NCD981021157_19940610_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RD_Remedial Design Work Plan 1990 - 1994-OCR

s,
State of North~;ii~ia .: ..
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Woste Management
a m m James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L. Meyer, Director
June 10, 1994 DEHNR.
Ms. Beverly Hudson
US EPA Region IV
North Superfund Remedial Branch
345 Courtland street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Comments on -Draft Remedial Design work Plan
Groundwater Remediation
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit
Wilmington, New Hanover county, NC
NCD 981 021 157
Dear Ms. Hudson:
The Draft Remedial Design Work Plan for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site, Groundwater Remediation, located in Wilmington, North Carolina has been received and reviewed by the North Carolina Superfund Section. This document has also been · forwarded to the NC DEM for concurrent review. Their comments will be forwarded when available. The following comments are offered by the North Carolina superfund Section.
1. Beryllium is listed as a contaminant of concern (COC) on page 4 of the Field sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP). The ROD Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) dated September 30, ·1992 eliminates Beryllium from the coc list.
2. Table 1, Appendix A.1, Field sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP), and Table 2, Appendix A. 2, Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) should include preservative blanks as a part of the sampling plan.
Section 5, Sampling Equipment and Procedures, of the FSAP does not provide sufficient details in the sampling and analysis procedure for metals to determine if the correct sampling and analysis method will be used. A State wide procedure effective as of March,1, 1993, based on the Groundwater Standard 15A NCAC, 2L, states that sample filtration in the field will not be permitted for metals analyses. This sampling procedure is documented in a memorandum to Regional Supervisors from Arthur Mouberry, Chief, DEM Groundwater Section, dated 26 January 1993. This memorandum states that standard method 3030C, "Preliminary Treatment for Acid-Extractable Metals", will
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
• •
Ms. Hudson
June 10, 1994
Page 2
be the only accepted method for metals sampling
procedures in North Carolina. "Standard Method 3030C,
'Preliminary Treatment for Acid-Extractable Metals',
[ Standard Methods For The Examination Of Water And
Wastewater, 17th edition, 1989, or 18th edition, 1992]
was designed to determine both the dissolved and
extractable metals lightly adsorbed on particulate
matter. This method provides less bias than the 'Total
Metals' , 'Total Recoverable Metals' or I Dissolved Metals'
analyses methods in minimizing the impact of sediment on
groundwater analyses for total concentrations of mobile
metals." Table 1 of the FSAP includes EPA methods 239.2
and 6010 for analysis of the inorganic contaminants of
concern. EPA methods 239.2 and 6010 and the contractor's
sampling procedures must be equivalent to the states
Standard Method 3030C for metals analysis.
The following comments are on the Site Health and Safety Plan
Appendix B:
1. Page 4, Section 3. 8. 1: About 50% of the PEL and STEL
values listed are incorrect. It is recommended that the
latest copy of 29 CFR 1910 .1000 be used to obtain the
PELs and STELs.
2. Page 7, Explosion and Fire Section:
listed items will be monitored.
Describe how the
3. Absolute chemicals concentrations and positive chemical
identity cannot be determined with the instrumentation
proposed on page 9. Therefore, a concentration expressed
as volume to volume ratio such as ppm is inappropriate.
The recommended term is "meter units" (mu).
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact us at [phone].
Sincerely:,
l\/'J · R. lrv\cL~,f\
Randy McElveen
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
cc: Jack Butler, N.C. Superfund Section
4WD-NSRB
14:45 EPA REGION IV i<!'.lSTE MGT PROGRAMS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRO CTION AGENCY
REGION IV
34?) C.OURTLAND STR~e;T, N.I!'.
ATLANt"A, OE:OP'l:OIA ;)0-?JOO
September 8 1 1994
Iu', Randy McElveen
North Carolina Department of Environment
Health, and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
002
SUBJ1 Review of Draft Remedial Design Wor Plan Groundwater
'Remediation for the New Hanover Air ort Burn Pit Superfund
Site
Dear Mr. McElveens
Enclosed La a copy of the corrected
letter dated 3une 10, 1994. Your comments
the Remedial Design work Plan. Thank you
plan.
eiues ,outlined in
ware incorporated
for reviewing the
your
into
work
If you have any questions, please do not he itate to contact me at
[phone] ext 4116, si;el, l~
Beverly
Remedial P oject Manager
Waste Mana ement Division
EPA REGION JU l,.fiSTE MGT PROGRA'1S 003 09/0~ 14:46
AL!il. )I) '"'41 15:31 'f9043471695 FRDM•CATLl OCIRTES T--£29 P,02
•
Richard Catlin & Associates I Inc.
~",'9>11W·. . .. _ l' • ~YGr~~~· ·~1x;:··:l,i:.~,.:•.1r.11;i:w:•2f'"w*• ;t~\lWl:•1~ •-,, J.t, "41~ Ji.t..:...,.,_~:,..:i. .. , -_,J,. ,. , ~-• ,, ~.,_. .. ,J.,,j.j(l41,i.t,,\i\:.,~, 1111.t-i., {;i<,hi;.6.Ki'.ia~...._,l -~
RC&A fNVtlfONMENTAL ENCINEl:RS A.NO HYOROGEOLOCilST:S
August 29, 1994
M,. hverly Hudson
BP.A. a-iedial Project Manager
Unl."'1 Stalies Environmental Protection Agency, Regio IV
34.5 Courtland Street, N. B.
Atlanta, GeC>l'gia 30365
lie: EPA .Review Comment& to the
Remedial Peslgi1 Workp!an
New HIIX\Over County
Airport Burn Pit Superfl..md Site
RC&A Project No. 94040
llNr Ms. HUdson:
Richard Catlin & Associates, Inc. (RC&A) woul like to addreeo the cOtlcerna
outlined ii:\ your letter dated June 23, 1994, Presented el'(lin are responses to th4il BPA
""MIW comments.
11?7i'ltl DesipWml.,phm
1. laryllium has been removed from the contarnin t of concern (COC) list and will
not be analyzed for In ground water.
l"llo&ervative blanks will be prepared either by laboratory or at the office for
laboratory analysis, The blilllks will be prepare using deionized, organic-free
waEr with the appropriate pi:eservative, For pu gttable organic analysis a blank
will be acidified to pH less than two with hydr orlc acid. An inorganic blank
will be preserved with 2.5 ml of concentrated ·trtc add, The blanks will be
prepared on a one time basis per preservative so rce. Analy&l.11 of the t>lanks will
b@ in accordance with the anillytlcal methods re uirinS sample pl'eservation.
pv,-s7~--€V.f(_~4 .
ti 'th md Sp.(ety PJ11n CNZiSPdix B)
The tab1e ~ummarlz:lng chemical exposw:e valu s hai;; been updated refei:endng
19 CFR 1910.l000 revised as of July 1, 1993 11 d the NIOSH Pocket Guide to
Clwmical Hazards, 1990.
H,,me Offlc.,, P.O. BOX 1017!1 220 Old Dai,y Rd. Wlfmtn9c n, NC 28405-3755 (910) 452·5/J61
""'t11fl 1!&810nal Office: 2165 W. Park Cl,, 5UIIG M Stone Mllu1aln, CA 30087-3540 (404/ 46~1~
~n Reg/Ml/ Office: 1051 /0/1nflie OOdit6 B/vo., ,1m& C
I
r. Pleasant, sc Z:1'16'1 «JOJJ i,ot,6()(JO
09/0~ 14:47 EPA REGION IV I.ASTE MGT PROGRR'IS 004
RL!(i Ji! '94 15:32 T.43471695 FRQM:CATLIN C!ATES T-629 P,03
1. Mcmitodng for fire/ explosive conditions will be a complishl>d through the use of
lld'I oxygen/combustible gas meter at re~ar in rvals. Utility checks will be
performed prior to conducting intrusive activities to prevent ruptut'e 01· damage
t,o underground utilitlei..
Ambient ait tnorutotittg of the breatltlng :zone wl be iu;compllshed utilizing an
Organic Vapor Attalyur (OVA) flame ionlzati n detector and/ or chemical
colorimetric tubes1 &uch a& Draeger tubes. 11\e me sured concentrations Indicated
on the OVA readout assembly will be recorded a moto~ units (mu).
A, Wqg flan, pap a. secuon 3.2
The word "sampled" in the first sentence has bee replaced with "anillyzed", ~
AU detected analytes will b~~l?_nfirme~with ~lte nate responsive detectors and
1.
2,
I
1.
~p11r1d.er1t col=. ·
torsn::'lx 4.1
All detected analytes will be confirmed wJ.th-alt nate responsive detectors and
independent columns.
2. All detected arutlyles will be confirmed with al nate responsive dete,ton and
independent columns.
~lytlcal methods for metal9 WJJI utilize Sta dard. Method 3030C sample
preparatton and analy!l!s per the appropriate SW· 6 method for Individual metal.
The SW-846 metals rnethocb are ae followo;
Clwomium
Lead
MatMslUM
Mansaneae.
&or,.
Method 7191
Method 7421
Method 7450
Method 7461
M11thod 7380
'TSS will be analyzed pet Standard Method 2540 D.
,. Alt samples to be analyzed for volatile organic ( A Method 602) and pu.tgeable lll'flllUC (EPA Method 601) parameters will b preserved with concentrated L--
hyd.rochlorlc acid (HCl) to pH less than two,
C, IIINl"rllx A.2
• • RECEIVED
Richard Catlin & Associates, Inc. MAY?. n fOn~
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS AND HYDROCEOLOCISTS
May 18, 1994
North Carolina Department of Environment Health
and Natural Resources
Superfund Section
Attn: Jack Butler
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Re: _New Hanover County Airport
Burn Pit Superfund Site
Wilmington, NC
RC&A Project No. 94040
Dear Mr. Butler:
.
Enclosed for your review are two copies of the Remedial Design Workplan
required for the above referenced site.
I appreciate the recent assistance from you and your department concerning this
project. If you have any questions, comments or require additional information, please
do not hesitate to give me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Richard Garrett, P.G.
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Ray Church, New Hanover County
Mr. Tom Pollard, City of Wilmington
Ms. Beverly Hudson, US EPA
Home Office: P.O. Box 10279 220 Old Dairy Rd. Wilmington, NC 28405-3755 [phone]
Atlanta Regional Office: 2165 W. Park Ct., Suite M Stone Mountain, GA 30087-3540 [phone]
Charleston Regional Office: 1051 Johnnie Dodds Blvd., Suite C Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 [phone]
I
Memorandum
Date:
Subject:
From:
To:
e '"-~ -~tGt.iVED UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ·
JUL 1 7 1990
REGION JV
349 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30319
· JUL 19 1990
SUPERFUND SECTION
-Review Comments-Draft Work Plan, Draft Sampling and
Analysis Plan, Draft Health and Safety Plan, Rev~sed
Community Relations Plan, -New Hanover County Airport
Burn Pit Site-Wilmington, North Carolina
Steven M. Sandler 4-z,.;_~ :f,'4, ,_f,!v~
Remedial Project Manager
Addressees
Attached to this memorandum are the comments that I sent COM, the
ARCS contractor for the New Hanover Airport Burn Pit. I did not
receive comments from several of you, or North Carolina, but I'needed
to get the contractor some of our concerns. I have tentatively
scheduled a 7/18/90 meeting in Athens between Dan Thoman and Bill
Bokey of ESD' and myself to obtain their comments, which I understand
are numerous. It is still not too late to add your input into this
site. It appears that we will probably request the contractor to
delay RI/FS field work until the removal action is completed. We may
also phase the work to reduce costs. I would like your comments ASAP
(the requested due date was 7/2/90, with a three week review period).
It is probable that we'll have a meeting with COM to discuss all EPA
comments. Your attendance at such a meeting would be appreciated.
I'll keep you informed.
Addressees: Elmer Akin, Health Officer
Lee Crosby, NCDEHNR/
Ramiro LLado, ORC ,
Tom Hansen, APTMD
Bernie Hayes, GTWU, WMD
Wade Knight, ESD
Mike Carter, ESD
Chuck Pietrosewicz, ATSDR
John Lindsay, NOAA
• UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
JUL 1 6 199(}
Mary K. Leslie
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303CSS
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
701 Scarboro Road
Suite 3005
Oak Ridge, TN 37803
RE: EPA Comments on New Hanover County Work Plan Documents
Dear Mrs. Leslie:
The attached comments comprise EPA's concerns on work plan
documents for the subject site. The comments are divided by
documents and include comments and questions that must be
addressed on the Draft Work Plan, the Draft Sampling and
Analysis Plan, the Draft Health and Safety Plan, Volume II
Cost Data, and the revised Community Relations Plan. Prior
to EPA's full approval of these documents, revised plan
documents or a written response to the comment is required
from CDM
I have also been advised that our Athens staff, from our
Environmental Services Division, would like to meet with CDM
to discuss their concerns, most of which have not been
supplied to my office in writing. I will advise you as to a
probable meeting date as soon as possible. There is some
sentiment that the field work at The burn pit for the RI/FS
should not begin until all the removal activities have been
finished. Assuming I can obtain permission to slip the
project completion date, I would appreciate your comments on
that idea.
The State of North Carolina has indicated to me by telephone
their intention to provide comments on these documents, but
their comments will not be mailed until after July 16, 1990.
I will insure that the State's comments reach you as soon as
possible. I would advise CDM to begin on necessary revisions
based on the comments listed below as soon as possible. As
we have reciently discussed I will attempt to arrange a
meeting to discuss EPA's comments with you and CDM staff
should you feel it necessary.
Our comments are as follows:
Draft Work Plan
In general, significant modifications should be included in
the final work plans to ensure that the objectives of the
RI/FS process will be met. The following comments are a
summary of the deficiencies that are present in these work
plans.
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 1
(1) Preliminary Ground-Water Classification A preliminary
evaluation of the ground-water classification has been
conducted based on Guidelines for Ground-Water
Classification under the EPA Ground-Water Protection
Strategy, Final Draft, December 1986, (EPA Office of
Ground-Water Protection). The classification of the
surficial aquifer at this site is Class I, An
Irreplacable Source of Drinking Water. This
classification is based, in part, on information from
Progress Report on Ground Water in North Carolina, M.J.
Mundoreff, North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development, Division of Mineral Resources, Bulletin 47,
which indicates that there is a public well field at
Bluethenthal Field, an old name for the New Hanover
County Airport. Clean-up goals for ground-water in Class
I aquifers are to MCLs, to proposed MCLs or to
health-based numbers where MCLs and proposed MCLs do not
yet exist.
(2) There has been several negative comments over the amount
of samples and the expense of the work proposed for this
RI/FS. A phased approach is still generally regarded as
the most appropriate methodology. EPA requests that the
work plan be written to provide a longer review time for
agency review of Phase I field results before proceeding
with further field work. EPA is amenable to lengthening
the time for this project to achieve a more cost
effective RI/FS. While the field work may indicate an
unforeseen situation, it is also possible that the
removal activities may successfully remediate the site to
allow for a No Action ROD to be prepared and issued. The
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan (SCAP) shows
issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) to be issued for
this site on or before 12/31/91. Necessary time must be
allowed for writing and defending the ROD through several
drafts. If the date for this ROD is to be changed,
justification must be made as soon as possible. We
welcome any CDM comments for amending the site time frame
to better allow for the benefits of a phased approach
while reducing project costs. The schedule as proposed
is overly optimistic for necessary review times and
unknown circumstances.
(3) Reference to the ATSDR Health Assessment is slightly
inaccurate. The assessment was a Preliminary Health
Assessment(PHA). PHA's on all NFL sites should be cited
as preliminary and reference the fact that not all
information in the document has been verified. After the
Remedial Investigation is completed or underway and the
information is verified then the document is published as
final.
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 2
( 4)
( 5)
On page 2-14 of Volume I of the Work Plan, in the third
paragraph, there is a discussion of the Sandstone Aquifer
being hydraulically connected to the undifferentiated
deposits where the Sandstone Aquifer is absent. This
discussion as it is now written is not logical. It needs
to be rewritten to adequately express whatever point the
writer is trying to convey.
There is an existing well 100 feet southeast of the site
which was last sampled in 1985 (Page 2-15, Vol. I, Work
Plan). It is not scheduled to be sampled this time since
it is not in use, its construction is unknown, and it was
not contaminated when last used. Since there is so ·
little ground-water data from the site and the plume may
have moved into the area of this well, it is recommended
that this well be sampled, even should only qualitative
data be obtained.
The project history is incorrect. Negotiations for PRP
involvement on the RI/FS ocurred after the site was
listed on the NPL (p. 2-2). Dates for correspondence
should be 1988 and 1989. a date for the latest set of
historic aerial photos should also be added.
Latest information on the removal should be included
under "enforcement profile". It is my current
understanding that the removal must take place within 6
months from a May 11, 1990 Consent Order.
(6) For Table 2-1 (and others as well) EPA suggests that for
the reporting of soil values, that mg/kg (ppm) be used
throughout. This is consistent with usual practice, and
eliminates the potential for confusion and
misinterpretation of the values. This problem has
occurred with other sites and in other reports.
(7) Tables 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 "petroleum product" is listed
as a constituent under purgeable organics and
extractable organics. Additional constituents are also
listed that are petroleum related substances. If there
are additional petroleum related constituents beside
those that are in the lists in these tables that are
represented by the "petroleum product" listing, such
constituents should be included in the analysis for
specific constituents. Specific constituents must be
listed since all clean-up goals are for specific
constituents.
(8) Table 2-6-Footnotes 3 and 4 do not appear in the table,
and footnote 5 is not explained.
• New Hanover Burn Pit Comments • Page 3
(9) On page 3-1 of Volume I of the Work Plan it is
indicated that treatability testing may be conducted to
assess the viability and effectiveness of remedial
alternatives. Bench and pilot scale testing is highly
recommended since it will help establish the
practicality of specific alternatives for the site.
(10) Page 3-4. In 3.3, EPA suggests the insertion of
"preliminary" between "A health" in the last line.
(11) On page 3-2 of Volume I of the Work Plan water and
ground-water remediation options are discussed.
Various methods of treatment are discussed but
extraction of ground-water is not discussed. These
options should include consideration of ground-water
extraction.
(12) On page 3-4 of Volume I of the Work Plan indicates that
ground-water discharge to the surface will not be
considered since there are many potential sources of
contamination which may effect the surface water which
would make identification of the source unreliable.
This plan to ignore ground-water discharge is
unacceptable. The ground-water plume must be defined
to its end or the point of surface discharge.
(13) Page 3-5. In 3.3, we suggest inclusion of an area
survey of private and commercial wells in use within
1/4 to 1/2 miles of the site.
(14) There is not any specific method proposed for the
establishing of soil clean-up goals with respect to
impacts upon ground-water. It is very important that
soil clean-up goals be established during the RI phase
so that the extent of contamination can be documented
and so that the FS can proceed in a timely manner. EPA
has approved work plans utilizing soil column testing
to establish partition coefficients for contaminated
soil. This method may be useful in this study. This
information can then be used to calculate soil clean-up
goals. In addition to the soil column testing the
organic carbon content of the soils should be measured
for use in these calculations.
(15) Section 4.0-Several reviewers found this section to be
very confusing. There are contradictions on what types
of samples are to be collected, the number, and which
laboratory will perform the analyses. For example, the
second paragraph discusses air and soil samples, but
the penultimate sentence states samples for Minteq
analyses will be collected and sent to ESD for
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 4
analysis. The only samples shown on Figure 4-4 for
Minteq analyses are from the 12 monitoring wells to be
installed later.
It would also be helpful if the split samples were
shown on Figure 4-4 with their respective sample
locations rather that grouped under splits. Please see
also that the piezometer water samples show "Split all
GW Samples" under the column headed "NOTES" but no
water samples are listed under the various parameters
for CLP/ESD. Neither are there any water splits shown
under QA/QC Samples.
Also on Figure 4-4 there is a column for designating
the number of air samples, but the column is empty.
Are the Minteq sample analyses necessary? You should
evaluate whether the benefit of the modeling outweighs
the costs of the additional samples and eliminate such
extra samples, if appropriate.
We do not believe the projected two-week time frame is
feasible for the on-site laboratory and the ESD/CLP
laboratory to complete the analyses and to allow for
the evaluation of the soil samples.
(16) On page 4-1 of the Work Plan Volume I, a phased
approach to the RI is proposed. This approach is a
sound one; however, for the first phase new
ground-water monitoring wells are not proposed. It is
recommended that ground-water monitoring wells be
proposed for the initial phase so that the second phase
can be utilized to fill any data gaps identified as a
result of Phase I sampling.
(17) On page 4-6 of the Work Plan Volume I, composite soil
samples are proposed. Since volatile organic compounds
are of concern at this site, composite samples are not
recommended since this process will result in the
volatilization of the constituents of concern. Also,
composite samples may result in contaminated areas
being missed since they could be mixed with
uncontaminated areas. Grab samples are recommended.
(18) On page 4-6 soil samples are proposed to the top of the
water table. At this site, the water table is likely
to be quite shallow and soil contamination may extend
below the water table. If soil is contaminated to the
water table additional sampling may be required to
establish the depth of soil contamination below the
water table. If soil contamination extends below the
water table it may be especially important since it is
not isolated from the ground-water.
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 5
(19) Page 4-7. Reference is made to a Figure 5-1, which was
not included a reviewer's copy of the plan.
(20) Septic Tank Sampling-TCL is the acronym for target
compound list, not "toxic compound list". Please
correct.
(21) On page 4-10 of the Work Plan Volume I, selective
sampling for mercury is proposed for sediments and
sludge. Specifically, only limited samples are
proposed for mercury from each source area. One sample
is to be from the "dirtiest" zone and one each is to be
from the the vertical and horizontal "clean" zone.
Since mercury is indicated to be of concern at the
site, contamination evaluation should not be limited
through selective sampling. Sampling for mercury
should be included in the entire scope of the soils
investigation.
(22) In 4.4.6, " ... carivorous ... " is misspelled.
(23) Page 4-12-The proposed air quality sampling locations
are not included on Figure 4-4.
(24) On2page 4-12 of the Work Plan Volume I, five temporary
piezometers are proposed to establish ground-water flow
and contaminant concentrations as well as to aid in the
selection of the locations of permanent monitoring
wells. There are not any ground-water monitoring wells
at the site. However, there are several areas of
concern that have been identified. Since upgradient
and downgradient ground-water monitoring wells will be
required, we recommend that some permanent monitoring
wells be installed in this phase and supplemented with
additional wells in the next phase to fill in data
gaps.
(25) On page 4-16, the discussion of proposed ground-water
monitoring wells for the site is inadequate and
incomplete. Twelve wells are proposed. Yet the
discussion only specifically mentions the location of
seven wells. For specific wells at specific areas of
suspected contamination, the discussion indicates that
the proposed well placement scheme is inadequate. For
example, only one downgradient monitoring well cluster
is proposed for the burn pit which is believed to be
the primary source of contamination. This is clearly
inadequate for characterization of the area. At least
three wells are recommended near the downgradient edge
of this site. Additional wells may be required to
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 6
characterize the downgradient extent of ground-water
contamination. In addition, in the well clusters,
wells are proposed at the 30-40 foot depth and at the
base of the aquifer, estimated at 70 feet. Since the
water table is probably at 5 feet below the ground
surface, additional wells should be proposed at the
water table.
(26) On page 4-17 of the Work Plan Volume 1, the
construction of the monitoring wells is briefly
discussed. The well screens are proposed to be 10 feet
in length. Except at the water table, the screens
should only be 2 to 5 feet in length. Ten feet is
adequate for the water table wells. The selection of
screen slot size and sand pack size is not discussed.
These should be based on site-specific sieve analysis.
(27) On page 4-17 of the Work Plan Volume 1, it is indicated
that sampling of the offsite private wells near the
site is not planned. The private wells near the site
should 'be sampled as part of the RI. Also, the public
water supply wells near the airport which are not
discussed in this report may need to be sampled.
(28) On page 4-19 of the Work Plan Volume I, slug testing is
proposed. The method of analysis for the slug testing
data should be included in the work plan. Bouwer and
Rice (Water Resources Research,.June 1976, vol. 12, #3)
is one method that would be applicable to conditions at
this site based on the information in the work plan.
(29) Page 4-21--The statement is made that "CDM and ESD
personnel will jointly review the ons_ite laboratory
data to establish the final DQO level of the data.''
The DQO level should be established before the samples
are submitted to the laboratory. Please make necessary
changes.
(30) ESD requests that they review the QAPP for the on-site
laboratory.
Draft Sampling and Analysis Plan
(1) Several commenters requested that the site work include
an area survey of private and commercial well users.
(2) On page 1-2 of the Sampling and Analysis Plan, sampling
is proposed for PAHs, voes, selected metals and
dioxin. A full scan should be run on selected samples
at the site in the first stage of the RI to determine
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 7
( 3 )
( 4 )
( 5 )
( 6 )
if there are additional constituents of concern.
(Note: two of the three metals in Table 2-1 are not
included in the list of metals proposed for analysis.
All the metals in this list had hits well above the
detection limit. Further, the number of metals in
Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 which were detected above
the detection limit indicate that the three metals
proposed in the sampling plan are inadequate to
characterize the site.)
On page 2-4 of the Sampling and Analysis Plan, a break
was noted in the berm around the burn pit. Soil
sampling should be conducted in the area that may be
impacted by this break.
Page 5-2--The statement is made that "DQO Level 3 will
be provided by the onsite laboratory."· Please refer to
our comment# 29 under draft work plan for our comments
on DQO levels being determined prior to sample
collection.
ESD requests to review the QA/QC Plan for the offsite
subcontracted laboratory.
Page 5-3--Samples collected for volatile organics must
be analyzed within seven days of collection if not
preserved with HCL. Will the on-site laboratory be
able to perform the analyses within the seven-day
holding time?
(7) Page 5-4, it is indicated that the samples of
extractable and volatile organics will be chilled only,
contrary to the Region IV SOP. The Region IV SOP
should be followed.
(8) Page 5-5
a. Spiked samples--For what reason has it been
determined that these samples will be analyzed for
PAH's only?
b. Split samples--The statement is made that
approximately 10% of all soil and groundwater samples
will be split between the on-site laboratory and the
ESD or CLP laboratory. On page 5-24 the statement is
made that splits of all groundwater samples from the
piezometers will be sent to ESD for analyses: on page
5-29 the statement is made that all groundwater samples
from the monitoring wills will be sent to ESD/CLP for
analyses. Please correct.
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 8
(9) Table 5-1
(10)
(11)
a. Preservation of voe samples here shows the
of HCL, making the holding time 14 days rather
7 days specified in the narrative on page 5-3.
see our comment 6.
addition
than the
Please
b. An explanation is provided for footnote 3, but no
such footnote appears in the table.
Page 5-16, Surface Water/Sediment Sampling--There are
no surface water sampling locations described.
Figure 5-4
a. The only samples shown under the "CLP/ESD" heading
are 6 soil dioxin, 12 water Minteq, 2 water PAH
duplicates and 23 soil splits. Some information is
provided under "Notes." Please see our comment #2
under the work plan comments for the discussion of this
table (designated as Figure 4-4 in the Work Plan).
b. There are no surface water samples shown.
comment #10.)
(See
(12) Page 5-33, paragraph 2--The statement as worded is that
all holding times will be exceeded.
(13) Page 8-1
a. The statement is made that "The onsite laboratory
will perform organic analyses using high pressure
liquid chromatography (HPLC) to obtain adequate
detection limits." For your information in revising
this section, SW-846 method 8310 is for polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons only. Also the acronym HPLC
stands for High Performance Liquid Chromatography.
b. Table--Several comments apply to this table
Specifically the methods are incomplete without the
appropriate extraction/preparation methods. SW-846
method 8100 is a gas chromatograph method rather than
HPLC. Please see comment #13a. SW-846 method 8250 is
a GC/MS method for semi-volatile organics rather than
dioxins. The dioxin method is 8280.
(14) General comments--The number of samples proposed for
this site appear to be greatly in excess of the number
necessary for such a project. This comment was cited
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 9
by a number of reviewers. Also, there is no figure
showing locations for the 12 monitoring wells.
Draft Health and Safety Plan
( 1) The site is now fenced, at least around the pit,
according to the OSC. The document states that it is
not.
(2) The plan should add Lyme Disease as a risk or "hazard
of concern" or where appropriate. The site's OSC
contracted Lyme Disease during a site visit.
(3) The map indicating a route to the hospital is not
clearly legible in the copies supplied to EPA. I would
suggest putting the written directions in the corner of
the map also.
(4) An alternate to Melissa DeFranks and the other
emergency contacts should be included on p.11 of 13,
should these individuals not be readily available.
Revised Community Relations Plan
( 1)
( 2)
( 3 )
Figure 1-2--EPA stills questions the accuracy of the
map in its placement of site features, particularly the
junction box for the piping.
P. 1-8--The plan should better describe the differences
between the removal and the remediation more
thoroughly.
P. 3-1--The EPA comment on
partially been addressed.
include text regarding the
relations events.
the draft CRP have only
The text of the CRP should
anticipated community
(4) P.3-2--The repository should be set up immediately.
(5) Appendix B-2-Charlotte Verlashkin recently was married.
Her name is now Charlotte Jesneck.
(6) EPA's general comment that concluded our June S, 1990
comments on the draft CRP has not been addressed
sufficiently. We are especially concerned that CDM has
not verified certain facts to make this and other site
documents as definitive as possible. EPA is concerned
over the use of vague terms and language such as
"presumed" on items that could easily be verified by a
phone call or minimal research. We are especially
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 10
concerned over this after specific comments were made
on this issue earlier. As was previously stated by EPA
in comments, "the impression that we create with the
public is dependent on being as factual and accurate as
possible. The site history, site description, and the
community profiles sections should be as definitive as
possible.
Draft Cost Data, Volume II
(1) Regardless of the fact that the project costs include
lab expenses, the overall cost of $513.011 is viewed as
excessive by most EPA reviewers.
(2) We are very concerned over the mix of CDM and CDM FPC
staff and resources. With the ARCS contract awarded to
CDM FPC and CDM labor costs significantly higher than
CDM labor costs, we find it unacceptable that over
2/3rds of the labor LOE is within CDM at the higher
labor rates. We request a detailed explanation of this
use of resources. If CDM FPC staff is used throughout
the project that fact alone would result in significant
cost savings.
(3) We are concerned over the imbalance in the P-T levels
under both CDM and CDM FPC's cost breakdowns. The CDM
labor breakdown shows almost 20% of LOE for P-4's,yet
doesn't show any T-l's. Similarly, the CDM-FPC
breakdown shows a 42% LOE for P-4's, which is an
unacceptable utilization of resources. Also for CDM
FPC, there are no T-1 or T-2 resources and minimal (32
LOE) P-1 hours.
I have also attached a copy of the sampling data collected by
Athens at the burn pit in April. They have recently
corrected the data and just forwarded it to me. The revised
data should be included in the revised work plans. As we
discussed, CDM has committed to a two week turn around in
producing revised work plan documents. The start date for
the necessary revision will not begin until you are in
receipt of all EPA comments. This will not occur until I can
get you the state comments and EPA's ESD comments, either by
mail or at a meeting in the very near future. Should you
• • New Hanover Burn Pit Comments
Page 11
wish to discuss any of these interim comments with me, please
call at your convenience.
Yours truly
/1 ✓;yJ _,,{/-C'!-t.~!-./ /-1-
Steven M. Sandler
Remedial Project Manager
Enclosure
cc: Giezelle Bennett, EPA
Charlotte Jesnick, North Carolina
EPA New Hanover Reviewers
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV
Environmental Services Division
College Station Road, Athens, GA 30613
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 06-27-90
SUBJECT: CORRECTED Results of Purgeable Organic Analyses;
90-469 NEW HANOVER PIT
FROM:
WILMINGTON, NC tCttrlff4jSE ,o, 138'7
Robert W. Knight U
Chief, Laboratory E aluation/Quality
SAS NO: 5330D
Assurance Section
TO: BILL BOKEY
Attached are CORRECTED results of samples collected as part of the subject
project. The original reported data had incorrect units. Please discard
the previously reportej data.
If you have any questions please contact me.
ATTACHMENT
1
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 06/25/90
PURGEABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT ................ " ........................ . . .. .. .. •• .. ,.
... ..
•• .. .. ..
, ............................ •••••T•••••••••••
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45485 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: NH-SD-01 REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTD BY: J SCHOOLFIELD CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC CULLECT!OIJ START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
D.N0.:01 CASE NO. : 1 384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ....................................... .
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
sou sou 50U 50U 25U 900 25U 25U 25U
25U 25U 25U 50UR "25U zsu sou 25U
CHLOROMETHANE BROMOMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE CHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ACETONE CARBON DISULFIDE 1 . 1-D ICHLOROETHENE( 1 . 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE) 1. 1-DICHLOROETHANE 1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) CHLOROFORM 1 .2-DICHLOROETHANE METHYL ETIIYL KETOIJ[ 1.1 .1-IKICHLOROEIHANE
B?~~tl\lH~~~HLOR I DE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
25U 25U 25U 25U 25U
67 25U 25U sou sou 25U 25U
25U 25U
59 25U 72
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENEJ DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1. 1 .2-TRICHLOROETHANE BENZENE TRANS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
BROMOFORM METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL BUTYL KETONE TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENEJ 1 , 1. 2. 2-TETRACHLOROFTHANE
TOLUENE CHLORORFNZE'IE ETHYL BEIJZENE STYRENE TOTAL XYLENES
•••FOOTNOTES:t•s •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATEO VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •LI-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM Ql'ANTJTATJON LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY QR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
. ·,
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REG!OtJ IV ESD. ATHEIJS. GA.
PURGEABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT ...
•• •• •• •• ••
............... *••·· ........... ,. ...... .
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45486 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: NH-TS-01 REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE CASE NO. : 1 384 7 SAS NO. : 53300
PRDG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON COLLECTION START:
D. NO.: 02
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ... .. .. .. ..
" ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * ••••••
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANAL YT I CAL RESULTS
50U sou sou sou 2SU 830J 25U 2SU 25U 25U
2SU
2SU SOUR 25U
25U sou 25U
CHLOROMETHANE BROMOMETHANE VINYL CH LOR !DE
CHLOROE THANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE ACE10NE
CARBON DISULFIDE 1. 1-DICHLOROETHENE(1. 1-DICHLOROETHYLENEJ 1. 1-DICHLOROETHANE 1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL)
CHLOROFORM 1 .2-DICHLOROETHANE METHYL ETIIYL KCTONC 1. 1. 1-IHICHLOROETHANE CAROO/~ TETRACHLOR iDE VINYL ACETATE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
•••FOOTNOTES**"
2SU 25U 25U 2SU 2SU
1 7J 2SU 25U sou sou 2SU 2SU 150J 2SU
2SU 2SU 54U
1 .2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TR I CHLOROETHEtJE( TRICHLOROETHYLENE J DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1. 1 .2-TRICHLOROETHANE BENZENE TRANS-1 .3-DICHLOROPROPENE BROMOFORM METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL OUTYL KETONE TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENEJ 1 . 1 . 2. 2-T E TRACHLOROF THANE TOLUEUE CHI.ORORFNZEME
ETHYL BEIJZENE
STYRENE TOTAL XYLENES
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-EST!MATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTJTATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHEtJS, GA.
PURGEABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT ...
•• • • .. • • • •
··••:sc••··· .. ················--*•··· PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45775 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 1B LIQUID PHASE
CASE NO.: 13847 SAS NO. : 5330D
PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON
COLLECTION START:
D. NO.: 1B
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC
04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ...
•• ..
•• • • ..
••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
lOU 10U
,OU
10U 6U 200U SU 5U SU SU SU SU 20UJ 5U
SU 10U SU
CHLOROMETHANE BROMOMETHANE VltJYL CHLORIDE CHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE ACETONE CARBON DISULFIDE 1. 1-DICHLOROETHENE(l. 1-DJCHLOROETHYLENEJ 1. 1-DICHLOROETHANE 1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) CHLOROFORM 1 .2-DICHLOROETHANE METHYL ETIIYL KETOIJ[ 1. 1, 1-l~ICHLOROETHANE CA~OOIJ TETR/,CHLOR IDE VINYL ACETATE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
SU SU
5U SU 5U 1 7J
SU SU 10U
1 OU 5U SU 5U SU
23J 5U SU
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRICHLOROETHENE{TRICHLOROETHYLENE) DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1, 1 ,2-TRJCHLOROETHANE
BENZENE TRANS-1 .3-DJCHLOROPROPENE BROMOFORM METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL BUTYL KETONE TETRACHLOROETHENECTETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 1. 1. 2. 2-TETRACHLOROFTHAME
TOLUENE CHLOROAFMZEME ETHYL BENZENE STYRENE TOTAL XYLENES
•••REMARKS•**
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTJVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION JV ESD, ATHEIJS, G,\.
PURGEABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT ... ..
•• ..
...... .., ....................... 't'fT'$:T'f*-1=1:•
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45776 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• • •
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 2B LIQUID PHASE
CASE NO.: 13847
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CHLOROMETHANE BROMOMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE CHLOROETHANE METHYLENE CHLORIDE
ACETONE CARBON DISULFIDE
SAS NO. 5330D
UG/KG
50000U
50000U 50000U soooou 25000U 50000U 25000U 25000U 250ll0U
25000U 25000U 25000U
1. 1-DICHLOROETHENE(l, 1-DICHLOROETHYLENEJ
1. 1-DICHLOROETHANE
130000J 25000U
2SOOOU 50000U 25000U
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) CHLOROFORM 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
METHYL ETIIYL KET01J[
1. 1. 1-1HJCHLOROETHANE CARODrJ TETRACHLORIDE VINYL ACETATE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
• • • PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON COLLECT JON START:
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: tJC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
D. NO.: 2B
UG/KG
25000U 25000U 25000U 25000U 25000U 25000U 25000U
25000U soooou 50000U 25000U 25000U
150000 25000U 35000 25000U 250000
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CJS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE) DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1, 1 ,2-TRICHLOROETHANE BENZENE TRANS-1 .3-0ICHLOROPROPENE BROMOFORM METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL BUTYL KETONE TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 1 , 1. 2. 2-TETRACHLOROFTHANE TOLUENE
CHl..0RORFMZE1'!E ETHYL BENZENE STYRENE TOTAL XYLENES
06/25/90 ...
•• •• •• .. ..
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATEO VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANT!TAT!ON LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
.-
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA. 06/25/90
MISCELLANEOUS PURGEABLE ORGANICS -DATA REPORT ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••• ' •••• * •••••••••••••• * ••••••
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45485 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE •• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT •• STATION ID: NH-SD-01 " CASE . NO. : 1384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D .. REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
200JN 200JN 100JN 200JN 200JN
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
ETHYLDIMETHYLBENZENE (2 ISOMERS) BUTANO!C ACID. METHYLETHYLESTER TETRAMETHYLBENZENE D!HYDROMETHYLINDENE TRIMETHYLBENZENE
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD •• CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC ., COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00 • • D. NO.· 01 MD NO: 01 "
••
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAl-!NTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •LI-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VE~IFICATJON.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS, GA. 06/25/90
MISCELLANEOUS PURGEABLE ORGANICS -DATA REPORT
•• ,.. 1' ....... ' ••••• * ••••••••••••••••••
• • PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45486 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT •• STATION ID: NH-TS-01 " CASE. NO. : 1 384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D .. REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
5DOJN 1DOJN 3DOOJN 1DOOJN 4DOJN 10DOJN 1000J
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
TETRAMETHYLBENZENE DIETHYLMETHYLBENZENE DIMETHYLUNDECANE METHYLDOCECANE DIHYDROMETHYLINDENE DI ETHYL BENZENE 4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
.......................... * ........ .
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD •• CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC • • COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00 ••
D. NO.· 02 MD NO: 02 ,n
•••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•Y,-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNDV/N TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERJAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANT!TAT!ON LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING .AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR '✓ERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA,
MISCELLANEOUS PURGEABLE ORGANICS -DATA REPORT ... .. .. ..
• • ..
,.. ..... .., ...... *••·· ••• ,. •••• :s••····
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO, 45775 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 18 LIQUID PHASE
CASE.NO.: 13847 SAS NO.: 5330D
20JN 60JN 7JN 300JN 90JN 1DOJN 20JN 80JN
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
METHOXYMETHYLPROPANE TETRAMETHYLBENZENE (2 ISOMERS) DIETHYLMETHYLBENZENE DJMETHYLUNDECANE (2 ISOMERS)
ETHYLD I METHYL BENZEtJE DIHYDROMETHYLINDENE ETHYLMETHYLBENZENE TRIMETHYLBENZENE
•••FOOTNOTES•u
. .
PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON COLLECTION START:
D, NO. 18
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00 MD NO:
06/25/90
• • •• • •• .. ..
• • .. ..
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERJAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED, THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTJTAT!ON LIMIT, •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE, COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT, RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION,
•
•
SAM?LE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA.
MISCELLANEOUS PURGEABLE ORGANICS -DATA REPORT ••• .. .. .. ..
••
......................................
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45776 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 2B LIQUID PHASE CASE.NO.: 13847 SAS NO.: 5330D
100000JN 400000JN lOOOOOOJ 80000JN 100000JN
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/KG
METHYLOCTANE (2 ISOMERS) TRIMETHYLBENZENE 5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS METHYLNONANE ETHYLMETHYLBENZENE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
• • PROG ELEM: SSF Cl TY: WILMINGTON COLLECTION START:
D. iiO. · 2B
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/9D STOP: 00/D0/00 MD NO:
06/25/90
• • • • ... ..
•• .. ..
• •
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATiON.
•
•
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV
Environmental Services Division
College Station Road, Athens, GA 30613
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 06-27-90
SUBJECT; CORRECTED Results of Extractable Organic Analyses;
FROM:
90-469 NEW HANOVER PIT
Robe rt W. Knight
WILMINGTON, NC
CASE NO: 13 8 4 7 SAS NO: 5330D
Chief, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance Section
TO: BILL BOKEY
Attached are CORRECTED results of samples collected as part of the subject
project. The original reported data had incorrect units. Please discard
the previously reported data.
If you have any questions please contact me.
ATTACHMENT
1
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA. 06/25/90
••• ' ••••••• * •••••••••••••••••••••
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45485 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
·······•**••··············••11••· ... .. ..
•• .. .. •• STATION ID: NH-SD-01
•• REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
• • CASE NO. 1384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
D. NO.: 01
••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••
UG/L ANAL YT !CAL RESULTS UG/L ANAL YT I CAL RES UL TS
20U 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U
20U 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U
20U
ZOU 20U 100U 20U 20U 20U 64 20U 20U 20U 67 20U 20U
1 oou 20U
100U 20U 20U
20U
PHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,3-D!CHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-D!CHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
B!S(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
(3-AND/OR 4-JMETHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAM!NE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NITROBENZEtJE
ISOPHUHUNE
2-NITROPHENOL
2,4-D!METHYLPHENOL
BENZOI C AC ID
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXYJ METHANE
2,4-D!CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
NAPHlHALENE
4-CHLOROANILlNE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (HCCP)
2,4.6-TR!CHLOROPHENOL
2, 4, 5-TR!CIILOROPHCNOL
2-CHLUHUNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANIL !NE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2,6-DJNITROTOLUENE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
100U 20U 100U 100U
20U 20U 20U
20U 4J ,oou
100V 20U 20U 20U
1 oou 4J 20U
20U
20U 20U 2011 40U 20U 20U
20U 20U 20U
20U
20U
20U 20U
3-NITROANILINE ACENAPHTHENE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 4-NITROPHENOL
D IBENZOF URAN
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
FLUORENE
4-NITROANILINE
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
N-N I TROSOD I PHENYL AM I NF/DI PHEMYLAM! NE
4-BROMOrHrnYL r, IENYL [TH[R
HfXAr.HI nROBEMZEME f. HC!3)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE ANTHRACENE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(B AND/OR KlFLUORANTHENE
BENZO-A-PYRENE
INDENO ( 1 ,2,3-CD) PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,HJANTHRACENE
BENZO(GH!)PERYLENE
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-JNTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALVE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA.
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT
••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..... ,, .................... .
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45486 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
•• STATION ID: NH-TS-01
•• REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
" CASE NO. 1384 7 SAS NO. 53300 D. NO.: 02
06/25/90
• • • . .. •• .. .. .. ..
••• • • • • • • • • • • • * •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
20U
20U 20U 20U
20U 20U 20U 110 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U
ZOU
20U 100U
20U 20U 20U 330 20U 20U 20U
1400
20U 20U lOOU 20U 100U 20U 20U 20U
PHENOL BIS(2-CHLOROETHYLJ ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,3-D!CHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-D!CHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
BI5(2-CHLORO!SOPROPVL) ETHER
(3-AND/OR 4-JMETHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPVLAMINE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NI TROBENZEIJE J:,UPHUHONE
2-IH TROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXVJ METHANE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
NAPHlHALENE
4-CHLOROAN I LI NE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCVCLOPENTADIENE (HCCP)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2, 4 , 5-TR I Cl ILOROPHENOL
2-CHLOHONAPHTHALENE
2-N ITROAN I LI NE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
100U 48U lOOU 100U
20U 20U 20U
20U 170 lOOU 100U 20U
20U 20U
100U 270 20U
20U 20U 28
2011 40U 20U 2ou
20U
20U 20U 20U 20U 20U 20U
3-N IT ROAN I LI NE ACENAPHTHENE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL DIBENZOFURAN
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
FLUORENE
4-NITROANIL !NE 2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
N-NITROSODIPHENVLAMTNF/DJPHENYLAM!NE
4-BROMOPHENVL Pl lEIJ\'L ETH[R
HfXAC:HI liR0!3EMZHJE l HC8)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE ANTHRACENE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
3,3'-DiCHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE BIS(2-ETHVLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(B AND/OR KJFLUORANTHENE
BENZO-A-PVRENE
INDENO ( 1 ,2,3-CDJ PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,HlANTHRACENE
BENZO(GHJ)PERYLENE
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE Of PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•r.-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACJUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM OUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERJFICATJ0,1.
•
•
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA. ...
•• .. .. ••
.............................. *•*••
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45775 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
STATION ID: lB LIQUID PHASE
• * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ... •• •• ..
• •
•• CASE NO. 13847 SAS NO. 53300 D. NO.: 1B ••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
400U 400U 400U 400U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400U 400U
2000U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400U 400U 400U 2000U 400U
2000U 400U 400U
400U
PHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 .3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
B!Sl2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
l3-ANO/OR 4-JMETHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NITROBENZENE ISUPHOKONE
2-1; ITROPHENOL
2.4-0!METHYLPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
2,4-0!CHLOROPHENOL
1 .2.4-TR!CHLOROBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROANILINE
HEXACHLOROBUTAD!ENE
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE (HCCPJ
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2, 4. 5-TR I Cl ILOROPH[NOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2.6-D!NITROTOLUENE
•••REMARKS•••
•••FOOTNOTES•••
2000U 400U 2000U
2000U 400U 400U
400U 400U 400ll
2000U
2000U 400U 400V 400U
2000V 400U 400U 400V 400U
400V
4001.1 aoou 400U 400V 400V 400V 400U
400V 400U 400U
400U
3-N IT ROAN I LI NE
ACENAPHTHENE
2.4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
DIBENZOFURAN
2.4-0INITROTOLUENE DIETHYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
FLUORENE
4··N IT ROAN I LI NE
2-METHYL-4,6-0INITROPHENOL
N-NI TROSOOI PHENYL AM! NF /D IPHENYLA.MI NE
4-BROMOPHENYL r:IEIJYL [TH[R
HF XAC:H1 flR(lf\Et.lZENE ! HC!3)
PENTACHLORO?HENOL
DHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
OI-N-BUTVLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE eENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
3.3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS( 2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
OI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(B AND/OR k lFLlJORANTHEME
BENZO-A-rYRENE
I ND ENO ( 1 . 2, 3-CO J PYRE NE
OIBENZO(A.HJANTHRACENE
BENZO(GHIJPERYLENE
••:sREMARKS•••
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATEO VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALVE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALVE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALVZEO FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAV NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING ANO REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS. GA. ... ..
•• •• ••
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 457i7 SAMPLE TYPE: WA.STE
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
STATION JD: 2C OIL PHASE
•• CASEN0.:13847 SAS NO. : 53300
• • • .. • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • •
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
ST: NC CITY: WILMINGTON
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/D0/00
D. NO. : 2C
06/25/90 . . ' ... •• .. .. .. ..
••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * •••••••••••••••••••••••
UG/L ANAL YT!CAL RESULTS UG/L ANAL YT! CAL RESULTS
5000DOU sooooou 500000U
500QDOU 5000000 SOOODOU
5D00DOU 500000U sooooou sooooou sooooou sooooou 500000U
500000U 500000U 5000000
2500QOOU
50DOOOU 500000U sooooou
1100000 50DOOOU 500QOOU
500000U 6500000 5DOODOU
500000U 2sooooou 500000U
2500000U sooooou
500DOOU sooooou
PHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,3-DICHLDROBENZENE
1 ,4-D!CHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1 ,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROJSOPROPYL) ETHER
(3-AND/OR 4-)METHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NI TROBENZENE
ISUPHIJKUNE
2-IH TROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
BENZO!C ACID
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 .2.4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROANIL!NE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (HCCP)
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2. 4. 5-TRICI ILOROPHCNOL
2-CHLURONAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANIL !NE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
2500000U 350000JN 2500000U
2500000U sooooou 500000U sooooou 500000U 700000 2sooooou
250QOOOU 500000U sooooou 500000U 2sooooou 2300000 sooooou 50QOOOU 500000U
140000J sooooou 1000000U sooooou
500000U sooooou sooooou sooooou sooooou 500000U
500000U sooooou
3-N ITROAN I LI NE
ACENAPHTHENE
2.4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
DIBENZOFURAN
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
FLUOR ENE
4-N IT ROAN I LI NE
2-METHYL-4, 6-DHJITROPHENOL
N-NITROSOD I PHENYL AM! NF /DIPHENYLAMIME
4-BROMOPHENYL PI\ENYL [TH[R
Hf)(ACHI 0R08E"!ZEME l HC8)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
01-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BE.•IZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
3.3'-DICHLOROBENZID!NE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(B AND/ORK IFLUORANTHENE
BENZO-A-rYRUJE
INDENO ( 1 .2,3-CDJ PYRENE
DIBENZO( A. HJ ANTHRACENE
BENZO(GHIJPERYLENE
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS DATA REPORT
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. ... .. .. .. ..
•••• " ................. "'"****·•··
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45778 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
STATION ID: 2B LIQUID PHASE
" CASE NO. 13847 SAS NO. · 5330D
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
ST: NC CITY: WILMINGTON
COLLECTIOII START: 04/ 10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
D. NO. : 2B
06/25/90
• • • ... ..
•• .. .. .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
440U 440U 440U 440U 440U 440U
440U
570 440U
440U
440U 440U 440U 440U
440U 440U
2200U 440U 440U
440U 4500 440U 440U 440U
25000 440U
440U
2200U 440U 2200U 440U 440U 440U
PHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYLJ ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1.3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 .4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1 .2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
BIS(2-CHLORO!SOPROPYLJ ETHER
(3-AND/OR 4-)METHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
N ITROBENZENE
ISUPHOHUNE
2-l<ITRO?HENOL
2,4-D!METHYLPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
B!S(2-CHLOROETHOXYJ METHANE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 .2,4-TR!CHLOROBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROANIL!NE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
4-CHLOR0-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE (HCCP)
2.4,6-TR!CHLOROPHENOL
2, 4, 5-TRJCI ILOROPH[NOL
2-CHLOHUNAPHTHALENE
2-N IT ROAN I LI NE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
•••FOOTNOTES•••
2200U 1100 2200U 2200U 440U 440U 440U 440U 440U 2200U 2200U 440U
,1,1Ql!
440U
2200U
5900 440U
440U 440U 580
44(\1_1
870U 440U 230J 440U
440U 440U 440U 440U 440U 440ll
3-NITROANIL!NE
ACENAPHTHENE
2. 4-DINITROPHENOL
4-N I TROPHENOL
DIBENZOFURAN
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
FLUORENE
4-NITROANILINE
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMTNF/DIPHEMYLAM!NE
4-SROMOPHEtJVL r1 lENYL [TH[R
HFXA~HI OROBENZENE (HCB)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BEN7YL BUTYL PHTHALATE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZQ(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYLJ PHTHALATE
DT-N-OCTYLPHTHALATE
BENZO(B AND/OR KIFI UORANTHENE
BEfJZO-A-rYRENE
INDENO ( 1 .2,3-CD) PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
BENZOIGH!IPERYLENE
**•REMARKS•••
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATJON.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION JV ESD, ATHENS. GA. 06/25/90
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS -DATA REPORT ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45485 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT •• STATION ID: NH-SD-01
• • CASE . NO. : 1 384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D .. REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
60JN lOOJN 30JN 20JN 20JN 70JN 20JN
40JN 90JN 20JN 20DJN lOOJ
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
METHYLCYCLOHEXANAMINE DJMETHYLCYCLOHEXANAMINE ETHYLDIMETHYLPYRJDINE CYCLOHEXANEMETHANOL TRIMETHYLPHENOL 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE DIBUTYLACETAMIDE DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE TRIMETHYLPHENYLETHANONE (2 ISOMERS) DIMETHYLBENZENEDT~ARBUXALDtHYDE ATRAZJNE 5 UNIDtNTJflED COMPOUNDS
PROG EM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD •• CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC " COLLECTION STAR!: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00 " D. NO.: 01 MD NO: 01 u· ..
•••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NA!-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATER!AL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTJTATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT 9E PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA.
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS -DATA REPORT •••••••••••••• * ••••• * •••••••••••••••
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45486 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE •• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT •• STATION ID: NH-TS-01
• • CASE . NO. : 1384 7 SAS NO. : 53300
" REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE
N 2000JN
1 OOOJN lOOOJN 1 OOOJN 30000J
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
PETROLEUM PRODUCT METHYLCYCLOHEXANAMINE 1-METHYLNAPHTHALENE DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE TRIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE 16 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
"'*••••'****••• .. •• .. •••••••• PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00 D. NO. 02 MD NO: 02
06/25/90
•••••• ..
" " ..
"
•••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS. GA. 06/25/90
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLE COMPOL1NDS -DATA REPORT
••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45778 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
,. STATION ID: 2B LIQUID PHASE
* • CASE. NO. · 13847 SAS NO. : 53300 ..
•••FOOTNOTES•••
300000J
N SOOOJN
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
19 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
METHYLCYCLOHEXANAMINE
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ••
CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC ,.
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90 STOP; 00/00/00 "
D. NO. 2B MD NO: ,. ..
•A-AVERAGF. VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, AlHENS, GA.
MISCELLANEOUS EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS -DATA REPORT
06/25/90
•••••••••••••••••••••• * * •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• •• .. .. ..
•• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45777 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
•• SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
•• STATION ID: 2C OIL PHASE
• • CASE. NO. · 1 384 7 SAS NO. : 5330D ..
•••FOOTNOTES•••
N 3E+07JN 3E+08J
ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L
PETROLEUM PRODUCT DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE (2 ISOMERS)
18 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD
CITY: WILMINGTON ST: NC
COLLECTION STARl: 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
D. NO.· 2C MD NO:
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•
•
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV
Environmental Services Divisiow
College Station Road, Athens, GA 30613
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 06-27-90
SUBJECT: CORRECTED Result5 of Pesticides Organic Analyses;
FROM:
90-469 NEW HANOVER PIT
Robert w. Knight
WILMINGTON, NC
CASE NO: 13847 SAS NO: 5330D
Chief, Laboratory Evaluation/Quality Assurance Section
TO: BILL BOKEY
Attached are CORRECTED results of samples collected as part of the subject
project. The original reported data had incorrect units. Please discard
the previously reported data.
If you have any questions please contact me.
ATTACHMENT
1
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS, GA.
PESTICIDES/PCB'S DATA REPORT ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • •
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45485 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: NH-SD-01 CASE NUMBER: 13847 SAS NUMBER: 5330D
PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON
COLLECTION START: D. NUMBER: 01
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
* * • ... .. ..
•• .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE ... . . . ' ............................................................ .
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
o.osou
0 osou
0 osou o.osou o.osou 0.050U o.osou O. lOU
0. 10U
0. 10U 0.10U 0. 10U 0.10U
0. IOU
C. 1 OU
ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC DELTA-BHC GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE) HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ENDOSULF AIJ I (ALPHA)
O!ELDRIN 4,4'-DDE (P.P'-DDEJ ENDRIN ENDOSULFAN II (BETA) 4.4'-DDD (P,P'-DDDJ ENUUSULcAN SULFATE 4,4'-DDT IP.P'-DDTI
a.sou 0.10U
O.SOU a.sou 1.0U o.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou 1.0U
1. OU
MIXTURE)
/2
METHOXYCHLOR ENDRIN KETONE CHLORDANE (TECH. GAMMA-CHLORDANE ALPHA-CHLORDANE TOXAPHENE PCB-1016 (AROCLOR PCB-1221 (AROCLOR PCB-1232 (AROCLOR PCB-1242 (AROCLOR PCB-1248 (AROCLOR PCB-1254 (AROCLOR PCB-1260 (AROCLOR
/2
1016) 1221) 1232) 1242 I 1248)
l?S4)
12GOJ
/1
• • •FOOTtJOTESn"' •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALVE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. •C-CONFIRMED BY GCMS 1. WHEN NO VALUE IS REPORTED. SEE CHLORDANE CONSTITUENTS.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS. GA.
PESTICIDES/PCB'S DATA REPORT • • • ... *'*'"*"'***** .................. ,.,,...,.,...*** PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45486 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE
SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: NH-TS-01 CASE NUMBER: 1384 7 SAS NUMBER: 5330D
PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON
COLLECTION START: D. NUMBER: 02
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC D4/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ... ..
•• .. .. ..
•• .. .. .. .. REMARKS: RESULTS OF THE TCLP EXTRACT OF THIS SAMPLE .... • • • • * ••••••• * ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• * ....................... ..
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANAL YT I CAL RE SUL TS
O.OSOU o.osou D.OSOU o.osou o.osou o.osou 0. osou
O.OSDU 0. 10U
O. lOU
O. lOU 0. 10U 0. 10U
0. IOU
" 1 """ V. IVV
ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC DELTA-BHC GAMMA-BHC lLINDANE) HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ENDOSULFAN I (ALPHA) DIELDRIN 4,4'-DDE (P.P'-DDEl ENDRIN ENDOSULFAN II (BETA) 4,4'-DDD (P.P'-DDDJ ENUU"ULrAN SULFATE 4,4'-DDT (P.P'-DDT)
• • * REMARKS• ,l.
a.sou 0. 10U
a.sou O.SDU 1.0U a.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou a.sou 1. OU
1.0V
MIXTURE)
/2
METHOXYCHLOR ENDRIN KETONE CHLORDANE (TECH. GAMMA-CHLORDANE ALPHA-CHLORDANE TOXAPHENE PCB-1016 CAROCLOR
PCB-1221 lAROCLOR PCB-1232 \AROCLOR PCB-1242 (AROCLOR PCB-1248 (AROCLOR PCB-1254 (AROCLOR PCS-1260 (AROCLOR
/2
1016) 1221 J 1232) 1242) 1248)
1?f.4) 12CDi
•*•REMARKS•••
/1
•••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. •C-CONFIRMED BY GCMS 1. WHEN NO VALUE IS REPORTED. SEE CHLORDANE CONSTITUENTS.
•
•
PESTICIDES/PCB'S DATA REPORT ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45775 .. SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT .. STATION ID: 1B LIOU ID PHASE .. CASE NUMBER: 13847 SAS NUMBER:
•• ... • • • • • ' ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
1. OU ALPHA-BHC
1.0U BETA-BHC
1.0U DELTA-BHC 1. OU GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
1. OU HEPTACHLOR
1. OU ALDRIN
1.0U HEPTACHLOR EPOX!DE
1 .OU ENDOSULFAN I ( ALPHA]
2.0U DIELDRIN
2.0U 4,4'-DDE (P.P'-DDEl
2.0U ENDRIN 2.0U ENDOSULFAN II (BETA)
2.0U 4,4'-DDD (P,P'-DDD)
2.0U ENuu,uu A.N SULFATE
2.0U ~.4'-DDT (P,P'-DOT)
•••FOOTNOTES•*•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS. GA.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY:
CITY: WILMINGTON ST:
COLLECTION START: 04/10/90
5330D D . NUMBER: 1B
• • • • • • • • • • • • ' ' • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • UG/L ANAL YT I CAL
10U METHOXYCHLOR
2.0U ENDRIN KETONE
CHLORDANE (TECH. MIXTURE)
10U GAMMA-CHLORDANE /2
10U ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2
20U TOXAPHENE 10U PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016) ,au PCB-1221 ( AROCLOR 1221 J
10U PCB-1232 (ARQCLOR 1232)
1 OU PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242]
10U PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248]
20U PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1?~4)
20U PCB-1260 {AROCLOR 12GO)
•••R[MARKSi••
• • • • • • • • • J SCHOOLFIELD NC STOP: 00/00/00
• • • • • ' • • • RESULTS
/1
• •
• •
06/25/90
• •
• •
. .. .. .. .. ..
" ...
•A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE Of PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
•K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN
•U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT.
•R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION.
•C-CONFIRMED BY GCMS 1. WHEN NO VALUE IS REPORTED, SEE CHLORDANE CONSTITUENTS.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION JV ESD. ATHENS, GA.
PESTJCIDES/PCB'S DATA REPORT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45778 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW H.ANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 2B LIQUID PHASE CASE NUMBER: 1384 7 SAS NUMBER: 5330D
PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON COLLECTION START: D. NUMBER: 28
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ... .. .. .. .. ..
..
•• .. .. .. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• * •••••••••••••••• * •••••
UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/L ANALYTICAL RESULTS
1 . 1 U ALPHA-BHC 11 U METHOXYCHLOR
1. 1 U BETA-BHC 2.2U ENDRJN KETONE
1. 1 U DELTA-BHC CHLORDANE (TECH. MIXTURE) /1
1. 1 U GAMMA-tlHC {LINDANE) 11 U GAMMA-CHLORDANE /2
1. 1 U HEPTACHLOR 11 U ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2
1 . 1 U ALDRIN 22U TOXAPHENE
1 . 1 U HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 11 U PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)
1 . 1 U ENDOSULFAN I {ALPHA) 11 U PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221 J
2.2U DIELDRIN 11 U PCB-1232 {AROCLOR 1232)
2.2U 4.4'-DDE (P.P'-DDEJ 11 U PCB-1242 {AROCLOR 1242)
2.2U ENDRJN 11U PCB-1248 (AP.OCLOR 1248)
2.2U ENDOSULFAN 11 {BETA) 22U PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1 ?S4J
2.2U 4,4'-DDD {P,P'-DDD) 22U PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 12GOJ
2.2U ENUUSUL~AN SULFATE ........ ,, 4.4'-DDT (P,P'-DDT) '-• ,l..V
•••REMARKS•••
•••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •Li-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. •C-CONFIRMED BY GCMS 1. WHEN NO VALUE IS REPORTED. SEE CHLORDANE CONSTITUENTS.
•
•
SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA.
PEST!CIDES/PCB'S DATA REPORT ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • * *
PROJECT NO. 90-469 SAMPLE NO. 45779 SAMPLE TYPE: WASTE SOURCE: NEW HANOVER BURN PIT STATION ID: 2C OIL PHASE CASE NUMBER: 1384 7 SAS NUMBER: 5330D
• • • PROG ELEM: SSF CITY: WILMINGTON COLLECTION START: D. NUMBER: 2C
COLLECTED BY: J SCHOOLFIELD ST: NC 04/10/90 STOP: 00/00/00
06/25/90
• • • ...
•• .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ••••••••• * •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• * * •• *. * •••••••••••• * ••••
UG/KG ANALYTICAL RESULTS UG/KG ANALYTICAL RE SUL TS
1200U
1200U 1200U 1200U
1200U 1200U 1200U 1200U 2400U 2400U 2400U 2400U 2400U
2400U
2400U
ALPHA-BHC BETA-BHC DELTA-BHC GAMMA-BHC (LINDANEJ HEPTACHLOR ALDRIN HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE ENDOSULFAN I (ALPHA) DIELDRIN 4.4'-DDE (P.P'-DDEl ENDRIN ENDOSULFAN II (BETA) 4,4'-DDD (P.P'-DDDl ENUIJ~UL~AN SULFATE 4.4'-DDT (P.P'-DDTl
12000U 2400U
12000U
12000U 24000U 12000U
12000U 12000U 12000U 12000U 24000U
2'1000U
METHOXYCHLOR ENDR IN KETONE CHLORDANE (TECH. MIXTURE) /1 GAMMA-CHLORDANE /2 ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2
TOXAPHENE PCB-1016 (AROCLOR 1016)
PCB-1221 (AROCLOR 1221 J PCB-1232 (AROCLOR 1232) PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) PCB-1254 (AROCLOR l?ftdl
PCB-1260 (AROCLOn 12GOi
•••FOOTNOTES-.•• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER JS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. •C-CONFIRMED BY GCMS 1. WHEN NO VALUE IS REPORTED. SEE CHLORDANE CONSTITUENTS.
•
•