MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
A REVIEW OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE MONITORING STUDIES
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
TASK 1(J)
EPA Prime Contract No. 68-02-3938
MRI Project No. 8501-A(1)
September 23, 1985
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Field Studies Branch
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Mr. Richard Kent
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816 753-7600
-------
A REVIEW OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE MONITORING STUDIES
By
David H. Steele
John M. Hosenfeld
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
TASK 1(J)
EPA Prime Contract No. 68-02-3938
MRI Project No. 8501-A(1)
September 23, 1985
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Field Studies Branch
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Mr. Richard Kent
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816 753-7600
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document is a preliminary draft. If has not been released formally by
the Office of Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and should not at this stage be con-
strued to represent Agency policy. It is being circulated for comments on
its technical merit and policy implications.
-------
PREFACE
This draft final report presents a review of documents for MRI
Project No. 8501-A(1)J, "A Review of Tetrachloroethylene Monitoring Studies,
for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Prime Contract No. 68-02-3938)!
Mr. David Steele served as subtask leader and together with Mr. John
Hosenfeld conducted this literature review. This report was prepared by
Mr. Steele and Mr. Hosenfeld.
MJOWEJI-HKEARCH INSTITUTE
E. Going
Program Manager
Approved:
James L. Spigarelli, Director
Chemical and Biological Sciences
Department
n
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Procedures 1
III. Results 3
A. Background 4
B. Results 4
IV. Conclusions.
Appendix A - Completed Review Forms 10
Appendix B - Bibliography 57
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) was directed by the Field Studies
Branch of the Exposure Evaluation Division of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to review current studies concerning exposure to and monitoring
of tetrachloroethylene. The study involved two primary tasks:
1. Assess the results of field studies concerning exposure to
tetrachloroethylene and
2. Review the analytical methods of these studies.
Documents were supplied by EPA through its subcontractor, Versar.
For evaluation purposes, the documents were divided into categories. The
reviews presented in this report are in the same order as in "Table 2 Summary
of Perchloroethylene Monitoring Data" supplied by Versar as submitted to EPA.
The reviews are presented in the following order according to matrix:
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Air
Surface Water
Groundwater
Drinking Water
Sediment
Tissue
Several articles contained data that were cited in several sections.
When this occurred, the reviews were duplicated in each section, as appropri-
ate, for ease of interpretation and review.
Thirty-two articles were received on September 9, 1985. Since EPA
needed the articles reviewed and a draft report prepared by September 24, 1985,
the EPA work assignment manager instructed MRI to focus primarily on the ana-
lytical method and secondly on the reasonableness of the data reported. Eval-
uation of survey design, sample collection and to a lesser extent, quality
assurance is to be completed at a later date pending direction by the EPA work
assignment manager.
II. PROCEDURES
The primary objective of each review was to assess the quality of
the analytical method used to obtain the data. Since QA/QC is an integral
part of the analytical method, QA/QC aspects were also considered as part of
the method evaluation. The reported data were also briefly examined for
reasonableness, based on the methods used.
The reprint summary form shown in Figure 1 was used as the basis
for this review. In each article, a specific list of items was looked for in
the document and, if mentioned, the item provided a means of assessing the
merit of that aspect of the study. An item was evaluated only if it was de-
scribed in the document; i.e., an item was not evaluated in cases where ref-
erence was made to an analytical procedure but no actual documentation of the
procedures used was contained in the article.
-------
Media:
Citation:
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation:.
Recovery:
Interferences:
Limit of detection:
Precision and Accuracy:
Problems:
Instrument:
Linear response:
Stability of response:
Problems:
Critique:
Figure 1. Reprint summary form.
-------
A sliding scale (1-5) was designed and used to evaluate the docu-
ments. The basic criteria for assigning a value to each paper are given be-
low. Adjustments to the ratings were then made based on additional informa-
tion contained in the document. For example, if a document contained a full
description of analytical and quality assurance procedures but the QA/QC re-
sults were not reported, the document was given a basic rating of 2. However,
if problems were noted (e.g. sampling problems, wide interlab variances, in-
terferences, etc), the rating was lowered. Conversely, a data table, contain-
ing no reference to the analytical method used would be rated 5; however, if
some QA/QC results (e.g. limit of detection, precision, etc) were reported,
the rating was increased.
Rating Criteria Example
1. Contains a full description of Hunter and
analytical and QA/QC procedures. Sabatino, 1981
QA/QC results reported.
2. Analytical and QA/QC procedures de- Evans et al., 1979
scribed, QA/QC results not reported.
3. Analytical method referenced to a USEPA, 1982a
standard analytical method. QA/QC
results not reported.
4. Method referenced to a nonstandard Lillian, 1975
method or to an earlier paper. QA/QC
results not reported.
5. Method not stated or referenced. data only
(Plumb, 1985)
III. RESULTS
Forty-six documents were reviewed for this report. Thirty-two docu-
ments were submitted by EPA through its subcontractor, Versar. Five articles
were obtained from EPA Region 7 library, eight through MRI's library, and one
article was obtained from MRI archives. Sixteen were not received for review
based on Versar1s Table 2.
The results are presented in seven subsections. The first six are
based on the order in Versar1s Table 2, "Summary of Perchloroethylene Monitor-
ing Data". The seventh section contains the results of the review of the NIOSH
Method which were specifically requested by the EPA work assignment manager.
The comments included in these sections are brief descriptions of
the more salient features of each review. The complete reviews and a bibli-
ography of the documents are contained in Appendices A and B, respectively.
During the review process, several discrepancies were noted between
the Versar Table 2 and the information contained in the articles reviewed.
-------
The discrepancies are noted in Table 1 of the present missing report. Missing
analytical methods, incomplete detection limit data, and 17 reference articles
were the discrepancies noted.
A description of the physical and chemical properties of tetrachloro-
ethylene is also contained in this section.
A. Background
The physical and chemical properties of tetrachloroethylene are
given below.
Names: tetrachloroethylene, perchloroethylene, tetrachloroethene,
ethylene tetrachloride, tetrachlorethylene, Nema, Tetrocap,
Tetropil, Perclene, Ankilostin, and Didakene.
Molecular and structural formula: C2C14; C12C=CC12
Molecular weight: 165.85
Melting point: -22°C
Boiling point: 121°C
Specific gravity: 1.6311 (20/4)
Refractive index: (Ng0): 1.5055
Solubility: Soluble in 10,000 parts water; miscible with alcohol,
ether, chloroform, and benzene.
B. Results
1. Air
Fourteen documents concerning tetrachloroethylene in air were re-
viewed. The ratings assigned are given below.
Reference
Evans, 1978 1.5
Pellizari & Bunch, 1979 1.5
ESCOR, 1982 2
Bozzelli & Kebbekus, 1982 2.5
MRI, 1976 3
USEPA, 1978 3.5
Brodzinsky & Singh, 1983 4
Singh, 1977 4
Lillian, 1975 4
Wentz, 1973 4
Clark, 1982 4
NRC, 1978 5
PEDCO, 1981 5
USEPA, 1980c 5
-------
2. Surface Water
Twelve surface water documents were received. The ratings of these
articles are given below.
Reference Rating
Hunter & Sabatino, 1981 1
USEPA, 1977c 2
USEPA, 1982a 2
USEPA, 1982b 2
MRI, 1976 3
Bellar, 1974 4
Helz and Hsu 4
Kaiser & Comba, 1983 4
USEPA, 1977b 4
USEPA, 1982d 4
USEPA, 1980b 4.5
USPEA, 1982c 5
3. Groundwater
Eight papers concerning groundwater were reviewed. These documents
were rated as follows.
Reference
Toirson, 1981 2
USEPA, 1984b 2.5
CEQ, 1981 5
Plumb, 1985 5
USEPA, 1980c 5
USEPA, 1982e 5
USEPA, n.d. (d) 5
USEPA, n.d. (e) 5
4. Drinking Water
Thirteen documents concerning drinking water were reviewed. The
assigned ratings are given below.
Reference
Wakeham, 1980 1.5
Wallace, 1984 1.5
Minsley, 1983 3
Bellar, 1974 4
Clark, 1982 4
Larson, 1983 4
USEPA, 1975 4
JRB, 1982 4.5
Suffet, 1977 4.5
-------
Reference
CEQ, 1981
MRI, 1979
USEPA, 1980c
USEPA, 1984c
5
5
5
5
5. Sediment
Two sediment documents were reviewed. The ratings assigned to these
studies were as follows.
Reference
USEPA, 1984b
USEPA, 1980b
Rating
2.5
4.5
6. Tissue
Three articles concerning tissue were reviewed. The ratings for
these documents were as follows.
Reference
USEPA, 1980a
JRB, 1982
McConnell, 1975
7. Analytical Method
Reference
NIOSH, 1977
Rating
1.5
4.5
5
IV. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the rating system, documents with values of 3 or
lower were judged to be acceptable. Those with ratings greater than 3 were
judged unacceptable. It should be noted that the data contained in unaccept-
able documents may be valid; however, the lack of documentation of analytical
and quality assurance procedures precluded assessment of the quality of the
data.
Of the 44 documents reviewed, only two were rated excellent. One
of these was the standard NIOSH method for volatiles in air (NIOSH 1977).
Any study conducted which strictly follows the procedures outlined in this
method should produce data of high quality. The second document was an ex-
cellent water study conducted by Hunter and Sabatino (1981). Analytical pro-
cedures were outlined in a step-by-step fashion. In addition, calibration
parameters, recovery and quality assurance data, and criteria for determining
analytical system compliance were also reported. The data reported in this
document are judged to be of high quality.
-------
Five other documents (Evans 1978, Pellizari & Bunch 1979, USEPA
1980a, Wakeham 1980, and Wallace 1984) were judged to be of very good quality;
however, they lacked the completeness of Hunter and Sabatino. Data contained
in these documents are judged to be valid.
Eight documents (Bozzelli & Kebbekus 1982, ESCOR 1982, Minsley 1983,
MRI 1976, Tomson 1981, USEPA 1978, USEPA 1980a, and USEPA 1984b) were judged
to be acceptable.
-------
Table 1. Comparison and Changes to Versar Table 2-1,
Summary of Perch!oroethylene Monitoring Data:
Incorrect Information Given in Parentheses
Description of
study
Analytical methods Detection limit
Reference
Section 1 - Air
Section 2 -
Surface Water
Section 3 -
Groundwater
Colorimetric (GC)
GC/ECD6 (GC/MS)f
GC/ECD (GC)
GC/ECD fGC)
GC/HECD9 (GC/MS)
GC/FIDh (GC/MS)
GC/HECD
GC/FID (NR)
GC/FID (GC)
0.0025.ug/m3
(NR)d
Howil, 1980C
Wentz, 1973
Thomas, 1979C
Pellizari & Bunch, 1979
Pellizari, 1982bc
Evans, 1979
Hunt, 1985C
Singh et al., 1978C
Hwang, 1982C
0.005 ug
(0.005 ug/m3) ESCOR, 1982
0.04 ug/L (NR)
0.1 ug/L (NR)
1 ug/L (NR)
10 ug/L (NR)
10 ug/L (NR)
.05 (ND)
2 ug/L (NR)
2 ug/L (NR)
Clark et al., 1982
ADL, 1981C
Kaiser & Comba, 1983
Helz & Hsu. 1978
ADL, 1979ac
Bellar et al., 1974
Chi an & Ewing, 1977C
Pearson & McConnell, 1975C
MRI, 1976
Scott Environmental, 1976
EPA, 1982a
EPA, 1982c
EPA, 1982d
Hunter & Sabatino, 1981
Tucker, 1981C
Tomson, 1982
USEPA, 1982e
USEPA, n.d (d)
-------
Table 1 (continued)
Description of
study
Analytical methods Detection limit Reference
Section 4 -
Drinking Water
GC/MS (NR)
GC/FID (NR)
GC/MS
GC/HECD (GC)
GC/ECD (GC)
GC/FID (GC/MS)
GC (NR)
Section 5 - Sediment
Section 6 - Tissue
2 ug/L ( )
50 ppt (NR)
1 ug/L (NR)
0.1 ug/L (NR)
Dowty et al. . 1975
USEPA, 1981ac
Suffet et al., 1977c
Zweidinger et al.
USEPA, 1975
n.d.
USEPA, 1984c
Clark et al., 1982
Love et al.
Minsley, 1983
Wakeham et al
Larson et al.
STORET datac
0.6 ug/kg (NR) USEPA, 1980a
1980
1983
Review only addressed analytical methods and detection limits.
bon concentration stated in articles.
Correction stated (incorrect version in parentheses).
.Article not sent to MRI for review.
°NR - Not detectable.
fECD = electron capture detector.
MS = mass spectrometer detector.
^HECD - Hall electrolytic conductivity detector.
FID = flame ionization detector.
No comment
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPLETED REVIEW FORMS
10
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: Bellar et al., 1974.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA (not applicable).
Recovery: NR (not reported).
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ±20%
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/FID and GC/HECD
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: All of the analytes in this study (primarily trihalomethane)
were quantitated using chloroform standards; therefore, the data obtained for
tetrachloroethylene cannot be considered accurate.
11
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Bozzelli and Kebbekus, 1982.
Measurement Procedure: Collection on Tenax GC.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Details of experimental technique, recovery, and quality control
procedures were presented in a previous paper. Data quality cannot be assessed
without this information.
12
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Brodzinsky and Singh, 1983.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR, but document states that ± 25% is
acceptable.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: A limited peer review of data quality rated the data for
tetrachloroethylene as good to excellent. Quality assurance procedures are
also described. Analytical methods, LOD, and standard deviation were re-
corded in a data base, but this information was not available in the document.
13
-------
Media: Water.
Citation: Clark, 1982.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/ECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Data are cited and summarized from a secondary source. Al-
though electron capture gas chromatography is an appropriate instrumental
choice, no comment can be made about the validity or accuracy of the data.
14
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: Council of Environmental Quality, 1981.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This document is a brief survey on contamination of groundwater.
EPA and several state surveys are cited; however, analytical methodologies are
not discussed.
15
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: ESCOR, 1982.'
Measurement Procedure: Modified EPA Method 624.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 5 ng.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The analytical procedure used is a modification of the EPA
method for volatiles. The modification (elimination of the water purge step)
should not affect the validity of the results. Interlab comparisons were in
general agreement. If the QA/QC procedures outlined in Method 624 were
followed, the data should be of good quality.
16
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Evans et al., 1979.
Measurement Procedure: Collection on charcoal/extraction with carbon
disulfide.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: Estimated at ~ 70%.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ~ 16% C.V.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/ECD.
Linear response: 0.5 ng-10 ng; demonstrated with standards.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The methodology used for this study is basically the NIOSH
P & CAM 127 procedure, which is well-established. Extensive internal and
external quality assurance measures were utilized; therefore, the data are
judged to be of high quality.
17
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Grimsrud and Rasmussen, 1975.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: Direct injection.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: Tetrachloroethylene was present in the carrier gas.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Analytical procedures were described in an earlier publication.
Traces of tetrachloroethylene in the carrier gas limited the accuracy of
measurement. It is unknown whether the impurities were at a consistent level
in carrier gas. If so, then the effect would be on the detection level. If
the impurities showed up in a random pattern, then the entire data set would
be questionable.
18
-------
Media: Water.
Citation: Helz and Hsu, 1978.
Measurement Procedure: Headspace analysis.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 4% for replicate injection.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/HECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This is a study on the effects of chlorination on various
types of water (river water and sea water). Headspace analysis is a fairly
standard technique; however, the lack of quality assurance details makes
assessment of the data quality difficult.
19
-------
Media: Water.
Citation: Hunter and Sabatino, 1981.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap; pentane extraction.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: 94% (purge and trap) 97% (pentane extraction).
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 50 ppt.
Precision and Accuracy: 0.6% coefficient of variation; ± 10-20%
(pentane extraction).
Problems: n-pentane from Fisher had the least amount of contamination.
Instrument: Purge and trap; HECO; ECD.
Linear response: Two calibration points.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: An excellent report that details the analytical method used
in a step-by-step fashion: the calibration parameters, the level of quality
control samples, and the criteria for determining analysis system compliance.
Recovery data were within the range of the method. Assuming that the quality
control samples analyzed with the water samples were within specification,
the data are judged valid.
20
-------
Media: Drinking Water and Food.
Citation: JRB, 1982.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 0.1-0.5 pg/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: Extended sample storage periods (2 yrs) may have caused
losses of analytes.
Instrument: GC/HECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This document is a summary of five federal surveys (NOSP,
CWSS, RWS, NOMS, and GWSS). All but the GWSS study experienced extended
sample storage periods, making the results suspicious. The GWSS study may
have produced data of acceptable quality; however, no analytical details were
provided to substantiate this.
21
-------
Media: River Water.
Citation: Kaiser and Comba, 1983.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: Cited an earlier paper.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 40 ng/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: ECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Cleanup procedures were not given in this paper, but rather
were referenced in an earlier paper. The analytical procedures given appear
to be good and the standard concentrations cited are reasonable for GC/ECD;
however, data concerning analyte recovery, precision and accuracy are needed
to fully assess the quality of the data reported.
22
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: Larson et al., 1983.
Measurement Procedure: Collected on adsorbant, then analyzed by GC.
Cleanup/fractionation: Activated carbon or synthetic resin.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 0.1 pg/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC (no detector stated).
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This article concerns the leaching of tetrachloroethylene from
vinyl coated air conditioning lines. Few analytical details are given; there-
fore, it is not possible to estimate the quality of the data without additional
information e.g., volume of sample collected, instrument standardization, etc.
23
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Lillian et al., 1975.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 15%.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/ECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Analytical details were presented in an earlier paper; there-
fore, it is difficult to assess the quality of the data. The values obtained
appear reasonable for electron capture GC.
24
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Lovelock, 1975.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The analytical method is not cited in this paper; some of the
language used would indicate that gas chromatographic analyses were employed.
The data quality cannot be assessed without further documentation.
25
-------
Media: Tissue.
Citation: McConnell et al., 1975.
Measurement Procedure: Summary statement with references.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: A summary paper on occurrence in environment, animals and
humans including comments on emission and distribution pathways, absorption,
metabolism, and excretion; effects on wildlife and degradation. No informa-
tion stated in article to assess data validity.
26
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: Minsley, 1983.
Measurement Procedure: EPA Method 501.2.
Cleanup/fractionation: EPA Method 501.2.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 1 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: None reported.
Instrument: GC/ECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The quality of the data cannot be assessed from the infor-
mation contained in the paper; however, if the procedures outlined in EPA
501.2 were followed, the data should be of good quality.
27
-------
Media: Wastewater/Air.
Citation: MRI, 1976.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: Benzene extraction for water samples; direct
sampling for air.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 13% for 500-ppm standard.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/FID.
Linear response: Calibration curve given in document.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: These analyses were conducted according to the EPA method for
the determination of perchloroethylene from stationary sources (Washington,
Draft). The analytical techniques described indicate that the data should be
of good quality.
28
-------
Media: Air; Water.
Citation: MRI, 1979.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This presentation is from the "Proceedings of the Conference
on Methyl Chloroform and Other Halocarbon Pollutants." Summary data are
provided for ambient air around manufacturing plants, and unspecified cities
which also had water levels reported. No analytical methods were presented,
so no assessment of data quality can be made.
29
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: NIOSH, 1977.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: 0.5 ml of carbon disulfide and a 30-min
desorption period.
Recovery: Tests have indicated that desorption is complete in
30 min; however, desorption efficiency is determined with each set of samples.
Interferences: Any compound which has a similar gas chromatographic
retention time.
Limit of detection: 0.06 mg/sample (maximum sample size: 25 L).
Precision and Accuracy: 10%.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/FID.
Linear response: Established with standard solutions of tetra-
chloroethylene in carbon disulfide.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This method is designed for the determination of organic
solvents in air. The limit of detection is 0.06 mg/sample. Maximum sample
size is 25 L. The mean relative standard deviation of the analytical proce-
dure is given as 8%. The total method, including field sampling, yields a
mean relative standard deviation of 10%. The accuracy of the overall method
is 10% when the sampling pump is calibrated with the tube in place. Since
this is rarely the case, the accuracy and precision of the method are limited
by the reproducibility of the pressure drop across the tubes. If the proce-
dures outlined in this method are followed, data of high quality can be
expected.
30
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: NRC, 1978.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: No analytical details were presented in this report; therefore,
an assessment of the analytical method and data quality cannot be made.
31
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: PEDCO, 1981.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This is a review document outlining the various methods for
evaluation of volatile organics. The analytical procedures used to obtain
the data contained in the document are not discussed; therefore, the quality
cannot be assessed.
32
-------
Media: Ambient Air.
Citation: Pellizzari and Bunch, 1979.
Measurement Procedure: Collection on Tenax.
Cleanup/fractionation: Purge and trap.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 2.5 ng/m3 (0.38 ppt).
Precision and Accuracy: From ± 10 to ± 30% for various substances;
NR for tetrachloroethylene.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: Relative molar response factors were used for
quantisation.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This paper is well-documented with analytical details. Based
on the procedures outlined, data of good quality can be expected.
33
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: Memo from RH Plumb, Jr. (EPA) to D. Basko (Versar) dated
6/3/85:
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This is a tabulation of monitoring data for 183 hazardous
waste sites located throughout the United States. No information is given
on the analytical method; therefore, no comments about the method or data
quality can be made.
34
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: Singh, 1977.
Measurement Procedure:" NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 10% for 20 ppt or greater; ± 15% for
10-20 ppt.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Analytical details were referenced to an earlier paper which
was not submitted for review; therefore, the quality of the data cannot be
assessed.
35
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: Suffet et al., 1977.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: Ion exchange resin.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This is a qualitative study of organics in drinking water.
The methods used to confirm the presence of the analytes are good; however,
the lack of quantitative results limits the usefulness of this study.
36
-------
Media: Water.
Citation: Tomson,^1981.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: XAD-2 resin.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: Unknown since document had data lined out.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/FID and GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: The compounds were calculated by relative FID response,
but tetrachloroethylene was quantitated by an "authentic" standard.
Critique: The data may be valid based on the use of an "authentic" stan-
dard for tetrachloroethylene and confirmation by GC/MS. Precision and accuracy
data were lacking.
37
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: USEPA, 1975 (appendices).
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/FID and GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: An extensive amount of information is given on the methods and
quality control results for six other volatile compounds but does not include
tetrachloroethylene. There is an insufficient amount of information to judge
the quality of the data for the compound of interest.
38
-------
Media: Surface Waters.
Citation: USEPA, 1977b (appendix).
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 1 ppb.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The document reviewed was an appendix to the final report which
was not available. The abstract contains general information about the study
but contains no specifics on analytical methods. One disconcerting note is
lack of relative retention times for the volatile compound results. The imme-
diate questions are these: were standards used for quantisation, and why were
no relative retention times reported for volatiles as were reported for the
semivolatiles? The quality of the data cannot be assessed.
39
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1977c.
Measurement Procedure: Modified EPA Method 624.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 1 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Analytical parameters were well-defined. If the procedures
outlined in EPA Method 624 were followed, the data should be of good quality.
40
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: USEPA, 1978.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: Tenax GC cartridge.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: Capillary column GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The study involved optimizing Tenax GC for collection of
nitrosamines and then characterizing ambient air concentrations within the
United States. It appears that no authentic standards were used to quantitate
perchloroethylene. Comparison of the mass fragmentograms and the use of the
relative molar method were used for identification and quantisation.
41
-------
Media: Mother's Milk.
Citation: USEPA, 1980a.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: 63 ± 2 (one standard deviation of three replicates).
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 0.6 ug/kg based on 50-g sample for a typical
organic compound.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 10% based on replicates.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The data should be valid based on the details reported. The
headspace analysis resulted from previous method development work and was
validated using four radiolabeled model compounds. The identification of
perch!oroethylene was obtained by comparison to the Eight Peak Index of Mass
Spectra and interpreted. Quantisation was based on two external standards
and the method of relative molar response. Only four volatile compounds were
quantitated. However, the data are judged to be valid.
42
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1980b (Interim Report).
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: A major gap exists in the copy of the report submitted for
review; i.e., no analytical method section was given or referenced. No
comments about the data quality or reasonableness can be made.
43
-------
Media: Air.
Citation: USEPA, 1980c (Singh et al.).
Measurement Procedure:- NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This paper was presented in the "Proceedings of the Conference
on Methyl Chloroform and Other Halocarbon Pollutants.: Two data points are
given, but no analytical methods are stated. No assessment of the data can
be made.
44
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1982a, Effluent Guidelines for Metal Finishing.
Measurement Procedure: "Performed in accordance with methods set forth
in 40 CFR Part 136" by multiple labs, i.e., EPA and contractors.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 1 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: If the analyses were performed according to 40 CFR Part 136
and all applicable quality assurance and controls were followed, then the data
should be valid. However, no assumption can be made on the "reasonableness"
of the data.
45
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1982b, Effluent Guidelines - Pharmaceutical Industry.
Measurement Procedure: USEPA "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants," April 1977, and
USEPA "Analytical Methods for the Verification Phase of the BAT Review,"
June 1977.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Based on the statements about the analytical methods and the
extensive quality assurance/quality control procedures, the data may be valid.
In addition, the Precision and Accuracy program was stated as used to substan-
tiate the data. However, without actually reviewing the data, since they were
not presented, no statement of quality on specific data can be made.
46
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1982c.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 10 |jg/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Since no analytical details were provided in this document,
the quality of the methods and data cannot be assessed.
47
-------
Media: Wastewater.
Citation: USEPA, 1982d.
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 10 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: No analytical details were given; however, the document states
that strict quality control techniques (standards, blanks, and spikes) were
employed. The data reported in this paper may be valid; however, review of
the quality control data would be necessary to confirm this.
48
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: USEPA, 1982e.
Measurement Procedure: NR.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 2 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: None reported.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: As no analytical details were contained in this document, an
assessment of data quality is not possible.
49
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: USEPA, 1984b.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap/GC/MS as described by EPA.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 10
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: These analyses appear to have been conducted according to EPA
Method 624. If this is the case, and the procedures outlined in Method 624
were followed, the data should be of good quality. The data sheets contained
in this document were well-documented.
50
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: USEPA, 1984c.
Measurement Procedure: Headspace analysis.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 2 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: Sampling problems were noted by EPA inspection.
Instrument: GC/HECD.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The data obtained appear to be reasonable; however, problems
noted by EPA inspectors concerning inappropriate sampling materials and the
possibility of cross-contamination would cast doubts on their validity.
51
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: USEPA n.d (d).
Measurement Procedure: VGA.
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 2 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: NR.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Analytical procedures were not given; therefore, an assessment
of data quality cannot be made. However, the document cites sampling deficien-
cies and discrepancies in the split-sampling results which would indicate that
the data are of poor quality.
52
-------
Media: Groundwater.
Citation: USEPA n.d. (e).
Measurement Procedure:
Cleanup/fractionation: NR.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: 0.1 ug/L.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: The results obtained by the site's lab and the EPA varied
widely, although both labs were using the same procedures.
Instrument: GC/MS.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The quality cannot be assessed without further analytical de-
tails; however, the discrepancies between the two labs would indicate that
data quality may not be acceptable.
53
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: Wakeham et al., 1980.
Measurement Procedure: GC peak area comparison with internal standard.
Cleanup/fractionation: Purge and trap/CS2 extraction.
Recovery: NR, however, extended purge times did not increase the
amount of tetrachloroethylene recovered.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR, but 2 ppb was measured.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 10%.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: Capillary GC/FID.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: This appears to be a well-designed study. The use of surro-
gates and confirmation by GC/MS indicate that the quality of the data should
be acceptable.
54
-------
Media: Drinking Water.
Citation: Wallace et al., 1984.
Measurement Procedure: Purge and trap.
Cleanup/fractionation: Purge and trap.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: ± 30% interlab variation.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: GC/HECD/FID.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: Extensive quality assurance measures (spikes, blanks, repli-
cates, and interlab comparisons) indicate that the data obtained are of high
quality.
55
-------
Media: Indoor Air.
Citation: Wentz, 1973.
Measurement Procedure: UV and color indicating tubes.
Cleanup/fractionation: NA.
Recovery: NR.
Interferences: NR.
Limit of detection: NR.
Precision and Accuracy: NR.
Problems: NR.
Instrument: Prototype instrument from Honeywell.
Linear response: NR.
Stability of response: NR.
Problems: NR.
Critique: The use of color indicating tubes is a fairly standard method
of determining approximate concentration of pollutants in industrial settings.
No information concerning the standardization of the UV instrument was con-
tained in the article; therefore, the accuracy of these data cannot be assessed.
56
-------
APPENDIX B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
57
-------
References for Perchloroethylene
Bellar et al. 1974. The occurrence of organohaTides in chlorinated drinking
waters. J. AWWA. 66:703.
Bozzelli JW, Kebbekus BB. 1982. A study of some aromatic and halocarbon vapors
in the ambient atmosphere. J. of Environ. Sci. Health.
Brodzinsky, R, Singh H. 1983. Volatile organic chemicals in the atmosphere:
an assessment of available data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract no. 68-02-3452.
CEQ. 1981. Council on Environmental Quality. Contamination of groundwater
by toxic organic chemicals. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Clark CS, Meyer CR, Gartside PS, et al. 1982. An environmental health survey
of drinking water contamination by leachate from a pesticide waste dump in
Hardeman County, Tennessee. Arch, of Environ. Health. 37(1): 9-18.
Escor. 1982. Landfill methane recovery Part II: gas characterization.
Chicago, IL: Gas Research Institute. Contract no. 5080-351-0343.
Evans GF, Baumgarder RE, Bumgarner JE, et al. 1979. Measurement of perchloro-
ethylene in ambient air. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/4-79-047.
Grimsrud EP, Rasmussen RA. 1975. Survey and analysis of hydrocarbons in the
atmosphere by gas chromatography - mass spectroscopy. Atmos. Environ.
9:1014-1017.
Helz GR, Hsu RY. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal waters.
Limonol. Oceanogn. 23(5):858-869.
Hunter JV, Sabatino T. 1981. Sources of halogenated hydrocarbons in an urban
water supply. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-600/2-81-089.
JRB. 1982c. JRB Associates. Occurrence of tetrachloroethylene in drinking
water, food, and air. McLean, VA: JRB Associates. Contract no. 68-01-6388.
Kaiser K, Comba M. 1983. Volatile contaminants in the Wei land River watershed.
J. Great Lakes Res. 9(2):274-280.
Larson CD, Love OT, Reynolds G. 1983. Tetrachloroethylene leased from lined
asbestos - cement pipe into drinking water. J. AWWA: 184-188.
Lillian D, Singh H, Appleby A, et al. 1975. Atmospheric fates of halogenated
compounds. Environ. Sci. and Tech. 9(12):1042-48.
58
-------
Lovelock JE. 1974. Atmospheric hydrocarbons and stratospheric ozone. Nature.
252:292-294.
McConnell G, Ferguson DM, Pearson CR. 1975. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons and
the Environment. (Journal unknown).
MRI. 1976. Midwest Research Institute. Air pollution emission test -
Westwood Cleaners, Kalamazoo, MI. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. EPA Project report no. 76-DRY-3.
MRI. 1979. Midwest Research Institute. Proceedings of the conference on
methyl chloroform and other halocarbon pollutants. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/9-80-003.
Minsley B. 1983. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of groundwater in Kalamazoo.
J. AWWA. June 1983: 272-278.
NIOSH. 1977. NIOSH Manual fo Analytical Methods, Volume 1. Method No. P &
CAM 127. Organic Solvents in Air. National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. April, 1977.
NRC. 1978. Stratospheric ozone depletion by halocarbons: chemistry and trans-
port. Washington, DC. NRC Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of
Sciences.
PEDCO. 1981. Ambient air monitoring at hazardous waste disposal sites.
Cincinnati, OH: PEDCO Environmental, Inc.
Pellizzari ED, Bunch JE. 1979. Ambient air carcinogenic vapors - improved
sampling and analytical techniques and field studies. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Research Triangle
Institute. NTIS PB-297932, EPA-600/2-79-081.
Plumb RH. 1985. Memo to D. Basko, Versar. Occurrence of Five Solvents in
Groundwater.
Singh HB. 1977. Atmospheric halocarbons: evidence in favor of reduced average
hydroxyl radical concentration in the troposphere. Geophys. Res. Let.
4(3):101-104.
Suffet IH, Brenner L, Radzial JV. 1977. GC/MS identification of trace organic
compounds in Philadelphia waters. In: Keith LH, ed. Identification and anal-
ysis of organic pollutants in water. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.
Tomson, MB et al. 1981. Groundwater contamination by trace level organics
from a rapid infiltration site. Wat. Res. 15:1109-1116.
USEPA. 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preliminary assessment of
suspected carinogens in drinking water. Report to Congress. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 260/4-75-005.
59
-------
USEPA. 1977b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Monitoring to detect
previously unrecognized pollutants in surface waters - Appendix: organic an-
alysis data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1977c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of two municipal
wastewater treatment plants for toxic substances. Washington, DC: Wastewater
Research Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1978. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Measurement of carcinogenic
vapors in ambient atmospheres. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA 600/7-78-062.
USEPA. 1980a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Acquisition and chemical
analysis of mother's milk for selected toxic substances. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-560/13-80-029.
USEPA. 1980b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fate of priority pollu-
tants in publicly owned treatment works. Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/1-80-301.
USEPA. 1980c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proceeding of the con-
ference on methyl chloroform and other halocarbon pollutants. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/9-80-003.
USEPA. 1982a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed development
document of effluent limitations guidelines, and standards for the metal
finishing point source category. Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/l-82/091b.
USEPA. 1982b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development document for
proposed effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, and
pretreatment standards for the pharmaceutical manufacturing point source cate-
gory. Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. EPA-440/1-82-084.
USEPA. 1982c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed development
document for effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the ink formu-
lating point source category. Washington, DC: Effluent Guidelines Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/l-82/090b.
USEPA. 1982d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed development
document for effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the electrical
and electrical components point source category. Washington, DC: Effluent
Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-440/i-82/075b.
USEPA. 1982e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Site study for Michond
assembly facility of Martin Marietta in New Orleans, LA RCRA data. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
USEPA. 1984b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sampling of commercial
hazardous waste landfill. Rolling Environmental Services, Baton Rouge, LA
RCRA data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
60
-------
USEPA. 1984c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PPG Industries,
Natrium, WV.
USEPA. No date(d). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft, East Hartford, CT RCRA data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
USEPA. No date(e). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Raymark Industries
inTrumbull, CT RCRA data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Wakeham SG, Davis A, Witt RT, et al. 1980. Tetrachloroethylene contamination
of drinking water by vinyl coated asbestos-cement pipe. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 25:639-645.
Wallace LA, Pellizzari E, Hartwell T et al. 1984. Personal exposure to vola-
tile organic compounds. Environ. Res. 35:293-319.
Wentz, Fisher W. 1973. Perchloroethylene vapor in dry cleaning plants.
Special report. International Fabric Institute, pp 1-14.
61
------- |