresol2-Nitrophenol 2-Chlorophenol4-Nitrophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol2-M0thyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol

List of Parameters Analyzed For In The EPA 625Priority Pollutant Base/Neutral Extractables Analysis

1r2-Dichlorobenzene Fluorene1,3-Dichlorobenzene Fluoranthene1,4-Dichlorobenzene ChryseneHexachloroethane PyreneHexachlorobutadiene PhenanthreneHexachlorobenzene Anthracene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Benzo (a) anthracenebis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane Benzo (b) fluorantheneNaphthalene Benzo (3c) fluoranthene2-Chloronaphthalene Benzo (a) pyreneIsophorone Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyreneNitrobenz ©na D ibenz o (a,h) anthracene2,4-Dinitrotoluene Benzo (g,h,i) perylene2,6-Dinitrotoluene 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether4-Bromophanyl phenyl ether 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidinebis-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate BenzidineDi-n-octyl phthalate bis-(2-Chloroethyl) etherDimethyl phthalate 1,2-DiphenylhydrazineDiethyl phthalate HexachlorocyclopentadieneDi-n-butyl phthalate N-NitrosodiphenylamineAcenaphthylene N-NitrosodimethylamineAcenaphthen© N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamineBenzyl butyl phthalate bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether

/IR3-030U2

-3-

List of Parameters Analyzed For In The EPA 608Priority Pollutant Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs Analysis

Aldrin Endrinx - BHC Endrin aldehyde& - BHC ^Heptachlor

_ S - BHC ......... , ____-.Heptachlor epoxideX - BHC ToxapheneChlordane PCB-10164,4' - ODD PCB-12214,4' - DDE PCB-12324,4' - DDT PCB-1242Dieldrin , PCB-1248Endosulfan I PCB-1254

ti,i Endosulfan II PCB-1260Endosulfan sulfate

List of Indicator Parameters Analyzed For On1985 Surface Water Samples

pHBiological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

ChlorideAmmonia-Nitrogen

SulfateTotal Dissolved Solids (TDS)Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

30301*3

-4-

List of Indicator Parameters Analyzed For On1985 Groundwater Samples

pH .Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Specific ConductanceChloride

Ammonia-NitrogenTotal Dissolved Solids (TDS)Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

r I - i1 ' List of Parameters Analyzed For In The1 Contract Lab Program's Metals Analysis

LLi Aluminum Magnesium

Antimony ManganeseArsenic MercuryBarium NickelBeryllium PotassiumCadmium SeleniumCalcium Silverchromium S odiumCobalt ThalliumCopper TinIron VanadiumLead Zinc

R3030U1*

-5-

List of Parameters Analyzed For In TheContract Lab Program's Volatiles Analysis

Chloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane -Bromomethane Trans-1,3-DichloropropeneVinyl Chloride TrichloroetheneChloroethane DibromochloromethaneMethylene Chloride 1,1,2-TrichloroethaneAcetone BenzeneCarbon Disulfide cis-1,3-Dichloropropene1,1-Dichloroethene 2-Chloroethylvinylether1,1-Dichloroethane BromoformTrans-1,2-Dichloroethene 4-Methyl-2-PentanoneChloroform 2-Hexanone1,2-Dichloroethane Tetrachloroethene2-Butanone 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1,1-Trichloroethane TolueneCarbon Tetrachloride ChlorobenzeneVinyl Acetate EthylbenzeneBromodichloromethane StyreneTotal Xylenes

-6-

List of Parameters Analyzed For In TheContract Lab Program's Semivolatiles Analysis

Acenaphthene Phenol2,4-Dinitrophenol fais(-2-Chloroethyl)Ether4-Nitrophenol 2-Chloropheno1Dibenzofuran 1,3-Dichlorobenzene2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene2,6-Dinitrotoluene Benzyl AlcoholDiethylphthalate 1,2-Dichlorobenzene4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 2-MethylphenolFluorene bis(2-chloroisopropyl)Ether4-Nitroaniline 4-Methylphenol4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol N-Nitroso-Di-n-PropylamineN-Nitrosodiphenylamine(1) Hexachloroethane4-Bromophenyl-phenylether NitrobenzeneHexachlorobenzene IsophoronePentachlorophenol 2-NitrophenolPhenanthrene 2,4-DimethylphenolAnthracene Benzoic AcidDi-n-Butylphthalate bis(-2-Chloroethoxy)MethaneFluoranthene 2,4-DichlorophenolPyrene 1,2,4-TrichlorobenzeneButylbenzylphthalate Naphthalene3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 4-ChloroanilineBenzo(a) Anthracene Hexachlorobutadienebis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 4-Chloro-3-MethylphenolChrys@n@ 2-MethylnaphthaleneDi-n-Octyl Phthalate HexachlorocyclopentadieneBenzo(b)Fluoranthene 2,4,6-TrichlorophenolBenzo(k)Fluoranthene 2,4,5-TrichlorophenolBenzo(a)Pyrene 2-ChloronaphthaleneIndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 2-NitroanilineDibenz(a,h)Anthracene ' Dimethyl PhthalateBenzo(g,h,1)Perylene Acenaphthylene3-Nitroanilin@

-7-

List of Parameters Analyzed For In TheContract Lab Program's PCB/Pesticides Analysis

Alpha-BHC Endosulfan SulfateBeta-BHC 4,4•-DDTDelta-BHC MethoxychlorGamma-BHC (Lindane) Endrin KetoneHeptachlor ChlordaneAldrin ToxapheneHeptachlor Epoxide Aroclor-1016Endosulfan 1 Aroclor-1221Dieldrin Aroclor-12324,4'-DDE Aroclor-1242Endrin Aroclor-1248Endosulfan 11 Aroclor-12544,4'-DDD Aroclor-12 6 0

List of Adsorption Related Parameters Analyzed For On1986 Surface Soil and Composite Split Spoon Samples

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

CalciumMagnesiumSodium

.Potassium

3Q30U

r

L

-8-

List of Indicator Parameters Analyzed For On1986 Groundwater Samples

AlkalinityHardnessChloride

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)Ammonia as Nitrogen

SulfateTotal Suspended Solids (TSS)Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)

Specific ConductancephEh

TemperatureDissolved Oxygen (DO)

£303048

r

C5

Contract.Lab Program vs DGC Sample Designation

r

3030U9

•U"J

•isf|

sl

5..*

P

^ .?5K-SSfi3»g«qB U«B«B£I^ •••••-

S

*.lS J

1

i i i i i - d i i i r i t F m t i i i t i t i i i i *"J, ' * ' ""• J, ' ' <** ' <

T 1 1 T t T 1 T 1 T T T 1 1 T i T 1 1 T 1 T? 1 1 * TT T T l 1 1 1 1 T 1 T 1

<&.&-o-*-a-a-0'« .05555 5-a54-a-a< -a.a<A.a-d -« -«- * -«< ^ .4-4-o-a

K «^ V5 n

I"!it

*3i«l!— (.«i

eK

3 SS

t- 3l

. fTSS3

•1—fs

Si * Rsfi a SI I

^ I I f£.: ss •-a.! f |a-ij ss J-

i £ ,

303Q51

S2J52 2CS3 3£ E S **5!!2 »«ri •* -«p g—53 " 31E! *fc K S SE** *• S fs KrS—"^ ** *• *» •• *•• *• •• % ;2<>^^^«<g^** — •— —— _••-•—'- • ('4r4o*rs>rsif~<(•>(%!r 4A* t *r)B *> * * -«- •• ^ ^^ v^Âm^••••^^•^•M^âiBâGa^«^m^êBaBa»^«BâBaiflB^^âBeBêaKi^>BB>^driBea«aa«*" iilsS s**£s s s ii"* ssEi lj sss** *^-"^ ** ^ "* ^

11

I k-! -S !: 4s! S!

! i

r

C6

Contract Lab ProgramData Summary Sheets

R3030S3

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION til

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY839 BESTGATE RQAD 301-224-2740

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 FTS-922-3752

DATE : June 9, 1986

SUBJECT: inorganic data QA Review, Case 5576, Site: Delaware Sand & GravelSamples MCC601 thru MCC613

FROM : Steve L. Markham (3ES20)Environmental Scientist

TO : Dominic DiGuillo (3HW21)Project Officer

THRU : Patricia J.Chief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, matrix spike, and duplicate analysisresults for 13 soil samples analyzed by Chemtech Laboratories.

The data summary contains the following qualifier codes:

U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. Theassociated numerical value is the estimated samplequantitation limit.

J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity becausequality control criteria were not met.

R - Quality Control indicates that data are unusable (compound may ormay not be present). Resampling and reanalysis is necessaryfor verification.

Z - Ho analytical result.

Qualifiers

It is recommended that this data package be utilized only with the followiqualifier statements:

0 Reported results for aluminum and iron in samples MCC604 and MCC605 maynot reflect the true average concentration for these consitutents.

0 Reported results for aluminum, chromium, iron, manganese, and vanadiumin samples MCC611 and MCC612 may not reflect the true average concentrat

- for these consituents.

0 Actual detection limits for selenium in the low concentration and forantimony in the medium concentration may be biased slightly higher thanreported.

0 Reported results for lead in the medium concentration soils may be biasehigh.

0 Actual detection limits for silver in the low concentration soils may bebiased slightly higher than reported.

Findings

0 Field duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percent differences faluminum (88%) and iron (85$) in the low concentration samples MCC604 an-MCC605 indicating a possible lack of sample homogeneity.

0 Field duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percent differences f(aluminum (42%), chromium (110%), iron (100%), manganese (85%) and vanadii(85%) in the medium concentration samples MCC611 and MCC612 indicatingpossible sample non-homogeneity.

0 Low matrix spike recovery was reported for selenium (50%) in the lowconcentration samples and for antimony (56%) in the medium concentrationsamples.

0 High matrix spike recovery was reported for lead (135%) in the mediumconcentration soils.

0 Low recovery was reported for silver (72%) in the laboratory controlsample.

Summary

This Quality Assurance Review has identified the following areas of concern:possible lack of sample homogeneity and LCS recovery for silver outside of

limits.

Please see the accompany support documentation appendices for specificson this Quality Assurance Review.

Attachment: Data Summary

Appendix Content

A Data Validation SummaryB Sample Data Sheets

SM:er

cc: S. Bonvell, Dunn Geoscience

3R3Q3G56

? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION Ml

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 FTS-922-3752

DATE : July 17, 1986

SUBJECT: Inorganic Data QA Review, Case 5662, Site: Delaware Sand & GravelSample MCC628 thru MCC636

r

r

FROM : Steve L. MarkhamEnvironmental Scientist

T0 . Dom DiGuilio (3HW21)Project Officer

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23) ^Chief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, matrix spike, duplicate analysisresults, ICP interference and serial dilution results for 9 soilsamples analyzed by Hittman-Ebasco laboratories.




R - Quality Control indicates that data are unusable (compound may ormay not be present). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary forverification.

UJ - Qualified as not detected due to blank contamination.

4:8303059

Findings

0 Laboratory preparation blank analysis revealed the presence ofcalcium, magnesium and sodium at concentrations significant enoughto question the aforementioned results.

0 Field duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percent differencesfor aluminum (53%), iron (43%) and manganese (78%) indicating apossible lack of sample homogeniety.

0 Laboratory duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percentdifferences for aluminum (61%), iron (146%) and zinc (142%)indicating possible sample non-homogniety.

0 Extremely low matrix spike recovery was reported for antimony (0%).

0 Low matrix spike recovery was reported for selenium (64%).

0 High matrix spike recovery was reported for manganese (137%) andmercury (130%).

0 The contract lab analyzed samples MCC628 and MCC629 for arsenicat a two-fold dilution and selenium at a five-fold dilution, whichwere not detected in either sample, thereby effectively raising thedetection limits.

0 The lab reported that the samples MCC629, MCC630, MCC635 and MCC636were leaking liquid upon receipt, thus possibly effecting sampleintegrity.

Summary

This Quality Assurance Review has identified the following areas of concern:

Lab blank contamination, possible lack of sample homogeniety, and possiblelack of sample integrity for some samples.Please see the accompanying support documentation appendices for specificson this Quality Assurance Review.

Attachment: Data SummaryAppendix Content



IQualifiers

It is recommended that this data package be utilized only with the followingqualifier statements:

0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due to blankcontamination:

Compound Samples Affected

calcium MCC633, MCC634, MCC636magnesium MCC631sodium All results

0 Reported results for aluminum, iron and manganese in samples MCC630and MCC632 may not reflect the true average concentration for theseconstituents.

0 Reported results for aluminum, iron and zinc may not reflect thetrue average concentration for these these constituents.

0 Actual detection limits for antimony may be biased significantlyhigher than reported.

0 Actual detection limits for selenium may be biased slightly higherthan reported.

0 Reported results for manganese and mercury may be biased high.

0 Elevated detection limits were reported for arsenic and seleniumin samples MCC628 and MCC629.

0 The integrity of samples MCC629, MCC630, MCC635 and MCC636 may havebeen compromised.

483G3Q6I

iS UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

J REGION III0,t0<> CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY

839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-274ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 ' fTS-922-3752

DATE : July 23, 1986**

SUBJECT: Inorganic Data QA Review, Case 5722, Site: Delaware Sand & Gravel,Sample MCC684, MCC685, MCC690, MCC691

FROM : Steve L. Markham (3ES23)LrhonvUt OftrChemist

TO : Dom DiGuilio (3HW21)Project Officer

^ *THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23)S:"Chief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, matrix spike and duplicate analysisresults, ICP interference QC, calibration data and quality assurancedocumentation for 4 soil samples analyzed by Radian laboratory.


U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. Theassociated numerical value is the estimat-d samplequantitation limit.

0 - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity becausequality control criteria were not met.

R - Quality Control indicates that data-are unusable (compound may ormay not be present). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary forverification.

Z - No analytical result.

5R303062

Qualifiers


0 The following results have? been qualified as not detected due to blankcontamination:


tin MCC684, MCC685, MCC690, MCC691

zinc MCC684, MCC68S, MCC691

0 Results for mercury may be biased low.

0 The results for lead in sample MCC684 may not represent the trueaverage concentration of this constituent.

0 Actual detection limits for antimony, arsenic, selenium and silvermay be biased higher than reported. Reported results for arsenicand silver may be biased low.

Findings

0 Laboratory blank analysis revealed the presence of tin and zinc atconcentrations significant enough to question the aforementioned results.

0 Holding times for mercury were exceeded by 10 days.

0 Lab duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percent differencesfor lead (94%).

0 Low matrix spike recovery was reported for antimony (45%), arsenic(71%), selenium (40%) and silver (52%).

Summary


Lab blank contamination for tin and zinc, exceeding mercury holding times,and poor precision for lead.

Please see the accompanying support documentation appendices for specificson this Quality Assurance Review.


Appendix ContentA Data Validation SummaryB Sample Data Sheets


SM:wbg

18303063

\? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY* REGION III

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY839 BESTGATE ROAD 30'.-224-2740


DATE : May 20, 1986

SUBJECT: Organic Data QA Review, Case 5576, Site: Delaware Sand and GravelSamples CC801-CC845, CC847-CC856, CC858

FROM : Charles Sands (3ES20)BChemist

TO : Dominic Digiulio (3HW21) . MAY9-71QPCSite Response Section , MAY 271986

cNf/y DUNN GEOSCIENCETHRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)CJ'^J-> CORPORATIONDPO QA ^ X

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, surrogate and matrix spike results,

i field duplicate analysis, target compound matching quality, and tentativelyidentified compound results for fifty-six soil samples analyzedby one laboratory. Thirteen soils were for full organics analyses;

j volatile, semivolatile (acid, base/neutral) and pesticide fractions.Forty three soils were received for only volatiles analyses.

The attached data summary contains only compounds which were reportedas detected In at least one sample. The complete list of target compounds,their results, and associated detection limits are located as an appendix.

The data summary contains some of the following qualifier codes:

U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associatednumerical value is the estimated sample quantitation limit.

J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because .quality control criteria were not met.


Q - No analytical result.

H - Presumptive evidence of presence of material (tentativeidentification.)

P - Preliminary - blank contamination precludes confirmation of compoundpresence and quantity, resampling is recommended.

Please note that combinations of qualifier codes may be used to convey conciseinformation. Data summary blocks containing 2 numbers and the UJ Code areindicative of blank contamination. The top number is the result reported by thecontract laboratory. The bottom number is the adjusted quantitation limit due toblank contamination.

Qualifiers/Findings


0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due toblank contamination. These results have been qualified with a UJ code in thedata summary. The number present is the estimated sample quantitation limit.

Compound^ , Samples Affected Summary

methylene chloride All sample results except CC847, CC850, CC851 and CC8584-methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) CC853toluene CC811, CC815di-n-butylphthalate All sample resultsbis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate All sample results

Methylene chloride was found frequently in reagent blanks and methylene chlorideis often used to rinse soil sample containers. Low level 4-methyl-2-pentanone,toluene, di-n-butyl phthalate and bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate results werefound in reagent blank quantitation lists. The contract laboratory notesthere is a phthalate contamination problem in the case narrative (seeattachment).

i i0 Some sample results were qualitatively and quantitatively questionable.

Sample results are above blank contaminant levels, but the Reviewer cannotdetermine conclusively whether these compounds are present or absent. Further

; analysis of the sites listed below would be desirable to confirm the concentrationsof target compounds. The results have been coded P in the data summary.

Sample Compound Comments

CC847, CC850, CC851, Sample concentrations considerablyI C C 8 5 8 methylene chloride exceed blanks, but Reviewer not

confident of results.

T CC847, CC849 4-methyl-2-pentanone Sample concentration is < 10 X' (MIBK) blank results, but Reviewer is


CC850, CC851, CC853, toluene Sample concentration is < 10 XCC858 blank results, but Reviewer is


HR3Q30S5

Acetone and 2-butanone results have been examined in detail forcontamination. Acetone is present in laboratory reagent blanks and wasused as a solvent for semivolatile soil analysis. 2-butanone (MEK)is an acetone contaminant (see attachments). Three categories ofsample results which differ in qualitative and quantitative reliabilitywere found.

Case! - Sample results for acetone and 2-butanone are confidentqualitatively and quantitatively. Sample results are greater thanten times blank results and blank contamination is insignificant incomparison to the quantities found. No code was added to the datasummary.

Compound. Sample

acetone CC814-CC816, CC832, CC847-CC848, CC850-CC851,CC858

2-butanone(MEK) CC814-CC816, CC832, CC848, CC850-CC851, CC858

Case 2 - Sample results are qualified as not detected due to blankcontamination. These results are qualified with a UJ code in thedata summary. The number in the data summary is the estimated samplequantitation limit.

Compound Sampleacetone CC801-CC813, CC820-CC821, CC823, CC826,

CC830, CC834, CC836, CC838, CC841, CC843,CC845, CC855-CC856

Case 3 - Sample results are qualitatively and quantitatively questionable.Sample results are above blank contaminant levels, but sample results areless than ten times blank contaminant levels. The Reviewer cannotdetermine conclusively whether these compounds are present or absent.Further analysis of the sites listed below would be desirable to confirmthe concentrations of target compounds. The results have been codedP in the data summary.

Compound Sample Comments

acetone CC849 Sample concentration is < 10 Xblank results, but Reviewerconfident of result.

acetone CC852-CC854 Sample concentration is < 10 Xblank results, Reviewer is NOTconfident of result.

2-butanone CC847, CC849 Sample concentration is < 10 Xblank results, but Revieweris confident of result.

2-butanone CC852, CC853 Sample concentration is < 10 Xblank results; Reviewer is NOTconfident of result.

There are 3 pairs of field duplicates: CC814 and CC832; CC824 and CC833;and CC850 and CC858./Results were comparable. MIBK was probably not observed in CC814because the sample was run at a greater dilution than CC832. Analysis forCC850 and CC858 revealed the same target compounds though the volatilesvalues for CC850 were lower. Please also realize ketones (acetone,MEK and MIBK) are volatiles that purge poorly and often have non-linearresponse. Comparable ketone results are more difficult to achieve thancomparable results for other volatile compounds.

The 2-hexanone(MBK) results for sample CC845 was considered qualitativelyquestionable, and the data summary result was annotated (R), unusable.The spectra presented as MBK did not meet identification criteria.See Appendix C.

There is a BFB tuning problem affecting samples CC854, CC855 and CC858.Tuning ion abundances of BFB do not meet contractual or method specifi-cations. There is n£ effect on data reliability. If this data is to beused for enforcement purposes, these discrepancies may have an effect.See Appendix C.

The pesticide extractions for samples CC804, CC805, CC807, CC814 andCC832 occurred after the ten day contractual holding time had elapsed.There is no method holding time for the extraction of solids forpesticides. There was no effect on pesticide data usability.

Tentatively identified compound results were evaluated in Attachment D.Some samples for volatiles contain an unknown at approximately scan 200which the Reviewer believes to be a low molecular weight alphatic alcohol,possibly isopropyl alcohol or n-propyl alcohol.

Summary

This Quality Assurance Review has identified the following areas of concern:blank contamination, including ketone contamination and phthalatecontamination in the laboratory, pesticide extractions for solidsamples exceeding contractual holding times, one MBK result was rejectedfor poor spectral matching quality, and ion abundances for one BFB tunethat exceeded contractual criteria. An off-site soil sample isrecommended to serve as a background or control sample to judgecontamination.


Attachment: Data SummaryAppendix Content

A Data Validation SummaryB Sample Data SheetsC Relevant Supporting Case DocumentsD Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) Results

cc: Bill Miller and Sander Bonvell, Dunn GeoscienceCCS:wbg

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III



DATE : August 20, 1986

SUBJECT: Organic Data QA Review, Case 5635Site: Delaware Sand and Gravel, Samples CC860-CC865, CC867-CC876,CC879-CC885, CC887, CC889-CC900, CE501-CE510

FROM : Chuck Sands (3ES23)Chemist

TO : Dominic DiGiulio (3HW21)Site Response Section

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23) \W AUG251986Chief, QA Section DUNX GEOSCIENCE

CORPORATION

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, surrogate and matrix spike results,field duplicate analysis, target compound matching quality, and tentativelyidentified compound results for forty-six soil samples analyzed by onelaboratory. Twelve soils were for full organics analyses; volatile,sernlvolatile (acid, base/neutral) and pesticide fractions. Thirty-four soils were received for only volatiles analyses.

»-*

The attached data summary contains only compounds which were reportedas detected 1n at least one sample. The complete list of target compounds,their results, and associated detection limits are located as an appendix.


U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associatednumerical value 1s the estimated sample quantitation limit.




N - Presumptive evidence of presence of material (tentativeIdentification.)

P - Preliminary-bjank contamination precludes confirmation of compoundpresence and quantity, resampling is recommended for verification.

5R303068

Please note that combinations of qualifier codes may be used to convey conciseinformation. Data summary blocks containing 2 numbers and the UJ Code areindicative of blank contamination. The top number is the result reported by thecontract laboratory. The bottom number is the adjusted quantitation limit dueto blank contamination.

Qualifiers


0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due toblank contamination. These results have been qualified with a UJ code inthe data summary. The number which accompanied the UJ code is the estimatedsample quantitation limit.


methylene chloride All sample results except CC885, CC887, CC890, CC892,CC897, CE502, CE504, CE505, CE507

acetone All sample results except CC868, CC869, CC884, CC885,CC887, CC889, CC890-CC894, CC897-CC899, CC900,CE501-CE505, CE507

4-methyl-2-pentanone CE506(MIBK)

di-n-butyl phthalate All sample results

bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate All sample results

Methylene chloride was found in almost every volatile method blank. Methylenechloride is often used to rinse soil sample containers. Significantdi-n-butyl phthalate and lesser quantities of bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalatewere found in each semivolatile reagent blank. The contract laboratory notedin the case narrative there was a phthalate contamination problem. One batchof samples was reextracted because di-n-butyl phthalate contamination of thereagent blank was of sufficient magnitude to contractually require reruns.Trace amounts of 2-butanone (MEK), 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK), acetone andtoluene were noted in laboratory blank results or the blank's quantitationlists.

0 Some sample results were qualitatively and quantitatively questionable.Sample results are above blank contaminant levels, but the Reviewer cannotdetermine conclusively whether these compounds are present or absent. Furtheranalysis of the affected sites would be desirable if confirmation of thetarget compound concentrations is necessary. The results have been coded P,Preliminary, in the data summary.

ftR303069

Sample Compound Comments

CC885, CC887, CC890, methylene chloride Sample' concentrations considerablyCC892, CC897, CE502, exceed blanks, but Reviewer notCE504, CE505, CE507 confident of results. Methylene

chloride is a common contaminant oflaboratory environments.

CC868, CC884, CC885, acetone Sample concentrations exceed blanks,CC900, CE501-CE505, but Reviewer not confident ofCE507 results.

CC869, CC885, CC900, Sample concentrations exceeded blanks,CE501-CE505, CE507 2-butanone (MEK) and compound is probably present

in sample.

CC897, CC898, CC900, 4-methyl-2-pentanone Sample concentrations exceeded blanks,CE501 (MIBK) and compound is probably present

in sample.

CC898, CE501, CE504, toluene Sample concentrations exceeded blanks,CE505, CE507 and compound is probably present

in sample.

0 The following sample results have been examined in detail for contamination?These sample results were qualitatively and quantitatively confident. Sampleresults were greater than ten times blank results and blank contamination wasinsignificant in comparison to the quantities found. No code was added to thedata summary.

Sample Compound

CC869, CC887, CC889, acetoneCC890, CC891, CC892,CC893, CC894,CC897-CC899

CC887, CC889-CC894, 2-butanone (MEK)CC898, CC899, CC897

CC868, CC884, CC885, 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)CC887, CC889-CC894,CC899, CE502-CE505,CE507

CC868, CC887, CC890, tolueneCC897

88303070

0 The Reviewer has added target compound results to the data summary aftera detailed examination of laboratory quantitation lists, chromatogramsand spectra. The results are coded N, presumptive evidence of presenceof the material. Corrected Form I Organics Data Sheets have been requestedfrom the contract laboratory.

Sample Compound Concentration (ug/Kg) Comments

CC890 2-butanone (MEK) 1080 Reported incorrectly on FormI, see data summary.

CC893 2-butanone (MEK) 3600 Not reported by lab onForm I, see data summary.

CC894 phenol 1600 Lab incorrectly used U code,phenol is present.

CC894 1,2-dichloroethane 970 Not reported by lab on FormI, acceptable spectra in-cluded. Added to datasummary.

CC897 2-butanone (MEK) 60 Not reported by lab on1,2-dichloroethane 46 Form I, but added to data

summary by Reviewer.

CE501 2-butanone (MEK) 102 Not reported by lab onForm I, but added to datasummary by Reviewer.

CE504 2-butanone (MEK) 132 Not reported by lab onForm I, but added to datasummary by Reviewer.

0 The Reviewer changed the volatiles concentrations for Sample CC885 becausethe laboratory did not utilize the correct dilution factors. Theconcentrations cited in the data summary are the Reviewer's.

Lab Calculated Reviewer Calculated

methylene chloride 51 ug/Kg 40 ug/Kgacetone 108 " 874-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 126 1002-butanone (MEK) 29 " 241,2-dichloroethane 237 " 190 "

0 The Reviewer changed the concentration of bis-(2-chloroethyl)ether from150 ug/Kg to 150 J ug/Kg. The result was below the sample specificdetection limit, so use of the J (estimated) code is required.

&B30307I

1

0 There are two pairs of field duplicates: CC861 and CC879; andCE504 and CE507.

Results were comparable. No compounds except those attributed tocontamination were observed in either CC861 or CC879.

Sample CE507 was run with twice the dilution factor of sample CE504. Bothsamples contained 4-methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) and 1,2-dichloroethane.

• Both samples also contained 2-butanone (MEK), acetone, methylene chlorideand toluene, though these results were coded P, preliminary (affected byblank contamination). The MEK result for CE504 was added by the Revieweras explained in.a preceding finding. Volatiles analysis revealed thesame target compounds, though values for CE504 were lower. Please alsorealize ketones (acetone, MEK and MIBK) are volatiles that purge poorlyand often have non-linear response. Comparable ketone results are moredifficult to achieve than comparable results for other volatile compounds,especially in a soil matrix.

0 The laboratory did not use the correct dilution factors in quantifyingmany tentatively identified compound (TIC) results. TIC concentrationswere often underestimated. TIC results were evaluated in Appendix C,and quantitation deviations and changes in TIC identification aresummarized below:

Sample Summary of Change

CC868 VOA identification changed from unknown to tetrahydrofuran.

CC887, CC889 All VOA TIC concentrations should be multiplied by ten(10 X).

CC890, CC892 All VOA TIC concentrations should be multiplied by five(5 X).

CC891, CC893, All VOA TIC concentrations should be multiplied by tenCC894 (10 X).

CC898 All VOA TIC concentrations should be multiplied by five(5 X).

CC885, CE507 All VOA TIC concentrations should be multiplied by two(2 X).

0 Some Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) were not searched by thelaboratory. These required deliverables have been requested.

CC894 No TIC search for semivolatile scan 507

flR3Q3072


blank contamination including ketone contamination and phthalate con-tamination in the laboratory, target compound results not reported by thelaboratory but added to the data summary by the Reviewer, changes in targetcompound concentrations added to the data summary by the Reviewer and changesin TIC concentrations as noted by the Reviewer.

Please see the accompanying support documentation appendices for specificsof this Quality Assurance Review.


Appendix Content

A Data Validation SummaryB Sample Data Sheets - Form IC Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) Results

cc: Sander Bonvell, Dunn Geoscience

CS:wbg

AA303073

1

r

L


,ty CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY639 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740


DATE . June 23, 1986

SUBJECT: Organic Data QA Review, Case 5662, Site: Delaware Sand 4 GravelSamples CE401 thru CE436; CE511 thru 517; CE519 thru CE538

FROM • Jeanne Hankins (3ES20Chemi st

T0 . Dominic DiGuilio (3HW21)Site Response Section

>N^THRU : Patricia J. Krantz -------Chief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, surrogate and matrix spike results,field duplicate analysis, target compound matching quality, andtentatively identified compound results for 63 soil samples analyzedby one laboratory.

The attached data summary contains only compounds which were reported asdetected in at least one sample. The complete list of target compounds,their results, and associated detection limits are located as Appendix A.




M303G71*

Qualifiers


0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due to blankcontamination:


methylene chloride All samplesacetone CE409, CE410, CE412-CE417, CE426, CE428,

CE434, CE435, CE511-CE517, CE519-CE529,CE531-CE533

0 The following result has been qualified as estimated because therelative percent difference of one of the calibration check compounds(vinyl chloride) was greater than 25% - (29%):


acetone CE405

0 The following results have been qualified as estimated due to apossible matrix interference as indicated by a low surrogate recovery(results may be greater than reported):


acetone CE418, CE4322-butanone CE4184-methyl-2-pentanone CE418

Findings

0 For sample CE421 the results were modified by the reviewer as followsdue to an error 1n mathematical calculations:

Compound Lab Result Reviewer Result

methylene chloride 12 ug/Kg 25 ug/Kg UJacetone 320 ug/Kg 640 ug/Kg

AR303Q75

Summary


common laboratory contaminants in the blank, one math error and onecalibration outside of QC requirements.

Please see the accompany support documentation appendices for specifics onthis Quality Assurance Review.


Appendix Content


cc: Sander BonvellDunn Geosdence

JH:wbg

AR303076

r

r

S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III



DATE : August 19, 1986

SUBJECT: Organic Data QA Review, Case 5722Site: Delaware Sand and Gravel, Samples CE439-CE441, CE445-CE447

FROM : Chuck SandsChemist

TO : Dominic DiGiulio (3HW21)Site Response Section

^ I'M; WG 2 51986THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23)\($ //U/

Chief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, surrogate and matrix spike results,field duplicate analysis, target compound matching quality, and tentativelyidentified compound results for six soil samples analyzed by onelaboratory. Four soil samples were analyzed for volatile and semivolatile(acid, base/neutral) fractions and two soils were analyzed for volatilesonly.

The attached data summary contains only compounds which were reportedas detected in at least one sample. The complete list of target compounds,their results, and associated detection limits are located as an appendix.



J - The associated numerical value 1s an estimated quantity becausequality control criteria were not met.



N - Presumptive evidence of presence of material (tentativeidentification.)

P - Preliminary-blank contamination precludes confirmation of compoundpresence and quantity, resampling is recommended for verification.

A a 3-030 7 7

Please note that combinations of qualifier codes may be used to convey conciseinformation. Data summary blocks containing 2 numbers and the UJ Code areindicative of blank contamination. The top number is the result reported by thecontract laboratory. The bottom number is the adjusted quantitation limit dueto blank contamination.

Qualifiers


0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due toblank contamination:

Compound Samples Affected Summary

methylene chloride All sample results

•» acetone CE439, CE447

di-n-butyl phthalate All sample results

bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate All sample results

Methylene chloride was found in all volatile method blanks. Methylene chloride1is often used to rinse soil sample containers. Trace concentrations of acetonewere found in volatile methods blanks. Di-n-butyl phthalate andbis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were found in the semivolatile reagent blank.

0 The acetone result in sample CE446 was qualitatively and quantitativelyquestionable. The result is above blank contaminant levels, but the reviewercannot determine conclusively whether this compound is present or absent.Further analysis of the affected site would be desirable if confirmation ofthe target compound concentration is necessary. The result has been coded P,Preliminary, in the data summary.

0 The acetone results for samples CE440, CE441 and CE445 were estimated or approxi-mate values. The sample results were appended with a J code on the data summary.These sample results were qualitatively confident; acetone sample results weregreater than ten times blank results. The Traffic Reports for the samples notedthey were not received Iced and some loss of volatile compounds could haveoccurred. For this reason, acetone results are approximate or estimated values.

0 All volatile target compound detection limits for all samples were estimated orapproximate values (UJ code). Samples were not received Iced and some loss ofvolatile organic compounds could have occurred.

0 The contract laboratory noted the SMO Traffic Report completed by the samplerlisted an incorrect case number.

AR303078

Summary


sample coolers were received without ice, Traffic Report listed wrong casenumber and there was blank contamination including ketone contamination andphthalate contamination in the laboratory.



Appendix Content

A Data Validation SummaryB Sample Data SheetsC Tentatively Identified Coirpound (TIC) Results


CS:wbg

HR303079

1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYr REGION III

• *'«, o^ CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740


DATE : September 18, 1986

SUBJECT: Inorganic Data QA Review, Case 5879,Site: Delaware Sand & Gravel

t c~~-FROM • Jeanne M. Hankins (3ES23)' H 1 • j i j~

Chemist ' Uut j \\L \ ^ i \ \ ~* ~ "~

L

TO . Dominic Digiullo (3HW21)Project Officer I EHL7"i7

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23) f >QChief, QA Section

Introduction

The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, matrix spike, duplicate analysis,ICP interference and serial dilution results for 42 soilsamples analyzed by RMAL laboratories.



Qualifiers

It is recommended that this data package be utilized only with thefollowing qualifier statements:

0 The reported result for cobalt, copper, lead and zinc in sample MCF471may not reflect the true average concentration for these constituents.

0 The actual detection limit for selenium may be biased significantlylow in the medium concentration sample MCF454.

6 Actual detection limits for the'following constituents and samplesmay be biased slightly higher than reported:

Constituent Samples Affected

lead, selenium MCF452, MCF453, MCF455, MCF456, MCF457, MCF463,MCF464, MCF465, MCF466, MCF467, MCF468, MCF469,MCF470, MCF485.

manganese, selenium, MCF471 , MCF472, MCF473, MCF474, MCF487, MCF488,tin, zinc MCF489, MCF490, MCF491, MCF492, MCF493, MCF459.

HB30308G


selenium MCF475, MCF476, MCF477, MCF478, MCF479, MCF480,MCF481, MCF482, MCF483, MCF484, MCF486, MCF458,MCF460, MCF461, MCF462.

Any positive results for the above constituents and samples may bebiased slightly low.

0 Serial dilution analysis Indicates that a physical or chemical inter-ference may be present for the following constituent and samples:


manganese MCF475, MCF476, MCF477, MCF478, MCF479, MCF480,MCF481, MCF482, MCF483, MCF484, MCF486, MCF458,MCF460, MCF461, MCF462.

0 Reported results for sodium may be biased high.

0 Elevated detection limits were reported for selenium in samplesMCF470, MCF485 and MCF454 and for arsenic and thallium in sample MCF454.

0 The following samples for lead could not be completely validated:

Samples

MCF474, MCF476, MCF488, MCF489, MCF490, MCF491, MCF492, MCF477, MCF478,MCF479, MCF480, MCF481, MCF4«2, MCF483, MCF484, MCF486, MCF461, MCF462.

Findings

0 Laboratory duplicate analysis of sample MCF471 resulted in highrelative percent differences for cobalt (35%), copper (43%),lead (41%) and zinc (71%).

0 Extremely low matrix spike recovery was reported for selenium (0%)in the medium concentration sample MCF454.

0 Low matrix spike recovery was reported for lead (60%), manganese(46%), selenium (48%, 50%, 35%), tin (73%) and zinc (45%).

0 Serial dilution analysis resulted 1n high relative percentdifference for manganese (85%).

0 False positives were reported for sodium in the ICP interferencecheck samples.

0 The lab analyzed samples MCF470, MCF485 and MCF434 at a 10 X dilutionfor selenium and sample MCF454 at a 10 X dilution for arsenic andthallium, none .of which were detected, thereby effectively raising thedetection limits in these samples.

AR303Q81

0 Lab did not analyze a duplicate or matrix spike for the aforementionedresults which were analyzed by graphite furnace.

Summary

This Quality Assurance Review has identified the following areas ofconcern:

False positives for sodium, elevated detection limits and not analyzinga duplicate and matrix spike for all furnace analyses.

Please see the accompanying support documentation appendices forspecifics on this Quality Assurance Review.


Appendix Content


cc: Sander BonvellDunn Geoscience

JH:wbg

A-R303082

USR. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III



DATE : September 24, 1986

SUBJECT: Data Validation of Case 5879 (Organics)Site: Delaware Sand and Gravel

FROM : Diana Pickens (3ES23)Chemist

TO : Dom Digiulio (3HW21)Site Response Section

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23)Chief, QA Section C t >v n fa

Introduction

The set of samples for Case #5879 contained 42 soil samples which wereanalyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program Routine AnalyticalServices by one laboratory. The sample set included 2 field duplicatesbut no field blank.

This data was reviewed according to the National Functional Guidelinesfor Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data has been validated withregard to usability. The methods used by the Contract Lab Program(CLP) must be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope, precision and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the VOA and BNA analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding times were metand tune and calibration were within contract specifications exceptfor a few minor deviations which did not affect usability.

The majority of samples were successfully analyzed for the Pest1cide/PCBfraction. Many samples required large dilutions before analysis dueto the presence of non-target compounds in the BNA and Pesticidefractions. The sample quantitation limits are notably higher forthese samples. The problems relevant to the difficult samples arediscussed in the Qualifier section.

The attached data summary contains only compounds which were reportedas detected in at least one sample. The complete list of compoundsanalyzed for, their results and associated detection limits arelocated as an Appendix.


U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. Theassociated numerical value is the estimated sample quantitationlimit.

&R303083


R - Quality Control indicates that data are unusable (compound mayor may not be present). Resampling and reanalysis is necessaryfor verification.

N - Presumptive evidence of presence of material (tentativeIdentification).

Qualifiers:

General Comments;

0 The lab supplied spectra for all potential positives. This informationprovided sufficient evidence of the following compounds to considerthem present for a worst case assessment of the data. These resultswere added to the data summary and qualified as a tentative identi-fication (N) since only trace levels were detected.

Compound Sample Result

trlchloroethene CD869 23 JN1,1,1-trichloroethane CD854 2 JNphenol CD852 160 JN

CD853 160 JNCD858 34 JNCD859 50 JN

benzo(a)pyrene CD859 66 JNphenanthrene CD858 62 JN

VOA Fraction

0 The methylene chloride, acetone and toluene (reported as < 4 ppb)detected in any sample were not above the background concentrationsin the lab. All reported values were qualified as not detected(U) and the sample quantitation limit was qualified as estimated(J). The toluene detected in samples CD868 and CD869 is notquestioned.

0 A dlchlorobenzene isomer was detected in the VOA fraction ofsamples CD863, CD868 and CD869. The BNA fraction of these sampleswere analyzed after large dilution due to high concentrations ofTentatively Identified Compounds (TIC). The estimated concentration(qualified J) obtained from the VOA fraction was added to thedata summary.

BNA Fraction

0 The lab reagents used to prepare the soil samples contained largeamounts of impurities. A large number of TICs were reported tobe present 1n the samples. All TIC report sheets (page 4 ofForm I) were reviewed and all laboratory artifacts were crossedoff the list to avoid confusion with the several potentiallysignificant TICs present in this sample set.

Samples CD867 through CD874 were analyzed as medium level samplesdue to high concentrations of TICs. The detection limits for thetarget compounds in these samples are notably higher than forother samples in this set.

0 Sample CD893 contained a large peak and/or significant "background".No information was provided by the lab to identify it/them.Since all sample quality control (internal standards and surrogates)were in control, no affect on the identification of the targetcompounds resulted. There may be other TICs present in thissample, however.

0 The substituted phenol, a TIC detected in samples CD892, CD888,CD872, CD868 and CD867, may be butylated hydroxytoluene.

Pesticide Fraction

All PCB identifications and concentrations were verified exceptone. In sample CD875, the lab reported both PCB 1254 and 1260as present. Interferences prohibited verification of PCB 1254;it was removed from the data summary. The result for PCB 1260was verified.

One of three method blanks contained gross contamination whichprohibited reliable identification of many single peak pesticides.All reported positive values for alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC andheptachlor epoxide were qualified as unusable (R).

The identification of heptachlor epoxide and methoxychlor insample CD873 were based on incorrect identification criteria.They are false positives; they were removed from the data summary.

The detection limits for the following samples are elevated due topoor lab performance rather than matrix effects:

CD858, CD870, CD871, CD874, CD888, CD889, CD891, CD892 and CD893.

These samples were not properly analyzed by the laboratory. Ifthe reported detection limits are acceptable, no further actionis needed. If they are not acceptable, proper analysis (whichshould provide substantially lower detection limits) is possiblethrough Routine Analytical Services. The lab problems are detailedand documented in the summary report to the lab Deputy ProjectOfficer (DPO).

ft H3G 30-8-5-

Summary

All samples were successfully analyzed for the VOA and BNA fractions.The majority of samples were successfully analyzed for the pesticidefraction. Some samples, however, have notably high sample quantitationlimits. There were significant levels of Tentatively IdentifiedCompounds (TICs) detected in several samples. Low level lab contaminationwith methylene chloride, acetone and toluene was present. The impurityof lab reagents affected the usability of several single peak pesticidesand several TICs.The text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseproblem areas which affect the applications of the data to the siteinvestigation. Documentation of these problems and any other observedareas of laboratory contractual noncompliance are included in a separatereport sent to the laboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you have questionsor comments on this data review, please call me.

Attachments


DP:wbg

AB303086


CCNTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY*39 BESTGATE ROAD S01-Z24-2T40

ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 < *TB-t22-J7S2

AUG i

DATE :

SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review

FROM : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)DPO Region III

TO : Duane A. Geuder. QAO (WH-548A)OERR

Attached is a Region III CLP Data Review done by reviewers at CRL:

Case No:_____^~SS-pi______ Site: Ado,

Laboratory; RtfAL____________________ Reviewer:^

Attachment

cc: Gareth Pearson, EMSL-LV

Regional DPO:

Action ~^ FYI

AR303087

r

.

n

1f

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCYJ- REGION III


ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21401 , FTS-922-3752

DATE : AlJ9USt 8' 1986Inorganic Data QA Review, Case 5822, Site: Delaware Sand & GravelSaiTples MCF401j 402f 404-408, 410, 412-422, 424-428, 430,436, 437, 439, 442-447, 449-451

*r,™ steve L' Markham (3ES23)FROM : Environmental

Dominic DiGuilio (3HW21)70 : Project Officer

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES23) VNChief, QA Section I

Introduction

I The findings offered in this report are based upon a general review ofsample data, blank analyses results, matrix spike, and duplicate analysisresults, ICP interference and serial dilution results for 43 aqueoussamples analyzed by Rocky Mountain Analytical laboratories.




R - Quality Control Indicates that data are unusable (compound may ormay not be present). Resampling and reanalysis is necessaryfor verification.

Z - No analytical result.

£8303088

Qualifiers

It is recommended that this data package be utilized only with thefollowing qualifier statements:

0 The following results have been qualified as not detected due toblank contamination:


copper MCF414, MCF415, MCF416, MCF417, MCF418, MCF419, MCF420,MCF421, MCF422, MCF424, MCF425, MCF426, MCF427, MCF428,MCF430, MCF431, MCF432, MCF433, MCF434, MCF435, MCF436MCF437, MCF439, MCF442, MCF443, MCF444, MCF447, MCF451

sodium MCF415

zinc MCF414, MCF415, MCF416, MCF417, MCF418, MCF419, MCF424,MCF425, MCF426, MCF427, MCF428, MCF431, MCF433, MCF434,MCF435, MCF436, MCF437, MCF439, MCF442, MCF443, MCF444

0 Actual detection limits for the following constituents and samples maybe biased slightly higher than reported:


selenium MCF401, MCF402, MCF404, MCF405, MCF406, MCF407, MCF408,MCF410, MCF412, MCF413, MCF446, MCF448, MCF440, MCF441,MCF449, MCF450

thallium MCF446, MCF448, MCF440, MCF441, MCF449, MCF450

0 Reported results for calcium, manganese and zinc in samples MCF422 and MCF427may not reflect the true average concentration of these constituents.

0 Serial dilution analysis Indicates that a physical or chemical interferenceeffect may be present for the following constituents and samples:


calcium MCF414, MCF415, MCF416, MCF417, MCF418, MCF419, MCF420,MCF421, MCF422, MCF424, MCF425, MCF426, MCF427, MCF428,MCF430, MCF431, MCF432, MCF433, MCF434, MCF435, MCF436,MCF437, MCF439, MCF442, MCF443, MCF444, MCF445, MCF447,MCF451

manganese MCF437, MCF439, MCF442, MCF443, MCF444, MCF445, MCF447,MCF451

HE303089


sodium MCF414, MCF416, MCF417, MCF418, MCF419, MCF420,MCF421, MCF422, MCF424, MCF425, MCF426, MCF427,MCF428, MCF430, MCF431, MCF432, MCF433, MCF434,MCF435, HCF436, MCF437, MCF439, MCF442, MCF443,MCF444, MCF445, MCF447, MCF451, MCF446, MCF448,MCF440, MCF441, MCF449, HCF450

Zinc MCF445, MCF447, MCF451, MCF446, MCF448, MCF440,MCF441, MCF449, MCF450

Findings

0 Laboratory preparation blank analysis revealed copper, sodium andzinc at concentrations significant enough to question theaforementioned results.

0 Low matrix spike recovery was reported for selenium (60%, 70%) andthallium (72%).

0 Field duplicate analysis resulted in high relative percent differencesfor calcium (28%), manganese (69%) and zinc (76%) in samples MCF422 andMCF427 possibly indicating a lack of sample homogeniety.

0 Serial dilution analysis resulted in high relative percent differencesfor calcium (26%, 40%), manganese (19%), sodium (52%, 18%) andzinc (59%, 46%).

Summary

This Quality Assurance Review has identified the following areas ofconcern:

Possible ICP physical or chemical interferences, possible lack of samplehomogeniety and lab preparation blank contamination.

Please see the accompanying support documentation appendices forspecifics on this Quality Assurance Review.


Appendix Content



A-B303090

S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ REGION III

*'«< *mo CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY839 BESTGATE ROAD 301-224-2740


DATE : October 1, 1986

SUBJECT: Organic Data Review of Case 5822Site: Delaware Sand & Gravel

FROM : Jeanne Hankins (3ES23)_Chemist

TO : Dominic Digiulio (3HW21)Project Officer

THRU : Patricia J. Krantz (3ES2sRbChief, Quality Assurance Section

Introduction

The set of samples for Case 5822 contained 48 water samples whichwere analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program Routine AnalyticalServices by one laboratory. The sample set included three fieldduplicates.

This data was reviewed according to the National Functional Guidelinesfor Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data has been validated withregard to usability. The methods used by the Contract Lab Program (CLP)must be evaluated by each individual user as to whether the scope,precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses 1n compliance with CLP, includingthe required quality control. Holding times were met and tune and cali-bration were within specifications. The package contains all informationneeded to assure compliance with the procedures. No significantproblems were encountered. Any minor exceptions and any additionalproblems associated with a particular sample matrix are discussed inthe following section.


U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. Theassociated numerical value is the estimated sample quantitation-limit.


P - Preliminary-blank contamination precludes confirmation of compoundpresence and quantity, resampling is recommended for verification.

AD383091

Qualifiers

It is recommended that this data package be used only with thefollowing qualifier statements:

0 The following results have been qualified (UJ) as not detected dueto low level blank contamination:


acetone All samples except CD806, CD813, CD822 & CD827

2-butanone All samples except CD822, CD825 & CD827

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate CD801, CD802, CD804, CD805, CD807, CD808,CD810, CD812, CD813, CD815, CD819-CD822,CD824, CD826, CD828, CD831, CD833,CD839-CD851

methylene chloride CD806, CD807, CD813, CD814, CD820-CD822,CD825-CD832, CD841, CD847

0 The following results have been qualified (P) as preliminary resultsrequiring resampling for verification. The compounds were presentat low levels in the blank and therefore preclude confirmation.


acetone CD806, CD813

2-butanone CD822, CD827

Summary

The only area of concern Identified in this review 1s low level contam-ination of the blank with common lab contaminants.

The text of this report addresses only those problems affecting usability.Documentation of other observed areas of contractual noncompliance areincluded 1n a separate report sent to the Deputy Project Officer for thelaboratory. If you have any questions or comments, please call me.

Attachment: Data SummaryAppendix: Sample Data Sheetscc: Sander Bonvell

Dunn Geoscience

JH:wbg

HR303092

Appendix D

Sampling Plan

AR303093

Dl

Phase I Sampling Plan

A83Q3091*

SAMPLING PLAN

DELAWARE SAND AND GRAVELRI/FS

Revised January 25, 1985

The purpose of the environmental sampling is to determine the nature and

extent of contamination due to the Delaware Sand and Gravel landfill. Itis imperative that the sampling team(s) read and adhere to Sampling Plan,the Health and Safety Plan, and the Quality Assurance Plan. The appro-

priate safety equipment shall be used, and the sampling and decontaminationprocedures shall be followed.

Soils, surface water, stream sediments, and groundwater will be sampled.Samples will be collected by State of Delaware personnel and Dunn Geoscience

as described below. All samples will be analyzed by the State of Delawarelaboratory. The sampling protocols are as defined in the Quality AssurancePlan (HWM-6, pages 6-13) or as amended in this Sampling Plan.

Surface Water and Stream Sediment Sampling

Eight locations have been chosen for surface water and stream sediment samplingby State of Delaware personnel. These locations are listed below and illus-

trated in Figure 1.

1) Army Creek — on the west side of Route 13 between the abandonedDairy Queen and the Texaco gas station. This is upstream of thewaste oil pit located behind the Dairy Queen.

2) Army Creek — upstream of the concrete weir just east of Route 13.

3) Army Creek Pond — at the pond entrance (westernmost end of Army

Creek Pond).

4) Army Creek — at the pond effluent (easternmost end of Army Creek

Pond).

DUNN GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION

5) Army Creek — under railroad bridge at eastern end of Army Creeklandfill.

6) Army Creek — at tidal gate east of Route 9.

7) Gravel Pit Pond — south of Army Creek Pond.

8) The intermittent stream east of the Delaware Sand arid Gravel

inert disposal area.

The samples collected from these locations shall be analyzed for the followingparameters.

o acid extractable priority pollutantso base/neutral extractable priority pollutantso volatile organic priority pollutantso pesticide/PCB priority pollutantso heavy metal priority pollutantso pH (in field), BOD, TOC, TDS, Mn, Fe (total), NH3-N, CL, S04; and,

o temperature.

The protocols for surface water sampling have been defined in the QualityAssurance Plan. The protocol for stream sediment sampling follows.

I) Stream sediment deposits shall be sampled with a clean soilauger or a piston core sampler (if available).

2) Collect sediment sample from a depositional portion of thestream (i.e., a point bar) at a depth interval of approxi-mately 0 to 8 inches below the stream bottom. More than onecore may be necessary to provide the required volume of soil.If more sample volume is necessary, collect additional material

immediately upstream.

3) Remove soil from auger and place in a glass pan. Mix togetherand place mixed sample in wide-mouth glass jar. Cover with

aluminum foil and cap securely.

DUNN GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION 38303096

r

4) Label the caps and jars with sample identification numbers, and

place sample in cooler.

5) Rinse auger and glass pan in surface water, clean with detergentsolution, rinse with tap water, and finally rinse with distilledwater.

When sampling surface water or stream sediments, the sampling team shall

begin sampling at the farthest location downstream and work upstream. Theteam can use a boat or hip boots to get to the sampling location. Once at

the sampling location, the sampling personnel shall be positioned downstreamwhile collecting the sample.

Soil Sampling

The soil sampling will involve surficial sampling and split-spoon samplingin boreholes. The surficial soil samples will be collected by State ofDelaware personnel. The split-spoon samples will be collected by the

driller while supervised by a Dunn Geoscience Corporation geologist. Theproposed cluster well locations are shown in Figure 2. Soil samples willbe analyzed by the State of Delaware laboratory.

One hundred and thirty-five (135) split-spoon samples will be collected(assuming three 175-foot wells and three 50-foot wells). As described inthe QA Plan, two samples will be prepared from each split-spoon. One sampleshall undergo a headspace test with a HNU photoionizer in the field. Ifthe headspace concentration of a sample exceeds background, then the dupli-cate sample shall be analyzed in the laboratory. A minimum of threesamples will be analyzed in the laboratory per cluster.

There will be at least 14 surficial soil samples. These samples will be

collected in the following locations.

1) In the open gravel pit between the drum disposal area and the

inert disposal area (3 samples).

DUNN GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION ft ft 3 0 3 0 9 7

i:

2) At the bottom of the two test pits in wooded area south of thedrum disposal area (one sample per pit).

3) In the non-landfill area between the drum disposal area and theinert disposal area (4 samples) .

4) Along the east side of the inert disposal area (3 samples).

5) In the driveway of the Dell Aversano garage (2 samples).

These surficial soil samples will be collected from a depth interval of2 to 10 inches, unless the sampler deems deeper sampling is necessary. Thesamples shall be placed in a glass pan and completely mixed before beingplaced in the sample jar. All sampling locations shall be staked and flagged.Measurements from identifiable landmarks shall be made where applicable.

All soil samples analyzed in the State's laboratory will be analyzed for:

o base/neutral extractable priority pollutantso volatile organic priority pollutantso pesticide/PCB priority pollutantso heavy metal priority pollutants

Groundwater Samples

Groundwater samples shall be collected from 45 wells by State personnel.

The wells to be samples are:

B-l DGC1S DGC1D AWC G-3 3A

B-4 DGC2S DGC2D PW2 25

B-5 DGC3S DGC3D 17 26

11 47 RW6 45 49PW3 Moose 34 46 AWC7

60 V. Dell Aversano 48 OW4 D261 J. Dell Aversano 48A 39 ElGonzon 32 TW1 TW4 E2

16 D'Anna 33 31 Kl

DUNN GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION j| ££ 0 30 9 8