Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation Report ConnDOT Project Number 172-0466 October 2019 East Lyme P&FS Region 2 Replacement Project Prepared For: State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Compliance Newington, Connecticut Prepared By: TRC 21 Griffin Road North Windsor, Connecticut 06095
108
Embed
Subsurface Site Investigation - Connecticut...Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation Report ConnDOT Project Number 172-0466 October 2019 East Lyme P&FS Region 2 Replacement Project
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation Report ConnDOT Project Number 172-0466 October 2019
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 Replacement Project Prepared For: State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Compliance Newington, Connecticut Prepared By: TRC 21 Griffin Road North Windsor, Connecticut 06095
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 11 TABLES 1 Soil Sample Analytical Results 2 Groundwater Sample Analytical Results FIGURES 1 Site Location Map 2 Site Plan 3 Sample Location Plan APPENDICES A Soil Boring Logs B Laboratory Analytical Reports
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Overview
Pursuant to TRC’s Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) Contract for On-Call Environmental Services, TRC performed a Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation at the ConnDOT Properties and Facilities (P&FS) facility located at 273 Flanders Road (referred to as the “Site”) in East Lyme, Connecticut (Figure 1). The Site is developed with a main maintenance building, a large salt shed, paved driveways and parking areas, and landscaped areas.
Specifically, this investigation was conducted near the maintenance building where a 2,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank (UST) will be decommissioned and replaced with a 4,000-gallon fuel oil aboveground storage tank (AST).
1.2 Objectives
The primary objectives of this Task 210 site investigation were to:
• Determine soil and groundwater quality in the area of the facility’s current 2,000-gallonfuel oil UST;
• Determine the soil quality in the area of the new 4,000-gallon fuel oil AST; and
• Utilize the gathered data to determine how best to manage soil and groundwater duringthe tank removal and replacement activities and whether Plans and Specifications arerequired for the impending construction.
1.3 Background
Based on limited discussions with ConnDOT personnel, ConnDOT is removing one 2,000-gallon fuel oil UST which is currently installed at the East Lyme P&FS Facility. The Site is developed with a main maintenance building, a large salt shed, paved driveways and parking areas, and landscaped areas. The fuel oil UST is located on the northeastern side of the building. The tank location is depicted on Figures 2 and 3. In addition, the new replacement fuel oil AST will also be located to the northeast of the building.
1.4 Geologic/Physical Setting
As indicated by the Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut (Stone et al, 1992), the Site is located in an area underlain by thin till. Surficial materials at this site are characterized by areas of till that are generally less than ten to fifteen feet thick and areas of bedrock outcrops where till is absent. The material is predominantly upper till, loose to moderately compact, generally sandy and commonly stony.
Based on the descriptions of the soil cores collected during the Task 210 field investigation, the Site is generally underlain by silt and fine sand with varying amounts medium to coarse sand and gravel.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 2
As indicated by the Geological Map of Connecticut (Rogers, 1985), the Site is located within the Potter Hill Granite Gneiss Formation, which is characterized by light-pink to gray, medium to coarse-grained, well-foliated granite gneiss. The topography in the immediate project area can be characterized as generally flat, slightly sloping from southeast to northwest toward nearby Latimer Brook. Groundwater generally flows from high topographic points to low topographic points, but can also be heavily influenced by aquifer type, depth to bedrock, nearby watercourses, groundwater use (withdrawal wells) and subsurface structures. Based on the local topography and features, groundwater is anticipated to flow to the northwest. During the investigation, groundwater was observed at 8.5 feet below grade (ftbg). According to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) groundwater classification maps reviewed by TRC, groundwater beneath the Site is classified as “GA”. GA groundwater designated uses are existing private and potential public or private supplies of water suitable for drinking without treatment. The southwestern portion of the site is located in a Final Aquifer Protection Area (Level A).
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 3
2.0 Technical Approach This section of the report summarizes the soil and groundwater sampling methods employed during the Task 210 field investigation. Observations made in the field are also summarized in this section. The Task 210 work performed at this Site was completed in accordance with the TRC Work Request for Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation: East Lyme P&FS Region 2, East Lyme CT, prepared by TRC in August 2019. Any exceptions to the proposed plan are noted in the following sub-sections. As indicated above, the focus of the Task 210 Subsurface Site Investigation was to characterize soil and groundwater at the Site in the areas of the existing UST and future AST. Four soil borings were advanced around the concrete pad that covers the 2,000-gallon fuel oil UST. One shallow soil boring was advanced in the vicinity of the future 4,000-gallon fuel oil AST. A total of seven soil samples (including one duplicate sample) were collected from the five soil borings for submission to the laboratory for analysis (one to two samples per boring). In addition, one grab groundwater sample was collected from soil borings ELMF-SB03 (advanced southeast of the heating fuel oil UST. The grab groundwater sample was collected by installing a temporary one-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) well point in the boring. The seven soil samples and one grab groundwater sample were submitted to the laboratory for the following analyses:
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 (with Method 5035 field preservation for the soil samples);
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 8270; • Extractable Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (ETPH) by Connecticut Department of
Public Health Method; and • Total RCRA 8 metals by EPA Methods 6010/7471.
All samples were analyzed by Phoenix Environmental Laboratories (Phoenix) of Manchester, Connecticut in accordance with Connecticut’s Reasonable Confidence Protocols (RCPs). 2.1 Preliminary Activities Prior to beginning the investigation, TRC marked the proposed boring locations at the Site with white paint on the ground surface. “Call Before You Dig” (CBYD) was contacted to mark the locations of buried utilities in the proposed work zones. In addition, a private utility locating service (Underground Surveying of Brookfield, CT) was contracted to conduct a more detailed screening given the presence of several utilities within the work areas. Preliminary activities also included the preparation of a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) to address the field work to be completed as part of this Task 210.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 4
2.2 Soil Boring Program Methodology A total of five soil borings were advanced on August 12, 2019 by Cisco Geotechnical, LLC (Cisco) under the direct supervision of TRC personnel. These borings were advanced utilizing a tracked GeoProbe™ direct-push drill rig. Soil cores were collected continuously from the ground surface to depths ranging from five to 10.5 ftbg. Each five-foot soil core, collected in an acetate Macro-Core® liner, was logged with respect to soil characteristics (i.e., grain size, moisture content and any other physical characteristics) and indications of potential impacts (e.g., stains and odors). In addition, each core was field-screened using a photoionization detector (PID) prior to the collection of soil samples for analysis. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix A. The soil boring/sampling locations are shown on Figure 3. The initial criteria for selecting a sample interval for laboratory analysis were visual and olfactory observations and/or PID screening results. In the absence of obvious evidence of impacts in the soil borings advanced around the UST, the soil sample intervals were chosen based on the most-likely interval for impacts, that typically being a depth corresponding with bottom of the tank and/or directly at or above the groundwater interface. TRC presumes the tank is from six feet in diameter with three to four feet of cover material, and groundwater was observed at 8.5 ftbg. Therefore, the bottom of the tank (estimated at nine to ten ftbg) and the observed water table depths are in close proximity to one another. Soil samples submitted to the laboratory for VOC analysis were collected in accordance with EPA Method 5035. This method outlines the collection of soil samples, without homogenization and with minimal disturbance, and transfer into extraction solvents. The remaining soil was then homogenized and placed in the appropriate laboratory-supplied sample containers and then placed in a cooler with ice, for delivery to the laboratory. The excess soils and drill cuttings were returned to their respective boreholes. Final borehole locations were documented by measuring from two or more fixed locations and recording those measurements in the project field notebook. The probe tip and Macro-Core® sampler were decontaminated between uses to minimize the potential for cross-contamination. The decontamination was completed by washing with an Alconox and tap water mixture, followed by a tap water rinse and a final deionized water rinse. Field Observations Based on the descriptions of the soil cores, the Site is primarily underlain by light to medium brown silt and fine sand with varying amounts of medium to coarse sand and gravel. Each soil core was screened with a PID for volatile organic vapors. No odors, staining or PID measurements were observed in any of the soils recovered from the borings. Drilling refusal was encountered in four of the five soil borings: ELMF-SB01 at a depth of seven ftbg, ELMF-SB02 at a depth of six ftbg, ELMF-SB03 at a depth of 10.5 ftbg, and ELMF-SB04 at a depth of 8.5 ftbg.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 5
2.3 Groundwater Sampling Program Methodology TRC directed Cisco to insert a temporary well point consisting of one-inch diameter PVC screen (10-slot or 0.01-inch openings) and solid PVC risers into borehole ELMF-SB03. The screened section was set at a depth interval in the borehole that intersected the water table. The formation was allowed to collapse around the screen and riser. Groundwater and fines were evacuated from the temporary well prior to sampling using a peristaltic pump with dedicated silicon and polyethylene tubing. The grab groundwater sample was collected directly into the appropriate laboratory-supplied containers and placed in a cooler with ice for shipment to the laboratory under proper chain-of-custody procedures. Field Observations The scope of work called for the installation of a temporary well point in the vicinity of the 2,000-gallon UST. A temporary well point was installed to the southeast of the UST in boring ELMF-SB03 with a screened interval from 5.5 ftbg to 10.5 ftbg. A grab groundwater sample was collected from the temporary well point and submitted for analysis. The groundwater sample collected from the temporary well point exhibited a slightly silty appearance. No sheens were noted on the purge water from the temporary well point nor were any odors detected. 2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Samples Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were collected as part of the Task 210 subsurface investigation. In order to determine the effectiveness of the decontamination of the sampling equipment, a field equipment rinsate blank was collected and analyzed for the same analyses as the primary samples submitted on the day of the sampling. The field equipment rinsate blank was collected by pouring laboratory-supplied de-ionized water over and/or through the sampling equipment (acetate liner, sampling tubing, etc.) used in the collection of the samples. The rinsate water was then collected into the appropriate laboratory-supplied sample containers. The field rinsate blank associated with this sampling program was designated as “FB20190812”. A groundwater trip blank was provided by Phoenix Laboratories and was submitted for analysis for VOCs by EPA Method 8260 as part of the sampling regimen. The sample was identified as “TB20190812”. In addition, solvent blanks were submitted to evaluate the effect of sample storage and shipment on sample integrity for the soil samples collected for VOC analysis. Furthermore, solvent blanks are used to ensure that proper sample container preparation and handling procedures were utilized following EPA 5035 Method protocols for field preservation of VOC soil samples. Vials of methanol and de-ionized water to be used for VOC soil sampling were prepared by the laboratory. The solvent blanks associated with this soil sampling program were designated as “SB20190812-LL” and “SB-High”. Duplicate samples are two separate samples collected from the same source. The procedure for collecting a duplicate sample consists of alternating the collection of the sample between the
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 6
primary sample container and the duplicate sample container. The duplicate soil sample collected as part of this soil sampling program was labeled as ELMF-SB30(8-10), a duplicate of soil sample ELMF-SB03(8-10).
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 7
3.0 Investigation Results The following section provides a summary of the analytical results for the soil and grab groundwater sampling conducted at the Site. Seven soil samples (including one duplicate soil sample) and one grab groundwater sample were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, ETPH, and total RCRA 8 metals. The soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1 and the groundwater analytical results are summarized in Table 2. A copy of the laboratory report is provided in Appendix B. Although the project site is not subject to the Transfer Act, the Voluntary Cleanup Program, nor the requirements of a Consent Order, the soil and groundwater analytical results were compared to the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (RSRs) to evaluate the levels of any detected contaminants within the investigated areas. This allows for management of any contaminated media encountered during the impending construction activities in a manner consistent with applicable regulations. The reported concentrations for soils were compared to the Residential Direct Exposure Criteria (RES DEC) and the GA Pollutant Mobility Criteria (GA PMC) under the RSRs. The Industrial/Commercial (I/C) Criteria are not technically applicable at a site unless an Environmental Land Use Restriction (ELUR) is implemented, therefore, those criteria are not presented herein. The analytical results of the grab groundwater sample were compared to the Groundwater Protection Criteria (GWPC), Surface Water Protection Criteria (SWPC) and the Residential Groundwater Volatilization Criteria (RES GWVC). 3.1 Soil Sample Results As indicated above, a summary of the soil sample analytical results is presented in Table 1. A copy of the laboratory analytical report for soil samples is included in Appendix B. VOCs No VOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples collected as part of this investigation. SVOCs No SVOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples collected as part of this investigation. ETPH ETPH was not detected above laboratory reporting limits in any of the soil samples collected as part of this investigation.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 8
Total RCRA 8 Metals The metals arsenic, barium, chromium and lead were detected above the laboratory reporting limits in each of the seven soil samples. The reported concentration of arsenic in soil sample ELMF-SB03(2-4) exceeded the RES DEC with a concentration of 19.8 mg/kg. The reported concentrations in the remaining soil samples were below their applicable RSR criteria. 3.2 Groundwater Sample Results As indicated above, a summary of the groundwater sample analytical results is presented in Table 2. A copy of the laboratory analytical report for the groundwater sample is included in Appendix B. VOCs No VOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the grab groundwater sample collected as part of this investigation. SVOCs No SVOCs were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the grab groundwater sample collected as part of this investigation. ETPH ETPH was not detected at a concentration above the laboratory reporting limits in the grab groundwater sample collected as part of this investigation. Total RCRA 8 Metals The metals barium and chromium were detected at concentrations above the laboratory reporting limits in the grab groundwater sample. The reported concentrations of these metals in ELMF-SB03-GW did not exceed any of the applicable RSR criteria. 3.3 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Sample Results As indicated in Section 2.4, the field equipment rinsate blank, trip blank, solvent blanks, and duplicate soil samples were submitted to the laboratory as part of the sampling program for QA/QC purposes. The field rinsate blank did not exhibit detectable concentrations of any constituents. Overall, the results are indicative that the field equipment used for the sampling had been adequately decontaminated and had no adverse impact on the soil or grab groundwater analytical results. The concentration of detected metals in the duplicate samples varied slightly from those detected in the primary samples. The minimal variation in the reported metal concentrations indicates that the samples were adequately homogenized in the field and the laboratory’s processing of the samples was consistent. VOCs were not detected in the groundwater trip blank or soil solvent blanks associated with this investigation.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 9
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations This section briefly summarizes the findings of the Task 210 exploratory site investigation activities conducted at the site on August 12, 2019. Also included are recommendations based on these findings/conclusions. 4.1 Soil
a. The soil borings drilled in the planned UST removal area were advanced to a maximum depth of 10.5 ftbg. In general, the site is primarily underlain by brown fine-grained sands and silt with varying amounts of fine to coarse sand and gravel. No field evidence of contamination (i.e., elevated PID measurements, odors and/or staining) were observed in any of the soil borings.
b. No VOCs, SVOCs, or ETPH were detected in any of the soil samples collected as part
of this investigation. c. Low levels of the metals arsenic, barium, chromium and lead were detected in each of
the soil samples at concentrations below the RSR criteria, except for ELMF-SB03(2-4), which had an arsenic concentration that exceeded the RES DEC. Given the similar concentrations of each metal in the soil samples, these results likely represent background conditions.
Recommendation Based on the results of this investigation, TRC recommends that appropriate Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (Task 310) be prepared. It is recommended that a Notice To Contractor be prepared to notify the tank replacement contractor of the results of the investigation and presence of arsenic impacted materials immediately around the tanks to be removed. In addition, controlled materials handling and health and safety specifications are warranted. 4.2 Groundwater
a. Groundwater was encountered within the project area at approximately 8.5 ftbg near the heating fuel oil UST.
b. The groundwater sample identified as ELMF-SB03-GW was collected from temporary
1-inch PVC well point installed in the boring.
c. No VOCs, SVOCs, or ETPH were detected in the grab groundwater sample collected during this investigation.
The metals barium and chromium were detected in the grab groundwater sample at reported concentrations below their respective criteria. The detected concentrations of metals seen in the sample may be a result of turbidity of the grab groundwater sample.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 10
Recommendation: The UST most likely measures six feet in diameter, with three to four feet of cover. The depth to bottom of the USTs would then be approximately nine to ten ftbg. Although the observed depth to groundwater of 8.5 ftbg at the site, it is unlikely that dewatering will be required for its removal. Based on the results of this investigation, TRC recommends that a Notice To Contractor be prepared to notify the tank replacement contractor of the investigation groundwater results.
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 UST Replacement October 2019 Task 210 11
5.0 References Rogers, J. 1985. Bedrock Geological Map of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History of Connecticut. Scale 1:125,000. Stone, J.R. 1992. Surficial Materials Map of Connecticut. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Scale1:125,000.
Figures
CONNDOT’S EAST LYME P&FS REGION 2 FACILITY337 FLANDERS ROAD, EAST LYME, CT
DATE: 09/2019 PROJECT NO. 237612.6037.000210
1:24000
BASE CREATED WITH 7.5’ USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPSPALMERTOWN AND NIANTIC, CT 2018 QUADRANGLE
NOTES: CT RSRs - State of Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (CT RSRs) per RCSA 22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3, adopted January 1, 1996 and revised on June 27, 2013.RES DEC - Residential Direct Exposure CriteriaGA PMC - GA Pollutant Mobility Criteriaftbg - feet below gradeND - Not detected above laboratory detection limits NA - Not analyzedmg/kg - milligrams per kilogramBold value indicates an exceedance of the RES DECShaded value indicates an exceedance of the GA PMC.** - Currently, no RES DEC for total chromium is established in the CT RSRs. However, the CT RSRs provide an RES DEC value for both hexavalent and trivalent chromium, of which the value for hexavalent chromium (the more stringent of the two) is presented on this table for comparison.
Extractable Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons - mg/l ND ND NACT DEEP Method 0.25 NE --
Total RCRA 8 Metals - mg/lMethods 6010/7471 ND NABarium 0.059 1 NE --Chromium 0.004 0.05 NE --
NOTES: CT RSRs - State of Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (CT RSRs) per RCSA 22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3, adopted January 1, 1996 and revised on June 27, 2013.GWPC - Groundwater Protection CriteriaSWPC - Surface Water Protection CriteriaRES GWVC - Residential Groundwater Volatilization CriteriaND - Not detected above laboratory detection limits (all checked to be in compliance with established RSR criteria)NA - Not Analyzedmg/l - milligrams per literug/l - micrograms per liter
Table 2
CT RSRs
Appendix A Soil Boring Logs
5.0
2.0
2.9
1.6
0 '- 0.9 ' Light brown, F-SAND & SILT, some fine gravel, trace organic material, dry,no odor, no staining.
0.9 '- 2.8 ' Light brown, F-SAND & SILT, little fine gravel, moist, no odor, no staining.
2.8 '- 2.9 ' ASPHALT.
5 '- 5.5 ' ASPHALT.
5.5 '- 5.8 ' Medium brown, SILT, little fine sand, trace fine gravel, moist, no odor, nostaining.5.8 '- 6.6 ' Light brown, F-M SAND, little fine gravel, moist to wet, no odor, no staining.
Refusal at 7.0 feet.Bottom of borehole at 7.0 feet.
Not Observed
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
DATE
MEASUREMENT At Time of Drilling At End of Drilling After Drilling
DEPTH (ft.bgs.)
REFERENCE
STABILIZATION
Drilling Contractor:Driller(s):
Drilling Method:Equipment/Model:
Sampler:
CiscoChris and FrankDirect-PushGeoprobe 6620DT5' Macrocore
DRILLING INFORMATION
Notes: Collect ELMF-SB01(5-7) for VOCs, SVOCs, ETPH and RCRA 8 Metals
East Lyme P&FS Region 2 FacilityEast Lyme, Connecticut237612.006037.0000210Connecticut Department of TransportationA. Galanto
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Checked By:
5.0
5.0
0.5
2.5
2.0
0.5
0 '- 1.3 ' Medium brown, F-SAND & SILT, some finegravel, little medium to coarse sand, moist, no odor, nostaining.
1.3 '- 1.8 ' PULVERIZED ROCK.
1.8 '- 2.3 ' Medium brown, F-SAND & SILT, littlemedium sand, moist, no odor, no staining.2.3 '- 2.5 ' PULVERIZED ROCK.
5 '- 5.5 ' Light brown, F-SAND, little silt, little finegravel, dry, no odor, no staining.5.5 '- 7 ' Medium brown, F-SAND & SILT, moist towet, no odor, no staining.
10 '- 10.5 ' Medium brown, F-SAND & SILT, wet, noodor, no staining.
Refusal at 10.5 feet.Bottom of borehole at 10.5 feet.
8.5
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
DATE
MEASUREMENT At Time of Drilling At End of Drilling After Drilling
DEPTH (ft.bgs.)
REFERENCE
STABILIZATION
Drilling Contractor:Driller(s):
Drilling Method:Equipment/Model:
Sampler:
CiscoChris and FrankDirect-PushGeoprobe 6620DT5' Macrocore
DRILLING INFORMATION
8/12/2019
Notes: Collect ELMF-SB03(2-4), ELMF-SB03(8-10), and ELMF-SB30(8-10) (Duplicate) for VOCs, SVOCs, ETPH and RCRA 8 Metals
SDG ID: GCD82592Project ID: CONN DOT EAST LYME MAINTENANCE FACILITY
Sincerely yours,
Laboratory DirectorPhyllis Shiller
Enclosed are revised Analysis Report pages. Please replace and discard the original pages. If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
This laboratory is in compliance with the NELAC requirements of procedures used except where indicated.
This report contains results for the parameters tested, under the sampling conditions described on the Chain Of Custody, as received by the laboratory. This report is incomplete unless all pages indicated in the pagination at the bottom of the page are included.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
A scanned version of the COC form accompanies the analytical report and is an exact duplicate of the original.
Volatile 8260 analysis: 1,2-Dibromoethane and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane do not meet GWP criteria, this compound is analyzed by GC/ECD to achieve this criteria.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 7 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
SB20190812 LL
Phoenix ID: CD82593
08/12/197:50
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 10 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
WATERTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
FB20190812
Phoenix ID: CD82594
08/12/198:00
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
Semi-Volatile Comment:One of the surrogate recoveries was above the upper range due to sample matrix interference. The other surrogates associated with this sample were within QA/QC criteria. No significant bias is suspected.
3 = This parameter exceeds laboratory specified limits.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 15 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB01 (5-7)
Phoenix ID: CD82595
08/12/198:40
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 20 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB02 (4-6)
Phoenix ID: CD82596
08/12/199:00
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 25 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB03 (2-4)
Phoenix ID: CD82597
08/12/199:20
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 30 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB03 (8-10)
Phoenix ID: CD82598
08/12/199:30
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 35 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB30 (8-10
Phoenix ID: CD82599
08/12/199:40
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 40 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB04 (6.5-8.5)
Phoenix ID: CD82600
08/12/1910:0013:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 45 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB05 (2-4)
Phoenix ID: CD82601
08/12/1910:2013:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
All soils, solids and sludges are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise noted in the sample comments.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 50 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
GROUND WATERTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
ELMF-SB03 GW
Phoenix ID: CD82602
08/12/1910:4013:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
Comments:Per 1.4.6 of EPA method 8270D, 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is unstable and readily converts to Azobenzene. Azobenzene is used for the calibration of 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine.
Semi-Volatile Comment:One of the surrogate recoveries was above the upper range due to sample matrix interference. The other surrogates associated with this sample were within QA/QC criteria. No significant bias is suspected.
3 = This parameter exceeds laboratory specified limits.
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
Ver 2
Page 55 of 81
Sample Information Custody InformationMatrix:Location Code:Rush Request:P.O.#:
Collected by:Received by:Analyzed by:
SOILTRC-DOT72 Hour
08/12/19CPsee "By" below
Laboratory Data
SB20190812 SB HIGH
Phoenix ID: CD82603
08/12/197:40
13:06
Parameter ResultRL/PQL Units Date/Time By Reference
If you are the client above and have any questions concerning this testing, please do not hesitate to contact Phoenix Client Services at ext.200. The contents of this report cannot be discussed with anyone other than the client listed above without their written consent.
Reviewed and Released by: Sarah Bell, Project Manager
RL/PQL=Reporting/Practical Quantitation Level ND=Not Detected BRL=Below Reporting LevelQA/QC Surrogates: Surrogates are compounds (preceeded with a %) added by the lab to determine analysis efficiency. Surrogate results(%) listed in the report are not "detected" compounds.
This Batch consists of a Blank, LCS, MS and MSD. The surrogate recovery in the blank was below acceptance criteria; QC and samples were within criteria.
Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
Additional 8270 criteria: 20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
Additional 8270 criteria: 20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
Additional 8270 criteria:20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
A LCS and LCS Duplicate were performed instead of a matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate.
Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
Comment:
l = This parameter is outside laboratory LCS/LCSD specified recovery limits.m = This parameter is outside laboratory MS/MSD specified recovery limits.r = This parameter is outside laboratory RPD specified recovery limits.s = This parameter is outside laboratory Blank Surrogate specified recovery limits.
MS - Matrix SpikePhyllis Shiller, Laboratory Director
If there are any questions regarding this data, please call Phoenix Client Services at extension 200.
October 14, 2019MS Dup - Matrix Spike Duplicate
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
LCS - Laboratory Control SampleLCSD - Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
NC - No Criteria
Intf - Interference
Page 68 of 81
Sample Criteria Exceedances ReportMonday, October 14, 2019
Phoenix Laboratories does not assume responsibility for the data contained in this exceedance report. It is provided as an additional tool to identify requested criteria exceedences. All efforts are made to ensure the accuracy of the data (obtained from appropriate agencies). A lack of exceedence information does not necessarily suggest conformance to the criteria. It is ultimately the site professional's responsibility to determine appropriate compliance.
Page 69 of 81
Phoenix Environmental Labs, Inc.
Phyllis Shiller
Laboratory Director
YesWere all samples received by the laboratory in a condition consistent with that described on the associated Chain-of-Custody document(s)?
For each analytical method referenced in this laboratory report package, were all specified QA/QC performance criteria followed, including the requirement to explain any criteria falling outside of acceptable guidelines, as specified in the CT DEP method-specific Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents?
No
Were all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents acheived? See Sections: ETPH Narration, SVOA Narration, SVOASIM Narration, VOA Narration.
For each analytical method referenced in this laboratory report package, were results reported for all constituents identified in the method-specific analyte lists presented in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents?
I, the undersigned, attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge and belief and based upon my personal inquiry of those responsible for providing the information contained in this analytical report, such information is accurate and complete.
2
1
4
6
Monday, October 14, 2019Date:
Notes: For all questions to which the response was "No" (with the exception of question #7), additional information must be provided in an attached narrative. If the answer to question #1, #1A or 1B is "No", the data package does not meet the requirements for "Reasonable Confidence".This form may not be altered and all questions must be answered.
Were samples received at an appropriate temperature (< 6 Degrees C)? 3 Yes No
Yes No
Are project-specific matrix spikes and laboratory duplicates included in the data set? 7 Yes No
Printed Name:
Position:
List RCP Methods Used (e.g., 8260, 8270, et cetera)
YesWere the method specified preservation and holding time requirements met? No 1A
Was the VPH or EPH method conducted without significant modifications (see section 11.3 of respective RCP methods)
1B Yes NoNA
a) Were reporting limits specified or referenced on the chain-of-custody?
b) Were these reporting limits met?
5 Yes No
NA
CTDEP RCP Laboratory Analysis QA/QC Certification Form - November 2007Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidance Reasonable Confidence Protocols
LABORATORY ANALYSIS QA/QC CERTIFICATION FORM
CD82592-CD82603
6010, 7470/7471, 8260, 8270, ETPH
VPH and EPH methods only:
Name of Laboratory
This certification form is to be used for RCP methods only.
SDG CommentsMetals Analysis:The client requested a shorter list of elements than the 6010 RCP list. Only the RCRA 8 Metals are reported as requested on the chain of custody.
Volatile 8260 analysis: 1,2-Dibromoethane and 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane do not meet the GWP these compounds are analyzed by GC/ECD to achieve this criteria.
ETPH NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents achieved? No. QC Batch 491995 (Samples: CD82595, CD82596, CD82597, CD82598, CD82599, CD82600, CD82601): -----
The surrogate recovery in the blank was below acceptance criteria; QC and samples were within criteria.Instrument:
CD82596AU-FID1 08/13/19-1 Jeff Bucko, Chemist 08/13/19
The initial calibration (ETPH808I) RSD for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds: None.As per section 7.2.3, a discrimination check standard was run (813A003_2) and contained the following outliers: None.The continuing calibration %D for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds:None.
CD82601AU-FID11 08/13/19-1 Jeff Bucko, Chemist 08/13/19
The initial calibration (ETPH807I) RSD for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds: None.As per section 7.2.3, a discrimination check standard was run (813A003A_1) and contained the following outliers: None.The continuing calibration %D for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds:None.
CD82595, CD82597, CD82598, CD82600AU-FID21 08/13/19-1 Jeff Bucko, Chemist 08/13/19
The initial calibration (ETPH709I) RSD for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds: None.As per section 7.2.3, a discrimination check standard was run (813A003_1) and contained the following outliers: None.The continuing calibration %D for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds:None.
CD82599AU-XL1 08/14/19-1 Jeff Bucko, Chemist 08/14/19
The initial calibration (ETPH805I) RSD for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds: None.As per section 7.2.3, a discrimination check standard was run (814A003_1) and contained the following outliers: None.The continuing calibration %D for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds:None.
CD82594, CD82602AU-XL2 08/13/19-1 Jeff Bucko, Chemist 08/13/19
The initial calibration (ETPH715I) RSD for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds: None.As per section 7.2.3, a discrimination check standard was run (813A003_1) and contained the following outliers: None.The continuing calibration %D for the compound list was less than 30% except for the following compounds:None.
ETPH NarrationAll LCS recoveries were within 60 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.This Batch consists of a Blank, LCS, MS and MSD. The surrogate recovery in the blank was below acceptance criteria; QC and samples were within criteria.Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
CD82594, CD82602Batch 492037 (CD81252)
All LCS recoveries were within 60 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.All LCSD recoveries were within 60 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
CD82599Batch 492377 (CD83667)
All LCS recoveries were within 60 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.All LCSD recoveries were within 60 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.Additional surrogate criteria: LCS acceptance range is 60-120% MS acceptance range 50-150%. The ETPH/DRO LCS has been normalized based on the alkane calibration.
Mercury NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the analytical method achieved? Yes.
The method preparation blank contains all of the acids and reagents as the samples; the instrument blanks do not.The initial calibration met all criteria including a standard run at or below the reporting level.All calibration verification standards (ICV, CCV) met criteria. All calibration blank verification standards (ICB, CCB) met criteria. The matrix spike sample is used to identify spectral interference for each batch of samples, if within 85-115%, no interference is observed and no further action is taken.The following Initial Calibration Verification (ICV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.The following Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.
QC (Batch Specific):
CD82594, CD82602Batch 491991 (CD82503)
All LCS recoveries were within 80 - 120 with the following exceptions: None.Additional Mercury criteria: LCS acceptance range for waters is 80-120% and for soils is 70-130%. MS acceptance range is 75-125%.
Mercury NarrationAll LCSD recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.Additional Mercury criteria: LCS acceptance range for waters is 80-120% and for soils is 70-130%. MS acceptance range is 75-125%.
ICP Metals NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the analytical method achieved? Yes.
Additional criteria for CCV and ICSAB:Sodium and Potassium are poor performing elements, the laboratory's in-house limits are 85-115% (CCV) and 70-130% (ICSAB).The linear range is defined daily by the calibration range.The following Initial Calibration Verification (ICV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.The following Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.The following ICP Interference Check (ICSAB) compounds did not meet criteria: None.
CD82594, CD82602BLUE 08/12/19 09:59 Tina Hall, Chemist 08/12/19
The initial calibration met criteria. The continuing calibration standards met criteria for all the elements reported. The linear range is defined daily by the calibration range. The continuing calibration blanks were less than the reporting level for the elements reported.The ICSA and ICSAB were analyzed at the beginning and end of the run and were within criteria.The linear range is defined daily by the calibration range.The following Initial Calibration Verification (ICV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.The following Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) compounds did not meet criteria: None.The following ICP Interference Check (ICSAB) compounds did not meet criteria: None.
QC (Batch Specific):
CD82594, CD82602Batch 492026 (CD82108)
All LCS recoveries were within 75 - 125 with the following exceptions: None.All LCSD recoveries were within 75 - 125 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 20% with the following exceptions: None.
All LCS recoveries were within 75 - 125 with the following exceptions: None.All LCSD recoveries were within 75 - 125 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.All MS recoveries were within 75 - 125 with the following exceptions: None.
SVOA NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents achieved? No. QC Batch 491993 (Samples: CD82595, CD82596, CD82597, CD82598, CD82599, CD82600, CD82601): -----
The LCS/LCSD recovery is acceptable. One or more analytes in the site specific matrix spike recovery is below the lower range but within the method criteria, therefore a low bias is likely. (2,4-Dinitrophenol, Benzoic Acid)
The MS/MSD RPD exceeds the method criteria for one or more analytes, therefore there may be variability in the reported result. (2,4-Dinitrophenol, Benzoic Acid)
The LCS/LCSD recovery is below the method criteria. The site specific MS/MSD recovery is below the lower range but within the method criteria. A slight low bias is possible. (Benzidine)
The LCSD recovery is below the method criteria. A low bias is possible. (Benzidine)
The LCSD recovery is below the lower range but within the method criteria. The LCS is acceptable. A slight low bias is possible. (3,3''-Dichlorobenzidine, Aniline)
The LCS/LCSD RPD exceeds the method criteria for one or more analytes, but these analytes were not reported in the sample(s) so no variability is suspected. (2-Nitroaniline, 3,3''-Dichlorobenzidine, 3-Nitroaniline, 4-Chloroaniline, Aniline, Benzoic acid, N-Nitrosodiphenylamine, Phenol)Instrument:
For 8270 full list, the DDT breakdown and pentachlorophenol & benzidine peak tailing were evaluated in the DFTPP tune and were found to be in control. For 8270 BN list, benzidine peak tailing was evaluated in the DFTPP tune and was found to be in control.
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM04/4_SPLIT_0806):100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: None.The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM04/0813_03-4_SPLIT_0806):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.98% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: 2-Nitrophenol 32%H (30%), Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 43%H (30%)The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 43%H (40%)The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: None.The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
SVOA NarrationFor 8270 BN list, benzidine peak tailing was evaluated in the DFTPP tune and was found to be in control.
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM05/5_SPLIT_0801):100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 2-Nitrophenol 0.070 (0.1)The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM05/0812_26-5_SPLIT_0801):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: None.The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 2-Nitrophenol 0.085 (0.1), Hexachlorobenzene 0.098 (0.1)The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
CD82594, CD82602CHEM07 08/14/19-2 Matt Richard, Chemist 08/14/19
For 8270 full list, the DDT breakdown and pentachlorophenol & benzidine peak tailing were evaluated in the DFTPP tune and were found to be in control. For 8270 BN list, benzidine peak tailing was evaluated in the DFTPP tune and was found to be in control.
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM07/7_SPLIT_0812):100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 2-Nitrophenol 0.065 (0.1), Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0.632 (0.7)The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM07/0814_34-7_SPLIT_0812):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: None.The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 2-Nitrophenol 0.075 (0.1), Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0.655 (0.7)The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
QC (Batch Specific):
CD82594, CD82602Batch 492034 (CD82594)
All LCS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: Benzidine(131%)All LCSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine(11%), Aniline(27%), Benzidine(<10%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 20% with the following exceptions: 2-Nitroaniline(52.7%), 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine(152.7%), 3-Nitroaniline(65.1%), 4-Chloroaniline(90.1%), Aniline(102.7%), Benzoic acid(46.4%), N-Nitrosodiphenylamine(63.3%), Phenol(21.9%)
SVOA NarrationAdditional 8270 criteria: 20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
All LCS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: Benzidine(<10%)All LCSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: Benzidine(16%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.All MS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(26%), Benzidine(27%), Benzoic Acid(19%)All MSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(15%), Benzidine(29%), Benzoic Acid(11%)All MS/MSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(53.7%), Benzoic Acid(53.3%)A matrix effect is suspected when a MS/MSD recovery is outside of criteria. No further action is required if LCS/LCSD compounds are within criteria.Additional 8270 criteria: 20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
SVOASIM NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents achieved? No. QC Batch 492034 (Samples: CD82594, CD82602): -----
The QC recovery for one surrogate is above the upper range. All of the other QC recovery's are acceptable. No significant bias is suspected. (% 2,4,6-Tribromophenol)
The LCS/LCSD RPD exceeds the method criteria for one analyte. This analyte was not reported in the sample(s). No significant variability is suspected. (Pyridine)Instrument:
For 8270 BN list, benzidine peak tailing was evaluated in the DFTPP tune and was found to be in control.
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM25/25_SIM18_0721):100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: None.The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM25/0814_03-25_SIM18_0721):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.97% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: % 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 46%H (30%)The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: % 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 46%H (40%)The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: None.The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
All LCS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: % 2,4,6-Tribromophenol(162%)All LCSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: % 2,4,6-Tribromophenol(155%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 20% with the following exceptions: Pyridine(55.5%)Additional 8270 criteria:20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
All LCS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: Benzidine(<10%)All LCSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: Benzidine(16%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.All MS recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(26%), Benzidine(27%), Benzoic Acid(19%)All MSD recoveries were within 30 - 130 with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(15%), Benzidine(29%), Benzoic Acid(11%)All MS/MSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: 2,4-Dinitrophenol(53.7%), Benzoic Acid(53.3%)A matrix effect is suspected when a MS/MSD recovery is outside of criteria. No further action is required if LCS/LCSD compounds are within criteria.Additional 8270 criteria:20% of compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is at least 10%. (Acid surrogates acceptance range for aqueous samples: 15-110%, for soils 30-130%)
VOA NarrationWere all QA/QC performance criteria specified in the Reasonable Confidence Protocol documents achieved? No. QC Batch 492152 (Samples: CD82592, CD82594, CD82602): -----
The LCS and/or the LCSD recovery is above the upper range for one or more analytes that were not reported in the sample(s), therefore no significant bias is suspected. (Bromomethane)
QC Batch 492366H: ----- The QC recoveries for one or more analytes is below the lower range but within the method criteria. A low bias is possible. (1,1-Dichloroethene, Acetone, Carbon Disulfide)
The QC recoveries for one or more analytes is below the method criteria. A low bias is likely. (Chloroethane, Trichlorofluoromethane)Instrument:
CD82592, CD82594, CD82602CHEM02 08/12/19-2 Michael Hahn, Chemist 08/12/19
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM02/VT-P073119):99% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: Methylene chloride 21% (20%)
VOA NarrationThe following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.044 (0.05), 2-Hexanone 0.086 (0.1), 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 0.097 (0.1), Acetone 0.039 (0.1), Bromoform 0.094 (0.1), Methyl ethyl ketone 0.066 (0.1), Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 0.047 (0.05)The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM02/0812_22-VT-P073119):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: None.The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.039 (0.05), Acetone 0.036 (0.05), Tetrahydrofuran (THF) 0.040 (0.05)The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
Initial Calibration Evaluation (CHEM31/VT-L081219):98% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds had %RSDs >20%: Chloroethane 21% (20%), Methylene chloride 22% (20%)The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: Tetrachloroethene 0.189 (0.2)The following compounds did not meet a minimum response factors: None.
Continuing Calibration Verification (CHEM31/0813_01-VT-L081219):Internal standard areas were within 50 to 200% of the initial calibration with the following exceptions: None.100% of target compounds met criteria. The following compounds did not meet % deviation criteria: None.The following compounds did not meet maximum % deviations: None.The following compounds did not meet recommended response factors: None.The following compounds did not meet minimum response factors: None.
QC (Batch Specific):
CD82592, CD82594, CD82602Batch 492152 (CD82592)
All LCS recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: Bromomethane(147%)All LCSD recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: Bromomethane(149%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.A LCS and LCS Duplicate were performed instead of a matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate.Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
All LCS recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: None.All LCSD recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: None.All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
VOA NarrationCD82603All LCS recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: 1,1-Dichloroethene(64%), Acetone(64%), Chloroethane(26%), Trichlorofluoromethane(20%)All LCSD recoveries were within 70 - 130 with the following exceptions: 1,1-Dichloroethene(63%), Acetone(62%), Carbon Disulfide(69%), Chloroethane(27%), Trichlorofluoromethane(20%)All LCS/LCSD RPDs were less than 30% with the following exceptions: None.Additional 8260 criteria: 10% of LCS/LCSD compounds can be outside of acceptance criteria as long as recovery is 40-160%, 25-160% for Chloroethane-HL and Trichlorofluoromethane-HL.
Temperature NarrationThe samples were received at 2.2C with cooling initiated.(Note acceptance criteria for relevant matrices is above freezing up to 6°C)