United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-95/156
August 1996
Champion International
Superfund Site,
Libby, Montana:
Bioremediation Field
Performance Evaluation of the
Prepared Bed Land
Treatment System
Volumes I and II
-------
EPA-600/R-95/156
August 1996
en
r--,
Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana:
Bioremediation Field Performance Evaluation
of the
Prepared Bed Land Treatment System
Volume I - TEXT
Ronald C. Sims
Judith L. Sims
Darwin L. Sorensen
and
Joan E. McLean
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-8200
Contract No. 68-C8-0058
Scott G. Ruling David S. Burden
Technical Manager Project Officer
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Ada, OK 74820
' i <-.
,.
77 \v-.;t J;.cXr--ii eouiev3,-J, 12ui F!c:r
:,u1icaco, IL GGC04-35S/0
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under contract number 68-C8-0058, to Dynamac Corporation (Subcontract to Utah State University). It has
been subjected to the Agency's peer review and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and
water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and
implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems
to support and nurture life. To meet these mandates, EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to
manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of technological
and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment The focus
of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land,
water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites and ground water, and prevention and control of indoor air pollutioa The goal of this
research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies.
The performance evaluation of the land treatment units at the Champion International Superfund Site in
Libby, Montana, was made possible by the Bioremediation Field Initiative established in 1990. Two
objectives of the Initiative were to (1) more fully document the performance of full-scale bioremediation
field applications in terms of treatment effectiveness, operational reliability, and cost; and (2) to disseminate
this information to the public and private sectors. This project represents a significant cooperative effort
between industry (Champion International), academia (Utah State University), and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Results from this study provide valuable insight to the biodegradation of soil contaminants
associated with wood preserving wastes and to the operation of land treatment systems.
This report is published in two volumes. Volume I contains the text and several tables and figures. Volume II
contains numerous Tables which represent a compilation of contaminant concentrations in the field and
laboratory studies and Figures which identify the sample locations in the land treatment units.
Clinton W. Hall, Director
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
m
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Champion International Superfund Site, a former wood preserving facility in Libby, Montana
(referred to as the Libby Site), was nominated by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
(RSKERL), Ada, OK, as a candidate site for bioremediation performance evaluation under the
Bioremediation Field Initiative (BFI) sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
Target chemicals for bioremediation at the Libby Site include the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, total carcinogenic PAH compounds, and pentachlorophenol (PCP).
The potentially responsible party (PRP), Champion International, agreed to cooperate with the RSKERL and
Utah State University (USU) in conducting the proposed bioremediation performance evaluation studies for
biological treatment processes in operation at the Libby Site. Results of the evaluation of bioremediation in a
prepared bed system for treating creosote and PCP contaminated unsaturated soil are presented in this report.
Objectives of the evaluation of bioremediation in the prepared bed, lined land treatment unit were to:
(1) describe and summarize previous and current remediation activities; (2) develop an approach to the
evaluation of the prepared bed; (3) conduct a comprehensive field evaluation to assess performance of the unit
in terms of treatment effectiveness, treatment rate, and detoxification of contaminated soil; and (4) perform a
laboratory evaluation using field samples to determine indigenous soil microbial potential for accomplishing
bioremediation of target chemicals in the soil matrix under site conditions of temperature and soil moisture.
Previous and current remediation activities involve the treatment of lifts of contaminated soil in
prepared bed land treatment units. After a lift of contaminated soil is treated to target remediation levels,
another lift of contaminated soil is added and treated until target remediation levels are obtained.
Management of the prepared bed includes: (1) periodic addition of nutrients and moisture, and (2) tilling of
the soil to increase oxygen transfer into the prepared bed to accomplish aerobic degradation. Land treatment
operations began in 1989. At that point in time, it was projected by Champion International that it would
take 10 years to treat the stockpile of contaminated soil. At the time of this report, land treatment remedial
activities were in full operation, and the projected time of completion was still 10 years from 1989. This
projection assumed that weather conditions did not prevent normal operations and that no additional land
treatment units were constructed. There is currently no U.S. EPA or other U.S. government guidance manual
that provides standard procedures for the use, evaluation, and monitoring of prepared bed systems for the
treatment of organic-contaminated soils.
An approach to evaluation of the prepared bed was developed based upon a chemical mass balance
conceptual model that was used to design sampling and analysis procedures and to interpret results of field
and laboratory analyses.
A comprehensive field evaluation was conducted to assess performance of the prepared bed unit.
Three-dimensional sampling of the prepared bed system, consisting of two full-scale land treatment unit
(LTU) cells with liner and leachate collection, was conducted over a two-year period. Design of the
performance evaluation was based on analysis of discrete soil samples collected using a random systematic
sampling technique to minimize statistical bias and increase coverage of the contaminated area. This design
allowed identification of areas within the LTU cells where individual soil samples exceeded the target
remediation level, even though the mean value for a sampling event was less than the target remediation level.
In addition, statistical analysis of the results provided information concerning variation in chemical
concentrations both horizontally and vertically and also with time.
Analyses of over 300 soil samples were performed, from which greater than 5,000 individual
chemical concentrations were determined for the 16 U.S. EPA priority pollutant PAH compounds using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and for pentachlorophenol (PCP) using gas chromatography/
electron capture detector (GC/ECD). The field performance evaluation was based upon results obtained with
regard to: (1) soil chemical concentrations compared with target remediation levels for target chemicals; (2)
evaluation of downward migration of target chemicals as a result of the application of additional lifts; (3)
IV
-------
detoxification of contaminated as indicated soil using bioassays; and (4) a laboratory evaluation for
confirmation of indigenous soil microbial metabolic potential to biodegrade the target chemicals.
Results of chemical analyses indicated that target remediation levels were generally achieved, based
on mean values at each depth evaluated. Target remediation levels for chemicals in the contaminated soils in
the prepared bed system are: naphthalene, 8.0 mg/kg; phenanthrene, 8.0 mg/kg; pyrene, 7.3 mg/kg, total
carcinogenic PAH, 88 mg/kg; and pentachlorophenol (PCP), 37 mg/kg, as specified in the Record of Decision
(ROD). Statistical analysis of the results provided information concerning variation in chemical
concentrations both spatially and temporally. Calculation of rates of apparent degradation of target chemicals
indicated a 50 percent decrease in pyrene and PCP concentrations in 100 to 200 days and 200 to 300 days,
respectively, under field conditions at the site.
Downward migration of target PAH compounds and PCP through the LTU cells was evaluated by
determining if chemical concentrations were observed to increase in lower layers due to downward migration
from upper layers containing greater chemical concentrations. Results of chemical analyses indicated a trend
of decreasing chemical concentrations through time at each sampling depth. Based on the information
obtained, downward migration of target chemicals through the LTU cells was not observed.
Soil within the LTU cells was detoxified to background soil levels, based upon results of using both
the Microtox™ assay to measure soil water extract toxicity and the Ames Salmonella typhimurium
mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay (Ames assay) to measure mutagenicity of soil solvent extracts.
Detoxification was evident in all samples evaluated.
Laboratory analyses were conducted using radiolabeled target chemicals to evaluate the role of
microbial processes in field observations of the disappearance of target chemicals. Results of the laboratory
evaluation demonstrate that PCP and phenanthrene can be metabolized to carbon dioxide and water
(mineralized) by indigenous microorganisms in the contaminated soil matrix at temperatures and moisture
contents representative of site conditions. Incorporation of radiolabeled carbon into the soil solid phase was
also a significant treatment process. Significant volatilization of PCP or phenanthrene at the full-scale field
site is unlikely based upon the laboratory evaluation of chemical volatilization. The information obtained in
the laboratory evaluation of LTU soil corroborates the interpretation that the majority of the apparent
decrease in the target chemical concentration in field samples is due to biological processes rather than
physical/chemical processes.
Results of field sampling indicated that the method of management of the lifts may be changed to
decrease the total time required for treatment of all of the contaminated soil. Chemical concentrations for
pyrene and PCP continued to decrease with time in buried lifts. If biodegradation continues in buried lifts,
then a new lift may be placed on top of a lower lift after some significant treatment has been accomplished,
but before the lower lift reaches target remediation levels for individual chemicals. This method of
management of the LTU has not been practiced at the Libby Superfund Site; however, further investigation of
this approach with regard to technical issues and optimization of time of placement of subsequent lifts should
be evaluated in an effort to decrease the total time required for active soil placement and management at
Superfund sites utilizing land treatment in prepared bed reactors.
Results of the field performance of the land treatment units at the Champion International Superfund
Site in Libby, Montana, indicated that bioremediation using indigenous microorganisms was the process that
accomplished soil treatment. Soil treatment included degradation of target PAH compounds and PCP in
contaminated soil to target remediation levels as well as detoxification of contaminated soil.
-------
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge and thank Ronald Drake, on-site contract manager, and Daniel Pope,
research scientist, Dynamac Corporation, Ada, OK, for their efforts in helping us complete the Libby Site
Bioremediation Performance Evaluation. We would also like to thank Scott Hiding and Bert Bledsoe, U.S.
EPA project officers, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL), Ada, OK, as well as
John Matthews and Mary Randolph of the RSKERL, for their invaluable technical and managerial assistance.
The cooperation of Champion International and Woodward-Clyde Consultants was essential to the
successful completion of this project. We are grateful to all who helped us conduct sampling activities, as well
as provide technical review of our activities: Ralph Heinert, Jim Davidson, Dave Cosgriff, and Jerry Cosgriff
of Champion International and Mike Piotrowski of Matrix Remedial Technologies, Inc. (formerly of
Woodward-Clyde Consultants).
We would also like to thank the following technical staff at Utah State University for their assistance
in field sampling activities and laboratory analyses: Jim Herrick, Pamela Hole, Brett Barney, Linda Krywy,
Anis Ahmed, Jon Ginn, Chad Ellis, James Kerrigan, Boyd Welch, Allan Cooley, and Barry Warburton.
We would also like to thank Mohammed Saleem for conducting the laboratory evaluation.
VI
-------
Volume 1 - Table of Contents
Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Executive Summary iv
Acknowledgements vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Volume 2 Table of Contents - Figures - Tables xii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Conclusions 4
Chapters. Recommendations 5
Chapter 4. Methodology 6
4.1 Chemical mass balance approach 6
4.2 Field-scale evaluation 6
4.3 Soil sampling strategy for soil monitoring 7
4.4 Laboratory-scale evaluation 7
Chapter 5. Overview of Site and Remediation Activities 9
5.1 Site history 9
5.2 Assessment of the problem 9
5.3 Target remediation levels 10
5.4 Soil remediation 10
5.5 LTU design: process overview 13
5.5.1 Facility design components 13
5.5.2 Details of system components 14
5.5.2.1 Size 14
5.5.2.2 Treatment zone 14
5.5.2.3 Liner system 14
5.5.2.4 Leachate collection system 15
5.5.2.5 Leachate storage unit 17
5.5.2.6 Passive moisture control system 17
5.6 Process monitoring 17
5.6.1 Monitoring outside the LTU 17
5.6.2 Monitoring within the LTU 18
5.7 Future closure and post-closure activities 20
5.7.1 LTU cover system 20
5.7.2 Post-closure activities 20
5.8 Health and safety plan 21
5.9 Quality assurance program 21
5.10 Periodic reporting requirements 21
5.11 Information sources 22
Chapter 6. Materials and Methods 23
6.1 Field sampling procedures 23
6.2 Sampling events 26
6.3 Soil characteristics 28
6.4 Sample extraction and analytical methods 28
6.5 Soil gas analyses for oxygen and carbon dioxide in the LTU soil 30
vii
-------
Volume 1 - Table of Contents (continued)
6.6 Detoxification evaluation using the Microtox™ Assay 30
6.7 Laboratory evaluation of LTU soil for biodegradation
of phenanthrene and PCP 30
6.7.1 Objectives 30
6.7.2 Experimental approach 31
Chapter 7. Results and Discussion 35
7.1 Field-scale results for soil physical and chemical analyses 35
7.1.1 Naphthalene and phenanthrene 35
7.1.1.1 Initial concentrations 35
7.1.1.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth 36
7.1.1.3 Degradation rates 37
7.1.1.4 Naphthalene and phenanthrene
treatment within the LTU cells 38
7.1.2 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) 38
7.1.2.1 Initial concentrations 38
7.1.2.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth 38
7.1.2.3 Rate of treatment through time 40
7.1.2.4 Pyrene and TCPAH
treatment within the LTU cells 40
7.1.3 Pentachlorophenol (PCP) 41
7.1.3.1 Initial concentrations 41
7.1.3.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth 41
7.1.3.3 Rate of treatment through time 43
7.1.3.4 PCP treatment within the LTU cells 43
7.1.4 Soil gas analyses for oxygen and carbon dioxide 43
7.1.5 Detoxification of soil in the LTU cells 44
7.2 Laboratory-scale evaluation of LTU soil for biodegradation
of phenanthrene and PCP 45
7.2.1 Results of laboratory evaluation test for biological
mineralization 46
7.2.2 Results of laboratory evaluation tests for biological
mineralization and humification 48
7.2.2.1 Mass balance 48
7.2.2.2 Volatilization and mineralization 49
7.2.2.3 Solvent-extractable radiolabeled carbon 50
7.2.2.4 Humified soil-bound radiolabeled carbon 51
7.2.3 Discussion of laboratory evaluation 52
7.3 Cost information related to field-scale bioremediation at the Libby Site 53
Chapters. References 54
Appendix A: Methods and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures A-l
A-l Extraction of samples and soil moisture determinations A-l
A-2 Analysis of PCP using gas chromatography A-3
A-3 Analysis of PAH compounds by GC/MS A-4
A-4 Detoxification evaluation using the Microtox™ Assay A-8
Vlll
-------
Volume 1 - List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.1 Location of the Libby Site 2
Figure 1.2 Bioremediation processes at the Libby Site 3
Figure 5.1 Contamination source areas at the Libby Site 10
Figure 5.2 LTU treatment cells 12
Figure 5.3 Cross section of LTU treatment cells 12
Figure 5.4 Geomembrane soil liner system for leachate collection 15
Figure 5.5 Cross sections in leachate collection system 16
Figure 5.6 LTU waste placement and final cover 21
Figure 6.1 Scale of each land treatment unit for the area for one soil sample:
798.5 ft2 = 15.1 mm square grid on map 24
Figure 6.2 Location of the reference point (R) and sampling points in
LTU 1 25
Figure 6.3 Location of the reference point (R) and sampling points in
LTU 2 25
Figure 6.4 Location of sampling cores for obtaining discrete soil samples with
depth through LTU 1 26
Figure 6.5 Location of sampling cores for obtaining discrete soil samples with
depth through LTU 2 26
Figure 6.6 Conceptual model of LTU lifts and sampling events 27
Figure 6.7 Laboratory microcosms 33
(Figures 7.1 -7.70 listed below in Volume 2 - List of Figures pagexi)
Figure 7.71 Mineralization of pentachlorophenol with time at 10° C in Libby
LTU soil in the biological mineralization study 46
Figure 7.72 The effect of soil sample on the mineralization of phenanthrene
with time at 10° in Libby LTU soil in the biological
mineralization study 47
Figure 7.73 The effect of soil sample and moisture content
(as percent of field capacity) on the mineralization
of phenanthrene at 10° C in Libby LTU soil
in the biological mineralization study 48
Figure 7.74 The interaction of temperature and incubation time on the
mineralization of phenanthrene in Libby LTU soil
in the biological mineralization and humification study 49
Figure 7.75 Fraction of radiolabeled carbon added as phenanthrene
that was solvent-extractable in relation to the interaction of
moisture and temperature factors in the biological
mineralization and humification study 50
IX
-------
Volume 1 - List of Figures (continued)
Figure 7.76 Fraction of radiolabeled carbon added as PCP that was
recoverable by combustion of soil solids
(representing the soil-bound fraction) in relation to the
interaction of soil sample and moisture content in the biological
mineralization and humification study 51
Figure 7.77 Fraction of radiolabeled carbon added as phenanthrene that was
recoverable by combustion of soil solids (representing
the soil-bound fraction) in relation to the interaction of soil
sample and moisture content in the biological
mineralization and humification study 52
-------
Volume 1 • List of Tables
Page
Table 6.1 Time that each lift was actively managed before application
of the subsequent lift 28
Table 6.2 Soil nutrient analyses of contaminated waste pit area soils 29
Table 6.3 Physical characteristics of uncontaminated LTU soils 29
Table 6.4 Physical characteristics and nutrient analyses for contaminated
LTU soil : 29
Table 6.5 Samples from LTU 1 analyzed with Microtox™ Assay 30
Table 6.6 Evaluation conditions in the biological mineralization study 31
Table 6.7 Contaminant concentrations in the laboratory samples for the
biological mineralization study 32
Table 6.8 Evaluation conditions in the biological mineralization
and humification study 32
Table 6.9 Contaminant concentrations in the laboratory samples for the
biological mineralization and humification study 34
Table 7.14 Field degradation rates for naphthalene and phenanthrene
using mean values 37
Table 7.28 Field degradation rates and half-lives for pyrene and
TCPAH in LTU soil 40
Table 7.49 Field degradation rates for half-lives for
PCP in LTU soil 42
Table 7.50 Soil Microtox toxicity (EC50) Values, Discret Soil Samples
Collected 7/27/91, and 9/18/91, LTU 2, Lift l,Day 1 and 53 44
(Tables 7.1 -7.51 listed below in Volume 2 - List of Tables .pagexiv)
XI
-------
Volume 2 - Table of Contents
Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Executive Summary iv
Acknowledgements vi
List of Figures xii
List of Tables xv
Volume 2 - List of Figures
Figure 7.1 Initial naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in ITU 1, depth C samples collected 5/6 & 5/8/91 1
Figure 7.2 Initial naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 7/27/91 2
Figure 7.3 Initial naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 7/27/91 3
Figure 7.4 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 9/1/92 4
Figure 7.5 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 9/1/92 5
Figure 7.6 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 9/1/92 6
Figure 7.7 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 9/1/92 7
Figure 7.8 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth E samples collected 9/1/92 8
Figure 7.9 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/1/92 9
Figure 7.10 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 2, depth B samples collected 9/1/92 10
Figure 7.11 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 11
Figure 7.12 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 12
Figure 7.13 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 13
Figure 7.14 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 14
Figure 7.15 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/19/91 15
Figure 7.16 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 6/27/91 16
Figure 7.17 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 6/27/91 17
xn
-------
Volume 2 - List of Figures (continued)
Figure 7.18 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 6/27/91 18
Figure 7.19 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 5/6/91 19
Figure 7.20 Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 5/6/9 20
Figure 7.21 Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 5/6 & 5/8/91 21
Figure 7.22 Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 7/27/91 22
Figure 7.23 Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 7/27/91 23
Figure 7.24 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 9/1/92 24
Figure 7.25 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 9/1/92 25
Figure 7.26 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 9/1/92 26
Figure 7.27 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 9/1/92 27
Figure 7.28 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth E samples collected 9/1/92 28
Figure 7.29 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/1/92 29
Figure 7.30 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth B samples collected 9/1/92 30
Figure 7.31 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 31
Figure 7.32 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 32
Figure 7.33 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 33
Figure 7.34 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 34
Figure 7.35 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/19/91 35
Figure 7.36 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 6/27/91 36
Figure 7.37 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 6/27/91 37
Figure 7.38 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 6/27/91 38
Figure 7.39 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 5/6/91 39
Figure 7.40 Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and pyrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth B samples collected 5/6/91 40
xiii
-------
Volume 2 - List of Figures (continued)
Figure 7.41 Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth C samples
collected 5/8/91 41
Figure 7.42 Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth D samples
collected 7/27/91 42
Figure 7.43 Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 2, depth A samples
collected 7/27/91 43
Figure 7.44 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth A samples
collected 9/1/92 44
Figure 7.45 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth B samples
collected 9/1/92 45
Figure 7.46 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth C samples
collected 9/1/92 46
Figure 7.47 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth D samples
collected 9/1/92 47
Figure 7.48 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth E samples
collected 9/1/92 48
Figure 7.49 PCP concentrations in LTU 2, depth A samples
collected 9/2/92 49
Figure 7.50 PCP concentrations in LTU 2, depth B samples
collected 9/2/92 50
Figure 7.51 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth A samples
collected 9/18/91 51
Figure 7.52 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth B samples
collected 9/18/91 52
Figure 7.53 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth C samples
collected 9/18/91 53
Figure 7.54 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth D samples
collected 9/18/91 54
Figure 7.55 PCP concentrations in LTU 2, depth A samples
collected 9/19/91 55
Figure 7.56 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth A samples
collected 6/27/91 56
Figure 7.57 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth B samples
collected 6/27/91 57
Figure 7.58 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth C samples
collected 6/27/91 58
Figure 7.59 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth A samples
collected 5/6/91 59
Figure 7.60 PCP concentrations in LTU 1, depth B samples
collected 5/6/91 60
Figure 7.61 Concentrations of O2 and CO2 in LTU 1 at depth 1 foot:
samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 61
Figure 7.62 Concentrations of O2 and CO2 in LTU 1 at depth 2 feet:
samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 62
Figure 7.63 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth A samples collected 9/92 63
xiv
-------
Volume 2 - List of Figures (continued)
Figure 7.64 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth B samples collected 9/92 63
Figure 7.65 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth C samples collected 9/92 63
Figure 7.66 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth A samples collected 9/91 64
Figure 7.67 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth B samples collected 9/91 65
Figure 7.68 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth C samples collected 9/91 65
Figure 7.69 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth A samples collected 5/91 66
Figure 7.70 Detoxification of LTU 1 soil using Microtox™ Assay:
depth B samples collected 5/91 66
Volume 2 - List of Tables
Table 7.1 Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 5/6 & 5/8/91 67
Table 7.2 Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 7/27/91 68
Table 7.3 Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 7/27/91 69
Table 7.4 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 9/1/92 70
Table 7.5 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C and D samples collected 9/1/92 71
Table 7.6 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth E samples collected 9/1/92 72
Table 7.7 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A and B samples collected 9/1/92 72
Table 7.8 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 74
Table 7.9 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C and D samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 75
Table 7.10 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 76
Table 7.11 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 6/27/91 77
Table 7.12 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 6/27/91 78
Table 7.13 Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 5/6/91 79
xv
-------
Volume 2 - List of Tables (continued)
Table 7.15 Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 5/6 & 5/8/91 80
Table 7.16 Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth D samples collected 7/27/91 81
Table 7.17 Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 7/27/91 82
Table 7.18 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 9/1/92 83
Table 7.19 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C and D samples collected 9/1/92 84
Table 7.20 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth E samples collected 9/1/92 85
Table 7.21 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A and B samples collected 9/1/92 86
Table 7.22 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 87
Table 7.23 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C and D samples collected 9/18 & 9/19/91 88
Table 7.24 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 2, depth A samples collected 9/19/91 89
Table 7.25 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A and B samples collected 6/27/91 90
Table 7.26 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth C samples collected 6/27/91 91
Table 7.27 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations
in LTU 1, depth A samples collected 5/6/91 92
Table 7.29 Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth C
samples collected 5/8/91 93
Table 7.30 Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth D
samples collected 7/27/91 94
Table 7.31 Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2, depth A
samples collected 7/27/91 95
Table 7.32 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
samples collected 9/1/92 96
Table 7.33 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth B
samples collected 9/1/92 97
Table 7.34 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth C
samples collected 9/1/92 98
Table 7.35 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1, depth D
samples collected 9/1/92 99
Table 7.36 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth E
samples collected 9/1/92 100
Table 7.37 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/2/92 101
xvi
-------
Volume 2-List of Tables (continued)
Table 7.38 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2 depth B
samples collected 9/2/92 102
Table 7.39 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 8/18/91 103
Table 7.40 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 8/18/91 104
Table 7.41 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 9/18/91 105
Table 7.42 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
samples collected 8/18/91 106
Table 7.43 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/19/91 107
Table 7.44 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 6/27/91 108
Table 7.45 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 6/27/91 109
Table 7.46 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 6/27/91 110
Table 7.47 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 5/6/91 Ill
Table 7.48 Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 5/6/91 112
Table 7.51 Average distribution of pentanthrene in the micrcosms
in the biological mineralization and humification study 113
Table 7.52 Average distribution of pentachlorophenol in the microcosms
in the biological mineralization and humification study 113
Appendix B: PAH and PCP Concentrations in LTU soil samples
B-l PAH concentrations in LTU soil samples B - 1
B-2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples B - 21
xvn
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) jointly established the
Bioremediation Field Initiative (BFI) in 1990 as part of a strategy to develop bioremediation as an effective
alternative remediation technology. The Initiative was designed to address the need for additional field
experience concerning the implementation of bioremediation techniques, including the collection and dis-
semination of performance data from field experiences.
Specifically, the Bioremediation Field Initiative has three primary objectives: (1) to document more
fully the performance of full-scale bioremediation field applications in terms of treatment effectiveness and
operational reliability; (2) to provide technical assistance to U.S. EPA and State remediation managers
responsible for overseeing or considering use of bioremediation as a remedial alternative for hazardous waste
sites; and (3) to develop biotreatability data bases, which are available through the U.S. EPA Alternative
Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC). This report focuses on Objective 1 by providing an
evaluation of a full-scale field application of bioremediation at a specific site, the Champion International
Superfund Site in Libby, Montana. The field performance evaluation was designed and conducted by Utah
State University with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, to provide information on the effectiveness of bioremediation in addition to the infor-
mation that is being generated by Champion International personnel as part of regulatory monitoring require-
ments.
The Champion International Superfund Site, a former wood preserving facility in Libby, Montana
(referred to as the Libby Site) (Figures 1.1), was nominated by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory (RSKERL), Ada, Oklahoma, as a candidate site for bioremediation performance evaluation. The
potentially responsible party (PRP), Champion International, agreed to cooperate with the RSKERL and Utah
State University (USU) in conducting the proposed bioremediation performance evaluation studies for
biological treatment processes in operation at the Libby Site.
The Libby Site uses three distinct biological processes in the site remediation scenario: (1) surface
soil biological treatment in a prepared bed system consisting of two lined land treatment units and a leachate
system; (2) extraction of ground water, followed by aqueous phase treatment in an above-grade, fixed-film
bioreactor, and (3) in situ bioremediation of the Upper Aquifer (Figure 1.2). Results of the evaluation of
bioremediation in the prepared bed system are presented in this report.
Objectives of the evaluation of bioremediation in the prepared bed system were to: (1) describe and
summarize previous and current remediation activities; (2) develop an approach to the evaluation of the
prepared bed; (3) conduct a comprehensive field evaluation to assess performance of the unit in terms of
treatment effectiveness, treatment rate, and detoxification of contaminated soil; and (4) perform a laboratory
evaluation using field samples to determine indigenous soil microbial potential to accomplish bioremediation
of target chemicals in the soil matrix under site conditions of temperature and soil moisture.
After a lift of contaminated soil is treated to target remediation levels in the prepared bed system,
another lift of contaminated soil is added and treated until target remediation levels are obtained. Target
chemicals for bioremediation at the Libby Site include three polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) com-
pounds, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene, total carcinogenic PAH compounds (TCPAH), and pen-
tachlorophenol (PCP). Target remediation levels for soil treated in the two LTU cells at the site are: naphtha-
lene, 8.0 mg/kg; phenanthrene, 8.0 mg/kg; pyrene, 7.3 mg/kg, total carcinogenic PAH compounds, 88 mg/kg;
and PCP, 37 mg/kg as specified in the Record of Decision (ROD).
-------
- - City of
I! Libby 3-
1000 2000
meters
Kootenai River
•'w-
River Flow
Figure 1.1 Location of the Libby Site.
Three-dimensional sampling of the two full-scale LTU cells was conducted over a two-year period.
Analyses of over 300 soil samples were conducted, from which greater than 4,000 individual chemical
concentrations were determined for 16 U.S. EPA priority pollutant PAH compounds using gas chromatogra-
phy/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and for PCP using gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/
BCD). The field performance evaluation was based upon results obtained with regard to: (1) soil chemical
concentrations compared with target remediation levels for target chemicals; (2) evaluation of downward
migration of target chemicals as a result of the application of additional lifts; (3) detoxification of contami-
nated soil using bioassays; and (4) a laboratory evaluation for confirmation of indigenous soil microbial
metabolic potential to biodegrade the target chemicals.
-------
In Situ Ground Water
Bioremediation System
Bioreactor
Building
Infiltration
Trench
Ground Water Flow
Monitoring Wells
Injection Wells
Prepared Bed
Land Treatment System
Figure 1.2 Bioremediation processes at the Libby Site.
-------
Chapter 2
Conclusions
2.0 Conclusions
The field performance evaluation of a prepared bed bioremediation system at the Libby, Montana
Superfund Site indicated that biodegradation of wood preservative chemicals in a prepared bed system was
effective and resulted in the treated soil meeting target remediation levels for target contaminants, as specified
in the Record of Decision (ROD). Downward migration of target chemicals as a result of the application of
additional lifts was not observed. The contaminated soil was detoxified to background levels as a result of the
treatment, based upon results of toxicity and mutagenicity assays.
Design of the performance evaluation was based on analysis of discrete soil samples collected using
a random systematic sampling technique to minimize statistical bias and provide adequate coverage of the
contaminated area. This design allowed identification of areas within the LTU cells where individual soil
samples exceeded the target remediation level, even though the mean value for a sampling event was less than
the target remediation level. In addition, statistical analysis of the results provided information concerning
variation in chemical concentrations both horizontally and vertically and with time.
Based on the results of the field evaluation, a possible management tool may be to place a new lift on
top of a lift after some significant treatment has been accomplished, but before the lower lift reaches target
remediation levels for individual chemicals. This conclusion is based on limited field results that demon-
strated that concentrations of pyrene and PCP appeared to continue to decrease with time after subsequent
lifts had been placed on the first lift in the LTU cells.
Results of the laboratory evaluation using spiked radiolabeled target compounds demonstrated that
PCP and phenanthrene could be metabolized to carbon dioxide and water (mineralized) by indigenous soil
microorganisms at temperatures and moisture contents representative of site conditions. Incorporation of
radiolabeled carbon into the soil solid phase was also a significant treatment process. In addition, significant
volatilization of PCP or phenanthrene at the full-scale field site is unlikely based upon results of the labora-
tory evaluation of chemical volatilization. The information obtained in the laboratory evaluation of LTU soil
corroborates the interpretation that the majority of the apparent decrease in the target chemical concentration
is due to biological processes rather than physical/chemical processes.
Results of the field performance of the land treatment units at the Champion International Superfund
Site in Libby, Montana, indicated that bioremediation using indigenous microorganisms was the process that
accomplished soil treatment. Soil treatment in the lifts evaluated included degradation of target PAH com-
pounds and PCP in contaminated soil to target remediation levels and detoxification of contaminated soil.
-------
Chapter 3
Recommendations
3.0 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made concerning the approach to a comprehensive evaluation of
field performance of bioremediation in full-scale prepared bed systems, and are not made for the purposes of
routine sampling and testing for regulatory compliance or for management of prepared bed systems.
A chemical mass balance conceptual approach for evaluation of bioremediation is recommended that
includes a field component and a laboratory component. The field component involves developing informa-
tion that can be used to identify important phases (air, water, oil, and solid) that contain target chemicals, and
identifying potential pathways of chemical escape from the prepared bed system that may be misinterpreted as
biodegradation, for example, volatilization. The use of gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy is recom-
mended for identification of target chemicals to ensure accurate analysis of target chemicals present in the soil
phases sampled within the prepared bed system.
The field component also includes the development of a statistical sampling strategy for obtaining
soil samples. Analysis of discrete soil samples collected using a random systematic sampling technique,
designed to minimize statistical bias and provide adequate coverage of the contaminated area, is recom-
mended. Individual soil samples may exceed target remediation levels even though mean values for a sam-
pling event may be less than the target remediation levels. Discrete soil sampling and analysis allows identifi-
cation of areas with elevated toxicity or elevated concentrations of contaminants as well as areas that may be
oxygen deficient within the LTU cells. Statistical analysis of results of discrete sampling provides informa-
tion concerning variation in chemical concentrations both spatially and temporally and with time that may
influence biodegradation rate and extent.
The laboratory component involves providing direct evidence of microbial degradation (mineraliza-
tion) of target compounds in site soil under environmental and management conditions representative of the
site. Laboratory evaluations using radiolabeled target chemicals should be conducted as part of a field-scale
evaluation of bioremediation to confirm soil microbial metabolic potential and to demonstrate that target
chemicals can be metabolized to carbon dioxide and water in the contaminated soil matrix present at the site
at temperatures and moisture contents representative of site conditions. The potential for a target chemical to
become incorporated into soil humic material and to become non-solvent extractable can also be determined.
In addition, the laboratory phase of the field-scale evaluation should measure potential abiotic losses, includ-
ing volatilization of target chemicals. The information obtained in the laboratory phase of the field-scale
bioremediation should corroborate the interpretation of apparent decrease in target chemical concentration as
due to biological processes rather than physical/chemical processes. The laboratory phase provides a chemi-
cal mass balance confirmation of the effectiveness of bioremediation at field-scale.
Information obtained through field and laboratory evaluations based upon a chemical mass balance
approach provide the necessary confidence that results observed through analysis of field samples are due to
bioremediation and not due to interphase transfer or escape pathways for the target chemicals.
The following recommendation is made concerning management of prepared bed systems based upon
results obtained in this performance evaluation. Because concentrations of both pyrene and PCP appeared to
continue to decrease with time after subsequent lifts had been placed on the first lift, it may be possible to
place a new lift on top of a lift after some significant treatment has been accomplished, but before the lower
lift reaches target remediation levels for individual chemicals. This method of management of the LTU cells
has not been practiced at the Libby Site. However, this approach should be further evaluated with regard to
optimization of time of placement of subsequent lifts in an effort to decrease the total time required for active
soil placement and management at Superfund sites utilizing land treatment in prepared bed reactors.
-------
Chapter 4
Methodology
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Chemical mass balance approach
A chemical mass balance approach (Sims, 1990) was used to focus the evaluation of bioremediation
at the Libby Site. Field-scale sampling and analysis were used in conjunction with a laboratory evaluation to
provide complementary information for assessing the extent and rate of bioremediation and therefore, the
effectiveness of bioremediation at the site. Specifically, a field scale mass balance evaluation approach was
used to develop information that could be used to eliminate the possibility of escape of target chemicals in air,
water, and soil phases as a cause of disappearance cf PAH compounds and POP from the LTU cells. This was
accomplished by evaluating the tendency of target chemicals to be associated with each phase and by identi-
fying the containment of each phase within an LTU. The laboratory-scale mass balance approach was used to
provide direct information concerning the biological degradation (mineralization) of target chemicals in the
site soil, and the influence of site environmental and management factors on the extent and rate of
bioremediation.
4.2 Field-scale evaluation
The methodology developed by Sims (1990) for data collection and evaluation of soil remediation,
based upon a chemical mass balance approach, was used for the field-scale evaluation. The methodology
consisted of four activities: (1) site characterization, (2) assessment of the problem, (3) evaluation of the
treatment (train) selected, and (4) monitoring treatment performance.
The first step involved characterizing the chemical/soil/site interactions to address the question
"Where is the contamination and in what form(s) does it exist?" The target contaminants, PAH compounds
and PCP, originally contaminated the soil as part of an oily matrix currently present in a residual saturation
phase. The target chemicals are strongly associated with the soil (sorbed and residual saturation of total
petroleum hydrocarbons and soil solid phase), with the exception of naphthalene. Naphthalene was present in
low concentrations in contaminated soil applied to the LTU cells, generally below the target remediation level
(8.0 mg/kg), and therefore did not present a problem with regard to volatilization. The remaining target PAH
compounds and PCP are only slightly soluble in water, are non-volatile, and are strongly associated with the
soil/oil matrix Qog Kow and log Kd values greater than 4.0) (Sims and Overcash, 1983). Therefore, the focus
of this investigation was on the soil/oil matrix.
The second step addressed the question "Where is the contamination going under the influence of
natural processes?" The target PAH compounds and PCP will remain associated with the residual oily
saturation in the soil and with the soil solid phases within each LTU cell. Each lift of contaminated soil was
applied on the top of each LTU cell, thus providing potential for downward migration of PAH compounds in
an oily/water phase (leachate) within the LTU cells. This downward migration was identified as a potential
escape process from the top lift that could be misinterpreted as bioremediation. Therefore, to determine if
downward migration of target chemicals was occurring, the soil was sampled through depth at each sampling
event in order to determine if the concentration of PAH compounds within previously treated and buried soil
increased with time.
The third step was the evaluation of the treatment train used for remediation of the contaminated soil
at the Libby Site. This treatment train consists of containment of contaminated soil in the lined LTU cells,
with provisions for leachate collection, and followed by long-term bioremediation of sorbed contaminants.
-------
Berms provide effective containment of the soil phase, and the leachate collection system provides effective
containment of the water phase within the LTU cells. Therefore, changes in concentrations of target chemi-
cals within the LTU could be attributed to changes occurring within the LTU cells and the possibility of
escape of target chemicals from the system through phase transport, including air, water, and soil phases,
could be eliminated.
Finally, a monitoring strategy for determining the extent and rate of degradation was developed for
the soil solid phase that consisted of taking discrete samples through depth and through time. With regard to
interpretation of results in the context of bioremediation, this monitoring strategy was supported with a
laboratory mass balance evaluation using site soil spiked with radiolabeled PCP and phenanthrene. Results of
three-dimensional field sampling for determination of the decrease in target chemical concentration within
each LTU cell and laboratory determination of biological mineralization were used to evaluate the effective-
ness of bioremediation.
4.3 Soil sampling strategy for soil monitoring
The objective of the methodology for the location of sample site collection points was to develop a
systematic, random sampling technique to minimize statistical bias and provide adequate coverage of the
contaminated area. To gain confidence that target remediation levels have been reached, the amount of data is
increased by collecting and analyzing discrete samples rather than composited samples so that the variance of
the concentration of contaminant(s) across the treatment site is accurately estimated (i.e., the information
available is maximized). Since the goal of treatment is to protect public health and the environment, extremes
in concentrations and not their central tendency (i.e., mean concentration) are of concern. Compositing of
samples, in effect, averages the concentration in the composited samples, which only tends to indicate the
central tendency of the concentrations. No estimate of the variance of the mean and thus the precision with
which the mean is estimated can be obtained from a composite of samples (Peterson and Calvin, 1986). In
addition, compositing does not provide information about the likelihood of the existence of relatively high
concentrations (i.e., above the target remediation levels) within the soil being treated. Concentrations of
compounds in soils, both natural and contaminant-related, are typically highly variable over small distances,
both horizontally and vertically (Mason, 1983; Wilding, 1985; Peterson and Calvin, 1986).
Compositing is often used, however, to reduce handling and analytical costs. When compositing is
used, at least four different samples taken in the vicinity of each selected sampling site should be composited
into a single sample. A discrete sample that is not composited should be collected for comparison with the
composited sample (Earth and Mason, 1984). Care must be taken in mixing the samples to ensure homogene-
ity and representativeness of the composited sample prior to collecting subsamples for analytical measure-
ments (Earth et al., 1989). In general, compositing should not be used if high concentrations from specific
areas will be reduced by being averaged with samples with lower levels of concentrations (Earth and Mason,
1984).
The boundaries of the LTU beds at the Libby Site are well-defined, which allowed the design of a
systematic sampling protocol that maximized coverage of the soil materials, provided sufficient samples to
indicate the variance of the contaminants of concern, and increased the probability that more highly contami-
nated soils were sampled. The systematic approach used a sample selection grid to assure that sample loca-
tions were not close to one another, which resulted in the distribution of samples over essentially all of the
treatment bed. Samples taken at locations that are close together tend to result in redundant information
(Earth et al., 1989).
4.4 Laboratory -scale evaluation
The chemical mass balance approach using the laboratory evaluation of bioremediation using the
Libby soil is described in detail in section 6.7. The laboratory evaluation was undertaken to determine a
chemical mass balance for radiolabeled phenanthrene and PCP and the influence of soil microbial metabolic
-------
potential on the chemical mass balance for these chemicals in the LTU soil at the Libby Site. The objectives
of the mass balance evaluation were to (1) determine the fate of 14C-phenanthrene and 14C-PCP in the soil
system, including an evaluation of mineralization and volatilization, and (2) determine the rate and extent of
biological mineralization of 14C-phenanthrene and 14C-PCP in contaminated soil as affected by management
factors including soil moisture and temperature.
-------
Chapter 5
Overview of Site and Remediation Activities
5.0 Overview of site and remediation activities
The activities described in this report are based on operation and management of the site at the time
of this study (1991-1992). The prepared bed reactor system at the Libby Site has been operated in a dynamic
manner, i.e., as opportunities arise to improve or optimize the system, modifications to system operations are
implemented. Therefore, several of the operational systems described in this chapter have been changed to
improve the effectiveness of the system.
5.7 Site history
The two types of wood preserving chemicals that were used at the Libby Site during its period of
operation (1946 to 1969) were creosote and pentachlorophenol (PCP). Though wood treatment operations
have not taken place at the site since 1969, residual contamination of soils and ground water remain. Con-
taminants of most concern at the site include: (1) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH compounds), which
are the primary components of creosote (PAH compounds are associated primarily with the soil solid phase by
adsorption); (2) PCP (PCP is somewhat volatile and, in the ionized form, is soluble in water); and (3) dioxins,
an impurity in technical grade PCP (dioxins are nonvolatile, highly insoluble in water and are closely associ-
ated with the soil solid phase). PAH compounds and PCP were also detected in some Libby city wells.
In 1983, the U.S. EPA placed the Libby Site on the National Priorities List of Superfund sites. In
1985, the PRP provided an alternative water supply to people whose wells were contaminated and conducted
studies of the contamination problems, which included bench and pilot-scale testing of remedial technologies.
In 1988, the U.S EPA and the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences signed a Record of
Decision (ROD) that designated biological treatment as the remedial method for both soil and ground-water
remediation. During the summer of 1989, a land treatment demonstration was conducted to collect informa-
tion on contaminant degradation rates, to evaluate potential for contaminants to migrate downward during
treatment, and to demonstrate biodegradation was the major mechanism of contaminant loss. A consent
decree that required the PRP to utilize bioremediation as the selected remedial technology was entered in
Federal District Court in October, 1989.
However, although the U.S. EPA had formally approved the plan for the site, land disposal restric-
tions promulgated under the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA) restricted application of the soils to land
after August 8, 1990. Therefore, a "No Migration Petition" (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990b) was filed
with the U.S. EPA in February, 1990, which included data from the land treatment demonstration conducted
in 1989 that showed that no migration of contaminants would occur during treatment. The U.S. EPA formally
approved the petition in October 1990, and full-scale soil remedial activities commenced in 1991.
52 Assessment of the problem
Contaminated surface soils at the Libby Site present a potential public health threat via direct contact
and ingestion. The soils also pose potential environmental and public health threats because they serve as
source materials for release of contaminants to the ground water. The purpose of the soil remediation pro-
gram is to reduce organic contaminant concentrations to levels considered acceptable from a regulatory
perspective and to minimize risks to public health and the environment.
-------
5.3 Target remediation levels
Target remediation levels (clean-up goals) for the contaminated soils (on a dry-weight basis), as
specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988), are:
(1) 88 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAHs (sum of fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene,
chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene);
(2) 8 mg/kg naphthalene;
(3) 8 mg/kg phenanthrene;
(4) 7.3 mg/kg pyrene;
(5) 37 mg/kg PCP; and
(6) < 0.001 mg/kg dioxin equivalency (sum of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzo-p dioxin (TCDD) -
equivalent concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans).
Additional lifts may be placed on the LTU when the total carcinogenic PAH and PCP concentrations
in the treatment zone for the preceding lift are at or below target remediation levels.
5.4 Soil remediation
Contaminated soils were located in three primary source areas at the Libby Site: a former tank farm,
an unlined butt dip area, and an unlined waste pit (Figure 5.1). In 1989, contaminated soils from these three
areas (approximately 75,000 cubic yards of materials) were excavated down to the water table. Before the
tank farm and butt dip areas were filled with clean soil, samples were collected and analyzed to verify that
contamination had been removed.
Since the major contaminants of concern were expected to be associated with finer-grained materials,
the soils excavated from the tank farm and butt dip areas and any previously excavated contaminated materi-
als from the waste pit area were physically screened to remove rocks larger than one inch in diameter (re-
ferred as de-rocking). The screened soils from all three areas (approximately 45,000 cubic yards) were placed
Figure 5.1. Contamination source areas at the Libby Site.
10
-------
in the excavated waste pit area. The separated rocks were placed upgradient to the waste pit area to construct
sub-grade infiltration galleries. This rock percolation bed is used for biological treatment of the contaminated
rocks using effluents from the above grade, fixed-film bioreactor.
Initial soil concentrations of contaminants of concern, expressed as the geometric mean, in the
contaminated soils from all three areas were calculated as: 189 mg/kg total carcinogenic PAH compounds; 29
mg/kg PCP; and 0.9 x 10-3 mg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD (tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin) equivalency. However, the
soils are variable in concentration from sample to sample, with the maximum concentrations for individual
carcinogenic PAH compounds, PCP, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalency greater by factors from 6 to 90 than the
geometric mean concentrations.
The screened soils in the waste pit area undergo remediation using a two-step enhanced biodegrada-
tion treatment process. The first step involves stimulation of biodegradation within the waste pit area by (1)
adding nutrients (approximately 5 times during a summer operational season); (2) tilling twice weekly; and
(3) adding bioreactor effluent, fire pond water or LTU leachate periodically to maintain a soil moisture level
in the tilling zone of 8.5 percent. This pretreatment is used to reduce initial contaminant levels for subsequent
treatment in the prepared bed, lined land treatment unit. Soil samples are collected and analyzed periodically
to monitor moisture levels in the waste pit area and to estimate moisture requirements for the LTU.
The second step in the treatment process involves placement and management of the soils from the
waste pit area in the two LTU treatment cells, which also act as the final disposal location for the soils (Fig-
ures 5.2 and 5.3) (Woodward - Clyde Consultants, 1990a). Each one-acre LTU cell is lined with low perme-
ability materials to minimize leachate infiltration from the treatment unit. Contaminated soils are placed in
the LTU cells in 6 to 12 inch lifts for treatment during the summer period. Moisture is applied to the LTU to
maintain adequate moisture levels (approximately 40 to 70 percent of field capacity) in the treatment zone as
well as for dust control.
Field capacity is measured in the field at least once per lift to provide data on the moisture holding
capacity of the soils and to estimate and define the target moisture levels corresponding to the desired 40 to 70
percent field capacity range. Field capacity is determined by wetting a small area (approximately 5 ft. by 5
ft.) with fire pond water. The area is then covered with a plastic sheet and left for 48 hours. A sample is then
collected to determine the percent moisture content. For example, if the field capacity as measured in the
field is about 13 percent, the soil moisture content in the LTU should be maintained at target levels of about 5
to 9 percent. Weekly laboratory moisture measurements are conducted to calculate the amount of water to be
applied to the LTU to reach the target level. In between weekly laboratory measurements, field observations
consisting of (1) daily visual observations of the moisture content of the surface soils, (2) the soil moisture
profile with depth, and (3) the amount of dust generated from the LTU operations, are used to estimate
moisture needs. Additional moisture applied to the LTU is usually added immediately prior to tilling to
control the generation of dust during the tilling operations. Active management of the LTU cells is conducted
from approximately March to October each year.
Water sources for irrigation include fire pond water, effluent from the bioreactor, or leachate collected
from LTU sumps. The water is applied manually to the LTU using a fire hose connected to irrigation piping
that is located around the perimeter of the LTU. The application of water to the LTU depends on soil moisture
levels in the treatment zone. Water application is limited during high moisture periods to minimize the
volume of leachate produced in the LTU sump.
Nutrients (inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, usually ammonium sulfate and ammonium
phosphate) are added to the LTU by dissolving them in water applied to the unit or by fertilizers applied
directly to the LTU. The amounts of nutrients added are dependent on nutrient requirements for optimizing
biodegradation and the total amount of total organic carbon (TOC), nitrogen, and phosphorus already existing
in the soil. The nutrient requirement used for bioremediation optimization was selected as a carbon:nitrogen
ratio in the soils of approximately 12-30:1 and a nitrogen:phosphorus ratio of approximately 10:1. The soil in
the treatment zone is monitored periodically for TOC, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus to
11
-------
LTU Cell
1
Figure 5.2 LTU treatment cells
A
1-2120
2110
.2100
1-2090
Bcrm
jT^^m. Gravel Sump
A-A'
Cross Section
Liner 4 Leachate
Soil Liner Collection System . Gravel Drain 2112
^^ -*- In Situ Soili
Approx. Seasonal High
Ground Water Elevation
A1
2120-1
2110-
2100.
2090J
B
r2120
Berm
B-B'
Cross Section
Uner & Leachate
Collection System Gravel Drain Soil Uner
Approx. Seasonal High
Ground Water Elevation
Figure 5.3 Cross section of LTU treatment cells
12
-------
estimate concentrations already existing in the soils. The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus to be added is
estimated by subtracting the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus already existing in the soil from the nutrient
requirement, and multiplying the remaining concentration by the estimated weight of the lift being treated.
Because a significant percent of carbon measured by the TOC analysis may exist as ash or other non-available
forms of carbon, the use of TOC to estimate the amount of carbon in the soil should result in a larger amount
of nutrients being applied to the LTU than that needed to enhance degradation. Nutrients are added as fre-
quently as every other day, depending on soil moisture and nutrient needs.
To enhance microbial activity by oxygenating the soils, tilling of the entire LTU is performed fre-
quently (at least weekly, if possible, but dependent on weather conditions) using a tractor-mounted rototiller
or similar type equipment. If the LTU contains ponded water after storms, tilling is suspended until the soil
dries sufficiently for tilling. Deep tilling to promote biodegradation may be used occasionally in the LTU if
deeper soils with contaminant concentrations above the target remediation levels are detected. Deep tilling
will be continued until the lower zone has contaminant levels at or below the target remediation levels speci-
fied in the ROD. If contaminants are found to consistently migrate into underlying lifts, operation procedures
will be modified. Such modifications may include (1) loading of smaller lifts on the LTU; (2) an increase in
tilling frequency; or (3) reduction in moisture applied to the LTU.
Operation of the LTU, including the loading of soil lifts, is discontinued during the winter months.
New lifts are not loaded near the end of the treatment year if contaminant levels are not expected to decrease
substantially before the operation of the LTU is discontinued for the winter.
After all contaminated soils have been treated in the LTU unit to achieve reduction of contaminant
concentrations to acceptable levels, a protective cover will be installed and maintained over the total two-acre
treatment unit to minimize surface infiltration, erosion, and direct contact.
5.5 LTV design: process overview
Selection of the location for LTU construction was based on previously existing site factors as well as
possible future influences resulting from operation of the facility. Previously existing site factors that influ-
enced selection of the LTU location included: (1) proximity to the contaminated soils to be treated; (2)
company on-site operational constraints; and (3) soil and water quality analyses that indicated low level
contamination of surface soil and subsurface environments.
Contaminated soils are treated in lifts (approximately six to twelve inches in thickness) in the desig-
nated LTU cell until target soil contaminant levels are achieved for a given lift. Degradation rates, amount
(volume) of soil to be treated, initial contaminant concentration, duration of summer operational period, and
LTU size determine the time requirements for remediation of a given lift of contaminated soil. Based on an
estimated 45-day time frame for remediation of each applied lift of contaminated soil to acceptable contami-
nant levels, an estimated volume of 45,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil requiring remediation, and a two-
acre total LTU surface area, the time for completion of soil remediation was estimated to be approximately 8
to 10 years.
Design criteria for each LTU cell include provisions for total containment of contaminated soils,
water, and leachate, with ultimate treatment and disposal of all contaminated soils within the LTU treatment
unit.
5.5.7 Facility design components
treatment unit with two-acre final surface area (two one-acre LTU cells)
treatment zone with 30-inch depth (18 inches sandy-material supporting 12 inches
silty-material)
liner system (60 ml high density polyethylene (HOPE), compacted clay, geotextile
filter fabric, geonet)
13
-------
• leachate collection system (perforated PVC piping/gravel drains/sumps)
• rainfall runoff/leachate storage unit (two 50,000-gallon tanks)
• passive moisture control system (perforated HDPE piping system)
5.5.2 Details of system components
5.5.2.1 Size
The lined, prepared bed land treatment unit is comprised of two cells with a final surface area of one
acre each. The surface area required was based on the estimated total quantity of material excavated from the
source areas minus the quantity of materials greater than one inch in diameter removed during de-rocking,
since contaminants were expected to be associated with finer soil materials.
Each LTU cell is surrounded by a berm constructed with low permeability soils that were compacted
with a dozer. Incremental berm construction design allows modification of the LTU height to increase storage
capacity as needed, in order to maintain at least two feet of elevation difference between the top of the treat-
ment zone and the top of the berms. The use of berms allows for containment, treatment and ultimate dis-
posal of additional contaminated soils if required. The berm was designed to control run-on and runoff
associated with a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
The LTU cells are each sloped to a central gravel drain (2 percent slope) to accomplish water control
within the unit. The gravel drain also is sloped to a gravel sump (1 percent slope).
5.5.2.2 Treatment zone
The treatment zone consists of the contaminated soil that is tilled and amended with moisture and
nutrients. Beneath the first layer of contaminated soil Gift) is a layer of sandy material (18 inches) supporting
a top layer (12 inches) of silty material. The sandy material was collected on-site and consists of uncontami-
nated material meeting the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) definition of SP SM (poorly graded
sands or gravelly sands and silty sands) or SM (silty sands). Maximum size is 1/2 inch. The silty material
consists of silts and/or clays collected from an on-site area and meets the Unified Soil Classification System
definition of ML (silts and very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts of low plasticity), ML-CL
(silts and very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts of low plasticity with clays of low to
medium plasticity or gravelly, sandy, or silty clays) or CL-ML (clays of low to medium plasticity or gravelly,
sandy, or silty clays with silts and very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts of low plasticity).
Standard filter criteria were used for material sizing between the treatment zone silty layer and sandy layer
with regard to reducing clogging potential.
5.5.2.3 Liner system
A liner system was designed to minimize migration of leachate that may be generated from treatment
operations and that might otherwise continue downward through unsaturated zone soils into ground water.
The underlying liner system for each LTU cell consists of a 60-mil synthetic flexible geomembrane
liner placed on top of a compacted soil liner (18 inches thick) constructed from low permeability (5 x 10-5
cm/sec) soils (Glacial lake sediments) collected on-site. The compacted soil beneath the HDPE liner was
compacted to accomplish a maximum permeability of 5 X 10-7 cm/sec. High density polyethylene (HDPE)
materials were chosen for the geomembrane liner due to its documented compatibility with most common
wastes and waste by-products. Leakage testing of the geomembrane liner was performed utilizing electrical
resistivity. This method involves flooding the lined facility and installing an electrical source in the water
within the contained area and an electrode outside the unit to complete the electrical circuit. The intact
geomembrane liner acts as a resistance to the imposed current, and any leaks can be detected using voltmeters
14
-------
to locate areas of high current flows. Additional analysis of leakage through the liner under different sce-
narios of liner rupture was accomplished using the hydrological evaluation of leachate performance (HELP)
model.
5.5.2.4 Leachate collection system
The purpose of the leachate collection system is to prevent leachate from accumulating within the
LTU and to monitor contaminant concentrations. The leachate collection system, including surface water
pumping, subsurface drainage net, gravel drains, and collection pipes, is designed to collect leachate gener-
ated from two sources of water: (1) water applied during operation of the LTU, and (2) water from precipita-
tion events. Leachate collected in the bottom of each cell is removed to minimize buildup of leachate (hy-
draulic head) on the liner system, thus reducing potential for leakage, and to prevent free water buildup in the
LTU that could eventually lead to horizontal migration if the water levels were to exceed the top of the
flexible membrane liner.
A drainage net (Tensar DN-3) covered by a geotextile filter fabric (Typar 3601) was placed over the
geomembrane/soil liner system (Figures 5.4 and 5.5) (Woodward - Qyde Consultants, 1990a). Water filtra-
tion criteria were used to select the geotextile filter fabric in order to minimize migration of treatment zone
sands from above into the drainage net, which could result in the clogging of the leachate collection system.
A gravel drain (12-inch thickness) was constructed along the entire length of the floor in each LTU
cell. River gravels, which contain non-angular materials, were used in the drainage system to reduce puncture
potential and maintain liner integrity. A collection sump and sloping riser was constructed at the lowest point
of the gravel drain (at the north end of each LTU cell, centered in the east-west direction). Two four-inch
diameter HDPE pipes slotted and wrapped in geotextile filter fabric were placed in the gravel drain and sloped
to the collection sump. The drain and sump were back-filled with gravel and completely enclosed in
geotextile filter fabric. A single slotted six-inch diameter pipe was located along the base of each sump and
was connected to a solid six-inch diameter HDPE pipe that rises upward along the interior slope of the north
berm of each cell. This pipe provides access to the sump area for leachate removal.
Plan View of Top of HDPE Liner in Leachate Collection Sump
ct
' Cross Section C-C'
ru..**limis»»n|. '
Figure 5.4 Geomembrane I soil liner system for leachate collection
15
-------
Cross Section F-F'
Typical Gravel Drain Section
12" Thick Silts
18" Thick Sands
-Treatment Zone—-X_
4" Dia. Perforated HOPE Pipes Geotortilc Fiher Fabric _ .
/• Drainage Net
Scale in Feet
Cross Section D-D1
18" Gravel Sump
12" TBlCt Sills
Weld (Typ.)
Sum
Geotcxtile Protective Fabric
18 Thick Sands 2%_
'Treatment Zone-
-------
Leachate is removed from the leachate collection system sump area by means of an automated
leachate collection pump and piping system (which can be overridden for manual control). The automated
system ensures that a significant level of water will not collect in the sump area. Self-priming pumps located
in a heated pump house are used for leachate removal. High and low level automatic pump activation
switches were installed near the base of the HOPE pipe located in the sump for each cell. The level controls
are usually set so that 300 to 600 gallons are pumped when the system is activated. The flow rate is moni-
tored using a flow meter located within the pump house. Discharge pipes installed below the frost depth can
carry effluent to two 50,000 gallon storage tanks or to the bioreactor. These pipes are insulated and heat-taped
where exposed.
Daily inspections of the pump removal system are made on regular work days. If failure should occur
in the pumps or piping system, the system will be repaired within one week to ensure continued removal of
leachate from the LTU.
Surface water is managed by daily monitoring of the LTU during regular work days to see if signifi-
cant amounts of water have collected on the surface of the LTU. The surfaces of the LTU cells are sloped so
that surface water collects at the low point of the cells above the leachate collection sumps. If water collects
to a sufficient depth to be pumped by a submersible pump, then the water is promptly removed until the
submersible pump is unable to continue pumping.
The recovered water is sprayed directly on the rock pad or injected into closed or open trenches.
These disposal areas were selected because they should be able to handle the maximum design storm event,
which is the 24-hour, 25-year storm of 2.4 inches. This maximum design storm event could result in approxi-
mately 150,000 gallons over the 24-hour event period being recovered from the two-acre LTU and associated
haul roads. The trenches were tested at a 250 gpm injection rate and were able to handle water discharged at
this rate. The leachate collection pumps have a pumping rate of only 50 gpm, so the infiltration trenches
should be able to handle the water being recovered from the LTU at this lower rate.
5.5.2.5 Leachate storage unit
Effluent in the two 50,000 gallon storage tanks can be directed to (1) the LTU cells for irrigation in
the summer months; (2) to the infiltration galleries/infiltration trench, where it can be amended with nutrients
for use in the in situ aquifer bioremediation system; (3) to the rock pad; or (4) to open trenches. To prevent
freezing of collected liquids in the storage tanks, the design incorporates use of a combination of electric
immersion heating and sparging with warm, compressed air. In addition, all exposed piping is insulated.
5.5.2.6 Passive moisture control system
A passive moisture control system is installed within the LTU adjacent to the incremental berms to
minimize the potential for soils to become saturated in this area. The system consists of interconnected
perforated HOPE pipes, wrapped in filter fabric and placed around the perimeter of the LTU. This drainage
system drains water from areas adjacent to the berms and carries it to the treatment zone above the LTU sump,
where, when it accumulates in excessive amounts, it is removed by the leachate collection system.
5.6 Process monitoring
The monitoring program involves periodic collection and analyses of leachate, soil, ground water, and
air samples both outside and within the treatment cells during operation and closure periods. Post-closure
care will include monitoring and inspection following placement of the cap at the end of the closure period.
5.6.1 Monitoring outside the LTU
Monitoring systems in the vicinity of the LTU include ground-water and air sample collection sys-
tems. Background samples have been collected and analyzed to establish a baseline for evaluating data
collected during the LTU operation.
17
-------
The ground-water monitoring system includes six wells (three down-gradient, two upgradient, and
one midway between the LTU and the waste pit area). Monitoring of the ground water wells around the LTU
is performed semi-annually. Ground-water samples collected from each of the monitoring wells are analyzed
at an off-site laboratory.
Periodic ambient air monitoring is conducted to: (1) characterize emissions that may be released to
the atmosphere as a result of operations at the unit; and (2) quantify ambient concentrations of the compounds
in order to protect the health of the workers at the LTU. Dust is expected to be the principal contaminant of
concern for the workers at the LTU. Dust control is primarily accomplished by applying to the moisture to the
LTU before tilling. If during tilling operations, dust generation becomes visible, additional moisture is
applied to the LTU to suppress the dust, and/or tilling operations are discontinued until weather conditions
change so that dust generation is reduced.
Analysis parameters for air quality parameters include gaseous and paniculate PAH and PCP con-
stituents. Air monitoring is performed shortly after loading during the day that the initial tilling occurs. This
initial tilling sampling event for a lift is considered to provide worst-case data for emissions from the LTU,
since the highest concentrations should be present in the soils at this lime. Two air samples are collected at a
height of 1.5 meters above ground level on the berms adjacent to the LTU to monitor for contaminant migra-
tion. One sample station is placed directly upwind of the LTU, and a second sample station is placed directly
downwind of the LTU so that both downwind and upwind air quality data are obtained. To place the samplers
at the appropriate locations, the prevailing wind direction is monitored at a on-site meteorological monitoring
station every two hours during the sampling period. If the wind direction changes during any of the 2 hour
periods, the sampling stations are rotated so that they continue to monitor the upwind and downwind air
quality of the LTU. The total sampling time of each collection period is approximately six hours. One
sample is collected for PAH and PCP analysis at two locations (upwind and downwind) around the LTU to
provide a total of four samples (2 PAH and 2 PCP) per collection period. A duplicate sample for PAH and
PCP is collected from the berm expected to be the downgradient berm prior to tilling. This duplicate sample
and one field blank as well as the air samples collected from the monitors during tilling are analyzed by an
off-site laboratory for PAH compounds and PCP. Concurrent with ambient air sampling, one hour values for
wind speed, wind direction, sigma theta (standard deviation of wind direction), and temperature are recorded
at the on-site meteorological monitoring station. These data are used to evaluate air dispersion characteristics
(i.e., atmospheric stability) during air monitoring.
Concentrations of PAH compounds and PCP measured in the air samples are compared to concentra-
tions used for modeling in the No Migration Petition (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990b) to determine if
acceptable concentrations are present. More frequent samples are collected if the concentrations are unex-
pectedly high. If after several years of monitoring, consistently low concentrations of PCP and PAH com-
pounds are measured from the LTU, air monitoring will be discontinued after obtaining approval from the
regulatory agencies.
5.6.2 Monitoring within the LTV
Monitoring systems within the LTU include systems for collection of soil and leachate samples.
Soil monitoring involves collection, compositing, and analysis of soil samples. Three types of soil
samples are collected periodically from the LTU: operational, confirmation, and compliance.
Operational samples are collected periodically to monitor the degradation of PCP and PAH com-
pounds in the soils during the treatment of each contaminated soil lift. These samples are analyzed by the on-
site laboratory and are used primarily for making operational decisions for the LTU. The samples consist of
composite samples from each quadrant of the two LTU cells. Each sample is composited from four ran-
domly-selected individual samples from within each quadrant. After the initial tilling of a newly-placed lift of
contaminated soils in the LTU cells and application of soil moisture, composited soil samples from the
18
-------
uppermost lift of contaminated soil are collected from the four quadrants of each cell representing the lift and
are analyzed for PAH compounds and PGP. Results from this sampling are used to characterize baseline
contaminant levels and to identify degradation rates in the LTU cells. After initial placement of a lift, samples
are usually collected every two to three weeks. The sampling frequency is increased (up to one sample per
week or less) when the soil concentrations in the treatment zone are near target remediation levels. Sample
collection and analyses continue until samples from each quadrant are at or below the target remediation
levels. After target levels are reached, a new lift may be loaded on the LTU.
After target remediation levels are achieved in the uppermost lift, an additional sample is collected in
the next lowest lift to evaluate the potential for vertical migration of contaminants during treatment. The
sample is collected under the quadrant of the uppermost lift that contained the highest level of contamination
during treatment. The sample consists of a four-point composite sample, collected in the same manner as the
other operational samples. The sample is analyzed for PCP and PAH compounds by the on-site laboratory. If
PCP and PAH compounds are found to exceed the target remediation levels, then deep tilling of the top two
lifts is performed until achievement of target remediation levels is achieved.
Other operational samples collecte'l and analyzed include (1) composited soil samples from the four
soil quadrants for the measurement of TOC, TKN and total phosphorus immediately after the placement of a
lift to assess nutrient requirements; and (2) weekly soil moisture measurements to determine water application
rates.
After the results of the operational samples have indicated that target contaminant remediation levels
have been reached, a confirmation sample is collected from each quadrant from each lift treated and are
submitted to an off-site laboratory for confirmation analyses. These samples may be split samples from the
last operational sample analyzed or samples collected separately. Each confirmation sample is a composite
sample. Confirmation sampling results are used to demonstrate that target remediation levels have been
achieved and to establish the validity of operational sampling data. These sampling data are provided to the
regulatory agency after receipt from the off-site laboratory.
Compliance samples are used to demonstrate that target remediation levels have been met. These
samples consist of previously collected confirmation samples (if the concentrations are at or below target
remediation levels), or additional samples may be collected, if required. There are two types of compliance
samples. The first type is a single-lift compliance sample. A minimum of four single lift compliance samples
(one from each quadrant) is obtained from each treated soil lift to demonstrate that target remediation levels
established in the ROD for PCP, carcinogenic PAH compounds, naphthalene, phenanthrene, and pyrene have
been met. These samples typically consist of previously collected confirmation samples. The second type of
compliance sample is a three-lift sample for dioxin analysis. Four three-lift dioxin compliance samples are
collected from each LTU cell, with one sample collected from each quadrant. The samples consist of soils
collected from the full vertical interval of the three lifts applied during that treatment interval. One duplicate
split sample is collected for every four samples collected, for QA/QC purposes. The dioxin analysis is
performed by an off-site laboratory. If dioxin is detected above the target remediation level in the three-lift
compliance samples, an evaluation will be made to determine how to best address remedial goals. The results
of the evaluation will be presented to the regulatory agency for approval.
The compliance samples analyzed by the off-site laboratory that meet the quality requirements
outlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989c) are used to
evaluate the achievement of target remediation levels. Contaminant concentrations measured in each of the
four samples (one from each quadrant) for each lift are compared to the target remediation levels specified in
the ROD. Only when the contaminant concentrations for all four samples (not just the mean of the four
samples) are at or below the target remediation levels for total carcinogenic PAH compounds, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, pyrene, and PCP is that lift considered remediated.
At the end of each treatment year, additional composite samples from each lift placed in the unit
during that year are collected and analyzed. If target contamination remediation levels are not met by the end
19
-------
of a given year for the composite samples of all lifts placed in an LTU cell that year, LTU operations are
continued in the spring of the next year. No additional lift placement in that LTU cell are made until such
levels are achieved.
Leachate monitoring involves collection of samples from LTU sumps on a quarterly basis and when-
ever leachate is produced during rainfall events. Samples are analyzed for PCP and PAH compounds by the
on-site laboratory. If a visible oil phase is present in the sample, the sample is sent to an off-site laboratory
for dioxin analysis. One duplicate sample is sent to the off-site laboratory annually for PAH and PCP analy-
ses as a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) measure for the on-site laboratory. If concentrations of
contaminants in the leachate are below U.S. EPA detection limits for a period of one year, leachate monitoring
will be reduced to a frequency of twice annually. Sump sampling may not be possible if little or no leachate
is recovered from the sump during a quarter. The sumps (one from each cell) are monitored each work day
during operation of the LTU to evaluate if the leachate collection system is operating properly.
5.7 Future closure and post-closure activities
Closure of ihe LTU will commence following completion of standard LTU operations for both cells.
Closure activities will be designed to provide long term containment of disposed materials and protection of
the environment. The LTU will be closed in a manner that: (1) minimizes the need for further maintenance;
and (2) controls, minimizes and eliminates, to the extent necessary to prevent threats to human health and the
environment, the post-closure escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents, leachate, contami-
nated runoff, or waste decomposition products to the ground water, surface waters or to the atmosphere. The
closed facility will be monitored in a manner that will allow detection of any contaminant releases.
Criteria that will be used to initiate closure activities include: (1) little or no evidence of movement of
organics beneath the treatment zone; (2) achievement of soil target remediation levels for all constituents; and
(3) no detection of regulated contaminants in leachate samples for at least the last two years of operation of
the facility. A regular program of tillage, watering, and maintenance of the land treatment area will be
conducted until the above criteria are met.
Groundwater monitoring will be continued through the closure period. Upgradient wells (two wells)
and down-gradient wells (four wells) will be sampled semi-annually for target constituent.
5.7.1 LTU cover system
Random fill will be placed over the treated soil to prepare a minimum 3 percent grade from the crown
of the LTU to the exterior berms (Figure 5.6). A 12-inch thick compacted soil liner will be placed above the
random fill. A 30 mil HDPE geomembrane liner will be placed over the soil liner, and a 12-inch thick layer
of cover sand in a single lift will be added to protect the geomembrane. A 12-inch thick layer of topsoil will
be placed above the cover sand. The topsoil will be used to establish a vegetative cover of native plants in
order to prevent erosion of the cover system.
The side-slope of the cover system will consist of a drainage net (Tensar DN-3 geonet) placed be-
tween two Typar 3601 filter fabrics placed above the exterior of the incremental and LTU containment berm
graded to a 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. A 12-inch thick layer of cover sand will be placed above the
drainage net and filter fabrics; a 12-inch thick layer of topsoil will be placed above the cover sand. A vegeta-
tive cover will be planted in the topsoil layer.
It has been proposed that if criteria (3) above is met at the end of the LTU operational period, the
following actions will be taken: (1) the cover system will be redesigned to exclude the flexible geomembrane
liner and drainage net; and (2) the HDPE liner at the bottom of the LTU cells will be punctured in the sump
areas, allowing the leachate to gravity drain and thus avoiding any "bathtub" water accumulation in the
system.
20
-------
2-KGn.Pneboari
bcttmeotal Bern
r 2140
2130
2120
2110
Bertn Detail
Anckor Track Backfill
Ljiur/LeochaU Collection System
fd GeoUxtJIenibr Fabric
CUD Drainage Net
^ MMiLHDPFCtoiiianbnne
//i Situ SoUs
Figure 5.6 LTU waste placement and final cover
Final grading of the facility will maintain the berms surrounding the LTU at a sufficient height to
control run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal. The berm will be raised with uncontaminated fill to contain the
25-year, 24-hour storm event.
5.7.2 Post-closure activities
Post-closure care will continue for at least five years. Such care may be terminated after the fifth year
if target constituents in the soils, ground water, and leachate are not detected above target remediation levels.
The post-closure care period may be extended to thirty years if significant concentrations of target constitu-
ents are detected.
Primary activities that will take place during the post-closure period include continued inspection and
maintenance of the facility. Inspections of the vegetative cover, run-on/runoff control system, and LTU sumps
will be performed on a monthly basis or after any major storm. The vegetative cover will be selected to adapt
to the climate at the site; therefore, after the first year of post-closure, irrigation will be discontinued. Access
to the facility will be restricted by the company security system and fencing around the site.
5.8 Health and safety plan
Contractors at the site abide by an approved Health and Safety Plan (Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
1989a) prior to working on any activity of a hazardous nature during construction, operation or closure of the
LTU.
5.9 Quality assurance program
A quality assurance program was developed for analytical evaluation of soil, leachate, ground water,
and air samples and was presented in a Quality Assurance Project Plan (Woodward Clyde Consultants,
1989c). Construction quality control testing was also performed during construction of the LTU cells.
21
-------
5.10 Periodic reporting requirements
Information summarizing LTD operations and monitoring are submitted to the regulatory agencies in
annual reports, as required by the ROD. Annual reports detail operational aspects such as sampling results,
amount of soils remediated, monitoring data, problems encountered, and corrective action taken. The reports
also contain an assessment of overall progress toward reaching final cleanup, with emphasis on achievement
of target remediation levels. Monthly status reports provide updates on the operation of the LTU during the
treatment season.
After target remediation levels have been achieved for all the contaminated soils and verified by the
regulatory agencies, annual summary reports will be prepared discussing closure maintenance and monitor-
ing.
In addition, every five years during operation, closure, and post-closure, a report summarizing the
previous five years of activities and evaluating the effectiveness of land treatment in achieving target
remediation levels will be prepared.
5.11 Information sources
Information for Chapter 5 was obtained from the following sources: (1) LTU 1992 Annual Opera-
tional Report: Groundwater Site, Libby, Montana (Champion International Corporation, 1993); (2) LTU
Operations and Monitoring, Groundwater Site, Libby, Montana (Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1992); (3)
Pre-Final Design Report, Land Treatment Unit, Ground Water Site, Libby, Montana (Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, 1990a); (4) No Migration Petition for Land Treatment Unit, Libby Ground Water Site, Libby,
Montana (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1990b); (5) Health and Safety Plan, LTDU and Soil Demonstration,
Ground Water Site, Libby, Montana (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989a); (6) Land Treatment Demonstra-
tion Unit: One Acre LTDU, Ground Water Site, Libby, Montana (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1989b); (7)
Quality Assurance Project Plan, RIIFSIRDIRA Activities, Ground Water Site, Libby, Montana (Woodward-
Clyde Consultants, 1989c); and (8) Record of Decision: Libby Ground Water Superfund Site, Lincoln County,
Montana (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988).
22
-------
Chapter 6
Materials and Methods
6.0 Materials and Methods
6.1 Field sampling procedures
Sampling points within each LTU were located using a rectangular grid overlay of a map of the LTU
beds. The starting point of the grid was randomly chosen by statistically selecting four random numbers. The
first two numbers were used to locate a specific grid rectangle on the overlay, while the second two numbers
identified a point within that rectangle. The point was fixed on the map, and the grid was shifted so that the
lower right corner of the grid rectangle was over this point. Each point of the intersection of the grid within
the LTU bed was then designated as a sampling point (Mason, 1983). The selection of the first sample
location completely determined all of the other sample locations. The performace evaluation monitoring
strategy involved collecting discrete soil samples; unlike the compositing soil sampling strategy described in
Section 5.6.2 which was conducted for regulatory performance monitoring.
Specifically, sampling grids of the two land treatment units (LTU 1 and LTU 2) were developed using
the following procedure:
Each land treatment unit was scaled according to the dimensions of the units as follows:
Centerline length of LTU (running N-S) = 226 ft, equivalent to 126 mm on map
Center line width of LTU (running E-W) = 106 ft, equivalent to 54 mm on the map
Average scale of the map = 0.535 mm per ft
Initial sampling protocol called for 30 random samples from the site for each lift. Assuming that
these 30 sampling points would concur with 30 points of a square grid with intersections, the area of each
square was: 23,956/30 = 798.5 ft2 per square (28.3 ft x 28.3 ft), where 23,956 is the area of the LTU in square
feet. Each LTU is one acre (about 43,560 ft2) in total size, including the berms. The area that is used for
treatment is the area that is at the bottom of the berms, which is about 23,956 ft2. As the soil elevation in-
creases within the LTU cells as more contaminated soil is added, the treatment area will increase.
Based on the scale selected, each square represented a 15.1 mm square grid on the map. A grid of
such dimensions was drawn on plain paper, using the Superpaint™ program for the Macintosh computer. The
grid was numbered from the left comer (Figure 6.1).
For LTU 1, using a random number table, four random, two digit numbers were randomly selected.
The first two numbers located the specific grid square (06, 02 on the grid map), and the second two numbers
located the reference point "a" within the grid square (using a mm scale, this was 06 and 05 from the lower
left corner of the grid square, as shown in Figure 6.1).
A transparency of the LTU 1 map was overlaid on the grid such that the N-S center line of the LTU
map was parallel to the longitudinal grid lines. The reference point "a" was marked "R" on the LTU map
transparency. The transparency was then moved so that "R" coincided with the lower right corner of the
randomly selected grid square (Figure 6.2). Each point of intersection of the grid within the LTU was then
designated as a sampling point. There were a total of 32 sampling points within the LTU. Based on the map,
the reference point "R" was located at 37.7 feet from the N-S center line of the plot and 38.4 feet from the top
of the northern embankment.
In LTU 2, the reference point for setting up the grid system was randomly located by selecting four
random numbers with an HP28C calculator. The first two numbers located the grid square (08,02) on the grid
map) and the second two numbers located reference point "a" within the square (4 mm north and 7 mm west
of the southeast comer of the grid square). A transparency of the LTU 2 map was placed on the grid map, and
reference point "a" was marked on the transparency in the southeast corner of LTU 2. The transparency was
23
-------
0123
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 6.1 Scale of each land treatment unit for the area for one soil sample: 7985 ff = 15.1 mm square grid on
map.
then moved until point "a" was over the right comer of the grid square (Figure 6.3). Each point of the grid
was then designated as a sampling point with point "a" being the reference point "R" for LTU 2.
For both LTU cells, each square in the sampling grid was 28.3 ft. x 28.3 ft. The points of intersection
of the grid corresponded to the sampling points. The N-S center line of the LTU was first determined and
marked using stakes and twine. Longitudinal lines parallel to the N-S center line and 28.3 feet apart were set
up using a surveyor's measuring tape, twine, and stakes. These lines were labelled 1W, 2W, IE, and 2E. An
E-W line perpendicular to the 2W line was set up through the reference point. Each sampling site was located
28.3 feet along the longitudinal lines. There were four N-S rows, with eight sampling sites in each row.
For each sampling trip, the reference point established during the initial sampling trip (May 6-8,1991
for LTU 1 and July 27,1992 for LTU 2) was used to establish new reference and sampling points (in the
sampling grid) relative to the original sampling point (e.g., for the second sampling trip, the reference point
was moved 1 foot north). The sampling grid at the site was marked with twine, and each sampling point was
located at an intersection of the N-S and E-W sampling grid lines. Sampling was begun at reference point
"R".
The LTU was designated as the "hot zone", where all personnel wore appropriate protective clothing
(i.e., Level C). A "cold zone" was designated immediately outside the "hot zone" (i.e., the contaminated area)
as the area where sample jars and other uncontaminated equipment were located. All sample jars were
labelled with field ID numbers before going to the site. The date and year of sampling were included on the
label. Samples from LTU 1 were numbered 1 through 32 (Figure 6.4); samples from LTU 2 were numbered
33 through 64 (Figure 6.5). The depth sampled was identified by naming the depths alphabetically, with the
lowest depth having the letter "A."
A Giddings tube soil sampler was marked with the desired sampling depths, based on 6 inches per
sampling depth. The Giddings tube sampler was driven into the soil to the lowest depth using a slide hammer.
The slide hammer was lubricated with distilled water. The Giddings tube was extracted from the borehole
using a tripod and a come-along. If the clay layer below the waste materials was inadvertently sampled, the
clay layer was discarded. The clay layer was recognized by differences in color and texture.
The samples in the Giddings tube were taken to an area of the "hot zone" adjacent to the "cold zone."
Appropriately labelled, commercially pre-cleaned 500 mL I-CHEM glass jars with teflon-lined caps were
obtained from personnel in the "cold zone." A large screwdriver was inserted in the slot in the side of the
tube, and samples were forced out of the bottom of the tube. The bottom inch of sample as well as any large
rocks present in the sample were discarded into a plastic container. The next several inches of sample were
24
-------
LTUCELL2
Etanp
32
17
16
31
18
15
30
19
14
29
20
L1JCEIL1
13
28
21
12
27
22
26
23
10
25
24
Figure 6.2 Location of the reference point (R) and sampling Figure 6.3 Location of the reference point (R) and
points in LTU 1. sampling points in LTU 2.
collected in the I-CHEM jar. The rest of the sample at a particular depth, as defined by the marks on the
Giddings tube, was collected in the plastic container. This method of taking samples from the center of each
depth was used in order to standardize the collection technique. For surface sampling, samples were collected
at a depth of 2-3 inches using trowels.
To prevent cross-contamination between samples, the Giddings tube, screwdriver, and/or trowel were
cleaned and decontaminated with soapy water and a large diameter bottle brush after each sample was col-
lected. The equipment was rinsed with tap water, followed by rinsing with distilled water. The plastic
container with the unused soil and rocks was emptied at the sampling site, and the sampling borehole was
filled with bentonite.
For QA/QC considerations, for each day of sampling, a trip blank was prepared by opening ajar of
uncontaminated Kidman sandy loam soil during sampling. The jar was left open to the atmosphere at the
LTU for approximately five minutes and then closed. If the sampling trip lasted for two days, a trip blank was
collected each day. The trip blanks were prepared in the laboratory before the sampling trip by placing the
soil in a labelled, pre-cleaned I-CHEM jar. The trip blanks were transported to and from the Libby Site with
the I-CHEM jars containing samples. The trip blanks were extracted and analyzed using the same procedures
as used for the LTU samples. An additional blank was prepared in the same manner and left closed in the
laboratory. This blank sample was also extracted and analyzed this blank using the same procedures as used
for the LTU samples. No PAH compounds or PCP were detected in the trip blanks.
After all samples were collected, all equipment was decontaminated in the "hot zone" with soapy
water. The equipment was rinsed with tap water, followed by rinsing with distilled water. All disposable
clothing (Tyvek suits, booties, and gloves) and other disposable items such as twine, stakes, etc., were placed
in garbage bags and returned to the laboratory for proper disposal. Non-disposable clothing (e.g., boots) was
decontaminated with soapy water and rinsed with tap water, followed by rinsing with distilled water. All
decontaminated and bagged equipment were handed to personnel in the "cold zone."
25
-------
LTU1
Quadrant and
Core Sample Numbe
1. .16
2» .15
#1
3« « 14
4. • 13
5 • • 12
6 • .11
#2
7 * «10
8 • • 9
— — u
17. .32
18. .31
#4
1«« «30
20. .29
2' . .28
22. .27
#3
23* • 26
24 • • 25
LTU2
Quadrant and
Core Sample Numbtrj
W» « 48 49«
#1
35. »46 51.
36. .45 52.
_ _
37 . .44 53 .
38. .43 54.
#2
39 • «42 55 •
40* .41 56.
.«
#4
•62
• «1
. 60
.59
#3
» 58
. 57
Figure 6.4 Location of sampling cores for obtaining Figure 65 Location of sampling cores for obtaining
descrete soil samples with depth for LTU1: discrete soil sample with depth fro LTU1:
Quadrant and coresample numbers. Quadrant and coresample numbers.
After all samples had been collected, the samples in the I-CHEM jars were placed in zip lock bags to
contain the samples in case of breakage. The samples were wrapped in newspaper and placed in a cooler, or
alternatively, were placed in a cooler with cardboard dividers. "Blue ice" was also placed in the coolers. The
coolers were secured with filament tape and shipped by Federal Express to the Utah Water Research Labora-
tory (UWRL), in Logan, Utah for analysis.
Upon arrival of samples at the UWRL, the condition of samples were checked and noted. All samples
were logged in by assigning each sample a UWRL log number and by entering appropriate information in the
UWRL log book, including sample type, date sampled, date logged in, field ID, and type of analyses to be
performed. All samples were placed in a refrigerated unit at 4° C. During sample extraction and analysis, all
containers (extraction, storage, GC vials, LC vials, etc.) were labelled with the UWRL log number. After
extraction and analysis, the samples were stored or archived in the 4° refrigerated unit or in a freezer at -70°
C. During data management and analysis, UWRL log numbers were re-associated with field ID numbers and
the concentrations of the target compounds measured in the samples.
6.2 Sampling events
Sampling was conducted six times during the 1991 and 1992 LTU operating seasons, as shown in
Figure 6.6. Approximately 20 samples were analyzed out of 32 samples taken in each depth. The remaining
12 samples were archived. The waste lifts present during each sampling event are also shown. The actual
thickness of lifts after initial placement of 9 to 12 inches is unknown due to natural and managed soil compac-
tion. Therefore sampling depths, designated with letters A, B, etc., are only approximately correlated with
lifts placed in the units, designated with numbers 1, 2, etc. The first lift in each LTU is well correlated with
26
-------
LTU1
Sampling Events
5/6&8/91 6/27/91 7/27/911 9/18&19/91 9/1/92
Lift Sample
Applied Depth
E
D
B
A
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
LTU2
Sampling Events
Lift Sample
Applied Depth
B
Legend
CD Microtox™ Assay
• Soil Analysis for PCP and PAH Compounds
o Laboratory Evaluation Studies
^ Biological Mineralization Study
c» Biological Mineralization & Humification Study
HHl Lifts Applied During LTU Demonstradon
CZ2 Lifts Applied Following LTU Demonstration
Figure 6.6 Conceptual model of LTU lifts and sampling events.
27
-------
depth A for each LTU, since the different textures of the underlying sand and contaminated soil above the
sand were easily visually recognized. In addition, lift 4 (depth C) of LTU 1 was the top lift for May and
June,1991, sampling events, and lift 5 (depth D) of LTU 1 was the top lift for July and September, 1991,
sampling events. Therefore, lifts and depths are well correlated for lift 1 in both LTU cells and for lifts 4 and
5 in LTU 1 for two sampling events (until the next lift was added).
Each lift was actively managed, including tilling and moisture control. Nutrient addition was initiated
after placement of lift 5 in LTU 1 and lift 1 in LTU 2. During the active management phase, each lift was
monitored by Champion International for determining the concentrations of target chemicals in composited
soil samples. Following the active management phase and upon reaching the target remediation levels for the
compounds of concern, a subsequent lift was placed in the LTU for treatment. Each unit was operated
independently with respect to lift placement. The duration of the active management phase for each lift is
summarized in Table 6.1.
6.3 Soil characteristics
During the sampling trip conducted September 18-19,1991, six soil samples were collected from the
waste pit area for nutrient analyses. The contaminated soils in the waste pit area serve as the source of soils
that are treated in the LTU cells after pretreatment in the waste pit area. The soil samples were analyzed for
nutrient content by the Utah State University Soil Testing Laboratory. Results of the analyses are presented in
Table 6.2.
Also during the sampling trip in September, 1991, two soil samples were collected from the uncon-
taminated berms surrounding LTU 1 for characterization of physical properties. These soils were considered
to be representative of the original soils that had been used to construct the treatment beds of the LTU cells.
The soil samples were analyzed for physical characteristics by the Utah State University Soil Testing Labora-
tory. Results of the analyses are presented in Table 6.3. One contaminated soil sample collected July 27,
1991 from Depth A was analyzed for physical characteristics and nutrient levels. Results are presented in
Table 6.4.
6.4 Sample extraction and analytical methods
The UWRL Environmental Quality Laboratory is certified by the State of Utah Department of Health,
Division of Laboratory Services, for analyses pertaining to environmental compliance monitoring applicable
to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Sampling extraction and analytical methods (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1982) are described in Appendix A for: (1) extraction of samples (U.S. EPA
Method 3550) and soil moisture determinations (A-l); (2) analysis of PCP (U.S. EPA Method 8040) using gas
chromatography (A-2); and (3) analysis of PAH compounds by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/
MS) (U.S. EPA Method 8270) (A-3).
Table 6.1. Time that each lift was actively managed before application of the subsequent lift.
Lift
1
2
3
4
5
6
!LTU21ift2
Treatment Time as the Top Lift
LTU1
(days)
40
336
299
80
282
119
was sampled after 69 days of treatment
LTU 2
(days)
333
691
28
-------
Table 6.2. Soil nutrient analyses of contaminated waste pit area soils.
Sample NIL/N1
No. (mg/kg)
1 0.6
2 0.6
3 0.5
4 0.2
5 nd"
6 nd
1 NH3-N = ammonia nitrogen
2 NO3-N = nitrate nitrogen
3 TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen
4 P = phosphorus
5 K = potassium
6 Total P = total phosphorus
7 O.C. = organic carbon
NO3-NP
(mg/kg)
2.2
2.9
3.0
3.6
3.5
2.9
TKN3
(%)
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.04
P4 K5
(mg/kg)
(NaHCO3-
extractable)
8.4 64
8.7 62
16.0 71
11.0 69
13.0 68
22.0 92
Total P5
(%)
0.036
0.027
0.034
0.035
0.033
0.037
O.C.7
(%)
1.11
1.43
1.81
2.07
1.53
1.71
Table 6.3. Physical characteristics of uncontaminated LTU soils.
Sample No.
1
2
O.C.
(%)
1.17
1.19
pH
7.1
6.8
CEC1
(meq/100 g)
7.9
8.5
Texture
Silt Loam
Silt Loam
Moisture
(%)
0.9
1.0
1 CEC = cation exchange capacity
Table 6.4. Physical characteristics and nutrient analyses for contaminated LTU soil.
Sample O.C.
Identification
(Lift,
T-)otM C%1
Ualc) \'0)
A, 7/91 1.62
1 Concentration of K in
pH K NO3-N
mg/L ; (,mj
7.6 16 <1.0
saturation paste
NaHCO3-
extractable
P
,nra\
5/K.g;
13
Saturation Texture
Percent
°
36.3 Loam
29
-------
6.5 Soil gas analyses for oxygen and carbon dioxide in the LTU cells
Soil gas in LTU 1 at 1 foot and 2 feet depths were analyzed for O2and CO2 concentrations on Septem-
ber 18 and 19, 1991. The composition of the soil atmosphere at depth was accessed with a manually-driven
probe. Oxygen and carbon dioxide were measured as indicators of microbial respiratory activity.
A stainless steel probe with holes leading from the outside of the probe to a hollow stem (Soil Gas
Sampling Kit, Art's Manufacturing & Supply, American Falls, ID) was driven into the soil to the desired depth
with a manual slide hammer device. The holes in the probe were protected from being filled with soil by a
screen and a retractable shield. Flexible Teflon tubing, connected to the hollow stem of the probe, extended
through the steel pipe that was used as the drive string to the surface. After the desired depth was reached, the
drive string was withdrawn approximately 2 cm to open the gas ports. Suction was applied to the plastic
tubing with a pump to move gas from the soil into the oxygen/carbon dioxide detector (Gastechtor, Model
32520X, Gastech, Inc., Newark, CA). After measurements of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations were
obtained, the drive string and probe were removed from the soil using a high-lift mechanical jack.
6.6 Detoxification evaluation using the Microtox™ assay
Detoxification of contaminated soils being treated in the LTUs was analyzed using the Microtox™
assay. The samples were evaluated for relative toxicity compared to a known standard. Soil cores taken from
LTU 1 on three sampling dates were analyzed at selected depths (Table 6.5), in addition to evaluation of the
Microtox™ toxicity of soil applied to LTU 1 before land treatment.
6.7 Laboratory evaluation of LTU soil for biodegradation of phenanthrene and PCP
The laboratory evaluation consisted of two tests for evaluation of biodegradation potential for target
contaminants in site soil under conditions simulating environmental and active phase management factors.
The first test, referred to as the biological mineralization study, was designed to evaluate the extent and rate of
mineralization of radiolabeled phenanthrene and PCP spiked into site soil. The second test, referred to as the
biological mineralization and humification study, was designed to provide additional information including
the distribution of radiolabeled carbon among soil, air, and solvent extract phases in order to determine the
fate and behavior of parent compounds within the Libby LTU soil.
Soil moisture and temperature are management factors that are expected to affect biodegradation of
chemicals in soil within the LTU cells. The influence of these factors on the rate and extent of biological
mineralization and abiotic loss through volatilization was evaluated using field soil samples. A temperature
of 10° C was selected as representative of soil conditions during extended periods of each year at the site for
the first study; temperatures of 10°C and 20°C were used in the second study.
6.7.1 Objectives
In the laboratory evaluation, a chemical mass balance for phenanthrene and PCP in LTU soil and the
influence of soil microbial metabolic potential on the chemical mass balance for these chemicals were deter-
Table 6.5. Samples from LTU 1 analyzed with Microtox™ assay.
Sampling Date Depths Evaluated
September 1-2, 1992 A, B, C
September 18-19,1991 A, B, C
May 6, 1991 A, B
Additional details addressing the Microtox™ assay organism and procedures are provided in Appen-
dix A (A-4).
30
-------
mined. The objectives of the mass balance evaluation were to:
(1) determine the rate and extent of biological mineralization of 14C-phenanthrene and 14C-PCP in
contaminated soil as affected by management factors including soil moisture and temperature; and
(2) determine the fate of 14C-phenanthrene and 14C-PCP in the soil system, including an evaluation
of mineralization, volatilization, and humification (represented by the non-solvent extractable
fraction).
6.7.2 Experimental approach
A complete factorial design approach, with every factor at two levels (2k design) and with duplicate
sets of each treatment, was used in the first laboratory test (the biological mineralization study). Table 6.6
shows the treatments used in the first test. The first laboratory test was conducted at 10° C for 30 days.
This design resulted in the use of 16 microcosms [2 contaminants (PCP and phenanthrene) x 2 soil
samples x 2 moisture levels (40 percent and 80 percent FC) x 2 replicates of each soil sample =16].
For the biological mineralization study, Table 6.7 shows the concentrations of PCP and PAH com-
pounds in soil samples that were randomly selected to be representative of the soils found in the LTU.
A complete factorial design approach, with every factor at two levels (2k design), with duplicate sets
of each treatment, was also used in the second laboratory study (the biological mineralization and humifica-
tion study). Table 6.8 shows the treatments used in the second study. The study was conducted for 45 days.
This design resulted in the use of 32 microcosms [2 contaminants (PCP and phenanthrene) x 2 soil
samples x 2 moisture levels (40 percent and 80 percent FQ x 2 temperatures (10°C and 20°C) x 2 replicates =
32).
For the biological mineralization and humification study, Table 6.9 shows the concentrations of PCP
and PAH compounds in soil samples that were randomly selected to be representative of the soils found in the
LTU.
For both studies, the field capacity of the soil was determined by filling a 250 mL glass graduated
cylinder with soil to the 190 mL mark. Approximately 20 mL of deionized, distilled water (DDW) was added
to the top of the soil. After 24 hours, three samples were taken at mid-depth of the wetted soil and moisture
content was determined. This moisture content was used as the field capacity in subsequent calculations.
Microcosms (Figure 6.7) consisted of 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks with a two-holed rubber stopper.
Glass tubing through the stopper provided an inlet and an outlet. The outlet was connected to a trap for
volatile organic chemicals and a CO2 trap. The outlet of the organic chemical trap was connected to the inlet
of the CO2 trap, as shown in the Figure 6.7. Each microcosm contained 20 grams of contaminated soil. The
soil was sieved before use with a 2 mm sieve.
Moisture content of the soil samples was determined by drying the soil in an oven at 103° C for 24
hours and calculating the weight loss. The amount of water required to bring the soil to 40 percent and 80
percent field capacity was calculated.
Table 6.6. Evaluation conditions in the biological mineralization study.
Treatment Variable Levels of Treatment Endpoints
Moisture 40% FC1 and 80% FC Mineralization
Volatilization
1 FC = Field Capacity
31
-------
Table 6.7. Contaminant concentrations in the laboratory samples for the biological mineralization study.1
Samples Used to Evaluate Degradation of
DtionQnthrptiA •_ — — —
— — jrnciuinuuciic — — — — -
Date Sample Collected 5/6/91 5/6/91
Core Number 16 18
Depth B A
Naphthalene1* 2.16 1.16
Acenaphthylene 1.08 <0.30
Acenaphthene 1.06 0.16
Fluorene 1.31 1.73
Phenanthrene3 2.44 1.47
Anthracene 3.15 14.0
Fluoranthene 3.63 <0.79
Pyrene4 4.90 <1.04
Benzo(a)anthracene 3.21 <1.73
Chrysene 3.33 <1.14
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 9.08 2.06
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 5.69 <1.67
Benzo(a)pyrene 10.2 <2.60
Benzo(ghi)perylene 3.82 <3.82
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene 3.06 <1.63
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 5.45 <3.85
Total Carcinogenic PAH
Compounds5 52.4 2.06
PCP6 2.6 17.8
1 All concentrations are given in mg/kg on dry-weight basis.
2 Target remediation level for naphthalene is 8 mg/kg of soil.
3 Target remediation level for phenanthrene is 8 mg/kg of soil.
4 Target remediation level for pyrene is 7.3 mg/kg of soil.
ppp _ .
7/27/91 7/27/91
21
D
0.73
0.50
<0.10
<0.33
<0.95
8.37
2.76
125
8.38
6.74
18.0
14.4
6.56
<3.68
<1.57
<3.71
182
79.6
39
A
<0.46
<0.29
<0.10
<0.33
<0.95
<1.08
7.32
145
<1.67
<1.10
<1.49
<1.61
<2.51
<3.69
<1.57
<3.72
153
56.8
5 Target remediation level for total carcinogenic PAH compounds is 88 mg/kg of soil.
6 Target remediation level for PCP is 37 mg/kg of soil.
Table 6.8. Evaluation conditions in the biological mineralization and humification study.
Treatment Variable
Contaminant concentration
Moisture
Temperature
Levels of Treatment
High and moderate
40% FC1 and 80% FC
10° C and 20° C
Endpoints
Mineralization
Volatilization
Solvent-Extractable
Humification
1 FC = Field Capacity
32
-------
connecting tubes
ethylene
glycol
mono
methyl
ether
soil
(20 grams)
Figure 6.7. Laboratory Microcosms.
The fertilizers used in the land treatment unit (LTU) at the Libby Site are monobasic ammonium
phosphate and ammonium sulfate. These salts were used as the nutrient sources in this study, and applied in
an aqueous solution to the soil. The soil was amended to have a final concentration of 0.0061 mg P/g and
0.0102 mg N/g.
Gas traps used with the microcosms were made of 12x75 mm culture tubes. The first trap contained
15 mL of ethylene glycol monomethyl ether (EGME). The carbon dioxide trap contained 15 mL of trapping
solution, prepared using 50 percent Ready Gel™ (Beckman), 40 percent methanol, and 10 percent
monoethanolamine.
Uniformly labeled 14C-PCP (9.10 x 105 DPM) or 14C-phenanthrene (9.30 \ 10s DPM) was spiked into
16 microcosms.
The microcosms were simultaneously purged and aerated once every four days by applying a vacuum
at the outlet of the CO2 trap, thus maintaining a net negative pressure within the microcosm system. The
purge rate was slow (<40 mL/min), and air bubbles were small to effect a greater trapping efficiency. Each
purge cycle was 15 minutes. A 1 mL sample was collected from each trap, i.e., the CO2trap and the volatile
trap. Each sample was counted in a liquid scintillation counter after mixing the solution with Ready Gel™.
The maximum counting time used was 10 minutes, and the maximum counting error allowed was 10 percent.
At the end of the biological mineralization and humification study, the samples were solvent-ex-
tracted according to the extraction procedures given in Appendix A-l, and the radioactivity in the sample
extracts was measured. To evaluate humification, the residues of the soil samples after extraction were
combusted using a Harvey Biological Oxidizer (Model OX-400, R.J. Harvey Instrument Corporation,
Hillsdale, NJ) to determine the amount of radioactivity associated with the soil-bound radiolabeled carbon
fraction. Some of the 14C received from combusting the soil represents 14C incorporation into microbial
biomass. However, recovery of 14C using the combustion of soil after the extraction process was assumed to
provide a relative measure of humification in the reactors.
Statistical analyses were conducted using the JMP® software package (SAS Institute, Inc.) on a
Macintosh computer.
33
-------
Table 6.9. Contaminant concentrations in the laboratory samples for the biological mineralization and humifica-
tion study.1
Samples Used to Evaluate Degradation of
----- Phprmnthrpnp
------ r iiciicUlUlltllC — ~
Date Sample Collected 5/6/91 5/6/91
Core Number 12 15
Depth A A
Naphthalene1 <0.48 8.2
Acenaphthylene <0.30 2.60
Acenaphthene <0.11 2.30
Fluorene <0.35 2.10
Phenanthrene <1.00 4.60
Anthracene <1.13 7.40
Fluoranthene <0.80 11.3
Pyrene 1.75 15.6
Benzo(a)anthracene <1.75 9.50
Chrysene 1.17 7.40
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 2.13 18.2
Benzo(k)fluoranthene <1.69 10.8
Benzo(a)pyrene <2.63 20.2
Benzo(ghi)perylene <3.86 18.3
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene <1.65 8.4
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene <3.88 19.4
Total Carcinogenic PAH
Compounds 5.05 139
PCP 11.6 17.1
1 All concentrations are given in mg/kg on dry-weight basis.
2 Target remediation level for naphthalene is 8 mg/kg of soil.
3 Target remediation level for phenanthrene is 8 mg/kg of soil.
* Target remediation level for pyrene is 7.3 mg/kg of soil.
5 Target remediation level for total carcinogenic PAH compounds is 88
6 Target remediation level for PCP is 37 mg/kg of soil.
PCP -
7/27/91
9
D
<0.44
<0.28
<0.10
<0.33
<0.95
2.2
8.60
54.5
7.0
<1.07
9.20
5.0
<2.44
<3.61
<1.53
<3.59
84.3
119
mg/kg of soil.
5/8/91
17
C
0.74
<0.31
0.14
<0.35
<1.00
<1.13
1.02
2.82
<1.75
1.87
2.42
3.38
3.58
<3.86
<1.65
3.53
18.62
87.3
34
-------
Chapter 7
Results and Discussion
7.0 Results and Discussion
7.1 Field scale results for soil physical and chemical analyses
Results of soil nutrient analyses of contaminated soils within the waste pit area are provided in Table
6.2. Contaminated soils within the waste pit area routinely received nutrient additions as a soil pretreatment
method for initiating microbial biodegradation before contaminated soils were applied to the LTU cells for
treatment. The nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are required for microbial growth and metabolism of target
organic chemicals. Based upon the analyses presented in Table 6.2, the ratio of C:N:P on a weight basis as
organic carbon of added waste:total Kjeldahl nitrogen:total phosphorus averaged 13:1.2:1, with little variation
from these values. Recommended ratios for microbial activity are 120:10:1 (Sims et al., 1989). The C:N:P
ratios for the contaminated soils compared with recommended levels indicate that there is an excess of
nitrogen and phosphorus, and therefore nutrients are not limiting the biodegradation process within the waste
pit pretreatment area. Recycling of phosphorus and nitrogen under aerobic conditions within the LTU cells
should maintain excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus during active soil bioremediation.
Characterization information for soil considered to be representative of the soil that was used to
construct the treatment beds of the LTU cells is presented in Table 6.3. The organic carbon content of this
uncontaminated soil was lower than the organic carbon content in contaminated soils (Tables 6.2 and 6.4), as
expected. Uncontaminated soil was at neutral pH with a CEC representative of a soil with a silt loam texture.
Moisture content was low because the soil samples were taken from the berms surrounding LTU 1.
Characterization information for contaminated soil that had been treated to target remediation levels
is provided in Table 6.4. The concentrations of phosphorus and potassium (on a soil dry-weight basis) in
treated soil remained similar to the concentrations in the waste pit pretreatment area. Decrease in the concen-
tration of N03-N in the treated soil may be due to leaching of N03- through the LTU cell and/or denitrification
within buried lifts as oxygen diffusion from the atmosphere becomes limiting and residual organic carbon (1.6
percent) depletes soil oxygen within the buried lift.
Results of soil chemical analyses include an evaluation of soil concentrations of specific target
chemicals as specified in the Record of Decision. Concentrations of the specific target chemicals as well as
other PAH compounds are presented in Appendix B (in Volume II). The detection limit was used to calculate
the average concentration where sample concentrations were reported below the detection limit.
7.1.1 Naphthalene and phenanthrene
7.1.1.1 Initial concentrations
Initial concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene in contaminated soil applied to the LTU cells
are shown in Figures 7.1 through 7.3 (refer to Volume II) and in tabular form in Tables 7.1 through 7.3
(depths C and D were initially equivalent to lifts 4 and 5 for LTU 1 (applied May 7,1991 and July 26,1991,
respectively), and depth A was initially equivalent to lift 1 for LTU 2 (applied July 25,1991) (Figure 6.6)).
Figures 7.1 through 7.3 indicate the position within each quadrant for each applied lift (initial depth) where
each sample was taken and the PAH concentration as greater than or less than the target remediation level.
Tables 7.1 through 7.3 provide more specific information concerning concentrations measured for each
sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data, including mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI)
values; statistics are also provided for PAH concentrations for each quadrant within an LTU cell. Values
given in Tables 7.1 through 7.3 indicate that initial mean concentrations for each LTU cell for naphthalene and
phenanthrene were less than 8 mg/kg, the target remediation level for both chemicals, and that all but three
35
-------
individual values for naphthalene and one individual value for phenanthrene were below the target
remediation levels.
7.1.1.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth
An evaluation of the horizontal and vertical distribution of naphthalene and phenanthrene for LTU
cells 1 and 2 was conducted to compare measured soil concentrations with target remediation levels and to
evaluate downward migration of PAH compounds with in the LTU cells. Comparisons of horizontal and
vertical concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene on September 1, 1992 with target remediation levels
are presented in graphical form for naphthalene and phenanthrene in Figures 7.4 through 7.8 (LTU 1) and in
Figures 7.9 and 7.10 (LTU 2). Results for discrete sampling indicate that naphthalene and phenanthrene were
at concentrations less than target remediation levels (8.0 mg/kg) for all samples of soil where a lift was
applied on or before 7/23/91 (Depths A, B, C, and D) in LTU 1. Depth E (the top layer for the September 1,
1992 sampling event), where naphthalene concentrations were greater than the target remediation goal for
some samples, was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling. Naphthalene
and phenanthrene concentrations were less than target remediation levels for all samples in LTU 2.
Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (LTU cell 1) and 7.7 (LTU 2) provide more specific information for the
September, 1992, sampling concerning concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene measured for each
sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data including mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI)
values; statistics are also provided for PAH concentrations for each quadrant within an LTU. Values given in
Tables 7.4 through 7.7 indicate that the mean concentrations for both LTU cells for naphthalene and phenan-
threne were all below target remediation levels. In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for LTU 1 for
depths A, B, C and D and for LTU 2 for depths A and B were all below target remediation levels. Depth E of
LTU 1 was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling, and therefore was not
evaluated.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentration distributions of naphthalene and phenanthrene
in September, 1991, with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.11 through
7.14 (LTU 1) and in Figure 7.15 (LTU 2). Results for discrete sampling indicate that naphthalene and phenan-
threne were at concentrations less than target remediation level (8.0 mg/kg) in both LTU cells, with the
exception of one sample where phenanthrene exceeded 8.0 mg/kg, indicated by "g" at depth B, LTU 1 (Figure
7.12).
Tables 7.8 and 7.9 (LTU 1) and 7.10 (LTU 2) provide more specific information for the September,
1991, sampling concerning concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene measured for each sample, as
well as statistical analyses of the data. Values given for depths A, B, and C in Tables 7.8 and 7.9 indicate that
the mean concentrations for naphthalene and phenanthrene in LTU 1 were all below target remediation levels.
In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for LTU 1 for depths A, B, and C for target PAH compounds
were below target remediation levels. Depth D of LTU 1 and Depth A of LTU 2 were undergoing active
management for treatment at the time of the sampling; however, mean and 95 percent confidence limit values
for these depths also were below target remediation levels.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentration distributions of naphthalene and phenanthrene
for samples obtained in June, 1991, with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form in Figures
7.16 through 7.18 for LTU 1 (LTU 2 was inactive at this sampling time). Results for discrete sampling
indicate that naphthalene and phenanthrene were at concentrations less than the target remediation level for
over 85 percent of the samples analyzed. Depth C was undergoing active management at the time of sam-
pling and therefore was not evaluated with regard to target remediation levels.
Tables 7.11 and 7.12 provide more specific information for the June, 1991, sampling concerning
concentrations of PAH compounds measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data.
Values given for depths A through C in Tables 7.11 and 7.12 indicate that the mean concentrations for naph-
36
-------
thalene and phenanthrene in LTU 1 were all below target remediation levels. Some 95 percent confidence
intervals have values above the target remediation level.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene for samples
obtained in May, 1991, with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.19 (depth
A) and 7.20 (depth B) for LTU 1 (depth C was used to indicate initial concentrations; results are presented in
Figure 7.1; LTU 2 was inactive at this sampling time). Results for discrete sampling indicate that naphthalene
and phenanthrene were at concentrations less than target remediation levels for each PAH, with the exception
of one sample where naphthalene exceeded 8.0 mg/kg, indicated by "G" at depth A.
Table 7.13 provides more specific information for the May, 1991, sampling concerning concentrations
of PAH compounds measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data. Values given for
depths A and B in Table 7.13 indicate that the mean concentrations for naphthalene and phenanthrene in LTU
1 were all below target remediation levels. In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for LTU 1 for
depths A and B for target PAH compounds were below target remediation levels. Depth C sampling for May,
1991, was used to indicate initial concentrations; results are included in Table 7.1.
7.1.1.3 Degradation rates
The target chemicals naphthalene and phenanthrene were evaluated with regard to determining field
rates of apparent degradation. Determination of rate of treatment through time was based upon samples
analyzed from depths that could be correlated with placement of lifts within the LTU cells. The correlation of
other depths with specific lifts was not possible due to mixing of subsequent lifts and compaction of applied
soil lifts within each LTU.
A summary of mean values for each LTU for concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene that
were used for describing field apparent degradation kinetics within the LTU cells is provided in Table 7.14.
Many of the concentration values for naphthalene and phenanthrene for discrete soil samples at each sampling
time were at less than detection levels. Therefore, concentration values and differences in concentrations are
based upon values near and below the detection limits of the instrumentation used and below the target
Table 7.14. Field-scale degradation rates for naphthalene and phenanthrene using mean values.
LTU,
Lift
Dates
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Concentration k1 Half-life1
(mg/kg) (Day1) (Days)
Concentration k1 Half-life1
(mg/kg) (Day-1) (Days)
LTU 1 5/8/91
Lift 4 6/27/9
4.5
4.3
2.5
3.2
LTU1
LiftS
7/27/91
9/18-19/91
1.1
1.0
<0.95
0.70
LTU1
Liftl
5/6-7/91
9/18-19/91
9/1/92
3.2
0.40
1.0
0.01537 44
2.4
0.60
0.5
0.0105 66
LTU 2
Liftl
7/27/91
9/18-9/91
9/1/92
1.4
3.4
2.4
4.5
1.4
1.3
0.0224 31
1 Degradation rate (k) and half-life values were calculated based upon a first-order kinetic model, using data from the
first two dates; a third date indicates the asymptotic nature of apparent degradation, and the concentration values were
not used in calculating rates and half-life values.
37
-------
remediation level. As a result, calculation of kinetic values becomes difficult because they are based on
differences between very small numbers (near and below the detection limit) over relatively large time
intervals. Because of these limitations, no confidence intervals can be generated, and the results represent
worst case (longest half-life) values since concentrations less than detection were truncated to "zero" values.
Therefore the average concentration values and calculated kinetic values are the lowest possible values, based
on the data obtained.
7.1.1.4 Naphthalene and phenanthrene treatment within the LTV cells
Concentrations for naphthalene and phenanthrene were consistently below the target remediation
level of 8.0 mg/kg in contaminated soil applied to the LTU cells for treatment, with the exception of lift 4
applied on May 7,1991, where discrete sampling indicated naphthalene concentrations as high as 10 mg/kg.
Values for both PAH compounds were generally similar and were consistently within the range of 1 to 4 mg/
kg in treated soil, with concentrations stabilizing at approximately 1 mg/kg. Due to the consistently low
concentrations of naphthalene and phenanthrene in the contaminated soil, accurate calculation of apparent
degradation kinetics was not possible.
7.1.2 Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH)
7.1.2.1 Initial concentrations
Initial concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH in contaminated soil applied to the LTU cells are shown
in graphical form in Figures 7.21 through 7.23 and in tabular form in Tables 7.15 through 7.17 (depths C and
D were initially equivalent to lifts 4 and 5 for LTU 1 (applied May 7,1991 and July 26,1991, respectively),
and depth A was initially equivalent to lift 1 for LTU 2 (applied July 25,1991) (Figure 6.6)). Figures 7.21
through 7.23 indicate the position within each quadrant for each applied lift (initial depth) where each sample
was taken and the PAH concentration as greater than or less than the target remediation level. Tables 7.15
through 7.17 provide more specific information concerning concentrations measured for each sample, as well
as statistical analyses of the data including mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) values; statistics are
also provided for PAH concentrations for each quadrant within an LTU. Values given in Tables 7.15 through
7.17 indicate that initial mean concentrations for each LTU for pyrene ranged from 76 to 135 mg/kg, and
initial mean concentrations for TCPAH ranged from approximately 200 to 254 mg/kg.
7.1.2.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth
An evaluation of the horizontal and vertical distribution of pyrene and TCPAH for LTU cells 1 and 2
was conducted for comparison of measured soil concentrations with target remediation levels and for evalua-
tion of downward PAH migration. Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations on September 1,
1992 with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form for pyrene and TCPAHs in Figures 7.24
through 7.28 (LTU 1) and in Figures 7.29 and 7.30 (LTU 2). Tables 7.18 through 7.20 (LTU 1) and 7.21 (LTU
2) provide more specific information concerning concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH measured for each
sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data.
Pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (7.3 mg/kg) for over 80
percent (69 out of 75) of the samples. Depth E (the top layer for the September, 1992 sampling event) was
undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling, and therefore was not evaluated with
regard to target remediation levels for this sampling event. For the approximately 20 percent (6 out of 75) of
samples that exceeded the target remediation level, the majority of samples (5 out of 6) were located in
quadrants 2 and 3, located on the south side of the LTU. Pyrene concentrations in LTU 2 were below the
target remediation level for 85 percent (11 out of 13) of the samples for depth A (lift 1). Depth B (the top
layer) was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of sampling, and therefore was not
38
-------
evaluated with regard to target remediation levels for this sampling event. For the 15% of samples that
exceeded the target remediation level (2 out of 13), both samples were located in quadrant 3, located on the
south side of the LTU.
TCPAH concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (88 mg/kg) for over 90
percent (69 out of 75) of the samples for the September, 1992, sampling. Depth E was undergoing active
management for treatment at the time of the sampling, and therefore was not evaluated with regard to target
remediation levels for this sampling event. For the approximately 20 percent (6 out of 75) of samples that
exceeded the target remediation level, all of the samples (6 out of 6) were located in quadrants 2 and 3,
located on the south side of the LTU. TCPAH concentrations in LTU 2 were below the target remediation
level for over 90 percent (12 out of 13) of the samples. Depth B (the top layer) was undergoing active man-
agement for treatment at the time of sampling, and therefore was not evaluated with regard to target
remediation levels for this sampling event. The one sample that exceeded the target remediation level
samples was located in quadrant 3, located on the south side of the LTU.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH in September, 1991,
with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.31 through 7.34 (LTU 1) and in
Figure 7.35 (LTU 2). Tables 7.22 and 7.23 (LTU 1) and Table 7.24 (LTU 2) provide more specific informa-
tion concerning concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH measured for each sample, as well as statistical analy-
ses of the data.
Pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (7.3 mg/kg) for 89 percent of
samples that included depths A, B, and C. Depth D (the top layer for the September, 1991, sampling event),
was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling, and therefore was not evaluated
with regard to target remediation levels for ihis sampling event. Depth A in LTU 2 was undergoing active
management for treatment at the time of sampling and therefore were not evaluated with regard to target
remediation levels for this sampling event.
TCPAH concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (88 mg/kg) for over 90
percent of samples that included depths A, B, and C. Depth D in LTU 1 and depth A in LTU 2 were undergo-
ing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling, and therefore were not evaluated with regard
to target remediation levels for this sampling event.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentration distributions of pyrene and TCPAH with target
remediation levels for samples obtained in June, 1991, are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.36 through
7.38 for LTU 1 (LTU 2 was inactive at this sampling time). Tables 7.25 and 7.26 (LTU 1) provide more
specific information concerning concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH measured for each sample, as well as
statistical analyses of the data.
Pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 in June, 1991 were below the target remediation level (7.3 mg/kg) for
75 percent of the samples. TCPAH concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (88 mg/
kg) for 80 percent of the samples that included depths A and B. Depth C was undergoing active management
at the time of sampling and therefore was not evaluated with regard to target remediation levels.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH for samples obtained in
May, 1991, with target remediation levels are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.39 and 7.40 for LTU 1
(LTU 2 was inactive at this sampling time). Table 7.27 (LTU 1) provides more specific information concern-
ing concentrations of pyrene and TCPAH measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data.
Pyrene concentrations in May, 1991, in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (7.3 mg/kg)
for 75 percent of samples. TCPAH concentrations in LTU 1 were below the target remediation level (88 mg/
kg) for 80 percent of samples that included depths A and B.
39
-------
7.1.2.3 Rate of treatment through time
The target contaminants, pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH), were evaluated with regard to
determining field rates of apparent degradation. Determination of rate of treatment through time was based
upon samples analyzed from depths that could be correlated with placement of lifts within the LTU cells. Lift
4 (depth C) of LTU 1 was sampled in May and June, 1991, before another lift was added. Lift 5 (depth D) of
LTU 1 was sampled in July and September, 1991, before another lift was added. Lift 1 of LTU 1 was sampled
four times between May, 1991, and September, 1992, (a 16 month period) and represents a buried lift
throughout the sampling evaluation. Results of the kinetic analysis for pyrene and TCPAHs are presented in
Table 7.28.
Half-life values for pyrene ranged from 27 days to 61 days for lifts 4 and 5, respectively, to 533 days
for lift 1. Half-life values for TCPAH ranged from 56 days to 33 days for lifts 4 and 5, respectively, to greater
than 1,700 days for lift 1. The major difference between lifts 4 and 5 versus lift 1 is that lifts 4 and 5 were
evaluated while each was the top lift, while lift 1 was evaluated while it was buried.
7.7.2.4 Pyrene and TCPAH treatment within the LTU cells
Results of discrete sampling demonstrated that pyrene and TCPAH were treated to target remediation
levels within the LTU cells in over 90 percent of samples analyzed. Mean values for each LTU cell for each
sampling time indicated that pyrene and TCPAH were below target remediation levels. No downward migra-
tion of pyrene or TCPAH through the LTU cells is apparent based upon the results obtained.
Kinetic results indicate faster treatment occurs while a lift is the top lift, and sustained, but slower
treatment when the lift becomes buried. Continued treatment of pyrene and TCPAH may be limited by
oxygen diffusion into buried lifts. Because concentrations of both pyrene and TCPAH appeared to continue to
decrease with time after placement of lift A in LTU 1, it may be possible to place a new lift on top of a lift
after some significant treatment has been accomplished, but before the lower lift reaches target remediation
Table 7.28. Field-scale degradation rates and half-lives for pyrene and TCPAH in LTU soil.
LTU, Dates Pyrene
Lift
k1 95%CFonk(day1) k1
fdav1} (dav1)
Lower
Half-life
(days)
LTU1 5/8/91 0.0256 0.0504
Lift 4 6/27/91 27 14
LTU 1 7/27/91 0.0113 0.0202
LiftS 9/18/91 61 34
LTU1 5/8/91 0.0013 0.0053
Lift 13 6/29/91 533 131
9/18/91
9/1/92
Upper
Half-life
(days)
0.0007 0.0124
990 56
0.0024 0.0212
288 33
0.0001 0.0004
6,930 1,732
TCPAH
95%CPonk(day1)
Lower
0.0325
21
0.0283
24
0.0006
1,155
Upper
0.0077
90
0.0042
165
0.0002
3,465
1 Degradation rate (k) and half-life values were calculated based upon a first-order kinetic model
1 95 percent confidence intervals on the first order kinetic rate constant
3 Buried lift
40
-------
levels for individual chemicals. Enhancement of treatment in buried lifts may be accomplished by adding
oxygen through bioventing systems. This method of management has not been practiced at the Libby, Mon-
tana Superfund site; however, further investigation of this approach with regard to technical issues and
optimization of time of placement of subsequent lifts should be evaluated in an effort to decrease the total
time required for active soil placement and management at Superfund sites utilizing land treatment in pre-
pared bed reactors.
7.1.3 Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
7.1.3.1 Initial concentrations
Initial concentrations of PCP in contaminated soil applied to the LTU cells are shown in graphical
form in Figures 7.41 through 7.43 and in tabular form in Tables 7.29 through 7.31 (depths C and D were
initially equivalent to lifts 4 and 5 for LTU 1, and depth A was initially equivalent to lift 1 for LTU 2 (Figure
6.6)). Values given in Tables 7.29 through 7.31 indicate that initial mean concentrations for PCP in lifts
applied to the LTU cells were between 100 mg/kg and 132 mg/kg.
7.1.3.2 Concentrations as a function of time and depth
An evaluation of the horizontal and vertical distribution of pentachlorophenol (PCP) for LTUs 1 and 2
was conducted for comparison of measured soil concentrations with the target remediation level of 37 mg/kg,
and for evaluation of downward migration of PCP through the LTU cells. Comparisons of horizontal and
vertical concentrations of PCP on September 1,1992 with the target remediation level are presented in
graphical form in Figures 7.44 through 7.48 (LTU 1) and in Figures 7.49 and 7.50 (LTU 2). Results for
discrete sampling indicate that PCP was at concentrations less than target remediation level (37 mg/kg) for 97
percent of samples in LTU 1. Depth E of LTU 1 (the top layer for the September 1,1992 sampling event) was
undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the sampling. PCP concentrations were less than
target remediation levels for 95 percent of samples in LTU 2.
Tables 7.32 through 7.38 provide more specific information for the September, 1992, sampling
concerning concentrations of PCP measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data includ-
ing mean and 95 percent confidence interval (CI) values; statistics are also provided for PCP concentrations
for each quadrant within an LTU. Values given in Tables 7.32 through 7.36 for LTU 1 indicate that the mean
concentrations for PCP were all below the target remediation level for all depths sampled (A, B, C, D, and E).
In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for PCP for LTU 1 were all below target remediation levels.
Values given in Tables 7.37 and 7.38 for LTU 2 indicate that the mean concentration for PCP were all below
the target remediation level for both depths sampled (A and B). In addition, the 95 percent confidence
intervals for PCP for LTU 2 were all below target remediation levels. Depth E of LTU 1 was undergoing
active management for treatment at the time of the sampling.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of PCP on September 18 and 19,1991 with the
target remediation level are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.51 through 7.54 for LTU 1 and in Figure
7.55 for LTU 2. Results for discrete sampling indicate that PCP was at concentrations less than target
remediation level (37 mg/kg) for 95 percent of samples in LTU 1. Depth D of LTU 1 (the top layer for the
September 18 and 19,1991 sampling event) was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of
the sampling, and therefore was not included in the comparison. Depth A in LTU 2 was undergoing active
management for treatment at the time of the sampling and therefore was not included in the comparison.
Tables 7.39 through 7.43 provide more specific information for the September 18 and 19, 1991
sampling concerning concentrations of PCP measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the
data. Values given in Tables 7.39 through 7.41 for depths A, B, and C for LTU 1 indicate that the mean
concentrations for PCP were all below the target remediation level. In addition, the 95 percent confidence
intervals for PCP for LTU 1 depths A, B, and C were all below target remediation level. Depth D in LTU 1
41
-------
(the top layer for the September 18 and 19,1991 sampling event) was undergoing active management for
treatment and therefore was not included in the comparison with the target remediation limit. Depth A of
LTU 2 (Table 7.43) was undergoing active management for treatment at the time of the September 18 and 19,
1991 sampling, and therefore was not included in the comparison with the target remediation limit
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of PCP for samples obtained on June 27,1991
with the target remediation level are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.56 through 7.58 for LTU 1.
Results for discrete sampling of LTU 1 indicate that PCP was at concentrations less than target remediation
level (37 mg/kg) for all samples.
Tables 7.44 through 7.46 provide more specific information for the June, 1991, sampling concerning
concentrations of PCP measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data. Values given in
Tables 7.44 through 7.46 for depths A, B, and C indicate that the mean concentrations of PCP for all three
depths were below the target remediation level. In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for depths A,
B, and C were below target remediation level.
Comparisons of horizontal and vertical concentrations of PCP for samples obtained on May 6,1991
with the target remediation level are presented in graphical form in Figures 7.59 and 7.60 for LTU 1 (LTU 2
was inactive at this sampling time). Results for discrete sampling indicate that PCP was at concentrations less
than target remediation level (37 mg/kg) for 85 percent of samples (Depths A and B).
Tables 7.47 and 7.48 provide more specific information for the May 6,1991 sampling concerning
concentrations of PCP measured for each sample, as well as statistical analyses of the data. Values given in
Tables 7.47 and 7.48 for depths A and B indicate that the mean concentrations of PCP for both depths were
below the target remediation level. In addition, the 95 percent confidence intervals for depths A and B were
below the target remediation level. Depth C (lift 4) was applied on the day following sampling.
Table 7.49. Field-scale degradation rates and half-lives for PCP in LTU soil.
LTU,
Lift
LTU1
Lift 4
LTU1
LiftS
LTU1
Lift 13
Dates
5/8/91
6/27/91
7/27/91
9/18/91
5/8/91
6/29/91
9/18/91
9/1/92
k1
(day-1)
Half-life
(days)
0.0421
16
0.0215
32
0.0014
495
PCP
95%CPonk(day1)
Upper
0.0535
13
0.0281
25
0.0025
277
1 Degradation rate (k) and half-life values were calculated based upon a
2 95 percent confidence intervals on the first order kinetic rate constant
3 Buried lift
Lower
0.0307
23
0.0149
47
0.0002
3,465
first-order kinetic model
42
-------
7.7.3.3 Rate of treatment through time
PCP was evaluated with regard to determining field rates of apparent degradation. Determination of
rate of treatment through time was based upon samples analyzed from depths that could be correlated with
placement of lifts within the LTU cells. Lift 4 (depth C) of LTU 1 was sampled in May and June, 1991,
before another lift was added. Lift 5 (depth D) of LTU 1 was sampled in July and September, 1991, before
another lift was added. Lift 1 of LTU 1 was sampled four times between May, 1991, and September, 1992, (a
16 month period) and represents a buried lift throughout the sampling evaluatioa Results of the kinetic
analysis for PCP are presented in Table 7.49.
Half-life values ranged from 16 days to 32 days for lifts 4 and 5, respectively, to 495 days for lift 1.
The major difference between lifts 4 and 5 versus lift 1 is that lifts 4 and 5 were evaluated while each was the
top lift, while during all of the sampling events, lift 1 was a buried lift.
7.1.3.4 PCP treatment within the LTU cells
Results of discrete sampling demonstrated that pyrene was treated to target remediation levels within
the LTU cells. Mean values for each LTU cell for each sampling time indicated that PCP was below target
remediation levels. No downward migration of PCP through the LTU cells was apparent based upon the
results obtained.
Kinetic results indicate faster treatment while a lift is the top lift, and sustained, but slower treatment
for the buried lift. Continued treatment of PCP may be limited by oxygen diffusion into buried lifts. Because
the concentration of PCP continued to decrease with time after placement of lift A in LTU 1, it may be
possible to place a new lift on top of a lift after some significant treatment has been accomplished, but before
the lower lift reaches target remediation levels for individual chemicals. Enhancement of treatment in buried
lifts may be accomplished by adding oxygen through bioventing systems. This method has not been used at
the Libby, Montana, Superfund site; however, further investigation of this approach with regard to technical
issues and optimization of time of placement of subsequent lifts should be evaluated in an effort to decrease
the total time required for active soil placement and management at Superfund sites utilizing land treatment in
prepared bed reactors.
7.1.4 Soil gas analyses for oxygen and carbon dioxide
Soil gas in LTU 1 at 1 foot and 2 feet depths were analyzed for 02 and C02 concentrations on Sep-
tember 18 and 19,1991. Results of the analyses are shown in Figure 7.61 and 7.62. 02 concentrations were
observed to decrease and CO2 concentrations were observed to increase as depth of sampling increased from 1
to 2 ft. Oxygen at 1 ft depth averaged 19.7 percent (± 1.6 percent) and at 2 ft depth averaged 17.3 percent (±
4.3 percent). Carbon dioxide averaged 0.9 percent (±1.0 percent) and 2.1 percent (±1.9 percent) at the 1 ft
and 2 ft depths, respectively. Regression analysis showed that O2 and CO2 concentrations were highly in-
versely correlated (r2 = 0.91) in the O2 range of 14 to 21 percent and CO2 in the range of 0 to 5 percent.
Also, at the 2 ft depth, O2 concentrations were significantly less and CO2 concentrations were signifi-
cantly greater in quadrants 1 and 4 compared with quadrants 2 and 3. Oxygen concentrations were recorded
as low as 7 percent and 9 percent in quadrant 4. In quadrants 1 and 4 during the September, 1991 sampling
event, phenanthrene (Figure 7.12 (depth B)), TCPAH and pyrene (Figures 7.31 (depth A), 7.32 (depth B), 7.33
(depth C), and 7.44 (depth D)), and PCP (Figures 7.53 (depth C) and 7.54 (depth D)) were observed to be
above the target remediation levels. Park and Sims (1994) observed that the rate of apparent degradation of
PAH compounds in soil was a function of O2 concentration, and at O2 concentrations less than 7 percent in
uncontaminated soil spiked with PAH compounds, the degradation rate was significantly decreased.
43
-------
Table 7.50. Soil Microtox™ toxicity (EC50) Values, Discret Soil Samples Collected 7/27/91, and 9/18/91, LTU 2,
Lift 1, Day 1 and 53.
7/27/91 - Day 1
Grid No.
34
34
43
43
45
45
54
54
57
57
Mean
9/18/91 - Day 53
Grid No.
34
34
43
45
52
52
54
54
58
58
*95%CIforEC50
EC50 value
3.73
3.03
5.09
7.21
8.44
7.10
7.84
8.89
6.74
7.88
6.60
EC50 value
NDR**
NDR
NDR
NDR
47.5
NDR
NDR
NDR
8.86
9.01
Low*
2.54
1.89
3.51
4.42
6.15
6.62
5.70
8.08
3.87
4.82
Low*
24.1
6.68
7.85
High*
5.50
4.86
7.37
11.75
11.59
7.63
10.77
9.77
11.74
12.89
High*
93.7
11.76
10.33
Coir. Coef .
0.9950
0.9939
0.9937
0.9840
0.9920
0.9997
0.9926
0.9992
0.9810
0.9822
Corr. Coef.
0.9724
0.9933
0.9984
** NDR = No Dose Response
7.1.5 Detoxification of soil in the LTU cells
An evaluation of the toxicity of the water soluble extract of soil samples taken from LTU 2 was
measured with the Microtox™ assay. The Microtox™ assay was used to determine whether a reduction in
target chemicals would correspond with a reduction in the toxicity status of the treated soil. Microtox™
analyses were performed on discrete soil samples collected from LTU 2, lift 1, on 7/27/91 (day one), two days
after lift 1 was applied. The ten samples represented replicates from five locations on the sample grid. An
additional ten discrete soil samples were collected from LTU2, lift 1, on 9/18/91 (day 53), and eight of these
samples represented replicates from four grid locations. Microtox™ results from day one and day 53 are
presented in Table 7.50. These data indicate that toxicity, as measured by Microtox™, decreased significantly
from day one (mean EC50 6.6) to day 53 where seven of the ten soil samples had no dose response (NDR), as
did background samples. The three values where an EC50 value was measured, reflect the variability of
contaminant concentrations in LTU 2 that was observed earlier. For example, while the overall mean PCP
concentration decreased (Table 7.31) from day one (101.4 mg/kg, n=20, 95-percent CI 66.1-136.7) to day 53
44
-------
(Table 7.43) (42.7 mg/kg, n=19, 95-percent CI 9.9-75.5) (excluding one abnormally high value in quadrant 2,
core No. 42), there were random high concentrations which may have resulted in measurable EC50 values.
The reduction in Microtox™ EC50 from 7/27/91 to 9/18/91 corresponded with reductions in pyrene,
TCPAHs, and PCP concentrations on day 1 (Tables 7.17, 7.31, respectively) to day 53 (Tables 7.24, 7.43,
respectively). A similar correspondence between toxicity reduction, as measured by Microtox™, and PCP soil
concentration (Loehr, 1989; Dasappa and Loehr, 1991) and PAH soil concentration (Symons and Sims, 1988;
Abbott and Sims, 1989; Wang et.al., 1990) has been observed in laboratory microcosms.
The potential for vertical migration of the contaminants being treated or their transformation products
is an important concern for LTU performance. The Microtox™ assay represents an indirect measurement of
this process, because PCP and its decompostion products, i.e., tetra-, tri-, di-, and chlorophienols (McGinnis
et. al., 1991), are very toxic to P phosphorewn. The Microtox™ assay is generally more sensitive to the
toxicants involved (PCP, PAHs) than are other indicators of soil microbial acativity (Sims et. al., 1986a; Sims
et. al., 1986b; Symons and Sims, 1988; and Aprill et. al., 1990). In this study, samples from buried lifts were
assayed by Microtox™ to determine whether vertical migration of contaminants occurred from upper lifts.
The position within each quadrant for each depth where each sample was taken is identified, and the
Microtox™ toxicity indicated as non-toxic (NT, indicating that the EC50 value was greater than 100 or that
there was no dose response(NDR) for the sample) or toxic (the value of the EC50 is given).
Depths A, B, and C were assayed on Sept. 1, 1992 (Figure 7.63 - 7.65) and on Sept. 18-19, 1991
(Figures 7.66 - 7.68) and depths A and B were assayed on May 6, 1991 (Figures 7.69 - 7.70). Pyrene, TCPAH,
and PCP concentrations (Tables 7.16, 7.30) in lift D (LTU 1), when it was applied onto lift C were greater
than values in LTU 2, lift A on day 1 (Tables 7.17, 7.31), which yielded a mean EC50 of 6.6. It was assumed
that the EC50 of soil extracts form LTU 1, lift D would have also been high. Indicator compound concentra-
tions in lift D on two later dates (9/18/91, 9/1/92), when lift C soils were sampled for the Microtox™ assay,
indicated a significant loss of these compoundsand the Microtox™ EC50 values for the 14 discrete soil
samples collected from all the sampling depths were non toxic. These data indicate that loading contaminated
lifts onto lifts that had previously reached the clean up goals had no measurable effect on the Microtox™
response in lower lifts in LTU 1. Therefore, the vertical migration of soluble contaminants from such lifts had
little effect on the microbial activity in the underlying treated soil.
In Summary, detoxification, as measured by the Microtox™ assay, occurred in the soil; and toxicity
reduction corresponded with PCP, pyrene, and TCPAH disappearance. No increase in toxicity in the lower
treated soil layer (lifts) of the LTUs was observed with time, while the upper, more recently applied lifts were
highly contaminated and toxic. This indicated that vertical migration of soluble contaminants had little effect
on microbial activity in lower lifts of treated soil.
An evaluation of the decrease in mutagenic potential of soil extracts from soil samples in LTU 1 was
undertaken by Dr. K. C. Donnelly of Texas A&M University (Donnelly et al., 1992). Initial mutagenic
potential of soil applied to LTU 1 was estimated to be approximately 330 revertants per gram of soil
(weighted activity). Results of mutagenicity testing for lift 1 (Depth A) sampled September, 1989 (3 months
after application of lift 1) indicated detoxification to soil background levels (less than 150 revertants per gram
of soil). Soil samples taken from lift 1, 5 months after application of lift 2 (November, 1989) showed only
three of nine samples with mutagenic activities near or greater than 150 revertants per gram of soil. Results
obtained by Donnelly et al. (1992) indicated that biological treatment of contaminated soil in LTU 1 reduced
the mutagenic potential of the solvent extracts of soil (measured as weighted activity or revertants per gram of
soil) to background levels after approximately three months of treatment.
12 Laboratory-scale evaluation of LTU soil for biodegradation of phenanthrene and PCP
Two independent laboratory evaluations of soil microbial metabolic potential were conducted using
randomly selected LTU soil samples (Tables 6.7 and 6.9) to add additional information concerning biodegra-
dation versus other behavior mechanisms (e.g., volatilization) for phenanthrene and PCP that could account
45
-------
10
•8
I
I
Bar is Least Significant Difference
10
20
30
40
Day
Figure 7.71 Mineralization ofPCP with time at 10° C in Libby LTU soil ing th biological mineralization study.
for the apparent degradation observed at field scale. The first laboratory evaluation was designed to deter-
mine rates of biological mineralization and volatilization as affected by soil moisture. The second laboratory
evaluation was designed to evaluate humification of the chemicals, as determined by the measurement of the
non-solvent-extractable radiolabeled carbon. In the second evaluation, the effects of soil moisture and tem-
perature were also evaluated.
7.2.1 Results of laboratory evaluation test for biological mineralization
With regard to the first laboratory evaluation of spiked PCP mineralization, there were no significant
effects of soil sample or moisture content (40 percent or 80 percent of field capacity) at 10° C. Statistically
significant effects of treatments were evaluated at the 95 percent confidence level. Total volatilization of PCP
was less than 1 percent and essentially ceased after the first few days of incubation. Overall, there was 7
percent PCP mineralization over the 30 days of incubation at 10° C (Figure 7.71). The rate of mineralization
decreased substantially after 8 days. Based upon mineralization observed in the laboratory evaluation, a
laboratory biological mineralization first order rate constant of 0.0024 per day was calculated. Field-scale
rates for PCP apparent disappearance were calculated as 0.0421 per day and 0.0215 per day for lifts exposed
to the atmosphere and 0.0014 for buried lift 1. The rate based upon laboratory mineralization determination is
lower than the rates based upon field scale observation for lifts exposed to the atmosphere. Mineralization is
generally not expected to be equivalent to chemical disappearance, as some fraction of carbon is used for
microbial cell carbon and for the formation of biochemical intermediates. Also, some carbon may be incorpo-
rated into soil organic matter by humification.
Mineralization of spiked phenanthrene was significantly affected by the interaction of incubation time
and soil sample. Mineralization accounted for 12 percent of the disappearance of phenanthrene from the soil
sample collected from Depth A, 5/6/91, and 5 percent of the disappearance of phenanthrene from the soil
sample collected from Depth B, 5/6/91, over the 30 days of incubation at 10° C. The differences in the
46
-------
Bar is Least Significant Difference
Day
Figure 7.72 The effect of soil sample on the mineralization of phenathrene with time at 10°C in Libby LTU soil in the
biological mineralization study.
kinetics of degradation and the total amount of 14CO2 evolved over the period of the experiment are shown in
Figure 7.72. There was little change in the 14CO2 evolved between days 9 and 13 from either sample. How-
ever, mineralization was more rapid in the sample taken from Depth A both before and after this period. The
more rapid mineralization of phenanthrene in the soil sample from Depth A correlates with lower concentra-
tions of all of the PAHs measured in this sample compared with the soil sample from Depth B (Table 6.7).
While only approximately 60 days were required to treat lift 1 (Depth A) to target remediation levels, over
one year was required for treatment of lift 2 (Depth B). Therefore, soil present in lift 1 (Depth A) appears to
be more microbially active than soil present in lift 2 (Depth B). This could have been due to more aggressive
pretreatment of lift 1 soil in the waste pit area through addition of nutrients compared with lift 2 (Depth B).
Also, because the first three lifts were applied to the LTU before this study commenced, initial concentrations
were not measured in this study, and therefore, the effects of differences in initial concentrations of chemicals
in the soil on remediation could not be evaluated. Total volatilization of spiked phenanthrene was less than 1
percent and essentially ceased after the first few days of incubation, similar to results obtained for PCP.
The interaction of soil sample and moisture also had a significant effect on phenanthrene mineraliza-
tion at 10° C. The Depth A sample and low moisture content (40 percent of field capacity) combination
resulted in the highest amount of mineralization. This result was not significantly different from the combina-
tion of Depth A sample and the high moisture content (80 percent of field capacity) treatment. The combina-
tion of Depth B sample and high moisture content resulted in the lowest minerah'zation (one percent), and was
statistically significantly lower than the lower moisture content (Figure 7.73). Mineralization in the Depth B
soil sample was significantly lower than in the Depth A soil at both low and high moisture contents.
47
-------
10
8-
6-
4-
2.
Bar is 1/2 Least Significant Difference
DepthB, 5/6/91, 40%
Depth B, 5/6/91,80%
Depth A, 5/6/91,40%
Depth A, 5/6/91,80%
Figure 7.73 The effect of soil sample and moisture content (as percent of field capacity) on mineralization of
phenanthrene at 10°C in Libby LTU soil in the biological mineralization study.
Results of the first laboratory evaluation of soil microbial metabolic potential demonstrate that POP
and phenanthrene can be partially metabolized to carbon dioxide in the contaminated soil matrix present at the
site. Both PCP and phenanthrene can be mineralized with the indigenous soil microorganisms at temperatures
and moisture contents representative of site conditions. In addition, significant volatilization of PCP or
phenanthrene at the full-scale field site is unlikely based upon the laboratory evaluation of chemical volatil-
ization. The information obtained in the laboratory evaluation of LTU soil corroborates the interpretation of
apparent decrease in target chemical concentration as due to biological processes rather than physical/chemi-
cal processes.
7.2.2 Results of laboratory evaluation test for biological mineralization and humification
The second laboratory evaluation of phenanthrene and PCP was conducted in two soil samples (for
phenanthrene, two samples collected 5/6/91 from Depth A; for PCP, samples collected one day after applica-
tion to LTU 1 from Depth C (5/8/91) and Depth D (collected 7/21/91)) at two soil moisture contents (80
percent and 40 percent field capacity) and two temperatures (10°C and 20°C).
7.2.2.7 Mass balance
The mass balance of radioactive carbon added to the microcosms in the laboratory determination of
biodegradation potential averaged 83 percent for all microcosms for phenanthrene and 67 percent for all
microcosms for PCP (Tables 7.51 and 7.52). The mass balance error may be due to such random sources as
undetected gas leaks, undetected spills of soil materials, and/or random error in dispensing the radiolabeled
chemicals into the microcosms. Since these errors were as likely to occur in one microcosm as another and
would, therefore, not be likely to affect the data from one experimental treatment more than another, it was
assumed that the error did not bias the statistical treatment of the data or the interpretation of the results.
48
-------
At IOC •
At20C
Bar is least significant difference
Day
Figure 7.74 The interaction of temperature and incubation time on the mineralization of phenanthrene in Libby LTU
soil in the biological mineralization and humification study.
72 2.2 Volatilization and mineralization.
The values for average cumulative radioactive volatile 14C- and 14CO2- carbon trapped during the
second laboratory evaluation are listed in Tables 7.51 and 7.52 for phenanthrene and POP, respectively.
Similar to results obtained for the first laboratory evaluation, the total volatilization of both phenanthrene and
PCP over the 45 day evaluation was less than 1 percent. Therefore, volatilization was not considered to be an
important route of compound removal from soil based upon the two laboratory evaluations.
No significant differences in mineralization of PCP among the treatments (soil sample, moisture, and
temperature) and their two- and three-way interactions were found. Over the incubation period, the average
cumulative 14CO2 for all of the treatments increased from 0.06 percent at day 4 to 3.0 percent at day 45, but
the differences among the means determined for each analysis day over this period were not significant.
Assuming first order kinetics for PCP mineralization, the first order rate coefficient was calculated as 0.001
per day from the regression of the natural logarithm of the average radiolabeled carbon remaining over time,
resulting in a half life of approximately 2 years.
Phenanthrene mineralization in the second test of the laboratory evaluation was not significantly
affected by soil sample, by soil moisture content, or by the interaction of these factors. There was a signifi-
cant difference, however, in the progress of phenanthrene mineralization depending upon incubation tempera-
ture (Figure 7.74). Through the sixteenth day of incubation, cumulative average mineralization at both 10°
and 20* C remained below 1 percent and more mineralization had occurred at 10° C. By day 31, mineraliza-
tion at 20° C was significantly higher than at 10° C. By day 45 mineralization at 20° C was continuing to
accelerate, while at 10° C, the rate of mineralization appeared to decrease after 24 days. Near surface summer
49
-------
c
o>
^
"o
™
*S
c
cs
s
«
CL>
50
40-
30-
20-
10-
03
0
40, 10
40, 20
80, 10
80, 20
Moisture (% Field Capacity),Temperature (°C)
Figure 7.75 Fraction of radiolabeled carbon added as phenanthrene that was solvent- extractable in relation to the
interaction of moisture and temperature factors in the biological mineralization and humification study.
daily average soil temperatures at the Libby Site would be approximately 20° C while the annual average
temperature for all of the soil in the LTU is anticipated to be about 10° C.
When these results are compared with the results from the first laboratory evaluation, it is clear that
phenanthrene mineralization rate is variable among samples from the LTU. It appears that the soil sample can
be important in affecting the rate, at least at 10° C, but that within the samples evaluated, this effect is mar-
ginal and variable. Similarly, the effect of moisture content appears to be relatively small and quite variable.
7.2.2.3 Solvent-extractable radiolabeled carbon.
Radiolabeled carbon that was extractable from soil with methylene chloride:acetone solvent after 45
days of incubation averaged 34 percent for PCP microcosms and 20 percent for phenanthrene microcosms.
There were no significant differences in the amount of 14C extractable among the different soil samples,
moisture, and temperature treatments. Neither were any of the interactions of these factors significant in their
effect on extractability of PCP or its transformation products.
Radiolabeled carbon extractable from the phenanthrene microcosms averaged 20 percent (±13
percent) at the end of the incubation period (Table 7.51). Figure 7.75 illustrates the effect of the interaction of
moisture content and incubation temperature on radiolabeled carbon extractability for phenanthrene. The
microcosms incubated at 20'C with 40 percent field capacity moisture content contained significantly more
50
-------
03
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
Bar is 1/2 the least
significant difference
Depth D, 7/27/91 Depth D. 7/27/91 Depth C, 5/8/91
40% 80% 40%
Depth C, 5/8/91
80%
Soil Sample, Moisture (as % Field Capacity)
Figure 7.76 Fraction of radiolabeled carbon added as PCP that was recoverable by combustion of soil solids
(representing the soil-bound fraction) in relation to the interaction of soil sample and moisture content in
the biological mineralization and hunufication study.
extractable 14C than those with 80 percent field capacity. Since this effect involves the interaction of higher
incubation temperature and different moisture contents, and both of these factors are known to be important in
affecting soil microbial activity, it seems plausible that biological mechanisms resulting in the increased
incorporation of phenanthrene or its degradation products into soil organic matter (humification) at the higher
moisture content are important in affecting this result At the lower temperature, the effect of moisture was
not significant.
7.2.2.4 Humified soil-bound radiolabeled carbon
Soil-bound radiolabeled carbon is summarized for phenanthrene in Table 7.51 and for PCP in Table
7.52. Soil-bound 14C from PCP averaged 32 percent (± 13 percent) at the end of the incubation period. The
interaction of soil sample and moisture content had a significant effect on the amount of bound 14C from PCP.
Figure 7.76 shows that the combination of the sample collected from Depth C on 5/8/91 and high moisture
resulted in a significantly higher bound (oxidizable) 14C than did the other three combinations of soil sample
and moisture.
Soil-bound 14C from phenanthrene averaged 60 percent (± 20 percent) after the 45 day incubation
period (Table 7.51). The interaction of soil sample and moisture content (Figure 7.77) had a significant effect
on soil incorporation of radiolabeled carbon. The combination of Depth A sample collected 5/6/91 and high
moisture yielded a higher percentage of humificatioa
51
-------
100
80-
S 60
W Tf
g-l
en -o
*P4
•+•* U4
80
40-
20-
Bar is 1/2 the least
significant difference
Core 12, 40%
Core 12, 80%
Core 15, 40%
Core 15, 80%
Depth A, 5/6/91
Soil Sample, Moisture (as %Field Capacity)
Figure 7.77 Fraction ofradiolabeled carbon added as phenanthrene that was recoverable by combustion of soil solids
(representing the soil-bound fraction of14C) in relation to the interaction of soil sample and moisture
content in the biological mineralization and humification study.
7.2.3 Discussion of laboratory evaluation
Results of the laboratory evaluations demonstrate that not all of parent compounds are mineralized
within a soil system. Rather, carbon in the parent compounds become distributed among air, solvent extract,
and soil-bound compartments, as indicated in Tables 7.51 and 7.52. A major pathway for 14C for phenan-
threne and PCP is humification (binding to soil), such that the compound is not solvent-extractable from soil.
A significant fraction of 14C is solvent-extractable from the soil, either in the form of the parent compound or
intermediates. Mineralization represents the third most important fraction for 14C. Volatilization is the least
significant as a fate and behavior process for any combination of environmental and management factors.
Results of the laboratory evaluations add additional information to the field-scale observations, i.e.,
that the loss of PAH compounds and PCP is not due to volatilization of parent compound or of intermediates
(with the possible exception of naphthalene), but that the parent compounds are mineralized and humified
within the LTU soil system.
52
-------
7 J Cost information related to field-scale bioremediation at the Libby Site
Champion International acquired St. Regis Paper Company in 1985. Prior to this time, approximately
$100,000 was spent on activities related to site remediation at the Libby Site. The remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) costs under Champion International ownership was $2.3 million for the Libby Site.
Between 1986 and 1993, costs, including engineering planning, construction, and oversight, have totalled
$7.7 million. Annual operating costs for the site, including the LTU for treatment of contaminated soils, the
above-ground fixed film bioreactor for treatment of ground water, and the in situ treatment system for the
Upper Aquifer are estimated to be $1.2 million for 1993, with $700,000 to $800,000 of that total amount for
consulting and oversight work. By 1995, consulting work, monitoring, and oversight activities are anticipated
to cost $300,000 to $500,000 annually.
Concerning the land treatment units, construction costs for LTU 1 and LTU 2 amounted to $400,000.
Monitoring requirements plus annual operations were estimated to cost $117,000 for the year 1992.
53
-------
Chapter 8
References
8.0 References
Abbott, C. and R.C. Sims. "Use of Bioassays to Monitor PAH Contaaminationin Soil." Proceedings of the
10th National Superfund Conference, Washington D.C., November 27-29,1989.
Aprill, W., R.C. Sims, J.L. Sims, and J.E. Matthews. 1990. Assessing Detoxification and Degradation of
Wood Preserving and Petroleum Wastes in Contaminated Soil. Waste Management and Research 8:45-65.
Barth, D.S., and B.J. Mason. 1984. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance and the Importance of an Exploratory
Study, pp. 97-104. In: Environmental Sampling for Hazardous Wastes. ACS Symposium Series 267, American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
Barth, D.S., B.J. Mason, T.H. Starks, and K. W. Brown. 1989. Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide,
Second Edition. EPA 600/8-89/046, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NY
Champion International Corporation. 1993. LTU1992 Annual Operational Report: Groundwater Site, Libby,
Montana. Champion International Corporation, Libby, MT.
Dasappa, S.M. and R.C. Loehr. "Toxicity Reduction in Contaminated Soil Bioremediation Processes." Wat.
Res. Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1121-1130,1991.
Donnelly, K.C., C.S. Anderson, J.C. Thomas, K.W. Brown, D.J. Manek, and S. H. Safe. 1992. Bacterial
Mutagenicity of Soil Extracts from a Bioremediation Facility Treating Wood preserving Waste. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 30: 71-81.
Loehr, Ray C., Treatability Potential for EPA Listed Hazardous Waste in Soil, EPA/6002-89/011, U.S. EPA
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, March, 1989.
Mason, B.J. 1983. Preparation of Soil Sampling Protocol: Techniques and Strategies. EPA-600/4 83-020.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.
Park, H.S., and R.C. Sims 1994. Biodegradation of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Depending upon
Oxygen Tension in Unsaturated Soil. pp. 257-273. In: Hazardous Waste Management Handbook. PTR
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Peterson, R.G., and L.D. Calvin. 1986. Sampling, pp. 33-51. In: A. Klute (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part
1: Physical and Mineralogical Properties. Second edition. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI,
1986.
Sims, R.C. and M.R. Overcash. 1983. Fate of Pofynuclear Aromatics in Soil-Plant Systems. Residue Rev. 88:
1-68.
Sims, J.L., R.C. Sims, and J.E. Matthews. 1989. Bioremediation of Contaminated Surface Soils. EPA/600/9-
89/073, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
OK.
Sims, R.C. 1990. Soil Remediation Techniques at Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: A Critical Review.
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 40(5): 703-732.
Sims, R.C., J.L. Sims, D.L. Sorensen, and L.L. Hastings. 1986a. Waste/Soil Treatability Studies: Methodolo-
gies and Results. Volume 1. EPA/600/6-86/003a, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, OK.
54
-------
Sims, R.C., D.L. Sorensen, W.J. Doucette, and L.L. Hastings. 1986b. Waste/Soil Treatability Studies: Method-
ologies and Results. Volume 2, Waste Loading Impacts on Soil Degradation, Transformation, and Immobiliza-
tion. EPA/600/6-86/003b, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, OK.
Symons, B.D., and R.C. Sims. 1988. Assessing Detoxification of a Complex Hazardous Waste, Using the
Microtox™ Assay. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 17: 497 505.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical Chemical
Methods, Second Edition. SW-846, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Record of Decision: Libby Ground Water Superfund Site,
Lincoln County, Montana. Region VIII, Montana Operations Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Helena, MT.
Wang X., X. Yu, and R. Bartha. 1990. "Effect of Bioremediation on Polycyclic Hydrocarbon Residues in
Soil." Environ. Sci. andTechnol. 24,1086-1089.
Wilding, L.P. 1985. Spatial variability: its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys, pp.
166-187 In: D.R. Nielsen and J. Bouma (ed). Soil Spatial Variability. PUDOC, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989a. Health and Safety Plan, LTDU and Soil Demonstration, Ground Water
Site, Libby, Montana. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989b. Land Treatment Demonstration Unit: One Acre LTDU, Ground Water
Site, Libby, Montana. Wood ward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1989c. Quality Assurance Project Plan, RI/FS/RD/RA Activities, Ground
Water Site, Libby, Montana. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990a. Pre-Final Design Report: Land Treatment Unit, Ground Water Site,
Libby, Montana. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1990b. No Migration Petition for Land Treatment Unit, Libby Ground Water
Site, Libby, Montana. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1992. LTU Operations and Monitoring, Ground Water Site, Libby Montana.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Denver, CO.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
Methods and Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
A-l. Extraction of samples and soil moisture determinations
The procedure used for the extraction of contaminated soils was based on U.S. EPA Method 3550
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982) using sonication. Method 3550 is a procedure for extracting
nonvolatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from solids such as soils, sludges, and wastes. The sonica-
tion process ensures intimate contact of sample matrix with the extraction solvent. A 30 g sample is solvent-
extracted with methylene chloride/acetone (in a 1:1 mixture by volume) using sonication. The sample extract
is passed through a funnel containing anhydrous sodium sulfate. The sample is concentrated in a Kuderna-
Danish apparatus. Final volumes are adjusted, and the sample is then ready for analysis. Specifically, the
procedures used included the following steps:
The soil samples were prepared for extraction by removing soil particles above 2 mm. The soil
samples were sieved through a 2 mm screen. Each sample was poured onto a clean piece of aluminum foil
and mixed thoroughly using a nickel-plated steel spatula. The sample was returned to original sample con-
tainer. Approximately 30 g of soil sample was weighed using an analytical balance (Sartorius Model B120S)
into a tared plastic, disposable weighing dish (4 cm x 4 cm), and the weight was recorded to the nearest 0.01
g. The sample was then transferred to a 125 mL glass jar with a teflon-lined lid (labelled with UWRL sample
log number) that had been cleaned with a solvent rinse or by muffling in a muffle furnace at 550° C for 24
hours.
At the same time as the portion used for analytical determination was removed and weighed, 5 to 10
g of the sample were removed and weighed in a tared crucible for moisture determination. The sample was
dried overnight at 105° C and allowed to cool in a desiccator before re-weighing. The percent moisture of the
sample was calculated using the following relationship:
g of sample (wet weight - g of dry sample x 100 = % moisture (dry weight basis)
g of dry sample
For the samples used for analytical determination of contaminant concentrations, 1 mL of a
tribromophenol spiking solution (5000 mg/L, prepared as pure (99 percent or greater; Aldrich Chemical Co.)
tribromophenol in acetonitrile) was added to the soil in each jar. Approximately 100 mL of solvent, 1:1
methylene chloride/acetone (pesticide quality) by volume was then added to the sample in the jar, and the
sample and solvent were mixed by swirling.
The sample was then disrupted for 3 minutes with a sonicator (Tekmar Sonic Disrupter Model No.
CV 17, with a 3/4 inch probe) with the output control setting at 10, pulse mode switch on "on," and percent
duty cycle set at 50 percent.
After sonication, the solids were allowed to settle. The supernatant (sample extract) was poured into
a 100-mm funnel filled with 2-2.5 inches of anhydrous sodium sulfate and glass wool for removal of water.
The anhydrous sodium sulfate (reagent grade) was prepared by drying in an oven at 105° C for 12 hours in
600 mL beaker covered with triple layer of aluminum foil, followed by storage in a desiccator until use. The
dried extract was collected in a 500 mL Kudema-Danish (K-D) flask with a 10 mL graduated concentrator
tube attached (the flask was labelled with UWRL sample log number). One hundred mL of solvent were
added to the sample two more times, with sonication of the sample and separation of supernatant performed
after each addition of solvent. After the sample had been sonicated three times, 5-10 mL of additional solvent
were added to the sample, and the sample was swirled. The solids were allowed to settle and the supernatant
was poured through the funnel containing anhydrous sodium sulfate. This washing procedure of the sample
was conducted four more times.
A-l
-------
After the sample extract had drained from the funnel, the funnel was rinsed three times with 2-4 mL
of solvent. After all the rinses had drained, the funnel was removed from the K-D flask/concentrator, and the
tip of the column was rinsed with solvent into the K-D flask.
A small boiling chip (Teflon Boilezers) was added to the K-D flask, and a 3-ball macro Snyder
column was attached. The Snyder column was prewet by adding about 1 mL of methylene chloride to the top
of the column. The K-D apparatus was placed on the steam table (80-90° C) (concentric ring electric steam-
ing bath, Precision Model No. 66738) so that the concentrator tube was partially immersed in the hot water,
and the entire lower rounded surface of the flask was bathed with hot vapor. The vertical position of the
apparatus and the water temperature, as required, were adjusted to complete the concentration in 10-15 min.
At the proper rate of distillation, the balls of the column actively chattered, but the chambers did not flood
with condensed solvent. When the volume of the liquid reached approximately 5 mL, the K-D apparatus was
removed from the steam table and allowed to drain and cool for at least 10 minutes.
To accomplish solvent exchange, the Snyder column was removed and 15 - 20 mL of acetonitrile
were added to the flask. The Snyder column was re-attached and the K-D apparatus was placed back on the
steam table. The extract was concentrated to approximately 5 mL. The temperature of the steam table was
raised as necessary to maintain the proper rate of distillation. The K-D apparatus was removed from the
steam table and allowed to cool. The Snyder column was removed, and the flask and its lower joints were
rinsed into the concentrator tube with 1-2 mL acetonitrile.
The final volume was adjusted to 10 mL by transferring the sample to a 10 mL volumetric flask using
a clean disposable Pasteur pipette. The flask was brought to volume with acetonitrile.
Two mL of the extract were transferred to a GC vial (12 x 32 mm (OD x H)) (labelled with UWRL
log number) for PCP analysis using gas chromatography (GC). One mL was transferred to a 10 mL volumet-
ric flask and brought to volume with acetonitrile. This sample extract was filtered through a 0.2 micron filter.
Two mL of this extract were transferred to a GC vial (labelled with UWRL log number) for analysis for PAH
analysis using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The samples were stored in the dark at 4° C until
analysis.
Quality control procedures utilized during the extraction procedure included:
1. Duplicate extractions: every fifteenth to seventeenth sample was extracted in duplicate to check
for reproducibility of the extraction procedure. Each duplicate sample was analyzed for PCP and PAH
compounds.
2. Procedural blanks: With each set of extractions (i.e., every 9 - 10 samples), a solvent sample
(containing no soil) was run through the extraction procedure to detect contamination associated with the
extraction procedure. The procedural blanks were analyzed with the set of samples with which they were
extracted.
3. Spikes: With every set of extractions (i.e., every 9 - 10 samples), duplicate samples were spiked
with PCP and tribromophenol. Thirty g aliquots of a sample were weighed into two containers. Before
adding the solvent to the two containers, 250 uL of the PCP spiking solution, and 1 mL of the tribromophenol
spiking solution were added directly to the soil. Samples in both containers were extracted. The spiked
samples were analyzed and the results were recorded, including percent recovery of the spiking solutions.
Stock solutions of the compounds used for spiking the samples were prepared in the following
manner:
a) PCP spiking solution: The spiking solution was prepared by dissolving 0.200 g PCP
(reagent grade) into 100 mL of methanol (pesticide quality).
b) Tribromophenol spiking solution: The spiking solution was prepared at a concentration of
5000 mg/L by dissolving the appropriate amount of pure (99 percent or greater, Aldrich) tribromophenol in
acetonitrile (pesticide quality).
A-2
-------
After preparation, the stock spiking solutions were stored at -20° C in the dark until use.
As part of the quality assurance/quality control program, a technician certification procedure was
used. Before a laboratory technician was allowed to perform extractions, he/she was required to extract
duplicate spiked, clean sand samples. Recovery efficiencies of the spiked samples had to be greater than or
equal to 95 percent and equal to or less than 105 percent before the technician was allowed to extract project
samples.
A-2. Analysis of PCP using gas chromatography
An adaptation of U.S. EPA Method 8040 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982) was used to
determine the concentration of pentachlorophenol (PCP) in the soil extracts. Gas chromatography with an
electron capture detector was used to detect PCP in the sample extracts. Prior to use of this method, samples
were extracted using sonication as the extraction technique.
Samples were analyzed using a Shimadzu Gas Chromatograph 14A-GC with a Shimadzu Automatic
Sample Injector AOC-1400, an RTX-5 column, and a Shimadzu C-R501 Chromatopac integrator.
Before every analysis run, the GC column was brought to its highest allowable operating temperature
for five hours. During this time, a solvent was injected every hour in order to achieve better conditioning of
the column. After conditioning, without any injection, the GC was operated for twice the length of time of a
normal run. If a steady baseline was not achieved, the column was re-conditioned.
The temperature program for the analysis was: initial column temperature set at 110° C, held for 2
minutes, followed by 2.5°/min temperature rise to 240° C, held for 6 minutes, a 4° C/min temperature rise to
185° C, and a 20° C/min temperature rise to 325° C, held for 4 minutes. The injector and detector tempera-
tures were set at 270° C. Nitrogen was used as the carrier gas.
For each GC run, a log sheet was prepared containing sample identification, name(s) of persons
performing the analyses, type of samples being analyzed, instrument set-up parameters, and identification of
standard solutions. Also recorded on the log sheet were the date the samples were analyzed, the file name that
data were stored in, and any comments specific to the samples and/or data. Also recorded were instrument
operating conditions and changes (e.g., if N2 cylinder was changed, column was reconditioned, or any
changes were made in operating conditions).
Once a week, seven PCP and four tribromophenol (TBP) calibration standards were injected to
prepare the linear range of the analytical system for PCP. TBP was analyzed because it had been added as an
internal standard to each sample during the extraction procedure. The standard curves generated were com-
pared to previous standard curves. During each daily run, three PCP standards and one TBP calibration
standard were injected. Results had to agree within 10 percent of values calculated from the weekly standard
curve.
To develop the standard curves for PCP and TBP, peak areas, retention times, and corresponding
calibration concentrations were transferred from the chromatograms to a computer spreadsheet. Regression
equations were calculated based on peak areas and corresponding concentrations. Control charts were
maintained for slope, y-intercept, and R2 for PCP. A standard curve was rejected if the R2 was less than
0.993.
For preparation of the PCP standard calibration curve, a PCP stock standard solution was prepared at
a concentration of 1000 mg/1 by dissolving the appropriate amount of pure (99.5 percent or greater) solid PCP
(Sigma) in methanol. The stock standard solution was stored at 4° C in an amber bottle to protect the solution
from light. A new stock standard solution was prepared at least every four months. The PCP calibration
standards (at a minimum of seven concentration levels) were prepared by dilution of the stock standard
solution with acetonitrile. Concentration levels corresponded to the range of concentrations expected in
samples. The calibration standards were stored at 4° C and were protected from light. New calibration
standards were prepared weekly.
A-3
-------
For preparation of the TBP standard calibration curve, a TBP stock solution was prepared at a con-
centration of 5000 mg/L by dissolving the appropriate amount of pure (99 percent or greater, Aldrich) TBP in
acetonitrile. The stock solution was stored at -20° C in the dark until use. A new stock standard solution was
prepared at least every four months. TBP calibration standards (at a minimum of 4 concentration levels) were
prepared by dilution of stock standard solution with acetonitrile. Concentration levels corresponded to the
range of concentrations expected in the samples. The calibration standards were stored at 4° C and were
protected from light. New calibration standards were prepared weekly.
For each run, a solvent blank was injected, followed by the injection of 10 - 12 samples; the run was
completed with the injection of another solvent blank. A typical injection volume was 1 uL. After each run,
the GC glass injection sleeve was replaced with a clean sleeve. Before starting the next run, the sleeve in the
injector port was heated to the maximum injection temperature allowable for one hour. The used glass sleeve
was cleaned according to a procedure that utilized sulfuric acid and methanol as cleaning solutions, followed
by immersion in a silonizing solution and methanol.
PCP and TBP in samples were identified by matching their respective retention times with retention
times of PCP and TBP obtained using calibration standards. If the peak area exceeded the linear calibration
range of the system for a sample, the extract was diluted or concentrated and re-analyzed. Using an EXCEL
spreadsheet, the peak area of PCP or TBP in a sample was converted to concentration by using the slope and
y-intercept of the corresponding calibration standard curve for the specific run of samples. The formula used
was:
concentration (mg/L) = (peak area - y intercept)/slope
The concentration was converted to mg/kg (wet weight) by dividing the concentration in mg/L by the weight
of the soil extracted and then multiplying by the dilution factor. The concentration was converted to dry
weight concentration by dividing the wet weight concentration by the percent dry weight x 100.
Quality control samples analyzed included:
(1) analysis of duplicate extraction samples to check reproducibility of extraction procedure
(every twentieth sample was extracted in duplicate);
(2) analysis of procedural blanks to determine if any contamination was associated with the
extraction procedure (procedural blanks were run through the extraction procedure every 9-
10 samples);
(3) analysis of TBP in every sample to determine recovery of TBP (TBP was added to every
sample before extraction);
(4) analysis of samples spiked with PCP to determine recovery of PCP in the spiked samples
(duplicate samples were spiked every 9-10 samples); and
(5) analysis of solvent blanks to determine if carryover of PCP was occurring during an analyti-
cal run.
A-3. Analysis of PAH compounds by GC/MS
An adaptation of U.S. EPA Method 8270 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.1982) was used to
determine the concentration of PAH compounds in the soil extracts using gas chromatography/mass spectrom-
etry (GC/MS). Analyses were conducted for sixteen specific PAH compounds, including (in order of reten-
tion time): 1) naphthalene; 2) acenaphthylene; 3) acenaphthene; 4) fluorene; 5) phenanthrene; 6) anthracene;
7) fluoranthene; 8) pyrene; 9) benzo(a)anthracene; 10) chrysene; 11) benzo(b)fluoranthene; 12)
benzo(k)fluoranthene; 13) benzo(a)pyrene; 14) indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene; 15) dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; and 16)
benzo(g,h,i)perylene. Prior to analysis by GC/MS, soil samples were extracted using sonication as the
extraction technique.
A-4
-------
The GC system was comprised of a Varian 3400 GC, with a Varian splitless 2 mm ID standard
deactivated glass insert (catalog # 03-949437-00). The GC was operated in splitless mode. The GC column
was an XTI-5 (30 meter by .25 mm ID) column, with 0.25 um coating (catalog #12223) from RESTEK
Corporation. The column was directly attached with a butt-connector to a 1 meter by .25 mm ID piece of
deactivated capillary column that ran through the transfer line that connects the GC to the source of the mass
spectrometer.
The injection port temperature was set at 285° C. The transfer line between the GC and mass spec-
trometer was set at 295° C. The carrier gas was ultra pure helium (99.99+ percent). Carrier gas flow was 1.0
milliliters per minute at 50° C. The temperature program for the GC oven was as follows: 50° C for 2
minutes; then the temperature was ramped at 10° C/min to a temperature of 300° C and held for 10 minutes.
The total run time was 37 minutes.
The mass detector was a Finnigan MAT Ion Trap 700 Detector. The inlet to the mass spectrometer
from the gas chromatograph was configured for direct injection. The ion trap was operated in multiple ion
detection mode (MID), which results in an improved signal-to-noise ratio and more reproducible peaks for
quantitation.
The data system consisted of an IBM AT computer with Finnigan MAT ITDS software version 3.1.
The computer was used for direct data acquisition during a run.
Perfluorotributylamine (FC-43) was used as the standard for instrument calibration to achieve accept-
able tuning performance. Table A-l list the criteria for tuning. The instrument was auto tuned by using the
Ion Trap Setup program in the ITDS system software. The mass spectrometer was routinely calibrated/auto
tuned approximately every ten days. The instrument was also calibrated/auto tuned when daily calibration
check standards (containing all sixteen PAH compounds) did not meet the performance check test. To evalu-
ate the performance check of the daily standard, the percent difference was determined by calculating:
% Difference = (RFI-RFC)x 100
RFI
where:
RFI = average response factor from initial calibration; and
RFC = response factor from current daily standard verification check standard.
If the percent difference was greater than 50 percent, corrective action was taken. If the corrective action did
not solve the problem,the instrument was calibrated/auto tuned, and a new standard curve was run. The mass
spectrometer was also calibrated/auto tuned when routine maintenance was required.
Table A-l. FC-43 key ions and ion abundance criteria.
Mass (m/z) Ion Abundance Criteria
69 Base peak, 100% relative abundance
70 1% of mass 69
131 20 to 50% of mass 69
132 3% of mass 131
264 20 to 50% of mass 131
265 6% of mass 264
502 20 to 50% of mass 264
503 10% of mass 502
A-5
-------
During sample analysis, a 1.0 ul portion of sample was drawn into a 10 ul syringe, with approximately a 2 ul
volume of ambient air separating the sample from the syringe plunger. The sample was manually injected. At
the time of injection, the data acquisition system and the GC were simultaneously triggered via a switch on
top of the injection port.
The masses selected for quantitation were the molecular ion of each of the sixteen PAH compounds.
Table A-2 lists the retention time and quantitation ion for each PAH compound.
Table A-2. Characteristic ions for PAH compounds.
Compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h),anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Retention Time (Sec)
614
844
872
956
1093
1101
1275
1307
1494
1499
1650
1652
1699
1906
1912
1963
Primary Ion
128
152
154
166
178
178
202
202
228
228
252
252
252
276
278
276
The ten masses were scanned once every 1.000 seconds and each recorded scan was comprised of the
average of two micro scans. The acquire time was 37 minutes. The filament delay at the start of the run was
400 seconds. The peak threshold was set to 1, and the mass defect was 1 millimass unit per atomic mass unit.
A set of five standards and a blank were prepared in methylene chloride. The standards were pre-
pared by diluting a certified stock solution purchased from Supelco Incorporated (cat #4-8905). The stock
solution contained all sixteen PAH compounds at 2000 u.g/mL. Each standard contained the sixteen PAH
compounds in the following concentrations: 50,40,20,10, and 4 ug/mL. The standards were stored at 4° C
in glass vials sealed with Teflon lids. The standards were replaced every 60 days. External standard curves
were generated using the ITDS software and r2 values of greater than 0.988 were obtained for each com-
pound. Samples were quantified in the semi-automatic external standard calibration mode of the quantitation
software to insure proper peak identiflcatioa
The standard curves were produced by plotting the area (y-axis) versus the concentration in mg/L (x-
axis). The concentration of a sample extract was calculated by entering the area of the extracted sample for
each of the PAH compounds present into the linear regression line equation for that particular compound.
Thus, the concentration of the soil extract was calculated with the quantitation software provided in the ITDS
software.
The concentration values for each compound in the extract were manually entered into a Macintosh
EXCEL spread sheet, where the final concentration of each compound was calculated using:
A-6
-------
PAH concentration in soil (mg/kg) = COE x VOE
DWFxSWW
where:
COE = concentration of PAH in extract in mg per liter,
VOE = volume of extract in liters (0.01 for all samples);
DWF = dry weight fraction; and
SWW = sample wet weight in kg.
The Method Quantitation Limit (MQL) was determined for each compound by making ten replicate
injections of sample 2592. Sample 2592 was chosen for the determination of MQL since all sixteen PAH
compounds in the sample were detectable at less than 4 mg/L. The lowest standard in the external calibration
curve for each PAH compound was 4 mg per liter. The MQL was calculated as five times the standard
deviation of the ten replicates. When the concentration in soil for a particular PAH compound was below the
MQL, the value was reported as "less than the MQL value." Any value less than the MQL value was consid-
ered zero when tabulating the total carcinogenic PAH concentration.
Anthracene-d10 was used as a deuterated check standard. A stock solution of anthracene was prepared
from neat compound in methylene chloride. The concentration of the stock solution was 2840 mg/L. A 14 |ol
portion of the stock solution was spiked into 986 ul of sample extract. A 40 mg/L standard solution was also
prepared by spiking 14 ul of the stock solution into 986 ul of methylene chloride. Three different samples
were spiked. The concentration of anthracene-dlO was 40 mg/L in the spiked sample and the retention time
of the deuterated compound (molecular weight 188) was very close to that of anthracene (molecular weight
178). The results for the deuterated spikes are shown in Table A-3. The concentration of anthracene-dlO
found in the spiked samples was calculated by:
Concentration of anthracene-dlO in sample = EA x 40 mg/L
SSA
where:
EA = extract area quantified for molecular mass 188; and
SSA = standard solution area for molecular mass 188 (318355 units)
Table A-3. Results of anthracene-dlO spiked in soil extracts at 40 mg/L.
Core
No.&
Depth
15 B
16 C
31 D
Standard
Date
9/2/92
9/2/92
9/19/91
"
Retention
Time:
Anthracene
(sec)
1080
1080
1080
——•••»
Retention
Time:
Anthracene-dlO
(sec)
1078
1083
1082
1086
Amount
Spiked
(mg/L)
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
Area
Measured:
Mass 188
379765
291059
413398
318355
Concentration:
Anthracene-dlO
(mg/L)
47.71
36.57
52.31
40.00
A stock solution was prepared containing four PAH compounds: naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene
and benzo(a)pyrene. The stock solution was prepared with neat PAH compounds dissolved in methylene
chloride. The concentration of the spiking solution was 100 mg/L for each of the four compounds. Six
samples were individually spiked by adding 1.000 mL of the stock solution to 1.000 mL of sample extract.
The expected concentration of each of the four PAH compounds is the concentration previously determined
for the extract divided by 2 plus 50 mg/L.
A-7
-------
A-4. Detoxification evaluation using the Microtox™ assay
The Microtox™ assay utilizes the light output of a marine bacterium, Photobacterium phosphorium,
to evaluate relative toxicity of an aqueous test sample. This photoluminescent organism is subjected to
several dilutions of a test sample. The light output of the organism is monitored under defined conditions of
exposure time (t) and test temperature (T). The degree of light loss indicates the degree of toxicity. A dose-
response curve is generated and used to determine the effective concentration (EC50) of the test sample that is
required to cause a 50 percent reduction in light output after 5 min.
Aqueous samples to utilize in the testing procedure were obtained by extracting approximately 25 g
of each soil sample with 100 mL of distilled, deionized water (DDW) in glass jars with screw-cap lids. The
samples were extracted for approximately 24 hours in a rotating box at 30 rpm. Approximately 50 mL of
supernatant from each sample was transferred to separate Nalgene centrifuge tubes. Suspended solids were
then removed from the extracts by centrifugation for 20 minutes at 5000 rpm. The osmotic pressure of the
extracts was adjusted using 2 percent sodium chloride, as required for the Microtox™ assay. Dilutions of
6.25, 12.5, 25.0, and 50.0 percent were prepared for each aqueous extract. The marine bacterium,
Photobacterium phosphorium, was then challenged at each sample concentration, and the light output was
recorded at time(t) = 0 and (t) = 5 minutes. A positive reagent control (blank) was tested concurrently with
each test sample. This control blank consisted of DDW adjusted to 2 percent NaCl and 10 ul of the
Microtox™ reagent (Photobacterium phosphorium). Light loss for the control blank and the test samples
were compared with the light loss caused by a known toxic standard (sodium pentachlorophenate at 10 mg/L).
One toxic control standard was run for every ten samples.
EC50 was determined using the following calculations:
Blank ratio:
L(0)b
Normalized light loss (gamma):
gamma(t,T) = Light Lost = RfOLCO') - L(t)
Light Remaining L(t)
gamma ft.T) = R(OL(0) 1
L(t)
where:
L(0) = initial light reading (b=blank);
L(t) = final light reading at time (t);
R(t) = mean blank ratio for time (t); and
gamma (t,T) = gamma effect for exposure time (t) and test temperature T (15° C)
Plot In(gamma) vs In(concentration):
EC50 = concentration where gamma =1
EC50 concentration = eAintercept since (ln[l]=0)
If the value of the EC50 was found to be greater than 100 or no dose-response (NDR) was observed, then the
sample was considered non-toxic (NT). An NDR indicates that with increasing sample concentration, no
significant light loss was observed.
A-8
-------
EPA-600/R-95/156
August 1996
Champion International Superfund Site, Libby, Montana:
Bioremediation Field Performance Evaluation
of the
Prepared Bed Land Treatment System
Volume II - FIGURES AND TABLES
Ronald C. Sims
Judith L. Sims
Darwin L. Sorensen
and
Joan E. McLean
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322-8200
Contract No. 68-C8-0058
Scott G. Ruling David S. Burden
Technical Manager Project Officer
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Ada, OK 74820
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
Initial naphthalene (Naph) and
phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations in
LTU 1 depth C samples collected 5/6&8/91 P
•* % *•
f
f -• .,
s
\
% \
. (G,l). • «
#1 #4
• (G-g). (U). (ui).
(Ul) . (L,l) • . (\ \\ m
\ > l w • V1-'1/ .
#2 #3
• (U). (G,l). .
• • (L,l). (L,l).
Figure 7.1
(N
in
laph, Phen)
L= Naph ^. 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
I=P
g=F
hen < 8 mg/kg
»hen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Initial naphthalene (Naph) and
phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations in
(U)
(!_,!)•
#1
(U). (Ul)
#2
#4
(U),
#3
(Ul). (Ul).
Figure 7.2
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph^Smg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
l= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Initial naphthalene (Naph) and
phenanthrene (Phen) concentrations in
(Naph, Phen)
L=Naph^8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
~ (Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth A ^
- , % » , ;- , - ,- , . - -.- s /b
'*'-^\ ^"""^ '^^^-^-^ % /^Siv ?''**$*r^'-^C?
(U)»
(Ul)
(U)'
#1
(L.l)» (L,l).
(U)
#2
(U) •
(U)» (U)'
#4
• (L,l).
#3
Figure 7.4
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph SL 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
l= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
#1
(U)
#2
(U)
#4
#3
Figure 7.5
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph<:8mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
l= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
(U)
(U).
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph^.8mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.6
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
(Naph, Phen)
L=Naph^.8mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen £ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth E
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.8
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen < 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 2 depth B
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph ^ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.10
10
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph 8 mg/kg
1= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.11
11
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
(Ug)
(U)
#1
(U)
(U) • (U) •
#2
(U) • •
#4
(U) •
(U)'
(U).
Figure 7.12
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £. 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen £ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
12
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
#1
#2
(U)'
(UI)
#4
(UI) •
#3
Figure 7.13
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph ^, 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen ^ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
13
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph ^8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen < 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
14
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
(U) •
#1
#2
(U).
#4
(Ul).
#3
Figure 7.15
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £.8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen < 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
15
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £. 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen <. 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.16
16
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
#1
(U)
(U)
#2
(U0
(U),
(Ul)
• (Ul) •
#4
(Ul) • •
(Ul)
(Ul)
#3
(UO
(Ul)
Figure 7.17
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph ^ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen £.8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
17
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £.8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen £ 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
18
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph £ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
1= Phen < 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
Figure 7.19
19
-------
Naphthalene (Naph) and phenanthrene
(Phen) concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
(U)'
#1
(U)'
#2
(U) •
#4
(U)'
#3
(U) •
(U)
Figure 7.20
(Naph, Phen)
L= Naph ^ 8 mg/kg
G= Naph > 8 mg/kg
l= Phen < 8 mg/kg
g= Phen > 8 mg/kg
20
-------
Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH)
and pyrene concentrations in LTU 1
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L=TCPAH<88 mg/kg
L=TCPAH>88 mg/kg
l=Pyrene<7.3 mg/kg
g=Pyrene>7.3 mg/kg
21
-------
Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH)
and pyrene concentrations in LTU 1
(G,g)
#1
(Ug) •
#2
(G,g) • •
(G,g)
(G-g)
#4
(G,g)
(G,g)
#3
(G,g)
Figure 7.22
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH^: 88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene •i7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
22
-------
Initial total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH)
and pyrene concentrations in LTU 2
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH^ 88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene -z. 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.23
23
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 9/1/92
(U) • (LJ)'
#1
(U). (LJ),
(U) . (LJ) .
#2
(LJ). .
#4
• (U) .
(U)'
#3
(LJ)«
Figure 7.24
(TCPAH. Pyrene)
L= TCPAH
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
!= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
24
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 9/1/92
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH < 88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene <7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.25
25
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 9/1/92
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH <88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.26
26
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
samples collected 9/1/92
#1
(U)
#2
(U) •
(U),
(U).
#4
(U)
(LJ)
#3
(Ug)«
Figure 7.27
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
27
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth E
samples collected 9/1/92
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.28
28
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/1/92
#1
#2
(UI) •
#4
#3
(Ug)«
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L=TCPAH 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene <. 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
29
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 2 depth B
samples collected 9/1/92
#1
(U) •
#2
(U) •
#4
(U).
#3
(U)'
Figure 7.30
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
30
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 9/18&19/91
ifi
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH <.88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene <. 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
31
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 9/18&19/91
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.32
32
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 9/18&19/91
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH <88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.33
33
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
samples collected 9/18&19/91
(U)
#1
(Ug)
(Ug)» (L,g)
#2
(Ug)«
(Ug)
#4
#3
Figure 7.34
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH ^88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
34
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/19/91
(U) •
#1
#4
(Ug)«
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH <88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene < 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.35
35
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 6/27/91
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.36
36
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 6/27/91
#1
(U)
(U)<
#2
(Ul)
(Ul)
. (Ul)
#4
(Ul)
(UO
#3
(Ul) •
Figure 7.37
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH <88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
l= Pyrene <7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
37
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 6/27/91
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.38
38
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 5/6/91
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene ^ 7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.39
39
-------
Total carcinogenic PAH (TCPAH) and
pyrene concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
[ "" samples collected 5/6/91
its
(TCPAH, Pyrene)
L= TCPAH s.88mg/kg
G= TCPAH > 88mg/kg
1= Pyrene ^.7.3mg/kg
g= Pyrene > 7.3mg/kg
Figure 7.40
40
-------
Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 1
depth C samples collected 5/8/91
L=PCPs: 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
41
-------
Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 1
depth D samples collected 7/27/91
Figure 7.42
L=PCPs: 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
42
-------
Initial PCP concentrations in LTU 2
depth,A samples collected 7/27/91
Figure 7.43
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
43
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 9/1/92
L=PCP«j 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
44
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 9/1/92
.L
#1
.L
• L
#2
L •
. L
L • .L
#4
• • L
#3
L • •
Figure 7.45
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
45
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 9/1/92
Figure 7.46
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
46
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
samples collected 9/1/92
• L
#2
. L
#3
L • •
• L
Figure 7.47
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
47
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth E
samples collected 9/1/92
Figure 7.48
L=PCP^ 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
48
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/2/92
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
Figure 7.49
49
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 2 depth B
samples collected 9/2/92
.L
• »L
#1
• • L
#2
.L
#4
• L
.L
#3
L •
L
Figure 7.50
L=PCP<; 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
50
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 9/18/91
Figure 7.51
L=PCP<; 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
51
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 9/18/91
Figure 7.52
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
52
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 9/18/91
1f ^^tA2£^^^^;*/
K* ?5" f"" ''-'
'* ' '
Figure 7.53
L=PCP* 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
53
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth D
samples collected 9/18/91
G
#1
.L
• .L
#2
G
G • .G
#4
• • G
G
G
#3
G • •
Figure 7.54
=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
54
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 2 depth A
samples collected 9/19/91
• L
#1
G. . L
#2
G
G
G
#4
G • •
G
G
#3
G
• G
Figure 7.55
L=PCPs; 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
55
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 6/27/91
#1
• L
#2
#4
#3
L •
• L
Figure 7.56
L=PCP^ 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
56
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 6/27/91
Figure 7.57
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
57
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth C
samples collected 6/27/91
Figure 7.58
L=PCP<; 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
58
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth A
samples collected 5/6/91
Figure 7.59
L=PCP£ 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
59
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU 1 depth B
samples collected 5/6/91
: *," ,= "- > <-.-,' -„ "r
L=PCPs 37mg/kg
G=PCP> 37mg/kg
Figure 7.60
60
-------
Concentrations of Cb & CO2 in LTU 1
at depth 1 foot (9/18&19/91)
(20.0,0.4)0 (19
(20.0,0.3)0 #1 o^
(20.0,0.7)
14.0,4.4),,.
0 #4
(20.5,0.3)0 (20
(19.8,0.9)-o.
(20.5,0.2) o (20
(18.5,1.7) o #2 ° (20
(20.5,0.2) o
5,1.0)o
o (20.0,0.8)
0,0.9)0
o (21.0,0.7)
1,0.9)0
0(21.0,0.3)
8,0.5)o #3
0(19.1,1.6):
Figure 7.61
O2, % CO2) O
61
-------
Concentrations of O2 & CO2 in LTU 1
at depth 2 feet (9/18&19/91)
(7.0
(17.5,2.0)0 #1 <*,
(16.0,4.0)
(9,
(18.5,2.2)0 (20
': ' (20.5,0.3) jo o-
(21.0,0.1) o 05
(20.0,0.6) o #2 ° (19
(18.5,2.0) o
>5.0)o
0(18.4,1.0)
O2 , % CO2) O
0,>5.0) „.
0 #4
1,0.5)o
o (21.0,0.2)'
1,4.7)o
0(21.0,0.1) Y',.
5,1-8)0 #3
0(19.0,0.9)!
Figure 7.62
62
-------
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY
depth A samples collected 9/92
,,*,
NT - Non Toxic
T-Toxic
Figure 7.63
DE
'/{,
'V,
%
/f .. ; *
"\*'«*
,-"• 5
is
f
'V ""
•> £• f
:-r -
'ff -
'
'%,
;^:,
-"",- , '<
' "','<
f
* f '
:
TOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY — .
depth B samples collected 9/92 .. .-:
?**•"•*„'*• ••? ??* * •• s V* ' •" ** """" f '7* '
;;^ ^ , "- v* * * ^^' ""-" ?-', "- ;"
• • • NT*
Nl
1 • n i
T-
• NT* • NT* .I"-'..
>;f + f-.
#1 #4 h'^'l
• NT* • • \" " *
7
• • • • t
| ; :
• • • NT* | \' 1
E s %
• • • • | :
#2 #3
NT* • • • I ,
I •.
NT* NT* • NT* ;
*
NT - Non Toxic
Figure 7.64
-------
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY
depth C samples collected 9/92
-
-
-
i-
n
• • • NT*
• NT* • NT*
#1 #4
• • NT* NT*
#2 #3
NT* NT* • •
8
NT -Non Toxic
T - Toxic
...-
-.
-
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY
-
L
depth A samples collected 9/91
• • NT* •
• • NT* •
#1 #4
• • • NT*
• • NT * *
• NT* • •
#2 #3
• NT* NT • •
• • NT* •
— -— —•*-—" "— -, __
-
NT
T-
5
••
'
'', f
•"
NT-Non Toxic
Figure 7.65
Figure 7.66
64
-------
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY __
depth B samples collected 9/91
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY
depth C samples collected 9/91
NT - Non Toxic
T-Toxic
Figure 7.67
Figure 7.68
65
-------
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY
Figure 7.69
It
V^k-^*-A TV-* i T JfcJL V_* ** V^ *- V^.**. ,( JM^l^Ji A. A •
depth A samples collected 5/91
• • • NT*
• NT* • NT*
#1 #4
• NT* • NT*
• • NT* •
#2 #3
NT. . . .
NT* NT* • NT*
' ~-_
m
T-
-
-i
':
IN
NT-Non Toxic
DETOXIFICATION OF LTU 1 SOIL
USING MICROTOX ASSAY ,
depth B samples collected 5/91
#1
• NT*
• NT*
#2
NT • NT*
NT*
NT*
#4
NT • NT*
#3
NT*
Figure 7.70
NT - Non Toxic
T-Toxic
66
-------
Table 7.1. Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTD 1, depth C
samples collected 5/6 & 8/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
2
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
5/6&8/91
1.34
1.24
1.85
3.51
3.26
3.97
12.1
4.76
5.64
10.0
3.03
4.64
10.2
4.49
1.56
1.44
3.39
1.41
7.06
4.28
4.5
(3.0-5.9)
6.80
(1.4-12.1)
2.80
(1.3-4.2)
4.20
(0-8.6)
4.1
(1.5-6.7)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
<0.95
<0.94
<0.97
1.15
<0.91
1.5
11.0
5.88
5.05
5.67
0.99
3.81
3.08
1.59
<0.95
1.18
2.13
<0.98
2.86
4.13
2.5
(1.2-3.8)
5.50
(0.7-10.4)
0.53
(0-1.4)
1.60
(0.2-3.0)
2.4
(0.1-4.6)
67
-------
Table 7.2. Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTD 1, depth D
samples collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95 % confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
7/27/91
<0.44
<0.45
0.68
1.34
0.48
<0.44
1.53
1.99
1.63
4.05
<0.45
1.16
0.73
0.74
1.35
<0.45
0.84
1.46
0.99
2.35
1.1
(0.6-1.5)
1.5
(0-3.6)
0.8
(0.03-1.6)
0.7
(0.1-1.3)
1.2
(0.1-2.2)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
<0.93
<0.95
<0.93
<0.94
<0.93
<0.93
<0.94
<0.93
<0.94
<0.95
<0.94
<0.94
<0.95
<0.93
<0.92
<0.94
<0.93
<0.93
<0.95
<0.94
<0.95
<0.95
<0.95
<0.95
<0.95
68
-------
Table 7.3. Initial naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 2,
depth A samples collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95 % confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
33
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
7/27/91
1.47
1.18
<0.46
<0.46
<0.95
<0.45
<0.45
0.66
0.55
3.96
1.14
1.04
1.03
1.51
1.15
2.44
1.43
3.38
2.74
3.73
1.4
(0.8-2.0)
1.6
(0-3.3)
<0.46
1.5
(0.8-2.2)
2.4
(0.8-4.0)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
<0.95
<0.93
<0.95
<0.95
<0.96
<0.93
<0.93
<0.95
<0.92
56.5
<0.94
1.01
0.95
1.09
1.50
1.02
1.06
21.3
2.38
2.64
4.5
(0-10.6)
11.3
(0-42.7)
<0.95
1.1
(0.9-1.4)
5.5
(0-16.6)
69
-------
Table 7.4. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
and B samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
0.98
0.85
1.05
0.94
1.19
1.53
1.40
0.86
0.66
1.28
0.76
0.91
0.86
0.96
0.66
0.56
1.58
1.09
0.84
1.0
(0.9-1.1)
0.9
(0.6-1.2)
1.2
(0.9-1.4)
0.9
(0.4-1.4)
0.9
(0.7-1.1)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
<0.38
<0.38
<0.38
0.94
1.00
3.09
3.21
<0.37
0.80
1.04
1.34
1.36
2.03
4.93
0.49
0.50
1.28
1.08
0.82
1.3
(0.6-1.9)
0.2
(0-1.0)
1.6
(0-3.4)
1.8
(0-4.1)
1.2
(0.7-1.6)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
<0.80
<0.79
<0.81
<0.81
0.85
1.03
0.98
<0.80
<0.81
1.08
<0.80
0.96
0.88
0.99
<0.81
<0.81
1.68
1.05
<0.80
0.5
(0.2-0.8)
0.2
(0-8.0)
0.6
(0-1.2)
0.7
(0-1.6)
0.5
(0-1.4)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
<0.80
<0.79
<0.80
<0.80
<0.81
1.60
1.60
<0.78
<0.80
0.89
0.82
0.94
0.95
2.59
<0.80
<0.80
1.05
1.00
<0.79
0.6
(0.2-1.0)
0.2
(0-0.7)
0.6
(0-1.7)
0.9
(1.3-2.2)
0.7
(0-1.4)
70
-------
Table 7.5. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1, depth C
and D samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kq)
Depth C
9/1/92
<0.37
0.85
0.94
1.30
1.67
4.85
1.53
<0.38
0.84
1.15
0.96
1.79
2.04
2.74
3.89
2.02
<0.38
<0.38
1.5
(0.8-2.0)
0.6
(0-1.2)
2.1
(0.1-4.0)
2.7
(1.3-4.1)
0.7
(0-2.1)
Naphthalene
(mq/kq)
Depth D
0.79
1.96
2.51
1.63
2.95
5.28
1.71
1.13
1.38
1.02
1.18
1.69
1.84
3.51
2.32
2.41
2.75
1.45
1.24
2.0
(1.5-2.5)
1.3
(0.7-1.8)
2.8
(1.0-4.7)
2.2
(1.4-2.9)
1.4
(1.0-1.8)
Phenanthrene
(mq/kq)
Depth C
9/1/92
<0.78
<0.80
<0.79
0.88
1.16
1.49
0.97
<0.79
<0.80
0.94
0.88
1.26
1.44
2.30
<0.80
1.24
<0.80
<0.80
0.7
(0.3-1.0)
0.2
(0-0.7)
0.9
(0.2-1.6)
1.2
(0-2.8)
0.5
(0-1.5)
Phenanthrene
(mq/kq)
Depth D
<0.80
1.12
1.59
1.01
1.68
2.44
0.83
1.00
0.99
<0.80
0.90
0.96
1.65
2.55
<0.80
1.38
1.32
<0.81
<0.79
1.0
(0.6-1.4)
0.6
(0-1.3)
1.5
(0.7-2.3)
1.0
(0.1-1.9)
0.5
(0-1.3)
71
-------
Table 7.6. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1,
depth E samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
30
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth E
9/1/92
1.36
1.87
3.90
7.61
4.63
10.2
<0.38
1.42
1.87
1.41
1.97
2.23
1.42
1.86
9.97
5.08
2.37
3.5
(1.9-5.1)
1.6
(1.3-1.9)
5.3
(0.5-10.1)
4.6
(0-10.9)
2.2
(1.7-2.7)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth E
1.01
1.00
1.69
2.60
1.62
3.79
0.85
1.02
0.90
0.91
1.18
1.09
1.60
<0.78
9.11
2.43
<0.80
1.8
(0.7-2.9)
1.0
(0.9-1.0)
2.1
(0.7-3.5)
3.3
(0-9.7)
0.8
(0-2.4)
72
-------
Table 7.7. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTD 2, depth A
and B samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
2.47
3.06
1.96
3.92
3.31
0.71
2.05
4.65
1.80
2.84
1.51
1.43
1.51
2.4
(1.7-3.1)
2.5
(1.1-3.9)
2.4
(0.6-4.2)
2.3
(0.9-3.8)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
2.29
2.85
1.65
5.12
2.27
2.33
2.76
2.36
1.12
1.43
1.59
1.90
2.3
(1.7-3.0)
2.3
(0.8-3.8)
2.2
(1.4-2.9)
2.5
(-0.3-5.3)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
<0.81
1.66
1.78
0.99
<0.81
<0.80
0.94
1.70
<0.82
7.04
1.12
1.41
<0.80
1.3
(0.1-2.4)
1.1
(0-3.6)
1.9
(0-5.6)
0.7
(0-1.5)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
0.82
1.90
<0.82
<0.81
1.04
<0.81
0.81
<0.80
<0.80
0.87
<0.80
<0.81
0.5
(0.1-0.9)
0.9
(0-3.3)
0.4
(0-1.0)
0.2
(0-5.3)
73
-------
Table 7.8. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
and B samples collected 9/18 & 19/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95 % Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1 8& 19/91
2.83
<0.48
<0.49
<0.48
<0.49
1.19
<0.47
<0.47
0.79
<0.46
<0.46
<0.46
<0.47
0.49
<0.47
0.48
0.56
0.59
1.02
0.40
(0.1-0.8)
0.9
(0-3.0)
0.2
(0-0.9)
0.2
(-0.1-0.5)
0.4
(0-1.0)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
0.71
<0.45
<0.47
<0.47
<0.47
<0.47
<0.46
<0.47
2.57
<0.48
<0.46
0.57
<0.48
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.58
0.69
0.98
0.4
(0.1-0.7)
0.8
(0-2.8)
<0.5
0.4
(0.1-0.7)
0.5
(0-1.0)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1 8&1 9/91
1.79
<1.00
<1.02
<0.99
<1.00
3.91
<0.98
<1.01
1.49
1.04
1.65
<0.97
<0.98
<1.00
<0.98
<0.96
<0.98
1.00
<1.03
0.60
(0.1-1.1)
0.8
(0-2.3)
0.8
(0-3.0)
<1.0
0.7
(0-1.6)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
<0.96
<0.93
<0.98
<1.00
<0.97
<0.98
<0.95
1.15
23.2
<0.99
<0.96
<0.95
<1.00
<0.98
<0.98
<0.97
<1.00
<0.97
<0.99
1.2
(0-3.6)
6.1
(0-24.2)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
74
-------
Table 7.9. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTD 1, depth C
and D samples collected 9/18 & 19/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1 8&1 9/91
<0.45
<0.46
0.49
<0.47
<0.46
0.81
<0.45
<0.46
<0.47
1.12
0.49
<0.46
<0.45
<0.47
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.80
1.04
1.10
0.4
(0.2-0.6)
0.20
(0-0.8)
0.20
(0-0.7)
0.4
(0-0.8)
0.70
(0.1-1.2)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
0.53
<0.48
0.65
0.52
<0.47
2.17
<0.45
<0.47
3.81
0.74
<0.47
2.14
0.91
1.51
0.73
0.72
0.52
1.44
1.39
1.67
1.0
(0.5-1.4)
1.0
(0-3.0)
0.7
(-0.4-1.8)
0.9
(0.4-1.3)
1.3
(0.3-2.3)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1 8&1 9/91
<0.94
<0.95
<0.97
<0.98
<0.97
<0.97
<0.95
<0.97
<0.98
2.52
<0.94
<0.96
<0.95
<0.98
<0.99
<0.98
1.16
1.01
<1.01
<0.97
0.2
(0-0.5)
0.50
(0-1.9)
<1.0
0.2
(0-0.9)
0.20
(0-1.8)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
<0.96
<1.00
<0.98
<0.99
1.22
1.57
<0.95
<0.99
3.87
1.20
<0.98
1.80
<0.99
1.28
<0.96
0.94
<0.96
1.49
<1.01
1.30
0.7
(0.3-1.2)
1.0
(0-3.1)
0.6
(0-1.5)
0.4
(0.3-1.2)
0.9
(0-2.0)
75
-------
Table 7.10. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 2,
depth A samples collected 9/19/91. The mean and 95% confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant
Field Naphthalene Phenanthrene
Core (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
Depth A Depth A
9/19/91
36
47
49
51
54
56
2.08
1.43
1.56
3.78
3.66
5.95
1.10
<0.94
0.98
1.44
1.57
1.70
LTU Mean ^.1 1.4
95% Cl for Mean (1.3-4.9) (1.0-1.7)
Quad. 1 Mean 1.8 0.6
(95% Cl) (0-5.9) (0-7.5)
Quad. 3 Mean 4.8 1.6
(95% Cl) (0-19.4) (0.8-2.5)
Quad. 4 Mean 2.7 1.2
(95% Cl) (0-16.8) (0-4.1)
76
-------
Table 7.11 . Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
and B samples collected 6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
6/27/91
3.58
12.0
19.7
<0.48
1.16
0.74
<0.47
0.78
2.35
0.77
2.98
0.68
<0.46
<0.47
<0.47
3.0
(0.1-5.8)
1.7
(0-4.3)
8.2
(0-23.1)
1.1
(0-3.2)
0.8
(0-2.5)
Depth B
1.25
7.84
3.87
1.21
0.70
1.42
1.06
<0.47
0.81
0.86
1.19
<0.47
<0.46
<0.46
<0.45
<0.47
2.0
(0.2-2.2)
0.6
(0-1.6)
3.0
(0-6.7)
0.30
(0-1.2)
0.4
(0.4-1.2)
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
6/27/91
4.48
6.49
9.65
1.07
1.55
<1.03
<0.98
<0.96
<0.96
<0.96
1.97
<0.97
<0.96
<0.98
<0.98
1.6
(0.5-3.1)
1.1
(0-4.7)
4.7
(0-11.2)
0.5
(0-2.06)
Depth B
1.39
6.68
2.67
1.13
0.00
0.00
1.55
<0.96
<0.96
<0.95
<0.96
<0.97
<0.96
<0.96
<0.95
<0.98
0.8
(0-1.7)
0.7
(0-2.1)
2.1
(0-5.6)
77
-------
Table 7.12. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTD 1, depth C
samples collected 6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
1
2
6
8
9
11
14
19
20
21
23
24
26
29
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
6/27/91
0.72
2.16
15.0
0.95
2.23
1.17
0.59
0.57
<0.47
0.91
<0.46
1.28
0.62
<0.47
<0.47
1.70
(0-3.8)
1.20
(0-3.3)
4.90
(0-1 5.7)
0.7
(0-1.6)
0.1
Phenanthrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
<1.02
2.42
9.80
1.37
1.06
1.41
<0.96
<0.97
<0.96
<0.97
<0.96
<0.98
<0.96
<0.98
<0.96
1.00
(0-2.5)
0.80
(0-4.3)
3.40
(0-10.2)
0.0
0.0
(95% Cl) (0-0.6)
78
-------
Table 7.13. Naphthalene and phenanthrene concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
and B samples collected 5/6/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
1
2
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
19
18
20
23
24
25
27
28
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Naphthalene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
5/6/91
0.65
<0.46
<0.45
0.57
0.56
0.62
3.47
<0.46
5.81
8.16
1.62
1.50
1.16
2.64
2.74
2.11
1.53
0.87
1.85
2.73
1.67
0.99
1.98
(1.2-2.7)
2.9
(0-7.7)
1.0
(0-2.8)
1.8
(1.0-2.7)
1.8
(1.1-2.4)
Phenanthrene
Depth B
1.75
3.73
2.78
2.16
2.71
1.56
1.70
2.2
(1.6-2.8)
2.6
(1.2-4.0)
2.1
(0-9.4))
1.8
(1.4-2.2)
(mg/kg)
Depth A
5/6/91
<0.95
<0.86
<0.98
<0.99
<0.98
<0.97
3.56
<0.95
4.31
4.56
<0.96
<0.96
1.47
4.48
2.63
1.73
1.03
<0.95
<1.00
1.44
<1.02
<1.08
0.81
(0.3-1.4)
1.8
(0-4.8)
0.7
(0-2.7)
1.1
(0-2.5)
1.1
(0-2.6)
Depth B
1.90
5.69
2.61
2.44
2.23
1.77
1.42
2.4
(1.3-3.6)
3.2
(0.4-5.9)
2.0
(0-4.9)
1.3
(0-2.9)
79
-------
Table 7.15. Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 1, depth
C samples collected 5/6&8/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are
shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
2
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
5/6&8/91
27.6
10.1
12.8
7.39
5.73
16.6
16.3
300
182
268
7.49
137
188
47.8
3.66
6.32
22.9
5.16
152
113
76.5
(31.9-121)
159
(0-323)
10.5
(5.2-15.9)
53.7
(0-149)
82.9
(0-171)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth C
75.5
44.0
45.5
37.9
50.1
70.2
129
829
411
755
34.1
438
554
161
14.6
24.5
161
21.7
458
288
230
(110-350)
440
(9.2-870)
49.6
(34.2-64.9)
183
(0-455)
248
(0-510)
80
-------
Table 7.16. Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 1, depth D
samples collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95 % confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
7/27/91
58.9
63.0
20.4
70.2
95.1
54.5
74.8
199
207
197
193
214
125
103
63.6
154
168
216
178
243
135
(102-167)
145
(49.9-240)
63.0
(28.4-97.6)
123
(71.0-174)
209
(178-239)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth D
107
106
40.0
131
158
84.3
121
396
361
399
308
478
182
142
114
233
284
493
337
595
254
(179-328)
274
(83.0-465)
107
(50.1-164)
191
(106-276)
442
(294-590)
81
-------
Table 7.17. Initial pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 2,
depth A samples collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95 % confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
33
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
7/27/91
190
53.4
123
146
34.2
84.6
58.8
69.7
74.7
150
64.5
31.5
46.5
55.8
71.4
69.4
54.2
104
86.5
130
84.9
(65.0-105)
108
(34.0-181)
89.4
(32.6-146)
59.5
(46.3-72.6)
83.3
(36.5-130)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
393
125
234
153
54.9
203
111
157
193
447
164
92.9
127
156
177
179
135
321
250
412
204
(153.3-255)
263
(80.9-444)
151
(62.6-240)
155
(125-184)
248
(91.9-404)
82
-------
Table 7.18. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 1, depth A
and B samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
1.12
1.15
<0.85
1.07
1.29
3.88
2.35
1.05
1.68
2.56
1.00
1.67
1.63
1.81
0.89
<0.85
1.83
0.90
<0.84
1.4
(0.9-1.8)
1.5
(0.7-2.3)
1.7
(0-3.5)
1.2
(0.3-2.2)
0.9
(0-2.0)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
1.29
0.93
<0.84
0.99
1.40
11.83
4.78
1.24
1.27
1.52
1.26
1.90
2.60
21.25
0.91
<0.84
1.41
1.05
<0.84
2.9
(0.4-5.4)
1.3
(1.0-1.5)
3.8
(0-9.8)
5.2
(0-16.4)
1.1
(0-2.3)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
22.8
7.12
4.13
7.05
5.59
30.9
51.9
1.80
16.9
7.32
13.2
31.6
36.3
33.8
2.61
1.34
29.3
18.3
7.31
17.3
(10.3-24.4)
11.2
(0.7-21.7)
19.9
(0-46.0)
20.7
(0-42.1)
17.6
(1.1-34.1)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth B
2.24
6.49
0.64
9.59
5.41
174
123
15.7
26.7
18.8
14.9
34.6
49.1
71.2
0.91
6.53
31.2
36.3
7.65
33.4
(11.6-55.3)
14.0
(1.9-26.1)
62.6
(0-163)
31.8
(0-68.2)
23.4
(0.6-46.1)
83
-------
Table 7.19. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 1, depth C
and D samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1/92
1.02
1.06
1.17
1.93
2.91
5.04
2.53
1.37
5.87
1.67
1.32
11.84
6.62
20.1
3.84
1.82
<0.94
<0.84
3.9
(1.3-6.1)
2.2
(0-4.8)
2.7
(0.9-4.5)
8.1
(0-21.2)
3.3
(0-12.4)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
1.33
2.61
3.78
2.83
4.08
25.4
1.86
2.59
2.23
1.05
2.01
1.33
5.98
13.3
3.28
2.69
2.93
<0.85
1.63
4.3
(1.4-7.3)
2.0
(1.1-2.9)
7.6
(0-20.0)
4.5
(0.7-8.3)
1.2
(0-2.6)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1/92
11.1
9.35
2.06
10.2
74.1
203
17.3
14.8
39.5
32.6
10.1
53.4
54.4
148
23.8
25.5
1.76
6.69
41.0
(13.3-64.4)
21.5
(4.5-38.5)
61.3
(0-1 66)
62.9
(0-1 56)
18.0
(0-56.0)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth D
26.7
30.3
37.6
17.7
60.0
96.4
14.5
36.3
29.5
5.04
18.1
15.6
97.0
82.7
17.0
33.3
41.9
14.7
35.8
37.1
(23.1-51.2)
25.6
(10.7-40.5)
45.2
(3.1-87.3)
43.7
(12.9-74.4)
21.0
(5.2-36.8)
84
-------
Table 7.20. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 1,
depth E samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
30
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth E
9/1/92
1.50
2.26
3.90
9.30
2.35
97.3
1.31
2.54
2.11
1.75
2.88
2.14
3.88
5.23
67.9
6.24
<0.84
12.5
(0-26.4)
2.0
(1.5-2.5)
22.8
(0-74.7)
20.8
(0-70.8)
1.7
(0-5.4)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth E
15.5
58.0
68.9
106
28.8
245
2.11
51.8
31.3
16.6
32.7
43.4
33.5
34.3
188
70.2
28.9
62.0
(29.2-94.8)
34.6
(10.2-59.1)
90.1
(0-208)
81.4
(0-197)
35.0
(16.4-53.6)
85
-------
Table 7.21. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 2, depth A
and B samples collected 9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
3.98
6.84
5.68
6.33
2.26
2.33
9.00
8.05
5.11
4.90
<0.85
<0.84
<0.84
4.2
(2.3-6.0)
5.5
(1.9-9.1)
5.9
(2.6-9.2)
1.7
(0-5.1)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
4.22
8.37
5.08
5.16
5.79
4.74
5.40
4.88
3.06
<0.85
0.92
<0.85
4.0
(2.4-5.6)
5.9
(0.4-11.3)
4.8
(3.5-6.1)
1.5
(0-5.4)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1/92
50.8
56.4
45.8
83.2
13.1
9.54
56.4
91.7
27.3
25.7
37.8
43.8
31.4
44.1
(29.4-58.8)
51.0
(37.9-64.2)
42.1
(1.9-82.4)
41.9
(9.8-73.9)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth B
29.1
98.1
41.0
47.4
58.7
41.6
26.6
30.8
14.6
23.5
31.2
30.6
39.4
(25.6-53.5)
56.1
(0-148)
34.5
(13.8-55.1)
33.2
(17.2-49.2)
86
-------
Table 7.22. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTD 1, depth A
and B samples collected 9/18 & 19/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95 % Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1 8&1 9/91
6.07
1.75
4.57
1.14
1.24
8.36
2.52
6.72
3.94
49.4
2.43
1.96
1.93
<1.06
<1.03
2.18
2.04
1.84
1.36
5.20
(0-10.5)
4.8
(1.7-7.9)
3.4
(0-7.3)
1.2
(0-2.6)
11.4
(0-37.8)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth B
2.98
1.02
3.33
3.13
<1.02
1.36
1.35
<1.03
129
1.32
3.09
4.86
2.41
1.25
1.32
1.23
1.79
1.73
1.06
8.5
(0-22.6)
33.2
(0-135)
1.8
(0.1-3.6)
2.2
(0.3-4.1)
1.8
(0.8-2.8)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
9/1 8& 19/91
80.8
22.5
49.1
9.27
17.7
59.9
45.5
37.5
47.9
171
27.3
19.2
18.0
<20.2
<19.6
6.15
18.1
15.1
1.36
34.0
(14.8-53.2)
52.9
(22.5-83.3)
31.7
(4.7-58.7)
8.7
(0-20.3)
46.6
(0-1 34)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth B
31.3
10.4
25.9
25.2
1.41
13.1
19.1
51.4
415
7.88
20.5
24.4
26.1
7.11
2.18
1.23
19.0
16.4
1.06
37.8
(0-82.4)
127.0
(0-434)
16.9
(4.4-29.5)
12.2
(0-27.2)
13.0
(2.7-23.2)
87
-------
Table 7.23. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 1, depth C
and D samples collected 9/18 & 19/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1 8&1 9/91
4.99
1.26
4.94
4.57
1.64
9.48
3.47
7.41
1.71
11.7
16.4
5.59
6.65
4.24
1.17
1.04
1.70
2.59
1.66
1.35
4.6
(2.8-6.6)
5.40
(0.1-10.8)
4.80
(1.2-8.4)
3
(0-6.0)
5.50
(0-13.3)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth D
2.71
11.1
9.85
7.42
8.22
11.6
9.40
48.9
160
11.6
67.4
132
56.9
6.53
2.52
10.5
9.71
65.7
12.3
61.0
35.3
(14.5-56.0)
46.9
(0-128)
9.3
(7.2-11.3)
17.2
(0-45.0)
67.6
(14.8-120)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth C
9/1 8&1 9/91
33.9
9.50
31.9
45.4
13.1
34.0
56.6
69.1
25.0
113
98.0
22.2
19.6
41.1
2.10
1.90
2.71
14.8
19.7
6.13
33.0
(18.5-47.4)
50.1
(0-102)
36.2
(16.0-56.4)
13.4
(0-34.8)
32.2
(0-78.5)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth D
20.3
38.2
45.2
46.6
47.7
121
56.2
125
443
84.6
165
304
156
39.9
10.9
29.3
14.9
137
40.0
129
103
(52.5-153)
142.4
(0-357)
63.2
(23.1-103)
50.2
(0-125)
155
(36.1-274)
-------
Table 7.24. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 2,
depth A samples collected 9/19/91. The mean and 95% confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
36
47
49
51
54
56
LTU Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
9/19/91
3.38
7.16
106
4.54
37.2
101
43.2
(-7.6-94.0)
5.3
(-18.7-29.3)
69.0
(-334-472)
55.4
(-591-702)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
11.8
28.9
228
44.8
82.8
219
103
(1.2-204)
20.4
(-88.5-1 29)
151
(-716-1018)
136
(-1020-1298)
89
-------
Table 7.25. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 1
depth A and B samples collected 6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence
interval are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
6/27/91
10.7
18.3
16.7
1.87
3.50
6.22
1.36
<1.03
<1.01
5.72
4.28
11.60
1.40
<1.01
<1.03
<0.99
<1.03
5.1
(1.9-8.3)
4.6
(0-12.3)
10.1
(0-12.5)
4.3
(0 -12.5)
1.4
(0-6.0)
Depth B
3.42
17.0
5.79
1.58
1.58
2.09
<1.00
0.00
<1.02
2.09
2.93
2.65
1.47
<1.01
<1.01
<1.03
4.5
(0-9.8)
1.7
(0-23.4)
5.6
(0-13.8)
1.0
(0-3.1)
1.3
(0-3.6)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
6/27/91
111
147
194
8.12
29.0
42.3
4.44
<19.8
1.70
54.81
29.15
113.82
7.01
<19.3
<19.7
<19.0
<19.7
82.2
(0-166)
57.9
(0-737)
94.3
(0-238)
37.5
(0-121)
14.1
(0-57.3)
Depth B
42.7
212
54.7
11.9
7.33
26.9
<19.2
12.3
<19.5
41.8
40.3
47.0
4.48
<19.3
<19.4
<19.8
52.6
(0-120)
27.5
(0-220)
62.7
(0-169)
12.9
(0-49.2)
20.5
(0-58.2)
90
-------
Table 7.26. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 1, depth C
samples collected 6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant.
Field
Core
2
6
8
9
11
14
19
20
21
23
24
26
29
32
Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth C
6/27/91
9.43
38.7
3.31
3.01
3.49
<1.01
1.89
1.14
1.16
1.06
3.42
1.45
1.22
<1.02
4.8
(0-10.2)
4.1
(0-16.1)
12.1
(0-40.4)
1.8
(0.0-3.5)
1.1
(0-2.3)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth C
57.3
339
26.0
20.2
63.3
<19.2
16.4
10.3
13.3
2.2
28.3
4.5
1.2
<19.6
40.1
(0-87.2)
25.3
(0-98.0)
112
(0-355)
12.1
(0-30.9)
7.0
(0-1 9.4)
91
-------
Table 7.27. Pyrene and total carcinogenic PAH concentrations in LTU 1, depth A
and B samples collected 5/6/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval
are shown for each quadrant
Field
Core
1
2
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
27
28
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for Mean
Quad. 1 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 2 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 3 Mean
(95% Cl)
Quad. 4 Mean
(95% Cl)
Pyrene
(mg/kg)
Depth A
5/6/91
1.69
<0.90
<1.03
<1.04
<1.03
<1.01
6.80
<1.00
19.9
15.6
1.62
<1.04
1.70
8.49
11.0
4.40
3.07
1.09
2.51
5.28
3.43
2.12
4.03
(1.6-6.4)
7.3
(0-18.9)
1.4
(0-5.1)
4.4
(0-9.3)
3.2
(0.6-5.9)
Depth B
3.92
11.2
4.26
4.90
4.72
1.83
4.78
2.28
3.52
4.7
(2.4-7.1)
6.1
(0.6-11.5)
3.3
(0-21.6)
3.5
(0-1 9.4)
Total
Carcinogenic
PAH (mg/kg)
Depth A
5/6/91
4.21
<17.2
<19.4
1.37
1.16
<19.4
68.1
1.19
136
139
30.6
2.06
23.9
71.0
94.8
43.9
11.2
4.07
15.5
65.8
8.23
32.9
(13.4-52.5)
55.8
(0-148)
14.1
(0-51.6)
33.9
(0-80.2)
29.3
(2.7-55.9)
Depth B
41.3
116
79.2
49.3
66.1
28.0
40.9
37.1
57.2
(33.1-81.3)
71.4
(17.8-125)
47.1
(0-289)
39.0
(14.9-63.0)
92
-------
Table 7.29. Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth C samples
collected 5/8/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each
quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24 ,
25
28
4 17
18
19
20
30
31
POP
fma/ka)
431.88
240.61
183.04
1 54.70
64.25
93.46
184.34
216.70
407.67
1 54.77
141.85
119.56
5.41
13.02
39.43
87.31
67.82
13.13
50.22
45.49
59.05
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mq/ka) Mean
214.9 (44.8-385.0)
211.4 (63.9-358.8)
63.9 (-14.2-141.9)
53.8 (27.8-79.9)
LTU Mean 132.1
95% Cl for LTU Mean (78.6-185.6)
93
-------
Table 7.30. Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth D samples
collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each
quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
PCP
(mg/kg)
85.84
156.03
171.50
1 55.04
84.67
55.96
127.90
143.00
119.22
57.25
79.57
67.07
58.09
68.23
1 24.00
1 60.84
117.17
224.97
87.17
244.64
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
130.6 (78.6-182.7)
101 (49.0-151.7)
79.4 (47.0-111.8)
167 (83-250.9)
LTU Mean 119.40
95% Cl for LTU Mean (93.9-145.0)
94
-------
Table 7.31. Initial pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 2 depth A samples
collected 7/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each
quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 33
36
45
47
48
2 38
39
40
42
44
3 54
55
56
58
59
4 49
51
62
63
64
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
124.59 141.3
35.31
84.62
91.79
370.07
76.98 66.6
56.84
55.35
97.02
46.66
61.66 71.3
61.71
76.78
92.47
63.88
104.87 126.4
57.28
207.86
94.76
167.26
101.40
(66.1-136.7)
95% Cl for
Mean
(-22.4-305)
(41.3-91.8)
(54.7-87.9)
(51.5-201.3)
95
-------
Table 7.32. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A samples collected
9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 3
14
15
16
2 6
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
PCP
(mg/kg)
8.24
6.91
9.24
10.45
6.59
4.46
4.68
<3.7
7.95
7.60
39.56
7.12
5.50
3.38
5.06
<3.74
<3.71
5.63
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
8.7 (6.32-11.1)
3.9 (-0.5-8.4)
13.5 (-4.6-31.6)
2.8 (-0.5-6.2)
LTU Mean 7.4
95% Cl for LTU Mean (3.1-11.6)
96
-------
Table 7.33. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B samples collected
9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
POP
(mg/kg)
9.88
7.11
2.26
<3.74
10.10
7.30
3.71
3.63
12.00
10.66
17.84
16.93
<3.72
<3.72
4.37
10.43
13.85
5.61
5.34
7.30
7.4
(4.9-9.9)
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
5.9 (0.2-11.5)
7.5 (2.7-12.3)
7.8 (-3.2-18.9)
8.5 (4.0-13.0)
97
-------
Table 7.34. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth C samples collected
9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
9.59 8.1
10.39
4.75
12.12
3.83
13.30 11.2
7.65
8.83
13.02
13.08
13.95 14.1
26.53
9.54
14.73
5.60
9.54 8.5
29.05
<3.72
<3.72
3.67
10.5
(7.0-13.9)
95% Cl for
Mean
(3.6-12.7)
(7.8-14.5)
(4.3-23.8)
(-6.6-23.6)
98
-------
Table 7.35. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 1 depth D samples collected
9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
11.10 19.8
17.35
13.73
25.96
30.79
20.49 1 6.3
18.12
11.39
19.57
11.70
20.69 15.3
31.43
10.54
5.98
7.73
17.57 16.3
14.77
3.97
26.97
18.27
16.9
(13.3-20.5)
95% Cl for
Mean
(9.4-30.1)
(10.8-21.7)
(2.0-28.5)
(6.0-26.6)
99
-------
Table 7.36. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth E samples collected
9/1/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 18
20
30
31
32
4 21
23
24
25
28
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kgL PCPJmg/kgl
16.69 18.9
19.17
8.33
27.62
22.57
20.90 23.5
21.84
9.88
51.80
13.22
30.98 18.1
19.21
4.83
20.33
15.39
13.54 32.3
30.00
85.10
21.94
10.94
23.2
(14.9-31.5)
95% Cl for
Mean
(10.0-27.8)
(2.9-44.1)
(6.4-29.9)
(-5.5-70.1)
100
-------
Table 7.37. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2 depth A samples collected
9/2/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
PCP Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 33
36
45
47
48
2 38
39
40
44
3 54
55
56
58
59
4 49
51
62
63
64
LTU Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
14.48 20.5
26.01
6.31
33.34
22.15
20.44 1 5.4
19.32
15.30
6.66
13.42 26.0
21.25
30.01
36.68
28.72
15.55 16.3
5.76
17.04
29.71
13.39
19.8
Mean
(7.5-33.4)
(5.5-25.4)
(14.9-37.1)
(5.5-27.1)
95% Cl for LTU Mean (15.4-24.2)
101
-------
Table 7.38. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 2 depth B samples collected
9/2/92. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
POP Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
LTU Quadrant Core No. (mq/kq) PCP (mq/kq) Mean
1
2
3
4
33
36
45
47
48
38
39
40
42
44
54
55
56
58
59
49
51
62
63
64
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
19.32 17.0
13.82
16.06
29.51
6.12
21.28 16.7
20.29
17.90
16.42
7.66
33.07 22.5
9.75
27.00
23.80
19.08
23.48 22.5
10.59
12.95
28.20
37.18
19.7
(15.7-23.6)
(6.4-27.6)
(10.0-23.4)
(11.6-33.4)
(8.8-36.1)
102
-------
Table 7.39. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A samples collected
9/18/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
13.29 9.7
13.25
2.60
6.42
12.86
5.08 15
29.55
11.22
19.07
10.30
3.43 6
5.85
6.94
3.06
10.68
4.73 4.5
2.54
4.09
6.75
4.51
95% Cl for
Mean
(3.6-15.8)
(3.2-26.9)
(2.16-9.8)
(2.6-6.4)
LTU Mean 8.8
95% Cl for LTU Mean (5.7-11.9)
103
-------
Table 7.40. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B samples collected
9/18/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP
(ma/kq)
9.65
11.44
3.78
5.86
7.19
8.53
3.75
5.80
8.37
10.07
4.20
4.93
10.47
9.31
3.22
6.03
6.77
5.99
3.08
6.80
(5.5-8.0)
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mq/kq) Mean
7.7 (2.1-13.2)
6.7 (4.3-9.2)
7.8 (4.1-11.5)
5 (2.9-7.2)
104
-------
Table 7.41. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 1 depth C samples collected
9/18/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTD Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
19
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP
(mg/kg)
5.59
3.45
18.01
2.89
2.12
12.54
50.93
11.16
13.26
3.91
19.63
14.07
20.62
10.06
11.05
48.14
119.89
28.19
14.58
16.92
7.05
20.70
(8.7-32.6)
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
6.4 (-1.8-14.6)
18.4 (-4.7-41.4)
15.1 (9.1-21.1)
39.1 (-5.0-83.2)
105
-------
Table 7.42. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth D samples collected
9/18/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
53.36 33.7
14.62
22.64
63.70
14.06
33.96 26
28.44
29.51
27.06
11.18
41.96 34.5
36.55
16.38
29.76
47.79
57.1 1 67.8
56.54
70.20
38.20
116.78
40.50
(28.9-52.1)
95% Cl for
Mean
(4.8-62.5)
(15.2-36.8)
(19.4-49.5)
(30.9-104.6)
106
-------
Table 7.43. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 2 depth A samples collected
9/19/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 3b
45
47
48
2 38
39
40
42
44
3 54
55
58
59
60
4 49
51
52
63
64
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mg/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
49.1 1 23.9
7.85
15.79
23.01
34.09 258.4
37.60
14.86
1167.76
37.61
21.74 73.6
103.96
118.61
86.37
37.18
15.16 36.0
82.96
24.81
30.11
26.91
101.90
(-23.9-227.2)
95% Cl for
Mean
(-4.5-52.4)
(-372.9-889.7)
(21.2-126.0)
(2.7-69.3)
107
-------
Table 7.44. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth A samples collected
6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 1
2
3
14
15
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 17
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP Quadrant Mean
(mq/kg) PCP (mg/kg)
12.70 11.7
17.46
21.48
5.83
0.89
8.29 10.2
20.28
5.54
9.77
7.08
8.67 10.2
24.44
8.13
4.10
5.42
4.34 9
17.76
12.47
9.44
0.81
10.2
(7.1-13.4)
95% Cl for
Mean
(1.3-22.1)
(2.9-17.5)
(-.04-20.3)
(.7-17.2)
108
-------
Table 7.45. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 1 depth B samples collected
6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 18
20
30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
PCP
(mg/kg)
5.63
4.82
4.40
3.17
3.67
8.52
19.76
10.33
0.96
9.14
3.46
6.33
6.22
2.69
8.03
7.49
4.11
6.46
8.18
0.88
6.2
(4.3-8.1)
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
4.3 (3.1-5.5)
9.7 (1.4-18.1)
5.3 (2.6-8.1)
5.4 (1.7-9.1)
109
-------
Table 7.46. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth C samples collected
6/27/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 21
23
24
25
28
4 17
18
20
30
31
32
PCP
(mg/kg)
5.51
8.21
2.88
2.96
23.89
15.05
10.93
15.14
5.87
7.63
3.17
8.52
9.73
14.43
22.41
9.81
3.17
8.72
13.22
9.92
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
4.9 (0.9-8.9)
14.2 (5.9-22.4)
8.7 (3.7-13.7)
1 1 .7 (3-20.4)
LTU Mean 10.10
95% Cl for LTU Mean (7.3-12.8)
110
-------
Table 7.47. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTD 1 depth A samples collected
5/6/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTD Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
2 6
7
8
9
11
3 23
24
25
28
4 18
19
20
32
LTU Mean
PCP
(mq/kq)
9.63
51.88
17.63
17.06
61.01
32.52
19.05
10.08
11.62
20.99
5.18
3.40
4.98
17.85
11.61
7.54
0.85
17.80
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mq/kq) Mean
24 (-6.0-54.1)
26.9 (0.7-53.0)
8.6 (-4.5-21.8)
9.5 (-1.9-20.8)
95% Cl for LTU Mean (9.3-26.3)
111
-------
Table 7.48. Pentachlorophenol concentrations in LTU 1 depth B samples collected
5/6/91. The mean and 95% confidence interval are shown for each quadrant.
LTU Quadrant Core No.
1 2
3
14
15
16
2 6
7
8
9
3 21
23
25
28
4 30
31
32
LTU Mean
95% Cl for LTU Mean
POP
(mg/kg)
44.69
34.57
9.16
13.54
2.56
37.98
34.40
14.85
16.49
4.85
3.89
4.80
8.27
5.52
5.29
8.07
15.6
(8.1-23.1)
Quadrant Mean 95% Cl for
PCP (mg/kg) Mean
20.9 (-1.3-43.1)
25.9 (6.9-45.0)
5.5 (2.4-8.5)
6.3 (2.5-10.1)
112
-------
Table 7.51 Average distribution of phenanthrene in the microcosms in the biological mineralization and humification study.
Soil Sample
Depth A, 5/6/91
Core 12
Core 12
Core 12
Core 12
Core 15
Core 15
Core 15
Core 15
Moisture
(% Field Capacity)
80
80
40
40
80
80
40
40
Temperature
CO
20
10
20
10
20
10
20
10
% Volatilization
0.19
0.25
0.27
0.90
0.12
0.70
0.15
0.20
% Mineralization
4.62
4.05
7.23
0.76
5.22
0.83
2.09
0.31
% Solvent Extractable
5.19
16.89
19.64
14.72
8.13
19.24
45.84
27.38
% Soil Bound
40.08
50.79
49.10
58.14
88.08
89.03
45.14
63.54
% Mass Recovered
50.08
71.99
76.24
73.71
101.55
109.17
93.23
91.25
Table 7.52 Average distribution of pentachlorophenol in the microcosms in the biological mineralization and humification study.
Soil Samole
Depth D, 7/27/91
Depth D, 7/27/91
Depth D, 7/27/91
Depth D, 7/27/91
Depth C. 5/8/91
Depth C, 5/8/91
Depth C, 5/8/91
Depth C, 5/8/91
Moisture
(% Field Capacity)
80
80
40
40
80
80
40
40
Temperature
CO
20
10
20
10
20
10
20
10
% Volatilization
0.22
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.12
0.31
0.10
1.02
% Mineralization
3.65
0.67
0.40
0.86
3.11
1.76
1.27
9.19
% Solvent Extractable
50.48
20.38
58.14
56.15
15.61
28.52
26.02
26.95
% Soil Bound
12.27
34.01
35.49
26.12
33.22
63.20
36.27
24.11
% Mass Recovered
66.62
55.09
94.06
83.16
52.06
93.79
63.66
61.27
113
-------
B-1: PAHsedited9/21/93
Date
Collected
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
Finlrl
Core
1
?
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
15
17
18
18
19
20
23
?4
?5
27
28
30
31
3?
1
14
15
1fi
?3
?4
30
31
2
5
fi
10
11
n
i ift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
0
C
0
0
C
UWRL
ID#
1748
1750
1762
1765
1771
1774
1777
1783
1786
1790
1796
1798
1798
1801
1804
1813
816
819
825
828
834
837
1840
1747
1787 A
1791
1794
1814
1817 A
1835
1838
1752
1761
1764
1776
1779
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.65
<0.455
<0.45
0.57
0.56
0.62
3.47
<0.455
5.81
8.16
1.62
1.16
1.16
1.50
2.64
2.74
2.11
1.53
0.87
1.85
2.73
1.67
0.99
1.75
3.73
2.78
2.16
2.71
1.56
1.70
1.98
1.34
1.24
1.85
3.51
3.26
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.60
0.33
0.47
0.52
0.45
0.42
1.41
0.48
1.87
2.60
0.99
<0.30
<0.30
0.73
1.16
1.51
1.08
<0.30
0.42
0.55
0.97
<0.31
<0.33
0.96
1.80
1.45
1.08
1.44
0.97
0.62
0.77
0.53
0.52
0.46
0.51
0.55
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.36
0.08
0.14
0.16
0.16
0.12
1.98
0.14
2.28
2.34
0.29
0.16
0.16
0.19
1.42
1.04
0.83
0.43
0.17
<0.11
0.69
0.44
<0.11
0.84
2.06
1.07
1.06
1.09
0.79
0.63
<0.10
0.26
0.20
0.20
0.35
0.25
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.333
<0.301
<0.345
<0.347
<0.344
<0.339
1.73
<0.334
1.80
2.12
<0.335
1.73
1.73
<0.336
2.00
1.32
1.15
0.59
<0.335
0.58
0.89
0.51
<0.38
1.24
1.93
1.37
1.31
1.27
1.17
0.68
0.60
<0.331
<0.331
<0.331
<0.343
<0.319
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.948
<0.859
<0.984
<0.989
<0.980
<0.965
3.56
<0.952
4.31
4.56
<0.955
1.47
1.47
<0.959
4.48
2.63
1.73
1.03
<0.954
<1.00
1.44
<1.02
<1.08
1.90
5.69
2.61
2.44
2.23
1.77
1.42
<0.98
<0.945
<0.944
0.98
1.15
<0.908
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
<1.077
<0.975
<1.117
<1.124
<1.113
<1.096
5.00
<1.082
9.86
7.45
3.93
14.03
14.03
1.71
13.97
3.10
1.60
1.17
<1.083
1.24
5.13
<1.15
1.87
1.46
12.86
5.91
3.15
2.57
1.30
1.64
1.51
1.31
<1.072
2.00
2.50
4.18
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.10
<0.685
<0.785
<0.790
<0.782
<0.77
5.31
<0.760
15.61
11.30
1.90
<0.79
<0.79
1.79
8.14
6.18
2.50
2.30
<0.761
1.83
3.16
1.66
1.40
15.21
9.41
4.22
3.63
3.65
1.54
2.77
1.79
9.96
5.96
5.62
2.70
6.21
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
1.69
<0.902
<1.034
<1.040
<0.1029
<1.014
6.80
<1.001
19.92
15.56
1.62
<1.04
<1.04
1.73
8.49
11.05
4.40
3.07
1.09
2.51
5.28
3.43
2.12
3.92
11.16
4.26
4.90
4.72
1.83
4.78
2.28
27.60
10.14
12.83
7.38
5.73
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.661
<1.504
<1.723
<1.734
<1.717
<1.69
4.02
<1.669
11.62
9.53
<1.673
<1.73
<1.73
<1.680
4.05
3.66
1.93
<1.75
<1.671
<1.75
7.64
<1.78
<1.89
2.80
6.39
3.73
3.21
2.67
3.17
5.37
2.05
4.84
3.03
2.78
2.15
2.01
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
1.42
<0.994
<1.138
1.37
1.16
<1.117
3.66
1.19
9.27
7.36
2.08
<1.14
<1.14
1.65
4.45
3.41
1.73
1.21
1.24
<1.16
2.57
<1.18
<1.25
1.76
5.95
3.32
3.33
3.69
1.16
1.86
<1.14
6.10
3.90
3.84
3.37
3.84
B- 1
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
Fifilri
Core
1?
13
14
15
1fi
18
20
?3
?4
?5
27
28
29
30
,11
3
6
7
9
11
13
14
15
1fl
20
22
?3
?4
?5
30
3?
?
6
7
8
9
r>
lift
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
R
UWRL
ID*
1782
1785
1789
1792
1795
1800
1806
1815
1818
1821
1827
1830
1833
1836
1839
1859
1868A
1871
1877
1883
1889
1892
1895
1907
1910
1916
1919
1922
1925
1940
1946
1857
1869
1872
1875
1878
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
3.97
12.10
4.76
5.64
10.02
1.65
4.64
10.16
4.49
0.87
0.74
3.39
0.82
7.06
4.28
3.58
12.02
19.68
<0.48
1.16
2.46
0.74
<0.47
0.78
2.35
0.77
2.98
0.68
<0.46
<0.47
<0.47
1.25
7.84
3.87
1.21
0.70
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.52
5.19
2.47
1.64
3.04
<0.280
1.87
1.66
0.95
<0.289
<0.277
1.25
<0.298
1.83
1.86
1.25
2.73
5.06
0.97
1.00
0.36
0.87
<0.30
<0.29
0.39
<0.29
0.68
<0.30
<0.29
<0.30
<0.30
1.07
4.83
1.31
0.85
0.87
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.35
5.65
3.54
1.92
2.90
0.28
2.27
2.03
0.88
0.14
<0.096
0.84
<0.103
1.51
1.72
1.72
2.59
3.13
0.95
1.31
0.26
0.94
<0.10
<0.10
0.21
<0.10
0.63
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
1.05
2.13
1.29
0.94
0.91
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.318
4.36
3.06
1.88
2.58
0.41
2.36
1.89
0.66
<0.334
0.50
1.55
<0.344
1.42
1.92
2.07
3.01
3.18
0.72
1.03
0.43
<0.36
<0.35
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
0.70
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
0.85
2.50
1.27
<0.35
0.67
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
1.50
11.03
5.88
5.05
5.67
<0.932
3.81
3.08
1.59
<0.951
<0.913
2.13
<0.982
2.86
4.13
4.48
6.49
9.65
1.07
1.55
<0.95
<1.03
<0.98
<0.96
<0.96
<0.96
1.97
<0.97
<0.96
<0.98
<0.98
1.39
6.68
2.67
1.13
<0.98
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
2.59
11.66
11.85
6.71
15.08
<1.048
5.53
6.01
2.73
<1.080
5.71
9.21
<1.115
7.04 _,
29.79
74.02
126.06
101.48
3.58
8.62
6.09
6.00
<1.12
<1.09
3.57
<1.09
6.00
<1.11
<1.09
<1.12
<1.11
9.07
71.81
18.18
7.57
<1.11
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
6.92
9.35
171.46
58.91
51.72
1.71
46.68
62.78
8.59
0.86
0.90
10.68
0.91
39.17
19.21
8.14
14.48
14.16
1.40
3.04
2.39
1.17
<0.79
<0.77
2.76
0.86
4.52
<0.78
<0.77
<0.78
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
Field
Core
11
13
14
15
19
20
21
23
25
28
31
32
1
?
6
8
9
11
14
19
?0
?1
?3
?4
26
?9
3?
33
36
3fl
39
40
4?
44
45
47
D
Lift
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
UWRL
ID*
1884
1890
1893
L 1896
1908
1911
1914
1920
1926
1935
1944
1947
1855
1858
1870
1876
1879
1885
1894
1909
1912
1915
1921
1924
1930
1939
1948
2059
2062
2064
2065
2066
2068
2070
2071
2073
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
1.42
<0.46
1.06
<0.47
0.81
0.86
1.19
<0.47
<0.46
<0.46
<0.45
<0.47
0.72
2.16
15.04
0.95
2.23
1.17
0.59
0.57
<0.47
0.91
<0.46
1.28
0.62
<0.47
<0.47
1.47
1.18
<0.46
<0.46
<0.46
<0.45
<0.45
0.66
0.55
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
1.30
<0.29
0.83
<0.30
0.38
0.44
0.54
<0.29
<0.29
<0.30
<0.29
<0.30
<0.31
1.20
4.76
1.06
0.99
1.38
<0.29
<0.30
<0.30
<0.29
<0,29
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
<0.30
0.35
0.72
0.35
<0.29
<0.29
<0.28
<0.28
<0.29
<0.28
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
1.05
<0.10
0.97
<0.10
<0.10
0.15
<0.10
0.17
0.11
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.11
1.30
2.72
1.03
1.01
1.01
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.30
0.21
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
2.65
<0.10
<0.10
0.44
dry Wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
1.01
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.33
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.33
<0.35
<0.36
1.21
3.05
1.22
0.80
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
0.80
<0.33
0.64
<0.33
<0.34
2.69
<0.33
0.47
0.79
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.99
<0.96
1.55
<0.97
<0.96
<0.95
<0.96
<0.97
<0.96
<0.96
<0.95
<0.98
<1.02
2.42
9.80
1.37
1.06
1.41
<0.96
<0.97
<0.97
<0.97
<0.96
<0.98
<0.96
<0.98
<0.97
<0.95
<0.93
<0.95
<0.95
<0.96
<0.93
<0.93
<0.95
<0.92
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
8.97
<1.09
3.55
<1.10
2.58
2.49
1.96
<1.10
<1.09
<1.10
<1.07
<1.12
<1.16
13.40
149.12
17.03
1.24
7.46
<1.09
<1.11
<1.11
<1.10
<1.10
<1.11
<1.09
<1.12
<1.11
15.13
3.00
8.88
<1.08
1.20
51.05
6.47
4.79
4.53
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.73
<0.76
<0.78
<0.77
1.11
1.67
1.16
1.52
<0.77
<0.77
<0.75
<0.79
0.97
5.04
24.99
2.08
1.61
2.42
<0.76
<0.78
<0.78
<0.77
<0.77
0.85
<0.77
<0.78
<0.78
91.89
3.60
56.60
7.32
8.12
65.50
3.38
38.33
72.52
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
2.09
<1.00
<1.03
<1.02
2.09
2.93
2.65
1.47
<1.01
<1.01
<0.99
<1.03
2.80
9.43
38.74
3.31
3.01
3.49
<1.01
1.89
1.14
1.16
1.06
3.42
1.45
1.22
<1.02
190.05
53.35
123.40
145.95
34.16
84.57
58.77
69.75
74.68
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.72
<1.67
1.77
<1.70
<1.68
2.39
<1.68
<1.70
<1.69
<1.69
<1.66
<1.72
<1.78
2.44
16.58
2.08
<1.76
1.81
<1.68
<1.71
<1.71
<1.69
<1.69
<1.71
<1.68
<1.72
<1.71
26.63
2.57
13.23
<1.67
3.00
12.53
9.30
11.25
11.28
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
1.46
<1.11
1.48
<1.12
3.79
2.30
3.24
1.50
<1.11
<1.12
<1.09
<1.14
2.04
4.35
18.90
2.12
2.94
5.10
<1.11
1.26
1.89
1.47
1.19
3.45
1.23
<1.14
<1.13
29.02
<1.07
8.85
<1.10
1.91
14.98
5.56
7.80
7.65
B- 3
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
Field
Core
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
6
7
8
9
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
L>
D
D
D
D
U
D
D
D
U
A
A
A
A
A
UWRL
ID*
2074
2075
2077
2080
2081-1
2082
2084
2085
2088
2089
2090
2028
2029
2032
2033
2034
2035
2037
2040
2041
2042
2044
2046
2047
2049
2050
2051
2054
2056
2057
2058
2524
2532
2536
2540
2544
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
3.96
1.14
1.04
1.03
1.51
1.15
2.44
1.43
3.38
2.74
3.73
<0.44
<0.45
0.68
1.34
0.48
<0.44
1.53
1.99
1.63
4.05
<0.45
1.16
0.73
0.74
1.35
<0.45
0.84
1.46
0.99
2.35
2.83
<0.48
<0.49
<0.48
<0.49
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
1.35
<0.29
0.32
0.30
0.36
0.57
0.49
0.43
2.46
0.71
1.03
<0.28
<0.29
<0.28
<0.29
0.39
<0.28
<0.29
0.40
0.77
1.03
0.68
0.65
0.50
0.47
0.42
0.55
0.45
0.51
0.82
1.03
1.21
<0.30
0.58
<0.30
<0.31
dry wt
Acenaphthen
mg/kg
70.87
1.03
2.13
0.70
1.02
1.04
0.93
0.85
43.06
6.32
4.86
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
0.45
0.14
0.69
<0.10
0.17
<0.10
<0.10
0.10
<0.10
0.17
0.43
0.19
11.50
1.06
0.42
0.57
0.30
0.35
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
17.02
0.33
0.46
0.57
0.57
0.68
0.58
0.44
4.73
1.07
0.77
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
<0.33
0.60
<0.32
<0.33
1.93
0.60
2.01
0.36
0.47
<0.33
0.46
<0.32
<0.33
0.37
1.27
0.55
2.24
0.74
<0.35
0.60
<0.35
<0.36
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
56.54
<0.94
1.01
0.95
1.09
1.50
1.02
1.06
21.32
2.38
2.64
<0.93
<0.95
<0.93
<0.94
<0.93
<0.93
<0.94
<0.93
<0.94
<0.95
<0.94
<0.94
<0.95
<0.93
<0.92
<0.94
<0.93
<0.93
<0.95
<0.94
1.79
<1.00
<1.02
<0.99
<1.02
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
193.24
10.02
5.76
8.88
9.83
13.69
6.44
8.14
245.74
27.36
38.02
2.07
<1.08
2.67
<1.07
5.15
2.19
3.05
32.03
7.97
92.52
<1.07
9.05
8.37
7.82
4.05
1.80
5.04
27.80
5.64
211.43
14.50
2.47
7.85
<1.13
<1.16
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
143.41
47.30
29.29
27.99
40.54
31.39
41.12
22.42
88.69
69.72
100.20
1.58
7.48
<0.75
19.04
21.70
8.56
5.05
96.55
36.67
20.76
26.32
97.75
2.76
<0.74
6.34
16.46
36.08
131.43
36.85
177.81
5.27
1.45
2.94
0.97
0.94
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
150.26
64.45
31.54
46.51
55.81
71.40
69.43
54.21
103.72
86.47
130.29
58.95
62.97
20.40
70.25
95.09
54.54
74.77
199.01
206.70
196.72
193.23
213.71
125.26
102.62
63.62
153.88
168.07
216.12
177.61
242.66
6.07
1.75
4.57
1.14
1.24
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
36.34
13.53
11.03
18.96
18.00
21.33
20.42
14.96
27.40
23.24
38.08
5.79
9.35
<1.63
6.17
10.28
6.95
5.28
28.44
25.13
24.62
26.27
38.51
8.38
4.06
1.66
19.50
21.33
36.14
26.66
48.72
5.05
<1.74
3.66
<1.74
<1.78
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
42.64
13.08
8.80
11.51
15.95
16.77
14.16
13.15
28.72
22.36
41.71
6.76
<1.10
<1.08
2.94
6.75
<1.07
<1.09
29.99
26.62
28.52
21.14
41.60
6.74
<1.08
<1.07
5.18
17.29
48.24
23.81
62.20
4.49
2.27
3.21
1.26
1.76
B- 4
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
Field
Core
11
14
15
16
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
15
16
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
?
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
1R
?0
?1
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
0
G
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
n
D
D
D
n
n
n
A
A
A
UWRL
ID#
2552
2506
2556
2560
2525
2529
2533
2537
2541
2545
2553
2557
2561
2526
2530
2534
2538
2542
2546
2554
2508
2558
2562
2527
2531
2535
2539
2543
2547
2555
2509
2559
2563
2568
2576
2580
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
1.19
<0.47
<0.48
0.79
0.71
<0.45
<0.47
<0.48
<0.47
<0.47
<0.46
<0.47
2.57
<0.45
<0.46
0.49
<0.47
<0.46
0.81
<0.45
<0.46
<0.47
1.12
0.53
<0.48
0.65
0.52
<0.47
2.17
<0.45
<0.47
3.81
0.74
<0.46
<0.46
<0.46
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.40
0.32
0.34
0.34
0.32
<0.28
0.39
0.38
<0.30
<0.30
<0.29
0.36
0.97
0.30
<0.29
0.49
0.48
<0.29
0.38
<0.29
0.46
<0.30
0.80
0.31
0.34
0.45
0.38
0.41
1.48
0.39
0.34
2.66
0.58
0.50
0.35
<0.29
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.59
0.52
0.38
0.64
0.41
0.29
0.40
0.38
0.27
<0.10
0.35
0.40
12.36
0.40
0.30
0.43
0.43
0.27
0.48
0.32
0.40
0.33
0.83
0.39
0.38
0.58
0.41
0.38
0.80
0.38
0.45
1.08
0.49
1.34
0.31
0.31
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.63
<0.34
0.39
0.96
0.36
<0.33
<0.34
0.36
<0.34
<0.34
<0.33
0.37
5.26
<0.33
<0.33
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.33
0.48
<0.34
0.89
<0.34
0.41
0.35
<0.35
0.84
0.56
<0.33
0.41
4.22
<0.33
0.69
<0.34
<0.34
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
3.91
<0.98
<1.01
1.49
<0.96
<0.93
<0.98
<1.00
<0.97
<0.98
<0.95
1.15
23.15
<0.94
<0.95
<0.97
<0.98
<0.97
<0.97
<0.95
<0.97
<0.98
2.52
<0.96
<1.00
<0.98
<0.99
1.22
1.57
<0.95
<0.99
3.87
1.20
1.04
1.65
<0.97
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
13.07
3.20
5.67
28.30
4.79
1.35
5.64
3.22
<1.11
1.92
<1.08
5.63
293.19
3.17
<1.08
4.57
2.19
<1.10
4.33
1.87
5.42
2.66
26.09
3.26
3.21
8.29
5.21
11.97
20.04
3.29
8.12
85.21
11.10
10.03
<1.10
1.35
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
9.75
1.81
2.25
3.22
2.30
0.86
2.59
2.04
<0.78
0.86
1.24
4.08
140.14
2.53
0.94
2.72
<0.78
1.10
3.11
L_ 1.57
1.72
0.95
10.62
1.70
1.55
3.40
2.52
2.72
4.43
1.77
3.01
16.70
4.67
33.42
1.09
0.93
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
8.36
2.52
6.72
3.94
2.98
1.02
3.33
3.13
<1.02
1.36
1.35
<1.03
128.90
4.99
1.26
4.94
4.57
1.64
9.48
3.47
7.41
1.71
11.68
2.71
11.15
9.85
7.42
8.22
11.65
9.40
48.92
159.97
11.59
49.41
2.43
1.96
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
5.03
4.46
<1.77
<1.74
2.73
<1.63
<1.71
<1.75
<1.70
2.25
2.11
1.98
28.05
2.24
<1.67
2.38
1.74
1.77
2.18
1.74
6.92
2.73
7.85 _,
1.88
2.17
3.52
1.81
1.88
4.79
2.74
14.43
21.36
7.99
13.74
1.74
<1.69
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
4.71
2.02
3.10
4.80
2.69
1.67
2.37
5.24
1.41
1.57
1.60
1.97
36.10
2.59
<1.11
3.31
3.13
1.41
4.71
3.62
4.01
2.03
8.23
1.72
3.23
3.94
3.39
3.46
5.05
4.07
11.35
32.30
<1.10
14.80
2.48
2.21
B- 5
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
Field
Core
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
36
47
49
51
54
56
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
18
20
21
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
UWRL
ID#
2588
2592
2596
2608
2616
2620
2624
2835
2831
2816
2818
2821
2823
2569
2577
2581
2589
2593
2597
2609
2617
2621
2625
2570
2578
2582
2590
2594
2598
2610
2618
2622
2626
2571
2579
2583
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
<0.47
0.49
<0.47
0.48
0.56
0.59
1.02
2.08
1.43
1.56
3.78
3.66
5.95
<0.48
<0.46
0.57
<0.48
0.51
0.52
0.50
0.58
0.69
0.98
0.49
<0.46
<0.45
<0.47
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.80
1.04
1.10
<0.47
2.14
0.91
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
<0.30
0.40
0.37
0.40
0.45
0.44
0.49
0.54
0.63
0.86
0.74
0.70
0.67
<0.30
0.38
<0.29
<0.30
0.44
0.38
0.36
0.54
0.64
0.49
0.60
<0.29
<0.29
<0.30
0.37
0.41
0.37
0.50
0.72
0.58
0.56
1.57
0.85
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
<0.10
0.74
0.70
0.71
0.75
0.75
0.46
0.65
0.58
0.67
0.76
0.79
0.99
0.33
0.35
0.36
<0.10
0.74
0.73
0.69
0.74
0.73
0.48
0.51
0.46
0.39
0.40
0.73
0.74
0.72
0.77
0.55
0.51
0.39
1.14
0.51
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.34
<0.35
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.36
0.84
0.87
<0.33
0.83
0.94
1.38
<0.35
<0.34
<0.33
<0.35
<0.34
<0.34
<0.34
<0.35
0.35
0.74
0.51
<0.34
0.37
0.35
<0.35
<0.34
0.45
<0.35
0.83
0.72
<0.34
1.36
<0.35
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.98
<1.00
<0.98
<0.96
<0.98
1.00
<1.03
1.10
<0.94
0.98
1.44
1.57
1.70
<0.99
<0.96
<0.95
<1.00
<0.98
<0.98
<0.97
<1.00
<0.97
<0.99
<0.94
<0.96
<0.95
<0.98
<0.99
<0.98
1.16
1.01
<1.01
<0.97
<0.98
1.80
<0.99
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
<1.11
<1.14
<1.11
3.13
3.12
2.73
<1.17
6.84
3.63
12.65
8.16
13.03
17.72
<1.13
4.31
<1.07
2.30
1.45
<1.11
<1.10
3.12
3.88
<1.13
7.71
3.39
3.46
4.01
1.28
1.19
37.51
3.72
4.94
2.03
11.65
20.24
10.58
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.51
<0.80
<0.78
0.90
1.46
1.31
<0.82
1.64
1.34
33.59
2.57
2.35
68.88
0.89
1.57
1.25
1.63
0.93
0.86
<0.77
1.43
1.15
<0.79
5.96
2.25
2.53
1.99
0.93
0.86
1.01
1.95
1.25
0.83
6.27
7.51
4.64
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
1.93
<1.06
<1.03
2.18
2.04
1.84
1.36
3.38
7.16
106.28
4.54
37.23
100.72
1.32
3.09
4.86
2.41
1.25
1.32
1.23
1.79
1.73
1.06
16.38
5.59
6.65
4.24
1.17
1.04
1.70
2.59
1.66
1.35
67.44
131.65
56.90
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.71
<1.76
<1.71
<1.68
<1.72
<1.70
<1.80
<1.63
2.20
25.66
3.21
3.57
17.76
<1.74
2.32
<1.65
<1.75
<1.72
<1.72
<1.69
<1.75
1.86
<1.73
10.64
2.06
2.44
<1.71
<1.72
<1.71
<1.69
<1.75
<1.76
<1.70
14.10
27.74
8.60
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
2.05
<1.16
<1.13
1.42
1.96
1.70
<1.19
2.06
3.22
19.73
4.62
5.66
16.67
<1.15
1.80
2.77
2.34
1.58
<1.14
<1.12
1.77
1.71
<1.15
8.94
2.44
2.31
2.93
<1.14
<1.13
<1.12
1.79
1.25
<1.13
13.19
29.29
11.18
B- 6
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
Field
Core
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
D
Lift
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
UWRL
ID#
2591
2595
2599
2611
2619
2623
2627
574
579
594
599
604
609
619
634
639
644
654
664
669A
679
684
689
704
714dup1
719
759
763
765
767
771
777
779a
781
785
787
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
1.51
0.73
0.72
0.52
1.44
1.39
1.67
0.98
0.85
1.05
0.94
1.19
1.53
1.40
0.86
0.66
1.28
0.76
0.91
0.86
0.96
0.66
0.56
1.58
1.09
0.84
2.47
3.06
1.96
3.92
3.31
0.71
2.05
4.65
1.80
2.84
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.72
0.43
0.51
0.37
0.75
0.66
0.81
0.56
0.53
0.43
0.47
0.88
0.72
1.01
0.45
0.67
0.63
0.64
0.68
1.04
0.89
<0.25
<0.25
0.99
0.99
<0.24
0.39
0.64
0.50
0.66
<0.25
<0.24
0.82
0.97
0.43
0.63
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.64
0.74
0.76
0.71
0.93
0.58
0.62
0.45
0.44
0.45
0.42
0.49
0.57
0.60
0.52
0.74
0.88
0.74
0.76
0.80
0.81
<0.09
<0.09
0.79
0.80
<0.08
0.26
0.27
0.19
0.28
0.17
<0.08
0.15
0.44
0.11
0.16
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
1.00
<0.34
<0.33
<0.34
<0.35
0.88
0.94
0.67
0.62
<0.28
0.63
0.77
0.71
0.74
0.68
0.67
0.84
0.60
0.63
<0.28
0.68
<0.28
<0.28
1.44
1.38
<0.28
<0.29
0.46
<0.29
<0.28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.29
<0.29
5.14
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
1.28
<0.96
0.94
<0.96
1.49
<1.01
1.30
<0.80
<0.79
<0.81
<0.81
0.85
1.03
0.98
<0.80
<0.81
1.08
<0.80
0.96
0.88
0.99
<0.81
<0.81
1.68
1.05
<0.80
<0.81
1.66
1.78
0.99
<0.81
<0.80
0.94
1.70
<0.82
7.04
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
10.61
3.59
3.76
3.28
20.91
6.40
17.13
5.59
3.02
<0.91
2.25
7.85
10.24
7.15
3.24
3.42
19.74
3.27
3.89
4.86
6.43
<0.92
<0.92
3.76
1.14
1.16
5.84
29.30
23.48
5.55
2.30
<0.91
10.98
16.58
4.41
108.57
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.91
1.24
1.99
1.09
5.88
1.35
5.58
2.33
0.96
2.12
0.75
0.94
2.05
1.61
0.75
1.13
1.39
0.86
1.49
1.31
1.40
<0.65
<0.65
1.89
1.03
0.68
2.52
3.54
2.38
3.52
0.90
1.25
4.69
5.17
2.40
• 3.14
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
6.53
2.52
10.46
9.71
65.74
12.26
60.98
1.12
1.15
<0.85
1.07
1.29
3.88
2.35
1.05
1.68
2.56
1.00
1.67
1.63
1.81
0.89
<0.85
1.83
0.90
<0.84
3.98
6.84
5.68
6.33
2.26
2.33
9.00
8.05
5.11
4.90
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
2.54
<1.68
2.05
<1.68
13.07
2.57
13.75
<1.39
<1.39
<1.41
<1 .41
<1.42
2.08
1.42
<1.39
<1.42
<1.43
<1.40
<1.40
1.45
1.80
<1.41
<1.42
4.63
2.82
<1.40
<1.42
2.41
1.61
2.07
<1.42
<1.40
2.36
1.73
<1.43
1.67
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
4.16
1 .44
2.40
1.85
12.00
3.38
8.51
0.94
1.13
<0.93
1.05
1.65
3.41
3.22
<0.92
1 .40
1.32
1.25
2.22
2.19
2.69
<0.94
<0.94
2.47
1.06
1.30
1.46
2.93
1.72
3.45
<0.94
<0.93
2.90
3.00
1.09
1.14
B- 7
-------
B-1: PAHS edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92 |
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92
Field
Core
62
63
64
?
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
1 8
20
?1
23
24
2 5
28
30
31
I 45
47
48
51
54
SB
56
5fl
59
6?
63
64
2
3
ID i
Lift
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
r,
i c
UWRL
ID#
793
795
797
575
580
595
600
605
610A
620
635
640
645
655
665
670S1
680
685
690
705
715
720
760
764
766
772
778
780
782
786
788
794
796
798
576
581
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
1.51
1.43
1.51
<0.38
<0.38
<0.38
0.94
1.00
3.09
3.21
<0.37
0.80
1.04
1.34
1.36
2.03
4.93
0.49
0.50
1.28
1 .08
0.82
2.29
2.85
1.65
5.12
f 2.27
2.33
2.76
2.36
1.12
1.43
1.59
1.90
<0.37
0 85
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.38
0.38
0.27
0.47
0.63
0.41
0.48
0.52
0.68
2.28
0.62
0.72
0.74
0.74
0.88
0.88
0.96
<0.24
0.30
1.07
1.23
<0.24
<0.24
0.97
0.35
0.41
0.76
0.40
<0.25
0.46
0.36
0.27
0.33
0.25
0.54
I 0.66
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.21
0.15
0.19
0.44
0.40
0.40
0.42
0.46
0.67
0.82
0.47
0.76
0.81
0.75
0.80
0.90
1.10
<0.08
<0.08
0.79
0.75
<0.08
0.17
0.29
<0.09
0.30
0.19
0.14
0.20
0.12
0.09
0.16
0.17
0.23
0.40
0.43
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
<0.28
0.65
<0.28
0.64
<0.28
<0.28
0.59
0.70
1 .32
1.01
<0.28
0.61
0.83
0.59
<0.28
0.72
1.23
<0.28
<0.28
1.39
1.28
<0.28
<0.28
0.47
<0.29
<0.28
<0.28
<0,28
<0,28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.28
<0.27
i 0.68
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
1.12
1.41
<0.80
<0.80
<0.79
<0.80
<0.80
<0.81
1.60
1.60
<0.78
<0.80
0.89
0.82
0.94
0.95
2.59
<0.80
<0.80
1.05
1.00
<0.79
0.82
1.90
<0.82
<0.81
1 .04
<0.81
0.81
<0.80
<0.80
0.87
<0.80
<0.81
<0.78
<0.80
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
11.39
20.49
2.48
6.30
3.35 _j
<0.90 j
<0.91
2.52
11.22
22.86
9.67
2.13
5.16
2.93
5.75
7.77
17.28
<0.91
u <0.91
1.76
1.50
4.52
3.28
32.85
6.60
3.41
8.99
7.72
1 6.61
9.66
2.99
7.72
2.68
2.27
<0.88
3.53
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
2.34
1.63
1.44
0.94
0.69
0.64
0.90
' 0.99 I
5.75
3.04
0.80
1.35
1.32
1.03
1.38
1 .28
3.21
<0.64 '
<0.64
1.18
' 1.16 '
<0.64
2.09
4.25
2.53
2.29
3.17
,_ 2.24
j 2.80
2.17
1.85
1 .83
1 .1 1
1.96
<0.62
0.81
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
<0.85
<0.84
<0.84
1.29
0.93
<0.84
0.99
1.40
11.83
4.78
" 1 24 I
1.27
1.52
1.26
1 .90
2.60
21.25
0.91
<0.84
1.41
1 .05
<0.84
4.22
8.37
5.08
5.16
5.79
4.74
5.40
4.88
3.06
<0.85
0.92
<0.85
1.02
1.06
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
3.46
3.17
2.40
<1.39
<1.39
<1 .39
<1.40
<1.41
4.93
3.20
<1.36
<1.40
<1.41
<1.39
1.56
1.54
2.72
<1.40
<1.40
2.95
2^94
<1.39
<1.41
3.16
<1.43
<1.42
2.22
1.97
1.74
<1.40
<1.39
2.66
1.98
2.94
<1.36
<1.39
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
2.17
2.52
2.15
<0.92
1.05
<0.92
<0.93
1.65
10.55
5.18
I 1 .70
1.45
1.64
1 .28
1.87
2.31
4.74
<0.93
<0.93
2.02
' 2.06
1.23
' 2.07
4.44
1.76
2.43
2.31
1.98
<0.93
1.10
<0.92
2.00
2.34
2.44
0.91
1.02
B- 8
-------
B-1: PAHS edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
Field
Core
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
23
24
28
30
31
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
24
25
30
31
2
3
D
Lift
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
UWRL
ID#
596
601
606
611
621
636
641
646
656
666
671
681
682S1
686
706
716
721
577
582
597
602
607
612
622
637
642A
647
657
667
672
687
692
717
722
578
583A
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.94
1.30
1.67
4.85
1.53
<0.38
0.84
1.15
0.96
1.79
2.04
2.74
3.51
3.89
2.02
<0.38
<0.38
0.79
1.96
2.51
1.63
2.95
5.28
1.71
1.13
1.38
1.02
1.18
1.69
1.84
2.32
2.41
1.45
1.24
1.36
1.87
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
0.44
0.62
0.70
4.37
0.81
0.64
0.84
0.73
L_ 0.66
0.78
0.97
1.46
1.24
0.58
0.76
<024
<0.24
0.63
0.65
0.92
0.65
1.74
1.06
0.79
0.79
0.88
0.66
0.76
0.67
1.78
0.27
1.07
<0.25
<0.24
0.73
1.20
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.46
0.53
0.64
0.80
0.59
0.42
0.75
0.78
0.76
0.89
0.96
1.07
1.17
0.23
8.19
<0.08
<0.08
0.47
0.55
0.71
0.63
0.74
0.97
0.54
0.78
0.81
0.76
0.79
0.80
0.95
0.15
0.86
0.15
0.14
0.55
0.65
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
0.61
<0.28
<0.28
1.33
0.71
0.66
<0.28
0.65
0.59
0.76
<0.28
1.22
1.35
<0.28
1.36
<028
<0.28
0.67
0.71
0.81
0.79
1.05
1.03
0.72
0.73
0.79
0.63
0.64
0.65
<0.28
<0.28
1.44
<0.28
<0.28
0.79
0.74
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
<0.79
0.88
1.16
1.49
0.97
<0.79
<0.80
0.94
0.88
1.26
1.44
2.30
2.55
<0.80
1.24
<0.80
<0.80
<0.80
1.12
1.59
1.01
1.68
2.44
0.83
1.00
0.99
<0.80
0.90
0.96
1.65
<0.80
1.38
<0.81
<0.79
1.01
1.00
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
1.26
5.12
7.08
48.92
6.27 _j
2.33
2.93
2.98
2.70
6.36
15.72
69.65
23.10
3.21
1.48
<0.91
<0.91
3.37
13.65
12.63
7.00
31.79
19.73
10.22
6.15
6.02
2.18
5.63
15.90
29.63
2.35
1.98
2.67
6.68
10.79
8.95
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
0.88
1.53
2.28
4.08
1.40
0.71
1.10
1.32
1.11
2.58
2.43
8.17
3.45
1.57
1.48
<0.64
<0.64
0.80
1.91
2.01
1.33
2.60
5.86
1.13
1.34
1.33
0.88
1.15
1.27
2.96
1.34
1.57
0.89
1.77
0.97
1.72
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
1.17
1.93
2.91
5.04
2.53
1.37
5.87
1.67
1.32
11.84
6.62
20.10
13.26
3.84
1.82
<0.94
<0.84
1.33
' 2.61
3.78
2.83
4.08
25.38
1.86
2.59
2.23
1.05
2.01
1.33
5.98
3.28
2.69
<0.85
1.63
1.50
2.26
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.38
<1.39
2.35
4.40
<1.40
<1.39
1.62
1.44
<1.39
3.05
2.28
7.93
4.31
<1.39
3.19
<1.40
<1.40
<1.39
1.74
2.63
<1.40
2.49
5.64
1.49
1.78
<1.40
<1.41 __,
<1.42
<1.41
3.47
<1.41
3.11
2.94
16.11
<1.39
2.29
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
<0.92
1.54
3.06
6.96
1.61
1.02
2.58
2.06
1.07
4.14
4.11
7.77
5.70
1.01
1.53
<0.93
<0.93
1.62
2.41
3.53
2.37
3.45
10.75
1.02
2.21
1.43
<0.93
1.43
1.37
4.78
<0.93
1.75
2.92
3.89
1.14
2.42
B- 9
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/93
Field
Core
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
30
28
D
Lift
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
UWRL
ID#
598
603
608
613
623
638
643
648
658
668
673
683
688
693
718
707
dry wt
Naphthalene
mg/kg
3.90
7.61
4.63
10.22
<0.38
1.42
1.87
1.41
1.97
2.23
1.42
1.86
9.97
5.08
2.37
2.75
dry wt
Acenaphthylene
mg/kg
1.38
1.29
0.72
1.38
0.50
1.02
0.84
0.71
0.79
0.85
0.98
0.61
0.98
1.68
<0.24
1 .04
dry wt
Acenaphthene
mg/kg
0.87
1.04
0.84
1.29
0.52
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.88
0.83
0.89
0.11
0.89
1.19
0.18
0.85
dry wt
Fluorene
mg/kg
1.02
1.66
0.84
1.67
0.80
0.81
0.66
0.65
0.75
0.81
0.83
<0.27
4.91
1.78
<0.28
1.41
dry wt
Phenanthrene
mg/kg
1.69
2.60
1.62
3.79
0.85
1.02
0.90
0.91
1.18
1.09
1.60
<0.78
9.11
2.43
<0.80
1.32
dry wt
Anthracene
mg/kg
15.51
88.76
9.24
125.98
11.64
10.74
5.39
5.37
7.04
15.45
16.49
7.31
100.29
8.48
2.38
2.30
dry wt
Fluoranthene
mg/kg
2.21
5.22
2.24
30.06
0.80
1.79
1.19
1.19
1.82
1.25
2.34
2.28
38.32
3.64
1.51
1.72
dry wt
Pyrene
mg/kg
3.90
9.30
2.35
97.29
1.31
2.54
2.11
1.75
2.88
2.14
3.88
5.23
67.90
6.24
<0.84
2.93
dry wt
Benzo(a)anthracene
mg/kg
2.96
3.26
<1.38
18.08
<1.39
1.66
<1.39
<1.40
1.65
1.65
2.04
<1.37
17.72
4.71
2.37
3.51
dry wt
Chrysene
mg/kg
3.20
4.81
1.16
21.00
<0.92
2.42
1.91
1.44
1.85
9.68
2.55
1.76
17.93
4.00
2.38
2.96
B - 10
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
Field
Core
1
2
6
7
9
1 0
1 1
13
14
1 5
1 7
18
1 8
19
20
23
24
25
27
28
30
31
32
1
14
1 5
16
23
24
30
31
2
5
6
10
11
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
UWRL
ID#
1748
1750
1762
1765
1771
1774
1777
1783
1786
1790
1796
1798
1798
1801
1804
1813
1816
1819
1825
1828
1834
1837
1840
1747
1787 A
1791
1794
1814
1817 A
1835
1838
1752
1761
1764
1776
1779
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
<1.487
<1.347
<1.543
<1.553
<1.537
<1.514
13.98
<1.495
25.15
18.24
4.99
2.06
2.06
4.19
17.44
17.52
6.58
4.65
<1.497
4.29
14.70
3.13
<1.69
8.61
25.30
19.82
9.08
5.81
5.62
3.30
8.04
6.78
4.54
8.21
9.76
11.95
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
<1.602
<1.451
<1.662
<1.672
<1.655
<1.63
7.26
<1.609
8.30
10.78
2.29
<1.67
<1.67
2.52
6.69
8.90
2.29
<1.69
<1.612
1.82
2.03
<1.71
<1.82
1.75
7.18
6.07
5.69
5.83
2.42
3.35
2.25
6.50
4.15
3.47
2.95
3.69
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
<2.499
<2.264
<2.593
<2.608
<2.583
<2.543
13.53
<2.511
17.64
20.15
5.05
<2.60
<2.60
4.95
9.84
13.81
4.62
<2.63
<2.515
2.78
8.18
<2.67
<2.84
3.99
19.20
13.68
10.23
9.32
3.96
5.63
5.12
6.55
5.13
5.80
6.55
8.96
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
<3.699
<3.351
<3.838
<3.861
<3.832
<3.765
7.60
<3.717
12.06
18.25
4.59
<3.85
<3.85
3.97
6.50
12.00
8.07
<3.90
<3.722
<3.90
8.23
<3.96
<4.10
<3.79
15.03
11.89
5.45
13.08
4.42
5.30
6.04
3.97
4.39
<3.682
<3.812
4.53
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.567
<1.419
<1.626
<1.635
<1.619
<1.595
3.88
<1.574
5.16
8.38
3.42
<1.63
<1.63
3.08
<1.61
7.36
4.81
<1.65
1.73
1.67
6.76
<1.68
<1.78
2.64
4.73
4.38
3.06
6.13
3.49
4.54
5.58
3.24
2.80
2.96
3.01
3.19
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
<3.671
<3.325
<3.809
<3.832
<3.794
<3.736
5.93
<3.688
11.07
19.39
4.68
<3.82
<3.82
<3.714
5.39
10.97
6.94
<3.87
<3.694
<3.87
7.25
<3.93
<4.18
<3.76
11.18
7.87
3.82
11.25
3.88
3.96
3.91
<3.658
<3.655
<3.656
<3.783
<3.518
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
4.21
<17.24
<19.75
1.37
1.16
L <19.37
71.98
1.19
135.79
138.95
30.62
2.06
2.06
23.88
70.99
94.85
43,87
11.23
4.07
14.91
65.82
8.23
3.52
40.68
115.54
79.23
52.41
66.13
31.49
40.86
37.07
75.55
44.05
45.52
37.87
50.13
total PAH
mg/kg
5.81
0.41
0.61
2.62
2.33
1.16
89.15
1.81
161.73
166.19
37.45
20.62
20.62
28.01
96.66
107.20
52.36
15.98
5.52
19.13
77.67
10.85
6.38
48.84
143.62
94.43
63.61
77.45
39.04
47.55
41.93
78.99
46.00
51.01
45.89
58.36
B - 11
-------
B -1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date ,
Collected
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
5/8/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
Field
Core
1?
13
14
15
16
18
20
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
31
3
6
7
9
1 1
13
14
16
19
20
2 2
23
24
25
30
32
2
6
7
8
9
n
i ift
r
r,
r.
c
r,
c
r
0
r.
r,
r
r,
c
r
r,
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
dry wt
UWRL
ID#
1782
1785
1789
1792
1795
1800
1806
1815
1818
1821
1827
1830
1833
1836
1839
1859
1868A
1871
1877
1883
1889
1892
1895
1907
1910
1916
1919
1922
1925
1940
1946
1857
1869
1872
1875
1878
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
15.97
16.07
53.18
32.22
106.59
2.78
52.59
59.25
22.35
3.16
3.67
35.65
4.11
51.20
24.24
18.32
19.14
21.69
1.78
4.27
6.37
1.92
<1.54
1.70
7.53
6.88
17.99
<1.53
<1.51
<1.54
<1.54
5.59
26.11
6.84
2.27
2.64
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.85
10.43
48.31
21 .42
67.35
3.25
40.76
48.31
18.47
1.69
2.12
28.21
1.95
48.93
24.58
14.13
14.87
15.57
<1.69
2.45
3.39
<1.73
<1.66
<1.66
7.39
3.51
12.97
1.72
<1.62
<1.66
<1.66
3.82
14.69
4.10
<1.68
<1.65
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
7.89
13.81
38.36
17.24
69.82
4.81
43.11
43.98
14.27
3.48
3.56
15.65
4.05
41.79
24.57
20.54
24.17
32.99
<2.63
5.14
6.51
<2.71
<2.59
<2.54
8.31
5.57
19.15
2.77
<2.53
<2.59
<2.58
8.93
36.94
9.05
<2.62
<2.58
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
4.87
15.85
16.42
10.29
37.10
4.39
19.31
18.09
11.45
<3.710
3.79
13.35
3.85
16.69
13.94
13.52
14.94
30.64
<3.90
3.97
4.58
<4.01
<3.84
<3.76
9.52
<3.75
15.31
<3.80
<3.75
<3.83
<3.82
5.23
33.32
7.10
<3.88
<3.82
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
2.95
11.84
9.28
5.86
22.76
<1.525
13.20
13.95
6.13
<1.571
<1.509
8.60
<1.525
16.82
13.16
<1.57
5.91
9.73
<1.65
<1.64 j
1 .86
<1.70
<1.63
<1.59
3.51
1.77
5.43
<1.61
<1.59
<1.62
<1.62
2.12
14.17
2.50
<1.64
<1.62
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
4.48
13.71
16.92
8.20
28.75
4.76
19.24
14.61
8.63
<3.681
<3.535
10.88
<3.581
16.64
14.73
13.63
16.72
28.46
<3.87
3.99
4.70
<3.98
<3.81
<3.73
7.13
I 3.77
15.87
<3.77
<3.72
<3.81
<3.79
7.07
41.33 '
10.07
<3.85
<3.79
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
70.21
128.71
829.10
411.03
754.85
34.06
437.88
554.02
161.38
14.59
24.49
161.31
21.68
457.65
288.22
111.36
146.88
193.52
5.05
28.97
42.34
4.44
<19.8
I TTO
54.81
29.15
113.82
I TToi
<19.3
' <19.7
I <19.7
44.82
212.47
57.25
10.17
5.59
total PAH
mg/kg
79.13
178.68
860.65
433.87
794.15
36.40
458.36
578.85
172.68
15.60
31.44
179.68
22.49
479.37
331.93
198.48
299.79
335.71
12.34
43.64
51.93
12.99
I <23.1
2.48
61.33
29.92
126.78
7.70
<22.5
<23.0
<23.0
59.50
308.27
85.84
21.87
8.74
B- 12
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
Field
Core
11
13
14
15
19
20
21
23
25
28
31
32
1
2
6
8
9
1 1
14
19
20
21
23
24
26
29
32
33
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
47
D
Lift
8
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
UWRL
ID#
1884
1890
1893
1896
1908
1911
1914
1920
1926
1935
1944
1947
1855
1858
1870
1876
1879
1885
1894
1909
1912
1915
1921
1924
1930
1939
1948
2059
2062
2064
2065
2066
2068
2070
2071
2073
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
4.44
<1.50
3.93
<1.52
5.33
8.98
7.36
<1.52
<1.51
<1.51
<1.48
<1.54
2.92
8.52
55.14
4.31
4.17
14.66
<1.50
2.79
2.45
2.92
<1.51
4.35
1.85
<1.54
<1.53
29.44
39.25
18.92
<1.49
5.77
18.28
12.51
11.97
14.54
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
2.52
<1.63
<1.65
<1.64
6.12
5.08
5.23
<1.64
<1.63
<1.63
<1.60
<1.66
2.42
6.59
30.47
2.97
2.28
7.65
<1.62
2.15
1.86
<1.63
<1.63
2.55
<1.62
<1 .66
<1.65
13.22
7.89
8.01
<1.61
1.95
3.61
10.87
11.71
6.39
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
5.12
<2.52
2.68
<2.56
8.80
6.24
8.47
<2.56
<2.54
<2.54
<2.49
<2.59
3.26
10.82
61.77
4.15
3.06
14.67
<2.52
4.32
3.01
3.43
<2.54
4.31
<2.53
<2.59
<2.57
12.32
9.25
5.17
<2.51
<2.53
3.13
10.85
6.53
5.50
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
4.50
<3.73
<3.81
<3.79
5.93
5.27
7.21
<3.79
<3.76
<3.76
<3.69
<3.84
<3.97
4.74
43.73
4.94
<3.92
6.16
<3.74
4.02
<3.80
<3.77
<3.76
4.99
<3.74
<3.84
<3.80
<3.72
<3.62
<3.71
<3.72
<3.75
<3.63
<3.63
<3.70
<3.59
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.63
<1.58
<1.61
<1.60
2.33
<1.56
2.85
<1.60
<1.59
<1.59
<1.56
<1.63
<1.68
2.19
17.86
<1.66
<1.66
2.96
<1.58
<1.61
<1.61
<1.60
L <1.59
<1.61
<1.59
<1.63
<1.61
<1.58
<1.53
<1.57
<1.57
<1.59
<1.54
<1.54
<1.56
<1.52
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
5.08
<3.70
<3.78
<3.76
6.25
5.46
8.81
<3.76
<3.73
<3.74
<3.66
<3.81
4.27
5.40
31.24
<3.89
<3.89
7.41
<3.71
<3.77
<3.77
4.32
<3.74
4.36
<3.72
<3.81
<3.77
<3.69
5.29
<3.68
<3.69
<3.72
<3.60
<3.61
<3.67
<3.56
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
26.95
<19.2
9.86
<19.5
41.75
40.31
46.97
4.48
<19.3
<19.4
<19.0
<19.8
18.68
59.52
339.42
25.97
17.08
66.31
<19.2
16.43
10.35
13.31
2.25
28.29
4.53
1.22
<19.6
392.56
121.20
234.18
153.28
54.91
202.60
111.22
157.33
192.56
total PAH
mg/kg
40.70
<22.4
17.81
<22.8
45.53
44.24
50.65
4.66
0.11
<22.6
<22.2
<23.1
19.40
81.20
523.91
48.63
24.40
78.74
0.59
17.00
10.35
14.22
2.25
29.57
5.15
1.22
<22.9
410.59
126.32
244.05
153.28
56.12
258.99
117.70
163.25
198.87
B- 13
-------
m
cn
o>
cn
I
m
2
5
5
>•
T>
5
5
5
>^
•o
S
>,
•o
^
5
£•
-o
t;
>-
T3
Q
T
u.
*
B
5
o
D
0)
u
~>
s
jperylene
*o
•4
D
CD
ithracene
H
5,
co
Q
CL
CO
CM
Indeno
Benzo(a)pyrene
B(k)fiuoranthene 1
anthene
o
!o
CD
LL
3
C
O)
ji
D)
3)
_.
<
cn
J£
on
O)
.*:
O)
j^
j>
Ol
J)£
CD
E
cn
j*:
cn
E
cn
XL
cn
fc
Q
£
i
o
1
o
cn
•*
cn
n
in
co
cn
CM
in
M
a>
in
CM
V
in
CO
^y
CO
CM
OO
in
C'
•<:
rv
o
CM
<
00
m
rv
CM
rv
CM
o
T-
O)
•*
Tf
co
CO
o
CO
in
in
V
CO
o
CO
V
o.
•*'
c\
03
^
•
CO
V
CM
CO
in
CO
no
-
co
CM
<
u
en
IV
cv
rv
o
00
cn
:o
3)
•
in
rv
CM
CO
0
CD
03
CO
o
<
cv
cr
IV
c\
|v
cn
0
CM
cn
CM
o
in
m
CO
rv
co
o
cn
-.
rv
Si
o
•*
CM
D
00
CO
CO
CM
p-
O
iv
CO
V
CO
CO
to
CM
CD
T—
tv
rv
rv
Cn
o
Q
CO
Ol
iv
OJ
IV
in
ro
co
•<*
o
o
o
•**•
CM
to
CO
•*
in
V
o
C*j
V
00
U)
•*
to
UD
co
m
m
CM
o
Q
CO
Cn
rv
CVJ
(V
Cn
U}
eg
CO
to
CM
CO
in
ID
co
CO
m
V
00
(O
CO
V
•«*
od
rv
cc
•*
in
CD
CO
o
Q
rv
en
rv
CM
IX
CO
CO
•*
to
o
eg
00
in
cn
m
CO
CO
in
V
CM
co
CO
V
CM
CO
•*'
tn
CD
m
cn
CO
,j.
o
Q
CO
01
t-
cv
rv
n
CD
CO
CM
ro
<*
CO
O)
in
CO
CO
in
V
CD
v;
V
•*
-
CD
rv
CM
rv
>
in
CM
CO
co
M
in
CD
CO
CO
m
V
CO
CO
^
V
in
CD
od
CC
<
u
CO
rv
o
Q
T-
CO
rv
C\J
IV
Y
O
CO
co
•
O
CD
CO
•tf
in
V
co
CO
CO
V
Tfr
cri
c\
t—
o>
o
CO
o
o
Q
**
en
IV
CV
IV
CO
co
o
co
•*
CD
in
^r
ID
CO
CO
in
V
o
^
v
in
ff
T—
0
0
cn
CO
1-
,_
o
Q
in
en
IV
CM
IV
v
en
CJ1
•>*•
Tt
en
o>
CD
Ti-
ll
oo
CM
CM
^
en
CD
(O
-*
CO
CM
0
00
CO
CM
O
Q
CD
en
IV
CM
IV
in
CM
co
\J
0
in
CD
CO
y
03
(0
CM
CO
CO
OO
V
IT,
•*
cn
-fr
o
in
in
^
o
Q
oo
cn
IV
C>J
IV
CO
cn
cn
•*
in
-*
o
CO
Tf
CO
n
co
•
5
cn
in
co
\t
CO
in
V
CVJ
CD
V
in
in
•
in
o
CM
cn
co
*)
A)
CM
CO
co
y
in
in
V
tn
CO
co
v
in
CO
00
co
in
CO
co
cn
o
^~
o
Q
in
cn
IV
CM
rv
in
o
cn
CM
CO
CO
co
r>i
o
CO
co
y
•4-
in
V
CO
co
CO
V
N
00
•*
cc
cn
CO
„!-
o
Q
co
cn
rv
ex
rv
o
00
CO
CM
in
CO
co
CM
CD
Tf
cn
Tt
Tf
ID
00
•«!-
CO
CO
V
•*
"fr
CM
in
cn
cri
CO
co
••-
CO
0
Q
o
cn
rv
CM
r-
cn
•*
Tt
co
o
CO
co
co
ro
in
CM
CO
CO
O)
CO
cn
co
CO
V
0
CO
03
o
O)
cn
in
0)
rv
rv
0
Q
m
cn
rv
CM
IV
03
CO
CO
CM
00
CO
in
cn
m
cn
in
in
CO
in
V
CD
Tj-
*fr
cn
co
CM
IV
cr
rv
00
o
Q
CM
m
01
r-
cv
IV
rv
cn
CM
o
•*
no
o
CO
rv
CM
CM
O
CM
•*
in
co
in
in
CM
OJ
Cv
rv
|v
tn
0
m
<
CM
cn
cc
01
cn
ro
in
CM
n
CM
CM
in
03
CO
\t
•*
CD
V
CM
cn
CO
co
co
CO
co
o
co
0
M-
CO
CM
L/)
<
CC
a
cc
-»»
t t
oo cr
co f
v \
•o c
CM •<
c a
co c
v \
^ I
CM c
CM <
cn i
i- <
o
in
CM
<
oo
O)
00
cn
co
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/1 8/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
Field
Core
1 1
14
15
16
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
15
16
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
9/18/91 14
9/18/91 . 1 5
9/18/91 16
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
9/19/91 18 A
j dry wt
UWRL
ID*
2552
2506
2556
2560
2525
2529
2533
2537
2541
2545
2553
2557
2561
2526
2530
2534
2538
2542
2546
2554
2508
2558
2562
2527
2531
2535
2539
2543
2547
2555
2509
2559
2563
2568
9/19/91 20 i A 2576
9/19/91 21 A ! 2580
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
7.48
6.71
5.35
7.72
6.40
2.97
6.49
3.39
<1.53
3.71
4.54
11.25
22.98
6.23
2.06
3.70
10.66
4.34
9.09
12.24
11.82
4.63
17.85
5.24
5.77
9.44
7.15
12.00
13.18
15.95
15.11
56.54
19.97
18.34
5.84
3.16
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
4.98
3.43
3.97
5.48
3.27
1.75
3.00
3.86
<1.65
<1.66
2.08
3.85
13.60
3.51
2.31
4.70
3.53
<1.63
5.75
6.36
6.67
1.81
11.26
2.03
5.37
6.15
7.14
4.54
13.13
5.28
14.14
38.96
8.12
11.64
3.38
3.02
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
6.46
8.05
5.52
5.97
6.52
<2.46
4.06
4.35
<2.57
3.32
3.37
10.56
21.56
6.33
<2.51
5.66
7.03
2.86
9.79
10.55
10.97
3.27
16.48
2.98
5.24
5.57
7.79
6.76
15.74
10.23
11.88
42.06
14.51
12.87
6.09
4.30
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
5.05
6.81
5.41
7.31
4.37
<3.64
4.08
<3.91
<3.80
<3.84
<3.71
6.54
9.13
5.46
<3.72
4.48
<3.81
<3.77
<3.79
6.05
7.01
3.92
11.47
<3.74
<3.90
<3.83
<3.87
<3.80
12.91
<3.70
6.62
28.02
7.90
7.88
4.24
<3.76
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
3.84
4.84
2.93
4.47
<1.58
<1.54
<1.61
3.18
<1.61
2.54
3.59
5.44
7.06
2.40
1.99
3.64
5.70
<1.60
3.30
5.85
5.85
<1.61
8.99
<1.59
<1.65
<1.62
4.65
4.77
18.90
<1.57
2.87
20.32
4.05
4.71
<1.59
<1.59
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
4.26
4.88
5.14
4.97
<3.70
<3.61
<3.78
<3.88
<3.77
<3.81
<3.68
5.78
7.30
<3.65
<3.69
<3.74
5.75
<3.74
4.54
5.11
6.70
3.97
8.72
<3.72
<3.87
<3.80
4.70
<3.77
20.84
<3.67
<3.82
27.10
5.85
4.40
<3.74
<3.74
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
59.92
45.53
40.40
47.89
31.25
8.28
25.93
25.19
1.41
15.62
19.89
51.45
414.84
36.27
8.55
35.54
42.12
13.12
33.99
56.58
69.09
25.02
113.16
18.27
34.48
41.87
46.57
44.35
120.62
49.44
128.34
443.32
84.64
171.22
27.28
15.57
total PAH
mg/kg
79.71
49.57
47.19
80.41
37.84
9.92
32.36
29.53
1.69
17.54
20.24
59.36
752.34
40.14
8.85
41.52
45.21
13.39
37.02
58.77
75.86
28.01
145.42
22.75
38.82
52.19
53.09
59.18
147.23
53.50
137.65
544.17
98.76
184.81
29.60
17.24
B - 15
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/1 9/91
9/1 9/91
9/1 9/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
Field
Core
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
36
47
49
51
54
56
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
18
20
21
D
Lift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
UWRL
ID#
2588
2592
2596
2608
2616
2620
2624
2835
2831
2816
2818
2821
2823
2569
2577
2581
2589
2593
2597
2609
2617
2621
2625
2570
2578
2582
2590
2594
2598
2610
2618
2622
2626
2571
2579
2583
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
2.83
<1.57
<1.53
1.65
2.58
2.70
<1.62
2.15
4.09
15.46
11.25
15.19
5.60
3.18
5.48
6.67
5.31
1.73
<1.54
<1.52
2.95
1.94
<1.55
15.60
4.05
2.67
7.19
<1.55
<1.53
<1.51
2.86
3.21
1.75
23.42
36.15
28.25
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
1.71
<1.70
<1.65
<1.63
2.20
1.69
<1.74
2.56
5.62
10.91
7.32
7.51
4.41
2.49
2.50
1.92
1.86
<1.66
<1.66
<1.63
2.21
1.80
<1.67
10.12
2.18
<1.60
3.47
<1.66
<1.65
<1.63
<1.69
<1.70
<1.64
15.37
18.99
11.46
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
3.47
<2.64
<2.57
<2.54
5.23
3.84
<2.71
<2.45
5.29
11.95
7.34
8.05
5.27
<2.62
3.76
4.43
3.91
<2.59
<2.58
<2.55
5.69
3.32
<2.61
12.27
3.63
3.04
7.16
<2.60
<2.57
<2.54
3.03
3.60
<2.56
15.39
31.01
14.90
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
4.45
<3.91
<3.81
<3.76
<3.84
<3.78
<4.02
<3.63
<3.65
4.14
3.94
<3.70
<3.73
<3.88
<3.75
<3.69
<3.89
<3.80
<3.83
<3.77
<3.90
<3.78
<4.02
7.67
<3.75
<3.70
5.31
<3.85
<3.80
<3.76
<3.89
4.47
<3.76
4.68
12.83
7.96
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
3.36
<1.66
<1.61
<1.59
1.66
<1.60
<1.70
<1.54
<1.54
1.82
1.89
L <1.57
<1.58
<1.64
L
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/19/91
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
Field
Core
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
45
47
48
49
51
i>4
55
b6
58
59
0
Lift
U
U
U
U
D
D
U
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
UWRL
ID#
2591
2595
2599
2611
2619
2623
2627
574
579
594
599
604
609
619
634
639
644
654
664
669A
679
684
689
704
714dup1
719
759
763
765
767
771
777
779a
781
785
787
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
8.03
2.11
3.31
2.27
11.96
6.45
14.41
2.93
1.36
<1.26
1.87
<1.27
5.08
14.15
<1.25
4.78
2.05
3.29
4.86
6.04
5.08
1.72
1.34
5.00
3.37
2.09
17.47
19.62
17.77
25.60
2.92
3.58
14.34
29.59
7.86
4.44
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
6.75
2.01
2.80
<1.63
10.97
4.47
7.36
3.60
<1.34
<1.36
<1.36
<1.37
4.67
5.22
<1.35
1.51
<1.38
1.70
3.56
3.68
2.65
<1.37
<1.37
4.32
2.97
1.64
5.02
8.27
4.64
12.73
1.77
<1.35
4.55
10.28
3.26
2.53
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
6.53
<2.54
4.20
<2.54
13.51
5.72
8.35
5.79
2.52
<2.12
2.31
<2.14
6.80
14.26
<2.10
4.03
<2.15
3.34
8.38
9.28
7.08
<2.13
<2.14
6.57
3.90
<2.10
8.84
9.90
8.91
16.89
3.33
2.38
10.25
18.11
5.46
5.65
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
<3.91
<3.76
<3.67
<3.76
<3.93
<3.95
4.55
<3.11
<3.10
<3.14
<3.14
<3.17
<3.13
4.58
<3.11
<3.16
<3.19
<3.12
4.76
4.96
5.25
<3.15
<3.17
<3.12
<3.14
<3.11
3.89
<3.11
<3.18
5.03
<3.17
<3.12
4.84
4.58
<3.19
<3.17
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
2.18
<1.59
<1.55
<1.59
<1.66
1.72
2.52
1.92
<1.31
<1.33
<1.33
<1.34
1.36
3.05
<1.32
1.59
<1.35
<1.32
1.90
2.41
<1.33
1.87
1.35
2.44
2.34
<1.32
3.82
<1.32
<1.35
3.22
1.54
1.59
<1.33
6.13
1.88
2.87
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
<3.88
<3.73
<3.64
<3.73
<3.90
<3.91
5.64
3.21
<3.07
<3.12
<3.12
<3.14
<3.10
5.08
<3.08
<3.14
<3.16
<3.10
4.65
5.72
6.07
<3.13
<3.14
<3.10
<3.12
<3.09
3.85
<3.09
<3.16
4.36
<3.14
<3.10
3.47
5.03
<3.16
<3.15
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
38.63
9.32
27.21
14.93
133.13
37.91
131.65
21.84
7.12
2.12
7.05
3.87
29.33
54.95
1.80
16.12
7.32
11.44
33.49
38.66
33.84
4.48
2.69
29.15
18.38
5.70
50.85
53.52
42.71
83.20
12.71
11.13
56.41
91.67
27.05
26.34
total PAH
mg/kg
54.38
14.80
33.90
19.82
158.65
47.83
154.12
30.09
12.59
4.05
11.75
15.91
44.13
66.83
7.54
22.28
31.77
17.45
41.33
47.10
44.59
5.14
3.25
39.38
24.83
7.70
59.81
88.91
70.63
94.60
18.49
11.85
71.35
116.01
33.81
150.72
B- 17
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1 /92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
Field
Core
fi?
63
64
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
1fi
1fl
?n
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
45
47
48
51
54
55
fth
58
59
fi?
63
64
?
3
n
I iff
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
C
r,
UWRL
ID#
793
795
797
575
580
595
600
605
61 OA
620
635
640
645
655
665
670S1
680
685
690
705
715
720
760
764
766
772
778
780
782
786
788
794
796
798
576
581
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
5.37
11.88
5.72
<1.25
1.27
<1.25
2.96
<1.26
35.14
22.65
3.96
5.80
4.38
2.01
5.28
10.11
10.58
<1.26
1.91
4.62
7.78
2.41
8.20
28.28
11.28
12.43
17.76
11.88
6.79
11.96
3.50
3.58
<1.26
6.12
2.02
1.48
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
4.25
4.11
4.49
<1.34
<1.34
<1.34
2.19
<1.36
22.85
16.19
3.04
1.55
1.82
<1.35
2.86
4.83
8.19
<1.35
<1.35
4.53
4.85
2.23
3.41
9.71
7.11
4.41
7.39
4.53
3.33
2.49
1.53
2.64
6.40
4.07
1.97
<1.35
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
5.53
4.51
5.41
<2.09
<2.09
<2.09
2.55
<2.12
42.36
33.72
4.98
5.37
5.16
2.90
8.38
10.36
10.61
<2.11
2.60
7.11
8.69
<2.09
7.12
16.21
10.40
10.79
12.47
10.24
5.01
6.11
3.31
3.45
8.01
4.93
3.46
2.37
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
5.74
5.91
5.33
<3.10
<3.09
<3.10
<3.13
<3.14
21.23
16.16
<3.04
5.52
<3.14
<3.11
5.06
6.91
5.55
<3.12
<3.12
4.24
4.19
<3.10
<3.14
20.42
<3.18
5.28
4.08
3.97
<3.15
<3.13
<3.10
3.83
5.54
4.70
<3.10
<3.11
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
4.00
4.04
<1.32
<1.31
<1.31
<1.31
<1.32
<1.33
5.82
6.53
<1.29
3.06
1.55
<1.32
1.45
2.88
<1.32
<1.32
<1.32
3.14
3.56
<1.31
<1.33
3.04
2.25
1.93
2.39
<1.33
2.28
2.90
1.77
1.39
<1.32
<1.33
<1.28
<1.32
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
4.90
6.04
4.47
<3.08
<3.07
<3.08
<3.10
<3.12
13.55
11.88
<3.01
4.36
<3.11
3.30
6.35
9.14
4.32
<3.10
<3.10
<3.11
<3.10
<3.08
<3.12
3.31
<3.15
4.58
3.56
<3.12
<3.12
<3.11
<3.08
3.55
4.88
3.49
<3.01
<3.08
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
37.76
43.82
31.41
2.24
3.93
0.64
9.59
4.04
174.00
123.34
15.72
29.74
17.38
11.78
36.09
total PAH
mg/kg
52.39
68.32
35.86
10.09
8.32
1.45
12.02
9.24
192.57
155.12
26.48
34.76
26.86
18.94
45.83
51.97 65.23
71.17
0.91
4.51
31.20
36.27
5.88
27.12
101.18
40.41
49.30
61.13
41.55
27.36
31.60
15.02
24.94
31.18
30.64
9.38
6.74
99.26
1.40
5.32
38.54
43.12
11.21
33.67
140.49
49.01
58.54
74.38
52.14
37.74
44.21
19.57
35.38
35.95
35.29
10.32
12.89
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
Field
Core
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
23
24
28
30
31
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
16
1 8
20
21
24
25
30
31
2
3
V
Lift
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
L>
0
D
D
D
U
D
D
D
U
D
U
U
U
D
D
D
E
b
UWRL
ID*
596
601
606
611
621
636
641
646
656
666
671
681
682S1
686
706
716
721
577
582
597
602
607
612
622
637
642A
647
657
667
672
687
692
717
722
578
583A
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
I
<1.24
1.37
11.43
50.62
2.65
3.18
7.65
5.55
1.80
8.94
9.96
22.65
15.06
4.73
5.82
<1.25
1.87
4.06
4.49
10.43
4.39
11.94
17.84
2.41
9.06
5.25
1.46
4.73
3.76
15.04
5.53
8.23
2.62
4.82
3.12
13.36
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
<1.34
1.44
6.52
26.96
3.50
2.51
4.32
2.55
<1.34
6.32
8.34
19.33
8.55
1.37
3.37
1.76
2.41
3.94
4.82
5.40
2.79
9.39
6.95
2.41
3.79
3.35
<1.36
2.73
2.08
12.79
1.60
6.35
3.53
2.13
1.72
6.41
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
<2.08
2.43
16.43
55.08
4.13
4.43
6.53
7.41
3.00
8.31
9.63
27.63
14.93
4.36
5.88
<2.11
<2.11
6.16
6.80
6.87
4.00
16.06
14.01
2.50
6.82
6.74
<2.12
3.89
2.98
17.65
3.95
7.30
<2.13
2.97
4.26
13.51
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
<3.09
<3.09
12.62
19.47
<3.13
<3.09
4.27
5.35
<3.10
3.83
6.11
14.18
9.73
<3.11
<3.11
<3.12
<3.12
4.34
4.06
<3.12
<3.11
5.01
5.92
<3.17
4.61
4.79
<3.13
<3.17
<3.15
12.37
<3.14
<3.17
<3.16
<3.10
<3.09
6.30
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
<1.31
<1.31
4.46
11.28
<1.32
<1.31
2.36
2.20
<1.31
1.72
1.65
6.32
1.66
4.05
2.26
<1.32
<1.32
1.84
<1.32
<1.32
<1.32
2.64
<1.34
<1.34
1.83
2.58
<1.33
<1.34
1.36
10.18
2.16
2.72
<1.34
<1.31
<1.31
3.66
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
i mg/kg
<3.06
<3.07
11.99
19.18
<3.10
<3.07
5.57
5.26
<3.08
4.42
4.91
13.66
7.66
<3.09
<3.09
<3.09
<3.10
4.45
3.23
<3.09
<3.09
5.00
4.00
<3.15
4.11
4.40
<3.11
<3.15
<3.13
11.81
<3.11
<3.15
<3.13
<3.08
<3.07
6.10
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
2.06
10.23
74.06
203.07
15.82
13.22
41.86
34.83
8.29
55.14
56.02
147.74
84.31
20.93
25.35
1.76
4.28
28.54
32.08
34.64
17.71
62.65
96.37
12.81
38.14
32.11
3.39
15.94
14.16
97.04
17.84
33.71
12.91
33.33
12.71
58.04
total PAH
mg/kg
5.76
18.69
85.31
264.83
26.71
17.27
47.22
42.06
14.85
66.97
77.15
226.19
117.24
28.84
40.41
1.76
4.28
34.46
50.72
53.81
29.41
102.61
126.87
27.63
48.73
42.96
8.63
25.83
34.83
132.88
22.93
42.86
17.18
41.39
27.94
72.45
B- 19
-------
B-1: PAHs edited 9/21/93
Date
Collected
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/93
Field
Core
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
30
28
D
Lift
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
UWRL
ID#
598
603
608
613
623
638
643
648
658
668
673
683
688
693
718
707
dry wt
B(b)fluoranthene
mg/kg
9.26
23.20
6.03
29.71
<1.24
8.85
6.49
3.87
8.24
5.33
6.67
8.87
10.42
11.11
4.85
8.01
dry wt
B(k)fluoranthene
mg/kg
14.37
9.93
4.21
13.72
<1.34
5.40
4.28
2.07
2.42
8.21
3.58
3.90
12.55
10.54
4.60
10.98
dry wt
Benzo(a)pyrene
mg/kg
16.26
23.69
5.91
20.18
<2.08
9.61
6.78
3.98
6.09
5.96
5.77
6.73
9.18
12.66
4.46
8.16
dry wt
lndeno(123)p
mg/kg
9.34
12.64
<3.08
5.82
<3.09
7.80
3.86
<3.12
3.83
<3.04
3.40
<3.05
4.09
5.37
4.47
4.08
dry wt
DB(ah)anthracene
mg/kg
2.24
3.60
2.30
4.27
<1.31
4.00
2.25
<1.32
1.49
6.29
2.66
3.27
5.40
5.12
2.19
3.17
dry wt
Benzo(ghi)perylene
mg/kg
7.40
10.51
3.83
4.48
<3.06
7.75
4.68
<3.09
3.87
<3.01
3.32
<3.03
4.11
6.84
4.30
<3.08
total
carcinogenic
PAH mg/Kg
71.16
106.16
28.03
244.59
2.11
51.82
33.56
14.30
34.14
40.51
36.20
32.04
187.64
70.23
31 .14
41.94
total PAH
mg/kg
95.51
209.11
45.93
388.91
16.42
67.71
44.03
24.12
46.76
61.77
58.41
41.93
313.79
90.86
36.06
51.63
B- 20
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples
data
sampled
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
UWRL
#
1750
1753
1762
1765
1768
1771
1777
1786
1790
1798
1801
1804
1807 A
1813
1816
1819
1828
1834
1837
1840
1751
1754
1763
1766
1769
1772
1778
1787 A
1791
1794
1808
1814
1817A
1820
1829
1835
1838
1841
1752
1755
1764
1767
1770
1773
1779
1789
1792
core
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
16
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
15
lift
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
mg/kg
PCP
9.63
51.88
61.01
32.52
19.05
10.08
11.62
17.63
17.06
17.85
11.61
7.54
8.34
20.99
5.18
3.40
4.98
16.90
17.33
0.85
44.69
34.57
37.98
34.40
14.85
16.49
14.49
9.16
13.54
2.56
4.85
3.89
5.14
4.80
8.27
5.52
5.29
8.07
431.88
240.61
93.46
184.34
216.70
407.67
154.77
183.04
154.70
B-21
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples (continued)
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
5/6/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
1795
1788
1800
1803
1806
1809
1815
1818
1821
1830
1836
1839
1853
1856
1859
1868a
1871
1874
1877
1883
1892
1895
1901
1910
1913
1919
1922
1925
1934
1940
1943
1946
1857
1860
1869
1872
1875
1878
1884
1893
1896
1899
1905
1911
1914
1920
1923
1926
1935
1941
1942
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
17
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
30
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
64.25
87.31
67.82
13.13
50.22
141.85
119.56
5.41
13.02
39.43
45.49
59.05
12.70
17.46
21.48
8.29
20.28
5.54
9.77
7.08
5.83
0.89
4.34
17.76
8.67
24.44
8.13
4.10
5.42
12.47
9.44
0.81
5.63
4.82
8.52
19.76
10.33
0.96
9.14
4.40
3.17
3.67
7.49
4.11
3.46
6.33
6.22
2.69
8.03
6.46
8.72
B-22
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples (continued)
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
1944
1947
1858
1861
1870
1873
1876
1879
1885
1894
1897
1903
1906
1912
1915
1921
1924
1927
1936
1945
1948
2059
2062
2064
2065
2066
2068
2070
2071
2073
2074
2075
2077
2080
2081
2082
2084
2085
2088
2089
2090
2028
2029
2032
2033
2034
2035
2037
2040
2041
2042
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
31
32
33
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
8.18
0.88
5.51
8.21
23.89
15.05
10.93
15.14
5.87
2.88
2.96
22.41
9.81
3.17
7.63
3.17
8.52
9.73
14.43
13.22
9.92
124.59
35.31
76.98
56.84
55.35
97.02
46.66
84.62
91.79
370.07
104.87
57.28
61.66
61.71
76.78
92.47
63.88
207.86
94.76
167.26
85.84
156.03
55.96
127.90
143.00
119.22
57.25
171.50
155.04
84.67
B-23
-------
B-2
1 PCP concentrations in LTD soil samples (continued)
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
7/27/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
2044
2046
2047
2049
2050
2051
2054
2056
2057
2058
2524
2528
2532
2536
2540
2544
2552
2506
2556
2560
2568
2576
2580
2588
2592
2596
2608
2616
2620
2624
2835
2837
2838
2840
2825
2828
2829
2831
2832
2816
2818
2819
2821
2822
2809
2810
2811
2814
2815
2525
2529
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
47
48
49
51
52
54
55
58
59
60
63
64
2
3
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A ,
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
160.84
117.17
79.57
6707
58.09
68.23
124.00
224.97
87.17
244.64
13.29
13.25
508
29.55
11.22
1907
10.30
2.60
642
12.86
473
254
3.43
5.85
6.94
3.06
10.68
409
6.75
4.51
49.11
34.09
37.60
14.86
1167.76
3761
7.85
15.79
23.01
15.16
82.96
24.81
21.74
103.96
118.61
86.37
37.18
30.11
2691
965
11.44
B-24
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTD soil samples (continued)
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
2533
2537
2541
2545
2553
2557
2561
2569
2577
2581
2589
2593
2597
2609
2617
2621
2625
2526
2530
2534
2538
2542
2546
2554
2508
2558
2562
2570
2574
2578
2582
2590
2594
2598
2610
2618
2622
2626
2527
2531
2535
2539
2543
2547
2555
2509
2559
2563
2571
2579
2583
6
7
8
9
11
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
1 1
14
1 5
16
18
20
21
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
7.19
8.53
3.75
580
8.37
3.78
5.86
3.22
6.03
10.07
4.20
4.93
10.47
9.31
6.77
5 99
3.08
5.59
3.45
12.54
50.93
11.16
13.26
3.91
18.01
2.89
2.12
48.14
119.89
28.19
19.63
14.07
20.62
10.06
11.05
14.58
16.92
7.05
53.36
14.62
33.96
28.44
29.51
27.06
11.18
22.64
63.70
14.06
57.11
56.54
41.96
9/18/91
B-25
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/18/91
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
2591
2595
2599
2611
2619
2623
2627
579
594
604
609
619
634
639
644
654
664
669A
679
684
689
741
704
714
719
724
735
745
747
749
757
759
763
765
767
771
777
779A
781
785
787
793
795
797
575
580
595
600
605
61OA
620
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
3
6
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
26
28
30
31
32
33
38
39
40
44
45
47
48
49
51
54
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
(continued)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
36.55
16.38
29.76
47.79
70.20
38.20
116.78
8.24
6.59
4.46
4.68
<3.7
6.91
9.24
10.45
338
506
7.95
7.60
39.56
7.12
26.01
5.50
<3.74
<3.71
5.63
14.48
20.44
1932
15.30
6.66
6.31
3334
22.15
15.55
5.76
13.42
21.25
30.01
36.68
28.72
1704
29.71
13.39
9.88
7.11
7.30
3.71
363
12.00
10.66
B-26
-------
B - 2 PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples (continued)
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
635
640
645
655
665
670
680
685
690
705
715
720
725
736
742
746
748
750A
754
758
760
778
764
766
768
772
780
782
786
788
794
796
798
576
581
596
601
606
611
621
636
641
646
656
666
671
681
686
691A
706
716
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
33
36
38
39
40
42
44
45
45
47
48
49
51
55
56
58
59
62
63
64
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2.26
<3.74
10.10
10.43
13.85
17.84
16.93
<3.72
<3.72
4.37
5.61
5.34
7.30
19.32
13.82
21.28
20.29
17.90
16.42
7.66
16.06
33.07
29.51
6.12
23.48
10.59
9.75
27.00
23.80
19.08
12.95
28.20
37.18
9.59
10.39
13.30
7.65
8.83
13.02
13.08
4.75
12.12
3.83
9.54
29.05
13.95
26.53
9.54
14.73
5.60
<3.72
B-27
-------
PCP concentrations in LTU soil samples (continued)
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
9/1/92
721
726
577
582
597
602
607
612
622
637
642A
647
657
667
672
682
687
692
707
717
722
727
578
583A
598
603
608
613
623
638
643
648
658
668
673
683
688
693
708
718
723A
728
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
2
3
6
7
8
9
11
14
15
16
18
20
21
23
24
25
28
30
31
32
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
<3.72
3.67
11.10
17.35
20.49
18.12
11.39
19.57
11.70
13.73
25.96
30.79
17.57
14.77
20.69
31.43
10.54
598
7.73
3.97
26.97
18.27
16.69
1917
20.90
21.84
9.88
51.80
13.22
8.33
27.62
22.57
30.98
19.21
13.54
30.00
85.10
21.94
10.94
4.83
20.33
15.39
'! Q . . '- •. -T -,„,'-! ;-'•• f • - •••->-, r
r,' '' " ' ' ' ''••'' 'v' '"• '-••' ''.;'-• 3H'?/
/ ' •» >l \ -.!, f- -...•- -,. r-,
Chic-iv; •• • ' : r/' -, V "' J"':" J '"'OCr
'*-' "~ •* ^ \~' i ~ •^s ^i ' ^J
B-28
•0.8. GOVEMWEST PRIHTINC OFFICE: 1996-752-795/49059
------- |