lancaster, pa 17601lancaster laboratories, inc.. 2425 new holland pike lancaster, pa 17601 (717)...

Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.. 2425 New Holland Pike

Lancaster, PA 17601(717) 656-2301

Contract Lab Program Data Packagefor

Paul C. Rizzo & Associates

Hunterstown Rd. Water SamplesCollected on 05/25/89 by K/BLLI Sample No. 1393590-1393593

A. Case Narrative............................................. i

1. Volatiles Data....................................... 5

a. QC Summary...................................... 6

b. Sample Data....................................13

c. Standards Data.................................77

d. Raw QC Data................................... 111

2. Semi-Volatiles Data................................133

a. QC Summary.................................... 13 4

b. Sample Data...................................143

c. Standards Data................................ 163

d. Raw QC Data...................................225

3. Pesticides Data.... t~............................... 254

a. QC Summary.................................... 255

b. Sample Data...................................259

c. Standards Data.................................288

d. Raw QC Data...................................484

Prepared bv

Approved by ,

Date

Delivery Date_

1A EPA SAMPLE NO.VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

! MW-9ALab Name: LANCASTER LABS__________ Contract: __________ !

Lab Code: LANCAS Case No. : 220970 SAS No. : ______ SDG No. :

Matrix: (soil/water) UATER Lab Sample ID: C139359OW

Sample wt/vol: 5.0 <g/mL> ML__ Lab Fila ID: C1393590W

Level: <low/mad) LOW Data Received: 05/26/89

% Moisture: not dac. ___ Date Analyzed: 06/01/89

Column: (pack/cap) PACK Dilution Factor: 1..0O___

CONCENTRATION UNITS:CAS NO. COMPOUND <ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

I74—87-3 ———————— Ch loromat hana _______________ !74-83—9 — • —————— Bromomathane !75-01-4 ———————— Vinyl Chloride _ __ _S75-OO-3 ——————— Chloroethane 175-O9-2 ——————— Methylene Chloride !67-64-1 ——————— Acetone ________ , _________ !75-15-0 ——————— Carbon Di»ulfide __________ 175-35-4 ———————— 1 , 1 -D i ch 1 or oat h ene _________ '•

540-59-O ——————— 1 , 2-Dichloroathana <totaI7~1 567-66-3 ———————— Ch 1 or o form _________________ !1 07-06-2 ——————— 1 , 2-D i ch 1 or oat h ana78-93-3 ———————— 2-But anona _________________ !71-55-6 ———————— 1, 1, 1-Trichloroathane _______ 556-23-5 ———————— Car bon Tet r ach 1 or i de _______ !1 OS-OS-4 ——————— V iny 1 Acet at e ______________ I75—27—4 —— —- —— -Bromod i ch 1 orome t h ane __ . t78-87—5 ———————— 1 , 2-Dichloropropane ________ !10061-O1— S— — — —— ci»— 1« 3— Dichloropropene ___ _'7S-0 1 -6 — • —————— Tr i ch 1 oroet hene ____________ ',1 £4-48— 1—- ————— D i br omoch 1 or omet h ane _______ !79-OO-5 ———————— 1, 1, 2-Tri Chloroethane _______ !71-43-2 ———————— Benzene. _ _ _ J_!1 OO6 1 -OS-6 ————— Tran»- 1 , 3-D i ch 1 oropropene ___ J75— 25— 2— ——— — — — Bromof orm_____— ___ — „___._ _«. _ — . •108-1O-1 —————— <t—Methyl-2-Pentanone __ __ S591-78-6 ——————— 2-H»x»none _ ___ !127-18-4 —————— Tetrachloroethene_ _ ____ I79-34-5 ———————— 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachl oroet hane ___ 81 08-88-3 ——————— To 1 uene _______ __ 81 08-9O-7 ——————— Ch 1 or o ben z ene_ _ _______ !10O-41-4 ——————— Ethyl benzene ________ __ !100-42-5 ——————— Styrene ,_,im,__,m.- ,r __________ '•1330-2O-7 —————— Xy lene (total > _____________ 1

101010105105454285510971510555885555510105555555

1illiU:u:u:u:u:u!Jii:u:u:ui

!U:uiU:u:uit!U:u:uiU:u!U:u:u!U!U:u:u;u:u

imBFORM I VOft 1/Q7 Rev,

1A ' EPA SAMPLE NO.VOLATILE ORGANICS- ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

i MW-9BLab Name: LANCASTER LABS - Contract: i______.

Lab Code: LANCAS Case No. : £20970 SAS No. : SDG No. :

Matrix: (soil/water) WATER Lab Sample ID: C1393591W

Sample wt/vol: 5.0 (g/mL) ML Lab File ID: C1393591W

Level: (low/med) LOW Date Received: 05/26/89

% Moisture: not dec. Date Analysed: 06/01/89

Column: (pack/cap) PACK Dilution Factor: 1.00

CONCENTRATION UNITS:CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

75-00-3 ———

67-64-1 ———

ii———— Chloromethane __ ___ __ !———— Bromomethane ____ ____ 5———— Vinyl Chloride __ _______ '———— Chloroethane ____ _____ _ '———— Methylene Chloride ___ _____ ,1———— Acetone 1

75-15-O ———————— Carbon Disulfide 1

75-34-3 ———

67-66-3 ———107-06-2 ——78-93-3 ———

56-23-5 ———108-05-4 ——

78-87-5 ———10061 1-5-79-01-6 ———124-48-1 ——

71-43-2 ———

———— 1, 1—Dichl oroet hene _______ •———— 1 1— Di Chloroethane ___ 1———— 1, 2-D ichl oroet hene (total) __ !———— Ch 1 or o for m ______ ; ____ '•———— lf 2-Dichloro«;thane ____ j ___ _'•———— 2-Butanone ___________ !———— lf 1, 1— Tr ichl oroet h ane ____ _ !———— Carbon Tetrachloride _______ !———— Vinyl Acetate _ __ '.———— Bromod ichloromat hana _!———— i, 2— Dichloropropane __ _____ •———— cis— 1, 3-Dichloropropene !———— Tr ichl oroet hene _ ___ '— ——— Dibromochloromethane ______ ,_!———— 1, 1, 2-Tr ichl oroet hane_; ______ !———Benzene '

10061-02-6- ——— •— Trans— 1, 3— Dichloropropene _ • _ •75—25—2 —— • — - — "^— Bromoform '108-10-1 ——591-78-6 ——127-18-4 ——

——— -'-4-Methyl— 2— Pantanone _ _ _'• ———— 2 Hexanone ________ !• ——— — Tet r ach 1 oroet h ene __ . ?.——————1 1 9 9_TaV vtarvh 1 AvmaWtaViM !

1 08—88-3 ——————— To 1 uene '•108-9O-7 ——100-41-4 ——1OO-42-5 ——1330-20-7—

• ———— Chlorobenzene _________ '•• ———— Ethyl benzene __________ •• ———— Styrene ____________ !• ———— Xylene (total) __________ '.

J

10101010710576555510600510555

16005S55510105515555

!UiU!U:u:u:uii!U:uIU!U!U:E!UX:u:u!U!U:E!UIUIU!UIU:uIU:u!U! JiUIU IIU <IDi

FORM I VOA SR30I8U6 1/B7

J/O

1A EPA SAMPLE NO.VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________

t I' I

! MW-9BDL ILab Name: LANCASTER LABS ______ Contract: __________ I_____________I

Lab Code: LANCAS Ca»e No. : 22097O SAS No. : ______ SDG No. : _____

Matrix: (soil/water) WATER_. Lab Sample ID: C1393591 UP

Sample wt/vol: 5.0 (g/mL) ML__ Lab File ID: Cl393591WD


% Moisture: not dec. ___ Date Analyzed: 06/O1/B9

Column: (pack/cap) PACK Dilution Factor: 10.O___

CONCENTRATION UNITS:CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UQ/L Q

\ ' ',! 74-87-3 ——————— Chloromethane 5! 74-83—9 — • — • ——— — Bromomethane __ ._ _ ___ ____ >-t __ •i 75-O1 -4 ——————— Vinyl Chloride __________ I_ !! 75-00-3 ——————— Ch 1 oroet hane _______________ !! 75-09-2 ———————— Met hy 1 ene Ch 1 or i d e __________ !1 67-64-1 ———————— Acetone _ !! 75-15-0 ———————— Carbon Disulfide I! 75-35-4 ————— —— 1, 1-Dichloroethene _______ _ 8! 75-34-3 ——————— 1 , 1 -D i ch 1 oroet h aneH _ Illl _ 1 18 54O-59-0 ——————— 1 , 2-D i ch 1 oroet h ene ( t ot a 1 ) __ 8I 67-66—3-- — -————Chloroform 88 107-06-2 ——————— i, 2-D ichl or oath ane , 8! 78-93-3 ——————— 2-But»none ___ _ 88 7 1 -55-6 ———————— 1 » 1 » 1 -Tr i ch 1 oroet h ane _______ !j 56-23—5 ———————— Carbon Tetrachloride 88 108-05-4 ——————— Vinyl Acetate ______________ 8!^f^^^m*£t^7 M *• ^Vin n fin n r4 ~\ j—iHl 1 fhwi rf~kiviM4*" l~i w Mfc^A f

8 78-87—5 ——— • —— : — -1 , 2— D i ch 1 or opropane 8t 1O061-O1-5 ————— ci«-l, 3-Dichloropropene __ I• 79— Qi-6--— —-——Tr ichloroet hene 88 1 24-48- 1 -•'"-•"- — -D i bromoch 1 or ome t h ane ________ 81 79-OO-5 ——— ———— 1,1,2-Tr ichl oroet hane _ _ J! 71-43-2———— —— Benzene „ _, _ 88 10061— 02-6—— —— Tr arm— 1, 3-Dichloropropene___i.8f T"C— O^_ 9— — — — — — — BmnnK-k-^mnm •

8 1O8-10-1 ——————— *-Methyl-2-Pentanone 88 591-78-6 —————— 2-Hexanone ___ 8! 1 27- 1 8-4 ——————— Tet rach 1 oroet hene __________ 88 79-34-5 ——————— 1 ,1,2, 2-Tetrach loroethane ___ 88 1 08-88-3 ——————— Tol uen* ____________________ 81 108-9O-7 —————— Chlorobenzene „ ^^ J,«rT88 100-41-4 —————— Ethyl benzene _ _______ __ 81 100-42-5 —————— Styrene _ 8\ 1330-20-7 —————— Xylene (total) _81^, ^ m „ ___ - ^ ^ " ^ ____ „. ___ «,,

100100100100111005O6550505050too370501OO505050930SO50SO5050100100SOSO5050SO5050

t

:u!U:u!U!DJ:u:u!D:u:u:u:u!U:D:uiU!U!U!UID:u!UIU!UIU:u:u:u:u:u:u!U:u:ui.— • —

FORM I VGA WnOU I 04 / 1/87 R

•37t

1ft EPA SAMPLE NO.VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________

I EQB-1Lab Name: LANCASTER LABS____,_____ Contract: __________ !______.



Sample wt/vol: 5.0 (g/mL) ML__ Lab File IDs C1393592W


* Moisture: not dec. ___ Date Analysed: 06/01/89

Column: (pack/cap) PACK Dilution Factor: l.OO

CONCENTRATION UNITS:CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

!I

1

!1

888•

!11

i1

I81

81

8{!8I

!8iIi88811!1

1

75-0 1-4 ———————— V i ny 1 Ch 1 or i d e _____________75-00—3 ———————— Chloroethane _____ _______75-09-2 ——————— Methyl ene Chloride ___ ____67-64-1 ———————— Acetone _ ______ _75- 1 5-0 ———————— Car bon D i su 1 f i de ___________75-35-4 ——————— 1 , 1 -D ich 1 oroet hene _________75-34-3 ——————— 1 1 1 -D i ch 1 oroet h ane _ ______ _540-59-O ——————— 1 , 2-D ich loroet hene (total) __67-66—3 ——————— Ch 1 orof or m _________ ... ______1O7-06-2 ——————— 1 , 2-D ich loroet hane _________78-93-3 ——————— 2— Butanone _ „ _ . _____________71-55-6 ———————— 1, 1, 1-Tr ich loroet hane _______56-23-5 ——————— Carbon Tetrachloride _ ____108-05-4 —————— Vinyl Acetate ________ ___75-27-4 ———— • —— Bromod ichloromethane_ __ _78-87-5 ———————— 1, 2-D ichl oropropane ___ ___10061-01-5- —— • — ci*-l,3-Dichloropropene _____79-O1 -6 ——————— Tr i ch 1 oroet h ene ___________124-48-1— ————— Dibromochloromethane_ _ _79-OO-5 ———— • —— 1,1, 2-Tr i ch 1 oroet hane _______7 1 -43-2 ——————— Ben z ene _________________ ;_1 006 1-02-6 ————— Tran»-l , 3-D i ch 1 oropropene ___75-25-2 ——————— Bromoform _________________1 08- 10-1 ——————— 4-Met hy 1 -2-Pent anone _______59 1 -78-6 ——————— 2-Hexanone _____________1 27- 1 8-4 —————— Tet r ach 1 oroet hene __________79-34-5 ——————— 1, 1,2, 2-Tetrach loroet hane ___1 08-88—3 — ——— — —To 1 uene _«._._. _ ... _______108-90-7 —————— Ch 1 or o benzene ____ _ ___10O-41-4 ——————— Ethyl benzene _________100—42—5—— ———— Styrene _ _ _ . _______1330-2O-7 —————— Xylene (total) __________

8i!8188\!8JI1

8{Ji18818!88tt

!8!88I

811

I

1010101051055555510551055555555510105555555

I1

:u!U:uiU:u:u:u8U:u!U:u!U:u:usu:u8UIU:u:u:u:u:u:u!U:u:u:u:uIU!U!U!U:u!

iiiii:iiiII•8!1

1I1

1I11

1I81itI

!11

11

!1

ii81I11

fiR30 181*8FORM I V0«

•1A EPA SAMPLE NO.VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ____________ _

! TRIP_BLKLab Name: LANCASTER LABS __________ Contract: __________ I



Sample wt/vols 5.0 (g/mL) ML__ Lab File ID: C1393593U


% Moisture: not dec. ___ Date Analyzed: 06/01/89

Column: (pack/cap) PACK Dilution Factor: 1.00___

CONCENTRATION UNITS:CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) U6/L Q

\\\11111111118riiiii18!81I!J!J8888!88

I8J81:

i74-87-3 ———————— Ch 1 oromet hane _ . ____________ 8— . __ _ _ . . ,75-O1 -4 ———————— Vinyl Chloride 8

75-09-2 ——————— Methyl ene Chloride _ _ ____ 867-64-1 ——————— Acetone _ 875—15-0 ——————— Carbon Disulfide _ _______ 875-35-4 ——————— 1, 1-D ich loroet hene _______ 875-34-3 ——————— 1 , 1 -D i ch 1 oroet hane __ ; ______ 854O-59-0 ——————— 1 , 2-D i ch 1 oroet h ene (total) __ 867-66—3 — - — — —— Chloroform _ _ __ ,. _ . _ ._!107-06-2 ——————— 1 , 2-D ich loroet hane _________ 878—93-3 ——————— 2-Butanone _ __l71-55-6 ———————— 1, 1, 1-Tr ich loroet hane _ 856-23-g-; —————— Car bon Tet r ach 1 or i d e_ _____ 5108-O5-4 —————— Vinyl Acetate ___ ___ 875-27-4 ——————— •Bromodichloromethane ____ 878-87-5 ———————— 1, 8— Dichloropropana ____ __ 11 006 1 -0 1 -S— ———— c i m— 1 , 3-D i ch 1 or o propane _____ J79-0 1 -6——" ———— Tr i ch 1 oroet hena ___________ 8124-48— I---— ——— Di bromoch loromet hane _ . ____ 879-OO-5 ———————— 1,1, 2-Tr i ch 1 oroet h ane _______ 871-43-2 ———————— Benzene _ _ ___ i _ 81 006 1 -O2-6— ——— — Trans— 1 , 3-D i ch 1 oropropene ___ 875—25—2 ———— • — — Bromoform _, _ ._!1 08- 10-1 —————— 4-Met hy 1 -2-Pent anone _______ 8•CQ 4 "TO C - LJMw -hMtAMA *

127-18-4 —————— Tetrach loroet hene ____ _ .879-34-5 ——————— 1, 1, 2, 2-Tetrachloroethane ___ 8108-88-3 ——————— Toluene _ _ ________ _!

1 00-4 1-4 ——————— Ethyl benzene _______________ 81OO-42-5 ——————— Styrene ________ „_ 81330-20-7 —————— Xylene (total) __ 1

J

1010101051055•S555105510555555555101O5555555

t

:uIU:u:u:u:u:u:u!U!U:u!U?u:u:u:u!U:u:u:u!U: u:u:uiU!U:u!U:u:u:u:u!U:u

_! ____ !

373IB EPfl SflMPLE NO

SEMIVOLflTILE ORGflNICS ftNflLYSIS DftTfl SHEET

Lab Names LflNCfiSTER LflBS -Contracts RIZZQ flSSO

Lab Code' LflNCftS Case No.* ____. SflS No.* _____. SDG No,*

Matrix: (soil/water) UflTER Lab Sample ID* 1393590

Sample ut/uol* 1000 (g/mL) ML Lab File ID' >D8351

Leue1= (lou/med) LOW Date Received* 05/26/89

y. MoYsture* not dec. ____. dec. ____. Date Extracted* 05/28/89

Extractions (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF Date Analyzed* 05/31/89

GPC Cleanup* (Y/N) N pH* 6.8 ...... Dilution Factor* 1.000

CONCENTRflTION UNITS*CflS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

108-95-2 —————— Phenol.111-44-4 ———— —— bis(2-Ch1oroethy1 )ether95-57-8 ——————— 2-Chlorophenol541-73-1 ————— -l,3-Dichlorobenzene_106-46-7--------l,4-Dichlorobenzetie_100-51-6———--—Benzyl alcohol_____95-50-1-—-—---1,2-Dichlorobenzene_95-48-7————————2-Methyl phenol.108-60-1--———--bi*(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether_106-44-5——-——4-Methylphenol621-64-7--------N-Nitro5O-di-n-propylamine_67-72-1---------Hexach1oroethane_________98-95-3 ——————— Nitrobenzene____________78-59-1 ——— ——— Isophorone.88-75-5 ——————— 2-Nitrophenol____105-67-9 ——— ——— 2,4-0 i methyl phenol.65-85-0 —————— -Benzoic acid-_____

1010101010101010101010101010101050101010101010101010105010501010

606-20-2 ——————— 2,6-Dinitrotoluene_________| 10

"altSu I 65u

111-91-1————--bis(2-Ch1oroethoxy)methane_120-83-2——————-2,4-Dichlorophenol120-82-1 —————— -1,2,4-Tr ich 1 orobenzene.91-20-3———————Naphthalene.106-47-8——————4-Chloroani 1 ine___87-68-3-----—--Hexachlorobutad iene_59-50-7———————4-Chl or o-3-methyl phenol.91-57-6———————2-flethy 1 naphtha! ene.77-47-4-- —— ----Hexach1orocyc1 opentad iene_88-06-2 —— ————— 2,4,6-Tr i chlorophenol____95-95-4———————2,4,5-Trichlorophenol___71-58-7 ———————— 2-Chloronaphthalene88-74-4————————2-Nitroani 1 ine__________131-11-3 —————— D i met hylph thai ate_______208-96-8 ———— —— ftcenaphthy lene_

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUu IU I

FORM I SV-1 1/87 Reu

1C EPA SAMPLE NO.SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATfl SHEET _____________

I MU-9AName* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSO I________

Lab Code* LANCAS Case No.* ____. SAS No.* ____. SDG No.*

Matrix* (soil/water) UATER , Lab Sample 10* 1393590

Sample wt/uol* 1000 (g/rnL) ML Lab File ID* >D8351

Level* (low/mad) LOW Date Received* 05/26/89

X Moisture* not dec. ____. dec. ____. Date Extracted* 05/28/89

Extraction* (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF Date Analyzed* 05/31/89

GPC Cleanup* (Y/N) N pHs 6.8 Dilution Factor* 1.000

CONCENTRATION UNITS*CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L.or ug/Kg) UG/L. Q

99-09-2 — -- ———— 3-Nitroani 1 iru83-32-9-——----Acenaphthene_51-28-5- ——————— 2,4-Dinitrophenol_100-02-7 —————— -4-Nitrophenol_____132-64-9 ——— - —— Dibenzofuran______121-14-2 —————— 2,4-Dinitro toluene.84-66-2 ——————— Diethylphthalate.7005-72-3-————4-Ch 1 or opheny 1-pheny 1 ether.86-73-7 —— -———Fluor ene_______________100-01-6 ———— ——4-Nitroani 1 ine_______'534-52-1——————4,6-D in i tro-2-methy 1 phenol.86-30-6 ——— ————N-Nitrosodi pheny lam ine (1).101-55-3-----—-4-Bromopheny1-phenylether_118-74-1--------Hexach1orobenzene________87-86-5 —— ———— -Pentachlorophetiol _________85-01-8-——--—Phenanthrene____________120-12-7- —— —— -Anthracene.____________________84-74-2 ————— --Di-n-butylphthai ate.206-44-0——————Fluor an thene______129-00-0——————Pyrene.85-68-7———————Butylbenzylph thai ate_____91-94-1———————3,3'Dichlorobenzidine____56-55-3———————Benzo( a) anthracene_______;218-01-9——————Chrysene_______________117-81-7 —————— bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthai ate.117-84-0———————Di-n-octylphthai ate______205-99-2——————Benzo(b)f luor an thene_____207-08-9——————Benzo(k)fluoranthene_____50-32-8—---—--Benzo(a)pyrene.193-39-5 —————— Indeno( 1,2 , 3-cd) pyrene.53-7"0-3— ————0 i benz (a, hj anthracene_

I 191-24-2——————Benzo(g,h, i )pery lene.I_______________________________

5010505010101010105050101010501010101010102010107210101010101010

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

(1) - Cannot be separated from 0iphenylamine

FORM I SU-2 flR30!85l 1/87 Re'

18 EPA SAMPLE NOSEMIVOLATILE QRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ______________

| MU-9ARELab Name* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSOC-I__________

Lab Code* LANCAS Case No.* ____. SAS No.: ____. SDG No.*

Matrix* (soil/water) WATER Lab Sample ID* 1393590RE

Sample ut/vol* 500 (g/mL) ML Lab File ID* >08401

Level* (low/med) LQU Date Received* 05/26/89

'/. Moisture* not dec. ____. dec. ____. Date Extracted* 05/30/89


GPC Cleanup* (Y/N) N pH* 6.8 D i l u t i o n Factor* 1.000

CONCENTRATION UNITS*.CflS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

108-95-2- ———— — Phenol____________________I 20111-44-4——— — — bis(2-Chloroethyl ) ether____| 2095-57-8-———---2-Chlorophenol_____541-73-1 ———— ——1,3-0 ichlorobenzene,106-46-7 — <—----i,4-Dichlorobenzene.100-51-6--------Benzy1 alcohol____95-50-1-- —— ——— 1,2-Dichlorobenzene.95-43-7-———----2-Methylphenol.108-60-l--------bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether.106-44-5----- — -4-Methy 1 phenol.621-64-7--------N-Nitroso-di-n-propylami ne_67-72-l---------Hexachloroethane___________98-95-3---------Ni trobenzene______________78-59-1-- — -- — -Isophorone_________.__________88-75-5 ———————— 2-Nitrophenol____________105-67-9 ———— —— 2,4-Dimethy 1 phenol_______65-85-0-————---Benzoic acid_____________111-91-1——————b is (2-Chl or oethoxy) methane.120-83-2 —————— 2,4-Oichlorophenol.120-82-1 ———— —— 1,2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene.91-20-3———————Naphthalene.106-47-8———————4-Chloroani 1 ineS7-68-3---------Hexachlorobutad59-50-7- — --- — -4-Ch 1 oro-3-rnethy 1 phenol.91-57-6-- ——— — -2-Methyl naphtha!ene.77-47-4---------Hexachlorocyclopentad iene.88-06-2--- — ----2,4,6-Tr ich1oropheno1___95-95-4-------—2,4,5-Tr ich1oropheno1____91-58-7-————-2-Chloronaphthaiene_____88-74-4--——-—-2-Nitroani1ine__________131-11-3 ———— —— D i met hylph thai ate_______208-96-8------—Acenaphthylene.606-20-2--------2,6-Dinitrotoluene.

20202020202020202020202020

2020202020202020202010020100202020

roRmsg-i SR30I852

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

20 | U100 I U

UUUUUUUUuuuuuuuu

3761C ERA SAMPLE NO.

SEMIUOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________I| MU-9ARE

Name* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSOC . | ______________

Lab Code* LANCAS Case No.* ____. SAS No,* ____. SDG No.*

Matrix* (soil/water) UATER Lab Sample ID* 1393590RE

Sample ut/vol* 500 (g/rnL) PIL Lab File ID* >DB401

Level* (low/med) LOU Date Received* 05/26/89


Extractions (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF Date Analyzed* 06/01/89

GPC Cleanup* (Y/N) N pH* 6.8 Dilution Factor* 1.000

CONCENTRATION UNITS*CAS NO. COMPOUND (ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L Q

99-09-2- —— —— — 3-Nitroani1im83-32-9---------Acenaphthene_51-28-5 ———————— 2,4-Dinitrophenol_100-02-7————--4-Nitrophenol_____132-64-9--------D ibenzofuran______121-14-2——---—2,4-Dinitrotoluene.84-66-2 ——————— Diethy Iphthalate^7005-72-3 — —— —4-Chlorophcnyl-pheny1 ether_86-73-7-- ————— Fluor ene_________________100-01-6——————4-Nitroani 1 ine___________534-52-1- — ——— -4,6-Dinitro-2-methyIphertol_86-30-6---------N-Nitrosod iphenylamine (1)_101-55-3--------4-Bromopheny1-phenylether__118-74-1--------Hexach1orobenzene__________87-86-5---------Pentachloropheno 1__________85-01-8------ — -Phenanthrene_________________________120-12-7--—--—Anthracene________________84-74-2- —————— Oi-n-butylph thai ate.206-44-0 —————— Fluor an thene______129-00-0———---Pyrene.85-68-7———————Butyl benzylph thai ate_____91-94-1 ———————3,3'Dichlorobenzidine____56-55-3--—-----Benzo(a)anthracene_______218-01-9——————Chrysene_______________117-81-7 ——————— bis(2-Ethylhexyl )phthalate_117-84-0 —— - — --Di-n-octylphthai ate______205-99-2——-——Benzo(b)fluoranthene_____207-08-9——————Ben zo(k)f luor an thene_____50-32-8----—---Benzo(a)pyrene___________193-39-5 ——— —— Indeno( 1,2 ,3-cd) pyrene___53-70-3-—————-Dibenz(a,h)anthracene____191-24-2—————Benzo(g,h,i)perylene_____

1002010010020202020201001002020201002020202020204020202020202020202020

UUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

(1) - Cannot be separated from Diphenylamine

FORM I Sy-2 &R30I853 1/87 Rev150

IB EPA SAMPLE NO .SEMIvOLATILE QRGANICS ANALYSIS DATA- SHEET _____________

| MU-9BLab Name* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSOC.1________

Lab Code* LANCAS Case No.* ____. . SAS No.* ____. SDG No.*

Matrix* (soil/uater) UATER Lab Sample ID* 1393591

Sample ut/vol* 1000 (g/mL) ML Lab File ID* >D8352

Level* (lou/med) LQU Date Received* 05/26/89





108-95-2 ——————— Phenol______________111-44-4——————bis(2-Ch!oroethyl )ether.95-57-8 ——————— 2-Chlorophenol______541-73-1 —— ———— 1,3-D ichlorobenzene.106-46-7 —————— 1,4-D ichlorobenzene.100-51-6——-----Benzyl alcohol____95-50-1---- —— — 1,2-Dichlorobenzene.95-48-7 ——————— 2-Methyl phenol.108-60-1---————bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether.106-44-5———————4-Methyl phenol.621-64-7--w ———N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine_67-72-I---------Hexach1oroethane__________98-95-3- ——————Nitrobenzene______________78-59-1 —— - —— — I sophorone88-75-5 ——————— 2-Nitrophenol____105-67-9——————2,4-0 i methyl phenol.65-85-0 ——————Benzoic acid_____111-91-1——————bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane_120-83-2———————2,4-Dichlorophenol________120-82-1——————1,2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene.91-20-3 ——————— Naphthalene.106-47-8———————4-Chloroani 1 ine____87-68-3 ————— --Hexach 1 or obu tad i ene.59-50-7————————4-Ch 1 or o-3-methy 1 phenol.91-57-6- —————— 2-Methyl naphthalene.77-47-4————- —— Hexach1 orocyclopentadiene.88-06-2 ——————— 2,4,6-Tr i chloropheno 1____95-95-4———————2,4,5-Tr ich 1 oropheno 1___91-58-7 ——————— 2-Chloronaphthalene_____88-74-4———————2-Nitroani 1 ine__________131-11-3 —————— Dimethylphthai ate_______208-96-8——--—-Acenaphthylene.606-20-2 ——————— 2,6-Dini trotoluene.

101010101010101010101010101010105010101010101010101010501050101010

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

AR30I85UFORM I SU-1 ""ww.uuH 1/Q7

1C EPA SAMPLE NO.SEMIUOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________

| MU-9BName* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSOC.I________


Matrix* (soil/uater) WATER Lab Sample ID* 1393591

Sample ut/vol* 1000 (g/mL) ML . Lab File ID* >D8352.

Level* (lou/rned) LOW Date Received* 05/26/99





99-09-2 —— ————— 3-Nitroani 1 iru83-32-9---------Acenaphthene.51-28-5---———-2,4-Dinitrophenol_100-02-7——————4-Ni trophenol____132-64-9---- — --Dibenzofuran______121-14-2——————2,4-Dinitrotolucne.84-66-2- —————— Diethylphthalatt7005-72-3 ——— — -4-Ch1 orophenyl-pheny1ether_86-73-7 ——————— Fluor ene________________100-01-6——————4-Nitroani 1 ine___________534-52-1-——-——4,6-Oinitro-2-methylphenol_86-30-6---- — ---N-Ni trosod iphenylamine (1)_101-55-3—————-4-Bromophenyl-phenylether__118 -74-1 --------Hexach 1 or o benzene__________87-86-5- — - ———— Pentachlorophenol_________85-01-8 —————— — Phenanthrene______________120-12-7 —————— Anthracene________________84-74-2 ——————— Oi-n-butylph thai ate.206-44-0-—————-Fluor an thene______129-00-0——————Pyrem85-68-7———————Butylbenzylphthai ate_____91-94-1 ——————— 3,3'Dichlorobenzidine____56-55-3- —————— Benzo (a)anthracene_______218-01-9-—-——-Chrysene________________117-81-7 ——————— bis(2-Ethylhexyl )phthai ate,117-84-0 — — ——— Oi-n-octy Iph thai ate______205-99-2——-—--Benzo(b)fluoranthene_____207-08-9——————Benzo (It) f luor an thene_____50-32-8——- ———Benzo (a) pyrene.193-39-5 —————— Indeno( 1,2 ,3-cd) pyrene.53-70-3——-———-Dibenz(a,h)anthracene_191-24-2——————Benzo (g,h, i )perylene___

50105050101010101050501010105010102101010201010510101010101010

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

t

uuuuuuuuuuuuu

(1) - Cannot be separated from Diphenylamine

FORM I SU-2 HR3Q1855 1/87 Reu154

IB EPA SAMPLE NO.SEMIvQLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________

| EQB-1Lab Name* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSOC.I________


Matrix* (soil/water) WATER Lab Sample ID* 1393592

Sample wt/vol* 1000 (g/rnL) ML Lab File ID* >D8353

Level* (low/med) LOW Date Received* 05/26/89



GPC Cleanup* CY/N) N pH' 6.0 Dilution Factor* 1.000


108-95-2 —————— Phenol______________111-44-4——————bis(2-Chloroethy1 ) ether95-57-8 ——————— 2-Chlorophenol_______541-73-1--------1.3-D ichlorobenzene.106-46-7--------l,4-Dichlorobenzene.100-51-6-——--—Benzyl alcohol_____95-50-1-—--——1,2-Dichlorobenzene.95-48-7 ———————— 2-Methyl phenol.108-60-1 —— ———— bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether.106-44-5———————4-Methyl phenol________.621-64-7-- — - — -N-Nitroso-di-n-propy 1 amine.67-72-1 ———— — — Hexach 1 or oe thane_________98-95-3 ————— —— Nitrobenzene____________78-59-1 ———— - —— Isophorone.88-75-5 ——————— 2-Ni trophenol____105-67-9 — ————— 2,4-Di methyl phenol.65-85-0———————Benzoic acid______111-91-1———————bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane.120-83-2 —————— 2,4-Oichlorophenol_______120-82-1 ——————— 1,2,4-Tr ichlorobenzene.91-20-3 ——————— Naphthalene.106-47-8———————4-Chloroani 1 ine____87-68-3 —————— -Hexach 1 or obutad i ene.59-50-7———————4-Chl or o-3-methyl phenol.91-57-6- ————— — 2-Methyl naphtha! ene.77-47-4---------Hexachlorocyc1 opentad iene.88-06-2 ——————— 2,4,6-Tr i chl oropheno 1____95-95-4———————2,4,5-Trichlorophenol___91-58-7 ——————— 2-Chloronaphthalene_____88-74-4————————2-Nitroani 1 ine___________131-11-3 —————— 0 i met hylph thai ate_______208-96-3 ——————— Acenaphthy lene.606-20-2——————2,6-Oinitrotoluene.

101010101010101010101010101010105010101010101010101010501050101010

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

FORM i sy-i ftR3QI856 1/87 Re,15

1C EPA SAMPLE NO.SEMIUOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ______________

II EQB-1

Name* LANCASTER LABS Contract* RIZZO ASSQC.I.________________________

Lab Code* LANCAS Case No.* ____. SAS No.' ____. SDG No.*

Matrix* (soil/uater) WATER Lab Sample ID* 1393592

Sample ut/uol* 1000 (g/rnL) ML Lab File ID* >D8353

Level* (lou/med) LOW Date Received* 05/26/89

Z Moisture* not dec. ____. dec. ____. Date Extracted* 05/28/89


GPC Cleanup* (Y/N) N pH* 6.0 . Dilution Factor: 1.000


99-09-2 ——————— 3-Nitroaniline.83-32-9--—-----Acenaphthene__51-28-5-—————-2,4-Dinitrophenol__100-02-7 —————— -4-Ni trophenol____132-64-9—-———Dibenzofuran______121-14-2 — --•———2,4-0 initrotoluene.84-66-2 —— --•———Diethylphthai ate.7005-72-3---- — -4-Ch1 oropheny1-pheny1 ether.86-73-7- —————— Fluor ene________________100-01-6——————4-Nitroani 1 ine___________534-52-1-——————4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol_86-30-6---------N-Nitrosodi phenylami ne (1)_10l-55-3--------4-Bromopheny1-phenylether__118-74-1--------Hexachlorobenzene_________87-86-5---------Pentachlorophenol_________85-01-8———---—Phenanthrene_____________120-12-7- — — —— Anthracene_______________84-74-2———————Qi-n-butylphthai ate.206-44-0———————Fluoranthene _______129-00-0——————Pyrene.85-68-7———————Buty 1 benzylphthai ate_____91-94-1———————3,3'Oichlorobenzidine____56-55-3----—•-—'Benzo(a)anthracene_______218-01-9 ————— -Chry-sene_______________117-81-7 —————— b is( 2-Ethy IhexyDphtha late.117-84-0 ——— ——— Oi-n-octylph thai ate______205-99-2-—————-Benzo(b)fluoranthene_____207-08-9——————Benzo (k) f luor an thene_____50-32-8 —————— --Benzo (a) pyrene.193-39-5 ——————— Indeno (1,2, 3-cd) pyrene.53-70-3 ——————— -Dibenz(a,h)anthracene_191-24-2—— ———Benzo(g,h, i )perylene__

5010505010101010105050101010501010101010102010101010101010101010

(1) - Cannot be separated from Diphenylamina

FORM I SV-2 ftR30!857

UUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

«16U

ID ' EPA SAMPLE NO.PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET _____________

.ab Name: LANCASTER LABS Contract: I MU-9A——————————————— ———————— I________

Lab Code: LANCAS Case No: SAS No: SDG No:

Matrix (soil/water) WATER Lab Sample ID: 1393590

Sample wt/vol: 1000 (g/ml) ML Lab File ID: A89150_041.RES

Level: (low/med) LOU Date Received: 05/26/89

\ Moisture: not dec dec. Date Extracted: 05/30/89

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF Date Analyzed: 05/31/89

GPC Cleanup: (Y/N) N pH: 6.3 Dilution Factor: 1.0

CONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L

CAS NO. COMPOUND ——————— Q

319-84-6—————alpha-BHC_______319-85-7—————beta-BHC________319-86-8—————de 1 ta-BHC_______58-89-9—————gamma-BHC (Lindane).76-44-8——————Heptachlor_______309-00-2—————Aldrin__________1024-57-3 ———— Heptachlor epoxide.959-99-8 ————— Endosulfan I _____60-57-1 ————— Oieldrin _______72-55-9 —————— 4,4' -DDE ________72-20-8 —————— Endrin _________33213-65-9 ——— Endosu I fan 1 1 ____72-54-8 ————— 4, 4 '-ODD ________1031-07-8 ———— Endosulfan sulfate.50-29-3 —————— 4, 4' -DOT ________72-43-5 —————— Mathoxych lor _____53494-70-5 ——— Endrin ketons ____5103-71-9 ———— »lpha-Chlordant __5103-74-2 ————8001-35-2 ———— Tox«ph«ne12674-11-2 ——— Aroclop-101611104-28-2 ——— Aroclor-122111141-16-5- —— Aroclor-123253469-21-9 ——— Aroclor-124212672-29-6 ——— Aroclor-124811097-69-1 ——— Aroclor-125411096-82-5 ——— Aroclor-1260

.05

.05

.05

.05

.Of

.05

.05

.05

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.5

.1

.5

.5»

.-5

.5

.5

.5

.5

1.

1.1.

UUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

FORM I PEST 1/87 Rev.

'I,;:,,, './zee

382-\ ID EPA SAMPLE NO.

PESTICIDE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET ______________

ib Name: LANCASTER LABS Contract: ! MU-9B



Sample wt/vol: 1000 (g/ml) ML Lab File ID: A89150JJ43.RES

Level: (low/mod) LOW Date Received: 05/26/89

\ Moisture: not dec dec. Date Extracted: 05/30/89

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SEPF Date Analyzed*. 06/01/89


CONCENTRATION UNITS:<ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L

CAS NO. COMPOUND —————

I319-84-6—————alpha-BHC_______319-85-7—————beta-BHC________319-86-8—————de 11 a-BHC______._58-89-9—————gamma-BHC (Lindane).76-44-8—————Heptachlor______309-00-2—————Aldrin_________1024-57-3————Heptachlor epoxida_959-98-8—————Endosulfan I_____60-57-1—————Oieldrin________72-55-9—————4,4'-DOE________72-20-8——————Endr in_________33213-65-9———Endosulfan II____72-54-8—————4,4' -ODD_______1031-07-8————Endosulfan sulfate50-29-3—————4,4'-DOT_______72-43-5—————Methoxych lor____53494-70-5———Endrin ketone____5103-71-9————alpha-Ch lordane__5103-74-2————gam«a-Ch 1 ordane__8 0 01-35-2————Toxaphene_______12674-11-2———Aroclor-1016____11104-28-2———Aroclor-1221____11141-16-5———Aroclor-1232____53469-21-9———Aroclor-1242_____12672-29-6———Aroclor-1248____11097-69-1———Aroclor-1254____11096-82-5———Aroclor-1260____

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.5

.1

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

.51.1.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuu


AR30I859 .269

; ID EPA SAMPLE NO.PESTICIDE ORGAN I CS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

ILab Name: LANCASTER LABS Contract: ! EQB-1

——————————————— ———————— I



Sample uit/vol: 1000 (g/ml) ML Lab File ID: A8915QJ344.RES

Level: (low/mod) LOW Date Received: 05/26/89

X Moisture: not dec dec. Date Extracted: 05/30/89

Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc) SERF Date Analyzed: 06/01/89


CONCENTRATION UNITS:(ug/L or ug/Kg) UG/L

CAS NO. COMPOUND ——————— Q

319-84-6—————a Ipha-BHC_______319-85-7—————beta-BHC________319-86-8—————delta-BHC_______58-89-9—•———gamma-BHC (Lindane).76-44-8—————Heptachlor______309-00-2—————Aldrin_________1024-57-3————Heptachlor epoxide.959-98-8—————Endosulfan I____6Q-57-1——————Dieldrin_______72-55-9—————4,4'-DDE_______72-20-8——————Endrin__________33213-65-9———Endosu1 fan 11____72-54-8——————4,4' -ODD__________1031-07-8————Endosulfan suifate50-29-3——————4,4'-DOT.72-43-5———:—Mathoxych lor__53494-70-5———Endrin ketone_5103-71-9————alpha-Ch lordane.5103-74-2————gaww-Ch lordane.8001-35-2————Toxaphena____12674-11-2———Aroclor-1016__11104-28-2———Aroclor-1221__11141-16-5———Aroclor-1232__53469-21-9———Aroclor-1242__12672-29-6———Aroclor-1248__11097-69-1———Aroclor-1254__11096-82-5———Aroclor-1260__

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.05

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.1

.5

.1

.5

.51..-.5.5.5..5.5

1.1.

UUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


flR301860. . . ,'.. 27!

Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.2425 New Holland PikeLancaster, PA 17601

(717) 656-2301

Contract Lab Program Data Packagefor

Paul C. Rizzo Associates

Westinghouse Hunterstown Rd. Water SamplesCollected 05/25/89 by KB

LLI Sample No. 1393590-1393593

INORGANICS DATA PACKAGE

A. Case Narrative..............................................i

B. Cover Page..................................................3

C. Sample Data................................................. 4

1. Results............................................... 5

2. Quality Control Data.................................10

3. Quarterly Verification of Instrument Parameters...... 28

4. Raw Data.............................................35

a. ICP Data........................................36

b. Furnace AA Data................................107

c. Cyanide Data................................... us

d. Mercury Data...................................123

5. Digestion and Distillation Logs.....................129

Prepared by

Approved by

Date

Delivery Date Co

flR30i86l

38T

U.S. ERA - CLPEF'A SAMPLE f

1INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

Lab Name: Lancaster Laboratories Contract: __________

Lab Code: Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.: MW—

Matrix (soi1/water): WATER Lab Sample ID: 1393590

Level (low/med): LOW Date Received: 05/26/89

% Solids: 0.0

Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): UG/L

1ICAS No.117429-90-5| 7440-36-01 7440-38-5I 7440-39-3I744O-41-71 74.40-43-91 744O-7O-2I 7440-47-3I 7440-48-4I 7440-50-817439-89-6I7439-9E-117439-95-417439-96-51 7439-97-61 744O-OE-01 7440-09-71 7782-49-21 744O-g2-41 7440-23-5I 7440-28-01 7440-6S=217440-66-61\

11 Analyte11 A 1 urn i num1 Antimony1 Arsenic1 Bar i urn1 Beryl 1 ium1 Cadmium1 Calcium1 Chromium1 Cobalt1 Cogger1 Iron1 Lead1 Magnesium1 Manganese1 MercuryINickel1 Potassium1 Selenium1 S i 1 ver1 Sodium1 Thallium1 Vanadium. IZinc ___

1 Cyanide1

Concentrat ion

68 1O14.6i.a£030 . 500 . 95268004.54. 122.21 6005.5

S3 5001 87. 10.165.043700 . 802.9

1 860O2.010.534.42.5

1 1ICI Q1 11 1IUII U I1 IEIUIIUI1 1I U IIBI1 11 1I B I1 11 1I B II B I1 1IUIIUI1 1IUIIBI1 1IUI1 1

1 IIM .11 1IP 1IP 1IF 1IPIPIPIPIPIPIPIPIFIPIPICVIPIPIFIPIPIFIPIP1 AS1

Color Before: Clarity Before: Texture:

Color After: Clarity After: Artifacts:

Comments:

"""•7

FORM I - IN AR30I862 7/1Rev. IFB Amendment Q.

U.S. EPA - CLPEPA SAMPLE N

1INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET | — — — — — —

I MW—9BLab Name: Lancaster Laboratories Contract: I

Lab Code: Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.: MW—

Matrix (soi1/water): WATER Lab Sample ID: 1393591

Level (low/med): LOW Date Received: 05/56/89

'/» Solids: 0.0


1ICAS No.11 7459-90-51 7440-36-01 7440-38-21 7440-39-31 7440-4 1 -71 744O-43-91 7440-70-E1 7440-47-3| 7440-48-4| 7440-50-817439-89-617439-95-11 7439-95-417439-96-51 7439-97-61 7440-02-0I 7440-09-71 7782-49-E1 7440-22-41 744O-E3-5I 7440-28-0| 7440-62-21 7440-66-6t1

1Analyte (Concentration

Alumi numAnt imony

1 Arsenic1 Barium1 Beryl 1 ium1 Cadmium(Calcium1 Chromium1 Cobalt1 Cogger_ _1 Iron1 Lead1 Magnesium1 Manganese1 Mercury1 Nickel1 Potassium1 Se 1 en i urnISilver1 Sod ium "1 Thai 1 ium1 VanadiumIZinc1 Cyanide1

50 . 614.65.154.60 . 504. 1

362004.5

________ 2 5.3.023.82.4

10300' 1O.OO. 124.29671.7

___ __ i-2121002.04.027.82.5

1 1ICI Q1 1I B IIUIIBIWIBIEI U I1 11 1IUII U IIUIIBIIUI1 11 1I BIIUIIBIIBIIUIl_l ____IUIIBI1 1IUI1 1

1!M1IPIPIFIPIPIPIPIP'IPIPIPIFIPIPICVIPIPIFIPIPIFIPIP1 AS1



Comments:

8

FORM I - IN ftR30!863 7/ERev. 1FB Amendment Or

U.S. EPA - CLPEPA SAMPLE N

1INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA SHEET I

I EO.B-"Lab Name: Lancaster Laboratories Contract: I

Lab Code: Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.: MW—I

Matrix (soi1/water): WATER Lab Sample ID: 13935?a

Level (low/med): LOW Date Received: 05/26/S9

% Solids: 0.0


1ICAS No.11 7429-90-51 7440-36-01 7440-38-51 7440-39-317440-41-71 7440-43-91 7440-7O-2| 7440-47-3I 7440-48-4| 7440-50-817439-89-617439-92-117439-95-417439-96-517439-97-61 7440-02-01 7440-09-71 7782-49-21 7440-2E-41 7440-23-5| 7440-28-0| 7440-62-2| 7440-66-61I

11 Analyte11 Aluminum1 AntimonyI Arsenic1 Bar i urn1 Beryl 1 ium1 Cadmium1 Ca 1 c i urn1 Chromium1 CobaltICogger _1 IronI Lead1 Magnesium1 Manganese1 Mercury1 Nickel1 Potassium[SeleniumISi Iver1 Sodium -1 Thai 1 ium1 Vanad i umIZinc1 Cyanide1

Concentrat ion

29.614.61 .81 .50 . 500 . 9588.04.52.33.O16.82.423.0

_» 2.70 . 1 04.554.50 . 80E.91712.02.64.82.5

1 1ICI Q1 1I U IIUIIUIIBIEIUII U II B IIUIiy _ _IUIIBII U II B II U IIUIIUIIUIIUIIUII B II U II U IIBIIUI1 1

1IM1IPIPIFIPIPIPIPIPIPIPIPIFIPIPICVIPIPIFIPIPIFIPIPIAS1



Comments:

FORM I - IN ftR3Q186l* 7/ERev. IFB Amendment Or

APPENDIX B

DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY

flR301865

20th , r -x T TAnniversary

13595 Dulles Technology Dr.C O R P O R A T I O N Herndon, VA 22071

(703)834-1500

5 May 1989

Mr. Ken BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates10 Duff Road, Suite 300Pittsburgh, PA

Subject: Westinghouse Hunterstown Road Data Validation

Dear Ken:

Attached please find the data validation summary tables for the HunterstownRoad- samples collected during December, 1988. These samples were contained inonly one sample delivery group (SDG). Samples collected from Hunterstown Roadduring January, 1989, were included in the Westinghouse Plant Site SDGs, andthe, resulting data were validated as part of the April 27, 1988 Plant Sitevalidation.

Formal data validation proceeded according to the guidelines established inthe Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Section 9-2. No formal validation ofthe field QC practices is provided for in the QAPP. The summary tablespresent the results of the validation, and a separate table is provided fororganics and inorganics.

Adherence to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) requirements is indicatedin the table by the letter "X". Problems with the analyses and items requir-ing corrective action under CLP are indicated on the table by a letter code,with an attached explanation. In most cases, problems with the analyses weredue to matrix interferences or resulted from sample dilution necessary tobring the analyte concentrations within the linear response range of theinstrument. In these cases the laboratory performed all necessary correctiveaction required under CLP. Matrix interference and dilution effects, however,result in an increased uncertainty of the analytical results and should betaken into consideration when using the data.

Specific analytical problems other than those due to matrix interference anddilution are discussed below, as well as in the summary table explanations.These include cases in which CLP protocol were not followed, and cases inwhich corrective action was unsuccessful. These problems do not necessarilyinvalidate the results but indicate data should be used cautiously, allowingconsideration for analytical error, particularly where analytical resultsapproach a regulatory limit or action level.

NRJ-360503-07.kac.1 ft R 30 I 866

C O R P O R A T I O N

Mr. Ken Bird3 May 1989Page 2

Hunterstown Road Data Validation

Organics

1 The semi-volatiles matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries wereoutside the CLP QC limits. The sample extract was concentrated to a finalvolume of 5 ml instead of the method specified 1 ml. The reason for thisdeviation was not given.

Inorganics

1) The ICP spike recovery for manganese remained below CLP limits followingcorrective action.

2) The graphite furnace spike recovery for thallium remained low followingcorrective action.

3) The CRDL for chromium by ICP was exceeded for all samples in this group.

4) The CDRL for arsenic by GFAA was exceeded in nine samples, and the CRDLfor selenium by GFAA was exceeded in two samples.

Please feel free to contact this office with any questions.

Sincerely,

Carla M. SchultzStaff Chemist

CMS/kac

Enclosure

NRJ-360503-07.kac.2 flR30i867

HUNTERSTOWN ROAD265-012-05-02

ORGANICS SDG *(LLI #) (1335 599-618)

SURROGATE RECOVERIESVolatiles ASemivolatiles XPesticides X

MATRIX SPIKE/ DUPLICATE RECOVERIESVolatiles BSemivolatiles CPesticides X

RPDVolatiles XSemivolatiles XPesticides X

METHOD BLANKVolatiles XSemivolatiles XPesticides X

,HOLDING TIMES , .,Volatiles XSemivolatiles XPesticides X

CRQLVolatiles DSemivolatiles EPesticides F

SDG - Sample Delivery GroupLLI - Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.X - CLP requirements met

SDG contained 20 soil samples and two water samples (one trip blank and oneVolatiles blank).

VER-018

03l6-°5-rep-' AR30I86.8

EXPLANATION

SDG

A: Bromoflourobenzene recovery was outside the contract required QClimits for sample SV-4. Corrective action was taken (re-analysis) andyielded and acceptable BFB recovery but the toluene-d8 recovery wasoutside of the QC limits.

B: Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries for toluene wereoutside the required contract QC limits. In accordance with CLPmethodology, re-extraction or re-analysis is not performed.

C: Matrix spike recoveries for nine of the eleven compounds and matrixspike duplicate recoveries for ten of the eleven compounds wereoutside the required contract QC limits. In accordance with CLPmethodology, re-extraction or re-analysis is not performed. Finalsample volume was 5 ml, instead of the method-specified 1 ml. Thereason for this deviation was not given.

D: Carbon tetrachloride in samples SV-1 unspiked, SV-1 matrix spike, andSV-1D (LLI #1335 610-612) had a DL of 5X CRQL and SV-4 (LLI #1335613) had a DL of 20X the CRQL. This was caused by the level of1,1,1-trichloroethane in the samples.

E: Because of the matrix, four samples (LLI #1335 610-12 and 15) were notconcentrated to the final volume specified by CLP procedures. Thisraised the detection limits by a factor of 5X the CRQLs for thesesamples.

F: For samples SV-1 unspiked, SV-1 matrix and SV-1D (LLI #1336 610-12)delta-BHC, dieldrin, DDE and endosulfan II had detection limitsgreater than CRQL. Due to interfering peaks on the chromatogram, thedetection limits were determined by establishing a worst case on thepeak height of the interferent. These data are flagged with an X onForm I Pesticides.

For samples SS-1, SS-2, SS-3 and SS-4 (LLI #1335 600-3), DOT for alland endosulfan for SS-2, have detection limits greater than the CRQL.Due to interfering peaks on the chromatogram, the detection limit wasdetermined by establishing a worst case based on the peak height ofthe interferent.

VER-0180316-05.rep.2 flR30!869

HUNTERSTOWN ROAD265-012-05-02

INORGANICS SDG

METHOD (PREPARATION) BLANKICP XFurnace XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X

(CN)

ICP INTERFERENCE CHECK SAMPLE A

SPIKE RECOVERIESICP BFurnace CCold Vapor AAS (Hg) XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X

(CN)

DUPLICATE (RPD)ICP XFurnace XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric (CN) X

ICP SERIAL DILUTION D

HOLDING TIMES X

CRDLICP EFurnace FCold Vapor AAS (Hg) XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric (CN) X

VER-018

flR30!870

EXPLANATION SDG

A: The initial percent recovery for barium in the ICP check sample wasnot within the contract required limits; however, the final percentrecovery for barium was within the limits.

B: Spike recoveries for Sb, Mn and K analyzed by ICP were outside therequired contract limits. Corrective action calls for apost-digestion analysis. For these, Sb and K were within the limits,however recovery for Mn was still low.

C: Spike recovery for As, Se and Tl analyzed by graphite furnace AA wereoutside the required contract QC limits. Corrective action calls fora post-digestion analysis. For these, Se and As were within the•limits; however, recovery for Tl was still low.

D: The percent differences for ICP serial dilution for eight elements(Sb, Ca, Mn, Ni, K, Na, V and Zn) were outside the required contractQC limits. These data were flagged with an "E" denoting that achemical or physical interference might be suspected. No correctiveaction is taken under CLP protocol.

E: The CRDL for chromium analyzed by ICP was exceeded for all 19 samplesin this sample delivery group.

F: The CRDL for arsenic analyzed by graphite furnace was exceeded in nineof the 19 samples in the sample delivery group. Also, the CRDL forselenium was exceeded in two of the 19 samples.

VER-01803l6-05.rep.4 flR30!87i

20th****'Anniversary

I3595 Dulles Technology Dr.Herndon, VA22071

(703! 834-1500

27 April 1989 265-012-05-01

Mr. Ken BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates10 Duff Road, Suite 300Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Subject: Westinghouse Plant Site Data Validation

Dear Ken:

Attached please find the data validation summary tables for all of the West-inghouse plant site samples and a portion of the Hunterstown Road sample set.Validation was performed on eight sets of results, or sample delivery groups(SDG), which were organized by Lancaster Laboratories according to sampledelivery date. Three sample deliveries occurred during December 1988, fourduring January 1989, and one during February, 1989. The December and Februarydelivery groups contained only Westinghouse plant site data; however, theJanuary sample delivery groups include some samples from Hunterstown Road.The Hunterstown Road samples are included in this validation because theassociated Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) packages cannot be subdivided bysite.

Formal data validation proceeded according to the guidelines established inthe Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Section 9.2. No formal validationof the field QC practices is provided for in the QAPP. The summary tablespresent the results of the validation. A separate set of summary tables(organics and inorganics) has been prepared for each sample month.

Adherence to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) requirements is indicatedin the table by the letter "X". Problems with the analysis and items requir-ing corrective action under CLP are indicated on the table by a letter code,with an explanatory foot note. In most cases, problems with the analyses weredue to matrix interferences or sample dilution. The dilution is necessary tobring the analyte concentration within the linear response range of theinstrument. In these cases the laboratory performed all necessary correctiveaction required under CLP. Matrix interference and dilution effects, however,result in an increased uncertainty of the analytical results and should betaken into consideration when using the data.

Specific analytical problems other than those due to matrix interference anddilution are discussed below, as well as in the summary table explanation.These include cases in which CLP protocol were not followed, and cases inwhich corrective action was unsuccessful. These problems do not necessarilyinvalidate the results but indicate data should be used cautiously, allowingconsideration for analytical error, particularly where analytical resultsapproach a regulatory limit or action level.

tlr-360427-02.tlr.1 . A R 30 I 87 2

C O f t » O R A T I O I

Mr. Ken Bird27 April 1989Page 2

December samples - Organics

1. SDG #1 - Surrogate recoveries for the MS and MSD were not withincontract-required QC limits, and corrective action was not performed.

2. SDG #1 - The matrix spike was added twice to the sample, causing percentrecoveries for the MS/MSD to fall outside QC limits.

3. SDG #3 - Insufficient sample volume submitted for SW-10 resulted indetection limits greater than the Contract Required Quantification Limits(CRQLs).

December samples - Inorganics

1. SDG #1 - ICP Spike recoveries for four elements remained outside CLPlimits following corrective action.

2. SDG #1 - The Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) for chromium by ICPwas exceeded for all nine samples in this group.

3. SDG #2 - ICP spike recoveries for two elements remained outside CLPlimits following corrective action.

4. SDG #2 - Graphite furnace spike recovery for Thallium remained outsideCLP limits following corrective action.

5. SDG #2 - Mercury spike recovery was outside CLP limits and correctiveaction was not performed.

6. SDG #2 - Cyanide analysis exceeded the 14 day holding time due to neces-sity of a second distillation-.

7. SDG #2 - The CRDL for chromium by ICP was exceeded in all samples.

8. SDG #2 - The CRDL for selenium by Graphite furnace was exceeded for onesample.

January samples - Organics

1. SDG #1 - The volatile organics holding time was exceeded for one sample.

2. SDG #1 - The semi-volatiles extraction holding time was exceeded for allten samples.

3. SDG #2- The semi-volatiles matrix spike recovery and RPD were below CLPrequirements, possibly because of spilled sample extract.

tlr-360427-02. tlr.2 flR301873

RADIANCOII»O-ATIOM


4. SDG #2 - The CRQLs for three samples for semi-volatiles and pesti-cides/PCBs were not achieved because of insufficient sample volume

5. SDG #3 - Surrogate recovery on the re-injected sample from well 2A wasoutside of CLP limits.

6. SDG #3 - The semi-volatiles extraction holding time was exceeded for onesample.

7. SDG #3 - The volatile organics CRQLs were exceeded for two samples.

8. SDG #3 - The semi-volatiles CRQLs were exceeded on five samples.

9. SDG #3- Re-extraction of three samples (because of phthalate contamina-tion) was performed on 500 ml instead of 1000 ml samples, hencequantitation limits were two times the CRQL.

10. SDG #4 - The CRQLs for semi-volatiles were exceeded in seven samples.This was due to insufficient sample volume in one case but was notexplained in the other cases.

January samples - Inorganics

1. SDG #1 - The ICP check sample revealed percent recovery for iron wasoutside of CLP limits. Corrective action was not performed.

2. SDG #1 - Spike recoveries for three elements remained outside CLP limitsfollowing corrective action.

3. SDG #1 - Spike recovery for Selenium by graphite furnace remained outsideCLP limits following corrective action.

4. SDG #1 - Spike recovery for Mercury was outside CLP limits and correctiveaction was not performed.

5. SDG #1 - The CRDL for chromium was exceeded for all samples.

6. SDG #2 - ICP spikes were not performed because of insufficient samplevolume. Instead, a post-digest recovery was performed, and magnesium wasoutside the CLP limits.

7. SDG #2 - Graphite furnace spikes were not performed because of insuffi-cient sample volume, and no post-digest recovery was performed.

8. SDG #3 - The ICP check sample revealed percent recovery for iron wasoutside of CLP limits. Corrective action was not performed.

tlr-36W27-02.tlr.3- flR30i87if

C O K P O K A T I O I


9. SDG #4 - The CRDL for chromium by ICP was exceeded for all samples,

February samples - Organics

Wo problems with the analyses were experienced for the February samples.


Sincerely,


CMS/tlr

tlr-36 . 0427-02.tlr.4 AR3QI875

DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY TABLE

WESTINGHOUSE PLANT SITEDECEMBER 1988 SAMPLES

265-012-05-01

ORGANICS SDG* 1 SDG 2 SDG 3(LLI #) (1335584-92) (1338244-56) (1338283-7,9)

SURROGATE RECOVERIESVolatiles X X XSemi-Volatiles A X XPesticides X X X

MATRIX SPIKE/DUPLICATERECOVERIES.Volatiles X X XSemi-Volatiles B A APesticides C B X

RPDVolatiles X X XSemi-Volatiles X X XPesticides X X X

METHOD BLANKVolatiles X X XSemi-Volatilea X X XPesticides X X X

HOLDING TIMESVolatiles X X XSemi-Volatiles X X XPesticides X X X

CRQLVolatiles X C XSemi-Volatilea D D BPesticides E E C

Notes:*SDG - Sample Delivery GroupSDG1 contained 9 soil samples and 1 water sample (Volatiles blank)SDG2 contained 12 soil samples and 1 water sample (Volatiles blank)SDG3 contained 6 water samples (including method blank)LLI - Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.X - CLP requirements met

tlr-3203l6-°2'tlr-1 SR30I876

O

Explanation SDG 1

A: Surrogate recovery for the MS and MSD was not within the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action calls for re-analysis, however,this was not performed.

B: For the matrix spike (9/11) and matrix spike duplicate (6/11), thepercent recoveries were outside of the contract required QC limits. Thishappened because the matrix spike was added twice to the samples.

C: Matrix spike percent recovery for aldrin was outside the contractadvisory limits. According to CLP methodology, no corrective action isperformed.

D: In sample SS-3 (LLI #1335586), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate had a detectionlimit 10x the CRQL. This dilution was required since the concentration ,exceeded the high limit of the standard curve.

E: In sample SS-3 (LLI #1335586) DOT has a DL greater than the CRQL. Due tointerference from PCB-1254 present in the sample, the detection limit wasdetermined by establishing a worst case based on the peak height of theinterfering peak.

SX?Q2.tlr.2 HR30I877

Explanation SDG 2

A: Matrix spike percent recovery for pyrene was outside of the contractrequired QC limits. According to CLP methodology, no corrective actionis performed.

Four samples required twenty-fold dilutions to bring target compound hitswithin the calibration range. A FORM III SV-2 was submitted for thediluted MS/MSD. For this dilution, the matrix spike recoveries (5/11)and the matrix spike recoveries (4/11) were outside the contract requiredQC limits. Furthermore, the percent differences for four were outsidethe contract required limits. No corrective action is performed.

B: Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate percent recovery for dieldrinwere outside of the contract advisory QC limits. These values were takenfrom the confirmation column due to matrix interferences seen on theprimary column.

Matrix spike percent recovery and relative percent difference for4,4'-DOT for low level soils were outside the contract advisory limits.Furthermore, the matrix spike and matrix duplicate percent recoveries for4,4'-DOT for medium level soils were also outside contract advisorylevels. The values were taken from the confirmation column because a4,4'-DOT coelutant was suspected on the primary column. The recoverydata fell outside of the QC limits and it is suspected that inhomogeneityof 4,4'-DOT present in the background sample was the source of theproblem.

Matrix spike percent recovery for aldrin for medium-level soils wasoutside the contract advisory limits. These values were taken from theconfirmation column because of matrix interferences seen on the primarycolumn. There was an interference on the confirmation column as well,therefore, the recovery data fell outside of the QC limits.

C: Detection limits for all constituents were either 100x or 120x the CRQLs.The reporting limits for all compounds were increased because of the highlevel of non-target compounds.

D: Sample SD-1, SD-1D unspiked, SD-1D MS, 15D-1D MSD, required twenty-folddilutions to bring target compound hits within the calibration range.

E: Sample HRSD-4 had medium level of constituents, and had CRQLS 15x theindividual low soil/sediment CRQL; however, the reported limits are 10xthe CRQLs. These detection limits were read from a replotted chromoto-gram which represents a ten-fold attenuation.

olie'-oa.tir.s flR30i878

Explanation SDG .3

A: Matrix spike recovery was outside of the contract required QC limits.According to CLP. methodology, no corrective action is performed.

B: Samples SW-10 unspiked, SW-1D MS and SW-10 MSD (LLI #1338285-7) haddetection limits 2x or 4x the CRQLs. These samples were extracted withless than the normal 1000 ml due to insufficient submitted sample.

C: Sample SW-10 (LLI #1338285) unspiked had detection limits 2x the CRQLs,while samples SW-1D (LLI #1338286) and SW-1D MSD (LLI #1338287) haddetection limits 5x the CRQLs. These were raised to account for thevolume of sample extracted, probably due to insufficient submittedsample.

$3l6-02.tlr.4 HR30I879


WESTINGHOUSE PLANT SITEDECEMBER 1988 SAMPLES

265-012-05-01

INORGANICS SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 3

METHOD (PREPARATION) BLANKI C P X X XFurnace X X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X X X(CN)

ICP' INTERFERENCE CHECK SAMPLE X X X

SPIKE RECOVERIESICP A A XFurnace • B B XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X C XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X X X

(CN)

DUPLICATE (RPD)ICP X D XFurnace X E XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X X X

(CN)

ICP SERIAL DILUTION C F A

HOLDING TIMES X G X

CRDLICP D H XFurnace X I XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X XSemi-Automated Spectrophotometric X X X

(CN)

0316MB. tlr.1 AR301880

Explanation SDG1

A: Spike recoveries for 7 elements (Sb, Cr, Cu, Ni, K, V, 4 Zn) analyzed byICP were outside of the contract required limits. Corrective actioncalls for a post-digestion analysis. For these, 4 elements (Cr, Cu, K,and Zn) still had low recoveries.

B: Spike recovery for As analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outside of thecontract required limits. Corrective action calls for a post-digestionanalysis which was within the limits.

C: The percent differences for ICP serial dilution for 11 elements (Al, Be,Ca, Cr, Mg, Mn, Ni, K, Na, T1 & V) were outside of the contract requiredlimits. These data were flagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical orphysical interference might be suspected. No corrective action is takenunder CLP protocol.

D: The CRDL for chromium analyzed by ICP was .exceeded in all nine samples(LLI #1335584-92) in this sample delivery group.

tlr-3203l6-03.tlr.2 AR30I88

Explanation SDG2

A: Spike recoveries for 4 elements (Sb, Cr, Cu, & K) analyzed by ICP wereoutside of the contract required limits. Corrective action calls for apost-digestion analysis. For these, Cr and Cu were still outside thelimits.

B: Spike recovery for Thallium analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outsideof the contract required limits. Corrective action calls for apost-digestion analysis, however, it was still outside the limits.

C: Spike recovery for Hg analyzed by cold vapor AA was outside the contractrequired limit. Corrective action calls for a post-digestion analysis;however, this was not done.

D: RPD for two elements (Ca and Mg) analyzed by ICP were outside of thecontract required limits. No corrective action is taken under CLPprotocol.

E: RPD for one element (Pb) analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outside ofthe contract required limits. No correction action is taken under CLPprotocol.

F: The percent differences for ICP serial dilutions for 10 elements (Ca, Cr,Fe, Mg, Mn, Ni, K, Na, V & Zn) were outside of the contract requiredlimits. These data were flagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical orphysical interference might be suspected. No corrective action is takenunder CLP protocol.

G: Cyanide exceeded the 14 day holding time because of the necessity of asecond distillation. The laboratory control sample was out of controlfor the first distillation. The holding time was 16 days.

H: The CRDL for chromium analyzed by ICP was exceeded in all thirteensamples in the sample delivery group (LLI 11338244-56).

I: The CRDL for selenium analyzed by graphitefurnace was exceeded in onesample (LLI 11338254) in the sample delivery group.

tlr-320316-03.tlr.3 AR30I882

Explanation SDG3

A: The percent differences for ICP serial dilutions for five elements (Al,Ba, Fe, Mn, & K) were outside of the contract required limits. Thesedata were flagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical or physicalinterference must be suspected. Mo corrective action is taken under CLPprotocol.

tlr-3203l6-03.tlr.4 flR30!883


HUNTERSTOWN ROAD ANDWESTINGHOUSE PLANT SITEJANUARY 1989 SAMPLES

265-012-05-01

ORGANICS SDG* 1 SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 4(LLI #) (1348737-46) (135002-6 (1348995- (1348606-21)

1350743,44) 1349002)SURROGATE RECOVERIES

Volatiles X X X XSemi-Volatiles A X A APesticides X X X X

MATRIX SPIKE/DUPLICATERECOVERIESVolatiles X X X XSemi-Volatiles X A X BPesticides X X X X

RPDVolatiles X X X XSemi-Volatiles X B . X XPesticides X X X C

METHOD BLANKVolatiles X X X XSemi-Volatiles X X X XPesticides X X X X

HOLDING TIMESVolatiles B X X XSemi-Volatiles C X B XPesticides X X X X

CRQLVolatilea X C' C XSemi-Volatiles X O D DPesticides X E X X

Notes:*SDG - Sample Delivery GroupSDG1 contained 9 soil samples and 2 water samples (including a method blank

and trip blank)SDG2 contained 7 water samples (including a method blank and trip blank)SDG3 contained 9 water samples (including a method blank and trip blank)SDG4 contained 16 water samples (including a method blank and trip blank)LLI - Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.X - CLP requirements met

8«S*.tir.i A R 30 I 881*

Explanation SDG 1

A: Surrogate recovery of terphenyl-d14 for one of the samples was outside ofthe contract required QC limits. Mo corrective action is necessary underCLP protocol since only one surrogate was outside the limits.

B: The holding time of ten days for volatiles analysis was exceeded in oneof the samples (LLI * 1348742) by three days.

C: The holding time of ten days for extraction of soil samples for semi-volatile analysis was exceeded in all ten samples (LLI # 1348737-46) inthis sample delivery group.

0419-02.tlr.2 flR30!885

Explanation SDG 2

A: Matrix spike percent recovery for two of the eleven spiked compounds werebelow the contract required QC limits. This may be due to the fact thatduring matrix spike extraction, some of the base/neutral extract wasspilled. Mo corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

B: The relative percent differences for three of the eleven spiked compoundswere below the contract required QC limits. This may be due to the factthat during matrix spike extraction, some of the base/neutral extract wasspilled. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

C: The quantitation limit for carbon tetrachloride was increased 300-foldover the CRQL because of the level of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in one of thesamples (LLI # 1350005).

D: . The quantitation limits of all the constituents for semivolatile analysis- in three samples (LLI # 1350002, 1350003, and 1350743) were twice thecontract required quantitation limits. This was caused by an insuf-ficient sample volume submitted.

E: The quantitation limits of some of the constituents for pesticide/PCBanalysis for one sample (LLI # 1350002) were either twice or ten timesthe contract required quantitation limits. This was caused by aninsufficient sample volume, and the detection limits were determined froma replotted chromatogram which represents an increase in attenuation offive times.

The quantitation limits of all the constituents for pesticide/PCB analy-sis for two samples (LLI # 1350003 and 1350743) were four times thecontract required quantitation limits. This was due to an insufficientsample volume.

tlr-3304l9-02.tlr.3 ftR30l886

Explanation SDG 3

A: Surrogate recovery of phenol-d5 and 2-fluorophenol-d5 for the re-injectedsample of Well 2A (LLI # 1348997RE) was outside the contract required QClimits. This re-injection was necessary because the internal standardsfor calibration were above control limits. Surrogate recoveries for Well2A (LLI # 1348997) were within contract required QC limits.

B: The holding time of five days for extraction of water samples for semi-volatile analysis was exceeded in one of the samples (LLI # 1348998) bythree days.

C: The quantitation limits of all constituents for volatile analysis for twosamples (LLI # 1348999 and 1349000) were five times the contract requiredquantitation limit. No explanation was given, however, this may havebeen caused by high levels of some constituents in the samples.

D: The quantitation limits of nine constituents for semivolatile analysisfor five samples (LLI # 1348995-7, 1349001-2) were 60 ug/1 instead of thecontract required quantitation limit of 50 ug/1.

The quantitation limits of all constituents for semivolatile analysis forthree samples (LLI # 1348998, 1348999 and 1349000) were twice the con-tract required limits. These samples were extracted using an initialvolume of 500 ml instead of 1000 ml. This was due to re-extractionbecause of phthalate contamination.

tlr-33.0419-02.tlr.4 SR30 I 887

Explanation SDG 4

A: Surrogate recovery of 2,4,6-tribromophenol for one of the samples wasoutside the contract required QC limits. No corrective action isnecessary under CLP protocol since only one constituent was outside thelimits.

B: The matrix spike percent recoveries in eight of the eleven compounds andthe matrix spike duplicate percent recoveries in seven of the elevencompounds were outside of the contract required QC limits. All of therecoveries were above the limits. No corrective action is taken underCLP protocol.

C: The relative percent difference for three of the six advisory spikedcompounds were outside of the contract QC limits. No corrective actionis taken under CLP protocol.

D: The quantitation limits of nine constituents for semivolatile analysisfor six samples (LLI # 1348609-10, 12-5) were 60 ug/1 instead of thecontract required quantitation limit of 50 ug/1. No explanation wasgiven.

The quantitation limits of all constituents for semivolatile analysis forone sample (LLI t 1348611) were twice the contract required limits. Thissample was extracted using an initial volume of 500 ml instead of 1000 mlbecause an insufficient sample volume was submitted.

AR3QI888


HUNTERSTOWN ROAD ANDWESTINGHOUSE PLANT SITEJANUARY 1989 SAMPLES

265-012-05-01.

INORGANICS SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 4(LLI #) (1348736-46) (1350002-6, (1348995- (1348606-20)

1350743-4) 1349002)

METHOD (PREPARATION) BLANKICP X X X XFurnace X X X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X XSemi-Automated X X X XSpectrophotometric (CN)

ICP INTERFERENCE CHECK SAMPLE A X A X

SPIKE RECOVERIESICP -B A, X -*XFurnace C B X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) D C X XSemi-Automated X X X XSpectrophotometric (CN)

DUPLICATE (RPD)ICP E X X XFurnace F X X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X XSemi-Automated X X X XSpectrophotometric (CN)

ICP SERIAL DILUTION G D B B

HOLDING TIMES -X X X X

CRDLICP H X X CFurnace X X X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X XSemi-Automated X X X XSpectrophotometric (CN)

tlr-330419-01. tlr.1 flR30 1889

Explanation SDG1.

A: The Final Found % R for iron was not within the contract required limitsfor both ICP analyses. Corrective action calls for recalibration andre-analysis; however this was not done.

B: Spike recoveries for antimony, barium, chromium, copper, potassium andzinc analyzed by ICP were outside the contract required QC limits.Corrective action calls for a post-digest spike analysis. For these,chromium, copper and zinc exhibited low recoveries.

C: Spike recovery for selenium analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outsidethe contract required QC limits. Corrective action calls for a post-digest spike analysis. For this, selenium still exhibited a low recov-ery.

D: ' Spike recovery for mercury analyzed by cold vapor AA was outside thecontract required QC limits. Corrective action calls for a post-digestspike analysis. However, this was not done.

E: The relative percent difference for duplicate analysis for eight elements(Ba, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Ni, V and Zn) analyzed by ICP were outside of thecontract required QC limits. No corrective action is taken under CLPprotocol.

F: The relative percent difference for duplicate analysis for one element(Ar) analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outside of the contract requiredQC limits. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

G: The percent difference for ICP serial dilution analysis for sodium andzinc was outside of the contract QC limits. These data are flagged withan "E" denoting that a chemical or physical interference might be sus-pected. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

H: The CRDL for chromium analyzed by ICP was exceeded in all ten samples(LLI # 1348737-45) in this sample delivery group.

tlr-330419-01.tlr.2 flR30!890

Explanation SDG2

A: Due to a limited sample submitted, spike sample recoveries were notperformed for metals analyzed by ICP. However, a post-digest recoveryanalysis was performed. For this, magnesium was not within the contractrequired limits.

B: Due to a limited sample submitted, spike sample recoveries were notperformed for metals analyzed by graphite furnace AA. A post-digestrecovery analysis could have been performed as corrective action, how-ever, this was not done.

C: Due to a limited sample submitted, spike sample recovery was not per-formed for mercury analyzed by cold-vapor AA. A post-digest recoveryanalysis could have been performed as corrective action, however, thiswas not done.

D: The percent difference for ICP serial dilution analysis for magnesium andsodium was outside the contract required QC limits. These data areflagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical or physical interferencemight be suspected. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

tlr-330419-01.tlr.3 . AR30I891

Explanation SDG3

A: The Final Found % R for iron was not within the contract required limitsfor the ICS analyses. Corrective action calls for recalibration andre-analysis, however, this was not done.

B: The percent difference for ICP serial dilution analysis for calcium andmagnesium was outside the contract required QC limits. These data areflagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical interference might besuspected. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

tlr-330419-01.tlr.4 AR30I892

Explanation SDG4

A: Spike recovery for aluminum analyzed by ICP was outside the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action calls for a post-digest spikeanalysis. For this, aluminum had a recovery within acceptable limits.

B: The percent difference for ICP serial dilution analysis for calcium, ironand magnesium was outside of the contract required QC limits. These dataare flagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical or physical interferencemight be suspected. No corrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

C: The CRDL for chromium analyzed by ICP was exceeded in all fifteen samples(LLI # 1348606-20) in this sample delivery group.

tlr-330419-01.tlr.5 A R 30 I 893


WESTINGHOUSE PLANT SITEFEBRUARY 1989 SAMPLES

265-012-05-10

' ORGANICS SDG*(LLI #) (1357323-30)

VOLATILES

Surrogate Recoveries X

Matrix Spike/DuplicateRecoveries XRPD A

Method Blank X

Holding Times X

CRQL ' B

* Sample Delivery GroupLLI Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.X CLP requirements met

SDG contained nine water samples including method blank

tlr-350316-03.blr.1 AR30 I

Explanation SDG

A: The relative percent difference for one of the spiked compounds wasoutside of the contract required QC limits. No corrective action istaken under CLP protocol.

B: The quantitation limits for all the constituents in one of the samples(LLI # 1357323) were 100 times the contract required quantitation limits.This was due to the high level of trichloroethene in the sample.

The quantitation limits for all the constituents in two of the samples(LLI # 1357324-5) were 500 times the contract required quantitationlimits. This was due to the high level of trichloroethene in the sam-ples.

The quantitation limits for all the constituents in one of the samples(LLI 11357326) were 10 times the contract required quantitation limits.This was due to the high level of trichloroethene in the sample.

0316-03. tlr.3 AR3G1895

20'Anniversary

DADIAN 13395 Dulles Technology Dr,TS^^A^ToS Herndon, VA 22071

(703)834-1500

20 July 1989 265-012-05-02

Mr. Ken BirdPaul C. Rizzo, Associates300 Oxford DriveMonroeville, Pennsylvania 15146

Subject: Westinghouse Hunterstown Road Data Validation

Dear Mr. Bird:

Attached please find the data validation summary tables for the Hunterstown Roadsoil and ground-water samples, collected during April and May 1989. Validationwas performed on five sets of results, or sample delivery groups, which wereorganized by Lancaster Laboratories according to sample delivery date.

Formal data validation proceeded according to the guidelines established in theQuality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Section 9.2. No formal validation of thefield QC practices is provided for in the QAPP. The summary tables present theresults of the validation. A separate set of summary tables has been preparedfor organics and inorganics.

Adherence to the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) requirements is indicated inthe table by the letter "X." Problems with the analyses and items requiringcorrective action under CLP are indicated on the table by a letter code, withan attached explanation. In most cases, problems with the analyses were due tomatrix interferences or resulted from sample dilution necessary to bring theanalyte concentrations within the linear response range of the instrument. Inthese cases, the laboratory performed all necessary corrective action requiredunder CLP. Matrix interference and dilution effects, however, result in anincreased uncertainty of the analytical results and should be taken intoconsideration when using the data.

Specific analytical problems other than those due to matrix interference anddilution are discussed below, as well as in the summary table explanations.These include cases in which CLP protocol was not followed, and cases in whichcorrective action was unsuccessful. These problems do not necessarily invalidatethe results but indicate data should be used cautiously, allowing considerationfor analytical error, particularly where analytical results approach a regulatorylimit or action level.

NCF-50720-01.ncf.l

AR3Q1896

Mr. Ken Bird20 July 1989Page 2

Organics

SDG #1 - The contract-required holding time of 10 days for volatiles wasexceeded for 11 samples in this group. Holding times ranged form12-14 days.

SDG #2 - ' The contract-required holding time of 10 days for volatiles wasexceeded for 12 samples in this group. The holding time was 13 days.

SDG #3 - No unresolved corrective actions were noted.


SDG #5 - Surrogate recovery of bromodichlorobenzene was outside QC limits.Corrective action calls for re-analysis; however, this was not done.

Inorganics

SDG #1 - Spike recovery for selenium analyzed by graphite furnace was outsideQC limits, and the post-digestion spike recovery was also outsideQC limits. The data are consequently flagged with a "w."


SDG #3 - Spike recoveries for selenium by graphite furnace remained outsideQC limits following corrective action.

SDG #4 - Spike recovery for selenium by graphite furnace remained outside QClimits following corrective action.



Sincerely,


CMS:ncf

NCF-50720-01.ncf.2

ftR3'6l897

DATA V-ALIDATION SUMMARY TABLE

HUNTERSTOWN ROAD

ORGANICS SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 4 SDG 5(LLI #) (1379047- (1379078-95, (1392910-22) (1393497- (1393590-3)

1380601) 1379827-8) 519)

SURROGATE RECOVERIESVolatiles X X X X ASemivolatiles X X X XPesticides X X X X

MATRIX SPIKE/DUPLICATE RECOVERIESVolatiles X X X X XSemivolatiles A X X XPesticides X - X X X

RPDVolatiles X X X X XSemivolatiles X A X XPesticides X X X X

METHOD BLANKVolatiles X X X X XSemivolatiles X X X XPesticides . X X X X

HOLDING TIMESVolatiles B A X X XSemivolatiles X X X XPesticides X X X X

CRQLVolatiles C B B A BSemivolatiles X X X XPesticides D X B X

SDG - Sample Delivery GroupLLI - Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.

X - CLP requirements metSDG1 Contained 26 soil samples and 2 water samples (1 trip blank and 1

volatiles blank).SDG2 'Contained 24 soil samples and 2 water samples (1 trip blank and 1

volatiles blank).SDG3 Contained 11 soil samples and 1 water sample (volatiles blank).SDG4 Contained 26 water samples including 1 trip blank and 1 volatiles blank.SDG5 Contained 8 water samples including 1 trip blank and 1 volatiles blank.

No analyses were performed for these substances.

tlr-40

' SR30I898

Explanation

A: Soil matrix spike percent recovery of one of the spiking compounds wasoutside the contract required QC limits; however, the RPD value for thiscompound was within control limits. Water matrix spike percentrecoveries of two of the eleven compounds and matrix spike duplicate ofthree of the eleven compounds were outside the contract required QClimits. A suspected concentration problem was determined to be thecause. Once again, all RPD values were within control limits. Inaccordance with CLP methodology, no corrective action is taken.

B: The contract required holding time of 10 days for volatile was exceededin eleven samples in this sample delivery group. Actual holding times

' ranged from 12-14 days.

C: For six samples (LLI# 1379055-7, 66, 69, 70), the quantitation limitswere increased above CRQLs. This was due to the high level of certaintarget compounds present in the sample.

D: For six samples (LLI# 1379055-7, 66, 69, 70), the quantitation limits ofcertain PCBs were 5 x the CRQLs. The quantitation was determined from areplotted chromatogram which represents an increase in attenuation of 5x.

SDG2

A: The contract required holding of 10 days for volatile analysis wasexceeded in twelve samples in this delivery group. Actual holding timewas 13 days.

B: For eight samples (LLI #1379081-5, 8, 9, 91) the quantitation limits wereincreased above CRQLs. This was due to the high level of certain targetcompounds present in the sample.

SDG3

A: RPD values for three spiking compounds were outside contract required QClimits. Laboratory suggests this was due to "bumping" of the matrixspike duplicate during concentration. In accordance with CLPmethodology, no corrective action is taken.

B: For two samples (LLI #1392919-20), the quantitation limits were increasedabove the CRQLs. This was due to the level of certain target compoundspresent in the sample.

tlr-400718-02.tlr.2 ft R 30 1899

SDG4

A: For four samples (LLI #1393500-1, 5, 10), the quantitation limit ofcarbon tetrachloride was increased above the CRQL. This was due to thehigh level of 1,1,1-trichloroethane present in the sample. Also, for twosamples (LLI #1393506-7), the quantitation limits for all constituentswere raised above the CRQLs. This was due to the high level of targetcompounds present in the samples.

B: For one sample (LLI #1393507), the quantitation limits for some constitu-ents were 5x or 10x the CRQLs. These quantitation limits were determinedfrom a replotted chromatogram which represents an increase in attenuationof 5x or 10x.

>For one sample (LLI #1393509), the quantitation limits of all constitu-* ents for pesticide/PCB analysis were 2x the CRQL. This sample wasextracted using only 500 ml of sample since a second extraction forSemivolatiles left insufficient sample volume.

SDG5

A: Surrogate recovery of bromofluorobenzene was outside the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action calls for re-analysis, however,this was not done.

B: For two samples (LLI #1393590-1), the quantitation limit for carbontetrachloride was increased above the CRQL. This was due to the highlevel of 1,1,1-trichloroethane present in the sample.

tlr-4007l8-02.tlr.3 QR30I900


HUNTERSTOWN ROAD

INORGANICS SDG 1 SDG 2 SDG 3 SDG 4 SDG 5(LLI #) (1379055- (1380601) (1392918-22) (1393497- (1393590-3)

66,69-71) 519)

METHOD (PREPARATION)BLANK

ICP X X X X XFurnace X X X X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X X XSemi-Automated X X X X XSpectrophotometric(CN)

ICP INTERFERENCE CHECK X X X 'X XSAMPLE

SPIKE RECOVERIESICP A A A A XFurnace B X B B XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X X XSemi-Automated X X X X XSpectrophotometric•(CN)

DUPLICATE (RPD)ICP C X C X XFurnace X X X X XCold Vapor A A S (Hg) X X X X XSemi-Automated X X X X XSpectrophotometric(CN)

I C P SERIAL DILUTION X X D X A

HOLDING TIMES X X X X X

CRDLICP X X X X XFurnace D X E X XCold Vapor AAS (Hg) X X X X XSemi-Automated X X X X XSpectrophotometric(CN)

SDG 1 contained 7 soil samples.SDG 2 contained 1 water sample.SDG 3 contained 5 soil samples.SDG 4 contained 22 water samples.SDG 5 contained 4 water samples.

tlr-400719-01.tlr.1 ft R 30 I 901

Explanation

SDG1

A: Spike recovery for antimony analyzed by ICP was outside the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action included a post-digestion spikeanalyses that was within the control limits.

B: Spike recovery for selenium analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outsideof the contract required QC limits. Corrective action included a post-digestion spike analysis, however, this was also outside the controllimits. The data are flagged with a "w" denoting that post-digestionspike recovery is out of control.

C: The relative percent difference (RPD) for copper analyzed by ICP wasoutside the contract required QC limits. No corrective action is takenunder CLP protocol.

D: The CRDL for arsenic was increased by a factor of 10 in all samplesexcept for the method blank. No explanation was given.

SDG2

A: Spike recoveries for two elements (Be and Ag) analyzed by ICP wereoutside the contract required QC limits. Corrective action included apost-digestion spike recovery analysis. For this, both elementsexhibited recoveries within QC limits.

SDG3

A: Spike recovery for antimony analyzed by ICP was outside the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action included a post-digestion spikeanalysis that was within control limits.

B: Spike recoveries for three elements (As, Se, and Ti) analyzed by graphitefurnace AA were outside the contract required QC limits. Correctiveaction included a post-digestion spike analysis. For this, arsenic andthallium recoveries were within the control limits, while selenium wasstill outside control limits.

C: The RPD for four elements (Ba, Co, Mn, and Ni) were outside the contractrequired QC limits. No corrective is taken under CLP protocol.

D: The percent differences for ICP serial dilutions for seven elements (Ca,.Mg, Mn, Nu, K, V, and Zn) were outside the contract required QC limits.These data are flagged with an "E" denoting that a chemical or physicalinterference is suspected. No corrective action is taken under CLPprotocol.

E: The CRDL for arsenic was increased by a factor of 5 in three samples andby a factor of 10 in one sample. Arsenic required either a 5-fold or10-fold dilution in these samples.

tlr-400719-01.tlr.2 aR30i902

SDG4

A: Spike recovery for silver analyzed by ICP was outside the contractrequired QC limits. Corrective action included a post-digestion spikeanalysis that was within control limits.

B: Spike recovery for selenium analyzed by graphite furnace AA was outsidethe contract required QC limits. Correction action included a post-digestion spike analysis; however, this was also outside control limits.

SDG5

A: The percent difference for ICP serial dilutions for barium was outsidethe contract required QC limits. These data are flagged with an "E"denoting that a chemical or physical interference is suspected. Nocorrective action is taken under CLP protocol.

tlr-400719-01.tlr.3 &R3019Q3

APPENDIX C

RESPONSES TODATA VALIDATION SUMMARY

APPENDIX C

RESPONSES TO DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY

The Phase I data was reviewed and evaluated based on the comments inRadian's Data Validation Summary (Appendix B). Responses to thecomments are organized in this appendix by Sample Delivery Groups(SDGs). The laboratory sample numbers which correspond to the SDG arealso provided in parenthesis. The SDGs may also contain samples fromother sites, but validation responses are directed toward the samplesfrom Hunterstown Road Site.

SDG DECEMBER 1988 (1335599 - 1335618)Organics:

A .No response required by CLP procedures.

B. No response required by CLP procedures.

C The variations in sample volume were noted in the review ofPhase I data.

D-E The CRQL variations were noted in the review of Phase I data.

F Elevated quantitation limits and their causes were consideredin the evaluation of Phase I data.

Inorganics:

A No response required.

B-C The manganese and thallium parameters are considered asestimated because spike recoveries are outside of CLP-definedlimits.

D The possibility of a chemical interference was considered inthe Phase I data review process.

E The chromium values were reported as positive results and donot represent CRQLs. Data is considered acceptable for thePhase I objective.

F The arsenic and selenium values were reported as positiveresults and do not represent CRQLs. Data is consideredacceptable for the Phase I objective.

SDG-2 DECEMBER 1988 (1338244 - 1338256)Organics:

A-E The CLP variations were noted in the review of Phase I data.

ftR301905

Inorganics:

A-C The copper, chromium, thallium, and mercury parameters areconsidered as estimated because spike recoveries are outside ofCLP-defined limits.

D No response is required.

E No response is required.

F The possibility of a chemical interference was considered inthe Phase I data review process.

G Because the samples were soil samples and the holding timeswere exceeded by only two days, the cyanide data was notrejected. The deficiency was considered in evaluation of PhaseI results.

H, I The chromium and selenium values were reported as positiveresults and do not represent CRQLs.

SDG-1 JANUARY 1989 (1348737 - 1348746)Organics:

A No response necessary.

B A review of laboratory records indicates an incorrect date wastranscribed. The sample was analyzed within USEPA holding timeguidelines. The laboratory has revised the CLP form for thissample.

C Because the holding time of ten days was exceeded, positiveresults and sample quantitation limits were considered asestimated in accordance with CLP criteria for semivolatileanalysis.

Inorganics:

A Based on the current CLP Statement of Work (SOW) iron isconsidered an "interferent" in ICP interference checksamples. Re-analysis is performed if an "analyte" does notfall within the control limits. No qualification of data isnecessary.

B-D Chromium, copper, zinc, selenium, and mercury are considered asestimates in accordance with CLP criteria.

E-G The variations noted were considered in the evaluation of thePhase I results.

H The chromium values are reported as positive results and do notrepresent CRQLs.

SR30I906

SDG-4 JANUARY 1989 (1348606 - 1348621)Organics:


B-C The variations in QC limits were considered in Phase I datareview.

Dl Upon review of the CLP forms, all have the appropriate CRQL (50ug/1).

D2 . The elevated quantitation limits were used in the evaluation ofPhase I.

Inorganics:

A No response necessary

B The possibility of a chemical interference for calcium, iron,and magnesium was considered in Phase I data evaluation.

C The chromium values are reported as positive results and do notrepresent CRQLs.

SDG-1 APRIL 1989 (1379047 - 1380601)Organics:


B Volatile analysis was to be performed within 10 days of samplereceipt. Because the samples were analyzed 10 to 14 days ofreceipt, the volatile results associated with these sampleswere considered estimates.

C-D The elevated quantitation limits were considered in theevaluation of Phase I data.

Inorganics:


B The selenium values are considered as estimated because spikerecovery was outside of CLP-defined limits.

C . No response required.

D The arsenic values were reported as positive results and do notrepresent CRQLs. Data is consider acceptable for the Phase Iobjectives.

AR30I907

SDG-2 APRIL 1989 (1379Q78 - 1379095 and 1379827 - 1379828)Organics:

A Volatile analyses were to be performed within 10 days of samplereceipt. Because the samples were analyzed 13 days of receipt,the volatile results associated with these samples wereconsidered estimates.

B The elevated quantitation limits and probable causes wereconsidered in the evaluation of Phase I data.

Inorganics:


SDG-3 MAY 1989 (1392910 - 1392922)Organics:


B The elevated quantitation limits and probable causes wereconsidered in the evaluation of Phase I data.

Inorganics:


B The selenium values are considered as estimated because spikerecoveries are outside of CLP-defined limits.

C No response required.

D The possibility of a chemical interference was considered inthe Phase I data review process.

E Sample dilutions for arsenic were considered in the review ofPhase I data.

SDG-4 MAY 1989 (1393497 - 1393519)Organics:

A The elevated quantitation limits and probable causes wereconsidered in the evaluation of Phase I data.

B The variations noted were considered in the evaluation of thePhase I results.

Inorganics:


B The selenium values are considered as estimated because spikerecoveries are outside of CLP-defined limits.

flR30i908

SDG-5 MAY 1989 (1393590 - 1393593)Organics:

A The laboratory is required to re-analyze if the surrogaterecovery is outside of contract QC limits. However, of theeight samples only one sample was slightly under the QC limitfor BFB recovery. No qualification with respect to surrogaterecovery is placed on the data.

B Elevated quantitation limits due to the presence of 1,1,1-trichloroethane was considered in the evaluation of Phase Iresults.

Inorganics:

The possibility of a chemical interference was considered inthe review of the Phase I data.

aR301909

APPENDIX D

AUDITS

H R 3 Q 1 9 I O

20Anniversary13595 Dulles Technology Dr

Herndon VA 22071,703183-1-1300

28 February 1989 265-012-03-01

Mr. Ken BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates10 Duff RoadPittsburgh, PA 15235

Subject: Westinghouse Remedial Investigation Field AuditDecember 5-8, 1988

Dear Ken:

This letter and attached checklists serve as the field audit report covering"the sampling activities which occurred between December 5 and .8, 1988 at three.Westinghouse sites. The audit covered surface soil, surface water andsediment sampling at the Hunterstown Road, Shrivers Corner, and WestinghousePlant Sites. The sampling team from P.C. Rizzo Associates included Ken Bird,project supervisor, and Richard Hrenko, Margie Pelcher, and Lorenzo Serra.

It was determined that the sampling activities satisfied the requirementsoutlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Minor deviations insampling locations, which were made to accommodate other activities occurringat the site, were noted in the daily logs. Methanol was substituted foracetone and nitric acid was eliminated from the sampling equipmentdecontamination protocol. This deviation was documented in the field activitydaily log and also is discussed in the checklist.

Sampling procedures (outlined in each QAPP) were discussed at the beginning ofsampling activities, and no items requiring corrective action were noted. Thefollowing health and safety concerns were discussed with the sampling teams atthe beginning of the project: 1) The use of nitrile gloves affords greaterprotection against potential chemical hazards than PVC or latex gloves and arerecommended for use during equipment decontamination as well as duringsampling; and 2) Equipment decontamination should be conducted in awell-ventilated area, preferably outdoors, to permit methanol to dissipatequickly. Isopropanol is suggested as a less volatile, less toxic substitutefor methanol.

Sincerely,


tlr-260223-0l.tlr.1

WESTINGHOUSE FIELD AUDIT CHECKLIST

DATE 12/7/88

AUDITOR Carla Schultz, Radian Corporation

SITE NAME Westinghouse Plant Site

CONTACT Ken Hesse (Facility Contact)

ADDRESS Westinghouse Plant , Gettysburg, PA

CONTRACTOR Rizzo Associates

ADDRESS 10 Duff Road, Suite 300Pittsburgh, PA 15235

SITE MANAGER Ken Bird, Project Supervisor

FIELD CREW Richard HrenkoMargie Pelcher

OTHERS None '

tlr-260223-01.tlr.2

A R 3 0 I 9 I 2

DOCUMENT CONTROL

1. List documents relevant to this audit.Project #87-375, Site Operations Plan, Rizzo AssociatesProject #87-375, QAPP, RizzoProject 187-375, Work Plan, Rizzo

2. Are documents easily accessible? Yes

3. Are logbooks bound? No - Log Sheets, Field Activity Daily Log and SampleCollection Log.

4. Logbook pages consecutively numbered and dates in sequence? N/A

5. Entries legible? Yes

6. Erasures evident? No

7. Has data been altered? No

8. If yes, was a single line drawn through entry? N/A

9. Were changes initialized? N/A

10. Is someone responsible for logbook entries? Yes; Ken Bird, ProjectSupervisor

11. Are signatures clearly identifiable? Yes

12. Comments.

tlr-260223-01.tlr.3

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. Were sample locations those specified in Work Plan Figure 4-3? Yes.

2. Was field equipment decontaminated per QAPP Sec. 5.4? No. Detergent,rinse, methanol, distilled water. No nitric acid was used. See comments#12.

3. Were samples collected according to QAPP Sec. 5.0? Yes. Hand trowel -surface soil.

4. Was equipment used that specified in QAPP Sec. 5.2? Yes.

5.. Did sample collection proceed from least likely to most likely contami-nated? Areas BG, 1, 3, 5, 4, 2, from figure 4-3.

6. Was field equipment calibrated per QAPP Sec. 7.3? Yes. HNu daily toisobutylene - OVA daily to methane.

7. Were calibration procedures documented in the logbook? Yes. Fieldactivity daily log.

8. Were samples preserved as described in QAPP Sec. 5.3.2 and Table 5-2?Yes.

9. Were samples iced? Yes

10. Sample packing methods: Sample jars placed in sealed plastic bagsupright in coolers.

11. Was glassware supplied as described in QAPP Sec. 5.3.1? Yes; supplied byLancaster Labs

12. Comments.

No. 2 above - Decontamination procedures varied from QAPP but should besufficient to prevent cross-contamination. As a health and safety note,decontamination should be conducted in a well ventilated area (preferablyoutdoors). Isopropanol is an effective and less toxic solvent thanmethanol.

tlr-260223-01.tlr.4

SR3019U

QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES

1. Number and procedure for collecting field blanks: QAPP Sec. 10.2 - tripblanks to accompany each batch of samples.

2. Number of equipment wash blanks: QAPP Sec. 10.2 - one per matrix, eachsampling event.

3. Number or frequency of duplicates: QAPP Sec. 10.1 and Table 5-1 - #5 MSand MSD - #4 - Dup.

4. Were samples and coolers sealed with custody tapes? Yes

5.. Chain-of-custody records completed per QAPP Sec. 6.0? Yes

6. Were samples kept in secure location after collection? Yes - locked intruck or trailers.

7. Samples transportation to lab: Lancaster delivery..

8. Were samples properly packaged to reduce breakage? Yes

9. Traffic reports complete? N/A

10. Comments.

tlr-260223-01.tlr.5 m non j Q i c

RESPOVSES TO FIELD AUDIT COMMOTS

1. Sampling Locations - Staging areas for the waste removal activityac ch* Hunterstown Road Site were established in the cornfields.Subsequently, several samples could not be collected from theseareas.

2. Methanol Replacing Acetone - It was felt that because acetone is acompound on the TCL it would minimize potential contaminationproblems by using oethanol instead of acetone for decontaminationpurposes.

3. Elimination of Nitric Acid Decontamination Rinse - Becausestainless-steel trowels, bailers, and bowls were used to collectsamples, it was felt that the use of nitric acid may cause metalcontamination due to the reaction of nitric acid and stainlesssteel.

4. The following changes were made during the sampling activities:

A. Nitriie gloves were worn during decontamination in accordancewith the comment.

B. Decontamination was performed outside in accordance with thecomment.

S. The use of isopropanoi for future decontamination purposes is beingevaluated*

AR30I9I6

20Anniversary &?'3i7-13595 Dulles Technology Dr

Herndon VA2207:.703153-1-1500

26 April 1989 265-012-03-03

Mr. Ken BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates10 Duff Road, Suite 300Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15235

Subject: Ground Water Sampling Field Audit, April 19, 1989Westinghouse RI/FSShriver's Corner Site

Dear Ken:

This letter and attached checklist serve as the field audit report coveringthe Shriver's Corner ground water sampling which occurred April 19, 1989. Thesampling team from P.C. Rizzo Associates was headed by Mr. Ken Bird, ProjectSupervisor, and included Messrs. Bill Smith, Rich Hrenko, and Ray Greely.

The sampling activities were well organized and satisfied the requirementsoutlined in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Two deviations fromthe QAPP occurred and are discussed under the Changes and Exceptions sectionsof the checklist. No items requiring corrective action were noted.


Sincerely,

Car la M. SchultzStaff Chemist

tlr-35, SR30I9I7

WESTINGHOUSE FIELD AUDIT CHECKLIST

DATE 4/19/89

AUDITOR Carla Schultz, Radian Corporation

SITE NAME Shrivers Corner

CONTACT Ken Bird

CONTRACTOR Rizzo Associates

ADDRESS 10 Duff Road, Suite 300Pittsburgh, PA 15235

SITE MANAGER Ken Bird, Project Supervisor

FIELD CREW Bill SmithRich HrenkoRay Greely

OTHERS None

tlr-35

flR30!9l8

DOCUMENT CONTROL

1. List documents relevant to this audit.Project #87-377,.QAPP, Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Project #87-377, Site Operations PlanProject #87-377, Work Plan

2. Are documents easily accessible? Yes

3. Are logbooks bound? No

4. Logbook pages consecutively numbered and dates in sequence? N/A

5. Entries legible? Yes

6. Erasures evident? No•

7. Has data been altered? No

8. If yes, was a single line drawn through entry? N/A

9. Were changes initialized? N/A

10. Persons responsible for logbook entries. Ken Bird, Project Supervisor

11. Are signatures clearly identifiable? Yes

12. Comments.

tlr-350424-02.tlr.3 flR30i9J9

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

1. Were sample locations those specified in the Work Plan? Yes. 20monitoring wells and 1 residential well were sampled during this episode.

2. Was field equipment decontaminated per QAPP Sec. 5.4? No. Procedure wasmodified as follows: Detergent wash, tap rinse, methanol rinse,deionized water rinse, and foil wrap.

3. Were samples collected according to QAPP Sec. 5.2.5? Yes. Samples formetals were filtered according to QAPP Sec. 5.3.3

4. Was equipment used that specified in QAPP Sec. 5.2.5.1? Yes. Stainlesssteel bailers and new polyester rope.

5. •••Did sample collection proceed from least likely to most likely contami-nated? N/A. Contaminant concentrations unknown.

6. . Was field equipment calibrated per QAPP Sec. 7.3? Yes. Calibrated dailyusing 3 standards.

7. Were calibration procedures documented in the logbook? Yes. Samplinglog 1A.

8. Were samples preserved as described in QAPP Sec. 5.3.2? Yes. Samplecontainers preserved by Lancaster Lab.

9. Were samples iced? Yes

10. Sample packing methods: Containers placed in plastic bags in coolerswith ice.

11. Was glassware supplied as described in QAPP Sec. 5.3.1? Yes; Supplied byLancaster Labs.

12. Comments.

Wells were purged prior to sampling according to QAPP Sec. 5.2.5.1.Three well volumes were removed and stabilized field measurements weredocumented except in wells MWC1A and MWC4A which bailed dry. These weresampled following recovery.

tlr-350424-02.tlr.4 AR 30 I 920

QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES

1. Number and procedure for collecting field blanks: Trip blanks furnishedby Lancaster Lab, per QAPP Sec. 10.2.

2. Number of equipment wash blanks: 1 Equipment wash blank collected4/18/89.

3. Number or frequency of duplicates: 1 Duplicate sample set collected onMW10B, 4/18/89.

4. Were samples and coolers sealed with custody tapes? Samples were notsealed; however, sample custody was maintained by sampling crew until thesample cooler was sealed.

5. Chain-of-custody records completed per work plan? Yes

6. Were samples kept in secure location after collection? Yes. Stored incoolers in field vehicles.

7. Sample transportation to lab: Lancaster Lab transport. 4/18 and 4/19.

8. Were samples properly packaged to reduce breakage? Yes

9. Traffic reports complete? N/A

10. Comments.

tlr-35O -Oa.tlr.5 ^ SR30I92I

CHANGES AND EXCEPTIONS

SOP #2 Equipment decontamination procedures varied from QAPP; however theprocedure used was the same as that used during the previousfield audit (December 6-8, 1988) and should be sufficient to preventcross-contamination. Equipment decontamination effectiveness willbe verified by analysis of the equipment wash sample.

QC #4 Individual samples were not secured with custody seals; however,sample custody was maintained by the sampling crew until the samplecoolers were secured with custody seals.

tlr-350424-02.tlr.6 AR30 I 922

LABOIATOtY EVALUATION IVORGAJHC CHECKLIST

WESTINGHOUSE

Laboratory: LANCASTER LABORATORIES, LANCASTER, PA 17601

Date: 10/21/88

Personnel Contacted:

NameRICHARD M. BURKERUSSEL R. JOHNSONANNELIESE HUTCHISONLOUISE HESSLEE SEATS

Title

ASST. DIVISION DIRECTORMARKETING SPECIALISTPROJECT COORDINATORDIRECTOR QUALITY ASSURANCEINORGANICS GROUP LEADER

Laboratory Evaluation Ttaa:

Naae

CARLA SCHULTZKENNETH BIRDWILLIAM S. MCKEEVER

Title

PROJECT DATA REVIEWERPROJECT SUPERVISORWESTINGHOUSE REPRESENTATIVE

HR30I923

I. QttCAMIZATIQJl AND PERSONNEL (?«ge I of 2)

_____________ITEM______________________YES NO COMMENT

Laboratory Project Manager (individualresponsible for overall technical tffort):

Maine: RICHARD BURKE____

Inductively Coupled Plasma EmissionSpectroseopist:

Hamc: ERIC CUBA__________________Experience: 1 year oiniousi requirement

APPROXIMATELY 2 YRS EXP. BS CHEMISTRY

Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectroseopist:

JIM KUSHUBAS MERCURY

Experience: 9 months •inisMSi requircsNnt2 YRS EXP BS CHEKISTRY

Sample Extraction Technician}ROBIN BINGEMAN

Experiences3 smiths •iniaua requiresent6 YRS EXPERIENCE

Classical Inorganic Techniques Analyst: CONDM4a.: MARK CLARK ________Experience: 6 months minimum requiresMnt

2 YEARS EXP. BS CHEMISTRY

Do personnel assigned to this project havethe appropriate educational background tosuccessfully accomplish the objectives ofthe program?

Experience:1 year minimum requirement ~ JENNIFERMAHONEY

______2 YRS EXP. AA CHEMISTRY___________ _____ 1 -f YRS EXP

Inorganic Compounds Analyst: (CYANIDE)RAMONA WENDT

I. oaCAMIZATIOil AMD PEBSONUEL (Page 2 of 2)

_____________ITEM__________________YES NO COMMENT

Do personnel assigned to this project havethe appropriate level and type of experienceto successfully accomplish the objectivesof this project?

_______YES_____________________________________________

Is the laboratory adequately staffed to.meet project conmitments in a timelymanner?

_______YES________________________________ _________^^

Does the laboratory Quality AssuranceSupervisor report to senior managementlevels?

______YES. REPORTS TO PRESIDENT________________________

Was the Project Manager availableduring the evaluation?

_______YES____________________________________________

Was the Quality Assurance Supervisoravailable during the evaluation?

YES - LOUISE HESS - DIRECTOR/QA

flR30!925

II. FACILITIES AMP EQUIPMENT (Ptge 1 if 7)

A. General Facilities

ITEM YE 3

Does the laboratory appear to haveadequate work space?

YES - SLIGHTLY CROWDED IN INORGANICS PREP'

NO COMMENT

REA

Are voltage control devices on majorinstrumentation?

YES - LAB USES CONDITIONED POWER

Does the laboratory have a distilled/demineraiized water source?

YES - LOCATED IN COMPRESSED GAS STORAGE ROOM

Is the conductivity of distilled/deaineralized water routinely checkedand recorded?

YES - CHECKED BY QA DIRECTOR

Is the analytical laiance located awayfrom draft and rap d temperature changeareas?

YES

Has the balance beet calibrated withinone year by a certified technician?

YES - LABEL IN BALANCE RECORDS INTO

Is the balance checkel with a Class Sstandard before each <. se and recordedin a log book?

CHECKED WEEKL' WITH WORKING WTS +• MONTHLY WITH S STANDARD

Are exhaust hoods provi ied to allowefficient work with vol tile materials?

YES

Is the laboratory nainta ned in a cleanand organized manner?

YES - COUNTERSPA i SLIGHTLY CROWDED AR3QI926

General Facilities (Ptge 2 of 7)

_______________ ITEM ___________________ YES NO COMMENT

Are contamination-free work areasprovided for the handling of coxicmaterials? NO SEPARATE PREP AREA IN INORGANICS AREA} CLEAN ROOM

IN ORGANICS AREA FOR DIOXIN AND OTHERS

Is there separate storage of samplesand standards (including coldstorage)?

______ YES LOCKED STORAGE FOR SAMPLES ___________________________

Is the temperature of the cold storageunits recorded daily?

______ YES - TWICE DAILY ______________________________________

Are chemical waste disposal policiesand procedures adequate?

ACIDS ARE NEUTRALIZED ON SITE;______ SOLVENTS ARE RECYCLED; SAMPLES ARE RETURNED TO CLIENTS _______

Can the laboratory supervisor documentthat trace-free water is available forpreparation of standard* and blanks?

YES______ METHOD BLANKS + PREPARATION BLANKS ARE USED ________________

Are pH and ion selective meters YES. CALIBRATED DAILY W/3 BUFFERSoperational- and properly maintained? MAINTENANCE + CALIBRATION

RECORDED IN BOUND BOOK______ (BECKMAN METER) MAINTAINED IN WATER QUALITY GROUP __________

le a UY-Visible spectrophotosMteroperational and properly maintained?

VES - TECHNICON

Do adequate procedures exist for «A* NOT BE ADEQUATE - SOLUTIONSdisposal of waste liquids from the ^ BE RCRA WASTE DUE TO PHICP and AA spectrometers? (CORROSIVE) LANCASTER SHOULD MAKE A

DETERMINATION AS TO RCRA COMPLIANCE._______ DISPOSED DOWN THE DRAIN _________________________________

Is the laboratory secure?

ONE TffJT HfgFn gHOMT PHTBV HMT.V . PPMATMTIW? IWIPg t-HCKEIV AT ATT TTMFg f

AR30I927

General Facilities (P«g« 3 of 7)

COMMENTS OM LABORATORY FACILITIES

INORGANICS METHODS MANUAL IS MAINTAINED IN AQUEOUS DIGESTION ROOM.

MANUAL NEEDS TO UPDATE REFERENCES._________________________

CLP SAMPLES ARE ATTENDED OR MAINTAINED IN LOCKED STORAGE WHEN NOT

IN CUSTODY OF ANALYST

flR301928

B. EQUIPMENT (Page 4 of 7)

MANUFACTURER MODEL

ICP JARRELL-ASH ICP1100-1ID* (LANCASTER INTERNAL #02360)

INSTALLATION OATS

8/36

TCPID*

ICPID*

Data System DEDICATESZQ* MO ID#

Data SystemID*

ITEM YES NO COMMENT

Are manufacturer's operating manualsavailable to the operator? YES

STORED ON BOOKSHELVES ADJACEiiT TO EQUIPMENT

Is there e calibration protocol YESavailable to the opereeor?

CLP SOW IS USED

Are calibration results kept in e YESpermanent record?

STORED IK ARCHIVES

Is a permanent service record maintainedin a logbook?

rrrr.imgs srv~PUT.S FOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE

Has the instrument been modified in any wey? N0

YESIs :he instrument orooerlv vented?

i\R30l929

B. EQUIPMENT (Page 5 or 7)

_____________IT! 1___________________YES MO COMMENT

Are interference corr ction automatically YESperformed?BACKGROUND CORRECTION VND STANDARD ADDITIONS PER SOW

Is preventative ma nter mce applied?YES

SATISFACTORY? YES

COMMENTS ON ICP/PS I STaUMENTATIOM

AR301930


Atomic Adsorption (AA) Spectrometer

GFAAID*

GFAA

VARIAN(SAME AS

VARIAN(SAME AS

MANUFACTURER

MODEL //)

MODEL//)

MODEL

30/40

300/ZEEMAN

INSTALLATION DATE

JUNE 1987

APRIL 1988

.. VARIAN 10 JUNE 1987FLAME (SAME AS MODEL #)

n.». Q-.r — DEDICATED TO EALNData System NQ JD #

HG-COLD VAPOR

ITEM

SPECTRA PRODUCTS, INC. AUGUST 1986

YES NO COMMENT

Are calibration results kept inpermanent record? yes

Is a permanent service recordmaintained in e logbook? yes

Has the instrument been modifiedin any weyf

Is the instrument properly vented?

Is the AA equipped with a flamelessaccessory?

6FAAS ARE SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS

SATISFACTORY? J£S—————— AR30i93i


Concents on Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrometer

AR30I932

III. DOCUMENTATION (ptge I of 2)

A. Documentation/Tracking

ITEM______________________________YES MO_____COMMENT_________

Is a sample custodian designated? Y£S LANCASTER USES SAMPLEIf yes, name of sample custodian. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SYSTEM.ANNELIESE HUTCHISON _____

CLP CUSTODY WILL BE USED

YESAre the sample custodian's pro-cedures and responsibilities docu-mented? Where are these outlined?

LANCASTER LAB SOP BOOK AVAILABLE TO ALL STAFF

Are written SOPs developed forreceipt of sample? If yes, where arethe SOPs documented?

LANCASTER LAB SOP

Are quality assurance procedures docu- Y£Smented and available to the analysts?If yes, are these documented?CLP SOW IS USED

Are written SOPs developed for compiling YESand maintaining document files? If yes,where are they documented (laboratorymanual, written instructions, etc.)?

SOP BOOK

Are the magnetic tapes stored in a YESsecure «ree?LOCKED ARCHIVES

Are samples that require preservation YESstored in such a way as to maintaintheir preservation? If yes, how arethe samples stored?

YES - REFRIGERATED 4°C

SR301933

III. DOCUMENTATION (p«?« 2 of 2)

8. Documentation

ITEM_______________________________YES NO COMMENT

Are permanently-bound not!books with YESpreprinted, consecutively -numberedpages being used?

Is method preparation cleajly YESdisplayed on the notebook i.e.,extraction)?

Is the notebook maintained n a YESlegible manner?

Has the analyst initialed obiit- YESerating entries?

Are inserts permanently affixed tonotebook and signed?

Has a supervisor reviewed the rote* YESbook personally? Periodically?REVIEWED BY QC COORDINATCR - : EB GIFFORD

Where applicable, does the notctook YESreference reports or memorandapertinent to the contents of an mtry?

IV. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY (pegs I of 2)

ITEM ,

Are the project methods available toanalyst?

Is there any authorized deviationfrom project methods?

STANDARD ADDITIONS USED ONLY ON GFAA

YES MO COMMENT

YES

CLP MANUAL

YES

r . , _• i . _ j SUGGEST MORE FREQUENTAre fresh analytical standards PREPARATION - MONTHLY ORP>S*rJ i_!r!;JirU*nC7 e°"lietnC ACCORDING TO INSTRUMENT MFR.wita ene metnoast GUIDELINES WHICHEVER IS SHORTERPREPARED EVERY 6 MONTHS - CHECKED WITH DAILY CONTROLS

Are reference materials documentedwith concentrations, date of preparation,the identity of the person preparingthe sample?

Is « standards preperetion andtraceability book maintained?

Do the analysts record bench detein precise and accurate manner?

Is the appropriate instrumentationused in Accordance with the requiredprotocol?

YES

YES - IN PREP AREA

YES

YES

flR3QI935

IV. AMALYTICAL METHODOLOGY (p«ge 2 of 2)

A. Comments on Analytical Methods and Practices

SPOT CHECK OF AA STOCK STANDARDS REVEALED ONE BOTTLE WITH A LOOSECAP AND 2 STANDARDS KEPT PAST EXPIRATION DATE. SYSTEM FOR REGULARLY

REVIEWING CONDITIONS OF STANDARDS SHOULD BE IN PLACE_____________

CYANIDE ANALYSIS DOES NOT REFERENCE CLP METHODOLOGY CLP METHODS MUST

BE USED_________________________________________________SAMPLE CUSTODY (CLP) NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE WATER QUALITY LAB.NO LOCKED STORAGE PROVIDED FOR UNATTENDED. SAMPLES.

flR30i936

V. QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL CHECKLIST (page I of 2)

ITEM

Does the laboratory maintain aQuality Control program?

YES MO COMMENT

YES

Does the program address thefollowing:

a* Manual?b. Training?c. Operation of Instruments?d. Documentation of Procedures?e. Procurement Policies?f . Preventive Maintenance?g. Reliability of Dete?h. Data Validation?i. Feedback and Corrective

Actions?j. Instrument Ceiibretion?k. Record Keeping?1. Internal Audits?

LANCASTER INHOUSE DOCUMENTYES AT LEAST ANNUAL SESSIONSYES

YES METHODS MANUALS IN LABSYES SPECIFIED BY ANALYSTSYES RECORDED IN INSTRUMENT LOGSYES DATA REVIEWER CHECKSYES DATA REVIEWERYES REVIEWED BY QA DIRECTOR

YES DAILY AND/OR EACH SAMPLE SET

YESYES PERFORMED BY QA DIRECTOR

USUALLY 2X YEAR; QUARTERLY FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS

Have responsibilities and reportingrelationships been clearly defined?

YES

BLIND DUPLICATE USED

Have standards been adequatelydocumented?

YES

Are laboratory standards traceable?

YES

V. QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL CHECKLIST page 2 of 2)

ITEM YES MO COMMENT

Are quality control measures maintaineo YESfor each routine analysis?

Do QC records list corrective action YESwhen analytical results fail to meetQC criteria?

DAILY OUTLIER SHEET

Do supervisory personnel review QC YESresults?

DAILY REVIEW BY GROUP LEADERS AND • A DI7.ZCTOR OFALL OUTLIERS

&R30I938

VI. DATA HANDLING CHECKLIST (page i of I)

ITEM

Are data calculations cheeked by asecond individual?

DATA VERIFIER

YES NO

YES

COMMENT

Are all data and records retainedfor the required amount of time?

YES_________________________

Are quality control data, calibrationcurves, results of duplication spikesavailable for all analytical results?

YES_________________________

HR30I939

VII SUMMARY (page 1 of 2)

A. Sunmary Cheeksheet

ITEM_________________________;____YES MO____COMMENT

Do responses to the evaluation indicatethat project and supervisory personnelare aware of QA requirements of theproject?

YESDo project and supervisory personnelplace positive emphasis on QA/QC?

YFSHave responses with respect to QA/QCaspects of the project been reviewedand discussed?

QAPP AVAILABLE

YESHas a cooperative attitude beendisplayed by all project andsupervisory personnel?

Does the organization place the Y__appropriate emphasis on QA?

YESHave anirQA/QC deficiencies been ITEMS L> 2 and 3 ON FOLLOwiNG PAGEdiscussed before leaving? ^^ DISCUSSED. ITEMS 4f and 5 NEED

TO BE ADDRESSED.

YESIs the overall QA adequate to accom-plish the objectives of the project?

N/AHave corrective actions recommendedduring previous evaluations beenimplemented?

YESAre any corrective actions required? Ifso, list the necessary actions on next page? H n o n | Q|»Q

VII. SUMMARY (page 2 of 2)

B. Summary Comments and Corrective Actions

1. AA STOCK STANDARDSSPOTT CHECK OF STOCK STANDARDS REVEALED ONE WITH A LOOSE CAP AND TOO

WITH EXPIRED DATES - SYSTEM SHOULD BE IN PLACE FOR REGULAR REVIEWOF STANDARD STORAGE AND CONDITION

2. CYANIDE ANALYSIS/WATER QUALITY LAB________________________A.METHOD BOOK DOES NOT CURRENTLY REFERENCE CLPCLP METHODOLOGY MUST BE USEDB.LOCKED SAMPLE STORAGE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA FORCLP SAMPLES.CUSTODY MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR UNATTENDED SAMPLES

3> AQUEOUS DIGESTION AREA;_________________________-; INORGANICS METHODS MANUAL SHOULD BE UPDATED TO REFERENCE CURRENT CLP

4. AAAICP WORKING STANDARDSSUGGEST MORE FREQUENT PREPARATION MONTHLY OR AS INSTRUMENT_______MANUFACTURER SUGGESTS. WHICHEVER IS MOST FREQUENT. DILUTE INORGANICSOLUTIONS CAN DEGRADE RAPIDLY. _________________________

5. AA/ICP WASTE SOLUTIONS___________________________________THESE SOLUTIONS MAY BE CORROSIVE DUE TO pH LANCASTER SHOULD MAKEA FORMAL DETERMINATION AS TO RCRA COMPLIANCE OF DISPOSAL PRACTICES.(CURRENTLY DISPOSED DOWN THE DRAIN)

UR30I9U

Lancaster Cabomtont

November 2, 1988

Mr. Kenneth J. BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.Suite 300, 10 Duff RoadPittsburgh, PA 15235

Dear Mr. Bird:

We have received the checklist and report from your auditof October 21, 1988. The five items listed in the summarycomments have been reviewed and the corrective action to beimplemented is listed below.

The first item deals with stock standards having expireddates. We plan to put a system in place for checking these ona routine basis and discarding those that have expired. Wewill also mark an expiration date on intermediate and workingdilutions of the prepared standards.

The cyanide method will be revised to reflect the use ofCLP methodology. The method we are currently using is verysimilar to the CLP method and we are implementing some changeswhich will allow us to follow the CLP method for semi-automatedSpectrophotometric determination of cyanide as it is written inthe current SOW. A locking refrigerator will be installed inthe laboratory where cyanides are determined so that custody ofthese samples will be maintained.

We are currently following the methods listed in the SOWwhen we arm requested to analyze samples using CLPmethodology. The inorganic methods will be revised to reflectthis.

Related standard operating procedures (SOPs) are beingmodified to reflect one month shelf life of working standardsand personnel have been informed of this change as a result ofthis audit.

The digests from inorganic analyses will be segregated andneutralized prior to disposal. This will ensure that the pH ofour effluent is not corrosive according to RCRA regulations.

2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster. Pa. 17601-5994 • (717) 656-2301

Mr. Kenneth J. BirdNovember 2, 1988Page 2

I hope you will find this information useful in your reportto EPA. If you need any further information, please do nothestitate to contact me at (717) 656-2301, Ext. 246.

Sincerely,

M. Louise Hess, B.S.DirectorQuality Assurance

HLH/dms

cc: Richard BurkeLee SeatsLancaster Laboratories, Inc.

AR30l9lt3

20ch****Anniversarv

13595 Dulies Technou'_;v DrC O R - O M A T I O M Herrv.lon VA 12' 7'.

,703'SU-L". •

265-012-05-03

9 June 1989

Mr. Kenneth J. BirdPaul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.10 Duff RoadSuite 300Pittsburgh, PA 15235

Subject: Lancaster Laboratories Audit, June 1, 1989Westinghouse RI/FS

Dear Ken:

Enclosed please find the laboratory evaluation checklists for the audit ofLancaster Laboratories conducted June 1, 1989. This audit covered bothinorganics and organics, and a separate checklist is included for each.

Please feel free to contact this office with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Car la M. Schultz

CMS/bjg

Enclosures

BJG-40609-05.bjg.1

LABORATORY EVALUATION IVORCAMIC CHECKLIST

Project:

Laboratory: jrf /U< 9* TCP*.

Dace: *Ji<*je />

Personnel Contacted:

Name Title

Laboratory Evaluation Team:

Name Title

I. ORGAMIZATIOM AND PERSONNEL (Page 1 of 2)

______________ ITEM ______________________ YES NO COMMENT

Laboratory Project Manager (individualresponsible for overall technical effort):

Name: &/C&A.LD

Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission ^ v/x:SSpectroseopist:

Name: £*./£. _____________Experience: 1 year minimum requirement

Inorganic Compounds Analyst:

Name: e./9*W/t *je*>orExperience: 9 months minimum requirement

Sample Extraction Technician:

,Experieaees 3 month! minimum requirement

Flameless Atomic Absorption Spectroseopist: *3 Y£& c*-

Name: JT//n s*Lu3*/p&#A.________Experience: 1 year minimum requirement

Classical Inorganic Techniques Analyit: />//** d-*A 5*/S. S.

Name: /77/yxU. {**./}*.*£.__________Experience: 6 months minimum requirement

ene appropriate eoucacionai oacKgrouna cosuccessfully accomplish the, objectives ofthe program?

I. ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL (Page 2 of 2)

_____________ITEM_______________________YES NO COMMENT

Do personnel assigned co this project havethe appropriate level and cype of experienceto successfully accomplish the objectivesof this project?

Is the laboratory adequately staffed tomeet project commitments in a timely V-?_>manner?

Does the laboratory Quality AssuranceSupervisor report to senior managemenlevels? <«?-.« «/o<-r V7-

.Supervisor report to senior management fj>c*>»*-r-5 ro

Was the Project Manager available -5during the evaluation? yfr

Was the Quality Assurance Supervisoravailable during the evaluation?

II. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT (Page 1 of 7)

A. General Facilities

ITEM

Does the laboratory appear to haveadequate work space?

Are voltage control devices on majorinstrumentation?

Does the laboratory have a distilled/demineralized water source?

Is the conductivity of distilled/demineralized water routinely checkedand recorded?

YES NO COMMENT

y<s-s

/0Q*d£&,

ff$ £ QC.& 7~& O /*J

yd?s nu-t-.fve' £&*>£>'

Is the analytical balance located awayfrom draft and rapid temperature change V&Sareas?

Has the balance been calibrated withinone year by a certified technician?

S/9t4&c.f £-&4d. &&£&*-&& /*-*•

Is the belance checked with a Class Sstandard before each use and recordedin a log book?

y»?s -"TO *)O*.M.JV * £--

T& Ct~&$ 5 5

Are exhaust hoods provided to allow Y -»efficient work with volatile materials?

Is the laboratory maintained in a clean y£Sand organized manner?

General Faci-licies (Page 2 of 7)

_______________ ITEM ____________________ YES NO COMMENT

Are contamination-free work areasprovided for the handling of toxic v£-5materials? /*/*. ##v &<-£•£> /<>

Is chere separate storage of samplesand standards (including coldstorage)?

Is the temperature of the cold storageunits recorded daily?

. . , .. . . . .Are chemical waste disposal policiesand procedures adequate?

Can the laboratory supervisor document J._ -,that trace-free water is available for V** *t£r*f*Dpreparation of standards and blanks?

Are pH and ion selective metersoperational and properly maintained?

Is a UV-Visible spectrophoeooetcroperational aad properly maintained?

Do adequate procedures exist fordisposal of waste liquids from the v.55ICP and AA spectrometers?

Is the laboratory secure?

General Facilities (Pag« 3 of 7)

COMMENTS ON LABORATORY FACILITIES

AR30I950


ICP

Data SystemID* AJ* <&f*/9Aj9rt? / A --_

Data SystemID*

Is there a calibration protocolavailable to the operator?

Are calibration result* kept in apermanent rtcord?

M A N U F A C T U R E R M O D E L I N S T A L L A T I O N DATE

ICP6

ICP

_____________ITEM___________________YES NO COMMENT

Are manufacturer's operating manuals _,_. ^ ^ __available to the operator? **5 /9O**c.*<»T'

Is a permanent service record maintainedin a logbook?

Has the instrument been modified in any way?

Is the instrument properly vented?


_____________ITEM___________________YES NO COMMENT

Are interference correction automaticallyperformed?

Is prevencative maintenance applied?

SATISFACTORY? yg

COMMENTS ON ICP/DS INSTRUMENTATION

AR30I952

8. EQUIPMENT (Page 6 of 7)

Atomic Adsorption (AA) Spectrometer

.____________MANUFACTURER______MODEL______INSTALLATION 3ATE

&" ** SSS -nG* 4 //7ID* / ~ . . - - - - .

ID*

Data System £*£•* 3v*rff/r) -D

•_______________ITEM________________YE3 NO COMMENT

Are calibration results kept inpermanent record?

Is a permanent service recordmaintained in a logbook?

Has the instrument been modifiedin any «ey? VO

Is the instrument properly vented? </c?S

Is the AA equipped with a ftamelessaccessory? fJQ

SATISFACTORY?


Comments on Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrometer

SR3Q1951*

III. DOCUMENTATION (page 1 of 2)

A. Documentation/Tracking

ITEM '_______________________________YES MO_____COMMENT

Is a sample custodian designated?If yes, name of sample custodian.

Are the sample custodian's pro- •$/?/T)/'<-<S'cedures and responsibilities docu-mented? Where are these outlined?

Are written SOPs developed forreceipt of sample? If yes, where arethe SOPs documented?

Are quality assurance procedures docu-mented and available to the analysts? yc?S £--/>If yes, are these documented?

Are written SOPs developed for compilingand maintaining document files? If yes,where are they documented (laboratorymanual, written instructions, etc.)?

Are the magnetic tapes stored in asecure aree?

Are samples that require preservationstored in such a way as to maintain Ve?5their preservation? If yes, how arethe samples stored?

AR3QI955

III. DOCUMENTATION (page 2 of 2)

3. Documentation

ITEM____________________________YES NO____COMMENT

Are permanently-bound notebooks withpreprinted, consecutively-numberedpages being used?

Is method preparation clearly /}<Lt-A£~f>'*-'6 rs>displayed on the notebook (i.e., ye?5extraction)?

Is the notebook maintained in alegible manner?

Has the analyst initialed oblit-grating entries?

Are inserts permanently affixed tonotebook and signed?

Has a supervisor reviewed th« note-book personally? Periodically?

Where applicable, does the notebookreference reports or memorandapertinent to the contents of an entry?

OAR30J956

IV. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY (page 1 of 2)

ITEM

Are the project methods available toanalyst?

YES MO

yd? 5

COMMENT

Is there any authorized deviation ...from project methods?

Are fresh analytical standardsprepared at a frequency consistent yeTSwith the methods?

Are reference materials documentedwith concentrations, date of preparation, y<fSthe identity of the person preparingthe sample?

Is a standards preparation andtraceabiiity book maintained? VcrS

Do the analysts record bench datain precise and accurate manner?

Is the appropriate instrumentationused in accordance with the required V-?5protocol?

AR30I957

IV. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY (page 2 of 2)

A. Comments on Analytical Methods and Practices

OflR30!958

V. QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL CHECKLIST (page 1 of 2)

ITEM YES NO COMMENT

Does the laboratory maintain aQuality Control program? Yc?3 tff? 4Q'**-

Does the program address thefollowing:

a. Manual? ve?5b. Training?c. Operation of Instruments?d. Documentation of Procedures? yese. Procurement Policies?f. Preventive Maintenance? ygSg. Reliability of Data?h. Data Validation?i. Feedback and Corrective ____

Actions?j. Instrument Calibration? y_e«rk. Record Keeping?I. Internal Audits?

Have responsibilities and reportingrelationships been clearly defined? ^

Have standards been adequatelydocumented?

Are laboratory standards traceable? f*4<.& /-<_>

flR30l959

V. QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL CHECKLIST (page 2 of 2)

ITEM______________________________YES NO COMMENT

Art quality control measures maintainedfor each routine analysis? V-? 5

Do QC records list corrective actionwhen analytical results fail to meetQC criteria?

—------ -"f-v *yDo supervisory personnel review QCresults? Vff5 &*-&t40 t-9#P>e*£. #"*

V < / £-L£>t<0

HR3QI960

VI. DATA HANDLING CHECKLIST (page I of 1)

ITEM______________________________________YES MO_____COMMENT

Are data calculations checked by asecond individual? V«S

Are ail data and records retained ~for the required amount of time? *

Are quality control data, calibrationcurves, results of duplication spikesavailable for all analytical results?

AR30I96!

VII SUMMARY (page 1 of 2)

A. Summary Checkshect

ITEM__________________________________YES MO_____COMMENT

Do responses to the evaluation indicatethat project and supervisory personnel ^are aware of QA requirements of the Vcroproject?

Do project and supervisory personnelplace positive emphasis on QA/QC?

Have responses with respect to QA/QCaspects of the project been reviewed y£Sand discussed?

Has a cooperative attitude beendisplayed by all project andsupervisory personnel?

Does the organization place the -appropriate emphasis on QA? y

Have any QA/QC deficiencies beendiscussed before leeving?

Is the overall QA adequate to accom-plish the objectives of the project?

Have corrective actions recommendedduring previous evaluations beenimpiemented?

Are any corrective actions required? Ifso, list the necessary actions on next page? V-?-5

flR30i962

VII. SUMMARY (page 2 of 2)

B. Sni~n.-ry Comments and Corrective Actions

TO

aR301963

TJU01ATORT I7AUIATTQ1I CWlCMTffllT IXAXFLK*

Laboratory:

Dec* : _____ J'wff /,

Type of Evaluation:

Concract Number: _________ N/A

Contr*ct Title: _______________*_>

.Personnel Contacted:

Tiele

Laboratory Evaluation Team:

Title

*Soae items may not be applicable for preaward l*b evaluation.12

Z. ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL

ITEM

Laboratory or Project Manager (individualresponsible for overall technical effort) :

HIM: fei£.&tfX-£> ttcs4.s<e

GC/MS Laboratory Supervisor:

NAee: £iCWA.D S &QD&e*.<>Experience: 3 years minimum requirement

Sample Preparation Laboratory Supervisor:

Naae: TA/tA &S#'C€Experience: 3 years minimus requirement

CC/MS Operator: f*»v *»****•' **r**<r.

Name: / ,Cf}tsf.Ls V -ewey - tstu.#.-~/t-£-iExperience: 1 year einimua requirement(3 years if no degree in physical science)

GC/MS Spectral Intrepretation Expert:j-6#*J .VV&&4.

Naae: v7i?V.o sr)o*j-o/vExperience: 2 years minimum requirement

, Extraction Concentration Expert:Naae: 3~W*J ff -VExperience: 1 year einieua requirement

Pesticide Residue Analysis Expert:

Name: ',/&*;, /?£•£. <¥&*&Experience: 2 ysers einieua requirseent

1 1|YES|NO 1

COMMENT !

/O 7- V/tS

.5". & *f /n / 3r<£. /

3 v>« fx#e-£ \\

/n. 5. £.#e/r)' zr£.y7/- v 6 fy/ffsZ..£.4.£.*f'$r*.yA y&s £:&*£•£.

3-ee. <*.bo<J<-

m.f, c*f'rj/'sr-*.y/O •?• i*J& &*S?

5 </-t5 f •&*&£.

4,3. <2j*fm-s7-/e.y'

y vt& &**<-=&•\I

13

I. ORGANIZATION AMD PERSONNEL (Continued)

ITEM

Do personnel assigned to this project

to successfully accomplish the object-tives of the progrsa?

la the organisation adequately staffed tomeet project commitments in a timely manner?

Was the Quality Assurance officer availableduring the evaluation?

Haae : l~G __•/ if //<E S

Does the Laboratory Quality AssuranceOfficer report to senior management levels?

Vas the Project Manager available during theevaluation?

1YESjHO

y

/

'/i/

COMMENT M

"

•

A.,JJ&JJ j£ _ X £ J A—) t i3.J3r/ f'*** * •& w *• * " * r 3

Addle tonal

14

.CSS rar III N RaiXW ,:

II. SAKPLC RICtXPT AHD STORAC1 ARIA

IT1M

Is a sample custodian designated? If yes,name of sample custodian.

Name: /£/pr/yv> y /*- 4><V/5*7~

Are written Standard Operating Procedures(SOPs) developed for receipt and storageof samples?

Is the appropriate portion of the SOP availableto the analyst at the sample receipt/storagearea?

Are the sample shipping containers opened in amanner which prevents possible laboratorycontamination?

i 1 1|YZS|NO COMMOTI I1 11 1y\i i

,1 Ut ii i'/'r ii ii i1 /'V\j ii i1 /'i/ il ti i1 1

Are samples that require preservation stored | / |in such a way as to maintain their preservation? \v \

Are volatile samples stored separately freesemivolatile samples?

Are adequate facilities provided for storage ofsamples, including cold storage?

Is the temperature of the cold storage recordeddaily in e logbook?

Are temperature excursions noted and areappropriate actions taken whan required?

1 /'1 /'i v ii ii i!/!

-' '! /! we-ei/ I DA"-y1 1\ /\ *6* eL->*>£*£/ «__t«:X'rj /«ccr

A**16£

-oss

II. SAHPLE RECEIPT AMD STORAGE AREA (Continued)_____ - ———— I

• ITEM YBS|

Are the sample receipt/storage and temperaturelogbooks maintained in a manner consistent with |CLP?

Has the supervisor of the individual main-taining the notebook/bench sheet personallyexaained and reviewed the notebook/bench sheetperiodically, and signed his/her name therein,together with the date and appropriate eoamentsas to whether or not the notebook/bench sheetis being maintained in an appropriate manner?

y

/

iNO COMMENT

/A>ff>te// &U&L3

_!*> «J*r 3"f/v/frs /?/£ «=•/9-5"5 /<,*-> £t* T~£>Ct*f-<z<

Additional Cofflnents

e

16

30 • d -.oss r_tr ITS \ c: i-dOdao:' NW i -aw

III. SAJttLJE PRZPAMTIC* ARIA

When touring the facilities, give special attention to: (a) che overallappearance of organisation and neatness, (b) the proper maintenance offacilities and Instrumentation, (c) the general adequacy of the faetllel*.accomplish the required work.

/DOTS'.

-Q

ITW

Is the laboratory maintained in a clean andorganized Banner?

Does the laboratory appear to have adequateworkspace (120 sq. feet, 6 linear f«ec of

" unencumbered bench space per analyst)?

Are the toxic chemical handling areas eithera stainless stsel bench or an imperviousmaterial covered with absorbent eaterial?

Are contamination- free areas provided for tracelevel analytical work?

Are contamination* free work areas provided forthe handling of toxic aaterial (e.g., glovebox)?

Are exhauat hoods provided to allow contamina-tion-free work vith volatile materials?

Is the air flov of the 'hoods periodicallychecked and recorded (i.e., once per quarter?)

Are chemical waste disposal policies/procedureswell •defined and folloved»by the laboratory?

YES

/

//

/

V

/

/

/

\/

NO—

COMMENT

tso sne#-$t4#£'*£-*-'7~'-VG/*-& /n&t>ejH-ouje\se*~ «,/prt<cc-000C&4-J5& #D<S&J*>-

4 A 1=43 /?£JS=A>/<0££> D#'<-y

rie>c>o_>

f?rt£.f </££-£><-'7y<_!yyff<_>.cT& 4y//u- rtoc.-**JCH 0>£At<0

rt->t.c.e/ve#A*

t v&+i>re?e-56*

ft R30 i 969

Ill, SAMPLE PRIPARATIOK AREA (Continued)

ITEM

Can the laboratory supervisor document thattrace -free water is available for preparationof standards and blanks?

Is the analytical balance located away fromdrafts and areas subject to rapid temperaturechanges?

Has the balance been calibrated and checkedwithin one year by a certified technician?

Is the balance routinely checked with theappropriate range of class S weights beforeeach use and are the results recorded in alogbook?

T i ———————— W| YES | NO COMMENT |

J J /7\£r*6& v. j| / | fiAC0 #<L4*Jt*.<> ,! 1 I1 1 11 11 /II/I1 11 /'1 /I1 v 11 11 1 ve.e*:±.y TO £> \1 /| /ritur' -y re1 1 5* sr/WDA*-0

I 1 6m. /< •so i f T-sAre the solvent storage cabinets properly ventedj j zrot-S D /*•> -e-jjjas appropriate for the prevention of possible | /J /o ^ r / MBBlaboratory contamination? t t /S «-5v*sf .sV ^ *

1 1 £6*J T -«?/*? i <J l+7~' f> *~J

Are reagent grade or higher purity cheaicalsused to prepare standards?

Are analytical reagents dated upon receipt?

Are reagent inventories maintained on a first-in, firse-out basis?

Are analytical reagents cheeked out before use?

Are fresh analytical standards prepared at afrequency consistent with the IFB requirement?

Are reference materials properly labeled withconcentrations, date of preparation, and theidentity of the person preparing the sample?

\ .1- f&ST 4~*T2£y -s/f -L 6*r//n/}

J 11 /lll/l1 11 1'l/1r i« ii /iii/ii i1 1 sr<-*-X-s <5 ce/v[ i/ ' /y_J<_W-0-JiS. -S-7--5Sj j /95 *y«?e->soj j S4ffS+rr»*~>/ *er»l<.S> ££££££>&&

\ \ S*-> fr/HCt>4A£> &US0

\ ° *&e>1 ' Ifc18

&R30197030'd _03S P_if 3TJ uC:

III. SAMTLX PREPARATION ARIA (Continued)

ITEM

Is a spiking/calibration stan<Urd« preparationand tracking logbook(s) maintained?

Are the primary standards traceable to EPAstandards?

Do tha analysts record bench data in a neat andaccurate manner.

——— — ————————————— _..

Are the saaple receipt/storage and teeperaturelogbooks aaintained in a manner consistent with CLP?

• —— ————————————————— . ——— ———————————— .Has the supervisor of the individual maintainingthe notebook/bench sheet personally examined andreviewed tha notebook/bench sheet periodically.and signed his/her name therein, together withthe date and appropriate comments as to whetheror not tha notebook/bench sheet is beingmaintained in an appropriate manner?

—— • —————————————————— . ———— ____________Are standards stored separately from sample extracts?

- ———— ———————————————— . ———————————————— iAre volatile and semivolatile solutions properlysegregated?

——— ————————————————— ——— . ____________ 1Is tha appropriate portion of the SOP 'available ito the analyse at tha aample preparation area? |

• —— - —————————————————— _ —————————————— 1Is the fO» for glassware washing posted at the icleaning station? |

——— - —————————————— — _______________ 1Is tha temperature of the refrigerator/freezers Irecorded daily? j

- —————————————————— - ———— __ ____________ ,1Are temperature excursions noted and appropriate jactions taken whan required? j

————————————————————— .._ .._ l

1 1lYESjNOI __ 1

kiv•><-__/v

_//,/:___ 1

1

A.„_!

',•!

1_ 1

J!1 _11

_

._

— •1 COMMENT11

•

tt ytj/0i_&T &&*-<>C,t+&<J<

5£S+4SlTe--#6$ <+&4c0&*&**>-.--.

-

19

53'- -|3S£

III. SAMPLE PREPARATION AREA (Continued)

Additional Coanien_CS

20

OT'a .033 fit- ITj MQIiH O r WI -iwa T tA 'B 3 fidt 9 _7 2:

IV. SAMPLE ANALYSIS IMSTRUMBTTATION

A. CC/MS/ft < Insr.Tui--mr-y4/>»

CC/MS10 «

6C//KS 63/P96-t-//* 5

C/fc>7

NBS MassSpectralLibrary

rff

//P

//x?

/r/A/ / A

O " »//•-» -k_=-»^

i i

u

ii

Data SystemID

NBS Mass }Spectral | // PLibrary j

IPurge and Trap |ID *

Purge and Trap

"a -iDSS rur IT5

Htl

21

•7//7

i 9ils3 n _.:•

A. GC/MJ/DS Instrumentation (Continued)

ITEM

Are aanufactursr's operating manuals readilyavailable to the operator?

Is service maintenance by contract?

Are extensive in -house replacement partsavailable?

Is preventative maintenance applied?

Is a permanent service record maintained in alogbook?

Has tha instrument bean modified in any way?

Is the instrument properly vented or areappropriate traps in place?

Is a glass jet separator in place andoperational?

Is raw data being archived and documentedproperly (i.e., magnetic tape)?

Are in. house quality control charts maintainedand available for en* site inspection?

Is a aplit/aplltless capillary injector inplace?

VISING

/

/

/

7/

s///

//

COMMENT

HflS by 5«/-v. £*«< .ft nn t <z<S.n s 4$ si f&/s *|

1

/Sy ££Ji<-4/u./*e.//*-Sl6t4*> e. or\ >

ft fl SI I «7/C/7 <

_?*__. y c*4.6 &•*-r*J**> &£t<s*s0x. j££>6/T\ +tf2-. W,5 «*-w¥- 06 <?"•OAJt-^-j

Fof. reste <5/v<-.y

3r*U9< T#<°£5fit** &e.< # e-z>

22

It's _Q3S

A. GC/HS/DS Instrumentation (Continued)

, 4

23

"'._• -C'SS

B. GC Instrumentation

Manufacturer Model Tnae-ll-rian Date

ccID * /*2

GCID # <?7V?

GC /% 7VID * /(> 7

GCID *

Data System10 * 5

Data SystsmID *

Data SystemID *

Data SystemID *

j/ #£./#*-)

i_>/3rr ~

jt-f 0f7 P

#0

_

3760

ff1&

rZ- ft0 a / (s

rf0/£60,

xi/95

_ / r ~3* / y€

p/p 7

/-»x-7/f<>

/*/f7

_

•311

3^737f

?7<^-v<^<?5vf

4

ITtK

Are manufacturer's operating manuals readilyavailable to the operator?

Is service maintenance by contract?

Are in-housa replacement parta available?

Is preventativa maintenance applied?

1 1|YES|NO1 11 11 /It /II 11 1 /1 It/1 |1 /I1 I/I

Mi i

COMMENT

IU-HOU4eff*/1/»Jr£-*->/)'LX-<f -ou0

124

vd ioas PSP eta ' '.J.:I. _CCBC:- '-wi-Wd ABr3_9 lA"? ; i

B. GC Instrumentation (Continued)

ITEM

Is a permanent service record aaintained in alogbook?

Has the instrument been modified in any way?

Is the Instrument properly vented or areappropriate traps in place?

•

YES

/

NO

/

COMMENT

y *? -/ ' <3*J

Additional Cooaenti

25

_-:•_ JMS rst-ST.. NO i jHaodaco rwi-iw* W:?:"-Is?:' - *

V. DATA HANDUNC AMD REVIEW

ITEM

Are data calculations spot>checked by asecond person?

Do records indicate that appropriate correctiveaction has been taken when analytical resultsfail to aaet QC criteria?

Are computer prograas validated before use?

Do supervisory personnel review the data andQC results?

1YES | NO

v'

J

/

/

COMMENT

Pfj T& is &£~J f rt?-Q-7~ttfy bi^ot-t^o^ 5* 7

0SJ-7-J9- t/f#£.J Ds+?7t>*•Sctmsn &s*- y

£&c(j&

Additional

26

AR30I978

VI. QUALITY CONTROL MANUAL 0000.1 ST

ITEM

Does the laboratory maintain a projectspecific Quality Control Manual?

Does the manual address the important elsmantsof a QC program, including the following:

Personnel?

Facilities and equipment ?

Operation of instruments?

Documentation of procedures?._

Preventive maintenance?.

Reliability of data?

Data validation?

Feedback and corrective action?

1YES (NO

/•V

/

\f

if

S

*/

i/

(A\

COMMENT

. . .

Addletana1

27

,fiJ? 3=0.1,9 7.9,

VII. SUMMARY CHICXSHEET

1 ———————1 ITEM1, — • ————— —————— ————————J Do responses to the evaluation indicate thatoI!n?Ct !°? «uP«ryJ"ry Personnel are aware of1 QA/QC and its application to the project?

Do project and supervisory personnel placepositive emphasis on QA/QC?

Have responses with respect to QA/QC aspectsof the project been open and direct?

Ha. a cooperative attitude been displayed byall project and supervisory personnel?

Does the orgsnisation place tha proper emphasison quality assurance?

Have any QA/QC deficiencies bean discussedbefore leaving?

Is the overall quality assurance adequate toaccomplish the objectives of the project?

Has corrective action(s). recommended duringprevioua evaluations, been implemented? Ifnot, provide details in Section VII 1

-~m-_»__H

(YES

•!-1V'

/V

/

Ai/

J/

-

INOI—111

7~

-j ——— —————1 COMMENTJ .11

.- ——— _________ _

I1

i- . j

/tfo /ff*£is/am/Us* /r C£"&* *>t*Jt.y /vo****'

1

28

5T'ct -333 rSF 7T5 NO I ly . |R30i9800 Wl'lya ?P:'ZT S3i=T 71 J

lancaster, pa 17601lancaster laboratories, inc.. 2425 new holland pike lancaster, pa 17601 (717)...

Documents