TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H
RESULTS OF THE FIELD PROGRAM
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
VOLUME 2 OF 2
May 1993
Prepared for
Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Prepared by
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
201 West Passaic Street
Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662
(201) 909-0700
TUT-
002
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
*64427*
64427
VOLUME 2 - CONTENTS
APPENDICES
A.
Sample Core Logs.
B.
Geologic Logs.
C.
Soil Sampling Procedures Provided by COM Federal Programs Corporation.
D.
Record of Bedrock Coring Parameters.
E.
Geophysical Logs.
F.
Well Construction Logs.
G.
Water Sampling Logs.
H.
Monitoring Well Hydrographs.
I.
Soils Data Validation Report.
J.
First Sampling Round Data Validation Report.
Un
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE CORE LOGS
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
SnviTimmmtal Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well—lzJ——Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
.of.
Location JLJHOMAS_
7/30/92
7/30/92
Total
Depth Drilled
Hole
Type of Sample/
C-OO^M
feet
Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLM -SPOON
Length and Diameter
...
of Coring Device
2 / 3
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev.
201
fee^
rj Surveyed
Kl Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used _NONE_
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ————
____ Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Driller
J- R'VERA
Helper _iL
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop — 30
. inches
Sampta/Cora tapth
((«! t»km land wrfw*)
From
To
(fMt)
Sofflpta/Cora DMCripUon
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.5
4-3-
4-4
4-3-
4-5
6-11-
9-6
6-5-
6-5
SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, fine to coarse; trace
Gravel, fine; soft, brown to light brown, reddish brown,
dry.
HNu = 52 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Same as above.
GC sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 32 ppm.
Same as above.
HNu = 392 ppm.
GC sample: 4-6'.
Same as above.
GC sample: 6-8'.
Soil sample collected for SNA, metals, and TPH analysis.
HNu = 62 ppm.
I U !
( ! ! } ' • '
•' "'•-•••••••
CAD FILE: TU-147
' GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
fnvinnmtntai Smrion
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
Page
of.
Boring/Well.
B-1
Prepared Ry
R- PONCIANO
(to*
From
Tkm/HydrauKc
Can
Pranura or
MOM per 6
8.0
10.0
10.0
10.3
1.2
0
6-5-
9-75
50/0.3'
The first 0.5' is same as above.
The rest is Silt; trace
Clay; trace Sand, very fine; stiff, brown to tan. moist.
GC sample: 8-10'.
HNu = 42 ppm.
No recovery.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 10.3 ft bis.
Total Depth = 10.3 ft bis.
OD FILE: TU-1«
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
JVivtronmentaJ Service*
Boring/Well_§z2_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
ST.
.Page
.of.
Drilling
w/,/Q9
Drilling
„/,/«,
Started
8/3/92
Completed
8/3/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
0™™
Depth Drilled
3-3
feet
Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
. „
of Coring Device
2 /3___________________
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval _____ feet
Land-Surface Elev.
feet
D Surveyed
H Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
NONE
Drilling Fluid
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ————
R. PONCIANO
____ Drilling m*hnH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Driller ^ RIVE™
Helper
Hammer
Hammer
.Weight
14°
Drop
30
.inches
Sompta/Cora Diptti
((Ml b«to. land «xfoc»)
Fratn
To
(fwt)
71nM/Hy«rau«e
IH«i«ui« or
Horn por (
0
2.0
2.0
3.5
1.4
1.0
12-20-
23-30
23-26-
50/0.46'
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, medium to coarse; trace
Rock fragments; trace organic materials, roots; brown,
hard, dry.
GC sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
CLAY; trace Silt; trace Sand, medium; trace organic
materials, roots; very hard, reddish brown to red; dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.5 ft bis.
Total depth = 3.5 ft bis.
CAD FILE: TU-149
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvironm*ntal Srrvicta
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well-Jh3—— Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01_________ Page
ii
n
Type of Sample/
.of.
Location 5T- THOMAS
Drilling
R/,/QO
Drilling
B/•./«,
Started
8/3/92
Completed
8/3/92
Total
T -z
Hole
Depth Drilled _£i£_ feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device
inches Coring
en/™
SPLIT-SPOON
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 178.5 feet
D Surveyed
El Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used JIPJIL
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
£;ep°red R. PONCIANO
Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Driller J- R|VERA
Helper J- M"-LET
Hammer
__ Drop
Hammer
Weight
14°
30
inches
D»pth
(fMt b^ow land «u>f«M)
Cora
£rn*m or
HKOWWy
DMWM PW D
From
To
SameK/Cort Dwcripbon
0.0
2.0
2.0
3.3
1.4
2.4
12-20-
20-18
12-12-
50/0.3'
CLAY; and Silt, little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, fine to medium; trace Sand, coarse to very
coarse; trace Gravel, fine; trace organic material, roots;
trace of black stains (** 0.8%); hard, dry, brown.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Same as above.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'
Top of bedrock approximately at 3.3 ft bis.
Total depth = 3.3 ft bis.
CAD FILE: 1U-
,"wvv
1 '.>•:••<-'
1 U I
150
' GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvinnmtntal Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_Bzl_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
.Page
.of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Drilling
R/Q/QO
Drilling
.Started
6/9/92
Completed
6/9/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
CDOnKI
Depth Drilled 1B°-° feet Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter „.
of Coring Device ___z
.Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS fppt
Land-Surface Elev. 167-61 feet
D Surveyed
B Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid u««ri NONE
Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ———
Driner 0. GARCIA
Helper M. MORALES
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _ 30
.inches
Sampta/Cara D«pth
Mt Mo. tarn) Mf«»)
From
To
(tat)
Sompta/Cor.
0
0.5
2
4
0.5
2
3.5
4
0
0.3
1.3
0.9
53-31-3;
7-15-17
4-21-
21-17
FILL
Spoon was redriven.
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, medium; trace Rock
fragments, fine to medium; very hard, brown, dry.
GC sample: 0.5-2.0'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
CGI = 0% LEL.
Clay; some Silt; trace Sand, medium to coarse; trace
Rock fragments; brown to reddish brown, dry to moist,
hard.
HNu = 0.1-0.4 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
Same as above, but little Sand, medium to coarse and
moist.
GC sample: 4-6'.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
CGI = 0% LEL.
TUT"
GO 2
1.337
CAD FILE: TU-141
GERAGHTY
»»oUte
(fMt b^ov hmd •urfac*)
Cg*
gmura or
Fram
To
(foot)
0
0.4
2.4
0.4
2.4
2.80
1.6
0.4
5-8-
12-14
50/0.4'
ASPHALT.
CLAY; little Silt; little Sand, fine to medium; trace Gravel,
fine; trace Sand, coarse, gray to reddish brown, stiff, dry
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
HNu = 5.0 ppm.
GC sample: 2.0'.
CLAY; little Silt; little Sand, fine to medium; trace organic
material, wood; gray, very hard, dry.
HNu = 1.0 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'
Split—spoon was refused at 2.8 ft bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.8 ft bis.
Total depth = 2.8 ft bis.
CAD FILE: TU-
TUT
or)-?
1 --r^Q
144
GERAGHTY
? MILLER, INC.
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§z6_Project/No. TUTU 5ITE/PR013.01______
Location ST. THOMAS_______________gJJrtlSl
7/30/92
Page
.of.
V*)/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
Depth Drilled _LL~_ feet Diameter ___£___ inches Coring n^virp
snJi-aruuiN
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___±_
Land-Surface Elev. 200.5 feet
D Surveyed
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contract
Prepared
By ———
__Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS fcct
r *•
* .4 * *
MEAN SEA
LEVEL
Estimated
Datum ____________
__
DrilUng U^K«H HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
R. PONCIANO
Driller
J- R'VERA
Helper
Hammer
—— Drop —
J. DIAZ
Hammer
Weight
14°
30
. inches
Sampto/Cara
*•—«
From
To
llnM/Hydraulc
(fMl)
1.2
1.4
25-20-
11-12
9-8-
9-12
i U
CAD RLE: TU-145
SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, fine to coarse; trace of organic materials,
roots; brown to dark brown, dry, stiff.
GC sample: 0-2'.
CLAY top (0.51); some Silt; trace Rock fragments, small
to medium; trace Sand, fine to coarse; Peat (0.4');
Clay (0.5'); little Silt; trace fine Sand; stiff.
dark gray to black, dry.
HNu = 25 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
1340
' GERAGHTY
o:?
1341
146
.»
3
*^r I
f GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
frtvirmmmtal Smrlett
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§zZ_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
of.
Location 5T.THOMA5
Total
Drilling
7/-,1/Q9
Drilling
-,/-,1/Q9
.Started 7/31/92
Completed
7/31/92
Hole
_
Depth Drilled _!£__ feet
Diameter __§__ inches Cori
Length and Diameter
. „
of Coring Device
2 / 3
Type of Sample/
ng
,_ __._._..
SPLIT-SPOON
Land— Surface Elev.
feet
D Surveyed
K) Estimated
Datum
^/MUTIMI i/-.. .<-
Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
NONE
Drilling Fluid
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Driller jL
J. DIAZ
Helper ^
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _ 30
.inches
Samftt/Can Dipt*
Tkn«/H»«rou»c
Mt htlov Und luffoe*)
Con
Pi mure or
mcoMry
MOOT por 0
From
To
(!«*)
Sample/Cora Do^rlpUon
0
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.5
1.4
3-24-
48-78
23-45-
17-25
FILL: SILT; little Rock fragments, small; trace Clay; trace
Sand, medium to fine; trace Sand, coarse; trace roots;
stiff, light—brown, dry.
GC sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
FILL: SILT; little Rock fragments, small; trace Clay; trace
Sand, medium to fine; trace Sand, coarse; trace roots;
stiff, light-brown, dry.
GC sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and
TPH analysis.
Auger refusal at 3.0 ft bis.
Total depth = 4.0 ft bis.
C*D OLE: T\J-
ri IT
O02
.!--•'-!••••••
131
GERAGHTY
0 MILLER, INC.
fnvimiTnrntai StnHcts
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§z8_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PRO 13.01
Page
of.
Loceation ST. THOMAS
Drilling
R/19/Q9
Drilling
R / 1o/ Q 9
.Started
8/12/92
Completed
8/12/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
Depth Drilled
3-6
feet
Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___2
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____
feet
Land-Surface Elev.
191
feet
D Surveyed
El Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid U^ri NONE
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Drilling u.»hnH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Driller J- RIVERA
Helper J- MILLET
__ inches
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _
Somate/Cora Dopth
(fMt Mav land ourfoao)
C«ra
To
('•«*)
p*r o
Swnpto/Cor. Doccrlation
0.8
2.8
0.8
2.8
3.6
1.3
0.8
5-10-
16-16
50-50/
0.3'
CONCRETE.
FILL: SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, medium to coarse; trace
Gravel, fine; trace organic material, roots; trace Rock
fragments, small; brown to reddish brown, hard, dry.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals and
TPH analysis.
Soil sample collected for matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate.
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, medium to coarse; trace Gravel,
fine; trace Rock fragments, small; very hard, reddish
brown, dry.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC sample 2-4'.
Split spoon and augers were refused at approx.
3.6 ft below land surface.
CW FILE: TU-
Total depth = 3.6 ft bis.
an
002
i'34--"1
152
GERAGHTY
7 MILLER, INC.
Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§zi_Project/No. TUTU 5ITE/PR013.01
. Page
.of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Drilling
7/-Q/Q9
Drilling
7/oQ/Q9
.Started
7/29/92
Completed
7/29/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
cnnn
Depth Drilled
5-1
feet Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
.
~«K,-r,K,,,~
of Coring Device
2/3________________ Sampling Interval
CONTINUOUS
feet
Land-Surface Elev.
165
feet
Drilling Fluid
Drilling
Contract
Prepared
NONE
Surveyed
H Estimated
rw..m MEAN SEA LEVEL
___________ Drilling u-th«^ HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
By
R. PONCIANO
Driller
J- R'VERA
Helper.
Hammer
-Weight
14°
J. DIAZ
Hammer
Drop _ 30
. inches
Sampta/Cora 0***
Tkm/HyrirauNe
(tM( Mov fend Bjrfoo.)
Com
£*•*"» »
!>»»¥•>
BOOT p»r (
from
To
(»•«<)
0
0.2
2
4
0.2
2
4
5.1
1.4
0.5
1.2
10-15-
9-10
19-12-
8-9
5-8-
50/0. 1'
ASPHALT.
FILL: CLAY; some Silt; little Rock fragments, small to
medium; trace Sand, fine to medium; trace Sand, coarse;
trace Gravel, fine, dark gray to reddish brown, stiff, dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Same as above.
GC sample: 2-4*.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil sample collected for VOC analysis.
Same as above.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for SNA, metals and TPH analysis.
GC sample: 4-5.1
Top of bedrock inferred at 5.1 ft bis.
Total depth = 5.1 ft bis.
•'!-'!
002
134.-
CAD FILE: TU-153
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
fnvirvnmtntai Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_Izl°_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
. THOMAS
———————————————————————————————————————_———M—*JIWI
IGU
Type of Sample/
"Location
——————— Page _
Drilling
R/m/o9
Drillin9
Started
8/10/92
Completed
.of.
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled
7-9
feet
Diameter __S>
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___
.inches Coring
SPLIT-SPOON
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 141.8 feet
D Surveyed
B Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used
LTiiimy
cnil TCPUl
Contractor
JUIL- '^-^r1
Prepared
____ Drilling U»fhnH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Driller J- ™™
Helper J-MILLET
By
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
.Weight _
140
Hammer
Drop — 30
inches
Sampta/Con DiBth
„
(fwt botov land «urfoet)
Con
HoBO»ory
Btww p*r 6
Fram
To
(fMt)
0
2
4
2
4
6
1.3
1.2
1.3
17-16-
10-8
7-16-
20-16
8-12-
12-12
FILL: SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small medium;
little Sand, fine to medium; trace Sand, coarse to very
coarse; trace Gravel, fine; soft, brown, dry.
GC Sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
FILL: CLAY; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, coarse; trace Gravel, fine; brown to dark
brown, hard, dry.
GC Sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
Same as above.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC Sample: 4-6'.
TUT
OU2
i::U!!^
CAD FIE: TU-154
' GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Bnvirmmtntal Svrviots
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
Page
.of.
Boring/Well
B~10
Prepared Ry
R. PONCIANO
Sarnpto/Cara Dcptti
(foot Mo.
land ourfaco)
Cora
From
To
(foot)
Tm/HytfrauNc
Proowro or
DOT 6
6
7.8
1.42 5-38-50
50/0.3' "CLAY; little Silt; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
little Gravel, fine to medium; trace Sand, fine to
medium; trace Sand, coarse to very coarse; very hard,
brown, moist to wet.
Water encountered approximately at 7.9' bis. Soil
samples collected for VOC, BNA, Metals, and TPH analysis.
Total Depth = 7.9 ft bis.
Bedrock not encountered.
1346
OO FILE: TU-155
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
tnuirmmmtal Servian
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§zll_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PRO 13.01
Page
of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Drillin9
R/in/Q9
Drilling
R/in/Q,
.Started
8/10/92
Completed
8/10/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
Depth Drilled
5-5
feet Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter „,
of Coring Device
2
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 141.5 feet
D Surveyed
B Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid H«spH NONE
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ————
Drilling U»*hnri HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Driller J- *'VERA
Helper
><• MILLET
Hammer
_ Drop
Hammer
„ ,_
Weight
14°
30
inches
Sompl«/Coi» (tap**
„
(fMt MOT land «urt«o«)
Cora
tVinura or
Nvcowy
Bwwv per 6
From
To
(fwt)
Somclo/Cor.
0
0.6
2
0.6
2
3.5
0.0
1.3
0.7 2
8-10-
10-15
0-19-50
50/0.0'
CONCRETE.
SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small; trace Sand,
fine to medium; trace organic roots; stiff, brown, dry.
HNu = 5.0 ppm.
GC Sample: 0.2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
^Same as above.
HNu = 1.0 ppm.
GC Sample: 2-4'.
Split— spoon and augers refused at 3.5' bis.
Top of bedrock approximately at 3.5' bis.
Total depth = 3.5 ft bis.
CAD RLE: TU-156
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvironmtntoi Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_Bzl2_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
.of.
Location 5T- THOMAS
R / 1 1 / Q 9
Drillina.
R / 1 1 / Q 9
.Started
8/11/92
Completed
8/11/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
CDnnKI
Depth Drilled
s-4
feet
Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter „.,,..
of Coring Device ___2 /J__________________
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 140-5 feet
D Surveyed
B Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used.
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Driller J- *IVERA
Helper J. MILLET
Hammer
—— Drop
Hammer
Weight
14°
30
inches
Somplo/Cor« Dopth
Mt MOB land w«fae*)
From
To
(foot)
"»
Sampte/Cora 0-erieton
0
0.5
2
4
0.5
2
4
6
0
1.3
1.4
1.6
2-4-3-3
5-7-4-6
3-13-
36-31
CONCRETE.
SILTY CLAY; little Gravel, fine to medium; trace Sand,
fine to medium; trace organic materials, roots; brown,
soft, moist.
HNu = 1.0 ppm.
GC Sample: 0-2'.
CLAY; little Silt, little Sand, fine to medium; trace Peat;
trace Rock fragments; gray, soft, moist.
HNu = 1.4 ppm.
GC Sample: 2-4'.
CLAY; little Silt; little Sand; fine to medium; trace of
Rock fragments; gray, hard, moist.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC Sample: 4-6'.
CAD FILE: TU-137
^fef GERAGHTY
4r & MILLER. INC.
^BF tnvinnmtntal Sfrvieta
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
POOP
2
nf
2
CAD FILE: TU-
Boring
Prepa
SOTWK/C
[tad bd»»
From
6
8
/Well_
B~12
-ed By
«ra Ctoptti
larvd ourtaeo
To
8
8.4
R. PONCIANO
•Dnw/Hydradic
_ Cyt
PrMura or
AocoMry
BtaM* por 6
(fMt)
tactM
1.8
0.3
28-24-
16-28
50/0.42'
SILTY CLAY; some Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, medium to coarse; brown to tan, hard.
moist.
HNu = 2.2 ppm.
GC sample: 6-8'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Same as above.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC sample: 8-10'.
Split— spoon and augers were refused at 8.4 ft bis. Top
of bedrock inferred at 8.4 ft bis.
Total depth = 8.4 ft bis.
TUT
OO2
134V
156
GERAGHTY
MILLER, INC.
tmmntntai Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_lzll_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Location &• THOMAS_______________Started
8/10/92
.Page _l_of_!
8/10/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
on/™
Depth Drilled _JL1_ feet Diameter __?___ inches Coring r^s/ir*
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
v,
O/-MUTIMI
of Coring Device
2 /J_________________ Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surf ace Elev. T39.8 feet
g Surveyed
H Estimated
Datum ____________
Drilling Fluid UH NONE
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ———
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
_______ Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J.DIAZ
Driller
J- R'VERA
H^ippr J- MILLET_____
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop — 30
. inches
Sampto/Cara
(fMt Mav land iiufon) . Ce»
From
(ta*t)
Sompto/Cer* 0»»i.rlpUen
0
2.0
4.0
6.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
6.4
1.1
1.3
1.4
0.2
10-12-
21-14
10-25-
17-12
9-11-
11-19
50/0.4'
Fill: CLAYEY SILT; little Gravel, fine to medium;
little Sand, fine to medium; trace Rock fragments, small
to medium; trace organic materials, roots; medium stiff,
brown, dry.
GC sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
First 0.55* is same as above, the rest is highly altered
bedrock; gray; very weak.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
SILTY CLAY; little Sand, medium to coarse; brown, stiff, dry.
HNu = 0.3 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Same as above.
GC sample: 6-8'.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
Top of bedrock inferred at 6.4 ft bis.
Total depth = 6.4 ft bis.
^
.
I L
no:-'
i •'-,•-
CAD FILE: TU-159
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvimnmmtai Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_§I±l_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
J_of_l
Location ST. THOMAS
5S5. 8/14/92
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled _±±_ feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___ 2
inches Coring
Type of Sample/
8/14/92
bPLll-
________________ Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 205-3 feet
D Surveyed
B Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contract
Prepared
HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
By
R. PONCIANO
J. DIAZ
Driller
J- R'VERA
Helper jL
Hammer
Hammer
_ Weight
14°
Drop _ 30
.inches
Sompta/Cora tapfe
TkiM/HyrtrauNc
(fwt Mo.
lam) wrfM) RJ=5Jry
From
To
(lot)
0
2.0
2.0
3.2
1.2
1.0
5-5-
6-6
6-40-
50/0.17'
FILL: CLAYEY SILT; some Sand, fine to medium; trace
Rock fragments, small; trace organic material, roots, wood;
light brown to light gray, soft, dry.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
Soil sample collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH analysi
GC sample: 0-2'.
The first 0.6'
is same as above, the rest is highly altered
Rock, very weak, grayish green.
GC sample: 2-4'.
Replicate sample was collected: MW-103.
Split-spoon was refused approx. at 3.2'
bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.2"
bis.
Total depth = 3.2 ft bis.
"HIT
00 2. 1351
CAD FILE: TUTU 161
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvirvnm»ntal Srrvicn
B-15
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
3
TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
of.
Location ^-
THOMAS
ifa'rled
B/14/92
Completed 8/"/92
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled
2-2
feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter
.^,
of Coring Device ___2 /^_____
Type of Sample/
QDnriM
.inches Coring rw--
SPLIT-SPOON
., r- ^
,-,
Land-Surface Elev.
., , ^ ,-
.,»,,-,.
r>,.
feet
D Surveyed
El Estimated
Datum
Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid U««ri NONE
SO.LTECH
____ Drilling u-*hnH HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Driller <>• ^^^
Helper A_MILL§I__
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight _
140
Hammer
Drop — 30
.inches
((«(
Frwn
Tlnw/Hiidraullc
lond wffaet)
Can
frmtun or
RieeMry
BtoM pw 6
To
((•«*)
2.2
1.3
0.2
6-4-4-5
50/0.17'
CLAYEY SILT; some Sand, fine to medium; trace Rock
fragments, small; trace organic materials, roots; soft,
reddish brown, moist.
Soil sample collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
HNu
0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Same as above. Trace weathered (highly) bedrock.
Split—spoon sample refused at approximately 2.2' bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.2' bis.
Total depth = 2.2 ft bis.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
CAD FILE: TU-
TUT
00:2 1352
182
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvtrtnmtntal
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_lzl6_ Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
.Page_J_of_l
Location ST. THOMAS
Drill'na-
.Started
Completed
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled __±Z_ feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device
2
Type of Sample/
or>r»r>M
inches Coring rvwirg
bPLIT-SPOON
Land-Surface Elev. 204.8 feet
D Surveyed
El Estimated
Datum
Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid II^H NONE
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ————
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Driller
Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
_ Helper jL
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Hammer
. Weight
14°
Drop _
inches
SompH/Cw
Mt taton land wifm)
From
To
(I*M)
TlnM/HydraiMe
ssrsc*.
Sompte/Cora
0
3.7
1.2
10-10-
10-10
2-14-45
50/0.29'
CLAYEY SILT; some Sand, fine to medium; trace Rock
fragments, small; trace organic materials, roots; soft,
reddish brown to light brown, moist.
Soil sample collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis. Sample collected for matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
The first 0.7' is same as above. The rest is highly
altered bedrock, very weak, grayish green.
Split—spoon refused at approximately 3.7' bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.7* bis.
Total depth = 3.7 ft bis.
HNu = 0.2 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
OD FIE: 7U-
TUT
002
1353
163
GERAGHTY
MILLER, INC.
Snvironmtntai Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well Jhl2£_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01_________ Poge
8/12/92 °±
Type of Sample/
of.
Location 5T- THOMAS
Drilling
R/19/Q9
Drilling
R/1,/Q«
Started
8/12/92
Completed
8/12/92
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled _££_ feet
Diameter __£
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___
/^________
. inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land—Surface Elev. 139.4 fee^
Q surveyed
H Estimated
Datum
Drilling Fluid Used
MEAN SEA LEVEL
5!!!'n,!Un,
SOIL TECH
____ Drilling Method HOLLOW STEM AUGER
J. DIAZ
Hrillpr J- RIVERA
Hplppr J- MILLET
Prepared
R pQNC|ANO
Hammer
. Weight
140
Hammer
Drop _ 30
.inches
DM*
b«lo> land •urfoc*)
Ccn
Frwn
Tlmt/Hyaroullc
(f«*t)
Sompt./C«»
0
2.0
1.7
8-47-
37-29
FILL: CLAYEY SILT; little Gravel, fine to medium; little
Sand, fine to medium; trace Rock fragments, small
to medium; trace organic material, roots; hard, brown
to reddish brown, dry.
HNu = 2.4 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, and metals analysis.
Soil samples taken for risk assessment.
Bedrock not encountered.
Total depth = 2.0 ft. bis.
....o- 135*
TUT
w-
CAD FILE: TU 180
GERAGHTY
Sf MILLER, me.
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
fnvirvnmmtnl Smiiets
Boring/Well_MWz1_project/No. TUTU SITE / PR013.01
ST. THOMAS
^""' t%*VI
Type of Sample/
Page
.of.
ESS!, 6/30/92
Smpieted
6/30/92
Total
Hole
Depth Dril led _7JL°_ feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter
2 1/3"
of Coring Device
inches Coring
cnr>nK
SPLIT-SPOON
Sampling Interval
0-2.0
feet
Land-Surface Elev. 195-05 feet
13 Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
AIR / WATFR (SMAU- AMOUNT OF WATER
Drilling Fluid Used
/
T0 MINIMIZE DUST) Drilling Method DOWN HOLE HAMMER
Drillina
M. MORALES
Contractor _SOIL_rECH_______________ Dri||er 0- GARCIA
He|per
J. NIEVES
Prepared
By ————
W.I.
MORALES
Hammer
„
_„
Hammer
.Weight
14° LBS- Drop _
. inches
Smpto/Cara O^th
((••I ft«o» land «urt«e«)
To
i P«r 6
Sampto/Cora OMPripUon
0
1.8
1.4
47-70
75-50/0.3' ASPHALT (0-0.1 ft.)
SILTY CLAY, hard, brown; little Sand,
intermixed w/weathered Rock Fragments,
angular, greenish gray, fragments degraded
into a fine to coarse Sand; dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals and
TPH analysis.
One split-spoon soil sample collected at
MW-1.
Continue drilling with downhole hammer
to a depth of 46.0 ft.
Monitoring
well installed at 43.6 ft. Water level measured
on 6/30/90 after completion: 29.9 ft.
Approximately 30 gallons of water were used to minimize
dust during downhole hammer process before
encountering groundwater.
TUT
GO 2
1355
CM FILE: TUTU-115
GERAGHTY
9 MILLER, INC.
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
fnvinnmtntal Srrviow
Boring/Well-MWj^-Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
____________Started .
.Page_J_of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Dr'l|in9
Completed
Total
Depth Drilled
Hole
feet
Diameter
of Sample/QPiiT CPOHM
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter _,
of Coring Device ___
Sampling Interval
CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev.
178
feet
E) Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid U««H NONE
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ————
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
J. MILLET
Driller J- RIVERA
Helper J- DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop __
inches
Sarapta/Cora Diptfi
((«! Mo» tort
From
To
(foot)
TlnM/HydrouItt
fVmijr* or
POM por 6
SomBjo/Cora
0.40
2.4
0.40
2.40
3.10
1.5
0.5
10-19-
28-15
40-50/
0.1'
ASPHALT.
CLAYEY SILT (.81); little Rock
fragments, small; trace Sand, fine to medium;
trace roots; hard, brown to tan, dry.
SILTY CLAY; (1.2') little Rock fragments, small;
trace Sand, fine to medium; hard, gray, dry.
HNu = 0.6 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small;
trace Gravel, fine to medium; trace Sand,
fine to medium; gray, very hard, dry.
GC sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 0.4 ppm.
Split—spoon and auger were refused approximately
CAD RLE: TU-
3.1' below top of pavement. Continued drill
downhole hammer to 28.0 ft.
Set wel' '
T i I "
118
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
Bnvinnmental Servian
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well JMzlP_Project/No. TUTU 5ITE/PR013.01
Page
.of.
Location ST- THOMAS
Drilling
R /_ / Q 9
Drilling
-,/R/Q9
.Started
6/5/92
Completed
7/8/92
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled 90-° feet
Diameter
Length and Diameter „,
of Coring Device
2
Type of Sample/
or,™
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 195-14 feet
H Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used _NONE_
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ———
Drilling Method
HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
J. NIEVES
Driller 0- GARCIA
He,per M. MORALES
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
.Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _
inches
Sampta/Can
(f*tt MOT land wrfae*)
From
Tlm/Myoroufc
SompM/Cora OMOflpUon
0
0.3
1.0
0.3
1.0
2.5
1.5
44-26-
50/0.5'
ASPHALT.
FILL: Gravel, medium to fine; some Silty Clay; trace Sand
medium to coarse; brown, dry to moist.
HNu = 0 ppm.
CGI = 0% LEL.
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, medium to coarse; little Rock
fragments, medium to large, angular; little Gravel, fine to
medium; trace pieces of wood; light brown to brown,
very hard, dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
CGI = 0 % LEL GC Sample: 1-2.5'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, metals, BNA, and TPH
analysis.
2.5
2.8
0.2
50/0.2'
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, medium to coarse; trace
Gravel, fine: brown, dry to moist.
Bedrock encountered at 2.8' bis.
HNu
0 ppm.
CM) HLE: TU-
CGI = 0 % LEL
Continued drilling
to 89.0 ft and downhole hammer tc
117
1 UT
00',-
f GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
tnvirvnmmiat Srrvieta
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_MWz
3_ProjeCt/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page__L_of_L
Location ^
THOMAS
Drilling
R/Q/Q9
Drilling
K/11/Q,
.Started
6/9/92
Completed
6/11/92
Total
Depth Drilled.
Hole
feet
Diameter
Type of Sample/
oponw
.inches Coring n«wir»
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device
2
Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 181-85 feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contract<
Prepared
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
By
R. PONCIANO
M. MORALES
Driller 0- GARCIA
Hplppr J. NIEVES
Hammer
__ Drop
30___inches
Hammer
.Weight
14°
Sompt./Ccr. Depth
land wrfae*)
From
Tlm./l lydf auHc
(f**t)
0
0.4
2.0
0.4
1.7
2.3
0.6
0
27-48-
50/0.3'
50/0.3'
CONCRETE
FILL: SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, fine to
medium; trace Rock fragments, small to medium,
brown, reddish brown, hard, dry;
HNu = 0.2-12 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC. BNA, metals.
and TPH analysis.
No recovery.
Spoon and
augers were refused
approximately at 2.4'. Continued
drilling with downhole hammer
to 34.0 ft.
Set well at 30.4 ft.
CM) FILE: TU-119
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvirvnmmial
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_MWzf_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
.of.
ST. THOMAS
6/16/92
6/17/92
Hole
Type of Sample/
en^r,
Depth Drilled 2B-° feet Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ——
2'/3"
Sampling Interval
2-°
feet
Land-Surface Elev. 175-69 feet
H Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid U^ri NONE
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ———
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
J. NIEVES
Driller 0- GARCIA
Hp,ppr M. MORALES
W.I.
MORALES
Hammer
Hammer
.Weight __lz£_t°±_ Drop __£2___inches
Sampto/Cora Onto
(foot Mov taxi ourfoao) _G«»
(foot)
Sompto/Cor. Population
0.0
0.7
2.7
4.7
6.7
0.7
2.7
4.7
6.7
7.1
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.7
24-22-
22-14
10-15
12-16
15-19-
30-50
50/0.4'
CONCRETE
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand; trace Gravel, fine to coarse;
reddish brown to dark greenish gray, moist; hard.
HNu = 0 ppm.
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, fine to coarse; trace
Gravel, subangular to rounded, 1-2 inch
pieces; brown to dark brown and gray,
moist; very stiff.
HNu = 4 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and
TPH analysis.
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, fine to coarse; trace Gravel,
subangular; some organic content; dark gray,
moist; hard.
HNu = 3 ppm.
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, fine to coarse; trace
Gravel, angular to rounded; some
organic content; reddish brown to dark gray; hard.
HNu = 0 ppm.
.,,... q
OD RLE: TU-120
GERAGHTY
r MILLER, INC.
fnvironmtntal Stnriec*
CAD OLD TU-
Boring
Prepa
Sonvta/C
(tot MM
8.7
9.7
VW
/w,n
MW-4
red By
•« O^ttl
land >urfac*
To
8.8
9.8
W.I. MORALES
"uvu i_c./^wnc. \-\~su v^xuiii.uy
Png*»
2
nf
2
TkiM/HydrauHc
Cora
Prin ur» or
NMOMry
Ban pv «
(f«t)
mom
0
0
50/0.08'
50/0.08'
Auger down to 8.7 ft.
No Recovery.
Auger down to 9.7 ft. Auger grinding
during drilling.
Top of bedrock
inferred at 8.7 ft. below land surface.
No Recovery.
Change drilling system to downhole
hammer.
Drill down to 28.0 ft.
Set well at 27.0 ft.
TUT
O02
136O
121
GERAGHTY
fiT MILLER, INC.
fnvinnmtntal
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/WellJ^tfD-Project/No. TUTU SrTE/PR013.01
Site
__ _.._. ._
Drilling
_ . .__
Location ^- THOMAS_______________starte
y
d
6/4/92
.Page
6/17/92
Total
Hole
Depth Drilled 71-° feet
Diameter.
Length and Diameter
, „
of Coring Device
2 / •*____
Type of
.inches Coring
e/ __, ._ ___ _
SPLIT-SPOON
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 175-99 feet
El Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contract
Prepared
NONE
Drilling Method
HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Driller _±_
J. DIAZ
J. MILLETT
By
W. MORALES
Hammer
Hammer
. Weight
14°
LBS
Drop
30
inches
M. M «f~)
From
To
(f««t)
Tlm«/M)i«roiille
0
0.7
2.7
4.7
0.7
2.7
4.7
6.7
—
1.3
1.5
0.9
-
9-12-
3-3
3-4-4-4
1-2-2-5
CONCRETE.
SILTY CLAY; little Sand, coarse to fine; little Gravel.
reddish brown at the top to brown, blue-gray
Gravel fragments; moist at the bottom; plastic; hard,
HNu = 0 ppm.
SILTY CLAY; little Sand, coarse to fine; little Gravel,
angular, weathered fragments, blue— gray; dark reddish
brown, moist; very plastic, stiff.
HNu = 0 ppm.
CGI = 0 % LEL
(4.7-5.2') SILTY CLAY; little Sand, medium to fine;
little Gravel; dark reddish brown.
(5.2-5.6") As above but dark gray; plastic to medium
stiff, moist.
HNu = 0 ppm.
TUT
00',-.
-5 --•
i-"->-
CM FILE: TU-129
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
tnvirmmmtal
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
Page
.of.
Boring/Well
MW~4D
Prepared By
w- MORALES
Sampto/Cara Oapth
(It* Maw land aurloca) .Cat*
From
To
6.7
8.7
10.7
12.7
8.7
10.7
11.7
13.15
1.3
1.75
0.1
0.9
7-11-16
-16
9-34-38
-36
50-60
60/0.45'
SILTY CLAY; little Sand, medium to fine; little Gravel,
angular, dark gray, reddish fragments 2 inch pieces;
moist; brown and dark gray; plastic to hard.
HNu = 0 ppm.
SILTY CLAY; some Sand, coarse to fine; some Gravel,
angular to semi-rounded, brown and dark gray;
weathered Rock fragments at 9.5' bis, crystalline, gray in
a sandy silty clay matrix; hard.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals, and TPH
analysis.
ROCK; weathered, angular 2—4 inch fragments, blue-
green porphyritic Rock fragments, with white feldspars,
dry; some Sandy Clay, brown, moist.
HNu = 0 ppm. Top of bedrock inferred at 10.7 ft bis.
Same as above; HNu = 0 ppm.
CAD FILE: TU-130
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
Xnvironmtntal Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
of.
CAD RLE: TU-
Boring
Prepa
Sanwta/C
(tact Mov
From
13.7
14.7
15.7
16.7
Atoll
MW-4D
red By
«ra Otf»
land Mfeei
To
14
14.9
16.1
16.86
W. MORALES
Tm/Hytfrau«c
Cora
Praaaura or
Aacmary
Men pv 8
(tart)
MM
0.9'
0.2'
0.4
0
50/0.3'
50/0.16'
50/0.4'
50/0.16'
ROCK; weathered in a Clayey matrix; angular fragments.
coarse to fine grains (like Sand and Gravel); dark gray;
moist.
HNu = 0 ppm.
ROCK fragments; weathered, gray to dark gray; range
from silty
to Gravel sized fragments; moist; slightly wet.
HNu = 0 ppm.
ROCK; weathered in a Silty Clay matrix; angular
fragments (0.5—2.0°); gray, brown, white, red mottled;
black stains; crumbled; moist in Silty areas between
weathered fragments.
HNu = 0 ppm.
No recovery: Wet split spoon sample of retrieval. Working
Zone: HNu = 0 ppm. CGI = 0 % LEL. Wet cuttings on
augers, gray green, Silty Clay.
T! !"l"
{"'>;'>'">
I
;: ;-, '•'-
131
Air fn
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
fnvinnmmtal Srrviott
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
Page_t_of_±
Boring/Well
MW-4D
Prepared Ry W. MORALES
S«mpt»/c«r» Dtath
Dnw/Hjidraulk
rt MM ton* •urfaco)
C«ra
Prmura or
' HMMQ
BtoM p*r 8
From
To
(root)
18.7
20.7
22.7
18.8
20.8
22.8
0.4
0
0
50/0. V
50/0. 1'
50/0. 13'
ROCK; weathered fragments in a Silty Clay matrix;
angular; fine to coarse fragments; gray; wet.
HNu = 0 ppm.
No recovery (Hard augering between 20.7 and 21.0 ft)
No Recovery. Top of competent bedrock inferred at
22.8 ft bis. Auger down to 24.7 ft.
No sample
collected at this interval.
Start pulling out augers.
After augers were retrieved,
a 4 inch PVC casing was
placed at approximately 8 ft bis. PVC stick up: 1 .5 ft.
Continued drilling by diamond coring from 24.0 to
67.25 ft and downhole hammer from land surface to
71.0 ft.
CAD rTU: TU-132
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_MWz5_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Type of Sample/
Page __L_of_l
Location ST. THOMAS
Drilling
R/11/Q-
Drilling
Started
8/11/92
Completed
Total
Depth Drilled
Hole
feet
Diameter
inches Coring
__,,_
_ _ . _
SPLIT- SPOON
Length and Diameter
. „
of Coring Device ___ 2 /^
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____
feet
Land-Surface Elev. 187-24 feet
E) Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid u««ri NONE
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
£;ep°red R. PONCIANO
Drilling Method HSA
J. DIAZ
Driller J- RIVERA
Helper J- M"-LETT
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop — 30
.inches
(fMt
Men told «uffoe.)
Can
To
(f**t)
r»Miur« or
Blow pvr Q
Sompte/Cer* 0««eriBUun
4.8
1.1
1.4
0.8
13-19-
18-21
25-30-
24-39
35-50/
0.25'
FILL: SILT; little Sand, Fine to medium; little Gravel,
fine to medium; trace of Rock fragments, small; trace
pieces of wood; trace Clay; brown medium stiff, dry.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Soil samples collected for BNA. metals, and TPH analysis.
Same as above
HNu = 2.0 ppm.
GC Sample: 2-4'.
Soil sample collected for VOC analysis.
ROCK; highly altered; grayish green, very weak.
HNu = 0.1 ppm.
GC Sample: 4-6'.
Top of bedrock approximately at 4.8' bis.
Continued
CAD FILE Ul-
drilling with downhole hammer to 40.8 ft. Well installed
at 39.0 ft.
JUT 002
,.365
136
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvironmtntal Srrviets
(ABANDONED)
Boring/Well_MWz6_Project/No. TUTU SrTE/PR013.01
Location SI. THOMAS
.Page
of.
Drilling
Drilling
7/91/Q9
.Started
7/21/92
Completed
7/21/92
Total
__
Hole
Depth Drilled 65-°
feet
Diameter
Type of Sample/
CDnnKI
.inches Coring HPX,;™
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device __
2'/3"
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval _____
feet
Land-Surface Elev.
Drilling Fluid Used.
Drilling
Contractor.
feet
D Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
________________ Drilling Method HSA
SOIL TECH
Prepared
R pONC|ANO
J. DIAZ
_ Driller J- R|VERA
Helper J- M"-LET
Hammer
Hammer
.Weight __L12___ Drop __j£?__ inches
tfcpth
From
To
Sonata/Cora DMCfiption
0
0.3
2
0.3
2.0
2.5
1.3
0
12-20-
50-34
50/0.5'
ASPHALT.
SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, fine; trace Sand, coarse
to very coarse; little Rock fragments, small to
medium; brown to gray, stiff, dry;
GC sample: 0-2'. HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC. SNA. metals and TPH
analysis.
No recovery.
Continued drilling by diamond coring from 2.6 to
65.0 ft (seeMW-6D) and downhole hammer to 35.0 ft.
This hole was abandoned and re— drilled (MW— 6R).
TUT
002
-i .:;:^A
CAD FIE: TU-137
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
tnvirmmrntal Srrviot*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_Mz6D_project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Drilling
o/ R/ Qo
Drilling
R/in/Q,
.Started
8/6/92
Completed
8/10/92
Total
c_n
Hole
Depth Drilled 65-° feet Diameter
Type of Sample/
CDnnK1
.inches Coring rvwirg
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ——
2'/3T
CONTINUOUS
Sampling Interval ____ feet
Land-Surface Elev. 171-26 feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum
MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used.
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ———— R. PONCIANO
______ Drilling Method
M. MORALES
_ Dri||er 0. GARCIA
He|per J. NIEVES
Hammer
Hammer
Weight
14°
Drop
30
.inches
Sompta/Con
(tort Mo. land ourfoo.)
From
To
(foot)
0
0.35
2
4
0.35
2.0
4
4.9
1
1.4
1.0
0.3
12-40-
33-28
10-9-
12-15
13-50,/
0.42'
ASPHALT
SILTY CLAY (0.6') little Rock fragments, small to
medium; trace Sand, medium; trace Gravel, fine to
medium; very hard, brown, dry. Remaining materials are
Silt; little Sand, fine to medium; trace Clay; orange to
tan, hard, dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'. Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA,
metals and TPH analysis.
Same as above, upper description.
GC sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
ROCK; fragments, medium to large; some Silt; little Sand,
fine to medium; trace Clay; trace Sand, coarse to very
coarse; brown, dry; hard.
Continued drilling with downhole hammer to 65.0 ft.
..,-,,••.-
DOV
1367
CAD FILE: TU-138
GERAGHTY
r MILLER, INC.
fnvironntfittal Soviet*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well-MWzZ-Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
.Page
.of.
Location ST. THOMAS
7/16/92 ?±pLed 7/29/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
,-•-,««,.,
Depth Drilled 39-6 feet
Diameter
6
inches Coring Device
SPLIT-SPOON
(CONTINUOUS)
Length and Diameter „,
of Coring Device
2
Sampling Interval
feet
Land-Surface Elev. 171-26 feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid H««H
NONE
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ————
Driller
J. DIAZ
Helper
W. MORALES
Hammer . - . „ _ .
Hammer
Weight
14° LBS
Drop
30
inches
Sampta/Con
* —— M
From
To
Sempt^Cor*
0
2
2
6
2
4
5.3
6.4
1.3'
1.1
1.2
0.4
22-23-
38-37
%•-&-
17-35-
50/0.29'
50/0.38'
FILL; SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, medium; trace Sand, coarse to very coarse;
trace Organic roots; hard, brown, dry.
GC sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above but without the rock fragments.
GC sample: 2 - 4'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Rock, highly weathered; Sand, fine to medium; some
Silt; trace Sand, coarse to very coarse; trace Gravel, fine
trace Clay; hard, gray, dry.
GC sample: 4 - 6'. HNu = 0 ppm.
ROCK, highly altered; weak, grayish green.
GC sample: 6 - 8'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 6.0 ft bis.
CAD F»«: TU-1390
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
Irenmentoi Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
Page
of.
Boring/Well
MW~7
Prepared Ry
*• PONCIANO
ton* lurfao)
From
To
('•*)
Thm/Hydreufc
tarn p*r°6
8
10
12
14
9.0
10.2
12.6
15
0.9
0.1
1.2
1.9
27-42/
0.46'
50/0.13'
78-128/
0.1V
42-154/
0.5'
Same as above.
GC sample: 8-10'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above.
GC sample: 10-12'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above.
GC sample: 12-14'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
ROCK; highly weathered.
Same as above.
GC sample: 14-16'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Competent bedrock approximately at 15 ft bis.
Continued drilling with downhole hammer to 39.6 ft.
Well installed at 35.4 ft.
CAD FU£: TU-140
TUT
_
GERAGHTY
Mj? & MILLER, INC.
^•V^ tnvironmental Strvieta
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well-M^zl-Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
Page
of.
Location 5T-
itrartegd 7/2°/92 Combed V23/92
Total
Depth Drilled
Hole
feet Diameter
.inches ^nfr/^SPUT-SPOON
Length and Diameter _.
of Coring Device ___*•
.Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS fppt
Land-Surface Elev. 167-61 feet
El Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
_________________ Drilling Method HSA
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ————
Driller jL.
J. DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
.Weight
14°
_ Helper,
Hammer .
Drop _j
inches
Sampto/Cor,
„
(«Mt Ma» land •urfaei)
Cora
r»M»ui» or
H»<.om>
BOM p*r 6
From
To
0
0.35
2
4
0.35
2
4
5.9
1.4
1.8
1.1
12-10-
12-16
10-8-
11-10
27-50/
0.42'
ASPHALT.
FILL: SILTY CLAY; trace Sand, very fine to fine; trace Roc
fragments, small to medium; trace Sand, coarse to very
coarse; stiff, brown, dry.
GC sample: 0-2'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above (the first 1.3'); the rest is Silt; little Clay
trace Sand, very fine; little Rock fragments; stiff, brown
to reddish brown, dry.
GC sample: 2-4'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals, and TPH
analysis.
ROCK; weathered; Silt; little Clay; trace Sand, very fine
to fine; trace Rock fragments, very hard, brown, dry.
GC sample: 4-6'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
,,,-:.
1370
TUT
l •''-'••'-
CAD Fll£: TU-122
A^f GERAGHTY
Jgir 6T MILLER, INC.
^^fr fnviivnmtittal Srrvie*3
SAMPLE/CORE LOG (Contd)
PnnP
2
nf
2
CAD FILE: TU-
Boring
Prepo
Somato/C
(fwt Mmr
From
6
8
AIM!
MW-8
red By
«n Oipth
land oirfao
To
6.8
8.3
R. PONCIANO
Tinw/Hytfrauttc
^jCyi^
Prmmn or
KMoowwy
Btawi per 6
(fMt)
Inctai
0.8
0
50-53/
0.25'
50/0.25'
Same as above.
GC sample: 6-8'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
No recovery.
Split-spoon refused at approximately 8.3 ft bis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 8.3 ft bis.
Continued drilling with downhole hammer to 26.0 ft.
Well installed at 25.5 ft.
i U !
I..M..J ..:::
..I...::. / .!
123
GERAGHTY
' fir MILLER, INC.
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Bnvirmmrntal Services
Boring/Well_M)5t?_Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
ST. THOMAS
Page
of.
Drilling
-,/.,,/Q9
Drilling
-,/,«/«,,
Started
7/24/92
Completed
7/30/92
Total
v^n
Hole
R
TyPfi of Sample/
Depth Drilled ^d±2_ feet
Diameter __2^ inches Coring n»vi™
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
„
of Coring Device
2 /3
Sampling Interval
feet
Land-Surface Elev. 162-32 feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid Used NQNE
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
J. DIAZ
Driller
J- RIVERA
H<.lp«l taknr land «irt«e«)
Tim/Hydraulic
Fiwn
To
0.5
1.71
1.5
14-9-33
50/0.21
ASPHALT
SILTY CLAY; little Rock fragments, small to medium;
trace Sand, fine; trace Gravel, fine to medium; very
hard, gray to brown, dry.
HNu = 0.3 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Top of bedrock inferred at 1.71 ft bis.
Continued drilling by diamond coring from 1.71 ft to
75.0
ft and downhole hammer from 2.0 ft to 75.1 ft.
CAD OLE: TU-126
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
fnvironmrntal Services
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_^ILQD_project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
of
2
££ation ST. THOMAS
Total
Depth Drilled
Hole
feet Diameter
.Started
6/26/92
Completed
7/20/92
Type of Sample/
. inches Coring
connw
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___ 2 /3
.Sampling int«n/nl CONTINUOUS fept
Land-Surface Elev. JL^All feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
nntum 153-22 FT ABOVE MSL
_________________ Drilling Method HSA_________
Drilling Fluid Used
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
Prepared
By ———
Driller
J. DIAZ
He,per J. MILLET
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _ 30
. inches
Samota/Cara tfcpth
(fwl b«to« land wrfac*)
From
To
(<•*)
Ikm/Hytfraufe
Pi tnun or
BtoM pw 6
S«npi./Cort OncripUen
0
2
4
2
4
5.88
0.7
1.1
1.42
11-14-
9-11
14-4-
14-13
1-29-31
50/0.38'
FILL: CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, fine to medium; trace
Sand, coarse; trace organic materials, roots; light brown,
dry, stiff.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 0-2'.
CLAY; little Silt; trace Sand, fine; trace organic materials;
brown to reddish brown, moist, stiff.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC sample: 2-4'.
"SILT; little Sand, fine; trace Clay; trace Sand, coarse to
very coarse; brown, dry, hard.
GC sample: 4-6'.
Ti i /
""'
*••*.>.
CAD RLE: TU-127
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Srrvices
SAMPLE/COFE LOG (Contd)
Page
.of.
Boring/Well
Prepared Ry
R. PONCIANO
From
D«p«h
To
Tkm/HydnMlic
(••«*)
6
8
10
6.8
8.3
10.2
0.9
0.5
0.2
50-50/
0.3'
50/0.33*
50/0.17'
Same as above.
GC sample: 6-8'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above.
GC sample: 8-10'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above.
GC sample: 10-10.2'.
Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA, metals, and TPH
analysis. Top of bedrock at 10.2 ft bis. Continued
drilling by diamond coring to 75.0 ft and downhole
hammer from 5.0 to 74.3 ft.
CAD FILE: TU-128
GERAGHTY
9 MILLER, INC.
fnvinmmtntai S«rvic«s
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well_^zI2D_project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
.Page
of.
Location ST. THOMAS
Drilling
7/c/Q9
Drilling
-,/, •,/„,,
.Started
7/6/92
Completed 7/23/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
Depth Drilled _Zi2_ feet
Diameter __2__ inches Coring r^x/ir*
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
. „
of Coring Device
2 /3______________
.Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 161-58 feet
H Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid u««H NQNE__________________ Drilling Method JJ^
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH____________
Driller
J. DIAZ
n«lp«r J. MILLET
£;epqred R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _
inches
Sampte/Cara Dmth
„
Mt Drto. land «urt«e»)
Cora
From
To
(tat)
Sompta/Cor* Onaiptien
0
2
4
2
4
5.9
0.7
1.4 1
19-15-
35-25
17-7-
13-21
3-27-44
50/0.38'
FILL: SILT; some Clay; trace Sand, very fine
to very coarse; trace roots; trace Gravel, medium;
trace Rock fragments; hard; brown, dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC Sample: 0-2'.
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, very fine to very coarse;
trace roots; trace Rock fragments, medium to large;
very stiff.
GC sample: 2-4'.
HNu = 0 ppm.
SILT; some Clay; trace Sand, very fine to coarse; trace
rock fragments, medium; brown to yellowish, stiff.
GC sample: 4 - 6 '
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
Top of bedrock at 5.9 ft bis. Continued drillin
by diamond coring
from 5.9 to 75.0 ft and downhole hammer from "* ° *-
88.0 ft.
HNu = 0 ppm. '
,.,
oo2
'•••••-'' '
CAD RLE: TU-133
GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
Bnvironmfniai Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Rnrin0/W»l|MW-13D prnj«fft/Nn
TUTU SITE/PR013.01_____________ pQge
1
nf
1
6/19/92
Location ST. THOMAS
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
connw
Depth Drilled-Lf^f-feet Diameter ^_§^ inches Coring n^ir*
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter
of Coring Device ___£
.Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 236-67 feet
B Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
Drilling Fluid u«*ri NONE
Drilling
Contracto
Prepared
By ———
Drilling Method HSA
Drilling
Contractor
SOIL TECH
J. MILLET
Driller J- RIVERA
Helper J- DIAZ
R. PONCIANO
Hammer
Weight
14°
Hammer
Drop _ 30
.inches
SampK/Cm
tato. KKHI wrfoe.)
(f««t)
0
2
4
0.83
4
5.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
14-50/
0.25'
23-31-
26-40
25-50/
0.46'
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, very fine; trace Gravel, small
to medium; trace organic materials (roots); very hard,
light brown, dry.
HNu = 1-3 ppm.
CGI = 0% LEL.
GC sample: 0-2'
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, very fine to medium; little
Gravel, fine; trace Sand, very coarse to coarse; trace
Rock fragments, large to medium; light— brown, hard, dry.
HNu = 0 ppm.
GC Sample: 2-4'
Same as above.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Soil samples collected for VOC, BNA, metals and TPH
analysis.
GC sample: 4-5'.
Continued drilling by diamond cori /(~T o!; ?
using a downhofe hammer from \Q,,^ _
'
J ••-•'/ 8
CAD FILE: TU-134
* GERAGHTY
8 MILLER, INC.
tnviTvnmntal Service*
SAMPLE/CORE LOG
Boring/Well.
££ation ST. THOMAS
Project/No. TUTU SITE/PR013.01
. Page
of.
Drilling
Drilling
-,/,/«,,
.Started
7/1/92
Completed
7/2/92
Total
Hole
Type of Sample/
C-P./-./ML
Depth Drilled _*£^_ feet
Diameter __°^ inches Coring r>»"i™
SPLIT-SPOON
Length and Diameter „./,..
of Coring Device
2 / J
.Sampling Interval CONTINUOUS feet
Land-Surface Elev. 196.04 feet
KI Surveyed
D Estimated
Datum MEAN SEA LEVEL
(Small amount or water
Drilling Fluid M«»H AIR/WATER
to minimize dust)
Drilling UpfhnH DOWNHOLE HAMMER
Drilling
M- MORALES
Contractor _SOILJTCH _______________ Dri|ler O.GARCIA
He|per
J. NIEVES
W. I. MORALES
Hammer
Weight
14°
Drop
36
.inches
Samate/Cara Otptti
(fwt Ma* land Mrfm)
Cora
h.Mm» or
nOCWMty
NOW P*T 9
From
To
(f«D IndMo
0
0.1
2
0.1
2
3
1.1
0.5
60-35
35-78
90-100
ASPHALT
SILTY CLAY; some Sand; trace Gravel, brown to gray,
intermixed with weathered Rock fragments, greenish gray,
angular; hard. Soil samples collected for VOC, SNA,
metals and TPH analysis.
HNu = 0 ppm.
Same as above, less Clay, more weathered Rock
fragments, very angular; Saprolite
HNu = 0 ppm.
Two split— spoon samples collected at MW-14. Proceeded to
ream hole down to 48.0 ft. Water found at approximately
45.0-46.0 ft bis. Monitoring Well installed at 45.2 ft.
Water level on 7/2/92 after completion: 28.24 ft.
Approximately 30 gallons of water were used during
downhole hammer procedure to minimize dust.
Tin
OO2 1.3/9
CAD FILE TU-135
APPENDIX B
GEOLOGIC LOGS
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-1
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
ASPHALT
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, fine to coarse, trace weathered
rock fragments; angular, hard, dry, brown, greenish-gray.
Top of bedrock inferred at 1.8 feet below land surface.
0-0.1
0.1 - 1.8
(See also Geologic Log of MW-1D)
PR01301/Oi2193.1cf/lcb
TUT
O02
1.381
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-1D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
ASPHALT
0 - 0.3
Fill consisting of GRAVEL medium to fine; some Clay; trace silt;
0.3-2.5
trace Sand, medium to coarse; dry to moist; brown.
CLAY; some SILT; little to trace Sand, medium to coarse; little rock
2.5 - 2.8
fragments, medium to large, angular; little to trace gravel,
fine to medium; trace pieces of wood; very hard, dry to moist,
light brown to brown.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA (coarse grained); greenish-gray; strong to moderately 2.8 - 15.0
strong; fine, medium, large grained, rectangular and irregular
shape, moderately sorted; plagioclase feldspar, pyroxenes, and
chlorite minerals, dull to vitreous; calcite veins, iron stains;
fresh to slightly altered.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA (finer grained); mottled gray and white; some pebble 15.0 - 21.2
sized, angular clasts; contact metamorphism; plagioclase feldspar,
hornblende, pyroxene, magnetite.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow; dark, grayish-green; competent,
21.2-89.0
jointed interval; porphyritic, fine to coarse; large (8 cm) slump
clasts; large plagioclase and pyroxene crystals.
Fracture zones observed from 2.34 to 15.09 feet bis, 19.34 to 21.2 feet bis, 34.5 to
35.5 feet bis, and 54.0 to 55.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/OS2193.lo(/kb
TUT
Of;;
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-2
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
ASPHALT
SILT; some Clay, little rock fragments, small; trace Sand, fine to
medium; trace roots; hard, dry; brown to tan
CLAY; some Silt; little rock fragments, small; trace Gravel, fine to
medium; hard to very hard; dry, gray.
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.4 feet below land surface.
0-0.4
0.4- 1.2
1.2-3.1
PR01301/052193.1o|/kb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-3
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
CONCRETE
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, fine to medium; trace rock
fragments, small to medium; hard, dry; brown, reddish brown.
No recovery.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.4 feet below land surface.
0-0.4
0.4 - 2.0
2.0 - 2.4
PR01301/OS2193.lof/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-4
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampted Interval
(feet below
land surface)
CONCRETE
0 - 0.7
CLAY; some Silt; some organic content (4.7 - 6.7 feet); trace Sand,
0.7 - 7.1
fine to coarse; trace Gravel; subangular, very stiff to hard;
reddish brown, dark greenish-gary, brown, dark brown, gray, and
dark gray.
No recovery.
8.7 - 9.8
Top of bedrock inferred at 8.7 feet below land surface.
(See also Geologic Log for MW-4D)
PR01301/OS2193.loc/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
Geologic Log of MW-4D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
0 - 0.7
CLAY; some Silt, little Sand, fine to coarse; little Gravel; stiff to
0.7 - 9.5
hard; moist; reddish brown to brown, bluish-gray, dark gray;
medium plasticity.
Weathered rock fragments and CLAY; some Silt; some to little Sand.
9.5 - 10.7
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 10.7 feet.
Weathered rock fragments and CLAY - some Silt; angular, small to
10.7 - 22.8
large; hard; moist to wet at 14.7 and 18.7 feet, gray, blue,
green, brown, white, red, black stains; crumbled.
Top of competent bedrock inferred at 22.8 feet below land surface.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; dark green; highly fractured to
22.8 - 28.2
26.5 feet bis; gray; moderately strong to strong; very fine grained;
pyroxene, plagioclase feldspars, some quartz, chlorite, and orthoclase
minerals; calcite veins; iron stains; contact metamorphism and
hydrothermal alteration 26.5 to 28.2 feet bis.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; gray; fine to medium grained; plagioclase,
28.2 - 33.0
pyroxene, magnetite; pyroxene crystals (2 cm); fining upward
sequences.
Weathered VOLCANIC BRECCIA; SILT and CLAY; light brown, very
33.0 - 35.0
fine grained to pebble sized fragments; semi-angular.
No recovery
35.0-37.1
PR01301/052193.lot/lcb
TUT
OO2
L386
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Page 2 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-4D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; dark green, gray; strong; aphanitic, very
37.1 - 58.3
fine grained; pyroxene, plagioclase feldspars, epidote, some quartz,
magnetite, chlorite, and orthoclase minerals; calcite veins; black
minerals 60% rock matrix; white plagioclase amygdules 35% of rock
matrix, slightly altered.
DIORTTE; dark gray; very dense; strong; very fine to coarse grained;
58.3 - 64.0
pyroxene, plagioclase feldspar, quartz, chlorite, and orthoclase
minerals; pyroxene minerals ranged from 35 to 60% of rock matrix;
plagioclase minerals ranged from 35 to 40% of rock matrix, slightly
altered.
Weathered VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; altered to SILT and CLAY;
64.0 - 66.5
very fine to medium grained; friable, vertical foliations; calcite,
kaolinite, chlorite; white-rust color.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; dark green; fine grained; aphanitic;
66.5 - 68.0
pyroxene, plagioclase, epidote; calcite filled vertical fractures.
Fracture zones observed from 9.0 to 25.5 feet bis, 30.0 to 38.2 feet bis, and 65.0 to
66.5 feet bis.
Highly weathered fracture plane at 40.9, 55.0, and 64.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/OS2193.loc/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-5
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
Fill, SILT; little Sand, fine to medium; little Gravel, fine to medium;
0 - 4.0
trace rock fragments, small; trace clay; trace pieces of wood;
hard; dry; brown.
Highly weathered bedrock; very weak; grayish-green.
4.0 - 4.8
Top of bedrock inferred at 4.8 feet below land surface.
PR01301/052193.ki|/kb
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Geologic Log of MW-6D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
ASPHALT
0 - 0.3
CLAY; some SILT; trace Sand, fine to very coarse; little rock fragments,
0.3 - 2.0
small to medium; hard; dry; brown to gray.
No recovery.
2.0 - 4.0
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; grayish-green to dark green; moderately strong;
4.0-32.0
porphyritic, medium to coarse grained; rectangular to massive
phenocrysts (2 mm to 6 cm), moderately sorted; plagioclase feldspar,
pyroxene minerals, dull, glassy, vitreous; white minerals ranged from
10 - 15% of rock matrix; slightly to highly altered and stained;
Clay - little Silt; trace Sand, fine to coarse; light gray; soft; wet;
magnesium and iron oxide.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; grayish-green; moderately strong to weak;
32.0 - 45.0
fine to medium grained, rectangular and irregular shape, moderately
sorted; plagioclase feldspar, pyroxenes, epidote and chlorite minerals;
dull, glassy; calcite veins; iron staining; moderately to highly altered.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow, with slump casts; competent, jointed
45.0 - 53.0
interval; medium to coarse grained, plagioclase, epidote, chlorite,
pyroxene; rounded slump blocks (6 cm) of dark gray, coarse grained
Tuff in a mottled dark gray-green matrix.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; grayish-green; competent, jointed interval; strong to 53.0 - 60.0
moderately strong; coarse grained, rectangular, cubic and irregular
shape; plagioclase, chlorite, and epidote minerals, dull, glassy;
calcite veins; fresh to slightly altered.
PR01301/052193.log/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 2 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-6D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow, with slump casts; greenish-gray;
60.0 - 65.0
moderately strong; fine grained, rectangular to irregular shaped slump
casts (8 cm), dark gray, pyroxene rich, coarse Tuff; matrix is fine
grained; well sorted; plagioclase, dull, glassy, slightly altered.
Fracture zones observed from 9.6 to 32.0 feet bis, 35.0 to 35.5 feet bis, 37.0 to 40.0 feet bis,
and 43 to 60 feet bis.
Note: This log is a combination of the geology observed at MW-6 (abandoned) and MW-6D.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/OS2193.k>|/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-7
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; little rock fragments, small to medium; trace Sand,
0 - 4.0
medium to very coarse; trace roots; hard; dry; brown.
Highly weathered Rock; SAND, fine to medium; some Silt; trace Sand,
4.0 - 6.0
coarse to very coarse; trace Gravel, fine; trace Clay; hard, dry, gray.
Highly weathered bedrock; weak, grayish-green.
6.0- 15.0
PR01301/OS2193.lot/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-8
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, very fine to very coarse; trace rock
0 - 0.35
fragments, small to medium; very stiff; dry; brown.
Moderately weathered rock; SILT; little to trace Sand, very fine to fine;
3.3 - 8.3
little trace rock fragments; very stiff to hard; dry; brown to
reddish-brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 8.3 feet below land surface.
PR01301/052193.kif/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-9
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
Fill, consisting of CLAY; some Silt; little rock fragments, small to large;
0-5.0
trace Sand, fine to very coarse; hard; dry; brown to reddish-brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 5.0 feet below land surface.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; light greenish-gray; moderately strong; porphyritic,
5.0 - 15.0
fine to large grained, rectangular to irregular shape, moderately
sorted; plagioclase, epidote, and chlorite minerals, some chert;
dull, vitreous; calcite veins; plagioclase minerals range from
10 to 25 % of rock matrix; slightly altered; Clay; observed at
10 feet, little Silt, trace Sand, medium to coarse.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF, and Silt and Clay; homogenous, aphanitic,
15.0 - 28.0
very fine grained; plagioclase, pyroxene, chlorite, some quartz;
calcite veins; slightly to highly altered; bluish-green to grayish-green.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; grayish-green; moderately strong; porphyritic, fine
28.0 - 35.0
to coarse grained; moderately to poorly sorted; plagioclase, calcite,
hornblende, magnetite, chlorite, and pyroxene minerals; calcite veins;
slightly altered.
PR01301/OS2193.Jog/lcb
O02 1393
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-10
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
Fill, CLAY; some Silt; little Sand; medium, little rock fragments, small to
0 - 2.9
medium; trace Gravel, fine to medium; hard; dry; gray to brown.
Top of bedrock inferred at 2.9 feet.
See also Geologic Log of MW-10D.
PR01301/OS2193.1of/kb
TUT
002
1.394
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Geologic Log of MW-10D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
ASPHALT
0 - 0.5
CLAY; some Silt; trace Sand, fine; trace Gravel, fine to medium;
0.5 - 1.7
little rock fragments, small to medium; hard; dry; gray to brown.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA, greenish-gray; moderately strong; medium to
2.3 - 5.0
large grained, rectangular to irregular shape, moderately sorted;
plagioclase minerals, dull; manganese oxidation, iron stains;
calcite stains; moderately to slightly altered.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; greenish-gray; moderately strong,
5.0 - 6.0
fine grained, plagioclase, hornblende, less pyroxene.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; greenish-gray, moderately strong, medium to
6.0 - 8.2
coarse grained, plagioclase, pyroxene, heterogeneous, zoned
rectangular clasts, alteration to iron oxides.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; grayish-blue, moderately strong and
8.2 - 12.0
competent, fine grained, plagioclase, pyroxene, calcite.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; grayish-blue, highly fractured and
12.0 - 19.0
crushed, fine grained, pyroxene, plagioclase, calcite.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; mottled olive-green, moderately strong and
19.0 - 21.0
competent, fine grained; plagioclase, calcite, pyroxene, epidote,
hornblende, alteration to magnesium and iron oxides.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; light gray, highly fractured and crushed;
21.0 - 22.0
very fine grained, homogeneous, plagioclase, calcite, pyroxene,
epidote, hornblende.
PR01301/052l93.tof/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Geologic Log of MW-10D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 2 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; greenish-gray; weak, highly fractured to crushed
22.0 - 32.0
at 22.0 to 27.5; medium to coarse grained, rectangular to irregular
shape, moderately sorted; plagioclase, pyroxenes, and some quartz
minerals, dull, glassy; manganese oxidation, iron stains, calcite
veins; moderately to slightly altered.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow; mottled greenish-gray; strong,
32.0 - 75.0
moderate jointing; medium to large grained; rectangular, irregular
shape, large clasts; poorly sorted; plagioclase, quartz, pyroxenes,
epidote and chlorite minerals; calcite veins; fresh to slightly altered
Fracture zone observed from 6.0 to 8.2 feet bis, 12.0 to 19.0 feet bis, 21.0 to 27.5 feet bis, and
53.4 to 55.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/CS2193.log/lcb
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-11D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
Fill consisting of CLAY; some to little Silt, trace Sand, fine to coarse;
0 - 4 . 0
trace Organic material; very stiff; dry to moist; light brown, brown
to reddish-brown.
SILT; little SAND, fine; trace clay; trace Sand, coarse to very coarse;
4.0 - 10.2
hard; dry; brown.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; bluish-green; strong to moderately strong;
10.2 - 52.0
fine grained, rectangular, cubic and irregular shape, well sorted;
plagioclase feldspar, epidote, quartz, and pyroxene minerals, dull,
glassy, bright to silky; calcite veins, iron stains; white minerals
ranged from 10 to 25% of rock matrix; fresh, slightly to highly altered.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; contact metamorphism, zoned (heated)
52.0 - 75.0
clasts (1 cm); bluish-green, strong to moderately strong; fine grained;
well sorted; plagioclase feldspar, epidote, quartz, and pyroxene
minerals, glassy, silky dull; calcite veins, iron stains; fresh to
slightly altered; white minerals ranged from 10 to 25% of rock matrix
(plagioclase content increases with depth).
Fracture zone observed from 12.0 to 25.0 feet bis, 30.0 to 32.0 feet bis, 36.0 to 37.0 feet bis,
at 38.0 feet bis, 42.0 to 45.0 feet bis, and 50 to 52.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/052193.iof/lcb
TUT
002
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-12D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
Fill consisting of SILT; some Clay; trace Sand, very fine to very coarse;
0 - 2.0
trace Gravel, medium, trace rock fragments; trace Organic material;
hard; dry; brown.
CLAY, some SILT; trace Sand, very fine to very coarse; trace rock
2.0 - 4.0
fragments, medium to large, trace organics; very stiff.
No recovery.
5.9 - 10.0
Highly weathered and altered VOLCANIC BRECCIA, SILT and CLAY;
10.0 - 15.0
crushed; little to trace rock fragments, small to medium; trace
Sand, very fine to coarse (5 cm clasts); stiff to very stiff; dry;
brown to yellow, light brown.
Top of weathered bedrock inferred at 15.0 feet below land surface.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; orange to light brown, light gray to reddish-gray;
15.0 - 29.0
coarse grained, competent; pyroxene and plagioclase phenocrysts,
calcite veins, iron stains; moderately to highly altered.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow; dark greenish-black; coarse
29.0 - 31.0
grained matrix with fine grained angular slump clasts, plagioclase,
pyroxene, epidote.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; bluish-green and gray; strong to weak to
31.0 - 50.2
moderately strong; fine to very fine grained, aphanitic, angular
fragments; plagioclase feldspar, pyroxenes, quartz and pyrite minerals,
dull, vitreous, metallic; calcite veins, iron stains; plagioclase minerals
range from 5 to 10% of rock matrix; slightly to moderately altered.
PR01301/052193.lot/fcb
A. -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Geologic Log of MW-12D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 2 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow; dark grayish-black, moderately
50.2 - 65.0
fractured, coarse grained matrix and clasts, pyroxene and hornblende
clasts and plagioclase, pyroxene, and hornblende matrix.
No recovery.
65.0 - 75.0
Fracture zones observed from 10.0 to 15.0 feet bis, 18.5 to 19.0 feet bis, 20.0 to 21.0 feet bis,
37.0 to 40.0 feet bis, 45.0 to 46.0 feet bis, 48.5 to 49.5 feet bis, 51.0 to 53.0 feet bis,
and 59.7 to 63.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/052193.1of/lcb
TUT
002
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Geologic Log of MW-13D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Page 1 of 2
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
CLAY; some Silt; little Sand, very fine; trace Gravel, small to medium;
0 - 2.0
trace Organic material; very hard; dry; light brown.
CLAY, some Silt; little Sand, very fine to medium; little Gravel, fine;
2.0 - 5.0
trace Sand, very coarse to coarse; trace rock fragments, large to
medium; hard; dry; light brown.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; dark green with white mottling in
5.0 - 20.0
some areas; moderately strong to very weak at 20.0 feet bis;
highly fractured and crushed, fine, medium grained, irregular
shape, moderately sorted; plagioclase feldspar, quartz and epidote
minerals, dull; calcite veins; slightly to moderately altered at
5.3 feet bis, highly altered with iron stains at 20.0 feet bis;
plagioclase minerals range from 10 to 35% of rock matrix.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; fine to coarse grained, highly altered and
20.0 - 45.0
fractured (20.0 to 30 feet bis), vertical foliations, friable, alteration
to Clay minerals (calcite, chlorite, kaolinite), mottled grayish-green.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - Debris Flow; coarse grained with 6 cm slump
45.0 - 55.0
clasts, clasts are very fine grained Tuff, epidote, chlorite, pyroxene,
plagioclase, and calcite, FeOj staining, dark green and mottled.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; dusky yellow green to grayish-green; moderately
55.0 - 88.0
strong to weak; epiclastic, fine, medium, large grained, occasional
clast of 1 to 3 cm (40 to 55 feet bis), rectangular, cubic, and
irregular shape, moderately to well sorted; plagioclase feldspar,
epidote, chlorite, and pyroxene minerals, glassy, dull; calcite veins,
iron stains; slightly to highly altered (55 to 85 feet bis); plagioclase
minerals range from 10 to 35% of rock matrix (40 to 55 feet bis).
PR01301/052193.lo»/lcb
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 2 of 2
Geologic Log of MW-13D
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Sampled Interval
(feet below
Description
land surface)
VOLCANIC BRECCIA; finer grained, competent, primary minerals are
88.0 - 92.0
pyroxene and hornblende, secondary minerals are epidote, plagioclase,
and chlorite, vertical foliations, grayish-blue green.
VOLCANIC BRECCIA - DEBRIS FLOW; fine and coarse grained slump
92.0 - 110.0
blocks (7 to 15 cm), rounded, plagioclase, pyroxene, some pyrite,
calcite veins oriented 45°, grayish-green to blue green.
VOLCANIC ANDESITE TUFF; fine to very fine grained; competent and
110.0 - 120.0
relatively unweathered, plagioclase, epidote, and pyroxene, calcite
inclusions, dark greenish-blue.
Fracture zones observed from 5.0 to 36.0 feet bis, 56.0 to 60.0 feet bis, 63.0 to 65.0 feet bis,
and 70.0 to 75.0 feet bis.
bis
below land surface
PR01301/(M2193.loj/lcb
TU>
002
j.401
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Geologic Log of MW-14
Tutu Service Station Investigation
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description
Sampled Interval
(feet below
land surface)
ASPHALT
CLAY; some Silt; some Sand; trace Gravel to some weathered rock
fragments, angular; very hard; greenish-gray, brown gray.
0-0.1
0.1 -3.0
Top of bedrock inferred at 3.0 feet below land surface.
PR01301/052193.loc/kb
TUT
002
1402
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX C
SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES PROVIDED BY
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
SOP 1-3
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
Revision: 0
Date: June 30, 1992
Pag«3of6
4.0 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT
Site-specific plans
Field logbook
Indelible black ink p^ns yyj znarxxrs
Labels and appropriate fbnns/docunieatatioa for tampk shipment
Appropriate sample containers
Insulated cooler and waterproof sealing tape
Ice bags or *blue ice*
TJR*T or appropriate gloves
Flattie zip-top bags
Personal protective ?ir*King and gear
Stainless steel and/or Teflon-lined spatulas and pans, trays, or bowls
Stainless steel and/or Teflon-lined trowels or spoons (or equipment as specified in the aife-
ipecific plans)
Plastic
5.0 PROCEDURES
5.1 Preparation
The following steps must be followed when preparing for aunpie r?Umim!
1. Don the appropriate personal protective -wHni u d^wti by the site-specific healdr tad
safety plan.
2.
The collecrioft pointi shall be Bated, located on a site map, tad referenced in (be field
logbook.
3.
Processes for verifying depth of ampting must be ipedfied in tbe tte-ipedrlc plan.
4.
Place clean plastic sheeting on a flat, level suxiace near tbe stmpling area, if p-***™*, tad
place equipment to be ua«d on the plastic; place the i"p^-*^j coolers) "on separate pli
sheeting. Cove? all eqiapment and suppUet with clean plastk sheering when not in use,
5.
A clean, decontaminated trowel or spoon will be uaed for each sample
..404
SOP 1-3
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
Revision: 0
Date: June 30, 1992
Page 4 of 6
5.2
CoUtctioa
The following g eneral step* must be followed when coltering surface, tool sample*:
1.
Surface teal samples aft normally crdlftrtrri from the baft-contaminated to the most-
coctaminated area*. Stiy onttidc of t fp^fffic ^Trti»^nt l«v?*ir™ v^i »n pff ptft trr
2.
Document the sampling eventt, IBMI ding the information in the designated field logbook.
Document any and all deviations from SOFs in the field logbook and include rationale for
change*, flet ITC OOP M.
3.
Carefully remove stones, vegetation, snow, etc. from the pmpling location ^surface.
4.
Carefully remove "the top 1 to 2. on of exposed xnL, sediment, or aludge before sampte
5.
Collect sample portions or aliquot) for volatile analyses first and any other samples that would
5.2.1 Method for CoQectmg Samples for Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Analysis
The requiremeatt for collecting grab sample* of surface soil for VOC* or other sunpte* degraded by
art u foOowi:
1.
VOC sample* ihaH be cottoctei wim the lea* disturbanei possible.
2.
VOC svnpies shall be collected 11 jfib samples; however, the m«ttod of collection win viry
from ct» to sits, bued on dm. quality objective tad the degree of known or napeetad
3.
Ltbel the sampk cootxioeri with the appropzidt itifarnudon, Secvt ths labai, coveting it
with a piece of dear tap*.
4.
Use a cleu jtifnlcu sted or Teflon-lined trowel or spoon (or tube) » coUoct sufflrimt
material in one grab, over the required »™pH»| intarvtl, to fill the aoplt conaintn.
' SOP 1-3
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING
Revision: 0
Date: June 30, 1992
Paee5of6
5.
With the aid of a clean «*"**"*« tted ipatnla, quiddy fill the sample containers directly from
the sampling device, removing stone*, twig*, grass, etc., from the ample. Fill the containers
as full and compact as possible to *»""*•"*• head apace.
6.
7Tnirv»ffiaT»jy secure the Teflon-lined *"3pt on the sasnto cootainer.
7.
Wipe the containers d"?« with a dean Kimwipe or paper towcL
8.
Place the containers in individual zip-too plastic bag(i) and set! die bag(s).
9.
Pack all samples according to FPC SOP 2 '3. Include properly completed Traffic Report)
and/or chain-of-cuaody forms, and affix signed and riatrd cusapdy seals to the three unhinged
sides of the cooler lid.
10.
Decontaminate sampling equipment according to i"?C JiOf ^Ik
• .
.
Method for Collecting Samples for NonroJaiQe Orgack or Inorganic Compooad
The requirements fer entig<-*fn j «rrrp
of grrfa^P •mi fr* nr»%-vrti«t
Use the spoon, «raftjter or trowel to distribute the uniform mixture ink) the labeled sample
conaiaen. Fill organic ttmple cootainen ftm, then
6. 'Secsrs the tppropriat* cap on each conctfrter unoediaiely after fHUns iL
7.
Wipe the tuxalc rT
of this sample, however, is ffffjir^it to determine by-i IJTP the c^TLJ-ti*^ HT^^I»- iv^ettnti a '
point, is not homogenized, and has been disturbed.
7,0
*
•
U.S. Department of Energy, Eaardoos Wajts ReoM(£al Actfeos Ptofrmat
-Rtquircmena for field Mohods, DOE/HW?-69/Rlf July 1990.
U.S. Departa^nt of Ene^y, Eazzrdoua Waste RpryrfiU Actiotu Propun, Standard Opcra&u
Pr&xdurts For Sla OaraaerisBiau, DOE^HWP-100, July 1990.
U.S. EaviroaBWJtal Procesioo Apacy, X Car^p0k£»n tf Supvfad Fldd Cptratiam MeAodx,
EPA/540^-J7/001, OSWER Dinctive 9355.0- 14, Decaaber 19T7.
•
JLBHUff ZZ
IX. MEZSCD6 OF SAMPLE
The bomcgenization of t sample is the process of mixing individual grab sasples
in order to minimize any bias of sanple representativeness introduced by the
natural stratification of constituents within the sample.
To hcnogenize a sanple of t soil/sedinent matrix, first mete, twigs, leaves and
other debris should be laimved if they are not considered part of the sample. The
soil/sediment should be renoved from the sampling device and placed in a stainless
steel pan, then thoroughly mixed using a stainless steel spoon. The sediment in
the pan should be scraped from the sides, corners and bottom of the pan, rolled
to the middle of the pan, and initially Tnivnrt. Bae sacple should then be quartered
and rcved to the four corners of the pan. Each quarter of the se&ple should be
mixed individually, and then rolled to the center of the container and the entire
sanple mixed again.
Hcnogenization of an aqueous sesple is only necessary if stratification of
constituents is of concern, for example when sampling a lagoon or containerized
liquid. Then hcnogenizatien would be performed by mixing in a stainlec
bowl.
*
B. On|uniting
Corpse iting of samples is perfonned when samplers desire to obtain an
concentration of contaminants over a g^r^ln number of sampling points. Anytime
cccpositing is performed, the concentration of contaminant in individual grab
samples is diluted proportionately to the nvsnbar of samples taJctn. Not only is
the cantaninant diluted, the detection linits for each individual sasple are raised
proportionally to the number of samples added to the composite. For instance, if
a sampler wishes to conposite two discreet samples into one, and the method
detection linit for a target cecpound is 330 ppb, the detection liait for the
target ccrpound does not change, for the coaposite, however, the detection limit
for the cccpouad in the individual sasples which make vp the cocposite is two times
the noraal detection Halt or 2 * 330 - WO ppb. this is iaportant to keep in mind
because it is possible that if a contasinant were present in only one of the two
Kited sarplea, and if it were at a level between 330 and 660 ppb, thxt
contaminant would not be quantified or possibly even identified due to the
effective dilution of the contaminant concentration in the occpoeits. Ciia ujuJept
should be taken into 4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery
PRO1301TK>e»usi byNR.4/»3/BDRCMWlD.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-4D
SITE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE: 5V3"
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Ponciano
PAGE 1
OF
1
LOCATION:
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands_______
DATE OF CORING:_________6/5^2__________
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
4A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
DEPTH
OF RUN
(FEBTBLS)
24.0-25.0
25.0-27.0
27.0-30.0
30.0-35.0
27.0-32.0
32.0-33.0
33.0-35.0
35.0-37.1
37.1 -40.0
40.0-45.0
45.0- 50.0
50.0-55.0
55.0-583
58.3-60.0
60.0-65.0
65.0-68.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
333
1.70
5.0
3.0
RUN
DURATION
(WIN.)
5
8
8
26
-
39
9
20
20
30
24
23
43
12
34
25
PENETRATION
RATE
(FEET/MM.)
02
025
038
0.19
-
0.03
032.
0.10
0.15
0.17
021
022
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.12
DOWNPRESSURE
(«l)
-
-
-
450
-
-
-
-
100-50
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
RECOVERY
(FEET)
PERCENT
RECOVERY
ROD
0.65
65
0
1.7
85
;
80
0
0
0
0
2.5
50
0.9
90
0
0
41
;
40
'
0.9
i
45
0
j
0
0
0
23
5.1
4.85
5.0
333
130
4.5
3.5
79
102
97
100
100
76
90
117
-
100
97
100
100
62
76
117
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery.
PRO13.01.Tl/Cnaud by NR.4*3/BDRCMW4D.WK3
14 i
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-6D
SFTE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE: 5V3"
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Ponciano
LOCATION:
PAGE 1
OF
1
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands_______
DATE OF CORING:
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
7/22/92
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
DEPTH
OP RUN
(PEETBLS)
2.6-5.5
5.5-10.0
10.0-15.0
15.0-20.0
20.0-25.0
25.0-30.0
30.0-35.0
35.0-40.0
40.0-45.0
45.0-50.0
50.0-55.0
55.0-60.0
60.0-65.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
2.9
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
11
7
12
17
31
38
24
28
25
17
17
33
24
PENETRATION
RATE
(PEET/MW.)
026
0.64
0.42
0.29
0.16
0.13
021
0.18
0.20
029
029
0.15
0.21
DOWNPRESSURE
(PSI)
200
300
100-50
150
150-200
200
100
150
100
100-150
150
100
100
RECOVERY
PERCENT
(FEET)
RECOVERY
ROD
1.4
48
45
:
1.9
1.0
1.5
0.80
2.0
4.0
2.5
42
42
5.0
4.5
5.0
42
29
20
0
30
i
0
16
0
40
80
50
84
84
100
90
100
0
30
26
46
59
45
63
84
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetralion.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery
PR013.01.Tl/Cre.ud by NR.4/*3ffiDRCMWlD.WK3
TUT
141.2
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-9
SITE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LOCATION:
PAGE 1 Of J_
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands_______
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE: SV3"
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Poociano
DATE OF CORING:
DRILLER:
J.Rivera
7/28/92
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
5A
6
DEPTH
OF RUN
(FEETBLS)
5.2-10.0
10.0-15.0
15.0-20.0
20.0-243
24.2-28.4
28.4-31.0
31.0-35.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
4.8
5.0
5.0
42
42
2.6
4.0
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
10
5
19
21
29
13
26
PENETRATION
RATE
(FEET/MM.)
0.48
1.0
026
020
0.14
020
0.15
DOWNPRESSURE
(PS1)
100
100
100
100
100
150
100
RECOVERY |
PERCENT
(FEET)
RECOVERY
ROD
1.6
33
1?
0.4
i
8
0
1.0
20
0
1.3
i
31
0
1.6
38
0
2.5
96
4.0
100
53
55
;
1
j
!
i
I
1
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
ROD equals rock quality designation.
ROD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by Recovery
PRO13.01.Tl/Creital by NR.4*3/BDRCMVW.WK3
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-10D
SITE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LOCATION:
PAGE 1
OF
1
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands_______
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE: 573"
DATE OF CORING:
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
7/28/92
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Poocuno
RUN
NUMBER
1
1A
2
2A
3
3A
4
5
6
7
.
7A
7B
7C
8
8A
9
10
11
12
12A
13
14
14A
15
16
DEPTH
OP RUN
(FEETBLS)
2.25-4.65
4.65-5.0
5.0-8.2
87-10.0
10.0-13.0
13.0-15.0
15.0-19.0
19.0-22.0
22.0-25.0
25.0-27.0
27.0-273
27.0-283
28.3-30.0
30.0-315
33.5-35.0
35.0-40.0
40.0-44.8
44.8-49.4
49.4-51.4
51.4-55.0
55.0-59.8
59.8-64.7
64.7 -65 J
65.5-70.0
70.0-75.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
2.40
0.35
320
1.80
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
0.3
1.3
1.7
3.5
1.5
5.0
4.8
4.8
2.0
3.6
4.8
4.9
0.8
4.5
5.0
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
31
1
38
13
17
17
28
22
17
27
4
4
9
24
7
30
18
17
21
14
22
14
3
12
11
PENETRATION
RATE
(PEET/MIN.)
0.08
035
0.08
0.14
0.18
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.08
032
0.18
0.14
021
0.16
021
0.28
0.10
026
022
035
021
0.38
0.45
DOWNPRESSURE
(PSI)
150
150
150
150
150
150
ISO
150
150
150
150
150
150
100
100
100
250
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
RECOVERY
(FEET)
2.40
0.30
2.3
1.5
3.0
1.4
PERCENT
RECOVERY
!
ROD
100
92
86
0
72
44
83
69
100
70
65
0
23
58
23
3.0
0.8
12
02
13
1.65
3.5
1.5
4.8
4.6
4.8
1.68
3.6
4.8
4.9
0.8
4.5
4.6
100
53
27
0
60
67
100
97
100
100
%
%
100
84
100
100
100
100
100
92
i
0
0
50
27
54
37
89
74
70
67
65
%
85
100
90
72
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery
PRO13.01 TVCroud by NR.4A3/BDRCMW10.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-11D
SITE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE:
5VT
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Poociano
LOCATION:
PAGE 1 OF J
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
____
DATE OF CORING:
DRILLER:
J. Rivcra
06/29/92
RUN
NUMBER
1
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8A
9
10
10A
11
12
13
14
DEPTH
OF RUN
(FEETBLS)
10.60-12.0
12.0-15.0
15.0-20.0
20.0-25.0
25.0-30.0
30.0-34.6
34.6-39.0
39.0-40.0
40.0-4ZO
42.0-45.0
45.0-50.0
50.0-52.4
52.4-55.0
55.0-60.0
60.0-65.0
65.0-70.0
70.0-75.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
1.4
3.0
2.0
5.0
5.0
4.60
4.40
1.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.4
2.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
45
16
37
22
38
45
21
17
33
14
22
27
15
24
14
19
11
PENETRATION
RATE
(FEET/MIN.)
031
0.19
0.05
023
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.06
0.06
021
023
0.09
0.17
0.21
036
026
0.45
DOWNPRESSURE
(PSI)
200
300
50-100
50-100
50-100
50-100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
RECOVERY
(FEET)
PERCENT
RECOVERY
ROD
12
86
i
39
3.0
100
0
2.0
100
0
4.0
80
0
3.0
60
0
j
2.5
54
14
4.5
102
1.0
!
100
34
0
1.5
75
0
32
107
0
5.0
2.0
2.60
4.20
52
4.90
5.00
100
83
100
84
104
98
100
60
21
84
62
75
76
92
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation.
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery.
PRO13.01.TW>e*«l by NR.4/W/BDRMW11D.WK3
UT
14..
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-12D
SITE:
Tutu Service Station Investigation
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE:
5VT
CORE LOGGED BY: R.Ponciano
LOCATION:
PAGE 1
OF
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands_____
DATE OF CORING:
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
RUN
NUMBER
1
2
3
3A
4
5
6
6A
7
7A
7B
8
8A
9
10
10A
10B
11
12
13
14
14A
14B
14C
15
15A
15B
DEPTH
OP RUN
(PEETBLS)
5.9-10.0
10.0-15.0
15.0-18J
18.5 -20.0
20.0-25.0
25.0-30.0
30.0-33.10
33.10-35.0
35.0-37.0
37.0- 3&5
38.5-40.0
40.0-41.5
41.5-45.0
45.0-49.5
49.5-502
502-53.0
53.0-55.0
55.0-59.7
59.7-6120
6120-61.95
61.95-62.13
62.13-62.68
62.68-64.66
64.66-65.0
65.0-65.4
65.4-66.0
66.0- 70.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
4.10
5.10
3.5
1.5
5.0
5.0
3.1
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
4.5
0.7
2.8
2.0
4.70
1.50
0.75
0.18
0.55
1.92
0.40
0.40
0.60
4.0
RUN
DURATION
(WIN.)
10
20
18
4
13
23
42
_
16
14
9
9
18
34
20
25
11
39
16
13
17
10
12
3
7
4
59
PENETRATION
RATE
(FEET/MM.)
0.41
026
0.19
038
038
022
0.07
-
0.13
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.13
035
0.11
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.16
0.13
0.06
0.15
0.07
DOWNPRBSSURE
(PSI)
200
150-200
100
100
150
50-100
100
100
100
100-150
100
150
100
100
200
150
100-150
150-300
100
50-100
150
100
100
100
100
100
100
RECOVERY
(FEET)
0
2.0
22
1.5
2.80
4.00
2.4
PERCENT
RECOVERY
ROD
0
i
0
39
0
63
0
100
0
56
80
77
1.90
100
1.5
i
75
1.5
100
1.5
13
32
3.0
0.6
2.0
2.0
42
1.0
0.5
0.10
0.40
12
0.15
020
0
0
100
87
91
67
86
71
100
89
67
67
56
73
63
38
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
28
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation.
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery.
PR013.01.TlOe.Md by NR.4/43/BDRMW12D.WK3
TLP
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BpRING/WELL: MW-12D
SITE:
PAGE 2 OF :
Tutu Service Sution Investigation
LOCATION:
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Island*
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
CORE LOGGED BY: R. Ponciano
RUN
NUMBER
16
16A
DEPTH
OP RUN
(PEETBLS)
70.0-70.7
70.7-75.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
0.70
4.30
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
25
55
PENETRATION
RATE
(FEET/MM.)
0.03
0.08
DOWNPRESSURE
(PSI)
100
100-300
RECOVERY
(FEET)
0
0
——————
PERCENT
RECOVERY
0
0
———————————
ROD
0
0
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minute*.
PSI
Pound* per square inch.
Nol Available.
ROD equal* rock quality designation.
RQD equal* sum of core piece* >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery.
PROD.01.Tl/Cn*ud by NR.4A3/BDRMW12D.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
RECORD OF BEDROCK CORING PARAMETERS
BORING/WELL: MW-13D
SITE:
Tutu Service Sution Investigation
LENGTH AND DIAMETER
OF CORING DEVICE: 5VT
PAGE 1
OF
LOCATION:
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands_____
DATE OF CORING:_________6/19/92_______
DRILLER:
J. Rivera
___
__
CORE LOGGED BY: R.Ponciano
RUN
NUMBER
1
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DEPTH
OP RUN
(FEET BLS)
53-7.4
7.4-10.0
10.0-15.0
15.0-20.0
20.0-25.0
25.0- 30.0
30.0-35.0
35.0-40.0
40.0-45.0
45.0-50.0
50.0-55.0
55.0-60.0
60.0-65.0
65.0-70.0
70.0-75.0
75.0-80.0
80.0-85.0
85.0-90.0
90.0-95.0
95.0-100.0
100.0-105.0
105.0-110.0
110.0-115.0
115.0-120.0
PENETRATION
(FEET)
2.1
2.6
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
RUN
DURATION
(MIN.)
-
6
12
19
25
21
12
22
13
8
12
13
16
21
9
13
16
17
14
11
15
27
13
10
PENETRATION
RATE
(PEET/MM.)
—
0.43
0.42
026
020
024
0.42
023
038
0.63
0.42
038
031
024
0.56
038
031
029
036
0.45
033
0.19
038
0.50
DOWNPRESSURE
(PSI)
200
300
300
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
-
50-200
200
200
50-200
50-200
50-200
50-200
RECOVERY
(FEET)
PERCENT
i
RECOVERY
i
RQD
0.6
29
0
1.0
38
0
0.6
i
12
!
0
0.15
0.9
1.3
22
4.0
3
0
18
0
26
0
44
80
4.10
82
4.75
3.80
3.80
4.30
4.00
4.50
4.70
..
4.80
4.80
4.80
4.90
5.10
4.0
4.90
4.90
95
76
76
86
80
90
94
96
96
96
98
102
80
98
98
12
:
52
.
81
97
63
47
74
41
61
83
50
83
90
80
73
72
89
88
BLS
Below land surface.
MIN.
Minutes.
PSI
Pounds per square inch.
Not Available.
RQD equals rock quality designation
RQD equals sum of core pieces >4 inches in length divided by penetration.
Percent recovery equals penetration divided by recovery.
PRO13.01.Tl/Craud byNR.4/»3/BDRMWl3D.WK3
:"UT
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
APPENDIX E
GEOPHYSICAL LOGS
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
3-ARMCALIPER
^"276
f r i c r T e s 7 . 0 " *
WELL MW-1D JUNL 13. 1992
relative
255
TRANSIT TIME
" 0
______
Microsec/Ft
200^
I
I
(Pointer
Microseconds Transit Time Tx to Near Receiver
120
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
I
I
90
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
WELL MW 40
JUNL 1 0. 1 992
.•l:^.0*!-1?!!?----.. -4
" " " Inches" ""'"ffi'*
relative
TRANSIT TIMC
...
25j
Microsec/Ft
200
Microseconds Transit Time Tx to Near Receiver
20
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
I
I
I
1
I
I
!
I
I
TUT
00
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
WELL MW-6D (RUN 2)
AUGUST 1 0, 1 992
3-ARM CALIPER
"
"
T6
.""Tnches"
"7.0""^
TUBE WAVE AMPLITUDE
reiotive
TRANSIT TIME
255
Minj
|
fBBS^B^Max Rx Amplitude
Microseconds Transit Time Tx to Far Receiver
Microsec/Ft
200 *
120
200
I
i
300
I
400I
500I
600I
700I
800
900
I
! i
TUT
O02
1422
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0
WtLL MW-IOO (.HUM 1 )
AUGUST IS. 1992
3-ARU CALIPER
" " " " " "
. .
rSotive"
. ...»
?S5
Microseconds Transit Time Tx to For Receiver
120
200^
I
WELL MW-1 00 (RUN
2)
AUGUST 1 9, 1 992
3-ARM CALIF-EK
" " " ~
~
.........=.-....':.^..TTr.!r;.'.y!nt
Bentonite
15.0ft'
Bentonite
D slurry
1 7.0ft* a pellets
19.0 ft-
Well Screen.
A
inch diameter
SS
0.020inslot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
39.0 ft'
40.8 ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
•Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PRQ13Q1
.Well.
MW-5
Town/City Anna's Retreat/Tutu
County
St. Thomas________
State
US VI
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation
187.24 feet msl
and Datum 187.09
feet ms 1
S Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
August 25f 1992_____
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tprh________________
Drilling Ruid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 9/2/92.______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
NA
66
.gallons
.gallons
Static Depth to Water 22.8 ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______37. 5________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ___0. A3
hours
Yield.
NA
.gpm
NA
9/2/92
Specific Capacity __
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 4.Q feet.___________________
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
45.0 feet. Top of bedrock at 4.8 feet.
Grout seal from 44.8 UP to A0.8 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
GAM Rxm 05 12-88
TUT
002
1434
Soumpnm 690978
# MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
0 ft Flush mounted
i
LAND SURFACE
/
10
drilled hole
. inch diameter
"Well casing,
6___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel
Q Backfill
raGrout Cement/Water/
Bentonite
4.9
ft* Top of bedrock
45.0 ft*
U.65.Q ft*
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Project
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City.
County _
Permit No.
Well
MW-6D
St. Thomas
State
USVI
Land-Surface Elevation 171.26 feet msl
and Datum 171-01
feet ms 1
25 Surveyed
______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
August 6 & 10r 1992______
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tec>h____________________
Drilling Fluid
Water when diamond coring was
performed
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump; September 2, 1992
NA
240
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
Static Depth to Water20.2ft before develop
Pumping Depth to Water______74 .0___________
Pumping Duration
u. "____ hours
____
gallons
_____ gallons
. feet below M.P.
. feet below M. P.
Yield
12
.gpm
0.22
Date .9/2/92.
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
Fracture Zones ______________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land_____
surface to 4.9 feet.Depth to bedrock 4.9 feet
10-inch air hammer from land surface to_____
45.0 feet.________________________________
S-5-inrh air hammer from 45.0 to 65.0 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morale^
G»M form 06 587
TUT
002
1435
Souvxmt SM775
& MILLER, INC.
VEnvironmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
n
v
Oft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
/
/
l/j drilled hole
pf^-Well casing,
A___ inch diameter,
/«
/
Stainless Steel (SS)
O Backfill
§ Grout
Cement/Water/
Bentonite
0.8
ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
1.6 ft* 3 pellets
2.7
ft'
Well Screen.
4
inch diameter
SS
, 0.020in slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
,22.7
fr
23.7
ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEin/PRQ13Ql
Town/City
County _
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-6R
St.
Thomas
Statft
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation 171.44 feet msl
and Datum
171 .17 feet msl
a Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
Installation Date(S)
September 2,
1QQ2__________
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech________________
Drilling Ruid _____________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump; 9/9/92_____________
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling __
Water Removed During Development.
486
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 8.2ft before develop
feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water____20.6_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
0.9____ hours
Yield
Q______gpm
Date
Q / Q / Q ?
0.72
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose___Monitoring Well
gpm/ft
Remarks
10-inch air hammer from land surface
to 26.0 feet.
Borehole cave in up to 23.7 feet._____
Bedrock at approximately 4.92 feet bis
(see
MW-6D).______________________
Prepared by Derrick Stepanof /Rube'n Ponciano
GAM form 05 1288
TUT
002
1436
Soottlpnnl 89O976
^•TGERAGHTY
MILLER. INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Oft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
s^Well casing,
4___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
3 Backfill
3 GrOUt Cpmpnf /Waf PI-/
Bentonite
11.0 ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
I2.fi ft* a pellets
1 15.4.ft*
Well Screen.
4
inch diameter
SS
0.020in S|nt
Q Gravel Pack
« —H Sand Pack
Q Formation Collapse
Hi 3 5 . 4.ft*
39.6
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
"Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PRQ1301
Town/City.
County _
Anna's Retrpar/Ttitii
.Well.
MW-7
St. Thomas
. State.
TISVT
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 180.3 feet msl
and Datum 180.13
feet ms 1
3 Surveyed
_______________
n Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
July 29. 1992________
Drilling Method Hollow Stpm Angpr & Ai r Hammpr
Drilling Contractor
Sni 1 Tprh______________
Drilling Fluid ___________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 9/2/92.________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ________
Water Removed During Development.
NA
84
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 17.14 ft
before deve lopeet below MP
Pumping Depth to Water_____3^-°________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
'______ hours
Yield
NA
gpm
Pate 9/2/92
NA
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6—inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 15.Q feet.
______________
10—inch air hammpr from land surface fo
40.0 feet.____________ ___________
Borehole cave in up to 39.6 feet.__________
Competent bedrock approximatlev at 15.0 feet
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
G1M Form 05 12 88
Souttiixtnt 89-097E
TUT
OO2 1437
^GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
0 ft Flush mounted
i
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
•—Well casing,
4
inch diameter,
Sfai nl PS.S St-ppl (SS")
D Backfill
I Grout
Cempnt /Water
Bentonite
1.5
ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
3.0
ft*
CS pellets
5.5
ft*
Well Screen.
6
inch diameter
SS
0.020 in. slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
25.5
26.0
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
•Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PRQ13Q1
Town/City.
County_
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Wall
MW-8
St. Thomas
. State.
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation
and Datum 167.5A
167.61 feet msl
feet msl
S Surveyed
______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
July 23, 1QQ?________
Drilling Method
Hollow Sf. em Angpr ft AT r
Drilling Contractor
Drilling Ruid
Soil Tech
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 8/31/92. ______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
NA
110
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 17.70ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______25 .0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration ___0. 76
hours
Yield
NA____ gpm
Date
ft/31 /Q?
.gpm
NA
Specific Capacity __
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 8.3 feet
10-inch air hammmer from land surface to
27.0 feet._____________________________
Borehole cave in up to 26.0 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
GiM Fom 05 1288
Soumorim 89-0976
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
ft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
__4.___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
. Backfill
| Grout
Cement/Water
Bentonite
10.0
ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
11.8
ft* a pellets
Well Screen.
4
SS
inch diameter
O.OZOinsiot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
34.1
34.3
.ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City.
County_
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-9
St. Thomas
State
USVI
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation 162.32 feet ms 1
and Datum 162.26
feet ms 1
H Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
July 30, 1992____________
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech_______________
Drilling Fluid
Water when diamond coring was
__________ performed .
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
f!«=>nf r i f liga 1 pump-
F^iighoH UP 1 1 ui th
to facilitate development; 9/2/92.
Fluid Loss During Drilling _____HA.
Water Removed During Development_
70
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 13.14 ft before develoRMt ^low M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water______33.0________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
D . T3___ hours
Yield
NA
gpm
Date 9/2/92
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose__
NA
gpm/ft
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 5. 5 feet. Bedrock at 5.0 feet.
3-inch diamond coring from 5.5 to 35.0 feet
10-inch air hammer from 3.7 to 37.0 feet.
in up to 34.3 feet.__________
Prepared by
Wanda I.
Morales
G4M Form 05 12 88
Soumonni 89X»78
MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
0 ft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
A
inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS)
Q Backfill
Grout
/Wafer /
Bentonite
5.7 ft'
Bentonite
D slurry
6.7 ft' a pellets
8.7
ft-
Well Screen.
A
inch diameter
SS
, 0.020insint
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
.18.7
ft*
^20.0
ft*
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
* Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PRQ1301
Town/City.
County _
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-9S
St. Thomas
Stats
US VI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation
162 . A 7 fee t ms 1
and Datum 162.37
feet ms 1
S Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
Installation Date(s)
September 1A. 1992___________
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech_________________
Drilling Fluid ____:________________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 9/15/92.________
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling ____
Water Removed During Development____
Static Depth to Water n.TAff hpfor^
Pumping Depth to Water_____18.0
Pumping Duration
0-20___ hours
Yield
NA____ gpm
20
____ gallons
____ gallons
.feet below M.P.
.feet below M. P.
Date Q/1 5 / Q 2
NA
Specific Capacity _
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
gpm/ft
Remarks 10-inch air hammer from land surface
_______tn
7D.0
Borehole cave in from 20.0 UP to
lfi.7 ff*t>t.
RpHrnrlf
pprnvi ma f o 1 \
at 5.0 feet.
Prepared by
Pnncianp
G4M Focm 05 12-88
TUT
002
1440
Soumpnrt 89-0978
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
—Well casing,
_4____ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (SS
Backfill
I Grout Cemen t /Water /
Bentonite
11.0
ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
13 .0 ft* a pellets
15.6
ft-
_ Well Screen.
6
inch diameter
SS
0.020in slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
35.6
ft«
J36.7
ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
"Depth Below Land Surface
Project _
Town/City.
County _
Permit No.
TF.TC/PR01301
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Well
MW-10
St. Thomas
State
US VI
Land-Surface Elevation 161.36 feet m s 1
and Datum 161 • 50
feet ms 1
Q Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
August 20. 1992____________
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech________________________
Drilling Fluid _______________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; 9/2/92.________
Fluid Loss During Drilling ______
Water Removed During Development.
. gallons
.gallons
Static Depth to Water20.80ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_________34.0_______ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
0 . 3_____ hours
Yield
NA
gpm
Date 9 / 2 / 9 2
Specific Capacity.
Well Purpose__
NA
___ gpm/fl
Monitoring well
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 3.0 feet. (Bedrock at 2.Q
10-inch air hammer from land surface to
^6.7
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
1.441
G&M Fwm 05 12 88
Southpnnt 89-0978
MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
/N
V/
10
drilled hole
. inch diameter
"Well casing,
6
inch diameter
Stainless Steel
Q Backfill
gj Grout Cement/Water/
55.1 ft-
Bentonite
Top of bedrock
75.1 ft*
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PR01301
Town/City
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
.Well.
MW-10D
County
St. Thomas
State
USVI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 161.52 feet msl
and Datum 161.38
feet ms 1
3 Surveyed
_______________
HI Estimated
InstallationDate(s) August 17. 18 & 19. 1992____
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech________________
Drilling Fluid
Water when diamond coring was_____
________performed.____________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water
to facilitate development; Q/2/Q.2._______
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
NA
240
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 20.20ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____74.0_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
D . 33____ hours
Yield
NA______gpm
DatP Q / 7 / Q 7
Specific Capacity ___NA________ gpm/ft
Well Purpose
Monitoring well________________________
Fracture Zones _______________________________
Remarks 6—inch hollow stem auger from land surface
to 1.71 feet (Top of bedrock)._______________
3-inch diamond coring from 1.71 to 75.0 feet.
10-inch air hammer from 2.0 to 56.0 feet.
6-inch casing installed at 55.1 feet.____
air hammer frnm 55.\ to 75.1 feet.
Prepared by
Viand a I. Morales
G&M
06 5 87
TUT
14 4 2
Soutnonrt 87<77S
_ 'GERAGHTY
\W& MILLER, INC.
'Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
rt.
Flush mounted
(Jl 1 LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
Well casing,
6
inch diameter
Stainless Steel (S
Q Backfill
[-jGrout Cement/
bentonite/water
-.l£U2_ft* Top of bedrock
53.0
ft*
U..7A.3 ft-
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project TETr/TnMi
PR01301____Well MM-1 1 D
Town/City
Anna's Retreat /Tutu_________
County St. Thomas___________State
USVI
Permit No. __________________
Land-Surface Elevation 153.11 feet msl
and Datum 153.22
feet ms 1
OS Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) July 16. 17. 20. 1992______
'DrillingMethod Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor Soil Tech_________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performed.
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water to
facilitate development: 9/2/92.____________
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling __
Water Removed During Development___84_____
Static Depth to Water
17.20 before develop
. gallons
. gallons
Pumping Depth to Water
73.0______
Pumping Duration
0 . 43____ hours
Yield
NA_____ gpm
Specific Capacity
NA_______ gpm/ft
Well Purpose
Monitoring_________
Fracture Zones ___________________
feet below M.P.
patp 9/2/92
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land surface
to 11.0 feet.(Top of bedrock approx. 10.2 feet)
3-inch diamond coring from 10.2 to 75.0 feet
10-inch air hammer from 5.0 to 53.5 feet.
6-inch casing installed at 53.0 feet.
5.5-inch air hammer from 53.0 to 74.3 feet.
Prepared by Wanda I. Morales
GAM Ftxm 06 5-87
Soutnpnrt 871775
# MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
10
. inch diameter
/
drilled hole
Well casing,
4___ inch diameter,
Stainless Steel (Sfi)
Backfill
QCGrout Cement/bentonit
water
54.0 ft*
Bentonite
D slurry
[56.U
ft* E pellets
JJI60.5
ft'
Well Screen.
4
inch diameter
SS
,0. Q2Qin
slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
80.5
ft*
88.0
ft'
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
*Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TETC/Tiitiu
PKQ1301
Town/City Anna's Retreat/Tutu
Well
MU-17D
County St.
Thomas
.StateJISSLL
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 161.58 feet msl
and Datum 161.81
feet msl
S Surveyed
______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s) Julv 23. 1992_________
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Soil Tech_________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was perform
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump. Flushed well with water to
facilitate development; 9/1/92.____________
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling _
Water Removed During Development
76
Static Depth to Water 26.0 before develop.
Pumping Depth to Water
79.0____________
Pumping Duration 1.1_______ hours
____
gallons
____ gallons
.feet below M. P.
. feet below M.P.
Yield
NA
Specific Capacity
Well Purpose
gpm
NA
Monitoring
gpm/ft
well
Date 9/1/92
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 5.9 feet (too of bedrock).____
3-inch diamond coring from 5.9 to 75.0
10-inch air
haimnpr frnm ^.Q t-n flfi.fl
Prepared by Wanda I. Morales
G&M Fom 05 12-88
.1444
Soumonnl 89 0978
^WGERAGHTY
&& MILLER, INC.
Ground- Water Consultants
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
(BEDROCK)
0 ft Flush mounted
LAND SURFACE
10
. inch diameter
drilled hole
-Well casing,
6
inch diameter,
Stainless Stael
Q Backfill
g Grout Cement/Water
Bentonite
5. Q
ft* Top of bedrock
100.0 ft*
120.0ft-
Measuring Point is Top of
Well Casing Unless Otherwise
Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Project
TEIC/PRQ13Q1
Town/City
County _
Anna's Rpfreaf-/Tutu
Well
MW-13D
St. Thomas
. State
US VI
Permit No.
Land-Surface Elevation 236.67 feet msl
and Datum 236.60
feet ms 1
3 Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
July 9, 13f & 15r 1992
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger & Air Hammer
Drilling Contractor
Snil Tech________________
Drilling Fluid Water when diamond coring was performed
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Submersible pump.
Flushed well with water
fn farilif.at.p. development; 9/3/92.
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
NA
150
. gallons
. gallons
Static Depth to Water 57.60ft before develop feet below M.P.
Pumping Depth to Water_____LQ6_________ feet below M.P.
Pumping Duration
0.42
hours
Yield
NA_____gpm
patp 9/3/92
Specific Capacity ____NA_____
Well Purpose
Monitoring well
Fracture Zones _____________
gpm/ft
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 5.3 feet. (Bedrock at 5.0 feet)
3-inch diamond coring from A.6 to 120 feet,
10-inrh air hammer from land surface to______
100.5 feet.
5-inph air hammpr from TOO tol20.3 feet.
Prepared by
TUT
O02
144'i
G&M Ftxm 06
& MILLER, INC.
nvironmental Services
WELL CONSTRUCTION LOG
Flushed mounted
LAND SURFACE
8
drilled hole
Well casing,
. inch diameter
inch diameter
Stainless Steel
er,
(S
Backfill
I Grout Cement /Watpr /
Bentonite
19-8
ft-
Bentonite
D slurry
22.A ft' 3 pellets
^ 25.2 ft*
Well Screen.
A
inch diameter
SS
, O.OZOin slot
I Gravel Pack
I Sand Pack
Formation Collapse
A S . 2
ft*
A8.Q ft-
Measuring Point is
Top of Well Casing
Unless Otherwise Noted.
'Depth Below Land Surface
Anna's Retreat/Tutu
St. Thomas
State
USVI
Project
TEIC/PR01301_______Well
MW-1A
Town/City.
County_
Permit No. _________________
Land-Surface Elevation 196 .OA feet ms 1
and Datum 196.12
feet ms 1
a Surveyed
_______________
D Estimated
InstallationDate(s)
July 2, 1992_____________
Drilling Method
Hollow Stem Auger & Air
Hammer
Drilling Contractor Soil Tech___________________
Drilling Ruid ____________________________
Development Technique(s) and Date(s)
Centrifugal pump.
Flushed well with water
to facilitate development: 8/31/92.______
NA
Fluid Loss During Drilling ___
Water Removed During Development.
Static Depth to Water 28.40ft before develop
108
. gallons
. gallons
Pumping Depth to Water______A3 . 0_____
Pumping Duration
0.55___ hours
Yield
NA_____ gpm
Specific Capacity ___EA______ gpm/ft
Well Purpose Monitoring well____
feet below M.P.
Date 8/31 /92
Remarks 6-inch hollow stem auger from land
surface to 3.0 feet, (top of bedrock).
7.5-inch air hammer from land surface to
48.0 feet.
Prepared by
Wanda I. Morales
RJT
G&M Form 05 12 88
1446
Soumpnnl 89-0976
APPENDIX G
WATER SAMPLING LOGS
TUT
OG2
144.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Sue/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PH01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
EssoTap
Partly Cloudy
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
10:40 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
12:00 pen
Description of Measuring Pomt (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
______
Water Column m Well
______
Gallons per Fool
_______
Gallons in Well
Faucet at Esso.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
_____NA
Water-Level Elevation _
NA^
Diameter of Casing
_
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
NA
NA
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) _____NA
Evacuation Method
Not applicable: Faucet valve was opened for 10 minutes before sampling.
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
NA
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhos
PID(ppm)
10:42 am
7.56
29.2
664
0
12:05 pen
7.55
29.3
626
0
Consiituenu Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X
or GAM
5- 40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Ban-era, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT.
I-1/." -O.Ob
1-W -0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16
3" - 0.37
2-'A"-0.26
3-W-0.50
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
(LIT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Sie/WeD No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
Si Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-V
Oear, 85* F
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
8:54 am
Date
Time Sampbng
Completed
Page 1 Of 1
10/6/92
10:15 am
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
_____
Water Column in Well
_____
Gallons per Foot
_____
Gallons in Well
Top of weU casing.
0.04ft
43.00ft
28.79ft
14.21ft
0.65
9.24
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
195.08 ft
16629 ft
4-inch
28
Samplni Pump Intake Setting
(feet below bnd surface)
41.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 8:54 am
Pump off- 9:25 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bator
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter!
pH
Temp. PC)
Spec. Cond (umho«;
PIDtppm)
9:02am(10gal.)
7.03
31.1
1330
0
9: 12 am (10 gal.)
7.00
31.3
1335
0
J:22am(10geJ.)
7.02
32.1
1333
0
After sampling
7.00
29.5
133
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Disserved Metals
TAL Cyanide________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or OAM_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-SCO ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
WeH went dry. * Well was resampted due to tost sample containers during shipment on 10/2/92._________
Ground-water sample was collected acoordbg to the procedure specified in AppendK G, Section 1.6.2. of Work Plan.
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & MiHor)/A. Barrera, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).___________________
GAUFT.
i-y."
i-w
aw
WELL CASINO VOLUMES
r • 0,16
r - as?
2-W-OZ6
3-W-OJO
-0.65
- 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Wen No.
Weather
Tutu/PB01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-1D
Oear, 88° F
Coded/
ReofcateNo.
To.eSampi.if
None
8:37 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
10/2/92
10:00 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Meauring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of WeD Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP ______
Water Column in Well
______
Gallon! per Foot
______
Galloni m Well
Top of well casing.
0.003ft
90.0ft
29.62ft
____60.38ft
_____1.47
88.76
MP Election
Water-Level Elevation
Diaauter of Caring
Galloni Pumped
Prior to Sampling
195.14ft
165.52ft
6-inch
120
Sampling Pump Intake Settmg
(feet below mnd surface) __
85.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump___Pump start — 8:37 am
Pump off — 8:52 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Sun Pumping)
Field
Paranelen
PH
Temp. (X)
Spec. Cond. (umhos ;
PID(ppm)
8:49 am (120 gal.)
10.56
29.5
2780
0
After Sampling
8.06
29.3
741
0
Conttituenu Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_______
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or GAM_
5-40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Well went dry. Ground-water was sampled according to the procedure specified in Appendbt G, Section 1.6.2 of Work Ran.
Sampling Penonnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Qonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAL/FT.
i-w -o.os
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16
r - oj?.
2-W-0.16
3-W-O.SO
4" - 0.65
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
Project/No.
TUIU/PH01301
Site Location
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
Coded/
Ske/WellNo.
MW-2
Replicate No.
None
Tine Samplim
Weather
Partly doudy. 90* F
Began
8:88 am
EVACUATION DATA
Deaoriplion of Meaauring PoinI (MP)
Top Ol well casing.
Height of MP Below Land Surface
0.16ft
MP Elevation
Tout Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
26.9ft
Water - Levd Elevation
Depth to Water Below MP
12.64ft
Diameter of Cuing
Gallon Pumped
Water Column in Well
1426ft
Prior to Sampling
Gallon per Foot
0.65
Sampling Pump Intake Sei
Gallon in Well
927
(feet bdow land aurfaee)
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 8:28 am
Pump off -
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAME1
Field
Color
Odor
Parameter.
8:37 am (12 gal.)
Clear
None
pH
6.86
Temp-CQ
30.1
Spec.Cond.(uubn;
1321
PID(ppm)
0
Sampl ing Method and Material
Teflon Bailer
Container DeaoTpuon
Contituenu Sampled
Prom Lab X
or GAM
VOCs
5-40ml vials
TCL BNAs
2-500 ml amber glass
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
1 -500 ml plastic
TAL Cyanide
1 - 500 ml plastic
TPH
2-500 ml amber glass
Remark!
Sampling Penonnet
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech
WELL CASING VOLUMES
GAUFT.
l-V.'-OJX
r-0.1*
3--OJ7
1-W - 0.0»
2-Vf m OM
3-Vf - 0.50
Dau
9/30/82
Time Sampling
Completed
10: 15 am
178.15ft
165.51 ft
4 -inch
37
ling
14.0ft
- 8:51 am
FEHS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
8:39 am (10.5 gal.) |8:49 am (15 gal) After Sampling
6.9S
6.96
6.85
24.8
30.0
30.7
1317
1314 1293
0
0
0
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
.
«• - 1.47
14 51
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
Proiect/No.
Tut U/PR0 1301
Site Location
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
Coded/
Site/Well No.
MW-3
Replicate No.
None
Time Sampling
Weather
Partly doudy. 90* F
Began
1:14 pm
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Top of well casing.
Height of MP Below Land Surface
0.01ft
MP Elevation
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
30.40 ft
Water- Level Elevation
Depth to Water Below MP
16.32ft
Diameter of Casing
Water Column in Well
14.08ft
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
Gallons per Foot
0.65
Sampling Pump Intake Se
Gallons in Well
9.15
(feet below land surface)
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 1:14 pm
Pump off -
8AMPUNO DATA/FIELD PARAME1
Field
Color
Odor
Parameters
121 pm (10 gal.)
Clear
Slight
pH
6.79
Tessp.(-C)
30.6
Spec. Good, (umbos;
1233
PID(ppm)
2.6
Sampling Method and Material
Teflon Bailer
Constituents Sampled
From Lab X
or GAM
VOCs
5-40ml vials
TCL BNAs
2-500 ml amber glass
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
1 -5OO
ml plastic
TAL Cyanide
1 -500 ml plastic
TPH
2-500 ml amber glass
Remark!
Slight product odor.
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Qeraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech
WELL CASING VOLUMES
GALJFT.
\-V.--OM
2". 0.1*
r-«J7
1-V.--0.09
2-W-O.Z*
3-W-O.SO
Date
9/30/92
Tine Sampling
Completed
2:15 pm
181.84ft
165.52ft
4— inch
30
ling
20.0ft
1 :32 pm
HERS
TIME (BT from Start Pumping)
1 :26 pm (10 gal.) fl :31 pm (10 gal.) After Sampling
6.80
6.83
6.74
29.8
30.1
30.1
1241
1252
1495
2.8
22
2.9
Preserwtive
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
.
r-OM
UT
002
1452
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ProjecI/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Page 1 of 1
TUUI/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-4
Partly ctoudy. 90» F
DcKription of Meajurnj Point (MP)
Height of MPBelov Land Surface
Toul Sounded Depth of Wdl Below MP
Depth lo Water Below MP
_____
W«cr Column in Well
_____
Gallon per Foot
_____
Gallon in Well
_____
Evacuation Method
Top of well casing.
0.03 ft
27.00 fl
10.6211
16.38 n
0.65
10.65
Centrifugal Pump
Coded/
Replace No.
None
11:31 am
Date
9/30/92
Tine Sampling
Compleud
1:00 pm
EVACUATION DATA
MPEIcwian
Water-Levd BlevKian
Diameter of Casing
Gallon Pumped
Prior lo Sampling
175.66ft
165.04 ft
4-inch
38
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface)
i6.o n
Pump start- 11:31 am
Pump off - 11-.58 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Nona
Teflon Baiter
SAUPUNG DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
11:36 am (10 gal.) 11:46 am (10 gal.) 11:56 am (16 pal After Sampling
Field
pH
Temp.
Seec.CoBd.(iimho»:
P1D(M«)
6.94
33.1
1371
2.76
7.01
32.8
1340
1.0
7.03
32.7
1358
2.40
7.09
31.9
1456
Coouiluenu Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Dexription
From Lafc_X^ or GAM_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preienetive
HCL pH-1
None_____
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarki
Sampling Penonnd
C. MoBatt, R. Ponciano (Qeraghty t Mi«er)/A. Barrera. 0. Qonzatoz (Soil Tech).
GALJFT.
l-V.'-O.O*
1-H--0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r " 0.1*
3- - OJ7
2-W - OM
3-VV - 0JO
«" - 1.47
1U'
1453
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Projectile,
Site Location
SiteAVeDNo.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomaa. U.S. Virgin laland*
MW-4D
Party ctoudy
Coded/
RepfcateNo.
Time Sampling
Nora
12:11 pm
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/5/92
2:00 pm
Description of Meaniring Font (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Suffice
Total Sounded Depth of Wen Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP ______
Water Column m Well
______
Gallon* per Pool
______
Gallon, n Well
______
Evacuation Method
Top of well casing.
____0.3ft
71.0fl
11.10ft
59.90ft
1.47
88.05
Centrifugal Pump
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Cating
Gallon. Pumped
Prior to Sampling
176.02ft
164.92ft
6-Inch
264
Sfmpting Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land .uriace)
20.0ft
Pump atari - 12:11 pm
Pump off - 1:47 pm
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumpng)
Field
Parameten
PH
Temp.CC)
Spec. Cond. (umho.;
PIDCppm)
12:41 pm (90 gal.)
7.00
30.8
1471
0
1:1 5pm (78 gal.)
7.00
30.0
1472
90.7
l:47pm(96gal.)
7.00
30.5
1476
52
After Sampling
7.01
30.5
1473
68
ConHituenti Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNA»
TAL Total/Diaaolved Metal*
TAL Cyanide______
TPH
Container Detcriptioo
From Lab_X__ or G*M_
5-40mlvi«l»
2-500 ml amber glaa*
1 -500 ml plartc
1 -500 ml plattic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remark.
Trace of product obaerved in this well. Slight petroleum odor.
Sampling Penonnel
C. Moftatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera. Q. Qonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAU/PT.
i-v."-o.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" - 0.16
y - 037
2-W-0.26
3-W-OJO
4" - 0.«
6" - 1.47
1454
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Sie/Wefl No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-4D*
dear, 82° F
Coded/
RepfcMeNo.
None
7:55 am
Due
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/7/92
9:30 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounled Depth of Wen Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well
_____
Gallon per Foot
_____
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.24ft
71.0ft
11.06ft
59.9B ft
_____1.47
88.08
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diameter of Casing
GaDoos Pumped
Prior to Samplng
17623ft
165.15ft
6-inch
280
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) __
66.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 7:55 am
Pump off - 8:30 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter.
8:06 am (88 gal.)
8:17 am (88 gal.)
8:28 am (104 gal.)
pH
Temp. PC)
Spec. Cond. (umhot;
PtD(ppm)
7.15
28.6
1477
0
7.17
28.6
1474
0
7.16
28.8
1474
0
Constituent! Sampled
VOCs
Container Description
From Lab X
orG&M
5~40ml vials
Preservative
HCL pH-1
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
* Well was resampled for VOCs due to air bubbles in original sample container.
Trace of product observed in this well.
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera, G. Qonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAUFT.
i-y." -0.06
l-W - 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16
r - 037
2-W-OJ6
3-W-OJO
4" - 0.6S
6" • 1.47
TUT
1455
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Ske Location
Sie/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
Si Thomas, U.S. Virgin Wanda
MW-5
dear, 85" F
Nona
Coded/
RepfcateNo.
Tt*e Sampling
Began
6:59 am
Due
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/1/92
9:25 am
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Maturing Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column n WeD
_____
Gallon! per Foot
_____
Gallons n Well
Top of well casing.
____0.16ft
____39.0ft
22.60ft
_____16.40ft
_____0.65
10.66
MP Elevation
Wmter-Level Elevation
Diameter of Gating
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
187.09ft
164.49ft
4-inch
33
Sampbng Pump Intake Setting
(feet below and surface)
33.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 8:59 am
Pump off - 9:25 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong odor
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
1 9:07 am (10 gal.) 9:14 am (10.5 gal.) (3.22 am (12 gal.)
pH
Temp.t*C)
Spec. Cond. (umhosj
PrD(ppm)
6.80
29.6
1294
9.999
7.00
29.6
1284
<2000
7.00
30.02
1262
<2000
After Sampling
7.00
292
1149
2000
Constituents Sampled
VOC8
TCL BNA»
TAL Total/Dissolved Metala
TAL Cyanide_________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or G*M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Trace of product observed in this well. Strong gasoline odor.
Sampbng Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Qeraghty & Mater)/ A. Barrera. O. Qonzalez (Soil Tech).
GALJFT.
1-V4--0.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASINO VOLUMES
2" - 0.16
T - 031
4- - 0.65
2-W-0.26
3-W-0.50
6" - 1.47
TUT
1.456
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-6R
Partly cloudy. 90° F
None
Coded
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
11:15 am
Dace
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
9/29/92
1:15 pm
Description of Menuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below M P
_______
Water Column in Well
_______
Gallons per Fool
_______
Gallons in Well
Top o( well casing.
_____0.3 H
22.95 It
7.50 It
15.45ft
0.65
10.04
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Waler-Level Elevation_
Diameter of Casing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
171.17ft
163.67ft
4-inch
37
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface
11.0 ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 11:15 am
Pump off - 11:26 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter,
11:18 am (9 gal.) 11:21 am (9 gal.) 11:24 am (11 gal.)
pH
Temp. CC)
Spec. Cond. (umbos
PID(ppm)
6.88
31.2
1283
94
6.83
30.2
1309
0
6.79
29.7
1316
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab__X__ or G&M_
5 - 40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remark*
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL ./FT.
1-H- _0.06
1-W - O.W
WELL CASING VOLUMES
T » 0.1*
3' - 0.37
4' - 0.*5
2-Mf«0.26
3-W-0.50
6" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Projecl/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-6D
Partly cloudy, 90° F
Coded/
Replicate No.
None
Time Sampling
Begin
10:12 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
9/30/92
11:20 am
Description of Meauing Poinl (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
_______
Water Column in Well
_______
Gallons per Foot
______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.25 ft
62.6 It
7.30ft
55.30ft
1.47
81.29
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
171.01 ft
Water-Level Elevation
163.71 ft
Diameter of Casing
____6 —inch
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Sampling
270
Sampling Pump Inuke Setting
(feel below land surface) ____10.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 10:12 am
Pump off - 11:11 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAUPUNG DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
10:29 am (77 gal.) 10:49 am (90 gal.) 11:09 am (103 gal.)
pH
Temp.(-C)
Spec. Cond. (umbos
PID(ppm)
6.50
29.4
1450
0
6.70
29.8
1465
0
6.78
29.9
1465
0
After Sampling
7.74
31.8
1200
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or G&M_
5 -40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatl, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAL7FT.
1-y.- .0.0t>
1-W- 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2- - 0.16
3" - 037
2-W-0.26
3-W-0.50
f - 0.45
6- - 1.47
1458
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-7
Coded/
Replicate No.
None
Time Sampling
Began
11:32
am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/05/92
12:30pm
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Top of well casing.
Height of MP Below Land Surface
______0.16ft
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP _____35.0fl
Depth to Waler Below MP
_______
Water Column in Well
_____________
Gallons per Foot
_____________
Gallons in Well
11.86
16.76ft
18.24ft
0.65
EVACUATION DATA
MP Elevation
Water-Level Elevation
Diamete r of Casing
Gallon* Pumped
Prior to Sampling
180.13ft
163.37ft
4—inch
46
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ____20.0ft
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 11:32
am
Pump off - 11:50
am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
PH
Temp. (°C)
Spec. Cond. (umhos)
PID (ppm)
11:38
am (10 gal.)
7.05
30.3
1294
0
11:43
am (15 gal.)
7.05
29.5
1288
0
1 1 :48 am (21 gal.)
7.12
29.5
1292
0
After Sampling
7.05
Not measured
1289
0
Cons-iituenis Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or O*M_
5-40ml vials
2—500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 —500 ml plastic
2—500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Rem.irki
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geragnty & Milter)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT. 1 -'/." =0.06
1 - >/;" = 0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2" = 0.16
3" = 0.37
2-'A"-0.26
3-%"
= 0.50
4" = 0.65
6" = 1.47
OO2
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Projecl/No
Site Locauon
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-8
Partly cloudy: 90° F
Description of Measuring Pont (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Toul Sounded Deplhof Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP _______
Water Column in Well
_______
Gallons per Fool
_______
Gallons in Well
bvncualton Method
Top of well cashg
008ft
25.56ft
17.03ft
8.53ft
0.65
5.54
Centrifugal Pump
Coded/
Replicate No.
None
Time Sampling
Began
8:39 am
EVACUATION DATA
Gallom Pumped
Prior to Sampling
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page I of 1
9/29/92
11:30 am
167.54 ft
MP Elevation
Waler-Uevel Elevation
___________
Diameter of Caaing
____4-inch
150.51 ft
12
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) __
21.0ft
Pump start - 8:39 am
Pump off - 8:51 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. ()
PID(ppm)
8:41 am
6.78
32.8
1252
0
8:48 am
6.88
322
1370
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab X
or GAM
5 -40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL J>H-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Sampling Personnel
Well went dry Ground -water sample was collected according to the procedure specified in Appendx G, Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.
C. Moffatt. R. PonCBno (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera, G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech). ______________________________
GAL TFT.
l-V.'-O.Ob
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - o.io
r - oj?
2-^-=0.26
3-^-0.50
«" - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Project/No
Site Location
Site/Well No
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-9
Partly cloudy: 65* F.
Coded/
Replicate No.
None
Tune Sampling
Begin
9:05 am
Due
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
10:30 am
EVACUATION DATA
Deicriptnn of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well
______
Gallons per Fool
_______
Gallons in Well
Top of well casing.
0.06ft
34.10ft
12.40ft
21.70ft
0.65
14.11
MP Elevation
Water-Levd Elevation
Diameter of Casing
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ^^
16226ft
149.86ft
4-inch
46
32.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 9:05 am
Pump off - 9:38 am
Color
Grayish
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong Odor
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter.
9:12 am (14 gal.)
9:19 am (14 gal.)
9:30 am (16 gal.)
PH
Temp. ("C)
Spec. Cond. (umbot
PID (ppm)
7.15
33.2
1386
<2000
7.12
28.88
1490
800
7.14
322
1486
780
Alter Sampling
7.16
31.2
1480
680
(JomtnuenLs Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Ub_X__ or G&M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Strong petroleum odor (oil).
Sampling Personnel
C. Moftatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Milter)/ A. Barrera. G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech).
GAL7FT.
1 - V." =0.06
1-V,- . O.W
WELL CASING VOLUMES
2' - 0.16
y - OJ7
2-W-0.26
3-V/-0.50
4- « 0.65
6" - 1.47
I"! H'
00?
1461
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Project/No.
Sue Location
Sue/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-9S
Partly cloudy; 85° F
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sampling
Began
9:40 am
Date
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/07/92
11:15 am
Description of Meaaring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Six-face
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
______
Water Column in Well
______
Gallons per Fool
______
lullom in Well
Top of well casing.
0.10ft
18.67
ft
12.84
ft
5.83 It
0.65
3.79
EVACUATION DATA
MP Election
Water-Levd Elevation
Diameter of Caiing
Gallons Pumped
Prior to Samp)ing
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) ^^
162.37 ft
149.53ft
4—inch
22
NA
Evacuation Method
Centrifugal Pump
Pump start - 9:43 am
Pump off - 9:56 am
Color
Brownish
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Strong Odor
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameters
PH
Temp.CC)
Spec. Cond. (umbos^
PID (ppm)
9:47 am (4 gal.)
7.13
32.6
1250
600
9:51 am (6 gal.)
7.15
32.4
1325
696
9:56 am (12 gal.)
7.11
32.0
1322
520
After Sampling
7.17
31.8
1320
1200
Constituent* Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or G AM_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -5OO ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks.
Trace of product observed in this well. Well went dry. Ground-water sample collected following the procedure specified
in Appendix G. Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan._________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt, R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/A. Barrera. G. Gonzatez (Soil Tech)._________________________
GAL7FT.
1-V.--0.06
1-yy-
fl.0«
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16
3" - OJ7
2-W - 0.26
3-W - 0.50
4" - 0.65
6' - 1.47
; U T
1462
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Project/No.
Sic Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-10
deaf, Cool
Coded/
Replicate No.
None
Time Sampling
Began
6:30 am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/6/92
9:00 am
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP ______
Water Column m Well
______
Gallon* per Foot
______
Gallon in Well
EVACUATION DATA
Top of well casing
MP Elevation
161.50ft
_____0.14ft_____
Water-Level Elevation
140.98ft
_____35.60ft_____
Diameter of drag
4-inch
20.52ft
15.08ft
0.65
9.80
Gallon* Pumped
Prior to Sampling
30
Sampbig Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface) __
33.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 6:30 am
Pump off - 6:42 am
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Color
dear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
Field
Pan meters
pH
Temp-rC)
Spec. Cond. (umhot;
PID(ppm)
6:30 am
7.23
31.0
469
0
7.54am
7.18
31.4
1225
0
7:55 am
7.15
31.5
1229
0
After Sampling
7.05
31.1
1229
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Disserved Metals
TAL Cyanide________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or G*M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Well went dry. Well was pumped until specific conductivity stabilized.
Sampling Penonnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraghty & Miller)/ A. Barrera. G. Qonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAL/FT.
l-y."-0.06
l-W-0.09
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - 0.16
3" - 0.37
1-W-OM
3-W-O.SO
4" • 0.65
6* - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Preiecl/No.
Site Locatioo
Siu/Wcll No.
Weather
TUU/PR01301
St Thomas. U.S. Virgin Island*
MW-100
Partly doody. 85°
Cawed/
R« plicate No.
Tme Sawpliot
None
5:14am
EVACUATION DATA
Deacripuon of Meaauriof Point (MP)
Hcilbl of M P Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well BelowMP
Depth to Water Below MP
_______
Water Colu.o in Well
______
Oallcwj per Foot
______
Gallon in Wcl
Top of well casing.
0.14ft
75.0ft
____20.66ft
MPBIcvnoo
161.38ft
Water-Uvd Election
140.72ft
6-inch
54.34ft
Prior to Sew
250
1.47
79.88
(feet Mow lud iinfice )
70.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersbte Pump
Pump start - 5:14 am
Pump off - 6:04 am
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET trow] SUrt
Otic
Tia»S«wpli
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/6/92
7:30 am
Color
Clear
S»plmf Method »nd Malehil
Odor
None
Teflon Baler
Field
PaiiBMlen
pH
Te-p.CC)
Spec. Cood. (unhoi
PID (PPCD)
5:24 am (80 o»U
7.10
29.3
608
0
5:34 am (80 gal.)
7.49
30.1
1106
0
5:55 am
6:04 am
7.23
29.8
1264
0
7:23
29.5
1273
0
After Samp ing
7.22
29.6
1266
0
Stmpliof PCI
Well went dry. Ground-mater was sampled according to the procedure specfted in Appendix G. Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.
C. Molfatt. R. Ponciano (Genghty & Miter)/A. Banera. G. Gonzata (Soil Tech)._______________________
Cecutitiienu Saeipled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TALTotaVDissorved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Coalaincr Deacripticw
ProaLak X
orOJtM
5-40rrivials
2- 500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
PRMIVSUVC
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
WELL CASINO VOLUMES
r - o.i«
r • oj?
2-V4- • OJ»
J-V4' . OJO
TIT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tntu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-11D
Partly cloudy, 90°
Coded/
RcplkMe No.
Taut Sampling
Bed"
MS/MSD
10:12 am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/2/92
11:30 am
EVACUATION DATA
Detcription of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Toul Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
_____
Water Column in Well
_____
Gallons per Fool
_____
Gallon! in Well
_____
Top of well casing.
0.12 n
74.3 n
20.0 n
54.3 n
1.47
79.82
MP Elevation
153.22ft
Water-Level Elevation
133.22ft
Diameter of Casing
____6-inch
Gallon. Pumped
Prior to Sampling
280
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land aurfaee) _____NA
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump___Pump atari - 10:12 am
Pump off - 10:47 am
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
Cola-
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
Field
Parameters
pH
Temp. CO
Spec. Cond. (urabos)
PID(ppm)
10:12 am (88 gal.)
6.78
29.2
1438
0
10:34 am (88 gal.)
7.00
29.4
1556
0
10:45 am (104 gal.)
7.00
29.3
1589
0
After Sampling
9.38
29.9
192
0
Constituents Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X^ or G*M_
5-40ml vials
2-500 ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HN03
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Geraqhty & Miller)/ A. Ban-era. G. Gonzalez (Soil Tech).
GALJPT.
l-V.'-O.O*
1-W-O.O*
WELL CASING VOLUMES
T - 0.1*
3" • OJ7
«• - 0.65
2-W - OM
3-W « OJO
«' - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site LOCAUOO
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tutu/PR01301
SI. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-12D
Partly cloudy. 85°
Coded/
Heplnu No.
Nona
10:13 am
Dale
Time Sampling
Completed
Page 1 of 1
10/5/92
11:30 am
Deacrinlkn of Meaaring Point (MP)
Height of MPAbow Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Water Below MP
_____
Water Column in Well
_____
Gallons per Foot
_____
Gallon in Well
Top ot weH casing.
____0.23ft
80.65ft
27.82ft
52.83 ft
0.65
34.34
EVACUATION DATA
MP Etonian
Water-Level EJevttion
DiuMierofCaaing
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
161.81 ft
133.99ft
4-inch
123
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land wrface)___
75ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 10:13 am
Pump off - 10:44 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPUNQ DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET tram Start Pumping)
Field
Panmeun
pH
Temp.CQ
Spec Cond. (urnbc*:
PID(ppm)
1023 am (34 gal.)
723
31.1
1459
0
10:32 am (38.75 gal.)
7.50
31.7
1453
0
10:44 am (51 gal.)
7.07
31.1
1455
0
After Sampling
728
32.1
1607
0
Conttiiuenu Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container DooHptioo
From Lab_X__ or GAM_
5-40ml vials___
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -800 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preaowivc
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Ren
Sampling Penonnd
C. Mottatt. R. Ponciano (Qeraghty t Miller)/ A. Barrera. Q. Qonzalez (Soil Tech).
GAUPT.
l-V.'-O.O*
1-W - OM
WELL CASING VOLUMES
T - 0.1*
3" - OJ7
«• - OM
2-W - 0.2*
)-Vf - 060
«• - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Project/No.
Site Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Tulu/PR01301
St. Thomas. U.S. Virgin Islands
MW-13D
Partly cloudy
None
Coded/
Replicate No.
Time Sam pint
Began
11:04 am
Date
Tune Sampling
Coo pieced
Page 1 of!
10/6/92
1:15 pm
EVACUATION DATA
Docription at Meaiuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Below Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of W
Depth to Water Below MP
Water Column in Well
Gallon! per Foot
Gallons in Well
Evacuation Method
it (MP)
Top of well casing.
face
0.08 ft
Below MP
119.0ft
83.20ft
35.80 ft
1.47
52.63
Submersible Pump
MP Elevation
Water- Level Elevation
Diameter of Gating
Gallon Pumped
Prior to Sampling
Sampling Pump Intake Setting
(feet below land surface)
Pump start - 11:04 am
Pump off -
236.60ft
153.40ft
6-inch
66
115.0ft
11:15 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
None
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ET from Start Pumping)
Field
Parameter!
pH
Temp. CO
Spec. Cond. (umhos
PID(ppm)
After Sampling
7.05
28.0
2370
0
Constituent* Sampled
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide_________
TPH
Container Description
From Lab_X__ or O*M_
5-40ml viate
2-500 ml amber glass
1 -500 ml plastic
1 -500 ml plastic
2-500 ml amber glass
Preservative
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remarks
Sampling Penonnel
WeM went dry after 11 minutes of pumping at a rate of 6 gpm. Field parameters were not measured. Ground -water was
sampled according to the procedure specified in Appendix 0. Section 1.6.2 of Work Plan.___________________
C. Moflatt. R. Ponciano (Oeraghty * Milter)/ A. Ban-era. G. Oonzalez (Soil Tech).
GALVPT.
1-y." _o.M
1-W-O.O*
WELL CASINO VOLUMES
r m o.u
r - oj?
4- - o.«s
2-W - 0.1*
J-W - 0.50
«• - 1.47
.1.467
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
WATER SAMPLING LOG
Projea/No.
Siu Location
Site/Well No.
Weather
Tu1u/PR01301
St. Thoma». U.S. Virgin Island*
MW-14
Partly cloudy, 88°
Code*
Replkaie No.
Nona
TIM Simptaf
Began
12:02 am
Dau
Time Sampling
Completed
P»ge 1 of I
10/1/92
12:35 pm
EVACUATION DATA
Description of Measuring Point (MP)
Height of MP Above Land Surface
Total Sounded Depth of Well Below MP
Depth to Waur Below MP
______
Water Column in Well
______
Galkm per Foot
______
Gallon in Well
Top of wall casing.
0.08 R
45.5ft
22.80 fl
22.70ft
0.65
14.76
MP Elevation
196.12ft
Waur-Levd Elevation
173.32ft
Diameter of Casing
____4-inch
Gallons Pimped
Prior to Sampling
45
Sampling Pump Intake Setung
(feet below land surface) ____40.0ft
Evacuation Method
Submersible Pump
Pump start - 12:02 am
Pump off - 12:35 am
Color
Clear
Sampling Method and Material
Odor
Slight
Teflon Bailer
SAMPLING DATA/FIELD PARAMETERS
TIME (ETfroo Sun Pumping)
Field
Parameter)
pH
Tenp.CC)
Spec Good, (umbo.)
PID(ppB)
12:10 (11.5 gal.)
7.34
31.1
1096
<2000
12:20 (13.75 gal.)
7.14
30.8
1084
12:30
7.00
30.7
1086
0
After Sampling
_
6.54
30.0
1084
0
t
Coosuuienti Sampled *
VOCs
TCL BNAs
TAL Total/Dissolved Metals
TAL Cyanide
TPH
Container Dooription
From Ub_X__ or G*M_
5-40ml vials
2- 5OO ml amber glass
1-500 ml plastic
1-500 ml plastic
2- 500 ml amber glass
Preaerviuve
HCL pH-1
None
HNO3
NaOH
HCL
Remark!
Sampling Personnel
C. Moffatt. R. Ponciano (Oeraghty & Miner)/ A. Ban-era. G. Qonzalaz (Soil Tech).
GAL./FT.
l-y.-.O.O*
1-VV - O.M
WELL CASING VOLUMES
r - o.i«
r - OJ7
4". 0.45
»• - 1.47
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX H
MONITORING WELL HYDROGRAPHS
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS
October 19 to 28, 1992
Monitoring Wells: MW-6R, MW-4, MW-9,
MW-10D, MW-11D, and MW-12D.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX H
FIGURES
H-l.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-6R, October 19 to
27, 1992.
H-2.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-4, October 19 to
27, 1992.
H-3.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-9, October 20 to
27, 1992.
H-4.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-IOD, October 19
to 28, 1992.
H-5.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-11D, October 19
to 27, 1992.
H-6.
Background Water Levels Measured at Monitoring Well MW-12D, October 19
to 27, 1992.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
| DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PfWCT NO.: PR01301
(FILE: TU-190
| DRAWING: TU-190
| CHECKED: J. BURDICK
| APPROVED: T. OANAHY
| DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
Q 00
————————
\—> m **" ~ *****
TIME
ZERO:
16:00 10/19/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
13:40 10/27/92
f— • kyky
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
£
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
«
TIME, MINUTES
£&
GERAGHTY
gbf & MILLER, INC.
^^fr
Envinnmtntal StnHcts
I
•
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
F'GURE
MONITORING WELL MW-6R, OCTOBER 19 TO 27, 1992 H_-|
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
DWG DATE: 24MAY93
PRJCT NO.: PRO) 301
(RLE: TU-189
Q 00
———————
LJ • f •u'
ui
7-®®~-
LJ
:
LL A 00 "
LJ • ^J'fJ _
UJ 5 00 :
X 4 00 "
u '
:
— I i 00
LU
»•> • W
-
___ 1
^^ g tr '^^
UJ 1.00-^
11 0.00-:
"
-1.00-:
2 0 0
•———— ^-*
. IGFtJ ^ | | | I | 1
:
0
AW GERAGHTY
/1& & MILLER, INC.
^0
Environmental Services
I
•
mmmmmmtm
IDRAWNG: TU-189
e^Mj«*••
CHECKED: J. BURDICK
«•
* *
•BBB^^^^B^^W •ffiiiM^HM
APPROVED: T. DANAHY
| DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
••^•«»
TIME
ZERO:
16:30 10/19/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
14:00 10/27/92
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
TIME, MINUTES
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
F 5 00 "
V y
^ • vxt/
31 4 00 "
0
' ^ :
—I
"i pip\ ~
[||
O •
:
H 2 00"
. _ |
£- * C/Cx _
CK
:
LU 1 00
}-*-*
1 • C/v/ _
<
:
11 0.00t
- 1 00 "
1 • tyC/ _
-2 00
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
V
,1
•
*~!*———*f *• **•**•
1
-*-*-
! 1
>*
i
TIME
ZERO:
18:00 10/20/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
13:50 10/27/92
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
TIME, MINUTES
i
A& GERAGHTY
MV & MILLER, INC.
t
^^tr Environmtnial Strvicts
•
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
F'GURE
MONITORING WELL MW-9, OCTOBER 20 TO 27, 1992 ^g
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
J
I DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I FILE: TU-193
[DRAWING: TU-192
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
0 00
———————
I— I m "L/V/ _
r-
7 00 "
LU ' • w -
LJ
:
^ 6 00 "
uj • *cycx _
»
~
ri B 00 "
y )
^J m c/t/ _
X
A 00 "
u ^•I6"^:
— I
^7 CJ^I
IjJ
*-> • fC'
^ 2 00 :
_ |
C- • C/vx _
LY
:
LU 1.00-
<
-
12 0.00-:
1 00 "
i . t^t/ _
p^^"
- 2 . 00 - -rrrrrr
5
0
^f
GERAGHTY
>ir & MILLER, INC.
^^r
Environmental 5trvic«s
•
-*> —— •^v^
--rf"
x-*"^ W"**
TIME
ZERO:
14:10 10/19/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
14:30 10/28/92
iii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
TIME, MINUTES
FIPURF
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
MONITORING WELL MW-10D, OCTOBER 19 TO 28, 1992 ^.^
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
J
I DWG DATE: 24UAY93
I PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I RLE:
TU-193
I DRAWING: TU-193
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
8.00
LU
6.00
o 5.00^
z
5 4.00
Qj 3-00
y 2.00
0.00
-1 .00
-2.00
0
TIME
ZERO:
18:00
10/19/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
16:09
10/27/92
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
TIME, MINUTES
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental 5trv£c«s
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
MONITORING WELL MW-11D, OCTOBER 19 TO 27, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-5
| DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
IDLE: TU-194
(DRAWING: TU-194
I CHECKED: J. BURCMCK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
TIME
ZERO:
16:50 10/19/92
END OF
MEASUREMENTS:
15:50 10/27/92
-2.00
-3.00
0
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
TIME, MINUTES
V GERAGHTY
f & MILLER, INC.
Environmental
BACKGROUND WATER LEVELS MEASURED AT
MONITORING WELL MW-12D, OCTOBER 19 TO 27, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-6
HYDROGRAPHS FOR PUMPING TEST AT
MONITORING WELL MW-6R
November 2, 1992
Observation Wells: MW-6R, MW-6D, CHT-6D,
MW-7, MW-4,
MW-8, MW-4D, and MW-5.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX H
FIGURES
H-7.
Pumping Well MW-6R Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-8.
Observation Well MW-6D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-9.
Observation Well CHT-6D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-10.
Observation Well MW-7
Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-ll.
Observation Well MW-4
Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-12.
Observation Well MW-8
Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-13.
Observation Well MW-4D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2-3,
1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-14.
Observation Well MW-5
Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6R, November 2 - 3, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
TUT
<"><":v
:
1479
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
:(
[ DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I FILE: TU-800
(DRAWING: TU-800
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
[APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
5 00. .
<^J m tyf
4 00
i • *~t\s
h- 3 00 "
LU J-^-
UJ
LL
I
? 00
t. • "O"tX
LU
:
~Z.
1 00
^^
i • \j\j
•<
~
0 00-^
•
TIME, MINUTES
AW GERAGHTY
A* & MILLER, INC.
^9r
Environmtntcd Services
•
PUI
PUMF
MPING WELL MW-6R HYDROGRAPH FOR
FIGURE
ING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
NOVEMBER 2-3, 1992
H-7
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
I DWS DATE: 24MAY93
I PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I FILE: TU-199
I DRAWING: TU-199
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
& 00 ——————— .
U • VCx
UJ 5.00-
UJ
LL
I
• 4.00-
UJ
O
< 3 00 "
^*%
«— ) . "C/C/
5
:
d
? 00 "
<>.VV_
§
1 00^
— 1
1 • 'C/'u' _
DC
:
H . 0.00-:
<
:
- 1 00 "
1 . V/dr
\~-~-t" **** ——————
PUMPING WELL: MW-6R
PUMPING RATE: 9.3 GPM
PUMP ON: 13:20 11/2/92
PUMP OFF: 13:20 11/3/92
TIME ZERO: 11:30 11/2/92
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
10 FEET
..
- 2 . 00
-) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
0
2000
4000
TIME, MINUTES
A& GERAGHTY
jjg & MILLER, INC.
^9r
Environmtnial Strvicts
•
OBSERVATION WELL MW-6D HYDROGRAPH FOR
FIGURE
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
NOVEMBER 2-3, 1992
H-8
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
J
Oo
(XJ
(
[ DWS DATE: 24MAY93
[ PRJCT NO.: PR01301
(FIE: TU-195
(DRAWNG: TU-193
'
(CHECKED: J. BURDICK
(APPROVED: T. DAN ANY
(DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
o
r>n
PUMPING WFII- MW-fiR
x-J • v/C/
UJ
LU
^- ? 00
£— % C/C/
UJo
<
X 1 00
u
' • *^ _
UJ
^ 0 00-1
. _ I \j * \j\j \
&.
I
UJ
<
_
^ - 1 00
~-/
It W
c;
-i
0
O
N
'
2 0 0
^Nn«*l ttf
PUMPING RATE: 9.3 GPM
PUMP ON: 13:20 11/2/92
PUMP OFF: 13:20 11/3/92
TIME ZERO: 13:20 11/2/92
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
88 FEET
• O I i i i I
i i i i
p
0
2000
4000
TIME, MINUTES
A^ niTDAruTv
OBSERVATION WELL CHT-6D HYDROGRAPH FOR
FIGURE
4T& ^'MILLER, INC.
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
/&
Environmental Sirvicts
NOVEMBER 2"3, 1992
H"9
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
•
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
I DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I RLE: TU-201
I DRAWING: TU-201
(CHECKED: J. BURCXCK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
B 00 -
-
w r • 'fJ'fJ
\—
A 00-
1
I • Kj>iJ
LUuj
:
^
3 00 "
\_> • K-fKs
LU
:
7
2 00 "
-^_
C— t 00 "
^ • c/c/
T 00 ~
tor
j — «••» —————
PUMPING WELL: -MW
PUMPING RATE: 9.3
PUMP ON: 13:20 1
PUMP OFF: 13:20
TIME ZERO: 11:30
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
231 FEET
-6R
GPM
1/2/92
1/3/92
11/2/92
O • 'C'C'
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
2000
4000
TIME, MINUTES
ty
GERAGHTY
l^f & MILLER, INC.
^^Pr Environmmtal S«rvic«s
•
OBSERVATION WELL MW-7 HYDROGRAPH FOR
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
NOVEMBER 2-3, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-10
j
H
oo
D\
xnTE: 24MAY9J
I PRJCT NO.: PROI301
(FILE: TU-196
I DRAWING: .. i96
(CHECKED: J. BURCMCK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. -C CANN
6 00
——————
»— 1 m *J\J
I
P; 00 ^
r^
»-/ > •L/'u'
uj
:
LU
^
4 00-
I • ^/*CX
LJ
-
\_)
<-> /T|Oi ~
Z
3. 00
<
-
U
o
/TI/TI
i 2.00-
[d!
:
u! 1.00-
_i
:
£
0.00t
3
-1 00-
1 • W
D n0 ~
7
a_i
i'
** Mi ————
PUMPING WELL: MW
PUMPING RATE: 9.3
PUMP ON: 13:20 1
PUMP OFF: 13:20
TIME ZERO: 9:30 1
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
288 FEET
-6R
GPM
1/2/92
11/3/92
1/2/92
t-~ • W
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1
0
2000
4000 ,
TIME, MINUTES
A*, TFPAPHTY
OBSERVATION WELL MW-4 HYDROGRAPH FOR
A* & MILLER we.
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
f^f
Environmental Strvicss
NOVEMBER 2"3, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
|
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-11
j
'<
i
| DWG DATE: 24MAY93
I PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I FILE: TU-?02
I DRAWING: TU-808
(CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
3.
6^ 2.
LJ
O
I--
UJ
UJ
fj.
_j 0.
tz
UJ
<
3-1 .
-2.
i
^
GERAGHTY
^r ff MILLER, INC.
^^Br Environmental Services
m
00 n —————————————
00-
00-
/TlOl
00-
00-
*
#* ^^*-
*
•
PUMPING WELL: MW
PUMPING RATE: 9.3
PUMP ON: 13:20 1
PUMP OFF: 13:20 1
TIME ZERO: 8:25 1
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
308 FEET
-6R
GPM
1/2/92
1/3/92
1/2/92
TRANSDUCER WAS
APPARENTLY DAMAGED.
0 0 —— i . i .
i i i
i |
0
2000
4000
TIME, MINUTES
OBSERVATION WELL MW-8 HYDROGRAPH FOR
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
NOVEMBER 2-3, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-12
j
1
o
O
N
JI
r
(
| DWS DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I FILE: TU-197
I DRAWING: TU-197
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
6.00-q ————————————
r-
I
m
5 00
1 1 1
\_x • C/C/
u_
:
U
4 00-
1 • C/V/
o
:
T
3 00 "
1
^J • "L/tX
u
:
GJ
2.00-:
y
1
1 00
I • C/C^
CK
:
UJ
<
0.00:*
- 1 00 "
;
1 • C/C/
o o\o\
1
O
^_-_ ——— •••1^^^^^
PUMPING WELL: MW-6R
PUMPING RATE: 9.3 GPM
PUMP ON: 13:20 11/2/92
PUMP OFF: 13:20 11/3/92
TIME ZERO: 9:11 11/2/92
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
279 FEET
—
? 00
p ,
t_ * c/'Cy
y
;
^
1 . 00 "
m
i • «w _
P
:
=2
0.00^
-1 00 ~
i • ^-/\j
^ 00 ~
1r
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^W^^^H^^^^l^^ M • , ^m*
PUMPING WELL: MW
PUMPING RATE: 9.3
PUMP ON: 13:20 1
PUMP OFF: 13:20 1
TIME ZERO: 11:20
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
210 FEET
-6R
GPM
1/2/92
1/3/92
11/2/92
c_ • •O'lu'
l l l l l l l l l l l i i i i l l l I l l l l l l l l
0
2000
4000
6000
TIME, MINUTES
OB*
AW GERAGHTY
J,,;
^r
6? MILLER, INC.
PUI
^^r
Environmental Strvices
•
NERVATION WELL MW-5 HYDROGRAPH FOR
APING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6R
NOVEMBER 2-3, 1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-14
j
HYDROGRAPHS FOR PUMPING TEST AT
MONITORING WELL MW-6D
November 5, 1992
Observation Wells: MW-6R, MW-6D,
CHT-6D, MW-7, MW-4, and MW-12D.
TUT
O02 1488
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
APPENDIX H
FIGURES
H-15.
Monitoring Well MW-6R Pre-pumping Trend for Pumping Test of MW-6D,
November 5, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands.
H-16.
Pumping Well MW-6D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5-6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-17.
Observation Well MW-6R Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5 - 6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-18.
Observation Well CHT-6D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5 - 6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-19.
Observation Well MW-7 Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5 - 6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-20.
Observation Well MW-4 Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5 - 6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
H-21.
Observation Well MW-12D Hydrograph for Pumping Test at Monitoring Well
MW-6D, November 5 - 6, 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT 002
.1489
[DWG
DATE; 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.:
PR01301
[FILE: TU-217______[DRAWING: TU-817
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
I DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
R
00-i
—————————————————————————
\—t m «U/VX
_
h- 7 00 "
[I] ' - ™> -
LU
-
^ 6 00 "
\-J • V^"CX ^
m
""
W 5 00 "
\_J
i-r m V/:
_J
"> p\p\
1 , | O . C/f _
>
:
^ 2 00"
__ 1
£- m \J\S _
CK
I
JJJ 1.00-
<
:
3 0 00-
t^ • 'L/C.' _
-1 00 "
1 • •L/'u' _
^lim-t^-a^a^^t • . . . .
^^^^^PWpfWi
^
TIME
ZERO:
8:23
11/5/92
- 2 . 00 1 i i i i | i i i i | i i i i | i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
0
26
50
75
100
125
150
175
TIME, MINUTES
A& GERAGHTY
MV & MILLER, INC.
^^Pr Environmental Services
•
MONITORING WELL MW-6R PRE-PUMPING TREND
"CURE
FOR PUMPING TEST OF MW-6D
NOVEMBER 5, 1992
H-15
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
^
[ DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I RLE:
TU-306
I DRAWING: TU-206
I CHECKED: J. BURDICK
I APPROVED: T. DANAHY
(DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
3.00-T
UJ
UJ
UJ
O
UJ
UJ
CK
2.00
X 1.00
0.00
-1 .00
-2.00
I I
0
2000
4000
TIME, MINUTES
PUMPING WELL: MW-6D
PUMPING RATE: 14 GPM
PUMP ON: 10:30
11/5/92
PUMP OFF:
10:30
11/6/92
TIME ZERO: 10:30
11/5/92
DISTANCE BETWEEN
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION WELL:
0 FEET
WATER LEVELS WERE
MEASURED MANUALLY
USING AN ELECTRONIC
WATER LEVEL INDICATOR.
V GERAGHTY
f & MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
PUMPING WELL MW-6D HYDROGRAPH FOR
PUMPING TEST AT MONITORING WELL MW-6D
NOVEMBER 5-6,
1992
TUTU SERVICE STATION INVESTIGATION
ST. THOMAS. U.S
VIRGIN ISLANDS
FIGURE
H-161
I DWG DATE: 24MAY93
| PRJCT NO.: PR01301
I RLE: TU-205
[DRAWNG: TU-805
[CHECKED: J. BURDICK
[APPROVED: T. DANAHY
[DRAFTER: K. MC CANN
R 00 ————————————————————————
LJ » *L/K^f
h-
7 00 "
LU
/ • w -
UJ
^
6 00 "
LJ • *LS
"*
W
R 00 ~
(JJ
»_J • <>"C'
z
:
X A 00 "
U ^'W-
— I ^ 00 ~
UJ
-> • ^"^
_
>
:
^ 2 00"
_ I
c- • \-t\J
Ld
LJ
LL 2 00
C— m *->\J
LJ
§
:
I 1 00
0 ' ' ^^ .
Ld
4 0 00 -i
_ I \j • \j\j i
LY
"
LU
<
3 1 00
1 • "O"^
MAMMifc.>
-s t"'^—7_____________________
Date:
Leon Lazarus, Environmental Scientist
Toxi3 and Hazardous Waste Section
BY:
George K^rras,Chemist"
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
= x~
CONCURRED BY:
iWr^/v
\JJ • N .^ 3O-r U__________ Date:
BY: ^J.^ •£'-<:-? ^F*'<. &£**<•' '-~^>__________ Date:.
Stelios Gerazounls/ Chemist
Toxic and Hazardotis Waste Section
nd Hazardous Waste Section
W-v
)
APPROVED BY: \ .sXtfUl'l'?H ^-^T- •.wfr' "v——-_____ Date:.
Robert RunyonY Clyfef
Monitoring Management Branch
GERAGHTY fi? MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 1 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
PACKAGE COMPLETENESS AND DELIVERABLE
CASE NUMBER:_N/A________________
LAB:Enseco. Inc.
SITE: Tutu Service Station Investigation (Soil Data")
1.0
DATA COMPLETENESS ANT> 1W.T JVERABLES
1.1
Have any missing deliverables been received and added
to the data package?
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittal of any
missing deliverables. If lab cannot provide them,
note the effect on review of the package under the
"Contract Problems/Non-Compliance" section of reviewer
narrative.
1.2
Was SMO CCS checklist included with package?
2.0
COVER LETTER SDG NARRATIVE
2.1
Is the Narrative or Cover Letter Present?
2.2
Are Case Number and/or SAS number contained in the
Narrative or Cover letter?
3.0
DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST
The following checklist is divided into three parts.
Part A is filled out if the data package contains
any VOA analyses, Part B for any BNA analyses and Part
C for Pesticide/PCBs.
rx ] _ _
rx i _ _
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 2 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
3.0
DATA VALIDATION CHECKTJST Continued)
Does this package contain:
VOAData?
BNAData?
Pesticide/PCB data?
ACTION: Complete corresponding parts of checklist.
PART A: VOA ANALYSES
1.0
TRAFFIC HKPORTS AND LABORATORY NARRATIVE
1.1
Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all samples?
ACTION; If no, contract lab for replacement of
missing or illegible copies.
1.2
Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate any
problems with sample receipt, condition of samples,
analytical problems or special circumstances affecting
the quality of the data?
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other than TCLP,
contains 50%-90% water, all data should be flagged
as estimated (J). If a soil sample other than
TCLP contains more than 90% water, all data should
be qualified as unusable (R).
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the
laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all
Non-Detects "UJ".
TU"!
002
1.5O3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 3 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If both VOA vials for a sample have air
bubbles or the VOA vial analyzed had air bubbles,
flag all positive results "J" and all non-detects
"R".
2.0
HOLDING TIMES
2.1
Have any VOA technical holding times, determined
from date of collection to date of analysis,
been exceeded?
X [_]
__
If unpreserved, aqueous samples maintained at 4t
which are to be analyzed for
aromatic hydrocarbons must be analyzed within 7 days of collection. If preserved
with HC1 (pH<2) and stored at 4°C, then aqueous samples must be analyzed within
14 days of collection. If uncertain about preservation, contact sampler to determine
whether or not samples were preserved.
The holding time for soils is 10 days.
Table of Holding Time Violations (See Table 13-2)
Sample Sample
Date
Date Lab
Date
ID
Matrix
Preserved?
Sampled
Received
Analyzed
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 4 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If technical holding times ar exceeded, flag all
positive results as estimated ("J") and sample quantitation
limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in the narrative
that holding times were exceeded. If analyses were done
more than 14 days beyond holding time, either on the first
analysis or upon re-analysis, the reviewer must use
professional judgement to determine the reliability of
the data and the effects of additional storage on the
sample results. At a minimum, all results must be qualified
"I", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect data are
unusable (R). If holding times are exceeded by more than 28
days, all non detect data are unusable (R).
3.0
System Monitoring Compound (SMQ Recovery (Form ID
3.1
Are the VOA SMC Recovery Summaries (Form n) present for
each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
[_XJ__ __
b.
Low Soil
[ XI
c.
Med Soil
[__]
3.2
Are all the VOA samples listed on the appropriate System
Monitoring Compound Recovery Summary for each of the
following matrices:
a.
Low Water
F XI
b.
Low Soil
F XI
c.
Med SoU
[__]
UJT
002 15.10
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 5 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION; Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing
deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data
assessments.
3.3
Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk?
[ X 1
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4
Was one or more VOA system monitoring compound
recovery outside of contract specifications for
any sample or method blank?
If yes, were samples re-analyzed?
[ X ]
Were method blanks re-analyzed?
ACTION; If recoveries are > 10% but 1 or more compounds
fail to meet SOW specifications:
1.
All positive results are qualified as
estimated (J).
2.
Flag all non-detects as estimated detection
limits ("UJ") where recovery is less than
the lower acceptance limit.
3.
If SMC recoveries are above allowable levels,
do not qualify non-detects.
If any system monitoring compound recovery
is <10%:
1.
Flag all positive results as estimated ("J").
2.
Flag all non-detects as unusable ("R").
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 6 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
Professional judgement should be used to qualify data that only
have method blank SMC recoveries out of specification in bom
original and re-analyses. Check the internal standard areas.
3.5
Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw
data and Form n?
__
r XI __
ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal,
make any necessary corrections and not errors in the data assessment.
4.0
Matrix Spikes (Form IID
4.1
Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery
Form (Form HI) present?
f XI __
__
4.2
Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required frequency for
each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
[__] __
_JL
b.
Low SoU
r X 1
__
c.
MedSoil
[__] __
_JL
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing, take the action
specified in 3.2 above.
4.3
How may VOA spike recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
Soils
N/A
out of 10
0
out of 20
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 7 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
4.4
How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate
recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
Soils
N/A out of 5
0
out of 10
ACTION: No action is taken based on MS/MSD data alone.
However, using informed professional judgement, the MS/
MSD results may be used in conjunction with other QC
criteria to determine the need for qualification of the
data.
5.0
Blanks fForm IV)
5.1
Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present?
F XI __
__
5.2
Frequency of Analysis: for the analysis of VOA
TCL compounds, has a reagent/method blank been
analyzed for each SDG or every 20 samples of
similar matrix (low water, low soil, medium soil),
whichever is more frequent?
[XI __
__
5.3
Has a VOA method/instrument blank been analyzed at
least once every twelve hours for each concentration
level and GC/MS system used?
[ XI __
__
ACTION; If any method blank data are missing, call lab
for explanation/resubmittal. If method blank data are
not available, reject (R) all associated positive data.
However, using professional judgement, the data reviewer
may substitute field blank or trip blank data for missing
method blank data.
1513
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 8 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
5.4
Chromatography: review the blank raw data - chromatograms
(RICs), quant reports or data system printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline stability) for
each instrument acceptable for VOAs?
[XI
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the effect
on the data.
6.0
C.Q|ltajninatinn
NOTE: "Water Blanks*, "drill blanks", and "distilled water
blanks" are validated like any other sample, and are not
used to qualify data. Do not confuse them with the other
QC blanks discussed below.
6.1
Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have positive results
(TCL and/or TIC) for VOAs? When applied as described below,
the contaminant concentration in these blanks are multiplied
by the sample dilution factor and corrected for % moisture
when necessary.
6.2
Do any field/trip/rinse blanks have positive VOA results
(TCL and/or TIC)?
ACTION: Prepare a list of the sample associated with each
of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet).
NOTE: All field blank results associated to a particular
group of samples (may exceed one per case) must be used to
qualify data. Trip blanks are used to qualify only those
samples with which they were shipped and are not required
for non-aqueous matrices. Blanks may not be qualified
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 9 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
because of contamination in another blank. Field blanks
& Trip blanks must be qualified for system monitoring
compound, instrument performance criteria, spectral or
calibration QC problems.
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to
qualify TCL results due to contamination. Use the
largest value from all the associated blanks. If
any blanks are grossly contaminated, all associated
data should be qualified as unusable (R).
Sample cone > CRQL
but < 10 x blank value
Sample cone < CRQL
& < lOx blank value
Sample cone > CRQL
& > lOx blank value
Methylene Flag sample result with
Chloride
a "U"
Acetone
Toluene
2-Butanone
Report CRQL &
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank
Sample cone < CRQL
& is < Sx blank value
Sample cone > CRQL
value & > 5x blank
value
Other
Flag sample result
Contain-
with a "U"
inants
Report CRQL & qualify
"U"
No qualification is
needed
NOTE: Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are still
considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria.
OO2
1 51
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 10 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION! For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the sample
is less than five times the concentration in the most
contaminated associated blank, flag the sample data "R"
(unusable)
6.3
Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated
with every sample?
[ X ]
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment
that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment
blank. Exception: samples taken from a drinking water
tap do not have associated field blanks.
7.0
QC. /Ms Instrument Perfornmn^ Check (Form V)
7. 1
Are the GC/MS instrument Performance Check Forms
(Form V) present for Bromofluorobenzene (BFB)?
r X 1 __
7.2
Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/charge
(m/z) listing for the BFB provided for each twelve
hour shift?
f XI __
7.3
Has an instrument performance compound been analyzed
for every twelve hours of sample analysis per
instrument?
r X 1 __
ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and sample
analysis for which no associated GC/MS tuning data
are available.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Tide: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 11 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
DATE
TIME
INSTRUMENT
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all
data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour calibration
interval.
7.4
Have the ion abundances been normalized to m/z 95?
[ X ] __
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, qualify
all associated data as unusable (R).
7.5
Have the ion abundance criteria been met for each
instrument used?
[ X ] __
ACTION; List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet).
ACTION; If ion abundance criteria are not met,
the Region O TPO must be notified.
7.6
Are there any transcription/calculation errors between
mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least two values
but if errors are found, check more).
__
[ X ]
1517
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 12 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
7.7
Have the appropriate number of significant figures (two)
been reported?
[_]
X
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make necessary
necessary corrections and document effect
in data assessment.
7.8
Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound
acceptable?
r XI __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
whether associated data should be accepted, qualified,
or rejected.
8.0
Target Compound List (TCP Analvtes
8.1
Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I VOA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
[ X ] __
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
[ X ] __
c.
Blanks
F XI __
8.2
Are the VOA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, the
mass spectra for the identified compounds, and the
data system printouts (Quant Reports) included
in the sample package for each of the following?
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
[ X ]
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 13 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (Mass spectra
not required
r X ] __
c.
Blanks
F X] __
ACTION; If any data are missing, take action specified in 3.2
above.
8.3
Are the response factors shown in the Quant Report?
[__]
8.4
Is chromatographic performance acceptable with respect to:
Baseline stability?
r X]
Resolution?
r X J
Peak shape?
r X]
Full-scale graph (attenuation)?
f X]
Other: ___________
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the acceptability
of the data.
8.5
Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of
the identified VOA compounds present for each
sample?
f X ] __
ACTION: If any mass spectra are missing, take action specified
in 3.2 above. If lab does not generate their own standard
spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/Non-compliance".
8.6
Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06 RRT units
of the standard RRT in the continuing calibration?
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 14 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
8.7
Are all ions present in the standard mass spectrum at a
relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the
sample mass spectrum?
r XI __
__
8.8
Do sample and standard relative ion intensities agree
within 20%?
r XI __
__
ACTIONt Use professional judgement to determine
acceptability of data. If it is determined that
incorrect identifications were made, all such
data should be rejected (R), flagged "N" (presumptive
evidence of the presence of the compound) or changed
to not detected (U) at the calculated detection limit.
In order to be positively identified, the data must
comply with the criteria listed in 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8.
ACTION; When sample carry-over is a possibility,
professional judgement should be used to determine
if instrument cross-contamination has affected any
positive compound identification.
9.0
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TIP
9.1
Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I Part B) present; and do listed TICS
include scan number or retention time, estimated
concentration and "JN" qualifier?
[__] X
9.2
Are the mass spectra for the tentatively
identified compounds and associated "best
match" spectra included in the sample
package for each of the following:
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
[XI __
b.
Blanks
r X 1 __
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page IS of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
9.3
Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed
as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is
xylene-a VOA TCL analyte - and should not be
reported as a TIC)?
__
r XI
ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound listed as a
TIC.
9.4
Are all ions present in the reference mass spectrum
with a relative intensity grater than 10% also present
in the sample mass spectrum?
[ X ] __
9.5
Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion
intensities agree within 20%?
[XI _,_
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
acceptable of TIC identifications. If it is
determined that an incorrect identification was
made, change identification to "unknown" or to
some less specific identification (example: "C3
substituted benzene") as appropriate.
Also, when a compound is not found in any blank,
but is detected in a sample and is a suspected
artifact of a common laboratory contaminant,
the result should be qualified as unusable (R).
(i.e. Common Lab Contaminants: Co? (M/E 44),
Siloxanes (M/E 73) Hexane, Aldol Condensation
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 16 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
Products, Solvent Preservatives, and related by
products - see Functional Guidelines for
more guidance).
10.0
Compound QuantitfltJon *md Reported Detetfift" Limit?
10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive values.
Verify that the correct internal standard, quantitation
ion, and RRF were used to calculate Form I result.
Were any errors found?
__
[ X ]
10.2
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions
and, for soils, sample moisture?
[ X ] __
ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for explanation/
resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note
errors under "Conclusions".
ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than one
dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC
exceedance dictates the use of the higher data from the
diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that
exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by
crossing out the "E" and its associated value on the
original Form I and substituting the data from the
analysis of the diluted sample. Specify which Form
I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire
page of all Form I's that should not be used, including
any in the summary package.
TUT
O02
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 17 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
11.0
Standards Data (GC/MS)
11.1
Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data
system printouts (Quant. Reports) present) for
initial and continuing calibration?
ACTION: If any calibration standard data are missing,
take action specified in 3.2 above.
12.0
GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI)
12.1
Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI) present
and complete for the volatile fraction at concentrations
10, 20, 50, 100, 200 ug/1? Are there separate
calibrations for low water/med soils and low soil
samples?
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms are missing,
take action specified in 3.2 above.
12.2
Were all low level soil standards, blanks and samples
analyzed by heated purge?
ACTION; If low level soil samples were not heated during
purge, qualify positive hits "J" and non-detects "R".
12.3
Are response factors stable for VGA's over the
concentration range of calibration (% Relative
Standard Deviation (%RSD) <30.0%)?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE; Although 11 VOA compounds have a minimum
RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical
criteria are the same for all analytes.
L-2U
LJU __
-an
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 18 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If %RSD > 30.0%, qualify associated positive
results for that analyte "I" and non-detects
using professional judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag
all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable).
NOTE: Analytes previously qualified "U" for blank
contamination are still considered as "hits" when
qualifying for initial calibration criteria.
12.4 Are the RRFs above 0.05?
r XI __
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If any RRF are < O.OS, qualify associated
non-detects (R) and flag associated positive
data as estimated (J).
12.5
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or %RSD? (check at least 2 values, but
if errors are found, check more).
__
[XI __
13.0
GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VID
13.1
Are the Continuing Calibration Forms
(From VII) present and complete for the
volatile fraction?
f XI __
__
13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
analysis per instrument?
r X ] __
TUT
OO2 1524
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 19 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: List below all sample analyses that were
not within twelve hours of the previous continuing
calibration analysis.
ACTION; If any forms are missing or no continuing
calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis, call lab for explanation/
resubmittal. If continuing calibration data are not
available, flag all associated sample data as unusable ("R").
13.3
Do any volatile compounds have a % Difference (%D)
between the initial and continuing RRF which exceeds
the ± 25% criteria?
X [__]
ACTION! Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION; Qualify both positive results and non-detects for
the outlier compound(s) as estimated. When % D is above
90%, reject all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable.
13.4
Doany volatile compounds have a RRF <0.05?
__
f X 1
ACTION: Circle all ouliers in red.
ACTION: If the RRF <0.05, qualify associated non-detects
as unusable (R) and "J" associated positive values.
'"U T
O02
J525
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 20 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
13.5
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the
reporting of average response factors (RRF) or
% difference (%D) between initial and continuing
RRFs? (Check at least two values but if errors
are found, check more.)
__
F XI
ACTIONt Circle errors in red.
ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and note errors under "Conclusions".
14.0
Internal Standard (Form VTTD
14.1
Are the internal standard areas (From Vm) of every
sample and blank within the upper and lower limits
(-50% to +100 %) for each continuing calibration.
r XI __
__
ACTION: List all the outliers below.
Sample #
Internal Std
Area Lower Limit Upper Limit
(Attach additional sheets if necessary).
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 21 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION:
1.
If the internal standard area count is outside the upper
or lower limit, flag with "J" all positive results
quantitated with this internal standard.
2.
Non-detects associated with IS area counts > 100% should
not be qualified.
3.
If IS area is below the lower limit (< 50%),
qualify all
associated non-detects (U values) "J". If extremely
low area counts are reported, (<25% or if performance
exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all associated
non-detects as unusable ("R").
14.2
Are the retention times of the internal standards within
30 seconds of the associated calibration standard?
[ X ] __
__
ACTION; Professional judgement should be used to qualify
data if the retention times differ by more than 30
seconds.
15.0
Field Duplicates
15.1
Were any field duplicates submitted for VOA analysis?
[ X ]
ACTION; Compare the reported results for field
duplicates and calculate the relative percent
difference.
ACTION; Any gross variation between duplicate results
must be addressed in the reviewer narrative. However,
if large differences exist, identification of field
duplicates should be confirmed by contacting the sampler.
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 22 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
PART B! BNA ANALYSES
1.0
Traffic Reports and j^b. flratorv Narrative
1.1
Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all
samples?
r XI __
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of missing
or illegible copies.
1.2
Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate
any problems with sample receipt, condition of
samples, analytical problems or special notations
affecting the quality of the data?
X [__]
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other
than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data
should be flagged as estimated ("J"). If a soil
sample, other than TCLP, contains more than 90%
water, all data should be qualified as usable (R).
ACTION; If samples were not iced upon receipt at the
laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all
non-detects "UJ".
2.0
Holding Times
2.1
Have any BNA technical holding times, determined from
date of collection to date of extraction, been exceeded?
Continuous extraction of water samples for BNA analysis
be started within seven days of the date of collection.
Soil/sediment samples must be extracted within 7 days
of collection. Extracts must be analyzed within 40
days of the date of extraction.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 23 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
Table of Holding Time Violations (See Table 13-2)
(See Traffic Report)
Sample Date
Date Lab
Date
Date
Sample
Matrix Stamped
Received
Extracted
Analyzed
ACTION: If technical holding times are exceeded, flag
all positive results as estimated ("J") and sample
quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document
in the narrative that holding times were exceeded.
If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding
time, either on the first analysis or upon reanalysis,
reviewer must use professional judgement to determine
the reliability of the data and the effects of additional
storage on the sample results. At a minimum, all results
should be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine
that non-detect data are unusable ("R"). If holding
times are exceeded by more than 28 days, all non detect
data are unusable (R).
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 24 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
3.0
Surrogate Recovery (Form ID
3.1
Are the BNA Surrogate Recovery Summaries (Form ]
present for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
b.
Low Soil
c.
Med Soil
3.2
Are all the BNA Samples listed on the appropriate
Surrogate Recovery Summaries for each of the
following matrices:
a.
Low Water
b.
Low Soil
c.
Med Soil
ACTION; Call lab for explanation/resub mittals. If
missing deliverables are unavailable, document
effect in data assessments.
3.3
Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk?
3.4
Were two or more base-neutral OR acid surrogate
recoveries out of specification for any sample
or method blank?
If yes, were samples reanalyzed?
Were method blanks reanalyzed?
f X 1
r X 1
[ X 1
[ X 1
r X 1
r X 1
[ X ]
[ X ] __
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 25 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If all BNA surrogate recoveries are > 10% but
two within the base-neutral or acid fraction do not
meet SOW specifications, for the affected fraction
only (i.e. base-neutral or acid compounds):
1.
Flag all positive results as estimated ("J").
2.
Flag all non-detects as estimated detection
limits ("UJ") when recoveries are less than
the lower acceptance limit.
3.
If recoveries are greater than the upper
acceptance limit, do not qualify non-detects.
If any base-neutral or acid surrogate has a recovery
of <10%:
1.
Positive results for the fraction with < 10%
surrogate recovery are qualified with "J".
2.
Non-detects for that fraction should be
qualified as unusable (R).
3.5
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form n?
__
[ X ] __
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments.
4.0
Matrix Spikes (Form TH\
4.1
Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
Recovery Form (FormHI)present?
r XI __
__
TUT
OO2 1531.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 26 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
4.2
Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequently for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
[_] _
_X_
b. Low Soil
f XI __
__
c.
MedSoil
[_]
X __
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing, take the
action specified in 3.2 above.
4.3
How may BNA spike recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
Soils
N/A out of 22
_2_ out of 44
4.4
How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate
recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
Soils
JSZA_outof 11
_L out of 22
ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone.
However, using informed professional judgement,
the data reviewer may use the matrix spike and
matrix spike duplicate results in conjunction
with other QC criteria and determine the need
for some qualification of the data.
5.0
Blanks fFoiTP IV)
5.1
Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present?
f XI __
___
1532
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 27 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
5.2
Frequency of Analysis:
Has a reagent/method blank analysis been
reported per 20 samples of similar matrix,
or concentration level, and for each
extraction batch?
r XI __
__
5.3
Has a BNA method blank been analyzed for each
GC/MS system used?
[ X] __
__
(See SOW p. D - 59/SV, Section 8.7)
ACTION: If any method blank data are missing,
call lab for explanation/resubmittal. If
not available, use professional judgement
to determine if the associated sample data
should be qualified.
5.4
Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data
system printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable for
BNAs?
[ X] __
__
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the effect on the data.
6.0
NQX& "Water blank", "drill blanks" and "distilled
water blanks" are validated like any other sample
and are not used to qualify the data. Do no
confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed
below.
J t::,'V
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 28 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
6.1
Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have positive
results (TCL and/or TIC) for BNAs? When applied as
described below, the contaminant concentration in these
blanks are multiplied by the sample dilution factor
and corrected for % moisture where necessary.
X [__]
6.2
Do any field/rinse/blanks have positive BNA results
(TCL and/or TIC)?
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated
with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a
separate sheet).
NOTE: All field blank results associated to a
particular group of samples (may exceed one per
case) must be used to qualify data. Blanks may
not be qualified because of contamination in
another blank. Field Blanks must be qualified
for surrogate, spectral, instrument performance
or calibration QC problems.
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below
to qualify TCL results due to contamination. Use
the largest value from all the associated blanks.
If gross contamination exists, all data in the
associated samples should be qualified as unusable
(R).
O0,;:
it:*.:.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 29 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
Sample cone > CRQL
Sample cone CRQL
value & > lOx blank
Common Phthalate Esters
Flag sample result
with a "U"
Report CRQL &
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
Sample cone > CRQL
but < Sx blank
Sample cone < CRQL &
Sample cone > CRQL
is < 5x blank value
value & >5 blank value
Other Contaminants
Flag sample result
with a "U"
Report CRQL &
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed.
6.3
NOTE; Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination
are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for
calibration criteria.
ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the
sample is less than five times the concentration in
the most contaminated associated blank, flag the
sample data "R" (unusable).
Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated
with every sample?
YES NO
N/A
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 30 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment
that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do
not have associated field blanks.
7.0
GC/MS Instrument Performance Check
7.1
Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Forms
(Form V) present for Decafluorotriphenylphosphine
(DFTPP)?
r XI
7.2
Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/charge
(m/z) listing for the DFTPP provided for each twelve
hour shift?
\ XI
7.3
Has an instrument performance check solution been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis
per instrument?
[ X")
ACTION; List date, time, instrument ID, and
sample analyses for which no associated GC/MS
tuning data are available.
DATE
TIME
INSTRUMENT
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION; If lab cannot provide missing data, reject
("R") all data generated outside an acceptable
twelve hour calibration interval.
HJT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 31 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all
associated sample data as unusable (R).
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all
associated sample data as unusable (R).
7.4
Have the ion abundance been normalized to m/z
198?
7.5
Have the ion abundance criteria been met for
each instrument used?
ACTION; List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet).
7.6
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between mass lists and Form Vs?
7.7
Have the appropriate number of significant
figures (two) been reported?
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments.
7.8
Are the spectra of the mass calibration
compound acceptable?
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
whether associated data should be accepted,
qualified, or rejected.
ULJ
_ LJU
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 32 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
8.0
Target Compound TArf (TCP Analvtes
8.1
Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I BNA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
c. Blanks
8.2
Has GPC cleanup been performed on all soil/
sediment sample extracts?
ACTION: If data suggests that GPC was not
performed, use professional judgement. Make
note in "Contract Problems/Non-Compliance".
8.3
Are the BNA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms,
the mass spectra for the identified compounds,
and the data system printouts (Quant Reports)
included in the sample package for each of the
following?
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
(Mass spectra not required)
c.
Blanks
ACTION; If any data are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above.
UU __ __
[ XI __
___
LJU __ __
r xi _ _
UU _
r xi _
UU _
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TUT
002
153S
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 33 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
8.4
Are the response factors shown in the Quant Report?
[__] X
__
8.5
Is chromatographic performance acceptable with
respect to:
Baseline stability?
[ XI __
__
Resolution?
r XI __
__
Peak shape?
f XI __
__
Full-scale graph (attenuation)?
r XI __
__
Other:__________________
[_] __ _X_
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the
acceptability of the data.
8.6
Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of
identified BNA compounds present for each
sample?
r XI __
__
ACTION; If any mass spectra are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above. If lab does not generate their
own standard spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/
Non-compliance". If spectra are missing, reject all
positive data.
8.7
Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06
RRT units of the standard RRT in the continuing
calibration?
r XI __
__
8.8
Are all ions present in the standard mass spectrum
at a relative intensity greater than 10% also
present in the sample mass spectrum?
[ X 1 __
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 34 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
8.9
Do sample and standard relative ion intensities
agree within 20%?
[ XI __
ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine
acceptability of data, if it is determined
that incorrect identifications were made, all
such data should be rejected (R), flagged "N"
(Presumptive evidence of the presence of the
compound) or changed to not detected (U) at the
calculated detection limit. In order to be
positively identified, the data must comply
with the criteria listed in 8.7, 8.8, and 8.9.
ACTION: When sample carry-over is a possibility,
professional judgement should be used to determine
if instrument cross-contamination has affected any
positive compound identification.
9.0
Tentatively Identified Compounds (TIP
9.1
Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I, Part B) present; and do listed TICs
include scan number or retention time, estimated
concentration and "IN" qualifier?
9.2
Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified
compounds and associated "best match" spectra included
in the sample package for each of the following:
a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
[ X ]
b. Blanks
f XI
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 35 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing take action specified
in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
9.3
Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed as
TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is xylene
a VOA TCL - and should not be reported as a TIC)?
X
[_]
ACTION; Flag with "R" any TCL compound listed as
a TIC.
9.4
Are all ions present in the reference mass spectrum
with a relative intensity greater than 10% also
present in the sample mass spectrum?
[ X ] __
9.5
Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion
intensities agree within 20%?
r X 1 __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
acceptability of TIC identifications. If it is
determined that an incorrect identification
was made, change identification to "unknown" or to
some less specific identification (example: "C3
substituted benzene") as appropriate. Also, when
a compound is not found in any blank, but is a
suspected artifact of a common laboratory contaminant,
the result should be qualified as unusable (R).
10.0
Compound Quantftation and Reported Detection Limits
10.1
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I
results? Check at least two positive values. Verify
that the correct internal standard, quantitation ion,
GERAGHTY 6? MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 36 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
and RRF were used to calculate Form I result. Were
any errors found?
__
[ X ] __
10.2
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and,
for soils, sample moisture?
F X ] __
__
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/
resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more than one
dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC
exceedance dictates the use of the higher CRQL data
from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations
that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis
by crossing out the "E" and it's associated value on the
original Form I and substituting the data from the analysis
of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used,
then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all From I's
that should not be used, including any in the summary
package.
11.0
Standard Data (GC/MS)
11.1
Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data
system printouts (Quant Reports) present for initial
and continuing calibration?
r X ] __
ACTION; If any calibration standard data are missing,
take action specified in 3.2 above.
12.0
GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI)
12.1
Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI)
present and complete for the SNA fraction?
r X ] __
___
002 1542
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 37 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms
are missing, take action specified in
3.2 above.
12.2
Are response factors stable for BNAs over the
concentration range of the calibration?
(% Relative standard deviation (%RSD) < 30.0%)
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE: Although 20 BNA compounds have a
minimum RRF and no maximum %RSD, the
technical criteria are the same for all
analytes.
ACTION: If the % RSD is > 30.0, qualify positive
results for that analyte "J" and non-detects using
professional judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag all
non-detect results for that analyte R (unusable).
NOTE; Analytes previously qualified "U" due to
blank contamination are still considered as "hits"
when qualifying for calibration criteria.
[__1 _X_
12.3
Are all BNA compound RRFs > 0.05?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If any RRF < 0.05
1. "R" all non-detects.
2. "I" all positive results.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 38 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
12.4
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or % RSD? (Check at least two values but
if errors arc found, check more.)
__
[ X ] __
ACTION; Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and note errors in data assessments.
13.0
GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VTO
13.1
Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form VII)
present and complete for the BNA fraction?
r X 1
13.2
Has a continuing calibration standard been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
analysis per instrument?
f X 1
ACTION: List below all sample analyses that
were not within twelve hours of a continuing
calibration analysis for each instrument used.
ACTION: If any forms are missing or no continuing
calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal. If continuing calibration
data are not available, flag all associated sample
data as unusable ("R").
TUT
OO2
Ib44
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 39 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
13.3
Do any semivolatile compounds have a % Difference
(%D) between the initial and continuing RRF which
exceeds + 25.0% criteria?
X
[_]
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: Qualify both positive results and
non-detects for the outlier compound(s) as
estimated (J). When %D is above 90%, reject
all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable.
13.4 Do any semivolatile compounds have a RRF < 0.05?
X
[_]
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION; If RRF <0.05, qualify as unusable (R)
associated non-detects and "J" associated positive
values.
13.5
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the
reporting of average response factors (RRF) or %
difference (%D) between initial and continuing
RRFs? (Check at least two values but if errors are
found, check more).
__
[ X ] __
ACTION; Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab fore
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 40 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
14.0
Internal Standards (Form VTTD
14. 1 Are the internal standard areas (Form Vffl) of every
sample and blank within the upper and lower limits
(-50% to + 100%) for each continuing calibration?
r X ]
ACTION; List all the outliers below.
Sample ft
Internal Std
Area Lower Limit Upper Limit
(Attach additional sheets if necessary).
ACTION:
1.
If the internal standard area count
is outside the upper or lower limit,
flag with "J" all positive results
and non-detects (U values) quantitated
with this internal standard.
2.
Non-detects associated with IS areas
> 100% should not be qualified.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 41 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
3.
If the IS area is below the lower limit
(<50%), qualify all associated non-detects
(U-values) "J". If extremely low area counts
are reported (< 25 %) or if performance exhibits
a major abrupt drop off, flag all associated
non-detects as unusable (R) >.
14.2
Are the retention times of the internal standards
within 30 seconds of the associated calibration
standard?
f XI __
ACTION; Professional judgement should be used to
qualify data if the retention times differ by more
than 30 seconds.
15.0
Field Duplicates
15.1
Were any field duplicates submitted for BNA
analysis?
\ XI __
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate the relative
percent difference.
ACTION; Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed in the
reviewer narrative. However, if large
differences exist, identification of
field duplicates should be confirmed by
contacting the sampler.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 42 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
PART C: FESTICIDE/PCB ANALYSIS
1.0
Traffic Reports aqfl Lflb, oratory Narrative
1.1
Are Traffic Report Forms present for all
samples?
ACTION: If no, contract lab for replacement of
missing or illegible copies.
1.2
Do the Traffic Reports or SDG Narrative indicate
any problems with sample receipt, condition of
the samples, analytical problems or special
circumstances affecting the quality of the data?
ACTION; If any sample analyzed as a soil, other
then TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data
should be qualified as estimated (J). If
a soil sample, other than TCLP, contains more
than 90% water, all data should be qualified as
unusable (R).
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at
the laboratory, flag all positive results "J"
and non-detects "UJ".
2.0
Holding Times
2.1
Have any PEST/PCB technical holding times,
determined from date of collection to date of
extraction, been exceeded?
Water and soil samples for PESTS/PCB analysis
must be extracted within 7 days of the date of
collection. Extracts must be analyzed within
40 days of the date extraction.
T U T
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 43 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION; If technical holding times are exceeded,
flag all positive results as estimated (J) and
sample quantitation limits (UJ) and document in the
narrative that holding times were exceeded. If
analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding
time, either on the first analysis or upon
re-analysis, the reviewer must use professional
judgement to determine the reliability of the data
and the effects of additional storage on the sample
results. At a minimum, all the data should at least
be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine
that non-detects are unusable (R).
3.0
Surrogate Recovery (Form ID
3.1
Are the PEST/PCB Surrogate Recovery Summaries
(Form n) present for each of the following
matrices?
a. Low Water
b. SoU
[__]
3.2
Are all the PEST/PCB samples listed on the
appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summary for
each of the following matrices?
a. Low Water
b. Soil
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals.
If missing deliverables are unavailable, document
effect in data assessments.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 44 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
3.3
Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk?
ACTION! Circle all outliers in red.
3.4
Were surrogate recoveries of TCX or DCB
outside of the contract specification for
any sample or blank? (60-150%)
ACTION: No qualification is done if
surrogates are diluted out. If recovery
for both surrogates is below the contract
limit, but above 10%, flag all results for
that sample "J". If recovery is < 10% for
either surrogate, qualify positive results
"J" and flag non-detects "R". If recovery
is above the contract advisory limits for
both surrogates qualify positive values
"J".
3.5
Were surrogate retention times (RT) within
the windows established during the initial
3-point analysis of individual Standard
Mixture A?
ACTION; If the RT limits are not met, the
analysis may be qualified unusable (R) for
that sample on the basis of professional
judgement.
3.6
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form n?
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal. Make any necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Tide: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 45 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
4.0
Matrix Spikes (Form TTT>
4.1
Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
Recovery Form (Form HI) present?
4.2
Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices?
(1 MS/MSD must be performed for every 20
samples of similar matrix or concentration
level)
a. Low Water
b. Soil
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing,
take the action specified in 3.2 above.
4.3
How may PEST/PCB spike recoveries arc outside QC
limits?
Water
Soil
___ out of 12
___
out of 12
4.4
How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
Soil
___ out of 6
___
out of 6
TUT
OO2
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 46 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone.
However, using informed professional judgement,
the data reviewer may use the matrix spike and
matrix spike duplicate results in conjunction
with other QC criteria and determine the need
for some qualification of the data.
5.0
Blanks fForm IV)
5.1
Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present?
5.2
Frequency of Analysis: For the analysis of
Pesticide/PCB TCL compounds, has a reagent/
method blank been analyzed for each SDG or
every 20 samples of similar matrix or
concentration or each extraction batch,
whichever is more frequent?
ACTION; If any blank data are missing, take
the action specified above in 3.2. If blank
data is not available, reject (R) all associated
positive data. However, using professional
judgement, the data reviewer may substitute field
blank data for missing method blank data.
5.3
Has a PEST/PCB instrument blank been analyzed at
the beginning of every 12 hr. period following
the initial calibration sequence? (minimum
contract requirement).
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 47 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTION: If any blank data are missing, call lab
for explanation/resubmittals. If missing
deliverables are unavailable, document the
effect in data assessments.
5.4
Chromatography: Review the blank raw data -
chromatograms, quant reports or data system
printouts.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable for
PEST/PCBs?
ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine
the effect on the data.
6.0
Contamination
NOTE: "Water blanks", "distilled water blanks" and
"drilling water blanks" are validated like any other
sample and are not used to qualify the data. Do not
confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below.
6.1
Do any method/instrument/reagent/cleanup blanks
have positive results for PEST/PCBs? When applied
as described below, the contaminant concentration
in these blanks are multiplied by the sample
Dilution Factor and corrected for % moisture when
necessary.
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 48 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
6.2
Do any field/rinse blanks have positive PEST/PCB
results?
__
ACTION; Prepare a list of the samples associated
with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a
separate sheet)
NOTE: All field blank results associated to a particular
group of samples (may exceed one per case or one per day)
may be used to qualify data. Blanks may not be qualified
because of contamination in another blank. Field blanks
must be qualified for surrogate, or calibration QC
problems.
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify TCL
results due to contamination. Use the largest value
from all the associated blanks.
Sample cone > CRQL
Sample cone < CRQL &
Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5 x blank
is < 5x blank value
& > 5 x blank value
Flag sample result
Report CRQL &
No qualification
with a "U"
qualify "U"
is needed
NOTE; If gross blank contamination exists, all
data in the associated samples should be qualified
as unusable (R).
6.3
Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated
with every sample?
TUT
0(>2 1554
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Oiganics Data Review
Page 49 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment
that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do
not have associated field blanks.
7.0
Calibration and GC Performance
7. 1
Are the following Gas Chromatograms and Data Systems
Printouts for both columns present for all samples,
blanks, MS/MSD?
a.
peak resolution check
b.
performance evaluation mixtures
c.
aroclor 101671260
d.
aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254
e.
toxaphene
f.
low points individual mixtures A & B
g.
med points individual mixtures A & B
h.
high points individual mixtures A & B
i.
instrument blanks
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
7.2
Are Forms VI - PEST 1-4 present and complete for each
column and each analytical sequence?
[ _ ] __
7.3
Are there any transcription/calculation errors between
raw data and Forms VI?
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page SO of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/
resubmittal, make necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
7.4
Do all standard retention times, including each
pesticide in each level of Individual Mixtures
A & B, fall within the windows established during
the initial calibration analytical sequence? (For
Initial Calibration Standards, Form VI - PEST - 1).
ACTION; If no, all samples in the entire analytical
sequence are potentially affected. Check to see if
the chromatograms contain peaks within an expanded
window surrounding the expected retention times.
If no peaks are found and the surrogates are visible,
non-detects are valid. If peaks are present and
cannot be identified through pattern recognition or
using a revised RT window, qualify all positive
results and non-detects as unusable (R).
For aroclors, RT may be outside the RT window,
but the aroclor may still be identified from the
individual pattern.
7.5
Are the linearity criteria for the initial analyses
of Individual Standards A & B within limits for both
columns? (%RSD must be < 20.0% for all analytes except
for the 2 surrogates, which must not exceed 30.0 % RSD).
See Form VI PEST - 2.
ACTION; If no, qualify all associated positive results
generated during the entire analytical sequence "J"
and all non-detects "UJ".
When RSD > 90% flag all non-
detect results for that analyte R (unusable).
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 51 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
7.6
Is the resolution between any two adjacent peaks in
the Resolution Check Mixture > 60.0%
for both columns?
(Form VI-PEST-4).
ACTION! If no, positive results for compounds that
were not adequately resolved should be qualified
"J".
Use professional judgement to determine if
non-detects which elute in areas affected by
co-eluting peaks should be qualified "N" as
presumptive evidence of presence or unusable (R).
7.7
Is Form vn - Pest-1 present and complete for each
Performance Evaluation Mixture analyzed during the
analytical sequence for both columns?
[_]
__
ACTION: If no, take action as specified in
3.2 above.
7.8
Has the individual % breakdown exceeded 20.0%
on either column.
_
- for 4,4' - DOT?
_
[__]
- for endrin?
_
Has the combined % breakdown for 4,4' - DOT/
Endrin exceeded 30.0% on either column?
_
(required in all instances)
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 52 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTJQN:
If any % breakdown has failed the QC criteria
in either PEM in steps 2 and 17 in the initial
calibration sequence (p. D-38/Pest SOW 3/90),
qualify all sample analyses in die entire
analytical sequence as described below.
If any % breakdown has failed the QC criteria
in a PEM Verification calibration, review data
beginning with the samples which followed the
last in-control standard until the next
acceptable PEM & qualify the data as described
below.
4,4' - DDT Breakdown: If 4,4' - DDT breakdown
is greater than 20.%:
i.
Qualify all positive results for DDT with "J".
If DDT was not detected, but DDD and DDE are
positive, then qualify the quantitation limit
for DDT as unusable (R).
ii.
Qualify positive results for DDD and/or
DDE as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
Endrin Breakdown: If endrin breakdown is
greater than 20.0%:
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page S3 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
i.
Qualify all positive results for endrin
with "I". If endrin was not detected,
but endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone are
positive, then qualify the quantitation
limit for endrin as unusable (R).
ii.
Qualify positive results for endrin ketone and
endrin aldehyde as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
c.
Combined Breakdown: If the combined 4,4' - DDT and
endrin breakdown is greater then 30.0%.
i.
Qualify all positive results for DDT and
endrin with "J". If endrin was not detected,
but positive aldehyde and endrin ketone are
positive, then qualify the quantitation
limit for endrin as unusable (R). If DDT
was not detected, but DDD and DDE are positive,
then qualify the quantitation limit for DDT
as unusable (R).
ii.
Qualify positive results for endrin ketone
and endrin aldehyde as presumptively present
at an approximated quantity (NJ).
Qualify
positive results for DDD and/or DDE as
presumptively present at an approximated
quantity (NJ).
7.9
Are the relative percent difference (RPD) values for
all PEM analytes <25.0% (Form VU-PEST-1)
i'UT
OO2
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Tide: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 54 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION! If no, qualify all associated positive
results generated during the analytical sequence
"J" and sample quantitation limits "UJ".
NOTE; If the failing PEM is part of the initial
calibration. All samples are potentially
affected. If the offending standard is a
verification calibration, the associated
samples are those which followed the last
in-control standard until the next passing
standard.
7.10
Have all samples been injected within a 12 hour
period beginning with the injection of an
instrument Blank?
7.11
Is Form Vn - Pest-2 present and complete for
INDA and INDB Verification Calibration
analyzed?
[_] __
7.12
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form Vn - Pest - 2?
ACTION; If large errors exists, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments. Under "Conclusions".
7.13
Do all standard retention times for each INDA
and INDB Verification Calibration fall within
the windows established by the initial
calibration sequence?
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 55 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
7.14
Are RPD values for all verification calibration
standard compounds < 25.0%?
ACTION: If the RPD is >25.0% for the compound
being quantitated, qualify all associated
positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ".
The
"associated samples" are those which followed
the last in-control standard up to the next
passing standard containing the analyte which
failed the criteria. If the RPD is >90%,
flag
all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable).
8.0
Analytical Sequence Check (Form VIII-PEST)
8.1
Is Form Vm present and complete for each
column and each period of analyses?
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2
above.
8.2
Was the proper analytical sequence followed for
each initial calibration and subsequent analyses?
(See CLP SOW p. D-39
& D-41/PEST)
ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to
determine the severity of the effect on the
data and qualify it accordingly. Generally,
the effect is negligible unless the sequence
was grossly altered or the calibration was also
out of limits.
9.0
Cleanup Efficiency Verification (Form IX)
9.1
Is From DC - Pest-1 Pest-1 present and complete for
each lot of Florisil Cartridges used? (Florisil
Cleanup is required for all Pest/PCB extracts.)
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Tide: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 56 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
ACTIONt If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
If data suggests that florisil cleanup was not
performed, make note in "Contract Problems/Non-
Compliance".
9.2
Are all samples listed on the Pesticide Florisil
Cartridge Check Form?
[_] __
__
9.3
If GPC Cleanup was performed, (mandatory for all
soil sample extracts) is Form DC - Pest-2 present?
ACTION! If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION! If GPC was not performed when required,
make note in" Contract Problems/Non-Compliance"
section of data assessment.
9.4
Are percent recoveries (% R) of the pesticide and
surrogate compounds used to check the efficiency
of the cleanup procedures within QC limits:
80-120% for florisil cartridge check?
80-110% for GPC calibration?
Qualify only the analyte(s) which fail the recovery
criteria as follows:
ACTION: If a R are < 80%, qualify positive results "J*
and quantitation limits "UJ". Non-detects should be
qualified "R" if zero %R was obtained for pesticide
compounds. Use professional judgement to qualify
positive results if recoveries are greater than the
upper limit.
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 57 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
NOTE; Sample data should be evaluated for potential
interferences if recovery 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was
> 5% in the Florisil Cartridge Performance Check
analysis. Make note in Contract Problems/Non-
Compliance section of reviewer narrative.
NOTE: The raw data of the GPC Calibration Check
analysis is evaluated for pattern similarity with
previously run Aroclor standards.
10.0
Pesticide/PCB Identification
10.1
Is Form X complete for every sample in which a
pesticide or PCB was detected?
[_]
__
__
10.2
Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Forms 6E, 6G, 7E, 7D, 8D,
9A, B, 10A.
ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make necessary
corrections and not error under "Conclusions".
10.3
Are retention times (RT) of sample compounds
within the established RT windows for both
analyses?
Was GC/MS confirmation provided when required
(when compound concentration is > 10 ug/ml
in final extract)?
ACTION: Use professional judgement to qualify
positive results which were not confirmed by
GC/MS. Qualify as unusable (R) all positive
results which were not confirmed by second
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 58 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
YES NO
N/A
GC column analysis. Also qualify as unusable
(R) all positive results not meeting RT window
unless associated standard compounds are similarly
biased. (See Functional Guidelines). The reviewer
should use professional judgement to assign an
appropriate quantitation limit.
10.4
Is the percent difference (% D) calculated for the
positive sample results on the two GC columns
< 25.0%?
ACTION: If the reviewer finds neither column
shows interference for the positive hits, the
data should be ragged as follows:
% Difference Qualifier
25-50 %
J
50-90%
JN
> 90 %
R
NOTE: The lower of the two values is reported on
Form I. If using professional judgement, the
reviewer determines that the higher results was
more acceptable, the reviewer should replace the
value and indicate the reason for the change in
the data assessment.
10.5
Check chromatograms for false negatives, especially
the multiple peak compounds toxaphene and PCBs.
Were there any false negatives?
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 59 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION: Use professional judgement to decide if
the compound should be reported. If the appropriate
PCS standards were not analyzed, qualify the data
unusable (R).
11.0
Compound Ouantitation and Reported Detection. |,rimtts
11.1
Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive
values. Were any errors found?
NOTE; Single-peak pesticide results can be checked
for rough agreement between quantitative results
obtained on the two GC columns. The reviewer should
use professional judgement to decide whether a much
larger concentration obtained on one column versus
the other indicates the presence of an interfering
compound. If an interfering compound is indicated,
the lower of the two values should be reported and
qualified as presumptively present at an approximated
quantity (NJ). This necessitates a determination of
an estimated concentration on the confirmation column.
The narrative should indicate that the presence of
interferences has interfered with the evaluation of
the second column confirmation.
11.2
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions
and, for soils, % moisture?
ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary
corrections and document effect in data
assessments.
71 r
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
and Preliminary Review
Page 60 of 61
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than
one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless
a QC exceedance dictates the use of higher CRQL
data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace
concentrations that exceed the calibration range
in the original analysis by crossing out the "E"
value on the original Form I and substituting it
with data from the analysis of diluted sample.
Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw
a red "X" across the entire page of all Form I's
that should not be used, including any in the
summary package.
ACTION: Quantitation limits effected by large,
off-scale peaks should be qualified as unusable
(R). If the interference is on-scale, the reviewer
can provide an approximated quantitation limit (UJ)
for each affected compound.
12.0
Chromatogram Quality
12.1 Were baselines stable?
12.2 Were any electropositive displacement (negative
peaks) or unusual peaks seen?
ACTION: Address comments under System Performance
of data assessment.
13.0
Field Duplicates
13.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for PEST/PCB
analysis?
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: CLP Organics Data Review
Page 61 of 61
and Preliminary Review
Date: January 1992
Number HW-6
Revision: 8
NO
N/A
ACTION: Compare the reported results for field
duplicates and calculate the relative percent
difference.
ACTIONt Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed in the
reviewer narrative. However, if large
differences exist, identification of field
duplicates should be confirmed by contacting
the sampler.
PR01301-D3/1022oiB.dtt
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
TOTAL REVIEW
CLP DATA ASSESSMENT
Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis
Case No. - SDG No. 22507. 22570. 22595. 22688. 22712. 22793. 22932. 23021. 23024.
23144. 23396. 23421. 23448. 23506. 23622. 23623. 23663. 23697. 23750. 23799. 23833.
23938. 24008. 24122
LABORATORY Enseco - East
SITE Tutu Service Station Investigation
DATA ASSESSMENT:
The current functional guidelines (USEPA February 1988)
for evaluating organic data
have been applied.
All data are valid and acceptable except those analytes which have been qualified with
a "J" (estimated), "U" (undetected), "R" (unusable), or "JN"
(presumptive evidence for the
presence of the material at an estimated value). All action is detailed on the attached sheets.
Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" flag means that the associated
value is unusable and rejected. In other words, due to significant QC problems the analysis is
invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not.
"R" values
should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The
second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC
tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data but any value
potentially contains some error.
Reviewer's
Signature:
Verified bv: */&&»++ I/. ^o^^J^y^ ___________ Date: 5" /a// 19 ^3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-2
1.
HOLDING TIME
The amount of an analyte in a sample can change with time due to chemical instability,
degradation, volatilization, etc. If the specified holding time is exceeded, the data may not be
valid. Those analytes detected in the samples whose holding time has been exceeded are
qualified as estimated (J). The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) are qualified as estimated
(J), unless the holding times are grossly exceeded (over one week beyond maximum holding
time), in which case the associated data are unusable and rejected (R).
The following action was taken in the samples and analytes shown due to excessive
holding time:
Volatile Organk Compounds
The volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis of soil sample MW-4D was performed one
day outside of the required 10-day holding time. All detected VOC analytes were qualified as
estimated (J). Any VOC analyte not detected in this sample was qualified as unusable and
rejected (R).
Semivolatile Organk Compounds
The extraction of soil sample MW-5 was initiated one day outside of the prescribed seven-
day holding time for solid matrices. Since the preparation holding time was minimally exceeded,
the base neutral and acid-extractable (SNA) compounds in the sample were qualified as
estimated if detected (J) or qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) if not detected.
The holding times for the initial extraction {preparation) of surface soils 55-3, SS-4, and
SS-6 were exceeded by greater than 21 days. Additionally, sample 55-3 was re-extracted 35
days after sample collection; data for the reanalysis (RE) of this sample was reported under
sample identification (ID) 55-3 RE in accordance with the organic statement of work (SOW).
Since the preparation holding times for samples 55-3, 55-3 RE, SS-4, and SS-6 were grossly
exceeded, all BNA data for these samples were qualified unusable and rejected.
All other extractions and instrumental analyses were performed within the prescribed
holding times. A summary of holding time outliers is provided in Table 13-2.
2.
BLANK CONTAMINATION
Quality assurance (QA) blanks, i.e., method, trip, field, rinse and water blanks are
prepared to identify any contamination which may have been introduced into the samples during
sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Trip
blanks measure cross-contamination of samples during shipment. Field blanks measure cross-
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-3
contamination of samples during field operations. If the concentration of the analyte is less than
five tiroes the blank contaminant level (ten times for the common contaminants), the analytes are
negated and qualified as undetected, "U".
A summary of all contaminants detected in the method, field, and trip blanks associated
with the VOC, BNA, and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analyses of the soil samples is
presented in Table 13-3. Additionally, the table summarizes the sample delivery groups (SDGs)
and the soil samples that are associated and would be qualified, if appropriate, using the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region II validation guidelines.
Sample
qualifications were assessed using the following guidelines:
•
If the sample concentration was less than five times (< 5x) the blank contaminant
level (or less than ten times [< Ifajfor the common laboratory contaminants) and
less than the quantitation limit, the analyte was negated, the sample result was
raised to the quantitation limit, and qualified as not detected (U).
•
If the sample concentration was <5x the blank contaminant level (or <10xfor
the common laboratory contaminants), but greater than the quantitation limit, the
analyte was negated and qualified as not detected (U) at the reported
concentration level.
•
If the sample concentration was greater than five times (5x for ten times (IQx)for
the common laboratory contaminants]) and greater than the quantitation limit, no
qualification for blank contamination was assessed. In this instance, the B
qualifier, applied by the laboratory for concurrent method blank contamination,
was retained.
•
Method blanks were evaluated and the contaminants detected in them were used
to assess all associated samples with the exception of the trip and/or field blanks.
Trip and/or field blanks were used in the assessment of associated soil samples
and were not used in the evaluation of each other. The highest contaminant level
for an analyte from all of the associated blanks (method, trip, or field) was used
in the determination of the 5x (or IQx) window for blank negation.
•
Tentatively-identified compounds (TICs) and unknowns of similar retention times
(RT) were evaluated using the 5x multiplier of the highest-concentration,
associated blank contaminant. In those instances where blank contamination was
determined to be present, the TIC or unknown were rejected, qualified *R", and
subsequently, not reported on the data summaries.
Table 13-4 summarizes all analyte sample-result qualifications for each soil sample for
which the sample result and sample qualifier were changed due to suspected blank
contamination. Only those samples and analytes that were qualified in some manner due to this
criterion are summarized.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-4
With the exception of two volatile organic unknowns detected and subsequently rejected,
in samples B-4 and B-6, only acetone and methylene chloride were negated in any volatile
sample analysis due to contamination detected in one or more of the associated method, trip, or
field blanks. Most blanks were reported to primarily contain estimated concentrations of these
two common laboratory and field solvents. Carbon disidfide was detected in several field blanks
and one trip blank, however, the source of this contamination was not determined. In addition
to the contaminants noted above, the following were detected in one or more of the associated
blanks: chloroform, methyl acetate and, two VOC unknowns at approximate retention times of
27.3 and 32.1 minutes.
The aqueous sample identified as WAPA was collected from the water source used by the
sampling team to decontaminate field and sampling equipment. The WAPA blank was collected
from a tap originating from the local water utility company and contained low-level, estimated
concentrations of the typical volatile disinfection by-products present in water that has been
chlorinated. These include the trihalomethanes, such as chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and
dibromochloromethane all of which were detected at low levels in the WAPA sample. As none
of these contaminants were found in any other sample, the presence of these contaminants in the
field decontamination water is considered inconsequential to the remainder of the samples.
In the analysis of semivolatile compounds, several target compound list (TCL) phthalate
compounds were reported in the method and field blanks. Similar phthalate compounds were
reported in many of the soil samples, but their presence was attributed in almost all instances
due to contamination introduced in the laboratory environment.
Aldol-condensation products, generated by the laboratory during the sample preparation
process, were reported as semivolatile TICs in several method and field blanks and most, if not
all, soil samples. These compounds were rejected in the TIC results and will not be reported
as semivolatile TICs.
One volatile target compound, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, was reported as a TIC in the
semivolatiles analysis of several samples. Since this VOC was analyzed and quantitated in the
volatiles analysis, the estimated sample results for this VOC was rejected in the semivolatiles TIC
analysis, qualified "R", and will not be reported as a semivolatile TIC. Tetrachloroethene was
rejected from the semivolatiles analysis in the following samples: B-10, B-ll, B-12, B-13,
andMW-4.
Several occurrences of unknowns and unknown amides were detected in the blanks and
subsequently, negated in many of the soil samples.
The origin of these, particularly in
laboratory semivolatile method blanks, was not determined.
In the evaluation of TPH data in the soil samples, all method and field blanks with the
exception of the field blank collected on June 30,1992 (FB063092), were reported to be free of
contamination. Sample MW-1 was associated with FB063092, however, qualification of the MW-
GERAGHTY & MlLLER. INC
' " "
/J-
11-5
1 sample result was not required since the TPH level detected in the sample "was significantly
greater than that reported in the associated field blank.
3.
MASS SPECTROMETER TUNING
Tuning and performance criteria are established to ensure adequate mass resolution,
proper compound identification, and to some degree, sufficient instrument sensitivity. These
criteria are not sample specific. Instrument performance is determined using standard materials.
Therefore, these criteria should be met in all circumstances. The tuning standard for VOCs is
bromofluorobenzene (BFB).
If the mass calibration is in error, all associated data will be classified as unusable, "R".
All mass calibrations associated with the VOC and BNA analyses for these SDGs have
met the quality control (QC) criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound
identification, and instrument response.
4.
CALIBRATION
Satisfactory instrument calibration is established to ensure that the instrument is capable
of producing acceptable quantitative data. An initial calibration demonstrates that the instrument
is capable of giving acceptable performance at the beginning of an analytical sequence. The
continuing calibrations document that the instrument is giving satisfactory daily performance.
A)
RESPONSE FACTOR:
The response factor measures the instrument's response to specific chemical compounds.
The response factor for the TCL must be _>_ 0.05 (a ratio of areas) in both the initial and
continuing calibrations. A value < 0.05 indicates a serious detection and quantitation problem
(poor sensitivity). Analytes detected in the sample will be qualified as estimated, "J". All non-
detects for that compound will be rejected ("R").
In the analysis of VOCs for all SDGs, the response factors for all of the TCL and site-
specific
VOCs in the initial calibration verifications
(ICVs) and continuing calibration
verifications (CCVs) were greater than the 0.05 minimum limit. The VOC calibration checks
demonstrated that the instruments displayed sufficient sensitivity in order to accurately quantitate
VOCs in all samples. Subsequently, no sample qualifications to VOC sample data were required
on the basis of this criteria.
With the exception of one anafyte in the BNA CCV (File ID P9675) analyzed on October
7, 1992 on the semivolatiles instrument identified as HP-S2, the response factors for all other
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-6
CCVs and ICVs associated with semivolatile analyses were greater than 0.05.
In the CCV
analyzed on October 7,1992 noted above, 2,4-dinitrophenol was reported with a response factor
of 0.044 which is below 0.05 based on a ratio of peak areas. The data far 2,4-dinitrophenol
in sample SS-6 and the soil method blank SMB-25SEP92A associated with this CCV were
rejected.
Since att of the BNA data for sample SS-6 were previously rejected on the basis of
exceeded holding time, only the method blank SMB-25SEP92A data for 2,4-dinitrophenol was
rejected and qualified (R).
Two individual gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric (GC/MS) instruments were
utilized for the VOC analyses of the SDGs. Att soil samples were analyzed using the protocols
required far analysis of low-level concentration samples. Separate initial calibrations were
performed for the aqueous field and trip blank analyses and the low-concentration soil samples.
With the exception of two initial calibration curves established on June 11, 1992 and July 9,
1992 far the quantitation of the site-specific VOCs, oil other low-level soil CCV standards,
blanks, and soil samples were analyzed on the GC/MS using the heated-purge mode on the
purging apparatus. Since the response factors and other calibration QC criteria of the site-
specific CCVs associated with these ICVs were acceptable aside from some minor QC
deficiencies far precision (i.e., percent difference [%D]), no sample qualifications were assessed
for this contractual non-compliance.
Three GC/MS instruments were used for the analysis ofBNAs in the SDGs. In total, 11
ICVs and 37 CCV standard analyses were required during the period of analysis for the SDGs.
With the exception of one anafyte in the BNA CCV previously discussed, all of the instruments
utilized displayed the required minimum sensitivity determined from the calculated response
factor for each standard and TCL constituent.
5.
CALIBRATION
A)
PERCENT RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION AND PERCENT
DIFFERENCE:
Percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) is calculated from the initial calibration and
is used to indicate the stability of the specific compound response factor over increasing
concentration.
Percent difference (%D)
compares the response factor of the continuing
calibration check to the average response factor (RRF)
from the initial calibration. Percent D
is a measure of the instrument's daily performance. Percent RSD must be < 30% and %D must
be < 25 %. A value outside of these limits indicates potential detection and quantitation errors.
For these reasons, all positive results are flagged as estimated, "J", and non-detects are flagged
"UJ"
(if %D or RSD > 50%).
If there is a gross deviation (i.e.
> 90%)
of %RSD
and %D,
the non-detects may be rejected (R).
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-7
Volatile Organic Compounds
In the review of VOC calibration data, precision outliers were found far both percent
relative standard deviation (%RSD) in the ICVs and far percent difference
(%D) for
associated CCVs.
A complete summary of all outlier ICVs and CCVs for VOC analyses and the associated
samples qualified due to the QC exceedances are summarized in Table 13-5. Positive sample
results for those anafytes far which the %RSD exceeded plus or minus (±) 30 percent or in
which the %D in the associated CCV exceeded ± 25 percent were qualified as estimated (J).
Non-detect sample results for anafytes in CCVs with %D greater than 25 percent, but less than
90 percent were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). For those anafytes with
%D greater than 90 percent, non-detect sample results were rejected.
When appropriate,
qualifications were applied to all blanks (method, field, and trip); other QC samples, such as
matrix spikes (MS) and matrix spike duplicates (MSD); and to all associated soil samples, their
dilution analyses, and reanafyses.
Qualifications to VOC sample results due to calibration issues were as follows;
•
Three ICVs far site-specific VOCs were analyzed and were associated with all
sample analyses for the SDGs. The %RSD for n-propylbenzene in two of the
three ICVs and far methyl tertiary butyl ether in one ICV were greater than
±30 percent, but less than ±90 percent. Since most of the soil and QC sample
data for these two anafytes were associated with these ICVs, most of the sample
results for positive and non-detects for these two compounds were qualified as
estimated due to calibration. All ICVs for TCL constituents were reported with
%RSD less than or equal to ±30 percent.
•
A total of 19 CCVs far TCL analysis and eight CCVs for analysis of site-specific
VOCs out of a total of 33 CCV standard analyses were found to have calibration
outliers outside the ±25 %D limit. The compounds that were found to have %D
exceedances were primarily either (1) an anafytefrom the class ofketones (2) an
earfy-eluting VOC, such as chloromethane, chhroethane, bromomethane, and
vinyl chloride, or (3) a common laboratory contaminant (acetone and methylene
chloride). In all cases, %D was not exceeded by greater than 57.8percent and
was generally within ±35 percent.
•
The following VOCs were reported with exceeded %D in one or more of the
CCVs:
acetone, bromomethane, 2-butanone, carbon disulfide,
carbon
tetrachloride,
chloroethane,
chloromethane,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-
dichloroethane-d4, 2-hexanone, methylene chloride, methyl tertiary butyl either,
4-methyl-2-pentanone, n-propylbenzene, and vinyl chloride.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-8
In
a
number
of
CCVs,
a
volatile system
monitoring
compound
(SMC [l,2-dichloroeihane-d4]) was reported with %D greater than ± percent.
SMCs are added to volatile samples to monitor the analytical efficiency of the
method in the sample matrix.
Semivolatile Organk Compounds
Calibration criteria for %RSD and %D was exceeded in seven of the eight ICVs and 36
of the 37 associated BNA CCVs. A summary of all SNA calibration outliers and associated
samples is provided in Table 13-6.
Qualifications to BNA sample results due to calibration issues were as follows:
•
In seven of the BNA ICVs associated with the SDGsfor the soil investigation that
had exceeded criteria, %RSD was exceeded for hexachlorocyclopentadiene in four
ICVs, 3,3'-dichlorobenddine in two ICVs; benzo(k)fluoranihene in three ICVs;
and 2,4-dinitrophenol and 3-nitroaniline in one ICV each. In all cases, %RSD
was no greater than 52.2 percent.
•
For the majority of the anafytes in the BNA ICVs and CCVs for which %KSD and
%D were greater than 30 and 25 percent, respectively, the precision outliers
deviated generally no greater than 50 percent. A total of six calibration outliers
were reported to be greater than 50 percent and less than 90 percent. In all of
these instances, both positive and non-detect sample data were estimated and
qualified (J).
•
Two CCVs, analyzed on June 16 and 17, 1992 on instrument HP-S5, were
reported with %D greater than 90 percent for 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine.
In
accordance
with the validation guidelines, the non-detect data for
3,3'-dichlorobenzJdine in the samples associated with these CCVs were qualified
as unusable and rejected (R). The 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine results were rejected
in the following samples: soil samples B-4, MW-1D, and MW-4D; field blanks
FB060492, FB060592, and FB060992; water method blanks WB-10JUN92C and
WB-11JUN92B; and soil method blanks SB-10JUN92C and SB-12JUN92B.
•
In several BNA CCVs, the %D of2,4,6-tribromophenol or 2-fluorophenol were
greater than ±25percent. These compounds are BNA surrogates used to monitor
the extraction efficiency of the method in the sample matrix. The %Dfor 2,4,6-
tribromophenol in which the %D was outside of the required criteria (±25
percent) ranged from -42.6 to 34.5 in ten individual CCVs.
The %D for 2-
fluorophenol was outside the required window in five CCVs and ranged from
-25.9 to -35.8. Although the recovery valves for these two surrogates were
estimated in all samples associated with the CCVs, since most surrogate
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-9
recoveries in the soil and QC samples were within the acceptance windows, no
additional sample result qualifications were assessed based on the surrogate
calibration outliers.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The CCVs in the TPH analyses were evaluated to determine If the precision of calibration
was adequate far accurate, quantitative analysis of the samples. Most of the CCVs were
reported with less than 10%D calculated from the initial calibration curve and all were less than
15 %D. Although no strict criteria was established for the evaluation of this criterion for TPH
analyses, it is the data reviewer's determination that an acceptable level of calibration precision
was exhibited for the analyses associated with this parameter.
6.
SURROGATES
All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds prior to sample preparation to evaluate
overall laboratory performance and efficiency of the analytical technique. If the measured
surrogate concentrations were outside contract specifications, qualifications were applied to the
samples and analytes as shown below.
Volatile Organk Compounds
In the initial analysis of sample WAPA, the SMC recovery oftoluene-dB was below the
QC Unit (88 percent), but above 10percent. The sample was reanalyzed and in the reanalysis
the toluene-dS was again found to be below the QC limit, but above 10 percent. Additionally,
in the reanalysis, 1,2-dichloroethane -d4 was found to be minimally above the limit for this SMC
(114 percent), however, this outlier was regarded as an isolated occurrence since the initial
recovery was within the prescribed acceptance window. The constituents detected in WAPA
were already qualified by the laboratory as estimated (J) concentrations since they were detected
below the sample quantitation limit. The non-detects in this sample were qualified as estimated
detection limits (UJ) based on the low SMC recovery in accordance with the validation
guidelines.
The recovery values for 1,2-dichloromethane-d4 and bromofluorobenzene in the initial
analysis of samples B-ll were above the QC limits for both SMCs. The sample was reanalyzed
and similar recovery values were calculated for both SMCs again. Since the SMC recoveries
were above the upper limit for each SMC, qualifications of the sample results for B-ll were not
required.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-10
Scmivolatik Organk Compounds
The surrogate recovery value for 2-fluorophenol was below the lower acceptance limit
(25percent), but greater titan 10percent, in sample B-6. The sample was not reanalyzed and/or
qualified during data review since only one surrogate in the acid-extractable fraction was outside
of the acceptance window.
In SDG 24122, the laboratory documented out-of-timit initial surrogate recoveries in the
sample data package narrative for sample 55-5.
This sample was re-extracted and although
acceptable surrogate recovery results were achieved in the reanafysis, the sample data has been
rejected as previously noted on the basis of exceeded holding time in the second extraction.
Both the initial extraction of sample SS-3 and the re-extraction of this sample resulted in
poor surrogate recoveries for 2-fluorophenol. However, since both of the BNA extractions were
performed at a minimum of 29 days past sample collection, and the sample data was rejected
already on this basis, no additional discussion of sample qualification based on outlier surrogate
recoveries is provided.
1.
INTERNAL STANDARDS PERFORMANCE
Internal standard (IS) performance criteria ensure that the GC/MS sensitivity and
response are stable during every analytical run. The internal standard area count must not vary
by more than a factor of two (-50% to +100%) from the associated continuing calibration
standard. The retention time of the internal standard must not vary by more than +_ 30 seconds
from the associated continuing calibration standard. If the area count is outside the (-50% to
+100%) range of the associated standard, all of the positive results for compounds quantitated
using that IS are qualified as estimated (J), and all non-detects as estimated at the reporting limit
(UJ), or unusable and rejected (R), if there is a severe loss of sensitivity.
If an internal standard retention time varies by more than 30 seconds, the reviewer will
use professional judgement to determine either partial or total rejection of the data for that
sample fraction.
The IS performance criteria were within the QC limits established for peak area counts
and retention time for all VOC and BNA analyses. Sample qualifications were not required for
any soil or QC sample on the basis of these criteria not being satisfied.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-11
8.
COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION
A)
VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE FRACTIONS
TCL compounds are identified on the GC/MS by using the analyte's relative retention
time (RRT) and by comparison to the ion spectra obtained from known standards. For the
results to be a positive hit, the sample peak must be within ± 0.06 RRT units of the standard
compound and have an ion spectra which has a ratio of the primary and secondary m/e
intensities within 20% of that in the standard compound. For the tentatively identified
compounds (TICs), the ion spectra must match accurately. In the cases where there is not an
adequate ion spectrum match, the laboratory may have provided false positive identifications.
Xylenes (total) were detected in samples MW-14 and SS-3. The retention time of this
target anafyte in the quantitation reports did not match the retention time in the associated
standard quantitation reports because the isomer used in the standard solution was a different
isomer than that detected in the samples. Sample data for xylenes were not qualified based on
retention time in these samples.
9.
MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE
The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) data are generated to determine the long-
term precision and accuracy of the analytical method in various matrices. The MS/MSD may
be used in conjunction with other QC criteria for some additional qualification of the data.
Matrix precision and accuracy of the VOC, BNA, and TPH methodologies for these SDGs
were determined by performing MS and matrix spike duplicate MSD analyses on samples B-8
and B-16. With the exception of the pentachlorophenol (PCP) recoveries in the BNA MS and
MSD analyses of sample B-16, all other recoveries for these samples in the noted parameters
recovered within the required method acceptance limits and/or those that were established in the
site quality assurance project plan. No action was taken based on the recoveries of the PCP in
the MS and MSD analyses of sample B-16 since (1) the recoveries for this spike compound were
both slightly higher than the established upper control limit, and (2) PCP was not detected in
any of the soil or QC samples of these SDGs.
10.
OTHER QC DATA OUT OF SPECIFICATION
A)
Sample Disposition
All of the volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials for the field blanks collected on July 21,,
1992 (FB072192) and August 14, 1992 (FBQ&1492), and the trip blank collected on August 14,
1992 (TBOB1492) were received by the laboratory containing air bubbles and headspace. All
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-12
positive results far these samples wen qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were
qualified as unusable and rejected (R).
Based on the review of SDG case narratives and chain-of-custody
records, no other
apparent sample-disposition anomalies were found that could not be resolved immediately.
Although other aqueous QC samples were received with headspace, at least one intact VOA vial
was received for each sample by the laboratory free of headspace.
B)
Field Replicates
Five soil sample/field-replicate pairs were collected and evaluated to determine overall
field and sample precision for the SDGs. A summary of field-replicate sample pair results is
provided in Table 13-7for each of the samples in which an anafyte was detected in at least one
sample of the sample pair. The field-replicate sample pairs collected for the SDGs were
identified as follows:
Corresponding
Field Replicate (FR)
Sample ID
Field Replicate ID
Report Identifier
B-8
MW-101
B-8 FR (MW-101)
B-14
MW-103
B-14 FR (MW-103)
MW-2
MW-102
MW-2 FR (MW-102)
MW-7
MW-100
MW-7 FR (MW-100)
SS-6
SS-7
SS-6 FR
Relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated for anafytes of field-replicate sample
pairs when detectable results above the contract required detection limit (CRDL) in both samples
were reported. An evaluation of RPD was not provided if (1) one sample of the field-replicate
pair reported estimated concentrations for an anafyte, or (2) if no reportable quantity was found.
RPD was evaluated against a limit of 20 percent, and RPDs less than and equal to 20 percent
demonstrated reasonable precision between sample results.
In sample/field-replicate
pair B-8/MW-101, all detected constituents were reported at
either estimated concentrations below the CRDL in one or both samples, or above the CRDL in
one sample only. The sample matrix for B-8 appears to be free of significant contamination and
homogeneous.
In the volatile analyses of sample/field-replicate
pair B-14 and MW-103,
tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in both samples at 72 and 100 micrograms per kilogram
(ug/kg), respectively.
The calculated RPD for PCE was 32.5 percent. Since the RPD was
greater than 20 percent, the results PCE in both these samples were qualified as estimated (J).
In this same sample/field-replicate
pair, the calculated RPD for the TPH parameter was 127
percent. Since the RPD indicates that the sample results are disparate and may not accurately
reflect the true TPH concentration, both TPH results were estimated in the samples.
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-13
The RPDfor replicate analysis ofTPH in sample/field-replicate pair MW-2/MW-102 was
26 percent, which is above 20 percent. The TPH sample results were estimated (J) to indicate
that variable precision exists between sample results.
Methylene chloride was detected in sample/field-repticate pair MW-7/MW-100 with an
RPD of 40 percent. Although these results were not negated following the validation guidelines
for blank contamination, the sample results remain as reported since methylene chloride is not
a site-specific analyte of concern and it is believed that their presence in these samples was still
a result of contamination with commonty-used laboratory solvents. No qualification based on
the assessment of replicate precision was made for Ms reason.
In sample/field-replicate pair SS-6/SS-7 (SS-6FR), methylene chloride was detected in
both samples at 22 and 20 ug/kg, respectively.
The calculated RPD was 9.5 percent, and
therefore, adequate precision was achieved. BNA results for sample SS-6 were rejected due to
holding time exceedances. Therefore, no RPDs were calculated for the BNA fraction for this
sample/field-replicate pair.
11.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and demonstrate
acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness. There are no indications that the instrument
performance has degraded to a point that would affect the quality of the data for these SDGs.
No abrupt shifts occurred in the chromatographic baselines in the VOC and BNA analyses and
minimal baseline drift was observed. The majority of the data for the VOC and BNA analyses
and all of the data for the TPH analyses are valid with the following qualifications.
•
In the analysis of VOCs in MW-4D and the BNA analysis ofMW-5, the holding
times were exceeded by one day. The respective data in each of these was
flagged as estimated (J or UJ) on the basis of holding time.
•
The BNA holding times were grossly exceeded in the analysis of samples SS-3 and
its reanafysis, SS-4, and SS-6.
The BNA data for each of these were rejected in
total.
•
Data derived from dilution analyses for VOC or BNA analytes found to be above
the linear range in the initial analysis were incorporated into the Form I data
summary forms from the initial analysis or the more concentrated analysis (i.e.,
less diluted). The data from the dilution analyses for all parameters were flagged
"D* to indicate data originating from a secondary dilution.
•
Most volatile organic SMC recoveries and the surrogate recoveries for BNA
analyses were all within the appropriate acceptance windows for most soil and
QC samples. Exceptions to the above were noted in the volatiles analysis of
CV30
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-14
samples WAPA and B-ll, and the SNA analyses ofB-6, 55-6, and SS-3 (and its
reanafysis).
The sample data for these analytical fractions were qualified, when
appropriate, based on tite SMC and/or surrogate recoveries with the exception of
the SNA analyses of SS-3 (and its reanafysis) and 55-6. Qualification of the BNA
data in samples SS-3, SS-3RE, and 55-6 based on surrogate recovery was not
performed since the BNA analysis holding times for these samples had previously
required the rejection of the BNA data in the samples.
With one exception, the recovery values of the MS and MSD analyses of samples
B-8 and B-16 were all within the prescribed organic protocol acceptance limits.
The two outlier PCP recoveries in sample B-16 did not adversely affect the PCP
data in this or any other SDG sample since the MS/MSD results for sample B-16
indicated that results for PCP would be biased high. Since PCP was not detected
in any sample, no action was taken with regard to sample assessments based on
matrix recovery. All RPD values calculated between the sample recovery values
for each of the samples and sample fractions indicate good precision between
spike results.
Field-replicate analyses for VOCs, BNAs, and TPH were performed on sample
B-8, B-14, MW-2, MW-7, and 55-6. In general most RPD values demonstrated
reasonable precision between sample pairs although RPD in some instances was
greater than 20 percent. In analyses where estimated and/or low-level sample
concentrations were reported, greater variability was noted due to the overall
poorer method precision and sensitivity at low concentrations, in addition to the
heterogeneity that naturally exists in a soil sample matrix.
In sample analyses where it was demonstrated that sufficient anafyte levels
were present to make an accurate assessment, sample results were qualified
accordingly to reflect variability in results.
Some TCL data were negated and some TlCs rejected due to associated blank
contamination.
Some TCL data were qualified as estimated (J) due to exceeded ICV and CCV
criteria. One exception to the above was made for sample qualification based on
a deficient calibration response for 2,4-dinitrophenol in which associated
compound data were rejected in 55-6 and the associated method blank.
Additionally, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine was rejected in several samples in which the
%D was greater than 90 percent in the CCVs and for those samples in which
3,3 '-dichlorobenadine was not detected. These included samples B-4, MW-1D,
MW-4D, FB060492, FB060592, FB060992, and method blanks WB-1QJUN92C,
WB-11JUN92B, SB-10JUN92C, and SB-12JUN92B. No other instances of sample
result rejection based on deficient calibration criteria were noted.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
11-15
•
There wen no TCL or site-specific data rejected due to deficient internal standard
recoveries or tuning accuracy.
CONTRACT NON-COMPLIANCE
The following section presents a non-compliance summary far general issues associated with all
of the SDGs in this investigation.
One -volatile TCL anafyte (tetrachloroethene) was rejected from the semivolatile
TIC fraction for several samples since it was quantitated as a volatile target
compound.
In the documentation of the tuning standards for VOCs and BNAs, greater than
two significant figures were used when reporting the tune information.
The response factors were not shown in the quantitation reports.
TlCsfor which presumptive evidence in the sample existed and were identified by
the laboratory with a chemical abstracts services (CAS) number were not reported
with the "N" qualifier. The "N" qualifier was applied to these TICs by the data
reviewer.
Samples SS-3 and SS-4 were initially analyzed (out of holding time) using the
medium-concentration protocols for SNA analysis although the rationale for this
approach could not be determined. Sample SS-3 was subsequently reanalyzed as
a low-concentration sample due to poor surrogate recovery of 2-fluorophenol in
the medium-level preparation. Both sets ofBNA for SS-3 and the data for SS-4
were ultimately rejected due to grossly exceeded holding time in these samples.
The initial calibration curves established for the quantitation of site-specific VOCs
in low level soil samples were not analyzed using the heated purge made on the
GC/MS.
All subsequent soil, CCV standard; and QC sample analyses were
analyzed using treated purge.
Mwvwp DV/90U>4-27.ipt/kj:k*:nr
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ATTACHMENT 12
INORGANICS DATA VALIDATION REPORT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Evaluation of Metals Data for the contract laboratory Program (CLP)
based on
3/90
(SOP Revision XI)
PREPARED BY:: 4-/UX.J 12 for cyanide)
..
present?
[__]
)\
*Weights, dilutions and volumes used to obtain values.
Percent solids calculation present for soils/sediments?
Are preparation dates present on sample preparation
logs/bench sheets?
A.1.7.2
Measurement read out record present?
ICP
Flame AA
[__]
Furnace AA
Mercury
Cyanides
A.1.7.3
Are all raw data to support all sample analyses and
QC operations present?
legible?
Properly labeled?
[Yj
__
__
ACTION: If no for any of the above questions
in sections A.1.7.1 through A.I.7.3,
write Telephone Record Log and contact
laboratory for resubmittals.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 7 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals for the Contract
Date: Jan. 1992
Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: !!••
Compliance (Total Review)
YES
H2
N/A
A. 1.8
P*?!^**! Tines - (aqueous and soil samples )
(Examine sanple traffic reports and digestion/distillation logs.)
Mercury analysis (28 days)....... exceeded?
__
V
Cyanide distillation (14 days)..... exceeded?
__
r
A 1
Other Metals analysis (6 months).... exceeded?
__
NOTE; Prepare a list of all samples and analytes for
which holding times have been exceeded. Specify
the number of days from date of collection to the date
of preparation (from raw data). Attach to checklist.
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) values less than
Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) and flag
as estimated (J) the values above IDL even
though sample (s) was preserved properly.
A.1.8.2
Is pH of aqueous sanples for:
Metals Analysis >2?
__
Cyanides Analysis <12?
**
Action; If yes, flag the associated metals and cyanides
data as estimated.
A.1.9
pprm i (Fir*1! Data)
A. 1.9.1
Are all Form I's present and conplete?
[__]
X
__
ACTION; If no, prepare telephone record log and contact
laboratory for submittal.
A. 1.9.2
Are correct units (ug/1 for waters and rag/kg for soils)
indicated on Form I's?
Are soil sanple results for each parameter corrected for \/
percent solids?
[/> ]
__
__
Are all "less than IDL" values properly coded with "U"? [__]
/\
__
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page
8
of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
Y E S T C J
N / A
Are the correct concentration qualifiers used with
\
final data?
K7ITQN: If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log, and contact laboratory for corrected
data.
A. 1.9.3
Are EPA sample I s and corresponding laboratory sample
ID # s the same as on the Cover Page, Form I's and
\/
in the raw data?
[<2_]
Was a brief physical description of samples given
on Form I's?
•
r/' 1
Was the dilution of any sample diluted beyond the
x
requirements of the contract noted on Form I or
y
Form XIV?
^
[__]
ACTION; If no for any of the above, note under
Ccntrart-Problem/Non-Compliance
of the"Data Assessment Narrative".
A.1.10
Calibration
A.l.io.l
Is record of at least 2 point calibration
present for ICP analysis?
[
_
Is record of 5 point calibration present for
Y,
Hg analysis?
[jj_] __
__
Is record of 4 point calibration present for: -
Flame AA?
[__] __ \
Furnace AA?
[ X1
__
__
Cyanides?
fX 1
__
__
Is one calibration standard at the CRDL level for
\J
all AA (except Hg) and cyanides analyses?
[__] __
__
If no for any of the above, write in the
Contract Problem/Non-compliance section of
the "Data Assessment Narrative".
T
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 9 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11.
A. 1.10.2 Is correlation coefficient less than 0.995 for:
Mercury Analysis?
__
Cyanide Analysis?
__
Atomic Absorption Analysis?
__
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
NOTE: The data validator shall calculate the correlation
coefficient using concentrations of the standards
and the corresponding instrument response
( e.g. absorbance, peak area, peak height, etc.).
A. 1.10.3
In the instance where less than 4 standards are
measured in absorbance (or peak area, peak height,etc.)
mode, are the remaining standards analyzed in
concentration mode immediately after calibration
within ±10% of the true values?
[__]
ACTION; If no, flag the associated data as estimated
if standards are not within ±10% of true values.
Do not flag the data as estimated in linear range
indicated by good recovery of standard(s).
N/A
A. 1.11
A. l.ll.l
A. 1.11.2
Form II A (Init^*^ and
*
f i. cation) *•
Present and complete for every metal and cyanide?
Present and complete for AA and ICP when both are
used for the same analyte?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory.
Circle on each Form HA all percent recoveries that
are outside the contract windows.
Are all calibration standards (initial and continuing)
within control limits:
Metals- 90-110%R?
Hg - 80-120%R?
Cyanides- 85-115%R?
CAJ _
& -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD CHEATING PROCHURE
Page 10 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
YJS
Jsf" N/A"
ACTION; Flag as estimated (J) all positive data (not
flagged with a "0") analyzed between a
calibration standard with %R between 75-89%
(65-79* for Hg; 70-84% for CN) or 111-125%
(121-135% for Hg; 116-130% for Of) recovery and
nearest good calibration standard. Qualify results
CRDL) analyzed (CRI)
for each ICP run?
rA 1
__
(Note: CRI for AL,Ba,Ca,Fe,Mg,Na,or K is not required.)
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all data falling within the affected ranges.
The affected ranges are:
AA Analysis - **True Value + CRDL
ICP Analysis - **True Value + 2CRDL
CN Analysis - **True Value ± 0.5 x True Value.
**True value of CRA, CRI or mid-range standard. Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
Compute the concentration of the missing mid-range standard from the calibration range.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. '
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 11 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
YES
ffi
N/A
A. 1.12.2 Was CRI analyzed after ICV/ICB and before the final
CCV/CCB, and twice every eight hours of ICP run?
ACTION; If no, write in Contract Problem/Nbn-Compl
Section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A. 1.12.3 Circle on each Form IIB all the percent recoveries that
are outside the acceptance windows.
Are CRA and CRI standards within control limits:
Metals
80 - 120%R?
Is mid-range standard within control limits:
Cyanide
80 - 120%R?
[*\ 1
__
ACTION; Flag as estimated all sample results within
the affected range if the recovery of the
standard is between 50-79%; flag only positive
data within the affected range if the recovery
is between 121-150%; reject all data within the
affected range if the recovery is less than 50%;
reject only positive data within the affected range
if the recovery is greater than 150%. Qualify 50% of
the samples on either side of CRI standard outside
the control limits.
Note; Flag or reject the final results only when sample
raw data are within the affected ranges and the CRDL
standards are outside the acceptance windows.
A. 1.13
Fo*n III (Initial and Con^in^ing r»li>>ration Blanks)
A.1.13.1 Present and complete?
[__]
For both AA and ICP when both are used for the
W
same analyte?
[A
Was an initial calibration blank analyzed?
[ X1
Was a continuing calibration blank analyzed after
every 10 samples or every 2 hours (which ever is more
v,
frequent)?
f Xl
__
GERAGHTY 6? MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 12 of 34
Title: Evaluation of J->taJLs Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratca./ -rcgram
Number:
HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
YES
g o N / A
ACTION: If no, prepare Telephone Record Log, contact
laboratory and write in the Oontract-Problens/
Nan-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A.I.13.2 Circle on each Fora UI all calibration blank values
that are above CRDL (or 2 x IDL when H3L > CRDL).
Are all calibration blanks (when IDKCRDL) less than or
\/
equal to the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs)? [A 1
__
__
Are all calibration blanks less than two times
\/
Instrument Detection Limit (when IDLXK3L)?
[ /\ ]
__
__
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
(J) positive sample results when raw sample
value is less than or equal to calibration
blank value analyzed between calibration blank
with value over CRDL (or 2xIDL) and nearest good
calibration blank.
Flag five samples on either side of the
calibration blank outside the control limits.
A.1.14
FORM III (Preparation Blank) -
(Note: The preparation blank for mercury is the same
as the calibration blank.)
A.1.14.1 Was one prep, blank analyzed for:
each Sample Delivery Group (SDG)?
f A. 1
__
__
each batch of digested samples?
[_Aj
__
__
each matrix type?
f )( ]
__
__
both AA and ICP when both are used for
y
the same analyte?
[/\ ]
__
__
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as
estimated (J) all the associated positive
data <10 x IDLs for which prep, blank
was not analyzed.
If only one blank was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples analyzed
do not have to be flagged as estimated (J).
''UT
OG2
159A
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
.STANTARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 13 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
£2
N/A
A. 1.14.2
Is concentration of prep, blank value greater
than the CRDL when IDL is less than or equal to CRDL? __
If yes, is the concentration of the sample with
the least concentrated analyte less than 10 fl™"*
\/
the prep.blank?
__
[__] A
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) all associated
data greater than CRDL concentration but
less than ten times the prep, blank value.
A. 1.14.3
Is concentration of prep, blank value (Form HI) less
y
than two times IDL, when IDL is greater than CRDL?
[ /)_]
__
_
ACTION; If no, reject (red-line) all positive sanple
results when sanple raw data are less than 10
times the prep, blank value.
A. 1.14.4
Is concentration of prep, blank below
VA
the negative CRDL?
__
f
1
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) all associated sanple
results less than lOxCRDL.
A.i.is
Form iv (icp Interference Check_____
A.1.15.1
Present and cotplete?
rX 1
__
__
(NOTE: Not required for furnace AA, flame AA, mercury,
cyanide and Ca, Mg, K and Na.)
Was ICS analyzed at beginning and end of run
\,
(or at least twice every 8 hours)?
r X. 1
__
__
ACTION; If no, flag as estimated (J) all the samples for
which AL, Ca, Fe, or Mg is higher than in ICS.
A. 1.15.2
Circle all values on each Form IV that are more
than + 20% of true or established mean value.
Are all Interference Check Sanple results inside
\y
the control limits (+ 20%)?
[__]
A
__
If no, is concentration of Al, Ca, Fe, or Mg lower
than the respective concentration in ICS?
[
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD CFEP.ATDG PRDdTURE
Page 14 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for tbe
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
.
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
YES
ffi
N/A
ACTION: If no, flag as estimated (J) those positive
results for which ICS recovery is between 121-150%;
flag all sample results as estimated if ICS
recovery falls within 50-79%; reject (red-line)
those sample results for which ICS recovery is less
than 50%; if ICS recovery is above 150%, reject
positive results only (not flagged with a "U").
( Note: Not required for Ca, Mg, K, and Na (both matrices), Al, and Fe
(soil only.)
A. 1.16.1 Present and complete for:
each SDG?
[__]
A
__
each matrix type?
[__]
__
X
each cone, range (i.e. low, med., high)?
[__]
__
A
For both AA and ICP when both are used for
the same analyte?
[__]
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as
estimated (J) all the positive data less
than four tiroes the spiking levels specified
in SOW for which spiked sample was not analyzed.
NOTE; If one spiked sample was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples
analyzed do not have to be flagged as
estimated (J).
A. 1.16.2
Was field blank used for spiked sample?
__
ACTION: If yes, flag all positive data less than
4 x spike added as estimated (J) for which
field blank was used as spiked sample.
A. 1.16.3
Circle on each Form VA all spike recoveries that
are outside control limits (75% to 125%).
Are all recoveries within control limits?
If no, is sample concentration greater than or equal
to four times spike concentration?
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PRDCSCIJHE
Page 15 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Centre
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.16.4
YES
N/A
ACTION; If yes, disregard spike recoveries for analytes
whose concentrations are greater than or equal
to four times spike added. If no, circle those
analytes on Form V for which sample concentration
is less than four times the spike concentration.
Are results outside the control limits (75-125%)
flagged with "N" on Form I's and Form VA?
C__]
ACTION; If no, write in the Contract - Problem/Non -
Compliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
Aqueous
Are any spike recoveries:
(a) less than 30%?
_
(b) between 30-74%?
_
(c) between 126-150%?
_
(d) greater than 150%?
ACTION; If less than 30%, reject all associated aqueous
data; if between 30-74%, flag all associated
aqueous data as estimated (J); if between
126-150%, flag as estimated (J) all associated
aqueous data not flagged with a "U"; if
greater than 150%, reject (red-line) all
associated aqueous data not flagged with a "U".
_ LJ X
A.1.16.5
Are any spike recoveries:
(a) less than 10%?
(b) between 10-74%?
(c) between 126-200%?
(d) greater than 200%?
X
X
[_]
"U"
1*599
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 16 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Conpliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
YES
ACTION: If less than 10%, reject all associated data; if
between 10-74%, flag all associated data as estimated;
if between 126-200%, flag as estimated all associated
data was not flagged with a "U"; if greater than 200%,
reject all assoH atari data not flagged with a "U11.
N/A
A. 1.17
A. 1.17 .1
A.1.17.2
A.I.17.3
Present and conplete for:
each
each SDG?
each matrix type?
tration range (i.e. low, med., high)?
both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
analyte?
[__]
ACTION; If no for any the above, flag as estimated
(J) all the data >CRDL* for which duplicate
sample was not analyzed.
Note; 1. If one duplicate sample was analyzed for
more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples do not
have to be flagged as estimated.
2. If percent solids for soil sample and its duplicate
differ by more than 1%, prepare a Form VI for each
duplicate pair, report concentrations in ug/L
on wet weight basis and calculate RPD or Difference
for each analyte.
Was field blank used for duplicate analysis?
__
ACTION: If yes, flag all data >CRDL* as estimated
(J) for which field blank was used as duplicate.
Are all values within control limits (RPD 20% or
difference < ±CRDL) ?
[__]
If no, are all results outside the control limits
flagged with an * on Form I's and VT?
[__]
If no, write in the Contract - Problems/Non-
Compliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
X.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
J-6GO
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 17 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.1: Data Jtonpirrnrnt. - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
<•
Y E S E Q
N / A
NDTB: 1. RPD is not calculable for an analyte of the
sanple - duplicate pair %fcen both values are
less than IDL.
2. If the result of lab duplicate analyzed
by GFAA is rejectable due to coefficient of
correlation of MSA, analytical spike recovery,
or duplicate injections criteria, do not apply
precision criteria to metals analyzed by GFAA.
A.1.17.4
Aqueous
Circle on each Form VI all values that are:
RFD > 50%, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50% where sanple and duplicate
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL?
__
Is any difference** between sample and duplicate greater
than *CRDL where sample and/or duplicate is less than
V
5 times *CRDL?
__ [__]
f\
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A.1.17.5 Soil/Sediment
Circle on each Form VI all values that are:
RPD > 100%, or
Difference > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sample and duplicate are both
greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL) :
> 100%?
__
t/\ 1
__
Is any **difference between sample and duplicate
(where sanple and/or duplicate is less than 5x*CRDL) :
> 2x*CRDL?
__
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 18 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
vis
1*2
N/A
ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A.I.18
Pield Duplicates
A. 1.18.1 Were field duplicates analyzed?
[_£_] __
__
ACTION; If yes, prepare a Form VI for each aqueous field
duplicate pair. Prepare a Fora VI for each soil
duplicate pair, if percent solids for sample and
its duplicate differ by more than 1%; report
concentrations of soils in ug/1 on wet weight
basis and calculate RPDs or Difference for each
analyte.
NOTE; 1. Do not calculate RPD when both values are
less than IDL.
2. Flag all associated data only for field
duplicate pair.
A.1.18.2 Aoueous
Circle all values on self prepared Form VI for
field duplicates that are:
RFD > 50%, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50% where sample and duplicate
\/
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL?
__
[__]
A
Is any **difference between sample and duplicate greater
than *CRDL where sample and/or duplicate is less than
y
5 times *CRDL?
.
__
[__]
/\
ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 19 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data nin in i anil - Ocntract
Carpi ianoe (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
A.I.18.3
YES
Circle all values on self pr
field duplicates that are:
vd Form VI for
RPD >100%, or
Differenoe > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sanple and duplicate are both
greater than 5 times *CRDL) :
Is any **differenoe between sanple and duplicate
(where sanple and/or duplicate is less than 5x *CRDL ) :
>2x *CRDL?
A
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
N/A
t__]
C__] __
A. 1.19
A. 1.19.1
rol (Tie) (Note: LCS - not
required for aqueous Hg and cyanide analyses.)
Was one LCS prepared and analyzed for:
each SDG?
each batch sanples digested/distilled?
both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
analyte?
If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory for submittal
of results of I£S. Flag as estimated (J) all
the data for which LCS was not analyzed.
NOTE: If only one LCS was analyzed for more than 20
sanples, then first 20 sanples close to LCS
do not have to be flagged as estimated.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
iXj _ _
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 20 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
Y E S i s N/A"
Circle on each Form VH the LCS percent recoveries
outside control limits (80 - 120%) except for aqi
Ag and Sb.
Is any LCS recovery: -
less than 50%?
ACTION: Less than 50%, reject (red-line) all data;
between 50% and 79%, flag all associated data
as estimated (J); between 121% and 150%, flag
all positive (not flagged with a "U") results
as estimated; greater than 150%, reject all
positive results.
A.1.19.3
Solid LCS
ACTION: If yes, qualify all associated positive data
as estimated.
Is Trs "Found" value lower than the Control
limits on Form VTI?
ACTION; If yes, qualify all associated data as
estimated.
\y
__
f X 1
TUT 002 1604
between 50% and 79%?
X
[__] __
between 121% and 150%?
__
cX 1 __
greater than 150%?
__
fY 1 __
; 1. If "Found" value of DCS is rejectable due to duplicate
injections or ana]ytieai spike recovery criteria,
regardless of LCS recovery, flag the associated data
as estimated (J) .
2. If IDL of an analyte is equal to or greater than
true value of LCS, disregard the "Action" below even
though LCS is out of control limits.
Is LCS "Found" value higher than the control
v/
limits on Form VII?
__
[A 1 __
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 21 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Ccnpliance (Total Review)
YES
JK> N/A"
A.1.20
T^T^ P fICP Serial Dilution) -
MOTE; Serial dilution analysis is required only
for initial concentrations equal to or
greater than 10 x IDL.
A. 1.20.1
Was Serial Dilution analysis performed for:
Y/
each SDG?
[_Aj
__
__
each matrix type?
[__]
__
f\
each concentration range (i.e. low, med.)?
[__]
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all the positive data >. lOxIDLs or >. CRDL when
lOxIDL < CRDL for which Serial Dilution Analysis
was not performed.
A. 1.20.2
Was field blank(s) used for Serial Dilution Analysis? __
ACTION; If yes, flag all associated data > 10 x IDL
as estimated (J). If lOxIDL < CRDL, flag all
data > CRDL.
A. 1.20.3
Are results outside control limit flagged with an "E"
on Form I's and Form IX when initial concentration on
\
Form IX is equal to 50 times IDL or greater.
r V 1
__
ACTION; If no, write in the Contract-Problem/Non-
Coipliance section of the "Data Assessment
Narrative".
A. 1.20.4
Circle on each Form IX all percent difference
that are outside the control limits for initial
concentrations equal to or greater than 10 x IDLs only.
Are any % difference values:
> 10%?
> 100%?
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 22 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
YES
tE
N/A
ACTION; Flag as estimated (J) all the associated sample
data > lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when lOxIDL < CRDL)
for which percent difference is greater than 10%
but less than 100%. Reject (red-line) all the
associated sanple results equal to or greater
than lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when IQxTDL < CRDL) for
which FD is greater than or equal to 100%.
Note;
Flag or reject on Form I's only the sanple results
whose associated raw data are > lOxIDL (or > CRDL
when lOxIDix CRDL)
A.1.21
Furnace Atonic Absorbtion (AA) QC Analysis
A.1.21.1
Are duplicate injections present in furnace raw data
(except during full Method of Standard Addition) for
"v
each sanple analyzed by GFAA?
K\ 1
__
_
ACTION: If no, reject the data on Form I's for which
duplicate injections were not performed.
A.1.21.2
Do the duplicate injection ridings agree within 20%
Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) or Coefficient of
\/
Variation (CV) for concentration greater than CRDL?
r A 1
__
__
Was a dilution analyzed for sanple with analytical
\/
spike recovery less than 40%?
\/\ 1
__
__
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag all the
associated data as estimated.
A.1.21.3
Is *analytical spike recovery outside the control
\/
limits (85-115%) for any sanple?
A
[__]
__
ACTION; If yes, flag as estimated the affected sanple results
if the recovery is between 10-84%; if the recovery is
between 115-200%, flag the associated positive sample
results as estimated; reject the associated sanple
results if the recovery is less than 10%; reject
positive sample results if the recovery is greater
than 200%.
* Analytical spike is not required on the pre-digestion spiked sanple.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 23 Of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance
(Total
Review)
* MSA is not required on L£S and prep, blank.
ffi
N/A
MOTE; Reject or flag the data only when the affected
sample(s) was not subsequently analyzed by Method
of Standard Addition.
A.l. 22.1
Present?
rA 1
__
__
If no, is any Form I result coded with "S" or a "+"?
A
[ __ ] __
ACTION: If yes, write request on Telephone Record Log
and contact laboratory for submittal of Form VIII.
A.I. 22. 2
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.990 for
v
any sample?
__
L/\] __
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) the affected data.
A. 1.22. 3
Was *MSA required for any sample but not performed?
__
- [ AJ
__
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.995? __
[ X ] __
Are MSA calculations outside the linear range of the
calibration curve generated at the beginning of the
analytical run?
__
ACTIOK: If yes for any of the above, flag all
the associated data as estimated (J) .
A. 1.22. 4
Was proper quantitation procedure followed correctly
\/
as outlined in the SOW on page E-23?
r ' * 1
__
__
ACTIOK; If no, note exception under Contract Problem/
Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment
Narrative", and prepare a separate list.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 24 of 34
Title: Evaluation o:; Kstals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract l£?ix>raSjory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
A.1.23
Dissolved/Total or I^TlflniT/TP^ll lilHtlTt*8 ~
A.1.23.1
Were any analyses performed for dissolved as well as
total analytes on the same sample (s).
__
[ X 1
__
Were any analyses performed for inorganic as well as total
\
(organic + inorganic) analytes on the same sample (s)? __
[ X 1
__
NOTE: 1. If yes, prepare a list comparing differences
between all dissolved (or inorganic) and
total analytes. Compute the differences as
a percent of the total analyte only when
dissolved concentration is greater than CRDL
as well as total concentration.
2. Apply the following questions only if in-
organic (or dissolved ) results are (i) above
CRDL, and (ii) greater than total constituents.
3. At least one preparation blank, ICS, and LCS
should be analyzed in each analytical run.
A. 1.23.2
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
analyte greater than its total concentration by
\,
more than 10%?
__
[__]
X
A.1.23.3
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
analyte greater than its total concentration by
X
more than 50%?
__
[__]
/ \
ACTION; If more than 10%, flag both dissolved (or
inorganic) and total values as estimated (J) ;
if more than 50%, reject (red-line) the data
for both values.
(Mote; Designate "Field Blank** ra mvh en Fo^ffl IT)
A. 1.24.1
Circle all field blank values on Form I that are
greater than CRDL, (or 2 x IDL .when IDL > CRDL).
Is field blank concentration less than CRDL
(or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL) for all parameters
\/
of associated aqueous and soil samples?
[__]
A
__
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 25 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals' "Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
EQ
N/A
If no, was field blank value already rejected
\,
due to other QC criteria?
[__]
X
_
ACTION: if no, reject (except field blank results)
all associated positive sample data less
than or equal to five times the field blank
value. Reject on Form I's the soil sample
results that when converted to ug/L on wet
basis are less than or equal to five times
the field blank value in ug/L.
A. 1.25
TBapn Tjj, JR., m
(Verification Of
A. 1.25.1 Is verification report present for:
Instrument Detection Limits (quarterly)?
ICP Interelement Correction Factors (annually)?
ICP T.inoaT- Ranges (quarterly)?
LAJ
__
aCTION; If no, contact TPO of the lab.
A.I. 25. 2
fy>rm fr (instrw»nt Detection IdjUt") ~ (Note: IDL is not
required for Cyanide.)
A.I. 25. 2.1 Are IDLs present for:
all the analytes?
[ __ ]
X.
__
all the instruments used?
[^_\_]
__
__
For both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
\
analyte?
[A 1
__
__
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare
Telephone Record Log and contact
laboratory.
A. 1.25. 2. 2 Is IDL greater than CRDL for any analyte?
X
[ __ ] __
If yes, is the concentration on Form I of the sample
analyzed on the instrument whose IDL exceeds CRDL,
\J
greater than 5 x IDL.
[ X ]
__
__
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATE'S PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data iTr- v«
Contract laboratory Frogreca
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Page 26 of 34
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
Action : If no, flag as estimated all values less
than five times IDL of the instrument whose
IDL exceeds CRDL.
YES
N/A
A.1.25.3
A.1.25.3.1 Was any sample result higher than high linear range
of ICP.
Was any sample result higher than the highest
calibration standard for non-ICP parameters?
If yes for any of the above, was the
sanple diluted to obtain the result on Form I?
_1\_
[_] _
ACTION; If no, flag the result reported on Form I
as m.1 jma'frarl (.T) .
A.1.26
A.1.26.1
Are percent solids in sediment (s):
:t
< 50%?
ACTION;
< 10%?
If yes, qualify as estimated all the
results of a sample that has per cent
solids between 10%-50% (i.e. moisture
content between 50%-90%). Reject all
the results of a sample that has per cent
solids less than 10% (i.e. moisture content
greater than 90%).
Reject or flag(J) only the sample results
that were not previously rejected or flaged
due to other QC criteria.
TUT
CO'2 1610
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Tide: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Attachment 1.2:
Data Assessment Narrative
Date:
January 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
Case*
N/A
SDGl
(All Project **s
Contractor Geraghtv & Miller
1.2.1.
Validation Flaps -
J-
Red-Line-
Fullv Usable Data-
Contractual Qualifiers -
Site
Lab
Tutu Wells
Matrix: Soil
Enseco East
Reviewer C.W.
Water X
Other
M.E. Radecke
The following flags have been applied in red by the
data validator and must be considered by the data
user.
This flag indicates the results qualified as estimated.
A red-line drawn through a sample result indicates
unusable value. The red-line data are known to
contain significant errors based on documented
information and must not be used by the data user.
The results that do not carry "J" or "red-line" are
fully usable.
The legend of contractual qualifiers applied by the
lab on Form I's is found on page B-20 of Statement
of Work (SOW) ILM01.0.
1.2.2 The data assessment is given below and on the attached sheets.
Total metals and cyanide were analyzed according to the March 1990 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) SOW for target analyte list
(TAL) parameters. This validation was performed according to the USEPA Region n checklist
for the evaluation of metals data for the CLP, January 1992. For each sample delivery group
(SDG) discussed below, are those criteria mat did not meet the requirements of the Region n
checklist are discussed along with the appropriate qualifiers that were applied to the data.
Two of the samples sent to the laboratory (B-8 and B-16) were also analyzed as the
matrix spike and laboratory duplicate samples. The matrix spike and laboratory duplicate data
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-2
for B-8 and B-16 are contained in SDGs 23938 and 24008, respectively. The following samples
are associated with the B-8 matrix spike and duplicate results:
B-l
B-13
B-2
B-13A
B-3
MW-5
B-6
MW-6D
B-7
MW-10
B-10
MW-IOD
B-l 1
MW-101 (B-8 FR; a blind field replicate of B-8)
B-12
The lead matrix spike and duplicate analyses were performed by inductively coupled
plasma (ICP) and not by graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA). The arsenic matrix spike
and duplicate analyses were performed by GFAA and not by ICP. The reported data are not
complete since both ICP and GFAA were used to analyze the samples for lead and arsenic. The
positive lead sample results analyzed by GFAA for which the lead GFAA matrix spike and
duplicate analyses were not performed were qualified as estimated (J). The positive arsenic
sample results analyzed by ICP for which the arsenic ICP matrix spike and duplicate analyses
were not performed were qualified as estimated (J). Therefore, lead results for samples B-l,
B-6, B-2, B-3, B-7, B-10, B-13, B-11, B-12, MW-6D, MW-10, MW-IOD, B-13A and MW-101
(B-8 FR) and the arsenic results for samples B-13 and MW-101 (B-8 FR) were qualified as
estimated (J).
The B-8 matrix spike recoveries for antimony (35.2%) and silver (132.4%) were outside
the quality control (QC) limits of 75 to 125%. All of the antimony results for B-8 and the
samples listed above were qualified as estimated (J) if detected and estimated (UJ) if not
detected. The positive silver results for samples B-6, B-2, B-3, B-10, B-13, B-11, B-12,
MW-6D, MW-10, MW-IOD, B-l3A, B-8, MW-101 (B-8 FR) and MW-5 were qualified as
estimated (J). Further qualification of the data was not necessary based on the other B-8 matrix
spike results and all B-8 duplicate results.
The following samples are associated with the B-16 matrix spike and duplicate results:
B-5
B-14
B-15
MW-103 (B-14 FR; a blind field replicate of B-14)
MW-2
MW-102 (MW-2 FR; a blind field replicate of MW-2)
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-6 FR
SS-8
The lead matrix spike and duplicate analyses were performed by ICP and not by GFAA.
The reported data are not complete since both ICP and GFAA were used to analyze the samples
,.,.
rwV?
1612
•ft! I
v,0~
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
n-3
for lead. The positive lead sample results analyzed by GFAA for which the lead GFAA matrix
spike and duplicate analyses were not performed were qualified as estimated (J). Therefore, lead
results for all the samples listed above were qualified as estimated (J).
The B-16 matrix spike recoveries for antimony (58%), chromium (60.9%), lead (71.5%
sample B-16 only), vanadium (62%), and copper (182.3%) were outside the QC limits of 75 to
125%. The positive antimony, chromium, vanadium and lead (B-16 ICP only) results were
qualified as estimated (J) for the samples listed above. The non-detect antimony, chromium and
vanadium results were qualified as estimated (UJ) for the samples listed above.
The B-16 matrix spike recoveries for zinc (- 18.2%) and manganese (- 42.2%) were
outside the QC limits. However, since the sample concentrations were greater than or equal to
four times the spike concentration for these two analytes, no action was required. Further
qualification of the data was not necessary based on the other B-16 matrix spike results and all
the B-16 duplicate results.
There are no site-specific matrix spike and laboratory duplicate samples associated with
the following samples:
B-4
MW-7
B-9
MW-100 (MW-7 FR; a blind field replicate of MW-7)
MW-1
MW-8
MW-1D
MW-9
MW-3
MW-1 ID
MW-4
MW-12D
MW-4D
MW-13D
MW-6
MW-14
Because there is no site-specific matrix spike sample associated with the samples listed
above, all positive data less than four times the spiking level specified by the method are
qualified as estimated (J). In addition, because there is no site-specific laboratory duplicate
sample associated with the samples listed above, all data greater than or equal to the contract
required detection limit (CRDL) are qualified as estimated (J).
For all the arsenic, lead, thallium and selenium results, the data reviewers could not
confirm the correlation coefficients (r) reported by the laboratory. The r values were calculated
using a non-linear regression formula. Except where noted below, the calibration curves
associated with the data were acceptable for the appropriate sample concentration ranges.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-4
SDG* 22507:
This SDG contained three reports: 22570,22507, and 22595. Results were reported for
7 samples: 4 solid (B-4, MW-1D, MW-3, and MW-4D), and 3 aqueous (FB060492, FB060592,
FB060992).
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample B-4. The serial dilution result for
sodium did not meet the QC criteria. The positive sodium result for sample B-4 was qualified
as estimated (J).
Iron was detected in field blank FB060992 at a concentration of 165 micrograms per liter
(ug/L), exceeding the CRDL of 100 ug/L. However, the associated sample results were not
affected because the sample iron concentrations were greater than five times the field blank iron
concentration.
Several post-digestion spike recoveries for arsenic, thallium and selenium were outside
the control limits of 85-115%. For sample B-4, the positive arsenic result was qualified as
estimated (J) because spike recovery was 74%. For sample MW-3, the non-detect selenium
result was qualified as estimated (UJ) because the recovery for the post-digestion spike was
84%. For sample MW-4D, the positive selenium result was qualified as estimated (J) because
the recovery for the post-digestion spike was 84%. Arsenic was also qualified as estimated (UJ)
for sample FB060992 because of a spike recovery of 82%. All other arsenic, thallium and
selenium results which were qualified with a "W" by the laboratory did not meet the criteria for
qualifying.
Arsenic was analyzed by the method of standard additions (MSA) for sample MW-3.
The arsenic result for this sample was rejected (R) because the correlation coefficient was
< 0.990 for both runs.
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The initial calibration blank (ICB)/continuing calibration blank (CCB) data for cyanide,
however, were not corrected on Form m.
SDG* 22712:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
Sodium was originally reported as not detected in sample MW-4. However, sodium was
detected in this sample at a concentration of 274 milligrams per kilograms (mg/kg). The sample
MW-4 sodium result on Forms I and DC were corrected by the data reviewer.
rtJT
002
161.4
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-5
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery for MW-4 (81 %) was outside the QC limits
of 85-115%. The selenium result for sample MW-4 was qualified as estimated (J).
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample MW-4. The serial dilution results for
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, potassium, vanadium, and zinc did not
meet the QC criteria. Sample MW-4 results for these analytes were qualified as estimated (J).
SDG* 22793:
The lead post-digestion spike recovery for FB061992 was less than 85% for two runs.
Therefore, the non-detect lead result for FB061992 was qualified as estimated (UJ).
An ICP serial dilution analysis was performed on sample MW-13D. The serial dilution
results for aluminum, calcium, cobalt, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, vanadium and zinc
did not meet QC criteria. The results for these analytes in sample MW-13D were qualified as
estimated (J).
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
SDG* 22932:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample MW-11D. The serial dilution results
for iron and zinc did not meet QC criteria. The positive zinc and iron results for sample MW-
11D were qualified as estimated (J).
SDG* 23021:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample MW-1. The serial dilution results for
iron and zinc did not meet QC criteria. The positive zinc and iron results for sample MW-1
were qualified as estimated (J).
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
12-6
SDG* 23024:
The ICP aerial dilution was performed on sample MW-14. The serial dilution results for
aluminum, barium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, vanadium, and zinc did
not meet QC criteria. The positive aluminum, barium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium,
manganese, vanadium, and zinc results for sample MW-14
were qualified as estimated (J).
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
SDGl 23144:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample MW-12D. The serial dilution result
for zinc did not meet QC criteria, therefore, the zinc result for sample MW-12D was qualified
as estimated (J).
SDGt 23396:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form ffl.
The soil reporting limit for sodium was changed by the data reviewer on the soil Form
I's using the standard laboratory sodium ICP wavelength since the laboratory reported the
sodium results using an ICP wavelength not typically used when analyzing soils.
The lead recovery for the CRDL standard was 76.6%, which was outside the QC limits
of 80-120%. As a result, the positive lead results for associated samples MW-7
and MW-100
(MW-7
FR) were qualified as estimated (J).
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample MW-100 (MW-7
FR).
The serial
dilution results for nickel and potassium did not meet QC criteria. The positive nickel and
potassium results for samples MW-7
and MW-100 (MW-7
FR) were qualified as estimated (J).
It should be noted that the sodium data were corrected on Form IX to reflect the typical sodium
ICP wavelength used for soils.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-7
The selenium post-digestion spike recoveries were outside the QC limits of 85 to 115%
for MW-7 (81 %) and MW-100 (MW-7 FR) (72%). The non-detect selenium results for MW-7
and MW-100 (MW-7 FR) were qualified as estimated (UJ).
SDG* 23421/23448:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form ffl.
The soil reporting limit for sodium was changed by the data reviewer on the soil Form
I's using the standard laboratory sodium ICP wavelength since the laboratory reported the
sodium results using ICP wavelength not typically used when analyzing soils.
The lead recoveries for the CRDL standards analyzed were 76.7% and 66.7%, which
were outside the QC limits of 80-120%. The positive lead results for associated samples MW-8
and MW-6D were qualified as estimated (J).
The cadmium recovery for the CRDL standard was outside of QC limits. However,
since this CRDL standard was not associated with any of the samples in this SDG, no
qualification of the data was necessary.
The ICP serial dilutions were performed on samples MW-8 and MW-6D. All serial
dilution results for sample MW-6D were acceptable. The MW-8 serial dilution result for
chromium did not meet the QC criteria. The positive chromium result for sample MW-8 was
qualified as estimated (J). It should be noted that the sodium data were corrected on Form DC
by the data reviewer to reflect the typical sodium ICP wavelength used for soils by the
laboratory and present in the raw data.
The selenium post-digestion spike recoveries were outside the QC limits of 85 to 115%
for samples MW-8 (83%) and MW-6D (78%). The non-detect selenium results for MW-8 and
MW-6D were qualified as estimated (UJ).
SDG* 23506:
The incorrect reporting limit for cyanide was used. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form ffl.
The soil reporting limit for sodium was changed by the data reviewer on the soil Form
I using the standard laboratory sodium ICP wavelength since the laboratory reported the sodium
result using ICP wavelength not typically used when analyzing soils.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
n-s
The lead recoveries for two of the three CRDL standards analyzed were 76.7% and
66.7%, which were outside the QC limits of 80-120%. No qualification of the lead data was
necessary based on the CRDL standard results since no samples were associated with the one
CRDL standard and a high lead concentration was detected in the only sample associated with
the other CRDL standard.
The cadmium recovery for the CRDL standard was reported above the QC limits of 80-
120% with a recovery of 123.6%. Since cadmium was not detected in any of the samples
associated with this CRDL standard, no qualification of the data was necessary.
The non-detect arsenic and selenium results were qualified as estimated (UJ) for
FB072492 because the spike recoveries for the associated laboratory control sample (LCS) were
outside the control limits.
SDG* 23622/23623/23663:
The incorrect reporting limit was used for cyanide. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
The soil reporting limit for sodium was changed by the data reviewer on the soil Form
I's using the standard laboratory sodium ICP wavelength since the laboratory reported the
sodium results using an ICP wavelength not typically used when analyzing soils.
The instrument detection limits (IDLs) are determined on a quarterly basis. When
reporting the data, the laboratory used the IDLs from May 20, 1992 instead of the IDLs from
August 20, 1992 for all the TAL parameters except for cyanide, mercury and thallium. The
cyanide, mercury and thallium data were not affected since these parameters were analyzed prior
to August 20, 1992. The affected data were corrected by the data reviewer on the Forms I's.
The laboratory duplicate and matrix spike sample data included in this package were not
associated with this sampling program and should have not been provided. Therefore, the
qualifiers assigned to the samples by the laboratory based on the laboratory duplicate and matrix
spike sample results do not apply.
The aqueous LCS spike recovery for lead reported as 104% on Form Vn was actually
127.3%. This recovery was outside the QC limits of 80 to 120%. Therefore, the positive
results for FB072992, FB073092, and FB073192 were qualified as estimated (J).
ICP serial dilutions were performed on samples B-6, B-7 and B-9. The ICP serial
dilution results for samples B-6 and B-7 were acceptable. The B-9 serial dilution result for nickel
did not meet QC criteria. The positive nickel result for B-9 was qualified as estimated (J). It
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-9
should be noted that the sodium data were corrected by the data reviewer on Form IX to reflect
the typical sodium ICP wavelength used for soils.
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery was outside the QC limits of 85 to 115% for
sample B-7 (83%). The non-detect selenium result for sample B-7 was qualified as estimated
(J).
The thallium post-digestion spike recoveries for outside the QC limits of 85 to 115% for
samples FB072992 (83.5%), FB073092 (83.5%) and FB073192 (72.5%). The non-detect
thallium results for these three samples were qualified as estimated (UJ).
SDG* 23697:
The incorrect reporting limit was used for cyanide. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form m.
Mercury result for sample B-2 was reported to be 0.53 mg/kg on the Form I. This was
a transcription error. The actual result based on a review of the raw data was 0.06 U.
The thallium post-digestion spike recovery for FB080392 was 83%. Therefore, the non-
detect thallium result for FB080392 was qualified as estimated (UJ).
The DDLs are determined on a quarterly basis. When reporting the data, the laboratory
used the IDLs from May 20, 1992 instead of the IDLs from August 20, 1992 for all the TAL
metals. The affected data were corrected by the data reviewer on the Forms I's.
SDG* 23750/23833:
The incorrect reporting limit was used for cyanide. The cyanide data were corrected on
Form I. The ICB/CCB data for cyanide, however, were not corrected on Form ffl.
The lead percent recovery for the CRDL standard was 76.7% which was outside the QC
limits of 80 to 120%. The non-detect lead result for FB080492 and the positive lead result for
FB080692 were qualified as estimated (UJ and J, respectively).
The ICP serial dilution analyses were performed on samples MW-10 and MW-6D. The
MW-10 serial dilution result for sodium did not meet QC criteria. The MW-6D serial dilution
results for chromium and zinc did not meet QC criteria. The sodium results for samples MW-10
and MW-10D and the chromium and zinc results for sample MW-6D were qualified as estimated
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-10
SDG* 23799:
The aerial dilution results for iron, zinc and chromium did not meet QC criteria. The
positive iron, zinc and chromium results for the soil samples in this SDG were qualified as
estimated (J).
The non-detect lead result for sample FB081092 was qualified as estimated (UJ) because
the spike recovery for the associated CRDL standard was low (76.7%).
Sample B-10 was diluted five times and analyzed for arsenic. Arsenic was not detected
in the sample and the sample was not reanalyzed undiluted.
SDG* 23938:
The ICP CRDL standard spike recoveries for lead (initial-155%, final-151.2%) were
outside the QC limits of 80 to 120%. The lead results for associated samples B-8 and MW-5,
analyzed by ICP, were qualified as unusable (R).
The GFAA CRDL standard spike recovery for lead (130%) was outside the QC limits
of 80 to 120%. The lead data for associated samples B-13A and MW-101 were qualified as
estimated (J).
The CRDL standard spike recovery for selenium (126%) was outside the QC limits of
80 to 120%. The selenium results were not qualified because selenium was not detected in any
of the associated sample data.
Sample B-8 was collected in duplicate in the field and labeled MW-101 (B-8 FR). The
results for arsenic and lead could not be compared since these analytes were not analyzed by the
same instrument for both samples. The copper and potassium results for samples B-8 and
MW-101 (B-8 FR) were qualified as estimated (J) based on the field duplicate results.
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample B-8. The serial dilution result for lead
did not meet QC criteria. The positive lead result for sample B-8 was qualified as estimated (J).
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery for sample MW-5 (140%) exceeded the QC
limits of 85 to 115%. Since selenium was not detected in this sample, no qualification of this
result was necessary.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
12-11
SDG* 24008:
The lead spike recovery for both the initial and final ICP CRDL standard were outside
the QC limits of 80 to 120% with recoveries of 142% and 123%, respectively. Sample B-16
was associated with this CRDL standard, therefore, the lead result for this sample was qualified
as estimated (J).
Sample MW-2 was collected in duplicate in the field and labeled MW-102 (MW-2 FR).
The calcium, chromium, and lead for these samples were qualified as estimated (J) based on the
field duplicate result.
The ICP serial dilution was performed on sample B-1S. The serial dilution result for
chromium did not meet the QC criteria. The positive chromium results were qualified as
estimated (J) for associated samples B-1S, MW-2, B-5, B-14, B-16, and MW-103 (B-14 FR).
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery for samples B-5 (84%), B-14 (83%), B-15
(79%), and B-16 (83%) were outside the QC limits (85-115%). The selenium results for these
samples were qualified as estimated (J) if detected and estimated (UJ) if not detected.
The pH of samples FB081392 and FB081492 to be used for metals and cyanide analyses
were not recorded on the sample logs. The proper preservatives were used when collecting
these samples and are noted on the chain of custody. It is this data reviewer's opinion that the
data was not compromised.
SDGl 24122:
The solid LCS sample was associated with more than twenty samples. These samples
are SS-6, SS-6 FR and SS-8. The results for these three samples were qualified as estimated
(J) if detected and estimated (UJ) if not detected.
Sample SS-1 was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis. The serial dilution result for
cobalt did not meet the QC criteria. All positive solid sample cobalt results were qualified as
estimated (J).
The arsenic post-digestion spike recovery (70%) for sample SS-4 was out of QC limits.
The positive arsenic result for SS-4 was qualified as estimated (I).
I U
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-12
1.2.3 Contract-Problem/Non-Compliance
For several samples, site-specific matrix spike and laboratory duplicate data was not
provided by the laboratory since these analyses were not requested.
For SDGs 233% and 23421/23448, occasionally a lead continuing calibration standard
was analyzed after more than ten samples had been analyzed. However, none of the samples
in these SDGs were effected.
For SDG 23506, the lead GFAA run containing the solid LCS had over ten samples
between continuing calibration standards. Because the initial calibration verification standard
(ICV) and initial calibration blank were accidently analyzed with this group, the solid LCS lead
result is considered acceptable by the data reviewer. It should be noted that the ICV was in
control and effectively served the same purpose as the continuing calibration standard.
For SDG 23622/23623/23663, the letter "L" was omitted on Form IX in the EPA sample
number box. Also the cyanide preparation log indicates that the sample pH was < 2 for
FB072992 and FB073092. This appears to be an entry error because the ammonia/phenol
analysis was indicated for this sample on the log and was not requested. In addition, no
indication of the pH of sample FB073192 was given on the preparation log for cyanide analysis.
It should be noted that the proper preservation is listed on the chain of custody for the cyanide
bottles. In addition, the wrong IDLs were used for sample analytes analyzed after August 20,
1992. Refer to the data assessment section.
For SDG 23697, the GFAA lead run performed on August 25,1992, containing the MSA
analysis of sample B-2, had 14 analyses between continuing calibration standards. However,
since this MSA analysis was run immediately following the standard, in this data reviewer's
opinion, no data was compromised. In addition, the wrong IDLs were used for sample analytes
analyzed after August 20, 1992. Refer to the data assessment section.
The 6-8 lead and arsenic data from the matrix spike and laboratory duplicate analyses
were not applicable to all associated samples. These samples were only analyzed for lead by
ICP and arsenic by GFAA when the associated samples were also analyzed for lead by ICP and
GFAA and arsenic by GFAA and ICP.
For SDG 24008, the pH values for the aqueous samples were not reported. Refer to the
data assessment section. The B-16 matrix spike and laboratory duplicate were not analyzed by
both ICP and GFAA for lead. Samples associated with the matrix spike were analyzed by both
methods. Samples exceeded 20 for a preparation batch. Refer to the data assessment section
for SDG 24122. The analytical spike qualifier "W" was not listed on Form I for sample B-16.
The letter "L" was not listed following the identity of the sample used for the ICP serial dilution
analysis on Form DC.
1622
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
12-13
For SDG 24122, the pH values for the aqueous samples were not reported. Refer to the
data assessment section.
MMB/ESAT Reviewer:_____________________
Date:
Signature
PK01301/INOIUOIL.TMF/«Ucb:Br
I/ •
Verified by:
/ yuyn-*^ (/ > l/*~*^-JU.S
Date
•TU-f
002
16
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Contractor Reviewer:
U^V*.
cx&M^
Date:
Sijhatu
US. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO
B-8
Lab Name: Enseco East
Contract:
Lab Code: Enseco
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.:
23938
Matrix (soil/water): Soil
% Solids for Sample: 86.6
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
Level (low/med):
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
90.9______
ug/L______________
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
200
50
0.2
40
5000
B-8
Sample (S)
C
102050
20
GFAA
18.6
426.2
1.59
3
315400
128.45
88.9
681.5
136200
ICP
431.5
77750
3030
0.2087
64.45
14360
2
16.9
2015
3
342.65
646
10
U
B
U
U
U
U
MW-101
Duplicate (D)
C
89600
22.61
ICP
42735
240.85
1.58
3
296450
101.2
73.9
226.15
132400
GFAA
50
73300
3597
0.1
64.1
3953.5
2
7.1
2057.5
3
346.2
290
49
B
B
U
U
B
U
B
B
U
RPD
13.0
200.0
55.5
0.8
6.2
23.7
18.4
1003
2.8
5.9
" 17.1
200.0
0.5
113.6
813
2.1
1.0
76.0
200.0
Q
M
P
P
1
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
CV
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
AS
rrUTU/E?ACLPB».WK3
TUT
002
1.624
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Lab Name: EnsecoEast
Lab Code: Enseco
Case No.:
U.S. EPA - CLP
6
DUPLICATES
Contract: Geraghty & Miller
SAS No.:
EPA SAMPLE NO.
B-14
SDG No.:
24008
Matrix (soil/water):
Soil
% Solids for Sample: 862
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
Level (low/med):
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
86.8______
mg/kg_____________
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
11.6
0.69
9.28
B-14
Sample (S)
25255.2
7.3
0.46
34.4
0.2
0.6
120301.6
13.7
19.9
483
27958.2
2.85
26194.8
757.4
0.06
11.1
1605
0.46
0.92
181.20
0.69
95.7
50.9
0.5800
C
B
U
B
U
U
U
B
U
B
B
U
U
MW-103
Duplicate (D)
19032.25
4.6
0.46
335
0.23
0.6
73018.4
173
18.1
775
231105
2.0
17845.6
6403
0.06
13.1
2013
0.4
0.92
191.1
0.6
692
60.1
05800
C
U
U
B
U
U
U
B
U
U
B
U
U
RPD
28.1
200.0
2.7
48.9
233
93
465
19.0
34.9
31.9
16.7
165
22.6
200.0
53
38.1
16.6
Q
M
P
i
P
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
CV
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
AS
*TUTU/EPACB-14.WK3
TUT
O02
1625
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Lab Name: EnsecoEast
Lab Code: Enseco
Case No.:
US. EPA - CLP
6
DUPLICATES
Contract: Geraghty & Miller
____
SAS No.:
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-2
SDG No.:
24008
Matrix (soil/water):
Soil
% Solids for Sample: 89.7
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
Level (low/med).
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
873______
ug/L______________
Analyie
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
10
200
10
50
3
40
50
MW-2
Sample (S)
C
59600
20
13.6
363.45
1
3
307300
72.1
50.7
1793
97250
25.2
41095
2611
0.1
56.9
2496.5
2
4
3214.5
3
26035
297.05
10
U
U
U
U
B
U
U
B
U
U
MW-102
Duplicate (D)
C
68400
20
5.1
198.9
1
3
38075
3337
56.1
253.2
134250
83
42070
4852.5
0.1
24.6
1305
2
5.1
2340
3
230.55
518.5
10
U
B
B
U
U
U
B
B
U
B
B
U
U
RPD
13.7
90.9
29.3
155.9
73.4
10.1
34.1
32.0
100.9
0.02
60.1
793
62.7
200.0
3L5
12.1
543
Q
M
j
P
i
P
1
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
CV
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
AS
*TUTU/EPACPMW2.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Lab Name: EnsecoEast
Lab Code: Enseco
Case No.:
U.S. EPA - CLP
6
DUPLICATES
Contract: Geraghty & Miller
SAS No.:
EPA SAMPLE NO
MW-7
SDG No.:
233%
Matrix (soil/water):
Soil
% Solids for Sample: 93.6
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
Level (low/med):
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
94.4______
mg/kg_____________
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
10.68
0.64
8.55
1068
MW-7
Sample (S)
26004.2
6.69
0.70
42.4
0.2
0.64
28194.4
162
30.8
60.5
380982
0.%
28012.8
940.5
0.05
16.2
1516.0
0.42
0.64
262.7
0.64
107.1
51.6
0.530
C
B
B
B
Uu
U
uu
B
U
u
MW-100
Duplicate (D)
29777.5420
8.4923
05297
25.1377
02119
0.8153
47658.8980
195763
32.8284
60.9428
43072
1.75
32044.4
861
0.053
193
13983
0.42
0.63
255.1
0.63
1102
545
053
C
B
B
B
U
B
U
U
U
B
U
u
RPD
135
23.7
28.4
513
200.0
513
185
6.4
0.6
122
58.6
13.4
8.8
17.1
8.1
2.9
2.9
53
Q
M
P
P
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
CV
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
AS
*TUTU/EPACBMW7.WKJ
TU1
002 1627
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
U.S. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
SS-6
Lab Name: Enseco East
Contract:
Lab Code: Enseco
Matrix (soil/water):
% Solids for Sample:
87.8
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.:
24122
Soil
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
Level (low/med):
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
86.0______
mg/kg_____________
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
_
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
SS-6
Sample (S)
C
14300
7.4
173
89
0.23
0.68
59200
233
14
55.4
39500
14.4
9960
662
0.06
14.1
1910
0.46
1.6
340
0.68
713
91.7
0.57
J
BNJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
NJ
J
NJ
J
J
J
J
U
J
J
UJ
BJ
BJ
UJ
NJ
J
U
SS-6FR
Duplicate (D)
C
13800
6
19.1
90.9
0.23
0.7
30700
18.8
13.8
54.8
23800
11.4
9670
672
0.06
10.7
2070
0.47
0.93
251
0.7
73.1
97.1
13
J
BNJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
NJ
J
NJ
J
J
J
J
U
J
J
UJ
UJ
BJ
UJ
NJ
J
1
RPD
3.5
20.8
9.8
2.1
63.4
213
1.43
1.08
49.6
23.2
2.9
1.4
27.4
8.0
30.1
2.49
5.7
Q
M
P
p
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
F
P
P
CV
P
P
F
P
P
F
P
P
AS
PRO13.0I/USEPA-CLP.FRMSDSK/EPACSS&WK3
1628
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ATTACHMENT D
TABLES
IUT
002
J.629
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 1 of 3
Table 13-1.
Sofl Sample Delivery Groups for June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample
Delivery Group
22507
22507
22507
22507
22507
22570
22570
22570
22595
22595
22688
22688
22712
22712
22712
22793
22793
22793
22932
22932
22932
23021
23021
23021
23024
23024
23024
23144
23144
23144
23396
23396
233%
233%
Sampk
Identification
MW-4D
FB060492
MW-1D
FB060592
TB060592
B-4
TB060992
FB060992
MW-3
TB061092
WAPA
TB061592
MW-4
FB061692
TB061692
FB061992
TB061992
MW-13D
FB062692
TB062692
MW-11D
FB063092
TB063092
MW-1
FB070192
TB070192
MW-14
FB070692
TB070692
MW-12D
FB071692
TB071792
MW-7
MW-7FR(MW-100)
Laboratory
Identification
22507-1
22507-2
22507-3
22507-4
22507-5
22570-1
22570-2
22570-3
22595-1
22595-2
22688-1
22688-2
22712-1
22712-2
22712-3
22793-1
22793-2
22793-3
22932-1
22932-2
22932-3
23021-1
23021-2
23021-3
23024-1
23024-2
23024-3
23144-1
23144-2
23144-3
233%-
1
233%-2
233%-3
233%-4
Collection Date
6/4/92
6/4/92
6/5/92
6/5/92
6/5/92
6/9/92
6/9/92
6/9/92
6/10/92
6/10/92
6/15/92
6/15/92
6/16/92
6/16/92
6/16/92
6/19/92
6/19/92
6/19/92
6/26/92
6/26/92
6/26/92
6/30/92
6/30/92
6/30/92
7/1/92
7/1/92
7/1/92
7/6/92
116192
116192
7/16/92
7/16/92
7/16/92
7/16/92
See last page for notes.
PR»13jai-TVT«b(«H3.«t3
TUT
002
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 2 of 3
Table 13-1.
Sofl Sample Delivery Groups for June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample
Delivery Group
23421
23421
23421
23448
23448
23448
23506
23506
23506
23622
23622
23622
23623
23623
23623
23623
23663
23663
23663
23697
23697
23697
23697
23750
23750
23750
23750
23799
23799
23799
23799
23799
23799
23799
23799
Sample
Identification
FB072092
TB072092
MW-8
FB072192
TB072192
MW-6D
FB072492
TB072492
MW-9
FB072992
TB072992-B
B-9
FB073092
TB073092A
B-6
B-l
FB073192
TB073192
B-7
B-2
B-3
FB080392
TB080392
FB080492
MW-10
MW-10D
TB080492
FB081092
TB081092
B-13
B-10
B-ll
FB081192
TB081192
B-12
Laboratory
Identifkation
23421-1
23421-2
23421-3
23448-1
23448-2
23448-3
23506-1
23506-2
23506-3
23622-1
23622-2
23622-3
23623-1
23623-2
23623-3
23623-4
23663-1
23663-2
23663-3
23697-1
23697-2
23697-3
23697-4
23750-1
23750-2
23750-3
23750-4
23799-1
23799-2
23799-3
23799-4
23799-5
23799-6
23799-7
23799-8
Collection Date
7/20/92
7/20/92
7/20/92
7/21/92
7/21/92
7/21/92
7/24/92
7/24/92
7/24/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
7/29/92
7/30/92
7/30/92
7/30/92
7/30/92
7/31/92
7/31/92
7/31/92
8/3/92
8/3/92
8/3/92
8/3/92
8/4/92
8/4/92
8/4/92
8/4/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
8/10/92
See last page for notes.
PROUj»l-Tl/T«bUH3.»U
A U"V
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Page 3 of 3
Table 13 -1.
Sofl Sample Delivery Groups for June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St. Thomas, US. Virgin Islands.
Sample
Sample
Delivery Group
Identification
23833
23833
23833
23938
23938
23938
23938
23938
23938
23938
23938
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24008
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
24122
FB
TB
MS
MSD
FR
FB080692
TB080692
MW-6D
FB081292
TB081292
B-13A
B-8
B-8FR(MW-101)
MW-5
B-8 MS
B-8 MSD
FB081392
TB081392
MW-2
B-5
MW-2 FR(MW- 102)
FB081492
TB081492
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-14FR(MW-103)
B-16 MS
B-16 MSD
FB081992
TB081992
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-6FR
SS-8
Field blank.
Trip blank.
Matrix spike.
Matrix spike duplicate.
Field replicate.
Laboratory
Identification
23833-1
23833-2
23833-3
23938-1
23938-2
23938-3
23938-4
23938-5
23938-6
23938-4 MS
23938-4 MSD
24008-1
24008-2
24008-3
24008-4
24008-5
24008-6
24008-7
24008-8
24008-9
24008-10
24008-11
24008- 10 MS
24008- 10 MSD
24122-1
24122-2
24122-3
24122-4
24122-5
24122-6
24122-7
24122-8
24122-9
24122-10
Collection Date
8/6/92
8/6/92
8/6/92
8/12/92
8/12/92
8/12/92
8/1Z92
8/12/92
8/11/92
8/11/92
8/11/92
8/13/92
8/13/92
8/13/92
8/13/92
8/13/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/14/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
8/19/92
PM13Jl-Tl/hMeH3.ifk3
"Li"!"
1632
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Table 13-2. Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Holding Time Outliers Associated with Soil Samples Collected
from June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Days
Analytical
Sample
Collection
Preparation or
Holding Time
Parameter
ID
Matrix
Date
Analysis Date
Exceeded
Action
Volatiles
MW-4D
Soil
June 4,1992
June 15,1992
(analysis)
Semivolatfles MW-5
SS-3
SS-3RE
SS-4
SS-6
Soil
August 11,1992
August 19,1992
(preparation)
Soil
August 19,1992
September 17,1992
(preparation)
Soil
August 19,1992
September 30,1992
(preparation)
Soil
August 19,1992
September 17,1992
(preparation)
Soil
August 19,1992
September 25,1992
(preparation)
1
Estimated positive detects
and rejected all
non-detected analysis.
1
Estimated all BNA analytes.
22
Rejected all BNA analytes.
35
Rejected all BNA analytes.
22
Rejected all BNA analytes.
30
Rejected all BNA analytes.
ID
Identification.
BNA
Base neutral and acid -extractable compounds.
RE
Reanalysis.
PRO] JOl -Tl/042M3.«t3/lck
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Page 1 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDGNo.
Volatiles
22570
22688
22712, 22793
23024,23144
23396, 23421,
23448
23396, 23421,
23448
23506
506
523
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Method
(16JUN92 -
Method
(24JUN92-
Method
(23JUN92-
Method
(11JUL92 -
Method
(24JUL92-
Method
(24JUL92-
Method
(31JUL92 -
Method
(01AUG92 -
Method
(03AU092-
A/A2590)
B/A2795)
A/A2762)
A/C9847)
A/A3375)
B/C0132)
B/C0217)
-A/C0235)
-C/C0289)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Unknown (27.39)/llJ
Chloroform/2J
Acetone/5J
Methylene chloride/2J
Acetone/8J
Acetone/16
Methylene chloride/2J
Acetone/6J
Methylene chloride/4J
Acetone/4J
Acetone/3J
Methylene chloride/5J
Associated
Samples
FB060992, TB060992, TB061092
WAPA-RE, FB061692, TB061692
MW-4.MW-13D
MW-14.MW-12D
MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW- 100), MW-8, MW-6D
FB071692, TB071692, FB072092, TB072092,
FB072192, TB072192
FB072492, TB072492
MW-9
FB073092, TB073092
; last page for footnotes.
iui.Tvna.nu
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC'
Page 2 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDONo.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Volatiles (continued)
23623
23799,23938
24122
24122
22507
22570
22712
"'.__;
22793
:-K
22932
Method
(05AUG92 - A/A3610)
Method
(17AUG92 - A/A3846)
Method
(27AUG92 - A/A4119)
Method
(27AUG92-B/A4131)
Held
(FB060592)
Field
(FB060992)
Field
(FB061692)
Field
(FB061992)
Field
(FB062692)
Unknown (27.41)/6J
Acetone/7J
Unknown (27.28)/7J
Acetone/2J
Carbon disulfide/7J
Methylene chloride/U
Unknown (32.13)7101
Carbon disulfide/7J
Carbon disulfide/6J
Carbon disulfide/3J
B-6
B- 10, B- 11, B- 12, B- 13, B- 13A, B-8,
B-8 FR (MW- 101), MW-5
SS-3, SS-6, SS-7, SS-6 FR (SS-7)
SS-4, SS-5
MW-1D
B-4
MW-4
MW-13D
MW-11D
See last page for footnotes.
pRMin.Tvna.iki
GERAGHTY & M1LLHR. IN(
Page 3 of 16
TaMe 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDGNo.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Volatiles (continued)
23021
23024
23144
23396
23421
23448
23506
23622
23623
Field
(FB063092)
Field
(FB070192)
Field
(FB070692)
Field
(FB071692)
Field
(FB072092)
Field
(FB072192)
Field
(FB072492)
Held
(FB072992)
Field
(FB073092)
Methyl acetate (4.91)/6J
Carbon disulfide/16
Carbon disulfide/25
Carbon disulfide/4J
Methylene chloride/lBJ
Carbon disulfide/4J
Methylene chloride/lBJ
Acetone/SBJ
Methylene chloride/2BJ
Acetone/lOB
Carbon disulfide/4J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Carbon disulfide/SJ
Methylene chloride/lJ
Carbon disulfide/3J
Methylene chloride/2BJ
MW-1
MW-14
MW-12D
MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-100)
MW-8
MW-6
MW-9
B-9
B-l.B-6
See last page for footnotes.
rrniui.Ti/na.«u
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Page 4 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDONo.
Volatiles
23663
22570
22595
22688
22712
22793
22932
23024
23396
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
(continued)
Field
(FB073192)
Trip
(TB060992)
Trip
(TB061092)
Trip
(TB061592)
Trip
(TB061692)
b
Trip
(TB061992)
K '•
Trip
:
(TB062692)
Trip
(TB070192)
Trip
(TB071792)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Carbon disulfide/2J
Methylene chloride/2J
Unknown (31 14)/11J
Unknown (3119)/6J
Chloromethane/U
Acetone/8J
Acetone/5J
Carbon disulfide/U
Methylene chloride/lJ
Acetone/41
Methylene chloride/2J
Methylene chloride/lBJ
Associated
Samples
B-7
B-4
MW-3
WAPA
MW-4
MW-13D
MW-11D
MW-14
MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW- 100)
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 5 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Held Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigadon,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Voiatiles (continued)
23421
23506
23622
23623
23663
23799
24008
Trip
(TB072092)
Trip
(TB072492)
Trip
(TB072992)
Trip
(TB073092)
Trip
(TB073192)
Trip
(TB081192)
Trip
(TB081492)
Methylene chloride/lBJ
Acetone/4BJ
Methylene chloride/SBJ
Methylene chloride/3J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/16
Methylene chloride/U
Methylene chloride/2J
MW-8
MW-9
B-9
B-l.B-6
B-7
B-ll.B-10,8-12,8-13
B-14, B-14 FR (MW-103), B-15, B-16
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLhR. INC
Page 6 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDONo.
Semivolatiles
22507
22507
22570
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Method
(WB- 10JUN92C/O7204)
Method
(SB-10JUN92C/G7220)
Method
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/5J
Unknown amide (29.82)/4I
Substituted hexanediotc acid (30.12)/10QI
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phtnalate/2J
Associated
Samples
FB060492, FB060592
MW-1D.MW-4D
FB060992
22712
22712
22793
22793
(WB-11JUN92B/G7217)
Method
(WB- 18JUN92C/O7261)
Method
(SB- 18JUN92B/O7259)
Method
(SB-22JUN92B/07309)
Method
(WB-22JUN92C/07300)
Unknown amide (29.85)/14J
Unknown amide (29.90)/5J
Unknown amide (34.02)/6J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/22
Unknown amide (29.88)/6J
Unknown amide (29.94)/3J
Unknown amide (34.07)/3J
Di-n-butyl phthalate/1,800
Butyl benzyl phthalate/42J
bis(2-Ethyl hexyl)phthalate/43J
Unknown amide (29.81)/330J
Unknown amide (29.85)/100J
Unknown amide (33.98)/130J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/4J
FB061692, FB061692 DL
MW-4
MW-13D
FB061992
See last page for footnotes.
FM1U1.TI/IHL«U
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 7 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
22932
22932
23021
23024
23024
23144
Method
(WB-30JUN92D/G7361)
Method
(SB-30JUN92B/G7397)
Method
(WB-04JUL92A/G7383)
Method
(WB-06JUL92C/G7402)
Method
(SB-06JUL92B/G7400)
Method
(WB-09JUL92B/07459)
bis(2- Ethythexyl)phthalate/49
Unknown amide (27.51)/2J
Unknown amide (27.74)/3J
Unknown amide (29.84)/40J
Unknown amide (29.89)71 U
Unknown(30.45)/3J
Unknown (33.33)/2J
1,2-Benzenedicarboxylk add (33.40)/3JN
Unknown amide (34.00)/29J
Unknown (39.49)/31J
Unknown (27.70)/10QJ
Unknown acid ester (29.94)/130J
Hydrocarbon (30.08)/67J
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/4J
Unknown amide (33.79)/2J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/9J
Unknown amide (29.65)/4J
Unknown amide (33.83)/3J
Di-n-butyl phthalate/950
bis(2-Ethylhexvl)phthalate/14
FB062692
MW-11D
FB063092
FB070192
MW-14
FB070692
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLl-R. INC
Page 8 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDGNo.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
23144
23396
23396
23421
23448,2
23506
Method
(SB-09JUL92B/G7488)
Method
(WB-21JUL92C/G7665)
Method
(SB-21JUL92B/G7683)
Method
(SB-23JUL92B/G7685)
Method
(SB-27JUL92A/G7688)
Method
(WB-27JUL92A/G7697)
Di-n- butyl phthalate/761
MW-12D
FB071692
MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-100)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/7J
Unknown (6.82)/2J
Unknown (5.11)/13QJ
Unknown (28.34)/130J
Unknown (29.43)/l,OOOJ
Unknown (31.68)/970J
Unknown (38.67)/67J
Di-n-butyl phthalate/430
Unknown (4.41)/10QJ
Unknown (5.82)/2,OOQJ
4-Hydroxy-4-methyI-2-pentaiK>ne (7.16)/87,OOQAJ
2-Hydroxy-4-methvl-pentanone (7.18)/93,OOOAJ
MW-6, MW-6D, MW-9
MW-8
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthaIate/95
Unknown (4.92)/4J
FB072492
See last page for footnotes.
pwmi.Timc.i43
GBRAGHTY & MIMJ R. INC'
Page 9 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
23506
23622,23663
23622,23
23623
23623
Method
(WB-06AUG92B/G7800)
Method
(WB-04AUG92F/F0871)
Method
(SB-04AUG92A/F0874)
Method
(WB-a3AUG92-A/G7796)
Method
(SB-03AUG92A/F0868)
bis(2- Ethyihexyl)phthalate/l 1
Unknown (4.50)/9J
Unknown (6.56)/3J
Unknown amide (30.76)/14J
Unknown amide (30.81)/4J
Unknown amide (34.95)/8J
Unknown (4.13)/2J
Unknown (4.78)/15J
Unknown (6.65)/4J
Unknown amide (31.26)/3J
Unknown (4.78y47QJ
Unknown (5.16)/10QJ
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/29,OOOAJ
Unknown (4.55)/llJ
Unknown (6.57)/2J
Unknown (4.79y430I
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/2£OOAJ
Unknown (6.67y67J
Unknown (25.16)/100J
Substituted hexanediok acid/4,700J
FB072492RE
FB072992, FB073192
B-9, B-7
FB073092
B-1,8-6
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Page 10 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
23697
23697
23750,2
Method
(SB-06AUG92B/O7910)
Method
(WB-06AUG92B/G7800)
Method
(SB- 11AUG92A/G7922)
Unknown (4.41)/110J
C-6 H-10 O Isomer (4.67)/78J
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/50,OOOAJ
Unknown (2&SS)/110J
Unknown (30.79)/130J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/ll
Unknown (4.50)/9J
Unknown (6.56)/3J
Unknown amide (30.76)/14J
Unknown amide (30.81)/4J
Unknown amide (34.9S)/8J
Di-n-butyl phthalate/1201
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/62J
Unknown (4.58)/l,800J
Unknown (4.66)/230J
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/60,OOOAJ
Unknown (20.51)/100J
Unknown (2&54)/200J
Substituted octadecanok add/1701
Hydrocarbon (30.93)/67J
Hydrocarbon (32.98)/67J
B-2,8-3
FB080392
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-6D
See last page for footnotes.
nmui.TimQ.1*)
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 11 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued')
23750
23799
23799
23833
23938
Method
(WB-07AUG92C/G7872)
Method
(SB- 13AUO92B/G7924)
Method
WB- 13AUG92B/G7892)
Method
(WB- 1QAUG92-C/FD889)
Method
(WB- 15AUG92B/G7908)
Unknown (4.46)/5J
Unknown (6.20)/2J
Unknown (2&56)/4J
Unknown amide (30.56)/2J
Unknown (30.81)/4J
Unknown amide (34.76)/2J
Unknown (4.38y430J
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/33,OOQAJ
1, l,2£-Tetrachlorobenzene/20QJ
Unknown (28.53)/500J
Substituted hexanedioic acid/8,700J
Hydrocarbon (30.94)/10QJ
Unknown (31.03)/67J
Hydrocarbon (34.88)/67J
Unknown (4.4S)/6J
4-Hvdroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/2J
Unknown amide (30.5S)/3J
Unknown (4.79)/7J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/2J
Unknown (4.36)/4J
FB080492
B-10, B-11, B-12,8-13
FB081092, FB081192
FB080692
FB081292
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 12 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Assodated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
23938
24008
24008
2411
2412
24122
Method
(SB- 19AUG92B/G7923)
Method
(SB-20AUG92A/G8022)
Method
(WB- 18AUG92C/G7956)
Method
(WB-24AUG92B/G8038)
Method
(SB-30SEP92-A/P9757)
Method
(SB-25AUG92B/G8050)
Unknown (4.39)/100J
C6 H-10 O Isomer (4.65)/100J
4-Hydroxy-4 methyl-2-pentanone (6.33)/90,OOOAJ
Unknown amide (30.53)/100J
Unknown (31.01)/67J
Unknown amide (34.73)/130J
Di-n-butyl phthalate/41J
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone/43,OOQAJ
Substituted hexanediofc add (30.47)/130J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/3J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/lJ
Unknown amide (30.17)/2J
Unknown (3&17)/13J
2-Hydroxy-4-methyl-4-pentanone/86,OOOAJ
Unknown (12.94J/67J
Unknown (27.90)67J
Unknown (30.16)/130J
Unknown amide (34.11)/130J
2-Hydroxy-4-methyl-4-pentanone/37,OOQAJ
Unknown (2&19)/230J
Unknown (30.41)2701
B- 13A, B-8, B-8 FR (MW-101), MW-5, B-8 MS,
B-8MSD
B-14, B-15, B-16, B-5, MW-2 FR (MW-102),
MW-2, B-14 PR (MW-103), B-16 MS, B-16 MSD
FB081392, FB081492
FB081992
SS-3RE
SS-5,SS-6FR(SS-7)
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY^MIU.FR.INC
Page 13 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ICV File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Seemivolatilcs (continued)
24122
22507
Method
(SB-25SEP92A/P9681)
Field
(FB060492)
22507
22570
Field
(FB060592)
Field
(FB060992)
2-Hydroxy-4-methyl-4-pentanone/93,OOQAJ
SS-6
Benzaldehyde/83JN
Unknown (34.17)/170J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/3BJ
MW-4D
Hydrocarbon (34.18)/2J
Hydrocarbon (30.24)/4J
Hydrocarbon (32.28)/3J
Hydrocarbon (33.25)/2J
Unknown amide (29.84)/12BJ
Unknown amide (29.89)/3J
Unknown amide (34.00)/3J
Unknown (27.85)/6J
Unknown (30.09)/6J
Unknown (38.71)/3J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/2BJ
MW-1D
Unknown amide (29.83)/12BJ
Unknown amide (29.89)/4J
Unknown amide (34.02)/7J
Unknown (39.61)/110J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtnalate/7BJ
B-4
Unknown amide (29.84)/7BJ
Unknown amide (29.89)/2BJ
Unknown (4159)/33J
See last page for footnotes.
GHRAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 14 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, US. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ICV File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
22712
22793
22932
23024
23144
23396
23448
Field
(FB061692)
Field
(FB061992)
Field
(FB062692)
Field
(FB070192)
Field
(FB070692)
Field
(FB071692)
Field
(FB072192)
bis(2- EthyIhexyl)phthalate/150BD
Unknown amide (29.82)/2J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/SBJ
Unknown arrdde (29.89)/8BJ
Unknown amide (34.00)/23BJ
Unknown amide (27.50)/2BJ
Unknown amide (27.75)/3BJ
Unknown amide (29.85)/30BJ
bis(2-Ethy!hexyl)phthalate/lBJ
Unknown amide (29.68)/5BJ
Unknown amide (33.87)/2BJ
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/23B
Unknown amide (29.30)/3BJ
bis(2-Ethyl hexyl)phthalate/19B
bis(2-Ethyl hexyl)phthalate/6J
MW-4
MW-13D
MW-11D
MW-14
MW-12D
MW-7, MW-7 PR (MW-100)
MW-6
See last page for footnotes.
rwiin.Ti/na.«k)
GERAGHTY &f MII.l.HR. INC
Page IS of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDGNo.
Semivolatiles
23506
23622
23623
23663
23697
23750
K *:
23795
c>
2379 *
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
(continued)
Field
(FB072492)
Field
(FB072992)
Field
(FB073092)
Field
(FB073192)
Field
(FB080392)
Field
(FB080492)
Field
(FB081092)
Held
(FB081192)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/kg)1
bis(2- EthylhexyI)phthalate/12B
Unknown (4.93)/6BJ
Unknown (4.76)/10BJ
Unknown (6.66y4BJ
Unknown (4.54)/6BJ
Unknown (6.59)/2BJ
Unknown (4.75y7BJ
Unknown (6.66)/3BJ
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phtnalate/16B
Unknown amide (30.77)/9BJ
Unknown amide (30.82)/3BJ
Unknown amide (34.96)/4BJ
Unknown amide (452)/9BJ
Unknown amide (6.57)/3BJ
Unknown (4.46)/4JB
Unknown (6.48)/2J
Unknown (4.34y5BJ
Unknown (4.35)/6BJ
Associated
Samples
MW-9
B-9
B-l.B-6
B-7
B-2.B-3
MW-10.MW-10D
B-10.B-11.B-13
B-12
See last page for footnotes.
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 16 of 16
Table 13-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Samples Collected from June to August 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation,
SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDO No.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/kg)1
Associated
Samples
Semivolatiles (continued)
23833
23938
24008
24008
24122
Field
(FB080692)
Field
(FB081292)
Field
(FB081392)
Field
(FB081492)
Field
(FB081992)
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/3.2J
Unknown (4.78)/10BJ
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/19B
Unknown (4.37)/5BJ
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/65B
bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalate/47B
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/16B
Unknown (20.16)/6J
Unknown (27.10)/12J
MW-6D
B-13A, B-8; B-8FR (MW-101), MW-5
MW-2, B-5, MW-2 FR (MW-102)
B-14, B-14 FR (MW-103), B-15, B-16
SS-3, SS-4, SS-5, SS-6, SS-6 FR (SS-7)
1 Allcono
in micro
concent
SDGNo.
ID
TIC
RT
FB
TB
J
ms reported for method blanks are in mkrograrns per kilogram (ug/kg). The concentrations of analytes detected in trip blanks and Geld blanks are reported
yen liter (ug/L) on this table. The appropriate conversion factors were employed by the data reviewer to convert concentrations reported in ug/L to equivalent
in ug/kg. This was made necessary in order to compare the contamination detected in the trip and field blanks to the associated soil samples.
Sample delivery group number.
Identification.
Tentatively-identified compound.
Retention time in minutes.
Field Hank.
Trip blank.
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
B
A
D
N
FR
RE
DL
E
Analyte or TIC is detected in the laboratory blank.
Aldol-condensation product
Analyte or TIC identified at a secondary dilution.
Presumptive evidence.
Field replicate.
Reanalysis.
Dilution analysis.
Concentration exceeds calibration range.
Fmi3jH.TVTMZ.tkJ
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC
Page 1 of 5
Tabk 13 -4.
Summary of Soil Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contaminatioa, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Sample ID
Volatiles
B-4
B-6
B-10
B-ll
B-12
B-13
B-13A
B-14
B-14FR(MW-103)
B-15
B-16
MW-1D
MW-6
MW-7
MW-7FR(MW-100)
MW-8
MW-9
MW-12D
MW-13D
MW-14
SS-4
Target Compound or TIC (RT)
Unknown (32.14)
Methylene chloride
Unknown (27.41)
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methykne chloride
Methykne chloride
Methykne chloride
Methykne chloride
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Methykne chloride
Acetone
Methykne chloride
Acetone
Methykne chloride
Acetone
Acetone
Acetone
Reported
Result
17J
13J
15 BJ
9BJ
26B
13 B
8BJ
7BJ
9J
10 J
9J
8J
2J
22B
17 B
16 B
27 B
18
9BJ
186
12 B
U
3BJ
166
TUT
00?
Qualified
Result
R
29U
R
12U
26U
13 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
11 U
12 U
11 U
11 U
22U
17 U
16 U
27U
18 U
11 U
18 U
12 U
11 U
11 U
16 U
11 n
J A s n
-
See last page for footnotes.
PR013«-Tl/rH>t»A-3/M22»«.«t3
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Page 2 of 5
Table 13-4.
Summary of Sofl Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Sample ID
Semivola tiles
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-SFR(MW-lOl)
B-9
B-10
Target Compound or TIC (RT)
Unknown (4.78)
4-Hydroiy-4-methyl-2-pentaiione
Unknown (25.16)
Substituted hexanedioic acid
Unknown (4.17)
4-Hydroxy— 4— methyl— 2-pentanone
Unknown (4.41)
C-6 H-10 O Isomer (4.61)
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown amide (3033)
Unknown amide (34.73)
4-Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2— pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
Unknown (4.77)
4-Hydroxy-4— methyl-2-pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
Unknown (25.18)
Unknown (4.80)
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
C-6 H-10 O Isomer (436)
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown (423)
C-6 H- 10 O Isomer (430)
4-Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown amide (3037)
Unknown (4.79)
Unknown (5.16)
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
1,1,22-Tetrachloroethane
Unknown (424)
Unknown (2828)
Reported
Result
(wg*g)
1300 BJ
61,000 ABJ
380 BJ
18,000 BJ
570 J
84,000 AJ
230J
110 BJ
61,000 ABJ
76 J
76 J
65,000 ABJ
75 BJ
660 BJ
29,000 ABJ
12,000 BJ
500 BJ
520 BJ
38,000 ABJ
110 BJ
79,000 ABJ
71 J
140 BJ
67,000 ABJ
71 BJ
600 BJ
70 BJ
35,000 ABJ
34,000 ABJ
3300 JB
200 BJ
350 ABJ
510 BJ
Qualified
Result
(ug/kg)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
See last page for footnotes.
PR01J01-Tl/r»t)kA-y»«2»J».«U
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 3 of 5
Table 13-4.
Summary of Sofl Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, US. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Sample ID
Semivolatfles (continued')
B-ll
B-12
B-13
B-13A
B-14
B-14FR(MW-103)
B-15
B-16
MW-1D
MW-2
MW-2FR(MW-102)
MW-4
Target Compound or TIC (RT)
4— Hydroxy— 4— methyl— 2— pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
l,1^2-Tetradik)roethane
Unknown (423)
Unknown (28.28)
4— Hydroxy-4— methyl— 2-pentanone
1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane
Unknown (430)
Unknown (2839)
4— Hydroxy-4— methyl— 2-pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
1,122-Tetrachloroethane
Unknown (4.42)
Unknown (2854)
4-Hydroxy— 4— methyl-2-pentanone
C-6 H-10 O Isomer (451)
Unknown amide (3455)
4-Hydroxy-4 -methyl- 2- pentanone
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
4-Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2-pentanone
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4— Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-penianone
Substituted hexanedioic acid
4— Hydroxy-4— methyl— 2— pentanone
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,122 -Tetrachloroethane
Reported
Result
(ug/kg)
41,000 ABJ
4500 BJ
160 BJ
450 BJ
610 BJ
33,000 ABJ
190 BJ
460 BJ
800 BJ
30,000 ABJ
9,900 BJ
190 BJ
340 BJ
420 BJ
30,000 ABJ
250 BJ
250 BJ
62,000 ABJ
55,000 ABJ
110 BJ
66,000 ABJ
110 J
59,000 ABJ
110 J
65,000 ABJ
150 BJ
66,000 ABJ
1900 B
84J
Qualified
Result
<»g/kg)
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
370 U
R
370 U
R
R
R
1900 U
R
See last page for footnotes.
PROl Ml -Tl/nMcA-}/M2a3*.«U
TUT
002
1652
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 4 of 5
Table 13-4. Summary of Soil Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, US. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Sample ID
Semivolatiles (continued)
MW-5
MW-6
MW-6D
MW-7
MW-7FR(MW-100)
MW-8
MW-9
MW-10
MW-10D
MW-11D
Target Compound or TIC (RT)
bis(2-Etbylhexyl)phthalate
4— Hydroxy- 4— methyl-2-pentanone
C-6 H-lOOIsomer
Unknown amide (3036)
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown (437)
Unknown (4.66)
Unknown (20.51)
4-Hydroxy-4— methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown (29.40)
Unknown (31.66)
4-Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2— pentanone
Unknown (29.43)
Unknown (31.69)
4-Methyl-3-penten-2-one
Di-n-butylphthalate
4— Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2— pentanone
Unknown (4.40)
Unknown (5.73)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4- Hydroxy-4 -methyl- 2 - pentanone
Di-n-butylphthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Hydroxy— 4— methyl-2-pentanone
Unknown (2030)
Di-n-butylphthalate
4-Hydroxy-4— methyl— 2-pentanone
Unknown (2030)
Unknown acid ester (29.94)
Unknown amide (33.84)
Reported
Result
(ug/kg)
45 J
75,000 ABJ
210 BJ
110 BJ
74,000 ABJ
100 BJ
220 BJ
60,000 ABJ
1,400 BJ
210 BJ
110 BJ
83,000 ABJ
170 BJ
210 BJ
66,000 ABJ
210 BJ
240 BJ
100 BJ
730B
78,000 ABJ
75 BJ
4,000 BJ
46J
61,000 ABJ
200 BJ
43 BJ
62,000 ABJ
150 BJ
130 BJ
74,000 ABJ
110 BJ
180 BJ
110 J
Qualified
Result
0»gfcg)
350 U
R
R
R
R
350 U
350 U
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
730U
R
R
R
350 U
R
360U
360U
R
R
370 U
R
R
R
R
See last page for footnotes.
FR01M1 -Tl/TiMcA- J/W22»«.»k3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Table 13-4.
Summary of Soil Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service
Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 5 of 5
Analytical
Parameter
Sample ID
Target Compound or TIC (RT)
Reported
Result
Qualified
Result
(ug/kg)
Semivolatiles (continued)
ID
TIC
RT
ug/kg
J
B
U
A
FR
R
M W- 13D
Unknown amide (29.82)
Unknown amide (29.88)
Unknown amide (33.99)
MW-14
bB(2-Ethytoeiyl)phthalate
Unknown amide (29.67)
Unknown amide (33.85)
SS-5
bis(2-Ethylheiyl)phthalate
4-Hydnwy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
SS-6
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Hydroxy— 4-methyl-2— pentanone
Benzaldehyde
Unknown (34.18)
SS-6 FR (SS-7)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
4-Hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone
Identification.
Tentatively— identified compound.
Retention time in minutes.
Micrograms per kflogram.
390 BJ
110 BJ
250 BJ
41 J
120 J
120 J
430
37,000 ABJ
290 J
110,000 ABJ
88J
240 J
270 J
49,000 ABJ
R
R
R
390 U
R
R
430 U
R
390 U
R
R
R
370 U
R
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
Analyte or TIC is detected in the laboratory blank.
Analyte analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
Aldol condensation product.
Field replicate.
Sample results are rejected and will not be reported.
PR01301 -T1/TiMcA-MM22>3a.«fc3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Page 1 of 5
Table I3-S. Summary of Volatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Soil and Quality Control Samples Collected from June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Instrument ______
ID
ICV/CCV
Calibration
Outliers
File ID
Heated Purge
Date
Criterion
(yes/no)
Analyzed
(RF/%RSD/%D
Compound
(calculated value)
Associated Samples
HP-V2
SSL ICV A2499-A2500
No
06/11/92
%RSD>30%
n-Propylbenzene (38.24)
MB 15JUN92-A, MW-4D, MW-1D,
B-4, MW-3, MB 23JUN92-A, MW-4,
MB 01JUL92-A, MW- 11D,
MB 03JUL92-A, MW-1, MB 11JUN92-A,
FB060492, FB060592, TB060592,
MB 16JUN92-A, TB060992, FB060992,
TB061092, MB 17JUN92-A, TB061592,
WAPA, MB 24JUN92-B, WAPA-RE,
FB061692, TB061692, MB 25JUN92-A,
FB061992, MB 26JUN92-A, TB061992
TCLCCV
c
SSLCCV
8
SSLCCV
oj
SSLCCV
TCLCCV
TCLCCV
A2579
A2578
A2S88
A2608
A2760
A2793
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
06/15/92
06/15/92
06/16/92
06/17/92
06/23/92
06/24/92
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
Carbon disulfide (-25.1)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (28.78)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (30.48)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (33.04)
Carbon disulfide (-27.1)
1,2-Dichloroethane (318),
l,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (35.8)
MB 15JUN92-A, MW-4D, MW-1D
B-4, MW-3
MB 15JUN92-A, MW-4D, MW-1D,
B-4, MW-3
MB 16JUN92-A, TB060992, FB060092,
TB061092
MB 17JUN92-B, TB061592, WAPA
MB 23JUN92-A, MW-4
MB 24JUN92-B, WAPA-RE,
FB061692, TB061692
See last page for footnotes.
Ml Ml -WP.DV/TiMiAUHkJ
GERAGHTY & MIU.l-R. INC
Page 2 of 5
Table I3-S. Summary of Volatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Soil and Quau'ty Control Samples Collected from June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Instrument _____
ID
ICV/CCV
Calibration
Outliers
File ID
Heated Purge
Date
Criterion
(yes/no)
Analyzed
(RF/%RSD/%D
Compound
(calculated value)
SSLICV A3084-A3089
No
07/09/92
2-Butanone (-38.3),
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (-27.8),
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (-35.3)
%RSD
>30%
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (42),
n-Propylbenzene (48.7)
Associated Samples
HP-V2
(continued)
TCLCCV
TCLCCV
SSLCCV
TCLCCV
TCLCCV
A2818
A2836
A2837
A2950
A2999
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
06/25/92
06/26/92
06/26/92
07/01/92
07/03/92
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
1,2-Dfchloroethane (28.1),
l,2-Dichloroethane-d4 (31.3)
1,2-Dichloroethane (29.2),
l,2-Dkhloroethane-d4 (29.1)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (57.93)
n-Propylbenzene (58.22)
Carbon disulfide (-29.8)
Chloromethane (25.7),
MB 25JUN92-A, FB061992
MB 26JUN92- A, TB061992
MB 26JUN92-A, TB061992
MB 01JUL92-A, MW- 11D
MB 03JUL92- A, MW- 1
MB 24JUL92-A, MW-6, MW-7,
MW-7 FR (MW-100), MW-8
MB 04AUG92-A, B-9, B-l, B-7
MB 05AUG92-A, B-6, MB 07AUG92-B,
B-2, B-3, MW-10, MW-10D,
MB 12AUG92-B, MW-6D,
MB 17AUG92-A, B-13, B-10, B-ll,
B-12, B- 13A, B-8, B-8 FR (MW-101),
MW-5, MB 18AUG92-A, B-13 DL,
B-11 RE, B-8 MS, B-8 MSD,
MB 20AUG92-B, B-16, B-16 MS,
See last page for footnotes.
rmim-wr.DwnifcA4.wkJ
GERAGHTY & MILIJ-R, INC
Page 3 of5
Table 13-5. Summary of Volatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Soil and Quality Control Samples Collected trom June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Instrument ______
ID
ICV/CCV
Calibration
File ID
Heated Purge
Date
(yes/no)
Analyzed
Outliers
Criterion
(RF/%RSD/%D
Compound
(calculated value)
Associated Samples
HP-V2
(continued)
TCLCCV
A3596
Yes
08/04/92
%D>25%
Chloroethane (27.8)
TCLCCV
A3652
Yes
08/07/92
%D>25%
Methylene chloride (31.6)
TCLCCV
A3764
Yes
08/12/92
%D>25%
Methylene chloride (30.0)
TCLCCV
A3845
Yes
08/17/92
%D>25%
Methylene chloride (28,0),
Acetone (57.8),
2-Butanone (51.9),
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (38.3),
2-Hexanone (50.5),
B-16 MSD, MW-2, B-5, MW-2 FR
(MW- 102X B-14, B-15, B-14 FR
(MW-103), MB 27AUG92-A, SS-6, SS-6 FR
(SS-7), SS-3, MB 27AUG92-B, SS-4, SS-5,
MB 10JUL92-A, FB070192, TB070192,
FB070692, TB070692, MB 1QAUO92-A,
FB080392, TB080392, FB080492, TB080492,
FB080692, MB 11AUO92-A, TB080692,
MB 18AUG92-B, FB081092, FB081192,
TB061092, TBOB1192, TB081292,
MB 19AUG92-A, FB081292,
MB 21AUO92-A, FB081392, TB081392,
FB081492, TB061492, MB 29AUO92-A,
FB081992, TB081992
MB 04AU092-A, B-9, B-l, B-7
MB07AUO92-B, B-2, B-3,
MW-10,MW-10D
MB 12AUG92-B, MW-6D
MB 17AUG92-A, B-13, B-10,
B-ll,B-12,B-13A,B-8,
B-8 FR (MW-101), MW-5
See last page for footnotes.
PMlJM-WP.DWMhA4.WU
GERAGHTY^MII.LHR. INC
Page 4 of 5
Table 13- 5. Summary of Volatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Soil and Quality Control Samples Collected from June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Instrument
ID
1CV/CCV
HP-V2
TCLCCV
(continued)
TCLCCV
c
TCLCCV
SSL CCV
£
TCLCCV
SSL CCV
SSL CCV
HP-V3
TCL CCV
Calibration
File ID
Heated Purge
(yes/no)
A3865
Yes
A3929
Yes
A4118
Yes
A4117
Yes
A4129
Yes
A4130
Yes
A4164
No
C9727
No
Date
Analyzed
OS/18/92
08/20/92
8/27/92
8/27/92
OS/27/92
08/27/92
08/29/92
07/03/92
Criterion
(RF/%RSD/%D
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
Outliers
Compound
(calculated value)
Methylene chloride (26.0),
Acetone (55.9),
2-Butanone (55.7),
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (46.7),
2-Hexanone (55.3)
Acetone (29.2)
l,2-Dkhloroethane-d4 (-32.5)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (30.63)
Carbon tetrachloride (-25.8)
l,2-Dkhloroethane-d4 (-30.7),
n-Propjrlbenzene (27.06)
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (27.50),
n-Propylbenzene (32.91)
Vinyl chloride (-28.6)
Associated Samples
MB 18AUO92-A,
B-13DL.B-11RE,
B-8MS.B-8MSD
MB 20AU092-B, B- 16, B- 16 MS,
B-16MSD.MW-2.B-5,
MW-2 FR (MW- 102), B- 14, B- 15,
B-14FR(MW-103)
MB 27AUO92-A, SS-6, SS-6 FR (SS-7), SS-3
MB 27AU092-A, SS-6, SS-6 FR (SS-7), SS-3
MB 27AUO92-B, SS-4, SS-5
MB27AU092-B,SS-4
SS-5
MB 29AUO92-A,
FB081992,TB081992
MB03JUL92-A,
FB062692, FB063092, TB063092
See last page for footnotes.
PWI an -wr.DV/r*hA4.wu
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
(
I
Page 5 of 5
Table I3-S. Summary of Volatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Soil and Quality Control Samples Collected from June through August 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Instrument
Calibration
ID
Outliers
ICV/CCV
File ID
Heated Purge
Date
Criterion
Compound
(yes/no)
Analyzed
(RF/%RSD/%D
(calculated value)
HP-V3
TCLCCV
C0130
No
07/24/92
(continued)
i"~
ID
TCL
SSL
ICV
CCV
RF
%RSD
%D
SSL CCV
C0131
No
07/24/92
TCL CCV
C0215
No
07/31/92
SSL CCV
C0216
No
07/31/92
TCLCCV
C0314
No
08/05/92
SSL CCV
C0315
No
08/05/92
Identification.
Target compound list
Site-specific volatile organic compound list which
includes the following compounds: n-propylbenzene, methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA
Initial calibration verification.
Continuing calibration verification.
Response factor.
Percent relative standard deviation.
Percent difference.
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%D>25%
%
MB
RE
DL
MS
MSD
FB
TB
FR
Bromomethane (-31.6),
Chloroethane (-4L6),
Methylene chloride (-33.3)
n-Propyl benzene (45.62)
Bromomethane (-28.1)
Chloroethane (-325)
Methylene chloride (-318)
n-Propylbenzene
Acetone (29.8)
n-Propylbenzene (25.59)
Percent
Method blank.
Reanalysis.
Dilution analysis.
Matrix spike.
Matrix spike duplicate.
Held blank.
Trip blank.
Field replicate.
Associated Samples
MB 24JUL92-B, TB071692, FB071692,
FB072092, TB072092, FB072192, TB072192
MB 24JUL92-B, FB071692, TB071692,
FB072092, TB072092, FB072192, TB072192
MB 31JUL92-B, FB072492, TB072492
MB 31JUL92-B, FB072492, TB072492
MB 05AUG92-A, FB073192, TB073192
FB072992, TB072992
MB 05AUO92-A, FB072992, TB072992
FB073192,TB073192
GERAGHTY & MIU.HR. INC
: V
m •
a. •i!
o S
f I
& *2
& A
C
*
GERAGHTY i*"*"
**
Ljk
*
**
~ 3
T
w
wo
FB061992. WB-22JUN92C
i
j -in.
X
"0
1
S2
R
o
J}jj
f
-
#o
V
K#
Hexacklorocyclopelt
2,4,6 - Trlbroaopkei
2. S.
-3 5
^ Z
""
\
£
FB061692 DL
11
X
-a
1
g
R
ojj
o>
|
3
*a
V
*
4-Nitroailiie(32.i;
3,3'-Dicklorobeiiidi
fn
1M
^
MW-3,
MW-4, SB- 15JUN92A, FB061692,
WB-1UUN92C
(A
03
1
ScI
5
N W Kl *—
X•fl1
8
n
o
-*ji0i
§3
#
93tflD
V
g*
Hexacklorocyclopelt
3,3'-Dicklorobeiridi
: 1
"w •
H 2.
tj ^
C? s>
MW-3, MW-4, MW-4 RE, FB061692, FBO
FB061992, SB- 15JUN92A, SB- UJUN92B, 1
WB- 18JUN92C, PB063092, WB-22JUN92C
SB-22JUN92B, WB-30JUN92D, WMB-04.
SB-04JUL92A
S
as *
il'l
> W w w
*
2 O f*
M g
X
"0i
8!
nn
o^
S
8
3^
*
D
V
*
u*
l"
Os-
a.
a.
5*
-
3o
MW-4D, MW-ID, SB- 10JUN92C, B-4, F
WB-11JUN92B. SB-12JUN92B
I
™
i
X•oI
Z
on
o^
IS
|
3
#
D
V
#
i"
a.
a.
5*
i'*
^
WB- 10JUN92C, FB060492. PB060S92
S o
X
noI
8
o
0
0*
1
O
00
v»
11
*
70
(/>0
V
*
Hexacklorocyclopelt
3,3'-DicklorobeiBd
I |
(XI •
p l»
~ Is
WB-10JUN92C, FB060492, FB060592, MW-
M W- 1 D. SB - 10JUN92C, FB06099Z WB - 1
B-4.SB-12JUN92B
C O
z •
a
1
B
- u
0 5
n
<
3
!T
5
D
£
1
n|
5'
'S
5 g
s §
5 "
rl5
COB pond
(Cakilaled Valie)
O
S:n
Anocialed SaBplet
P
S
1
•
(A
(^
H •
O
•»
B J
c *
< 1
«=. 1
IF °
• 2.
|-
"
y
£
1
5*
J>I
1
0.o
r>
S?
2.
Sf•
• plet Collecled froa. J
•
n
™
3i
I
H
!• Service Statioi Iiveiligatioi,
Page 2 oft
Table 13-6. Snaaary of Seaiivolatile Calibration Olllien Auociated wilk Soil aid Quality Coatrol SaBplea Collected fro» Jme tkroigk Aigut 1992, TiU Servke Stalioi Iivettigatioi.
Si. Taomn, U.S. Virgil Iilaidi.
SDO
22932
22712
23021
23144
22932
23021
23024
23024
22932
iMtriBcit
Calibration
Olllien
ID
ICV/CCV
File ID
Date Analysed
Criterioi
Coapogad
(RF/%RSD/%D)
(Calculated Valve)
HP-SS
CCV
O735S
07/06/92
%D>25%
4-CkloroaiiIie(27.6)
4-Nitropkeiol(36.5)
4-Nitroailiie(-33.S)
Peitackloropkeiol (29.5)
HP-SS
CCV
07379
07/OS/92
%D>25%
Hexacklorocyclopeitadieie(-33.0)
4-Nilropfce.ol(369)
4-Nitroailiie(-30.4)
Peitaehloropkeiol(39.1)
HP-S5
ICV
O7392-O73%
07/09/92
%RSD>30%
Heiacklorocyclopeitadieie(32.2S)
HP-SS
CCV
O7392
07/09/92
%D>2S%
4-Nitropkeiol(27.8)
Auociated Samplet
PB062692, WB-30JUN92D
MW-4 RE, SB-04JUL92A, WMB-04JUL92A, PB063092
MW- 11D, SMB-30JUN92B, MW- 1. MW- 14,
SMB-06JUL92B, WMB-06JUL92C. WMB-09JUL92B,
SMB-09JUL92B, PB070I92, FB070692, MW- 12D
MW-11D.SMB-30JUN92B, MW-1. MW-14.
SMB-06JUL92B. WMB-06JUL92C
23024
HP-SS
CCV
O7411
07/10/92
«D>25%
4-Nitroailiie(29.0)
FB070192
23144
HP-SS
CCV
O7458
07/13/92
%D>25*
2,2'-oiybk (1 -Ckloropropaie) (32.3)
WMB-09JUL92B, PB070692
23144
HP-SS
CCV
O74«7
07/15/92
%D>25%
Hexacklorocyclopeitadieie (-26.5)
4-Nitroailiie(-3«.5)
Beizo(k)n»x>raitkeie (-30.5)
2,4,6-Tribro.opke.ol (-31.7)
MW-12D, SMB-09JUL92B
See lolea oa laat page.
I.Uri-wpDV/lbl3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILI.l-R. INC
Page 3 of I
Table 13-6. S»aary of Seaivolatile Calibration Oitlien Aaaociated with Soil aid Qmlity Coitrol Saaiplea Collected froB J»e tkrolgk Aigut 1992, Till Service Statioi Iiveatif atioi.
St. Tkoaiai, U.S. Virgil Iilaida.
SDO
23421
23396
23506
23448
23421
23396
lutriBeit
Calibralioa
Ontlien
ID
ICV/CCV
File ID
Dale Aialyzcd
Criterioi
Coapond
(RF/%RSD/%D)
(Cakilated Valie)
HP-SS
CCV
O7654
07/31/92
%D>25%
3,3 - Dicklorobeiadiie (32.26)
Beizo(k)aioraitkeie (26.30)
HP-S5
CCV
0767S
08/03/92
%D>25%
Hezacklorocyclopeitadieie(-41.1)
2,4-DiiitropkMol (-33.1)
4,6-Diiitro-2-aetkylpkeiol (-35.0)
Peitackloropkeiol (-34.4)
3,3'-Dicklorobeiiidiie (-26.2)
2,4,6-TribroHOpkeiol (-37.9)
Auociated Sample*
FB072092, FB071692. WMB-2UUL92C
MW-7, MW-9. MW-8. SMB-27JUL92A, FB072192,
WMB-25JUL92A, MW-6D. WMB-23JUL92B.
SMB-23JUL92B. MW-7 PR (MW-100). SMB-2UUL92B
23506
23697
23623
23506
HP-SS
CCV
HP-S5
CCV
O7695
O7792
08/04/92
%D>25*
08/12/92
%D>25%
2,4-DiiJtropkeiol (-39.1)
4,6-Di«itro-2-meliylpfc25%
bii(2-Ckloroetkyl)ctker(-30.0)
Nitrobeizeie(-28.1)
2-NitroaiIiie(-28.5)
O
2-FI»oropkeiol(-33.0)
23799
HP-SS
CCV
O7880
08/20/92
%D>2S*
Pfceiol (-27.3)
rr
4-Nitroailiie(28.2)
!:
Peitackloropkeiol(-33.1)
2-FI»oropkeiol(-3$.8)
FB080492, WMB-07AUO92C
FB081092, FB081192
See tolet OB laat pag*.
utiri-«pDV/tbl3.wU
GERAGHTY & MII.I.HR. INC'
Page 4 ofg
Table 13-6.
Summary of Semivolatile Calibratioi Ontlien Auociated will Soil aid Qialky Coilrol Sample* Collected horn Jne tkroigk Aigut 1992, Titi Servke Statioi Iivetlif atioi.
St. Tfcomii, U.S. Virgil Iilaida.
SDO
23799
23697
2393t
23799
23750
23S33
23697
23799
24008
2393S
23799
2393S
IiilriMcit
Calibratioi
Oillicn
ID
ICV/CCV
File ID
DateAialyzed
Criterioi
Compoiid
(RF/%RSD/%D)
(Cafcilated Valie)
HP-S5
CCV
O78S9
08/21/92
%D>2$%
2.4.5 -Trkkloropkeiol (-26.7)
Peitaekloropkeiol (-25.8)
Beizo(k)a«oraitke»e (-25.9)
2-FI«oropfceiol(-259)
HP-S5
CCV
O7904
08/22/92
%D>25%
HexaeklorobeizeM (-26.1)
2-Flwropkeiol(-30.9)
HP-S5
CCV
O7921
08/23/92
%D>25%
4-Nltroaili«e(28.9)
4 - BroBopkeiyl - pkeiyletker ( - 25.4)
Hcxacklorobeiteie (-27.5)
B«iro(k)n»orailkei* (-26.8)
2-Flioropkeiol(-30.6)
HP-S5
CCV
O7945
08/24/92
*D>2J%
2.4 -Dilitropkeiol (34.9)
Di-i-octyl pktkalale (-33.3)
Beito(k)nio»itkeie (-34.2)
-S5
CCV
O7977
08/26/92
»D>25»
Pkeiol (-30.6)
4-Metkylpkeiol(-26.2)
X
4-Nitropkeiol(36.7)
l:
Pyreie(-30.0)
Bilylbeaiylpklkalate (-29.6)
^
bu(2-Etkylkeiyl)Pklkalate (-29.9)
:'
Di-i-octylpktfcalate(-288)
?-SS
CCV
O7962
08/25/92
*D>25*
4-Nitropkeiol(34.6)
Pyreie(-26.7)
Auociated Sample*
WMB-13AUO92B
SMB-06AU092B, WMB-15AUO92B. FB081292
SMB - 19AU092B. SMB - 13AUO92B, B - 13, M W - 10.
MW-10D.SMB-11AU092A, MW-6D. B-3
B - 10, B - 1 1. FBOS1392. FB081492, WMB - 18AUO92C
MW-5, B-8 PR (MW-101). B-12
B-13A, B-8. B-8 MS, B-8 MSD
See iote« o» It*! page.
tit«ri-wpDV/tb!3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
PagcS of 8
Table 13-6.
Snaiaiary of Seaivolalile Calibralioi Oillien Auocialcd wild Soil aid Quality Coilrol Savplei Collected fro« Jue tkroigk AigMt 1992,
Till Service Slalioi Iivettigatioi.
St. Tfcomai, U.S. Virgil Iilaidi
SDO
Calibralioi
IiatriBcit
______________
ID
ICV/CCV
File ID
O»tli«n
DateAialyzed
Criterioi
Co* pond
(RF/%RSD/%D)
(Calcilated Valie)
Auocialed SaBplet
24122
2400*
23697
HP-SS
ICV
O7999-O8003
08/28/92
%RSD>30%
3-Nitroaiiiie(30.1)
Beizo(k)nw>raitkeie (37.3)
B-2,
MW-2,
B-5.B- 14.B-15, B-16,
B-16
MS,
B-16
MSD.
SMB-20AUO92A, MW-2
PR (MW-102).
B-14
PR (MW-103), WMB-24AUO92B, PB081992,
SMB-2SAUO92B
23697
24008
HP-S5
CCV
HP-S5
CCV
O8003
O8021
OS/28/92
%D>25%
08/31/92
%D>25*
24122
'-SS
CCV
OS037
09/01/92
%D>25%
4-CkloroaiiIie(-2S.2)
3-Nitroailiie(-33.5)
B««ro(k)fl»orailkeie (33.S)
4 -CfclocoaiiSte ( -2S.9)
Hexacklorobvtadieie (-31.0)
Hexacklorocyclopcitadleie (- 32.2)
2,4.5-Trickloropkeaol (-29.3)
3-Nitroailiie(-2S.l)
Hezicklorobeizeie (-26.3)
Be»o(k)a«orailkeie (-30.6)
2.4,6-Tribroaopkeiol (-29.0)
2,2'-oiybii(l-CkloropropaieK-28.1)
1,2,4-Tricklorobeizeie (-25.4)
Heucklorobitadieie (-33.8)
4-Ckloropkeiyl-pkeiylelker(-26.0)
Beizo(k)n«oraitkeie (-33.9)
2,4.6-TribroBopkeiol (-33.6)
B-2
SMB-20AU092A, MW-2.
B-S,
B-14.B-1S. B-16.
B-16
MS, B-16
MSD.
MW-2
PR (MW-102),
B-14
PR (MW-103)
WMB-24AUO92B
See lotet 01 l«t page.
tiUri-wpDV/tbl3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILLHR, INC
Pate 6 ofS
Table 13-6. S»aaiy of Scaivolatile Calibration Oltlien Aaiociated with Soil aid Quality Coitrol Staple* Collected fro* Jne tkroif k Aifiil 1992, Till Service Statioi Iivetticatloa,
St. Tkomai, U.S. Virjii lalaidi.
SDO
Calferatioi
Oltlien
Auociated Saaplei
ID
ICV/CCV
File ID
Date Analyzed
Criterion
Conpoiad
(RF/%RSD/*D)
(Calculated Valie)
24122
HP-S5
CCV
O804S
09/02/92
%D>23«
24122
24122
24122
HP-S5
CCV
O8061
09/04/92
%D>25%
HP-S5
ICV
O8288-O8292
09/23/92
%RSD>30%
HP-S5
CCV
O82M
09/23/92
%D>25*
2,2'-oxybii(l-CkloropropaieX-33.6)
1,2,4-Tricklorobeizeie (-26.4)
Hexacklorobitadieie (-31.7)
4-Nitropke«ol(3S.4)
4 -Ckloropkeiyl- pkeiyletker (-27.0)
4-Nitroaiiiie(40.7)
Heiacklorobeizeie (-2S.7)
2,4,6-TribroBopkeiol (-40.0)
2.2'-oxybii(l-CkloropropaieX-54.9)
1,2,4-Tricklorobeizeme (-26.1)
Hexacklorobitadieie (-30.3)
Hexacklorocyclopeiladieie (-28.7)
4-Ckloropkeiyl-pkeiyletker(-2S.l)
4-Nitroaiai»(35.6)
4 - BroBopkeiyl - pkeiyletker (- 25.1)
HeucklorobeizcM (-28.3)
2,4,6-Tribroaopkeiol (-42.6)
Beizo(k)nioraitkeie (35.5)
Hexacklorocyclopeitadieie (- 36.1)
Beizo(k)nioraitkeie (-37.0)
SMB-25AUO92B
FBOS1992
SS-S, SS-7, SS-3, SS-4,8MB- 17SEP92A
SS-5, SS-6 PR (SS-7)
See aotet 01 lait page.
Htiri-wpDV/tbl3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MIU.F.R. INC'
Pate 7 of I
Table 13-6. Siaaaiy of Scaivolatile Calibralioa Oitlien Auoclaled wilk Soil aid Qialfey Coalrol Saaiplea Collected froai J»e tkroigk Aigut 1992, Till Servke Stadoi Iivettigatioi,
St. TkoBM, U.S. Virgil Iilaida.
SDO
Iiatr»eit
______
ID
ICV/CCV
CaUbratioi
File ID
Date Aialyzed
Oitlien
Criterioa
Coaiponad
(RP/%RSD/*D)
(Calculated VaUe)
Awociatcd Saaiple*
24122
HP-S5
CCV
OS364
24122
24122
24122
24122
2412:
HP-S5
CCV
HP-S2
ICV
HP-82
CCV
OS421
P9675
09/25/92
%D>25%
2,2'-oicyfak(l-CkloropropaieX-42.2)
Hexaeklorobitadieie (-26.5)
2,4,5-Tricalofopaeaol (-27.7)
4-Nitfopkeiol(-30.6)
Dielkylpktkalate(-2S.S)
Di-i-octylpktkalate (-S4.5)
SS-3,
SMB-17SEP92A
09/28/92
*D>25%
P9675-P9679
10/07/92
*RSD>30%
10/07/92
HP-S2
ICV
P9718-P9722
10/10/92
HP-S2
CCV
P9772
10/13/92
2,2'-oiybh(1 -Ckloropropaie)(-34.3)
1^,4-Trkklorobeiieie (-26.5)
Hexacklorobitadieie (-2S.O)
2,4^ -Trickloropkeiol (-29.0)
2,4-Diaitropaeaol (-25.1)
4,6-Di«itro-2-atetaylpaeaol (-33.5)
Hexacklorocyclopeitadieie (32.7)
2,4 -Dititropkeiol (43.0)
%D>25%
2,4-Di«ilropaeaot(62.1)
%D>25%
4,6-D!«itro-2-ai«tkylpa«aol (37.0)
RF<0.05
2,4 -Diiitropkeiol (0.044)
«RSD>30*
Beizo(k)fl«ora»tkeie (32.9)
%D>25%
2,2'-ojybb(l-Caloroptopaa«X-54.*)
4-Ckloroaiiiie(30.1)
3-Nitroailiie(34.6)
2,4 -Diiitropkeiol (35.6)
4-Nltroailiie(33.2)
SS-4
SMB-25SEP92A.SS-6
SS-6.SMB-2SSEP92A
SMB-30SEP92A.SS-3 RE
SS-3
RE
See iota* 01 laat page.
Utiri-wpDV/tbl3.«k3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
G
m
73|
H
pa
"** M 9
*" *^ *f*
ii
-*
^»
Q
•^-V9T
£00
inj
w<
I \\\\\\\\
friiii'i
• ' i l l i
1 i H
3
r.
=•
H
o
o
ft.
•
•
i
3
j?
fr
•>
O.
JT
O jo -B a» < «i •»
r S *> S 5 * w
03 *
O 30 31 W> j« V> 2
I S 5 " ! v S
s *1 » « : ?
: r | | j JT -
5"
? 2 5 •"
r>- njj-
8-
&2|
Ktra.
?•
a.
a
i
•el
se
S
i
§1
D
V
K*
N S X S
f i l l
gf f !
O
M 7
^
"S- S U ~
s I. s i
i 7 a 7
|^1|
I
ac
09
1i
|j
•B
jB
g
g
CS w f3
s
"9
1
se
§
i
ii
K)
D
V
09
I
•5
I
~
A
n
1a
w
•B -a
"*1
*4
M
\Z
OB D
1
I
"J 'O
T |
f* »
09
|
« 1
M 5
09 9
1 »
M
G
O
S
M
§
_ 5
° 5
n
§
il
o •
£
a
5
•
1
"3
2 o
* 3.
11
* -
a
o
|J
|!
r £
A
rxs-
£
Sf
1
•»z
s
U> M
•BBarjr of SeBivolatile Calibri
1. Tkoaai, U.S. Virgil Iilaidi.
5.
o
0
A*
|
5*
J?
0.|i»a.
O
•
fo
•i
if•
l plet Collected
5"
§
•
n
3
M
1
S
1
1
X*
A
I
5*
|
»
T5
?•
-
7
M
A
0»
2.
Page 1 of 2
Table 13-7.
Summary of Soil Field-Replicate Sampk Pair Results, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Analyte or TIC (RT)
Concentration (ug/kg)
RPD (%)
Vola tiles
Semivola tiles
TPH*
Volatiles
Semivola tiles
TPH*
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Octametbyl cydotetrasiloxane
Benzo (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene
Benzo (g,h,i) perylene
Benzo (k) fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno (123-cd) pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzaldehyde
Unknown (28.88)
C-20 H- 12 Isomer (35.51)
Hydrocarbon (3732)
Unknown (3922)
Unknown (33.79)
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Unknown (20.48)
Hydrocarbon (22.25)
Unknown (23.05)
Unknown (24.66)
Hydrocarbon (26.23)
Unknown (29.61)
Hydrocarbon (23.83)
Hydrocarbon (2529)
Unknown (27.15)
Unknown (27.75)
Trichlorofluoromethane
Unknown (5.18)
Unknown (25.74)
Unknown (26.10)
Unknown (28.79)
Unknown (29.01)
Unknown (30.48)
Unknown (41.09)
B-8
2J
4J
23
23 JN
180 J
200 J
250J
84J
96J
210 J
290 J
87J
160 J
300 J
38 JN
110 J
150 J
230J
75 J
NR
23U
B-14
72
2J
50J
44J
87 J
37 J
56J
56 J
44J
72 J
33 J
41 J
NR
NR
260 J
380 J
150 J
110 J
150 J
NR
250D
B-8FR(MW-101)
5J
4J
3J
48 JN
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
350 U
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
180 J
77
B-14FR(MW-103)
100
3J
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
11 JN
48J
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1500 J
56
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
32.5
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
127
See notes on Page 2.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Page 2 of 2
Table 13-7.
Summary of Sofl Field-Replicate Sample Pair Results, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas,
U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Analyte or TIC (RT)
Volatiles
Methytene chloride
Acetone
2— Butanone
Unknown (27.45)
Unknown (533)
TPH»
Volatiles
Methyiene chloride
C-12 H-12 Isomer
Semivolatfles
Unknown (1557)
Unknown (5.02)
TPH*
Volatiles
Methyiene Chloride
TIC
Tentatively-identified compound.
RT
Retention time in minutes.
ug/kg
Micrograms per kilogram.
RPD
Relative percent difference.
FR
Field replicate.
J
Estimated concentration.
NC
Not calculated.
Concentration (ug/kg)
MW-2
10 J
58 J
11 U
10 J
NR
66
MW-7
12
NR
69 J
NR
27
SS-6
22
MW-2 FR(MW- 102)
10 J
130J
25
NR
16 J
86
MW-7 FR(MW- 100)
18
13 J
NR
69 J
21 U
SS-6FR(SS-7)
20
RPD (%)
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
26
40
NC
NC
NC
NC
9.5
U
Analyte analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit.
NR
Not reported in sample.
N
Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
TPH
Total petroleum hydrocarbons.
*
Concentrations (mg/kg).
mg/kg
Milligrams per kilogram.
D
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution.
rur
oo
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX .T
FIRST SAMPLING ROUND DATA VALIDATION REPORT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
APPENDIX!
FIRST SAMPLING ROUND DATA VALIDATION REPORT
Appendix J includes the data validation summary and the supporting documentation
generated during the analytical data review of first round ground-water samples collected in
September and October 1992 for the Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
Islands and analyzed by Enseco East (Enseco) of Somerset, New Jersey.
APPENDIX FORMAT
The data validation report appendix is divided in the following sections:
•
Introduction.
•
Attachment Jl - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) Number (No.) HW-6 (Revision No. 8) Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) organics data review and preliminary review
checklist, and the data assessment narrative.
•
Attachment J2 - The USEPA SOP No. HW-2 (Revision 11) "Evaluation of Metals
Data for the CLP" total review inorganics checklist and the data assessment
narrative for the target analyte list (TAL).
•
Attachment 13 - Tables associated with the validation checklists and narratives.
The introduction summarizes (1) the field investigation sampling effort, (2) the analytical
parameters and methods employed in support of the field investigation, (3) the data validation
requirements and validation protocols used for the data assessment, and (4) an overall
assessment.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J-2
Attachment Jl is comprised of the USEPA Region H SOP No. HW-6
(Revision No. 8)
CLP organics preliminary data review checklist and the data assessment narrative (USEPA
1992a). The data review checklist guides the data reviewer in evaluating pertinent field and
laboratory sample documentation and analytical procedures. By evaluating critical quality
control (QC) criteria, the data reviewer determines the validity of the analytical data and places
limitations on data use. In the data assessment narrative, the data reviewer summarizes the
validation, discusses sample anomalies and QC outliers, and provides an overall assessment of
the analytical data generated in support of the field investigation.
Attachment J2 is comprised of the USEPA Region H SOP No. HW-2
(Revision 11) data
review checklist and associated narrative for the evaluation of CLP inorganics (USEPA 1992b).
In Attachment 13, tables are provided that summarize sample identification/delivery
groups; holding time non-compliance; associated trip blank, field blank, and method blank
contamination; calibration outliers; and matrix spike outliers.
INTRODUCTION
This report represents the data validation and narrative summary for 23 ground-water
samples (including three field replicates [FR]), six field blanks, seven trip blanks, one field-
decontamination water blank, one matrix spike (MS),
and one matrix spike duplicate (MSD)
sample collected in September and October 1992 for the Tutu Service Station Investigation.
SAMPLING
The samples were collected on seven days during the period of September 29, 1992
through October 7, 1992. They were delivered to the laboratory in seven sample delivery
groups (SDGs). An SDG and sample identification (ID) summary is provided below in Table
13-1 of this appendix.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J-3
Three replicate ground-water samples were collected and provided to the laboratory with
blind field identifications. The field replicates were collected at a frequency of 10 percent of
the total field sample number. The sample/field replicate pairs were as follows:
Sample ID
Rgplicafc Field ID
Report ID
MW-5
MW-104
MW-5 FR
MW-7
MW-105
MW-7 FR
MW-9
MW-106
MW-9 FR
A field blank and trip blank were prepared daily and accompanied each SDG shipment.
The field blank collected on October 2, 1992 was cancelled at the laboratory due to an internal
error.
Sample MW-1 was initially collected on October 2, 1992 in SDG 25009. However, the
shipping cooler was lost in transit by the overnight carrier. Since the sample cooler was not
delivered to the laboratory during the required time period and the sample preservation
requirements were exceeded, MW-1
was resampled on October 6, 1992 and delivered to the
laboratory with SDG 25071.
The volatile analysis vials for samples MW-4D and MW-7 collected on October 5, 1992
were received at the laboratory with headspace. Sample MW-4D was resampled for volatiles
on October 7, 1992 and delivered to the laboratory with SDG 25091. Sample MW-7
was not
resampled since a field replicate of sample MW-7 designated MW-105 was collected on October
5, 1992 and sent to the laboratory for analysis. Geraghty & Miller instructed the laboratory to
cancel the volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses on the volatile sample vials delivered for
MW-7.
To satisfy the 10 percent frequency required for the evaluation of sampling precision
and homogeneity of the sample matrix, an additional sample (MW-9) was collected in duplicate
in the field. The field replicate of MW-9
was designated MW-106 for analysis of volatile
organics only.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J-4
A sample of the water used as the source for field decontamination was collected for
analysis on October 7, 1992 and designated "ESSO-TAP." The sample was analyzed for the
total suite of analytical parameters.
ANALYSIS
Samples collected during the field investigation were analyzed for the target compound
list (TCL) VOCs, 1,2,-dibromoethane (EDB), n-propylbenzene, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE),
TCL semivolatiles (i.e., base neutral and acid [BNA] extractable compounds), TAL metals,
cyanide, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).
All VCX: and BNA analyses were performed in accordance with the USEPA March 1990
CLP organic routine analytical services (RAS) SOW (USEPA 1990a). The SOW was modified
during the VOC analysis in order to analyze and quantitate EDB, MTBE, and n-propylbenzene.
For TAL metal and cyanide analyses, the USEPA March 1990 inorganic SOW protocols
were used for the quantitation of TAL analytes (USEPA 1990b).
For the analysis of TPH in water samples, preparation and instrumental analysis was
performed in accordance with USEPA Method 418.1 in Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes (USEPA 1983).
DATA VALIDATION
All VOC, BNA, metals, and cyanide data were validated in accordance with the USEPA
Region n data validation guidelines for organic and inorganic analyses performed in accordance
with CLP RAS protocols. The guidelines for organics and inorganics are provided in the
regional Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. HW-6, Revision 8, and No. HW-2, Revision
11, respectively (USEPA 1992a; 1992b).
TUT
OU2 1674
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J-5
Data validation of TTH data was performed according to criteria specified in USEPA
Method 418.1 (USEPA 1983) and in accordance with the following guidelines:
•
Method and/or reagent blanks - Reported concentration should be less than the
quantitation limit. Blanks, including field blanks, associated with field samples
were reviewed for contamination. Sample results were evaluated using a five
times (5x) multiplier of the highest concentration associated TPH blank.
•
Precision of duplicates - Acceptable precision was demonstrated by calculation of
relative percent difference (RPD) with a limit of 20 percent. For calculated RPD
between 20 to 40 percent, all associated sample data for the analytical batch was
estimated and qualified with a "J" flag.
•
Accuracy of matrix spikes - Acceptable accuracy was demonstrated by percent
recovery (%R) of MS and MSD in the acceptance window range of 80 to 120
percent. For %R values outside of the 80 to 120 window, but within SO to ISO
%R, associated sample data was qualified as estimated.
•
Accuracy of laboratory control spikes - Acceptable %R of blank spikes was
within the window of 80 to 120 percent. For %R values outside of the 80 to 120
window, but within SO to ISO %R, associated sample data in the SDG were
qualified as estimated concentrations.
Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and demonstrate
acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness.
Some data generated for the VOC and BNA organic analyses have been negated for blank
contamination and estimated for holding time, calibration criteria, surrogate and MS/MSD
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J-6
recoveries, and for sample disposition issues. The acid-extractable compounds reported as non-
detects in samples MW-6D and MW-11D were rejected due to surrogate outliers.
In the data review of TAL inorganics, some data were estimated for the following
criteria: holding times and sample preservation, calibration, furnace precision and accuracy
outliers, serial dilution, and for greater than a 10 percent difference between sample results for
total and dissolved constituents. The following data were determined unusable because of QC
outliers:
•
The cyanide data for samples MW-6R and MW-8 due to holding time and sample
preservation requirements.
•
The cyanide data for MW-11D due to the matrix precision and accuracy data
(MS/MSD analyses).
•
Total aluminum and iron data in sample ESSO-TAP due to field blank
contamination.
•
Total chromium in samples MW-9, MW-9S, and MW-1 due to field blank
contamination.
•
Total and dissolved arsenic in sample MW-9S due to a greater than SO percent
difference between the arsenic sample results.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
J-7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Methods of Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, EPA-600/4-7-90-020, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990a. USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
SOW No. 3/90 including Rev. 12/90 and 2/91, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990b. USEPA Contract Laboratory
Program, Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration,
SOW No. 3/90, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992a. Evaluation of Organic Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region n Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-
6, Revision No. 8, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992b. Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region n Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-
2, Revision No. 11, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ATTACHMENT .11
ORGANIC DATA VALIDATION REPORT
TIT!
002
16',
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
SOP NO. HW-6
Revision IB
CLP ORGANICS DATA REVIEW
AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW
BY: - lx --^u^y^______________________ Date:.
Leon Lazarus, Environmental Scientist
Toxi3 and Hazardous Waste Section
BY: ?<^.Y*^>— .^'^
UJ • K^VrrU_________
D a t e : /
s Waste Section
APPROVED BY: V S*f{L''1'7ik
-^7--:ijf-^——-_____
Date:
Robert Runyon, Chief
/
Monitoring Management Branch
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
PACKAGE COMPLETENESS AND DELIVERABLES
CASE NUMBER:_____________^
LAB:.
SITE:
Arfnart
1.0
Data Completeness and Deliverables
1.1 Have any missing deliverables been received
/
and added to the data package?
*
ACTION:
Call lab for explanation/resubmittal of any
missing deliverables. If lab cannot provide
them, note the effect on review of the
package under the "Contract
Problems/Non-compliance" section of reviewer
narrative.
1.2 Was SMO CCS checklist included with package? r 1 __
2 . 0
Cover Letter SDG Narrative
2.1 Is the Narrative or Cover Letter Present?
fn __
2.2 Are Case Nunber and/or SAS number contained
s
in the Narrative or Cover letter?
r«n __
3 . 0
Data Validation Checklist
The following checklist is divided into three parts.
Part A is filled out if the data package contains any
VOA analyses, Part B for any BNA analyses and Part C
for Pesticide/PCBs.
Does this package contain:
VOA Data?
JL _
BNA Data?
JL —
Pesticide/PCB data?
_
_JL
Action: Complete corresponding parts of checklist.
- 1 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: B
Y E S N O N / A
PART At VGA ANALYSES
1.0
Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative
1.1 Are the Traffic Report Fonts present for
f*i __
all samples?
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement
of missing or illegible copies.
1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative
indicate any problems with sample receipt,
condition of samples, analytical problems
or special circumstances affecting the
/
quality of the data?
*
r 1
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil,
other than TCLP, contains 50%-90*
water, all data should be flagged as
estimated (J). If a soil sample
other than TCLP contains more than
90% water, all data should be
qualified as unusable (R).
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon
receipt at the laboratory, flag all
positive results "J" and all Non-
Detects "UJ".
ACTION: If both VOA vials for a sample have
air bubbles or the VOA vial analyzed
had air bubbles, flag all positive
results "J" and all non-detects "R".
- 2 -
GERAGHTY 6? MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: B
YES NO N/A
2 . 0
Holding Tines
2.1 Have any VOA technical holding tines,
determined from date of -collection to date of
/
analysis, been exceeded?
V
\ 1
If unpreserved, aqueous samples maintained at 4*C which are to
be analyzed for aromatic hydrocarbons must be analyzed within
7 days of collection.' If preserved with HC1 (pH<2) and stored
at 4*C, then
aqueous samples must be analyzed within 14
days of collection. If -uncertain about preservation, contact
sampler to determine whether or not samples were preserved.
The holding time for soils is 10 days.
Aefer 4a Tofck-
Table ef Holding Time Violations
*>~2 In ~tV*e^
(See Traffic Report)
Sample
Sample
Date
Date Lab Date
ID
Matrix Preserved?
Sampled
Received Analyzed
ACTION:
If technical holding times are exceeded, flag all
positive results as estimated ("J") and sample
quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in
the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If
analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding
time, either on the first analysis or upon re-analysis,
the reviewer must use professional judgement to
determine the reliability of the data and the effects of
additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum,
all results must be qualified "J", but the reviewer may
determine that non-detect data are unusable (R). If
holding tines are exceeded by more than 28 days, all nor
detect data are unusable (R).
- 3 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: B
YES NO N/.A
3.0
System Monitoring Compound fSMCl Recovery (Form III
3.1 Are the VOA SMC Recovery Summaries (Form II) present
for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
r*n
b.
Low Soil
J_l
c.
Med Soil
r 1
3.2 Are all the VOA samples listed on the appropriate
System Monitoring Compound Recovery Summary for each
of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
b.
Low Soil
I_1 __
*
c.
Med Soil
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/
resubmittals. If missing
deliverables are unavailable,
document effect in data assessments.
3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an
asterisk?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4 Was one or more VOA system monitoring
compound recovery outside of contract
specifications for any sample or method
blank?
If yes, were samples re-analyzed?
f»n __
__
Were method blanks re-analyzed?
r 1 __
^
- 4 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
!
YES" NO N/A
ACTION: If recoveries are > 10% but 1 or
more compounds fail to meet SOW
specifications :
1. All positive results are qualified
as estimated (J) .
2. Flag all non-detects as estimated
detection limits ("UJ") where
recovery is less than the lower
acceptance limit.
3. If SMC recoveries are above allowable
levels, do not qualify non-detects.
If any system monitoring compound
recovery is <10% :
1. Flag all positive results as
estimated ("J").
2. Flag all non-detects as unusable
Professional judgement should be used to qualify
data that only have method blank SMC recoveries out
of specification in both original and re-analyses.
Check the internal standard areas.
3.5 Are there any transcription/ calculation
errors between raw data and Form II?
__
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/ resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors in the data assessment.
4.0
Matrix Spikes (Form III1
Is the Matrix Spike/Mat:
Recovery Fom (Form III) present?
4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike_Duplicate
S
"*
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO
4 . 2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
b.
Low Soil
I_l __ _•_
c.
Med Soil
r 1
ACTION:
If any matrix spike data are missing, take
the action specified in 3.2 above.
4.3 How many VOA spike recoveries are outside QC
limits?
Water
3
out of 10
Mrt out of 10
4.4 How many RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits?
Water
O
out of 5
Mfl out of 5
ACTION: No action is taken based on MS/MSD
data alone. However, using informed
professional judgement, the MS/MSD
results may be used in conjunction
with other QC criteria to determine
the need for qualification of the
data.
5.0
Blanks fForr.
5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV)
j/
present?
r*n
5.2 Frequency of Analysis: for the analysis
of VOA TCL compounds, has a reagent/method
blank been analyzed for each SDG or every
20 samples of similar matrix (low water,
low soil, medium soil), whichever is more
/
frequent?
f 1
- 6 -
•
"--- .1685
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
"~~
" ~
YES NO N/A
5.3 Has a VOA method/instrument blank been
analyzed at least once every twelve hours for
each concentration level and GC/MS system
/
used?
r«n __
ACTION:
If any method blank data are missing, call
lab for explanation/ resubmittal. If
method blank data are not available,
reject (R) all associated positive data.
However, using professional judgement, the
data reviewer may substitute field blank
or trip blank data for missing method
blank data.
5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data system
printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable
/
for VOAs?
r>0 . __
ACTION:
Use professional judgement to
determine the effect on the data.
6.0
Contamination
NOTE:
"Water blanks", "drill blanks", and distilled water
blanks" are validated like any other sample, and are
not used to qualify data. Do not confuse them with
the other QC blanks discussed below.
6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have
positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for VOAs?
When applied as described below, the
contaminant concentration in these blanks are
multiplied by the sample dilution factor and
/
corrected for % moisture when necessary.
_II
I_1
6.2 Do any field/trip/rinse blanks have positive
/
VOA results (TCL and/or TIC)?
_JL
I—1
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated with
each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a
separate sheet.)
- 7 -
TUT °0i:
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
"
Y
E
S
N
O
N
/
A
NOTE:
All field blank results associated to a particular
group of samples (nay exceed one per case) must be
used to qualify data. Trip blanks are used to
qualify only those saaples with which they were
shipped and are not required for non-aqueous
matrices. Blanks nay not be qualified because of
contamination in another blank. Field Blanks & Trip
Blanks must be qualified for system monitoring
compound, instrument performance criteria, spectral
or calibration QC problems.
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify
TCL results due to contamination. Use the largest
value from all the associated blanks. If any blanks
are grossly contaminated, all associated data should
be qualified as unusable (R).
Sample cone > CRQL
but < lOx blank
value
Sample cone < CRQL
t <10x blank value
Sample cone > CRQL
& >10x blank value
Methylene
Chloride Flag sample result
Acetone with a "U;
Toluene
2-Butanone
Report CRQL &
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
Sample cone > CRQL Sample cone < CRQL I Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank
is < 5x blank value
value & > 5x blank
value
Other
Contam-
inants
Flag sample result Report CRQL 6
with a "U"
qualify "U"
No qualification
is needed
NOTE: Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are
still considered as "hits" when qualifying for
calibration criteria.
- 8 -
JT 002 1687
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E ! N O N / A
ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the
sample is less than five times the concentration in
the most contaminated associated blank, flag the
sample data "R" (unusable).
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks
/
associated with every sample?
f 1
*
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that
there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
7.o
GC/MS Instrument Performance Cheek (Form V)
7.1 Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check
Forms (Form V) present for Bromofluorobenzene /
(BFB)?
r"i
7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and
mass/charge (m/z) listing for the BFB
provided for each twelve hour shift?
7.3 Has an instrument performance compound been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
/
analysis per instrument?
r*n
- 9 -
TUT O02 1688
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
ACTION: List date, tine, instrument ID, and
sample analysis for which no
associated GC/MS tuning data are
available.
DATE
TIME
INSTRUMENT
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all
data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour
calibration interval.
7.4 Have the ion abundances been normalized to
/
m/z 95?
f *n
__
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error,
qualify all associated data as
unusable (R).
7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for
/
each instrument used?
(*n
__
ACTION: List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a
separate sheet).
ACTION: If ion abundance criteria are not
met, the Region II TPO must
be notified.
'
7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least
two values but if errors are found, check
/
more.)
__
I—1
- 10 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
——————————£££ —————
7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant
/
figures (two) been reported?
f 1
j/_
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration
/
compound acceptable?
f*n __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine whether associated data
should be accepted, qualified, or
rejected.
8.0
Target Compound List fTCL^ Analvtes
8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I VOA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate I**] __
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike
duplicates
c.
Blanks
8.2 Are the VOA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, the
mass spectra for the identified compounds, and the
data system printouts (Quant Reports) included in
the sample package for each of the following?
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [*} __ __
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike
s
duplicates (Mass spectra not required) r^
c.
Blanks
ACTION: If any data are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above.
- 11 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
' L''
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E i N O N / A
8.3 Are the response factors shown in the Quant
/
Report?
f 1
*
8.4 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with
respect to:
Baseline stability?
TM
__
Resolution?
I'M
__
s
Peak shape?
Ill
__
Full-scale graph (attenuation)?
r*n __
Other: _________________
L_L __
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine the acceptability of the
data.
8.5 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra
.
of the identified VOA compounds present for
/
each sample?
f \ __ __
ACTION: If any mass spectra are missing,
take action specified in 3.2 above.
If lab does not generate their own
standard spectra, make note in
"Contract Problems/Non-compliance".
8.6 Is the RRT of each reported compound within
0.06 RRT units of the standard RRT in the
/
continuing calibration?
I_1 __ __
8.7 Are all ions present in the standard mass
spectrum at a relative intensity greater
than lot also present in the sample mass
/
spectrum?
iJQ.
—— ——
- 12 -
16 VI
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
8.8 Do sample and standard relative ion
intensities agree within 20%?
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of data. If
it is determined that incorrect
identifications were made, all such
data should be rejected (R), flagged
"N" (presumptive evidence of the
presence of the compound) or changed
to not detected (U) at the
calculated detection limit. In
order to be positively identified,
the data must comply with the
criteria listed in 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8
ACTION: When sample carry-over is a
possibility, professional judgement
should be used to determine if
instrument cross-contamination has
affected any positive compound
identification.
9.0
Tentatively Identified Compounds fTICl
9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I Part B) present; and do listed TICs
include scan number or retention time,
estimated concentration and "JN" qualifier? r 1
9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified
compounds and associated "best match" spectra
included in the sample package for each of the
following:
.
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate r 1
ud .
b.
Blanks
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
- 13 -
1692
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction)
listed as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-
dimethylbenzene is xylene- a VOA TCL
/
analyte - and should not be reported as a TIC)?__ ^
ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound
listed as a TIC.
9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass
spectrum with a relative intensity greater
than 10% also present in the sample mass
/
spectrum?
f *M
9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative
/
ion intensities agree within 20%?
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of TIC
identifications. If it is
determined that an incorrect
identification was made, change
identification to "unknown" or to
some less specific identification
(example: "C3 substituted benzene")
as appropriate.
Also, when a compound is not found
in any blank, but is detected in a
sample and is a suspected artifact
of a common laboratory contaminant,
the result should be qualified as
unusable (R). (i.e. Common Lab
Contaminants: CO2 (M/E 44),
Siloxanes (M/E 73) Kexane, Aldol
Condensation Products, Solvent
Preservatives, and related by
products - see Functional Guidelines
for more guidance).
- 14 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / X
10.0
Compound Quantitation and Reported Detection
Limits
10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation
errors in Form I results? Check at least two
positive values. Verify that the correct
internal standard, guantitation ion, and RRF
were used to calculate Form I result. Were
any errors found?
10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample
dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture? ^ -
-
ACTION:
If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note errors
under "Conclusions".
ACTION:
When a sample is analyzed at more than one
dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used
(unless a QC exceedance dictates the use
of the higher CRQL data from the diluted
sample analysis). Replace concentrations
that exceed the calibration range in the
original analysis by crossing out the "E"
and its associated value on the original
Form I and substituting the data from the
analysis of the diluted sample. Specify
which Form I is to be used, then draw a
red "X" across the entire page of all Form
I's that should not be used, including any
in the summary package.
11.0
Standards Data (GC/MS)
11.1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms,
and data system printouts (Quant. Reports)
present for initial and continuing
/
calibration?
r *H
ACTION: If any calibration standard data are
nissing, take action specified in
3.2 above.
- 15 -
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
12.0
GC/MS Initial Calibration fForm VIA
12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI)
present and complete for the volatile
fraction at concentrations of 10, 20,
50, 100, 200 ug/1?
Are there separate
calibrations for low water/med soils
and low soil samples?
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
12.2 Were all low level soil standards, blanks
and samples analyzed by heated purge?
I_1
_
ACTION: If low level soil samples were not heated during
purge, qualify positive hits "J" and non-detects "R"
12.3 Are response factors stable for VOA's
over the concentration range of the
calibration (%Relative Standard Deviation
(%RSD) 00.0% )?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE:
Although 11 VOA compounds have a minimum
RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical
criteria are the same for all analytes.
ACTION: If %RSD > 30.0%, qualify associated positive
results for that analyte "J" and non-detects
using professional judgement. When RSD > 90%,
flag all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable)
NOTE:
Analytes previously qualified "U" for blank
contamination are still, considered as "hits"
when qualifying for initial calibration
criteria.
12.4
Are the RRFs above 0.05?
Action: Circle all outliers in red.
Action: If any RRF are < 0.05, qualify associated
non-detects (R) and flag associated positive
data as estimated (J).
- 16 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
12.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or %RSD? (Check at least 2 values, but
/
if errors are found, check more.)
rvn
13.0
GC/MS Continuing Calibration fForm VIII
13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms
(Form VII) present and complete for the
volatile fraction?.
13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard
been analyzed for every twelve
sample analysis per instrument?
been analyzed for every twelve hours of
/
r«n
ACTION: List below all sample analyses that
were not within twelVe hours of the
previous continuing calibration
analysis.
ACTION: If any forms are missing or no continuing
calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal. If continuing calibration
data are not available, flag all associated sample
data as unusable ("R").
13.3 Do any volatile compounds have a % Difference
(% D) between the initial and continuing
>/
RRF which exceeds the ± 25% criteria?
_iL
L_l ——
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: Qualify both positive results and
non-detects for the outlier compound(s)
as estimated. When % D is above 90%, reject
all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable.
- 17 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES NO
13.4 Do any volatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? r 1 v
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If the RRF <0.05, qualify associated
non-detects as unusable (R) and "J"
associated positive values.
13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation
errors in the reporting of average response
factors (RRF) or %difference (%D) between
initial and continuing RRFs? (Check at least
two values but if errors are found,
/
check more.)
__
f 1 _
ACTION: Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors under "Conclusions".
14 . 0
Internal Standard (Form VIII1
14.1 Are the internal standard areas (Form VIII)
of every sample and blank within the upper
and lower limits (-50% to * 100%) for each
>^
continuing calibration?
1 _ 1 __ _
ACTION: List all the outliers below.
Sample * Internal Std
Area
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
- 18 -
TUT <** 16V.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YE!NON/A
ACTION: 1. if the internal standard area count
is outside the upper or lower limit,
flag with «J« all positive results
quantitated with this internal standard.
2. Non-detects associated with IS area counts
> 100% should not be qualified.
3. If IS area is below the lower limit
(< 50%), qualify all associated non-
detects (U values) "J". If extremely
low area counts are reported, (< 25%)
or if performance exhibits a major
abrupt drop off, flag all associated
non-detects as unusable ("R").
14.2 Are the retention times of the internal
standards within 30 seconds of the
/
associated calibration standard?
r«n __ __
ACTION: Professional judgement should be
used to qualify data if the
retention times differ by more than
30 seconds.
15.0
Field Duplicates
15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for
/
VOA analysis?
Ui
—— ——
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate
the relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between
duplicate results roust be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However,
if large differences exist,
identification of field duplicates
should be confirmed by contacting
the sampler.
- 19 -
TUT 002 1698
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Revision: S
YES NO N/A
PART Bi BNA ANALYSES
1 . 0
Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative
1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all
/
samples?
f ^ _
ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of
missing or illegible copies.
1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative
indicate any problems with sample receipt,
condition of samples, analytical problems or
special notations affecting the quality of
/
the data?
• rj.
ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other
than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water,
all data should be flagged as estimated
("J"). If a soil sample, other than TCLP,
contains more than 90% water, all data
should be qualified as unusable (R) .
ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at
the laboratory, flag all positive results
"J" and all non-detects WUJ".
2 . 0
Holding Times
2.1 Have any BNA technical holding times,
determined from date of collection to date of
/
extraction, been exceeded?
** I_1
Continuous extraction of water samples for
BNA analysis must be started within seven
days of the date of collection. Soil/
sediment samples must be extracted within
7 days of collection. Extracts must be
analyzed within 40 days of the date of
extraction.
- 20 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Revision: S
Y E S N O N / A "
Table of Holding Time Violations
Pv«fc/" it>
(See Traffic Report)
Sample Date
Date Lab
Date
Date
Sample
Matrix Sampled
Received
Extracted
Analyzed
ACTION: If technical holding times are exceeded,
flag all positive results as estimated
("J") and sample quantitation limits
as estimated ("UJ"), and document in
the narrative that holding times were
exceeded.
If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond
holding time, either on the first analysis or
upon reanalysis, the reviewer must use
professional judgement to determine the
reliability of the data and the effects of
additional storage on the sample results.
At a minimum, all results should be qualified
"J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect
data are unusable ("R"). If holding times are exceeded by
more than 28 days, all non detect data are unusable (R).
3 .0
Surrogate Recovery (Form III
3.1 Are the BNA Surrogate Recovery Summaries
(Form II) present for each of the following
matrices:
a.
Low Water
T*] __ __
b.
Low Soil
I_J. __
-J_
c.
Med Soil
- 21 -
OO2 17OO
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1552
Revision: s
YES NO N/A
3.2 Are all the BNA samples listed on the
appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summaries
for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
r *1 __
__
y
b.
Low Soil
__
c.
Low Soil
y
ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals.
If missing deliverables are unavailable,
document effect in data assessments.
3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an
asterisk?
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
3.4 Were two or more base-neutral OR acid surrogate
recoveries out of specification for any sample s
or method blank?
r*n __ __
If yes, were samples reanalyzed?
f*n __
__
Were method blanks reanalyzed?
[ 1 __
K
ACTION: If all BNA surrogate recoveries are
> 10* but two within the base-neutral
or acid fraction do not meet SOW
specifications, for the affected
fraction only (i.e. base-neutral or
acid compounds):
1.
Flag all positive results as estimated
("J").
2.
Flag all non-detects as estimated
detection limits ("UJ") when recoveries
are less than the lower acceptance limit.
3.
If recoveries are greater than the upper
acceptance limit, do not qualify non-detects.
- 22 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Revision: 6
Y E S N O "
If any base-neutral or acid surrogate has a
recovery of <10%:
1.
Positive results for the fraction with
<10% surrogate recovery are qualified
with "J".
2.
Non-detects for that fraction should be
qualified as unusable (R) .
Professional judgement should be used to qualify
data that have method blank surrogate recoveries
out of specification in both original and
reanalyses. Check the internal standard areas.
3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
S
between raw data and Form II?
__ \*\
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document effect
in data assessments.
4 .0
Matrix Spikes (Form IIH
4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate
/
Recovery Form (Form III) present?
XT]
4.2 were matrix spikes analyzed at the required
frequency for each of the following matrices:
a.
Low Water
b.
Low Soil
c.
Med Soil
ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing,
take the action specified in 3.2 above,
- 23 -
rui
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Date: January 19=2
Revision: 8
YES
NO
N/A
4.3 How many BNA spike recoveries are outside
QC limits?
Water
Soils
JZ. out of 22
Hfl out of 22
4.4 How many RPD's for matrix spike and matrix
spike duplicate recoveries are outside QC
limits?
Water
Soils
O out of 11
Mn out of 11
ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data
alone. However, using informed
professional judgement, the data
reviewer may use the matrix spike and
matrix spike duplicate results in
conjunction with other QC criteria and
determine the need for some
qualification of the data.
5.0
Blanks (Torn
5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present? f*n
5.2 Frequency of Analysis:
Has a reagent/method blank analysis been
reported per 20 samples of similar matrix,
or concentration level, and for each extraction
/
batch?
«
5.3 Has a BNA method blank been analyzed for
each GC/MS system used?
(See SOW p. D - 59/SV, Section 8.7)
ACTION: If any method blank data are missing,
call lab for explanation/resubmittal.
If not available, use professional
judgement to determine if the associated
sample data should be qualified.
- 24 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January lrS2
Revision: 8
YES
NO
N/A
5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data -
chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data
system printouts and spectra.
Is the chromatographic performance (baseline
stability) for each instrument acceptable for
/
BNAs?
r*M
__
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the effect on the data.
6.0
Contamination
Note:
"Water blanks", "drill blanks" and
"distilled water blanks" are validated
like any other sample and are not used
to qualify the data. Do not confuse them
with the other QC blanks discussed below.
6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have
positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for BNAs?
When applied as described below, the
contaminant concentration in these blanks are
multiplied by the sample dilution factor and
/
corrected for % moisture where necessary.
* I_\
6.2 Do any field/rinse/ blanks have positive
S
BNA results (TCL and/or TIC)?
v \ 1
ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated
with each of the contaminated blanks.
(Attach a separate sheet.)
Note:
All field blank results associated to
a particular group of samples (may
exceed one per case) must be used to
qualify data. Blanks may not
be qualified because of contamination
in another blank . Field Blanks must be
qualified for surrogate, spectral, instrument
performance or calibration QC problems.
- 25 -
•TO'V
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Revision: 6
YES NO NY A
ACTION: Follow the directions in the table
below to qualify TCL results due to
contamination. Use the largest value
from all the associated blanks. If
gross contamination exists, all data
in the associated samples should be qualified
as unusable (R).
Sample cone > CRQLSample cone CRQL
but < lOx blank
is< lOx blank value
value & >iOx blank
Common Phthalate Esters
Flag sample result
Report CRQL &
No qualification
with a "U";
qualify "U"
is needed
Sample cone > C R Q L S a m p l e cone < CRQL f c S a m p l e cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank
is < 5x blank value
value & >5 blank value
Other Contaminants
Flag sample result
Report CRQL &
No qualification
with a "U";
qualify "U"
is needed.
———————NOTE:
Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination
are still considered as "hits" when qualifying
for calibration criteria.
ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the
concentration in the sample is less
than five times the concentration in
the most contaminated associated blank,
flag the sample data "R" (unusable).
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks
/
associated with every sample?
I_1
*
_
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data
assessment that there is no associated
field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception:
samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
- 26 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January 1592
Revision: 6
YES NO N/A
7. 0
GC/MS Instrument Performance Cheek
7.1 Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Forms
.
(Form V) present for Decafluorotriphenylphosphine /
(DFTPP)?
*
7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/
charge (m/z) listing for the DFTPP provided for /
*
each twelve hour shift?
7.3 Has an instrument performance check solution
been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
/
analysis per instrument?
r*n
ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and
sample analyses for which no
associated GC/MS tuning data are
available.
DATE
TIME
INSTRUMENT
SAMPLE NUMBERS
ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data,
reject ("R") all data generated outside
an acceptable twelve hour calibration
interval.
ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all
associated sample data as unusable (R).
7.4 Have the ion abundances been normalized to m/z
/
198?
- 27 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January 1991
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been net for
/
each instrument used?
r \
__
ACTION: List all data which do not meet ion
abundance criteria (attach a separate
sheet).
ACTION: If ion abundance criteria are not
net, the Region II TPO must
be notified.
7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least
,X
two values but if errors are found, check more.) __ r *n _
7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant
figures (two) been reported?
1_I
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make
necessary corrections and document effect
in data assessments.
7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound
acceptable?
r*^i
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
whether associated data should be
accepted, qualified, or rejected.
8.0
Target Compound List fTCLl Analytes
8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I BNA)
present with required header information on each
page, for each of the following:
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
r * " i
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
r*^
c.
Blanks
- 28 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Revision: 6
YES
KG
N/A
8.2 Has GPC cleanup been performed on all soil/
/
sediment sample extracts?
r i
__
•_
ACTION: If data suggests that GPC was not
performed, use professional judgement.
Make note in "Contract
Problems/Non-compliance".
8.3 Are the BNA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms.,
the mass spectra for the identified compounds,
and the data system printouts (Quant Reports)
included in the sample package for each of the
following?
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
f*n __ _
b.
Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates
>"
(Mass spectra not required)
fi
c.
Blanks
ACTION: If any data are missing, take action
specified in 3.2 above.
8.4 Are the response factors shown in the Quant
/
Report?
I_L
JL_
8.5 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with
respect to:
Baseline stability?
r n
__
Resolution?
rn
__
Peak shape?
r*i __
Full-scale graph (attenuation)?
r "
Other:
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
the acceptability of the data.
- 29 -
Tf IT
''- '
007
-I ......
- *-
I. / ij'i-j
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Dace: January ~=-^
Revision: 6
YES
NO
NY A
8.6 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of
identif
sample?
identified BNA compounds present for each
/
ACTION: If any mass spectra are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above. If lab
does not generate their own standard
spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/
Non-compliance11. If spectra are missing,
reject all positive data.
8.7 Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06
RRT units of
calibration?
RRT units of the standard RRT in the continuing
/
•n
8.8 Are all ions present in the standard mass
spectrum at a relative intensity greater than
./
10% also present in the sample mass spectrum?
*
8.9 Do sample and standard relative ion intensities
/
agree within 20%?
f *i
__
ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine
acceptability of data. If it is
determined that incorrect identifications
were made, all such data should be
rejected (R) , flagged "N" (Presumptive
evidence of the presence of the compound)
or changed to not detected (U) at
the calculated detection limit. In order
to be positively identified, the data
must comply with the criteria listed in
8.7, 8.8, and 8.9.
ACTION: When sample carry-over is a possibility,
professional judgement should be used to
determine if instrument cross-contamination
has affected any positive compound
identification.
9 . o
Tentatively Identified Compounds fTICl
9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms
(Form I, Part B) present; and do listed TICs
include scan number or retention time, estimated
/
concentration and "JN" qualifier?
f 1
- 30 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDAKU UFtKA-t xr»L»
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO N7I
9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively
identified compounds and associated "best match"
spectra included in the sample package for each
of the following:
a.
Samples and/or fractions as appropriate
"
b.
Blanks
r n
ACTION: If any TIC data are missing, take
action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing.
9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed
as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is
xylene a VOA TCL - and should not be reported as
S
a TIC)?
* r
ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound
listed as a TIC.
9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass
spectrum with a relative intensity greater than
/
10% also present in the sample mass spectrum?
r*j
9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion
S
intensities agree within 20%?
f*j
ACTION: Use professional judgement to
determine acceptability of TIC
identifications. If it is determined
that an incorrect -identification
was made, change identification to
"unknown" or to some .less specific
identification (example: "C3
substituted benzene") as appropriate.
Also, when a compound is not found in
any blank, but is a suspected artifact
of a common laboratory contaminant, the
result should be qualified as unusable
(R).
- 31 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Revision: B
YES NO N/A
10.0
Compound Ouantitation and Reported Detection Limits
10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive values.
Verify that the correct internal standard,
guantitation ion, and RRF were used to calculate
Form I result. Were any errors found?
__
10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample
dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture?
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more
than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs
are used (unless a QC exceedance
dictates the use of the higher CRQL
data from the diluted sample analysis).
Replace concentrations that exceed the
calibration range in the original
analysis by crossing out the "E" and it's
associated value on the original Form I
and substituting the data from the analysis
of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I
is to be used, then draw a red " XH across
the entire page of all Form I's that should
not be used, including any in the summary
package.
11.0
Standards Data fGC/HS)
11.1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and
data system printouts (Quant, Reports) present
for initial and continuing calibration?
ACTION: If any calibration standard data
are missing, take action specified
in 3.2 above.
- 32 -
TLTT
002
.711
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
12.0
GC/MS Initial Calibration fFora VH
12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI)
/ ,
present and complete for the BNA fraction?
r n
__ _
ACTION: If any calibration standard forms
are missing, take action specified
in 3.2 above.
12.2 Are response factors stable for BNAs over
the concentration range of the calibration?
(% Relative standard deviation (%RSD) < 30.0%)
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
NOTE:
Although 20 BNA compounds have a minimum
RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical
criteria are the same for all analytes.
ACTION: If the % RSD is > 30.0%, qualify
positive results for that analyte "J"
and non-detects using professional
judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag all non-
detect results for that analyte R (unusable).
NOTE:
Analytes previously qualified "U" due to
blank contamination are still considered
as "hits" when qualifying for calibration
criteria.
12.3 Are all BNA compound RRFs > 0.05?
r «n
__
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If any RRF < 0.05
1. "R" all non-detects.
2. "J" all positive results.
12.4 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
the reporting of average response factors (RRF)
or % RSD? (Check at least two values but if errors
S
are found, check more.)
__ f*i
ACTION: Circle Errors in red.
- 33 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 19S~
Revision: 8
Y E S N O N / A
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and note
errors in data assessments.
13.0
GC/MS Continuing Calibration fFonn VII\
13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form VII) S
present and complete for the SNA fraction?
r n
13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been
analyzed for every twelve hours of sample
analysis per instrument?
ACTION: List below all sample analyses
that were not within twelve hours
of a continuing calibration analysis
for each instrument used.
ACTION: If any forms are missing or no
continuing calibration standard
has been analyzed within twelve
hours of every sample analysis,
call lab for explanation/
resubmittal. If continuing
calibration data are not available,
flag all associated sample data as
unusable ("R").
13.3 Do any semivolatile compounds have a % Difference
(% D) between the initial and continuing RRF
>/
which exceeds the + 25.0* criteria?
* r 1
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: Qualify both positive results and
non-detects for the outlier
compound(s) as estimated (J). When %D is
above 90%, reject all non-detects for that
analyte (R) unusable.
- 34 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January 1552
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
13.4 Do any semivolatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? __ y^
ACTION: Circle all outliers in red.
ACTION: If RRF <0.05, qualify as unusable (R)
associated non-detects and "J" associated
positive values.
•
13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
in the reporting of average response factors
(RRF) or \ difference (%D) between initial and
continuing RRFs? (Check at least two values
/
but if errors are found, check more).
__ r*n
ACTION: Circle errors in red.
ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
14.0
Internal Standards (Form VTTT1
14.1 Are the internal standard areas (Form VIII) of
every sample and blank within the upper and
lower limits (-50% to + 100%) for each continuing
s
calibration?
ACTION: List all the outliers below.
Sar.ple *
Internal Std
Area
Lower Limit
Upper Lir.it
HSD £hnjcwgil2~ 3S4&7
35775
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
ACTION: l. If the internal standard area count
is outside the upper or lower limit,
flag with "J" all positive results
and non-detects (U values) quantitated
with this internal standard.
- 35 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Revision: 6
Y E S N O N / A
2. Non-detects associated with IS areas
> 100% should not be qualified.
3. If the IS area is below the lower limit
(<50%), qualify all associated non-detects
(U-values) "J". If extremely low area counts
are reported (<25%) or if performance
exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all
associated non-detects as unusable (R).
14.2 Are the retention times of the internal standards
within 30 seconds of the associated calibration
/
standard?
1*1 __ _
ACTION: Professional judgement should be
used to qualify data if the
retention times differ by more than
30 seconds.
15.0
Field Duplicates
15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for BNA
/
analysis?
T'n
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate
the relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However,
if large differences exist,
identification of field duplicates
should be confirmed by contacting the
sampler.
- 36 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
uace. « CRQL
Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL
but < 5x blank
is < 5x blank value
fc > 5x blank value
Flag sample resultReport CRQL & N o
qualification
with a "U";
qualify "U"
is needed
NOTE:
If gross blank contamination exists, all data
in the associated samples should be
qualified as unusable (R).
6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated
with every sample?
J_1 __
ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment
that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank.
Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap
do not have associated field blanks.
7 . 0
Calibration and GC Performance
7.1 Are the following Gas Chromatograms and Data
Systems Printouts for both columns present
for all samples, blanks, MS/MSD?
a. peak resolution check
I_I
__
b. performance evaluation mixtures
S._1 __
c. aroclor 1016/1260
I_J.
__
d. aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 J_J. __
e. toxaphene
J_1 __
f. low points individual mixtures A 6 B f 1
__
g. wed points individual mixtures A fc B r 1
__
h. high points individual mixtures A t B I_1
__
- 42 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Date: January' 1552
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
i. instrument blanks
r 1
__
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
7.2 Are Forms VI - PEST 1-4 present and complete
for each column and each analytical sequence? r 1
__
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2
above.
7.3 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Forms VI?
__ j _ 1
ACTION: if large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal , make
necessary corrections and
document effect in data assessments.
7.4 Do all standard retention times, including each
pesticide in each level of Individual Mixtures
A 4 B, fall within the windows established
during the initial calibration analytical
sequence? (For Initial Calibration Standards,
Form VI - PEST - 1) .
\ 1 __
ACTION: If no, all samples in the entire
analytical sequence are potentially
affected. Check to see if the
chromatograms contain peaks within an
expanded window surrounding the expected
retention tiroes. If no peaks are found
and the surrogates are visible, non-
detects are valid. If peaks are present
and cannot be identified through pattern
recognition or using a revised RT window,
qualify all positive results and non-detects
as unusable (R) .
For aroclors, RT may be outside the RT window,
but the aroclor may still be identified from the
individual pattern.
7.5 Are the linearity criteria for the initial
analyses of Individual Standards A i B within
limits for both columns? (* RSD must be < 20.0%
for all analytes except for the 2 surrogates,
which must not exceed 30.0 \ RSD). See Form VI
PEST - 2.
I_L __
.
- 43 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Date: January 19S2
Revision: 6
YE
NO N/A
ACTION: If no, qualify all associated positive
results generated during the entire
analytical sequence "J" and all non-
detects "UJ". When RSD >90%, flag all
non-detect results for that analyte R
(unusable).
7.6 Is the resolution between any two adjacent
peaks in the Resolution Check Mixture > 60.0%
for both columns? (Form VI-PEST - 4)
r 1
ACTION: If no, positive results for compounds
that were not adequately resolved should
be qualified "J". Use professional
judgement to determine if non-detects
which elute in areas affected by co-eluting
peaks should be qualified "N" as presumptive
evidence of presence or unusable (R) .
7.7 Is Form VII - Pest-1 present and complete for
each Performance Evaluation Mixture analyzed
during the analytical sequence for both
columns?
ACTION: If no, take action as specified in
2.2 above.
7.8 Has the individual % breakdown exceeded 20.0%
on either column.
- for 4,4' - DDT?
__ I_J.
- for endrin?
__ I_1
Has the combined % breakdown for 4,4'- DDT/
Endrin exceeded 30.0% on either column?
(required in all instances)
__ r 1
ACTION: 1. If any % breakdown has failed the
QC criteria in either PEM in steps
2 and 17 in the initial calibration
sequence (p. D-38/Pest SOW 3/90),
qualify all sample analyses in the
entire analytical sequence as described
below.
- 44 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January 1552
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
2. If any % breakdown has failed the QC
criteria in a PEM Verification
calibration, review data beginning
with the samples which followed the
last in-eontrol standard until the
next acceptable PEM I qualify the
data as described below.
a.
4,4'-DOT Breakdown: If 4,4'-DOT breakdown
is greater than 20.%:
i.
Qualify all positive results for DOT
with 'JN. If DOT was not detected, but
ODD and DOE are positive, then qualify
the quantitation limit for DOT as
unusable (R).
ii. Qualify positive results for ODD and/or
DDE as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
b.
Endrin Breakdown: If endrin breakdown is greater
than 20.0%:
i.
Qualify all positive results for endrin
with "J". If endrin was not detected, but
endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone are
positive, then qualify the quantitation
liait for endrin as unusable (R).
ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone and
endrin aldehyde as presumptively present at an
approximated quantity (NJ).
c.
Combined Breakdown: If the combined 4,4'-DOT and
endrin breakdown is greater than 30.0%:
i.
Qualify all positive results for DOT and
endrin with "J". If endrin was not
detected, but endrin aldehyde and endrin
ketone are positive, then qualify the
quantitation limit for endrin as unusable
(R). If DDT was not detected, but ODD and
DDE are positive, then qualify the
quantitation limit for DDT as unusable (R).
- 45 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Dare: January 1992
Revision: 6
YES NO NA
ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone
and endrin aldehyde as presumptively present
at an approximated quantity (NJ) . Qualify positive
results for DDD and/or DOE as presumptively present
at an approximated quantity (NJ) .
7.9 Are the relative percent difference (RPD) values
for all PEM analytes <25.0%? (Form VII-PEST-1) r 1 __
__
ACTION: If no, qualify all associated positive
results generated during the analytical
sequence "J" and sample quantitation
limits "UJ".
NOTE:
If the failing PEM is part of the
initial calibration, all samples are
potentially affected. If the offending
standard is a verification calibration,
the associated samples are those which
followed the last in-control standard
until the next passing standard.
7.10 Have all samples been injected within a 12 hr.
period beginning with the injection of an
Instrument Blank?
I _ 1 __ __
ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to
determine the severity of the effect
on the data and qualify accordingly.
7.11 Is Form VII - Pest-2 present and complete for
each INDA and INDB Verification Calibration
analyzed?
•
1 _ 1 __ __
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
7.12 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Form VII - Pest-2?
__
I _ 1 __
ACTION: If large errors exists, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal , make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
under "Conclusions".
- 46 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Date: January 1992
Revision: B
YES NO N/A
7.13 Do all standard retention times for each INDA
and INDB Verification Calibration fall within
the windows established by the initial
calibration sequence?
•
j i
''
ACTION: If no, beginning with the samples which
followed the last in-control standard,
check to see if the chromatograms contain
peaks within an expanded window surrounding
the expected retention tines. If no peaks
are found and the surrogates are visible,
non-detects are valid. If peaks are present
and cannot be identified through pattern
recognition or using a revised RT window,
qualify all positive results and non-detects
as unusable (R).
7.14 Are RPD values for all verification calibration
standard compounds < 25.0%?
I_}. __
ACTION:
If the RPD is >25.0% for the compound
being quantitated, qualify all associated
positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ".
The "associated samples1* are those which
followed the last in-control standard up
to the next passing standard containing
the analyte which failed the criteria.
If the RPD is >90%, flag all non-detects
for that analyte R (unusable).
8.0
Analytical Sequence Check fForm VIII-PEST)
8.1 Is Form VIII present and complete for each column
and each period of analyses?
J_1
_
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
8.2 Was the proper analytical sequence followed for
each initial calibration and subsequent analyses?
(see CLP SOW p. D-39 & D-41/PEST)
T 1 _
ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to
determine the severity of the effect
on the data and qualify it accordingly.
Generally, the effect is negligible
unless the sequence was grossly altered
or the calibration was also out of limits.
- 47 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1952
Revision: 8
YES NO N/A
9.0
Cleanup Efficiency Verification (Form IX)
9.1 Is Form IX - Pest-1 present and complete for each
lot of Florisil Cartridges used? (Florisil Cleanup
is required for all Pest/PCB extracts.)
r 1
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
If data suggests that florisil cleanup
was not performed, make note in "Contract
Problems/Non-Compliance".
9.2 Are all samples listed on the Pesticide Florisil
Cartridge Check Form?
r i
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
9.3 If GPC Cleanup was performed, (mandatory for all
soil sample extracts) is Form IX - Pest-2
present?
I_1
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
ACTION: If GPC was not performed when required,
make note in" Contract Problems/Non-
compliance" section of data assessment.
9.4 Are percent recoveries (% R) of the pesticide and
surrogate compounds used to check the efficiency
of the cleanup procedures within QC limits:
80-120% for florisil cartridge check?
r 1
80-110% for GPC calibration?
I_J.
Qualify only the analyte(s) which fail the recovery
criteria as follows:
ACTION: If % R are < 80%, qualify positive
results "J" and quantitation limits
"UJ". Non-detects should be qualified
"R" if zero %R was obtained for
pesticide compounds. Use professional
judgement to qualify positive results
if recoveries are greater than the upper
limit.
- 48 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
YES
NO
N/A
NOTE:
Sample data should be evaluated for
potential interferences if recovery
of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was > 5% in the
Florisil Cartridge Performance Check
analysis. Make note in Contract Problems/
Non-compliance section of reviewer narrative.
NOTE:
The raw data of the GPC Calibration
Check analysis is evaluated for pattern
similarity with previously run Aroclor
standards.
10.0
Pestieide/PCB Identification
|
10.1 Is Form X complete for every sample in which a
pesticide or PCB was detected?
r 1
__
ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above.
10.2 Are there any transcription/calculation errors
between raw data and Forms 6E, 6G, 7E, 7D, 8D, __ j;_1
9A, B, 10A.
ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make necessary
corrections and note error under
"Conclusions".
10.3 Are retention times (RT) of sample compounds
within the established RT windows for both
analyses?
f»r 1
__
5,
Was GC/KS confirmation provided when required
(when compound concentration is > 10 ug/ml in
final extract)?
Action: Use professional judgement to qualify
positive results which were not confirmed
by GC/MS. Qualify as unusable (R) all
positive results which were not confirmed
by second GC column analysis. Also qualify
as unusable (R) all positive results not
meeting RT window unless associated standard
compounds are similarly biased, (see
Functional Guidelines) The reviewer should
use professional judgement to assign an
appropriate quantitation limit.
- 49 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
Dare: January
Revision: S
YES NO N/A
10.4 Is the percent difference (* D) calculated for the
positive sample results on the two GC columns
< 25.0%?
r i
__
__
ACTION: If the reviewer finds neither column
•hows interference for the positive
hits, the data should be flagged
as follows:
% Difference
Qualifier
25-50 %
J
50-90 %
JN
> 90 %
R
NOTE:
The lower of the two values is reported
on Form I. If using professional judgement,
the reviewer determines that the higher
result was more acceptable, the reviewer
should replace the value and indicate the
reason for the change in the data assessment.
10.5 Check chromatograms for false negatives, especially
the multiple peak compounds toxaphene and PCBs.
Were there any false negatives?
__ I_1
__
ACTION: Use professional judgement to decide
if the compound should be reported. If
the appropriate PCB standards were not
analyzed, qualify the data unusable (R).
11.0
Compound Quantisation and Reported Detection Limits
11.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in
Form I results? Check at least two positive values.
Were any errors found?
__ I_1
__
NOTE:
Single-peak pesticide results can be checked for rough
agreement between quantitative results obtained on the two GC
columns. The reviewer should use professional judgement to
decide whethera much larger concentration obtained on one
column versus the other indicates the presence of an
interfering compound. If an interfering compound is
indicated, the lower of the two values should be reported and
qualified as presumptively present at an approximated
quantity (NJ). This necessitates a determination of an
estimated concentration on the confirmation column. The
narrative should indicate that the presence of interferences
has interfered with the evaluation of the second column
confirmation.
- 50 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Revision: 8
YES NO
11.2
Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions
and,
for coils, % moisture?
r 1
_
•
4»
ACTION: if errors are large, call lab for
explanation/resubmittal, make any
necessary corrections and document
effect in data assessments.
ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more than
one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used
(unless a QC exceedance dictates the use
of the higher CRQL data from the diluted
sample analysis). Replace concentrations
that exceed the calibration range in the
original analysis by crossing out the "E"
value on the original Form I and substituting
it with data from the analysis of diluted
sample. Specify which Form I is to be used,
then draw a red "X" across the entire page
of all Form I's that should not be used,
including any in the summary package.
ACTION: Quantitation limits affected by large,
off-scale peaks should be qualified as
unusable (R). If the interference is
on-scale, the reviewer can provide an
approximated quantitation limit (UJ) for •
each affected compound.
12 . 0
ChromatooraTn Quality
12.1
Were baselines stable?
12.2
Were any electropositive displacement
(negative peaks) or unusual peaks seen?
ACTION: Address comments under System
Performance of data assessment.
L_L __
- 51 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Date: January 1992
Revision: 8
~
Y
E
S
N
O
N
/
A
13.0
Field Duplicates
13.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for
PEST/PCB analysis?
ACTION: Compare the reported results for
field duplicates and calculate the
relative percent difference.
ACTION: Any gross variation between field
duplicate results must be addressed
in the reviewer narrative. However, if
large differences exist, identification
of field duplicates should be confirmed
by contacting the sampler.
- 52 -
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
TOTAL REVIEW
CLP DATA ASSESSMENT
Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis
Case No. - SDG No. 24744.24950. 24997. 25009. 25052. 25071. 25091
LABORATORY Enseco - East
SITE
Tutu Service Station Investigation
DATA ASSESSMENT:
The current functional guidelines (USEPA February 1988) for evaluating organic data
have been applied.
All data are valid and acceptable except those analytes which have been qualified with
a "J" (estimated), "U" (undetected), "R" (unusable), or "JN* (presumptive evidence for the
presence of the material at an estimated value). All action is detailed on the attached sheets.
Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" flag means that the associated
value is unusable and rejected. In other words, due to significant QC problems the analysis is
invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not. "R" values
should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The
second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC
tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data but any value
potentially contains some error.
Reviewer's
Signature:
Verified by:
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-2
1.
HOLDING TIME:
The amount of an anaiyte in a sample can change with time due to chemical instability,
degradation, volatilization, etc. If the specified holding time is exceeded, the data may not be
valid. Those analytes detected in the samples whose holding time has been exceeded are
qualified as estimated (J). The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) are qualified as estimated
(J), unless the holding times are grossly exceeded (over one week beyond maximum holding
time), in which case the associated data are unusable and rejected (R).
The following action was taken in the samples and analytes shown due to excessive
holding time:
Volatile Organic Compounds
All of the samples including the associated trip blanks and field blanks far SDGs it 24997,
25009, and 25052 were reanalyzed because the continuing calibration criteria for bromoform
was not met in the initial analysis. All of the samples were reanalyzed beyond the holding time
due to the calibration deficiency.
The reanafysis sample results were qualified as estimated
based on holding time exceedances. Since the reanafysis results (estimated for holding time)
were similar to the results calculated from the initial analyses (estimated due to calibration), the
initial analyses of all the samples and blanks were used when reporting the data. No further
discussion of the reanafysis results will be given unless reanafysis was required for other reasons
than those stated above.
The volatile analysis vials for MW-13D were not preserved with hydrochloric acid (HO)
and the sample was analyzed two days out of the prescribed holding time (seven days) for
aromatic volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses. All aromatic compounds for this sample
were qualified as estimated (J) if detected and estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) if not
detected.
The dilution analyses for unpreserved VOC sample MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106), and
MW-9S were analyzed outside of the seven-day holding time for aromatic VOC analyses. As the
dilutions were for quantitation ofMTBE only and not for any aromatic VOC, no qualifications
to the data were made.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
The reextraction of sample MW-6D was performed 12 days beyond the holding time of
seven days (calculated from time of sample collection) for base neutral and acid (BNA)
extractable compounds. All positive results for this sample were qualified as estimated (J) and
all non-detects for this sample were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). All
other extractions and instrumental analyses were performed within the prescribed holding times.
A summary of holding time outliers is provided in Table J3-2.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-3
2.
BLANK CONTAMINATION
Quality assurance (QA) blanks, i.e., method, trip, field, rinse and water blanks are
prepared to identify any contamination which may have been introduced into the samples during
sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Trip
blanks measure cross-contamination of samples during shipment. Field blanks measure cross-
contamination of samples during field operations. If the concentration of the analyte is less than
five times the blank contaminant level (ten times for the common contaminants), the analytes are
negated and qualified as undetected, "U".
A summary of all contaminants detected in the method, field, and trip blanks associated
with the VOC, SNA, and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)
analyses of the ground-water
samples is presented in Table J3-3. Additionally, the table summarizes the SDGs and the
ground-water samples that are associated and would be qualified, if appropriate, using the
USEPA Region II validation guidelines. Sample qualifications were assessed using the following
guidelines:
•
If the sample concentration was less than five times (<5x)the blank contaminant
level (or less than ten times f< IQxJfor the common laboratory contaminants) and
less than the quantitation limit, the analyte was negated, the sample result was
raised to the quantitation limit, and qualified as undetected (U).
•
If the sample concentration was <5x the blank contaminant level (or <10xfor
the common laboratory contaminants) and greater than the quantitation limit, the
analyte was negated and qualified
as undetected (U) at the reported
concentration.
•
If the sample concentration was greater than five times (5x [or ten times (lOx)far
the common laboratory contaminants]) and greater than the quantitation limit, no
qualification for blank contamination was assessed.
•
Method blanks were evaluated and the contaminants detected in them were used
to assess all associated samples with the exception of the trip and/or field blanks.
Trip and/or field blanks were used in the assessment of associated ground-water
samples and were not used in the evaluation of each other.
The highest
contaminant level for an analyte from all of the associated blanks (method, trip,
or field) was used in the determination oftheSx (or 10x) upper limit far blank
negation.
•
Tentatively-identified compounds (TICs) and unknowns of similar retention times
(RT) were evaluated using the 5x multiplier of the highest-concentration,
associated blank contaminant. In those instances where blank contamination was
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-4
determined to be present, the TIC or unknown were rejected, qualified "R", and
subsequently, not reported on the data summaries.
Table J3-4 summarizes all anafyte sample-result qualifications for each ground-water
sample for which the sample result and sample qualifier were changed due to suspected blank-
contamination. Only those samples and anafytes that were qualified in some manner due to this
criterion are summarized. In the analysis of TPH, all field and method blanks were free of
contamination and reported as non-detects at the quantitation limit.
Two volatile target compounds, dibromochloromethane and tetrachloroethene, were
reported as TICs in the semivolatiles analysis of several samples. Since these two VOCs were
analyzed and quantitated in the volatiles analysis, the estimated sample results for each of these
VOCs were rejected in the semivolatiles TIC analysis, qualified 'R", and will not be reported
as a semivolatile TIC. Tetrachloroethene was rejected from the semivolatiles analysis in the
following samples: MW-1, MW-1D. MW-2. MW-3, MW-4, MW-4D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-
105), MW-10, and MW-10D. Dibromochloroethane, reported as a semivolatile TIC, was
rejected from the semivolatiles analysis in the following samples: MW-6D, MW-1 ID, and MW-
12D.
3.
MASS SPECTROMETER TUNING:
Tuning and performance criteria are established to ensure adequate mass resolution,
proper compound identification, and to some degree, sufficient instrument sensitivity. These
criteria are not sample specific. Instrument performance is determined using standard materials.
Therefore, these criteria should be met in all circumstances. The tuning standard for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) is bromofluorobenzene (BFB).
If the mass calibration is in error, all associated data will be classified as unusable, "R".
All mass calibrations associated with the VOC and BNA analyses for these SDGs have met the
QC criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification, and instrument
response.
4,
CALIBRATION
Satisfactory instrument calibration is established to ensure mat the instrument is capable
of producing acceptable quantitative data. An initial calibration demonstrates that the instrument
is capable of giving acceptable performance at the beginning of an analytical sequence. The
continuing calibrations document that the instrument is giving satisfactory daily performance.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-5
A)
RESPONSE FACTOR:
The response factor measures the instrument's response to specific chemical compounds.
The response factor for the Target Compound List (TCL)
must be ^. 0.05 (a ratio of areas) in
both the initial and continuing calibrations. A value < O.OS indicates a serious detection and
quantitation problem (poor sensitivity). Analytes detected in the sample will be qualified as
estimated, "J".
All non-detects for that compound will be rejected ("R").
For the volatile analyses, two initial calibration verifications (ICVs)for TCL anafytes and
one ICVfor the site-specific VOCs were associated with all VOC sample analyses. A total of
eight continuing calibration verification (CCV)
TCL analyses and five CCVsfor the site-specific
VOCs were used to confirm precision and accuracy of instrument calibration.
In the analysis and quantitation of TCL semivolatiles (i.e., BNAs) in the ground-water
and associated QC sample analyses, three ICVs and 11 CCVs "were analyzed.
In the analyses of VOCs and BNAs for all SDGs and associated ground-water and QC
samples, the response factors for all the TCL constituents and the site-specific target VOCs were
greater than 0.05,
based on a ratio of peak areas, in all initial and continuing calibrations. No
sample result qualifications were assessed due to deficient response factors for any of the target
and site-specific anafytes.
5.
CALIBRATION:
A)
PERCENT RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION AND PERCENT DIFFERENCE:
Percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) is calculated from the initial calibration and
is used to indicate the stability of the specific compound response factor over increasing
concentration.
Percent difference (%D)
compares the response factor of the continuing
calibration check to the average response factor (RRF)
from the initial calibration. Percent D
is a measure of the instrument's daily performance. Percent RSD must be < 30% and %D must
be < 25 %. A value outside of these limits indicates potential detection and quantitation errors.
For these reasons, all positive results are flagged as estimated, "J", and non-detects are flagged
"UJ"
(if %D or RSD > 50%).
If there is a gross deviation (i.e.
> 90%)
of %RSD
and %D,
the non-detects may be rejected (R).
Volatile Organk Compounds
In the analysis of VOCs, 2-butanone in the TCL ICV analyzed on August 3, 1992 and
n-propylbenzene analyzed on November 5,1992 in the ICVfor site-specific VOCs exceeded the
plus or minus (±) 30 percent RSD limit used to evaluate linearity and precision of calibration.
All ground-water samples, QC samples, and most sample reanafyses are within these ICVs. All
positive results above the quantitation limit and estimated results below the quantitation limit for
TUT
002
1736
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-6
each of these outlier VOCs were qualified as estimated (J). Similarly, non-detects for outlier
VOCs were flagged as estimated at the quantitation limits (UJ). For the ICV analyzed for TCL
constituents associated with sample reanafyses for bromoform on November 22, 1992, no
calibration outliers were found for any VOC.
In the review of the volatile analysis CCVs, a total of seven of eight CCVs for TCL
quantitation were found to have calibration outliers outside the ± 25 %D limit. None of the five
CCVs associated with any sample analysis for the site-specific VOCs were found to have any
calibration outlier for %D. The compounds that wen found to have %D exceedances were
primarily either (1) a ketone compound, (2) an earfy-eluting VOC, or (3) a common laboratory
contaminant. In all cases, %D was not exceeded by greater than ± 47 percent. The following
VOCs were reported with exceeded %D in one or more of the CCVs: acetone, bromoform,
2-butanone, 2-hexanone, methylene chloride, 4-methylene-2-pentanone, and vinyl chloride.
A complete summary of all outlier ICVs and CCVs for VOC analyses and the associated
samples qualified due to the QC exceedances are summarized in Table 73-5.
Positive sample
results for those anatytesfor which the %D in the associated CCV exceeded +. 25 percent were
qualified as estimated (J). Non-detect sample results for anafytes in CCVs with an exceeded %D
were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). When appropriate, qualifications were
applied to all blanks (method, field, and trip); other QC samples, such as matrix spikes (MS)
and matrix spike duplicates (MSD); and to all associated ground-water samples, their dilution
analyses, and reanafyses.
Other qualifications to sample results or anomalies due to VOC calibration issues are as
follows:
•
In the VOC analysis of ground-water sample MW-3, the concentration of total
1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) exceeded the calibration range of the instrument.
The sample result for this anafyte in MW-3 was qualified "E" by the data
reviewer to reflect the linear range exceedance.
•
Samples MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106), and MW-9S were diluted and reanalyzed
because the concentration of MTBE exceeded the calibration range of the
instrument. The dilution analyses of these samples were used to report the MTBE
results for each sample. For all other VOCs, the initial analyses were used to
quantitate and report the VOC data.
•
Att of the ground-water samples, including the field and trip blanks for SDGs
24997, 25009, and 25052 were reanalyzed for VOCs outside their holding time
since the continuing calibration criteria for bromoform was not met initially. The
data reviewer assessed all of the bromoform results for these samples as estimated
(J) or estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) based on the initial analyses. The
bromoform reanafysis results were also qualified as estimated (J or UJ) based on
the holding-time exceedance. It was determined that the initial analysis results
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-7
would be used for Ms report and in the evaluation of bromoform sample
concentrations. The samples affected in the SDGs listed above are as follows:
MW-5,
MW-5
FR (MW-104), MW-14, TB100192, FB100192, MW-10, MW-11D,
MW-UDMS, MW-11DMSD, MW-13D, TB100692, FB100692, MW-12D, MW-7
FR (MW-105), MW-4D, 1B10Q592, and FB10Q592.
Semivolatile Organk Compounds
Three semivolatile ICVsfor TCL only were analyzed and are associated with the BNA
analyses of the samples. All response factors were greater than the 0.05 lower limit for all ICVs
and CCVs. The RSDfor all compounds in the associated ICVs were within the ± 30 percent
upper limit.
The BNA analyses for the ground-water samples, QC samples, sample reanafyses, and
dilution analyses are associated with 11 semivolatile CCVs. Each of these CCVs were reported
with at least one, but no more than seven compounds with %D greater than ± 25 percent. A
summary of each CCV with the calibration outliers and associated samples is presented in Table
J3-5 following the volatiles summary. All outlier compounds for each CCV were qualified (J)
if detected in the associated samples and estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ) if not detected
in these samples.
In general, the frequency of the calibration outliers for some compound classes and
specific compounds in the 11 semivolatile CCVs may be summarized as follows:
•
In seven of 11 CCVs, one or more of the phthalate compounds, such as
butylbenzylphthalate, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and di-n-octylphthalate, were
reported with %D greater than ± 25 percent. These compounds are common
laboratory contaminants associated with semivolatile analyses.
•
In seven of 11 CCVs, an acid-fraction semivolatile surrogate compound (2,4,6-
tribromophenol) was reported with %D above ± 25 percent. Surrogates are used
to monitor the extraction efficiency of the method in the sample matrix.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The CCVs in the TPH analyses were evaluated to determine if the precision of calibration
was adequate for accurate, quantitative analysis of the samples. Most of the CCVs were
reported with less than 10%D calculated from the initial calibration curve and all were less than
15%D.
Although no strict criteria was established for the evaluation of this criterion for TPH
analyses, it is the data reviewer's determination that an acceptable level of %D was exhibited
for the analyses associated with this parameter.
O02
1.738
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-8
6.
SURROGATES:
All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds prior to sample preparation to evaluate
overall laboratory performance and efficiency of the analytical technique. If the measured
surrogate concentrations were outside contract specifications, qualifications were applied to the
samples and analytes as shown below.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The system monitoring compound (SMC) recovery oftoluene-d8 in sample MW-6D was
below the QC limit (88 percent), but above 10percent. The sample was reanalyzed (MW-6DRE)
with the surrogate recovery oftohiene-d8 also found to be below QC limit, but again, above 10
percent. All volatile compounds detected in MW-6D and MW-6DRE were qualified as estimated
(J) and all non-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). It is the data
reviewer's opinion that the initial analysis of sample MW-6D be used when reporting the data.
The SMC recovery of toluene-d8 for the initial analysis of sample MW-12D was below
the QC limit, but above 10 percent. This sample was reanalyzed and the SMC recovery was
again below the lower limit for toluene-d8. Additionally, sample MW-11D was analyzed as the
matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS and MSD). The SMC recoveries oftoluene-d8 were
also below the QC limits for MW-11D MS and MW-11D MSD. Reanalysis of the MS/MSD
resulted in toluene-d8 SMC recoveries below 88 percent. Since all six VOC analyses results for
toluene-d8 were below the lower acceptance limit, a matrix interference is suspected. All
volatile compounds detected in the initial analysis, reanalysis, and spike analyses of this sample
were qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation
limit (UJ).
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
In the semivolatiles analysis and reanalysis ofMW-6D, the acid-extractable surrogate
spike recoveries for phenol-d5 and 2-fluorophenol were less than 10 percent. The recoveries for
the advisory acid surrogate, 2-chlorophenol-d4, were reported to be 11 percent in each analysis.
For the analysis and reanalysis results for MW-6D, all detected acid-extractable compounds were
qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were qualified as unusable (R).
The recovery values for all three acid-extractable surrogates and far the advisory add
surrogate were less than 10 percent for sample MW-11D. This sample was also analyzed as the
MS/MSD.
In the MS/MSD, two of the three acid-extractable surrogates and the advisory acid
surrogate spike recoveries were found to be less than 10 percent. For samples MW-11D, MW-
11D MS and MW-11D MSD, all acid extractable compounds detected were qualified as estimated
(J) and all non-detects were qualified as unusable (R). All other sample and all blank surrogate
spike recoveries were within the prescribed QC limits.
002 1739
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-9
7.
INTERNAL STANDARDS PERFORMANCE:
Internal standard (IS) performance criteria ensure that the GC/MS sensitivity and
response are stable during every analytical run. The internal standard area count must not vary
by more than a factor of two (-50% to +100%) from the »««y*?ifcd continuing calibration
standard. The retention time of the internal standard must not vary by more than ±. 30 seconds
from the associated continuing calibration standard. If the area count is outside the (-50% to
+100%) range of the associated standard, all of the positive results for compounds quantitated
using that IS are qualified as estimated (J), and all non-detects as esrimatpH at the reporting limit
(UJ), or unusable and rejected (R), if there is a severe loss of sensitivity.
If an internal standard retention time varies by more than 30 seconds, the reviewer will
use professional judgement to determine either partial or total rejection of the data for that
sample fraction.
The internal standard areas were above QC limits for chrysene-dl2 and perylene-dl2 in
the semivolatiles analysis for sample MW-11D MSD. All compounds quantitated in the
semivolatiles analysis using these two internal standards were qualified as estimated (J) in MW-
11D MS.
8.
COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION:
A)
VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE FRACTIONS:
TCL compounds are identified on the GC/MS by using the analyte's relative retention
time (RRT) and by comparison to the ion spectra obtained from known standards. For the
results to be a positive hit, the sample peak must be within +_ 0.06 RRT units of the standard
compound and have an ion spectra which has a ratio of the primary and secondary m/e
intensities within 20% of that in the standard compound.
For the tentatively identified
compounds (TICs), the ion spectra must match accurately. In the cases where there is not an
adequate ion spectrum match, the laboratory may have provided false positive identifications.
1,2-DCE (total) was detected and reported in several samples. The retention time (RT)
of this compound in the quantitation reports does not match the RTs in the associated CCV
standard quantitation reports. This discrepancy is attributed to the use of the trans isomer in
the calibration standard solution while the cis isomer was detected in the field samples. The RTs
for 1,2-DCE in the sample quantitation reports for the following samples were greater than 0.06
RRT units when compared to the associated CCVs: MW-1, MW-1D, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-
4D, MW-6R, MW-B, MW-9S, MW-10, MW-10D, and MW-14.
Xylene (total) was detected in samples MW-5,
MW-5 FR (MW-104), and MW-5RE. The
retention time of this compound in the quantitation reports does not match the retention time in
TUT
002
1740
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-10
the standard quantitation report because the isomer used in the standard solution was a different
isomer than that detected in the samples.
9.
MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE:
The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) data are generated to determine the long-
term precision and accuracy of the analytical method in various matrices. The MS/MSD may
be used in conjunction with other QC criteria for some additional qualification of the data.
Volatile Organk Compounds
Sample MW-11D was designated as the MS/MSD for the VOC analyses. Two matrix
spike recoveries and one matrix spike duplicate recovery were found to be below QC limits, but
above 10 percent. The MS/MSD were reanalyzed due to calibration criteria not being met in
the initial analysis. All subsequent spike recoveries in the reanafyses were found to be within
the appropriate QC limits. All relative percent difference
(RPD) values for both MS/MSD
analyses were within the QC limits. It is the data reviewer's determination that since all the
spike recoveries were within QC limits for the MS/MSD reanafyses that no data should be
qualified based on the initial MS/MSD results. Refer to Table J3-6for a summary of outlier
MS/MSD results for the volatile and semivolatile fractions.
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Sample MW-J1D was designated as the MS/MSD for the semivolatiles analyses. Twelve
out of the twenty-two spike recoveries were found to be outside the QC acceptance limits. The
acid-extractable compounds for sample MW-11D have already been qualified based on the
surrogate spike results. Based on the MS/MSD data, it is the data reviewers' determination that
the base neutral compounds for sample MW-11D be qualified as estimated (J) if detected and
estimated (UJ) if not detected. This matrix interference was not observed for the other samples
collected in this sampling round since surrogate recoveries were within the appropriate
acceptance limits. Therefore, further qualification of other samples based on the MS/MSD
results for sample MW-11D was not performed.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample MW-11D was designated as the MS/MSD for the TPH analyses. The recovery
for each of the spikes was 108 percent (with zero RPD) which is within the 80 to 120 percent
window established for the evaluation of accuracy in this parameter. No qualification of sample
data was required.
..
, „ , . . 17
TU
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-11
10.
OTHER QC DATA OUT OF SPECIFICATION:
A) Sample Disposition
Five out of the five volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials for samples MW-1D, ESSO-TAP,
and FB100792 were received by the laboratory containing air bubbles and headspace. All
positive results for these samples were qualified as estimated (J) and all non-detects were
qualified as unusable (R).
The VOA vials for sample MW-7 were received with headspace at the laboratory. This
sample was replicated in the field and designated MW-10S. Since the VOA vials for MW-1Q5
(the field replicate for MW-7) were received in good condition and without headspace at the
laboratory, the VOC results for MW-105 (i.e., MW-7FR) were substituted for the VOC analysis
of MW-7 after the laboratory data was received.
Sample MW-1 .was initially sampled on October 2, 1992. Since the VOA vials were
received at the laboratory with headspace, the sample was resampkd in entirety for all
analytical parameters on October 6,1992. All sample analyses associated with the October 2,
1992 field collection of MW-1 were cancelled and the results for the sample collected on October
6, 1992 were used in the remedial investigation and reviewed in this validation report.
Due to laboratory error, the field blank collected on October 2,1992 for SDG 25009 was
cancelled for analysis at the laboratory. This sample (FBI 00292) was associated with samples
MW-1D, MW-1 ID (and the MS/MSDfor this sample), and the previously cancelled MW-1 (see
above discussion). The samples in this SDG were qualified for blank contamination using the
trip blank (TB100292) and the associated method blanks for each parameter.
B)
Field Replicates
All results for the comparison of the sample/field
replicate pairs are reported in
micrograms per liter (ug/L) or milligrams per liter (mg/L).
Volatik Organk Compounds
Afield replicate of MW-7 was collected and labeled MW-105. However, sample MW-7
was not analyzed for VOCs and the results of MW-7 FR (MW-105) are presented and discussed
for the VOC analysis of MW-7 in the remedial investigation report.
Sample MW-5 was collected in duplicate. The field replicate ofMW-5 was labeled MW-
104. The compounds listed below were detected in the sample/field-repUcate pair and resulted
in the following RPDs between the sample results:
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-12
Compound/Tic
_____ Concentration (uf/L) _____________
RPD
MW-5
MW-5 FR (MW-104}
Benzene
1000 950
5
Toluene
180J 1701
6
Ethylbenzene
930
890
4
Xytenes (total)
1600 1500
6
MTBE
6200
6200
0
n-Propylbenzene
180J 170J
6
C-3 Benzene
homers {total)
2600J
2500
4
C-4 Benzene Isomer
not reported
250J
not calculated
C6H12 Isomer
250J
not reported
not calculated
C9H10 Isomer
500J
500J
0
C11H14 Isomer
not reported
400J
not calculated
Sample MW-9 was also collected in duplicate. The field replicate ofMW-9 was labeled
MW-106.
The following compounds were detected in the sample and replicate with the
corresponding RPD values:
Compound/TIC
_____Concentration fug/L)______
RPD (%)
MW-9
MW-9 FR fMW-106)
Acetone
10
10
0
Benzene
26
28
7
Ethylbenzene
19
24
23
Xylenes (total)
2J
3J
40
MTBE
2700
2900
7
n-Propylbenzene
8
13
48
1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-
naphthalene
11JN 14JN
24
C-3 Benzene Isomer
15J
15J
0
C-4 Benzene
homers (total)
270
310
14
C10H12 homers (total)
150J
160J
6
SemivolatUe Organk Compounds
Sample MW-5 was collected in duplicate. The field replicate of MW-5 was labeled MW-104.
The following compounds were detected in the sample and replicate with the corresponding RPD
values:
TUT
002
1743
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
Jl-13
Compound/TIC
_____Concentration fug/L)_____
RPD <%)
MW-5
MW-5
FR (MW-1041
4-Methylphenol
3J
3J
0
2,4-Dimethylphenol
77
77
0
Naphthalene
31 CD
23CD
30
2-Methylnaphthalene
130D HOD
17
1-Methylcyclopentanol
64JN
6OJN
6
C-2 Benzene homers
(total)
60QJ
440J
31
C-3 Benzene homers
(total)
19007
1500J
24
C-4 Benzene homers
(total)
72007
27007
110
Unknowns (total)
3500J
770J
131
2,3-Dihydromethyl-lH-
indene homers (total)
7/007
23007
100
1-Methylnaphthalene
4100JN
1200JN
110
Sample MW-7
was also collected in duplicate. The field replicate ofMW-7 was labeled
MW-105.
The following compound was detected in the sample and replicate with the
corresponding RPD value:
Compound/TIC
______Concentration fug/Li___________
RPD (%}
MW-7
MW-7
fMW-105)
Unknowns (total)
660J
6J
95
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Sample MW-5
and MW-7
were collected in duplicate. The field replicates of MW-5
and
MW-7
were labeled MW-104 and MW-105, respectively. The following results far TPH were
calculated for the sample/field-replicate pairs with the corresponding RPD values:
Sample/Field Replicate
______Concentration fmg/L)___________
RPD (%)
Sample
Field Replicate
MW-5/MW-104
4.2
2.2
63
MW-7/MW-105
not detected
not detected
0
11.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT:
Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and demonstrate
acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness. There are no indications that the instrument
performance has degraded to a point that would affect the quality of the data for these SDGs.
T U T
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-14
No abrupt shifts occurred in the chromatographic baselines in the VOC and BNA analyses and
minimal baseline drift was observed.
The majority of the data for the VOC and BNA analyses and all of the data for the TPH
analyses are valid with the following qualifications.
•
In the analysis ofvolatiles, several SDCs were reanalyzed outside of the holding
time for bromoform since the CCV criteria for this compound had not been met
initially. Since the initial data and reanafysis data werefoirfy similar, and both
were estimated due to either deficient CCV criteria or exceeded holding time, the
initial results, estimated for the CCV deficiency, were reported.
•
With the exception of one anafyte in one ground-water sample (see contract non-
compliance), data derived from dilution analyses for anafytes found to be above
the linear range in the initial analysis, were incorporated into the Form I data
summary forms from the initial analyses or the more concentrated analysis (i.e.,
less diluted). The data from the dilution analysis were flagged D to indicate data
originating from a secondary dilution.
•
The volatile organic SMC recoveries and the surrogate recoveries for BNA
analyses were all within the appropriate acceptance windows for all ground-water
samples and QC samples, except for in samples MW-6D and MW-11D. For the
BNA analyses, only the acid-extractable compounds were affected
in these
samples. Repeat analyses of both samples for both analytical fractions (and
additional review of the MS/MSD surrogate and SMC recoveries in MW-11D)
resulted in and confirmed similar surrogate outliers. Because of this, matrix
interferences are suspected in these sample matrices which may preclude
accurate, quantitation of volatile and acid-extractable anafyte concentrations.
Both samples were qualified in accordance with the validation guidelines.
•
Some matrix precision and accuracy data, generated by the analysis ofMW-llD
as the MS and MSDfor VOCs and BNAs were outside the SOW acceptance limits.
The initial MS/MSD outliers in the VOC analyses were established to be the result
of poor calibration precision since the VOC reanafyses exhibited acceptable
recoveries for the MS/MSD.
The BNA outliers in the MS/MSD for MW-11D are
suspected to be the result of matrix interferences since poor recoveries were also
reported for the surrogate compounds.
•
Field-replicate analyses for VOCs, BNAs, and TPH were performed on sample
MW-5. Field-replicate analysis for BNAs and TPH were performed on sample
MW-7. Field-replicate analyses for VOCs were performed on sample MW-9.
Most RPD results were within 20 percent, indicating acceptable precision. In
analyses where estimated concentrations and/or low-level sample concentrations
above the quantitation limit were reported, greater variability in RPD was noted.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Jl-15
Similarly, TIC concentrations displayed RPDs greater than 20 percent in most
cases; however, this may be primarily due to the method of quantitation used in
TIC library searches.
•
Some TCL data were negated and some TIC rejected due to associated blank
contamination.
•
Several ketone compounds, phthalate compounds, and some of the common
laboratory contaminants, in addition to other TCL anafytes, were qualified as
estimated due to exceeded CCV criteria.
•
No TCL or site-specific targets were rejected due to calibration, internal
standard, and/or tuning accuracy and precision.
•
Sample MW-11D was reanalyzed because a low SMC spike recovery was reported
for toluene-d8. A low SMC recovery was also reported for tohtene-dB in the
reanafysis of MW-11D.
The initial analysis of MW-11D will be used when
reporting the data.
•
The VOC analysis data for sample MW-7 FR is referred to in this SDG as MW-
105. Sample MW-105 was originally collected as the field replicate of MW-7.
However, the VOA vials for the sample MW-7 were received at the laboratory
with headspace. The VOC analyses for MW-7 were canceled by Geraghty A
Miller, and the VOC results obtained for the MW-7 FR (MW-105) were
substituted for MW-7 for the purposes of the remedial investigation.
•
Sample MW-6D was reextracted and reanalyzed because of low acid-extractable
surrogate recoveries. The reextraction was performed out of holding time and
low surrogate recoveries were again reported. Since the results of both analyses
were similar and the reextraction was performed out of the holding time, the
initial results of sample MW-6D will be used when reporting the data.
•
Samples MW-5 and MW-5 FR (MW-104) were diluted and reanalyzed because the
concentrations of2-methylnaphthalene and naphthalene exceeded the calibration
range of the instrument. The dilution analysis results for 2-methylnaphthalene
and naphthalene and the initial results for all other compounds will be used when
reporting the data for MW-5 and MW-5 FR (MW-104).
CONTRACT NON-COMPLIANCE
The following section presents a non-compliance summary for general issues associated with all
of the SDGs in this investigation.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Jl-16
Two volatile TCL constituents (tetrachloroethene anddibromochloromethane) were
rejected from the semivolatile TIC fraction for several samples since they were
quantitated as a volatile target compound.
In the analysis of the tuning standards for VOCs and semivolatiles, greater than
two significant figures were used when reporting the tune information.
The response factors were not shown in the quantitation reports.
TICs for which presumptive evidence in the sample existed and were identified by
the laboratory with a chemical abstracts services (CAS) number were not reported
with the "N" qualifier.
The "N" qualifier was applied to these TICs by the data
reviewer.
The total 1,2-DCE result in the volatile analysis of sample MW-3 was qualified
"E" by the data reviewer since the concentration exceeded the linear range of the
instrument and no dilution for this target compound was analyzed.
UMri-wp DV/021993.IJ*
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J2
INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION REPORT
,,
17 A3
OO'•'••
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Prograa (CLP)
based on
SOT. 3/90
(SOP Revision XI)
PREPARED BY
£fi\
Hahif
___________________________
SheiJth, Quality Assurance Chemist
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
DATE:
MPEROVH) BY:
. r.
; \ .- \
Kevin Kubik, Chief
Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section
MTROVED BY;
Robert Runyon, Ch
Monitoring Management Branch
DATE:
DATE:
/
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD •&eP:-~Zl'& KTCZEURE
Page
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data'^or i«i
Date: Jan. 1592
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11 •'
1.0
1.1 This procedure is applicable to inorganic data obtained from contractor
laboratories working for Hazardous Waste Site Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) .
1.2 The data validation is based upon analytical and quality assurance
requirements specified in Statement of Work (SOW) 3/90 .
2.0
Responsibilities - Data reviewers will conplete the following tasks as assigned by tl-
Data Review Coordinator:
2.1.
For a total review:
2.1.1
Pat* Assegsavprvfr — "rvvt^i Review^- Inorganic***1 Checklist Apperd''x (A.I).
The reviewer must answer every question on the checklist.
The answer on the checklist must match the action in the narrative
(appendix A. 2) and on Form I's. Do not use pencil to write the narrative.
2.1.3
Contract Non-Conoliance - SMO Report (appendix A. 3)
This report is to be completed only when a serious contract violation is
encountered, or upon the request of the Data Validation Task Monitor, or Technical
Project Officer (TTQ) . Forward 5 copies: one each for internal files,
appropriate Regional TPO, Sample Management Office (SMO) and last two addresses of
Mailing List for Data Reviewers (Appendix A. 4) . In other cases, all contract
violations should be appended to the end of the Data Assessment Narrative (Sec.
A.2.2).
2.1.4 crj Data
2.1.4.1 Appendix A. 5
Fill in the total number of analytes analyzed by different analyses and
the number of analytes rejected or flagged as estimated due to corresponding
quality control criteria. Place an "X" in boxps where analyses were not
performed, or criteria do not apply.
2.1.4.2 Appendix A. 6
Data reviewer is also required to fill out Inorganic Regional Data Assessment
form (Appendix A. 7) provided by EPA Headquarters. Codes listed on the form
will be used to describe the Data Assessment Summary.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATE*; PROCEDURE
Page
2 of 24
Tide: Evaluaticn of Metals Data for tne
Dare: Jar.. 1992
Contract laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
2.1.5 Data Review Log; It is i**»mumrri^ that each data reviewer should maintain a log c
the reviews ccqpleted to include: a. date of start of case revie
b. -date of completion of case review
c. site
d. 'case number
e. contract .laboratory
. f. number of samples
g. matrix
h. hours worked
i. •reviewer's initials
2.1.6 Telephone Record Log - the data reviewer should enter the bare facts of
inquiry, before initiating any phone conversation with CLP laboratory.
After the case review has been completed, nail white copy of Telephone
Record Log to the laboratory and pink copy to SMD. File yellow copy in
the Telephone Record Log folder, and attach a xerox copy of the Telephone
Record Log to the completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2).
2.1.7 Forwarded Paperwork
.
;'
«
2.1.7.1 Upon completion of review, the following are to be forwarded to the Regional
Sample Control Center (RSCC) located in the Surveillance and Monitoring Branch:
a. data package
b. completed data assessment checklist (Appendix A.I,original)
c. SMD Contract Compliance Screening (CCS)
d. Record of Communication (copy)
e. CLP Reanalysis Request/Approval Record (original + 3 copies)
f. Appendix A.6 (original).
2.1.7.2 Forward 2 copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2)
along with 2. copies of the Inorganic Data Assessment Fora (Appendix A. 6) and
Telephone Record Log , if any,: one each for appropriate Regional TPO,
and the other one to EPA DEL office in Las Vegas. The addresses of TFOs and EPA
office in Las Vegas are given in Appendix A-4. •"
2.1.8
Filed Paperwork - Upon completion of review, the following are to be filed
within MMB files:
a. Two copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2) each carrying
Appendix A. 6.
b. Telephone Record Log (copy)
c. SMD Report (copy Appendix A-3)
d. CLP Reanalysis Raquest/Approval Record (copy)
002 1751
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCTXJRE
Page
3
of
3;
i
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data far the
tote: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Progran
Number:
Hr»"-2
Revision: 11
3.0
Each data package is checked by a Regional Sample Control Coordinator (RSSC) fcr
completeness. A data package is »ge»™«»H to be complete when all the deliverables
required under the contract are present. If a data package is incomplete, the RSSC
would call the laboratory for missing document (s) . If the laboratory does not respcrc
within a week, SMD and MMB coordinator of Region II will be notified.
4.0
Rejection of Data - All values determined to be unacceptable on the Inorganic Analysis
Data Sheet (Form I) roust be lined over with a red pencil. As soon as any review
criteria causes data to be rejected, that data can be eliminated from any further revie-..
or consideration.
5.0
Acceptance Criteria - In order that reviews be consistent among reviewers, acceptance
criteria as stated in Appendix A.I (pages 4-25) should be used. Additional guidance
can be found in the National Inorganic Functional Guidelines of October 1, 1989.
6.0
stP Contract CuuaJlianee Sex*>*'TviTrT (PCS) - This is intended to aj<3 reviewer in locatirvc
any problems, both corrected and uncorrected. However, the validation should be carried
cut even if CCS is not present. Resuknittals received from laboratory in response tc
CCS must be used by the reviewer.
7.0
Request for Raanalvaia - Data reviewers must note all items of contract non-compliance
within Data Assessment Narrative. If holding rimps and sample storage times have not beer.
exceeded, TPO may request reanalysis if items of non-compliance are critical to data
assessment. Requests are to be made on "CLP Re-Analysis Request/Approval Record".
8.0
Record of P*1""^ cation — Provided by the Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) to
indicate which data packages have been received and are ready to be reviewed.
9.0
Roundino off numbers - The data reviewer will follow the standard practice.
GERAGHTY & MILLER,INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessnent - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
'fete: Jan. 1992
Number:
Revision: ii
A. 1.1 Con*"r'?*r't O n\ '1 lance B^rper*'* **? P*t M irt (CCS) — Present?
ACTION; If no, contact RSCC.
A. 1.2 Record of Ortmiunication (froa RSCC1 - Present?
ACTION; If no, request from RSCC.
A. 1 . 3 Trip Report - Present and complete?
ACTION; If no, contact RSCC for trip report.
A. 1.4 Sample
— Present?
Legible?
ACTION; If no, request from Regional Sample Control
Center (RSCC).
A. 1.5 Cover Pace - Present?
Is cover page properly filled in and signed by the lab
manager or the manager's designee?
ACTION: If no, prepare Telephone Record Log, and
contact laboratory.
nd to numbers on Record
Do numbers of sanple
of Communication?
Do sample numbers on cover page agree with sample
numbers on:
(a) Traffic Report Sheet?
(b) Form I's?
ACTION: If no for any of the above, contact RSCC for
clarification.
as.
N/A
C_1 _ A.
V
y
TU
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCTTTJRE
Page 5
of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jar.. 19=2
Contract Lril*udLmy Progran
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: li
Conpliance flftal Review)
A.1.6
Form I to n
Yes
No N'/A
A. 1.6.1 Are all the Form I through Form IX labeled with:
Laboratory name?
[X1
__
__
Case/SAS number? [__]
EPA sanple No.?
rX 1
SDG No.?
Contract No.?
Correct units?
Matrix?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, note under
.
••
Contract Problem/Non-Coopliance section
of the "Data Assessment Narrative11.
A. 1.6.2
Do any caraputation/transcription errors exceed 10% of
reported values on Forms I-DC for:
(NOTE: Check all forms against raw data.)
(a) all analytes analyzed by ICP?
[__]
/\ __
(b) all analytes analyzed by GFAA?
[__]
^X
__
(c) all analytes analyzed by AA Flame? [__]
__
/(
(d) Mercury?
[__]
X
__
(e) Cyanide?
[__]
A
__
If yes, prepare Telephone Log, contact
laboratory for uunficteri data and
correct errors with red pencil and initial.
J'- 1754
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCHURE
Page 6
of 34
Title:
Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number:
KW*2
Revision: 11
A.1.7
Raw Data
A.1.7.1
Digestion Log* for flame AA/ICP (Form XIH) present?
Digestion Log for furnace AA Form KELT present?
Distillation Log for mercury Form xm present?
Distillation Log for cyanides Form xm present?
Are pH values (pH<2 for all metals, pH>12 for cyanide)
present?
^Weights, dilutions and volumes used to obtain values.
Percent solids calculation present for soils/sediments?
Are preparation dates present on sample preparation
logs/bench sheets?
A. 1.7.2
Measurement read out record present?
ICP
Flame AA
Furnace AA
Mercury
Cyanides
A.1.7.3
Are all raw data to support all sample analyses and
QC operations present?
Legible?
Properly Labeled?
ACTION: If no for any of the above questions
in sections A.I.7.1 through A.I.7.3,
write Telephone Record Log and contact
laboratory for resubmittals.
YES
ta
N/A
&j _ _
_ _
1 _
__X
TUT
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page
7 cf 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals for the Contract
Date: Jan. 1992
Laboratory Program
Number: KW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: !!••
Compliance (Total Review)
A. 1.8
TBn^t^ivj ^s?n^a — (aqueous and g^il samples )
(Examine sample traffic reports and digestion/distillation logs.)
Mercury analysis (28 days)....... exceeded?
__
[X ] __
Cyanide distillation (14 days)..... exceeded?
X
[__] __
Other Metals.analysis (6 months). . . . exceeded?
__
[V 1 __
NPTE: Prepare a list of all samples and analytes for
which holding times have been exceeded. Specify
the number of days from date of collection to the date
of preparation (from raw data). Attach to checklist.
ACTION: If yes, reject (red-line) values less than
Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) and flag
as estimated (J) the values above IDL even
though sample (s) was preserved properly.
A. 1.8.2
Is pH of aqueous samples for:
.
Mstals Analysis >2?
X
[__] __
Cyanides Analysis <12?
X
[__] __
Action: If yes, flag the associated metals and cyanides
data as estimated.
A 1 9
farm T fTPSrnO retail
\
X
A. 1.9.1
Are all Form I's present and complete?
[s\ ]
__
__
AL'l'lUN; If no, prepare telephone record log and contact
laboratory for submittal.
A. 1.9.2
Are correct units (ug/1 for waters and mg/)og for soils) y
indicated on Form I's?
r/^ 1
__
__
Are soil sample results for each parameter corrected for
\/
percent solids?
[__] __
s\
Are all "less than IDL" values properly coded with "U"? [ yfl
__
__
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATING PROCHJUEE
Page
8
of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HK-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: n
Compliance (Total Review)
_
&£
Are the correct concentration qualifiers used with
final data?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Leg, and contact laboratory for corrected
data.
A. 1.9.3
Are EPA sample i s and corresponding laboratory sample
ID # s the same as on the Cover Page, Form I's and
in the raw data?
Was a brief physical description of samples given
on Form I's?
Was the dilution of any sample diluted beyond the
requirements of the contract noted on Form I or
Form XIV?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, note under
Oantract-Problem/Non--Compliance
of the"Data Assessment Narrative".
A.1.10.1
Is record of at least: 2 point calibration
present for ICP analysis?
Is record of 5 point calibration present for
Hg analysis?
Is record of 4 point calibration present for:
Flame AA?
[ __]
__
i
Furnace AA?
Cyanides?
Is one calibration standard at the CRDL level for
all AA (except Hg) and cyanides analyses?
ACTION: If no for any of the above, write in the
Contract Problem/Non-Ccrpliance section of
the "Data Assessment Narrative".
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEILTE
Page
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: KW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.10.2 Is correlation coefficient less than 0.995 for:
Mercury Analysis?
cyanide Analysis?
Atomic Absorption Analysis?
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
NOTE: The data validator shall calculate the correlation
coefficient using concentrations of the standards
and the GUI i ta»t xa iling instrument response
A.1.10.3
YES
NO
( e.g. absorbance, peak area, peak height, etc.).
In the instance where less than 4 standards are
measured in absorbance (or peak area, peak height,etc.)
mode, are the remaining standards analyzed in
ntration mode immediately after calibration
ACTION;
within ±10% of the true values?
If no, flag the nssnriatvri data as estimated
if standards are not within ±10% of true values.
Do not flag the data as estimated in linear range
indicated by good recovery of standard(s) .
N/A
_ cV, _
A.1.11
Fon" II A finical and Con'Mjrn"tq f^llfrra^ion Verification)
A.1.11.1 Present and complete for every metal and cyanide?
Present and complete for AA and ICP when both are
used for the same analyte?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory.
A. 1.11.2 Circle on each Form IIA all percent recoveries that
are outside the contract windows.
Are all calibration standards (initial and continuing)
within control limits:
Metals- 90-110%R?
Hg - 80-120%R?
Cyanides- 85-115%R?
TUT 002
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 10 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Prograa
Number: HK-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Conpliance (Total Review)
X2[
jsJO^
N/A
ACTION; Flag as estimated (J) all positive data (not
flagged with a "U") analyzed between a
calibration standard with *R between 75-89%
(65-79% for Hg; 70-B4* for CN) or 111-125*
(121-135* for Hg; 116-130* for CN) recovery and
nearest good calibration standard. Qualify results
II B (CRPL S^r^^rf*1 for AA and TCP) -
A. 1.12.1 Was a CRDL standard (CRA) analyzed after initial
\s
calibration for all AA metals (except Ha) ?
fA 1
Was a mid-range calib. verification standard distilled
- \/
and analyzed for cyanide analysis?
f A
Was a 2xCRDL ( or 2xIDL when IDI>CRDL) analyzed (CRT)
for each ICP run?
(Note: CRT for AL,Ba,Ca,Fe,Mg,Na,or K is not required.)
acnoN: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all data falling within the affected ranges.
Tnfi affected ranges are:
__
AA Analysis - **True Value ± CRDL
ICP Analysis - **True Value ± 2CRDL
CN Analysis - **True Value ± 0.5 x True Value.
**True value of CRA, CRI or mid-range standard. Substitute IDL for CRDL: when IDL > CRDL.
Conpute the concentration of the missing mid-range standard fron the calibration range.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
STANDARD OPERATIC PROCEDURE
Page 11 cf 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract laboratory Progran-.
Number: HK-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Ccnpliance (Total Review)
__
__
A. 1.12. 2 Was CRT analyzed after ICV/ICB and before the final
\,
CCV/CCB, and twice every eight hours of ICP run?
[X 1
__
__
aCTION: If no, write in Contract Prcblem/Non-Compliance
Section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
A. 1.12. 3 Circle on each Form US all the percent recoveries that
are outside the acceptance windows.
Are CRA and CRI standards within control limits:
Metals
80 - 120%R?
[ __ ]
X
___
Is mid-range standard within control limits:
Cyanide 80 - 120%R?
[ X }
__
__
ACTION: Flag as estimated all sample results within
the affected range if the recovery of the
standard is between 50-79%; flag only positive
data within the affected range if the recovery
is between 121-150%; reject all data within the
affected range if the recovery is less than 50%;
reject only positive data within the affected range
if the recovery is greater than 150%. CAjalify 50% of
the samples on either side of CRI standard outside
the control limits.
Mote; Flag or reject the final results only when sample
raw data are within the affected ranges and the CRDL
standards are outside the acceptance windows.
A. 1.13
form in (ini*'i*^ and Con*"* rn^ **7 r**.'M*'|T'^tion Blanks)
A. 1.13.1 Present and complete?
For both AA and ICP when both are used for the
\/
same analyte?
_.
[ __ ]
__ A
Was an initial calibration blank analyzed?
Was a continuing calibration blank analyzed after
every 10 samples or every 2 hours (which ever is more
frequent)?
.
[/U
__ __
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 12 of
34
Title: Evaluation of i>.tsJLs Data for the
Contract Lakorarr,!/ i-rcgraa
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number:
KW-2
Revision: 11
A. 1.12.2
ACTION;
If no, prepare Telephone Record Log, contact
laboratory and write in the Contract-Problems/
Non-compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative".
m
N/A
Circle on each Form III all calibration blank values
that are above CRDL (or 2 x IDL when IDT. > CRDL).
Are all calibration blanks (when IDKCRDL) less than or
equal to the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs)? [
Are all calibration blanks less than two times
Instrument Detection Limit (when IDL>CRDL)?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
(J) positive sample results when raw sample
value is less than or equal to calibration
blank value analyzed between calibration blank
with value over CRDL (or 2xIDL) and nearest good,
calibration blank.
Flag five samples on either side of the
calibration blank outside the control limits.
[__]
__
A.1.14
PDRM in (PT*T'**ITI^ j on Black) ~
(Nota: The preparation blank for mercury is the same
as the calibration blank.)
A. 1.14.1 Was one prep, blank analyzed for:
each Sample Delivery Group (SDG)?
each batch of digested samples?
each matrix type?
both AA and ICP when both are-used for
the same analyte?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as
ocf ip^t-of} (j) ai i the associated positive
data <10 x IDLs for which prep, blank
was not analyzed.
NOTE:
If only one blank was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples analyzed
do not have to be flagged as estimated (J).
_ y
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
RD '^PIRATING PROCEDURE
Page 13 cf 34
Title: Evaluation of Medals Data for the
Date: Jan.~lS92
Contract Laboratory Protjrzz
Number: 'nw-2
Appendix A.I: Cata Assessmenr - Contract
Revision: n
Conpliance (Total Review)
A. 1.14. 2
Is concentration of prep, blank value greater
\s
__
[/A •) __
N/A
\/
than the CRDL when IDL is less than or «T"0. to CRDL?
If yes, is the concentration of the sample with
the least concentrated analyte less than 10 i-i****
the prep.blank?
__ [__]
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) all
data greater than CRDL concentration but
less than ten tlires the prep, blank value.
A. 1.14.3
Is concentration of prep, blank value (Form IH) less
than two times IDL, when IDL is greater than CRDL? [__] __
ACTION: If no, reject (red-line) all positive sample
results when sample raw data are less than 10
times the prep, blank value.
A. 1.14.4
Is concentration of prep, blank below
V
the negative CRDL?
__
rA 1 __
ACTION: If yes, reject (red-line) all associated sample
results less than lOxCRDL.
A. 1.15
pprm IV (ICP In^*
A. 1.15.1
Present and complete?
(NOTE: Not required for furnace AA, flame AA, mercury,
cyanide and Ca, Mg, K and Na.)
Was ICS analyzed at beginning and end of run
(or at least twice every 8 hours)?
ACTION: If no, flag as estimated (J) all the samples for
which AL, Ca, Fe, or Mg is higher than in ICS.
A. 1.15.2
Circle ait values on each Form IV that are more
than + 20% of true or established mean value.
Are all Interference Check Sanple results inside
\SA
the control limits (± 20*)?
If no, is concentration of Al, Ca, Fe, or Mg lower
\/
than the resnective concentration in ICS?
F
1
/>
than the respective concentration in ICS?
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD CFEPATING FnOTTTlRE
Page 14 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data ior tte
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: KW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
.
Revision: 11
Coqpliance (Total Review)
E2
N/A
ACTIOM: If no, flag as «>=*••» ma+-aH (j) those positive
results for which ICS recovery is between 121-150%;
flag all sample results as estimated if ICS
recovery falls within 50-79%; reject (red-line)
those .sample results for which ICS recovery is less
than 50%; if ICS recovery is above 150%, reject
positive results only (not flagged with a "U").
A. 1.16
pprm y ?y (Spiked gaTTT'le Reoovrv ~ Pre Diq^ytion/Pre—Distillation) —
( Note: Not required for Ca, Mg, K, and Na (both matrices), Al, and Fe
(soil only.)
A. 1.16.1 Present and complete for:
each SDG?
each matrix type?
each cone, range (i.e. low, med., high)?
For both AA and ICP when both are used for
\J-
the same analyte?
[__]
, __
/(
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as
./••
estimated (J) all the positive data less
than four t "'''"**= the spiking levels specified
in SCW for which spiked sanple was not analyzed.
NOTE; If one spiked sanple was analyzed for more
than 20 samples, then first 20 samples
analyzed do not have to be flagged as
estimated (J).
V
A. 1.16.2
Was field blank used for spiked sample?
,
__
K> 1 __
ACTION: If yes, flag all positive data less than
4 x spike added as estimated (J) for which
field blank was used as spiked sample.
A. 1.16.3
Circle on each Form VA all spike recoveries that
are outside control limits (75$ to 125%).
Are all recoveries within control limits?
[__]
If no, is sanple concentration gre
to four times spike concentration?
If no, is sanple concentration greater than or equal
\/
r J
A.
__
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PHGCT3JH£
Page 15 of 3-;
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Ccrpliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: KW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.16.4
N/A
acTIOH; If yes, disregard spike recoveries for analytes
whose concentrations are greater than or «r»l
to four timm spike added. If no, circle those
analytes on Form V for which sample concentration
is less than four tiffips the spike concentration.
Are results outside the control limits (75-125%)
flagged with "N" on Form I's and Form VA?
ACTION; If no, write in the Contract - Problem/Non -
Conpliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
Aqueous
Are any spike recoveries:
(a) less than 30%?
(b) between 30-74%?
(c) between 126-150%?
(d) greater than 150%?
/L
C__] __
[V
ACTION; If less than 30%, reject all
aqueous
data; if between 30-74%, flag all associated
aqueous data as estimated (J) ; if between
126—150%, flag as «*g*-i •mat-art (J) all
aqueous data not flagged with a "U"; if
greater than 150%, reject (red-line) all
associated aqueous data not flagged with a "U".
A.1.16.5
SOJ
Are any spike rt
(a) less than 10%?
(b) between 10-74%?
(c) between 126-200%?
(d) greater than 200%?
[__1
002
1.764
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING FROCHURE
Page 16 of 34
Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan.
1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I:
Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: n
Compliance (Total Review)
l£
N/A
ACTION: If less than 10%, reject all associated data; if
between 10-74% , flag Ml »e.«wiat-«d data as estimated;
if between 126-200%, flag as estimated all associated
data was not flagged with a "IT; if greater than 200%,
reject all associated data not flagged with a "U".
A. 1.17
pprm VI
A. 1.17.1 Present and ccnplete for:
each SDG?
each matrix type?
each concentration range (i.e. low,
med., high}?
both AA and ICP when both are used for the same
analyte?
[__]
__
ACTION; If no for any the above, flag as estimated
(J) an the data X5DL* for which duplicate
sample was not analyzed.
Note; l. If one duplicate sample was analyzed for
more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples do not
have to be flagged as estimated.
2. If percent solids for soil sample and its duplicate
differ by more than 1%, prepare a Form VI for each
duplicate pair, report concentrations in ug/L
~
on vet veight basis and calculate RFD or Difference
for each analyte.
A. 1.17.2
Was field blank used for duplicate analysis?
__
f/\ 1 __
ALT1UN: If yes, flag all data >CRDL* as estimated
(J) for which field blank was used as duplicate.
A.I.17.3
Are an values within control limits (RFD 20% or
difference < ±CRDL)?
"• If no, are an results outside the control limits
\,
flagged with an * on Form I's and VI?
[__]
__
/
ACTION; If no, write in the Contract - Problems/Non-
Conpliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative".
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. FNC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page
17
of
34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1592
Contract iai«ir^>nry Program
Number:
KK-2
Appendix A-l:
Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Ttotal Review)
tJ£
H/A
NOTE: 1. RPD is not calculable far an analyte of the
sanple - duplicate p^"1" when both values are
less than IDL.
2. If the result of lab duplicate analyzed
by GFAA is rejectable due to coefficient of
con elation of USA, analytical spike recovery,
or duplicate injections criteria, do not apply
precision criteria to metals analyzed by GFAA.
A.1.17.4
Aqueous
Circle on each Form VI all values that are:
RPD > 50%, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50% where sample and duplicate
\/
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL?
__
f A ]
__
Is any difference** between sanple and duplicate greater
\
than *CRDL where sanple and/or duplicate is less than
V
5 times *CRDL?
__
V ' 1
__
ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A.I.17.5
Soil/S<» 100%, or
Difference > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sanple and duplicate are both
greater than or equal to 5 tiTWis *CRDL) :
> 100%?
__
[__] A
Is any **difference between sample and duplicate
(where sample and/or duplicate is less than 5x*CRDL) :
\
> 2x*CRDL?
__
[__] ^__
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCHURE
Page 18 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: KW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Compliance (Total Review)
N/A
ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
A.1.18.1 Were field duplicates analyzed?
ACTION: If yes, prepare a Form VI for each aqueous field
duplicate pair. Prepare a Form VI for each soil
duplicate pair, if percent solids for sample and
its duplicate differ by more than 1%; report
ntrations of soils in ug/1 on wet weight
basis and calculate RPDs or Difference for each
analyte.
: 1. Do not calculate RPD when both values are
less than IDL.
2. Flag all associated data only for field
duplicate pair.
A. 1.18.2
Aqueous
Circle all values on self prepared Form VI for
field duplicates that are:
RPD > 50*, or
Difference > CRDL*
Is any RPD greater than 50) where sanple and duplicate
are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL?
Is any **difference between sample and duplicate greater
than *CRDL where sample and/or cfripl icg^f is less than
5 times *CRDL?
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sanple and duplicate to calculate the difference.
GERAGHTY '& MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 19
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data A«t!A'f»fjimt - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.18.3
Circle all values on self ]
field duplicates that are:
ed Form VI for
RPD >100*, or
Difference > 2 x CRDL*
Is any RPD (where sample and duplicate are both
greater than 5 times *CRDL) :
Is any **difference between sample and duplicate
(where sample and/or duplicate is less than 5x *CRDL ) :
>2x *CRDL?
ACTION; If yes, flag the associated data as estimated.
NO
N/A
_
[_] Q-
X
A. 1.19
Fora VH (Laboratory Control Samr|») (Note: LCS - not
required for aqueous Hg and cyanide analyses.)
A. 1.19.1
Was one LCS prepared and analyzed for:
each SDG?
each batch samples digested/distilled?
both AA and ICF when both are used for the same
analyte?
ACTION; If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone
Record Log and contact laboratory for submittal
of results of LCS. Flag as estimated (J) all
the data for which LCS was not analyzed.
NOTE; If only one LCS was analyzed for more than 20
samples, then first 20 samples close to LCS
do not have to be flagged as estimated.
* Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL.
** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 20 cf
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Conpliance (Total Review)
Date: Jan. 1992
Nirsber: HW-2
Revision: 11
A.1.19.2
Circle on each Form VTI the LCS percent recoveries
outside control limits (80 - 120%) except for aqueous
Ag and Sb.
Is any LCS recovery:
ACTION:
less than 50%?
.between 50% and 79%?
between 121% and 150%?
greater than 150%?
TP.SS than 50%, reject (red-line) all data;
between 50% and 79%, flag all assoriatpc
as estimated (J); between 121% and 150%,.flag
all positive (not flagged with a "U") results
as estimated; greater than 150%, reject all
positive results.
m
N/A
A.I.19.3
MOTE: 1. If "Found" value of LCS is rejectable due to duplicate
injections or apfllY*^"^ spike recovery criteria,
regardless of LCS recovery, flag the associatpri data
as estimated (J).
If IDL of an analyte is equal to or greater than
true value of LCS, disregard the "Action" below even
though LCS is out of control limits.
Is LCS "Found" value higher than the control
limits on Form VU?
ACTION;. If yes, qualify all associated positive data
__ [__]
Is LCS "Found" value lower than the Control
limits on Form VIT?
ACTION; If yes, qualify all associated data as
estimated.
V
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING FBDC-ELTE
Page
21
of
34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Nuaber:
Kr?-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
Conpliance (Total Review)
las
m
A. 1.20
To*™ TX (TCP
NOTE: Serial dilution analysis is required only
for initial concentrations equal to or
greater than 10 x IDL,
A. 1.20.1
Was Serial Dilution analysis performed for:
each SDG?
^ _ _
each matrix type?
each concentration range (i.e. low, jned.)?
[,X. ]
__
__
ACTION; If no for any of the above, flag as estimated
all the positive data >. lOxIDLs or >, CRDL when
IdxIDL < CRDL for which Serial Dilution Analysis
was not performed.
A.I.20.2
Was field blank(s) nsftl for Serial Dilution Analysis? __
ACnOH; If yes, flag an associated data > 10 x IDL
as estimated (J). If lOxIDL < CBDL, flag all
data > CSDL.
A. 1.20.3
Are results outside control limit flagged with an "E"
on Form I's and Form IX when initial concentration on
\^
Form DC is equal to 50 times IDL or greater.
[ /\1
__
__
acTTCN; If no, write in the Oontract-Problem/Non-
Compliance section of the "Data Assessment
Narrative".
A. 1.20.4
Circle on each Form IX all percent difference
that are outside the control limits for initial
concentrations equal to or greater than 10 x IDLs only.
Are any % difference values:
> 10%?
> ioo%?
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING EROCMIIRE
Page 22 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HK-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: n
Compliance (Total Review)
Zis
Ho
N/A
ACTION; Flag as estimated (J) *>i 1 the flcBrif"iV'a'^ sanple
data > lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when IQxIDL £ CRDL)
for which percent difference is greater than 10%
but less than 100*. Reject (red-line) all the
sample results yjmi to or greater
than lOxIDLs (or > CRDL when IQxTDL < CRDL) for
which PD is greater than or equal to 100%.
Flag or reject on Form I's only the sanple results
whose associated raw data are >. IQxTDL (or > CRDL
when lOxIDIX CRDL)
A.1.21
T*iim^r^> Afr<-»tp e Absorbtion (AA) OC
A. 1.21.1
Are duplicate injections present in furnace raw data
(except during full Method of Standard Addition) for
each sample analyzed by GFAA?
ACTION; If no, reject the data on Form I's for which
'
duplicate injections were not performed.
A. 1.21.2
Do the duplicate injection readings agree within 20%
.
'"'
Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) or Ccefficientpf
V
Variation (CV) for concentration greater than CRDL?
r ' 1
__
__
Was a dilution analyzed for sanple with analytical - \)
spike recovery less than 40%?
fA 1
__
__
ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag all the
associated data as estimated.
A. 1.21.3
Is *analytical spike recovery outside the control
limits (85-115%) for any sanple?
ACTION; If yes, flag as estimated the affected sanple results
if the recovery is between 10-84%; if the recovery is
between 115-200%, flag the assnriatfri positive sanple
results as estimated; reject the associatPd sample
results if the recovery is less than 10%; reject
positive sanple results if the recovery is greater
than 200%.
* Analytical spike is not required on the pre-digestion spiked sanple;
'LIT
O02 1771
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Page 23 of 34
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1992
Contract Laboratory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: 11
C o m p l i a n c e
(Total
Review)
Reject or flag the data only when the affected
sample (s) was not subsequently analyzed by Method
of Standard Addition.
N/A
A. 1.22
FQ"" vm
(Method of
(fi 1
__
__
A. 1.22. 4
Was proper quantitation procedure followed correctly
as outlined in the SOW on page E-23?
ACTIUN; If no, note exception under Contract Problem/
Non-Oompliance section of the' "Data Assessment
Narrative", and prepare a separate list.
* MSA is not required on LCS and prep, blank.:
A.1.22.1
Present?
If no, is any Form I result ccriprl with "SH or a "+"? __
[__]
ACTION; If yes, write request on Telephone Record Log
and contact laboratory for submittal of Form VHI.
A. 1.22.2
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.990 forv,
any sample?
xK [__]
__
ACTION; If yes, reject (red-line) the affected data.
V
A.I.22.3
Was *MSA required for any sample but not performed?
v _
-.C/\ ] __
Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.995? X
Are MSA calculations outside the linear range of the
calibration curve generated at the_beginning of the
analytical run?
7
__
ACTION: If yes for any of the above, flag all
the s
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PFCCHURE
Page 24 of 34
Title: Evaluation n:J Hatals Data for the
Date: Jan. 1S92
Contract L--ixrjaxory Program
Number: HW-2
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Revision: n
Compliance (Total Review)
—————————————————2J2^
N/A
A.1.23
Diaa
A. 1.23.1
Were any analyses performed for dissolved as well as \/
total analytes on the same sample(s).
/\
(__]
__
Were any analyses performed for inorganic as well as total
(organic + inorganic) analytes on the same sample(s)? __
NOTE; 1. If yes, prepare a list comparing differences
between all dissolved (or inorganic) and
total analytes. Compute the differences as
a percent of the total analyte only when
dissolved concentration is greater than CRDL
as well as total concentration.
2. Apply the following questions only if in-
organic (or dissolved ) results are (i) above
CRDL, and (ii) greater than total constituents.
3. At least one preparation blank, ICS, and LCS
should be analyzed in each analytical run.
A. 1.23.2
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
analyte greater than its total concentration by
X/
more than 10%?
/\
A. 1.23.3
Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic)
\
analyte greater than its total concentration by
\
more than 50%?
-
A [__]
ACTION; If more than 10%, flag both dissolved (or
inorganic) and total values as estimated (J);
if more than 50%, reject (red-line) the data
for both values.
A. 1.24
To***
'it "
*' " v' on PO
A. 1.24.1
Circle all field blank values on Form I that are
greater than CRUL, (or 2 x IDL .when IDL > CRDL).
Is field blank concentration less than CRDL
(or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL) for all parameters
of associated aqueous and soil samples?
002 17/3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
Title: Evaluation of Metals' "Data for the
Contract Laboratory Program
Appendix A.I: Data Assessment - Contract
Compliance (Total Review)
Page 25 cf 3
Date: Jan. I9S2
Number: HW-2
Revision: 11
If no, was field blank value already rejected
due to other QC criteria?
ACTION: if no, reject (except field blank results)
all associated positive sample data less
than or equal to five *-) 12 standard
pH units. The laboratory was contacted and it was detemined that the pH of these samples had
not been measured. Cyanide was not detected in any of the samples, therefore, the non-detect
cyanide results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
The pH of the cyanide samples MW-6R and MW-8 were less than (<) 12. The non-detect
cyanide results for MW-6R and MW-8 were already qualified as unusable (R) based on the
holding times, therefore, further qualification of this data was not necessary.
ThepH of all cyanide samples contained in sample delivery groups (SDGs) 24997,25009,
25052, 25071, and 25091 were < 12. Cyanide was not detected in any of these samples,
therefore, the non-detect cyanide results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
ThepH of the total metals sample for MW-1D > 2. All total metals detected for MW-1D
were qualified as estimated (J) and nan-detects were qualified as estimated at the quantitation
limit (UJ).
CALIBRATION
For the majority of the arsenic, lead, selenium, and thallium initial calibrations, the data
reviewer could not confirm the correlation coefficients
(r) reported by the laboratory. The r
values were calculated using a non-linear regression formula; all reported r values were >
0.995.
CRDL STANDARDS
For SDGs 25071 and 25091, the spike recovery for the lead CRDL standard analyzed on
October 19, 1992 was 70 percent which is outside the acceptance range of 80 to 120 percent.
Therefore, all total lead sample results contained in SDGs 25071 and 25091 were qualified as
estimated (J) if detected and estimated (UJ) if not detected.
MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS
Sample MW-11D was designated for the matrix spike analysis.
All matrix spike
recoveries were within the 75 to 125 percent range with the exception of the cyanide analysis.
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J2-3
A zero percent recovery far cyanide was reported far the matrix spike analysis ofMW-llD. The
laboratory also analyzed sample MW-10
as a matrix spike sample with a 104 percent recovery
for cyanide. Therefore, the cyanide result for sample MW-1JD VMS qualified as unusable (R)
since there was no recovery of cyanide. No other cyanide sample results were qualified since
the cyanide matrix spike recovery for sample MW-10
was within the quality control (QC) limits
of 75 to 125 percent.
LAB DUPLICATE RESULTS
Sample MW-11D was designated for the laboratory duplicate analysis. All laboratory
duplicate results were within the appropriate QC limits.
FURNACE ATOMIC ABSORPTION ANALYSES
Duplicate injections and fitrnace post-digestion spikes are used to establish the precision
and accuracy of individual analytical determinations.
The arsenic post-digestion spike recoveries were between 115 to 200 percent for total
metals sample MW-14
and all the total metal samples contained in SDGs 24744 and 24950.
Arsenic post-digestion spike recoveries for the dissolved metal analyses for samples MW-12D,
MW-7,
MW-7
FR (MW-105), MW-4D, MW-10, MW-10D, MW-1, and ESSO-TAP were also
between 115 percent and 200 percent. As a result, the positive arsenic result for total metals
sample MW-10
was qualified as estimated (J). Since arsenic was not detected in any of the other
samples, no qualification of these results was necessary.
Lout
With the exception of the total metals sample for MW-6R, the lead post-digestion spike
recoveries for all other total samples contained in SDGs 24744 and 24950 were between 115 to
200 percent. The lead concentrations detected in the total analyses for samples MW-4
and MW-
3 were qualified as estimated (J). Lead was not detected in any of the other associated samples,
therefore, Juriher qualification of this data was not necessary.
Selenium
The selenium post-digestion spike recovery was outside the QC limits of 85 to 115 percent
for total sample MW-6R. The selenium detected in this sample was qualified as estimated (J).
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
J2-4
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries between 10 to 84 percent were reported for
dissolved metals sample MW-11D and for total metals sample MW-1. The selenium detected in
dissolved metals sample MW-1 ID and for total metals sample MW-1 were qualified as estimated
(J).
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for dissolved
metals samples MW-14 and MW-3 and total metal samples MW-9, MW-9S, and MW-14. Since
selenium was not detected in these samples, these results were qualified as estimated at the
quantitation limit (UJ).
Selenium post-digestion spike recoveries for dissolved metals sample FB093092 and total
metal samples MW-12D and MW-7 were between 115 and 200percent. Since selenium was not
detected in these samples, no qualification of these results was necessary.
Thallium
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for total metal
samples MW-10, MW-10D, MW-1, MW-13D, MW-8, MW-6R, and MW-4. Thallium was not
detected in any of these samples, therefore, these non-detect thallium results were qualified as
estimated (UJ).
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries were between 10 and 84 percent for dissolved
metal samples MW-10D, MW-1D, MW-5, MW-14, MW-5FR (MW-104), MW-8, MW-6R, MW-2,
MW-4, and MW-3. Thallium was not detected in any of these samples, therefore, these non-
detect thallium results were qualified as estimated (UJ).
Thallium post-digestion spike recoveries for dissolved metal samples MW-7, MW-10, MW-
1, MW-9S, and ESSO-TAP were between 115 and 200 percent. Thallium was not detected in
any of these samples, therefore, these results were not qualified.
All other post-digestion sample spike recoveries were within the QC limits of 85 to 115
percent with the exception of those samples analyzed by the method of standard addition.
ICP SERIAL DILUTION
For SDG number 24997, sample MW-5 FR (MW-104) was used for the inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution analysis. The percent difference between the total zinc
initial sample result and the total zinc serial dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As
a result, all total zinc sample results contained in SDG number 24997 greater than ten times the
instrument detection limit (IDL) were qualified as estimated (J).
For SDG number 25009, sample MW-11D was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis.
The percent difference between the total sodium initial sample result and the total sodium serial
dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive total sodium sample
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J2-5
results contained in SDG number 25009 greater than ten times the IDL were qualified as
estimated (J).
For SDG number 25052, sample MW-12D was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis.
The percent difference between toe total manganese, sodium, and zinc initial sample results and
the total manganese, sodium, and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent.
As a result, all positive total manganese, sodium, and zinc sample results contained in SDG
number 25052 greater than the contract required detection limit (CKDL) or ten times the IDL,
whichever was greater, were qualified as estimated (J). The percent difference between the
dissolved chromium initial sample result and the dissolved chromium serial dilution result was
> 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive dissolved chromium results contained in
SDG number 25052 greater titan ten times the IDL were qualified as estimated (J).
Sample MW-9 was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis for SDG number 25091. The
percent difference between the dissolved iron and zinc initial sample results and the dissolved
iron and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all positive
dissolved iron and zinc sample results contained in SDG number 25091 greater than the CRDL
were qualified as estimated (J). The percent difference between the total copper initial sample
result and the total copper serial dilution result was > 10, but < 100 percent. As a result, all
positive total copper results contained in SDG number 25091 greater than ten times the IDL were
qualified as estimated (J).
Sample MW-10 was used for the ICP serial dilution analysis for SDG number 25071.
The percent difference between the total potassium, vanadium, and zinc initial sample results and
the total potassium, vanadium, and zinc serial dilution results were > 10, but < 100 percent.
As a result, all positive vanadium and zinc sample results contained in SDG number 25071
greater than the CRDL were qualified as estimated (J). All positive potassium sample results
contained in SDG number 25071 greater than ten times the IDL were qualified as estimated (J).
All other ICP serial dilution results were acceptable.
BLANKS
With the exception of the field blank FBI 00792, all anafytes detected in any other blanks
associated with the samples had concentrations below the CKDL.
Aluminum, chromium, and iron were detected in the total metals analysis of field blank
FB100792 with concentrations of 776 micrograms per liter (ug/L), 16.2 ug/L, and 820 ug/L,
respectively.
The following sample results were qualified as unusable (R) because the
concentration was < five times the associated blank value.
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC.
J2-6
Sample JD
ESSO-TAP
Aluminum (total)
ESSO-TAP
Iron (total)
MW-9
Chromium (total)
MW-9S
Chromium (total)
MW-1
Chromium (total)
SAMPLE RESULTS
Only one transcription error was found. Iron originally reported as not detected (7U) in
the dissolved metals analysis of sample MW-3 was detected at a concentration of55.6 ug/L. The
sample result was corrected by the data reviewer.
DISSOLVED/TOTAL ANALYTES
The concentration of dissolved calcium was greater than total calcium for sample MW-5
FR (MW-104) by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved calcium for sample MW-5 FR (MW-
104) were qualified as estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved manganese was greater than total manganese for sample
MW-4D by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved manganese for sample MW-4D were
qualified as estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved arsenic was greater than total arsenic for sample MW-9
by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved arsenic for sample MW-9 were qualified as
estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved sodium was greater than total sodium for sample MW-1
by more than 10 percent. Total and dissolved sodium for sample MW-1 were qualified as
estimated (J).
The concentration of dissolved arsenic was greater than total arsenic for sample MW-9S
by more than 50 percent. Total and dissolved arsenic for sample MW-9S were qualified as
unusable (R).
A.2.3 Contract-Problem/Non-Compliance
For the arsenic, lead, selenium, and thallium initial calibrations, none of the calibration
standards were at the CRDL level. However, after each one of these initial calibrations were
analyzed and prior to the analysis of any samples, standards with a concentration at the CRDL
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
J2-7
were analyzed for each furnace sequence. The recovery of these standards were found to be
within a range of 94 to 118 percent. It is Ms data reviewer's opinion that the data was not
compromised.
MMB/ESAT Reviewer:_____________________
Date:
•Signature
Contractor Reviewer:
kguXJii/t*. £ ' ® > £ ^ / U - T
pate:
Signature
"
Verified by:
/ f<&w-*^ Vf J^0*s~*-^^
Date
GERAGHTY 6? MILLER. INC.
U.S.EPA-CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-5
Total
Lab Name: ENSECOEAST
Lab Code:
Matrix (soil/water):
—___
% Solids for Sample:
--___
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.:
24997
Level (low/med):
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cvanide
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
1490
20.0
3.9
167
1.0
3.0
40100
15.7
6.9
92
2280
1.0
21700
407
0.10
543
9310
2.0
4.0
21400
3.0
6.4
26.1
10.0
C
u
B
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
uu
u
B
U
Duplicate (D)
1140
20.0
4.0
167
1.0
3.0
40100
12.5
6.5
10.9
1910
1.0
21400
406
0.10
49.0
8970
2.0
4.0
213000
3.0
4.9
26.4
10.0
C
-
U
B
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
uu
u
B
U
(
(
RPD
" 26.6
25
0
0
22.6
6.0
16.9
~~ 17.7 "
1.4
0.2
103
3.7
03
265
1.1
)
Q
M
PR01301/MW-5TOTAL.WK3
fU"
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
U.S.EPA-CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-5
Dissolved
Lab Name: ENSECOEAST
Lab Code:
Matrix (soil/water):
—___
% Solids for Sample:
--___
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.:
24997
Level (low/med):
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/tcg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:,
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cvanide
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
C
34.9
20.0
3.9
172
1.0
3.0
40300
4.0
4.0
4.0
278
1.0
21600
373
0.10
39.7
9850
2.0
4.0
233000
3.0
4.0
7.5
B
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
U
B
Duplicate (D)
C
36.1
24.8
3.9
162
1.0
3.0
39500
4.0
5.4
4.0
278
1.0
23200
383
0.10
48.8
9380
2.0
4.0
236000
3.0
4.0
5.6
B
B
B
B
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
B
U
U
U
U
B
RPD
33
0
5.6
2.0
0
7.1
2.6
20.7
4.9
13
29.0
Q
M
PR01301/MW-5DIS.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
1784
US. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
EPA SAMPLE NO.
MW-7
Total
Lab Name: ENSECOEAST
Lab Code:
Matrix (soil/water):
Water
% Solids for Sample:
--____
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
SDG No.:
25052
Level (low/med):
Low
Concentration Units (ug/L or rag/kg dry weight):
% Solids for Duplicate:,
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
C
3640
20.0
2.0
18.8
1.0
3.0
49200
12.7
5.1
19.9
5120
1.0
30300
120
0.10
8.0
21100
2.0
4.0
199000
3.0
103
16.0
10.0
U
U
B
B
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
Duplicate (D)
C
4000
20.0
2.0
16.5
1.0
3.0
51700
10.4
4.8
14.4
5470
1.0
30500
132
0.10
8.0
22100
2.0
4.0
201000
3.0
106
17.0
10.0
U
U
B
U
U
B
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
RPD
9.4
13.0
5.0
20.0
6.1
32.0
6.6
0.7
9.5
4.6
1.0
2.9
6.1
Q
M
PR01301/MW-7TOTAL.WK3
TUT
002
176
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
U.S. EPA - CLP
DUPLICATES
Lab Name: ENSECO EAST
Lab Code:
—
Matrix (soil/water):
Water
% Solids for Sample: ___—-_____
Contract:
Case No.:
SAS No.:
EPA SAMPLE NO
MW-7
Dissolved
SDG No.:
25052
Level (low/med):
Low
% Solids for Duplicate:
Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight):
ug/L
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimonv
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Control
Limit
Sample (S)
C
32.0
20.1
2.0
4.8
1.0
3.0
41200
4.0
1
4.0
1
4.0
1
7.0
1.0
28600
1.2
0.10
8.0
20100
2.1
4.0
Zinc
|
Cvanide
I
209000
3.0
96.8
U
B
U
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
U
B
U
U
3.9
B
Duplicate (D)
C
32.0
1 U
20.0
2.0
7.4
1.0
3.0
41100
4.0
4.0
4.0
10.5
1.0
28700
2.0
0.10
8.0
22400
2.0
4.0
211000
3.0
99.2
1
7.4
U
1
U
B
U
U
U
U
U
U
B
U
B
U
U
U
U
U
B
RPD
200
42.6
0.2
200
03
CSQ.Q^
10.8
1.1
2.4
^61.9^
^^™»__p-^
Q
i
M
I
|
1
1
PR01301/MW-7DIS.WK3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
ATTACHMENT J3
TABLES
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.
Table J3-1. Ground -Water Sampk Delivery Groups for September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station
Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Sample
Delivery
Group
24744
24950
24997
25009
25052
25071
25091
FB
TB
MS
MSD
Sample
Identification
FB092992
TB092992
MW-8
MW-6R
FB093092
TB093092
MW-6D
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
TB100192
FB100192
MW-5
MW-14
MW-104
FB100292
TB100292
MW-1
MW-1D
MW-11D
MW-11DMS
MW-11DMSD
FB100592
TB100592
MW-12D
MW-7
MW-105
MW-4D
FB100692
TB100692
MW-10
MW-10D
MW-1
MW-13D
MW-4D
MW-9
MW-9S
FB100792
TB100792
ESSO-TAP
MW-106
Field blank.
Trip blank.
Matrix spike.
Matrix spike duplicate.
Laboratory
Identification
24744-1
24744-2
24744-3
24744-4
24950-1
24950-2
24950-3
24950-4
24950-5
24950-6
24997-1
24997-2
24997-3
24997-4
24997-5
25009-1 (cancelled)
25009-2
25009-3 (resampted)
25009-4
25009-5
25009-5 MS
25009-5 MSD
25052-1
25052-2
25052-3
25052-4
25052-5
25052-6
25071-1
25071-2
25071-3
25071-4
25071-5
25071-6
25091-1
25091-2
25091-3
25091-4
25091-5
25091-6
25091-7
i
Collection Date
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 29, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
September 30, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 2, 1992
October 5, 1992
October 5, 1992
October 5, 1992
October 5, 1992
Octobers, 1992
Octobers, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 6, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
October 7, 1992
! j !" 00,;: 17B8
PRO»j01-Tl/TiH«n.«k3
GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC
Table 33-2.
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Holding-Time Outliers Assodated with Ground-Water Samples Collected
in September and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
VOCs
VOCs (bromoform only)
VOCs (bromoform only)
VOCs (bromoform only)
5
rtatiles
Sample ID
MW-13D
TB100192 RE
FB100192 RE
MW-5RE
MW-5 FR RE (MW- 104 RE)
MW-14RE
TB100292RE
MW-1DRE
MW-11DRE
FB100592RE
TB100592RE
MW-12DRE
MW-7 FR RE (MW- 105 RE)
MW-6DRE
Collection
Date/Acid Preserved
October 6, 1992/No
October 1, 1992/Yes
October 1, 1992/Yes
October 1, 1992/Yes
October 1, 1992/Yes
October 1, 1992/Yes
October2, 1992/Yes
October 2, 1992/Yes
October 2, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
Octobers, 1992/Yes
September 30, 1992/NA
Analysis (or Preparation)
Date
October 16, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 16, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 29, 1992
October 22, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 22, 1992
October 23, 1992
October 20, 1992
Days Holding
Time Exceeded
3
8
1
1
8
1
13
13
13
3
4
3
4
12
Action
Estimated data for
aromatic VOCs
Used initial analysis
for bromoform.
Used initial analysis
for bromoform.
Used initial analysis
for bromoform.
Estimated data.
Identification.
Volatile organic compounds.
Reanalysis.
Not applicable.
•Tl/IUM>3l«U
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC'
Page 1 of 4
Table J3-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/L)
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
Volatiles
24744
24950
24997
25052
25071
24744
950
1997
Method
(05Oct92-A/C1412)
Method
(06Oct92-A/C1426)
Method
(23Oct92-A/J0166)
Method
(07Oct92-A/C1445)
Method
(09Oct92-A/C1469)
Trip
(TB092992)
Trip
(TB093092)
Trip
TB100192
Methylene chloride/3J
Methylene chloride/3J
Acetone/81
Unknown (2Z92)/8J
Methylene chloride/5J
Acetone/9J
Methylene chloride/14
Methylene chloride/3BJ
Acetone/7J
Unknown (20.05)/6J
Unknown (26.15)/5J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/7J
Carbon disulfide/U
Methylene chloride/lBJ
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (4.43)/21JN
MW-6R, MW-8,
MW-2,
MW-3,
MW-4, MW-6D
MW-6D RE, MW-5, MW-14, MW-5 FR (MW-104),
MW-11D, MW-1D, TB100292
MW-5 FR RE (MW-104 RE)
MW- 12D, MW-7 FR (MW-105) *
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-4D, MW-9,
MW-9 FR (MW-106), MW-9S
MW-6R, MW-8
MW-2,
MW-3,
MW-4, MW-6D
MW-5,
MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
ec last page for footnotes.
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTY &f MILLER. INC
Table J3-3. Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Assodated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Page 2 of4
SDG No.
Blank
(Lab or Held ID/ File ID)
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
Concentration (ug/L)
Assodated
Ground-Water Samples
25009
25052
25071
25091
24744
24950 -
24997
Trip
(TB100292)
Trip
(TB100592)
Trip
(TB100fi92)
Trip
(TB100792)
Field
(FB092992)
Field
(FB093092)
Field
(FB100192)
Methylene chloride/2BJ
Acetone/9BJ
Unknown (4.49)/7J
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (20.04)/5JN
C12H12 Isomer (31.55)/8J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/6BJ
Methylene chloride/U
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/61
Unknown (20.03)/6J
Methylene chloride/4BJ
Acetone/81
Carbon disulfide/3J
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (20.03)/8JN
Unknown (26.13)/6J
Methylene chloride/2BJ
Acetone/TBJ
Unknown (4.54)/9J
MW-1 ID, MW- ID, MW-1
MW- 12D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-105)
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9 FR (MW-106), MW-9S,
ESSO-TAP
MW-6R, MW-8
MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6D
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC'
Page 3 of 4
Table J3-3. Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Field Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/L)
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
Volatiles (continued)
25052
25071
25091
Semivolatiles
24744
24950
24997
25009
25052
Field
(FB100592)
Held
(FB100692)
Field
(FB100792)
Method
(WMB - 01Oct92B/H3261)
Method
(WMB - 05Oct92AA38631)
Method
(WMB - 2Oct92A/H3479)
Method
(WMB - 06Oct92B/G8680)
Method
(WMB - 07Oct92B/G8691)
Methylene chloride/5BJ
Acetone/6BJ
Methylene chloride/U
Hexane (5.59)/5JN
Methylene chloride/5BJ
Hexane (5.62yi20JN
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalalte/17
l,l'-Sulfonylbis(4-chlorobenzene) (30.58)/6JN
Substituted 1,2-benzenedicarboxylicacid (33.31)/39J
Unknown amide (35.24)/5J
bis(2-Ethylhexvl)phthalate/lB
cis-Terpin hydrate (16.86)/22JN
Unknown (17.23)/6J
Unknown (29.55)/3J
Unknown (15.60)/3J
MW- 12D, MW-7, MW-7 FR (MW-105)
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9FR (MW-106)
MW-6R, MW-8, FB092992
FB093092, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6D, FB100192,
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14
MW-6D RE
MW-11D
MW-1D
MW-4D, FB100592, MW-105, MW-12D, MW-7
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTY & MII.LHR. INC
Page 4 of4
Table J3-3.
Summary of Contaminated Method, Trip, and Held Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples Collected in September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
SDG No.
Blank
Compound or TIC (RT) Found/
(Lab or Field ID/ File ID)
Concentration (ug/L)
Associated
Ground-Water Samples
24744
24950
24997
25052
25071
25091
Field
(FB092992)
Field
(FB093092)
Field
(FB100192)
Field
(FB100592)
Field
(FB100692)
Field
(FB100792)
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate/50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/17
bis(2- Ethylheiyl)phthalate/15
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/16
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate/16
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene] (30.34yi8JN
bis(2-Ethyl hexyl)phthalate/41
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzenej (30.33)/3J
Unknown (41.88)/21J
MW-6R.MW-8
MW-6D, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6D RE
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14, MW-5 DL
MW-7, MW-4D, MW-12D
MW-1, MW-10, MW- 10D, MW- 13D
MW-9, MW-9S, ESSO-TAP
*
__, The results for the VOC analysis of MW-7 FR (MW-105) have been reported for MW-7 in the remedial investigation report
SDG N c
Sample delivery group number.
ID
~
Identification.
TIC
,-
Tentatively-identified compound.
RT
c
Retention time in minutes.
ug/L
Micrograms per liter.
J
,._
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration.
B
-:
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
N
ft
Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification.
RE
Reanalysis.
FR
Field replicate of previous sample.
DL
Dilution analysis.
tuturi-wp dv/tbld2.wk3
GERAGHTY & M1LLF.R. INC
Page 1 of 4
Table J3-4.
Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investiption, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter
Sample ID
Volatile*
MW-8
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-6DRE
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
— !
5
MW-5
K
MW-5
FR(MW- 104)
^p
MW-14
MW-1D
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Unknown (26.14)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Octamethvicyclotetrasiloxane (20.04)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
l,l,2-Trichloro-lA2-trifluoroethane (4.38)
Methylene chloride
1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2- trifluoroethane (4.48)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Reported Result (ug/L)
3 BJ
3 BJ
5 J
3 BJ
12
2 BJ
11 B
2 BJ
6 J
6 J
1 BJ
5 BJ
5 BJ
160 BJ
1100
J
130 BJ
550 J
1 BJ
7 BJ
4 BJ
22 B
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
12 U
10 U
11 U
10 U
10 U
R
10 U
10 U
10 U
500 U
R
500 U
R
10 U
10 U
20 U
22 U
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILU-R. INC
Page 2 of 4
Table J3-4. Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter
Sample ID
Volatiles (continued)
MW- 1 ID
MW-11D RE
MW-12D
MW-7
MW-10
MW-1
MW-10D
MW-4D
^
MW-9
g
MW-9
FR(MW- 106)
MW-9S
H-
;5
MW-9S DL
ESSO-TAP
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride
Reported Result (ug/L)
1 BJ
12 B
8 J
3 BJ
11 B
3 BJ
4 BJ
21 BJ
20 BJ
28 BJ
5 BJ
3 BJ
5 BJ
4 BJ
62 DJ
2 J
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
12 U
10 U
10 U
11 U
10 U
10 U
21 U
50 U
50 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
170 U
10 U
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MIIJ.HR. INC
Page 3 of 4
Table J3-4.
Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter
Sample ID
Semivolatiles
MW-8
MW-6R
MW-6D
MW-6DRE
MW-2
MW-4
MW-3
MW-5
MW-5DL
MW-5 FR(MW- 104)
H
MW-14
o
MW-11D
MW-12D
3
MW-7
MW-4D
MW-10
Target Compound or
TIC(RT)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyi)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhotyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(2-Ethylhotyl)phthalate
bis(2- Ethyl hexyl)phthalate
l,l'-SulfonylHs[4-chlorobenzene] (30.34)
Reported Result (ug/L)
10 B
64 B
5 J
6 J
11
56
18
22
31 DJ
22
7 J
1 BJ
2 J
1 J
1 J
3 J
3 J
Qualified Result (ug/L)
10 U
64 U
10 U
10 U
11 U
56 U
18 U
22 U
50 U
22 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
R
See last page for footnotes,
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MIU.HR. INC
Page 4 of4
Table J3-4.
Summary of Ground-Water Samples Qualified for Associated Blank Contamination, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter
Sample ID
Semivolatiles
ID
TIC
RT c
ug/L ~"
J
U
o
R
w
B
^
FR
^
RE
5
DL
D
(continued)
MW-10D
MW-1
MW-13D
MW-9
MW-9S
ESSO-TAP
Identification.
Tentatively-identified compound.
Retention time in minutes.
Target Compound or
TIC (RT)
Reported Result (ug/L)
Qualified Result (ug/L)
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
7 J
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3a31)
3 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
30
l,l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3a31)
3 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
23
l,r-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3a33)
3 J
bis(2-Ethylnexyl)phthalate
8 J
bis(2-EthyJhexyi)phthalate
13
bis(2-Ethylliexyi)phthalate
6 J
l(l'-Sulfonylbis[4-chlorobenzene](3Q33)
3 J
10 U
R
30 U
R
23 U
R
10 U
13 U
14 U
R
Micrognuns per liter.
Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an etsimated concentration.
Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit
Sample results are rejected and will not be reported.
Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank.
Held replicate.
Reanarysis.
Dilution analysis.
Analyte identified at a secondary dilution (when qualifier is appended to a sample result).
tuturi-wp dv/tbld3.wk3
GERAGHTY & MII.I.KR. INC
Page 1 of 4
Table J3-5.
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Parameter
Calibration
(Initial/Continuing)
Date
Analyzed
File ID(s)
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Volatiles
-o
Initial (TCL)
8/3/92
Initial (non-TCL)
10/5/92
Continuing (TCL)
10/5/92
C0280, C0282-C0285
2-Butanone (30.3)
C1405-C1410
C1404
Continuing (TCL)
10/6/92
C1424
Continuing (TCL)
10/29/92
C1822
Continuing (TCL)
10/7/92
C1444
Continuing (TCL)
10/09/92
C1467
n-Propyl benzene (34.1)
Acetone (45.5)
2-Butanone (39.9)
Bromoform (-28.3)
Acetone (41.7)
2-Butanone (34.7)
Bromoform (-42.2)
Vinyl chloride (-31.2)
Acetone (32.8)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (26.5)
2-Hexanone (31.3)
2-Butanone (32.4)
Bromoform (-44.0)
Acetone (31.9)
2-Butanone (45.1)
Bromoform (-36.1)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (25.1)
2-Hexanone (30.2)
All samples.
All samples.
MB 050CT92-A, TB092992, FB092992, MW-6R,
MW-8, MB Q50CT92-A, TB093092, FB093092,
MW-6D, MW-2, MW-4, MW-3
MB 060CT92-A, TB100292, TB100192, FBI00192,
MW-5, MW-5 FR (MW-104), MW-14,
MW-1D, MW-11D, MW-6D RE
MB 29OCT92-A, MW- 11D RE, TB100292 RE,
MW-11DRE
MW-12D, MW-7 FR (MW-105), TB100592,
FB100592, MW 07OCT92-A
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-1, TB100792, FB100792,
MW-4D, MW-9, MW-9S, MW-9 FR (MW-106)
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GERAGHTY & MII.LHR. INC'
Page 2 of4
Table J3-S.
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Assodated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, SL Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Calibration
Date
Parameter
(Initial/Continuing)
Analyzed
RlelD(s)
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Volatiles (Continued)
Continuing (TCL)
10/16/92
C1567
Continuing (TCL)
10/17/92
C1586
Seir'—'-nes
Continuing (TCL)
10/08/92
H3260
Continuing (TCL)
10/15/92
H3384
Vinyl chloride (-25.7)
Methylene chloride (26.5)
Acetone (33.6)
2-Butanone (35.2)
Bromoform (-28.3)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (27.6)
2-Hexanone (30.2)
Methylene chloride (29.5)
Acetone (46.0)
2-Butanone (43.8)
Bromoform (-26.2)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (27.9)
2-Hexanone (31.9)
4-Chloroaniline (40.8)
3-Nitroaniline (54.7)
2,4-Dinitrophenol (25.2)
4-Nitrophenol (28.6)
4-Nitroaniline (29.6)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (-31.9)
Pentachlorophenol (31.6)
MB 16OCT92-D, MW-5 RE, MW-14 RE,
FB100692 RE, TB100692, MW- 13D, ESSO-TAP
MW-9 DL, MW-9S DL,
MW-9 FR DL (MW-106 DL)
WMB-010CT92B
MW-6R, MW-8
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC'.
Page 3 of4
Table J3-S.
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Calibration
Date
Parameter
(Initial/Continuing)
Analyzed
FilelD(s)
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Semivolatiles (Continued)
Continuing (TCL)
10/16/92
H3399
Continuing (TCL)
10/16/92
G8630
Continuing (TCL)
10/18/92
G8655
Continuing (TCL)
10/19/92
G8672
Contiunuing (TCL)
10/22/92
H34S8
Hexachlorobutadiene (-28.3)
FB092992
4-Nitrophenol (38.5)
Pentachlorophenol (36.3)
Butylbenzylphthalate (31.1)
bis(2-Ethyihexyl)phthalatc (30.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (33.3)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-410)
WMB-05OCT92A
Butylbenzylphthalate (-33.4)
bis(2-Ethyihexyl)phthfllate (-28.2)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-449)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (37.5)
12'-cwyWs(l-Chloropropane) (40.4)
Hexachlorobenzene (28.1)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-37.7)
bis(2-Ethyihexyi)phthalate (-38.4)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-49.8)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (38.2)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-33.1)
MW-5 DL
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate (-26.9)
Dt-n-octylphthalate (-37.7)
2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) (-30.9)
MW-6D RE
2,4-Dinitrophenol (416)
3,3'-Dfchlorobenzidine (-27.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (28.7)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-46.1)
MW-5, MW-14, MW-5 FR (MW-104)
See last page for footnotes.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILI.KR. INC
Page 4 of 4
Table J3-S.
Summary of Volatile and Semivolatile Calibration Outliers Associated with Ground-Water and Quality Control Samples Collected in September
and October 1992, Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical
Calibration
Date
Parameter
(Initial/Continuing)
Analyzed
FilelD(s)
Outliers (RSD or %D)
Associated Samples
Semivolatiles (Continued)
Contiunuing (TCL)
10/13/92
H3477
Continuing (TCL)
10/20/92
G8686
—,Jc
••—:
^
Continuing (TCL)
10/21/92
G8703
cc
Continuing (TCL)
10/22/92
G8719
2,2'-oxybis( 1 - Chloropropane) (-40.5)
WMB-20OCT92A
Pentachlorophenol (2S.6)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (-16.9)
2,4-Dinitrophenol (37.2)
Pentachlorophenol (37.3)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-30.8)
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene (-29.0)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (40.4)
Pentachlorophenol (26.9)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol (27.9)
Hexachloroethane (-29.6)
4-Nitrophenol (-28.5)
Butylbenzylphthalate (-26.9)
Di-n-octylphthalate (-28.5)
MW-5 FR DL (MW-104 DL)
WMB-100CT92A
MW-10, MW- 10D, MW-1, MW- 13D,
FB100692
ID
RSD
TCL
FR
DL
RE
MB
WMB
Identification.
Relative standard deviation expressed as a percentage.
Percent difference.
Target compound list of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency March 1990 organic routine analytical services statement of work.
Field replicate of previous sample.
Dilution analysis.
Reanalysis.
Method blank/numerical suffix denotes analysis date and batch ID.
Water method blank for aqueous senivolatiles extraction; numerical suffix denotes analysis data and batch ID.
Tuturi-wp dv/tbld4.wk3
GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC
Tabk J3-6. Summary of Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Outliers for Ground -Water Samples Collected September and October 1992,
Tutu Service Station Investigation, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands.
Analytical Parameter
Sample ID
Volatiks
MW-11D
Semrvolatiles
MW-11 D
ID
Identification.
%R
Percent recovery.
MS
Matrix spike.
MSD
Matrix spike duplicate.
Compound
1,1- Dkhtoroethene
Toluene
Phenol
2-Chtorophenol
4 - Chtoro -3 - methylphenol
Acenaphthene
2,4 - Dinitrotoluene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrene
Accuracy
Acceptance Range (%R)
61 to 145
76 to 125
12 to 110
27 to 123
23 to 97
46 to 118
24 to 96
9 to 103
26 to 127
MS (%R)
55
67
1
4
1
2-
—
4
MSD (%R)
— —
75
1
5
1
2
99
108
5
No outlier found.
tuturi-wp DVAbM3-6
GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC'