2890 woodbridge avenue bldg. 209 annex s'.itv.ts ...the 50 ppm standard was analyzed by...

SFUND RECORDS CTR

1227-00278

SFUND RECORDS CENTER 88075503

AROQ56

DATE:

TO:

THRU:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Attached please find the following document prepared under this work assignment:

DRAFT FINAL REPORT UV/OZONATION TREATABILITY STUDY

BROWN AND BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CALIFORNIA

Six samples have been submitted to an outside laboratory for Dinoseb analysis and a final report will be issued after the sample results are incorporated in the report.

cc: Central File WA 2-364 (w/attachment) W. Scott Butterfield (w/o attachment) B. Cibulskis (w/o attachment)

S'.ITV.TS

REAC PROJECT GSA RARITAN DEPOT 2890 WOODBRIDGE AVENUE BLDG. 209 ANNEX EDISON, NJ 08837-3679

October 16, 1990 r

Harry Allen, EPA Work Assignment Manager \ •

Craig Moylan, REAC Section Chief

Daniel FitzGerald, REAC Task Leader Q/j,vil2. 0-

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL UNDER WORK ASSIGNMENT 2-364

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

* r-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Background 1.2 Objectives 1.3 REAC Field Activities

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Soil Washing and Leachate Generation 2.2 pH Leaching Effects 2.3 UV/03 Assessment 2.4 Analytical Methodology

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Soil Washing and Leachate Generation 3.2 pH Leaching Effects 3.3 UV/Oj Assessment

4.0 DIS6USSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Soil Washing and Leachate Generation 4.2 pH Leaching Effects 4.3 UV/O, Destruction of Dinoseb 4.4 Analytical Methodology

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A. Field Observations and Data Sheets B. Statistical Analyses of Leachability Data

pw:eh/FTTZ/FR-3364

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. Leachate Concentrations

TABLE 2. pH 7 - Effects on Leaching




TABLE 6. Control - Effects on Leaching

TABLE 7 First Trial, Low Dilution

TABLE 8 Second Trial, High Dilution

TABLE 9 Destruction Efficiency

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Site Location Map FIGURE 2. Site Locale FIGURE 3. Leachate Extraction System FIGURE 4. Leachate Collection System FIGURE 5. UV/Ozone Treatment Unit FIGURE 6. pH 7 - Effects on Leaching FIGURE 7. pH 8 - Effects on Leaching FIGURE 8. pH 9 - Effects on Leaching FIGURE 9. pH 10 - Effects on Leaching FIGURE 10. Control - Effects on Leaching FIGURE 11. % T Calibration Curve vs Dinoseb Concentration FIGURE 12. pH vs Wash Volume to Achieve a Concentration of 10 ppm

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On April 23, 1990, the Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) received EPA Work Assignment #1-364 for an engineering assessment of the Brown and Bryant site located in Kern County, Arvin, California (Figure 1). This assignment directed REAC to perform a pilot scale treatability study to evaluate the applicability of ultraviolet radiation/ozonation (UV/O,) and soil washing technology for the destruction of organic contaminants in the soil and groundwater at this site.

1.1 Site Background

The site is a former agricultural chemical formulation, storage, and custom application facility. It is located at 600 Derby Street in a mixed agricultural/industrial/residential area (Figure 2). The principal contaminant of interest in this study is the herbicide Dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6 dinitrophenol).

In the early 1980's, the facility came under scrutiny by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Branch of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The facility was issued an Interim Status Document, and was inspected in 1983. Inspection results noted improper handling of hazardous wastes from the following on-site wastes streams: formulation equipment rinse water, application equipment rinse water, empty pesticide containers; and yard drainage, mostly from material transfer spillage. In 1984, the California Department of Health Services (DOHS) issued Brown and Bryant an Order of Correction for documented violations. Though the site was regraded, monitoring wells installed, and other improvements made by the owner, Brown and Bryant was closed in December, 1988.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this study were the following:

o Perform pilot scale treatability studies using UV/O,. o Determine the destruction efficiency of UV/O, as applied to the contaminant Dinoseb. o Determine optimum dosage rates of UV/O, for Dinoseb destruction, o Quantify leachability characteristics of Dinoseb in a soil matrix.

The leachate was to be extracted on-site. The pilot scale treatability study was also to be performed under field conditions.

1.3 REAC Field Activities

On May 2,1990, approximately four cubic yards of Dinoseb-contaminated soil were extracted with 2000 gallons of groundwater from the site. The resulting leachate (approximately 900 gallons) was containerized in 55-gallon drums to await the treatability test. On June 20, 1990, the Dinoseb solution was transferred to a hazardous waste tanker and transported to Colorado Springs, CO., for the pilot scale treatability test. REAC personnel performed the testing during the time period of June 22-28, 1990.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The contaminated soil used in this evaluation was obtained from well boring tailings from three locations along the eastern fence line that liad been determined to be highly contaminated. The level of contamination was documented by sampling and analysis by the USEPA, Region IX Technical

pw:eh/FTTZ/FR-3364

Assistance Team (TAT). This material had been collected and stored in 55-gallon drums on-site prior to the commencement of this work assignment.

2.1 Soil Washing and Leachate Generation

The leachate was prepared by placing approximately four (4) cubic yards of contaminated soil into a 6000-gallon open reaction vessel. This container had been left on the site from previous operations when the plant was active. The vessel was modified by the addition of an underdrain system by REAC and TAT personnel to be used for the extraction process (Figure 3). Water was pumped into this vessel at a rate of 15 gallons per minutes (GPM). The on-site groundwater used in this process originated from a yield test being performed concurrently by USEPA personnel. With the gate valve at the bottom of the tank closed, the soil in the vessel was agitated by the action of the wash water stream until 2000 gallons had been added and the water level in the tank rose to a depth of approximately 1 foot above the surface of the soil. At this point the soil/water mixture was allowed to stand for an hour. This volume of wash water represents approximately 4 pore volumes of the soil. This is based on a 50% void space in the soil (1). The resulting leachate, assumed to contain Dinoseb based on previous study, was then drawn from the underdrain and passed through the leachate collection system where it was pumped into 55-gallon drums for the next phase of the testing program (Figure 4). The water was allowed to drain through a slotted PVC screen and two feet of Ottawa packing sand. This proved effective in removing the entrained fines from the solution in the tank. This process produced approximately 900 gallons of non-turbid leachate.

2.2 pH Leaching Effects

An experimental program was designed at REAC to assess the leachability characteristics of Dinoseb from a soil matrix. Based on the chemical characteristics of similar molecules, i.e., double phenol bond with a hydroxyl radical, it was surmised that the compound's solubility would be affected by pH. Therefore a program was undertaken to test the extraction efficiency of water at several pH levels. This was accomplished by setting up five, 250-milliliter (ml) containers each with seventy-five grams (gm) of contaminated soil. Five extraction water batches were then prepared with distilled water. Four batches were buffered at pH 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0. One batch was left unbuffered as a control. One hundred twenty-five ml of the extraction solution was added to each of the respective soil samples and the mixture was shaken on a shaker table for approximately three minutes. The resulting mixture was then centrifuged and the supernatant was decanted and reserved for analysis. Additional aliquots of the buffered water were added to the same soil sample and the process was repeated. This was continued until the Dinoseb concentration in the extract was estimated to be less than 10 parts per million (ppm) based on a % Transmittance (%T) of 68. The subsequent analysis of the liquid samples provided data to define the relationship between pH and effects on leaching (Tables 2 through 6).

2.3 UV/O, Assessment

The effectiveness of UV/O, destruction of Dinoseb was tested in the field using a modification of a production on-site treatment unit that had been used extensively for treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater. This unit consisted of a 1000-gallon untreated feedstock tank with preozonation, a bank of five 30 gallon pressure sand filters in series, a 30 gallon, pressurized ozone contact chamber, two UV contact chambers two inch inside diameter, 30 inches long, in series, a bank of five 30-gallon pressurized activated carbon, liquid phase, polishing filters in series, and a 1000-gallon final effluent tank. The UV chambers were supplied by two 500 milliamp sources and the ozone is supplied by two 5-amp ozone generators (Figure 5). Under normal operating conditions, the waste feedstock is pre-ozonated in the feedstock tank, pumped

pw:eh/FIT27FR-3364

2.4 Analytical Methodology

All samples were scanned for absorbance and % transmittance using a visible spectrum spectrophometer at wavelength 460 angstroms (A*) (Bacharat mod.21). Percent transmittance measurements were performed on a series of five Dinoseb standards prepared by REAC to establish a calibration curve. The 50 ppm standard was analyzed by Lancaster Labs by the use of USEPA SW-846 Method 8150 (herbicides) except that the samples were extracted with a mixture of 80% methylene chloride and 20% acetone. Select samples were replicated on the spectrophotometer from each test run.

3.0 RESULTS

The following sections summarize the program results. The field observations and data sheets are presented in Appendix A.


Two thousand gallons of wash water were mixed with four cubic yards of contaminated soil on-site. This resulted in slightly more than 900 gallons of leachate withdrawn from the collection system. This material was stored in 19 drums (55 gal. each) and reserved on-site for the UV/CX, phase of the test program. The initial 25 gallons of the solution was visibly turbid but cleared in approximately 10 minutes. The remaining solution had no visible turbidity. Analyses were made on site by spectrophometer to estimate the Dinoseb concentration. Drums 1 and 5 were analyzed and the average concentration was 156 ppm (Table 1). This average was based on the

,39-1 dilution.


Soil samples were extracted with distilled water solutions that were buffered to pH 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0. One sample was extracted with unbuffered distilled water as a control. The results are summarized in Figures 6 through 10 and the data are presented in Tables 2 through 6.

3.3 UV/Oj Assessment

The data generated in the UV/03 phase of the assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The first digit of the sample number indicates the run number and corresponds with the list defining run characteristics presented in section 2.3 of this report. The second two integers represent the sampling event within a run and the last integer indicates the sampling location (Figure 5), i.e. XYY-Z, X = run number, YY = sampling event, Z = sampling location. A run was terminated when Transmittance values leveled out. The most effective run demonstrated a 65% destruction of Dinoseb. This decrease occurred within the first 20 minutes of run 1. Subsequent runs were stopped in shorter times since there was no apparent "deflection point" in the absorbance vs. time relationship.

4.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS


The soil washing system proved effective in providing a non-turbid leachate with a dark yellow color which is characteristic of Dinoseb. There was an initial concern that fines may become entrained in leachate but the sand pack proved effective in filtering the effluent

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

through the sand filters; ozonated under pressure in the contact tank; exposed to UV radiation in the two UV chambers sequentially, passed through the activated carbon polishing filters, and pumped to the effluent tank as a once through treatment. In this test the process was modified to form a closed loop recirculating the Dinoseb water solution through the ozone contact chamber and the UV contact chambers to increase the exposure time. At the beginning of each run, as the systems were charged with influent, an initial sample was taken at point 2. As the run progressed, samples were withdrawn from the system after the ozone contact chamber at sample point 2 and after the UV contact chambers at sample point 3 at regular intervals during a test run. The test runs were structured as follows:

Run 1:

No pre-ozonation Pressure ozonation Two UV sources

Run 2:

Duration 301 min Sampling Interval 10 min

No pre-ozonation Pressure ozonation One UV source

Run 3:


r V

INO pre-ozonation Pressure ozonation No UV source

Run 4:


No pre-ozonation No Pressure ozonation Two UV sources


Run 5:

Pre-ozonation Pressure ozonation Two UV sources Carbon filtration


The test runs were structured to assess the effects of varying the concentration and intensity of ozone and UV radiation on the destruction of Dinoseb. The treatment system was supplied and operated under contract to REAC by:

ENVIRONMENTAL RECYCLING SYSTEMS 108 East Cheyenne Road Colorado Springs, CO

( pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364


Variation of pH in the wash water produced a demonstrable effect on the rate of extraction of Dinoseb from the soil. The rate of Dinoseb extraction among the buffered solutions shows a significance statistical difference using an analysis of variance (see Appendix B). The pH 8 0 solution had the most rapid extraction rate followed by pH 9.0, 10.0, and 7.0. The unbuffered control solution exhibited relatively poor extraction characteristics. Using an arbitrary cut-off point of 68% transmittance for leachate concentration, the volume of wash water to achieve this concentration was calculated by interpolation of the leachate results for each pH tested. These results are presented graphically in Figure 12. The pH 8.0 wash water achieved the target concentration with 11 pore volumes wash water (1.7 liter/75 gm) while the pH 7.0 wash required

pore volumes (2.0 liter/75 gm). The control exhibited an erratic pattern of extract concentrations for each consecutive wash step. This was most likely due to the change in pH of the wash water as compounds were solubilized from the soil.

Centrifuging was successful in removing the visible suspended solids after each agitation step. After approximately eight to ten washes, however, it became more difficult to decant the clarified wash water without re-entraining the solids. This re-entrainment impacted the spectrophotometer results as noted by decreased transmissivity in the latter stages of the washing and special care was taken not to include sediment in the sample aliquot taken for spectrophotometric analysis.

4.3 UV/Oj Destruction of Dinoseb

The results indicate that Dinoseb was reduced by 65% when an ozone-saturated waste stream was passed through a UV chamber with a retention time of 0.2 minutes. Additional recirculation of the stream through the ozonator and UV chamber did not result in a further decrease in the Dinoseb concentration (Table 9).

It has been reported in the literature (5) that the UV/ozone destruction of certain groups of phenolic compounds is inhibited by an excess of ozone over a critical concentration. Although Dinoseb was not specifically investigated in this research, its chemical structure was very similar to the chemicals investigated. Based on this information it is possible that after the initial decrease in the observed Dinoseb concentration, the ozone concentration in subsequent sampling events may have impeded the UV destruction capability. This assumption is supported by the facts that in each run that had both UV and O, introduced (Runs 1, 2, and 5) an initial decrease in Dinoseb concentration was followed by a levelling off of the concentration as more ozone was introduced into the waste stream.

4.4 Analytical Methodology

As described in Section 2.4 the analytical methods used were visible spectrophotometry with GC/MS correlation to observed energy absorbance at 460A* wavelength. In analyzing the samples it became apparent that dilution was affecting the analytical results.

It was observed that at higher sample dilutions (5 to 1 and greater) the indicated concentration was lower than the concentration at low dilutions (2 to 1). This occurred even for values where observed % transmittance was within the range of the calibration curve. Tables 7 and 8 present the same data developed at low and high dilution levels identified as Trial 1 and Trial 2, respectively. A typical example of this observed difference can be seen in comparing the results of Run 1, sampling event 5, sample port 2. In the first trial at a 2:1 dilution, the transmittance was measured as 26.3% with a calculated Dinoseb concentration of 264 ppm. In the second trial at a 5:1 dilution, the transmittance was measured as 69.5% with a calculated concentration of

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

37.7 ppm. In reviewing these data as presented in Tables 7 and 8 it can be seen that the rate of increase of transmittance is approximately the same over the duration of Run 1 irregardless of the sample dilution used in the spectrophotometric measurements. From this it was inferred that the data was useful to evaluate the destruction rate of Dinoseb and further investigation into the analytical methodology would not be necessary within the scope of this assignment.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that soil washing followed by UV/O, treatment of the leachate be considered as a viable on-site remediation technique for the Brown and Bryant site. The optimum O, dosage may be lower than the lowest setting available in the test system and should be ascertained prior to beginning production runs. In this assignment soil washing was demonstrated to be an effective method of stripping the Dinoseb from the soil matrix. This process would be the recommended pre-treatment step followed by a UV/O, treatment system with an activated carbon system as a final polishing step.

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

ES

if p»<« «. . • <»>• ««r>. * \ • .ai.u I

- V' - 1 ^ * »C W . N\p«r « .. . ^ ^ \ \n ,--' / ••.«•»» " ' •*nw»i^ - - • ,»V ** . . *. •wl jiDeljno / • •«*.. o»-~ »••• ~ " « .•** y,33 - -f. | L 1 \

;• • V •». jfouo/J>i."" //oC & VV'- ... "• Irtjsco I I !•«••» '"a*"' •«-•« wan., • I .. '

IT & 6 :5*fe * ""VSft '-T CW^ \ ../v .. .3 """jfouou f **• f • r\ > V.» 1 ( (o) •' V ZX I 1. — *,.„L •' !f o \-H <"Ml W£*A0*5

, . Y: OTl^- - ' ^ . .'V < '/»• / \ =»-. „ _ ; •,/„ v« Vr'/""' C£~r"

V • r-" • • ,Ly. ' i,-^ z^-v. i""" """ • »'.* v6~——\'/ ,SX:BAK£RSflELO!-^'of"»: / V V V.' 'BAKERSFIElD1

-i'Cs.'t

i ! ^r*"*

I f •!

£ Cere *| •

1-t'fc^vl'r;^ . -•—> 's';.» < // «». S -.'v Cvu .i' *« . ' r iBlZZLurnT^L <<«•>/ \\

' Ml«n 7...*-.. -~-crv C, J. ../ : r\ """ \\fh»c»upt /"* .v I. I ^ ' 0 ' ' 'J

•« Mown*. C*mi

...V *pi££UA#A/OCj' SlTEr

• 0 Can'orm# Olf

mi TO M/os - »i

• ' — -^5 I •. J< »« A Ml » . V tlilM mot 'Tri7. \

'• 'nr *:T ». . T |r «1

v v ""*V >" io' ® HI «5»mOftQ . /{<#•*»« A* ' , • f ,N y---^ r— r— tf3*"-'— •'•' I '*r#«<M ' '

"~T _ _ f l w J T p j i o r v A f f # - I .

N I

I l"

{#•*»« A^

Dw' "C*'* 1 J

XJ.;f *• »*-v .. oa a*-*?

(AfOKI . ^ alamo MIN

rnBarsiOM lenwopd

r*'»' * l«IOf*f Aff#- 1 A V At Ap*#f I O .1 II liiflfTFR t'ltliil Ml v*4i

J-ÂHfASIE"-v^—0 . .Z^r.^^vn^ \ f '— "r„r L0S »'«o»«c*Tr?5 Tiy

M«Ui M4rt.

I V>j NATL, f OUST " 'S V =H'"i° V-*• 1,- .. . «\lfpR|0 J\ .* f JiAvn L. Wuu. 1 *. V *.1 a . -M ' i . 4 ,.JUrMA W«H*°v V V »/.' %/ ; C$tu« u»t •

tcifo ' .' Memer^ •"mffiaid Oaks. Cl'rryon

I Slufus tounsry. • -o,

... ...— - . CONDOA , ,TOp*r°'* MU J »£kuca

••' - T ....'u.'i,*.. » . ||k lu... I \ uu0\2lx>su... vpnieÂ H P-llfRB» fj||.

, ya*'o*o*i« ^\iVal«roj fffij ^ A * OmET^ 3 tim H1® W > " . v A(*r#»«u J -«it <»f*("_W .1 Paula » NewrtaTiTl *inca»â h .wmtsi ^r- MooiparkVll"«•"•* ' ^ -»

" -VENTU Mrs ',n!l,VlllEt .'VH—v2?rri!> IJIOJ

" »OXNAR[P\^^^^^^^^^^rihoysjnj M«,bu Port Hueneme^1*?

ilPaimdale

Mm »J«M 0 \ J "V" '

tm\ oô On

t-nfeTS o i l , • t s r « « M j r ^ , • Xa- 1 m (Mil • r * I *P

Tj" "'AAori "h—J

»p<it * - , Vif» A

J ' *<H<I A»*I ArnwN f I ' r_ " r— 1 ^ e r e c. j. y' - ¥ y

5** w-

•*

1 iw,'

TVictonfille

0*0

(

V'V

.Cja/ i«m>irvv;| W- 4.*,^ v*i Ja IMP* 1 T ij-,--"dL_JS

lT»TV i-k

sApp:e Vai^st I Hesoena

X'' * ,4Af «»WA*0 ,V" W4r4-. *o*is

J. tu. li •

IPC C< . _ 11 4mkm SANTA MONICA TZ"

MOUNTAINS SANTA MONICA v

fifcRL^toH " -LOS ANGELESH"\^fj^c8fwoo? AfiLA

********* t.

H**+h** Si toriX. MANKAUAN BEACH.f

REDONDO BEACHKîi Pilot Urdu Estates/

tdt^noniV,. MORENO..Jy TJorpnaX.- \^HLET VY , . EIM V"v,M

LONG (BEACR"' RANCHO PALOS . ?Z,V, r2^'

T) Irving ISun

emeij *"VPk*Wpe •

V-,

HUNTING-TON BEACH ; : COSTA MESA ;'/ NEWPORT BEACH-a-

»'-ti|giia •tie*,^v *• $out*

3Mi StIOApA ilki

Ilsmorc A **'<

/ MM / wor Tiy ^cpvo

( ' US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM | RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT I 68-03-3482

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP BROWN & BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA

SEPTEMBER 25, 1990

WO # 3347-21-01-3364

(

6000 GAL TANK

NOTE : NOT TO SCALE

( US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENQNEEWNfl AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT

M-OJ-JW W.O.# UA7-21-01-UC4

FIGURE 3 LEACHATE EXTRATION SYSTEM

BROWN k BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA JUNE 1990

(

WATER LEVEL

H

(

HOSF

ff J I 55 GAL

// DRUM

'

GASOUNE POWER PUMP CONCRETE

PAD

NOTE^NOTTOSCALE

US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE Of SNEERING AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT

CS-OO-SAH W.O.# JJA7-J1-G1-JJG*

FIGURE 4 LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM

BROWN k BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA JUNE 1990

I OZONE

GENERATORS

PRESSURIZED OZONE CONTACT CHAMBER

SAMPLE POINT 2

FIVE 30 GALLON ACTIVATED CARBON LIQUID PHASE POLISHING FLITERS IN SERIES

SAMPLE POINT 3

US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL CONTRACT

68-03-3482 VJ1» 3347-21-01- 3364

FIGURE 5 UV/OZONE TREATMENT UNIT

BROWN & BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA

JUNE, 1990

pH 7.0 ABSORBANCt vs. Run

UJ o z < CD a: o CO CD <

1.4

1.3

1 .2

1 . 1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

i \

3 E

[l '

1 E 3 * 3 1

'

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RUN NUMBER (2 pore volumes /run)

1 1 12 13 14 15


68-03-3462

1 6

FIGURE 6 pH 7 - EFFECTS ON LEACHING BROWN ft BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA AUGUST 19, 1990

WO # 3347-21-01-3364

l±J o z < CD Q: o U) QQ <

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1 . 2

1 . 1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

pH 8.0 ABSORBANCE vs. Run

I?

\ \ \ \ \ \ \

N 3 E

3 F 1 * 3 f 3- {

, /

1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11


12 13 14 15 16

US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAE CONTRACT

68-03-3482

FIGURE 7 pH 8 - EFFECTS ON LEACHING BROWN & BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA AUGUST 19. 1990

WO # 3347-21-01-3364


UJ u z < CD a: o I/) m <

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1 .2

1 . 1

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

4 J

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ % •

^1 1 rf

—f 3 f

5 6 7 8 9 10 11


12 13 14 15 1 6


6A-0.1-34A?

FIGURE 8 pH 9 - EFFECTS ON LEACHING BROWN & BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA AUGUST 19, 1990

WO # 3347-21-01-3364


1 . 1

1

0.9

0.8

UJ o Z 0.7 < QQ Od O I/) 0.6 m <

0.5

0.4

0.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16


US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TEAM RESPONSE ENGINEERING AND ANALYTICAL CON rKACT

68-03-3482

FIGURE 9 pH 10 - EFFECTS ON LEACHING BROWN & BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CA AUGUST 19, 1990

WO # 3347-21-01-3364

Drum l

Drum 5

TABLE 1

LEACHATE CONCENTRATIONS


JUNE 22, 1990

% T Dilution Factor

Concentration (PPm)

11.0 12.0 5 1 . 0 5 0 . 0 7 8 . 0

6 . 2 6 . 2

1 5 . 6 1 5 . 6 3 9 . 0

* *

280.8 2 9 6 . 4 1 7 5 . 5

10.0 4 8 . 0 81.0

6 . 2 1 5 . 6 3 9 . 0

*

3 3 5 . 4 1 3 6 . 5

• Outside range of calibration curve.Unable to determine concentration values.

TABLE 2

pH 7 - EFFECTS ON LEACHING


JUNE 22, 1990

Run Absorbance % T Concentration (ppm)

1 1 . 3 4 4 . 6 *

2 0 . 7 6 1 7 . 6 *

3 0 . 4 3 3 7 . 5 6 2 . 9 4 0 . 3 8 4 1 . 9 4 7 . 0 5 0 . 3 4 4 5 . 8 3 6 . 2 6 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 3 1 0 . 7 7 0 . 1 7 6 8 . 4 8 . 1 8 0 . 1 7 6 7 . 9 8 . 4 9 0 . 1 8 6 5 . 8 9 . 7

1 0 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 6 1 0 . 5 1 1 0 . 2 1 6 1 . 9 1 2 . 4 1 2 0 . 2 3 5 8 . 9 1 5 . 2 1 3 0 . 2 7 5 4 . 0 2 1 . 1 1 4 0 . 3 3 4 6 . 7 3 4 . 2 1 5 0 . 3 3 4 6 . 3 3 5 . 0 1 6 Sample lost

* Transmittance values beyond range of calibration curve.Unable to determine concentration values

TABLE 3


BROWN AND BRYANT SITE ARV1N, CALIFORNIA

JUNE 22, 1990


1 1 . 5 5 2 . 9 *

2 0 . 7 4 1 8 . 4 *

3 0 . 3 3 4 6 . 7 3 4 . 2 4 0 . 2 4 5 7 . 7 1 6 . 5 5 0 . 2 5 5 6 . 6 1 7 . 7 6 0 . 1 5 7 1 . 3 6 . 7 7 0 . 1 2 7 6 . 0 4 . 9 8 0 . 1 2 7 6 . 2 4 . 8 9 0 . 1 3 7 3 . 6 5 . 7

1 0 0 . 1 2 7 5 . 5 5 . 1 1 1 0 . 1 4 7 2 . 3 6 . 3 1 2 0 . 1 2 7 5 . 3 5 . 1 1 3 0 . 1 3 7 5 . 0 5 . 2 1 4 0 . 1 8 6 6 . 5 9 . 2 1 5 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 6 7 . 0 1 6 0 . 2 5 5 6 . 9 1 7 . 4


TABLE 4



JUNE 22, 1990


1 1 . 6 1 2 . 5 *

2 0 . 7 3 1 8 . 8 *

3 0 . 3 7 4 2 . 6 4 4 . 9 4 0 . 2 8 5 3 . 0 2 2 . 6 5 0 . 3 4 4 6 . 0 3 5 . 7 6 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 9 1 0 . 3 7 0 . 1 7 6 8 . 2 8 . 2 8 0 . 1 7 6 7 . 8 8 . 5 9 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 7 1 0 . 4

1 0 0 . 1 7 6 7 . 6 8 . 6 1 1 0 . 1 8 6 6 . 2 9 . 4 1 2 0 . 1 6 6 9 . 7 7 . 5 1 3 0 . 1 5 7 0 . 8 6 . 9 1 4 0 . 2 1 6 1 . 2 1 3 . 0 1 5 0 . 2 6 5 5 . 0 1 9 . 8 1 6 0 . 3 3 4 7 . 0 3 3 . 5


TABLE 5



JUNE 22, 1990


1 1 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 *

2 0 . 8 8 1 3 . 3 *

3 0 . 5 0 3 1 . 6 9 3 . 2 4 0 . 4 0 3 9 . 7 5 4 . 3 5 0 . 5 2 2 9 . 9 1 0 3 . 8 6 0 . 2 6 5 5 . 6 1 9 . 0 7 0 . 2 9 5 1 . 5 2 4 . 8 8 0 . 3 0 4 9 . 9 2 7 . 7 9 0 . 3 2 4 8 . 1 3 1 . 2

1 0 0 . 3 1 4 9 . 0 2 9 . 4 1 1 0 . 3 4 4 5 . 7 3 6 . 5 1 2 0 . 2 8 5 2 . 5 2 3 . 3 1 3 0 . 3 5 4 4 . 4 3 9 . 9 1 4 0 . 3 7 4 3 . 2 4 3 . 2 1 5 0 . 3 9 4 0 . 8 5 0 . 4 1 6 0 . 5 1 3 0 . 6 9 9 . 1


TABLE 6

CONTROL - EFFECTS ON LEACHING

BROWN AND BRYANT SITE ARV1N, CALIFORNIA

JUNE 22, 1990


1 0 . 7 2 1 9 . 2 2 0 . 6 6 2 2 . 0 3 1 . 5 1 0 3 . 1 4 1 . 0 5 0 9 . 0 5 0 . 9 3 1 1 . 7 6 0 . 7 6 1 7 . 3 7 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 5 8 0 . 6 9 2 0 . 3 9 0 . 5 5 2 8 . 5

10 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 5 11 0 . 9 2 1 2 . 0 12 0 . 7 5 1 7 . 9 13 0 . 9 4 1 1 . 5

14 0 . 8 5 1 4 . 0

15 0 . 4 8 3 3 . 1 16 0 . 6 8 2 0 . 8


TABLE 7

FIRST TRIAL - LOW DILUTION


JUNE 22, 1990

Sample Absorbance Transmittance Dilution Concentration Number % Factor (ppm)

101-1 101-2 1 0 1 - 3 102-2 1 0 2 - 3 1 0 3 - 2 1 0 3 - 3 1 0 4 - 2 1 0 4 - 3 1 0 5 - 2 1 0 5 - 3 106-2 1 0 6 - 3 1 0 7 - 2 1 0 7 - 3 108-2 1 0 8 - 3 1 0 9 - 2 1 0 9 - 3 1 1 0 - 2 110-3

201-1 201-2 2 0 1 - 3 2R1-1 202-2 2 0 2 - 3 2 0 3 - 2 2 0 3 - 3 2 0 4 - 2 2 0 4 - 3 2 0 5 - 2 2 0 5 - 3 2 0 6 - 2 2 0 6 - 3

1 . 1 5 6 . 9 2 . 0 0 0 . 7 7 1 7 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 6 1 2 4 . 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 7 2 6 . 8 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 5 2 . 0 0 0 . 6 0 2 5 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 3 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 3 2 . 0 0 0 . 6 0 2 6 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 9 2 5 . 5 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 7 2 7 . 3 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 9 2 5 . 6 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 6 2 7 . 4 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 7 2 6 . 7 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 5 2 8 . 0 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 8 2 6 . 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 2 3 . 6 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 7 2 7 . 2 2 . 0 0 0 . 5 6 2 7 . 4 2 . 0 0

0 . 9 0 1 2 . 5 2 . 0 0

0 . 8 7 1 3 . 6 2 . 0 0

0 . 9 2 1 1 . 8 1 . 3 3

1 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 . 3 3 0 . 9 3 1 1 . 5 1 . 3 3

0 . 9 7 1 0 . 6 1 . 3 3

0 . 9 9 1 0 . 2 1 . 3 3

0 . 9 6 1 0 . 7 1 . 3 3 1 . 0 8 8 . 2 1 . 3 3

1 . 0 4 9 . 1 1 . 3 3

1 . 0 8 8 . 3 1 . 3 3 0 . 9 5 1 0 . 9 1 . 3 3

0 . 9 3 1 1 . 8 1 . 3 3

0 . 9 2 1 2 . 0 1 . 3 3

TABLE 7 (continued)

FIRST TRIAL - LOW DILUTION


»JUNE 22, 1990

Sample Number

Absorbance Transmittance %

Dilution Factor

Concentration (ppm)

301-3 3 0 2 - 3 3 0 3 - 3 3 0 4 - 3 3 0 5 - 3 3 0 6 - 3

401-3 4 0 2 - 3 4 0 3 - 3 4 0 4 - 3 4 0 5 - 3

501-3 5 0 2 - 4

0 . 9 9 1 . 0 9 1 . 0 9 1.08 1 . 0 4 1 . 0 4

0 . 9 0 0 . 9 5 1.08 0 . 9 8 0 . 9 9

0 . 9 0 0.02

10.0 8.0 8 . 7 8 . 5 9 . 1 9 . 3

1 2 . 5 11.0

8 . 5 1 0 . 4 1 0 . 0

1 2 . 5 9 5 . 5

1 . 3 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 3

2 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 1 . 3 3

2 . 0 0 1 . 3 3 1.8

• : Transmittance values beyond range of calibration curve Unable to determine concentration values.

TABLES

SECOND TRIAL - HIGH DILUTION


JUNE 22. 1990


101-1 0.21 62.2 10.00 122.3 101-2 0.11 77.8 10.00 43.5 101-3 0.19 64.3 5.00 53.2 101-2 0.18 65.9 5.00 47.9 1 0 2 - 3 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 2 5 . 0 0 5 3 . 6 1 0 3 - 2 0 . 1 9 6 3 . 9 5 . 0 0 5 4 . 7 1 0 3 - 3 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 2 5 . 0 0 5 3 . 6 1 0 4 - 2 0 . 2 0 6 3 . 3 5 . 0 0 5 6 . 9 104-3 0.19 65.4 5.00 49.5 105-2 0.16 69.5 5.00 37.7 1 0 5 - 3 0 . 2 3 5 9 . 4 4 . 0 0 5 8 . 9 106-2 0.23 59.6 4.00 58.1 1 0 6 - 3 0 . 2 3 5 8 . 9 4 . 0 0 6 0 . 9 107-2 0.20 63.3 4.00 45.5 1 0 7 - 3 0 . 2 2 6 0 . 3 4 . 0 0 5 5 . 5 1 0 8 - 2 0 . 2 2 6 0 . 7 4 . 0 0 5 4 . 1 1 0 8 - 3 0 . 2 2 5 9 . 8 4 . 0 0 5 7 . 4 109-2 0.23 58.4 4.00 63.0 109-3 0.22 60.9 4.00 53.3 110-2 0.23 59.3 4.00 59.3 1 1 0 - 3 0 . 2 2 5 9 . 7 4 . 0 0 5 7 . 8

201-1 0.30 50.6 4.00 105.5 2 0 1 - 2 0 . 2 8 5 2 . 1 5 . 0 0 1 1 9 . 4 201-3 0.22 60.7 6.00 81.1 2 R 1 - 1 0 . 2 5 5 6 . 4 6 . 0 0 1 0 7 . 8 2 0 2 - 2 0 . 2 6 5 4 . 9 6 . 0 0 1 1 9 . 1 2 0 2 - 3 0 . 2 3 5 8 . 8 6 . 0 0 9 2 . 0 2 0 3 - 2 0 . 2 6 5 5 . 1 6 . 0 0 1 1 7 . 5 2 0 3 - 3 0 . 2 8 5 2 . 6 6 . 0 0 1 3 8 . 7 2 0 4 - 2 0 . 2 3 5 9 . 3 6 . 0 0 8 9 . 0 2 0 4 - 3 0 . 2 7 5 4 . 3 6 . 0 0 1 2 3 . 9 2 0 5 - 2 0 . 2 6 5 5 . 3 6 . 0 0 1 1 6 . 0 2 0 5 - 3 0 . 2 6 5 4 . 7 6 . 0 0 1 2 0 . 7 2 0 6 - 2 0 . 2 6 5 5 . 1 6 . 0 0 1 1 7 . 5 2 0 6 - 3 0 . 2 6 5 4 . 9 6 . 0 0 1 1 9 . 1

TABLE 8 (continued)

SECOND TRIAL - HIGH DILUTION

BROWN AND BRYANT SITE ARVIN, CAUFORNIA

JUNE 22, 1990


3 0 1 - 3 0 . 1 7 6 0 . 8 8 . 0 0 1 0 7 . 4 3 0 2 - 3 0 . 2 0 6 6 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 9 2 . 0 3 0 3 - 3 0 . 1 9 6 7 . 6 1 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 6 3 0 4 - 4 0 . 2 0 6 3 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 3 . 0 3 0 5 - 5 0 . 1 9 6 4 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 5 . 1 3 0 6 - 6 0 . 2 1 6 0 . 4 1 0 . 0 0 1 3 7 . 8

4 0 1 - 3 0 . 2 5 5 6 . 6 5 . 0 0 8 8 . 7 4 0 2 - 3 0 . 2 4 5 7 . 8 5 . 0 0 8 1 . 9 4 0 3 - 3 0 . 2 1 6 2 . 3 5 . 0 0 6 0 . 8 4 0 4 - 3 0 . 1 8 6 6 . 7 5 . 0 0 4 5 . 4

501-1 0.25 56.6 5.00 88.7 501-4 0.02 95.5 1.00 1.8

APPENDIX A

FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND DATA SHEETS BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

FINAL REPORT

OCTOBER, 1990

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

APPENDIX B

STATISTICAL ANALYSES OF LEACHABILITY DATA BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

FINAL REPORT

OCTOBER, 1990

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

o

BROUN & BRYANT

General Linear Models Procedure

Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IOGCONC

NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate, but generally has a higher type II error rate than REGUQ.

Alpha= 0.05 df= 35 MSE= 0.367294

Critical Value of Studentized Range? 4.066

Minimum Significant Difference? 0.8712

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Tukey Grouping Mean N PH

2.413 8 C

B

B

1.865 8 10

B 1.626 8 7

B

B

B

B 1.418

1.569 8 9

8 8

!

BROWN I BRYANT


Duncan's Multiple Range Test for variable: LOGCONC

NOTE: This test controls the type I cdmparisonwise error rate, not the experimentwise error rate

Alpha= 0.05 df= 35 MSE= 0.367294

Nurber of Means 2 3 4 5

Critical Range 0.615 0.646 0.668 0.682

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Duncan Grouping Mean N PH

A 2.413 8 C

A

B A 1.865 8 10

B

B 1.626 8 7

B

1.569 8 9

1.418 8 8

BROUN & BRYANT


Dependent Variable: LOGCONC LOG OF CONCENTRATION (pptn)

Source • DF Sun of Squares

Model

Error

Corrected Total

4

35

39

R-Square

0.274158

4.85557993

12.85529224

17.71087217

C.V.

34.08283

Mean Square

1.21389498

0.36729406

Root MSE

0.60604791

F Value

3.30

Pr > F

0.0213

LOGCONC Mean

1.77816202

»' Source

PH

Source

PH

DF

4

DF

4

Type I SS

4.85557993

Type III SS

4.85557993

Mean Square

1.21389498

Mean Square

1.21389498

F Value

3.30

F Value

3.30

Pr > F

0.0213

Pr > F

0.0213

Observed

Value

2.74508260

2.37141885

1.79830528

1.67228262

1.55906833

1.02816442

0.90955603

0.92324402

2.79517067

2.34879147

1.53453376

1.21774707

1.24797327

Predicted

Value

1.62589027

1.62589027

1.62S89027

1.62589027

1.62589027

1.62589027

1.62589027

1.62589027

1.41805566

1.41805566

1.41805566

1.41805566

1.41805566

Residual

1.11919233

0.74552858

0.17241501

0.04639235

-0.06682194

-0.59772585

-0.71633424

-0.70264625

1.37711501

0.93073581

0.11647810

-0.20030858

-0.17008239

Observation Observed

Value

Predicted

Value

14 0.82607480 1.41805566

15 0.68930886 1.41805566

16 0.68484536 1.41805566

17 1 2.80575905 1.56902643

18 2.33523719 1.56902643

19 1.65263307 1.56902643

20 1.35333910 1.56902643

21 1.55291145 1.56902643

22 1.01114736 1.56902643

23 0.91381385 1.56902643

24 0.92737036 1.56902643

25 2.59013935 1.86500694

26 2.49528063 1.86500694

27 1.96946251 1.86500694

28 1.73439974 1.86500694

29 2.01628102 1.86500694

30 1.27783833 1.86500694

31 1.39480178 1.86500694

32 1.44185218 1.86500694

33 2.32516661 2.41283081

34 2.24338535 2.41283081

35 2.78808348 2.41283081

36 2.61898892 2.41283081

37 2.53916395 2.41283081

38 2.38064532 2.41283081

39 2.11340851 2.41283081

40 2.29380436 2.41283081

Sua of Residuals

Sua of Squared Residuals

Sua of Squared Residuals - Error SS

First Order Autocorrelation

Durbin-Matson 0

BROUN t BRYANT


Residual

-0.59198085

-0.72874680

-0.73321030

1.23673262

0.76621076

0.08360664

-0.21568733

-0.01611498

-0.55787907

-0.65521258

-0.64165606

0.72513241

0.63027369

0.10445557

-0.13060720

0.15127408

-0.58716861

-0.47020517

-0.42315477

-0.08766420

-0.16944547

0.37525267

0.20615811

0.12633314

-0.03218549

-0.29942231

-0.11902645

0.00000000

12.85529224

•0.00000000

0.37864516

1.14416982

BROUN ( BRYANT


Class Level Information

Class Levels Values

PH 5 10 7 8 9 C

Nunber of observations in data set =

n-.

BROUN & BRYANT


Class Level Information

Class Levels Values

PH 5 10 7 8 9 C

Number of observations in data set =

REFERENCES

1.

4.

5.

Camacho, J., PHASE II - Final Report for Remediation Study of BROWN AND BRYANT SITE Arvm, Kern County, California, January 1990. '

Kearney, P.C., Muldoon, M.T., and Somich, CJ.. "UV-OZONATION OF FT fvfn Mat^p

r 7 pp **** D'Sr™*' FTPFATMFNr Centre, Vol ,0J2.

?hSi! SJ3/ ,RUberllnd Ha«er',Inc- and ^ven> C-G- and Giggy, CL of Peroxidation Systems, Inc Chemical Oxidation Destruction of Organic Contaminants in Groundwater, to be presented at HMCRI National Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.G, November 16-18, 1987.

Glaze W.H., Peyton, G.R., Sohm, B., and Meldrum, D.A, Pilot-Scale Evaluation of Photolytic RSH rhD i w Precursor Removal. United States Environmental Protection Agency EP^/S2l^, &pri^4UmaPal Enyir0nmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, 4526s!

Peyton, G.R., Understanding and Optimizing Ozone/UV Treatment for the Destruction of Hazardous Organic Compounds m Water: Mechanism Efficiency and By-Products, Aquatic Chemistry Section Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, Illinois, 61820.

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

TABLE 9.

UV/03 DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

ARVIN, CALIFORNIA

JUNE 22, 1990

RUN # % DESTRUCTION ELAPSED TIME (minutes)

1 68.2 13 74.3 302

2 30.3 60 31.2 367

3 10.3 53 17.7 493

4 o(,) 60 21.6 240

5 99.7 ® 245

% DESTRUCTION calculated for first and last sampling interval.

(1) (-) Indicates a negative destruction efficiency (!) Includes carbon polishing final step

pw:eh/FIT27FR-3364

FIELD DATA SHEET

Roy F. Weston, Inc. REAC, Edison, N.J.

EPA Contract 68-03-3482

N? 006940

Lab No.:

Date: £•/:

Time:

Samplers: .=

Site Name:

Sample Locationj _ / s / £ r

SITE DESCRIPTION

landfill

industrial

commercial

residential

hedgerows

old field

wooded

farmland

gully

floodplain

upland palustrine

lowland riverrine

lacustrine

SAMPLE TYPE

stream/surface

groundwater

brackish

ocean/saline

sediment

SOIL TYPE SURFACE WATER

rock clay color

gravel muck odor

sand loam flow

silt peat direction

color

STREAM

width

depth

velocity

pools

riffles

soil

pond/lake

river

Ce (fluent^

sludge

DEVICE

kemmerer

trowl

bucket

sugar

ekman

ponar

other _

SAMPLE INFORMATION q

color oH C • 7 odor .

temp.

DO .

cond.

ORP

salinity.

sample depth,

tide stage

ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED

TOC required?

If No, explain

_Yes . No

Grain size analysis required?

If No, explain

Chain of Custody No. 77, /?

REAC Task Leader:

EPA Task Monitor: /-• 7/7^

Project No.

~ T ? ? C , - , s r " . . .

•3 ~ £,4-

BOTTOM

_Yes . .No

ORGANICS

A. halogenated & aromatic volatiles

B. volatiles-USEPA 624

C. trihalomethanes

.^"trtagsticides/PCB TptM

E. PCB

F. base neutral/acid extractables-USEPA 625

G. pesticides, drinking water

H. herbicides, drinking water

INORGANICS

A. metals, priority pollutant

B. metals scan {ICR)

C. metals, other

LIMITED CHEMISTRY

A. total cyanide

B. total phenol

C. petroleum hydrocarbons

D. pH

E. alkalinity

F. hardness

G. total dissolved solids

H. total suspended solids

I. sulfate

OTHER ANALYSES (specify) -~ry>A)

RCRA

A. EP toxicity

B. ignitability

C. corrosivity_

D. reactivity

_metals .pesticides .herbicides

-PH.

AIR SAMPLING

Sampling Method .

Sample Flow Rate-

Sampling Time

Volume Collected _

jm/s

% °/o

rock

rubble

gravel

shell

sand

slit

clay

organic

other __

WEATHER PARAMETERS

ambient temp

barometric pressure

relative humidity

weather conditions_

SAMPLE PREPARATION

CONTAINER

<^Tgiass jaP^> plastic jar

acetate core

plastic bag

plastic bucket

4L plastic

STORAGE

wet ice

dry ice

'"amblenT

PRESERVATIVES

HN03

NaOH

Zn Acetate

HCL "

Na2S04

other

BIOASSESSMENT

See attached data sheet

See comments

Collection Media

Special Shipping Instructions

#Field Blanks . #Sample Blanks

COMMENTS:

FIELD DATA SHEET



N? 0 0 G 9 4*9 •«

Lab No.:_

Date:

Time:

Samplers: -A-

Chain of Custody No. '"'S

Site Name:

REAC Task Leader: r-v;

Sample Location:.

EPA Task Monitor: fr/A

Project No.: ~.T &

SITE DESCRIPTION

landfill

industrial

commercial

residential

hedgerows

old field

wooded

farmland

gully

floodplain

upland palustrine

lowland riverrine

lacustrine

ior/O

SOIL TYPE

rock clay

gravel muck

sand loam

silt peat

color

SURFACE WATER

color

odor

flow

direction

STREAM

widths

depth

velocity

pools

riffles

_cm/s

°/o

BOTTOM

rock slit

rubble clay

gravel organic

shell other _

sand

SAMPLE TYPE DEVICE SAMPLE INFORMATION WEATHER PARAMETERS stream/surface soil kemmerer ponar color oH ambient temp groundwater pond/lake trowl other odor ORP barometric pressure brackish river bucket temp salinitv relative humidity ocean/saline -—effluentji sugar DO sample depth weather conditions sediment sludge ekman cond tide stage


_Yes )y/ TOC required? .

If No, explain .

No

Grain size analysis required? .

If No, explain

_Yes • .No

ORGANICS



C. trihalomethanes

D. pesticides/PCB

E. PCB


(^STJiesticides, drinking water


INORGANICS


B. metals scan (ICP)

C. metals, other

SAMPLE PREPARATION

LIMITED CHEMISTRY

A. total cyanide

B. total phenol


D. pH

E. alkalinity

F. hardness



I. sulfate

OTHER ANALYSES (specify)

(jti s

CONTAINER

splass jgj-—

plastic jar

acetate core

plastic bag

plastic bucket

4L plastic

STORAGE

wet ice

dry ice

^mgienT^

PRESERVATIVES

HN03

NaOH .

Zn Acetate

HCL

Na2S04

other

BIOASSESSMENT


See comments

RCRA

A. EP toxicity.

B. ignitability

C. corrosivity_

D. reactivity

COMMENTS:

.metals.

-PH.

.pesticides. .herbicides

AIR SAMPLING

Sampling Method _

Sample Flow Rate.

Sampling Time

Volume Collected _

OU [

Collection Media


#Field Blanks #Sample Blanks

APPENDIX A

FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND DATA SHEETS BROWN AND BRYANT SITE

FINAL REPORT

OCTOBER, 1990

pw:eh/FITZ/FR-3364

J&3 FIELD DATA SHEET



N? 006953

Lab No.:_ Samplers:

Date: !y"~i

Time:

Site Name: /TV

Sample Location:.

1 SrtS Z y/y

"O *.-5 £/) Chain of Custody No. -?<.—>•—> ./

REAC Task Leader:

EPA Task Monitor: srf

Project No.: {•< "/*

SITE DESCRIPTION

landfill old field

industrial wooded

commercial farmland

residential gully

hedgerows floodplain

upland palustrine

lowland riverrine

lacustrine

SOIL TYPE SURFACE WATER STREAM BOTTOM

rock clay color width rock slit

gravel muck odor depth rubble clay

sand loam flow velocity cm/s gravel organic

silt peat direction pools % shell other

color

peat

riffles % sand

SAMPLE TYPE DEVICE SAMPLE INFORMATION WEATHER PARAMETERS stream/surface soil kemmerer ponar color DH ambient temp groundwater pond/lake trowl other odor ORP barometric pressure brackish river bucket temp salinity relative humidity ocean/saline effluent sugar

ekman ~

DO sample depth weather conditions sediment sludge

sugar

ekman ~ cond tide staae


TOC required? .

If No, explain _

_Yes. -€)

Grain size analysis required? .

If No. explain

.Yes.

ORGANICS



C. trihalomethanes

^"TTpe£ticides/PCB 5Z&

"E. PCB


G. pesticides, drinking water


INORGANICS


B. metals scan (ICP)

C. metals, other

SAMPLE PREPARATION

LIMITED CHEMISTRY

A. total cyanide

B. total phenol


D. pH

E. alkalinity

F. hardness



I. sulfate

OTHER ANALYSES (specify)

CONTAINER

glass jar

plastic jar

acetate core

plastic bag

plastic bucket

4L plastic

STORAGE

wet ice

dry ice

ambient

PRESERVATIVES

HN03

NaOH

Zn Acetate

HCL

Na2S04

other

BIOASSESSMENT


See comments

RCRA

A. EP toxicity.

B. ignitability

C. corrosivity_

D. reactivity

.metals.

-PH_

.pesticides. .herbicides

AIR SAMPLING

Sampling Method _

Sample Flow Rate.

Sampling Time

Volume Collected _

Collection Media


#Field Blanks #Sample Blanks

COMMENTS:

2890 woodbridge avenue bldg. 209 annex s'.itv.ts ...the 50 ppm standard was analyzed by...

Documents