Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental Investigation Report'1 I I I I I I I I I I PART 360 AND PHASE II SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT Southold Landfill, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York I I I Dvirka Bnd BBrtJlucci Consulting Engineers MARCH1993 ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! I ! ! 3673~3/3 1027 SOLrI~OLD LANDFH J- PHASE H SUPPI J~U'qTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PREPARED FOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COURFY, NEW YORK BY DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTRq'G ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW' YORK MARCHI~3 I I I ! I ! ! I ! I I ! ! I I I '1 ! SOUTHOLD LANDFILL PHASE H SUPp!.F. MENTAL Ii~IVESTIGATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title $.0 SUMMARY 1.0 INrRODUCTION 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES 2.1. Health and Safety Program 2.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 2.3 Data Validation Program 3.0 FIELD ACTIVITLES 3.1 Soil Boring and Subsurface Soil Sampling 3.2 Hand Auger Sampling 4.0 SAMPLE RESULTS 4.1 Data Validation Results 4.2 Subsurface Soil Sample Results 4.2.1 Organic Results 4.2.2 Inorganic Results 4.2.3 TCLP Results 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Appendices Title APPENDIX A Field Forms APPENDIX B NYSDEC Memorandum 1-13-93 APPENDIX C Data Validation Report APPENDIX D Site Map Showing Soil Boring and Hand Auger Locations (1"-100') 3673G/3 1027 Pa~e S-I 1-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-1 3-3 4-I 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-15 4-19 5-1 6-1 Numar 3-i Number 4-0 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 LIST OF FIGURES Title Soil Boring and Hand Auger Locations LIST OF TABLES Title Data Validation Summa~ (Contract Compliance with 1991 NYSDEC ASP) Subsurface Soil Sampling - Volatile Organics Subsurface Soil Sampling - Semivolatile Organics Subsurface Soil Sampling - Pesticides/PCBs Subsurface Soil Sampling - Inorganic Constituems Subsurface Soil Sampling - TCLP Parameters Page Page 4-3 4-5 4-9 4-13 4-16 4-20 36730/3 1027 ii Summary S.O SUMlViJJ~Y Subsequent to the Part 360 and Phase 13[ Hydrogeologic Investigation conducted at the Southold landfill in May through August 1991, which showed very limited impacts on groundwater quality on-site and no impairment of groundwater or water supply off-site caused by the landfill, the New York State Departmem of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requested an additi6nal investigation. This investigation was conducted specifically to determine the quality of subsurface soil in areas of the landfill site which showed elevated soil gas readings during the Part 360/Phase II investigation and in the former scavenger waste lagoons where solvents were alleged to have been disposed. The supplemental investigation comprised the collection of 15 subsurface soil samples (7, including one replicate, from the scavenger waste lagoons) which were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters, ha addition, one sample in the lagoon was analyzed for Toxic Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The results of the sample analyses indicated low to trace concentrations (mostly below detection limits) of all groups of parameters, including volatile organic compounds (maximum level detected- 39 ug/kg [estimated] 2-butanone); semivolatile organic compounds (maximum level detected- 500ug/kg [estimated] pyrene and 8 mg/kg butylbenzylphthalate); pesticides (maximum level detected - 1 mg/kg 4,4-DDD); PCBs (maximum level detected - 650 ug/kg); and toxic metals (maximum level detected - 99.7 mg/kg lead). The results for the TCLP analysis were all below detection levels, except for barium at 0.648 mg/l, which is well below the regulatory limit of 100 mg/l for characterization as a hazardous waste. Based on the results of the initial Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation and the supplemental investigation, soils at the Southold landfill, in particular in the former scavenger waste lagoon, have not been significantly impacted by the disposal of waste at the landfRl. Groundwater sample results obtained as part of the Pan 360/Phase Iff Hydrogeologic Investigation and the landfill operational monitoring program do not indicate significant impacts on groundwater quality on-site, and groundwater quality is not impacted by the landf'fll off-site. As a result of these findings, the Southold landfill does not pose a threat to human health or the environment, and it is recommended that the landfill be removed from the list of potential hazardous waste sites (Class 2a) and delisted. 3754(5/2 m27 S-1 Section-1 ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 IN'IRODUC'I~ON This document is an addendum to the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for the Southold landfill site dated October 1991. The initial work plan dated November 1990, was prepared to conduct the Part 360/Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation and included a Hydrogeologic Investigation Plan, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, and Health and Safety Plan. A work plan addendum dated January 1993, was prepared in order to conduct a subsurface soil investigation to supplement the results obtained during the initial investigation. The purpose of the supplemental investigation is to further determine possible subsurface soil contamination present at the Southold landfill site, including the area of the former scavenger waste lagoons. The work plan addendum, which contained only changes or additions to the original work plan as necessary, was based upon recommendations provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Based on the January 1993 work plan addendum, a subsurface soil sampling program was conducted at the Southold landfill between January 19, 1993 and January 22, 1993. This report has been prepared in order to present the results of the supplemental investigation. 36740/3 1027 1-1 Section 2 I 2.0 IlqVESTIGATION PROCEDURF_3 2.1 Health and Safety Program The Health and Safety Plan, as defined in the work plan dated November 1990 and addendum dated January 1993 for the Southold landfill site and approved by NYSDEC, was implemented during the supplemental field investigation. Since the principal chemical hazards of concem consisted of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and since the potential hazards were restricted to specific work areas where drilling and sampling activities occurred, routine monitoring was required only at the drilling/sampling sites. All monitoring and surveillance equipment (Century OVA, Photovac MicroTip, and EXOTOX portable combustible gas/oxygen detector) were operated, maintained and calibrated each work day in accordance with the manufacturer's manual and Dvirka and Bartilucci (D&B) Consulting Engineers quality assurance (QA) procedures. Organic vapor monitoring was undertaken prior to and following sampling at each site location. During the supplemental investigation, total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) as measured by on-site field instrumentation did not exceed background levels within the breathing zone. Elevated MicroTip readings of 21 ppm and 14 ppm were encountered in the bead space of soil samples collected from soil borings SB-8 and SB-10, respectively. These borings were located in the former scavenger waste lagoons. OVA readings in excess of 1,000 ppm were also encountered in a soil sample collected from SB-10, but it is believed that these readings were attributable to methane. Since breathing zone readings never exceeded background levels during any soil boring or hand angering activities, Level C personnel protection measures were not implemented and all field activities were conducted in Level D protection. 2.2 Quality Assa~'ance~ Consol Program ! ! The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan addendum, as defined in the work plan dated November 1990 and addendum dated January 1993 for the Southold landfill site and approved by NYSDEC, was implemented during the supplemental investigation. 3677O/3 1027 2-1 All environmemal samples collected as part of the field investigation were obtained in accordance with the sample collection and equipment decomamination procedures outlined in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this report and the sampling procedures outlined in Section 4.4 of the QA/QC Plan contained in the work plan. Field management procedures included preparation of Sample Information Records, Chain of Custody Forms, Daily Field Activity Reports, Daily Equipment Calibration Forms, Air Monitoring Forms and Boring Log Forms, and maintenance of a Daily Field Log Book. These records are contained in Appendix A of this report. QA/QC controls, including utilization of trip blanks,- replicates, matrix spikes, matrix spike duplicates, laboratory method blanks and spike blanks, were performed as described in the QA/QC Plan and in conformance with the NYSDEC 1991 Analytical Services Protocol (ASP). Field blanks were not collected as part of this investigation based on recommendations provided by NYSDEC on January 13, 1993 via a faxed memorandum. This memorandum is provided in Appendix B. The analytical laboratory which was utilized as part of this investigation (Nytest Environmental, Inc.) is New York State Depamnent of Health approved (Environmental Laboratory Approval Program [ELAP]) and approved by NYSDEC to meet the requirements of the 1991 ASP. 2.3 D~ta ValJd~tio~l Progr~a All supplemental investigation analytical data was validated to ensure laboratory compliance with tile 1991 NYSDEC ASP. In general, all data was found to be within NYSDEC requirements. However, a few holding times for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were exceeded. A more detailed discussion of data validation is comained in Section 4.2 of this document. The data validation report prepared as part of this investigation is provided in Appendix C. 36770/3 1027 2-2 Section 3 ! I I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I 3.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES 3.1 Soil Boring and SubmLfface Soil Sampling In order to further determine the nature and extent of any possible subsurface soil contamination at the Southold landt"fll site, nine borings (out of a planned 11) were drilled throughout the site in areas of elevated soil gas readings obtained during the soil gas survey conducted as part of the initial Part 360/Phase I1 Hydrogeologic Investigation. Two of the planned soil boring locations (SB-5 and SB-6) were in areas of the site that could not be accessed safely with the drill rig and were converted to hand auger boring locations in consultation with and approval of the NYSDEC on-site representative as described in Section 3.2 of this report. Four of the soil borings were located within the former scavenger waste lagoons. Boring locations are shown in Figure 3-1. A detailed site map is contained in Appendix D. Soil borings were drilled using the hollow stem auger method (4.25-inch diameter) to a depth of 6 feet below grade (except for soil boring SB-8 which was drilled to 8 feet), with split spoon samples collected continuously at 2-foot intervals. Soil boring SB-8 was drilled deeper in order to obtain an additional sample for Toxic Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis. Soil samples were screened immediately after retrieval with a photoionization detector (MicroTip) for total volatile organic vapors. One split spoon soil sample was collected from each borehole and analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters. The sample exhibiting the highest vapor readings or showing signs of visual contamination in each borehole was selected for analysis. If no evidence of contamination was present, the fmal split spoon (4 to 6-foot interval) was collected as a default. Soil samples were transferred from the split spoon directly to the laboratory supplied sample jars using either a dedicated sterile wooden tongue depressor or dedicated plastic sampling scoop. Each sample jar was labeled with the project name, project number, sample number, sample depth, analysis, date and time of collection. Samples were stored on ice in coolers. Soil samples were shipped to the laboratory for analysis within 48 hours of collection. Split spoon samplers, as well as drilling equipment, were decontaminated using a steam cleaner at 212°F prior to collection of each soil sample. 3679~/d ~027 3-1 Figure 3-1 Soil Boring and Hand Auger Locations 3679(3[,1 1027 3-2 I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I In addition to the above sampling and analysis, one subsurface soil sample was collected as a replicate sample and also analyzed for TCL +30 parameters. The soil sample and replicate sample was obtained from the same split spoon collected from soil boring SB-I 1. One subsurface soil matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MSfMSD) sample was collected from soil boring SB-3 and analyzed for TCL +30 parameters. All sampling and record keeping procedures were conducted in accordance with the November 1990 work plan. The soil sanaple exhibiting the highest MicroTip readings (SB-8) was analyzed for TCLP in addition to TCL +30 parameters. Where no elevated organic vapor readings were encountered during drilling, the soil boring was backfflled with the soil cuttings. Where elevated readings were encountered, soil cuttings were containerized in 55-gallon DOT-approved ring-top drums and moved to the drum staging area on the landfill site. All water generated during decontamination was collected at the decontamination pad and pumped into 55-gallon DOT-approved drums. The decontamination pad consisted of a wooden frame overlain by polyethylene plastic sheeting and sloped to allow for the collection of all rinse water in one comer of the pad. The drill rig itself was decontaminated by steam cleaning upon arrival at the site and upon completion of drilling activities prior to leaving the site. 3.2 Hand Auger Sampling Provisions were made in the work plan addendum for the collection of two hand auger samples from the sides of the former scavenger waste lagoons and one hand auger sample at a background off-site location. The location of these samples was determined in the field at the direction and approval of the NYSDEC on-site supervisor. The locations of these hand auger samples are shown in Figure 3-1 and a detailed location map is provided in Appendix D. Samples were collected from the bottom of the hand anger borings at an approximate depth of 4 feet since no elevated readings were encountered. Two additional hand auger borings were performed at soil boring locations SB-5 and SB-6 when it was determined that these locations were inaccessible with the drilling rig. These hand auger locations were designated HA-4 and HA-5, respectively. The subsurface sample from HA-5 was collected from a depth of 5 to 6 feet. Obstructions encountered at HA-4 prevented the retrieval of soil from below a depth of 4 feet. An open-ended solid sleeve 2-inch diameter stainless steel hand auger was utilized for sampling. Samples were analyzed for TCL +30 parameters. 3679G/4 1027 3-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The hand auger was decontaminated between each sample location according to the following procedure: 1. Equipment was washed thoroughly with nonresidual detergent (alconox) and tap water using a bmsh to remove any p',u'ticulate matter or surface f'flm. 2. Rinsed thoroughly with tap water. 3. Rinsed thoroughly with distilled water. 4. Rinsed with hexane (pesticide grade) or methanol (pesticide grade) and air dried. 5. Rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and air dried. Upon soil collection, the hand auger was emptied onto a clean dedicated polyethylene sheet where a soil sample was transferred to the laboratory supplied sample container using a dedicated plastic sampling scoop. Samples were stored on ice in a cooler and shipped to the laboratory for analysis within 48 hours from the time of collection. 36790/4 ~o27 3-4 Section 4 4.0 SAMPLE RESULTS 4.1 Data Valia~tion Results Fifteen soil samples collected during the Phase H supplemental investigation sampling effort, were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL +30) parameters. One sample was analyzed for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) parameters. Samples were analyzed and validated in accordance with the 1991 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Analytical Services Protocol (ASP). Six samples, SB-3, SB-4, HA-2, HA-3, HA-4 and HA-5, were analyzed for volatile organics outside of the seven day validated time of sample receipt (VTSR) holding time. Originally, these samples were mn within holding time but the data files were lost due to a laboratory malfunction before the data could be processed. Only the original quant reports were available but results could not be verified. The reanalysis results are qualified as estimated with possible false negatives being reported. The original quants indicated possible low levels, approximately 1 ppb, of various compounds which were not found in the reanalysis. The volatile analysis of SB-10 had one surrogate recovery, 1,2 dichiorothane, outside QC limits. Protocol requires that the sample be reanalyzed, however, this was not done. Since the recovery was 124% and the upper limit is 121 the data was not qualified and is deemed usable. All compounds flagged with a B have been qualified as nondetects since the sample concentrations were less than 10 times the concentration in the associates method blanks. For semivolatile analysis all samples were analyzed outside of the 40 day from VTSR holding time but within 40 days from sample extraction. Data is not affected. Three samples for semivolatile analysis, SB-11, SB-1 lB and SB-3, were reanalyzed due to internal standard area counts being outside QC limits. The reanalysis, SB-1 IRE and SB-3RE, had similar results so the data from the initial runs shOUld be used for envffonmental assessment. 36820/5 1027 4-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The semivolatile fraction of sample SB-7 was reanalyzed at a secondary dilution since the concentrations of bntylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-octylphthalate exceeded the instrument calibration range. The results for theses compounds should be taken from the diluted mn, SB-7DL. The pesticide/PCB fraction of two samples, SB-10 and SB-4, were reanalyzed at secondary dilutions due to matrix interferenced. The diluted mn of SB-4 had no compounds detected and all results should be taken from the initial run. The diluted run of SB-10DL indicated the presence of 4,4'-DDD which was not found in the initial mn dur to the interference masking the 4,4'-DDD peak. Results for SB-10 should be taken from the initial mn with the result for 4,4'-DDD being taken from the diluted mn. Two samples, the semivolatile fraction of SB-8 and the pesticide/PCB fraction of SB-2, have no surrogate recoveries detected. Both are being re-extracted and reanalyzed with the results being forwarded as soon as they are available. However, the actual results will not be very different hence the data is deemed usable but qualified as estimated. Table 4-0 summarizes the findings of the data validation reports. The actual data validation reports can be found in Append[nC. 4.2 Subsurface Soil Sa,~il,lc Results 4.2.1 Organic Results The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analyzed as part of this investigation and the associated results are presented in Table 4-1. Acetone and methylene chloride were detected in essentially all soil boring and hand auger samples at levels up to 280ug/kg and 120 ug/kg, respectively. Acetone was not detected in HA-1 (3-4 f~). Acetone and methylene chloride were found in the method blanks and are common laboratory contaminants, which are not considered environmental contaminants. Tetrachloroethene was detected in SB-3 (2-4ft) at a trace concentration of 2 ug/kg, which is below the contract required detection limit (CRDL). Carbon disulfide and 2-butanone were found in low concentrations (14 ug/kg and 39 ug/kg, respectively) in SB-10 (2-4 ft), also below detection limits. No other VOCs were detected in any subsurface soil samples collected as part of this investigation. 36820/5 1027 4-2 I 1 !1 I i I I I ! I I I I I ! Table 4-0 DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY (CONTRACT COMPLIANCE WrrH 1991 NYSDEC ASP) Sample Matrix VOA BNA Pest/PCB Metals* SB 1 Soil OK4 OK2,9 OK OK6 SB2 Soil OK4 OK2,9 OK11 OK6 SBT Soil OK4 OK2,9,8 OK OK6 SB8(4-6) Soil OK4 OK2,9,11 OK OK6 SB9 Soil OK4 OK2,9 OK OK6 SBI0 Soil NO4,10 OK2,9 OK12 OK6 SB 11 Soil OK4 OK2,9,7 OK OK6 SB 1 lB Soil OK4 OK2,9,7 OK OK6 SB 3 Soil NO 1,4 OK2,7 OK OK6 SB4 Soil NO 1,4 OK2 OK 12 OK6 HAl Soil OK3 OK2 OK OK6 HA2 Soil NO 1,4 OK2 OK5 OK6 HA3 Soil NO 1,4 OK2 OK OK6 HA4 Soil NO 1,4 OK2 OK OK6 HA5 Soil NO 1,4 OK2 OK OK6 *Metals include cyanide OK: OK,#: NO,#: Definition of Compliance Summary Qualifiers Data is 100% comractually compliant Data is contractually compliant, but qualified and usable for environmental assessment (see below for specific qualifier) Data is not 100% contractually compliant. Data is qualified and deemed usable for environmental assessment (see below for specific reason). Samples originally run within holding time, however, data was lost, only original quants available. Samples wer~ rerun outside of holding time. Data is qualified as estimated with possible false negatives reported. Samples were nm outside of the 40-day from VTSR holding time for analysis but within 40 days from extraction. Data is deemed valid. Methylene chloride is qualified as nondetect since it was found in the associated method blank. Sample concentration is less than 10 times the blank concentration. Methylene chloride and acetone are qualified as nondetect since they were found in the associated method blank. Sample concentrations were less than 10 times the blank concentrations. 5. Ali surrogate recoveries were 0%. Data is qualified as estimated. 36820/5 1027 4-3 i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 7. 8. 9. Il. 12. 36820/5 1027 Definition of Compliance Summary Qualifiers (continued) Due to low spiking recoveries results for Copper, Lead and Silver are qualified as esthnated, biased low. Sample reanalyzed due to internal standard area counts being outside QC limit. Reanalysis had similar results, data from initial mn should be used for environmental assessment. Sample reanalyzed at a secondary dilution due to compounds having concentrations that exceeded the instrument calibration range, compounds are flagged E. Use the results from the diluted mn for all compounds flagged E and the results from the initial mn for all others. Diethylphthalate and bis(2ethylhexyl) - phthalate are qualified as nondetect since they were also found in the associated method blank. Sample concentrations were less than 10 times the blank concentration. Surrogate recovery of 1,2 diclfloroethane was slightly above QC limits and the sample was not reanalyzed. Data is deemed usable. No surrogate recoveries obtained, sample being re-extracted and results will be forwarded. Data is deemed usable. Sample was reanalyzed at a secondary dilution due to matrix interference possibly masking additional compounds. 4-4 TABLE 4-1 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES VOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS SAMPLE ID. SH-SB-1 SH-SB-2 SH-SB-3 SH-SB-4 SH-SB-7 ~, _.._SH-S8-8 .~ SAMPLE DEPTH 4-6 FEET 4-6 ~-~-~' I 2-4 m-bm- ~ 4-6 m-~-~ I 4-6 ~-H- m ,~-o r=~ I DATE OF COLLECTION lll 9/93 1 I1 9/93 1/21/93 1121/93 1/19/93 1120193 DILUTION FACTOR I 1 I 1 I 5 PERCENT MOISTURE 6 8 24 29 9 31 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) ;hloromethane U U U U U U Bromomethane U U U U U U Vinyl Chloride U U U U U U Chloroethane U U U U U U Methylene Chloride 18 B 23 B 36 B 30 B 23 B 120 B Acetone 41 Et 42 B 21 B 24 B 42 B 280 B Carbon Disulfide U U U U U U f .1-Dichloroethene U U U U U U 1,1-Dichloro~thane U U U U U U 1,2-Dichloroethene (total) U U U U U U Chloroform U U U U U U 1.2-Dichloroethane U U U U U U 2-Butanone U U U U U U 1.1,1 -Trichloroethane U U U U U U Carbon Tetrachloride U U U U U U Bromodichloromethane U U U U U U 1,2-Dichloropropane U U U U U U cis-1.3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U Trichloroethene U U U U U U Dibromochloromethane U U U U U U 1,1.2-Trichlorcethane U U U U U U Benzene U U U U U U Trans-1.3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U Bromoform U U U U U U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone U U U U U U 2-Hexanone U U U U U U Tetrachloroethene U U 2 J U U U 1,1.2,2-Tet r achioroethane U U U U U U Toluene U U U U U U Chlorobenzene U U U U U U Ethyibenzene U U U U U U Styrene U U U U U U Total Xylenes U U U U U U Orthochlorotoluene U U U U U U 1,2.3-Trichlorobenzen e U U U U U U TOTAL VOCs' 0 0 2 0 0 0 QUALIFIERS B: Compound found in the sample as well as the method blank. J: Compound found at a concentration below the detection limit. U: Compound analyzed for but not detecled NOTES RE: Sample reanalyzed ·: Tolal VOC does not include compunds flagged with a B m m mm mm m m m m m m TABLE 4-1 (CON'T) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SAMPLE,°. S.-.A-, SAMPLE DEPTH _2-4~ ' ~ 4-6 FEET 3-4 FEET 3-4 FEET DATE OF COLLECTION 1120/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1121193 1121193 DILUTION FACTOR I 5 I I I 1 PERCENT MOISTURE 18 37 10 15 9 9 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) Chloromethane U U U U U U Bro~no~nethane U U U U U U Vinyl Chloride U U U U U U Chloroethane U U U U U U Methylene Chloride 4 BJ 46 BJ 20 B 16 B g BJ 25 B Acetone 8 BJ 270 B 43 B 30 B U 18 B Carbon Disulfide U 14 J U U U U 1.1 -Oichloroethene U U U U U U 1.1 -Dichloroethane U U U U U U 1.2-Dichloroethene (total) U U U U U U Chloroform U U U U U U 1.2-Dichloroethane U U U U U U 2-Butanone U 39 J U U U U 1.1,1 -T~ichloroethane U U U U U U Carbon Tetrachtoride U U U U U U Bromodichloromethane U U U U U U 1.2-Dichloropropane U U U U U U cie-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U Trichloroethene U U U U U U Dibromochloromethane U U U U U U 1,1.2-Trichloroethane U U U U U U Benzene U U U U U U Trans-f ,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U Bromofocm U U U U U U 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone U U U U U U -)-Hexanone U U U U U U Tetrachloroether~e U U U U U U 1.1,2.2-Tet rachloroethane U U U U U U Toluene U U U U U U Chtorobenzene U U U U U U Ethytbenzene U U U U U U Styrene U U U U U U Total Xy~enes U U U U U U Orthochlorotoluene U U U U U U 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene U U U U U U TOTAL VOCe* 0 53 0 0 0 0 QUALIFIERS NOTES B: Compound found in the sample as well as the method blank. RE: Sample reanalyzed J: Compound found at a concentration below the detection limit ': Total VOC does not include compunds flagged with a B U: Compound analyzed for but nol detected. TABLE 4-1 (CON'T) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES VOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS PERCENT MOISTURE 10 8 5 9 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) Chloromethane U U U U Bromomethane U U U U Vinyl Chloride U U U U Chloroethane U U U U MethyteneCh~oride 31 B 21 B 19 {~ 41 B Acetone 20 B 17 B 15 B 25 B Ca,'bo~ Disulfide U U U U 1. ! -Dichloroethene U U U U 1. t -Dichloroeth&ne U U U U 1.2-Dichloroethene (total) U U U U Chlorot'or m U U U U 1,2-Dichlo~oethane U U U U 2-Butanone U U U U 1.1,1 -T¢ichloroethane U U U U Carbon Tetrachloride U U U U Bromodichloromethane U U U U 1.2-Dichloropropane U U U U cis-t ,3-Dichloropropene U U U U Trichloroethene U U U U Dibromochlo~omethane U U U U 1.1.2-Trichloroethane U U U U E~enzene U U U U Trans-1.3-Dichloropropene U U U U Bromoform U U U U 4-Methyl~2-Pentanone U U U U 2-Hexanone U U U U Tetrachloroethene U U U U 1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroethane U U U U Toluene U U U U Chlorobenzene U U U U Ethylbenzene U U U U Styrene U U U U Total Xylenes U U U U Orthochlorotoluene U U U U t +2,3-Trichloroben zene U U U U TOTAL VOCs' 0 0 0 0 QUALIFIERS NOTES B: Compound found in the sample as well as the method blank. RE: Sample reanalyzed J: Compound found at a concentration below the detection limit. *: Total VOC does not include compunds flagged with a B. U: Compound analyzed for but not detected The results of the semivolatile analysis for the subsurface soil samples collected as part of this supplemental investigation are presented in Table 4-2. Although numerous semivolatile compounds were detected throughout the site, only 4-chloroaniline in HA-2 and a few phthalate compounds were found in quantifiable concentrations above the contract required detection limit. All other compounds detected were at trace levels below the CRDL. Phthalate compounds detected above the CRDL were bis(2-ethylhexy)phthalate (BEHP), di-n-butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate and di-n-octylphthalate. BEHP was detected in the method blank and is considered a common laboratory contaminant. Slightly elevated levels of phthalates were present in soil samples SB-7 (4-6 ft) and SB-11B (4-6 ft). Sample HA-2 (3-4 ft) contained 4-chloroaniline at a concentration of 470 ug/kg. This compound was also found in soil sample S-6 collected from the bottom of the former lagoon by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in December 1990, at a concentration of 1,000 ug/kg. 4-Chloroaniline (para-chloroaniline) is used as a dye intermediate, and in pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. Related isomers (meta and ortho-cliloroaniline) have been used specifically in insecticides and fungicides. Pesticide/PCB sample results obtained during this investigation are presented in Table 4-3. The results indicate a fairly ubiquitous distribution of low to trace levels of pesticides throughout the site, although concentrations from within the former scavenger waste lagoons were slightly higher in general, but consistent with those obtained in off-site soil samples (SI and S2) collected by the USEPA in December 1990. Pesticides detected above detection limits during the USEPA round of sampling were similar to those detected on-site during this investigation, and included 4-4'-DDE, aldrin, 4-4'-DDE, endosulfansulfate and 44'-DDT. In the EPA study, aldrin was detected at a concentration of 11 ug/kg in soil sample S7 collected from the former scavenger lagoons. 44'-DDE and 44'-DTr were detected at concentrations of 120 ug/kg and 450 ug/kg, respectively, in soil sample S2 collected off-site. Endosulfansulfate was also found in off-site sample S2 at a concentration of 57 ug/kg. 36820/5 ,~27 4-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I TABLE 4-2 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS SAMPLE ID. SH-SB-1 SH-SB-2 SH-SB-3 SH-SB-3RE SH-SB-4 SAMPLE DEPTH 4-6 Pt:Icl 4-6 H::l:: ! 2-4 FEET 2-4 FEET 4-6 FEET DATE OF COLLECTION 1/19/93 1/19/93 1/21/93 1121193 1/21/93 DILUTION FACTOR 2 2 2 2 1 PERCENT MOISTURE 6 8 24 24 29 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ugJkg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ugJkg) ~is(2-Chloroet hyl)et her U U U U U ;2-Methylphenol U U U U U 2,2'-oxybis(1 -chloropropan®) U U U U U 4-Methytphem31 U U 5~ J 71 J U N-Nitroso-di-n-p~oPylamine U U U 82 J U Nittobenze~e U U U U U ~sophorone U {J U U U 2-Nitrophenol U U U U U bis(2-Chloroet hox'/)met h ane U U U U U 2,4~Dichlorophenol U U U U U Naphthalene 130 J U 68 J 58 J 200 J 4-Chloro-3-met hylphenol U U U U U 2-Melhylnaphthalene ~9 J 23 J 120 J 92 J 60 J Hexachlor~cyclop®n tadiene U U U U U 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 2,4,$-Tdchloropher~ol U U U U U 2-ChloronaphthaJene U U U U U 2-Nitroanlline U U U U U Dimet hylphthalale U U U U U 2,6-Dinitrotoluen e U U U U U 2,4-Dinilrophenol U U U U U I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 4-2 (CON'7) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SEMIVOLAT1LE ORGANIC RESULTS SAMPLE,°. S"-S~-7 S"-S~-70' SR-SB-SJ ~S,-S~-9 2 S'-SB-10 ? SAMPLE DEPTH 4-6 I-EEl 4-6 FEET ',.4-R FJE;.~r' "4-6 F~=~;:t~ "2..4 FF~,-~ DATE OF COLLECTION 1/19/93 1/19/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 DILUTION FACTOR 2 8 2 0 2 I PERCENT MOISTURE 9 9 31 18 37 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) bls(2-Chloroethyl)ether U U U U U 2-Chlorophenol U U U U U 1,3-Dichloroben zene U U U U U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 4-2 (CON'T) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SENIIVOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS SAMPLEID. ( SH-SB-11 z~ SH-SB-11RE SH-SB-11B SH-SB-11BRE SH-HA-1 SAMPLE DEPTH '-4.--6 I-P_~t~ 4-6 t-H-I 4-6 FEET 4-6 FEET 3-4 FEET DATE OF COLLECTION 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/20~93 1/21/93 DILUTION FACTOR 2 2 2 2 1 PERCENT MOISTURE 10 10 15 15 I 9 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (u~/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) ! (ug/kg) Compound found in the sample &s well as the metho<J blank. I I I I I I I I I !1 I I I I I I I TABLE 4-2 (CON'T) SOU'I'HOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES SE~IIVOLATILE ORGANIC RESULTS SAMPLE ID. SH - HA-2,..) (SH-HA-3 .~ SH-HA-4 SH-HA-5 SAMPLE DEPTH '"3~t-FEET '3..-4-E.E,E=~ 3-4 FEET 5-6 FEET DATE OF COLLECTION 1/22/93 1/22/93 1/22/93 1/22/93 DILUTION FACTOR 1 I I 1 PERCENT MOISTURE 10 8 5 9 SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ugJkg) (ug/kg) bi$(2~hloroet hyl)etfler U U U U B: Compound found in the sample as well as the m®lh~ blank. TABLE 4-3 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES PESTICIDE/PCB RESULTS SAMPLE ID. SH-SB-1 SH-SB-2 SH-SB-3 I SH-SB-4 SH-SB-4DL SH-SB-7 SH-SB-..;.~' I~H-SB-9.../ SAMPLE DEPTH 4-6 FEET 4-6 FEET 2-4 FEETI 4-6 i-H- l 4-6 ~-b~- i 4-6 pH-I 4~5 I'b~- I 4--bTt:~ ~ DATE OF COLLECTION 1119/93 1119/93 1/21/93 1/21/93 1/21/93 1/1 9/93 1/20/93 1120193 DILUTION FACTOR 5 1 4 10 100 5 5 5 PERCENT MOISTURE 6 8 24 29 29 9 31 18 PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) alpha-BHC U U. U U U U U U beta-BHC U U U U U U U U delta-BHC U U U U U U U U gamma-BHC (Lindane) U U U U U U U U Heptachlor U U U U U U U U Aldrin U U U U U U 46 U Heptachlor epoxide U U U 17 JP U U U U Endosulfan I U U U U U U U U Dieldrin U U 15 JP U U U 89 13 JP 4,4'-DDE 37 P U U U U 21 34 P 16 JP Endrin U U U 54 P U U U U Endosulfan H U U 18 P U U U 24 U 4,4'-DDD 150 U 29 U U 73 100 80 Endosulfan sulfate U U U 22 JP U U U U 4,4'-DDT 18 U U 34 JP U 8.6 J U U Methoxychtor U U U U U U U U Endrin ketone U U U U U U U U : Endrin aldehyde U U U U U U U U 'alpha-Chlordane U U 11 P 11 JP U U 29 P 9.2 JP aroma-Chlordane U U U 12 JP U U 34 P U Toxaphene U U U U U U U U Aroclor-1016 U U U U U U U U ~roclor-1221 U U U U U U U U ~roclor-1232 U U U U U U U U &roclor-1242 U U U U U U U 130 JP kroclo¢-1248 U U U U U U U U kroclor-1254 U U 330 U U U U 140 JP kroc[or-1260 U U U U U U U U NOTES QUALIFIERS J: Compound found al a con~entr alion below the deleclion limit. m m m m m m mm m m m m m m mm m TABLE 4-3 (CON'T) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES PESTICIDE/PCB RESULTS SAMPLE 'Df ~) ¢SB ~DL ~/sH-SB-1 ~ ~ ~H--SB--' lB SHmHA--I ( rSHmHAm2 ' )~HaHA--3 ~ SHIHA--4 SH--HA--5 SAMPLE DEPTH ~ ~,~ 4-6 P~-t=l 3-4 I-bi: i -~ -'~=.4-P--~r.L--r ' 3-4 I-bEt DATE OF COLLECTION 1/20/93 1120/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1121/93 1122/93 1/22/93 1/22/93 1/22/93 DILUTION FACTOR 5 30 5 5 1 1 1 ' I 1 PERCENT MOISTURE 37 37 10 15 9 10 8 5 9 PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) alpha-BHC U U U U U U U U U bela-BHC U U U U U U U U U delta-RHC U U U U U U 2.7 P U U gamma-BHC (Lindane) U U U U U U U U U Heptachlor U U U U U U U U U Aldrin U U U U U U U U U Heptachlor epoxide U U U U U U U U U Endosulfan I U U U U U U U U U Dieldrin 33 P U U U U U 5.4 U 2.9 JP 4,4'-DOE 210 210 U 11 JP U U 7.6 P 2.7 JP 49 Endrin 13 J U U U u u u u u Endosulfan II U U U U U U U U U 4,4'-DDD U 1000 12 J 63 U U 1.6 JP 3.5 P 12 P Endosulfan sulfate 12 J U U U U U 4.3 U U 4.4'-DDT 110 U U U U U 5.5 P U 58 Methoxychlor U U U U U U U U U Endrin ketone U U U U U U U U U Enddn aldehyde U U U U U U U U U alpha-Chlordane U U U 13 P U U 14 P 3.1 P 2.1 gamma-Chlordane 12 JP U U 12 P U U 14 P 3 P 1.9 Toxaphene U U U U U U U U U Aroc)or-1016 U U U U U U U U U Arcclor-1221 U U U U U U U U U Aroclor-1232 U U U U U U U U U kroclor-1242 U U U 89 J U U U U U Aroclor-1248 U U 650 U U U U U U Aroclor-1254 U U U 100 JP U U 67 P 30 JP 10 JP Aroclor- 1260 U U U U U U U U U QUALIFIERS B: C3mpou nd found ~n the sample as well as the melhod blank. J; Compound found at a concenlration below the detection limit, NOTES RE: Sample reanalyzed DE: Sample reanalyzea al a secondaly dilution I I I I No pesticides/PCBs were present in samples HA-1 (3-4 ft), HA-2 (3-4 ft) and SB-2 (4-6 ft). The pesticides with the highest levels detected as a result of the supplemental investigation include 4,4'-DDE which ranged from not detected to 210 ug/kg in SB-10 (2-4 ft), 4,4'-DDD which ranged from not detected to 1,000 ug/kg in SB-10DL (24 fl), and 4,4'-DDT which ranged from not detected to 110 ug/kg in SB-10 (24 ft). Low concentrations of PCBs were detected in soil samples SB-3 (2-4 ft), SB-9 (4-6 fl), SB-II (4-6fl), SB-11B (4-6ft) and hand auger samples HA-3 through HA-5. However, concentrations were below detection limits in SB-9, SB-1 lB, HA-3, HA-4 and HA-5. The highest levels of PCBs were found in soil sample SB-3 (2-4ft) at a concentration of 330 ug/kg and SB-11 (4-6 fi) at a concentration of 650 ug/kg, although the replicate sample SB-1 lB shows levels at 189 ug/kg, showing some variation within the soil matrix. 4.3.2 Inorganic Sampling Results The inorganic constituents analyzed as part of this investigation and the associated results are presented in Table 4-4. Hand auger sample HA-1 (3-4 ft) was collected as a background sample and is located in an undisturbed section of the site, and as such, is useful as a reference point in discussing metal concentrations present in other soil samples collected as part of this investigation. Although overall levels of metals were lower in sample SB-4 (4-6 fl), located along the eastern boundary of the site, the presence of fill material at this location makes it unsuitable for use as a background sample. In general, slightly elevated levels of copper, lead and zinc were found throughout the site in comparison to sample HA-1. Copper, present in HA-I (3-4 fl) at concentrations of 1.5 mg/kg, was present throughout the site in subsurface soil samples in concentrations ranging from 1.5 rog/kg (SB-4) to 93.4 mg/kg (HA-2). A somewhat higher concentration of 231 mg/kg was present in SB-3, which was collected from the landfill waste mass, and is therefore not representative of site subsurface soils. Lead, present in sample HA-1 (3-4 fl) at a concentration of 2.9 mg/kg was found throughout the site in subsurface soil samples in concentrations ranging from 1.1 mg/kg in SB-4 (4-6 fl) to 43.9 mg/kg in SB-I lB (4-6 ft). Once again, an anonymously higher level of lead at 99.7 mg/kg was found in sample SB-3 (2-4 fl) located within the waste mass. Similarly, a slightly elevated level of zinc, 325 mg/kg, was found in soil sample SB-3 (2-4 ft). Zinc levels ranged from 2.3 mg/kg in sample SB-4 (4-6ft) to 179mg/kg in soil sample SB-11 (4-6ft). Background concentrations of zinc (HA-l) were 9.4 mg/kg. 3682015 Io2'~ 4-15 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m TABLE 4-4 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES METAL RESULTS SAMPLE ID SH-SB-1 ' SH-SB-2 SH-SB-3 SH-SS-4 SH-SB-7 '~H-SB-8 SAMPLE DEPTH 4-6 FEET 4-6 FEET 2-4 DATE OF COL L ECTION 1/19/93 1119/93 1121/93 1121/93 1 I19193 1/20/93 DILUTION FACTOR I 1 1 * I 1 * * 1 * * PERCENT SOLIDS 93.9 91.7 76.2 71 91 69.1 INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mo/kg) Aluminum 2800 1470 2960 1100 5400 2160 Antimony U U U U U U Arsenic 2.9 2.7 12.8 U 5.1 U Barium 10.7 B 11 B 76.8 U 23.6 B 32.1 B Beryllium U U U U U U Cadmium U U U U U U Calcium 208 S 2890 3220 U 10100 694 B Chromium 4.5 3.6 t3.4 2.1 B 6.8 5.4 Cobalt U U U U 3 S U Copper 5.3 4.6 B 231 1.6 B 11.6 24.8 Iron 3760 3900 5550 2180 6270 6270 Lead 12.3 8.5 99.7 1.1 35 42.5 Magnesium 377 B 1780 1110 B U t120 618 B Manganese 39.7 52.2 91.4 17.3 102 87.2 Mercury U U 0.42 U U U Nickel U U U U U U Potassium U U U U 351 B U Selenium U U U U U U Silver U U 2.2 E U U U Sodium U U 511 B U 301 B U Thallium U U U U U U Vanadium 7.9 B 5.2 B 11.2 B U 10,6 S 9~5 B Zinc 12.4 49.1 325 2.3 B 40.6 61.3 Cyanide U U U U U U QUALIFIERS B: Element found at a concentration less than the CRDL but greater than the IDL. U: Element analyzed for but not detected NOTES *: Lead analyzed at a 1:10 dilution · ': Lead analyzed at a 1:4 dilution TABLE 4-4 (CON"r) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES METAL RESULTS SAMPLE DEPTH ~ - ' 4-6 ~-~-~ ~ 3-4 ~-~-~ ~ DATE OF COLLECTION 1120/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/20/93 1/21/93 DILUTION FACTOR 1 1 1 * * 1 * * 1 PERCENT SOLIDS 82.2 62.6 89.8 85 91.1 INORGANIC CONS I I I UENTS (mg/kg) (rog/kg) (rog/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Aluminum 5630 1100 3880 2770 5710 Antimony U U U U U Arsenic 7.5 U U 2.2 B 1.4 B Barium 16.6 B 12.9 B 25.3 B 22.5 B 10 B Berytlium U U U U U Cadmium U U U U U Calcium g~8 B 1230 B 1110 B 1110 B U Chromium 6.8 6.5 7 6.5 6.4 Cobalt 3 B 2,9 B 5.8 S 3.6 B 2.4 B Copper 11.9 14.3 45.5 43.4 1.5 B Iron 5860 16400 15500 5560 8140 Lead 15.6 18.4 34.9 43.9 2.9 Magnesium 679 B 250 B 583 B 462 B 627 B Manganese 71.7 122 121 59 101 Mercury U U U U U Nickel U U 9.4 U U Potassium 323 B U U U U U U U U U Selenium · Silver U U U U U Sodium U U U U U Thallium U U U U U Vanadium 11.5 B 5.6 B 7.6 B 5,9 B 10.4 B Zinc 16.6 94 179 105 9,4 3yanide U U U U U QUALIFIERS B: Element found at a concentration less than the CRDL but greater than the IDL. U: Element analyzed for but not detected NOTES ': Lead analyzed et a 1;10 dilution · *: Lead analyzed at a 1:4 dilution TABLE 4-4 (CON'T) SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES METAL RESULTS SAMPLE ID /SH-HA-2 ,/' SH-HA-3 .~) SH-HA-4 SH-HA-5 SAMPLE DEPTH ~ '3-4-f-L-~: Ir 3-4 ~-H-~ 5-6 ~-H-~ DATE OF COLLECTION 1/22/93 1122./93 1122/93 1/22/93 DILUTION FACTOR 1 * 1 1 1 PERCENT SOLIDS 90.5 92,2 95.1 91.1 INORGANIC CONS ~'I'I'U ENTS (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Aluminum 1700 1000 693 4070 Antimony U U U U Arsenic 1.3 B U U 2.7 IRarium 23.7 B ~0 U 15.6 B IReryllium U U U U Cadmium U U U U Calcium 286 B 1240 81.7 B 583 B Chromium 7.4 5.1 3.9 4.7 Cobalt U U U U Copper 93.4 45.1 1.5 B 6.2 Iron 2940 3160 3230 5240 Lead 34.1 16.1 2 12 Magnesium 302 B 243 IR 198 B 495 IR Manganese 33.2 33.6 57.5 120 Mercury 0.24 0.14 U U Nickel U U U U Potassium U U U 285 B Selenium U U U U Silver U U U U Sodium U U U U Thallium U U U U Vanadium 4 B 3.3 B 2.7 IR 8.1 S Zinc 33.2 106 3.3 B 20.4 Cyanide U U U U QUALIFIERS B: Element fo~Jnd at a concentratio~ less than the CRDL but greater than the IDL U: Element analyzed for but not detected NOTES *: Lead analyzed at a 1:10 dilution * *: Lead analyzed at a 1:4 dilution I I I I I I I I I I I I ! ! ! ! Lead and zinc concentrations from smnples collected from within the former scavenger waste lagoon averaged 31.1 mg/kg and 91.2 mg/kg, respectively. This compares with an average of 15.1 mg/kg of lead and 33.4 mg/kg of zinc throughout the remainder of site (excluding sample SB-3 [2-4 ft] and background sample HA-I [3-4 ft]). 4.3.3 TCLP Sampling Results The results of the Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) performed on sample SB-8 (6-8 ft) obtained from the scavenger waste lagoon are presented in Table 4-5. The o~fly compound detected as a result of the TCLP procedure was barium which was present at a concentration of 0.648 mg/1, which is well below the regulatory level of I00 mg/1. The soil sample collected from SB-8 and analyzed for total metals showed very low levels of barium at 32.1 rog/kg, which was below the CRDL. The highest level of barium detected on-site was from soil sample SB-3 (24 ft) 76.8 mg/kg, which was located within the waste mass. Therefore, based on TCLP analysis, the subsurface soil underlying the former scavenger waste lagoon is not hazardous. 36820/5 1027 4-19 il I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 4-5 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES TCLP RESULTS SAMPLE ID Q SH-SB-~'~ Regulatory '"4~-.6,/~ levels SAMPLE DEPTH DATE OF COLLECTION 1/20 TCLP CONTAMINANT (rog/I) (mg/I) VOLATILE COMPOUNDS Benzene U 0.50 Carbon tetrachloride U 0.50 Chlorobenzene U 100.0 Chloroform U 6,0 1,2-Dichloroethane U 0.5 1,1 -Dichloroethylene U 0.7 Methyl ethyl ketone U 200.0 Tetrachloroethylene U 0.7 =Trichloroethylene U 0.5 Vinyl chloride U 0.20 SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS Cresol U 200 ,4-Dichlorobenzene U 7.5 2,4-Dinitrotoluene U 0.13 Hexachlorobenzene U 0.13 Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene U 0.5 Hexachloroethane U 3.0 Nitrobenzene U 2.0 Pentachlorophenol U 100.0 Pyridine U 5.0 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U 400.0 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U 2.0 PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS Chlordane U 0.03 Endrin U 0.02 Heptachlor(and its epoxide) U 0.008 Lindane U 0.4 Methoxychlor U 10.0 Toxaphene U 0.5 HERBICIDE COMPOUNDS 2,4-D U 10.0 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) U 1.0 METALS Arsenic U 5.0 Barium 0.648 100.0 Cadmium U 1.0 Chromium U 5.0 Lead U 5.0 Mercury U 0.2 Selenium U 1.0 Silver U 5.0 QUALIFIERS U: Compound analyzed for but not detected Section m m m m m mm m m m m m mm m m ,mm ,m m m m 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the samples collected as part of the supplemental investigation, it appears that there is very limited impact to the subsurface soil resulting from waste disposal at the Southold landfill, including those soils underlying the former scavenger waste lagoons. Only trace levels of VOCs were detected and were limited to a few samples. The only semivolatiles found in low concentrations above detection levels were 4-chloroanaline and several phthalates. Low to trace concentxations of pesticides were found in nearly all samples collected as part of this investigation. However, the types and levels of pesticides detected on the landfill site were consistent with those detected off-site by USEPA in December 1990. The Southold landfill is bounded on the south, west and north by farmland where pesticides are extensively used. Therefore, the presence of pesticides at the landfill could be the result of off-site impacts or possible disposal of residuals at the landfill. The concentrations of metals throughout the site were in general, found to be slightly elevated as compared to background, but still at low levels. TCLP analysis of the soil sample collected from within the former scavenger lagoons, in an area of visibly stained soils and elevated organic vapor readings, showed no compounds detected except for barium which was detected well below the regulatory threshold for characterization as a hazardous waste. 36870/2 ~027 5-1 Section 6 / m m m m m m mm mm m mm m m m m m m m m m I I i I I i I I i I I I I I I ! I I 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation and this supplemental investigation, softs at the Southold landfill, in particular in the former scavenger waste lagoon, have not been significantly impacted by the disposal of waste at the landfftl. Groundwater sample results obtained as part of the Part 360/Phase lI'Hydrogeologic Investigation and the landfill operational monitoring program (contained in separate documents) do not indicate significant impacts on groundwater quality on-site, and groundwater quality is not impacted off-site. As a result of these findings, the Southold landfill does not pose a threat to human health or the environment and it is recommended that the landfill be removed from the list of potential hazardous waste sites (Class 2a) and be delisted. 3688O/3 ~027 6-1 I I I I I I I I I i I I I / I I I I I I"IF.J..D FORlVlS DAILY lm{{{~D ACTIVITY ?! il I I i i I i I I I I I 1 I I I I I db D VI~K,A AND BART~LUCCI DAH~Y FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Report Numher: Field Log Book Page Number. Project: AdcLruss: Weather: Project Number:. / C)c-~ -~- Date: Rainfall: (AlVl) Inches (PM) Inches "/~,,; °F (PM) Temperature: (AM} (PM} Site Condition: MPH WimiDit~ou: (AM) M]~ (PM) Wo~ Commenc~n~m: ~contractor Work Completion (PM) (PM) DB-DFAR I I I I I 1 I I 'I I I I I I i I I I DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI Work DB-DFAR DATE: DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT inciudes .labor break,town): db D VIRKA AND BARTILUCCI DA'i DA{LY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT List specific inspection(s) performed and results (inciude problems and con~-ctive actions Lhi D~pe and location of tests pedormcd and results (include equipment used and momtoring results): Verbal comments received from subconu'actor (include construction and test~g problems, and recornmen,4 m'ionslnmulting action): I I Reviewed by: DB-DFAR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I dDV~RKA AND BARTILUCCI DAILY FIELD ACTIV1TY REPORT Report Number: Project Number. Date: Project: Address: Field Log Book Page Ntm~r. (AM) Rain~all: (AM) Inches (PM): (PM) Inches (PM) NV'md. Speed: (.~vl) M]q{ WlndDi:~-cUon: (AM') (PM) ~ (PM) Site Condition: Personnel On Site: S~ocomrac~or Wor~ Commencemem: ~A~ ¢~'__'I~ ,?~contrac~or Work Completion (AM) (PM) (PM) DB-DFAR I i I I i I I I I I i i t I il I I I BAItTILUCCX DATE: DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Work~pcffom!ed today by subcontractor~s) (includes equigmem and labor bre~icdown): DB-DFAR ~D DATE: BART[LUCCI i DAH~Y FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT , ~.,~.~ _/.,::~,~ ~,. ~/.~_/ch -'~.,,+~ '/l~.~-~ / - ~ / j / I List type and location of tests performed and results (include equipment used and momtormg results): ! ! Verbal commems received from subconuactor (include consumction and testing problems, and recommendations/~-sulting action): I I I DB-DFAR Reviewed by: i i I I I I I 1 I I I I i I I I I I dDVl~KA AND BARTII. UCCI FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Repoix Number:. ~ Field Log Book Page Number:. Project: Add.ss: Weather:. Project Number. (AM) (PM): Temperature: (AM) °F W'mdSl~l: (AM) tPM) -- °F (PM) Site Condition: Personnel On Site: Rainfall: (AM) Inches (PM) Incbes MPH ~ Dim,mom (AM) ~ (PM) Subconu~ctor Work Commencemem: (AM) (PM) Subcontractor Work Completion (AM) (PM) DB-DFAR t I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I BAltTILUCCI DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT DB-DFAR BARllLUCCI '1 D~H.Y FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT I List specific inspection(s) performed and results (include problems and corrective actions): I I I List type and location of tests performed and remits (include equipment used and monitoring r~sults): ! ! Verbal conunents ~-ceived f~om subcontractor (includ~ construction and testing problems, and recommendations/n~sulting action): I I I Pre~arcd by: DB-DFAR Reviewed by: ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I d[DVIRKA AND BART,, .UCCI DAHX FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT Report Number:. ~/ Project Number: / ( ) '~ '~ Da~: Field Log Book Page Number. qc~' ~ ,~, Add.ss: Weather:. (AM) (PM): Rainfall: (AM) Inches (PM) Inches Temperature: (AM),.~; °F WindSpe~t: (AM{ ~ WlmlDimcUou: (AM) (PM) , ~,: °F (PM) MI~ (PM) Site Condition: Personnel On Site: Name Subcomractor Work Commencement: (AM) (PM) Subcontractor Work Completion (AM) (PM) DB-DFAR Work:' DB-DFAR DVIRKA BAR'I'ILUCCI DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT and labor I~:~akxtown): I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT List specific inspection(s) pedormed md results (inciude problems and cor~-ctive actions): List type nnd location of tests performed nnd results (include equipn~nt used and momtoring results): Verbal cormnents r~ceived f~m subconu'nctor (include consu'uction and te~t~g problems, and reconunendn,!ons/resulting action): Reviewed by: DB-DFAR I I I ~IX A-2 CHAINS ON CUSTODY PORMS ! ! I CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD I I SHIPTO: Nytest Environmental Inc. 60 Seaview Blvd. Port Washington. NY 11050 Attn /vI~R~, ~_t~ I I I I il I I I I I I I I Project No. I ,Project Name Date Shipped SamP~(~T~) ~.~ ~ ~ Analytical Pro~o~ AirBill No~/~ C~ler ~m~ Date/Time ~mple No. Of I.~ ~>x Sample~~ O~r~tion tainersC°n- ANALYSIS REQUESTED Special Instructions/Comments I Client Retains Yellow Copy Only I I I I I I $~ env~ronmen~ol CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD SHIP TO: Nytest Environmental Inc. 60 Seaview Blvd. Port Washington. NY 11050 Attn._ Page__( of/ REPORT TO: Client Name r) ~.- i~ _ , , No. Sampled Analytical Sample Description 1 / Date Shipped ANALYSISREQUESTED - / Special Instructions/Comments. / 2.' 0c~ / ~::=o,.~ .... Client Retains Yellow Copy Only 36730/3 1027 APPI~NDIX A-3 SAMPLE INFORMATION I SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/~ tKEAM SOIL ~ SEDIiVlF. NT AIR OTHER (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) WELL INFORMATION (fill om for groundwater smnples): DEPTH TO WATER DEFITI OF WELL VOLUME REMOVED F~t-r~ TEST RF~ULTS: IvIEASUR~ lvu:~l'HOD Ivl~UR~ Ivmii-lOD P~OV~L lvl~ {.l-lOD. COLOR pH ODOR TEMPERATURE (°F) SPEcu'IC CONDUCTANCJ~ (umbo~/cra) OT~O"A.M~'~---',,,,.,,,.~ ~/'~"~//~- ~ ~ ~St//q cb, - REMARKS: GAL/Fr 1-1/4" n 0.077 1-1/2" :' 0. lO wF2.L CASING VOLUM~ 2" : 0.|l 2-1/2" = 0.24 3" ~ 0.37 4' 3-1/2". 0.S0 6" - 1.4~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DVIRKA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/~ l REAM SOIL 'X. WELL INFORMATION DEFTH TO WATER D~ OF WEIL VOLUME REMOVED Fm~ .n TEST RESULTS: COLOR SEDIMENT out for ~ouudwatm' mnples): AIR OTHER (Describe, i.~., septage, lcachate) Ivi~UgE~ ~ t rlOD IVlEASLr~ lvml~OD REMOVAL lyre iHOD pH ODOR SPE~IvIC CONDUC'FANC~ (un~o~cm) REMARKS: I I I GAUI~ 1-114" = o.o'r/ 1-1/2" - 0.10 w,~, -~- CASING VOLUMES 2" = OAS 3" -- 0.3'7 2-1Y2" = 0.24 3-1/2" I I I I I I I I I I I I &DVIRKA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/~ t KEAM SOIL X WELL INFORMATION (fill out for puundwate~ samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF W~! VOLUME REMOVED l~!-r~ TEST RE, SULTS: COLOR TEMPERA~ (°F) SEDIMF--NT AIR (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) MEA.SUP. EMENT ~u~ t HOD M~_~SUREMENT ~m,t/OD REMOVAL ~ttiOD. pH ODOR SpEclI~IC CONDUCTANC~ (umho~cm) .~{, w//40. I~MARKS: GM~T 1-1/4". 0.0'7'/ 1-1/2" = 0.lO w F_a..L CASING VOLUMES 2" =0.15 .t" =0.37 2-1/2" = 0.24 3-1/2" - 0.S0 4" = {" = !.# I i I I I I I I I I I I AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCC~ SAMPLE TYPE: OROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/$ i REAM SOIL ~(~ SEDnvl]~I~T WELL INFORMATION (fill out for gnmndwater samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF WI=..I .I. VOLUME REMOVED FII~I .~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR AIR ~ (Describe, i.e., septage, leachnte) lVlEASU~ Ivl~tl-IOD Ivl~AS~ Iv~ lrlOD REMOVAL l~t~'t t~OD pH ODOR TEMPERATURE (°F) SPEt:~tC CONDUCTANCE (umhos/an) I I I I I I CONs-iii Tel REMARKS: GAL/Fl 1-1/4" ~ 0.0W 1-1/2" ~ 0.10 w FA..L CASING VOLUMES 2" r. 0.16 3" --0.37 2-1~2" ~ 0.24 I SAMPLE TYPE: I I GROUNDWATER SURFACE WAT~R/~ 1 I¢,EAM SOIL f I SEDIMENT AIR oerHER (De~rib~. i.e.. septage, leachate) I I I WELL INFORMATION (fill out for groundwater samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF VOLUME REMOVED FIELD TEST RF. SULTS: MEASUREbfEHT Iv~ t ttOD MEAS~ ~ ~rlOD RF.2vIOVAL ~ ttOD I I COLOR pH ODOR TEMPERATURE (°F) SPE<L~tC CONDUCTANCE (un~o~/cm) I I I I REMARKS: GAt,mT 1-1/4" = 0.0'7'7 1-1/2" = 0.10 w~.. J. CASING VOLUME~ 2" =0.16 3" --0.37 2-1/2" = 0.24 3-1/2" - 0.~0 4" = ~;" = 1.4~ dDVIRICA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTI~UCCI /~ // - SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFAC~rATER/~ l KEAlvl SO~L / x S~DI~ WELL INFORMATION ~ DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF W~I I. VOLUlsO~ RI~IOVED 1~1~ .1~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR TF..MPERATURE (°F) fill om for gzoundwater samples): AIR OTI-W.R (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) MEASUREMENT lVu:. t HOD IvlF..AS~ lv~ t rlOD REMOVAL lvo='t HOD pH ODOR SPEcH~IC CONDUCTANCE (umho~cm) OTHER (OVA, Methane memr, etc.) I I I REMARKS: I I I SIR 1-1/4" a 0.077 1-1/2" a 0.10 w'~, J- CABING VOLUMES 2" =0.1~ 3" --0.37 2-1/2" = 0.24 3-1/2" a 0..~ 4" = 0.65 t;' . 1.4~ DVIRKA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTI~UCCI SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/~ SOl/. >(~. SEDIMF~rF WELL I. NFORALA. TION (fill out for groundwater samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEFrH OF W'~-L VOLUM~ REMOVED FIb-'~ r~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR AIR (Describe, i.e.. septage, leachate) MEASU~ Ivl~ i rlOD IvlEASUREIvlENT MLrrHOD ILF_.MOVAL lyre AHOD. pH ODOR TEMPERATURE (*~'3 SPEt:I/"iC CONDUCTANCE (unfl~os/~an) I I I CONs"iii I.~ REMARKS: $1R GAi.~r 1-1/4" = I-Y2" = 0.10 wKu ]. CA~ING VOLUMES 2" = 0.1~ 2-1/2" n 0.24 4" = 0.$S AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BART~LUCCI - ~ '/ SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/STRE. AM SOIL /~ SEDIIvI~Vr WELL INFORMATION (~11 out for gxuundwate~ samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF WELL VOLUME RI~vIOVED F{~'~ r'* TEST RESULTS: COLOR TEMPERATURE (OF) OTHER (OVA, Me~mne me, er, etc.) AIR (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) I'v~AS~ blP_. iitOD ~~ lvl~THOD RF_~OVAL METHOD pH ODOR SPEc~IC CONDUCTANCE (umho~n) I I I I~MARKS: I I I I S~R GAUFT 1-1/4" - 0.0W l-l/m" - 0.10 w~' .I. CA~ING VOLUMES 2" ~ 0.1~ 3" = 0.37 2-1/2" n 0.24 3-1/2" {" · I I I I I I I I I I I I I AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI ~ / / TI~ ./~-~ a_ ( ~ V~THER TEIVIPERATURE SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/:~'i KEu~M SOIL SEDI~ WELL INFORMATION DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF WF.I VOLUME REMOVED FIELD TEST RESULTS: AIR O~ (D~cribe, i.e.. septage. leachate) out for ~oundwater snmples): MEA~UREMEaNT I~THOD MEAS~ IVIL~I~IOD REMOVAl. lV~:~i HOD COLOR pH ODOR TEMPF_.RA~ (°F) S?EUIYlC CONDUCTANCE (unthos/cm) OTHER (OVA, Methane meter, etc.) I I REMARKS: wm ~. ~A~NG VOLUME8 GAI~I~ 1-1/4" -- 0.0'77 2" = 0,1~ 3' ~ O~ 4" = 0.~ 1-~2" - 0.10 ~2" ~ 0.~ ~2" - 0.~ ~" ~ 1.~ S~ I I I I I I I I I I I I DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI ~ . , // ~ ? SAIvlPLE LOCATION/W~LLNO. ~-~-~ / /, ,~',<)// FIELD SAMPLE I.D. NUMBER ~[-~ - ~ ~ -- ~/~/~z~ ~' DATE SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD SAIVIPLE TYPE: GROUNDWA'FF.R SURFACE WATERyb-rKEAM SOIL ,~ SF. DIiM]~',Fr WELL INFORMATION i DEPTH TO WATER DEFrH OF WELL VOLUME REMOVED Fiji.r) TEST RF~ULTS: COLOR o'rI-~R (OVA, Meth~, meter, etc.) AIR OTRER (Desc~be, i.e., septage, leachate) fill out for ~rouodwat~ samples): MEASUREMENT IV~'I~IOD MEASUREMI~NT tvl~ ll-lOD RIBMOVAL IV~ ll-lOD pH ODOR SPEIJu~iC CONDUCTANCE (c,mh~cm) / I I '1 REMARKS: wl~t.L CASING VOLUbiF,8 I I SIR 1-1/4". 0.~7 l-lY2". 0.10 2" = OAS 2-1/2" n 0.24 3" = 0.37 3-1/2". 1.46 I I ! I AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI FIELD SAMPLE I.D. NUIVlBFJ! ~-~l-] -~ -- [ ~__%~c/) DATE SAMPLE TYPE: OROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/STRF. AWI SOIL SEDIMENT WELL iNFORMATION DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF W~{ J- VOLUME RI~IOVBD F;~-rm TEST RF.~ULTS: COLOR TEIVlPERATURE (OF) OT'rI~R (OVA, Methnne me{er, e~c.) AIR ~ (De~ibe. i.e., septage. leachate) fiH out for gtoundwa~ samples): IvlEAS~ l~ll-[OD MF_AS~ METHOD REJk4OVAL IVI~i ItOD pH ODOR SPE~JIIqC CONDUCrANC~ (uml~cm) REMARKS: I I I 1-1/4" ~ 0.0/7 1-1/2" . 0.10 wl~.l ~. CASING VOLUMES 2" --0AS 3" --0,37 2-1/2" = 0.24 3-1/2" :s 0.S0 ! I I I I I I :1 &DV~RKA AND BARTILUCCI SAMPLE LOCATION/W~LLNO. SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD SAMI'LE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/~ci'KEAM SOIL ~ WELL INFORMATION (fill out for gwundwate~ samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF W~.I. VOLUME REMOVED F~R'~ .r~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR pH TEMPERA~ (°F) SEDIlVl~.NT AIR OTHER (Describe, i.e., septage, leachnte) ODOR MEASURJ/MENT Me-t 1tOD MEASUREMI/NT h~z't-IOD REMOVAL lv~l~IOD SPEt:H~tC CONDUCTANCE (umhes/cm) / I I I I i I I GAL/rr 1-1/4" = 0.0'77 I-Y2" · 0.10 wl:t,L CA.qlNG VOLUMES 2" = 0.1~ 3' -- 0.37 2-1/2" = 0.2~ 3-Y2" ~t 0.S0 4" = 0.65 SIR I I I I I I I I I I I I DVIRKA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/STREAM SOIL ~ SEDI~tENT WELL INFORMATION (fill om for gxoundwater samples): DEPTH TO WATER DEPTH OF W~T.L VOLLrM. E REMOVED l~-r~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR TEMP~ (OF) O~n~R (OVA. Me,h,-~ nete~.,tc.) ~ ~3 AIR (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) IvlEAS~ ~u~ ~ rIOD MEASL~ lvt~ t rtOD REMOV~tL 1~ rlOD pH SPEcifIC CONDUCTANCE (mnho~n) ODOR I I I I REMARKS: I I I GAUI~ 1-1/4" ~ 0.07'/ 1-1/2" a 0.10 will, CASING VOLUMES 2" :~0.1~ 3" --0.37 2-1/2". 0.24 3-1/2". 0.~0 4" -- 0.65 6" ~s 1.4~ I I I I 1 I I i I I i I I I i D~RK~ AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD BARTILUCCI SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/STREaM WELL INFORMATION (fill out for ~x~undwater sample): DEPTH TO WATER DEP'I'H OF WI~I J. VOLUME REMOVED Fll~l'.r~ TEST ~TS: COLOR pH O~R (OVA, Me~ ~, ,~.) SEDIMENT AIR OTI-IF.R (De~mbe, i.e., septage, leachate) ODOR MEASURE1MF. IqT Ivl~-l'HOD MEASUR~ lVliii'HOD REMOVAL l~ltiOD SPEclI~IC CONDUCTANCE (un~cm) REMARKS: I I I SIR GAl.qrr 1-1/4" ~ 0.977 l-l/2" ~ 0.10 wm.L CASING VOLUMES 2" ~ 0.1~ 3" -- 0.37 2-1/2" a 0.24 3-1/2" . 0.~0 I I i I I I I i ! i I I I ,I i ~ BARTILUCCI FIF_.,LD SAMPLE LD. NUMBER ,:/~- t~/~ ~--(~ ~ DA~ T~ /~'/~ ~R DvmKA AND SAMPLE INFORMATION RECORD / SAMPLE TYPE: GROUNDWATER SURFACE WATER/:~ t KEAM SOIL ~ SEDIMENT WELL INFORMATION (fill out for g~oundwate~ samples): DEPTH TO WATER DF. FIH OF W~! VOLLrME REMOVED FI~r~ TEST RESULTS: COLOR pH TI~U'ERA~ (°1~ AIR OTHER (Describe, i.e., septage, leachate) ODOR MEAS~ lV~-~-IOD lVlF..AS URE/vI~NT lvmt ttOD REMOVAL Iv~ i riOD SPEctt'IC CONDUCTANCE (umho~cm) OTHP=R (OVA, Me~ane me, er, etc.) i I I CON~i[I u'~ SAMPI ~ ~_L il(),~. ~ REMARKS: GAI.~r 1-1/4" = 0.077 1'112" - 0.10 wE, ~. CASING VOLUMES 2" =0.16 3" =0.o'7 2-1/2" = 0.24 3-1/2" ~ 030 4" = 0.65 SIR I I APPI~"~DI~ ' DAILY ~UIPMI~qT C~t m~TION ~ I i I I I0~? ~ DALLY EOUIPMENT CALIBRATION LOG i Project Name 5"o~,~/~oiJ £a,,~ I[ Date / f/~/4 :~ I Project Number /o Z ~ - ><' 0(2 2- Calibrated by tO. 6%-,~ ~ c. [/-~z Instrument Calibration Name and Model # Method Time C ~ J~7 ? 3~ 7: Readings and Observations o olqfl 0/qo DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI AIR MONITORING FORM PROJECT NUMBER: /[) .''Q ~ RECORDED BY: / '~/z~v ./,'S,f~ ~ WEATHER CONDITIONS: CALmRAT~O~ DATE: I - / ,~ -~'_.~ WIND SPEED TIMIE LOCATION AND DIRECTI'ION RE. ADIHO OBSERVATIONS rip i 7_'.qP ,<,/~.-I ~2.-G\ e9,(9 ! ! DVIRKA AND BARI'~t~UCCI AIR MONITORING FORM PRO~'EC~ NAW~: ~'~-'~f~' ~';~- Z//× / PROJEC~r NUMBER: !~,~7L WF..ATH]ER COI'~DITIONS: DATE: { ~,,~O-q3 INSTRUMENT: ~ , {~ CALIBRATION DATE: WIND SPEED ~ LOCATION AND DIRECTION ~ }NO OBSERVATIONS -"~' ~ o~ · ,~- 22 ~/~ (,2~1) o.o i I i I I I 1 il Il I I I I I I I t DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI AIR MONITORING FORM / PROfEC~ NUMBER: ~f}~ ~ ~CORDED ~Y: I ~,-~ / V~.A~ CONDITIONS: CALIBRATION DATE: ,,/'2, k 3 WIND SPEED TIME LOCATION AND DIRECTION READING OBSERVATIONS RECORDING PROCEDURF~/Rt~IARKS: AMF I I I I I 1 I I I i I I I ! I I PROJI~CT NAMe: DVIRlf~ AND BARTILUCCI AIR MONrFORING FORM /. PRO;ECr NU'lff,_BER: 1~' ~ '3-- RECORDED BY: CALIBRATION DATE: WEATI-[ER CONDITIONS: WIIqD SPEED ~-L~ 4 o ~-~ P' TIME LOCATION A_ND DIRECTION READING OBSERVATIONS BORING LO~ O~ ~,.~ No.: laZ~-XDOZ We~o~ ~o.: .5"8- C D~ Pm~ctN~: ~.~ Ji ~J~Jl S~ I of ~D By: ~ Date: B~UC~ ~'d: Date: DfiHe~ ~, Oo.. 3 ~olo~: ~. ~ o ~ g ~ B~hole C~pleti~ DfiU~g: 5~ecd.~ ~gMe~: ~ ~c~ Bo~holeDl~eter: .~ ~ ~ 0 D~C~ON ~" -10 Date Dine D~ I I I il I il I I I I I I I ii 1 I I I BORING LOG DVTRKA Project Name: AND By: ,, f~A~. Date: BARTILUCCI Chk'd:. Date DfiUer. /~. ~o,,,~ Oeolo~: DriURig: 5~ccd~+z~v- DdllinsMetbod: H~'/~ v~c~A,~,~ BoreholeDlameter: ~- ~/~,, Sample Spoon Lb.: ~" Drive Hammer Wt.: I ~O ~ Ground Surface El.: Date Started: //jfl/R-~ Date Compkted: ///'~/42 ~ SAMPLE t~ m j © ,.~ ..., DESCRIPTION ~ To~/'~- ~.~ As ,-L~C aA<,. ~>,o.~,, ,~-~- -:s- % ../-~,C..~IL)" o'//o.a .7o .~- -10 ~em~z~: 'W~r Levd M~a~,~me~' D,,le I BL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG ~D By: ~& Date: B~UC~ ~'d: Date: ~ling Con~to~ ~4~ D~Uer: ~. ~o,.~ ~olo~: P. ~o~ Bo~holee~pleti~_.~L ~'~ ~ Drill ~g: 5~ecd s~ ~g Met~: ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~g ~ ~ B~ole Dl~eter: ~ 7r S~ple S~n I.~.: ~ t* Drive H~met Wt.: / ~o ~ ~ Suffa~ EL: Dae SI~: ~/~q ]~ Dae C~p~t~ t//~ /~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ SAMPLE m a D~C~ON .2. ~ ~'5~l~e*.~ r~z ~,11/ s~ 5 I{, -10 D~ D~ D~ BL I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I BORING LOG ~D By: ~ Date: /-Zo ~_~ B~UC~ ~'~ Date: Driller: ~, ~o,,g ~olo~: P-Co-~ Bo~holeC~pleti~p~: ~ ~ DdU~g: 5o~c~ ~llin~Met~: ~5~ ~c~A,~ BomholeDl~eter: . S~ple S~n I.~.: ~ '* ~ve H~mer Wt.: / ~ ~ Gr~ Suffa~ El.: ~ ~ ~ SAMPLE ~2 .8. (~¢ ) -10 ~: Ws~r ~vM Me--mere Date Date Dae ~. Dae BL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG ' DVmKA P.ject~tame: 5'--~ld,/_~...l~.ll sh~t t of I C By: Date: AND BARTILUCCI Chk'd: __ Date: DriUer: ~, ~o,.3 I P. 6o~ BomholeCompletion~p~: DfiU~g: 5a~cd~ ~llln~Meth~: ~ ~c~,~ Bo~ole~eter: ~ ~' S~ple S~n l.~.: ~ ' ' ~ve H~mer Wt.: / 9o ~ ' ~o~ Su~a~ ~.: Dae St~ed: ~ /2 ~ R ~ D~e CompEte: ~ / =0/, ~ ~ ~ D~C~ON .~ PTO l P ~ '2- -s- 3 ~.6F~ I~'~ ~g ~,o/20 -7- -10 ~: Wa~r ~V~ M~mem Date Dale D~e D~e BL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG B~C~ ~'d:. Date: S~ple Sp~n I.~.: ~ '~ ~ve H~mer Wt.: / 9o ~ Grou~ Suffa~ EL: ~ ~ ~C~ON -2- (3,7) ~: Wa~r ~vd Memem Date Date D~e D~ BL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG O~ P,o~.,~No.: /OZT-~c.Do.,?- W,~o~,g~o.: 5'$-/ / ~D By: ~0(' Date: /- B~UC~ ~'d: - Date: Drill ~g: S~ec~ s~ ~g Melh~: ~ ~ ~ c/Z, d Bo~hole Dt~eter: ~ Y~ S~ple S~n I.~.: ~ ~ ' Drive H~mer Wt.: / 9~ ~ ~ Suffa~ ~.: ~ ~ ~ SAMPLE ~ ~ 0 ~ D~C~ION ~ T~2~ ~,.~ ~ /~4 .~ Z ~-~ ,g'/ lo O,-a/Z.o -s- ~ ~-6F~ 2o'/ ~ 0-o/~o ~/~,,=~ -10 ~: Wamr ~v~ Me~e~ Dale ~ D~e ~ D~e ~ D~e BL I I I I I I I I I I I I I BORING LOG DVIRKA Project N~: ~ We~o~g No.: ~D ~ S~ I of ~ I B~UC~ B~ ~ Dat~: ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ Date: ~ling Cou~ ~4 ~ Dhfl ~g: 5~ c~ ~. ~._,~_.. B~hole C, ~ ~- ~,n ,.~.~ ~ Drive H~mer We' Bomhole ~eter: u~e ~t~ed- / /z( [ ~ ~ D~e C ' " Or~ Su~a~ ~.: ' ~p~t~ O-L£~ ~5' ~ z/o.o ?~*,/-.'~ ,~e~,,-;s. ~',~11,, /,kc BL Water Level Measu~ment · Date Date - Date ~ Dale I I I I i I I I I I I I I BORING LOG BL Appendix B / 36730/3 APPENDI~ B NYSDEC MEMORANDIJM 1-13-93 JAN-l~-I993 19:33 FROM REG,1 SPILL RESPONSE 9~649~45 P.01 I I I I I I NYSDEC, BLDG 40, SU'NY · STONY BROOK,NY, 11790-236d l= r.o m:_~_/~e_~.~ _/,_ ~._~.~ ........................... Dc~te;_j/_~_~/~___ Time:_. .......... # o~ p~:---~-- including cover O~r FAX · ls 516-751-8839 I~ ther~ ~e any p~oblems ~eceivin~ t~nsm!ssion please call 516-751-9078 Message: I I I I I :1 '1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 36730/3 1027 DATA V~LIDATION REPORT m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m Site Name: ~-~X~\ /~IL/~ , m i. Data Deliverable Requirements m A. Legible B. Paginated I C. Arranged in order ~ No O. Consistent dates ~.~ No m E. Case Narrative ~=~ No m F. Chain-of-Custody Record 't.~_.~} No ! m m .m m m m m m m )m G. Sample Data Complete Yes No H. Standard Date Complete Yes No I. Raw (~C Data Complete Yes No Comments: m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANXi$ m st te Name:~[-~ LL~ Laboratory Name. i m Reviewer:~~'~ ~ , Date of Review: ~l~(~ m ii. Holding Times m D~te . H~ldtn~ ~lme m l m m Laboratory Name: Date of Revtew: III. Tune Sum~ry LOI 2..'~ i I I I I I I i i I I I I I I I I Laboratory Name: Oate of Rev1ew: III. Tune Sun~ry Tune Ftle I.D. Number A(;centable ? ¢on~ents ~ Laboratory Name: Oate of Reviev: IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GC/MS) o~. o~ ~,~r.,o~: ,)~1~~ A. Standard Data Files Standard 1 ID: L~I~j conc: Standard 2 ID: ~--(~)~_(z2 Cone: Standard 3 ID: L~)~c~-7 Cone: Standard 4 IO: ~O~ Cone: Standard 5 IO: ~O ~ Cone: B. 1. All SPCC met Criteria~O .O~-- No I0 Calculate a SPCC average RRF Comments: m m ! m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS S, te Name: ~Ok~g~-~d(~ ~ Laboratory Name.' Fraction: '~(',~[~L.J~"~~ Date of Calibratton: Initial C~,tbration Su.,r, (continued) 2. All CCC met Criteria ? 1. Has the tune for the initiation acceptable ? No Was the calibration conducted within 12 hour. of the tune ? Comments: O. Overall assessment of the initial calibration: m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Nam: ~.(~-~(~ Laboratory Name: '. IV. Initial Calibration Sumary (GCIMS) Date of Calibration: ;~//.~ A. Standard Data Files Standard 1 I0: //_.//d~J~"',~",.~ _ Standard ~ ID: ,,d yy~Z~x _ Standard 3 I0: ~/~Ff~ ~q ' Standard, ID:,,/'//d~F ~ - m. 1. All SPCC met Criteria ? 2. Calculate a SPCC av . ~ Conc: ~'~ Conc: cone: /'=:'~'~ Conc: No Coments:~ DATA VALXDATION-ORGANIiS ~,, Name: ~.~~~-~-- _ Laboratory Name: Reviewer: ~~ Oateof Review. Fraction:/~~~ D'te°fCalibrati°n: IV. Intttal Calibration Sugary (conttnued~ ~. Ali CCC met Crtterta! Yes Calculate ~ CCC % NSB C. ,. Nas the tune for the initi~ii~tion accept,bi, ? ~ Ye~ No ~. Nas the calibration conduc~n Come,ts: m m m m D. Over&ll assessment of the tntttai calibration: ~/~the associated samples) 'm DATA VALIDATION-ORGANXCS m ~,~, Nam: ~f.~/'x~l/ Laboratory Name: V. Pesticide Initial Calibration Sugary Date of Calibration. ~l,~ j~)l~ J~ ~ A. Analytical Sequence Check ~ m Comments: No ! Comments: I ~ I ~ t C. N -iteria (2 colu~m) met ? m Calculation m Nas the retention time of 4,4'-00T greater than 12 minutes ? No Nas the ltneartty check criteria (~ 10% RSO on the quantttatton No I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Pesticide Initial Calibration Summary (continued) Was the breakdown of 4,4'-DDT and Endrin less than 20% ? (<20% each for the I% column) (<20% combined for the 3[ OV-1 Calculation column) Comments: Were the retention times and retention time windows acceptable ? Comments: Overall assessment of the initial calibration: (list the associates samples) DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS I I A. 1. All SPCCmet criteri Calculate a SPCC RRF I I Comments: I I Calculate a CCC % O ~ Yes I m (list as?elates samples) B. Ove~ll ~ssessment o~ Continuing ~l~b~t~o I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS I Site Name:~[~~~- Laboratory Name: I Reviewer: ~-~-~L~_ Date of Review: I Fraction: ~0[~ ~ VI. Continuing Calibration Sumary (GC/MS) m m A.i. All SPCC met criteria ! ~ ~ m Calculate a SPCC RRF No File ID: I m I I I Coments: Yes 2. All CCC met criteria ? Calculate a CCC % 0 m I m B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associates samples) I m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name:~[~~~ Laboratory Name: Reviewer: ~* ~-JL-~~.- Date of Review: Fraction: ~Ot ~~ VI. Continuing Calibration Su~r) (GC/MS) Date of Initial Caitb at · / Date of Continutn~ C, libr,tion~ ')~p ~ A. 1. Ail SPCCmet criteri .0~ ! m I m m m m ! I Calculate a SPCC RRF File Coments: All CCC met criteria ? C&lculate a CCC % O Yes No B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (ltst associates samples) 5/3 ~, sf~//, $~ -//~' I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS . V~. Continuing Calibration Sugary I Calculate a SPCC RRF I I Comments: All CCC met criteria ? Calculate a CCC % O Yes go B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (ltst associates samples) I DATA VALI DATION-ORGANICS m vi. Continuing Calibration Sugary (GC/MS) Oate of Initial Cal)bratton~ ~~ Oate of Continuing Calibration. ~ /~ ~ A. 1. All SPCC met criteria. Calculate a SPCC RRF m m Co~ent~: .. m ,. All ccc met criteria ' ~ ~ Calcolate a CCC % 0 Yes m B. Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associates sampJes) - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m Laboratory Name: Date of Review: VII. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary Col umn: ~ mary Date of Initial Calibration= ~//~,~-~//: ! Date of Contin.i.g Calibration:~)'q,~:,' SI~, confirmation Ftle ID: A. Did the pesttci~de standard compounds show a % O of the calibration factor of less than ~l~tf it was a quantitation run or 20% if it was a confirmation run for)~ll compounds identified ? Calculate a compound's calibration factor for the standard. Calculate a compound's % D value. Comments: m m m ! m I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: VII. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary (continued) B. Did each compound's retention time ~ll within the windo ? ~ ,o Coments: m m m m m m C. Were the ~)BC'retention time ts within the specified limits f r p ~ ~d_ _. .~,~ or ca co Co~ents: m D. Overall assessment of the conttnuin!) calibration: m (List the associ~,ted samples) DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: ~ Laboratory Name: Reviewer: ~.~l~(~ Date of Review: VIII. Internal Standard Area Summary (GC/MS) Were all internal standard peak areas within the contract limits No If No. please note below. Internal Standard Amount Above Sample ~ Contract Reauirement Site Name:/ Reviewer: Nere al 1 DATA VALIDATION-ORGANXC$ ~~~x~ Laboratory Name'- VIII. Internal St&nd&rd Area Sumnmry (GC/MS) internal standard peak areas within the contract limits ? Yes ~ If No, please note below. Internal Standard Samole Outside Limits Amount Above (;ontract Reauirement m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name-' ~_F3\,~:~t-~~- Laboratory Name: IX. Blank Summary Date/Time of Analysis: File ID: Comoound _( CROL List the samples associated with this method blank. m m I I I DATA VALI DATION-ORGAN ICi S,te Name:~F')k~~, Laboratory Name: Reviewer: ~]~_~ ._ Date of Review: m ix. Blank Sumary m Date/Time Of Analysis.' File I0: m co~oound m m Concentration ~ CROL Coments m m m m m List the samples associated with this method blank. m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I Reviewer: Fraction: IX. Blank Summary Date/Time of Analysis: File ID: UOc~Oq ¢~oound Comments Ltst the samples associated with this method blank. / I I DATA VALZDATION-ORGAN IC$ Site Name..~O\~_ Laboratory Name: Reviewer: ~~ ~ .. Date of Review: Fraction: IX. Blank Summary Date/Time of Analysis: Co~oound ~0 m I I I List the samples associated with this method blank. m ~ CROL Comments m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATZON-ORGANIC$ S,te Name: ~,~ Reviewer': ~~'.--~ Fraction: taborator¥ Name: Date of Review: IX. Blank Sum~ry Date/Time of Anai.ysis: -~)~.(~ ,,.~l I File ID: Compound ~Ollllllents List the samples associated with this method blank. m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m m Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m Fraction: m X. Surrogate Recovery Sun~ary m Here all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits ? YeS ~ m if No, please note below. m m m m m m m Surrogate Compound A~unt Above Sample Outside Recovery Limits Contract Remuirement /~ Con~nents m m m m m I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I Site Name: ~evlewer: Fraction: OATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS /- Laboratory Name: Date of Review: X. Surrogate Recovery Sumn~ry were all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits ? If No, please note below. Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Reouirement Comments DATA VALIDATION - METALS . Laboratory Nme. Reviewer: ~-~~~ Date of Review: I. Holding times Smple I.D. RecDe~d Di~ts~ed AnDa~ty~ed m m I I I I Associated Samples: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m II. initial Calibration I. Were ail initial m ~ iComent s: instr~ent calibrations performed? No i 2. Were the initial calibration verification standards analyzed at the contract specified frequency? m m Coments: m m m m 3. Were the initial calibration results within the control below? For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all otl~er metals: 90-110% of the true value If "No", note analytes limits listed m m I I I I Site Name: Reviewer: m Associated £amples: ~o~.~0_ m IIi. Continuing Calibration 1. Were the continu m contract specifi DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: 1. Were the continuing calibration verification standards analyzed at the contract specified frequency? NO m m 2, Were the continuing calibration results within the control below? For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value m For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value m If "No., note analytes limits listed m m m m m m m m m m Reviewer: m IV. Blank Sugary m A. MethoO Blanks m 1. was a methoU : freque~ m 2. Were all the an m Co~mne DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Was a methoU blank prepared and analyzeU at the contract specified No the ana]ytes below the CRDL in the method blank) No I m B. Calibration*Hlanks Were all initial and continuing calibration blanks ana]yzed at the m 1. contra~G~,pe~fied frequency? 2. Wer~alytes below the CRDL in all the calibration blanks? Co~ents: m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Summary 1. Was the iCP serial frequency? Comment s: dilution analyzed at No the contract specified 2. Were the serial dilution differences within the contract specified limits of +--w-10%? ¢omment~ 3. Was the ICP CRDL check standard analyzed at the contract specified fre~the anal~esNore~utred? DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: Reviewer: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Summary (continued): 4. Was the ICP interference check sample analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Conlnent$: 5. Were the ICP interference check of +a._w-gO~e mean valuel · ~y~.~ No If ~o~, note ~nalytes sample results within the control limit m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS VIII. Laboratory Control Saml)le Analysis 1. Was a laboratory control sample analyzed at the contract required frequency? Contment s: 2. Were the perecent recoveries within the control for Ag and Sb) for each analyte? Yes No limits of 80-120% (except !m I I I ! I I I I I I t I I i I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: ~J IX. Furnace Atomic Absorption Analysis 1. Were duplicate injections performed for all analytes (except for the Method of Standard Addition [MSA] which requires single injections only)?~ Comments:X.~~ No 2. Where the concentrations were above the CROL, did the two runs agree within20~ the relative standard deviations for each analyte? If "No", note anaiytes and check to see if the anaiytes were run again. If readings are still outside the control limits, all data associated with that analysis should have been flagged with an "M'. 3. Did thep~C~l~ation blank analysis produce spike recoveries of 85-115%? No Co~m~ents ~ DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site N amc: ~(~t ~L~-~ ~ Reviewer: IX. Furnace Atomic Absorption Analysis (continued): 4. Were analysis (post digest) spikes performed on all CommentsC°ncen~a~levels~/// (2x CRDL)?No required samples and 5. For those samples whose initial spike recovery was less than 40%, was s~le dilutin and respiking performed? Comments Q~ No 6. Was the MY performed at the contract specified frequency and did follow the contract specified criteria? Comments it m ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: ~~- Laboratory Name: Date of Review: I. Data Deliverable Requirements A. Legible B. Paginated C. Arranged in order D. Consistent dates E. Case Narrative F. Chain-of-Custody Record G. Sample Data Complete H. Standard Date Complete I. Raw QC Data Complete Comments: No No No No No No Yes No Yes NO YeS NO m I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS II. Ho]ding Times L~boratory Name: Date of Review: Date Date Date Hoidtng Time ~XCeeded ? [[. Holdtng Ttmes Oate ISs~.IZ].LL~ ~ecetved DATA VALZOATION-ORGA~ZCS Date ~,/~ Date Hoidtng Time  A_~/~ Exceeded ? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: III. Tune Summary Tun~ File I,D. Number Aeeeotable ? 10, (~o~ent$ m I I I I I I I m i i i i i i I I DATA VALIDATZON-.ORGAN]CS Site Name: ~ Laboratory Name: Date of Review: III. Tune Sun~ary Tune File I.D. Number ,. A(ceotable ? 9, ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: Reviewer: Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review; Standard 1 ID: Standard 2 ID: Standard 3 ID: Standard 4 ID; Standard 5 ID; IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GC/MS) Date of Calibration.' /c>~ ~/¢'~ A. Standard Data Files (~ ~/~ / B. 1. All SPCC met Criteria 2. Calculate a SPCC average RRF Cone: Cone:C~) conc: conc:/ ~ ~ Con~:~ 0 0 Con~ents: ~ ~m m m i I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Reviewer: Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Date of Calibration:, lb ~/,~_~'~ m m m m IV. 2. All CCC met Criteria ? Initial Calibration Sumary (continued) Comments: Yes m Calculate a CCC % RSO m C. 1. Nas the tune for the initial calibration acceptable m m m 2. Was the calibration conducted within 12 hours of the tune ? Coments: m m D. Overall assessment of the initial calibration: (list the associated samples) m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Standard 1 ID: Standard 2 I0: Standard 3 ID: Standard 4 I0: Standard 5 IO: IV. Initial Calibration Summary (GC/MS) D,t. o, C,,,br.t,on, ...~,,/~t_l~. A. Standard Data F~les B. 1. Ail SPCC met Criteria Conc: Cone: Cone: Cone: Conc: o70' No Calculate a SPCC average RRF Coments: ~ m m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANIiS Site Name: ~~~-- .Laboratory Name. Reviewer: ~~ Date of Review: Fraction: ~~- Date of Calibration: IV. Initial Calibration Su~ry (continued) 2. All CCC met Crtteria l Calculate a CCC ~ RSO C. 1. Was the tune for the initial calibration acceptable ~. Was the c~ltbrmtton conducted within Co~ents: ,D. Overmll assessment of the initial c~itbr~tton: ~ (list the mssoctmt.~ m m m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m ~,,, Nam: ~-~ioJxt'~l~(,- .Laboratory Name: m Reviewerl ~~'/~-Date of Review: m iv. Initial Calibration Sugary (~/MS) A. Standard Oata F{les Standard 2 I0: ~ ~Y~ Standard4 ID= ~9F~ m m. 1. Ail sPcc met Criteria I ~ , m 2. c~lculate ~ sPcc ay . m m m m m m Coalents: cone: Conc: co.c: /cZ(__) co.:: /~ No m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANXC$ _ Laboratory Name: Date of Review: IV. Initial Calibration Summary (conttnued~/ 2. All CCC met Criteria ? Yes C. 1. Was the tune for the tnttt&/)~Ttib~tton acceptable ? ~ Yes~ No Was the calibration conducte/d~n IZ hours of the tune ? No Coments: O. Overall assessment of the initial calibration: ~/~t~e associated samples) m m I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS St te Name: ~/y~f~ ~ab6oratory Name: V. Pesticide Initial Calibration Summary Column: '~>~(~ ri~ . . confirmation A. Analytical Sequence Check Acceptable No C~ents: m m B. was the retention time of 4,4'-DOT greater than 12 minutes m Co~ent$: m m C. Was the ltnearity check criteria (, 10% RSO on the quantttatton m column) met ? Y~es No ;m m m Calculation Coments:~.~/ m I I I DATA VALZDATZON-ORGANZC$ Site Nam ory Name: Reviewer: Date of Review: m m V. Pesticide Initial Calibration Sumary (continued) Oate ofCaltbration: ~./c~) m D. ~ m (<20% each for the 17- column) (<207- combined for the 37. OV-1 column) m Calculation Nas the breakdown of 4,4'-DDT and Endrin less than 20% ? No m Coments: m m m E. Nere the retention times and retention time windows acceptable Coment$: m m F. Overall assessment of the initial (list the associates samples) m calibration: m m m m DATA VAI. I~-ORGANIC$ m si te Name ~/~~~ab~ratory Name: m Date of Calibration: ~/~ j- m A. Analytical Sequence m Acceptable ? ~ No m c~ts: m m c. as the ltne~rity check critertm (~ 10% RSD on the qu~ntttatton m m m I I I I I I I ! DATA VALIDATZON-ORGAN ICi Site Name:.~~~ory/ Name: ~evtewer: /~,~ Date O~ Revtew: V. Pesticide Initial Calibration Summary (continued) Date of Calibration: D. Nas the breakdown of 4,4'-0DT and Endrtn less than 20% ? ~ No (<20% each for the I% column) (<20% combined for the 3~ OV-1 column) Calculation Co~ents: m I m ! E. Nere the retention times and retention time windows acceptable ? Comments: m m m ! F. Overall assessment of the tntttal /~ (list the associates samples) / callbratt on: I m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m site Name: ~//-~/~[~'~ Laboratory Name: m Reviewer: /~ .~--~ ~ Date of Review: m vi. Continuing Calibration Sugary (GC S) Oateof Initial Calibration: //~/~ ~ m / Date of Continuing Calibration:. m ~. 1. All sPcc met criteria ? )'~L ~.~ m ,o Calculate a SPCC RRF I m co~ents: ~~ ~ I I 2. A'l CCC m't crit'ria ' ~ ~ ~ Calculate a CCC % D m m Comments.' m m m Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associates saml)les) m I I I I I I I m m Reviewer: ~ractton~ DATA VALZDATION-ORGANICS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: VI. Continuing Calibration Sun~ary (GC/MS) Date of Initial Calibration: Date of Continuing Calibration: A. I. All SPCC met criteria;~ Calculate a SPCC RRF No Comments: m m m m m No Calculate a CCC % O Comments: Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list ~s~)ctates samples) m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS ! I 1 Reviewer: Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: I ! VI. O&te of Initial Calibration: Date of Continuing Calibration: Continuing Calibration Sumary (GCYMS) File ID: A. 1. All SPCCmet criteria m Calculate a SPCC RRF I m Coments: I m 2. All ccc met criteria ? m Calculate a CCC % 0 I I ! i Be Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (list associates samples) m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m vi. Continuing Calibration Sumary (GC/MS) Date of Initial Calibration: m Ca]cu]ate a SPCC RRF I m Comments: I I I I i I I i I All CCC met criteria ? ~,~/~ Yes Calculate a CCC % O Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (ltst as~ctates sa~_~es) VI. Continuing Calibration Sumary (GC/MS) Oate of Initial Calibration: / Date of Continuing Calibration= ~-~'//~/ A. 1. All SPCC met crtteria?~ Calculate a SPCC RRF Coments: 2. All CCCmet criteria ? DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m m ! m m m No m Yes F11e ID: Overall assessment of Continuing Calibration (ltst associates samples) Calculate a CCC % O m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Stte Name~ Name: m vii. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary IN i::iiic uiiiii~~~~ii:il ~~l~£~(~c°nftrmati°n o ' Ftle ID: I A. Did the pesticide standard compounds show a % D of the calibration factor of less than 15~ if it was a quantitation run or 20% if it was a m confirmation run for all compou~JJ~? NO m Calculate a compound's calibration factor for the standard. m m ~ calculate a compound's [ O value. ! m m m I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: _/~~Y~me: VII. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary (continued) Date of Continuing Calibration. File B. Did each compound's retention time fall within the window Co~ents: m limits ~cked columns, ± 0.3~. fUr capillary columns) '-DC ~ O. I ~ No m Comments: m m m i D. Overall assessment of the continuing calibration: (List the associated saml)les) m m m m DATA VALIDATZON-ORGANIC$ VII. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary co,,... ~-~ t--~(~\ primary Date of Continuing Calibration: ~ ' File ID: A. Did the pesticide standard compounds show a % 0 of the calibration factor of less than 1S% if it was a quantitatton run or 20% if it was a confirmation for all compounds identified ? run Calculate a compound's calibration factor for the standard. m ! ! ! m Calculate a compound's % O value. Comments: m I m ! m I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS S i t e Name :~~( ~/~me: VII. Pesticide continuing Calibration Summary (continued) Date of Continuing Calibration: File I0: B. Did each compound's retention time fall within the window ? Coments: m C. Were the OBC retention time shifts within the specified limits for packed columns, ~ 0.3% for capillary columns) ~o.~ m Coments: m m m m O. Overall assessment of the continuing calibration: (Ltst the associated samples) m m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Reviewer: ~~/Y~ Date of Review: VIII. Internal Standard Area Summary (GC/MS) Were all internal standard peak areas within the contract limits ? Yes ~ If No, please note below. Internal Standard A~unt Above Sammte Outside Limits Contract Reauirement m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANXCS mS1 te Name:/_~_~~~ Laboratory Name m Reviewer: /~j7~_~//~--~- Date of Review:: m viii. Internal Standard Area Sugary (GC m Were all internal standard peak areas within the contract limits Yes I 2~ No, please no~e below. I Internal Standard A~unt Above m ~ontract Reaui rement m m m m m ,m m m m DATA VALIDATION ORGANICS m si te °_ Laboratoly Name: ~/~¥~J~ mReviewer:' ~.~'~/-~.~, Date of Review: ~/~ m ix. Blan~ suer7 m Date/Time of Analysis: File ID:~ m co~ound ~ ~ cR0~ Comment~ m List the samples associated with this method blank. m m m m DATA VALI DATION-ORGAN 1CS Laboratory Name: Reviewer:' ~~-~/~--~ Date of Review: Date/Time of Analysis / / m m m m _< CROL Comments m m m List the samo1 associated with this method blank. m m m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site N~me:×)~~~ Labor,tory NJ, ne: IX. Blank Su~ry . Date/Time of Anmlysts. . File Cg~ound ~ ~ CROL ~J~/J J/~/~J m m m m m m m m List the samples associated with this method blank. COll~ents I I I I i DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Slte Name: X. Surrogate Recovery Sumary . Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m Here all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits ? If No, please note below. Samnle Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Reauirement m m m m m m m m m m m m m Comments I I I I I $t te Name: Revl ewer: X. Surrogate Recovery Sumary DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS _ Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m I I I I I I i I I I I I I Were all surrogate recoveries within the contract limits No If No, please note below. Surrogate Compound Outside Recovery Limits Amount Above Contract Reauirement m DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS m Si te Name: ~J~~ Laboratory Name: m Reviewer: /~, '~'"/~ Date of Review: m x. Surrogate Recovery Su~ry . m Nere ali surrogate recoveries w~thtn the contract limits Yes m if No. please note below. m Surrogate ComDound A~unt Above m ~ Qutside Recovery Limits Contract R~auirement m ~C~ m I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: Revi ewer :~/~~//~--~ Fraction: Laboratory Name: Date of Review: XI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Sumary Sample ID: ~m/~3 ~)__ ~Z~ Matrix: Did the MS/MSD recovery data meet t~act recomended requirements No If No. please note below. m m m m m m m m m m I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Reviewer Laboratory Name: Date of Review: XI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Ouplicate Sum~ry ~ Sample iD: ~_~J~F~-~l Matrix:/ Did the MS/MSD recovery data meet the contract recomended requirements ? Yes ~ m m m m m m m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I DATA VALIDATION-ORGANICS Site Name: ~/~~~ F~eviewer: /~F, ~tA.~-~'-'' Fraction: ~7]//~0~ Laboratory Name: Date of Review: XI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Sample ID:--~-~/~ Matrix: r~--~9~-~-_ Did the MS/MSO recovery data meet the contract recommended requirements ir No. please note below. m m m I I I I m Sample I.D. m / m m m m jv m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: N~me: Reviewer: ~V~'~I/~////Txt~ Date of Review: Holding times Date Received ,/~/~J Date Date Holding Time Di~ested Analyzed Exceeded? m ~m m m m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m II. Initial Calibration 1. Were all initial Coments: instrument calibrations performed? No m 2. Were the initial calibration verification standards analyzed at the contract specified frequency? ! m Comments: m 3. Were the initial calibration results within the control limits listed below? m For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For all other metals: 90-110% of the true value m if ,,No., note analytes I I m m m m I ! I Associated Samples: DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: m iii Continuing Calibration 1. Were the continuing calibration verification standards analyzed at the m contract specified frequency? m 'Coments:~ No I 2. Were the continuing calibration results within the control limits listed below? m m I For tin and mercury: 80-120% of the true value For al ot~Ja~.r_~tals: 90-110% of the true value NO If "NO", note analytes m m m m ,m m DATA VALIDATION - METALS Reviewer: ~~ Date of Review: IV. Blank Sugary A. Method Blank~ t. Was a method blank prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency) 2. Were all the analytes below the CROL in the method blank? Comments: B. Calibration Blanks i. Were all Initial and continuing calibration blanks analyzed at the cont~ied frequency) No 2. Were all the analytes below the CROL in all the calibration blanks? m  NO Comment s: ? ~ m m m m m I i I i i DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Duplicate Analysis 1. Was a duplicate prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Comments: 2. Were control limits for the relative percent differences (RPD) met for each analyte? Yes Comments: For sample values >5 times the CROL, the RPO control limit is t20%. For sample values <5 times the CROL, the RPO control limit is tCROL. If sample results were outside of the control limits, all data associated with that duplicate sample should have been flagged with a "*'. m i m m I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: Vi. Matrix Spike Analysis 1. Was a matrix spike prepared and analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Comment s: 2. Were the matrix spike recovereis within the contract specified control limits (75-125%)1 - Yes If "No", note analytes Data should have be~n f~gged wit~ N 'i/or analy~es out of control limits. If the sample concentration exceeds the spike concentration by a factor of four or more, no flag is required. m I I I I I I I I I I i I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Laboratory Name: Date of Review: VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Su~nary 1. Was the iCP serial dilution analyzed at the contract specified frequency? Co~m~ent s: 2. Were the serial dilution differences within the contract specified limit~-lO%? No Coments 3. Was the ICP CRDL check standard analyzed at the contract specified frequency for the analytes required? Con~ents m I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name: ~'~y~~/~ Reviewer: VII. ICP Interference Check Sample Sun~ary (continued): 4. Was the ICP interference check sample analyzed at the contract specified freque~ No Co~nents: 5. Were the ICP interference check sample results within the control limit of +_aw-20%~a~the mean value? ~ No If "No", note analytes m I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS VIII. Laboratory Control Sample Analysis I. Was a laboratory control frequency? Conlnents: sample analyzed No at the contract required 2. Were the perecent recoveries within the control limits of 80-120% for Ag and Sb) for each analyte? Co~nents Yes No (except I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS Site Name.~F)&~ J. Reviewer:~ ~~ ~ Laboratory Name: Date of Review: IX. Furnace Atomic Absorption Analysis 1. Were duplicate injections performed for all analytes (except for the Method of Standard Addition [MSA] which requires single injections only)? Cor~ents: 2. Where the concentrations were above the CROL, did the two runs agree within 20% of the relative standard deviations for each analyte? If "NO", note anaiytes · and check to see if the analytes were run again. If readings are still outside the control limits, all data associatecl with that analysis should have been flagged with an 3. Did the preparation blank analysis produce spike recoveries of 85-11S%? Con~nents m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA VALIDATION - METALS ~a~oratory ..e: ~~ I IX. Furnace Atomic Absorption Analysis (continued): 4. Were analysis (post digest) spikes performed on all concentrati~ levels (2x CRDL)? Yes / No Comments _~ required samples and 5. For those samples whose initial spike recovery was less than 40%, was saml)le dill?in and respiking perfot~d? ~ .o Comments 6. Was the MSA performed at the contract specified frequency and did it follow the contract specified criteria? Comments m I I I I I I I I il I :1 I I I I I I I 3673(3/3 1027 Strg MAP SHOWING SOIL BORING AND HAND AUGER. LOCATIONS (1"-100') N 2.O+OO FORMER MINING AREA N 13+(30 N 12+00 ACTIVE LANDFILL AREA COMPOST AREA OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES N 3+O0 'ORMER LAND CLEARING DEBRIS AND AUTOMOBILE DISPOSAL AREA N 2+OO STATION MILLION (PPM) USING PHOTOVAC M IOROTIP OR TIP e ~PREADING ABOVE2Oppm , ~ ~AND AUGER LOCATION ¢ --~ LI.IT OF FORMER S~AVENGER ~, , ~ WASTE LAGOONS d)Dvirka and. . Bartlluccl CONSU LT~NG ENGINEERS ~4yoaaet, New York SOIL TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD CUTCHOGUE ! ANDFILL BORING AND HAND AUGER SAMPLING LOCATIONS MAP I