The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020 2nd SECOND SEMIANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT OF 2020 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL POST CLOSURE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM Prepared for: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CUTCHOGUE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Prepared by: D&B ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, P.C WOODBURY, NEW YORK DECEMBER 2020 5535\\KK12152003 SECOND SEMIANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT OF 2020 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL POST CLOSURE GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND ANALYSES .................................................... 2-1 2.1 Groundwater Level Measurement Procedures .................................................. 2-1 2.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures .................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Sample Analyses ............................................................................................... 2-3 3.0 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .................................................... 3-1 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Data Validation ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Groundwater Results ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1 Field Parameters ................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds ............................................................... 4-4 4.2.3 Inorganic Parameters (Metals) .............................................................. 4-4 4.2.4 Leachate Indicators ............................................................................... 4-5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 5-1 List of Appendices Groundwater Analytical Results ...................................................................................A Groundwater Sampling Logs ........................................................................................B Chain of Custody Forms ...............................................................................................C Data Validation Check List ..........................................................................................D Historical GraphsE 5535\\KK12152003 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) List of Figures 1-1 Site Location Map .............................................................................................1-2 2-1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Location Map ..................................................2-2 List of Tables 3-1 Groundwater Level Data November 5, 2020 ................................................3-2 5535\\KK12152003 ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Town of Southold has retained D&B Engineers and Architects, P.C. (D&B) to perform post-closure groundwater monitoring and reporting for the closed and capped municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill in Cutchogue, New York (i.e., the Site). The location of the Site is shown in Figure 1-1. This report documents the results of the semiannual groundwater monitoring event conducted on November 5, 2020, and describes the work performed and the results obtained. The groundwater monitoring wells were sampled in strict conformance with the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, which is part of the Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Manual, dated August 2003. In the past, groundwater sampling was performed quarterly, with three rounds analyzed for New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 360 Routine Parameters and one round analyzed for 6NYCRR Part 360 Baseline Parameters on a rotating basis. In the Spring of 2015, on behalf of the Town of Southold, D&B proposed modifications to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) pertaining to the sampling frequency and analyses for the Post-Closure Groundwater Monitoring Program for the Site. The request for these modifications was approved by the NYSDEC on July 2, 2015. Modifications to the Post- Closure Groundwater Monitoring Program included: A reduction in sampling frequency from quarterly to semiannually for all well clusters (MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6 and MW-8); and Groundwater analysis for 6NYCRR Part 360 Baseline Parameters for both semiannual sampling events. This report is organized into the following sections: Section 2.0 (Sampling Procedures and Analyses) describes the water level measurements and groundwater sampling procedures, as well as the groundwater analyses; Section 3.0 (Groundwater Level Measurements) summarizes the groundwater level measurements and groundwater elevations; Section 4.0 (Discussion of Results) summarizes the key findings from this groundwater monitoring event, including 5535\\KK12152003 1-1 comparison of the laboratory results to NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Standards and Guidance Values; and Section 5.0 (Conclusions and Recommendations) provides conclusions and recommendations based on the second semiannual 2020 results. 5535\\KK12152003 1-3 2.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND ANALYSES monitoring wells (MW-1S, MW-1D, MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4S, MW-4D, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-8S and MW-8D) on November 5, 2020 as part of this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event. A site plan showing the locations of the monitoring wells is provided in Figure 2-1. The following sections provide a brief discussion of the procedures used during groundwater level measurements, groundwater sampling and sample analysis. 2.1 Groundwater Level Measurement Procedures Water level measurements were obtained from the 12 monitoring wells to determine the volume of standing water in the well for purposes of purging, as well as for determination of groundwater elevations and flow direction. Groundwater level measurements were obtained from a surveyed measuring point on each well utilizing a decontaminated electronic water level indicator to an accuracy of 0.01 foot. A discussion regarding groundwater level measurements and groundwater flow direction is provided in Section 3.0. 2.2 Groundwater Sampling Procedures Sampling procedures for the collection of the groundwater samples were implemented in accordance with the protocol described in the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, which is part of the Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Manual, dated August 2003. Field decontamination was performed between sampling locations for non-disposable equipment. Prior to collecting groundwater samples, the 12 monitoring wells were purged to remove the standing water in each well. Well purging was accomplished by first measuring the static water level in the well and then calculating the volume of standing water. A decontaminated submersible pump and dedicated low density polyethylene tubing was used to purge the water from the well. Decontamination of the submersible pump used for well purging was performed 5535\\KK12152003 2-1 in accordance with the procedure described in the QA/QC Plan. During the purging process, groundwater was monitored and recorded for the following field parameters: pH, temperature, specific conductance, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen and turbidity. When the values of the field parameters stabilized to within 10% based on the last two readings, the turbidity of the groundwater was less than 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), and at least three well volumes had been removed, well purging was considered complete. In accordance with the QA/QC Plan, groundwater samples were collected using new, dedicated, disposable polyethylene bailers and polypropylene rope. Samples for VOC analysis were collected first, followed by inorganic parameters and leachate indicators. Each sample was labeled with the well number, time, and date, stored in an ice-filled cooler with the chain of custody forms, and delivered to the laboratory (Pace Analytical Services, Inc.). Appropriate quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples, which included matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) sets and a trip blank were collected in accordance with the QA/QC Plan. Tables summarizing the analytical results are provided in Appendix A and are discussed in Section 4.0. Groundwater sampling logs for this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are provided in Appendix B, and the chain of custody forms are provided in Appendix C. 2.3 Sample Analyses Groundwater samples collected during this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event from the 12 monitoring wells were analyzed for 6NYCRR Part 363 Baseline Parameters. Laboratory analyses were performed by Pace Analytical Services, Inc., located in Melville, New York. This laboratory is approved under the New York State Department of Health Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) for the analyses performed. 5535\\KK12152003 2-3 3.0 GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Groundwater level measurements were collected by D&B on November 5, 2020 from the 12 groundwater monitoring wells as part of this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event. The groundwater level measurements from the monitoring wells are summarized in Table 3-1. As shown in Table 3-1, water table elevat ranged from 5.61 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in well MW-1S, located on the south end of the Site, to 3.86 feet above MSL in well MW-8S, located on the west side of the Site. Well MW-8S exhibits a lower water table elevation in comparison to the closest shallow wells MW-4S and MW-6S. The lower water table elevation at well MW-8S may be due to reduced groundwater recharge near the capped landfill. Based upon the November 5, 2020 groundwater level measurements and calculated water table elevations, groundwater flow direction was determined to be in a north-northwesterly direction. Therefore, well cluster MW-1 is located upgradient of the Site, and the other wells are located along the downgradient boundary of the Site. Potentiometric surface elevations in the deep (ells at the Site are generally consistent with the shallow well water table elevations, except for well MW-8D, and indicate no substantial vertical hydraulic gradient throughout the landfill site. An upward vertical hydraulic gradient is indicated at well cluster MW-8, due to the lower water table elevation. 5535\\KK12152003 3-1 Table 3-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL FIRST SEMIANNUAL 2020 GROUNDWATER MONITORING EVENT MONITORING WELL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION MEASUREMENTS NOVEMBER 5, 2020 Measuring Point Depth to Water from Elevation Measuring Point Groundwater Elevation Well Designation (feet above msl) (feet) (feet above msl) 39.22 5.61 MW-1S 44.83 MW-1D 39.17 5.71 44.88 MW-3S 44.50 5.00 49.50 MW-3D 44.19 5.00 49.19 MW-4S 58.35 4.68 63.03 MW-4D 58.26 4.66 62.92 MW-5S 63.46 4.68 68.14 MW-5D 62.95 4.69 67.64 MW-6S 50.75 5.02 55.77 50.75 4.96 MW-6D 55.71 50.30 3.86 MW-8S 54.16 49.15 6.14 MW-8D 55.29 5535\\KK12152003 3-2 4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 4.1 Data Validation Twelve groundwater samples, one matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD), and one trip blank were collected as part of the November 5, 2020 Sampling Event performed at Town of Southold Landfill. All samples were analyzed for the 6 NYCRR Part 363 Baseline Parameters, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), inorganic parameters (metals), and leachate indicators. Sample analysis was performed in accordance with SW-846 methods. The laboratory analyses were performed by Pace Analytical Services, Inc., Melville, New York. The data package (70152372) submitted by the analytical laboratory was validated in accordance with NYSDEC quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements, the contract requirement, and Part 363. All samples were analyzed within the method specified holding times except where noted below. The following requirements were outside limits and required qualification of the data: The percent recovery (%R) was below the QC limit in the LCS, MS, and/or MSD for trans-1,3-dichloropropene, it was qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ) in all samples. The %Rs were above the QC limits in the LCS, MS or MSD for 1,1,1,2- tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane (EDB), 1,4-dioxane (p-dioxane), bromoform, bromomethane, chlorobenzene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The only compound detected in the samples was chlorobenzene and was qualified as estimated (J) in samples MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-8S and MW-8D. The following metals detected in the blank and were qualified as non-detect (UB): boron in samples MW-6D and MW-6S and mercury in samples MW-8D, MW-8S, MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5D, MW-1D, and MW-1S. The %R was below the QC limit in the spike and post spike for silver. Silver was qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ) in all samples. The percent difference (%D) was above the QC limit for lead in the serial dilution and lead was qualified as estimated (J/UJ) in all samples. 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-1 The holding times were exceeded, and the following were qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ): hexavalent chromium in samples MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-8S and MW-8D. The following general chemistry parameters were detected in the blank and were qualified as non-detect (UB): fluoride and phenolics in all samples if detected and ammonia in samples MW-1S, MW-1D, MW-4S, MW-5S, and MW-6S. The relative percent difference (RPD) was above the QC limit in the laboratory duplicate for TOC associated with sample MW-3D and it was qualified as estimated (J). The %R for alkalinity, chloride, and TKN were below the QC limit in the MS associated with all samples and bromide and sulfate associated with samples MW-6S, MW-8D, MW-8S, MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5D, MW-5S, MW-1D, and MW-1S. They were qualified as estimated (J/UJ) in associated samples. No other issues were identified with the sample results and all results are deemed valid and usable for environmental assessment purposes as qualified above. Data Validation checklists completed for the November 2020 Sampling Event are provided in Appendix D. 4.2 Groundwater Results The laboratory results for this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are summarized on Table A-1 through Table A-3 and presented in Appendix A. These results are compared to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values for Class GA groundwater (herein referred to as the Class GA groundwater standards and guidance values). Table A-1 provides the VOC results, Table A-2 the inorganic parameters (metals) results, and Table A-3 the leachate indicator results. Graphs illustrating historical total volatile organic compounds (TVOC's), select inorganic parameters and select leachate indicators for the monitoring wells are presented in Appendix E. Field parameters measured during the groundwater purging process are presented on the groundwater sampling logs in Appendix B. A discussion of the field parameters and each analytical parameter group is provided below. 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-2 4.2.1 Field Parameters A review of the field parameters collected immediately prior to collection of the groundwater samples, provided on the groundwater sampling logs in Appendix B, indicates the following key findings: Conductivity values were highest in deep wells located downgradient of the Site, including wells MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, and MW-8D. The higher conductivity values appear to be Site-related. There is no Class GA standard or guidance value for conductivity. Groundwater temperatures were approximately 1 to 2 degrees Celsius higher in many of the downgradient wells, relative to the upgradient wells. The highest temperatures were recorded in well clusters MW-3, MW-4 and MW-8. There is no Class GA standard or guidance value for temperature. Groundwater pH was lower than the minimum Class GA groundwater standard of 6.5 in upgradient well cluster MW-1 and in six (6) downgradient wells (MW-3S, MW- 3D, MW-4D, MW-5S, MW-6S and MW-6D). The results are consistent with the naturally low pH of Long Island groundwater. Groundwater pH was higher in each of the deep well clusters. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations were lower in the downgradient wells relative to upgradient wells and were generally lower in the deep wells relative to the shallow wells. DO concentrations in the downgradient wells ranged between 0.00 mg/l at deep well clusters MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6 and MW-8 to a maximum of 3.86 mg/l at shallow well MW-5S. It should be noted that the DO concentrations in upgradient wells MW-1S and MW-1D were 8.53 mg/l and 2.87 mg/l, respectively. There is no Class GA standard or guidance value for DO. The Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) of groundwater was positive in upgradient well cluster MW-1 and at downgradient well clusters MW-5 and MW-6, as well as well MW-4S, indicating oxidizing conditions. The ORP of groundwater was negative in well clusters MW-3 and MW-8, as well as well MW-4D, indicating reducing conditions. There is no Class GA standard or guidance value for ORP. In general, the groundwater samples collected from the 12 Site monitoring wells were observed to be clear and did not have a noticeable odor. Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) or dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) was not noted in any of the groundwater samples collected from the 12 Site monitoring wells. 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-3 Overall, the field parameter results obtained during this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are consistent with previous sampling events and are indicative of limited leachate impacts, typical of a closed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill. The leachate-related impacts are relatively minor in magnitude and limited to higher conductivity and temperature and lower DO and ORP in certain downgradient wells. 4.2.2 Volatile Organic Compounds Review of the VOC results provided on Table A-1 in Appendix A indicates the following key findings: VOCs were not detected above Class GA groundwater standards in upgradient well cluster MW-1. Seven out of the ten downgradient monitoring wells did not exhibit any VOC concentrations above their respective Class GA groundwater standards. The remaining three downgradient wells (MW-3D, MW-4D and MW-5D) exhibited a limited number of VOCs at concentrations exceeding their respective Class GA groundwater standards, including: 1,2,3-Trichloropropane in MW-3D; 1,2- Dichloroethane and 1,2-Dichloropropane in MW-4D; and Chlorobenzene in MW-5D. In general, the VOC results for this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are consistent with previous sampling events. Based on these results, the Site is not a significant source of VOC contaminants in groundwater. 4.2.3 Inorganic Parameters (Metals) Review of the inorganic parameter (metals) results provided on Table A-2 in Appendix A indicates the following key findings: Cadmium, iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium were detected above their respective Class GA groundwater standards/guidance values in one or more wells, as follows: 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-4 - Cadmium was detected slightly above the Class GA standard of 5 ug/l in three (3) downgradient well (MW-3S, MW-3D and MW-8S). Cadmium concentrations in these wells were reported at 14 ug/l, 5.9 ug/l and 5.9 ug/l, respectively. Iron was detected above the Class GA groundwater standard of 300 ug/l in five (5) downgradient wells (MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-8S and MW-8D). Iron exceedances were detected at concentrations ranging from 319 ug/l in deep well MW-4D to a maximum of 77,100 ug/l in shallow well MW-3S. - Magnesium was detected above the Class GA guidance value of 35,000 ug/l in deep downgradient well MW-4D, at a concentration of 55,800 ug/l. At each well cluster, higher magnesium concentrations were detected in the deep well, which suggests that the detected magnesium concentrations may be partly associated with naturally saline groundwater conditions at depth. - Manganese was detected above the Class GA groundwater standard of 300 ug/l in all downgradient wells, with the exception of MW-5S and MW-8S. Manganese concentrations in the wells which exceeded the groundwater standard, ranged from 891 ug/l in deep well MW-6D to a maximum of 10,100 ug/l in deep well MW-5D. - Sodium was detected above the Class GA groundwater standard of 20,000 ug/l in six (6) downgradient wells (MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-8S and MW-8D). Sodium concentrations which exceeded the groundwater standard in the downgradient wells ranged from 27,000 ug/l in shallow well MW-8S to a maximum of 160,000 ug/l in deep well MW-4D. At each downgradient well cluster, higher sodium concentrations were detected in the deep well, which suggests that the detected sodium concentrations may be partly associated with naturally saline groundwater conditions at depth. In general, the inorganic parameter results for this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are consistent with previous sampling events and are indicative of limited leachate impacts, typical of a closed MSW landfill. Groundwater in the North Fork of Long Island is also naturally saline at depth, which may contribute to the higher concentrations of some inorganic parameters observed in the deep wells. 4.2.4 Leachate Indicators Review of the leachate indicator results provided on Table A-3 in Appendix A indicates the following key findings: 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-5 Ammonia and nitrate were detected above their respective Class GA groundwater standards in one or more wells, as follows: - Ammonia was detected above the Class GA groundwater standard of 2 mg/l in 6 downgradient monitoring wells (MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-8S and MW-8D). Ammonia concentrations in these wells ranged from 6.9 mg/l in shallow well MW-3S to a maximum of 52.1 mg/l in deep well MW-5D. - Nitrate was detected above the Class GA groundwater standard of 10 mg/l in downgradient shallow wells MW-6S and MW-6S, at concentrations of 33.6 ug/l and 13.7 mg/l, respectively. In general, the leachate indicator results for this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event are consistent with previous sampling events and are indicative of limited leachate impacts, typical of a closed MSW landfill. 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 4-6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this Semiannual 2020 groundwater monitoring event, D&B concludes the following: Water level elevations, horizontal and vertical hydraulic gradients, and groundwater flow directions are consistent with previous results and local/regional hydrogeologic conditions. In general, groundwater quality is consistent with previous sample results and are indicative of limited downgradient leachate impacts. A portion of the elevated metal concentrations detected in downgradient deep wells may be related, in part, to naturally saline groundwater conditions at depth. The results discussed in this report are generally consistent with previous sampling events and do not indicate any significant changes or deterioration in groundwater quality that would warrant a change in the scope of the monitoring program. Therefore, it is recommended that semiannual groundwater monitoring continue consistent with the NYSDEC approved petition. The next monitoring round (First Semiannual 2021 groundwater monitoring event) is scheduled to be conducted in May of 2021 for Part 363 Baseline Parameters. 5535\\KK12152003(R01) 5-1 APPENDIX A GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 5535\\KK12152003 0.74J ExceedsClassGAStandard/GuidanceValue J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\November2020.xlsx 2.7 6.1 6.3J ExceedsClassGAStandard/GuidanceValue J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\November2020.xlsx ExceedsClassGAStandard/GuidanceValue J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\November2020.xlsx 145.95.9 771003280031913023.114.3J3270011700 55800 25501460146037701010021008912202070 3770043000160000766002700044000 Exceeds Class GA Standard/Guidance Value J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\November2020.xlsx 6.932.922.352.118.812.9 33.613.7 Exceeds Class GA Standard/Guidance Value J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\November2020.xlsx APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOGS 5535\\KK12152003 APPENDIX C CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS 5535\\KK12152003 APPENDIX D DATA VALIDATION CHECK LIST 5535\\KK12152003 DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST Project Name: Town of Southhold Landfill Project Number: 5535 Sample Date(s): November 5, 2020 Sample Team: Keith Robins Matrix/Number Water/ 12 of Samples: Field Duplicates/ 0 Trip Blanks / 1 Field Blanks/ 0 Analyzing Pace Analytical Services, LLC, Melville, NY Laboratory: Analyses: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): by SW846 8260C Metals: Total by SW846 Method 6010C and mercury by Method 7470A General Chemistry: Hardness (SM 2340 B), Alkalinity (SM2320B), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (USEPA 410.4), Color (SM 2120B), Nitrate, Sulfate, and Bromide (USEPA 300.0), Chloride (SM22 45000), Total Dissolved Solids (SM 2540C), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (SM5210B), Nitrate (USEPA 353.2), Ammonia (SM 22 4500), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (USEPA 351.2), Hexavalent Chromium (SM22 3500), Cyanide (USEPA 9014), Total Organic Carbon (USPEA 9060A) and Phenolics (USEPA 420.1) Laboratory 70152372 Date: 11/20/2020 Report No: ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGE DOCUMENTATION Performance GENERAL INFORMATION Reported Acceptable Not No Yes No Yes Required 1. Sample results X X 2. Parameters analyzed X X 3. Method of analysis X X 4. Sample collection date X X 5. Laboratory sample received date X X 6. Sample analysis date X X 7. Copy of chain-of-custody form signed by X X Lab sample custodian 8. Narrative summary of QA or sample X X problems provided QA - quality assurance Comments: A validation was conducted on the data package and any applicable qualification of the data was determined using the USEPA National Functional Guidelines of Organic Data Review, January 2017, or USEPA National Functional Guidelines of Inorganic Data Review, January 2017, method performance criteria, and Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 1/6 D&B Engineers and Architects, P.C. professional judgment. The qualification of data discussed within this data validation checklist did not impact the usability of the sample results. Custody Numbers: 70152372 SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS LIST Sample Analysis Parent Collection Sample ID Lab ID Sample Date VOC SVOC PCB MET MISC TRIP BLANK 70152372-001 X 11/5/2020 MW-3D 70152372-002 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-3S 70152372-003 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-6D 70152372-004 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-6S 70152372-005 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-8D 70152372-006 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-8S 70152372-007 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-4D 70152372-008 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-4S 70152372-009 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-5D 70152372-010 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-5S 70152372-011 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-1D 70152372-012 X X X 11/5/2020 MW-1S 70152372-013 X X X 11/5/2020 Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 2/6 ORGANIC ANALYSES VOCS Performance Reported Not Acceptable No Yes No Yes Required 1. Holding times X X 2. Blanks A. Method blanks X X B. Trip blanks X X C. Field blanks X 3. Matrix spike (MS) %R X X 4. Matrix spike duplicate (MSD) %R X X 5. MS/MSD precision (RPD) X X 6. Laboratory control sample (LCS) %R X X 7. Surrogate spike recoveries X X 8. Instrument performance check X X 9. Internal standard retention times and areas X X 10 X 11. Continuing X 12. Field duplicate X VOCs - volatile organic compounds %D - percent difference RRF - relative response factor %R - percent recovery %RSD - percent relative standard deviation RPD - relative percent difference Comments: Performance was acceptable, except the following: 3-6. The %R was below the QC limit in the LCS, MS, and/or MSD for trans-1,3-dichloropropene, it was qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ) in all samples. The %Rs were above the QC limits in the LCS, MS or MSD for 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2- dibromoethane (EDB), 1,4-dioxane (p-dioxane), bromoform, bromomethane, chlorobenzene, dibromochloromethane, ethylbenzene, and xylene. The only compound detected in the samples was chlorobenzene and was qualified as estimated (J) in samples MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, MW-8S and MW-8D. The RPDs were above the QC limits in the MS/MSD for bromomethane and iodomethane. They were not detected, and qualification of the data was not necessary. Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 3/6 INORGANIC ANALYSES METALS Performance Reported Acceptable Not No Yes No Yes Required 1. Holding times X X 2. Blanks A. Preparation and calibration blanks X X B. Field blanks X 3. Initial calibration verification %R X X 4. Continuing calibration verification %R X X 5. CRDL standard %R X X 6. Interference check sample %R X X 7. Laboratory control sample %R X X 8. Spike sample %R X X 9. Post digestive spike sample %R X X 10. Duplicate RPD X X 11. Serial dilution check %D X X 12. Field duplicate X %R - percent recovery %D - percent difference RPD - relative percent difference Comments: Performance was acceptable, except the following: 2A. Antimony, boron, manganese, and mercury were detected in the blanks. The following metals were qualified as non-detect (UB): boron in samples MW-6D and MW-6S and mercury in samples MW-8D, MW-8S, MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5D, MW-1D, and MW-1S. 8-9. The %R was below the QC limit in the spike and post spike for silver. Silver was qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ) in all samples. 11. The %D was above the QC limit for lead in the serial dilution and lead was qualified as estimated (J/UJ) in all samples. Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 4/6 INORGANIC ANALYSES GENERAL CHEMISTRY Performance Reported Acceptable Not No Yes No Yes Required 1. Holding times X X 2. Blanks A. Method blanks X X B. Field blanks X 3. Standards %R X X 4. Laboratory spike %R X X 5. Laboratory duplicate RPD X X 6. Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate %R X X 7. Field duplicate X %R percent recovery RPD - relative percent difference %D percent difference RSD - relative standard deviation Comments: Performance was acceptable, except the following: 1. The holding times were exceeded, and the following were qualified as an estimated detection limit (UJ): hexavalent chromium in samples MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-6S, MW-6D, MW-8S and MW- 8D. 2A. Fluoride, phenolics, and ammonia were detected in the intimal calibration blank. The following were qualified as non-detect (UB): fluoride and phenolics in all samples if detected and ammonia in samples MW-1S, MW-1D, MW-4S, MW-5S, and MW-6S. 5. The RPD was above the QC limit in the laboratory duplicate for TOC associated with sample MW- 3D and it was qualified as estimated (J). 6. The %R for alkalinity, chloride, and TKN were below the QC limit in the MS associated with all samples and bromide and sulfate associated with samples MW-6S, MW-8D, MW-8S, MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5D, MW-5S, MW-1D, and MW-1S. They were qualified as estimated (J/UJ) in associated samples. Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 5/6 DATA VALIDATION AND QUALIFICATION SUMMARY Laboratory Numbers: 70152372 Sample ID Analyte(s) Qualifier Reason(s) VOCs Trans-1,3-The %R was below the QC limit All samples UJ dichloropropene in the LCS, MS, and/or MSD MW-3D, MW-4D, MW-5D, The %R was above the QC limit Chlorobenzene J MW-8S and MW-8D in the LCS, MS or MSD Metals MW-6D and MW-6S Boron MW-8D, MW-8S, MW-4D, UB Detected in the blanks MW-4S, MW-5D, MW-1D, and Mercury MW-1S The %R was below the QC limit All samples Silver UJ in the spike and post spike The %D was above the QC limit All samples Lead J/UJ in the serial dilution General Chemistry MW-3S, MW-3D, MW-6S, Hexavalent chromium UJ The holding times were exceeded MW-6D, MW-8S and MW-8D All samples Fluoride and phenolics Detected in the intimal calibration UB MW-1S, MW-1D, MW-4S, MW- blank Ammonia 5S, and MW-6S Alkalinity, chloride, and All samples TKN The %Rs were below the QC J/UJ MW-6S, MW-8D, MW-8S, limits in the MS MW-4D, MW-4S, MW-5D, Bromide and sulfate MW-5S, MW-1D, and MW-1S The RPD was above the QC limit MW-3D TOC J in the laboratory duplicate Donna M. Brown 12/15/2020 VALIDATION PERFORMED BY & DATE: VALIDATION PERFORMED BY SIGNATURE: Pages J:\\_HazWaste\\5535 (Southold GW and LFG Monitoring)\\Groundwater\\2nd Semiannual Report 2020\\Appendix D- Data Validation Checklist\\70152372_Nov_2020.docx 6/6 APPENDIX E HISTORICAL GRAPHS 5535\\KK12152003 Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 750 MW-5S MW-6S 700 MW-8S 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\3753\\graphs\\5S_Alk.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Alkalinity Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 900 MW-5D MW-6D 800 MW-8D 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_Alk.grf *=only upgradient well Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Alkalinity Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 60 MW-5S 56 MW-6S MW-8S 52 48 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_Amm.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Ammonia Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 100 MW-5D MW-6D 90 MW-8D 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_Amm.grf *=only upgradient well Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Ammonia Data for Deep Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 110000 MW-5S MW-6S 100000 MW-8S 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_CA.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Calcium Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 180000 MW-5D MW-6D 160000 MW-8D 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_CA.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Calcium Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 250 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 200 150 100 50 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_CL.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Chloride Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 500 MW-5D MW-6D 450 MW-8D 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_CL.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Chloride Data for Deep Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S MW-5S 160000 MW-6S 120000 MW-8S 80000 40000 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_FE.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Iron Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D MW-5D 100000 80000 MW-6D 60000 MW-8D 40000 20000 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_FE.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Iron Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 500 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_hard.grf *=only upgradient well Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Hardness Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 900 MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_hard.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Hardness Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 120000 MW-5S MW-6S 110000 MW-8S 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_K.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Potassium Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 130000 MW-5D MW-6D 120000 MW-8D 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWast\\5535\\graphs\\5_K.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Potassium Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S NYSDEC CLASS 35000 GA STANDARD MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_MN.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Magnesium Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 70000 MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 60000 50000 40000 NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARD 30000 20000 10000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_MN.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Magnesium Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 9000 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARD 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_MN.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Manganese Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 14000 MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARD 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_MN.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Manganese Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 160000 MW-5S 150000 MW-6S MW-8S 140000 130000 120000 110000 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_NA.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Sodium Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D 240000 MW-4D MW-5D 220000 MW-6D MW-8D 200000 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_NA.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Sodium Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 40 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 30 20 10 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_Nit.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Nitrate Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 13 MW-5D MW-6D 12 MW-8D 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\3753\\graphs\\5_Nit.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Nitrate Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 300 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 250 200 150 100 50 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_sul.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Sulfate Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 1100 MW-5D MW-6D 1000 MW-8D 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_sul.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Sulfate Data for Deep Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 1100 MW-5S MW-6S 1000 MW-8S 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_TDS.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Total Dissolved Solids Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 1600 MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5_TDSa.grf *=only upgradient well Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY Historical Total Dissolved Solids Data for Deep Monitoring Wells E Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 20 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 16 12 8 4 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\5535\\graphs\\5S_TVOC.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Total VOCs Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D 30 MW-4D MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 20 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1/1/091/1/101/1/111/1/121/1/131/1/141/1/151/1/161/1/171/1/181/1/191/1/201/1/21 Sample Collection Date *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\3753\\graphs\\D_TVOC.grf Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Total VOCs Data for Deep Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1S* MW-3S MW-4S 20 MW-5S MW-6S MW-8S 16 12 8 4 0 *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\3175\\graph\\5S_clbz.grf Sample Collection Date Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Chlorobenzene Data for Shallow Monitoring Wells Legend MW-1D* MW-3D MW-4D 16 MW-5D MW-6D MW-8D 12 8 4 0 *=only upgradient well J:\\_HazWaste\\3753\\graphs\\5D_clbz.grf Sample Collection Date Town of Southold Landfill Appendix 6155 Cox Lane, Cutchogue, NY E Historical Chlorobenzene Data for Deep Monitoring Wells