EPA-700/8-88-047
EPA-700/8-88-047
Ground-Water
i, Ltd.
INVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MN
(•ounces
-------
L.
-------
May 1988 EPA-700/8-88-047
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Land Reclamation, Ltd.
Racine, Wisconsin
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
n «? "Environmental Protection A««nojr
STATC OF WISCONSIN U-S- Jmvironmenua.-i
or HATUHAL HK.OUIIC.S Eegion 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Sti-eet, Room 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
MAY 1988
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER
TASK FORCE EVALUATION OF LAND RECLAMATION, LTD.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) Hazardous
Waste Ground-Water Task Force, in conjunction with the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (WDNR), conducted an evaluation at the Land
Reclamation, LTD. (LRL) hazardous waste disposal facility. Land Reclama-
tion, LTD. was one of 58 hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities investigated by the Task Force nation-wide. The Task Force
effort is in response to recent concerns as to whether owners and opera-
tors of hazardous waste disposal facilities are complying with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ground-water monitoring
regulations, and whether the ground-water monitoring systems in place at
the facilities are capable of detecting contaminant releases from waste
management units. Land Reclamation, LTD. is located near Racine,
Wisconsin. The on-site inspection was conducted from August 4 through
August 8, 1986.
This update of the Task Force evaluation summarizes salient actions con-
cerning the facility subsequent to the field inspection.
On September 23, 1986, a Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CME) was
conducted at LRL. The CME consisted of an on-site ground-water inspec-
tion, conducted September 23, 1986, and a treatment, storage, and dis-
posal (TSD) facility inspection conducted on October 1, 1986. The
findings of the ground-water inspection were in agreement with the Task
Force findings. The TSD inspection found violations regarding the in-
stallation of perimeter drainage structures, the inspection schedule,
and facility access control.
-------
On January 13, 1987, a memo from Region V, William Muno, HWEB, and Karl
Bremen, SWB to Thomas Geishecter, ERRB in U.S. EPA Headquarters recom-
mended that LRL be nominated to the National Priorities List because of
potential hazards and LRL's noncompliance with RCRA. However, in November
1987, LRL sent a letter to William Muno as a result of an October 8, 1987
meeting with LRL, U.S. EPA, and WDNR expressing a willingness to negotiate
a corrective action order under RCRA. The Order is currently bring draft-
ed. As a result of the letter, action to put LRL on the National Priority
List (NPL) has ceased at this time.
On February 23, 1987, the Wisconsin Department of Justice amended the pre-
viouse complaint (see text of report) to incorporate numerous incidents
where LRL initiated construction activities withour prior WDNR approval.
LRL submitted a RCRA closure plan on January 27, 1987, which was denied by
the WDNR. A resubmitted (August 13, 1987) closure plan is being reviewed
by the WDNR pursuant to NR 181.42(8) (.d). The WDNR on-December 16, 1987
proposed extensive modification to LRL's RCRA monitoring program in a
draft closure and Long-Term Care Plan approval letter. The WDNR approved
LRL's closure plan on March 31, 1988.
On August 4, 1986, the Wisconsin Department of Justice filed suit against
LRL in Racine County Circuit Court. The complaint alleges numerous vio-
lations of the State's hazardous waste, solid waste, and surface water
pollution regulations. Hazardous waste violations cited pertain to clo-
sure and ground-water monitoring. Specific ground-water violations in-
clude: 1) not sampling for all parameters given in NR 181.49(5)(a) (40
CFR Part 265, Appendix III, EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards),
2) not establishing background concentrations within the first year of
monitoring, 3) not conducting an annual evaluation of well locations
based on ground-water flow direction, 4) not submitting the results of
statistical evaluations, 5) failure to stabilize the south slope, as
required by NR 181.42(8)(a), and 6) inaccurate inspection logs, as re-
quired by NR 181.42(7) (d). Other action concerning LRL included the
following notices of noncompliance (NON) or notices of violation (NOV):
-------
DATE
ACTION
CITATION
8/13/86
8/26/86
9/23/86
10/15/86
10/20/86
12/3/86
2/17/87
NON
NOV
NON
NON
NOV
NON
NOV
5/11/87
NOV
Constructing Hazardous Waste (NR 181) Closure
Structure without approval
Wastewater Discharge Permit Violations
NR 180 Daily cover and vegetative stress
NR 180 Leachate seeps and vegetative stress
Access control, ground-water data evaluation
Perimeter drainage control, and inspections
Wind blown paper, leachate seeps and access
control
Failure to properly cover waste, constructing
NR 181 Physical/hydraulic barrier without
approval
Wind blown paper
LRL has constructed a sedimentation basin and run-off drainage system to
collect run-off from this site. This construction has resulted in the
rechannelling of Gunderson Canal so it flows away from the site. Damage
to this new drainage system along the south side of the site has allowed
leachate seeps to flow away from the sedimentation basin and off site.
This damage has also destroyed a number of wells in both the RCRA and
State Solid Waste ground-water monitoring networks.
-------
LRL has acknowledge, after testing, the leachate collection system in
Corridor 4 is not free flowing. An attempt to clean out leachate from
the system indicated a blockage.
Solid waste is presently being disposed of in Corridor 7. Before com-
mencing disposal in this corridor a physical/hydraulic barrier was con-
structed separating Corridor 7 from Corridor 1-6.
Since the Task Force inspection, the site has been annexed by the city of
Racine. Also, significant residential and commercial development has
taken place around the site. Additional apartments have been constructed
directly east of the hazardous waste unit and a new commercial shopping
center has been constructed south of the site.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING EVALUATION
LAND RECLAMATION, LTD.
RACINE COUNTY, WISCONSIN
MAY 1988
JOHN J. McGUIRE
PROJECT COORDINATOR, REGION V
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
CENTRAL DISTRICT OFFICE
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION 1
1. OBJECTIVES 1
2. BACKGROUND 3
a) History of Site 3
b) Adjacent Land Use 5
c) State/Federal Requirements 6
B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. COMPLIANCE WITH INTERIM STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING - WISCONSIN
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER NR 181.49 (40 CFR 265 Subpart F) 9
a) § 181.49(4) (§ 265.91) Ground-water Monitoring System 9
b) § 181.49(4)(h) (§ 265.92) Sampling and Analysis 9
c) § 181.49(5)(d) (§ 265.93) Preparation, Evaluation, and
Response 10
2. GROUND-WATER PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT 10
3. TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS 11
4. CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY 11
II. TECHNICAL REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION 13
B. OBJECTIVES 13
C. INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 14
1. TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM 15
2. LABORATORY REVIEW TEAM 16
-------
PAGE
3. SAMPLE REVIEW TEAM AND SAMPLE COLLECTION 16
a) Methods 16
b) Sample Locations 20
c) Quality Control and Quality Assurance 21
d) Custody of Sample Handling 22
e) Scheduling 25
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND OPERATIONS 26
1. INTRODUCTION 26
2. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS 28
a) RCRA Regulated Units 28
b) Pre-Interim Status Units 29
c) Waste Characterization 30
0 Introduction 30
0 Discussion 30
d) Site Operation 33
0 Waste Disposal 33
0 Leachate Handling/Gas Collection 33
0 Surface Water Control and Discharge 35
0 Discussion 36
E. SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY 36
1. INTRODUCTION 36
2. HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS 37
3. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES AND GROUND-WATER FLOWS 39
F. GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM STATUS 45
1. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 45
2. GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM 45
a | Monitoring Well History 45
b) Monitoring Well Location 50
c) Background Ground-Water Quality 53
d) Monitoring Well Construction 53
3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
a) LRL's Sample Collection Handling, Preservation
and Field Measurements 55
b) LRL's Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation 59
0 Inorganic Laboratory 60
0 Organic Laboratory 62
4. GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OUTLINE 63
-------
PAGE
G. MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE
TASK FORCE DATA
a) Metals Analytical Results
b) Inorganic And Indicator Parameter Results
c) Organic Analytical Results
64
65
66
68
REFERENCES
71
APPENDIX A ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND TABULATED
SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE OBSERVATIONS
FOR MONITORING WELLS SAMPLED DURING
THE INSPECTION
APPENDIX B EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
LAND RECLAMATION, WISCONSIN FACILITY
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF LRL's CONTRACT LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
-------
PAGE
FIGURES
1. SITE LOCATION MAP 4
2. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD 23
3. MAP SHOWING SITE OPERATIONS 27
4. POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR IN THE WATER TABLE 40
5. POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR IN THE UPPER SAND 41
6. POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR IN THE LOWER SAND 42
7. MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP 49
8. RCRA MONITORING WELL LOCATION MAP 51
9. TYPICAL MONITORING WELL 54
TABLES
1. PREFERRED ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION, BOTTLE TYPE,
AND PRESERVATIVE LIST 19
2. HAZARDOUS WASTE ACCEPTED BY LRL 31
3. LABORATORY PERMEABILITY OF THE OAK CREEK
SOIL BENEATH LRL LANDFILL 44
4. CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR LRL's MONITORING WELLS 46
5. COMPARISON OF DISSOLVED METALS DATA
FROM UPGRADIENT WELLS (6U, 108U) AND
DOWNGRADIENT WELLS 67
APPENDIX A
A-l SAMPLE PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND METHODS
A-2 LIMITS OF QUANTITATION FOR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
A-3 CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS AND INSTROMENT DETECTION
LIMITS (IDL) FOR METALS, INORGANIC AND INDICATOR PARAMETERS
A-4 SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING
WELLS
A-5 SUMMARY OF PURGE DATA COLLECTED FROM WELLS AT LRL
APPENDIX B
TABLES FOR SITE: 41B LAND RECLAMATION, WISCONSIN
APPENDIX C
C-l SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION STUDIES, INORGANICS
C-2 SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION STUDIES, INORGANICS
C-3 SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION STUDIES, INORGANICS AND ORGANIC
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
Concerns have recently been raised as to whether the commercial hazar-
dous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are in compli-
ance with the ground-water monitoring requirements promulgated under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)*. Specifically,
the concerns focus on the ability of ground-water monitoring systems
to detect contaminant releases from waste management units at these
facilities. In response to these concerns, the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) established
a Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (Task Force) to evaluate
the level of compliance at these facilities and address the cause(s)
of noncompliance. The Task Force comprises personnel from U.S. EPA
Headquarters, U.S. EPA Regional Offices, and State regulatory agency
personnel.
1. OBJECTIVES
To determine the status of facility compliance, the Task Force is con-
ducting indepth facility investigations, including on-site inspections
with the following objectives.
0 Determine compliance with interim status ground-water monitor-
ing requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 as promulgated under RCRA
and Wisconsin Administrative Code, Section NR 181.49(5).
0 Evaluate the ground-water monitoring program described in the
facilities' RCRA Part B permit applications for compliance
with 40 CFR Part 270.14 (c) and potential compliance with 40
CFR 264 Subpart F, Wisconsin Administrative Code Section NR
181.49(6).
Regulations promulgated under RCRA address hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities' operations, including ground-water monitoring, to
ensure that hazardous waste constituents are not released to the
environment.
-------
-2-
0 Determine if the ground-water at the facility contains hazardous
wastes or hazardous waste constituents.
0 Verify the quality of the company's ground-water monitoring data and
evaluate the sampling and analytical procedures.
0 Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the faci-
lity meets EPA ground-water monitoring requirements for waste
management facilities receiving waste from response actions conduct-
ed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA, Public Law 91-510). *
To address these objectives, each Task Force investigation will determine
if:
0 The facility has developed and is following an adequate ground-water
sampling and analysis plan;
0 RCRA (and/or State-required) monitoring wells are properly located
and constructed:
0 required analyses have been conducted on samples from the designated
RCRA monitoring wells; and
0 the ground-water quality assessment program outline (or plan, as
appropriate) is adequate.
* "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Action";
Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 214, Page 459-463, November 5, 1985.
-------
-3-
2. BACKGROUND
The thirtieth facility investigated by the Task Force was the Land Re-
clamation, LTD. (LRL) facility, located near Racine, Wisconsin (FIGURE
1). The LRL facility is a family-owned waste management company that
operates a solid waste landfill at this site. The on-site inspection
was conducted from August 4 through August 8, 1986, and was coordinated
by personnel from the U.S. EPA, Region V, Central District Office.
Representatives of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),
U.S. EPA Headquarters, and U.S. EPA Region V's RCRA Enforcement Section
also participated in the in the inspection. The investigation, in gene-
ral, involved review of State, Federal and facility records, the facility
inspection, laboratory evaluation, and ground-water sampling and analysis.
a) History of Site
The LRL landfill is on an 81 acre site, near Racine, in the town of Mt.
Pleasant, Racine County, Wisconsin. The site is located on a north-
south ridge, known as the inner Lake Border Moraine, approximately rang-
ing in elevation from 720 feet on the eastern side of the site, to 680
feet on the western side. Gunderson Canal, an intermittent creek, drains
to the Pike River and is located on the western side of the ridge of the
site property. State Route 31 (South Green Bay Road) is located approxi-
mately 1/4 mile east of the site.
In 1963, the city of Racine leased the southwest corner of the site for
municipal waste disposal. The Racine Department of Public Works ope-
rated the site for use by residents and the city. Commercial waste
haulers were not permitted to use the facility. Waste disposed of con-
sisted primarily of residential solid waste and incinerator ash from the
city-owned incinerator. On occasions, foundry sand was used as cover
material, and at least one local industry, indicated in its RCRA notifi-
cation, that it sent hazardous waste to this site in the 1960's.
-------
-------
-5-
LRL assumed operation of the city of Racine landfill in August 1970, and
expanded operations to the eastern portion of the site. This portion of
the site was constructed in phases called corridors. At the time of the
inspection, six corridors either were filled or in use. A seventh corri-
dor was under construction, but did not contain any waste. Waste defined
as hazardous and toxic was first noted as being disposed of at the site
in June of 1973.
b) Adjacent Land Use
LRL is located in an area consisting of a mix of residential, commercial,
and light industrial development. A multi-family rental development is
being constructed on contiguous property, east of the facility. Single
family residences are located to the north and northeast with a small
subdivision also located to the south of the property. A mix of private
and public water supply systems service these residential areas. Develop-
ment plans call for continued extension of public water supply in the
region.
A regional shopping center is located southeast of the property. Develop-
ment plans call for expansion of this commercial complex to property adja-
cent to the southern boundary of the facility. Extension of an existing
public street (21st Street) is proposed contiguous to the south property
boundary. At the time of the inspection, the facility was located in the
Village of Mt. Pleasant. Subsequent development have resulted in signifi-
cant portions of LRL operations and adjacent properties being annexed to
the city of Racine. Within 1/2 mile of the site, are located a high
school, grade school, and Senior Citizens Housing Complex.
Open land contiguous to the north of the facility is being proposed by LRL
as an expansion to the existing 81 acres site. A sand and gravel operation
and utility substation are on land contiguous to the west of the facility.
Manufacturing industries are located southwest of the facility.
-------
-6-
c) State/Federal Requirements
LRL must meet the requirements for ground-water monitoring near hazardous
waste landfills given in Wis. Adm. Code Section NR 181.49 (Groundwater
and Leachate Monitoring Standards) (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F and Part
265, Subpart F); Section NR 181.44 (Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Standards), Wis. Adm. Code (40 CFR 265 Subpart N) and Sections NR 181.44
(12) and Section NR 181.42(8) and(9) (Closure and Long Term Cure) (40 CFR
265 Subpart E). In addition, further state requirements are found in
Chapter 140 and Chapter 180 of Wis. Adm. Code.
On August 19, 1980, LRL filed a notification of hazardous waste activity
for its land disposal facility with U.S. EPA. On November 19, 1980, LRL
filed Part A of the permit application with U.S. EPA, and thus obtained
interim status. On December 10, 1982, WDNR denied LRL an interim license
under Ch. NR 181, Wis. Adm. Code, and required LRL to stop accepting
hazardous waste. The license was denied because LRL did not meet the
minimum requirements for interim license under NR 181.42 and NR 181.44
and NR 181.53 Wis. Adm. Code. (The WDNR's denial was upheld by' the
Wisconsin Circuit Court in July 1983). The denial ordered LRL to close
the corridors containing hazardous waste, (Corridors 1 through 4), by
June 1983. This had not been completed at the time of the inspection.
On December 19, 1984, WDNR issued a Conditional Plan of Operation Apprcval
for solid waste disposal under Ch. NR 180, Wis. Adm. Code. The approval,
among, other things, required LRL to submit plans for a containment struc-
ture to be constructed on the south side of the landfill to intercept
leachate and ground-water which was leaving the site. At the time of the
inspection, LRL had not submitted plans for the containment structure.
Numerous conceptional design proposals had been prepared by LRL, but did
not meet requirements needed for the WDNR approval.
-------
-7-
LRL opted not to pursue obtaining a final RCRA permit for operating a haz-
ardous waste landfill and has not submitted a Part B permit application.
LRL did not certify compliance with applicable ground-water monitoring
and financial responsibility requirements by November 8, 1985. Although
LRL submitted a closure plan on November 25, 1985, the plan did not speci-
fically address closure requirements for the hazardous waste portions of
the landfill.
As a result of inspections and record reviews, WDNR has issued a number of
notices of noncompliance (NONs) and notices of violations (NOVs). In
Wisconsin's enforcement strategy, NOVs are more serious than NONs. NOVs
and NONs issued on the given date follow, with the violations cited are
summarized below:
DATE
1973-79
4/25/80
12/23/80
2/25/81
4/7/81
5/6/81
4/21/82
8/26/82
10/7/82
10/19/82
11/4/82
ACTION
NON
NON
Proposed Order
NON
U.S. EPA NOV
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NOV
CITATION
: Uncontrolled leachate seeps, windblown paper
and inadequate daily cover
: Failure to pay Waste Management fund fees
: Requires LRL to submit an updated plan of
Operation
: Failure to pay Waste Management Fund Fees
: Failure to distribute contingency plan to
local authorities
: Windblown paper, filling in unapproved
areas, and failure to maintain leachate
head levels
: Failure to met solid waste (NR 180)
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements
: Spreading leachate on exterior access road
: Failure to meet hazardous waste (NR 181)
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements
: Violation of hazardous waste (NR 181)
Requirements
: Failure to maintain leachate levels and
cut-back south scope
-------
DATE
12/7/82
8/9/83
2/27/84
4/10/84
ACTION
NON
NON
NON
NOV
10/31/84
12/6/84
5/23/85
NOV
NON
NON
10/9/85
NON
10/11/85
NOV
10/16/85 Proposed Special
Order
-8-
CITATION
Notice to LRL to terminate leachate recir-
culation
Hazardous Waste (NR 181) Ground-Water and
Leachate Monitoring Violations
Windblown paper, leachate seeps, and fill-
ing not in accordance with plan approval
Leachate head maintenance, not filling in
accordance with plan approval, maintenance
of NR 181 Ground-Water discharge permit
violations
Failure to protect and lock wells, failure
to maintain NR 181 Ground-Water Monitoring
Network
Failure to properly abandon inoperable
wells, acceptting non-approved waste
(Racine Sewage)
Failure to submit NR 180 and NR 181 Ground-
Water Monitoring Results, failure to docu-
ment well abandonment. Failure to comply
with conditions of NR 180 Plan of Operation
Approval
NR 181 Violations; inspections, maintenance
of contingency plan, development training,
development of closure plan, failure to
perform Ground-Water Monitoring Data
Evaluation
NR 181 and NR 180 Plan of Operation Condi-
tions
Required Methane Migration Study.
-------
-9-
B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Compliance With Interim Status Ground-Water Monitoring - Wisconsin
Administrative Code Chapter NR 181.49(5) (40 CFR 265 Subpart F)
a) $181.49(4) (§265.91) Ground-Water Monitoring System
LRL's present ground-water monitoring system is inadequate to meet the re-
quirements of 40 CFR 265 Subpart F. Presently, the RCRA system consists
of six wells, two designated as upgradient and four as downgradient. The
existing well system does not meet the performance standard of immediate
detection of releases. Additional permanent wells are needed and must
include wells in all three water bearing zones located under the site.
Additional wells are needed along the west side of the hazardous waste
unit. Presently, LRL has not placed wells directly at the downgradient
limit of the western portion of the hazardous waste unit because this
area has been approved for future filling.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), pending closure plan
approval, will require LRL to define the western most limit of the hazar-
dous waste unit.
b) 5181.49(4)(h) (§265.92) Sampling and Analysis
A number of deficiencies were noted in LRL's Sampling and Analysis Plan.
Many are problems that can be easily corrected. These include analyzing
the samples within the required holding times, improving the sampling
quality control practices by including reagent blanks, equipment blanks,
and sufficient sample volume so the laboratory can perform spike analysis.
Also, LRL needs to better document the actual sampling procedures being
used.
-------
-10-
Th e current laboratory that LRL uses needs to improve its overall quality
assurance/quality control procedures. This includes more stringent accep-
tance limits for metal spike recoveries, better calibration curves for
atomic absorption spectrophotometry, and nitrate analyses. The laboratory
needs to finalize and document the method to be used to perform metals
analyses by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy. Improvements are
also needed in the organic laboratory.
c) 5181.49(5)(d) ($265.93) Preparation, Evaluation, and Response
At the time of the inspection, a March 1986, statistical analysis submit-
ted by LRL indicated that four wells LRL describes as part of the WDNR
solid waste monitoring system were in assessment monitoring under NR 181.
The summary portion of this report indicated that no statistically signi-
ficant increases were found in the RCRA system of wells. A subsequent
review by the WDNR found that LRL was in error and that there were statis-
tically significant increases in the RCRA wells. LRL, therefore, must
prepare an assessment monitoring plan as required by NR 181.49(5)(h)
(40 CFR 265) and resample the RCRA wells.
2. GROUND-WATER PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT
LRL did not file a Part B permit application. Therefore, LRL must close
the hazardous waste unit. At the time of the inspection, LRL had not
submitted an acceptable closure plan. In addition, LRL must comply with
the ground-water requirements found in 40 CFR Part 265.
-------
-11-
3. TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
Seven wells indicated chromium and lead levels above the limits given in
Table X, NR 181.49 (5) Wis. Adm. Code. (40 CFR Part 265, Appendix III).
The Table X limits are 50 ug/1 chromium and 50 ug/1 lead. These included
wells in both the State solid waste system and the RCRA system. Wells
affected were 6U (Chromium - 98 ug/1), 14U (Chromium 195 ug/1, Lead - 108
ug/1), 14L (Chromium 102 ug/1, Lead - 66 ug/1), 40U (Chromium - 56 ug/1,
54 ug/1), 40L (Chromium - 107 ug/1, 116 ug/1), 29L (Lead - 51 ug/1), and
39U (Lead - 165 ug/1).
Two wells had high or low pH measurements. Well lOU's pH was 6.17 and
Well 39U's pH was 10.45.
Organic analyses of the ground-water monitoring wells indicated that a re-
lease of hazardous constituents is probably occurring at LRL. Background
wells did not detect any organic compounds. Results from 39U found a
number of organic compounds ranging from 4.8 ug/1 2-Methyl Phenol to 70
ug/1 Xylene. These organics include: volatile compounds, acetone, ben-
zene, trans-1,2dichloroethene, ethyl benzene, tetrachlorethene, toluene,
trichloroethene and xylene; the semi-volatile compounds, 2,4-dimethyl
phenol, 2-methyl phenol, 4-methyl phenol; and the pesticides, 4-4'-DDD
and dieldrin.
The leachate sample contained high concentration of metals, organics, and
indicator parameters.
4. CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY
The LRL site does not have interim status, has not applied for a permit,
and is in the process of closing. Therefore, this site can not accept
waste generated at superfund clean-up sites.
-------
-13-
II. TECHNICAL REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION
Operation at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD)
facilities are regulated by the Resource Conversation and Recovery
Act (RCRA P.L. 95-589). 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 constituents are not being released to the
envi ronment.
The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) 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 address the cause of noncompliance. In
addition, the Task Force was to examine the suitability of the faci-
lity as a provider of treatment, storage, or disposal services for
waste managed by the Agency's Superfund program. The Task Force is
comprised of personnel from EPA Headquarters, Regional offices, and
the States. Currently, 58 TSD facilities are scheduled for ground-
water evaluations. One of these was Land Reclamation, LTD. (LRL),
near Racine, Wisconsin.
B. OBJECTIVES
The Task Force inspection of LRL was conducted from August 4 to August
8, 1986, with the objectives of the evaluation listed below:
0 Determine compliance with requirements of Wisconsin Administrative
Code Section NR 181.49(5) (40 CFR 265 Subpart F) - ground-water
monitoring and the monitoring system's capability of providing the
required monitoring data.
-------
-14-
0 Evaluate the facility's ground-water monitoring program as described
in the RCRA Part B permit application for compliance with Wis. Adm.
Code Chapter NR 181.51 and NR 181.55 (40 CFR Part 270.14)(c).
0 Evaluate the facility's potential compliance with Wis. Adm. Code
Section NR 181.49(6) (40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F).
0 Verify the quality of the company's ground-water monitoring data and
evaluate sampling and analytical procedures.
0 Determine if any ground-water contamination currently exists from
site operations.
0 Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the TSD
facilities meet U.S. EPA ground-water monitoring requirements for
waste management facilities receiving waste from actions conducted
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
C. INVESTIGATIVE METHODS
The Task Force investigation at LRL consisted of:
0 Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from U.S. EPA,
Region V, WDNR, and LRL.
0 Conducting an on-site inspection from August 4 through August 8,
1986.
0 Evaluating off-site laboratories contracted by LRL for analysis of
past and present ground-water samples.
-------
-15-
0 The sampling and analyzing of ground-water from monitoring wells,
a surface water discharge point, and a leachate sump.
To accomplish the objectives, a facility Evaluation Team was assembled,
and comprised of a Technical (record) Review Team, a Laboratory Evalua-
tion Team (to evaluate on-site laboratories and off-site contract labo-
ratories), and a Sample Collection Team. Each Team had individual
responsibilities to 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 re-
quirements. The evaluation was divided into six areas as follows:
0 site history and design
0 site geology and hydrogeology
0 ground-water monitoring system
0 ground-water sampling and analysis
0 ground-water data quality and interpretation
0 waste characterization and operations
Records and documents from U.S. EPA, Region V, and the WDNR offices, were
compiled by the Planning Research Corporation (PRC) of Chicago, Illinois,
under contract with the U.S. EPA. These documents were reviewed prior to
and during the on-site inspection. On-site facility records were reviewed
to verify and augment information currently in government files. These
records were reviewed to obtain information on facility operations, con-
struction details of waste management units, and the ground-water monitor-
ing program. The facility was requested to supply the U.S. EPA with a
-------
-16-
copy of selected documents for an in-depth evaluation. Specific documents
and records that were reviewed included the facility ground-water sampling
and analysis plan; outline of the facility ground-water quality assessment
program; analytical results from past ground-water sampling; monitoring
well constuction data and boring logs; site geologic report; site opera-
tions plan; facility permits; waste management unit design and operation
reports; and operating records specifing the general types of waste, the
quantities of waste, and location where the waste was disposed of at the
facility.
2. LABORATORY EVALUATION TEAM
The off-site laboratory that analyzed LRL's sample was evaluated regard-
ing its responsibilities under the LRL ground-water sampling and analysis
plan. Analytical equipment and methods, and quality assurance procedures
and records were examined for adequacy. Laboratory records were inspected
for completeness, accuracy, and compliance with State and Federal require-
ments. The ability of the laboratory to produce quality data for the re-
quired analyses was also evaluated. Later in this report, a detailed
discussion of this evaluation is presented under "Sample Analysis and
Data Quality Evaluation".
3. SAMPLE REVIEW TEAM AND SAMPLE COLLECTION
a) Methods
Samples for the Task Force evaluation were collected by Versar, Inc. (here-
after referred to as Versar), a U.S. EPA contractor, under the supervision
of U.S. EPA personnel. Teflon®* (perfluoroethylene) bailers, provided by
* Teflon® is a registered trademark and will appear hereafter without the
-------
-17-
Versar were used to sample for volatile organic analyses (VOA), purgeable
organic carbon (POC), purgeable organic halogens (POX), extractable or-
ganics, metals, phenols, cyanide, sulfate/chloride, nitrate and ammonia.
Clean sample bottles and preservatives were provided to Versar by a
U.S. EPA contract laboratory for both the Task Force and facility split
samples. Versar also supplied all the equipment and materials necessary
to manage, handle, field filter, document, and ship the Task Force sam-
ple.
Prior to obtaining water levels, purging, or sampling, Versar monitored
the open well head for organic chemical vapors using a photoionization
detector to ensure the well head was safe. After safety screening, static
water levels were measured in 58 wells for use in the hydrogeological
evaluation of the site. All water level indicator units were calibrated
to ensure comparable measurements.
Monitoring well sampling activities were proceeded by purging of the sta-
tic water column, using the Teflon bailers. Where possible, a volume of
water equal to three times the water volume present in the well was eva-
cuated before sampling. When these volumes could not be obtained, the
wells were purged to dryness. Slow recharging wells were sampled when
there was a sufficient volume of water to fill at least one parameter
bottle set, including split samples for LRL. On some occasions, this
required purging on one day and sampling on the next day. To obtain a
sufficient volume of water for all parameters, it was necessary to return
to some wells on a number of occasions.
Methods of sample collection depended on the nature of the sample site.
All well sites were sampled using a dedicated Teflon bailer supplied by
Versar. In most cases, well recharge rates were sufficient to allow
sampling immediately after purging. At some wells, it was necessary to
-------
-18-
wait 2 hours to 24 hours for the well to recharge sufficiently to obtain
the desired sample volume. The bailer and cable used at such wells were
left on site, sealed and kept under custody. Some wells required two or
three visits to obtain the required sample volume. Purging and sampling
data are summarized in Table A-4 and A-5 in Appendix A.
All sample bottles were filled directly from the bailer using a bottom-
emptying device. Volatile organic analyses (VOA) vials were filled as
replicate samples while other sample bottles were filled proportionally
between U.S. EPA and facilty containers. Sample bottle types, preferred
order of filling, sizes and preservatives are listed in Table 1.
The surface sample was collected at the location where LRL is required to
sample their surface discharge, under their Wisconsin Pollution Discharge
Eliminination System (WPDES) permit. Versar personnel collected this
sample by wading into the stream and directly filling the sample container
by immersing them in the water. A split was collected for LRL for VOA,
POC, POX, and extractable organ.ics.
A sample was taken, using a Teflon bailer, from one of the LRL leachate
sumps. The Versar sampling team, wearing level B safety protection (i.e.,
SCBA and protective clothing), filled the sample containers, in the order
given in Table 1. For safety reasons, these samples were not chemically
preserved, but were kept iced during sample handling and shipment. A split
was given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and extractable organics.
-------
-19-
IAlii 1
PREFERRED ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE-TYPE, AND
Sampling
Order Parameter
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Field Measurements *
Volatile organics
Purgeable Organic
Carbon (POC)
Purgeable Organics
Halogens (POX)
Extractable organics
Total metals
Dissolved metals **
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
Total Organic Halogens
(TOX)
Phenols
Cyanide
Sulfate and chloride
Nitrate and ammonia
PRESERVATIVE LIST
Bottle-Type
1 -200 nt Plastic
4 -
1 -
1 -
4 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
1 -
40 mL VOA vials
40 mL VOA vial
40 mL VOA vial
1L amber glass
1L plastic
1L plastic
50 mL glass
1L amber glass
1L amber glass
1L plastic
1L plastic
1L plastic
Preservatives
None
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
HNOs to PH<2
Cool 4°C
HN03 to PH<2
H2S04 to PH<2
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
H2S04 to PH<2
Cool 4°C
NaOH to PH>10
Cool 4°C
Cool 4°C
H?S04 to PH<2
Cool 4°C
* Field measurements included pH, specific conductance, temperature and
turbidity.
** Samples were filtered before preservation with
-------
-20-
(b) Sample Location
Samples were taken from the 17 monitoring wells listed below, as well
as WPDES sample point 001 and a leachate sump. Wells being used by LRL
to report on RCRA compliance are noted with a R.
MONITORING WELLS SAMPLED
6U(R) 22U 40U
6L 221 40L
9U 29U 108L(R)
10U(R) 29L 109U
14U 30L(R) 110U
14L 39U
-------
-21-
c) Quality Assurance and Control
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) for EPA contractor sample
collection, handling and analysis was conducted in accordance with the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force - Protocol for Ground-Water Eval-
uation (EPA, 1986a) prepared by the Task Force. The Sampling Team review-
ed Versar's procedures during the sample effort to ensure consistency with
the QA/QC and evidence handling requirements.
Versar also prepared and submitted to the contract laboratories, three
types of blanks during the inspection period. Field blanks, for all
parameters, were prepared on August 5, (near Well 29L), August 7 (near
Well 40U), and August 8, 1986 (near Well 40U), by pouring high perfor-
mance liquid chromatography (HPLC) water into the appropriate sample
containers after the wells were sampled. One set of sample containers
was filled with HPLC water at Versar's laboratory, brought to the site
and submitted for analyses for each parameter as a trip blank. The trip
blank was shipped to the laboratory, with samples collected on August 7,
1986. On August 5, a Teflon bailer was rinsed with HPLC water and the
water collected in the appropriate containers for submittal to the labo-
ratory as an equipment blank. This rinsing procedure was conducted near
Versar's supply truck, which was parked near the landfill office building.
Field measurments performed on site included temperature, pH, specific
conductance, and turbidity. All thermometers were calibrated against a
thermometer traceable to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) stan-
dardized instruments. Daily calibrations were performed on each of the
pH and conductance meters to be used on that day. Calibration checks
were performed prior to each measurement of pH and conductivity. The
turbidity samples from each well were saved and all the days' samples
were analyzed as a batch. The turbidity meter was standardized daily,
immediately prior to performing these tests.
-------
-22-
An added quality control measure was the inclusion of duplicate sets. At
Wells 40U and 40L, two complete sets (10% of all wells sampled) of samples
were collected. These duplicate samples were a quality control measure of
the sampling method. This is different than the equipment blank which is
used to assure that sampling was cleaned properly.
All sample-contacting equipment which was to be used on site was thorough-
ly cleaned, wrapped and sealed in plastic for transport at Versar's labo-
ratory. Sampling equipment (bailers) to be used at the same site, was
stored in the truck, in plastic bags, and under custody seal. No sampling
equipment was used at more than one site. Used or contaminated bailer
cable (Teflon coated stainless) or water level indicator tapes were
cleaned by wiping with a hexane soaked tissue, followed by wiping with a
tissue soaked with distilled water.
d) Custody and Sample Handling
All samples collected for the U.S. EPA were shipped to the contractor labo-
ratories: Compu-Chem (organics) in Research Triangle Park, NC, and Centec
(inorganics) in Salem, VA, in accordance with applicable Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177). Suspected con-
taminated samples were flagged as "medium-level hazardous" for laboratory
personnel. All ground-water and surface water samples were considered
"environmental" samples. Each sample shipment was accompanied by a Chain-
of-Custody Record completed by Versar personnel. This form (Figure 2)
identified the contents of the shipment in terms of sample type, date,
and time, etc. The original custody form accompanied the shipment. Sam-
ples taken from the LRL site by U.S. EPA personnel were documented with a
Receipt for Samples forms completed by Versar Personnel. The originals
were retained by the EPA Field Team Leader.
-------
FIGURE S
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
PROJECT NO.
PROJECT NAME
/
SAMPLERS: tSiyntturel
FIELD
SAMPLE
NUMBER
DATE
TIME
'!< liiM|iilihed by: ISignmn*!
ir.iniEdl
IMttu|ullhcd by. ISigmwul
ll'iliiicdl
a.'
O
u
Onto
n
DC
(9
(Primed)
STATION LOCATION
/ Time
On.
/Tlmt
Received by: ISiynawnl
(Primed)
Received lor Laboratory by:
ISignilurel
IPrlnledl
/'
4
/
f
/ PARAMETERS
f///
'//
',.
INOUSTniAI. Y
HYGIENE SAMPI F N
/ REMARKS
Relinqulslinrt by: iSninitwri'l Dale / Time Received by: iSiyn.iiurtl
1
(Prlnled) (Printed)
Dad
/ Time n emeriti
I
N)
liisiiiliniiou: OHglnd Plui One Accomnaiilvt Sl
-------
-24-
Chain-of-Custody was lost on four sample sets shipped to the contract labo-
ratories on August 7, 1986. Samples affected were from Well 221, 109U, a
field blank, and one of two samples collected from Well 40L. During pack-
ing of those samples, the Chain-of-Custody forms were sealed into the wrong
shipping containers. Other samples shipped on the same date for Wells 40U,
110U , and duplicate sample from Well 40L and the trip blank were packed
properly and not affected. After a discussion among the team members, the
following was done to correct the problem.
1. The lab was instructed to discard the sample that lost custody from
Well 109U. Since the duplicate sample for Well 109U retained cus-
tody, the data is valid and summarized in Appendix B.
2. The lab was instructed to discard the sample for Well 40L. On
August 8, this well was repurged and resampled. A duplicate
sample was also collected to meet the Task Force QA/QC limits
which require that 10% of all samples be taken in duplicate.
3. The lab was instructed to discard the field blank collected on
August 7, near Well 109U. A replacement field blank was then
collected on August 8, near Well 40L.
4. Well 22L was not resampled and the data reported in Appendix B, is
for comparison purposes only.
-------
-25-
e) Scheduling
Many logistical problems, such as weather, equipment, and well performance
affected the time required to obtain the samples, and influenced the se-
quence of sampling. The Sampling Team Leader, in conjunction with the
Field Team Leader, prioritized the sampling points and developed daily
schedules to minimize delays. Some wells, due to slow recharge, required
more than one visit to obtain a complete set of samples.
Static water levels were taken from 58 monitoring wells and piezometers
on August 4 and 5, 1986, for use in the geological evaluation. Purging
and sampling activities were begun on August 4 and completed on August 8,
1986.
-------
-26-
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND OPERATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
Land Reclamation, LTD. (LRL) is located in the south 1/2, of the Northeast
1/4, Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 22 East, Town of Mount Pleasant,
Racine County, Wisconsin. A portion, in the southwest corner, was leased
to the city of Racine and utilized as a landfill for residential, incine-
rator ash and foundry sand wastes in 1963. In August 1970, LRL assumed
operation of this landfill and expanded disposal operation to the east
side of the site. LRL also owns 140 acres directly to the north of the 80
acre parcel evaluated by the Task Force. The facility has applied to the
WDNR for expansion of the solid waste operation into this area.
Records indicate that solid and hazardous waste has been disposed of in
Corridors 1-6 on the east side of the site, see Figure 3. This area has
been defined by LRL as the Hazardous Waste Unit. Municipal and Foundry
waste was placed in the old city of Racine landfill on the west side of
the site. In the area between these two landfills solid waste was placed
but the exact area is not well defined.
In 1980, LRL began the process to operate under the requirements of the
RCRA program. On August 19, 1980, the facility submitted a notification
of hazardous waste activity for its landfill operation with the U.S. EPA.
Then, on November 19, 1980, LRL filed a Part A application and thus ob-
tained interim status. The Wisconsin DNR, on December 10, 1982, denied
an interim status license to LRL because sufficient information had not
been provided.
-------
27
FIGURE 3
MAP SHOWING SHI 0 P. I U £ 11 9. H 1
• i i
• i-
tut •
PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA
r
NORIHERN LIMIT OF OPERATION
S'lULK
PILE
OP CUVEH ;
SU1L . ^
SWAMPY
AKEA
UNDEFINED FILL
OLD
CITY
OP RACINE
LANDFILL
KEY
Proposal limit oT waste
v Property Hue
x Northern limit of operations (During Inspection)
* Shows where base of Corridor 4 Is located, To complete Corridor 4 to ft grade
oT 79U feet, fill was placed over Corridors 1, 2, and 3.
Note: Map not to scale.
-------
-28-
Th e denial, issued by the WDNR in December 1982, required LRL to close
Corridors 1 through 4 by June 1983. LRL had not filed a Part B applica-
tion nor a certification of compliance with ground-water monitoring and
financial responsibility requirements by November 8, 1985. Therefore,
LRL can no longer accept hazardous waste. The closure plan for the
facility submitted by LRL on November 23, 1985, did not specifically
address the closure of the hazardous waste portion of the landfill.
2. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
a) RCRA Units
Construction of the first phase of the southeast portion of the site began
in 1970, with the excavation of Corridor 1. This corridor is'approximate-
ly 200 feet wide and 800 feet to 1000 feet long. An accurate bottom eleva-
tion was not determined during construction, and its depth can be estimated
to be 25 feet below grade based on boring information taken during the in-
stallation of the leachate head wells.
Construction of Corridor 2 began in early 1971. This trench is approxi-
mately 200 feet wide and 800 feet to 1000 feet long. As in Corridor 1,
bottom elevation was not determined. The corridor is estimated to be 30
feet to 35 feet deep.
The size of Corridor 3 is not well documented. This corridor was con-
structed in 1975, between Corridors 1 and 2 by excavating until the side
walls of Corridors 1 and 2 collapsed.
Corridors 1, 2, and 3 were constructed before the enactment of regulations
requiring recompacted clay liners and leachate collection systems. These
corridors were therefore excavated into native clays and are unlined. And
as noted above, these units have not been closed.
-------
-29-
Construction of Corridor 4 was begun in 1978. This corridor is approxi-
mately 200 feet wide and 800 feet to 1000 feet long. Corridor 4 was
excavated to a greater depth than Corridors 1 - 3, but due to lack of
documentation, the ultimate depth is unknown. A partial leachate collec-
tion system was installed below grade in Corridor 4 only. During con-
struction, this corridor was completed to a surface elevation of 790 feet
above mean sea level or approximately 80 feet above the surrounding area.
To achieve this elevation, which is 40 feet higher than the first three
corridors, Corridor 4 extended laterally across the surface of the first
three corridors. As in the other three trenchs, Corridor 4 was construct-
ed in natural clay and is unlined.
Corridor 5 was the first truly "engineered" trench on the site. This con-
struction was completed in 1980, and documentation of its design was sub-
mitted to the WDNR in February 1981. This corridor was constructed over
a five foot thick recompacted clay base with a leachate collection system.
The corridor is approximately 200 feet wide, 800 feet long and 35 to 40
feet deep.
Corridor 6 was also a designed system engineered and constructed over a
five foot thick recompacted clay liner, and covers an area of approximate-
ly 4.6 acres. Construction on this trench began in 1985, and was still
active at the time of the inspection. During the construction of this
corridor, a leachate collection systems were installed. This Corridor is
connected hydraulically to Corridor 1-5 and is an extension of the hazar-
dous waste unit.
b) Pre-Interim Status Solid Waste Management
In 1963, the city of Racine began operating a landfill in the southwest
corner of the site. The city disposed primarily of municipal and foundry
wastes. This landfill is approximately 600 feet to 700 feet wide and 800
-------
-30-
feet to 900 feet long. The municipal and foundry wastes were generally
deposited on the existing ground surface with little excavation. The
base grades of the unit were not documented although the elevation of the
nearby wetland ranges from 660 feet to 670 feet above mean sea level.
The unit was completed in 1970, to an elevation of 740 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) or approximately 60 feet above the surrounding area. The
unit does not contain a leachate collection system and was constructed
over natural soils.
Solid waste was also disposed of in the area between the old city of Racine
Landfill and Corridors 1-4. No documentation giving the units size, or
base grade exists, nor was a leachate collection system installed. A num-
ber of borings have shown that the majority of waste buried in this area
was from the foundry industry.
c) Waste Characterization
0 Introduction
Hazardous waste was disposed of at the LRL site from the early 1970s until
December 1982. During the period that LRL operated under RCRA Interim
Status, November 1980 to December 1982, hazardous waste was placed in the
landfill. Table 2 shows the types of waste disposed of during Interim
Status.
0 Discussion
- At the time LRL operated under RCRA Interim Status limited waste
characterization was performed on incoming wastes (LRL's Waste
Analysis Plan required that 10% of liquid wastes received at the
facility undergo finger print analysis).
Analytical records of these incoming waste characterizations could
not be produced by LRL.
-------
-31-
I AikI "L
HAZARDOUS WASTE ACCEPTED BY LRL *
EPA I.D. NUMBER DESCRIPTION
D001 Characteristic of ignitability.
D003 Characteristic of reactivity.
0007 Characteristic of EP Toxicity, Chromium.
D008 Characteristic of EP Toxicity, Lead.
FOOT Spent halogenated solvents and sludges from
degreasing operations and still bottoms.
F002 Spent halogenated solvents and still bottoms.
F005 Spent non-halogenated solvents and still bottoms.
F006 Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating
operations.
F007 Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from elec-
plating operations.
F008 Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating
baths from electoplating operations where cya-
nides are used.
F009 Spent stripping and cleaning solutions from elec-
troplating operations where cyanides are used in
the process.
K001 Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of waste-
water from wood preserving processes using creo-
sote and/or pentachlorophenol.
* Table compiled from manifest, scale house records, and waste characteri-
zation records supplied by LRL.
-------
-32-
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
EPA I.D. NUMBER DESCRIPTION
P030 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues. P030 listing is for cyanide (soluble
cyanide salts), not elsewhere listed.
U080 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues containing dichloromethane, (methylene
chloride).
U151 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues containing mercury.
U188 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues containing phenol.
U210 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues containing tetrachloroethylene.
U227 Discarded commercial chemical products, off-speci-
fication species, container residues and spill re-
sidues containing 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
-------
-33-
- LRL record keeping during interim status was not adequate to provide
information on quantities and location of the hazardous waste accept-
ed at the facility. Task Force comparisons of manifest, scale house
records and waste characterization records showed some discrepancies
in both quantities and discrepancies on waste accepted at the faci-
lity.
- LRL claims of total waste accepted can not be substantiated by their
records.
d) Site Operation
0 Waste Disposal
Hazardous waste was disposed of in Corridors 3, 4, and 5. These corridors
overlay Corridors 1 and 2, and are connected hydraulical ly to Corridor 6.
Hazardous waste may have been disposed of in Corridors 1 and 2 also.
Therefore, all 6 corridors are considered to be one RCRA hazardous waste
unit.
Hazardous waste was disposed along with municipal solid waste. Some haz-
ardous wastes were disposed of by digging a trench in the refuse and plac-
ing the hazardous waste in the trench. The trench was periodically covered
with refuse or clay. Other hazardous wastes were mixed with municipal
solid waste in the active area and then covered with nonhazardous solid
waste or clay. Neither the trench disposed waste nor the co-disposed waste
were always covered on a daily basis as required by the WDNR.
0 Leachate Handling/Gas Collection
Recent corridors (5 and 6) of the LRL landfill are designed for operation
as a zone-of-saturation landfill. Corridors 1 - 4 were not originally
designed to meet the zone-of-saturation conditions. LRL is required to
monitor and pump leachate that collects in the landfill, to produce an in-
ward flow gradient for the ground-water.
-------
-34-
Leachate collection and removal systems were installed at the base of Cor-
ridors 5 and 6 before waste was placed in those corridors. Corridor 4
also contains a partial leachate collection and removal system which was
added after filling had begun. The location, with respect to the base of
Corridor 4, is not well documented. A leachate dewatering trench has been
installed on the west side of Corridors 1 - 4, and the west, north, and
east perimeters of the city of Racine solid waste unit. Certification
documents as to the construction of these trenches had not been submitted
by LRL at the time of the inspection. In addition to the leachate collec-
tion and removal systems, LRL has installed a number of wells to monitor
leachate levels. Several of these leachate monitoring wells located in
Corridors 1, 2, and 3 also contain pumping equipment for the removal of
leachate. The leachate removed from both collection systems and the
leachate monitoring wells is pumped to the city of Racine wastewater
treatment plant. Current information indicates leachate heads as high as
750 feet above mean sea level, about 50 feet above adjacent undisturbed
grade. This indicates a likely outward gradient at the time of the
inspection. LRL has not provided the WDNR with records on leachate
pumping. At time of the inspection, LRL was installing a gas extraction
system without approval from the WDNR or U.S. EPA. This system is de-
signed to extract and collect gases generated from the landfill. This gas
will be sold to a local industry for energy.
The LRL site has been licensed by the WDNR for the disposal of municipal
solid waste and to be operated as a zone of saturation site, requiring an
inward gradient induced by leachate collection. The contours on Figures
3, 4 and 5 in the Site Geology and Hydrogeology Section show little evi-
dence of any inward gradient. It is important for LRL to maintain an
inward gradient since wells along the south edge of the site show that
the disposed landfill waste intersects both the water table and the upper
sand seam. Gas bubbling up in puddles after a rain event, was noted by
the sampling crew during the inspection along the south side of the site.
In addition, gas bubbles were noted in Well SOT when water level measure-
ments were taken on August 4, 1986, by the Task Force.
-------
-35-
To assure that the facility is operated as a zone of saturation site, LRL
needs to pump leachate to reduce head levels and, at least annually, an
evaluation of ground-water flow must be conducted. The facility, in the
past, has failed to submit to the WDNR the required annual ground-water
evaluation.
0 Surface Water Control and Discharge
Surface water is discharged from two locations at LRL, a pond discharge,
and the drainage way discharge. These discharges are regulated under a
Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Permit Number
WI-0045420-1. LRL is required to monitor these points once per week for
total suspended solids (TSS), five day biochemical oxygen demand (6005),
pH, and chemical oxygen demand (COD). Once per quarter LRL must also
monitor these discharges for arsenic, copper, cadmium, lead, nickel,
zinc, specific conductivity, chloride, temperature, ammonia-nitrogen,
nitrate-nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl-nitrogen (TKN). LRL has exceeded
the limits of their WPDES permit a number of times.
Leachate seeps occurring along the site perimeter (particularly the south
slope) have historically been released off-site with no collection or
treatment. At the time of the inspection, LRL was initiating construction
of a sedimentation basin in the southwest corner of the site to contain
site run-off.
-------
-36-
0 Discussion
During the inspection, the Task Force noted a number of problems associated
with the site operation. These concerns are listed below:
0 Ground-water contours (see next section) and data submitted by LRL
indicates that LRL is not operating this facility as an inward
gradient, zone-of-saturation site as required by the WDNR. Leachate
heads have not been maintained at a level to induce ground-water
into the landfill. Information indicates that leachate head levels
are over 50 feet above the water table adjacent to the facility
which would produce an outward gradient.
0 The closure plan submitted does not address the erosion problems on
the south and east slopes, the construction of a cut-off wall
through Unit 2, the upper sand seam, the problem with methane seeps
along the south slope, future surface maintenance, ground-water
monitoring, the physical hydraulic barrier, and the RCRA cap.
0 LRL began removing material adjacent to the south slope without
authorization from the WDNR.
E. SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
1. INTRODUCTION
The LRL landfill is located in a glaciated area of gently undulating topo-
graphy formed by low, irregular end moraines with slight modification due
to post-glacial erosion. The regional land surface gradient, which is
controlled by an uneven bedrock surface, slopes to the east at 10 feet
per mile. The land surface elevations range from 680 feet above MSL at
the Pike River (1/2 mile west of the site) to 480 feet above MSL at Lake
Michigan. Modifications to the local topography, near the site, have
occurred due to sand and gravel operations and the landfill operations
which have created a local topographic high.
-------
-37-
Regional surface water drainage is toward Lake Michigan. Locally, surface
water is drained from the site to a wetland adjacent to the west side of
the landfill. This wetland drains to the Pike River, which drains into
Lake Michigan.
2. HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS
The upper most formation of the active portion of the site (eastern side)
is the Oak Creek Formation of Quaternary age. It was deposited on the
west facing slope of the Inner Lake Border moraine, and consists of flu-
vial and lacustrine sediments deposited proglacially during retreats of
the ice margin. The far western portion of the site is underlain by a
proglacial outwash or lacustrine plain.
The Oak Creek Formation is 110 to 150 feet thick and dips slightly to the
west. LRL's geologists have identified seven units in the Oak Creek
Formation, and LRL has installed monitoring wells in three of these
units. The sands of the Oak Creek Formation form local, low-yielding
aquifers. The units and well series are identified as follows in order
of increasing depth:
1) The surface unit, designated Unit 1, is a clay till that slowly
pinches out as it dips to the west. The unit varies in thickness
from 4 feet to 42 feet. LRL has installed wells in this unit and
they are identified as water table (T series) wells.
2) Unit 2 consists of fluvial and lacustrine sands and silts, and
ranges in thickness from 6 feet to 27 feet. LRL has installed
monitoring wells in this unit and has identified them as the U
(upper most aquifer) wells.
-------
-38-
3) Unit 3 is composed of till and lacustrine clay.
4) Unit 4 is similar to Unit 2 above and consists of sand and silt.
LRL has installed monitoring wells in this unit which are identi-
fied as the L series (lower aquifer) wells. This unit thins out
to the east.
5) Unit 5 is present only under the eastern portion of the site and
consists of silt and clay. The unit ranges in thickness from 0
feet to 17.5 feet.
6) Unit 6 is composed of sands and silts. Although found under the
. entire site, this unit at times is difficult to delineate from the
lower underlying clay, sand, and silt.
7) The lowest unit, Unit 7, is a gray clay with silt and sand seams.
Underlying the Oak Creek Formation is the Niagaran Aquifer. The Niagaran
is a fossil-reef dolomite which forms the principal shallow aquifer in
the area. This dolomite ranges from 110 feet to 150 feet below the ground
surface. The underlying Maquoketa Shale separates the Niagaran dolomite
from a series of Cambrian and Ordovician sandstones and dolomites which
are pumped extensively for municipal water supplies. All bedrock forma-
tions dip eastward at about 15 feet per mile.
-------
-39-
3. HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITES AND GROUND-WATER FLOW
Ground-water flow in the Oak Creek Formation varies from westerly to south-
erly. Ground-water levels in the T series of wells indicate flow is west-
ward (see Figure 3) towards the Pike River, located 500 to 1200 feet west
of the site. The U series of wells indicate ground-water flow is primarily
to the west with a component of flow to the north (see Figure 4). The L
series of wells indicates flow is to the south from a ground-water mound
located in the northeast corner of the site (see Figure 5). Water level
measurements taken by the Task Force on August 4 and 5, 1986, were used to
construct Figures 4, 5, and 6. Some variation in ground-water flow direc-
tion may be attributed to excavation, filling, and leachate collection.
Horizontal gradients calculated from the data used in Figures 4, 5, and 6
are 0.019 feet per foot for the Unit 1 water table or T wells, 0.023 feet
per foot for Unit 2 or U wells and 0.012 feet per foot for Unit 4 or L
we11s.
The data used to construct Figures 4, 5, and 6, indicates definite downward
gradients. The saturated thickness of Unit 3 layer over the upper sand
seam is about 20 feet. Head differences between the T and U-series wells
indicate the vertical gradient is about 0.4 ft./ft. The thickness of the
layer between the upper and lower sand seams is about 10 feet. Head
difference between the upper and lower sand seams indicates the vertical
gradient is about 1.7 ft./ft.
-------
-40 -
FIGURE 4
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR IN THE WATER TABLE
T Senes Wells 8/86
KEY
£7 - WELL LOCATION
14U - WELL NAME
664 - GROUND-WATER ELEVATION (FT. ABOVE MSL)
-------
-41 -
FIGURE 5
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR OF THE UPPER SAND
U Series Wells 8/86
K I Y
H - WELL LOCATION
14U - WELL NAME
669 - GROUND-WATER ELEVATION (FT. ABOVE MSL)
-------
- 42 -
FIGURE 6 .
POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR IN THE LOWER SAND
L Series Wells 8/86
K E I
H - WELL LOCATION
18L - WELL NAME
663 - GROUND WATER ELEVATION (FT. ABOVE MSL)
-------
-43-
The laboratory permeabilities of the Oak Creek Formation soil units range
from 10~4 cm/sec to 10~8 cm/sec. This information, compiled by LRL's
geologists, is summarized in Table 3.
Ground-water flow in the Silurian age domomites is primarily to the east.
-------
-44-
TABLE 3
LABORATORY PERMEABILITY OF THE OAK CREEK
SOIL UNITS BENEATH LRL LANDFILL *
UNIT
NO.
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
BORING
NO.
5-48
14-3A
5B
75B
76-9
80-8
81 D
82-9
84
87S
87D
90
PERMEABILITY
(cm/sec)
5X10-8
2X10-8
1X10-6
1.8X10-6
5.8X10-6
3.6X10-4
2.0X10-4
2.2X10-4
7.1X10-6
3.7X10-5
2.1X10-5
6.1X10-5
UNIT
NO.
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
6
7
BORING
NO.
92S
95D
105
98
101
103
10-5
17-12
14-6B
14C
5C
PERMEABILITY
(en/sec)
1.5X10-5
3.0X10-5
3.2X10-5
1.5X10-5
1.1X10-4
1.1X10-5
3X10-8
5X10-8
2X10-5
1X10-5
6X10-5
* Source : Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc., (1987), Closure and Long Term
Care Plan for Land Reclamation, Ltd. Landfill.
-------
-45-
F. GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM STATUS
1. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
LRL is required to monitor ground-water under the Section NR 181.49
(Ground-Water and leachate monitoring), Wis. Adm. Code, (40 CFR Part
265, Subpart F) for interim status facilities. In addition, LRL must
also monitor ground-water to meet requirements of Section NR 181.44(12)
(Closure of Facilities Without Operating Licenses), 40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart G, and Wisconsin DNR's regulations for the operation of solid
waste landfills in Chapter NR 140 and NR 180, Wis. Adm. Code.
2. GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM
a) Monitoring Well History
During September-and October 1975, LRL installed 18 ground-water monitor-
ing wells. These wells and eight additional soil borings were taken as
part of a feasibility study for the future operation of the site. Pre-
sently, only two of the wells (6T and 8T) remain in use as part of LRL's
state solid waste monitoring system. Installation dates and other well
construction data are summarized in Table 4.
In 1976, six additional ground-water monitoring wells were installed, two
in March and four in August. Of these six wells, only three (10U, 11U,
and 9U) remained in use at the time of the inspection. All three wells
are screened in the upper sand seam that LRL has designated with a "U"
for upper most aquifer. Well 10U is part of LRL's RCRA monitoring system
and is considered by LRL as being downgradient. The remaining two wells
are part of the state solid waste network.
-------
TABLE
CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR LRL's MONITORING W E L L S (a)
ill
).
3T
3U
4U
4L
5T
5U
5L
6T*
6U
6L
7T*
8T*
9U
IOU*
IOL
nu*
I4T
I4U
I4L
I7T
I7U
I7L
1ST
I8U
I8L
I9T
I9U
?2U
?2M
121
DATE
COMPLETED
9/30/82
11/13/80
5/31/85
5/30/85
11/13/80
11/10/80
11/12/80
10/03/75
5/23/85
5/13/85
5/24/85
10/08/75
8/16/76
8/10/76
11/04/80
8/10/76
11/10/80
11/10/80
11/05/80
11/17/80
11/17/80
11/17/80
11/10/80
11/10/80
11/10/80
11/05/80
11/05/80
7/18/84
9/30/82
o/o.n/g9
ELEVATIONS (IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL))
TOP OF
PIPE
708.90
708.72
676.76
675.45
709.86
709.92
709.83
724.28
725.51
725.71
722.04
680.11
673.80
681.11
677.55
676.08
688.37
688.40
688.85
729.01
729.51
729.16
697.71
697.75
697.18
727.41
726.44
669.44
671.15
670.56
GROUND
SURFACE
706.84
705.59
672.93
672.75
706.60
706.74
706.73
723.54
723.12
723.86
720.04
677.88
672.20
677.27
675.96
672.42
685.08
685.19
685.49
727.30
727.51
727.40
695.83
695.85
695.80
725.19
725.11
667.28
667.28
£G7 01
TOP OF
SCREEN
697.84
676.59
667.76
635.45
704.60
667.74
626.73
698.54
692.51
638.71
715.04
654.88
668.20
670.77
635.96
667.42
683.08
657.19
631.49
725.30
684.51
627.40
693.83
675.85
620.80
717.19
706.11
659.28
648.28
GOQ 00
BOTTOM OF
SCREEN
687.84
670.59
657.76
630.45
694.60
662.74
621.73
695.04
682.51
634.21
705.04
649.88
658.20
660.27
630.96
657.42
673.08
652.19
626.49
715.30
679.51
622.40.
683.83
670.85
615.80
712.19
700.11
654.28
643.28
COO 00
TOP OF
SAND PACK
698.84
677.59
668.93
637.75
705.60
668.74
628.23
721.04
696.12
641.03
717.04
672.77
636.96
684.08
658.19
632.49
685.51
629.40
694.83
676.85
622.80
719.19
706.11
660.28
649.28
con oo
BOTTOM OF
SAND PACK
687.84
669.59
657.93
617.75
693.60
661.74
620.23
695.04
683.12
633.86
705.04
649.88
668.20
660.27
629.96
657.42
672.08
650.19
625.49
714.30
676.51
621.40
682.83
669.85
614.80
711.19
699.61
653.28
642.28
COO 00
CASING
DIAMETER/
MATERIAL
2.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.25 STEEL
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
1.25 STEEL
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
1.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
o r\ r\\ir\
L. .u r vv_.
(a) - Information taken from well logs contained in LRL's Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
(*) - Well log not included in SAP. Information obtained from other sources supplied by LRL.
-------
-t/-
I A 1 11 1 (Cont'd)
CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR LRL's MONITORING WELLS (a)
ELL
).
?9T
?9U*
191
JOT
JOU
30L
39U
101)
iOL
16T
16U
J6L
m
17U
*7L
»8U
18L
J9U
»9L
58T
58U
58L
50T
D8L
39T
39U
39L
10U
DATE
COMPLETED
9/30/82
11/21/83
11/23/83
9/30/82
2/03/84
12/02/83
6/01/84
6/04/85
6/04/85
5/30/85
5/29/85
5/29/85
5/24/85
5/24/85
5/23/85
5/07/85
5/07/85
6/04/85
6/03/85
4/25/85
5/30/85
5/29/85
5/01/85
6/05/85
6/03/85
5/27/85
5/31/85
6/01/85
ELEVATIONS (IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL))
TOP OF
PIPE
719.91
719.83
719.80
702.28
702.04
701.99
700.81
673.02
673.41
679.54
678.56
678.58
682.19
682.04
681.77
705.80
705.61
718.99
718.93
675.56
674.89
673.82
692.87
722.18
683.43
681.76
681.49
700.81
GROUND
SURFACE
716.41
716.36
716.11
699.70
699.65
699.53
685.98
670.72
670.81
676.04
676.47
676.61
680.33
680.11
679.84
703.38
703.24
717.22
717.03
672.35
671.89
671.89
690.47
720.53
679.34
679.59
679.51
697.44
TOP OF
SCREEN
701.41
680.86
627.86
693.70
660.95
633.13
675.23
664.02
608.81
671.04
636.06
612.08
672.69
636.54
616.27
673.90
630.71
672.49
629.43
666.46
631.89
606.82
677.87
639.18
674.43
660.26
623.99
679.44
BOTTOM OF
SCREEN
691.41
671.61
622.86
683.70
651.75
628.43
665.98
659.02
603.81
666.54
631.56
607.58
668.19
632.04
611.77
664.70
626.11
667.99
624.93
657.36
626.89
601.82
673.37
630.18
664.43
655.76
619.49
669.44
TOP OF
SAND PACK
702.41
682.76
629.01
694.70
662.95
634.13
664.72
611.81
672.53
638.47
616.11
674.33
639.61
618.84
677.88
633.34
676.72
634.03
669.35
632.89
612.89
680.47
644.53
676.34
662.59
726.51
680.44
BOTTOM OF
SAND PACK
691.41
670.76
619.61
683.20
651.65
628.23
665.73
658.72
602.81
664.53
630.47
601.61
667.33
631.11
604.84
664.38
613.24
668.22
622.03
657.35
623.89
602.89
673.47
629.53
664.34
654.59
614.51
667.44
CASING
DIAMETER/
MATERIAL
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
2.0 PVC
(a) - Information taken from well logs contained in LRL's Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP).
(*) - Well log not included in SAP. Information obtained from other sources supplied by LRL.
-------
-48-
During November 1980, 16 additional monitoring wells were installed.
Five wells were screened at the water table (5T, 14T, 17T, 1ST, and
19T); six were screened in the upper sand seam (3U, 5U, 14U, 171),
18U, and 19U); and five in a lower sand seam designated by LRL as
the "L" zone (5L, 10L, 14L, 17L, and 18L). Presently, these sixteen
wells are included in LRL's State solid waste monitoring systems.
In 1980, LRL also began the practice of installing nested wells. As
illustrated in Figure 7, wells were installed near each other (i.e.,
5T, 5U, and 5L) and screened in different water bearing units.
Five wells were installed in September 1982. Three wells were screen-
ed in the shallow water table (3T, 29T, and SOT), one in.the lower
sand seam (22L) and one in a unit between the U and L sand seams
(22M). This latter well (22M) is included in LRL's RCRA monitoring
system as a downgradient well.
In late 1983 and early 1984, LRL installed four additional wells (29U,-
29L, SOU, and SOL). These wells were installed as two sets of nested
wells with one well in each set being screened in the upper sand and
the other in the lower sand. Three of the wells (29U, SOL, and SOU)
are part of LRL's solid waste monitoring system are downgradient
well s.
Later in 1984, (June, July), two additional wells were installed (39U,
and 22U). Both wells were screened in the upper zone and are part of
the State solid waste monitoring system.
Finally, from April through June 1985, LRL installed 26 wells. Six
were screened in the water table (7T, 46T, 47T, 58T, 60T, and 109T);
ten in the upper sand (4U, 6U, 40U, 46U, 47U, 48U, 49U, 58U, 109U,
and 110U); and ten in the lower sand (4L, 6L, 40L, 46L, 47L, 48L, 49L,
58L, 108L, and 109L). Wells 6U and 108L have been designated as up-
gradient and Well 11OU as downgradient RCRA wells. The remaining
wells are part of LRL's solid waste monitoring system.
-------
49
H G U iil 1
RCRA MONITORING WELL. LOCATION MAP
eo r •
EXPANSION AREA
, 10U*
• 10L
. f r-.
UNDEFINED FILL
OLD CITY OF
RACINE LANDFILL
i IU
log r
* WELLS UES1GNAIEU BY LRL AS RCRA MONITORING WELLS
** Wplls 191) and 191" are actually BOO feet east of the eastern boundry.
Mils would place Wells off of the map.
Note: Not to scale.
-------
-50-
b) Monitoring Well Location
LRL's RCRA ground-water monitoring system consists of six wells as shown
i n Figure 8.
Upon review of earlier work performed by LRL's contractors, the WDNR, the
U.S. EPA, Region V, and its own geological review of the site, the Task
Force has determined that the present RCRA ground-water monitoring system
is inadequate to immediately detect a release of hazardous waste and/or
hazardous waste constituents to the ground-water. This determination is
based on information summarized below:
1) The six wells in the RCRA system are not sufficient. A greater
number of monitoring points is required to provide for a more
representative sampling of potential contaminant pathways.
2) The site hydrogeology is complex. Three dimensional ground-water
flow through layered heterogenous glacial deposits makes determina-
tion and monitoring of potential contaminant flow paths difficult.
3) The long period of landfilling in the site area since 1963, along
with the progressive series of landfill excavations and surface
water diversions, have created an area of shifting ground-water
potentials and flow paths as well as multiple areas for influx of
ground-water contaminants.
4) All three geologic units presently monitored by LRL for the WDNR
solid waste program could be impacted by a release from the haz-
ardous waste unit. This can be seen in wells along the south side
of Corridor 1, where methane gas has been detected. During the
construction of Corridors 1 through 5, the water table and upper
sand seam were removed from the fill area. Therefore, these units
could be connected to the landfill since Corridors 1 through 4
were not constructed using a recompacted clay liner. In addition,
the water table and the upper sand seam are upper most water bear-
ing zones relative to the sides of the hazardous waste unit. The
lower sand seam, however, is the upper most water bearing unit
with respect to the base of the hazardous waste unit.
-------
51
£1QURi 8
MUU11UIUHG HELL LOCATION MAP
£2M
rUIUHE EXPANSION AREA
UNDEFINED FILL
r~
OLD CITY UP
RACINE LANDFILL
108L»
* WELLS DESIGNATED BY LRL AS RCRA MONITORING WELLS
** Wells 191) and 19T are actually BOO feet east of the eastern boundry.
'this would place Wells off of the map.
NOTE I Map not to »c*l«.
-------
-52-
5) In the present RCRA system, there are only three wells (SOL, 108L,
and 110U) along the south edge of Corridor 1. All present or
future replacement wells along this side, from Well 19U to the
series 18 wells, need to be included in the RCRA system. This is
needed to detect any releases from the side of fill into the water
table or the upper sand seam. Also, as can be seen in Figure 6,
the piezometric surface of the lower sand seam, flow is directly
south in this lower unit.
6) Only two wells (22M and 10U) along the west side of the site area
are included in the RCRA monitoring system.
7) The two wells that LRL has designated as upgradient (61) and 108L)
may be improperly classified. The facility's own data does not
support LRL's claim that 6U and 108L are acceptable upgradient
wells. Past sampling results for 6U have indicated contaminatfon.
Figure 6, the ground-water flow contour map in the lower sand seam,
indicates that Well 108L may actually be downgradient. Well 6T
also appears, to be downgradient and is possibly contaminated as
evidenced by WDNR data showing chloride concentrations ranging
from 9 to 74 mg/1.
It should be noted that the data shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6, in the pre-
vious section, illustrating ground-water flow directions in each of the
three monitored zones, indicates that the flow patterns are different for
each zone. Therefore, wells in a nest may not have the same gradient
designation. For example, of the three wells in the 5 series, Wells 5T
and 5U are downgradient and 5L is upgradient of the hazardous waste unit.
-------
-53-
c) Background Ground-Water Quality
Many uncertainties exist in the determination of background ground-water
quality at the site. The background ground-water at the site cannot be
determined only through examination of existing up or downgradient moni-
toring well locations. The water quality of each well must be compared
to both the expected regional water quality data, landfill leachate
characteristics, and possible contaminant sources other than the landfill.
An additional upgradient well nest (water table, upper and lower units)
is necessary to provide more complete determination of background water
quality.
d) Monitoring Well Construction
The ground-water monitoring wells at LRL were installed at eight different
time periods between 1976 and 1985. It is difficult to determine from LRL's
records if well construction techniques remained the same over these time
periods. The well logs included in LRL's Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
are incomplete with discrepancies in well details. Many of the logs do not
include slot size of the screen, type of sand placed around the screen, nor
the elevation for either the top of pipe or ground surface. Also, none of
the logs include the type of drilling methods used to bore the hole nor is
a description given of the type of development (i.e., pumping or bailing
a given number of well volumes) used to clean out the well after construc-
tion.
Information from the well logs shows that, after the hole was drilled,
slotted schedule 40 or schedule 80 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was
placed in the hole. Sand or pea gravel was then placed around and above
the screen section of pipe. Above the sand pack, a bentonite grout seal
was added. Near the surface, concrete was added and a steel protective
casing was placed around the upper portion of the well. A typical moni-
toring well is shown in Figure 9.
-------
54
FIGURE 9
T
24"
PROJECTION
5-0"
6" STEEL CASING
IN POURED CONC.
BENTONITE
GROUT
15'
SILICA SAND
Z +
'•?!
'?T
ii.
T**
&
*i'
*•«
»/
•T"
«^
r
HINGED COVER
HASP 8 KEY LOCK
2"VENTED CAP(PVC)
GROUND SURFACE
#*
"•*rs-
m
-"•£•'•'
*».*,' •"'
ST-'O*'
fi
&??'
6" STEEL CASING
POURED CLASS "B"
CONCRETE (5 BAG MIX)
2" DIA. THREADED FLUSH JOINT
NONSTENCILED SCH. 4O OR 80 PVC
PIPE
6 MINIMUM
HOLE DIAMETER
-J-
10' SLOTTED SCH 40 OR 80
PVC SCREEN (10-SLOT)
2" THREADED CAP (PVC)
TYPICAL MONITORING WELL
-------
-55-
3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
a) LRL's Sample Collection, Handling, Preservation and Field Measurements
This section will include a review of LRL's Sampling and Analyses Plan
(SAP) and observation made by the Task Force of LRL's sample handling
procedures. The review of the SAP comments applies to the plan present-
ed to the Task Force during the inspection conducted from August 4 to 8,
1986. The observation of LRL's sampling techniques were made on September
23, 1986, during LRL's quarterly sampling event.
A number of deficiencies were noted in LRL's Sampling and Analyses Plan.
These deficiencies are summarized below:
0 In a number of locations in the SAP, LRL mentions using deionized
water. Water that has been only distilled and deionized would not
be of sufficient quality for equipment cleaning or preparation of
blanks for Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA), Total Organic Halides
(TOX), or acid, base/neutral organics. LRL needs to use a high
quality water when sampling for these parameters. Also, the purity
of the water used needs to be documented in the SAP.
0 The SAP does not specify when, where, or how long after collection
that the dissolved metals samples are filtered. The filtering
needs to be completed as soon as possible after sampling. Oxygena-
tion and changes in sample temperature (which effects pH) prior to
laboratory filtering may cause the precipitation of some of the
metals, thus biasing the sampling results.
0 The SAP does not give the cleaning procedure used to clean the fil-
tering equipment between samples. This equipment, used to filter
dissolved metals samples, needs to be rinsed with a good quality
water as-well-as a rinse with nitric acid. For further information,
-------
-56-
LRL is referred to references A and C of their SAP. The first refer-
ence is Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
and the second is Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
EPA-600/4-79-020. LRL should follow equipment preparation require-
ments given in these manuals.
0 On Table 6, page 23 of the SAP needs to state clearly what specific
elements or compounds are included with common anions, minerals,
demand parameters and solids.
0 Holding times for a number of parameters given in Table 6 are incor-
rect. The parameters, Table 6 holding time, and the EPA required
holding times are given below:
PARAMETER
TABLE 6
EPA
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS)
28 days
7 days
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
28 days
48 hours
PCB and
Pesticides
28 days
7 days until
extraction, 40 days
after extraction
Acid, base neutral
priority pollutants 28 days
7 days until
extraction, 40 days
after extraction
-------
-57-
0 The SAP does not discuss how LRL tracks samples to assure that hold-
i ng times are met.
0 Table 6 also states that sodium thiosulfate is added to the VOA and
fecal coliform samples. This compound is required only if residual
chlorine is suspected to be in the sample. This is unlikely to be
the case for ground-water, or leachate samples.
0 A typing error was noted on Table 6. COP should read COD (for chemi-
cal oxygen demand).
0 Table 6 states that trip blanks are included for VOA samples. The
SAP needs to state where these blanks are poured. Trip blanks
should be poured in a clean laboratory. Field blanks should not be
poured near a well. Field blanks are expecially important at wells
located near high traffic areas, active landfill areas, or near
leachate collection points.
0 The SAP needs to include a section on quality assurance (QA) and
quality control (QC). The following types of QA/QC samples need
to be added to LRL's sampling events:
1) Reagent or bottle blanks for metals, TOX, total organic car-
bon (TOC), nutrients, COD, phenols and acid, base neutral
organics.
2) Equipment blanks. After the bailer is cleaned, high quality
water should be poured through a bailer and collected in
appropriate sample containers. Some of the water should also
be run through filtering equipment for a dissolved metals
equipment blank.
-------
-58-
3) The SAP needs to state that additional sample volume be col-
lected laboratory spike and replicate samples.
4) Duplicate field samples need to be taken. Therefore, at 10%
of the sample points two complete sets of samples need to be
taken as checks for possible errors due to improper sampling
techniques.
Page 24 of the SAP states "wells are thoroughly purged of any stag-
nant water prior to sampling". The SAP needs to state what 'thor-
oughly' means. During the Task Force observation of LRL's sampling
in September 1986, the sampling personnel stated that they purged a
well until either three well volumes were removed or the well was
dry. The plan needs to include this criteria.
On page 31, step 11 requires that "the container to be used to store
the water sample is to be rinsed with deionized water." What samples
are stored in this container? If this is for the storage of samples
for pH, temperature, and specific conductance, then it should be
stated.
The SAP needs to give a description of the sampling equipment in-
cluding dimensions and materials of construction. During our
observation of LRL's sampling, we noted their sampling personnel
used a bailer made of Teflon.
The SAP needs to add the maximum amount of time between purging and
sampling. Pages 36 and 37 gives a purging and sampling schedule,
but does not give a maximum time. During the September 1986 sampl-
ing event, LRL stated this was 24 hours.
-------
-59-
0 In the chain-of-custody section, LRL needs to document how samples
are shipped to the contract lab, including if samples are kept on
ice and how long after sampling they are delivered to the lab.
0 During the Task Force observation of LRL's sampling technique, it
was noted that the sampling personnel wore surgical-type rubber
gloves. This needs to be documented in the SAP. These gloves
should not contain any talcum powder which could contaminate the
samples.
0 Pages 37 through 39 of the SAP describe LRL's sampling of leachate
and surface water techniques. This section needs to include LRL's
preservation methods, if any, for these samples, especially for the
leachate samples. Preservation of leachate samples with acids
(such as nitric acid for metals preservation) can be very dangerous.
The above review of the SAP as well as the Task Force observation of LRL's
sampling event in September 1986, indicate that the SAP needs extensive
revisions. During the September event LRL's sample personnel performed
steps that are not documented in the SAP. These steps, as well as the
above deficiencies need to be included in a revised SAP.
b) LRL's Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation
On October 31, 1986, the Task Force Laboratory Evaluation Team performed
an onsite evaluation of the CBC-Aqua Search, Division of Chemo-Bio
Corporation, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, pursuant to RCRA ground-water monitor-
ing activities for LRL.
-------
-60-
0 Inorganic Laboratory
The purpose of the evaluation was to establish whether CBC-Aqua Search's
standard operating procedures produce data of acceptable quality. CBC-Aqua
Search analyzed U.S. EPA Water Supply and Water Pollution Performance
Evaluation Samples to demonstrate its analytical capabilities. The labo-
ratory was evaluated for the following inorganic parameters: chloride,
iron, manganese, sodium, phenols, sulfate, arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, fluoride, and nitrate.
The following are the observations that were made during the evaluation
and the recommendations to CBC-Aqua Search to improve the data quality:
0 Observation: The laboratory participates in the U.S. EPA Water
Supply Pollution Performance Evaluation Studies, and displays
consistent errors for inorganic parameter analyses (see Appendix
C, Tables C-l, C-2).
Recommendation: The laboratory should develop an intra-laboratory
comparison study by periodically analyzing EPA quality control
samples.
0 Observation: The quality control practices for inorganic chemical
analyses were reviewed during the on-site evaluation.
Recommendation: A quality assurance program should see that docu-
mented approved methodologies exist, that instrument calibration
procedures are appropriate, that quality control acceptance criteria
are met prior to reporting of final data and that summarized quality
control data are effectively evaluated.
0 Observation: The laboratory acceptance criteria for metals spike
recoveries were between 60% and 130%.
-------
-61-
Recommendation: The laboratory acceptance criteria for metal spike
recoveries should be between 80% and 120%.
0 Observation: Calibration procedures for atomic absorption spectro-
photometers are inadequate. The laboratory composes a calibration
curve with only two standard solutions.
Recommendation: A calibration curve should be composed using, at
minimum, a reagent blank and three standards.
0 Observation: The laboratory does not have an EPA approval method
for metals performed by Inductively Coupled Plasma spectroscopy.
Recommendation: The laboratory should document and finalize the
method as soon as possible.
0 Observation: The calibration procedure for nitrates by the Auto
Analyzer method is inadequate. The laboratory composes a calibra-
tion curve with two standard solutions.
Recommendation: A calibration curve should be composed by using,
at a minimum a reagent blank and three standards.
0 Observation: The laboratory does not have a satisfactory assess-
ment of their accuracy and precision.
Recommendation: At least one duplicate sample should be run every
10 samples to verify precision of analylical methods. Also, a
spike sample should be analyzed routinely, to verify accuracy of
the method.
-------
-62-
° Organic Laboratory
The laboratory, CBC Aqua Search, analyzed the LRL's ground-water and
leachate samples for total organic carbon (TOC), total organic halide
(TOX), pesticides (endrin, lindane, methoxychlor and toxaphene) and
herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP). In addition, the laboratory analyzed
leachate samples for pesticides and PCBs.
The following observations were made during the brief on-site visit:
0 The laboratory participated in an inter!aboratory comparison studies
conducted by U.S. EPA and produced results of poor quality. The
laboratory performance evaluation .results are provided in Appendix
C, Table C-3.
0 The laboratory test procedures and quality control practices are
acceptable.
0 The laboratory has never participated in U.S. EPA Water Supply per-
formance evaluation studies (interlaboratory comparison studies)
for drinking water pesticides and herbicides.
0 The laboratory has not recently participated in U.S. EPA Water Pollu-
tion performance evaluation studies for pesticides and it produced
unacceptable results for pesticides and PCBs, when participating in
the interlaboratory comparison studies.
0 The laboratory instruments are suitable for the analysis of TOC, TOX,
pesticides, herbicides and PCBs.
-------
-63-
0 The laboratory does not have an up-to-date log on the precision and
accuracy data collected during the chemical analysis (NOTE: The
laboratory should provide precision data by relative percent dif-
ference (RPD) so that it would be easier to maintain statistical
summaries on all precision data collected. RPD = ((Amount Found in
Sample 1 - Amount Found in Sample 1 Duplicate) TOO/ (Amount Found
in Sample 1 + Amount Found in Sample 1 Duplicate) 12}}.
° The laboratory recently started documenting the status of each ana-
lytical instrument in the instrument log books. However, the log
books do not provide any information on the sensitivities of the
analytical instruments on the day of usage and the number of samples
analyzed on each day of usage.
4. GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The present RCRA monitoring system is inadequate to detect or assess re-
leases of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents. LRL needs to
improve its monitoring system and its ground-water assessment procedures.
After the WDNR initiated enforcement action against LRL for failing to
statistically analyze the RCRA ground water monitoring data, LRL submit-
ted the report "Land Reclamation, LTD. Environmental Impact Monitoring
Plan and Procedures" (dated March 1986). This submittal attempts to ex-
plain cause of statistically significant indicators. The pH exceedances
were explained as cement grout contamination of the upgradient wells.
TOC exceedances at one well were attributed to the wetland immediately
above this well. The report concludes that no significant ground-water
impacts are occurring at the site.
-------
-64-
The report failed to mention some other statistically significant ex-
ceedances. The reports statistics show TOC exceedances for wells 10U
and SOL. These exceedances should have triggered LRL into performing a
ground-water quality assessment monitoring as required by NR 181.49(5)(h).
If the pH values were biased by the cement grout contamination, the grout
contamination should also have affected the specific conductivity values.
No statistically significant exceedances were noted for conductivity due
to the grout contamination. LRL was unable to provide an acceptable means
for evaluating the TOX data. All background sampling showed that the TOX
level was below the analytical detection limit. Since the background data
was below detection, LRL did not attempt to statistically analyze the down-
gradient wells. Furthermore, Well 22U showed numerous samples above the
detection limit, LRL should have prepared a ground-water assessment.
G. MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE
TASK FORCE DATA
During the inspection, samples were collected by U.S. EPA's contractor to
determine if the ground-water contained hazardous waste constituents or
other indicators of contamination. Water was collected from 17 monitoring
wells, one surface water location listed in LRL's WPDES permit, and one
leachate man-hole. An additional 38 wells were measured for water level
only to construct ground-water contour maps shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5.
Samples collected by the Task Force shows that a release of hazardous con-
stituent has probably occurred.
-------
-65-
Most of the detected organic compounds do not naturally occur in the en-
vironment. Task Force sampling of the upgradient wells showed that the
organic compounds were not detectable. However, Well 39U had many iden-
tifiable and quantifiable organic compounds. As noted below nine wells
contained lead or chromium levels above the limits listed in Table X NR
181.49(5) (40 CFR Part 265, Appendix III).
Field measurements were made by the U.S. EPA contractor, Versar, Inc., at
the time of sampling for pH, specific conductance and turbidity. Labora-
tory analysis results were obtained from two U.S. EPA Contractor Labora-
tories participating in the Contact Laboratory Program. Specific organic
compounds were analyzed at Compuchem Laboratories, Inc., and metals and
other parameters at Centec Laboratories. Table A-l gives a summary of
analytical techniques and reference methods, by parameter, for sample
analyses and Table A-2 gives the detection limits for all organic com-
pounds.
Standard quality control measures were taken including: (1) the analysis
of field and laboratory blanks to allow the determination of possible
contamination due to sample handling, (2) analysis of laboratory-spiked
samples to estimate accuracy, (3) analysis of both laboratory and field
duplicates to estimate precision, and (4) the review and interpretation
of the results of these control measures, Appendix B.
a) Metals Analytical Results
Nine wells contained chromium or lead results above levels given in Table
X, (50 ug lead, 50 ug/1 chromium) NR 181.49 (5) Wis. Adm. Code (40 CFR
Part 265, Appendix III). Wells that contained lead results above the 50
ug/1 limit given in Table X, were 14U(108 ug/1), 14L (66 ug/1), 29L(51
ug/1), 39U(165 ug/1), and the leachate sample (52.2 ug/1). Wells found
with chromium above the Table X limits of 50 ug/1 were 6U(98 ug/1), 14U
(195 ug/1), 14L(102 ug/1), 40U(56 ug/1), 40U(Dup)(54 ug/1), 40L(107 ug/1),
-------
-66-
and 40L(dup)(116 ug/1). The laboratory has characterized the lead results
as semiquantitative due to deviations in quality control requirements.
The chromium results for the above wells have been rated as quantitative.
Further descriptions of data usability and quality control is given below.
A comparison of dissolved metals data (Table 5) for the facility designated
upgradient wells (6U and 108L) with a number of their downgradient wells,
indicates possible releases of arsenic, barium, cadmium, and chromium to
the ground-water.
The only other metals found in high concentrations were those usually
found in ground-water (aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium,
and sodium). All dissolved and total metals results are summarized in
Appendix B.
b) Inorganic And Indicator Parameter Results
Field measurements were conducted by U.S. EPA's contractor for pH, tem-
perature, specific conductance, and turbidity. This data along with the
remaining inorganic and indicator parameters are summarized in Table A-5
of Appendix A. With the exception of two wells, pH results were in the
range of 6.6 to 8.4. Well 10U had a pH of 6.17 and the pH of Well 39U
was 10.45. Specific conductivity ranged from a low of 190 umhos/cm (Well
29L) to a high of 2607 umhos/cm (Well 22L). Turbidity results were less
than 40 NTUs with three exceptions, Well SOL (260 NTU), Well 39U (100
NTU), and Well 110U (200 NTU).
Inorganic and indicator parameters varied greatly from well to well. Gen-
erally, constituents normally found in ground-water, (sulfate, chloride
and bromide) were found in high concentrations. Ammonia varied from un-
detected to 35 mg/1. Five wells had elevated total phenol levels, Well
9U (100 ug/1), 39U (272 ug/1), 40U (105 ug/1), 40U (DUP) (105 ug/1), and
the leachate (1100 ug/1). Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations
ranged 2.6 mg/1 (Well 40L) to 728 mg/1 (leachage). Both TOC and total
phenols were found in some blanks above the detection limit.
-------
-67-
I Aill 1
COMPARISON OF DISSOLVED METALS DATA FROM
UPGRADIENT WELLS (6U, 108U) AND DOWN6RADIENT HELLS
UPGRADIENT * DOWNGRADIEN
T *
WELL - CONCENTRATION (ug/1) WELL - CONCENTRATION (ug/1 )
ARSENIC
6.U - ND 40L
108L - ND 109U -
14U -
39U -
29L -
40U -
BARIUM
6U - 77 9U -
108L - 332 10U -
14U -
22U -
29U -
' 39U -
40U -
109U -
1100 -
CADMIUM
6U - ND 22L -
108L - ND SOL
40L
CHROMIUM
6U - 19 14U
108L - 21 22U -
29U -
10.6
6.4
6.3
22.9
6.4
21.0
167
248
247
353
244
848
92
140
169
0.5
3.1
1.2
20
39
27
ND - Not detected above method detection limit.
* - Well designated as given by LRL.
-------
-68-
c) Organic Analytical Results
With only one exception, which is given below, the only volatile organics
found in any of the ground-water samples were low levels of toluene (not
detected to 12 ug/1) and acetone (not detected to 48 ug/1). The excep-
tion was downgradient Well 39U, which contained the following organic
compounds.
VOLATILE COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (ug/1)
Acetone 48
Benzene 10
trans, 1, 2-dichlorethene 11
Ethyl Benzene 14
Tetrachloroethene 11
Toluene 12
Trichloroethene 8.8
Xylene 70
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (ug/1)
2,4-Dimethyl Phenol 28
2-Methyl Phenol 4.8
4-Methyl Phenol 21
PESTICIDE COMPOUND CONCENTRATION (ug/1)
4-4' - ODD 12
Dieldrin 15
-------
-69-
These compounds were all greater than the values found in the upgradient
well in this unit. This is an indication of a release of these consti-
tutents from the facility to the ground-water. Two other organic com-
pounds 1,1 dichloroethane (2 ug/1) and 4-methy-2-pentanone (6.5 ug/1)
were detected in Well 39U, . but below the contract required detection
limits. For these last two compounds, the mass spectral data indicated
the compound was present above zero but below the detection limit.
For all wells, except 39U, the only semi-volatile organics found were bis
(3-ethylhexyl) phthalate, and di-N-butyl phthalate. Well 39U contained
2-methyl phenol (4.8mg/l), 4 methyl phenol (21 mg/1) 2,4-dimethylphenol (28
mg/1) and phenol (by GC/MS) (52 mg/1). In addition, Well 39U contained a
number of other semi-volatile compounds above zero but below the contract
detection limit (see data in Appendix B).
Of the ground-water samples, only Well 39U indicated the presence of the
pesticides, dieldrin (12 mg/1) and 4-4'-DDD (15 mg/1), data summarized in
Appendix B.
The only organic compounds found in the surface water sample, were acetone
(10 mg/1) and di-N-butyl phthalate (2 ug/1), see Appendix B.
The leachate sample contained nine volatile organics above the detection
limit. These were toluene (1000 mg/1), acetone (2100 mg/1) methylene
chloride (230 mg/1), 2-butanone (2200 mg/1), 1,1 dichloroethane (220
mg/1), trans-1,2-dichloroethene (210 mg/1), 4 methyl-2-pentanone (210
mg/1), ethyl benzene (120 mg/1), and xylenes (420 mg/1). One compound,
1,1,1 - trichlorethane (53 mg/1) was found above zero but below the de-
tection limit.
The leachate also contains three semi-volatile organics above the method
detection limit and 23 other compounds above zero but below the detection
limit. The three compounds found above the dectection limit are phenol
(by GC/MS) (190 mg/1), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (110 mg/1), and 4-
methylphenol (850 mg/1).
-------
-71-
References
1) WDNR Approval Letter of Corridor No. 4
Construction, September 19, 1978
2) WDNR Approval Letter of Corridor No. 5
Construction, March 31, 1981
3) WDNR Corridor No. 5 Approval Modification Letter
November 20, 1981
4) WDNR Approval Letter of Corridor No. 6
Construction, November 19, 1985
5) RMT Report Hazardous Waste Management
Land Reclamation, Ltd., November 1980
6) Closure and Long Term Care Plan for
The Land Reclamation, Ltd. Landfill
Volume I WID I: 076171008, Scope I.P. #: 86 L 11
January 1981 Foth & Van Dyke and Associates, Inc.
Milwaukee, WI
7) Closure and Long Term Care Plan for
The Land Reclamation, Ltd. Landfill
Volume II, Appendix C
8) Feasibility IN-field Condition Report to Wisconsin DNR,
Residuals Management Technology, Inc., March 13, 1981
9) Land Reclamation, Ltd., Plan of Operation
Appendix Q, Environmental Impact Monitoring Plan and
Procedures, January 15, 1985 Editrion
10) Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of
Samples from the Land Reclamation, Ltd., Wisconsin Facility,
Planning Research Corporation, December 17, 1986
11) The Assessment of the Usability of the Data Generated for
Site 41B, Land Reclamation, Ltd., Wisconsin, Prepared by
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services, Inc.
November 3, 1986
12) Organic Analyses Compu Chem Laboratories, Inc., Research
Triangle Park, NC
13) Inorganic and Indicator Analyses, Center Laboratories,
Salem, VA
-------
A.I HI H HIA ^
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND TABULATED SUMMARY
OF TASK FORCE OBSERVATIONS FOR MONITORING
WELLS SAMPLED DURING THE INSPECTION
LAND RECLAMATION. LTD.. RACINE, WISCONSIN
-------
- Al -
Table A-l
Sample Preparation and Analysis techniques and Methods
r
Parameter
Preparation technique Analysis Technique
Helhod Reference
•••••••••••i
•inductance
-------
o
- A2 -
('
twin or quMrmrioii rot OKMIC COMPOUNDS
LiMit «f
Quant1 tit la
Licit «f
QuantltAttM
Li»U of
QuintiUtion
Csaeounat
Acanapntna*a
Maiacntai>oatnana
l.4-01cf>lerc5«f>i»««
2.4-Olnitratalwana
2.*-fl1i»itratl'««ai»«
FluarantltaiH)
4-QilerDpn*«yt
vttar
«tft»f
•itree«fis«M
N-«1troMdfMtny)«»iiM.
01-n-vctylpnenaUta
«n«/or
Anuiracan*
Mnxaf<«
••nzyl
•IcsMl
2'MatflyliMBlltlMlMW
4-«1tr»«n«Hi««
2-«*«tnyJnaontn«Un»
U
10
10
10
U
10
10
10
10
10
10
M*
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
MA
*0
20
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
U
10
10
10
MA
100
10
10
20
100
10
10
ICO
10
10
10
10
10
100
100
Cat»oundl
2.4.»-THe»l
I'Cft I mi upaaia I
4-oitrapnano)
2.4>0inlora»«iana
l.2-01ctilaraaUiana
1.1-0 < en I araa tlwna
trant*1.2H)1CAlar*aCtwna
1.2-OlcnU
i
enloHd*
1.1.2.2-Tatracnlaraatnana
r*traenlaroatn*na
thana
Enonn katon*
Pd-1014
»CS- 1221
•CI-1232
Kt-1242
•C1-12M
•a- us*
Kl-lZiO
o. 55
o. 93
0. 3S
0. 3S
o. as
0. &
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.:S
0.1
0.1
0. 1
0.1
O.OS
.O.OS
1
O.S
0.1
.5
1
1
0. S
O.S
i
1
Vinyl Ollaria*
Aectana
2-lyUnana (HCR)-
taana (EDI)
•erylanltrll*
Ctrpon •1»«irta«
»««yl acetic*
(HtBK)
10
90
20
20
20
S
900
100
100
500
900
S
9
9
40
9
40
20
*at
-------
-A-3-
I Alii A - 3
CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS (CRDL) AND INSTRUMENT
DETECTION LIMITS (IDL) FOR METALS, INORGANIC, AND INDICATOR PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmi urn
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesi urn
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Ammonia nitrogen
Bromide
Chloride
Cyanide
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
POC
POX
Sulfate
TOC
TOX
Total Phenols
CRDL (ug/1)
METALS
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
5
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5
10
5000
10
50
20
INORGANIC AND INDICATORS
100
1000
10
300
10
5
1000
1000
5
10
IDL (ug/1)
100
3
6
4
4
0.5
93
8
16
12
10
2
238
3
0.2
20
2160
3
10
156
5
21
12
10
50
1000
300
50
100
5
500
1000
5
10
-------
*.- vis. a^^.-va;.
TABLE A - 4
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING WELLS
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
6U
8/04/86
1335 - 1432
6L
8/05/86
1042 - 1115
9U
8/07/8
8/08/86
10U
8/06/87
1130 - 1145
1510 - 1528
1510 - 1528
0850 - 0909
1325 - 1410
14U
8/05/86
1150 - 1340
Water clearer than original purge water,
which was a tan/brown color. LRL given
split for VOA, POC, POX, and extractable
organics.
On 8/4/86, while purging, the bailer
separated from the sample line. Bailer
was not recovered until late in the day,
therefore, well was completely repurged
on 8/5/87 before sampling. Water was tan/
brown in color. LRL given split for VOA,
POC, POX, and extractable organics.
VOA, POC, and POX taken. Facility given
split for VOA, POC, and POX. Extractable
organics, Total and dissolved metals, and
TOC taken.
Extractable organics, Total metals, dis-
solved metals, and TOC collected. Facili-
ty given split for extractable organics.
TOX, phenols, cyanide, sulfate/chloride
and nitrate/ammonia collected.
Cloudy and rainy, Splits given to facili-
ty for VOA, POC, POX, and extractable or-
ganics.
Water slightly grey in color. Had to use
a 3/4 inch bailer which made purging and
sampling very slow. Splits given to LRL
for VOA, POC, PXO, and extractable organ-
ics.
-------
-A-5-
I A 1 i I A - 4 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING WELLS
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
14L
8/05/86
1239 - 1405
22U
8/06/86
1605 - 1645
22L
8/06/86
1702 - 1800
8/07/86
1020 - 1100
22U
8/05/86
29L
8/05/86
1458 - 1526
1542 - 1612
1627 - 1637
Water mild grey-brown in color. Use of a
3/4 inch bailer made purging and sampling
slow. Splits given to LRL for VOA, POC,
POX, and extractable organics.
Cloudy and rain. Well located in a swampy
area. Water had a mild brown color.
Splits given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and
extractable organics.
Cloudy and rain. Well located in a swampy
area. Well bailed dry at 1600. After
allowing an hour for recharge, there was
only enough water for VOA, POC, and POX
with a split being given to LRL.
Finished collecting remaining parameters,
including giving LRL a split for extracta-
ble organics. Chain-of-Custody lost during
shipment.
Split given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX,
extractable organics.
and
A find particulate matter was noted float-
ing on the water surface during the collec-
tion of TOX sample. A split was given to
LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and extractable or-
ganics.
Poured first of two field blanks near this
well. Splits given to LRL for VOA, POC,
POX, and extractable organics.
-------
-A-6-
TABLE A - 4 (Cont'd)
C
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING WELLS
e
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
C
39U
8/06/86
1232 - 1300
40U
8/07/86
1059 - 1142
C
40L
8/07/87
8/08/86
1150 - 1222
1247 - 1331
8/08/86
108L
8/04/86
109U
8/07/86
1225
1650 - 1712
1525 - 1606
REMARKS
SOL
8/06/86 1010 - 1045
Ral ny and
VOA, POC,
windy. Split given
POX, and extractable
to LRL for
organics.
Extra volume of samples taken for VOA and
extractable organics so laboratory can per-
form lab duplicate and matrix spike. Splits
given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and extract-
able organics.
Field duplicate collected at this well.
Therefore, two complete sets of samples
taken. Split, including the duplicate, was
given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and extract-
able organics.
of Chain-of-Custody of samples
iment, lab was told to discard
Due to loss
during shipment
this sample.
Well was repurged and resampled. Also, the
the second field duplicate was collected
here, to replace the duplicate lost at Well
109U. Splits given to LRL for VOA, POC,
POX, and extractable organics.
Field blank poured near this well. A split
was given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX, and ex-
tractable organics.
Splits given to LRL for VOA,
extractable organics.
POC, POX, and
Well at edge of road. Heavy machinery op-
erating during purging and sampling. A
field blank and field duplicate were col-
lected. Splits were given to LRL for VOA,
-------
-A-7-
TABLE A-4 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING WELLS
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
109U (cont'd)
110U
8/06/86
1325 - 1343
8/07/86
Surface Water
8/08/86
Leachate
8/08/86
0820
1055
832
1106
1245
Equipment Blank
8/05/86 1450
POC, POX, and extractable organics. During
shipment, Chain-of-Custody was lost on the
field blank and one set of samples. The
labs were told to discard these samples.
The duplicate sample taken from this well
remained under custody and the data is
summarized in Tables A-4 through A-7. The
second field blank was then collected on
8/8/86 at Well 40L.
Rainy and windy. Well purged dry at 0934.
Well was still dry at 1030. Samples collec-
ted for VOA, POC, POX, and part of the ex-
tractable organics. Splits given to LRL for
VOA, POX, POX, and extractable organics.
Remainder of samples collected.
Collected samples from surface water near
where LRL takes samples for their NPDES Per-
mit. Splits given to facility for VOA, POC,
POX, and extractable organics.
Full set of samples taken from one of the
facility's leachate sumps. Sample team wore
level B safety protection (self-contained
breathing apporatus and protective cloth-
ing). Splits given to LRL for VOA, POC,
POX, and extractable organics.
High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
grade water was poured through a clean
-------
©
-A-8-
TABLE A - 4 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING SAMPLING OF LRL MONITORING WELLS
WELL NO.
DATE/TIME
REMARKS
Equipment Blank (cont'd)
8/95/86 1450
C.
e
Field Blank
8/05/86
Field Blank
8/07/86
Field Blank
8/08/87
Trip Blank
8/01/86
1627 - 1637
1013
1225
1400
C
bailer, and bottles were filled for all par-
ameters listed in Table 1. This was done at
the U.S. EPA contractor's truck which was
located near the entrance to the landfill.
HPLC grade water was poured into sample con-
tainers near Wells 29U, and 29L, and labeled
as a field blank. A split was given to LRL
for VGA, POC, POX, and extractable organics.
Field blank collected near Well 109U, but
Chain-of-Custody lost during shipment. Lab
told to discard sample.
HPLC grade water was poured into sample con-
tainers for all parameters near Well 40L. A
split was given to LRL for VOA, POC, POX,
and extractable organics.
At the lab of the U.S. EPA sample contractor,
a full set of sample containers were filled
with HPLC grade water. These containers
were taken to the site and kept in the con-
tractor's truck located near the landfill
entrance. Containers were not open while on
site. On 8/7/86, these containers were
shipped to the laboratory and labeled as a
Trip blank.
O
C:
e
-------
-A-9-
lAilil A - !
SUMMARY OF PURGE DATA COLLECTED
FROM WELLS AT LRL
WELL
NUMBER
611
6L
9U
10U
14U
MEASURED *
DEPTH OF
WELL (ft)
45.05
89.65
89.65
14.92
20.2
31.87
MEASURED
DEPTH TO
WATER SURFACE
(ft)
17.84
58.00
58.00
6.51
14.17
23.75
ELEVATION
OF WATER
SURFACE
(ft above MSL)
707.67
667.71
667.71
667.29
666.94
664.65
PURGE
VOLUME
CALCULATED
(gal)
13.05
15.19
15.19
4.04
2.95
0.97
PURGE
VOLUME
ACTUALLY
Removed (gal )
13.3
15.2
2 (Dry)
3.0
1 gal
PURGING
DATE
8/04/86
8/04/86
8/05/86
8/07/86
8/06/86
8/05/86
TIME
1145-1432
1035-1113
0830-0941
0920-0948
1240-1250
1010-1045
REMARKS
Water tan/brown in
col or, heavy sediment
Water tan/brown in color
heavy sediment. Lost
bailer at 1113. Recover-
ed bailer at 1745
Repurged 3 well volumes
then sampled
Water had a slight grey
color. Bailer lost dur-
ing purging, but recov-
ered and well purged
dry. Sampling started 2
hrs. later after well
recovered.
Water clear, weather
rainy.
Water slightly grey. 3/4
inch bailer used, purg-
ing and sampling slow.
* Depth measured during the inspection and may not agree
with Figures in Table 4, due to sedimentation.
-------
o
-A-10-
lAlil A - j> (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF PURGE DATA COLLECTED
FROM WELLS AT LRL
WELL
NUMBER
14L
22U
22L
29U
29L
MEASURED *
DEPTH OF
WELL (ft)
61.33
14.77
46.08
46.67
95.60
MEASURED
DEPTH TO
WATER SURFACE
(ft)
25.00
3.83
6.08
22.40
58.65
ELEVATION
OF WATER
SURFACE
(ft above MSLl
663.85
665.61
664.58
697.43
661.15
PURGE
VOLUME
CALCULATED
(gal)
4.36
5.25
19.2
11.6
17.7
PURGE
VOLUME
ACTUALLY
Removed (gal)
4.5
3.0 (Dry)
7 gal
8.0 (Dry)
18.0
PURGING
DATE
8/05/86
8/06/86
8/06/87
8/05/87
8/05/87
TIME
0950-1140
1530-1537
1545-1600
1222-1241
1310-1422
REMARKS
Water had a mild grey/
brown color. Used a 3/4
inch bailer, purge and
sample very slow.
Well in swampy area. Wa-
ter mild brown color.
Weather clody, rainy.
Well purged dry before 3
well volumes removed.
Water was mild/ tan/grey
color, well purged dry.
Weather, rainy. Well in
swampy area.
Slight amount of sedi-
ment. Well purge dry be-
fore 3 well volumes re-
moved.
Water clear.
* Depth measured during the inspection and may not agree
with Figures in Table 4, due to sedimentation.
-------
-A-ll-
IAJLJL! A -1 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF PURGE DATA COLLECTED
FROM WELLS AT LRL
WELL
NUMBER
30L
39U
40U
40L
108L
109U
110U
MEASURED *
DEPTH OF
WELL (ft)
74.33
21.08
15.45
63.7
88.77
26.30
31.70
MEASURED
DEPTH TO
WATER SURFACE
(ft)
40.33
13.69
6.75
8.2
61.32
11.51
11.85
ELEVATION
OF WATER
SURFACE
(ft above MSL)
661.66
687.12
666.27
665.21
660.9
669.98
688.96
PURGE
VOLUME
CALCULATED
(gal)
16.2
3.25
4.2
27.5 .
13.2
7.1
10.0
PURGE
VOLUME
ACTUALLY
Removed (gal)
16.7
6.0
4.5
27.5
13.5
7.5
4.0(Dry)
PURGING
DATE
8/06/87
8/06/86
8/07/87
8/08/87
8/04/87
8/07/86
8/06/87
TIME
0920-1007
1008-1023
0494-0959
1152-1243
1600-1630
1420-1437
0920-0934
\
REMARKS
Water slightly turbid.
Weather, rainy and
windy.
Due to heavy tan sedi-
ments, the well was
purged on extra 3 well
volumes before sampling.
First set of samples
taken on 8/8/87 had to
be discarded due to loss
of Chain-of-Custody dur-
ing shipment. This is
second sampling effort.
Water had heavy tan/
brown sediments.
Water contained heavy
tan/brown sediments.
Wei 11 purged dry after 4
gallons removed. Weath-
er, rainy and windy.
* Depth measured during the inspection and may not agree
with Figures in Table 4, due to sedimentation.
-------
A P. f.! N. [).! X. B.
"EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT TO THE ANALYSIS
OF SAMPLES FROM THE LAND RECLAMATION. WISCONSIN FACILITY".
DECEMBER 18. 1986, PRC ENGINEERING
LAND RECLAMATION. LTD., RACINE, WISCONSIN
-------
pro
PRC Engineering Planning Research Corporation
Suite 600
302 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
Caoie CONTOWENG
December 18, 1986
Mr. Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force (WH-562A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W., Room S-301
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Montrone:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. are pleased to submit for your review the
final memcrandum for QA/QC support of Work Assignment No. 548 entitled "Evalua-
tion of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples from the Land
Reclamation, Wisconsin Facility."
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
us.
Sincerely,
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Daniel T. Chow
U
DTC/cvh
cc: Nancy Deck (w/1 copy of report)
Bruce Bakaysa (letter only)
Barbara Elkus (w/1 copy of report)
Rich Steimle (w/1 copy of report)
Paul Friedman (w/1 copy of report)
Ken Partymiller (w/copy of report)
Brian Lewis (w/1 copy of report)
Gareth Pearson (w/1 copy of report)
Chuck Hoover (w/1 copy of report)
James Adams, Jr. (w/1 copy of report)
John McGuire (w/1 copy of report) t/
Ed Berg (w/1 copy of report)
-------
PRO Engineering
Suite 600
303 East Wacker Drive
Cnicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
Cable CONTOWENG
pro
Planning Research Corporation
ENFORCEMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
LAND RECLAMATION, WISCONSIN FACILITY
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
Work Assignment, No.
EPA Region
Site No.
Date Prepared
Contract No.
PRC No.
Prepared By
Telephone No. :
EPA Primary Contacts:
Telephone No. :
548
Headquarters
N/A
December 18, 1986
68-01-7037
15-5480-05
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Anthony Montrone/
Barbara Elkus
(202) 382-7912
G
BB2ISED
fif UTi£AT!OH
-------
pro
PRC Engineering
Suite 600
303 East Wacker Drive
Cnicago, IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
CaDle CONTOWENG
Planning Research Corporation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 17, 1986
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Land Reclamation, Wisconsin Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management
THRU: Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
TO: HWGWTF: Tony Montrone*
Garcth Pearson (EPA 8231)*
Richard Steimle*
Ed Berg (EPA 8214)*
James Adams, Jr., Region V
John McGuire, Region V
Brian Lewis
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 Land Reclamation, Wisconsin 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 (2-3) 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 presents 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
HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
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
accompanying reports (2-3). 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.
I. Site Overview
The Land Reclamation facility is located in Racine, Wisconsin. The landfill is
on an eighty-one acre site and has been in operation since 1970. The landfill is
situated on a glacial ridge which consists of silty-clay loam containing little sand or
gravel so contaminant migration is expected to be slow. Hazardous wastes were
accepted at the facility until 1982. Types of hazardous wastes accepted, according
to the facility's Part A Permit Application, include ignitable wastes, metals, spent
halogenated solvents, non-halogenated solvents, electroplating wastes, pickle liquors,
ethylhexylphthalate, tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethane. The facility is in
Detection Monitoring which means that there has been no indication of leakage
from the site according to the data submitted by the facility. Some violations of
Interim Status standards have occurred including problems with the adequacy of the
ground-water monitoring system and several of the Federal Facility Standards.
An old city landfill is located next to the hazardous waste site. This unlined
landfill may have accepted hazardous wastes. Contamination from this site may be
impacting some of the Land Reclamation wells as contamination has been seen
previously at some of the wells located between the two sites. Some of the Land
Reclamation up-gradient wells have shown possible contamination and may not be
true "up-gradient" wells.
Twenty-five field samples including two field blanks (MQO560/QO560 and
MQO577/QO577), one equipment blank (MQO559/QO559), one trip blank
(MQO796/QO796), and two pairs of duplicate samples (well 40U, MQO569/QO569 and
MQO570/QO570 and well 40L, MQO578/QO578 and MQO579/QO579) were collected at
this facility. Sample MQO580/QOS80 is a medium concentration leachate sample.
Sample MQO576/QO576 is a low concentration surface water sample. All other
samples were low concentration ground-water samples.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Performance Evaluation Standard?
Metal analyte performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in
conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
-------
1.2 Metals OC Evaluation
Total and dissolved metal spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-three
metals spiked into six low concentration ground-water samples (MQO558, 563, 569,
570, 578, and 579) and one medium concentration leachate sample (MQO580). Not
all metals were spiked into each of these samples and separate samples were spiked
for the total and dissolved metal ground-water samples. Nineteen of the twenty-
three total metal average spike recoveries and all seventeen of the dissolved metal
average spike recoveries from the low concentration ground-water samples were
•within the data quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program. In the low
concentration ground-water samples, the total selenium and silver average spike
recoveries were outside DQO with values of 47 and 332 percent, respectively. The
total aluminum and iron spike recoveries were not calculated as the sample
concentrations of these metals were greater than four times the concentration of
the spike. Various individual metal spike recoveries from the ground-water samples
were also outside DQO. These are listed in Table 3-2a of Reference 2 as well as in
the following Sections. A listing of which samples were spiked for each analyte is
also available in Table 3-2a of Reference 2.
Nineteen of the twenty-three total metal spike recoveries and twelve of the
seventeen dissolved metal spike recoveries from the medium concentration leachate
spiked sample (only the single sample was spiked) were within DQO. In the
leachate sample the total selenium and dissolved silver spike recoveries were outside
DQO with values of 46 and 64 percent. The total aluminum, iron, and lead, and
dissolved iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium spike recoveries were not
calculated because the sample concentrations of these metals were greater than four
times the concentration of the spike.
All reported laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries and all calibration
verification standard (CVS) recoveries were within Program DQOs.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for metallic analytes
in ground-water samples, except total chromium and lead and dissolved aluminum
and iron, were within Program DQOs. The calculable RPDs for all metallic analytes
in the leachate sample, except total aluminum, were within the DQOs. RPDs were
not calculated for about one-half of the metal analytes because the concentrations
of many of the metals in the field samples used for the RDP determination were
less than the CRDL.
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. A trip blank
(MQO796) contained 25 ug/L of total chromium and an equipment blank (MQO559)
contained 11 ug/L of dissolved chromium. Both of these values are above the
CRDL.
1.3 Furnace Metals
The graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and
thallium) quality control, with exceptions, was acceptable.
Duplicate injection precision for antimony was poor for samples MQO558, 578,
579, and 580Dup (the duplicate leachate analysis). All total and dissolved antimony
results should be considered quantitative.
-------
The total arsenic spike recovery for sample MQO563 was outside DQO with a
recovery of 66 percent. The method of standard addition (MSA) correlation
coefficient for dissolved arsenic in sample MQO570 was outside control limits.
There was suspected interference in this analysis due to the presence of large
concentrations of sulfate. Dissolved arsenic results for this sample (MQO570) should
not be used. All dissolved arsenic results, with the exception of sample MQO570,
should be considered quantitative. Due to variable total arsenic spike recoveries, all
total arsenic results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The cadmium results, recorded on Form 3, for three continuing calibration
blanks (CCBs) were slightly different than the values reported in the raw data.
This has no impact on data quality. All cadmium results should be considered
quantitative.
The correlation coefficient for the MSA analysis of total lead in sample
MQOSSODup was outside of DQO. Laboratory duplicate RPDs or absolute differences
for total lead in samples MQO563 and 578 were outside DQO. The duplicate
injection relative standard difference (RSD) for dissolved lead in sample MQO563Dup
was outside DQO. There were deviations in the control limits for one set of
continuing calibration verifications (CCVs) and CCBs for the lead analysis. Samples
MQOS60, 561, 563, 566, and 568 were run after the unacceptable CCV and CCB and
total lead results for these samples should be considered semi-quantitative. All
dissolved lead results should be considered quantitative and all total lead results
should be considered semi-quantitative.
The selenium spike recoveries for samples MQO563, 579, and 580 were outside
DQO with recoveries of 57, 36, and 46 percent, respectively. . There is no apparent
reason for these unacceptable recoveries. All dissolved selenium results should be
considered quantitative and, due to poor spike recoveries, all total selenium results
should be considered qualitative.
All total and dissolved thallium results shoulo* be considered quantitative.
1.4 ICP Metals
Two of the sampling blanks contained chromium contamination at
concentrations greater than the CRDL. Equipment blank MQO559 contained 11 ug/L
of dissolved chromium and trip blank MQO796 contained 25 ug/L of total chromium.
The apparent chromium in the equipment blank may have been the result of a high
bias noted in the chromium results on its analysis date (see the following comment).
Due to the chromium contamination found in the trip blank, the total chromium
results for samples MQO552, 554, 555, 561, 562, 563, 565, 566, 568, 575, and 576
should be considered unusable.
The low leve^twice CRDL) linear range checks for chromium, copper, silver,
and zinc had poorT£coverie~s. Theflow level linear range xiheck 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 elements is not unexpected.
Total chromium, silver, and zinc results for samples MQO553, 555, and 580 were
affected and should be considered to be biased high. All dissolved copper, silver,
and zinc results for all samples should be considered to be biased low and all
dissolved chromium results should be considered to be biased high.
Individual spike recoveries were outside DQO for dissolved calcium in sample
MQO563 (126 percent), dissolved silver in sample MQO580 (64 percent), and total
-------
silver in samples MQO563 (332 percent) and 578 (332 percent). Low spike recoveries
usually indicate results which are biased low and high spike recoveries usually
indicate results which are biased high.
The ICP serial dilution results were not within 10 percent of the original
determination for barium in sample MQO563 and for iron and magnesium in sample
MQO580. Poor serial dilution results can be an indication of physical interferences
in the analyses. At this facility, the interference is most prevalent in the leachate
sample (MQO580) which contains high concentrations of dissolved solids. Such
interferences usually yield results with a negative bias and thus a low recovery.
.Sample MQOS63, however, did not contain high levels of dissolved solids and
therefore the poor barium results cannot be attributed to physical interference.
Laboratory duplicate results for dissolved aluminum and iron and total
chromium in sample MQOS63 and aluminum in sample MQOS80 were outside DQO.
Duplicate injection RSD results for calcium, iron, manganese, and zinc in
samples MQO578 and 579 were all outside DQO.
All beryllium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium,
and zinc results should be considered quantitative. Aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, magnesium, and silver results, with exceptions listed below, should
also be considered quantitative. The low level positive chromium results with
exceptions, the medium level results for dissolved iron, magnesium, and silver, and
the low level results for dissolved barium, calcium,, and iron should be considered
semi-quantitative. The medium level results for total aluminum, the low level
results for dissolved aluminum, and the low level results for silver should be
considered qualitative. Total chromium results for samples MQO552, 554, 555, 561,
562, 563, 565, 566, 568, 575, and 576 should be considered unreliable due to blank
contamination at similar concentrations.
1.5 Mercury
No problems were detected with the mercury data. All mercury results should
be considered quantitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Inorganic and indicator analyte performance evaluation standards were not
evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes,
except for ammonia nitrogen in the leachate sample, were within the accuracy DQOs
(accuracy DQOs .have not been established £j^ bromide and-nitrite nitrogen matrix
spikes). The ammonia nitrogen spike%ecdVery was 114 percent in the leachate
sample. The bromide and nitrite nitrogen spike recoveries were 92 and 100 percent
in the ground-water samples and 98 and 94 percent in the leachate sample. The
recoveries for all inorganic and indicator analytes are acceptable.
All LCS and CVS recoveries reported in the raw data for inorganic and
indicator analytes were within Program DQOs.
-------
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were within Program
DQOs. Precision DQOs have not been established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen.
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. Contamination involving TOC, total phenols, bromide, and chloride was
^found in the both field blanks and the trip blank at levels above CRDL. These
contaminants and their concentrations are listed below, as well as in Section 3.2.4
-(page 3-3) of Reference 2.
2.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
The QC standards for cyanide were not analyzed in conjunction with the
sample analyses but were run three days earlier. All cyanide results should be
considered qualitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
Nitrate nitrogen was detected in the trip blank (MQO796) at 9 ug/L. As a
HWGWTF convention, all results greater than ten times the highest sampling blank
concentration or less than the detection limit are considered quantitative (unless
there are other problems with the data). Results greater than five but less than
ten times the highest concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered
qualitative and all other data are considered unusable. Therefore, the nitrate
nitrogen results for sample MQOS69 should be considered qualitative. Other results
are listed below. The holding times for the nitrate nitrogen analyses ranged from 2
to 6 days from receipt of samples most of which are longer than the recommended
48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. The final calibration verification (a
CCV) for nitrate nitrogen (120 percent) was above the DQO. The analytical
instrument should have been recalibrated and the calibration reverified before
proceeding with the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576,
577, 579, and 580 were affected and should be considered to be biased high. The
field duplicate precision for one of the two duplicate pairs (MQO569/570) was poor
(50 ug/L of nitrate nitrogen detected in one sample {the CRDL is 300 ug/L), 1110
ug/L detected in the other). The comparative precision of the field duplicate
results is not used in the evaluation of sample results as it is not possible to
determine the source of this imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for
informational purposes only. All nitrate nitrogen results, with the exceptions of
sample MQO569 mentioned above which should be considered qualitative and sample
MQO579 (see sulfate or chloride comment on this sample) which should not be used,
should be considered to be semi-quantitative.
The holding times for the nitrite nitrogen analyses ranged from 2 to 6 days
from receipt of samples which is generally longer than the recommended 48 hour
holding time for unpreservecL samples. The laboratory did not analyze an initial
calibration verification (ICV) at *lhe beginning -~of the" nitrite nitrogen ion
chromatography analytical batch, as required. The nitrite nitrogen results should be
considered to be semi-quantitative except for .sample' MQO579 which should not be
used (see sulfate^ or chloride comment oh this sample).
The final CCV for chloride (336 percent) was above the DQO. The analytical
instrument should have been recalibrated and the calibration reverified before
proceeding with the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576,
577, 579, and 580 were affected and should be considered to be biased high. The
chloride field duplicate precision for both of the duplicate pairs (MQO569/570 and
MQO578/579) was poor (280,000 versus 190,000 ug/L in the first pair and 5900
-------
versus no chloride detected in the other). These results were not used in the data
usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor duplicate
sampling techniques. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes
only. In the case of the sample MQOS79 from the second field duplicate pair, no
ion chromatography (1C) analytes (nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, chloride, bromide,
and sulfate) were detected although other 'inorganic and indicator elements were.
As the 1C analysis, for all five 1C analytes, is performed on a sample from a
separate sample bottle, this' indicates that something was wrong with either the
sampling or analysis of this 1C sample. Chloride was detected in the trip blank at
a concentration of 2200 ug/L. As a HWGWTF convention, all results greater than
Ten times the highest sampling blank concentration or less than the detection limit
-are considered quantitative (unless there are other problems with the data). Results
greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration of sampling
blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are considered
unusable. Therefore, chloride results for samples MQOS53 should be considered
qualitative and results for samples MQOS54, 555, 556, 557, 558, 561, and 578 should
be considered unusable. The chloride results for all other samples should be
considered semi-quantitative with the exception of sample MQO579 which should not
be used because of the above mentioned problem with that sample.
The laboratory did not analyze an ICV at the beginning of the bromide ion
chromatography analytical batch, as required. Bromide was detected in the trip
blank at a concentration of 60 ug/L. As a HWGWTF convention, all results greater
than ten times the highest sampling blank concentration or less than the detection
limit are considered quantitative (unless there are other problems with the data).
Results greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration of
sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are
considered unusable. Bromide results for samples MQO553, 562, 578, and 579 should
not be used. The bromide results for sample MQO567 should be considered
qualitative. AH other bromide results should be considered to be semi-quantitative.
The final CCV for sulfate (260 percent) was above the DQO. The instrument
should have been recalibrated and the calibration,reverified before proceeding with
the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, 579, and 580
were affected and should be considered to be biased high as a result. The sulfate
field duplicate precision for both of the duplicate pairs (MQO569/570 and
MQO578/579) was poor (140,000 versus 105,000 ug/L in the first pair and 180,000
versus no sulfate detected in the other). These results were not used in the data
usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor duplicate
sampling techniques. In the case of the sample MQO579 from the second field
duplicate pair, no ion chromatography (1C) analytes, including sulfate, were detected
although other inorganic and indicator elements were. As the 1C analysis, for all
five 1C analytes, is performed on a sample from a separate sample bottle, this
indicates that something was wrong with either the sampling or analysis of this 1C
sample. The sulfate results, as mentioned above, should be considered quantitative
with the exceptions of samples J4QO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, and 580 which should be
considered semi-quantitative antrcampl* MQO5JS. which^1houid1|bl bejwed.
-._ ._ •**•""
One of two ammonia nitrogen ICV^and two CO^were outside of DQO. The
ammonia nitrogen field duplicate precision for one of the duplicate pairs
(MQO569/570) was poor (35,000 versus 27,000 ug/L). These results were not used in
the data usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor
duplicate sampling techniques. ^&\ ammonia Nitrogen results .-should *e considered
semi-quantitative. "
-------
Total phenol contamination was found in one of the field blanks (MQO577) and
the trip blank (MQO796) at concentrations of 20 and 96 ug/L. These values are
above the total phenol CRDL of 10 ug/L. Based upon HWGWTF conventions, all
total phenols results greater than 10 times the highest concentration of total
phenols in the sampling blanks or less than the detection limit "are.considered
quantitative. This includes samples MQO554, 555, 557, 558, 559, and 560. All total
phenols results greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration
of sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are
considered unusable. Total phenols results for all other samples (than the six
^mentioned above) should not be used.
i
One of two field blanks (MQO560) contained TOC at a concentration of 1200
ug/L which is above the CRDL of 1000 ug/L. Again, as a HWGWTF convention, all
TOC results greater that ten times the highest field blank concentration or less
than the detection limit should be considered quantitative. TOC results for samples
MQO553, 559, 563, 568, 569, 570, 577, 580, and 796 should be, therefore, considered
quantitative. All TOC results greater than five but less than ten times the highest
concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all
other data are considered unusable. The TOC results for samples MQO557, 561, 562,
565, and 576 should be considered qualitative, and all other TOC should not be used.
ICV and CCV standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC spike solution was
run twice 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. One of two sets of field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor
precision with POC concentrations of no POC reported and 380 ug/L. The
comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of
sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. Field
duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The POC results
should be considered qualitative.
The TOX analysis was run over a period of.five days. Final CCVs and final
CCBs were not run at the end of each days' analytical batch. From the information
on the laboratory work sheets it was not clear whether an ICV and a ICB were run
at the beginning of one of the five day's analytical batches. Sample MQO580, the
leachate sample, contained a high concentration of chloride (690,000 ug/L) which
may have enhanced the TOX results for this sample. The results of one pair of
field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor precision with TOX concentrations of 54
and 71 ug/L. The comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in
the evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this
imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only.
The TOX results should be considered quantitative except for the samples where
insufficient calibrations were performed. Samples with insufficient calibrations
include MQO552, 554, 556, 557, 560, 563, 568, 577, and 579 and results for these
samples should be considered semi-quantitative.
One of the. two sets of POX field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor
precision with m> 3»OX tf^fcected in one-^jmple and 15 ug/L detected in the other.
The comparative precision-of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation
of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source1 of this imprecision.
Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The holding
times for samples MQO553 and 554 was eight days which exceeded the recommended
holding time of seven days. POX results should be considered quantitative except
for samples MQO553 and 554 which should be considered semi-quantitative.
-------
3.0 Oryanics and Pesticides
3.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Organic performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in conjunction
with the samples collected from this facility.
3.2 Organic OC Evaluation
* All matrix spike average recoveries were within established Program DQOs for
accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO
will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All surrogate spike average
recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy with two exceptions. Surrogate spike
recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO will be discussed in the
appropriate Sections below.
All 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.
All organic analyses were performed as requested.
Laboratory blank contamination was reported for organics and is discussed in
Reference 3 (for organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in Reference 3 (for
organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
3.3 Volatiles
Quality control data indicate that volatile organics were determined acceptably.
The chromatograms appear acceptable. Initial and continuing calibrations, tunings
and mass calibrations, blanks, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and
surrogate spikes are acceptable.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples except QO580,
the leachate sample, which was 15 times CRDL. Dilution of this sample was
required.
Laboratory blank *860809, analyzed on 8/9/86, was analyzed prior to the
continuing calibration standard. This did not affect the results of the data
evaluation.
The volatile* data are acceptable. The volatile compound results should be
considered quantitative with the exception of the leachate sample (QO580) which
should be considered semi-quantitative due to an increased probability of false
negative results. The probability of false negative rdftults for all other samples is
acceptable.
3.4 Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, blanks, holding
times, and chromatograms were acceptable for the semivolatiles. Some problems
were encountered with matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries and surrogate
recoveries.
-------
Contamination was detected in three laboratory blanks (GH09623A21,
GH0958SOC21, and GH095523C21). The blanks contained di-n-butylphthalate at less'
than the CRDL.
The matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recovery of 4-nitrophenol' (9 "percent) in
sample QO578 was below the DQO of 10 to 80 percent. The relative percent
differences (RPDs) between, matrix spike and MSD recovery of 4-nitrophenol in
sample QO578 and phenol in sample QOS63 were above DQO.
^ The surrogate percent recoveries for phenol, 2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-
ttribromophenol in sample QO562 (no recovery for any of the three acids) and for
-'phenol and 2-fluorophenol in sample QO562RE (reextracted sample, 8 and 6 percent
recoveries) were below their respective DQOs.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
quantitative for all samples except QO580 which should be considered semi-
quantitative due to increased probabilities of false negatives and for the acid
fraction results for sample QOS63 which should be considered unreliable due to poor
acid recovery. Estimated method detection limits are twice CRDL for all samples
except QOS80 which is 10 times CRDL. The probability of false negatives is
acceptable for all samples with the exception of QO580 due to raised detection
limits caused by dilution where the probability of false negatives is increased.
3.5 Pesticides
The initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, matrix spike/matrix spike
duplicates, surrogate spikes, and holding times for pesticides were acceptable. Some
of the pesticide chromatograms appear to contain non-pesticide or unidentified
peaks.
The estimated method detection limits for the pesticides fraction were CRDL
for all samples. The pesticides results should be considered qualitative. There is
an enhanced probability of false negatives (unre'covered pesticides in the sample)
based upon the clean-up method used by the laboratory.
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals
Quantitative: all total and dissolved antimony, cadmium, and thallium results;
all dissolved lead, selenium, and arsenic (except MQO570)
results
Semi-quantitative: all total arsenic and lead results
Qualitative: all total selenium results
Unreliable: dissolved arsenic results for sample MQO570
4.1 ICP Metals
Quantitative: all beryllium, cobalt,-copper, manganese, nickel, potassium,
sodium, vanadium, and zinc results; aluminum, barium, calcium,
Chromium, iron, magnesium, and silver results with exceptions
listed below
Semi-quantitative: dissolved iron, magnesium, and silver results for sample
MQO580 (leachate sample); all dissolved barium, calcium, and
iron results except for sample MQOS80; total chromium results
with exceptions listed below
-------
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
4.2 Mercury
Quantitative:
*«
total silver results except for sample MQO580; total aluminum
results for sample MQO580; dissolved aluminum results for all
samples except MQO580
total chromium results for samples MQO552, 554, 561, 562, 565,
563, 566, 568, 575, and 576
all mercury results
Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
Unusable:
4.4 Organ ics
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
sulfate, TOX, and POX results with exceptions; total phenols
results for samples MQO554, 555, 557, 558, 559, and 560; TOC
results for samples MQO553. 559, 563, 568, 569, 570, 577, 580,
and 796
all ammonia nitrogen results; bromide, chloride, nitrate
nitrogen, and nitrite nitrogen results with exceptions; sulfate
results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, 579, and 580;
TOX results for samples MQO552, 554, 556, 557. 560, 563, 568,
577, and 579; POX results for samples MQO553 and 554
all POC results; chloride results for sample MQO553; nitrate
nitrogen results for sample MQO569; bromide results for sample
MQO567; TOC results for samples MQO557, 561, 562, 565, and
576
all cyanide results
all ion chroma tography (nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, chloride,
bromide, and sulfate) results for sample MQO579; chloride
results for samples MQO554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 561, and 578;
bromide results for samples MQO553, 562, and 578; total
phenols and TOC results with exceptions
sample QO580; all semivolatile
and the acid fraction of sample
all volatiles results except
results except sample QO580
QO563
volatile and semivolatile results for sample QO580
all pesticides results
semivolatile acid fraction results for sample QO563
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses:
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
-------
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation 'Report (Assessment of the Usability of
* the Data Generated) for site 4IB, Land Reclamation, Wisconsin, 11/4/1986,
t Prepared by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for
the US EPA Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report and Draft Organic Data Usability
Report, for the Land Reclamation, Wisconsin site, Prepared by Laboratory
Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 11/4/1986.
V. Addressees
Ed Berg
Chief, Project Management Section, Quality Assurance Branch, EMSL/CI
US Environmental Protection Agency
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
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
James Adams, Jr.
Quality Assurance Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
John McGuire
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Brian Lewis
c/o Department of Health Services
1219 K Street, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Paul Friedman
Characterization and Assessment Division, OSW (WH-562B)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
*••"
Chuck Hoover
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas. Nevada 89114
-------
PRO Engineering
Suite 600
302 East Wacker Drive
Chicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
CONTOWENG
prc
Planning Research Corporation
December 18, 1986
Mr. Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force (WH-562A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W., Room S-301
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Montrone:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc. are pleased to submit for your review the
final memorandum for QA/QC support of Work Assignment No. 548 entitled "Evalua-
tion of. Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples from the Land
Reclamation, Wisconsin Facility.".
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
us.
Sincerely,
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Daniel T. Chow
DTC/cvh
cc: Nancy Deck (w/1 copy of report)
Bruce Bakaysa (letter only)
Barbara Elkus (w/1 copy of report)
Rich Steimle (w/1 copy of report)
Paul Friedman (w/1 copy of report)
Ken Partymiller (w/copy of report)
Brian Lewis (w/1 copy of report)
Gareth Pearson (w/1 copy of report)
Chuck Hoover (w/1 copy of report)
James Adams, Jr. (w/1 copy of report!
John McGuire (w/1 copy of report) v
Ed Berg (w/1 copy of report)
-------
PRC Engineering
Suite 600
303 East Wacker Drive
Cnicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
Cafcie CONTOWENG
pro
Planning Research Corporation
ENFORCEMENT
CONFIDENTIAL
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
LAND RECLAMATION, WISCONSIN FACILITY
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
Work Assignment (Jo.
EPA Region
Site No.
Date Prepared
Contract No.
PRC No.
Prepared By
Telephone No. :
EPA Primary Contacts:
Telephone No. :
548
Headquarters
N/A
December 18, 1986
68-01-7037
15-5480-05
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Anthony Montrone/
Barbara Elkus
(202) 382-7912
WILEStD ffCfJC ROBUST PREPARED
» AK7U ATIJrJ OF UTiSATICH
-------
PRC Engineering
Suite 600
303 East Wacker Drive
Chicago. IL 60601
312-938-0300
TWX 910-2215112
Cable CONTOWENG
prc
Planning Research Corporation
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 17, 1986
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Land Reclamation, Wisconsin Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management
THRU: Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
TO: HWGWTF: Tony Montrone*
Gareth Pearson (EPA 8231)*
Richard Steimle*
Ed Berg (EPA 8214)*
James Adams, Jr., Region V
John McGuire, Region V
Brian Lewis
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 Land Reclamation, Wisconsin 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 (2-3) 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 presents 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
HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
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
accompanying reports (2-3). 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.
I. Site Overview
The Land Reclamation facility is located in Racine, Wisconsin. The landfill is
on an eighty-one acre site and has been in operation since 1970. The landfill is
situated on a glacial ridge which consists of silty-clay loam containing little sand or
gravel so contaminant migration is expected to be slow. Hazardous wastes were
accepted at the facility until 1982. Types of hazardous wastes accepted, according
to the facility's Part A Permit Application, include ignitable wastes, metals, spent
halogenated solvents, non-halogenated solvents, electroplating wastes, pickle liquors,
ethylhexylphthalate, tetrachloroethylene, and trichlorocthane. The facility is in
Detection Monitoring which means that there has been no indication of leakage
from the site according to the data submitted by the facility. Some violations of
Interim Status standards have occurred including problems with the adequacy of the
ground-water monitoring system and several of the Federal Facility Standards.
An old city landfill is located next to the hazardous waste site. This unlined
landfill may have accepted hazardous wastes. Contamination from this site may be
impacting some of the Land Reclamation wells as contamination has been seen
previously at some of the wells located between the two sites. Some of the Land
Reclamation up-gradient wells have shown possible contamination and may not be
true "up-gradient" wells.
Twenty-five field samples including two field blanks (MQO560/QO560 and
MQO577/QO577), one equipment blank (MQO559/QO559), one trip blank
(MQO796/QO796), and two pairs of duplicate samples (well 40U, MQO569/QO569 and
MQO570/QO570 and well 40L, MQO578/QO578 and MQO579/QO579) were collected at
this facility. Sample MQO580/QO580 is a medium concentration leachate sample.
Sample MQO576/QO576 is a low concentration surface water sample. All other
samples were low concentration ground-water samples.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1-1 Performance Evaluation Standard;
Metal analyte performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in
conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
-------
1.2 Metals OC Evaluation
Total and dissolved metal spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-three
metals spiked into six low concentration ground-water samples (MQO558, 563, 569,
570, 578, and 579) and one medium concentration leachate sample (MQO580). Not
all metals were spiked into each of these samples and separate samples were spiked
for the total and dissolved metal ground-water samples. Nineteen of the twenty-
three total metal average spike recoveries and all seventeen of the dissolved metal
average spike recoveries from the low concentration ground-water samples were
within the data quality objectives (DQQs) for this Program. In the low
concentration ground-water samples, the total selenium and silver average spike
recoveries were outside DQO with values of 47 and 332 percent, respectively. The
total aluminum and iron spike recoveries were not calculated as the sample
concentrations of these metals were greater than four times the concentration of
the spike. Various individual metal spike recoveries from the ground-water samples
were also outside DQO. These are listed in Table 3-2a of Reference 2 as well as in
the following Sections. A listing of which samples were spiked for each analyte is
also available in Table 3-2a of Reference 2.
Nineteen of the twenty-three total metal spike recoveries and twelve of the
seventeen dissolved metal spike recoveries from the medium concentration leachate
spiked sample (only the single sample was spiked) were within DQO. In the
leachate sample the total selenium and dissolved silver spike recoveries were outside
DQO with values of 46 and 64 percent. The total aluminum, iron, and lead, and
dissolved iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium spike recoveries were not
calculated because the sample concentrations of these metals were greater than four
times the concentration of the spike.
All reported laboratory control sample (LCS) recoveries and all calibration
verification standard (CVS) recoveries were within Program DQOs.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for metallic analytes
in ground-water samples, except total chromium 'and lead and dissolved aluminum
and iron, were within Program DQOs. The calculable RPDs for all metallic analytes
in the leachate sample, except total aluminum, were within the DQOs. RPDs were
not calculated for about one-half of the metal analytes because the concentrations
of many of the metals in the field samples used for the RDP determination were
less than the CRDL.
Required analyses were performed on all metals samples submitted to the
laboratory.
No contamination was reported in the laboratory blanks. A trip blank
(MQO796) contained 25 ug/L of total chromium and an equipment blank (MQO559)
contained 11 ug/L of dissolved chromium. Both of these values are above the
CRDL.
1.3 Furnace Metals
The graphite furnace metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and
thallium) quality control, with exceptions, was acceptable.
Duplicate injection precision for antimony was poor for samples MQO558, 578,
579, and 580Dup (the duplicate leachate analysis). All total and dissolved antimony
results should be considered quantitative.
-------
The total arsenic spike recovery for sample MQOS63 was outside DQO with a
recovery of 66 percent. The method of standard addition (MSA) correlation
coefficient for dissolved arsenic in sample MQOS70 was outside control limits.
There was suspected interference in this analysis due to the presence of large
concentrations of sulfate. Dissolved arsenic results for this sample (MQO570) should
not be used. All dissolved arsenic results, with the exception of sample MQO570,
should be considered quantitative. Due to variable total arsenic spike recoveries, all
total arsenic results should be considered semi-quantitative.
The cadmium results, recorded on Form 3, for three continuing calibration
blanks (CCBs) were slightly different than' the values reported in the raw data.
This has no impact on data quality. All cadmium results should be considered
quantitative.
The correlation coefficient for the MSA analysis of total lead in sample
MQOSSODup was outside of DQO. Laboratory duplicate RPDs or absolute differences
for total lead in samples MQO563 and 578 were outside DQO. The duplicate
injection relative standard difference (RSD) for dissolved lead in sample MQO563Dup
was outside DQO. There were deviations in the control limits for one set of
continuing calibration verifications (CCVs) and CCBs for the lead analysis. Samples
MQO560, 561, 563, 566, and 568 were run after the unacceptable CCV and CCB and
total lead results for these samples should be considered semi-quantitative. All
dissolved lead results should be considered quantitative and all total lead results
should be considered semi-quantitative.
The selenium spike recoveries for samples MQO563, 579, and 580 were outside
DQO with recoveries of 57, 36, and 46 percent, respectively. There is no apparent
reason for these unacceptable recoveries. All dissolved selenium results should be
considered quantitative and, due to poor spike recoveries, all total selenium results
should be considered qualitative.
All total and dissolved thallium results should be considered quantitative.
t
1.4 ICP Metals
Two of the sampling blanks contained chromium contamination at
concentrations greater than the CRDL. Equipment blank MQO559 contained 11 ug/L
of dissolved chromium and trip blank MQO796 contained 25 ug/L of total chromium.
The apparent chromium in the equipment blank may have been the result of a high
bias noted in the chromium results on its analysis date (see the following comment).
Due to the chromium contamination found in the trip blank, the total chromium
results for samples MQO552, 554, 555, 561, 562, 563, 565, 566, 568, 575, and 576
should be considered unusable.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range checks for chromium, copper, silver,
and zinc had poor recoveries. 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 elements is not unexpected.
Total chromium, silver, and zinc results for samples MQO553, 555, and 580 were
affected and should be considered to be biased high. All dissolved copper, silver,
and zinc results for all samples should be considered to be biased low and all
dissolved chromium results should be considered to be biased high.
Individual spike recoveries were outside DQO for dissolved calcium in sample
MQO563 (126 percent), dissolved silver in sample MQO580 (64 percent), and total
-------
silver in samples MQOS63 (332 percent) and 578 (332 percent). Low spike recoveries
usually indicate results which are biased low and high spike recoveries usually
indicate results which are biased high.
The ICP serial dilution results were not within 10 percent of the original
determination for barium in sample MQO563 and for iron and magnesium in sample
MQOS80. Poor serial dilution results can be an indication of physical interferences
in the analyses. At this facility, the interference is most prevalent in the leachate
sample (MQO580) which contains high concentrations of dissolved solids. Such
interferences usually yield results with a negative bias and thus a low recovery.
Sample MQO563, however, did not contain high levels of dissolved solids and
therefore the poor barium results cannot be attributed to physical interference.
Laboratory duplicate results for dissolved aluminum and iron and total
chromium in sample MQO563 and aluminum in sample MQO580 were outside DQO.
Duplicate injection RSD results for calcium, iron, manganese, and zinc in
samples MQOS78 and 579 were all outside DQO.
All beryllium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium,
and zinc results should be considered quantitative. Aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, magnesium, and silver results, with exceptions listed below, should
also be considered quantitative. The low level positive chromium results with
exceptions, the medium level results for dissolved iron, magnesium, and silver, and
the low level results for dissolved barium, calcium, and iron should be considered
semi-quantitative. The medium level results for total aluminum, the low level
results for dissolved aluminum, and the low level results for silver should be
considered qualitative. Total chromium results for samples MQO552, 554, 555, 561,
562, 563, 565, 566, 568, 575, and 576 should be considered unreliable due to blank
contamination at similar concentrations.
1.5 Mercury
i
No problems were detected with the mercury data. All mercury results should
be considered quantitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Inorganic and indicator analyte performance evaluation standards were not
evaluated in conjunction with the samples collected from this facility.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes,
except for ammonia nitrogen in the leachate sample, were within the accuracy DQOs
(accuracy DQOs have not been established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen matrix
spikes). The ammonia nitrogen spike recovery was 114 percent in the leachate
sample. The bromide and nitrite nitrogen spike recoveries were 92 and 100 percent
in the ground-water samples and 98 and 94 percent in the leachate sample. The
recoveries for all inorganic and indicator analytes are acceptable.
All LCS and CVS recoveries reported in the raw data for inorganic and
indicator analytes were within Program DQOs.
-------
Average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were within Program
DQOs. Precision DQOs have not been established for bromide and nitrite nitrogen.
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. Contamination involving TOC, total phenols, bromide, and chloride was
found in the both field blanks and the trip blank at levels above CRDL. These
contaminants and their concentrations are listed below, as well as in Section 3.2.4
(page 3*3) of Reference 2.
2.3 Anorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
The QC standards for cyanide were not analyzed in conjunction with the
sample analyses but were run three days earlier. All cyanide results should be
considered qualitative with an acceptable probability of false negatives.
Nitrate nitrogen was detected in the trip blank (MQO796) at 9 ug/L. As a
HWGWTF convention, all results greater than ten times the highest sampling blank
concentration or less than the detection limit are considered quantitative (unless
there are other problems with the data). Results greater than five but less than
ten times the highest concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered
qualitative and all other data are considered unusable. Therefore, the nitrate
nitrogen results for sample MQO569 should be considered qualitative. Other results
are listed below. The holding times for the nitrate nitrogen analyses ranged from 2
to 6 days from receipt of samples most of which are longer than the recommended
48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. The final calibration verification (a
CCV) for nitrate nitrogen (120 percent) was above the DQO. The analytical
instrument should have been recalibrated and the calibration reverified before
proceeding with the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576,
577, 579, and 580 were affected and should be considered to be biased high. The
field duplicate precision for one of the two duplicate pairs (MQO569/570) was poor
(50 ug/L of nitrate nitrogen detected in one sample (the CRDL is 300 ug/L}, 1110
ug/L detected in the other). The comparative precision of the field duplicate
results is not used in the evaluation of sample results as it is not possible to
determine the source of this imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for
informational purposes only. All nitrate nitrogen results, with the exceptions of
sample MQO569 mentioned above which should be considered qualitative and sample
MQO579 (see sulfate or chloride comment on this sample) which should not be used,
should be considered to be semi-quantitative.
The holding times for the nitrite nitrogen analyses ranged from 2 to 6 days
from receipt of samples which is generally longer than the recommended 48 hour
holding time for unpreserved samples. The laboratory did not analyze an initial
calibration verification (ICV) at the beginning of the nitrite nitrogen ion
chromatography analytical batch, as required. The nitrite nitrogen results should be
considered to be semi-quantitative except for sample MQO579 which should not be
used (see sulfate or chloride comment on this sample).
The final CCV for chloride (336 percent) was above the DQO. The analytical
instrument should have been recalibrated and the calibration reverified before
proceeding with the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576,
577, 579, and 580 were affected and should be considered to be biased high. The
chloride field duplicate precision for both of the duplicate pairs (MQO569/570 and
MQO578/579) was poor (280,000 versus 190,000 ug/L in the first pair and 5900
-------
versus no chloride detected in the other). These results were not used in the data
usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor duplicate
sampling techniques. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes
only. In the case of the sample MQOS79 from the second field duplicate pair, no
ion chromatography (1C) analytes (nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, chloride, bromide,
and sulfate) were detected although other inorganic and indicator elements were.
As the 1C analysis, for all five 1C analytes, is performed on a sample from a
separate sample bottle, this indicates that something was wrong with either the
sampling or analysis of this 1C sample. Chloride was detected in the trip blank at
a concentration of 2200 ug/L. As a HWGWTF convention, all results greater than
ten times the highest sampling blank concentration or less than the detection limit
are considered quantitative (unless there are other problems with the data). Results
greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration of sampling
blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are considered
unusable. Therefore, chloride results for samples MQO5S3 should be considered
qualitative and results for samples MQO5S4, 555, 556, 557, 558, 561, and 578 should
be considered unusable. The chloride results for all other samples should be
considered semi-quantitative with the exception of sample MQO579 which should not
be used because of the above mentioned problem with that sample.
The laboratory did not analyze an ICV at the beginning of the bromide ion
chromatography analytical batch, as required. Bromide was detected in the trip
blank at a concentration of 60 ug/L. As a HWGWTF convention, all results greater
than ten times the highest sampling blank concentration or less than the detection
limit are considered quantitative (unless there are other problems with the data).
Results greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration of
sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are
considered unusable. Bromide results for samples MQO553, 562, 578, and 579 should
not be used. The bromide results for sample MQO567 should be considered
qualitative. All other bromide results should be considered to be semi-quantitative.
The final CCV for sulfate (260 percent) was above the DQO. The instrument
should have been recalibrated and the calibration, reverified before proceeding with
the sample analyses. Results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, 579, and 580
were affected and should be considered to be biased high as a result. The sulfate
field duplicate precision for both of the duplicate pairs (MQO569/570 and
MQO578/579) was poor (140,000 versus 105,000 ug/L in the first pair and 180,000
versus no sulfate detected in the other). These results were not used in the data
usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor duplicate
sampling techniques. In the case of the sample MQO579 from the second field
duplicate pair, no ion chromatography (1C) analytes, including sulfate, were detected
although other inorganic and indicator elements were. As the 1C analysis, for all
five 1C analytes, is performed on a sample from a separate sample bottle, this
indicates that something was wrong with either the sampling or analysis of this 1C
sample. The sulfate results, as mentioned above, should be considered quantitative
with the exceptions of samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, and 580 which should be
considered semi-quantitative and sample MQO579 which should not be used.
One of two ammonia nitrogen ICVs and two CCVs were outside of DQO. The
ammonia nitrogen field duplicate precision for one of the duplicate pairs
(MQO569/570) was poor (35,000 versus 27,000 ug/L). These results were not used in
the data usability determination as the results may only be a reflection of poor
duplicate sampling techniques. All ammonia nitrogen results should be considered
semi-quantitative.
-------
Total phenol contamination was found in one of the field blanks (MQOS77) and
the trip blank (MQO796) at concentrations of 20 and 96 ug/L. These values are
above the total phenol CRDL of 10 ug/L. Based upon HWGWTF conventions, all
total phenols results greater than 10 times the highest concentration of total
phenols in the sampling blanks or less than the detection limit are. considered
quantitative. This includes samples MQOSS4, 555, 557, 558, 559, and 560. All total
phenols results greater than five but less than ten times the highest concentration
of sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all other data are
considered unusable. Total phenols results for all other samples (than the six
mentioned above) should not be used.
One of two field blanks (MQO560) contained TOC at a concentration of 1200
ug/L which is above the CRDL of 1000 ug/L. Again, as a HWGWTF convention, all
TOC results greater that ten times the highest field blank concentration or less
than the detection limit should be considered quantitative. TOC results for samples
MQO553, 559, 563, 568, 569, 570, 577, 580, and 796 should be, therefore, considered
quantitative. All TOC results greater than five but less than ten times the highest
concentration of sampling blank contamination are considered qualitative and all
other data are considered unusable. The TOC results for samples MQO557, 561, 562,
565, and 576 should be considered qualitative, and all other TOC should not be used.
ICV and CCV standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC spike solution was
run twice 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. One of two sets of field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor
precision with POC concentrations of no POC reported and 380 ug/L. The
comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation of
sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision. Field
duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The POC results
should be considered qualitative.
The TOX analysis was run over a period of five days. Final CCVs and final
CCBs were not run at the end of each days' analytical batch. From the information
on the laboratory work sheets it was not clear whether an ICV and a ICB were run
at the beginning of one of the five day's analytical batches. Sample MQO580, the
leachate sample, contained a high concentration of chloride (690,000 ug/L) which
may have enhanced the TOX results for this sample. The results of one pair of
field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor precision with TOX concentrations of 54
and 71 ug/L. The comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in
the evaluation of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this
imprecision. Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only.
The TOX results should be considered quantitative except for the samples where
insufficient calibrations were performed. Samples with insufficient calibrations
include MQO552, 554, 556, 557, 560, 563, 568, 577, and 579 and results for these
samples should be considered semi-quantitative.
One of the two sets of POX field duplicates (MQO569/570) showed poor
precision with no POX detected in one sample and 15 ug/L detected in the other.
The comparative precision of the field duplicate results is not used in the evaluation
of sample data as it is not possible to determine the source of this imprecision.
Field duplicate precision is reported for informational purposes only. The holding
times for samples MQO553 and 554 was eight days which exceeded the recommended
holding time of seven days. POX results should be considered quantitative except
for samples MQO553 and 554 which should be considered semi-quantitative.
-------
3.0 Organics and Pesticides
3.1 Performance Evaluation Standard
Organic performance evaluation standards were not evaluated in .conjunction
with the samples collected from this facility.
3.2 Organic OC Evaluation
AH matrix spike average recoveries were within established Program DQOs for
accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries'which were outside the accuracy DQO
will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below. All surrogate spike average
recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy with two exceptions. Surrogate spike
recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO will be discussed in the
appropriate Sections below.
All 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.
All organic analyses were performed as requested.
Laboratory blank contamination was reported for organics and is discussed in
Reference 3 (for organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in Reference 3 (for
organics) as well as the appropriate Sections below.
3.3 Volatiles
Quality control data indicate that volatile organics were determined acceptably.
The chromatograms appear acceptable. Initial and continuing calibrations, tunings
and mass calibrations, blanks, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and
surrogate spikes are acceptable.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all samples except QO580,
the leachate sample, which was 15 times CRDL. Dilution of this sample was
required.
Laboratory blank #860809, analyzed on 8/9/86, was analyzed prior to the
continuing calibration standard. This did not affect the results of the data
evaluation.
The volatiles data are acceptable. The volatile compound results should be
considered quantitative with the exception of the leachate sample (QO580) which
should be considered semi-quantitative due to an increased probability of false
negative results. The probability of false negative results for all other samples is
acceptable.
3.4 Semivolatiles
Initial and continuing calibrations, tuning and mass calibrations, blanks, holding
times, and chromatograms were acceptable for the semivolatiles. Some problems
were encountered with matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate recoveries and surrogate
recoveries.
-------
Contamination was detected in three laboratory blanks (GH09623A21,
GH095850C21, and GH09SS23C21). The blanks contained di-n-butylphthalate at less
than the CRDL.
The matrix spike duplicate (MSD) recovery of 4-nitrophenol (9. percent) in
sample QOS78 was below the DQO of 10 to 80 percent. The relative percent
differences (RPDs) between matrix spike and MSD recovery of 4-nitrophenol in
sample QOS78 and phenol in sample QO563 were above DQO.
The surrogate percent recoveries fqr phenol, 2-fluorophenol, and 2,4,6-
tribromophenol in sample QOS62 (no recovery for any of the three acids) and for
phenol and 2-fluorophenol in sample QO562RE (reextracted sample, 8 and 6 percent
recoveries) were below their respective DQOs.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered
quantitative for all samples except QO580 which should be considered semi-
quantitative due to increased probabilities of false negatives and for the acid
fraction results for sample QOS63 which should be considered unreliable due to poor
acid recovery. Estimated method detection limits are twice CRDL for all samples
except QO580 which is 10 times CRDL. The probability of false negatives is
acceptable for all samples with the exception of QOS80 due to raised detection
limits caused by dilution where the probability of false negatives is increased.
3.5 Pesticides
The initial and continuing calibrations, blanks, matrix spike/matrix spike
duplicates, surrogate spikes, and holding times for pesticides were acceptable. Some
of the pesticide chromatograms appear to contain non-pesticide or unidentified
peaks.
The estimated method detection limits for the pesticides fraction were CRDL
for all samples. The pesticides results should be considered qualitative. There is
an enhanced probability of false negatives (unfecovered pesticides in the sample)
based upon the clean-up method used by the laboratory.
III. Data Usability Summary
4.0 Graphite Furnace Metals
Quantitative: all total and dissolved antimony, cadmium, and thallium results;
all dissolved lead, selenium, and arsenic (except MQO570)
results
Semi-quantitative: all total arsenic and lead results
Qualitative: all total selenium results
Unreliable: dissolved arsenic results for sample MQO570
4.1 1CP Metals
Quantitative: all beryllium, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, potassium,
sodium, vanadium, and zinc results; aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, magnesium, and silver results with exceptions
listed below
Semi-quantitative: dissolved iron, magnesium, and silver results for sample
MQOS80 (leachate sample); all dissolved barium, calcium, and
iron results except for sample MQO580; total chromium results
with exceptions listed below
-------
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
4.2 Mercury
total silver results except for sample MQOS80; total aluminum
results for sample MQOS80; dissolved aluminum results for all
samples except MQO580
total chromium results for samples MQOSS2, 554, 561, 562, 565,
563, 566, 568, 575, and 576
Quantitative: all mercury results
4.3 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
Unusable:
4.4 Oreanics
Quantitative:
Semi-quantitative:
Qualitative:
Unreliable:
sulfate, TOX, and POX results with exceptions; total phenols
results for samples MQO554, 555, 557, 558, 559, and 560; TOC
results for samples MQO553, 559, 563, 568, 569, 570, 577, 580,
and 796
all ammonia nitrogen results; bromide, chloride, nitrate
nitrogen, and nitrite nitrogen results with exceptions; sulfate
results for samples MQO565, 569, 575, 576, 577, 579, and 580;
TOX results for samples MQO552, 554, 556, 557, 560, 563, 568,
577, and 579; POX results for samples MQO553 and 554
all POC results; chloride results for sample MQO553; nitrate
nitrogen results for sample MQO569; bromide results for sample
MQO567; TOC results for samples MQO557, 561, 562, 565, and
576
all cyanide results
all ion chromatography (nitrate and nitrite nitrogen, chloride,
bromide, and sulfate) results for sample MQO579; chloride
results for samples MQO554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 561, and 578;
bromide results for samples MQO553, 562, and 578; total
phenols and TOC results with exceptions
sample QO580; all scmivolatile
and the acid fraction of sample
all volatiles results except
results except sample QO580
QO563
volatile and semivolatile results for sample QO580
all pesticides results
semivolatile acid fraction results for sample QO563
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses:
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
-------
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability of
the Data Generated) for site 4IB, Land Reclamation, Wisconsin, 11/4/1986,
Prepared by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for
the US EPA Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report and Draft Organic Data Usability
Report, for the Land Reclamation, Wisconsin site, Prepared by Laboratory
Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA, EMSL/Las Vegas, 11/4/1986.
V. Addressees
Ed Berg
Chief, Project Management Section, Quality Assurance Branch, EMSL/CI
US Environmental Protection Agency
26 West St. Clair Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Anthony Montrone
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
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
James Adams, Jr.
Quality Assurance Office
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
John McGuire
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
Brian Lewis
c/o Department of Health Services
1219 K Street, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Paul Friedman
Characterization and Assessment Division, OSW (WH-562B)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Chuck Hoover
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
APPENDIX 1
Contract Required Detection Limits and
Instrument Detection Limits for Metals,
Inorganic, and Indicator Parameters
Al-1
-------
TABLE Al-1
CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS AND INSTRUMENT
DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS, INORGANIC, AND INDICATOR PARAMETERS
Parameter
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganic and Indicators
Ammonia nitrogen
Bromide
Chloride
Cyanide
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
POC
POX
Sulfate
TOC
TOX
Total Phenols
CRDL
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
5
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5
.10
5000
10
50
20
100
1000
10
300
10
5
1000
1000
5
10
IDL
100
3
6
4
4
0.5
93
8
16
12
10
2
238
3
0.2
20
2160
3
10
156
5
21
12
100
50
1000
300
50
100
5
500
1000
5
10
concentrations are in yg/1
Al-2
-------
APPENDIX 2
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS FOUND
IN LOW LEVEL GROUND-WATER AND SAMPLING
BLANK SAMPLES AT LAND RECLAMATION, WI
The following tables list 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.
Sample numbers are designated by the organic and corresponding inorganic
sample number. Organic sample numbers are preceded by the prefix "Q;"
inorganic sample numbers are preceded by the prefix "MQO."
A2-1
-------
TABLE KEY
Value without a flag indicates a result above the contract required
detection limit.
J Indicates an estimated value. This flag is used either When
estimating a concentration for tentatively identified compounds
%/here 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 yg and a
concentration of 3 yg 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.
A2-2
-------
SITE: MI* LANP RECLAMTIM* vi
CASE mi 6277-L-1944HO
SANPLE w:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAKPLE TYPE:
W560/JWC560 fl0577/«90377 B055?/«0re5? Q07W/MQ07W
KLL 40U
FIELT MJC FIDJ« ILK EWIP, PJf TRIP BLK WPLICATE
VW TOLUENE
ACHONE
lETHTLEffi CHLORIK
2-BUTMONE
KKZEHE
Irl-DICHLOROETHWC
Mfl-TRICHLOROETHAfE
TETRACHLOROETffiHE
TRAHS-1 »2-DKHLOROETffiNE
TRICHLOROETHENE
4-OHYL-2-PEKTANONE
ETHYL BENZENE
XYLENES
SEHI- PHENOL
WW *!S(2-£THYLOrL)PHTHALATE
PIETHYLPHTHALATE
n-#-FUTYL PHTHALATE '
2HETHYLPHENOL
4HETHYLPHENOL
2»4-IIIMETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ PIEURIN
PCB 4-4 '-TOP
TIC- TETPJ«YIIROFURAN
VOA KETHAH£> TRICHLOROTLUORO
UNKNOUN
TIC- ETHANE? M-OXYBIS
SEMI- BEKZENEf 1.2-MOHYL
VOA BEKZENEr li3-PIfETHYL
BEN2ENEACETIC ACIB
PHENQLf TETRA«ETHYLBUTYL
2-fRDPANOLrfETHOXY SUBSTITUTED
OANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACIP» METHYL SUBST,
OCTAttJIC ACIP
BEK2ENEPROPAWIC ACID
1MNOUN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
mourn
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
tMNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1.7 J
2.2 J
1.7 J
7 J
2.B J
2,2 J
I (PUR W2) 11J
25 J
20 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN U2./L
A2-3
-------
ro
-Ifc'S
r» rj t-» r>
t«* j5 P S
je o n *
M
*-«
S
S =38
»-*»-• 3c so »-« m
3 S 2 8
f^ S »-4 »-*
-
•— I^M
»- JJ
II
l/l
S
IO '—
!t o
2
»>.
»•»
e
s
-------
SITE: MIF LAM*
CASE NO: 6277-L-l»44HB
HI
SAWPLE NO:
SAW! LOCATION:
SAHPLE TYPE:
SODIUM
TWLLIIW
VANADIUM
ZINC-
IN9R6. AfttONlA NITROGEN
-INPIC. IR0MIDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROSEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
PO:
WX
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
QD560/HQOSM
FIELIIKJC
502
1200
B0577/HQ0577 QK59/WOG55?
FIEU ILK EQUIP. ILK
1 535 1 465
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
20 1
1
1
1
W7W/HQ0796
TRIP ILK
733
60
2200
9
96
D056?/HQ056?
VELL m
DUPLICATE
36*000 1
-
72
35000
4800
280000
50
140000
41000
105
54
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
A2-5
-------
CASE NO! 6277-L-1W4HO
SAffLEMOJ
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE!
VOA TOLUENE
ACHONE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
2-BUTANONE
BENZENE
Ifl-MCHLDRDETHANE
Itlil-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
TKICHLOROETHENE
4-HETHYL-2-PENTANONE
ETHYL BENZENE
XYLENES
SEMI- PHENOL
VOA BIS(2-£THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
rUf-BUTYL PHTHALATE
2-METHYLPHENDL
4-HETHYLPHENOL
2f4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ ME3JRIN
PCB 4H'-DDD
TIC- TETRAHYPROFURAN
VDA H£THAN£j TRICHLOROFLUORO
UNKNOWN
TIC- ETHANEf 1»!-OXYBIS 1
BEffl- BENZENEf lf2-DIKETHYL
WA BENZENI. 1»3-MKETHYL
BENZENEACETIC ACID
PHENOL* TETRA«ETHYLJilITYL
2-PROPANOLrMETHOXY SUBSTITUTED
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACIDr METHYL SUBST.
OCTANQIC ACID
BEHZENEPROPANOIC ACID
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
M570/HW570
VELL 40U
WPLICATE
(PUR 9£5) 12J
7 J
It J
BC57B/HOOS78
VQ1 40L
WPLICATE
KJ579/HQ057?
VELL 40L
WPLICATE
§
K?552/f«!522
VELL 61
GV-LOV
K553/WKS53
VELL 61)
""
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
A2-6
-------
KJ
•vl
*— » in
Ml
I
to
s
»— 10
Jk 0
5
•*• M **
!8 Q W
K,
«
@;
P
!*
2§
?1?!
?gi5
i^
-------
SITE: HIP LAW RECLAMATION* HI
CASE »: A277-1-1944HQ
SAMPLE NO!
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
B0570/MQ0570
HELL 400
DUPLICATE
fl0578/fW057e
HELL 40L
DUPLICATE
HELL 40L
DUPLICATE
90552/WQ0522
HELL 6L
6«KOU
HELL 6U
W-LW
somufl
THALLIIW
VMMDItW
ZINC.
INORG. AWONIA NITROGEN
INPIC. BROHIDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POC
POX
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL POOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
I 2194000 I
63
27000
4700
190000
1110
260
15
1050W
34000
105
71
two i
212
120
70
5900
50
180000
2600
4B
96100 I
64
200
2700
SB
21100 I
18"
36000
480
27300 I
207000
3500
60
7
100
9000
240000
12000
36
7
:- ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
-------
SITE: *4i* LAN? ECLA«ATIW> HI
CASE «: £277-i-l«44HO
SAfflE KO: W554/«K554
SAfni LOCATION: HELL mi
SAMPLE TYPE: BHW
OQ535/MQ535
HELL 2w
6V-UW
HELL 14U
BH.W
HELI 14L HELL »L
6V-LPW
VM TOLUEfC
ACETOHE
«ETHYL£« CHLORIDE
2-KJTAtWttE
PEKZEffi
lil-DICHLOROETHANE
1»1»1-TRICHLOROETHAHE
TETRACHLOROETI€NE
TRANS-1 .2-PICHLKOETIQE
TRICHLOROETHEHE
4-flETHYL-2-PEHTANO«E
ETHYL BEHZEME
XYLEHES
SEMI- PHENOL
VOft BISC2^THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PIETHYLPHTHALATE
DI-K-BUTYL PHTHALATE
2-tOHYLPHEWJL
4-HETHYLPHENOL
2>4-MHETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ PIEURIN
PCB 4-4 '-HDD
TIC- TETRAHYIifiDFURAN
m HETHAKtf TRICHLDKFLUORO
UNKNOWN
HC- ETWrfE. 1,1-OXYBIS
SE»- KGENE* 1»2-PI«£THYL
VOA BEK2EN£» 1.3-MHETHYL
BEHZEfEACETIC ACIB
PHENOLf TETRAJETHYLBUTYL
S-PWPAfffiL.IETHOXY SUPSTITlfTO)
otfioic A:IP
HEXANOIC ACIDi METHYL SUBST,
OCTANDIC ACIB
BEHZEKEPROf A«IC ACID
UNKKOUN
UNSOWN
UNKNOVN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNSOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
15 J
9.8 J
4.6 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ufi/L
A2-9
-------
SITE: HI* LAW KCLAMTIM. HI
CASE NO! 6277-1-1944HO
CAMP* r wn«
•Mil! LL HUt
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
W554/H80554
KLL 106L
W-LOW
90555/MQKS
KLL 29U
RH.W
fiK56/«Q0556
KLL 14U
BH.W
WELL 14L
BKOV
K55B/HW558
IS129L
RH.OW
UNKNOWN
TOTAL
KTALS ANTHKWY
tfSENIC
mm
lERYLLIlW
CAMIUM
CALCIUM
CHRONIUH
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAP
HAGNESIUM
NANGAftESE
OCURY
HICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
somuM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZIN:
HIS ALLWHUM
KHALS A«TI«0«Y
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CA9MIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MA5NESIUM
MANQAKESE
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
1B700
123
97500
34
10900
12.4
51300
30B
3940
11400
42
332
71200
21
24
3B100
37
2120
20000
13.4
352
391000
45
25
46
36000
19,2
219000
1400
62
9860
24BOO
4B
172
244
141000
27
104000
345
2970
156000
27,6
751
6
0,7
422000
195
56
107
152000
ioe
231000
1960
172
41000
15600
242
' 406
6,3
247
68400
20
41BOO
154
4010
89000
16,4
462
3
44BOOO
102
36
54
76100
66
254000
2310
Bl
20400
46100
114
IBS
156
328
31900
11
57
15000
63
1B90
1 66600
1
29
404
3
1160000
«7
40
E3
101000
51
560000
4750
109
23600
21100
135
262
6,4
250
22100
10
25300
10
34BO
ALL CONCEHTRATIWS IN us/L
A2-10
-------
SITE: MIP uw* RECLAMATION.
> CASE WJ 6277-L-1944HQ
SAMPLE NO:
SA#t£ LOCATION;
SAJHI TYPE:
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC-
INORG, ANHOHIA NITROGEN
•INMC, PROMDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POC
POX
SL'LFATE
TOC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
«0554/»Wre54
VEII mi
64H.OV
14900
272
2100
30000
4500
21
KBS5/HK3S5
WELL 29U
W-LW
1 21600
6700
1900
9
35000
2800
K556/HK556
WELL 141'
13SOO
lie
300
5300
70000
3900
10
8.8
B5537/HOOS57
VEii 14L
51400
242"
200
800
30000
7400
6.3
BC558/H0055B
W129L
9H.W
31500 1
65
400
1300
7100
3700
8.2
ALL CWCENTRATIDNS IN «s/L
A2-11
-------
• SITE! *41F LAW RECLAHATIW,
a CASE HO! *277-L-1944HQ
sm£ M:
SAMPLE LOCATION?
SAMPLE TTPE:
VOA . TOLUEKE
ACETONE
METHYLEKE CHLORIK
2-IUTANONE
BENZEHE
Ifl-MCHLDROETHANE
Ifl.I-TRICHLOHETHANE
TETRACHLDROETHENE
TRAKS-1 »2-PICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLDRDETHENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ETHYL BEKZEKE
XYLEfES
SEMI- PHENOL
VOA I!S(2-ETHYLH£XYL)PHTHALATE
BIETHYLPHTHALATE
M-K-BtJTYL PHTHALATE
2-METHYLPHENDL
4-METHYLPHENOL
2»4-I!IMETHYLPHENOL
HAPHTHALEHE
PEST/ PIELMIN
PCB 4-4 '-DDK
TIC- TETRAHYMOFURAN
VOA HETHA«E» TRICHLOROFLUORO
wmm
TIC- ETHA»E» hl-OXYBIS
SEMI- JEKZEHEf 1.2-JIMHHYL
VOA JECDSf 1J3-MMETHYL
FEHZENEACETIC ACID
PHEWLf TETRAJETHYLBIJTYL
2-PROPAWLfKETHOXY SUPSTITUTED
HEXAMOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID» METHYL SUBST,
OCTAWJIC ACID
BEHZEHEPROPANOIC ACID
wmm
IMNOUN
IMNOUN
WKHWN
wmw
WK.MWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
B0561/M00561
HELL 30L
&H.OU
2.4 J
(PUR 943) * J
Q3562/MQ05i2
HELL 110U
&H.OV
31 J
34 J
B05£3/MQfl5i3
HELL 3?U
W-LW
12
48
10
2 J
13
11
8.6
6.5 J
14
70
52
4.8
21
28
2.2 J
12
15
(PUR ?21) 1BJ
11 J
t
KPUR B68) 24J
(PUR ?24) 2?J
(PUR 884) 47J
(PUR 883) 27J
(PIR912) 11CJ
140 J
17 J
25 J
28 J
96 J
23 J
15 J
21 J
1? J
14 J
20 J
410 J
17 J
60565/M0545
HELL 9U
6*HW
_
5,6 J
W5WHOC566
HELL 10U
6H.OV
3 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/L
-------
'-}
i gg^
Si ss
if
S
"
i
ts
a
3 J3 13 3
»=» r- h- -H
lipl
mr=-:S»-«»-«
so — t •— = S
CM
53
oiio -vi *.
c«4 O • ^
»-• <5 o» «5
15
K)
aS
O1* O •
i si 2
2
(«J
oa
.>•
oo no
>
•/»
O
OO
o.
r
Si
S
en <'
>-« '.>
a '
53
2 -
a
*
!• I
-------
SITE:
CASE W! 6277-L-1944*
SAMPLE in:
SAJPLE UJCATION:
SAHPLE TYPE:
vi
KJ561/«fl0561 KJ562/NQ0562 QC563/tffl0563 W565/WC565
«EU SOL HELL 110U WELL 39U YELL 91! KLL 10U
ftKW G*-LDV RKW &H.W ftHW
INORG.
INPIC.
SODIUH
THALLIUM
VAMAIIUft
ZINC
AHHONIA NITROGEN
BROHIPE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
PO:
POX
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
I
33800
30300 I
10200 I
66300
26300 I
1
1
1 155
1 200
1
1 1200
1
1
1
I
1
1 2BOOO
1 6600
1 10
r
i
i
73
110
BO .
42000
126000
5500
20
15
499
24000
2200
100000
63
6700
62
4300
67000
272
99
99-
3800
3100
152000
1320
315000
9200
100
20
v
202
1600
5100
47000
2200
43BOOO
1100
15
14
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN us/L
-------
SITE: MI* LAW RECLAMATION, vi
CASE NO: 6277-L-1944HC
SAMPLE «:
SAMPLE LOCATION;
SAMPLE TYPE:
VOA TOLUENE
ACETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
2-WTANONE
BENZENE
1.1-DICHLOROETHANE
1.1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHEHE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ETHYL BENZENE
XYLENES
SEMI- PHENOL
VOA BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
PIETHYLPHTHALATE
DI-K-BITYL PHTHALATE •
2-MTTHYLPHENDL
4-METHYLPHENDL
2.4-PIMETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ DIELDRIN
PCI 4-4 '-BDP
TIC- TETRAHYKDFURAN
VOA METHANE. TRICHLOP.OFLUORO
UNKNOWN
TIC- ETHANE. 1.1-OXYPIS
SEMI- BENZENE. 1.2-DIMETHYL
VOA BENZENE. l.MIMETHYL
BEKZENEACETIC ACID
PHENOL. TETRAJCTHYLBUTYL
2-PROPAN9L.METHOXY SUFSTITUTEII
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID. METHYL SUBST,
OCTANQIC ACID
BEKZENEPROPANOIC ACID
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
Uruultnrri
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
KU 22L
GV-LOU
2,4 J
KLL22U
6W-LOW
4 J
10 J
KJ575/HQ0575
NELL 109U
6W-LOW
2.4 J
'
12 J
61 J
B576/MW376
10
*
2 J
1
1
I
!
Q05eO/W£580
LEACHATE
1000
2100
230
2200
220
53 J
210
4teA V
210
ion
• •»v
420
190
110
25 J
14 J
• ' W
31 J
B50
12 J
16 J
PUR911) 620J
PUR919 10500J
PUS958 10500J
PUP. 854 4700J
PUR 904 2600J
4400 J
2700 J
1?00 J
320 J
440 J
140 J
• TV W
*.. to
t 1 ft 1
AAV J
76 J
B70 J
140 J
•14 l
71 J
120 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ua/L
A2-15
-------
s
1
g
K
a
3? •=»
QK
ft
3 2E
o *~*
f-»
Jo
s
*§ !J
tjj
«3l
<>J
KJ
»
a
co *^
"Nl ^
»-•
•^| ** r=> fO *9 »-» t>»
•^ k^ ^S u» *2 *^ ^
^^ to "^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "^^
>-*
m '£
m '£ tn S oJ o ^1
•-• O. M M »"•
IO Ul ^1 »-* «> •*• **
[x b|°'^4''J K*S «9 0
!» c*>i a *w o *^l
• o i3 •*» --j S> -•>• >^5 •» ~>»
•» ^ >-* t^ ^ «^ tJI t3 «^ «»
y
5
t \.
3
|*S
8Mi
0
SE »—
-------
• SITE: MII LAW RECLAMATION.
; CASE NO! 4277-l-l»44HQ
SAMPLE NO:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC'
.INOR6, AMMONIA NITROGEN
INPIC, BROMIDE
CHLORIDE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POC
POX
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
Q0567/HQ0567
HELL22L
6V-LW
1 72400
60
300
37000
115000
3500
24
12
Q0568/MQQ56S
HELL 22U
OH.OU
1 235000
128
1200
6000
400000
165000
21000
35
34
Q0575/MB0575
HELL 1091)
OHM
1 13900
75
BOO
53000
145000
3000
7
SV-LW
1 23100
25
200
150000
ioeo
260
100
4B8000
BOOO
58
14
M5BO/MQKBO
LEACWATE
1 625000 1
145000
B500
Hw W
690000
4700
16000
72BOOO
1100
790
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN us/L
-------
APPENDIX 1
Contract Required Detection Limits and
Instrument Detection Limits for Metals,
Inorganic, and Indicator Parameters
Al-1
-------
TABLE Al-1
CONTRACT REQUIRED DETECTION LIMITS AND INSTRUMENT
DETECTION LIMITS FOR METALS, INORGANIC, AND INDICATOR PARAMETERS
Parameter
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganic and Indicators
Ammonia nitrogen
Bromide
Chloride
Cyanide
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
POC
POX
Sulfate
TOC
TOX
Total Phenols
CRDL
200
60
10
• 200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
5
5000
15
0.2
40
5000 .
5
10
5000
10
50
20
100
1000
10
300
10
5
1000
1000
5
10
IDL
100
3
6
4
4
0.5
93
8
16
12
10
2
238
3
0.2
20
2160
3
10
156
5
21
12
100
50
1000
300
50
100
5
500
1000
5
10
concentrations are in vg/1
Al-2
-------
APPENDIX 2
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS FOUND
IN LOU LEVEL GROUND-WATER AND SAMPLING
BLANK SAMPLES AT LAND RECLAMATION, WI
The following tables list the concentrations for compounds analyzed for
and found in samples at the site. Table A2-1 is generated t>y 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.
Sample numbers are designated by the organic and corresponding inorganic
sample number. Organic sample numbers are preceded by the prefix "Q;"
inorganic sample numbers are preceded by the prefix "MQO."
A2-1
-------
'v, , v ;>.-, ft ••*»-,
TABLE KEY
Value without a flag indicates a result above the contract required
detection limit. " '
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 pg and a
concentration of 3 vg 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.
CW * ground-water
SW • surface-water
low and medium are indicators of concentration.
A2-2
-------
SITE: » REOJWATIW* vi
CASE WJ 627M-1»44HQ
SA*LI NO:
SWPIE LOCATION!
SAMPLE TYPE:
Q0560/HK560 B0577/KKJ577 W35'/«B55? 07M/MB7M
FIELT ILK FIEU H.K EQUIP, KJC TRIP UK
Rii 40U
MPLICATE
VOA TOLUEffi
AKTWC
K7HYL£« CHLORIK
2-IUTAHOKE
KKZENE
IfJ-JIDtOROETHANE
IJil-TRICHLOROtTHAtE
THRAWLOROETJCKE
TRAKS-JiMIICHLDROETHEKE
TRIDLDROHHENE
4-OHYL-2-PE»fTANDfE
ETHYL BEHZEHE
XYLEffiS
SBB- PHENOL
VOft PIS(2-rrHYLJEXYL)PHTHALATE
METHYLPHTHALATE
W-ff-BUTYL PHTHALATE '
2-KTHYLPtOIOL
4-HTrHYLPHEHOL
2f4-PINETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ PIELUPJK
PCB 4H'-MIIt
TIC-
VOft
TIC-
SEUI-
VOA
GTHA»£» TRICHLOROrLUORO
IMNOtfN
ETHAHEr M-OXYBIS
BEKZENEf li2-PieTHYL
BECENE* lf3-WHETHYL
BEHZEfEACEflC ACI5
PHENQLt TETRAHETHYUinTL
2-PROPANOLfKTHOXY SUPSTITirrEB
OANDIC ACID
H£XA«OIC ACIP. METHYL SVBST,
OCTANOIC ACID
BEKZEtEPROPAHOIC K.
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UHKHOWN
UNKNOWN
UMK.U.OWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
1.7 J
2.2 J
1,7 J
7 J
2,8 J
2.2 J
I (PUR M2) 11J
25 J
20 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN tS/L
A2-3
-------
MU
SAMPLE NO:
smE LOCATION:
SHPIETYPT:
W560.1IK5M W577/HK57? «K3!/HKJ3S? BQ7WHB07M B56?/HR56?
KLL40U
FIELD ILK FIELf ILK EV.'IP. ILK TRIP ILK WPLICATE
VNQRWN
I
I
I
I
TOTAL ALUMINUM
fCTALS ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CAMUWf
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAP
MAGNESIUM
KANEANESE
MERCURY
HIDE.
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THftLLI'JM
VANADIUM
ZIN:
METALS ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
* CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CffiDMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
N IRON
LEAD
MAN&AHESE
IERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILVER
100
519
no
42?
144
177
*
11?
135
11
.
320
25
26
55fi
30?
30700
410
147000
56
18
46
36200
724
52
5?300
354000
57
173
21
101000
18
26
72100
264
5*400
CONCENTRATIONS IN US/L
A2-4
-------
SITE: MIF LA» RTCIAMATIONI vi
CASE «: t277-l-1944tt
BK59/MM559
smi LOCATION:
smE TYPE:
SODIUH
THALLIUH
VANADIUM
ZINC-
INORB, AHMDNIA NITROGEN
2NPIC. WWSIlg
CHLORIK
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITR05EN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POT
POX
SULFATE
TO:
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBWWTE
BICARBONATE
nuu
1 502
1200
FIH* H*
1 535
20
EQUIP. UK
1 485
TRIP ILK
1 733
to
2200
9
ft
KLL 40U
MPUCATE
1 3MOOO 1
-
72
35000
4900
280000
50
140000
41000
105
54
AU CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
A2-5
-------
CASE NO! *277-i-l*44HQ
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAW! TYPE:
fQ570/MX£?C OG578/NQ0578
HELL 4011 HELL 40L KLL 40L
MPLICATI WPLICATE BUPL1CATE
BSO/IW522 K553/WE553
HELL «. KLL 6U
saa-
VOA
TIC-
VOA
T!C-
SEKI-
VOA
VDA
j> *CHO«E
CHLORIDE
2-FUTAKOKE
1KKZEKE
:ltlil-TRICHLOROETHAN£
-> •TtTRACHLORDETHENE
CTHYL BENZENE
XYLECS
I1EHOL
fIS(2-£THTLIOYL)PHTHALATt
METHYLPHTHALATE
n-«-BUTYL PHTHALATE
IHOHYLPHENOL
4HETHTLWB10L
2f4-MHETHYLPHENDL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ BIELPP.IN
PCS 4H'~BBD
TETRAHYreOFURAN
lETHANrr TR1CHLOROFLUORO
UNKNOUN
MEi lil-OXYFIS
BENZENE* liMIIETHYL
BENZENE. IfS-MJOHYL
BEKZENEACniC ACID
PHENDL> TETRA«ETHYLBUTYL
2-PROPANOL»HETHOXY
OANOIC ACIH
OANOIC ACIDr ICTKYL SUBST,
OCTANDIC ACIP
BENZENEPRDPANOIC ACID
UNIWOUH
UNKNWK
UNKNOWN
UWN9WN
UNKNDVN
UfulNjlm
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
I (PUR
12J
7 J
li J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN u*/L
A2-6
-------
F
N)
tn jn 3 a:
»-« rn g »-•
S S'J? P
S
§
fr«
12
B
g|
«/»
i ~*jsi s * i "•«*
S w
W ££
•o -o o
S VJ
* 3 " H
a
O»
5
3
o*
oo
»-••>» Q>
•« «5 KJ •»
^
K*
13
y S
-o K»
t^S^i
s? r M
£ 5
—« M »r
S It
tS ^ ?°
ii
o *»
•
-------
SITE: HIP UWF RI:UWATIDK» HI
CASE NO: <277-i-W4W
SAtni m:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
smETW:
SODIUH 1
THALLIUM
VMMPIW
ZIIC.
WORG, MKOKIA NITROGEN
JNPIC, IRWllgE
CHLQKIK
vimiK
KITRATE KITROeEN
NITRITE KITR06EN
PO:
rox
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL ttOKLS
TOX
CARfONATE
BICAPJONATE
BC570/HBC570
«Q1 400
W1ICATE
3*4000 1
63
27000
4700
190000
1110
380
15
105000
34000
105
71
Kn/D/flthR/v
VEIL 401
MPLKATE
84WO 1
212
120
76
WOO
50
180000
2600
46
KU 401
HFLICATE
9A100 1
84
200
2700
56
QD552/MC522
VSltL
21100 1
18"
36000
460
207000
3500
£0
7
NQI 6U
BV-LN
27300 1
"
100
woo
240000
12000
36
7
-K± CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
-------
SITE: Mi! LAW RECLAMATION.
CASE w: c7?-t-i»44HO
SAMPLE MO:
SAMPLE LOCATION;
SAMPLE TYPE:
W554/HK354
HELL 308:
6V-LOV
Q0555/HK555
HELL 2W
6V-LOV
NELL HU
6H.W
QC557/W0557
HELL ML MELL 29L
6V-LOW AH.N
VOA
SEMI-
VOA
TOLIEfC
ACETWC
fCTHTLEC CHLORIDE
2-WTAMOKE
KHZEfi
M»l-TRIDC.OROnHAHE
TRAHS-diMICHLOROETHEfE
TRICHLOROETHEHE
4-CTHYL-2-PEKTAWMC
ETHYL KCENE
XYLECS
PHENOL
PIS{2-£THYLHDCYL)PHTHALATE
METHYLPHTHALATE
DUf-RJTYL PHTHALATE •
2HOHYLPHEWIL
4-«ETHYLPHEHOL
2»4-PIHETHYLPHEHOL
NAPHTHALEHE
PEST/ DIELDP.IN
PCB 4-
TIC-
VOA
TIC-
SEffi-
VOA
METHANE* TRICHLWDFLUORO
UNKNOWN
ETRANEr Jfl-OXYPIS
HGENEr l.S^DIKETHYL
PEKHNct IfS-MKETHYL
BEN2ENEACETIC ACID
PJOOL. TETRAfiTHYLPLTYL
2-PROPANOlf«ETHOXY SUBSTITUTED
HEXANOIC ACID
EXANOIC ACII>» METHYL SUPST,
OCTANOIC ACID
ACID
UHOiOUN
1MNOVN
IMNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
15 J
9,9 J
4,6 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ttf/L
A2-9
-------
, >
V
f 3
£
s
Hi
o
•9
•
:§
in s||
^
f-*
Kf
o3
^
10
•
IT
too-
-
!£
~* w
£ K
»-*i^>-*Jk
3S S SS
M
3
a
s »-
•
'I
3
ii |
*I I
-------
SITE: «if war
WJ 4277-L-l»44HC
SAflPtt NO;
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAJPLE TY?EJ
• SDMI*
THALLIUM
UANAMUH
ZINC-
>INORG, MtNONIA NITROGEN
I'NDIC. KOH;DE •
CHLORIPE
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
PDC
POX
SULFATE
TOC
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
HCASBONATE
»U*»^- TTIfy5?^
KLL ML
AH.W
1 14«00
272
2100
.
30000
4500
21
«U:33.'nUU333
ICLL 2W
«HOV
1 21600
6700
1900
9
35000
2BOO
RS56/MX556
VEIL 141'
BH.W
I 13MO
118
300
5300
70000
3»00
10
8.8
fcLis.'.'rw.oi?
NELL 14L
1 51400
"
242'
200
POO
30000
7400
6,3
KEU2fL
BHN
1 31500 1
-
K
400
1300
7100
3700
8.2
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN u-/L
A2-11
-------
SITE: MIF IMF REOAMTIM. MI
CASEW: C77-L-1N4*
SAMPLE m:
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
VDA TOLUENE
ACETONE
HETHTLEME CHLORIDE
2-WTAWNE
BENZEC
Irf-WCHLORDETHANE
Iti.l-TRICHLDfiOETHANE
TtTRAdLORDETHENE
TRANS-b2-MCHLDROETHENE
TRICKLDROETHENE
4--METHYL-2-PENTANOHE
ETHTL BEHZEHE
XYLENES
SEMI- PHENOL
VDA KS(2-£THYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
WETHYLPHTHALATE
PJ-trBUTYL PHTHALATE
2-METHYLPHEHOL
4'HETHYLPHiHDL
2»4-WHrrHYLPHEHOL
NAfHTHALEHE
PEST/ HELMttN
P:B 4-4 '-ran
TIC- TETRAHYMDrURAN
VOA METHANE. TRICHLORDFLUORO
IWKHWN
TIC- ETHANE. Itl-OXYBIS
SEMI- KK2EHE. 1.2-DIMETHYL
VOA BEHZEHE. LJ-MMETHYL
BENZENEACETIC ACID
PCNOL. TETRAMETHYLBIJTYL
2-PROPANDL.METHOXY SUBSTITIHE!"
(OANQIC ACID
HEXAJfflIC ACID. METHYL SUBST.
ICTAHOIC ACID
BEK2ENEPROPANOIC ACID
UNKNOWN
UNICNOUN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
BOttl/NKSii
Kli JOL
C4H.OV
2.4 J
(PUR 943) t J
Q9562/HK562
NELL 110U
W-LW
'
>
31 J
34 J
KH3/MK5i3
HELL 39U
e*H.w
12
48
1«
2 J
13
11
8.6
6,5 J
14
70
52
4.8
21
28
2.2 J
12
IS
KPUR 921) 18 J
1 11 J
*
KPUR 668) 24J
KPUR 924) 29 J
KPUR 8*4) 47J
KPUP. BE3) 27J
KPUR912) 110J
140 j
17 J
25 J
29 J
96 J
23 J
15 j
21 J
19 J
14 J
20 J
410 J
17 J
BQ3&/HOOS£5
VELL9U
ftKOW
1
J
.
5.6 J
ff&M/HQCSM
VEIL 10U
GV-LDW
3 J
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN uS/L
-------
a
.S
>
NJ
9 5 S? P
CJ
"
'= 5 S U
^E •*• •*• *fj
s ft G
O4
Kt
*
^^
S
* *
OO S "5
»-« -o
ws
to
•*•
oo
iHa s-*si
ws s
a«
•»•
a
•-4 A.
2s:
ooui
s-
o
3
5
9 «9 01
oo-^o
09
»-*
...
K>
**
K k
g
I" It
3 tiS
S f c
^
^
H
-------
SITE; tut uwi' RE.CUWAUO*., vi
CASE NO? «277-l-l»44W
SAHPLE NO:
SA?»LE LOCATION:
SAW! TYPE:
W561/WB561
W130L
GV-LOV
W562/HW562
WEIL 110U
6V-LN
80563/W0563
KLL3W
ft-LN
HELL 9U
6V-LOV
5 ff&66/flB05*6
HELL 10U
6H.OU
SODIUH
TMALLIW
VMMTIUH
33800 I
30300 I 10200 I
16300 I
26300 I
1NORG, WNOKIA NITROGEN
I«TIC. MDNIIC
CHLD^OE
CTAKIOE
NITRATE NITROEEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
roc
• POX
SILFATE
TO:
TOTAL PJENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
BICARBONATE
155
200
1200
2BOOO
4600
10
73
110
60 .
42000
126000
5500
20
15
W
24000
2200
/100000
63
6700
£2
4300
67000
272
9?
19-
3800
3100
152000
1320
315000
?200
100
20
202
1600
5100
47000
2200
43BOOO
1100
15
14
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN u*/L
-------
SITE: HIP LAW
CASE NO: C77-L-1W4W
arinrii KVi
SAMPLE LOCATION:
SAMPLE TYPE:
VGA TOLUENE
ACETONE
ICTHTLEfE CHLORIDE
2-BUTANONE
KKZENE
Itl-DICHLOROETHANE
1»1.1-TRICHLOROETHAKE
TETR^CHLORDETHENE
TRANSrI .2-WCHLOROETKEKE
TRICHLORDETHENE
4-«nHYL-2-PENTANONE
ETHYL BENZENE
XYLENES
SEMI- PHENOL
VOA FISC2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
BUHBLTYL PHTHALATE •
2-HTTHYLPHENQL
4-METHYLPHENOL
2>4-riMETHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
PEST/ DIELPRIN
PCB 4-4 '-HDD
TIC- TETRAHYPRDFURAN
VOA «ETHAfE» TRICHLOROFLUORO
UNKNOVN
TIC- ETHANE* 1»1-OXYHS
SEW- BEKZEfEf 1»2-DI«£THYL
VOA BENZENE. 1.3-HKTTHYL
BEKZENEACETIC ACID
POOL* TETRAHETHYLBUTYL
2-PROPAfGLrHETHOXY SUBSTITUTED
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANDIC ACID, KETHYL SUPST,
OCTANDIC ACID
BENZENEPRDPA.HOIC ACID
UNKNOWN
UNKMWK
UNKNWW
UKKNWN
iiu^v^uu
UnnnwVrt
mmn
wmw
VfffJWWK
woraw
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
KD6//fHK>67
Idl 22L
MH.W
2.4 J
W^vC. fnAJvOc
KLL22U
4 J
10 J
VU^*' ^F FWIUJ / 3
(t^^ l^^^w
GV-LOV
2,4 J
12 J
61 J
K3576/HQ0576
tV-LOW
10 -
-
2 J
I
1
1
I
905W/HB580
IIAQMTE
1
-------
g
5 2
i
&
o. o
§
c*
S
fi
04
c*
ISP
«* ••
R
»*»
-g
o
£1
(N
S !2
C> ^4
?;
^•^
t!2
SSE
O'
-------
SITE: MII LAW RECLMMTIONI vi
CASE NO:
sims. no:
SAHPLE LOCATION!
SAHPLETYPE:
W567/IWOW7
HELL ZZL IE1 22U
W-U* W-LW
80575/WB0575 W576/WBQ576 M5W/f«!58o
HELL 1WU
ftKW WH.W LttCHATE
mm
TNALLIUH
VMMDIUH
a«-
(«
IWK6. MWOHIA NITROGEN
INDIC. WOtflfe
CHLORIK
CYANIDE
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
POC
POX
SULFATE
TOC
TDTftl PHENOLS
TOX
CARBONATE
PICAttDNATE
1 72400
BO
300
37000
115000
3500
24
12
1 235000
128
1200
6000
400000
165000
21000
35
34
1 13W>
75
M"
53000
145000
3000
7
1 23100
25
290
150000
ioeo
260
100
4B9000
8000
SB
14
1 625000 1
-
1450W
8500
6*0090
4700
16000
72BOOO
1100
7W
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN ua/L
-------
SUMMARY OF LRL's CONTRACT LABORATORY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
-------
1 Alii
SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
INORGANICS
Parameters
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Nitrate
Calcium
Sodium
7/86
IN
2A
IA
2A
IN
2N
IN
2A
IN
2N
IN
2N
IA
2N
IN
2A
IA
2A
IA
IN
1/86
A
N
D
D
N
N
N
A
A
N
A
N
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
7/85
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
N
1/85
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
D
A
7/84
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
N
N
A
7/83
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
N
N
A
A
D
D
1/83
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
D
D
A - Acceptable
N - Not Acceptable
1 - Concentrate 1
C - Check for Error
D - Data not Reported
2 - Concentrate 2
-------
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
INORGANICS
Parameters
A lu ni mum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Cooper
Iron
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
5/86
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2c
IA
2A
IA
2A
ic
2N
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
11/85
D
D
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
A
A
N
N
N
A
A
A
A
N
N
A
A
A
C
N
N
C
5/85
N
C
A
N
D
D
A
C
N
N
N
A
N
N
A
A
A
N
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
C
C
A
11/84
D
D
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
A
N
A
A
A
A
N
A
D
D
A
A
A
A
N
A
A
N
5/84
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
12/83
N
C
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
A - Acceptable
N - Not Acceptable
1 - Concentrate 1
C - Check for Error
D - Data not Reported
2 - Concentrate 2
-------
TABLE C-2 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF
WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION STUDIES
INORGANICS
Parameters
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Chloride
Sulfate
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrogen
TOC
Total Cyanide
Total Phenol ics
Spec. Cond.
5/86
IA
2N
IA
2A
IN
2N
1C
2C
IA
2A
IA
2A
IN
2N
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
IA
2A
11/85
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
C
A
A
A
A
D
D
A
A
D
D
5/85
N
N
N
A
N
N
C
A
A
A
A
A
N
N
A
A
A
A
N
N
D
D
A
A
11/84
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
5/84
N
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
D
D
D
D
A
A
N
N
D
D
N
N
12/83
A
A
A
C
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
- A
A
A
N
A
D
D
N
N
D
D
A
C
A - Acceptable
N - Not Acceptable
1 - Concentrate 1
C - Check for Error
D - Data not Reported
2 - Concentrate 2
-------
I AikI C-3
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
INORGANICS AND OR6ANICS *
i
"PARAMETERS
SAMPLE REPORT TRUE
NUMBER VALUE VALUE**
ACCEPTANCE
LIMITS
WARNING PERFORMANCE
LIMITS EVALUATION
DEMANDS IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER:
COD
TOC
5-DAY BOD
1 31 47.0
2 54 78.8
1 20 18.4
2 34 30.9
1 23 31.1
2 39 52.1
31.0- 59.0
54.7- 93.6
10.7- 26.3
19.8- 41.7
18.3- 42.9
31.3- 71.1
34.6- 55.4 CHECK FOR ERROR
59.7- 88.6 NOT ACCEPTABLE
13.0- 23.9 ACCEPTABLE
23.1- 38.4 ACCEPTABLE
21.4- 39.8 ACCEPTABLE
36.3- 66.1 ACCEPTABLE
PCBs IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
PCB-AROCLOR 1242
PESTICIDES IN
ALDRIN
ALDRIN
DDE
DDT
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
1 2.0 1.14 D
MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
1 0.67 0.455
2 1.0 0.683
1 0.70 0.181
2 2.7 0.906
1 0.25 0.074
2 2.8 0.662
1 1.4 0.251
2 0.58 0.670
1 1.1 0.602
2 0.31 0.226
1 1.6 0.764
2 0.44 0.176
.L. - 2.36
.124- .612
.186- .888
.0913- .275
.431- 1.22
.0393- .152
.284- .955
.0816- .402
.293- .960
.151- .870
.0710- .316
.332- 1.05
.103- .251
* WATER POLLUTION STUDY (WPS) 012 5/24/84
** BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE
D.L. STANDS FOR DETECTION LIMIT
.320- 201 ACCEPTABLE
.187- .548 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.277- .797 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.116- .250 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.534- 1.12 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.0540- .137 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.373- .865 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.124- .359 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.382- .871 ACCEPTABLE
.245- .776 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.104- .283 CHECK FOR ERROR
.413- .951 NOT ACCEPTABLE
.122- .231 NOT ACCEPTABLE
VALUE WHEN NECESSARY.
-------
I A i L. I C-3 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
ORGANICS
€
PARAMETERS
SAMPLE REPORT TRUE
NUMBER VALUE VALUE*
PESTICIDES IN MICR06RAMS PER LITER:
CHLORDANE 5 20 9.28
6 4.4 2.16
V. ORGANICS IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
CHLOROBENZENE
PURGEABLES IN
BENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
TOLUENE
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
MICROGRAMS
1
2
1
2
1
2
42
12
108
20
107
10
25
14
91
43
PER
6.2
40
18
65
22
54
32.1
6.43
79
13
96
7.
.6
.9
.0
20
32.9
8.78
87.
34.
LITER:
8
6
6.40
48.3
13.
55.
17.
51.
0
1
4
1
ACCEPTANCE
LIMITS
3.94-
1.03-
19.4-
2.91-
48.8-
7.87-
61.5-
3.19-
19.0-
4.57-
52.2-
19.9-
2.40-
26.5-
7.11-
30.7-
9.55-
28.2-
12.3
3.11
46.1
9.86
112
20.
121
11.
45.
13.
125
49.
10.
71.
19.
80.
25.
69.
•
5
•
4
5
1
•
9
6
4
3
9
8
6
WARNING
LIMITS
5.05-
1.30-
23.1-
3.83-
57.5-
9.61-
69.4-
4.31-
22.6-
5.73-
62.5-
24.2-
3.59-
33.1-
8.86-
37.4-
11.9-
33.7-
11.2
2.83
42.5
8.94
103
18.
113
10.
41.
11.
115
45.
•
8
•
2
9
9
•
7
9.36
64.9
17.
74.
23.
64.
5
2
4
1
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
CHECK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE VALUE WHEN NECESSARY.
-------
TAB
L E C-3 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
INORGANICS AND ORGANICS *
"PARAMETERS
MINERALS
FLUORIDE
SULFATE
SAMPLE REPORT
NUMBER VALUE
TRUE ACCEPTANCE
VALUE** LIMITS
WARNING
LIMITS
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER: (EXCEPT AS NOTED)
1 1.5
2 0.9
1 140
2 8.0
1.30 1.12- 1.45
0.822 .670- .921
131 111.- 148.
7.00 4.14- 9.65
1.16- 1.41
.703- .889
115.- 143.
4.86- 8.93
NOT ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NUTRIENTS IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER:
AMMONIA-NITROGEN
NITRATE-NITROGEN
1 5.1
2 1.6
1 0.18
2 0.81
KJELDAHL-NITROGEN 1 3.5
2 8.7
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
DEMANDS
COD
TOC
PCBs IN
'PCD AROCLOR 1016
1 6.8
2 1.2
IN MILIGRAMS PER LITER:
1 31
2 29
1 52
2 12
MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
2 5.0
3.10 2.42- 3.72
0.896 .652- 1.16
0.152 .0788- .234
0.752 .565- .923
2.20 1.39- 3.14
10.5 7.75- 12.7
7.10 5.57- 8.65
1.20 .892- 1.57
128 99.9- 145.
30.2 18.1- 39.6
50.5 37.7- 61.9
11.9 7.00- 17.3
D.L.- D.L.
1 * WPS-014 5/24/85
** BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, OR A REFERENCE
D.L. STANDS FOR DETECTION LIMIT
2.58- 3.56
.714- 1.10
.0970- .215
.609- .879
1.61- 2.92
8.38- 12.1
5.95- 8.27
.975- 1.49
106.- 140.
20.9- 36.8
41.0- 58.6
8.55- 15.7
D.L.- D.L.
VALUE WHEN
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NECESSARY.
-------
I A i k I C-3 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
6=
INORGANICS AND ORGANICS *
SAMPLE REPORT TRUE ACCEPTANCE
PARAMETERS NUMBER VALUE VALUE** LIMITS
NUTRIENTS IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER:
NITRATE-NITROGEN 1 0.32 0.300
2 2.6 2.50
KJELDAHL-NITROGEN 3 0.50 0.300
4 5.2 5.00
TOTAL
COD
TOC
5 -DAY
PHOSPHORUS 3 0.15 0.100
4 3.3 3.00
DEMANDS IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER:
2 290 238
1 8.5 8.98
2 97 94.2
BOD 1 80 3.85
PCBs IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER:
PCB-AROCLOR 1016 1 5.0 5.72
PCB-AROCLOR 1254 2 6.1 5.50
VOLATILE HALOCARBONS IN MICROGRAMS PER
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE 1 120 103
2 23 15.5
*
**
D.L.
WPS-015 11/27/85
BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS
'STANDS FOR DETECTION LIMIT
.207- .392
1.93- 3.04
D.L.- .803
3.31- 6.44
.0530- .157
2.37- 3.73
185.- 272.
6.01- 12.0
70.0- 112.
1.52- 5.75
2.08- 8.68
2.49- 7.19
LITER:
71.8- 137.
9.89- 21.6
, OR A REFERENCE
WARNING
LIMITS
.229- .370
2.06- 2.91
.0034- .693
3.69- 6.06
.0656- .145
2.54- 3.56
196.- 261.
6.82- 11.1
75.6- 107.
2.04- 5.22
2.97- 7.80
3.09- 6.60
80.2- 128.
11.4- 20.1
VALUE WHEN
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NECESSARY.
c.
c-
-------
I A i k I C-3 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF WATER POLLUTION PERFORMANCE EVALUATION STUDIES
ORGANICS *
*
" "PARAMETERS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
REPORT
VALUE
TRUE
VALUE**
ACCEPTANCE
LIMITS
WARNING
LIMITS
PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION
PCBs IN MICROGRAMS PERLITER:
: PCB-AROCLOR 1016
1
2
VOLATILE HALOCARBONS IN
1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
TETRACHLORDETHENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
i
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
.BROMOFORM
r^
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
t •
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2.5
3.1
MICROGRAMS PER
30
92
5.9
100
15
49
26
110
22
65
21
100
21
92
19
no
70
46
26
91
25.8
77.3
6.04
84.5
14.8
44.3
22.5
100.2
18.5
52.9
16.9
84.7
15.6
65.7
19.1
95.6
50.6
30.4
20.5
63.8
. * WPS-016 5/23/86
** BASED UPON THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS,
D.L. STANDS FOR DETECTION LIMIT
D.L
D.L
LITER
17.
46.
• "
• "
•
•
7-
6-
3.27-
57.1-
10.
28.
14.
58.
11.
33.
10.
51.
10.
44.
11.
64.
28.
14.
10.
30.
2-
0-
0-
8-
1-
0-
6-
3-
8-
4-
5-
7-
1-
5-
8-
6-
D.L
D.L
32.
108
•
8
8.55
no.
20.
62.
30.
137
26.
76.
22.
109
21.
92.
28.
142
75.
49.
30.
93.
7
5
0
0
2
5
2
9
9
1
0
0
0
OR A REFERENCE
D.L.-
D.L.-
19.6-
54.2-
3.95-
63.8-
11.5-
32.3-
16.0-
68.5-
13.0-
38.4-
12.1-
58.5-
12.1-
50.5-
13.7-
74.4-
34.0-
18.8-
13.2-
38.4-
D.L
D.L
•
•
30.9
100.
7.87
103.
19.4
58.2
27.
127
24.
70.
21.
102
19.
86.
26.
132
69.
44.
27.
85.
9
•
1
8
0
*
8
8
7
•
2
7
6
2
VALUE WHEN
NOT ACCEPTABLE
NOT ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
CHEDK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
CHECK FOR ERROR
ACCEPTABLE
CHECK FOR ERROR
NECESSARY.
-------
,., protection
------- |