United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMB Report BS-FPEJ& *>?
August 1986
Air
Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities
Site-Specific Test Report
U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.
Toole, Utah
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC TEST REPORT
U.S. POLLUTION CONTROL, INC.
GRASSY MOUNTAIN FACILITY
TOOLE, UTAH
ESED 85/12
EMB 85FPE07
Prepared by:
Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
Post Office Box 12291
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Contract No. 68-02-3852 and 68-02-^336
Work Assignment No, 3024 and No. 3501
EPA Task Manager
Clyde E. Riley
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EMISSION MEASUREMENT BRANCH
EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING DIVISION
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
August 1986
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement by EPA.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors
and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Library Services Office, MD-35. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Order: EMB Report 85-FPE-07
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Figures v
Tables vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 Background Samples 2-4
2.2 Landfill Cell #1 (Process S) 2-10
2.3 Stabilization Unit (Process T) 2-12
2.4 Land Treatment Area, Row Markers 118 to 121 (Process U) 2-14
2.5 Land Treatment Area, Row. Markers R-32 to R-35 (Process V) 2-15
2.6 Unpaved Access Roads (Process W) 2-16
2.7 Repeatability and Reproducibility 2-18
2.8 Conclusions 2-18
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3~1
3.1 Landfill (Cell No. 1) 3-1
3.2 Stabilization Unit 3-3
3.3 Land Treatment (Cell No. 2) 3-4
3.4 Unpaved Roadways 3~5
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 4-1
4.1 Site Plot Plan 4-1
4.2 Landfill Cell #1 (Process S) 4-3
4.3 Stabilization Unit (Process T) 4-9
4.4 Land Treatment Area, Row Markers 118 to 121 (Process U) 4-13
4.5 Land Treatment Area, Row Markers R-32 to R-35 (Process V) 4-18
4.6 Unpaved Access Roads (Process W) 4-20
4.7 Repeatability, Reproducibility, and Performance Audit
Samples 4-22
4.8 Background Samples 4-23
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 5~1
111
-------
CONTENTS .(continued)
APPENDICES Page
RAW FIELD DATA AND SAMPLING LOGS , A-l .
Process Data Sheets and Sampling Grid Sketches A-3
Repeatability, Reproducibility.Vand Quality Assurance Samples A-9
Chain of Custody Forms A-10
B ANALYTICAL DATA B-l
EMB Split Sample Inventory B-3
Moisture Determination Data Sheets B-6
Screening Data Sheets B-52
Percent PM _ Determination Data Sheets 6-96
Metals Analysis Results B-113
Organic Cleanup Data Sheet B-117
Dilution Factors B-118
Organics Analysis Results B-l19
Quality Assurance Data B-182
Oil and Grease Analysis Results B-193
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES• C-l
Sampling Apparatus C~3
Sampling Location Selection and Documentation C-8
Sample Collection C-ll
Sample Handling and Transport C-14
Drying and Sieving Procedures C-16
Chemical Analyses C-19
Quality Assurance (QA) Procedures C-25
D SAMPLING PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS D-l
PROCESS OPERATIONS DATA E-l
Summary of Processes Sampled During Site Survey ' E-3
Summary of Equipment for Processes Sampled During Site Survey E-k
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
4.1 Site plot plan of USPCI in Toole, Utah showing locations of 4-2
background and road samples taken.
4.2 Sampling grid, process dimensions, and sample numbers
for Landfill Cell #1 at USPCI (Process S). 4-4
4.3 Sampling grid, process dimensions, and sample numbers
for Stabilization Unit (Land Treatment Area I) at USPCI
(Process T). 4-11
4.4 Dimensions and locations of Processes U and V in Land
Treatment Area II at USPCI. 4-14
4.5 Sampling grid, process dimensions, and sample numbers for
Process U in Land Treatment Area II (Row Markers 118 to 121)
at USPCI. 4-15
4.6 Sampling grid, sampling dimensions, and sample numbers for
Process V in Land Treatment Area II (Row Markers R-32 to R-35)
at USPCI. 4-19
4.7 Dimensions and sample numbers for access roads at USPCI
(Process W). 4-21
4.8 Sketch showing approximate locations where background samples
were taken at USPCI. . 4-24
C.I Example process grid. C-10
C.2 Label used for sample jars. C-12
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2.1 Sampling Plan for USPCI 2-3
2.2 Analytical Results of Silt Screening, Weight Loss on
Drying, and PMin Sieving, Fugitive Particulate from
TSDF (85/12) 2-5
2.3 Analytical Results for Metals, Fugitive Particulate from
TSDF (85/12) 2-8
2.4 Analytical Results for Semivolatile Organics and Pesticides,
Fugitive Particulate from TSDF (85/12) 2-9
2.5 Summary of Oil and Grease Analysis, Fugitive Particulate
from TSDF (85/12) 2-10
2.6 Analytical Results for Repeatability and Reproducibility
Samples - Metals, Fugitive Particulate from TSDF (85/12) 2-19
2.7 Analytical Results for Repeatability Samples - Semivolatile
Organics and Pesticides, Fugitive Particulate from TSDF
(85/12) 2-20
4.1 Sample Drying Procedure Summary 4-5
4.2 Metals, Measurement Methods, and Detection Limits 4-7
4.3 Semivolatile Organics for Analysis 4-8
4.4 Pesticides for Analysis 4-10
5.1 Quality Assurance Results for Metals Analysis
RTI and PEI Analyses 5-2
5.2 Quality Assurance Results for Semivolatiles and Pesticides
Analyses 5~3
5-3 Performance Audit for Metals Analyses 5~7
5.4 Performance Audit for Semivolatile Organics and Pesticides
Analyses 5~8
C.I Sampling Equipment Specifications C-5
C.2 Sampling Equipment Preparation and Clean-Up C~7
C.3 Metals and Measurement Methods C-20
C.4 Semivolatile Organic Compounds Measured C-22
C.5 Pesticides Analyzed For and Their Quantifiable
Dectection Limits C-24
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
C.6 Spiking Compounds: Acid Extractables II C-27
C.7 Spiking Compounds: Neutral Extractables V C-28
C.8 Spiking Compounds: Neutral Extractables VI C-29
C.9 Spiking Compounds: Pesticides II C-30
•
C.10 Spiking Compounds: Metals C-31
VII
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On November 5 and 6, 1985. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. collected soil
samples from five treatment, storage, and disposal related processes at U.S.
Pollution Control, Inc. (USPCI) Grassy Mountain Facility located in Toole,
Utah. The purpose of this sampling program was to provide preliminary data
on the magnitude of fugitive particulate emissions from various processes at
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF's) and the degree to which
these emissions are contaminated. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) anticipates utilizing the analytical data from this program with
emission models to estimate fugitive particulate emissions from TSDF's. The
information generated by this study may ultimately be used by the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA to assess the adequacy of
regulations governing fugitive particulate emissions from TSDF's.
To accomplish the overall goals of this study, soil samples were
collected from representative processes at this plant and were submitted for
the appropriate analyses in order to determine the following:
•• The percent by weight of silt in the soil (i.e., material that
passes through a 200 mesh screen and has a nominal diameter
less than 75 urn) and the percent by weight of moisture in the
soil.
•• The degree of contamination in the soil silt fraction of
metals, semivolatile organics, and pesticides.
•• The percent by weight of soil silt that is less than 20 urn in
diameter based on a sonic sieving technique.
•• The particle size dependency of the degree of contamination
(i.e., greater or lesser degree of contamination in particles
with diameters not in excess of 20 urn) by conducting separate
analyses of different soil particle size fractions.
1-1
-------
• The repeatability and reproducibility of the sampling and
analytical procedures for the entire sampling program (only
raw data are included in this report; a statistical summary
will be presented for all sampling sites in a later report).
At USPCI, the five processes sampled were (1) a landfill cell, (2) the
stabilization unit, (3) and (4) two sections of one of the land treatment
areas, and (5) unpaved road segments at two locations within the facility. A
pair of background samples along with samples to assess the repeatability and
reproducibility of the method were also taken.
Samples taken were analyzed for silt content, PM10 content, metals,
cyanide, and semivolatile organics as described in Chapter 4. Research
Triangle Institute (RTI) conducted the analyses for metals and PEI Associates
performed the analyses for the semivolatile organics. Additional cleanup of
the semivolatile organic extracts was performed by Triangle Laboratories, Inc.
The outside laboratory that performed the metals analysis on the
reproducibility samples was PEI Associates. For a cost benefit, all the
reproducibility samples for the entire study were analyzed at the same time.
EPA decided not to have the reproducibility samples analyzed for semivolatile
organics as a cost saving measure since few semivolatile organics were detected
at two times the detection limits in the other process samples.
Field sampling was performed by Mr. Steve Plaisance and Mr. Kent Spears of
Entropy Environmentalists. Mr. Phillip Englehart of Midwest Research Institute
(MRI) directed Entropy personnel regarding specific processes to be sampled and
the boundaries of the processes, and recorded the pertinent process and
operating characteristics. Mr. Gene Riley (EPA Task Manager) of the Emission
Measurement Branch (EMB) and Mr. Lee Beck (EPA Task Manager) of the Industrial
Studies Branch (ISB) observed the sampling program. Mr. L. H. Shepherd,
Facility Manager, served as the principal contact for U.S. Pollution Control, Inc.
1-2
-------
This report is organized into several chapters that address various aspects
of the sampling and analysis program. Immediately following this chapter is
the "Summary and Discussion of Results" chapter which presents table summaries
of data on silt and PM.n content and degree of contamination for each sample
fraction analyzed. Following the "Summary and Discussion of Results" chapter
is the "Process Description" chapter (supplied by MRI) which includes
descriptions of each process sampled. The next chapter, "Sampling and
Analysis," presents the plot plan and sampling grid for each process. The
method of selecting the sampling grid and the sample collection procedures are
outlined, including any deviations and problems encountered. This chapter also
describes the sample preparation and analytical procedures used for each
sample; any deviations from the normal procedures are addressed. The
appendices present the Raw Field Data and Sampling Logs (Appendix A);
Analytical Data (Appendix B); detailed Sampling and Analytical Procedures
(Appendix C); Sampling Program Participants and Observers (Appendix D); and
Process Operations Data (Appendix E).
1-3
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This chapter presents a summary of the sampling and analysis results and a
brief discussion of significant deviations from the proposed sampling and anal-
ysis protocol for this program. Since the standard sampling and analytical
procedures are not addressed in this chapter, it is recommended that those
individuals who are not familiar with the sampling and analytical procedures
used in this study review Chapter 4, "Sampling and Analysis," prior to reading
this chapter.
Soil samples were collected from five processes at USPCI in Toole, Utah.
The processes included: (1) Landfill Cell #1; (2) the Stabilization Unit; (3)
Land Treatment Area II, Row Markers 118 to 121; (4) Land Treatment Area II, Row
Markers R-32 to R-35; and (5) two unpaved access road segments. The sampling
and analytical procedures used were those described in the Sampling and Analysis
Protocol written specifically for this sampling program. The protocol was
provided to the facility prior to the sample collection. The procedures
described in this protocol are described again in detail in Chapter 4 and
Appendix C of this report.
As described in the Sampling and Analysis Protocol, this site-specific
report is intended to present the data relevant to the samples obtained at one
site in this study and the procedures used to obtain these samples. Some
statistical analyses will be performed on the data concerning this site;
however, the majority of statistical analyses will involve the data collected
over the entire study, including the repeatability and reproducibility and
quality assurance data, and will be included in the" summary report to be com-
pleted at the conclusion of the program. With the exception of the data from
2-1
-------
the screening conducted to determine silt contents, there is not sufficient
data to conduct meaningful statistical analyses on a site- or process-specific
basis.
The sampling plan for USPCI is shown in Table 2.1. The sampling procedures
were designed to obtain a representative sample of that portion of the
contaminated soil with the potential to become airborne. The analyses of the
collected samples were designed to measure the concentration of the most likely
compounds or elements that could be soil contaminates (metals, cyanide,
semivolatile organics, and pesticides). The sample collection techniques were
generally as follows: (1) for undisturbed hard surfaces a sweeping technique
was used to obtain surface samples only; (2) for moderately disturbed surfaces
a scooping technique was used to obtain near surface samples; and (3) for
surfaces that were mechanically disturbed to a specific depth, coring was used
to sample to the depth of the disturbance. The number of samples collected
within each process was a function of the variability expected in the degree of
contamination and/or the amount of sample that was needed for the analyses.
According to the Sampling and Analysis Protocol, the collected samples were
to be analyzed for metals, cyanide, semivolatile organics, and pesticides. The
organics of interest were found on the Hazardous Substance Lists (HSL) in the
EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Statement of Work. If significant
quantities of cyanide, semivolatile organics, or pesticides were not expected
to be present in a particular process, then analysis for those compounds was
not performed. MRI decided that at this particular site, pesticides would not
be present in significant quantities in any processes except the Landfill and
the Stabilization Area and therefore, the pesticide analyses were deleted for
all processes but these. All samples were analyzed for metals, cyanide, and
2-2
-------
TABLE 2.1. SAMPLING PLAN FOR USPCI
Process
Sampled
Process
Designation
Number of
Samples
Collection
Method
Analyses
Landfill
Cell n
8 Scooping Loss on Drying
(9 R&R) Silt and PM Content
Metals and Cyanide
Semivolatile Organics
Pesticides
Stabilization
(Unit Land
Treatment
Area I)
Scooping Loss on Drying
Silt and PM Content
Metals and Cyanide
Semivolatile Organics
Pesticides
Land Treatment
Area II (Row
Markers 118
to 121)
U
Scooping Loss on Drying
Silt and PM Content
Metals and Cyanide
Semivolatile Organics
Oil and Grease
Land Treatment
Area II (Row
Markers R-32
to R-35)
V
Scooping Loss on Drying
Silt and PM Content
Metals and Cyanide
Semivolatile Organics
Oil and Grease
Unpaved Access
Roads
W
Sweeping Loss on Drying
Silt and PM n Content
Metals
Semivolatile Organics
Background
Samples
BCD
Scooping Loss on Drying
Silt and PM Content
Metals
Semivolatile Organics
Oil and Grease
2-3
-------
semivolatile organics, except the reproducibility samples. They were analyzed
only for metals and cyanide as a cost savings measure. Complete lists of
compounds or elements for which analyses were conducted and their detection
limits are presented in Chapter 4 (see Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4).
The analytical results are discussed in the following subsections. Complete
sampling data sheets are presented in Appendix A and all analytical data sheets
are presented in Appendix B.
2.1 BACKGROUND SAMPLES
Because many compounds and elements are either naturally occuring in the
soil or may be present as a result of factors other than those which may be
attributed to USPCI'S activities, background samples were collected at a point
not used for TSDF activities. The percent weight loss on drying (LOD) measured
for samples BGD-609 and BGD-610 averaged 16.05 percent by weight. The samples
were oven-dried at 105 C for 1 hour prior to being screened for silt content.
The silt content of the two background samples (sample identification numbers
BGD-609 and BGD-610) averaged 5.0 percent by weight (see Table 2.2). The
composite silt material (sample identification number BGD-645) separated from
the background samples was sonic sieved. Material passing through a 20 urn
sieve constituted the PMlf, content. The PMin content averaged 21.52 percent by
weight of the silt material. The fraction of the silt material that did not
pass through the 20 urn sieve was referred to as the "greater than PM.,0 (> PMIQ)
fraction. The silt screening did not produce a sufficient amount of silt to
allow for the production of the "greater than PM " (>PM _) and PM..Q fractions
for chemical analyses.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2.2.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SILT SCREENING, WEIGHT LOSS ON DRYING, AND PM
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
10
SIEVING
Site and
Process
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Landfill, Cell #1
(Process S)
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Background Samples
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Stabilization Area, #7
(Process T)
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Land Treatment, 118-121
(Process U)
Sample
ID
S-601
S-602
S-603
S-604
Sr605
S-606
S-607
S-608
Average
Std. Dev.
BGD-609
BGD-609
Average
Std. Dev.
BGD-610
BGD-610
Average
Std. Dev.
T-611
T-612
T-613
T-614
T-615
T-616
T-617
Average
Std. Dev.
U-618
U-619
U-620
U-621
U-622
U-623
U-624
U-625
Average
Std. Dev.
Percent
Silt
14.8
10.1
11.6
10.9
18.3
16.0
10.6
9.6
12.7
3.2
1.4
8.6
6.6
1.0 *
2.2 *
6.6
7.3
9-9
8.7
6.0
3-3
14.3
13.0
13.5
10.7
10.4
11.0
10.8
18.6
12.8 -
2.8
Percent
Loss on
Drying
10.35
25.07
22.31
21.97
5-49
2.25
25.84
19.68
16.62
9.23
22.08
22.58
22.33
0.35
9.37
10.16
9.77
0.56
33.05
20.81
23.45
35-54
26.31
23.94
33-33
28.06
5.81
2.98
4.30
4.32
4.09
4.94
3.12
3.01
3-47
3.78
0.73
Sample Percent
ID PM1Q
S-642 41.31
S-642 39.84
40.58
1.04
BGD-645 21 . 56
BGD-645 21.48
21.52
0.06
T-652 31.01
T-652 34.89
32.95
2.74
U-659 20.13
U-659 20.67
20.40
0.38
(continued)
2-5
-------
TABLE 2.2. (continued)
Site and
Process
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Land Treatment, R32-R35
(Process V)
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Roadways
(Process W)
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Landfill, Cell #1
Repeatability and
Reproducibility
Sample
ID
V-626
V-627
V-628
V-629
V-630
V-631
v-632
v-633
Average
Std. Dev.
W-634
W-635
S-601-RR1
S-601-RR2
S-601-RR3
Average
Std. Dev.
S-602-RR1
S-602-RR2
S-602-RR3
Average
Std. Dev.
S-603-RR1
S-603-RR2
S-603-RR3
Average
Std. Dev.
Percent
Silt
7-9
11.8
8.6
10.7
10.3
10.9
7-4
10.5
9.76
1.6
16.0
7.9
12.3
13.6
13.9
13-3
0.9
21.1
16.1
14.1
17.1
3.6
21.2
15.6
16.7
17.8
3-0
Percent
Loss on
Drying
7-37
8-37
5-79
5.61
6.18
5.41
4.04
6.16
6.12
1.30
2.05
1.20
9-93
13.90
9.55
11.1
2.4
22.32
22.75
22.71
22.6
0.2
22.27
21.86
20.93
21.7
0.7
Sample Percent
ID PM10
v-666 4.64
v-666 4.59
4.62
0.04
w-669 40.43
W-669 40.69
Average 40.56
Std. Dev. 0.18
"These samples were screened with a full stack of sieves.
2-6
-------
Results of the analyses for metals are shown in Table 2.3 and those for the
semivolatile organics are shown in Table 2.4. The analytical results for the
metals and cyanide in the background silt sample (sample ID BGD-645) are in terms
of micrograms of the metal per gram of silt sample (dry basis). These results
reflect the nominal concentrations of these materials present in the soil which
are not a result of USPCI'S activities. The results for the background samples
have not been subtracted from the results for the other samples since the risk
assessments use the inclusive value of the degree of contamination. It should be
understood, however, that the actual outside contribution to the degree of
contamination of the soil is that portion of the contaminate concentration which
exceeds the nominal background level.
For the analysis of the semivolatile organic compounds, the background
samples were extracted as low-level samples following the U.S. EPA Contract
Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, 7/85 Revision
(refered to as the CLP in this report). The extract was concentrated and
subjected to an adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure instead of the CLP
gel permeation chromatography (GPC) cleanup procedure specified in the CLP. The
adsorption chromatography procedure was developed to remove more aliphatic
compounds from the extract than possible with the GPC procedure. The presence of
excessive amounts of aliphatic material would have required dilution of the
extracts prior to the gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) analysis and a
corresponding increase in the sample detection limit. The dilution would have
been necessary to protect the GC/MS from the samples having large amounts of
aliphatic compounds (particularly the land treatment samples which contain
considerable amounts of oil and grease).
2-7
-------
TABLE 2.3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR METALS
FUGITIVE PARTICIPATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
Metals Analysis
Sample Identity
Element
Alurainuni (AD
Antiaony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Bariuu (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadsiius (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co!
Copper (Cul
Iron (Fe!
Lead (Pb!
Manganese !hn)
Hercury (Hg)
Holybdenuo (Ho)
Nickel (Ni)
Ossiuffl (Os)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Thalliusi (Tl)
VanadiuB (V)
Zinc (Zn)
cyanide
Landfill Cell 11
Silt
S-637
iug/g)
11,500
17.1
21.3
883
<1
150
417
12.2
951
63,200
6,870
6,480
1.23
82.3
85.6
<1
4.8
18.1
. <2
61.9
41,800
1.23
PK10
S-639
(ug/g)
11,800
11.6
24.3
361
<1
170
465
12.2
1,060
63.500
7,746
6,690
1.50
92.0
86.2
<1
5.4
26.9
<2
59.5
47,700
1.93
>P«iO
S-641
(ug/g)
11,400
16.7
22.3
264
<1
149
429
8,4
956
'63,400
6,870
6,340
1.21
86.7
83.6
<1
5.4
17.0
<2
55.2
42,900
0.57
Stabili:ation
Silt
T-647
(ug/g)
11,100
4.0
14.8
202
<1
18.8
337
6.0
232
13,500
866
789
0.11
127
30.4
<1
1.7
11.5
<2
' 25.6
4,800
<0.5
PK10
T-649
(ug/g)
11,700
4.4
14.6
235
<1
20.5
432
• 6.2
262
14,700
1,012
928
0.30
141
39.2
<1
1.2
14.7
<2
24.9
5,100
<0.5
Area 17
>P«10
T-651
(ug/g)
"11,900
4.2
16.1
214
<1
19.4
337
6.0
243
14,600
926
819
0.16
139
30.3
<1
1.4
10.3
<2
27.6
5,200
<0.5
Land Treatiaent
Silt
U-654
(ug/g!
10,600
0.9
7.9
276
(1
<1
90.6
4.2
59.0
9,500
33.0
265
0.85
<2
8.3
<1
1.0
<2
<2
33.9
104
<0.5
PM10
U-656
13,900
0.8
12.5
344
<1
<1
206
8.4
92.8
12,700
45.7
356
2.02
<2
19.8
<1
<0.5
<2
<2
45.4
193
<0.5
118-121
>P«!0
U-657
11,000
0.5
7.4
266
<1
<1
74.7
4.1
52.0
9,200
22.2
257
0.59
2.1
13.8
<1
<0.5
<2
<2
33.3
99.3
<0.5
R32-R35
Silt.
V-661
10,300
0.7
10.7
280
<1
<1
93.1
4.2
80. S
9,500
36.7
256
1.09
<2
13.9
<1
0.5
<2
<2
29.2
454
<0.5
Roadway
Silt
W-668
13.300
1.4
10.1
OST
L-J-J
(1
18.4
109
5.2
196
14,800
630
671
0.28
6.6
23.7
<1
0.8
<2
<2
43.5
3,590
-
Background
Silt
BGD-644
12,500
<0.5
8.3
374
<1
<1
19.2
6.2
28.5
9,700
30.7
276
<0.1
<2
9.36
<1
<0.5
<2
<2
31.8
55.5
-
2-8
-------
TABLE 2.4. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
Organic Analysis
Sample Identity
Semi volatile Compound
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(l;)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-hethylnapthalene
2-Hethylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Saople Detection Liait
Landfill Cell 11
Silt
S-636
(ug/g)
N.D.
32.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
12.0 J
25.0 J
54.0 J
N.D.
120
N.D.
N.D.
31.0 J
150
60.0 J
44.0 J
62.1
PH10
S-638
(ug/g)
N.D.
32.0
13.0 J
4.4 J
N.D.
N.D.
6.4 J
18. 0 J
18.0 J
62.0
N.D.
62.0
N.D.
N.D.
9.4 J
140
30.0
59.0
19.6
>PH10
S-640
(ug/g)
N.D.
26.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
11.0 J
N.D.
39.0 J
N.D.
89.0
N.D.
N.D.
17.0 J
120
43.0
34.0 J
39.6
Stabilization
Area 17
Silt
1-646
(ug/g)
21.0
20.0
3.1 J
N.D.
N.D.
1.3 J
N.D.
3.9 J
14.0
23.0
5.3 J
30.0
0.7 J
2.3 J
27.0
50.0
N.D.
18.0
5.0
PH10
T-648
(ug/g)
25.0
29.0
4.5
N.D.
N.D. '
N.D.
N.D.
5.7
N.D.
23.0
14.0
31.0
N.D.
N.D.
14.0
36.0
3.0 J
21.0
3.8
Land Treataent
118-121
Silt
U-653
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
6.4 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.2 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
22.0 J
N.D.
8.5 J
26.4
PM10
U-656
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
14.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
5.6 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
46.0
N.D.
18.0 J
46.2
Cells
R32-R35 Roadway Background
Silt
V-660
(ug/g)
N.D.
7.2
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.-5 J
0.44 J
N.D.
N.D.
18.0
N.D.
N.D.
2.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
1.9 J
4.0
Silt
ti-667
(ug/g)
1.2 J
1.1 J
1.1 J
N.D.
1.3 J
N.D.
N.D.
3.3 J
1.7 J
12.0
2.4 J
1.4 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
22.0
N.D.
7.7
3.3
Silt
BBD-643
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.33
N.D. - Less than the saaple's quantifiable detection lieit
J. = Estimated value where the conpound Beets the spectral criteria
but the result is less than the quantifiable Halt.
2-9
-------
For the background sample no dilution (as determined by GC/flame ionization
detection) was required prior to the GC/MS analysis. None of the CLP Hazardous
Substance List (HSL) semivolatile compounds were detected in the background
sample (see Table 2.4). Determinations of the oil and grease content were
conducted on aliquots of two samples (numbers BGD-670 and BGD-671). The oil
and grease content of these two samples averaged <0.05 percent expressed on a
dry weight basis (see Table 2.5).
With the exception of the use of the adsorption chromatography cleanup
procedure, all procedures followed the Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2.2 LANDFILL CELL #1 (PROCESS S)
Cell #1 in the Landfill (Process S) was sampled using the scooping
technique. A sampling grid was laid out and eight randomly selected cells were
sampled. The weight loss on drying determined on aliquots of each sample
averaged 16.62 percent by weight (see Table 2.2). Following drying by
desiccation for 24 hours, the eight samples were screened for silt content
which averaged 12.7 percent by weight.
"^ The silt separated from the samples was sonic sieved for PM1f. content which
averaged 40.58 percent by weight of the silt. Portions of each of the three
fractions (silt, >PMin, and PM1f)) produced from the combined silt sample from
the landfill were analyzed for metals and cyanide by RTI and semivolatile
organics and pesticides by PEL All three fractions were analyzed to determine
if the degree of contamination was less or greater in the PM-,0 fraction
(particle size dependent).
The analytical results for metals and semivolatile organics are shown in
Tables 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. The concentrations measured for the
2-10
-------
TABLE 2.5. SUMMARY OF OIL AND GREASE ANALYSIS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
Process
ID
Process
Description
Site
Oil and
Grease
U Land Treatment,118-121
V Land Treatment,R32-35
BGD Background Sample
USPCI, Toole, Utah
USPCI, Toole, Utah
USPCI, Toole, Utah
Process
ID
Sample
Description
Site
Total Repeatability
0 Oil&Grease 0-rrl Comp
0 Oil&Grease O-rrl Comp
Analytical Repeatability
0 Oil&Grease 0-rrl Comp
0 Oil&Grease 0-rrl Comp
Sampling Reproducibility
0 Oil&Grease 0-rr4 Comp
O Mean of 0-rrl Comp
Performance Audit
BGD Spiked with 34 mg of paraffin oil
1.11%
3.71%
<0.05%
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY FOR OIL AND GREASE ANALYSIS
Oil and
Grease
6.94%
7.91%
Mean 7.43%
RPD 0.48%
7.91%
7.30%
RPD 0.30%
8.12%
7.43%
RPD 0.35%
Expected Found Recovery
0.39% 0.36% 92.3%
2-11
-------
background sample were not subtracted from the sample results. Like the
background silt sample, the Landfill Cell #1 samples were extracted by the
low-level method. The extracts were concentrated and cleaned using the LH-20
adsorption chromatography procedure. The silt sample extract was diluted a
total of 188-fold before the GC/MS analysis. Nine semivolatile organic
compounds were detected in the silt sample. Seven of these compounds met the
spectral criteria, but were below the quantifiable detection limit of 62.1
ug/gand the values reported are only an estimate. Phenathrene and
2-methylnapthalene were detected at levels above the quantifiable detection
limit.
In the PM10 fraction extract, which had been diluted a total of 59-9-fold,
twelve semivolatile organic compounds were detected. Anthracene, flouranthene,
2-methylnapthalene, phenathrene, phenol, and pyrene were found at levels above
the quantifiable detection limit of 19.6 ug/g. In the >PM1(-. fraction after a
120-fold dilution, eight semivolatile organics were detected with three
(2-methylnapthalene, phenathrene, and phenol) above the quantifiable detection
limit of 39-6 ug/g. No pesticides were detected in any of the samples.
With the exception of using the adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure
and diluting the extracts prior to the GC/MS analysis, all procedures followed
the Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2.3 STABILIZATION UNIT (PROCESS T)
The Stabilization Unit (Process T) was sampled using a grid layout. Seven
samples were collected within this grid in a random manner as described in
Chapter 4. The scoop sampling technique was employed. The average of the LOD
2-12
-------
measured for aliquots of each of the Stabilization Area samples was 28.06
percent (see Table 2.2). All the samples were dried by desiccating for 36
hours followed by oven-drying for 1 hour at 105 C. Each of the seven samples
(identification numbers T-611 through T-617) was screened for silt content
which averaged 6.0 percent silt by weight (see Table 2.2). The silt (sample
T-652) resulting from screening the Stabilization Unit samples was then sonic
sieved for PM10 content which averaged 32.95 percent by weight.
Portions of the three fractions (silt, >PM.n, and PM1(J produced from the
composite silt sample were anlayzed for metals and cyanide by RTI and
semivolatile organics and pesticides by PEL All three fractions were analyzed
to determine if the degree of contamination was less or greater in the PM1f.
fraction (particle size dependent). The results of these analyses are
presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The results are expressed in micrograms of
the metal or compound per gram of sample on a dry basis. The concentrations
measured for the background sample were not subtracted from the sample results.
As a cost saving measure, only the silt and PMin fractions were analyzed
for semivolatile organics and pesticides to determine the particle size
dependency of the degree of contamination. Like the background silt sample,
Stabilization Unit silt and PMin fractions were extracted by the low-level CLP
procedure. The extracts were concentrated and subjected to the adsorption
chromatography cleanup procedure. Prior to the GC/MS analysis, the silt
extract was diluted 15-fold and the PM _ extract was diluted 11.5-fold.
Fourteen semivolatile organic compounds were detected in the silt fraction.
Eight of these (acenapthene, anthracene, dibenzofuran, flouranthene,
2-methylnapthene, napthalene, phenathrene, and pyrene) were detected at
concentrations above the quantifiable detection limit of 5-0 ug/g. The other
2-13
-------
six compounds met the spectral criteria, but the concentration values reported
are estimates only. In the PMin fraction, eleven semivolatile HSL compounds
were detected. Acenapthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene,
flouranthene, flourene, 2-methylnapthene, napthalene, phenathrene, and pyrene
were all found at concentrations above the quantifiable detection limit of 3-8
ug/g. No pesticides were detected in either of the fractions.
With the exception of using the adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure
and diluting the extracts prior to the GC/MS analysis, all procedures followed
the Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2.4 LAND TREATMENT AREA, ROW MARKERS 118 to 121 (PROCESS U)
The area between row markers 118 and 121 in the Land Treatment Area
(Process U) was sampled using the scooping technique. A sampling grid was laid
out and eight randomly selected cells were sampled. The determination of the
oil and grease content was conducted on sample U-658 taken from Process U. The
oil and grease content of the sample was 1.11 percent expressed on a dry weight
basis (see Table 2.5). The average LOD measured for sample aliquots from this
process was 3-78 percent (see Table 2.2). All samples (U-6l8 through U-625)
were desiccated for 72 hours prior to screening. The resulting dried samples
were screened for silt content which averaged 12.8 percent by weight. The
composite silt sample separated from the samples (sample ID number U-659) was
sonic sieved for PM1f. content which averaged 20.40 percent by weight of the
silt.
Three fractions (silt, PM1Q. and >PM10) were produced from the combined
silt sample from Process U. Portions of each were sent to RTI for metals and
cyanide analyses. The three fractions were analyzed to determine
2-14
-------
the particle size dependency of the degree of contamination. As a cost saving
measure, only the silt and PM1f) fractions were analyzed for semivolatile
organics to determine the particle size dependency of the degree of
contamination. The results for the anlayses for metals and cyanide and
semivolatile organics are presented in Tables 2.3- and 2.4, respectively. The
analytical results for the background samples were not subtracted from the
sample results.
The silt and PMin fractions were prepared for organic analysis like the
background sample. The extracts were diluted 80- and 140-fold, respectively,
prior to the GC/MS analysis. All four of the compounds detected in the silt
fraction were below the quantifiable detection limit of 26.4 ug/g, which means
that the reported compounds were identified, but the magnitude of the results
are only an estimate. Of the four HSL compounds detected in the PM1f) fraction,
three were below and one (phenanthrene) was above the quantifiable detection
limit of 46.2 ug/g.
With the exception of using the adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure
and diluting the extracts prior to the GC/MS analysis, all procedures followed
the Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2.5 LAND TREATMENT AREA, ROW MARKERS R-32 TO R-35 (PROCESS V)
The area between row markers R-32 and R-35 in the Land Treatment Area
(Process V) was sampled using the scooping technique. A sampling grid was laid
out and eight randomly selected cells were sampled. The determination of the
oil and grease content was conducted on sample V-665 from Process V. The oil
and grease content measured was 3-71 percent expressed on a dry weight basis
(see Table 2.5). The average LOD measured for sample aliquots from this
2-15
-------
process was 6.12 percent (see Table 2.2). All samples (V-626 through V-633)
were dried prior to screening for silt content using desiccation for 36 hours
followed using oven drying at 105 C for 1 hour. The resulting dried samples
averaged 9-76 percent silt content by weight. The composite silt sample
separated from these samples (V-666) was sonic sieved for PMin content which
averaged 4.62 percent by weight.
Since the silt and PMin contents for this process were low and as a cost
saving measure, the decision was made not to produce PMin and >PM1(-, fractions
for the chemical analyses. Portions of the silt fraction were sent to RTI for
metals and cyanide analysis and PEI for semivolatile organics analysis.
The results are presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The analytical results for
the background samples were not subtracted from the values shown.
The silt fraction was prepared for the organics analysis like the
background sample. The extract was diluted 12-fold prior to the GC/MS
analysis. Of the six HSL semivolatile organic compounds detected in the silt
fraction sample, two (anthracene and 2-methynapthalene) were found at
concentrations above the quantifiable detection limit of 4.0 ug/g and four were
below the quantifiable detection limit (reported values are estimates only).
With the exception of using the adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure
and diluting the extracts prior to GC/MS analysis, all procedures followed the
Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2.6 UNPAVED ACCESS ROADS (PROCESS W)
Two segments of unpaved access roads at USPCI were sampled. These segments
were located (see Figure 4.1) (1) on the road leading from the office to the
2-16
-------
Landfill (sample W-63*J) and (2) on the access road to Landfill Cells #1 and #2
(sample M-635)• Both segments were sampled using the sweeping technique.
A brush was used to sweep loose particulate from a 8-foot strip across the
road for a distance of 2 feet. Two sample jars were filled with each sample.
The average LOD measured for the two samples was 1.63 percent (see Table 2.2).
Both samples were oven-dried for 1 hour at 105 C. After drying, the samples
were screened for silt content which averaged 16.0 and 7-9 percent by weight
for sample numbers W-634 and W-635t respectively (see Table 2.2). The silt
sample obtained from these samples was sonic sieved for PM.. ~ content which
averaged 40.56 percent by weight. Since a sufficient quantity of silt was not
obtained from the silt screening, PM1Q and >PMin fractions were not produced
for the analysis of the metals and semivolatile organics.
The results of metal and semivolatile organic analyses for the composite
silt sample are presented in Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The concentrations measured
for the background sample were not subtracted from the results for the unpaved
road silt sample. The silt sample was prepared for organic analysis like the
background sample and diluted 10-fold prior to GC/MS analysis. Four of the
semivolatile organic compounds (chrysene, flouranthene, phenathrene, and
pyrene) found in the silt sample were above the quantifiable detection limit of
3-3 ug/g. Seven HSL compounds were below the quantifiable detection limit
(i.e., the mass spectral criteria for these compounds were met for identifying
the compound, but the actual magnitude reported is only an estimated value).
With the exception of using the adsorption chromatography cleanup procedure
and diluting the extracts prior to GC/MS analysis, all procedures followed the
Sampling and Analysis Protocol.
2-17
-------
2.7 REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY
As discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 and Appendix C, additional samples
were collected in three of the sampled grid cells in Cell #1 of the Landfill
(Process S) for use in measuring the sampling and analysis repeatability and
reproducibility. The silt contents of these samples are presented in Table 2.2.
The results of the metals analysis for these samples are presented in Table
2.6. The values for sample S-924 appear to be out of line with the values for
the rest of the samples; since they are all 10 to 100 times less, it is possible
that the sample was not fully digested prior to analysis. Repeatability results
for semivolatile organics and pesticides are presented in Table 2.7- As a cost
saving measure and because few compounds were detected in the Process S samples
at two times the quantifiable detection limit, analysis for semivolatile organics
and pesticides were not conducted on the reproducibility samples.. A summary
report presenting the repeatability and reproducibility results over the entire
study will be completed at the end of the study.
2.8 CONCLUSIONS
No major problems were encountered during sample collection. It was felt
that the sampling program was successful in obtaining representative samples.
In the analyses of the samples, no problems were encountered in obtaining
silt content or determining PM1f. content. The results of the metals and cyanide
analyses are also believed to be accurate.
The only significant problem encountered during the analyses was the fact
that the samples contained a significant amount of organics not found on the
Hazardous Substances List. This prevented the semivolatile organics analyses
from being conducted at the level described in the CLP analytical protocol.
2-18
-------
TABLE 2.6. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY SAMPLES - METALS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
Saiple Identity
Eleaent
flluiinuB (Al)
Arsenic (As)
Bariui (Ba)
Berylliua (Be)
Cadaiua (Cd)
Chroiiui (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Seleniui (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Vanadiut (V)
Zinc (Zn)
cyanide
Br
RTI PEI
S-902 S-904
(ug/q) (ug/g)
16,500 13,420
16.0 14.3
385 401
<1 0.28
28.8 45.7
181 255
10.4 20.5
326 778
29,600 31,380
1,690 2,598
1,150 1,587
0.8 1.1
54.7 60.1
2.3 0.4
<2 5.3
62.7 38.3
7,760 13,680
<0.5 3.78
•id No.
RTI
S-908
(ug/g)
17,100
15.3
356
U
37.2
196
25.9
431
30,800
2,140
1,400
0.9
54.2
1.4
<2
56.5
8,947
<0.5
7
RTI PEI
S-909 S-910
(ug/g) (ug/g)
17,400 13,010
13.9 13.5
357 313
(1 0.18
37.9 32.4
207 141
13.7 17.7
435 344
31,900 22,540
2,124 1,600
1,380 1,130
0.9 1.0
55.6 45.3
1.5 <0.3
<2 2.3
58.6 33.7
7,010 B,060
0.72 2.77
RTI
S-912
(ug/g)
10,300
14.9
195
-------
TABLE 2.7. ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REPEATABILITY
SAMPLES - SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS AND PESTICIDES
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE FROM TSDF (85/12)
Organic Analysis
Saiple Identity
Seaivolatile Coitpound
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzoic Acid
8enzo(a)pyrene
BenzofbHluoranthene
6enzo(k)fluoranthene
8is(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzofuran
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-Methylnapthalene
2-Nethylphenol
4-Hethyl phenol
N-nitrosodiphenylaaine
•Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Sanple Detection Licit
Benzoic Acid
Other compounds listed
Pesticides
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Aroclor-1254
Saaple Detection Liait
4,4'-DOD and 4,4'-DDT
Aroclor-1254
Brid Cell t 7
S-901
Silt
(ug/g)
27.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
4.1 J
20.0 J
10.0 J
28.0 J
310.0
N.D.
N.D.
28.0 J
59.0
120.0
N.D.
12.0 J
N.D.
(ug/g)
152.3
31.4
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.87
8.73
S-905
Silt
(ug/g)
12.0 J
3.1 J
2.2 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
7.0 J
3.5 J
16.0 J
170.0
N.D.
N.D.
14.0 J
30.0
66.0
N.D.
4.6 J
N.D.
(ug/g)
89.0
18.3
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
5.28
(ug/g)
0.32
3.20
S-906
Silt
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
9.8 J
4.7 J
N.D.
240.0
N.D.
N.D.
18.0 J
38.0
76.0
N.D.
6.6 J
N.D.
(ug/g)
151.7
31.3
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
9.09
(ug/g)
0.87
B.73
Grid Cell 1
S-911
Silt
(ug/g)
38.0
36.0
7.7 J
N.D.
N.D.
4.4 J
N.D.
N.D.
12.0 J
27.0
4B.O
19.0
83.0
N.D.
14.0 J
5.7 J
39.0
113.0
56.0
4.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
88.0
18.2
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.53
5.33
S-9,15
Silt
(ug/g)
27.0
22.0
5.3
N.D.
1.3 J
N.D.
3.0
N.D.
7.8
23.0
18.0
9.9
120.0
2.1 J
8.6
N.D.
35.0
N.D.
74.0
16.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
12.0
2.5
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.74
7.38
8
S-916
Silt
(ug/g)
22.0
35.0
5.9
N.D.
1.5 J
N.D.
3.6 J
6.4
9.0
21.0
25.0
13.0
130.0
2.8 J
10.0
N.D.
47.0
110.0
96.0
23.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
18.2
3.8
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
1.12
11.16
Brid Cell 1 24
S-921
Silt
(ug/g)
28.0
37.0
7.6
N.D.
2.2 J
4.5
N.D.
N.D.
11.0
29.0
19.0
15.0
100.0
3.6
13.0
18.0
25.0
55.0
370.0
18.0
1.1 J
(ug/g)
12.2
2.5
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.74
7.38
S-925
Silt
(ug/g)
21.0
16.0
5.2
1.6 J
1.5 J
7 T
•J» L
N.D.
N.D.
8.0
18.0
15.0
11.0
62.0
3.0
9.8
7.1
18.0
16.0
140.0
13.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
8.0
1.7
(ug/g)
0.21 J
3.60
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.48
4.80
S-926
Silt
(ug/g)
30.0
30.0
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
8.7
19.0
37.0
13.0
67.0
N.D.
N.D.
6.7
26.0
100.0
160.0
33.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
120.0
24.8
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
0.69
6.86
N.D. = Less than the saaple's quantifiable detection Unit
J. = Estimated value where the compound meets the spectral criteria but the result is lee than the quantifiable liait.
2-20
-------
Because of the high concentrations of organics, an alternative sample cleanup
procedure was used on the samples to remove these organics. The cleanup
procedure used on the semivolatile organic sample extracts appeared to have
little effect on the samples from this site. However, the detection limits for
these samples were believed to be the lowest levels practical for the analysis
of HSL semivolatile compounds by GC/MS.
2-21
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
At this facility sampling was undertaken for five processes. The term
"process" refers to a likely source of potentially contaminated fugitive
particulate emissions within a facility. The processes sampled included:
a. Landfill cell No. 1;
b. Stabilization unit;
c. Land treatment area No. 2 (two sets of samples); and
d. Unpaved road segments at two locations within the facility.
The following process descriptions are based upon the information provided
by the facility as well as observations made during the course of the
survey/sampling effort.
3.1 LANDFILL (CELL NO. 1)
The facility has been in operation for about 3.5 years. Two landfill
cells (cell Nos. 1 and 2) are currently used for disposal of hazardous
wastes; a third cell (cell X) is under construction and will be used for
disposal of wastes containing PCBs. At the time of survey, disposal in
cell No. 1 was approaching design capacity with the active surface at or
slightly above the height of the retaining berms. In cell No. 2 ^ 5% of
the design capacity (100,000 cubic yards) had been used.
Principal wastes and approximate quantities placed into landfill cell
No. 1 during the period January through August 1985, are shown below.
EPA Hazardous Quantity
Waste No. (tons) Description
F006 212 Wastewater treatment (WWT) sludge
from electroplating operations
K048 133 Dissolved air flotation (DAF)
float
K049 1,594 Slop oil emulsion solids
K050 25 Heat exchanger bundle sludge
K001 5,790 Sludge from WWT in wood preserving
processes that use creosote or
pentachlorophenol (PCP)
3-1
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
K051
K052
K061
U051
Quantity
(tons)
520
130
813
6,980
Description
API separator sludge
Tank bottoms (leaded)
Electric arc furnace (EAF)
dust
Cresote
The principal equipment types, functions, and approximate level of
activity for the landfill operation are summarized below.
Equipment (commercial
designation if available)
Bulldozer (John Deere 750)
Track loader (Cat 977)
Front-end loaders (John
Deere 644C)
Skip loader (Sperry New
Holland) (Melroe Bobcat)
Function
Used to spread material in
landfill cells.
Used to move material in
landfill cells.
As above. Also used to
transfer drums from drum
dock to landfill.
Used to unload palletized
drums or boxes. Also used
to transfer drums.
Activitv Units
Plant estimate—4 hr/day.
Equipment working in cell
No. 2 during survey.
Plant estimate—4 hr/day.
Bucket capacity--5 yd3.
Bucket capacity--3.5 yd3.
No estimates of activity
available.
Note that the loaders are not dedicated for exclusive use in the landfill.
3.2 STABILIZATION UNIT
At the time of survey, the stabilization unit was located directly
adjacent to landfill cell No. 1. This unit consists of a single oil field
mix bin with dimensions 7 x 40 x 5 ft. Fly ash is used as the primary
stabilizing agent. The material has 30 to 40% available lime.
During the site visit the stabilization unit received liquid wastes in
containers (55 gal. drums); according to facility personnel tank trucks
also are used to place liquid wastes directly into the mix bin. As "typical"
figures, the process handles about 4,000 gal/day. The liquid wastes is
3-2
-------
mixed on a 1:1 basis (presumably wt/wt) with the fly ash material. The
stabilization process produces about 25 tons/day of stabilized material.
The principal equipment types, functions, and approximate level
activity for the stabilization unit are summarized below.
of
Equipment (commercial
designation if available)
Excavator (Mitsubishi)
Front-end loaders (John
Deere 644C)
Skip loaders (Sperry New
Holland) (Melroe Bobcat)
Function
Dual functions include
mixing of material in
bin and load-out of
material into temporary
piles.
Dual functions include
drum transfer and
load-in of stabilizing
agent.
Drum transfer
Activity Units
Bucket capacity—5/8 yd3
No activity estimate
available.
No estimate available.
As an intermediate step in the stabilization process, bulk liquid
wastes may be placed in one of five storage tanks (individual capacity—
16,000 gal.), and later transferred to the stabilization unit for processing.
Principal wastes and approximate quantities placed in the storage tanks dur-
ing the period January through August 1985, are shown below. Two points
should be noted:
1. It was not determined whether these -figures are exclusive to
those provided for ultimate treatment and disposal units (i.e.,
landfill or land treatment); and
2. Roughly 30% of the material in the tanks eventually is directed
to the stabilization process.
EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
F006
K001
K048
Quantity
(gal.)
13,707
8,944
116,167
Description
WWT sludge from electroplating
operations.
WWT sludge in wood preserving
processes that use creosote or
PCP.
DAF float.
3-3
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste No.
K049
K051
Quantity
(gal.)
36,667
120,662
Description
Slop oil emulsion solids.
API separator sludge.
3.3 LAND TREATMENT (CELL NO. 2)
The facility has 206 acres dedicated for land treatment; the area is
divided into four distinct cells as follows:
Cell No.
1
2
Area (acres)
33.5
60
60
33.5
Description
First cell used, over-til ling may
have damaged soil structure.
Cell currently used for hazardous
waste.
Designated for treatment of non-
listed wastestreams.
During survey observed application
of nonlisted wastes to this area.
The land treatment unit is managed with reference to individual rows within
a given treatment cell. Each row has nominal width of 15 to 17 ft. All
sampling was performed in cell No. 2 where row length is ^ 1,300 ft.
The principal equipment types, functions, and approximate level of
activity for the land treatment unit are summarized below.
Equipment (commercial
designation if available)
Two farm tractors (CASE
2090, Ford 7700) with
implements:
1. 2 liquid manure
spreaders
2. rototiller (12 ft)
3. disc harrow (12 ft)
Function
Manure spreaders used to
apply high liquid content
oily wastes to treatment
unit. Rototiller and
harrow used for incor-
poration and subsequent
cultivation.
Activity Units
Manure spreader—2,000
gal. capacity. Appli-
cation, cultivation '
schedules variable.
Range appears to be
1-5 months. Typically,
I pass for initial in-
corporation. Attempt to
minimize subsequent cul-
tivation to retain soil
structure, however, do
break-up noticeable sur-
face crusts.
3-4
-------
General operating procedures for the treatment unit involve:
a. initial application of wastes by the manure spreader; spray pat-
tern has nominal 8 to 10 ft width;
b. incorporation of waste into the surface to a depth of 6 to 8 in.
within 1 to 2 days of the application; and
c. subsequent tillage at a frequency which will maintain aerated
conditions yet not damage the soil structure.
Principal wastes and approximate quantities directed to land treatment
cell No. 2 for the period January through August 1985, are shown below.
EPA Hazardous Quantity
Waste No. (gal.) Description
K048 67,467 • DAF float.
K049 436,496 Slop oil emulsion solids.
K051 72,747 API separator sludge.
Facility personnel indicated that roughly 70% of the liquid wastes
placed in the storage tanks (previously cited) are eventually directed to
the land treatment unit. In addition, a surface impoundment is also used
for intermediate storage of liquid wastes that are eventually directed to
the land treatment unit.
Because land is not a limiting factor for the facility's land treatment
operation, it appears that the loadings on a per row basis are relatively
light. Facility supplied figures indicate < 5% oil (wt/wt basis) per appli-
cation. Application frequency appears to vary between 1 and 5 months. Land
treatment activity does show some sensitivity to seasonal climate variations;
specifically, activity tends to decrease in the winter due to frozen surface
conditions.
As noted earlier, two sets of samples were taken from land treatment
cell No. 2. The samples represent two different points in time after ap-
plication. Samples from rows 32 to 34 represent conditions about 5 days
after application; samples from rows 118 to 120 represent conditions about
30 days after application. In all cases, the application loading was
2,000 gal/row; K051 was the waste stream app-lied most recently to all sam-
ples.
3.4 UNPAVED ROADWAYS
In addition to samples from the landfill, stabilization, and land
treatment processes, unpaved road samples were also collected from two
points within the facility. One sample was collected from the major access
3-5
-------
roadway which carries traffic to both landfill cells, the stabilization unit,
as well as the storage tanks, surface impoundment and drum dock. As a gross
estimate, traffic volume at the sample point probably exceeds 100 vehicles
passes per day. The second sample was collected on the roadway which ser-
vices landfill cell No. 1 and the stabilization unit. Estimated traffic
volume on the roadway is on the order of 50 vehicle passes per day.
3-6
-------
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
This chapter outlines the procedures used for (1) the sampling conducted at
USPCI and (2) the analysis of the samples collected. Included are descriptions
of the location of each process sampled and the sampling grid for sample
collection. Sample handling, preparation, and/or analysis specific to this
facility or any process therein are described in detail. Any deviations from
the standard sampling and analysis procedures (see Appendix C) are discussed.
Five processes were sampled at USPCI: (1) Landfill Cell #1, (2) the
Stabilization Unit; (3) Land Treatment Area II, Row Markers 118 to 121; (4)
Land Treatment Area II, Row Markers R-32 to R-35; and (5) two segments of
unpaved access roads within the facility. The samples from each of these
processes were analyzed for weight loss on drying (LOD), silt and PMin content,
metals, cyanide, and semivolatile organics. The samples from the Landfill Cell
#1 and the Stabilization Unit were also analyzed for pesticides and those from
the land treatment area and the background samples were also analyzed for oil
and grease content. A tabular presentation of the sampling plan for USPCI
which specifies the number and types of samples and the locations at which they
were collected can be found in Chapter 2 (see Table 2.1). The subsections that
follow further describe the sampling locations, sampling grid schemes, and
applicable sampling and analytical procedures.
4.1 SITE PLOT PLAN
Figure 4.1 shows the site plot plan for the waste disposal facilities at
USPCI's Grassy Mountain Facility in Toole, Utah. The locations of the
4-1
-------
USPCI GRASSY MOUNTAIN FACILITY
(O ^
CO
c
-s
fD
-P»
cr 1/1
tu -••
O r*
7^" fO
in
-s -a
. o — •
c o
3 r+
a.
T3
Qi — '
3 0»
Q. 3
T 0
0 -h
tu
OL. d
GO
to -a
Q> O
3 ^->
~3
ro 3
to
-H
r+ O
OJ O
fb ft)
3 »
<=.
rt-
3-
i/»
3-
o
_J.
3
0
O
O)
o
3
in
O
-+i
• i » »
'BGD ' tow- 7 '
(••* » .
LANDFILL
CELL #2
LANDFILL"""
CELL #1
INDUSTRIAL
CELL : —
(NONREGULAf
MATERIALS)
• i "
(••I I -
wifxsi.n |-|—
fmr.< EC t n i T s I - 1 -
_ . !': fc" Z.
f
i
—
;D
bampie
,,,X x
.' - * \
.— ;: ;-..*
~i
i
* — ..
^- -—
•««*
If
l~*—***^
MW-5O
V^'
T-a1 ' •«.
Y
MW-6
1
/
\
*£rl'j) JW-634!
; sv \ '
^
*-t
H
AR
\\
-xOJt- [
E
—
y —
q
|4hpVT1B
rT^« i
/f/
\\
f*j r
MW-3
:A ii
AREA
V f 7Ii.~'»
III
%^ I
^L
i ?T::
'W-63
e«
>».»«
I 1 MW-2 (UPGRADIENT)
^ ::.r.r.~
OF
1
FICE
CEL
PCB
1 Ah
LAIN
AREA
AREA
L X
nni i
Ur ILL
\.
I
IV
V
^
-T^.\
•••• b
fT)
s*=^ MW-1
. ..,,.,,.._
».^.«. «-.
fe"-
6
kW*^
,-.M.
-•••. •
..... . StCI10ILAttIM!.UAUUCL.tUI)CAJIP>!
iicitDnjouiiirjCAUQri DUAiLjouiiirr-'
-.., . ....... .. - i .
::;::.v."-" -..
^XUU^^ -.UM^f
*»
^- t<*1 1^4 £•*.*• "^^
;....,- N
* rrrrL-rc-jrrr •
.___
(UPG'RADIENT)
VAUGHN MANSEN ASSOCI/VTr.S. INC. usrui OR.JST uou»,..- ..<-.v
CONSUIIAHIS / IMGINttHS
-------
landfill, land treatment areas, and unpaved road segments sampled are shown on
this site plot plan. Pertinent topographical features, both natural and
man-made, are also shown.
4.2 LANDFILL CELL #1 (PROCESS S)
Landfill Cell #1 (Process S) is located southwest of the USPCI facility
office with Landfill Cell #2 (see Figure 4.1). The shape of Cell #1 was
rectangular with dimensions of 225 by 325 feet.
Based on these dimensions, MRI designated that the sampling grid for
Process S be a 225 x 325 foot rectangle having 25-foot square grid cells. The
sampling grid was then laid out using surveyors stakes and tape. The grid
cells were numbered starting in the northeast corner of Cell #1 as shown in
Figure 4.2.
MRI directed that eight grid cells be sampled; a random number table was
used to select the specific grid cells for sampling (see Appendix C). Four of
the grid cells selected (#103, #71, #10, and #5) were rejected by MRI for
various reasons (see Appendix C) and the next random numbers generated were
used to substitute other cells in their place.
MRI determined that for the sample collection, the scooping technique would
be used at this process. Within each cell, a sampling template was randomly
tossed four times. The sample from each cell consisted of four soil aliquots
taken inside the areas defined by the template. The eight samples taken were
numbered S-601 through S-608. Figure 4.2 shows the grid layout and the cell
from which each sample was taken.
Portions of each of the samples from this process were first analyzed for
weight loss on drying (LOD) by drying for 12 to 16 hours in a 105 C oven.
-------
225'
325'
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
2
11
20
29
38
47
56
65
74
83
92
101
110
3
12
21
30
39
48
57
66
75
84
93
102
111
4
13
22
31
40
49
58
67
76
85
94
103
112
5
14
(5)
S-602
32
41
50
59
68
77
86
55
^)
S-608
113
6
15
(*)
S-603
33
V?)
S-604
51
60
69
78
87
%
105
114
©
S-601
16
25
34
43
52
61
(TO)
S-606
79
88
®
S-607
106
115
8
17
26
35
44
(5)
S-605
62
71
80
89
98
107
116
18
27
36
45
54
63
72
81
90
99
108
"'.
325'
225'
25'
25'
SCALE: 0.02" =T
FIGURE 42. SAMPLMG GRD, PROCESS DMENSBNS, AND SAMPLE NUMBERS
FOR LANDFLL CELL *1 AT USPCI (PROCESS S).
4-4
-------
All samples from Process S were dried by desiccation for 2k hours (see Table 4.1)
They were then screened for percent silt content (see Appendix C for a complete
explanation of sample handling during these analyses).
TABLE 4.1. SAMPLE DRYING PROCEDURE SUMMARY
Sample Process
ID Description Drying Procedure
S - Landfill, Cell #1 Desiccated for 24 hours
BCD Background Samples Oven dried at 105°C for 1 hou
T Stabilization Area, #7 Desiccated for 36 hours followed
by 1 hour of oven drying at 105°C
U Land Treatment, 118-121 Desiccated for 72 hours
V Land Treatment, R32-R35 Desiccated for 46 hours followed by
1 hour of oven drying at 105 C
W Roadway Oven dried at 105 for 1 hour
S-R&R Landfill, Cell #1 Desiccated for 43 hours followed by
1 hour of oven drying at 105°C
The screening techniques described in Appendix C were used to make a
composite sample of silt. The silt was then sonic sieved to measure PM1f)
content of the silt. Material passing through a 20 urn sonic sieve constituted
the PM1(-. fraction. The portion of the silt fraction that did not pass through
this sieve was referred to as the "greater than PM '' (>PM1Q) fraction. The
silt composite was used to produce silt, PM..Q, and >PM1Q fractions for chemical
analysis.
Portions of the three fractions (silt, PM1Q, and >PM1Q) from the samples
collected from Process S were sent to RTI for metals and cyanide analysis. The
procedures used for analysis of the metals followed the methods outlined in the
EPA publication, "Testing Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste," SW-846. The
metals measured and the detection limits for the analytical methods used
4-5
-------
are shown in Table 4.2. Samples for analysis of all metals except mercury (Hg)
were prepared by acid digestion using EPA Method 3050 (SW-846) . Mercury
samples were prepared and analyzed by the cold vapor atomic absorption
procedure following EPA Method 7471 (SW-846) . Two modifications were used in
the final dilutions of the digestates. The samples for inductively-coupled
argon plasmography (ICAP) determination by EPA Method 6010 and furnace atomic
absorption determination of antimony (Sb) by EPA Method 7041 were diluted to
achieve a final concentration of 5% HC1. The sample digestates for arsenic
(As) determination by EPA Method 7060, for selenium (Se) determination by EPA
Method 7740, and for thallium (Tl) determination were diluted to achieve a
final concentration of 0.5% nitric acid.
Cyanide determinations were done by colormetric measurement following EPA
Method 335-3 found in "Methods for the Evaluation of Water and Wastewater,"
EPA-600/4-79-020. The analyses for metals and cyanide were performed without
any problems.
Portions of the composite samples of the silt, PM-n, and >PMin fractions
were sent to PEI; these were analyzed for the semi volatile organic compounds
listed in Table 4.3 and the pesticides listed in Table 4.4. The fractions were
prepared for analysis of semivolatile organics and pesticides following the
low-level concentration extraction method detailed in the U.S. EPA Contract
Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, 7/85 Revision
s
(referred to as the CLP in this report) . The extracts were screened by gas
chromatography with a flame ionization detector (GC/FID) and found to contain
over 20 ug/g of organic compounds. The extracts were then transfered to
Triangle Laboratories for cleanup by an adsorption chromatography method which
was developed to reduce the amount of sample dilution necessary to
protect the gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) . The extracts were concen-
trated and 200 mg portions were removed. The 200 mg portions were redissolved
4-6
-------
TABLE 4.2. METALS, MEASUREMENT METHODS, AND DETECTION LIMITS*
Element
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic** (As)
Barium** (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium** (Cd)
Chromium** (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead** (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury** (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Osmium (Os)
Selenium** (Se)
Silver** (Ag)
Thallium (Tl)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Detection Limits (ug/g)*
ICAP*** GFAA*** Cold Vapor i
*7c n - _____
75. (J
0.05
01
. J.
0.3
01 _____
. J. _— __ _
01
. i — — — —
0.3
0.5
2.0
75-0
0.3
0.1
Om
. Ul
0.2
1 ? _____
x.^ _____
0.1
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.1
Detection limits were calculated as three times the standard deviation of
the values measured for compounds at or near the suspected detection limit
in the background sample. For compounds not detected in the background
sample, the detection limits were calculated as three times the standard
deviation of the background noise. Fe, Mgr, and Al detection limits were
determined using low level standards as three times the standard deviation
of the values measured.
*«
***
Eight RCRA metals
t
ICAP = Inductively-Coupled Argon Plasmography
GFAA = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption •
AA = Atomic Absorption
4-7
-------
TABLE 4.3. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOR ANALYSIS
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ANTHRACENE
BENZO (a) ANTHRACENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZO (a) PYRENE
BENZO (ghi) PERYLENE
BENZO (b) FLUORANTHENE
BENZO (k) FLUORANTHENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS (2-ETHYHEXYL) PHTHALATE
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
CHRYSENE
DIBENZO (a,h) ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
1,2 DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3 DICHLOROBENZENE
1;4 DICHLOROBENZENE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
DIETHYLPHTHALATE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
INDENO(l,2,3-cd) PYBENE
ISOPHORONE
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
NAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
3-NITROANILINE
4-NITROANILINE
NITROBENZENE
(Continued)
4-8
-------
TABLE 4.3- (continued)
2-NITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PYRENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
in methanol/methylene chloride (1:1) and chromatographed on Sephadex LH-20.
For the silt, PMin. and >PMin fractions, the cleanup procedures used only 13,
17, and 8.5 percent of the original samples, respectively. These percentages
resulted in 7-7~» 5-9". and 11.7-fold dilutions, respectively.
The cleaned extracts were returned to PEI and screened again by GC/FID.
Based on the results of the screening, the silt, PMIO. and >PMlf) samples were
diluted another 25- , 10-, and 10- fold, respectively, to protect the gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) . The cumulative dilutions of 188- ,
59-9-, and 120-fold raised the samples' quantifiable detection limits for
semi volatile organics to 62.1, 19-6, and 39-6 ug/g, respectively. For the
pesticides analysis, all the extracts (silt, PM.., and >PM10) were diluted
6-fold prior to GC/MS analysis resulting in cumulative dilutions of 46-, 35-,
and 70- fold, respectively.
4.3 STABILIZATION UNIT (PROCESS T)
The Stabilization Unit (Process T) was located in Land Treatment Area I at
USPCI (see Figure 4.1). The shape of the process approximated a rectangle with
dimensions of 30 by 70 feet (see Figure 4.3).
4-9
-------
TABLE 4.4. PESTICIDES FOR ANALYSIS
Number
Compounds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ALDRIN
Alpha - BHC
Beta - BHC
Delta - BHC
Gamma - BHC
CHLORDANE
4, 4 '-ODD
4, 4 '-DDE
4,4' -DDT
DIELDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
ENDRIN KETONE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
METHOXYCLOR
TOXAPHENE
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
_r PCB 1260
4-10
-------
CRAWLER
BACKHOE
MIXMG
TROUGH
10'
30'
TYPICAL CELL
N
t
SCALE: 0.03- =f
FBURE AZ. SAMPLM6 GRD, PROCESS DI^NSIOHS, AND SAMPLE MfCERS FOR
STABLEATIQN UNIT (LAND TREATMENT AREA 0 AT USPCI (PROCESS T).
•4-11
-------
Based on these dimensions, MRI decided that the area was too small for
random grid cell sampling, so the unit was divided into 7 equal rectangular
grid cells (10* by 30') and all were sampled. The sampling grid cells were
numbered from north to south (see Figure 4.3).
Because this process involved a disturbed surface, MRI decided that it
would be sampled using the scooping technique (see Appendix C) . As for
Process S, the sampling template was randomly tossed four times within each
cell sampled. The sample from each cell consisted of four soil aliquots taken
inside the areas defined by the template. The seven samples taken were
numbered T-611 through T-6l7> Figure 4.3 shows the grid layout and the cell
from which each sample was taken. The mixing trough and the crawler backhoe
areas were not sampled.
An aliquot of each of the samples was analyzed for weight loss on drying
(LOD) by drying for 12 to 16 hours in an oven at 105 C. Later, all samples
were desiccated for 36 hours and then dried in an oven at 105 C for 1 hour.
Following drying, the samples were screened and sieved for percent silt content
and percent PM10 content (see Appendix C for specifics of sample handling
during each of these analyses).
Portions of the silt, PMin, and >PMin fractions from this process were
submitted to RTI for metals and cyanide analysis and portions of the silt and
PMlf) fractions only, were submitted to PEI for analysis of semi volatile
organics and pesticides. As a cost saving measure, the >PM10 fraction was not
analyzed for semivolatile organics and pesticides since the particle size
dependency of the degree of contamination will be determined using only the
concentration values for the silt and PM.,0 fractions.
All fractions were analyzed for metals and prepared for semivolatile
organics and pesticides analysis as described previously for the samples from
4-12
-------
Process S. For the silt and PM._ extracts, the cleanup procedures resultedin
dilutions of 15- and 11.5" fold, respectively. Based on the results of the
GC/FID screening after the extracts were returned to PEI, the silt and PM.._
samples did not require further dilution to protect the GC/MS. The cumulative
dilutions of 15- and 11.5-fold raised the samples' quantifiable detection limits
for the semivolatile organics to 5«'0 and 3-8 ug/g, respectively. The silt and
PM1(- extracts for pesticides analysis were both diluted 6-fold prior to GC/MS
analysis resulting in cumulative dilutions of 90- and 68-fold, respectively.
4.4 LAND TREATMENT AREA, ROW MARKERS 118 TO 121 (PROCESS U)
The portion of Land Treatment Area II designated Process U was a long, narrow
strip between row markers 118 and 121 (see Figures 4.1 and 4.4). The Process U
boundaries were a rectangle with dimensions of 45 by 1350 feet. Based on the
process shape and dimensions, the sampling grid was laid out in a one grid wide
strip with the typical grid cell being a 45 X 50 foot rectangle (see Figure 4.5).
The twenty-seven grid cells were numbered from south to north.
MRI determined that eight grid cells would be sampled. A random number
table was used to select the grid cells for sampling (Appendix C) and no
selected cells were eliminated.
MRI determined that for the sample collection, the scooping technique would
be used at this process (see Appendix C). Within each cell, the sampling
template was randomly tossed four times. As_for Process S, the sample from each
cell consisted of the four soil aliquots (two scoops each) taken from inside the
areas defined by the template. The eight samples were numbered U-618 through
U-625. Figure 4.5 shows each sample and the corresponding grid cell from which
it was taken.
4-13
-------
1350'
1800*
. PROCESSU
(50'xlSSO1)
PROCESS V_
(30'x 1350')
LAND TREATMENT AREA II
r
1350'
1
2000'
SCALE: 1"" 333.33'
FIGURE 4.4. DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF PROCESSES U AND V IN LAND TREATMENT AREA II AT USPCI.
-------
45'*
U-625
U-624
U-623
U-622
U-621
U-620
U-619
U-618
45'*
27
25
24
@
22
21
®
19
18
17
<§)
®
14
13
il
©
10
®
7
6
5
4
®
(D
1
•
i
1350'*
N
i k
-
TYPICAL «SCALE : NOT TO SCALE; 27 CELLS TOTAL
CELL
FIGURE 45. SAMPLNG GRD, SAMPLMG DfCNSKMS, AND SAMPLE NUMBERS FOR PROCESS U
M LAND TREATMENT AREA II (ROV MARKERS 118 TO 121) AT USPCI.
4-15
-------
Oil and grease analysis was performed on a sample from Process U. The oil
and grease analysis was performed following Method 503 D, Extraction Method for
Sludge Samples, found in Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste
Water, 1985, l6th Ed. The method involved acidifying the sample with
concentrated HC1 followed by drying the acidified sample by mixing the sample
with an equal weight of anhydrous magnesium sulfate. The soil mixture was
extracted with Freon TF, 1,1,2-trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane, in a Soxhlet
extraction apparatus. The weight of the extracted residue was determined after
distilling the solvent and drying the residue. The loss-on-drying (LOD) was
determined on the soil composites to calculate the oil and grease as a percent
of dry solids. The following formula was used for the calculation:
% Oil and Grease = Weight of Residue x 100 %
Corrected Dry Weight of Soil Sample
The quality assurance (QA) for the oil and grease analysis used repeat-
ability and reproducibility (R&R) samples. A soil composite was made from three
R&R samples collected by the primary sampler at one site. Duplicate aliquots of
the primary soil composite were analyzed separately for oil and grease. By
comparison of the results from the duplicate oil and grease analysis, the degree
of repeatability for the total system was determined.
A second soil composite was made from thcpe of the R&R samples collected by
the secondary sampler from the same site. An aliquot of the secondary soil
composite was analyzed for oil and grease content. By comparing the average oil
and grease value for -the primary soil composite with the oil and grease value for
the secondary soil composite, a measure of the sampling reproducibility was made.
4-16
-------
A QA spike was conducted using the background sample from another site. A
USEPA quality control sample for oil and grease analysis consisting of paraffin
oil dissolved in Freon TF was used. The spike provided a concentration of
0.34# of oil and grease to the background sample. The spiked sample was then
extracted and analyzed for oil and grease. The percent recovery of the spiked
oil and grease mixture was calculated by the following formula:
Percent Recovery = Spiked Sample % - Background Sample % x 100 %
Calculated Spiked Sample %
Aliquots of each sample were analyzed for weight loss on drying (LOD) by
drying for 12 to 16 hours in a 105 C oven. Later, all the samples from this
process were dried by desiccation for J2 hours. They were then screened and
sieved for percent silt content and percent PMin content (see Appendix C for a
complete explanation of sample handling during these analyses) .
The same screening and sieving techniques were used to make composite
samples of the silt, PM10. and >PM1Q fractions from this process. Portions of
each fraction were submitted to RTI for metals and cyanide analyses. As for
the Process T samples, only the silt and PM10 fractions were submitted to PEI
for semivolatile organic analysis. The fractions were analyzed for metals and
cyanide and prepared for semivolatile organic analysis as described previously
for the composite samples from Process S. For the silt and PM10 extracts, the
cleanup procedures resulted in dilutions of 7-7~ and 14-fold, respectively.
Based on the GC/FID screening results, the extracts were both diluted another
10-fold to protect the GC/MS. The cumulative dilutions of 80- and 140-fold
raised the quantifiable detection limits for semivolatile organic compounds to
26.4 and 46.2 ug/g, respectively.
4-1?
-------
4.5 LAND TREATMENT AREA II, ROW MARKERS R-32 TO R-35 (PROCESS V)
The portion of Land Treatment Area II designated Process V was a long strip
parallel to Process U, but between row markers R-32 and R-35 (see Figure 4.4).
Process V approximated a rectangle with dimensions of 45 by 1350 feet. Based
again on the process shape and dimensions, the sampling grid was laid out in a one
grid wide strip with a typical grid cell size of 45 by 50 feet (see Figure 4.6).
The twenty-seven grid cells were numbered from south to north.
MRI directed that eight grid cells be sampled; a random number table was used
to select the specific grid cells for sampling (see Appendix C). No grid cells
were rejected. MRI determined that for the sample collection, the scooping
technique should be used at this process. As previously described for Process S,
a sampling template was randomly tossed four times within each cell sampled. The
sample aliquots were taken from inside the areas defined by the template. The
eight samples were numbered V-627 through V-633- Figure 4.6 shows each sample and
the corresponding grid cell from which it was taken.
Sample V-665 was analyzed for oil and grease content as described previously
for the Process U sample. The LOD determinations were conducted on aliquots taken
from each Process V sample. To dry them, the samples were desiccated for 46 hours
and then oven-dried at 105 C for 1 hour prior to silt screening. The silt
resulting from screening each sample was mixed to form a silt composite and the
PM-n content was determined on the silt composite by sonic sieving. Because the
silt yield was low and the PMin content of the silt was also low, the decision was
made not to produce PMin and >PMin fractions from the silt for the chemical
analyses.
Portions of the silt fraction were submitted to RTI and PEI for metals and
cyanide analysis and semivolatile organics analysis as described previously for
4-18
-------
43'*
45'*
50'*
V-633
V-632
V-631
V-«0
V-629
V-628
V-627
27
26
@
24
23
22
21
la
©
17
©
16
©
14
J3_
Si
^
_10_
•
8
7
6
5
4
3
_2_
TYPICAL
CELL
i
1
*1
L
13501*
N
^
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE; 27 CELLS TOTAL
FIGURE 4.6. SAMPLMG GRD, SAMPLNG DMENSIONS, AND SAMPLE NUMBERS FOR PROCESS V
M LAND TREATMENT AREA II (ROV MARKERS R-31 TO R-35) AT USPCI.
4-19
-------
the composite samples from Process S. The LH-20 adsorption chromatography cleanup
procedures resulted in a 12-fold dilution of the silt sample. Based on the
results of the GC/FID screening, the sample required no further dilution prior to
injection into the GC/MS. The dilution during the cleanup procedure raised the
quantifiable detection limit for semivolatile organics to 4.0 ug/g.
4.6 UNPAVED ACCESS ROADS (PROCESS W)
Two separate segments of unpaved access roads (Process W) were sampled at the
USPCI facility. As may be seen in Figure 4.1, the areas sampled were located:
(1) near the office at the beginning of the access road to Landfill Cells
#1 and #2, (sample number W-634) and
(2) on the access road to Landfill Cells #1 and #2 adjacent to the
entrance to the cells (sample number W-635)•
Each of the samples taken (see sample numbers above) was from a rectangular area
and spanned the road (centered) for 8 feet and was 2 feet wide (see Figure 4.7).
Because unpaved roads consist of hard-crusted, undisturbed surfaces, MRI
recommended sampling this process using the sweeping technique. A disposable
brush was used to sweep the loose particulate from the surface of each road
area into a disposable scoop, which was then used to deposit the particulate
into the appropriate sample jars.
An aliquot of the sample from each road segment was first analyzed for
weight loss on drying (LOD) by drying for 12 to 16 hours in a 105 C oven. Later
both samples were oven-dried for 1 hour in a. 105 C oven. They were screened
and sieved for percent silt content and percent PM.-. content (see Appendix C).
Since a sufficient quantity of silt could not be obtained from the silt
screening, PM and >PM material was not produced for chemical analysis.
4-20
-------
I
V-684
8'
2'
2'
1
V
-685
8*
k.
SCALE: 0.25"= 1
FIGURE 4.7. PROCESS DIMENSIONS AND SAMPLE NUMBERS FOR ACCESS ROADS AT USPCI (PROCESS V).
-------
Portions of the silt fraction of the samples were submitted to RTI and PEI
for metals and semivolatile organics analysis, respectively. They were
analyzed for metals and semivolatile organic compounds as described previously
for the samples from Process S. The adsorpton chromatography cleanup
procedures did not dilute the silt sample. The. results of the GC/FID
screening, however, required a 10-fold dilution prior to analysis using the
GC/MS. This dilution increased the quantifiable detection limit for
semivolatile organics to 3-3 ug/g.
4.6 REPEATABILITY, REPRODUCABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE AUDIT SAMPLES
As part of the sampling conducted within the Process S boundries at USPCI,
samples were taken for measurement of repeatability (within laboratory
precision) and reproducibility (between laboratory precision) and for
performance audits. Three of the grid cells (numbers 7. 23, and 24) previously
sampled were sampled for these purposes.
Within each of these cells, the primary sampler (in this case, Mr. Steve
Plaisance) took two samples and the secondary sampler (Mr. Kent Spears) took one
sample, all from the same template area. Samples taken by the primary sampler
were used to measure both total* and analytical repeatability and analytical
reproducibility. They were also spiked for the performance audits (see Chapter 5
and Appendix C). Samples taken by the secondary sampler were used to measure
total reproducibility (see Appendix C). Sampling was conducted using the
scooping technique.
Weight loss on drying determinations, drying, silt content, and PMlf. content
determinations for these samples were done as described for the samples from
Process S. The other analyses for metals were done using the same methods
"Sampling and analytical.
4-22
-------
previously discussed; Research Triangle Institute (RTI) (for within laboratory
precision) and PEI (for between laboratory precision) conducted the metals
analysis. The decision was made not to have the reproducibility samples
analyzed for semivolatile organics because they were not found at two times the
quantifiable detection limits in the Process S samples.
4.7 BACKGROUND SAMPLES
Two background samples (numbers BGD-690 and BGD-610) were taken at USPCI in
the northwest corner near the clay burrow area (see Figures 4.1 and 4.8). The
scooping technique was used for sample collection.
Sample BGD-671 was analyzed for oil and grease content as described
previously for the Process U sample. Aliquots from both background samples
were analyzed for weight loss on drying (LOD) and then the samples were dried
in an oven at 105 C for 1 hour. They were also analyzed for percent silt and
percent PMin content (see Appendix C).
Portions of the silt fraction generated by sonic sieving were sent to RTI
and PEI for metals and semivolatile organics analysis, respectively. They were
analyzed for metals and semivolatile organic compounds as described previously
for the samples from Process S. The low-level extraction and adsorption
chromatography cleanup procedure (with no dilution) plus no dilution prior to
the GC/MS analysis resulted in the a quantifiable detection limit of 0.33 ug/g.
4-23
-------
DATE:
11/5/85
PROCESS LETTER: BGD
SITE NAME
LOCATION .
SAMPLING TEAM
PROCESS NAME .
USPCI
TOOLE. UTAH
S. PLAISANCE/K. SPEARS
BACKGROUND
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
SCOOPING
PROCESS LAYOUT (Indicate Cell ", Sampled Cell *. Sample *. and Dimensions)
\
LAKE
BGD-610
X
INDUSTRIAL
CELL
ACCESS
ROADS"
LANDFILL
CELL
LANDFILL
CELL
N
FIGURE 4.8. SKETCH SHOWING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS WHERE
BACKGROUND SAMPLES WERE TAKEN AT USPCI. -
4-24
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The quality assurance (QA) measures for the chemical analyses were
conducted internally by each laboratory. For the metals analysis, RTI used an
EPA check sample to determine the accuracy of the instrumentation. A marine
sediment reference material (MESS-1) acquired from the Marine Analytical
Chemistry Standard Program of the National Research Council of Canada and a NBS
fly ash sample (1633 A) were used as QA samples to check the overall accuracy
of the digestion and analysis procedures. One process sample was spiked with
sixteen elements and their percent recoveries were calculated to assess matrix
effects. Another sample (S-637) was analyzed as duplicates to demonstrate
analytical precision.
PEI also performed a series of QA checks for the analysis of metals in the
reproducibility samples. PEI used either EPA or their own check samples to
determine the accuracy of the instrumentation. PEI also spiked a sample with
seventeen elements and their percent recoveries were calculated to assess
matrix effects. Another sample (S-930) was analyzed in duplicate and a
coefficient of variance calculated as an indication of precision. Results of
both RTI's and PEI's checks are presented in Table 5•1•
For the QA on the analysis of the semivolatile organics and pesticides, PEI
used samples V-660 and T-646 for matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates
(MSD). The percent recoveries were determined and the relative percent
difference (RPD) for the duplicates calculated (see Table 5.2). The percent
recovery for acenaphthene was within the QA limits for both MS and MSD
samples. The recovery of 4-nitrophenol was within the QA limits for the MS
5-1
-------
TABLE b.l QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS FOR METALS ANALYSIS
RTI AND PEI ANALYSES
RTI
Sample Identity
Elements iug/q)
Aluminum (Al!
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadniua (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead IPb)
Manganese (fin)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenuu (Ho)
Nickel (Ni)
Osmium (Os)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Thalliuu (Tl)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (In)
cyanide
PEI
Sample Identity
Elements (ug/g)
AluminuiB (Al)
Antisony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Bariua (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chroaiui (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Holybdenua (Ho)
Nickel (Ni)
Osaiue (Os)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Thallium (Tl)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
cyanide
EPA Check
Expected
(ug/g)
-
8.2
43.0
-
29.0
9.1
7.1
43.0
8.9
-
43.0
13.0
-
-
-
-
7.6
-
25.2
130
10.0
-
Sample
Found
(ug/g!
-
9.0
43.6
-
30.5
7.7
6.8
40.1
12.3
-
43.0
12.9
-
-
-
'
6.9
-
26.7
123
10.0
-
NBS Fiy
Expected
iug/g)
140,000
7.0
145
1500
12.0
1.0
196
46.0
116
94,000
72.4
190
-
29
127
-
10.3
-
5.7
300
200
-
As'n 1633
Found
(ug/g)
!7,000
2.6
129
700
4.2
5.5
35.4
25.0
38.5
22,200
31.8
27.9
-
-
53.3
-
7.7
-
3.3
121
69.2
-
Check Samples
Source
PEI
-
PEI
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-
EPA
-
EPA
EPA
-
EPA
EPA
PEI
Expected
1.00
-
0.075
0.97
0.96
0.94
1.03
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.01
1.02
0.01
-
' 1.02
-
0.050
0.99
-
1.01
1.01
1.83
Found
1.00
-
0.074
1.03
0.96
0.93
1.00
0.99
1.02
0.97
1.02
1.00
0.01
-
1.04
-
0.048
0.92
-
0.92
1.04
1.92
ft NRC Sediment
Expected
(ug/g)
58,000
-
10.6
-
1.9
0.6
71.0
10.8
25.1
36,500
34.0
513
-
-
29.5
-
0.4
-
0.7
72.4
191
-
Matrix Spike
KCCC-!
IIU-J-J I
Found
(ug/gi
18,000
<0.5
7.9
87.3
1,4
0.4
40.1
10.2
22.3
25,000
23.8
344
-
-
33.5
-
<0.5
-
<2
54.0
171
-
Matrix Spike
Added Recovered
(ug) (ug!
-
-
10.0 8.9
100.0 239.0
100.0 94.2
100.0 90.2
100.0 97.1
-
100.0 96.5
-
10.0 8.6
100.0 102.0
0.40 0.36
100.0 91.5
100.0 93.7
-
11.0 10.0
100.0 81.8
10.0 11.0
100.0 32.8
100.0 94.4
-
Percent
-
-
89. OX
239X
94. 2X
90.21
97. IX
-
96.51
-
86. OX
102. OX
90. OX '
91. 5X
93.77.
-
90.97.
91.8Z
110. OX
32. 8X
94.4X
-
Duplicates
Percent Recovery
131. OX
-
94. n
105.02
99. 8X
97.6X
97. IX
74. 4X
100.0X
79. OX
98. 5X
92.87.
99. OX
-
102. OX
-
53.61
88.4X
-
103. OX
47. OX
-
S-930
8,320
-
13.2
161
<0.1
68.5
216
18.9
347
32,960
3,180
2,620
-
-
36.8
.
2.20
6.95
-
21.8
29,540
3.23
S-930
10,470
-
14.4
188
<0.1
88.2
273
22.8
439
38,020
3,620
3,010
-
-
47.4
-
2.60
5.18
-
27.4 '
34,200
3.51
Cup 1 i
S-637
iug/'g)
-
17.1
21.3
3534
<1
150
447
12.0
951
-
6,870
4,480
-
82.3
85.6
<1
4.8
-
<2
61.9
45,900
-
catss
S-637
(ug/g!
-
13.8
22.3
838
<1
146
406
10.2
944
-
6,900
6,170
-
80.0
81.1
<1
3.8
-
<2
55.0
41,700
-
Coefficient
ni
Ot
Variance
0.162
-
0.061
0.109
0
0.178
0.165
0.132
0.166
0.101
0.092
0.098
-
-
0.178
-
0.118
0.206
-
0.158
0.103
0.059
5-2
-------
TABLE 5.2. QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS FOR SEMIVOLATILES AND PESTICIDES ANALYSIS
SOIL SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERY SUMMARY
Saaiple Identity
Surrogate Coapounds
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Terphenyl-dl4
Phenol-d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribroiophenol
Dibutylchlorendate
Sample Identity
Surrogate Coapounds
Nitrobenzene-d5
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Terphenyl-dl4
Phenol -d5
2-Fluorophenol
2,4,6-Tribroiophenol
Dibutylchlorendate
Silt
S-636
01
1202
180Z
02
02
02
01
Silt
S-901
02
1711
2002
OX
02
02
02
PM-10
S-638
02
1262
1682
02
02
02
442
Silt
S-905
02
1002
1112
02
02
02
372
>PM10
S-640
02
962
02
02
02
02
02
Silt
S-906
02
1422
1712
02
02
02
302
Silt
BGD-643
82
392
1382
362
92
852
-
Silt
S-911
102
152
162
02
02
02
662
SEMI VOLATILE ORGANIC SOIL
Sanple Identity
V-660
Coipound
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Acenaphthene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Pyrene
N-Ni trosodi -n-Propy 1 aai ne
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-3-iethylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Fluorene *
N-nitrosodiphenylaaine
Benzo (a) anthracene *
*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate *
Sanple Detection Li ait
(ug/g)
Spike
Cone.
(ug/g)
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unspiked
Sacple
(ug/g)
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9 J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.5
Silt
T-646
1392
1352
1662
632
02
02
02
Silt
S-915
1002
1312
1272
2272
212
02
492
MATRIX
PM-10
T-648
632
1242
1532
192
02
02
02
Silt
S-916
1152
1462
1802
2962
262
02
772
Silt
U-653
02
02
1282
02
02
02
-
Silt
S-921
1032
2062
02
1142
202
02
622
PM-10 Silt
U-655 V-660
02 02
02 1322
1402 1802
02 02
02 02
02 02
- -
Silt Silt
S-925 S-926
8432 02
12402 1352
16002 1802
8302 1012
1502 02
02 02
272 342
Silt Sample Matrix Matrix Spike
H-667 Blank Spike Duplicate
342 02
752 12
982 1092
02 02
202 02
432 782
1212 1192
Silt
S-931
02
02
1402
02
02
02
102
02
142
192
02
02
02
442
02
122
202
02
02
02
132
SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RECOVERY SUMMARY
Matrix
Spike
(ug/g)
0.0
2.4 J
0.6
2.5 J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5 J
2.0 J
1.6 J
0.7 J
0.3 J
4.1
Percent
Recover
02
722
172
182
02
02
02
02
02
02
232
-
-
-
-
Matrix Spike
Duplicate
(ug/g)
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.0
1.7
0.7
0.0
4.1
Percent
Recovery
02
J 592
02
J 222
02
02
02
02
02
02
J 92
J -
J -
J -
-
RPD
02
202
2002
52
02
02
02
02
02
02
882
672
62
02
2002
» = Coopound Mas not detected in the unspiked sample and Mas not spiked, but Has detected in the aatrix spike saaple
and/or aatrix spike duplicate sanple.
J = Estiaated value where the conpound Beets the aass spectral or chroeatographic criteria
but is beloM the quantifiable liait
5-3
-------
TABLE 5.2. (continued)
PESTICIDE SOIL MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE RECOVERY SUMMARY
Sanple Identity
T-646 »
Cospound
uindane
leptachlor
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
4,4'-DDT
Spike
Cone.
(ug/g)
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.067
0.067
0.067
Unspiked
Sanple
(ug/g)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hatrix Percent Matrix Spike Percent
Spike Recover Duplicate Recovery
(ug/g)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OX
OX
01
ox
ox
ox
(ug/g)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OX
ox
ox
ox
ox
ox
RPD
OX
OX
07.
OX
OX
OX
Bample Detection Linit (ug/g)
Lindane, Heptachlor, Aldrin 4.30 1.87 1.69
Dieldrin, Endrin, 4,4'-DDT 8.60 3.74 3.39
* = Due to saaple satrix interferences and saaple dilutions, spiked compounds Here unable to be detected.
SUMMARY OF METHOD BLANK ANALYSIS
Blank ID Coapound Identity Concentration
(ug/g)
Saiple Blank for None Detected None Detected
Seaivolatile Organics
5-4
-------
sample, but below the QA limit for the MSD sample. All other spiked
semivolatile compounds were recovered at levels below the QA limit.
Six compounds were detected below the quantifiable limit in the MS and/or
MSD that were not detected in the unspiked sample. The dilution of the samples
was probably the cause of the compounds not being found in the unspiked sample.
For sample T-646 which was spiked with pesticides, none of the spiked
compounds were detected due to sample matrix interference and sample dilutions.
All the samples submitted for organic analysis as well as the laboratory
blanks were spiked with surrogate compounds and the percent recoveries of these
compounds were determined (see Table 5-2). The surrogate recovery of
nitrobenzene-dc for samples T-648, W-6&7, S-915, S-916, and S-921 were within
5
the QA limits. All other samples were below the QA recovery limits for
nitrobenzene-d._, except samples T-646 and S-925 which were above the limits.
5
For the surrogate 2-fluorobiphenyl, the recoveries for samples 8-640, BGD-643,
W-66?, and S-905 were within the QA limits. For samples S-636, 8-638, T-646,
T-648, V-660, 8-901, S-906, S-915, 8-916, S-921, 8-925 and S-926, the
recoveries of 2-fluorobiphenyl were above the QA limits; the recoveries for the
rest of the samples were below the QA recovery limits. For the surrogate
terphenyl-d^K, the recoveries for samples V-653, W-667, S-905, S-915, the
sample blank, and the MS and MSD were within the QA limits. For samples 8-636,
S-638, BGD-643, T-646, T-648, v-655, V-660, 8-901, 8-906, 8-916, 8-925, 8-926,
and S-931t the recoveries of terphenyl-d.^, were above the QA limits; the
recoveries for the rest of the samples were below the QA limits. For the
surrogate phenol-dc, the recoveries for samples BGD-643, T-646, and S-926 were
5
within the QA limits. For samples S-915, S-916, S-921, and 8-925 the
recoveries of phenol-d,. were above .the QA limits; and for the rest of the
samples the recoveries were below the QA limits. For the surrogate
5-5
-------
2-fluorophenol, all samples except S-916 were outside the QA recovery limits.
For surrogate 2,4,6-tribromophenol, the recoveries for BGD-643, W-667, and the
sample blank were within the QA limits; the surrogate was not detected in any
of the other samples. For the pesticide surrogate dibutylchlorendate, the
recoveries were within the QA limits for all samples spiked with the compound
except for samples S-636, S-640, T-646, T-648, S-901, S-931, and the MSB.
Analysis was conducted on a blank sample consisting of a purified solid
matrix spiked with surrogate compounds and carried through extraction and
concentration (see Table 5-2). The CLP specifies limits for the blanks on the
levels of common phthalate esters and Hazardous Substances List (HSL)
compounds. In the blank sample, no phthalate esters or HSL compounds were
detected at a quantifiable limit of 0.33 ug/g.
Entropy conducted a independent performance audit by spiking a silt sample
from the repeatability and reproducibility sample set. Two aliquots of a silt
composite were used for the metals spikes (samples S-932 and 8-93*0- The
elements and their concentractions in the spiking solution used for the metals
spike are listed in Table C.10 of Appendix C. The metals spike was added to
achieve approximate!}' 225 ug/g concentration with the exact concentration
depending on the actual sample weight. The exact concentration of the metals
spike, the analyses of the unspiked silt samples and the spiked sample, and the
percent recoveries for each element are presented in Table 5-3 for both the
inside laboratory (RTI) and the outside laboratory (PEI).
One other aliquot from the same silt composite was spiked with the
semivolatile compounds and pesticides listed in Tables C.6 through C.9- The
exact concentrations of the spiked compounds, the analyses of the corresponding
unspiked silt samples, and the percent recoveries for each spiked compound are
presented in Table 5.4. The inability to detect all of the spiked compounds
5-6
-------
TABLE 5.3. PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOR METALS ANALYSES
Satple Identity
Eleient
Aluainuft (Al)
Antiiony (Sb) '
Arsenic (As)
Bariut (Ba)
Beryl HUB (Be)
Cadaiui (Cd)
ChroniUB (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
hanganese (Hn)
ftercury (Hg)
Holybdenua (Ho)
Nickel (Nil
Osiiui (Os)
SeleniuB (Se)
Silver (Ag)
ThalliuB (Tl)
Vanadiut (V)
Zinc (Zn)
cyanide
Unspiked Saiples
S-90B
(ug/g)
17,100
3.4
15.3
356
(1
37.2
196
25.9
431
30,800
2,140
1,400
0.9
22.5
54.2
<4
1,4
UO
<1
56.5
8,947
<0.5
S-909
(ug/g)
17,400
3.8
13.9
357
<1
37.9
207
13.7
435
31,900
2,124
1,380
0.9
25.5
55.6
<4
1.5
UO
<1
58.6
7,010
0.7
Hean
(ug/g)
17,250
3.6
14.6
357
<1
37.6
202
19.8
433
31,350
2,132
1,390
0.9
24.0
54.9
<4
1.5
UO
<1
57.6
7,979
0.4
Spike
Aeount
(ug/g)
0
0
279.8
279.8
279.8
279.8
0
0
279.8
0
279.8
279.8
0
0
0
0
279.8
m.s
0
0
0
0
Found
S-932
(ug/g)
1.8
245
670
250
286
179
127
592
0
2,211
1,342
0
41.3
165
0
254
158
0
64.6
8,632
-
RTI
Percent
Recovery
-
82.41
111.91
89.31
88.71
-
-
5k. 81
-
28.21
-17.21
-
-
-
-
90.11
56.41
-
-
-
-
Sasple
S-910
(ug/g)
13,010
-
13.5
313
0.2
32.4
141.0
17.7
344
22,540
1,600
1,130
1.00
-
45.3
-
<0.3
2.3
-
33.7
B,060
2.8
Spike
Anount
(ug/g)
0
0
202.3
202.3
202.3
202.3
0
0
202.3
0
202.3
202.3
0
0
• 0
0
202.3
202.3
0
0
0
0
Found
S-934
(ug/g)
13,390
-
142.4
130.0
159.4
187.0
191.4
16.4
797
24,314
1,772
1,309
-
-
45.2
-
122.0
87.3
-
31.7
11,351
-
PEI
Percent
Recovery
63.
-90.
78.
76.
223.
84.
88.
60.
-
81
51
71
41
-
-
9X
-
91
4!
-
-
-
-
31
42.01
-
-
-
-
5-7
-------
TABLE 5.4. PERFORMANCE AUDIT FOR SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS AND PESTICIDES ANALYSES
Fugitive Participate fro:, TSDF (85/12!
Organic Spike Recovery Results for USPCI, Tools, UI
Saiaple Identity
Semivolatile Organics
Spike Compound
,4,5-Trichlorophenol *
,4,6-Trichlorophenol
,4-Dichlorophenol
,4-DiRethylphenol
,4-Dinitrophenol
-Chlorophenol
-tlethylphenol
-Nitrophenol
,6-Dinitro-2-i«ethylphenol
-Methyl phenol
-Nitrophenol *
-chloro-3-siethylphenol
isnzoic Acid *
•entachlorophenol *
:'henol
;,2-Dichlorobenzene
i,4,Dichlorobenzene
Acenapthene
Anthracene
3enzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Diben:(a,h)anthracene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
N-nitroso-di-propylasiine
Nitrobenzene
Pyrene
2-Chloronapthalene
4-Brosiophenylphenylether
4-Chlorophenylphenylether
8enzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzyl Alcohol
Chrysene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Diethylphthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Napthalene
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Sample Detection Limit
* Compounds
All other compounds
3-931 J
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
32.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
30.0 J
18.0 J
N.D.
N.D. .
N.D.
23.0 J
35.0 J
9.3 J
N.D.
8.5 J
N.D.
N.D.
21.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
18.0 J
14.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
18.0 J
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
48.0
N.D.
(ug/g)
186.6
38.5
Avg. of
i-905/906
(ug/g!
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0 J
3.1 J
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.4 J
16.0 J
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.0 J
0.0
5.6 J
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
(ug/g)
120.3
•24.8
Spike
Amount
(ug/g)
86.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
36.2
86.2
86.2
36.2
86.2
86.2
86.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
17.2
Percent
Recovered
O.OX
O.OX
0.07.
0.01
0.07.
0.07.
0.07.
O.OX
o.ox
0.07.
0.07.
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
37. IX
O.OX
O.OX
104. 4Z
86.4X
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
84. 7X
110.2X
53.91
O.OX
49.37.
O.OX
O.OX
89. 3X
O.OX
O.OX
104. «
81. 2X
O.OX
O.OX
104. 4X
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
O.OX
81. 21
O.OX
Pesticides
Compound
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gaainia-BHC(Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Sample Detection Licit
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gaaia-BHC(Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
Methoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
S-931 S
(ug/g)
9.50
N.D.
N.D.
13.75
6.63 J
10.50
9.38
1.08 J
9.38 J
8.75 J
10.50 J
N.D.
11.13 J
4.88 J
N.D.
3.00 J
(ug/g)
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9,0
9.0
9.0
9.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
1B.O
18.0
90.0
18.0
Avg. of
-905/906
(ug/g)
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
(ug/g)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2,8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
14.0
2.8
Spike F
Amount RE
(ug/g)
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
8.63
'ercent
covered
UOX
OX
OX
159X
77X
122X
1097.
127.
1097.
1017.
122X
OX
129X
577.
07.
35X
5-8
-------
may have been the result of the sample matrix and the sample dilutions
necessary to facilitate the GC/MS analysis.
A performance audit for the oil and grease analysis was also conducted by
spiking a background sample (from another site) with paraffin oil dissolved in
Freon TF. The spiked sample was carried through the oil and grease analysis
procedure. The recovery of the paraffin oil was calculated to be 9^ percent
(see Table 2.5).
5-9
------- |