NCD980602163_19830816_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Final Report on Ambient Monitoring for PCBs at the Warren County Landfill-OCR

t i
f
FINAL REPORT
ON
AMBIENT MONITORING FOR PCBs AT THE
WARREN COUNTY (NORTH CAROLINA) LANDFILL
by
D.L. Sgontz, W.E. Bresler, L.A. Winker
and J.E. Howes, Jr.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-02-3745
Work Assignment No. 10
Project Officer
Barry E. Martin
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 16, 1983
r
i
i
i t
i
l
L
I I •--
ABSTRACT
During the period January 26-February 1, 1983, a monitoring program was
conducted at the Warren County, North Carolina, Landfill to measure PCB
emissions from the gas vents and leachate access ports on the site and PCB
concentrations in the ambient air on and in the vicinity of the site. The
gas vents and leachate access ports were monitored for eight hour periods on
three days to determine the PCB concentrations in the effluent gases.
Ambient air monitoring was performed with an array of 14 samplers positioned
directly upwind of the main vent pipe and at on-site and off-site locations
in a 90° quadrant downwind of the main vent pipe. Ambient air monitoring was
performed for eight hour periods during the daytime on two days and during
the nighttime on one day. All monitoring was performed with battery-operated
personal-type samp.ling pumps equipped with polyurethane foam (PUF) cartridges
to collect the PCBs. Following sampling, analyses for PCBs (Aroclor 1242 and
Aroclor 1260) were performed by Soxhet extraction of the PUF cartridges,
concentration of the extract, and determination of the PCB content by
electron capture-gas chromatography.
The predominate source of PCB emissions on the site was found to be the
main vent which is located in the center of the landfill. The average
concentrations of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 measured in the main vent
emissions were 123,000 ng/scm r,100 ppb) and 2,000 ng/scm (~2 ppb),
respectively. Thus, the PCB concentration in the main vent gases are
substantially lower than t he current occupational standards tor wor kp'I ace
atmospheres, 1.e., 0.4-0.8 ppm. PCB concentrations ,n em1ss1ons from the
other vents and the leachate access ports on the site were found to be
S'ignificantly lower ("5 36 times) than those in the main vent emissions.
Concentrations of PCBs in the ambient air both at on-site and off-site
locations downwind of the main vent were found to be at or below the minimum
detection limit of the sampling method, i.e.,~6 ng/scm Arclor 1242 and-10
ng/scm Aroclor 1260. Dispersion modeling predicts that ambient air
concentrations resulting from the main vent emissions may be approximate 106
to 109 times lower than the detection limit of the sampling method. Thus,
PCB contributions to the ambient air from the landfill emissions based on the
model predictions are insignificant when compared to general ambient air PCB
levels of 5-10 ng/m3 which prevail throughout the United States.
ii
j
j
r
i
I
I
l
1 l
i
L
t
t
l
1 i
:• ·--
CONTENTS
Abstract. • . • • • • . ••••••••••••••
Figures •...•.•••••
Tables .•.•...•••••••
List of Abbreviations • . .•••.••••
1. Introduction . • • • • • ••
2. Conclusions ...•.••.••.•••••
3. Recommendations .•••••.•••
4. Experimental Procedures.
Site description ••
Field monitoring. . . .••••••.•••••
PCB analysis •••••••••
Meteorological measurements •
5. Results and Discussion . . • •••.•••••••
PCB monitoring data. . . • • ••.
Meteorological data. • • • • • ••••
Vent and leachate access port flow rate measurements ..
Dispersion modeling •••••••••
6. Quality Assurance Data Summary. • . . ..•.
References. •
Appendices
PUF cartridge clean-up checks .
Flow rate calibrations.
Performance Audit •..•
Quality control samples •....•..•••
Field Blanks ..... .
Co-located monitoring.
A. Procedure for PCB sampling with DuPont P-4000A pumps
and PUF cartridges ••••.••••••••••••••••
B. Procedure for analysis of PCBs in PUF cartridges .
C. Meteorological data ••...•••••..••••••
iii
ii
iv
iv
V
1
2
3
4
4
4
7
10
11
11
18
18
18
22
22
22
22
22
22
26
27
28
30
34
-l ,
1
l ~
i
1 • !
;
j • f
i
1 : ,i
l '-
t l
J ; l
l
' l
i L
i
l !
Number
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FIGURES
Vent locations on Warren County (NC) landfill
DuPont P-4000A pump and sampling cartridge. . . . . . 6
Ambient air sampling locations on January 26, 1983. . . . . . 8
Ambient air sampling locations on January 29, 1983. 9
TABLES
Vent Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfill
Sampling Date January 26, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Vent Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfill
Sampling Date January 27, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Vent Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfi 11
Sampling Date January 28, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Ambient Air Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfill
Sampling Date -January 26, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Ambient Air Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfill
Sampling Date -January 29, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
PCB Monitoring Results -Warren County (NC) Landfill
Sampling Date -January 31 -February 1, 1983. . . . . . . . . . 17
Predicted Maximum One-Hour Downwind PCB Concentrations
for Various Vent Heights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Predicted 8-Hr. Downwind PCB Concentrations for
January 29, 1983. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Range of One-Hour Concentrations for Various Wind
Speeds and All Stability Classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iv
f
f
1
I ,
. i
I
Number
TABLES
(Continued)
10 DuPont Pump Flow Calibration Data.
11 QC Sample Analysis Results ••••
C-1 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: January 26, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
C-2 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: January 27, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
C-3 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: January 28, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
C-4 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: January 29, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
C-5 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: January 31, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
C-6 Meteorological Data for Field Monitoring Period
Date: February 1, 1983 . . . . . . . . . . .
V
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
Page
23
25
35
36
37
38
39
40
i
J f ,
{ .~ •
{
1
r
f
t
l 1
✓ ' t ' '
l
,
)
i.
-
~ I ·-
L
I
f .....
{
J
I
m
cm
mm
ft
in
L/min
sec/min
ng
ng/scm
ng/sec
ng/m3
m/s
mph
oc
OK
ppb
ppm
meter
centimeter
millimeter
feet
inches
liters per minute
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
standard cubic centimeters per minute (25°c, 760 rrrn Hg)
nanograms (lo-9 grams)
nanograms per standard cubic meter (2soc, 760 rrrn Hg)
nanograms per second
nanograms per cubic meter (ambient conditions)
meters per second
miles per hour
degrees Centigrade
degrees Kelvin
parts per billion
parts per million
vi
J -i '
.,,
l
j
l
f
j
i l
; • I
l
i 1-.
f \_
L
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 40,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated dirt excavated from
along roadways in the central piedmont area of North Carolina has been
disposed of in an approved PCB landfill in Warren County (NC). Local
residents and the Warren County Health Department have expressed concern
about the possibility of airborne PCB emissions from the landfill being
transported to neighboring areas, thus threatening the public welfare.
In answer to this concern, a study was performed to monitor airborne PCB
emissions from the landfill and ambient air levels on and surrounding the
site. The specific objectives of the study were:
• to determine if PCBs are being emitted from vent pipes and
leachate access ports on the landfill.
• to determine if PCBs are present in the ambient air downwind of
the vent pipes and leachate access ports.
• to determine if PCBs are present in the ambient air in the
vicinity of the nearest residence, approximately one-half mile
away.
• to quantify the actual concentration of PCBs, if any, being
emitted from the vent pipes and leachate access ports.
• to quantify the actual concentrations of PCBs, if any, being
transported off the landfill.
The study was performed at the request of the North Carolina Division of
Health Services and was conducted according to a plan developed by EPA,
Region IV and EPA/EMSL/RTP personnel. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories
personnel, assisted by Jim Gray of EPA Region IV, performed the field
sampling program. Southwest Research Institute performed the PCB analysis of
the polyurethane foam sampling cartridges. The following sections describe
the landfill site, the sampling and analytical procedures that were used, and
present the results of the study.
1
f
r l
)
I
! L
I l
l
I L
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions drawn for results of this study are surrrnarized below.
(1) The principal source of emissions from the landfill originate from
the main vent pipe. The average PCB concentrations of Aroclor 1242
and Aroclor 1260 measured in the main vent emissions during the
study were 123,000 ng/scm ("'100 ppb) and 2,000 ng/scm ("'2 ppb),
respectively. These concentrations are substantially lower than
the current occupational standards for workplace atmospheres which
range from 0.4 to 0.8 ppm.
(2) Ambient air PCB levels on and surrounding the landfill site (even
as close as one meter from the main vent) were found to be at or
below minimum detection limits (6 to 10 ng/m3) for the sampling
method. PCB levels generally present in the atmosphere throughout
the U.S. are in the range of 5 to 10 ng/m3.
(3) Mathematical modeling predicts that ambient air PCB concentrations
on and in the vicinity of landfill resulting from the main vent
pipe emissions may be approximately 106 to 109 times lower than the
detection limits for sampling method used in this study. PCB
contributions to the ambient air from the landfill based on the
model predictions are insignificant when compared to general
ambient air PCB levels in the U.S.
(4) It is anticipated that the low PCB emission rate from the landfill
will be reduced still further as decay of organic matter producing
the methane and other gases emanating from the vents subsides. The
reduction of hydraulic pressure by removal of water from the site
should also reduce emission rates substantially.
2
r
l
I
l
I
f
I
t
'
I
l
1
1
f
l
I l _
l
I .
I I '•.
l \..
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the future, it is recommended that periodic monitoring be performed
to determine the trend in PCB emission rates from the gas vents and leachate
access ports on the landfill site. The low volume, PUF systems used in this
study should be acceptable for sampling the vents and leachate access ports.
However, if ambient air monitoring on or in the vicinity of the landfill is
performed in the future, EPA high volume PCB samplers should be employed
along with the low volume sampling systems. The high volume systems provide
the advantages that average PCB concentrations can be measured over 24-hr.
periods and that significantly lower detection limits can be achieved.
3
' .
J •
f . ;
I
I
)
SITE DESCRIPTION
SECTION 4
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The landfill is located in Warren County, North Carolina on an
approximately 20 acre tract of land owned by the State of North Carolina.
The landfill proper covers an area of approximately 75m x 145m. In the
construction, plastic pipes were installed to vent gases and aqueous leachate
from the landfill. The locations of the vents and leachate access ports on
the landfill are shown in Figure 1. The main vent is 10.2 cm (4 in.) in
diameter, extends approximately 1.2m (4 ft.) above the ground, and is located
in approximately the center of the landfill. Two leachate access ports are
located near the northeast corner of the landfill. Two small vents have been
added after construction to relieve gas pressure under the plastic cover on
the landfill. One of the vents is located approximately due west of the main
vent and the other is located near the leachate access ports.
FIELD MONITORING
The field monitoring program was conducted over the period January 26 -
February 1, 1983. Sampling was performed to determine PCB emissions from the
gas vents and the leachate access ports and ambient air PCB levels on and in
the vicinity of the landfill. The monitoring schedule was as follows:
Janijary 26 -vents, leachate access ports, and ambient air (daytime)
January 27 -vents and leachate access ports only
January 28 -vents and leachate access ports only
January 29 -ambient air only (daytime)
January 30 -no sampling due to weather conditions
January 31-February 1 -ambient air only (nighttime).
All PCB monitoring was performed by the method of Lewis and Macleod (1)
using DuPont P-4000A battery-operated pumps equipped with sampling cartridges
consisting of a 20rrm i.d. x 10cm long borosilicate glass tubes into which was
fitted a 22ITITI dia. x 7.6cm long plug of polyurethane foam plug. The PUF
sampling cartridges were connected to the pumps with a short section of Tygon
tubing as shown in Figure 2. Sampling was performed according to the
procedure described in Appendix A.
4
f
f
1
t
f
i
I
l.
f
l L
□ 1/2 mi. ~ from l andfi 11
House
B
0
~
N
A
0
Vent Identification
A-Main Vent
B-Sma 11 Vent
0
Q QE
oO
C
C-Upper Leachate Access Port
D-Lower Leachate Access Port
E-Sma 11 Vent
Leachate Pond
Figure l. Vent locations on Warren County (NC) Landfill
5
I
r
l
' I
j
J
Figure 2.
SAMPILING CARTRIDGE
ee ----: .. FLOW RANGE VALVE ·---a::---....:::.:· --~-------
1t5V ADAPTOR/ )I I
CHARGER PILUG 'J"~----1.now RATE ADJUSTMENT
! I -I I
LEO INDICATOR LIGHTS
(TIMING, FLOW, BATTERY)
I :
'
TIMING SYIUCHES
DRIVE IELT
OFF-ON SWITCH
DuPont P-4000A pump and sampling cartridge.
6
j
i
i
l
l
}
l
l
I
The vents and leachate access ports which were sampled are identified in
Figure 1. Sampling was performed by placing the PUF cartridge inlets into
the vent pipes or leachate access ports and sealing the openings with a
plastic bag or tape to restrict gas flow. Nominally, sampling was performed
for 8 hours at a flow rate of 1.2 -1.4 L/min.
Ambient air sampling was performed with an array of samplers located as
shown in Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows the sampler placement for the
ambient air monitoring conducted on January 26 from approximately 1000 to
1700 hrs. EST. Two samplers were located upwind of the main vent; one on-
site approximately midway between the vent and the north fenceline (Location
7) and the other off-site (Location 8). Two samplers were located near the
main vent (Locations 2A and 2B); one on each side at a distance of 1 meter.
An array of 12 samplers were located downwind of the main vent in approxi-
mately a 900 quadrant. Samplers were placed at three locations (4A, 4B, and
4C) approximately midway between the main vent and the south fence line.
Along the south fence line, samplers were placed at three locations (SA, 5B
and SC). At each location, sampling was performed at 1.22 m (4 ft.) and
4.57 m (15 ft.) above ground level. The sampling locations (6A, 6B, and 6C)
were off-site approximately 200 meters from the main vent. One sampler was
placed near the residence which is approximately 1/2 mi. west of the
landfill. With exception of the downwind fence line points, ambient air
sampling at all other locations was performed at 1.22 m (4 ft.) above ground
level. The sampling pumps were operated at a nominal flow rate of 3.8 L/min.
Sampler placement for the ambient air monitoring conducted on January 29
is shown in Figure 4. Samplers were deployed in the same general pattern as
used on January 26, however a change in wind direction required a shift in
the specific sampling points as shown. Sampling on January 29 was performed
from approximately 0900 -1700 hrs. EST.
Night time sampling was performed on January 31 -February 1 using the
same sampling pattern and sampling locations as on January 29. Sampling was
started at approximately 2100 hrs., January 31, and was to be terminated at
approximately 0500 hrs., February 1. However, most of the DuPont pumps
failed after 2-3 hours of operation due to the low ambient temperature
(~30°F) and the high relative humidity (~95%). Consequently, very few valid
samples were obtained.
PCB ANALYSIS
Analysis for PCBs in the PUF cartridges was performed according to the
procedure described in the EPA Manual of Analytical Methods (2) and
summarized in Appendix B. The steps in the analysis procedure included;
1) Soxhlet extraction of the foam plugs with 5% ether in hexane; 2) concen-
tration of the extract to 1 ml and 3) determination of PCBs in the extract by
electron capture-gas chromatography using EPA Method 608 (3). Identification
and quantification of Aroclor 1242 and 1260 in the samples was performed by
the technique originally described by Webb and McCall (4).
7
J
l
r
r
I
I
1
j
I
j .
l
j
,_ □ 3
}
}
J
I
6A
i ~
I
Figure 3.
(
8
7
0 2A Q 2B
4A 4B
5A 5B
6B
0
0 0 0
4C
5C
6C
Ambient air sampling locations on January 26, 1983
8
®
MRI
Weather
Station
J
f ~ r 0 t N
f
J
0 0 0
i
f
i 5A
{ 4A 1
i 6A j 2A
' 0 6B 5B 0 4B 7 8
l 2B
®
t MRI
4C Weather
l □ Station
3
} 5C
\ I
6C
Figure 4. Ambient air sampling locations on January 29, 1983
9
L
METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS
Continuous measurements of wind speed and wind direction were performed
during the field monitoring period with a Meteorology Research, Inc. (MRI)
portable weather station. The ambient temperature sensor on the unit did not
function, thus continuous ambient temperature data were not obtained. The
weather station was located east of the landfill in an unobstructed area.
Ground level elevation at the weather station location was approximately the
same as the center of the landfill.
Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure readings
were taken approximately hourly during sampling periods.
10
l
f
f
r
I
f
f
t
f
~
I
t
1.
1
1
l
l
PCB MONITORING DATA
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the PCB monitoring at the Warren County landfill are
presented in Tables 1 through 6. Tables 1 through 3 give the concentrations
of Aroclor 1242 and 1260 (in nanograms/standard cubic meter*) measured in the
vent and leachate access port emissions on January 26, 27, and 28,
respectively. The results show that the main vent is the predominate source
of PCB emission from the site. During the study period, the average con-
centrations of Aroclor 1242 and 1260 observed in the main vent emissions
were 123,000 and 2000 ng/scm, respectively. The PCB emission rates from the
main vent based on these average concentrations and the average flow rate
(measured by EPA) are: 12 ng/sec of Aroclor 1242 and 0.19 ng/sec of Aroclor
1260. PCB emissions from other vents and the leachate access ports on the
site were significantly lower than from the main vent.
The ambient air monitoring results obtained during the study are
presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6. The daytime monitoring data obtained on
January 26 and 29 are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. On January 26,
vent/leachate access port and ambient air monitoring was performed
concurrently. Only ambient air monitoring was performed on January 29.
On-site and off-site ambient air PCB concentrations measured on
January 26 were at or below minimum detection levels except for the samples
taken at Location 5A on the downwind fenceline. Aroclor 1260 concentrations
of 71 and 50 ng/scm, were measured at the 4 and 15 ft elevations,
respectively, at this sampling location. It is puzzling that Aroclor 1242,
the major component of the vent emissions, was not also detected in these
samples. Aroclor 1242 concentrations were determined to be approximately 60
times the Aroclor 1260 levels in the main vent emissions. On January 29,
neither Aroclor 1242 nor Aroclor 1260 was detected at any sampling locations
downwind of the main vent. Aroclor 1260, at a concentration near the minimum
detection limit was measured in the upwind sample taken at Location A-7.
The limited data obtained during nighttime sampling on January 31 -
February 1 is shown in Table 6. PCBs were not detected in any ambient air
samples. However, most of the nighttime monitoring data are questionable
because of malfunction of the DuPont pumps due to the low temperature and
* Standard conditions -25°c, 760mm Hg
11
__, N ,-·---' r--·-.-..,......,.....,. --~----... .. -., ---. -· *~ -\ ~ Sampling Location Code and Description V-A Main Vent V-B Small Vent west of Main Vent V-C Upper Leachate Access Port V-0 Lower Leachate Access Port V-E Small Vent near Leachate Access Ports TABLE 1. VENT MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFIL~a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 26, 1983 Sam~ling Period1 Hr EST Sampling Avg Sampling Total Sample Quantity PCBs in PUF1 ng Aroclor 1N2 Aroclor 1260 Start End Time, mins. Rate, sec/min Volume, scm 1010 1700 410 1408 0.58 82,100 1200 1010 1701 411 1237 0.51 35 NO 1005 1701 416 1424 0.59 1270 360 1005 1701 (b) (b) (b) NO ND 1010 1701 411 1460 0.60 400 780 a) NO -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. b) Sample pump malfunctioned during sampling period. PCB Cone. in Air1 ng/scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 141,552 2,069 69 <29 2,153 610 667 1300 .... """,-..,,
--' w .. ---· Sampling Location ·-i r-TABLE 2. .lo ....... ~ ....... , ......... Ill ,.. __ "~"-1 ......... "-'I --....... ~ VENT MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL(a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 27, 1983 Total Sample --, -I ~ Samelfng Period, Hr EST Sampling Avg Sampling Quantity PCBs in PUF1 ng PCB Cone. in Afr1 ng/scm Code and Description Start Ena Time, mfns. Rate, sec/min Volume, scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 V-A Main Vent 0900 1700 480 1359 0.65 76700 V-B Small Vent West of Main Vent 0900 1700 480 1359 0.65 ND V-C Upper Leachate Access Port 0900 1700 480 1410 0.68 1920 V-D Lower Leachate Access Port 0900 1700 480 1330 0.64 ND V-E Small Vent near Leachate Access Ports 0900 1700 480 1259 0.60 ND a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. 1380 118,000 2123 ND <15 <23 320 2824 471 51 <16 80 ND <17 <25 ~I~•
--' +'> ,---,.----. ,·•~ ,-~ ~-' -,... ......... , -.. -· TABLE 3. VENT MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILL(a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 28, 1983 Sampling Location Samellng Period, Hr EST Start End Sampling Avg Sampling Total Sample guantitr, PCBs in PUF1 ng Aroclor242 Aroclor 1260 Code and Description Time, mins. Rate, sec/min Volume, scm -V-A-1 Main Vent(b) 0900 1700 480 1254 0.60 69300 V-A-2 Main Vent(b) 0900 1700 480 1347 0.65 68700 V-B Small Vent West of Main Vent 0900 1700 480 1326 0.64 42 V-C Upper Leachate Access Port 0900 1700 480 1388 0.67 510 V-D Lower Leachate Access Port 0900 1700 480 1324 0.64 61 V-E Small Vent Near Leachate Port 0900 1700 480 1279 0.61 18 a) ND -PCBs were not detected in sample. Minimum detectable levels of Arochlor 1242 and Arochlor 1260 in the cartridges are estimated to be 10 ng and 15 ng, respectively. b) Co-located samplers. 1130 1150 ND 206 54 18 -· --· I -, ............. , PCB Cone. in Air2 ng/scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260 115,500 1883 105,692 1769 66 <23 761 307 95 84 30 30
_. (.J1 ,-,__ i---,_ .--.-.. .-.-.-. --... -.... -~ -.... ---, TABLE 4. AMBIENT AIR MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILJa) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 26, 1983 ----------~-~--~-·-.------~-·•--·-·-~--...... --.. ........,.... -~' ·-· Sampling location Sampling ~llni Period, HrEST Sampling Avg. Sampling Total Sample Quant it,}' PCBs in PUF I nf PCB Cone. in Alr~ytscni Code and Description Height, ft. tar End Ti111e, mins Rate, scc:/min Volu111e, scm Aroclor 1242 Aroclor m Aroclorl2<lr-71roc or 1-no ~~_d~in Vent 2A I m west of main vent! ! 4 1005 1700 415 3909 1. 62 ND 20 <6 12 28-1 I m east of main vent c 4 1005 1700 415 3799 1.60 NO NO <6 dO 28-2 1 m east of main vent c 4 1005 1700 415 3R65 1.60 NO NO <6 <10 On-Site Downwind 4A 49m from main vent (I 230° 4 1005 1710 425 3844 1.63 NO ND <6 <10 48-1 49m from main vent ti teo•lc! 4 1010 1711 421 3811 1.60 NO NO <6 dO 48-2 49m from main vent (I 180" c 4 1010 lb) lb) (b) (b) NO ND ·1 4C 49m fro;n main vent ti 140° 4 1005 b) b) (h) (b) NO ND Fencel lne Downwind SA 98,n from ma In vent (I 230° 4 1007 1700 413 3744 1.55 ND 110 <6 71 SA 98m from main vent li 230° 15 1000 1702 422 3822 1.61 ND 80 <6 50 58 98m from main vent li 180° 4 1008 1706 418 3811 I. 59 ND ND <6 -10 58 98m from main vent (I 180° 15 1000 1708 428 3883 1. 66 ND NO <6 -10 SC 98m from main vent ti 140° 4 1010 1710 420 3824 1.61 NO NO <6 do SC 98m from ma In vent ti 140° 15 1000 1713 433 3826 1.66 NO NO <6 <10 Off-Site Downwind 6A 200m from ma In vent ll 230° 4 1014 1702 400 3844 1. 57 ND NO <6 dO 68 200m from main vent (I 180° 4 1008 (b) (b) (b) (b) NA NA 6C 200m from main vent ti 140° 4 1020 1708 408 3904 1. 59 NO NO <6 dO A-3 House west of hndfll I 4 1025 1730 425 3845 1.63 NO NO <6 <10 A-7 49m upwind of main vent (I 360° 4 1000 1700 420 3894 1.64 NO ND <6 dO A-8 Offs lte, upwind of 1na In vent 4 1015 1702 407 3894 I. 58 ND NO <6 <10 @360° ----.---. -· ----............ .......--.--....... _....~ ---·-•·-----.-~ ·-·•---r--•-,• ··-·-·· (a) HO -PCBs were not dete'cted In sa11ple. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 In the PUF cartridges are estimated to be 10ng and 15 ng, respectively. NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for PC8s. (b) Sample pump malfunctioned during sampling period. (c) Co-located samplers. -1
--' er, ,.._, ,.__.. -~ .. -.-~ ...... .-... 1r1• ..... ~ .. ,~ .... ... --....-'I-~ -"1 -. -·~ TABLE 5. AMBIENT AIR MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY {NC) LANDFILL(a) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 29, 1983 -·" ___ ._. _________ ... ~ -_._ . ..._... _____ .. .,._ ·~ ....................... -. ··--· Sampl Ing location Sampling Sa~l I nl Period, HrEST Sampl Ing Avg. Sarrol Ing Total Sarrole WclW' PCBs In PUF ~ PCB Cone. In A I !:.,_ng/ scm Code and Description Height, ft. tar End Time, 111lns Rate, sec/min Yo 1 urnc, scm oc or lru-Aroclor 2"Gl! 1iroclorl2Q--Jlroc 1 orl m-Beside Hain Yent 2A lm north of ma In vent I 1 4 0905 1713 488 3725 1.82 ND NO <6 ,10 28-1 lm south of inaln vent c 4 0905 1715 490 3830 1.88 ND NO <6 <10 28-2 lm south of ,na In vent c 4 0905 1714 489 3818 1.87 NO NO <6 <10 On-Site Downwind 4A 43111 fron, main vent ll 310° 4 0905 1712 487 3685 1.79 ND ND <6 <10 48-1 33111 fr0111 main vent ll 270°(c! 4 0905 1710 485 3735 1.81 ND NO <6 <10 48-2 33111 fro111 inaln vent ll 210°lc 4 0905 1707 482 3753 1.81 NO NO <6 <10 4C 40m fr0111 ma In vent ll 225° 4 0905 1705 480 3722 1. 79 NO NO <6 <10 Fenceltne Downwind SA 85m from inaln vent ll 310° 4 0905 1715 490 3770 1.85 NO NO <6 <10 SA 85m fr0111 main vent ll 310° 15 0905 1717 492 3853 1.90 ND NO <6 <10 58 66111 from ma In vent ll 270° 4 0905 1708 483 3773 1.82 ND NO <6 ,10 58 66m fr0111 main vent ll 270° 15 0905 1711 486 3870 1.88 ND NO <6 <10 SC 80m fr0111 main vent ll 225° 4 0905 1705 480 3792 1.82 NO ND <6 <10 SC 80m from main vent ll 225° 15 0905 1707 482 3778 1.82 ND NO <6 ,10 Off-Stte Downwind 6A 134m from main vent ll 280° 4 0905 1705 480 3752 1.80 NO NO <6 <10 68 132m from main vent ll 270° 4 0905 1709 484 3823 1.85 NO NO <6 <10 6C 152m from ma In vent ll 240° 4 0905 1713 488 3839 1.87 NO NO <6 <10 A-3 House west of landfill 4 0930 1705 455 3366 1.53 NO NO <~ <10 A-7 On-stte, 32m upwind of main 4 0905 1708 483 3790 1.83 NO 20 <6 11 vent ll 100° A-8 Offstte, 74m upwind of main 4 0905 (bl (bl (bl (b) NA NA vent ll 100° ........ ..,,.._,..,......._., ......... ....--........ -... ..,... <•l NO -PC8s were not detected In sample. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260. In the PUF cartridges are estlinated to be 10ng and 15ng, respectively. NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for PC8s. (bl Sample p°"" malfunctioned during sampling period. (cl Co-located samplers. ,,
__, --...J ... ~ ..... -1 ... -... ,_ j,"'11-~ ............ ___.....ill ·~ --~ --, TABLE 6. PCB MONITORING RESULTS -WARREN COUNTY (NC) LANDFILJa) SAMPLING DATE -JANUARY 31 -FEBRUARY l, 1983 ------·---------·--------Sa"1J11ng location Code and Description Bes I de Ha In Vent 2A lm north' of inaln vent On-Site Downwind 4A 43m from inaln vent f 310° 48 33m from ma In vent f 270° 4C 40m from ma In vent f 225° Sa"1J11ng sa,11ny Period, HrEST Height, rt. tar [nd 4 4 4 0117 (2/1) 0530 (2/1) 2100 !1/31) 0530 (2/1! 0120 2/1 ! 0530 1211 0120 2/1 0530 2/1 Saq,1 Ing Time, mlns 253 510 250 250 Avg. Sampling Rate, sec/min 3896 3998 3882 3944 (a) NO -PCBs were not detected In sample. Hlnhrum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor In the PUF cartridges are estimated to be lOng and 15ng, respectively. 1260 NA -PUF cartridge was not analyzed for Pees. (b) low flow Indicated during sampling period; sa"1>le volume questionable. Total Sa"1Jle Volume, scm 0.99 (b) 2.04!b! 0. 97 b 0.99 Quantity PCBs In PUF_.__n-9 ArOClorlm--~roc lorl m, ND NO NO NO NO NO NO HO PCB Cone. In At r ng/scm 71roclor-l2~r-ll~or·n~o <10 <15 <5 <8 <10 ,15 <10 <15 .... .-._.,.,..-........ ·..-----·· -,
f
r
J
I
t
f
l
l
high humidity conditions that prevailed during the sampling period.
Temperature and humidity conditions during the daytime sampling periods did
not affect normal operation of the DuPont pumps.
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The results of wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature, relative
humidity, and barometric pressure measurements performed at the Warren County
landfill during the period January 26 -February 1, 1983 are presented in
Appendix C.
VENT AND LEACHATE ACCESS PORT
FLOW RATE MEASUREMENTS
Gas flow rates from the vents and leachate access ports on the landfill
site were measured by EMSL/EPA/RTP personnel on March 2, 1982. The measure-
ments were performed by sealing the vents and determining the volumetric flow
of the exit gas with a bubble meter. Flow data for the main vent are given
below. No flow was detected from the other vents or from the leachate access
ports on the landfill.
Main Vent Exit Gas Flow
Flow, sec/min
Time (250c, 760mm Hg)
0945 hrs. 4854
1200 hrs. 6000
1500 hrs. 6400
Avg. 5751
DISPERSION MODELING
In order to obtain confirmation of the ambient air concentrations
measured during the field monitoring, standard dispersion models were used to
calculate downwind concentration of PCBs using emission parameters and
meteorological conditions that prevailed during the field monitoring program.
Two EPA UNAMAP mode-ls, PTPLU and PTDIS (5,6), respectively, were employed to
calculate 1) estimates of maximum hourly concentrations under a full spectrum
of meteorological conditions and 2) estimates of the range of hourly ambient
concentrations that would occur at down wind distances of 50m, 100m, and 150m
under the meteorological conditions that probably controlled dispersion
during the field monitoring on January 29.
The following parameters were either used explicitly in the modeling or
provided guidelines from which maximum and minimum limiting concentrations
could be calculated.
18
f
I
I
t
t
t l
l
PCB emission rate from main vent* --12.1 ng/sec
Main vent gas exit velocity** --0.012 m/s
Vent gas temperature (estimated) 288.2K (150C)
Vent diameter --0.102m (4 inches)
Height of vent above ground --1.2m
Observed ambient temperature during
monitoring (1/29/83) minimum= 274.20K (lOC)
maximum= 286.20K (130C)
8-hr. average= 282.20K (90C)
Observed wind speed during
monitoring (1/29/83) --minimum= 0.72 m/s (1.6 mph)
maximum= 2.3 m/s (5.1 mph)
8-hr. average= 1.6 m/s (3.5 mph)
Since the terrain sloped downward from the location of the vent pipe to
the ambient monitoring locations, each model was run for two scenarios to
bracket the expected actual concentrations. One scenario treated the vent as
standing 1.2 meters above a flat terrain while the second scenario placed the
vent exit at a height of 5.2 meters above a flat terrain.
The one-hour concentration predictions of the model were converted to
eight-hour averages by multiplying by a factor of 0.6. This factor was
selected after a review of the EPA publication, Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates (AP-26) by D.B. Turner (pp 37-38).
The maximum one-hour PCB concentrations predicted by the PTPLU model
under the two scenarios are shown in Table 7.
Using the PTDIS model, the average wind speed observed during the
monitoring period on January 29, Class 4 stability, and the 0.6 conversion
factor, the estimated ranges for 8-hour average ambient concentrations at the
three downwind distances calculated. The results are shown in Table 8.
The concentration range limits were taken from the model output for the
two vent height scenarios.
A wider concentration range estimates can be obtained by using the
maximum and minimum one-hour concentrations calculated for the two scenarios
under all combinations of the three wind speeds (minimum, maximum, and
average) and the six stability classes. The concentration limits predicted
by the model for the three downwind points for these conditions are shown in
Table 9.
* Average of emission measurements made on January 26, 27, and 28.
** Average of flow rate measurements made by EPA on 3/2/83.
19
l
f
r
r
f
1
,-
i
l
l
l [
l
L
I L
Scenario
Vent 1.2m
above fl at
terrain
Vent 5.2m
above fl at
terrain
TABLE 7. PREDICTED MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR DOWNWIND PCB
CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS VENT HEIGHTS
Maximum
1-hr. Concentration
(ng/m3)
4. Q X lQ-6
1.4 X lQ-7
Di stance
to Maximum
Concentration,m
14
75
Conditions Producing
Maximum Concentrations
Wind Speed Atmospheric
(m/s) Stability Class
0.3 4 (neutral)
0.5 4 (neutral)
TABLE 8. PREDICTED 8-HR. DOWNWIND PCB CONCENTRATIONS
FOR JANUARY 29, 1983
Distance
Downwind from
the Vent (m)
Range of 8-Hour
PCB Ambient Concentration
(ng/m3)
50
100
150
1.5 -8.0 X lQ-8
2. 0 -2. 5 X lQ-8
1.25 -1.35 X lQ-8
TABLE 9. RANGE OF ONE-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS FOR VARIOUS
WIND SPEEDS AND ALL STABILITY CLASSES
Monitor Distance Minimum 1-Hour Maximum 1-Hour
Downwind from PCB Concentration PCB Concentration
Vent (m) (ng/m3) (ng/m3)
50 1. 5 X lQ-10 4.5 X 10-7
100 7.Q X 10-9 2.Q X 10-7
150 3.5 X 10-9 1.0x 10-7
20
I
l
j
1
l l !
I -
For each downwind location the conditions which yielded the maximum 1-
hour PCB concentration were; a 1.2m vent height, a wind speed of 1.6 m/s and
Class 6 (very stable) stability. Under this set of conditions the PTPLU
model predicted that the maximum PCB concentration would be 4.8 x 10-7 ng/m3
and would occur at 37m downwind of the vent.
In summary, the dispersion models predict that downwind PCB levels under
prevailing and worst case meteorological conditions should be significantly
lower than concentrations that could be detected by the monitoring techniques
employed in this study. Thus, the monitoring data for January 29 are consis-
tent with the modeling predictions in that PCBs were not detected in any
downwind ambient air samples.
21
r I
j t l
i
SECTION 6
QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA SUMMARY
PUF CARTRIDGE CLEAN-UP CHECKS
All PUF cartridges were pre-cleaned before being used for PCB sampling.
One cartridge from each batch of 20 clean cartridges was re-extracted and
analyzed for PCB contamination. The batch of cartridges was considered
acceptable for sampling if the PCB level in the check sample is <10 ng.
FLOW RATE CALIBRATIONS
The flow rate of the DuPont pumps was calibrated with a bubble meter
before and after each sampling period using a DuPont Calibrator system. The
flow rate calibration data are summarized in Table 10. Average flow rates
for the sampling period were calculated from the pre-and post-sampling
calibration data.
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
A flow rate audit of the DuPont sampling pumps used during the study was
performed by W.F. Barnard, EMSL/EPA/RTP.
QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
A set of 18 quality control samples consisting of PUF cartridges spiked
with various quantities of Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 were analyzed with
the vent and ambient air samples. The QC samples were prepared by BCL using
NBS/SRM 1581 (Aroclor 1242 and Aroclor 1260 in oils). Results of the
analysis of the QC samples are given in Table 11.
FIELD BLANKS
Eight field blanks were analyzed with the ambient air samples. The
blanks were PUF cartridges that had been carried through all field operations
except sampling. PCBs were not detected in any of the blanks above the
minimum detectable level i.e. 10 ng for Arochlor 1242 and 15 ng for Aroclor
1260.
22
j I
r · TABLE 10. DUPONT PUMP FLOW CALIBRATION DATA r
f Date Pump Sampling Calibrated Flow Rate, sec/min Avg Flow
S/N Location Before Sampling After Sampling Rate,scc/min
I 1/26/83 A-083 V-A 1370 1446 1408
A-080 V-8 1230 1243 1237
! A-118 V-C 1370 1478 1424
4789 V-D 1397 (a)
A-062 V-E 1388 1531 1460
I A-089 2A 3748 4069 3908
A-121 28-1 3710 3888 3799
A-088 28-2 3722 4007 3865
1 4803 4A 3760 3927 3844
A-038 48-1 3728 3894 3811
A-032 48-2 3752 (a)
l A-127 4C 3710 (a)
A-061 5A(4) 3705 3782 3744
A-125 5A(l5) 3736 3908 3822
f 4696 58(4) 3728 3894 3811
A-092 58(15) 3710 4056 3883 1 A-087 5C(4) 3748 3901 3825
l A-037 5C(l5) 3751 3901 3826
I A-126 6A 3788 3901 3845
5136 68 3794 (a)
I A-120 6C 3800 4007 3904 l A-143 A3 3782 3908 3845
A-094 A7 3754 4034 3894
I 4779 AB 3801 3987 3894
.,._ 1/27/83 A-118 V-A 1301 1416 1359
I A-079 V-8 1306 1411 1359
A-062 V-C 1301 1519 1410
A-120 V-D 1276 1383 1330
{
9806 V-E 1209 1309 1259
1/28/83 1206 1254 9806 V-A-1 1301
l
A-062 V-A-2 1252 1441 1367
A-037 V-B 1245 1408 1326
A-118 V-C 1283 1492 1388
l A-083 V-D 1242 1405 1324
5138 V-E 1242 1305 1274
a) Pump malfunctioned during sampling period.
23
l-
j
TABLE 10. (Continued)
i 1
J
Date Pump Sampling Calibrated Flow Rate, sec/min Avg Flow
S/N Location Before Sampling After Sampling Rate,scc/min
l f 1/29/83 A-126 2A 3692 3758 3725
A-037 2B-1 3710 3949 3830
! A-079 2B-2 3787 3848 3818
' 4803 4A 3681 3688 3685
A-088 4B-1 3698 3771 3745
f 4779 4B-2 3710 3795 3753
A-092 4C 3692 3753 3722
A-080 5A(4) 3721 3820 3771
l A-118 5A(15) 3704 4002 3853
1 9806 58(4) 3669 3877 3773 • A-062 58(15) 3681 4058 3870
1 5138 5C(4) 3687 3896 3792 t A-083 5C(l5) 3692 3864 3778
A-127 6A 3779 3724 3752
t A-061 6B 3768 3878 3823
! A-094 6C 3768 3910 3839
A-089 A3 3710 3022 3366
\ A-121 A7 3779 3802 3790 l A-032 AS 3687 (a)
f 1/31/83 5117 2A 3731 4060 3896
2/1/83 4696 4A 3738 4258 3998
4789 4B 3772 3992 3882
j 5942 4C 3743 4144 3944
i .
\
All other pumps used on this date malfunctioned during
sampling period.
!
1 a) Pump malfunctioned during sampling period.
'·
l t !
(
I
l l
\ i
24
' r ·
{
f
,..
I
l
;,
i.
f
.--I
I
I
l
l t
,
L
l
{
I \ \.
{
I
I ,_
TABLE 11. QC SAMPLE ANALYSIS RESULTs(a)
Sample No. Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1260
Added,ng Found,ng % Recovery Added,ng Found,ng % Recovery
1 60 64 107 0 37
6 60 52 87 0 32
5 600 680 113 0 ND
13 600 530 88 0 85
8 6000 3700 62 0 190
9 6000 3200 53 0 ND
10 0 ND 60 70 117
14 0 ND 60 180 300
4 0 ND 600 515 86
7 0 ND 600 600 100
2 0 ND 6000 4700 78
12 0 ND 6000 4000 67
15 120 90 75 60 120 200
17 120 85 71 60 70 117
11 400 260 65 200 170 85
16 400 460 115 200 260 130
3 4000 1820 46 2000 1530 77
18 4000 1320 33 2000 2950 148
a) ND -Not detected. Minimum detectable levels of Aroclor 1242 and
Aroclor 1266 are estimated to be !Ong and 15ng, respectively.
25
' l
r
r
J "
f i
I
I ..
l
I
I
l
I
CO-LOCATED MONITORING
Co-located monitoring of the main vent was performed on January 28. (See
Table 3 for results). Concentrations determined from the co-located monitors
differ by 9% for the Aroclor 1242 and 6% for the Aroclor 1260. Co-located
ambient air monitoring data cannot be evaluated since PCB levels were below
minimum detectable levels in all paired samples.
26
l
r
I
t
I
j
J
{
f
t
I
l t
L
I
I
J ,_
!
REFERENCES
1. Lewis, R. G. and Macleod, K. E., "Portable Sampler for Pesticides and
Semivolatile Industrial Organic Chemicals in Air11 , Analytical Chemistry,
54, No. 12, pp. 310-315 (February 1982).
2. Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticides in Human and
Environmental Samples, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No.
600/8-80-038, Section 8 (June 1980).
3. Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 233, Monday, December 3, 1979, Pgs. 69501-
69509.
4. Webb, R.G. and McCall, A.C., "Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron
Capture Gas Chromatography", Journal of Chromatographic Science, l.!., Pgs.
366-373, July 1973.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS Tape of User's Network for
Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP) Version 4, 1980 (NTIS No.
PB81-164600).
6. Turner, D. B. and Busse, A. D., "User's Guides to the Interactive
Versions of Three Point Source Dispersion Programs: PTMAX, PTDIS, and
PTMTP 11 , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA/DF-81/00lf
(NTIS No. PB81-164667) June 1973.
27
l
..-
)
I
J
r
I
J
t
)
t
t
l
APPENDIX A
PROCEDURE FOR PCB SAMPLING WITH
DUPONT P-4000A PUMPS AND PUF CARTRIDGES
(1) Calibrate the flow rate of the DuPont pumps before sampling with a
DuPont Calibrator system.
(2) At the field site, place pumps at designated sampling locations. Record
pump S/N and corresponding sampling location 1.0.
(3) Using latex gloves, remove a clean PUF cartridge from its sample bottle,
carefully unwrap the aluminum foil from the cartridge. Fold aluminum
foil, replace in sample bottle, and tightly close the bottle cap.
Connect the PUF sampling cartridge to the DuPont pump sampling inlet
using a short piece (12-18 in.) of Tygon tubing. (Note: Clean latex
gloves must be worn at all times when handling the PUF cartridges).
(4) Using metal three-prong clamps that have been rinsed with B&J hexane,
mount the PUF cartridges on the sampler support rod in a vertical
position with the inlet pointing downward. Record cartridge height
above ground.
(5) Turn pumps on and begin sampling period. Record starting clock time.
During the sampling period check pumps at least every 2 hours for proper
operation. Record any abnormal conditions.
(6) After sampling for the specified time, terminate sampling period by
turning pumps off. Record clock time that pump was turned off. Just
before turning pumps off, push test button on pump and check low flow
light and the elapsed time indicator lights. If low flow light comes
on, it indicates that a low flow condition existed during the sampling
period, e.g., Tygon tubing crimped, cartridge plugged, pump stopped,
etc). Record results of the low flow check. Record elapsed time from
the pump timer as a check on the clock time.
(7) As soon as possible after termination of sampling, remove the PUF
cartridge from the Tygon sample line (using latex gloves), wrap
cartridge in its original aluminum foil wrapping, and place in the
original sample bottle. Cap tightly, label bottle with sampling data
and sample I.D. and seal the bottle cap with a strip of "Evidence Tape".
(8) Re-calibrate the flow rate of the DuPont pumps after completion of
sampling.
28
i
r·
I
J
i
f
l
t
l
l
l
l
REFERENCES
(1) Lewis, R. G., and Macleod, K. E., "Portable Sampler for Pesticides and
Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Air 11 , Analytical Chemistry, 54,
No. 12, pp. 310-315 (February, 1982). -
(2) Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticides in Human and
Environmental Samples, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No.
600/8-80-038, Section 8A (June, 1980).
29
I
f
r
j
I
l
)
I
j l '-
l
i
I
t
APPENDIX B
PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF PCBs
IN PUF CARTRIDGES
I. Equipment and Reagents Required for PUF Sample Extraction
1. Glassware
2.
500 ml boiling flasks
300 ml capacity Soxhlet extractors
3 ball condensers
500 ml Kuderna-Danish apparatus
15 ml receiver tubes
Snyder columns
Filter tubes (Corning 9480-32)
Pre-scored (1 ml, 5ml) amber glass vials with teflon-lined caps
911 long disposable transfer (Pasteur) pipets
Wash all glassware with Alconox; rinse with deionized water,
acetone, hexane, and deionized water; then fire in kiln (500 C)
Equipment
Extraction Apparatus, Multi-Unit Heater (CMS 119-362)
Blunt-end forceps
Surgical tongs (approximately 1211 )
Steam bath
Nitrogen blow-down evaporator
Glass wool (Heater overnight at 350 C in muffle furnace)
Boiling granules (Heater overnight at 500 C in kiln)
Teflon wash bottles
30
(
I
I
3. Reagents
Burdick and Jackson, Distilled in Glass Solvents:
Acetone
Hexane
Ethyl Ether (Preserved with Ethanol)
Sodium Sulfate, 12-60 mesh, Anhydrous (Baker 5-3375) (Heated
overnight at 5oooc in kiln).
II. Sample Receipt and Extraction
1. Log samples in log book. Note any damage to sample or
irregularities (i.e., EPA chain of custody tape broken).
2. Prepare 5% ethyl ether in hexane. Prepare by case lot of hexane.
Remove 200 ml of hexane from freshly opened bottle and add 180 ml
of freshly opened ethyl ether (preserved with ethanol).
3. Rinse condenser towers with 5% ether/hexane.
4. Wipe off lab bench with 5% ether/hexane.
5. Add 300 ml of 5% ether/hexane to 500 ml boiling flask. Add boiling
granules (no more than 3 granules).
6. Dim lights in laboratory before removing first sample. Rinse a
large sheet of aluminum foil with 5% ether/hexane. Be sure to use
waste rinse container. Place foil, rinsed side up, on lab bench.
Use this for forceps and tongs. Rinse forceps and tongs with 5%
ether/hexane.
7. Carefully remove sampling cartridge from jar and unwrap aluminum
foil. Handle cartridge minimally, placing it on its own aluminum
foil wrapping.
8. Note in project log book any breakage or damage to sampling
cartridge.
9. With pre-rinsed forceps, carefully remove the foam plug (PUF) from
the sampling cartridge.
10. Place the PUF in the Soxhlet, and connect the Soxhlet to the 500 ml
boiling flask. (If hi-vol sample, also place corresponding
particulate filter in Soxhlet with PUF plug). Wet the joint with
5% ether/hexane. Place the forceps on the aluminum foil wrapping.
Label the boiling flask with sample I.D.
31
' ;-
f
f
i
f
l
I
I
f
l
l
l
t
l
I
11. Taking the pre-rinsed tongs, adjust the PUF in the Soxhlet to wedge
it midway along the length of the siphon. Rinse the tongs into the
Soxhlet with the 5% ether/hexane. Rinse the forceps, glass
sampling cartridge, and aluminum foil wrapping with 5% ether/hexane
into the Soxhlet. Place the forceps and tongs on the aluminum foil
sheet. Dispose of the aluminum foil wrapping and place the glas
cartridge aside for washing and recycling.
12. Connect the Soxhlet to the condenser, wetting the glass joint with
5% ether/hexane for a good seal.
13. Repeat the process for the day's samples being sure to include a
solvent blank, field blank, and a control sample.
14. Check water flow to condenser towers, and turn on heating units.
15. As samples begin to boil, check Soxhlets making sure they are
filling and siphoning properly (4 cycles/hour). Allow samples to
cycle overnight or for a minimum of 16 hours.
16. Turn off heating units and allow samples to cool to room
temperature. Be sure the lights are dim.
17. Set up Kuderna-Danish (K-D) with receiver tubes. Add one boiling
granule to each set up. Label the K-D's with the sample I.D.
18. Pack filter tubes with glass wool and sodium sulfate. Place tube
in neck of K-0.
19. Carefully remove Soxhlet and boiling flask from condenser tower.
Drain remaining solvent into boiling flask.
20. Carefully pour sample through filter tube into K-D. Rinse boiling
flask 3 times with hexane. Swirling hexane along sides of boiling
flask. Once sample has drained, rinse down filter tube with
hexane.
21. Attach Snyder column to K-D and rinse Snyder column to wet joint.
22. Place K-D on steam bath and evaporate sample to approximately 5 ml.
Do not let sample go to dryness.
23. Remove sample from steam bath, rinsing Snyder column with a minimum
of hexane. Allow sample to cool.
24. Remove sample from K-D, making sure to label receiver tube.
25. Rinse nitrogen blow down spouts with hexane and place samples so as
to further concentrate. Transfer samples to pre-scored vials using
transfer pipets. Rinse receiver tube 3 times making a quantitative
transfer. Concentrate samples to 1 ml or per instruction from
analyst.
32
r
r
J
f
f
J
I
}
f
l
l
t
I
I
)_
26. Make a master list of all samples prepared, date received, and
processed. Give the list and sample extracts to the GC analyst.
III. GC Analysis (EPA Method 608)
IV.
1. Analyze samples using
Column:
Carrier:
Column
Temperature:
Detector:
the following GC operating conditions.
Supelcoport 100/120 mesh coated with
1.5% SP-2250/1.95% SP-2401 packed in
glass (180 cm x 4 rrm ID)
5% methane/95% Argon at 60 ml/min
200 C, isothermal
ECO
2. Calibrate the system daily with a minimum of three injections of
calibration standards which have been referenced to NBS/SRM 1581
(Aroclor 1242 in oils)
3. Inject 2-5 µL of the sample extract using the solvent-flush
technique. Smaller (1.0 µL) volumes can be injected if automatic
devices are employed. Record the volume injected to the nearest
0.05 µLand the resulting peak size, in area units.
4. If the peak area exceeds the linear range of the system, dilute the
extract and reanalyze.
Quality Control (QC)
1. Analyze one laboratory blank per each batch of 20 samples.
2. Analyze one laboratory spike per each batch of 20 samples.
REFERENCES
(1) Manual of Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticides in Human
and Environmental Samples, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
No. 600/8-80-038, Sect ion 8B, (June, 1980).
(2) Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 233, Monday, December 3, 1969, pp.
69501-69509.
(3) Lewis, R. G., Brown, A. R., and Jackson, M. D., "Evaluation of
Polyethylene Foam for Sampling Pesticides, Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
and Polychlorinated Napthalenes in Ambient Air", Analytical Chemistry,
49, pp. 1668-1672 (October, 1977).
33
r·
f
f
f
f
' r
l
l
l
J
\
L
L
i
)
t
TABLE C-1. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIQD(a)
Date: January 26, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, Of % in Hg
0000-0100
0100-0200
0200-0300
0300-0400
0400-0500
0500-0600
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1600
1600-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-2000
2000-2100
2100-2200
2200-2300
2300-2400
3.3
3.0
2.8
1.6
0.1
0.7
0.2
1.3
1.9
1.9
150
120
135
150
150
80
105
95
75
60
58
46
48
49
29.95
29.90
29.89
29.89
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
35
j
r
f
l
f
l
I f
i
t !
i f ~
f I
l
l
l
l
i f
I.
I ;_
The results
County Landf i 11
through C-6.
APPENDIX C
METEOROLOGICAL DATA
of the meteorological measurements performed at the Warren
during the PCB monitoring period are given in Tables C-1
34
I
r
r
f
f
j
t
l
l
t
l
t t
TABLE C-2. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIQD(a)
Date: January 27, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, OF % in Hg
0000-0100
0100-0200
0200-0300
0300-0400
0400-0500
0500-0600
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1600
1600-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-2000
2000-2100
2100-2200
2200-2300
2300-2400
1. 7
0.8
1.8
1. 7
1.3
1.9
2.6
2.7
2.8
4.1
6.9
8.5
8.2
9.0
6.8
8.0
8.7
7.8
9.3
7.8
8.5
11.1
9.4
9.2
90
90
15
30
30
15
30
90
75
45
45
60
60
60
60
60
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
43
44
47
45
46
46
45
44
88
81
66
71
68
65
67
78
29.93
29.93
29.90
29.87
29.86
29.86
29.86
29.84
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
36
i
f METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIQD(a) TABLE C-3. ,-I Date: January 28, 1983
J
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
f hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, Of % in Hg
f 0000-0100 10.9 45
0100-0200 12.7 45
i 0200-0300 12.9 45
0300-0400 12.9 45
0400-0500 12.6 45
I 0500-06_00 11.4 30
0600-0700 12.0 30
i 0700-0800 11.5 30
I 0800-0900 10.4 25
0900-1000 9.5 15 37 87 29.82 I 1000-1100 10.3 360 38 83 29.84 t
1100-1200 10.9 15 40 75 29.85
• 1200-1300 11. 9 15 46 64 29.82 l 1300-1400 11.6 360 49 54 29.80
l 1400-1500 11. 5 360 50 49 29.80
1500-1600 10.9 360 50 43 29.80
1600-1700 7.5 360 48 43 29.81
' 1700-1800 14.8 360 l 1800-1900 2.3 360
l 1900-2000 1.5 315
f 2000-2100 1.2 300
2100-2200 1. 7 30
j 2200-2300 1.1 30
2300-2400 0.8 50
j
L a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
I single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
I I <...
37
j
• r TABLE C-4. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOD(a)
r Date: January 29, 1983
J Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Hurni dity Bar. Press.,
I hrs. EDT mph Deg. ( Compass) Temp, °F % in Hg
• 0000-0100 1.2 345
I 0100-0200 1.2 315
0200-0300 1.3 300
l 0300-0400 (b) (b)
0400-0500 (b) (b)
I 0500-0600 (b) (b)
0600-0700 (b) (b)
0700-0800 (b) (b) l j 0800-0900 (b) (b)
1 0900-1000 (b) (b) 34 86 29.99
i 1000-1100 1.6 90 45 57 29.99
1 1100-1200 2.1 180 49 44 29.97
l 1200-1300 3.6 150 55 33 29.92
j 1300-1400 3.5 180 56 32 29.89
1400-1500 3.9 180 55 39 29.86
j 1500-1600 5.0 195 54 42 29.84 ! 1600-1700 5.1 195 50 49 29.84
1 1700-1800 3.7 180
1800-1900 2.3 180
1900-2000 2.2 180
1 2000-2100 1.8 195
2100-2200 1.4 210
t 2200-2300 1.6 210
2300-2400 0.4 180
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
t b) Data missing due to instrument malfunction.
38
i •
r ~
TABLE C-5. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIOD(a)
f Date: January 31, 1983
I Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
I hrs. EDT mph Deg. ( Compass) Temp, °F % in Hg
I 0000-0100 1.1 330
0100-0200 1.1 345 1
0200-0300 0.5 355
f 0300-0400 1.6 315 I 0400-0500 0.9 345
f 0500-0600 0.7 330
0600-0700 0.3 345
j 0700-0800 0.7 325
I 0800-0900 0.3 315
0900-1000 2.2 360
i 1000-1100 5.1 5
' 1100-1200 4.8 5
~ 1200-1300 4.5 360 J ! 1300-1400 5.3 300
1400-1500 3.5 345
J 1500-1600 3.0 255 ., 1600-1700 2.5 270
l 1700-1800 0.3 270
1800-1900 0.8 240
1900-2000 1.2 360 l 2000-2100 1.0 180
2100-2200 0.6 240 40 87 29.84
t 2200-2300 0.3 165 39 92 29.84
2300-2400 0.9 180 36 95 29.84
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
l
39
•
C t t
l
-I 1 '
l
l t
TABLE C-6. METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR FIELD MONITORING PERIQD(a)
Date: February 1, 1983
Time Wind Speed Wind Direction Ambient Rel. Humidity Bar. Press.,
hrs. EDT mph Deg. (Compass) Temp, °F % in Hg
0000-0100 0.4 150 36 91 29.83
0100-0200 0.7 195 32 95 29.84
0200-0300 1.0 180
0300-0400 1.0 360 31 89 29.84
0400-0500 0.5 5
0500-0600 0.5 5 30 29.91
0600-0700
0700-0800
0800-0900
0900-1000
1000-1100
1100-1200
1200-1300
1300-1400
1400-1500
1500-1600
1600-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-2000
2000-2100
2100-2200
2200-2300
2300-2400
a) Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure data are
single readings taken during the time period. Wind speed and direction
values are hourly averages calculated from continuous monitoring data.
40