^L United States
^& Environmental Protection Agency
LOVE CANAL
EMERGENCY
DECLARATION AREA
HABITABILITY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME II
Air Assessment-
Indicator Chemicals
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/
Centers for Disease Control
New York State Department of Health
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
-------
VOLUME II
Air Assessment--
Indicator Chemicals
Prepared for
U.S. EPA REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Prepared by
CH2M HILL SOUTHEAST, Inc.
P.O. Box 4400
Reston, Virginia 22090
February 1988
-------
VOLUME II
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
ERRATA
Page Line Erratum
1-2 27 "in the basement samples collected, suggesting"
should read "in the basement samples collected
during the initial sampling and investigation,
suggesting"
1-2 15-17 "during Phase 2 of the study, chlorotoluene was
detected on the main floor of the unoccupied,
single-story structure in Neighborhood 6. The
highest concentration detected was 3.4 ppb" should
read "during Phase 2 of the study chlorotoluene was
detected in an unoccupied, single-story structure in
Neighborhood 6. During the initial sampling and
investigation chlorotoluene was only detected on the
main floor of the home. Lower levels of
chlorotoluene were detected both on the main floor
and in the basement during the home's second sampling
in Phase 2. The highest concentration detected was
3.4 ppb on the main floor during the home's initial
sampling."
6-11 20 "Chlorotoluene was not detected in the basement."
should read "Chlorotoluene was not detected in the
basement during this initial sampling and
investigation."
6-11 26 "Levels in all six of the first floor rooms were
between the quantitation and" should read "levels in
the main floor and the basement were between the
quantitation and"
6-11 29 "This investigation did not detect chlorotoluene in
the air in the basement of the home during either
sampling effort" should be deleted.
6-11 26 "Levels in all six of the first floor rooms were
between the quantitation and" should read "levels in
the main floor and the basement were between the
quantitation and"
6-11 29 "This investigation did not detect chlorotoluene in
the air in the basement of the home during either
sampling effort" should be deleted.
WDR355/060
II-l
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vi
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1
2.2 Habitability Criteria 2-5
2.3 Pilot Study 2-6
2.4 Study Design Peer Review 2-7
3.0 GOALS 3-1
4.0 DESIGN 4-1
4.1 Project Organization 4-1
4.2 Field Sampling Design 4-1
4.3 Data Quality Assurance 4-4
5.0 METHOD 5-1
5.1 Sample Collection and Analysis 5-1
5.2 Documentation 5-2
5.3 Data Validation 5-2
6.0 RESULTS 6-1
6.1 Sampling Activity 6-1
6.2 Quality Assurance Results 6-3
6.3 Analytical Results 6-3
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A ERT QA/QC Evaluation Report
APPENDIX B. EMSL--RTP Summary Audit Report
APPENDIX C. ERT/TAT Data Validation Report
-------
CONTENTS
(continued)
Tables Page
6-1 Sampling Activity Summary by Phase 6-2
6-2 Study Activity Summary by EDA
Neighborhoods-All Phases 6-8
6-3 Sampling Summary by Sample Start Hour,
Phase, and Occupied/Unoccupied Status 6-9
6-4 Sampling Summary by EDA Neighborhoods,
Phase, and Occupied/Unoccupied Status 6-10
6-5 Study Results Summary by EDA Neighborhoods
and Phase 6-12
Figures
2-1 Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area
Niagara Falls, New York 2-3
6-1 Air Assessment-Indicator Chemicals,
Distribution of Homes Sampled; Phase 1 6-4
6-2 Air Assessment-Indicator Chemicals,
Distribution of Homes Sampled; Phase 2 6-5
6-3 Air Assessment-Indicator Chemicals,
Distribution of Homes Sampled; Phase 3 6-6
6-4 Air Assessment—Indicator Chemicals,
Distribution of Homes Sampled; Phase 4 6-7
6-5 Air Assessment-Indicator Chemicals,
Assessment Results; Homes Where LCICs
were Detected 6-13
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of all organizations
and individuals who assisted in the conceptualization, design, and
implementation of this study. Special acknowledgement goes to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region n and the other
members of the Technical Review Committee and their staffs for their
continuing guidance.
Additional acknowledgement goes, in chronological order of their
involvement, to the following organizations: the Methods Development
Branch of U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at
Research Triangle Park (EMSL^-RTP) for its effort during the pilot
study; the New York State Department of Health staff for their
assistance in scheduling the field sampling for the air assessment; the
U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team (ERT) who helped
coordinate the field sampling; Weston/REAC for its performance
during the field sampling effort; the Quality Assurance Division of U.S.
EPA EMSL--RTP and its contractor, Northrup Services, Inc., for its
participation throughout the study; and ERTs Technical Assistance
Team contractor for its role in data validation.
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
DHHS/CDC
EDA
EMSL--RTP
EPA
ERT
LCARA
LCIC
NYSDEC
NYSDOH
ORD
OTA
ppb
QA
QAPP
QC
TAGA
TAT
TRC
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services/Centers for Disease Control
Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area
U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory at Research Triangle Park
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. EPA Environmental Response Team
Love Canal Area Revitalization Agency
Love Canal Indicator Chemical
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of Health
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
Parts per billion
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Control
Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer Model 6000E
Technical Assistance Team
Technical Review Committee
VI
-------
1.0 SUMMARY
The Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) Proposed
Habitability Criteria (NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC, 1986) calls for three
environmental studies. This report describes the air assessment for
indicator chemicals while other reports describe the residential soil
assessment for indicator chemicals and the residential soil assessment
for dioxin.
The primary goal of the air assessment was to identify the presence of
the Love Canal Indicator Chemicals (LCICs) for air in EDA residential
structures. The LCICs used for the air assessment were chlorobenzene
and chlorotoluene. A secondary goal of the study was to provide
information that would be useful in planning for retesting and
remediation of residences where appropriate.
The study was designed to detect low-level, about 1 part per billion
(ppb), concentrations of air LCICs in residential structures and in
ambient air in the EDA Samples were taken in each room of the first
floor and basement of each residence as well as from the ambient air
outside the house both before and after indoor sampling. A protocol
was developed to isolate the source of any detected LCIC within a
residence. The sampling was performed over four 2-week periods from
July to December 1987 to account for the effects of any temporal
variations on LCIC concentration measurements. Sampling was
conducted during all hours of the day and night to account for the effects
of any diurnal variations on LCIC measurements. All residential
structures that were structurally sound, physically accessible, and for
which permission to enter could be obtained from the owner were
entered and sampled.
The analytical method was selected based on the need for both real-time
data and the capability to investigate for an emission source. A mobile
mass spectrometer—mass spectrometer Trace Gas Atmospheric
Analyzer (TAGA) was selected as the analytical instrument to fulfill
these needs. Typical operation in the field consisted of instrument
startup and tuning, initial quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
checks and analyses, residence sampling and analyses, and final QA/QC
M
-------
checks and analyses. Quality assurance measures included initial
calibration, system checks, precision analyses, and performance
evaluations. The data package for each residence sampled was formally
validated by a separate group of scientists.
During sampling, only 44 of the 606 EDA homes were not sampled
because of safety concerns related to the physical nature of the residence,
unsafe structural conditions, lack of access, and/or nonparticipation by
the owners. As a quality assurance measure, selected homes were
sampled twice during a given phase. To account for the effects of
temporal variations, selected homes were sampled during more than one
of the study phases. Detection limits provided by the TAGA averaged
1.0 ppb for chlorotoluene and 0.8 ppb for chlorobenzene.
Chlorobenzene was not detected during the study. However,
chlorotoluene was detected in one structure during the study. Twice
during Phase 2 of the study, chlorotoluene was detected on the main
floor of the unoccupied, single-story structure in Neighborhood 6. The
highest concentration detected was 3.4 ppb.
If the Love Canal was the source of the chlorotoluene, the two most likely
potential transport paths for this chemical would be either through the
ambient air or by subsurface groundwater. LCICs were not detected in
ambient air samples taken outside the home before and after sampling
the home. This finding suggests that the LCIC concentration detected
in the home was not influenced by transport above surface. Because
LCICs are heavier than air, the highest concentrations of these
compounds resulting from subsurface transport from the Canal would
be expected in the basement. However, chlorotoluene was not detected
in the basement samples collected, suggesting the LCIC detection was
also not influenced by subsurface transport mechanisms.
Therefore, it is more likely that the source of chlorotoluene was located
in the home on the main floor. The extensive investigation of the home,
which included both a vertical and a perimeter sweep of each room,
however, did not identify a specific source of chlorotoluene.
As specified in the proposed habitability criteria (NYSDOH and
DHHS/CDC, 1986), retesting of the home was also performed in Phases
3 and 4. No LCICs were detected during the retesting. Chlorotoluene
detection limits during the Phase 3 and 4 sampling of the home were 1.4
1-2
-------
and 0.8 ppb, respectively. The house, primarily the garage, was being
used by personnel working for LCARA. However, no products or
materials used by these workers were identified as potential sources of
chlorotoluene.
Chlorotoluene was detected once at less than the quantitation limit in
the ambient air during Phase 4 of the study. The level detected was
between the detection limit of 0.4 ppb and the quantitation limit of
1.3 ppb. Based on data collected at the Niagara Falls International
Airport, winds were from the west at moderate speed (5 to 10 mph)
throughout the day of the testing. These data suggest that a source of
chlorotoluene may exist west of the EDA and that the source of the
detected chlorotoluene was not the Love Canal.
In summary, of the 562 different homes sampled in the EDA,
chlorotoluene was detected in only one home, and chlorobenzene was
not detected in any home. There is no evidence to indicate that
temporal, spatial, or other variables influence air LCIC concentrations
in EDA homes. Because LCICs were detected in only one home, the
importance of the effects of these variables on indoor air concentrations
of LCICs could not be determined.
1-3
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is Volume n of a five-volume series. Volume I provides an
introduction and documentation of the decision-making during the
development of the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area (EDA)
Habitability Study. Volume in presents the results of the residential soil
assessment for indicator chemicals. Volume IV reports on the
residential soil assessment for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), and Volume V
summarizes the subsequent peer review of Volumes n, IE, and IV and
the responses to that peer review.
This document summarizes the design and results of the air assessment
for indicator chemicals. It is presented in six main sections and contains
three appendices. Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, respectively, discuss the
study goals, design, and analytical method. Section 6.0 summarizes the
study sampling results. The appendices summarize the quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and data validation efforts
maintained throughout the study.
2.1 BACKGROUND
A detailed background of the history of Love Canal is presented in
Volume I of the study. However, this section provides a brief summary
to assist the reader in understanding the overall intent of the Love Canal
EDA Habitability Study and the role of the air assessment.
The former Love Canal landfill was a rectangular, 16-acre tract of land
located in the southeast end of the City of Niagara Falls in Niagara
County on the western edge of New York State. The landfill takes its
name from William T. Love, whose plan hi the 1890s was to dig a power
canal between the upper and lower Niagara River to provide inexpensive
hydroelectric power for a proposed model industrial city. The model city
project and the partially dug Canal were abandoned before the turn of
the century. The abandoned Canal was used as a chemical waste dump
from 1942 to 1953. In 1953, the site was closed. Subsequently, a number
2-1
-------
of homes have been built around the Canal, and the 99th Street School
was built adjacent to the Canal.
In the spring of 1978, following a series of complaints by local residents,
a number of studies were initiated to investigate the health and
environmental problems at the Love Canal. Under the direction of the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), basement sump
pits were sampled and analyzed, and, under the direction of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), air samples were taken at
homes abutting the Canal. These results revealed significant
contamination, and in August 1978, a state of emergency was declared
by President Carter. Homes were evacuated and remedial efforts were
under way by October 1978.
Remediation at Love Canal has been extensive. Initial remediation
concentrated on site containment. A clay cap was installed over the
Canal area, and perimeter drains were installed during the period from
May to November 1979. A leachate collection system and a leachate
treatment plant were constructed during late 1979.
In May 1980, President Carter issued a second emergency declaration
for Love Canal establishing the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA) as
shown in Figure 2-1, and more homes were evacuated. Eligible
properties were purchased from evacuating residents by the Love Canal
Area Revitalization Agency (LCARA).
In the summer of 1982, the EPA released a report of an assessment of
the extent of contamination of air, water, and soil in the EDA for use as
a basis in forming recommendations regarding future use of the area
(U.S. EPA, 1982). Later, the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) reviewed the EPA study and other data to determine
whether the EDA were habitable. In July 1982, after considering
comments by the National Bureau of Standards on the procedures the
EPA used and after further consultation with the EPA, DHHS affirmed
an earlier provisional decision that the EDA was as habitable as the
control areas to which it was compared. This decision was contingent on
the provision that the storm sewers and their drainage tracts be cleaned
and that special plans be made to perpetually safeguard against future
leakage from the Canal.
2-2
-------
VICINITY MAP
SOURCE:
EDA BOUNDARIES TAKEN FROM NEW YORK STATE
REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW ARTICLE 17 SECTION 1702.
Figure 2-1
LOVE CANAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION AREA
NIAGARA FALLS. NEW YORK SCALE: 1"=75C'
D
EMERGENCY DECLARATION ARFA (EDA) BOUNDARY
-------
In December 1982, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) was requested to examine the technical basis for and validity of
the habitability decision for the EDA. In June 1983, the OTA reported
that, with the information available, it was not possible to conclude
whether or not unsafe levels of toxic contamination existed in the EDA
and that the analysis of available data did not support the DHHS decision
that the EDA was as habitable as the control areas with which it had been
compared (OTA, 1983).
In August 1983, in response to the OTA report, the EPA established a
Technical Review Committee (TRC) composed of representatives from
the EPA, NYSDOH, DHHS/Centers for Disease Control
(DHHS/CDC), and New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) to coordinate and oversee the habitability and
remedial programs at Love Canal. The member agencies of the TRC
asked NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC to develop criteria that would be
considered by the New York State Commissioner of Health in his
determination of whether or not the EDA were habitable. In 1986, the
"Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area Proposed Habitability
Criteria" (NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC, 1986) was issued. The
habitability criteria document underwent peer review (Life Systems,
1986) and reflects the concerns of the peer review panel. The
habitability criteria related to this study are discussed in Section 2.2.
In May 1985, a Superfund Record of Decision (ROD) was put forth
describing the selected remedial alternative for contaminated drainage
tracts. The alternative included cleaning storm and sanitary sewers,
removal and storage of creek sediments, and construction of a
permanent administration building. In October 1987, a second ROD
was put forth selecting onsite thermal destruction as the treatment
technique for the creek and sewer sediments.
Since the remediation efforts were initiated, the storm and sanitary
sewers that served the Love Canal have been taken out of service,
plugged, and cleaned. More recent efforts implementing the RODs
included the following: (1) continued remediation of area sewers,
(2) construction of a remedial program administration building,
(3) design of the creek excavation program, (4) design of an
above-ground interim containment facility for the storage of sediments
to be removed from the creeks and also for the storage of hazardous
wastes generated by some of the site's other remedial programs, and
2-4
-------
(5) design and installation of a long-term perimeter groundwater
monitoring system.
2.2 HABITABILITY CRITERIA
The habitability criteria stipulate that for chemicals identified in
environmental media to which residents and potential residents may
have significant exposure, relevant Federal or New York State
standards, criteria, and guidelines will be used to assess the habitability
of the EDA. The only known applicable guideline is the CDC level of
concern of 1.0 part per billion (ppb) for 23,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) in
residential soil.
Where relevant standards, criteria, or guidelines are not available, a
comparison methodology will be used to assess the relative habitability
of the EDA. To determine the relative habitability of the EDA, the
habitability criteria calls for a comparison of the results of environmental
sampling for Love Canal Indicator Chemicals (LCICs) in neighborhoods
(soil) and residences (air) in the EDA with the results of sampling for
LCICs in similar inhabited communities.
The proposed habitability criteria require that the air in each residence
in the EDA be sampled for airborne LCICs, chlorobenzene,
2-chlorotoluene, and 4-chlorotoluene. The LCICs are intended to
represent chemicals whose presence hi indoor air would strongly suggest
that they originate from the Love Canal. Standards, criteria, and
guidelines were not available for the compounds selected for this air
assessment. The concentrations of these chemicals in occupied EDA
residences were to be compared to concentrations of the LCICs in the
comparison area homes according to the proposed habitability criteria.
Any occupied EDA residences that were found to have LCIC
concentrations significantly greater than the chosen aggregate
concentration of the LCICs in the comparison areas would be retested
and, if appropriate, would be remediated later. The concentrations of
LCICs in unoccupied EDA residences were to be compared to EDA
ambient air LCIC concentrations. Unoccupied EDA residences with air
LCIC concentrations significantly greater than the chosen aggregate
LCIC concentration of the EDA ambient air would also be retested and,
if appropriate, would be remediated later. (The results of an air pilot
2-5
-------
study led to the elimination of sampling in comparison areas as discussed
in Section 2.3.)
In addition, as indicated in the proposed habitability criteria document,
EDA neighborhoods may be deemed uninhabitable if individual homes
within it are deemed uninhabitable.
23 PILOT STUDY
In preparation for the air assessment, a pilot study was conducted during
July 1986 to demonstrate the feasibility of implementing the habitability
criteria as proposed. Specific objectives were to:
• Test the sampling and analytical methods proposed for the habitability
study.
• Provide preliminary data on the levels and statistical distribution of
indicator contaminant concentrations.
• Provide a basis for determining the number of samples that need to
be taken to produce statistically valid results in the habitability study.
Samples were collected to determine the levels of LCICs in the air at
selected EDA and comparison area residences (CH2M HILL, 1987a).
Air samples were collected in stainless steel canisters and were analyzed
in the field using a mobile mass spectrometer-mass spectrometer Trace
Atmospheric Gas Analyzer (TAGA). All samples identified by the
TAGA as containing indicator chemicals, as well as samples used for
quality assurance purposes, were sent to the laboratory for further
analysis and verification.
The results indicated detectable concentrations of air LCICs in only one
of the 63 residences investigated in the EDA and in only one of the
31 residences investigated in the comparison areas. Low levels of
chlorotoluene were detected in both samples.
Based on the results of the pilot study, the expected concentration (95th
percentile) of an air LCIC in both the EDA ambient air and the
2-6
-------
comparison areas is a nondetect. Because of this, a decision was made
to simplify the habitability study design by sampling only in the EDA.
"Because of the small number of detects involved, it is simpler and more
efficient to resample any house in which an LCIC is detected and attempt
to identify the source of the LCIC rather than to sample comparison
areas" (CH2M HILL, 1987a).
The other conclusions and recommendations of the pilot study that were
enacted by the TRC are:
• The Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer is the appropriate analytical in-
strument to use for the habitability study.
• Samples should be collected by means of a long transport tube con-
nected directly to the TAGA.
• 2- and 4-chlorotoluene would be measured as total chlorotoluene be-
cause the TAGA is incapable of distinguishing between different
chlorotoluene isomers.
• The potential temporal variability of LCIC values should be ac-
counted for in the design of the habitability study.
2.4 STUDY DESIGN PEER REVIEW
A scientific peer review of the EDA habitability study design was
conducted in March 1987 (Life Systems, 1987). For the air assessment,
concern was expressed about the identification of critical variables that
could influence the presence or release of LCICs in homes. The
sampling plan should be developed to have the "...maximum likelihood
of detecting LCICs that may be present" (Life Systems, 1987). The peer
review panel agreed with the recommendations of the pilot study and
further recommended that the sampling study design consider the
following variables:
2-7
-------
• Seasonal variations
• Diurnal variations
• Rainfall and groundwater levels
• Location relative to the Canal
• Occupied versus unoccupied status
The rationale for selection of these variables is contained in the peer
review summary (Life Systems, 1987).
Section 4.0, Design, describes how these variables are incorporated in
the air assessment design.
2-8
-------
3.0 GOALS
The air assessment was designed to provide data to assist the New York
State Commissioner of Health in determining the habitability of
structures within the Emergency Declaration Area (EDA). As discussed
in Section 2.0, the small number of detects observed in the pilot study
enables air Love Canal Indicator Chemical (LCIC) comparisons to be
accomplished by sampling only residences in the EDA. In effect, then,
any air LCIC concentration detected in an EDA residence would be
compared to an aggregate concentration in the comparison areas
assumed to be nondetect.
Therefore, the major goal of the air assessment was to identify, to the
maximum extent practically feasible, all EDA residences where
detectable concentrations of air LCICs exist. It was not the objective of
the air assessment to characterize the level of air LCICs in the EDA
residences. As described in Section 4.0, the air assessment was designed
to sample all EDA residences in a random manner respecting spatial,
temporal, and other variables postulated to affect the presence of air
LCICs. This was intended to increase the chances that any detectable
air LCIC concentrations present would be discovered and measured.
The habitability criteria document (NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC, 1986)
also directed that residences having air LCIC concentrations
significantly greater than the comparison levels (i.e., nondetect) be
retested and remediated if appropriate. Thus, an implied operational
objective of the air assessment design was to provide sufficient
information to plan retesting and remediation efforts where appropriate.
The air assessment sampling program described in Section 4.0 was
designed to yield information on the variables postulated to affect the
distribution of air LCIC concentrations. However, the design can
provide this information only if a sufficient number of air LCIC detects
are observed to allow statistical analysis of patterns among these
variables. The assessment design also directs the sampling team to
attempt to isolate any indoor location of a detected air LCIC and the
emission source.
Sections 4.0 and 5.0, respectively, describe the study design and method
by which these study goals were attained.
3-1
-------
4.0 DESIGN
The design of the air assessment was directed by the Technical Review
Committee (TRC) based on the proposed habitability criteria (NYSDOH
and DHHS/CDC, 1986), the results of the air pilot study(CH2M HILL,
1987a), and the peer review of the pilot study (Life Systems, 1987).
Generally, the design of a sampling study involves three main elements:
project organization, field sampling design, and data quality assurance
(QA). Each of these three elements are discussed below.
4.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Project organization and the responsibilities of key personnel are
detailed in this assessment's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(CH2M HILL, 1987b, Chapter 3). This assessment was directed by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II. The
assessment was conducted by U.S. EPA's Environmental Response
Team (ERT) (and its contractors Enviresponse, Inc., and
Weston/REAC) and CH2M HILL, Inc. (and its subcontractor Horizon
Systems Corporation). Sampling schedule assistance was provided by
the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) was provided by U.S. EPA's
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory at Research Triangle
Park (EMSL--RTP), and data validation was provided by ERT's
Technical Assistance Team (TAT) contractor.
4.2 FIELD SAMPLING DESIGN
The field sampling program was designed to meet both the study goals as
discussed in Section 3.0 and the specific objectives that were established
by the TRC as discussed in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. In accordance with the
proposed habitability criteria, air sampling inside each EDA residence was
scheduled. When requested, sampling of nonresidential properties (i.e.,
churches, commercial establishments, etc.) was also scheduled. Sampling
4-1
-------
was scheduled over different seasonal and diurnal time periods so that
variables associated with these different time periods and thought to
potentially influence the levels of Love Canal indicator chemicals (LCICs)
in indoor air would then be accounted for.
All residential structures within the Emergency Declaration Area
(EDA) were sampled except for a limited number of homes that could
not be reached by the sampling probe, homes for which permission to
gain entry was not granted, and homes that could not be entered due to
safety concerns related to the physical nature of the residence (e.g.,
collapsed ceiling). Residential structures containing one or more
dwelling units (i.e., single- or multiple-family structures) are located
within the EDA. Multiple-family structures are located only in the
LaSalle housing development (see Figure 2-1). All single-family
structures as well as all occupied units located in multiple-family
structures were scheduled for sampling.
Unoccupied dwelling units in the multiple-family structures were
selected for sampling based on the following criteria:
• If the structure contained fewer than five dwelling units, one
unoccupied unit was sampled.
• If the structure contained five or more dwelling units, two unoccupied
units were sampled.
These selection criteria were adopted by the TRC to provide adequate
representation of the LaSalle housing development without sampling
every unit.
In addition to residential structures, most churches and commercial
establishments in the EDA were also sampled. Sampling was performed
at nonresidential properties only when requested by the establishment
owner. Throughout this report, the terms "residence" and "home" are
used and represent all structures sampled, including churches and
commercial establishments.
Sampling of EDA residences was designed to provide data on the
presence of LCICs and to yield information on the variables that may
influence indoor LCIC concentrations. To observe the effects of
4-2
-------
seasonal variables, sampling was performed over four 2-week time
periods (phases) during the months of July through December.
Approximately equal numbers of residences were randomly allocated to
each of the four sampling phases. These randomly selected residences
were well distributed throughout the EDA for each sampling phase.
This distribution enabled the evaluation of the presence of detectable
levels of LCICs in homes located at various distances and directions away
from the Canal.
Residences selected for sampling in a given phase were grouped spatially
to make sampling more efficient. These groups were then randomly
assigned to a specific sampling day.
Daily sampling was performed in shifts averaging approximately 12
hours. The starting times of these shifts were varied so that sampling of
unoccupied homes was performed throughout all hours of the day and
night during a given phase to allow observation of any detectable diurnal
variation of LCICs. Sampling of occupied homes was conducted only
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Permission to sample occupied homes was obtained through
correspondence and personal communication with the homeowners.
This permission along with the scheduling and, if necessary, rescheduling
of sampling times was coordinated through the NYSDOH. When
possible, homeowners unable to have their homes sampled during the
scheduled time were rescheduled during that same sampling phase.
Those homeowners declining to participate in the study during its first
three phases were notified prior to the beginning of Phase 4 and were
given an additional opportunity to participate.
At every residence sampled, indoor air within each room in the basement
(if a basement existed) and on the first floor was sampled and analyzed.
Ambient air samples were taken at approximately midway between the
street and the front of the home and were analyzed both before and after
indoor sampling of each structure to evaluate influences of outdoor
LCIC concentrations on indoor sampling results. With the exception of
residences resampled for QA purposes, individual residences were
sampled only once. The average total sampling time for each residence
was approximately 45 minutes.
4-3
-------
In the event that an LCIC was detected inside the residence, a detailed
investigation for a source of the LCIC was conducted. This investigation
included both a vertical and horizontal sweep of the air in each room of
the home's first floor and basement in an effort to better characterize
the location of the LCIC and to identify the emission source.
A detailed description of the field sampling program is found in the
study's QAPP (CH2M HILL, 1987b, Chapter 5).
43 DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
The overall QA objective of the air assessment was to collect samples
and to provide analytical data of known, defensible quality. Data quality
objectives were established stipulating that data collection and analysis
methods had to meet specific accuracy and precision requirements
(CH2M HILL, 1987b).
Both internal and external performance audits were conducted in order
to demonstrate that these data quality objectives were met. Routine
QA procedures, including internal performance audits and instrument
calibrations, are discussed in detail in the study's QAPP (CH2M
HILL, 1987b). External performance audits were conducted during
each sampling phase by the Quality Assurance Division of EPA
EMSL--RTP. A summary of results for both the internal and external
audits are found in Appendices A and B.
Additional QA was provided to the project through both replicate and
overlap sampling. Replicate sampling involved sampling selected
residences twice in the same phase. Overlap sampling included those
residences sampled in more than one phase and involved the selection
of three residences sampled once in each of the four phases.
Detailed discussion of the QA procedures is found in the study's
QAPP (CH2M HILL, 1987b, Chapter 4 and Appendix A).
4-4
-------
5.0 METHOD
Selection of a method to collect and analyze indoor air samples was
based primarily on the need for real-time data and the capability to
investigate for an emission source as soon as a Love Canal Indicator
Chemical (LCIC) was detected. As recommended in the pilot study
(CH2M HILL, 1987a) as well as by peer reviewers (Life Systems, 1987),
the Technical Review Committee (TRC) chose to use the Trace
Atmospheric Gas Analyzer (TAGA) Model 6000E with a sampling hose
to collect the indoor air within the residences.
5.1 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The TAGA used in this study is part of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Mobile Air Monitoring Laboratory. It is capable of
acquiring real-time concentrations of chlorobenzene and chlorotoluene
at low parts per billion (ppb) levels. Typical operation of the TAGA in
the field consisted of instrument startup and tuning, initial quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) checks and analyses, residence
sampling and analyses, and final QA/QC checks and analyses. TAGA
operation and data reporting procedures are discussed in detail in the
study's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (CH2M HILL, 1987b,
Appendix A).
Sample collection at each residence was preceded by an investigation by
the site safety officer of the home's structural integrity and its
accessibility by the sampling team.
Sample collection at the residence consisted of an instrument
calibration, a survey of the outside ambient air, and surveys of all the
rooms on the first floor and in the basement of the residence. Each room
survey consisted of sampling air from the center of the room at normal
breathing height (approximately 5 feet above the floor) for
approximately one minute. If an LCIC was detected, the room survey
data were reviewed to determine the room (or rooms) most likely to
5-1
-------
contain the emission source(s). These rooms were sampled in detail in
an attempt to isolate the emission source.
After sampling of the residence was completed, an additional survey of
the ambient air was taken. The sample collection procedures are
detailed in the study's QAPP (CH2M HILL, 1987b, Chapter 5 and
Appendix A).
5.2 DOCUMENTATION
In preparation for sample analysis, instrument startup, initial calibration,
and system checks were performed and documented. Precision analyses
and performance evaluations were also documented.
Each activity relating to sample collection and sample analysis was
documented on specific forms. Data packages were assembled for each
house sampled and were reviewed for completeness and data validity by
a field review team. The contents of the data package and the forms used
are described in the study's QAPP (CH2M HILL, 1987b, Chapter 9 and
Appendix A).
53 DATA VALIDATION
Formal validation of the data package for each residence sampled was
performed by the data validation team assembled from U.S. EPA
Environmental Response Team's (ERT) Technical Assistance Team
(TAT). The data validation team was kept independent of sample
collection and analysis activities in order to provide an objective review
of the data packages. Validation of the data included checking the data
package for completeness and consistency between sample collection
and analysis, evaluating instrument performance, and validating the
analytical data. Data validation review criteria are summarized in
Appendix C and are discussed in detail in the study's QAPP (CH2M
HILL, 1987b, Appendix A).
5-2
-------
6.0 RESULTS
Results of the air assessment are reported below in terms of sampling
activity and analytical results. Sampling activity is summarized over
seasonal and diurnal time periods in Section 6.1. Section 6.2 discusses
the results of quality assurance (QA) activities. Detection of Love Canal
Indicator Chemicals (LCICs) during the sampling is discussed in
Section 6.3.
6.1 SAMPLING ACTIVITY
The air assessment was completed in four phases during the months of
July through December, 1987. The sampling periods for the four phases
were as follows:
• Phase 1-July 28 through August 11
• Phase 2~September 15 through September 27
• Phase 3~October 27 through November 6
• Phase 4~December 1 through December 13
Table 6-1 summarizes the sampling activity during each of the four study
phases. Eighty-one (75 percent) of the 108 Emergency Declaration
Area (EDA) homeowners agreed to participate in this study. Only 9
(1.5 percent) of the 606 different EDA homes could not be entered
because of safety concerns related to the physical nature of the residence.
Eight homes (1.5 percent) were not accessible to the sampling team
either because of locked entries for which keys could not be obtained or
because the homes could not be reached by the sampling hose.
Of the 606 different homes existing in the EDA, 93 percent, or
562 different homes, were sampled during the study. Of this total, 119
were multiple-family dwelling units and 9 were churches or commercial
establishments. As part of the study's quality assurance criteria, selected
6-1
-------
Table 6-1
Sampling Activity Summary By Phase
Sampling Phases
Phase 1
Jul28-Aug11
Phase 2
Sept 15-Sept 27
Phase 3
Oct27-Nov6
Phase 4
Dec 1-Dec 13
Total
All Phases
Homes Sampled
Occupied
Unoccupied
Number of different homes
QA replicates8
QA overlaps6
Total Homes Sampled
22
122
144
2
0
146
15
116
131
3
3
137
21
118
139
3
6
148
23
125
148
3
4
155
81
481
562
11
13
586
Homes Scheduled but Not Sampled
Homeowner did not
participate in study
Not physically accessible
Considered unsafe to enter
Total Homes Not Sampled
7
0
_0
7
6
1
_3
10
5
0
_3
8
9
7
_3
19
27
8
_9
44
Total Different EDA Homes
151
141
147
167
606
"Homes sampled twice during a given phase
Homes sampled in more than one phase
Note: The term "homes" includes residential and nonresidential properties.
-------
homes were sampled twice during a given phase (replicate samples). In
addition, other selected homes were sampled once during more than one
of the four study phases (overlap samples). Including replicate and
overlap samples, the total number of times homes were sampled was 586.
Figures 6-1 through 6-4 show the locations of the structures sampled
during each of the four study phases.
Neighborhood boundaries as designated in the proposed habitability
criteria (NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC, 1986) are also shown in each
figure. Table 6-2 summarizes the sampling activity within each of the
13 EDA neighborhoods. Table 6-3 summarizes the number of occupied
and unoccupied homes sampled per phase in each hour of the day. This
table represents the seasonal and diurnal distribution of homes sampled.
Table 6-4 presents the number of occupied and unoccupied homes
sampled by sampling phase and neighborhood.
6.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE RESULTS
Completion of the air assessment resulted in analytical data of known,
defensible quality, meeting both the data quality objectives and overall
goals of the study. Extensive QA and data validation significantly
contributed to the data's defensibility. Further discussion on how
specific data quality objectives were met is found in Appendix A. A
discussion of the results of the external auditing performed on the study's
procedures and analytical data is found in Appendix B. Results of the
data validation effort are summarized in Appendix C.
63 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
As detailed in the study's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
(CH2M HILL, 1987b, Appendix A), there were limits to the analytical
instrument's ability to identify and quantify compounds at the time when
a residence was sampled. These limits are referred to as the detection
and quantitation limits. Compounds measured at concentrations
between the detection and quantitation limits are considered to be
identified but not quantifiable and are referred to as trace levels.
6-3
-------
LOVE CANAL
REMEDIATION SITE
Figure 6-1
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
DISTRIBUTION OF HOMES SAMPLED
PHASE 1
SCALE: T'«650'
LEGEND
—— EDA NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (NUMBERED 1-13)
FENCE LINE AROUND LOVE CANAL REMEDIATION SITE
• HOMES SAMPLED APPEAR SHADED ON FIGURE
SOURCE: NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM THE PROPOSED
HABITABILITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (NYSDOH AND DHHS/CDC. 1986).
-------
LCVE CANAL
REMEDIATION SITE
Figure 6-2
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
DISTRIBUTION OF HOMES SAMPLED
PHASE 2
SCALE: T'«650'
LEGEND
—— EDA NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (NUMBERED 1-13)
—FENCE LINE AROUND LOVE CANAL REMEDIATION SITE
• HOMES SAMPLED APPEAR SHADED ON FIGURE
SOURCE: NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM THE PROPOSED
HABITABILITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (NYSDOH AND DHHS/CDC, 1986).
-------
Figure 6-3
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
DISTRIBUTION OF HOMES SAMPLED
PHASE 3
SCALE: 1"«650'
LEGEND
—— EDA NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (NUMBERED 1-13)
— •—FENCE LINE AROUND LOVE CANAL REMEDIATION SITE
• HOMES SAMPLED APPEAR SHADED ON FIGURE
SOURCE: NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM THE PROPOSED
HABITABILITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (NYSDOH AND DHHS/CDC. 1986).
-------
LOSE CANAL
REMEDIATION SITE
Figue 6-4
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
DISTRIBUTION OF HOMES SAMPLED
PHASE 4
SCALE: f«650'
LEGEND
—— EDA NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (NUMBERED 1-13)
FENCE LINE AROUND LOVE CANAL REMEDIATION SITE
• HOMES SAMPLED APPEAR SHADED ON FIGURE
SOURCE: NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM THE PROPOSED
HABITABILITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (NYSDOH AND DHHS/CDC. 1986).
-------
00
Table 6-2
Sampling Activity Summary By EDA Neighborhoods-All Phases3
Homeowner
Did Not
Neighborhoods Participate
1 1
2 5
3 5
4 4
5 0
6 2
7 0
8 1
9 4
10 5
11 0
12 0
13 0
Homes Scheduled
Not
Accessible
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
But Not Sampled
Considered
Unsafe
0
1
1
4
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
1
8
6
8
0
3
0
1
5
8
0
4
0
Homes Sampled
Number of
Different
EDA Homes
Sampled
7
52
29
79
3
128
19
29
37
56
11
48
64
Total Homes
in EDA
8
60
35
87
3
131
19
30
42
64
11
52
64
Total
27
8
44
562
606
aln accordance with the study design, all single-family homes for which permission to sample was given were sampled, but not all multiple-family
homes were. In each multiple-family structure, all occupied homes and one or two unoccupied homes were scheduled for sampling. If the multiple-
family structure contained fewer than five dwelling units, one unoccupied unit was sampled. For structures with five or more dwelling units, two un-
occupied units were sampled. The term "homes" includes residential and nonreskJential properties.
-------
Table 6-3
Sampling Summary By Sample Start Hour, Phase, And Occupied/Unoccupied Status
Sampling Phases
Sample
Start Hour6
Midnight - 1 am
1 am - 2 am
2 am - 3 am
3 am - 4 am
4 am - 5 am
5 am - 6 am
6 am - 7 am
7 am - 8 am
8 am - 9 am
9am- 10am
10am- 11 am
1 1 am - Noon
Noon - 1 pm
1 pm - 2 pm
2 pm - 3 pm
3 pm - 4 pm
4 pm - 5 pm
5 pm - 6 pm
6 pm - 7 pm
7 pm - 8 pm
8 pm - 9 pm
9 pm - 10 pm
10pm- 11 pm
1 1 pm - Midnight
Phase 1
JUL28-AUG11
Homes Sampled8-"
Occ.d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
Unocc"
2
4
3
5
4
5
6
5
4
5
11
7
4
5
3
6
5
7
10
7
7
2
3
4
Total
2
4
3
5
4
5
6
5
4
7
12
10
5
7
5
9
8
9
11
9
7
2
3
4
Phase 2
SEPT 15 -SEPT 27
Homes Sampled
Occ.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
0
0
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Unocc.
4
4
4
6
4
1
4
7
7
3
5
6
6
6
12
10
7
6
3
4
4
4
3
2
Total
4
4
4
6
4
1
4
7
9
6
7
6
6
8
12
11
10
7
3
4
5
4
3
2
Phases
OCT27-NOV06
Homes Sampled
Occ.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
3
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
Unocc.
2
4
5
5
6
5
7
9
10
4
5
5
5
3
6
7
9
5
4
4
3
6
3
5
Total
2
4
5
5
6
5
7
9
11
8
8
6
6
7
8
9
10
6
5
4
3
6
3
5
Phase 4
DEC 01 -DEC 13
Homes Sampled
Occ.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
6
2
0
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unocc.
2
3
5
4
3
4
5
9
7
6
7
5
6
9
6
5
10
11
5
4
4
5
4
3
Total
2
3
5
4
3
4
5
10
9
7
9
11
8
9
10
7
12
12
5
4
4
5
4
3
Total
All Phases
Homes Sampled
Occ.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
10
8
10
4
8
8
8
9
5
2
2
1
0
0
0
Unocc.
10
15
17
20
17
15
22
30
28
18
28
23
21
23
27
28
31
29
22
19
18
17
13
14
Total
10
15
17
20
17
15
22
31
33
28
36
33
25
31
35
36
40
34
24
21
19
17
13
14
Total Homes
22
124
146
15
122
137
21
127
148
23
132
155
81
505
586
"The term "homes" includes residential and nonresidential properties.
"Homes sampled include OA replicates and overlaps.
cStart time is expressed as local time.
dOcc. indicates occupied home.
'Unocc. indicates unoccupied home.
-------
Table 6-4
Sampling Summary By EDA Neighborhoods, Phase, And Occupied/Unoccupied Status
Sampling Phases
Phase 1
JUL28-AUG11
Homes Sampled"-"
Neighborhoods Occ.d
1 1
2 2
3 4
4 1
5 0
6 4
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 0
12 2
13 4
Unocc.*
0
11
4
14
1
28
4
7
6
12
S
13
19
Total
1
13
8
15
1
32
5
8
7
13
5
15
23
Phase 2
SEPT15-SEPT27
Homes Sampled
Occ.
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
Unocc.
1
13
4
19
1
32
8
4
10
12
0
5
13
Total
1
14
6
21
2
32
9
5
12
14
1
6
14
Phases
OCT27-NOV06
Homes Sampled
Occ.
1
1
2
3
0
3
0
1
1
3
2
1
3
Unocc.
1
15
6
18
0
38
1
5
12
13
1
6
11
Total
2
16
8
21
0
41
1
6
13
16
3
7
14
Phase 4
DEC 01 -DEC 13
Homes Sampled
Occ.
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
1
2
5
0
5
3
Unocc.
1
8
7
25
0
29
4
11
7
8
3
15
14
Total
3
10
7
28
0
29
4
12
9
13
3
20
17
Total
All Phases
Homes Sampled
Occ.
4
6
8
9
1
7
2
4
6
11
3
9
11
Unocc.
3
47
21
76
2
127
17
27
35
45
9
39
57
Total
7
53
29
85
3
134
19
31
41
56
12
48
68
Total All Neighborhoods
22
124
146
15
122
137
21
127
148
23
132
155
81
505
586
*The term "homes' Includes residential and nonresidential properties.
bHomes sampled include QA replicates and overlaps
°Occ.-occupied home
dUnocc.-unoccupied home
-------
Table 6-5 shows the number of homes sampled and the number of times
LCICs were detected during each phase and in each EDA neighborhood.
Detection limits for chlorotoluene ranged from 0.4 to 4.2 parts per
billion (ppb) and averaged 1.0 ppb for the entire study. For
chlorobenzene, detection limits ranged from 0.4 to 3.7 ppb and averaged
0.8 ppb. This variation in detection limits is determined by the analytical
instrument's performance during the calibration conducted just prior to
sampling each home.
Chlorotoluene was the only LCIC detected. It was detected in only one
home and only during Phase 2 of the study. This home, located in
Neighborhood 6, was an unoccupied, single-story structure with a
basement. The general location of the house is shown in Figure 6-5.
During Phase 2, the home was sampled twice (sampling times were eight
days apart, at 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.). Chlorotoluene was detected
both times.
A room-by-room investigation of the home where chlorotoluene was
detected showed no discernible difference in concentrations vertically
or horizontally in the air inside individual rooms of the home. The
concentration of chlorotoluene varied slightly from room to room on the
main floor. Chlorotoluene was not detected in the basement.
During the initial sampling, the levels in three rooms of the six were
above the quantitation limit (2.9 ppb), the levels in two rooms were
between the quantitation and detection limits (2.9 and 1.0 ppb,
respectively), and the level in the room adjacent to the basement
entrance was below the detection limit. During the second sampling, the
levels in all six of the first floor rooms were between the quantitation and
detection limits (1.5 and 0.5 ppb, respectively). The highest
concentration of chlorotoluene detected during the two sampling efforts
was 3.4 ppb (during initial sampling). This investigation did not detect
chlorotoluene in the air in the basement of the home during either
sampling effort.
If the Love Canal were the source of the chlorotoluene, the two potential
transport paths for this chemical would be either through the ambient
air or by subsurface groundwater. LCICs were not detected in ambient
air samples taken outside the home before and after sampling the home.
This finding suggests that the LCIC concentration detected in the home
was not influenced by transport above surface. Because LCICs are
6-11
-------
Total All Neighborhoods
Table 6-5
Sampling Results Summary By EDA Neighborhood And Phase
Sampling Phases
Phase 1
JUL28-AUG11
Homes
Neighborhoods Sampled8
1 1
2 13
3 8
4 15
5 1
6 32
7 5
8 8
9 7
10 13
11 5
12 15
13 23
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phase 2
SEPT15-SEPT27
Homes
Sampled
1
14
6
21
2
32
9
5
12
14
1
6
14
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
2"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phase 3
OCT27-NOV06
Homes
Sampled
2
16
8
21
0
41
1
6
13
16
3
7
14
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Phase 4
DEC 01 -DEC 13
Homes
Sampled
3
10
7
28
0
29
4
12
9
13
3
20
17
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
All Phases
Homes
Sampled
7
53
29
85
3
134
19
31
41
56
12
48
68
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
0
2"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
137
148
155
586
'Homes sampled include replicates and overlaps.
bChlorotoluene was detected in only one home during Phase 2; this home was sampled twice in Phase 2, and chlorotoluene was detected both times.
Further sampling of this home was conducted during Phases 3 and 4 of the study; no LCICs were detected during these later phases.
Chlorobenzene was not detected in any homes sampled during the study.
-------
8
HOME WHERE
AN LCIC WAS
DETECTED
Figue 6-5
AIR ASSESSMENT—INDICATOR CHEMICALS
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
HOMES WHERE LCICS WERE DETECTED
SCALE: 1"«650'
LEGEND
—— EDA NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES (NUMBERED 1-13)
FENCE LINE AROUND LOVE CANAL REMEDIATION SITE
• HOMES WHERE LCICS WERE DETECTED ARE SHADED ON FIGURE
SOURCE: NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES ADAPTED FROM THE PROPOSED
HABITABILITY CRITERIA DOCUMENT (NYSDOH AND DHHS/CDC, 1986).
-------
heavier than air, the highest concentrations of these compounds
resulting from subsurface transport from the Canal would be expected
in the basement. However, chlorotoluene was not detected in the
basement samples collected, suggesting the LCIC detection was not
influenced by subsurface transport mechanisms either.
Therefore, it is more likely that the source of chlorotoluene was located
in the home on the main floor. The extensive investigation of the home,
which included both a vertical and a perimeter sweep of each room,
however, did not identify a specific source of chlorotoluene.
As specified in the proposed habitability criteria (NYSDOH and
DHHS/CDC, 1986), retesting of the home was also performed in Phases
3 and 4. No LCICs were detected during the retesting in Phases 3 and
4. Chlorotoluene detection limits during Phase 3 and 4 sampling of the
home were 1.4 and 0.8 ppb, respectively. The house, primarily the
garage, was being used by personnel working for Love Canal Area
Revitalization Agency (LCARA). However, no products or materials
used by these workers were identified as potential sources of
chlorotoluene.
During Phase 4 of the study, chlorotoluene was detected once in the
ambient air at less than the quantitation limit. The level detected was
between the detection limit of 0.4 ppb and the quantitation limit of
1.3 ppb. Transient chlorotoluene signals were observed just below the
detection limits throughout the day that chlorotoluene was detected in
the ambient air. Sampling during that day was conducted primarily west
of the Canal, mostly in Neighborhoods 12 and 13. Based on data
collected at the Niagara Falls International Airport, winds were from the
west at moderate speed (5 to 10 mph) throughout the day. These data
suggest that a source of chlorotoluene may exist west of the EDA and
that the source of the detected chlorotoluene was not the Love Canal.
Further discussion of the analytical results obtained throughout the air
assessment can be found in the final report issued by the U.S. EPA
Environmental Response Team (ERT) (U.S. EPA ERT, 1988).
In summary, of the 562 different homes sampled in the EDA,
chlorotoluene was detected in only one home, and chlorobenzene was
not detected in any home. There is no evidence to indicate that
temporal, spatial, or other variables influence air LCIC concentrations
6-14
-------
in EDA homes. Because LCICs were detected in only one home, the
importance of the effects of these variables on indoor air concentrations
of LCICs could not be determined.
6-15
-------
REFERENCES
CH2M HILL. 1987a. Pilot Study for the Love Canal EDA Habitability
Study. Volumes I and n.
CH2M HILL. 1987b. Love Canal Full-Scale Air Sampling Study Quality
Assurance Project Plan.
Life Systems. 1986. Peer Review of the Proposed Habitability Criteria for
the Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area.
Life Systems. 1987. Peer Review of the Love Canal Full-Scale Sampling
Plan.
Life Systems. 1988. Love Canal Emergency Declaration Area,
Habitability Study—Final Report, Volume I, Introduction and
Decision Making Documentation Report.
NYSDOH and DHHS/CDC. 1986. Love Canal Emergency Declaration
Area; Proposed Habitability Criteria.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1983. Habitability of the Love Canal
Area, An Analysis of the Technical Basis for the Decision on the
Habitability of the Emergency Declaration Area.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. 1982. Environmental
Monitoring at Love Canal. Vols. 1,2, and 3.
U.S. EPA, Environmental Response Team. 1988. Love Canal Emergency
Declaration Area Habitability Study; Air Assessment—Indicator
Chemicals; Analytical Results.
R-l
-------
APPENDIX A
ERT QA/QC
EVALUATION REPORT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I ^SZ^ * EDISON. NEW JERSEY 08837
**'«. P«,-^ February 22, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of the TAGA QA/QC Results Compared Against the
Data Quality Objectives
FROM: Thomas H. Pritchett, ERT QA/QC Coordinator (Love Canal)
Environmental Response Branch
TO: Doug Garbarini
Love Canal EDA Habitability Study Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region II, ERRD-NYCRA
Objective #1 - TAGA Accuracy
This criteria specified that the magnitude of the error of the TAGA analyses
be less than 25*. This objective was met.
The criteria specified that this objective would be measured by the use of
Performance Evaluation Analyses. The QAPP originally specified that the 6
Liter Summa canisters furnished by Northrop Services would be the performance
evaluation samples used to define the TAGA's accuracy. However, during the
first two phases the true concentrations of the canisters were never known
precisely enough for these canisters to be used as true performance evaluation
samples. Therefore, during the first two phases the accuracy of the instrument
was primarly measured using the Scott standard gas cylinders. The analyzed
cylinder was never the same cylinder which was used for the applicable calibration
Starting in phase 2 the analyses of the 16 Liter Sum*a precision canisters
were also used to determine the overall accuracy of the instrument. Finally,
in phases 3 & 4 the analyses of the 6 Liter Summa canisters were used in
conjunction with the other two analyses to confirm the relative accuracy of
the instrument.
The relative accuracy as measured by the Scott performance evaluations never
exceeded an absolute value of 25% on any day during the four mobilizations.
The largest magnitudes of the relative errors measured by this analysis were
23.0% and 23.1? for chlorotoluene and chlorobenzene, respectively. The
relative error as measured by the 6 Liter Summa canisters never exceeded
an absolute value of 25% for either compound during phases 3 & 4, but on
11/01/87 it did equal 25% for chlorobenzene. However, on that day the mag-
titudes of the relative error for chlorobenzene as measured by the Scott
cylinder analysis and the 16 Liter Summa canister analysis were 16.3% and
-------
17.6*, respectively. The magnitude of the relative error for the compounds
as measured by the 16 Liter canister analyses only exceeded the 25% criteria
for only one compound (chlorotoluene) on only one day (October 27, 1987)
during phases 2-4. However, on that day the magnitudes of the relative
error for chlorotoluene as measured by the 6 Liter canister analysis and by
the Scott cylinder analysis were 8.8% and 8.0%, respectively. Considering
the -6% +7% error in the canister certifications analyses for phase 3, these
data points indicate that the overall accuracy of the TAGA was still within
the required 25% error criteria for that day.
Objective 12 - TAGA Precision
The criteria for this objective was 25%. The day-to-day precision of the
TAGA was actually determined from two sets of replicate analyses. First, as
per the QAPP, the precision was determined from the daily analyses of the 16
Liter Summa canisters. The maximum relative standard deviations measured in
these analyses throughout the study for chlorotoluene and chlorobenzene were
17.9% and 15.6%, respectively. Because of the larger number of analyses for
each sample, the relative standard deviations were also calculated for the
Scott standard cylinder analyses. The maximum relative standard deviations
measured in these analyses for chlorotoluene and chlorobenzene were 5.4% and
5.5% respectively. Both sets of precision data clearly demonstrate that the
TAGA analyses met the required precision data quality objective of 25%.
Objective #3 - Detection Limits for the LCICs
The criteria for this objective was 4 ppb for both LCICs. When the detection
limits for the LCICs were rounded to the closest whole number, all of the
reported detection limits met this criteria. In only one analysis was the
reported detection limit was the unrounded value greater than 4.0 (the reported
detection limit was 4.2 ppb). However the house involved was reanalyzed
during that phase as a within-phase replicate house analysis and was chosen
as one of the houses which was analyzed during each of the remaining
phases. Therefore, regardless of one's interpretation of the rounding
down of a detection limit to meet the criteria, the overall data quality
of that residence was not affected since four additional sets of data -
all more than meeting this criteria - were obtained for the house, including
an additional set during the same phase as the potentially questionable
data set.
Therefore, this criteria was met for every house sampled during each
phase.
Objective 14 - Allowable Response Factor Decay Between Subsequent
Calibrations
The maximum allowable decay in response factors was specified as 15%.
However, this criteria only applied to decays in response factors and did
not apply to response factor increases. Because of the emphasis on the
TAGA's ability to be able to detect infrequent occurrences of trace levels
of the target compounds, no corrective action was required or even warranted
-------
when the instrument sensitivity actually increased by more than 15%, which
it often did. This criteria had been established as one means to always
insure that the TAGA had sufficient sensitivity to meet the detection limit
data quality objectives.
The average response factor decay for either target compound only exceeded
15% twelve times during the whole study. In all cases the appropriate cor-
rective action was taken and the sensitivity stabilized. In all cases the
response factors which resulted in the excessive decay were still more than
sufficient to give the TAGA the required sensitivity - even before the cor-
rective action was taken.
Since the appropriate corrective actions were taken whenever a set of response
factors decayed more than 15% and since in all cases the TAGA had sufficient
sensitivity even prior to the corrective action was taken, this data quality
objective was met.
Objective #5 - Accuracy of the TAGA Calibrations as Measured by the Accuracy
of the Dilution Flowrate Measurements
Two different flow measurements were used in calculating the calibration
concentrations - the standard gas flowrate (MFC) and the ambient air dilutant
flowrate (SAP). In both cases the accuracy of these measurements had to be
less than or equal to 10% to meet this data quality objective criteria.
These accuracies were determined on a weekly basis using a Gilian Primary
Standard Gas Calibrator for the MFC and a rotameter with a NBS traceable
calibration for the SAF. Four different points were checked for each device
even though only two of the SAF measurements fell within the typical range
used by the TAGA. In all of calibration checks no measurement had an error
greater than or equal to 10%. The largest relative error of the SAF and
MFC measurements found in the ranges used by the TAGA was equal to 9%.
Therefore, this data quality objective was met.
Objective 16- Loss of LCICs in Sampling Lines
This data quality objective was actually measured as percent transport ef-
ficiencies (i.e., 100% - % sample loss). The data quality objective criteria
of less than or equal to 15% sample loss thus translated into a percent trans-
port efficiency of criteria of greater than or equal to 85%. The percent
transport efficiencies were determined twice daily throughout the sampling
program. The measured transport efficiencies for chlorotoluene and chloro-
benzene ranged from 88.6% to 122% and from 90.7% to 120%, respectively.
During phase 1 heated transfer lines were used to draw air samples into the
TAGA while in phases 2-4 unheated lines were used. The lowest temperature,
as measured by the TAGA's thermometer, at which either type of transfer line
was used was 31° F. The transport efficiencies measured at this temperature
were 99.2% and 99.5% for chlorotoluene and chlorobenzene, respectively.
-------
This criteria was met throughout all phases - even though unheated sampling
lines were used in phases 2-4.
Objective 7 - 100% of the Residences Sampled
Since the actual selection of residences to be sampled was controlled by
the on-site CH2M Hill task leader, the final determination of whether
this objective was met is not within the scope of this report. However,
it is within the scope of this report to comment on the status of the
data for the residences sampled. All data packages for the house sampled
did pass all the data review and data validation criteria. Thus, acceptable
data packages were generated for all of the residences sampled by the TAGA.
Objective *8 - Documentation Complete and Consistent
This objective has been sufficiently met to allow all of data to be used.
The consistency and completeness of the data packages were checked
by two separate steps each performed by a different group under the
direction of the ERT QA/QC Coordinator. First, all packages underwent a
data review by the TAGA Data Review group who had primary responsibility
for completing all incomplete data packages and for insuring that each
package was internally consistent. After the data review was completed,
the data package was turned over to the Data Validation group who double-
checked the package for data entry errors, for completeness, and for
internal consistency. All of the data packages generated during this
study have passed these two stages and all significant inconsistencies
and omissions in the packages have been corrected. If any such errors
still do exist, they will be too minor to adversely affect the quality
of the data packages.
cc: B. Coakley, U.S. EPA-ERT
G. Helms, CH2M Hill
D. Mickunas, Roy F. Weston, Inc. (REAC)
-------
APPENDIX B
EMSL-RTP
SUMMARY AUDIT REPORT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA 2771 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 1988
SUBJ: Report Summarizing the 1987 Audits on the
Love Canal HabitabMlty Study
FROM: William J. Mitchell, Ph.D. >
Chief, PEB/QAD/EMSL (MD-77B)
TO: Doug Garbarlnl
EPA, Region 1 1
As you requested, Northrop Services prepared the attached report which
summarizes the results from the performance and systems audits they conducted
In 1987 on the Love Canal Habltabl Mty Study. The report Is very conpl Imentary
towards the project. I concur with their opinion. You and the other project
personnel ere to be congratulated for your achievements regarding the Love Canal
Study.
If you have questions, please call me at FTS 629-2769 or 919/541-2769.
Attachment
cc: C. Akland
T. Hart I age
-------
Summary Audit Report
Love Canal Babitability Study
(Phase 1-4)
July - December 1987
Prepared by:
B.J. Carpenter and Kenneth J. Caviston
Northrop Services - Environmental Sciences
Research Triangle Park, NC
for
EPA/EMSL/QAD
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
INTRODUCTION
Northrop Services -Environmental Sciences was directed by the Quality
Assurance Division, EMSL,KTP,NC to provide QA support to EPA's Love Canal
Habitability Study at Niagara Falls, NY. This support was provided under Con-
tract 68-02-4444.
NSI audit teams visited the Emergency Declaration Area at the Love Canal
during each of the four mobilizations conducted between July and December
1987. Systems and Performance audits were conducted by NSI. The Systems
audits assessed overall project management, documentation, safety, and con-
formance of these systems to the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The
performance audits assessed the conformance to the eight Data Quality Objec-
tives contained in Table 4 - 1 of the QAPP. The results are summarized below.
SYSTEMS AUDITS
The system implemented for the Love Canal study can actually be sub-
divided into four units: management, sampling, analysis, data handling. The
original system was designed using "best guess" estimates and was modified as
individuals gained experience with the project.
This project could have become a logistical nightmare. However, the
Management staff minimized the impact of any problems by attempting to an-
ticipate them and when problems occurred took timely corrective action.
The auditors found that any deviations from the QAPP were well docu-
mented in the-Task Managers notebooks. Some of these changes (e.g. personnel
changes) did not always nake their way into a revised QAPP or Standard
Operating Procedure. However, these were minor points and had little bearing
on data quality.
The sampling phase of this project introduced the auditors to a new set
of faces during each mobilization. Each individual we observed was well
qualified to perform his assigned duties. We did notice during mobilizations
3 and 4 that the sampling team had little knowledge of the history of the
project. Overall, the individuals knew their assignment and performed it
professionally.
The Standard Operating and Reporting Procedure was strictly adhered to
by the TAGA operators. Any deviations were thoroughly documented and, in the
opinion of the audit team, these changes improved the data quality.
The data review and validation phase of the project was designed with
redundancy in mind. Each step of the data collecting process had a duplicate
step as a check corresponding to it. The final step (data validation) was an
independent and detailed examination of all documentation and data. These
steps were being closely adhered to by the personnel handling the data.
In our opinion, the project was conducted in accordance with the ap-
proved QAPP.
-------
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
The QAPP lists eight Quality Objectives for the Love Canal Habitability
Study. The NSI audit team feels that all of the data quality objectives were
usually met. There were some cases of non-attainment but these were docu-
mented and corrective action was immediately implemented.
Objective 1 - Accuracy. (^ 25%)
The accuracy of the TAGA was determined using blind canisters prepared
by the EPA-PTP Organic Standards Laboratory. The criteria to be met was
< 25%. The first two canisters analyzed were outside this limit. When inves-
tigation showed that this was a problem in the TAGA delivery system, action
was taken that corrected the problem. After this analyses were well within
the 25% limit.
Objective 2 - Precision. £ 25%)
This was determined by periodic analysis of the same cylinder/canister.
Our review of the data during each audit showed that this criteria was met
consistently.
Objective 3 - Detection Limits. £ 4 PPB)
Our review of the data indicated that the detection limit was less than
4 PPB for each residence.
Objective 4 - Ion Signal Decay. (^ 15%)
The audit team noted that corrective action was taken when the decay was
greater than 15%. "This was a well documented and rare occurance.
Objective 5 - Accuracy of TAGA Calibration. £ 10%)
The audit team used a laminar flow element to check the sample air flow
and the mass flow controller. The flows in the usable ranges of both systems
agreed with the NBS traceable LFE within the 10% specified in the QAPP.
One of the flows used to check the mass flowmeter was 10 ml/sec. During
mobilizations 3 & 4 the LFE and mass flow controller differed by +10.3% and
+ 10.6%. Although technically a violation of the data criteria, it will have
no affect on data quality since this flow is outside the range used in the
Love Canal Study.
Objective 6 - Loss of LCIC in Sampling Lines. £ 15%)
The sampling efficiency was checked each sampling day. The audit team
observed this procedure during each mobilization and checked notebooks for
previous results. The loss of LCIC was always less than the 15% criteria
specified in the QAPP.
Objective 7 - Residential Structures Sampled. (100%)
"Percentage of EDA for which permission to gain entry was granted and
for which the structure was determined safe to enter."
The audit team spent a great deal of time comparing sampling schedules,
maps, notebooks and the actual EDA. For the most part, the objective was met,
however, we did observe two residences which could not be sampled because the
probe would not reach the house.
-------
Objective 8 - Documentation Complete and Consistent for Sampled Residence.
(100%)
We observed the sampling documentation being collected on several occa-
sions and checked the completed packages for several residences. The documen-
tation checked was complete and agreed with what we had visually observed.
In our opinion, all of the data objectives were met during the study.
The variations noted were minor, documented, immediately corrected and had no
effect on the quality of the data.
Submitted by:
B.J.lCarpenter
K.J. Cavis£0n
-------
APPENDIX C
ERT/TAT
DATA VALIDATION REPORT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
F EDISON. NEW JERSEY 06837
'«,MT^
"'«r"' February 22, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Summary of the Data Validation of the TAGA Data
FROM: Thomas H. Pritchett, ERT QA/QC Coordinator (Love Ca^)
Environmental Response Branch ^
TO: Doug Garbarini
Love Canal EDA Habitability Study Project Manager
U.S. EPA Region II, ERRD-NYCRA
All TAGA data packages underwent a thorough data validation by the TAT team
using the checklists summarized in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of Appendix A of the
QAPP. Appendix A contained the Summary of the TAGA Standard Operating and
Reporting Procedures (SORP) for the Love Canal Full-Scale Air Sampling Study.
Each day's data package was validated separately. A daily Data Validation
Logsheet was prepared for each package in order to summarize the QA/QC data
as it pertained to the data quality objectives, any major deviations from
the QAPP, and any major errors which might reflect upon the data quality of
either the daily or a housespecific data package. Figure 1 contains an
example of one the daily Data Validation Logsheets.
In some instances the problems noted in the logsheet could only be addressed
by a memorandum to the Love Canal files which modified the TAGA procedures
specified in the QAPP (e.g., changing the identification criteria for com-
pounds present above the quantitation limit), which clarified an ambiguity or
typographical error in the QAPP (e.g., reversing the required cryoshell
temperatures in the Instrument Startup Checklist for cryoshells #2 and #3)
or which interpreted the effect the deviation had on the quality of a given
daily or a house-specific data package (e.g., not having the required 30
sequences of measurements collected on an obvious "non-detect" data point).
Those cases, which resulted in an ERT QA/QC Coordinator memorandum to the
Love Canal files, were indicated by the Coordinator's initials in block C of
the Comments section of the logsheet.
All minor data transcription errors were indicated by Post-It notes attached
to the appropriate sheets in the data package. An example of one of these
notes can be observed in Figure 2. These notes were used to indicate such
errors as a failure to initial an entry change, an obvious transcription
error in a logsheet (i.e., one of three replicate entries did not agree for
the same data), or a failure to enter a piece of manual entry data in one of
the logsheets. Since all manual entry data were entered on two to three
-------
different forms (as specified in Table 6.3.2 of the SORP) such errors were
relatively easy to catch and correct.
After completing the data validation, the TAT team then returned the data
package to the ERT QA/QC coordinator who reviewed the Data Validation Logsheet
in order to determine the appropriate corrective action for the noted problems
and QAPP deviations in the package. In addition, the ERT QA/QC coordinator
reviewed the errors flagged with the Post-It notes. After these two reviews,
the data package and the completed Data Validation Logsheet was given back
to the TAGA data review team for the appropriate corrective actions. Once
the appropriate corrections were made, this corrected package became the
official data package for that day to be later included in the TAGA group's
final report to the ERT.
All of the daily data packages have undergone this process and the required
corrections and/or corrective actions have been made. No house-specific data
packages were pulled from the daily packages because of the data validation.
However, when houses were selected for replicate sampling, the houses with
the explanatory action by the ERT QA/QC Coordinator in a previous house-specific
package were always given first priority for resampling.
Enclosures
cc: B. Coakley, U.S. EPA-ERT
G. Helms, CH2M Hill
D. Mickunas, Roy F. Weston, Inc. (REAC)
-------
FIGURE 1. Typical Date Validation Logsheet (page 1 of 2)
DATA VALIDATION COMMENTS LOG
Date of sampling: \2\\V\1 . . '_
Date data package received: . U""\\\/
Date D.V. Logsheet completed; V\V.K7'
Date data package finalized: '
To minimize errors related to instrument response, check the following:
ACTION FREQUENCY CRITERIA COMMENTS
SAF
Calibration
l)upon arrival at LC
2)weekly thereafter
3)before demobilizing
<10% Error
Days since ,j
last check 1
MFC l)upon arrival at LC <10% Error Days since n
Calibration 2)weekly thereafter last check i
3}before demobilizing
% Transport 1) start of day > or = 85%
Efficiency 2)end of day
Verification l)end of day l)within£\ppb \^
of Calculated of calculated
Quantitation Quant. Limits
Limits 2) <25% Error
/ —
- -r - , , O «l «
Accuracy and 1) cylinder — <25% Error ^ v \tL- (I
Precision start of day
using Cylinder/ 2)canister —
Canister of every other day
known cone. at end of day
Accuracy using l)one PE cylinder/ <25% Error
PE Cylinder/ canister a day,
Canister at start of day
Response
Factor
Decays
1)every calibration
all average
RF Decays
< or - 15%
-------
FIGURE 1 (cent.) Typical Data Validation Log.heet (page 2 of 2)
KEY:
A « Comment does not affect data quality.
B « Comment requires Data Review action.
C « Comment requires explanatory action by ERT QA/QC Coordinator.
D • Comment requires bouse data package withdrawal
(house to be scheduled for resampling).
COMMENTS:
1)A B ~ /F/J' C D
t-» r
VvfV.. OA V,\.i- (,'. A 1 >\A- >MOi ?«'V'\J_,
\vc. \<. V\. -'Af.c \^ '\A-^ ^AXf- ../
'
3)A _ B
4)A B_
5) A B_
6) A B_
-------
FIGURE 2. Example of a Manual Data Entry Error Flagged by e
Post-It Note During the Data Validation
TACA File:
Uf
INVESTIGATIVE SAMPLING LOG
Page of
Description
WDR254/042
------- |