PHASE 2 SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-REMEDIAL DESIGN STUDY REPORT SURFACE-WATER/SEDIMENT QUALITY SOURCE INVESTIGATION Volume H of in Appendices A through H Associates, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING « MANAGEMENT 5013G1
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
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
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
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
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
Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page 4
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
Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page 5
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
Mr. Richard RamonJuly 12, 1995Page 6
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,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
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
Mr. Richard RamonJuly 28, 1995Page 2
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.
Respectfully submitted,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
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.
Respectfully submitted,
ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC.
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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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 Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged relative to 1965 photos.
• 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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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.
• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland, wetland outlet and unnamed tributary appear unchangedrelative 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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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 Upstream (South) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream path appearsunchanged relative to 1978 photos.
• Wine Creek Downstream (North) of White/Wine Creek Confluence - Stream pathappears unchanged relative to 1978 photos.
• Smith's Beach Wetland - Wetland, wetland outlet and unnamed tributary appear unchangedrelative 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 REVIEW, PHASE 2 SPRDS STUDY AREA,OSWEGO, NEW YORK
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
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
~~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
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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
Page 4
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
Page 5
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> \)
Page 6
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
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 (» A^A^^
n . ^i Q QQ
nuipi6t>0^""3
TfcSfcOZ-
I^SGCfl
1U5o\\
1W
/«//•/
^,
/
IpyEi:iwrel
///3
1/
S/tfZiT-^/
>
i
iV
iittcu|Nj||||liillictlllli
5xiTH3(»ji4ir£(^U)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 / s^uUPDATE 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
Page 10I
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
Page 11
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
Page 12
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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
RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
DATE TIME--JN'
DATE TIME
SEALHTACT
SEALINTACT
Y OR N
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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^/
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION
3-
DATECOLLECTED
/,
/ ,
1UISHED. BY: (BIGNTURE) FOR
EUN( IUISHE'D BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED 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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
D A E
DATE
DATE
TIME
TIME
TIME
SEALTACT
YDR N
SEALINTACT
Y OR N
SEALINTACT
Y OR N
COMMENTS
CD
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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
Description ofWork Requested
WHITE 12BWHITE 12CWHITE! 3 AWHITE 13BWHITE 13CWHITE 13DWINE2AWINE2BWINE2C
7650167650187650207650227.0024765026765028765030765032
4001 31528.100 Total Organic Carbon in Soil
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
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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.
CDate \T Mark Ro&s, Manager
\\Inorganics Laboratory
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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
LABORATORY CHRONICLE - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
ITEM SAMPLENO. IDENTIFIER
COMPUCHEMNUMBER
DATESAMPLERECEIVED
DATEANALYSISCOMPLETED
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
Page 5
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
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
BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMIT
Reviewed by/ID#:/9 ;
Reviewed
Date:
Date: /??fC> >^
X
J02054
CASE: 31528.100MATRIX: SOIL
P a g e 6
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
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
BLANK SPIKE (BS) COMPUCHEM #: 765007
SPIKE BSADDED CONC.(mg/Kg) (mg/Kg)
2000 2014
BS%
RECOVERY
101
COMPUCHEM QCTYPE
AMOUNTDETECTED
(mg/Kg)
765106 METHOD BLANK BRL
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<£07002.1nl^Ot'vrt«030o31
?REC?OAti:
4^
\ '
IPUEjfDAtll:
-Uf-
/
lNCiM86R:I
^AZr/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"Si^UJ,^^ t.O
C0i*-i.t ?.!>
/-.Jif-c 1C
Gwi,,rUCtw ^BG, .^.ORILo.niJC. ' '
TOTAL d.^ANIC CARBONSAMPLE PREP & ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
SOIL
802
: : . ! fc_. J . - J(
DATE ISSUED: fO/^Q)
DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: /0/?s'/fS-
DATE POSTED FOR 802 ANALYSIS:
;!QC::? - - - - - -•TYPEBLK5SssNS
httf? ——
;iORlQINAt&fNUMBERl
>b4* /">^^
sSAMPtei\Vr(irii':i'^A?^/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^^i^)^ ^^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
Page 9
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
1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898
PROJECT NAME. /*-v y / rrfi J
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER
SAMPLER(S)
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION
dJllJU,
fii
LC
DATECOLLECTED
>/V/V
/Vn
h
RELINQUISH NATURE) FOR
fowxRE(jl|l6uiSHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED 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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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'
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATECOLLECTED
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE
TIME
TIME
SEALJJTACT
R N
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
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
f ^tj fS?AS
<W X/,,
OCO
ROUX___( _____CHAIN OF CUSTODY
L...J
N? 02695YROUX ASSOCIATES INCEnvironmental Consulting .
* Uonogtmtnt
1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE 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
ANAfTJlCAL U
<-^y*LLABORAjRY AJO.
aiCDfOoo
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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 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 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.
5020G5
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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 Mark Ross, ManagerInorganics Laboratory
5020C6
ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA - CASE # 31528.41
SUBMITTED TO:Mr. Lany McTiemanRoux Associates1377 Motor ParkwaySuite 403Islandia, NY 11788
LABORATORY CHRONICLE - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
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
DATEANALYSISCOMPLETED
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
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY REPORT
ITEM SAMPLENO. IDENTIFIER
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
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
CASE: 31528.41MATRIX: SOIL
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
BLANK SPIKE (BS) COMPUCHEM #: 764885
SPIKE BSADDED CONC.(mg/L) (mg/L)
2000 1926
BS%
RECOVERY
96
COMPUCHEM # QCTYPE
AMOUNTDETECTED
(mg/L)
765709 METHOD BLANK BRL
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$.
~7-(/c(^iLT-OM^rt~K,<-(c7/</
c, \%
^ZOo\l191"9l(/Cj ><•/
9K^
lpi:$ •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 / , /?^
DATE POSTED FOR 802 ANALYSIS:
liCAsefii;llfuMBiRl
3ir^.^(f
M I'CQJENT IP:Ifalliiollllll:
\^ii~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
^OAQl\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'4'77^o^S"
c^S'S'^O//!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* //»
HOLD TIME EXPIRATION:
DATE ISSUED: io /M
DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: /0/<3/
DATE POSTED FOR 802 ANALYSIS:
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
Operating Parameters
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE 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
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
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATECOLLECTED
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION
Jc^
.CP .r
/- .i* */
DATECOLLECTED
RELI TURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) 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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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)'
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATECOLLECTED
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE 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
RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR DATE TIME SEALINTACT
Y OR N
RECEIVED BY: (SIGJ^ATUfJE) FOR
*-S' r I)ItfVHjlu^j&ii
TIME SEALCT
DELIVERY METHODCOMMENTS
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
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
RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
DELIVERY METHOD
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY
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
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
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?,'&-
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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
Description ofWork Requested
WH1TE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE
770198770200770208
4001 31528.127 Total Organic Carbon in Soil
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 , > ' _ »
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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 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 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.
502090
COMPUCHEME N V I R O N M E N T A LC O R P O R A T I O N
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 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
LABORATORY CHRONICLE - TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
ITEMNO.
I.2.3.
SAMPLEIDENTIFIER
WHITE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE
COMPUCHEMNUMBER
770198770200770208
DATESAMPLERECEIVED
11/10/9511/10/9511/10/95
DATESAMPLEEXTRACTED
11/14/9511/14/9511/14/95
DATEANALYSISCOMPLETED
1 1/14/9511/14/9511/14/95
020 n
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY REPORT
ANALYTICAL REPORT OF DATA - CASE # 31528.127
ITEMNO.
SAMPLEIDENTIFIER
COMPUCHEMNUMBER
CONCENTRATION(mg/kg)________
REPORTING LIMIT(PPM)
1.2.3.
WHITE9BWHITE11BDUPLICATE
770198770200770208
11800105008780
505050
BRL = BELOW REPORTING LIMIT
Reviewed by/ID#:_
Reviewed 1
Date:
Date:
02093
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON IN SOIL ANALYSIS
QUALITY CONTROL REPORT
CASE: 31528.127MATRIX: SOIL
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
BLANK SPIKE (BS) COMPUCHEM #: 770207
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*
HOLD TIME EXPIRATION:
DATE ISSUED: ///-/c3"<75
DATE ANALYSIS COMPLETED: __,
DATE POSTED FOR 802 ANALYSIS:
^^^^^^^^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
Operating Parameters
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
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION DATECOLLECTED
/ »,///A
ISHED. BY: (SIGNTURE) FOR
ELINQUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED 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_______
1377 MOTOR PARKWAYISLANDIA. NEW YORK 11788(516) 232-2600 FAX (516) 232-9898
/ ANALYSES PAGE vnPROJECTUECT NAME /"
*" / jff
SAMPLE DESIGNATION/LOCATION
RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE)RELINQUISHED/ BY/ (S/GNATURE) FOR
j\n 1 ic/v^i FOOAREpiyaUISHED BY: (SIGNATURE) FOR
RELINQUISHED 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
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
Sieve Size - Percent Passing Sieve
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
-
Sieve Size - Percent Passing Sieve
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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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$gir
10Ul
10 -•enen
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
SIEVES 4 8 16 3O 50 IOO ZOO HYDROMETER100
£ ao
K 60
k. 30r>|40
z 30kJ
£20kla.
10
200
2,
9
cnCD
BOULDERSCOBBLES
H* —\ V _ J _ I•*-^ -^
&•^Q
6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVELC | M | F
1 ISANO
C | M | F
\
\^\
(\Xj
0.06 O.O2
«;b•£^
-
•
o.ooe o.ooe
SILT-CLAY SOIL
!8 76.2 25.4 9.52 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 3O 60 20O SIEVE
L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8023
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 2A
PAS SiteOsweqo, New York
Project #3270 1Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
FISHER
PD
EAST SYRAC
USE N
Y 13057TU
EP
HO
NE
AREA CO
DE 31
5/4
37 1
*29
•z.*I(TfD
tn
ID
i
onT>J>
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
J * J
SIEVES >4t >t i \ i } 4 8 16 30 SO 100 2OO HYDROMETER|OO
WEI
GH
T^ 9
«
> 0 g
•f- 6Oin. 9001
£ 4Q
X 30uoK 2 0a.
10
200
2:
CJ1o(-*
or
BOULDERSCOBBLES
-7
"-IK^
iS
l\
\
^Q. " - -Q -f^ w
60 2O 6 2 0.6 0.2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO8GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVELC | M | F
i iSANO
C | M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL
28 76.2 23.4 9.92 2.0 0.99 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. No*. 10 30 60 ZOO SIEVE
L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8024
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Smith 2
PAS Site
Osweqo, New York
Project #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D11HO
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122
tmm
mm
U
UW
H im
u IK
r ISHER PO . EAST SYRACUSE N
Y 13057TELEPH
ON
E AR
E* C
OD
E 3IS
/43
7 14
29
f «i -? *
inen
1IT3
F
o
8
ritotn
' ffi
IIparra
ttU
UO
lffinc
FISHER
CO
EAST S
Y«A
CU
I£ N V 13057
TtLEPHO
NC
APEA COO
E 315'437 U29
MO L
-95
16
6MO.
12
Novem
ber 15,
19
95
UJNCO
•CUlROMET
o>•zX-
N8-o .
X-
M .
•> •
* -(
— «»«-
•»» •
-~.
Jf-
UJ
Ul
«o
cc
7s
<f\n(•,
i — (-
f^!c« i —
-
t-ID> c
> r- ^
^
0<£
^>^"
..1On
^-^$
^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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1110
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 12B
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
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 12C
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
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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»
* $Z 0o a «< H 0
1 «rm '
5_4 M — «
ui to ff>» CT
10
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
SIEVES it} t 4 i | i 1,————.. .'.t. 1 j—.J—t—I—(a
3° J'° 100 200 HYDROMETERIOO
i*°» 80
i70
n. 30
% 4O
w
fcja.10
200
z;
eno< j!— k• Oa)
BOULDERSCOBBLES
»• » •"- ;)-9-**^
^<fr —— - - s^^^ s
^\
\6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVELC | M | F
i iSANO
C | M | F
u •-.«.
0.06 0.02
—v r
•
o.oo« o.ooe
SILT- CLAY SOIL
Z8 76.2 25.4 9.32 2.0 0.59 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENING
In. 3 in. in. 3/8 in. Ho*. 10 30 60 2OO SIEVE
L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8037
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine IB
PAS Site
Oswego, New York
Project #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 £ D1110
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
FISHER R
O .EAST SYR
ACU
SE * Y I30S
7TElEPH
ON
l AREA CODE 3IS'437 1429
•z.O
3(D1
10
Ln
i-I5 CO v
*s8r-
J\10 — •£= 91
CD
L;.J
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
SIEVES >4t it i J i } 4 • l« 30 150 100 200 HYDROMETERIOU
>- »o*uoto ou»>- TO•f (01k. 30•tu; 4/5?z 30woK ZOkJa.
10
2
£,
t
cno10t-*< or •'"
_/ -v ^»—^^
^\
\
x\\
\
^ -€ •~—K.
. - ^ f-\i / F~/7\
0 0 6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2 0.06 0.02 O.OO6 O.OO2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
BOULDERCOBBLES
S GRAVELC | M | F
SANOC I M | F
SILT- CLAY SOIL
28 76.2 23.4 9.32 2.0 0.99 0.25 0.074 MM. OPENINGIn. 3 In. in. 3/8 in. Not. 10 30 60 20O SIEVE
L-95166 Lab I.D. : 8038
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: Wine 1APAS Site
Oswego, New York
Project #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1HO
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122
FISHER
PO
.EA
ST S
YR
AC
US
E N Y
13057TELEPHONE AR
E* CODE 315/437 1*29
•z.o<a>3crn>T
l/l»
l£><£>
eiin?$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
C | M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122
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 \
6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D122 6 D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 13C
PAS Site
Oswego, New York
Project #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 & D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 9B
PAS Site
Oswego, New YorkProject #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM DU22 6 D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
•••••
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
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM DU22
•!••
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
C | M | FSILT- CLAY SOIL
!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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122
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
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
Laboratory Testing Sample I.D.: White 1C
PAS Site
Osweqo, New York
Project #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D122 6 D1140
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
Oswego, New YorkProject #32701 Y
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1140
® 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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 & D11UO
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM DU22
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D122 & D11UO
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
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
O Sieve Analysis ASTM D422 6 D1140
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D422
••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
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
O Hydrometer Analysis ASTM D122
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-~ ,\
6 0 2 0 6 2 0 . 6 0 . 2GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
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
Page 9
"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
Page 10
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINE2Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765529 Date Received: 10/13/95
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
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
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
Page 66
IDPESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINE3Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
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
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
Lab Sample ID: 765530
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/18/95
Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
Page 12
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 3152B SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765532 Date Received: 10/13/95
Sample Volume: 1000(mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000 (up Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL) Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION
(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
Page 13
IDPESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract: (10-92) -REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 0011!
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(q/ml)ML
* Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) CONT
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
Lab Sample ID: 765533
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted=10/18/95
Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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 Sample ID: 764879
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: JL
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
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 Sample ID: 764895
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 11/15/95
Dilution Factor: JL
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
ab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTF
SAMPLE NO.
_____ Contract:
"Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 30.10(q/ml)G
% Moisture: 19 decanted: (Y/NJN
.Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
"Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.9
WINE3
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764898
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted.-10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: .1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG
?'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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
"Tab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP
SAMPLE NO.
______ Contract:
' Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 30.00(g/ml)G
% Moisture: 18 decanted: (Y/N)N
. Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
C-PC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH : 6 . 5
WINE4
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764906
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: .1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/KG
•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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:
Lab Code : COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 30.00(q/ml)G
% Moisture: 40 decanted: (Y/N)N
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.3
WINES
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764907
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG
£ 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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml)G
% Moisture: 25 decanted: (Y/N)N
.Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
-Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
G?C Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.8
WINE6
SDG No.: 00056
Lab Sample ID: 764909
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG
_- 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
Page 93
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
* Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-4
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764852
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extract-ed: 1 "/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
Page 1 CM
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No. : 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
'f Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-6
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764858
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extractfd;in/i.6/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: .1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name;COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-8
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764856
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1.
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
'\ Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(up
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-10
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764862
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/i6/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: .1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name;COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
V Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-12
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764860
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/9S
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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.
• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected by the validator to reflect only theproject-specified target analytes.
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.
This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides data.
,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
Page 44
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
DUPLICATELab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract: (10-92) -REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765535 Date Received: 10/13/95
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
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION
(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
Page 8
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
SWFDBLANKLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765534 Date Received: 10/13/95
Sample Volume: 100Q(mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000 (up Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Infection Volume: 2.0 (up Dilution P?ctor: i
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION
(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
Page 9
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
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL) Dilution Factor: .1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
'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>
Page 10
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINE2Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765529 Date Received: 10/13/95
Sample Volume: 1000(mL) Date Extracted: 10/18/95
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL) Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Injection Volume : ? . Q fiiL) Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
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
Page 86
IDPESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINE3Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: • SDG No.: 00113
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: {SepF/Cont/Sonc} CONT
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
CAS NO. COMPOUND
Lab Sample ID: 765530
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/18/95
Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Dilution Factor: l_
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
Page 12
1LCDLOW CONC. WATER PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINESLab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Lab Sample ID: 765532 Date Received: 10/13/95
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: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 7.0
CAS No. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION
(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
Page 13
IDPESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
EPA SAMPLE NO.
WINE6Lab Name:COMPUCHEM ENV. CORP. Contract:(10-92)-REV
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.: SDG No.: 00113
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: fSepF/Cont/Sonc) CONT
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
CAS NO. COMPOUND
Lab Sample ID: 765533
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/18/95
Date Analyzed: 10/26/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
PAS/OSWEGO SITEOSWEGO, NEW YORK
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATAPesticides of Concern in Sediments
Case 31528; Sample Delivery Group #00058 and #00058A
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
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.
Findings of the validation effort resulted in the following qualifications of sample results:
• 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).
• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected by the validator to reflect only theproject-specified target analytes.
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.
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. 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.
This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides data.
«
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
II. Calibration and Instrument Performance
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.
A. GC Column Resolution
No resolution check standard solution analysis was performed; this is not required by SW-846Method 8080.
B. Initial Calibration (1C)
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.
C. Analytical Sequence
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.
D. Continuing Calibration (CO
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.
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 (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.
VII. Field Duplicate
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).
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 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.
XII. Overall Assessment
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
• The Form I's in Attachment B were corrected by the validator to reflect only theproject-specified target analytes.
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.
This validation report should be considered part of the data package for all future distributionsof the pesticides data.
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"
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:
JLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
'Sample wt/vol : 30 .20 (g/ml) G
"•% Moisture: 17 decanted: (Y/N)N
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volurue: 2000 (uL)
.Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.2
DUPSOIL
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764927
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
: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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
- US-SAMPLE NO.
jLab Code: COMPU•J ————
Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
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) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
3PC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:7.1
WINE2
SDG No.: 0058A
Lab Sample ID: 764895
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/I9/95
Date Analyzed: 11/15/95
Dilution Factor: 1.
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
^ 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
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
_Injection Volume: 2.0(up
--GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH : 6 . 9
SAMPLE NO.
WINE3
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764898
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/I9/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/'9b
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/KG
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
__^_-D Name •. COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:
jLab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
""Sar.ple wt/vol : 30 . 00 (g/ml)G
% Moisture: 18 decanted: (Y/N)N
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
Concentrated Extract Volume: 2GOC(up
_Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
-GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.5
WINE4
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764906
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/I9/95
Dale Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or uq/Kq)UG/KG
•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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
__o Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Juab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
'"Sample wt/vol : 30 . 00 (g/ml) G
's Moisture: 40 decanted: (Y/NJN
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
roncer.t rated Extract Volume: 2000 (up
-Injection Volume: 2 . 0 (up
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.3
WINE5
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764907
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Dace Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
WINE6^j Name : COMPUCHEM. RTP Contract:
J-.ak Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)SOIL
-Sample wt/vol: 30.00 (g/ml)G
"~k Moisture: 25 decanted: (Y/N)N
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONC
. roncentrated Extract Volume: 2000(uL)
^Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
-JPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:6.8
SDG No.: 00058
Lab Sample ID: 764909
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/19/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: JL
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/KG
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
^e JWJJ
^ATJ-,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
PAS/OSWEGO SITEOSWEGO, NEW YORK
ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATAPesticides of Concei r./TCBs in Waters
Case 31528; Sample Delivery Group #00002
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
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
Findings of the validation effort resulted in the following qualifications of sample results:
• 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
II. Calibration and Instrument Performance
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.
A. GC Column Resolution
No resolution check standard solution analysis was performed; this is not required by SW-846Method 8080.
B. Initial Calibration (1C)
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.
C. Analytical Sequence
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.
D. Continuing Calibration (CO
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.
IV. Surrogate Recovery
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
VII. Field Duplicate
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.
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 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.
XII. Overall Assessment
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
FIELDBLK1
SDG No. : 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764864
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTF Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
'•e Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
FIELDDUP1
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764866
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted=10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1.
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
•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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SEDFBLANK
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764875
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/13/95
Date Extracted:10/I8/95
Date Analyzed: 10/25/95
Dilution Factor: 1.
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
'-. Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/NJN pH:
SWW-4
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764852
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: I
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
\ Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-6
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764858
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: i
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(q/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-8
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764856
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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 / —
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM,RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No.:
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(uL)
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-10
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764862
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/I6/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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
IDORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBs ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
SAMPLE NO.
Lab Name:COMPUCHEM.RTP Contract:
Lab Code: COMPU Case No.: 31528 SAS No. :
Matrix: (soil/water)WATER
Sample wt/vol: 1000(g/ml)ML
% Moisture: decanted: (Y/N)
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF
Concentrated Extract Volume: 10000(up
Injection Volume: 2.0(uL)
GPC Cleanup: (Y/N)N pH:
SWW-12
SDG No.: 00002
Lab Sample ID: 764860
Lab File ID:
Date Received: 10/11/95
Date Extracted:10/16/95
Date Analyzed: 10/17/95
Dilution Factor: 1
Sulfur Cleanup: (Y/N) N
CAS NO. COMPOUNDCONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg)UG/L
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