NCD980602163_19960708_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Final February 1995 Sample Anayisis by Eco Monitoring - Sampling Events 1994 - 1995-OCR

DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
FAX COVER SHEET
To ~. \:1uoebbrn.m 2
FAX NUMBER0Dl ~9 49-1 c-3 l PHONE:
FAX NUMBER: 715-3605 PHONE: [phone]
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET :-+l --=D __
DATE SENT: =:'t· 1 ~ '] l_o
Comments and Recommendations On
Final Sample Analysis Report -February 1995 by Eco
to
Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group
by
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT,
HEAL TH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 23, 1995
Table of Contents
Overview of Response
Technical Comments
Recommendations
Appendix A: Data Presentation From July 1994 Sampling Program
Appendix 8 : Comments and Reviews on Final Samples Analysis Report by ECO
Comments and Recommendations on
Final Sample Analysis Report -February 1995 by ECO
to
Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill _
Working Group
by NC ·Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
Overview of Response
This document provides comments and recommendations from the Division of
Solid Waste Management (DSWM) of the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources regarding the Final Sample Analysis Report, February 1995. This
Final Report was submitted by Ms. Pauline Ewald, ECO, who serves as Science
Advisor to the Joint Warren County and State PCB Working Group. The report
summary states that the report is a representation of validated data resulting from a
joint sampling effort completed at the Warren County PCB Landfill in July, 1994.
The Science Advisor was instructed by the Working Group in August, 1994 to
prepare a final report of the July sampling event. This final report was to include a
comparison and validation of all data developed as a result of the event.
The comparison and validation of data is incomplete. The quality assurance
review, which comprises almost 90% of the report, is based upon an invalid set of
criteria. All of the data developed as a result of the sampling event was not presented,
the DSWM has subsequently developed the "electronic spread sheets" to present this
information. (see Appendix A)
The quality assurance review of the data will be commented on in detail in the
Technical Comments section. It should be noted that evaluation of the NC State
Laboratory of Public Health by CLP (U.S. EPA Superfund Contract Laboratory
Procedures) is inappropriate. State environmental laboratories are evaluated by the
EPA under a separate set of auditing and quality assurance procedures. North
Carolina's Laboratory is in full compliance with these procedures. There was never any
intent or agreement on the part of the DSWM to use a CLP laboratory, only that ECO
use one for the split samples (see Field Sampling Plan for the Warren County PCB
Landfill, July, 1994, page 11.) ECO did use a CLP Laboratory. The DSWM is largely
satisfied with this data, with the exception of the EPA Method 8280 data for dioxin and
furans (additional comment are presented in Technical Comments).
The two data sets developed by the State and ECO's CLP laboratory are very
confirmatory of one another. The State Lab and OSWM do not agree with the criticism
of the data presented in the Final Sample Analysis Report, based upon this obvious
similarity. The incomplete presentation of data has led to misunderstandings on the
part of some members of the Working Group. We believe that the sharing of all data,
in more accurate format will serve to inform the Members and citizens in the community
of the high level of scientific quality that went into the design and execution of this
sampling effort. This will also serve to reduce or eliminate much of the speculation and
unsupported statements made based upon data fragments or inaccurate chemical unit
conversions that has fostered.
The DSWM submitted copies of ECO's Final Sample Analysis Report to
reviewers at EPA and to the Quality Assurance Units at the State Laboratory of Public
Health (SLPH) and at Triangle Laboratories, Inc. Copies of the ECO Final Report
were transmitted to the reviewers without additional documentation or comment on the
part of the DSWM. Consistently, all reviewers requested a map of the facility
indicating relative position of monitoring wells and sampling locations not presented in
ECO's report. This information was provided, along with sample method identification,
or sample ID clarification, if requested. Complete copies of these responses are
included as Appendix B. Comments from these responses were used in developing the
following Technical Comments. [UNC Scientists, Epidemiology Section of DEHNR, and
EPA Superfund staff have been requesting to review the report and have not yet
submitted their comments].
Technical Comments
Comments by EPA Senior Technical Advisor -Dr. Robert Lewis, Senior
Science Advisor, US EPA Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Laboratory agreed to perform an independent critique of the Final Sample Analysis
Report. He was not given guidance or additional information unless he requested it.
Or. Lewis is familiar with the Warren County PCB Landfill and was the princip.al
investigator on the EPA study of air emissions PCB and PCDD's/ PCDF's during
construction of the Landfill. He served on the 1984 Working Group convened by
Governor Hunt to evaluate detoxification options for the Landfill. The complete text of
his review is included in Appendix B.
Or. Lewis states in his review that the Final Report " is poorly prepared and is
obviously not intended to be readily interpreted by an individual who is not intimately2
familiar with the monitoring and analysis efforts." In order to perform the analysis he
requested from DSWM copies of location maps, lists of sample identification numbers,
and clarification on several locations in the Final Report where sample numbers did not
match the chain-of-custody records. Or. Lewis reviewed the report in considerable
detail and his full report lists many specific inaccuracies and inconsistencies
particularly regarding the data on PCBs and on dioxin and furans. In his review of the
"Discussion of Issues" Section of the report, Or. Lewis states that ''the principal error
made, however, is the statement that PCDDs and PCDFs [dioxin and furans]:-are more
water soluble than PCBs and that this property accounts for their preferentially leaking
out of the landfill...the report's conclusion that 'the PCB landfill is the most likely source
for the demonstrated dioxin and furan contamination in the on-site monitoring wells' is
absolutely without support and contrary to the principles of science."
Quality Assurance -NC State Laboratory of Public Health Response -
Or. Roger McDaniel, Chief of the Environmental Sciences Section of the SLPH
reviewed the Final Report specifically regarding the quality assurance review of the
analyses conducted by the SLPH. The complete text of Dr. McDaniel's review is
included in Appendix B. In his initial paragraph, Dr. McDaniel states that "the
document is laced with comments apparently intended to discredit the State by
impeaching the validity of the analytical results. The State Laboratory of Public Health
stands behind the data regarding the Warren County PCB Landfill as being timely,
complete, and accurate." The SLPH's data are consistently referred to as unreliable
and therefore unusable throughout the Final Report. Yet, ECO contradicts its own
conclusions by using SLPH data to support many of the conclusions drawn in the
report. The SLPH does not participate in the Contract Laboratory Program {CLP)
because it is not a Superfund Contract Laboratory. The requirement in the original
work plan was for the Science Advisor to use a CLP Laboratory for the split samples
taken in July, 1994, not for the State Lab to have such accreditation (See page 11 of
the Sampling Plan).
The State Laboratory of Public Health has conducted environmental analyses for
more than 90 years and has been continually certified by the USEPA since the
inception of the certification programs in 1978. The latest EPA on-site evaluation,
performed in May 1994, found no deficiencies in personnel, equipment, analytical
methods, records, and quality control procedures Dr. McDaniel stated, " The attack on
the credibility of this laboratory by the ECO report is totally unfounded."
Quality Assurance -Triangle Labs Response ECO's Final Report was
reviewed by Ms. Patty L. Ragsdale, Quality Assurance Manager for Triangle Labs.
This laboratory performed the dioxin and furan analysis by standard EPA Method 8290
3
under contract to the state for the July 1994 sampling event. Triangle's review focuses
exclusively on the dioxin and furan data. A copy of Triangle Labs entire response is
presented in Appendix B. In summary, Ms. Ragsdale states that the "ECO report does
not specifically state which method was used by either laboratory performing the dioxin
analysis." She was unable to determine from the information presented in the Final
Report which method Pace Laboratories used. DSWM informed Triangle that ECO's
Chain-of-Custody forms and Pace's original data sheets indicate that EPA Method
8280, a less sensitive method not agreed to in the original sampling plan (see page 1 O
of Field Sampling Plan) was used by Pace.
Triangle Labs commented that the Final Report is inconsistent with respect to
sample ID's; disparity in sampling units; and a serious error in unit conversion, leading
to a part per trillion value being reported as a part per thousand - a one million fold
error. Triangle Labs indicates that the data from only one split sample (the contents of
the Landfill) can be compared and that these samples "compare reasonably well when
evaluated properly." All other Pace Lab data cannot be utilized for comparative
purposes.
Data Presentation -It has been DSWM staff's understanding that the
Working Group requested the official presentation of all of the data collected during
the July sampling event to be part of this Final Report. The Science Advisor had stated
that she intended to prepare "electronic spreadsheets" to present the data and to allow
side-by-side comparison of findings and split samples. The Final Report contains only
a partial presentation of the data, contains many inaccuracies and sample ID errors.
The data are presented as tables created by word processor in a vertical format, not
suitable for side-by-side spread sheet comparisons. The Final Report was prepared
without any contacting either of the laboratories or DSWM staff to inquire about any
issues relative to the data. The DSWM has, since receipt of the Final Report,
undertaken development of such spread sheets. This information is presented in draft
form in Appendix A. We believe that of the issues of miscommunication and mistrust
that effect the Working Group's efforts can be attributed to the formats, incomplete
presentation and unit inconsistency of this data. It is our opinion that the claim of
quality control data being absent is not only incorrect, but a major contributor to the
delay in presentation of the actual findings of the sampling effort.
Landfill Status Report -With the exception of the extensive, undocumented
(unreferenced to scientific sources) opinions stated in chapter 11 of the Final Report
there is no attempt to present a status report on the condition of the landfill.
The data produced in the sampling effort support a description of the Landfill
quantifying the levels of PCBs, dioxin and furans, and the absence of other significant
chemical contaminants; a description of the water trapped in the landfill; and the status
4
of the leachate collection systems and monitoring wells.
None of this summary description is present in the Final Report. Therefore, the
citizen's of Warren County, still do not have a scientifically accurate description of the
status of the landfill presenting this new data in formats and charts for the public, the
Working Group, and potential vendors. This description is critical as we continue
together to evaluate, select, and qualify a safe, effective, and cost efficient
detoxification technology.
Recommendations
1. The Final Sample Analysis Report should not be accepted by the Joint Warren
County and State PCB Landfill Working Group until external qualified scientific
reviewers comments, including reviewers selected by ECO, are considered and
included in the report where appropriate.
2. The process of selection of detoxification technologies should continue on a
priority basis. The process should include a pilot scale thermal or non-thermal
desorption with BCD project on a schedule that ensures safety of the landfill and
· minimizes risk of emissions from the project. Consideration should be given to
an off-site, rather than on-site pilot scale project with adequate oversight by the
Working Group.
3. The process for selection of detoxification technologies should include
consideration of all technologies that are determined to be applicable and
scientifically feasible for destruction of the PCB and dioxinlfuran levels present
in the Landfill. The process should include at least the following:
A) Thermal or non-thermal desorption with BCD or related technologies,
B) Bioremediation -on-site and in situ,
C) Physical and chemical separation or extraction of contaminants from
landfill soils, followed by detoxification of the smaller volume of
concentrated contaminants,
0) Thermal and non-thermal desorption of contaminants with subsequent
detoxification of smaller volume of concentrated contaminants,
E) On-site incineration,
F) Other technologies identified by the Working Group or potential
vendors.
5
4. All technologies and potential vendors should be evaluated in accordance with
the following criteria:
A) Risk of exposure to citizen's of Warren County and local environment by
emissions from planned and accidental releases,
B) Potential for unplanned releases,
C) Assuring safety of the Landfill during testing and detoxification,
0) Risks associated with utilizing technology and associated chemical or
physical elements of the process,
E) Plan for and ability to monitor planned and unplanned releases from the
site,
F) Risks associated with residuals that will remain on-site and long term
management of these risks,
G) Volumes, concentrations of contaminants, and types of contaminants that
may be required to be managed off site and proposed off site facilities for
receiving these materials,
H) Experience of vendors and previous successful and unsuccessful uses of
detoxification technologies,
I) Compliance history of vendors,
J) Cost of detoxification,
K) Schedule for detoxification,
L) Other pertinent criteria determined by the Working Group.
5. Any on-site remediation activities, including pilot scale projects, that
penetrate the top liner of the landfill have a potential to cause releases to the
environment. As a result no such activity shall occur until the following have
been implemented:
A) Statistically defensible sampling and analysis project for groundwater to
determine background or baseline environmental levels for dioxin and
other selected constituents in a 1-to 3-mile radius of the PCB Landfill.
B) Establishment of a monitoring program that has the capacity and
capability to measure potential releases to the air, land, surface waters, or
groundwater
C) An engineering design to ensure maintenance of the integrity of the top
liner is approved for access and closure before any detoxification activity
or evaluation.
0) Review State and Federal regulations for any potential needs for
temporary or permanent permits or permit modifications.
6
E) The groundwater monitoring system must be upgraded before additional
hydrological work on the Landfill is performed. The work should include
better definition of site lithology, vertical components of groundwater flow,
variations of direction of groundwater flow and flow rate. Four additional
monitoring wells will be required to be drilled, logged, installed and pump
tested. These wells, in combination with existing wells, the adequacy of
the monitoring system. Existing and new wells should be sampled and
analyzed for selected constituents including PCBs and dioxinlfurans.
The "seep" area should also be evaluated to determine the source of the
water present at most times of the year. -_
6. In order to ensure the safety of the Landfill the following approved elements in
the work plan should be implemented during the time that detoxification is being
evaluated. This will allow both continued detoxification evaluation and maximize
safety of the landfill.
A) Perform water fluctuation study of water in landfill .
B) Measure/calculate volume of water in landfill.
C) Evaluate top liner of landfill to ensure integrity and minimize risk of any
future infiltration of surface water into landfill.
D) Consider removal, treatment, and on-site land application of treated
leachate to extend the landfill safety margin during evaluation of
detoxification technolog:es and as a potential preparation for
detoxifcation.
E) Establish schedule and plan for monitoring gas vent on Landfill.
7. A qualified scientist, with expertise in detoxification, from the acedemic
community shall be added to the Working Group membership.
8. DEHNR should seek funds from existing budgets to provide resources to
implement recommendations for off-site sampling and analysis for base line or
background purposes.
9. The $100,000 Capital Improvement fund allocated to Warren County for the
PCB Landfill should be ultilized for implementing all recommendations for on-site
evaluations, sampling and analysis.
7
DEH NRI ENVIR . EPI. TEL:[phone] Mar-22, 95 9 :37 No.002 P.02
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epidemiology
Jomes B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Jonathon B. Howes. Secretary
NA
DEHNR
March 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
THROUGH: John I. Freeman, D.V.M., M.P.H., Ch'·
Environmental Epidemiology Section
FROM: Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D., Toxicologist
Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT: Response to ECO Final Sample Analysis Report
· I have reviewed the "Final Sample Analysis Report" written by the
Environmental Compliance Organization (ECO) for the Joint Warren
County and State PCB Landfill Working Group (February, 1995).
With the exception of the following statemant concerning the ECO
review of the State Laboratory of Public Health (SLPB), I will
confine my comments to the dioxin/furan groundwater data, the
review of which has been the extent of my involvemant at the PCB
landfill site.
I find myself completely in agreement with the response of Roger
McDaniel, the Chief of the Environmental Sciences Section, to the
ECO report. The SLPH has been subjected to a totally
inappropriate attack in this review. Dr. McDaniel's response
addressed very well the specifics of ECO's misstatements. The
SLPH is one of, if not the best analytical laboratory in North
Carolina. SLPH maintains a level of quality control that is
routinely of the finest caliber, producing analytical reports of
groundwater samples that are consistently reproducible and in
instances where split samples are analyzed at other labs, very
consistent with other lab reports. If the reporting format was
not up to the detailed level that ECO wanted, the quality of tho
results were extremely accurate. SLPH is a high volume lab,
analyzing well water samples that are instrumental in protecting
the drinking water supplies in North Carolina. As the state's
risk assessor in charge of evaluating both public and private
water supplies, I do not know of a single instance where SLPH has
erred in an analysis.
P.O. Box 27687. Ral8lgh, North Carolina 27611•7687
An Equal Opportunity Affifrnativo Action Employer
DEHNRI ENVI R. EPI · TEL:[phone]
Mr. William L. Meyer
Page 2
March 21, 1995
Mat-22 , 95 Q :~~,, Nn .002 P .03 --'-· -
As I have discuss~d with the residents in Warren county, I find
myself agreeing with the ECO report in identifying dioxins and
furans in monitoring wells at the site. The levels in the
samples exceed the laboratory blanks and appear to indicate the
presence of dioxins and furans in these samples. Howaver, the
source of this contamination cannot be scientifically determined
at this time because inadequate or non-existent controls were
utilized at the time the sampling was done. Indeed, part per
quadrillion (ppq) dioxin and furan levels may be ubiquitous in
groundwater. We simply do not have an existing data base for
these compounds at ppq lavels. Until resampling is done with
proper controls, as we have discussed on several occasions, any
statements about probable sources for these compounds in
groundwater are hypothetical at bast. Therefore, the ECO
statement on page 35 of the report is just their opinion,
completely unsupported by scientific data. The statement on page
37 of the report about the rarity of detecting these compounds in
water is also a supposition. Until a data base exists for ppq
levels of dioxins and furans, their rarity in groundwater is not
factually established. Tha additive levels of dioxins and furans
in several monitor well samples exceed EPA's MCL of 30 ppg for
2,3,7,8-TCDD. From a public health standpoint, this may pose a
slightly increased lifetime cancer risk if this water was
consumed over many years, At this time, it is evident that
groundwater from this site may contain dioxins and furans.
Further evidence of their presence and possible link to a source
can only be determined by sampling this site again with proper
controls. The ECO report completely fails to address this fact,
and their findings of dioxins and furans in groundwater related
to a possible source (the landfill) is a scientifically-invalid
statement. Because the groundwater presence of dioxins and
furans appears to be the only public health concern outside the
landfill at this time, the ECO report should have supported an
attempt to acquire reliable, scientific data on the groundwater,
with proper control samples. Regrettably, they failed to do so.
KR:td
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Laboratory Services
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Samuel N. Merritt, Dr. PH, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
FROM: Roger L. McDaniel, Ph.D., Chief@1l
Environmental Sciences Section 7fl,
THROUGH: Samuel N. Merritt, Dr. PH, Director J/!i
Division of Laboratory Services
DATE: March 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Response to the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report
I have reviewed the Final Sample Analysis Report written by the Environmental Compliance
Organization (ECO) for the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group (dated
February 1995). I am outraged by the misstatements and innuendoes contained in this document
regarding the quality of the work performed at the State Laboratory of Public Health (SLPH).
This document is laced with comments apparently intended to discredit the State by impeaching
the validity of the analytical results. The State Laboratory of Public Health firmly stands behind
the data regarding the Warren County PCB Landfill as being timely, complete, and accurate.
The recurring complaint in ECO's review of work performed at the SLPH is the reporting format
used to present the data. ECO stated (at every opportunity) that because the State Laboratory of
Public Health did not follow the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) reporting format, all results
were considered unreliable and therefore unusable. ECO then contradicts its own conclusions by
using SLPH data throughout the report.
There are several valid reasons why the SLPH does not report results using CLP format. First of
all, SLPH chemists perform the final review of all raw and finished data generated by this
laboratory. Since the programs do not routinely review raw data from this laboratory, inclusion
of volumes of instrument tuning, calibration, and quality control documents (as required under
CLP) would not be particularly beneficial. Secondly, CLP format is extremely labor intensive and
requires a tremendous amount of clerical work to assemble the packages. For a high volume
laboratory, such the SLPH, productivity would be greatly reduced. For example, a typical two
page summary report, if reported under CLP format, would fill a 2 inch notebook. This would
impose a great burden on this laboratory, increasing both the cost and turnaround
P.O. Box 28047, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-8047
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
William L. Meyer
March 1, 1995
Page 2
time, without providing any additional benefit to the supported programs. Contrary to ECO's
Final Analysis Sample Report, the SLPH did not agree (nor were we asked) to report results
from the Warren PCB Landfill in CLP format. Although the SLPH does not routinely report
results in CLP format, all standard quality assurance I quality control procedures are strictly
followed.
Overall, the ECO report was poorly written and contained numerous misstatements, omissions,
and significant errors. For example, ECO devoted seven pages of this report to illustrate a
calculational error in a PCB calibration from a SLPH worksheet. This analysis, in fact, was a
rough qualitative confirmation of PCB used as part of a degradation study. These results were for
internal use only, and did not undergo a standard final review by a SLPH chemist. It should have
been obvious to ECO's reviewer that these calculations were not used in the final results. The
ECO narrative and comments regarding this particular analysis are therefore totally irrelevant.
Other errors are addressed in Attachment 1.
I can understand the difficulty that the ECO reviewer must have experienced in trying to interpret
another laboratory's raw data. However, I must point out that no effort was made on the part of
ECO to contact the SLPH to request additional information, to ask for an explanation, or to
request help in interpreting any of the raw data or quality control measures. Several statements
regarding missing quality control data were made throughout the report. The ECO reviewer
apparently failed to recognize, or chose to ignore, the many quality assurance / quality control
measures that were apparent in the raw data. For these reasons, I question ECO's sincerity in
performing an accurate and impartial evaluation.
The SLPH has been in the business of environmental analysis for 90 years. It has been continually
certified by the USEP A since the inception of the certification program in 197 8. The latest EPA
on-site evaluation (performed in May 1994) included a review of all personnel, equipment,
analytical methods, records, and quality control procedures. No deficiencies were found. The
attack on the credibility of this laboratory by the ECO report is totally unfounded.
In appendix A, I have responded to many of the errors, misstatements, and omissions that were
contained in the ECO report which are relative to work performed at the SLPH. Please contact
me at 3-7308 if you need additional information or have questions.
ATTACHMENT 1
Response to errors, misstatements, and omissions in the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report of
the Warren County PCB Landfill (February 1995).
Section 6.0 Metals Analysis.
Page 11. Table titled DETECTION LEVELS should be titled LOWEST REPORTING
VALUES.
Page 11. Since some barium was found in the soil samples and TCLP extracts, inclusion of a
detection limit is not particularly relevant.
Page 11. The report stated that "mercury detection limits differ by greater than 1 OX,
indicating an error." The report, however, failed to take into account the dilution
factor of 20X prior to digestion and analysis. There was no error in the mercury
analysis.
Page 11. Holding times for samples (from Field Collection to TCLP extraction) are 28 days
for mercury and 180 days for other metals.
Page 12. Response to the second paragraph under the heading Calibration. Calibration of
the atomic absorption spectrophotometer for graphite furnace analyses is
accomplished using a blank, two standards, and checking a third standard (at the
less than reporting value concentration). A quality control standard is then
analyzed along with a reagent blank (unspiked) and a fortified blank (spiked).
Samples are analyzed only if these values are within acceptable range.
Page 12.
All samples are tested using methods of additions (spiked recoveries) for the
graphite furnace metals. Quality control samples are checked initially, every 20
samples, and at the end of the run.
Calibration of the inductively coupled plasma spectrophotometer utilizes a blank
and one standard. A quality control standard is analyzed along with blanks. If the
results are within acceptable limits, the samples are analyzed. Quality control
samples are checked initially, every 20 samples, and at the end of the run. Ten
percent of samples are analyzed as duplicates or spikes.
On both instruments, calibration is performed according to the instrument
manufacturer's specifications. These procedures have met EPA's approval as
indicated by the many satisfactory site visits and examinations of laboratory data
and procedures.
Concentrations of standards were mostly above the sample concentrations. Most
sample data was reported as less than values.
Section 7.0 Volatile Organics
Page 17. Response to paragraph titled Calibration. For the record, the gas chromatograph
mass spectrometers are tuned, and initial and continuing calibrations performed
with external standards. An internal standard (bromochloromethane, 40 ppb) is
used with every sample. Field blanks, and laboratory blanks are also analyzed.
Page 19. Table 2 omitted 48 ppb 1,4 dichlorobenzene reported by the SLPH for sample WL
002 LC.
Section 8.0 Semi-Volatile Organics
Page 20. Calibration. For the record, three recovery checks were made on each sample.
Also, each sample contained an internal standard (d-10 anthracene).
Page 23. Titled PCB Calibration Error (also includes Appendix A, Figures 1-5). This
example was addressed in the cover letter. This calibration data was not used in
any final results.
Page 21. Table 3 is incomplete. Values for 1,3-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene
for sample WL 002 LC should be followed by the letter "k" (indicates amount
present is less than stated value). Also sample WL 004 BL that contained 6333
ppb phthalate, also contained 22000 ppb dibutylphthalate. This contamination
probably occurred during the sampling procedure.
Page 25. Table 4. Sample WL 004 BL also contained .0042 ppm PCB 1260. Samples WL
028 SS which contained 1.45 ppm PCB 1260 is erroneously listed in the table as
PCB 1248. Similarly, sample WL 029 SS, which contained 0.22 ppm PCB 1260
erroneously appears in the table as PCB 1248. The units of the table are in Parts
Per Million (ppm) not Parts Per Billion (ppb).
APPENDIX B
COMMENTS AND REVIEWS OF FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FROM ECO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
NORTH CAROLINA 27711
February 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Review of ECO Final Analysis Report -Warren County PCB Landfill
Robert G. Lewis, Ph.D~~---===
Senior Science Advisor/MRDD (MD-77)
Sharon E. Rogers
Assistant Director for Policy, Planning, and Development
Solid waste Management Division
N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin Road
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
I have reviewed the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group's Final
Sample Analysis Report dated February 1995. This report was apparently prepared by ECO, who
recommends immediate remediation of the landfill by the BCD method. I have passed the report
on to Robert L. Harless, who is our resident expert on PCDD/PCDF analytical chemistry, for
possible further comment.
Without complete sample location identification, I cannot tell where all the samples were
taken, what samples (if any) were spikes or field blanks, or, in many cases, what were duplicates.
Therefore, I cannot provide much comment on the quality of the data. HC,wever, I am familiar
with Triangle Laboratories, Inc. (TLI), and have a great deal of confidence in the quality of their
data. The report is poorly prepared and is obviously not intended to be readily interpreted by an
individual who is not intimately familiar with the monitoring and analysis efforts.
As you know, I was intimately involved with the PCB spill cleanup, was responsible for
monitoring potential air emissions from the landfill shortly after 1t was closed, and served on
Governor Hunt's first commission to study detoxification of the landfill. Therefore, I do have
some appreciation of the subject. I am an expert on PCBs and semivolatile organics and am
somewhat knowledgeable concerning PCDDs/PCDFs. I am not an expert in hydrogeology or
ground water translocation of chemicals, but have seen a lot of data on movement of chemicals
leaking from landfills through soil and water. With those qualifications, I have the following
comments:
General Comments
The report is highly critical of the State Laboratory for allegedly poor QA/QC practices,
which are not documented, yet it uses data provided by the state as the basis of its
recommendations. Had it relied on its the ECO results obtained from PACE, there would be no
basis for the recommendation that the landfill be immediately remediated.
The report is very poorly written and structured. The several unnumbered tables on the
pages you have hand-numbered 5 through 8 and the tables of detection "levels" on pages 11 and
13 need headings; units are missing in the text (e.g., for PCB concentrations on p. 23 and
retention times on p. 24); "Aroclor" is usually misspelled; there are typographical errors; and
entries such as "Ph" for "pH'', the redundant "GC chromatograms", use of the term "isomer" to
refer to "congener", the criterion "extremely stable" (rather than "very") to characterize PCBs,
and the omission of r, from the TEQ equation suggest that the author of this report critiquing
chemical analytical results was not a chemist or even a careful scientist. The report also contains
serious errors in scientific deductions presented in the Discussion of Issues section.
Analytical Results
It is difficult to interpret the analytical results since they are not presented in any logical
fashion and there are several sample identifications that do not appear in the section on Sampling
Locations. Even those that are identified cannot be precisely located without a map or
coordinates indicating direction and distance from the landfill, etc. I will confine my comments to
semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), PCBs, and PCDDs/PCDFs.
SVOCs. It is difficult to believe the lack of detection of SVOCs in the samples listed.
Apparently, the target analyte list was very short and the detection limits high. The two
chlorobenzenes are, of course, residual solvent from the Aroclor mixture deposited in the landfill.
The results obtained by the N. C. State Laboratory (NCSL) and unidentified laboratory "ETC" for
1,4-dichlorobenzene agree very well in the case of wet landfill contents (330 ppb for WL 002 LC
and 388 ppb for IC 003 LC, respectively). ETC reported 474 ppb for this analyte in the dry
landfill contents (IC 002 LC), but the corresponding State sample (WL 001 LC) is missing from
the table. No other comparison is possible. The samples ending in "LE" and "BL" and sample
WL 001 SS are not identified on pp. 5-8. They were negative except for WL 004 BL, which
contained a very high concentration of "Phth", presumably phthalates, probably representing
laboratory contamination. Was this a blank?
PCBs. The results obtained by NCSL for the landfill contents (wet, 151.8 ppb and dry,
301 . 4 ppb) are consistent with previous analyses with which I am familiar and with expectations
based on original soil concentrations. The unidentified laboratory "WST" obtained 303 ppb and
880 ppb for duplicate dry samples and 303 ppb for the wet sample. Samples WL 003 , 004, 028,
and 029 SS are not identified on pp. 5-8. The results indicate no significant translocation of PCB s
from the landfill.
2
PCDDs. Results are presented for seven specific PCDD congeners in Table 5. Except for
one sample, all positive results were obtained only by TLI. One split sample shared with PACE
was positive for OCDD. Three groundwater samples and two unidentified samples (WL 001 LE
and WL 002 LE) [leachate?] were positive for 2378-TCDD and several higher-chlorinated CDDs,
with the former showing levels about twice those of the latter (11-17 ppq of2378-TCDD and up
to 1050 ppq of OCDD). These samples appear to be taken from three of the four monitoring
wells closely surrounding the landfill. Results for the fourth well are missing. TLI also found
higher-chlorinated CDDs in Richneck Creek at 50 to 400 ppq and in the landfill contents at much
lower levels(0.03 to 2 ppq, wet). Several other samples were found positive by TLI at levels
ranging from 4 to 57 ppq, but the sites from which these samples were taken were not identified
in the report. The lone positive result from PACE was for one of a duplicate set of dry samples
taken from within the landfill (IC 002 LC and IC 003 LC). PACE reported 0.3237 ppb
(=323,700 ppq) for one of these and nothing in the other. The PACE results should be
discounted due to the large variance in duplicate results. From the TLI results, coupled with the
fact that the dumped Aroclor was negative for PCDD (USEP A and NIEHS, 1978-79), suggests
that the landfill is not the source of the PCDDs found in the groundwater and Richneck Cre:15: 7 --------
PCDFs. The majority of the data contained in the report is on PCDFs. Ten samples of
various types were found by TRI to contain up to ten PCDF congeners. PACE found PCDFs
only in the duplicate dry landfill samples. Again, many of the samples are not identified on pp . 5-
8. 2378-TCDF was found at 65-93 ppq in the three groundwater (monitoring well) samples,
along with similar concentrations of several other PCDFs. TLI also found 59 ppq of2378-TCDF
and 19-73 ppq of higher CDFs in Richneck Creek, but only traces of PCDFs in the landfill itself
(0.08 ppq 2378 and 0.3-4.6 ppq higher). Once more, PACE found PCDFs only in the duplicate
dry landfill samplers, but their results are rather strange. The PACE results are reported in ppb at
five significant figures and correspond to 33 ,000 to 14,000,000 ppq. The duplicate results differ
by 3-5 . While the PACE landfill results (of0.1-14 ppb) would not seem unreasonable in light of
the PCB concentrations (up to 40 ppb of higher-chlorinated PCDFs were found in the soil before
the spill was excavated), the poor precision of their analyses and their failure to detect PCDFs in
other samples cast doubt on their findings . I would be inclined to believe TLI, which has a
worldwide reputation of excellence for these type of analyses. As was the case for PCDDs, the
TLI results suggest that the landfill is not the source of the off-site PCDFs.
Discussion of Issues. This section of the report is filled with improper terminology,
misspellings, and technical errors. The authors consistently misspell "Aroclor", misuse the terms
"lipophilic" (fat-loving) and "absorption" to describe PCB adsorption by soil particles, and the
term "azeotropic" to describe PCDD water solubility. The principal error made, however, is the
statement that PCDDs and PCDFs are more water-soluble than PCBs and that this property
accounts for their preferentially leaking out of the landfill. Despite the fact that PCDDs and
PCDFs contain oxygen (in ether bonds that are low in hydrophilicity), they are in fact less water
soluble than PCBs. For example, at 25°C the solubilities of2378 TCDD and of2378-TCDF are
2 x 10-4 mg/L and 4 x 10-4 mg/L, respectively, compared to 1.14 x 10-3 mg/L for the structurally
corresponding PCB, 33'44' TeCB (cf MacKay et al., Illustrated Handbook of Physical-Chemical
3
Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. Vols. I and II, 1992, the "bible" for
such information). Other tetrachlorobiphenyls have water solubilities as high as 10-1 to 10-2 mg/L.
The fully-chlorinated OCDD and OCDF are a thousand to ten thousand times less water soluble
than octachlorobiphenyls (e.g., 10-7 to 10-s mg/L for OCDD/OCDF vs. 2 x 10-4 mg/L for
22'33'55'66'-OCB). Data on the other congeners likewise show that PCDDs and PCDFs are
always less water soluble than PCBs. PCDDs and PCDFs are also known to strongly adsorb to
soil particles, perhaps more strongly than PCBs, due their generally more planar structure and
electron-rich oxygen orbitals.
Even if PCDDS and PCDFs were more water soluble and more mobile than PCBs, it is
entirely unreasonable in the light of the fact that the latter are present in the landfill at thousands
of times higher concentrations that no PCBs would leak out with them. In the event of leakage,
PCB concentrations in the monitoring wells and surface waters would be higher even if
PCDD/PCDFs were leaching out at 1000 times higher rates. Furthermore, the second law of
thermodynamics dictates that the concentrations of PCDD/PCDFs inside the landfill must be
higher than those outside it, if the landfill is the source. Therefore, the report's conclusion that
"the PCB landfill is the most likely source for the demonstrated dioxin and furan contamination in
the on-site monitoring wells" is absolutely without support and contrary to the principles of
science.
cc. R.L Harless
4
I .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Div ision of Laboratory Services
Jomes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Samuel N. Merritt, Dr. PH, Director
MEl\IORANDUM:
TO: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
FROM: Roger L. McDaniel, Ph.D., Chief I fJY(,
Environmental Sciences Section · · f .,1} 1f[
THROUGH: Samuel N. Merritt, Dr. PH, Director .fS
Division of Laboratory Services
DATE: March 1, 1995
SUBJECT: Response to the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report
I have reviewed the Final Sample Analysis Report written by the Environmental Compliance
Organization (ECO) for the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group (dated
February 1995). I am outraged by the misstatements and innuendoes contained in this document
regarding the quality of the work performed at the State Laboratory of Public Health (SLPH).
This document is laced with comments apparently intended to discredit the State by impeaching
the validity of the analytical results. The State Laboratory of Public Health firmly stands behind
the data regarding the Warren County PCB Landfill as being timely, complete, and accurate.
The recurring complaint in ECO's review of work performed at the SLPH is the reporting format
used to present the data. ECO stated (at every opportunity) that because the State Laboratory of
Public Health did not follow the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) reporting format, all results
were considered unreliable and therefore unusable. ECO then contradicts its own conclusions by
using SLPH data throughout the report.
There are several valid reasons why the SLPH does not report results using CLP format. First of
all, SLPH chemists perform the final review of all raw and finished data generated by this
laboratory. Since the programs do not routinely review raw data from this laboratory, inclusion
of volumes of instrument tuning, calibration, and quality control documents (as required under
CLP) would not be particularly beneficial. Secondly, CLP format is extremely labor intensive and
requires a tremendous amount of clerical work to assemble the packages. For a high volume
laboratory, such the SLPH, productivity would be greatly reduced. For example, a typical two
page summary report, if reported under CLP format, would fill a 2 inch notebook. This would
impose a great burden on this laboratory, increac;;ing both the cost and turnaround
P.O. Box ?8047. Rol0igh. North Corolina 27611-8047
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% rec ycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
I ,
William L. Meyer
March 1, 1995
Page 2
time, without providing any additional benefit to the supported programs. Contrary to ECO's
Final Analysis Sample Report, the SLPH did not agree (nor were we asked) to report results
from the Warren PCB Landfill in CLP format. Although the SLPH does not routinely report
results in CLP format, all standard quality assurance / quality control procedures are strictly
followed.
Overall, the ECO report was poorly written and contained numerous misstatements, omissions,
and significant errors. For example, ECO devoted seven pages of this report to illustrate a
calculational error in a PCB calibration from a SLPH worksheet. This analysis, in fact, was a
rough qualitative confirmation of PCB used as part of a degradation study. These results were for
internal use only, and did not undergo a standard final review by a SLPH chemist. It should have
been obvious to ECO's reviewer that these calculations were not used in the final results. The
ECO narrative and comments regarding this particular analysis are therefore totally irrelevant.
Other errors are addressed in Attachment 1.
I can understand the difficulty that the ECO reviewer must have experienced in trying to interpret
another laboratory's raw data. However, I must point out that no effort was made on the part of
ECO to contact the SLPH to request additional information, to ask for an explanation, or to
request help in interpreting any of the raw data or quality control measures. Several statements
regarding missing quality control data were made throughout the report. The ECO reviewer
apparently failed to recognize, or chose to ignore, the many quality assurance / quality control
measures that were apparent in the raw data. For these reasons, I question ECO's sincerity in
performing an accurate and impartial evaluation.
The SLPH has been in the business of environmental analysis for 90 years. It has been continually
certified by the USEPA since the inception of the certification program in 1978. The latest EPA
on-site evaluation (performed in May 1994) included a review of all personnel, equipment,
analytical methods, records, and quality control procedures. No deficiencies were found. The
attack on the credibility of this laboratory by the ECO report is totally unfounded.
In appendix A, I have responded to many of the errors, misstatements, and omissions that were
contained in the ECO report which are relative to work performed at the SLPH. Please contact
me at 3-7308 if you need additional information or have questions.
ATTACHMENT 1
Response to errors, misstatements, and omissions in the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report of
the Warren County PCB Landfill (February 1995).
Section 6.0 Metals Analysis.
Page 11. Table titled DETECTION LEVELS should be titled LOWEST REPORTING
VALUES.
Page 11. Since some barium was found in the soil samples and TCLP extracts, inclusion of a
detection limit is not particularly relevant.
Page 11. The report stated that "mercury detection limits differ by greater than l OX,
indicating an error." The report, however, failed to take into account the dilution
factor of 20X prior to digestion and analysis. There was no error in the mercury
analysis.
Page 11. Holding times for samples (from Field Collection to TCLP extraction) are 28 days
for mercury and 180 days for other metals.
Page 12. Response to the second paragraph under the heading Calibration. Calibration of
the atomic absorption spectrophotometer for graphite furnace analyses is
accomplished using a blank, two standards, and checking a third standard (at the
less than reporting value concentration). A quality control standard is then
analyzed along with a reagent blank (unspiked) and a fortified blank (spiked).
Samples are analyzed only if these values are within acceptable range.
Page 12.
All samples are tested using methods of additions (spiked recoveries) for the
graphite furnace metals. Quality control samples are checked initially, every 20
samples, and at the end of the run.
Calibration of the inductively coupled plasma spectrophotometer utilizes a blank
and one standard. A quality control standard is analyzed along with blanks. If the
results are within acceptable limits, the samples are analyzed. Quality control
samples are checked initially, every 20 samples, and at the end of the run. Ten
percent of samples are analyzed as duplicates or spikes.
On both instruments, calibration is performed according to the instrument
manufacturer's specifications. These procedures have met EPA's approval a<,
indicated by the many satisfactory site visits and examinations of laboratory data
and procedures.
Concentrations of standards were mostly above the sample concentrations. Most
sample data was reported as less than values.
Section 7.0 Volatile Organics
Page 17. Response to paragraph titled Calibration. For the record, the gas chromatograph
mass spectrometers are tuned, and initial and continuing calibrations performed
with external standards. An internal standard (bromochloromethane, 40 ppb) is
used with every sample. Field blanks, and laboratory blanks are also analyzed.
Page 19. Table 2 omitted 48 ppb 1,4 dichlorobenzene reported by the SLPH for sample WL
002 LC.
Section 8.0 Semi-Volatile Organics
Page 20. Calibration. For the record, three recovery checks were made on each sample.
Also, each sample contained an internal standard (d-10 anthracene).
Page 23. Titled PCB Calibration Error (also includes Appendix A, Figures 1-5). This
example was addressed in the cover letter. This calibration data was not used in
any final results.
Page 21. Table 3 is incomplete. Values for 1,3-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene
for sample WL 002 LC should be followed by the letter "k" (indicates amount
present is less than stated value). Also sample WL 004 BL that contained 6333
ppb phthalate, also contained 22000 ppb dibutylphthalate. This contamination
probably occurred during the sampling procedure.
Page 25. Table 4. Sample WL 004 BL also contained .0042 ppm PCB 1260. Samples WL
028 SS which contained 1.45 ppm PCB 1260 is erroneously listed in the table as
PCB 1248. Similarly, sample WL 029 SS, which contained 0.22 ppm PCB 1260
erroneously appears in the table as PCB 1248. The units of the table are in Parts
Per Million (ppm) not Parts Per Billion (ppb).
. . State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Laboratory Services
Jomes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathon B. Howes. Secretary
Samuel N. Merritt, Dr . PH, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
FROM: Roger L. McDaniel, Ph.D., Chief' L rr\,
Environmental Sciences Section · f .,1) ,fl
THROUGH: Samuel N. Merritt, Dr. PH, Director ~
Division of Laboratory Services
DATE: March I, I 995
SUBJECT: Response to the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report
I have reviewed the Final Sample Analysis Report written by the Environmental Compliance
Organization (ECO) for the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group (dated
February 1995). I am outraged hy the misstatements and innuendoes contained in this document
regarding the quality of the work performed at the State Laboratory of Public Health (SLPH).
This document is laced with comments apparently intended to discredit the State by impeaching
the validity of the analytical results. The State Laboratory of Public Health firmly stands behind
the data regarding the Warren County PCB Landfill as being timely, complete, and accurate.
The recurring complaint in ECO's review of work performed at the SLPH is the reporting format
used to present the data. ECO stated (at every opportunity) that because the State Laboratory of
Public Health did not follow the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) reporting format, all results
were considered unreliable and therefore unusable. ECO then contradicts its own conclusions by
using SLPH data throughout the report.
There are several valid reasons why the SLPH does not report results using CLP format. First of
all, SLPH chemist,; perform the final review of all raw and finished data generated by this
laboratory. Since the programs do not routinely review raw data from this laboratory, inclusion
of volumes of instrument tuning, calibration, and quality control documents (as required under
CLP) would not be particularly beneficial. Secondly, CLP format is extremely labor intensive and
requires a tremendous amount of clerical work to a,;semble the packages. For a high volume
laboratory, such the SLPH, productivity would be greatly reduced. For example, a typical two
page summary report, if reported under CLP format, would fill a 2 inch notebook. This would
impose a great burden on this laboratory, increa,;ing both the cost and turnaround
PO Box ?e.0'17 . Rnl~igh . Nodh Cnr 0lina 27611 -8047
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ l 0% post-consumer paper
William L. Meyer
March l, 1995
Page 2
time, without providing any additional benefit to the supported programs. Contrary to ECO's
Final Analysis Sample Report, the SLPH did not agree (nor were we asked) to report results
from the Warren PCB Landfill in CLP format. Although the SLPH does not routinely report
results in CLP format, all standard quality a<;surance / quality control procedures are strictly
followed.
Overall, the ECO report wac; poorly written and contained numerous misstatements, omissions,
and significant errors. For example, ECO devoted seven pages of this report to illustrate a
calculational error in a PCB calibration from a SLPH worksheet. This analysis, in fact, was a
rough qualitative confirmation of PCB used as part of a degradation study. These results were for
internal use only, and did not undergo a standard final review by a SLPH chemist. It should have
been obvious to ECO's reviewer that these calculations were not used in the final results. The
ECO narrative and comments regarding this particular analysis are therefore totally irrelevant.
Other errors are addressed in Attachment I.
I can understand the difficulty that the ECO reviewer must have experienced in trying to interpret
another laboratory's raw data. However, I must point out that no effort was made on the part of
ECO to contact the SLPH to request additional information, to ask for an explanation, or to
request help in interpreting any of the raw data or quality control measures. Several statements
regarding missing quality control data were made throughout the report. The ECO reviewer
apparently failed to recognize, or chose to ignore, the many quality assurance / quality control
measures that were apparent in the raw data. For these reasons, I question ECO's sincerity in
performing an accurate and impartial evaluation.
The SLPH has been in the business of environmental analysis for 90 years. It has been continually
certified by the USEPA since the inception of the certification program in 1978. The latest EPA
on-site evaluation (performed in May 1994) included a review of all personnel, equipment,
analytical methods, records, and quality control procedures. No deficiencies were found. The
attack on the credibility of this laboratory by the ECO report is totally unfounded.
In appendix A, I have responded to many of the errors, misstatements, and omissions that were
contained in the ECO report which are relative to work performed at the SLPH. Please contact
me at 3-7308 if you need additional information or have questions.
A TTACIII\·1ENT 1
Response to errors, misstatements, and omissions in the ECO Final Sample Analysis Report of
the Warren County PCB Landfill (February 1995).
Section 6.0 Metals Analysis.
Page 11. Table titled DETECTION LEVELS should be titled LOWEST REPORTING
VALUES.
Page 11. Since some barium was found in the soil samples and TCLP extracts, inclusion of a
detection limit is not particularly relevant.
Page 11. The report stated that "mercury detection limits differ by greater than I OX,
indicating an error." The report, however, failed to take into account the dilution
factor of 20X prior to digestion and analysis. There was no error in the mercury
analysis.
Page 1 l. Holding times for samples (from Field Collection to TCLP extraction) are 28 days
for mercury and 180 days for other metals.
Page 12. Response to the second paragraph under the heading Calibration. Calibration of
the atomic absorption spectrophotometer for graphite furnace analyses is
accomplished using a blank, two standards, and checking a third standard (at the
less than reporting value concentration). A quality control standard is then
analyzed along with a reagent blank (unspiked) and a fortified blank (spiked).
Samples are analyzed only if these values are within acceptable range.
Page 12.
All samples are tested using methods of additions (spiked recoveries) for the
graphite furnace metals. Quality control samples are checked initially, every 20
samples, and at the end of the run.
Calibration of the inductively coupled plasma spectrophotometer utilizes a blank
and one standard. A quality control standard is analyzed along with blanks. If the
results are within acceptable limits, the samples are analyzed. Quality control
samples are checked initially, every 20 samples, and at the end of the run. Ten
percent of samples are analyzed as duplicates or spikes.
On both instruments, calibration is performed according to the instrument
manufacturer's specifications. These procedures have met EPA's approval a<;
indicated by the many satisfactory site visits and examinations of laboratory data
and procedures.
Concentrations of standards were mostly above the sample concentrations. Most
sample data was reported as less than values.
..
Section 7.0 Volatile Organics
Page 17. Response to paragraph titled Calibration. For the record. the gas chromatograph
mac;s spectrometers are tuned, and initial and continuing calibrations performed
with external standards. An internal standard (bromochloromethane, 40 ppb) is
used with every sample. Field blanks, and laboratory blanks are also analyzed.
Page 19. Table 2 omitted 48 ppb 1,4 dichlorobenzene reported by the SLPH for sample WL
002 LC.
Section 8.0 Semi-Volatile Organics
Page 20. Calibration. For the record, three recovery checks were made on each sample.
Also, each sample contained an internal standard ( d-10 anthracene ).
Page 23. Titled PCB Calibration Error (also includes Appendix A, Figures 1-5). This
example was addressed in the cover letter. This calibration data was not used in
any final results.
Page 21. Table 3 is incomplete. Values for 1,3-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene
for sample WL 002 LC should be followed by the letter "k" (indicates amount
present is less than stated value). Also sample WL 004 BL that contained 6333
ppb phthalate, also contained 22000 ppb dihutylphthalate. This contamination
probably occurred during the sampling procedure.
Page 25. Table 4. Sample WL 004 BL also contained .0042 ppm PCB 1260. Samples WL
028 SS which contained 1.45 ppm PCB 1260 is erroneously listed in the table as
PCB 1248. Similarly, sample WL 029 SS, which contained 0.22 ppm PCB 1260
erroneously appears in the table as PCB 1248. The units of the table are in Parts
Per Million (ppm) not Parts Per Billion (ppb).
March 9, 1995
Sharron E. Rogers
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
401 Obertin Road, Suite~e05 i5o
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Ms. Rogers:
In reviewing the Joint Warren County and State PCB Landfill Working Group Final Sample
Analysis Report prepared by ECO, I found several areas of concern. Those concerns
involve lack of specificity in reporting the analytical methods used, inconsistent sample IDs,
errors made in changing the reporting units for the summary table, disparity in the report
units for the water samples, and evaluation of holding times for dioxin samples.
The ECO report does not specifically state which method was used by either laboratory
performing the dioxin analyses. I have reviewed the original reports issued by Triangle
laboratories, and know that that work utilized SW-846 Method 8290. I do not know what
method was used by Pace. The use of different methods could make the data from two
labs difficult to compare.
The sample IDs listed in the sampling locations section of the ECO report do not match the
sample IDs received by Triangle. Triangle received the following samples: WL-001-GW,
WL-002-GW, WL-003-GW, WL-004-GW, WL-002-LC, WL-001-LE and WL-002-LE. The
last two samples listed (WL-001-LE and WL-002-LE) are not included in the sampling
location section of the ECO report; however, that section of the report lists two other sample
IDs (WL-005-GW and WL-001-LC) which were not received by Triangle. I do not know if
these two sets of I Os are related in any manner.
A serious error was made in converting the Triangle data for sample WL-002-LC to parts
per quadrillion (ppq) for the ECO report. The units in the original Triangle report for this
sample were parts per trillion. The conversion for the ECO report treated this data as
though it had been reported in parts per thousand. That error resulted in a 1 million fold
error. The data for sample WL-002-LC (analyzed by Triangle) and IC-002-LC (analyzed by
Pace) actually compare reasonably well when evaluated property (see attached comparison
table). The units for the water samples were property presented and the data in the ECO
report matches the original reports issued by Triangle. However, sample WL-001-SW in
the ECO report is actually sample WL-001-GW in the original Triangle report.
The data for the water samples which were analyzed by both labs cannot be compared
because of the disparity in the report units. While data in the parts per quadrillion range
was reported by Triangle, the Pace data was reported in parts per billion and no reportable
levels were found. I was unable to determine if the same analytical method was used by
both labs.
Environmental Division
801 Capitola Drive P.O. Box 13485
Durham, NC 27713-4411 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3485
919-544-5729 Fax# [phone]
With regard to the comment on holding times for the dioxin samples, the waste sample WL-
002-LC was extracted twice by Triangle-8/16/94 and 8/26/94. Both extractions were within
the thirty (30) day holding time specified in Method 8290. The results for the two analyses
are very reproducible. Only data from the second extraction was reported because of slight
contamination in the blank for the first extract.
On a positive note, the internal and surrogate standards in the original Triangle data were
well within the control limits and I did not find anything in that data which indicated a
problem. The samples did exhibit a quantitative interference affecting the pentas, but that
fact was duely noted in the case narrative and the affected data was flagged.
If additional information is needed or I can be of further assistance, please call me at
(919) 544--2i729. o=ra9
Sincerely,
4/~~~
Patty L. Ragsdale
Quality Assurance Manager
Comparison of Triangle and Pace data for
duplicate "wet landfill contents" sample
WL-002-LC IC-003-LC % Relative
ppt ppb Difference
2378-TCDD 0.0%
12378-PeCDD 0.0%
123478-HxCDD 0.0%
123678-HxCDD 0.0%
123789-HxCDD 0.0%
1234678-HpCDD 28.1 200.0%
12346789-OCDD 1970 0.3237 143.5%
0.0%
2379-TCDF 80.8 0.1133 -33.5%
12378-PeCDF 25.1 0.0329 -26.9%
23478-PeCDF 73.8 0.1188 -46.7%
1234 78-HxCDF 802 4.7059 -141 .8%
123678-HxCDF 78.7 0.5958 -153.3%
234678-HxCDF 66.7 0.3657 -138.3%
123789-HxCDF 55.8 200.0%
1234678-HpCDF 701 3.0825 -125.9%
1234 789-HpCDF 669 200.0%
12346789-OCDD 4720 14.435 -101 .4%
FROM: Phil Albro, 75452, 1665
TO: Yves Tondeur, 74552,1350
DATE: 3/06/1995 10:35 AM
Re: Chapter 11 Comments
(1) Hydrophobic adsorption occurs in the presence of water _only_, and is _not_ synonymous
with 'lipophilicity', which doesn't require water (p.31 ).
(2) Lipophilicity is not involved in binding of PCBs or Dioxins to soil. Soil is not lipid. Binding
to soil itself involves things like salt formation, chelation, bridging; none of these occur with
PCBs or Dioxins. The main force would be hydrogen bonding. There is a big difference
between binding to _sediment_ and binding to soiL The former would depend on hydrophobic
bonding and hydrogen bonding primarily, while binding to soil will involve _primarily_ binding
to the humic components.
(3) pp.33~34: The transport of PCBs and dioxins/furans in groundwater is associated to an
insignificant extent with solubility in the water -this aspect of the discussion is almost
irrelevant. Transport in groundwater involves binding of PCBs and dioxins/furans to humic
and fulvic materials, which are fairly water soluble. The binding involves hydrogen bonding to
some extent, but also charge transfer complex formation to the high percentage of aromatic
rings in the humic/fulvic materials. Both PCBs and dioxin/furans can bind strongly, such that
they move with the dissolved humiclfulvic materials. This binding can be strong enough that
passing ground water through C 18-SPE cartridges/will not break it. The strength of such
binding depends on the exact isomer/congener involved for all three classes, and there is
class overlap. This is not simply theoretical information -it has been studied (mainly at UNC
SPH Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering.)
Post.it" Fax Note 7671
To .5°1tA/l.fl.oµ it}~€ll.$ From
CoJDept. Co.
Phone# f'hOne#
Fax# Fax#
10 'd E611E6~6161 'ON Xij~ ON Ill
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT
1·11e Schnol of J>ubl!c Health
llepartrnent M
Envlron,neni-.1 Scier\Ot'~ a11d h11gineeri11s
CHAPEL HILL
23 March 1995
Ms. Sharron E. Rogers
Solid Waste Management. Division
NC Department <>f Environnumt, Health
and Natural Resources
401 Oberlin R.00.d1 Suite 150
PO Dox 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Ms. Rogers:
'rhe \Jnlver.lt)' of Nnrth Carolina at Cha,-el Hill
CIIN 74()(), Rt>-~e'"'" llnll
Ch111>el Hill, N.C. 27S99-7400
Ph,,11,,, (OHi) 066-264~
~'AX , (ilHI) ilGG-7141
J~-~1 h.ii: un,-:,:l,n1G.g,l l:,hll.()lt.. unr. .odu
I h1we reviewed the February 1995 ECO report entitled: "Joint Warren County and State
PCI3 Landfill Working Group, Final Sample Analysis Report." The purpose of this Jett.er
iis tu brioHy summariz.e my opinionR regarding this report.
I believe that irnrnffident 8c.:ientific ovideuce is present,ed to support mRny of the conclusions
nrnde in this report, t.herefore J cA.nnot support the suggested action to begin full-sea.le pilot
tei:iting of hasc-cato.lyze<l decomposition immediately. Rather, it should be demonstrated
through resampling and analy8is that dioxin and furan levels are elevated down-grndient
of the prm;urned source. This will require sufficient up-grndicnt u.nd down-gradient testing,
with appropriate quality assurance/quality control, to prove with high statistical certainty
that (1) elevated levels of the contaminants in question indeed exist; and (2) that these
levels are elevated because of releases from the presumed 1,011rce. ThiR will rc~quirc a
substantial a.mount of a<l<litionnl 8ampling and analysis. This is especially important. in
this case because of the analytical difiicult.ies and la.ck of background data available at the
detection limits in question for these compounds.
I would be please to clarify opinions offcrnd in this letter
s~d /4-tffe'-
Cass T. Miller
Professor
DEHNR I ENV I R. EPI. TEL:[phone]
Stote of Nortll Carollno
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Epldemlology
Jomes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
Max 23, 95
March 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: William L. Meyer, Director
Division of Solid Waste Management
TlmOUGH; John I. Freeman, D.V.M., M.P.H. I Ch
Environmental Epidemiology Section
FROM: Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D., Toxicologist
Environmental Epidemiology Section
SUBJECT; Response to ECO Final Sample Analysis
10 :18 No.001 P .01
~ff~ "Tl ,,
~ ::r
"' g
c;,
"'
....'.:l w
C..v
I
w
..(;:
Report 0
I have reviewed the "Final Sample Analysis Report" written by t he
Environmental Compliance.Organization {ECO) for the Joint Warren
.County and stat~ PCB Landfill Working Group (February, 1995).
With the exception of the ·following statement concerning the ECO
review of -the State Laboratory of Public Health (SLPH), I will
confine my comments to the dioxin/furan groundwater data, the
review of which has been .the extent of my involvement at the PCB
landfill site.
I find myself completely in agreement with the response of Roger
McDaniel, the Chief of the Environmental Sciences Section, to the
ECO report. The SLPH has been subjected to a totally
inappropriate attack in this review, Dr. McDaniel's response
addressed very well the specifics of ECO's misstatements. The
SLPH is one of, if .not the best analytical laboratory in North
Carolina. SLPH maintains a level of quality control that is
routinely of the finest caliber, producing analytical reports of
groundwater samples that are consistently reproducible and in
instances where split samples are analyzed at other labs, very
consistent with other lab reports. If the reporting format was
not up to the detailed level that ECO wanted, the quality of the
results wen~ extremely accurate. SLPH is a high---volurne lab t
analyzing well water samples that are instrumental in protecting
the drinking water supplies in North Carolina. As the state's
risk assessor in charge of evaluating both public and private
water supplies, I do not know of a single instance where SLPH has
erred in an analysis.
P.O. Box ?.7687, Rol0lah, North Corollna 27611-7687
& i
A-
l .
D
DEHNR I ENVIR. EPI. TEL:[phone]
Mr. William L. Meyer
Page 2
March 21, 1995.
1 0 : 1 9 t•,j o . 0 0 1 P . 0 2
As I have discussed with the residents in Warr8n County, I find
myself agreeing with the ECO report in identifying dioxins and
fur ans in moni taring wells at the site. ·. The levels in the
samples exceed the laporatory blanks and appear to indicate the
presence of dioxins and furans in these samples. However, the
source of this contamination cannot be scientifically determined
at this time b~c~use inadequate or nbn-existent controls were
utilized at the time the sampling was done. Indeed, part per
quadrillion (ppg} dioxin and furan levels may be ubiquitous in
groundwater. We · s'imply do not have an existing data base for
these compounds at ppg levels. until resampling is done with
proper controls, as we have discussed on several occasions, any
statements .about probable sources for these compounds in
groundwater are hypothetical at best. Therefore, the ECO
statement on page 35. of the report is just their opinion,
completely . unsupported by scientific data •. The statement on page
37 of the report about the rarity of detecting these compounds i n
water · is . also a supposition.. Until a da.ta base exists for ppg
· levels of dioxins and furans, their rarity· in groundwater is not
factually established. The .additive levels of dioxins .and furans
in several monitor well samples exceed EPA 1 s MCL of 30 ppg for
2,3,7,8-TCDD. From a public health staridpolnt, this may pose a
slightly increased lifetime cancer risk if this water was
consume~ over many years. At this time, it is evident that
groundwater from this site may contain dioxins and furans.
Further evidence of. their presence and possible link to a source
can only be determined by sampling this site again with proper
controls. The ECO report completely fails to address this fact,
and their findings of dioxins and furans in groundwater related
to a possible source (the landfill) is a scientifically-invalid
statement. Because the groundwater presence of dioxins and
furans appears to be the only public health concern outside the
landfill at this time, the ECO report should have supported an
attempt to acquire reliable, scientific data on the groundwater ,
with proper control samples. Regrettably, they failed to do so.
KR:td
., '
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB
LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL. SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
E C 0
REPORT CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY
2.0 CASE NARRATIVE
3.0 SAMPLING PARAMETERS
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
4.1 State Sample Collection
4.2 Split Sample Locations
5.0 FIELD CHANGES TO SAMPLING PLAN
6.0 METALS ANALYSIS
6.1 Summary
6.2 NC State Laboratory Analysis
6.3 Split Sample Analysis
7.0 VOLATILE ORGANICS
7.1 Summary
8.0 SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
8.1 Summary
9.0 PESTICIDES/PCBs
9.1 Summary
10.0 PCDD/PCDFs
10.1 Summary
11.0 DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO SAMPLE RESULTS
11.1 Relative Solubilities of PCDD vs. PCBs
11 .1.1 Properties of PCBs
11 .1.2 Properties of Dioxins
11 .1.3 Transport and fate in water systems
11.2 Evaluating PCDD/PCDF Concentrations
12.0 SCIENCE ADVISOR OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND APPENDICES
TABLES
TABLE 1-COMPILATION OF METALS AND EXTRACTABLE
DETECTIONS
TABLE 2-COMPILATIONS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
DETECTIONS
TABLE 3 -COMPILATION OF SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC
DETECTIONS
TABLE 4-COMPILATION OF PCB DETECTIONS
TABLE 5-COMPILATION OF PCDD/PCDF DETECTIONS
TABLE 6-TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE FACTORS (TEFs)
FIGURES
FIGURE 1-WATER SOLUBILITY OF PCDD/PCDF/PCBs
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -FIGURES 1 -5
PCB CALIBRATION EXHIBITS
APPENDIX B -WORKSHEETS -
.·
1.0 SUMMARY
This report is a presentation of validated data resulting from a joint sampling effort
completed at the Warren county PCB Landfill in July, 1994. The data reported
reflect results from samples collected by the North Carolina Division of Solid
Waste, and splits of approximately twenty percent (20%) of all samples collected
which were handled by ECO, an independent contractor working on behalf of the
Joint State and Warren County PCB Landfill Working Group.
2.0 CASE NARRATIVE
Pursuant to a request from the Working Group, ECO participated in a field
sampling event at the PCB landfill located in Warren County on July 27 and 28,
1994. ECO staff were on-site during all field activities, and video taped and/or
photographed random sample collections and recorded field notes regarding all
split sample collections. Sample collection, preservation and handling by
NCDEHNR personnel was to have proceeded according to a written Quality
Assurance Plan, and the pre-approved Sampling Plan. ECO has not received }
~ ? ..
information from the state indicating significant deviation from sample collection ~ • ~ ~
·d1· ~~ ~-gmemes. -~~
~~ :/4. ~~~,
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND SI'ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
In addition, ECO received sample splits from pre-selected sample locations. These
splits were delivered directly to ECO staff, immediately cooled and packed as per
protocol, and maintained under constant surveillance by ECO staff until
relinquished to the overnight courier service for shipment to the laboratory.
The majority of samples were analyzed by the State laboratory in Raleigh, North
Carolina, with PCB and PCDD/PCDF samples analyzed by
Triangle Laboratories Incorporated (TLI). All split samples were analyzed by
independent, out of state facilities with State of North Carolina and EPA
certification.
Analytical results from the State laboratory and TLI were reported to ECO along
with requested QA/QC documentation. It was represented to the Joint Working
Group and ECO that all available QA/QC documentation regarding the full sample
set had been copied to ECO for analysis and review.
Analytical results for split samples were reported directly to ECO. A duplicate
data package, containing all reporting sheets, and raw and QA/QC data was sent to
the North Carolina Division of Solid Waste directly from the laboratory.
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
3.0 SAMPLING PARAMETERS
As agreed to by the Working Group, all splits collected ( except as noted in
Section 5.0 -Field Changes) were analyzed for a broad range of contaminants
including Volatiles, Semi-Volatiles, Metals, BNAs, Pesticides, PCBs, PCDD and
PCDFs (Dioxins and Furans), as well as for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure or TCLP which determines whether a sample may be classified as a
regulatory hazardous waste.
All analyses were performed using EPA approved methodologies and protocols in
accordance with Standard Methods 17th Edition; the Solid Waste Manual S W-846
and /or 40 CFR part 136 as follows :
ANALYTE
Volatile Organics
Pesticides
BNAs
PCBs
PCDD/PCDFs
METHOD
8240
8141
8270
8081
8280
E NV1RONMEN1 AL
C OMPLLA.NCE
0 RGANIZATrON
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
It was agreed that all laboratories employed in the analysis of samples from the
PCB landfill would perform EPA CLP equivalent analytical work. However, the ~ C L ~ ~ ,7
parameters tested, methodology and data validation package submitted from the
NC State Laboratory (NCSL) failed to meet even minimal CLP criteria, with
significant deficits to include a truncated parameters list and failure to report even
basic QN QC data. The data generated by NCSL was unsupported by quality
control information and is not usable to characterize the samples. ECO data
validaters consider it to be suitable at best only as "estimated" quantitations.
E NVJRONMENT AL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZ A. T!ON
-
•·
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
4.1 -State Sample Collection
The following samples were collected in the noted media at the indicated
locations at the Warren County PCB Landfill:
SAMPLE SAMPLE
LOCATION NUMBER
Landfill air vent WL-001-AR
WL-006-SS
Surface soil near through
air vent* WL-0015-SS
Duplicate of one
of above samples WL-026-SS
WL-016-SS
Surface soil near through
pump house WL-025-SS
Duplicate of one
of above samples WL-027-SS
Seep on slope* WL-005-SS
Monitoring well WL-001-GW
#1
Monitoring WL-002-GW
well #2 *
SAMPLE MEDIA ANALYSES
arr
soil
soil
_.,._/
soil
soil
soil
water
water
ORDERED
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
.. JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
SAMPLE SAMPLE
LOCATION NUMBER
Monitoring well WL-003-GW
#3
Monitoring WL-004-GW
well #4 *
Duplicate of
WL-004-GW WL-005-GW
Landfill air vent * WL-001-LC
landfill air vent * WL-002-LC
'
Richneck creek,
upstream WL-001-SW
Richneck creek,
upstream WL-001-SD
Richneck creek,
downstream WL-002-SW
Richneck creek,
downstream * WL-002-SD
Unnamed
Tributary,
upstream WL-003-SW
SAMPLE MEDIA ANALYSES
water
water
water
dry
landfill contents
wet landfill
contents
surface water
sediment
surface water
sediment
surface water
ORDERED
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/
PEST/HERB/
PCB/INORG/
DIOXIN
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFllL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE MEDIA ANALYSES
LOCATION NUMBER
Unnamed
Tributary,
upstream WL-003-SD sediment
Unnamed
Tributary,
downstream WL-004-SW surface water
Unnamed
Tributary,
upstream WL-004-SD sediment
Duplicate of
WL-004-SW WL-005-SW surface water
Duplicate Of
WL-004-SD WL-005-SD sediment
DENOTES SAMPLE SPLIT WITH ECO FOR
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS
ORDERED
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
E NVIRONMENT A I
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANlZA TION
~wL-uD7'--Sd)~
Al%2-k/L.-OO'_J-Sc[) ?
JOINT WARREN COUN'IT AND STATE PCB LANDFlll. WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
4.2 -Split Sample Locations
The following samples were split with ECO for analysis at an independent CLP
laboratory:
SAMPLE
LOCATION
Surface soil near
air vent
Surface soil from
seep
Monitoring
well # 2
Monitoring
well #4
Dry landfill
contents
Duplicate dry
landfill contents
Wet landfill
contents
Richneck creek,
downstream
sediment
Sediment basin
outlet ravine
Filter system inlet
SAMPLE
NUMBER
IC-001-SS
IC-002-SS
IC-001-GW
IC-002-GW
IC-001-LC
IC-002-LC
IC-003-LC
IC-001-SED
IC-003-SS
IC-001 -LCH
ANALYSES ORDERED
VOC/SVOC/PES T /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
INORG/DIOXIN
VOC/S VOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST/HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
INORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/S VOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/S VOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
INORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
VOC/SVOC/PEST /HERB/PCB/
!NORG/DIOXIN
E NVIRONt-.1ENT Al
C OM PLIANC'E
0 RGANIZA TION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
5.0 FIELD CHANGES TO SAMPLING PLAN
Several changes to originally planned sampling order were necessitated by field
conditions. The following changes/additions to the scheduled sampling effort
were made in the field:
ECO SAMPLE SAMPLE LOCATION FIELD CHANGES
NUMBER
IC -001-LC dry landfill contents only enough dry material
recovered for VOC and PCB
analysis
IC-002 -LC duplicate dry landfill sample duplicate of wet landfill
contents contents because not
enough dry material recovered for
analysis
IC -003 -GW Limmer well added sample -PCB analysis only
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
6.0 METALS ANALYSIS
6.1 -Swnmary
Metals results are swnmarized in Table 1. Blanks and non-listed analytes were
non-detects. Analytical detection limits vary between the laboratories and the
samples were low concentration. Detections were inconsistent. The NC State
Laboratory data does not show strong adherence to minimal QC requirements and
those results are therefore estimated. Because concentrations are low, no impact
on the detection of risk to hwnan health and the environment is expected because ..e--(
the samples are below TCLP limits. If MCLs for compliance with SDW A are the ,.,.-S ct} WA ?
limits, a reevaluation of the data quality is necessary.
6.2 -NC State Laboratory Results
Five soil and ten water samples were sent for analysis of total and (TCLP)
leachable hazardous metals.
E NVIRONMENTAl
C OMPLlANCE
0 RGA't\'IZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIIL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
DETECTION LEVELS:
METAL SOIL (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) WATER (mg/L)
Arsenic 2.0 o.oi 0.01
Barium ? ? 0.01
Cadmium 9.8 0.05 0.002
Chromium 9.8 0.05 0.01
Lead 20 0.1 0.005
Mercwy 0.09 0.01 0.0005
Selenium 1.0 .005 0.005
Silver 9.8 .05 0.05
The sample size and dilution used to determine the leachable metals by the TCLP
(EPA Method 1311) should result in a 200 X difference between the two analyses.
No where in the NC State Laboratory report is the detection limit for barium given.
Mercwy detection limits differ by greater than lOX, indicating an error.
\ Holding Times: Although water holding times are often applied, there are no
required holding times for soil samples. Water holding times are 180 day except
for mercwy which is 28 days for properly preserved samples. No holding times
exceeded these limits.
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND SJ'ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Calibration: Proper calibration for samples analyzed by atomic absorption are a
minimum of three standard concentrations and a blank. The standards need to span
the range of the sample concentrations. Calibrations for mercury and silver in
water and mercury and lead in soil appear to have been carefully executed, and
that data appears to be usable.
Calculation algorithms and factors are not given for any results. It is not possible
to verify the connection between raw and final data except through stated
recoveries on control samples. Although laboratory control samples showed good
recovery, the NCSL analytical calibrations were mostly above the samples, and the
remainder of the data must be qualified as estimated.
6.3 -Split Sample Analysis
Six soil and three water samples were sent to ETC, an independently contracted
laboratory, for analysis of total and leachable (TCLP) metals.
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
?
.?~J~-~
~ ~+~/~ r,1...-f-,
,· . . .
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
DETECTION LEVELS:
METAL SOIL (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) WATER(mg/L)
Arsenic 12.5 0.050 0.050
Barium 0.20 0.002 0.002
Cadmium 1.0 0.004 0.004
Chromium 3.50 0.007 0.007
Lead 11.3 0.045 0.045
Mercwy 0.020 0.001 0.007
Selenium 18.8 0.075 0.075
Silver 1.75 0.007 0.007
Detection limits for most elements for the two methods are slightly different from
the 200X expected factor. Chromium and mercwy are the most extreme. No
significant impact on data quality is evident, except that it makes comparison of
results from the two laboratories for low concentration samples unreliable. TCLP
detection limits for the extract are also different, but do not affect the detection of
samples that fail the regulatory limits.
Holding Time: No holding time problems occurred.
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFJU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Calibration: The ETC laboratory QC report maintains that calibrations met all
criteria. No calibration results or criteria are given to verify this. Laboratory
control samples (method blank, matrix spike and duplicate) are all presented as
within limits. The limits given are appropriate for the analytical method.
Recoveries of spiked amounts indicate accurate analyses for the samples.
The method of cal1/ulation of the duplicate percent difference is unclear. Because
a different spike amount is reported in each duplicate, the standard calculation
does not work. Attempts to check the calculation and reproduce the presented
result were unsuccessful.
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 SAMPLE# WL 001 LE IC 001 LCH WL 002 LE WL 002 BL WL 003 BL WL 004 BL WL 002 GW IC 001 GW WL 003 GW WL 004 GW IC 002 GW WL 005 GW WL 002 LC IC 002 LC IC 003 LC WL 002 SD IC 001 SED WL 001 SS IC 003 SS WL 005 SS · WL 006 SS IC 001 SS IC 002 SS LAB NCSL ETC NCSL NCSL NCSL NCSL NCSL NCSL ETC NCSL NCSL ETC NCSL NCSL ETC ETC NCSL ETC NCSL ETC NCSL NCSL ETC ETC I ' ' ' :t t '. t ' :, t if r r. ~ II -~ !lo ;:-As 2 2 Ba 0.23 0.224/0.21 6 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.034/0.17 6 0.08 0.045/0.15 8 0.08 23/0.42 28.8/0.385 26.7/0.335 16/0.38 12.3/0.419 88/0.46 122/0.420 94/0.58 72/0.70 81.4/0.768 136/0.519 l\ \t t ~ '-J ... -:,.... • -....I ~ Cr /0.010 I 0.008 12 15.6/0.170 17/0.167 14.7/0.008 12 23.7 12 16 26.7 24.4 Hg Pb 0.041 35/0.12 0.026 61.8/0.170 0.025 46.9/0.167 /0. 048 0.041 0.04 26.4 0.018 E NVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 RGANIZATION ITS LISTED PPM) Se 1 1.4 /
'ARREN COUNIT AND SI'ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
fMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
RY 1995
VOLATILE ORGANICS
:esults for volatile organic constituents are summarized in Table 2. Only
Lble detections are listed. The modifier ''j" indicates that a detectable
for the target su~stance is_re~y identifiable, b~t ~e q~ti~ is-below }J ~~ ~
st standard used m the calibrabon, and the quailbtabon 1s esmnated. The ~ ~ ~~,~.
"b" indicates some presence in the laboratory processing blank of the ::::;; :::::: ~ ~~
constituent. The determination of whether blank contamination is ~ ~~ (~---1
a "detection" in environmental samples is controlled by EPA Functional ~ -rr4"
~s. The guidelines provide that for common laboratory solvents such as --~~--------~---
methylene chloride and 2-butanone, the level of concern for original
;oncentrations must meet or exceed a factor often. For all other blank
ants, the threshold level of concern is raised by a factor of 5 or greater.
unary
1 samples were sent to the NC State laboratory for analysis of target
d list (TCL) volatile organic substances. The target compound list for the
tf volatile organics contains about 33 compounds. The raw data analyte
1y NC State laboratory contains only 22 compounds (and the report sheet
:ompounds that are not analyzed for on the raw data). The analyte list
TC had 18 more compounds than the TCL. NC State laboratory did not
. criteria for the waste characterization. Although the presence of these
mts may be detected in the tentatively identified compound search,
-./ 7 and quantitation do not meet the criteria for an adequate characterization. -~.,,
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I . JOINT WARREN COUNIY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Detection limits for CLP work are the contract required quantitation limits of the
EPA Statement Of Work. For the TCL these are 10 ppb for all compounds. NC
State Laborat01y in general, met or exceeded these on its report sheet, but because
the report sheet does not correlate with the raw data sheet, actual limits are
indeterminate. ETC met or exceeded these limits for all except for some ketones
and methylene chloride. No significant levels of these were detected by either
laboratory. No impact on data quality for detection levels are likely. Of greatest
note is the shortened analytes list.
Holding Time: The maximum holding times for analysis of volatile organics in
properly preserved ( acidified to Ph<2, and held at 4 deg. C) waters is 14 days. Soil
samples for volatiles should meet the same criteria, although none is mandated. No
exceedances were noted for VOA by either laboratory.
Calibration: No GC-MS tuning or initial calibration data was submitted by NC
State laboratory to meet CLP criteria. Continuing calibration data was not
supplied. No indication of what standards were used, or whether QC criteria was
met was submitted. No laboratory quality control sample data for method blanks,
spikes, duplicates, laboratory check samples or surrogate recoveries were included.
Data must be considered as unsupported and unusable.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDF1U WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 The data package submitted by the independent laboratory, ETC contained QC data sufficient to assess data usability. Initial and continuing calibration was correctly performed and submitted. 12 hour tuning checks met criteria. ' Standardization met all QC criteria. MS/MSD spike recoveries were low for waters} ,V ~~~ for benzene and 1,2-dichloroethene on a sample from another matrix. Surrogate ~ ("~~ j ~ recoveries for samples from the Warren County group within the analytical batch ~~ QC,~~ were all within QC limits indicating accurate identification and quantitation of , ~,? target analytes. TCLP extract analysis was done on samples sent to ETC. Three samples identified PCE at the detection level in the extracts. The three samples (IC 001 LCH, IC 001 GW, IC 001 GW) did not have detectable levels in the original samples. It is likely that these samples were contaminated in the laboratory. j:;:;~~~'?
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 TABLE 2 -COMPILATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC DETECTIONS SAMPLE# VOA LAB MethCl Cloro 2-Butanone form WL 001 LE NCSL IC 001 LCH ETC WL 002 LE NCSL WL 002 BL NCSL 2jb WL 003 BL NCSL 15jb 2j WL 004 BL NCSL 14 2j WL 001 GW NCSL WL 002 GW NCSL IC 001 GW ETC WL 003 GW NCSL WL 004 GW NCSL IC 002 GW ETC WL 005 GW NCSL WL 002 LC NCSL 8j IC 002 LC ETC IC 003 LC ETC WL 002 SD NCSL Bjb IC 001 SEO ETC WL 001 SS NCSL IC 003 SS ETC WL 005 SS NCSL Sjb WL 006 SS NCSL Bjb IC 001 SS ETC IC 002 SS ETC WL 001 LC NCSL IC 001 LC ETC WL 001 BL NCSL 3jb ALL UNITS LISTED JN PPB Acetone Bnz ClBnz 1,2di ClBnz 2j 2.58j 2j 60 82.7j 252 132 62 4j 76.3j 1. 98j 108 10.6 E NVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 RGANIZATION 1,3di 1,4di ClBnz ClBnz 23.9 420 12.3 211 23 25.3 63.1 PCE Toluene Xyl lj 2j /0.005 4. 76j /0.005 /0.005 1. 89j 4.08j
. .
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
8.0 SEMI-VO LA TILE ORGANICS
8.1 -Summary
Fourteen samples were sent to NC State laboratory for semi-volatile analysis. Nine
of the samples were also duplicated and sent to ETC for analysis of total and
extractable semi-volatiles. Detections are summarized in Table 3.
Holding Time: Method holding time for semi-volatile analyses require
completion of extraction within seven days of collection for water samples ( 14
days for non-aqueous) and analysis within 40 days of extraction. Both NC State
laboratory and ETC completed extraction and analysis within these criteria.
Calibration: The analytical data for GC-MS analysis of semi-volatile organics by
NC State laboratory is unsupported with QC information. The data can not be
characterized as to accuracy or precision.
ETC data reports were supported with QC results including tuning checks,
calibrations, method blanks, MS/MSD results, and surrogate recoveries.
Calibrations were correctly done. Some low surrogate recoveries indicate that
quantitation of semi-volatiles for samples IC 002 LC and IC 003 LC are likely
greater than reported. TCLP acid extractables might have been greater than
reported based on some low surrogate recovery. However, no level of acid
extractables were present in the original material (IC 001 SED) and no impact on
data usability is indicated.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
-------------------------------~-------~~----------------JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 TABLE 3 -COMPILATION OF SEMI-VO LA TILE ORGANIC DETECTIONS SAMPLE# LAB WL 001 LE NCSL IC 001 LCH ETC WL 002 LE NCSL WL 002 BL NCSL WL 003 BL NCSL WL 004 BL NCSL WL 001 GW NCSL WL 002 GW NCSL IC 001 GW ETC WL 003 GW NCSL WL 004 GW NCSL IC 002 GW ETC WL 005 GW NCSL WL 002 LC NCSL IC 002 LC ETC IC 003 LC ETC WL 002 SD NCSL IC 001 SEO ETC WL 001 SS NCSL IC 003 SS ETC WL 005 SS NCSL WL 006 SS NCSL IC 001 SS ETC IC 002 SS ETC ALL UNITS LISTED JN PPB 1,3diC1Bnz 330 l,4diC1Bnz Phth 330 474 388 E NVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 RGANIZATION 6333
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND SJ'ATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 9.0 PESTICIDES /PCBS 9.1 -Summary Fifty-three water and non-aqueous samples were sent to NC State laboratory for analysis. Eleven of these were duplicated and sent to ETC which sent them on to Weston (WST) for analysis of chlorinated pesticides and PCBs. Detections are ', C summarized in Table 4. In addition to the chlorinated pesticides, ETC also }~ ~ ~ analyzed for TCLP extractable chlorinated and total and extractable herbicides and phosphorus compounds. No detections of any pesticides were found, only PCBs. Holding Times: As noted previously, all holding times were reported as met for water and non-aqueous extractions and analyses by all laboratories. / Calibrations: NC State laboratory supplied as supporting QC documentation with the results, the GC chromatograms. There appears to be data indicating calibration and accurate quantitation. The format of the documentation is not summarized in such a manner as to track the calibration algorithm. Some supplied calculations show errors in quantitation. Results must be considered estimated, and not conclusive of analysis.
JOINT WARREN COUNFY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
ETC and WST documentation met all criteria for support of calibration and
quantitation. Data included method blanks, initial and continuing calibrations,
laboratory control samples, and MS/MSD results. Where duplicate samples
contained PCBs (WL 001 LC and WL 002 LC) NC State laboratory results were
about 1/2 those of the independently contracted laboratory.
9 .2 -PCB Calibration Error
A five page set of documents is attached as Appendix A -Figures 1-5 to illustrate
an example of a calibration error problem with the data submitted to support the
analysis of samples from Warren County PCB Landfill (NC), for PCBS by the NC
State laboratory.
Appendix A -Figure 1 is the Gas Chromatograph report sheet showing the
calibration data for a series of three concentrations (300, 1500, 3000) of Aroclor
1260 and the analytical results for six samples.
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I .
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
The columns are headed by a series of retention times ranging from 45.733 to
59 .50 with a final column labeled "T". The number in each column is the area of a
compound peak exiting the GC column at that time from resolution/separation of
the 1500 ng/mL standard mixture of PCB compounds found in Aroclor 1260. The
chromatogram itself is shown as Appendix A-Figure 2, and in greater detail in
Appendix A-Figure 3, with each peak marked at the exit time. Because of slight
differences in samples, the key peaks may not exit exactly at the expected time.
For example the first two calibration peaks exited about 0-017 minutes after the
expected time 47.750 versus 47.733 minutes. There is a "window" of acceptable
performance that is part of the calibration procedure. This calibration is within
that window, and later peaks exit right on time.
Appendix A-Figure 4 is a print out of the retention times and areas and heights of
the individual peaks. The key peaks areas are transferred to the calibration sheet.
The total area of these compounds is summed under "T". The problem occurs
with the 49.667 peak which comes out at +0.017 minutes at 49.683 with an area of
1969183. However the sheet contains the area of 1137724 which is the area of the
peak at 45.750 minutes. This leads to a different total from the listed 10,893,238
to 20,042,929.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT FEBRUARY 1995 TABLE 4-COMPILATION OF PCB DETECTIONS SAMPLE# LAB WL 004 BL NCSL WL 002 LC NCSL IC 002 LC WST IC 003 LC WST IC 001 88 WST IC 002 8S WST WL 003 SS NCSL WL 004 8S NCSL WL 028 8S NCSL WL 029 SS NCSL WL 001 LC NCSL IC 001 LC WST ALL UNITS LISTED JN PPB 1248 63 60 1.45 0.22 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 RGANIZATION 1260 151.8 303 303 0.008j 0.004i 0.53 1.15 301.4 880
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
10.0 PCDD/PCDFs
10.1 -Summary
Nineteen samples were collected for analysis of dioxin and furan contents. Eight
went to Triangle Laboratories and eleven to PACE. Detections are compiled in
Table 5. It is important in comparing data to note the units. The units ppb and
ppq differ by a factor of 1,000,000. This makes most of the data from the two
laboratories difficult to compare. However, one sample by TLI (WL 001 LC) was
done at the higher DL and confirms the levels found by PACE in other samples.
The presence of dioxins/furans is often ubiquitous. At ppq levels the laboratory
processing is often a source of detectable levels. The "j" and "b" modifiers are as
noted above indicating concentrations below reliable quantitation limits, and the
presence of a an analyte in the method blank. Two of the TLI water method
blanks are included in the table adjacent to relative TLI samples to show the
contribution of laboratory contamination. Levels in the samples exceed blank
levels well in excess of the 5X factor elevation to account for blank contribution.
The samples had significant levels before processing, and if other laboratory
blanks do not show the levels detected here, the source for this contamination may
be the samples themselves which were processed with the blank.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I -..
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Holding Times: No extraction or analysis holding time problems were observed.
The extreme stability of dioxin and furans makes minor delays negligible. TLI and
PACE exceeded extraction times for some waters by 2-5 days, and for the solid
sample WL-002-LC, TLI exceeded the 14 day limit by 16 days. The data usability
from that analysis may not be equal to the others. This may have caused the lower
concentrations found compared to those from duplicates IC 002 LC and IC 003 LC
analyzed by PACE.
Calibration: Both laboratories supplied CLP quality data packages with QC
documentation supporting accurate tuning and calibrations. QC data included
method blanks and laboratory control samples all reporting recoveries with
acceptable limits.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I .•.
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
TABLE 5-COMPILATION OF PCDD/PCDF DETECTIONS
SAMPLE# LAB UNITS 2378-TCDD
TLIWB TLI PPQ
WL00lLE TLI noa 9.0
IC00lLCH PACE ooh
WL002LE TLI ppq 8.3
IC00lGW PACE ppb
WL002GW TLI OPQ 13.2
WL003GW TLI 000 16.7
WL004GW TLI ppq 10.9
IC002GW PACE nob
WL00lSW TLI OPQ
TLIWB TLI ODO
WL002BL TLI ODO
WL002LC TLI ppq
IC002LC PACE nob
IC003LC PACE ooh
IC00lLC PACE NA
IC00ISED PACE ooh
IC003SS PACE nob
IC00ISS PACE nob
IC002SS PACE ooh
IC003GW PACE NA
12378-
PeCDD
11.1
10.5
20.5
27.9
15.4i
123478-123678-123789-
HxCDD HxCDD HxCDD
3.lj
4.2i 8.8 8.lj
6.2 8.lj 8.lb
19.0 24.7 26.3b
22.7 29.8 31.5b
12.2 16.7 18.2b
10.5 14.2i l 1.6jb
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
TABLE 5-CONTINUED COMPILATION OF PDCC/PCDF DETECTIONS
SAMPLE# LAB UNITS 1234678-
HpCDD
TLIWB TLI PPCI 4.2
WL00lLE TLI DPCI 38.2
IC00lLCH PACE oob
WL002LE TLI PPCI 54.3
IC00lGW PACE oob
WL002GW TLI ppq 134
WL003GW TLI ppq 203
WL004GW TLI PPQ 104j
IC002GW PACE ppb
WL00lSW TLI ppq 82.6b
TLIWB TLI ooa 13.8
WL002BL TLI ppq 13.5b
WL002LC TLI • PPCI 0.028
IC002LC PACE oob
IC003LC PACE oob
IC00lLC PACE NA
IC00lSED PACE oob
IC003SS PACE oob
IC00lSS PACE oob
IC002SS PACE ppb
IC003GW PACE NA
OCDD
12.3
26.3
24.7
606
1050
559
397
30.0j
69.7b
1.970
0.3237
0.2774
1.1889
2.9478
0.5782
2378-12378-23478
TCDF PeCDF PeCDF
3.7J
49.9 13.4b 21.1
56.9 14.lb 17.9
70.4 47.0 43.6
93.1 92.2 79.5
65.3 20.2ib 7.9
58.7 50.4
7.9i
0.079 0.0328 0.0808
0.5214 0.1171 0.4418
0.1133 0.0329 0.1188
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAJv/PLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
TABLE 5-CONTINUED COMPILATION OF PCDD/PCDF DETECTIONS
SAMPLE# LAB UNITS 123478-123678-
HxCDF HxCDF
TLIWB 1LI PPQ 4.0 3.7
WL00lLE 1LI PPQ 31.lb 11.6b
IC00lLCH PACE oob
WL002LE 1LI PPQ 39.6b 11.4b
IC00lGW PACE nob
WL002GW 1LI PPQ 85.1 30.5b
WL003GW 1LI ppq 114 40.lb
WL004GW 1LI PPQ 70.6b 19.9b
IC002GW PACE oob
WL00lSW 1LI ppq 54.5b 18.7ib
1LIWB 1LI ppq 6.3
WL002BL 1LI ppq
WL002LC 1LI ppq 0.753
IC002LC . PACE nob 4.7059 0.5958
IC003LC PACE oob 1.1452 0.1712
IC00lLC PACE NA
IC00lSED PACE oob
IC003SS PACE nob
234678-
HxCDF
7.9
17.lb
21.7b
40.lb
57.8
36.9b
30.3b
16.0j
18.0b
0.0658
0.3657
0.1010
123789-1234678-123478-
HxCDF HoCDF HpCDF
3.9 4.9 4.2j
4.0ib 41.2b 5.7b
5.9b 53.3b
12.0ib 118 14.2b
17.9b 160 21.5jb
7.6ib 99.3
72.6b
9.5.i 11.8
5.6b
0.673 0.628
3.0825
0.8958
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
OCDF
61.1
46.8
115
205
105
66.9
28.8j
12.9ib
4.630
14.435
4.2072
.. JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB UNDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
11.0 DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RELATED TO SAMPLE RESULTS
11.1 -Relative Solubilities of PCDD versus PCBs
11.1.1 -Properties of PCBs
PCBs are extremely stable and persistent environmental contaminants.
PCBs exhibit strong lipophilic affinity. Solubility in water is directly related
to degree of chlorination; i.e., isomers or isomeric mixtures with increasing
chlorination show a decrease in water solubility. PCBs vary from
approximately 12 to 68 % chlorine. The degree of chlorination in PCB
isomeric mixtures may be identified by their designation, e.g., Arochlor
1242 (42% chlorination), Arochlor 1254 (54% chlorination, Arochlor 1260
(60% chlorination). PCBs appear to be slightly less soluble than dioxins
based on 1994 EPA chart graphed as Figure 1. Studies have also indicated
that this strong hydrophobic (i.e. lipophilic) absorption of PCBs onto soil is
a function of organic matter in the soil, and that once absorbed, such
compounds do not readily desorb. Reports indicate that in aquatic
environments, PCBs show a partition coefficient between sediment and
water of approximately 10,000 time more affinity for sediment than water,
although this ratio could be significantly affected by the presence of other
constituents like salt, hydrocarbons ( oil) or other organic chemical
contaminants.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
0.01 0.001 I _J ~ E 0.0001 -+-coo 5 -11-COF c:o -..-PCB 0.00001 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1-4 ~ (;') 0.000001 ~ ~ 3: "-. I 1-l 0.0000001 + 0.00000001 4 6 6 7 B CHLORINE NUMBER COPIED FROM EP A/606/6-88/005Cb June, 1994
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAlvfPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Correspondingly, their behavior in soil absorption should be the rough
inverse of their aqueous solubility; that is, the· more chlorinated the
compound, the greater its affinity to become bound to soil. It also follows
that the more organic in nature the soil is, the more tightly bound the PCBs
become. Compounds exhibiting such properties would not be expected to
readily leach or diffuse in the soil, nor would they be expected to readily
transport through groundwater. Displacement through erosion of
contaminated soil particulates, or sedimentation, is the usual and more
probable mechanism of diffusion. Or, in simple terms, once in place on soil
containing a high level of organic matter, the PCBs would be expected to
remain in the soil rather than readily partitioning and transporting through
groundwater.
11.1.2 -Properties of Dioxins
Like PCBs, the properties of dioxins may be related to the degree of
chlorination of isomeric forms; 75 possible chlorinated isomers of dibenzo-
p-dioxin can be formed. Chemical solubility theory predicts that chlorinated
dioxins will behave similarly to PCBs, i.e., the more highly chlorinated, the
more hydrophobic in character (less water soluble).
E NVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
The greater observed solubility of dioxins in water over-PCBs is related to
several factors occurring in interactions of the respective molecules with
water at the molecular level -chlorinated dioxins are more likely to be
soluble or form azeotropic forms with water because the molecule is e-:,~,,~
slightly more polar than PCB. The dioxin's oxygen atoms and hydrogen n ~ ~ ~ ,
atoms are slightly more susceptible to interaction through van der Waals I ~~~~
forces or weak hydrogen bonding with the water's hydrogens. Information ~~~~p
also suggests that dioxins are not as resistant to desorption from soils as the ~,
PCBs are, and being slightly less lipophilic would be expected to have a
lower partition coeffici_ent than a PCB of corresponding chlorine number
(i.e., more likely to move from soil into water).
11.1.3 -Transport and fate in water systems
Dioxin has been reported in the literature to be a contaminant of Arochlor
1254, and under certain conditions involving partially burned PCBs or the
presence of unreacted chlorophenol contaminants in Arochlor mixtures, it is
not unreasonable to assume dioxin contamination of PCBs. Information
currently available suggests that dioxins show somewhat greater solubility
in water than PCBs. Furthermore, literature indicates that PCBs have a
tendency to strongly absorb to soils with high organic content, are highly
resistant to desorption, and in an aqueous environment show a low
likelihood of partitioning into the aqueous phase from sediments.
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
JOINI' WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
In an environment where the PCB concentration is significantly higher than
the corresponding dioxin concentration, and the PCBs, having a high
affinity for soil and relatively low affinity for water compared to dioxins, it
,·,~ ,,
\:t,,,ii
\ '
·--------------·
is not unreasonable to expect the dioxins to be "forced out" of the soil and J? ~~,c~:0~~
into the aqueous phase. Any PCBs released from the soil into an aqueous ~~.,,.Jvie;;-
phase would be expected to readily reabsorb back into the PCB/soil -= ,.,,,,. ~
conglomerate rather than remain in solution, operating on the "like
dissolves like" principle, which states simply that the PCBs would be more J@. ff /C'~.!6 ~II'~
likely to dissolve in a medium more like the PCBs themselves rather than ~ ~
water. Dioxin, however, would be less likely to readily reabsorb into the ~ ~~,i,,,,~~
PCB/soil mix, and despite its relatively low solubility in water, would be
more likely to be transported through the aqueous medium (groundwater).
Having discounted through this sampling effort any other overwhelming
evidence of possible dioxin sources, including contamination from other
aquifers, dioxin contamination from off-site use of pesticide sources or
laboratory error, release of dioxin from the PCB landfill is the most like~
source for the demonstrated dioxin and furan contamination in on-site
monitoring wells .
..=l ci;:::7ii
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I , .
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
11.2 -Evaluating PCDD/PCDF Concentrations
As demonstrated by Table 5, a number of samples from the Warren County
landfill revealed contamination with various congeners of dioxins and
furans. Although the research on the toxicity of dioxins and furans is
incomplete, EPA has created a method for weighting the relative toxicity of
various forms of dioxin and furan based on the standard of 2378 TCDD.
The weighting scale reports Toxicity Equivalence Factors or TEFs. The
EPA TEF chart is shown at Table 6.
The TEF weighting factors are multiplied against concentrations of the
various dioxins and furans detected in samples. The sum of all the TEFs
for a particular sample is then totaled to yield a TCDD Equivalent (TEQ).
The formula for TEQs is as follows:
TEQs = { C congener X TEF congener }
TEFs as summed into a TEQ are an evaluation tool in judging contaminant
concentrations and relative toxicity.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
It should noted that many of the congeners detected in the Warren County
PCB landfill are given zero value or weight in the TEF table, while other
congeners have weighting values that are a fraction of the 2378 TCDD
value of one, depending on relative observed toxicity. It is important to
factor all weighted congeners into a consideration of whether or not the
contaminant hits in a particular sample are cause for concern.
The detection of dioxins and furans in three groundwater and one surface
water sample from the PCB landfill are of particular concern. As
discussed, dioxins and furans are relatively insoluble in water, although
more soluble in general than the PCBs that are co-located at this site.
Therefore it is rare to detect any dioxin/furan contamination in water.
Additionally, these detections are of concern because the federal Safe
Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is an extremely
minute 30 parts per quadrillion for 2378 TCDD.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I .-· .
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Several of the water samples have 2378 TCDD concentrations that alone
approach the federal standard. When a TEQ is calculated for these
samples, three of the four exceed the 30 ppq benchmark.
SAMPLE NUMBER
WL-002-GW
WL-003-GW
WL-004-GW
WL-001-SW
TEQ
40.211 ppq
71.63 ppq
23.05 ppq
31.53
DENOTES TEQ EXCEEDING MCL FOR 2378 TCDD
It is apparent that the contaminant concentrations detected in the on-site
monitoring wells are at, or above the level deemed safe for human
consumption, and the use of on-site water for drinking, cooking and bathing
would be considered a potential human health risk under EPA risk exposure
criteria.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFIU WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
Of additional concern is the potential impact of this contamination on
environmental receptors such as wildlife and fish, and the probability that
such contaminations will create further human exposure through the food
chain. A recent EPA risk assessment cited in the EPA Dioxin Fact Sheet
has found that the amount of 23 78 TCD D in surface waters that would be
associated with one additional cancer in a population of 100,000 could be
as low as O .13 parts per quadrillion based on the consumption of
contaminated water or fish.
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
I
f
....
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
TABLE 6-TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE FACTORS (TEFs)
COMPOUND
Mono-,Di-, and Tri-DDs
2,3,7,8 -TCDD
OtherTCDDs
2,3,7,8 -PeCDD
Other PeCDDs
2,3,7,8 -HxCDD
Other HxCDDs
2,3,7,8 -HpCDD
Other HpCDDs
OCDD
Mono-, Di-, and Tri CDFs
2,3,7,8-TCDF
OtherTCDFs
1,2,3,7,8 -PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Other PeCDFs
2,3,7,8 -HxCDF
Other HxCDFs
2,3,7,8-HpCDF
Other HpCDFs
OCDF
TEF
0
0
0.5
0
0.1
0
0.01
0
0.001
0
0.1
0
0.05
0.5
0
0.1
0
0.01
0
0.001
ENVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
12.0 SCIENCE ADVISOR OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
• Dioxins and Furans are demonstrated co-contaminants of PCBs
• Although neither PCDD/PCDF or PCB are extremely soluble in water,
PCDD/PCDF appear to be slightly more soluble than PCBs with
their strong soil binding tendency
• Dioxins and furans were detected in the groundwater monitoring wells located
on the site
• Dioxins and furans in the groundwater cannot be attributed to background
contamination due to the absence of any other chlorinated contaminants in
water and soil samples
• Contamination of the samples during handling in the field and laboratory does
not account for the concentrations detected in the water samples when
evaluated according to EPA criteria
• The TCDD Equivalents (TEQs) for several water samples exceed the federal
standard for safe drinking water which is set at 30 parts per quadrillion
• In the absence of other likely sources of chlorinated contamination, it is likely
that the PCB landfill is the source for the dioxin and furan contamination noted
at the site
• This site is appropriate for remediation based on these sampling results and the
presence in the landfill of one million plus gallons of unintended water that
could adversely impact the containment safeguards engineered into the design
of the facility
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
JOINT WARREN COUNTY AND STATE PCB LANDFILL WORKING GROUP
FINAL SAMPLE ANALYSIS REPORT
FEBRUARY 1995
• ECO does not recommend proceeding to a involved study of remedial
alternatives for cleaning up this site. As previously noted, Base Catalyzed ,
Decomposition (BCD) is the only non-thermal treatment technology that has ~t!JCtf) ,.P ~~
been demonstrated to be effective in destroying PCBs, dioxins and furans, and ~ ~-~ -~~~ !'
which has received official EPA Region IV endorsement.
• ECO advises that plans be immediately commenced to begin full scale pilot
testing of BCD at the Warren County Landfill, with a target testing date in
summer 1995
E NVIRONMENT AL
COMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZA TION
j APPENDIX A
FIGURES 1-5
PCB CALIBRATION EXHIBITS
COMPANY: SAMPLE I ifs-. 71 J 'eJZ.4 d fTI !II "i--.I :'.J11lJ'F 151{) 1"...1 ~'3P/0 30M >tJ-1 111.f l)fY'I 7f .21-s-z_ -,yi.n> :l3lf1t( Ill z.75 f 5" 1 ,~ f, qy z, 711, -''It? tf f, 'flf 71 }77-'f 1-1 q 1 \i t/Z.270 ", "1µ1.-19 ~vj\ DRIINR 3068 (Jev. 4/92) Laboratory Services DRPAltnlBNT OP ENVHOMHENT. HIM.111, AND NATURAL RHSOlJRCES Divisjon of Laboratory Services Environme~tal Organic Chemistry Branch G C REPORT SHEET DATE OF ANALYSIS: TOTAL HILLIGI\AMS Lf l,.,oS-O 41,CI 7 Sl',c,fJ ~Y, rr, 5";;pt.7 rf.s ~ -r 3'l'1">1'5' t/? 4167 /a 111. r;tt. 7 /7 $'0 (. If 'f JtJ 172. 1//. Z. SI{ t S 171/ ,71 7119// II ~-,-,z Y J..~91'-f'li 3 J' '( l,.J17 18$'/'-l7 St;,..1112-Jlli'11.2J~ 12. 4 ,,~r ~n JLr;-r Jt)111E ,,,-uvfl 1 Dl77JZ. J~ al7t JI 3-z'f1 3'f I/, 'IV-¥;3/5''J '3 BS J'I f ' f;f~tJ 1 () f ftJ 3131.3ft .2. 701rv 51DZ. 11 l .YfS5"i 81ct,7<" lf f,l'f JS'" .11'11-i' J 3,1,r !"7'2.'11 J -<09Dco1 ,1t{/t1/'l I 7f /J YZ J'f l.{Z.//J,t;') Htor?t> t111~3t? ----)I r;r 7Y -)Vfl.f 17 /'I l{ Z/6]~" lf'tl r-tloZ-;,.ti 2f/.1fl-Jo1r7117 J1 -11.,v? 'lb q 1 J IJ.l/'l. f I I, 607-1 J 1./ /) l/ 1t/1f 3hH''ff S" 11. \-t'I ~ ). (, tj7JtJ 1 rl. 'if/! 7 :i.o 79'i, o, -Q \LC... -~Le__ I ~--2 o ~~ L J,O <"·I @/Oc.> ., ($)l~ti) Lo t,J en-. c. H1.'f ~ st., a, }-,5 > ~ ~ ~ > I ::s ~ ~ -
.. C:\EZCHROM\CHROM\PCB1260.826, Channttl A (•,4,-------------------------------------,0.4 Retention Time ~ I h.3 "'Cl C.31 ~ 2 ~ >< 0100 t ~ > V .~ ff •7.267 ., V ~ 0 0 .... I I ~ t t ~ 9 8 ~ N 0.1 .1 0.00 7183 25 llLJl /!WI.~~,; l'MB~.o Minutes
. ' C:\E2CHROM\CHROM\PCB1260.828, Channel A 0.4~---------------------------------JJ.4 Retention Tlma > ~ ~ tt'1 n ln.3 z 0.31 t::; ~ > I roo ~ rn V ,... 0 ~ r 83 0.2 I ~ V I 0 I I 0.2 6,7.287 t • ~ 0.1 4·8•7rrn ~ r1 rrr7 11 ~-1 3,9.783 :t061 II ~D ! IH 8171111733 rlr60 '"'° 4. 760 4.9 1.833 40 41, JJ
Area Report --Channel A File C:\EZCHROM\CHROf,\\PCB1260,826 Method 1 Ci\EZCHROM\METHqDS\508.MET Sample ID 1 pcb standard 15Q0 ng/ml Aoquired : Aug 26, 1994 0&115138 User : John Neal •••••••••••aa••••••••••aaaDa;aaa=-------=--------------------~c--~a===•a•••m=•••••aa=a•••• Pkno Ret, Time Are~ Area'5 Height Height\ Fllgs --------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.850 6015? 1.981 20655 0.778 .8V 2 2.367 415291 1.2n 18306 0,690 'TS 3 2.600 22527] 0.689 17802 0.671 sv > 4 2.883 436234 1.334 17553 0.661 'TV ~ 5 3.533 527]2~ 1.612 17038 0.642 'TV ~ 6 3.983 56204~ 1,718 16593 0.625 'N t'rj 7 4.900 84771G 2 .592 15587 0.587 'N z 8 5.283 18014!i 0.551 15160 0,571 YB ~ 9 5,533 35164~ 1.075 16078 0,606 .!IV ~ 10 5,950 30258fi 0.925 16051 0.605 'TV > ll 6.217 418451 1.279 15550 0,586 'N 12 6,700 31086~ 0.950 13701 0.516 'N 13 7.233 23416!i 0. 716 12917 0.487 'TB ~ 14 7.50C 671533 2.053 17585 0.663 SV -15 8,261 370814 1.134 12203 0.460 'TS ~ 16 8.661 135847 · 0.415 11480 0.433 SV ~ 17 9.033 175574 0.537 10969 0.413 'TB 18 9.217 151464 0.463 10844. 0,409 sv 19 9.483 16899d 0,517 10561 0.398 'TS ~ 20 9.833 257718 0,788 10437 0.393 SB 21 10.050 168076 0.514 10068 0,379 sv 22 10.483 196592 0.601 9692 0.365 'TV 23 10.983 24581S o. 751 8778 0.331 'TS 24 11.917 494201 1.511 7785 0,293 8V 25 12,550 287515 0,879 7098 0,267 'N 26 12.950 11392? 0.348 6724 0,253 'TS 27 13. 150 114953 0 ,351 6493 o. 245 .av 28 13.933 24444E o. 747 5582 0.210 'TV 29 14,21'1 1490H 0.456 5272 0.199 'TV 30 14.633 105691 0.323 4726 0.178 'TV 31 15.36? 21423~ 0,655 3877 0.146 'N 32 17,283 11447] 0.350 1819 0.069 sv
•, ... 33 39.783 548252 1.676 69169 2.607 vv 34 41.833 12212-4 0.37] 7349 0.277 VS 35 45.750 635310 1.942 67494 2.54] vv 36 46.067 711811 2.176 79792 3.007 vv 37 48.217 148625 0.454 16056 0.605 vv 38 48.750 1137724 3.478 1234'73 4.653 vv 39 49.250 911270 2.786 41380 1.559 vv 40 49.683 1969l83 6.020 214055 8.066 vv 41 50.100 2099447 6.418 242392 9.134 vy 42 51.133 728224 2.226 87863 3 .311 sv 43 51.833 730815 2,234 l0l967 3.843 ss 44 52. 317 2826061 8.639 213289 8.038 sv ~ 45 52.817 611642 1. B70 72672 2.739 VS 46 53.500 155803 0.476 17435 0.657 vv ~ 47 54.317 l.612150 4.928 130393 4,914 vv t_!l1 48 54.733 737932 2.256 76198 2.871 vs ~ 49 54.967 3542317 10.829 380867 U.353 88 50 56.850 740707 2.264 64774 2.441 vv ~ 51 57.267 1881617 5.752 179544 6.766 vv 52 59.500 885012 2.706 78794 2.969 sv > 53 61.233 134210 0.410 13'7 00 0.516 SB: I ~ Total■ 32711044 100.000 J653641 100.000 ~ ~ ~ ~ U'I
I . -· -
APPENDIXB
WORKSHEETS ·
•I.\ ... Inorganics Technical Initial Blank ICP Interfemce Laboratory Duplicate Matrix Furnace ICP Serial Sample Result HoldinR Times Calibration Check Sample Control Samole Samole Analvsis Soikes Atomic Adsom Dilution Verification Form IIA X Form III X Form IV X Form V X Form VI X Form VII X Form IX X EPA Sample X Traffic Report raw data X X X X X X X X X digestion/ X X distillation loas ICP analysis X AA analysis X Hg analysis X Cyanide X analysis calibration X verification Furnace AA raw X data RSD X instrument X printouts strip charts X sample field sheet QA/QC criteria
r, ,: SemiVOC Technical GC/MS Initial Continui Blank Surroga Matrix Laborator QNQ Internal Target Holding Instrument Calibrati ng te Spikes/D y Control C Standard Compound Times Performance Oil Calibrati Spikes up Sample Identificatio Check on n mass listing X LCS X chromatogram traffic report & X raw data for Regional QC samples mass spectra X sample prep sheets case narrative sample cleanup sheets Ii brary search printout & spectra for 3 TIC candidates entire data package data review results QaPjP if available Sampling & analysis plan
SemiVOC Technical GC/MS Initial Continui Blank Surroga Matrix Laborator QNQ Internal Target Holding Instrument Calibrati ng te Spikes/D y Control C Standard Compound Times Perfonnance on Calibrati Spikes up Sample Identificatio Check on n Form I SV-1 X X X X Fonn I SV-2 X X X X Fonn II SV-1 X Form II SV-2 X Fonn III SV-1 X Form III SV-2 X Form IV SV X Form VSV X Fonn VI SV-1 X Form VI SV-2 X Fonn VII SV-1 X Fonn VII SV-2 X Form VIII SV-1 X Form VIII SV-2 X Fonn I SV-TIC Form III LVC X chromatogram X X X X X X X X quantitation report X X X X X X X X X EPA Sample X Traffic Report chain of custody X raw data X SDG narrative X DFfPPmass X spectra
_._ l voe Technical OC/MS Initial Continuing Blanlt Syetem Matrix Laboratory QA/t;t:: Internal Target CQRLG Tent Holding Inetrument Calibration calibration Monitoring Spikea/Dup Contro,l Standard Compound Iden Timea Perform. Compound Sample ID Comp Check J'orm I VOA X X X X X Form II VOA X Form III VOA·l X X Form III VOA·2 X rorm IV VOA X Form V VOA X Form VI VOA X Form VII VOA X Form VIII VOA Form I VOA·TIC X Form III LVC· l X ohromatoaram X X X X X X X X X X tniantitation renort X X X X X X X X X X EPA Sample Traffic X Reoort chain of ouetodv X raw data X S00 narrative X X BFB maoe eneotra X maaa liatina X LCS chromatoaram X maoa erw1otra X aafflnle nren sheets X Technical OC/MS Initial Continuing Blanlt syotem Matrix Laboratory QA/t;t:: Internal Target CQRLa Tent Holding Instrument Calibration Calibration Monitoring Spikeo/Dup Contro,l Standard Compound Iden Times Perform. Compound Sample ID Comp Check library oearch X printout & spectra for 3 TIC candidatee entire data D&ckaqe data review reoulta oapi P if available Sampling~ analysis nlan
l •
TEQ WORKSHEETS
SAMPLE NUMBER WL-002-GW
8.3 ppq 2378-TCDD X 1.0 = 8.3 ppq
606 ppq OCDD X .001 = 0.606 ppq
70.4 ppq 2378-TCDF X 0.1 = 7.04 ppq
47.0 ppq 12378 PeCDF X 0.05 = 2.35 ppq
43.6 ppq 23478 PeCDF X 0.5 = 21.8 ppq
115 ppq OCDF X 0.001 = 0.115
TEQ 40.21 ppq
SAMPLE NUMBER WL-003-GW
16.7 ppq 2378 TCDD X 1.0 = 16.7 ppq
1050 ppq OCDD X 0.001 = 1.05 ppq
93.1 ppq 2378 TCDF X 0.1 = 9.31
92.2 ppq 12378 PeCDF X 0.05 = 4.61 ppq
79.5 ppq 23478 PeCDF X 0.5 = 39.75 ppq
205 ppq OCDF X 0.001 = 0.205
TEQ 71.63 ppq
l -
SAMPLE NUMBER
WL-004-GW
10.9 ppq 2378 TCDD X 1.0 = 10.9 ppq
559 ppq OCDD X 0.001 = 0.559 ppq
65.3 ppq 2378 TCDF X 0.1 = 6.53 ppq
20.2 ppq 12378 PeCDF X 0.05 = 1.01 ppq
7.9 ppq 23478 PeCDF X 0.5 = 3.95 ppq
105 ppq OCDF X 0.001 = 0.105 ppq
TEQ 23.05 ppq
..
SAMPLE NUMBER
WL-001-SW
397 ppq OCDD X 0.001 = .397 ppq
58.7 ppq 2378 TCDF X 0.1 = 5.87 ppq
50.4 ppq 23478 PeCDF X 0.5 = 25.2 ppq
66.9 ppq OCDF X 0.001 = 0.0669 ppq
TEQ 31.53 ppq
PROFESSIONAL
E NVIRONMENTAL
C OMPLIANCE
0 RGANIZATION
WAST E MANAG EMENT CONSULTANTS
106 ROBINSON STREET
ASH LAND, VIRG INIA 23005
[phone]
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
WARREN COUNTY PCB LANDFILL
JANUARY, 1995
• The landfill contents were not thoroughly characterized at the time of disposal
• The landfill contains one million to one and one-half million gallons of water
closed in place in the landfill, which the landfill, and the landfill liner were not
designed to accommodate
• Subsequent testing of the landfill contents, and on-site groundwater for all
sample analysis parameters revealed that the landfill contains significant levels
of highly toxic PCBs and PCDD/PCDFs (dioxins and furans). On site
groundwater also contains dioxins at levels well above EPA standards for
drinking water supplies.
• The on-site groundwater contamination does not appear to be a background
contamination, as no other contamination by farm or industrial chemicals was
confnmed at the site.
• Several innovative, non-thermal 'technologies are currently available for the on-
site destruction of the PCB, dioxin and furan wastes that are problematic at the
Warren County PCB landfill. In particular, a process known as Base Catalyzed
Decomposition (BCD) has been proven effective with similar waste streams
and approved for use in North Carolina by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
• A full remediation of the Warren County PCB landfill is consistent with
Superfund, and other hazardous waste handling and disposal regulations. The
site will continue to pose a potential risk to the drinking water supplies of
nearby residents until permanent remedial options are implemented.
..,
APPENDIX A
DATA PRESENTATION FROM JULY, 1994 SAMPLING PROGRAM
PCB Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Pesticide Compounds were run on IC samples, NO Positives were detected) • WL IC BDL t' ✓ J • b,,~,t~ f <ln<i{$8:(il111~n~•~~n)/ ·· ·•••·•••••••••:y•Ravine•outlet~<•::t•r•=Ht Leachate Pond(Sediment basin), Ravine outlet• •eQfl4f ne~, ~~•:: ................ ... ······••··········· .. . . ~.:. Midd .. •••••.... •r?~H~ ~t,owa11••::•·•••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,~~~••~~fii•••~~u•••••·• •Grid•1~•aiivenff••••·•·········· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WL-001-SS IC-003-SS WL-002-SS WL-003-SS WL-004-SS WL-005-SS WL-006-SS IC-001-SS WL-007-SS WL-008-SS WL-009-SS WL-010-SS WL-011-SS Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample Number for DEHNR Sample Number for ECO Below Detection Limit (<0.10 PPm) Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil PCB Page 1 - 5 WSMP94P.XLS [ID ITi} & ~ lJ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.53 0.53 BDL 1.15 1.15 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
'✓ . PCB Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Pesticide Compounds were run on IC samples, NO Positives were detected) • WL IC BDL ............................ ····· ···1· l:i~mp1; ~Hm~r • WL-013-SS WL-014-SS WL-015-SS WL-016-SS WL-017-SS WL-018-SS WL-019-SS WL-020-SS WL-021-SS WL-022-SS WL-023-SS WL-024-SS Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample Number for DEHNR Sample Number for ECO Below Detection Limit (<0.1 O PPm) Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil PCB Page 2-5 WSMP94P .XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL @Gll"l,r1i,r ~ CJ L\j Lr u BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL z,,
I , ' PCB Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ®ill~~~; (Additional Pesticide Compounds were run on IC samples, NO Positives were deteded) ):): WL-025-SS ...... ···········•~i'i,4•A:.:'2• ... 1 ... ~ .... ,....... • ..... ,.::•::I WL-026-SS • Giid27-40/ i/ • //I WL-027-SS ' .. ... .. . .. . ...... '" ............. •·· .. . lia~alt~ P:~rd,, ~ fi1t~r::Pw,,! • • I WL-028-SS : tea••••·••st.•: ••••id:,. :•:L•.:: ·.•.d: f11·•1t ••••••• <1 WL 029-SS , .............. se .. an ..... , ..................... -.................... • : ~h~P~k uostreariV I WL-001-SW •r#:#tlri~¢ij~k H~~,mt•: WL-001-SD WL-002-SW Richrieck ¢.ret!k~~r,ijajrjt;\/ I WL-002-SD Richneck Creek downstream* I IC-001-SED • i tJri11an,fld]l'i~~tiity ~P.$fij$t'tj• } I WL-003-SW :H~~,m~ ~tj~~~ij J~~~m=:::: :: , WL-003-SD ._::rny~o~m~ ~ribllt•~1~~#~~rii: • .:i wL-004-sw * WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample Number for DEHNR Sample Number for ECO Below Detedion Limit (<0.1 O PPm) ••.•• Tc>talfl¢~·~·· 1::u•~~1:1~1~~ 11::::11~~1::(i~~~>c::•·•· ·•·••••••••••· LC ~~~ H \ 1!:ii:!:ii:!Jp~: ... . . :· ········ t .... ····· ··· 1 ···· ......... ·······•··· f Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Surface water Sediment Surf ace water Sediment Surface water Surf ace water Sediment Surface water PCB Page 3-5 WSMP94P.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1.45 1.45 BDL 0.22 0.22 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ?
I ' ~ PCB Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Pesticide Compounds were run on IC samples, NO Positives were deteded) • WL IC BDL .. , ..... ·•·• ······ ......... ························•··•······•·····• ••••·•••Unn~mEM:ttfi~•'X9~~,lll//• WL-004-SD ••••••••unnarnij••n~ary~~rea.rn•••••••• WL-005-SW WL-005-SD WL-001-LC Landfill air vent• IC-001-LC ·. .. :.: .... ·::: .. ·.: :.:: .. : ---. :.: .. ····· .. ·: .. : ... ·::.· •••·••·•••••·•••·••••••••• t..andti11•a1tveni~••·•••••••··············· WL-002-LC ...................................................... Landfill air vent• IC-002-LC Landfill air vent• IC-003-LC WL-001-FL WL-002-FL WL-001-GW •••••••·•••·••••••••MA1~()nm:r .. WL-002-GW Monitoring well #2* IC-001-GW Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample Number for DEHNR Sample Number for ECO Below Detection Limit (<0.1 O PPm) Sediment Surface water Sediment Dry landfill contents Dry landfill contents Wet landfill contents Wet landfill contents Wet landfill contents Sand filter medium Charcoal filter medium Ground water Ground water Ground water PCB Page 4-5 WSMP94P.XLS BDL BDL BDL 301.4 880 151.8 366 363 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ®ffi~~~. BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 301.4 BDL 880 BDL 151.8 BDL 303 63 303 60 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL L/-
PCB Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Pesticide Compounds were run on IC samples, NO Positives were detected) ·······••1::: .. :MQl)®(it1awe11 #3 ·················•• I WL-003-GW •••••••••••••••••••MA~~oritjo:~i~•~rr•::••• ::•••••••••, WL-004-Gw Ground water IC-002-GW Ground water WL-005-GW Ground water •••••,;.it~s~~~rill~i~t-ktach~~~•••••••••••· WL-001-LE Landfill leachate (water) Filter system inlet-leachate• IC-001-LCH Landfill leachate (water) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . ·••i• ii fiij~h$V$l~mp1Jtt~Ji~et1~•~•·••••·•••·•· WL-002-LE Landfill leachate (water) ·······················o .• ·t· bl k .............. . ····•··••··•••••••••••·••·· rosi~•P .. ~f:3 ..... ~m .. ••••·••··•····· WL-002-BL Water ........... , .......... ····· ·············-.............. , BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ··••Prn,ri,1q1~•~i~n,~•,~ir-~()Sf3> WL-004-BL Water 0.0042 • WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample Number for DEHNR Sample Number for ECO Below Detection Limit (<0.1 O PPm) PCB Page 5-5 WSMP94P.XLS ®ill~~~ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 5
. WSMP94D.XLS ..... ... .. . . , ............ . DIOXIN Raw Data Warren County PCB landfill July, 19M ® IB ~ ~ ~I <.·.··•••• SAMPLE NOJ EPA & TU Water Blank WL--001-SW WL--001-LE IC--001-LCH WL--002-LE International ECO Toxic ~=lancy .f / jl!#t~ \ ,:2= Fl::::m 'ii: :••···••·•·•··•~•mPI•·~--••••••••••••· ·········· .................... . :•<wid•t. •••·••••• I:• 1~:: !iii l,~::•lilf!lm!~~~~l!i!• UNITS •• DIOXIN ISOMERS • I ppt DDt I ppt I ppt I ppt ·······•······· . 2,3;718~TCDD 1 I BDL I BDL I 0.009 I BDL I 0.083 ·· · ••• 1 ~2;3i1ig;.pecDo • •••• · 0.5 I BDL I EMPC I 0.011 I BDL I 0.011 ..... _ 1,2,3,4, 7,8-HxCDD 0.1 I BDL I 0.011 I EMPC I BDL I 0.062 ... ·. 1,2.3;6,7,84-fxCDD ••·.· 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I 0.009 I BDL I EMPC ·••·1,2;3;7~8;9-HxCOD •••••• 0.1 I EMPC I EMPC I 0.008 I BDL I EMPC ·• . 1,2,3;4,6,7,8-HoCDD 0.01 I 0.004 I 0.083 I 0.038 I BDL I 0.054 . 1,2,3,4,6;7;8~9-0CDD 0.001 I 0.012 I 0.397 I 0.263 I BDL I 0.247 .·•••· FURAN ISOMERS F • •· 2,3,7 ,8-TCOF H > 0.1 I BDL I 0.059 I 0.049 I BDL I 0.057 ·••···· 1;2,3,7~8,fJ9CDF<••• 0.05 I EMPC I EMPC I 0.013 I BDL I 0.014 2;3!4,7;8-PeCDF • • • • • • • ·. • 0.5 I BDL I 0.051 I 0.021 I BDL I 0.018 . 1 2 3·4· ··7·3.·u CDF··•··•••·· r: .. · .. , , , ; .i -nX •:::.•:•·••· 0.1 I 4 I 0.055 I 0.033 I BDL I 0.04 :-. 1;2;3~6,7,8-HxCDF• 0.1 I 0.004 I EMPC I 0.011 I BDL I 0.011 2,3,4,6, 7 ,8-HxCDF. •• • •••· · 0.1 I 0.008 I 0.03 I 0.017 I BDL I 0.022 ... · •· 1,2;3~7;8;9~xCD_F f • 0.1 I 0.004 I BDL I EMPC I BDL I 0.006 1 ;2~3,4,6,7 ;8-HpCDF •· • • •· 0.01 I 0.005 I 0.073 I 0.041 I BDL I 0.053 ... · 1 ;2;3;"4:,_7;8;9-HpCDF>• 0.01 I EMPC I BDL I 0.005 I BDL I BDL 1,2,3;"4,6~7,8,9~CDF• 0.001 I BDL I 0.069 I 0.061 I BDL I 0.047 • Denotes sample splitt with ECO for independent analysis WL Sample number for DEHNR IC Sample number for ECO • BDL Below Detection Limit EMPC Compound may be present but could not be quantified j Estimated Value Dioxin Page 1 -L.\ Ip
WSMP94D.XLS :: ::·:::::.:::::·::::: .... :::: .. ·: ... :·::,.;;. DIOXIN Raw Data Warren County PCB landfill July, 1994 ®W1~~~l TY sAMPLE NOJ TY EPA& WL-004-GW IC-002-GW I WL-003-GW I WL-003-GW I IC-001-GW .:::::::::::::.::·:·:·· I°' :,+:ii lntematlonal DSWM ECO DSWM DSWM ECO . . :::::::: :::::::-::::::. :::-:-:::::-:.::-:·-:·::·::::.-••· . ))i Toxic E uivalanc ,: H:+t/ t•• 2 . ········· ············•·'•••·••············ : .. ,,, .. ,. q Y Monitortog•well ••••••LOC~TION<••• .. 1111•:· ~~:;)r =•:••·······•ijfl••::·•······· Monitoring well tU* . ••!~Ji:1( IM~~~rihg:~,~ ............ , ............. . Monitoring well #2* ...... . ... .. ..... . .. I . . . ............... . > • • water/! T I w~~r ••·••·•· • !Will•~•U• I JU water UNITS 0 E . I ........ ·········•·······•··· .. DI XIN•ISOM RS•"""':_:, .............. ,, .. .:.::•:·•••::::::::• .. :<, .. . ...... . .. .. ... . .. .. ........ ........ .. .~~~ , · . I · : I > eet / , I eet f .: 2i~17j_8~TCDD H I 1 0.011 I BDL I 0.017 I 0.013 : 1,2~3~7,~eCDO : . 0.5 BDL I BDL I 0.028 I 0.021 ·1· 2·3, .. •·7·a•·u-coo·······•·· ' ~ , ...... ·, -rt.A . .:;·: ... 0.1 0.012 I BDL I 0.023 I 0.019 •••• 1,Z3,6,7;8-HxCDD••• 0.1 0.017 I BDL I 0.03 I 0.025 • · • • • •• ••• 1 ~2;3, 7~8~9-HxCDO < 0.1 0.018 I BDL I 0.032 I 0.026 t;_2.13.;4,6,7,8-HpCDD•••·· 0.01 EMPC BDL 0.203 0.134 · 1,2,3,4,6; 7 ,8,9-0CDD • 0.001 0.559 BDL 1.05 0.606 I . FURANISOMERS > I•< ·~ ....... .......... •••••• ... •••L• 2',3,7,8-TCOF•••· , ... 0.1 0.065 BDL 0.093 0.07 •·• • • •· • • • : 1;2,3_p,s:.;pecDF : • 0.05 EMPC BDL 0.092 0.047 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF'••'''· 0.5 0.007 BDL 0.08 0.044 . • 11213,~8-HxCDF 0.1 0.07 BDL 0.114 0.085 1,2,3,6/1,8..J-f~C[)F:J•••• 0.1 0.02 BDL 0.04 0.031 213;4,6,7,8-HxCDF •"•·•• 0.1 0.037 BDL 0.058 0.04 1,2,3,7~8;9-HxCDF J 0.1 EMPC BDL 0.018 EMPC •· 1,2,3,4,6,7;8-HpCDF · 0.01 0.099 BDL 0.16 0.118 .•. 1 ;2~3;4~7l8;9:.HpCDF 0.01 BDL BDL EMPC 0.014 --·~-•· .• • • i1 ~2;3;-t.;s; 7,~9,;0COF •••• • • 0.001 0.105 BDL 0.205 0.115 • Denotes sample splitt with ECO for independent analysis WL Sample number for DEHNR Dioxin Page 2 -1 IC Sample number for ECO _ BDL Below Detection Limit ·: ... ::: .. :::::.::::::::: .. :waterU ::: ppt BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ~ · EMPC Compound may be present but could not be quantified j Estimated Value . 7
.-..--. .., ' / DIOXIN Raw Data Warren County PCB landfill July, 19M ®IB&~~ WSMPMD.XLS ............... ~~~~:~9HJ:iii:l!I•• iii}!):! EPA& International /)'!! IJ[lt~l~!!jf f [ I To De ~;;~•Y ••:::·••::::11:~~ii'P1,: M,~~.i::l:: .,., .. TLI SOLID BLANK (DSWM) WL-402-LC (DSWM) ,["~ftl~~i'!il!1lli11;:1111• IC-0O3-LC (ECO) Wet landfill content (air vent)* IC-402-LC (ECO) Wet landfill content (air ventr /Tl : :;y~~~:'.:{i TU WATER BLANK JDSWMJ ~ii=l!!i WatAtffli::i 1. :/ DIOXl~~~MERS} I .. .:. .1 <• ::: ppt :I · ppt , < ,J::, . ppt : • f:: . :: .. e..~':::::_JLUT ppt X 2;3;7;8-TC_DD\ :::+: I 1 I BDL I BDL I EMPC I EMPC :' :1,2~3~J;84>eCDD'=H:HI 0.5 I BDL I BDL I EMPC I EMPC 1~Z3;4~7,8~CDD'/d 0.1 I BDL I BDL I BDL I EMPC < 1,2.3;6~7,8'-HxCDD : I 0.1 I BDL I BDL I BDL I EMPC >H 1~2,3)7~8i9-HxCDDi• I 0.1 I BDL I BDL I BDL I EMPC ·1;2,3,4,6,7;8::tfJ!.CDD' I 0.01 I BDL I 28 I BDL I EMPC · · , : 1.2.3,4,6~7,8,9-0CDD • I EMPC =•'':':FURAN•lSOMERS••••·•••• ----·-· ···········~·--·····--.. , :; 2,3;7~~TCDF •+HI 0.1 I BDL I 79 I 113.3j I 521.4j :1u11;2~3,1;a;;i>eCDFU J 0.05 I BDL I 32.8 I 32.9j I 117.1j 2,3;4.7;8..PeCDF• I 0.5 J__ BDL I 80.8 I 118.8j I 441.8j ~2;3;417;84ixCDF • I 0.1 I BDL I 753 I 1145.2j I 4707 0.1 I I BDL I EMPC I _ 117.2j I 595.8j ~----------------·-0.1 0.1 o.ooos I 65.8 I _ 101i I 365. 7j ... jl1~2;3i7,8;94ixCDF 'ill I 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC I EMPC 0.1 BDL 0.01 1.01 I 0.0002 I 673 I 895.Sj I 3083 0.01 I BDL I 628 I 549.1j I 1725j 0.001 .. 1,4;6,7\~9~Ct>FL••I 0.001 I BDL I 4630 I 4207.2j I 1~ • Denotes sample splitt with ECO for independent analysis WL Sample number for DEHNR IC Sample number for ECO BDL Below 0etedion Limit EMPC Compound may be present but could not be quantified j Estimated Value Dioxin Page 3 -'-f BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.014 EMPC EMPC BDL B0L 0.006 B0L EMPC B0L EMPC 0.012 EMPC <fl
WSMP94D.XLS :••••:t••••sAMPLENoU EPA& International DIOXIN Raw Data Warren County PCB landfill July, 199-1 WL--002-BL IC--001-SS IC--002-SS (DSWM) !ECO! (ECO) ::•: J .. OCATION • Tox~ ~:;•ncy ti~;1r Surface soil S rf .1 . u ace soi near air from seep vent .:.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.::··: .. n••• < •••••••~,ms>••• ~•~~,n•n••• • • · · ••••• •>wa1er••••••··•·· ·•·•··············· Soil Soil UNITS ppt ppt ppt ········· OIOXIN.ISOMERS ........ :••: . ····>1• .... i::i•·· •••••••••·•••·••2,3;7,8-TCDD >••••·· 1 BDL EMPC EMPC •••:••···••·1~2;3~7~a.,paeoo••·••······ 0.5 BDL EMPC EMPC •·•·•••••• -t_t3;4;7,8_4ixCDD_••••••••• 0.1 BDL EMPC EMPC \ 1.2;3,6,7,84-fxCDD•••••••• 0.1 BDL EMPC EMPC 1~2;3;7~8;9-HxCDD>••• 0.1 BDL EMPC EMPC ·•••·•·•1;2~3,4,6,7!8-HpCOD.•· 0.01 I 0.014 I EMPC I EMPC 1;2~3;4~6,7,8,9-0CDO • IC--003-SS (ECO) Leachate Pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet Sediment ppt \fl\fo)f1\R~ \t\ \J'J ~ u u IC--001-SED (ECO) Richneck creek, downstream Sediment ppt EMPC I EMPC EMPC I EMPC EMPC I EMPC EMPC I EMPC EMPC I EMPC EMPC ···········FuRAN ·tsoMERs······· · 1········· :::.:::::: .: ::::::;: :::::··· 0.001 f 0.07 I 2948j l 578.2j HHH~HH·J~fttll-L L tY·u ~>>:. tY~~ . ~)::~ ~'.;~:L !)-='.1U:Ll~~=--::-.. ••••••••2~3,7~8-TCDF 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC ;_J ,2,3,7,8..PeCOF< •••·• 0.05 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC •••••••• 2,3,4,7;8-PeCDF••••••••••• 0.5 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC _!l~,3_t_4i1;8-HxCOF.· 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC : 1 ~2,3~6;7,8-HxCDF> 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC ·•• 2,3,4,6;h8-HxCDF\ 0.1 I 0.018 I EMPC I EMPC 1~2;3;7~8;9-HxCDF••.••••• 0.1 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC ··•·•··•1,2,3;4.&,718-HpCDF••••••• 0.01 I 0.006 I EMPC I EMPC 1 (2~3;4~7;8!9-HpCDF 0.01 I BDL I EMPC I EMPC ••• •• •• 1 ~2;3;4~6,7;8Jl-()CDF• ••••• 0.001 I EMPC I EMPC I EMPC • Denotes sample splitt with ECO for independent analysis WL Sample number for DEHNR IC Sample number for ECO Dioxin Page 4 -4 EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC EMPC .,,_ _ BDL Below Detection Limit \ ' EMPC Compound may be present but could not be quantified j Estimated Value ----~-.------4
Volatile Organics Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 @~~~~' (Additional semi-volatile and the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) !/:N~~'il!'l'u11,r.m1, ·111:1z···11•1:1_~rl/"'iilil~~~m:~.,*:11.1&· Qrganic:fr13,e! ••>blankH :1 Organic free ::blank/ .:;::::::::;:::::::::::::. •••••s1~riki••••• .prganie frt!le Hb.'l"'n.,:(Air ..... 'iii " ...... . :n•Hose>< • ~~itq~~ Nlpni~oriog 1 wen·••· #2!' Monitoring well # 2* : MQnitoring ·•we,i: #3 ~~itoring wen,·•#4*: Monitoring well # 4* WL-001-BL Water WL-002-BL Water WL-003-BL Water WL-004-BL Water WL-001-GW Water WL-002-GW Water IC-001-GW Water WL-003-GW Water WL-004-GW Water IC-002-GW Water it~g~~ WL-005-GW I Water BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 2j BDL 14 BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis 8 Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value ....... -WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL Volatile Organics Page 1 - 1 WSMP94O1.XLS BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL This Represents a summary of positive findings. Users of this summary must see the full data presentation to comprehend the extent of analyses conducted. Total Number of analysis performed 1296 Total Number of positives found 15 JO
Volatile Organics Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional semi-volatile and the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) :•~dlt1Jtj1:1 :: ~~~~:1 :11:~~~e1 ,-. •:•d~,:•• ~•~1 ::a· •!S~-Leachate 1 · r pond::•: (sedlm~nt ., ,.b si. ·)··,,. . ,•·•• a.n.:••, • Ravine •••••••:butlet~••••••· Leachate pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet* \?~~:~"(' Surf ace soil ·····•··" ..... . WL-001-SS IC-003-SS WL-005-SS near alf . I WL-006-SS •·····•··••vent•''····· Surface soil near air vent* Suface soil from seep ,•••Richneck IC-001-SS IC-002-SS Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil '••••creek''••••· d6~stre~m I WL-002-SD I Sediment BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value .... WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 2 -4 WSMP94O1.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL \IDIB~~~ I I
Volatile Organics Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional semi-volatile and the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) :::~,J~iili ~t~~t/111/;::lt Richneck Creek, downstream I IC-001-SED I Sediment * Dry ~e:m~ f rl WL-001-LC I c~~!~:s Dry Landfill air IC-001-LC Landfill vent* Contents Landfdl~ir Wet WL-002-LC Landfill ::: :ventf Contents Wet Landfill air I IC-002-LC I Landfill vent* Contents Wet Landfill air IC-003-LC Landfill vent* Contents -......... Filtet \ Landfill s~eminlet. WL-001-LE leachate leachate" (water) Filter Landfill system inlet IC-001-LCH leachate leachate* (water) ~ii ~:~~:11~~,,:~~ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 62 BDL 4J BDL 23 108 BDL 10.6 25.3 63.1 60 BDL BDL BDL 48 252 BDL BDL 23.9 420 132 BDL BDL 12.3 211 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit Volatile Organics Page 3 -4 WSMP94O1.XLS ®IB~~U / 1--
Volatile Organics Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional semi-volatile and the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) · .. :::.:. ·;; __ ·. ........ Filter: H• ::::::::: .. ·. ::::::::.:; fr:::=~n ~:f~ill f lt~~~i Landfill WL-002-LE j 1eachate (water) ~r,I:;~;;~m111&'1,a BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit Volatile Organics Page 4 -4 WSMP94O1 .XLS w ID\ m R ~,.)\ \~J \j/1 l1,\ •J \_ /3
Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill o,J July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were deteded) /I @Wi~W~ ................ ..... ... ...... ····~· Tdldilcxo ··~ :•~· c::::: ::•"·••·· :•::"••••::••· •..• ···"••·••::••· rn[~liil li~-1~,;: ::$~!Ill! •·•• Organi~free••• · biank:• Qrgan.icfree•• ···••·••••l:Jiank••·•··--. Blank\ •·• • Qrg1.1nl<: f r"fi. i ·····••;~~~1~•1:1• '1,10rl~Jlg ~I~ ·············#•t••····:::••· M it . II ....• ?~•:n;,g:~•• Monitoring well #2* MonjtQJiog weu ······••••:nf#.3•••······••:•• Mpn,itorin.g ~II ····•··•#4~············ Monitoring well #4* ••·•ou.p1ica~~Ar•• •••Wl)004~GWT :II: WL-001-BL WL-002-BL WL-003-BL WL-004-BL WL-001-GW WL-002-GW IC-001-GW WL-003-GW WL-004-GW IC-002-GW WL-005-GW WL-001-SS Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Water I BDL I BDL Soil I BDL I BDL * Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 1 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL I BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 3j BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL tf
-----------------Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill .;,~ July, 1994 m~~~\\ (Additional Semi-volatile,.the TCLP Method were done for IC samples, But No Positives were detected) m''1 ~~1~111il!~IJ1II liallltr■tlliiB. Leachate pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet• ~~--p:9~ ~ppef St;Jff SCEJ S<>iF neahairvent* Surface soil near air vent• Suface soil from seep .Rlchn.~ creek.U d()wnst~~m'"' Richneck Creek, downstream* ----..................... . ~ndfi11 atl': · · < :: venfr> ::: Landfill air vent• , ..••• ~hdfill~~ { . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •·•••••••ve.otm=::•••·••··· IC-003-SS WL-005-SS WL-006-SS IC-001-SS IC-002-SS WL-002-SO IC-001-SEO WL-001-LC IC-001-LC WL-002-LC Soil I BDL I BDL Soil I BDL I BOL Soil I BDL I BOL Soil I BDL I BDL Soil I BDL I BOL Sediment I BDL I BOL Sediment I BDL I BOL Ory I Landfill I BDL I BDL Contents Ory I Landfill I 76.3j I BOL Contents --Wet I Landfill I BDL I BOL Contents • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL 1.98j BOL BOL 2j BOL Volatile Organics Page 2 -12 WSMP940R.XLS ;~t!:tll~~!~ii~, BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL 62 BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL 108 BOL BDL BOL 8j BOL BOL 60 BOL /~
\ Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill ~~ July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile,,_the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) , !!:'''' ~~~ml;~j ~:"*=· :¥: I ~ Landfill air vent* Landfill air vent* .... ·-··· , .......... . ~--...... , ....... , ......... . Filt~rsysteri"t lnlet•U te~ate• Filter system inlet -leachate• ~~~rsy~~ inlflb te~chate IC-002-LC IC-003-LC WL-001-LE IC-001-LCH WL-002-LE Wet Landfill I 82. 7 J Contents Wet landfill I BDL Contents Landfill leachate I BDL (water) Landfill leachate I BDL (water) Landfill leachate I BDL (water) BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 2j BDL BDL 2.58j BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 3 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ®IM~~~ ~,[l'lfi~l•l~!I~[ BDL BDL BDL 252 BDL BDL BDL BDL 132 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Iv
Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill ,.J. July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile,.the TCLP Method were done for IC samples • But No Positives were detected) ID\M~~\1, ,. :: +•• Saini?l~t•i•·· "• •LocatlorF' ~~~~~li~~i-ii!. L ::: ' i!~'i=:~;,g ~~~A:-1~ ···.··:•:-::-. •••Qrganipfr~•· blank : •·• Organ.lcfree• •••••• bfanit••::••••' ··••'··•·••••a1ank•••·••·••'• C Orgartlc fr~•·: ••• • blank (Ai( : ·· HosejT/ M0.1Ji~J1g~I~ •·••••·:•••••'#.•tY••••••••• Mo.11itotj~ ~I~ ····••• #2'"'\ Monitoring well #2* t.,ip1JitQt:il1Q ~II ·············:#3••············ Mpnitonng ~I~ ··••:#4"'••·'· Monitoring well #4* : Oupli~e. oF WL~O~W .Leachate pond it•<$~imf3m.•••: 1•~>f~avi~~: ••:•• .. •••'outlet'~•••••<: WL-001-BL WL-002-BL WL-003-BL WL-004-BL WL-001-GW I WL-002-GW I IC-001-GW I WL-003-GW I WL-004-GW I IC-002-GW I WL-005-GW I WL-001-SS BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL ll BOL BDL 14 BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit I BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL I BDL I BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 4 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL 11
Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill :i-)-July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatileAthe TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) ®ill~~~ 1~~r11111111~,~~~li~![ll1E9":iBilli· '·@1:a11.J■■i!i■ Leachate pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet* s~e,P::~~ ~p~i , ••.• s,,ufa~ ~Ii•• neaf alfvent*: Surface soil near air vent* Suface soil from seep ••·•·Richneck :. . . .. . ...... ······•·creelt••······· downsfrearri( ; Richneck Creek, downstream• . ... . ... . .. ••• L.andfitrak: •• veni•• ............ Landfill air vent* Landfill ait • • ••·•••··• v.~fum:•:::.\: ··••,:.:::-:::,:-: IC-003-SS I BDL I BDL BDL WL-005-SS I BDL I BDL BDL WL-006-SS I BDL I BDL BDL IC-001-SS I BDL I BDL BDL IC-002-SS I BDL I BDL BDL WL-002-SD I BDL I BDL BDL IC-001-SED I BDL I BDL BDL WL-001-LC I BDL I BDL BDL IC-001-LC I BDL I BDL BDL WL-002-LC BDL BDL BDL * Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 5 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 4J BDL 10.6 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 23 BDL BDL 25.3 63.1 BDL BDL BDL 48 BDL BDL IZ
..:r .. Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill :I ::i.•..J-July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile~the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) \j '::i j \ 11'1 \j\.J ~~~ 1:1fa,~,,: 1 ~~11m~~11~'1 i,:: --~:: ~&'ti i~ ~=•~■,11~ Landfill air vent* Landfill air vent• ~ .. ~ .. -~---~-----------1!i~~il ....... :::::;·::::::::::·:;·· ... Filter system inlet -leachate• -.---, ---.------.---.~.----.--..-. .--..--.-. ..................... ······ . .. . ......................... . M~~,. ~ystern lnlet:+,(\l:lChatfJ IC-002-LC BOL BOL BOL IC-003-LC BOL BOL BDL WL-001-LE BOL BOL BOL IC-001-LCH BOL BDL BOL WL-002-LE BOL BDL BOL * Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL Volatile Organics Page 6 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL 23.9 420 BOL BOL 12.3 211 BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL /lf
Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill '\ ,,-,.,,J.., July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile,1the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) II< G I~~. ~ u ' -' I • I -~ ,__, --' ~ LJ ' ",,,,, , , .~iilam~l~iHi :1$11!1 ':::a ~11¥;~;1111■1 !11l!BI ••. Organic .free••• · · i:>1anf • • • Qrgariip fr~~••• •••••• bfank •·••••••· •Blank•·······•·· Qrg~n.l~ Ue.~Y •••••t:>iMic•(Arf .... ••••••••Hose)<·• Mooitonog well ·••.···••·· jf••·····••·· M iton··· ·• II ··•~0••#2~~~ Monitoring well #2* t,,,c;mitqriJlg ~If . #3 M.on.itt)tjng ~II. ·············#4"••··········· Monitoring well #4* • • • Duplicat(! Pf •• WL-004,;.GW< Le~at~pood <• (s~lmElnt/ i:~l~~T~itm WL-001-BL I BOL BDL BDL WL-002-BL I BOL BOL BOL WL-003-BL I BOL BOL BOL WL-004-BL I BOL BOL BOL WL-001-GW I BOL BOL BOL WL-002-GW I BOL BOL BOL IC-001-GW I BOL BOL BOL WL-003-GW I BOL BOL BOL WL-004-GW I BDL BDL BOL IC-002-GW I BDL BDL BOL WL-005-GW I BOL BOL I BOL WL-001-SS I BDL BOL BOL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL Volatile Organics Page 7 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL I BOL I 3j,B --BOL I BOL I 2j,B --BOL BOL 15j,B BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL 1()
1.)>· V Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile/\the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were deteded) r~--, I. •• I <-' \;; i~ R 77 u,1 ~1 if u ]sJ . ············· ···.·.·.·.·.·.·.··.·.· .. ·.· ······.,·.·.--. ·.c ·.·. .. . ... . . . .. ........ . . ..... • ... · ... . : ·=~:;•·1~~,~-rn,~~l~· ::1~1::;;11u1 ~Iii iilC•■tl~111'1i■l~IJI Leachate pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet* $eep P~ ~tjp_tJ,r Surfa~$0iF . near airventf Surf ace soil near air vent• Suface soil from seep •••••Rlchn~::::• ••••••••creek>>· downstieam!: Richneck Creek, downstream* .. ·• .. ••· .. -.... '. ' ....... ' . . . .... '. Landfill air/ ••n:•••· v.~nt~••> Landfill air vent* .................... " Larldfi11 aif ::: •:•••:v~o.th!i/t IC-003-SS BOL BOL BOL WL-005-SS BOL BOL BOL WL-006-SS BOL BOL BOL IC-001-SS BOL BOL BOL IC-002-SS BOL BOL BOL WL-002-SO BOL BOL BOL IC-001-SED BOL BOL BOL WL-001-LC BOL BOL BOL IC-001-LC BOL BOL BOL WL-002-LC BOL BOL BOL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for 0EHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL Volatile Organics Page 8 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL 8J,B --BOL BOL BOL 8J,B BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL 8J,B -BOL BOL BOL I BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL 2r
-. .-Volatile Organics Raw Data 1. Warren County PCB Landfill y.4 July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile/\the TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) @IB&~~ -11~■■ili=:::::1:,11■:1r~~11&m1:;m~iil1i■l1~il Landfill air vent* Landfill air vent* . ····· ...... filt~t~~st~ lrilf!t H ~ie• Filter system inlet -leachate*' •·•filter .~~etTt•·•• i11lf!thlij~•te IC-002-LC BOL BOL BOL IC-003-LC BOL BOL BOL WL-001-LE BOL BOL BOL IC-001-LCH BOL BOL BOL WL-002-LE BOL BOL BOL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL Volatile Organics Page 9 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL
--,-~ 'I.~ Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatiletthe TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) @IB~~~I ~fui~~~1~iiil~~!if~ll~~[iiiiS~i"r ,'T;;:·j~ii!lii1, lli~u• 1:~' •••Orgaoicfre.tt••• ···••::•• t:>lank:•• <• •••Orga~jpfre.e.••• •blank ····••••••·a1ank•< :•Qmanlc free,•· •••••••btank•tAtr:•••• Hose> > MPili~~g ~II ·············•#•1••·········· Moi1itQriog we.II < <t~)L····· Monitoring well #2* MPri~ring ~I~ ······>#·3\"••:;•:; ~°:~itr4~~ ~II Monitoring well #4* i::••Dupli~e, ()ff ••wL~004~W t:~1:~~~i •·:·basJrl, Ravine• •·••••:n••cfaiet•'•·••••••• WL-001-BL I BDL I BDL BDL WL-002-BL I BDL I BDL BDL WL-003-BL I BDL I BDL BDL WL-004-BL I BDL I BDL BDL WL-001-GW I BDL I BDL BDL WL-002-GW I BDL I BDL BDL IC-001-GW I BDL I BDL BDL WL-003-GW I BDL I BDL BDL WL-004-GW I BDL I BDL BDL IC-002-GW I BDL I BDL BDL WL-005-GW I BDL I BDL BDL WL-001-SS I BDL I BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 1 O -12 WSMP940R.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
,-I Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill ~ July, 1994 (Additional Semi-volatile~he TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) \~\ill~~~ :m~111111~~TIJ~~ii!iiii BI~ ~I~ f ii ....... , ...... :ii!ii11 ii[~5:i! ii Leachate pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet* .... ······························ ~ijpip~;~p~ri ••Sudacesou:•• ::::::.·::::::::-:::;;:.::::,::::-;: near alrventt Surface soil near air vent* Suface soil from seer:>_ • Rlchnec:k ........................... • • cree~tT . dowtlst~~rrif Richneck Creek, downstream* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . ...... -..•.•........•...• Landfill afi/ ·········••),ijlltf ...... Landfill air vent* :::·:::::::-::::::::::::::::: Land1i1i aff •·••••••v~ritf. IC-003-SS BDL BDL BDL WL-005-SS BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SS BDL BDL 1.89J IC-002-SS BDL BDL 4.08j WL-002-SD BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED BDL BDL BDL WL-001-LC BDL BDL BDL IC-001-LC BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for DEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 11 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
,-Volatile Organics Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill ,; :;,vJ-July, 1994 @lli~~1 (Additional Semi-volatile/he TCLP Method were done for IC samples , But No Positives were detected) .l:W~1~~iil~t•1~il! ilil,i! tu+. Trichloro }~fm1 Landfill air vent* Landfill air vent* .·.··--·• ...... ············ !Filtersv$t~ 1n1et • ~• teactiate~ .... Filter system inlet -leachate* .:::.: ·.·.:: ........ ::--.-.:::.·:.: .. :]ftltet$.~~I Inlet;; leachate IC-002-LC BDL BDL BDL IC-003-LC BDL BDL BDL WL-001-LE BDL BDL BDL IC-001-LCH BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LE BDL BDL BDL * Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis B Back ground present in lab blanks j Estimated Value WL Sample Number for OEHNR IC Sample Number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1j BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Volatile Organics Page 12 -12 WSMP94OR.XLS :i'it~ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
.-Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ·•t !::::;:l!li~l~im1111~:1i::e1•·~ • units: •• I F •••A~~fa~~~··· ,::••••·•Blank''•i•• lq~~~f~ blank (AJf H~> M<mitori~g ~II : ·•,1 :······· t.,1<mitoring•~~ll ......... •tirl > Monitoring well # 2· M<>.l)itorjng ¥tell ··••,::a•:::••· . ¥QrtitClrinQ \¥el(• ·······•··•··#4"'//••······ Monitoring well #4* D~plicattt PL •• • wt~o64.Gw •• , I..Elaehate f?c>nd •... {sedime~ < · l:>clsiil) Ravio~ • . : >'outlet--H ' .... . ... Leachate Pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet• WL-002-BL Water WL-003-BL Water WL-004-BL Water WL-001-GW Water WL-002-GW Water IC-001-GW Water WL-003-GW Water WL-004-GW Water IC-002-GW Water WL-005-GW Water WL-001-SS. Soil IC-003-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 1 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ®OO&~TI !11i-e1 : ••ppb> jipb' J\ppb BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
,' Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ®IB~l?li :=~'ll!i!11::,, ::=::,!:[: ~m~~I·•~ ~l :~~!W'l .:?~11 •Rl~lili:f ~!'1111} ~) seep on slope• Surfacesott••••• nJ~,. ~irVe~t~: Surface soil near air vent* Surface soil from seep • •<•Riptinf!cit·••••••· ··••• \CreekL>••··••· downstream• Richneck Creek, downstream• • LandfiU ait •'=<,•• vent"'·•••·••·•· Landfill air vent* Landfill air vent* ... ·., .......... · ............ -......... . • •••r11ter$1stem••• • 1n1e1) 1eadhate• ......... , ............. . Filter system inlet -leachate* l~lThtt•;1 .. _ .. ·.:•'.•.•-•.•-·····--·-· WL-005-SS WL-006-SS IC-001-SS IC-002-SS WL-002-SD IC-001-SED WL-002-LC IC-002-LC I IC-003-LC I WL-001-LE I IC-001-LCH I WL-002-LE I Soil BDL Soil BOL Soil BDL Soil BDL Sediment BDL Sediment BDL Wet Landfill Contents BDL Wet Landfill Contents BDL Wet Landfill Contents BDL Landfill leachate BDL (Water} Landfill leachate BDL (Water} Landfill leachate BDL (Water) * Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 2 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
,.,, ,' Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 m-~11~11utJ.~iil:BI :i ~1:i1;1:rl~i' I· .. ••··•·•••·••••••• I••·••·•• •••••••·•Jn>s>Pb••••i•••••••ppb••••t·••••••ppt,•••• l••••••••J)Pl):•••• •J•••••·•••ppt)•••t±••••·•• ppb•••••1 ••••·•••ppt,•• •••t••••/•Mn • WL-002-BL Water BDL I BDL I BDL WL-003-BL Water BDL BDL BDL WL-004-BL Water BDL BDL BDL WL-001-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-002-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-001-GW Water BDL I BDL BDL WL-003-GW Water BDL I BDL BDL WL-004-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-002-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-005-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-003-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 6,333 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 3 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL IDIB~~D l•T••• ·····•ppb••······· BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
.... ,-Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 \hl Wi ~ ~ '\L •~ll!lltiNl'E~!~i a11i1,~l&:111~,111~ • WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-002-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-002-SD Sediment BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED Sediment BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water) Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 4 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
..... Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ·····•·!~~:~~111'1~~,~~!'iB~ l1i1Fli1iltml111i,1m111•• :~,i _.. .. . •..•..••••• ,.,. •···· ••:••·••tUL''LdLLPllblUHlLLi>Pb••••tu: •PJJb LTH •••• ppt)t:•u•.•••t~U] :••~· • WL-002-BL Water BDL BDL BDL WL-003-BL Water BDL BDL BDL WL-004-BL Water BDL I BDL I BDL WL-001-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-002-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-001-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-003-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-004-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-002-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-005-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-003-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCOEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 5 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL 22,000 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL , ~~~~II ······· .... ··• ..... :~~U ~-B9l!~!;mi; BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
!.\r~~ ~\ \ i,~i G~ \J Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data \..::) \..i w Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ................. . ... ·-· ......... iiiW=rt: m ~:lii:f]'l'llf..~JI~,::1r,~1 ·~n= i~e:,i: ... :riil~ii 11= • WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL I BDL WL-006-SS Soil I BDL I BDL I BDL IC-001-SS Soil I BDL I BDL I BDL IC-002-SS Soil I BDL I BDL I BDL WL-002-SD Sediment I BDL I BDL I BDL IC-001-SED Sediment I BDL I BDL I BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill I Contents BDL I BDL I BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill I BDL I BDL I BDL Contents IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill I BDL I BDL I BDL Contents Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate I BDL I BDL I BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate I BDL I BDL I BDL (Water} Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate I BDL I BDL I BDL ~~ Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BOL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 6 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS I BOL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I 330 I 330 I BDL I BDL I BDL I 474 I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BOL I BDL "
Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ,@:t:~~1~111~11~~-~~~~' ·m1~111~a11 :~~1:1:1;;11,1;;-:; • .=/Hi>Pi'. H :I // pp1>: •••·•· :ppti WL-002-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-003-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-004-BL Water BOL BDL BOL WL-001-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-002-GW Water BOL BDL BDL IC-001-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-003-GW Water BDL BOL BDL WL-004-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-002-GW Water BDL BDL BOL WL-005-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-003-SS Soil BOL BOL BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO /wt> : ppb • •••·•n•ppb·•••• BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 7 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL Ir. p'. ~~ .. \ \', , r ~' \..:. ·,_·1i ;-\._\ c? \} 1 •t~S~trol/:l'il"[ilb•• y ppb •••• > l:lPtH• BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL
-Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill • ~'ij.~i!~ilB:liil WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-002-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-002-SD Sediment BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED Sediment BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water) Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO July, 1994 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ................... ········•··•········ ~ :14;s-;0~2~ ~H~~ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 8 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 1r.1~mR11 ~UDL~U U . ······ ..... ·1·· . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .r~= BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
.. Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ~u~~~~ 1•·••·1•······•ii1i•l.i•l•1!!•11.~,~·:M~~··· ;;;:::::·::;,. ···m1~~.j1•••i~1ii~~:1·.~··~n iz::~,. 'c:cc:·c:cc:1, :=PJ>b = d r iiPb I• PW d :d,pb L :~ :HUI Utjip1:1 • H :9)b: }LI lf'PbL I•: ppt; :=t=+=Ui>Pt> • WL-002-BL Water BOL BDL BDL WL-003-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-004-BL Water BOL BOL BDL WL-001-GW Water BOL I BDL BDL WL-002-GW Water BDL BOL BOL IC-001-GW Water BDL BOL BDL WL-003-GW Water BDL BDL BDL WL-004-GW Water BOL BOL BDL IC-002-GW Water BOL BOL BDL WL-005-GW Water BDL BDL BOL WL-001-SS Soil BOL I BOL BOL IC-003-SS Soll BDL BOL BOL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCOEHNR Sample number for ECO BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 9 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL eoi. BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL
... Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ~~~~~'\\ $~~,~g~"11°1~~~,1t1::1~• s~m ;~fil:m~JIB .:e~i ,mo1,~~ • WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-002-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-002-SD Sediment BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED Sediment BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water) Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 1 O -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
.. -. Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ~~~~~. 1•alll~l-■■■I-IE-• Hi:>PbH ••• • !>Pb•' WL-002-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-003-BL Water BOL BOL BDL WL-004-BL Water BOL BDL BDL WL-001-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-002-GW Water BOL BDL BDL IC-001-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-003-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-004-GW Water BOL BDL BDL IC-002-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-005-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-001-SS Soil BOL BDL BDL IC-003-SS Soil BOL BDL BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO • ppb : .... pptj /ppti BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BOL WL IC BDL Below Detedion Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 11 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS ••::••••ppt;+••·· ,. ·~•/? ·······••pptj?••··· :jipb/ BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL
-Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 Ji~~~~~!illWlgMml~~I * WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-002-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-002-SD Sediment BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED Sediment BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BDL BDL Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate BDL BDL BDL (Water} Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate BDL BDL BDL Ma~I} Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 12 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL ~-. ;:.'\ r~ R ~ \'.0 '(;~ ~ \.I ~ ' l$iil':,*~~I~ BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL
.. Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 \~~~~\\?~,' 11 ::~11!••1:,~~AA~i~~:~111! /·•··!:m11~1~•1:1!· l~~•L~: I:,:>···"·· .· ..•.• , •....... ''" .ppb .... ··1 ···· . ····1. .. . ... ··1··· '·'"·· '"" ppb:c·:c "···"ppb"···· •.c-• ""ppb. . . . . . . . . . . . '... . . . . . . . .. '.. . . . . .. . . ~------· -·~·~·-_. '. - .. -.. -~·-·-·-~ _._ .. '. -. . . . . . _. _ .. _ . . . . . . .. _ .• . ...... .. . · 1···· . . ... · 1 · .... ········· 1· .... ··•···· :. ppb ·.· .... ppb :• .. : ppb::• .: : ::: ,ppb ::x::::. .,_ • •: • WL-002-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-003-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-004-BL Water BOL BOL BOL WL-001-GW Water BOL BOL BOL WL-002-GW Water BOL BDL BOL IC-001-GW Water BDL BDL BOL WL-003-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-004-GW Water BDL BDL BDL IC-002-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-005-GW Water BOL BDL BDL WL-001-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL IC-003-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL WL IC BDL Below Detection Umit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 13 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL I BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL
C Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 .. \~~~IS'\~ .-J••·~•l;'i~.j•iT=[l •iiiir=::• 11i ~ii!:tP • WL-005-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-006-SS Soil BDL BDL BOL IC-001-SS Soil BDL BOL BDL IC-002-SS Soil BDL BDL BDL WL-002-SD Sediment BDL BDL BDL IC-001-SED Sediment BDL BDL BDL WL-002-LC Wet Landfill Contents BDL BOL BDL IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BOL BOL BDL IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill Contents BDL BOL BDL Landfill WL-001-LE I leachate BDL BOL BDL (Water} Landfill IC-001-LCH I leachate BDL BDL BOL (Water} Landfill WL-002-LE I leachate BOL BDL BDL (Water) Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for NCDEHNR Sample number for ECO BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL SOL BDL SOL SOL BDL SOL SOL BDL SOL SOL WL IC BDL Below Detection Limit Base/Neutral and Acid Extracts Page 14 -14 WSMP94BN.XLS BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BOL BOL BOL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL SOL SOL BDL SOL BDL SOL SOL BDL BOL BOL BDL BDL ..
' .................. -,. ~ .. ,,.,,,~i,~,, .. • .. · · • •. Oir,anic Free-lJhm/c • • • •. ·•••••••••••••••Blank••••••••••• •Forganlc•Frff· blanlc.(AitHose)•· ..... •.••••Monitoring we(I • ••. # 1 • ••· •• ••• •••· Inorganic Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 :::ru,tI J 5J~!!iu ·a . ··· 1· Chro . 1 · L ad :H::rn••••: ~:rr 1: ~v• WL-002-BL I Water BDL BDL BDL WL-003-BL I Water BDL BDL BDL WL-004-BL I Water 0.06 BDL 0.041 WL-001-GW I Water 0.05 BDL BDL · •: ~cm#P:H#r,:~~L ~im HU I WL-002-Gw Water BDL I BDL I BDL Monitoring well # 2* IC-001-GW (TCLP) Water 0.176 I 0.01 I BDL ®~~\s~ I This Represents a summary of positive findings. Users of this summary must see the full I data presentation to comprehend the extent of analyses conducted. Monitoring well # 2* IC-001-GW Water MonitorinJl.we/1 #3 / I WL-003-GW 0.034 I BDL I ~ Total Number of analysis perfonned 208 Total Number of positives found 53 < Monltorliigv,elfi• ,,,,,.. :' I WL-004-GW Monitoring well # 4* Monitoring well # 4* Duplicate of • Wt--004-GW Leach•e P<>nd {sediment •••• · ·•·· bas1niRav1neout1erT •··· Leachate Pond {sediment basin) Ravine outlet* Leachate Pond {sediment basin) Ravine outlet* ·······•·••••••• seepans10,,.t••••:••••••••• IC-002-GW (TCLP) IC-002-GW WL-005-GW WL-001-SS IC-003-SS (TCLP) IC-003-SS WL-005-SS ••••••surface. $01lneara1rven~::•••1 wL-oos-ss •••••••surfacli~ollnui.~ventt••••• Surface soil near air vent* IC-001-SS (TCLP) IC-001-SS Water Water Water Water Water Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil • WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for Solid Waste Management Division Sample number for ECO Below Detection Limit BDL BDL 0.08 BDL 0.158 0.008 0.045 BDL 0.08 BDL 88 12 122 23.7 0.42 BDL 94 12 72 16 0.768 BDL 81.4 26.7 lnorganics Page 1 - 1 WSMP94I1 .XLS BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I 26.4 0,
, .~ Inorganic Summary Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 w \GI .. , \ , P\ I• , I• I~ • -_, S811'/JM~~;Fii/!! :i•iiJ!!!. ·•~:~~:••:· 1•:•!::~=8:::··~:;••::•·~=~~:::::::t:;~~:~~•J:;;.:;;;;, ·i:::::::~:: Suface sol/ from seep IC-002-SS (TCLP) Suface sol/ from seep I IC-002-SS Rlchneck C~ do1AfnstrNm• I WL-002-SO Rlchneck CtHlc, downstream* Rlchneck CtHk, downstream* IC-001-SEO (TCLP) IC-001-SED ·•::::::•~~,,!-,f~c:::::u· •••. , WL-002-LC Landtl/1 air venr-Landtl/1 air vent* Landflll air vent* Landfl/1 air vent* IC-002-LC (TCLP) IC-002-LC IC-003-LC (TCLP) IC-003-LC \f11t.,-1~m 1#1.~l'#a~~#te~ I WL-001-LE FIiter system Inlet -leachate* Filter system Inlet -leachate* IC-001-LCH (TCLP) IC-001-LCH •••:F,~~~~~m,'i!,tit~~,~r:i WL-002-Le • Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis WL Sample number for Solid Waste Management Division Soil I Soil I Sediment Sediment I Sediment Wet Landfill Contents Wet Landfill I Contents Wet Landfill I Contents Wet Landfill I Contents Wet Landfill I Contents Landfill leachate I (Water} Landfill leachate I (Water} Landfill leachate I (Water} Landfill leachate I (Water) IC Sample number for ECO BDL Below Detection Limit lnorganics Page 2 - 2 WSMP94I1 .XLS 0.519 BDL I BDL --136 24.4 BDL 16 BDL BDL 0.419 0.008 0.048 --12.3 14.7 BDL 23 12 35 0.385 0.17 0.17 28.8 15.6 61.8 0.335 0.167 0.167 26.7 17 46.9 0.23 BDL BDL 0.216 BDL BDL 0.224 BDL BDL 0.07 BDL BDL .. ~ ~ \\
-✓ Inorganic Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 .. wIBm~~ • :sa~• Loc:a11on• ••••·:••~:~ll••••·••·•t.l•i•ll.i·~~·•!:••ll•l•l!·lil~~is• ••••l•·l ::.: •. :.~~:,j•·••·••• :··P0~'%~w:1: •••l•·•·~~w~~m•.:1.11•1·•·•·•11• ~~••i••1••·1•••1•·11•·•·•·•r=bbfu~:1.••1•.••1•·1•.•m~~~~ 1••··••:••~~•·•·•: Organic Frw-•····••••·••biank•••••••••••· Blank• Prrl8.fl1~ f~ ••··•:: IJlaiJ.l<(AJt)•} ····•·••••11oseJ :•·• Monitottrni< ••·••wilf ·•1• ••. Mon#wrtnit •••••we11.t••2tn Monitoring well #2* Monitoring well #2* .. Mo11itpringy •• •••·we11+•• #~ •• ..... Monitpring\ ··· well< #441 Monitoring well #4* Monitoring well #4* DupllcatJ ~· . WL.;oo4-GW t"'~ate/ ••••••ponc1••••••·• WL-002-BL WL-003-BL WL-00-i-BL WL-001-GW WL-002-GW IC-001-GW (TCLP) IC-001-GW WL-003-GW WL-004-GW IC-002-GW (TCLP) IC-002-GW WL-005-GW I , (se#!:~( I WL-001-SS , · pas1nJ RiJV/t;e ···•··••••auit.,..•:••••< Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water BDL Water I BDL I Soil BDL • WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for Solid Waste Management Division Sample number for ECO Below Detection Limit BDL BDL BDL BDL 0.06 BDL 0.05 BDL BDL BDL 0.176 BDL 0.034 I BDL BDL I BDL 0.08 BDL 0.158 I BDL 0.045 I BDL --0.08 I BDL 88 BDL lnorganics Page 1 - 3 WSMP941.XLS BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL 0.041 I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL 0.01 BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I 0.008 I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL I BDL 12 BDL BDL 1 BDL ..
• -: •. , Inorganic Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 • .. . .. rnm~l~11 .Tsamplfl•• ••••t.ocat1on sarnptEt /Numt>eri .t::;31 I• Hi ••t=im• 11••••• if~T •••••lllJll:i ~=~~•·. •1•l••TT~~tU:lii!!::1:::1•tirx:::11::11r1t1••:11 m11m:m!Ji mm~~±•• I•• • •~r•••• Leachate Pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet"' Leachate Pond (sediment basin) Ravine outlet"' ~:::_;::••···· '• Sutface .. soll .. near aifverir Surface soil • ' near aif wiit-Surface soil near air vent"' Surface soil fromseeJ! Surface soil from seep = Richneck • • c~. < •...•... •·••·••«•· .. -downstream* Rlchneck Creek, downstream* Richneck Creek, downstream* IC-003-SS (TCLP) IC-003-SS WL-005-SS WL-006-SS IC-001-SS CTCLP) IC-001-SS IC-002-SS (TCLP} IC-002-SS WL-002-SD IC-001-SEO (TCLP) Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Sediment Sediment IC-001-SEO I Sediment BDL BDL 2 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL • WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for Solid Waste Management Division Sample number for ECO Below Detection Limit 122 BDL 0.42 BDL 94 BDL 72 BDL 0.768 BDL 81.4 BDL 0.519 BDL 136 BDL 16 BDL 0.419 BDL 12.3 BDL lnorganics Page 2 - 3 WSMP941.XLS 23.7 BDL 12 -16 BDL 26.7 BDL 24.4 --BOL 0.008 14.7 BDL 0.041 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL I BDL BDL 1.4 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BOL BDL 26.4 0.04 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL 0.018 BOL BDL BOL BDL 1 BDL 0.048 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BOL BDL
Inorganic Raw Data Warren County PCB Landfill July, 1994 ~ \r,)\f\ @ ~ u n • j :\ \ I I I , I r· _\ ,_, : .. ... -. · t:'!!~i••• fl•:•~~~zr:1 • tr.~, 1:1::f-'~~iA • I m~~~•i: ·· ·· cad · · I Ch · l L d ··· ···· 1 • M ···, s · 1 · ··,·· s·, · > r,:JT ··•·· =1Jm1r::j pt~•:: T · •H b~~7 ••• f)~(ll •• ~pfuf! '••·• Lancffll!.al12:••1 I Wet Landfill I 2 I 23 ·•• · •• •·· ·· ··· ·········.···.·····-·• WL-002-LC · ··· ····· · ·· ·r.··········· C t t · ven ·. :.. •• on en s BDL I 12 35 I BDL I BDL I BDL ..... ~ , .... Landfill air I IC-002-LC I Wet Landfill vent" (TCLP) Contents BDL Landfill air I IC-002·LC I Wet Landfill vent" Contents BDL Landfill air I IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill vent" (TCLP) Contents BDL Landfill air I IC-003-LC I Wet Landfill vent" Contents BDL •• FIiter system . I Landfill / Je:::~;r • WL-001-LE I~::~ BDL I Landfill Filter system IC-001-LCH leachate Inlet • (TCLP) (Water) leachate* BDL Filter system I Landfill Inlet• IC-001-LCH leachate leachate* (Water) BDL · Filter system• I Landfill : I~~';,':,~ : ! WL-002-LE ':::~~ BDL * WL IC BDL Denotes sample split with ECO for independent analysis Sample number for Solid Waste Management Division Sample number for ECO Below Detection Limit 0.385 BDL 28.8 BDL 0.335 BDL 26.7 BDL 0.23 BDL 0.216 BDL 0.224 BDL 0.07 BDL lnorganics Page 3 -3 WSMP94I.XLS --0.17 0.17 BDL I BDL I BDL 15.6 61.8 0.026 I BDL I BDL 0.167 0.167 BDL I BDL I BDL --17 BDL 46.9 I 0.025 I BDL I BDL BDL I BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL SOL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL