May 1988 EPA-700/8-88-044
Hazardcxjs Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Chemical Waste Management, Bnc
Vickery, Ohio
fjf tHr\
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
-------
MX 1988
DPEKIE OF THE HAZARDOUS HASTE GRCKHDNAQER TASK FORCE
EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL WASIE MANAGEMENT, INC. - VICKERY
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA.)
Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force ("Task Force"), in conjunction
with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), conducted an
evaluation at the Chemical Waste Management, Inc. - Vickery (CWM-V)
hazardous waste disposal facility. The Task Force effort is in
response to recent concerns as to whether owners and operators of
hazardous waste disposal facilities are complying with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) groundwater monitoring
regulations, and whether the groundwater monitoring systems in place at
the facilities are capable of detecting contaminant releases from waste
management units. CWM-V is located near Vickery, Ohio, approximately
seventy-five miles west of Cleveland. The on-site field inspection
began on April 6, 1987.
This update of the Task Force evaluation summarizes subsequent events
that are directly related to hazardous waste groundwater monitoring
issues.
The Task Force evaluation of CWM-V revealed several violations and
deficiencies. The details of each violation and deficiency are
explained in the text of the Task Force report. U.S. EPA sent a letter
to CWM dated June 18, 1987, notifying them of the violations identified
during the Task Force evaluation and informing CWM that the Vickery
-------
- 2 -
facility is unacceptable to receive waste from response actions taken
under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) in conjunction with the U.S. EPA Off-site
Policy. CWM responded in a letter to U.S. EPA dated July 10, 1987,
explaining that none of the violations cited in U.S. EPA's letter are
justified. On August 27, 1987, U.S. EPA sent a letter to CWM stating
that the Agency does not concur with CWM's conclusion that the
violations are unjustified. In addition, the Agency reminded CWM of
Paragraph O of the Consent Agreement and Final Order between U.S. EPA
and CWM dated April 5, 1985, that subjects CWM to payment of stipulated
penalties from the date of the violations. CWM responded to the Agency
in a letter dated. September 4,. 1987, stating that they believe that the
facility is in compliance with the Consent Agreement and Final Order
and therefore, have no obligation to pay any stipulated penalty.
U.S. EPA is currently considering the appropriate action concerning
the observed violations.
Paragraphs H(ll) and H(12) of the Consent Agreement and Final Order
states that CWM shall submit the results of each semi-annual analyses
and a report on the same to U.S. EPA and OEPA within thirty (30) days
after receipt of all such final results. CWM submitted a report to
U.S. EPA dated April 1988 entitled "ttonitoring Well System, Analytical
Data Evaluation, Vickery, Ohio Facility". This report is an evaluation
of the chemical analysis results from CWM's monitoring wells sampled in
April 1986, October 1976, April 1987, and October 1987. U.S. EPA is
currently reviewing the report to determine its technical adequacy.
-------
- 3 -
The construction of a disposal cell for the placement of wastes
contained in the temporary waste pile and the placement of those wastes
into the cell is described in Phase II of the Closure Plan for Surface
Impoundments 4, 5, and 7. The Region V RORA Permitting Branch issued
an approval of the Phase II Closure Plan dated March 30, 1988. The
approval letter also contained several conditions of approval with a
staggered schedule for completions of each condition.
CWM is also required to receive a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Landfill Authorization from Region V prior to the placement of waste
into the proposed disposal cell. Region V TSCA personnel are currently
reviewing the proposal; consequently, a landfill authorization has not
been issued to date.
CWXR7 is required to sutmit a no-migration petition under RCRA, if it
intends to inject wastes that are subject to the land disposal
restrictions that apply to Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells.
The regulations require owners/operators who desire to inject
restricted wastes to submit a demonstration showing that:
(1) The hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site
and the physiochemical nature of the waste streams(s) are
such that reliable predictions can be made that:
(i) Fluid movement conditions are such that injected fluids
will not migrate within 10,000 years:
(A) Vertically upward out of the injection zone; or
(B) Laterally within the injection zone to a point of
discharge or interface with an underground source
of drinking water (USEW); or
(ii) Before the injected fluids migrate out of the injection
/ zone or to a point of discharge or interface with an
-------
- 4 -
USDtf, the wastes will no longer be hazardous because
the hazardous constituents will have been attenuated or
iimobilized within the injection zone by hydrolysis,
chemical interactions or other means.
CWPfr-V submitted a no-migration petition to U.S. EPA on April 29. 1988.
U.S. EPA is currently reviewing the petition.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND WATER EVALUATION
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
VICKERY, OHIO
MAY 1988
JOSEPH J. FREDLE
PROJECT COORDINATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
EASTERN DISTRICT OFFICE
WESTLAKE, OHIO
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Introduction 1
B. Objectives 1
C. Investigative Methods 2
D. Task Force Findings & Recommendations 3
1. Waste Management Units 3
2. Ground Water Monitoring System 3
3. Ground Water Assessment "4
E. RCRA Permit 4
F. Compliance with Superfund Offsite Policy 5
II. TECHNICAL REPORT 6
A. Introduction • 6
B. Objectives ." 6
C. Investigative Methods 7
1. Technical Review Team 7
2. Laboratory Evaluation Team 9
3. Sample Collection Team 9
D. Waste Management Units 9
1. Introduction 9
2. Surface Impoundments 11
3. Abandoned Oil Recovery Facility and Sludge Farm 14
4. Injection Wells 14
E. General Geology 19
1. Previous Investigation 19
2. Glacial Overburden 20
3. Bedrock 22
F. Hydrogeology 23
1. General 23
2. Ground Water Flow in the Bedrock 24
3. Ground Water Flow in the Glacial Overburden 25
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
G. Ground Water Monitoring System 26
1. Historical Ground Water Monitoring System 26
2. Current Ground Water Monitoring System 27
3. Sampling and Analysis 32
H. RCRA Permit (40 CFR 264 and 270) 35
I. Task Force Sampling 36
1. Methods 36
2. Sampling Location 40
3. Scheduling 40
J. Ground Water Quality Interpretation 41
1. Task Force Analyses 41
2. Data Interpretation ' 42
REFERENCES 53
TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDICES
iii
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction
Operations at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities are regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S. 6901 et.seq. Implementing regulations which were issued
on May 19, 1980 (40 CFR Part 260 through 265, as modified), established operating
requirements for TSD facilities including the monitoring of ground water. The
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
established a Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force (referred to hereafter as
Task Force) to evaluate the level of compliance with ground water monitoring
requirements at on-site and commercial off-site TSD facilities and to address
the cause(s) of noncompliance. In addition the Task Force is to examine
the suitability of the TSD f.acility to receive hazardous waste under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund
program.
The Task Force is comprised of personnel from USEPA headquarters, USEPA
regional offices, and the state's environmental agencies. This evaluation is
of the Chemical Waste Management, Inc., facility in Vickery, Ohio (CWM-V).
B. Objectives
The objectives of the Task Force evaluation at CWM-V are to: (1) determine
compliance with the requirements of Ohio Administrative Code 3745-65-90 through
3745-65-94 and 40 CFR 265 Subpart F - Ground Water Monitoring, and the monitoring
system's capability of providing the required data; (?.} evaluate the facility's
-------
ground water monitoring program as described in the RCRA Part B permit
application for compliance with 40 CFR Part 270.14 (c); (3) evaluate the
.facility's potential compliance with 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F; (4) verify the
quality of the company's ground water monitoring data and evaluate the sampling
and analytical procedures; (5) determine if any ground water contamination
currently exists from site operations; (6) determine if the facility is meeting
the requirements of the Superfund off-site policy; and (7) evaluate the
interrelationships of the RCRA, TSCA, and UIC regulations at this facility.
C. Investigative Methods
To accomplish the objectives, a Facility Evaluation Team was assembled,
comprised of a Management Team, a Technical (record) Review Team, a Laboratory
Evaluation Team (to evaluate off-site contractor laboratories), and a Sample
Collection Team. Each team had individual responsibilities to achieve the
objectives of the Task Force.
The on-site facility inspection began on April 6, 1987, and was conducted
by three teams: the Management Team, the Technical Review Team, and the Sampling
Team. Off-site inspections were conducted at contract laboratories by the
Laboratory Evaluation Team.
The Task Force contracted Planning Research Corporation (PRC) of Chicago,
Illinois, to prepare a document package of pertinent background information
from public information sources (i.e., USEPA, and OEPA files). The information
collected by PRC concentrated on site events since about 1978 (e.g., inspection
reports, hydrogeologic reports, and Part B application) and projected future
activities. Information obtained from CWM-V during the evaluation was also
-------
reviewed to supplement the information in the public files. By combining these
information sources, the Technical Review Team was able to perform a complete
evaluation of the facility with respect to ground water.
This evaluation considers only information available at the time of the
investigation (April 1987) or before, unless specifically stated.
D. Task Force Findings & Recommendations
1. Waste Management Units
The pond to the east of the hazardous waste pile on site contains
hazardous waste and will require proper RCRA closure.
Hazardous waste from the pond east of the hazardous waste pile is
pumped into pond 12. Pond 12 does not have interim status or a RCRA
permit.
The effectiveness of the confining system for the injection wells has
not been thoroughly addressed.
The need for ground water monitoring of the injection wells should be
thoroughly addressed and evaluated in detail by CWM-V.
2. Ground Water Monitoring System
It is recommended that one bedrock well be installed near the location
of L-30 to accommodate the change in ground water flow resulting in the
operation of the truck wash well.
It is recommended that initially a minimum of three lacustrine wells
be installed on the east side of the waste pile retention basin to
adequately monitor the surface impoundment.
The new CAFO wells that have been installed appear to have been ade-
quately constructed.
A number of deficiencies have been noted in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan of CWM-V. They are discussed in Section G.3. of the technical
report. The most noteworthy deficiency is that CWM-V requires total
organic carbon and extractable organic samples to be filtered. This is
an inappropriate procedure which should be corrected immediately.
-------
The usability of CWM-V's existing data was evaluated by the Task Force
and determined to be classfied as:
Inorganic and Indicator Parameters - Qualitative
Volatile Organics - Quantitative
Semi-Volatile (extractable) Organics, PCBs, and Pesticides -
Qualitative, Biased Low
3. Ground Water Assessment
Specific organics (e.g., methylene chloride, methanol, methyl ethyl
ketone ...) have been found in the monitoring wells at CWM-V.
o The lacustrine zone on site is contaminated and a ground water
assessment plan is needed.
o Bedrock background well MW-23RA is contaminated and should be
relocated as a background well.
o Bedrock well P-10 shows contamination that needs to be addressed in
a grourtd water assessment plan.
o The bedrock ground water monitoring system indicates periodic
contamination. Further study is needed for this ground water -zone.
As of the date of the Task Force inspection, CWM-V has not conducted
a ground water assessment nor submitted any ground water reports
evaluating the rate and extent of migration of hazardous waste con-
stituents identified during several ground water sampling events as
required in 40 CFR 265.93 and the CAFO.
CWM-V had not submitted ground water monitoring results for the April
and October 1986 CAFO sampling to USEPA and OEPA within 30 days after
receiving final results, as required in the CAFO.
E. RCRA Permit
The current application for a RCRA permit does not include a ground water
monitoring program because CWM-V is seeking a permit for storage and treatment
tanks and the UIC wells; these activities do not require ground water monitoring
under RCRA. The hazardous waste impoundments are being closed under the
authority of 40 CFR 265 (interim status). The USEPA has not requested that CWM-V
provide the ground water monitoring information for the post-closure care
-------
portion of the permit. Based on the current ground water monitoring information,
a compliance monitoring program under 40 CFR 264.99 should be provided in the
permit appl ication.
F. Compliance with Superfund Offsite Policy
Under current USEPA policy, if an offsite TSD facility is to be used for land
disposal of waste from a Superfund financed cleanup of a CERCLA site, the TSD
facility must be in compliance with the applicable technical requirements of
RCRA. As of June 18, 1987, CWM-V has been declared ineligible to receive waste
from response actions taken under CERCLA. Region V made this determination based
upon violations found during the Task Force inspection.
-------
II. TECHNICAL REPORT
A. Introduction
Operations at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 6901 et.seq.). Implementing regulations issued pursuant to RCRA
(40 CFR Parts 260 through 265, as modified) address waste site operations
including monitoring of ground water to ensure that hazardous waste and hazardous
waste contaminants do not escape undetected into the environment.
The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) established a Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force (referred to
hereafter as Task Force) to evaluate the levels of compliance with ground water
requirements at on-site and commercial off-site TSD facilities and to address
the cause of noncompliance. In addition the Task Force is to examine the
suitability of the facility as a provider of treatment, storage, or disposal
services for waste managed by the USEPA1s Superfund program. The Task Force
is comprised of personnel from USEPA headquarters, regional offices, and
the states. Fifty-nine TSD facilities have had a Task Force ground water
evaluation; one of these is the Chemical Waste Management, Inc., facility in
Vickery, Ohio (CWM-V).
B. Objectives
The objectives of the Task Force evaluation at CWM-V were to:
o Determine compliance with requirements of 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F
(Ohio Administrative Code 3745-65) ground water monitoring, 40 CFR
Part 761 (TSCA ground water monitoring requirements for future waste
cell), and 40 CFR Parts 144-148 (underground injection control (UIC)
requirements).
-------
o Evaluate the facility's potential compliance with 40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart F (OAC 3745-55).
o Verify the quality of the company's ground water monitoring data and
evaluate sampling and analytical procedures.
o Determine if any ground water contamination currently exists.
o Determine if this site meets the requirements of the CERCLA (Superfund)
off-site policy.
C. Investigative Methods
The Task Force investigation at CWM-V consisted of:
o Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from USEPA-Region V files,
Ohio EPA files, and provided by CWM-V during the on-site inspection.
o Conducting an on-site inspection from April 6 through 16, 1987.
o Evaluating the off-site laboratory utilized by CWM-V for analysis of
past and present ground water samples.
o Sampling and analysis of ground water from monitoring wells at CWM-V.
o Sampling and analysis of surface water and leachate found at CWM-V.
To accomplish the objectives, a Facility Evaluation Team was assembled,
comprised of a Technical Review Team, a Laboratory Evaluation Team and a Sample
Collection Team. Each team had individual responsibilities which when combined
will achieve the objectives of the Task Force.
1. Technical Review Team
The Technical Review Team was responsible for conducting the evaluation of
the facility with respect to applicable ground water monitoring regulations.
The team's objective was to determine compliance with 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F;
40 CFR 270.14(c); 40 CFR Parts 144-148; and potential compliance with 40 CFR
761 (TSCA); and 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F. The evaluation focused on the
following six areas:
-------
1. waste characterization and operations;
2. site history and design;
3. site geology and hydrogeology;
4. ground water monitoring system adequacy;
5. ground water sampling and analysis procedures; and
6. ground water quality data and interpretation.
The Task Force core team in Washington, D.C., contracted Planning Research
Corporation (PRC) of Chicago, Illinois, to prepare a document package of
pertinent background information. The information collected by PRC primarily
concentrated on past inspections and submittals (e.g., inspection reports,
hydrogeologic reports, TSCA land disposal application, and the Part B appli-
cation) from regional and state files. Information obtained from CWM-V during
the Task Force evaluation was also reviewed to supplement the accuracy of the
information in the public files. Combining these information sources, the
technical review team performed a complete evaluation of the facility records
with respect to the ground water monitoring system.
During the investigation the team met with facility representatives and
legal counsel at least twice a day to request information. Typically, infor-
mation requested by the Task Force in one meeting was supplied by CWM-V in a
subsequent meeting by referencing specific sections of past reports. CWM-V did
not permit the Task Force to directly question any of its consultants. The
team also toured the site to evaluate and verify the waste units and handling
at the facility.
8
-------
2. Laboratory Evaluation Team
The off-site laboratory that analyzes samples for CWM-V was evaluated by
the USEPA Region V, Quality Assurance Office. The laboratory evaluated was
Environmental Testing and Certification Corporation (ETC) of Edison, New Jersey.
3. Sample Collection Team
Samples and field measurements for the Task Force evaluation at CWM-V were
collected by Alliance Technologies Corporation (referred to as Alliance
hereafter), a USEPA contractor, under the supervision of USEPA personnel.
D. Waste Management Units
1. Introduction
CWM-V operates a liquid treatment and disposal facility in Sandusky County,
Ohio, approximately two miles north of Clyde along State Route 510 (see Figure 1,
all figures and tables can be found after page 55 at the back of this report).
At the time of the Task Force inspection, wastes were disposed by deep-well
injection into the five operational wells located on the 437-acre facility.
Only liquid wastes stored or generated on site were being injected. No off-site
wastes were accepted at that time.
This site, originally known as Don's Waste Oil, was first used in 1958 to
recycle waste oil collected from service stations. In 1961, the company began
to accept various industrial wastes, such as cutting oils, hydraulic fluids,
and some solvents. These materials were stored in containment ponds. In 1964,
the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board (predecessor to the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency) granted the facility permission to accept chemical process
wastes such as pickle liquors from metal-working operations, lime sludge, and
-------
other miscellaneous chemical products. More ponds were constructed to facili-
tate the growing inventory of liquid wastes, and by the late 1960's, the amount
of industrial wastes received by the facility exceeded that of waste oil.
In 1971, the firm was incorporated as Ohio Liquid Disposal, Inc. Faced
with growing volumes of waste, the company began investigating a suitable means
of disposal. In 1972, permission was granted by the Ohio Division of Oil and
Gas to drill a test hole to evaluate subsurface conditions for a possible
injection well. An application was submitted for permission to use this well
for injection of industrial waste. In September of 1972, the Water Pollution
Control Board refused approval for a permit. In this same month, the Division
of Oil and Gas refused to issue a permit to convert the well for waste disposal.
These decisions were appealed through the state judicial system, and in May of
1975, the State Court of Appeals in Toledo, Ohio, ruled that the permit be
issued. In July of 1975, a permit to use well No. 1 as 9 waste disposal well
was issued by the Division of-Oil and Gas.22 Injection into this well began in
June 1976. In January 1976, permits were issued for the installation of wells
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (see Figure 19). Well No. 2 was completed in November 1976 and
injection began in March 1977. Wells Nos. 3 and 4 were both completed in
November 1976, with injection beginning in August 1977. Due to corrosion of
the long string casing in well No. 1, it was not used for injection after July
1979 and was eventually plugged and capped. To replace well No. 1, well No. 1A
was drilled and completed in October 1979. Injection into this well began in
January 1980. Wells No. 5 and 6 were completed in December 1980 and May 1981,
respectively. Injection of waste into both of these wells began in September
1981. In May of 1986 well No. 3 was also found to have corrosion problems;
10
-------
operation of well No. 3 ceased at that time. It was plugged in July of 1987.
Well 1A was taken out of service in the fall of 1987; thus only four wells (2,
4, 5, and 6) are presently being used for injection.
CWM-V had, at one time, 12 unlined ponds (Nos. 1-12) in which liquid wastes
were settled and stored prior to filtration and injection. At this writing (May
1988) all but five ponds (Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12) have been filled and covered.
Ponds Nos. 4, 5, and 7 (see Figure 2) have been drained, and the contaminated
bottom sludge has been solidified and is currently being stored in a stockpile
to the east of pond No. 4. This stockpiled material is to be replaced in a
cell located at the former site of ponds Nos. 4, 5, and 7 once an appropriate
liner and leachate collection system are installed and a closure plan is
approved; this will create a disposal cell on site. Ponds 11 and 12 are
partially drained and once completely emptied, the contaminated bottom sludge
is also to be disposed in the above-mentioned cell. At the time of the
inspection, construction of the disposal cell was suspended. Both the USEPA
TSCA and RCRA programs were in the process of reviewing its design and adequacy.
A summary of regulatory history for CWM-V, starting in 1979, can be found in
Appendix A of this report. This summary deals mainly with the RCRA and TSCA
compliance history of the facility.
2. Surface Impoundments
CWM-V has stated that the surface impoundments were constructed by
excavating the clay down to the proposed bottom elevation of each impoundment
and using the excavated clay to construct the containment dikes around the
impoundments. No linings were placed in any of the impoundments. The dikes
range in elevation from 10 to 20 feet above the original ground surface.31
11
-------
a. Surface Impoundments That Have Been Filled and Capped^l
Pond No. 1 (see Figure 2) was opened in 1961 and filled in 1980. When
emptied its sludge was removed and placed in Pond No. 4. Pond No. 1 was
approximately 430 feet x 90 feet x 12 feet deep. CWM-V stated that it was
filled with demolition debris and capped with clean fill.
Pond No. 2 was opened in 1962 and filled in 1979. When emptied the sludge
was fixed with foundry sand and lime kiln flue dust. CWM-V stated that the
fixed sludge was then left in place and covered with demolition debris and
capped with clean fill. Pond No. 2 was approximately 320 feet x 100 feet x
12 feet deep.
Pond No. 3 was opened in 1962 and filled in 1977. CWM-V stated that the
sludge was removed from this pond and landfarmed on site (see Figure 2). It
was then capped with clean fill. The pond was approximately 230 feet x 150
feet x 6 feet deep.
Pond No. 6 was opened in 1966 and was split into an east and west pond in
1976. Pond No. 6-East was filled in 1979 and the sludge was removed and placed
in Pond No. 4. CWM-V stated that clean fill was used to cap it. It was approxi-
mately 125 feet x 75 feet x 12 feet deep. Pond No. 6-West was filled in 1981;
CWM-V stated that some of the sludge was landfarmed (in 1978/1979) and some was
fixed with foundry sand and lime kiln flue dust (in 1981). CWM-V stated that
this mixture was left in the pond and capped with clean fill. Pond No. 6-West
was approximately 200 feet x 75 feet x 15 feet deep.
12
-------
Pond No. 9 was opened in 1969 and filled in 1981. CWM-V stated that it was
filled and capped with clean fill. It is uncertain whether the sludge from Pond
No. 9 was removed or solidified and left in place. Pond No. 9 was approximately
440 feet x 75 feet x 11 feet deep.
Pond No. 10 was opened in 1971 and filled in 1982; CWM-V stated that sludge
removed from this pond was placed in Pond No. 4. Clean soil was used to fill
and cap it. Pond No. 10 was approximately 520 feet x 150 feet x 12 feet deep.
The closure requirements of RCRA are applicable to Ponds Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Closure plans have not been submitted for Ponds Nos. 1,
6, 9, and 10 as of this writing.
b. Surface Impoundments Awaiting Closure
At the time of this investigation, ponds No. 4, 5, and 7 had been drained
and the sludges solidified and placed in a temporary waste pile to the east of
Pond No. 4. The area that included Ponds No. 4, 5, and 7 is presently in the
process of being constructed into a RCRA/TSCA disposal cell. When final approval
is obtained from both the USEPA RCRA and TSCA programs, the waste from the
temporary waste pile will be placed in the new cell. It should be noted that
Pond No. 7 includes the old Pond No. 8.
Ponds No. 11 and 12 are still open but not receiving waste from off site,
except that Pond No. 12 accepts hazardous waste as stated below. They are
planned to be closed with their solidified sludges being put into the above-
mentioned disposal cell.
There is presently a pond to the east of the above-mentioned waste pile
which collects runoff and leachate from the waste pile. The waste pile contains
13
-------
hazardous waste; therefore, leachate from it is also considered to be hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and will require proper RCRA closure. Also, the
Task Force analysis found that this pond contains hazardous waste constituents
(see Section J.2.d.4). The hazardous waste from this pond is pumped to Pond
No. 12 before being deep-well injected.
3. Abandoned Oil Recovery Facility and Sludge Farm*?
The oil recovery facility on the eastern side of the site was used to
recover No. 5 fuel oil for resale from used machinery oils, hydraulic oils,
water soluble oils, motor oils, rolling mill stock oils, etc. This facility
was decommissioned during the summer of 1986.
Oily sludges were landfarmed into the soil for a biological degradation
experiment in the sludge farm area north of Ponds No. 11 and 12 in 1978. The
project was not successful and was abandoned after two months. The soil and
«
oily sludge were excavated and transferred to the waste ponds.
4. Injection Wells
a. Background
Class I injection wells as defined in 40 CFR 146.6 (a)(l) are wells used by
generators of hazardous waste or owners or operators of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities to inject hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation
containing, within one-quarter mile of the well bore, an underground source of
drinking water (USDW), and (2) other industrial and municipal disposal wells
which inject fluids beneath the lowermost formation containing, within one-
quarter mile of the well bore, an USDW. These wells are regulated by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program pursuant to Chapter 3745-34 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC).
14
-------
OEPA was granted.authority to administer the UIC program (40 CFR Parts 144-148)
by the USEPA Region V Water Division. USEPA retains authority for UIC provisions
under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
b. Site Stratigraphy
All injection wells were completed with an open hole construction into the
Mt. Simon Formation (the injection zone). Located at a depth of approximately
2800 feet below the ground surface, the Mt. Simon Formation is composed of fine
to coarse grained sandstone that averages in thickness between 84 and 139 feet.
The injection zone is overlain by a confining system which is comprised of four
individual formations which occur between 2366 and 2808 feet. The formation
which is located immediately above the injection zone is the basal dolomite of
the Rome Formation which is composed of thin interbedded, moderately permeable
(1-1500 md) dolomites and sandstones and thicker layers of lower permeable
(<0.01 md) dolomites.1 The Mt. Simon Formation is overlain, in ascending
order, by the Rome Sandstone and Dolomite Formation; the Conasauga Formation;
the Kerbel Formation, which is composed of interbedded dolomitic sandstone,
shaley sandstone and sandstone; and the Copper Ridge (Knox) Dolomite. The
Mt. Simon Formation and its confining system is further separated from the
lowermost fresh water aquifer (the Big Lime) by approximately 1700 feet of
sedimentary strata (Figure 3).
c. Operation
Injection well No. 1 was drilled in 1972 and began operation in 1976. Four
years later this well was plugged and abandoned due to a hole in the casing
caused by corrosion. Subsequently, six additional packerless wells v/ere
constructed during 1976 to 1980. Numerous reworks were conducted on the wells
15
-------
at CWM-V in an attempt to correct recurring mechanical well failures which
allowed acid waste to enter formations above the Mt. Simon Formation.22 Finally,
in 1983 to 1985, all wells were reworked and recompleted with packers and
corrosion resistant casing and cement.
The replacement of injection well materials with corrosion resistant casing
and cement was a necessary precaution given that the injectant is a very acidic
(pH <1.0) waste pickling liquid used for steel processing. Injection of
this waste into noncorrosion resistant wells probably facilitated mechanical
failures.
d. Mechanical Integrity Tests
As a result of these prior releases both USEPA and OEPA imposed annual
mechanical integrity test (MIT) requirements on CWM-V. These MITs are used to
test: (1) the integrity of the casing, tubing and packer and (2) to demonstrate
the absence of upward fluid migration adjacent to the well bore. Part 1 of the
MIT is accomplished by performing a pressure test with a liquid. A predetermined
pressure is applied to the entire annulus (Figure 4); in the meantime, the
tubing is either injecting or shut-in. In order for the injection well to pass
this test, the annular pressure must remain constant (±3% for error or surface
piping leaks) for one hour. If the pressure increases or decreases it indicates
that the integrity of the well is in question.
Part 2 of the MIT uses geophysical logging methods, in this case a radio-
active tracer (RAT), to detect casing leaks and/or fluid movement behind the
casing. If none of the tracer is detected escaping from the casing or moving
up behind the casing into unpermitted zones, then the well passes.
16
-------
In May 1986 injection wells No. 1A through 6 (except No. 3, which has been
plugged) were tested for mechanical integrity. All of the tested wells passed
Part 1 and all but well No. 2 passed Part 2 of the MIT. Well No. 2 was suspected
of having a channel adjacent to the well bore at the base of the well, but it
passed the MIT in 1987 as noted below.
Subsequent MITs performed on injection wells No. 1A, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the
fall of 1987 passed four of the five wells (see Figure 19). Well No. 1A failed
and was taken out of service and is plugged and abandoned.
e. Discussion
In the past ten years of underground injection at CWM-V a number of opera-
tional problems have occurred at the facility. Initial injection well construc-
tion and configuration did not -provide adequate protection against the acid
waste, resulting in numerous well failures/leaks, some of which went unreported
by CWM-V for an extended period of time. At the time of the Task Force review,
these releases were still not completely defined by CWM-V, and even though the
facility's UIC consultants were on site during this investigation, CWM-V
did not permit the Task Force to question these consultants on this or any
other issue. The causes of these releases were addressed in a Consent Decree
with OEPA which required CWM-V to rework all wells and install an annular seal
system. CWM-V performed this task between 1983 and 1985.
The effectiveness of the confining unit in containing the injected waste is
of concern to the Task Force. The clustering of the injection wells on the
CWM-V site results in significant pressure increases in the Mt. Simon Formation
when the wells are in operation. According to CWM-V, this pressure increase
dissipates with time once injection has ceased. The concern is how this pressure
17
-------
increase affects the initial confining layer which is the basal dolomite of the
Rome Formation. The basal dolomite of the Rome Formation is composed of
interbedded, moderately permeable and lower permeable dolomites. Laboratory
compatibility tests, performed by CWM-V, on the dolomite and the acid waste
suggest that, although the dolomite is fairly permeable to natural Mt. Simon
brines, the waste acid reacts with the dolomite causing a reduction in permea-
bility. Given the pressure buildup and potential reduction in confining layer
permeability of the dolomite, an estimate of upward penetration of brine or
waste was made by CWM-V. It was estimated that it would take brine or acid
waste 20 years to migrate through the dolomite and into the overlying sandstone
of the Rome Formation.1>22 Once it reaches the sandstone it is suggested that
the sandstone would dissipate the energy laterally within the permeable sand-
stones, which would lower the potential for vertical migration from that point.
The Task Force found that the effectiveness of the immediate confining unit
has not been thoroughly demonstrated by CWM-V and that the ability of the
immediate confining unit to contain the waste remains questionable. The Task
Force suggests deep well monitoring of the Rome Formation could provide the
ability to detect migration of waste from the injection zone, if any migration
should occur.
CWM-V will be required to submit a no-migration petition under RCRA, if
it intends to inject wastes that are subject to the land disposal restrictions
that apply to UIC wells. The subject petition must demonstrate that the disposal
of hazardous wastes by deep well injection at the facility is done in such a
way as to be protective of human health and the environment and that the waste
will not migrate from the injection zone for 10,000 years or as long as the
wastes remain hazardous.
18
-------
After a thorough review of the petition, a site-specific requirement of
ambient monitoring (deep well) could be initiated to enhance confidence in
CWM-V's petition demonstration of no-migration. The actual implementation and
parameters thereof cannot be evaluated at the time of this report. The Task
Force recommends that the ambient monitoring question be thoroughly addressed
and evaluated in detail during the Land Ban Petition evaluation process to be
completed by USEPA Region V. The Task Force believes that recent and future
data acquisition and modeling will provide insight into this concern.
E. General Geology
1. Previous Investigation
The first significant hydrogeologic investigation for the facility was
conducted by Bowser-Morner Laboratories, Inc., and is described in a report
dated May 1983.2 A hydrogeologic investigation and statistical analyses of
ground water quality data were performed. Thirty-two (32) borings were made and
five (5) piezometers were installed during the study. The boring program focused
on describing the glacial overburden. A pump test of the bedrock was conducted
to determine aquifer characteristics. The overall flow system described in
this report is generally consistent with subsequent reports. Bowser-Morner was
first to identify the inward flow pattern at the site caused by pumping in the
water supply wells (e.g., truck wash well).
The majority of site-specific studies that followed the Bowser-Morner
report were conducted by Colder and Associates, who reevaluated the hydro-
geologic system based upon additional data and focused on specific issues
concerning the hydrogeologic or monitoring systems. A listing of site-specific
hydrogeologic studies is included in the reference section at the end of this
19
-------
report. A more comprehensive list of references (including off-site studies
in the area of the site) is given in the Golder and Associates report dated
July 1986.19
Figure 5 shows locations of borings, wells and piezometers installed at
the facility as of May 1986.19 The Task Force is not aware of any hydrogeologic
studies conducted between July 1986 and the Task Force inspection in April 1987.
2. Glacial Overburden
The facility is underlain by 33 to 52 feet of glacial overburden. The
overburden is comprised of glacial lacustrine deposits overlying two till
units. The glacial overburden overlies a predominantly dolomite bedrock. A
500 to 550 foot thick sequence of Devonian and Silurian age dolomite deposits
are found under the glacial overburden. Figure 6 depicts the glacial overburden
at the site in cross-sectional view. The figure shows that the contacts are
generally horizontal and that the ponds that contain hazardous waste are about
30 to 40' feet above the bedrock.
The uppermost deposit is comprised of lacustrine materials. This deposit
is thought to have been deposited in a pro-glacial lake. The deposit is
described as having horizontal laminations of silty clay with occasional fine
sand between the laminations. In the area around the facility, this deposit
ranges from 0 to 25 feet in thickness.19 The most recent boring program for
the facility revealed that the lacustrine material is generally absent south
of State Route 412 and is up to 16.7 feet thick at monitoring well L-34
(Figure 16).
20
-------
Glacial till underlies the lacustrine deposit. The till is divided into
an upper unit that is continuous across the site and a lower unit that is
discontinuous. The upper till unit ranges from 11 to 38 feet in thickness
while the lower till unit is less than 13 feet thick. The upper till unit
generally consists of silty clay to clayey silt with some sand and gravel, and
is relatively homogeneous with no distinct depositional structures (e.g.,
bedding or laminations). The lower till unit is comprised of silt with some
clay, sand and gravel. The lower till is more dense and more coarsely graded
than the upper till unit.
Some fine sand and/or silt deposits have been encountered in the glacial
tills. Material that can be classified as predominantly sand was found in four
borings over a total interval of 5.7 feet. The specific locations of these
sand lenses are as follows:
Boring
Number
SS-13
SL-1
6-14
G-27
Depth of
From - To
27.5 -
20.4 -
19.6 -
29.3 -
Lenses
(ft.)
31.2
21.3
20.4
29.6
Material Description
Fine coarse SAND, little
fine to coarse gravel (SP)
Fine to coarse SAND and
SILTY CLAY (SC)
Fine to coarse SAND and
CLAYEY SILT (SM)
Fine to coarse SAND, some
fine gravel, trace silt (SP)
This information is taken from Reference 6. The sand lenses discovered in
borings G-14 and G-27 are monitored by wells T-14 and T-27, respectively, which
are screened over these intervals. Borings SS-13 and SL-1 were located next to
one another along the east side of old Pond No. 4 (now the new disposal cell).
A till monitoring well is not present or proposed in this area.
21
-------
The upper 5 to 10 feet of glacial overburden has been desiccated (i.e.,
dried out). Desiccation cracks are common in the upper portions of the uppermost
deposits. Below the limit of desiccation the lacustrine and upper till deposits
are usually soft with relatively high moisture contents and are nearly normally
consolidated. The lower till appeared more consolidated than the upper till
based upon descriptions of this deposit. Observation of some cores present at
the facility and comparison to their logs verifies the descriptions of the
deposits given in the reports at the facility.
3. Bedrock
The Tymochtee Dolomite, middle member of the Bass Island Formation, is
immediately under the glacial tills. It is approximately 150 feet thick under
the site. The Tymochtee is underlain by the Greenfield Dolomite (also Bass
Island Formation). Underneath the Bass Island Formation is the Lockport For-
mation. Although not differentiated on Figure 3, these formations are part of
the "Big Lime." The Big Lime is an informal driller's name for this geologic
sequence.
The Tymochtee Dolomite is generally described as thin bedded, gray-brown,
very fine grained dolomite with solution zones and evaporate beds (anhydrite
and gypsum). This dolomite unit is interbedded with shale and exhibits parting
in which gypsum and calcite have formed as a secondary filling. The Tymochtee
Dolomite has been cored to a depth of 125 feet beneath the site. Descriptions
of the cores confirm the general descriptions given above and show highly
weathered zones and that most solution cavities were relatively small (less
than one inch).19
22
-------
The top of bedrock in the region has been mapped by Hoovered (Figure 7).
This map shows the site in relation to the major top of bedrock features around
the site. As can be seen in this figure, a major bedrock valley exists to the
west of the facility (trending north-south). The eastern side of the buried
valley on which the facility is located has a uniform slope, with no other
major buried valleys intersecting it.
The top of bedrock under and immediately around the site has been mapped
from data collected from the geotechnical borings, piezometers, and monitoring
wells (Figure 8). This figure shows a bedrock ridge south of the facility
that trends southwest-northeast and a general flat area under the site. Both
Figure 7 and 8 show that the bedrock surface is sloped toward the north.
F. Hydrogeology
1. General
The major sources of ground water in the region surrounding the site are:
- Tymochtee Dolomite
- Greenfield Dolomite
- Lockport Dolomite
These formations have solutioning and jointing (i.e., fractures) that
enhance their porosity, transmissivity, and storativity. In the area around the
facility, these formations are under confined conditions.
The glacial overburden is saturated to within 2-5 feet of the ground surface.
The glacial overburden is not used as a domestic or commercial water supply
except for sand and gravel valley deposits.19
23
-------
In the Tymochtee Dolomite, regional flow is to the north-northwest as shown
in Figure 9. The major recharge area is reported to be to the southeast where
the Tymochtee comes to within a few feet of the surface.19 The glacial over-
burden acts as a leaky confining layer under the facility. Flowing artesian
conditions do not exist at the site but can be found around the facility in
Riley, Green Creek, and Townsend townships.
2. Ground Water Flow in the Bedrock
Ground water flow in the dolomite bedrock under the facility has been
interpreted from water level data collected over several years. Golder and
Associates19 presents a typical potentiometric map for the bedrock units for the
period between 1982 and 1984 (see Figure 10). This map shows the radial flow
pattern (identified by Bowser-Morner) which is produced by pumping on-site.
This flow pattern is characteristic of this period and is anticipated when the
site becomes active and pumping begins. Other examples of potentiometric maps
from this two-year period that show similar flow patterns can be found in
Reference 19.
The bedrock units are quick to respond to pumping stresses at the site.
This is typical of a confined aquifer with fracture flow. The quick response
to pumping stress is clearly demonstrated in Figure 11, which is a potentiometric
map produced from water levels measurements taken after eight hours of steady
pumping. The flow directions are radially inward toward the pumping well and
gradients are relatively high.
Under nonpumping conditions these units quickly recover toward natural flow
and gradient conditions. Figure 12 is a potentiometric map made from water
24
-------
level measurements taken after the truck wash well at the facility had been
shut down for a minimum of eight hours. This shows a flat potentiometric
surface under the facility with a slight gradient to the north.
An accurate determination of flow rate and direction is necessary to perform
an adequate assessment. The Task Force has concerns regarding the lack of
information on flow rate and direction in the bedrock (discussed below).
CWM-V has estimated flow rate in the bedrock using Darcy's law to be
1600 ft/yr.32 Because this is a fracture flow system, the assumptions of Darcy's
law may not apply. Based upon these findings, the Task Force feels the estimate
of flow rate may be inaccurate, and most likely low.
The flow direction is north-northwest under the site based upon water level
data collected to date. Karst conditions have been reported to be near the
site, but have not been identified as a major feature in the bedrock at the
site. If large solution cavities exist beneath the site, flow direction could
differ from that described in site-specific geologic reports.
3. Ground Water Flow in the Glacial Overburden
The potentiometric surface in the overburden (Figure 13) was estimated from
water levels taken between June and August 1984. The Task Force is not aware
of any potentiometric maps for the glacial overburden produced before this. At
the time this map was generated, Ponds No. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12 contained fluids
which strongly influenced the flow directions in the overburden. As the map
illustrates, ground water mounds existed under these ponds. Ground water
mounding under material used to fill the old ponds No. 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10
can also be seen. Mounding occurs because of the large hydraulic heads available
25
-------
from the ponds and their elevation relative to the ground surface.19 The
relatively steep gradients along the edge of the mounds were caused by the low
permeability soils which restrict seepage (flow) and allow rapid head loss.
Site alterations have caused changes in the potentiometric surface in the
glacial overburden. Ground water data obtained in January 1986 were used to
create the potentiometric map shown in Figure 14. As this map indicates, Ponds
No. 4, 5, and 7 have been emptied and the ground water mound under them and the
other closed ponds (1, 2, 3, 9, 10) had dissipated at this time. A mound still
existed under Ponds No. 11 and 12, which still had fluid in them. A small
mound exists that is associated with the stockpile of hazardous material removed
from Ponds No. 4, 5, 7. With the exception of these ground water mounds, the
overall flow in the overburden is generally to the north.
Ground water levels measured by the Task Force and those used to create the
potentiometric maps in Figures 13 and 14 are given in Tables 1 through 3.
Comparing water levels in the various well nests indicates that the water
levels decrease with depth, which indicates a downward vertical gradient toward
the bedrock.
G. Ground Water Monitoring System
1. Historical Ground Water Monitoring System
During the 1970's, both CWM-V and the Ohio EPA monitored ground water at the
site. They used the same wells but gave them different designation numbers
(e.g., Ohio EPA No. 1 is equivalent to CWM No. 4). Ultimately this older
ground water monitoring system evolved into a 12-well system which was originally
used by CWM to satisfy 40 CFR Part 265 ground water monitoring requirements.
26
-------
The following section describes how the older ground water monitoring system
evolved. The Task Force has given the Ohio EPA wells the prefix "OEPA" and the
CWM-V wells the designation "MW".
In addition to the monitoring wells, several piezometers have been
installed. Some of these piezometers have been sampled at various times. One
piezometer in particular, P-10, has shown contamination (discussed in Section
J.2). Figures 5 and 13 show the location of the piezometers.
In 1972 the Ohio EPA began monitoring four wells, MW-4 (OEPA-1), MW-5
(OEPA-2), MW-8 (OEPA-3), and OEPA-5 (Figure 15). Two of these wells were on-site
and two were off-site. In 1974, CWM-V added an on-site testing laboratory and
another monitoring well, OEPA-4, to the system. In 1976 the Ohio EPA added
OEPA-6. Between 1976 and 1978, CWM-V added monitoring wells MW-1, 1A, MW-2,
MW-3, 3A, MW-6, and 6A. In 1979, the steel-cased wells were abandoned and new
PVC-cased wells were installed and renumbered MW-1N, MW-3N, MW-4N, and MW-6N.
A new well, MW-7, was also added at this time. In 1981, three more monitoring
wells (MW-11, MW-12, and MW-13) were added to the north of the existing waste
management area.
By 1982, the monitoring system at CWM-V site had evolved to include eleven
wells: MW-1N, MW-2, MW-3N, MW-4N, MW-5, MW-6N, MW-7, MW-8, MW-11, MW-12, and
MW-13. As indicated above, these wells were used initially to satisfy the
ground water monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR Part 265 (RCRA).
2. Current Ground Water Monitoring System
In 1983, the USEPA determined that the wells in this monitoring system did
not satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 based upon inadequate well
construction, location, and depth. As a result of these findings, CWM-V agreed
27
-------
to enter into a Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) on April 5, 1985, with
the USEPA. The CAFO required, among other things, that new wells, constructed
of type 316 stainless steel, be installed at several locations and depths. As
a result of the CAFO, a workplan was developed describing a new monitoring
system. The workplan was originally submitted in May 1985 and was modified in
four addenda (numbers 1 through 4) dated August 5, August 27, and October 17,
1985, and February 11, 1986, respectively. The workplan was approved by the
USEPA and the Ohio EPA on November 29, 1985, and January 6, 1986, respectively.
The CAFO monitoring system is designed to provide ground water monitoring
for the glacial overburden and the bedrock. The new monitoring wells are
designated by a number and several letters. The number corresponds to
continuously sampled boreholes that were made during the continuous borehole
study.6 Information gathered during this study was used to design the monitoring
wells in the new system. The letter designations are used to differentiate
wells completed in the lacustrine deposits (L), till deposits (T), and the
bedrock (MW).
The CAFO specified the new monitoring wells be installed in accordance with
the following schedule:
Phase 1
(1) Within 90 days after approval of the Workplan by the
USEPA and the Ohio EPA, install wells MW-14R, MW-19R
to MW-24R, L-14, L-19 to L-23, L-26 to L-35, T-14,
T-19, T-23, T-24, and T-27.
(2) Within 90 days after excavation of the fixed sludge
soil and rip-rap from ponds 4, 5, and 7, install wells
MW-15R, MW-16R, L-15, and L-16.
28
-------
Phase 2
(3) Within 90 days after removal of the clay liner beneath
the temporary stockpile and regrading of the area,
install wells MW-17R, MW-18R, L-17, L-18, L-25, T-17,
and T-18.
Phase 1 monitoring wells were installed by November 1, 1985, in advance of the
required schedule. Phase 2 monitoring wells will be installed in accordance with
the requirements of paragraph 3 of the CAFO. These wells have been designated
with a "P" on Figures 15 through 17. In addition to the wells specified in the
CAFO, the Task Force is recommending locations for additional monitoring wells,
designated with an "R" on the figures. The recommended wells are discussed
further under Section C (Downgradient Wells) below.
Table 4 lists general information for all wells at CWM-V. Figures 15
through 17 show the location of the new monitoring wells by the stratigraphic
interval monitored (lacustrine, till, and bedrock, respectively). Wells with
the same number on different figures are located at the same location.
The CAFO monitoring system is being used to meet the performance standards
of 40 CFR Parts 265, Subpart F. There are two parts to the CAFO monitoring
program, an "Initial Ground Water Program" and a "Continuing Ground Water
Program." The Initial Ground Water Program was completed in May 1986. The
Continuing Ground Water Program is currently being followed by CWM-V, and calls
for semi-annual monitoring for a list of contaminants agreed upon by the USEPA,
the Ohio EPA, and CWM-V. According to the CAFO, CWM-V must submit the results
of the Initial Ground Water Program and the Continuing Ground Water Program to
USEPA and OEPA within 30 days after receipt of the final results of all the
analyses in that set by CWM-V. At the time of the Task Force investigation,
CWM-V had not complied with this requirement of the CAFO.
29
-------
Analytical results from the initial and continuing CAFO monitoring has
revealed contamination in several wells (see Section J of this report). CWM-V
has not submitted an assessment plan as required in 40 CFR 265.93 or installed
additional wells to define the rate and extent of contamination found in the
wells. The Task Force finds that the existing system is inadequate for
assessment purposes.
a. Upgradient Wells
Wells MW-23RA, MW-24R, MW-37R, and MW-38R are bedrock monitoring wells that
are upgradient of the facility during natural and pumping conditions. Wells
MW-23RA, MW-24R, and MW-37R are part of the CAFO Continuing Ground Water Program
and are constructed of stainless steel casings and screens. Well MW-38R is a
CWM-V research well constructed of PVC and is not intended to be part of the
RCRA ground water monitoring system. All three of the upgradient stainless
steel wells appear to be properly located and constructed for ground water
monitoring to determine background water quality.
Wells T-23, T-24, T-37, and T-38 are till monitoring wells upgradient of
the facility. As with the upgradient bedrock wells, T-23, T-24, and T-37 are
constructed of stainless steel casing and screens and were installed as part of
the CAFO. Well T-38 is a CWM-V research well constructed of PVC.
CWM-V had trouble finding a location upgradient of the facility at which the
lacustrine deposit was present. Wells L-23 and L-39 are wells upgradient of
the facility and screened in the lacustrine zone. The wells are both constructed
with stainless steel casing and screens.
30
-------
b. Downgradient Wells
The new CAFO wells which are considered downgradient by CWM-V are shown in
Table 5. L-series and T-series wells are referred to as lateral gradient wells
in Table 5. All wells except those described in the previous section should be
considered downgradient wells for detection monitoring. The location, depth and
construction of these wells appear adequate to determine if the hazardous waste
management units are leaking at the facility, with the exceptions given below.
Contamination has been detected in some of the wells on site (see Section J);
thus a ground water assessment should be conducted by CWM-V.
Delays in approving the closure plan have left the facility unmonitored in
the northeast area, specifically around the stockpile. Several wells are
proposed for this area (L-17, L-18, L-25, T-17, T-18, MW-17, and MW-18). The
Task Force recommends that the Phase 2 wells be completed as soon as possible.
As discussed earlier, the "runoff retention pond" to the east of the
stockpile was found to contain hazardous waste leachate by the Task Force, and
therefore is considered by the Task Force to be a RCRA-regulated unit. As
such, a RCRA approved closure of this area is necessary. Based upon these
findings, the Task Force recommends a minimum of three lacustrine wells be
installed at the location shown on Figure 16 to the east of the retention pond.
Shallow lacustrine deposits would be the first to become contaminated if the
retention pond is leaking.
Finally, one additional bedrock monitoring well is recommended at the
location of L-30. During pumping conditions at the site, this location is
downgradient of the proposed closure cell as well as the areas being closed in
31
-------
the eastern portion of the facility. Therefore, the Task Force recommends a
bedrock well be installed to help detect immediate contamination to the bedrock
from these areas. This is also provided for under paragraph H of the CAFO.
c. Well Construction
All wells in the CAFO monitoring system are constructed of stainless steel
casing and screens. Future wells proposed under the CAFO will also be
constructed of the same material. Reference 25 gives details of how the wells
were constructed and completed. The new wells appear to be adequately
constructed and completed based upon the discussion in this document and the
workplan.H
3. Sampling and Analysis
a. Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
The SAP for CWM-V consists of two separate documents. One is a general
Waste Management, Inc., Manual for Ground Water Sampling (MGWS)24 and the other
is a Site-Specific Ground Water Monitoring Plan (SSGWMP)25 for the Vickery
facility. A number of deficiencies in these plans were noted by the Task
Force:
- When the well heads are first approached by the sampling team,
no organic vapor monitoring is required by the above-mentioned
plans. This type of monitoring would give an initial indica-
tion of the presence of volatile organics in the well. It
could also be used to help determine the level of personal
protection necessary while sampling the well.
- No indication is given in the above-mentioned plans that the
sampling team should be checking the well for immiscible
layers such as low density (floaters) or high density
(sinkers) contaminants.
32
-------
- There is no requirement in the above-mentioned documents to
decontaminate the cable used to lower the electric water
level indicator into the well unless visible contamination is
present. Although when a weighted tape is used for water
level measurement it is required to be decontaminated (see
item 2 on page 65 of the MGWS24). The cable used to lower
the electric water level indicator should also be decontami-
nated.
- CWM-V's field form CC2 does not provide for documentation
of sampling time for pH, conductivity, and temperature
measurements.
- A low-yield well is only required to be purged one well volume
by the above-mentioned documents. Low-yield wells should be
purged to dryness or three well volumes, whichever comes
first.
- Field parameters (pH, temperature, and specific conductance)
are only analyzed in the beginning of the sampling order.
The TEGD27 and the Task Force recommend that the field
parameters be measured both at the beginning and end of the
sampling order.
- Total organic carbon (TOC) and extractable organic samples -
(except volatile organics (VOAs)) are required to be filtered
according to the above-mentioned plans. This is an incorrect
procedure and will cause all of these analyses to be biased
low.
b. Sample Collection and Handling Procedures
The Task Force observed the facility's sampling procedures during the Task
Force sampling effort. One questionable protocol practice was noted during the
HWGWTF activities. This involved the method of cleaning the cable of the water
level detection instrument. Only the probe is rinsed after it has been reeled
up. It would be more appropriate to wipe and/or rinse the cable as it is being
reeled up to minimize possible cross-contamination of wells.
A very small segment of facility sampling procedures was observed on
April 15, 1987. These activities occurred at well T23A, a bailer equipped
well. This was the second day of sampling at this site. Samples were collected
33
-------
for total and dissolved metals, chloride, sulfide, and phenol analyses. All
sampling activities followed facility protocol. All sample water, except that
for total metals, was filtered on site. Samples requiring preservation were
immediately preserved upon collection or completion of filtration. Sample
water for parameters collected on this day were placed in brown glass bottles.
The filtering device was Teflon® lined and had a capacity of 1500 ml. The
device was driven by compressed nitrogen delivered at 40 psi using a regulator.
The filtering device was fitted with a 0.45 micron filter. The filter unit was
rinsed with deionized water and dried with a paper towel between uses. At Well
Wizard®-equipped wells the facility used an in-line filter, a QED model FF-8000
(0.45 micron) to filter samples. The operation or use of this device was not
observed. If such a device is used there did not appear to be a protocol for
it in the sampling and analysis plan. Sample parameter types that were not
filtered were field parameters (pH, conductivity, temperature), oil and grease,
solids, VOAs, total organic halogens (TOX), and total metals. The two filtering
methodologies used appeared to be acceptable for those parameters which should be
filtered, except for the previously discussed errors and omissions. In the
case of phenols there is concern that filtering of any kind may still introduce a
negative bias. Under basic conditions, phenols can form calcium phenoxide (not
water soluble) which would be removed by the filtering process.
t
From the observations of well sampling procedures performed at well T23A as
well as procedures used to obtain samples for the Task Force it appeared that all
protocols are followed by CWM-V's sampling team. In summary, a number of
protocol concerns have been identified above or in the SAP review. Those
identified in this section include cleaning of water level instrument cable,
lack of filtering protocol for "Well Wizard®"-equipped wells, and bias intro-
duced by filtering of phenol samples.
34
-------
c. Off-Site Laboratory Evaluation
Two off-site laboratories are used by CWM-V. All samples are sent to
Environmental Testing and Certification (ETC), Inc., in Edison, New Jersey.
ETC does all of the organic and most of the inorganic analyses. Total phenolics
and sulfates are subcontracted out by ETC to Chyun Associates for analysis.
Both of these laboratories were evaluated by the Task Force and that evaluation
can be found in Appendix B of this report. A number of minor deficiencies were
found at these laboratories, most of which may have already been corrected.
Based on these evaluations, the Task Force concludes that CWM-V's past ground
water self-monitoring data should be classified as follows:
Inorganic and Indicator Parameters - Qualitative
Volatile Organics - Quantitative
Semi volatile Organics, PCBs, and Pesticides - Qualitative, Biased Low
H. RCRA Permit (40 CFR 264 and 270)
The original Part B of the RCRA permit application (40 CFR 264 and 270) was
submitted to the USEPA, Region V, on May 16, 1985. Additional information was
submitted on November 7, 1985. The original application was deemed inadequate
and a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) was issued on May 16, 1986. Additional
information was submitted on September 26 and October 7, 1986. The RCRA Permits
Section of Region V and the Ohio EPA are currently reviewing the new information.
This permit application addresses hazardous waste treatment and storage at
the facility using equipment at or above the ground surface (e.g., tanks) which
would not require a ground water monitoring program. The application does not
address the closure of the ponds (surface impoundments) or the proposed hazardous
waste disposal cell which requires ground water monitoring. The ground water
35
-------
monitoring program is addressed in the CAFO. Closure of these units will be
conducted under the authority of 40 CFR 265. Eventually, the permit will have
to be modified to include the post closure monitoring requirements of the
closed portion of the facility.
I. Task Force Sampling
1. Methods
All samples were collected by a USEPA contractor, Alliance Technologies
Corporation (Alliance) using all of the appropriate guidelines mentioned in
Reference 28. Sampling by Alliance was performed under the supervision of EPA
personnel. CWM-V contractor personnel operated the CWM-V owned sampling
equipment as directed by Alliance and USEPA representatives. Dedicated facility
sampling equipment was used at each well site. The facility contractor was
IEP, Inc., of Westerville, Ohio. Replicate volatile organic samples and splits
of all other samples were offered to the facility. This offer was declined.
Alliance provided equipment used to collect surface water samples along with
all sample containers and preservatives used for the Task Force samples.
Alliance also provided all equipment and materials necessary to manage, handle,
field filter, document, and ship the required samples. Field analyses (in situ
data) were also performed by Alliance.
All wells were monitored for organic vapors when first opened. Prior to
purging or sampling the monitoring wells, water levels were measured in all
wells for use in the geological evaluation of the site. Monitoring well sampling
was preceded by purging operations (using bailers or pumps). When possible,
a volume equal to three times the volume of water present in the well was
evacuated. If it was not possible to obtain the three well volumes, the well
was purged to dryness.
36
-------
Purge water disposal was the responsibility of the facility. Purge volumes
were measured in calibrated buckets. In all cases purge water was spilled on
the ground by facility personnel a short distance from the well being purged.
Wells that were purged to dryness were sampled when there was a sufficient
recharge volume of water to fill at least one parameter bottle set. In a few
extreme cases this practice was not strictly followed. Six of the 18 wells
sampled were purged to dryness on one day and sampled on the next day(s).
Wells that were not purged to dryness had three well volumes removed before
sampling. Slow recharging wells were also sampled when there was a sufficient
volume of water for at least one parameter bottle set. For example, the
extractable organic samples had to be collected when there was a sufficient
volume of water in the well (4 liters) for all of the extractable organic
bottles. For 12 of the 18-wells sampled, it was necessary to return to the
same well on successive days in order to obtain a complete set of samples. A
summary of purging and sampling data can be found in Appendix C.
A total of 18 wells were sampled at this facility. Eight of the wells were
equipped with bladder pumps (Well Wizards®); the remainder were equipped with
stainless steel bailers with Teflon® check valves. Sample bottles were filled
directly from a short segment of Teflon® tubing connected to the top of wells
equipped with bladder pumps. Sample bottles were also filled directly from
stainless steel bailers by pouring from the top of the bailer. The surface
water sample was collected directly into the sample containers. Leachate
samples were obtained using an intermediate glass sampling container from which
the sample bottles were filled. These intermediate containers were from the
standard stock of sample bottles used by Alliance.
37
-------
Table 6 lists the parameters (analytical groups), sample bottle types,
and preservatives used in this survey. The parameters are listed in the order
in which they were sampled. All samples were shipped for analysis to the
contract laboratories indicated below:
Laboratory Location Components to be Analyzed
Compu-Chem Research Triangle Park, NC Dioxins, Furans
EMSI Camarillo, CA Organics
Centec Salem, VA Inorganics
All shipments were made in accordance with applicable Department of Transpor-
tation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177). Leachate and suspected
contaminated samples were shipped as "medium-level hazardous" and other samples
from wells and surface points were shipped as "environmental". All samples
were collected in accordance with guidance in Reference 29.
Each sample shipment was accompanied by a chain-of-custody record, completed
by Alliance, identifying contents in terms of sample type, date and time, etc.
The original records accompanied the shipment, and a copy was provided to the
Field Team Leader. No samples were split with the facility.
All samples taken from the CWM-V site were documented with a receipt for
samples form, completed by Alliance. The sample tag serial numbers from all
samples shipped off site were recorded on the form, and a copy of the receipt
was provided to facility personnel. Alliance also performed all analyses for
pH, specific conductance, temperature, and turbidity, as well as field filtering
of the dissolved metals samples. Samples were designated to be analyzed for
the constituents listed in Appendix D.
38
-------
Quality assurance and control (QA/QC) for USEPA contractor sample collec-
tion, handling, and analysis were conducted in accordance with the appropriate
protocols in Reference 28. The Sampling Team monitored Alliance procedures
during the sampling effort to ensure consistency with the QA/QC and evidence
handling requirements. In addition, the following QA/QC samples ware required.
a. Blank Samples
These samples included field blanks, equipment blanks, and trip blanks.
Field blanks were prepared by Alliance using distilled deionized water of known
high purity, and unused sample bottles. Alliance prepared two field blanks at
representative sampling sites (well sites L-15 and L-35) for all parameters
sampled during the inspection. Alliance prepared one set of trip blanks for
each type of analysis (e.g., organics, metals, volatiles) prior to departure
*
from its home office in Bedford, Massachusetts. The trip blank accompanied the
sampling crew throughout the entire sampling procedure and was submitted for
analysis along, with the last day's samples. Equipment blanks were not prepared
by Alliance, as all equipment which contacted sampled liquids was supplied by
the facility in the form of dedicated sampling devices, bailers, and pumps.
b. Duplicate Samples
At each sampling location where volatile organics were sampled, duplicate
samples (i.e., two VOA vials) were taken. Samples at two sample locations were
collected in duplicate for all parameter types. The duplicate sample site
locations are identified in the following section.
39
-------
2. Sampling Location
The sampling locations for this investigation are listed below:
Lacustrine Wells Till Hells Bedrock Wells
L-15 (field blank site) *T-19 *MW-14R
L-19 T-24 (background) *MW-16R
*L-20 *MW-21R
L-21 *MW-23RA (background)
*L-26 (duplicate) P-10
L-27
*L-29
L-31
L-34 (duplicate)
L-35 (field blank site)
L-39 (background) *Wells equipped with dedicated bladder pumps.
Non-Ground Water Sites
Waste Pile Leachate (1)
Surface Water (1)
Quality Assurance Samples
Duplicate Samples (2) Designated Above
Field Blanks (2)
Trip Blank (1)
3. Scheduling
Prior to sampling activities, water levels were measured in all available
wells for use in the geological evaluation. This was performed earlier, on
March 29, 1987, by facility personnel, with USEPA supervision. Many logistical
considerations, particularly well performance, affected the time required to
obtain the samples and influenced the sequence of sampling. The Sampling Team
Leader, in conjunction with the Technical Review Team, identified one additional
sampling point (well P-10) during the on-site inspection. This well was then
added to the schedule. Special scheduling effort was also required to complete
the leachate sampling because the sampling points were located in an area
designated as a TSCA waste storage site which required that special safety
precautions be taken.
40
-------
The Sampling Team members calculated water volumes in each well from the
static water levels measured at the time of purging, and then proceeded to
remove three well volumes. Task Force Field Team members recorded the above
data in the field logbooks, as well as the starting and ending times of purging,
sampling times, and unusual activities taking .place in the area during purging
and sampling. Unique characteristics of the monitoring well or its contents
were also noted by the Sampling Team.
Field work began on Monday, April 6, 1987, and was completed on April 14,
1987. The actual sampling work was conducted during the hours of 0800 to 1700.
J. Ground Water Quality Interpretation
1. Task Force Analyses
Samples were analyzed by the USEPA contract laboratories for the parameter
groups shown in Appendix D. Laboratory analytical results were obtained from
three USEPA contractor laboratories participating in the Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP). Standard quality control measures were observed including:
- Analysis of field and laboratory blanks to allow detection of possible
contamination due to sample handling;
- Analysis of laboratory spike samples and performance evaluation
samples;
- Analysis of laboratory and sample duplicates to estimate precision; and
- Review and interpretation of the results of these control measures.
These procedures can be found in Reference 30.
The QA/QC summary can be found in Appendix E. Appendix F is a table of the
analytical results for all constituents found above the limits of detection.
Appendix D provides a summary, by parameter, of the analytical techniques used
and the reference methods for the sample analyses.
41
-------
2. Data Interpretation
a. Organics
Results from six monitoring events at CWM-V were available to the Task
Force for use in evaluating the presence of specific organic compounds in the
ground water at CWM-V. These consist of an October and December 1983 volatile
organic (VOA) sampling, the April and October 1986 plus the April 1987 Consent
Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) monitoring events, and the Task Force sampling.
(1) Methylene chloride
Positive results for methylene chloride were found in two bedrock wells
in 1983; six lacustrine and one till well in April 1986; eight lacustrine,
three till and eight bedrock wells in October 1986; eleven lacustrine, four
till, and two bedrock wells in April 1987; and two bedrock, one till, and
four lacustrine wells in the Task Force results. Most of the these results'
can be disregarded because the results are below background levels for that
particular sampling event and ground water zone or, as in the case of the
Task Force sampling, because methylene chloride was also found in the
blanks associated with that sample. With this in mind, the following
selected methylene chloride sampling results remain of concern to the Task
Force because they were above background levels:
Sampling Event Well Methylene Chloride (ppb)
1983 (VOA) 3N 53
October 1986 CAFO MW-16R 34.2
MW-21R 25.2
MW-38R (background) 21.0
April 1987 CAFO L-22 40.2
L-23A (background) 8.97
The Task Force recommends that methylene chloride results from these wells
be tracked closely with increased monitoring to determine if these results
are significant.
42
-------
(2) Methanol
Methanol was found by CWM-V in two wells, L-20 at 92.1 ppm and MW-38R
at 19.3 ppm, during the April 1986 CAFO sampling event. Mo methanol was
found in any wells during the October 1986 or April 1987 CAFO sampling
events. The Task Force did not look for methanol in its sampling program.
It should be noted that in the April 1987 CAFO sampling, the detection level
for methanol increased from 10 ppm (in 1986 samples) to 60 ppm and in the
case of L-19 and T-19, 100 ppm. These detection levels need to be explained
by CWM-V since the new detection levels are above concentrations found in
the April 1986 sample. Due to the presence of methanol stated above, the
Task Force recommends that methanol results be tracked closely with
increased monitoring to determine if these results are significant, and
that the detection level be reduced to the previous level of 10 ppm.
(3) Methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) has been found by CWM-V as shown be-low:
Sampling Event Well Methyl Ethyl Ketone (ppb)
April 1986 CAFO
October 1986 CAFO
L-34
L-34
L-35
MW-14R
MW-21R
MW-23R
MW-24R
MW-38R
12.0
12.3
31.7
11.5
11.7
18.1
11.2
11.6
The Task Force did not find significant concentrations of MEK (2-butanone)
in its samples and what was found was disregarded after quality assurance
review of the data. Thus, the Task Force did not confirm the presence of
MEK in the ground water and recommends that MEK results be tracked closely
with increased monitoring to determine if these results are significant.
43
-------
(4) 1,2-Dichloroethane
This organic compound has been detected during the sampling events
stated below:
Concentration
Sampling Event Well (ppb)
April 1986 CAFO L-19 10.1/8.81
October 1986 CAFO L-19 12.1
Task Force-April 1987 L-19 5
April 1987 CAFO L-19 9.1
The Task Force also found trace levels (1-2 ppb) of 1,1-dichloroethane
in wells L-19 and L-26. The consistent presence of 1,2-dichloroethane
during each sampling of L-19 is of concern to the Task Force. The Task
Force recommends that a ground water quality assessment be conducted to
determine the rate and extent of 1,2-dichloroethane migration at the site.
•»
(5) Other organics
CWM-V's self-monitoring data show the following specific organic
compounds detected (other than those already mentioned) during the sampling
events stated:
Concentration
Sampling Event Well Organic Compound (ppb)
October 1983 VOA IN Benzene 12
P-10 Benzene 113
Toluene 44
December 1983 VOA P-10 Toluene 289
Ethyl benzene 350
October 1986 CAFO MW-23RA Chloroform 5.92
Specific organics found by the Task Force sampling efforts are listed
in Appendix F. In summary, the Task Force found the following number of
valid specific organic compounds in each well:
44
-------
Number of
Well Organi
L-15
L-19
L-20
L-21
L-26 (duplicate)
L-27
L-29
L-31
L-34 (duplicate)
c Compounds
6
6
8
1
23
0
0
0
3
Well
L-35
L-39
T-19
T-24
P-10
MW-14R
MW-16R
MW-21R
MW-23RA
Number of
Organic Compounds
1
0
1
0
19
0
1
2
16
Note that acetone, methylene chloride, 2-butanone (MEK), bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, 2-methylcyclopentanol, the compounds specifically stated as
unknown, and the unknown alkylamide results were disregarded in this count,
after the quality assurance review of the data. Other classes of unknowns,
as identified in Appendix F, were used in the above count. It should be
noted that the term "unknown" as it is used in the Task Force results means
that the organic compound could not be identified by the laboratory. The
count noted above for duplicate samples (L-26 and L-34) includes some
compounds that only were found in one of the two duplicate samples. The
high number of organic compounds found in some of the Task Force samples
indicates the need for a ground water quality assessment at CWM-V.
b. Indicator Parameters
(1) Total organic halogens (TOX)
Many of the lacustrine zone monitoring wells show high TOX values.
This is especially true of L-26 (values range from 1313 to 2080 ppb) to the
south of the waste pile. Other wells such as L-15 (range from 131 to 310
ppb), L-19 (range from 177 to 273 ppb), L-20 (range from 397 to 1173 ppb),
L-28 (range from 189 to 204 ppb), and L-30 (range from 295 to 1069 ppb) also
45
-------
contained high TOX values. A number of the other lacustrine wells have
never been analyzed for TOX, such as wells L-21, 1-22, L-29, L-31, L-32,
L-33, L-34, L-35, 1A, and 6A. The Task Force concludes that these results
indicate possible contamination of the ground water, in the lacustrine
zone, from the hazardous waste pile or the old lagoons on site. The source
and extent of this contamination must be specifically determined by CWM-V
in a ground water quality assessment. An expanded monitoring program for
TOX should be implemented for all lacustrine wells on site, and the specific
halogenated organics or other compounds that are causing the high TOX
values should be identified.
Some of the bedrock wells have also shown significant TOX results.
CWM-V results indicate that wells IN, 2, 3N, 6N, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and
•»
MW-37R show the periodic presence of significant (greater than 100 ppb)
TOX levels. The Task Force results found MW-14R (120 ppb) and MW-23RA
(129 ppb) to be high in TOX. These results are confusing because some of
these wells are somewhat removed, both horizontally and vertically, from
the waste management units. The cause for these periodic high TOX values
in the bedrock wells should be investigated and explained by CWM-V.
(2) Ammonia, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and oil and grease (O&G)
These parameters have been analyzed in samples from only the non-CAFO
wells. Significant COD levels (greater than 50 ppm) have been found in all
non-CAFO wells, with wells 1, IN, 1A, 4N, 6N, 11, 12 and 13 showing more
significant numbers of high results than the rest of the wells. Well 1
contained levels as high as 600 ppm of COD. Also, periodic high results
for O&G (greater than 10 ppm) have been found in wells 1, 3A, 4, 4N, 5, 6,
46
-------
6N, 6A, 11, and 12. All of the non-CAFO bedrock wells show at least periodic
high ammonia levels (greater than 0.5 ppm). Well 8 is a background bedrock
well and it also contained ammonia levels as high as 1.5 ppm. Wells IN,
3N, 6N, 7, 11, and 12 all contained ammonia concentrations over background
levels found in well 8, with well 12 being as high as 20 ppm.
Though well construction may be a factor in some of these results, the
Task Force concludes that the above-mentioned results indicate potential
ground water contamination at CWM-V. It is recommended that additional
monitoring of ammonia, COD and O&G be initiated for all monitoring wells on
site.
(3) Other indicator parameters
Self-monitoring data from old bedrock wells 3 and 6 show somewhat
consistent high pH results. The Task Force concluded that these older
wells were probably grout contaminated and were not indicating ground water
contamination for pH. This conclusion is also based • on the fact that
replacement wells 3N and 6N have shown no high pH levels. Also, total
coliform bacteria have been found to periodically exceed the USEPA drinking
water standards in wells 7, 8, 11, and 12; but these levels do not exceed
the background levels found in well 8. Thus, these results are not
considered to be an indication of ground water contamination caused by
CWM-V.
Total organic carbon (TOC) has been found to be high (greater than 100
ppm) in well 1A. Also, periodic high levels of radionuclides have been
found to exceed the USEPA drinking water standards and background levels in
bedrock wells IN, 2, 5, 6N, 7, and 12. CWM-V does not monitor the CAFO
47
-------
wells for the above-mentioned parameters. The Task Force recommends further
investigation, by CWM-V, into the source of the above-mentioned TOC and
radionuclide levels. The CAFO wells should also be analyzed for these
parameters.
Host of the wells on site have been found to contain above detectable
levels of total phenol, but not all of the wells have been found to contain
values above background levels. The highest background levels are noted
below:
Zone Well Total Phenol (ppb)
Bedrock
Till
Lacustrine
8
T-23
L-39
180
15
19
Wells that have been found to contain total phenol levels above
background levels are as follows:
Well - Total Phenol (ppb)
Bedrock
Till
Lacustrine
1
IN
3
6
7
T-19
T-27
1A
3A
L-20
L-26
L-35
188
89,000
480
380
280
21
53
400
120
73
59
28
59 (Task Force results)
28
Although the results are scattered, they indicate contamination may
exist around wells 1, IN, and 1A. The Task Force recommends increased
monitoring and further investigation into the total phenol levels on site.
48
-------
c. Inorganic Parameters
A number of inorganic (heavy metals) constituents have been found in the
ground water through facility self-monitoring and Task Force analysis. Those
found were arsenic, cadmium, and chromium.
(1) Arsenic
Arsenic has been found by CWM-V in self-monitoring data from well 11
(50 ppb) and well 12 (60 ppb). These were one time results which are at or
over the USEPA drinking water standard of 50 ppb. Due to the horizontal
and vertical distance of these wells from the waste management units at the
site and the fact that no other bedrock wells closer to the waste management
units have been found to contain such levels of arsenic, the Task Force
does not consider these results to indicate ground water contamination from
CWM^V.Thff Task Torce^does recommend that arsenic continue to be monitored
for indications of any developing trends.
(2) Cadmium
Cadmium has been periodically found by CWM-V to exceed the USEPA drinking
water standard of 10 ppb in nine of the non-CAFO bedrock wells. Background
well 8 had the highest value of 4820 ppb. The highest nonbackground value
for cadmium was found in well 6N at 47 ppb. Since the high result in well
8 has never been duplicated (all other results from well 8 have been below
detection levels) it is probably an error. The same conclusion could be
drawn for the cadmium levels found in the other bedrock wells on site since
the highest results were seldom duplicated in the numerous analyses done on
these wells. Thus, the Task Force cannot conclude that these cadmium
results indicate ground water contamination from the waste management units.
49
-------
In the lacustrine zone, well 1A has a consistent history of cadmium
contamination with the highest value found at 81 ppb. This well has not
been sampled since 1980 and has been abandoned. The lacustrine zone around
this old well is probably contaminated and the Task Force recommends that a
ground water quality assessment be initiated in this area. The Task Force
sampling found 13 ppb of dissolved cadmium in well L-19. This may indicate
that the lacustrine zone near L-19 is contaminated. The Task Force
recommends further investigation into this possibility.
(3) Chromium
Fourteen lacustrine wells have been found to have chromium levels that
exceed the USEPA drinking water standard of 50 ppb. Only seven of them
exceed the highest background level of 150 ppb found in well L-23. These
seven are L-14 (350 ppb), L-16 (390 ppb), L-19 (290 ppb), L-21 (301 ppb),
L-30 (210 ppb), L-33 (780 ppb), and L-34 (392 ppb). These results are an
indication of"contamination and the Task Force recommends a ground water
quality assessment be conducted.
d. Areas of Concern
(1) Bedrock wells
Many of the older bedrock wells (1, IN, 2, 3, 3N, 4, 4N, 5, 6, 6N, 7,
8, 11, 12, and 13) have been found to contain high TOX, COD, O&G, ammonia,
radionuclides, and total phenol. The Task Force suspects that these results
indicate periodic contamination of the bedrock ground water zone by CWM-V,
but further study is needed to confirm this. Of the newer (CAFO) bedrock
wells, only MW-23RA showed significant organic contamination, and the
sample had a sulfide odor when collected by the Task Force. MW-23RA is
50
-------
considered to be a background well by CWM-V, but these sample results
indicate this well is contaminated, possibly from another source, and is of
questionable value as a background well. Piezometer well P-10 has been
found by CWM-V to be contaminated with benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene.
The presence of these compounds was confirmed by the Task Force sample
results. The Task Force also found 16 other specific organic compounds in
its sample and noted that the sample had a sulfide odor when it was
collected. The bedrock zone around well P-10 is definitely contaminated
and the Task Force recommends that the rate and extent of this contamination
be identified in a ground water quality assessment.
(2) Till wells
The Task Force found no indication of contamination in the till wells
tfiatTexist on site.
(3) Lacustrine wells
Three of the older wells at CWM-V are lacustrine wells (1A, 3A, and
6A). Historical results from these wells show that 1A is highly contaminated
with COD, TOC, total phenol, TOX, and cadmium. Well 3A has periodic high
COD, O&G, and total phenol results. Most of the new (CAFO) lacustrine
wells (L-14, L-15, L-16, L-19, L-20, L-21, L-26, L-28, L-30, L-33, L-34,
and L-35) have been found to have at least some contamination from chromium,
total phenols, TOX, 1,2-dichloroethane, MEK, methanol, and/or other or-
ganics. Wells L-19, L-20, and L-26 show the highest concentrations of these
contaminants. The Task Force recommends that a ground water quality
assessment be developed for the lacustrine zone on site, with emphasis on
the area around L-19, L-20, and L-26.
51
-------
(4) Collection pond east of waste pile
The Task Force collected a sample from the above-mentioned pond (sample
number MQB-326) and from a stream of liquid flowing to the pond from the
waste pile (sample number MQB-306). Task Force sample results were found
to contain hazardous waste constituents (see Appendices F and G).
52
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bentley, M. E., Kent, R. T., and Myers, G. R., "Site Suitability for Waste
Injection, Vickery, Ohio," UIPC Symposium 1986, pages 330-354.
2. Bowser-Morner, Inc., "Hydrogeologic Assessment, Northern Ohio Treatment
Facility, Vickery, Ohio," May 1983.
3. Bowser-Morner, Inc., "Surface Water Run-on and Run-off Evaluation, Northern
Ohio Treatment Facility, Vickery, Ohio," May 1983.
4. Consent Agreement and Final Order, Docket Nos. TSCA-V-C-307 and RCRA-V-C-
000, between United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, and
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., dated April 4, 1985.
5. Golder & Associates, "Assessment of Perimeter Containment Dike Stability,
Ponds 4, 5, 7, 11, and 12, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Liquid Disposal
Facility, Vickery, Ohio," June 1983.
6. Golder & Associates, "Continuous Overburden Borehole Sampling Results,
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility," May 1985.
7. Golder & Associates, "Evaluation of Potential Borrow Areas, Vickery, Ohio
Facility," March 1984.
8. Golder & Associates, "Geotechnical and Geohydrologic Data Review, Vickery,
Ohio, Chemical Waste Management Facility," June 1983.
9. Golder & Associates, "Ground Water Monitoring Program, CWM Northern Ohio
Treatment Facility, Vickery, Ohio," April 1984.
10. Golder & Associates, "Phase I Ground Water Monitoring Program, Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility," March 1986.
11. Golder & Associates, "The Ground Water Program Workplan, Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility, May 1985;" Addenda Nos. 1 through
4 dated August 5, August 27, October 17, 1985, and February 11, 1986,
respectively.
12. Golder & Associates, "Physical Property Testing of Fixed Material, Chemical
Waste Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility," August 1984.
13. Golder & Associates, "Overburden Ground Water Testing Program, Vickery, Ohio
Facility," September 1984.
14. Golder & Associates, "Scaling of Overburden Wells and Dike Piezometers,
Vickery Facility," January 1986.
53
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
15. Colder & Associates, "Stability Analyses of Interior Dikes Between Lagoons
4/5 and 5/7, CWM Northern Ohio Treatment Facility, Vickery, Ohio," March
1984.
16. Golder & Associates, "Stability Analysis of Interior Dikes Between Lagoons 11
and 12, CWM Northern Ohio Treatment Facility, Vickery, Ohio," March 1984.
17. Golder & Associates, "Summary and Characterization of Site Geohydrologic
Conditions, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility,"
September 1983.
18. Golder & Associates, "Surface Water Management Plan, Vickery Facility,
Vickery, Ohio," November 1983.
19. Golder & Associates, "Monitoring Program Hydrogeologic Study, Chemical Waste
Management, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility," July 1986.
20. Hoover, J. A., "Ground Water Resources of Sandusky County, Ohio," Unpublished,
University of Toledo Masters Thesis, 1982.
21. Norling, D. L., "Statement concerning ground water conditions in vicinity
of Ohio Liquid Disposal, Inc., operations, Riley Township, Sandusky County,
Ohio," presented at special meeting of the Ohio Water Pollution Control
Board in Fremont, Ohio, August 30, 1972, by Ranney Water Systems, Columbus, .
Ohio, 1972.
22. Underground Resource Management, Inc., "Evaluation of a Subsurface Waste
Injection System near Vickery, Ohio," Consultant Report, 169 pgs., 1984.
23. Versar, Inc., "Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation," Chemical Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., Vickery, Ohio, September 30, 1987.
24. Waste Management, Inc., "Manual for Ground Water Sampling," Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois, 1985.
25. Waste Management, Inc., "Site-Specific Ground Water Monitoring Plan for
Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Vickery Facility, Vickery, Ohio," Waste
Management, Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois, March 1987.
26. Witherspoon, P. A. and Neuman, S. P., "Hydrodynamics of Fluid Injection,"
in T. D. Cook, edition, Underground Waste Management and Environmental
Implications, American Association Petroleum Geologist Memoir T5~, pages
258-272, 1972.
54
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
27. United States Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Ground Hater Monitoring
Technical Enforcement Guidance Document (TEGD), September 1986.
28. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Ground Water
Task Force Protocol for Ground Water Evaluation (HWGWTF Protocol), Hazardous
Waste Ground Water Task Force, September 1986.
29. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Hazardous
Waste Sites - A Method Manual: Volume II. Available Sampling Methods,
Second Edition (see Appendix C), December 1984.
30. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, "Quality Assurance
Project Plan - Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation, Chemical Waste Manage-
ment, Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility," April 1987.
31. Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Submission to Maynard (OEPA) and Constantelos
(USEPA), March 6, 1984.
32. Colder and Associates, Appendix II, Closure Cell Design, Phase 2 of Closure
• Plan for Ponds No. 4, 5, and 7, Chemical Waste Inc., Vickery, Ohio Facility,
April 1985.
55
-------
FIGURES
-------
A* 2O44OA-S
LTE LOCATIpN
SANOUSKY
OHIO TURNPIKE 1-80/90
APPROX.SCALE: 1 - 0 MILES
834-1358
ONAVN
JLW
CHCCKCO
NO SCALE
3/13/88
OW«. NO.
391
Figxore 1 - Site Location Plan for
Chemical Waste Management,Vickery
Facility, taken from Golder § Assoc.,
1986.
Colder Associates
GHByCM. WASTE
1
-------
Abandoned
Recovery
-------
200
400
600
800
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
DEPTH
(FEET)
BIG LIME
CLINTON SHALE
BRAS8FIELD
QUEENSTON SHALE
REEDSVILLE SHALE
TRENTON LIMESTONE
BLACK RIVER LIMESTONE
GULL RIVER
COPPER RIDGE
DOLOMITE
Kerbel Fm.
Conasauga Fm.
ROME DOLOMITE
ROME SANDSTONE
L. Rome DOLOMITE
MT. SIMON SANDSTONE
PRE-CAMBRIAN
Figure 3 - Stratigraphic Units beneath
the •Chemical Waste Management Vickery
Facility.
-------
CROSS-SECTION OF A WELL
CEMENT
SURFACE CASING
'
e '
"
f ^
< '
•'
^
'- _
*
. '
I
V.
i
-
-
/
-
s
'>
"
»— • .
CEMENT
1 NTETOOrATE CAS I NG
(
ANNULUS
/
(
PRODUCTION CASING
i
\
s
--
<
3
*
)*
V
I k
\\
L
('
.
('
, \
'j
V;
-
}i
—
L
^
,
c
fc
r
-
/
*,
%
—
V
»
''l'
*
•^
r/
.-v
'»'
^
/
/'^
1
\
1
*
%
i.
\
CEMENT
TUBING
PACKER
Figure 4 - Cross Section of a Injec-
tion Well showing typical . '
construction.
» \
• ^
•7
s
/
:( !
:'{)
• .
_ • ^
• • .
U
•
v
f.
-»
-
-
V
r
-
X
- -
i
X
rr
Y
•s.
\.t
A'
-------
.•.:sc""
jo. NO 334-! 35e
8KB
Figure 5 - Well, Piezometer, and Boring
"ZZl * Location Plan for Chemical Waste Man-
^Tt agement Vickery Faclity, taken from -n
^r^Colder § Assoc., 1986. }«
Colder Associates
CHEMCAL WASTE MANAGEI.'.CT NC.
-------
™£~i~-_L —. v_i^lilMtl5§tylil:&
»-i.i-. ,?".-s'. 3 .(', \.-\' v .
„•• • , 'ei»T IILI," 4rv-<" •."'-i-5 -••?'
-^^ * "• ' <^',"f \ , - ," 'A-
Figure 6 - Cross Sections of the Chemical
Waste Management Vickery Facility,
taken from Colder S Assoc., 1986.
-------
A ' 20440A-8
SANDUSKY RIVER
\BURIED
•VALLEY
r -I
Ref. Taken from Bowser-Morner Report (Reference 2)
(from HOOVER 1982)
834-1358
MAWN
8KB
CMCCKCD
SCALC 1'-12,500 Approx
DATE
5/14/86
M«. NO.
402
Figure 7 - Regional Top of Bedrock
Map, taken from Hoover, 1982,
Bolder Associates
CHEMCAL mSTE MANAGEMENT NO
-------
01 CtTHMTtO MMM OMU.M*
S7(>—TO1 Of KMOOI ELEVATKM COVTflM »l JMLl MKO IMI
Figure_8 - Top of Bedrock Map for the
Chemical Waste Management Vickery
Facility, taken from Colder § Assoc.,
1986.
-------
A - 2044OA-8
MAP TAKEN FROM BOWSER - MORNER REPORT (Ref.2)
LEGEND
6IO-
GROUNOWATER SURFACE
CONTOUR LINE
J08 NO 834-1358
DRAWN
SKB
CHECKED
l"=8250'(ApprwO
8-3-83
DWG NO
43
Figure 9 - Regional Potentiometric
Map for the Bedrock, taken
from Bowser Homer, 1983.
-------
* r 1O44OC-D
A SOIL BORING WITH PIEZOMETER
ACTIVE DOLOMITE MONITORING WELL
COLDER ASSOCIATES PIEZOMETERS
Colder Associates
Figure 10 - Typical Potent!ometric
i"' SOP- Map for the Bedrock for 1982
to 1984 period, taken from
Goder and Assoc., 1986.
-------
CD ' i»S IT 6COC* **SOCi*t£»
•Ttlt LiVttl ME *T • -OUW ATTCN MTM.
KM W njMrwc |ju MVJ-f? OM TAKE 9
r !•« HEMHTIAM) DC*** '•€ HAmMJM
Figure 11 - Potentiometric Map for
the Bedrock after 8 Hours of
pumping, taken from Colder and
Assoc., 1986
-------
\
\ • r^V
.-, «>,
Figure 12 - Potentiometric Map for
the Bedrock (4/7/86), taken
from Golder and Assoc., 1986.
|i'
-------
L E 0 E N 0
TEST PIT LOCATION
OVERBURDEN MONITORING WELLS
AND PIEZOMETERS
HOCK AQUIFER MONITORING WILL*
AND PIEZOMETERS
IMACTIVf MONITOIIINa WEllB
AND PIEZOMETERS
CORING*
CHEMICAL WAiTI UAHAOIUIMT. INC
UONITORIN* WILL!
OHIO IPA WILL NUUfIRt
... rilSOMITIMt IN«TAHIO AND
*" ODIILII) IT IOWII* «0«NI«. INC
rtnoutrtm iNiTAitia AT TNI
BlMIOTION Or aOLDIR A1IOCIAT
FOR «*OUNO«ATI« ITUOIII
INSTAILB-O AT TNE
DIRECTION OF GOIOER ASSOCIATES
FOR DIKE STABILITY STUOIIS
»S-IS
«08.»3 - WATER LEVEL
NOTE:
IORINOS. PIEZOMETERS. AND MONITORING WELL! tHOWlJ
ARE THOSE WHICH WERE INSTALLED PRIOR TO JUIV
WATER LEVELS SHOWN M PARENTHESIS OBTAINED BY
QOLDER ASSOCIATES ON 0/28/S4
WATER LEVELS NOT SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS OBTAINED 9V
OOLDER ASSOCIATES FROM AUOU3T «. 1M4 TO AUGUST 13. !»•«.
EXCEPT FOR SS-21. OBTAINED ON JULY 11. IM4
834-1358
AS SHOWN
8KB
5/7/86
AO7
SHALLOW
GROUNDWATER LEVEL
CONTOUR PLOT
kGolder Figure 13 - Potentionmetric Map for
Glacial Overburden (6/84-8/84)
Taken from Colder and Assoc.,
1986.
-------
Figure 14 - Potentiometric Map for
Lacustrine Deposit (1/14/86)
Taken from Golder and Assoc.,
1986.
-------
Borrow
Area
RW-4N
(OEPA-1)
OEPA-4 -Q «*
Abandoned
Sludqe Farm
Abandoned
Oil Recovery
H1W-5
(OEPA-2)
M>IW-8 (OEPA-3)
Q-OEPA-5
Figure 15 - Location of Old (Pre-CAFO)
Monitoring Wells at the Chemical
Waste Management Vickery Facility.
-------
Borrow
Area
/-3A _-
L-3K
L-32
N
L-14
Injection
Well
Control
Center
New
Truck.
UasH*
MW-1A CO
O ^O°
n
L-35-
L-:
L-23
Not to Scale - Locations Approximate
L-16
L-17
L-15.
Proposed
Disposal
Cell
(Approximate
Location)
1-30
Hazardous
Waste
Pile
-L-25
Runoff.
•Retention ^l
Pond"
L-18
L-20
ing
J.-27-
—
Jlecieving
Area
Gaurd
House
Office
D
LEGEND
O Lacustrine Monitoring h'ell
(P) Proposed Lacustrine Monitoring Well
® Recommended Lacustrine Monitoring Well
Q Figure 16 - Location of Lacustrine
Mrmi
Monitoring Wells at the Chemical Waste
Management Vickery Facility.
-------
Borrow
Area
Injection
Well
Control
Center
T-N^
Proposed
Disposal
Cell
(Approximate
Location)
"Runoff
-Retention
Pond"
Hazardous
Waste
Pile
LJ0DD
Recieving
Area
Not to Scale
O Til1 Monitoring Well
Locations Approximate!] ® Pr°P°Sed T111 Monitoring WeT
VT-24
7-37
1-3Q
Figure 17 - Location of Till Monitoring
Wells at the Chemical Waste Management
Vickery Facility.
-------
Borrow
Area
MW-13
Injection
Well
Control
Center
MW-14R
Shop
MW-11 $ MW-12
MW-3N
MW-1N OO
S O^ <"
Proposed
Disposal
Cell
(Approximate
Location)
Hazardous
Waste
Pile
Y MW-19
MW-2
Parking
"Runoff
-Retention -4
Pond"
fv
MW-18R
Q
•MW-7
Gaurd
House
MW-23RA
MW-23R
Q
• MW-5
HW-24R
MW-38R
MU-37R
V
Bedrock Monitoring Well
A n j i H -4. • .,11
Proposed Bedrock Monitoring Well
Not
Figure 18 - Location of Bedrock
Monitoring Wells at the Chemical
Qv^, r.^"-^" ^^.^.wv-^ ,,u,,,^u, ,,,y ,,v... Monitoring Wells at tne Lnemicai
(R) Recommended Bedrock Monitoring Well Waste Management Vickery Facility.
-------
Borrow
Area
Injection
Well
Control
Center
Proposed
Disposal
Cell
"Runoff
-Retention
Pond"
(Approximate
Location)
Hazardous
Waste
Pile
New
Truck,
WasH
4-y\Gaurd
House
Recieving
Figure 19 - Location of Hazardous Waste
Injection Wells at the Chemical Waste
Management Vickery Facility.
Injection Well
Not to Scale
Locations Approximate
-------
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CHEMICAL WASTE MANA6EMENT. VIChERY FACILITY
6ROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
LACUSTRINE WELLS
WELL
NUMBER
L-14
L-15
L-16
L-19
L-20
L-21
L-22
L-23
L-26
L-27
L-28
L-29
L-30
L-31
L-32
L-33
L-34
L-35
L-39
TOP OF CASING
ELEVATIONS
(FEET. MSL)
607.92
608.87
612.70
617.87
614.04
612.08
610.73
613.49
612.41
613.70
613.40
609.65
610.84
611.32
611.78
612.41
612.59
612.15
613.28
HATER WATER
ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS
(3/30/87) (4/07/86)
(FEET, MSL) (FEET. MSL)
604.78
605.28
605.73
608.77
608.94
607.56
606.21
609.19
608.36
608.95
609.06
603.79
606.22
605.89
606.73
604.30
606.35
o07.59
609.48
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(1/14/86)
(FEET, MSL)
604. 15
603.04
604.51
sO&.4
606.56
606.09
605.90
607.18
606.39
o07.26
607.43
602.96
603.86
605. 14
606.21
604.82
606.30
600.82
606.79
NA - Data not available
-------
DECEMBER 1. 1987
TABLE 2
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, VICKERY FACILITv
8RQUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
TILL WELLS
WELL
NUMBER
T-14
T-19
T-23
T-24
T-27
T-37
T-38
TOP OF CASING
ELEVATIONS
(FEET, MSL)
609.84
618.04
613.05
615.25
614.86
615.22
614.50
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(3/30/87)
(FEET, USD
603.67
608.41
604.8?
607.42
606.91
612.16
603.41
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(4/07/86)
(FEET, MSL)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(1/14/86)
(FEET, MSD
597.98
606. 18
605.^
608.05
606.19
611.45
611.52
NA - Data not available
-------
DECEMBER 1. 1987
TABLE 3
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT. VICKERV FACILITY
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
BEDROCK WELLS
TOP OF CASING
WELL ELEVATIONS
NUMBER (FEET. MSL)
MW-14R
MW-15R
MW-16R
MW-19R
MW-20R
MW-21R
MW-22R
MW-23R
MW-24R
MW-37R
MW-38R
607.64
607.84
613.76
617.79
614.04
613.10 .
608.49
612.96
614.04
616.40
617.22
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(3/30/87)
(FEET, USD
593.18
593.35
593.28
593.24
593.26
593.25
593.22
593.17
593.31
605.48
605.51
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(4/07/86)
(FEET, MSL)
592.98
593.09
593. 12
592.99
593.08
593. 14
593.23
593.26
593.27
606.06
606.08
WATER
ELEVATIONS
(1/14/86)
(FEET, MSL)
592.67
592.63
592.73
592.71
592.68
592.70
592.69
592.63
592.84
605.34
605.36
-------
i I f I
i
S
f
I
? f ? f
sr •• • "»•
I 2 I
? f
* *
f f :
r ?
s
_ * s i 5 *
i i 3 2 * 2
SS*S!P = !|E
I
§
2 ! S
5 s!
srtssstsssE-t-
rCp$S333SS!Iro«»B»
3s*sieTC5!*3S»BB
!«£icyicicvuyyy>i3 tf
r.SSr-SfFs-rPrFfJ6
TTrTrfTTTTTTiT
SWSiSSaBBBWWiefi^
C S 3 p 3 « 53pjSfc»^»«n>
sg j g s s s?
IE ?
« a a M
P * r :*
s p
I
9
i
16
Pi *
ss a
i 8
i s
s 5
SJS3
S I
i!
c :
= 3?
iii£
si
ISPs
.9.
'S§l
9
S
I
P
» u. u f
M
K . .
1
W u U U M W
n p
.*« r
tt s
; f 5 5
r
r
R R R R
f r
3 3
R R
iei
n ^S m
a s
P ft
R R i 2
s ? S S S
s I S 5 s 8 8 S
* T.
i s
i i
*
I § | i
9
1
9
i
!»,
5"
§
c^
"j
o
o
I fi
UC
s
S *
<£>
oo
-------
M» 1*6
Table 4 (cont.)
MMITOIIIC NEU MB PIEIMTEI CDNStRUCf ION SUNMMV
•Sl-HM
MEU INIDUESS OF
OPEN MTlllim MtNM KNlONirt HP OF
MILL
Ml.
Nb-IM(2>
T-III2I
L-IH2I
MH«
Ml
1-11
MI-2M
L-21
Mt-211
L-21
M-221
L-22
NM-231
1-21
L-21
NU-241
T-24
L-25I2I
.-a
T-27
>•<»
...
.-rt
MTE
INSIALLEI
-
-
-
•MI-IS
11- IMS
II-2I-B
«-2J-*5
I1-2I-B
W-ll-15
IH4-B
»M7-*3
I*-14-B
1*-*H5
IHI-B
11-24-19
n-11-B
,1-22-19
-
1H1-15
11-23-15
,1-21-*
:*-H-B
14-31-15
SKIM
SlMFMX
-
-
-
614.1
616.1
615.5
611.1
(11.2
611.1
M1.1
6K.4
6*1.2
611.5
(It.!
611.1
(.2.6
612.1
-
4*1.4
412.3
bl'e.i
411.3
6*4.4
TOP OF
CABINS
-
-
-
(17.71
(11.14
(17.17
614.11
614.11
611. N
(12.17
6*1.44
(11.71
(12.26
411*4
(11. 11
(14. »4
(19.25
-
612.41
614.15
til. 71
613.31
4*1.41
INTEMNL
Ift.Mll
-
-
-
946. 6-961. 1
SM.*-5%.5
514.6-4*4.2
94H-9611
5B. 4-611. 4
942.1-991.1
511.1-4*3.5
944.1-9(1.1
5«.*-6*2.7
554.5-571.1
512.4-513.5
912.1-612.1
553.1 -571. 2
511.5-4*4.4
-
4*4.4-512.4
5*1. 1-511.1
Hi. 1-4*5.1
5». 3 -t«5. 3
1*1.1-6*1.1
INIEML
Ift.Mll
-
-
-
546.6
5M.I
914.1
9411
115.4
942.1
9111
944.1
512.1
994.9
512.4
912.1
9511
911.9
-
Ml. 4
SM.I
513..
S3*. 3
511.1 '
OF SEAL
Ift.l
-
-
-
9(17
916.9
(14.2
9611
Ml*
991.1
M19
9(1.1
6*2.7
971.1
9119
M2.1
971. 2
4*4.4
-
614.6
911.1
4*5.1
4*5.3
6*1.1
PELLET SEN.
Ut.l
-
-
-
11.4
4.1
5.1
7.2
9.1
1.2
4.1
KM
4.9
1.2
4.1
9.4
1.6
4.1
-
2.1
3.1
4.1
UNKNOWN
1.1
we*
lft.nl)
-
-
-
961.7
UNKNOWN
UMUOM
9611
UNO*
951.1
UNKMMN
961.1
UNKMMN
571.1
UMUOM
IMKMMN
57*. 2
UNKMMN
-
UNKMMN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
US1NS
TYPE
-
-
-
2', IK SS
2',11( SI
2',1K SS
2*,JK SI
2', IK SS
2', 116 SS
2',116 SS
2',1I6 SS
2', 116 SS
2', 316 SI
2-.3K SS
2', 316 SS
2", 314 SS
2%1K SI
-
2', 314 SS
2-, 116 SS
2".3l4 SS
i',316 SS
2', 116 SS
MTEIIM.
-
-
-
H
K
H
K
•
n
H
N
H
K
K
N
H
H
-
K
K
W
K
16
FOfMTION
SCKEMII
-
-
-
KCN
TIU
DC.
KCN
uc.
KCN
LlC.
KCN
UC.
KCK
TILL
UC.
OCX
TILL
iflC.
' UC.
TILL
UC.
.flC.
LAC.
KU
STATUS KNMMS
TO K MlLlil
TO K NIU0
TO K MILLED
MMITOKI
MMITOKO
MMITOKI
MMIIOKD
MMITOKI
MMITOKD
MMITOKI
MMITOKD
MMITOKI
MMITOKD
NONITOKI
MMITOKD
MMITOKI
MMITOKD
TO K MkLEI
MMITOKI
NONITOKI SCKENEO IN SRN* IICH {ONE
•UMTOttO
^..rotto
NONiioKD T^en from G
Colder f, Assoc., 1986
-------
JULT IW
Table 4 (cont.)
munm cu M PIEIKTEA CONSTRUCTION
W-J02*.
CM
NELL
NO.
i-JI
L-ll
L-12
L-ll
L-34
L-35
W-3UI3I
M-17R
T-37
W-3M
T-a
I.-39
M-l
M-S
M-.»
M-ll
*<9
P-4
P-5
;-6
PI
MTE SROUt)
INSTALLED SURFACE
ID-2D-IS 4*7.1
ID-1I-B M7.1
ID-29-DS Ml. 5
ID-2D-D5 Ml. 6
ID-ID-DS 41*. I
ID-ll-IS 6M.4
-
ID-IS-B 113.2
\t-it-to i!2.1
II-I2-D5 413.7
II-I4-D5 i!3.i
11-17-15 41*. 1
ID-I4-D2 Ml.l
ID-14-12 ili.5
ll-li-D2 M4.2
ID-14-12 MM
l»-l9-8i 4ID.3
ft-tt-83 419. 1
ft-28-83 419. 3
15-16-83 4*9.3
K-a9-83 4*3.9
flpa i
TOP OF INTERVAL
CASINB iri.Mll
61*. M S96.2-M1.I
111.33 SU.I-M2.1
411. H 59D.7-M3.I
412.42 594.7-M3.3
il2.il 5*1. 5-4*4.1
412. 11 511. 4-4*3.1
-
ili.41 531.2-513.4
4IS.22 5W.I-M5.1
117.22' 531.4-343.7
i,».» MD.4^.5
ill. 21 4*2.1-4*4.4
Ml. 14 537.1-557.1
ilS. IV SK.D-S71.D
4*5.1* 544.2-554.2
4D2.15 541.1-555.1
412.4* 544.3-S44.3
411.41 571.1-5*2.1
6 11.44 59S. 3-4*5.1
611. j« 5JI.JS46.*
611.8* 597.9-4(5.8
KU
urmiit
in. •!>
^
511.1
51*, 7
514.7
5*9.5
511.4
-
551.2
SH.i
SSI.i
S1D.4
M2.I
517.1
534.1
544.2
541.1
5*6.3
574.1
595.3
5JI.J
Uf.9
nim
OF SEAL
If I.I
Ml.D
M2.1
413.1
Mil
M4.I
M3.I
-
543.5
MS.i
543.7
M4.5
414.4
557.1
574. D
354.2
553.9
544.1
S62.D
4*5.1
544.*
4*5.1
THIDUCSS OF
DENTMITE
PELUTStAL
Ift.l
4.D
3.7
3.2
4.D
4.D
13
2.7
4.D
4.1
4.7
2.1
14. D
N/A
N/A
2.D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOP OF
NOCK
Ift.nll
UMNO*
UNNOM
UNKNOWN
UMNO*
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
-
544.7
UNKNOWN
517.2
UNNOM
UNKNOWN
557.1
S7i.D
554.7
552.1
567.8
UNKNOWN
UNKNOUN
,**»,
UNUlOWt
MINI
r.iii ss
r.iu si
2Mlt SS
2-.3H SS
2', 314 SB
2-.314 SS
-
2', 314 SS
2', 311 SS
2.r, PVC
2.r, PVC
2'. 311 SS
I.Z5-, PVC
1.25% PVC
1.25*, PVC
1.25% PVC
\.a; PVC
2.D", PVC
t.V, PVC
i.f. PVC
i!.*', PVC
Moriu
MTEIIRL 1
DS
M
H
DS
DS
DS
-
K
DS
K
M
IS
I/CEMENT
I/CEHENT
I/GENENT
I/CENENT
I/CEKNI
I/CENENT
I/CENENT
MZKM
I/CENENT
FOMHIO
SCREEKI
LAC.
LAC.
LAC.
LAC.
LAC.
LAC.
-
ROCK
TILL
ROCK
TILL
LAC.
HEN
HEN
RDM
HOC*
ROCK
TILL
LAC.
DOCK
LAC.
1 HELL
STATUS
NMTOREI
NMITOREt
NONITOREI
KMITOREI
NftlTOm
MMITORD
TO DE MILLS
NONITOREI
MONITORED
NONITMED
MMITOREB
HDNITORED
ACCESSAW
ACCESSW.E
ACCESSMLE
ACCESSADLE
ACCESSABLE
ACCESSADLE
ACCESSABLE
ACCESSACLf
ACCESSAtLE
RMMNS
9CREENII IN SAM IICH IOC
D
OMPAMTIVE STUDY
NONITOAINS UEU
CONMMATIVE STUDY
NONITMINE HtLL
SCREEN INTERVAL
INSANDLENSE
NO DENT. SEAL
NO DENT. SEAL
M BENT. SEAL
NO DENT. SEAL
M) KM. SEAL
V) KM. SC'«L
TaV^n f-rnm Hn
from Colder § Assoc., 1986
-------
OO
u
o
(SI
5
2
i
? a
• Jl 1 • *> •
— — i ~ 5 s J 3 S 3 S 91 s S
n irt iw
-------
SITE: Vickery
( 490
Table 5
WEIL ID CHART
DATE: 11/14/86
WELL
ID 1
LI 4
L15
L16
L19
L20
L21
L22
L23
L23A
L26
L.27
L28
L29
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
'A
A
A
A
C
A
A
. A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
T§CA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
only
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
607.92
608.87
612.70
617.87
614.04
612.08
610.73
613.49
612.41
613.70
613.40
609.65
NORMAL RANGE
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
2.2-2.4
2.1-2.5
1.1-2.6
2.1-2.5
1.9-2.2
1.7-2.0
2.1-2.4
2.0-2.7
6.1-7.2
2.4-3.0
6.0-7.5
4.6-5.4
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
4.29-4.34
3.60-4.90
6T95-7.86
8.62-10.33
5.23-6.45
5.00-7.00
3.30-4.90
4.00-5.00
5.00-7.30
4.55-5.30
4.66-7.59
5.79-7.59
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
48 hours
>3 days
> 3 davs
48 hours
36 hours
24 hours
36 hours
<.3 days
^12 hours
24 hours
^.16 hours
^16 hours
TEMP.
(°C)
10.8-
15.0
11.0-
14.0
11.1
13.7
13.3-
13.5
12°-
14.8
9-13°
8-15°
10-13°
13-16°
9-13°
10-15°
9-15°
pit
(Std)
6.70-
7.12
6.80-
7.00
6.69-
6.94
6.50-
6.90
6.60-
6.90
6.70-
6.90
6.90-
7.25
7.30-
7.50
6.70-
7.10
7.10-
7.70
6.50-
6.70
7.00-
7.40
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT.
(umhos)
at 25°C
4100-
4300
4700-
7500
4700-
7000
6000-
7700
8000-
8500
3800-
3900
2900-
3500
1300-
1400
3990-
5100
1000-
1500
6000-
6500
1000-
1500
COMMENTS
Jow yield
1 casing
volume
Low yield
1 casing
vnl limp.
jow yield
1 casing
volume
Dow yield
1 casing
vnl limp
Low yield
1 casing
\/n! nmf»
'..ow yield
1 casing
/olumfi
-.ow yield
I casing
rnl nmp,
Plugged
abandoned or
10/9/86
*Low yield
well 1 cas-
ing. Volume
purge.
*High yield
3 casing
volume pure
*Low yield
well 1 casii
VQlume purctf
*High yield
well 3 cas-
ing. Volum
• puirqe .
*ffigfi yield
well 3 cas
ing. Volum
-------
SITE: Vickery
Table 5 (cont.)
WELT. ID CHART
DATE: n/14/86
WELL
ID 1
L30
L31
L32
L33
L34
L35
L39
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and TSCA
CAFO
onlv
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
610.84
611.32
611.78
612.41
612.59
612.15
613.28
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
1.7-1.9
1.5-2.1
1.0-2.0
1.0-1.5
2.0-3.0
2.5-2.9
0.3-1.0
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
5.0-5.7
5.4-8.4
5.0-7.0
6.0-8.0
5.0-7.0
4.6-4.8
5.0-7.0
NORMAL \
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
^.3 davs
>4fl hours
> 4 days
> 3 days
24
-612
+ 12
ftANGE
TEMP.
(°C)
7.5-
15.0
10-
15°
10-
16°
1.0-
15°
1.2-
15°
10-
14°
9-
17°
PH
(Std)
6.30-
6.90
6.80-
7.10
7.00-
7.50
6.50-
7.10
6.90-
7.30
7.10-
7.40
6.80-
7.90
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT.
(umhos)
at 25°C
8000-
10,000
1400-
1700
1400-
1600
7200-
8300
2000-
2200
1100-
1200
1600-
1800
COMMENTS
-------
SITE: Vickery
(490
Table 5 (cont.)
WELL ID CHART
DATE: n/14/86
WELL
ID 1
MW14R
MW15R
MW16R
MW19R
MH2OR
MW21R
MW22R
MW23R
MH23RA
MW24R
MW37R
MW38R
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
CAFO
CAFO
CAFO
TSCA
Back-
ground
CWM
Research
GRADIENT
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Up
Up
Up
Up
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATIOK
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
607.64
607.84
613.76
617.79
614.04
613.10
608.49
612.96
614.04
616.40
617.22
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
21-22
24-25
20-21
22
21-24
23-25
21
16
16-17
24-25 '
26-27
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
14.65-
14.75
14.66-
15.50
21.0-
21.5
24.8-
25.5
21.15-
21.25
19.9-
20.1
15.2-
15.6
25.9 '
20.8-
21.2
10.0-
11.0
11.0-
12.0
NORMAL 1
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
^1
^.1
<£.!
-------
SITE: Vickery
490
Table 5 (cont.)
WEIL ID CHART
DATE: n/14/86
WELL
ID 1
T14
T19
T23
T23A
T24
T?7
T37
T38
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
c
'A
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAEO
ana
TSCA
CAFO
only
CAFO
ana
Tcr^a
CAFO
PVC well
CWM
Research
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
609.84
618.04
613.05
615.25
614.86
615.22
614.50
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
3.1-3.3
12-13
@ 1 gallon
3.2-4.0
4.0-5.0
3.7-3.9
3.5-3.7
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
7.0-9.9
9.9-11.1
24.9
6.6-6.7
8.0-8.7
3.49-4.00
2.37-2.84
NORMAL 1
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
3 days
8 hours
3 days
2 days
3 days
3 days
3 days
RANGE
TEMP.
(°C)
11-12°
11-13°
11.9
9.9-
12.0
11.7-
13.1
12.2-
12.5
10.0-
12.5
p!I
(Std)
7.29-
7.37
7.29-
7.64
7.13
7.19-
7.24
7.10-
7.80
7.10-
7.22
7.10-
7.22
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT.
(umhos)
at 25°C
1900-
2100
no, 400-
1280
1720
2050-
2100
1200-
9800
2500-
2900
2500-
2900
COMMENTS
Low yield-
well 1 cas-
i no vr>1 limp
Well wizarc
high yield
3 casing
vr>Tnm4
Plugged and
abandoned on
10/9/86
Low yield
well-1 cas-
j ng volume
Replaces T2:
LOW ^lefd
Low yield
well
Low yield
well
Low yield
well
*10,400 was back in April, well is still being developed by sampling.
-------
SITE: Vickery
490 \
Table 5
WEIL ID CHART
DATE: 11/14/86
WELL
ID 1
LI 4
LI 5
L16
L19
L20
L21
L22
L23
L23A
L26
L27
L28
L29
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
ana
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
T§CA
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
only
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
607 92
608.87
612.70
617.87
614.04
612.08
610.73
613.49
612.41
613.70
613.40
609.65
NORMAL RANGE
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
2.2-2.4
2.1-2.5
1.1-2.6
2.1-2.5
1.9-2.2
1.7-2.0,
2.1-2.4
2.0-2.7
6.1-7.2
2.4-3.0
6.0-7,5
4.6-5.4
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
4.29-4.34
3.60-4.90
6.95-7.86
8.62-10.33
5.23-6.45
5.00-7.00
3.30-4.90
4.00-5.00
5.00-7.30
4.55-5.30
4.66-7.59
5.79-7.59
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
48 hours
>3, days
> 3 davs
48 hours
36 hours
24 hours
36 hours
<.3 days
^.12 hours
24 hours
-£16 hours
•<16 hours
TEMP.
CO
10.8-
15.0
11.0-
34.0
11.1
13.7
13.3-
13.5
12°-
14.8
9-13°
8-15°
10-13°
13-16°
9-13°
10-15°
9-15°
pit
(Std)
6.70-
7.12
6.80-
7.00
6.69-
6.94
6.50-
6.90
6.60-
6.90
6.70-
6.90
6.90-
7.25
7.30-
7.50
6.70-
7.10
7.10-
7.70
6.50-
6.70
7.00-
7.40
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT.
(umhos)
at 25°C
4100-
4300
4700-
7500
4700-
7000
6000-
7700
8000-
8500
3800-
3900
2900-
3500
1300-
1400
3990-
5100
1000-
1500
6000-
6500
1000-
1500
COMMENTS
Low yield
1 casing
volume
Low yield
1 casing
VOl ivn**
Low yield
1 casing
Low yield
1 casing
\rol nmo
Low y^eld
1 casing
\rr»1 niyio
r.ow yield
1 casing
i/oliim«
jow yield
I casing
ml lima
Plugged
abandoned or
10/9/86
*Low yield
well 1 cas-
ing. Volunu
purge .
*High yield
3 casing
volume purt
*Low yield
well 1 casii
volume pyrg<
*High yield
well 3 cas-
ing. Volum<
*ffigfi"vield
well 3 cas-
ing , Volumi
-------
SITE; Vickery
( 490
Table 5 (cont.)
WELT. ID CHART
DATE: 11/14/86
WELL
ID 1
L30
L31
L32
L33
L34
L3S
L39
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and TSCA
CAFO
onlv
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
CAFO
only
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
610.84
611.32
611.78
612.41
612.59
612.15
613.28
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
1.7-1.9
1.5-2.1
1.0-2.0
1.0-1.5
2.0-3.0
2.5-2.9
0.3-1.0
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
5.0-5.7
5.4-8.4
5.0-7.0
6.0-8.0
5.0-7.0
4.6-4.8
5.0-7.0
NORMAL 1
RECHARGE
TIME
(hr.)
^-3 davs
>4fl hours
^ 4 days
.> 3 davs
24
-«12
+12
RANGE
TEMP.
<°c>
7.5-
15.0
10-
15°
10-
16°
10-
15°
12-
15°
10-
14°
9-
17°
1
PH
(Std)
6.30-
6.90
6.RO-
7.10
7.00-
7.50
6.50-
7.10
6.90-
7.30
7.10-
7.40
6.80-
7.90
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT .
(umhos)
at 25°C
8000-
10,000
1.400-
1700
1400-
1600
7200-
8300
2000-
2200
1100-
1200
1600-
1800
COMMENTS
._, ,,,, .
-------
SITE: Vickery
Table 5 (cont.)
WELL ID CHART
DATE: H/14/86
WELL
ID 1
MW14R
MW15R
HH16R
HW19R
MU2OR
HM21R
MW22R
MW23R
MW23RA
MH24R
MH37R
HN38R
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
TSCA
CAFO
CAFO
CAFO
CAFO
TSCA
Jack-
ground
CWM
Research
GRADIENT
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Down
Up
Up
Up
Up
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
607.64
607.84
613.76
617.79
614.04
613.10
606.49
612.96
614.04
616.40
617.22
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
21-22
24-25
20-21
22
21-24
23-25,
21
16
16-17
24-25
26-27
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
14.65-
14.75
14.G6-
15.50
21.0-
21.5
24.8-
25.5
21.15-
21.25
19.9-
20.1
15.2-
15.6
25.9 '
20.8-
21.2
10.0-
11.0
11.0-
12.0
NORMAL 1
RECHARGE
TIME
(hr.)
^1
<£!
^1
-------
SITE: Vickery
t 490
Table 5
WEIL ID
(cont.)
CHART
DATE: 11/14/86
WELL
ID 1
T14
T19
T23
T23A
T24
T37
T37
T38
ACTIVE
OR
CLOSED
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
PURPOSE
CAFO
and
TSCA
CAFO
and
TSCA
fiM°
TSCA
CAFO
only
CAFO
and
Tcr'fv
CAFO
PVC well
CWM
Research
GRADIENT
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
DEPTH
OF
WELL
(feet)
ELEVATION
AT TOP
OF CASING
(msl)
609.84
618.04
613.05
615.25
614.86
615.22
614.50
PURGE
VOLUME
(gallons)
3.1-3.3
12-13
@ 1 gallon
3.2-4.0
4.0-5.0
3.7-3.9
3.5-3.7
(
DEPTH TO
WATER
(feet)
7.0-9.9
9.9-11.1
24.9
6.6-6.7
8.0-8.7
3.49-4.00
2.37-2.84
NORMAL
RECHARGE
TIME
(hrs)
3 days
8 hours
3 days
2 days
3 days
3 days
3 days
RANGE
TEMP.
(°C)
11-12"
11-13°
11.9
9.9-
12.0
11.7-
13.1
12.2-
12.5
10.0-
12.5
1
pH
(Std)
7.29-
7.37
7.29-
7.64
7.13
7.19-
7.24
7.10-
7.80
7.10-
7.22
7.10-
7.22
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT.
(umhos )
at 25°C
1900-
2100
no, 400-
1280
1720
2050-
2100
1200-
9800
2500-
2900
2500-
2900
COHMF.N
Low yie^
well 1 <
i r\q vnl I
Well wis
high yif
3 casing
T/OTumA
Plugged a
abandoned
10/9/86
Low yielc
well-1 ca
j ng volurr
Replaces
LOW y^Jd
Low yield
well
Low yield
well
Low yield
well
*10»400 was back in April, well is still beina
-------
Table 6
Parameter, Bottle Type, and Preservative List
Sampling
Order
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
- 9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Parameter
Volatile organics
Field measurements
Purgeable organic
carbon (POC)
Purgeable organic
halogens (POX)
Extractable organics
Pesticides/herbicides
Dioxi n
Total organic carbon
(TOO
Total organic halogens
(TOX)
Total phenols (4AAP)
Cyanide
•
Sulfide
Nitrate
Anions
Total metals
Dissolved metals
Field measurements
Bottle Type Preservatives
2 -
200
1 -
1 -
4 -
2 -
2 -
1 -
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
1 L
200 ml
40 ml VOA vials
ml plastic
40 ml VOA vials
40 ml VOA vials
1 L. amber glass
1 L. amber glass
1 L. amber glass
12H ml glass
. amber glass
. amber glass
. plastic
. plastic
. plastic
. plastic
. plastic
. plastic
plastic
Cool 4°C
None
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
H9S04 2 ml
(to pH
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY HISTORY
23
(from Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation )
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY HISTORY
Date
Action
Conments
12-19-79
12-26-79
8-10-80
M-19-80
12-2-80
12-8-80
1-16-81
1-22-81
1-22-81
1-29-81
2-9-81
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Notice of Hazardous Waste Activity
RCRA Part A Application
OHIO EPA RCRA Inspection
Complaint and Findings of Violation
Response to Complaint and Findings
Answer to Complaint
USEPA Region V RCRA Inspection
Consent Agreement and Final Order
Informal Settlement Conference
Mo action recommended
No action recommended
Submitted
Submitted most recent revision dated
10-4-85
6 violations
$2500 civil penalty, remediate
out-of-compliance status
Response to the 6 violations listed and
the civil penalty assessed in the
complaint and findings of violation
dated 12-18-30
Court document containing issues
presented in the response to complaint
and findings of violation dated 1-16-81
Request for Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) to sample and
analyze "PUG" material for EP Tox. All
violations listed in RCRA inspection
dated 12-2-80 are remediated
Issue regarding "PUG" material removed.
$2500 civil penalty contested and not
yet resolved.
Conference regarding consent agreement
and final order dated 1-29-81.
Discussions regarding $2500 civil
penaltyjustification
2-25-31
Court Order
Order for parties in the consent
agreement and final order dated 1-29-81
to decide NLT 3-10-81 how the $2500
civil penalty issue will be determined
-------
Date
Action
Comments
3-9-81
4-2-81
9-2-81
10-15-81
Court Order
Supplemental Consent Agreement
and Final Order
Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
Certification by Administrative Law
Judge
Orders final settlement on consent
agreement and final order dated 1-29-81
to be extended NLT 3-24-81
EP/TOX will be done on "PUG" material.
Civil penalty reduced to $2000
No violations
Official disposition and disposal of
complaint and findings of violation
dated 12-18-80
10-27-82 Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
1-10-83 USEPA Region V Letter of Warning
3-30-83 USEPA Region V RCRA Inspection
6-30-83 Ohio EPA Director's Final Findings
and Orders
1 violation
Violation of sect 3004 RCRA
Recommends PCB investigation in selected
areas. Non-compliance regarding subpart
F requirements
Alleges numerous violations of Federal
and state environmental laws and
regulations. Orders compliance of
violations
6-30-83
5-22-84
7-:i-84
Facility Authorization
Consent Decree between Ohio EPA
and CUM
N.O.P.E. Inc. Appeal of Permit to
Install Approval. Findings of Fact
and Fir il Order
Authorization from OEPA Director for
continuation of deep-well injection
activities
Identifies numerous violations and
deficiencies of state environmental
protection codes. Civil penalty: $5
million. Compensatory damages: $2.4
million. Ohio superfund contribution:
$2 mill ion
Appeal by citizens group, regarding Ohio
EPA directors approval of a surface
water management plan. Director's order
was reaffirmed
-------
Date
Action
Comments
9_ig_84 Ohio EPA Director's Final Findings
and Order
9-25-84 Ohio EPA Director's Final Findings
and Orders
9-11-84 Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
12-27-84 Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
4-5-85 USEPA Complaint. Findings of
Violation and Compliance Order
4-5-35 Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO)
4 violations resulting in two air
releases of possible" hazardous gases
Recinds 2 orders issued on 9-19-84.
Assesses a c-vil penalty of $40,000.
Sets operating hours of the facility
"Not in compliance with subpart F
requirements. Being mitigated currently
4 violations found
9 violations alledged. Civil penalty:
$200.000 requested
Addresses many RCRA violations Orders
facility to come into compliance except
as noted in CAFO. Civic penalty: $2.5
mill ion
5-10-85
RCRA Part B Application
Submitted. The Part B has undergone
numerous revisions with the most
recently approved version being dated
11-8-85
12-11-85
12-31-85
J-4^86
J-12-86
•-12-86
Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
Ohio EPA RCRA Inspection
Hazardous Waste Release
Ohio EPA Enforcement Response
USEPA Comprehensive Ground-Water
Monitoring Evaluation
Mo violations
Old ground-water monitoring system is
not in compliance but under
modification. Documentation under
Subpart F in compliance
Surface water release from retention
area through a partially open gate
Situation evaluated. 5 violations found
-------
APPENDIX B
Off-Site Laboratory Evaluation Report
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE: October 20, 1987
SUBJECT: On-Site Evaluation of ETC Laboratory for Vickery,
Ohio Analytical Activities
FROM: WaxTne^Long^vChemist
Quality Assurance Office
TO: Joseph Fredle
Eastern District Office ^ .
THROUGHS-^e^ffrA^ms, Jr., Chief
Quality Assurance Office
The results of the on-site laboratory evaluation of the Environmental Testing
and Certification, Inc. (ETC) Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey are attached.
The laboratory performs organic and inorganic chemical analyses for the Chem-
ical Waste Management, Vickery, Ohio site as part of their self-monitoring
requirements.
ETC is a modern, well run laboratory with excellent analytical capabilities.
The deficiencies in the laboratory were those observed at the time of the
on-site evaluation. They should be corrected as quickly as possible.
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
INORGANIC
CHEMISTRY
-------
On July 7, 1987, Donald Booker, Chemist, Quality Assurance Office (QAO),
Environmental Services Division, Region V, conducted an on-site evaluation of
the Environmental Testing and Certification, Incorporated (ETC) laboratory,
Edison, New Jersey. The inspection was conducted pursuant to the National
Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force Facility Assessment Program Plan.
The purpose of the visit was to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to
a-nalyze groundwater samples for inorganic parameters (antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, chloride,
cyanide, TOC and TOX).
The evaluator has observed many good aspects of the laboratory procedures.
The ETC personnel are well qualified to perform trace analyses of environmental
samples for chemical contaminants and they maintain the instruments in good
operating condition.
The laboratory evaluation team wishes to thank the laboratory staff for their
courtesy and cooperation during the on-site evaluation.
The following are observations that were made during the evaluation and the
recommendations of the Quality Assurance Office to ETC to improve the data
quality:
1. Observation - The laboratory does not reanalyze the highjjstjrnxed calibra-
tion standard before beginning the sample run as^ mandatory by EPA Method
200.7 (ICP Method).
Recommendation - Before beginning the sample run, the laboratory should
reanalyze the highest mixed calibration standard as if it were a sample.
Concentration values obtained should not deviate from the actual values by
more than +_ 5 percent (or the established control limits whichever is lower).
2. Observation - The mid-check standard is used to determine the instrument
drift. The acceptance criteria of the mid-check standard is not consistent
with EPA Method 200.7.
Recommendation -The mid-check standard concentration values obtained
should not deviate from the expected values by more than +_ 5% percent (or the
established control limits whichever is lower).
3. Observation - An external quality control sample is used for the initial
verification of the calibration standards. The acceptance criteria of +_ 5%
percent of the true values listed for the control sample is not observed as
mandatory by EPA Method 200.7.
Recommendation - The external quality control sample concentration values
obtained should not deviate from the true values by more than +_ 5% percent.
-------
4. Observation - The laboratory put a lot of emphasis on the objective to
provide a measure of the accuracy and precision of analytical methods, but
failed to emphasize continuing assessment of the accuracy and precision of
data generated over time.
Recommendation - The laboratory should maintain a continuing assessment of
the accuracy and precision of data generated over time.
-------
On July 8, 1987, Donald Booker, Chemist, Quality Assurance Office (QAO),
Environmental Services Division, Region V, conducted an on-site evaluation of
Chyun Associates, Princeton, New Jersey. The inspection was conducted pur-
suant to the National Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force Facility As-
sessment Program Plan.
The purpose of the visit was to evaluate the laboratory's capabilities to
analyze groundwater samples for inorganic parameters (total phenolics and
sulfates). Chyun Associates is a sub-contractor of ETC.
The evaluator has observed many good aspects of the laboratory procedures.
The Chyun Associates personnel are well qualified to perform trace analyses
of environmental samples for chemical contaminants and they maintain the
instruments in good operating conditions.
The laboratory evaluator wishes to thank the laboratory staff for their cour-
tesy and cooperation during the on-site evaluation.
The following are observations that were made during the evaluation and the
recommendations of the Quality Assurance Office to Chyun Associates to improve
the data quality:
1. Observation - The total phenolics working standard curve is not continually
verified by a check standard.
Recommendation - A check standard should be periodically employed to ensure
that correct procedures are being followed and that all equipment is operating
properly.
2". Observation - The acceptance criteria of total phenolics for the spike blank
is not appropriate (_+ 30.816% of the expected value).
Recommendation - The spiked blank should be within +_ 10% of the expected
value.
3. Observation - The sulfate working standard curve is not continually verified
by a check standard.
Recommendation - A check standard should be periodically employed to ensure
that correct procedures are being followed and that all equipment is operating
properly.
4. Observation - The acceptance criteria of sulfate for the spiked blank is not
appropriate (_+ 50.436% of the expected value).
Recommendation - The spiked blank should be within +_ 10% of the expected
value.
5. Observation - The laboratory unsuccessfully analyzed total phenolics and
sulfate on the performance evaluation U.S. EPA Water Pollution Study Number
WP017.
-------
-2-
Recommendation - The laboratory should analyze the total phenolics and
sulfate performance evaluation samples sent to them by the Quality Assurance
Office. The results should be sent back to the Quality Assurance Office as
soon as possible.
Update 08-11-87 - The laboratory has successfully analyzed the total phenolics
and sulfate performance evaluation samples sent to them by the Quality Assur-
ance Office.
6. Observation - The laboratory put a lot of emphasis on the objective to
provide a measure of accuracy and precision of analytical methods, but failed
to emphasis continuing assessment of. the accuracy and precision of data
generated over time.
Recommendation - The laboratory should maintain a continuing assessment of
the accuracy and precision of data generated over time.
-------
ORGANIC CHEMISTRY
-------
During July, 1987, Babu Paruchuri, Chemist, Quality Assurance Office (QAO),
conducted an on-site evaluation of ETC laboratory pursuant to the Harzardous
Waste Ground Water Task Force Program.
ETC had analyzed the parameters listed in Attachment A during Phase I moni-
toring activities. The laboratory was analyzing the parameters listed in
Attachment B (Phase II) at the time of the audit. Attachment C of this report
has the list of parameters that was proposed to be analyzed as per the Consent
Agreement between Chemical Waste Management, Incorporated, Vickery, Ohio, and
U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA audit conducted during July, 1987, was concentrated
on the laboratory data quality for the parameters listed in Attachments A &
B. The overall performance of the laboratory is acceptable. Listed below are
the deficiencies observed at ETC at the time of the quality assurance/quality
control audit. These deficiencies may have been subsequently corrected.
Deficiency - The laboratory did not extract pesticides and PCBs samples at
the pH range specified in the EPA manual, SW-846, Second Edition (1984). The
audit team was told that the laboratory staff did not determine the pH of the
water samples since the Sample Field Parameter forms (CC2) have the pH data
on them.
Recommendation - If the laboratory can not extract (i.e., sample extraction
by liquid-liquid or continuous extraction technique and concentration of the
extract to 5.0 ml) pesticides and PCBs sample within 48 hours of collection,
the sample should be adjusted to a pH range of 6.0 - 8.0 with sodium^hydroxide
or sulfuric acid, if«/c -BHC, y -BHC, endosuTfan I^ancT II, ancT endrin are of
interest. All samples must be extracted within 7 days and completely analyzed
within 30 days of sample collection.
Deficiency - The laboratory did not extract the senrivolatile (acid, base and
neutrals) samples within 14 days of sample collection.
Recommendation - The sample semi volatile extraction step must be completed
(i.e., sample extraction and concentration of the extract) within 14 days of
sample collection. (Note: The EPA new RCRA methods manual, SW-846, Third
Edition 1986, requires the semi volatile organic samples be extracted within 7
days of sample collection.)
GENERAL COMMENT
Since the second edition of SW-846 did not properly address the sample pre-
servation and holding time requirement for aromatics in EPA methods 5030 and
8240, it is advised that the laboratory follow the sample preservation and
holding time requirements specified in the method 8020.
-------
VICKERY
ATTACHMENT A
Compound
Benzene
bis(chloromethyl) Ether
Bromoform
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chiorodibromomethane
Chloroform
Di chlorobromomethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
o&p-Xylenes
Tri chloroethylene
Aniline
o-Cresol
m & p-Cresols
o-Di chlorobenzene
m-Di chl orobenzene
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
Naphthalene
2-Picoline
Methanol
PP/PCBs
-------
ATTACHMENT B
(Organic Compounds Analyzed at ETC under Phase II)
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethyl benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Toluene
1,1, 1-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Methanol
PCBs
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Analytical Scheme for
Appendix VII (Compounds)
Isobutanol
Chloroacetaldehyde
Dichloropropanol
Methanol
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane
Tri chlorof1uoromethane
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Carbon disulfide
Chloroform
Methyl chloride
Acrylonitrile
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Di chloroethylene
Benzene
1,1,2-Trichloropropane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,2-Tri chloropropane
bi s(chloromethyl) ether
o-dichlorobenzene
o-cresol
m & p-cresol
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,3,5,6-Tetrachlorophenol
-------
-2-
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol
Chrysene
Naphthalene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
8enzo(a)anthracene
Dibenz(a)anthracene
Acenapthalene
Benzyl chloride
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
m-Dinitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2-Picoline
Hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
Aniline
Diphenylamine
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,6-Tri chlorobenzene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachl orobenzene
1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachl orobenzene
1,4-Naphthoquinone
Chlordane
Heptachlor
Toxaphene
Acrylamide
Acetonitrile
2,4-Toluene diamine
(o,m,p)-Phenylenediamines
Cadmi urn
Hexavalent chromium
Nickel
Lead
Arsenic
Mercury
Antimony
Chromium
Cyanide, Total
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE; 1 March 1988
SUBJECT: Your Request for PE Results from ETC Corporation
FROM: Bob Gnaedinger, Chemist
QAS/5
TO: Maxine Long, Microbiologist
QAS/5
ETC Corporation in Edison, NJ, normally participates in WS studies
through the State of New Jersey, I am led to understand. I have
received performance evaluation results only for WS019, WS020 and
WS021. In response to your request this morning, I gave you a copy
of their WS021 PE results. I am herewith attaching copies of their
PE results from WS019 and WS020. Their Lab I.D. from EMSL is NJ136
end
EPA FORM 13204 (REV 3-76)
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER VS020
DATE: 07/Z7/
LABORATORY NJ136
ANALYTES
SAMPLE REPORTED
NUMBER VALUE
TRACE METALS IN MICPOGRAMS PER
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
MERCURY
SELENIUM
SILVER
NITRATE/FLUORI
NITRATE AS H
FLUORIDE
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
DE IN
1
2
1
2
109
34.0
77.0
746
17.8
4.85
13.0
74.5
26.1
103
5.14
1.73
9.9
56.3
27.5
15.0
MILLIGRAMS
0.948
6.95
0.177
1.54
TRUE
VALUE*
LITER:
106
32.0
75.0
776
17.0
4.16
12.7
71.1
25.7
99.0
5.25
1.92
9.71
53.9
27.5
13.8
PER LITE
0.900
7.00
0.160
1.60
ACCEPTANCE
LIMITS
86.8-
25.8-
54.7-
664.-
14.3-
3.54-
10.1-
61.1-
20.6-
31. 7-
3.84-
1.32-
6.94-
42.4-
23.1-
11.2-
R:
.762-
6.18-
.148-
1.48-
121.
37.4
88.6
860.
19.6
4.79
15.6
80.9
30.5
113.
6.54
2.47
12.2
65.7
31.9
16.6
1.04
7.82
.215
1.69
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTA9LE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSARY
PAGE 1
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER WS020
DATE: 07/27
LABORATORY NJ136
ANALYTES
INSECTICIDES
ENDRXN
LINDANE
METHOXYCHLOR
TOXAPHENE
HERBICIDES IN
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
REPORTED TRUE
VALUE VALUE*
ACCEPTANCE PERFORMANCE
LIMITS EVALUATIONS
IN MICR06RAMS PER LITER:
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
4
0.388 0
6.77
0.576 ** 0
4.23 **
2.37
84.2
1.90
8.93
MICR06RAKS PER LITER
1
2
1
2
TRIHALOMETHANES IN MIC
CHLOROFORM
BROKOFORM
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
* BASED UPON THE
** SIGNIFICANT 6E
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
ORETICAL
NERAL MET
64.9 **
3.36
31.0 **
3.63 **
ROSRANS PER
19.2
S4.4
53.2
19.9
23.6
72.1
73.2
31.2
CALCULATIONS
HOD BT1S TS
.344
6.19
.512
3.84
2.22
80.8
1.42
7.09
*
•
62.7
3.22
30.0
3.71
LITER:
17.7
49.5
42.2
16.9
20.4
63.2
56.9
24.9
» OR A
IMTTf T»
.211-
3.86-
.279-
2.22-
1.34-
52.4-
.432-
3.85^
26.0-
.413-
9.42-
1.23-
14.2-
39.6-
33.8-
13.5-
16.3-
50.6-
45.5-
19.9-
.448
7.84
.651
4.79
3.05
104.
2.23
9.80
83.8
5.66
41.1
5.00
21.2
59.4
50.6 NOT
20.3
24.5
75.8
68.3 NOT
29.9 NOT
REFERENCE VALUE
>ATPB eno TUTC DF
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
WHEN NECESSARY
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER WS020
DATE: 07/27J
LABORATORY NJ136
SAMPLE REPORTED TRUE
ANALYTES NUMBER VALUE VALUE*
TRIHALOMETHANES
TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE
VOLATILE ORGANIC
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1*1*1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
CHLOR03ENZENE
IN
1
2
HICR06RANS
169.2
177.6
COMPOUNDS IN
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
7.06
3.30
18.3
6.99
11.1
12.6
196
1.52
3.44
10.8
3.76
7.60
7.72
14.6
PER LITER:
137.2
154.5
NICR06RAMS
5.98
2.53
12.7
6.23
8.90
10.5
182.5
1.36
8.22
10.3
4.32
8.16
6.93
14.6
ACCEPTANCE
LIMITS
110.-
124.-
165.
185.
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
"
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
PER LITER:
3.59-
1.52-
10.2-
3.74-
5.34-
8.40-
146.-
.816-
4.93-
8.24-
2.59-
4.90-
4.16-
11.7-
3.37
3.54
15.2
8.72
12.5
12.6
219.
1.90
11.5
12.4
6.05
11.4
9.70
17.5
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTA9LE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSAP1
PAGE 3 /
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER WS020
LABORATORY NJ136
DATE: 07/27/
ANALYTES
SAMPLE REPORTED
NUMBER VALUE
TRUE ACCEPTANCE
VALUE* LIMITS
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 2 14.4 12.0 9.60- 14.4
ACCEPTABLE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
11.4
10.3 8.24- 12.4
ACCEPTABLE
1,1-DICHLOROPROPENE
31.6 25.3- 37.9 NOT ACCEPTABLE
1s1*2-TRICHLOROETHANE 2
14.2
12.8 10.2- 15.4
ACCEPTABLE
1s1*1s2TETRACHLOROETHANE2
15.4
17.3 13.8- 20.8
ACCEPTABLE
2-CHLOROTOLUENE
3.02
8.28 4.97- 11.6 NOT ACCEPTABLE
4-CMLOROTOLUENE
3.C2
D.L.- D.L. NOT ACCEPTABLE
MISCELLANEOUS ANALYTES:
TURBIDITY
(NTU'S)
PH-UNITS
1
2
4.28 4.50
0.51 ** 0.500
8.56
3.84- 5.08
.341- .779
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
9.12 8.79- 9.34 NOT ACCEPTABLE
SODIUM 1
(MILLIGRAMS PER LITER)
13650
14.5 13.4- 15.9 NOT ACCEPTABLE
* BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSARY
** SIGNIFICANT GENERAL METHOD BIAS IS ANTICIPATED FOR THIS RESULT.
D.L. STANDS FOR DETECTION LIMIT
PAGE 4 (LAST PAGE)
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER WS019
DATE: 12/24/8
LABORATORY NJ136
SAMPLE
'NALYTES NUMBER
ALL VALUES IN
CHLOROFORM
3RONOFORM
3?0«I03ICHLOROMETHANE
OI3R3HOCHL3ROMETHANE
TOTAL TRIHALOMETHANE
REPORTED
VALUE
TRUE ACCEPTANCE PERFORMANCE
VALUE* LIMITS EVALUATIONS
MICROGRAMS PER LITER (EXCEPT AS NOTED)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
* BASED UPON THEORETICAL
83.2
9.80
22.4
87.7
76.?
17.0
71.6
18.7
254.0
133.2
CALCULAT
81.5
9.06
20.2
84.3
75.1
15.6
64.4
15.0
241.2
124.0
IONS. OR
65.2- 97.8
7.25- 10.9
16.2- 24.2
67.4- 101.
60.1- 90.1
12.5- 18.7
51.5- 77.3
12.0- 13.0 NOT
193.- 289.
99.2- 149.
A REFERENCE VALUE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
WHrN NECESSARY.
PAGE 1 (LAST »AG£>
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER US021
DATE: 01/07/6
LABORATORY NJ136
SAMPLE REPORTED
ANALYTES NUMBER VALUE
TRACE METALS ZN
CADMIUM
TRZHALOMETHANES
CHLOROFORM
BROMOFORM
BROMODZCHLOROMETHANE
DZBROMOCHLOftOMETHANE
TOTAL TRZHALOMETHANE
VOLATZLE ORGANIC
VZNYL CHLORZDE
1x1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
U2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRZCHLOROETHANE
MZ
1
2
ZN
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
C
1
1
1
1
2
* BASED UPON THEORETZ
** SIGNIFICANT GENERAL
CR06RAMS PER
1.84
13.7
MZCROGRAMS
12.2
58.6
65.3
23.4
11.0
39.1
43.5
17.8
132.0
143.9
OMPOUNOS ZN
4.23
6.92
4.51
5.11
CAL CALCULAT
METHOD BIAS
TRUE
VALUE*
LITER:
** 1.60
14,1
PER LZTER:
14.1
74.2
63.3
27.4
11.1
40.9
44.4
17.8
132.9
160.3
«fZCR06RAMS
1.26
7.27
4.78
4.77
214.5
IONS, OR A
IS ANTZCII
ACCEPTANCE PERFORMANCE
LZMZTS EVALUATZONS
1.21- 2.25
11.8- 16.6
11.3- 16.9
59.4- 89.0 NOT
50.6- 76.0
21.9- 32.9
8.83- 13.3
32.7- 49.1
35.5- 53.3
14.2- 21.4
106.- 159.
128.- 192.
PER LITER:
.768- 1.79 NOT
4.36- 10.2
2.87- 6.69
2.86- 6.68
172.- 257. NOT
REFERENCE VALUE
>ATED FOP THIS RE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
WHEN NECESSARY
SULT.
PACE
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUM3ER VS021
MORATORY NJ136
DATE: 01/07/88
NALYTES
SAMPLE REPORTED
NUMBER VALUE
TRUE ACCEPTANCE
VALUE* LIMITS
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
ARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1 6.36 7.31 4.39- 10.2
ACCEPTABLE
RICHLOROETHYLENE
NZENE
,4-DICHLOR03£NZENE
1
1
2
1
2
3.43
2.26
4.84
3.57 2.14- 5.00
2.37 1.42- 3.32
11.9 9.52- 14.3
4.68 2.31- 6.55
12.6 10.1- 15.1
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
8.10 4.86- 11.3 NOT ACCEPTABLE
ITHfLBENZENE
9.32 5.59- 13.0 NOT ACCEPTABLE
"•)TAL XYLENES
6.36 4.12- 9.60 NOT ACCEPTABLE
5TYRENE
11.4 9.12- 13.7 NOT ACCEPTABLE
•PROPYLBEMZENE
8.35 5.01- 11.7 NOT ACCEPTABLE
N-BUTYLBENZENE
10.5 8.40- 12.6 NOT ACCEPTABLE
MISCELLANEOUS ANALYTES:
PH-UNITS 1 9.1 ** 9.14 5.81- 9.33
ACCEPTABLE
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS/ OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSARY,
SIGNIFICANT GENERAL METHOD BIAS IS ANTICIPATED FOR THIS RESULT.
PAGE
-------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT DATE: 01/07/88
WATER SUPPLY STUDY NUMBER WS021
.ABORATORY NJ136
» ^ • • ••«•) <•» • • ^P ^»«» *P «•> •* Vk^B ^m fM>^BMB ^ • ^•»«» •»4B»^»«»^* ^B ^^ «*^^^ ^«»^»^» MB ^^^ ^ ^ ^•^•^•^•^B ^•^•4B> ^» ^P ^»^»^»^»^» OT ^B ^B^B^^B^ ^»•»«•) •••k^B ^ ^ «• •• ••>
SAMPLE REPORTED TRUE ACCEPTANCE PERFORMANCE
kNALYTES NUMBER VALUE VALUE* LIMITS EVALUATIONS
MISCELLANEOUS ANALYTES:
ODIUM 1 15.S 15.7 14.3- 17.5 ACCEPTABLE
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER)
- BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS' OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSARY.
PAGE 3 (LAST PAGE)
-------
APPENDIX C
Task Force Sampling Information
-------
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
VICKERY, OHIO FACILITY
TASK FORCE SAMPLING INFORMATION
Well Number
L15
L19
L20
L21
L26
L27
Depth
of Well
(feet)
17.50
19.43
15.60
15.40
19.91
20.00
Depth
To Water
(feet)
3.25
9.50
4.66
dry
15.79
3.8
Purge Vol .
Calculated
(gallons)
7.10
4.80
5.50
7.30
8.10
Purge
Volume
Actual
(gal)
2.40
2.33
2.00
0.20
3.00
2.80
Purging
Date
1987 Time(EST)
4/6 . 1250-1302
4/6 . 1225-1235
4/6 1340-1345
4/7 1521-1523
4/6 1310-1320
4/6 1204-1212
Sampling
Date
1987 Time(EST)
4/7 1000-1012
4/8 1030-1033
4/8 1411-1415
4/9 aOlO-1015
•11615-1620
4/6 1435-1450
4/7 1056-1106
4/7 1428-1431
4/8 1203-1212
4/8 1516-1530
4/6 1449-1453
4/7 1030-1040
4/7 1350-1356
4/8 1000-1011
4/8 1532-1536
4/9 1037-1043
4/9 1628-1632
4/10 1034-1039
4/13 1353-1356
4/7 0948-1007
4/7 1349-1405
4/7 1546-1552
4/6 1433-1440
4/7 0937-0948
4/7 1444-1446
4/8 1058-1105
4/8 1546-1547
Remarks
Field blank site.
MQB 304
Sample water turned
dark during sampling
for cyanide analysis,
no odors detected.
Duplicate site.
-------
Page 2 of 3
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
VICKERY, OHIO FACILITY
TASK FORCE SAMPLING INFORMATION
(continued)
Well Number
L29
L31
L34
L35
L39
T19
Depth
of Well
(feet)
19.43
17.45
22.50
19.91
6.68
37.50
Depth
To Water
(feet)
5.92
5.40
10.63
5.42
3.75
12.13
Purge Vol .
Calculated
(gallons)
6.80
5.90
5.84
7.20
1.46
12.45
Purge
Volume
Actual
(gal)
2.90
2.75
2.00
3.00
1.00
5.00
Purging
Date
1987 Time(fST)
4/7 1235-1245
4/6 1150-1205
4/7 1255-1309
4/7 1327-1335
4/6 . 1137-1145
4/6 1245-1255
Sampling
Date
1987 Time(EST)
4/7 1455-1514
4/6 1350-1530
4/7 1124-1132
4/8 0958-1007
4/8 1410-1423
4/9 1031-1035
4/10 1016-1027
4/8 1034-1058
4/8 1434-1442
4/9 1047-1102
4/10 0939-1004
4/8 1125-1142
4/8 1457-1508
4/9 1014-1022
4/10 1046-1052
4/6 1359-1411
4/6 1513-1528
4/7 1119-1127
4/6 1510-1519
4/7 1023-1030
4/7 1417-1421
4/7 1615-1619
Remarks
Duplicate site.
Field blank site.
MBQ 311
Background well .
-------
Page 3 of 3
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
VICKERY, OHIO FACILITY
TASK FORCE SAMPLING INFORMATION
(continued)
Well Number
T24
MW14R
MW16R
MW21R
MW23RA
P10
Leachate Pond
SE Leachate
Meyers Ditch
Depth
of Well
(feet)
24.96
62.45
67.50
69.67
57.52
87.20
Depth
To Water
(feet)
20.66
13.50
19.00
18.93
18.80
12.81
„
— _
Purge Vol .
Calculated
(gallons)
2.15
24.4
24.0
25.4
19.0
36.6
._
__
Purge
Volume
Actual
(gal).
0.60
25.0
25.0
25.0
19.5
37.0
_.
„
__
Purging
Date
1987 Time(EST)
4/6 1541-1547
4/8 1227-1310
4/8 1431-1507
4/8 1305-1335
• 4/7 1215-1244
4/14 0930-1150
_ • w —
_.
— — --
Sampling
Date
1987 Time(EST)
4/7 1146-1200
4/7 1457
4/8 1128-1131
4/8 1600
4/9 1131-1133
4/9 1641-1645
4/10 1101-1105
4/13 1333-1339
4/14 1237-1245
4/15 0909-0920
4/8 1314-1328
4/8 1508-1518
4/8 1340-1358
4/7 1247-1300
4/7 1408-1600
4/14 1153-1227
4/14 1400-1430
4/14 1535-1600
.4/13 1413-1424
Remarks
Background well .
Initial purge water
blackish with sulfide
odor. Background well.
Water had milky color
after purging 5 gal .
Water had sulfide odor.
-------
APPENDIX 0
Task Force Sampling Parameters
-------
Held
Specific conductance
Teaperittre
Turbidity
Other Parameters,
TOC METHOD 9060
TOX METHOD 9020
Chloride METHOO 9252
Tocal phenols METHOO 9066
Sulface METHOO 9036 or 9038
Nitrate METHOO 9200
Anaemia "Methods for Conical Analysis of Water and VI
USEPA - E«L (Cincinnati, 3/83. Method 350.1 or 350.3
POX EPA 60n/4-3*-008
pnc Ground Vater, vol. 22, p. 18-23.
Dissolved metals Tocal metals, and
Cyanide
-------
Appendix VI I I
METHOO 6010
Aluminum
Barium
a«ryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Thallium
Vanadium
Sine
Selenium*
Arsenic*
•These elements are not approved for 6010 but they are approved foi
CLP metals 1CP method. The CLf metals 1CP method is identical to
the SU-846/6010.
Method 7470
Kercury
-------
SittU
Utrattr* IIMI
la* Sattlt II fc
««tlt Mtriit
lata Itltast
Artktrixtd ly
CkOfUOSAil
Utvid
CAS
•utotr
74-87-J
ChlorMtthant
75-01-4
75-0*-:
75-09-2
47-44-1
75-1S-J
75-35-*
75-I4-:
1S4-W-!
47-4A-;
107-04-2
Vinyl Chlaridt
Ckiorotthwt
Rtthyltnt Chlondt
Aetto^t
Carton Oisulfidt
•.,1-luHorMthtr.*
l,l-9jchlorott!ust
trans- 1 ,2-9ichloro«th«!t
Chloroforo
l,2-)ichiorotthant
2-fcitancnt
1,1,1-Truhlorotthttt
Carbon Tttrartflondt
Vinyl Acttatt
8rotod:chlorootthar.t
1,2-lichloroeropant
71-55-4
54-23-5
108-05-4
75-27-4
71-17-5
for rttorting rtsolts to EM, tkt
tncauriqtd.
trfMln AMlysis Ma Skttt
ffaft II Caw ttUSASl
Kltftrtltt
Contract to 4M1-72U
Mt Sasylt
folitilt Ctttoods ItctifHi 14-IH*
Concntratitni In
Mt ntracttd/prtitrtdi 04-17-14
Mt analyitdt 04-17-04
Conc/lil Facttn 1.00 pfli I/I
'trcnt toistirt (not dtcanttd): I/ft
CAS
•f/1
10.
10.
10.
10.
5.0
10.
5.0
5.)
2.0
3.0
S.O
5.0
10.
5.0
5.0
10.
5.0
5.0
Mia KPttTIK UAUFIOS
rtsvlts toalifitrs art ostd. Additional flags or footnotts nptaining
Moitvtr, tht dt^inition of tart flag tost kt tiplicit.
1
1
V
tt
0
1
0
0
'J
w
u
»
9
0
U
0
0
ftitktr
10041-02-4
W-01-4
124-48-1
71-00-5
71-43-2
10041-01-5
110-75-1
75-25-2
108-10-1
5*1-71-4
127-18-4
71-34-5
108-86-3
106-10-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
trus-l,3-lickltrapropnt
Trichlorttthtnt
li br otockl or ottthaat
1,1,2-TnchlorotUiwi
Itiutnt
ci s- 1 , 3-li chl or otr optnt
2-Oilorottbyl Viayl Ether
Ironofort
4-Hothyl-2-9ntanont
2-titianont
Tttracklorotthtst
1 , 1 , 2 , Mttr acbl or ot Uiaitt
Tolunt
Chlorobnitnt
Ethyl Itnztnt
Styrtnt
Total lylnts
5.0
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
10.
5.9
10.
10.
5.0
5,0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.-J
0
V
U
u
u
u
u
M
u
u
I!
II
I!
I'
•j
U
c
rtsclts art
laiut 14 tit rtsvlt is a valit o/Httr tkan or tqaal U tkt
tftttctioi litit tkM rtpvt tkt valit.
f Micatts coopound MS analyitd for k«t not dtttcttd.
itiort tkt usisttt tettctiM litit ftr tkt satplt oitk
tkt I (t.|. IflU) basts' m Mcnsary coKMtratioW
dilotioo actions. (Tkis is tot atcHsarily tkt iMtrunt
dtttction lioit.) Tte footnctt skovld rtadi «-€Mpo«n<
MS analrztd for but tot dtttcttd. Tkt notbtr is tkt
oinitus ittaiMblt dtttction liait for tkt sanplt.
1 ladicatts an tstioattd faint. Tkis flaf is ntd titktr
rtn tstiMtinf a conctntration for ttntatiTtly idtntifitd
cotpoonds ihtrt a 1:1 rtsponst is assuitd r ihtn tkt tass
satctral data iadicattd tkt prtsact of a cataoond tkat
otfts tht idtntification crittria tot tkt rtsalt is Itss
tkaa tht sptcifitd dtttction lioit M trtattr tkan ztra
Otktr
(t.|. 1W). If litit tf dtttctitn is Itet. and a
ctnctntratitn tf 3oo, is calnlattd, tktn rttart as w.
Tkis flaf asflits U ptsticidt paraotttrs «bert tkt
idtntificatitn kas ktn confirttd by tt/US. 5:^1*
cttponnt ststicidts >/« 10af/il i» tkt final tatrar.
skooJd iff cotfiratd ty 6C/B.
Tkis flaf is tstd riin tkt analytt is found in tht
blani as ntll as a satplt. It indicatts possiMt/
probablt blank cantatination and uras tkt data oscr la
takt apprtpriatt action.
Othtr sptcific flafs and footMtts aay bt rt^uirtd tc
proptrly dtfint tkt rtults. If astd, tkty tost bt
fvlly dtscribtd and suck dtxription attacntd to tkt
data soacary rtport.
Foral
10/15
-------
lutt
ItfftU
t MllSttl
trtaaiu Aulytit fct« ftnt
tf iff 2)
SMiwlatilt
lo*
tott uUKtri/irttartti 04-17-14
tett aMlyirti 44-19-I4
I«c/Ml ftetwj 2.M
wt Miltvt (fccMtrt)* I/I
CAS
•Mbtr
10I-95-2 ftnol
»i«(2-CMoroctiyl) itbtr
2-Cklorophtnol
1,3-tichlorooMiMt
i,4-9icBlorobtnztoc
Itiuyl *lco*»ol
I,2-OicHloro6K:i)if
HI -
15-57-1
541-TJ-l
t04-4fc-7
100-51-4
93-41-7
104-44-5
k2l-a4-?
•7-72-!
71-5?- 1
tt-75-5
105-47-9
45-15-0
144-47H
17-41-3
5»-30-7
91-57-4
77-47-4
•-0&-2
95-95-4
91-51-7
H-74-4
131-11-3
20S-94H
99-09-2
iisl2-CfclorojMpro?yl> tthtr
4-fltthy!phcnoi
t-litro50-Dipfopyiai:si
NtuchioroctJiMt
litrobw:Mt
Itophoroci '
2-fitroefencl
2,4-tiHthTlpMnsi
Imoic kit
iis(2-0iloroethoxy)
l,2,4-7ricbleroe«n:int
4-Oloro«iliBf
Rtxacftiorotairiitat
4-Chlor«-3-«ttkyiihtr,«l
2,4,4-Trit»lorop*wol
2,4,5-TrickloratteMl
2-CUoroBifhtlMltM
2-litriMiliM
HwUyl PhtlUlatt
3-iitroMiliM
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
100
20.
20.
23.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
100
20.
100
20.
20.
100
0
I
0
0
U
0
U
U
V
U
II
II
0
U
U
U
U
U
a
u
CAS
tMbtr
13-32-9
51-21-5
100-02-7
132-44-9
121-14-2
404-20-2
M-44-2
7005-72-3
14-73-7
I00-)l-i
514-52-1
84-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
17-84-5
B-01-*
120-12-7
14-74-2
204-44-0
129-30-0
B-41-7
91-94-1
54-55-3
211-01-9
117-14-0
205-99-2
217-01-9
50-32-1
195-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
•K HNMii lo
Stf«raUry FMM! btnciiwi Tt»
U^iil - li*H CitrKUni lo
fclfUBBtfcWff
2,4-fiaitrtphtMl
4-litroph»ool
2,4-tiiitrotohiM
2,6-DiftitrotolntM
4-Otlorophinyi
Fluor mi
4-litrMflihat
etktr
I-tiitrnodiphtnylume U)
4-BrotophMyl ftwiyl tthtf
Ftatacbloropatcal
PttninthrtM
Anthractnt
li-t-tHtylpiitlialatt
HNrantbric
PyrtM
fetyl knyl ••ttalatt
3t3'-liclilarat«uitiM
IruoUlafltkractu
N-t-Kty! PMkalatt
lruo(a)pyroM
,2,3-ctlpyriM
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
40.
20.
20.
20.
K.
20.
20.
20.
20.
•I/I
20. y
100
1M
20.
20.
2C.
20.
20.
20.
100 u
100 •:
20. U
20. j
K-. U
1W U
U
U
U
U
U
V
0
5
a
•-•
H
D
U
20. 0
0
H
20. U
(1) Caaiot kc scpirittd frot liphnylaiiet
Foril
10/85
-------
I Sample Number |
I 00399 |
Organics Analysis Data Sheet
(Page 3)
•e«ticide/PCB«
Concentration: (Low]
Date Extracted/Prepared
Data Analyzed:
Cone/Oil Factor--
Hediue, (Circle One)
06/14/86
1 .00
CAS
Number
Cug/1 J or ug/Kg
(Circle One)
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-f
58-89-9.
76-44-8
309-00-3
1034-57-3
959-98-3
60-S7-1
72-55-9
73-20-8
33213-65-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
50-29-3
72-43-5
53494-70-5
57-74-9
8001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
1 1 141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
Alpha - BHC
Beta - BHC
Delta - BHC
Camma - BHC(Lindan« )
Heptachlor
Aldrin
HeptacMor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldr in
4-4' - DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4-4' - ODD
Endosulfan Sulfate
4-4' - DDT
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Chlordane
Toxaphene
Aroclor - 1016
Aroclor - 1221
Aroclor - 1£32
Aroclor - 1242
Aroclor - 1248
Aroclor - 1254
Aroclor - 1260
.05 U
.05 U
. 05 U
05 U
.05 U
. 05 U
05 U
. 05 U
. 10 U
. 10 U
. 10 U
. 10 U
.10 U
. 10 U
. 10 U
.50 U
.10 U
50 U
1.0 U
.50 U
.50 U
.50 U
.50 U
.50 U
1.0 U
1 .0 U
•) _
Vli)
V(i.)
U(«)
V(t )
1000. 00_ or U(«)
Voluae of extract injected (ul)
Voluae of water extracted (•!)
Weight of sanple extracted (g)
Volume of total extract (ul)
_ V(t) _10000.00_ V(
_ S.0_
For* 1
-------
APPENDIX E
QA/QC SUMMARY
TASK FORCE SAMPLING
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Chemical Waste Management, Vickery, Ohio Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
TO: HWGWTF: Richard Steimle, HWGWTF*
Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Gareth Pearson, EMSL/Las Vegas*
Joe Fredle, Region V
Maxine Long, Region V
Don Haggard, Region VIII
This memo summarizes the evaluation of the quality control data generated by
the Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (HWGWTF) contract analytical
laboratories (1). This evaluation and subsequent conclusions pertain to the data
from the Chemical Waste Management, Vickery, Ohio sampling effort by the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
The objective of this evaluation is to give users of the analytical data a more
precise understanding of the limitations of the data as well as their appropriate use.
A second objective is to identify weaknesses in the data generation process for
correction. This correction may act on future analyses at this or other sites.
The evaluation was carried out on information provided in the accompanying
quality control reports (2-5) which contain raw data, statistically transformed data,
and graphically transformed data.
The evaluation process consisted of three steps. Step one consisted of
generation of a package which presented the results of quality control
procedures, including the generation of data quality indicators, synopses of
statistical indicators, and the results of technical qualifier inspections. A report on
the results of the performance evaluation standards analyzed by the laboratory was
also generated. Step two was an independent examination of the quality control
package and the performance evaluation sample results by members of the Data
Evaluation Committee. This was followed by a meeting (teleconference) of the Data
Evaluation Committee to discuss the foregoing data and data presentations. These
discussions were to come to a consensus, if possible, concerning the appropriate use
of the data within the context of the HWGWTF objectives. The discussions were
also to detect and discuss specific or general inadequacies of the data and to
determine if these are correctable or inherent in the analytical process.
Preface
The data user should review the pertinent materials contained in the
referenced reports (2-5). Questions generated in the interpretation of these data
relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimle of the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
* HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
I. Site Overview
The Chemical Waste Management/Vickery facility is located in Vickery, Ohio.
The facility is primarily an injection well facility. The facility also operated
lagoons which are being closed. Solidified sludges from these lagoons will be placed
in an on-site landfill. Until construction of this landfill is completed, these sludges
are being stored in a large waste pile. Most of the samples collected for this study
were collected from monitoring wells associated with the lagoons. Two leachate
samples and a surface water sample were collected from the waste pile.
The facility has, in the past, accepted large quantities of waste oils. The
facility operated an oil recycling facility which is now closed. The injection wells
are used mainly for waste acids.
The geology at the facility consists of 75 to 100 feet of clay on top of sand.
The injection wells are 2500 to 3000 feet deep and inject into a strata containing
unusable salt water which is just above bedrock.
Twenty-six field samples were collected at this facility. The samples included
two field blanks (MQB304 and 311), a trip blank (MQB301), and two sets of
duplicate samples (MQB307/MQB319 and MQB314/MQB316). All samples were
designated as low concentration ground-water samples except for samples MQB306
and 326 which were designated as medium concentration leachate samples, MQB310
which was designated as a medium concentration ground-water sample, and MQB313
which was designated as a low concentration surface water sample. All samples
were analyzed for all HWGWTF Phase 3 analytes with the following exception.
Sample MQB325 was not analyzed for chloroherbicides.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Metals OC Evaluation
Total and dissolved spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-four metals
which were spiked into two of three low concentration samples (MQB312, 319, and
321) and into one of two medium concentration samples (MQB306 and 326).
Twenty-two of the low concentration total metal average spike recoveries from
these samples were within the data quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program. The
average matrix spike recoveries for total cadmium (137 percent) and selenium (51
percent) were outside the DQO. Eight low concentration individual total metal
spike recoveries were outside DQO and will be discussed in the following Sections.
The total metal spike recoveries for aluminum and iron from sample MQB319 were
not calculated because the amounts of these metals in this sample were greater than
four times the amount of the spike. This information is listed in Tables 3-la and
3-2a of Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections.
Twenty-two of the low concentration dissolved metal average spike recoveries
were within the DQOs for this Program. The average matrix spike recoveries for
dissolved iron (128 percent) and magnesium (73 percent) were outside DQO. Four
individual dissolved metal spike recoveries were outside DQO and will be discussed
in the following Sections. This information is listed in Tables 3-lc and 3-2c of
Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections.
-------
Seventeen of the medium concentration total metal spike recoveries from the
spiked sample were within the DQOs for this Program. The matrix spike recoveries
for total cadmium (62 percent), selenium (20 percent), silver (72 percent), thallium
(74 percent), and tin (64 percent) were below the DQO. The total metal spike
recoveries for arsenic and magnesium were not calculated because the amounts of
these metals in the spiked sample were greater than four times the amount of the
spike. This information is listed in Tables 3-1 b and 3-2b of Reference 2 as well as
in the following Sections.
Thirteen of the medium concentration dissolved metal spike recoveries were
within the DQOs for this Program. The matrix spike recoveries for dissolved
antimony (37 percent), cadmium (68 percent), copper (53 percent), lead (no
recovery), mercury (60 percent), silver (62 percent), thallium (no recovery), and tin
(34 percent) were outside DQO. The dissolved metal spike recoveries for calcium,
potassium, and sodium were not calculated because the amounts of these metals in
the spiked sample were greater than four times the amount of the spike. This
information is listed in Tables 3-ld and 3-2d of Reference 2 as well as in the
following Sections.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic
analytes, with the exceptions of total aluminum in the low concentration samples
and total selenium in the medium concentration samples, were within Program DQOs.
RPDs were not calculated for approximately two-thirds of the low concentration and
one-half of the medium concentration metal analytes because the concentrations of
many of the metals in the field samples used for the RPD determination were less
than the contract required detection limit (CRDL) and thus were not required, or in
some cases, not possible to be calculated.
Required metal analyte determinations were performed on all samples submitted
to the laboratory.
No contamination involving the metallic analytes was reported in the laboratory
blanks. Sampling blank contamination was reported and will be discussed in the
following Sections.
1.2 Furnace Metals
The quality control results for the metals analyzed by graphite furnace atomic
absorption analyses (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and thallium) were
generally acceptable.
The matrix spike recoveries for total arsenic (72 percent) and selenium (50
percent) for the low concentration matrix spiked sample MQB312 were below their
DQOs. The matrix spike recoveries for total arsenic (127 percent), cadmium (178
percent), lead (152 percent), and selenium (51 percent) for the low concentration
matrix spiked sample MQB319 were outside their DQOs. The matrix spike recoveries
for total cadmium (62 percent), selenium (20 percent), and thallium (74 percent) for
the medium concentration matrix spiked sample MQB326 were below their DQOs.
The matrix spike recoveries for dissolved antimony (37 percent), cadmium (68
percent), lead (no recovery), and thallium (no recovery) for the medium
concentration matrix spiked sample (MQB306) were below their DQOs. No obvious
trends were observed in these matrix spike results. All low concentration matrix
results for total arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium should be considered semi-
quantitative. Medium concentration matrix results for total and dissolved cadmium
and total thallium should also be considered semi-quantitative. Dissolved antimony
results for the medium concentration samples should be considered qualitative. Due
-------
to the low spike recoveries, all medium concentration matrix results for total
selenium and dissolved lead and thallium should not be used. All of these usability
judgments may be further qualified.
Several continuing calibration verifications (CCVs) for total and dissolved
arsenic and dissolved cadmium were outside DQO limits. The data for the CCV,
which should have been run after recalibration, was missing. Total arsenic results
for samples MQB314 and 316, dissolved arsenic results for samples MQB301, 306, 310,
313, and 318, and dissolved cadmium results for samples MQB309, 314, 316, 317, and
320 were affected and should be considered semi-quantitative unless otherwise
qualified.
The correlation coefficients for the method of standard addition (MSA)
determination of total antimony in sample MQB326D (D .= duplicate analysis),
dissolved antimony in sample MQB306D, total arsenic in sample MQB306, total
cadmium in the laboratory control sample #3, dissolved cadmium in sample MQB306,
and total lead in samples MQB305 and 320 were below DQO. The results for these
analytes in the indicated matrices and samples, except for total arsenic in sample
MQB306 and dissolved antimony in sample MQB306D, should be considered
qualitative. The results for total arsenic in sample MQB306 and dissolved antimony
in sample MQB306D should not be used.
The analytical spike recoveries of dissolved antimony in sample MQB306 and
dissolved selenium in samples MQB306D and 326 ranged from 0 to 37 percent. These
results should not be used.
The double burn precision for total selenium in sample MQB318 and for
dissolved selenium in samples MQB306D and 310 was above DQO. Results for these
analytes in these samples should be considered unusable.
The duplicate RPD for total selenium in sample MQB326 was above DQO. Total
selenium result for this sample, unless otherwise qualified, should be considered
semi-quantitative.
Dissolved lead contamination was found in field blanks MQB304 (16 ug/L) and
MQB311 (6.8 ug/L). The lead CRDL is 5 ug/L. As a result of this contamination
dissolved lead results for samples MQB305, 312, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, and 325 (all
positive lead results) should not be used. Other lead results (negative results) were
not affected.
The usability of all graphite furnace analytes is summarized in Sections 5.0 and
5.1 at the end of this Report.
1.3 ICP Metals
The matrix spike recovery for dissolved tin (67 percent) in low concentration
matrix sample MQB312 was below the DQO. The matrix spike recoveries for
dissolved chromium (147 percent), iron (159 percent), and tin (57 percent) in low
concentration matrix sample MQB319 were outside of their DQOs. The matrix spike
recoveries for total silver (72 percent) and tin (64 percent) in medium concentration
matrix sample MQB326 were outside of their DQOs. The matrix spike recoveries for
dissolved copper (53 percent), silver (62 percent), and tin (34 percent) in medium
concentration matrix sample MQB306 were below their DQOs. The trend of low
spike recoveries indicate a low bias in the data and high spike recoveries indicate a
high bias in the data. Results for these analytes in the above specified matrices
should be considered semi-quantitative unless further qualified except for all
-------
dissolved tin results in the medium concentration matrix which should be considered
qualitative.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range checks for all total beryllium, silver,
vanadium, and zinc samples as well as for total cobalt and copper samples MQB301,
302, 306, 310, 313, 318, 321, 325, and 326 exhibited low recoveries. The low level
linear range check for total manganese in samples MQB303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 309,
311, 312, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 322, 323, and 324 exhibited high recoveries.
The low level linear range checks for all dissolved beryllium, cobalt, chromium,
silver, vanadium, and zinc samples, as well as for dissolved copper samples MQB301,
302, 306, 310, 313, 318, 321, 325, and 326, exhibited low recoveries. The low level
linear range checks for dissolved manganese samples MQB301, 302, 306, 310, 313,
318, 321, 325, and 326 exhibited high recoveries. The data user should refer to
Comment B5 of Reference 3 for a detailed listing of analysis dates, samples
affected, and biases. The low level linear range check is an analysis of a solution
with elemental concentrations near the detection limit. The range check analysis
shows the accuracy which can be expected by the method for results near the
detection limits. The accuracy reported for these metals at low concentrations is
not unexpected. The recoveries indicate the possible directions and extent of the
biases in the low concentration samples.
Dissolved aluminum contamination was reported in field blank MQB311 at a
concentration of 259 ug/L. The aluminum CRDL is 200 ug/L. As a result of this
contamination, all positive dissolved aluminum results (all are in the concentration
range of the blank) should not be used. Total sodium contamination was reported
in trip blank MQB301 at a concentration of 160,000 ug/L. The sodium CRDL is 5000
ug/L. As a result of this contamination, all positive total sodium results, with the
exception of samples MQB301, 304, 306, 309, 310, 311, 317, and 323, should not be
used. Total sodium results for samples MQB301, 304, 306, 310, and 311 should be
considered quantitative while results for samples MQB309, 317, and 323 should be
considered qualitative unless otherwise qualified. Dissolved sodium contamination
was reported in trip blank MQB301 and field blank MQB304 at concentrations of
162,000 and 173,000 ug/L, respectively. As a result of this contamination, all
positive dissolved sodium results, with the exception of samples MQB301, 304, 305,
306, 309, 310, 311, 317, and 323, should not be used. Total sodium results for
samples MQB301, 304, 306, 310, and 311 should be considered quantitative while
results for samples MQB305, 309, 317, and 323 should be considered qualitative
unless otherwise qualified.
The serial dilution RPD results for total aluminum and dissolved calcium,
manganese, and sodium in low concentration matrix sample MQB319 were outside
DQO. The serial dilution RPD results for total potassium and dissolved calcium,
potassium, and sodium in medium concentration matrix sample MQB306 were also
outside DQO. All results for these analytes should be considered semi-quantitative
unless otherwise qualified.
A continuing calibration verification (CCB) was missing from the raw data.
CCBs should be run at a frequency of every 10 samples and also at the end of the
analytical batch.
Although high sulfate concentrations were found in many of the samples, the
barium matrix spike recoveries were all acceptable and thus possible sulfate
interference with the barium determination was not expected to be significant.
-------
The laboratory duplicate RPD for total aluminum in sample MQB319 was above
DQO. The total aluminum result for this sample should be considered semi-
quantitative unless otherwise qualified.
Duplicate field sample precision for total aluminum and dissolved nickel and
sodium in duplicate sample pair MQB314/316 was poor. The comparative precision of
field duplicate results is not used in the preparation of the usability evaluation of
sample results. It is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. The
poor precision may be reflective of sample to sample variation rather than actual
analytical variations.
The usability of all total and dissolved ICP metal analytes is summarized in
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 at the end of this Report.
1.4 Mercury
The matrix spike recovery for dissolved mercury (60 percent) from medium
concentration matrix sample MQB326 was below DQO. All medium concentration
matrix results for dissolved mercury (MQB306, 310, and 326) should be considered
semi-quantitative. All other mercury results should be considered quantitative.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes,
with the exceptions of those of sulfate and cyanide from the medium concentration
samples, were within the accuracy DQOs. The matrix spike recoveries of sulfate (70
percent) and cyanide (13 percent) from the medium concentration matrix spikes were
below DQO. Accuracy DQOs have not been established for the bromide, fluoride,'
nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide matrix spikes.
The calculable average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were
within Program DQOs. RPDs were not calculated if either one or both of the
duplicate values were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been
established for bromide, fluoride, nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and
indicator analytes.
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
analyte. Sulfate, sulfide, POC and TOX contamination were each found in one of
the field blanks (sample MQB304 or 311). This contamination will be discussed
below.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
All results for bromide, fluoride, total phenols, TOC, and POX should be
considered quantitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
The matrix spike recovery of cyanide (13 percent) from medium concentration
matrix sample MQB306 was below DQO. The trend of low spike recoveries indicate
a low bias in the data. Medium concentration cyanide results should not be used
due to the poor matrix spike recovery. Low concentration matrix cyanide results
should be considered quantitative.
-------
The matrix spike recovery of chloride (120 percent) from low concentration
matrix sample MQB319 was above DQO. The trend of high spike recoveries indicate
a high bias in the data. The concentration of chloride reported by the analytical
laboratory for sample MQB301 was incorrect. According to the raw data no chloride
was detected in this sample. All low concentration matrix results for chloride
should be considered semi-quantitative. All medium concentration matrix results
should be considered quantitative.
The holding times for the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen determinations ranged
from 9 to 38 days from receipt of the samples which is longer than the
recommended 48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. All nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The matrix spike recoveries of sulfate from low concentration matrix sample
MQB312 (140 percent) and from the medium concentration matrix sample MQB306 (70
percent) were outside DQO. All sulfate results should be considered semi-
quantitative unless otherwise qualified. Sulfate contamination was present in field
blank MQB304 at a concentration of 1,880,000 ug/L. The sulfate CRDL is 1000
ug/L. As a result of this contamination, all positive sulfate results, except those
for samples MQB301, 304, and 311, should not be used. Sulfate results for samples
MQB301, 304, and 311 should be considered semi-quantitative.
Sulfide contamination was present in field blank MQB311 at a concentration of
217,000 ug/L. The sulfide CRDL is 1000 ug/L. As a result of this contamination,
all positive sulfide results, except those for samples MQB301, 304, 305, 306, 311,.
312, 315, 318, and 323, should not be used. Sulfide results for samples MQB301,
304, 305, 311, 312, 315, 318, and 323 should be considered quantitative and results
for sample MQB306 should be considered qualitative.
Calibration verification standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC spike
solution was run during the analytical batch but the "true" value of the spike was
not provided by the laboratory. EPA needs to supply the inorganic laboratory with
a POC calibration verification solution. Until then, the instrument calibration can
not be assessed. POC contamination was present in field blank MQB311 at a
concentration of 220 ug/L. The POC CRDL is 100 ug/L. As a result of this
contamination, all positive POC results, except those for samples MQB301, 304, 306,
309, 310, and 311, should not be used. POC results for samples MQB301, 304, 306,
309, 310, and 311 should be considered qualitative. The POC holding time ranged
from 4 to 13 days. Although the EMSL/Las Vegas data reviewers recommend a 7
day holding time, the EPA Sample Management Office (SMO) has instructed the lab
that a 14 day holding time is acceptable.
TOX contamination was present in field blank MQB304 at a concentration of
9.4 ug/L. The TOX CRDL is 5 ug/L. As a result of this contamination, TOX
results, with exceptions, should be considered quantitative unless otherwise qualified.
TOX results for sample MQB318 should be considered qualitative and results for
samples MQB305, 307, 312, 313, 315, 319, 320, 322, and 324 should not be used. Due
to high chloride concentrations, constructive interference with the TOX
determination was possible for samples MQB303, 317, 318, and 323. TOX results for
these samples should be considered semi-quantitative, unless otherwise qualified, and
biased high. In summary, TOX results, with exceptions, should be considered
quantitative. TOX results for samples MQB303, 317, and 323 should be considered
semi-quantitative. The TOX result for sample MQB318 should be considered
qualitative. The TOX result for sample MQB305, 307, 312, 313, 315, 319, 320, 322,
and 324 should not be used.
-------
3.0 Oreanics and Pesticides
3.1 Organic OC Evaluation
All matrix spike average recoveries, with the exceptions of 2-chlorophenol and
Parathion, were within established Program DQOs for accuracy. Matrix spike
average recoveries for 2-chlorophenol (26 percent) and Parathion (123 percent) were
outside DQO. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside DQO limits will
be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All average surrogate spike recoveries, with the exceptions of 2-fluorobiphenyl
in the sampling blanks and 2-fluorophenol in the matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
samples were within DQOs for accuracy. Individual surrogate spike recoveries which
were outside the accuracy DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All reported matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within
Program DQOs for precision. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All average surrogate spike RPDs were within DQOs for precision. Surrogate
standard were neither required nor used for the organo-phosphorous herbicide
analysis.
Requested organic analyses were performed, with one exception, on all samples
submitted to the laboratory. Sample MQB325 was not analyzed for chloroherbicides.
Laboratory (method) and sampling blank contamination was reported for
organics and is discussed in Reference 4 as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in the appropriate
Sections below.
3.2 Volatiles
The analytical laboratory exceeded the volatile holding time of seven days for
all samples except MQB309, 314, 315, 317, and 324 by 1 to 70 days. Volatile results
for these samples should not be used because they exceeded the holding time.
Volatile results for all other samples should be considered quantitative.
Acetone contamination was found in laboratory (method) blanks MB-1 through
MB-4, MB-7, and MB-8 at concentrations ranging from 1 to 7 ug/L. Acetone
contamination was also found in the trip blank at a concentration of 6 ug/L. The
acetone CRDL is 10 ug/L. Laboratory contamination is the probable source of this
result. All positive acetone results (samples MQB301, 303, 306, 313, 314, 316, 317,
320, 321, 324, and 326), with the exception of sample MQB306 which had a high
concentration of acetone, were judged to be unusable due to this blank
contamination.
Laboratory (method) blanks MB-1 through MB-4 and MB-8 contained methylene
chloride contamination at concentrations ranging from 1 to 5 ug/L. The methylene
chloride CRDL is 5 ug/L. Laboratory contamination is the probable source of this
result. All positive methylene chloride results (samples MQB306, 308, 310, 313, 315,
317, 318, 320, 324, and 326) should not be used due to this blank contamination.
-------
Laboratory (method) blank MB-7 contained 2 ug/L of 2-butanone. The 2-
butanone CRDL is 10 ug/L. As a result of this contamination, all positive 2-
butanone results (sample MQB313) should not be used.
The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate RPDs for trichloroethene,
chlorobenzene, and benzene in sample MQB309 were above DQO. This lack of
precision was judged not to affect data quality.
In their standards, the analytical laboratory confused the cis- and trans-1,3-
dichloropropene isomers and the 4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-hexanone isomers. As
no dichloropropene isomers were found in the samples, the data quality for those
isomers was not affected. 2-Hexanone and 4-methyl-2-pentanone were each reported
in two volatile samples and their identifications were reversed. The data user
should be aware of this reversal.
Erratic percent differences between the average response factors for the initial
calibration and the daily calibration check standards were observed for various
Appendix IX compounds.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples, except MQB306
which was 100 times the CRDL. Dilution of this sample was required due to the
high concentrations of acetone, isobutyl alcohol, and several other volatiles. The
volatile results, with exceptions listed below, should be considered unreliable due to
excessive holding times. Volatile results for samples MQB309, 314, 315, 317, and 324
should be considered quantitative with the exceptions of any acetone or methylene
chloride results. No positive acetone, methylene chloride, or 2-butanone results
should be used due to laboratory (method) blank contamination. The probabilities of
false negative and positive results are acceptable (with the exceptions of the
positive acetone and methylene chloride results, if any) for samples MQB309, 314,
315, 317, and 324 which had acceptable holding times.
3.3 Semivolatiles
The semivolatile holding time between sample receipt and analysis was
exceeded by 22 to 36 days for all samples.
The matrix spike (MS) and/or matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recoveries for
pentachlorophcnol in samples MQB306MS (111 percent), MQB314MS (4 percent),
MQB314MSD (6 percent), MQB316MS (6 percent), and MQB316MSD (6 percent) were
outside DQO. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries for phenol in
samples MQB306MS (168 percent), MQB306MSD (105 percent), MQB314MS (6 percent),
MQB314MSD (10 percent), MQB316MS (8 percent), and MQB316MSD (6 percent) were
outside DQO. The matrix spike recovery for 4-chloro-3-methylphenol in sample
MQB306MS (99 percent) was above DQO. The matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries for 2-chlorophenol in samples MQB314MS (3 percent),
MQB314MSD (4 percent), MQB316MS (3 percent), and MQB316MSD (3 percent) were
below DQO. The matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries for 4-
nitrophenol in samples MQB314MS (3 percent), MQB314MSD (3 percent), MQB316MS
(3 percent), and MQB316MSD (3 percent) were below DQO. The low recoveries in
certain of the samples may be due to a systematic interference in those samples.
The surrogate spike recoveries of 2-fluorophenol from samples MQB303, 303RE
(reanalysis), 314, 314MS, 314MSD, 316, 316MS, 316MSD, 317, 317RE, 323, and 323RE,
were below DQO. The surrogate spike recoveries of phenol-d5 from samples
MQB314, 314MS, 316MS, 316MSD, 317, 317RE, 323, and 323RE, were below DQO.
The surrogate spike recovery of 2-fluorobiphenyl from samples MQB302, 304, 305,
-------
308, 311. 312, 315, 319, 320, 322, 325, MB-1, and MB-5 were below DQO. The
surrogate spike recoveries of 2,4,6-tribromophenol from samples MQB314, 314MS,
314MSD, 316, 316MS, 316MSD, 317, 317RE, 323, and 323RE, were below DQO.
Although, all other surrogate recoveries were within DQO, the acid surrogate
recoveries for samples MQB314, 316, 317, and 323 were generally low and thus the
acid fraction results for these samples are expected to be biased low.
Semivolatile laboratory (method) blanks, MB-1 through MB-6 contained
contamination including several unknown compounds at estimated concentrations
ranging from 10 to 200 ug/L as well as bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at concentrations
of 5 ug/L in MB-3 (method blank MB-3 was analyzed as a medium concentration
sample, thus the sample was diluted by a factor of 100 and the resulting
concentration was reported as 500 ug/L) and 6 ug/L in MB-6 and unknown
alkylamides at estimated concentrations of 10 and 20 ug/L. The trip blank and one
field blank also contained bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at concentrations of 5 and 3
ug/L. The CRDL for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is 10 ug/L. No positive bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate results should be used due to this contamination. Positive
sample results for semivolatile unknowns whose standards are found at approximate
scan numbers 320, 353, 492, 1427, 1437 (an unknown alkylamide), 1508, 1518 (an
unknown alkylamide), 1542, 1552, 1620/1621, 1725, 1758, and 1772, as well as
unspecified 2-methylcyclopentanol isomers, should also not be used due to laboratory
blank contamination.
Standards for all Appendix IX semivolatile compounds have not been obtained
by the analytical laboratory. All results for these compounds, which were analyzed
by using extracted ion current profiles for major ion quantitation, should be
considered qualitative. The laboratory must obtain standards for these compounds.
All semivolatile samples, with the exceptions of leachate samples MQB306 and
326 which were diluted by factors of 2000 and 100, had dilution factors of two. As
a result, the estimated detection limits for the semivolatiles, with the exceptions of
samples MQB306 and 326, were approximately twice the CRDL. The estimated
detection limits for samples MQB306 and 326 are approximately 2000 and 100 times
the CRDL.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered semi-
quantitative with the exceptions of the results for the semivolatile compounds for
which there were no analytical standard and the compounds which had blank
contamination. The results for the Appendix IX compounds mentioned above should
be considered qualitative. All positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate results, as well as
all results for unknowns at the scan numbers listed above, should not be used due
to blank contamination. Probabilities of false negatives and positives are acceptable
with the exceptions of false negatives for the two diluted samples and the
possibility of false negative and positive results for the compounds for which there
were no analytical standards.
3.4 Pesticides
No laboratory (method) blank contamination was detected for the pesticides.
Chromatographic contamination was present in both samples and blanks in the
region of the BHCs and aldrin. A unidentified Chromatographic peak was present at
a retention time of approximately 3.65 minutes in all samples and blanks run on the
OV-101 column.
-------
The retention times for the pesticide standards for endrin, endrin aldehyde,
endrin ketone, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, DDT, methoxychlor, beta-BHC, and delta-
BHC fell outside the laboratory's established retention time window.
The presence of an early eluting chromatographic peak may have obscured the
detection of BHCs and Aroclors. False negative results for these pesticides are a
possibility.
The estimated method detection limits for all pesticides analyses, with the
exceptions of samples MQB306, 310, 314, 316, and 326, are the CRDLs. Samples
MQB306 (diluted by a factor of 10), 310 (10), 314 (5), 316 (5), and 326 (2) were
diluted prior to analysis and therefore have elevated detection limits. The
pesticides results should be considered qualitative with the exceptions of results for
endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, DDT,
methoxychlor, BHCs, and the Aroclors. False negative results are possible for these
pesticides as the retention times for their standards were outside of the analytical
laboratory's established retention time window and because of the presence of an
early eluting chromatographic peak. Results for these pesticides should not be used.
3.5 Herbicides
The herbicides for which the laboratory analyzed include only 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T,
2,4,5-TP, chlorobenzilate, phorate, disulfoton, parathion, and famphur. Sample
MQB325 was not analyzed for chloroherbicides due to an insufficient volume of
sample.
2,4-DB was used as a surrogate for the chloroherbicide fraction. No
surrogates were included for the organo-phosphorous herbicides.
Numerous artifact peaks or interferences were observed in the chloroherbicide
method blank and sample chromatograms. These peaks are at concentrations near
the CRDL for most of the target analytes. Samples MQB303, 306, 314, 315, 316,
317, 318, and 326 contained peaks at concentrations above target analyte CRDLs.
False negatives are a possibility for these samples.
Due to large background interferences, the chloroherbicide matrix spike
compounds could not be quantitated in sample MQB306MS/MSD.
Unidentified peaks were also present in the organo-phosphorous herbicide
chromatogram for sample MQB306. One of these peaks was just outside the phorate
retention time window. Confirmation analysis was not performed. False negative
results have an enhanced probability for this sample.
The chloroherbicide fraction for samples MQB306 and 326 were diluted by
factors of 1000 and 100. The organo-phosphorous herbicide fraction for samples
MQB306 and 326 were each diluted by a factor of 100. False negative results have
an enhanced probability for these samples.
The estimated method detection limits were the CRDL for the organo-
phosphorous herbicides with the exceptions of the diluted samples. The organo-
phosphorous herbicide results should be considered qualitative due to the lack of a
surrogate. Although surrogates are routinely used in organic analyses, results of
the organo-phosphorous herbicides are less confident since no surrogates were used
here. The results for chloroherbicides should not be used.
-------
4.0 Dioxins and Furans
4.1 Dioxin and Furan OC Evaluation
The recoveries of the dioxin native spikes from two blank samples and a field
sample (spiked and analyzed in duplicate) ranged from 88 to 112 percent which is
within the DQO range.
Samples MQB302, 307, and 320 were analyzed in duplicate. No target analytes
were detected in samples MQB302 and 320. Sample MQB307 was spiked prior to its
duplicate analysis. No dioxins or furans were detected in the duplicate field
samples and thus method precision could not be evaluated.
Dioxin and furan determinations were performed on all samples which were
submitted to the laboratory. No dioxins or furans were detected in the field
samples.
Dioxin and furan contamination was neither detected in the laboratory
(method) blanks nor the field blanks.
4.2 Dioxin and Furan Data
Due to a method modification supplied to the laboratory by the EPA Sample
Management Office, the column performance check solution was not analyzed by the
laboratory.
The resolution (percent valley) between the internal standard (carbon-13
labeled 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and the recovery standard (carbon-13 labeled 1,2,3,4-TCDD)
was above DQO for three initial calibration analyses, two continuing calibration
analyses, three blanks, and samples MQB301, 302D (duplicate), 304, 306, 309, 310,
313, 314, 318, 322, 325, and 326.
Many of the ion current profiles exhibited poor peak shape. This may be the
result of lack of sample carbon clean-up and results in poor signal to noise rations
and raised detection limits.
The dioxin and dibenzofuran results should be considered to be semi-
quantitative. The probability of false negative results is acceptable. Dioxin and
dibenzofuran detection limits should be considered to be about three times the
normal method detection limits.
III. Data Usability Summary
5.0 Graphite Furnace Metals. Total (See Section 1.2)
Quantitative: all low concentration antimony and thallium results; low
concentration cadmium and lead results with exceptions;
all medium concentration antimony and lead results; medium
concentration arsenic results with exceptions Semi-quantitative:
low concentration arsenic and selenium results with
exceptions; all medium concentration cadmium and thallium
results; cadmium results for samples MQB303 and 318;
lead results for samples MQB302, 307, 314, 315, 316, 318,
319, 321, and 322 Qualitative: medium concentration selenium
results with exceptions; arsenic results for samples MQB309 and
319 Unusable: arsenic results for samples MQB306 and 323; the
-------
cadmium result for sample MQB325; the lead result for sample
MQB303; selenium results for samples MQB310 and 318.
5.1 Graphite Furnace Metals. Dissolved (See Section 1.2)
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
all low concentration antimony, arsenic, selenium, and
thallium results; low concentration cadmium and lead
results with exceptions; all medium concentration results
for arsenic; selenium results for sample MQB306
medium concentration cadmium results with exceptions;
cadmium results for samples MQB309, 314, 316, 317, and 320
medium concentration antimony results with exceptions; the
cadmium result for sample MQB306
all medium concentration lead and thallium results; medium
concentration selenium results with exceptions; lead results for
samples MQB305, 308, 312, 316, 319, 320, 322, 323, 324, and
325; the antimony result for sample MQB306; the selenium
result for sample MQB310.
5.2 ICP Metals. Total (See Section 1.3)
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unusable:
all barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper,
iron, magnesium, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc
results; all low concentration potassium, silver, and tin
results; all medium concentration aluminum results; medium
concentration sodium results with an exception
all low concentration aluminum results; all medium
concentration potassium, silver, and tin results
sodium results for samples MQB309, 317, and 323
low concentration sodium results with exceptions; the
sodium result for sample MQB326
5.3 ICP Metals. Dissolved (See Section 1.3)
Quantitative:
all barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, nickel, vanadium,
and zinc results; all low concentration copper, potassium,
and silver results; all medium concentration iron,
magnesium, and manganese results; iron results for samples
MQB302, 304, 307, 309, 319, 320, 322, and 324; aluminum
results for samples MQB302, 304, and 320
all low concentration calcium, magnesium, manganese, and
tin result;; low concentration iron results with exceptions; all
medium concentration calcium, copper, potassium, and silver
results; medium concentration sodium results with an exception
all medium concentration tin results; sodium results for
samples MQB305, 309, 317, and 323 Unusable: all aluminum
results; low concentration sodium results with exceptions; iron
results for samples MQB303, 311, and 321; sodium results for
sample MQB326
5.4 Mercury (See Section 1.4)
Quantitative: all total mercury results; dissolved mercury results with
exceptions
Semi-quantitative: dissolved mercury results for samples MQB306, 310, and 326
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
-------
5.5 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes (See Section 2.2)
Quantitative: all bromide, fluoride, total phenols, TOC, and POX results;
all low concentration matrix cyanide results; all medium
concentration matrix chloride results; sulfide results for
samples MQB301, 304, 305, 311, 312, 315, 318, and 323; TOX
results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: all nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results; all low
concentration chloride results; TOX results for samples
MQB303, 317, and 323
Qualitative: all POC results; the sulfide result for sample MQB306
Unusable: all medium concentration cyanide results; sulfate and
sulfide results with exceptions; TOX results for samples
MQB305, 307, 312, 313, 315, 319, 320, 322, and 324
5.6 Oreanics (See Sections 3.2 through 3.5)
Quantitative: volatile results for samples MQB309, 314, 315, 317, and
324 with the exception of positive acetone and methylene
results which should not be used Semi-quantitative: semivolatile
results with exceptions Qualitative: results for Appendix IX
semivolatile compounds for which there were no analytical
standards; pesticide results with exceptions; organo-phosphorous
herbicide results
Unusable: volatile results with exceptions; all positive acetone,
methylene chloride, and 2-butanone (all are volatiles)
results; all bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (a semivolatile)
results; all positive 2-methylcyclopentanol isomer results; all
positive semivolatile results for alkylamides found at
scan numbers 1437 and 1518; all positive semivolatile unknown
compound results at scans 320, 353, 492, 1427, 1508, 1542,
1552, 1620/1621, 1725, 1758, and 1772; pesticide results for
endrin, endrin aldehyde, endrin ketone, aldrin, heptachlor
epoxide, DDT, methoxychlor, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, and the
Aroclors; all chloro-herbicide results
5.7 Dioxins and Furans (See Section 4.2)
Semi-quantitative: all dioxin and furan results
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses: CE-EMSI
4765 Calle Quetzal
Camarillo, CA 93010
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
-------
Dioxin and Furan Analyses:
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability of
the Data Generated) for Case M-2363HQ, Site 57, Chemical Waste Management,
Vickery, OH, Prepared by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Company, Inc., for the US EPA Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force,
8/5/1987.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case M-2363HQ, Chemical
Waste Management, Vickery, OH, Prepared by Laboratory Performance
Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Las
Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/5/1987.
4. Draft Organic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case M-2363HQ, Chemical Waste
Management, Vickery, OH, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring
Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada,
for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/5/1987.
5. Draft Dioxin/Furan Usability Audit Report, for Case M-2363HQ, Chemical Waste
Management, Vickery, OH, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring
Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada,
for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/5/1987.
V. Addressees
Gareth Pearson
Quality Assurance Division
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
P.O. Box 1198
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
Richard Steimle
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
John Haggard
US Environmental Protection Agency
One Denver Place
Denver, CO 80202-2413
Joe Fredle
US Environmental Protection Agency
25089 Center Ridge Road
Westlake, OH 44145
Maxine Long
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Paul Friedman
Room 413-W
Science Policy Branch (PM-220)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Sujith Kumar
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
1051 East Flamingo Drive, Suite 257
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Ken Partymiller
PRC EMI/Houston
10716 Whisper Willow Place
The Woodlands, TX 77380
-------
APPENDIX F
ANALITICAL RESULTS
TASK FORCE SAMPLES
-------
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS FOUND
IN GROUND-WATER AND SAMPLING
BLANK SAMPLES AT CWM, VICKORY, OH
The following table lists the concentrations for compounds analyzed for
and found in samples at the site. Table A2-1 is generated by listing
all compounds detected and all tentatively identified compounds reported
on the organic Form I, Part B. All tentatively identified compounds
with a spectral purity greater than 850 are identified by name and
purity in the table. Those with a purity of less than 850 are labeled,
unknown.
A2-1
•r-jr-
-------
TABLE KEY
A value without a flag indicates a result above the contract
required detection limit (CRDL).
J Indicates an estimated value. This flag is used either when
estimating a concentration for tentatively identified compounds
where a 1:1 response is assumed or when the mass spectral data
indicated the presence of a compound that meets the identification
criteria but the result is less than the specified detection limit
but greater than zero. If the limit of detection is 10 ng and a
concentration of 3 pg is calculated, then report as 3J.
B This flag is used when the analyte is found in the blank as well as
a sample. It indicates possible/probable blank contamination and
warns the data user to take appropriate action.
GW = ground-water
SW = surface-water
low and medium are indicators of concentration.
Results for the samples reanalyzed and/or reextracted are preceeded by a
/ (slash).
All concentrations are in pg/L.
A2-2
-------
SITE: CHEI IWSTE
MOBll I/
«»NMC unf Kntini N!>*?9' ""•?!! ' JB?3!4 *???!?"* tmvvn
«Hwf ijvATinii; icit MANX CICIA MAM* citin MAW urti (^oi jur licit I-?* I»IP urn i_-n i
csNcic tyrt; cu-iny eyi-inu KU-IAM rai-inu cu-inu Ry-iny
"__ " " " " " " "' """ — i— • - — - - --> .
I'M *CETO« 1 4 «! ! | 3 JJI 4 .'1/3 »!
•riiniir | { i i | i
2-PIITAMnMC |tl||!
rATHin nicuriw i | i i t |
rw nwiMTUTCUt i | i II '
runencncM 1 1 I I I I
!;!-»!CML9»OtT''»»E 1 1 ! 1 1 J 1 1 J/2 J 1
2-NE'«inMc ( | | I J .1 i |
Htiuyitur rui_nc(pc t 1 t ( ( i
•-Hcluyi_-2-p[ui««n«r 1 1 1 1 1 t
TvlKHE I 1 | 1 | |
T«CHlv*9EfH»"E 1 1 1 t 1 t
T?!CHL?«OETMEHE 1 1 1 1 1 !
•P.", h'-P!v»*WE ! 1 i I | 1
IKM tcnniivi Airnuni ' 1 I I | I
T!C- ACETIC •C'P- ErHTl ESTER 1 t 1 1 1 1
W» ?'.'l»HE 1 ! ! ! 1 1
rynnuryjuc 1 ' ' 1 I 1
*• -~~ — — ' ! ! ! !
ryri,np[NiAHC. Kctuyi_ 1 | i i | j
NcrMAur. THirojc 1 ' 1 ' 1 1
i-nwy* t ' i i i i
u»«v«" i r i i T i
«»|- Dcn7nir Arm | i i i 1 7 _l 1
M!* !!?'2-ETT".HE»YL)P«iTH4iATE 1 5 J ! 3 J i i ' ' 1 • S i 1 i
2-rw_mnfw£Mni_ | i i i | •
n[-H-wiTyi rMTU4i ATE ; | i | n i o i |
P«NOt 1 ! i 1 3 J 1 1
!E"! !'-*!T»?Sv»lOPpH9l!»'E 1 ! i i " " i j
"
crat- !>3-rvOr'.>'EP!9l??-2-PIKETHY1 1 I I I I I
W* TIC 2-rrC">w»t>r-t-n»ic i i i i inn) 515 )n i j
2-wiuvi_ryp_ncrHTAuni. icnucrs | i | j , ,
2-c*or4n«_.i-innn-2-Hciuyi | i t mip 0,4 IA , IPIIp Baa lrt , j
M-!-P!!*ETMVL -ETHYL1 1 ! | i i i
-•--.,—*" ! ' I f 1 I
1
*«•
j
um L-ii M*
S1--LW
; j
2 .•
2 J
PW MA 1A J
miiA?
Kll 1-35
W-U*
4 J
J J
Kll L-15
C-K-LOtl
3 J
3 J
JJ/17 1
PI* Ml 19 J
W» 91A 2A
n* m /29 j
«EU »-2«
9H.9V
P"JR?2»4 J
L.«iA''M'
W-*E»
140001
2600
1499
520
150 J
4999 1
97AM
PUR VM 1000J
4290 J
5399 J
23999
339999
-------
X
*
it S! ** 5* on
|_l|| |_|
£: * S '
£ d V
i: g S
g£ - *: § I; f; * f; § If
lid? f sa*-;-;:*
i! f: S B |
-.-,-.
S:R
lii
i
s5
5J
_, ._
«*J
I:
S—. ci » *:
• s. &•
fc,
c| P! ?i *! S; Si
- 2-7
**! **\ —' ?.
iliiiS £
ii;?!
gg&_
S:
.. =j
1;
2; «i i; j
—, ^j .•.,
S I £RR
lit!?!
!. «=< c,
,!l;i;£-'^ g|fc^; | LJL.LJL^i.U.
2; 5; £': fel ? «5 11 u, »' si 11; |; ^ i ~ g £J •; | «•; 11; | g; C E |j|. fcj& £
. i «;:; w ' " ""' *" *""" ' 'c' '"'" ""'" ""' ~'" " " ~'" " ""'""' " " " ~: =l " •'
£$ III!
v> c.< 0i 3, 5t |
-------
•T
Ij
; ill
u, 54
s: Z -' %
Z\ t: r! -f
E i: tt a
Si-11?.
•
fciE
fi'j.
si
= -'g;
iiii:
I
ill
X' u. Ct
3 ; g __
Ul **» «" ^*"
- ?• ; :
-i —> -i -. -i —. -i =;
f. S S: ?: s ?: s S:;
;
I r
. t; li h; c. t! c^ ti I. fi <.' o — fc! -
*! 3* *! S1 *i
5. *• 5. *• vi
5: »' 5: »•
i *' 3.' a
Ci (.•
fc.' i!
£21
al * a' a! a! a! a' a' a< a! £ 2,
i; I I. t t ill It I 1,1,11; I; 1,1,1; I; 1; I, I, i I; I
fc: a
V. g, C. g
ui 5 ui E
e. g. e. ^
SiliS:
2. ui UI X' X/ •-'
1.1; =; g: g: g -
£ vi Z7< v* *** g' a
ii li i li 1.1; 5'
i
-------
5
«CI MJ ft
I. *
A
I'Sill
'lirif
R
£!-?.
I2i
ft;
O. _i g.
Isii
§,
2. V.
1
s!,
I
s: B; S;
l!=;s-,
lit
z
Ssl
EF.f.
Fi »»i
SS S S s|^
R
Sfi
i;E!is si |
ii
. trt
r-i
1'
.. _: s: g:
fcl 2, S! I
r-i
C
V"
$ = £S I;!: Ii K!:: ?! * Si
£ g: " « ;
s; >. 5 r i; »:
lil1^':-! =:lii:^S, «:S:
3. r »! s: §; i: i! S'1 1! |: §; S' |; S'
a' 1' g- S. SI £ 5. "i £l £! S. U! 1. S.
I 5!S!
S' 5: St!
~1 a' S' S' £i <' 51 S
9: «• 3: «i a. <-. c.i u.i
v*
st
-------
1 wOutul
i wvili
1 vvdOvii
1 vuvuttt
1 Ovuuili
1 wvrf
1 OvZJt
1
1 MOdZI
1 wuufj
i v££r
1 wuvwuul
1 OvOvvI
1
1 H
1
1
1 OOMlvfr
1
i ft
1 wuvZtZ
i vftl
1
i
1 Mai
1
1 vvH
1 vwr
ii 1 iit I
uOZi
vwviB!
W
vvvaff
vwvTtl
OvZii
ii
AvvfvZ
£i
rvt
1
OwiZ 1 6w?I
vvv»f£ 1 wvuZH
Ovuuiv 1 vvvitZ
i
«* i if
i
1
1
1
uvvu££Z 1 vvvri
I
if 1
H 1
1
1
OMOZ£ 1 dOIii
1
i
virr 1 OZif
v££ i ii
1
voa 1 it
vvvifC 1 OuCot
i
I£ j
ZI 1 tc
ti
Mff
vviiwi
vvuiii
K
wOvvvZ
Mini
Oiit
Zii
iil
vvvrvi
oi
fii i
iJN-rti A01-A5 Aul-iti ftul-rta flu
H~>f3 I ati-rm i lift ii- 1 i i3A i£-"i I un ««i f£- i
}v£«M iviWN 3a£v£«iM Cvuuk at
i ii 1
i i
1 vvii i
i vvvut i
1 vuwZZ i
1 j
i i£ 1
i i
i i
i j
i i
1 vwiic i
1 I
1 1
1 1
i i
1 i
i wci£ 1
i i
1 i
i in.it i
i oo i
1 1
i iot i
i vuvfd 1
i i
i i
i i
ii
1
1-iij rtuViti
IIJK AM ri-i ion >
HIM tviaim
uui 1
1
vvuor i
vwn> 1
vuvvii 1
•
vi 1
i
i
i
i
VWitB 1
•'•
i
i
1
i
vvvou^ i
i
i
v^rc i
iri i
i
wail i
vvuiu! j
5i i
ii . i
vi i
i
MVriu
iml rc-1 Ii3ri
Variuoii
vvvZ
oi
VVVtf
vuvfvt.
UUUVii
K
wuvwi
Ovum
VIM
£o
OOfoi
vvvZvi
Si
ci
rtOT-ni
dlW 7t-| njA
fl£«dii
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
'
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
'
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
1
uvw.it i
1
vCt i
j
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
vtii i
i
i
vivi i
i
i
i
Hr i
a i i
K i
i
i
nurriu
4NVM U IJIJ
iiCiuti
f o i
1
1
i
vvwaai i
I
vr i
i
i
i
1
i
!
1
i '
I
vwui i
i
i
i
i
1
i
1
ii i
i
i
1
noVfti
JNVM mm
fviiuii
i
i
1
i
i
i
ii i
i
j
|
1
i
i
|
i
i
VVVtM 1
i
1
vtii i
i
1
. i
vfr i
i
u i
1
i
mn-iti
«tv"« dial
IV£«UM
. _
AU1
sTuijitd "#iul
Jul
BuiiVu
AUl
HjaOailii jiiaiiii
"'"1".
JJMA3
3uiju>ij 'jiuHi
jiiixOM 'MUM
-
NflMVNTII
nil
imiTivni
WIuuS
a3nliS
MiiIii313S
Mi'iiSSviud
-n»j\H
A«ii«H
3S3nvmwi
IttlldJNUVN
~ --
Haul
AiMj
IITHUJ
iiiAi JHMi
•Nuii»ju~i 3'uiivS
>uii B~UMvS
HVJ
3I5»h iiiij Jjiii
-------
SITE: CHEH WSTE
CASE »:23S3/H
SMPl£ W! Wf!95
SAHPLE L9CAM9H: Kll WM4*
SAfPir TYPE! 6IHOII
«M ACETOK 1
JE«£«E 1
2-MiitHflNt !
PAPMUI «ISUL?!K '
CHI npnnfUTrwr i
CH-.nrnfOPf 1
j.|-n?rMi nDflCTii^Mr i
!f2-»ICHL9°OETHA>€ !
2-wvAunuc |
"E'H'LEHE CHLOPIPE ! 3 .'
4J€THyL-2-P£!'!ANOME !
TOLIC* I
TP1CHLWOETH1HE 1
TPICHLOfiOE THEME !
AM), l-'-PIQXANE 1
«OA I«9PJTYl ALCOHOL 1
TIC- ACETIC ACIP. ETHYL ESTER I
VOA «!TA«E 1
CYCL9MEYAUE 1
ryn.(»'EMTA>lE 1
rvruK'tiiTANF. Hcruy^ |
ISTHSHE- THIOJIS I
3-p£l"Wf'E 1
'."WNOHH ALIPHATIC ALCOHOL 1
WWW I
•J*.!^IH !
SE1I- IEHZQIC ACK !
WA »!S(2-ETH»LHEXri)PHTHALATE 1 3 J
2-CHLOROPHETO. I
PH!-WTTLPHT«»LATE 1
2i*-P!''ETHYlPHEHOL 1
4-"ETMYLl>HEMOL 1
PHEHOL 1
Hf 4-«THn-2-PEHTA>»31!»A '
"ELL 1-2?
T
I
2 Jl.'l! !
(
i
i
i
i
I J
PUR W! t J
'
1
M0*}]7/
mi\iM.tt
Kll 1-29
en-Lou
4 ItH !t
1 .9
3 J/44 I
4 J/» J
IPUP. ?4* / 2 J
i
1
!PUR ?42 /» J
1
!P"» ?31 190 J
I9M19
Kll L-21
W-IW
2 J
3 J
•<« ,: .'
twm 19 J
H5?!29/
WHWA
Kll 1-2?
OW-LOK
3 Ml JH
1
/I J»
3 J
I«W321
Kll 1-31
GV-LOU
3 J
2 J
TO322
KLl 1-3?
ew-iw
2 J
-------
1 1 1 I I I
313 :•« 3 i 3 i 3 'i 3 li 3 3 3 5
P ,3 p ,2 p,-, p Q p ,3 p „ p „ p P
liiliiiisfi
liiiiliii
I ill ^
| m m ,'„ :g
•^ ! 3 515 a 9
!I ^ p 5 i s § I * £ 1,3 7II ? I;s
:^ .^ \s :s
5II
i?sa
i •» i— i«
i ;i
i >*i
jei!
JBI
sen
i
i
i
2
-------
II?
S: s: g
ill
e> a.
I;
**•
Er! V
; 5; §j
£ Ul u <
R 5: S: S: £: R S:
SR
i i: I I: I; I; li.$i^;
:a:
£': ^
5! UJ
!!!!!!!=!!! I
Hill
fc
S!
-------
SITE! CHEM WASTE
CASE WJ2343/N
S*»PLE Wt
SMflE L9C«.T!9it!
SWPLE W
MEll IW-14R
W-L9H
KU W-23S
BM.9H
MEll P-19
$«-!«»
IW312
WEIL SMffi
HH.W
WH13
WE1?? CPf y.
5VH9W
1
i
JM1M|S/ t
MOHt*?6ft
VEIL 1-27!
5W-LW j
NOH17/
WK17M/K
«EU L-29
W-LOV
mm*
DELL 1-21
5V-IOV
fnujri/
WI320P*
HELL L-29
5V-IOV
HW321
HELL 1-31
W-LOW
ft*
ru,npn 2-4-5 T
HEP?"
PH9S KK. KTECTEP
HEP?
M0»«" WE ?ETECTE!>
GV-IW
TOTAL M.UNINUIH
flETALS WIHWr
WSEMIC
?»?!W
KRTLLIUH
ttJWUH
CM.CWH
tWOHKH
CW«LT
COPPER
1W*
LE*P
IM5KSIW
fUMRMTQF
REftl»Y
MCTEL
POTASS!!*
SEIEMI'JN
SILVER
S9PIIIN
THALLIUM
TIN
V4JMDIM
UK
MS •LBII'M!
Bt.M.. pSHwWY
¥!SE»IC
KWJ.!l"M
C*!*!'*
C«LCIM
CH»9»!!»H
•3
575990
19
13*9
147999
1*
19499
54499
in
55!W
112 1 292
1
24,! 1
4 1 149
1
1 0.5
IMAAM | 1319999
1
i
9 ! «
1 22*
1
TOUWWt | 174AAA
M I 9
1
1
54599 ! 953*9
1
i
945999 ! 1499999
1
1
1
*
19! 1 23!
!
1
! 14
1 4
i
•32999 ! !««9999
i
92
(19999
459
I^INWWI
29
12*99
44399
"15
5*'999
2959 1 3479
1
! '
41 1 63
I
1 '
81799 1 !399?9
1 120
i '
1 34
2320 1 7«(9
1 11
2*599 1 55199
35 1 479
1 :
1 192
3449 1 3!19
1 ;
!
15399 1 !??99
i j
i
i
1 41
235 ! 179
1
1
34 ! 39
2 !
!
«nnnn i 1!">99
'
i
3519
(j
947999
48
49
(100
384999
3290
89
4710
1910990
75
143
31
999999
3299
48
l.S
599999
101
44
(720
5
343009
497
332
2750
77700
' ""' i»
50
2
0.7
575999
850
58
1(9000
11
15
1440
(5400
174
•22
14*90
38
154999
2730
53
154999
30
19
4540
4.1
134999
44
2350
55999
17
117
35
4
144999
3(30
(1
203090
45
20
4940
3>9
17*MA
1 1 7VYV
ISO
M
2500
3*400
17
(2
24
148999
1 it
-------
n
MSC
OOOoZI
ooossc
zz
MS*
OOOOi
OOMI
AIM
,
oooati
IttVltS
tf-1 TI3«
ZtiidU
OOSZ
0009i»
OOOOZt
W
oooai
OOWS
UZZ
tl
OOOIH
K
IWVM
I£-"| i"j5fl
Ititai
SZ
OOZi
00009)
twui
a
oocoz
MMI
•
689
til
WW
ZI
IWVM
Ac-1 Tia
VoOZiiuU
/OZiiuii
U
OOOZI
OOOiU
W
tow
0006U
OOOii
OiZC
Ki
400UC
fit
CI
AOVH3
u-i na
BUiuii
(£>
000«
OOuti
M009ZI
Oi
Mil
wOK
OOOvtcZ
0000601
069>
45
MW
iii
(VJVrtJ
oz-i i un
3«/»«iIi«UH
/iiiiUN
Zc
40£I
OuOuil
an
'
1
OOOii
;
OOii
1 at
i«
&0£9i
f
M
ftul-fti
tZ-1 Viii
VoiiiiiM
/iitauit
»c
00r9
WVOii
00090J
>i
OviZ
OOOSZ
00091
Or9£
ii
Ouyit
69 i
huVda
Ji33d3 SiijAVii
iliiu*
11
00£Z
00009H
9tl
uviwl
00009
606ZI
Oi
000151
i A
fli
8
hul-iia
ajl-hii Vi3h
Ziijwl
O^i 1 6ti
i
OOcI i OOil
wvaot i OOuJii
wOOvoc 1 OOOOtc
009di i Ouc6i
0006 1 Ouri
i
60000M 1 0009£
OOOOOii 1 OOOOri
i
wOOOwt i OOOwJi
1
1
il 1
1
1
vOOvwi i wuOiuI
1
i
00061! 1 Oiit
i
1
i i SI
OOOivi 1 Viviii
i
1
it i a
'
uw-hu hul-ite
01-4 n3h oic-tui njn
OiuUN VoaOiJuii
/'oOiiiM
OZi 1 Aui
1 S'uNBHd Tviul
OOri 1 jul
OOOZ9 1 3dIjViS
OOOOZ8I 1 JivJViS
i XoJ
691 i jij
1 MOiUiiH 3iIbiIM
1 iijjudllii iivdiiri
1 StHahTU
i JliiflSAJ
wO»i 1 3ilt«i1iij 'JiOJii
1 jdiiiddj 'S^utti
1 JrilZ
1 Mildviivi^
1 rill
1 MilTiml
OOUi i MHOS
1 ailliS
1 Hfllii3135
OOZO! 1 MiiaSTiud
1 13JIJIN
61 1 3S3MJHM
OOOrii 1 MiiiSJdGvtf
OOti 1 iiudi
•
Zi 1 diijuj
1 ilvJul
rtuVrij iidAl 3"kuit5
Mi-M* lufi iNuilvjOl 3'MNVa
dUtOUH iud 3TjK»j
31SM M3HJ !31iS
«
(
-------
•I
III
•I :i •-?
m 15
iS "
a-a
i>k i*l
5 5
,3
i
i
•3
if
1 I
-------
•*•_• )'•,•)
«f VVV6
f Wft
f OvOI
f vvu(
r
-------
j :§ :§ :§ i
is '-
:i
• ft .-» •«!
••s * ,s ;§
£ != 3 IS
A
-------
C»SE m
ff.t
W.!"?
rws
KRJ
»;nvjM/
1BIH
*ET«.S
K;
KTALS
rurM ||«STE
!23i3'H
Nn*
TV*E:
2-«-5 '
Mniic ncirrjcp
"9* PETECTEP
fU-WJM
»«T!NWT
«pVM{r
BAP II IN
KS«U!M
C»P«!U1
CM-CIV"
rypnMiMft
C??*LT
C?"«
irn)i
LE0?
f4ACMTCIIIN
M»NR4MrCC
•ERTWtr
M!C*EL
POTASS !'*
SELEHIW
SIl'/Ef
Snpji.m
THHIIW
m
VWH'JH
11*
«1'»!W*!
ANTINOMf
«»SEH!C
JWIIW
?E»rU!U1
C'[.HM1M
CMC."-1"
C"»9*!U1
KLl'l-f?
1
1
i
1 Hi?
1
1 7,1
1 1?*
!
,
1 {94000
1 12
I
' 17
i 232?
1
1 227?9?
1 212?
1
1 175
' «2?
;
i
1 9*!-000
I
1
i
! M
1 !?5
i
t
1 ?5
i
i 11
I uonnn
1
Kit T-1V
-------
?!ȣ!
MSE HO
'•"IE i
CAMMC 1
?6Hclf
IMTK,
!NJ!C.
CMfN 114$ f£
nn;
LOCATinw;
!«E'
C9?*LT
r net-to
jwm
i_c»n
MAfUICCIIIN
MAMnjswrct
HtprijPlf
Mirtiri
pnitecniN
SEL£M!»H
CIMITO
SOPIUN
fNMLIWI
TIM
ittUAn{iiM
Z!*C
ponmr*
Cf.dflK
CT»H!PE
pninpinr
.NIIR4TE NIIP95EN
HnP!TE NITROGEN
W
POY
SULFME
SL'.nPE
?nr
|ni4i_ putxni_5
TO"
Hnpnj/
HOUHW )4n»ll< MIWK HDKT>«
«E'.l L-!° «U '-!» VEIL !-2lJ A'<^
RU.i_ny GV-L9V GM-L9V ™-"EP
1 ! ! 12?
! !! 1 ! 14!
1 2P i ! 57 ! !*""?
' "«? ! !• ' 39 !
! 2!???? 1 ????? 1 17'??? ! 2?9???
1 229? ' i5 ' !57 ! i?7
1 1 ! '
1 !77 ! 2?i ! 5? ! (34
1 $43? 1 352? ' 744? ! 233???
It!!
till
1 \nannnn | n^nn i SIAAA | (*IAM
' 1 ! 1
1 ! ' !
I'll
1 24 1 ! 32? 1 M
I i i
i 775??? 1 19??? ' U??? ! ??????
! ! ! ! 125
1 I ! 1
1 4?? 1 1 1
1 I ! '
j 799 | it ( 3i ! !!4
i i u i ! 22
1 25???? 1 233??? ! 1?5???? ! 1??????
! ' 179??? ! 514??? ! 34???
| J1MWI 1 | JAM | IMVWWl
l|ll PUiW
1 19? ! !5 ! <5? 1 41'??
'/
1
i
,
|
1
!
'•
i
1
i
1
1
i
i
|
1
1
I
1
t
I
,
i
|
i
1
i
i
-------
APPENDIX G
TCLP SAMPLING
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE: September 16, 1987
SUBJECT: Land Ban Rule Inspection - Chemical Waste Management Inc.,
Vickery, Ohio (C28361)
FROM: Philip E. Gehring /fa
THRU: A. R. Winklhofer;c*icf,6fc>
T0: Craig Li ska, 5HE
In response to a Priority I request from Craig Liska, SHE, a Land Ban Rule
(LBR) Inspection was performed at the subject facility on April 14, 1987.
The purpose of the inspection was to determine possible limitations to
land disposal of materials now stored at Chemical Waste Management Inc.,
Vickery, Ohio (CWM-V). These limitations would be imposed pending LBR
regulations anticipated to become effective in 1988. The LBR also
specifies a new test procedure, "Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Pro-
cedure" (TCLP). Special sample collection procedures specified in the
TCLP were employed for this inspection.
CWM-V is anticipating the land disposal of contaminated pond sludges from
previous on-site operations. These pond sludges are being stored in a
large plastic covered mound pending completion of the intended disposal
cell and Ohio EPA and I). S. EPA approvals for disposal. Closure plans
must also be similarly approved. At the time of this inspection there
was considerable storm damage to the plastic cover of the waste mound,
exposing the stored wastes. The facility was actively working toward
recovering the mound.
Earthen dikes around the mound catch run off from the plastic covering
and leachate from under the covering. These liquids flow into a pond to
the east of the covered waste mound. The facility periodically pumps
these waters to another larger pond for settling prior to deep well
injection. The entire area around the waste mound and adjacent pond is
posted as a hazardous waste area.
Mr. Craig Liska of the Region V Waste Management Division, also a member
of the Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force (HWGWTF) requested a
modified TCLP analysis of the liquids leaching from the waste mound and
those 1n the pond adjacent to the waste mound. This request was
assigned a Priority I for sampling only with a completion date of April
15, 1987. Analysis of the samples for TCLP limited parameters was
requested. Additional prarmeters were also requested including TOC.
Samples were collected as requested on April 14, 1987. The sampling and
inspection team consisted of Mr. Craig Liska, SHE, Mr. Philip E. Gehring,
5SEDO, Mr. David Petrovski, 5SPT, and Mr. Mark Lewis, Alliance Technology
Corp. (EPA-HWGWTF Contractor). Mr. James Doyle, CWM-V was the facility
observer. Sample sites were selected by Mr. Liska and Mr. Petrovski
EPA FOUM 1330-6 (REV. 3-T«)
-------
- 2 -
after a complete inspection of the waste mound area. Three sites
were selected including one from the pond and two from active
leachate sites at the base of the waste mound. The attached diagram
indicates the approximate location of the sample sites. Photographs
were taken to further document the nature of the sample sites. The
photographs were taken by Mr. Dave Petrovski. Special procedure
requirements for TCLP sampling, transportation, and preservation
were followed. The sampling methods used are referenced in "Char-
acterization of Hazardous Waste Sites, A Methods Manual, Volume II -
Available Sampling Methods." Specific TCLP sampling and analysis
requirements for volatile organic compounds are referenced 1n
Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 268 TCLP. The sampling requirements in
this document were met by collecting liquid^ samples into a "Tedlar"
bag. This was accomplished by filling a clean clear glass jar with
sample liquid and transferring the sample liquid to the "Tedlar"
bag. After filling the bag was exhausted of all air and sealed.
The sampling method was used at all three sample sites using a
dedicated glass jar for each site. TOC samples were collected into
a plastic 250 ML container.
A duplicate sample was collected at the pond site. Sample numbers
were 87EG11S01 and 87EG11D02. This first leachate site southeast of
the waste mound was sampled from an existing pond of leachate^ This
sample was designated as 87E611S03. The leachate site west of the
waste mound was sampled from a ponded area which was constructed to
catch a seepage flow about 3.5 hours prior to sample collection.
This sample was designated as 87E611S04. A blank sample was made up.
using HPLC water which was poured directly from the commercially
supplied bottle into the "Tedlar" bag.- This sample was made up
immediately outside the posted area around the waste mound, at the
southwest entrance gate used to entrance and exit the area. The
blank sample was desinated as 87EG11R05. Standard samples for the
HWGWTF were also collected at the SOI site, MQB sample number 326,
and at the S03 site, MQB sample number 306. Completed samples were
passed over the fence to EPA or Alliance personnel for transport
back to the onslte trailer. Samples for TCLP analysis were iced and
driven to the EDO. Samples were then packaged for hazardous waste
requirements and shipped to the contract laboratory, Cambridge
Analytical Associates of Boston, Massachusetts on April 20, 1987.
Data was received at CRL on June 1, 1987 and finally arrived at EDO
on August 24, 1987.
-------
- 3 -
Results of the requested TCLP analyses are presented on table I. Data
for the blank sample were all less than detectable except for methylene
chloride. Samples SOI and D02 were diluted tenfold before analysis and
samples SOS and S04 were diluted 50 times. The blank sample was not
diluted. Values reported for chlorobenzene appear to excedw limits of
the LBR as listed in Appendix II to 40 CFR Part 268. TOC data was
received at EDO on September 8, 1987. Results are presented on Table II.
Dilution factors used for TOC analysis were 5X for sample Nos. D02 and
S04, 10X for SOI, and 20X for SOS. Copies of raw TOC data sheets are
enclosed.
Questions regarding the field activities related to this inspection
should be addressed to Philip E. Gehring at FTS 942-7260.
-------
>
*
5-!
U-:
(Vs-
x
-------
00250
Cambridge Analytical Associates
1106 Commonwealth Avenue / Boston, Massachusetts 02215 / (617) 232-2207
-------
n r> ? s''
1 ' ' • t, v' •
Cambridge Analytical Associates
1106 Commonwealth Avenue / Boston, Massachusetts 02215 / (617) 232-2207
4 AS 2&71 'JE
=- IP
-roc
E 2 508
S704I6.0-01
57041(00-0^
= 2513
Puf
3^00
1010
A/ft-
NPr
no
100.3
n?
6
6
/5 o-f 2
iAk - 3000
m-
^
-------
b> U K> •>>
II
3 p £
< * -JP
-c F
,0- _
'» •» »
it,
_s?ik*
»»*A
•*. I 3
0 t> o o
O ° ° c
e ^ c w
?r
'i
-0 0
^ •
• -r
•sJ V
o -c
?
-° ^. &
§
rr
it
•S. ^ •» «< >J
&. o ' v j ^ -^. »» O
j r > ^ '>* j
CA ^* V/. U <^ o
30
C
(ft
O vO
?iS r> '^ v §
—
~ i^^ ^^^^^^c? v^ ^r^^^
^ - M | S
-5 ^ ^
— o
.... -f -:
<- •>OC!k >^>-s.<-sJ>**Q O"° vl < "^ "•* ?
'
•
XJ 1
o1
0
C
U)
u
i
3s
V) >j
L >J
r
^ < >J N
? >* C- <
c> <*» - r
O
c>
u
i '
•> \
I \ ' \ }
-------
O
3
!-•*
C° ri. -?
<^=> O .-£- «l
-zs" i __^, Z
tf-J I'1 •'• "J 't Oj U i U i 1 '
*t fi -r ^ f~ p> oj TJ- u~)
Hi 1.1 1 OJ HJ
'•t -t '1 *t .1.1 .-i .-, ,-,
O O O O O Ci Ci O Ci
0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0
l~ l~ !•- 1- I-- 1- H- l~ H
-1 oj i*i *.|- -.-t oj r*J -^r u'»
< i • •
. d-
>•• "°
^^ Vj>
rii I'M
OJ r*J 'J~ 't U'i *t' *J~
Ci O O Ci Ci O O
O O O O O O O
, . I- h- I- I- I- I- f
^ oj .-> ^r - ^r
i | ; [ | - [ '
i i . ! ,.,.. - .. i , ._
V^ »>3 -^
»— *•? __ **
* o O^ •>
/^> c\
\*> *•• :>\ -f U, 0 Mi oj u.
Oj O' i'J'< OJ »-t f.") i'ij hi |.'i
O O O O Ci O Ci Ci O
O O O O CJ O O O O
h I" I- h- I- t~- J~ t- I--
x/> 0. \^v VS/A -K
^% -?c Q» "^ ^v\ ^-^
•^ jn -0^ fp O >J ^
o -* O~*
i fe-
I*1 1'~ I'i 'f 't OJ UJ iTi) '-i '-i U i - « J M< 1.1. MI i.l.
l-i .1 o " -t* -J- !•* -T V n- 'u MJ ' ' . '! ' .'
1.4.1 >3> >7J 'i' iS.i i.\i i'".i'' i*.i « . . . -f '.f |u u-,
O O . O O Ci O CI O O Ci O O O Ci Ci • J
0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0
(-• I-- 1- I— 1- f- t »- (- H- f-- 1— H- H- r~ I—
»•» '"'J r'i 't -» oj j-«i '.^ »-« oj f-*> -»r —f oj f"> -!j-
i i •
e ^ * ^P- ^ v 5 *^
/ i m^ ^^ ^^^ -JV "^^^ "* ZJ^^
' ^- <" V^ ft '•! •< ^
O . v-P O -— o "-., <$ ^~-
t ^ , ^ J N
1 I...I '
\<, [ft ., o,- MI MI MI o> u> ii- *r oj oj
,-i »j f- i if-. » • • • O It ...
•7) . r- MI MI Mi nuj "• r-- •'.•
~ •
i' > i Ci i.J i— i i— i i— J '— i C* Ci Ci xl Ci O i..'
0 0 0 0 0 Ci 0 Ci 0 QO: 0 0 0
(-. (- >-- 1- t- t- 1- 1- 1- t^'11' *~ •"• •"•
i,-, ,., oj i-» ^t- -' oj ri --r -«o -i oj r-
1 e . i t
1 0 1 • 1 1 . .1 _W t
"^ "TS v^*i
^"jj * '£>*'£ V6 7~
^ * ~y ^- J £-
'-» Ci,. {•) • O 1.1 j i.r. U"i i^i *T f - ' O i2> * C*) *-•» U ^
1, H • • •««* b • . . l("l
-------
Student's Nome
Subject
£> V /
Instructor'* Nome o.
-------
TABLE I
Chemical Waste Management-VIckery
Volatile Organic*
April 14, 1987
Lab. Sample No.
EDO Sample No. 87EG11 -
E2508
SOI
E2509
D02
E2510
S03
E2511
S04
Requested Parameters
Methylene Chloride ug/L
Carbon Disulfide
2-Butanone
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Carbon TetrachloMde
Trlchlorothene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
To!uene
Chlorobenzene
Tri chlorof1uoromethane
1,1,2 - Trichloro - 1,2,2
Trifluoroethane
1—Hltropropane
Isobutanol
1,2 - d1chlorobenzene
Non requested Parameters
Acetone
4- Methyl-2-pentanone
Chloroform
20JB
SOU
100U
SOU
SOU
SOU
SOU
sou
sou
sou
sou
100U
100U
100U
250J
100U
20JB
SOU
100U
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
sou
100U
100U
100U
190J
100U
200JB
250U
500U
250U
250U
250U
250U
250U
250U
2000
670
500U
500U
500U
15,000
310J
2400JB
250U
500U
250U
250U
250U
250U
250U
250U
100J
630
500U
500U
SOOU
11,000
SOOU
17,000
1,200
7,000
940
80J
B- found in blank (80ug/L); U- Undetected at level specified; J- Estimated
Concentration below detection limits.
-------
TABLE II
Chemical Waste Management-Vlckery
TOC
April 14, 1987
Lab. Sample No. E2708 E2709 E2710 E2711
EDO Sample No. 87EG11 - SOI 002 S03 S04 R05
Requested Parameters
TOC ug/ml 833 820 8460 3800 2.0u
u - undetected at level specified
------- |