United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and Publication 9240.0-09FSA
Emergency Response November 1996
vvEPA
Multi-Media,
Multi-Concentration,
Organic Analytical Service for
Superfund
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Analytical OperationsNData Quality Center (5204G)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Under the legislative authority granted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), EPA develops standardized analytical methods for the measurement of various
pollutants in environmental samples from known or suspected hazardous waste sites. Among the pollutants that are
of concern to EPA at such sites are a series of volatile, semivolatile, pesticide, and Aroclor compounds that are
analyzed using gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gas chromatography with an
electron capture detector (GC/EC). The Analytical OperationsXData Quality Center (AOC) of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) offers an analytical service that provides data from the analysis of water,
soil/sediment, and waste samples for organic compounds for use in the Superfund decision-making process. Through
a series of standardized procedures and strict chain-of-custody, the organic analytical service produces data of known
and documented quality. This service is available through the Superfund Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The organic analytical service provides a technical and
contractual framework for laboratories to apply
EPA/CLP analytical methods for the isolation,
detection and quantitative measurement of 33 volatile,
64 semivolatile, and 28 pesticide/Aroclor target
compounds in water and soil/sediment environmental
samples. The analytical service provides the methods
to be used and the specific technical and contractual
requirements, including quality assurance, quality
control, and standard operating procedures, by which
EPA will evaluate the data This service uses GC/MS
and GC/EC methods to analyze the target compounds.
Two data delivery turnarounds are available to the
Regional EPA offices: 35 day turnaround and 14 day
turnaround after laboratory receipt of the last sample in
the set.
DATA USES
This analytical service provides data which EPA uses
for a variety of purposes, such as determining the
nature and extent of contamination at a hazardous
waste site, assessing priorities for response based on
risks to human health and the environment,
determining appropriate cleanup actions, and
determining when remedial actions are complete. The
data may be used in all stages in the investigation of a
hazardous waste site including site inspections, Hazard
Ranking System scoring, remedial
investigations/feasibility studies, remedial design,
treatability studies, and removal actions. In addition,
this service provides data that are available for use in
Superfund enforcement/litigation activities.
ANALYTES
The analytes for which this service is applicable and
the corresponding baseline quantitation limits are listed
in Table 1. For water samples, the lowest quantitation
limits reportable are 10 ppb for the volatile analytes, 10
ppb for the semivolatile analytes, and 0.05 ppb for the
pesticide analytes. For soil samples, the lowest
quantitation limits reportable are 10 ppb for the volatile
analytes, 330 ppb for the semivolatile analytes, and 1.7
ppb for the pesticide analytes.
-------
Table 1. Target Compound List and Contract Required Quantitation Limits*
Quantitation Limits
Water Low Soil
ug/L ug/Kg
Quantitation Limits
Water Low Soil
ug/L ug/Kg
VOLATILES
1. Chloromethane 10 10
2. Bromomethane 10 10
3. Vinyl Chloride 10 10
4. Chloroethane 10 10
5. Methylene Chloride 10 10
6. Acetone 10 10
7. Carbon Disulfide 10 10
8.1,1-Dichloroethene 10 10
9.1,1-Dichloroethane 10 10
10.1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 10 10
11. Chloroform 10 10
12.1,2-Dichloroethane 10 10
13. 2-Butanone 10 10
14.1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10 10
15. Carbon Tetrachloride 10 10
16. Bromodichloromethane 10 10
17.1,2-Dichloropropane 10 10
18. cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10 10
19. Trichloroethene 10 10
20. Dibromochloromethane 10 10
21.1,1,2-Trichloroethane 10 10
22. Benzene 10 10
23. trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10 10
24. Bromoform 10 10
25. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 10 10
26. 2-Hexanone 10 10
27. Tetrachloroethene 10 10
28. Toluene 10 10
29.1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10 10
30. Chlorobenzene 10 10
31. Ethylbenzene 10 10
32. Styrene 10 10
33. Xylenes (Total) 10 10
SEMIVOLATILES
34. Phenol 10 330
35. bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 10 330
36.2-Chlorophenol 10 330
37.1,3-Dichlorobenzene 10 330
38.1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10 330
39.1,2-Dichlorobenzene 10 330
40. 2-Methylphenol 10 330
41. 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) 10 330
42. 4-Methylphenol 10 330
43. N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 10 330
44. Hexachloroethane 10 330
45. Nitrobenzene 10 330
46. Isophorone 10 330
47. 2-Nitrophenol 10 330
48. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 10 330
49. bis(2-Chloroethoxy) methane 10 330
50. 2,4-Dichlorophenol 10 330
51.1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 10 330
52. Naphthalene 10 330
53. 4-Chloroaniline 10 330
54. Hexachlorobutadiene 10 330
55. 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 10 330
56.2-Methylnaphthalene 10 330
57. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10 330
58. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10 330
59. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 25 800
60.2-Chloronaphthalene 10 330
61. 2-Nitroaniline 25 800
62. Dimethylphthalate 10 330
63. Acenaphthylene 10 .
64. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 10 .
65. 3-Nitroaniline 25 .
66. Acenaphthene 10 .
67. 2,4-Dinitrophenol 25 .
68. 4-Nitrophenol 25 .
69. Dibenzofuran 10 .
70.2,4-Dinitrotoluene 10 .
71. Diethylphthalate 10 .
.330
.330
.800
.330
.800
.800
.330
.330
.330
72. 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 10 330
73. Fluorene 10 330
74.4-Nitroaniline 25 800
75.4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 25 800
76. N-nitrosodiphenylamine 10 330
77.4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 10 330
78. Hexachlorobenzene 10 330
79. Pentachlorophenol 25 800
80. Phenanthrene 10 330
81. Anthracene 10 330
82. Carbazole 10 330
83. Di-n-butylphthalate 10 330
84. Fluoranthene 10 330
85. Pyrene 10 330
86. Butylbenzylphthalate 10 330
87. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 10 330
88. Benzo(a)anthracene 10 330
89. Chrysene 10 330
90. bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 10 330
91. Di-n-octylphthalate 10 330
92. Benzo(b)fluoranthene 10 330
93. Benzo(k)fluoranthene 10 330
94. Benzo(a)pyrene 10 330
95. lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 10 330
96. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 10 330
97. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 10 330
Water Soil
PESTICIDES/AROCLORS ug/L ug/L
98. alpha-BHC 0.05 1.7
99. beta-BHC 0.05 1.7
100. delta-BHC 0.05 1.7
101. gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.05 1.7
102. Heptachlor 0.05 1.7
103. Aldrin 0.05 1.7
104. Heptachlor epoxide 0.05 1.7
105. Endosulfan I 0.05 1.7
106. Oieldrin 0.10 3.3
107.4,4'-DDE 0.10 3.3
108. Endrin 0.10 3.3
109. Endosulfan II 0.10 3.3
110. 4,4'-DDD 0.10 3.3
111. Endosulfan sulfate 0.10 3.3
112. 4,4'-DDT 0.10 3.3
113. Methoxychlor 0.50 17.0
114. Endrin ketone 0.10 3.3
115. Endrin aldehyde 0.10 3.3
116. alpha-Chlordane 0.05 1.7
117. gamma-Chlordane 0.05 1.7
118. Toxaphene 5.0 170.0
119. Aroclor-1016 1.0 33.0
120. Aroclor-1221 2.0 67.0
121. Aroclor-1232 1.0 33.0
122. Aroclor-1242 1.0 33.0
123. Aroclor-1248 1.0 33.0
124. Aroclor-1254 1.0 33.0
125. Aroclor-1260 1.0 33.0
* For volatiles, quantitation limits for medium soils are approximately 120 times the quantltatlon limits for low soils. For semivolatlle medium soils,
quanlitatlon limits are approximately 30 times the quanlllatlon limits for low soils.
-------
Specific sample quantitation limits are highly matrix
dependent.
The list of target compounds for this service was
originally derived from the EPA Priority Pollutant List
of 129 compounds. In the years since the inception of
the CLP, compounds have been added to and deleted
from the Target Compound List, based on advances in
analytical methods, evaluation of method performance
data, and the needs of the Superfund program.
For drinking water/groundwater type samples, use of
the low concentration organic analytical service (water
matrix) is recommended. For high hazard organic
samples (e.g., drum samples), use of the high
concentration organic analytical service is
recommended.
METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION
For semivolatile and pesticide/Aroclor samples, a 1-L
water sample is extracted with methylene chloride.
For low level semivolatile soil and pesticide/Aroclor
soil samples, a 30-g soil sample is extracted with
methylene chloride/acetone. For medium level
semivolatile soil samples, a 1-g soil sample is
extracted with methylene chloride/acetone. For both
water and soil samples, the extract is concentrated,
subjected to fraction-specific cleanup procedures, and
analyzed by GC/MS for semivolatiles or GC/EC for
pesticides/Aroclors.
For voltile water samples, 5 mL of water is added to a
purge and trap device and purged with an inert gas at
room temperature. For volatile low level soil samples,
a 5-g aliquot of soil is added to a purge and trap device
with 5 mL of reagent water and purged with an inert
gas at 40 °C. For volatile medium level soil samples,
4 g are extracted with methanol and an aliquot is
added to
a purge and trap device. For both water and soil
samples, the volatiles purged from the sample are
trapped on a solid sorbent. They are subsequently
desorbed by rapidly heating the sorbent and then
introduced into a GC/MS system. Table 2
summarizes the instruments and methods used in this
analytical service.
DATA DELIVERABLES
Data deliverables for this service include hardcopy data
reporting forms and supporting raw data. In addition to
the hardcopy deliverable, contract laboratories must
submit the same data on diskette. The diskette data
are used by EPA to rapidly assess the contractual and
technical performance of the laboratory.
The laboratory must submit data to EPA within 35
days (or 14 days for 14-day contracts) of sample
receipt. EPA then checks the data for compliance with
contract requirements within 10 days and adds the data
to a comprehensive database of CLP analytical results.
A report of instances of noncompliance is distributed
to the laboratory and the Region. The laboratory has
10 days to reconcile defective data and resubmit the
data to EPA. EPA then screens the data within 10
days and sends a final report to the laboratory and the
Region.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
The quality assurance (QA) process consists of
management review and oversight at the planning,
implementation, and completion stages of the
environmental data collection activity. This process
ensures that the data provided are of the quality
required.
Table!. Instruments and Methods
Fraction
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Pesticides/Arodors
Instrument
GC/MS with purge and trap device
GC/MS
GC/EC with dual column
Method
Purge and trap concentration followed by
GC/MS analysis
Liquid-liquid extraction followed by capillary
GC/MS analysis
Liquid-liquid extraction followed by capillary
GC/EC analysis
-------
During the implementation of the data collection effort,
QA activities ensure that the quality control (QC)
system is functioning effectively, and that the
deficiencies uncovered by the QC system are
corrected. After environmental data are collected, QA
activities focus on assessing the quality of data to
determine its suitability to support enforcement or
remedial decisions Each contract laboratory prepares a
quality assurance plan (QAP) with the objective of
providing sound analytical chemical measurements.
The QAP must specify the policies, organization,
objectives, and functional guidelines, as well as the QA
and QC activities designed to achieve the data quality
requirements for this analytical service.
QUALITY CONTROL
The analytical data acquired from QC procedures are
used to estimate and evaluate the analytical results and
to determine the necessity for or the effect of corrective
action procedures. The QC process includes those
activities required during analytical data collection to
produce the desired data quality and to document the
quality of the collected data The QC operations
required for this analytical service are shown in Table
3.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING ACTIVITIES
Laboratory performance monitoring activities are
provided primarily by AOC and the Regions to ensure
that contract laboratories are producing data of the
appropriate quality. EPA performs on-site laboratory
audits, data package audits and GC/MS tape audits,
and evaluates laboratory performance through the use
of blind performance evaluation samples.
For more information on this analytical service,
contact:
Howard Fribush
Organic Program Manager
USEPA/AODQC
401 M Street, SW (5204G)
Washington, DC 20460
703603-8831
FAX: 703 603-9112
Table3. Frequency of QC Operations
QC Operation
Surrogates (for
semivolatiles and
pesticides)
System monitoring
compounds (volatiles)
Method blanks (volatiles)
Method blanks
(semivolatiles and
pesticides)
Storage blanks (volatiles)
GC/MS mass calibration
and ion abundance
patterns (volatiles and
semivolatiles)
Frequency
Added to each sample,
standard, and blank
Added to each sample,
standard, and blank
Prepared each 20 samples
for each matrix and level
Prepared with each group of
samples of same matrix and
level, each time samples are
extracted
Prepared and stored with
each group of samples
received from the field
Every 12 hours, for each
instrument used for analysis
QC Operation
GC resolution check
(pesticides)
Initial calibration
Continuing calibration
Stability of internal
standard responses
(volatiles and
semivolatiles)
Retention time stability
Matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate
Frequency
Prior to initial calibration, on
each instrument used for
analysis
Upon initial set up of each
instrument, and each time
continuing calibration fails
to meet the acceptance
criteria
Every 12 hours, for each
instrument used for analysis
Every analysis
Every analysis
Once every 20 or fewer
samples of same fraction,
matrix, and level
-------
Attachment A: Pilot Case Studies
Albion-Sheridan Landfill
Anecdotal evidence indicated that some quantity of
industrial wastes were disposed of at the 30-acre Albion-
Sheridan Landfill, but the location, volume and identity of
wastes were unknown. No data were available for the site
at the beginning of the RI/FS. EPA implemented the
streamlining principles of the 1991 MLF RI/FS guidance,
and scoped a phased approach to characterization of the
Albion-Sheridan site with the goal of implementing the
containment remedy. The draft work plan was revised to
incorporate the phased investigation, focusing first on
ground-water contamination to establish whether there was
a basis for a response action.
Ground-water contamination did support the need for
action at the site, so it was not necessary to quantify
additional exposure pathways for this purpose. The
remainder of the risk assessment was streamlined by using
a conceptual site model to demonstrate that the other
potential pathways of concern (e.g. direct contact) would be
addressed by the components of the presumptive remedy
(e.g. landfill cap).
EPA conducted a geophysical survey of the site to identify
potential drum storage areas. Based on the results of the
geophysics, EPA concluded that while there were
anomalies in the results, there were no areas that appeared
to consist of large numbers of drummed waste, thereby
warranting further investigation. Because the State had
remaining concerns with EPA's approach to hot spots, the
State conducted its own geophysical survey and dug test
pits at 12 locations. At one location approximately 300-
400 drums were uncovered, and EPA reiterated its
agreement to send any drums of hazardous waste off-site
for disposal. Of the 300-400 drums, the number containing
hazardous waste is unknown at this time.
Lexington County Landfill
Ground-water data were available for this 70-acre landfill
prior to initiation of the RI, which indicated exceedences of
MCLs, and therefore a basis for a response action. The
strategy for the Lexington County Landfill RI was similar
to the Albion-Sheridan Landfill, in that a phased approach
was implemented. Sampling focused on further
characterization of ground-water contamination, and the
risk assessment was streamlined, focusing also on the
ground-water pathway. Planned soil sampling and analysis
to estimate direct contact threats was eliminated, and it was
demonstrated (using a conceptual site model) that other
potential pathways of concern would be addressed by
components of the presumptive remedy.
A planned drum search of the 70-acre landfill was
eliminated based on the guidelines for hot spot
characterization contained in the 1991 MLF RI/FS
guidance. At Lexington County Landfill, as at Albion
Sheridan Landfill, it is likely that some industrial waste was
disposed of at the site, but the location, quantity and identity
of the wastes were unknown. Because there was no
evidence to guide such a search, EPA decided that the best
approach was to contain the landfill, accounting for
uncertainties in the nature of the wastes during the design.
The selected remedy includes consolidation and capping of
the waste areas, landfill gas collection and venting;
extraction of contaminated groundwater/leachate with
discharge to POTW; additional sampling of surface water
and sediment to characterize any off-site contamination;
and monitoring of ground water, surface water, sediment
and landfill gas. Additionally, to address a plume, a
ground-water pump and treat remedy was put in place.
BFI/Rockingham
Extensive ground-water data were available for this site at
the initiation of the RI, and the first step in implementation
of the presumptive remedy was to evaluate the potential for
using the data. The data were found to be useable to
establish an initial basis for action, which allowed
streamlining of the risk assessment and RI. Only
confirmational ground-water sampling was conducted
during the RI; characterization of the landfill surface soil
and debris mass did not occur. Geotechnical information
regarding settlement, cover quality, and stability was also
collected. The knowledge that containment was the likely
remedy allowed the RI to become primarily a design-
related investigation. In addition, based on historical
information, hot spots were not of concern at this site.
Levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and certain
metals clearly indicated that a ground-water risk was
present. The existence of ground-water risk confirmed that
a "No Action" decision was unlikely, and that a landfill cap
would be a component of the source control action. The
risk assessment was streamlined by quantifying the ground-
water risk and qualitatively discussing the other pathways
that would be addressed by the source control action. All
pathways outside the landfill, which included off-site
ground water and off-site soils, were fully quantified. An
early action was conducted as a non-time-critical removal
at this site in order to begin construction of the landfill cap.
The combination of the presumptive remedy with the early
action resulted in a significant time savings in the remedy
selection and construction processes.
-------
leachate, and/or landfill gas). The exposure pathways are then
compared to those addressed by the containment remedy, as
.follows:
"' • direct contact with soil and/or debris prevented by landfill cap;
• exposure to contaminated ground water prevented by ground-
water control;
• exposure to contaminated leachate prevented by leachate
collection and treatment; and
• exposure to landfill gas addressed by gas collection and
treatment, as appropriate.
This comparison reveals that the containment remedy addresses all
pathways associated with the landfill source. The phased approach
can be implemented at landfill sites using the conceptual site model
because it demonstrates that all exposure pathways are addressed
by the containment remedy, and field sampling is therefore not
required to characterize the nature and extent of contamination
once it has been demonstrated that the site presents a risk and
warrants action.
A streamlined risk evaluation was successfully conducted at the
three pilot sites, with contaminated ground water presenting the
justification for a response action. Sampling, analysis, and a
conventional risk assessment were required to characterize
contamination, if any, that had migrated away from the source
areas.
Quantitative Results
is illustrated in Highlight 2, the RI/FS durations for the pilot sites
ranged from 23 to 32 months, compared to 44 to 72 months for the
control sites. The average pilot RI/FS duration was 28 months, as
compared to the national average of 51 months. The RI/FS
durations for the pilot sites represent a time savings ranging from
16 to 40 months when compared to the control sites, and 23
months when compared to the national average. These results
translate into an estimated time savings ranging from 36-56 percent
when comparing the pilots to the control sites, and an estimated 45
percent when comparing the average pilot duration to the national
average.
The figures for the BFI/Rockingham site include completion of an
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to support
implementation of source control (i.e., cap, leachate and gas
collection) as a non-time-critical removal action. The EE/CA was
completed in 12 months, which is a subset of the 23 months
indicated in Highlight 2. The 23 months was the time required to
complete the RI/FS for the entire site, including ground-water
contamination.
The pilot results for the BFI/Rockingham site are particularly
noteworthy because the source control action was initiated just 12
months after the RI/FS start, and construction of the cap was
completed in July 1995, just three years after the RI/FS start.
A savings in time was also realized as a result of the streamlined
isk evaluations conducted at the pilot sites, as illustrated in
Highlight 3. The time required to complete the risk assessments at
the pilot sites ranged from 7 to 10 months, as compared to 9 to 22
months for the controls, which represents a savings ranging from
17 to 68 percent when compared to the control sites.
Highlight 2
RI/FS Durations (Months) for Pilot/Control Site
and National Averages
20
23
47
32
72
28
44
28
51
BH pater Albion- West L<=*9- Cedar- f** NafanaJ
— SheHdan KL *"Ca town Average Average
LF
Highlights
Risk Assessment Durations (Months) for
Pilot/Control Sites
22
10
12
Albion- West
Sheridan - KL
Lexington
Co. town
_LF_
Cost savings were estimated in one of two ways for the pilot sites.
-------
The RI/FS costs for Albion-Sheridan Landfill and Lexington
County were compared to the national average RI/FS cost of $1
•million, resulting in an estimated 10 percent and 1 percent savings,
sspectively, for those sites. The cost savings estimate for the
BFI/Rockingham site was developed by the PRP, and was based
upon a comparison with their costs for RI/FSs conducted at other
similar sites. A savings of 60 percent was estimated for the RI/FS,
which included the source area and areas of migration, and an
engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) to support the non-
time-critical removal action on the landfill cap.
Conclusion
EPA found that the containment presumptive remedy resulted in a
savings of time and costs at each of the pilot sites. The savings
were the result of implementing a phased approach to site
characterization and streamlining the risk assessment, both of
which were possible because the landfill contents were contained.
The savings in time and costs were most significant at the
BFI/Rockingham site, where the cap was completed three years
after initiation of the RI/FS, and an estimated $3 million was saved.
This significant savings was the result of combining the
containment presumptive remedy with an early action
accomplished as a non-time-critical removal action. Based on
these results, municipal landfill sites appear to be well suited to the
combined application of these streamlining and acceleration tools.
Next Steps
Since establishment of the presumptive remedy, EPA has tracked
implementation at two additional landfill sites (demonstration
sites): (1) Bennington Landfill, Vermont, and (2) Tomah
Municipal Landfill, Wisconsin. EPA will summarize findings from
the demonstration sites upon signature of their respective Records
of Decision (RODs).
Presumptive Remedy Directives
To date, EPA has issued the following presumptive remedy
directives:
(1) "Presumptive Remedies: Policy and Procedures,"
September 1993, Directive No. 9355.0-47FS;
(2) "Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibilities Studies
for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites," EPA/540/P-
91/00 I.February 1991.
(3) "Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill
Sites," September 1993, Directive No. 9355.0-49FS;
(4) "CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS Data Collection Guide,"
August 1995, Directive No. 9355.3-18FS;
(5) "Site Characterization and Technology Selection for
Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil/Sludge," September
1993, Directive No. 9355.4-048FS;
(6) "Presumptive Remedies for Soils, Sediments, and
Sludges at Wood Treater Sites," December 1995,
Directive No. 9200.5-162.
(7) "Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment
Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites," EPA/540/R-96/023, October 1996.
In addition, presumptive remedies directives for the following types
of sites or contaminants are forthcoming:
(1) PCBs
(2) Manufactured gas plants
(3) Grain storage sites
(4) Metals in soils (in cooperation with the U.S. Department
of Energy).
Additional Information
For additional information on the pilot sites or the presumptive
remedy for municipal landfills, please call Andrea McLaughlin,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 703-603-8793.
------- |