phase 2 supplemental pre-remedial design study report

PHASE 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-REMEDIALDESIGN STUDY REPORT

SURFACE-WATER/SEDIMENTQUALITY SOURCE INVESTIGATION

Volume H of inAppendices A through H

Associates, Inc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING « MANAGEMENT

5013G1

]1

PHASE 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-REMEDIALDESIGN STUDY REPORT

SURFACE-WATER/SEDIMENTQUALITY SOURCE INVESTIGATION

Volume n of mAppendices A through H

Pollution Abatement Services SiteOswego, New York

April 25, 1996

Prepared for:

Parties to the PAS Oswego SiteParticipation Agreement

Prepared by:

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.1 3 77 Motor Parkway

Islandia, New York 117885019 G2

W/DM32701Y.4.BWCV

1•

Volume II

APPENDICES

A. Roux Associates' March 26, 1996 Letter to de maximis, inc., re: Monitoring of Surface-Water Quality During Niagara Mohawk Sediment Remedial Activities in White Creek

B. Agency Correspondence/Modifications to SPRDS Work Plan Addendum No. 2C. Summary of the Review of Historical Aerial PhotographsD. Physical Characteristics of White and Wine CreeksE. Total Organic Carbon DataF. Grain Size DataG. Validated Form I's for Pesticide DataH. Data Validation Reports for Pesticide Data

501923

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMSZTOW.« BS/R

APPENDIX A

Roux Associates' March 26, 1996 Letter to demaxis inc.re: Monitoring of Surface-Water Quality

During Niagara Mohawk SedimentRemedial Activities in White Creek

501984ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. w/n«27oiY.4.B«A<:

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC

'377 MOTOR PARKWAY_-, L_iA*A.*^ ^ ISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788

^ ' * ' TEL 516232-2600 PAX 516232-9898

«i

March 26, 1996

Mr. Mark Valentinede maximis, inc.1516 Second AvenueSuite 300Seattle, Washington 98101

Re: Monitoring of Surface-Water Quality During Niagara Mohawk SedimentRemedial Activities in White Creek

Dear Mr. Valentine:

Roux Associates, Inc. conducted surface-water quality monitoring in White Creekduring the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's recent excavation of PCB-impactedsediments from a portion of White Creek adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk FireTraining School, located on East Seneca Street in Oswego, New York. The objectiveof the surface-water quality monitoring event was to document any changes in surface-water quality downstream of the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School during NiagaraMohawk's sediment excavation activities. Although the sediment-excavation activitiesbeing conducted at the Fire Training School could not be directly observed by RouxAssociates' field personnel, the downstream surface-water monitoring results indicatethat the excavation of sediments from White Creek conducted by Niagara Mohawkcaused the resuspension and subsequent downstream transport of sediments from theexcavation area. The apparent resuspension and subsequent downstream transport ofsediments is evidenced by the elevated (compared to background) turbidity levelsmeasured in White Creek downstream of the Fire Training School during sedimentexcavation activities.

Surface-water quality monitoring was conducted on February 19 and 20, 1996, and,with the one modification noted below, was conducted in accordance with the USEPA-and NYSDEC-approved Scope of Work described in Roux Associates' November 13,1995 letter to the USEPA. All monitoring activities were also conducted in accordancewith the USEPA- and NYSDEC-approved Field Operations Plan for the PollutionAbatement Services (PAS) Site. 501985

Mr. Mark ValentineMarch 26, 1996Page 2

Overview of Water-Quality Monitoring ActivitiesSurface-water quality in White Creek was monitored at a location on the north side ofEast Seneca Street, directly in front of the Pipefitters and Steamfitters Union Hall. Thislocation is approximately 200 feet east (upstream) of the southeast corner of the PASSite, and approximately 500 feet northwest (downstream) of the portion of WhiteCreek being excavated. This water-quality monitoring location differs somewhat fromthat specified in Roux Associates' November 13, 1995 letter to the USEPA. Thismodification was required since White Creek was frozen over at the specified water-quality gauging location. Both the proposed and actual water-quality monitoringlocations, as well as the portion of White Creek being excavated by Niagara Mohawk,are shown in Attachment 1.

On Friday, February 16, 1996, the NYSDEC informed de maximis that NiagaraMohawk would begin excavation of the PCB-impacted sediments in White Creekadjacent to the Fire Training School sometime in the late afternoon of Monday,February 19, 1996, after completing preparatory activities (e.g., damming White Creekupstream of the excavation area) earlier in the day. Roux Associates arrived at thePAS Site and began measuring turbidity levels at the monitoring location in WhiteCreek at 1500 hours on February 19th. From its vantage point in front of the UnionHall, Roux Associates could not directly observe Niagara Mohawk's activities in WhiteCreek; therefore, Roux Associates was unaware that Niagara Mohawk actuallycommenced excavation of sediments from White Creek at approximately 0900 hourson Monday morning. Apparently, Niagara Mohawk took advantage of the dry weatheron Sunday, February 18, 1996, and began preparatory activities ahead of schedule.Consequently, no surface-water quality monitoring was conducted during thepreparatory activities and during much of the time that sediments were being excavatedfrom White Creek by Niagara Mohawk.

Roux Associates measured turbidity levels at the monitoring location in White Creekevery ten minutes between 1500 hours and 1810 hours on February 19th. Between1500 hours and 1740 hours, turbidity levels measured in White Creek ranged between6 and 20 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs). These turbidity levels are similar to thebackground turbidity levels (i.e., 1 to 6 NTUs) measured on October 13, 1995 at thesoutheast comer of the PAS Site. Shortly before 1730 hours, Mr. John May of theNYSDEC informed Roux Associates' field personnel that sediment excavation in WhiteCreek was completed. However, at 1750 hours, Roux Associates' field personnelobserved that White Creek appeared to be more turbid than at any time earlier duringthe day. This observation was confirmed by a turbidity reading of 80 NTUs at 1750.Since this turbidity level was elevated compared to background turbidity levels, asurface-water sample was collected for submission to CompuChem EnvironmentalCorporation for analysis of PCBs using the USEPA's Superfund Low-Detection LimitMethod (USEPA SAM 10/92). From 1750 hours to 1810 hours, turbidity readings

5019C6ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Mark ValentineMarch 26, 1996Page3

decreased consistently, and water-quality monitoring was terminated at 1810 hours onFebruary 19th. No precipitation events occurred during the excavation of sediments inWhite Creek.

Roux Associates continued to monitor turbidity levels at the water-quality monitoringlocation in White Creek on February 20th, while Niagara Mohawk worked in andaround White Creek, disassembling and removing the various precautionary measures(e.g., hay bales, dam) installed prior to commencement of sediment excavation.Turbidity measurements were taken every ten minutes between 0950 and 1200. Noneof the turbidity measurements taken on the morning of the 20th exceeded the 80-NTUmeasurement taken the previous afternoon. Consequently, no additional surface-watersamples were collected for laboratory analysis, and monitoring of White Creek wasterminated at 1200 hours on February 20th.

A synopsis of all turbidity data collected during this monitoring event, as well as duringthe background monitoring event, is provided in Attachment 2.

ConclusionsThe sediment-excavation activities conducted by Niagara Mohawk in a portion ofWhite Creek adjacent to Niagara Mohawk's Fire Training School apparently causedresuspension and downstream transport of elevated levels of sediments during theperiod of sediment remediation. The apparent resuspension and subsequentdownstream transport of sediments is evidenced by the elevated (compared tobackground) turbidity levels measured in White Creek in front of the Union Hall duringperformance of the excavation activities just upstream at the Fire Training School.Although the sediment-excavation activities being conducted at the Fire TrainingSchool could not be directly observed by Roux Associates' field personnel, thedownstream surface-water monitoring results indicate that the excavation of sedimentsfrom White Creek conducted by Niagara Mohawk likely caused the resuspension ofsediments, thereby expediting their downstream transport. No PCBs were detected inthe surface-water sample submitted for laboratory analysis of PCBs (seeAttachment 3). However, the volume of suspended sediment in the surface-watersample may have been too small to exhibit a detectable concentration of PCBs. PCBsare rarely detected in surface-water samples unless either the samples are extremelyturbid (i.e., turbidities greater than 1,000 NTU) or some concentration mechanism(e.g., filtration or sedimentation) is employed.

This conclusion is significant for two reasons. First, sediment resuspension anddownstream transport occurred despite extensive precautionary measures taken byNiagara Mohawk to prevent such an occurrence. (NYSDEC reported that, inaccordance with the remedial action work plan, Niagara Mohawk dammed WhiteCreek upstream of the excavation area using compacted fill and a 40-miI-thick HDPE

501987ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

—I

J

Mr. Mark ValentineMarch 26, 1996Page 4

liner reinforced with sand bags, and diverted the surface water around the excavationarea using pumps and hoses fitted with silt socks. In addition, the NYSDEC reportedthat as an additional precautionary measure, silt curtains, hay bales, and a silt dam werealso installed downstream of the excavation area. Despite these precautionarymeasures, increased suspended sediment concentrations in White Creek downstream ofthe excavation area were indicated by the elevated turbidity levels measured at thewater-quality monitoring location in front of the Union Hall.) Second, documentationof the downstream transport of suspended sediment from the Niagara Mohawk FireTraining School during dry-weather conditions (no precipitation was recorded duringthe Niagara Mohawk's sediment-excavation activities, nor in the two days prior tocommencement of sediment excavation) suggests that historical transport of suspendedsediments downstream from the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School may haveoccurred during previous higher-flow (wet-weather) conditions.

Respectfully submitted,

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.

DouglaW: SwaosanPrincipal Hydrogeologist/Project Manager

Attachments

cc: PAS Oswego Site Steering CommitteeC. McClarnon, de maximis, inc.L. McTiernan, Roux Associates, Inc.

501388

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/OMJJTOIY.* CS/LR

ATTACHMENT 1

Map Showing Proposed and Actual Water-Quality Monitoring Locationsand the Portion of White Creek Excavated

by Niagara Mohawk

501939

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. wo»«27oiY<c»A.c

FORMERNORTHEAST DAM

PAS SITEBOUNDARYFORMER

NORTHWESTDAM

PAS SITE INDUSTRIAL PRECISIONPRODUCTS FACILITY

ACTUAL WATER QUALITYMONITORING LOCATION

EAST SENECA STREET

PROPOSED WATER QUALITYMONITORING LOCATION

PORTION OF WHITECREEK EXCAVATEDBY NIAGARA MOHAWK

NIAGARA MOHAWKFIRE TRAININGSCHOOL

EAST SENECASTREET DUMP

WHITE CREEK

150' 150'

LEGEND:

^—I PERIODICALLY-FLOODED AREAS*l (SEE NOTE 2 BELOW)

NOTES:1. BASE MAP ADAPTED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES:

• TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE PAS SITE AND AREAS TO THE NORTH PREPARED BYLOCKWOOD MAPPING. INC. (1994) USING APRIL 14.1993 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS;

•AN APRIL 26. 1991 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA;• DUNN GEOSCIENCE CORP'S 1984 PAS SITE PLAN TITLED " BORING WELL

& TEST PIT PLOT PLAN"

2.'PERIODICALLY-aOODED AREAS' ARE WETLAND AREAS THAT ARE PERIODICALLYINUNDATED. AS THEY WERE DURING APRIL 1991 AND APRIL 1993. WHENAERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN.

Titte:

PROPOSED AND ACTUALWATER QUALITY MONITORING LOCATIONS

AND PORTION OF WHITE CREEKEXCAVATED BY NIAGARA MOHAWK

50.1300Pr»par»d For

de maximis, inc.

ROUX ASSOCIATES INCnt

Compiled by: L.M.Pr«por»d by: R. R.

Project Mgn D.S.

Fit. No: 32701119

Dot*: 3/96 UWMGflSeal*: AS SHOWNRevision:

Project: 32701Y

ATTACHMENT 2

Turbidity Data Developed for White Creek Prior To, During, and FollowingSediment Excavation at the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School

501901


Turbidity Data Developed for White Creek Prior To, During, and Following Sediment Excavation at theNiagara Mohawk Fire Training School

DATEOctober 13, 1995

February 19, 1995

February 20, 1995

TIME FRAME0746to 1151 hrs.

1500 to 18 10 hrs.

0950to 1200 hrs.

MEASUREMENTFREQUENCY

every minute

every 10 minutes

every 10 minutes

TURBIDITYRANGE

1 to 6 NTU

6 to 80 NTU

25 to 74 NTU

ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BYNIAGARA MOHAWK

None

Excavation of sediment in White Creek

Removal of precautionary measures (dam, hay bales, etc.)

CJ1oCDCDfo

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y 4 CSM1

ATTACHMENT 3

Laboratory Form I for Surface-Water Sample Collected fromWhite Creek during Niagara Mohawk Sediment Excavation

50190


IDPOLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

SAMPLE NO.

ib Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:SWS-2

I Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31973 SAS No,JMatrix: (soil/water)WATER

Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML

% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF

Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)

Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)

GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:

SDG No.: 00001

Lab Sample ID: 784938

Lab File ID:

Date Received: 02/21/96

Date Extracted:02/26/96

Date Analyzed: 02/27/96

Dilution Factor: JL

Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N

CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kg)UG/L

11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9- - -T O E ' 7 0 OQ C .

11097-69-1---

-- -Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254

0.100.100.100.100.100.100.10

UUUUUUU

501904FORM I 8080

APPENDIX B

Agency Correspondence/Modifications toSPRDS Work Plan Addendum No. 2

5013C5

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. w/OM327oiY< BWA-C

u'.1

Roux Associates' July 12, 1995 Letter to USEPA(Response to Agency Comments Regarding Draft Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan)

5019C6ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMJZTOIY« B»ABI

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 4 MANAGEMENT

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANOlA. NEW YORK 11788

I I i k A /A ' TEL 516232-2600 FAX 516232-9898d

——1

July 12, 1995

Mr. Richard RamonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency and Remedial Response Division290 Broadway, 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007

Dear Mr. Ramon:

At the request of de maximis, inc., Project Coordinator for the PollutionAbatement Services Site Group, Roux Associates, Inc. has prepared responses tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) June 30, 1995 commentletter regarding the Supplemental Pre-Remedial Design Study (SPRDS) WorkPlan Addendum No.2 (Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source InvestigationWork Plan). Please note that several of Roux Associates' responses reflect ourdesire to remain focused on the objectives of the SPRDS as defined in theUSEPA's December 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) for the PAS site and in theSPRDS Consent Order. Specifically, the December 1993 ROD states that "sincethere is some uncertainty related to the source of the pesticides detected in thesurface water of the adjacent creeks and the PCB contamination in the sedimentsin the adjacent creeks and wetlands, a study will be conducted to determine thesources of pesticide and PCB contamination." Similarly, as stated in the SPRDSConsent Order, the objectives of the Phase 2 SPRDS are "to determine whetherthe Site is the source of the pesticides detected in the surface water of theadjacent creeks and to determine whether the Site is the source of PCBcontamination in the sediments in the depositional areas of the creeks andwetlands."

In accordance with the December 1993 ROD and the SPRDS Consent Order,therefore, the scope of work developed for the Surface-Water/Sediment QualitySource Investigation is focused toward determining whether the PAS site is thesource of pesticides in surface water and PCBs in sediments in the adjacent creeksand wetlands. Roux Associates does not recommend expanding the scope of thePhase 2 SPRDS beyond the objectives stated in the December 1993 ROD and theSPRDS Consent Order (see especially response to comment no. 2).

Each USEPA comment is restated below in italics, followed by Roux Associates'response.

5019G7OM32701Y.3.70/L

Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page 2

1. The goal of this study is to aid in the determination of whether the PAS Siteis the source of the pesticides detected in Wine Creek and the PCBs detected(in the sediment) in Wliite and Wine Creeks and the adjacent wetlands. Asshown in Figure 3, all detected pesticide (DDT and dieldrin) levels in WineCreek exceeded their respective chronic USEPA Ambient Water QualityCriteria (A WQC). Plate 1 contains a summary of PCB sediment data. Acomparison of the data to Ontario guidelines shows that there are numerousexceedances of severe effect levels (SELs) at the Oswego Castings Facility andNiagara-Mohawk Fire Training School, and just one exceedance at the PASsite (sample S-3). PCB levels in Wine Creek sediment samples downgradientof the Site exited i!ie lowest effect levels (LELs). It would be useful toillustrate the location of the wetland areas on this drawing, to clearly identifythose samples that were obtained from within the wetlands.

Response: As requested by USEPA, Roux Associates has revised Plate 1 to showthe designated wetland areas in the vicinity of the PAS Site. Inaddition, Plate 2 has also been revised to show the wetland areas. Asnoted in the explanation on both plates, the extent of the wetlands onWine and White Creeks between East Seneca Street and the Conrailright-of-way is based on a wetlands assessment performed by Menzie-Cura & Associates in 1992. The extent of the other wetlands areasare based on Figure 4-1 of URS Consultants' June 1992 Phase IIInvestigation report for the East Seneca Street Dump.

2. As per our previous comments, it may be appropriate to sample for thesecontaminants (pesticides and PCBs) in both the surface water and sedimentat each sampling location, to determine whether contaminants of concern arebeing adsorbed to the sediments and/or are suspended within the watercolumn. Sediment samples should be obtained from the top 6 inches. Inaddition, surface water samples should undergo a complete TAL analysis.Former sampling activities (Geraghty & Miller, March 1992) have identifiedlevels of cyanide exceeding chronic AWQCs in downgradient samples(GM-SW-3 and GM-SW-6). Sample analysis should include such parametersas total organic carbon (TOC) and grain size distribution for sediments; pH,hardness, and alkalinity for surface water. Thus, the contaminants within theaquatic systems can be more completely assessed for their bioavailability toecological receptors.

Response: Roux Associates believes that the above recommendations foradditional sampling are not consistent with the focused objectives ofthe Phase 2 SPRDS, as defined in USEPA's December 1993 RODand in the SPRDS Consent Order. Specifically, the SPRDS ConsentOrder states that the objectives of the Phase 2 SPRDS are limited todetermining "whether the PAS site is the source of pesticides detectedin the surface water of the adjacent creeks", and "whether the PASsite is the source of the PCB contamination in the sediments in thedepositional areas of the creeks and wetlands." Moreover, previousdata (e.g., URS, 1986; Colder, 1993; and NYSDEC, 1995) indicate

5019QSROUX ASSOCIATES INC

OM32701Y.3.70/L

Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page3

that PCBs, metals, and cyanide in surface water, and pesticides insediments, are not of concern. Therefore, Roux Associates believesthat it is unnecessary to perform metals/cyanide and PCB analyses onsurface-water samples, as well as pesticide analyses on sedimentsamples. Since additional metals data would not be developed underthe proposed approach, analysis for the indicator parameters (i.e., pH,alkalinity, and hardness) is also unwarranted.

As specified on pages 28 and 29 of the SPRDS Work PlanAddendum, all sediment samples will be collected from theuppermost 6 inches and homogenized prior to submission to iheanalytical laboratory. As also specified on page 29 of the SPRDSWork Plan Addendum, all sediment samples will be analyzed for totalorganic carbon and grain-size distribution.

3. Prior to sampling, a detailed investigation of stream hydraulics, stream-bedtexture and composition will be conducted to determine the adequacy ofpreviously sampled areas and the location of additional sediment depositionalareas where PCBs are likely to accumulate, in addition to other reconnaissanceactivities (page 27). This will be reported in a technical memorandumsubmitted to the Agency prior to sampling. The BTAG also recommends thatall past sampling data is consolidated and reviewed prior to thecommencement of sampling, instead of after completion of sampling, asproposed (page 31). We would like the opportunity to review the technicalmemorandum and the sampling data summary before sampling points arcfinalized, and sampling has begun, to ensure that the final selected sites areappropriate.

Response: While a detailed Area Reconnaissance will be conducted prior tosediment sampling, Roux Associates' draft Work Plan provides thata technical memorandum will be drafted and submitted to theUSEPA only if proposed sampling locations require modificationbased on the results of the Area Reconnaissance. Otherwise, theresults of the Area Reconnaissance will be included in the Phase 2SPRDS Report.

All past sampling data has already been consolidated (i.e., in Plate 1and Figure 3) and preliminarily reviewed. These data were used toscope the Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation andselect the proposed sampling locations. However, the data will berevisited, as indicated on page 31 of the SPRDS Work PlanAddendum, following completion of all Phase 2 SPRDS samplingactivities, in order to determine, if possible, the likely source orsources of the pesticides and PCBs detected in the creeks andwetlands adjacent to the Site.

5019C9

___ OM32701Y.3.70/LROUX ASSOCIATES INC


Assuming that the results of the Area Reconnaissance confirm theadequacy and appropriateness of the proposed sampling locations,USEPA already has all of the data necessary to perform its ownevaluation of the proposed sampling locations.

4. Ground-water will be sampled from jive shallow overburden wells locatedoutside the containment system at the Site (page 27). It is unclear how thisdata will "be used to determine whether ground-water is discharging to surfacewater at the Site, or if surface water recharges ground-water" (page 28).

Response: The Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation Work Flanindicates (on page 28) that water-level data, not water-quality data,will be used to determine whether ground water is discharging tosurface water at the Site, or if surface water recharges ground-water.Specifically, a ground-water flow map will be prepared based on thewater-level data collected during a recent IGR event. The ground-water elevation contours will indicate which portions of White andWine Creeks are gaining reaches and which are losing reaches. Theground-water quality data obtained by sampling the overburden wellsin the vicinity of White and Wine Creeks will be used in conjunctionwith the water-level data to determine whether pesticides or PCBs aremigrating from the Site to the adjacent creeks via the ground-waterpathway (i.e., data requirement No. 4, page 25).

5. Page 22, Wine Creek Adjacent to the Site - The long segment of Wine. Creek(between SS-2 and SS-5) is adjacent to the site. This section of the creek isnot considered for sampling due to the low concentrations of PCBs foundinfrequently and only in two points - SS-2 and SS-5. In section 4.3 - DataRequirements - the document states that determination of adequacy ofprevious sampling locations is necessary because "Many previous sedimentsamples may have been collected in areas not representative of sedimentdepositional areas and potential PCB accumulation". The stream hydraulicand stream bed composition were not included in the RI investigation. Thusrepresentativeness of sediment depositional areas for the previous samplingpoints is unknown. Therefore final decision to sample or not to sample theabove mentioned section of Wine Creek should be done only after detailedinvestigation of the characteristics of Wine Creek is completed.

Response: Roux Associates concurs with this comment, and will include in theArea Reconnaissance that portion of Wine Creek upstream of theconfluence with White Creek. If depositional areas are found thathave not been sampled, additional sampling points in Wine Creek willbe recommended.

502000

DM32701Y.3.70/LROUX ASSOCIATES INC


6. Plate 2 - A few symbols as black circle and star located on the plate shouldbe added to legend ("Explanation").

Response: As requested, Roux Associates has revised Plate 2, as well asFigure 4. However, since the focus of these drawings is on theproposed sampling locations, all previous sampling locations havebeen changed to solid black circles. The previous sampling locationsare not distinguished based on specific investigations, since this hasalready been done in Plate 1 and Figure 3, and since the previoussampling locations are provided in these drawings only for comparisonwith proposed sampling locations.

7. We are in agreement with the placement of the sediment sampling locations,from the perspective of the 100 and 500 year floodplain delineations, so longas they are taken (as discussed in the above report) from depositional areas.

Response: This comment does not appear to warrant a response, as sedimentsampling will be limited to depositional areas of the wetlands andstream banks.

8. As discussed most recently in our February 22, 1995 memo, a Stage IACultural Resources Survey (CRS) needs to be completed. To ensure that thereis enough time to include possible additional CRS studies, it is prudent tocomplete a Stage IA CRS for the entire site as soon as possible; ideally duringor before completion of the remedial design ','rOrk plan.

Response: Preparation of a Remedial Design Work Plan, if necessary, will beundertaken following the evaluation of the Phase 2 SPRDS data andsubmission of a Phase 2 SPRDS Report in late 1995. If the results ofthe Phase 2 SPRDS (Surface-Water/Sediment Quality SourceInvestigation) indicate a potential need for future remediation, thenthe need for a cultural resource survey will be reevaluated at thattime, prior to preparation of a Remedial Design Work Plan.

9. Please note that historic information about the original location of WliiteCreek (and of the location/activities of historic structures and businesses in thevicinity of Wiiite Creek) is typical of some of the information found in a StageIA CRS. As such, data requirement number 2 in Section 4.3 could be met bythe timely completion of the Stage I A CRS.

Response: This comment does not appear to warrant any response.

502001

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC OM,»o,v.a.7o,L


10. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is an ARAR for this site.Because the requirements of the CZMA process can take six or more months,we recommend that the work needed to satisfy this ARAR be continued (asdiscussed previously with the PRM), and sent to us for our review as soon aspossible.

Response: At present, no "regulated activity" is planned for any area which wouldlikely be characterized as a "erosion hazard area." Therefore, nocoastal erosion management permit is required at this time. If theresults of the Phase 2 SPRDS (Surface-Water/Sediment QualityScarce Investigation) indicate a potential need for future remediation,then the need for coastal erosion management permit will bereevaluated at that time, prior to preparation of a Remedial DesignWork Plan.

11. Sediment traps, both upstream and downstream of the site, may be helpful indetermining what's currently being deposited.

Response: Roux Associates believes that the use of sediment traps at the PASsite to measure suspended sediment transport and any associated PCBcontamination is unnecessary because they require lengthydeployment periods to function properly and to develop meaningfuldata. Moreover, Roux Associates believes measurement of sediment-transport rates is unnecessary since the existing data (e.g., Plate 1)indicate that PCBs are migrating downstream via suspended sedimentparticles.

Roux Associates, on behalf of de maximis and the PAS Site Group, requests anexpedited review of the responses contained herein, since it is our desire tocomplete sampling activities before the commencement of remedial activities atthe adjacent Niagara Mohawk Fire-Training School. (We understand from theNYSDEC that this work is tentatively scheduled for September 1995.) In orderto achieve this goal, approval of the SPRDS Work Plan Addendum No. 2(Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation Work Plan) should bereceived within the next two weeks. We invite USEPA, at its convenience, toparticipate in a conference call with Roux Associates and de maximis to discussthese comments and responses, and any other details of the Phase 2 SPRDS Scopeof Work.

Finally, since no major revisions of the SPRDS Work Plan Addendum No. 2(Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation Work Plan) appear to benecessary, Roux Associates proposes to re-issue only revised copies of Plates 1and 2, and Figure 4, which have been modified in response to USEPAcomments 1 and 6.

50200

ROOX ASSOCIATES INC DM327o,v.a.70/L

Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page?

If you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitateto call.

Respectfully Submitted,


sy' ~->--z<s4'-^~^-'Douglas if. SwajisonPrincipal Hydrogeologist/Project Manager

cc: M. Valentine, de maximis, inc.L. McTiernan, Roux Associates, Inc.

502003

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC DM,27oiy.,.7o,L

n

Roux Associates' July 28, 1995 Letter to USEPA(Response to Supplemental Agency Comments)

502004

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. VWDMCTOIY * EWAU

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788TEL 516232-2600 FAX 516232-9898

July 28, 1995

Mr. Richard RamonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency and Remedial Response290 Broadway, 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007

Re: Response to Supplemental Agency CommentsSupplemental Pre-Remedial Design StudyPAS Site, Oswego, New York

Dear Mr. Ramon:

This letter is intended to summarize our teleconference discussions today betweenUSEPA, de maximis and Roux Associates regarding the USEPA's additionalcomments on the SPRDS Work Plan Addendum No. 2 (Surface-Water/SedimentQuality Source Investigation Work Plan). Topics discussed include the USEPA'srequest to expand the sampling and analytical program for the Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation and to complete a Coastal ZoneConsistency Evaluation.

Based on our discussions with Mr. Lome LaMonica of USEPA, it was agreed thata Coastal Zone Consistency Evaluation is not necessary at this time due to thefact that no site remedial activities are planned beyond the ongoing interimground-water removal activities. Consistency with the Coastal Zone ManagementAct would be evaluated during any remedial design activities that may be requiredif a decision is made to construct an on-site treatment system, or in the eventremedial activities related to the SPRDS Phase 2 investigation are deemednecessary.

In regard to expanding the scope of work for the Surface-Water/Sediment QualitySource Investigation beyond that described in the SPRDS Work Plan AddendumNo. 2, it was agreed that, in addition to surface water, sediments in Wine Creekwould also be collected and analyzed for pesticides. As discussed in the WorkPlan, appropriate locations for sediment sampling will be identified during theArea Reconnaissance. It was also agreed that sampling of surface water formetals and cyanide does not need to be performed. Furthermore, pH, alkalinity,and hardness analyses will not be performed for the surface-water samples, sincethese parameters pertain to the bioavailability of metals in water only. Finally, itwas agreed that PCB sampling and analyses will be limited to sediments only.

502005DM32701Y.3.86/L


On a related note, de maximis is currently pursuing off-site access agreements tosupport off-site sampling proposed for the Surface-Water/Sediment-Quality SourceInvestigation. If any delays to the proposed schedule for the Phase 2 SPRDSresults from difficulties in obtaining off-site access agreements, USEPA will benotified as soon as possible.

We hope that this letter accurately reflects USEPA's position on the above-described matters, and anticipate that final agency approval of the SPRDS WorkPlan Addendum No. 2 and the scope of work contained therein, as amended bythis letter and our previous responses to USEPA's comments, will be grantedaccordingly.



Douglas??. Swanron _^Principal Hyorogeologist/ ^Project Manager

cc: M. Valentine, de maximis, inc.L. McTiernan, Roux Associates, Inc.

502006

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC DM,2,o,v.3.../L

USEPA's August 11, 1995 Letter to de maximis(Approval of Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan)

50200

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. w/Dmz7oiv.4.MMB3

i 'y^ iiiiiHfi ut. rj-iAj.ri_^ , . , <_flUG-11-1995 10:48 FROM US EPfl ERRD NY/G3 TO 9161559164^ P.31/01

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -REGION III 290 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007-1866

August 11,1995

Mark ValentineProject Managerde maxlmis. Inc.9401 Executive Park DriveSuite 601Knoxville, TN 37923

Re: Supplemental Pre-Remedial Design Study (SPRDS) Work Plan Addendum No. 2,Surface-Water/Sediment Quality Source Investigation ("the Study work plan*) for thePollution Abatement Services (PAS)

Dear Mr. Valentine:

As per our conference call of July 27.1995 and in accordance with Roux Associates' letterof July 28.1995, the above-referenced work plan is approved. Accordingly, please notifythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of any delays to the proposed schedule for thePhase 2 SPRDS resulting from difficulties in obtaining off-eita access agreements.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (212) 637-4253.

Sincerely.

RJchard Ramon. P.E., Project MangerWestern New York Superfund Section

ccc Carol Bems, ORCP. David Smith, NYSDEC

502008

Printed on Recycled PaperTQTflL P.31

1

USEPA's October 6, 1995 Letter to de maximis(Agency Approval of the Addition of Congener

Specific Analyses to Phase 2 SPRDS Scope of Work)

502003

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMMTOY 4 BWAJM

TO

Mark ValentineProject Managerde MaxJmis, Inc.1516 Second AvenueSuite 3CQSeattle, Washington S8101

Dear Mr. Valentine:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby approves the modification to theSPRDS Phase II Workplan (Addendum No. 2A). The modification covers additionalsediment samples for which congener-specific PCBs analysis will be performed.

If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (2i2) 637-4253.

Sincerely,

Richard-Ramon, P.E., Project MangerWestern Mew York Superfund Section

cc: Carol Berns, ORC

2ERRD:WNYSSI:10/8/95:RAMON:ec:FlLED^PRDS-II.APP-GDRIVE

' SYWX —— >

. SURNAME — >

I MT6 • ——— >

UMTSSr

««>flt

/ Ofyfaf

502010

TOTAL

Roux Associates' November 3, 1995 Letter to USEPA(Technical Memorandum)

50201]ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMMTOIY 4 B»ABS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 4 MANAGEMENT

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISI.ANDIA. NEW YORK 11788TEL 516232-2600 FAX 515232-9898

November 3, 1995

Mr. Richard RamonU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency and Remedial Response Division290 Broadway, 20th FloorNew York, New York 10007

Re: Modifications to Proposed Sediment Sampling LocationsPhase 2 SPRDSPAS Site, Oswego, New York

Dear Mr. Ramon:

In accordance with the Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan, this technical memorandumis being prepared to document modifications to the proposed sediment samplinglocations shown in Plate 2 of the Work Plan. Specifically, four of the proposedsampling locations shown in Plate 2 of the Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan wereadjusted. AJ1 other PCB samples were collected as close as possible to thelocations shown in Plate 2 of the Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan. Difficultiesnavigating in the wetlands, or proximity of the main stream channels to wetlandboundaries may have caused some locations to shift slightly from their proposedlocations.

The following sampling locations were moved from the locations shown in Plate 2of the Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan:

White 3 - Sampling location White 3 was shifted slightly southward from thelocation shown in Plate 2 of the Phase 2 SPRDS Work Plan. This modificationwas warranted based on data which became available shortly before thecommencement of sampling activities. Specifically, recently-acquired historicalaerial photographs clearly show that the point at which runoff from the NiagaraMohawk Fire Training School formerly entered White Creek is now buriedbeneath the berm surrounding the Fire Training School moat. Therefore,sampling location White 3 was shifted southward off of the berm, to an areacharacterized by a more natural-appearing grade, to assess the potential forresidual PCB contamination between the moat and White Creek. Thismodification was approved by Ms. Chris Rossi of the NYSDEC, who providedoversight on behalf of the USEPA during the sediment sampling activities at theFire Training School. 50?Q1 9

DM32701Y.3.A6/L

Mr. Richard RamonNovember 3, 1995Page 2

Wine 2A/2B/2C Transect - The location of the Wine 2A/2B/2C transect wasmoved northward due to extensive flooding conditions present north of the PASSite during sediment sampling activities. Between the Conrail right-of-way andMitchell Street, an area approximately 500 feet wide generally centered on WineCreek was submerged under up to three feet of water. Moreover, along thechannel of Wine Creek, floodwaters were at least six feet deep. Therefore, nosample could be collected from the creek channel. A new transect was thereforelaid out, oriented parallel to the Conrail right-of-way, with the sampling pointsapproximately 50 feet south of the Conrail tracks. Sample Wine 2C was collectedat the eastern edge of the wetlands, approximately 25 feet from the apparentstream channel. Wine 2B and 2A were collected at points approximately 100 and200 feet westward, thereafter, respectively. All three modified sampling locationswere submerged beneath approximately one foot of water.

In accordance with the USEPA's June 30, 1995 comment letter regarding thePhase 2 SPRDS Work Plan (specifically Comment No. 5), Roux Associatesincluded in the Area Reconnaissance that portion of Wine Creek upstream of theconfluence with White Creek. No areas of significant sediment deposition wereobserved that have not been already sampled during previous investigations.Therefore, no sediment samples for PCB analysis were collected from Wine Creekupstream of its confluence with White Creek.



Douglas/J. Sw^psonPrincipaH-Hydrogeologist/Project Manager

cc: R. Edwards, NYSDECC. Berns, USEPAC. Branagh, NYSDECG.A. Carlson, NYSDOHM. Valentine, de maximis, inc.C. McClarnon, de maximis, inc.L. McTiernan, Roux Associates, Inc.W. Weiss, Niagara Mohawk Power CorporationPAS Technical Committee (via facsimile)

502013

ROUX ASSOCIATES INC DM327oiv . 3 .Aa/L

3'

APPENDIX C

Summary of the Review of Historical Aerial Photographs

502014

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y.4.M«U:

AERIAL PHOTO REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORKr

-J Aerial Photo Date: May 31,1939 Aerial Photo ID's: ARY-61-44ARY-61-45

d • White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street- Very little undergrowth_ vegetation (e.g., bushes, etc.) along stream compared to later years. Path of stream is clearly

visible. Stream passes under East Seneca Street at current location. Niagara Mohawk FireTraining School and East Seneca Street Dump not present.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of Future PASSite - Stream meanders slightly, diagonally away from East Seneca Street, toward the futurePAS Site. Little undergrowth evident.

• White Creek Adjacent to Future PAS Site - Very little undergrowth vegetation alongstream compared to later years. Two dams are visible. No ponding evident. Stream pathbetween dams is a straight line.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged compared to later years. Apparent orchard on west side of stream beginningapproximately 400 feet upstream (south) of confluence.

"""" • Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathdownstream from confluence, beneaih Mitchell Street and railroad tracks and along easternside of Saint Paul's Cemetery, appears unchanged compared to today. As stream approachesLake Ontario, it passes beneath a small bridge, continues parallel with the lakefront for 200feet, then doglegs northward and terminates to a large, open sandy area. Cutoff that ispresent today immediately upstream (west) of foot bridge is not present at this time.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland appears to discharge into Lake Ontario. Unnamedtributary appears unchanged compared to today, except that it extends upstream (southward)to intersection of Mitchell Street and Smith's Beach Road.

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Not present.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Not present.

• PAS - Not present. Site appears as open, grassy field. Very few trees or shrubs.

• Oswego Castings - Not present.

502015

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -1-

AERIAL PHOTO REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK

Aerial Photo Date: July 31,1955 Aerial Photo ED's: ARY-IP-55ARY-1P-56ARY-1P-57

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream appears relativelyunchanged compared to 1939 photos. Landfilling occurring 600 feet west of stream at EastSeneca Street Dump.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of Future PASSite- Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1939 photos. Increased tree and shrubvegetation along stream.

• White Creek Adjacent to PAS Site - Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1939photos. Increased tree and shrub vegetation along stream.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged relative to 1939 photos. South of East Seneca Street, landfilling operationsoccurring 400 feet east at East Seneca Street Dump. North of East Seneca Street, orchardstill present on east side of stream, but orchard trees appear less dense relative to 1939photos.

• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1939 photos. Near Lake Ontario, stream flows northeastwardbeneath small bridge and parallel to beach and discharges into Smith's Beach Wetland. Inthis area, stream is better defined relative to 1939 photos. Cutoff that is present todayimmediately west of small bridge is not apparent on this photo.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland, wetland outlet, and unnamed tributary remainunchanged relative to 1939 photos.

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Not present.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Landfilling activities apparent. Landfill encompasses roughlyone half of its final area extent.

• PAS - Site appears unchanged relative to 1939 photos. More shrub vegetation is apparent.

• Oswego Castings - Main facility building and large, square pond to the northwest arepresent.

502018ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -2- VWOMOTOIYAMMPC


Aerial Photo Date: May 6,1960 Aerial Photo ID's: AF-59-35 R-75 7399AF-59-35 R-75 7400

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream path remains unchangedrelative to 1955 photos. Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School present along east bank ofstream.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of Future PASSite - Stream path remains unchanged relative to 1955 photos.

• White Creek Adjacent to Future PAS Site - Stream path appears unchanged relative to1955 photos.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged relative to 1955 photos. Most orchard trees adjacent to stream are no longerapparent.

• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged from confluence downstream to small bridge near Lake Ontario, relativeto 1955 photos. However, immediately upstream (west) of small bridge, stream appearsdiverted northward, discharging into Lake Ontario. This "cutoff* remains apparent on laterphotos and is present today. East of small bridge, stream appears unchanged.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland appears more pronounced than in earlier photos;otherwise wetland, wetland outlet and unnamed tributary appear unchanged relative to 1955photos.

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Approximately four small structures are present.Ground appears unpaved and stained. Liquid-filled trench measuring roughly 100 feet inlength present on southern edge of facility. Facility bordered on west side by White Creek.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Landfilling has expanded westward to within 300 feet of WineCreek and eastward to within 500 feet of White Creek.

• PAS - Unchanged relative to 1955 photos.

• Oswego Castings - Graded area (future parking lot) present west of main building. Large,square liquid-filled pond present. Smaller liquid-filled pond present to the northwest ofsquare pond. Drainage from graded area and both ponds is west/southwest to a swale thatgrades southwest toward Mitchell Street in southwest corner of property. Smaller white-roofed building present to the north of main building. Drainage in northeastern area ofproperty appears to be northeastward to a northeastward-trending stream that appears tooriginate at property.

502017ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -3- W/DMSZTOIV^BO/APC


Aerial Photo Date: October 17,1965 Aerial Photo ID's: ARY-5EE-68ARY-5EE-69

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream path appears unchangedrelative to 1960 photos; landfilling at East Seneca Street Dump to within 300 feet of westbank of stream, Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School borders east side of stream.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street; Upstream of Future PASSite - Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1960 photos. Landfilled material atsoutheastern corner of future PAS Site, immediately bordering western side of stream.

• White Creek Adjacent to Future PAS Site - Stream path downstream to small dam innortheast corner of property appears unchanged relative to 1960 photos. Between small andlarger dam, stream path appears more sinuous relative to 1960 photos. Small rectangular-shaped ponded area present 200 feet upstream of larger dam.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged relative to 1960 photos.

• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1960 photos. Wine Creek clearly discharging into LakeOntario at "cutoff" located immediately west of small bridge. Stream path east of smallbridge toward Smith's Beach Wetland less apparent relative to 1960 photos.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland, wetland outlet and unnamed tributary appear unchangedrelative to 1960 photos. Area between Smith's Beach Road and west side of unnamedtributary has been cleared of large vegetation (i.e., trees, shrubs).

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Minimum of five small buildings are present.Liquid-filled trench borders southern edge of property. Areas of standing liquid bordereastern edge of property. Facility appears to remain unpaved. Blotchy, dark-stained soilsappear throughout facility.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Landfilling has expanded southward, and also eastward towithin 300 feet of White Creek.

• PAS - Landfilling present in a 400 ft x 150 ft area along East Seneca Street, stretchinglengthwise from area opposite entrance road to East Seneca Street Dump eastward to WhiteCreek. Remainder of property appears unchanged relative to 1960 photos.

• Oswego Castings - Liquid present in both large square pond and smaller pond. Additionalbuilding present on north side of east end of main building.

502018ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -4-


Aerial Photo Date: April 28,1967 Aerial Photo ID's: NY1-1364-182NY1-1364-183

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream path appears unchangedrelative to 1965 photos. Trench around east and south sides of Niagara Mohawk FireTraining School discharges into stream at southwest corner at Niagara Mohawk FireTraining School property.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of Future PASSite - Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1965 photos.

• White Creek Adjacent to Future PAS Site - Stream path appears unchanged relative to1965 photos. Small areas of ponded water on upstream side of larger dam.


• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1965 photos. Stream "cutoff' west of small bridge is clearlyvisible. Sediment plume is visible in Lake Ontario at mouth of cutoff. East of small bridge,stream appears flooded.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland, wetland outlet and unnamed tributary appear unchangedrelative to 1965 photos.

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Liquid-filled trench runs along eastern andsouthern perimeter of property, and discharges into White Creek near southwestern corner offacility. Flooded area present along East Seneca Street near upstream end of ditch nearnortheast corner of property. Circular structure containing liquid present in southwestcorner of facility. Facility remains unpaved with blotchy staining of soils. Fire building,classroom building, pump house and storage shop building present.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Landfilling continues; several small areas of ponded liquid arevisible.

• PAS - Landfilling continues in southeastern comer of property. Remainder of propertyremains unchanged relative to 1965 photos.

• Oswego Casting - Smaller pond overflowing (toward Mitchell Street), remainder of facilityunchanged relative to 1965 photos.

502019

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -5- W/DMMTOIYABB/APC


Aerial Photo Date: September 13,1978 Aerial Photo ID's: USDA 40 36075 178-173USDA 40-36075 178-174

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream path reroutedapproximately 100 ft westward along Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School, due towestward expansion of Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School and construction of moatalong western side of facility. Outlet from moat to stream near northwest corner of facility atpresent-day location. On west side of White Creek, landfill now extends eastward to areaimmediately adjacent to White Creek.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street; Upstream of PAS Site -Stream path rerouted from 50 feet to 100 feet southward to run adjacent to the north side ofEast Seneca Street, due to the construction of the Union Hall adjacent to southeast corner ofPAS property. At western end of Union Hall property, stream turns abruptly north and flowsalong western border of Union Hall property for 150 feet before rejoining historic streampath.

• White Creek Adjacent to PAS Site - Stream path north of Union Hall property remainsunchanged relative to 1967 photos. PAS Site buildings present in northeast comer of site,approximately 100 feet southwest/west of stream. Two small drainages appear to beentering stream from PAS Site. First drainage extends west to east across the southern thirdof property and appears to discharge into stream near northwest corner of Union Hallproperty. Second drainage runs south to north across PAS Site and discharges into stream inarea between the two dams at north end of PAS Site.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of Wine/White Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsto be unchanged relative to 1967 photos. Orchard trees no longer visible along west streambank.

• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of Wine/White Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1967 photos.


• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Facility's western side has expanded at least 200feet further westward relative to 1967 photos. Westward expansion results in rerouting ofWhite Creek approximately 100 feet westward from its former stream path. Expansion area(including former streambed) occupied by several structures including office building andwestern arm of moat. Moat extends approximately 200 feet north of former trench outletand discharges into White Creek near northwest facility comer.

502020

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -6- W/DMMTOIYXW/APC

• East Seneca Street Dump - Landfilling activities appear to be continuing in central andsouthwest areas of landfill. Northern portion of East Seneca Street Dump has been regradedand includes waste transfer station building. Landfilling activities along eastern side oflandfill near White Creek do not appear to be occurring.

• FAS - PAS facility present. Entry road enters southeast corner of property and extendsnorthward parallel with White Creek. Office building, loading platform and incineratorstructures present. Large rectangular-shaped depression (lagoon) containing some liquidvisible in south central portion of facility. Drum storage areas visible in south central area offacility between lagoon and office building and in a large elongated area in west centralportion of facility. Some standing liquid present near northern end of facility (secondlagoon). Drainages into White Creek apparent in southern and northern portions of facility.Radio station building present near southwest corner of property.

• Oswego Castings - Additional smaller building present on north side of main building.Remainder of facility unchanged relative to 1967 photos.

50202.1ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -7- w/DM327oiY.< w/APC


Aerial Photo Date: August 24,1983 Aerial Photo ID's: EA-B 203-143EA-B 203-144

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Stream path appears unchangedrelative to 1978 photos.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of PAS Site -Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1978 photos.

• White Creek Adjacent to PAS Site - Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1978photos.


• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1978 photos.


• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Additional buildings/structures present onwestern expansion area seen on 1978 photos.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Additional landfilling activities visible in eastern and southcentral portions of property.

• PAS- Foundations of former office building and loading platform visible. Incineratorstructures not present. Significant regrading has occurred in remaining areas of facility.Wash water holding tank and decontamination pad visible in south central portion of facility.Area of former large rectangular lagoon partially filled and now occupied by wash waterholding tank. West-east-trending drainage partially regraded and replaced bydecontamination pad. South-north trending drainage still visible. Smaller lagoon in northernportion of property not visible.

• Oswego Castings - Facility appears unchanged relative to 1978 photos.

502022

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -8- w/DM327oiY.«.B8 /APC


Aerial Photo Date: April 19,1993 Aerial Photo ID's: 1225 10 No. 1261225 10 No. 1271225 10 No. 1281225 10 No. 129

• White Creek Upstream (South) of East Seneca Street - Area not covered by photos.

• White Creek Downstream (North) of East Seneca Street. Upstream of PAS Site -Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1983 photos.

• White Creek Adjacent to PAS Site- Stream path appears unchanged relative to 1983photos. Ponding present immediately upstream oflarger dam.

• Wine Creek Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Only the reach ofstream directly adjacent to PAS is covered by photos. Stream path along PAS Site appearsunchanged. Sewer construction paralleling western bank of stream is visible. Radio stationbuilding no longer present near east bank of stream near East Seneca Street.

• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged downstream to railroad bridge relative to 1983 photos; segmentdownstream of railroad tracks not covered by photos.

• Smith's Beach Wetland - Area generally not covered by photos. Landfilling visible alongwest bank of unnamed tributary along Smith's Beach Road.

• Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School - Not covered by photos.

• East Seneca Street Dump - Area not covered by photos.

• PAS - Site substantially regraded (capped) since 1983. Leachate holding tank, drainageditches, roadway and decontamination area visible.

• Oswego Castings - Facility only partially covered by photos. Appears unchanged relative to1983 photos.

502023

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -9- W/DM32701Y.4 BS /APC

APPENDIX D

Physical Characteristics of White and Wine Creeks

502024

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. w/oM327oiv< B»AC

The following overview of the physical characteristics (e.g., morphology, flow regime, streamedMV

^_ sediment composition) of White Creek, Wine Creek, and the Smith's Beach Wetland is based on

.J observations made during the Phase 2 SPRDS Area Reconnaissance, combined with thelaboratory grain-size and total-organic-carbon (TOC) data generated during the Phase 2 SPRDS

_4 sediment-sampling program. It should be noted that the Phase 2 SPRDS sediment-sampling

locations were biased toward the area(s) within a given stream segment containing the most fine-grained sediment, and that these samples contained only those sediments small enough to fit inside

the sampling device (i.e., smaller than approximately 1 inch). Therefore, the laboratory grain-sizedata should only be considered a general indicator of the relative distribution of sand and fine

- gravel versus fines (i.e., silt and clay) at a particular location, and should not be considered totally

representative of streambed sediment composition.

In order to accentuate the variability of the physical characteristics from location to location, the

overview is presented in the following six subsections, each representing a distinct geographicarea or stream segment:

• White Creek upstream of the PAS Site (between State Route 104 and the southeast^" corner of the PAS Site);

• White Creek at the PAS Site (from the southeast corner of the PAS Site to theconfluence of White and Wine Creeks);

• Wine Creek upstream of the PAS Site (between State Route 104 and East SenecaStreet);

• Wine Creek adjacent to the PAS Site (between East Seneca Street and the confluence ofWhite and Wine Creeks);

• Wine Creek downstream of the PAS Site (between the White Creek/Wine Creekconfluence and Lake Ontario); and

• the Smith's Beach Wetland (between Mitchell Street and the wetland outlet to WineCreek).

White Creek Upstream of the PAS SiteUpstream of the PAS Site, White Creek is generally characterized by turbulent flow and a rocky

streambed. Between State Route 104 and the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School, White

•—-• Creek is generally le*s than five feet wide and one foot deep, meanders slightly, and is bordered502025

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -1- W/DMMTOIY «.E»APD

by wetlands generally less than 25 feet wide. Adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training

School, however, the channel of White Creek is notably less sinuous than it is upstream, and isalso somewhat wider (five to ten feet) and deeper (one to two feet). In addition, the banks ofWhite Creek along this reach are relatively high (i.e., greater than 10 feet) and steep (i.e.,

approaching 50 percent grades), with little to no wetland area bordering the stream.

The streambed along the reach of White Creek adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk Fire TrainingSchool was observed to be composed mainly of boulders and cobbles, with lesser amounts ofgravel and sand. Very little fine-grained sediment (i.e., silt and clay) was observed in the stream-bed. Median grain sizes for the two sediment samples collected along this reach during the Phase2 SPRDS were in the middle to upper end of the medium sand range, and the two samplescontained only ten percent fine-grained sediment, versus approximately 30 to 40 percent fine

gravel. (In comparison, downstream depositional areas at the PAS Site have median grain sizes in

the "fines" range, and percent "fines" generally ranging from 40 to 80 percent.) The range of

TOC concentrations in the sediment along this reach was also the lowest of any reach, ranging

from only 0.5 to 1.5 percent. Sample White 5, collected adjacent to the moat outfall, contained

the lowest TOC concentration (0.5 percent) detected in White Creek during the Phase 2 SPRDS

(In comparison, TOC concentrations in downstream depositional areas generally range from 1.5to 4 percent.)

After passing beneath East Seneca Street, White Creek turns abruptly westward, and flows

parallel to East Seneca Street in a straight, narrow, engineered ditch with a rocky bottom andsteep banks. White Creek along this reach is characterized by turbulent, channelized flow - thehighest streamflow velocities measured for White Creek during the Phase 2 SPRDS (1 to 2 feet

per second) were measured in this reach - with very little fine-grained sediment present in the

streambed. Median grain sizes for the two sediment samples collected along this reach during thePhase 2 SPRDS were in the fine sand range, and the two samples contained only 10 to 20 percent

fine sediment (compared to 40 to 80 percent at the PAS Site). The range of TOC concentrations

50202G

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -2- W/WKHTOIY.4 BWAPD

• measured in this reach of White Creek was also lower than that in downstream areas, ranging••*from only 1 to 2 percent. Sample White 6, collected along this reach, contained the third-lowest

J TOC concentration (1 percent) detected in White Creek during the Phase 2 SPRDS.

In summary, White Creek upstream of the PAS Site is characterized by turbulent flow and a rocky

streambed, with little to no accumulation of fines and organic carbon. Only one significant area oforganic-carbon-rich fine-grained sediment was observed along White Creek upstream of the PAS

Site. This area is located along the west bank of White Creek near the northeast corner of theEast Seneca Street Dump, just upstream of the Niagara Mohawk Fire Training School.

—~>

White Creek at the PAS SiteWhite Creek turns abruptly northward as soon as it flows across the PAS Site boundary, and

flows along the eastern border of the PAS Site in another engineered ditch for approximately 200

feet. Flow and sediment composition in this segment of the ditch is similar to that in the upstream

segment along East Seneca Street. At the northern end of the constructed ditch, however, White

Creek changes dramatically from a turbulent-flowing, channelized stream with no adjacent

wetland to a slow-moving, anastomosed, muddy-bottomed stream bordered by a 200- to 3 00-

foot-wide wetland.

Within this 200- to 300-foot-wide wetland corridor, White Creek flows through several distinct

branch channels that together comprise an anastomosed network, with each channel being no

more than one foot wide and six inches deep. Streambeds and inter-channel areas in this wetland

both contain abundant fine-grained sediment, indicating that this wetland area acts as an effectivesediment trap, retaining much of the sediment flowing in from upstream. The two streambed

sediment samples collected in this area during the Phase 2 SPRDS, White 9B and White 11B,

contained approximately 65 and 76 percent fine-grained sediment, respectively, while samplescollected from inter-channel areas contained between 29 and 77 percent fine-grained sediment. Inaddition, TOC concentrations measured along this reach of White Creek range as high as 4.2percent.

~ 502027ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -3- W/OMMTOIY.4 BWAPO

The anastomosed segment of White Creek ends in the northeast corner of the PAS Site, justupstream of the remains of a former dam. Just before the last two branch channels merge, a smalltributary flows into White Creek from the wetland area east of the PAS Site. With the exceptionof the lowermost 50 to 100 feet, this tributary stream had no recognizable channel during thePhase 2 SPRDS, and was characterized by interconnected areas of standing water and mud. Thesediment sample (White 10) collected during the Phase 2 SPRDS from one of these areas of mudand standing water contained 82 percent fine-grained sediment and a TOC concentration of 3.9

percent.

Downstream of the former dam in the northeast corner of the PAS Site, White Creek flows

northwestward in a relatively straight, shallow (less than 6 inches deep) and narrow (less than twofeet wide) channel, bordered by wetlands several hundred feet wide, until it approaches the

remains of a second former dam, located near the northwest corner of the PAS Site. White Creek

just upstream (northeast) of the second former dam is somewhat ponded, with no clear channel

apparent during the Area Reconnaissance. The sediments along the reach of White Creek

between the two former dams are also mainly fine-grained, with virtually no sediment coarser than

medium sand present, reflecting the depositional nature of this area. There is a slight increase in

median grain size here, however, as compared to the wetland area in the eastern part of the PAS

Site. Percent fines in the samples collected in the northern part of the PAS Site range from only

18 to 55 percent, versus 40 to 80 percent in the eastern portion of the PAS Site. However, TOCconcentrations in the sediments of northern portion of the PAS Site are also relatively high, often

exceeding 2 percent and ranging as high as 4 percent.

As stated above, White Creek is somewhat ponded upstream of the former dam in the northwest

corner of the PAS Site. Vegetation is heavy here, and no clear channel is visible. The remains of

several former beaver dams are also present in this area of the PAS Site. A steep, narrow channelresembling a sluiceway drains this ponded area, and carries White Creek down to the former dam

spillway. On the downstream side of the dam, White Creek is again ponded, apparently by debris

trapped against the fence running along the western edge of the PAS Site. This pond discharges

502028

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -4- MHOMSZTOIY.IMMPO

through two barely-discernible channels, which become hidden in the wetland vegetation One of

these channels runs straight west, while the second (and apparently more significant) channelmeanders north then south, then north again before joining Wine Creek.

In summary, White Creek at the PAS Site is characterized by slow flow, with intermittent

ponding. Extensive wetlands, containing abundant organic-carbon-rich fine-grained sediment,border almost this entire reach of White Creek. Streambed sediments along this reach is finer than

anywhere else in the Phase 2 SPRDS Study Area, and TOC concentrations are higher here than

anywhere else in the Phase 2 SPRDS Study Area.

Wine Creek Upstream of the PAS Site

Wine Creek upstream of the PAS Site is characterized by a relatively straight and shallow (i.e.,less than 1 foot deep) channel, turbulent flow, a generally-rocky streambed, and very narrow (i.e.,

less than 50 feet) bordering wetlands. Streamflow velocities measured or observed during the

Area Reconnaissance were usually greater than one foot per second, although in some places,

flow was retarded by overhanging vegetation. The hard rocky bottom in these locations was

covered by a thin veneer of finer-grained sediment, although this veneer was generally only an

inch thick and contained mainly fine sand. For example, Phase 2 SPRDS sediment sample Wine 1

was collected in one such area; grain-size data indicate that the streambed at this location

contained only 3 percent fines, and almost 30 percent gravel. Wine 1 also contained the lowest

TOC concentration (0.3 percent) detected in the Phase 2 SPRDS Study Area. Several small

embayments and abandoned high-flow channels were also observed along this segment of Wine

Creek. These abandoned channels and embayments were the muddiest areas observed in Wine

Creek upstream of the PAS Site. One Phase 2 SPRDS sampling location (Wine 2) was located at

the point where the stream bifurcates into an active and an abandoned channel. The abandoned

channel sediment contained almost 22 percent fines and almost 63 percent fine sand.

During the Area Reconnaissance, two small tributaries were observed flowing into Wine Creek

between State Route 104 and East Seneca Street: the first entering from the east at the point

where Wine Creek turns abruptly westward, and the second entering from the west where Wine

Creek turns northward again. The first tributary drains a wetland located along the southern edge

502Q29ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -5- W/DM32701Y4 BWAPO

of the East Seneca Street Dump, and exhibited a sheen during the Phase 2 SPRDS AreaReconnaissance. The second tributary appeared to be emanating from a large pile of debrislocated approximately 200 feet west of Wine Creek. This small tributary also exhibited a sheen

during the Area Reconnaissance.

In summary, Wine Creek upstream of the PAS Site is very similar in nature to the portion ofWhite Creek upstream of the PAS Site, being characterized mainly by a rocky streambed andturbulent flow. No significant depositional areas were observed in Wine Creek upstream of the

PAS Site.

Wine Creek Adjacent to the PAS SiteWine Creek adjacent to the PAS Site is very similar in nature to the segment upstream of EastSeneca Street, although somewhat more sinuous and having slightly wider wetlands (i.e., 50 to

100 feet wide). The streambed is composed mainly of rocky material, although pockets of sandy

and even muddy sediment were occasionally observed. Streamflow velocities generally exceeded2 feet per second during the Area Reconnaissance, although slower flows were observed in areas

where vegetation impeded streamflow velocity. Even in these areas, however, the streambed wascomposed of very little fine-grained sediment. For example, at Wine 3, the portion of the

streambed sediment that was less than 1 inch in diameter was dominated by fine to medium sand,with only five percent fines (i.e., silt and clay). Wine 3 also contained the second-lowest TOCconcentration (0.5 percent) detected in the Phase 2 SPRDS Study Area.

In summary, Wine Creek adjacent to the PAS Site is also characterized by rocky streambeds and

turbulent flow, with no significant depositional areas.

Wine Creek Downstream of the PAS SiteDownstream of its confluence with White Creek, Wine Creek retains basically the same characteras the upstream segments, although a slightly lower gradient and man-made improvements (e.g.,

culverts) impart some changes on the overall character of the stream. In general, streamflow

velocity decreases somewhat, and slightly more fine-grained sediment is found in the streambed.

TOC concentrations increase as well, generally ranging from approximately 2 to 3 percent.^Wi502030

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -6-

Creek downstream of its confluence with White Creek is bordered by a relatively narrow wetland(less than 50 feet wide), except along the reach between Mitchell Street and the Conrail right-of-

way, where frequent ponding has created an extensive wetland. During the Area Reconnaissance,

an area over 300 feet wide between Mitchell Street and the Conrail right-of-way was inundated

beneath at least one to two feet of water. The cause of the flooding appeared to be damming of

Wine Creek just downstream of the Conrail right-of-way, either by a beaver dam or by downed

trees. The sediment samples collected in this wetland contained up to 73 percent fines, with littleto no coarse sand and gravel, suggesting that this is a significant sediment deposition area. In

addition, the highest TOC concentration detected in either White or Wine Creek was detected atsample Wine 2B (4.3 percent).

Downstream of the Conrail right-of-way (and downstream of the blockage), Wine Creek is onceagain characterized by turbulent flow and a rocky streambed, with periodic reaches of low flow

and finer sediment. For example, Phase 2 SPRDS sample Wine 5 was collected from a small

embayment where the streambed was much finer than in the adjacent main channel; nonetheless,

the sample contained over 70 percent fine sand, with only 23 percent fines, and a TOCconcentration of only 1.2 percent.

During the Phase 2 SPRDS, Wine Creek was partially ponded behind a beaver dam approximately

500 feet upstream of Lake Ontario. Although the beaver dam had been breached by the stream, ahalf-acre area behind the dam was still flooded, with water depths up to three feet in places.

Sediments collected from this pond contained appreciable fine-grained sediment, with percent

fines ranging between approximately 26 and 38 percent, and TOC concentrations as high as 3.3

percent. Sample Wine 3B, collected in the middle of the pond, contained over 20 percent gravel,suggesting the sample was collected from the main channel of Wine Creek, since the other two

502031

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -7- W/DMSTTOIYABWAPO

transect samples contained less than 2 percent gravel. Several abandoned high-water channelswere also observed downstream of this beaver pond, suggesting that the pond discharges through

multiple channels during high streamflows. The pond was bordered on either side by steep slopes

delineating the edges of the wetland along this reach of Wine Creek.

Just before discharging into Lake Ontario, Wine Creek is fed by a channel draining westward from

the Smith's Beach Wetland. Downstream of this channel, Wine Creek is floored by gravel and

cobbles, and flows rapidly and turbulently to Lake Ontario. The surface elevation of Wine Creek

appears to drop several feet over the 100 and 150 feet between the Smith's Beach Wetland outletand Lake Ontario, thus causing the rapid flow.

In summary, Wine Creek downstream of the PAS Site is characterized by both turbulent flow

over rocky streambeds and low flow over muddy streambeds. Several depositional areas were

observed along this reach, particularly upstream of culverts and beaver dams.

Smith's Beach WetlandThe Smith's Beach Wetland comprises the 5-acre wetland area located along the western side of

Smith's Beach Road, just south of Lake Ontario. The Smith's Beach Wetland is fed by a small

unnamed stream which drains the area east of Smith's Beach Road and south of the Conrail right-of-way. During the Phase 2 SPRDS Area Reconnaissance, flow in this stream was barelydiscernible, and many areas of stagnant water were observed south of the Conrail right-of-way.

In addition, a ubiquitous sheen was noted on the stream surface. The Smith's Beach Wetland

drains westward into Wine Creek via a narrow channel originating in the northwest corner of thewetland.

Both the Smith's Beach Wetland and its sole tributary are characterized by an abundance of fine-

grained, organic-carbon-rich sediments. Percent fines in the sediment samples collected in the

wetland and its tributary range between approximately 20 and 70 percent, and TOC

Concentrations detected range from 2.7 to 7.5 percent.

502032ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -8- W/DMSZTOIYABWAPO

During the Phase 2 SPRDS Area Reconnaissance, much debris, including tree stumps andS-gallon plastic buskets, was observed in the area between the tributary stream and Smith's Beach

Road. According to the owner of the property in this area, the City of Oswego has beenlandfilling miscellaneous debris in this area for some time.

In summary, the Smith's Beach Wetland appears to be a significant depositional area for sedimententering from the unnamed tributary draining the area southeast of the wetland. The sediments inboth the wetland and in the tributary are mainly organic-carbon-rich and fine-grained.

502033

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. -9- W/DMSZTOIY.^.BWAPO

1

APPENDIX E

Total Organic Carbon Data

502034

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMCTOIY< BWA-C

COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N

Mr. Lany McTiernanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788

Dear Mr. McTiernan:

3306 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway P.O. Box 14998Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4998(919) 406-1600

October 28, 1995

We at CompuChem are pleased to provide our report for the analysis you requested.Data for the following samples are enclosed:

Client IDNumber

CompuChemID Number

AnalysisCode

CaseNumber

Description ofWork Requested

SMITH3WHTTE6WHTTE7WHTTE8WHTTE9AWHTTE9CWHTTE10WHTTE11AWHTTEllCWHITE12A

764980764985764987764992764994764998765000765002765009765011

4001 31528.91 Total Organic Carbon in Soil

Thank you for selecting CompuChem Environmental for your sample analysis.If you have any questions concerning this report or the analytical methods employed,please contact your Sales Representative at 919-406-1600.

Sincerely,

4^ Linda JonesWet Chem/OC Supervisor 502035


~~j TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON«W

~; TO determine the concentration of organic carbon in a wide range...; of matrices, CompuChem employs procedures based on Method 505 of

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.Samples are analyzed using a Dohrmann Model DC-180 CarbonAnalyzer, which employs chemical oxidants and ultraviolet light toconvert organic carbon to carbon dioxide, which is then measuredby a linearized non-dispersive infrared analyzer.

Method Summary

Water samples are analyzed using a persulfate/ultraviolet lightreaction and subseguent analysis of the carbon dioxide by anon-dispersive infrared analyzer. Soil/Sediment/Sludge (S/S/S)samples are analyzed using a boat sampler attachment, in which theS/S/S samples are introduced into an 800 C combustion zone, whereall carbonaceous matter is oxidized to carbon dioxide. The carbondioxide level is then determined using the non-dispersive infraredanalyzer. Results for these determinations are reported inconcentration units of mg/L for water samples and mg/kg for solidsamples.

502036


NOTICE

Unless noted by Quality Assurance Notices included in this reportof data, all Quality Control Requirements associated with thepreparation and analyses of these samples have been met.

Release of the analytical data contained in this data package hasbeen authorized by the Laboratory Manager or his designee, asverified by the following signature.

Date -fUMa-rK Ross, ManagerInorganics Laboratory

502037

Jj

ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA - CASE #31528.91

SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Larry McTiemanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788

LABORATORY CHRONICLE - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS

ITEM SAMPLENO. IDENTIFIER

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

DATESAMPLERECEIVED

DATEANALYSISCOMPLETED

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.

SMITH3WHTTE6WHTTE7WHITESWHTTE9AWHITE9CWHTTE10WHTTE11AWHITE11CWHITE12A

764980764985764987764992764994764998765000765002765009765011

10/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/95

10/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/9510/27/95

502028

TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS

SUMMARY REPORT

ITEMNO.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.

SAMPLEIDENTIFIER

SMITH3WHTTE6WHITE?WHTTE8WHTTE9AWHTTE9CWHTTE10WHTTE11AWHTTE11CWHTTE12A

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

764980764985764987764992764994764998765000765002765009765011

CONCENTRATION(mg/L)

2720010200216007580180002390038900415001870036000

REPORTING LIMIT(mg/L)

50505050505050505050

BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMIT

Reviewed by/ID#:

Reviewed by/ID#

0 ? 0 QV ', \.I v> \)


QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

CASE: 31528.91MATRIX: SOIL

ORIG. SAMPLE COMPUCHEM #: 764980MATRIX SPIKE (MS) COMPUCHEM #: 764981MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MSD)

SPIKEADDED(mg/L)

2000

SAMPLECONC.(mg/L)

2723

MSCONC.(mg/L)

4601

I

COMPUCHEM #: 764982

MS%

RECOVERY

93.9

MSDCONC.(mg/L)

4672

MSD%

RECOVERY

97.5

RPD

2

BLANK SPIKE (BS) COMPUCHEM #: 764983

SPIKE BSADDED CONC.(mg/L) (mg/L)

2000 2120

BS%

RECOVERY

106

COMPUCHEM # QCTYPE

AMOUNTDETECTED

(mg/L)

766888 METHOD BLANK BRL

The reporting limit for Total Organic Carbon in Soil is 50 mg/L.

BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMITRPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

502040

0)O)

CHEMIST

COMPU<( 1 LABORATORIES, INC.TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON

SAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEETSOIL

802

HOLD TIME EXPIRATION: DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: /«/?7 / l"

DATE POSTED FOR 802 ANALYSIS:

123456789101112131415

COMPUCHB ;:|;f NUMBER it

1l> (,68ftIM^&VluA^BZ

•Mj>A<\&2>TuAqao'\ v.A^BSTuA^ftl1^*"1 (» AÂ^^

n . î Q QQ

nuipi6t>0^""3

TfcSfcOZ-

I^SGCfl

1U5o\\

1W

/«//•/

^,

/

IpyEi:iwrel

///3

1/

S/tfZiT-^/

>

i

iV

iittcu|Nj||||liillictlllli

5xiTH3(»ji4ir£(Û)ff/T£ 7cdtfrrf-X6>ft/ T£. QA6JtJ/rf.<9c_t*)tfrt£. /o&>tJlT F r/AC*>UlT£ f/C.UiH-ire. n4

*:'QCs>ftYPEBLK

SS

ist^S

i ORIGINAL:;WNUMBERIt

1bAct&0.

•lUA^P,^

SAMPLE•WT(mg)

<JO

It(*•flfZ^

wIt*11.1$1%It-11/v7,6

AOOAOOS

V

:f3:::;: ::::-;:':'-i;:^:::'::':^ ::':'- - • - ' • •CONCENTRATION OF SPIKE STANDARD = t«oo ppm LOT # fr^//^VOLUME OF SPIKE ADDED = /f^, ulWEIGHT OF SAMPLE USED TO PREP SAMPLE SPIKES = fl^ mg

:?:X*::OJL•-

-"

--

—

t &

i/

• CONC Qspin)r-53/£/£,£>/Yt7t.Z./t.o

?rr*t>/oZSott£7&7ft6 'crtbc.ivno3WWoqrribfflioT$1t<>

:i||illlii;pi:li:Ji||; Mp|| g •:l|ipi||il||l|||<|iy|ilillfil ^

*\AUTO COUNTER 713 / 44<* ** "/1»'f-MANUAL COUNTER 730 / sûUPDATE SAMPLE SPIKE LOG PAGEDATE FOLDER(S) CREATED:

OfOO

WORKSHEET CHECKED BY ^^ A.File: WKSHT802; Rev. 2; Modified 2/5/92

Page S

JOperating Parameters

Empty-Sparger 45.Pick-up Loop f i l l 210.Loop to Sparger Xfer 30.Acid Addition 10.Sparging time 150.Inj. loop f i l l time 5.Injection time 120.FOC trap desorb time 60.Delay btun repeats 5.Delay btun modes 60.Integ. t ime-out ( mm ) 8.Number of repeats 1S of NPOC injections 5Analysis Mode: Boat InletMulti-Sampler used NoCalibration mode: NPOC u/Inject.Loop

Calibration Factors

UPOC u/Ir,j.Loop 7.8E-05 Systen Blank = 0.NPOC direct inject 7.8E-05 System Blank = 0.1C £, POC Calibration 7.8E-OS S>stem Blank = 0.Syringe Inj.Calib. 0.110659! System Blant = 0.

P:^up Loop Volume: 10.Inj.Loop Volume(ml) 0.2

ID8 0.1. Boat 2224000.ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 40.2. Boat 225IC00.ppmC Sample weight <ms.' 40.3. Boat 2276000.ppmC Sample ueight (mg) 40.

flVG +/- Std.Dev: 2250200. +/- 26150. % std dev: 1.162

5:30:26 Frj Oct 27, 1995

Calibration Factors

NPOC u/Inj.Loop 7.8E-05 System Blank = 0.NPOC direct inject 7.8E-05 System Blank = 0.1C & POC Calibration 7.8E-0S System Blank = 0.Syringe Inj.Calib. 9.835441E-05 System Blank = 0.

Pickup Loop Volume: 10.Inj.Loop Volume(ml) 0.2

•v/> ./ SP/tVID« 0. <-c " to*\. Boat 1952.ppmC Sample ueight (mg) 40.

5:40:42 Fn Oct 27, 1995

ID* 0.1. Boat 2.99ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 40.

502045:44:54 Fn Oct 27, 1995

1. Boat 24S.ppmC Sample weight ( m g ) 40.

Page 9

5:48:42 Fn Oct 27. 1995

IDS 1000. fP*1I. Boat 1009.ppmC Sample weight (mg ) 40

5:53:32 Fri Oct 27. 1995

IDS 766888.1. Boat 2.33lppmC Sample weight (mg ) 40.

5:57:35 Fn Oct 27. 1995

IDS ,764980. '-

I. Boat 2723.ppnC Sample weight (mg ) 12.

6:07:38 Fn Oct 27, 1995

ID8 764981.I. Boat 4601.ppr,C Sample weight (mg ) 12.

E M 3 : C E Fr i Oct 27, 1935

IDS 764982.1. Boat 4672.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 11

E:18:0S Fn Oct 27, 1995

IDS 7649S3.1. Boat 2120.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 1!

6:22:52 Fri Oct 27. 1995

IDS 764985. '"^1. Boat 1023.ppmC Sample weight (mg ) 24

6:28:14 Fri Oct 27. 1995

IDS 764989. ''1°1. Boat 2157.ppmC Sample weight (mg> 26

6:35:35 Fri Oct 27, 1995

IDS 0.. Boat 1954.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 40.

6:41:09 Fri Oct 27, 1995

IDS 0.I. Boat 1.879ppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 40 .. _. _

502043

I

IDt 764992. •1. Boat 75S.ppmC Sample weight (rng) 22.

6:52:03 Fri Oct 27. 1995

ID, 764994. '•" **1. Boat 1796. ppnC Sample weight (rig) 29.

6:56:07 Fri Oct 27, 1995

i '10ID* 764998. M°1. Boat 2389. ppnC Sanple weight ( mg > 23.

7:05:04 Fri Oct 27, ,995 ^

IDS 765000.1. Boat 3889. ppnC Sanple weight ( ng ) 22.

7:12:50 Fn Oct 27, 1995 .ID« 7650B2. '

1. Boat 4154. ppnC Sample weignt ( ng ) 19.

7: 1 9 : 4 0 Fn Oct 27, 1995

10= 7E5C09. IM"»/ — •-! — Boot — j! CO i ppfC ——— fcd'iylt ue.^l.l — t-rrg-J — "TT .

2. Boat !S72.ppnC Sanple weight ( ng ) 18.

AUG 4/- S t d . D e v : 4989 .8 +/- 4 4 1 0 . X std dev: 88.38

7:34:06 Fn Oct 27, 1995

X ID* 765011. ^°. / .1 Si..> CgilT.^gi'C——— S u i i p l L MinjM f rg > -»i>.

AO ^- Boat 3598.ppnC Sample weight (ng ) 20.

AVG +/- Std.Dev: 4772.8 +/- 1661. X std dev: 54.8

7:52:51 Fri Oct 27, 1995

ID* 757263.1. Boat 2.749ppnC Sanple weight (ng) 40.

7:57:14 Fri Oct 27, 1995

ID8 757264.1. Boat 1917.ppnC Sanple weight (ng) 40.

6:04:00 Fri Oct 27, 1995

ID* 01. Boat 1982. ppnC Sample weight ( mg > 40. Un i A /i •»0 «i U 4 4

ID* 0.Boat 1.684ppnC Sample weight ( ng > 40.

°X

8:19:55 Fn Oct 27, 1995

ID* 765504. l',|0 W ", 1 i Bait hB.I .pp*l2. Boat 3649.ppnC3. Boat 1674.ppnC4. Boat 1950.ppnC5. Boat 1946.ppnC

AVG +/- Std.Dev:

Sample weight ( ng ) 26.Sample weight ( ng > 14.Sample weight (ng) 19.Sample weight ( ng ) 18.

fT-7 I*

3028.1 +/- 1797. % std dev: 59.36

9: 10:52 Fn Oct 27. 1995

ID* 765508. 1.1*1. Boat 2332.ppmC Sample weight (mg ) 15.2. Boat 2484.ppmC Sample weight (ng) 15.

Sample weight ( r,g ) 15.Sample weight ( ng) 15.

3. Boat 2577. ppmC4. Boat 2554. ppmC

AVG +/- Std.Dev: 2436.7 +/- 110.7 '/. std dev: 4.451

9:43:26 Fn Oct 27. 1955

ID:1. Boat 4502. ppmC

765505.Sample weight ( r.g ) 15.

9:49:20 Fn Oct 27, 1995

IDS1. Boat 4563. ppmC

765506.Sample weight ( ng ) 15.

9:54:59 Fn Oct 27. 1995

1. Boat 3720. ppmC2. Boat 3204. ppmC3. Boat 4898. ppmC4. Boat 3559. ppmC

AVG +/- Std.Dev:

ID* 765509. I'.IOSample weight ( ng ) 18.Sample weight < ng ) 18.Sample weight ( ng ) 15.Sample weight ( ng ) 18.

3845.3 +/- 734. 2 std dev: 19.09

10:25:51 Fri Oct 27, 19951MO»''ID8 765510.

1. Boat 5989.ppnC Sample weight ( m g ) 20.Sample weight (mg ) 23.Ci»pln MMoh-t-fngJ——«-

^ 2. Boat 4873.ppnC, / 3. .Pout OOGK.pp' iC

4. Boat 7569. ppnC5. Boat 7384. ppnC

AUG +/- Std.Dev:

Sample weight ( mg ) 25.Sample weight ( ng ) 13.

7123.5 +/- 1858. '/. std dev: 26.08

1:06:38 Fn Oct 27. 1995

ID$ 01. Boat 2032. ppmC Sanple uieight < n g ) 40.

11 :15 : 15 Fn Oct 27. 1995

ID* 0. cefc1. Boat 0.622ppnC Sanple weight ( ng ) 40.

11 : 17:5B Fn Oct 27, 1995

02046

I I «.-~J i

<na.

':*-I

CHAIN OF CUSTODY . N? 02696V

PROJECT NAME

*

ROUX ASSOCIATES INCenvironmental Consulting

A Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898

ANALYSES PAGE •£, OF -y

SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION

/ISM/rS

e/As

fvtRELINQUISHED/ BY (SGNATURE) FOR

RELliyaUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

DELIVERY METHODTANAOTICAL LABOATORY

DATE TIME

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

rw7WW

SEALINTACT

•f OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

u

RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR



DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

COMMENTS

SEALINTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

JROUX CHAIN OF CUSTODY

' i » t_.J ,

K? 02697VROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

A Uonogement

1377 MOTOR PARKWAY /ISLANDIA, NEW YORK 1 1 788 /—(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898 /

ANALYSES PAGE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION I

^k

PROJECT NUMBER

SAMPLER(SW£

SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATECOLLECTED

TIMECOLLECTED

.***. l(f? AL rp

JlXIJLZ TTA,

-\°\S X

RELINQUISHED, BY: (SlGNfftJRE) FOR


DATE TIME--JN'

DATE TIME

SEALHTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N



DATE

DATE

TIME SEALINTACT

^Y PR N

TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N

RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N

RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N

DELIVERY METHODCOMMENTS

cnCDroorf^00

ANALYTICAL LABORATORYANALYTI

\

\

oroo

( _____CHAIN OF CUSTODY K9 02695 Y

i.

ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting .

A Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898

ANALYSES PAGE / OF 7

PROJECT NAME

£0?PROJECT L6CAT10N

PROJECT NUMBER

. A/ YSAMPLER^S^/


3-

DATECOLLECTED

/,

/ ,

1UISHED. BY: (BIGNTURE) FOR

EUN( IUISHE'D BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR


DELIVERY METHOD

ANAkfTlCAL ULsQ-Xyfa

LABORATORY

TIMECOLLECTED

DATE

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

A*, ySEAL

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N




D A E

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALTACT

YDR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

COMMENTS

CD


Mr. Larry McTiernanRoux Associates1 377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788

Dear Mr. McTieman:

3306 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway P.O. Box 14998Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4998(919)406-1600

October 29, 1995

We at CompuChcm arc pleased to provide our report for the analysis you requested.Data for the following samples arc enclosed:

Client IDNumber

CompuChemID Number

Analysis CaseCode Number


WHITE 12BWHITE 12CWHITE! 3 AWHITE 13BWHITE 13CWHITE 13DWINE2AWINE2BWINE2C

7650167650187650207650227.0024765026765028765030765032


Thank you for selecting CompuChcm Environmental for your sample analysis.If you have any questions concerning this report or the analjtical methods employed,please contact your Sales Representative at 919-406-1600.

Sincerely,

Linda JonesWet Chcm/OC Supervisor 502050


NOTICE



CDate \T Mark Ro&s, Manager

\\Inorganics Laboratory


TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON

To determine the concentration of organic carbon in a wide rangeof matrices, CompuChem employs procedures based on Method 505 ofStandard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.Samples are analyzed using a Dohnnann Model DC-180 CarbonAnalyzer, which employs chemical oxidants and ultraviolet light toconvert organic carbon to carbon dioxide, which is then measuredby a linearized non-dispersive infrared analyzer.

Method Summary

Water samples are analyzed using a persulfate/ultraviolet lightreaction and subsequent analysis of the carbon dioxide by anon-dispersive infrared analyzer. Soil/Sediment/Sludge (S/S/S)samples are analyzed using a boat sampler attachment, in which theS/S/S samples are introduced into an 800 C combustion zone, whereall carbonaceous matter is oxidized to carbon dioxide. The carbondioxide level is then determined using the non-dispersive infraredanalyzer. Results for these determinations are reported inconcentration units of mg/L for water samples and mg/kg for solidsamples.

e:02052

P a g e 4

ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA - CASE H 31528.100

SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Larry McTicmanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788



COMPUCHEMNUMBER

DATESAMPLERECEIVED


2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

WHITE 12BWHITE 12CWHITE13 AWHITE 13BWHITE13CWHITE 13DWINE2AWINE2BWINE2C

765016765018765020765022765024765026765028765030765032

10/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/95

10/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/9510/25/95

5020S3


SUMMARY REPORT

ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA - CASE # 31528.100

ITEMNO.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

SAMPLEIDENTIFIER

WHITE 12BWHITE 12CWHITE13AWHITE 13BWHITE 13CWHITE1 3DWINE2AWINE2BWINE2C

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

765016765018765020765022765024765026765028765030765032

CONCENTRATION(mg/Kg)

136002250031800402001720016000377004340024700

REPORTING LIMIT(mg/Kg)

505050505050505050


Reviewed by/ID#:/9 ;

Reviewed

Date:

Date: /??fC> >^

X

J02054


P a g e 6



ORIG. SAMPLE COMFUCHEM #: 765016MATRIX SPIKE (MS) COMPUCHEM #: 765005MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MSD) COMPUCHEM #: 765006

MSDSPIKE SAMPLE MS MS MSDADDED CONC. CONC. % CONC. %(mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) RECOVERY (mg/Kg) RECOVERY RPD

2000 13570 161 90 3146 89


SPIKE BSADDED CONC.(mg/Kg) (mg/Kg)

2000 2014

BS%

RECOVERY

101

COMPUCHEM QCTYPE

AMOUNTDETECTED

(mg/Kg)


The reporting limit for Total Organic Carbon in Soil is 50 mg/Kg.Acceptance criteria : MS, MSD = 75% - 125%; BS = 80% - 120%; RPD = <25%.BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMITRPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

0)0)

(

CHEMIST ^rtfelsrluLr--^

1

234Ci>

6789101112131415

CJ1CDfO0C.Ien

ID* ZV.5/

HOLD TIME EXPIRATION:

COMPUCHEM:S:NUltoBERl||>wS~'oo>tA-00!>~>oVOOGT <jS~CX)>

-:=?-r7vc7e<-f-O|U

G<£07002.1nlÔt'vrt«030o31

?REC?OAti:

4^

\ '

IPUEjfDAtll:

-Uf-

/

lNCiM86R:I

ÂZr/fr'•^^T? iita —

Vy

r

1

«pi:cuENT*aliiiSiolillil

w^nt\\R (nsso.jv<m-rF \\ti dufciib)

"M/'Huh:bd» 1 Hi lift -*

LOi A_ /Z^CJirt 77c /te.^J(-HrM}4oJ m r» I i 'ii-iitim lieu> 'nn i"SiÛJ,^^ t.O

C0i*-i.t ?.!>

/-.Jif-c 1C

Gwi,,rUCtw ^BG, .^.ORILo.niJC. ' '

TOTAL d.ÂNIC CARBONSAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

SOIL

802

: : . ! fc_. J . - J(

DATE ISSUED: fO/^Q)

DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: /0/?s'/fS-


;!QC::? - - - - - -•TYPEBLK5SssNS

httf? ——

;iORlQINAt&fNUMBERl

>b4* /">^^

sSAMPtei\Vr(irii':i'Â?^/f

/;f_0

Ml<°to2J2Yitll>

ADDAC)0\s

rJ

^

|;;:|:I|:;:;;?:;:: ^CONCENTRATION OF SPIKE STANDARD = Z/0^ ppm LOT # &x//fVOLUME OF SPIKE ADDED = /f ulWEIGHT OF SAMPLE USED TO PRE> SAMPLE SPIKES = /f_ mg

S:X*!;«L— '——• —

V.<Vi

/(3

Jy

;COB«EOTJO::rpcfcfcwpf-rx/*&£&>?<yVi!iSgT^/^/

"4Ssj-/tr- ;

"/o/ej-fcj-

G£SI - ——— c^î^)^ ^^3/3^~7^)*?.rvc>3 /7j-<>^7/60/ 7/70

/T«.0376/0•7JJ/6f/^/o

————— ——————————————————

\ /

AUTO COUNTER 71 3 / V t{ MANUAL COUNTER 730 / <TS<-/UPDATE SAMPLE SPIKE LOG PAGEDATE FOLDER(S) CREATED: /»/'<, f,y

WORKSHEET CHECKED BY ^^^^^ ——^ C J^^ ^ —— J

Flla: WKSHT802; Rev. 2; Modified 2/5/92

• age o

Operating Paraneters

Enpty-SparQer 45.Pick-up Loop fill 210.Loop to Sparger Xfer 30.Acid Addition 10.Sparging tine 150.Inj. loop fill tine 5.Injection tine 120.POC trap desorb tine 60.Delay btun repeats 5.Delay btun nodes 60.Integ. tine-out(nin> 8.Nunber of repeats Ir of NPOC inject icr.5 3Analysis Mode: Boat InletMulti-Sanpler used NoCalibration node: Syringe Calibration

Calibration Factors

NPOC u/Inj.Loop 7.8E-Q5 Systen Blant. = 0.NPOC direct inject 7.8E-05 Systen Blanl, = 0.1C & FOC Calibration 7.SE-05 Systen Blanl. = 0.Syringe Inj.Calib. 9.S41445E-0S Systen Blanl. = 0.

Picl.up Loop Uolune: 10.Jnj.Loop Uolune(nl) 0.2

IDS 0.1. Boat 2128.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng) 40.2. Boat 1859.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng) 40.3. Boat 1968.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.

AVG +/- Std.Dev: 1988.1 +/- 130.4 % std dev: 6.559

3:30:29 Wed Oct 25, 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 1984.ppnC Sanple ueight <ng ) 40.

3:35:44 Ued Oct 25. 1995

ID* 0.1. Boat 2198.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.2. Boat 2031.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.3. Boat 2024.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.

AVG +/- Std.Dev: 2084.3 +/- 98.78 % std dev: 4.739

5:23:16 Ued Oct 25, 1995

Calibration Factors

POr i . i / T n i I nnn 7 CfT-fic; c ; w c 4 o r n R lan l = Ct

ID* 0. rev *IM ID1. Boat 1905.ppmC Sanple ueight (mg) 40.

5:28: 18 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 0. C*-<? lvl»1. Boat 32.54ppmC Sample uieight (mg ) 40.

5:49:43 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 200. A0^1. Boat 229.9ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 40.

5:53:54 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 1000. pP^ ttef ^S **1. Boat S98.5ppnC Sample ueight (ng) 40.

5:57:29 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID: 7E510B.1. Boat 9.551ppriC Sanple weight ( mg ) 40.

6:02:35 Wed Oct 25 , 1995

ID*1. Boat 1357. ppmC Sar.ple ueight ( mg ) 19

B: 10: 15 Wed Oct 25, 1995

ID* 765005.I. Boat 3lB1.ppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 19.

6:!E:4C Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 765006.1. Boat 3146.ppmC Sanple ueight (mg ) 19.

6 : 2 1 :46 Ued Oct 25 , 1995

^ ID* 765007.Q^ . •I—.-—P^M I^RP.pprnf. _ Sample ^ '" inh^ ( ""3 *> -LS—

yp™ 2. Boat 2014 .ppmC Sanple ueight ( m g > 19.Q$ *

AVG +/- S t d . D e v : 1 8 0 1 . +/- 301 .4 7. std dev: 16.73

6:35:53 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 7650,8.I Rr.at ?">t;i nnmP c;Jmnl0 i.icinhf (

1 age 1 u

6:52: 14 Ued Oct 25, 1995

..I. Boat 1881. ppmC Sample ueight (mg) 40

6:58:16 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 0.1. Boat 4.836ppmC Sample weight (ng ) 40.

7:04:31 Ued Oct 25, 1995

IDS 765022. ' *r1. Boat 4016.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 16.

7:12:52 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 76SC24. f.'°1. Boat 1717.ppnC Sar.ple ueight (ng ) 20.

7:24:17 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID* 765026. l:'°1. Boat 1596.ppmC Sample ueight (ng) 28

7:36:32 Ued Oct 25, 1995

ID*1. Boat 3768.ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 24.

7:48:23 Ued Oct 25. 1995

ID*1. Boat 4338.ppmC Sample weight (ng) 17.

IDt 765028. 7

r /o /<J/zi~'?iID8 765C30. '" '

7:55:52 Wed Oct 25, 1995

ID* 765032.1. Boat 2468.ppnC Sample ueight (mg ) 23.

8:04: 16 Ued Oct 25, 1995

CLV W '0/ir^x ID* 0. CL K"r j V A ^ V 1. -G&at -lG47.-p<igC—————^»«p ' " ' • '>•- iQht ( n-,g 1 afl

^Icj-i 2. Boat 1875.ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 40.

«*f *Px AUG +/- Std.Dev: 1760.7 +/- 161.4 X std dev: 9.164

B:14:15 Ueri Ocl 7^ 1 n o n r nv . u J b

8:19:34 Ued Oct 25, 1995

Page 11

5Q20GO

o«*0oCO

\\\\

N\

\

( ___CHAIN OF CUSTODY

I __ i

K? 02696V

N,

ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

Jt Uonogemtnt


PROJECT NAME. /*-v y / rrfi J

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT NUMBER

SAMPLER(S)


dJllJU,

fii

LC

DATECOLLECTED

>/V/V

/Vn

h

RELINQUISH NATURE) FOR

fowxRE(jl|l6uiSHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR


DELIVERY METHOD1AN^CTTICAL LABQMORY

TIME /COLLECTED /

11

•/^'iT/.rDATE. TIME

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

W

.u-

SEALINTACTY OR N

SEALINTACTY OR N

UV




DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALNTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

COMMENTS

CHAJN OF oUSTODY N? 02697VROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

Jt Uonogement

t377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 1 1788 /(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898 /

ANALYSES PAGE 5 OF

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION'

^

PROJECT NUMBER

SAMPLER(S) S'


TIMECOLLECTED,

fuv/

/I- 3-0 Jlx

REUtflOUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

REUNOTJISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

DATE. TIME

DATE TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N


RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE

TIME

TIME

SEALJJTACT

R N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N


ANALYTICAL LABORATORY

f ^tj fS?AS

<W X/,,

OCO

ROUX___( _____CHAIN OF CUSTODY

L...J

N? 02695YROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting .

* Uonogtmtnt


ANALYSES PAGE / OF

PROJECT NAME

t<JtPROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT LOCATION

/ ..

\

\SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATE

COLLECTEDTIME

COLLECTED NOTES

/Jr.^L

LU, A

3 r-/'/,<,.

yIUISHED. BY: (BIGNTURE) FOR

DATE TIME SEALTACT

RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR TIME SEALTACT

EUNOUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N


ANAfTJlCAL U

<-^y*LLABORAjRY AJO.

aiCDfOoo


Mr. Larry McTiernanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788

Dear Mr. McTiernan:

3306 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway P.O. Box 14998Research Triangle Park. NC 27709-4998(919)406-1600

November 1, 1995

We at CompuChem are pleased to provide our report for the analysis you requested.Data for the following samples are enclosed:

Client IDNumberWINE1WINE 1 AWINE1BWINE1CWINE2WINE3WTNE3AWINE3BWINE3CWINESWHTTE-1AWHITE-IBWHTTE-ICWHTTE-2WHITE-3WHITE-4WHITE-5DUPLICSMITH 1SMTTH2

CompuChem Analysis Case Description ofID Number Code Number Work Requested764882 4001 31528.41 Total Organic Carbon in Soil764890764892764894764897764899764901764903764905764908764911764916764918764920764922764924764926764974764976764978

Thank you for selecting CompuChem Environmental for your sample analysis.If you have any questions concerning this report or the analytical methods employed,please contact your Sales Representative at 919-406-1600.

Sincerely,

Linda JonesWet Chem/OC Supervisor

p ?b 4



To determine the concentration of organic carbon in a wide rangeof matrices, CompuChem employs procedures based on Method 505 ofStandard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.Samples are analyzed using a Dohrmann Model DC-180 CarbonAnalyzer, which employs chemical oxidants and ultraviolet light toconvert organic carbon to carbon dioxide, which is then measuredby a linearized non-dispersive infrared analyzer.

Method Summary


5020G5


NOTICE



Date Mark Ross, ManagerInorganics Laboratory

5020C6


SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Lany McTiemanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788


ITEMNO.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.

SAMPLEIDENTIFIER

WINE1WINE1AWINE1BWINE1CWINE2WINE3WINE3AWINE3BWINE3CWINESWHTTE-1AWHITE-IBWHTTE-1CWHITE-2WHITE-3WHITE-4WHITE-5DUPLICSMITH 1SMITH2

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

764882764890764892764894764897764899764901764903764905764908764911764916764918764920764922764924764926764974764976764978

DATESAMPLERECEIVED

10/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/13/9510/14/9510/14/9510/14/95


10/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/31/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/9510/19/95


SUMMARY REPORT


1. WINE12. WINE1A3. WINE1B4. WINE1C5. WINE26. WINE37. WINE3A8. WINE3B9. WINE3C10. WINE511. WHITE-1A12. WHITE-IB13. WHITE-1C14. WHITE-215. WHITE-316. WHITE-417. WHITE-518. DUPLIC19. SMITH120. SMITH2

BRL = BELOW REPORTING

Reviewed by/ID#.\ u:U f (\

Reviewed by/IDfc^v-Sk ,J , (^L,^

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

764882764890764892764894764897764899764901764903764905764908764911764916764918764920764922764924764926764974764976764978

LIMIT

0 / I>LZ.

/ r\ Q f~' C>^

CONCENTRATION(mg/L)

30101650032102410014300464033400746017700122002130023600137001500033900148000548060202860074800

Date: /t/5/fa>

Date: iol3l /Qi~

REPORTING LIMIT(mg/L)

5050505050505050505050505050505050505050

5020G8




ORIG. SAMPLE COMPUCHEM #: 764882MATRIX SPIKE (MS) COMPUCHEM #: 764883MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MSD) COMPUCHEM #: 764884

SPIKEADDED(mg/L)

2000

SAMPLECONC.(mg/L)

301

MSCONC.(mg/L)

1905

MS

RECOVERY

80.2

MSD MSDCONC. %(mg/L) RECOVERY

1871 78.5

RPD

2


SPIKE BSADDED CONC.(mg/L) (mg/L)

2000 1926

BS%

RECOVERY

96

COMPUCHEM # QCTYPE

AMOUNTDETECTED

(mg/L)


The reporting limit for Total Organic Carbon in Soil is 50 mg/L.

BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMITRPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

502QGS

OP01

it

CHEMIST "tab <*a«Wv

123456789101112131415

HOLD TIME EXPIRATION

CO* M$.

~7-(/c(îLT-OM^rt~K,<-(c7/</

c, \%

^ZOo\l191"9l(/Cj ><•/

9K^

lpi:$ •felPPI

jRECilOA1E

•'' j

' (3

•>

(0//t(

V

VSsiWSii:.:i::*5:-:-:-:S*.

^v*>

V

ID# 2l?M

i' 1f(¥ '

«quEfrgsi?

•••••i

nfjj

^

_ M i ^=

^w.viPUCn/ ABwn«rORiut), INC.

TOTAL O,,dANIC CARBONSAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

SOIL

802

DATE ISSUED: f°//G

DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: O (jk / , /?^


liCAsefii;llfuMBiRl

3ir^.^(f

M I'CQJENT IP:Ifalliiollllll:

\îi~l7~t -!>!>

60/-t777.-((L

oo 1- 7 rt -1cjlrLPLr-3oJ/-(-lT*-^

c^(rrrx -^"fluPuc

9<Mi nf(S / M ^ T T ^ ^

————— _ —— • —

i;lQC;ITYPEBLKSSSS

— — — — —

fORIQINACf®; NUMBER i

• .-'

TlaA^VU

ÔAQl\t.

« jv<

_ ———— —— • ——

— ————— -,

:SAMRL6\sWTfrno);:

C.DZJ

^f^

^P/9^£>.£S-r

2.3,

Z2>,q

2.T-ZG

^^.

— \v/^

L-4

ADDACIO

u— •

V

if ~=

lISAMPC^PJKE^JEPARATlPN^^ fc ' ^®^^^-^-:--CONCENTRATION OF SPIKE STANDARD = ppm LOT*VOLUME OF SPIKE ADDED = ulWEIGHT OF SAMPLE USED TO PREP SAMPLE SPIKES = mg

:?X«D1L-r

—

—

10 X

^'

_ — —— —

1C

iCjOBRppBD:;

A1RTO

^ *2 ( LI r\O* *-? \& \ \^J

139^0/ (JO "7 3

^ cV "7 ""

/ ^/ 7 )OS'4'77ô^S"

c^S'S'Ô//!7^-

'b^>—— \ ——— °\^

C</ ~i <- £ /0'l t

iiO,<,ls,k r~33930

7V^D i.

______ ——— - ——"AUTO COUNTER 713 /^^MANUAL COUNTER 730 /UPDATE SAMPLE SPIKE LOG PAGEDATE FOLDER(S) CREATED: it (f(j (<j -

N.

H WORKSHEET CHECKED BY X. \ ^ \. K-^ V_\O)(V,)oroo

File: WKSHT802; Rev. 2; Modified 2/5/92

o

Operating Parameters

Empty-Sparger 45.Pick-up Loop fill 210.Loop to Sparger Xfer 50.Acid Addition 10.Sparging tine 150.Inj. loop f i l l tine 5.Injection tine 120.POC trap desorb tine 60.Delay btun repeats 5.Delay btun nodes 60.Integ. tine-out(nin ) 8.Nunber of repeats 1* of NPOC injections 3Analysis Mode: Boat InletMulti-Sampler used NoCalibration node: Syringe Calibration

Calibration Factors

NPOC u/Inj.Loop 7.6E-05 Systen Blank = 0.NPOC direct inject 7.6E-05 Systen Blank = 0.1C & POC Calibration 7.SE-05 Systen Blank = 0.Syringe Inj.Calib. I.028033E-04 Systen Blank = 0.

Pickup Loop ^'olune: 10.Inj.Loop Uolunefnl) 0.2

IDS 0.1. Boat 3.046ppriC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.

5:59:15 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 2162.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng) 40.2. Boat 2155.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.3. Boat 2148.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng> 40.

AVG +/- Std.Oev: 2154.9 +/- 7.246 '/. std dev: 0.336

6: 16:59 Thu Oct 19, 1995

ID* 0.1. Boat 1893.ppnC Sanple ueight (ng> 40.

6:22:25 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 7.671ppnC Sanple ueight (mg ) 40.

6 : 3 5 : 5 0 Thu Oc t 19 , 1995

IDS 2013.^ n _ _ j -1^-1 « . . _ _ . r 1 r _ , . _ i _ _ . . i _ * ' . _ • 4 / - * 502071

r-ocv?o

•iencs>COU

1

incnLDL)OOCO

OlE

0

JC

S

Ol

S> -i

—

4)3a.£t>Ul

*t

Q

OEa.aoCD

01EJC01

cncncn »*

—

a

aE

OO3JCtocn

CJaa.10oCO

cncncnuO3JCcncn

01

JZOl

013a.EIDinoEaa.MsoIDoCO

Ol

£

COr-cnLOr-

siOl

o>3OJain

iocn

cncn

**—

Q

—

CJ£

+> a

u a.

o3

r-jc

to

ID•et

L/1O

iOOCO

cncncnuo3JCQLn

Ldrg01E

Or-g -~>

cn jc*±

01co

—r-

01301a£<0LnC

JEdar-cnIDOcn

01E

ID 01

r- 3

encncnuoDJCCOoLOIO

**O

CJ£a.aoCOr-10oCD

a)-DSr-inencoocnrg01aLOr>

cnen it

—

o

Ol

E

Lacn jc

*f ai

cu —301aEIDl/l

cncnen »

—

Q

01£

o

JCo

01

o

-irj

01301aE10in

dJCcncn

LJEaat—LDiOoCO

oo

oEaar-cncnIDOCO

01£013

in <n

cn i/i

cn *t

—

Q

—

CJE

<-• a

u

ao

cn

LOQCOooCO

cncnuoinm

Ol

E

en _c•<*

uiLO

-i

r 01301a.ECJ£aa.

uiS)

cooCD

i u* i **o a f Q .1. Boat 5407.ppnC Sample weight (ng ) 26.

1 8:45:31 Thu Oct 19, 1995

^... IDt 746976.j I. Boat 2856.ppnC Sanple weight (mg > 25.J

8:52:34 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDt 764978.1. Boat 7485.ppnC Sanple weight (ng) 22.

9:03:49 Thu Oct 19. 1995

ID« 764922.1. Boat 3393.ppmC Sanple weight (Mg) 23.

9:15:57 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 764913.I. Boat 4729.ppnC Sample weight ( ng ) 23.

3:19:29 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 2000.1. Boat 2155.ppnC Sanple weight (ng ) 40.

9:50:00 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS G.1. Boat 12.22ppnC Sanple weight (ng ) 4C.

9:32:30 Thu Oct 19, 1995 , W,A

IDS 76491^.1. Boat 4787. ppnC Sanple weight (ng) 23.

9 :46 :45 Thu Oct 19, 1995V< '

IDS 76491,2'.1. Boat 2364.ppnC Sanple weight (ng ) 40

9:5B:10 Thu Oct 19 , 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 35.43ppnC Sanple weight (ng ) 40.

1C:06:10 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 2000.1. Boat l758.ppn-iC Sanple weight (ng) 32.

502073

J. -•ocvo

unr-iinCM

uno

to1X1oto

O!

E-CO!

013aELDcnen

S> £

in 01•3<oo.e

en£

LTI oi

LO

— '

r- oi301a.EH)in

*»Q

01E

LOQ

-*>O

-C

Ul

O!

LO

-ir-

<a301ainenen

inmen *»

—

a

LDcntn

O!

E

LOS

-*->Q

JI

un 01

LO ->

r- 01301a.eIDLO

Q

-Cn

01O

-"

r i 01301aE

Ul H3

cn LO

cn *»

—

o

o

01301aU

l ID

cn LO

cn tt

—

a

intncn

01E

O

~~~CM

-*-•

Q

-CU

l O

iLO

—

<[--

0130>CLE

ttQ

LHcnen—

O

01E

CD—

-fO

-C

in cn

to -•

r— 01301aEIDLO

Ul

cnen

cnE

in cn

LO -•aEidLO

r j -^s .c

in 01

LO

-"r-

oi301a.Ei_n

IDen

LOcn

t»—

Q

OaaraoCD

OO3.C

oEaa.Om

oEaa.om

uoL)Oa.c

OEa.a.r-LDcnIDo01

uoj:i—iLOin

oea.ar-cor-oCD

(Jo3£

OEaLnrj<oOCD

uo

CJEaar-TCOLO"0oCD

UO

oEaCOr jCO<DOCD

O3

oeQaoCO

oototo

CJEQdLO00IDOCD

uOcnto

oEaat-coLOcnIDoLO

I. Boat 6085.ppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 29.

12:5! :2t Thu Oct 19, 1995

ID* 765028.1. Boat 3416. ppmC Sample weight (mg) 33.

13:07:04 Thu Oct 13, 1995

ID* 765030.I. Boat 3470. ppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 26.

13:32:29 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 765032.I. Boat 3607.ppmC Sample weight (ng ) 34.

13:46:06 Thu Oct 19, 1995

ID* 2000.1. Boat 2029.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 40.

13:51 :53 Thu Oct 19, 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 4 . SSSppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 40.

I3:55:'33 Thu Oct 1 9 , 1 995

502075

0101inQ.

i_...PJC. 7 '.AB~,,,,rORico, (NC.

TOTAL A..JANIC CARBONSAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

SOIL

802

CHEMIST 4.^ ' ID* //»


DATE ISSUED: io /M

DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: /0/<3/


DATEPgU|:|]

IbATilicAseii

;K::*-.:.:y-.y::V li AGIO123456789101112131415

BLK 6.m

1 AWl x/C Id J2./3

/f

3S»0

iL1ST

v V v/

:i:ii::i;i:;l|.;:|||l:i ^CONCENTRATION OF SPIKE STANDARD = 2,1/xJ ppm

v vS:-; ;:;:: ;:*- •;•;<:;>-;:::S:i:<:' :S:|:;:S:#:::::::;. :|:::

LOT* (

tfStif&SMfi -3: ?! iS* S f: -i':! •:• '

fsif//-^VOLUME OF SPIKE ADDED = ff ulWEIGHT OF SAMPLE USED TO PREP SAMPLE SPIKES = 31 mg

AUTO COUNTER 713/MANUAL COUNTER 730 /UPDATE SAMPLE SPIKE LOG PAGEDATE FOLDER(S) CREATED:

CJ1O

WORKSHEET CHECKED BY CA )b*jJFile: WKSHT802; Rev. 2; Modified 2/5/92


Enpty-Sparger 45.Pick-up Loop fill 210.Loop to Sparger Xfer 30.Acid Addition 10.Sparging tine 150.Inj. loop fill t ime 5.Injection tine 120.POC trap desorb tine 60.Delay btun repeats 5.Delay btun nodes 60.Integ. tine-out(nin ) 8.Number of repeats I* of N'DOC injections 3Analysis Mode: Boat InletMulti-Sanpler used NoCalibration node: NPOC u/Inject.Loop

Calibration Factors

NFOC ui/Inj.Loop 7.8E-05NPOC direct inject 7.6E-Q51C & FOC Calibration 7.8E-05Syringe Inj.Calib. 0.1019527

Pickup Loop Uolune: 10.Inj.Locp l'olune(nl) 0.2

Systen Elanl = 0.Systsn Blanl. = 0.System Blanl. = 0.

Systen Elanl = (

IDS1 . Boat 2292000.ppnC2. Boat 1994000.ppnC3. Boat 2460000.ppnC

0.Sanple ueight (ng)Sanple ueight (ng)Sanple ueight (ng)

AVG + /- Std.Dev: :25S300. +/- 244700.

40 .40.40.

"/. std dev: 10.85

1 1 :51 :53 Mon Oct 30, 1995

Calibration Factors

NPOC u/Inj.Loop 7.8E-05NPOC direct inject 7.8E-051C & POC Calibration 7.8E-05

Systen BlankSysten BlankSysten Blank

0.0.0.

Syringe Inj.Calib. 9.04I23IE-05 Systen Blank

Pickup Loop Volume: 10.Inj.Loop Volune(ml) 0.2

tru102077

ID« 0.1. Boat 1787. ppnC Sample weight ( mg ) 40.2. Boat 1796. ppmC Sample yeight ( mg ) 40.3. Boat 1923. ppmC Sample weight ( mg ) 40.

+/- Std.Oev: 1835.3 + /- 76.15 X std dev: 4.149

12:59:46 Mon Oct 30, 1995

Calibration Factors

NPOC w/Inj.Loop 7.8E-05 System Blank •= 0.NPOC direct inject 7.8E-05 System Blank = 0.1C & POC Calibration 7.8E-05 System Blank = 0.Syringe Inj.Calit. 9.852763E-05 System Blank = 0.

Pickup Loop Volume: 10.Inj.Loop Volume(ml) 0.2

IDS 0.1. Boat !93S.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 40.C.CV'

13:06:03 Men Oct 30, 1995

IDS 0.1. Boat 8.03ppmC Sample weight ( ng ) 40. G. 0- VJ

13:17:29 Mon Oct 30, 1995

ID* 765709.I. Boat 6.99SppnC Sample weight <mg ) 40.

13:23:53 Mon Oct 30, 1995

ID* 764885.1. Boat 1926.ppmC Sample weight (mg ) 40.

13:29:33 Mon Oct 30, 1995 \*\,'10 *tP* 'ID* 764882. I'1

1. Boat 30l.3ppmC Sample weight (mg) 31.

14:26:46 Mon Oct 30, 1995 , .,<7nr *iw*

ID* 1000. pp1 - V*1. Boat 1187.ppmC Sample weight (mg) 40.

14:38:24 Mon Oct 30. 1995 IV U»

ID* 200. (f**1. Boat 248.9ppmC Sample weight (mg ) 40.

14:53:04 Mon Oct 30. 1995 502078

I. Boat 1905. ppnC Sample ueight ( mg ) 31

14:58:43 Mon Oct 30. 1995

ID*1. Boat 1871.ppnC Sample weight < ng) 31

15:02:40 Mon Oct 30, 1995

" "" | • I

ID* 76408!]'. /•'I. Boat 313.ppmC Sanple ueight (ng) 31.

15:07:41 Mon Oct 30, 1995

ID* 0.1. Boat 1909.ppmC Sample ueight (ng) 40.

1 5 : 1 4 : 1 1 Mon Oct 30, 1995

ID* 0.I. Boat 13.37ppnC Sanple ueight (ng ) 40.

15:17:39 Mon Oct 30, 1595

ID* 764890.I. Boat 1479.ppnC Sanple ueight <ng ) 24.

15:27:26 Mon Oct 30, 1995

i. Boat w.ppnC Sanpie ueight (ng) 4i3.

i b : i u :4 i non Oct 5iZi, 1555

502079

operating Parameters

Empty-Sparger 45.Pick-up Loop fiii 2iu.Loop to Sparger Xfer Za.Mcid fiddition 10.Sparging tine i5o.Inj. loop fiii tine 5.Injection tine iZ'W.POC trap aesoro tine 6w.Delay otun repeats a.Delay otun modes b0.Integ. t ine-out i mm ) 6.Numoer of repeats i9 of NPuC injections 3nnaiysis noae: Boat Inietnuiti-Sanpier used NoCalibration noae: wPOC u/Inject.Loop

Caiioration ractors

NPuC u/Inj.Loop 7.6E-W5 System Blank = u.NpuC direct inject 7.6E-t)b System Blank = w.1C a PuC Caiioration 7.6E-ii:i5 System clam = u.Syringe Inj.CaiiD. 7.6E-U2 System eiani. = 0.

PICKUP Loop volume: iw.Inj.Loop voiumeir.i; 0.2

i. boat +IwPppmC Sample uieignt (ng i it,

i ue uct

1. boat ibbbwuw.ppmu sample uieignt (mg > 4u.2. Boat i555600.ppmC Sample ueight i mg ) 40.5. Boat 1562000. ppr.C Sample ueignt (mg ; 40.

+/- Sta.Dev: 1567500. +i- ib320. i sta aev: i

5:25:4b Tue uct 51, J555

taliDratlon l-actors

NPuC ui/Inj.Loop 7.BE-05 System BianK «= ii.NPuC direct inject 7.6E-Ub System BianK = w.1C & PuC Caiioration 7.6E-W5 System BianK = 0.Syringe Inj.Caiib. 5.55i5B9E-0b System Blank •

Pickup Loop volume: 10.Inj.Loop V o i u m e i m i ; 6.2

IDi Q>.i. Boat i955.ppmC Sample uieignt i mg; 40.

Tue Get 5i, i555

502000

5:36:25 Tue Oct 3i, i555

ID*i. Boat Z'Sb.ppmC Sample ueight I Pig)

s : ^a : i a lue uct a\ , 1335

IDi iwuw. f?*^\. Boat iiZitfb.ppmC Sample ueight i mg; 40

5:4.3:45 lue Oct 5i, i 95s

i. Boat j.6^4ppnC Sample ueight ing;

5:55:3i Tue Oct 3i , 1 555

IDs w.i. Boat i5b4.ppnC Sample ueignt img;

b:oi: io iue Get 3i , i555

1USi. Boat ib50.ppmC Sample ueignt i m g > i5.

6:£7:37 Tue Oct 3i , 1555

IDs 764692. J'.foi. Boat 32i.3ppmu Sample weignt (ng I 22

6:2i:52 Tue Get 3i. i555

i. Boat 24iZ'.ppriC Sample ueignt (ng ) 16.

6:3i:io2 Tue Get 3i, 1555

I0« 764657. '''"i. Boat 1426.ppmC Sample ueignt <mg) 24

b:35:3a Tue Get 3i, 1555

1UB U.i. Boat 1577.ppmC Sample ueignt (mg) 4o.

5:45 :5 i Tue Get 5i , 1 555

fl.i. Boat 2 . 2 7 / p p m C Sample ueignt i rng i 40

6 : 5 5 : 3 6 T u e G c t 3 i , i 5 5 5

LJ('

Si DC'

* Ol

-I

C rt Ci

oU

i•D TJ 3

C/l

C n o 01

o a G'

TJ o 3

r-.i • • Ul

ai — i

c (» C'

n

HI

O Oi " r.i — M f*'

n

en GI G'

—i

c re C'

n

CTI

o m " _ r .1 r-.i

. n

L-l

cri

—I

c re C'

n

o a< CTI

Ui

•o TJ 3

.. Ol

Ul -l c re C' n rt Ol

o Oi "• -.1 *. Ul CTI

TJ T> 3 Ci

.. £> — — 1

C n Ci

r> «-• Ol

o Oi rt Ol

Ol

Ol

?'

n j 3 ri

.. Ol —i c re C' n _i Ol

ttl o 01 TJ TJ 3

Ul

Ul

Lfl

(/i

«

Ul

Qj

u<3

L

fl

E re *• GI

o •

3

f\O

f\

(/'

Oi 3 E a G

>

Ui

Ui I/I

0

3 r»

ID r\

Oi 3 TJ E re -i

3 10

Ui

I/I

l/i

Oi 3 TJ (li E re -.

** a

ID

J'3

u

3 0

Ui

Ul i/i

Ql 3 TJ

-,1 CTi

Ul

(Si

I/I

U'

Ui

I/I

3 10

Cl

-*

U

ll/

i u

iO

i LT

I

re E re -i

•- CT

I10

*

3

Ui

rt

Sl

3 (O

C/l

Ol 3 TJ re E rt -v

t•-

CTI

10

*3

U

l

3 (O

Ul

Ui

I/I

Ol 3 TJ E n 10

o Io w"

I/I

Ul

CJ1

O ro o CO

I - J

CHAIN OF CUSTODY 02696ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

* Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788 /(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9698 /

ANALYSES

PROJECT NAM£

" r/4 JPROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT NUMBER

SAMPLER(S)

\SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATE

COLLECTED

PAGE •£, OF

TIMECOLLECTED NOTES

X?

N,

\-/

/o/?

ft to wU-

NATURE) TORDATE TIME RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR TIME SEAL

TACTOR N

REpiyOUlSHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE TIME SEALINTACT

Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N

DELIVEBY METHOD/EBY

-tCOMMENTS

AN^OTTICAL LABOATORY

CJ1OJOOCOCO

t

\\

^ l ._ .CHAJN OF ^USTODY K? . 02695 Y

ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

A Uonoyement

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898

ANALYSES PAGE / OF ->

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT L6CAT10N f

PROJECT NUMBER


TIMECOLLECTED

/«//«

f.U, 3-

\ r^. 3 rr

A*, yY-

RELINQUISHED. BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR'kEUNtJuiSHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

REUNOUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

DELIVERY METJiOD

ANAkfUCAL LABORATORY6- ty^

f

DATE.

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N




DATE TIME

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

SEALTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

COMMENTS

A/o.

OroCOCO

* J L

CHAIN JSTODY K? 02719?ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

& Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788 /(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9698 /

PROJECT NAME

?r Oil., c r,,PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT LOCATION

O TVrtT ^ , *1 XSAMPLER(SK

SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION'

.& - 3/y

COL^CTED

RELIN' URE) FOR

RELNOUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

REUNOUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

DEL/£FY METHOD

ANALYTICAL LABORATORYNALYTICAL

( fTli^<.

ABORATO

TIMECOLLECTED7

/

//« o '•

list

DATE

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALNTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

< X 'XX



Z'~~~ ED BY: /SIGNATURE) FOR

#d / /_____. ^u+^6^ ^ t&Kyae^eJ^jLt^

COMMENTS

DATE

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEAL

GOOD CONDITIONofOoc:o

I . . J L

CHAIN JSTODY 02723^ROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

& Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11788 /(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898 /

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT NUMBER

ySAMPLER )

I f , /^

L/ // M


Jc^

.CP .r

/- .i* */

DATECOLLECTED

RELI TURE) FOR


REUNQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR

DELIVERY METHOD

"ANALYJ6AL LABORATORY

I gT -y,,, CV/L<~_

TIMECOLLECTED

r

DATE

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALTACT

R N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N




COMMENTS

L~U

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEAL

cn-o<0oCO

RECEIVED INGOOD CONDITION-

CHAIN Oi* JSTODY 02724VROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

A Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAY /ISLAND1A. NEW YORK 1 1 788 /—

J51J5) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898 /

ANALYSES PAGE

PROJECT NAME.

£&

JECT NUMBER

PROJECT LOCATION / (/

SAMPIFR(S)'


TIMECOLLECTED NOTES

//J<A/ la- Itlf /V

,*/•*/?•/-kZ/j hJk

U / l t / < V x-y V r

RELI

yvldUIS/I

4^vldUISIED BY/ jjSIGNTUBE) FOR

TIME SEALxtNTACT


Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N


Y OR N

RECEIVED BY: (SIGJ^ATUfJE) FOR

*-S' r I)ItfVHjlu^j&ii

TIME SEALCT



REC£|V£D INCJ1orooCO

GOOpCONDlnUM

I L )

CHAIN ^JSTODY 02720VROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

A Management

1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA, NEW YORK 1 1788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898

PROJECT NAME.

PROJECT LOCATIONf

PROJECT NUMBER

< / -SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION

\y

cnc>rooC'Ooo

(a

DATECOLLECTED

FOR



DELIVERY METHOD


T^

TIMECOLLECTED ,

d7-.ru

DATE

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

x

X

SEALtNTACT

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

X

X



RECEIVED BY^(SIGNATURE) FOR

cr j-..,/.i~*-|>"i- T--.. iMcx Lw''. -

C'Ji*' C*fjl*eV-'w- C"

DATE

DATE

°

1$fo

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEAL(\CT

Y J3R N

COMMENTS?,'&-


Mr. Larry McTiemanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788

Dear Mr. McTieman:

3306 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway P.O. Box 14998Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4998(919)406-1600

November 14, 1995

We at CompuChcm arc pleased to provide our report for the analysis you requested.Data for the following samples arc enclosed:

Client IDNumber

CompuChemID Number

Analysis CaseCode Number


WH1TE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE

770198770200770208


Thank you for selecting CompuChcm Environmental for your sample analysis.If you have any questions concerning this report or the anah'tical methods employed,please contact your Sales Representative at 919-406-1600.

Sincerely,

Linda JonesWet Chcm/OC Supervisor , > ' _ »



To determine the concentration of organic carbon in a wide rangeof matrices, CompuChem employs procedures based on Method 505 ofStandard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.Samples are analyzed using a Dohrmann Model DC-180 CarbonAnalyzer, which employs chemical oxidants and ultraviolet light toconvert organic carbon to carbon dioxide, which is then measuredby a linearized non-dispersive infrared analyzer.

Method Summary


502090


NOTICE


Release of the analytical data contained in this data package hasteen authorized by the Laboratory Manager or his designee, asverified by the following signature.

Date Mark Ross, ManagerInorganics Laboratory

502091

ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA-CASE #31528.127

SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Larry McTiemanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788


ITEMNO.

I.2.3.

SAMPLEIDENTIFIER

WHITE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

770198770200770208

DATESAMPLERECEIVED

11/10/9511/10/9511/10/95

DATESAMPLEEXTRACTED

11/14/9511/14/9511/14/95


1 1/14/9511/14/9511/14/95

020 n


SUMMARY REPORT


ITEMNO.

SAMPLEIDENTIFIER

COMPUCHEMNUMBER

CONCENTRATION(mg/kg)________

REPORTING LIMIT(PPM)

1.2.3.

WHITE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE

770198770200770208

11800105008780

505050


Reviewed by/ID#:_

Reviewed 1

Date:

Date:

02093




ORIG. SAMPLE COMPUCHEM #: 770198MATRIX SPIKE (MS) COMPUCHEM #: 770205MATRLX SPIKE DUPLICATE (MSD) COMPUCHEM #: 770206

SPIKEADDED(mg/L)

2000

SAMPLECONC.(mg/L)

1179

MSCONC.(mg/L)

3125

MS MSD MSD% CONC. %

RECOVERY (mg/L) RECOVERY

97 3102 96

RPD

1


SPIKE BS-ADDED CONC.(mg/L) (mg/L)

2000 2011

BS%

RECOVERY

101

COMPUCHEM # QCTYPE

AMOUNTDETECTED

(mg/L)

770434 METHOD BLANK BRJL

The reporting limit for Total Organic Carbon in Soil is 50 mg/L.Acceptance criteria : MS, MSD = 75% - 125%; BS = 80% - 120%; RPD = <25%.BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMITRPD = RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCE

502004

h-

0>

IIa.

>, INC.

TOTAL 6..3ANIC CARBONSAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

SOIL

802

CHEMIST ID*


DATE ISSUED: ///-/c3"<75

DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: __,


^^^^^^^^mp^^^^m^^f^ot^^^^^^^^^^^W^CONCENTRATION OF SPIKE STANDARD "J.MO ppm LOT » ^JHttl.VOLUME OF SPIKE ADDED = *f ulWEIGHT OF SAMPLE USED TO PREP SAMPLE SPIKES = 23 r"9

AUTO COUNTER 713/4T0MANUAL COUNTER 730 / S^°iUPDATE SAMPLE SPIKE LOG PAGEDATE FOLDER(S) CREATED: /, -/S^ V"

CH WORKSHEET CHECKED BYCDiOOCD

CFile: WKSHT802; Rev. 2; Modified 2/5/92


Empty-Sparger 45.Pick-up Loop f i l l 210.Loop to Sparger Xfer 30.ncid Ad d i t i o n 10.Spargi ng t ime I 50.I nj . loop f i l l t ime 5 .Injection tine 120.FOC trap descrb time 60.Delay btun repeats 5.Delay btyn nodes 60.Inteo. t ime-out ( mm ) 8.Number of repeats 1$ of NPOC injections 3r-.nalysis Mode: Boat InletMulti-Sampler j = ed NoCa l i b r a t i o n ncde: NPOC u/ Inject . Loop

Calibration Factors

NPOC u'/ I nj . Loco 7.6E-05lirOC direct inject 7.SE-051C i FOC C a l i b r a t i o n 7.8E-OSSyringe Inj.Ceiib. 3 . 1 0 1 1

Fici'up Loop Uc-iume: 10.Inj .Lccp Volu-einl ) C> . 2

by s ten Blank = 3.Syste, - , S lan t = 0.s y s t e m fc lan l = 0.

S y s t e m Blank = 3.

e.Ecd; 1 9E9CCO . ponCBoat 1 gSBOOO.por-iCEoat 2G3SC3C.por,C

Sample ueignt ( mg ;Sample weicht (rig)

t/ - Std.De

Senple ueight ( mg > 40.

I99S400. +/- 35 I 30. ;. std de

C a l i b r a t i o n Factors

NPOC u.'Inj.Locp 7.£E-eS System Elani = 0.NPOC direct inject 7.6E-S5 System Eianl = 3.1C i, PCC Calibration 7.SE-05 Syster, El ant = 0.S.rinQe Inj.CoiiD. ! . 0 1 1 789E-E4 Syster, E'lar.l = 3.

P :cl up Lccp Uclumg: 10.lr i .Lccp v'olure', r,l ) 0.2

t'Oit 2327. ccrC Sar.pl e weight ( r,c ) 40.

- :27 :Z: Tue !•!:. 14. ! 995

6. o a '. i . J 21 c i ~.'_ i a r D 1 e ij e i 3 h t i r. c

5020G6

fe,.,.J

I-

;.-. f-f (j:i r. n^ {j

m r i U' '-*• Cf J ii'i

U'

f 1 'Cl ;•'

ri^ .. 4*

— _., r (Tt

O f

m r» Or

r* r o c- . — u n ^

4s r j UD — i c (T> O <

(TI

Ci CU •"-

t -i

— .

.".-' r i

-Q ti 3

ri O in _4 r Hi o <

m ('] Qi **~ C-i — .

r j Ln •n t) 3

LD r/1

o »t

r Hi

Cv

ID r»

1C

f'l."T

I

I•-••

o cn

m 01 e j

r j

11 D o '•! O

— '

o *t

' J"l

dl 3 'P (Ti

— r jr

i..i

t:> —

* •

r i

in

L.I

n -

"; 1C)

m o Cj

l-l

—1 1. Ill o f . ai

1C.

in

Ui r j j^ n i - I

O n T 1 --t O

i— O *t

Q< -4 6 -'It!

1 —

—

r ' j

Cf*

n.

i> —

in

t i \

jjrr

•r*-

i' in LH U1 —i c IT' o" I* Ul in

-- ** 4*

CD

-.]O tu

f i

—

"1

->]

(0LD •o

o"

D

<

O

— J>

D

—»

LD

in

LDQ)

in6 re E (D

-J

ID

Gi

CU

3 10

71.

~

ei

t-j L-l

—

i*

CD

L-1

O tu

l-l

Cin

n

L-l

Z•o

o

'D

<•3 o

— 4.

0

—**

LQ

LO

LDa

in3 n E It

-0•-

- JlO

C

'J

3 ID 4^>

C3

m 0 Di o in L.J n •o 3 O in Oi 3 ID E rti

—**

O

ID

rsIT

O

*-*- .

•^

ifl

a

j^ t>i -j cs — i

cT *- LO LD in

DO o Oi ra LD •o n 0 in tti 3 ID E rti ID IT 3 ^

0 1 J

O s rf<r j

^

cn o JO o CD

^

ID* 770500. »'.101. Boat lC49.ppmC Sample ueight (mg ) 21

5:54:34 Tue No* 14 , 1995

l""IDS 77E20S. 1.1°

1. Boat 877.t?ppmC Sample ueight (mg) 20

5:40:47 Tue Nov 14, 1395

C(VIDS 0. ^VI. Boat !9£b.ppmC Sample weight ing) 40

5:45:25 Tue Ha.' 14 , 1 955

0.1. Boat 3.17EppnC Sample ueight i r-ig i 43

5 :50 :55 Tue Nov 14 . I S 9 E

5020G8

ROUX CHAIN OF CUSTODY 02695YROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

Jt Management_______1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA, NEW YORK 11788 /(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898 /

ANALYSES PAGE / OF'

PROJECT NAME

\

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT NUMBER

/

SAMPLERi


/ »,///A

ISHED. BY: (SIGNTURE) FOR

ELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR


DELIVERY METHOD

ANAWJlCAL LABOlCsO*^—'-^

TIMECOLLECTED NOTES

DATE.

DATE

DATE

TIME

TIME

TIME

SEAL

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

RECE^ElJ' BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR SEALACT

N

RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE)

RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) SEALINTACT

Y OR N

COMMENTS

L....J

i

CJ1o

Oo

ROUX CHAIN OF CUSTODY 02696VROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting

A Uonogtment_______


/ ANALYSES PAGE vnPROJECTUECT NAME /"

*" / jff


RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE)RELINQUISHED/ BY/ (S/GNATURE) FOR

j\n 1 ic/v^i FOOAREpiyaUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR


DELIVERY METHOD

\r^> ^/<AN^TTICAL LABORATORY

7^^

DATE

DATE

1 /_*>TIME

TIME

~ — •

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

1 IpLOCxx • jtQJJLA=s=— „RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR


* • yrDATE

DATE

msiTIME

TIME

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

SEALINTACT

Y OR N

COMMENTS

(4^-4f{( /^i ' --j(o^) ^ J (Q ^-O o~_57^

J

APPENDIX F

Grain Size Data

50210.1ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMSZTOTY.< BWR

riSIICR HD..IAST SYRACUSE. N.Y.IXM7TUlPWOMf AJttACOM )1>/O7-14M

Project No. L-95166( ____________________Project Title Laboratory Testing PAS Site Oswego, New York

Project #32701Y

I__J L-.J L

November is. 1995 Sieve Analysis ASTM .

Lab I .D.# Sample I.D.

8014 White 11A

8015 White 11C

8016 White 10

8017 White 9A

8018 White 8

8019 White 6

8020 White 9C

8021 Wine 2C

8022 Wine 2B

8023 Wine 2A

8024 Smith 2

8025 Smith 1

8026 Smith 3

8027 White 13B

8028 White 13A

8029 White 13D

8030 White 12B

D42? F. D1140

Sieve Size - Percent Passing Sieve

1"_

_

_

_.

_

_

_

-

-

_

_

_

—

-

_

_

-

3/4"

-

-

_

_

_

_

-

-

-

_

_

_

_

-

_

_

-

1/2"

-

-

_

_

_

-

-

100

-

-

_

-

_

-

100

100

-

3/8"

100

-

-

_

_

-

-

97.6

-

-

_

-

_

-

96.5

96.8

-

1/4"

98.5

-

-

_

100

-

-

95 .3

100

100

—

100

_

-

95 .8

95 .6

-

#4

8.5

00

00

00

99.5

100

100

94.4

99.9

99.3

100

89.4

100

100

95.6

93.5

100

#10

96.9

99.0

99.0

99.3

98.8

86.8

99.0

91.4

99.2

96 .8

95.1

87.0

79.8

98 .4

9 4 . 8

85.8

99 .3

#30

93.2

95.7

97.2

97.1

97.0

70.8

71.4

77.5

97.6

92.8

77.9

83.1

54.1

94.2

92.4

63 .4

94 .9

40

2.3

3.9

96.5

96.0

94.7

63.8

63.6

70.2

97.0

91.4

71.7

81.7

46.3

91.0

90.4

57.1

92.1

#60

90.5

90.6

94.5

89.9

83.6

41.5

52.1

56 .7

95.0

88.2

60.9

78.9

35.7

82.4

83.9

46.6

81.0

#100

85.6

89.4

92.1

72.0

70.3

33.8

49.5

47.9

92.9

81.7

49.9

74.6

30.7

62.3

71.9

40.2

59 .8

#200

76.8

75.7

82.0

52.9

32.5

8 .9

29.2

28.5

72.6

66.8

28.9

69.2

18.8

40.8

36.7

19.6

30.2

h-»Remarks: The "as received" test samplejdoes not meet the minimum before test weight Prewashed ASTM D422Yes X Nn

——.. —.——————————— — - -———————— a -__ ————— • —— - ———— _

requirements according to ASTM D422..Performed By DEW, cs

II arrattUJOtffVic

Project No. L-9si6d(

MSHCR RO..IAST SYRACUSl.N Y.IXttf*J«A COOC JI1/43M4?*

Project Title Laboratory Testing PAS Site Osweqo, New YorkProject #32701Y Page 2 of 3

November is. 1995 Sieve Analysis ASTM

Lab I .D.# Sample I.D.

8031 White 12C

8032 White 12A

8033 White 11B

8034 Wine 3A

8035 Wine 3C

8036 Wine 5

8037 Wine 1B

8038 Wine 1A

8039 Wine 1C

8040 Wine 3

8041 White 13C

8042 White 9B

8043 White 7

8044 White 4

8045 White 5

8046 White 2

8047 White 1C

D422 E D1140


1"---__

-

----_--

--

-

-

3 /4 "

-

-

-

_

_

-

-

-

-

-

_

-

100

-

100

100

-

1/2"

-

-

-

-

_

-

-

-

-

100

-

_

91 .4

-

90.4

84 .4

-

3/8"

-

100

-

_

100

-

100

-

-

93.1

-

-

91.1

100

83.6

77.0

-

1/4"

-

98.1

-

100

98.2

-

97.7

-

-

86.3

_

-

86 .4

99 .2

75.6

6 5 . 4

-

#4

100

97.2

100

99.3

98.2

100

96.5

100

100

82.7

100

100

83.3

98 .1

71.9

60.9

100

#10

98.7

91.6

99 .9

92.8

91.6

99.4

91.2

99.4

98.2

75.7

99 .5

99.8

.77.3

97.3

63.5

52 .4

99.6

#30

96.3

65.7

99.6

70.6

89.1

96.4

85.6

94.7

84.8

61 .6

97.6

99.1

65.5

16.1

51.8

41 .6

98.6

#40

94.8

57.9

99.5

64.8

82.7

93.6

78.9

92.6

79.3

54.1

95.2

98.8

61.6

4.2

46.0

37.9

98.1

#60

87.2

45.4

98.6

54.4

70.8

79.6

54.5

86.1

69.6

34.4

85.7

97.2

50.8

2.2

33. fi

28.9

96.7

#100

74.3

39.1

95.0

47.9

61.1

61.3

32.8

66.3

58 .9

22.3

74.5

95.3

41.5

2 .1

27.7

22 .1

91.0

#200

54.6

18.3

75.9

26.4

38.3

22.8

10.4

38.0

28.7

5 .2

38.1

65.3

20.5

1.6

13.2

7.6

69.4

Remarks: The "as received" test sample________requirement according to ASTM

does not meet the minimum before test weight .Prewashed ASTM.Yes _x____No

D422

._Performed By DEW, cs

II•uJOfffinc

II5IICR HO.CAST STRACUtt.NY.DOi7UUPHONf AHCA COM Jll/4)M4Zf

November 15, 1995

Project No. L-95166( ______________________Project Title Laboratory Testing PAS Site Osweqo. New York

Project #32701YSieve Analysis ASTM 0^22 & 01140

L...J

Page 3 of 3

enO

Lab I .D .# Sample I.D.

8048 White 1B

8049 White 1A

8050 White 3

8051 Wine 2

8052 Wine 1

8053 Wine 3B

-


i"-

-

_

_

_

100

3/4"

-

-

100

_

100

92.6

1/2"

-

-

97.2

_

91.0

92.6

3/8"

100

-

97.2

100

89.3

88.5

1/4"

96.5

-

97.2

96.8

75.4

82.6

#4

94.2

100

97.2

95.5

70.5

79.6

#10

88.9

65.8

96.8

94.1

56.6

74.4

#30

71 .0

39.0

87.4

89.2

35.5

66.8

#40

66.1

34.3

83.3

84.6

26.9

64.4

#60 -

56.6

26 .9

74.3

70.7

12.0

57.1

#100

52.5

24.8

61.1

59.0

9.8

55.6

#200

22.7

15.3

31.0

21.8

2.7

30.7

Remarks: The "as received" test sample does not meet the minimum before test weight Prftwashpri ASTM D422__________requirements according to ASTM D422____________________ __ _ _ Yes x_____No _____

__Performed By r<;

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

I.....J L

SIEVES it i | 8 16 50 30 100 20O HYDROMETER100

£ 8O

JroF 60tj **W

H. 30•tH; 40A ^V

E30

u0.

10

2

i

9

cn"«^•fo*— k0* rf

- -h9— — — t 3 — - — *b >- "f ^ " e^

^

\^S

^v

>SL;^ 3- f H7-

-

•

. O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

BOULDERCOBBLES

S GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

Z8 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. 1 in. 5/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab .D.: 8014

Laboratory Testing Sample .D.: White 11 A

PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 S D1140

^ Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122

FISH

ER

RO

.CAST S

YR

AC

US

E N

Y 13057

ntCP

HO

NC

AREA CODE 315/437 1429

•z.oncrn"*

-U'

10

eH353 F1

?$s?i

—4 _ft

0101

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES 16 3O 30 100 2OO HYDROMETERIOO

£ 80

•F 6O^ ****

H. 30

z 30

K 2 0u0.

10

«• f —i^•«^ -*?=^=: -— 4.-€ ^— .

~"^ ,

^

\

\VA

s^\ ~

^*: ^ — — . ~f\•-" \— i200 60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 O.O6 0.02 O.Ot* O.OOS

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

£

cnoH*Ocn

BOULDER.COBBLES

5 GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

16 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. Ho*. 10 3O ISO 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8015

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 11C

PAS Site

Osweao. New York

Project #32701 Y

° Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 & D11UO

® HyHrnmPtPr Analysis ASTM DU22

FISH

ER

PD

EAST S

YR

AC

US

E N Y 13057

TUE

PH

ON

t APEA CODE 31

5'0

7 M29

O

n3crn

1010cn

EE

IiNJ

t _ J

~i'

(GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES \ i } 16 3O 30 100 200 HYDROMETER100

£ so

m 7°¥• 60ik. SOr>£ 40sz 30

S20UJft.

IO

-* ^ «—•ta-f • fc -e —«.

ss

^

\k

^Q^Q, • «,-

-

-

Z O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 O.O6 0.02 O.OO6 O.OOCGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

22

9

cno••o>— k

BOULDERSCOBBLES

GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENIN6in. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8016

Laboratory Testing Sample .D.: White 10

PAS SiteOswego, New York

L_ Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D122 £ D1140

^ Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122

••B

uuun

line

fiSHER PO

.. EAST SYPACU

IE N Y 13057TELEPHO

NC AREA CODE 319/437 1429

X1

< H

CO m3 acr '(D"« u

(SI

^

i

0P

Srm> — «<T>

fc-J 1..J I.

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES 8 16 30 90 IOO 200 HYDROMETERIOO

H *O

£ 80

JroK SOtj w w

k. 30•»w 40?Z 3OUJ

K20uQ_

10

2

£

9

cn0-ro>-*rDOC3

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

-C9*m^m -^*k.^-\

(\

>)\>

\

\

fes

^V

^:j* c ^^

-

60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT-CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8017

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 9APAS SiteOswego, New York

Project #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1HO

O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422

US

HE

R C

O. EAST S

YR

AC

US

E NY

I30S7

,.TtlE

PM

ON

t ARE* CODE 3

15

.'«7 M

2» iiu

v

fD3crmT

Ul

_4

U3Ul

i§1n***8•7

VOtn

•P enen

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES it j t S 16 30 !.0 IOO 20O HYDROMETER100

i*°> 70

|60

k. 30

k| 4On ^\J

x 30w

ua.10

2

2,

cn•TOK*«•••»,v — ..-

*• *•»

oo

BOULDERSCOBBLES

U& — t •f- ——— ' I? s^Sk\)

\

\)\

X B\^ -i =>- «-P>

-

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 O.O6 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVE!.C | M | F

\ \SAND

C | M | FSILT -CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENIN6In. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8018

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 8PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140


Mpeai i a

oo

UU

Olf

nc

f ISMER

PO

. EAST SYRAC

USE N

V 13057

TUEPH

ON

E AREA CODE 315/437 1429

•••z. &^ 3ID .3 ia 'n

uUl

10

O•

rUl

1 -«en

!• R

8!MQ

L-95166IK

PO

ffT M

OUSHER PB . EAST SYRACUSE N » 13057TU

IPH

ON

E AREA CODE 315/437 1429

Novem

ber 15,

1995

tuN

KHUl

ZoKO>XX-

N8-o9 •

IB .

«-

»(•

-*»-

•*r-

_»,_

-X*.

SIEVEScc

/

5 yr) C

> «

^///> c

1 »• ^3)

Ctf x^1 O

i n

^

§ ^

QQIM

O

L^fI

oJ 6.06. oo

KUl

1-M

U

J

•o'SzU

)

o y</)z(9

-u>oCM

.Oto0

_JOwt

<U1U.

- —

oZZ

<

uu.

dz

(Co

o

2<"BOULDEICOBBLE

(9a. M

OZz_fe 2

o

oo(M

O

a»"^ «

o

o0" 1

•§<\J C

£

K)

enr-»oCO

Q~ra

en_J

to0)4->

x:SQ^~0)aFrotrtO)C4-*

(/>

0)1->>1_0roL

.OJ3_1

U)

t/)a.

_,£o*50)•z.6u<ai/i0

>r—r^fNro=»*=4^U0)oCL

0J —QtOtNa-Qs1-to^.If?in~mcV0)(SI

0

Q1-1/1l/>>(0r<uaaEoT3>I

C~)

r~ fv r» -i) 9"H

07 *-v JL -*u V"

ILJ

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES100

- 90

70 -

30

40

30

r 20kia.10

Mr—r* ft30 50 1 OO ZOO HYDROMETER

\

S >

20O 60 20 2 0.6 0.2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OOe

BOULDERSCOBBLES

GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

228 76.2 25.4 9.529 In. 3 In. I in. 3/B in.

2.0No«. 10

0.993O

0.256O

0.074 MM.200

OPENINGSIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8020

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 9CPAS Site

Oswego, New YorkProject #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1UO

Hdrometer Analysis ASTM D422

FISHER C

O .EAST SYRA

TtLEP

HO

Nt AREA CO

D

e— u -^» O J

zO

n>3CT(t>

t-J <-

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES iiji it i } jri « • l« 30 50 100 200 HYDROMETERirtrt 1 1 * 1 1 fL°\ • 1 » 1 1 ———————— —————— - ————————————————— • ———————————————————————————————— -IOU

»- 90

£, 80

> 70

F 60tj ww

it. 30UJ -*?Z 30o

E2 0a.

10

J

i

9

cnP

f— »

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

"^^i — •* ~19 ~-f :^-s

i

\X.

C^v

XX

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

SANOC | M | F

• J~ ~-— *rf '^5" .,

» —=>•

0.06 0.02 0.006^ ^e-

0.

SILT- CLAY SOIL

-

>oe

28 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 In. No*. 10 3O <iO 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab .D.: 8021

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2CPAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y

° Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140

® Hydrometer Analysis ASTM DH22

FIS

HtR

PO

EA

Sr

SY

RA

CU

SE N

Y 1

30

57

.,

TtLEP

MO

NC

AR

IA C

OO

t 31

5/4

37 M

29

d3

-\

tn

toto

i-13 CO %

*t\

VOU1

00 -•in01

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

i J ILJ j i

SIEVES 8 16 3O 90 IOO ZOO HYDROMETERIOO

K *O

£ «0

Jro|60

k. 30r»W 40?z30W

^ Z Okla.

10

^- y *=?i •*-

t — —

\

"3 !

\

\

^

VVj"

-^sc-( • >.

ov_7 © •R

f

-

200 60 2O 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OOSGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

£

»

cn0•roL~Jk

f--k

U3

BOULDERCOBBLES

5 GRAVELC | M F

i iSAND

C | M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL

16 76.2 25.4 9.92 2.0 0.99 0.29 0.074 MM. OPENINGin. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8022

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2B

PAS Site

Oswego. New York

Project #32701 Y

O qipVp Analysis ASTM DU22 6 D1UO

^ HyHrnmpfpr Analysis ASTM D422

riSK

R PO

.EAST SYWACUfE N

v 13057TtLE

PM

ON

C APEA C

OD

E 3

15

M3

7 14

29

•z.O<(D3CTm-s

cn

VOinLn

ennit$gir

10Ul

10 -•enen

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES 4 8 16 3O 50 IOO ZOO HYDROMETER100

£ ao

K 60

k. 30r>|40

z 30kJ

£20kla.

10

200

2,

9

cnCD

BOULDERSCOBBLES

H* —\ V _ J _ I•*-^ -^

&•^Q


GRAVELC | M | F

1 ISANO

C | M | F

\

\^\

(\Xj

0.06 O.O2

«;b•£^

-

•

o.ooe o.ooe

SILT-CLAY SOIL

!8 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8023

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2A

PAS SiteOsweqo, New York

Project #3270 1Y



FISHER

PD

EAST SYRAC

USE N

Y 13057TU

EP

HO

NE

AREA CO

DE 31

5/4

37 1

*29

•z.*I(TfD

tn

ID

i

onT>J>

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

J * J

SIEVES >4t >t i \ i } 4 8 16 30 SO 100 2OO HYDROMETER|OO

WEI

GH

T^ 9

«

> 0 g

•f- 6Oin. 9001

£ 4Q

X 30uoK 2 0a.

10

200

2:

CJ1o(-*

or

BOULDERSCOBBLES

-7

"-IK^

iS

l\

\

^Q. " - -Q -f^ w

60 2O 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO8GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

i iSANO


28 76.2 23.4 9.92 2.0 0.99 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8024

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Smith 2

PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D11HO


tmm

mm

U

UW

H im

u IK

r ISHER PO . EAST SYRACUSE N

Y 13057TELEPH

ON

E AR

E* C

OD

E 3IS

/43

7 14

29

f «i -? *

inen

1IT3

F

o

8

ritotn

' ffi

IIparra

ttU

UO

lffinc

FISHER

CO

EAST S

Y«A

CU

I£ N V 13057

TtLEPHO

NC

APEA COO

E 315'437 U29

MO L

-95

16

6MO.

12

Novem

ber 15,

19

95

UJNCO

•CUlROMET

o>•zX-

N8-o .

X-

M .

•> •

* -(

— «»«-

•»» •

-~.

Jf-

UJ

Ul

«o

cc

7s

<f\n(•,

i — (-

f^!c« i —

-

t-ID> c

> r- ^

^

0<£

^>^"

..1On

^-^$

^toM >iQN

(7

T

o—

L,

4w

do(M-Ocito. 0o'

K.

Ul

H(Sl

UJ

•d I_Jaz

10"° Kr^finZ<o

U)

oPJo100

_lXV_lU1K_JU.

- —

oza

<

UU.

d$'

o:0

0

V) tn*C LU

BOULDECOBBL

<az

uj

55a. n

0ZX•rf- 0

o

5otsi

O.

(0

*

_" S

O

ooNi

N

cr>

~

•sT' "=

nOJ

C

u>r- ro

(D

C

S

»

in(N000

Q_LJreu>toen_l

r.£4^fcoQ—_0)Q.

ECOmcw0)H>uOto1_oUOJ_l

0)

coCO<0.

Y1_0>-iV•z.6a0)so

>-0i-.CMro=tt=*-•(1)OQ.

0a-^~OU3

(Nr-4a-Q^1-co<(Ain>rec<V>OJl/l

0

CMQ(-to<i*c<i.aabcL.T>I

n

1WX

3M A

flS

3«VJ-N

33«3d502116

ILJ,

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES | i } 16 30 50 100 200 HYDROMETERIOO

i*°i70|60

* 30

5 40I40

530kJ

E200.

10

20O

2:

CJ1Oro!-*

BOULDERSCOBBLES

•• t -"X

N

^^\

X

S

(!\

~©~ \, ^

\^

^ — h~~^=Q ) ,

-

-

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC I M F

I iSAND

C | M 1 FSILT- CLAY SOIL

58 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 CO 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8026

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Smith 3

PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 & D1140

O HyrirnrtiPter Analysis ASTM DU22

FISHER PO

. EAST SYBACU

SENV 13057

,.TTLEPHO

NC ARE* CO

DE 31S/437 1429

'^

uv

3%

in

_^

tn

inn

Sr031/1

(jj <Tt

(

SIEVES J t ± » 1^ i J i 1 ^

f— Irv

>. 70

f 60M

n. 30•nW 40^ '°5 30

u0.

10

200

2,

Ul

f— *» • • *CO

BOULDERCOBBLES

8

"1

, \ . > f -• . 1 t.J «-J I-

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

16 30 30 100 200 HYDROMETERi i 1 I i .- _ _-_

J=^- •* —•<. •£

x^\

\

S 1." ^x

"fe^>• — <\-—

(s %. k. r™v

^J -th^

•

6 0 2 O 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OOCGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

5 GRAVELC | M | F

I ISANO

C 1 M | FS I L T - C L A Y SOIL

J8 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No* . 10 3O 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8027

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 13B

PAS Site

Oswego. New York

Project #32701 Y

O SiPx/P Analysis ASTM DU22 6 D1140

HylrrirnPtP r Analysis ASTM DU22

Mpai i lo

oo

„LU

OlT

Tinc

MFlS

HtR

PO

EAST SYRAC

USE N

v 13057TU

EP

HO

NE

AP

E* C

OD

E 31

5/4

37 K

29

o S.< -* *

* *T(0 '-s *°-• 171

tn <n<. en•

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

«——J 1-

SIEVES >«4 t 4 i } i } 4 8 16 30 30 100 200 HYDROMETERIOO

2 °

<k

e »

-LHtX

JM

v "J

^ 60ik. SO•tw 4/5

?z 30woK 2 Okla.

10

2

2.

9

c.no-oK-A> -A'JO

00

BOULDCRSCOBBLES

^:, £ — t ) —— • - - 4.

4 ^**~ "•ei

1

^-\

^\

""•s.

U{"Q

^t^<: . r? n

-

60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 O.O6 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OO2CRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M , F

i iSANO

C M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 O.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8028

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 13A

PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y



riSMEB P

O. EAST SYR

ACU

SE NV

13057 ,.

TUEPH

ON

E *PEA CODE 311/437 1429 '^

uvm

BCTn>-i

tn

IDUl

e§13?8 a

it$*8r

03— • tnoi — •

<nffi

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES it i ) ii 4 8 16 30 SO 1 OO ZOO HYDROMETER100

2 so>v« f 0

K 60

*- 30•t

!z 30

£200-

10

*.+ — V^Asjj'I •v 4

X. )- ^

^k

NX

S

fc^9-^-

aX, -x. Si

^S--O;

-

•

2 0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 O.O6 0.02 O.OO6 0.002GRAIN SIZE IN Mil LIMETERS

BOULDERCOBBLES

5 GRAVELC | M | F

I iSAND

C | M | FSILT- C L A Y SOIL

228 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.99 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

9 In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 6O ZOO SIEVE

CJ1o

o

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8029

Laboratory Testing Sample .D.: White 13D

PAS Site

Oswego, New YorkProject #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM DH22 S D11tO

O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM DU22

FISHER PO

EAST SYRAC

USE N

v 13057T

ILtP

MO

Nt A

RE

* CO

DE

31

5/4

37 U

29

•z.0

n3cr(D

-«t

10Ln

eiln

8 -i0

-• J\f>Ti

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

. J

SIEVES itit 4 i J 4 | 4lOOj- . . . . . . . . * \

u >O

>- 70

K RO^ v w

n. 30•>l«J 40M ^\J

z 3O

ic 20kla_

10

2OO

2i

cn.'O

BOULDERSCOBBLES

8

-<e16 30 SO 100 200 HYDROMETER

•«

*J-\

\v"T"\

, \ r-vO1--d^ _

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

- ——————— I —————— 1 —GRAVE!.

C j M F

I ISAND

C M | F

0.

•*-

>^*

•e0.

SILT- CLAY SOIL

J8 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 6O 20O SIEVE

•

KM

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8030


PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 £ D11UO

^ Hydrometer Analysis ASTM HU2?

•••M U

UC

in lin

e;

NC

FiSHCR PD

EAST SYRAC

USE N

V 13057TELEPHO

NE ABE* CODE 315/437 1429

f *^ ^

3 .cr 8m

Ul

i:TJ

£

ov

s

J -»

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >4t 1} i \ 16 3O 1.0 IOO ZOO HYDROMETERIOO

fB°j, UU

«f 60^ »*w

n. 30

14! 40

x 30

c 20kia.10

Ht> — ( 3- —— ^^^Sl

\

\

\

^U.^

-r L .^ -f- >- T\

-

w2 0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OO2


2J

9

OJ

- o• \D

BOULDERCOBBLES

5 GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC M | F

S I L T - C L A Y SOIL

J8 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/6 in. No*. 10 30 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8031


PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y

O qipve Analysis ASTM D422 & D11UO

® HyHrnmeter Analysis ASTM D422

FISHER RO

EAST SYR

ACU

SE MY I30S

7TEIEPM

ONC

ARE* CO

DE 315'«37 1429

NO

VeP

I

»

(£>

cn

ec-o3" mQ.D348 8

*gii

1o

X) -•

31

fc_J <-J

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES »4* . I i i 4 8 16' J- ' &- j-t. J.. —^———»-

30 30 IOO 2OO HYDROMETER100

£ 80

v 70

b. 30UJ « **q| 4O

z 30bJ

klft.

10

200

2

9

0•••JI—*» vl<

BOULDERSCOBBLES

»• »-< - - <vH5 -*— *."^•^^x

\' S

s.tf

N^

:^-'A:*" •^_ — -^,

~f=^^: - *. >>-., =V

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0 0 2 O.OO6GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

i iSAND

C M | F

=^ •Gl0.

SILT-CLAY SOIL

-

XX

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8032

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 12A

PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & 01140

O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM 0422

•••B

uuv

ii line

US

HE

R P

D .E

AS

T SY

RA

CU

SE

N Y

13057TU

EP

HO

Nl AREA CODE 315/437 1429

? ior ln o«*yi *•

U9U1

ii|

tt\-iU9tn

) 5101

IIparra

ttU

UO

lffinc

FISHER HO

EAST SYRACUSE NY

I30S7

TUE

PM

ON

e AR

E* C

OD

E 31

5-4

37 U

29

JO*

MO

L

-95

16

6RCPO

ftT M

O.

20

Novem

ber 15,

19

95

COCOUJNCO2<(C

•ct-uaoco>XX-

N8-o .(

9 <

« .

• •

»<:

rw

•

-***

-»-.TT

-M

•-

UJ

>UJr>

O0 f))Is

X

I

> c

> c

L,//I

— 1

> c

I N

f> C1C f)—

Jc*i

^

/

S

1

-f?

!On

9(ftI/

1QN

P

°

sdK,xorg. O610. oo

COKUi

H-(M

U

l

'65.jiz

w -°'

N n<V)

z<0

- u>o<M0100

_iQV<_ju1H-JU.

- —

Q5*

(/>

OU.

•

"^

us*a:o

o

£"

K u

i

90IXDCCOBBL

(9Z

uj

5?a. n

Oaa*•*- 9

o

6•

<M

S

06 *

ot _

" S

o

00Nl

csl c

W ^

T' •=

« ~

CM

C

u>N «

(C

C

^ «

ronooo•

n12TO_l

toini

m(U+-«:SC0)QEro10

nic4-*

0)H>.i_o4

-*(O1_OnR3

0)*-»

175I/}<Q.

i_0>-•s(I)z•k

oen0)S</>O

>-r-

Ol~-

rMroat4->U.Si.'o"i_Q.

0ar^-

0torMrMrr05f-tn<M(A>roC<a>.2?175

O

rrQSHW<1/1>•(0r<r<v4-i

93E0T3>I

0

Ai

C39V

lN30U

3d

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

.1 I

CJ1

SIEVES 3 4s 1^ i \ i } 4 8 16 3O 50 1 00 ZOO HYDROMETER,nn i » • i i i /^Sv xrx i « i ii —————————— ——————————— ———————————————————IUU

1 B°

> 70

F 60^ **w

n. 3O

|«x 3O

K20kJa_

10

2OO

2:

b

)

BOULDERSCOBBLES

*- \U L^— >.

^t^

>5

"Si\^/

5 Xfc^d * & TV

" \-f6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO4


GRAVELC | M F

SANOC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. Not. 10 3O 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8034

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2APAS SiteOswego, New York

Project #32701 Y



FISH

ER

PD

. EAST SY

RA

CU

SE N

Y I30S

7TE

LEP

HO

Ne A

RE

A CO

DE

31

S/4

37 1

42

9

•z.on3C7n

LTI

iII

;siu>

K) LH

tr>

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES } 4 8 16 30 30 100 200 HYDROMETERIOO

i*°>- 70

F 60•j

u. 30

z 30

K 20kl0.

10

2

2,

9

anoh-*T *-

* «W>

CD

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

1. »-«•- ^il-— — i } —— s>

\^V\

^:<\

\

^^

^~O,^

60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M F

SANDC M | F

' - =o.oc)6

^——0.

SILT- CLAY SOIL

-

-

XK

Z8 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 6O 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8035

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 3C

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

G Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140


TISHER

PO

EAST SY

RA

CU

SE N

Y 13057TELEPM

ONC AR

EA CODE 315/437 1429

O

BCTn-i

ID1/1

mpatv

att

^ „

L_

95166LJU

OlT

Tin

C

RC

POH

T M

O.

77

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >4> ifc i 1 i } 4 8 16 30 50 100 20O HYDROMETERl r t— i . . • > 1 1 f T \ is-\ • t i l l — — ———————————— —————————————— _IOO

H- *°

*uo^ Ovi

i70

|SO

t 3OMW 40

530toJC*K20UO-

10

20O

2

oiCD

K-

BOULDERCOBBLES

60 20

IJ —— — •

^ i\

V\

\

_ -"45tf ~— — £^ ,: => p

r

•

6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OOCGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

5 GRAVE!.C | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/6 in. No*. 10 3O 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8036

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 5PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1110


MparratcO

JOlffin

criS

ME

H P

O .E

AS

T SY

RA

CU

SE

NY

13057

TtlEP

HO

NE

AREA CODE

31

5/4

37 U

2»

* $Z 0o a «< H 0

1 «rm '

5_4 M — «

ui to ff>» CT

10

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES it} t 4 i | i 1,————.. .'.t. 1 j—.J—t—I—(a

3° J'° 100 200 HYDROMETERIOO

i*°» 80

i70

n. 30

% 4O

w

fcja.10

200

z;

eno< j!— k• Oa)

BOULDERSCOBBLES

»• » •"- ;)-9-**^

^<fr —— - - s^^^ s

^\

\6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2


GRAVELC | M | F

i iSANO

C | M | F

u •-.«.

0.06 0.02

—v r

•

o.oo« o.ooe

SILT- CLAY SOIL

Z8 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. Ho*. 10 30 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8037

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine IB

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 £ D1110


FISHER R

O .EAST SYR

ACU

SE * Y I30S

7TElEPH

ON

l AREA CODE 3IS'437 1429

•z.O

3(D1

10

Ln

i-I5 CO v

*s8r-

J\10 — •£= 91

CD

L;.J

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >4t it i J i } 4 • l« 30 150 100 200 HYDROMETERIOU

>- »o*uoto ou»>- TO•f (01k. 30•tu; 4/5?z 30woK ZOkJa.

10

2

£,

t

cno10t-*< or •'"

_/ -v ^»—^^

^\

\

x\\

\

^ -€ •~—K.

. - ^ f-\i / F~/7\

0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

BOULDERCOBBLES

S GRAVELC | M | F

SANOC I M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.99 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. Not. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8038

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 1APAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1HO


FISHER

PO

.EA

ST S

YR

AC

US

E N Y

13057TELEPHONE AR

E* CODE 315/437 1*29

•z.o<a>3crn>T

l/l»

l£><£>

eiin?$Si>r

1U3Ul

N) -•tn 01

<y>

t_1 J I...

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES i t j t 16 3O 90 IOO 2OO HYDROMETER100

>• 70

k. 30

Z 30kl

K 20kl

°~ 10

2

2;

9

cnorowO

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

j &

1 vs^

x^\

V^ r —— »

€ i— r\XQ.

" vi * .\ r -£ ^Tk. . . . , _ ,

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 O.O2 O.OO6 O.OO8GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

i iSAND


28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8039

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 1C

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701Y



FISHER

RO

EAST S

YR

AC

US

E N Y 13057

TUEPH

ON

C APEA CODE 315/437 1429

|

.

CTn

un

10Ul

ep

?s?8

»n10

NJ Ln<fl -•

«T>O)

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >4* >t i } 4 } 4 8 18 30 SO 100 200 HYDROMETER1— — 1 i • i I /V\ I 1 1 • 1 1 1 ————————————————————————————————————————————————IOU

K »0

£ 80

m T°¥• SO1y. 30VIUl *n5

0 C

I- K>

r9V

1H301

Uo.10

200

2;

•

CJ1OroI-*CO

BOULDERSCOBBLES

~>•

^^^ .

V £^S\

&N \


GRAVELC | M | F

1 I

SANDC M | F

:>-- — . FV -f* (~\

-

•

0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OOZ

SILT- CLAY SOIL

18 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 In. No*. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 80UO

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 3PAS Site

Oswego, New YorkProject #32701 Y



mm

^m

uuv^n i IM

U

m.

fISMER

PO

.EAST SYRAC

USE N

Y 13057

TtUP

HO

NC

AB€A CODE

31

5/4

37 1429

z 20 I< HfD

1 *mT

_. NUl -

10inin

i:TJ)Ssl

I

8r10I/I

J — ••t en

<?>

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES »«i» <J > } i J 4 8 16 SO SO 100 ZOO HYDROMETER100

i *°£ 80

•F 60Ii. 30

z 3OkJ

K 2OUa.

10

2

2,

cnCDroCO

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

jr \J ^

tk^

©> \

^

\

HL,/— \^ ^d

^a - t,0-PI

•

60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0 02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M F

I TSAND

C | M | FS I L T - C L A Y SOIL

Z8 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8041


PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 & D1140


mm

mm uuun

i me

FISHER

RD

EAST S

YR

AC

US

E N

Y

I30S7

TUEPM

ON

C A

PE

* CODE 3

15

'43

7 1<

29

. *? 5m H3

?_. Ncn o

_ ,<**cn

i:T3

s

8ru>

J cn9 — •

enen

L J L

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES > q > ifc i j i I 4 8 16 50 SO 1 W *w nTunu»c.itK(00 . . . . . . . . rf-N . —— . /TN^ _j ———— i ———— i ————————————————————————————————————————

5kJ

i70

t 30M1.1 rt

9X 30u

0.IO

2

2.

cnoH*CO

00

BOULDERSCOBBLES

y ^ j ——— ,_*• L

—

U^A\

\\\^

v>

' ) k^

G0

6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 0.006 O.OOSGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

GRAVELC | M | F

i iSANO

C M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.92 2.0 0.99 0.29 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No«. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8042


PAS Site


O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 6 D1140


•••••

U

UV

Jll line:

USHER P

O .EAST SYHACUSE N

r 13057TU

EP

HO

NC

AREA CO

DE 315/437 U29

X^— «

< 1% scr *n c-i

tn f*u:

toUDLfl

1I'D' Q)

Ka

Q•

g

i0ft

I T>71

MparrattU

JOlffin

cUSHER fiO

LAST SYRACUSE * V 13057

TUtP

HO

Nf A

P£» COD£ 315/437 1429

XM

NO

MCPO

MT

NO. L-9

51

66

30

Novem

ber 15,

1995

"1

UJN

K»-UJaoKO>XX-

N8-o .

nX-

10 .

« •

<r •

— (K

-

~«

_«,

TT

-M

•

UJ

UJ

*>

cC >s

1(tJ'

w/) C

• c //>

c>

K

i

,£

-^

/) 0

• tf /^/

c•• )§ X!OM

/cN

//J

0—

Cjr?i*-

d?;y

0

)vp•

2o(M-Oci<*. 06

MKUJh-

(M

UJ

•6 I•jaz

«>"° Wn

jcnz<(9

- tsl

- u>0(SI

O10Oo

_ls>-_lo»-_l«/)u.

- —

Qza

«>uu.

dijaK(9

O

2^

K U

J

S-^sSo

<0Z

uj

^0.

•)oaX*

9o

5•

CM

N

O•

W

* n

n.

SO

OO"J<S

I £

n-sT-

£nCM

C

10 -.

K

M

to •=

a <•

fiTOCD

C—.nre— '

U3

IDintni

(!).C£Q—0)aErai/l

01c+•>i/i0)H>>i_o4->reuo.nJ3

0)4^

(75w<a.

ai_o>S(UzoCTi(1)5i/)0

>-»—•oCMro=tfc4-*U11)

'o1_D-

osr' —Qui

rMCMa-Q5CO<I/)>rec<0)>0)(75

O

CMa-QSHW1

<>reC<

>meteruT3>I

O

r~ o

i /-t •«AS M

3HIJ S

3»ViN

33W3d

502134

CL.J

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES 16 30 30 100 200 HYDROMETER100

I — Ifv

£, 80

£ 30

J405 30

£20*" 10

2OO

Z.

CJ10

CO

BOULDERSCOBBLES

•• t -" 5 —t

\

\

\

\

\

\

^L_ -P> — £*-- ; , =V6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06


GRAVELC | M | F

I iSAND

C | M | F

=€0.

O i " .^

02 o.ooe o.ooe

SILT- CLAY SOIL

ZB 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. 1 in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 20O SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8044

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 4

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y



riSMER

PO .EAST SYH

ACU

SE N

Y 13057T

flCP

HO

Nt A

RE

A CO

DE

31

5/4

37 1429

O

0)3crre-ien

in

tn

e0»

o C

it>

en

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >t{ i it i I i } « 8 l« 3° 90 100 200 HYDROMETER. — . . 1 1 1 1 1 / T \ 1 1 1 1 « 1 1 1 . _ _ _ . _ _ — — ———————————————————————————————————————————————————IOO

H 9O

v 70

£60

k. 30liJ ^ *%

2z 3OW

E20a.

10

2

2,

*

cn0rot-*COCD

\

.

5

"^^--^"sr

"C ^^B-

H -e— &\ 1 r~\1 / r^ ) ..

OO 60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 O.O2 O.O06 O.OOS5GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

BOULDERSCOBBLES

GRAVELC | M | F

i iSAND

C | M | FSILT-CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. 1 in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8045

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 5

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D122 £ DlltO


•!••

LU

OIT

Tinc

«,<

»FISH

ER P

O.tA

ST

SY

RA

CU

SE N

* 13057

*,

TtLEPHO

NC

AR

E* C

OD

t 31

5/4

37 1429

"<

JVn H

3 _

? I

LH W

_j

CO

•

•oCD

•

1

s1

kOLfl_4

O1

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES sijt 1} i J } 4 B 16 3O 90 100 200 HYDROMETERtoo

H »O

?B0^ UU

>v ro^ wv*

k. 30•>Ul ..„?

o c

r 10

r0V

1N30)

D"wa.

10

•• 4> -* — v y— • —V—<a

)S

^

^"-^>,

- - -, 7ij\

V-^» NoX

; L^1-o ( ' X < .

-

-

Z O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Z>

9

cnCD/OH-*CO-I

BOULDER,COBBLES

S GRAVELC | M | F

1 1SANO


!6 76.2 25.4 9.92 2.0 0.99 0.29 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. 1 in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 80U6

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 2PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D11UO


flSH

tRP

D.E

AS

T SYRAC

USE N

r 13057

TtlCPH

ON

C ARU

CODE 315/437 1429

•z.O

(B3crm-\

Ul

^4

UDUl

e§1n?s58g _

10

OJ .flOJ -•

T\ft

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES it jt it i j i } 4 8 16

K 90o

» 80

f 60in. 30

W 4/5A ^V

z 30u

kla.

10

30 90 100 200 HYDROMETER

-' tr &^a\

A\

V^

"V

^x^

-^ ^> f)2 0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.CO6 O.OO2


22

9

cnCD

COCO

BOULDERSCOBBLES

GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

IB 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 n. 1 in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8017


PAS Site

Osweqo, New York

Project #32701 Y


O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM DH22

•••M

V

JUW

II IIIIUU

SH

ER

fO

EAST SY

RA

CU

SE

N V

13057TU

CPH

ON

t AREA CODE 315/437 1429

^ ?

< 5§ 3CT mn> c-i

oJ g

Ul

e:TJ> 3si

io/I

Tl

; : i . i I I fc..J.

{ ( (GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES >4' i i } i } 4 8 16 30 90 1 OO 2OO HYDROMETER

£ UU

f 60i^ w

k. 50nW 40a ^\J

x 30kl

*20klO.

10

2

2.

cn0

COCO

_j

~^5L^

\

^— Q

\

U^SL •Q "-QV>

0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

BOULDERCOBBLE

S GRAVELS C | M | F

i iSAND

C 1 M | FSILT-CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8018

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White IBPAS Site



® Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422

IBH

I U

UU

II IIMU

" ""} fISH

ER R

D .EAST SYR

ACU

SE N Y 13057

• TEIEPHO

NC AREA CODE 315/437 1*29

"Z. %o ••< $

3 *u- «n 8

£ *

-in

I

1:TJ> ssl

•

±

0ft

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES s t j t it i } i } 4 6 16 30 90 IOO 2OO HYDROMETER100

£ 80

> 70

f 60Wj wvr

n. 30

W 40rtt ^w

K 20ua_10

2

2,

*

cnCD

(±5

«-4 ——— 1 1X

\

\C \

^

1"^v

T&-^ll : a_Q-o— O<: • - _ ^

O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OOCGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

BOULDER.COBBLES

S GRAVELC | M | F

I iSAND

C M | FSILT-CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 O.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING

In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8019

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 1APAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701Y



FISHER PO .EAST SYR

ACU

SE N Y I30S7

mtP

HO

NC

AR

E* CO

DE 315/437 1429

•zO

n3crm-i

01

ID1/1

ei]o C

isID

LO U1C7> -«

1 , t .._]( < (

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES »4> ifc i 1 i | « 8 16 30 30 100 200 HYDROMETER

I *°

v 70

f- 60kJ *^^

k. 30

£ 4OA ^V

2 30kJ

£20kJ0.

10

2

2,

CDro»-*>— *

oo

BOULDCRCOBBLES

d/"" :>• :H^ — ( }— _.

i^5^^

\>

\^ (T

^€^-Q.r^ C^ -r

-

•

60 20 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

S GRAVELC | M | F

SANDC | M | F

SILT- CLAY SOIL

18 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENIN6In. 3 In. 1 in. 3/6 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8050

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White J

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y



f ISH

ER

BD

. EAST SY

BA

CU

JE N

Y 13057

ItLEP

HO

NE

AB

EA C

OD

E 3

15

/43

7 1429

N

C

3CT"1

1/1

10tn

e

Dft

, : - : ' i i : b.-J

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

SIEVES itjt ife i } { \ 4 8 16 SO 30 IOO 20O HYDROMETER. — n i i . « 1 i /T\ 1 » i 11 ———— ———— —— ————— ——— —— ———— ———————————————IOO

2 80

• 7°

* 30ni»i - _

?z30oK Z OU

*" 10

V. k5 — — (

•

TSl^

x\

^:::::=^ X

* | )" •— .^ iO

•

2 O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO8GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

22

9

cn0

i— *ro

BOULDERCOBBLE

S GRAVEL5 C | M | F

I 1SAND

C | U | FSILT- CLAY SOIL

!8 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.23 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. 1 in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8051

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2PAS SiteOswego, New York

Project #32701Y



••IB

U

UW

II IIIIUi

riSH

ER

PO

EAST SYRAC

USE N

v 13057m

tPH

ON

£ A

RE

A CO

DE

31

5/4

37 1429

z »

S" 5» 3cr a(D «-I

00 0

U}

I

1:TJi ®

?

o•

8i10

J Ul0 -»cn

6RAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

.j L

SIEVES 3 t{ * ifc i 4 8 16 30 SO 100 200 HYDROMETER100

2 80

K «Q^ **

t 30MV 40?3°

K 20kl

»•«• ^ —— *

vT is

(: X

^X"t^

^ .s ^

IS \7^

:J cxZ O O 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 O.O6


r,9

CJIofo

BOULDERCOBBLES

5 GRAVELC | M F

SANDC M 1 F

-€0.

•

-

02 0.006 O.OO2

SILT- CLAY SOIL

28 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 n. in. 3/6 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8052

Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 1

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 6 D11UO


USH

ER R

O .EAST S

rdAC

US

E N

V 13057m

EP

HO

Nt AR

E* CODE 315/437 1429

•z.on3crn

tnH

tn

eil3 a

iiin

U) -«VO 91

cr>

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

L-J

o

SIEVES >4t it i $ i } 4 8 16 30 30 100 20O HYDROMETER

ij O V

v- 70

F 60tj WW

k. SO<nW 4Q1X 30u

a.10

20O

2.'

BOULDER!COBBLES

"S rA^/VjL

•£ ).J^-s*--,

*•^ ^e-~ ,\


S GRAVELC | M | F

1 1SANO

C | M | F

;"• x

G^S^^^^^;>

0.06 0.02

r~\\-i ^ i

-

•

o.ooe o.ooe

SILT- CLAY SOIL

!8 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.39 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGin. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 2OO SIEVE

L-95166 Lab I.D.: 8053

Laboratory Testing Sample I. P.: Wine 3B

PAS Site

Oswego, New York

Project #32701 Y

O Sieve Analysis ASTM P422 & P1 140

O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM P422

mP

ar73F

*U

LJOlrnnc

MfIS

HE

H P

O .E

AS

T SY

RA

CU

SE N

V 13057

mC

PH

ON

l AR

EA C

OD

E 3

15

/43

7 U

29

< \* -1 I

n 9 ~_. ntn P -*

0 3!31

tftIX)l/l

APPENDIX G

Validated Form I's for Pesticide Data

503145ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y.4 BtVA-C

y

Q

Surface-Water Samples

502146ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. vwomzm™JWAGI

"IJ

1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

EPA SAMPLE NO.

WINE1Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV

Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113

Lab Sample ID: 765527 Date Received: 10/13/95

Sample Volume: 1000(mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95

Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(up Date Analyzed: 10/26/95

Injeccion Volume: 2 . 0 (uL) Dilution Faccor: i.

Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0

'CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION

(ug/L) Q

319-85-7- - - - -

C Q fi Q n

A /- i X n

a. r\ *•» * c *T ~»

6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -

T T O I T C C n

"7 "2 &£ °

- - -be ta -BHC

- - -Dieldrin. . t «p.p

/. y - nprv

1 m " f)"7 ° "ndnnu l fnn n u l f n t i n5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - . . - 4 ,4 ' -DOT

Mr t ihmr-nhl ni-c -i * n * -*n r "nririn l i r t n n r""IDl T3 1 Cndrin aliiah'-iio

•E103 *" 30001 3Q D ————

——— tiamma Cniii^iano —————————————

rt n i «.

Q.OIO 0 . 0010

ft ft i r\A ft T ft.

A A T A

A A 1 A

0 .0210 . 0 2 0

———————— O . O O Qn ft o ftn ft ftft n *^ r\

O.02-O O . O O l - tn -in

ft ft O ft

n ni nft ft 1 ft

' —— - ———— 1.0

-<??- ujfrJJT 1

TJ

^J

u •^[tt ———•tfr.

Tn — TT~T T

^T

•UJJ^..r.

T T

—

J

FORM I LCP 10/92

502147


EPA SAMPLE NO.





Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL) Date Analyzed: 10/26/95

Injection Volume: 2.0(uL) Dilution Factor: i


CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION

(ug/L) Q

« . . « < - . < ^ 1 1 r * . r r s * i

319-85-7- - - - - - - -beta -BHC

r - n n f t f t — - T ^ T T / ~ » / T J — - 3 — — ^

DCQ 00 0 -n^,--.,T1 C^j- T*

60-57-1- - - - - - - --Dieldrin

T O n n o T"1.^^^--;^-.

10-,- c-. Q ~nd«oul fan aul iakt5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 . 4 ' - DOT

E 3 ' P 1 T C Cn_lr in J liottsno1131 °T 1 "ndrin a ldnh ' -da

I G C ^ ^ l l ^ n ^uoalflL^lHc ————————————————

f i >« /• ft fti ft M irn n 1 n M" T111

0.010

„ «, «ft ft 1 ft

0 0100.017

0 . 0 0 0 6 8

n /i-in

0 02O © 002t)/I -i r,

n n -> n

0 010

0 0 1 0

ft ft ft

ft ft ft

^uf J

T T

.,

••

J vJ "

T T-3*> M»...^^,,

T ?

.y.

FORM I LCP 10/92

50214S

IDPESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

EPA SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: • SDG No.: 00113

Matrix: (soil/water)WATER

Sample wt/vol: • 1000(q/ml)ML

't Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) CONT


Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up



Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L

319-85-7 - - - - - - - -be ta -BHC_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*^^^^^^^^^^^^^

&&^££i £^^H^H«^^^HMMMli*«MttAt M^QU£

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ MM^ ^ B ^ itfW*

T n * ? y ! - g ' 7 - ' 3 — --_ - LT^T-V

60-57-1---------Dieldrin___~7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - - - - - 4 , 4 ' - D D E _ _ _ _ _^^^^^^^^^^ff^^^^MM^^^^MMM^jMflb^M^MfeHMMV^M^^H^^M

i^^i^^A^M^^L^M

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT_____

W*j*i

^^^^L

*•*• f1 *

^ ^ ^

iuealm- IDi

^.g/<9 0-r0023

0.0170 .020

0 .020

^*

**

u

u

I

FORM I PEST O L M 0 3 . 0

502149


EPA SAMPLE NO.

WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV

Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 3152B SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113



Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000 (up Date Analyzed: 10/26/95

Injection Volume: 2.0(uL) Dilution Factor: I



(ug/L)

319-85-7--------beta-BHC_________

6 0 - 5 7 - l - - - - - - - - - D i e l d r i n7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - - - - - 4 , 4 ' - D D E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

•^ /"^ *3 1 f^ 1 Q____________________tT^-n-J^-vr-ntl f -i n__ j-t . > T £ -> fr- n

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 . 4 ' - DOT__________]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ~* """"^ V* • -•- -V^ *.~W»T^»llJ^^^^^

O.O/O 0 . O O J O

A n T O

O.02O -0 . 00002Q , 0 0 0 4 3

0 .020 u

o - o i o

FORM I LCP 10/92

502150


EPA SAMPLE NO.

WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract: (10-92) -REV

Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 0011!


Sample wt/vol: 1000(q/ml)ML

* Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) CONT





Lab File ID:


Date Extracted=10/18/95


Dilution Factor: 1



319-85-7--------beta-BHC__________

60-57-1---------Dieldrin____72-55-9---------4,4'-DDE____

50-29-3---------4,4'-DOT____7D 43 D————————Mfttehenyehl»i>_

O.OlO 0.0030

A A T A

000300.020

0.020

vS

FORM I PEST OLM03.0

502151

un•»

•s»

n

Sediment Samples

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/OMMTOIYABWAGZ502152

IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

SAMPLE NO.

—j Lab Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:, iLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:

Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL

Sample wt/vol: 30.00(g/ml)G

% Moisture: 1.5 decanted: (Y/N)N

- Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONG

'Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(up

Injection Volume: 2.0 (up

GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.3

WINE1

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: JL


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG

_ „ , „~ r, ^ -,

:-59 98 8 ————50-57-1------

50-2S-3--- -- -

~* " 0 P /I £

319-35-7-----5i i? 5C 0 ————i G n •: •? 3 ——7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -

- , - , _ . „-, d „ , ._ -, ,"•"31 0 "* 8• • : D j 02 : ——;3o7/i -11-3 ———: : : c 'i a s 3 ——3 ^ .- ,r q -> -) o" " *" "7 *™1 ""^Q ^

•'"^•"7 f*" f*l *

„ p 0 , ^ ^

— -j -j ^

——— ggfrma — DHC — (Linaore) ————————————— HcptQGhlor ——————————————————— Aldrin ——————————————————————— Endooulfan — ? ———————————————- - -Dieldrin——— GndoDulfan II ———————————————---4.4' -DOT

«}, (• 1 oxyc ]_0,. ....

alpha DIIC • —---beta-BHC—— delta DHC —————————————————

IIcDta hlor -ooxidc ——*t f ^ LJLJi-j

—— Gndrin ————————————————————— .——— 4 — 4-1 — HDD ————————————————————————— Dndi-in aldehyde —————————————— Endoculfan oulfato —————————— i

A-t-nrl -i-r T TO - —————————————— t——— Aroolor 101C —————————————————— Aroclor 1221 ————————————————— Aroclor 1232 —————————————————— Aroolor 12 '12 ————————————————— t—— Aroclor 12-10 ——————————————————— Aroclor 1254 ————————————————————— TOHQDheftC ——————————————————————————— r——— Chlordap.e — (T^chui^al) ————————

i o

1 0

1 o

T Q

5.8" 11.7„ ,i "<

I'O ~ i1 ""1 ""1 .2-i n

1 11 2

——————————————— 2-r4-

"4-,jj

""1———————————— S-4-——————————— 24-

——————————— 24-——————————— 4-r9-

TT

U-r*

* rTT

JX ^-y-. JP /ATJ

.j

Jy_

-W-

y

rj

-y-T T

T T

,.

-B--B-•e-

1V

FORM I 8080502153


SAMPLE NO.

Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:WINE2

J Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :

- Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL

"'Sample wt/vol: 30 .10 (g/ml)G

% Moisture: 36 decanted: (Y/N)N

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONG

.Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(up

--Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up

' GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:7.1

SDG No.: 0058A


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: JL


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/KG

CQ on n

-7 g 44 8- i n n n n i

n c n q g g

60-57 •!-----•33313 65 95 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - -_-? -i /^ 2 5DID -04 G ————3 1 Q Q tl "7

* 3 " Q 8 £ 8 ————

7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - -•72 20 0 —————72 54 0 —————1131 93 4 ———"• 031 07 8 ———i ', 096 — 9-2 — 5 ——•12C74 11 2 ——..11104-38-3 ——11141-16-5--5316° ° 1 9n 2c-?2 2Q 6I"1 097 69 1 ——

57 7 4 - 9 —————

——— qamma DIIC (Lindcmc) —————————Hsptcichlor

——— Aldrin —————————————————— - ———— Endooulfan I ———————————————- - - -Dieldrin——— Endooulfan II ——————————————- _ - 4 4 ' DDTL i 2. LJ LJ -L

Me-t hoxyohior •——— alpha DIIC ————————————— - ————

——— delta DIIC —————————————————————— Ileptaehlor epoxide ——————————_ _ _ 4 4 ' -DDFM t * LJ LJ l—i

——— Gndrin ——————————————————————— . . 4 ' ODD ————————————————— ——

_ _.._ — Flnf^ y i n — ri-1 fioV^vr^o ———————————— • — — ———— Endooulfan oulfa to ————————————— Arocloir-1200 —————————————————— Aroolor — 1016 ————————————— -- ———— Aroclor 1331 ———————————————— --Aroclor 1333 —————————————————— Aroclor — 1242 ———————————————————— Aroclor 1248 ———————————————

T^vachone

——— Chlordano (Technical) ———————

•] r

1 6I €i ->8.5c c

6 . 85 5

—————————— 1—6-3 .41 C., r

10—————————— 3-7-9-

c c

—————————— t-r-6-

3131n ,

31-, ,

31-.^

——————————— ii-

T T

TJ

TT.

TT

"f" jrU "p7 7r

'TTJT.

V

^

-y-$

'TT

-u.

^

TTy

-14-

u-rj

TJ

rT

IjTT T

Txi

FORM I 8080502154


ab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTF

SAMPLE NO.

_____ Contract:

"Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


Sample wt/vol: 30.10(q/ml)G

% Moisture: 19 decanted: (Y/NJN

.Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC


"Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)


WINE3

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted.-10/19/95


Dilution Factor: .1



?'j 11 8 —————

"3 ~ ^ no o

5 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -• 3 3 3 " ' 3 ^5 95 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -7-~ - ' 1 "

3 ' 9 E G3 1 9 - 8 5 - 7 - - ---3 . 1 9 8 6 8 —————1 ° 3 * 57 37 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -•33 . 30 9 ——————~t 2 - SI 8 -- . -n n-> ,.

J031 07-8 ————rl 0 0 5 82 5 ———• * n j ^ " 7 ^ T T O

" l " 1 1 ^ 1 ^ 28 2L - - •: i 16 s ——

• I D ' I G O 21 9 ———

n ^i O ~" "? ^ ^*? V/ V J. _i _J A_

:? 71 o ————

——— qamma DIIC (L indnne) ———————————— Iloptochlor ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————

- - -Dieldrin——— E n d o c u l f a n II ——————————————— ,- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

——— aloha DIIC ——————————————————- - - b e t a - B H C—— delta BHC ———————————————————— Hoptachlor cpojcide ——————————_ _ _4 4 ' -nnpVI / 1 Ls LJ L.J

—— Endrin ———————————————————————— 4 , 4 ' . ODD —————————————————————

—— Endooulfan oulfa tc ————————————— Aroclor — 1200 ————————————————

Arorl nr 1 01 f"—— Aroclor 1221 ————————————————— Aroclor 1232 ———————————————— i—— Aroelor-1242 ————————————————— Aroclor 1240 ———————————————— t—— Aroolor 1254 —————————————————

r p U — . , -A C_) *~L u ^./ 1 1 C- 1 1 (—

——— Chlordanc — (Technica l ) ————————

1 31 ""1 R1 . 11 3

0 .44yj 3

1 3/.A -0'. 1C

1 31 "•

0 . 2 7-j ^

————————— 0 .14

~i r

2 Sn r-

n r

•-* r-

o f

~» r-

——————————— 2-5-^ r-*L ,J

TT

T T ^

-y-j •T T

J ^y

T T

JP (AU-T T

^ *fXJO'* ^-^ / •-y ——-w —U'

-w—-y-

T T

r j

-y—-B--y-

T Tvl/TJ

xS

502155FORM I 8080


"Tab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP

SAMPLE NO.

______ Contract:

' Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :




. Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC



C-PC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH : 6 . 5

WINE4

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: .1



•55 89' 9 — - ——

" " " 10 ~--- _„ 0

^ p q7--> - _ _ _ - _»•> 3 1 3 • S 5 9 ——50-29-3------

3 " 9 3 '' 5319-35-7---- -^ "* j 3 f- 91031 57 3 ————72-55-9------7-S — 2-G — 8 ——————•"3-54-8 —————-> f -> i g T /i

«:G31 07 0 ———"^^on/r fl "} ^

11111-16 5 ———

^^^-j,, on ^11CQ7 CO 1 ———•^ ~* " ' 35 n

- - -) /• o

——— qamma DHC — (Lindanc) ———————————— Ilcptachlor —————————————————

Aid*1' n — • •• •——— SndooulFan I ————————————————- - -Dieldrin——— Endooulfan II ———————————————---4,4' -DOT——— Mothojcyohlor —————————————————— alpha DHC ——————————————————---beta-BHC——— delta DHC ——————————————————

" / " \-J\~Ji-j

d .

- - 1 4 ' DDD—— Endrin aldehyde ———————————————— Endooulf ar. — 9ul fate —————————— r—— Aroclor 1JCO ————————————————— Aroclor 1016 ————————————————— ftroclor 1221 ————————————————— Aroclor 1232 ———————————————

——— Aroclor 1210 ————————————————J\-r-O£'] QT 1 """ 4

—— oxophcpc ———————————————————— Chlordcme — (Technical) ————————

1 °^ 0

1 82.3^ -}

•T • Jj It . J O

1 3i i_

0.25

1 "0.75J . UA -)

1 n^ 4""1^ ._,

——————————— 24-

^

——————————— 24-1 1

*• J

41.

-w--y.-e-T T _

•w-TV

,,

J? "

-y—u--H-y--y--e--y--u-

T T

„

502156FORM I 8080


SAMPLE NO.

Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:

Lab Code : COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :


Sample wt/vol: 30.00(q/ml)G


Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC


Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL)


WINES

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: I



£ Q Q Q Q

2 6 - 4 4 - 8 - - - — -

355 OS 9 ————6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -J 3 3 " ' 3 55 95 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - --. -^ /. 2 r3 " P 8 " 63 1 9 - 3 5 - 7 - - - - -:i3 05 o ———• a. -1 /; r -7 2

7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -~2 20 Q —————73 51 8 —————7 -.21 93 4 ————I0:i 07 0 ————1 1 0 9 6 - 8 3 - 5 ———1-2 S71 11 2 ———1110/1 — 3-g — 2 ———i i i /i Q_ ^ g ^r 3 g 9 21 9

i 2 n "7 2 25 6^ "• 0 9 ~> r 9 "

——— qamma BHC — (Lindane) ——————————— Hoptaohlor —————————————————

Endooul fan T -- - -Dieldrin

Ct-i^/^f- , iT f ^r, T T

- - - 4 , 4 ' -DDT—— MG t hoxy c h 1 o r ————————————————— alpha DHC —————————————————- - -beta-BHC

——— del ta DHC ————————————————————— Haptachlor — opoxidc ——————————

T / T LJ LJ 1-1

—— Cndrin ———————————————————— -A 1 ' DDD -- - -* / * i^i_/j_/__

—— Endoaulfan au l fa t e ——————————A-OC10T- l">eOAroolo>«- -101-6 - •- — - - - - -

—— Aroclor 1232 ————————————————— Aroclor 1212 ————————————————

- • Aroclor- 1318 -•—— Aroolor 1251 ——————————————————— To.vaphcne ——————————————————

Gh^o-aere (Tecrinical)

1 "i ^« -

135 8

—— fT. -,0-T • /^ It ~i U

—————————— 5-T-9-

/ 7 0 35-1 n

1 ^4 .9

—————————— 5rr8-1 7- ,

33, -.-j-j-j-j

——————— 3e--j-j., .,

*- -«

TTy

y

r »

rf ——— Jr vJr j

TO- /Jo S^ H^T

•y*r.

uiJJr

4J.-e-yU'u r

U x

uy

rj

T T

JJ

TT

vj

FORM I 808050215


SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml)G


.Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC

-Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)


G?C Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.8

WINE6

SDG No.: 00056


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: I



_- X-

3 2SC-

50--? ->3 " 9

3 " 9- ^272-

-. -,-7.- ->

" "* 1

"nz ^

= 3"- -p^- , .-,

o Q n

-4—8 —————

988*~ *7 TD 7 - l - - - - - -- 3 .-.5 o2 9 - 3 - - - - - -"3 5 -q /< r„ ,- ~

86 8'' 5735 5 - 9 - - - - - -9 n - A -"~ /» p1 93 1 ————1 07 0 ————•a^-p't-c;---""• 11-304-38 3 ———

50 21 Q-72 7Q sg -7 £; q -«

1 3S 3 —————

—— qamma DIIC (Lindanc) ———————————— Ilcptaehlor ——————————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————————— Endoculfan I ———————————————- - -Dieldrin—— nndoaulfan II ——————————————- - - 4 4 ' -DDT*. i ^ LJ LJ JL

_ _ -Methoxyohlor-——— alpha DHC ——————————————————

JJcLa DMC—— delta BHC ———————————————————— Hcptachlor opoxidc ——————————---4,4' -DDE

Endrin

—— Endrin aldehyde ——————————————— Endosulfan sulfale ———————————---Aroclor 12CO ————————————————— Aroolor 1016 ————————————————— Aroclor 1331 ———————————————————— A^-i-n-1 ov —— 1 ? 1 7 ———————————————————————————

—— Aroclor 12-12 ———————————————- —— Aroclor- 1248 ——————————————————— Aroclor 1254 —————————————————— ToHQphcnc ————————————————————— Chlordano (Technical) ————————

l -j, ,^ f}

3 . 0A -,

47- v-3g.i" 7- -j

0.77]_ 2, -,

^•7- 2 32 2t -t• 2-> -»

-.0-7

2"7

-. -T

", -1„_-v-i

rr •»

TT

~

T T

^ j-jV/-y-f

TT

55 j-yVy»TJ

_ ..

TT

j-

u-y--yJ_T

JU-U-y-y--e--y-ri ,,

^0.

50215SFORM I 8080

nkr

3

Ground-Water Samples

u n o 1 r; c ;U .:. 1 J i J

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y4B0MG3


SAMPLE NO.

Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:

Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :



* Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)





SWW-4

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extract-ed: 1 "/16/95


Dilution Factor: I


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/L Q

58_8-9_9__ — .•76-44-8 ————TOO o n ***95_9_,98-8----60-57-1- - - -33213 C5 05 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - -•30 f "» r

319 84 6 ———"3 1 Q Q C "7

319 86 8 ———1021 57 3 ——7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - -?-3-30-e ————33-54-8 ————7431 - 93 - \ - -1031 - 0 7 - 8 ——11096-82-5--12674-11-2--11104-28-2--11141-16-5--53469-21 -9 - -1*3C"7*5 *5 O £T

11097-69-1--8.OOL-35-2---5-? 713

———— qamma BHG (Lindano) ————————————— Heptachlor- ——————————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————————— Endoeulfan I ——————— : ———————- - - - -Dieldrin———— Endoculfan II ——————————————- - - - - 4 . 4 ' - D D T——— Mcthox>'ohlor ——————————————————— alpha-BHC ————————————————- - - - - b e t a - B H C———— dolta-BHC ————————————————————— Hoptachlor opoxido ——————————- - - - 4 . 4 ' -DDE

——— Endrin ————————————————————. - - - - 4 , 4 ' -DDD ———————————————————

— — __T7T- \ r^>" ' iT i ^I r l i lHir /^o

——— Endoculfan sul fa tc ——————————----Aroclor-1260--- -Aroclor-1016- - - -Aroclor-1221----Aroclor-1232----Aroclor-1242----Aroclor-1248-- --Aroclor-1254

——— Toxapt^&Re— —— - ————————————————— Chlordane (Tochnical ) ———————

——————— 0 . 0 ' D O '——————— 0 . 0 3 0 '———————— 0 . 0 3 0 '———————— 0 .050 '

0 . 0 3 0————————— 0. 10

0.100 3 0

———————— 0 .030-0 . 0 3 0

———————— 0 .030———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0.10———————— 0 ,050————————————— 0:10-

0 010———————— 0.050

0 . 5 00 .500 . 5 00 .500 . 5 00 . 5 00 .50

—————————— 3rr-e-————————————————— 0^r4-a-

4*. MIL

•tf- 1T ^ —M-T\J \J

•»• Hiu «j

NC.-. iip•»• NtLU.fc i, p-» Ne,u

-tf- NB.

" -4--tf-~t~uuuuuuu

-H- NP-U NtL

FORM I 8080

5021CO

CM


SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :



'f Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)





SWW-6

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extractfd;in/i.6/95


Dilution Factor: .1



5 f l - f l Q - Q - _ _ _ _ -

5^-44—8 —— ——4^-9-00-3-----P58-98-8 ————6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -33313-65-9 ——5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -72 13 5 — —— —G10 81 0 ————•J T Q DC "7

310 OG -0 ————1034-57-3 ————7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -3i-2-a-8- — -.--3 *} c / p

7431-93- 4 ————1031 07 0 ————11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---1 2 6 7 2 - 2 9 - 6 - - -11097-69-1---8001 35 25-7 T/. 5 _ ..

i - - -gamma-BHC — (Lindane) ——————————— Hoptaohlor ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endoculfan — I ———————————————- - -Dieldrin

——— Endosu4-fca« — H- ——————————————T / ^ LJ LJ X

—— Mcthoxychloy ————————————————— alpha BHC —————————————————

- Viot-a RUr1

—— Hepcachlor epoxidc —————————Tt / *1 Lj LJ LJ

—— Endrin ———————————————————————— , 4 ' -ODD —————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Endooulfan culfato ——————————---Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242- --Aroclor-1248

*• \J ^r X \J i, _L ^ _J *X

—— Toxapheno ———————————————————— Chlordano — (Tochnicol) ———————

——————— 0 . 0 3 0——————— 0 .030——————— 0 .030———————— 0 .050

0 . 0 3 0————————— 0.10

O-IO -9 . 0010————————— 0.30——————— 0 . 0 3 0

0.0*> 0 . O J C -———————— 0 .030———————— 0 . 0 3 0

O.lt> € ) . 0 1 3———————— Q .050————————— 0.10———————— 0.0-30———————— 0.050

0 . 5 00. 500 . 5 00 . 5 00. 500 . 5 00 . 5 0_i A.

————————— 0. IS

-B-NP-„. i —•y- — 1 —u . 1^ .n T n li -1j_7TJ • tn^»

-»• N£hfcr NK^P U

-tf- NC•tf- NC.

-«- Nt2.

^ 1r — ~uuuuuuu

•tf Me4^ N(2-

FORM I 8080 50 2 1

u

C 1


SAMPLE NO.

Lab Name;COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:









SWW-8

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1.


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/L

r- o fl O O

•76 44 8 —————2 fl Q n n i959 08 0 ————60-57-1- - - - - -2 "2 *? "I "^ C. c o

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -73 43 5 —————919-84-6 ————319-85-7-----319-86-8 ————1031 -57 3 ————72-55-9- - - - - -72 20 0 —————73 54 87121 P3 — 4 ————1031-07. 8 ————11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---1 *5 £ "7 O O Q £•

11097-69-1---8001-35 3 ————57 . 7 4 - 9 ——————

——— qomma DIIC (Lindanc) ——————————— Ileptachlor ————————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————— Dndoaulfem I ———————————————---Dieldrin

—— Endoculfan II ——————————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

—— Mcthoxyehlor ———————————————— alpha -BHC —————————————————

Wo f- -, nur1

—— delta- BHC —————————————————— Hoptaohlor cpoxidc ——————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DDE

L*ndL ±Li/I <\ ' DDD

—— Bndrin aldohydo ——————————————— Endooulfan ou l fa tc —————————---Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242- --Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— ToKaphono ——————————————————— Chlordemo (Technical ) ———————

——————— 0 .030-——————— 0 .030——————— 0.030-———————— 0 . 050

0 . 0 3 0————————— 0. 10

0.10r in

———————— 0 . 0 3 00 . 0 3 0

———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 . 030

O.|0 0. 0015———————— 0 . 050————————— 0 . l-O-———————— 0 .030———————— O . O D O

0.500 .500 .500 . 5 00 . 5 00 . 5 00.50

——————————— 5rr9-—————————— 0 . 15-

•w- W(2_

^— I —tf *

1 1« ntUS

-o HE-'S- N«?U•»• Wt

^P Un . M E 1U n«K-

* \•V-^vUUUUUUU-B-N2-•»•

FORM I 8080

0.?1G,

Pace


SAMPLE NO.

Lab Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:




'\ Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)


Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(up



SWW-10

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted:10/i6/95


Dilution Factor: .1


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/L

5Q QQ Q ————•76 11 e ———3-qS-QO-3 ————95fl.a8.8-----60-57-1------33313-66-9 ——50-29-3------IT /« T C

219-84-6 ————"3 T Q Q C "7

310 OC 0 —————1024 57 3 ————72-55-9------7-2 — 2Q — 8 --- -73-54-8 ——————7421 93 4 ————1031 07 8 ————i i n o c QO c12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---11097-69-1---8001-3B-3 ————C "7 "~I A Q

—— qamma DHC — (Lindane) ——————————— Heptachlog —————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Cndoculfan I ———————— : ———————- - -Dieldrin—— Endoculfan II ——————————————---4,4' -DOT—— Mothoxychlor —————————————————— alpha BUG ——————————————————

Ko h a ni-TP

——— dolta-BHC ————————————————————— Hoptaohlor opoxidc ——————————

*i f LJLJll*

—— Endrin ———————————————————————— il,/!' -ODD —————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde ——————————————— Endoculfan oulfatc —————————---Aroclor-1260- --Aroclor-1016- --Aroclor-1221- - -Aroclor-1232-- -Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248- - -Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphono —————————————————

Ch"i ordanc (Tcchr* ca1 ) -• - -•

——————— 0.030——————— 0.030

——————— 0.050O.O2> O.OOM.

————————— 0 . 10O.IO -0.0023

————————— 0.30———————— 0.030

0.030———————— 0.030i———————— 0. 030

0.10———————— 0 . OSQ-—————— &-Ht«-———————— 0.030———————— O.Q50

0.500.500.500.500. 500.500. 50

———————————— 3r e-————————— 0 . 12

-*-N£-tr — —-y- "^»?uJja-uj•tf- Ng.-Fn^u-^ Mg-u-w NE.

n — —-H- Uuuuuuu-U-NEL

m not

FORM I 8080

502103


SAMPLE NO.

Lab Name;COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:




V Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)





SWW-12

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted:10/16/9S


Dilution Factor: 1



50 09 Q —————76-44-8 ———— -309 00 2 — — — -959 08 8 ————60-57-1-----

50-29-3------72 43 G —————~i 1 0 fi C3 1 Q Q C "7

T -i n p £ p

1024' 57 3 ———72-55-9------73 30 83 -^ r A n

V 1 3 1 " 93 'I1031 07 0 ———11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---I T A Q T £* Q T

R n n i ~\ c ^57 7'1 9 ——————

——— gamma DUG (Lindancl ——————————— -Heptachlor ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endoculfan I ——————————————---Dieldrin——— Endooulfan II ——————————————

T / LJ LJ L

—— Mothoxychlor ——————————————— •——— alpha-BHC ——————————————————---beta-BHC——— dolta-BHC ———————————————————— Hoptoohlor opoxido ——————————

T f LJ LJ Cj

——— Endrin ——————————————————————— 1.1' ODD ———————————————————•---Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Endooulfan oulfato ——————————- - -Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— ToxQphonc ———————————————— Chlordcme — (Technical ) ————————

——————— 0.030——————— 0.030———————— 0 . 030———————— 0.050]0.02> o.ooz-4

————————— 0.10O'lO 9-rOO-Jg

————————— 0. 30n n ~\ n

O.O2> 0.0003-n n "\ n

———————— 0.0300.10

n n r n————————— 0.10———————— 0.030———————— 0.050

0.500.500.500. 500.500.500.50

—————————— 3rre-————————— 0. 12

TJ. 1)0

•^1 —————

" —————— —————

-tf- *

<f&?UJ'' * A 1 O-w NKjs UiTi:_. HP44 kjP

*? a-y Kje.-y-NK.u-y Me-5- — —— — + —uuuuuuuiJ-Ne.tr >se_

FORM I 8080

503.164

3

33

APPENDIX H

Data Validation Reports for Pesticide Data

* BJ 0 0 1 Ptj \i •••• J. V>

J ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y4BQM.C

n

Data Validation Report for SDG No. 113 (Pesticides in Surface Water)

5021C6ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DM32701Y 4 B8/AH1

TRILLIUM.NC

1DATA VALIDATION

FOR

PAS/OSWEGO SITEOSWEGO, NEW YORK

ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATALev.' Detection Limit Pesticides of Concern in Waters

Case 31528; Sample Delivery Group #00113

Chemical Analysis Performed byCompuChem Environmental Services

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

FOR:

Roux AssociatesIslandia, New York

BY:

Trillium, Inc.356 Farragut Crossing Drive

Knoxville, Tennessee(423) 966-8880

943-I7VCAE\PAS\SDG113

January 29, 1996

'21G7

\TRILLIUIVLcEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.1 Validation of the GC organics analysis data (low detection limit pesticides) prepared byCompuChem Environmental Services for six surface water samples and one field blank (FB) from thePAS site in Oswego, New York, has been completed by Trillium, Inc. The data were reported by thelaboratory under Case 31528, Sample Delivery Group (SDG) #00113, which was received for reviewin November 1995 and includes the following samples:

DUPLICATE SWFDBLANK (FB) WINE1WINE2 WINE3 WINES\VINE6

A seventh surface water sample, WINE4, was also submitted to the laboratory for analysiswith these samples; however, the extract was lost to an accident during preparation. Sinceinsufficient sample remained for re-extraction, no analytical data are available for this sample.

Findings of the validation effort resulted in the following qualifications of sample results:

• Results for dieldrin in DUPLICATE, WINES and WINE6 were qualified as less thanthe RL (0.020 U).

• Results for beta-BHC in DUPLICATE, SWFDBLANK, WINE1, WINE3, WINES,and WINE6 were qualified as less than the RL (0.010 U).

• Results for DDE in DUPLICATE and WINES were qualified as less than the RL(0.020 U).

• Results for DOT in DUPLICATE, WINE1 and WINE2 were qualified as less than theRL (0.020 U).

• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected by the validator to reflect only theproject-specified target analytes.

Brief explanations of the reasons for the actions taken above may be found in the OverallAssessment (Section XII). Details of the validation findings and conclusions based on review of theresults for each quality control requirement are provided in the remaining sections of this report.

Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. Documentation of appropriatepreservation of all water samples should be added to the data package for accurate and completefuture reference.

This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides data.

50.71GS

TRILLIUIV c

INTRODUCTION

Analyses were performed according to the Superfund Low Detection Limit Method (10/92)for the project-specified "Pesticides of Concern" (beta-BHC, Dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT).This review, therefore, was limited to the supporting data for this analyte list.

Trillium's validation was performed using the EPA Region II Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) HW-13, "Superfund Analytical Method for Low Concentration Waters for Organics (Revl,8/92)." EPA's National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review, EPA 540/R-94/012 (2/94)were also used as guidance and professional judgment was applied as necessary.

The data validation process is intended to evaluate the data on a technical basis rather thana contract compliance basis for chemical analyses conducted under the CLP. An initial assumptionis that the data package is presented in accordance with (or, as in this case, as closely as possible to)the CLP requirements. It is also assumed that the data package represents the best efforts of thelaboratory and has already been subjected to adequate and sufficient quality review prior tosubmission for validation.

During the validation process, laboratory data are verified against all available supportingdocumentation. Based on this evaluation, qualifier codes may be added, deleted, or modified by thedata validator. Validated results are, therefore, either qualified or unqualified. Unqualified resultsmean that the reported values may be used without reservation. Final validated results are annotatedwith the following codes as defined in the National Functional Guidelines:

U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported samplequantitation limit.

J - The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is theapproximate concentration of the analyte in the sample.

N - The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptiveevidence to make a "tentative identification."

NJ - The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte that has been "tentatively identified"and the associated numerical value represents its approximate concentration.

UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However,the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actuallimit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in thesample.

TRILLIUIV

R - The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze thesample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analytecannot be verified

These codes are recorded on the Data Summary Forms contained in Attachment A and on theOrganic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I's) in Attachment B to this validation report to indicatequalifications placed on the data as a result of the review.

Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" qualifier means that thelaboratory-reported value is unusable. In other words, due to significant quality control problems,the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the analyte is present or not.Rejected values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a lastresort. Second, no analyte concentration is guaranteed to be accurate even if all associatedquality control is acceptable. Strict quality control conformance serves only to increase confidencein reported results; any analytical result will always contain some error.

The user is also cautioned that the validation effort is based on the raw data printouts asprovided by the laboratory. Software manipulation cannot be routinely detected during validation;unless otherwise stated in the report, these kinds of issues are outside the scope of this review.

c

02170

\TRILLIUM*

I. Holding Times, Preservation and Sample Integrity

The surface water samples and associated FB (SWFDBLANK) were collected on October11-12, 1995. Extractions were performed on October 18, 1995, which is within the one-weekholding time (from collection) specified by the method. The extracts were analyzed on October 26,1995, well within the 40-day holding time from extraction specified by the method.

Cooler temperatures on laboratory receipt were documented to be 4°C, which is acceptable.,on two of four chain of custody records listing these samples. No temperature on receipt was notedon the remaining two chain of custody documents, although the Narrative states that all samples werereceived "properly refrigerated." For the purposes of tula review, it was assumed that all sampleswere properly iced in the field and during storage prior to laboratory processing. Documentation tothis effect should be added to the data package to ensure that complete information is available forfuture reference.

II. Calibration and Instrument Performance

All field and QC samples were analyzed during a single analytical series that began with initialcalibration on 10/25/95. The series was performed on a system identified as Varian22 equipped withan electron capture detector (ECD) and a DB-608 column and a system identified as Varian20equipped with an ECD and a RTX-1701 column; since the injection times for individual analyses wereidentical between the columns for each analysis date it was assumed that a single GC with a splitinjection system, dual columns and duai detectors was utilized.

A. GC Column Resolution

A resolution check standard (RESCCZ) was run prior to the init ial calibration standards, asrequired by the method. Resolution between adjacent peaks was acceptable (>60%) on bothcolumns.

Results for the wrong resolution check standard were documented on the summary form(Form 6) provided in the data package; validation was based on the raw data.

B. Initial Calibration (1C)

At the beginning of each analysis series, dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE (DDE), and 4,4'-DDT (DOT)were run at three standard concentrations ranging from 0.02 nanograms (ng) to 0.32 ng; beta-BHCwas calibrated using three standard concentrations from 0.01 ng to 0.16 ng. Standards for theAroclors and toxaphene were also analyzed and reported; since these were not requested targetanalytes for this set of samples, they were not reviewed.

0.2171

\TRILLIUM,.c

All pesticide 1C standards (INDA/INDB) on both columns were documented in the datapackage; calibration factors (CFs) were correctly calculated and accurately reported for the fourtarget analytes. Percent relative standard deviations (%RSDs) were acceptable (<20%) for dieldrin,beta-BHC, DOT and DDE.

Retention time (RT) windows were appropriately established during each 1C for all targetanalytes on both columns.

Individual DOT breakdown in the performance evaluation mix (PEM) analysis at the start ofthe 1C was acceptable (<20%) on both columns.

C. Analytical Sequence

The analytical sequence specified by the method was followed by the laboratory.

D. Continuing Calibration (CO

The analyses of instrument blanks, Performance Evaluation Mixtures (PEM), and the mid-point concentration of Individual Standard Mixtures A and B (INDA/INDB) constitute the continuingcalibration. Documentation of all continuing calibration analyses for both columns was present andcomplete in the data package.

Percent difference (%D) values for measured concentrations of target analytes (relative to theknown nominal concentrations) were correctly calculated, accurately reported and acceptable (<25%)for the PEM and for the INDA/INDB solutions on DB-608 bracketing the sample analyses in theanalysis series. No quantitation reports were found in the data package for the INDA/INDBstandards on RTX-1701, therefore the reported %Ds, all of which were acceptable, could not beconfirmed by the validator.

All target analytes and surrogates in the continuing calibration standards were within the RTwindows established during the 1C on both columns.

Instrument blanks were run at the appropriate frequencies on both columns; no target analyteswere detected in either of these blanks and surrogate retention times were very consistent.

III. Blanks

One method blank (MB, PBLK45) was prepared and analyzed with the samples in this SDG.No target analytes were confirmed in the MB, but a small peak at the retention time (RT) for beta-BHC (RT 11.25 minutes) and a larger peak at the RT for DOT (RT 15.18 minutes) were present onRTX-1701 (no confirming peaks were found on the DB-608 column chromatogram). The

TRILLIUM.Cchromatogram in general contained an unusually large number of peaks for a blank, especially in thefirst few minutes of elution time.

A field blank (FB) associated with the surface waters collected on 10/12/95 was reported inSDG #00126. Because this FB was extracted 32 days after collection (well outside the specifiedholding time), the results were deemed unreliable and were not used to evaluate associated samples.

A FB collected on 10/11/95 with the surface waters and reported in this SDG was, therefore,considered to be associated with all of the surface waters collected 10/11-12/95 for validationpurposes. Positive results were reported in this FB for beta-BHC (0.0031 ug/L) and dieldrin(0.00043 ug/L). Since the result for beta-BHC was qualified as less than the reporting limit (RL)based on poor consistency between the dual column measurements (Section VIII), this value was notused to evaluate sample results. Dieldrin, however, was determined to be a valid result, despite thevery low concentration. Therefore, results for dieldrin in WINES and WINE6 were qualified as lessthan the RL (0.020 U) based on the associated FB contamination; in each case, the reportedconcentration was less than five times the blank concentration and less than the RL.

IV. Surrogate Recovery

Tetrachloro-meta-xylene (TCX) and decachlorobiphenyl (DCB) were used as surrogates forthese analyses; recoveries in each sample were correctly calculated, accurately reported andacceptable (30-150%).

V. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD)

MS/MSD analyses are not required by the referenced analytical method.

VI. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS)

A laboratory control sample (LCS) was extracted and analyzed in association with this set ofwater samples; dieldrin and DDE were included in this quality control analysis. Acceptable recoveries(92-115%) were obtained for these two compounds on both columns.

VII. Field Duplicate

Sample DUPLICATE was identified as a field duplicate of WINE5. After qualifications basedon FB contamination (Section III) and elevated percent differences between column measurements(Section VIII), dieldrin was reported in DUPLICATE at 0.0079 ug/L and was less than the reportinglimit (RL) of 0.020 ng/L in WINES, and DDE was reported in WINE5 at 0.00043 ug/L and was less

02173

TRILLIUM,Nc

than the RL (0.020 U) in DUPLICATE. Since neither set of paired results matched well prior to thepreviously applied qualifications and all of the reported results were well below the RL, the result fordieldrin in DUPLICATE and the result for DDE in WINES were qualified as less than the RL (0.020U) based on lack of confirmation in the field duplicate analysis.

VIII. Target Analyte Identification and Quantitation

Reported target analytes were correctly identified for each sample based on the presence ofa peak within the established RT window on both columns. However, all but one of the positiveresults reported were well below the applicable RL for each compound (by as much as a factor of 46);many also show substantial variation between the dual column measurements. In addition, most ofthe RTX-1701 responses for beta-BHC and DOT were not substantially higher than those noted forthese analytes on this column in the MB (Section III), suggesting that the sample responses do notrepresent true target analyte components so much as blank contamination.

All of the sample chromatograms were extremely complex, containing numerous large peaksand elevated baselines. And, all of the chromatograms provided in the data package were off-scale,making them less than useful for evaluation of overall responses.

Confirmation of sample results includes comparison of the measured concentration for eachanalyte from both columns. Elevated %Ds between the two column measurements suggest one oftwo things: (1) the apparently confirmed peak does not, in fact, represent the target analyte; or (2)an interference is present on the column with the higher response. Sample results for which the %Dexceeds 25% are flagged "P" by the laboratory.

Per the Region II validation guidelines, results flagged "P" for which the %D is <50% arequalified as estimated (J), where the %D is 51-90%, the result is flagged as presumed present at anestimated concentration (JN). Region II specifies that results for which the %D exceeds 90% berejected (R); however, Trillium routinely applies this qualifier only in those cases where the reportedconcentration is greater than the RL. Sample results below the RL for which the %D is greater than90% were qualified as less than the RL.

The following sample results were qualified based on elevated %Ds between dual columnmeasurements:

Results for beta-BHC in DUPLICATE (>1000%D), SWFDBLANK (>1000%D),WINE1 (>1000%D), WINES (>1000%D), WINES (>1000%D) and WINE6(>1000%D) were qualified as less than the RL (0.010 U). In each case, the responsefrom RTX-1701 was the lower (and, therefore, reported) concentration and none wassignificantly greater than the MB response.

502174

\TRILLIUIV

The result for DDE in DUPLICATE (173%D) was qualified as less than the RL(0.020 U).

Results for DOT in DUPLICATE (>1000%D), WINE1 (686%D) and WINE2(650%D) were qualified as less than the RL (0.020 U).

The result for DDE in WINES (30.2%D) warranted qualification as estimated (J);however, this concentration was already flagged as "J" because it was below the RLand was qualified as less than the RL (0.020 U) based on field duplicate comparisons;the "U" qualifier takes precedence in this case.

The result for dieldrin in WINE6 (40.0%D) warranted qualification as estimated (J),however this value was previously qualified as less than the RL (0.020 U) based onFB contamination; the "U" qualifier takes precedence in this case.

IX. Reporting Limits

Non-detected target analytes were correctly reported as less than the RL in all samples. Nodilutions were performed, and no adjustments due to actual sample volume extracted were necessary.

The Data Summary Form in Attachment A lists individual sample analytes affected by theapplied qualifications. All positive results are listed on this form, whether or not the value or qualifierwas changed as a result of the validation. Where no resuk is listed, the compound was not detectedand the RL was not qualified.

X. System Performance

The analytical system appeared to have been working well at the time of these analyses, basedon the evaluation of the available raw data.

XI. Documentation

Chain-of-custody (COC) records were present and accurately completed for all samplesreported in this data package. A temperature of 4°C was recorded by the laboratory on two of thefour COCs listing the surface water samples, confirming appropriate preservation of the samples inthe field and during shipment. No temperature notation was recorded on the remaining two COCs;since the narrative states that all samples were received "properly refrigerated," it was assumed thatthese samples were also properly handled in the field. Documentation to confirm this assumptionshould be added to the data package for accurate future reference.

c p Q 1 n roU^i i';>

c

TRILLIUIV

Although only four project-specific "pesticides of concern" were requested for analysis, thelaboratory reported the entire list of pesticides and PCBs routinely analyzed by this method on thesample Form I's. If it was not possible to automatically revise the Form I's for the client-specifiedanalytes, the laboratory could have corrected the results forms by manually crossing out theunrequested analytes. The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected in this manner by the validator.

Form 6, summarizing the resolution check standard results, contains results for the wronganalysis, the laboratory should be requested to provide the correct summary form for insertion intothe data package.

No quantitation reports (QRs) are presented in the data package fcr the INDA/INDBcontinuing calibration standards on RTX-1701; QRs for these analyses on DB-608 were, instead,provided twice. The laboratory should be requested to provide the missing QRs for insertion into thedata package.

On Form 7 for the continuing calibration run "PEMPN" on DB-608, the RT for DDT isincorrectly reported as 12.20 minutes; the correct RT for this analyte on this column is 13.20 minutes.

XII. Overall Assessment

Results for the project-specified analytes in the water samples reported in SDG #00113 werequalified as follows:

• Results for dieldrin in WINES and WINE6 were qualified as less than the RL (0.020U) based on associated FB contamination. The result for dieldrin in WINE6 alsowarranted qualification as estimated (J) due to an elevated %D between the dualcolumn measurements; the "U" qualifier takes precedence in this case.

• Results for beta-BHC in DUPLICATE, SWFDBLANK, WINE1, WINE3, WINES,and WINE6 were qualified as less than the RL (0.010 U) due to elevated %Dsbetween dual column measurements.

• The result for DDE in DUPLICATE was qualified as less than the RL (0.020 U) dueto an elevated %D between the dual column measurements.

• Results for DDT in DUPLICATE, WINE1 and WINE2 were qualified as less than theRL (0.020 U) due to elevated %Ds between dual column measurements.

• The result for dieldrin in DUPLICATE and the result for DDE in WINES werequalified as less than the RL (0.020 U) based on lack of confirmation in the fieldduplicate analysis. The result for DDE in WINES also warranted qualification as

Nc

TRILLIUM

estimated (J) due to an elevated %D between the dual column measurements; the "U"qualifier takes precedence in this case.


Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. At the discretion of the data user, thelaboratory should be requested to provide the missing data or revised forms, as applicable, forinclusion in the data package. At a minimum, documentation of appropriate preservation for allsamples should be added to the data package for accurate and complete future reference.


,Nc

10 502177

\TRILLIUIV c

ATTACHMENT A

DATA SUMMARY FORMCase 31528, SDG #00113

Pesticides in Water

i >?o1 ; O

Site Name: PAS/OswegoCase #31 528; SDG#00113

DATA SUMMARY FORM: PESTICIDES OF CONCERNWATER SAMPLES

(ug/L)Sampling Dates: October 11-12, 1995Trillium Project No.. 95347

Sample NumberLab ID

Dilution FactorRL

0.0100.0200.0200.020

bcta-BHCDicldrin4,4'-DDL-4,4'-DDT

DUPLICATE765535

1

0.0100.0200.0200.020

UUUU

SWFDBLANK765534

1

0.0100.00043

UJ

WINE1765527

1

0.0100.021

0.020

U

U

WINH2 _j765529

1

0.0170.00068

0.020

JJU

WINH3765530

1

0.0100.017

UJ

WINES '765532

1

0.0100.0200.020

UUU

WINE6765533

1

0.0100.020

UU

CJ1o

\PAiASDG113PP

Superfund LDL Method (10/92) Page 1 of 1

TRILLIUM.c

ATTACHMENT B

Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I's)Case 31528, SDG #00113

Pesticides in Water

502180


EPA SAMPLE NO.

DUPLICATELab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract: (10-92) -REV



Sample Volume: 1000 (mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95

Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 10/26/95

Injection Volume. 2.0(uL) Dilution Factor: I



(ug/L)

1"

6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -

- - -be ta -BHC

——— ijummu DUO (LlmlunU ——————————

- - -Dieldrin- - - 4 , 4 ' -DDE

T~* J 1 C "1 •£ *-

- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

——— Dudi iu I t u L u M U . ————————————————

—— m»mm* OhluiJaai. —————————————

—— Auee leM 1DD1 ————————————————

0-0IO 0 . 0 0 7 3

0 018

O , O 3-0 -0.0079o.od& o .ooooe-

o.t&£> e-. o o o c i

-. *-. i iTT?- U

r ,

~\i LA•JP LA',,

-O|3LLT,

..

^m

"^X

JV"i*

\M^

FORM I LCP 10/92

021


EPA SAMPLE NO.

SWFDBLANKLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV



Sample Volume: 100Q(mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95


Infection Volume: 2.0 (up Dilution P?ctor: i



(ug/L)

319-85 -7 - - - - -

6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -72-55-9-- - - - -

•i *"N r- j r\

1031 O"1 050-29 -3 - - - - - -

E10D Tl Cf l f t3 71 3p n n j Tif o

I'K"'! 11 3

,--,„,.„ _,, 0

- - -be ta -BHC

- - -DieldrinT , ^ LJ LJ d

- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

T-> J > *_

Cndrin aldoh'-dc

0A ^^Q 0 003!

n n-i n

0 . 0 0 0 4 30 . 0 2 0

A r» i A

0 . 0 2 00 10

0 ODDrt o *^ rt

n « , «

p ,.. n

1 00 30

n n r\

n in

JP_JJ,,T I P

T T

JJJ *u »

*u *IT

r j^^

——————

T,

J,

TT

r.

,.

^T

^

FORM I LCP 10/92

021


EPA SAMPLE NO.






Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL) Dilution Factor: .1


'CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION

(ug/L) Q

319-85-7--------beta-BHC__________DIP 00 0 u ln l f tu DUOC Q Q Q O ^_ ja_<3-=»_Ma_g>_^_

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

60-57-1- - - - - - - - -Die ldr in .7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - - - - - 4 , 4 ' - D D E .

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 . 4 ' - D D T _

e O O l 3D 0—— Te>Haplo-»i- ——aai-JH 11 0 M-eeleiL- 1010.

l l l i l 10 D j»iiuiluL 1£3S'D 3 1 0 0 Bl 0 ftiuilui 1S<S

Q.OIO e . O O l O

A AT A

U

A A T A

0 .0210 . 0 2 0 U

-0 . 001»

O i O O

FORM I LCP 10/92

5021 O r>


EPA SAMPLE NO.






Injection Volume : ? . Q fiiL) Dilution Factor: I


CAS No. COMPOUND

319-85-7--------beta-BHC.

EB Bii P g

Icn^To1 H?].1 ]:"!"60-57-1---------Dieldrin____72-55-9---------4,4'-DDE____

50-29-3---------4,4'-DOT.

• ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

eaaa^ii^ Toiiaphani^^

11104 00 D inan-iiileii.1 10G1

CONCENTRATION(ug/L)

0.010

n f\ n f\

0.0170.00068

n n n n

0.020 O.0020

0 . 10

u

f M

FORM I LCP 10/92


EPA SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: • SDG No.: 00113




Extraction: {SepF/Cont/Sonc} CONT




CAS NO. COMPOUND


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: l_


CONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L

-\ i s* n * f 11 •nvv.n

.3 .L i? - o D / - - - - - - - - D c C c i - D r l L .? IP fi£ ? T 3 i l * * n D I I ^C^T^nn n >-. -,„,„,-! DITO /T „' ., J -. -^ „ 1- i r t t * T T _ ^ _ _ I _ T _ .

T H O / C1"? T I_I^.»-it--i^.V.T^^*<- —-s.*^. .^J —

60-57-1 - - - - - - - - -Die ldr in

18S1 O"1 0 E n d o o u l f n n n u l f a t o

-70 ^J C > < ^ t U _ . . . —— U1— „

"^^^O T ("IT >1 T^«.Jbj .^_ - « T J — .1— .--3 —

i -,/-->« -,-,-* > r , „, ,. —————————

—— r -i r -Lr J I ' L I D I D

T ^ on_, ^n , » „ _ _ ! _ , - , , - „ '

6.CIO 0 . 0023" 01 "n n - j^o

A A T A

0.0170 . 0 2 0

n n~,n

0 . 0 2 0A 1 A

« «, „

A A A

„ _, „

_ __.

—^^ •

J W/

U v^T 1

r r

U *^•tf_ ——— __^_

!..

_ _

T T

j.

V

FORM I PEST OLM03.0£ (\ 11 o ro u -~ J. v


EPA SAMPLE NO.

WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV





Injection Volume.- 2 . 0 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1



(ug/L) Q

319-85-7--------beta-BHC

AMM ^ ^ M M H H B M tfli &M U ^ ^ M^^^^^^^A^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^~^^^^^^^^^^

^ ^ n ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ rr

60-57-1---------Dieldrin___72-55-9---------4,4'-DDE____^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ n ^ ^ ^ ^

50-29-3---------4,4'-DDT____

giCi ?1 P——————alpha Oliluii-di!f iaa in a—————jaimnu ohiuL'JL

^^^^^^^•^^•^^^^^^•^•^^^jM^M^aa^k^^^^^M^HM

air-Tii ia a————Auealei- ioic_

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

O.OIO 0 .0020

r\ n i n

Tff U

>*

3-k

•S . 000020 .0004-3-

n n o n

0.020 u0. 000

0 . 0 1 0 ' &0 i 010

0 . 0 0 &

FORM I LCP 10/92

502186


EPA SAMPLE NO.






Extraction: fSepF/Cont/Sonc) CONT




CAS NO. COMPOUND


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1


CONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L Q

, 1319 -85 -7----- ---beta-EEC

nrn no o r^iL,-, , 1 f -, „ T

6 0 - 5 7 - l - - - - - - - - - D i e l d r i n

1 -* ~\ f\ n r^ _ J _ .' —

- im i m o r-~A~,.,,-l f-,~ ^ , , T ^ ^ H ^

5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 . 4 ' -DDT7C ID "" M" thcir 'ohlorr - 1 / . n / . - i n r " J— • l- .-

""11 P? 1 Endrin -iltf?h"dif l " D ""1 C alrhi "hltrrrf -in?

^ ^ ^ d ,, ^ - i -T/ f" '""•

^ ^ ^ / • ^ 1 " ^ T 1-1 * - _ T _ ^ *S * *^

0O-OlO Q . 0030

r~* r\ t r\

f\ f\ T r\

f\ O T f\

0- 02-Q 0. 000300 . 0 2 0

n r\ *\ f\

rt n n n

0.020n -i r,

n nn nr, n-,0

^ rvi «

^^ r% i s\

« ^^

r* ^ «

«

T|

^^*

^^

JT ^

U vXT T

^^^

^^

U vTJ

--

^^

TT

T ^

T*

J1T*

«

V$Sis ^

FORM I PEST OLM

yn

Data Validation Report for SDG No. 58 (Pesticides in Sediment)

502188ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMSZTOIY.4 BWAHJ

TRILLILJIV c

DATA VALIDATION

FOR


ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATAPesticides of Concern in Sediments

Case 31528; Sample Delivery Group #00058 and #00058A



FOR:


BY:



94347VCAE\PAS\SDG058

January 22,1996

502189

\TRILLIUIVLc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Validation of the GC organics analysis data (pesticides) prepared by CompuChemEnvironmental Services for seven sediment samples from the PAS site in Oswego, New York, hasbeen completed. The data were reported by the laboratory under Case 31528, Sample DeliveryGroup (SDG) #00058 and #00058A, which were received for review in November 1995 (revisionsreceived January 9, 1996) and include the following samples:

SDG #00058:DUPSOIL WINE1 WINES WINE4WINE5 WINE6

SDG #00058A:WINE2

Sample WINE2 was extracted with the sediments reported in SDG #00058 but was notanalyzed due to a miscommunication regarding cancellation of a different analysis parameter for thissample. When the omission was identified, WINE2 was analyzed and reported separately in a datapackage identified as SDG #00058A. The two data packages were reviewed together to minimizeredundancy; all of the samples are associated with the same quality control samples.


• Results for dieldrin and DOT in WINE2 were qualified as estimated (J).

• The reported result for DOT in WINE6 was corrected to 1.3 ng/Kg; this result wassubsequently qualified as less than the sample-specific reporting limit (SRL).

• DDE results in the MS and MSD analyses of WINE4 were corrected; thesecorrections had no direct effect on the site sample results.

• Results for beta-BHC in WINE1, WINE3 and WINES were qualified as less than theSRL(U).

• Results for beta-BHC in WINE4 and WINE6 were qualified as presumed present atestimated concentrations (JN).

• Results for dieldrin in WINE] and WINE5 were qualified as estimated (J).

50219°

\TRILLIUM

• The result for dieldrin in WINE6 was qualified as presumed present at an estimatedconcentration (JN).

• Results for DDE in DUPSOIL, WINE4 and WINES were qualified as estimated (J).

• The result for DDE in WINE3 was qualified as presumed present at an estimatedconcentration (JN).

• The result for DDE in WINE6 was qualified as less than the SRL (U).

» Results for DDT in DUPSOIL, WINE4, and V/INE5 were qualified as less than theSRLs (U).

• The result for DDT in WINE1 was qualified as estimated (J).


All "B" and "P" flags applied by the laboratory were removed by the validator. Unlessotherwise qualified, "J" flags indicating positive results below the SRL were not removed.


Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. While some of these issues do notdirectly affect the technical validity of the generated data, they could be problematic if the data wereto be used in a litigation situation. Documentation of appropriate preservation of all sediments shouldbe added to the data package for accurate and complete future reference.


«

502101

\TRILLILJIV c

INTRODUCTION

Analyses were performed according to EPA Method 8080 (SW-846) for the project-specified"Pesticides of Concern" (beta-BHC, Dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT) only. This review, therefore,was limited to the supporting data for this analyte list. Peak misidentifications and subsequentincorrectly reported analyte concentrations were pointed out to the laboratory on December 20, 1995.Following their review of the data with regard to these issues, the laboratory provided revised sampleresults on January 9, 1996. Revised pages (Form I's, quantitation reports and Form X's) wereinserted into the data packages for SDGs #00058 and #00058A, replacing the originally issued pages.The remainder of this report deals with the revised sample data provided by the laboratory.

Since no validation guidelines specific to the referenced method are available, Trillium'svalidation was performed (to the extent possible) using the EPA Region II Standard OperatingProcedure (SOP) HW-6 (Revision 8, January 1992). EPA's National Functional Guidelines forOrganic Data Review, EPA 540/R-94/012 (2/94) were also used as guidance; specifications of thereferenced method took precedence where discrepancies were encountered and professional judgmentwas applied as necessary.



U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported samplequantitation limit .




502102

\TRILLIUM

UJ - The anaJyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However,the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actuallimit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in thesample.

R - The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze thesample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analytecannot be verified.


Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" qualifier means that thelaboratory-reported value is unusable. In other words, due to significant quality control problems,the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the analyte is present or not.Rejected values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a lastresort. Second, no analyte concentration is guaranteed to be accurate even if all associatedquality' control is acceptable. Strict quality control conformance serves only to increase confidencein reported results, any analytical result will always contain some error.

The user is also cautioned that the validation effort is based on the raw data printouts asprovided by the laboratory. Software manipulation cannot be routinely detected during validation;unless otherwise slated in the report, these kinds of issues are outside the scope of this review.

«

502103

\TRILLIUM,Nc

I. Holding Times, Preservation and Sample Integrity

The sediment samples were collected on October 11-12, 1995. Extractions were performedon October 19, 1995; this is within the one-week holding time (from collection) specified by themethod. The extracts of samples reported in SDG #00058 were analyzed on October 25, 1995, wellwithin the 40-day holding time from extraction specified by the method. The extract of sampleWINE2, which was reported in SDG #00058A, was analyzed on 11/15/95, also within the 40-dayholding time.

A temperature notation of "4°C" was present in the comments section of two of the fourchain of custody (COC) records or. which the sediment samples were recorded; nc temperaturenotation was found on the other two COCs, and no indication of preservation performed in the fieldwas found on any of the records. For the purposes of this validation, it was assumed that all sampleswere properly iced at the time of collection and during handling prior to extraction and analysis;documentation to this effect should be added to the data packages to ensure that completeinformation is available for future reference.


All samples were analyzed during two analytical series that began with initial calibration on10/21/95 and 10/27/95. Both series were performed on a system identified as Varian39 equippedwith an electron capture detector (ECD) and a DB-608 column and a system identified as Varian41equipped with an ECD and a DB-1701 column, since the injection times for individual analyses wereidentical between the columns for each analysis date it was assumed that a single GC with a splitinjection system, dual columns and dual detectors was utilized.


No resolution check standard solution analysis was performed; this is not required by SW-846Method 8080.


At the beginning of each analysis series, dieldrin, beta-BHC and 4,4'-DDE (DDE) were runat five standard concentrations ranging from 0.01 nanograms (ng) to 0.16 ng; 4,4'-DDT (DOT) wascalibrated using five standard concentrations from 0.03 ng to 0.48 ng.

All 1C standards on both columns and from both series were documented in the datapackages: calibration factors (CFs) were correctly calculated and accurately reported for all targetanalytes. Percent relative standard deviations (%RSDs) were acceptable (<20%) for dieldrin, beta-BHC, DDT and DDE in both series on both columns.

502194

\TRILLIUM

Retention time (RT) windows were appropriately established during each 1C for all individualand multicomponent target analytes on both columns. Note that some of the windows were verywide - up to 0.5 minutes (30 seconds); this makes it likely that more than one peak will be in mostof the windows, necessitating careful review of the computer-generated data to ensure that theappropriate peak was selected prior to finalizing sample results.

Individual DDT breakdown in the performance evaluation mix (PEM) analysis at the start ofeach 1C was acceptable (<20%) on both columns.


SW-846 Method 8080 does not specify an exact analytical sequence to be followed; themethod simply requires that an 1C be performed prior to sample analyses and that the calibration beverified on each day that samples are analyzed at a frequency of one mid-point calibration standardrun after every 10 sample analyses. These specifications were met.


Prior to sample analyses on 10/25/95, a standard identified as "MIXA-36V" was run on bothcolumns and evaluated relative to the 10/21/95 1C. Of the project-specified target analytes, onlydieldrin and DDT were present in this standard; RTs were within the established windows andmeasured concentrations for the two target analytes were consistent with the true values (<7.5percent difference [%D]) on both columns. Another standard identified as "PEM8080NY" was runat 16:22 on 10/25/95; PEM8080NY contained DDT (and endrin) only. DDT breakdown wasacceptable (^14.7% on both columns), and the DDT response was acceptable on both columnsrelative to the true concentrations (< 1 1 ,7%D). A third CC standard identified as "MIXB-33J" wasrun on 10/25/95 at 23:20, this standard mix contained beta-BHC and DDE. RTs were withinestablished windows and responses were acceptable (< 12.5%D) with respect to the true values.

Since all four target analytes were present in the CC standards bracketing the sample analyseson 10/25/95 and all CC standard results were within acceptable quality control limits, no action waswarranted on this basis.

A standard identified as "MIXB-342" was analyzed on 1 1/1 5/95 at 02:59 and contained beta-BHC and DDE from the project-specific target analyte list. RTs for these two analytes were withinthe windows established on 10/27/95 and measured concentrations were consistent with true values(%Ds 2.5-15% on both columns). No CC standard containing dieldrin or DDT and run on 1 1/15/95in association with sample WINE2 was reported in the data package (SDG #00058A). Given theoverall stability of RTs for the analytes that are in the CC standard that is reported for this date, it wasassumed that RTs for these two analytes would also have been stable relative to the 10/27/95 1C.However, in the absence of documented evidence that the calibration was still accurate for thesetarget analytes, results for dieldrin and DDT in WINE2 were qualified as estimated (J).

5021S5

i»c

TRILLIUIV c

III . Blanks

One solid-matrix method blank (MB, PBLK06) was prepared and analyzed with the sedimentsamples. Low concentrations of dieldrin (0.036 ug/Kg) and DDE (0.20 ug/Kg) were reported inPBLK06; both of these results are well below the applicable reporting limits (RLs) and show someinconsistency between the dual column measurements (67%D for dieldrin, 55%D for DDE).

Despite the high %D, RTs for dieldrin on both columns were very good matches to theexpected RTs; the %D result is likely elevated due to the very low concentrations detected. Allsediment sample results for dieldrin were greater than five times the reported concentration inPELK06, therefore no qualifiers were warranted on this basis.

For DDE, the RT reported for this analyte on DB-608 (16.33 minutes) is not a very goodmatch to the expected RT (16.49 minutes), although it is within the established RT window of 16.26-16.76 minutes. In the associated samples where this analyte was confirmed present, a much betterRT match was obtained. Therefore, it was determined by the validator that this analyte was notconfirmed in PBLK06 and the reported concentration was not used to qualify associated sampleresults.

The MB chromatogram showed evidence of general system contamination, i.e., the baselinewas elevated and numerous early eluting peaks as well as one large peak (11.5 minutes on DB-608;9.4 minutes on DB-1701) were visible. The laboratory is encouraged to investigate possible sourcesof this contamination and to take corrective action as appropriate.

"B" flags were applied by the laboratory only to results for dieldrin and DDE in WINE2; theseflags were removed by the validator.

A field blank (FB) associated with the sediments collected on 10/11/95 was reported in SDG#000125. Because this FB was extracted 33 days after collection (well outside the specified holdingtime), the results were deemed unreliable and were not used to evaluate associated samples.

A FB collected on 10/12/95 with the sediments and reported in SDG #00002 was, therefore,considered to be associated with all of the sediments collected 10/11-12/95 for validation purposes.No pesticides of concern were detected in this FB, therefore no action was warranted on this basis.


Tetrachloro-meta-xylene (TCX) and decachlorobiphenyl (DCB) were used as surrogates forthese analyses; recoveries in each sample were correctly calculated, accurately reported andacceptable (20-150%) with the exception of DCB on both columns in PBLK06 (160% on both).Since recovery of TCX was acceptable on both columns in the MB (although still on the high side,at 130-140%), no action was taken on this basis.

7 502106

TRILLIUM,Nc

V. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate

Sample WINE4 was also prepared and analyzed as a MS/MSD pair. The spiking solutionincluded only dieldrin and DOT from the project-specified target analyte list; recoveries werecorrectly calculated and accurately reported for these two analytes in both spiked analyses.Recoveries were acceptable (52-76%) and reproducible (19%RPD).

Unspiked analytes beta-BHC (0.20, 0.15 ug/Kg) and DDE (2.2, 1.8 ug/Kg) were detectedin both the MS and MSD analyses as well as in the original analysis of WINE4 (beta-BHC 0.25ug/Kg and DDE 0.75 ug/Kg). The results for beta-BHC show poor RT matches on both columnsin both the MS and MSD, as v/ell as very high %Ds (>1000°/c) between the dual columnmeasurements; however, better RT matches and a much better %D (52.0%) were found in theoriginal sample analysis. Also, this sample was run as a field duplicate, in which a valid confirmedresult for beta-BHC was obtained. Therefore, no action was taken based on the inconsistencies foundbetween the dual column measurements in the MS/MSD analyses (there may be some interferencefrom non-target analyte spiked compounds in the MS and MSD, making small responses for beta-BHC impossible to discern).

DDE was not reported by the laboratory at all in the MS and the wrong peak was identifiedas this compound on DB-608 in the MSD; note that corrected calculations were not provided for theMS and MSD. Based on validator calculations, therefore, despite all values being below the samplespecific reporting limit (SRL), reasonably good comparison was achieved for DDE in the threeanalyses of WINE4 and no qualifiers were applied on this basis.

VI. Blank Spike

No blank spike analysis was performed or reported with this SDG.


Sample DUPSOIL was identified as a field duplicate of WINE4. Positive results above theSRLs were reported in both sample analyses for dieldrin; good reproducibility for this analyte(9.1%RPD) was obtained.

Results below the SRLs were reported in both samples for beta-BHC, DDE and DDT.Acceptable reproducibility (<100%RPD) was achieved for all three of these analytes in the fieldduplicate sample analyses.

502137

\TRILLIUM,Nc

VIII. Target Analyte Identification and Quantitation

Target analytes were correctly identified for each sample (based on the presence of a peakwithin the established RT window on both columns) and results were correctly calculated andaccurately reported, with the lower of the two column measurements being reported in each case,with the following exceptions:

InWINE6onDB-1701, the peak at RT 14.61 minutes is closer to the middle of theRT window for DOT than the laboratory-reported peak at RT 14.43 minutes, and istherefore the better choice for reporting as DOT. Since the corrected DB-1701 resultwas the lower cf the dual column measurements, the reported result for DDT inWINE6 was corrected to 1.3 ug/Kg (from 2.1 ug/Kg) and the %D was corrected to515% (from 281 %) by the validator.

In WINE4MSD, the peak at RT 16.49 on DB-608 is closer to the middle of the RTwindow for DDE than the laboratory-reported peak at RT 16.27 minutes, and istherefore the better choice for reporting as DDE. The concentration of this unspikedanalyte from DB-608 was corrected by the validator to 2.8 ug/Kg (from 0.32 ug/Kg)on this basis, and the corresponding %D was corrected to 55.5% (from 462%).

DDE was not reported at all in WINE4MS, but was identified by the validator at RT16.48 minutes on DB-608 and RT 11.99 minutes on DB-1701; correspondingconcentrations of 3.6 and 2.2 ug/Kg, respectively, were calculated for these twopeaks, with a %D of 63.6%.

Note that corrected results for the MS and MSD were not received with the revised sampledata provided by the laboratory on 1/9/96.

Confirmation of sample results also includes comparison of the measured concentration foreach analyte from both columns. Elevated %Ds between the two column measurements suggest oneof two things: (1) the apparently confirmed peak does not, in fact, represent the target analyte; or(2) an interference is present on the column with the higher response. Sample results with %Dsgreater than 25% are flagged "P" by the laboratory.

Per the Region II guidelines, results flagged "P" for which the %D is <50% are qualified asestimated (J); where the %D is 51-90%, the result is flagged as presumed present at an estimatedconcentration (JN). Region II specifies that results for which the %D exceeds 90% be rejected (R);however, Trillium applies this qualifier only in those cases where the reported concentration is greaterthan the SRL. Where the %D is greater than 90% and the reported concentration is less than theSRL, the result is qualified as less than the SRL (U).

The following results were qualified based on elevated %D values:

502198

TRILLIUM<*.'

^_, • Results for beta-BHC in WINE1 (>1000%D), WINE3 (>1000%D), and WINE5~j (2 1 4%D) were qualified as less than the SRL (U);

Results for beta-BHC in WINE4 (52.0%D) and WINE6 (68.8%D) were qualified aspresumed present at estimated concentrations (JN);

--4

Results for dieldrin in WINE1 (32.8%D) and WINES (30.8%D) were qualified asestimated (J);

• The result for dieldrin in WINE6 (333%D) was qualified as presumed present at anestimated concentration (JN). Although it exceeded the SRL and warranted rejectionbased strictly on the %D, examination of the chromatograms indicated thatinterferences on DB-608 may have prevented accurate integration of this peak.Therefore, the " JN" flag was applied based on professional judgment, as an alternativeto rejecting the result.

Results for DDE in DUPSOIL (27.9%D), WTNE4 (33.3%D), and WINE5 (40.8%D)were qualified as estimated (J);

The result for DDE in WINE3 (55.6%D) was qualified as presumed present at anestimated concentration (JN);

*""' • The result for DDE in WINE6 (126%D) was qualified as less than the SRL (U),

Results for DOT in DUPSOIL ( 1 07%D), WINE4 (270%D), WINES (260%D) andWINE6 (515%D) were qualified as less than the SRLs (U); and

Results for DOT in WINE1 (41.2%D) and WINE2 (44.1%D) were qualified asestimated (J).

The result for dieldrin in WINE4 (26.1%D) warranted qualification as estimated (J) basedstrictly on the %D criterion. However, since a very good comparison was achieved for the fieldduplicate analysis and the %D between columns was only slightly above the QC limit, no qualifierswere applied to this result based on professional judgment.

All "P" flags applied by the laboratory were removed by the validator. "J" flags were appliedby the laboratory to indicate positive results that were below the applicable SRL; unless otherwisequalified, these flags were not removed by the validator.

,Nc

]0 502109

TRILLIUM,Nc

IX. Sample-Specific Reporting Limits (SRLs)

Positive results were reported for all project-specific target analytes in all samples in this SDG;therefore, no adjusted reporting limits were reported by the laboratory. Where results were qualifiedas less than the SRL by the validator, appropriate adjustments for percent moisture in each sedimentwere applied to the reported values.

The Data Summary Form in Attachment A lists individual sample analytes affected by theapplied qualifications. All positive results are listed on this form, whether or not the value or thequalifier was changed as a result of the validation. Where no result is listed, the compound was notdetected and the RL was not qualified. Sample-specific RLs may be calculated from the informationon the Data Summary Forms as follows: unadjusted RL ( far left column) multiplied by the dilutionfactor and divided by ([100 minus the percent moisture] divided by 100).



,,_, XI. Documentation

Chain-of-custody (COC) records were not present in the data packages for SDG #00058 or#00058A as provided by the laboratory. COC records including all of the sediment samples reportedin these SDGs, however, were found in the data package for SDG #00027; these COCs wereaccurately completed for all samples reported in SDGs #00058 and #00058A. A temperature of 4°Cwas recorded by the laboratory on two of the four applicable COCs; it was assumed for the purposesof this validation effort that all samples were properly preserved in the field. Documentation toconfirm this assumption should be added to the data package for accurate future reference.

The laboratory states in the narrative that"... due to software limitations, the entire compoundlist was reported, not just the compounds specified by the client." Since in other data packages forthis project, the Form I's are revised to include the Aroclors only, this statement appears to beinconsistent. Further, even if it is impossible to automatically revise the Form I's for the client-specified analytes, the laboratory could have corrected the results forms by manually crossing out theunrequested analytes. The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected in this manner by the validator.


Sample results for the project-specified analytes in the sediment samples in SDG #00058 and#00058A were qualified as follows:

11 502200

TRILLIUMINC

Results for dieldrin and DDT in WINE2 were qualified as estimated (J) due to thelack of continuing calibration standards for these analytes on the date that sampleanalysis was performed.

The reported result for DDT in WINE6 was corrected to 1.3 jag/Kg (from 2.1 ug/Kg)by the validator based on review of the supporting raw data.

In WINE4MSD, the result for DDE from DB-608 was corrected to 2.8 ug/Kg (from0.32 ug/Kg) and the %D was corrected to 55.5% (from 462%). These correctionshad no direct effect on any of the reported site sample results.

Peaks for DDE in WINE4MS were identified by the validator at RT 16.48 minuteson DB-608 and RT 11.99 minutes on DB-1701; corresponding concentrations of 3.6ug/Kg and 2.2 ug/Kg, respectively, were calculated for these two peaks, with a %Dof 63.6%. These corrections had no direct effect on any of the reported site sampleresults.

Results for beta-BHC in WINE1, WINE3 and WINES were qualified as less than theSRL (U) based on elevated %Ds between the dual column measurements.

Results for beta-BHC in WINE4 and WINE6 were qualified as presumed present atestimated concentrations (JN) due to elevated %Ds between the dual columnmeasurements.

Results for dieldrin in WINE1 and WINE5 were qualified as estimated (J) based onelevated %Ds between the dual column measurements.

The result for dieldrin in WINE6 was qualified as presumed present at an estimatedconcentration (JN) based on review of the supporting analytical data and professionaljudgment.

Results for DDE in DUPSOIL, WINE4 and WINES were qualified as estimated (J)based on elevated %Ds between the dual column measurements.

The result for DDE in WINE3 was qualified as presumed present at an estimatedconcentration (JN) due to an elevated %D between the dual column measurements.

The result for DDE in WINE6 was qualified as less than the SRL (U) based on anelevated %D between the dual column measurements.

Results for DDT in DUPSOIL, WINE4, WINES and WINE6 were qualified as lessthan the SRLs (U) based on elevated %Ds between the dual column measurements.

502201

TRILLIUIVLc

-^ • Results for DOT in WINE1 and WINE2 were qualified as estimated (J) due to~", elevated %Ds between the dual column measurements..1t*t


All "B" and "P" flags applied by the laboratory were removed by the validator. "J" flagsindicating positive results below the SRL were not removed unless the result was otherwise qualified.

Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. While these issues do not directlyaffect the technical validity of the generated data, they could be problematic if the data v/ere to beused in a litigation situation. Documentation of appropriate preservation of all sediments reportedin this SDG should be added to the data package for accurate and complete future reference.


13 502202

TRILLIUfV c

J

ATTACHMENT A

DATA SUMMARY FORMCase 31528, SDG #00058 and #00058A

Pesticides of Concern in Sediments

9

DATA SUMMARY FORM: PESTICIDES OF CONCERN

Site Name: PAS/OswegoCase #31528; SDG #00058 and #00058A

SEDIMENT SAMPLES(ug/Kg)

Sampling Dates: October 11-12, 1995Trillium Project No.: 94347

Sample NumberLab II)

Dilution FactorPercent Moisture

RL1.01.03.53.5

beta-BHCDieldrin4,4'-DDK4,4'-DDT

DUPSOIL764927

117

FDofWINE40.18

2.10.86

4.2

J

JU

WINFJ764879

115

1.25.81.21.7

UJJJ

WINH3764898

119

1.21.1

0.270.44

UJJNJ

WINH4764906

118

0.252.3

0.754.3

JN

.1U

WINI-5764907

140

1.713

4.95.8

UJJU

WINE6764909

125

——

0.773.04.74.7

JNJNUU

WINH2764895

136

[SDG 00058A]3.48.510

6.8

J

J

— - -- - —

enoro••,-s•t*

\PA5\SIXi58PP

EPA 8080 Page I of

TRILLIUM1Nc

ATTACHMENT B

Organic Analysis Data Sheet: (Form I's)Case 31528, SDG #00058 and #00058A

Pesticides of Concern in Sediments

/<? 5"


SAMPLE NO.


JLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


'Sample wt/vol : 30 .20 (g/ml) G

"•% Moisture: 17 decanted: (Y/N)N


Concentrated Extract Volurue: 2000 (uL)

.Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL)


DUPSOIL

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: I


:AS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kg)UG/KG Q

-r-

= 3

50

3_.,31

- j-i

72

— -

_, ^

- o

. -" *"1- .,- ^

~ Q

"t n- «n ->

~ r! =

- -» •*~* ' —

"*q if -, r-

n O/. r

O C C. "7

j DO 0 —————2' G7 3 ————- 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -

*1 f\ O

:fl o-i - .01 /i-> T Q -7 p

"i 0 c 3 "• cC71 11 3 ———

1 1 1 • 1 6 5 ———^.C3 21 0 ———g7g 29 6 ———GQ7 ^Q — l ———

——— qammn DIIC (Lii-idaiia) ———————————— IleptQchlog ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endoaulfan I ———————————————- - -Dieldrin——— Cndosulfon II ———————————————- - - 4 4 ' -DOT1 / 1 i~J LJ i.

—— Methoxvehloi- ————————————————— alpha DIIC ——————————————————

——— delta DIIC ————————————————————— Heptoehlor epexide ——————————

, 1 LJUC,

PnHTin —————————————————— 1 , 1 ' ODD ———————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Bndooulfan oulfate ——————————

——— Arnrl nr — 1 01 C, ———————————————————— Aroclor — 1221 ————————————————— Aroclor 1232 ———————————————— i—— Aroclor 1242 —————————————————— Aroeloy 1240 —————————————————— Aroclor 1254 —————————————————— Toxaphene ————————————————————— Chlordane — (Technical )

1 n1 °1 B2 . 1

———— 77"5 — " "^*C™ ~\J . O /

1 n1 "

0.18i "*

———————————— i-rfi-0.86_. _1 ^——————————— ; — —

—————————————— 3-T-4-"•Jl"4"424

————————— TT74"4"•4

—————————— 4—8-

-y-y

jj

TT

y

— £T_^ —-e-j ^•w-

3T~-TT

"

n^-w--e--w-t?U 'Ur

-u.tr

1

FORM I 808050220B

IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA

^_-E Name :COMPUCHEM, RTF Contract:.1jLab Code : COMPU Ca

•Matrix: (soil/water)

'Sample wt/vol :

'% Moisture: 15 dec

Extraction: (SepF/C

.Concentrated Extract

Jniection Volume: 2.

3PC Cleanup: (Y/N)N

CAS NO.

i—i <- * * r- - r.r, 0

'*"""*' "* 5 ? 9 3 95 G - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -

50-29-3--- ---

1 — 5 o^ r

i 319-85-7-----i i 10 8£ 8 —————! IGLi E7 3 ————

7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -

i 3 A -i - Q 1 ^

1C 31 07 8 ————

' I'-" 11 ">

1 ' ' Q'\ — 2-8 — 2 ———

3 ~ • /• £ Q "} •* n

- ^ _~ —i ~i ~\ p ^

~ ,., . ~ r -

1 - -, -, , -

1

&</--;>/<? 5"SAMPLE NO.

SHEET

WINE1

se No. : 31528 SAS No. : SDG No. : 00058

SOIL Lab Sample ID: 764879

30.00(q/ml)G Lab File ID:

anted: (Y/N)N Date Received: 10/13/95

ont/Sonc) SONC Date Extracted : 10/19/95

Volume: 2000 (uL) Date Analyzed: 10/25/95

0 (uL) Dilution Factor: 1

pH:6.3 Sulfur

CONCENTRATIOICOMPOUND (ug/L or ug/I

—— Hcptaohlor ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endooulfan I ———————————————- - -Dieldrin—— Endooulfan II ———————————————---4,4'- DOT—— Methoxvehl&i- ———————————————— alpha DIIC ——————————————————---beta-BHC—— delta DIIC ————————————————————— Iloptachlog epoxide ——————————_ _ _4 4 ' -DDF1 , 1 i_yi_/I_i

—— Endrin ————————————————————— i—— 4 — 4-1 — nnn ———————————————————— Dndgin aldehyde ——————————————— Endooulfan oulfato ———————————— Aroclor — 12QQ ————————————————— Aroclor 101G ————————————————— Aroclor 1221 —————————————————— fy-roolor- — 1232 ———————————————————

—— Aror 1 nr — 1 ri4 —————————————————— tToxaphcne •• ——————————————— rChi o ~id«rr« — (Technical ) ————————

Cleanup: (Y/N) N

SI UNITS:<q)UG/KG Q

i o1 n1 85.81 11.7rt 1

1 n» ^ - i

1 ""->

1 .21 O

1 1—————————————— tr-S-

"4"4^4

———————————— 34-

-i j,

"*4°4

———————————— i — -7

TT

U-

"3 :T=~

_y_

T EF »O irTj

y"Ln / A•err iATJ

J ^

TT

-H-

-y-TT

-e-r,

TT

TT

-e--B--B-

11N/5>

FORM I 8080 502207


- US-SAMPLE NO.

jLab Code: COMPU•J ————

Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:

Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:







3PC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:7.1

WINE2

SDG No.: 0058A


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted:10/I9/95


Dilution Factor: 1.



58 89 9•7g 4 4 8-> o g oo i

gc g go pf f\ c n60-57-1----33313 65 950-29-3----^2 _ 4 3 _ 5 _ _ _ _•319-04-G ———319-85-7---•919 86 8 ———1024 D7 3 ——72-55-9----•?-2 — 9 — 8 ————72 54 0 ————7-1 21 9"^ 41031 0 n 81109C-02-D-i 1 £ 7 4 \~\ 24.1104-38-3-

5346P 21 91 2 c -7 2 - 2 ft- 6-^1097 f"9 1g n n i 3 c 2E"7 "M 9

———— qamma DIIC (Lindane) —————————————— Hoptachlor ————————————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————————— Endooulfan I ———————————————- - - - -Dieldrin———— Endooulfan II ——————————————-----4,4' -DOT

Methox'-chlor———— alpha DIIC ————————————————— ------beta-BHC———— delta DIIC —————————————————————— Ileptachlor epoxide ——————————-----4.4' -DDE

Endrin————— 4.4' BOB ———————————————————————— Bndrin aldehyde ———————————————— Endooulfan oulfato ————————————— Areeloi- 12GO ——————————————————— Aroclor 1016 ———————————————————— Aroolor 1331 ———————————————_ _ _ _ -Aroclor -133-3 ——————————————————— Aroolor-1343 ———————————————————— Aroclor 1348 —————————————————— Aroclor 1354 ———————————————

———— Chlordanc — (Technical) ————————

n c_

1 63 38.5c- r

6.85 61 63 .41 C

—————————————— lr-6-10

3 95 51 £

———————————————— 3-rt-

312!21

——————————— 3-3-

2]_3 1

C 3

TT

TTj

JJ,

Ir/ .T'TT-U

V

TT

y

I"-"

u--y-TT

jj

TT

TJ

IT--

y

TT

TJ

TJ

TN^

FORM I 8080 502208


^ b Name:COMPUCHEM.RTF Contract:I

jLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:

^.Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL

•"Sample wt/vol: 30.10(g/ml)G

"% Koisture: 19 decanted: (Y/N)N



_Injection Volume: 2.0(up

--GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH : 6 . 9

SAMPLE NO.

WINE3

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:



Date Analyzed: 10/25/'9b

Dilution Factor: 1



53 00 — 9 —————?G 11 8 —————

~\ ~ ^ no p

6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -•J j 213 65 95 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -

-; i r. g /i r

3 1 9 - 8 5 - 7 - - - - -315 fl r B1 0 3 •! 67 3 ————7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -•-' 2 20 87 2 - 5 4 8•7121 03 1 ————i 0 3 1 0 "^ B

~ i TO /> o g oi • ' • ' - • • 1 16 5~~ ~l »1 C 0 *"* 1 0

->(T -70 -> Q f"_ ~ O Q ~ ~Q n

^ 0 T 1 -> C 1

~7 74 9

——— gamma DIIC (Lindema) ——————————— Iloptaohlog ——————————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————————— Endooulfan I ————————————————- - -Dieldrin

—— Endoculf an — 54 ———————————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT—— Mcthoxychlog ————————————————— alpha DIIC ——————————————————

J«J G L. cl L3iiv_,

—— delta DIIC ———————————————————— Hoptachlor cpojtido ——————————

^t f ^ LJ LJ l—i

—— Endrin ————————————————————A A * D D D_ , . , , , ,

—— Endooulfan oul fa te ———————————— Aroeloi--12Qe ———————————————

» 1 T r\~\ rAroolor 1221 ———————————————

—— Aroolor 1232 ————————————————— Aroeloi* — 1242 ———————————————

Arorl-or 1 "M-fl —— ———————————— ^—— Aroolor 1254 —————————————————

Tnvinhrnr—— Chlor-dane — (Teehnieol) ————————

1 31 "•

—————————— 3— «-1 .11 3

0 . 4 41 31 3

r y,A -o . i c1 3n ->

0 . 2 7——————— 3-Hr-

0 1 4—————————— t-r2-

n r-

o r-

n r~

•-> P-

-v r-

"% r-

•^ r-

— —

TT

TJ

TT

J ___ •TJ

J -"

-H-

TD liT7

-w—TT

JPM

TTJ

•H-TT i

-y-TJ

-e-TT

-B--W —

xiV

FORM 8080 502209


SAMPLE NO.

__^_-D Name •. COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:

jLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


""Sar.ple wt/vol : 30 . 00 (g/ml)G



Concentrated Extract Volume: 2GOC(up

_Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up

-GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.5

WINE4

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:



Dale Analyzed: 10/25/95

Dilution Factor: I



•9-*

sc50

•} i31

- ^72

-? *)-, f*-C, ii ni^,T 1

- -,

. ^

• -

~ ~

99 Q ———

•"• ""I ft ""*

" 53 n

- 5 7 - 1 - - - -") "* 7 £ C Q

- 2 9 - 3 - - - -

Q o /• ^r

9 - 3 5 - 7 - - -S 3 °~) /> C 1 ~1

- 5 5 - 9 - - - -2C 0 ————C /• D

T n 93 4

31 07 8 ——006 83 56 74— 1.1—2-" n •• n H °141 16 5 -***"{"} *^ n o,^^ 0 _ -007 60 1-•i 2 c ">

-i >• 9

———— ofQmrna DIIC — (Lindano) —————————————— Ileptaehlor —————————————————

———— Endooulfan I ————————————————L-'j_6-*.GlTj.il

———— Endooul fan II ——————————————- -4 4 ' -DDT1 / 1 LJ LJ J.

———— MothoKychlor ——————————————————— alpha BHC ——————————————————

———— delta BHC ——————————————————————— Iloptaohlor cpojiidG ——————————

4 4 ' DDD———— Endrin aldehyde ————————————————— Endooulfan sulfate —————————— i———— Aroclor 12CO ———————————————————— Aroclor 1016 ———————————————————— Aroelor 1221 ———————————————————— Aroclor 1232 ————————————————— Aroelor 1242 ————————————————————— Aroclor 1240 ————————————————————— Aroolor 1254 — ——————————————— Toxaphono ——————————————————

Chlo^danc (Technical) ————————

1 """1 "1 Q2 .3i -i

V.3 ^ .38———————————————————————— *-T -

0 . 2 5———————————————— t-r-3-

0 . 7 5- «.3 . 0A -1

———————————————— 3r-r-3-

nA

"A——————————— 24-——————————— 34-

^ /,——————————— 34-——————————— S4-

-e —u_-H-

7^^

To — 77r j

T T

.JTJA

-B-

-w—T|

_y.

-B, TT

-B--B-

TT |

-B-

U 'TT

-B-

FORM I 8080 502210


SAMPLE NO.

__o Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:

Juab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


'"Sample wt/vol : 30 . 00 (g/ml) G

's Moisture: 40 decanted: (Y/NJN


roncer.t rated Extract Volume: 2000 (up

-Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up


WINE5

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:



Dace Analyzed: 10/25/95

Dilution Factor: I


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kq)UG/KG

5 8 8 9 9 - -76-44-8 —————~ Ci °r ft ^i "*-* — — ^ O Oj y >j — y-e — 8 — — — —6 0 - 5 7 - 1 - - - - - -3 j 2 1 j - 6 5 - ff5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -•"» O x« *5 C

3 j j> - 8 4 — 6 —————2 1 9 - 3 5 - 7 - - - - -jlQ 8G — 8 —————• •024 — 5.7 37 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - - - -72 20 '0 ——————73 54 8 ——————"V "* "* 1 O "1 4

1051 — 07 0 ————11096-83 — i ———"" £ 7 1 11 °11104 • 38 3 ———113. 11-16-5 ———~ "3 /• £T o ~)T n136"7 '5 29 6l i n n " } f T Q ^

300"" 3 c n

C7 7'1 D ——————

——— qamma BHC — (Lindano) ———————————— Hoptaohlor ——————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endoaulf an — I ———————————————

Endoculfan II- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

—— Mothoxyohlor ————————————————— alpha BHC ——————————————————

\-\o t- -^ D Uf"1Dcua onL,——— delta DIIC ————————————————————— Heptaohlor opOKido ——————————

T / ^ LJLJi-i

—— Endrin —————————————————— - — -——— 4 — 4-' — ODD ——————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde —————————————

—— Aroclor 12CO ———————————————Arorl or" 101-f- - - -- -

—— Aroolor 1221 ————————————————— Aroolor 1232 ————————————————— Aroolor 1242 ————————————————— Aroclor 1348 ————————————————— Aroolor 1251 ————————————————— Toxaphcnc ——————————————————

Chlordar.e -fPeehnicnl-)— -••-•- —— •

——————————— 3-r¥-—————————— 3—^-—————————— i-H?.———————————— -9 — «r-£* • ~J

135 8

——————————— 5rr9-——————————— 5rr9-

A 7 0 . 3 D -———————————————— 3rrr^-

———————————————— i 2-

4 . 9

—————————— 5-re-—————————— 3t 7-—————————— 5-r -——————— a-——————— «-——————— &——————————— 3^-

1 ~>

——————————— 3^-——————————— W-

U • /

-H-<•«-•«••»X TTJ

/J

•»-

-W

-w-4J-

-O--14 ——TT^

-BJ•e-'-^-H — •-y—^T*^

-w—-s--w--w —

11J

FORM I 8080 502211


SAMPLE NO.

WINE6^j Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:

J-.ak Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:


-Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml)G

"~k Moisture: 25 decanted: (Y/N)N


. roncentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)

Înjection Volume: 2.0(uL)

-JPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.8

SDG No.: 00058


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: JL



1C " C; O O

' ?r ' " n! 309 '00 3 ———' 955 96 5i C Q - = 7 - ] _ - . - -! - -( -, - -i £ r- n

; 5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - -' 7 3 " 3 51 3 1 3 'I 61 3 1 9 - 8 5 - 7 - - -1 319 868 -: i '~i 2 '1 5 3! 7 2 - 5 5 - 9 - - - -

i -^ rf 3

1 1031 07 0 ——

I Jja^l/J n ">

- - • i n / i O D 1

I ^ 3 / . g Q 21 9; - - JC79 7Q S! 1 1 0 9 "7 • 6 9 1 •• 5 0 C 1 35 3 ——

- -I "7 ,1 0

|

———— qamma DHC — (Lindanc) ————————————— Ilcptachlor ———————————————————— Aldrin ————————————————————————— Endocul fan I ——————————————— i- - - - -Die ldr in

———— Gndooulfan II ———————————————- - - - - 4 . 4 ' -DOT

Mothox'"rchlor———— alpha BHC ——————————————————- - - - -be ta -BHC———— delta DHC —————————————————————— Hoptachlor epoxidc ——————————- - - - - 4 . 4 ' -DDE-r -^ - . -Sndrin ————————————————————

-I , -X LJLJLJ

•Bndr-i-R — a-ldohydc ———————— Endosulfan gul fa te —————————————— Aroclor 13CO ——————————————————— Aroolor 1016 ———————————————

T^roclor I'1'5!———— Ai-oeloi--1232 ———————————————————— Aroclor 1343 ———————————————--- Aroclor 13(18 ——————————————————— Aroclor 1254 ———————————————————— ToMODhcnc ————————————————— Chlordemo (Technical) ————————

1 31 -j"> Q

3 .01 T

//7- J *,-£> 7•"r* / »• ^ T . ±/I T

•^ 20 .77

T ->

, -,

/I Of —— . ——4.?- 0- 3-3 3„ ^•^ 3-, -

no

O *7

->-,

,. 0

„T T

T T

^ TN/-ft-37- MT T

T T

ê JWJJ

ÂTJ-,TT

-e--H

TJ

_y

.rj

_£.

j.

-w —

V ***ij-^t

FORM I 808050221

y

Data Validation Report for SDGNo. 2 (Pesticides in Ground Water)

502213ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. W/DMMTOIY4 KWKJ

\TRILLILJIV c

1DATA VALIDATION

FOR


ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATAPesticides of Concei r./TCBs in Waters

Case 31528; Sample Delivery Group #00002



FOR:


BY:



94347\CAE\EKD\PAS\SDG002

December 20, 1995Rev 1 - Februarys, 1996 O 1 1 f,<-, & j. 4

\TRILLIUIV c

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Validation of the GC organics analysis data (pesticides/PCBs) prepared by CompuChemEnvironmental Services for six surface water samples and two field blanks (FBs) from the PAS sitein Oswego, New York, has been completed. The data were reported by the laboratory under Case31528, Sample Delivery Group (SDG) #00002, which was received for review in November 1995and includes the following samples:

SWW-4 SWW-6 SWW-8 SWW-10SWW-12 FIELDDUP1 FIELDBLK1 SEDFBLANK


• Results for DOT in SWW-4, SWW-6, SWW-8, SWW-10, SWW-12, FIELDBLK 1,FIELDDUP1 and SEDFBLANK were qualified as estimated (UJ).

• Results for dieldrin in SWW-4, SWW-6, SWW-8, SWW-10, SWW-12, FIELDBLK 1and FIELDDUP1 were qualified as estimated (UJ).

« Results for beta-BHC and DDE in SEDFBLANK were qualified as estimated (UJ).

• Results for dieldrin in SWW-10 and SWW-12 were qualified as less than the RL (0.03U).

• Results for DOT in FIELDDUP1, SWW-6, SWW-10 and SWW-12 were qualifiedas less than the reporting limit (0.10 U).

• Results for DDE in SWW-6 and SWW-8 were qualified as less than the RL (0.10 U).

• Results for beta-BHC in SWW-6 and SWW-12 were qualified as less than the RL(0.03U).

• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected (for the pesticides only) by the validatorto reflect only the project-specified target analytes.


c; n 9 n 1 ri U U *~ «C -k. «J

\TRILLIUM

Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. While some of these issues do notdirectly affect the technical validity of the generated data, they could be problematic if the data wereto be used in a litigation situation. Documentation of appropriate preservation of SEDFBLANKshould be added to the data package for accurate and complete future reference.

This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides/PCBs data.

,Nc

9 O t

TRILLILHV c

INTRODUCTION

Analyses were performed according to EPA Method 8080 (SW-846) for the project-specified"Pesticides of Concern" (beta-BHC, Dieldrin, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDT) and Aroclors 1016, 1221,1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 and 1260. This review, therefore, was limited to the supporting data for thisanalyte list.

Since no validation guidelines specific to the referenced method are available, Trillium'svalidation was performed (to the extent possible) using the EPA Region II Standard OperatingProcedure (SOP) HW-6 (Revision 8, January 1992). EPA's National Functional Guidelines forOrganic Data Preview, EPA 540/R-94/012 (2/94) were also used as guidance; specifications of thereferenced method took precedence where discrepancies were encountered and professional judgmentwas applied as necessary.



U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported samplequantitation limit.




UJ - The analyte was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. However,the reported quantitation limit is approximate and may or may not represent the actuallimit of quantitation necessary to accurately and precisely measure the analyte in thesample.

502217

TRILLIUM«

R - The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in the ability to analyze thesample and meet quality control criteria. The presence or absence of the analytecannot be verified.


Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" qualifier means that thelaboratory-reported value is unusable. In other words, due to significant quality control problems,the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the analyte is present or not.Rejected values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a lastresort. Second, no analyte concentration is guaranteed to be accurate even if all associatedquality control is acceptable. Strict quality control conformance serves only to increase confidencein reported results; any analytical result will always contain some error.

The user is also cautioned that the validation effort is based on the raw data printouts asprovided by the laboratory. Software manipulation cannot be routinely detected during validation;unless otherwise stated in the report, these kinds of issues are outside the scope of this review.

502218

^TRILLIUIVLc

— I. Holding Times, Preservation and Sample Integrity

** The surface water samples and associated FB (FIELDBLK1) were collected on October 9,1995; the FB identified as SEDFBLANK was collected on October 12, 1995. Extractions wereperformed on October 16 and 18, 1995; this is within the one-week holding time (from collection)specified by the method. The extracts were analyzed on October 17 and 25, 1995, well within the40-day holding time from extraction specified by the method.

For the samples collected 10/9/95, the cooler temperature on laboratory receipt wasdocumented to be 4°C, which is acceptable. No temperature on receipt was noted in the datapackage for SEDFBLANK, althouyli the Narrative slates i'nat all samples were received "properlyrefrigerated." For the purposes of this review, it was assumed that all samples were properly icedin the field and during storage prior to laboratory processing. Documentation to this effect shouldbe added to the data package to ensure that complete information is available for future reference.


All field and QC samples were analyzed during two analytical series that began with initialcalibration on 10/4/95 and 10/21/95. Both series were performed on a system identified as Varian39equipped with an electron capture detector (ECD) and a DB-608 column and a system identified asVarian41 equipped with an ECD and a DB-1701 column; since the injection times for individualanalyses were identical between the columns for each analysis date it was assumed that a single GCwith a split injection system, dual columns and dual detectors was utilized.


No resolution check standard solution analysis was performed; this is not required by SW-846Method 8080.


At the beginning of each analysis series, dieldrin, beta-BHC and 4,4'-DDE (DDE) were runat five standard concentrations ranging from 0.01 nanograms (ng) to 0.16 ng; 4,4'-DDT (DDT) wascalibrated using five standard concentrations from 0.03 ng to 0.48 ng. Five-point calibrations werealso established for Aroclors 1016/1260 (0.375-6.0 ng) and Aroclor 1254 (0.25 - 4.0 ng). Singleconcentration standard analyses (1.0-2.0 ng) were performed for the remaining Aroclors.

All 1C standards on both columns and from both series were documented in the data package;calibration factors (CFs) were correctly calculated and accurately reported for all target analytes (or,for each individual peak of the multicomponent Aroclors). Percent relative standard deviations(%RSDs) were acceptable (s20%) for dieldrin, beta-BHC, DDT and DDE and for each selected peakof Aroclor 1016, Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 in both series on both columns.

502219

\TRILLIUM

Retention time (RT) windows were appropriately established during each 1C for all individualand multicomponent target analytes on both columns.

Individual DOT breakdown in the performance evaluation mix (PEM) analysis at the start ofeach 1C was acceptable (<20%) on both columns.


SW-846 Method 8080 does not specify an exact analytical sequence to be followed; themethod simply requires that an 1C be performed prior to sample analyses and that the calibration beverified on each day that samples are analyzed at a frequency cf one mid-point calibration standardrun after every 10 sample analyses.


Prior to sample analyses on 10/17/95, a standard identified as "MIXB-335" was run on bothcolumns and evaluated relative to the 10/4/95 1C. Of the project-specified target analytes, only beta-BHC and DDE were present in this standard; RTs were within the established windows andmeasured concentrations for the two target analytes were very consistent with the true values(percent differences [%D] <5.0% on both columns). Another standard identified as "PEM8080NC"was run after seven sample and related quality control (QC) analyses; PEM8080NC contained DDT(and endrin) only. DDT breakdown was very low (z 1 .2%on both columns), but the DDT responsewas unacceptable relative to the 1C (18.3%D for both columns), Method 8080 specifies a %Dcriterion of 1 5% for CC standards. Results for DDT in all samples run during this series (SWW-4,SWW-6, SWW-8, SWW-10, SWW-12, FELDBLK1 and FIELDDUP1) were therefore qualified asestimated (J, UJ) on this basis.

Dieldrin was not present in either of the calibration standards run on 10/17/95. Given thestability of RTs for the analytes that are in the CC standards on this date and the fact that mostanalyte responses were reasonably consistent (i.e., no severe sensitivity drop was observed), it wasassumed that dieldrin would have been detected in the samples had it been present at a concentrationabove the reporting limits. However, in the absence of documented evidence that the calibration wasstill quantitatively accurate for this target analyte, results for dieldrin in all samples run during thisseries (SWW-4, SWW-6, SWW-8, SWW-10, SWW-12, FIELDBLK1 and FIELDDUP1) werequalified as estimated (J, UJ).

Prior to sample analyses on 10/24/95, a standard identified as "MIXA-36S" was run on bothcolumns and evaluated relative to the 10/21/95 1C. Of the project-specified target analytes, onlydieldrin and DDT were present in this standard; RTs were within the established windows andmeasured concentrations for the two target analytes were very consistent with the true values (%D<5.8%) on both columns. Another standard identified as "PEM8080NC" was run just after midnighton 10/25/95; PEM8080NC contained DDT (and endrin) only. DDT breakdown was very low(<1.2%on both columns), but the DDT response was unacceptable on both columns relative to the

«

\TRILLIUIVA

---' 1C (18.3%D for both); Method 8080 specifies a %D criterion of 15% for continuing calibration~~| standards. The result for DOT in the only sample from this SDG run during this series** (SEDFBLANK) was therefore qualified as estimated (UJ) on this basis.

'. Neither beta-BHC nor DDE was present in either of the calibration standards run on 10/24-25/95. Given the overall stability of RTs for the analytes that are in the CC standards on this date and

_ the fact that responses were reasonably consistent, it was assumed that these two analytes would havebeen detected in the samples had they been present at concentrations above the reporting limits.However, in the absence of documented evidence that the calibration was still accurate for thesetarget analytes, results for beta-BHC and DDE in SEDFBLANK were qualified as estimated (UJ).

III. Blanks

Two method blanks (MBs) were prepared and analyzed with the samples in this SDG. OneMB (PBLK04) was extracted with the six surface water samples and their associated FB on 10/16/95.Low concentrations of dieldrin (0.0022 ug/L) and DDT (0.0076 ug/L) were reported in this MB;both of these results are well below the applicable reporting limits (RLs), and show someinconsistency between the dual column measurements (31.8%D for dieldrin, 163%D for DDT).Positive results for dieldrin were reported in SWW-10 and SWW-12 and positive results for DDTwere reported in FIELDDUP1, SWW-6, SWW-10 and SWW-12; all of these values are comparableto or less than the actual reported MB concentrations, and most show similar inconsistencies betweencolumn measurements. Results for dieldrin in SWW-10 and SWW-12 and for DDT in FIELDDUP1,SWW-6, SWW-10 and SWW-12 were therefore qualified as less than the applicable reporting limits(U) based on the associated MB contamination.

A second MB (PBLK05) was extracted with SEDFBLANK on 10/18/95. Lowconcentrations of dieldrin (0.0043 ug/L) and DDT (0.005 ug/L) were also reported in this MB andinconsistencies between column measurements (97.7% for dieldrin, 42.0% for DDT) were againobserved. Neither target analyte was detected in the associated sample, therefore no further actionwas warranted on this basis.


TetrachJoro-meta-xylene (TCX) and decachlorobiphenyl (DCB) were used as surrogates forthese analyses; recoveries in each sample were correctly calculated, accurately reported andacceptable (24-154%) with the exception of DCB on both columns in both the MS and MSDanalyses of SWW-6 (170-230%). Since the surrogate recoveries were acceptable on both columnsin the original sample analysis, no action was taken on this basis.

c

\TRILLILJM,*»

^— V. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicatei

*" Sample SWW-6 was also prepared and analyzed as a MS/MSD pair. The spiking solutionincluded only dieldrin and DOT from the project-specified target analyte list; although Aroclor 1254was listed on Form III as a spiking compound, no recovery was reported or discussed as being "out,"therefore it was assumed that it was not added to the samples.

Recoveries were correctly calculated and accurately reported for dieldrin and DDT in bothspiked analyses. Acceptable recoveries were obtained for both analytes in the MS, but the MSDresponses were above the QC limits for both dieldrin (156%, QC 36-146%) and DDT (184%, QC25-160%). Chromatograrr.s for all three analyses showed elevated baselines, numeious peaks, anda late-eluting "hump" after approximately 15 minutes. Due to the varied recoveries, relative percentdifferences (RPDs) were also unacceptably high for both dieldrin (42%) and DDT (34%) [QC 20%for both]. Since no dieldrin was reported in SWW-6, the response for DDT was previously qualifiedas less than the RL based on MB contamination (see Section III), and the unacceptable recoveriesare too high, no qualifiers were applied based solely on the MS/MSD responses.

Unspiked analytes beta-BHC (0.027, 0.065 ug/L) and DDE (0.010, 0.013 ug/L) werereported in both the MS and MSD analyses as well as in the original analysis of SWW-6 (beta-BHC0.026 ug/L and DDE 0.043 ug/L). All of these results show severe discrepancies between the dualcolumn measurements; see Section VIII for further discussion.

VI. Blank Spike

A blank spike was extracted and analyzed with the surface water samples. Assuming that theywere spiked at the same concentrations as in the MS and MSD (no summary form for the blank spikeresults was provided), recoveries for dieldrin and DOT were acceptable (86% and 102%,respectively).

Low concentrations of beta-BHC (0.0047 ug/L) and DDE (0.0021 ug/L) were also reportedin the blank spike. DDE responses were reasonably consistent between the dual columnmeasurements (14.3%D) while beta-BHC showed more variation (48.9%D). Since this was a blankwater matrix, the presence of these very low concentration, unspiked target analytes suggests thatthe responses are due to system noise rather than actual contamination. Although neither of theseanalytes was detected in the associated MB, similarly low concentrations of beta-BHC and DDE(with similar or higher variations between column measurements) were reported in some of thesurface water samples; see Section VIII for further discussion.

TRILLIUIV c


Sample FIELDDUP1 was identified as a field duplicate of SWW-12. No positive resultsabove the RLs were reported in either sample analysis and the very low concentrations that werereported were not verified to be true sample components. Therefore, no precision information canbe obtained from these QC analyses.

VIII. Target Analyte Identification

Target analytes were correctly identified for each sample based on the presence of a peakwithin the established RT window on both columns. However, all of the positive results reported arewell below the applicable RL for each compound (by as much as a factor of 60); with one exception,all also show substantial variation (51.4%D to >1000%D) between the dual column measurements.[The result for DOT in SWW-10 was measured to be the same on both columns, or 0%D.]

All sample results for dieldrin and DOT were previously qualified as less than the applicableRLs based on associated MB contamination; the very high %Ds between column measurementsfurther support the conclusion that these responses do not represent true sample components.

DDE was reported in SWW-6 (0.043 ug/L) and SWW-8 (0.0015 ug/L), with columnvariations of 644% and 160%, respectively. beta-BHC was reported in SWW-6 (0.026 ug/L) andSWW-12 (0.0063 ug/L) with column variations of > 1000% in both cases. The chromatograms forSWW-6 and SWW-12 show very high overall responses, including numerous peaks, elevatedbaselines and a "hump" after approximately 15 minutes; the chromatogram for SWW-8 shows asimilar, though less severe, pattern. The potential for interferences, therefore, is high in all threesamples on both columns. However, since the reported concentrations are so very low, they are morelikely to represent baseline noise than true sample components; the presence of both beta-BHC andDDE in the blank spike (see Section VI) supports this theory. Therefore, results for DDE in SWW-6and SWW-8 and for beta-BHC in SWW-6 and SWW-12 were qualified as less than the applicableRLs (U) based on the conclusion that the very small responses on the second column do not, in fact,confirm the substantially higher responses from the first column.

Although the chain of custody records in the data package clearly request analysis of both"TCL PCBs" and "Pesticides of Concern" for all of the samples reported in this SDG, it is not clearto this reviewer that these samples were, in fact, evaluated for the presence of PCBs. The GCworksheet for each sample (examples in Attachment C) clearly states, "Do Not Report PCB's, Reportbeta-BHC, 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, Dieldrin." In response to the validator's inquiry on this issue, thelaboratory responded verbally that PCBs were, in fact, included in the target analyte list for thesesamples; the "NDs" reported, therefore, do represent actual reported results.

Based on validator review of the sample chromatograms, the presence of one or moreAroclors in samples SWW-6 and SWW-12 was suggested. However, no clear pattern matches to

9 9

TRILLIUM,

any of the standards was possible, even accounting for some alterations; therefore, the laboratory-reported NDs were determined to be accurate.

IX. Compound Quantitation and Reported Detection Limits

Sample results were correctly calculated and accurately reported, with the lower of the twocolumn measurements being reported in each case. No dilutions were performed.

Confirmation of sample results includes comparison of the measured concentration for eachonalyte from both columns. Elevated %Ds between the two column measurements suggests One oftwo things: (1) the apparently confirmed peak does not, in fact, represent the target analyte; or (2)an interference is present on the column with the higher response. As discussed in Section VII, it wasconcluded that all of the low concentrations of pesticides of concern reported in the surface watersamples were system artifacts, either MB contamination or system noise, rather than true samplecomponents.

The Data Summary Forms in Attachment A list individual sample analytes affected by theapplied qualifications. All positive results are listed on these forms, whether or not the value or thequalifier was changed as a result of the validation. Where no result is listed, the compound was notdetected and the RL was not qualified. Sample-specific RLs may be calculated from the informationon the Data Summary Forms as follows: unadjusted RL ( far left column) multiplied by the dilutionfactor.



XI. Documentation

Chain-of-custody (COC) records were present and accurately completed for all samplesreported in this data package. A temperature of 4°C was recorded by the laboratory on the COClisting the surface water samples, confirming appropriate preservation of the samples in the field andduring shipment. No temperature notation was recorded on the COC listing SEDFBLANK; sincethe narrative states that all samples were received "properly refrigerated," it was assumed that thissample was also properly preserved in the field. Documentation to confirm this assumption shouldbe added to the data package for accurate future reference.

The laboratory states in the narrative that"... due to software limitations, the entire compoundlist was reported, not just the compounds specified by the client." As discussed above in Section VII,

10 502224

TRILLIUIVLc

this made it impossible to be certain whether or not the laboratory was actually "reporting" Aroclorresults for these samples. Since in other data packages for this project, the Form I's are revised toinclude the Aroclors only, this statement appears to be inconsistent. Further, even if it is impossibleto automatically revise the Form I's for the client-specified analytes, the laboratory could havecorrected the results forms by manually crossing out the unrequested analytes. The Form I's inAttachment B were corrected (for the pesticides only) in this manner by the validator.

The chromatograms for sample SWW-10 were incorrectly hand-labelled as "FIELDDUP1"by the laboratory; the laboratory ID and location of each chromatogram with the quantitation reportfor SWW-10 support the conclusion that the analyst notations are in error. Corrections were madeby the validator to the chromatograms in the data package received for review, binuiar correctionsshould be made to the original and all additional copies of the data package to ensure that accuratedocumentation is available for future reference.


Sample results for the project-specified analytes in the water samples in SDG #00002 werequalified as follows:

• Results for DOT in SWW-4, SWW-6, SWW-8, SWW-10, SWW-12, FIELDBLK1,FIELDDUP1 and SEDFBLANK were qualified as estimated (UJ) due to elevated%Ds in the associated CC standards.

• Results for dieldrin in SWW-4, SWW-6, SWW-8, S WW-10, S WW-12, FIELDBLK 1and FIELDDUP1 were qualified as estimated (UJ) due to the lack of an associatedCC standard including this analyte.

• Results for beta-BHC and DDE in SEDFBLANK were qualified as estimated (UJ)due to the lack of an associated CC standard including these analytes.

• Results for dieldrin in SWW-10 and SWW-12 were qualified as less than the RL (0.03U) based on associated MB contamination.

• Results for DOT in FIELDDUP1, SWW-6, S WW-10 and SWW-12 were qualifiedas less than the reporting limit (0.10 U) based on associated MB contamination.

• Results for DDE in SWW-6 and SWW-8 were qualified as less than the RL (0.10 U)based on lack of valid second-column confirmation.

• Results for beta-BHC in SWW-6 and SWW-12 were qualified as less than the RL(0.03U) based on lack of valid second-column confirmation.

11 K ft 9 9 O r.%.} u •-* ^ •— ii

TRILLIUIVj

• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected (for the pesticides only) by the validatorto reflect only the project-specified target analytes.

Documentation problems are discussed in Section XI. While some of these issues do notdirectly affect the technical validity of the generated data, they could be problematic if the data wereto be used in a litigation situation. Documentation of appropriate preservation of SEDFBLANKshould be added to the data package for accurate and complete future reference.

This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides/PCBs data.

c

12 ct.rrt O O O C^Q

\TRILLIUIV c

ATTACHMENT A

DATA SUMMARY FORMCase 31528, SDG #00002Pesticides/PCBs in Water

5Q 1 9 '">

C-.J.

DATA SUMMARY FORM: PESTICIDES OF CONCERN AND PCBS

Site Name: PAS/OswegoCase #31528, SDG #00002

WATER SAMPLES(ug/L)

Sampling Dates: October 9 and 12, 1995Trillium Project No.: 94347

Sample NumberLab ID

Dilution FactorRL0.030.030.100.100.500.500.500.500.500.500.50

bcta-BHCDicldrin4,4'-DDE4,4'-DDTAroclor-1016ArocIor-1221Aroclor-1232Aroclor-1242Aroclor-1248Aroclor-1254Aroclor-1260

FIELDBLK1764864

1

UJ

UJ

FIELDDUP1764866

1^ofSWW-12J_

0.10

UJ

UJ

SEDFBLANK764875

1

UJ

UJUJ

SWW-4764852

1

UJ

UJ

SWW-6764858

1

0.03

0.100.10

UUJUUJ

SWW-8764856

1

0.10UJUUJ

SWW-10764862

1

0.03

0.10

UJ

UJ

SWW-12764860

1

0.030.03

0.10

UUJ

UJ

\PAS\SDG02PP

CJ1ororoi Ooo

EPA 8080/project-specific analytes Page 1 of 1

\TRILLIUIV c

ATTACHMENT B

Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I's)Case 31528, SDG #00002Pesticides/PCBs in Water

502229


SAMPLE NO.










FIELDBLK1

SDG No. : 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted:


Dilution Factor: 1



c f\ flO O

76 11 e ———"inn t\ f\ TO C Q Q Q Q

60-57-1------33313 C5 0 ——5 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -73 13 5 —————310 81 C ————"5 T Q Q C *7

319 OC 0 ————441 34 ^ "7 "I72-55-9- - - - - -72 30 6 —————73 Sd 8 —————7431 93 4 ————1031-07-8 ————11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---11097-69-1---ft 0 0 1 ~\ ^i *^C *7 *7 A n

—— qamma DHC — (Lindanc) ——————————— Hoptaohlor ——————————————————— Aldrin ————————————————————— Sndoculfan I ———————— : ——————---Dieldrin

—— Endooulfan II ——————————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DDT

—— Mothouyehlor ————————————— -j—— alpha DHC —————————————————_ _ - Ko ha- nur1

—— delta DIIC ———————————————————— Iloptaohlor Gpemido ——————————- - - 4 , 4 ' - D D E

—— Endrin ————————————————————— 1 , -1 ' — pop ———————————————————— Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Endooulfan oulfate —————————-- -Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphono ——————————————————— Chlordano (Toohniaal) ———————

——————— 0.030——————— 0 .030——————— 0 . 0 3 0

0 . 0 3 0———————— 0.10

0.10———————— 0 . 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 .030

0.10———————— 0 . 0 5 0————————— 0.10———————— 0.030-———————— 0 .030

0 .500 .500 .500 . 5 00 .500 . 5 00 . 5 0

—————————— 3rr-9-————————— 0.12

-B-NR

•^ — 1 —•« — •*UJ•W-WRu J ••w Meu•W- N£•P- NgU

4? NP— — —— — \—TT ——— 'X~\J

U_ _uuuuu•» MR^. Y\^

FORM I 8080

502230


SAMPLE NO.

Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTF Contract:




'•e Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)





FIELDDUP1

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:


Date Extracted=10/16/95


Dilution Factor: 1.



•50 00 0 — — ——96 44 8 —————309-00-3 ————n c f\ no o

60-57-1------33313-65 9 ——50-29-3------7S 43 5 —————919 81 6 ————1 1 Q G "7T TO O £ O

1 0 1 1 5 "^ ^-7O CC Q

71 TO ft

33-S-1-8 ——————'7431' 93 4 ————1031 O^B11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---11097-69-1---6001 35 3S7 71 9

—— qamma DHC (Lindano) ——————————— Hoptachlor ——————————————————— Aldrin ————————————————————— Endooulfan I ——————— - ———————---Dieldrin—— Endoculfan II ——————————————---4, 4 '-DOT '<?)O

Mcthoxvchlor f ®**—— alpha-BHC —————————————————_ _ _Kof- a nur*—— doita-BHC ———————————————————— Heptachlor opoxido ——————————---4,4' -DDE—— Endrin —————————————————————— 4,4'- ODD ———————————————————- —— Endrin aldehyde ————————————— Endoculfan culfato ——————————---Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248- --Aroclor-1254—— Tojcaphono ———————————————————— Chlordano (Toohnioal) ———————

——————— 0.030——————— 0.030——————— 0 . 030———————— O.ODO

0.030————————— 0.100 -O.Ott)0.003D————————— 0.30———————— 0.030

0.030———————— 0.030

rt f\ "i f\

0.10———————— 0.000' ——————— n « n——————— 0.030

n n c n0.500.500.500.500.500.500.50

—————————— ±-re-————————— 0.12

•»• N -•SH--e-ii 4/ur44- Ml?(?Si»Uj-u. u p

-WN*U-»• NK.-u. wpU•B- NE.

•5 — 1 —^_ 1UUUuuuu•t*-N<2.n • AJP

FORM I 8080

502231


SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No. :








SEDFBLANK

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1.


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kg)UG/L

58 80 0 ———————— gamma DUG (Lindane) —————————7€-44-i---------Ho'ptachlor - — - — —— —— —309-00-3 ——————— Aldrin —————————————————————059 98 8 ——————— Endooulfan I ———————————————60-57-l---------Dieldrin33213 CS 0 ————— Endoculfan II ——————————————

73 43 5 ———————— Mothoityohlor ———————————————319 01 C ————— alpha BHC ——————————————————319-85 -7--------beta-BHC319-86-8 ——————— dolta BHC ——————————————————1034 — $3 — 3 —————— Hoptaohlor cpoxide ——————————72-55-9---------4,4' -DDE73 30 8 ———————— Bndrin —————————————————————73 51 8 ————————— 1 , 4 ' - ODD ————————————————————7421 03 4 —————— Endrin aldehyde ————————————1031 07 0 —————— Endoculfan culfato ——————————11096- 82 -5------Aroclor-126012674 -ll-2------Aroclor- 101611104-28 -2-- ----Aroclor-122111141-16-5------Aroclor-123253469 -21-9- -----Aroclor- 124212672 -29-6------Aroclor-124811097-69-1--- ---Aroclor- 12 548001 35 3 —————— Toitaphono ——————————————————67-74-9 ———————— Chlordano (Technical) ———————

——————— 0.030f\ r\ "^ f\

———————— 0.030

0.030————————— 0.10

0.10———————— 0.033———————— 0.030

0.030———————— 0.030

0.10———————— 0 .ODO————————— 0.10———————— 0.030—— : ————— O.ODO

0.500.500.500.500.500.500 . 50

—————————— 3rr&-————————— 0.12

•w M2.TT 1

•«-jpa>»/u-n- N£•nVTT-I VIO

•w- UJ"•H- KI2.•W- NE.u.f•»• Mg-fc_|_4E1I4*- *UUUuuuu-g-MEIJ. WP^ NK.

FORM I 8080


SAMPLE NO.





'-. Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)




GPC Cleanup: (Y/NJN pH:

SWW-4

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: I


CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L Q

58 89 9 —————•76-44-6 —————3 0 (5 00 3Q C O Q O O

60-57-1---- - -

50-29-3--- - - -92 43 5 —————319 84 6 ————T 1 O DC "7

31Q 8C 0 ————VO~I 4 r- -7 ->

72-55-9--- - - -33-30-8 —————73 54 87431 0*3 /i1031-07 8 ————11096-82-5---12674 -11-2 - - -11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---11097-69-1---8001 35 3

JErJ- 71 9

—— gamma DUG (Lindcmo) —————————- — Heptachlor ———— - ———————————— •—— Aldrin ————————————————————— Endoculfan I ——————— ; ———————---Dieldrin

—— Endoculfan II —————————————- - -4 , 4 '-DOT

—— Mothoxyohlor ———————————————alnha BHC

- - -Kof-a _plir*

—— delta DIIC ——————————————————— Hoptachlor opoxido ——————————_ - -4 .4 '-DDE—— Endrin ————————————————————

A A t r>nr>Endrin aldflh"dfl

—— Endosulfan culfato ——————————---Aroclor-1260-- -Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphene ——————————————————— Chlordane — (Tochnical) ———————

——————— 0 .030 1

——————— 0 . 0 3 0——————— 0 .030 '

n n r n0 . 0 3 0

————————— 0.100.10

————————— 0.30———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0.030———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0.100 0 S 0

n inn m n

———————— 0 .0500 . 5 00.500 .500.500.500 .500 . 5 0

1 00 13

-g-we.•*F/ —•y- — 1 —,, \ —ujit UPty n^

TJ Uf

•& HfLu-H- MR

'u-»• NCL

u — 1 —u — -tr"uuuuuuu-» N^•u Ne.

I)

FORM I 8080

502233

rage iui


SAMPLE NO.





\ Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)





SWW-6

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: i



58.89-9......76-44-8 —————•2 n Q f n *5

959 98 860-57-1------3 2 *2 "L 3 fi ^ V

50-29-3 - - - - - -"y *} A i c

319 81 6 ————319-85-7-----»19 86 8 ————1034-57-3 ————72-55-9- - - - - -72 20 8?3 54 6 —————7431-93-4 ————3 rt •> -i 07 fl

11096-82-5---12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6- - -" 1 T O Q T £ Q T

8001 35 257 "7 d 9

—— Hopbaohlor ———————————————— Aldrin ———————————————————— Endoculfan I ———————————————---Dieldrin

—— Endocwlfan II ——————————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

—— Mothojcyohlog ————————————————— alpha BHC —————————————————---beta-BHC

—— delta DIIC ——————————————————— Heptachlor opoxidc ——————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DDE---Endrin —————————————————————

"1 \ ' DDD •• ---- —— Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Endosulfan oulfato ——————————---Aroclor-1260-- -Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242-- -Aroclor- 124 8---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphene —————————————————— Chlordano (Technical) ———————

———————— 0. ODD———————— 0.030———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 .050

0 .030n in

O.io -o .oo io————————— 0.30———————— 0 . 0 3 0

O.OJ?> 0 . 02 G-———————— 0 .030———————— 0 . 0 3 0

* Iv ^T^T^fTS

———————— 0 .050————————— 0.10———————— 0 . 0 3 0

^ /"\ C

0 . 5 00. 500 .500 .500 . 5 00 . 5 00 . 5 0

—————————— 37-7-6-————————— 0.12

•»NE^+-•» 1&*^r r T.«. MlfUU r^ MJ

•W- N£* NK«> U-w-Ne•e- NC.Of LA

•W- NP.•S=_l_•»-»r^uuu_ _uuuu

•tf Ng«. NR.

FORM I 8080

502234


SAMPLE NO.




Sample wt/vol: 1000(q/ml)ML






SWW-8

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1



r- o on n

76 -Id 8 —————309 00 3 ————Q5Q 08 6 ————60-57-1------33 213 65 950-29-3- - - - - -73 13 5 —————919-84-6 ————"3 1 Q Q C *7

3 T_ 0 ft fi fl1034 57 3 ———72-55-9---- - -7 2 - 2 0 - 0 —————73-54-8 —————7131 P3 4 ————1031-07-8 ————i i n o e oo c12674-11-2---11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---11097-69-1---8001 35 357 7-1 9

——— qamma DUG (Lindano) ——————————— Hoptaohlor —————————————————— Aldrin ————————————————————— Endooulftm I ———————————————-- -Dieldrin

—— Endooulfan II —————————————- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT

—— Methoxyehler ———————————————— alpha DIIC ————————————————

VtA +• -a Dtir1

—— dolta-BHC —————————————————— Iloptaohlor opOKido —————————- - -4 ,4 ' -DDE

Fnrl-r-i ni-it i\JH .Li*

——— 4 , 4 ' -ODD —————————————————————— Bndrin aldohydo ———————————— Endooulfan oul-fafce —————————---Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphono ——————————————————— Chlordano (Technical) ———————

——————— 0 . 0 3 0——————— 0 .030——————— 0 . 0 3 0——————— 0.050

0 . 0 3 0

0.10l~l "1 A

——————— 0 .0300 . 0 3 0

——————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0

O.|0 0.0015———————— 0 .050————————— frr-ire-———————— 0 .03Q.———————— 0 . 0 5 0

0 .500.500 .500.500 .500 .500 .50

—————————— 9rr6-————————— 0.12

-fr NP-SL_L_•^nrtt- *U -I •

L*?- tffc.uJ~* Jrt .tJ fl-TT rticU•B- til•e-MgJP (ATT . (JCU NK-

^ 1Uj- 1•v^r

Uu_ _uuuuu „•S-NE.•o-NR

b

FORM I 8080

C p O 0 1 r:o vi.:. x.. J ,1

•age / —


SAMPLE NO.










SWW-10

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1



c" n o rt rt

•76 41 0 —————209 00 3 ————P5 9 98 860-57-1----.--33313 65 95 0 - 2 9 - 3 - - - - - -1*J /I "^ ^

219. .84 C ————3 T Q DC *7

-1-1 Q 0 /- p

1021 D7 3 ————72-55 -9 - - - - - -V "^ 1O R73-54-6 ——————7-121 — 53— 11031 07 S11096-82-5---12674 -11-2-- -11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9-- -12672-29-6- - -11097-69-1---3 0 0 1 T R "tC *7 *7 A n

——— gamma DUG (Lindane) ——————————— Ilaptachlog ——————————————————— Mdrin ———————————————————

---DieldrinEnd^eulfan II

- - - 4 , 4 ' -DOT—— Mothoxvchlor ———————————————— alpha-BHC —————————————————

U.Af- a "DLIf

—— dolta-BHC ——————————————————— Iloptaohlor opoxido ——————————

*± f *± LJLJCj

Fndrin——— H. 4 ' -BOB —————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde ————————————— Endoculfan oulfato —————————-- -Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242- --Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphono ——————————————————

Chlordnnr f T r r h n i r n l }

———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0

———————— 0 .0500 03 $ — Q-^'1 1

0 10O.\O - 0 . 0 0 2 3

————————— 0 . 3 0———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0 . 0 3 0———————— 0 .030———————— 0 . 0 3 0

0.10f \ OCA

————————— 0.10———————— 0 . 0 3 0———————— O . O G O

0 .500 .500 .500 . 5 00 . 5 00 . 5 00 .50

——————————— 3r 6-—————— e-ri-2-

^Ne.tr — 1 —.„. 4ft^e-PttJ-y— NC.J9-WJ

-tf- NKU

-w Me-H MRU•S NE.— — i ir"t.-tf- 1„ . 4/UUUUUUU

-e-Me.-tt-NR.

re4

FORM I 8080

502236


SAMPLE NO.


Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No. :





Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(up



SWW-12

SDG No.: 00002


Lab File ID:




Dilution Factor: 1



50 09 Q —————7C-44-B —————300 00 2 ————Q C ft Q p O

60-57-1------33213 G5 0 ——50-29-3------7 "* 41 5310 fl 4 G•5 T Q Q C *7

319 fi G S1 O *i 4 ^ *7 "^72-55-9------73 30 8?2 54 0 —————7431^ 93-4 ————1031 07 0 ————11096-82-5---12674 -11-2- - -11104-28-2---11141-16-5---53469-21-9---12672-29-6---T T H O T CO 1O A O T "> C O

57 74 Q ——————

—— comma DUG (Lindane) ——————————— Heptachlor —————————————————— Aldrin —————————————————————— Endooulfan I ———————————————---Dieldrin—— Endoculfan II ——————————————

T f LJLJ A

—— Mothoxyohlor ————————————————— alpha. BHC —————————————————

Vio t- a nur*—— dolta .BHC —————————————————— Hoptaohlor opOKido ——————————

f Ul d

—— -Endrin —————————————————————— 1.4' ODD ————————————————————— Endrin aldehyde —————————————— Endooulfan oulfatc —————————---Aroclor-1260---Aroclor-1016---Aroclor-1221---Aroclor-1232---Aroclor-1242---Aroclor-1248---Aroclor-1254—— Toxaphcne ———————————————————— Chlordanc — (Teehnienl) ———————

——————— 0.030——————— 0.030——————— 0.030'——————————— 0:-050O.02> 0.0024

————————— 0.10O'lO 9-. 00-48

rt *} n

i ———————— 0.030O.O?> 0-. 0003-

n n ~\ n————————— 9 — 030

0.10n n c n

————————— 0.10———————— 0.030———————— O.ODO

0.500.500.500.500.500.500.50

——————— i-r-e-————————— 0.12

it MP

» 1*J~-9- *J&PUJ"•«• NR:JSf'UJ'Il_ MP•4* MR.T?*> U

-y ME--W-NKu4j Mev * ^-

-5- — 1 —-» V

U

U ~Uuu-B-Mfi.tf g.

rM

FORM I 8080

502237

TRILLIUMINc

ATTACHMENT C

QA Notice regarding MS/MSD Surrogate RecoveriesGC Worksheets for Samples SEDFBLANK and SWW-10

Face 4

QUALITY_ASSUBAttCE.NOTICE__.__... ._. . . __._ .._. _...___...___.. _.

COKPDCHEM IDfCASESDG

Sample IDl SkjU- kMS was extracted within the contractrequired holding tines. Due to 6evere-natrJLx__lnterf erences ,one or more of the surrogates (jiecachlorobipheny 1 _(_DCB^/and

' couicl nor. be accuratelyquant itated on the m3C.r>S t' TA >>o i column (a);. -As aresult, surrogate recoveries were outside the QC advisoryacceptance range. The presence of high levels of PCB's andrelated extraneous compounds often interfere with surrogatesand prevent accurate identification and guantitation. Amethod blank and/or blank spike that was prepared andanalyzed concurrently demonstrates recoveries which meetQuality Control criteria.

Reviewer's Initials/ID ? /<•,

Date IQ - I V-7T

2239

LAB INSTRUCTIONS: PPSft: . ________'•SEDIMENT FB**ALL HT ' S FROM VTOS**DO NOT REPORT PCB'S. REPORT"BETA-BHC,4,4-DDT,4,4-DDE,DIELDRIN**

RCCEI-PT DATE: 10/13/95 CASE# : 31528 00002 DUE DATE: 11/03/5GC WORKSHEET COMPUCHEMtt : 764875

Sample Prep Code--- -6SGC, PEST/PCB, METH. 8080, H20, CASE ID'd Instrument Code ——— 132

Compound List ———— - I8SSample date: 101295 Report type: 9 Surrogate Std- — — - 426

ss .r SB SCS:B rvov ccx=s^Kcc^cB=<=tfE:cEeccE:v = = s<sss^:^:s = =s = = = = =: = cs=£ = = =;c= = = = = = = = = =: = = = =:=x: = = =

SAMPLE ID*: SEDFBLANK= - = = = = = = = '=CBS = ccB = t= = BSB = c^ = = = = = = = = = = = = = e = = = = = £ = = = =:= = = = = = = =3 = = = :==;===:=!=i = = = = = = = = = =

BLANK ASSOCIATED WITH CASE #'s: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

ASSOCIATED BLANK: '= = r. = oxjr;BCX = r:caor^ax3crii:cEr. SBc.r.B = cr. = asr: = S3r^acx=c-c = acr: = = =r: = ±: = ?; = = =;=:=r=:z3T-. = = K = =: = c=r: = = =r = = = =

EXTRACTION INFORMATION: CALC USED? YESC 3 NO C 3

COMMENTS: ___________ \ _______________________________________

VOL OF SAMPLE: CO ml FINAL VOL OF EXTRACT: \O. Q misPORTION 'OF VOL IN~PEST: __________ . ___ . ____ pH : _________ .

ANALYSIS INFORMATION:DILUTION

INSTRUMENT » DATE TIME SEQUENCE FACTOR REPORT,

V \ -O

QA APPROVED C 3Nf-fD GC/MS CONFIRMATION C ] ANALYST: Z5> & __________ DATE:

SURROGATE INFORMATION (Check each surrogate used)

C 3 Di-but y Ichl orendat e I____X Recovery

C 3 Tetrachloro-m-xylene _!___^ Recovery1 1 aC ] DecachIoroblpheny 1 I I <?> X Recovery

AREA IN STO'/. Recovery X Amount Spiked.____ ug/ml = ____ug/ral

SAMPLE DISPOSITION Code

C 3 Complete. ................CONDITION CODE |

C 3 Requires Re-extraction... -55 |.

C 3 Requires Cleanup. ........ 901IF MULTIPLE PACKAGES EXIST, REPORT THIS DATA: _________

502240I .._! OAN__ | __ .| LAB notice included?

CC Review_______ Dat»___/___/___ Auditor________ Date

LAP INSTRUCTIONS: PPStt:DO NOT REPORT PCB'S. REPORT BETA-BHC , 4 , 4-DDT , 4 , 4-DDE , DIELDR IN****ALL HT'S FROM VTOS**

RECEIPT DATE: 10/11/95 CASE* : 31538 00002GC WORKSHEET COMPUCHEIM* : 764862

GC, PES1/PCB, METH. 8080, H20, CASE ID'd

Sample date: 100995 Report type: 9

SAMPLE IDft: SUU-10

BLANK ASSOCIATED UITH' CASE #' s : _______ _

ASSOCIATED BLANK: _________

DUE DATE: 11/0 1 / 5 5

Sample Prep Code--- -69Instrument Code ——— 132Compound List — — — 188Surrogate Std — - — - 426

EXTRACTION INFORMATION: CALC USED? YESC 3 NOC 3

COMMENTS: _____.____.______.___...___.___________

VOL OF SAMPLE:. __ XdQfl mlPORTION OF VOL TN~ P E S T :

FINAL VOL OF E X T R A C T :pH:

JO • 0 m i s

ANALYSIS INFORMATION:DILUTION

INSTRUMENT ft DATE TIME SEQUENCE FACTOR REPORT

c 3I 3

ANALYST: DATE:QA APPROVED C ]NKED GC/MS CONFIRMATION C 3 _____________

SURROGATE INFORMATION (Check each surrogate used)

C 3 Di t>ut y Ichl orendat e

L7<. 3 Tet rachloro-m -xy lene

•' 'Decachlorobipheny 1

X Recovery

Y C? X Recovery

Q9< ' X Recovery

AREA IN STD'/. Recovery X Amount Spiked ug/ml ug/ml

SAMPLE DISPOSITION Code

C 3 Complete.................

C ] Requires Re-extraction... -55

C 3 Requires Cleanup......... 90JIF MULTIPLE PACKAGES EXIST, REPORT THIS DATA:.

CONDITION CODE |

[__\ QAN _ | | LAB notice included?CTA 9 o 4 <° J> *^ * J-

GC Review Date Auditor Date

phase 2 supplemental pre-remedial design study report

Documents