USVI Public Records

Document text

SEVENTH SAMPLING REPORT SEPTEMBER 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS December 1992 Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee San Juan, Puerto Rico Prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 809 Fernandez Juncos Avenue Santurce, Puerto Rico 00907 (809) 725-2304 *64435* 64435 SEVENTH SAMPLING REPORT SEPTEMBER 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS December 18, 1992 Geraghty & Miller, Inc. is submitting this report to the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee for work performed at the Tutu Wells Site in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. The report was prepared in conformance with Geraghty & Miller's strict quality assurance/quality control procedures to ensure that the report meets industry standards in terms of the methods used and the information presented. If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please contact one of the individuals listed below. Respectfully submitted, GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Uma Parasar Scientist list/Project Manage iiel A. Nachman Vice President/Project Officery TUT 003 036£ GERAGHTY S MILLER. INC. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROCEDURAL DEVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DATA VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 TABLES 1. List of Sample Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Seventh Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 2. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 3. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 4. Volatile Organic Analysis Holding Time Summary, Seventh Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. Summary of Volatile Organic Compound-Contaminated Blanks and Associated Ground- Water Samples, Seventh Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. TLrr 003 036 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC TABLES (Continued) 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 8. Comparison of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements with Detected Analytes in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 9. USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water. 10. Calculated Values for Relative Percent of PCE for Selected Supply Well Samples from September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 11. Proposed Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Eighth Sampling Event, December 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. FIGURES 1. Well Sampling Locations for the Tutu Wells Site Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 2. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for Ramsay Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 3. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for Tillett Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 4. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for Eglin II Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for Harvey Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 6. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for LaPlace Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 7. Chlorinated VOC Concentrations for Smith Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. TUT' 003 0367 GERAGHTV & MILLER. INC. FIGURES (Continued) 8. Relative Percent of PCE in Ramsay Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 9. Relative Percent of PCE in Tillett Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 10. Relative Percent of PCE in Eglin II Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 11. Relative Percent of PCE in Harvey Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 12. Relative Percent of PCE in LaPlace Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 13. Relative Percent of PCE in Smith Well Samples, September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. APPENDIX A. Data Validation Summary Report for the Tutu Wells Site, September 1992 Sampling Event, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC SEVENTH SAMPLING REPORT SEPTEMBER 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS INTRODUCTION In April 1990, Geraghty & Miller, Inc. was retained by the Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee (TEIC), which is comprised of Texaco Caribbean Inc. (Texaco) and Esso U.S. Virgin Islands (Esso), to prepare a sampling, analysis, and monitoring plan (SAMP) for the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. This report for the seventh sampling event (September 1992) at the Tutu Wells Site was prepared in accordance with the Administrative Order (AO), effective March 22, 1990, and with the requirements detailed in the "Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan for Wells, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands," prepared in September 1990 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1990). The SAMP was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in its September 21, 1990 letter to the TEIC. (USEPA 1990a). The first three ground-water sampling events were performed in September/October 1990, February 1991, and June 1991. Geraghty & Miller and Soil Tech Corporation, Inc. (Soil Tech) of San Juan, Puerto Rico, implemented the sampling activities. For each of these three sampling events, Geraghty & Miller prepared reports (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991a, 1991b, and 199Ic) that were submitted to the USEPA and the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR). Due to cumulative quality control (QC) problems caused by the previous laboratory, Geraghty & Miller recommended that Enseco East Incorporated (Enseco) of Somerset, New Jersey be retained as the laboratory subcontractor after the third sampling event (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991c). A meeting was held with the USEPA on July 15, 1991 to discuss the new laboratory and to clarify the sampling and analytical procedures. A revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d), which was submitted to the USEPA in September 1991, incorporated clarifications of the sampling and analytical procedures and included the change in the analytical GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 2 laboratory. The revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Id) became effective prior to the fourth sampling event, which took place in October 1991 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991e). The fifth sampling event was conducted in February 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a), and the sixth sampling event was conducted in May 1992 (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992b). The objectives of the SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1990) and the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d) are to identify, quantify, and monitor the occurrence of gasoline constituents and tetrachloroethene (commonly referred to as perchloroethylene and abbreviated as PCE) and its breakdown products in particular water supply wells in the vicinity of Route 38 within the Tutu Wells Site (see Figure 1). SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES The seventh sampling event was conducted from September 14 through 17, 1992 by Soil Tech and Geraghty & Miller. Ms. Ana Gloria Ramos; Designated Coordinator for TEIC, was present throughout the sampling event. Sampling and analysis were performed as described in the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d), with the exception of the few deviations outlined later in this section. Table 1 lists the sample locations and analytical parameters for the September 1992 sampling. In brief, the wells were sampled and analyzed for the Target Compound List (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with a modified version of USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989) to achieve lower detection levels. All analyses were performed using contract laboratory protocol (CLP) procedures. Enseco performed the laboratory analyses. TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY All 14 samples (13 wells and one blind replicate) obtained during the September 1992 sampling event were collected utilizing the permanent pumps and piping systems installed in the wells, with the exception of the samples from the Gassett supply well. The Gassett well, which IUT 003 0370 GERAGHTY <* MILLER. INC. 3 is not equipped with a permanent pump, was purged using a submersible pump powered by a portable generator. After 1,040 gallons (approximately 3.9 well volumes) were purged from the Gassett well, the submersible pump was removed and a sample was collected using a Teflon bailer. Sample names shown on the tables that require explanation are as follows: • One blind field replicate sample, labelled "Ruben," was collected during the sampling event and on the validated data tables was renamed "Ramsay FR," indicating this sample was a field replicate taken from the Ramsay well. • Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were collected from the Steele well. These samples were labelled "Steele MS" and "Steele MSD." • On September 15, 1992, the distilled and deionized water provided by Enseco was used to prepare an equipment blank and a water blank. The equipment blank sample was collected by rinsing the distilled and deionized water through the clean Teflon bailer, which was later used to sample the Gassett well. The water blank was collected by pouring the distilled and deionized water from the laboratory-supplied containers into the sample containers. The equipment blank and the water blank were analyzed for TCL VOCs. Trip blank samples were prepared by Enseco and shipped to Soil Tech with the other sample vials. The objective of a trip blank is to measure potential cross-contamination of samples during vial preparation, shipment, and analysis. A trip blank sample (five 40-milliliter vials) was included in each shipment of samples from the Tutu Wells Site to Enseco. Trip blank samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs. Geraghty & Miller validated the analytical data in accordance with the USEPA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. HW-6, January 1992, for organic compounds (USEPA 1992). GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 4 The data validation summary is provided in Appendix A. The VOC parameters detected in ground-water samples collected during the seventh sampling event (September 1992) are summarized in Table 2. The complete VOC validated data for the seventh sampling event are presented in Table 3. Details of the sampling and analysis procedures, data validation requirements, and reporting requirements are provided in the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d). PROCEDURAL DEVIATIONS Deviations from the scope of work and procedures during the seventh sampling event are explained below. 1. The VIHA I and VIHA II wells were not sampled due to inoperable pumps. 2. Due to the presence of air bubbles in the trip blanks received from Enseco, all trip blank samples were refilled on-site using the distilled, deionized analyte-free water provided by Enseco. 3. The Matthias well was not sampled because, after several attempts to obtain access for sampling, the property owner did not agree to supply access. 4. The Harthman III well was not sampled because of construction activities in the new Tutu Shopping Plaza site. The well is presently being used for a dust control system used during the construction operations. 5. The following wells were resampled because the laboratory reported air bubbles in the original sample vials: La Place (9/17/92), and Eglin I, II, and ID (9/16/92). GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 5 6. The following wells were resampled the day they were collected (9/16/92) because the sampling crew observed air bubbles in the original sample vials before shipment to the laboratory: Harthman II, and Tillet. DATA VALIDATION The organic data have been evaluated according to USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-6, Revision No. 8 (USEPA 1992), in conjunction with the USEPA Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (USEPA 1991) and the appropriate corresponding methodology. Because the VOC analyses were not performed in accordance with the CLP Statement of Work (SOW) for organic analysis (USEPA 1990b), the SOP for organic data review is not directly applicable. However the SOP was used, along with USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989) and the additional QC requirements outlined in the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Id), to conform to the USEPA Region II data validation protocol (USEPA 1992). All of the data have been tabulated and assigned the appropriate qualifier codes, if required. A discussion of the data validation findings is provided in Appendix A. The QC deficiencies are minor, therefore, the data are usable with minor qualifications. Sample data have not been rejected when qualified as estimated due to more than one deficiency. All of the organic data generated for the samples are valid and usable. ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS VOCs were analyzed according to USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). All VOC analyses were performed within the required holding time, as shown in Table 4, with the exception of the Tillett DL sample, which was reanalyzed with a secondary dilution (DL) 19 days outside the 7-day holding time. Therefore, the result for 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) (reported as sum of cis- and trans-isomers) is qualified as estimated using the "J" qualifier. VOCs were detected in various blanks, and associated ground-water samples were qualified as GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 6 appropriate. Table 5 presents a summary of VOC-contaminated blanks and associated ground- water samples. Table 6 presents the complete validated VOC data results for the first seven sampling events (September/October 1990, February 1991, June 1991, October 1991, February 1992, May 1992, and September 1992). A summary of detected VOCs for these seven sampling events is presented in Table 7. In a comparison of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARS) with detected analytes in ground water (see Table 8), VOCs were detected at concentrations above the USEPA drinking water standards (see Table 9) in samples collected from the following supply wells: Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin HI, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Harthman II, Harvey, LaPlace, Ramsay, Smith, Steel, and Tillett. VOCs constitute the main group of constituents of concern at the Tutu Wells Site. The compounds that were consistently detected in samples were 1,2-DCE; trichloroethene (TCE); and PCE. PCE was detected in all samples except the Gassett sample. The PCE concentrations range from 10 parts per billion (ppb) in the Harthman II sample to 260 ppb in the Harvey sample. TCE was detected in all samples except the Gassett sample, and concentrations range from 0.89 ppb in the Ramsay FR sample to 62 ppb in the Tillett sample. 1,2-DCE was detected in all samples except the Gassett sample. The 1,2-DCE concentrations range from 1.4 ppb in the Ramsay sample to 290 ppb in the Tillett sample. The other VOCs detected in the September sampling event were vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, acetone, carbon disulfide, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. Vinyl chloride was detected only in the Steele sample at a concentration of 3.3 ppb. Carbon disulfide was detected only in the Ramsay sample at an estimated concentration of 0.15 ppb. Trace concentrations of chloroform were detected in six samples (Four Winds I, Four Winds II, La Place, Ramsay, Ramsay FR, and Tillett) ranging from an estimated concentration of 1 ppb in the Four Winds II sample to an estimated concentration of 3.6 ppb in the Tillett sample, probably the by-product of spills or leaks from water treatment systems using chlorine as a disinfectant. Bromodichloromethane was detected only in the Ramsay well at a concentration of 0.94 ppb (average of Ramsay and Ramsay FR samples). TUT 003 0374 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 7 Methylene chloride and acetone were both detected in the Harvey and Tillett samples; however these compounds were also detected in the laboratory blank. Because methylene chloride and acetone are common laboratory contaminants, Geraghty & Miller believes that these results do not represent actual ground-water quality in the Harvey and Tillett wells. Petroleum constituents such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) have not been detected in the majority of the wells. Benzene was detected in two samples, La Place and Tillett, at an estimated concentration of 0.29 ppb and at a concentration of 7 ppb, respectively. Toluene was detected in two samples, Eglin II and Tillett, at estimated concentrations of 0.081 ppb and 0.5 ppb, respectively. Ethylbenzene was detected only in the Tillett sample at an estimated concentration of 1.5 ppb. Total xylenes were detected only in the La Place well at an estimated concentration of 0.85 ppb. Other than one occurrence of benzene at 7 ppb, only three VOCs (1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE) have been detected at concentrations above 4 ppb. 1,2-DCE and TCE are potential degradation products of PCE. Graphs showing the concentrations of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE in selected wells from September 1990 through September 1992 are presented on Figures 2 through 7. These graphs illustrate the variation of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE concentrations throughout the seven sampling events at the Tutu Wells Site. Of these three chlorinated organic compounds, TCE has generally been detected at the lowest concentration, with 1,2-DCE and PCE usually being reported at higher concentrations than TCE. With the exception of the Eglin III, Ramsay, Harvey, and Smith wells, 1,2-DCE is the VOC that has been present at the highest concentration in wells sampled at the Tutu Wells Site (see Figures 2 through 7). To better evaluate the occurrence of PCE relative to its potential breakdown products, the relative percent of PCE was calculated for analytical results from September 1990 through September 1992 (see Figures 8 through 13). The relative percent of PCE was calculated by dividing the concentration of PCE by the sum of the concentrations of 1,2-DCE, TCE, and PCE. The calculated values for relative percent of PCE are shown in Table 10. The relative percent of PCE at most well locations has been below 45 percent. However, the relative percent of PCE GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 8 for the Ramsay and Harvey well samples usually exceeded 80 percent (see Figures 8 and 11). The relative percent of PCE for the Smith well samples was between 68 and 85 percent (see Figure 13). For the other wells, shown on Figures 9, 10, and 12, the relative percent of PCE ranged between 20 and 50 percent. Because 1,2-DCE and TCE are potential degradation products of PCE, the high relative percent of PCE at the Ramsay, Harvey, and Smith wells may indicate proximity to a source of PCE. The further the distance downgradient from a PCE source and the more time PCE is exposed to degradation processes in the aquifer, the greater the likelihood that the relative percent of PCE will decrease as PCE is degraded into 1,2-DCE and TCE. Alternatively, proximity to sources of 1,2-DCE or TCE ground-water contamination may result in a reduction of the relative percent of PCE. RECOMMENDATIONS The September 1992 sampling results meet the prescribed objectives of the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d). Geraghty & Miller recommends that the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d) continue to be followed, but that the revisions discussed below be implemented. • The eighth sampling event (scheduled to begin on the week of March 22, 1993) should only include analysis for TCL VOCs, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989) following CLP protocol. • The eighth sampling event should only include the wells listed in Table 11. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. REFERENCES Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1990. Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan for Wells, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 1990. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991a. First Sampling Report, September 1990, Tutu Wells Site Quarterly Sampling, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, January 1991. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991b. Second Sampling Report, February 1991, Tutu Wells Site Quarterly Sampling, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, May 1991. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991c. Third Sampling Report, June 1991, Tutu Wells Site Quarterly Sampling, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 1991. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Id. Revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan for Wells, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 1991. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991e. Fourth Sampling Report, October 1991, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, January 1992. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992a. Fifth Sampling Report, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, May 1992. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1992b. Sixth Sampling Report, May 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, August 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Method 524.2, Revision 3.0, Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL), Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990a. Letter from C. Petersen, USEPA Chief New York/Caribbean Compliance Branch, to A. G. Ramos, Designated Coordinator, Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee, September 21, 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990b. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, SOW No. 3/90 including Rev. 12/90 and 2/91, March 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (OLM01.0), December 1990, revised June 1991. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 10 REFERENCES (Continued) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review, Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-6, Revision No. 8, January 1992. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1954. Eastern St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. CM:dt\sv #PR00801-D2/SE VENTH. RPT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 1. List of Sample Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Seventh Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID Proposed Analytes Eglin I TCL VOCs Eglin II TCL VOCs Eglin III TCL VOCs Four Winds I TCL VOCs Four Winds II TCL VOCs Gassett TCL VOCs Harthman II TCL VOCs Harvey TCL VOCs LaPlace TCL VOCs Ramsay TCL VOCs Smith TCL VOCs Steele TCL VOCs Tillett TCL VOCs TCL Target compound list. VOCs Volatile organic compounds. VOC analysis was performed using modified USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). TD:ce/rma #PR(X)801 -#2/6lhqlr. rpl UT O03 0379 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 2. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analylc Date: 1 ,2-Dichloroelhene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Telrachloroethene Toluene Chloroform Methylene chloride Acetone Benzene Xylenes (total) Carbon disulfide Bromodichloromelhanc Vinyl chloride Ethylbenzene Eglin I 16-Sep-92 12 4.5 11 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 16-Sep-92 11 4.7 11 0.081 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin III 16-Scp-92 32 13 34 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds I l5-Sep-92 170 21 78 NA 1.6J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds II 15-Sep-92 99 10 38 NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harthman n 16-Sep-92 11 2.3 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 14-SeP-92 49 46 260 NA NA 11 B 28 BJ NA NA NA NA NA NA La Place 17-Sep-92 130 22 67 NA 1.4J NA NA 0.29 J 0.85 J NA NA NA NA Ranuay 15-Sep-92 1.4 0.94 16 NA 2.9 NA NA NA NA 0.15} 0.98 NA NA Ramsay FR 15-Sep-92 1.4 0.89 16 NA 2.8 NA NA NA NA NA 0.89 NA NA Smith 16-Sep-92 60 21 170 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele 14-Sep-92 140 33 65 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.3 NA Tillett I6-Sep-92 290 62 140 0.5 J 3.6 J 16 B 85 BJ 7 NA NA NA NA 1.5 J Analytc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 2. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Analytf D«l*: 1 ,2-Dichloroelhene (cis/trans) Trichlorocthene Tetrachloroelhene Toluene Chloroform Methylene chloride Acetone Benzene Xylencs (total) Carbon disulfide Bromodichloro methane Vinyl chloride Ethylbenzene ID: Field Blank 15-Sep-92 NA NA NA NA 0.11 J 0.44 JB NA NA NA 0.096 J NA NA NA Trip Blank 14-Sep-92 NA NA NA NA NA 0.73 B NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 15-Sep-92 NA NA NA NA NA 0.65 BJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 16-Sep-92 NA NA NA NA 0.15J 0.89 B NA NA NA 0.92 NA NA NA Trip Blank 17-Sep-92 NA NA NA 0.074 J NA 1.6B NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ^nalyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). •\nalyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. 3 Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. 1 Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. •R Field replicate of previous sample. ^A Not applicable. CC GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 3. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Eglin I Analyte Date: 16-Sep-92 Chloromethane 0.5 V Bromomethane 0.5 U Vinyl chloride 0.5 U Chloroethane 0.5 U Methylene chloride 0.5 U Acetone 2 UJ Carbon disulfidc 0.5 U 1 , 1 -Dichloroelhene 0. 5 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.5 U 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (c it/train) 1 2 Chloroform 0.5 U 1 ,2-DichIoroethane 0.5 U 2-Butanone 2 U 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.5 U Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 U Bromodichloromethane 0.5 U 1 ,2-Oichloropropane 0.5 U trans-l,3-Dicnloropropene 0.5 U Trichloroethenc 4.5 Dibromochloromethane 0.5 U 1 , 1 ,2-Trichlorocihanc 0.5 U Benzene 0.5 U cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U Bromoform 0.5 U 4-Mcthyl-2-pentanonc 2 U --Hexanone R 1 , 1 .2,2-Tctrachlorocthane 0.5 UJ Tetrachloroethene 1 1 Toluene 0.5 U Chlorobenzenc 0.5 U Elhylbcnzcne 0.5 U Styrenc 0.5 U Xylenes (tola!) 0.5 U Eglin n Eglin HI 16-S«fv-92 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.74 U 1.8U 2 UJ 2 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 32 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.7 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U R R 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 34 0.08 1J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms iper liter (parts per billion fppbj). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using B Analyle is detected in (he laboratory blank. 1 Result is detected below the reporting limit H Compound or element analyzed for, but no Four Winds I 15-Sep-92 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 4.4 U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 170 1.6J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 10 U R 2.5 U 78 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Four Winds n 15-Sep-92 2Uu 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.8U 8UJ 2 U 2 U 2 U 99 1 J 2U 8U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2 U 10 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2UJ 8U R 2 U 38 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U GasseU 15-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harlhman II 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.73 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 10 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U Harvey 14-Sep-92 5Uu 5U 5U 5U 11B 28 BJ 5U 5U 5U 49 5U 5U 20U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 46 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 20 U R 5UJ 260 5U 5U 5U S U 5 U La Place 17-Sep-92 2Uu 2U 2 U 2 U 6.9 U 8UJ 2U 2 U 2U 130 I.4J 2U 8U 2 U 2U 2 U 2 U 2 U 22 2U 2 U 0.29 J 2 U 2 U 8U R 2 U 67 0.63 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2 U 0.85 J Ramuy 15-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.15J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.9 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.98 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.94 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U Ramsay FR I5-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.8 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Smith I6-Sep-92 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 60 0.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U R 2.5 UJ 170 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Steele I4-Sep-92 2Uu 2U 3.3 2 U 3.7 U 8UJ 2U 2U 2U 140 2U 2U 8U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 33 2U 2U 2 U 2U 2 U 8U R 2UJ 65 2U 2 U 2U 2 U 2 U USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 and/or is an estimated concentration. I delected at the correspomding reportinig limit. All reporting limits raised due to high levels of target analylcs. Rcsull rejected. Held replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 3. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Isknds. Analyte Sample ID: Tillett Field Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Blank Dale: 16-Sep-92 15-S«p-92 14-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 Chloromcthane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Metbylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tctrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropanc trans- 1 ,3-Dicnloropropcne Trichlorocthcne Dibromochloromcthanc 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Mcthyi-2-pentanone 2 Hexanone 1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachIoroethanc Tctrachloroethenc Toluene -hlorobenzenc ithylbenzene Jtyrenc <ylencs (total) 5Uu 5U 5U 5U 16 B 85 BJ 5U 5U 5U 290 3.6 J 5U 20U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 62 5U 5U 75U SU 20 U R 5UJ 140 0.5 J 5U 1.5J 5 U 5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.44 JB 2UJ 0.096 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.73 B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U R 0.5UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U R R R R 0.65 BJ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U O.S9B 2UJ 0.92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.6 B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.074 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U \nalyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). \nalyscs were performed by Enscco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. > Analyte is detected in Ihc laboratory blank. Result is detected hclow the reporting limit and/or is an eslimaled concentration. I Compound or clement analyzed tor, but nol detected at the corresponding reporting limit. All re porting limits raised due lo high levels of target analytcs. ' Result rejected. K Field rcplii'.'ilc of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 4. Volatile Organic Analysis Holding Time Summary, Seventh Quarter Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Hartman II Harvey LaPlace Ramsay Ramsay FR Smith Steele Tillett Field Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/14/92) Trip Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/16/92) Trip Blank (09/17/92) Matrix Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Preserved No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Date Collected 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 Date Received 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 18-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 18-Sep-92 Days from Date Collection Analyzed to Analysis 19-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 25-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 25-Sep-92 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 8 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 8 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. PR00801 - DV3/tbla I.wk3 U384 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 5. Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Contaminated Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Sampks, Seventh Quarter Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Blank Identifier i Date Sampled or File I.D.) Method Blank (A4627) Method Blank (A4653) Method Blank (A4786) Trip Blank (09/14/92) Trip Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/16/92) PROOS01 - DV3/tbla2.wk3 Date Analyzed 09/19/92 09/20/92 09/25/92 09/19/92 09/19/92 09/20/92 Associated Sample(s) Steele, Harvey, Tillctt, Smith, Eglin I Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Gassett, Ramsay FR, Eglin 11, Eglin I I I , Harthman II LaPlace Steele, Harvey Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Gassett, Ramsay FR Tillett, Smith, Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Harthman II Trip Blank (09/17/92) 09/25/92 Field I.D. FR Blank (09/15/92) 09/19/92 Identification. Field replicate. LaPlace Gassett GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Page, of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Analyte Date: 2-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 27-M«y-92 16-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Melhylcne chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-DichIoroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane c is- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-TrichIoroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pcntanone 2-Hexunone Tctrachloroethene 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Slyrcne Xylenes (lolal) R R R R R R R R R 68 J R R R R R R R R 10 J R R R R R R R 32 J R R R R R R 2UJ R R R 1 U R 1UJ 1 U 1U 60 J 1U 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1 U 1UJ 1 U 1U 8 1 UJ 1 U 1 UJ R R 2UJ 2UJ 26 R 1 UJ 1U 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 J R R R R R R R R R 68 DJ R R R R R R R R 10 J R 1 J R R R R R 32 J R R R R R R 1U 1 U 1 U 1U 1.1 U 4 U 1U 1U 1U 45 0.1 J 1U 4 U 1 U 1U I U 1 U 1 U 7.5 I U I U 1 U 1UJ 1 UJ 4 U 4 U 24 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U I U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 17 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 16 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 13 0.05 J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 6.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 2 U R 14 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 12 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 05 U 0.5 U 4.5 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U R 11 0.5UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion Ippb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansetl, Rl, or Enseco-Easl of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. I1 Analyte identified at a secondary dilution i Result is detected below ihe reporting limit and/or is an eslimated concentration. 1 Compound or clement nnnly/.ed for, hut nol detected at the corresponding reporting limit. !< Resull rejected. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page z of ( Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Eglin II Eglin Eglin II Eglin II Eglin II Eglin Eglin II Analyte Date: 27-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 27-M«y-92 16-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomcthane Vinyl chloride Chlorocthane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , l-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1,1 -Tr ichloroethanc Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , i ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene irans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanonc Tctrachloroclhene 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetrachlorocthane Tulucne Clilorobcnzene Bhvlhcnzene Slyrcne Xylcnes (total) 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 5UJ R 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 120 J 5UJ 5 UJ R 5 UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 22 J 5UJ 5 UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5 UJ 10 UJ R 71 J 5 UJ 5UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5UJ 2UJ R R R 1 U R 1 UJ I U 1 U 72 DJ I U 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1 U 1UJ I U 1 U 19 1 UJ I U 1 UJ R R 2UJ 2UJ 34 DJ R 1 UJ 1 U 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ R R R R R R R R R 130 DJ R R R R R R R R 19J R R R R R R R 61 DJ R R R R R R 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2U 1.2U 1.8 U SU 5 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 67 0.12J 1.2 U 5 U 1.2U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2U 1.2U 18 1.2U I.2U 1.2 U 1.2UJ I.2UJ 5 U 5 U 54 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 20 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 6.7 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2 U 16 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 31 0.09 J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 14 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 36 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.74 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 11 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 11 0.5 U 0.081 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in microprams per liter (parts per billion Ippb)). Analyses were pcrlormed hy Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. H Analvtc identified ul :i secondary dilution. 1 Result is detected below the reportinc limit and/or is an estimated concentration. '' Compound or clement analy/ctt for, out not detected at the corresponding rc|x>rtmg limit. < Result rejcclcd. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. " of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Eglin HI Eglin HI Eglin III Eglin III Eglin III Eglin HI Eglin III Analyte Date: 27-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Ocl-91 3-Fcb-92 28-May-92 16-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethanc Vinyl chloride Chlorocthane Mcthylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichloroethcne 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tctrachloridc Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-DichIoropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromelhane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropenc Bromofonn 4-Mc[hyl-2-pentanonc 2- Hexiinonc Tclrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tctrachloroethune Toluene Chloro benzene Ethylbenzcnc Slyrcnc Xylcncs (total) !OUJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 22 J 5UJ 5 UJ 5U 52 J 5 U 5 UJ R 5 U 5 U 5UJ 5UJ 5 UJ 14 5 UJ 5UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 10 UJ R 44 J 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 5 UJ 2UJ R R R 1 U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 45 J 1 U 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1U IUJ 1 U 1 U 11 1 UJ 1 U 1 UJ R R 2UJ 1 UJ 35 R 1 UJ 1 U 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 0.5 UJ 2UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 69 DJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 15 J 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 40 J 05 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.05 J 51 0.1 1 J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 12 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 36 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 39 0.09 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 16 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 41 D 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 31 0.07 J 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 14 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 39 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 1.8U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 32 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 34 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion |ppb|). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragansctt, RI, or linscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. I) Ait.ilyle identified at a secondary dilution. I Kcsuil is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. 1 ' Compound or clemenl analy/cd lor, but not detected at the corresponding re|X>rtmg limit. l< Kesuil rejected. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Pag. of Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1991 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds I I I Analylc Date: 2-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Melhylcne chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Oichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform ! ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tctrachloride Bromodichloromcthane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromelhane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Mcthyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanonc ! . 1 ,2,2-Tclrachlorocthane Tclrachlorocthenc Toluene Clilorobenzene r-thylbenzene .Slyrenc Xylcncs (totnl) 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 89 D 0.28 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 9.8 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.33 J 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 36 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.22 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 150 D 1.2 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.09 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5U 0.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5U 75 D 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 4.4 U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 170 1.6J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 10 U R 2.5 U 78 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Analylc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [pph]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narrapanselt. RI, or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental.Protection Agency methodology. Analvlc identified al :i secondary dilution. Result is deiected below the reportme limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or clement analv/ed lor. Init not detected al the corresponding rc|x>rtinp Al! reportinp limits raised due lo high levels of target analyles Result rc|cclcd limit IT GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page/" of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds II IIFR II II II II II Analyte Date: 26-Sep-90 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chlorocthane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroelhanc 2-Buianone 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane Carbon telrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochlcromethane ! , 1 ,2-TrichIoroethane Benzene irons- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-penlanone -•Hcxanone Ictrachlorocthene 1 . ! ,2,2-Tetrachlorocthane Toluene Chlorobenzene iahylbenzene 'Gyrene \yiencs (total) 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 14 UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 75 J 2UJ 2UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 6J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 5UJ R 25 J 2 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2 U J 2UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 10 UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 61 J 2UJ 2UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 4 J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 5UJ R 18J 2 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2U 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 1 U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 230 D 1U 1 U R 1 U 1 U I U 1U 1 U 21 1 U 1 U 1 UJ R 1 U 2UJ 2 UJ 90D 1 U I UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 130 DJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 12J 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 34 DJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 5V 5 U 5 U 5U 5 U 20 U 20 U 5 U 5U 190 5 U 5U 20 U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 25 5U 5 U 5 U 5UJ 5UJ 20 U 20 U 80 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 2.5 Uj 2.517 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 130 0.5 J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 15 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.7 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 0.4 J 2Uu 2 U 2 U 2 U 2.8U 8 UJ 2 U 2 U 2 U 99 1 J 2 U 8U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 10 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2UJ 8 U R 38 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms_pcr liter (parts per billion |ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. ul Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. > Analvlc identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below the report me limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or clement analyzed lor. out not detected at the corresponding reporting All reporting limits raised due to hich levels ol other analytcs All reporting limits raised due to high levels ol tarpel analytes. Kesull re|i'clcd. !•' I ic Id replicate "I previous sample GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. j of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from February 1991 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Gassett GasseU Gassclt Gassett Gassetl FR Gasselt Gassctt Analyte Date: 5-Feb-91 4-Jun-91 l-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 27-May-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomeihane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethanc 2-Butanone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tctrachloridc Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-DichIoropropcnc Bromotbrm 4 Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hcxanone Tctrachloroethenc 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tctrachlorocthane Toluene Chlorobenzcne bthylbenzcne Siyrenc Xylenes (total) 2 U 2 U 2 U R 1 U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U R 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U R1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2UJ 2UJ 1 U 1 U 44 D 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 2UJ 1 UJ 1UJ I UJ 2UJ 10 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.99 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.09 J • 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.78 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.76 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 6.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Namgansctt, RI or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D J 1 1 R Analvte identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below llic reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed lor. but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. Result rejected. FieM replicate of previous sample GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Pagf of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tulu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Harthman Harthman Harthman Harthman Harthman Harthman Harthman II II II II II IIFR II Analyte Date: 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 4-Jun-91 I-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 16-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfidc 1,1-Dichlorocthcne 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1.2-Dichloroethane 2-Bulanone 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethajie Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-DichIoropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Mcthyl-2-pentanonc 2-Hexanonc Tetrachlornethene 1 , 1 .2.2-Tctrachlorocthane Toluene Chloroben/.enc Ethylheiizene Styrcne Xylencs (total) 2UJ 2 U 2U 2UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 5J 1 UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 U 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 J 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 2UJ R 7 J 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 1 U 2 U 2 U 2U 2 U 1 U R 1 UJ 1U 1 U 5J 1 U I U R I U 1 U 1 U 1 U Ri fu 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 2UJ 2UJ 9 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 6J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 7J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 3.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.77 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 4.7 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.19J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.08 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 1.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.95 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 5.3 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.73 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 10 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U An.ilytc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion Ippb]). Analyses were jicrlonmed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. sta wcjc jjcrjunncu ny \~ciimt; \~uip. ui iidrragniiscu, m, ui dinccu-cuai ui ouii Result is detected below Ihc re|xnlinc limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed lor, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. Kcstili ri'icclcd GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Analyte Date: 26-Scp-90 5-Feb-91 4-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 28-May-92 14-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 . 1-Dichloroethene 1 . 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-DichloroeChene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-BuUmone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethanc 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropcnc Bromoform 4-Mclhyl-2-pcntanone 2 Hcxanone Tclriichlorocthene 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tctrachlorocthane Toluene Clilorobenzenc Hthylhcnzene Slyrene Ny leiies (total) 100 U 100 U 100 UJ 100 U 150 UJ R 50 UJ 50 UJ SOU 50 UJ SOU 50 UJ R SOU SOU 50 UJ SOU 50 UJ SOU SOU SOU sou 50 U 50 UJ 100 UJ R 890 J 50 UJ SOU 50 U 50 U SOU 50 UJ 200 U 200U 200 U 200U 100 U 200U 100 U 100 U 100 U 160 100 U 100 U 200 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 60J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 200 U 200 U 1500 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 1 U 1 U 3 1 U 7 U R 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 80 DJ 0.5 U 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 36 DJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 1 U 1 U 530 DEJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U O.SU 0.5 U 38 0.15J 0.5 U 2U O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU 25 0.5 UJ O.SU O.SU 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 670 D 0.5 U O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU 2.2 O.SU O.SU 2U O.SU 0.06 J O.SU 39 0.1 J O.SU 2U O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU 23 O.SU O.SU O.SU O.SU 0.5 UJ 2 U 2U 500 D 0.5 U 0.06 J O.SU O.SU O.SU 0.5 U 6.2 u 6.2U 6.2 U 6.2U 6.2U 25U 6.2U 6.2U 6.2 U 41 6.2U 6.2 U 25 UJ 6.2 U 6.2U 6.2 U 6.2 U 6.2U 29 6.2U 6.2 U 6.2U 6.2 U 6.5 U 25 U R 350 6.2U 6.2 U 6.2U 6.2U 6.2U 6.2U 5Uu 5 U 5 U S U 11 B 28 BJ 5 U 5 U 5 U 49 5 U 5 U 20 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 46 5 U 5 U 5 U S U 5 U 20 U R 260 5 UJ 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U Analylc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion |ppb|). Analyses were performed by Ccnnic Cor]' of Narragansett, RI, or Ens Enscco-Easl of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. Analylc is delcclcd in the laboratory blank. Analylc identified al a secondary dilution. Concentration exceeds calibration range. Kcsuil is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or clement analv/cd lor. nut not dclcclcd al the corresponding reporting limit. All reporting limits raised due to high levels ul target analyles. Hl'Mlll IV|l'clCll GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID. UPlace LaPlace LaPlace FR LaPlace LaPlace FR LaPlace LaPlace LaPlace FR LaPlace LaPlace Analyte Date: 2-Oct-90 5-Fcb-9I 5-Feb-91 6-Jun-91 6-Jun-91 3-Oct-91 6-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 28-May-92 17-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 . 1-Oichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-DichIoroethane 2-Bulanonc 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethaue Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichforopropene Trichlorocthene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropenc Bromoform •1 - Melhyl-2-pentanone --Hcxanonc Tcirachloroethene 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetruchloroelhane Toluene C'hlorobenzcnc F-'thylbenzene Siyrene \ylcncs (tola!) R R R R R R R R R 140 J R R R R R R R R 24 J R R R R R R R 98 J R R R R R R 2 U 2 U 2 U R I U R 1 UJ I U 1 U 200 D 1 1 U R I U 1 U 1U 1 U R 32 1 U I U 1 U 1U I U 2UJ 2UJ HOD I U 1 U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2V 2 V 2 U R 1 U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U I90D 1 U 1 U R 1 U 1 U 1 U I U R 31 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2UJ 2UJ 100 D U U U U U U IUJ I UJ IUJ 1 UJ 3UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 250 DEJ 2 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 31 D 0.5 U 5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1 U I U 88 DJ 0.5 U 4UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 170 DJ 0.8 J 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 32 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 64 DJ 0.5 UJ 3UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 4.6 10 U 2.2J 2.5U 2.5 U 170 D 0.6 J 2.5U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 30 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5UJ 10 U 10 U 100 D 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.06 J HOD 0.4J 0.5U 2 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 84 D 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U 1.9U 0.5 U 0.07 J 140 D 0.41 J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.14J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 81 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U ' 0.5U 0.5 U 2 u 2 U 2 U 2 U 2V 8U 2V 2V 2V 100 0.44J 2V 8UJ 2V 2V 2V 2V 2V 19 2V 2V 2V 2V 2V 8U R 60 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2Uu 2U 2 U 2U 6.9U 8UJ 2U 2 U 2 U 130 1.4J 2U 8U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 22 2U 2U 0.29 J 2U 2U 8U R 67 2 U 0.63 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2 U 0.85 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ). Analyses were performed by Ccunic Corp. of Narragansclt, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. P Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. '• Concentrulion exceeds calibration range. Result is detected below Ilic reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration 1: Compound or element anaiv/cd lor, out not detected ut the corresponding reporting limit. : All reporting limits raised due In high levels of target analytes. !- _ Ucsu.'l r.-Kvicd. 1 '^ i'lrM [vpiiLMk* of previous s.iinplo GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page of Tabic 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site. St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay FR Analvtc Dale: l-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 l-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 28-May-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichloroethenc 1,1-DichIoroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cts/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichioroethane 2-Bulanone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tetracliloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-DichIoropropane cis-l,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromelhane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanonc 2-Hcxanone Tcirachlorocthcne 1 , 1 .2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzenc Rhylbenzene Slyrene Xylcnes (lolal) 4UJ 4UJ 4UJ 4UJ 17 UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 4UJ R 3 J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ R R R 1 U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 1 J 1 U 1 U R I U 1 U 1U 1 U R 1 1 U I U I U 1 U 1 U 2UJ R 16 U U U U U U 2UJ R R R R 15 J R R R 2J 1 J 1 UJ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 16 R R R R R R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.8 1.1 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.39 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.6 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 19 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 17 1.1 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 3.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 9.5 1.3 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.44 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.4 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 015 UJ 2 U R 20 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.15J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.9 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.98 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.94 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 16 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.8 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analylc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion Ippb)). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narrngansctt, RI, or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. Result is detected below the reporting limit nnd/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or clement analyzed tor, hut not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. Result mceted. Held replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith FR Smith Analyte Dale: 25-S«p-90 5-Feb-91 6-Jun-91 3-Oct-91 5-Feb-92 28-May-°2 28-May-92 16-Sep-92 Chloromelhane Bromomethanc Vinvl chloride Chlbroethane Mclhylenc chloride Acetone Carbon disulfidc 1 , 1-Dichloroethcne 1,1-Dichloroethanc 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, l-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromcthane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentnnone 2-Hcxunone Tcirachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chloro benzene Kthylbenzenc Slyrcne Xylenes (total) 25 U 25 U 25U 25 U 12 UJ 25 UJ 12 UJ 12 UJ 12 U 58 12 U 12 UJ 25 UJ 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 20 12 U 12U 12U R 12 UJ 25 UJ 25 UJ 330 J 12 UJ 12 U 12 U 12 U' 12 U 12 U 2UJ R R R 1U R 1UJ 1 U 1 U 42 J 1 U 1U R 1 U 1 U 1U I U 1 U 23 I U 5 1U R 1 U 2UJ 2UJ 160J 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 1UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 62 D 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 26 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 190 D 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 56 D 0.35 J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 20 0.5UJ 0.5 U 0.1 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 250 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 48 D 0.32 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 230 D 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.5 u 2.5 U 2.5 U 2 5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 40 2.5U 2.5 U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 15 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.4 U 10 U R 140 2.5U 2.5 U 2 5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 37 0.2 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 05 U 14 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 2 U R 150 D 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5U 10 UJ 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 60 0.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 21 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U R 170 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5U Arulytc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. ol Narragansett, RI or tnseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. [> Analvlc identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. •I Compound or clement analyzed lor, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit i All reporting limits raised due to high levels ol target unalylcs. Result rejected. K Field replicate ol previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page i./- of Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Analyte Date: 25-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 l-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 27-May-92 14-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomeihane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylcne chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1,2 Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethanc 2-Butanone 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromcthane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 .2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-DichIoropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-penlanone 2-Hexanone Tclrachloroethcne 1 . 1 ,2,2-Tctrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Kihylbenzene Slyrene Xylenes (total) 17 UJ 17 UJ 17 UJ 17 UJ 140 UJ R 8UJ 8UJ 8U 120 8UJ 8UJ R 8UJ 8U 8U 8 U 8UJ 48 8U 8 U 8 U 8UJ 8UJ 17 UJ R 130 J 8UJ 8U 8 U 8U 8UJ 8UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 5 U 10 U 5 U 5U 5 U 44 5 U 5U 10 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 12 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 10 U 10 U 65 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 5 U 1 UJ 1 U 4 1 UJ 0.5UJ R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 180 DJ 0.5 U 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 42 DJ 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 1 U 1 U 150 DJ 0.5U 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.12J 0.11 J 150 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 29 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.08 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2 U 54 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.13 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.5UJ 2.5 IT 1.4J 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 110 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 29 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 55 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 1.2U 1.2U 2 1.2U 1.2U R 1.2U 1.2 U 1.2U 150 D 1.2 U 1.2 U SU 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 27 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2 U 1.2UJ 5 U R 40 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U 1.2U I.2U 1.2U 2Uu 2 U 3.3 2 U 3.7U 8UJ 2 U 2 U 2 U 140 2 U 2U 8U 2 U 2U 2U 2 U 2 U 33 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2U 8U R 65 2UJ 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 U Analyte concentrations in mierograms per liter (parts per billion IppbJ). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of NarraganseU, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. f> Analvte identified at a secondary dilution. I Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed lor, nut not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. ; All re-porting limits raised due to high levels of other analylcs. 'i All reporting limits raised due to lupli levels of target anafytes. l< Result rejected. TLT GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Pag<{ ) of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Tillett Tillett FR Tillelt Tiller. Tillett Tillett FR Tillett Tillett Tillett Analyte Dale: 2-Oct-90 2-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 2-Oct-91 5-Feb-92 29-M»y-92 16-Sep-92 Cliloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , l-Dichloroethene 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichlorocthane 2-Butanone 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane Carbon letrachloride Bromodichloromcthane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroctliene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichlorocthanc Benzene trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform •l-Methyl-2-pentanonc 2-Hexanone Tetrachlorocthene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroelhane Toluene Chloroben/ene Elhylbenzcne Styrene Xylenes (total) R R 17J R R R R R R 280 J R R R R R R R R 56 J R R 32 J R R R R 120 J R R R R R R Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of li Analvli- is detected in the iJ Analvlc identified at a sec R R 12 J R R R R R R 270 J R R R R R R R R 47 J R R 26 J R R R R 98 J R R R R R R 2U 2U 7 2 U I U R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 200 D 1 U 1U R 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U R 36 1 U 1 U 27 1 U I U 2UJ 2UJ 100 D 1 U 1 1 U 1 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 5 1 U 5U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 400 DEJ 0.9 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 72 DJ 0.5 U 4 3J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1U 1 U 180DJ 0.5U 0.8 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 17 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5U 150 2.5 U 2.5U 10 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5U 38 2.5U 2.5 U 71 J 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 10 U 10 U 66 2.5U 3J 2.5U 17 2.5 U 3.6 J (parts per billion [ppb]). Narragansett, Rl or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U MOD 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 35 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 58 DJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2 U 63 D 0.5 U 2.1 J 0.2 J 14 0.5 U 2.7J using standard 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 5.3 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 6.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 23 0.5U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2.5 uJ 2.5 U 3.2 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 470 DJ 1.2J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 59 2.5 U 2.5 U 0.8J 2.5 U 2.5U . R R 200 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5Uu 5U 5 U 5U 16 B 85 BJ 5 U 5 U 5U 290 3.6 J 5U 20 U 5 U 5U 5U 5U 5U 62 5U 5 U 7 5U 5U 20 U R 140 5UJ 0.5 J 5 U 1.5J 5 U 5U . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. laboratory blank ondary dilution. Concentration exceeds calibration range. Result is defected below Ihc reporting limit nnd/or is an estimated concentration Compound or clement analv/cd lor. lull not detected al the corresponding reporting limit. All repotting limits raised due to high levels of target analvtcs. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page/ ' '• of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from June 1991 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Equipment Equipment Equipment Field Blank Blank Blank Blank Analyte Date: 4-Jun-91 4-Feb-92 27-May-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichlorocthene 1 , 1 -Oichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (c<s/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tctrachloridc Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Oichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 . 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropcne Bromoform 4 Methyl-2-pentanone _ Hcxanone Telrnchloroethenc ! , 1 ,2,2-Telrachloroethanc Toluene Chlorobenzenc I;ihylhenzcnc Slyrene Xylcnes (total) UJ UJ UJ UJ J 7J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 43 UJ 1 J R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 14 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 4 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 7 7.6 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0 5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 05 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.1 J 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 12 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.44 JB 2UJ 0.096 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 u : 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U Anulyle concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb|). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragansett, Rl, or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, u«ing standard U.S Environmental Protection Agency methodology. H Analvle is detected in the laboratory blank. ' Result is detected below thr reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration 1 ' Compound or element analyzed lor. Tint not detected at the corresponding reporting limit K Result ri'ii'clccl GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Analyte Dale: 24-Sep-90 25-Sep-90 26-Sep-90 27-Sep-90 l-Ocl-90 2-Oct-90 3-Oct-90 4-Feb-91 5-Feb-91 6-Feb-91 7-Feb-9I 4-Jun-91 5-Jun-9I Chloromethane 2 U 2 U Bromomethane 2 U 2 U Vinyl chloride 2 U 2 U Chloroethane 2 U 2 U Methylcne chloride 25 J 34 J Acetone 12 J 42 J Carbon disulfide 1 UJ 1 UJ l.l-Dichloroethene 1 UJ 1 UJ 1,1-Dichloroethanc IUJ IUJ 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 1 UJ 1 UJ Chloroform 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 UJ 1 UJ 2-Butuione R R 1,1,1 -Trichloroethanc 1 UJ 1 UJ Carbon tetrachloride 1 UJ 1 UJ Bromodichloromethane 1 U 1 U 1 ,2-Dichloropropane I UJ 1 UJ cis- 1 ,3-Dichioropropene 1 U 1 U Trichloroethene 1 UJ 1 UJ Dibromochloromethane 1 UJ 1 UJ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane IUJ IUJ Benzene 1 UJ 1 UJ trani- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene 1 UJ 1 UJ Bromoform 1 UJ 1 UJ 4 Methyl-2-pentanone 2 UJ 2 UJ 2-Hexanone R R Tetrachloroethene I UJ 1 UJ 1,1.2,2-TetrachIoroethane IUJ IUJ Toluene 1 U 1 J Chlorobenzene 1 UJ 1 UJ Elhylbenzene 1 U 1 U Styrene 1 UJ 1 UJ Xylenes (total) 8 7 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 24 J 4J IUJ 1 UJ 1 U 1 U I UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 UJ 1 U 1 U I U 1 U 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 UJ 1 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 16J R IUJ IUJ I U I U I U 1 UJ R 1 UJ I U 1 U I U I U I U I U IUJ 1 U 1UJ IUJ 2UJ R IUJ 1 UJ I U 1 U I U 1 UJ 1 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 13 J 6J 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ 2UJ R 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion (ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narraganselt, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, B Annlytc is detected in the laboratory blank. J Result is detected below (he reporting limit nnd/or is '1 Compound or element analysed for, out not detected an estimated at the corrcs concentration, ponding reportiiig limit. 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 14J 7J 1 UJ I U J 1 UJ I UJ IUJ IUJ R 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ IUJ R 1 UJ 2UJ R I UJ I U J 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ using standard 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ R 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ I UJ 1 UJ IUJ 1 UJ 2UJ R 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ I UJ 1 UJ 2UJ R R R 2 R t UJ 1 U 1 U IUJ I U IUJ R IUJ I U IUJ I U I U 1 U 1 UJ I U 1 UJ R R 2UJ 2UJ I U R UJ U UJ UJ UJ 2UJ R R R3 R IUJ 1 U I U IUJ 1 U 1 UJ R IUJ I U 1 UJ I U 1 U I U IUJ I U 1 UJ R R 2U 2UJ 1 U R UJ U UJ UJ UJ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U 2 U 2 U 2 U 2 R 1 UJ 1 U 1 U I U I U I U R 1 U I U 1 U I U R 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 2U 2UJ I U I U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U methodology. 1 J 2 U 2U 2 U 2 R IUJ I U I U 1 U I U 1 U R I U I U I U I U R I U 1 U I U I U I U I U 2U 2UJ 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U 1 U I U 9J I UJ 1 UJ 1 UJ 0.8 J U J 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1 U I U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2J I UJ 1 UJ I UJ I UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1 J R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ I UJ I UJ 0.5UJ 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 05 UJ Result rejected GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page of 17 Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Analyte Date: 6-Jun-91 l-Oct-91 2-Oct-91 3-Oct-9] 3-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 27-May-92 28-May-92 29-M»y-92 M-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 Chloromethane 6 J 0.5 U Bromomethanc 1 UJ 0.5 U Vinyl chloride 1 UJ 0.5 U Chloroethane 1 UJ 0.5 U Methylene chloride 0.9 J 0.5 U Acetone 8 J 2 U Carbon disulfide 0.5 UJ 0.21 J 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 0.5 U 0.5 U Chloroform 0.5 U 0.5 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 2 0.5 U 2-Butanone R 2 U 1,1.1-Trichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Bromodkhloromethanc 0.5 U 0.5 U 1 ,2-Dichloropropane 0.5 U 0.5 U cis-l,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 0.5 U Trichloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U Dibromochloromethane 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.1.2-Trichloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U Benzene 0.5 U 0.5 U trens-1.3-Dichloropropene 0.5 U 0.5 UJ Bromoform 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 4-Melhyl-2-pentanone 1 U 2 U 2-Hcxanone 0.8 J 2 U Tetrachloroethene 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 U 0.5 U Toluene 2 0. 1 J Chlorobenzene 0.5 U 0.5 U Ethylbenzcne 0.5 U 0.5 U Styrene 0.5 U 0.5 U Xylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.28 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.6 3.2 1.4J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5UJ 2 U 2 U O.I J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.17 J 2 U 0.25 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.25 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 0.29 J 2 U 0.57 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, B Analyle is detected in the laboratory blank. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.33 J 2 U 0.23 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0,5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U using standard 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.29 J 2 U 1.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.33 J 2 U 1 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.46 J 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U methodology. OSUJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.1 U 2 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U R R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.73 B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U R R R R 0.65 BJ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed lor, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. Result rejected. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Trip Blank Trip Blank Analyte Date: 16-Sep-92 17-S«p-92 Chloro methane Bromomethnne Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulftde 1 , l-Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dicbloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (c is/tram) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane --Butanone I.l.l-Trichloroethajie Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene I richlorocthene i)ibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroeihane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-penlanone --Hexanone Tclrachloroelhene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenicne Kthylbenzene Siyrene \ylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.89 B 2UJ 0.92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 ur 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 1.6B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 0.5U 0.5 U 0.074 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, Rl, or Enseco-Easl of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. if Analvic is detected in Ihe laboratory blank. Rcsull is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. 1' Compound or element analyzed tor, but not detected at Ihe corresponding reporting limit. < Rcsull rejected. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page if 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Is'lands. Sample ID: Eglin I Eglin I Egiin I EglinI Eglin I Eglin I Eglin I Analyte Dtte: 2-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 27-M«y-92 16-Sep-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Tricbloroethene TetrachJoroelhene Xylenes (total) 1 . 1 ,2-Trichloroethanc Chloroform Toluene 68 J 10 J 32 J NA NA NA NA 60 J 8 26 1 J NA NA NA 68 DJ 10 J 32 J NA 1 J NA NA 45 7.5 24 NA NA O.I J NA 17 7 16 NA NA NA 0.06 J 13 6.3 14 NA NA 0.05 J 0.06 J 12 4.5 11 NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in mJcrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb])- Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, Rl, or Ennscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Pag( of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: 1 .2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroelhcne Tetruchloroethene Chloroform Benzene Toluene Eglin II 27-Sep-90 120 J 22 J 71 J NA NA NA Eglin II 5-Feb-91 72 DJ 19 34 DJ NA NA NA Eglin II 5-Jun-91 I30DJ I9J 61 DJ NA NA NA Eglin II 2-Oct-91 67 18 54 0.12J NA NA Eglin II 3-Feb-92 20 6.7 16 NA NA NA Eglin II 27-May-92 31 14 36 0.09 J 0.07 J NA Eglin II I6-Sep-92 11 4.7 11 NA NA 0.081 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansea, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page -f 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Dale: Acetone 1,2-Dichloroelhene (cis/trans) Trichlorocthene Tetritchloroethene 1 , 1-Dichlorcethane Chloroform Benzene Eglin III 27-Sep-90 22 J 52 J 14 44 J NA NA NA Eglin III 5-Feb-91 NA 45 J 11 35 NA NA NA Eglin III 5-Jun-91 NA 69 DJ 15 J 40 J NA NA NA Eglin III 2-Oct-91 NA 51 12 36 0.05 J 0.11 J 0.05 J Eglin III 3-Feb-92 NA 39 16 41 D NA 0.09 J NA Eglin III 28-May-92 NA 31 14 39 NA 0.07 J NA Eglin III 16-Sep-92 NA 32 13 34 NA NA NA Analytc concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb])- Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. c ' " " "' " D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. of Narragansctt, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page,' of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1991 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds I I I Analyte D»te: 2-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 15-Scp-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform Trichloroethene Benzene Tetrachloroethene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromcthane 89 D 0.28J 9.8 0.33 J 36 NA NA 150 D 1.2 21 0.8 75 D 0.22 J 0.09 J 170 1.6J 21 NA 78 NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Ensi Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds Four Winds ii lira u ii ii ii n Analyte Date: 26-Sep-90 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 15-Sep-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Chloroform Benzene Xylenes (total) 75 J 6J 25 J NA NA NA 61 J 4J 18 J NA NA NA 230 D 21 90D NA NA NA 130 DJ 12 J 34 DJ NA NA NA 190 25 80 NA NA NA 130 15 NA 0.5 J 2.7 0.4 J 99 10 38 1J NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceunic Corp. of Narragansett, Rl, or Ens D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. of Narragansett, Rl, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page o of j.i Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from February 1991 to May 1992 at the Tula Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Gassetl Gusctt Analyte Date: 5-Feb-91 l-Ocl-91 Trichloroethene 1 0. 1 U Toluene 44 D NA Chloromethane NA NA 1 ,2-Dichlorocthene (cis/trans) NA NA Benzene NA NA Gassett Gassett FR 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 0.09 J NA NA NA 0.99 NA 0. 1 1 J NA 0.06 J 0.07 J Gassett 27-May-92 0.06 J NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyse 1 ,2-Dichloroclhenc Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethenc Sample ID: Date: (cis/trans) Harthman II 26-Sep-90 5 J 1 J 7J Harthman II 5-Feb-91 5J 2 9 Harthman II 4-Jun-9I 6J 1 J 7 J Harthman II l-Ocl-91 3.1 0.77 4.7 Harthman II 3-Fcb-92 0.19J 0.08 J 1.2 Harthman II FR 3-Feb-92 4.2 0.95 5.3 Harthman II 16-Sep-92 11 2.3 10 Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page,0 of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Harvey Analyte Date: 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 4-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 28-May-92 14-Sep-92 Tctrachloroethcne 1 ,2-Dich!oroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Chloroform 1 ,1-Dichloroethene Toluene Methylene chloride Acetone 890 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1500 160 60J NA NA NA NA NA NA 530 DEJ 80 DJ 36 DJ 3 NA NA NA NA NA 670 D 38 25 2.1 0.15J NA NA NA NA 500 D 39 23 2.2 0.1 J 0.06 J 0.06 J NA NA 350 41 29 NA NA NA NA NA NA 260 49 46 NA NA NA NA 11 B 28 BJ Analyte concentrations in mieroerams per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceunic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enscco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration range. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 9 of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Simple ID: La Place LaPlace LaPlace FR LaPlace La Place FR LaPlace LaPIace LaPlace FR LaPlace LaPlace Analyte Date: 2-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Feb-91 6-Jun-9I 6-Jun-91 3-Oct-91 6-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 28-M«y-92 17-Sep-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethcne (cis/trans) Trichlorocthene Tetrachloroethene Chloroform 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Methylene chloride Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichlorocthane Benzene Toluene Xylenes (total) 140J 24 J 98J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 200 D 32 HOD 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 190 D 31 100 D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 250 DEJ 31 D 88 DJ 2 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 170 DJ 32 J 64 DJ 0.8 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 170 D 30 100 D 0.6 J NA 4.6 2.2 J NA NA NA NA MOD 23 84 D 0.4 J NA NA NA 0.06 J 0.15J 0.11J NA 140 D 23 81 D 0.41 J NA NA NA 0.07 J 0.14J NA NA 100 19 60 0.44 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 130 22 67 1.4 J NA NA NA NA 0.29 J NA 0.85 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enieco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration range. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay Ramsay FR Analyte Dale: l-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 l-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 28-Miy-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 Tctrachloroethene 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Acetone Chloroform Broraodichloromethane Carbon disulfide 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA 16U 1 NA NA NA NA 16 11 NA 15 J 1 J NA NA 19 2.8 1.6 NA 1.1 0.39J NA 23 17 3.7 NA 1.1 0.5 NA 20 9.5 2.4 NA 1.3 0.44 J NA 16 1.4 0.94 NA 2.9 0.98 0.15 J 16 1.4 0.89 NA 2.8 0.89 NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppbj). . . Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narraginsett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. .' Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page 11 of Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Sample ID: Smith Smith Smith Smith Smith Smilh Smith FR Smith Anaiyte Date: 25-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 6-Jun-91 3-Oct-91 5-Feb-92 28-May-92 28-May-92 16-Sep-92 1 ,2-Dkhloroeiheae (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene 1 . 1 .2-Trichloroethane 1.1-Dichloroethone Chloroform Benzene Toluene 58 20 330 J NA NA NA NA NA 42 J 23 160J 5 NA NA NA NA 62 D 26 190 D NA NA NA NA NA 56 D 20 250D NA 0.06 J 0.35 J 0.1 J NA 48 D 21 230 D NA 0.06 J 0.32 J 0.07 J 0.05 J 40 15 140 NA NA NA NA NA 37 14 150 D NA NA 0.2 J NA NA 60 21 170 NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in mkrograms per liter (parti per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous tample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page 12 of Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 tt the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Steele Arulyte Date: 25-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-9I l-Oct-91 4-Feb-92 27-May-92 14-Sep-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene TetrachJoroethene Vinyl chloride 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane Benzene Chlorobenzene 120 48 130 J NA NA NA NA NA 44 12 65 NA NA NA NA NA 180DJ 42 DJ 150 DJ 4 NA NA NA NA 150 D 29 54 D 2.5 0.12J 0.11 J 0.08 J 0.13 J 110 29 55 1.4J NA NA NA NA 150 D 27 40 2 NA NA NA NA 140 33 65 3.3 NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit andyor is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page, of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from October 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Tillett Tillea FR Tillett Tillett Tillett Tilleu FR Tillett Tillett Tillett Analyte Date: 2-Oct-90 2-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 2-Oct-91 2-Oct-91 S-Feb-92 29-May-92 16-Sep-92 Vinyl chloride 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethcne Benzene Tetrachloroelhene Toluene Elhylbenzene Chloroform 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Xylenes (total) Chlorobenzcne Methylene chloride Acetone 17J 280 J 56 J 32 J 120 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12J 270 J 47 J 26 J 98 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7 200 D 36 27 100 D 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 400 DEJ 72 DJ 3J 180 DJ 0.8 J NA 0.9 4 NA NA NA NA 17J 150 38 71 J 66 3J 17 NA NA " 3.6J NA NA NA 11 J 140 D 35 58 DJ 63 D 2.1 J 14 NA NA 2.7 J 0.2 J NA NA NA 23 6.3 1.7 23 0.05 J NA 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA 3.2 470 DJ 59 0.8J 200 NA NA 1.2J NA NA NA NA NA NA 290 627 140 0.5 J 1.5 J 3.6 J NA NA NA 16 B 85 BJ Analyte concentrations in microgramsper liter (parts per billion [ppbj). Analyses were performed by Ceimic Corp. of Narragansett, RI or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. 0 Concentration exceeds calibration range. ' Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page i4 oi Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from June 1991 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Methylene chloride Acetone 1 .2-Dich)oroethane Xylenes (total) Carbon disulfide Chloroform Sample ID: Equipment Blank Date: 4-Jun-91 1 J 7J 1 J NA NA NA Equipment Blank 4-Fcb-92 7 7.6 NA 0.1 J NA NA Equipment Blank 27-May-92 12 NA NA NA NA NA Field Blank 15-Sep-92 0.44 JB NA NA NA 0.096 J 0.11 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Ceunic Corp. of Narragansett, RI, or Enseco-East of Somerset, NJ, using standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page of ib Table 7. Summary of Oetected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Analyte Date: 24-S«p-90 25-Sep-90 26-Sep-90 27-S«p-90 l-Oet-90 2-Ocl-90 4-Feb-9! 5-Feb-91 6-F«b-91 7-F«b-91 4-Jun-91 S-Jun-91 6-Jun-91 Methylme chloride Acetone Xyleae* (total) Toluene Chloromcthane 1 ,2-Dichlorocthane 2-Hexanone Carbon ouulfide Tetracbloroetnene Chloroform 25J 12 J 8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 34J 42 J 7 1J NA NA NA NA NA NA 24 J 4J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 13J 6J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 14J 7J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA O.IJ 11 J NA 29J 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2J 1 J NA NA NA NA 0.9 J 8J NA 26J 2 0.8 J NA NA NA \nalytc concentration! in microgramsiper liter (parti per billion (ppb]). Vnalytet were performed by Ccimic Corp. of Narragaiuett, RI, or Erueco-Eatt of Somerset, NJ, u«inf standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. 1 Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. A Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Page ' *> of 16 Table 7. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to September 1992 at the Tutu Well* Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blank Trip Blank Analyte Mothylene chloride Acetone Xylwtt (total) TolUMC Chloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-HcMnone Carbon disulfide Tetnchloroethene Chloroform Analyte concentrations in Analyses were performed Dite: l-Oc«-91 NA NA 0.28 J O.I J NA NA NA 0.21 J NA NA 2-Oct-91 3-Oct-91 3-Feb-92 0.6 0.17J 0.29 J 3.2 NA NA 0.1 U 0.25 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.4J 0.25 J 0.57 0. 1 J NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank Trip Blank 4-Feb-92 0.33 J NA NA 0.05 J NA NA NA 0.23 J NA NA microgrami iper liter (parts per billion [ppb]). by Ceunic Corp. of Narragauisett, RI, or Erweco-East of Somerset, NJ, S-Feb-92 0.29J NA NA NA NA NA NA l.S NA NA using standard Trip Blank 6-Feb-92 0.33 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA Trip Blank 27-May-92 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 28-May-92 0.46 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Hank 14-Sep-92 0.73 B NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank l5-Sep-92 0.65 BJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 16-Sep-92 0.89 B NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.92 NA 0.15 J Trip Blink 17-Sep-92 1.6 B NA NA 0.074 J NA NA NA NA NA NA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. 1 Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 8. Comparison of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements with Detected Analytes in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte 1,2— Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Methylene chloride Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene Vinyl chloride Sample Identifier Four Winds I Four Winds II Steele Tillett La Place Harvey Tillett Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Four Winds I Four Winds II Hartman II Harvey La Place Ramsay Ramsay FR Smith Steele Tillett Four Winds I Four Winds 1 1 Eglin III Harvey La Place Smith Steele Tillett Steele Collection Date 9/15/92 9/15/92 9/14/92 9/16/92 9/17/92 9/14/92 9/16/92 9/16/92 9/16/92 9/16/92 9/15/92 9/15/92 9/16/92 9/14/92 9/17/92 9/15/92 9/15/92 9/16/92 9/14/92 9/16/92 9/15/92 9/15/92 9/16/92 9/14/92 9/17/92 9/16/92 9/14/92 9/16/92 9/14/92 Result 170 99 140 290 130 11 B 16 B 11 11 34 78 38 10 260 67 16 16 170 65 140 21 10 13 46 22 21 33 62 3.3 Regulatory Limit(s) Criterion 70 Primary MCL 5 Primary MCL 5 Primary MCL 5 Primary MCL 2 Primary MCL Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). B Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of indicated sample. MCL Maximum contaminant level. IChmddisk-carar.wk.l GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table 9. USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water. Compound Current MCL Chloromethane - - Bromomethane - - Vinyl chloride 2 Choloroethane - - Methylene chloride 5 Acetone — — Carbon disulfide - - 1,1 — Dichloroethene 7 1.1-Dichloroethane - - cis-l^-Dichloroethene* 70 trans-l,2-Dichloroethene * 100 Chloroform - - 1.2-Dichloroethane 5 2-Butanone — - 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 Carbon tetrachloride 5 Vinyl acetate - - Bromodichloromethane ** 1,2-Dichloropropane 5 Maximum contaminant level (MCL) standard in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. * - No MCL established for this compound. * Results reported as sum of cis- and trans—isomers. ** Sum of trihalomethanes MCL is 100 ppb. KJ-MCL Disk/mcls.wk3 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table 9. USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water. Compound Current MCL trans-l,3-Dichloropropene - - Trichloroethene 5 Dibromochloromethane ** 1,1,2—Trichloroethane 5 Benzene 5 cis—13—Dichloropropene — - Bromoform - - 4-methyl—2—pentanone - — 2-Hexanone — — 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene 5 Toluene 1,000 Chlorobenzene 100 Ethylbenzene 700 Styrene 100 Xylcnes (total) 10,000 Maximum contaminant level (MCL) standard in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. * - No MCL established for this compound. * Results reported as sum of cis- and trans-isomers. * * Sum of trihalomethanes MCL is 100 ppb. KJ-MCL DisUm GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 10. Calculated Values for Relative Percent of PCE for Selected Supply Well Samples from September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Well Ramsay * Tillett Eglin II Harvey Date Sampled October 1, 1990 Februarys, 1991 June 5, 1991 October 1, 1991 February 4, 1992 May 28, 1992 September 15, 1992 October 2, 1990 Februarys, 1991 JuneS, 1991 October 2, 1991 Februarys, 1992 May 29, 1992 September 16, 1992 September 27, 1990 Februarys, 1991 June 5, 1991 October 2, 1991 Februarys, 1992 May 27, 1992 September 16, 1992 September 26, 1990 Februarys, 1991 June 4, 1991 October 2, 1991 Februarys, 1992 May 28, 1992 September 14, 1992 Relative Percent of PCE 100% 89% 89% 81% 53% 63% 87% 25% 30% 28% 26% 44% 27% 28% 33% 27% 29% 39% 37% 44% 41% 100% 87% 82% 91% 89% 83% 73% U-DCE 0 1 2 2.8 17 9.5 1.4 275 200 400 145 23 470 290 120 72 130 67 20 31 11 0 160 80 38 39 41 49 TCE 0 1 1.6 3.7 2.4 0.92 51.5 36 72 36.5 63 59 62 22 19 19 18 6.7 14 4.7 0 60 36 25 23 29 46 PCE 3 16 16 19 23 20 16 109 100 180 64.5 23 200 140 71 34 61 54 16 36 11 890 1500 530 670 500 350 260 * Average of Ramsay and Ramsay FR samples Analyte concentrations in Relative _ Percent of PCE mircograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). [PCE] [1,2-DCE] + [TCE1] + [PCE1 [TCE] Concentration of TCE. [1,2-DCE] 1,2-Dichloroethene (total). [TCE] Trichloroethene. [PCE] Tetrachloroethene. PR00801 - d2/COMBI NE.wt) ur GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 10. Calculated Values for Relative Percent of PCE for Selected Supply Well Samples from September 1990 through September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Well Date Sampled La Place October 2, 1990 February 5, 1991 June 6, 1991 October 3, 1991 February 6, 1992 May 28, 1992 September 17, 1992 Smith September 25, 1990 February 5, 1991 June 6, 1991 October 3, 1991 February 5, 1992 May 28, 1992 September 16, 1992 Relative Percent of PCE 37% 32% 24% 33% 34% 34% 31% 81% 71% 68% 77% 77% 73% 68% 1,2- DCE TCE 140 195 210 170 140 100 130 58 42 62 56 48 38.5 60 24 31.5 31.5 30 23 19 22 20 23 26 20 21 14.5 21 PCE 98 105 76 100 82.5 60 67 330 160 190 250 230 145 170 Analyte concentrations in mircograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Relative [PCE] Percent of PCE [ 1 ,2 - DCE] + [TCE ] + [PCE] [TCE] Concentration of TCE. [1,2-DCE] 1,2-Dichloroethene (total). [TCE] Trichloroethene. [PCE] Tetrachloroethene. PR00801-d2/COMBINE.wU TUT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 11. Proposed Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Eighth Sampling Event, March 1993, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Well Proposed Analytes Eglin I TCL VOCs Eglin H TCL VOCs Eglin ffl TCL VOCs Four Winds I TCL VOCs Four Winds H TCL VOCs Gassett TCL VOCs Harthman IT (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Harthman III (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Harvey TCL VOCs LaPlace TCL VOCs Matthias (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Ramsay TCL VOCs Smith TCL VOCs Sieele TCL VOCs Tillett TCL VOCs VIHA I or VIHA H (if possible) TCL VOCs TCL Target compound list. VOCs Volatile organic compounds using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3 0 (QSEPA 1989). All analyses will be performed in accordance with the Revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan (SAMP) (Geraghty Sc Miller, Inc. 199id). TVD:l!e.lcb GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 1 1 . Proposed Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Seventh Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Well Proposed Analytes Eglin I TCL VOCs Eglin II TCL VOCs Eglin III TCL VOCs Four Winds I TCL VOCs Four Winds II TCL VOCs Gassett TCL VOCs Harthman II (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Harthman III (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Harvey TCL VOCs LaPlace TCL VOCs Matthias (if owner allows access) TCL VOCs Ramsay TCL VOCs Smith TCL VOCs Steele TCL VOCs Tillett TCL VOCs VIHA I or VIHA II (if possible) TCL VOCs TCL Target compound list. VOCs Volatile organic compounds using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). All analyses will be performed in accordance with the Revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan (SAMP) (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d). CM:df #PR0080l-D2/SEVENTH.RPT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC SOURCE; US08 QUADRANQLE EASTERN ST.THOMAS,Vi( Iff64) SCALE FEET A B C D E1 E2 E3 F1 F2 F3 G H 11 12 13 J K L M N O P Q R S T1 T2 T3 T4 "LEGEND RESIDENTIAL WELL BRYAN rmi DENCH DEVCONZ DEVCON 11 (ALTERNATE) DEVCONZZZ EGUNZ EGUN XX FOURWMOSX FOURWMDS XX QASSETT HARTMAN XX (CRUSHER) HARTMAN XXX (ESTATE) HARVEY LaPLACE LEONARD LOCKHART (ALTERNATE} MATTHIAS RAMSEY ROORK5UES SMTTH STEELE TU-ETT VHA X VHA XX (ALTERNATE) VHA XXX VBHA XX (ALTERNATE) SUBJECT i WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE SAMPLING ANALYSIS, AND MONITORING PLAN, ST.THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS ••(•••(O '0' TEIC Gcraehiy & Miller. Inc. DANAHY ««c •»•( o •• PAOULA SHOWN 5/»0 ifU *• »K to - H I --^ I ^ 5 O o n O CONCENTRATION (ppb) |DWOO( 160EC82 I PRJCT NO.: PR01J01 I RLE NO.: TU-54 IDRAWNG: TU-5/ | CHECKED: REIVE I APPROVED: DANAHY I DRAFTER: NIXON 500 -- 450 -- 400 -- 350 -- 300 -- 250 -- 200-- 150-- LEGEND PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRICHLOROETHENE VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ppb PARTS PER BILLION 10/2/90 2/5/91 6/5/91 10/2/91 DATE 7/15/82 5/29/92 9/16/92 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services CHLORNATED VOC CONCB*TRATIONS FOR TLLETT WB-L SAMPLES SEPTEMBER 1990 THROUGH SBTEMBBR1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE •3 -1 o • • • II. ( \fi 1 CONCENTRATION (ppb) z J I DWG DA[ 50EC92 | PRJCT NO.: PR01301 I FILE NO.: TU-52 IDRAVKNG: TU-52 ( I CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED: D A N A H Y [ D R A F T E R : NIXON 1600-r 1400 -- 1200 -- 1000 -- 800 -- 600 -- 400-- 200-- 9/26/90 pee t^-OCE 2/5/91 6/4/91 10/2/91 D A T E LEfiEMD PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE OICHpRbETHEM TCE TOCHLOROETHENE VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ppb PARTS PER BILLION 1/1/92 2/3/92 7/15/92 5/28/92 9/14/92 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services CHLORWATBD VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR HARVEY WELL SAMPLES SEPTB/BB* «00 THROUQH SB'TBJBffl 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE I DWG DAT^ TEC92 | PRJCT NO.: PR01301 [FILE NO.: TU-56 [DRAVUNG: TU-56 f I CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED: DANAHY______[DRAFTER: NIXON 250-r 200 -- 150-- 100 -- 50-- 8/15/90 1/1/91 10/2/90 2/5/91 TCE LEGEND PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRICHLOROETHENE VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ppb PARTS PER BLUON 1/1/92 6/6/91 10/3/91 D A T E 2/6/92 7/15/92 5/28/92 9/17/92 GERAGHTY MILLER, INC. W Environmental S«rvic«s CHLORINATED VOC CONCENTRATIONS FOR LAPLACE WBJ. SAMPLES 1990 THROUGH SB=TEMBERt992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE I DWG DATf OEC92 | PRJCT NO.: PR01301 | OLE NO.: TU-57 | DRA*NG: TU-57 ( | CHECKED: REIVE | APPROVED: DANAHY _____ [DRAFTER: NIXON 350 -r- 300 -- 250 -- 200 -- 150 -- 100-- 50-- LEGEND PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TR1CHLOROETHENE VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND ppb PARTS PER BILLION UHDCE 8/ 5/90 9/25/90 1/1/91 2/5/91 1/1/92 6/6/91 10/3/91 2/5/92 D A T E 7/15/82 5/28/92 9/16/91 GERAGHTY MILLER, INC. EnvironTntntal Services CHLORINATBD VOC CONCB4TRAT1ONS FOR SMTTH WBJ. SAMPLES SEFTBfiB* «90 THROUGH SB*TB«B11992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE [DWG DAT^ OEC92 [ PRJCT NO.: PROMOI |FILE NO.: TU-58 [DRAVKNG: TU-58 ( [CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED: DANAHY_____|DRAFTER: NIXON 100%-r- 90%-- 80%-- 70%-- 60%- - 50%- - 40%- - 5 30%-- Ife! 20% - - 10%-- 0% 8/15/90 LEGEND RELATIVE PERCENT OF PCE [1.2-.DCE] + [TCE] + [PCE] [TCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE 1.2-DCHLOROETHENE TCE TRICHLOROETHENE ——I—— 1/1/91 10/1/90 2/5/91 6/5/91 10/1/91 D A T E 1/1/92 2/4/92 7/15/92 5/28/92 9/16/92 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services RBJ^TTVE PBK»4T OF PCE IN RAMSAY WELL SAMPLES 1990 THROUGH SEPTEMBB? 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE 8 [ DWG DAy 'PEC92 | PRJCT NO.: PROOB01 | FILE NO.: TU-59 | DRAVUNG: TU-59 ( [CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED; DANAHY [ DRAFTER: NIXON ( 100%-,- 10%-- LEfiEMD RELATIVE PERCENT OF PCE [1.2-,OCE] + [TCE] + [PCE] PCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE 1.2-OJCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRICHLOROETHENE 0% 8/15/90 1/1/91 10/2/90 2/5/91 6/6/91 10/2/91 D A T E 1/1/92 2/5/92 7/15/92 5/29/92 9/16/92 GERAGHTY MILLER, INC. Environmental Services RBJVTTVE P01CBfr OF PCE IN TLLETT WBJ. SAMPLES SEPTBABB* 1980 THROUGH SEPTEMBB^ 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE IDWGDATF "OEC92 | PRJCT NO.; PR00801 | FILE NO.: TU-60 [DRAPING: TU-60 ( [CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED: DANAHY [DRAFTER: NIXON 100%-,- 10X-- 0% B/15/90 9/27/90 RELATIVE JLEGEMD , [PCE] PERCENT OF PCE [1.2*DCE] + [TCE] + [PCE] [TCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1,2-DCE 1.2-WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRCHLOROETHENE 1/1/91 2/5/91 6/5/91 10/2/91 D A T E 1/1/92 2/3/92 7/15/92 5/27/92 9/16/9 GERAGHTY SIT & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services RB^TTVE PS1CBIT OF PCE M EQUN H WELL SAMPLES SEPTEMBCT1990 THROUGH SBTB4BER1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE 10 I D*G DATf OEC92 | PRJCT NO.: PR00801 | FILE NO.: TU-61 | DRAVMNG: TU-61 ( | CHECKED: REIVE I APPROVED: DANAHY I DRAFTER: NIXON 100%-T 90%- m 80*- ft70" t 60%- Q 50%- m 40*' 5 30%- ffi 20%- 10%- ~! f\*r ^ i 1EGEJ3D RELATIVE [PCE] PERCENT OF PCE [1.2-DCE] + [TCE] + [PCE] [TCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-DCE 1.2-WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRtCHLOROETHENE i 8/15/90 1/1/91 1/1/W 7/15/92 \ 9/26/90 2/5/91 6/4/91 10/2/91 2/3/92 5/28/92 9/14/92 D A T E t& GEF ^r^Mi ^^^^F Env\ronT IAGHTY RELATIVE PHK»IT OF PCE IN HARVEY WBJ. SAMPLES nGURE LLER, INC. SEFTHwea 1990 THROUGH 3BTEMBB* «82 ^^ StrviC93 TUTU WELLS SITE » L^ ' I DOG DAy SOEC92 [ PRJCT NO.: PR00801 [FILE NO.: TU-62 [DRAVBNG; TU-M [CHECKED: REIVE JAPPROVED: DANAHY I DRAFTER: NIXON 100X-,- JJBfiEHD RELATIVE PERCENT OF PCE [TCE] PCE 1.2-OCE TCE + [TCE] + [PCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.2-WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TRtCHLO«C€T>«NE 0% 8/1S/90 1/1/91 10/2/90 2/5/91 1/1/92 6/6/91 10/3/91 DATE 2/6/92 7/15/92 5/28/92 9/17/92 _ GERAGHTY HIT & MILLER, INC. Environmental Services RBJkTTVE PERCENT OF PCE IN LAPLACE V^LL SAMPLES SEPTBJBB) 1080 THROUGH SBTBfiBR 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE 12 I DWG DA( DEC92 I PRJCT NO.: PROOB01 I RLE NO.: TO-63 I DRAWING: TU-63 ' I CHECKED: REIVE [APPROVED: DANAHY [DRAFTER: NIXON 100%-T- 90%-- 70%-- 60%-- 50%-- 30%-- 20%- - 10%-- LEGEND RELATIVE PERCENT OF PCE [1,2-DCE] + [TCE] + [PCE] [TCE] CONCENTRATION OF TCE PCE TETRACHLOROETHENE U-OCE 1.2-WCHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) TCE TRICHLOROETHENE 1/1/91 9/25/90 2/5/91 1/1/92 6/6/91 10/3/91 D A T E 2/5/92 7/15/92 5/28/92 9/16/9 GERAGHTY f MILLER, INC. Environmental Services RELATIVE PBCENT OF PCE M SMTTH WBJ. SAMPLES SEPTB4BER1990 THROUGH ShPlhMBB* «92 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS FIGURE 13 APPENDIX A DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE MAY 1992 SAMPLING EVENT ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS GERAGHTY «* MILLER. INC APPENDIX A DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE SEPTEMBER 1992 SAMPLING EVENT, ST. THOMAS, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Appendix A includes the data validation summary report and supporting documentation generated during the analytical data review of ground-water samples collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. APPENDIX FORMAT The data validation report appendix is divided into the following sections: • Introduction. • Attachment No. 1 - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Number (No.) HW-6 (Revision No. 8) Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) organics data review and preliminary review checklist, the data assessment narrative, and the organic regional data assessment form. • Attachment No. 2 - Tables associated with the data validation assessment narrative. • Attachment No. 3 - Analytical data packages. The introduction summarizes (1) the field investigation sampling effort, (2) the analytical parameters and methods employed in support of the field investigation, and (3) the data validation requirements and validation protocols used for the data assessment. Attachment No. 1 is comprised of the USEPA SOP No. HW-6 (Revision No. 8) CLP organics preliminary data review checklist, the data assessment narrative, and the organic regional data assessment form (USEPA 1992). The data review checklist guides the data reviewer in evaluating pertinent field and laboratory sample documentation and analytical procedures. By evaluating critical quality control (QC) criteria, the data reviewer determines TUT GERAGHTYc'MIU.F.R.INC A-2 the validity of generated data and places limitations on data use. In the data assessment narrative, the data reviewer summarizes the validation, discusses sample anomalies and QC outliers, and provides an overall assessment of the analytical data generated in support of the field investigation. The organic regional data assessment form provides a condensed data assessment summary. In Attachment No. 2, tabulated data are provided that summarize any holding time non-compliance; associated trip blank, field blank, and method blank contamination; laboratory fortified blank (LFB) QC exceedances; and validated analytical data with applied qualifiers. Attachment No. 3 is comprised of the analytical data packages prepared by the laboratory for all samples collected and reviewed for this field investigation. These data packages are available upon request. GERAGHTYc^MILI.HR.INC A-3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the data validation and narrative summary for the following 14 ground-water samples, one field blank, and four trip blanks collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands: Enseco-East Project Numbers Sample Identifiers Collection Date 24462 Steele, Harvey, Trip Blank (9/14/92). 9/14/92 24697 Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, 9/15/92 Ruben (Field replicate of Ramsay), Gassett, Field Blank (9/15/92) Trip Blank (9/15/92). 24704 Tillett, Smith, Eglin I, Eglin II, 9/16/92 Eglin III, Harthman II, Trip Blank (9/16/92) 24741 LaPlace, Trip Blank (9/25/92). 9/25/92 All of the samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In addition, a library search was performed for ten non-target tentatively identified compounds (TICs) based on a comparison of the sample spectra against the reference library mass spectra. Sample analyses were performed by Enseco-East (Enseco), a laboratory division of Enseco Incorporated located in Somerset, New Jersey. VOCs were analyzed according to USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). The organic data have been evaluated according to the USEPA Region II SOP No. HW- 6, Revision No. 8 (USEPA 1992), in conjunction with the USEPA Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organics Data Review (USEPA 1991) and the requirements of the corresponding, analytical methodology. Because the VOC analyses were not performed in accordance with the 044:,; GERAGHTY c> MIl.I.F.R. INC A-4 CLP protocols, the SOP for organic data review is not directly applicable. The SOP was used for guidance, along with the USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989) and the additional QC requirements outlined in the revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan (SAMP) (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991), to perform the data validation. All of the data have been tabulated and assigned the appropriate qualifier codes, if required. The validated data tables are provided as Table A-4 and Table A-5 in Attachment No. 2. .. - -•<• /\ A /! '"'" TUT 00-i 044- GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC A-5 REFERENCES Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991. Revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan for Wells, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee, September 1990, revised September 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1989. Method 524.2, Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy, Revision 3.0. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL), Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organics Data Review, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (OLM01.0), United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1990, revised June 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review, Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-6, Revision No. 8, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992. PR00801/NOVINTRO TUT 003 0444 GERAGHTY ^ MILLER. INC. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. HW-6 REVISION NO. 8 TUT 003 0445 GERAGHTYc* MII.I HR. INC SOP NO. HW-6 Revision 18 CLP ORGANICS DATA REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW BY: -^-Ix ^ ^-c^-3____________________ Date:. Leon Lazarue, Environmental S c i e n t i s t t Toxio? and Hazardous Waste Section ' V T / BY: J^-hL^L^^--f--*T>^i^C*-______________ Date George Ko?rras,Chemist " f ~ 7 Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section ^ &-* • ^fL ~ BY: ^<J<<^&-r? -^4t<>.^4:<>' ?'- i-^__________ Date:_ Stelios Gerazounfs/ Chemist Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section CONCURRED BY: NC^^^A VAJ • ^t3O-r V^______ Date:_ Hazardous Waste Section APPROVED BY: V _sXfftff<?^ ^- ">^f" *——-______ Date : //7/fV Robert Runyon, Ch/ef ~/ Monitoring Management Branch TUT' O03 O446 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 PACKAGE COMPLETENESS AND DELIVERABLES CASE NUMBER:24462. 24697. 24704. 24741___________ SITE: Tutu Wells_________________________ 1.0 DATA COMPLETENESS AND DELIVERABLES 1.1 Have any missing deliverables been received and added to the data package? ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittal of any missing deliverables. If lab cannot provide them, note the effect on review of the package under the "Contract Problems/Non-Compliance" section of reviewer narrative. 1.2 Was SMO CCS checklist included with package? 2.0 COVER LETTER SDG NARRATIVE 2.1 Is the Narrative or Cover Letter Present? 2.2 Are Case Number and/or SAS number contained in the Narrative or Cover letter? 3.0 DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST The following checklist is divided into three parts. Part A is filled out if the data package contains any VOA analyses, Part B for any BNA analyses, and Part C for Pesticide/PCBs. YES NO N/A L A B: Enseco-East X X [ X 1 TUT 00.3 O447 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 3.0 DATA VALIDATION CHECKLIST (continued) Does this package contain: VGA Data? BNA Data? Pesticide/PCB data? ACTION: Complete corresponding parts of checklist. PART A: VOA ANALYSES 1.0 TRAFFIC REPORTS AND LABORATORY NARRATIVE 1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all samples? ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of samples, analytical problems, or special circumstances affecting the quality of the data? ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be flagged as estimated (J). If a soil sample other than TCLP contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as unusable (R). ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all Non-Detects "UJ." X X L I. TUT 003 0448 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HVV-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If both VOA vials for a sample have air bubbles or the VOA vial analyzed had air bubbles, flag all positive results "J" and all non-detects "R." 2.0 HOLDING TIMES 2.1 Have any VOA technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of analysis, been exceeded? X [_J _.. If unpreserved, aqueous samples maintained at 4°C which are to be analyzed for aromatic hydrocarbons must be analyzed within 7 days of collection. If preserved with HC1 (pH<2) and stored at 4°C, then aqueous samples must be analyzed within 14 days of collection. If uncertain about preservation, contact sampler to determine whether or not samples were preserved. The holding time for soils is 10 days. Table of Holding Time Violations (See Table A-l in Attachment No. 2) Sample Sample Date Date Eab Date ID Matrix Preserved? Sampled Received Analyzed TUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If technical holding times ar exceeded, flag all positive results as estimated ("J") and sample quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding time, either on the first analysis or upon re-analysis, the reviewer must use professional judgement to determine the reliability of the data and the effects of additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum, all results must be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect data are unusable (R). If holding times are exceeded by more than 28 days, all non-detect data are unusable (R). 3.0 System Monitoring Compound (SMC) Recovery (Form II) 3.1 Are the VOA SMC Recovery Summaries (Form II) present for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water [ X b. Low Soil [__] __ _X_ c. Med Soil [__] __ X 3.2 Are all the VOA samples listed on the appropriate System Monitoring Compound Recovery Summary for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water [ X J __ __ b. Low Soil [__J __ X c. Med Soil I I X STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. 3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk? [__J __ X ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. 3.4 Was one or more VOA system monitoring compound recovery outside of contract specifications for' any sample or method blank? __ [ X | ___ If yes, were samples re-analyzed? " [__] __ X Were method blanks re-analyzed? [__] __ X ACTION: If recoveries are > 10% but one or more compounds fail to meet SOW specifications: 1. All positive results are qualified as estimated (J). 2. Flag all non-detects as estimated detection limits ("UJ") where recovery is less than the lower acceptance limit. 3. If SMC recoveries are above allowable levels, do not qualify non-detects. If any system monitoring compound recovery is < 10%: 1. Flag all positive results as estimated ("J"). 2. Flag all non-detects as unusable ("R"). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A Professional judgement should be used to qualify data that only have method blank SMC recoveries out of specification in both original and re-analyses. Check the internal standard areas. 3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw, data and Form II? __ I X I __ ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanalion/resubmiual. make any necessary corrections and note errors in the dala assessment 4.0 Matrix Spikes (Form 111) 4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery Form (Form III) present? " [ X ] __ __ 4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required frequency for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water I X b. Low Soil [__] __ X c. Med Soil [__J __ \ ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing, take the action specified in 3.2 above. 4.3 How may VOA spike recoveries are outside QC limits? Water Soils 1 out of 10 N/A out of 10 T in STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 4.4 How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits? Water Soils 1 out of 5 N/A out of 5 ACTION: No action is taken based on MS/MSD data alone. However, using informed professional judgement, the MS/ MSD results may be used in conjunction with other QC criteria to determine the need for qualification of the data. 5.0 Blanks (Form IV) 5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present'.' ( ._X_| 5.2 Frequency of Analysis: for the analysis of VOA TCL compounds, has a reagent/method blank been analyzed for each SDG or every 20 samples of similar matrix (low water, low soil, medium soil), whichever is more frequent? [ X ] __ __ 5.3 Has a VOA method/instrument blank been analyzed at least once every twelve hours for each concentration level and GC/MS system used? 1 X 1 __ __ ACTION: If any method blank data are missing, call lab for explanation/resubmittal. If method blank data are not available, reject (R) all associated positive data. However, using professional judgement, the data reviewer may substitute field blank or trip blank data for missing method blank data. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data - chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data system printouts and spectra. Is the cliromatographic performance (baseline stability) for each instrument acceptable for VOAs? [ X J ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the effect on the data. 6.0 Contamination NOTE: "Water Blanks", "drill blanks", and distilled water blanks" are validated like any other sample, and are not used to qualify data. Do not confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below. 6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for VOAs? When applied as describe below. the contaminant concentration in these blanks are multiplied by the sample dilution factor and corrected for % moisture when necessary. _X_ [__J 6.2 Do any field/trip/rinse blanks have positive VOA results (TCL and/or TIC)? X [__] ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet). NOTE; All field blank results associated to a particular group of samples (may exceed one per case) must be used to qualify data. Trip blanks are used to qualify only those samples with which they were shipped and are not required for non-aqueous matrices. Blanks may not be qualified STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 because of contamination in another blank. Field blanks & Trip blanks must be qualified for system monitoring compound, instrument performance criteria, spectral or calibration QC problems. ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify TCL results due to contamination. Use the largest value from all the associated blanks. If any blanks are grossly contaminated, all associated data should be qualified as unusable (R). YES NO N/A Sample cone > CRQL but < 10 x blank value Sample cone < CRQL & < lOx blank value Sample cone > CRQI & > lOx blank value Methylene Flag sample result with Chloride a "U" Acetone Toluene 2-Butanone Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed Sample cone > CRQL but < 5x blank Sample- cone < CRQL & is < 5x blank value Sample cone > (. KQI value & > ^\ blank value Other Flag sample result Contain- with a "U" inants Report CRQL & quality 11 U" No qualitieation is needed NOTE: Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Dale: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the sample is less than five times the concentration in the most contaminated associated blank, flag the sample data "R" (unusable) 6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? [ X J __ __ ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do not have associated field blanks. 7.0 GC/MS Instrument Performance Check (Form V) 7.1 Are the GC/MS instrument Performance Check Forms (Form V) present for Broinofluorobenzene (BFB)? [ X ] 7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/charge (m/z) listing for the BFB provided for each twelve hour shift? [ X 1 7.3 Has an instrument performance compound been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [ X J ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and sample analysis for which no associated GC/MS tuning data are available. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A DATE TIME INSTRUMENT SAMPLE NUMBERS ACTION; If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour calibration interval. 7.4 Have the ion abundances been normalized to m/z 95? [ X ] _ ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, qualify all associated data as unusable (R). 7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for each instrument used? [ X J __ ACTION: List all data which do not meet ion abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet). ACTION: If ion abundance criteria are not met, the Region II 1 PO must be notified. 7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more). __ [ X J 7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant figures (two) been reported? [ X ] __ TUT 003 04 b/ STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound acceptable? 8.0 Target Compound List (TCL) Analvtes 8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I VOA) present with required header information on each page, for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates c. Blanks [_XJ I X I 8.2 Are the VOA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, the mass spectra for the identified compounds, and the data system printouts (Quant Reports) included in the sample package for each of the following? a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (Mass spectra not required) c. Blanks ACTION: If any data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 8.3 Are the response factors shown in the Quant Report? I_J l_XJ X [__] 0458 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 8.4 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with respect to: Baseline stability? [ X ] __ __ Resolution? [ X I __ __ Peak shape? [ X | __ Full-scale graph (attenuation)? [ X ] __ _ ACTION; If any mass spectra are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. If lab does not generate their own standard spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/Noil-Compliance". 8.6 Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06 RRT units of the standard RRT in the continuing calibration? [_] 8.7 Are all ions present in the standard mass spectrum at a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? | X j 8.8 Do sample and standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [ X ] Other: __ _________ | | X ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the accepiabilitv of the data. 8.5 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of the identified VOA compounds present for each sample? [ X 1 TUT 003 0459 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine acceptability of data. If it is determined that incorrect identifications were made, all such data should be rejected (R), flagged "N" (presumptive evidence of the presence of the compound) or changed to not detected (U) at the calculated detection limit. In order to be positively identified, the data must comply with the criteria listed in 8.6, 8.7, and 8.8. ACTION: When sample carry-over is a possibility, professional judgement should be used to determine if instrument cross-contamination has affected any positive compound identification. 9.0 Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) 9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms (Form I Part B) present; and do listed TICS include scan number or retention time, estimated concentration and "JN" qualifier? I__| \ 9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively . identified compounds and associated "best match" spectra included in the sample package for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [ X ] __ __ b. Blanks [ X | __ ACTION; If any TIC data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. ACTION: Add "JN" qualifier if missing. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is xylene-a VOA TCL analyte - and should not be reported as a TIC)? __ ( X ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound listed as a TIC. 9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass spectrum with a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [ X 1 __ 9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [ X J ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine acceptability of TIC identifications. If it is determined that an incorrect identification was made, change identification to "unknown" or to some less specific identification (example: "C3 substituted benzene") as appropriate. Also, when a compound is not found in any blank, but is detected in a sample and is a suspected artifact of a common laboratory contaminant, the result should be qualified as unusable (R). (i.e. Common Lab Contaminants: Co, (M/E 44), Siloxanes (M/E 73) Hexane, Aldol Condensation Products, Solvent Preservatives, and related by products - see Functional Guidelines for more guidance). TUT O03 0461 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Dale: January 1992 Number HW 6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 10.0 Compound Quantitation and Reported Detection Limits 10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I results? Check at least two positive values. Verify that the correct internal standard, quantitation ion, and RRF were used to calculate Form 1 result. • Were any errors found? __ [ \ | __ 10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture? [ X ] __ __ ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note errors under "Conclusions". ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of the higher data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" and its associated value on the original Form I and substituting the data from the analysis of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all Form I's that should not be used, including any in the summary package. 11.0 Standards Data (GC/MS) 1 1 . 1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data system printouts (Quant. Reports) present) for initial and continuing calibration? [ X J TUT 0462 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If any calibration standard data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.0 GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI) 12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI) present and complete for the volatile fraction at concentrations 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 ug/L? Are there separate calibrations for low water/med soils and low soil samples? [__...] X ACTION: If any calibration standard forms are missing. take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.2 Were all low level soil standards, blanks and samples analyzed by heated purge? [_] __ _X_ ACTION: If low level soil samples were not heated during purge, quality positive hits "J" and non-detects "R". 12.3 Are response factors stable for VOA's over the concentration range of calibration (% Relative Standard Deviation [%RSD] <30.0%)? [ X ] __ __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. NOTE: Although 11 VOA compounds have a minimum RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical criteria are the same for all analytes. ACTION: If %RSD > 30.0%, qualify associated positive results for that analyte "J" and non-detects using professional judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable). TUT 003 0463 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CEP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A NOTE: Analytes previously qualified "U" for blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for initial calibration criteria. 12.4 Are the RRFs above 0.05° ACTION; Circle all outliers in red. ACTION: If any RRF are < 0.05, qualify associated non-detects (R) and flag associated positive data as estimated (J). 12.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the reporting of average response factors (RRF) or %RSD? (check at least 2 values, but if errors are found, check more). 13.0 GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VII) 13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form VII) present and complete for the volatile fraction? 13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per. instrument? ACTION: Eist below all sample analyses that were not within twelve hours of the previous continuing calibration analysis. [ _ 1 X [ X ] [ X J X | STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; If any forms are missing or no continuing calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve hours of every sample analysis, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal. If continuing calibration data are not available, flag all associated sample data as unusable ("R"). 13.3 Do any volatile compounds have a % Difference (%D) between the initial and continuing RRF which exceeds the ± 25% criteria? X [__J _.__ ACTION; Circle all outliers in red. ACTION: Qualify both positive results and non-detects for the outlier compound(s) as estimated. When % D-is above 90%, reject all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable. 13.4 Do any volatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? X [_J __ ACTION: Circle all ouliers in red. ACTION: If the RRF <0.05, qualify associated non-detects as unusable (R) and "J" associated positive values. 13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the reporting of average response factors (RRF) or % difference (%D) between initial and continuing RRFs? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more.) __ [ X | ACTION; Circle errors in red. ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note errors under "Conclusions". STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO \/A 14.0 Internal Standard (Form VIII) 14.1 Are the internal standard areas (From VIII) of every sample and blank within the upper and lower limits (-50% to +100 %) for each continuing calibration.. [ X ] __ __ ACTION: List all the outliers below. Sample # Internal Std Area Lower Limit Upper Limit (Attach additional sheets if necessary). ACTION: 1. If the internal standard area count is outside the upper or lower limit, flag with "J" all positive results quantitated with this internal standard. 2. Non-detects associated with IS area counts > 100% should not be qualified. 3. If IS area is below the lower limit (<50%), qualify all associated non-detects (U values) "J". If extremely low area counts are reported, ( < 2 5 % or if performance exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all associated non-detects as unusable ("R"). 003 046; STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N A 14.2 Are the retention times of the internal standards within 30 seconds of the associated calibration standard? [ X ] ACTION: Professional judgement should be used to qualify data if the retention times differ by more than 30 seconds. 15.0 Field Duplicates 15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for VOA analysis? [ X ] ACTION; Compare the reported results for field duplicates and calculate the relative percent difference. ACTION: Any gross variation between duplicate results must be addressed in the reviewer narrative. However, if large differences exist, identification of field duplicates should be confirmed by contacting the sampler. WklKWUI l)V3.'l 192ORGAN I) I A TUT 003 0467 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 PART B: BNA ANALYSES 1.0 Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative 1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all samples? ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of samples, analytical problems or special notations affecting the quality of the data? " _ [__] ACTION; If any sample analyzed as a soil, other than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be flagged as estimated ("J"). If a soil sample, other than TCLP, contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as usable (R). ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all non-cletects "UJ". 2.0 Holding Times 2.1 Have any BNA technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of extraction, been exceeded? __ I_ I Continuous extraction of water samples for BNA analysis be started within seven days of the date of collection. Soil/sediment samples must be extracted within 7 days of collection. Extracts must be analyzed within 40 days of the date of extraction. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N A Table of Holding Time Violations (See Narrative) (See Traffic Report) Sample Date Date Lab Date Date Sample Matrix Stamped Received Extracted Analyzed ACTION: If technical holding times are exceeded, Hag all positive results as estimated ("J") and sample quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding time, either on the first analysis or upon reanalysis, reviewer must use professional judgement to determine the reliability of the data and the effects of additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum, all results should be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect data are unusable ("R"). If holding times are exceeded by more than 28 days, all non-detect data are unusable (R). TIT! STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N A 3.0 Surrogate Recovery (Form II) 3.1 Are the BNA Surrogate Recovery Summaries (Form II) present for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water I_] __ __ b. Low Soil [__J _ c. Med Soil 3.2 Are all the BNA Samples listed on the appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summaries for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water b. Low Soil c. Low Soil ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. 3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk? 3.4 Were two or more base-neutral OR acid surrogate recoveries out of specification for any sample or method blank? [_) If yes, were samples reanalyzed? [_J Were method blanks reanalyzed? [__J STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Daia Review Page 25 ol 61 and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If all BNA surrogate recoveries are > 10% but two within the base-neutral or acid fraction do not meet SOW specifications, for the affected fraction only (i.e. base-neutral or acid compounds): 1. Flag all positive results as estimated ("J"). 2. Flag all non-detects as estimated detection limits ("UJ") when recoveries are less than the lower acceptance limit. 3. If recoveries are greater than the upper acceptance limit, do not qualify non-detects. It any base-neulral or acid surrogate has a recovery of < 10%: 1. Positive results for the fraction with < 10% surrogate recovery are qualified with "J". 2. Non-detects for that fraction should be qualified as unusable (R). 3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Form II? ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 4.0 Matrix Spikes (Form 111) 4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery Form (Form I I I ) present? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CEP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO V,\ 4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required frequency for each of the following matrices: a. Eow Water [__J _ __ b. Eow Soil [__J __ __ c. Med Soil [__J __ __ ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing, take the action specified in 3.2 above. 4.3 How may BNA spike recoveries are outside QC limits? Water Soils _2_ out of 22 N/A out of 22 4.4 How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits? Water Soils _Q_ out of 11 N/A out of 11 ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone. However, using informed professional judgement, the data reviewer may use the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate results in conjunction with other QC criteria and determine the need for some qualification of the data. 5.0 Blanks (Form IV) 5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present'.' STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 VtS NO VA 5.2 Frequency of Analysis: Has a reagent/method blank analysis been reported per 20 samples of similar matrix, or concentration level, and for each extraction batch? [_] __ __.. 5.3 Has a BNA method blank been analyzed for each GC/MS system used? [_] (See SOW p. D - 59/SV, Section 8.7) ACTION: If any method blank data are missing, call lab for explanation/resubmittal. If not available, use professional judgement to determine if the associated sample data should be qualified. 5.4 Chromatography: review the blank raw data - chromatograms (RICs), quant reports or data system printouts and spectra. Is the chromatographic performance (baseline stability) for each instrument acceptable for BNAs? ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the effect on the data. 6.0 Contamination NOTE; "Water blank", "drill blanks" and "distilled water blanks" are validated like any other sample and are not used to qualify the data. Do not confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organic* Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent blanks have positive results (TCL and/or TIC) for BNAs? When applied as described below, the contaminant concentration in these blanks are multiplied by the sample dilution factor and corrected for % moisture where necessary. 6.2 Do any field/rinse/blanks have positive BNA results (TCL and/or TIC)? ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet). NOTE: All field blank results associated to a particular group of samples (may exceed one per case) must be used to qualify data. Blanks may not be qualified because of contamination in another blank. Field Blanks must be qualified for surrogate, spectral, instrument performance or calibration QC problems. ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify TCL results due to contamination. Use the largest value from all the associated blanks. If gross contamination exists, all data in the associated samples should be qualified as unusable (R). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 Sample cone > CRQL Sample cone < CRQL & but < lOx blank is < lOx blank value Sample cone > CRQL value & > lOx blank Common Phthalate Esters Flag sample result with a "U" Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL is < 5x blank value value & >5 blank value Sample cone > CRQL but < 5x blank Other Contaminants Flag sample result with a "U" Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed. 6.3 NOTE: Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria. ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the sample is less than five times the concentration in the most contaminated associated blank, flag the sample data "R" (unusable). Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? YES NO N/A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do not have associated field blanks. 7.0 GC/MS Instrument Performance Check 7.1 Are the GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Forms (Form V) present for Decafluorotriphenylphosphine (DFTPP)? [__] 7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/charge (m/z) listing for the DFTPP provided for each twelve hour shift? [_j 7.3 Has an instrument performance check solution been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [_] ACTION: List date, time, instrument ID, and sample analyses for which no associated GC/MS tuning data are available. DATE TIME INSTRUMENT SAMPLE NUMBERS ACTION: If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour calibration interval. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 7.4 ACTION; If mass assignment is in error, flag all associated sample data as unusable (R). ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all associated sample data as unusable (R). Have the ion abundances been normalized to m/z 198? 7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for each instrument used? ACTION; List all data which do not meet ion abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet). 7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between mass lists and Form Vs? 7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant figures (two) been reported? ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound acceptable? ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine whether associated data should be accepted, qualified, or rejected. YES NO N/A L_J __ STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 8.0 Target Compound List (TCL) Analvtes 8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I BNA) present with required header information on each page, for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates c. Blanks 8.2 Has GPC cleanup been performed on all soil/ sediment sample extracts? ACTION: If data suggests that GPC was not performed, use professional judgement. Make note in "Contract Problems/Non-Compliance". 8.3 Are the BNA Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, the mass spectra for the identified compounds, and the data system printouts (Quant Reports) included in the sample package for each of the following? a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates (Mass spectra not required) c. Blanks ACTION: If any data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. I_] I—J STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 8.4 Are the response factors shown in the Quant Report? 8.5 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with respect to: Baseline stability? I_J Resolution? I_J Peak shape? [_] Full-scale graph (attenuation)? [_] Other:___________________ [__] ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the acceptability of the data. 8.6 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of identified BNA compounds present for each sample? [_J ACTION; If any mass spectra are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. If lab does not generate their own standard spectra, make note in "Contract Problems/ Non-compliance". If spectra are missing, reject all positive data. 8.7 Is the RRT of each reported compound within 0.06 RRT units of the standard RRT in the continuing calibration? [_] 8.8 Are all ions present in the standard mass spectrum at a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [_] STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 8.9 Do sample and standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [_J ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine acceptability of data. If it is determined that incorrect identifications were made, all such data should be rejected (R), flagged "N" (Presumptive evidence of the presence of the compound) or changed to not detected (U) at the calculated detection limit. In order to be positively identified, the data must comply with the criteria listed in 8.7, 8.8, and 8.9. ACTION: When sample carry-over is a possibility, professional judgement should be used to determine if instrument cross-contamination has affected any positive compound identification. 9.0 Tentatively Identified Compounds (TIC) 9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms (Form I, Part B) present; and do listed TICs include scan number or retention time, estimated concentration and "JN" qualifier? [__J 9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified compounds and associated "best match" spectra included in the sample package for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [_J b. Blanks I_J STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If any TIC data are missing take action specified in 3.2 above. ACTION; Add "JN" qualifier if missing. 9.3 Are any TCL compounds (from any fraction) listed as TIC compounds (example: 1,2-dimethylbenzene is xylene a VOA TCL - and should not be reported as a TIC)? __ I_J ACTION: Flag with "R" any TCL compound listed as a TIC. 9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass spectrum with a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [_] __ 9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [_J ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine acceptability of TIC identifications. If it is determined that an incorrect identification was made, change identification to "unknown" or to some less specific identification (example: "C3 substituted benzene") as appropriate. Also, when a compound is not found in any blank, but is a suspected artifact of a common laboratory contaminant, the result should be qualified as unusable (R). 10.0 Compound Quantitation and Reported Detection Limits 10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I results? Check at least two positive values. Verify that the correct internal standard, quantitation ion, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A and RRF were used to calculate Form I result. Were any errors found? __ [_J _ 10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture? • [__] ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of the higher CRQL data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" and it's associated value on the original Form 1 and substituting the data from the analysis off the diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all From 1's that should not be used, including any in the summary package. 11.0 Standard Data (GC/MS) 11.1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data system printouts (Quant Reports) present for initial and continuing calibration? [_J ACTION; If any calibration standard data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.0 GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI) 12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI) present and complete for the BNA fraction? [_] STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If any calibration standard forms are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.2 Are response factors stable for BNAs over the concentration range of the calibration? (% Relative standard deviation [%RSD] < 30.0%) ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. NOTE: Although 20 BNA compounds have a minimum RRF and no maximum %RSD, the technical criteria are the same for all analytes. ACTION: If the % RSD is > 30.0, qualify positive results for that analyte "J" and non-detects using professional judgement. When RSD > 90%, flag all non-detect results for that analyte R (unusable). NOTE: Analytes previously qualified "U" due to blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria. I__J 12.3 Are all BNA compound RRFs > 0.05? ACTION; Circle all outliers in red. ACTION: If any RRF < 0.05 1. "R" all non-detects. 2. "J" all positive results. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 12.4 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the reporting of average response factors (RRF) or % RSD? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more.) __ I_] __ ACTION: Circle errors in red. ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note errors in data assessments. 13.0 GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VII) 13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form Vll) present and complete for the BNA fraction? [_J 13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? I_J ACTION: List below all sample analyses that were not within twelve hours of a continuing calibration analysis for each instrument used. ACTION: If any forms are missing or no continuing calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve hours of every sample analysis, call lab for explanation/resubmitial. If continuing calibration data are not available, flag all associated sample data as unusable ("R"). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 13.3 Do any semi volatile compounds have a % Difference (%D) between the initial and continuing RRF which exceeds + 25.0% criteria? __ [_] __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. ACTION: Qualify both positive results and non-detects for the outlier compound(s) as estimated (J). When %D is above 90%, reject all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable. 13.4 Do any semivolatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? __ [_j ACTION; Circle all outliers in red. \ ACTION: If RRF <0.05, qualify as unusable (R) associated non-detects and "J" associated positive values. 13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the reporting of average response factors (RRF) or % difference (%D) between initial and continuing RRFs? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more). __ [_] ACTION: Circle errors in red. ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 14.0 Internal Standards (Form VIII) 14.1 Are the internal standard areas (Form VIII) of every sample and blank within the upper and lower limits . (-50% to + 100%) for each continuing calibration? [_] ACTION: List all the outliers below. Sample # Internal Std Area Lower Limit Upper Limit (Attach additional sheets if necessary). ACTION: 1. If the internal standard area count is outside the upper or lower limit, flag with "J" all positive results and non-detects (U values) quantitated with this internal standard. 2. Non-detects associated with IS areas > 100% should not be qualified. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 3. If the IS area is below the lower limit (<50%), qualify all associated non-detects (U-values) "J". If extremely low area counts are reported (<25%) or if performance exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all associated non-detects as unusable (R) > . 14.2 Are the retention times of the internal standards within 30 seconds of the associated calibration standard? [_j ACTION: Professional judgement should be used to qualify data if the retention times differ by more than 30 seconds. 15.0 Field Duplicates 15.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for BNA analysis? , [_] ACTION; Compare the reported results for field duplicates and calculate the relative percent difference. ACTION: Any gross variation between field duplicate results must be addressed in the reviewer narrative. However, if large differences exist, identification of field duplicates should be confirmed by contacting the sampler. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A PART C; PESTICIDE/PCB ANALYSIS 1.0 Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative 1.1 Are Traffic Report Forms present for all samples? [__] __ __ ACTION: If no, contact lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or SDG Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of the samples, analytical problems or special circumstances affecting the quality of the data? - [__J ACTION: If any sample analyzed as a soil, other then TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be qualified as estimated (J). If a soil sample, other than TCLP, contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as unusable (R). ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ". 2.0 Holding Times 2.1 Have any PEST/PCB technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of extraction, been exceeded? I__] Water and soil samples for PESTS/PCB analysis must be extracted within 7 days of the date of collection. Extracts must be analyzed within 40 days of the date extraction. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; If technical holding times are exceeded, flag all positive results as estimated (J) and sample quantitation limits (UJ) and document in the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding time, either on the first analysis or upon re-analysis, the reviewer must use professional judgement to determine the reliability of the data and the effects of additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum, all the data should at least be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detects are unusable (R). 3.0 Surrogate Recovery (Form II) 3.1 Are the PEST/PCB Surrogate Recovery Summaries (Form II) present for each of the following matrices? a. Low Water [__J __ __ b. Soil [__] __ __ 3.2 Are all the PEST/PCB samples listed on the appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summary tor each of the following matrices? a. Low Water [__] __ __ b. Soil |__] __ __ ACTION; Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. TUT 003 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk? [__] __ __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. 3.4 Were surrogate recoveries of TCX or DCB outside of the contract specification for any sample or blank? (60-150%) __ ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal. Make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. ACTION; No qualification is done if surrogates are diluted out. If recovery for both surrogates is below ihe contract limit, but above 10%, flag all results for that sample "J". If recovery is < 10% for either surrogate, qualify positive results "J" and flag non-detects "R". If recovery is above the contract advisory limits for both surrogates qualify positive values "J". I__J 3.5 Were surrogate retention times (RT) within the windows established during the initial 3-point analysis of individual Standard Mixture A? [__] ACTION: If the RT limits are not met, the analysis may be qualified unusable (R) for that sample on the basis of professional judgement. 3.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Form II? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 4.0 Matrix Spikes (Form III) 4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery Form (Form III) present? 4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required frequency for each of the following matrices? (1 MS/MSD must be performed for every 20 samples of similar matrix or concentration level) a. Low Water b. Soil ACTION: If any matrix spike data are missing, take the action specified in 3.2 above. 4.3 How may PEST/PCB spike recoveries are outside QC limits? [__J I__J [__J Water Soil out of 12 out of 12 4.4 How may RPD's for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate recoveries are outside QC limits? Water out of 6 Soil out of 6 'TUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 ^Revision: 8 YES NO IN/A ACTION: No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone. However, using informed professional judgement, the data reviewer may use the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate results in conjunction with other QC criteria and determine the need for some qualification of the data. 5.0 Blanks (Form IV) 5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present? [__J 5.2 Frequency of Analysis: For the analysis of Pesticide/PCB TCL compounds, has a reagent/ method blank been analyzed for each SDG or every 20 samples of similar matrix or concentration or each extraction batch, whichever is more frequent? [__] ACTION: If any blank data are missing, take the action specified above in 3.2. If blank data is not available, reject (R) all associated positive data. However, using professional judgement, the data reviewer may substitute field blank data for missing method blank data. 5.3 Has a PEST/PCB instrument blank been analyzed at the beginning of every 12 hr. period following the initial calibration sequence? (minimum contract requirement). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If any blank data are missing, call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document the effect in data assessments. 5.4 Chromatography: Review the blank raw data - chromatograms, quant reports or data system printouts. Is the chromatographic performance (baseline stability) for each instrument acceptable for PEST/PC Bs? ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the effect on the data. 6.0 Contamination NOTE: "Water blanks", "distilled water blanks" and "drilling water blanks" are validated like any other sample and are not used to qualify the data. Do not confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below. 6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent/cleanup blanks have positive results for PEST/PCBs? When applied as described below, the contaminant concentration in these blanks are multiplied by the sample Dilution Factor and corrected for % moisture when necessary. __ [__| STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Dale: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 6.2 Do any field/rinse blanks have positive PEST/PCB results? __ [__J ACTION: Prepare a list of the samples associated with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet) NOTE: All field blank results associated to a particular group of samples (may exceed one per case or one per day) may be used to qualify data. Blanks may not be qualified because of contamination in another blank. Field blanks must be qualified for surrogate, or calibration QC problems. ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to quality T(' results due to contamination. Use the largest value from all the associated blanks. Sample cone > CRQL Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL but < 5 x blank is < 5x blank value & > 5 x blank value Flag sample result Report CRQL & No qualification with a "U" qualify "U" is needed NOTE: If gross blank contamination exists, all data in the associated samples should be qualified as unusable (R). 6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO \/A ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do not have associated field blanks. 7.0 Calibration and GC Performance 7.1 Are the following Gas Chromatograms and Data Systems Printouts for both columns present for all samples, blanks, MS/MSD? a. peak resolution check [__J __ __ b. performance evaluation mixtures I__J __ _ c. aroclor 1016/1260 [__J __ d. aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 |__] ._. e. toxaphene [__] __ f. low points individual mixtures A & B ( | g. med points individual mixtures A & B [__| __ h. high points individual mixtures A & B [__j __ ___ i. instrument blanks [_] __ _._. ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. 7.2 Are Forms VI - PEST 1-4 present and complete for each column and each analytical sequence? I_J __ _ 7.3 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Forms VI? TUT 003 0495 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review Page 50 or 61 and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 7.4 Do all standard retention times, including each pesticide in each level of Individual Mixtures A & B, fall within the windows established during the initial calibration analytical sequence? (For Initial Calibration Standards, Form VI - PEST - 1). [_J ACTION: If no, all samples in the entire analytical sequence are potentially affected. Check to see if the chromatograms contain peaks within an expanded window surrounding the expected retention times. If no peaks are found and the surrogates are visible, non-detects are valid. If peaks are present and cannot be identified through pattern recognition or using a revised RT window, qualify all positive results and non-detects as unusable (R). For aroclors, RT may be outside the RT window, but the aroclor may still be identified from the individual pattern. 7.5 Are the linearity criteria for the initial analyses of Individual Standards A & B within limits for both columns? (%RSD must be < 20.0% for all analytes except for the 2 surrogates, which must not exceed 30.0 % RSD). S e e Form V I PEST - 2 . I I ACTION: If no, quality all associated positive results generated during the entire analytical sequence "J" and all non-detects "UJ". When RSD >90% flag all non- detect results for that analyte R (unusable). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 7.6 Is the resolution between any two adjacent peaks in the Resolution Check Mixture > 60.0% for both columns? (Form VI-PEST-4). [_] ACTION: If no, positive results for compounds that were not adequately resolved should be qualified "J". Use professional judgement to determine if non-detects which elute in areas affected by co-eluting peaks should be qualified "N" as presumptive evidence of presence or unusable (R). 7.7 Is Form VII - Pest-1 present and complete for each_ Performance Evaluation Mixture analyzed during the analytical sequence for both columns? ACTION: If no. take action as specified in 3.2 above. 7.8 Has the individual % breakdown exceeded 20.0% on either column. _ [__J - for 4,4' - DOT? _ [__] - for endrin? _ [__J Has the combined % breakdown for 4,4' - DOT/ Endrin exceeded 30.0% on either column? _ [__] (required in all instances) T, IT 003 0497 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: 2. If any % breakdown lias failed the QC criteria' in either PEM in steps 2 and 17 in the initial calibration sequence (p. D-38/Pest SOW 3/90), qualify all sample analyses in the entire analytical sequence as described below. If any % breakdown has failed the QC criteria in a PEM Verification calibration, review data beginning with the samples which followed the last in-control standard until the next acceptable PEM & qualify the data as described below. a. 4,4' - DOT Breakdown: If 4,4' - DOT breakdown is greater than 20.%: i. Qualify all positive results for DDT with "J' If DDT was nol detected, but DDD and UUh are positive, then qualify the quantitation limit for DDT as unusable (R). ii. Qualify positive results for DDD and/or DDE as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). b. Endrin Breakdown: If endrin breakdown is greater than 20.0%: "UT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A i. Qualify all positive results for endrin with "J". If endrin was not detected, but endrin aldehyde and endrin ketone are positive, then qualify the quantitation limit for endrin as unusable (R). ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone and endrin aldehyde as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). c. Combined Breakdown: If the combined 4,4' - DDT and endrin breakdown is greater then 30.0%. i. Qualify all positive results for DDT and endrin with "J". If endrin was not detected, but positive aldehyde and endrin ketone are positive, then qualify the quantitation limit for endrin as unusable (R). If DDT was not detected, but DDD and DDE are positive, then qualify the quantitation limit for DDT as unusable (R). ii. Qualify positive results for endrin ketone and endrin aldehyde as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). Qualify positive results for DDD and/or DDE as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). 7.9 Are the relative percent difference (RPD) values for all PEM analytes <25.0% (Form VII-PEST-1) [_] STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; If no, qualify all associated positive results generated during the analytical sequence "J" and sample quantitation limits "UJ". NOTE: If the failing PEM is part of the initial calibration. All samples are potentially affected. If the offending standard is a verification calibration, the associated samples are those which followed the last in-control standard until the next passing standard. 7.10 Have all samples been injected within a 12 hour period beginning with the injection of an instrument Blank? [_] 7.11 Is Form VII - Pest-2 present and complete for INDA and INDB Verification Calibration analyzed? [_] 7.12 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Form VII - Pest - 2? ACTION: If large errors exists, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. Under "Conclusions". 7.13 Do all standard retention times for each INDA and INDB Verification Calibration fall within the windows established by the initial calibration sequence? [_j Tlf STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 VLS NO N A 7.14 Are RPD values for all verification calibration standard compounds < 25.0%? L_J __ __ ACTION: If the RPD is >25.0% for the compound being quantitated, qualify all associated positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ". The "associated samples" are those which followed the last in-control standard up to the next passing standard containing the analyte which failed the criteria. If the RPD is >90%, flag all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable). 8.0 Analytical Sequence Check (Form VIII-PEST) 8.1 Is Form V1I1 present and complete for each column and each period of analyses? ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. 8.2 Was the proper analytical sequence followed for each initial calibration and subsequent analyses? (See CLP SOW p. D-39 & D-41/PEST) [_1 ACTION: If no, use professional judgement to determine the severity of the effect on the data and qualify it accordingly. Generally, the effect is negligible unless the sequence was grossly altered or the calibration was also out of limits. 9.0 Cleanup Efficiency Verification (Form IX) 9.1 Is From IX - Pest-1 Pest-1 present and complete for each lot of Florisil Cartridges used? (Florisil Cleanup is required for all Pest/PCB extracts.) [_J STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. If data suggests that florisil cleanup was not performed, make note in "Contract Problems/Non- Compliance". 9.2 Are all samples listed on the Pesticide Florisil Cartridge Check Form? 9.3 If GPC Cleanup was performed, (mandatory for all soil sample extracts) is Form IX - Pest-2 present? ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. ACTION: If GPC was not performed when required, make note in" Contract Problems/Non-Compliance" section of data assessment. 9.4 Are percent recoveries (% R) of the pesticide and surrogate compounds used to check the efficiency of the cleanup procedures within QC limits: 80-120% for llorisil cartridge check? 80-110% for GPC calibration? Qualify only the analyte(s) which fail the recovery criteria as follows: ACTION: If a R are < 80%, qualify positive results "J1 and quantitation limits "UJ". Non-detects should be qualified "R" if zero %R was obtained for pesticide compounds. Use professional judgement to qualify positive results if recoveries are greater than the upper limit. l__l STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review Page 57 ot 61 and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW b Revision: 8 YES NO N/A NOTE: Sample data should be evaluated for potential interferences if recovery 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was > 5% in the Florisil Cartridge Performance Check analysis. Make note in Contract Problems/Non- Compliance section of reviewer narrative. NOTE: The raw data of the GPC Calibration Check analysis is evaluated for pattern similarity with previously run Aroclor standards. 10.0 Pesticide/PCB Identification 10.1 Is Form X complete for every sample in which a pesticide or PCB was detected? I_ | 10.2 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Forms 6E, 6G, 7E, 7D, 8D, 9A, B, 10A. _ I__J __ ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make necessary corrections and not error under "Conclusions". 10.3 Are retention times (RT) of sample compounds within the established RT windows for both analyses? [_1 __ Was GC/MS confirmation provided when required (when compound concentration is > 10 ug/ml in final extract)? ACTION: Use professional judgement to qualify positive results which were not confirmed by GC/MS. Qualify as unusable (R) all positive results which were not confirmed by second TUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A GC column analysis. Also qualify as unusable (R) all positive results not meeting RT window unless associated standard compounds are similarly biased. (See Functional Guidelines). The reviewer should use professional judgement to assign an appropriate quantitation limit. 10.4 Is the percent difference (% D) calculated for the positive sample results on the two GC columns < 25.0%? ACTION: If the reviewer finds neither column shows interference for the positive hits, the data should be fagged as follows: % Difference Qualifier 25-50 % J 50-90 % JN > 90 % R NOTE: The lower of the two values is reported on Form I. If using professional judgement, the reviewer determines that the higher results was more acceptable, the reviewer should replace the value and indicate the reason for the change in the data assessment. 10.5 Check chromatograins for false negatives, especially the multiple peak compounds toxaphene and PCBs. Were there any false negatives? _ [__| "LIT 003 0504 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: Use professional judgement to decide if the compound should be reported. If the appropriate PCB standards were not analyzed, qualify the data unusable (R). 11.0 Compound Qtiaiititation and Reported Detection Limits 1 1 . 1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I results? Check at least two positive values. Were any errors found? NOTE: Single-peak pesticide results can be checked for rough agreement between quantitative results obtained on the two GC columns. The reviewer should use professional judgement to decide whether a much larger concentration obtained on one column versus the other indicates the presence of an interfering compound. If an interfering compound is indicated, the lower of the two values should be reported and qualified as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). This necessitates a determination of an estimated concentration on the confirmation column. The narrative should indicate that the presence of interferences has interfered with the evaluation of the second column confirmation. 11.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, % moisture? [_J ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. TUT 003 05O5 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 199? Number HW-6 Revision: 8 ACTION: When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of higher CRQL data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" value on the original Form 1 and substituting it with data from the analysis of diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all Form 1's that should not be used, including any in the summary package. ACTION: Quantitation limits effected by large, off-scale peaks should be qualified as unusable (R). If the interference is on-scale, the reviewer can provide an approximated quantitation limit (UJ) for each affected compound. 12.0 Chromatogram Quality 12.1 Were baselines stable? YES NO N/A 12.2 Were any electropositive displacement (negative peaks) or unusual peaks seen? ACTION: Address comments under System Performance of data assessment. 13.0 Field Duplicates 13.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for PEST/PCB analysis? GG3 OSO6 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 ' Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION: Compare the reported results for field duplicates and calculate the relative percent difference. ACTION: Any gross variation between field duplicate results must be addressed in the reviewer narrative. However, if large differences exist, identification of field duplicates should be confirmed by contacting the sampler. #l'RUll(l(ll-l)V3/OK<;ANIC 1)1 A TUT 003 0507 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 TOTAL REVIEW CLP DATA ASSESSMENT Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis Case Nos. 24462.24697.24704.24741 SDG No.NA LABORATORY Enseco-East SITE Tutu Wells DATA ASSESSMENT: The current functional guidelines (USEPA Revision June 1991) for evaluating organic data have been applied. All data are valid and acceptable except those analytes which have been qualified with a "J" (estimated), "U" (undetected), "R" (unusable), or "JN" (presumptive evidence for the presence of the material at an estimated value). All action is detailed on the attached sheets. Two facts should be noted by all data users. First, the "R" flag means that the associated value is unusable and rejected. In other words, due to significant quality control (QC) problems, the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not. "R" values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data, but any value potentially contains some error. Reviewer's Signature: Verified by: GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 1. HOLDING TIME The amount of an analyte in a sample can change with time due to chemical instability, degradation, volatilization, etc. If the specified holding time is exceeded, the data may not be valid. Those analytes detected in the samples whose holding time has been exceeded are qualified as estimated (J). The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) are qualified as estimated (J), unless the holding times are grossly exceeded (over one week beyond maximum holding time), in which case the associated data are unusable and rejected (R). The following action was taken in the samples and analytes shown due to excessive holding time: All of the samples in the seventh quarterly sampling event at the Tutu Wells Site except LaPlace were analyzed within the specified holding time as calculated from sample collection to volatile organic compound (VOC) analyses. Sample LaPlace was not preserved and was analyzed 1-day outside the 7-day holding time for unpreserved samples. Therefore, all aromatic VOC data in sample LaPlace are qualified as estimated (J) or (UJ) at the quantitation limit. A holding time non-compliance summary for all samples is provided in Table A-l. 2. BLANK CONTAMINATION Quality assurance (QA) blanks, i.e., method, trip, field, rinse, and water blanks are prepared to identify any contamination that may have been introduced into the samples during sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Trip blanks measure cross-contamination of samples during shipment. Field blanks measure cross- contamination of samples during field operations. If the concentration of the analyte is less than five times the blank contaminant level (ten times for the common contaminants), the analytes are negated and qualified as undetected, "U." The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified with "U" for these reasons: A) Method Blank Contamination All of the method blanks associated with the VOC analyses were reviewed to determine laboratory contamination levels. The method blanks are referred to by their file identification numbers for ease of correlation of the blank with the associated samples. TUT I FP IVP ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 The method blank (A4627) is reported to contain 0.9 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of methylene chloride and 1.8 ug/L of acetone, both of which are common laboratory VOC contaminants. Samples Steele, Eglin I, Harvey, Tillett, and Smith are associated with this blank. Methylene chloride is detected in samples Steele and Smith at concentrations less than ten times (< IQx) the amount detected in the method blank. Therefore, the methylene chloride data in these samples are negated and qualified (U). Acetone is detected in sample Smith at a concentration < IQx. the amount detected in the blank. Therefore, the result is negated and qualified (U). In the remaining samples, acetone and methylene chloride were either undetected or the concentrations were greater than ten times (> IQx) the amount detected in the blank and, therefore, no qualifiers have been assessed. The method blank (A4653) is reported to contain 0.885 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Ramsay field replicate (FR), Eglin II, Eglin III, Harthman U, and Gassett are associated with this blank. Methylene chloride is detected in all these samples at a concentration < lOx the amount detected in the method blank. Therefore, the methylene chloride data in these samples are negated and qualified (U). The methylene chloride result in sample Ramsay is below the contract required quantitation limit (CRQJL). Therefore, the result is negated, raised to the CRQL, and qualified (U). The method blank (A4786) is reported to contain 0.95 ug/L of methylene chloride. Sample LaPlace is associated with this blank. Methylene chloride was detected in this sample at a concentration < IQx the amount detected in the blank and, therefore, the result is negated and qualified (U). B) Field Blank Contamination The field blank is a sample of deionized (DI) water passed through the decontaminated sampling equipment. It is used to identify any contaminant that may still be present in the sampling equipment and therefore may result in subsequent sample contamination. For the seventh quarter Tutu Wells Site sampling effort, the Gassett well was sampled using a bailer. The remainder of the wells did not require any sampling equipment as all of the other wells had pumps installed. Therefore, the field blank collected is associated only with sample Gassett and is used to qualify this sample only. The field blank (9/15/92) is reported to contain 0.44 ug/L of methylene chloride, 0.096 ug/L of carbon disulfide, and 0.11 ug/L of chloroform. As previously discussed, the TUT OO3 OS10 GERAGHTY & MILLER. IN'C ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 methylene chloride detected in sample Gassett is negated due to method blank contamination. Carbon disulfide and chloroform are not detected in sample Gassett and, therefore, no qualifiers have been assessed. C) Trip Blank Contamination The trip blank (9/14/92) is reported to contain 0.73 ug/L of methylene chloride. The samples associated with this blank have been qualified based on the method blank and, therefore, no qualifiers have been assessed based on the trip blank. The trip blank (9/15/92) is reported to contain 0.65 ug/L of methylene chloride. The samples associated with this blank have been qualified based on the method blank and, therefore, no qualifiers have been assessed based on the trip blank. The trip blank (9/16/92) is reported to contain 0.89 ug/L of methylene chloride and 0.15 ug/L of chloroform. Samples Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hanhman II, Smith, and Tillett are associated with this blank. The methylene chloride data in these samples have been qualified based on the method blank, which is reported to contain a higher concentration of methylene chloride than the trip blank. Chloroform is detected in samples Eglin II, Eglin HI, Smith, and Hartman II at concentrations less than five times (< 5x) the amount detected in the blank. Therefore, the associated chloroform data in these samples are negated and qualified (U). The trip blank (9/17/92) is reported to contain 1.6 ug/L of methylene chloride and 0.74 ug/L of toluene. Sample LaPlace is associated with this blank. As previously discussed the methylene chloride result in sample La Place is negated due to method blank contamination and, therefore, no sample data are qualified based on the trip blank result. Toluene is detected in sample LaPlace at a concentration < lOx the amount detected in the blank. Therefore, the result is negated and qualified (U). A summary of all contaminated blanks and associated samples is provided in Table A-2. 3. MASS SPECTROMETER TUNING Tuning and performance criteria are established to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification, and to some degree, sufficient instrument sensitivity. These criteria are not sample-specific. Instrument performance is determined using standard materials. TUT 003 OS 11 ClFRAGHTY^Mn I f-R I\T ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 Therefore, these criteria should be met in all circumstances. The tuning standard for VOCs is bromofluorobenzene (BFB). If the mass calibration is in error, all associated data will be classified as unusable, "R." All mass calibrations associated with the VOC analyses in this project have met the QC criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification, and instrument response. 4. CALIBRATION Satisfactory instrument calibration is established to ensure that the instrument is capable of producing acceptable quantitative data. An initial calibration demonstrates that the instrument is capable of giving acceptable performance at the beginning of an analytical sequence. The continuing calibration checks document that the instrument is giving satisfactory daily performance. A) Response Factor The response factor (RF) measures the instrument's response to specific chemical compounds. The response factor for the Target Compound List (TCL) must be > 0.05 (a ratio of areas) in both the initial and continuing calibrations. A value < 0.05 indicates a serious detection and quantitation problem (poor sensitivity). For analytes detected in the sample for which the response factor is < 0.05, positive detects will be qualified as estimated (J). All non-detects for that compound will be rejected (R). The initial calibration verification (ICV) performed on 9/12/92 had a RF less than (<) 0.05 units for 2-hexanone (0.035). All the samples in the project are associated with this ICV (Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett, Harthman II, trip blank [9/14/92], Harvey, LaPlace, Ramsay, Ramsay FR, Smith, Steele, trip blank [9/15/92], trip blank [9/16/92], field blank [9/15/92], Tillett, and trip blank [9/17/92]). 2-Hexanone was not detected in these samples; therefore, the results are biased low and are rejected (R). The continuing calibration verifications (CCVs)performed on 9/19/92 (0.0396), 9/20/92 (0.03932), and 9/25/92 (0.0375) have RFs < 0.05 units for 2-hexanone (RFs are in parentheses). The 2-hexanone data in all samples are rejected based on the RF criteria associated with the ICV. No further qualifications are necessary based on the associated CCVs. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 5. CALIBRATION (B) Percent Relative Standard Deviation and Percent Difference Percent relative standard deviation (%RSD) is calculated from the initial calibration and is used to indicate the stability of the specific compound response factor over increasing concentration. Percent difference (%D) compares the response factor of the continuing calibration check to the average response factor (RRF) from the initial calibration. Percent D is a measure of the instrument's daily performance. Under Revision 3.0 for Method 524.2, %RSD must be < 20 percent (%) and %D must be < 30%. A value outside of these limits indicates potential detection and quamitation errors. All positive results are flagged as estimated, "J," and non-detects are flagged "UJ" if %D is greater than (>) 30% or %RSD > 20%. If there is a gross deviation (i.e., > 90%) for %RSD and %D, the non-detects may be rejected (R). The ICV performed on 9/12/92 has a %RSD for acetone (31.05%) outside the method specified limit (20%). All samples in this project are associated with this ICV and are qualified as estimated (J) or (UJ) at the quamitation limit. The CCVperformed on 9/19/92 has a %D for acetone (35.02%) outside the method specified limit (30%). The acetone data in all samples associated with this CCV are already qualified as estimated based on the %RSD criteria associated with the ICV. No further qualifications are necessary based on the CCV. 6. SURROGATES All samples are spiked with surrogate compounds prior to sample preparation or analysis to evaluate overall laboratory performance and efficiency of the analytical technique. If the measured surrogate concentrations were outside contract specifications, qualifications were applied to the samples and analytes as shown below. Volatile surrogate percent recoveries (%Rs) for this project are within the corresponding QClimits (toluene-d8 f88-110%], bromofluorobenzene [86-115%], 1,2-dichloroethane-d4 [76-114%]). %R data were transcribed correctly from the quant 'nation reports to the Form II's. GO 3 Obi. 3 GERAGHTY & MILLtR. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 7. INTERNAL STANDARDS PERFORMANCE Internal standard (IS) performance criteria ensure that the gas chromatograph/mass spectrophotometer (GC/MS) sensitivity and response are stable during every analytical run. The internal standard area count must not vary by more than a factor of two (-50% to +100%) from the associated continuing calibration standard. The retention time of the internal standard must not vary more than 30 seconds from the associated continuing calibration standard. If the area count is outside the (-50% to H-100%) range of the associated standard, all of the positive results for compounds quantitated using that IS are qualified as estimated (J); and all non-detects as estimated at the reporting limit (UJ), or unusable and rejected (R), if there is a severe loss of sensitivity. If an internal standard retention time varies by more than 30 seconds, the reviewer will use professional judgment to determine either partial or total rejection of the data for that sample fraction. All of the IS area counts and retention times are within the above QC limits for the VOC analyses. Bromochloromethane, 1,4-difluorobenzene, andchlorobenzene were the three internal standards used to quantitate the data for these projects. All retention times, area counts, and chromatography for the IS compounds are acceptable. 8. COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION A) Volatile and Semi-volatile Fractions TCL compounds are identified on the GC/MS by using the analyte's relative retention time (RRT) and by comparison to the ion spectra obtained from known standards. For the results to be a positive hit, the sample peak must be within +. 0.06 RRT units of the standard compound and have an ion spectra that has a ratio of the primary and secondary m/e intensities within 20% of that in the standard compound. For the tentatively identified compounds (TICs), the ion spectra must match accurately. In cases where there is not an adequate ion spectrum match, the laboratory may have provided false-positive identifications. TCL compound identification by GC/MS was based on comparison of the analyte RRT and ion spectra to those obtained from known standard spectra. Positive hits were reviewed for all samples and the following discrepancies were noted in meeting the RRT criteria of plus or minus (±J 0.06. OO3 Ob.1.4 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INT. ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 RRT criteria were exceeded in the VOC analyses for total 1,2-dichloroethene (DCE). This discrepancy is attributed to the presence of structural isomers. 1,2- DCE exists as cis and trans isomers. Since the relative intensity between the two isomer peaks varies, quantitation is based on the retention time of the peak with the higher intensity. As the ionic spectra for 1,2-DCE accurately matches the standard compound spectrum, no data have been qualified based on RRT deviations. TICs with positive identifications based on presumptive evidence of the detected compound as an estimated value are qualified "JN.' All TIC data are qualified as estimated (J) since these compounds are not calibrated for. 9. MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE The matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) data are generated to determine the long-term precision and accuracy of the analytical method in various matrices. The MS/MSD may be used in conjunction with other QC criteria for some additional qualification of the data. The MS/MSD were performed on sample Steele to determine sample matrix interferences on the analytical results. The sample was spiked in duplicate at a level of 5 ug/L with the following anafytes (QC limits for recovery are within parentheses): 1,1-DCE (61-145%), trichloroethene. (71-120%), benzene (76- 127%), toluene (76-125%), and chlorobenzene (75-130%). The MS %Rfor trichloroethene was 70%, which is below the required limit. All other matrix spike %Rs meet the specified QC criteria. Relative percent differences (RPDs) between MS/MSD %Rs are within QC limits (11-14%) for all analytes except trichloroethene (27%). No data have been qualified based on the MS/MSD spike recoveries. 10. OTHER QC DATA OUT OF SPECIFICATION A) Method Detection Limit Study The method detection limit (MDL) study associated with Method 524.2 was performed on August 9, 1992. The MDL determination was based on the analysis of seven replicates of reagent water fortified at a concentration of 1.0 ug/L with the TCL analytes (except for ketones at 5 ug/L, and 1,2-DCE at 2 ug/L). GERAGHTY c* MILLER. INC. ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 Section 10.3.3 of Method 524.2 states that for every analyte and surrogate, the mean accuracy, expressed as a percentage of the true value, should be 80 to 120% and the %RSD < 20%. The MDL study meets these requirements. None of the data is qualified based on the results from the MDL study. B) Laboratory Fortified Blanks As per the QC requirements in Method 524.2 (Revision 3.0) and the site SAMP, a laboratory fortified blank (LFB) containing each target analyte at a known concentration is to be analyzed with every batch of samples processed using the method. For the seventh quarter Tutu Wells Site sampling effort, LFBs were prepared at a concentration of 1 ug/L for all TCL analytes except ketones and 1,2-DCE. Ketones were analyzed at 5 ug/L and 1,2-DCE was analyzed at 2 ug/L. The 1,2-DCE matrix fortification was comprised of I ug/L of the cis isomer and 1 ug/L of the trans isomer injected together, and quantitated as total 1,2- DCE. The LFBs were used to evaluate the accuracy of the method and estimate whether MDLs were achieved for every associated analytical sequence. If the laboratory did not meet these QC criteria, the deficiencies had to be rectified prior to further sample analyses (as specified in Method 524.2, Section 10.3). The QC criteria for the data assessment were modified for the VOC analyses of the Tutu Site samples. Based on USEPA guidance (dated December 4, 1990) regarding additional quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements when Method 524.2 is used for aqueous sample analysis, the 80 to 120% criteria for the accuracy assessment of the LFB were expanded to 50 to 150% for the ketones (acetone, 2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, and 2-hexanone). Therefore, for this validation, associated data for all TCL analytes with LFB recoveries < 50% are rejected and qualified "R." For LFB analyte recoveries in the range of 50 to 79% for TCL analytes other than ketones, the associated sample data are qualified as estimated (J). For LFB analyte recoveries > 120% or 150% (as appropriate for the ketones), associated sample data are not qualified. The LFBs associated with this project, which have analyte recoveries outside of the required QC guidelines, are summarized below. All LFBs are referred to by their file identification numbers as well as the dates they were analyzed. The LFB (A4629) analyzed on 9/19/92 has %Rs outside QC limits for the following compounds: ! FR T\T ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 Compound Recovery (%) Methylene chloride 198 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 78.5 Samples Steele, Eglin I, Harvey, Smith, Tillett, field blank (9/15/92), trip blank (9/15/92), and trip blank (9/14/92) are associated with this blank. Associated sample data for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane are estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The LFB (A4654) analyzed on 9/20/92 has %Rs outside QC limits for the following compounds: Compound Recovery (%) Methylene chloride 188 Bromoform 72.3 Samples Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Ramsay FR, Gassett, Eglin II, Eglin HI, Harthman II, and trip blank (9/16/92) are associated with this blank. Associated sample data for bromoform are estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The LFB (A4788) analyzed on 9/25/92 has %Rs outside QC limits for the following compounds: Compound Recovery (%) Methylene chloride 176 Carbon disulfide 126 1,2-Dichloroethane 121 Samples LaPlace and trip blank (9/17/92) are associated with this blank. Associated sample data do not require qualification. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 C) Field Duplicate Field duplicate or replicate samples are taken and analyzed as an indication of overall precision. These analyses measure both field and laboratory precision; therefore, the results may have more variability than laboratory duplicates that measure only laboratory performance. Sample Ruben (listed as such on the chain-of-custody [COC] record) is a field replicate of Ramsay, and in all discussions and tables in this report is referred to as Ramsay FR. The RPD between results in both samples is calculated only for positive detects and not for estimated or undetected results. The RPDs calculated are within the required limit (< 20%) and, therefore, no qualification of data is required. D) Sample Disposition In several instances, the COC records indicate that the sample vials were received with air bubbles or headspace. In instances where only one or two vials had headspace, the associated data are not qualified. It is assumed that the laboratory exercised good judgement, and followed their policy of using the vial(s) without headspace for the sample analysis. However, if the sample was diluted and reanalyzed, all positive results in the diluted sample are qualified as estimated (J) because it is possible that one vial with headspace was used for the diluted sample analysis. If all three vials for one sample were received with headspace, the associated positive VOC results are qualified as estimated (J) and the non- detects are rejected (R). The trip blank (TB091592) was received with headspace in all three vials as documented in the COCs. All associated non-detect sample data are rejected as unusable (R), and all positive detects are assumed to be biased low and qualified as estimated (J). Samples Steele, Gassett, field blank (FB091592), Tillett, Four Winds I, andEglin II were received with two vials with headspace. The associated sample data do not require qualification. Samples trip blank (TB091492), Smith, Eglin I, and LaPlace were received with one vial with headspace. The associated sample data do not require any qualification. 0518 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 11. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT It is appropriate for the data reviewer to make professional judgments and express concerns and comments on the validity of the overall data for a case. This is particularly appropriate when there are several QC criteria out of specification. The additive nature of QC factors out of specifications is difficult to assess in an objective manner. The reviewer has a responsibility to inform the person using the data concerning data quality and data limitations to assist the individual in avoiding inappropriate use of the data. Therefore, this review has presented all QC factors that may affect the quality of the data. Overall, the data submitted by Enseco-East are of good quality and acceptable completeness. Aside from the exceptions summarized below, the majority of the data for this project is valid and usable. Non-detect data for 2-hexanone in all the samples in this project are biased low and are rejected due to poor sensitivity, as determined from the consistently low instrument RFs. Some acetone data are estimated due to unacceptable instrument performance during the initial calibration sequence and the continuing calibration verifications. The data qualification is based on the %RSD and %D in the associated calibration verifications being above the specified QC limits. The aromatic VOCs in sample La Place are qualified as estimated because the analysis was conducted outside the 7-day holding time for unpreserved samples. Much of the sample data for methylene chloride are negated since their presence is the result of blank contamination. Some of the sample data for bromoform and some sample data for 1,1,2,2- tetrachloroethane are estimated due to poor recovery in the associated LFBs. All TICs detected in these samples are qualified as estimated (J), because the laboratory does not calibrate the GC/MSfor these compounds. TICs that are "positively identified" are qualified (JN) indicating presumptive evidence of the detected compound at an estimated value. TCL analytes that required re-analysis upon dilution are qualified (D). 003 0519 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 12. CONTRACT PROBLEMS (NON-COMPLIANCE) The laboratory fortified blanks did not meet all of the method criteria as required. In accordance with the method, all deficiencies should be located and remedied prior to sample analysis. The case narratives submitted by Enseco along with the data packages contained inaccuracies. 13. This package contains re-extraction, re-analysis or dilution. Upon reviewing the QA results, the following Form I(s) are identified to be used: Samples Steele, Harvey, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Smith, LaPlace, and Tillett were analyzed at a dilution due to the presence of high concentrations of target analytes. All the dilution data appear on the initial Form I data sheets. PR0080l-DV/tulnov GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Region II ORGANIC REGIONAL DATA ASSESSMENT —— CASE NO. 22462. 24697. 24704. 24741 SITE Tutu Wells. St. Thomas. Tutu Wells. St. Thor U.S. Virgin Islands LABORATORY Enseco-East_________ NO. OF SAMPLES/ MATRIX________197 Water SDG# N/A_________________ REVIEWER (IF NOT ESP) N/A SOWl QLM01.0. March 1990 (including REVIEWER'S NAME Uma Parasar______ further revisions) DPO: ACTION_____ FYI_X________ COMPLETION DATE November 30. 1992 DATA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY VGA BNA PEST 1. HOLDING TIMES _Q____ N/A N/A 2. GC/MS TUNE/INSTR. PERFORM. _Q____ N/A N/A 3. CALIBRATIONS M___ 'N/A N/A 4. BLANKS _Q____ N/A N/A 5. SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS _Q_____ N/A N/A 6. MATRIX SPIKE/DUP _Q____ N/A N/A 7. OTHER QC JQ____ N/A N/A 8. INTERNAL STANDARDS jQ____ N/A N/A 9. COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION _Q____ N/A N/A 10. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE _Q____ N/A N/A 11. OVERALL ASSESSMENT _Q____ N/A N/A O = Data had no problems/or qualified due to minor problems. M = Data qualified due to major problems. Z = Data unacceptable. X = Problems, but do not affect data. ACTION ITEMS: Some data for common blank contaminants have been negated based on blank contamination. Some data have been estimated based on calibration criteria, laboratory fortified blank (LFB) recoveries, and analysis outside of holding time. Some data for volatile organic analysis (VOA) have been rejected for response factors. AREAS OF CONCERN: None___________________________________ NOTABLE PERFORMANCE: Overall data are valid and can be used with some exceptions. PR00801-DV3/111992.dU GFRAGHTYrVMM I FR J\r ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TABLES GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table A-1. Volatile Organic Analysis Holding Time Summary, Seventh Quaner Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Hartman II Harvey LaPlace Ramsay Ramsay FR Smith Steele Tillett Field Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/14/92) Trip Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/16/92) Trip Blank (09/17/92) Matrix Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Preserved No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Date Collected 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 Date Received 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 18-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 18-Sep-92 Days from Date Collection Ana lyzed to Ana lysis 19-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 25-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 19-Sep-92 20-Sep-92 25-Sep-92 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 8 5 5 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 8 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. PR00801 - DV3/tbla 1 .wk3 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table A-2. Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Contaminated Blanks and Associated Ground-Water Samples, Seventh Quarter Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Blank Identifier (Date Sampled or File I.D.) Date Analyzed Associated Sample(s) Method Blank (A4627) Method Blank (A4653) 09/19/92 09/20/92 Steele, Harvey, Tillett, Smith, EglinI Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Gassett, Ramsay FR, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II Method Blank (A4786) Trip Blank (09/14/92) Trip Blank (09/15/92) Trip Blank (09/16/92) Trip Blank (09/17/92) Field Blank (09/15/92) I.D. Identification. FR Field replicate. 09/25/92 09/19/92 09/19/92 09/20/92 09/25/92 09/19/92 La Place Steele, Harvey Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Ramsay, Gassett, Ramsay FR Tillett, Smith, Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II La Place Gassett PR00801 - DV3/tbla2.wk3 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-3. Summary of Laboratory Fortified Blanks with Exceeded QC Criteria and Associated Ground-Water Samples, Seventh Quarter Sampling Event, September 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier (File I.D.) Date Analyzed Associated Samples Compounds with Exceeded QC Criteria LFB (A4629) LFB (A4654) LFB (A4788) 09/19/92 09/20/92 09/25/92 TB091492, Harvey TB091592, Steele FB091592,Tillett Smith, Eglin I Four Winds I Four Winds II Ramsay Gassett Ramsay FR Eglin II, Eglin III Harthman II, TB091692 TB091792 La Place Methylene chloride (198%) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (78.5%) Methylene chloride (188%) Bromoform (723%) Methylene chloride (175%) Carbon disulfide (126%) 1,2-Dichloroethane (121%) I.D. QC LFB FR Identification. Quality control. Laboratory—fortified blank. Field replicate. PR00801 - DV3/tbla3.wk3 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-4. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Ihloromethane 3romomethane v'inyl chloride rtiloroethane dethylene chloride \cetone -arbon disulfide ,1-Dichloroethene , 1 -Dichloroethane ,2-Dichloroethcne (cis/trans) -hloroform ,2-Dichloroethane Butanonc , 1 , 1-Trichlorocthane Carbon tetrachloride iromodichloromethane ,2-Dichloropropane rans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene richloroethenc )ibromochloromethane , 1 ,2-Trichloroediane lenzene is- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene iromoform -Methyl-2-penUnone -Hexanone , 1 ,2,2-Tctrachloroelhane ctrachloroethene oluene 'hlorobenzene thylbenzene tyrcne ylenes (total) Eglin I 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 12 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2U R 0.5 UJ 11 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Eglin II 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.74 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 11 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 11 0.081 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Eglin III 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.8U 2UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 32 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 34 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U Four Winds I 15-Sep-92 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 4.4 U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 170 1.6J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 21 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5U 2.5 U 2.5UJ 10 U R 2.5 U 78 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U Four Windi U 15-Sep-92 2Uu 2U 2 U 2 U 2.8 U 8UJ 2U 2U 2U 99 1 J 2U 8U 2 U 2U 2U 2U 2U 10 2U 2U 2U 2U 2UJ 8U R 2U 38 2U 2 U 2U 2U 2 U Gtisett 15-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U O.^UJ 2U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harthman II 16-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.73 U 2UJ 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 11 0.5 U 0.5U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 10 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harvey 14-Sep-92 5Uu 5U 5U 5U 11B 28 BJ 5U 5 U 5 U 49 5U 5U 20U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 46 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 20 U R 5UJ 260 5U 5U 5 U 5 U 5U La Place 17-Sep-92 2Uu 2U 2U 2 U 6.9 U 8UJ 2U 2U 2U 130 I.4J 2U 8U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 22 2U 2U 0.29 J 2U 2U 8U R 2U 67 0.63 UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2 U 0.85 J Ramsay 15-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 2UJ 0.15J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.9 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.98 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.94 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Ranuay FR 15-Sep-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.52 U 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.4 2.8 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U R 0.5 U 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Smith 16-Sep-92 2.5 Uu 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 5U 10 UJ 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 60 0.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 21 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U R 2.5 UJ 170 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Sleele 14-Sep-92 2Uu 2 U 3.3 2 U 3.7 U 8UJ 2U 2 U 2 U 140 2U 2U 8U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 33 2U 2U 2 U 2U 2U 8U R 2UJ 65 2 U 2 U 2 U 2U 2U .n;ilyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). nalyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for, out not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. All reporting limits raised due to high levels of target analytes. Result rejected. R Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. (able A-4. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. fcaalyle Sample ID: Tillett Field Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Blank Date: 16-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 14-Sep-92 15-Sep-92 16-Sep-92 17-Sep-92 'ttoromethane Inmomethane '•yl chloride Horocthane icthylene chloride acetone *bon disulfidc J-Dichlorocthenc ,1-Dichlorocthane J-Dichlorocthenc (cis/trans) Moroform ,2-Dichlorocthanc •Butanone ,1, 1-Trichloroethane arbon tetrachloride nmodichloromethaae 2-Dichloropropane •s- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene richloroethene fWomochloromethane 1,2-Trichloroethane nzcne *-l ,3-Dichloropropene comoform Methyl-2-pentanone llcxanone 1,2 .2-Tetrachlorocthane trachloroethene itucnc rtorobenzene hylhenzene [rcne rtenes (total) 5Uu 5U 5 U 5 U 16 B 85 BJ 5U 5U 5U 290 3.6 J 5U 20 U 5U 5U SU 5U 5U 62 5U 5U 75U 5U 20 U R 5UJ 140 0.5 J 5U 1.5 J 5U 5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.44 JB 2UJ 0.096 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U R 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.73 B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U R 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U R R R R 0.65 BJ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.89 B 2UJ 0.92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15J 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1.6 B 2UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.074 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U lalyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). talyses were performed by Enscco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. Analyte is detected in the laboratory blank. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for, but not detected at the corresponding reporting limit. All reporting limits raised due to high levels of target analytes. Result rejected. ! Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table A-5. Cpncentrations of Tentatively Identified Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in September 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Aiulyte tert- Butyl methyl ether Hexane Ethyl cyclobuune Tetramethyl silane Unknown Record 1 Cyclohexane Sample ID: Eglin II Date: 16-Sep-92 3JN NA NA NA NA NA Eglin UI 16-Sep-92 17 JN NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds I 15-Sep-92 15 JN NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds II 15-Sep-92 8JN NA NA NA NA NA Gtuett 15-Sep-92 NA 7JN 2JN NA NA NA Steele 14-Sep-92 NA NA NA 8JN NA NA Tillett 16-Sep-92 NA NA NA NA 70 J 10 JN Field Blank 15-Scp-92 NA 22 JN 8JN NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrognuns per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. NA Not applicable. aium ii:M » GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGES (The contents of this attachment have been provided separately to the USEPA). GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC