date: . 29 october 1986 · case #6247/kane & lombard page 1 of 3 revision a, 12/86 case i/site...

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CENTRAL REGIONALS3« BESTQATE NOAO 30V224-2740

ANNAPOLIS. MAAYLANO 21401 •DATE: . 29 October 1986 'SUBJECT: .Region III CLP Data QA Review

FROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)rOPO, Region III

TO: Duane A. Geuder, QAO (WH-548A)OERR

Attached is a Region III CLP Data Review done by reviewers atRoy F. Weston, Inc.:

6247 (Inorganic)Case NO.: (Revision A. 10-28-86 Site: kanp & I nmharrl

Laboratory: Hlttman _______ Reviewer: Dlanne S. Therry ff

^Attachment

cc: Gareth Pearson, EMSL-LV

Regional DPO: Pat Krantz, Region IIIX Action __________

\f ' i ,' W .' I i 1 AR30 ID-36

i•; 11

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

Case I/Site I.D.: 6247/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: MCF625-MCF627

Site Manager: Charles Kufs"Data Review Team: Dianne Therry, Nancy Myers

Review Completed: October 8, 1986

IntroductionThe set of samples for Case 6247 contained three soilsamples which were analyzed through the Contract LaboratoryProgram Routine Analytical Services by one laboratory.This data was reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses. All data hasbeen validated with regard to usability. The methods usedby the contract Lab Program (CLP) must be evaluated by eachindividual user as to whether the scope, precision andaccuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding timeswere met for metals and cyanide; however, holding time formercury was exceeded by six days. Some lab contaminationwas evidenced for silver and sodium; however, the mostsignificant problems affecting usability are associated withthe sample matrix. Problems associated with data usabilityare discussed in the following section. The data summaryhas been annotated with the appropriate qualifier codes.QUALIFIERS!

1. Sodium results have been designated as qualitativelyquestionable (J) due to blank contamination.Laboratory blank analyses revealed the presence ofsodium at concentrations significant enough to questionthe reported results.

AR30I037

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewCase 6247/Kane 6 LombardPage 2 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

2. Laboratory duplicate analysis showed variable resultsfor barium (59% RPD), cadmium (49% RPD), calcium (62%RPD), chromium (41% RPD), copper (94% RPD), nickel (44%RPD), vanadium (45% RPD), zinc (86% RPD), arsenic (60%RPD), and sodium (36% RPD). Sample results werequalified as quantitatively questionable (J). Althoughthe qualitative presence of these metals wasconfirmed, the reported results may not reflect theaverage concentration in the respective samples.

3. Due to low matrix spike recovery for cadmium (66%),manganese (61%), and mercury (60%), all reportedresults and detection limits may be biased low, andhave been qualified as estimated (J or UJ). Actualvalues may be higher than reported.

Analyte Bias Samples AffectedCadmium 14-54% All SamplesManganese 19-59% All SamplesMercury 40-80% All Samples

4. All results for antimony have been designated unusabledue to low matrix spike recovery for antimony (21%).The possibility of false negatives exists, anddetection limits may be elevated over what is reported.

Summary

Metals and cyanide for all samples were successfullyanalyzed. Areas of concern with respect to data usabilityinclude:

o Laboratory contamination for silver and sodium

o Possible sample non-homogeneity indicated byresults from lab duplicates for barium, cadmium,calcium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc,arsenic, and sodium

o Possible matrix interference indicated by resultsfrom matrix spike recoveries for cadmium,manganese, mercury, and antimony

o r Possibility of false negatives for antimony AR3Q j Q38 4M

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewCase 6247/Kane & LombardPage 3 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

The text of this report has been formatted to address onlythose problem areas which affect the applications of thedata to the site investigation. Documentation of theseproblems and any other observed areas of laboratorycontractual noncompliance are included in a separate reportsent to the laboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you havequestions or comments on this data review, please contactDianne Therry.Enclosures

AR30I039

XNOR6ANIC DATA VALIDATION SUWAtY pa* 1 ofDate Revltw Ca ltttdCase No. *ay? SAS no. Contract Libsite Man *•.„« * l i. . Contract Mo,Sample to*. (Hc-fezr- Ag. *"x7 lab DPO

fro* Itqion jr"*• FTS

IfflL IHTill KLATED COigNTS

ICPTti

calibration iianfctOK FYI

v/linitial Calibration

>aration inTattrrtrtftct Pitcfc Satpit

>Ttncatt "*

ACTIOM CTtCMTS01

FURNACEMolding TilCalibration iianfcs

A/»

i CTAUIDEHoldi

io*Calibration

Frtparatit* liaafc

tfYIEWCT'S COtCIITS; i.a.

INORGANIC DATA VAL10ATICN SUtUftr

Datt *t¥lt» CutaltttdCast No. z«/7 SA5 Mo. Contract lab i/; -J4r>i

Contract No.Satplt •M. wet*?- - Hc.fta.-i Lab 0*0

f ro» tation rar rnont" m'

iTIOi mnn UCLATCO cotturs

lamesOK

___^

m ACTION

^__ .

U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory ProgramSample Manageaent OfficeP.O. Box 818 - Alexandria, VA 22313703/557-2490 FTS: 8-557-2*90 Date

COVER PAGEINORGANIC ANALYSES DATA PACKAGE

Lab Name HITTMAN EBASCO ASSOC. INC. Case No. _____•SOU No. _________7/85 Q.C. Beport No.Ub Receipt Date r7-3.(s-$(0

Sample NuabersEPA No. Lab ID No.rocr 635 *•

i foQCp . ,

.

Comaeats: ^ Lo>b TO f io = E PA ti

EPA No. Lab ID No.

0 . (L/ I/ - <?.oli s/<xp5v: ',

- ----- - -•

1CP intereieoent and background correction* applied? Ye* ^V No •If yes, corrections applied before X or after m_m___ generation of rmw data*Footnotes;KR - Not required by eontrac: at this tiaeFora 1: •Value - If the result is a value greater than or equal to the. instrument

detecion lia\it but less than the contract-required detection Halt,report the value in brackets (i.e., [10]). Indicate the analyticalmethod used with F (for iCP), A (for Flaoe AA) or F (for Furnace AA).

U - Indicates elecent was analyzed for but not detected. Report with theinstrument detection listlt value (e.g., 10U).

E - indicates a value estlnated or not reported due to the presence ofinterference. Explanatory note included on cover page.

s - Indicates value determined by Method of Standard Addition.14 - Indicates spike sample recovery is not within control limits.* - Indicates duplicate analysis is not within control Halts.+ - indicates the correlation coefficient for »ethod of standard addition is

less than 0.995M - Indicates, duplicate injection results exceeded control liai

Indicate .method used: P for ICP; A for Flaae AA and F for Furnace.- -

f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYMEOION 111. .<« CENTWAt. MEOIONAL LASOKATOKY

• S3* tESTCATE ROAD 301 •124.1740ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 rrS-«22-37(2

DATE: . 15 December 1986SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review

FROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)QOPO, Region III

TO: Ouane A. Geuder, QAO (WH-548A)OERR

Attached 1s a Region III CLP Data Review done by reviewers atRoy F. Heston, Inc.:

; 6247 (Oroanic)Case No.: (Revision A. 12/86 Site: Kane & Lombard

c&Un &'ihsLaboratory: ERGO _________ Reviewer: Dlanne S. Therry

Attachment


Regional DPO: Wayne Wirtanen, Region Ix Action _______ FYI

AR30IOI*!*

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase #6247/Kane & LombardPage 1 of 3Revision A, 12/86

Case I/Site I.D.: 6247/Kane and LombardSample Numbers: CE925 to CE927

Site Manager: Charles Kufs

Data Reviewer: Dianne S.Review Completed: 15 November 1986

INTRODUCTION

The set of samples for Case 16247 contained three soil sampleswhich were analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)routine analytical services by one laboratory.These data were reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data have beenvalidated with regard to usability. The method used by the CLPmust be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope, precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance with CLP,including the required quality control. Instrument tune andcalibration were within contract specifications except for a fewminor deviations which did- not affect usability. Laboratorycontamination and unconfirmed pesticide analysis were the mostsignificant problem in this data set. Problems associated withdata usability are discussed in the following section.

QUALIFIERS ;

1) Laboratory blanks contained methylene chloride, acetone,chloroform, tetrachloroethene and toluene at concentrationssignificant enough to question the reported results.Reported results in the affected samples were qualified asnot detected (U) and the sample quanititation limit wasqualified as estimated (J) .

Compound Samples Affected

methylene chloride CE925acetone CE926chloroform all samplestetrachloroethene CE926toluene CE925, CE926

flR30IO!*5

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 16247/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 3Revision A, 12/86

2) The response factor for total xylenes during continuingcalibration was variable. The sample detection limit (U)has been qualified as estimated (J) for this compound in thedata summary.

3) The reported result for benzo(b)fluoranthene in sample CE925may be either this compound and/or benzo(k)fluoranthene.Examination of raw data revealed that these compounds werenot adequately separated (both compounds exhibited similarretention times and mass spectra). The data summary hasbeen revised to reflect this change.

4) The detection limits (U) for aldrin and endrin ketone insamples CE925-CE927 were qualified as estimated (J) in thedata summary due to variable response for the continuingcalibration.

5) The laboratory failed to confirm potential positivepesticide peaks from the primary run. These results havebeen added to the data summary as tentatively identifiedcompounds (N). These values mav represent false positives.

estimated potential concentration, ug/kgCompound CE925 CE926 CE927

dieldrin 77 Nendrin 24 NODD 130 NDOT 41 Nendosulfan sulfate 6400 N 21 N 285 N

6) Due to unresolved chromatograhic interference, early elutingpesticides (ie BHC isomers, heptachlor, aldrin, heptachlorepoxide, and endosulfan I) in sample CE925 have beenqualified as unuseable (R). Results are probably less than20,000 ug/kg (ie <20ppm).

SUMMARY

All fractions of all samples were successfully analyzed.Laboratory contamination, response factor variability, poorseparation of isomers, and unconfirmed potentially positivepesticides were areas that affected the useability of the data.

AR30JOii6

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 16247/Kane & LombardPage 3 of 3Revision A, 12/86

The text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseproblem areas which affect the application of the data to thesite investigation. Documentation of these problems and anyobserved areas of laboratory contractual noncompliance areincluded in a separate report sent to the laboratory's CLPproject officer. If you have questions or cosunents on this datareview, please call me.

Enclosures

flR30IOl*7

Glossary: Qualifier Codes

The data summary contains the following qualifier codes:

U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated numericalvalue is the estimated sample quantisation limit.

J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because quality controlcriteria were not met.

R - Quality control indicates that data are unusable (compound may or may not bepresent). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.

CASE I/SITE 10:

7 4Y 'It

/• 7

/"•if-fit

/• 7

7 ••

r-b-tt

Hf/J*. Hf/i. *«//*.

SAHFU BESCXIFT.:TMTTIC KPOirT It

:r

Trsns-1.2-OicNorostheneff-M-3 CMoroform t/J «5 vT

a-INchloroethen«

1.1. l.TriehloraMham

1.1.2-TricMoreathafie71-49-2tooei-oi-s •1.3-Pchtef

a-Chloreethy«vii>ylethef7S-2S-2 kemelomi§»1-7t-«1QJ-1O-1HT-tt-4 t/J"

1.1.2.2-TiIO»-lt-3 /7 / J100-41-4IOD-42-t

WJ

t*

l/SJTt ID: (,*+! j'

acsdurr.:TMTTIC iparr t-.

1) Ctn«v>:

CASE I/SITE 10:

CONC/DIL FACTOR;

SAMPLE OESCWPT.TRAFFIC REPORT «

CASE/SITE ii:

DETECTION LIMITS: Must be multiplied by the respective conc/dil factor and, forsoils, divided by the fraction solids (for dry weight correction).

•nxzosi

r*5T

Mtt « 4

o-os-Q.QS

O.OSIX

0770O.f

AP0-5

(7.5"

/.O

f.o

-F-

J2

_ ___

(1) (Unnot b« seoirtud fro* dlphtfiylwnne

Jo ____________________=1 E£_fis aar I « I IAR30I Q&

ORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY page 1 of

Date Review Caroleted tfNovCase No. /6.3V7 SAS No. Contract LabSite Name A'/T. *• Ljmb&raL Contract No.'

Mas. Lab DPO_ ':. _______ Reviewer

from Region 32T Phone"——*"-«-"

CONCENTRATIONMATRIXsoil /solidaqueousother

low5

med high MATRIX RELATED COMMENTS-

VOLATILES6C/MS tuning— BFBInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SiReaqhole

entnkesHanks

ing times

OK•^ix--»••

FYI

^

ACTION COMMENTS

/?i »-ccc , *M-r\ SKC, fftvQ-tAe <-4dtl/lu_ At F^fiT!

<i C&£>L~-i

SEMI-VOLATILES i6C/MS tuning— DFTPPInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SpikesReacjhold

ent Blanksing times

•S

\sI/\s

!

- !

1. , 1

1

-£ C&&L-\

PESTICIDESInstrument PerformanceInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SiReacHold

ent3i kesBlanks

ing times

S

^^SS

IS*-S^

aJLJUt .t>£> rf DRC. >/o Cn-tiDaMtM. .jpUrt \ -toZriuL >l 7, (3? . SS.2 )

I • "-

\,.

OVERALL CASECompound IdentificationData Completeness «

t ~ \

REVIEWER'^COMMENTS: I

' ^ " 4** .

•DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED (see following pages)flR30i053

$..^ 00

*

•

Ml

mW

8

I

i

O

o*l

<et(fl

I2

o8 6 " T »

AR30I051*

ni

I I IIn RcfermcttoCMeNato

Contract Laboratory ProgramREGIONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYJ

Telephone Record Log

Date of Call:

Laboratory Name:Lab Contact:

Region:Regional Contact:

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory <XRegion

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):

Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed: ^^ /

l 4BRPiMMMll*MBNAKB«M|BHBMJV*«B*£biMp 'l

*7 J&*/*<J+S) .f ~^_ J i Jt~ J

t.'5,l Sift tor

^istributicmeAHTLab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy fl R 3 0 1 055

• •

In Reference to Case No(s):

Lab Contact:

Call Initiated By: ___ Laboratory /^Region

In reference to data for the following sample number(s):

Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed:

v

III $ fa

Contract Laboratory ProgramREGIONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM


Date of Call: A T U J ///6___________________RESUBM/TTAL

Laboratory Name: ££££>/£N$£CO _____________ R£CEIVED

11 1986Region: /// - /SW5L r\&M£A*J _____________ FORRegional Contact: je&fJsflAu> /Tfa/l/W V A/ -SS // Q QA DATA REVIEW

Summary of Resolution: ^•J4

*/&£ dbtti-nZZt" .1*

Signature ' i DateAR301056

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) 5MO Copy

In Reference to Cue Nofib

extract Laboratory ProgramREGIONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM


Date of Call: "*"



Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory __j^__Region

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):i•*•


Signature £7 Date

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy A j} 3 0 I 057

In Reference to Case No(s)i



Date of Call:


Region:Regional Contact: t

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory __ Region

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):3 * C""j. 7Hf 3

Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed_6t«_tc-2/h t

Signature

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy A H 3 0 I 058




Date of Call:



Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory __fcx"R*egion


Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed//?e?£0-vt/Z"'\

4r

1, / ' \*- I

-Summary of Resoluth

Signature / ^ Date

Distribution: (I) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy 1059

1 •I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ REGION IK

CENTRAL REGIONAL LAtOHATOWY«3S SESTGATE MOAO 30V224-2740

ANNAJOLtt. MARYLAND 21401 FTt-122-3752

DATE: 29 October 1986SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA ReviewFROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20XS?

DPO, Region IIITO: Ouane A. Geuder, QAO (WH-548A)

OERR


6267 (Inorganics)Case No.: (Revision A. 10-28-86^ Site; Kane & Lombard

Laboratory: _____CAL________ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry

Attachment


Regional DPO: Terry Stumph, Region IX________ Action y FYI

1060

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

Case I/Site I.D.: 6267/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: MCF628-MCF633Site Manager: Charles KufsData Review Team: Dianne Therry, Nancy MyersReview Completed: October 3, 1986

INTRODUCTION

The set of samples for Case 6267 contained six soil sampleswhich were analyzed through the Contract Laboratory ProgramRoutine Analytical Services by one laboratory for HSL metalsand cyanide.These data were reviewed according to the NationalFunctional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses.All data have been validated with regard to usability. Themethods used by the Contract Lab Program (CLP) must beevaluated by each individual user as to whether the scope,precision and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding timeswere met for all samples. All calibration criteria weremet. Some lab contamination was evidenced for sodium;however, the most significant problems affecting usabilityare associated with the sample matrix. Problems associatedwith data usability are discussed in the following section.The data summary has been annotated with the appropriatequalifier codes.

QUALIFIERS; Soil Samples

1. Sodium results have been designated as qualitativelyquestionable (J) due to blank contamination.Laboratory blank analyses revealed the presence ofsodium at concentrations significant enough to questionthe reported results.

AR30I06I

Inorganic QA Data ReviewCase 6267/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

2. Laboratory duplicate analysis showed variable resultsfor lead (53% RPD). Sample results were qualified asquantitatively questionable (J). Although thequalitative presence of lead was confirmed, thereported results may not reflect the averageconcentration of lead in the respective samples.

3. Due to low matrix spike recovery for antimony (63%) andlead (60%), reported results and detection limits havebeen qualified as estimated (J or UJ) in the followingsamples. Actual values may be higher than reported.

Ajialyte Bias Samples Affected

Antimony 17-57% All samplesLead 20-60% MCF628, MCF629, MCF631

4. Due to high matrix spike recovery for mercury (127%),results for samples MCF630, MCF632, and MCF633 havebeen qualified as estimated (J) . Actual results may be7-47% lower than reported.

5. Results for barium, beryllium, copper, sodium, and zinchave been qualified as quantitatively questionable (J)due to possible chemical or physical interference.Results for diluted sample analysis for these analytesdo not agree within 10%.

6. All results for selenium have been designated unusable(R). Due to no recovery (0%) of selenium in the matrixspike, the possibility of false negatives exists, anddetection limits may be elevated over those reported.

SUMMARY

Metals and cyanide for all samples were successfullyanalyzed. Areas of concern with respect to data usabilityinclude:

o Laboratory contamination for sodium

o Possible sample non-homogeneity indicated byresults from lab duplicates for lead

AR30I062

Inorganic QA Data ReviewCase 6267/Kane & Lombard£age 3 of 3Revision A, 10/28/86

o Possible matrix interference indicated by resultsfrom matrix spike recoveries and ICP serialdilutions

The text of this report has been formatted to address onlythose problem areas which affect the application of the datato the site investigation. Documentation of these problemsand any other observed areas of laboratory contractualnoncompliance are included in a separate report sent to thelaboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you have questions orcomments on this data review, please call me.Enclosures

AR30I063

i-31

|

IU

*-J

U

2

>»

*

PC

t

AR30106

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUWARY page 1 of /

Date Review Completed *?•=•* ;/-,Case No. £26-7 SA* kn

CONCENTRATION»Sl?"nd io>> 1"*° I"1""' **™» REHTm COMMENTSaqueousotRer ———•»••••> — - _ __

IOWhz:• MIMI-M

MMBMMMI

•ed• rnmm

••MiHM-M

—— ————— .

•••Ml^

high• •MM-l

••••NMH

_MH BH

MATRIX RELATED COMMENTS

—— ""' __"——— —==:ICP

HoToTng TineP>' 4K»»»<»— m--i

In'1brat1on Blankstiai calibration

Continuing calibrationPreparation BlankInterference Check SaiipleLab Control SanpleLab DuplicateMatrix SpikeSerial Dilution

OKs/

V^yyv^*S

s/

FYI

•I/

V

/a

ACTION COMMENTS

F«. rs-iT L&jUfri. Af« /(?.?J. x/*rjj*o r

r* CJf 1 ; / i £• &7J , /tA r yj-/J 2 Cl.

fa /3 ; x5t /^> . £*- **, fc/rt> . S

FURNACEHolding TimeCalibration BlanksInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab Control Sa*>leLab DuplicateMatrix SpikeDuplicate InjectionsAnalytical Spike

•

I/

yv^v^

*/V

\ s

3Sfv

/fc r /• 37 /,*7 . T( t&. 3JS

Ft -T3Sb A3V. . >t £o5sT . 't ?7* .

MERCURY A CYANIDEHolding TIMCalibration BlankInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab DuplicateMatrix Spike

sV^_/VyS^ f4 n i 2,-r *7*

REVIEWER'S COMMFMTc.

icU

3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYJ REGION IN

*'«, _fl,ter CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY«M SESTGATE ROAD 301*324-2740

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 FrS-«22-3792

DATE: 19 January 1987SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review

FROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)'DPO, Region III

TO: Duane A. Geuder, QAO (UH-548A)OERR

Attached 1s a Region III CLP Data Review done by reviewers atRoy F. Weston, Inc.:

6267 (Organic)Case No.: (Revision Bt 1/87)____ Site: Kane & Lombard

eAi MuLLaboratory: Enseco___________ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry .

Attachment


Regional DPO: Wayne Wirtanen, Region IX____ Action ____ FYI

AR30I066

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase f6267/Kane & LombardPage 1 of 4

; Revision B, 1/87

Case I/Site I.D.: 6267/Kane and LombardSample Numbers: CE928 to CE933


Data Reviewer: Dianne S. TherryReview Completed: 15 November 1986

INTRODUCTION

The set of samples for Case #6267 contained six soil sampleswhich were analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)routine analytical services by one laboratory.

These data were reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data have beenvalidated with regard to usability. The method used by the CLPmust be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope, precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance with CLP,including the required quality control. Instrument tune andcalibrations were within contract specifications except for poorresponse to acetone, 2-chloroethylvinylether, 2-methyl-2-pentanone, and 2-hexanone, which precludes obtaining usabledata for these compounds for sample CE932, and a few other minordeviations which did not affect usability. Aside from this,laboratory contamination from solvents and plasticizers was themost significant problem in this data set. Problems associatedwith data usability are discussed in the following section.

QUALIFIERS ;

1) Laboratory blanks contained methylene chloride, acetone,chloroform, 2-butanone, toluene, xylenes, N-nitroso-diphenylamine, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at concen-trations significant enough to question the reportedresults. All reported values in the samples have beenqualified as not detected (U) and their quantitation limitqualified as estimated (J) in the data summary.

Compound Samples Affected

methylene chloride all samplesacetone CE928, CE930, CE933

AR30I067

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase f6267/Kane t LombardPage 2 of 4Revision B, 1/87

chloroform CE9292-butanone CE930toluene CE930, CE931, CE933xylenes CE930N-nitrosodiphenylamine CE930-CE933bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate CE933

As indicated in the preceding table, the presence of2-butanone, toluene, and xylenes in sample CE930 is suspectdue to blank contamination, however, polynuclear aromaticcompounds in the BNA fraction of this sample support thepossible presence of aromatics in the VOA fraction. Ifthere is additional site information to support the presence"of these compounds in the sample, they may be present.Follow-up analysis may be necessary to confirm theirpresence or absence in the sample.

2) The response factors during initial and/or continuingcalibration for up to five VOA compounds and two BNAcompounds were variable. The sample results and detectionlimits have been qualified as estimated (J or UJ) for theaffected compounds in the data summary.

3) Due to very low to no response factor (<0.05) for acetone,2-chloroethylv£nylether, 2-methyl-2-pentanone, and2-hexanone during initial and/or continuing calibration,detection limits in sample CE932 have been designated asunusable (R). Failure to detect this compound under thiscondition does not confirm its absence in the samples. Ifthese compounds are critical to this site, follow-upanalysis may be necessary for affected sample CE932.

4) The laboratory failed to perform second column confirmationfor potential positive pesticide and PCB peaks from theprimary run.

Samples CE928, CE930, CE932 and CE933 showed retention timematches for endosulfan sulfate. These results have beenadded to the data summary as tentatively identifiedcompounds (N). These values may represent false positives.Samples CE930, CE931 and CE932 appear to contain smallamounts (below detection limit) of aroclors 1248, 1254 and1260. The apparent concentration has been calculated andadded to the data summary as tentatively idenftiffThese values mav represent false positives.

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase |6267/Kane & LombardPage 3 of 4Revision B, 1/87

estimated potential concentration, ug/kgCompound CE928 CE930 CE931 CE932 CE933

endosulfan sulfate 58 N 3800 N 9800 N 160 NAroclor-1248 160 JNAroclor-1254 28 JN 36 JN 30 JNArodor-12 60 128 JN 30 JN

Unlike the pesticides, which generally have been used asinsecticides, Aroclor use is related to industrialapplications for plasticizers, lubricants, transformerfluids, etc., and would not normally be found as a residualfrom spraying for insect control.

5) Due to unresolved chromatographic interference, early.eluting pesticides (ie BHC isomers, heptachlor, aldrin-,heptachlor epoxide, and endosulfan I) in sample CE928 havebeen qualified as unuseable (R).

SUMMARY

All fractions of all samples were successfully analyzed. Areasthat affected usability of the data included:

o laboratory blank contaminationo response factor variability for some VOA and BNA

compounds

o very poor instrument response to acetone, 2-chloroethyl-vinylethet, 2-methyl-2-pentanone, and 2-hexanone forsample CE932, leading to possible false negatives forthese compounds

o failure to confirm potential positive pesticide/PCBpeaks in five samples

o unusable data for 8 pesticides in sample CE928For tentatively identified pesticide/PBC's (see qualifier 4)which were added to the data summary with an "N" qualifier, itmust be emphasized that these values were not confirmed. Look tohistorical site information, other site data, or resampling/reanalysis to corroborate these results if these compounds arecritical to this site.

P30I069

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase I6267/Kane & LombardPage 4 of 4Revision B, 1/87

The text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseareas which affects the application of the data to the siteinvestigation. Documentation of these problems and any otherobserved areas of laboratory contractual noncompliance areincluded in a separate report sent to the laboratory's CLPProject Officer. If you have questions or comments on this datareview, please call me.

Enclosures

AR301070



U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated numericalvalue is the estimated sample quantitation limit.


R - Quality Control indicates that data are unusable (compound may or may not bepresent). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.

N - Presumptive evidence of presence of material (tentative identification).

AR30!

CASE */SITE 10:

7=37 - 7-3 -f(.

r-r-nt-r-H,

jff* /.(it

SMPLC ocsourr.:TUFF1C UPOtT I;

CMoridi UI n•7 4-1TfclfcO

1.11.1

1.2

1.17t-t>-3 UJ"

1.1.1-Tn

Vinyl

•: ig-'g B

OiferamoeMaram.fhafw1.1. 2-Ti

71-43-2tOMl-01-f •1.3.

7J.2J-2

iQiio-i 2-MMKWfWI27-H-479-34-1 1.1.2.2-T*iat-tt-3 //<» I/J itfiae-eo-7100-41-4100-43-C

T«_M*

•" A R 31} r 07 2

CASE I/SITE ID:

)ATE SAIfLEP:

EXTR/PR ?Fg*--

y-i-flpATE ANLYZE):CONC/DIL FACTOR:X : Jo /JUNITS: /,«/rf //< y>2. ' ,.*. ]** utJx<t,

SAMPLE OESCRIPT.TRAFFIC REPORT 1:

I""- *••*££•933

tHC

6*mm«.|HC (Undent)

CndaswHanl-S7-1

4.4-OOC72-20-f Cntfrtn33213-f§-f72-M-t 4. 4 -OOO1031-074 CndMuffan SuNtM TOO A/

4. 4'.OOT72-43-i134M-70-I

IbOJNaim

CO],HW

AR30T075

CASE I/SITE ID: tw/**«

IATE SAMPLED;ATE SAMPLE RECO:_______________________________g"7-iDATE ANALYZED:QiC/DIL FACTOR;

[STURE;NITS:

SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:TRAFFIC REPORT i: E4to

|1tt»-7112.it-tt-iTt-44-t

fiR30IQ76 _v

DETECTION LIMITS: Must be multiplied by the respective conc/dil factor and for_________j0115' d1vided fay the action solids (for dry weight correction)

———™— ——

b* tep«r.tt<l fro* diph«ylMiBt

ORGANIC 2A7A VAuiDATION 5«MMA«r page i of /

Date Review Competed_isCase No. fr? ?" SAs No. Contract LabSite Nan* >-f(_ +-i~,<ry*toastii Contract No. <bf-o/-Sample NQS. Lab DPO

33______________ Reviewer-____- from RegionJJL Phone

——————————— -FW-'

CONCENTRATIONMATRIXSoil/solid

•L

low-¥3.e,

medA.if.

high MATRIX RELATED COMMENTSVOfit~*>Nf\'65 r

VOLATILESGC/MS tuning—8FB

SEMI-VOLATILESGC/MS tuning—DFTPPInitial CalibrationContinuing_ CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SpikesReagent BlanksHole ing times

v<-j[kwr<< v- Instrument Performanceli 'JJi initial Calibration/O.- u'JJP Continuing Calibration

Surrogate RecoveryMatrix SpikesReagHold

ent Blanksing times

K

^>/'i/f"

/JS'

tuidL/i'rn . &f*dt'l&\ i D 'fiT Jlfoc£j&- it)"?a &/(jmUffy *C AJLC'£/7\Js~l4sr\ &£'&ijr\£. 2.oft ^

OVERALL CASECompound IdentificationData Completeness

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:0

,)

"A

£,

! f)

au

C^C-

f5*' 0-Oo

*

\ • p* ••* *_ivi'i«3AAl

«-8S,ife

•re?VJJ

J

*)

^If

Haant-

Mto

ot

*

s O)

IA

(N

inyl

58n

Br

IA Sm

9

« m

O

"Nor- r%

m

8|S•079

CCC *

11144.4MI7-1

CJ2JM-U7JMM3I1M-M-I121«••*».

M-3

•»*•» *10t 474

11141-112043-2 *12042-1•t.JO-1

•74«3

t>-U-774-4

»'•"•»

l.CntuimtK tatf

1. 4-0<tN»n6«n»«n«

l-Qicrtt»ta*»nn'*

4-M4im»h«n«

. 4-OeMwWwW

•rxihyl Pnm«l»t»_LiJ

12-M •11.14-2"»a4-M-ZlOO»-7>.>»-7J.700414

14-30-f01 -H-Jt-74-1

JO-1J-4-74-J

it -00-0

4-M-l

17-M-O 4

-rarr370-1

4-NiVMnihnt

X-fi-St Sit-K

n* ' )M'IMreiMi»'<«nvi«>«in« 1 1 )

MnMMaroatnnn*

AMArwcn*

Miu-m Ytx*"

l*nM|_. 1.

37

31

(1) Cannot b* scp.rtted from

-CB1&1080

m Ktierence to L-ise Nets;:


i Telephone Record Log

Date of Call: 4(X U /W______________RESUBM/TTAL

Laboratory Name: GeCjO/gNfSCA____________________ RECE/VEoLab Contact: /E&tfftjtrtXjt ^IfL^f/t^/^________________ flQy J j igpg

Region: /ff ~/Q£ SL ff£/MeA*J _______________

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory /•""Region



Summary of Resolution:

Regional Contact: tffy£**u> /Tnft/l/fc y £/ -5SW-10/l&6 QA °ATA REVIEW"'"'" """"JAO

Signature ' ' Date

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO CopyAe30l08i

In &tf«ranc* to CAM Neta>»

Contract Laboratory ProgramHgbNALAABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

- Telephone Record Log

Date of Call:


Region: "" "" "Regional Contact: /frUfat J, 7faA/l<S~-

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory jj Region

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs): ..


mmary of Resolution: 7t<Lftx

Signature _7 Date

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy

in Reference to Cue No(_)i

Contract Laboratory ProgramMBONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM^ TeJephone Raeord Log

•

Date of Call: __________________ _______~l———————

Laboratory Name: &&bl£NS£G& titf-fibl - *>///Lab Contact:

Region: / Z. -7Regional Contact:

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory ______ Region


Summary of Questions/Issues Disoissed EV<dU.-l/>> tj _ * * • ^ • _ ____. ^_ -. *

Signature <x


!083

Contract Laboratory Program .MGDNAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Jtt

Telephone Record Log ^

Date of Call:



Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory _xR*enion


Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed/££$o4t/3£n •"

_ _ _Signature / Dafte

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy i n o II UO <4

x1:; »* —————'iJ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ MEGIONIH

\ **<? CENTHAL REGIONAL LABOHATOHY•39 BESTGATE KOAO

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 301-224-2740

DATE: October 17, 1986

SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review

FROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES2C$OPO, Region III



KaneCase No.: 6291 (Inorganic^ Site;

Laboratory: JTC___________ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therrv

Attachment


Regional DPO: Patricia Krantz, Region III________ Action y^ FYI

AR30I085

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 2

Case i/Site I.O.: 6291/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: MCF634, MCF635, MCP636, MCF637


Data Review Team: Dianne Therry, Nancy MyersReview Completed: October 16, 1986

IntroductionThe set of samples for Case #6291 contained four soilsamples which were analyzed through the Contract LaboratoryProgram Routine Analytical Services by one laboratory.

This data was reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses. All data hasbeen validated with regard to usability. The methods usedby the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) must be evaluatedby each individual user as to whether the scope, precision ^Mand accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding timeswere met for all metals and cyanide samples. Allcalibration criteria were met. The most significantproblems affecting usability are associated with the samplematrix; problems associated with data usability arediscussed in the following section.

Qualifiers

Soil Samples

1. Laboratory duplicate analysis showed variable resultsfor aluminum (43% RPD), chromium (48% RPD), iron (55%RPD), manganese (61% RPD) and zinc (54% RPD). Sampleresults were qualified as quantitatively questionable(J) . Although, the qualitative presence of thesemetals were confirmed, the reported results may notreflect the average concentration of these metals inthe respective samples.

2. Due to low matrix spike recovery for selenium (49%),detection limits for all samples may be 31-71% biasedlow, and have been qualified as estimated (UJ).values may be higher than reported. 01086

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewCasei/Site ID: 6291/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 2

3. Due to high matrix spike recovery for manganese (300%),results for all soil samples may be biased high, andhave been qualified as estimated (J). Actual resultsmay be lower than reported. ;

i i

4. Results for iron have been qualified as quantitativelyquestionable (J) due to possible chemical or physicalinterference. Results for diluted sample analysis forthese analytes do not agree within 10%.

!Summary j

1 ' !Metals and cyanide for all samples were successfullyanalyzed. Areas of concern with respect to data usabilityinclude: ; j

o Possible sample non-homogeneity indicated by resultsfrom lab duplicates for aluminum, chromium, iron,manganese and zinc

o Possible matrix interference indicated by results frommatrix spike recoveries and ICP serial dilutions

The text of this report has been formatted to address onlythose problem areas which affect the applications of thedata to the site investigation. Documentation of theseproblems and any other observed areas of laboratorycontractual noncompliance are included in a separate reportsent to the laboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you havequestions or comments on this data review, please contactDianne Therry. i

Enclosures

flR30i087

AR30I088

Case No.

AluminumAntimonyArsenicBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumSilverSodiumThalliumTinVanadiumZincCyanide

*

F.O100.0

a-r

O.I3,0.0

r.

(3.0

/ /.o

1.0/Men

'. I e co. Q

I.f_,.o

470*0

U.S"tf.O

c.l6.0o./

foe. oa., 3J.a-

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUPtttRY page 1 of _ IRtvltw Collated /* -

Case No. /_•??/ SAS Mo, Contract lib 3"Te e»v>'m.«t« torn Jf ^ 4- L- -L r-el Contract Mo. <?/-»/ -7o 7 /Sa«ple Mot. _______ ___

from Region rrc- FTS

MATRIXsoil/solidaoueousother

low Md Ihiflhf MATRIX RELATED COPtCMTS•t

HoTeTnq Til£21Inl

bration Blankslai calibrationlnulng calibration

'reparation BlankInterference cneck

OK FYI

serni 01

ACTION CflNMEMTS

K L2ii7JC*-l'iJ

Cr

FURNACEHolding TIMCalljnitContiPr

M 1kt

oration Blanksal calibrationnulnQ Calibration

•paratTon BlankD Control Samplel> IhjpHcatt

Matrix spikeDuplicate InjectionsAnalytical Spike

\sV^V\/\/\/ys

\fV

v4 •c 41'f*

MERCURY 1 CYANIDEHOIT£I&»f.uiM r.Mh..*

dlno TIM1 brat ion Blankttai calibration

continuinfl can orat ionPreparation DankLab Duplicate

:nx soikt

Yv^v^v'V.V,y

REVIEWER'S COKMENTS: (.

Jt«_«.J

•*-v

3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/ REGION M9 CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY

$»BESTGATEROAt> S01.M4.fr40ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401

DATE: .13 February 1987


FROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)DPO, Region III

TO: Duane A. Geuder. QAO (WH-548A)OERR

Attached is a Region HI CLP Data Review done by reviewers atRoy F. Weston, Inc.:

Case No.: 6291 (Organic)

Laboratory: IT

Site: Kane & Lombard

Reviewer: Dianne S. TherrytfuAfafk*>»«*iy 0

Attachmentcc: Gareth Pearson, EMSL-LV '

Regional DPO: Kent Kitchingman,'Region IX

Action X ! FYI

093

USEPA-Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 6291/Kane & LombardPage 1 of 2

Case #/Site I.D.: 6291/Kane and LombardSample Numbers: CE934-CE937

Site Manager: Charles KufsData Reviewers: Dianne Therry/Roger PowersReview Completed: 10 October 1986

Introduction

The set of samples for Case 6291 contained 4 soil samples whichwere analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)routine analytical services by one laboratory.

These data were reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data have beenvalidated with regard to usability. The method used by the CLPmust be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope, precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance with CLP,including the required quality control. Holding times were metfor all samples for the VOA, BNA and pesticide fractions.Instrument tune and calibration were within contractspecifications. Variability in calibration response factors mayaffect the reported detection limits for up to 12 BNA compoundsin each sample. Laboratory contamination was the mostsignificant problem in this data set. Problems associated withdata usability are discussed in the following section.

Qualifiers1) Laboratory blanks contained methylene chloride, acetone,

toluene, and di-N-butylphthalate at concentrationssignificant enough to question the reported results for allsamples, and bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at concentrationssignificant enough to question the report results for allsamples except CE937. Reported values for the aforemen-tioned compounds were qualified as not detected (U) and thesample quantification limit was qualified as estimated (J)in the data summary.

2) The response factors during initial and/or continuingcalibration for bromomethane and up to twelve BNA compoundswere variable. The sample results and detection limits havebeen qualified as estimated (J or UJ) for the affectedcompounds in the data summary.

flR30109l|

USEPA-Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 6291/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 2

SummaryAll fractions of all samples were successfully analyzed.Laboratory contamination and response factor variability wereareas.that affected the usability of the data.

The text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseproblem areas which affect the application of the data to thesite investigation. Documentation of these problems and anyother observed areas of laboratory contractual noncompliance areincluded in a separate report sent to the laboratory's CLPProject Officer. If you have questions or comments on this datareview, please call Dianne Therry.

Enclosures :

1095



U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated numericalvalue is the estimated sample quantisation limit.

J - The associated numerical value is an-estimated quantity because quality controlcriteria were not met.

AR30I096

. , .CASE I/SITE ID: fr fY/V*« «•-#**«*' , />/'"</

s.tet,

f- 9-s -,/ tt. r-ft-ft

FACTOR:

OSnfl7/

•**+

BCSCWrT.:TRAFFIC REPORT «:

•jramom.ih.ra) us UT UT t/r U7V01-4

CMerovituintftiMhyton* CMeritft bl UfA ->f ur /e

•*<* uT l/J" TJ UJ"7»-1t-0 Dtoutffcto

rrara)-1. 2-Oichlofo-tt>»n»Chtareform

I074W-2 1. 2-OieMonwtharMya-tJ-3 (••uttnen*

1. 1. 1-TricMoreMhan*-vbon T«tf_chlorid«Vlny«Ac.ttl»

7»OI-»Ottv1. 1. 2-TrieMore«th*n*

71-43-210M1-01-I •1.

75-25-2 •romelorm•tl-7t-0

-10-1127- It-4

a? WT ¥ WTCNoratomww

100-41-410O-42-*

AR301097

CASE I/SITE ID: b*ll /#*<«•

DATE SAMPLE RlEE-s- r- - f-s-tL f't-

f-f-rt

>ATE ANALYZED:f-v-K

f-f-

/OIL FACTOR:t f '40-I t-li-K

MOisTuftEUNITS:

'f-f/f O/,

SAHPLE DESCRIPT.TRAFFIC REPORT «: fffJS C£9J7 *

tlt-Bf-7 -BHCI1§-B4-I

9-00-2

IO S7-172-S5-* 4.4.0OE

intfrm33213-t>-t Cnde«wM*n I

- 4. 4-OOOSuNatt

4. 4- DOT72-13 S

Ar.der.10tlArcder.1221

1M AraetoM2I2Artdor.1242A/eeio*-124tArScsrmr

AR30I.099

CASE I/SITE ID: *•??/

ISTURE:ITS: Uf/*?

SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:TRAFFIC REPORT f:

Mt-Bft-7 txn ••••••MM*T«44|101 -00-2 AMrm1024-S7-J»S»-M*tOS7-172 lit 4 4-OOC2-20-t fraJrm93213-fi-t2-M-B 4.4'«OOO031-07-* f raletwlfan SuNmt0-2t-l 4. 4 .DOT72-43*

1210

B R 3 0 1 I O O

0

ORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY page 1 of /'

Date Review CompletedCase No. 6,2 ?/ SA$ No. contractSite Name f{t*M JSample Nos. ce??V

•>w/ XmMAJL tontrtct-$?f37- Lib DPO

Kevi ewer

L*b IT/CbVU&iLNO.

t&L4sfo*JiJTf\c/)A4r'from Region TTT Phone sfrs-sn y-73

1 , -£F5 Vt/657<DA/I

CONCENTRATIONMATRIX low me

soil/solid 4aoueousother

d high MATRIX RELATED COW IENTS-

VOLATILES IGC/MS tunino— BFBInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SpikesReagent BlanksHolding times

OKi/'S

S<^*

FYI

^

*

ACTION

g)

COMMENTS

JpttTfljynijtlUj* ~2-%7t&

SEMI- VOLATILESGC/MS tuning— DFTPPIniltôrit

.ial Calibration;inuing Calibration

Surrogate RecoveryMatrix SReacHold

ent3 ikesBlanks

ing times

t/

S•"i/S

îs'AdJ 7 fn//nSr?-CCC. *«w( /n¥rr?-5/l5C_l S«~*cJU Cn&to

J A&L, &6WLtsI QfiGLeAt/.IS

PESTICIDESInstrument PerformanceInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SReagent

DikesBlanks

Holding times

•S/v/,I/s fi/

OVERALL CASECompoundData CompREVIEWER*

Identificationleteness

î

S COMMENTS:6 7 JR) £4

^ '*' jpfayser»*fxii*Ar ztfb fei*. tiXteJ )'/- i/y- i,'<f&tfff

•DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED (see following pages)

ARSON 0.1

tec. *VCC4*

FiG-ote r. *&.<t-t-Zntfra

LLi

1* t-Ptftii«f»_nm~'

9MMUI10* -Ml

•7-i-t

?» W-l

ir. w iJHBfc

1M-O-2 ;1. 2, 4-TneA_r«M<u*m

H-31 4

•-IO- 7 1

2_*7_»_J__j

__________!

OHM Hllll»l«»i|li II

3"?

JU_-7S-7

T») 3/ _££TH 2.6>-je-« jt • tli»»l-li»htl>Tu«m' ft IOI-ft-lt-74.1

«•*--••*••«-O14

JO-1J-7.74-2

1*40-0

31-« J

7444

5fa-e-(1)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION IN

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORYUt KSTGATE ROAO MMM4T40

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401

DATE: 29 October 1986SUWECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review



Attached is a Region III CLP Data Review done by reviewers itRoy F. Weston, Inc.:

6325 (Inorganic)Case NO.: (Revision A, lQ-28-R6^ Site; Kane & Lombard

Laboratory: Soectrix ________ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry

Attachment ^


Regional DPO: William Langley, Region VIX Action ________ FYI

A R 3 0 I i

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 2Revision A, 10-28-86

Case #/Site I.D.: 6325/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: MCF638-MCF640, MCF687-MCF689


Data Review Team: Dianne Therry, Nancy MyersReview Completed: October 9, 1986

Introductioni

The set of samples for Case 6325 contained six soil sampleswhich were analyzed through the Contract Laboratory ProgramRoutine Analytical Services by one laboratory.This data was reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses. All data hasbeen validated with regard to usability. The methods usedby the Contract Lab Program (CLP) must be evaluated by eachindividual . user as to whether the scope, precision andaccuracy meet the needs of the project.The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding timesfor metals were met; however, cyanide exceeded holding timeby one day. All calibration criteria were met. significantproblems affecting usability are associated with the samplematrix. Problems associated with data usability arediscussed in the following section. The data summary hasbeen annotated with the appropriate qualifier codes.

Qualifiers; Soil Samplesi

1. Laboratory duplicate analysis showed variable resultsfor chromium (39% RPD) , iron (52% RPD) , manganese (66%RPD) , and zinc (38% RPD) . Sample results werequalified as quantitatively questionable (J) . Althoughthe qualitative presence of chromium, iron, manganeseand zinc was confirmed, the reported results may notreflect the average concentration of these analytes inthe respective samples.

AR30I105

'USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 2 of 2Revision A, 10-28-86

2. Due to low matrix spike recovery for antimony (60%) andlead (62%) , reported results and detection limits maybe biased low, and have been qualified as estimated (Jor UJ) . Actual values may be higher than reported.

Analyte Bias Samples Affected

Antimony 20-60% All SamplesLead 18-58% All Samples

3. All results for selenium have been designated unusable(R) . Due to low matrix spike recovery for selenium(11%) , the possibility of false negatives exists, anddetection limits may be elevated over what is reported.

4. Results for aluminum (191%D) have been qualified asquantitatively questionable (J) due to possiblechemical or physical interference. Results for dilutedsample analysis for these analytes do not agree within10%.

SummaryMetals and cyanide for all samples were successfullyanalyzed. Areas of concern with respect to data usabilityinclude:

o Possible sample non-homogeneity indicated byresults from lab duplicates for chromium, iron,manganese and zinc

o Possible matrix interference indicated by resultsfrom matrix spikes and ICP serial dilutions

o Possibility of false negatives for selenium

The text of this report has been formatted to address onlythose problem areas which affect the applications of thedata to the site investigation. Documentation of theseproblems and any other observed areas of laboratorycontractual noncompliance are included in a separate reportsent to the laboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you havequestions or comments on this data review, please contactDianne Therry.

Enclosures ARSON 06

*

cj

i

q•B Bl __1 BH BB !••!• HM ««• H«_l

b

LJ

ft

f ' «. "l V w^___i fjo r« _T en *^VI

ii2Ui __|< < < CD 00 U U

1

h

U

u

!H

NS

0

U

1

liJ

c

CoCo

k>

hfi

CO

HTVO*

Sa

flRSOi107

«fis.;., :o?

JHORfiAHIC 0ATA ¥AL IDAHO* SUWAftY pig, _ «f__t

0-te tevltw Co~oUttdC«se No. l_.r SAs no. Contrict LibSite KM* />»« * Z- /JHeJ Contract Mo.

'e lib OPOA/

f ro«FT$

_dMLirjmira'————TICK

KLATCD COtCiTS

ACTIOU COtCNTS

t tt Li.J ire <LH^-«-i--i_ —

U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program OC # b335~- Qy. A/Sample Hanagement Office ——— —"^ ——«P.O. Box 818 - Alexandria, VA 22313 ,703/557-2490 FTS: 8-557-2490 Date 7 " 9 "

COVER PACEINORGANIC ANALYSES DATA PACKAGE

ILab Name Sf> •*-£-( *> X- Case No. (e>32 S"

SOW No. __________ t %f ____ <'?c' *«?«« No. _________________Sample Numbers

EPA No. Lab ID No. EPA No. Lab ID No.

1-074,07 1 /

Cotnmeaca :

/

\J

ICP latereleoent and background corrections applied? Tea _^ No .If yes, corrections applied before \^" or after _______ generation of raw data.Footnotes:NR - not required by contract at this timePorm I: ' ' iValue - If the result is a value greater than or equal to the instrument

detection limit but less than the contract required detection limit,report the value in brackets (i.e., [10]). Indicate th* analyticalautthod used vith P (for ICP/Flame AA) or F (for furnace).

U - Indicates element was analyzed for but not detected. Report with thedetection limit value (e.g., 10U).

E - Indicates a value estimated or mot reported due to the presence ofinterference. Explanatory note included on cover page.

s - Indicates value determined by Method of Standard Addition.R - Indicates spike sample recovery is not within control limits.* - Indicates duplicate analysis is not within control limit*.+ - Indicates the correlation coefficient for method of standard addition is

less than 0.995 ft P Q H j I n Q |

! ! ! oooon

/"!>.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MOON INCENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY

139 BESTGATE ROAD •"• If S 30V2J4-J740ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 81*01 • /V~ n*-K?-37»2

DATE: -18 February 1987

SUWECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review ^aui^n K£C£/VFnFROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20) *"-ivtU

DPO, Region III F£8 ' ,<•,/— " 1 s, f

TO: Duane A. Geuder, QAO (WH-548A) GKSC/EA/C£S D£prUtKK


6350 (Inorganic)Case No.: (Revision A. 2/87) Site; Kane & Lombard

Laboratory: Century________ Reviewer: Dianne S. therry

Attachment


Regional DPO: William Coakley, Region II

_X_._ Action ________ FYI

A R 3 0 I M O

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 4Revision A, 2/87

Case I/Site I.D.: 6350/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: MCF650, MCF652-MCF654, MCF656-MCF662,

MCF665-MCF672, MCF674, MCF663, MCF664


Data Review Team: Dianne Therry/Nancy MyersReview Completed: October 15, 1986 ;Introduction , ,

The set of samples for Case 6350 contained two soil samplesand thirty-eight water samples, which were analyzed throughthe Contract Laboratory Program Routine Analytical Servicesby one laboratory. The sample set included eighteenunfiltered water samples paired with a respective filteredsample. Two rinse blanks and two duplicates (one unfilteredand one filtered) were included in the sample set.

This data was reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Inorganic Analyses. All data hasbeen validated with regard to usability. The methods usedby the Contract Lab Program (CLP) must be evaluated by eachindividual user as to whether the scope, precision andaccuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance withCLP, including the required quality control. Holding timeswere met for all metals, however, two cyanide soil samplesexceeded holding times. The most significant problemsaffecting usability are associated with the sample matrix.Problems associated with data usability are discussed in thefollowing section.

Qualifiers . ' I 'I ,

Soil Samples (S) ;|

SI. Results for selenium and antimony have been designatedunusable (R) for the following soil samples. Due tovery low matrix spike recovery (selenium 0% andantimony 15%), the possibility of false negativesexists and the detection limits may be elevated overwhat is reported. ;

I AR30I I 1,1

USEPA - Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewCase 6350/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 4Revision A, 2/87

Analyte Samples AffectedSelenium MCF663, MCF664Antimony MCF663, MCF664

S2. Due to low matrix spike recovery for silver (42%) andlead (70%), reported results and detection limits maybe biased low, and have been qualified as estimated (UJor J) in the following samples. Actual values may behigher than reported.

Analvte Bias Samples Affected

Silver 38 - 78% MCF663, MCF664Lead 10 - 50% MCF663, MCF664

S3. The contract required holding time for cyanide wasexceeded for samples MCF663 and MCF664, however,technical requirements for sample holding times in soilhave not been established. Therefore, data were notqualified.

Water Samples, filtered (WF)

WF1. Due to high matrix spike recovery for mercury (170%),the following results have been qualified as estimated(J). Actual results may be lower than reported.

Analyte Samples Affected

Mercury MCF652, MCF653, MCF656-MCF659, MCF661, MCF662,MCF665-MCF672, MCF674

WF2. Results for sodium and potassium for all filtered watersamples have been qualified as quantitativelyquestionable (J) due to possible chemical and physicalinterference. Results for diluted sample analysis forthese analytes do not agree within 10%.

AR301 I 1.2


Water Samples, unfiltered (WU)

WU1. Laboratory duplicate analysis showed variable resultsfor aluminum (27% RPD). All unfiltered water resultswere qualified as quantitatively questionable (J).Although the qualitative presence of aluminum wasconfirmed, the reported results may not reflect theaverage concentration of aluminum in the respectivesamples.

WU2. Due to low matrix spike recovery for aluminum (56%) andthallium (42%), reported results and detection limitsmay be biased low, and have been qualified as estimated(UJ or J) in the following samples. Actual values maybe higher than reported.

Analvte Bias Samples Affected

Aluminum 24-64% All SamplesThallium 38-78% All Samples

WU3. Due to high matrix spike recovery for lead (140%), thefollowing results have been qualified as estimated (J).Actual results may be lower than reported.

Analvte Bias ; Samples Affected|

Lead 20-60% MCF652, MCF658,[ MCF660-MCF662,! MCF667-MCF672|

WU4. Results for iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium and zincfor the following samples have been qualified asquantitatively questionable (J) due to possiblechemical and physical interference. Results fordiluted sample analysis for these analytes do not agreewithin 10%.

j

Analyte Samples Affected! I ;

Iron All Samples

HB30I!13


Magnesium MCF652, MCF653, MCF656-MCF658, MCF660-MCF662,MCF665, MCF667-MCF672

Manganese MCF652-MCF654, MCF656-MCF658, MCF660-MCF662,MCF665, MCF667-MCF672

Sodium MCF652-MCF654, MCF656-MCF662, MCF665, MCF667-MCF672

Zinc • All Samples

WU5. Thallium results for water samples (MCF660, MCF670 andMCF672) have been qualified as estimated (J), due toanalytical spike recoveries less than 40%, indicating apossible matrix interference.

SummaryMetals and cyanide for all samples were successfullyanalyzed. Areas of concern with respect to data usabilityinclude:

o Possible matrix interference indicated by results frommatrix spike recoveries and ICP serial dilutions.

o Possibility of false negatives for antimony, selenium,and cyanide.

o Possible non-homogeneity of unfiltered water samples,indicated by results from lab duplicates for aluminum.

o Possible matrix interference for unfiltered watersamples indicated by results from analytical spikerecoveries for Thallium.

The text of this report has been formatted to address onlythose problem areas which affect the applications of thedata to the site investigation. Documentation of theseproblems and any other observed areas of laboratorycontractual noncompliance are included in a separate reportsent to the laboratory's CLP Project Officer. If you havequestions or comments on this data review, please icantact , , ,Dianne Therry. ????! ! ! !*Enclosures


The data summary contains the following qualifier, codes:iI


J - The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because quality controlcriteria were not met. .

R-- Quality control indicates that data are unusable (compound may or may not bepresent). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.

AR301 1.1.5

v rv.

Laboratory

AluminumAntimonyArsenkBariumBerylliumCadmiumCalciumChromiumCobaltCopperIronLeadMagnesiumManganeseMercuryNickelPotassiumSeleniumCala ^ vJB r _W

SodiumThalliumTinVanadiumZincCyanide

Soo.O60.0

/0.0SLoo. o

r.or.o

S~ooo. o/o.ofo.oAr.oIOO.Q

S-.Q£"000. O

/r.o0.Z

</0.0

So o o.O

r.o/O. 0

3~ooo.O

/o.o—So. Odo . O

}O. 0

/ee* o&o.O10.0/oo.O

S*.or.o/000.0/a,0jr.o/£ofo.Of. o

/ oac.O/r.o0.2.Jo.O/CQO.Q

S.Q/o.O

J*50.t>

4*. O—

J-r. 0/O. 0

»*

13..Q

9.0Vo.o1.01.0

16.0f.OSo.D1.0

/06Q.O

3.0O.Q+9.0I e oo. Q

1.0

jo«O.O

8.0/o. o

1.0

/SL.O

X.O

I.O

1.0a 90.01,0r.o3.0/o.o

O.&f

1.03.0

J.G

3". o. O

flB30IM6- - - - - .

ARSON 1,7

1

r *if l R 3 0 1 1 1 8

/T'In Reference to Case No(s):

5t>W

//-/f



Date of Call: /<&

Laboratory Name: £v&Ig/£71/5-51g>Lab Contact:

Region: -&'Regional Contact: f 4 J mfi/lfaf ((JU&StDlJ)

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory L-"tCegion

In reference to data for the following sample 'Humberts);


$• J<u %- — -

fa MS &rvMa£cfcJ 152,

V_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Sinatre -/ ——————————— a te p % Q } ['\ |





Date of Call: / 9/Qte/smfr&l, /fy/*T________;

Laboratory Name: £eCO/£A/&CO 6/1 "641" 3// /Lab Contact:


Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory <XKegion

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):•"yte C g ga


VflT(f>3} frls

120.„ i j- i /signature s~k r/ i/wi ~ // nat<»' - ~ - =

ckDi lribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy

r j x-P->&>• *%•- >

CC<

230)^S §ill9>Z <£)

^< 0^fe S</) HJ

"X

1oc•Ea•e••CO

is^P% -iO o f

0. S o\ | 0u -^Q J 0

OpCO

-, w^ A•4•tw. ._«< î 3^

PV

*5

!vV

1!X1 tf• I

ti5vs)?9bi*« e

**g5*1O t- -»

ip§•3i§252«

**)

*>^

o^5-M u. .s

° b 5i2l2

dz

1 «85^ • 5^ :§3 00

s:I1

Hs

ALIBRATII

FACTOR

o

K

' zez§8|^

CALIBRATION

FACTOR

^ 1z£Syffij *

t-c

o

u

Vt>

î1KN

L1

%1Ti

.

*•**

is

^>

iii

*X.^

5

i«?S

1

1i iri

_%

<N

Vf5•«&Q

tvITNt

113

Vs

^1

s9

f_

U'3.2411

*<S

-S«>

D15

^^

^j!

1*«i*

"i%3*<s

~\«<£

5*<ii&

1Q^

_C,

v.

fcr\*

«;<\

-x€

*

§"•Xr-*

**•Q

^^

bO!1

,

/

^

^

>.Ît*N

*^

J

INtv1-/w"i

^<$

««T)

§2

*+

o

$11xs

1$+A\*

"5>»>.-.f\v\

X

Q

r-i,K

\C

D

_>

*

iI

^

x «i|%>s

1S1x!•a-i—-5vS

«_»

0

*

>a

H|

iU

IS

sC1«s1%«&

Nt

3vj

§*J*lV>3Q

Vi*\«Q

e£S

»««

^

1IV,

1mvol*

ilo-»..>rv

is

i\Irf

§i<9•

*

V*^

SSJift*;

5S5

•vi-;*•*v_»

SS3

§^

1U

1

?)^

11<U

it».Tr.is^

em*.tto?U

"N

*«««

i!a^\jT

1

Sx

*5

V.^

5$

O§1•<r#>

JoU

%VD«

1§?*«MT.|

1Ki6O

Oe«?S

*\'M

am(0s<•«e3

*r

8

1

S5

|«i«:V

sC^

1fr-sS>~

58

»«

^

&0i\v»«•

*

>;*fj

c

«srt

•ri*j•hiS

if..nSJr\

^S

»x^

S"i

TT71

1

I

1

\(

\

\

\

1«.•X£«eLU

l

1

1

i

C"3

fc^^v

•~l^S

k«i

IT»fcO

O.«u«

i(.l

i

i

\

1

1

1

\

\

1

\

i

i

I

* ,*-s•1e1«a.•

v

•—o6_i

1

I

1

1

43

\0>^%

•1

?^

^>

2_._,•9

i

i

l

1^1

VS?r&

*<3

S?,

<0O14.B

gU

1

1

1

Is>JIVNgrr\ **

r

§3

^N5

CVI<VJ

1&i_>

1

1

1

1

V

j

-V$«»;

jo•o\Q

tv

MrtCJ

i*

I

1

1

1

(

i1j'-.-o0

s"1(M—(M

Zi-»

t

11

11C\fc^

? 'v V

Q

fC-

CO—N

1Si<

1

1([\cJ

1• "*r-

-W<v5

N5

inN

1*g<

11

1

IV*

|

^>Jft

i

s"

5_»Q

«^

0(VI

1

S"5s

-itogr&j'.

UIUJ^WUIU.U.sOO<<

IRMATION («2

TITATION(«I

£*liIMI<-«-"»106

KJM!•uj

£>

XUlCJ£*

gj ± i • - - • - - ! - • ! , . r - •risr •~ p-i4frj,

* \ ^ \ -* .19°"ii^ ' - . . : . '

. •

/- <?/

Pesticide Evaluation juanoaras(Pagel) ;

3Confact i o f® f)(~ •/£•'£ rDate of Analys

LaboratoryID

Pesticide

Aldrin

Endrin

4.4'- DDT<'>

DibutylChlorendate

« lG'24~ff**' ._

Evaluation Checl49 :+" £ -*

VwQ

CalibrationFactor

Eval Mix A

W?70

(p ytbS&y&b

wn

r.rrni,,mn- a&'tt/aM&fInstrui

( for Linea

g&tCalibration

FactorEval Mix B

Y?V<//6*4 0 %

<&?&

1?*W

^rity ^

#zCalibrationFactor

Eval Mix C

r r ffO f

^_t / * _*_ SL

?<,f7-0

-HW

( £10%)

/D. /7,/7-C,

ID.I

r•-\

?\1I/- ' '" '

^ t-k ' ^ Evaluation Check for 4.4'- DDT/Endrin Breakdownr /)uk (percent breakdown expressed as total degradation)

Eval MixJS' ft72 Hour

i/_vu\ Mix BEval Mix^Cx

Eval Mix/c C'

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mtx B

Eval Mix B

Laboratory1.0.

«.z-f*y O& i

^" P W / '

Mnfl«Q> "9 ? ?2»

X OT I. -

Time ofAnalysis

0 <*

6711/)?ro/<f3fy sr> .

6 DT —t>i

Endrin

*>

0

o!^ // A5

*

p>a f *c>t" fDDfc *"

4.4'- DOT

(,M0

o-i37.?

7U- .

J^ —>V5>

Combined'3'

d.c.0

c.?J?.?

ErJrm" (t/wfrinrMa-KfnVm^ick,*;) -

(1! See Exhibit E. Section 7.5 4 ^ ri> V" + " 5 fi R 3 0 i I 2 3(2) See Exhibit E. Section 7.3 1.22 1 *~"~ ~ ~'1&7'

Form VIII ! . 7/85

Pesticide(Pagel)

In- 5/)//:3 R«<pmn -3 ' Laboratory.Contract No &-&-OI"_?O£?._____ GC Column: /o-r-n'u___ Q.Date of Analysis tO-H-K'_____ Instrument ID: £C*^______ «J^

Evaluation Check for Linearity

LaboratoryID

Pesticide

Aldrin

Endrin

4.4'- DD 'l

DibutylChlorendate

<?-<-036,CalibrationFactor

Eval, Mix A

l(s(3

£$>+&

'14&>

SL3ld<4

<?-/-?iUACalibrationFactor

Eval Mix B

fo99t,

J3b?ts

/7</?<S

c?P?0/

V-i-537CalibrationFactor

Eval MixC

tfttf

*695*i/fotf

cP33/7

%RSO( <10%»

J'?6.2-.5 3

' •9

valuation Check for 4,4'- DDT/Endrin Breakdown(percent breakdown expressed as total degradation)/

Eval Mix//)72 Hour

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix -

Eval Mix B /

Ss.Eval mpdfr

Eval Mix^ Cs

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

Eval Mix B

L iboratoryID

<j'l$3ts

W-G3lff)

If-l-VS*-F/r- f-?yr

Time ofAnalysis

/252-

/312

/3&

Endrin

l-.O

AS

I.&

4.4'- DOT

*tr

+,f

<a.t

Combined

&>.<r(s.t-

3,C>

(1) See Exhibit E. Section 7.5 4 H R 3 0 I I 2 k(2) See Exhibit E. Section 7.3 1.2.2 1 135

Form VIII 7/85

Pesticide Evaluation Standards Summary(Pa9e2)Evaluation of Retention Time Shift for D i b t o n r i d a t e

Report all standards, blanks and sfernnes

SMOSample No

LabID

Time ofAnalysis

PercentDiff

LabID

Time ofAnalysis

Perceni

7TW cWliJ C-f

C. f

fcfcCG 6tJLf>-t - cD 9

/ oo c?/CO

/•/> /•frUL **f

fa-Mi 155 fe

mstForm VIII (Continued) 7. B5

PestlCiGe t. vtt'i^u.iwi: - .« w-(Page 2) J . , ,

Evaluation of Retention Time ShtffiyTgry--»end_ateReport all standards, blanWaaTf samples v

TP0C

Form VIII (Continued) 7. 85

X<f

50 £3. KM. i- (fadrtsyC Lfrssft # fir

Pesticide Evaluation Standards Summary

(p8ge21valuation of Retention Time Shift for Dibutyl ChlorendateReport all standards, blanks and samplesK

SMOSample No

09?

n 1

C

LabID

-*- t

Time ofAnalysis

7'/f7/535

Qui-

Percent SMODiff. ii Sample No.

i: I/A/

C»'..v,

. 6

CP.

CB

cfe

>/?\££,

£_

LabID

t-t-Wt

!?>*

1-1 -Ml

1-/-Z5I

Time ofAnalysis

/ -:

!/ '

\7

oi ;1 O '. H

Percent

. /t,

\\

(Page 2} //f-Evaluation of Retention Time Shift for Dibutyl Chlorendate

Report all standards, blanks and samples

SMOSample No

LabID

Time ofAnalysis

PercentDiff

SMOSample No

LabID

0*1(•i/.L,

£2425

Pesticide Evaluation , >umu«iu» «»(Page 2)

Evaluation of Retention Time Shift for Dibutyl ChlorendateReport all standards, blanks and samples

SMOSample No

LabID

Time ofAnalysis

PercentDiff

SMOSample No.

Cfi/DO

flR301Form VIII (Continued) 18 8 85

/D 7

io 2o *III oOB •

§Ul5 ouIO«! c

o

PIK

S vERCO

SE

ntract

4- IKMATRIX

oQ

a. s =

\

^* r«J ~_t » » — • »f «* a»b>b««F»K..AaAaa_M«i«O

Bo

. E

O v « a « « .

FRACTf*

Or*.r »r

j>SJt>-

SvS

'Yjff- "0o-o

O

O

WQ

o^if-Ln

rt-d

CO

QQO

NO.

CS^3

5C^

03 0

Cm

Pd00ui-r

S4 - v i/' "' » ' « ' v . ~- >i, —' vj .>,(»-O ' ' 1 1-H-srrr

€8

3

i

s

o« lr sS

cf-ssoo-a

(A

18

818

8

8STT"^

CCQO

v>

S|2

'•Vr

>s o

\n xi

I

3

!*• V>

8888lill^l**un

Ul

I

Case 5Q63/Kane & LombardAppendix A: Validation SummaryPage 3 of 4

I

intervals between samples, that these standards mayhave been run. However, the supporting documentation(raw data, Forms VIII and IX) are not provided, thoughthis information was requested from the lab.

!o Evaluation Mix C was run to determine continuing

calibration breakdown criteria instead of EvaluationMix B specified in the protocol (see Figures 3f, 3g).

2) Both columns were specified as confirmation on Form IX. Itwas assumed that the mixed phase column (2250/2401) waschosed as the primary column, as all samples were not run onSP2100. ;

o For the primary column (2250/2401), 13 of 16 compoundswere outside the RT window on the continuingcalibration and 7 of 16 compounds exceeded the 15%criteria for change (% Difference) in calibrationfactor. See attached Figure 4a.

o For the confirmation column (SP2100), all compoundswere outside the RT window, and only 2 compoundsexceeded the 20% criteria* for change (% Difference) incalibration factor (Figure 4bj. The RT for DOT must begreater than 12 minutes, as per protocolspecifications, however, actual RT ~ 11 minutes.

3) Evaluation of RT shift for dibutylchlorendate (DEC) wascalculated incorrectly by the laboratory. (page 2 of FormVIII - see figures 3a - 3e). . . :

% Difference «RTDBCi ;

where ii

RT- .j « retention time of DBC in the initial standard(Evaluation Mix A) i •

I L* retention time of DBC in each subsequentanalyses

flB30l 1.31.

ICase 5063/Kane & LombardAppendix A: Validation SummaryPage 4 of 4

4) Surrogate dibutylchlorendate was not added to all standards,contrary to the protocol.

5) Combined Aroclors were run during initial calibration. Thisis permissible if the Aroclors chosed do not elute in thesame range. However, pattern/RT identification forindividual Aroclors is difficult (ie Aroclor 1221/1248 forsample CB037) using the combined standards provided for thiscase.

6) Second column confirmation was not run for sample CB099.Heptachlor epoxide, DDE, DDD and endosulfan sulfate were allwithin RT windows on the primary column.

Attachments:

FIGURE 1 Calibration CriteriaFIGURE 2 MS/MSD RecoveryFIGURE 3a-3h Pesticides forms VIII, VillaFIGURE 4a-4b Pesticides forms IXPhone logs

A R 3 0 I 1 3 2 - •

DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY—ORGANICII

FYI ______ ACTION REQUIREDDate________Case No. "< fc3 "" SAS No. — Site NameContract Lab gWco/e/vseco Contract NO. k> y- o i -SMO Sample Nos. g./3 g>3? t CGo97-ce/e>o________

Reviewer Jt A e. vf Tf i/i or Region TTJL Phone SHsr-saq-affoV i •

Summary of Samples by Matrix

No. 9 low levelNo. 9 med levelNo. 9 high level

Soil /sol Id*5~

iAqueous Other

VOLATILES1) 6C/MS tuning— BFB2) Initial Calibration3) Continuing Calibration4) Surrogate Recovery5) Matrix Spikes6) Reagent Blanks7) Analysed within holding times

SEMI-VOLATILES8) 6C/MS tuning— DFTPP9) Initial Calibration10} Continuing Calibration11} Surrogate Recovery1Z) Matrix Spikes13) Reagent Blanks14) Extacted/analysed within holding times

PESTICIDES15) Instrument Performance16} initial calibration17) Continuing Calibration18) Surrogate Recovery19} Matrix Spikes20) Reagent Blanks21) Extracted/analysed within holding times

OVERALL CASE22) Identification of target compounds23) Data Completeness

Acceptable*•"""

t ~-

t/'\s

1 ' ;

« -

IS~~

,i/'

ts

^ ^

\s

Non-cr1t1ci1Deviations*

«-**^^ ^

\** ~

L '

^

<—— -*——————————— < ——— •

\ " (*#.*4tl4

Unacceptable*

.

. _ ,*-— -

k/X /&_?•• «2- '.MS//mOl

^

IS*'

1 1 3 3

*Dev1at1ons Itemized on following pages

Case 5063/Kane & LombardAppendix A: Validation SummaryPage 2 of 4

Deviations Relevant to GC/MS

1) GC/MS Tuning and Mass Calibration (BFB): VOA sample CB100MSanalyzed beyond the 12-hour tuning criteria on 10/24/85 @12:44 for GC/MS #2.

2) Calibration Criteria, CCC 6 SPCC (VOA & BNA: All checkcompounds in compliance. Refer to Figure 1: "CalibrationCriteria" for other compounds which exceed the 30%RSD/25%Dcriteria for initial/continuing calibration.

3) MS/MSD for VOA: RPD for all compounds are outside QC limits.Recoveries for MS are in the high end of the acceptancerange, while -MSD recoveries are in the low end of theacceptance range. It appears that MSD values areapproximately half the values reported for MS. Surrogateresults do not reflect this same variability, indicatingspiking techniques rather than sample matrix variability mayaccount for this difference. (See attached Figure 2: MS/MSDRecovery.)

Deviations Relevant to Pesticide/PCB's

1) The analytical sequence on Form VIII does not match the rawdata provided, and neither meets the specified 72-hoursequence. See attached Figures 3a - 3e.

o Initial standards were run on the day previous tosample analysis. Of the full standard sequence, onlyEvaluation Mixes A, B, C and individual mix A & B werereported on Form VIII (Resubmitted 12/18 - initially nostandards were reported), although it appears the fullsequence of multi-peak pesticides were also run. SeeFigure 3a for run sequence developed by data reviewerbased on raw data provided.

o There is approximately an 8 hour gap between theinitial standards run and initiation of actual sampleanalysis.

o Individual Mix A & B and Evaluation Mix B are not runalternately every five samples, as specified in theprotocol. There is indication, based on the lab ID#assigned to the standards and gaps in the expected itimei

H it 0 U I I J 4 ,

4.

s"s

rt-

i

«c

E

E

a>iA

O in

ndri

3

§

)

APPENDIX A

NOTE: AT THE TIME OF THIS ANALYSIS THE LABORATORY WAS HAVINGNUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE PESTICIDE ANALYSIS - CRITERIAWERE NOT MET, RUN SEQUENCE WAS NOT FOLLOWED, CALCULATIONSWERE INCORRECT (ie FOR DBC RETENTION TIME SHIFT), ALLDATA REQUIRED FOR DOCUMENTATION DELIVERABLES WERE NOTSUBMITTED, DETECTION LIMITS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY RAWDATA, ETC.

IN ADDITION, REPORTED RESULTS WERE NOT CORRECTED FOR% MOISTURE, SOIL pH WAS NOT REPORTED, BNA DATA WERE NOTLABELED CORRECTLY, MS/MSD FOR VOA APPEARED TO BE VARIABLEDUE TO LAB SPIKING ERROR (NOT MATRIX EFFECT)

THESE ITEMS WERE ALL DISCUSSED WITH THE LAB AT THE TIMEOF THE REVIEW, AND MOST OF THE ITEMS RECONCILED (SEEATTACHED PHONE LOGS). PHONE LOGS DOCUMENTING THESEDISCUSSIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT, HOWEVER, THEYWERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE LAB/REGION/SMO 'AT THE TIME.

DUE TO AN OVER-SIGHT, THE FINAL DRAFT OF THIS REPORT WASNOT COMPLETED/DISTRIBUTED AT THE TIME OF THE REVIEW:DECEMBER 1985 - JANUARY 1986 (OVER A YEAR AGO!!). THISREVIEWER HAS HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW OTHER SITE DATAANALYZED BY THIS LAB SINCE THAT TIME:

CASE 5063 ANALYZED -v OCTOBER 1985CASE —— ANALYZED * AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1986

THE MORE RECENT DATA PACKAGES INDICATE THAT THE PROBLEMSEVIDENCED IN THIS CASE 5063 ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF CURRENTLABORATORY ANALYSIS PROBLEMS.

DIANNE S. THERRY (DMA REVIEW, REGION III)WESTON Analytics14 FEBRUARY 1987

AR30I 136

USEPA> Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase #5063/Kane & LombardPage 1 of 2

Case If/Site I.D.: 5063/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: CB037, CB097-CB10Q

Site Manager: Charles T. Kufs \Data Reviewers: Dianne S. Therr_v'George H. PerryReview Completed: 20 January 1986

Introduction j

The set of samples for Case #5063 contained 5 soil samples whichwere analyzed through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)routine analytical services by one laboratory.These data were reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data have beenvalidated with regard to usability. The .method used by the CLPmust be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope/ precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

The laboratory performed the analyses in compliance with CLP,including the required quality control. Laboratory blanks showedno contamination. Failure to report results on a dry weightbasis, and tentative identification of dieldrin, DDE and Aroclor1248 (which were not reported by the laboratory) were the mostsignificant problems in this data set. Problems associated withdata usability are discussed in the following section.

Qualifiers .

1) Raw data contained sufficient evidence to indicate tentativeidentification of dieldrin and Aroclor 1248 in sample CB037and DDE in sample CB098 at concentrations near the detectionlimit. Since combined standards were run for Aroclors 1248and 1221, and these PCB's elute in the same range,interpretation of data is very difficult and exactquantification impossible for Aroclor 1248.

! iConcentration

Sample Compound ug/kg fdrv wt.) Qualifier

CB037 dieldrin 16 , NAroclor 1248 10-100* N

'! ICB098 DDE 24 N

139

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase #5063/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 2

* unable to obtain exact quantification estimate with theinformation provided by the laboratory. If resample and/orreanalysis of this sample is done to obtain more definitiveresults, greater sample concentration and/or a moresensitive method should be used to enable quantification attrace levels.

2) The response factors during initial and/or continuingcalibration for up to six VOA compounds and three BNAcompounds were variable. The detection limits (U) have beenqualified as estimated (J) for the affected compounds in thedata summary.

3) The laboratory failed to report results on a dry weightbasis on the Organics Analysis Data Sheets (Form I) .Results were corrected for moisture in the data summary.

SUMMARY

All fractions of all samples were successfully analyzed. Failureto report moisture-corrected results and unreported pesticide/PCBcompounds were areas that affected the usability of the data.

The text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseproblem areas which affect the application of the data to thesite investigation. Documentation of these problems and anyother observed areas of laboratory contractual noncompliance areincluded in a separate report sent to the laboratory's CLPProject Officer. If you have questions or comments on this datareview, please call Dianne Therry.

Enclosures

AR30!IkO

REGIONAL/LABORATORY OOMUUMCA1.DN SYSTM RECEIVE)

, - , - - - JA* 7Date of Call: /Z* J


Region:Regional Contact: ______£ iti^t

Call Initiated By: ___ Laboratory ^ Region




A , •- T

C

_Signature Date

Distribution: (1) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy ? 0 ? 9 ! !

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYMOON ID

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORYaWMSTGATEROAD 3

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND J1401 fTS-«JJ-37U

DATE: 17 February 1987 /,

SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA Review S^yFROM: Patricia J. Krantz (3ES20)

DPO, Region IIITO: Duane A. Geuder. QAO (WH-548A)

OERR


Case No.: 5063 (Organic)_____ Site: Kane & Lombard

(/ L ^ ^ C/l iffLaboratory: ERGO_________ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry fl

Attachment


Regional DPO: Wayne Wirtanen, Region I

^^ Action FYI

AR30I 11*2

Quality Assurance Data Review Report (Cont.)

Case No.

Comments

DPO Action Items

Reviewed by:AttachmentsCC: j

Regional DPO (for laboratory); n&Iu drsJUL f, fefrtfn JEContract Laboratory Program, QAO : Atutvt, M&udw A § 3 0 I

rflMSL-LV • ;

XUl

II3

Ul

831

sii_ 3 3o

»l

c-V

I

««

>*•..

i

ltd 1 f

1*51

!n

i r 5 1 I i

It7rs

FT3tT

U.S.E.P.A.Rtgion .ZZLINORGANIC QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA REVIEW REPORT

Case No. SO 'o ________ Project NameLaboratory C/WrtZtcAj _____ DPO for LabApplicable Sample Nos. MCCt* I -/»cc*o<T

Date Sampled : /? Gc&fc tiffDate Data Received :Review Date: ____ / ffContact of laboratory required tX(yes, attach CLP logs) ___ (no)Resubmissions requested is Received fi

Data Qualifers:U - The material was analyzed for but was not detected. The associated

numerical value is the sample quantitation limit. NOT DETECTED.

J -The associated numerical value is an estimated quantity because oneor more quality control criteria were not met. ESTIMATED VALUE.

R • Quality control indicates that the data are unusable (analyte may ormay not be present). Resampling and / or reanalysis is necessary forverification. UNUSABLE.

Z - No analytical result./f+fT <&.•*. A: h/**ik £c*TO»uA/ei/,W n r* o . , ,___ H n 3 0 I L fi

DPO Action ]/ FYI

USEPA-Region IIIInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 1 of 2

Case t/site ID: 5063/Kane and LombardSamples: MCC401-MCC405Site Manager: Charles Kufs

Data Reviewer Dianne S. Therry,Date of Review: 18 December 1985 IINTRODUCTION; • ;

The findings offered in this report are based upon a review ofall available sample data, blank results, matrix spike andduplicate analysis results, ICP interference QC, calibrationdata, and quality assurance documentation.iQUALIFIERS fOl,Q2.Q3.etc.): •_M- ___ ———-...._£— - ~^*———m- ni1_T..__!•-_——••--L--.. -— . I— |

j

It is recommended that this data package be utilized only withthe following qualifier (Q) statements:

iQl) The results for antimony in all samples (MCC401-MCC405) have

been designated unusable. This constituent may be presentat concentrations greater than or equal to the levelsreported, since there is evidence to suspect that, ifpresent, it may not be detected. The actual detectionlimits may be 60-100% higher than what is reported.

Q2) Reported results for arsenic in all samples have beenqualified as estimated (J) . Actual results may be 10-50%higher than reported. (

Q3) Actual detection limits for selenium in all samples may be30-70% higher than reported.

Q4) The validity of results reported for lead could not be fullydetermined, as insufficient data was provided. QCindicators for matrix effects were not fully documented:precision data for samples MCC401, MCC402, and MCC403 werenot available and accuracy data for samples MCC403 andMCC405 were not available. ,

iQ5) The result for lead in sample MCC404 is estimated (J) since

there is evidence to indicate matrix effects influence thetrue concentration. ;

AR30I

' Case 5063: Kane & LombardInorganic QA Data ReviewPage 2 of 2

FINDINGS (Fl.F2.F3.etc. corresponding to Q1.Q2.Q3.etc!;

Fl) Very low matrix spike recovery for antimony (23%) indicatesthe possibility that false negatives exist.

F2) Low matrix spike recovery for arsenic (70%) was reported.

F3) Low matrix spike recovery for selenium (50%) was reported.

F4) No laboratory duplicate analysis for lead was reported forgraphite furnace AA analyses. No matrix spike analysis forlead was reported for ICP analyses.

F5) Duplicate MSA determinations for lead both produced acorrelation coefficient of <0.995.

SUMMARY

This QA review has identified the following areas of concern:

• possible false negatives for antimony

• poor matrix spike recovery for antimony, arsenic, selenium

• failure to provide both spike and duplicate for all methodsused for quantitation

• possible matrix effects for lead

ATTACHMENT; Data Summary

APPENDICES;

A. Inorganic QA Data Review ReportB. Laboratory Sample Data Sheets (Form I)

flRSOl I U8

PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

ConvwMtfon wMt: Date

-Sr —t ^ ___ *~ ' ~ I

Originator /

Tim.if i rr/ RESpBMITmCompany V^ /S?/7^———————————— • RECEIVED

Address __________________-—— HK riginator Placed Call ^n_ nD Originator Received CallW.O. NO.______________FQR

- C4+-L <(>}5Z>____________QA DATA REVIEW

JAtSl>

A1 5

D FH« ________________________ Follow-Up-Aqtion:D Tiekit Fit ______ / _____ / _______D FoNow-Up By:D Copy/Rout* To:

RFWno-f-,8? e! .I Originator's Initials

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CENTRAL REGIONAL LABORATORY•38 IESTOATC ROAO 301-224-2740

ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21401 TO-922-3732

DATE: 14 April 1986SUBJECT: Region III CLP Data QA ReviewFROM: Patricia J. Krantz

DPO, Region III

TO: Duane A. Geuder, QAO (UH-548A)OERR


Case No.: 5063 __________ Site: Kane & Lombard

<At&tl C<£'rf*Laboratory: Chemtech _______ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry

Attachment


Regional DPO: William Coakley, Region II

/ Action FYI

^V

fi30"

S330I i'5l

ETOOOT

o>sHI

I .ui zS 9Ul •o oa.ow*

X Z

WATER M

«. ' "105 j s1 s;s ^S<

ttl

MS

^ e w« • «XSH

£3

4

s

0

<?

s*

.C

s

IIII

O

Q

n n

°r~^

NtVQl

o

Ml

r

A

^

00

I

ACID

SMO

SAUTIE NO.

Cf17

M

10

^53«S2^

6

Q

<s[

stefe

0

NN

ft

ft

6

O

i*

S a3N

p K>»

iii

,

NW i| iiiSMl ..

.SI fl- O i l

CASE I/SITE ID: *•*» /**»"•"

A E S :

ANALYZED: -2W•MIL

9/J/n *b-to 9/3/K

HC/DIL FACTOR:

TUTsTSAMPLE DESCRIPT.TRAFFIC REWIT 1:

M»-M-fHttS-7 tHC

Oetta-iHCatt Gemma -tNC fUndene)

-OO-2 AMrtnO24-S7-9 HeetaeHior ipei t

OteMrtn.44OC

2-2Q-9f nde«uN»n 1

-M-8 4.4'-OOO

'j J55

iuMMAn-i

Date Review CompletedCase No. (fZSO SAS No. Contract LabSite Name M suL *-£S*wi ~ 1 Contract Ho. 6f-0l-" ' "* H«ll» ri^f^jj^^————————————————^2.——————————— __- X- _____^m____

Sample Nos. s*e? 0 -<.&*?SV Lab DPORtv1 ewer ~Kewerfiwer*> /from

,CONC-NTRATION

MATRIXsoil/solid

Tow med high MATRIX RELATED COMMENTS

VOLATILESGC/MS tuning—BFB

OK FYI ACTION COMMENTS

Initial CalbrationContinuing Calibration S'tJC <TUJCt<lsSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SpikesReagent BlanksHoldng times

SEMI-VOLATILESGC/MS tuning— DFTPPInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix So IkesReagHold

ent Blanksing times

^

ix-X»x•

IX'i

f/J

l4ier<v&ucAejL FI&JXES TB rfvr nan-ccc.3 t+VfA&U, OuGt+p&s+U, CSU&U**.

PESTICIDESInstrument PerformanceInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationSurrogate RecoveryMatrix SReagent

pikesBlanks

Holding times

i -.x-ix-.x-.Xxi>

OVERALL CASECompound IdentificationData Completeness

^^

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

•DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED (see following pages)i-: . . H H J U I I 5 6

CASE l/SITt ID:

DATE AMPLED: //->7/# I/M 7/r(r tM 7//» f /J 7/t (, 4g&ttATE SAMPLE RECP; I tMtt, tM/K fZffiANALYZED;

P'D; f/JO/tt 1/jo/lL9M/tk $*toM "•#<* tB&••••• ••MRMI MKlMBB BB

OIL FACTOR:

UNITS:STURE: fif-S-l

til It Hf/L

SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:TRAFFIC REPORT t: C£9st ceW Cfft*

»«*

1157

CASE I/SITE ID:

SAMPLED:SAMPLE RECD:

I/1t/Jf/ti9JJJSI,

f r t

9/J/U,ANALYZED; -M*

/DIL FACTOR: /ojISTURE;

*//< <*f 1-SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:TRAFFIC REPORT f : CC97I

M99S7•ft-t OMa-tHC

-99-9 6emma-9MC {Undenelt-44-9

AMrmO9-00-2_____ Megiactuer9S9-99-t™""IOS7-172-W-9 4. 4- DOE72-204 florin332U-M-97J 4.4-OOO

CntfoeuManSuHatt

11104-2t-2 1221

I34C9-21-9 124212C72- 1249

110M-92-* 1290

AR301158

MM 59

CD CMM»I He

CASE I/SITE ID:

B___________________________________________y/»M: RECD:f&t/fi, 1/36/iL i/JO/tl9uliL 4/I3/8L

:/DIL FACTOR;[STURE

^A- U/L Uf/L

biiiiiiarSAMPLE DESCRIPT.:TRAFFIC REPORT *: cetsi tew- cast, *£**?

H9-S44l19-t»-7 tHCM9-M4 Delia -tHCM-99-9 Gemma-9HC (Undene)

N39-00-2

H9-99-9

AMrm

EndoeuManl10-17-1 Dteldrm72-f»-9 4.4-OOC72-2O-913213-fSt EndMwHan I

4.4-OOOf ntfoeuifan SuNate

Arecter'1290

AR30I]60

1 UIItL I r/Jf/tt 1 IfJfHtl f/JT/flf I T/<il/rL I iMt/ff.

i,

m7miimm7Fm*m7/r7n*i7rvfmwc7mM

CASE I/SITE ID: (t3*°

DATE SAMPLED:DATE SAMPLE R£CD: ————————DATE EXTR/PREP'D:)ATE ANALYZED:CONC/DIL FACTOR: -% MOISTURE:UNITS:

cAg SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:Mumfce. TRAFFIC REPORT 4:74-97-J74.U.97S-01-4n-oo-3n-o»2•7-94-17S-19-07S-9S-475-24.3ise-ao-s•7-96-310749-2§3

9S»-4

7»-27W|

79-97-910091-02-97* )1 -f124-49-17V-OO-S71 3-210061-01 -S1 10 75-87S-25 2§91-78-6108-10-1127-18-4

| S/Ji/M.i/Jt/K,1/tf/tf*tfe/tt/itO

kfl-

\ 46S373Chioronwtfwn* |

Vinyl CMoriddChtoroeihantMetn ene CMo ioeAceieneCarbon Diautfidt1, 1 4>iehleraMh*n«

U.-r

1. 1-OiehlereetharM 1Trana-1. 2-OiehleroethefM jChlereferm1.2-OiehlorMthan*2-9utanena1.1. l-Triehloroethan*Carbon T«tr*ehlorid»Vinyl Acetat*Ifemediehleremerhena1. 2*OieMereprapaneTrens- 1 . 3-OicMoroprapefMTriehioreethen*Dibromochloromcthana1. 1.2-TrKhioroeirtarwienieneei»-1. 3-D*nloreprop*ne2-Ch4oreethyMny(ether9ren«0(orm4 -Meih yl • 2 • Pentanon*2-HeunontT*tr»ehloroetti*n«

79 34-5 j 1. 1. 2. 2-T«trac*loroeihaf«109-99-3 ITe<uent109-9O-7100-41-4100-42-5

ChtorobensefwEthylbanMneStyreneTetaf XyfenM

v*r/u Mr/ftsM/ft. 1 fWttV«t/t<e<?/*/tl,f

/toUf/<-

46 s-j'-t

itor

V,-,/»t,9/,7/ft,

/60

ttg/L.

46 S39!UJu.v

4 J

f J

Mrt/Kf/Jt/&V/i./tL9/./fl*

ttie*S/i.

/A Myf-U

7/</

t /st.rff'fatfy/it,MMi/eo

tif /i-

/A MfMf

1 J

fbl/fl.MA*h/u9/1/ft/

*t/«f

46 6/tfSM

\ f/ft/lLtj_+/t£9/i/jH,9Ak,/O

*»/*f

/S AASFS1!

4 jrV J

t

>

,

:

flR30!163

// y -«

CASE I/SITE ID:

ISf ' : SAMPLED: 1 S/J&/K,DA' : SAMPLE RECO: 1 r/*t/<lj)A' E :XTR/PREP'D: 1 4//t/g(,DATE ANALYZ-D:CONC/DIL FAITOR: -f MOISTURE:UNITS:

SAMPLE DESCRIPT.:CA9**»+•• TRAFFIC REPORT i:7447-374 3-97941-47140-371-09-29744-17S-1I-071-39-4n-34-3114-90-59744-3107439-279-93-371-85-69-23-S109-06-479 27-47947-810091-O2479-01-9124-49-179-00571 3-2

CMoromMhcn*•fomometheneVin f CnloridaCMeree thaneMetnylenc CMorideAcetoneCartoon Oisuifida1. 14>iehloreethen«

9 In /ft.1

/ftttf/t.

t& AtFVVf

1. 1-Oiehtoreeihane j

CNoreform1. 2-Ofcnlofeethanet-futanone1.1. 1-Triehloroeth«n«Carbon TetrecMoritf*Vinyl Acetatekemodichloromcthen*1. 2-OteMoreprepane jTrent 1. 3-0*ehtarepre*en« 1TriehtoroethencNbromochiorom«th«n«. 1.2-Trwhloroethane•entene

1107587S-2S2991-79-9109-10-1127-19-479-34-S109-99-3109.90-7100-41-410042-5

2-ChfcKoethytvMiylother9rome<orm4.Methy<-2- entanone2-Hecanon«TetrecMoroethen*1. 1. 2. 2-Tetrachlorooifce/ieToluenewHIorooenicneEthylbenieneStyrenelocal Xytonei

i100

to fL

46 nt

//*6

fjl-

teits

r\ n •'Mil Ju » j b

— «

*m

[%SE I/SITE ID:

CASE I/SITE ID: '*&» ft*"- *

DA' E SAMfDA' E SAM*

>L rD:'L \ RECD:

DATE tXTR/PREP'D:DATE ANALYZED:CONC/DIL FACTOR: -X MOISTURE:

tfa9/f6>9//t./iL9J/b/lL

/it6

WltS: I miuSAMPLE OESCRIPT.jbg .

MM**™ TRAFFIC REPORT il\C£9747447-374-93-97941-47140-37149-29744-178-16-071-31-471-34-319940-99749-31O749-279-93-371-15-96-23-510946-471-27-479-97-61009142-97941-9124-44-179-00571-43-210091 41 -S1 10 75 875 25 2S91 78 6109 1O 1127-19-479-34-5109-993109-9O-7100-41 -41 00-42 -S

Chloronwtharw9/omometheftnVinyl ChlorideChtoroetharwMethylene ChlorideAcetoneCarbon OieuMide1. 1 4ichloroethene1. 1-OichloroethaneTrene-1. 2-D*chloroetrteneCJttoroforfn1. 24*chloroethene24utenon«1.1. 1-TriehloroethaneCarbon TctreehtorideVmyt Acetate•rwnorJjchtorOTethane1. 2-Otehtarepropan*Trens-1. 3-DicMoropropeneTricrtloroethen*Dtbromochlororrwthane1.1. 2-Trchloroeth*rM•eruerwets-1. 3-Dwhloreprooena2 -Chloroeihyfvtnylethef9romoform4-M«ihy< • 2 -Pentanon*2-He*anorwT«tr»ehtoroeth«n«1.1.2. 2-Tctr«chloro«thantTolueneChtorobensen*EthyejenieneStyreneTotal Xylenm

^M.T

<S J

LHF5—1 -<s«-l— /

39 cr-?7* <f/go J"

Kjr/K> &

t/*T/tir/*f//6l/Heftd9/11,/lL

1106

Ifj/t-

%tvfu-r

*— *^9-*»-*s

\

t/nju,9//b/tLVllMi

i/toM/-

tj£4UJ

r 7^mJ

4

t/n/ftf/jf//(.9/9/tl,9/1/tt*

1<I6itf/t.

U S3H

-

t/*U>/f£t/Ar/ib*/"/&9J//Jt_//tottf/t.

4A 43**

aj"

9/ /it,9/fi/IL1/teUf/-

46s *lo

ur

,

r/v*//*/,*StL9/tA/lL

1/•eOffa

*&f*S

UJ

U..T

-

,, _.

it -'

/ , ,~ '

AR30I 166

I/SITE ID:

ICASE I/SITE ID:

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 6350/Kane & Lombard

i Page 3 of 3

2-chloroethylvinylether were areas that affected the usability ofthe data. I

iThe text of this report has been formatted to address only thoseproblem areas which affects the application of the data to thesite investigation. Documentations of these problems and anyother observed areas of laboratory contractual noncompliance areincluded in a separate report sent to the laboratory's CLPProject Officer. If you have questions or comments on this datareview, please call Dianne Therry.Enclosures

flR30! 169





R - Quality control indicates that data are unusable (compound may or may not bepresent). Resampling and reanalysis is necessary for verification.

AR30II70

M i i

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 6350/Kane & LombardPage 1 of 3

Case I/Site I.D.: 6350/Kane & LombardSample Numbers: CE950-CE954, CE956-CE974

i

Site Manager: Charles KufsData Reviewer: Dianne Therry/Roger PowersReview Completed: 18 November 1986 :

INTRODUCTION !iThe set of samples for Case 6350 contained two soil andtwenty-two water samples which were analyzed through the ContractLaboratory Program (CLP) routine analytical services by onelaboratory. The sample set included two rinse blanks, two tripblanks, and one field duplicate.

iThese data were reviewed according to the National FunctionalGuidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses. All data have beenvalidated with regard to usability. The method used by the CLPmust be evaluated by each individual user as to whether thescope, precision, and accuracy meet the needs of the project.

iThe laboratory performed the analyses in compliance with CLP,including the required quality control. Holding times were metfor BNA and pesticide analyses. Field duplicates showedacceptable reproducibility except for xylenes. Exceeded holdingtimes for VOA, poor instrument response leading to possiblefalse negatives for 2-chloroethylvinylether, and contaminationfrom solvents and plasticizers were the most significant problemsin this data set. Problems associated with data usability arediscussed in the following section.

QUALIFIERS

1} Laboratory blanks and field blanks contained methylenechloride, acetone, trichloroethene, benzene, anddi-N-butylphthalate at concentrations significant enough toquestion the reported results for some of the samples. Allreported values for the afore-mentioned compounds in thiscase have been qualified as not detected (U) and theirquantification limit qualified as estimated (J) in the datasummary. ,

Compound Fraction Samples Affected

Methylene Chloride VOA CE950, CE951, CE963, CE964Acetone VOA CE963, CE964Trichloroethene VOA CE956, CE957, CE970Benzene VOA CE956, CE957, CE970Di-N-butylphthalate BNA CE950-CE954r

'- CE974

USEPA - Region IIIOrganic QA Data ReviewCase 6350/Kane & LombardPage 2 of 3

2) The response factors during initial and/or continuingcalibration for up to six VOA compounds and sixteen BNAcompounds were'variable. The sample results and detectionlimits have been qualified as estimated (J or UJ) for theaffected compounds in the data summary.

3) Due to very low response factor (<0.05) for2-chloroethylvinylether during initial calibration,detection limits in all samples have been designated asunusable (R). Failure to detect this compound under thiscondition does not confirm its absence in the samples. If2-chloroethylvinylether is critical to this site, follow-upanalysis may be necessary.

4) Comparison of field duplicate data (CE971/CE972) showedacceptable agreement for all analyses, with the exception ofxylenes (36%RPD). Sample results were qualified asquantitatively questionable (J). The reported results maynot reflect the average concentration ofxylenes at thissample location.

5) Chloroform is most often associated with 'chlorinated publicwater supplies (PWS). Chloroform was identified in samplesCE952, CE956, CE957, CE959, CE961, CE963, CE964 and CE965 atconcentrations likely to be found in a chlorinated PWS (lessthan 22 ug/L). Review (1) sample source and (2) source ofrinse water used for decontamination of equipment for apossible off-site source of this contaminant.

6) VOA analysis was completed 11-22 days after samplecollection. The maximum allowable 40CFR Part 136 holdingtime for aromatic volatile compounds for an unpreservedaqueous sample is 7 days. For other volatile compounds, themaximum allowable 40CFR Part 136 holding time is 14 days.Reported results and detection limits for affected compoundshave been qualified as estimated (J or UJ) in the datasummary. Reported results may be biased low. Failure todetect compounds under these conditions does not confirmtheir absence in the original sample.

SUMMARY

All fractions of all samples were successfully analyzed. Blankcontamination exceeded holding times for volatiles , variableresults for duplicate analysis of xylenes, response factorvariability, and possible false negatives for

AR30II72

PHONE CONVERSATION RECORD

\/t' fer, *&Conversation w«h: Da*e______________ Time___:_____ZL

V ^f_______________ O Originatbr Placed CallD Originator Received CallW.O. NO._________

C'Copy/Routt Ta- J-AB

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYMOON...

C_NTR*i MCOUONAL LA8O*ATO«Vi3tt«TGAT_*OAO a01.M4.J740

ANNAPOLIS. MANY-AMD 21401 rrS-K.-3?U

OAT!: 13 February 1987





Case No.: 6350 (Organic^____ Site: Kane & Lombardfkt&kiuJv!

Laboratory: Versar_______ Reviewer: Dianne S. Therry

Attachmentcc: Gareth Pearson, EMSL-LV

Regional OPO: Patricia J. Krantz, Region III

X Action FYI

e

AR30II7!*

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY p«g£ V

Date Review c^aletedCase No ._*£££_ SAS No. Contract LabSite.Naif *~~< >L>~,±^ Contract No."Sample *Q«- jHff.rf1 ~~**<*rtrt tib D?0___Revl9wer

frp8> Region _ar" FTS

CONCENTRATIONMATRIXsoil/solidaqueousother

inrTBiirLiB/AUiJ/

RELATED COMMENTS,

/W/' (to*.*••

HoToTnc TlMCalibration HanksInitial Call >rat1onContinuing CalibrationPreparation Blanknterference Check sampleLab control Sa_o1eLab DuplicateMatrix SolkeSerial Dilution

OK»//\f

iSf

v^

FYI

,/j

v 1

V£L*/3

ACTION COMMENTS

AT £rj

AC* OC1_P • - »_. *V/ O ") '> J.-l n_ >*J»W<nXU & v

Jkt L r b & Pfl

A'l tt */•Fe, S3% /*t* 24 l£, fl4- IS & /Di * <j ' s E3* a /

FURNACEHolding TlMCalibration BlanksInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab Control SampleLab DuplicateMatrix SpikeDuplicate injectionsAnalytical Spike

v/^\ r

l/>l r

,/•^ r

^/

rif

-vi % / o- . *. 4JoZ -rt i.-/..

T2 a +jLyf-fc+f £*''£*- - c-s- * -

MERCURY I CYANIDEHolding HueCalibration BlankInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab DuplicateMatrix $plke

S\/\S\/^\/

REVIEWER'S COWENTS; »,

ZN ORGANIC DATA VAL.BATION SUMMARY ?a$* refDate Review Collated /0- /«/-/* *•Cast No. /jro SAS No. Contract libsite Ma-» k~»* f- Ln*!-*eJ Contract No.Sae_p1e Mat. /*****_ • r«c*£rS Lib

' win €wr ^ jjj j* ^ ^f r09> RtfllOn -3LT flJOftj

TIflMHCUTED CflMMEilTS

t'S COJCMTS:

r

AR30M76

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARYDate Review CoeplettcLJo-*/•_-£ __"

CAM***** t .*. n ,j.^

tEVIEMER'S OMCNTS:

>• L *x_kJ-r\«,

- Y *- -_ r JU . _ 3.

1 '

AR30I177

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY 99993 of

Date Review Co.pleted ;.->*/-/, .Case No. £3fa SA5 NO. Contract Lab (lt~-l~.. ^ L.Site NaJ x*~* + £»~A«*J Contract No.Sanpie Unaw^^r. Mt<f en — Lab DPO

ReviewerRegion JT" Phone

" FTS'

MATRIXCONCENTRATIONow l«ed TETqnT MATRIX RELATED COMMENTS

SOTl/SOMdaoueousOther

ICPHoTCThQ T1MCalibrationinitial can

Hanks>rat1on

Continuing CaPreparation BInterference

1brat1onankCheck Sanple

Lab Control SaooleLab duplicateMatrix SolkeSerial Dilution

OK\/!_/x/Y^V/

_/

FYI

y1

\yS

ACTION

\/ »

concurs

L?-i---c A-* IQ.5 v%»V t-crvs. .f %j

ilT 5Tf >V- //%

FURNACEHolding TimeCalibration BlanksInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab control san>leLab DuplicateMatrix SolkeDuplicate injectionsAnalytical spike

"7i/y',/»/v/v>>/>/Y •

MERCURY I CYANIDEHolding TineCalibration BlankInitial calibrationContinuing calibrationPreparation BlankLab DuplicateMatrix Spike

\/l/^I//•y

vi #* /7o%

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS: t.

-v* -j

3.

AR30I 178

t

I

Irs.h

tassi

Sodi

AR3Q1179

INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY page 1 Of

Date Review Con>l9ted /o-t<f-S'6Case NO. tin SAS Ho. Contract LabSlte NaaT *>*«• »V.~lw Contract No.Sanpie No9» iua.fi _&. \ . MO.P^V Lab DPO

Rev1 9*er A/, faustsf row Real on -ar- Phone

* ~~ FTS

NTRATIONMATRIXsoil /sol idaqueousother

low |Md IMghl MATRIX RELATED COMMENTS_U

ICPHoTaTng Tintcalibration Blanksinitial calibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankInterference Check SampleLab Control SanpleLab DuplicateMatrix soueSerial Dilution

OK\/^/^_/J,/>J

FYI

Vv "

Vi

ACTION

9

COMMENTS

/KM BX> «7 L'*JL+S* A+*~+Jt9 V

St /r% xjj x/ 5.-

FURNACEHolding TimeCalibration BlanksInitial CalibrationContinuing CalibrationPreparation BlankLab control SanneLab DuplicateMatrix spueDuplicate InjectionsAnalytical Spike

"7y'^Sv^V//y*y

\/\ **/ PJ, 7o5£ Se C%/

;

MERCURY I CYANIDEHolding TIMcalibration Blankinitial calibrationContinuing. CalibrationPreparation BlankLab DuplicateMatrix Spike

w"/Y>>/Y/'

i.y/ i V ft* - 3o> da LiAif

REVIEWER'S COMMENTS; /.

AR30I180

AR3 181



Date of Call:

Telephone Record Logy.- so

Laboratory Name: ££C 0 / £r&tCQLab Contact: ${&r\tr AVf>15 / &Jf<J ll/«il

C37,


037 A/U e-S'&L ^ tok <f •*rr "

1. •

Region: _________^___Regional Contact: ___O/&n/u /n/rry

Call Initiated By: __ Laboratory A Region

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):Cb 03-7 . Cfo 0 7- (6 /OTj_________________________ v«P \

Summary of Questions/Issues Discussed:gn*$hT '1? -J-kf (E

//I

Signature 7 • Date I I 83Distribution: (I) Lab Copy, (2) Region Copy, (3) SMO Copy

/In Reference .to Case No(s):

vT<%3Contract Laboratory Program

REGIONAL/LABORATORY COMMUNICATION SYSTEMTelephone Record Log

Date of Call: 9 J"*"7 ' / W" -

p ~Laboratory Name: - \uy /. f?<**>nLab Contact:

Region:Regional Contact: G-ev&e- fJfsry /JOtan*t

i .

Call Initiated By: X Laboratory ' Region /A* 7^ *f— ' ! '

In reference to data for the following sample numbeKs):C& #37 C& 17-JOQ

j •


I fafrc;<&< -frii'* limits

V) RT htft tit If h dufUSffd /A qr " )efar.

Summary of Resolution:luti(-

fl&n- Cc-rr&ljg r (utnl&scm~cm

J \Ynp

Signature ~* ^ Date/ flR 3 Q j


I] h ''.; ,'. r . \ iL' J ' (•,' r » i ,

date: . 29 october 1986 · case #6247/kane & lombard page 1 of 3 revision a, 12/86 case i/site...

Documents