NEIC
1
HAZARDOUS SITE INSPECTION
FRAYSER AREA
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
[April 15-30, 1980]
July 1980
*>EPA
national enforcement investigations center
denver federal center bldg 53, box 25227 denver. co 80225
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
HAZARDOUS SITE INSPECTION
FRAYSER AREA
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
[April 15-30, 1980]
July 1980
Steven W. Sisk
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Denver, Colorado
-------
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . 3
III. STUDY METHODS 4
IV. STUDY RESULTS 12
HYDROGEOLOGY 12
ANALYTICAL RESULTS 13
References 18
APPENDICES
A BORING LOGS
B SAMPLE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES AND RAW DATA
Tables
1 Sampling Station and Sample Collection Descriptions 9
2 Metal Analysis Results for Water and Composite Soil Samples. . 15
3 Anion Analysis Results for Water Samples 17
Figures
1 Study Area Location Map 2
2 Monitoring Station Location Map 5
3 Schematic Diagram of Sample Collection Equipment 7
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Frayser area is in northwestern Memphis, Tennessee [Figure 1].
Residents have complained of serious health problems including cancers,
miscarriages, respiratory problems, and rashes which they attribute to
hazardous wastes allegedly disposed fn the area before 1956. The
Memphis-Shelby County Health and Public Service Division (HPSD) was
asked by residents to determine the cause of these illnesses and to
locate any chemical wastes buried in their neighborhood.
The Memphis-Shelby County HPSD Director subsequently requested
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assistance in determining if
hazardous wastes have been buried in the Frayser area. In February
1980, EPA Region IV conducted preliminary investigations of the area.
Aerial photographs from 1937, 1946, 1953, and 1960 were studied for
significant topography modifications which might reflect waste burial.
The Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) in Warren-
ton, Virginia, initiated additional imagery research and photo inter-
pretation at the request of Region IV. Soil, surface water, and air
samples were collected for priority pollutant analysis, and several
borings were made in an attempt to locate any buried materials. How-
ever, no evidence of hazardous wastes was found.1
Approximately one month after release of the preliminary survey
findings, EPIC submitted their report to Region IV. The report con-
tained a series of aerial photographs showing possible fill areas where
hazardous wastes might be buried. Delineated areas were based on
interpretative work and sworn statements from a long-time resident and a
former county employee.
The National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) was requested
to assist the Region in investigating the suspected sites. NEIC personnel
investigated a suspected fill area designated as Site Number 3 and a small
area in the nearby Corning Village apartment complex during April 15
through 30, 1980. The objective was to determine if chemical wastes had
been buried at these sites so that necessary cleanup and/or remedial
measures could be taken.
-------
2
BFHJFS,
.MNMNS
ILL >
LGYPT-CFNTRi
FRAYSER AREA
fRAVSCR
IGf NF »At DeWITJ,
IdOwnTOwm-^h
^WAy
SVMMfR
WALNUT
CC MTf.
CRUMP
MEMPHIS TENNESSEE
-------
3
II. SUMMARY
To determine if chemical wastes had been buried at the suspect
sites, a three part study was conducted. Soil materials and the poten-
tial for groundwater movement were assessed in both Frayser and other
similar parts of northwestern Memphis. U.S. Army personnel "swept" the
suspect sites with metal detectors to locate those areas where waste
disposal containers might be buried. Six test boring stations were then
selected based on findings from the first two parts, the need for
adequate distribution of monitoring points and access necessary for
drilling equipment. Soil and groundwater samples from the test borings
were analyzed for priority pollutant organics and metals, general
organics, other selected metals and anions, and cyanide.
None of the data collected indicate or suggest that chemical wastes
were buried at either suspect site. The areal hydrogeological evaluation
revealed that soils underlying the sites should be primarily silt (redeposited
loess); boring data confirmed this evaluation. No visual evidence of
chemical wastes or unnatural materials was noted. Army personnel did
not locate any suspect deposits of buried metal objects. Essentially no
organic compounds, elevated metal and anion concentrations or cyanide
were detected in the soil and water samples.
-------
4
III. STUDY METHODS
Site Number 3, as designated in the EPIC report, is 1.51 hectares
(3.75 acres) in size and includes portions of the Pleasant Valley,
Ridgecrest Seventh Addition, and Todd Creek Cove subdivisions [Figure 2],
This site appears as a "disturbed" area on aerial photographs taken in
1955 and 1958. The other suspect site, in the Corning Village apartment
complex, was located by EPIC personnel from descriptions in the previously
mentioned sworn statements. There were no distinguishable boundaries on
available aerial photographs. Signed releases were obtained from
residents on whose property survey activities were conducted.
A hydrogeologic^l evaluation of Frayser and similar areas in
northwestern Memphis was made to determine probable paths of water
movement, to aid in boring site selection, and to enable better inter-
pretation of the nature of materials observed during drilling. Literature
was reviewed before and after this survey to provide additional informa-
tion on the hydrogeology of the Memphis area.
At the request of Region IV, U.S. Army personnel from Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, made a sweep of the suspect sites with metal detectors to
locate possible buried waste disposal containers. No indications of
such objects were detected at either site.
Test borings were made at six locations which were selected in
consideration of: the need for adequate distribution throughout the
suspected fill areas, probable groundwater flow direction, and access
necessary for drilling equipment [Figure 2, Table 1],
-------
-N-
250
Scale in Feet
CORNING VILLAGE
| | «
APARTMENTS
03
I | PLEASANT
I |VALLEY SUB
TODD CREEK COVE SUB
1
FILL AREA
SITE #3
05
04
Baxter Street
06
01
Figure 2. Monitoring Station, Location Map
Frayser Area, Memphis, Tenn.
-------
6
At each location, a 6 m (20 ft) deep boring was made. When sampling
was completed, the test hole was backfilled with cuttings. Auger
sections and soil sampling tools were cleaned to prevent cross-contamination
by a high-pressure hot water wash, with detergent, and rinse followed by
solvent (industrial grade acetone) ana distilled water rinses.
Soil core samples were collected at approximately 1.5 m (5 ft) and
3.0 m (10 ft) depths with a split-spoon sampler. At station 01, an
additional core sample was collected at the 6 m (20 ft) depth.
Groundwater was encountered in all borings generally between 1.5
and 3 m (5 and 10 ft) below ground level. Water samples were collected
from the test holes as shown in Figure 3. Before sample collection, the
intake line was flushed with approximately 2 z (0.5 gal) of water from
the test hole. The intake line was field-cleaned after each use with
tap water, acetone, and distilled water.
At stations 01 and 02, the augers were used as a temporary casing
from which water samples were to be drawn. After standing overnight,
only station 02 had sufficient water for sampling despite the fact that
water saturated cuttings were observed during drilling at both stations.
This procedure was also attempted .it station 03, but after three days
there was insufficient water for sampling. Consequently, the procedure
was modified.
At monitoring stations 03 through 06, water samples were collected
from the 6 m (20 ft) boreholes after the augers had been removed. A
clean 4.9 m (16 ft) section of 3.8 cm (1.5 in) diameter PVC pipe was
partially inserted to maintain the open hole and to support the teflon
intake line which had a tendency to coil. After each use the PVC pipe
was cleaned in the same manner as the augers.
After collection, water samples and soil samples, where sufficient
mass was obtained, were split with personnel from the Memphis North
Wastewater Treatment Plant, as requested by the City Attorney's office.
-------
TEFLON STAINLESS
STEEL
ELBOW
VACUUM
r LINE
INTAKE
LINE >
GLASS
SAMPLE
BOTTLE
ACUUM
PUMP
PVC :
PIPE
NOTE" Vacuum imposed on sample bottle
by pump results in borehole water being
drawn through intake line for collection.
WATER
LEVEL
BORING
WALL
Figure 3. Schematic Diagram of Sample Collection Equipment
-------
8
Samples were packed on ice in locked coolers and transported to the
NEIC laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Equal portions of the soil samples
from an individual boring were composited into a single sample for
analysis. Each composite soil sample was analyzed for priority pollutant
organics (except volatiles) and metals, general organics, other selected
metals, and total cyanide. The water samples were analyzed for these
same parameter groups, volatile organics, and scanned for selected
anions. Whenever applicable, EPA approved procedures, as promulgated
pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act, were used in the
analysis of samples. New methods or modifications to existing methods
were documented and are retained on file by NEIC with other records of
this investigation.
Throughout the course of this study (sampling through analysis and
reporting), sample and document control for evidentiary purposes were
maintained.
-------
9
TABLE 1
SAMPLING STATION AND SAMPLE COLLECTION DESCRIPTIONS
Frayser Area
Memphis, Tenn.
Station 01
This station was located in the front yard of 3496 Steele Street,
8.38 m (27.5 ft) east of the Steele Street curb and 15.3 m (50.3 ft)
from utility pole 99303 in the northwest corner of the lot on a line
trending 150°*. Three soil cores were collected from this boring. The
last core collected was separated into two aliquots; upper half which
was the saturated cuttings plug in the hollow auger, and lower half
which represented in-place materials. The cuttings plug was retained
for analysis since it was very wet and no water samples were collected.
Sample descriptions are as follows:
Sample
Date
Time
Depth [m (ft)]
Description**
01-01
4/23/80
1130
1.5-2 (5-7)
Soil; moist brown clayey silt
01-02
4/23/80
1345
3-3.6 (10-12)
Soil; wet gray silt w/iron stains
01-03
4/24/80
0930
3.6-6 (12-20)
Cuttings; saturated mottled
gray-brown silt
01-04
4/24/80
0930
6-6.7 (20-22)
Soil; moist gray sandy
clayey silt
Station 02
This station was located in the south side yard of 3497 Steel
Street 11.6 m (38.0 ft) west of Steele Street curb and 33.5 m (110 ft)
from utility pole 176681 in the southeast corner of the lot on a line
trending 340°. Two soil cores and one water sample were collected as
described below:
*A11 bearings are with respect to magnetic north.
**Field descriptions only.
-------
Sample
02-02
Date
02-01 4/23/80
4/23/80
02-01W* 4/24/80
Time Depth [m (ft)]
1550 1.5-2 (5-7)
1630 3.5-4.9 (11.5-16)
0825 6 (20)
10
Description
Soil; moist gray sandy
silt w/iron concretions
Soil; moist mottled gray-
brown clayey silt, very
soft between (14-16 ft)
depths
Water from auger
Station 03
This station was located in Corning Village apartments near the
playground area 7.43 m (24.4 ft) northeast of the northeast corner of
building 1445 and 19.8 m (65.0 ft) southwest of the southeast corner of
building 1449. Two soil cores and one water sample were collected as
described below:
Sample
Date
Time
Depth [m (ft)]
Description
03-01
4/24/80
1240
1.5-2 (5-7)
Soil; moist gray sandy
clayey silt
03-02
4/24/80
1255
3-4.3 (10-14)
Soil; wet gray brown
silt w/iron stains and
concretions
03-01W
4/28/80
0955
0-6 (0-20)
Water from open hole
Station 04
This station was located on the assumed east-west property line
between 3521 and 3529 Steele Street, 12.2 m (40.0 ft) west of Steele
Street curb. The assumed property line is 22.4 m (73.5 ft) north of
utility pole 176679. Two soil cores and one water sample were collected
as described below:
Sample Date Time Depth [m (ft)]
04-01 4/28/80 1200 1.5-2.4 (5-8)
04-02 4/28/80 1235 3-4 (10-13)
04-01W 4/28/80 1315 0-6 (0-20)
Description
Soil; moist light gray-
brown clayey silt w/iron
stains and concretions
Soil; gray-brown sandy clayey
silt w/iron stains and
concretions
Water from open hole
*W denotes water sample.
-------
11
Station 05
This station was located 11 m (37 ft) from southeast corner of 1435
Todd Creek Cove on a line trending 139° and 5.2 m (17 ft) from northeast
corner of 1431 Todd Creek Cove on a line trending 36°. Two soil cores
and one water sample were collected as described below:
Sample Date Time Depth [m (ft)] Description
05-01 4/28/80 1525 1.5-2 (5-7) Soil; moist gray-brown
Station 06
This station was located 34.9 m (114.5 ft) from southeast corner of
1419 Todd Creek Cove on line trending 115° and 7.5 m (24.6 ft) from the
nearest point on the Todd Creek concrete channel wall on a line trending
30°. Two soil cores and one water sample were collected as described
05-01W 4/28/80 1700 0-6 (0-20)
05-02 4/28/80 1540 3-3.6 (10-12)
silt w/iron concretions
Soil; gray clayey silt
w/iron concretions
Water from open hole
below:
Sample Date Time Depth [m (ft)]
06-01 4/28/80 1720 (5-7)
Soil; wet gray clayey silt
w/iron stains
Description
06-02 4/28/80 1735 (10-12)
Soil; moist gray clayey silt
w/iron stains and black
speckles
06-01W 4/28/80 1845 (0-20)
Water from open hole
-------
12
IV. STUDY RESULTS
HYDROGEOLOGY
The Frayser area is underlain by a loess deposit which is probably
10 m (30 ft) thick or more.2'3 Loess is typically a non-indurated
deposit consisting primarily of silt with very fine sand and/or clay
fractions, generally considered to be windblown material derived from
4 5
glacial outwash. '
Site number 3 and the Corning Village Apartment complex area lie on
the Todd Creek floodplain. The floodplain consists of redeposited loess
eroded from the surrounding hills. This deposit exhibits a characteristic
weathering profile which was noted in all borings. Boring logs are
presented in Appendix A. The upper portion is brown and oxidized which
grades downward into a gray deoxidized or unoxidized zone. The color is
attributed to iron compounds and the oxidation state of iron in those
compounds. Most core samples had reddish iron stains and concretions.
Similar weathering profiles have been observed by the author in loess
deposits of Eastern Iowa, Central Missouri, and in glacial deposits in
Northwestern Missouri.^
At Stations 02 and 03 the upper 1 m (4 ft) appeared to be fill dirt
perhaps used to level the area prior to housing construction. Supportive
evidence is found in the EPIC photographs and the soils map developed
for the area in the early to mid-1960's- No visual indication of
chemical wastes, such as marked color or textural differences, were
noted in any auger cuttings or core samples.
Water and very fluid cuttings were encountered in all test holes at
depths between 1.5 and 4.5 m (5 and 15 ft) below ground level, yet,
when the augers were left open at the 6 m (20 ft) depth at Stations 01
and 03 for extended periods (one and three days, respectively), very
little water seeped into this temporary casing. This finding suggests
-------
13
that: (1) the soil materials at this depth are relatively impermeable
since water movement was apparently severely restricted, and (2) the
water encountered at shallow depths exists in a perched water table.*
Downward water movement toward the true water table is restricted by a
relatively impermeable layer.
Groundwater in this perched zone most likely flows toward and
discharges to Todd Creek. Soil permeabilities have been reported to
range between 4.4 x 10 ^ and 1.4 x 10 ^ cm/sec (0.63-2.0 in/hr)^. Many
seeps and small springs were noted in the bottom of the creek channel,
which is concrete lined, along the southern and western sides of the
study area. These small groundwater discharges were commonly about 2 m
(6 ft) below the land surface on either side of the channel.
The test borings are generally downgradient from the suspected fill
area center. Therefore, the probability of intercepting any leached
chemicals in groundwater is enhanced by this configuration of test
boring locations.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Four groups of analyses were performed on all water and composite
soil samples (organic, metals, anion scan, and cyanide). Raw data,
detection limits, and quality control information are presented in
Appendix B. A summary of those analytical results are presented in this
subsection.
Organic analyses included determinations for priority pollutants,
general organics, and organochlorine, organophosphate, and phenoxy acid
pesticides, and dioxin. Trace quantities of three non-priority pollu-
tant organics were detected in water samples as shown below:
Parameter/Stati on 03-01VJ 04-01W 06-01W
acetone PNQ* PNQ
propene PNQ
iodo-methyl-propanol** NC NC
*PNQ means present but not quantified
**Tentative identification - not confirmed (NC)
*A perched water table is one where-a saturated soil zone exists above
the true water table of the area.
-------
14
Acetone was probably derived from the equipment cleaning process.
Propene (propylene) is commonly used in the manufacture of acetone and
O
may have been present as an impurity in the auger cleaning solvent. No
organic compounds were identified in the soil samples above detection
limits. Gross contamination of soil and/or groundwater by hazardous
organic chemicals is not suggested by these data.
Analytical results for metals analysis of soil and water samples
are presented in Table 2. Predominant metals in the soil core composites
include aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), sodium
(Na), and silicon (Si). Together with oxygen and potassium, these are
the eight most abundant elements in the earth's crust.^ The core samples
undoubtedly represent natural materials on the basis of metals content.
The water quality data reflect soil chemistry with no unusual parameters
detected in significant concentrations. Trace amounts of beryllium
(Be), cobalt (Co), mercury (Hg), and zinc (Zn) were identified in the
water samples but not in the soil. This is most likely a function of
detection limits which are substantially higher for soil.
Anion analysis results are presented in Table 3 and are compared to
g
"normal" concentration ranges. Phosphate measured as phosphorous
(PO^-P) concentrations are above these ranges. Samples collected for
anion analysis were field preserved with sodium hydroxide. Some leaching
of elements from sediment in those samples may have occurred; therefore,
the anomalous phosphorous results are inconclusive.
Cyanide was not detected in either the soil or water samples.
None of the data collected during this survey suggests the presence
of buried chemical wastes at either designated site number 3 or in the
Corning Village Apartment complex area.
-------
TABLE 2
METAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WATER AND COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLES
FRAYSER SITE NUMBER 3
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Concentration (ppm)a
Mom toring Stati on
01 ¦b
02
03
04
05
06
Sample
Sot 1
Water
Soil
Water
Soi 1
Water
Soil
Water
Soil
Water
Soil
Type
Composite
Composite
Composi te
Composite
Composite
Composi
Parameter
AgC
ND
NAd
NDe
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
ND
A1
47,000
0.24
48,000
1.6
51,000
23
48,000
17
54,000
5.9
51,000
Asc
NA
0.018
NA
0.017
NA
0.088
NA
0.086
NA
0 029
NA
Ba
640
0.44
680
1 7
680
3.2
720
2.4
900
2.5
710
Bec
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0 01
ND
0 01
ND
0 01
ND
Ca
17,000
76
34,000
670
5,400
210
4,200
240
5,000
480
5,500
Coc
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
Co
ND
ND
ND
0 03
ND
0 04
ND
0 09
ND
0 07
ND
Crc
80
ND
50
ND
80
0 02
90
0 01
100
ND
80
Cue
30
< 0.01
20
< 0.01
20
0.07
30
0 14
40
0 06
30
Fe
24,000
40
23,000
1.9
21 ,000
3.4
21,000
10
22,000
7 7
21,000
Hgc
ND
ND
ND
0.013
ND
0 0012
ND
0 0015
ND
0 0014
ND
Itg
9,600
40
3,800
150
4,400
120
3,700
110
4,100
180
4,200
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
METAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WATER AND COMPOSITE SOIL SAMPLES
FRAYSER SITE NUMBER 3
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Concentrations, (ppm)°
Monitoring Station 01^ 02 03 04 05 06
Sample Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water Soil Water Soil
Type Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite
Parameter
Mn
730
5.4
910
21
520
5.9
1,000
17
1 !
,900
9 0
560
Mo
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Na
9,100
24
7,400
9.0
9,500
12
8,800
14
10
,000
11
9,900
Nic
70
ND
70
ND
170
ND
170
ND
120
ND
180
Pbc
ND
0.05
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.
03
ND
ND
ND
Sba
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Sec
13
ND
12
ND
11
ND
6
ND
8 8
ND
4.8
Si
32,000
9.9
33,000
10
34,000
37
36,000
32
37
,000
18
35,000
Tic
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
V
80
0.01
80
ND
70
0.01
80
0.
14
70
0.08
70
Y
30
ND
30
ND
70
0.15
40
0
10
40
0.05
40
Znc
0.15
ND
0.01
ND
0.32
ND
0.
.50
ND
0.26
ND
"All data have been converted from reported units (rag/1 and ppb for water and pg/g for soils) for comparison purposes
No water sample collected.
^Priority pollutant
nlA means not analyzed
^(D means not detected at or above the detection limit.
-------
17
TABLE 3
ANION ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR WATER SAMPLES
FRAYSER SITE NUMBER 3
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
Monitoring Station 02 03 04 05 06 Normal Rangea
Parameter Concentration (ppm)
F"
0.22
1.5
0.63
0.51
0.38
0.01-10
cr
7.2
12
3.8
5.8
4.6
30
N02-N
mb
ND
ND
ND
ND
-
no3-n
ND
2.0
7.9
0.2
0.1
3
P04-P
ND
1.4
1.1
1.4
0.8
0.05
SO,
14
27
24
37
8
100
?See reference number 9.
ND means none detected at or above the detection limit.
-------
18
REFERENCES
Region IV Surveillance and Analysis Division, Feb. 15, 1980. Final
Report, Hazardous Waste Site Investigation, Steele Street Site,
Memphis, TN. Athens, Georgia: ^Environmental Protection Agency, 9
P.
Leighton, M.M. and Willman, H.B., 1950. Loess Formations of the
Mississippi Valley. The Journal of Geology. 58:6, p. 599-623.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1970. Soil Survey of Shelby
County, Tennessee. Washington: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 53 p.
Thornbury, W.D., 1969. Principles of Geomorphology. 2nd Ed. New
York: Wiley and Sons, p. 299-300.
American Geological Institute, 1962. Dictionary of Geological Terms.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, p. 295.
Sisk, S.W., 1972. Water Resources in Glacial Till, Worth County,
Missouri. MA Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, 109 p.
Gilluly, J., Waters, A.C., and Woodford, A.O., 1968. Principles of
Geology. 3rd Ed., San Francisco: Freeman, p. 11.
Standen, A., ed. 1963. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
Vol 1, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley and Sons, p. 159-167.
Davis, S. N. and DeWiest, R.J.M., 1966. Hydrogeology. New York:
Wiley and Sons, p. 100-118.
-------
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
-------
SAMPLE LOG
We 1 1 O I Project ^ . h\Z Trtv
Page / of
5''^ -*¦
Ori11ing
Location .^-7 /*/ i'-a1 ^.sd, i,.,~) Started II O S
0 r illing
Finished
Hole Diameter "7 ^
Type of Sample
So. / < o
Method of /
Collecting Sample Jt ' ^phf yp"- Lu //, A/O" <^7£/y ''<•*?
Drilling Fluid Ajr~>/
Drilling Rig C / J> -^/ //J /^/"j
Contractor Driller ^oe. Helper To "yA; /- ? -
Hydrogeologi st S/cuji. Sis/c - iqci^
Date/
Ti me
Sample Description
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
^O^v^V O //
0 '
/
/ /
ic/cw/ Si H
/
if
1 /
Snh'i 5^-"- ~(ol~o\ )
-S"
6 jr
/
/£" V-i-3
'
/
To^? ~ — h-Cl! < A- - <¦ (
/&
z' 2
v >/
6/d.o. /a ' -,>/_ -O. 6
3— L\jCsf" ^,9c >. C\/ ' / 5"-" **» 7^
—— ¦ ¦ /
*/> e-i ^ *- h „
-------
SAf-PLC LOG
.'ell (0 1 Project C,'U-. Aw, 3 Page ?- of j>
j , ' 1 -- - -
Sample Depth
Date/ Below Land Surface
Time Sample Description From (ft) To (ft)
/ /r
y\ //
/y
')
/
*13 3 < !'ri
/ • , ' '
'\ S * 5 p It "/* S f?O0 l-<* 1? 5 ~t&/\ Jt Co/htjcfl
) O
1 J U '
(Z.^o ¦£¦'<--J -f"A i C. <¦ -<- "fs i c- ^ i p
¦ Jj J <•
1o 5/. ^ ,L<*--P <¦-* t<-< M , £/Ls -j'lx~t-/> '*-
< J J
/' -f <,/>h4 i^>~}~L K /,//
/ / '
fvWc> _ " ~ ' -1 r,c ~ £- s/tV.T
tol-ox)
5 *5 A ---'T** • ^ ^ r-^^/ I// /V* Js ^1..; /c J , f O ^ 1 "U
/o
/ e-
J / / / '
i^oS
'$/?/>/)/ oW/'m, i jn 20
/ 2—
^o>
- V
'V/JL..
- h,*r-•,>/>.20'
-r-^- — ¦ ./
^ u- ' /)! 1* \ * r ^'v ' H- , /jls ~ i <•>/ ^ ~ ~-
{ J "
l/
/OTjl
1 /!- -r* ..^ ./'^- (-.hJ : ^ c/Lt^t r ~-/7
/
¦J.sc<7 - no 1 "i(^-^7!"-
¦ . / J
/y
-------
SAf-PLC LOG
el 1 O f Project £J6 FV-.x,,s.-.- S•/& /Or;, S /A,> , >¦' o^ Page J> of J?
Sample Depth
uate/ Below Land Surface
r: mo Sample Description From (Ft) To (ft)
;//o/
/
/PRO
s p / / 5/"-. yw St. (o 1 ~ o 5 i o!" oh)
2o
-2 2-
i ¦
h/o.^S /f " Z-2.-V Ce " ! / /ca;
/
i~G C O, (j r^'f Co -4- C'^H «M /?/ s
i j / / /
Lr-c+,~. $, l-t c~r /°
j t \)
C>' V (TK"y C/'iy ,•./ 5"//V,
' i <
So.i.v> /?(j. O/ - ('To/' ¦>-) sfi)it u.i"fL C/'j* • io <• viX
I W J * j 1 J
<
1
t
1
I
1
1 , .
1
1
-------
SAMPLE LOG
Wei i (7 2- Project# 6—5" SJ*. ** t> Pace / of 2-
J / 1 i ' ^
CcT G . "7"^ /? <¦/ i to c Ky /VC - i/o r, <*¦ uu /Mt,/i
' * ' f y i •
Drilling Fluid Drilling Rig C//£ u>/
/ : rf—
Contractor P^.kJ, 7?,Vm-, Driller Xe Helper 7^
Hydrogeologi st S^- - K>c.)c-
Sample Depth
Date/ Below Land Surface
Time Sample Description From (ft) To (ft)
tsio
icoj&~ hrJ-~'w c/ , ^>cn.j?
a
)
/
/ / /
foV?- r *W r- '
J
V.5"
J / / / ' ' /
o!*.w <.-/ V /"/" mo)sTl
v-sr
:T' ^
iSb'O
' /
r -ca-vj >_ r-at*/>Lis
s~~
—7
/
i?/&; j/ (-^ V"-2" '/ .2 'f~ <7c^$
-TL(ll — /h ^ £W 'C'_•, S
« ' j
P tv i., y /n- u>,a<*~ ~ i J<~tt «¦ d
' ' J
5- <3 •: A/ t j~f 1/ tV v., /v „ s I r> »-'v ' i* - A.C
'11 /
; ft- /*c', /) o"/" C^£. - /•<{:. V1/<1 . 7y )
/ 6 0.->
' / -
- - M*T*' * • , V Cl y J r—- /~ V 1
S~
/O
J J J ' < /
c; A../ o / s 1 H
' ' /
4^7
i ri'i S/"oc~- (c> -2. ~ o,v)
Sc
/ L,
.. J / " J" VZ ^ - i.7 UTc, (
-------
SAMPLE LOG
Q'^~ Project /^ysv
Page -2_
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
Prom (ft) To (ft)
Da te/
Sample Description
L o
I 1 Tp.rVf-A.
to
JO
cLau,c-tc
-------
SAMPLE LOG
i
Vel i O ^ Project •XV^y- Ms.r/?hn Ti-n/s Page ' of
t / ' * I I ', ' ' 1. ——— 1 1
4 1
Loca 11on
Drilling
C- - .-, /irk (¦»/-/< lb Started / «3- 3» O
Dri11i ng
Finished /3.2-0
Hole Diameter 7 ¦?
Type of Sample So./
e >r-
Method of
Col lecting Sample !% 'sohi J.- L, ®
J f .. - j-
(;-l C H U > ... ,#U * /9
—
Drilling Fluid f\f
Contractor T±'A<^ 5c
Drilling Rig CME-SS" co/^ 11./). //-5.
_
Helper 7^S.-T'¦ -
i -oi)
"7
~1 - J -3
h"
v.. Ay .9 /.. j ^
¦ /ijf .J..'J (S^n/>L\<^/,i U:K r. T_J^j
j ', c ^ cVo —— r~i ¦¦/*,, • --// yt*-, £i~ fa c <1~
2-'/b
^'-* ' 1. ¦ ^
*- /
~ 7
,//1,, h
o o
sr> (">
—j> j>
V'-' - 1
^ cpo ^ )
/<->
;/ -v, A
-------
SAMPLE L-OG
V;
\-ie 1 1
0< Project**/^' 5-jv- fi/Is 'Tr**, Pace
- of 2^-
Da te/
T i me
J , -, ¦ ! < J
Sample Description
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
'
il-.J L c lu.f -To -/I'd-fAL
j ' -'
.-, A-d> '^/l V
V y
/ O
7 /
'f 'V (P ^
1? iO
/ O
iO
1 . '
c.n^. -i- /5 /
i
tl
XO d2^{ L ~k.r*-- J.- ¦ H i - c
<
.'P, / ! £— 7i' ,-. . -J— 1 « V"""-1
" ^
O'/fO h-:^,j ^ r<. (,^,,JL i ^ 'tb s—ti-
0
^\.jT h—c. /*>•./!y
' i!
ti -<.\J - I
1/
cnsr
—(Vi _^J / ^ 5 <¦_!>_ SO ^-,w pVL. /I/cV,i,/j.v
j ,
1 , .. />*>-,-, L,L~ P, >6 / ^ A. ''-'j
i ' J
j *-/„L-;;/ /- ^<-'- isuj I L tI..^
-''/ \ J H r « ^".-> /1' i - < f ^ ^ i 1 K'/? /lL
. . f ¦ ; . ¦ ' ¦ - — —¦ — ¦• ^
,,,/<¦ 11 ~-/*¦?¦ i—,?¦ •-),.¦? yt',~o 7/_ t,.f. /w.
/ -y i J s
!,.>?, ^ io^ /-. <•->./.6, ccii. ci' >„ » ^X*^~
, i. - ,
r^U~.*..4 /- ' i ,-l / - ~ O t (/^> c ^ r L" <¦ ' f") ft •¦->' - )
-- / |! / /
-------
SAMPLE LOG
Well O L! Project (-£-*> ; <:,-/< /Jr>3 'T? •
H- —1 : 1 7
Cc y UJC-. 1~< '-
Method of ; .
Collecting Sample ^ oo v (-/r; ff IV, £/s-t <-Uu,~
Drilling Fluid
Drilling Rig CHESS <^/j k/ }/,S. $ * *,r
Contractor /£.<_CV/ Try/':Driller Jcit^ if
' / i/
Hydrogeologi st Sjb^ $/3- /JciJi—
Date/
Ti me
Sample Description
Helper 7o^. 5~j~nsfc.
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
li i.y // Mt-'O /
o
/
/ / '
^ / '
!r~c, f'/y 'j / < ^ T" /',//, (1,
i
5"
' / ' J ' /
C e- ~f~ y
/
•
}?-OD
57o/'/ ^ v !r<-, !/;-¦/ fd.u-ft- - ^;//
5"
' ¦ j
Cf'Jles- /"/11<; /o - t."D- < ,^<7^*' -J H ^
^ / / j '
xC. ^ ~f , ^ ^ <"/£ / , J ,.1, S"T
/^*Oc/-C>( 5suj?i<~. cs^/,V c.,rr /"•" s- >
/ ¦
^.— v .»• (,sl<-i -¦ 1'i~
5"
' / ' /
..y 75-'
-------
SAf-TLC LOG
: 1 1 O l( Project fr.t C/^._ 3 feo^.
v. —— 7
Poge 2 of J/
Date/
T i me
Sample Description
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
7
/,Z2S
5/?/ <,Qrr
»v // w-"'
z?6-
( O 7- o
/c?
/J
jly
111 /
r
f /
/-3 /¦
3 (O^r,
jJL
/, i , ¦// C ,-Zy
y
8
-'< V - Cjby.-t f) I,-! ~tl— /.-f ^ 5"fitlr-i <: > -
~7—r
nofx-J -j-'..- ctL- - s«*/>(ts
{ \s*j J. "ty fic «"S ^'»"y
nJ, ^ A-.-f----.--t" J So ^H - -, - 3 -J
S c -t"
L~i-h
tirf C-
3*, S~ ~ / " «. O *" -2/0 ¦*"
7
b,cj> / ^ 4^- / -
/(/ >*> /3 ~fC '
^ > -> f> /<- — *
Sl-L.*>A.—•- C toKx! JT
/.2V6> j /£
eft' / /1 ^ -t /'> ^cO Lby. /U) r ^ -
/
/ y
HM >. ,A r- /,.-!.? !-•-¦—y-.-i^s/>v. 7^"-^- 2--'-/ I
U—T
^Ti r.,S ^ ¦» . /V i
sr. 1 s t^J?
-f—l 7
,,, fi i /S ' h-Ot
•rf.. J.. ¦)
.A.
-r~r
i Soo
$1.-
n/
.'•// ^A/ <.J-i ,. ,cp ,
- » / — -» -
/j!/5
,Vc, ; <-\/"c A.jA.-_ ^ ¦*- <**
o. r.
^ -v /
0 +
'O
( o'/'pl ^ ^ ^ ^ )
-------
SAMPLE LOG
f
Weli Q-J Project r-"...,, N~ " Pace / of L
j I ——.
Dri11ing Ori11i ng
Location u;A <% ^ Started iS~, -».-j Fini shed
Hole Diameter "7 Type of Sample 3- / <-«•> P l._, Cik ^
Method of
Collecting Sample H' ' /Vf-yS~ lq/> V ¦"? //u^,r-
Contractor k^lcr-t- w-c,. Driller Jo.'- Helper
Hydrogeologi s t ^ A-^:> < >
/i>~Od
y„,/>
it'jC* -j/** C^lc V'' ' I
/
'/
/
•» —
-> ' J>
y /jJ'j- <_/ w. , Ci !-* ~ > To £•••//
J. b~
¦>/'i• •, v — A ** ¦ *. ~ K- ¦>-' ' c
y . /
tsyr
5/9//"/ :./vr._ s.--/,b Co5 - O 1 )
V
/
bt: A- ' ' • j' 1 ¦ '
V/f t >,/ ; I, r ¦
^ C4 •* , ;-A ( j f <¦, 17 . o / ("*<"%<_ ' !* "/"<'! * \
/ / '
'i^ •<;. - • / ,,i. ( -.
J, ii,.
. .-i , 1'' ' ' ~t *•/ /.T'
/O
i
t '-¦( V c ! t • './ r.- . ^c. ! i — * t. ~ ^vy '
t
-------
SAMPLE LOG
'..'ell 0S" Project ,f^o f /i/i 3 A/- /•/>>• 77 „n Pnge — of 7-
' / J /
Sample Depth
Date/ Below Land Surface
Time Sample Description From (ft) To (ft)
/too
V
/£>
/ ->
bicu-Jh" -20-3
V, 3r-- —- uo€.7 L,/-}~hc$r-.U<> 1
J ¦
-'v t*/* £ _ *c o i 1 *-*- • ^ c *; / /v
*1 ^ .^1 JL Yt--( c-*Jt r,o-J
i?/jo ?_ i"T '>-/b -H c « v.. ^ /i'.-CK-t L"f ^.f) <2)?c t; ^ ^
fO-
J-O
/C.v_ t « 0 i. c£
fj-y ' - <> A<-A 1 > - -,
J
1^' U/^I. oT c'!^vW» s/a-il "7 " r//A'(. --r:- -• *'• --r' ^
(>\- . ,, W ( \ »
Oil
r;,//-...¦-f u...-'t- ^«r.-/<>^ (oJ~-oi's]
>- -} --¦
V
/
-------
SAMPLE LOG
We 1 i OL Project rh fc f.„..
t ' j
Dri11i ng
Location.'^ 'r- . .L~ 'u iV Started / 1 I O
Page I of 2-
Dri11i ng ^
F i n i shed ' ' O
Hole Diameter '7 1
Type of Sample 5.-', I
C i'V. U
0 -t
•\C>.
Method of
Collecting Sample /fr '»/ y-o^-„—'v"
f t~ >< ' ¦ >• /SV ^ '
' t
Drilling Fluid
far, .j .
Contractor I*>V>
V f(
Drilling Rig r'.'fC " •' P-- //S
/
Driller J. <- - ii- He 1 oe r "/j>~ A-
Hydrogeologi st -?• --.s/<¦ - a, = /c
Date/
Time
Sample Description
Sample Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
VAv/'vo
jl 10
Lr J>
r ! - <—*
o
/(
J
/OI, 1 I ,
. w //, /
' J.
HSU )
7ir
,9/ )
nvs
hU.-,U
i-2
?> <*sA /¦-/ hd i,A
,r) 'W f !i.y>-'/ r / 7 7
>V .t , O - S. J
'¦:7 , -"^v ."/¦
-A
i I' *
<: to n -»
/T l-D- /<-
/ !> >/¦«-
v)//7 %
A/:,- h '
(-Q..
1 i / V'
/v, / / 4
( " i'" ¦* '/ I *'/ £ J.t < £ ~ t A r'A A '¦ i ^ " "its
/c>
-------
SAMPLE LOG
'•/el 1
r.[; Project f-r-. ,U-J !~e «-
Poqe ^ of -2-
/ / i j
Da te/
'i i me
Sample Description
Sainple Depth
Below Land Surface
From (ft) To (ft)
v c.i^y • 7i j i 1,
' / '
/ 7'/¦£
— ~^tj,^f-v / f/v-fi¦ <¦•' tut* - i i S~t 7?- <-1-
J 7 Si
~
>• If J ' 1
r i-v < <- <¦ .iT/i. ¦>
f..' u ix."i— '7 u r> r c, r / / ( £ tv ^ o»- > / ^ <"< n ' / ^ ' -* , J"
/
/ v W
Sylls.'-'J „fiL
. t „<¦? / T
i
i
1
j
i
1
1
1
1
|
i
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
AND RAW DATA
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53. BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
Data Transmittal for Project 625, Frayser Site #3, Memphis, Tennessee
On 4/28/80 and 5/1/80, the Inorganic Section of the Chemistry Branch took
custody of 10 well water samples and 14 soil samples from wells. Five of
the well water samples were acid preserved in the field and designated for
metals analysis while the remaining five well water samples were caustic
preserved for cyanide analysis. Analysis requested for soil samples included
priority pollutant metals plus total cyanide. For well water samples
priority pollutant metals, total cyanide, and an anion scan were requested.
Analytical Method
A. Well Water Samples
Well water samples were shaken to distribute included sediment, an appro-
priate aliquot was taken, then filtered prior to analysis. Filtered aliquots
for metals analysis were acidified as needed to a pH of 2.0. Metals were
analyzed by ICAP-AES and FAAS as indicated in Table I. Hg was determined by
EPA method 245.5. Anions and CN were prepared from the caustic preserved
well water samples. Anions were determined by ion chromatography (anion
scan) while total CN was determined by EPA method 335.3.
B. Soil Samples
Three-five grams of each soil were transfered to preweighed plastic petri
dishes and vacuum dried over P^Or to constant weight. Samples were considered
at constant weight at 2% deviation on successive weighing. Equivalent weights
of each sample from a particular well were composited to give a total of 6
composites. Composite 625-01 alone is the composite of 4 samples from well
#1 while the remaining composites consist of 2 samples from each remaining
wel 1.
Preparation for all metals except Hg consists of fusing 0.1 g of dried sample
for 9 minutes at 795°C in a muffle furnace. The melt is transfered to 100 ml
of 4% HNOo» dissolved and filtered. From this solution metals were analyzed
according to Table I.
Hg was prepared and analyzed using EPA method 245.5 on 0.2 g of dried composte
sample.
Uncomposited soils were spot tested for cyanide within 24 hours of custody and
prior to desiccation. All soils gave negative cyanide spot tests except
625-05-02 which gave an ambiquous spot test. 625-05-02 was then retested
for cyanide using the ASTM distillation method as indicated in Table I.
Harvey Boyle
Concurrence
DATE
May 23, 1980
-------
2
Results were nondetected (negative) for this sample also. Additionally, the
6 dried composite soil samples were scanned by XFR to qualitatively discern
the presence of any other major elements which were not analyzed. Values
given are based on peak intensity ratio against a USGS standard reference soil.
Quality Assurance
A standard quality assurance method was followed for all analysis. This con-
sists of preparing and analyzing at least 3 blanks, 1 duplicate sample, 1
standard recovery "spike" and 1 standard reference sample. Additionally, an
analysis duplicate, standard recovery spike and standard reference solution were
determined for instrumental verification. Elements which failed to give
satisfactory quality assurance results were not reported. Standard reference
samples were EPA trace metals 575 #2, 475 #1, 577 #2 and #3, ERA trace metals
2078 and nutrients 1632, NBS 1645 river sediment and USGS GXR-1 soil.
Results
Results for all analysis are given on analytical data reporting sheets 1
through 4. Limit of detection for metals and cyanide analysis is taken to
be 3 times the standard deviation of the blanks. For anion analysis limit
of detection is for a 2 mm peak height response.
Conclusions
XRF qualitative scan did not reveal the presence of any unusual elements. Sr,
Ti and Zr were detected but are normal soil constituents.
Arsenic was not reported from the soil analysis due to a high contamination
in the fusion flux reagent. Arsenic values for well water samples are given.
Overall results are satisfactory for soil analysis (metals plus cyanide) as
are the results from the caustic preserved well water samples analyzed for
anions and cyanide. However, a significant problem exists for the acid preserved
well water sample for metals analysis. On the basis of EPA interim primary
drinking water standard 1_/, Ba is in excess of the maximum level in 4 of 5 well
water samples, while Hg was found in excess of the maximum level in 1 of 5
well water samples. Additionally Mn and Fe levels are in excess of the secondary
maximum contaminant levels for drinking water 2/.
It is our opinion that the values for Ba, Hg, Mn and Fe should not be considered
significant nor should the overall metals analysis be considered normal for
well waters. Since the well water samples were acidified in the field prior to
sediment filtration and were observed to contain a large amount of sediment,
it is our belief that the values represent an acid extraction of a sediment
sample and thus are not representative of the true well water metals content.
1/ Environmental Protection Agency Subchapter D - Water Programs, Part 141,
Subpart A.
2/ Federal Register 40 CFR 143.
-------
Table I
Parameter
Sample
Type
Sample
Preparation
Analysis
Technique
Metals
Soil
LMB/LIF Fusion
ICAP
Sb, T1
Soil
LMB/LIF Fusion
FAAS
Se
Soil
LMB/LIF Fusion
DPCSV
Hg
Soil
hno3, h2so4
Hg UV Analyzer
CN
Soil
Spot Test; ASTM
Colorimetric
Metals
Soi 1
Direct mount
XRF
Metals
Well Water
Filtration, acidi-
fication
ICAP
As, Sb, Se,
T1
Well Water
Filtration, acidi-
fication
FAAS
Hg
Well Water
HNO3, h2so4
Hg UV Analyzer
CN
Well Water
Filtration
UV Automated Colorimetri<
Anions
Well Water
Filtration
Ion Chromatography
ICAP = Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma
FAAS = Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
DPCSV = Differential Pulse Cathodic Stripping Voltammetry
XRF = X-Ray Fluorescence
-------
V\£. \ r\uS — Wc-UV. V»l\^i". l\Nr*v-(^ V_»
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEET PAGE jl ^ J/
MAKE OF SURVEY h>%*> T?^ D/'.TES COVERED sM'gQ— sl^SO
F-Zg^bev
ANALYSES PERFORMED.
1 r- 1 t—i
S A!'FLE
NUMBER
STATION DESCRIPTION
TIME
\jc*W'
> ewe pf* r
O ^XCt-lpV v^V\ <'
¦¦¦
YlO*\
ed 1
a
Bcv
fce
G*
C<\
G>
Cr
r«
V\o* H vi
no
U3.S -OSk-C)
^"10.
^l^lao
0?,3lT
0 w
0 w
Nb
7 b.
Mb
Mb
Ub
<001
-90.
^/o.
5/4
o.o\
b^S -O3-0>
u)e\\-$3
^|as|ao
i-b
\ri
Ub
t>70.
Kb
O.O*}
<0.0 \
\.°i
VSO.
3.\.
Ub
bas-o/f-6)
VMS
33.
•SA
o.o\
£10.
HO
6-01
0.O5.
o.cr?
3.1
V3.0.
S.^
VAb
Lc^ - -o\
vi 00
\1.
a-^
o.o\
Nt>
0.0°l
0.01
o.\i
\0.
WO.
\7<
VAb
\3S- Ok-D»
WUTtk W$
^Mao
SP\
xs*
O.O \
180.
Hb
0.07
Hb
o.ot
ISO.
ao
Hb
Lob
0.0s.
o.cd
O.QO'-f
o-'l
O.OO^
0,0^.
O.QG
„
¦
Mcv.
H;
vb
V
Se
f^Va 1
b'as"-ovoi
MO
31.
Kb
0.05"
o.o\
ttb
0.\S
\2.-
Ub
wb
Ub
i.-XS"
\3.
^.0
Mb
Nb
10.
Nb
o.o\
n.
Hb
Ub
Ub
-0-7-01
\A
I*.
Kb
NO
*2)7.
0.0 \
O.lS"
0
38.
Nb
Uti
WO
US
11.
Mb
0-03
"33l.
0.11
o.\o
O.SO
«4.
Nb
ub
0
1
-jD
0
K
l/l
It.
Hb
ND
18.
0.08
6.0$
oau
Ub
ub
Mb
L£>b
OS?^
0.07
0.9*
o.c^
o-oa.
6. COS
O-OO'/
O-OOS-
3.^
3-y^As
5
3 a
Hb <¦ \-0b
t
-------
ttETftLS-SoVt- ANM^SVS
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEET
N'j'lE OF SURVEY L&S ,Tem\
DATES COVERED S
PAGE Of
30 — s|^oj 8Q
.A'-'.PLE
;UM3ER
STATION DESCRIPTION
J
ANALYSES PERh
0 R M E D
^ M
V*A
Cck cA _
rc c*
Cl\ V(r
V'Vi
lk)7^
%
^/9> f
JC* Aj
W)
M3/3 1
°/o
m?i.
t^h
Compos<\f
m^/,c\'io7lcj-|is-. °rin
¦f
J -
Nb
—r ^
Hn
&10>
kj t.^y
176ft 0.
H\5
->l^s '
Ub
«o.
30'
a.-M (
Itoo.
7?o-
o"i
Co-i.-\^os'iAf
110^ . "113-21
wb
*v%
loo*
:^60.
vir>
SO-
£Ck
3^60.
^10.
6as~- 03
1 L "
CcMM^O-V* V
Tin-.. irn$
UD
SJ
Uto
6^00,
U\D
Y\b
&K
ao-
s.»
^|4acv
S^O.
o7
Cc-ii> ijcsi V {-
ntnv, Tin
l$o-
\ix>
HlO
hd
^0 .
30.
SlL \
?.70f>
>000.
k>*~ os
Cc,~^po"i>Ac
qi/M > ws.
tvo
s//
C\C 0.
HD
w>
HO
\oo.
'(0.
'(m.
\1oo
£av -
Lo .^pos'A f
ll/l S.'U'/U
rtt>
s.\-
710.
ssoa
ko
V-lv>
go-
30.
9.1
'&Z0.
s to
\_o n
7*
O'O'eL
ft.
70.
u
\o :
Vo
O-05L
7.0
s-
v- L
on
—H~
,U9 7a
Mo
V-ios.
tv,
jwq
Vic*
m/c)
,S*»
yr^
M
H73
.v„
"5v\
u:)7"-
S»e
S\d
Pi
Ivr- o\
/ J ' J
I u j
^'100.
10'
\4b
SO.
/ ^
^0-
I
\U^
\3.
I J
Mb
kx~- ou
\^b
7*lC0.
70.
Kv>
3>~6.
SO.
30,
15.
Kb
ox
HD
WD
clkGO.
no.
f^o
3'-|.
70.
-JO.
\U>
n.
Wb
t\D
&1
Nt>
tfb
S3oo.
no.
3t>.
¦go,
10.
vlb
t.
no
hr~ 0<^
Nb
Tit)
10,00a
uo-
37-
70.
'/o.
Kb
«.2
ut>
U\3
I
bXT-bb
Ht>
S'lOO
l«o.
KX)
*3S
70.
40.
Ho
Nb
Ub
L-q^
OAS
io.
3C5.
10.
Ho
©.fc'SL
*£>.
ir
o»
M.
0
Cr» '
V4 to- O
-------
HlVuOf'O — vJKvv-A • «. .(\\_w\S
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEET PAGE J3 OF ^
NAME OF SURVEY (AS VWpWv \ew D;\Tb"S COVERED s|l|%0 -S^O^O
HVbS Fva^s ef S'Af * 2.
ANALYSES PERFORMED.
SAf-'PLE
NUMBER
STATION DESCRIPTION
TIME
\Jc\Vv*f>5
f
Q
?tvr
MO>-n
so,,
CH
\&S~ O^-Ol
Tno
¦'fl^Ud
o.^
1.5.
Mb
Kb
03-0\
'V0f\V*3
-«y|aa|a o
cttssr
us
\*.
Ufc"
3.0
^7.
Nfc
^'Qi-0\
Well %30
^ o.8|ao
\?>\S
6.(3
Mb
l.\
"7.1
Hb
b^-OST-Ol
Ufll-thS %38
aajao
\*7oo
O.S\
NC>
\-i
0-2.
¦ar
Hb
~tAS-Ok-o\
OMI-frb
-yjsajso
o,Vs
i.l
K&
0.3
o.\
a.
no
\_Ob
o.o\
0.0-4
0.0"i
0,\
o.oU
0-1
0>OOS
ur> £ Lob
1
f
1
1
-------
^ °/o — UfxCorr^oViA ed So\W
ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTING SHEET PAGE Of ^
KAKE OF SURVEY 43-ST VWpW-> T*m DATES COVERED s)\|^Q — 5|snj SO
YWI ^<"0 \j m-/ \ t ^
ANALYSES PERFORM E 0
S'\::ple
i:u:i3ER
STATION DESCRIPTION
TIME
Co f C U
c$
Fe.
K
Mv\
U;
T1 1 |-^f?
*Vo
%
rc/o
»/o
"=>/a
<*/rz
0/0
%
G/o
%
°/n
<>S>^
sov^s
hU "So\\ ca^pos\Ves
4?i r;^i] -H rv\ 65 t- 'j U
<*x
<0,01
4fc,\
^Q.l
-\
4D.Cvt
o
CH
f-3-S
V)
Ub
us-o\-o^
VMUl cr/01
J/h^\3 0
WIS
v\b
\yW\V\\ \
-li-ypj
12..
'lv>- ol-0'7
vhU--t crin
Or)1<^
yi.
]{.:S - 0^-0)
uA -w , o-J0c5
-7
\s^r>
Ub
yV: -c>o;
\_
V>?\\
'/fuvil'Mj
Wd
Hb
Vis-oL-cM
-»/|3 8!3fc
\l%-&
32.
Mb
las-ok-w.
%JlU
/j|3.8|go
\iss
33."
Hb
\-Qfc
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
subject Analyses of Samples, Project 625, for Organochlorine, Organophosphate and
Phenoxyacid Pesticides.
Five water and six soil samples were analyzed for organochlorine, organophosphate,
and phenoxyacid pesticides and TCDD. None of these compounds was detected in any
of the samples. A list of detection limits is given in Table I.
Water samples were analyzed using the NEIC "Method for Organochlorine Pesticides
in Environmental Water Samples" and "Method for Chlorinated Phenoxyacids in
Environmental Water Samples."
Soil samples were analyzed using the NEIC "Method for Organochlorine Pesticides
in Soil and Sediment" and the "Method for Phenoxyacid Herbicides in Soil and
Vegetation."
Copies of the methods are attached.
TO
Harvey Boyle
Concurrence
date May 14, 1980
FROM
Methodology
K. A. Carlberg
Attachment
-------
Table I
Detection Limits
Water
Soil
uq/1
ug/9
Aldrin
0.1
0.004
Dieldrin
0.2
0.01
Chlordane
1.0
0.04
4,4"-DDT
0.5
0.02
4,4'-DDE
0.1
0.004
4,4'-DDD
0.4
0.02
Endosulfan A
0.2
0.01
Endosulfan B
0.2
0.01
Endosulfan Sulfate
1.0
0.04
Endrin
0.2
0.01
Endrin Aldehyde
0.4
0.02
Heptachlor
0.1
0.004
Heptachlor Epoxide
0.1
0.004
a-BHC
0.02
0.001
3-BHC
0.1
0.004
y-BHC
0.02
0.001
6-BHC
0.02
0.001
PCB-1242
1.0
0.04
PCB-1254
1.0
0.04
PCB-1221
1.0
•0.04
PCB-1232
1.0
0.04
PCB-1248
1.0
0.04
PCB-1260
2.0
0.08
PCB-1016
1.0
0.04
Toxaphene
5.0
0.20
Demeton
2.0
0.08
DDVP
2.0
0.08
Dimethoate
5.0
0.20
Phosdrin
5.0
0.20
Malathion
2.0
0.08
Methyl Parathion
2.0
0.08
Ethyl Parathion
2.0
0.08
Thimet
2.0
0.08
Trithion
5.0
0.20
Ethion
2.0
0.08
Merphos
5.0
0.20
Disulfoton
2.0-
0.08
DEF
2.0
0.08
Methyl Trithion
5.0
0.20
Diazinon
2.0
0.08
2,4-D
0.2
0.01
2,4,5-T
0.1
0.01
Silvex
0.1
0.01
Dicamba
0.2
0.01
Picloram
0.5
0.02
TCDD
0.5
0.02
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
to S. Sisk
Concurrence:
from H. W. Boyle
subject Priority Pollutant and General Organics Analyses, Project 625, HWSI, Memphis, TN
Five water samples and six soil samples have been analyzed for Priority Pollutants
and general organics. There were no Priority Pollutants identified in any of
the samples. An alcohol was tentatively identified, but not confirmed in two
of the water sample acid fractions using combined gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry. The results are given in Tables I through VII. The detection
limits for the base/neutrals and acids in the waters and the neutrals in the
soils are given in Tables I through VII.
Methodology
The water samples were analyzed for base/neutrals and acids using the NEIC
method 0.12.5.1. The volatile compounds were analyzed by the NEIC method
0.12.3.1. These methods are essentially the same methods as 625 and 624 as
recommended by the EPA in 40 CFR of the Federal Register.
The soil samples were analyzed using a modified version of the NEIC method
for Organochlorine Pesticides in Soil and Sediment. A composite of each core
sample was taken to give a total of 50 grams wet sample. This sample was then
put in a 500 ml Erlenmeyer flask with 150 ml acetone and shaken for 15 minutes
on a mechanical shaker for complete dispersion of the soil sample. A 200 ml
portion of hexane was added and again the sample was shaken for 15 minutes.
The organic solvent was then decanted off into a one liter sample of tap
water in a 2 liter separatory funnel and back extracted. The hexane solvent
was recovered and then concentrated to 1 ml on a hotplate under a gentle
stream of filtered air for subsequent screening by flame ionization gas
chromatography.
The samples were all screened by flame ionization gas chromatography which
quickly demonstrated that there was nothing in the majority of the samples
above the background when compared to the blank runs analyzed at the same
time. This eliminated the need for further analysis by mass spectrometry
and only two acid fractions were found to contain a contaminant. These two
fractions were then analyzed by mass spectrometry.
Quality Control
The method was monitored using blank samples and a spiking mix added to both
water and soil samples. The results are given in Table VIII.
DATE
May 21, 1980
-------
Discussion
These samples did not show the presence of extractable organic pollutants
or volatiles in any amounts above the detection limits except for the two
acid fractions, that indicated the presence of the lodo-methyl-propanol,
and this compound could not be confirmed because of the lack of a standard
to compare it with. The identity is certainly only tentative and it would
be estimated to be present at only low ppb levels based on the response of
similar compounds.
The soil samples were originally composited and analyzed as one sample from
each station to save time. At the time of analysis the plan was to go back
and analyze each core sample individually if any substantial contamination
was found. This proved to be unnecessary.
-------
' \ -
BftSt/IJUjTHAL EXTAC1Ab L£ PRIIJRII V I'OkLUTAtiTS
DATA REPORT PPOJECT
SMUOM-S£GUfcFtCE
[)AH-1 ]*b
TAG MJhBf.,*
Uf. ITS
-o/_ 9?\°j
^5:-"
^diZrS:^- ^ilSicIrl
^//> *i/l£
na*l
I . ACL f- APH f HE^fc;
S. Be.:JZ JL-lN1-
9. l,3,4-rRlCHl,OPUtttrl£ENfc
9. HLXAChLC'KC'Pl-f^ZbrlL
II . F-. XACHLL^OtTHA^fc.
1 H . H IS( 2-CHb»KOETri YD t THLK
2 0. ^-OLURU I APHTHA Lh Ht
23. 1 ,^-l)lCrl.eKUKb"£.t.-vfe.
2b. 1 , 1-OIChl.il>r>rWu'Zfr '*
71 . 1 , A-inCLL PCHL JZE* (¦-
2S . 3 , 3 * - DIChLOKUrtt JZll/Ihe
JS. >,4-Dl .IT^OTOL'Jt^fc.
3b. ? , b-U J rtlThUJ'fJLU* tiF
J 7 , ] ,2-01=,H-,'YLHfDHAZliiL CB)
19. FLUGRA JHtF-;?-ChiJa^aiSOPK'Je,YD^rHk.H
43. 4IS(2-CHLQr" "2^"v"-_T j ' j"
%IL
"17 "
<-/ £
i'/j/X
¦"—
/Y"l' r-1'
7'C C/'.
j-h^/r jj
//i?
J
5~
/5~
/ jf
/ o
5""
r
/
-------
^ (z ( V 7
bAbt/NLUTKAL LXrFACfAHLE PKIOKIIY POLLUfANli
DATA RlFOHl PhOJLCT
S1 A I ION-Sfc.OU6.rtCF
DATF-lI^t
TAG NUI-BEK
ut. IIS
, y+A_j.Z.
CJ J* ~o / Oji ~X) i
t>s./Z --jS'/Z--
s£/A~
w1 /x7-
V-
rlD
MAN t,
bb . .41 rKbcb^Z-l.*,
62. N-UTMJSGUlPnEUYLAMU.t CA)
o3. N-NI r40SnOX-hi-HFDFYLA^ lNb
bo . B1SC ^-ElrULhEXYL ) HH JhALAlt
ft/. dUliLSr-'^YLPrifHAl.Alt
6c . DI -f -r'li i Lt-nHALA J t
6 ^ i fLr'h'lHALAlr
70. DIZ1 ¦n'*r'hlrihLaTt
7 1. IH'lEJ riYLt-H THALA 1 fc
72. BLi Z'j{ A ) A'l J HhACtl'h.
7J. ?fc lO C a ) e
74. 3 , A-be LtO^ftuThENt
7b. 5E«2l»(K ] FLUUp' A n TH LN fc-
7 n . CnKYiscNr
77. ACk.hAfc'HInfLEht
7 H . Aul fHACr i)L
7 9. rJr.^^OCCj,ri,X)PLRYLtNt
80. FLJuHr (it,
B 1. FrttnAiJ tildz. «L
i
32. OIB^JZDCA,H)ANlHRACh.NL
83. I JUcNOC 1 ,2, 3-C, D)PYrtt*iE
M# PYrfFhc.
hlD
MtAfaUrltU A3 DlPHfc-fiYLAMlilE
af>C-
cJ-7 'o /
Cu'f/-
7-f'O/
i?'7 ~0 i
s 'llbt/jl-'JJ/* /.3/ :
/-v
fa~
/V D
uisy
"V
/A
a: i/-J,
Ct ft r-T
l-/n'
""^7/
.dD.—
A'
/0
/ £>
/
/ 5~~
/
/ c~
_Z.^_
_ZA
/ j>-
/ S"
-------
***** result qualifiers *****
PHO PRESENT BUT NUT OUANTIFIED.
THE SUPJECT PARAMETER WAS PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILFO CU A LIT Y CONTROL.
THE COMPn'-IENT RESULT IS NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN OUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
N AI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
HA NOT ANALYZED.
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEClFD.
THIS COMPONENT WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE,
»*»*»*~** FOOTNOTES *********
1. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLATILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DtTECTED It.' TI.E FIELD BLANK.
2. RECOVERY OUTSIDE THF RANGE OF C % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2'KR LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT ( H A Z ) .
fi, NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT CHAZ).
7. NOMINAL LO'.'ER LI'lIT OF DFTECTIOI* FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM CVOA).
-------
e _
HASt/UtllTKAL fc.XTi,4-L>lM7VOTOL'Jf fc.
Jh. ? ,6-DINIIktirt)LUH»F
J 7 . 1 ,2-DI=>HL'JYLH*DHAZliifc. (B)
*9 . FLUOHA (Tml •
40. 4-CH!.'HOPrL WYLHHrNYLLIHtK
41 . 4-dfcO 40PHc.I.YLwntNYLLlhER
44. HlSC?-CriljOHOISaHHijt>YL)FrHLK
4 3 . H I S ( 2 - C HLOR ()\T HO y Y J '.LTHANfc.
t
•>i. HEXACrn.O.nbyTADIe.i'i.
53 . KfcXACnLOHjL fCL.UPLUTADIfc.NL
b*. i
5S, t< A^hTHALL%i£
l! D
J_
c
/¦>
/ j ~
/o
r"
/)
"lEHSUrfEU AS AZUUtllZLHt
-------
sta i loN-stoutfJCF
DAT f -1 I>nfc.
TAG ':UMBEi(
Ut.I IS
7>. t.
BASL/NtOTKAL E.X T H AC f A H LE PklOrllY POLLU fA«TS
C±r_ t
fits'Uc
=>' IIIIIIIIII
DATA RtPOHl PrfOJtCT
-J
of' o I
I/-",
lM\ I ^
a nir<> i
pert fc.
bb. «JI rk06r.N7> r^:
62. N-iUTKOSOUiPHEHVLAMlfit (A)
cJ. N - N I rKOS'lOI-rJ-WrtiJFVLA^ lNb
60. &ISC^-El rULHFXYUPHlhAL Alt
ft / . BUm^f^YLPHfHALAlt
. DI -1 -n'Ji'iLt'.il HALA1 t
6*. Ol-'-OCiYLFhlnALAlr
70. OitHVl^hlr.ALi Th.
71 . LHilLlriYLt'HrHALAlfc
72 . btiiZO C A ) A'l 1 HRACtl'k.
1 j. ?fc tO ( A ) t1 Y H b'J h.
7 4. 3,4-*e1 ZnrLbOrtAuThLhfe.
7b. 5fc>( ZO ( K JFLULrtAuTHLNL
7 o . Cn h Y i> tfl c
77. ACtNAHHlh/LEht
78. AnTmRACtHL
7 V . 'Jr.^UCC»,r4,i)PcHYLtNL
BO. FLUUrtr'Jh.
81. F rt r. f« A tJ f rl K c L
I
3 2. DIB^JZ J( A , H) AtJ rHRACfc.NL
R3. I JOtiJOC 1 ,V, 3-C , DJPYritftL
M. F^FNt
A'D— _.jC(£-
zz:;
/
jT~
_c
/y
/ s~~
./jr.
JJZ
/o
_JT_
i?"
/y
S'
J.p~-
/i~
J"
(A)
lc.AbUrlfc.0 A3 DIPHLNYLAMliJE
-------
***** RESULT QUALIFIERS *****
PHO PRESENT BUT HUT QUANTIFIED.
THF SUBJECT PARAMETER V.AS PRESFNT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE RFSULT COULD BE DETFRMINEO.
FOC FAILFD QUALITY CONTROL.
THE COMPONENT RESULT IS NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN OUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
NAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
NA NOT ANALYZED,
the SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEClFD.
THIS COMPONENT WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE.
FOOTNOTES *********
1. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLATILFS REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DETECTED IN THE FIELD BLANK.
2. %4EC0VEPY OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF C % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2CSTI) DEV) .
3. COMPONENT CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEA" DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THE QUANTITATIVE
MEASUREMENT FUR THIS COMPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEAST AMUUNT OF COMPOUND PRESENT.
4. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT Of DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS PRESENT IN 1 LITER OF V'AT^R EXTRACTED,
CONCENTRATED TO 1 HILLlLITFR [B/H/A).
5. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILlTfcRS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT CHAZ).
fi. NOMINAL LO^ER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
7. NOMINAL LO.'ER LI"IT OF DFTECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUilE OF HELIUM (VOAJ.
-------
TjL
2T
BA5t/Htl/TKAL EXTHAC 1 AfaLE PRUJRIir POLLUTANTS
(Cjf 5oM- j'ArlfiXj
DATA REPORT PROJECT
SrAllon-StQUbNCE
DAU-U*t
1 A Ci MJfcBER
UMTS
¦
ft
s /
SX~ £7—
a/"*'#
• £?/
<93 -<5^
HlK-zJ-LL r
o1
C4— O
C£-Jj~ '
fi/jj <
Ct'TlJ ll
..til ' ty i
N AUL
1, ACtMPHIHEHE
b. B Z T DI N *¦-
0. 1 , 7 , 4-rRlCHI.OPObbdiENfc
y . H€K AChLDWOSF NZEdb
U. HcXaCHLCi^JLTHAHE
1H. HlSt^-CriLllHOElriKDF-fHbR
?0. ^-ChliORti UPHTHALH't
25. I , 2-1)1CHLLK'jhL"*.L
^o. i, ^-DicKjpfn^u JzeNV
27, 1 .A-UlCLOhfJ^E. ILL* K
2^. 3, S ' - DTCh LUH OH ^.IZIDI i-1
JS . > ,4-01 MTVOTOMJ^It
Jh . ? , 6-lH a) 1 fHUrOLin UF
J 7 . 1 , 2-DXDhE'r*LH iDKAZlWt (B)
^9 . FLJO^A jlnL
40. l-Cnl'-KOP^fnL^HFriYLLlHER
41 . 4-dl'0.4/,*PhtNYL«HtWYLc.l h£H
Oil . Hl5t?-CHlJ0K0IS0tJV"Jt,KL^ F rHt.8
43. H 1 S ( 2 -C HL0RnL.T HQX Y ) KANL
$
b I. HEX ACni.'J«nl*\JTALUe.i,S
53. KLXACnLDl'iJC YCLUM&.NTA01 LUt
]ijOHMOHO'IE
55. f. APHTHALLMt
¦zr—y
rlD rJo
...
h
f DO
Z-cT
_/_Oj2.
; u -
i ¥ _
f j> c
' O C
/u O
3 c "
3c^v''
A
/ c/
/ O is
.J.v.--.
/»!/ 6
/'U c
/cV c-
/C/J
(b)
XcA5UHED AS AZUULfiZLHE
-------
S,C
BASt/Nfc.UTK&L LX TH AC f AHLIL FklOnllV POLLUlArjlS
DATA RtFOHl P-b, <7
J- c
- 0--
cy-±—
/ 'ij'
L*L£—
~L C> C
/ o o}
.IS.L*___
> t> »•*
*3 ^
^ ' r
C'
k«^ ^
/ o c
(m)
MtA&UHtO A3 DIPHb.NYLAttliJt
-------
***** RESJLT qualifiers *****
PNO PRESENT BUT NOT OUfiiJTlFIED.
THF SUPJECT PARAMETER V.AS PRFSFNT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILFO OUAL1TY CONTROL.
THF. COMPONENT RESULT IS NQT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN OUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
NAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED EECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
NA NOT ANALYZED.
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEC1FD.
THIS COhPONtMT WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE.
********* FOOTNOTES *********
1. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLAT ILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED POP ANY CONTAMINATION
OtTEC TED IN THE FIELD BLANK.
2. %^ECOVERY OUT SI DE THF RANGE OF [ % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2CSTIJ DEV) .
3. C 0 *•' Pn u E N T CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEAR DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THE QUANTITATIVE
MEASUREMENT FUR THIS COMPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEAST AMUUNT OF COMPOUND PRESENT.
4. nominal LOWtR LIMIT Of DETECTION tOR COhPUUr.'DS PRESENT IN 1 LITER OF WATrR EXTRACTED,
CONCENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/M/A).
5. M 0" 1N A L LOWLR LIMIT Or DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITEPS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
ft. NOMINAL LC'-ER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ5.
7. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM (VOA).
-------
>
iar
BASt/IJtUTKAL LXTr* AC1 AbLE PKiUKITf P0L.LUTANT5
DATA REPUfcT PHOJECT
H HL 1 A D Lti rRjIJKll I kUIiLjUlAhLo ^
. Slii : JjS.lfJ- {L ^ ^
SIAlIOti-ScOUtNCE
DA 11--1 1Mb
lfcG MJh0F-R
UMTS
5zU£2jz
vv-
^Xi "7^
2 ly^yji
,Mk.
. o>
0£~oi> 7„
_, /7S-'
'ii'iVCi f>
, a'
Ol " o r?*
~4Z/iTS".,7^.
f-
"7
I-
lr^CL
&
w.
tA\r-
.jpiTLcl
t-is'i
NA"t
i, Actt-AtMrHEdt:
5. BtflZlUlNfr-
8. 1,2,4-IPIChIjQPObLri^ENh.
*. ' HtXACHLOWOP* NfctrJL
12. HeXftCHLG^OtlHA^tL
IS. Misc2-CHU1H0ETriYL)E.THfc.R
70. J-ChUORL' UPHTHALMlt
2s. 1 , 2 - D L C h l-C W'jhLi ' i L i- L
2n . 1 . 1-DlCMjPKnbL JZh Mt
2"). 1 ,4-OICL<-MJ:ii JZE* fc.
2-s . 3,3 • - OIChLOKOHh.,JZlbH^
J5. > , 4-DI'i iTfOTOL'Jt/Jfc
Jh. ? , 6-UI W 1 XHUrULUf- ttr
J 7 , 1 ,2-Dl = nS'iYLH/DHAZlNL Cfl)
^9 . FLUOPA *TnL <(¦
40. 4-Cr<1 rHOHHV.NYLHHFriYttTHER
41. 4-dPG4'H»htNYLI>Ufe>YLLl*icR
42. rilSC?-CH[,OHOlSOHP'.W LjFrHtK
4 3. HlS(?-CHbGRUu-THO>r Y ) rttlHANt
I
b2. H £ X A C n li 0 .<"} H 'j T i l> 1 c i1 -
53. htXtCnLQt'ijCfCLUMfc.IiTADlk.Ilh
bi. liGr-HOHQ'JF:
55. h AWHTHALtNE
v~~
Hd
i\'d
T
A!o
iId... no
/c/">
/ ./O
/6c
/¦Jc/
/J 6
/V 6
/ <-> u
,'CC
Jl/Ls
?./ 6
J i j i*
-ML-
/ J &
/o o
J#
/^ 6
s C
/ "
JiJO
¦iiASLWEU AS AdUlltNZtWE
-------
n
C~ ¦•; 1 >"-^7"? c
/A
^-%-—-'^-4/,-—
f/p _..//D _/W)__ t-lo
>JA».t
•JI fr<0cL%Z*f«*C
bo.
62. N-JlThUSODIPnEUYLAMlNt CA)
o 3 . N-uI rKOSn0X-rJ-Prfi)F^LAMM:
6o * BlSU-F.liULhFXYUHHIhALAlE
ft;. HUriLSfcN^yLPHfHAliAle.
6e. DI-f'-r'JitLP.ilHALAlt
6y. (jl-|<-CjCinif'HlrtALAlr
70. DJ EHW,ehl r.ALa TL
11. l> 1 >1 £ 1 HYLPHfHALAjt
12. HLi\ZO(A);illHkACcl'fc.
7J. ?l £.0(A)^H-Nk.
74. 3,A-bcuZOrLUOrfAUThLNfe.
7b. B in ZLt ( K ) F tUC'tt AuT HE.IJ fc
7 o. CnKHitfc
77. ACtf-A^rilnfLENt
7ti. AuThP ACr lit
7 V . i^r-i^OCC., f , I JPLRYLLNt
80. FLUuHp nfe.
8 1 . Pridr.A-J frMe.NL
$
3 2. DiBH. J ZJ(A,ri)ArUH4ACKNt
8 3. I Jl)£iJG t 1 , 2 , 3-C , D) PUt^t
H4. PYHfNL
T
..ill...
/ ^
/
/ j
j o
Jf
j i.
> ^ t-
/ o
/0CJ
_z
^ 6'
/ t> C"
/ O L,
j ^ 6
3o
/ oo
Mc-AbUrltU A3 D1 PHt-^YLiAMl»JEl
-------
***** RESULT QUALIFIERS *****
PNO PRESENT BUT NUT QUANTIFIED.
THE SUBJECT PARAMETER V.AS PRFSFNT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILFD QUALITY CONTROL.
THF. COMPONENT RESULT IS NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN QUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
N AI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
NA NOT ANALYZED,
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETECTFD.
THIS CDMPONtMT WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE,
********* FOOTNOTES *********
1. OUANT1TATIVL MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLATILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DETECTED IN THE FIELD BLANK,
2. %"ECOVERY OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF C % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2CSTI) DEL V ) .
3. CO^Pniv ENT CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEAR DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THF QUANTITATIVE
MEASUREMENT FUR THIS COMPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF COMPOUND PRFSEn?.
4. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OE DETFCTION EOR COMPuUrlDS PRESENT IN 1 LITER OF WATrR EXTRACTED,
CONCENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/H/A).
5. H rj vlN A L LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITF-PS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
ft. NOMINAL LO^ER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZK
7. NOMINAL LO'VER LI''IT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM CVOA).
-------
7, _
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
DATA REPORT PROJECT 6z£. ..
STATION-SEQUENCE
DATE-TIME 'titILif---
TAG NUMBER
UNITS
i/
Name
2. ACROLEIN
3. ACRYLONITRILE
4. BENZENE
6. CARSOiMTETRACHLORIDE
7. CHLUROBENZENE
10. 1,2-DICHLOROETHAME
11. 1,1,1-TPICHLOROLTHANF
13. 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
14. 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
15. 1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
16. v CHLOROETHANE
19. 2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
23. CHLOPOFORM
29. 1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
30. TRANS-1,2-DICHL0R0ETHYLEME
32. 1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANF
3 3 A. TRAnS-1,3-DICHLUR0PR0PYLENE
3 39. CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPYLfNE
38. ETHYLBENZtME
44, MtlTHYLENF CHLORIDE
f r ^ (' ^ r-i —
k/d
I
I
mJ\/A_
j
<3 3 ~o / c-7—of dps" -o/ of? -o j
V2-?/-'- ?/i '/w />-' (7^ /-c ,far
/
,0-sJ^ ,i-A JL l,Ali y/y, // ^'^'h "
7- t) " "ru """" £'\y
/O
/" 6
) ^
-LA-
_fO
t v
JA.
-Ul.
t U
rID '
r
77x7
Ju^D—
/
r-'yiO
/
r
.lL.
r[ £)
TV./ p
N D
/ ^
/ <>
• j
—r
/ J
/ o
-------
VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
O -- -o /
f. -r~
DATA REPORT PROJECT ,
L rf
STATION-SEQUENCE
PATE-TIM*" CJL
TAG NUMBER
• n
UNITS
J
NAME
45. METHYL CHLORIDE
46. MLTHYL BROMIDE
47. BKOMOFORM
48. DIChLOROBROMOMETHANE
49. TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
50. OICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
51. CHLO^ODIBROMOKETHAHE
65. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
Bfa. TOLUENE
fl 7, TRICHLOROETHYLENE
«8. VINYL CHLORIDE
ZJL-JlL— S-C-ZS-L— —"i/ilf.i.
7fait± /.p/°"
y]/ &/J;L /,/j?
__ __ -- —(j ~~r—j
mc1lb':
L h> 11
- L 'J
r/D
j...
j{0
rlo
*/D
to
o
to
10
/ o
/ o
J 0
/V
7C>
7c
u
-------
***** RESULT QUALIFIERS *****
PNO PRESENT BUT NUT OUANTIFIED.
THF subject parameter v>as prfsfkt in THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE result could be determined.
FOC FAtLFO OUALITY CONTROL.
the COMPONENT RESULT IS NOT PELIAbLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN OUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
NAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
NA NOT ANALYZED.
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEC'lFD.
THIS COMPONENT WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED In! THE SAMPLE.
********* FOOTNOTES *********
1. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLAT ILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DETECTED IN THE FIELD BLANK.
2. %RECOVERY OUTSIDE THF RANGE OF t % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2(ST!> DEV) *3.
3. C 01Pn E N T CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEAF DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THE QUANTITATIVE
MEASUREMENT FOR THIS COhPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEA5T AMOUNT OF COMPOUND PRFSFnT.
4. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT Ot DETFCTIOK tOR COMPOUNDS PRESENT IN 1 LITER OF WAT^R EXTRACTED,
CU"CENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/*!/A).
b. MO'IITKL LQi'FR LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILUt RS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
f, NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ5.
7. NOMINAL LOWER LI"IT OF DFTECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM (VOA).
-------
ACID EXTRACTAQLE AND MISCELLANEOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
DATA REPORT PROJECT 1 ^SS.!i_-1
STATION-SEQUENCE
DATE-TIME 1 jit^ 'Zj'ztti . _
TAG NUMBER
UNITS JIA-. -
' d 7 J~ ~ ~
NAME
21. 2 , 4 ,6-TRTCHLOROPHENOL
22. PARACHLORCETACRESOL
24. 2-CHLOROPHEf.OL
31. J,4-DICHLCROPHENOL
34. 2,4-DIMETHYLPHFNOL
57. 2-NITROPHENOL
58. 4-NITROPHENQL
59. 2 ,4-DINITROFHEMOL
60. 4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL
64, PE'JTACHLOPOPHENOL
654. PHENOL
Nd
t\!D
17. RIS(CHLOROWETHYL)LTHER
61. M-NITROSnDlMETHYLAfINE
129. ? , 3 , 7 , e-TETRACHLflRODIBENZO-
niOXTN
"/«W - JL -r-f Th y( i- " P <\ u/~A,rV<—-
hjx> /V c
..ACQ. db.__.
1.12.... '/0
—i ~±£_
... L _zj£_
J. A^_
__i / ^
„j Zo
„i 7.
___[
-------
***** RESULT QUALIFIERS *****
PNO PRESENT BUT NOT OUAIJTIFIED.
THF SUBJECT PARAMETER WAS PRESENT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO OUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILFD OUALITY CONTROL.
THE COMPn"lElIT RESULT IS NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THE RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN OUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
N AI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
HA NOT ANALYZED,
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEC'lFD.
ThtS COMPONENT WAS NOT DETECTED CR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE.
********* FOOTNOTES *********
1. OUAnTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLAT ILES REPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DETECTED IN TliE FIELD BLANK.
2. %uECOVERY OUTSIDE THF RANGE OF C % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2(ST[) DEV) .
3. C 0 M P n n E N T CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEA" DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THE QUANTITATIVE
»'tASUREMENT FOR THIS COMPOUND REPRESENTS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF COMPOUND PFFSEnT.
4. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT Of DEIFCTION tOR COMPOUNDS PRESENT IN 1 LITER OF WATrR EXTRACTED,
CONCENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/M/A).
5. NOMINAL LO>''E° LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS OF LIQUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITF.PS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
p, NOMINAL lower limit riF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
1. NOMINAL LO'vlR LI'IIT OF DFTECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM (VOA).
-------
M
ACID EXTRACTA^LE AND MISCELLANEOUS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
DATA REPORT PROJECT OJLJ
STATION-SEQUENCE J"__
DATE-TIME
TAG NUMBER
UNITS
O U
O i
1/f
0-
°6' c
* /l-r. A-
±^Mly
rip
"f-
nz
i
rlo
rl£>
HP
iic
(
J
-------
***** RESULT QUALIFIERS *****
PNO PRESENT BUT NOT QUANTIFIED.
THE SUPJECT PARAMETER WAS PRFSFNT IN THE SAMPLE BUT NO QUANTIFIABLE RESULT COULD BE DETERMINED.
FOC FAILFD CUALITY CONTROL.
THF. COMpnigEUT RESULT IS NOT RELIAbLE BECAUSE THL RESULT WAS NOT WITHIN QUALITY CONTROL LIMITS.
MAI NOT ANALYZED DUE TO INTERFERENCE.
THIS PARAMETER WAS NOT DETERMINED BECAUSE AN UNCONTROLLABLE INTERFERNCE WAS PRESENT.
HA NOT ANALYZED.
THE SAMPLE WAS NOT ANALYZED FOR THIS COMPONENT.
ND NOT DETEClFD.
THIS CPfoPONfc.1T WAS NOT DETECTED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE SAMPLE.
********* FOOTNOTES *********
1. QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS FOR VOLATILE"S RtPRESENT SAMPLE CORRECTED FOP ANY CONTAMINATION
DETECTED IN THE FIELD BLANK.
2. %4EC0VEP.Y OUTSIDE THF RANGE OF [ % AVERAGE RECOVERY +- 2 (S T [} DE.V) .
3. COMPONENT CONCENTRATION EXCEEDED LINEAR DYNAMIC RANGE OF MASS SPEC. THE QUANTITATIVE
MEASUREMENT FOR THIS COMPOUND REPPESEMTS THE LEAST AMOUNT OF COMPOUND PRFSEa'T.
4. NOMINAL lower LIMIT Of DETFCTION E OR COMPOUNDS PRESENT IH 1 LITER OF WATrR EXTRACTED,
CONCENTRATED TO 1 MILLILITER (B/H/A).
5. NOMINAL LO>'ER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 MILLILITERS OF LIOUID EXTRACTED
INTO 5 MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT (HAZ).
6. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DETECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 20 GRAMS OF SOLID EXTRACTED, CONCENTRATED
TO b MILLILITERS OF ORGANIC SOLVENT CHAZ3.
7. NOMINAL LOWER LIMIT OF DFTECTION FOR COMPOUNDS IN 5 MILLILITERS OF WATER PURGED WITH A
CONSTANT VOLUME OF HELIUM (VOA).
-------
Table VIII
A - Base/Neutrals - Water
Compound Amt Added ug/1 % Recovery
Acenaphthene 100 84
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 100 77
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 100 83
Isophorone 100 102
D1-N-Butylphthalate 100 80
B - Acids - Water
2-Chlorophenol 100 55
Phenol 100 29
2,4-Dinitrophenol 200 90
Pentachlorophenol 200 70
C - Volatiles - Water
Methylene Chloride 50 172
Benzene 50 120
Toluene 50 138
Chlorobenzene 50 148
D - Neutrals - Soils
Amt Added ug/kg
Acenaphthene 2000 91
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2000 79
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2000 70
Isophorone 2000 44
D1-N-Butylphthalate 2000 107
-------
|