May 1989
Do not remove. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection
EPA-700/8-88-054
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water
Task Force
Evaluation of
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill
Fort Wayne, Indiana
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
-------
FINAL REPORT
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 814
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7331
HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
EVALUATION REPORT
ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
SUBMITTED TO:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
SUITE 200
13135 LEE JACKSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA 22033
SUBMITTED BY:
VERSAR INC.
6850 VERSAR CENTER
SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22151
JUNE 3, 1988 n L ..
U.S. Environmental Pret-rr'. Agency
:.,,j'o.v. ., :.- -i, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 6wbu^-3u90
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Introduction 1
1. Objectives 1
2. Background 2
a) History of Site 3
b) Adjacent Land Use 3
c) State/Federal Requirements 5
B. Summary of Findings and Conclusions 6
1. Compliance with Interim Status Ground-Water
Monitoring - Indiana Administrative Code
(IA) 329 IAC 4, et. sea. (40 CFR 265 SUBPART F)' ". 6
2. Ground-Water Program Proposed for RCRA Permit 7
3. Task Force Sampling and Monitoring Data Analysis 7
4. Conformance with Superfund Off-Site Policy 7
II.. TECHNICAL REPORT 9
A. Introduction 9
B. Objectives 9
C. Inspection Methods 10
1. Technical Review Team 10
2. Laboratory Review Team 11
3. Sample Review Team 12
a) Me thods 12
b) Sample Locations 15
c) Quality Control and Quality Assurance 18
d) Custody and Sample Handling 18
D. Waste Management Units and Operations 19
1. Introduction 19
2. Waste Management Units 21
a) RCRA Regulated Units Under Interim Status 21
b) Pre-Interim Status Units 22
c) Waste Characterization 23
d) Site Operation 23
Waste Disposal 23
Leachate Handling 24
Surface Water Control and Discharge 24
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONT'D)
Pane
E. Site Geology and Hydrogeology 24
1. Incroduccion 24
2. Hydrogeologic Units 25
3. Hydraulic Conductivities and Ground-Water FLow 27
F. Ground-Water Monitoring Program During Interim Status 33
1. Regulatory Requirements 33
2. Ground-Water Monitoring System 33
a) Monitoring Well History 33
b) Background Ground-Water Quality 37
c) Monitoring Well Construction 37
3. Sampling and Analysis 42
a) ACSL's Sample Collection and Handling Procedures 42
b) ACSL's Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation .... 43
4. Ground-Water Quality Assessment '. 44
G. Ground-Water Monitoring Program Proposed for Final Permit . 45
H. Monitoring Data Analysis for Indications of Waste Release . 45
REFERENCES 47
APPENDICES
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Location Map. Adams Center Sanitary Landfill,
Fort Wayne, Indiana 4
2. Facility Map, Adams Center Sanicary Landfill 17
3. Geologic Cross Section, West to East 26
4. Geologic Cross Section, North to South 28
5. Potentiometric Surface of the Atherton 2B Aquifer,
September 17, 1986 30
6. Potentiometric Surface of the Atherton 2B - January 5, 1988 ... 31
7. Atherton 2C Water Level Elevations, September 17, 1986 32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONT'D)
Page
8. Piezometer and Monitoring Well Locations, Adams Center
Sanitary Landfill ............................................. 35
9. Typical Monitoring Well Construction for Wells Installed
by Michigan Testing Engineers (MTE) , 1976 ..................... 38
10. Typical Monitoring Well Construction Diagram and Boring Log ... 39
11. Typical Piezometer Detail ..................................... 40
12 . Typical Monitoring Well Construction .......................... 41
OF TABLES
1. Order of Sample Collection, Bottle Type,
and Preservative List ......................................... 13
2. Sampling Parameters Listing, HWGWTF Site Visit,
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill ................................ 14
3. Sampling Location Listing for Adams Center Sanitary Landfill .. 16
4. Well and Piezometer Installation and Water Level Data,
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill ................................ 36
-------
FEBRUARY 1989
UPDATE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
EVALUATION OF
ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's Hazardous Waste
Ground-Water Task Force ("Task Force"), in conjunction with the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), conducted an evaluation of
the Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc., facility (ACSL). The Task
Force effort is in response to recent concerns as to whether owners and
operators of hazardous waste disposal facilities are complying with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ground-water monitoring
regulation, and whether the ground-water monitoring systems in place at
the facilities are capable of detecting contaminant releases from waste
management units. ACSL is located at 4636 Adams Center Road southwest of
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
The onsite field inspection was conducted over a one-week period
from May 11 through May 16, 1987.
This update of the Task Force evaluation summarizes subsequent
events that are directly related to hazardous waste ground-water
monitoring issues.
The ground-water monitoring system which was in place during the
Task Force evaluation has been modified to accommodate a new landfill
area to comply with the terms of the September 23, 1986, Consent
Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) entered between ACSL and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and to comply with the
conditions stipulated in the RCRA facility permit issued September 30,
1988.
In November 1986, ACSL submitted a Ground-Water Quality Assessment
Plan, in accordance with the CAFO. Although portions of this plan were
deficient, U.S. EPA determined that the portions pertaining to additional
-------
monitoring well installations were acceptable and approved ACSL's request
to proceed with this activity while revisions were being made to correct
other plan deficiencies.
In June and July of 1987, ACSL installed seven additional
ground-water monitoring wells screened in the Auherton 2B aquifer flow
zone at the downgradient limit of the hazardous waste management area.
The approximate location for these wells were specified in the CAFO.
The CAFO also specified three locations for installation of
monitoring wells screened in the shallower Atherton 2C aquifer flow
zone. The Atherton 2C aquifer flow zone was not encountered during
drilling operation at the proposed R13 and R14 monitoring well locations
(see Figure A), therefore, ACSL was unable to construct these wells. The
Atherton 2C was present at the R15 location and a monitoring well was
installed at this location as required.
The Ground-Water Quality Assessment Plan submitted by ACSL was
approved by U.S. EPA on March 7, 1988. This approval had been delayed
due to negotiations regarding data analysis techniques and procedures for
the determination of rate and extent of any plume of contamination
identified during the assessment monitoring program. U.S. EPA allowed
installation of the new monitoring wells and sampling and analysis of
ground-water samples obtained from the monitoring system while these
negotiations were under way in order to provide timely completion of the
assessment program.
On September 30, 1988, a RCRA Facility Permit was issued to ACSL.
On October 17, 1988 ACSL appealed certain conditions of the permit.
However, the permit conditions under appeal do not significantly impact
the permit ground-water monitoring program. Therefore, ACSL's
ground-water monitoring program pursuant to 329 IAC 3-45 (40 CFR 264) is
in effect.
-------
E X E C U IT. V E S.UMARY
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
Concerns were recently raised as Co whether the commercial hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities have been in compliance
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 was comprised of 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
conducted in-depth facility investigations, including on-site inspections
with the following objectives:
Determine compliance with interim status ground-water
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 265 as promulgated under
RCRA and Indiana Administrative Code, Section 329 IAC 3-20-1 et
seq.
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, IAC 329 3-45.
Determine if the ground water at the facility contains
hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents.
Regulations promulgated under RCRA address hazardous waste management
facilities' operations, including ground-water monitoring, to ensure that
hazardous waste constituents are not released to the environment.
-1-
-------
Verify the quality of the company's ground-water monitoring
data and evaluate the sampling and analytical procedures.
Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the
facility meets EPA ground-water monitoring requirements for waste
management facilities receiving waste from response actions
conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, Public Law 91-510)2.
To address these objectives, each Task Force investigation
determined if:
The facility had developed and was following an adequate
ground-water sampling and analysis plan;
RCRA (and/or State-required) monitoring wells were properly
located and constructed;
Required analyses were conducted on samples from the designated
RCRA monitoring wells; and
The ground-water quality assessment program outline (or plan,
as appropriate) was adequate.
2. BACKGROUND
The Task Force investigated the Adams Center Sanitary Landfill
(ACSL) facility, located at 4636 Adams Center Road, in Fort Wayne,
Indiana (see Figure 1). The facility handled hazardous wastes
exclusively at the time of the investigation. The on-site inspection was
conducted from Hay 11 through May 16, 1987, and was coordinated by
personnel from U.S. EPA, Region V, Central District Office, the Indiana
State Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and Region V RCRA
Enforcement and Permits personnel. The investigation included review of
State, Federal, and facility records, a facility inspection, laboratory
evaluation, and ground-water sampling and analysis.
^"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Action";
Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 214, Pages 459-463, November 5, 1985.
-------
a) History of Site
The ACSL facility is located on a 151-acre tract in the northeast
quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 13 East, in the city of
Fort Wayne, Allen County, Indiana (see Figure 1). The site is bordered
on the east by Adams Center Road, the northeast by the Penn Central
Railroad tracks, and on the northwest corner by a stream known as Trier
Ditch. The facility is owned and operated by Adams Center Sanitary
Landfill, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. The site was purchased from SCA Chemical Services, Inc.
in September 1984. The city of Fort Wayne lies immediately to the
northwest. Land elevation on the property ranges from 754 to 817 feet
above mean sea level (MSL) (ACSL Part B application, 1986).
A section of land on the western half of the property was used as a
sanitary landfill until October 1985. This portion of the landfill has
been capped and closed. Wastes that would now be considered RCRA
hazardous wastes were accepted from 1980 to present. These wastes were
disposed of in areas on the eastern half of the site. Phases' IA through
1C of the hazardous waste disposal area have been filled and have an
interim cap. Current activity is in Phase II. Phases III through V are
planned for further expansion. Wastes disposed of include mcst wastes
listed in 40 CFR Part 261 (ACSL Part B application, 1986).
b) Adjacent Land Use
Land surrounding the facility is used for light industrial,
residential, and agricultural purposes. iMuch of the land immediately to
the west, south, and east of the site is currently used as farmland.
Directly to the north, across the Penn Central Railroad tracks, is an
automobile "graveyard". Northwest of this is a mobile home park. To the
northeast of the site, across Adams Center Road, is a warehouse/truck
loading facility. Farther to the north and northwest of the site is a
larger industrial/ commercial development (ACSL Part B application, 1986)
-------
- :
^ % in ;i
Adams Center^ T*
USG5 7-1/2'
F.rt W4r«4 tut. UMUA*.
1962 ( I 98 t ?s««.r«.nian)
Rtudtntial wtllt b«mq monitor id mi annually
"-0- 863-ZQ57
AS SHOWN
JMO
NOV. I 986
CXCCICO
RSM
Colder Associates
SITE LOCATION MAP
ADAMS CENTER FACILITY
fi»u«t
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP, ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
(Colder Associates, 19861
-------
c) State/Federal Requirements
The ACSL facility must meet the requirements for ground-water
monitoring at hazardous waste landfills as promulgated in the Indiana
Administrative Code provisions found in 329 IAC 3-20-1, et seq. (40 CFR
Part 265). Indiana has been granted Phase I Interim Authorization by
U.S. EPA and therefore facilities in Indiana qualifying for interim
status under 40 CFR 270.70 are regulated under the Indiana provisions.
In matters related to the issuance of the corrective action portions of
final RCRA permits, the Federal regulations in 40 CFR Parts 124, 264 and
270 remain applicable.
Interim status ground-water monitoring was begun in 1982 at the
site. ACSL has filed both a RCRA Part A permit application, and a RCRA
Part B permit application as required in the RCRA permit process. The
RCRA Part B permit application was revised and resubmitted in December
1986. The site began a ground-water assessment program in 1984, and
filed a revised ground-water assessment plan with the revised RCRA Part B
permit application in 1986 (Aware, 1984, ACSL, 1986).
On November 7, 1985, U.S. EPA issued a Complaint and Compliance
Order specifying violations by the ACSL facility of the applicable State
(RCRA) regulations. These violations included:
a) Failure to install at least one monitoring well hydraulically
upgradient of the waste management area in each of the two
aquifers identified as the Atherton 2C and Atherton 2B aquifers,
as required by 329 IAC 3-20-2(a)(1).
b) Failure to install at least three monitoring wells hydraulically
downgradient at the limit of the waste management area in each of
the two aquifers identified as the Atherton 2C and Atherton 2B,
as required by 329 IAC 3-20-2(a)(2) .
c) Failure to construct monitoring wells in a manner that allows
sampling from the appropriate aquifer flow zones, maintains the
integrity for the monitoring well borehole, and prevents
contamination of samples and the ground water, as required by 329
IAC 3-20-2(c).
-5-
-------
d) Submission of a ground-water quality assessment program plan to
the Indiana State Board of Health (ISBH) which is not capable of
determining:
(i) if hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents have
entered the ground water;
(ii) rate and extent of migration of any hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents in the ground water; and
(iii) the concentration of hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents in the ground water, as required by
329 IAC 2-20- 4(a) .
e) Submission of ground-water quality assessment program plan to the
ISBH which failed to specify:
(i) the depth of monitoring wells;
(ii) sampling and analytical methods for those hazardous wastes
or hazardous waste constituents disposed of at the
facility; and
(iii) a schedule of implementation, as required by 329
IAC 3-20-4(d)(3).
f) Failure to implement a ground-water quality assessment plan which
determines the rate and extent of migration and the
concentrations of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents
in the ground water, as required by 329 IAC 3-20-4(d)(4).
g) Failure to make a determination regarding ground-water quality as
soon as technically feasible following completion of the
assessment plan, as required by 329 IAC 3-20-4(d)(5).
The Indiana State Board of Health also noted concentrations that
exceed the interim primary and secondary drinking water levels of ths
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In 1985, there were 24 such events
(Busch, 1985a, b). In 1986, there were 36 occurrences (Busch, 1986).
B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Compliance with Interim Status Ground-Water Monitoring - Indiana
Administrative Code 329 IAC et. seq. f40 CFR Part 265 Subpart F)
On September 23, 1986, ACSL and the U.S. EPA entered into a Consent
Agreement and Final Order (CAFO). This CAFO required ACSL to submit a
ground-water quality assessment plan to U.S. EPA and the IDEM for
-6-
-------
approval. The plan must include monitoring wells at the limit of the
hazardous waste management area screened in the Atherton 2C water bearing
flow zone and additional wells in the Atherton 2B water bearing flow
zone. The plan must also be capable of determining if hazardous wastes
or hazardous waste constituents have entered the ground water from the
hazardous waste management area of the facility, and if so, the rate and
extent of migration and the concentrations of hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste constituents in the ground water. The CAFO required ACSL
to install additional wells as necessary to provide a determination of
the rate and extent of any plume of contamination.
Upon completion of the work specified in the approved assessment
plan ACSL was required to submit a report containing the results of the
groundwater quality assessment and a determination of whether hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents have entered the ground water from
the hazardous waste management area of the facility.
2.0 GROUND-WATER PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR RCRA PERMIT
A detection ground-water monitoring program is proposed for the RCRA
permit. This program must meet the requirements of IAC 329 3-45-9.
3.0 TASK FORCE SAMPLING AND MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
The sampling information and sample monitoring results are presented
in Appendices II and III, respectively.
4.0 CONFORMANCE WITH SUPERFUND OFF-SITE POLICY
At the time of the Task Force evaluation, the ACSL facility was
deemed acceptable by U.S. EPA for receiving wastes resulting from
Superfund clean up actions.
-7-
-------
1-
R.E.PORT
-------
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
constituents are not being released to the environment.
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 monitoring 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 facility as a provider
of treatment, storage, or disposal services for waste managed by the
Agency's Superfund program. The Task Force was comprised of personnel
from EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices, and the States. Fifty-eight TSD
facilities were scheduled for ground-water evaluations. One of these was
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill (ACSL), Fort Wayne, Indiana.
B. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the Task Force evaluation at ACSL were to:
Determine compliance with requirements of Indiana Administrative
Code Section 329 IAC 3-20 (40 CFR 265 Subpart F) - ground-water
monitoring and the monitoring system's capability of providing
the required monitoring data.
Evaluate the facility's ground-water monitoring program as
described in the RCRA Part B permit application for compliance
with Indiana Administrative Code 329 IAC 3-34-5(c) (40 CFR Part
270.14)(c).
Evaluate the facility's potential compliance with Indiana
Administrative Code Chapter 329 IAC 3-45 (40 CFR Part 264
Subpart F).
-------
Verify the quality of the company's ground-water monitoring
data and evaluate sampling and analytical procedures.
Determine if any ground-water contamination existed from site
operations.
Provide information to assist the Agency in determining if the
TSD facilities meet 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. INSPECTION METHODS
The Task Force investigation at ACSL consisted of:
Reviewing and evaluating records and documents from U.S. EPA,
Region V, the Indiana Environmental Management Board (IDEM), and
ACSL.
Conducting an on-site inspection from May 11 through May 16,
1987.
Evaluating off-site laboratories contracted by ACSL for
analysis of past and present ground water samples.
Sampling and analyzing ground water from monitoring wells and
two surface water points.
To accomplish the objectives, a facility Evaluation Team was
assembled, consisting of U.S. EPA, State, and Task Force contractor
personnel. The Evaluation Team was comprised of a Technical (records)
Review Team, a Laboratory Evaluation Team (to evaluate on-site
laboratories and off-site contract laboratories), and a Sample Collection
Team. Each Team had individual responsibilities to achieve the
objectives of the Task Force.
1) Technical Review Team
The Records Review Team was responsible for conducting the
evaluation of the facility with respect to applicable ground- water
monitoring requirements. The evaluation was divided into six areas as
follows:
site history and design
site geology and hydrogeology
ground-water monitoring system
-10-
-------
ground-water sampling analysis
ground-water data quality and interpretation
waste characterization and operations
Records and documents from U.S. EPA, Region V, and the IDEM 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, construction details of waste management units, and
the ground- water monitoring program. The facility was requested to
supply the U.S. EPA with a 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 construction data and boring
logs; site geologic reports; site operations plan; facility permits;
waste management unit design and operation reports; and operating records
specifying the general types of waste, the quantities of waste, and
location where the waste was disposed of at the facility.
2) Laboratory Review Tenm
The off-site laboratories that have analyzed ACSL's samples are:
Environmental Testing and Certification Laboratory, in Edison, New Jersey
(organics); Gulf Coast Laboratory, University Park, Illinois (inorganics,
TOC, indicator parameters); and Core Laboratories, Casper, Wyoming
(radiochemical samples). These Laboratories were evaluated regarding
their responsibilities under the ACSL 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 requirements. The ability of the laboratories to produce quality
data for the required analyses was also evaluated. Later in this report,
a detailed discussion of this evaluation is presented under "Sample
Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation".
-11-
-------
3) Sample Review Team
a) Methods
Samples for the Task Force evaluation were collected by Alliance
Technologies Corporation, a U.S. EPA contractor, under the supervision of
U.S. EPA personnel. Sample collection followed the procedures given in
the Hazardous, Waste Ground-Water Task Force-Protocol for Ground-Water
Evaluations (U.S. EPA, 1986b). ACSL's existing dedicated PVC bailers or
Well Wizard pumps were used to purge the wells and to collect
ground-water samples. ACSL also supplied water level markers and
performed water level measurements at each well. The Task Force
contractor supplied all other necessary equipment and materials to
manage, handle, field filter, document, and ship the samples collected.
This included clean sample bottles and preservatives that were supplied
to the Task Force contractor through the U.S. EPA contract laboratory
program (CLP).
All samples were analyzed for the following parameters: volatile
organic compounds, purgeable organic carbon (POC), purgeable organic
halogens (POX), extractable organics, pesticides and herbicides, dioxin,
total metals, dissolved metals, total organic carbon (TOC), total organic
halogens (TOX), total phenols, cyanide, anions, nitrate, and sulfide
(Note: sample MQB378 was not analyzed for sulfide). The order of sample
collection, container types, and preservatives are provided in Table 1.
A listing of sampling parameters is given in Table 2. Dedicated sampling
equipment provided by ACSL was used to purge and remove samples from the
wells. Personnel from one of the laboratories used by the facility, Gulf
Coast Laboratory, operated this equipment. All other sampling tasks,
including in situ measurements, were performed by the Task Force
contractor.
Monitoring of airborne vapors was performed by the Task Force
contractor at each wellhead prior to water level measurements and
sampling. An HNu meter was used to monitor any volatile emissions from
the well casing at or above background levels for health and safety
-12-
-------
Sampling
Order
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
13.
TABLE 1
ORDER OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
BOTTLE TYPE. AND PRESERVATIVE LIST
(From U.S. EPA, 1987)
Parameter
Field Measurements*
Volatile Organics
Purgeable Organic
Carbon (POC)
Purgeable Organic
Halogens (POX)
Extractable Organics
Total metals
Dissolved metals**
Total Organic Carbon
(TOO
Total Organic Halogens
Phenols
Cyanide
Sulfate and chloride
Nitrate and ammonia
Bottle Tvpe
1 - 200 mL Plastic
4 - 40 mL VOA vials
1 - 40 mL VOA vial
1 - 40 mL VOA vial
4 - 1L. amber glass
1 - 1L. plastic
1 - 1L plastic
1 - 50 mL glass
1 - 1L. amber glass
1 - 1L. amber glass
1 - 1L. plastic
1 - 1L. plastic
1 - 1L. plastic
Preservatives
None
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
No Headspace
Cool 4°C
HN03 to PH<2
Cool 4°C
HN03 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
H2S04 to
PH<2
Cool 4°C
"Field measurements included pH, specific conductance, temperature, and
turbidity.
""Samples were filtered before preservation with HNO-j .
-13-
-------
I A 1 L i 2
SAMPLING PARAMETERS LISTING. HWGWTF SITE VISIT
ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL
FIELD PARAMETERS
pH
Specific conductance
Temperature
Turbidity
OTHER PARAMETERS
Volatile Organics (VGA)
Purgeable Organic Carbon (POC)
Extractable Organics
Pesticides/Herbicides
Dioxin
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Purgeable Organic Halogens (POX)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Organic Halogens (TOX)
Total Phenol (4AAP)
Cyanide
Anions
Nitrate
Sulfide
-14-
-------
purposes. HNu mecers were calibrated daily using a benzene standard.
Water levels were measured in all wells before purging or sampling of the
monitoring wells. Each well was purged with either a dedicated bailer or
£
Well Wizard pump . The volume of water removed was calculated to equal
the volume of standing water in the well casing, plus the volume of water
in the sand pack of the well. Alternately, slow recharge wells were
purged to dryness when the above calculated volume could not be
obtained. Samples were collected from slow-recharge wells either by
waiting until sufficient volume had collected in the well casing for a
complete sample set, or by filling sample bottles in stages as the water
level rose in the well. At times, wells were allowed to recharge
overnight.
All sample bottles were directly filled from the bailer using a top-
emptying device or directly from the Well Wizard tubing. Volatile
organic analyses (VGA) vials were filled as replicate samples while other
sample bottles were filled proportionately between U.S. EPA and facility
containers. Replicate volatile organic samples and splits of all other
samples were offered to ACSL. In addition, one trip blank, two field
blanks, and two field duplicate samples were shipped from the site. A
total of 28 field samples were collected at the facility, including QA/QC
samples. No samples for immiscible components were taken from any
wells. Two surface water samples were taken from Trier Ditch, a stream
located on the northwest boundary of the site. One was designated an
upstream sample while the other was designated a downstream sample.
b) Sample Locations
Table 3 shows a listing of the sampling locations of wells and
surface water samples. Wells used by ACSL for sampling points for RCRA
compliance are listed. Well locations may be determined from Figure 2.
RTrademark
-15-
-------
! A 1 L E 1
SAMPLING LOCATION LISTING FOR ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL
SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR BOTH WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND
SAMPLING DURING THE INSPECTION*
RCRA MONITORING WELLS
MW-R1 (up)**
MW-R2 (up;**
MW-R3 (up)**
MW-R4
MW-R5
MW-R6
MW-R7
STATE MONITORING WELLS
MW-A
MW-B
MW-E
MW-K
MW-N
MW-7A
SURFACE WATER
TR-UP
TR-DN
STATE MONITORING WELLS
MW-3A
MW-3B
MW-4
MW-7B
MW-9
MW-MO
PIEZOMETERS MEASURED FOR WATER LEVEL
PZ-G-01A PZ-G-06B
PZ-G-01B PZ-G-07A
PZ-G-02A PZ-G-07B
PZ-G-02B PZ-G-07C
PZ-G-03A PZ-N
PZ-G-04A PZ-0
PZ-G-04B PZ-P
PZ-G-05A PZ-Q
PZ-G-05B PZ-R
PZ-G-06A PZ-U
TM-1
TM-2
TM-3
* Samples were analyzed for parameters listed in Table 2.
--"Identified by ACSL as upgradient wells.
-------
/
; ! i
n ^
f?i.
i li ij
! ?l ?
o
4
s i 1
_ 4
§8
2s
in u
o c
CC M
o i
y u
39
o Z
ui a
» u c
I I
I c
s z
^
» .
\
h
j
' 1
' Li
; ..
» »
, 5
: ! 8
1 ' f
=
, 0
5: -
I i
1
T
illlll
_3
J
~ ro
3
^«
OH
o
CO
-------
c) Quality Control and Quality Assurance
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 Evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1986b).
The Task Force prepared and submitted to the contract laboratories
two types of blanks during the inspection period. Two field blanks,
produced for the full parameter set, were prepared by pouring
high-purity, distilled, deionized (HPLC) water into the appropriate
sample containers after the wells were sampled. One set of trip blank
samples was brought to the site by the Task Force contractor and sent to
the laboratory with the other sample sets. No equipment blank samples
were taken at this site, since all sampling equipment used was provided
by ACSL and was dedicated equipment. Two field duplicate samples were
collected at the site. All of the blank and duplicate samples were
submitted to the laboratories with no distinguishing labels or markings.
Locations and EPA sample numbers of the blank 'and duplicate samples are
as follows:
Sampling blank/Duplicate EPA Number
Trip Blank MQB360
Field Blank (taken at MW R05) MQB365
Field Blank (taken at MW R07) MQB379
Field Duplicate (MW R06) MQB368
Field Duplicate (MW R06) MQB377
Field Duplicate (MW-MO) MQB'353
Field Duplicate (MW-MO) MQB373
All field measurement equipment, including turbidity meters, pH meters,
and conductivity meters were calibrated daily during the sampling event.
d) Cusrodv and Sample Handlinp
All samples collected by the Task Force were shipped to the
following contractor laboratories: CE-EMSI, in Camarillo, California
(organics); Centec Laboratories, Salem, Virginia (inorganic and indicator
analyses); and CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., Research Triangle Park,
-18-
-------
North Carolina (dioxin and furan analyses). Shipping was in accordance
with applicable DOT regulations (40 CFR 171-177) . All samples were
characterized for the laboratories by the Task Force as low-level
groundwater or low-level surface water. Each sample shipment was
accompanied by a Chain-of-Custody record. This form identified the
contents of the shipment by sample type, date, time, sample number, etc.
The original custody form accompanied the shipment, and a copy was
provided to the Field Team Leader. Samples taken from the site by EPA
personnel were documented with a Receipt for Samples form. The facility
was offered splits but declined to accept them.
D. WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS AND OPERATIONS
1) Introduction
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill (ACSL) is located on a 151 acre tract
in the northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 30 North, Range 13 East,
in Fort Wayne, Allen County, Indiana (See Figure 1). The site is
bordered on the east by Adams Center Road, the northeast by the Penn
Central Railroad, and the northwest, west, and south by vacant land or
farmland. In addition, .a stream known as Trier Ditch borders the
northwest corner of the property. The facility is owned and operated by
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. The site was acquired when Chemical
Waste Management purchased SCA, Inc., in September, 1984 (ACSL, 1986).
At the time of the Task Force investigation, ACSL was authorized to
receive and manage virtually every type of hazardous waste identified and
listed in 40 CFR Part 261. This included containerized or bulk solids
and containerized liquids and slurries. Wastes accepted at the facility
were sent directly to the landfill or temporarily stored to await
treatment on- site or to be transferred to an off-site treatment
facility. At the time of the Task Force investigation, ACSL did not
accept municipal garbage. The facility operated two regulated units: a
container handling unit, and a landfill (ACSL, 1986).
-19-
-------
During che investigation, landfill operations were taking place in
the Phase II section of the site (see Figure 2). Phase II, Phase III,
and future expansion into Phases IV and V will use the "expanding area
method", where succeeding cells are constructed while the previous cell
is being filled. The cells are being developed to meet minimum
technology requirements and will include double synthetic liners and
leachate collection and removal systems. The Phase I section of the
landfill is no longer active, and was constructed before minimum
technology requirements were enacted.
At the time of the investigacion, the facility handled both
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes, primarily in solid form, although
containerized liquids, sludges, and slurries were also received.
Incoming wastes were sampled and analyzed to determine that they met
waste manifest specifications and to assess the need for processing prior
to landfill disposal. The facility did not accept radioactive wastes (as
regulated by the N7RC) , infectious wastes, some explosive and
shock-sensitive wastes, organic oxidizing agents, pressurized gases, air-
or water-reactive wastes, dioxin-contaminated wastes, or PCB-contaminated
wastes (ACSL, 1986). In the past, the landfill operated a sanitary
(non-hazardous) disposal area. The sanitary disposal area is located on
the western half of the site and has not received wastes since October
1985.
The Interim Status disposal areas included the hazardous waste areas
on the eastern half of'the site. The hazardous waste facilities are
isolated from the closed sanitary waste landfill by a buffer zone which
runs the length of the site. Each landfill has its own surface drainage
system, and each portion is ringed by a slurry wall which is intended to
isolate ground- water flow within che Atherton 2C.
ACSL has filed both RCRA Part A and Part B permit applications. The
RCRA Part B permit application was revised in response to several Notices
of Deficiency (NODs) from U.S. EPA and the Indiana State Board of Health
and Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and resubmitted on
December 15, 1986.
-20-
-------
2) Waste Management Units
a) RCRA Regulated Units Under Interim Status
AC Che time of the Task Force investigation, chere were two
operating RCRA-regulaced units on-site: a container handling facility,
and a landfill (ACSL Part B, 1986). The container handling facility was
used to store incoming containers of wastes that were not immediately
placed in the landfill (i.e., they contained free liquids or required
further testing). This facility is shown in Figure 2. Bulk solid
wastes, containerized solids, and stabilized wastes were disposed of
directly in the landfill without on- site storage. Stored containerized
wastes were accumulated in the drum storage unit for a maximum of 5
days. The unit is designed to hold a maximum of 450 drums in four
segregated areas. This includes containers filled wich liquids, solids,
pumpable and non-pumpable sludges. The conCainer handling facility
structure is made of concrete and steel, with a canopy roof and concrete
floor. It is walled on the north, south, and east sides. The
containment system (floor and sumps) are designed to hold ten percent of
the volume of the drums placed in each storage area (ACSL, Part B 1936).
Cells IA, IB, and 1C are included in Phase I of the landfill.
Landfill cell IA was constructed prior to 1980. It consists of a series
of shallow, discontinuous pits. This cell is unlined and does not have a
leachate collection system. Cell IB was constructed with a clay liner
but does not include a synthetic liner. A leachate collection system,
leading to two collection manholes, was installed in cell IB. Cell 1C
was constructed with a synthetic liner over a 2-foot-thick compacted clay
liner and a leachate collection and removal system. Figure 2 shows the
location of the Phase I cells. Phase I was inactive at the time of the
inspection and had an interim cover. It has not yet received closure
certification (ACSL, Part B, 1986).
Phase II was active at the time of the investigation, and was
divided into cells IIA and IIB. Phase IIA was constructed in 1985, and
was authorized for waste disposal in September 1985. Both of the
Phase II cells have 3- foot-thick clay liners overlain by double
.01.
-------
synthetic liners. Both also have leachate collection systems.
Phases III through V are planned for future disposal activities. Plans
incorporating minimum disposal technologies for these areas were being
completed at the time of the Task Force inspection. All of the current
phases are separated by buffer zones, and are surrounded by slurry walls
which are intended to isolate ground water within the Atherton 2C (ACSL,
Part B, 1986) .
Interim status ground-water monitoring was begun in 1982 at the
site. Appropriate parameters were analyzed to provide baseline data. In
December 1984, a ground-water assessment was begun, as a result of
statistically significant increases in specific conductance in a
downgradient well. ACSL concluded that these increases were due to
naturally occurring variances in the water in the monitored aquifer
(Atherton 2B) and not to a release from the waste management units. It
was also concluded by ACSL that the designated upgradient well was not
always upgradient due co water level fluctuations (Aware, 1984). In
1985, the RCRA monitoring system was upgraded with additional monitoring
wells. In November 1985, U.S. EPA issued an administrative complaint
alleging ground-water monitoring violations. In September 1986, a
consent agreement with U.S. EPA was signed, and a ground-water quality
assessment plan was submitted which included plans for installation of
additional monitoring wells and for sampling and analysis of hazardous
constituents. In addition, a revised RCRA Part B permit application was
submitted. No corrective actions had been undertaken at the site at the
time of the Task Force inspection.
b) Prfr - intern'm Status Units
A landfill operation has existed on this site since before 1974.
Non- hazardous (domestic) wastes were accepted prior to the beginning of
interim status and up until 1984. These sanitary wastes were disposed of
on the western half of the site. This section of the property has been
capped and closed, and a slurry wall placed around the perimeter. There
is an area of vacant land (utility right-of-way) between the old landfill
and the hazardous waste disposal areas (ACSL, 1986).
-22-
-------
It is not known when Phase I of che hazardous waste landfill began
accepting wastes, although it was prior to the beginning of interim
status monitoring and possibly before 1974. Phase I landfilling methods
and structure are discussed in Section D-2a. Two field studies were
conducted at the site prior to the initiation of RCRA monitoring. One
was performed in 1974 by Michigan Testing Engineers, Inc., and the other
was performed from 1979 to 1981 by James D. Andrews, P.E.. The Michigan
Testing Engineering Study included the installation of monitoring wells
MW-A, MV-B, and MW-C. These wells were first sampled in June 1976, the
beginning of ground-water monitoring at the site. The study performed by
James D. Andrews, P.E. included the installation of wells MW-I (MW-R2),
MW-H (MW- R3), MU-JO, MW-MO, and MW-K, as well as an investigation of
subsurface conditions at the site. Quarterly interim status monitoring
was begun in 1982 (Colder Assoc., 1986).
c) Waste Chnrncrerizntion
RCRA hazardous wastes have been disposed at the facility from 1980
until the present. Plans for the facility include an expansion of waste
handling capability and the opening of additional hazardous waste
disposal areas.
d) Si te Operation
Waste Disposal
Wastes are disposed of in the landfill cells. Each succeeding cell
is constructed while the previous cell is being filled. Drummed wastes
are disposed of directly in the cells. Wastes disposed of include
containerized or drummed solid waste (approximately 25% by volume),
stabilized waste, and bulk solid waste (both together approximately 75%
by volume). The location of the wastes disposed of in the landfill is
recorded daily, using the three-dimensional coordinates of the active
work area. Incompatible wastes are segregated prior to landfilling, and
are disposed of in different areas of the active landfill, separated by
berms. Drummed wastes which contain free space may be crushed to reduce
their volume, or will be filled with inert materials, such as absorbents
or clean fill (ACSL, 1986).
-------
Leachate Handling
A leachate collection system has been or will be included in all
landfill phiises except for Phase IA and IB. The liquid levels in each
leachate collection sump are monitored as described in the site
Inspection Plan Liquid is removed from all leachate risers or collection
manholes by purap or vacuum truck. All liquids removed from the existing
manholes are transported off-site for treatment. In the future, liquids
will be temporarily stored on-site in an above-ground tank prior to being
treated in a proposed leachate pretreatment facility. No free liquids
or unstabilized drummed liquids are disposed of in the landfill,
minimizing inputs of liquid materials. Rainfall infiltration is
minimized during active landfilling by a combination of slopes and berms,
or rainwater is pumped off ponded areas on the landfill to minimize the
quantities of leachate generated (ACSL, 1986).
Surface Water Control and Discharge
Surface runon and runoff from various areas of the facility were
controlled by the use of natural and artificial diversion structures,
such as ditches and berms. In Che future all developed areas of the
facility will be channelled and runoff will be collected into runoff
collection basins. Surface runoff from the active landfill operations
area is collected as part of the leachate collection system and is
treated as leachate. Runoff from other parts of the site is directed
into stormwater retention basins. Retained stormwater is tested, then
discharged to Trier ditch, according to NPDES permit (ACSL, 1986).
E. SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDRQGEOLOGY
1) Introduction
The hydrogeological information presented in this report
incorporates data and interpretations derived from ACSL1s consultant's
reports and does not imply Task Force concurrence. Areas of disagreement
between the consultant and U.S. EPA and the IDEM staff members are noted
the following text. The ACSL facility is located in a glaciated area of
gently undulating topography, approximately 4 miles southeast of the
-------
center of Fort Wayne. The site comprises a total area of approximately
150 acres at an elevation ranging from 754 to 817 feet above MSL. The
land surface at the site generally slopes to the northwest towards Trier
Ditch.
2) Hvdroeeologic Units
The following material is a summary of information provided in the
Draft Report, Hydrogeologic Characterization, Adams Center Facility,
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (1986) by Colder Associates.
The facility is underlain by thick glacial deposits of late
Pleistocene age which overlie Devonian bedrock. The bedrock consists of
dolomites and limestones, and are usually not considered to be of
importance to the site hydrogeology due to their depth (60-80 feet) and
due to the presence of confining layers above. In descending order (by
depth) the generalized stratigraphic sequence for the overburden is as
follows:
New Holland Till - silt and clay with varying amounts .of sand
and gravel, present at or very near the surface across the entire
site. Contains discontinuous sand and silt lenses, and jointing
is common in the upper portions. The unit is of sufficiently low
permeability to be considered an aquitard relative to the
underlying Atherton 2C sand unit. Average undisturbed thickness
of the unit is approximately 12 feet.
Atherton 2C Sand - fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt and
varying amounts of fine gravel. The unit ranges in thickness
from 0 to 7.5 feet and averages 2.2 feet thick in the vicinity of
the site. The unit, though consistently present beneath the
southern half of the site, is absent in areas east and south of
the site and in the vicinity of MW-R2, MW-MO, Pz-Q, PZ-R,
PZ-G-03A. This sand unit has been partially excavated beneath
portions of the hazardous waste disposal units, and is considered
to be in hydraulic connection with those units.
Upper Trafalgar Till - silt and clay with a trace to some fine
to coarse sand and gravel. Discontinuous lenses of less dense,
possibly reworked till (may be interpreted as a transition zone)
have been observed at the top of this unit. The transition zone,
which contains a basal sand bed is consistently present at the
northern half of the site (see Figure 3). The average thickness
of the upper Trafalgar Till below the site is 22 feet. This till
-25-
-------
oo
co
O5
CO
CM
CO
c
a
UJ
o
o
I
'O
o
a
o
H
on
u
O
CJ U
CO
tn
O
CJ
I (
o
3
o
-------
is highly overconsolidaced and is extremely dense. It is
considered co be an aquitard chat confines the underlying
Atherton 2B sand. However some vertical connections are thought
to exist, allowing the Upper Trafalgar Till to recharge the
Atherton 2B.
Atherton 2B Sand - fine to medium sand with a trace of silt and
varying amounts of gravel. The silt and clay content increases
in the vicinity of MW-R7. The unit is predominantly silt near
PZ-G-07A and CB1-2B. The unit is thicker and better sorted
towards the southern and eastern portions of the site, and
generally thinner and finer-grained at the northern part of the
Phase III Landfill. At the western boundary of the Phase I, II
and III landfill areas, this unit does not form a continuous sand
layer but consists instead of lenticular sands at different
elevations, which ma be interpreted as sub units of the Atherton
2B (see Figures 3 and 4). The Atherton 2B sand is an artesian
aquifer confined within the Trafalgar Till, and it ranges in
thickness from approximately 3 feet in the Phase III area, to
over 19 feet near the southern site boundary. Both the surface
and base of the unit generally slope north and west at 0.007 to
0.011 ft/ft.
Lower Trafalgar Till - similar to the Upper Trafalgar Till,
this unit is approximately 25 feet thick. The underlying
Atherton 2A sand is 12 feet thick where penetrated in the
region. The Task Force evaluation of available hydrogeological
data did not result in absolute concurrence with the
stratigraphic interpretations but forth by ACSL consultants.
3) Hydraulic Conductivities and Ground-Water Flow
ACSL's consultants contended that the Atherton 2B sand was the
principal water-bearing unit to be monitored by the facility at the time
of the Task Force evaluation. Ground-water recharge to the Atherton 2B
sand is primarily by infiltration of precipitation through the overlying
till. Because of differences in the hydraulic conductivity between the
various till and sand units, ground-water flow in the Atherton 2B is
predominantly horizontal from areas of higher to lower elevation and
vertically downward through the tills to the Atherton 2B. On a regional
scale, the flow gradient of the unit is to the north. From data
collected since October, 1985, flow in the vicinity of the site is
generally to the north- northwest. A steeper gradient north of the
Phase II area is probably due to the higher head loss resulting from flow
-27-
-------
8 wffifflffflA fe^J {^Ki3%i%i%%3fe»a!3%^ *,
X-A..-V\
»>%»* V2&
i^i I 'R^^^^^^^x^'^^^/^X^SS
S
K
"
.0
- ? s -
-------
through the finer-grained and thinner materials present in the aquifer in
this area. The hydraulic gradient ranges from 0.0009 to 0.0011 ft/ft in
the Phase I and II portions of the site, and is an order of magnitude
greater in the vicinity of Phase III.
Figures 5 and 6 show the potentiometric surface of the Atherton 2B.
These figures indicate a predominantly northwest ground-water flow
direction at the site. However, Figure 6, which incorporates a more
detailed interpretation as presented by IDEM (a smaller contour interval
is employed), suggests that a ground-water divide exists at the eastern
part of the site creating eastwardly ground-water flow at this part of
the site. The Figure 6 interpretation includes MW-12 water level data
which is believed to be representative of the Atherton 2B potentiometric
head at this location. Figure 3 shows a strong correlation for the
Atherton 2B at MW-12 and adjacent wells. Water level elevations of the
Atherton 2C are shown in Figure 7.
Hydraulic conductivity values obtained from 1985 and 1986 data
. 3
(Colder Assoc., 1986) yielded a set of values ranging from 5.0 x 10
-2 - 2
cm/sec to 2.0 x 10 cm/sec (average value, 1.0 x 10 cm/sec,
horizontal values) for the Atherton 2B sand. A minimum flow velocity of
about 25 ft/yr in the northwestern portion of the site, and a maximum
velocity of 150 ft/yr is calculated for the southeastern part of the
site. The vertical hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Trafalgar Till
was estimated to be 8.0 x 10 cm/sec, with a vertical transport
velocity of 2 to 3 ft/yr.
There has been disagreement between U.S. EPA and ACSL regarding the
significance of the Atherton 2C as the uppermost aquifer beneath the
site. Since portions of the Atherton 2C have been excavated beneath the
landfilled areas, and since ACSL contends that the slurry wall cuts off
the Atherton 2C from the landfilled areas, ACSL has maintained that the
Atherton 2B is the uppermost aquifer, which would be the first to
indicate potential ground-water contamination from the site. EPA has
contended that the Atherton 2C unit should be monitored in addition to
the Atherton 2B. This issue was addressed in the Consent Agreement and
-------
t
I
ELEVATION CONTOUH OT TKC
POTENTICUCTSIC 5UHFACE IFEETJ
28 F1.CW 0*EC7!CN
«« 8S3-a035
SOL
AS SHOWN
9*rc SEPT. 1986
c»«ti«o
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
OF THE ATHERTON 23 AQUIFER,
SEPTEMBER 17. 1986
Golder Associates
AOAMS CENTER FACILITY
FIGURE 5
POTENTIOMETIC SURFACE OF THE ATHERTON 2B AQUIFER
SEPTEMBER 17,1986
(GOLDER ASSOCIATES, 1986)
-30-
-------
o-
e
M
O
O
9
o-
CO
O
«
(O
m
u
O
O
co
o-
o-
a
(O
in
o
o
-------
,
C"*"
NOTE: PZ-G-C23 W4S 3RY TO iN iLEV4T!CN CF
7S*.22 ON 9-1 7-96.
853-ZQ55
SOL
ie*«'1 AS SHOWN
" SEPT. 1986
cxetco qSM
ATHtSTON 2C
WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS
SEPTEMBER 17, 191
Colder Associates
ADAMS CENTER FACILITY
'"1"*
FIGURE?
ATHERTON 2C WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS
SEPTEMBER 17, 1986
(GOLDER ASSOCIATES, 1986)
-------
Final Order, dated September 23, 1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986a)-. As a result of
this order, ACSL was required to perform a ground-water quality
assessment that was to include monitoring of the Atherton 2C.
F. GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM DURING INTERIM STATUS
1) Regulatory Requirements
ACSL is required to monitor groundwater under the requirements of
320 IAC 4,1-20 (Indiana State Code), and 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart F, for
interim status facilities. In addition, ACSL is required to comply with
40 CFR Part 270.l4(c), regarding their Part B permit application.
2) Ground-Water Monitoring. Svstem
a) Monitoring Well History
Ground-water monitoring at ACSL was initiated in June, 1976, with
the sampling of wells MW-A, MW-B, and HW-C, installed under the
supervision of Michigan Testing Engineers (MTE). Additional monitoring
wells, including MU-1 (MW.-R2), MW-H (MV-R3), MW-JO, MW-MO, andMW-K, were
installed in 1981 in connection with a hydrogeologic investigation
performed by James D. Andrews, P.E., (Colder Assoc., 1986). Since ACSL
concluded that the Atherton 2B sand comprised the "uppermost aquifer" at
the site, wells MW-I, MW-JO, MU-MO, and MW-C, which are completed in the
Atherton 2B, were designated" as the RCRA monitoring wells for the site.
In 1982, Wehian Engineering performed a detailed site hydrogeologic
investigation, including the installation of 12 additional wells
including MW-JN (MW-R5), and W-l (MW-R4) through W-7B (ACSL, 1986). The
above information provided the basis for the ground-water monitoring
section of the RCRA Part B permit application submitted in August 1983 by
SCA Chemical Services, Inc. Based on the results of the Wehran
Investigation, a slurry trench was constructed through the Atherton 2C to
attempt to hydraulically restrict flow within the unit (Colder Assoc.,
1986). The trench was completed in November 1983, and its location is
shown in Figure 2.
-------
In February, 1984, a statistical comparison between measurements in
MW-MO (downgradient RCRA well) and MW-I (upgradient RCRA well) showed a
statistically significant increase in specific conductance. This was re-
evaluated in March 1984, and in response, SCA hired Pollution Control
Systems Inc. to develop a ground-water assessment plan. This plan was
carried out by AWARE Corp. in 1984, and included a review of the
statistical evaluations, more frequent ground-water sampling, and
installation of an additional monitoring well and piezometers (PZ-N,
PZ-0, PZ-Q, PZ-R, PZ-N) (Colder Assoc., 1986).
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder) was subsequently asked to provide
recommendations for modifications to the existing ground-water monitoring
program for the Atherton 2B aquifer. In 1985, Colder installed four new
Atherton 2B wells (intended to be RCRA wells), resurveyed all of the
wells, measured water levels in all of the wells, and conducted pump
tests to obtain values for hydraulic conductivity. In 1986, Colder
installed 14 piezometers in the Atherton 2B, the Atherton 2C, and the
Upper Trafalgar Till, conducted aquifer tests for hydraulic conductivity
in the Upper-Trafalgar Till, and monitored head levels in all of the
piezometers (Colder Assoc., 1986).
Ground-water monitoring wells present at the time of the Task Force
evaluation are illustrated on Figure 8. Four of the wells (MW-R2 through
MW-R5) were included in the original monitoring program for the site. The
other wells were added to upgrade the system. The upgradient wells are MW-
Rl through MW-R3, and are located along the southern compliance boundary of
the site. The rest are downgradient wells, located along the westerly
compliance area boundary and north of the Phase II development area.
The September 23, 1986, CAFO requires the installation of additional
monitoring wells to increase the number of downgradient monitoring wells
necessary to ensure immediate detection of statistically significant
amounts of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents that may
migrate from the hazardous waste management area to the uppermost
aquifer. A summary table of monitoring wells and piezometers installed
during 1976 to 1985 is given in Table 4.
-------
FIGURE 8
PIEZOMETER AND MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
(ACSL PART B APPLICATION, 1986)
-35-
-------
is?
552:
: 1:5"
: £ s
x 5 «
1 = 3 "
- 2 2
55 = :
i 5 2 :
1:3"
5 3 s
^ I 2 2 :'
£ 5 = 3"
3 2
> 53
J ; s =
a: , X 2
UJ ~ "
3 i = if ?-
i ^ z * *lz
M«A«^M^ d^M 3 3 0 ***<* * " J 3 .,
"«*» 5 v»
« r * c
7 " ^ ^ 5
. ". ! J « r
8 " 1 1 ! !
2 SS" v 2 1 -
|is!!i
a - ~ I "t
. i . j = = i
3 7 - i S i !
-36-
-------
b) Background Ground-Water Quality
ACSL has used data collected since interim status monitoring began
(1982) as the statistical base for background water quality. This
information was used in calculations that indicated a statistically
significant increase in specific conductance (1984), and initiated
ground-water assessment. As a result of the ground-water assessment,
ACSL concluded that ground-water quality at the site had not been
affected. It was also concluded by ACSL that natural variances in the
ground-water quality produced the increase in conductivity that preceded
the assessment (Aware, 1984). In the revised RCRA Part B permit
application, ACSL proposed new indicator parameters. The proposed
indicator parameters are the volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These
additional indicator parameters were proposed based upon analysis of
landfill leachate and materials accepted for disposal.
c) Monicorine Well Construction
The ground-water monitoring wells and piezometers at ACSL have been
installed at four different times between 1976 and 1986. Figure 5 has
the locations of existing piezometers and monitoring wells on-site.
Varying methods of construction have been documented for these wells.
Well logs are available for all of the wells installed at the site, and
well construction diagrams are provided in the RCRA Part B permit
application for all but the James D. Andrews, P.E. wells (ACSL, 1986).
Little information is available for the installation of the earliest
wells (MW-A, MW-B, and MW-C, installed by MTE). Figures 9 through 12
have the details of typical monitoring well and piezometer construction.
All of the wells are constructed from threaded, flush joint Schedule
40 or Schedule 80 PVC pipe. Inner diameters vary between two and four
inches. Screens are of the same material, machine slotted. Wells
installed by Wehran have five-foot screens, and filter packs of pea
gravel to two feet above the screen. A 2-foot bentonite pellet seal and
cement-bentonite grout were used to seal the annular space above the
gravel pack. All of these wells are equipped with a steel protective
casing and locking cap.
-------
5 .
13 . -
IS -
20 -
22 -
_
20 -
35 -
40 -
45 -
50 -
55 .
H
i.
*
A
i
*
V
A
ii
4
*
g
*
If
*
a"
B
^
pi
"i
; Silty CZZ, Erswi
L
Ti
i
' Silt/ CA^, Gray
,
'
r
1
\ Silt/ 2^3, TSace Clay, Gray
i
-: . Mediua ts Fir.« SAND. Gray,
;]; wet
4.
14"
5
trad of Boring
Aft 55.0 Fete
Verticle Scale 1'=1C'
mnitrr Well I M L
Adarw Canter Sanitary Landfill / P 1
For: Wayne. Indiana & I 412-15011 3-13-31
FIGURE 9
TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION FOR WELLS INSTALLED
BY MICHIGAN TESTING ENGINEERS (MTE), 1976
(ACSL PART B APPLICATION, 1986)
-38-
-------
FIGURE 10
TYPICAL MONITORING WELL
CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM AND BORING LOG
(WEHRAN ENGINEERING)
-------
Froe«ctiv«
with
Ctmtat Cap
in
i -
13
acoaict
w«li Scr*«a
(0.01)
"1
J
muuo rsi
A2BZirS» 2«
tlli
LCWCl
TlU/ALSJUt
AOAXS CEMtiR LAMOFl'.L I:?C. ,
TYPICAL PIEZOMETER DETAIL
AOA.XS TO'-:JSH:?
ADAMS COUNTY
INDIANA
FIGURE
FIGURE 11
TYPICAL PIEZOMETER DETAIL
(AWARE CORPORATION, 1984)
-40-
-------
ADAMS CENTER FACILITY
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
MONJTORING'WELL
MW-RS
T7S'.7S''
Colder Associates
FIGURE 12
TYPICAL MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION
(GOLDER ASSOCIATES, 1985)
-------
Due to the wide variety of compounds disposed of at the site, the
Task Force recommends that wells installed at the site be composed of
materials which have been proven to be chemically and physically stable
under conditions similar to the environment within the saturated zone at
the facility.
Piezometers installed by AWARE were either 3-inch or 1.5-inch
diameter PVC, (Schedule 40, threaded flush joint) equipped with 10-foot
slotted screens. The piezometers were sand packed and sealed in the
same manner as described previously.
Colder installed wells in accordance with what ACSL describes as the
standard Waste Management, Inc. specifications for monitoring well
construction. Ten-inch I.D. steel casing was set and grouted into the
Upper Trafalgar Till, the Atherton 2C unit prior to drilling into the
Atherton 2B aquifer. Temporary flush- joint steel casing was driven into
the Lower Trafalgar Till in borings MW- Rl, MW-R6, AND MW-9, to prevent
caving. The steel casing was withdrawn as the wells were installed.
All of these wells are also constructed of 4- inch I.D. Schedule 40 PVC,
with 5-foot slotted screens. The sand pack consists of coarse, well
sorted quartz sand placed to two feet above the screen, above which lies
a 1-foot thick sand filter of fine Ottawa sand. Above this the annular
space is sealed with bentonite slurry to a depth 2 feet below surface.
The remaining two feet is sealed with Volclay bentonite pellets and
cement. All of the wells have a protective steel casing with locking cap
(Colder Assoc., 1986).
3) Sampling and Analysis
a) ACSL's Sample Collection and Handline Procedures
The ACSL uses two sampling and analysis plans. One site-spec ific
and the other a generalized corporate plan. A number of deficiencies
were noted in both of these plans:
Neither plan includes procedures for checking wells for
immiscible layers such as low density (floaters) or high density
(sinkers) contaminates.
-42-
-------
Neither plan contains documentation of the cleaning procedures
used to decontaminate the cable of the water level indicator
equipment after each use.
Neither plan contains procedures for use and cleaning of the
in-line filtering equipment used in wells that have pumps
installed.
The general plan requires that total organic carbon (TOC)
should be filtered. This is incorrect and may result in a sample
biased low.
During the measurement of water level two problems were noted by the
Task Force. First, the personnel from ACSL sampling contractor were not
using consistent procedures for measuring the water level. There was a
discrepancy in which point should be used as the reference elevation of
the well. When the ACSL site manager was informed he had all of the
reference levels resurveyed. This survey was completed before the Task
Force completed its inspection. The second problem found was that some
of the wells no longer can be easily identified. The number painted on
the well casing has either worn off or has been buried.
Both of these problems can be avoided by including procedures in the
site- specific sampling plan documenting where water level measurements
should be taken and for periodically checking well casings labels.
b) ACSL's Sample Analysis and Data Quality Evaluation
In May 1987, the Task Force Laboratory Evaluation Team performed an
on- site evaluation of two of the three laboratories performing analyses
for ACSL, pursuant to RCRA ground-water monitoring activities for ACSL.
The laboratories evaluated included Gulf Coast Laboratory, University
Park, Illinois (inorganics, TOC, and indicator parameters), and
Environmental Testing and Certification Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey
(organics analyses). Core Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming, performed the
radiochemical analyses for the site. Core Laboratories has been
certified by Region VIII for gross alpha, gross beta, radium-226,
radium-228, and uranium in drinking water. Data for Core Laboratories
was provided courtesy of Region VIII. The purpose of the evaluation was
-------
to establish whether the standard operating procedures of these
laboratories produce data of acceptable quality. See Appendix IV for the
full evaluation report for these laboratories.
4) Ground-Water Quality Assessment
ACSL initiated a ground-water quality assessment in 1984, following
the determination of a statistically significant increase in specific
conductivity in ground water monitored by RCRA wells (Atherton 2E>
aquifer), in accordance with 40 CFR Part 265.93. The assessment was
performed by Aware, Inc., and submitted in December 1984 (Aware, 1984).
This report concluded that:
The .statistically significant difference in specific
conductance at monitoring well MU-MO was due to
naturally-occurring concentrations of sodium, sulfate, calcium,
and magnesium, and not due to the presence of hazardous waste
constituents.
A ground-water divide exists in the Atherton 2B beneath the
southeast quadrant of the site.
Additional monitoring wells, both upgradient and downgradient,
would be required to provide improved monitoring of the system.
Colder Associates was subsequently asked to provide recommendations to
increase the responsiveness of the ground-water monitoring program. As a
result, the monitoring network in the Atherton 2B was expanded, an
inventory of water levels in the Atherton 2B and 2C was taken, and
aquifer tests were performed to better define aquifer properties in the
Atherton 2B. The findings of this report did not substantiate the
conclusion of Aware, that there was a ground-water divide beneath the
site. Rather, Colder found chat gradient reversals due to variable
recharge conditions had occurred in the Atherton 2B. They also concluded
that portions of the Atherton 2C had been dewatered as a result of
Phase II cell construction (Colder Assoc., 1986).
Interim status monitoring was continued through the assessment
period. The sampling and analysis plan originally used during interim
status monitoring was revised by 1987 and was included in a revision of
the RCRA Part B permit application.
-------
G. GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM PROPOSED FOR FINAL PERMIT
Permit conditions stipulated by IDEM will include, in addition to
the well system approved for interim status, the addition of four wells
at the eastern boundary of the site, and a well at the western boundary.
ACSL shall implement a detection ground-water monitoring program in
accordance with 329 IAC 3-45-9.
H. MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS FOR INDICATIONS OF WASTE RELEASE
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. Samples were
collected from 21 field locations, including 19 monitoring wells and two
stream locations. Water levels were also measured in the piezometers
onsite. Field measurements were made at the time of sampling by U.S.
EPA's contractor for pH, specific conductance, and turbidity. Laboratory
analysis results were obtained from three U.S. Contract Laboratories
participating in the Contract Laboratory Program. Specific organic
compounds were analyzed at CE-EMSI, dioxin and furan analyses at
CompuChera Laboratories, Inc., and metals and other parameters at Centec
Laboratories. Appendix II gives a summary of analytical techniques and
reference methods, by parameter, for sample analyses. Also, in
Appendix II is a summary of results of field measurements. Appendix III
includes a summary of all other analytical results.
Several wells contained organic constituents at levels greater than
the method detection limit. Trichloroethene was detected in well MW-Mo
(& ug/1, 3 ug/1 (duplicate)); cyclohexanol was found in well MW-R06
(50 ug/1), Trier Ditch upstream (20 ug/1), and Trier Ditch downstream
(10 ug/1); 1,2- dichlorobenzene was detected in well MU-A (3 ug/1);-
nitrobenzene was found in well MW-A (3 ug/1); and vinyl chloride was
found in well MW-C (1 ug/1).
-------
Total lead levels were detected in 6 wells, MW-B (20 ug/1), MW-07B
(6.2 ug/1), MW-07A (17 ug/1) MW-K (31 ug/1), MW-C (128 ug/1) and MW-E
(104 ug/1). The level in the last two wells is greater than the 50 ug/1
lead limit given in Appendix II1-EPA Interim Drinking Water Standards,
40 CFR Part 265.
Arsenic was detected in 5 wells; MW-R04 (8.3 ug/1), MW-K 17 (ug/1),
MW-Mo (18 ug/1), MW-Mo (10 ug/1)(duplicate), MW-06B (6.2 ug/1) and MW-C
(46 ug/1). Chromium was found in four wells; MW-B (15 ug/1), MW-07A
(10 ug/1), MW-K (36 ug/1) and MW-C (37 ug/1). High levels of metals
commonly found in ground water were also found. These include iron,
calcium, sodium, manganese, aluminum, and magnesium.
Samples from six wells and the down stream sample point on Trier
Ditch contained Total Phenol. These were wells MW-Mo (60 ug/1), MW-R06
(65 ug/1), MW-B (60 ug/1), MW-R04 (113 ug/1), MW-3B (173 ug/1), MW-06B
(105 ug/1) and Trier Ditch (downstream) (113 ug/1).
Chloride lev&ls in two downgradient wells, MW-B and MW-A were six
and four times higher respectively than upgradient wells. Sulfates were
three to six times higher in three downgradient wells (MW-Mo, MW-4 and
MW-K). Two downgradient wells (MW-B and MW-3A) had 7 to 18 times as much
purgable organic carbon as upgradient wells.
-46-
-------
REFERENCES
-------
References
1) Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (ACSL), December 15, 1986. NOD
Response and Revised RCRA Part A and RCRA Part B Permit Application
Revision 1.
2) Av,are, T$ic. , November, 1984. Groundwater Assessment, Adams Center
Landfill (Appendix 16-2, ACSL RCRA Part B Permit Application).
3) F.usch, Gregory, August 12, 1985a. Quality Assurance Review Ground-
Water Monitoring Results (RCRA Wells) for Adams Center Landfill,
collected on July 2, 1985. Internal Memorandum from Gregory Busch to
Karyl Schmidt, Indiana State Board of Health.
4) Busch, Gregory, December 19, 1985b. Quality Assurance Review Ground-
Water Monitoring Results (Conventional Wells) for Adams Center
Landfill, collected on July 2, 1985. Internal Memorandum from Gregory
Busch to Karyl Schmidt, Indiana State Board of Health.
5) Busch, Gregory, November 7, 1986. Quality Assurance Review of
Ground- water Monitoring Results for Adams Center Landfill, collected
on July 8 and 9, 1986. Internal Memorandum from Gregory A. Busch to
RCRA Ground-water File, Indiana State Board of Health.
6) Colder Associates, November 1985. Report of Monitoring Well
Installation, Adams Center facility, Adams Center Sanitary Landfill,
Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana.
7) Colder Associates. October 1986. Hydrogeologic Evaluation, Adams
Center Sanitary Landfill. (Appendix 16-3, RCRA Part B Permit
Application).
8) U.S. EPA, September 23, 1986a. Consent Agreement and Final Order,
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
9) U.S. EPA, September 1986b. Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force
Protocol for Ground-Water Evaluations.
10) U.S. EPA, April 27, 1987. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Groundwater
Monitoring Evaluation, Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc., Fort
Wayne, Indiana.
11) U.S. EPA Region V, November 7, 1986. Complaint and Compliance Order;
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc.
12) Wehran Engineering, 1983. Confirmatory Hydrogeologic Investigation,
Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Fort Wayne, Indiana (Appendix 16-1,
RCRA Part B Permit Application).
-48-
-------
APPENDIX I
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE ADAMS CENTER LANDFILL, INDIANA
-------
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Suite 500
303 East WacKer Drive
Chicago. IL 60aO»
312-856-3700 *
FAX* 938-0ITS" '
pro
Planning Research Corporation
r -
IP -3 1327
September 18, 1987
Mr. Rich Steimle
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force (WH-562A)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W., Room S-6301
Washington, D.C 20460
Re: Final Memorandum, Adams Center Landfill, Indiana (015-05491903)
Dear Mr. Steimle:
PRC Environmental Management, Inc., is pleased to submit for your review the
final memorandum for QA/QC support of Work Assignment No. 549, under TES II
entitled "Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples from
the A3ams Center Landfill, Indiana.
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please feel free to contact
Daniel T. Chow
Enclosure
cc: Nancy Deck (letter only)
John McGuire (w/1 copy of report)
Gareth Pearson (w/1 copy of report)
Maxine Long (w/1 copy of report)
Sujith Kumar (w/1 copy of report)
Ken Partymillcr (w/1 copy of report)
-------
prc
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
Suite 500
303 East Wacxer Drive
Chicago. IL 60601^
312-356-3700
FAX * 938-0118
Planning Research Corporation
l
t
EVALUATION OF QUALITY CONTROL ATTENDANT
TO THE ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES FROM THE
ADAMS CENTER LANDFILL, INDIANA
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 Contact
Telephone No.
549
Headquarters
IND078911146
September 18, 1987
68-01-7331
15-05491903
PRC Environmental
Management, Inc.
(Ken Partymiller)
(713) 292-7568
Rich Steimle
(202) 382-7912
-------
FINAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 1987
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Quality Control Attendant to the Analysis of Samples
from the Adams Center Landfill, Indiana Facility
FROM: Ken Partymiller, Chemist
PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
TO: HWGWTF: Richard Steimle, HWGWTF*
Paul H. Friedman, Chemist*
Gareth Pearson, EMSL/Las Vegas*
John McGuire, Region V
Maxine Long, Region V
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 Adams Center Landfill, Indiana sampling effort by the Hazardous Waste
Ground-Water Task Force.
The objective of this evaluation is to give users of the analytical data a more
precise understanding of the limitations of the data as well as their appropriate use.
A second objective is to identify weaknesses in the data generation process for
correction. This correction may act on future analyses at this or other sites.
The evaluation was carried out on information provided in the accompanying
quality control reports (2-5) which contain raw data, statistically transformed data,
and graphically transformed data.
The evaluation process consisted of three steps. Step one consisted of
generation of a package which presented the results of quality control procedures,
including the generation of data quality indicators, synopses of statistical indicators,
and the results of technical qualifier inspections. A report on the results of the
performance evaluation standards analyzed by the laboratory was also generated.
Step two was an independent examination of the quality control package and the
performance evaluation sample results by members of the Data Evaluation
Committee. This was followed by a meeting (teleconference) of the Data Evaluation
Committee to discuss the foregoing data and data presentations. These discussions
were to come to a consensus, if possible, concerning the appropriate use of the data
within the context of the HWGWTF objectives. The discussions were also to detect
and discuss specific or general inadequacies of the data and to determine if these
are correctable or inherent in the analytical process.
Preface
The data user should review the pertinent materials contained in the
referenced reports (2-5). Questions generated in the interpretation of these data
relative to sampling and analysis should be referred to Rich Steimle of the
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force.
* HWGWTF Data Evaluation Committee Member
-------
I. Site Overview
Twenty-eight field samples were collected at this facility. The samples
included two licld blanks (MQB365 and 379), a trip blank (MQB360), and two sets of
field duplicate" samples (well MW-RO6, samples MQB368/MQB377 and well MW-Mo,
samples MQB353/MQB373). All samples were designated as low concentration
ground-water samples except for samples MQB357 and 366 which were designated as
low concentration surface water samples and sample MQB356 which was designated
as a low concentration tap water sample. All samples were analyzed for all
HWGWTF Phase 3 analytes with the following exception. Sample MQB378 was not
analyzed for sulfide.
II. Evaluation of Quality Control Data and Analytical Data
1.0 Metals
1.1 Metals OC Evaluation
Total and dissolved spike recoveries were calculated for twenty-four metals
which were spiked into samples MQB376 and 377.
All of the total metal average spike recoveries from these samples were within
the data quality objectives (DQOs) for this Program. One individual total metal
spike recovery was outside DQO and will be discussed in Section 1.3. The total
metal spike recovery for iron from sample MQB377 was not calculated because the
amount of this metals in this sample was greater than four times the amount of the
spike. This information is listed in Tables 3-la and 3-2a of Reference 2 as well as
in the following Sections.
Twenty-three of the dissolved metal average spike recoveries were within the
DQOs for this Program. The average matrix spike recovery for dissolved thallium
(73 percent) was outside DQO. Three individual dissolved metal spike recoveries
were outside DQO and will be discussed in Section 1.2. This information is listed in
Tables 3-lb and 3-2b of Reference 2 as well as in the following Sections.
The calculable average relative percent differences (RPDs) for all metallic
analytes were within Program DQOs. RPDs were not calculated for approximately
two-thirds of the metal analytes because the concentrations of many of the metals
in the field samples used for the RPD determination were less than the contract
required detection limit (CRDL) and thus were not required, or in some cases, not
possible to be calculated.
Required metal analyte determinations were performed on all samples submitted
to the laboratory.
No contamination involving the metallic analytes was reported in the laboratory
blanks. Sampling blank contamination involving total zinc was reported in field
blank MQB379 and will be discussed in Section 1.3.
1.2 Furnace Metals
The quality control results for the metals analyzed by graphite furnace atomic
absorption analyses (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and thallium) were
generally acceptable.
-------
The matrix spike recovery for dissolved lead for spiked sample MQB377 (130
percent) was above DQO. As the dissolved lead spike recovery was high and no
dissolved lead was detected in any field samples, there was no impact on the
dissolved Ica'dVesults.
. - t
A continuing calibration verification (CCV) for total cadmium was above DQO.
Total cadmium results for samples MQB357, 366, 368, 371, and 377 wer; affected and
should be considered semi-quantitative, unless otherwise qualified.
Several total arsenic and cadmium samples were rerun but either a CCV was
not run with the samples or the results of the CCV were not included with the raw
data. Total arsenic results for samples MQB357, 366, 368, 371, and 377 and total
cadmium results for samples MQB356, 378, 380, and 382 should be considered semi-
quantitative.
A group of dissolved cadmium samples were rerun but either the CCB was not
run with the samples or the results of the CCB were not included with the raw
data. Dissolved cadmium results for samples MQB353, 355, 366, 373, and 379 should
be considered semi-quantitative.
The correlation coefficients for the method of standard addition (MSA)
determination of total arsenic in sample MQB380 (46 ug/L reported), total lead in
sample MQB374 (17 ug/L), cadmium in laboratory control standard **1, and selenium
in laboratory control standard *»2 were below DQO. The results for these analytes
in the indicated matrices and samples should be considered qualitative. The
correlation coefficients for the method of standard addition (MSA) determination-of
total arsenic in samples MQB355 (32 ug/L reported) and 374 (22 ug/L), total lead in
sample MQB378 (16 ug/L), dissolved cadmium in samples MQB357 (58 ug/L) and 366
(33 ug/L), and cadmhim in laboratory control standard *2 were also below DQO.
The results for these analytes in the indicated matrices and samples should not be
used.
The analytical spike recoveries of total selenium in sample MQB363 (no
recovery) and dissolved thallium in samples MQB357, 366, and 373 (30 to 36 percent)
were below DQO. The negative results reported for all of these samples should not
be used as they are possible false negatives.
The double burn precision for dissolved antimony in sample MQB375 and for
dissolved selenium in sample MQB355 was above DQO. Results for these analytes in
these samples should be considered semi-quantitative.
The dissolved cadmium results for samples MQB357, 358, 364, 366, 370, 371, and
374 were greater than the total cadmium results for those samples. The HWGWTF
does not normally require dissolved metals analyses because EPA does not have a
standardized field procedure for separating dissolved from total metals. All total
cadmium results were reported to be less than the CRDL. The total and dissolved
cadmium results for samples MQB358, 370, 371, and 374 should be considered semi-
quantitative as dissolved cadmium results near the CRDL were reported. The total
and dissolved cadmium results for samples MQB357, 364, and 366 should not be used
as larger dissolved cadmium results were reported.
The usability of all graphite furnace analytes is summarized in Sections 5.0 and
5.1 at the end of this Report.
-------
1.3 ICP Metals
The matrix spike recovery for total, aluminum in spiked sample MQB377 (70
percent) was below DQO. All total aluminum results should be considered semi-
quantitative w'ith raised detection limits and thus an increased probability of false
negatives.
The low level (twice CRDL) linear range checks for all total and dissolved tin
(45 to 50 percent low recovery), for all dissolved cobalt (20 to 25 percent), and for
dissolved silver (30 percent) exhibited low recoveries. The data user should refer to
Comment B4 of Reference 3 for a detailed listing of analysis dates, samples
affected, and biases. The low level linear range check is an analysis of a solution
with elemental concentrations near the detection limit. The range check analysis
shows the accuracy which can be expected by the method for results near the
detection limits. The accuracy reported for these metals at low concentrations is
not unexpected. Low concentration results for metals with low recoveries would be
expected to be biased low.
Total zinc contamination was reported in field blank MQB379 at a
concentration of 60 ug/L. The zinc CRDL is 20 ug/L. As a result of this
contamination, total zinc results for samples MQB359, 360, 361, 364, 365, 366, 367,
371, 372, 376, 379, 381, and 382 should be considered quantitative and all other total
zinc results should not be used.
The dissolved calcium, copper, and magnesium results for sample MQB353, the
calcium result for sample MQB363, and the nickel result for sample MQB366 were
greater than the total results for those metals in the same samples. The HWGWTF
does not normally require a dissolved metals analysis because EPA docs not have a
standardized field procedure for separating dissolved from total metals. All total
and dissolved results for these metals in these samples should be considered semi-
quantitative.
The usability of all total and dissolved ICP metal analytes is summarized in
Sections 5.2 and 5.3 at the end of this Report.
1.4 Mercury
All mercury results should be considered quantitative with an acceptable
probability of false negatives and false positives.
2.0 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes
2.1 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte OC Evaluation
The average spike recoveries of all of the inorganic and indicator analytes
were within the accuracy DQOs. Accuracy DQOs have not been established for the
bromide, fluoride, nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide matrix spikes.
The calculable average RPDs for all inorganic and indicator analytes were
within Program DQOs. RPDs were not calculated if either one or both of the
duplicate values were less than the CRDL. Precision DQOs have not been
established for bromide, fluoride, nitrite nitrogen, and sulfide.
Requested analyses were performed on all samples for the inorganic and
indicator analytes with one exception. Sample MQB378 was not analyzed for sulfide.
-------
No laboratory blank contamination was reported for any inorganic or indicator
analyte. Sulfide contamination was found in both of the field blanks and the trip
blank. This_ contamination will be discussed below.
2.2 Inorganic and Indicator Analvte Data
All results for cyanide, bromide, fluoride, chloride, sulfate, total phenols, TOC,
TOX, and POX should be considered quantitative with an acceptable probability of
false negatives and false positives.
The holding times for the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen determinations ranged
from 19 to 23 days from receipt of the samples which is longer than the
recommended 48 hour holding time for unpreserved samples. All nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen results should be considered semi-quantitative.
Sample MQB378 was not analyzed for sulfidc. Sulfide contamination was
present in field blanks MQB365 (152,000 ug/L) and 379 (339,000 ug/L) and the trip
blank MQB360 (666,000 ug/L). The sulfide CRDL is 1000 ug/L. As a result of this
contamination, all positive sulfide results, except those for the three blank samples
MQB360, 365, and 379, should not be used. Sulfide results for samples MQB360, 365,
and 379 should be considered quantitative. The matrix spike recovery (69 percent)
of sulfide from sample MQB377 was low. This was not judged to affect data
usability as there are no sulfide spike recovery DQOs and because of the problems
with the presence of sulfide contamination in the blanks. Duplicate field sample
precision for sulfide results for field duplicate pair MQB368 and 377 was poor with
162,000 ug/L detected in one sample and 105,000 ug/L detected in the other. The
comparative precision of field duplicate results is not used in the preparation of the
usability evaluation of the sample results. It is not possible to determine the
source of this imprecision. The poor precision may be reflective of sample to
sample variation rather than actual analytical variations. In this case the poor
precision may be due to sample contamination.
Calibration verification standards for POC were not analyzed. A POC spike
solution was run during the analytical batch but the "true" value of the spike was
not provided by the laboratory. EPA needs to supply the inorganic laboratory with
a POC calibration verification solution. Until then, the instrument calibration can
not be assessed. All POC results should be considered qualitative.
3.0 Oreanics and Pesticides
3.1 Organic QC Evaluation
All matrix spike average recoveries were within established Program DQOs for
accuracy. Individual matrix spike recoveries which were outside DQO limits will be
discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All required surrogate spike average recoveries were within DQOs for accuracy.
Individual surrogate spike recoveries which were outside the accuracy DQO will be
discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
All reported matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate average RPDs were within
Program DQOs for precision. Individual matrix spike RPDs which were outside the
precision DQO will be discussed in the appropriate Sections below.
-------
All average surrogate spike RPDs were within DQOs for precision. Surrogate
standard were neither required nor used for the organo-phosphorous herbicide
analysis.
Requested organic analyses were performed, with one exception, on all samples
submitted to tie laboratory.
Laboratory (method) and sampling blank contamination was reported in organic
samples and is discussed in Reference 4 as well as the appropriate Sections below.
Detection limits for the organic fractions are summarized in the appropriate
Sections below.
3.2 Volatiles
Acetone contamination was found in laboratory (method) blanks MB-1 'and MB-
5 at concentrations of 3 and 2 ug/L. The acetone CRDL is 10 ug/L. Laboratory
contamination is the probable source of these results. All positive acetone results
(samples MQB356, 364, 372, 378, 380, and 382) were judged to be unusable due to
this blank contamination.
Laboratory (method) blanks MB-2, MB-3, and MB-4 contained methylene
chloride contamination at concentrations ranging from 1 to 8 ug/L. Methylene
chloride contamination was also found in field blank MQB365 at a concentration of
4 ug/L. The methylene chloride CRDL is 5 ug/L. Laboratory contamination is the
probable source of these results. All positive methylene chloride results (samples
MQB354, 356, 357, 358, 359, 365, 368, 371, 374, 377, 378, 380, and 382) should not
be used due to this blank contamination.
The analytical laboratory confused the cis- and trans- 1,3-dichloropropene
isomers and the 4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-hexanone isomers in their calibration
standards. As none of these compounds were found in the samples, the data quality
for these isomers was not affected.
Estimated method detection limits were CRDL for all volatile samples. The
volatile results should be considered quantitative with the exceptions of any positive
acetone or methylene chloride results. No positive acetone or methylene chloride
results should be used due to laboratory (method) blank contamination. The
probabilities of false negative and positive results are acceptable for all volatile
samples with the exceptions of the positive acetone and methylene chloride results.
3.3 Semivolatiles
The matrix spike (MS) recovery of 4-nitrophenol (81 percent) was above the
DQO range of 10 to 80 percent. The surrogate spike recovery of 2-fluorophenol (13
percent) was below the DQO range of 21 to 80 percent. All other acid fraction
recoveries were within DQO.
Semivolatile laboratory (method) blanks, MB-1 through MB-3 contained
contamination including several unknown compounds, one or more of which was a
nitrogen containing compound, at estimated concentrations ranging from 10 to 200
ug/L as well as bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at concentrations of 2 to 6 ug/L and di-
n-butylphthalate at a concentration of 2 ug/L. The trip blank (MQB360) and one
field blank (MQB379) also contained bis(2-ethy!hexyl)phthalate at concentrations of
17 and 4 ug/L. The CRDL for both bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-
butylphthalate is 10 ug/L. No positive bis(2-ethyihexyl)phthalate results (samples
-------
MQB353, 354, 355, 356, 358, 359, 360, 361, 363, 367, 370, 373, 374, 375, 378, 379,
380, 381, and 382) or di-n-butylphthalate results (samples MQB359, 363, 375, and
378) should be used due to this contamination. Positive sample results for
semivolatile"unknowns whose standards are found at approximate scan numbers 452,
478, 639, and !580, as well as an unspecified nitrogen containing compound, should
also not be used due to laboratory blank contamination.
Standards for all Appendix IX semivolatile compounds have not been obtained
by the analytical laboratory. All results for these compounds, which were analyzed
by using extracted ion current profiles for major ion quantitation, should be
considered qualitative. The laboratory must obtain standards for these compounds.
Additionally, the laboratory is using the incorrect quantitation ions for four of the
Appendix IX semivolatile compounds.
Many of the semivolatile samples contained significant peaks that were not
confirmed by mass spectra and which were not identified as tentatively identified
compounds. These samples, the scan numbers of the peaks, and the peak areas are
listed in Comment B8 of Reference 4. These peaks represent possible semivolatile
compounds which were not identified and thus, false negative results are possible.
The largest peaks occurred at scan number 212-215 and affected samples MQB355,
370, and 381. According to the laboratory this was probably a volatile compound.
However, no volatile compounds were reported for these samples.
All semivolatile samples had dilution factors of two. As a result, the estimated
detection limits for the semivolatiles were approximately twice the CRDL.
The semivolatile data are acceptable and the results should be considered semi-
quantitative with the exceptions of the results for the Appendix IX semivolatile
compounds for which there were no analytical standard, the Appendix IX compounds
corresponding to peaks which were not confirmed, and the compounds which were
present in the blanks. The results for the Appendix IX compounds with no
analytical standards should be considered qualitative. The Appendix IX compounds
which have scan numbers corresponding to the above mentioned numbers (also see
Comment B8 of Reference 4) should be considered possible false negatives. All
positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-butylphthalate results, as well as all
results for unknown contaminants at the scan numbers listed above, should not be
used due to blank contamination. Probabilities of false negatives and positives are
acceptable with the following exceptions. False negative results for the unidentified
compounds and false negative and positive results for the compounds for which
there were no analytical standards are possible.
3.4 Pesticides
No laboratory (method) blank contamination was detected for the pesticides.
Chromatographic contamination was present in both samples and blanks in the
region of the BHCs and Aroclors. A unidentified chromatographic peak was present
at a retention time of approximately 3.7 minutes in all samples and blanks run on
the OV-101 column.
The retention time percent difference for dibutylchlorendate in one standard
was greater than DQO.
The estimated method detection limits for all pesticides analyses are the
CRDLs. The pesticides results should be considered qualitative with the exceptions
of results for the early cluting pesticides (BHCs) and Aroclors. False negative
-------
results are possible for the BHCs and Aroclors. Results for these pesticides should
not be used.
3.5 Herbicfdls
. c
The herbicides for which the laboratory analyzed include only 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T,
2,4,5-TP, chlorobenzilate, phorate, disulfoton, parathion, and famphur. The data
packet was missing the chloroherbicide chromatograms for sample MQB382.
2,4-DB was used as a surrogate for the chloroherbicide fraction. No
surrogates were: included for the organo-phosphorous herbicides.
The maximum allowed holding time between sample receipt and extraction of 7
days was exceeded for all the chloroherbicide samples by 13 to 19 days.
Numerous artifact peaks or interferences were observed in the chloroherbicide
method blank and sample chromatograms. Such peaks were present in the retention
time window of 2,4,5-TP on the DB-210 column. The peaks were present at heights
corresponding to concentrations near the CRDL. 2,4,5-TP results should be
considered qualitative with a higher than normal probability of false negatives.
2,4-D was reported in sample MQB357 (2 ug/L) but this result should be
considered to have a high probability of being a possible false positive due to
matrix interferences and should not be used.
The laboratory misidentified chlorobenzilate on the. DB-210 column for sample
MQB380MS (matrix spike). The peak identified as chlorobenzilate was present
outside the established chlorobenzilate retention time window. Peaks with this same
retention time were present in the method (laboratory) blank and most of the
samples analyzed on the DB-210 column.
The herbicide samples were analyzed at a standard dilution of one to one.
The estimated method detection limits were the CRDL for the herbicides.
The organo-phosphorous herbicide results should be considered qualitative due
to the lack of a surrogate. The chloroherbicide results for 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T should
be considered semi-quantitative. The chloroherbicide results for 2,4,5-TP should be
considered qualitative. All results for chlorobenzilate and the results for 2,4-D for
sample MQB357 should not be used.
4.0 Dioxins and Furans
4.1 Dioxin and Furan OC Evaluation
The recoveries of the dioxin native spikes from two blank samples and two
field samples ranged from 83 to 141 percent which is within the DQO range.
No target analytes were detected in the duplicate analyses of two field samples
(MQB370 and 380). Therefore, method precision could not be evaluated.
Dioxin and furan determinations were performed on all samples which were
submitted to the laboratory. No dioxins or furans were detected in the field
samples.
-------
Dioxin and furan contamination was neither detected in the laboratory
(method) blanks nor the field blanks. Non-analyte ions were detected at a number
of mass to charge ratios.
4.2 Dioxin and Furan Data
^
The samples were received by the laboratory on May 12 through 14, 1987 but
were not extracted until May 17, 19, July 10, 13, and 15, 1987. Sample holding
times are not specified for dioxins and furans but 60 day holding times are
excessive and may result in false negative results.
Due to a method modification supplied to the laboratory by the EPA Sample
Management Office, the column performance check solution was not analyzed by the
laboratory.
Contamination was present at several mass to charge ratios characteristic of
TCDF ions. The analyst noted that some of these were laboratory artifacts from
carbon-13 labeled 1,2,3,4-TCDD or 2,3,7,3-TCDD.
The recovery of the carbon-13 labeled OCDD internal standard from sample
MQB378 (146 percent) was above the contract specified range of 40 to 120 percent.
The sample could not be re-extracted due to loss of the second volume of sample.
Background noise on some of the selected ion current profiles (SICPs) for both
the initial and continuing calibrations was high. This reduces detection sensitivity
and results in raised detection limits. It is estimated that detection limits were
raised by two or three.
The dioxin and dibenzofuran results should be considered to be semi-
quantitative. Dioxin and dibenzofrran detection limits should be considered to be
about three times the normal method detection limits. The probability of false
negative results at concentrations above three times the normal detection limits is
acceptable.
III. Data Usability Summary
5.0 Graphite Furnace Metals. Total (See Section !.">)
Quantitative: all antimony and thallium results; arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and selenium results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: arsenic results for samples MQB357, 366, 368, 371, and 377;
cadmium results for samples MQB356, 358, 368, 370, 371,
374, 377, 378, 380, and 382
Qualitative: the arsenic result for sample MQB380; the lead result for
sample MQB374
Unusable: arsenic results for samples MQB355 and 374; the cadmium
results for samples MQB357, 364, and 366; the lead result
for sample 378; the selenium result for sample MQB363
5.1 Graphite Furnace Metals. Dissolved (See Section 1.2)
Quantitative: all arsenic and lead results; antimony, cadmium, selenium,
and thallium results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: the antimony result for sample MQB375; cadmium results for
samples MQB353, 355, 358, 370, 371, 373, 374, and 379; the
selenium result for sample MQB355
-------
Unusable: cadmium results for samples MQB357, 364, and 366;
thallium results for samples MQB357, 366, and 373
5.2 TCP Mefa.il. Total (See Section 1.3)
,"* t
Quantitative: 1 all barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, iron, manganese,
potassium, silver, sodium, tin, and vanadium results;
calcium, copper, magnesium, and nickel results with
exceptions; zinc results for samples MQB3S9, 360, 361, 364,
365, 366, 367, 371, 372, 376, 379, 381, and 382
Semi-quantitative: all aluminum results; calcium results for samples MQB353
and 363; the copper and magnesium results for sample
MQB353; the nickel result for sample MQB366
Unusable: zinc results with exceptions
5.3 TCP Metals. Dissolved (See Section 1.3)
Quantitative: all aluminum, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, iron,
manganese, potassium, silver, sodium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc results
Semi-quantitative: calcium results for samples MQB353 and 363; the copper and
magnesium results for sample MQB353; the nickel result for
sample MQB366
5.4 Mercury (See Section 1.4)
Quantitative: all mercury results
5.5 Inorganic and Indicator Analvtes (See Section 2.2)
Quantitative: all cyanide, bromide, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, total
phenols, TOC, TOX, and POX results; sulfide results for
samples MQB360, 365, and 369
Semi-quantitative: all nitrate and nitrite nitrogen results
Qualitative: all POC results
Unusable: sulfide results with exceptions
5.6 Organics (See Sections 3.2 through 3.5)
Quantitative: volatile results with the exception of positive acetone and
methylene results; pesticides results with exceptions
Semi-quantitative: semivolatile results with exceptions; chloroherbicides 2,4-
(with an exception) and 2,4,5-T results
Qualitative: results for Appendix IX semivolatile compounds for which
there were no analytical standards; organo-phosphorous
herbicide results; chloroherbicide 2,4,5-TP results
Unusable: all positive acetone and methylene chloride (both are
volatiles) results; all positive bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-
n-butylphthalate (both are semivolatiles) results; all positive
semivolatile unknown compound results at scans 452, 478, 639,
and 1580; pesticide results for BHCs and Aroclors; all
chlorobenzilate (a chloroherbicide) results; the 2,4-D (a
chloroherbicide) result for sample MQB357
-------
5.7 Dioxins and Furans (See Section 4.2)
Semi-quantitative: all dioxin and furan results
IV. References
1. Organic Analyses: CE-EMSI
4765 Calle Quetzal
Camarillo, CA 93010
Inorganic and Indicator Analyses:
Centec Laboratories
P.O. Box 956
2160 Industrial Drive
Salem, VA 24153
(703) 387-3995
Dioxin and Furan Analyses:
CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 12652
3308 Chapel Hill/Nelson Highway
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
(919) 549-8263
2. Draft Quality Control Data Evaluation Report (Assessment of the Usability of
ihe Data Generated) for Case R-2363HQ, Site 52, Adams Landfill, IN, Prepared
by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Inc., for the US
EPA Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, 8/25/1987.
3. Draft Inorganic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case R-2363HQ, Adams
Landfill, IN, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/25/1987.
4. Draft Organic Data Usability Audit Report, for Case R-2363HQ, Adams Landfill,
IN, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/25/1987.
5. Draft Dioxin/Furan Usability Audit Report, for Case R-2363HQ, Adams Landfill,
IN, Prepared by Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group, Lockheed
Engineering and Management Services Co., Las Vegas, Nevada, for US EPA,
EMSL/Las Vegas, 8/25/1987.
V. Addressees
Gareth Pearson
Quality Assurance Division
US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas
P.O. Box 1198
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
-------
Richard Steimle
Hazardous Waste Ground-Water Task Force, OSWER (WH-562A)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW.
Washington, DC 20460
John McCuire
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Maxine Long
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Paul Friedman
Room 413-W
Science Policy Branch (PM-220)
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Sujith Kumar
Laboratory Performance Monitoring Group
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company
1051 "East Flamingo Drive, Suite 257
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
Ken Partymiller
PRC EMI/Houston
10716 Whisper Willow Place
The Woodlands, TX 77380
-------
APPENDIX II
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND TABULATED SUMMARY
OF TASK FORCE OBSERVATIONS DURING
THE INSPECTION OF ADAMS CENTER LANDFILL, INDIANA
-------
< a. a. o. a.
OQ. e «.«/ « «»j«»«(^ _*
a o a a
a to e e
e to « e e
vrt to to
a
» o»i
a o
to a to to
a.«- a.
. o o c. o.
« e a &^ » o w « »
4i a w o
S «» v
o e o
toOtoee
>»« o o
a
o
ui
X
tn
=3
N*
z
CJ
H
V)
co
H a
i
ui
as
c-
u
a.
3 a a. to c. « e a._ ws.ee.ww
e«"««ato«K«katoa«M «wt«w«u«
o a ^ « - &^« e 8«MM^«>iMMt
tout - iw'V^&ax «
w a e -a o SH *- ^^«JT«JS^
to o i e wco « «x x
SuZCfcOto'S'*^ O.A.
a to o o .a i. x i z i 3 a
Z «x .a w c « o -Q
^ 13 < « a to -**>*>»>Bk^«.k>
O. « «*
to
a. & a. & a. s.
a«««a«
Otototototo
uOiB*O>99
o o a o o
« w E w e 0>3 to «4.
Sw a a via eo««e!iEIS
«i w > w > u vi«4ie. » a 3 a o o o
^ O « C*»»%'^totototototo
.c OIA o> 3 e w w w '
a «» 3 « 3 ^ « w » ». ^'
a
a
e ^»
to e
a
to to t>
a a w -3 to
a to to «
s e s. o o «
o o
*. a 3) 3 3
i-i z < 5.0. o. a. z £ 3 < « a. o Z
** ^
e to 4i «
C O to
3 O. to
W ! «
3 ^-= w a
3 S
e a
caw
-------
TABLE All-2
LIMITS OF QUANTITATION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Lt«U tf
Qua/it! 1*11 »n
Qu*i»«lt»tto«
Cu«nt:titis«
1.2.4- trt at I «««»*«
M«>ACnll
l.2-flien)«r»«««i»-«
2.»-<}ln«tr»tr
4«Qtl«i-oa*««iyl B*«T' U»«r
4-4ro*ao«««y I (ft««7 I tw«f
»«*<2*Cll«*-*iMsrvar')«"<
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
A*
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
10
10
10
2.4.
*tr*c*Ui
Alarm
2. »-Q ten I «*
4 . |-0» » tf*-*-«r«§« I
20
10
10
Ifl-
10
so
so
so
30
10
SO
10
10
so
4.4--CC3
4.4--OCE
4.4--03T
01«l
-------
<
H
a
fjj
r "
QX
3
^4
a
2;
,<
o
; z
_j
«^
s
<
to
J
2
3
O
Z
a:
o
H
» t
0
Z
co
H
z
w
i
o
u
><
H^ ^^^
O 3
HI H
03 Z
ee >^
=5
C
w
o ^
ee,
^
CO
V*
1
a
o
I'H
j
Qu
5
W
t.
03
o»
"o
1-4
tk
W
J J
a. -:
z u
< S
OT
a
0)
o
v<
«M
1-4
3
CO
a
s
G
**
a
T3
01
o.
&
-4
^
W
o
o o
m -< ir» o <^
tn o **. /\ **
*». -^. n o ^». o
ON vO in O OO O
^0 f-< . »J . 1
«N r^ «N /\ CO VO /S
>n m
O O
v*4 ^^
^* *^.
m m
i i
CN«S»- «M«M«N^<»^
*»*«»»*» '»-^-.»««..'"<«.
»nir>w-> irtinminir)
riiAO ^("«* c*i ?n <^i c*^
.0
< oa O eg A o
i i i n PI i* o\ o
a 3 a i i i i i
ZZZ27322
^
e ,.
« « c
s s «
o 41 "
^ M n.
& - « -2"
S £ £ ft
o
-» - §
« 1 «N | 1 2
CM ^ CN ' ' ^
«
«
u
3
e
W4
= ^
O i oo i ica
* ^ » 2
-^ «S i« m ^s ,x ix
* *! l«l
\o o\ ^ n «, o y.
U-l U-l t-» IA ^ S f>.
n n n jn ^ ;X _
j ' i <*j c^>
r»
O
ee,
P*
o « o c.
z » v s z ^
ii i 7 7
S S £ S ^ «a 4
-u *. f«« Z Z H £
X~S
3
-
c
4
^J
0
CJ
^
-------
<
<
o
u
^ <
w
ai
=3
CM
o
z
-^ y->.
U "3
Z W
< J C
jj Z "
- < c
a w o
< u
"" wJ "^**
_J
Ul
3
U
*»H
C£
^M
Z
O
to
H
jj;
U
S
S
u
S-
N"J ^^^
O 3
M H
oa z
m '
3
H
C
u
o ^^
ce co
=3 Z
CU O
3
W ZJ
z <
S3
o
^^
NM/
u
H
^C
c
u
p 1
J
BU
Z
CO.
< (*^ c^
n
o o
0 0
tiiee.ee.
i i i
222
*.+.+.
'
V
Jt ^f
c E
a. a «
co ^ E «
B3 « U
X V *J
M TJ 1- B
U »- JJ p
«n in
o in r~ so eo
r^ \e in o in
F*t (*) <*1 CO C*1^
tn
0
as
m «*
o ^ o. z o
et <5 3 Q os
1 III
3 ee oi os 3
£ u. H H £
*^
M
H
>"
O
H
«3
fl.
e
V
j*
o
u
03
r*
o o
o o
-» 4 «N in .»
^ ^v s£ -« *J*
i-« 00 vO «* O
i-< o in
o m en «n en
M vri *ri *ri f-4
^o. ^» ^-^ "*N» *^».
in if\ in m in
«* O -0- ~< tN
r«» r» \o r*- r*-
^t n f*^ ^^ <*^
< CQ (S cn
t** f*» O O O
o o as. oi ec-
i i i i i
22222
*-*-*,+.*-
-------
E-s
> u
M >
H
=
O >-"
<
i
tn
a.
x
u
o
(A
z o
O Id
J U
j oe
CJ
g
*-*
Z
O
H
<-t
en
j u
-3 H
W <
2 Q
O O O
o m o
o r-i in
«N CN CM
O O O O O O
CN in O oo O co
« *4 CN i-< CN »<
O O O
O O r»
O O\ 9k
o es
O O O O
000
O O O O
eoeo>O r.
so so vo pv
in
co oo
1*^ CT\
** ^5 »
<-4 r-4 oo rv
O
co
in t*\ o
O O O
moo
oo m oo O
«N CM o m
m o CN
<-> sO O
** **4 m
r^ f^ oo
en
CN m
in O
PI CN
co co
~4 CN
CJ -H
I -H
m in 5;
oo oo
< i-t CN
I F-4 ^4
5 *-*-
£ m m
oo eo
in m
co ao
m m
eo co
. .
I CM
^4 ^H
in m
-------
i-i E
> U
H *
° 2
a 1
z 3
o «-'
a. -x
Z U
w o
H ^
*" S
j 2
S *j
^
- 3
d"
3
J
GALLONS
PURGED
U
H
H
ii
co
z
J u:
-3 H
oooo
< eo < o
^ * in in
oooo
* o * tn
CM «N CM «M
O
o
CP>
O
oo
00
O O CO ON O
r«. f. v£> vO f-»
CM
i* y «j «y «y m tnmtovo ooooeftert^ cnooo>1^ .^ <i PM CM «^ «?
i_<^M>H^4i>4 ^<^^^«^< OOOO«^ Q Q -+ ~* r-t »H,H*H^ iI ^^
^H (N en
in *-" es
a
\O
O
00
u-i
r*
r. oo
0 --.
i
MW-R06
5/13/87
in oo
o -^»
ai t~i
Q
i
06
H
t
ea
H
-------
H CO
U O
3 -e
a s
0. *-»
z u
u o
H >^
CO
(O
Z Q
O «}
-J U
J oc
< 3
U a.
5
os
g
o
u
H
ii
CO
J U
J H
U3 <
2 Q
O O
o in
O O O
CM er\ "*
m in o
cs CM «y
CM es CM
O O O O
f*> O O m
CM <
O O O O
O r* O3 O\
OO O* 9^ O\
O O O O
o o o o
o o » «»
CM CM CS CM
o o o o
_4 -H O
co oo oo P"*
-MCMCM
COCMCMCMCM
tA O W5
IA GO <
A
CD --
O fl
O Crt
in eo to
O es ^ <
-* en
o m.
o
o
^^ ^^ ro ^^
m in m in
O en oo
m m in
r^ «j r^ ~* o
rs n CM m CM
o
o
CM \o
^ co m ON
CM CM c-i in
ao9>OO '
O O -^ '^ ^H
m
co oo co co
o o o o
t^ CM
CM
o
an
CO
-^
m
Z -H
I ^
r*.
eo
CM
Z m
co
CM
r-
03
O -H
-------
- E
> u
l-l -^.
H «
U O
3 JZ
o a
H
t-H
C/3
i
z
»*
. Q
a. <-»
Z U
u o
H +~
2
o
CO
s a
O U
J U
J oe
< 3
u a.
CxJ
z
1-^
Q£
O
O
td
o o o o
i ^ n CM m r*>
oo eo oo
CM
o -^
O -* p««9vr«
O oo oo -^ m
o ao
>y oo co
O CM <
o -< en
O CM
CM
o\o%o\ O O O
OOO ** ~* ^
eo
oa -v.
r*. n
o *
CM
O
r-i
O
eo
c
a.
s
-------
APPENDIX III
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS FOUND IN
GROUND-WATER-AND SAMPLING BLANK SAMPLES AT SITE NO. 52,
ADAMS LANDFILL, IN.
-------
SUMMARY OF CONCENTRATIONS FOR COMPOUNDS FOUND
IN GROUND-WATER AND SAMPLING
BLANK SAMPLES AT SITE NO. 52,. ADAMS LANDFILL, IN
The following table lists the concentrations for compounds analyzed for
and found in samples at the site. Table A2-1 is generated by listing
all compounds detected and all tentatively identified compounds reported
on the organic Form I, Part B. All tentatively identified compounds
with a spectral purity greater than 850 are identified by name and
purity in the table. Those with a purity of less than 850 are labeled,
unknown.
All concentration are in wg/L.
-------
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 _
Potassiunj,.-
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Tin
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Inorganic and Indicators
Bromide
Chloride
Cyanide
Fluoride
Nitrate-nitrogen
Nitrite-nitrogen
POC
POX
Sulfate
Sulfide
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
50
10
50
20
1000
1000
10
1000
300
300
100
5
1000
1000
1000
5
50
IDL
94
5
6
3
2
0.5
67
6
7
18
23
2
84
4
0.2
23
486
4
5
163
72
6
8
20
50
1000
1000
300
50
20
5
500
1000
1000
5
10
concentrations are in
-------
TABLE KEY
A value without a flag indicates a result above the contract
required detection limit (CRDL).
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 yg and a
concentration of 3 yg is calculated, then report as 3J.
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.
-------
2
3
*
= s
1 a
s s
s
= a
s
5 S5
2!s
_.s
lit
^
ill
si
s!s
S-B
Is
« «
* _ 5
.SB
lie
ill
K
E
sis
H
|I!
X _ «#
_
0
ai =
5 -
*
-
-- a
;
5 5
w ^
*m **
^ 5
_ »»
~
S -
a
. -
2
- _
- _
= _
g » _ 3 . S
hs I |IIL »»
o £0-^0*0 S -L 3 w 3
*» _«_ -_M.*M-»^
X 2SS - S
a «s | s -s
I 5 =
»
s i
*
S £ S
S =
*Z I
*-
sss 2
i_
»
«
£ sr !5s Is i
££ £5 5S ..« «
-------
I
Slid ItU tl»H
(ISC Mi(U/JUl/l
s
256
f
22s
5-8
Ise
§>
2 = 5
.If
*n
lie
S!
sfs
;L
2 = 6
5
£ 1 s
s
s s s
1
5SS
| 5 |2 r § = - *| S |5
s 1 2 i* I 5 * SI SSa
§ - 5 - * |~5
s r*2 s 8s?s as 8 sr s- f 2 s gs
- - I sss ss - S s s -
2 s s s
s 5*2 la IS s s ~ 1 8 fs
3 = 1 S S 1 I
* * ^ * *« «MM
I sI33f - | s|"
M ip 5 i - i i r
= | S |S I | » » -| 3 | =
s 322 gs 5 I = s S S 5s
s ** **
S = s
:= s . a
-= 55l_. 5=S -1=.. 5 2 IS".! 5S5-. Is=
si Hill Hill liill I = Is lllll I1III iilll
3
= 3
S 8 8
*
- i
s -g
8 =8
5 =S
s
2 "S
1 §
a
1
~ 2
-s
s
g .
^ ^ ^m m
lllll
-------
a
|
1 1
ss
s
255
Sis
2*5
2 = 5
S 8
225
Is
ill
ft
E-S
8 S 6
ill
K
5 = 5
s
S I g
2 = 5
s
11!
I S5
S
S S t
I s I|S -
§ 1 * 11?
=s
= I s III"
- ! I - yi
I « ||5S
=| « §15
II s ||l
r* i 5 s il*83
* 5
s I
= !
II i
S 3 ± S - S - - ,-g a
li
-------
2Se
s
1*5
ZBB
sis
*!§
25s
a
ill
B5
S=s
=
V W
?*8
Us
3
s
3
ea ^ * w fc.
« ** o o
.. * 2=3
= 5 S
S «? -.
as s
ssss
s -
ss
I
s s
s :
S 3
1 = 5
.*is i
I = = s 3
3 = EE S
|Ii|I 1
a
^
S
1
s=====ss==
**ml*m~~mmm^
s
g S S = 2 =
s 3
2 s
-------
3
*
W JJ
1 a
_ a
lie
§
f
;!§
8 S B
9
I'5
S S B
Z
556
8
B .
* - 5
2 5 5
* B 5
Sis
a
r - s
SBS
5:5
2ss
S
223
S -|S S
1
s 1
. 1 .
s I
a I
*
* §
-
* If r
- X
3 *'
*
* 1
*
* 5
3
.= ss5 .,
ii lilll
8
*-
*
a
5
s
|
I
s
s
i
s
=I5
f *
8 S
:§=
s~
Is
1s
is
~
5 =
*
Is
Is
I2_
3 = 32
2 ; : s
S * 8
8 8
S S
1 I
: 8
s ;
! i
I |
s I
1 "I
~
5 I
* 1
S i
s :- -i 5 1
*
s = -I si*
=! i Is
s a If S fS
s S s
* sl s is
* ** s
""
= = = | | =
~
2 ! * 83
3 S
* 1 * !s
' ' "1 s |5
S S 5=u I -.5 52.
3 S =2=53 22c== ^55
s . s x s=5== SSaig ISSsS
3
S 3
«»
*
a
X
|
" 5
i
8
2
8
5
s
s S
= I
S
i
8
1
i
-8
2
s
1
I
'1
8
2 . «
111
-------
r - 8
Us
S*5
sis
its
lis
5*5
sis
s
lis
iis
3
l^5
Ssc
^ s
5 -s
sis
1 !!=
- S = £
i i
§
1
i
*
= I
i !
r .1
1 !
i i
i i
i I
= . = X I S S S = =
* ||l =
S II1 =
* II1
= !ii
nts
I|i«-
* II1
in'
s if! 5
^
* If! 5
!!*==
g
X g s S 8 S 3
t_l
il
-------
il
s s e
lie
5
l = s
i
S2 «Si
S M M I
i
i
E
8 S
...
SI
3 5?
a
5
ysi
u a w
2 S 5
S 5 5 =
§
t*
2
E S = 3
5s = 2
Ss
Isiliillls ~
= = £ = 5£5S£S 2
|
I
Hi
_. 3
8 3 S 3 5
S7<
s
-------
i
» m
m 7
2
- a
.
85s
M
s e -
fii
i
lie
:
lie
s!s
3
- - -
355
S | 2 |5 *
S | = I5IS I
--|-IMi -i
» S = 5=12 5
2 S3
* | 5 5 2 *
= !*ss |SI= -I
S . S S 5
MOi 2w»4^ O ^ l_> ^ ^ W*»
S= 5SSS3 =2232 =2
S
5
I
I
I
s
|
ill
S 8 S 8 X
2 S 2 "*
* ' 8 * f *
s = s s
ss s | « |«
* S I 5 l=
* | || =
: s s s a | s
«»5 SS
3 a =£«53 2273S ^Hs
5 = 3 ^E2=3 ^=?«*^ *""^«w
3
= i
8 - 8
S *
s *!
= "i
^ ^
x X
s - 8
s .
i K S 2 S
iiiii
-------
21 =
_8.
sis
*
2 = 5
5 S S
1 !!!
: a 5 t a
I i -III
§ 1
I S
8 S
ll
II « I
s « s s
II =11!
II
a5:
II
22 = i2
-------
APPENDIX IV
EVALUATIONS OF LABORATORIES PERFORMING ANALYSES
FOR ADAMS CENTER SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE October 20\ 1987
e
SUBJECT: On-Site Evaluations of Laboratories Performing Analyses
for Adams Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc., Fort Wayne, Indiana
fine C. Xong~,<^ferobiologist
Quality Assurance Office
TO: John McGuire, Environmental Engineer
Central Qwtrict Office
THROUGHWJiffies H. Adams, Jr., Chief
Quality Assurance Office
The results of the evaluations of laboratories performing analyses for Adams
Center Sanitary Landfill, Inc., are attached. Inorganics, TOC, and indicator
parameter sample analyses are performed by Gulf Coast Laboratory, University
Park, Illinois. Organics analyses are performed by the Environmental Testing
anrfCertification Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey. These two laboratories
were visited by the evaluation team. Core Laboratories, Casper, Wyoming
analyzes the radiochemical samples. Core Laboratories has been certified by
Region VIII for gross alpha, gross beta, radium-226, radium-228 and uranium
in drinking water. Data for Core Laboratories was provided courtesy of
Region VII I.
EPA FORM 1331X4 (REV. >7B)
-------
INORGANIC
CHEMISTRY
-------
COMMENTS ON
GULF COAST LABORATORIES, INC.
UNIVERSITY PARK, ILLINOIS
METALS ANALYSES*
Comment: The laboratory analyzed most metals (Ba, Cd, Cr, Fe, Na, Ag, Mn,
etc.) by inductively coupled plasma - atomic emission spectrometry; arsenic,
lead, and selenium by graphite furnace atomic absorption; and mercury by
cold vapor atomic absorption.
Comment: The laboratory should be commended for the excellent documentation
of graphite furnace atomic absorption problems and corrective action report
forms. The analytical corrective action report addressed the following
problems:
1. Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
2. Low spike recovery.
3. Correlation coefficient does not meet the acceptance criteria.
4. Severe matrix interference present.
5. Laboratory control sample/blank does not fall within control
_* 1 imits.
Comment: An interference check sample is analyzed to verify interelement and
background correction factors at the beginning and end of the sample run.
Also the acceptance criteria is consistent with EPA Method 200.7.
Observation: A high standard and internal quality control samples are ana-
lyzed at a frequency of 10% to determine instrument drift. The acceptance
criteria of +51 of the expected .values or within the established control
limits, whichever is lower, is not observed as mandatory by EPA Method 200.7
(ICP procedure).
Recommendation: The acceptance criteria of +5% of the expected values or
within the established control limits, whichever is lower, should be observed.
Observation: An external quality control sample is used for the initial
verification of the calibration standards. The acceptance criteria of +5% of
the true value listed for the control sample is not observed as mandatory by
EPA Method 200.7.
Recommendation: The acceptance criteria of _+5% of the true value should be
observed.
//
Observation: The laboratory put a lot of emphasis on the objective to provide
a measure of the accuracy and precision of analytical methods, but failed to
emphasis continuing assessment of the accuracy and precision of data generated
over time.
-------
-2-
Recommendation: The laboratory should maintain a continuing assessment of
the accuracy and precision of data generated over time.
~\
TOC. CYANIDE--AND PHENOLS
Deficiency - The laboratory does not field screen the groundwater/surface
water samples for the presence of sulfide before analyzing for cyanide.
Recommendation - Since the sample holding time for cyanide test procedure
is only 24 hours when sulfide is present, the laboratory should screen all
cyanide samples in field with lead acetate paper for sulfide and analyze
the samples that are positive within 24 hours. Please refer to 40 CFR Part
136, dated October 26, 1984, for further instructions.
Deficiency - The laboratory does not have a well documented test procedure
for the analysis of cyanide in water samples.
Recommendation - The laboratory should, as soon as possible, document the
cyanide test procedure. The test procedure should describe exactly how the
laboratory is performing the cyanide analysis.
Observation: The laboratory data on Total Organic Carbon (TOC) are hard to
evaluate since the instrument outputs (data) are not legible. This is not
a good recordkeeping practice.
%
Recomme'n'datfon - The laboratory should look into the possibilities of
acquiring a printer that would print the sample data legibly so that the
TOC data can be evaluated, if necessary.
-------
0 R G A N I C S
-------
During July, 1987, Babu Paruchuri, Chemist, Quality Assurance Office (QAO),
conducted an on-site evaluation of Environmental Testing and Certification
(ETC) laboratory pursuant to Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force program.
The purpose of* the audit was to determine the laboratory's capabilities to
analyze organic pollutants listed in Appendix IX. The overall performance
of the laboratory is acceptable. Listed below are the deficiencies observed
at ETC during the Quality Assurance/Quality Control audit:
Deficiency - The laboratory did not extract pesticides and PCBs samples
at the pH range specified in the EPA manual, SW-846, Second Edition (1984).
The audit team was told that the laboratory staff did not determine the pH
of the water samples since the Sample Field Parameter forms (CC2) have the
pH data on them.
Recommendation - If the laboratory can not extract (i.e., sample extraction
by liquid-liquid or continuous extraction technique and concentration of
the extract to 5.0 ml) pesticides and PCBs sample within 48 hours of
collection, the sample should be adjusted to a pH range of 6.0 - 8.0 with
sodium hydroxide or sulfuric acid, ifoC-8HC, J-BHC, endosulfan I and II, and
endrin are of interest. All samples must be extracted within 7 days and
completely analyzed within 30 days of sample collection.
Deficiency - The laboratory did not extract the semi volatile (acid, base
and neutrals) samples within 14 days of sample collection.
Recommendation - The semi volatile sample extraction step must be completed
(i.e. t. Cample extraction and concentration of the- extract) within 14 days
of sample collection. (Note: The EPA new RCRA methods manual, SW-846/Third
Edition/1986, requires -the semivolatile organic samples be extracted within
7 days of sample collection.)
GENERAL COMMENT
1. Since the second edition of SW-846 did not properly address the sample
preservation and holding time requirements for aromatics in EPA Methods
5030 and 8240, it is advised that the laboratory follow the sample
preservation and holding time requirements specified in EPA Method 8020
of the RCRA manual.
2. The laboratory has analyzed Appendix IX dioxins and furans once during
1987. None of the site samples were analyzed for dioxins and furans
during 1986.
-------
^ x\,// .- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
ONE DENVER PLACE 999 18TH STREET - SUITE 1300
DENVER. COLORADO 80202-2413
Ref: 8HWM-RP
/y- 6- *
Ms. Maxine Long " _!C 1 .']
QA Office
U.S. EPA, Region V r'".'\'JW.;,(w W,,.;? .
536 So. Clark Sc. - -' JLr.>:.:. ,
Chicago, IL 60605
Dear Maxine:
Attached is the information that you requested concerning Core
Laboratories, Inc., Casper, Wyoming. Core Laboratories has been
certified for the analysis of radionuclides in drinking waters from
within Region VIII since 1980. The present certification is extended
until November 1987. The accuracy for the results from the Las Vegas
cross check samples has been average, compared to other certified
laboratories, in Region VIII.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at
FTS - 776-5083.
Sincerely yours,
Robert C. Tauer, Chemist
Radiation Programs Branch
Attachments
-------
CROSS CHECK SAMPLE DATA
Dace
1/18/85
3/22/85
9/20/86
1/24/86
5/23/86
7/18/86
3/15/85
9/13/85
12/13/85
3/14/86
6/20/86
GROfS ALPHA,
t
True Value
5"+ 5
5 + 5
8 + 5
3 + 5
8 + 5
6 + 5
RADIUM 226,
5.0 + .75
8.9 + 1.3
7.1 + 1.07
4.1 + .62
8.6 + 1.3
pCi/1
Reported Value
4
7
9
4
9
7
pCi/1
5.6
8.5
7.1
5.1
13.0* (Out)
GROSS
True Value
15 + 5
15 + 5
8 + 5
7 + 5
15 + 5
18 + 5
RADIUM
9.0 + 1.35
4.6 + .69
7.3 + 1.1
12.4 + 1.85
16.7 T 2.5
BETA, pCi/1
Reported Value
16
U
7
7
12
16
228, pCi/1
8.4
3.7
7.4
10.4
17.4
URANIUM. pCi/1
7/22/85
8/23/85
2/21/86
8/22/86
12 + 6
4 + 6
9 + 6
4 + 6
11
No response
-------
BLIND SAMPLE DATA
Dace 4/19/85 10/21/85 4/20/86
TV RV TV RV TV RV
Gross Alpha, pCi/1 32 + 5 31 52 + 13 51 17 +~5 ?~.3
Gross Beta, pCi/1 72+5 63 75+5 75 35+5 10*
Radium 226, pCi/1 4.1 + .6 3.7 6.3 + .95 4.6 2.9 + .44 3.2
Radium 228, pCi/1 6.2 + .9 2.9 10.1 + 1.5 5.4 2.0 +" .3 2.6
Uraniun, pCi/1' 7+6 No Data 8.0 + 6.0 9.0 5+6 11
-------
.'-.p.
T.
Mtt^cVo "-S £ cojy cf r.suert «ni&~b rpport. cn tn* on-sfr evatuctoi c
/ocr laocrarory. Tns oup^nse for f» vi^it wes to deterrnnc 1f yo-iir
"lijorat^r^ sno./lc r«xv:'ivc cc»"tini«ec certification und=r Ir.e S.a.fc 0-in:-. in.
water MCI.
-:at ior
"
tc- Cor-2 LaiiOPdti'Tivs, l"c., CcS?"-, fcy.yrlni, for t.'M
OPOSS i1,>:' I,
POS s
Tr.is certification win pr-^ain 1n effect for tnree y«2rs. Yo-ir
jop^topy r«uSt continue t« D3Pticip«tc in tr.c- Las V?cas CPOSS chect
aar.) witti acceuta^lft pcsclts. In ftdoition, you a^e Pt»ouir?d tc ps
ir, me psrf orrr^rfC-: or blir'0 sample prorjpa.-'.
If yo-j huvc furtner questions cunc^rninc th«? certification cr t'i
piyas* contact, kot/rf re C. Twer at .103-2 3h-3C-i3.
Sincer'ely. Years,
Ir,?ir: L. Uici-'stein, Director
on7!int = 1 Services Divisior
C.::: Jjo'.iU Hi
-------
------- |