USVI Public Records

Document text

FIFTH SAMPLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS May 1992 Prepared for Tutu Environmental Investigation Committee San Juan, Puerto Rico Prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 201 West Passaic Street Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662 (201) 909-0700 2468 *64433* 64433 FIFTH SAMPLING REPORT FEBRUARY 1992 TUTU WELLS SITE ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS May 15, 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 the highest 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. Cameron S. Dunnan Staff Scientist Thomas V. Danahy // Senior Scientist/Project Manager Daniel A. Nachman Vice President/Project Officer GERAGHTY<S? MILLER. INC. CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PROCEDURAL DEVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 DATA VALIDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DATA QUALITY EXCEPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 INORGANIC RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TABLES 1. List of Sample Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 2. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground- Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 3. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 4. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 5. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. i I ' ! OO2 24 7O GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. TABLES (Continued) 6. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Volatile Organic Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 7. Metals and Cyanide Holding Time Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 8. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 9. Volatile Organic Analysis Holding Time Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 10. Summary of Detected Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 12. Drinking Water Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 13. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 14. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Ground- Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas U.S. Virgin Islands. 15. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 16. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 17. Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Compound Holding Time Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. TABLES (Continued) 18. Concentrations of Metals Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 19. Drinking Water Standards for Metals, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 20. Proposed Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Sixth Sampling Event, May 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. FIGURE 1. Well Sampling Locations for the Tutu Wells Site Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. APPENDIX A. Data Validation Summary Report for the Tutu Wells Site, February 1992 Sampling Event, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. 24/2 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. FIFTH SAMPLING REPORT FEBRUARY 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 fifth sampling event (February 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. 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 conducted the sampling activities. For each of these three sampling events, Geraghty & Miller prepared reports (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991a; 1991b; 1991c) 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 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 2 change in the analytical 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 objectives of the SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1990) and the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Id) 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 fifth sampling event was conducted from February 3 through 6, 1992 by Soil Tech and Geraghty & Miller. Ms. Ana Gloria Ramos, Designated Coordinator for TEIC, was present throughout the sampling event. Ms. Caroline Kwan of the USEPA-Region II was present on February 5 and 6, 1992. Sampling and analysis were performed as described in the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Id), with the exception of the few deviations outlined in the following section. Table 1 lists the sample locations and analytical parameters for the February 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 to achieve lower detection levels, TCL base neutral/acid extractable (BNA) compounds, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, and cyanide. All analyses were performed using contract laboratory protocol (CLP) procedures. Enseco performed the laboratory analyses. All 19 samples obtained during the February 1992 sampling event were collected utilizing the permanent pumps and piping systems installed in the well, with the exception of the following two samples: TUT OO2 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 3 • The Gassett well, which is not equipped with a permanent pump, was purged using a submersible pump powered by a portable generator. After 2,260 gallons (approximately 8.5 well volumes) were purged from the Gassett well, the submersible pump was removed and a sample was collected using a Teflon bailer. • The Water and Power Authority (WAPA) sample was collected from a stand- pipe located at the Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA) property, located on Route 38 in Tutu. This sample was collected to characterize the water quality of desalinated seawater provided by the WAPA distribution system. Geraghty & Miller anticipates that this water will be used for steam cleaning and drilling during the upcoming subsurface investigation. Sample names shown on the tables that require explanation are as follows: • Two blind field replicate samples were collected during the sampling event. One field replicate was collected at the LaPlace well and was labelled "Verde." The other field replicate was collected at the Gassett well and was labelled "CHKAN." On the validated tables, sample "Verde" was renamed "LaPlace FR" and "CHKAN" was renamed "Gassett FR." • Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were collected from the Gassett well. These samples were identified as Gassett MS and Gassett MSD. • On February 4, 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 TUT OO2 2475 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 4 water from the laboratory-supplied containers to the sample containers. The equipment blank and the water blank were analyzed for all required parameters (see Table 1). 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 (two 40- milliliter vials) was included in each shipment from the Tutu Wells Site to Enseco. Trip blank samples were analyzed for TCL VOCs. Prior to sampling the Gassett well, a Teflon bailer was decontaminated using the following procedures: 1. Non-phosphate detergent wash. 2. Tap water rinse. 3. Methanol rinse. 4. Hexane rinse. 5. Air dry. 6. Distilled and deionized water rinse. 7. Air dry. 8. Wrap in aluminum foil (shiny side out). Geraghty & Miller validated the analytical data in accordance with the USEPA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) No. HW-2, January 1992, for metal parameters (USEPA 1992a) and SOP No. HW-6, January 1992, for organic compounds (USEPA 1992b). The data validation summary is provided in Appendix A. The analytical results for VOCs, BNAs, TAL metals, and cyanide for the fifth sampling event (February 1992) are summarized in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Details of the sampling and analysis procedures, data validation requirements, and reporting requirements are provided in the revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d). GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC PROCEDURAL DEVIATIONS Deviations from the scope of work and procedures during the fifth sampling event are explained below. 1. VIHA I, VIHA II, and VIHA III wells were not sampled due to inoperable pumps. The VIHA III well pump was turned on momentarily, but stopped because of an electrical malfunction. 2. The Bryan and Lockhart wells were not sampled because the property was inaccessible. Despite several attempts, Geraghty & Miller and Soil Tech were unable to contact the property owners prior to or during the sampling event. 3. 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 and deionized water provided by Enseco. 4. The detection of carbon disulfide and methylene chloride in all four trip blanks (2-3-92 through 2-6-92) and the detection of toluene in trip blank 2-4- 92 indicates cross contamination of these parameters. In addition, the water blank is reported to contain carbon disulfide and methylene chloride and the equipment blank is reported to contain acetone, carbon disulfide, methylene chloride, toluene, and xylenes (total). The detection of these compounds at low concentrations is likely due to cross-contamination during laboratory preparation of the trip blank, shipment to and from the site, or laboratory analysis. Table 6 presents a summary of contaminated blanks and associated samples for VOCs in the fifth sampling event. A complete explanation of the data validation qualifiers applied to these data is presented in Item 2 of Appendix A. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 6 5. Due to laboratory contamination of blank samples, sample data were qualified for acetone, carbon disulfide, methylene chloride, toluene, and xylenes (total). The complete data validation based upon blank contamination is discussed in Item 2 of Appendix A. 6. A Method Detection Limit (MDL) study was performed by Enseco on July 29, 1991 for TCL analytes. Five analytes (methylene chloride, 2-butanone, dibromochloromethane, trans-1, 3-dichloropropane, and bromoform) did not meet the accuracy criteria of between 80 to 120 percent mean accuracy. These five parameters are not parameters of concern at the Tutu Wells Site. In accordance with data validation guidelines, qualification of results based upon the MDL study is not appropriate; thus no results were qualified. 7. Five laboratory fortified blanks (LFBs) had analyte recoveries outside the required QC guidelines for four parameters (bromoform, chloroethane, chloromethane, 1,1,2- trichloroethane). The associated sample data for these compounds are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). 8. Holding times for cyanide analyses were exceeded by 1 day for samples Eglin I, Eglin II, and Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, and Harvey. Table 7 presents the metals and cyanide holding time summary for the fifth sampling event. The VOC parameters detected in ground-water samples collected during the fifth sampling event are summarized in Table 2. The complete VOC validated data for the fifth sampling event are presented in Table 8. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. DATA VALIDATION The organic data have been evaluated according to USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-6, Revision No. 8 (USEPA 1992b), in conjunction with the USEPA Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organic Review (USEPA 1991) and the appropriate, corresponding methodology. Because the VOC analyses were not performed in accordance with the CLP Statement of Work (SOW), the SOP for organic data review is not directly applicable, but 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. 1991d), to conform to the USEPA Region II data validation protocol (USEPA 1992b). The inorganic data have been evaluated according to USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-2, Revision No. 11 (USEPA 1992a). All of the data have been tabulated and assigned the appropriate qualifier codes, if required. Metals were analyzed according to methodology contained in the March 1990 USEPA CLP SOW for Inorganics Analysis, Multi-Media, .'Multi-Concentration (USEPA 1990a). A discussion of the data validation findings is provided in Appendix A. DATA QUALITY EXCEPTIONS Overall, Enseco has provided valid data of acceptable completeness. The QC deficiencies are minor and, therefore, the data are usable with minor qualifications. Sample data have not been rejected when qualified as estimated due to more than one deficiency. Overall, Enseco has presented data of good quality and acceptable completeness. All of the organic data generated for the samples in this case, aside from the BNA data for sample WAPA, are valid and usable. All of the BNA data for sample WAPA are unusable and rejected due to unacceptably low surrogate recoveries. Sample data for chloroethane and bromoform are estimated at the quantitation limit due to poor LFB recoveries. All of the positive data for methylene chloride, carbon GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. 8 disulfide, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are negated due to blank contamination. Most of the positive data for toluene and some of the data for total xylenes are negated due to blank contamination. Some data for acetone, di-n-octylphthalate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 2,4-dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol are estimated at the quantitation limit due to minor calibration deficiencies. Analytes quantitated using a secondary dilution are qualified as such (D). The LFBs did not meet all of the method criteria as required. In accordance with the USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989), all deficiencies should be located and remedied prior to sample analysis. The laboratory has failed to provide Form I's for those samples that required dilution. Dilutions were required to accurately quantitate compounds that exceeded the linear range of calibration upon initial analysis. Sample data from secondary dilutions are incorporated into the Form I's that were provided and flagged "D" by the laboratory. In some cases, the laboratory diluted samples prior to the original analysis. RESULTS The validated analytical results are discussed below. The organic results (i.e., VOCs and BNAs) are discussed first, followed by a discussion of the metal results. ORGANIC ANALYTICAL RESULTS All VOC analyses were performed within the required holding time, as shown in Table 9. Table 10 presents a summary of detected VOC parameters for the first five sampling events (September/October 1990, February 1991, June 1991, October 1991, and February 1992). The complete validated VOC data results for these five events are presented in Table 11, and Table 12 presents a summary of federal drinking water standards promulgated by the USEPA for VOCs. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 9 VOCs were analyzed according to USEPA Method 524.2, Revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). BNAs were analyzed according to methodology contained in the March 1990 USEPA CLP SOW for Organics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (USEPA 19905). VOCs constitute the chief analyte group of concern at the Tutu Wells Site. The compounds that were consistently detected in site samples are PCE, trichloroethene (TCE), and total 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE). PCE was detected in all samples, except the Four Winds II, Gassett, Leonard, and WAPA samples. The PCE concentrations ranged from 1.2 parts per billion [ppb] in the Hartman III sample to 500 ppb (secondary dilution) in the Harvey sample. TCE was detected in all samples, except the Leonard and the WAPA samples. The TCE concentrations range from an estimated value of 0.08 ppb in the Hartman III sample to 29 ppb in the Steele sample. 1,2-DCE was detected in all samples, except the Leonard and WAPA samples. The 1,2-DCE concentration range from an estimated value of 0.11 ppb in the Gassett sample to 150 ppb (secondary dilution) in the Four Winds I sample. The other VOCs detected in the February 1992 sampling event were chloroform, xylenes (total), benzene, vinyl chloride, bromodichloromethane, chloromethane, toluene, 1,1,- dichloroethene, bromoform, and dibromochloromethane. With the exception of PCE, 1,2- DCE, and TCE, chloroform was detected in the nine samples (Eglin III, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Harvey, LaPlace, Matthias, Ramsay, Tillett, and WAPA) ranging from an estimated value of 0.4 ppb in the LaPlace sample to 5.3 ppb in the Tillett sample. Vinyl chloride was detected in three samples (Four Winds I, Harvey, and Steele) ranging from an estimated value of 0.22 ppb in the Four Winds I sample to 2.2 ppb in the Harvey sample. Petroleum compounds, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) have not been detected in the majority of the wells. Benzene was detected in five samples (Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett, Tillett, and LaPlace) ranging from an estimated value of 0.06 ppb in the Gassett sample to 2.7 ppb in the Four Winds II sample. 002 2481 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 10 Estimated concentrations of toluene (ranging from 0.05 ppb to 0.11 ppb) were detected in samples Eglin I, Harvey, LaPlace, Tillett, and WAPA. Estimated concentrations of total xylenes (0.4 ppb and 0.1 ppb, respectively) were detected in two samples: Four Winds II and the equipment blank. j Table 3 presents a summary of detected BNAs for the fifth sampling event, and Table 13 presents all concentrations of BNAs for the fifth sampling event. A summary of detected BNAs in ground-water samples collected from September 1990 through February 1992 is presented in Table 14. Table 15 presents all BNA concentrations in ground-water samples collected from September 1990 through February 1992. BNAs were not detected, except for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which was detected in three samples (LaPlace, LaPlace field replicate, and Leonard). Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is a common plasticizer and is a common laboratory artifact. Table 16 presents a summary of contaminated blanks and associated samples from BNA compounds for the fifth sampling event, and a holding time compliance summary for BNAs during the fifth sampling event is presented in Table 17. INORGANIC RESULTS Table 4 presents the concentrations of metals in ground-water samples collected in the fifth sampling event. Table 18 presents the concentrations of metals in ground-water samples collected from September 1990 through February 1992. All metal reported concentrations for the fifth sampling event except for two compounds, were below the USEPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), proposed MCLs, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), and secondary MCLs for drinking water. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 11 Table 19 presents a summary of federal drinking water standards and goals promulgated by the USEPA for metal parameters. Aluminum was detected above the Secondary MCL (50 ppb) in all samples except Eglin III, Four Winds I, Four Winds n, and Hartman III. Chromium was detected at a concentration of 109 ppb in the Matthias sample, which is above the MCL of 100 ppb. DISCUSSION The sample locations should be limited to the wells listed in Table 20 because previous sampling results indicate that nine wells (Bryan, Dede, Demitri, Dench, Devcon I, Devcon III, Leonard, Rodriguez, and VIHA-III) have demonstrated the absence of parameters of concern at the Tutu Wells Site. The geographical and hydrogeologic reasons for removing these nine wells from further sampling efforts are as follows: • They are all located outside of the central portion of the Tutu valley where VOC impact has been documented. • The Bryan well is located in the Donne valley, a completely separate drainage basin from the Tutu valley. • The Dimitri and Leonard wells are located upgradient and to the west of the central portion of the Tutu valley; VIHA III is similarly upgradient of this area of concern. • The Rodriguez well is situated near the axis of a tributary drainage basin to the Tutu valley and hence receives significant contribution from this valley. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 12 • Dede, Dench, Devcon I, and Devcon II are all located at least one-half mile to the southeast of the area of concern, in a portion of the Turpentine River basin that receives significantly more contribution from other areas than from the central Tutu valley. The absence of the VOCs of concern in these nine wells during the first two sampling events (see Tables 6 and 7) confirms the geographical and hydrogeologic reasons for removing them from future sampling (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 199Ib). Three of these nine wells (Dede, Leonard, and Rodriquez) were sampled during the fifth sampling event. These three wells are the closest of the nine wells to the Tutu Wells Site. No VOCs were detected in the Rodriquez and Dede samples. The only VOCs reported in the Leonard sample were estimated concentrations of chloromethane (0.99 ppb) and 1,1-dichloroethene (0.13 ppb). Chloromethane and 1,1-dichloroethene were not reported in any samples collected from the northern portion of the Tutu Wells Site (e.g., Ramsay, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Tillett). The absence of these parameters in samples collected near the Leonard Well indicates that their isolated occurrence in the Leonard sample (at estimated values of less than 1 ppb) is not attributable to the Tutu Wells Site. The analytical results for the Dede, Rodriquez, and Leonard well samples are consistent with previous results. The results of the fifth sampling event indicate that the nine wells should not be included in any further sampling. •••4B4 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 13 RECOMMENDATIONS The February 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. 199 Id) continue to be followed, but that the revisions discussed below be implemented. • The sixth sampling event (scheduled to begin May 27, 1992) should include only the analytical parameters and locations discussed below and outlined in Table 2. • The analytical parameters for the sixth sampling event (May 1992) should include TCL VOCs using USEPA Method 524.2 Revision 3.0 following CLP protocol. TU 1 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. 14 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. 199Ic. Third Sampling Report, June 1991, Tutu Wells Site Quarterly Sampling, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, September 1991. Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d. 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. 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. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Inorganics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, SOW No. 3/90, March 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. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992a. Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW- 2, Revision No. 11, January 1992. GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC 15 REFERENCES (Continued) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992b. 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. TVD:ce/nna/ak #PR00801-#2/5thQTR.RPT GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 1. List of Sample Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID Proposed Analytes Dede Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Hartman II Hartman III Harvey LaPlace Leonard Matthias Ramsay Rodriguez Smith Steele Tillett VIHA I, VIHA II, or VIHA III (if possible) Water and Power Authority (WAPA) TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNA, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL VOCs, TCL BNAs, TAL Metals, and Cyanide TCL Target compound list. TAL Target analyte list. VOCs Volatile organic compounds. VOC analysis was performed using modified USEPA Method 524.2. BNAs Base neutral and acid extractable compounds. VIHA I, VIHA n, and VIHA III were not sampled due to inoperable pumps. The WAPA sample was collected from the standpipe at the VIHA property located on Route 38 in Tutu. TD:ce/rma #PR00801-#2/5thqtr.rpt 2488 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table 2. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Eglin I Eglin II Analyte D«le: 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 17 20 Trichloroethene 7 6.7 Tetrachloroethene 16 16 Toluene 0.06 J NA Chloroform NA NA Vinyl chloride NA NA Bromodichloromelhanc NA NA Benzene NA NA Xylenes (total) NA NA Chloromethane NA NA 1,1-Dichloroethene NA NA 1,1-Dichloroethane NA NA Dibromochloromethane NA NA Bromoform NA NA Methylene chloride NA NA Acetone NA NA Carbon bisulfide NA NA Eglin HI 3-Feb-92 39 16 41 D NA 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 150 D 21 75 D NA 1.2 0.22 J 0.09 J 0.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds II 4-Feb-92 130 15 NA NA 0.5 J NA NA 2.7 0.4J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gassett 4-Feb-92 0.11 J 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA 0.06 J NA 0.99 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gissett FR 4-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman II 3-Feb-92 4.2 0.95 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman III 3-Feb-92 0.19J 0.08 J 1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 3-Feb-92 39 23 500 D 0.06 J 0.1 J 2.2 NA NA NA NA 0.06 J NA NA NA NA NA NA U Place 6-Feb-92 HOD 23 84 D 0.1 U 0.4 J NA NA 0.15J NA NA NA 0.06 J NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 HOD 23 81 D NA 0.41 J NA NA O.I4J NA NA NA 0.07 J NA NA NA NA NA Leonard 6-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.99 0.13 J NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Method 524.2. an estimated concentration. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 2. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Mitthiti Analyte Due: 5-Feb-92 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chloroform Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane Benzene Xylenes (total) Cnloromethane 1 ,1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane Dibromochloromethane Bromoform Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 17 7.5 60 D NA 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramuy Smith 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 17 3.7 23 NA 1.1 NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 48 D 21 230 D 0.05 J 0.32 J NA NA 0.07 J NA NA NA 0.06 J NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analyte identified at a Steelc 4-Feb-92 110 29 55 NA NA 1.4 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tilled 5-Feb-92 23 6.3 23 0.05 J 5.3 NA NA 1.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WAPA 6-Feb-92 NA NA NA 0.11 J 0.61 NA 2.8 NA NA NA NA NA 13 34 NA NA NA Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 J NA NA NA NA NA 7 7.6 NA Trip Blank 3-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.29J NA 0.57 Trip Blank 4-Feb-92 NA NA NA 0.05 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.33 J NA 0.23 J Trip Blank 5-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.29 J NA 1.8 Trip Blank 6-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.33 J NA 1 USEPA Method 524.2. 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 3. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extracuble Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Aiulyte Date: Di-n-octyl phthalate bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthaIatc EglinI 3-Feb-92 1 J NA Li Place 6-Feb-92 NA 680 D LaPUce FR 6-Feb-92 NA 190 D Leonard 6-Feb-92 NA 1 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. 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 4. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Aiulyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Simple ID: Dede Date: S-Feb-92 235 18.2 U 1 U 7.9 B 0.25 U 2U 25100 6.6 B 4.4 B 21.3 B 250 J 2.3 B 27100 364 0.2 U 7.1 U 2410B 2UJ 9.2 U 357000 3UJ 10 U 6.9 BE EglinI 3-Feb-92 173 B 17.7 U 1.6 B 30.8 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80000 3.9 U 3.4 U 3.6 B 186 J 1.6BJ 56200 12.1 B 0.2 U 9.5 U 1820 B 5.1 J 3.3 U 363000 3UJ 30.3 B 25.5 J Eglin II 3-Feb-92 134 B 17.7 U 1 U 14.3 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80800 4.9B 4.4B 3.9 B 232 J 1.6B 61200 118 0.2 U 9.5 U 1990 B 9.2 3.3 U 338000 3UJ 32.6 B 78. 8 J Eglin III 3-Feb-92 39.5 B 17.7 U 1 U 39.7 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 81700 3.9 U 3.4 U 2.8 U 11. 7B 1UJ 55800 22.9 0.2 U 9.5 U 2180 B 4.3 BS 3.3 U 396000 3UJ 13. IB 19 B Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U 1 B 3.4 B 0.25 U 2 U 46600 3.5 U 3.8U 2.7 U 7BJ 3.1 32600 33 0.2 U 7.1U 8980 2U 9.2 U 232000 3UJ 59.1 8. 8 BE Four Wind* II 4-Feb-92 46.4 B 18.2 U 1 U 1.1 B 0.25 U 2U 50700 3.5 U 3.8 U 4.8B 61.6 BJ 3.3 36800 6.8 B 0.2 U 7.1 U 2350 B 2U 9.2 U 236000 3UJ 59.2 10.4 BE GlBKtt 4-Feb-92 388 18.2 U 3. IB 23.1 B 0.25 U 2.5 B 21700 4.6B 3.8U 83.4 R 39.7 S 15300 68 0.2 U 7.1U 1670 B 2 U 9.2 U 160000 3UJ 10 U 178 J GasKtt FR 4-Feb-92 231 18. 2 U 2.9 B 21.6B 0.25 U 2.4B 22200 3.5 U 3.8U 82.7 R 33.3 15500 78.9 0.2 U 7.1 U 1520B 2U 9.2U 164000 3UJ 10 U 175 J Hartman II 3-Feb-92 35.6 U 17.7 U 1 U 1.8B 0.53 U 2.1 U 44300 3.9 U 3.4 U 4.2 B 12 BJ 1.6B 37000 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1230 B 3B 3.3 U 323000 3UJ 24. 7 B 1.6U Hatttnan III 3-Feb-92 54.6 B 17.7 U 1U 0.7 U 0.5 U 2.1 U 46600 3.9U 3.4U 2.8 U 36.2 BJ 1 U 32300 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1730 B 2U 3.3 U 233000 3UJ 116 2. IB Harvey 3-Feb-92 289 17.7 U 1.1 B 32.1 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 62500 3.9 U 3.4 U 5.8 B 431 J 3 J 46600 120 0.2 U 9.5 U 2100 B 2.3 B 3.3 U 251000 3UJ 21. 6B 139 J LaPlace 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U 1 U 5.1 B 1 U 3U 44900 4 U 4 U 3 U 60.4 BJ 1 UJ 35100 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 1010 B 2U 4 U 268000 3UJ 34.4 B 8.1 B LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 68.4 B 18 U 1U 5.4 B 1 U 3U 45400 4 U 4 U 3U 46.7 BJ 1 UJ 35500 2.9 B 0.23 10 U 1090 B 2UJ 4 U 272000 3UJ 36.4 B 8B Analyte concentrations in microgramsiper liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 4. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Aiulyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: Leonard Date: 6-Feb-92 69.9 B 18 U 1U l.SB 1U 3U 39700 4U 4 U 3U 60.3 BJ 1UJ 24700 1.3 B 0.2 U 10 U 997 B 2.7 BJ 4 U 341000 3UJ 116 4.1 B Matthiaa 5-Feb-92 9580 J 18.2 U 1U 187 B 1 B 2U 49500 109 14 B 114 11700 J 1U 46900 269 0.2 U 53.7 6380 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 385000 3UJ 42.6 B 29.8 J Ramaay 4-Feb-92 145 B 18.2 U 1 U 3.7B 0.25 U 2U 49800 3.5 U 3.8U 5. IB 141 J 1.9 B 37000 2B 0.2 U 7.1 U 1070 B 2UJ 9.2U 240000 3UJ 54.1 12.4 BE Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 196B 19 B 1 U 13. 7 B I B 2.1 B 39200 5.2 B 3.8U 7.8B 246 J 2.5 B 37400 132 0.2 U 7.1 U 2170B 2UJ 9.2 U 300000 3UJ 10 U 19.4 BE Smith 5-Feb-92 4070 J 18.2 U 1 U 86.5 B 0.25 U 2 U 43500 48.4 3.8U 48.3 4670 J 3.1 42500 108 0.2 U 18.4 B 3310B 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 396000 3UJ 16.3 B 99.6 J Steele 4-Feb-92 267 18.2 U 1 U 19.8 B 0.25 U 2U 46200 3.5 U 3.8U 4. IB 377 J 1.4 BJ 43800 17.8 0.22 7.1U 1270B 2.5 B 9.2U 334000 3UJ 10 U 6.4 BE Tillett 5-Feb-92 696 J 18.2 U 1 U 44.9 B 0.25 U 2U 52000 11.4 3.8U 12.3 B 901 J 2 B 36000 1110 0.2 U 7.1U 3280 B 2U 9.2 U 198000 3UJ 58.5 26.2 J WAPA 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U 1 U 3.9B 1U 3U 3390 B 6.1 B 4 U 18.4 B 546 J 1 BJ 1760 B 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 997 B 2U 4 U 18400 3UJ 6.8 B 8.7 B Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 184 B 18.2 U 1 U 3. IB 0.25 U 2 U 65.4 B 5.7 B 3.8U 2.7 U 205 J 1 UJ 295 B 3.2 B 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2 U 1400 B 3 UJ 10 U 3. 9 BE Water Blank 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U 1U 0.8 U 0.25 U 2U 43 B 3.5 U 3.8U 2.7U 20.9 BJ 1 U 45 .9 U 0.83 U 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2U 660 B 3UJ 10 U 3.7 BE Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table S. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Pagel of 2 Analyte Total Cyanide Simple ID: Dede D«te: S-Feb-92 5U EglinI 3-Feb-92 R Eglin II 3-Feb-92 R Eglin HI 3-Feb-92 R Four Winds) 4-Feb-92 5U Four Windi II 4-Feb-92 5U GaiMtt 4-Feb-92 5U Caned FR 4-Feb-92 5U Hartman II 3-Feb-92 R Hartnun III 3-Feb-92 R Harvey 3-Feb-92 R LaPlace 6-Feb-92 5 U LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 5U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 5. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Leonard Mitlhiai Ramsay Rodriguez Smith Steele Tillett WAPA Equipment Water Blank Blank Analyte Date: 6-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 Total Cyanide 5U 5U 5U 5UJ 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion [ppb]). Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reportinE limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous cample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 6. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Volatile Organic Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Blank Identifier Date Sampled Date Analyzed Associated Sample(s) Equipment blank 04-Feb-92 Trip blank 03-Feb-92 Trip blank 04-Feb-92 FR Field replicate. DL Dilution. N/A Not applicable. 13-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 Gassett, Gassett FR Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, Harvey Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett FR Ramsay, Steele, Water Blank, Equipment Blank Trip blank Trip blank VBLK01 VBLK01 VBLK01 VBLK02 VBLK02 Water blank 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 04-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 09-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 Dede, Matthias, Rodriguez, Smith, Tillett LaPlace,LaPlace FR, Leonard, WAPA Eglin III, Harvey Steele Matthias, Rodriguez, WAPA Eglin III DL, Harvey DL Matthias DL, Tillett Equipment Blank GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. TaWe 7. Melals and Cyanide Holding Time Summary for ihe Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Sile, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Hartman II Harvey Egfinl Eglinll Eglin III Steele Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Equipment Blank Water Blank Gassett FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tiltett Leonard LaPlace LaPlace FR WAPA Date Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (AA) ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (ICP) 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (Mercury) 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 Days from Date Colection Analyzed to Analysis (Cyanide) (AA) 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 14 14 14 14 Days from Collection To Analysis (ICP) 9 9 9 9 9 9 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 5 5 5 5 Days from CoDection To Analysis (Mercury) 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 Days from Collection To Analysis (Cyanide) 15* 15* 15' 15* 15' 15* 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 AA Atomic absorption. ICP Inductively coupled plasma. FR Field replicate. * Cyanide holding time exceeded by one day. #PR00801Abla-5.wk3 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 8. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Page I o f 3 Analyte Chloromcthane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroelhanc Simple ID: Dede Eglin I Eglin II Date: 5-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-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 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 2U 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 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 0.5 U 17 20 Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichlorocthane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane tran s-1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichlorocthene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexamme 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7 6.7 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 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 16 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 0.5 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analyte identified J Result is detected at a secondary dilution. Eglin UI 3-Feb-92 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 41 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.22 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 150 D 1.2 0.5U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.09 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 75 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds II 4-Feb-92 2.5 Uj 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 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.SV 10 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 0.4 J Gassett 4-Feb-92 0.99 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.78 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Gassett FR 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 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 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.76 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Htrtman II 3-Feb-92 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 4.2 0.5U 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 0.5UJ 2U 2 U 0.5 U 5.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U Hartman III 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5UJ 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.08 J 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 1.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harvey 3-Feb-92 0.5U 0.5 U 2.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 39 0.1 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 500 D 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U La Place 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J HOD 0.4 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15 J 0.5U 0.5U 2U 2U 0.5U 84 D 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 1.9U 0.5 U 0.07 J HOD 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 0.14 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 81 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U USEPA Method 524.2. below the reoortine limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for out not detected. k All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 8. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Analyte Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,1-Dichloroethane ... _ .._ Sample ID: Leonard Matthias Ramsay Date: 6-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 0.99 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.13J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U l,2-Dichloroethene(cis/trani) 0.5 U 17 17 Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethajie 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) Analyte concentrations in Analyses were performed 0.5 U 0.09 J 1.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7.5 3.7 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 60 D 23 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5U 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 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 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 Smith 5-Feb-92 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 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 230 D 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Steele 4-Feb-92 2.5 Uj 2.5 U 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 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 29 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 2.5 U 55 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Tillett 5-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5U 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 0.5 U 23 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U WAPA 6-Feb-92 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 0.61 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 34 2U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.1 J Trip Blank 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.29 J 2U 0.57 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 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blink 4-Feb-92 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 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 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 5-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.29 J 2U 1.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.33 J 2U 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 micrograms_per liter (parts per billion [ppbj). by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated ccr.c;r.tr;l;cr.. concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. '-•uiiijjuuiiu ul caciirciii anaiyzcu lui uut uui utacvit^j. I Ail reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 8. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Water BUnk Analyte D«le: 4-Feb-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethenc (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.5U 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 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 0.5U 2U 2U 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. j All reporting limit* raised due to high levels of other analytes. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 9. Volatile Organic Analysis Holding Time Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Trip Blank Hartman II Harvey Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Sleete Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Equipment Blank Water Blank Trip Blank Gassett FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tillett Trip Blank Trip Blank Leonard LaPlace LaPlace FR WAPA Matrix Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Preserved Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Date Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Date Received 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 Days from Date Collection Analyzed to Analysis 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 7-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 09-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 9 9 9 2 9 9 2 2 9 9 3 9 9 10 9 9 3 7 8 3 4 9 8 8 8 8 2 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. #PR0060 l,0408tbl 1 .wks GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Dede Dench Aiulyte Date: 5-Feb-91 25-Sep-90 Chloromclhane 0.9 J 1 J 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 0.6 J NA 1 ,2-Dichloroelhcnc (cis/trans) NA NA Trichloroelhcne NA NA Tetrachlorocthene NA NA Xylenes (total) NA NA 1,1,2-Trichloroethanc NA NA Chloroform NA NA Toluene NA NA Acetone NA NA !.! H V'lloroelhanc NA N'A Benzene NA NA Vinyl chloride NA NA Bromodichloromethane NA NA 1,1-Dichloroelhene NA NA Methylene chloride NA NA Carbon disulfidc NA NA Chlorobenzene NA NA Ethylbenzene NA NA Dibromochloromethane NA NA Bromoform NA NA 2-Hcxanone NA NA Eglin I 2-Ocl-90 NA NA 68 J 10 J 32 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analytc concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analytc identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration range. Eglin I 5-Feb-91 NA NA 60 J 8 26 1 J NA NA NA NA : A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin I 5-Jun-91 NA NA 68 DJ 10 J 32 J NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin I 2-Ocl-91 NA NA 45 7.5 24 NA NA O.I J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin I 3-Feb-92 NA NA 17 7 16 NA NA NA 0.06 J NA N \ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 27-Sep-90 NA NA 120 J 22 J 71 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 5-Feb-91 NA NA 72 DJ 19 34 DJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 5-Jun-91 NA NA 130 DJ 19J 61 DJ NA NA NA NA NA N'A NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 2-Ocl-91 NA NA 67 18 54 NA NA 0.12J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin II 3-Feb-92 NA NA 20 6.7 16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin in 27-S«p-90 NA NA 52 J 14 44 J NA NA NA NA 22 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Method 524.2. 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 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Analyte Chloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane Simple ID: Eglin III Eglin III Eglin Ul FR Date: 5-Feb-91 5-Feb-91 5-Jun-91 NA NA NA NA NA NA l,2-Dichloroethene(cis/trans) 45 J 45 J 69 DJ Trichloroethene 11 13 15 J Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1-Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromelhane 1.1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon disulfide Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloromethane Bromoform 2-Hexanone 35 36 40 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Eglin III 2-Ocl-91 NA NA 51 12 36 NA NA 0.11 J NA NA 0.05 J 0.05 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglin in 3-Feb-92 NA NA 39 16 41 D NA NA 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Windi I 2-Oct-91 NA NA 89 D 9.8 36 NA NA 0.28 J NA NA NA 0.33J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 NA NA 150 D 21 75 D NA NA 1.2 NA NA NA 0.8 0.22 J 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds II 26-Sep-90 NA NA 75 J 6J 25 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds II FR 26-Sep-90 NA NA 61 J 4J I8J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds n 5-Feb-91 NA NA 230 D 21 90 D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds 0 5-Jun-91 NA NA 130 DJ 12 J 34 DJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds 0 2-Oct-91 NA NA 190 25 80 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds D 4-Feb-92 NA NA 130 15 NA 0.4 J NA 0.5 J NA NA NA 2.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration ranee. J Result is detected 1below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: duett Gauett Analyte Date: S-Feb-91 l-Oct-91 Chloromethane NA NA 1,2-Dichloroethane NA NA 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) NA NA Trichlorocthene 1 0. 1 1 J Tetrachloroethene NA NA Xylenes (total) NA NA 1,1,2-Trichloroethane NA NA Chloroform NA NA Toluene 44 D NA Acetone NA NA 1,1-Dichloroethane NA NA Benzene NA NA Vinyl chloride NA NA Bromodichloromethane NA NA 1.1-Dichloroethene NA NA Melhylene chloride NA NA Carbon disulfide NA NA Chlorobenzene NA NA Ethylbenzene NA NA Dibromochloromethane NA NA Bromoform NA NA 2-Hexanone NA NA GaSICtt 4-Feb-92 0.99 NA 0.11 J 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.06 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyse* were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration range. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. G«i«eu FR 4-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.07 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman II 26-Sep-90 NA NA 5 J 1 J 7J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman II 5-Feb-91 NA NA 5J 2 9 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman n 4-Jun-91 NA NA 6J 1 J 7J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman U l-Oct-91 NA NA 3.1 0.77 4.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman II 3-Feb-92 NA NA 4.2 0.95 5.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman III 26-Sep-90 NA NA 2 NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman III 5-Feb-91 NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman in l-Ocl-91 NA NA 0.08 J NA 0.83 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hartman m 3-Feb-92 NA NA 0.19J 0.08 J 1.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Method 524.2. an estimated concentration. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Chloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1-Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane 1 , 1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon dinilfide Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloromethane Bromoform 2-Hexanone Harvey 26-Sep-90 NA NA NA NA 890 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 5-Feb-91 NA NA 160 60 J 1500 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 4-Jun-91 NA NA 80 DJ 36 DJ 530 DEJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 2-Oct-91 NA NA 38 25 670 D NA NA 0.15J NA NA NA NA 2.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 3-Feb-92 NA NA 39 23 500 D NA NA 0.1 J 0.06 J NA NA NA 2.2 NA 0.06 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace 2-Oct-90 NA NA 140 J 24 J 98 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace 5-Feb-91 NA NA 200 D 32 HOD NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace FR 5-Feb-91 NA NA 190 D 31 100 D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace 6-Jun-91 NA NA 250 DEJ 31D 88 DJ NA 5 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace FR 6-Jun-91 NA NA 170 DJ 32 J 64 DJ NA NA 0.8 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace 3-Ocl-91 NA NA 170 D 30 100 D NA NA 0.6 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.6 2.2 J NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace 6-Feb-92 NA NA 140 D 23 84 D NA NA 0.4 J 0.11 J NA 0.06 J 0.15J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 NA NA MOD 23 81 D NA NA 0.41 J NA NA 0.07 J 0.14 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter (parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Amlyte Dite: Chloromclhanc 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1-Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane 1,1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon disulfide Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloromethane Bromoform 2-Hexanone Leonard 6-Feb-92 0.99 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.13 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthias 3-Oct-91 NA NA 19 8.6 81 NA NA 0.12J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthias l-Oct-90 NA NA 22 11 120 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthias 5-Feb-91 NA NA 21 7J 76 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthias 6-Jun-91 NA NA 36 J 12 59 DJ NA 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthias 5-Feb-92 NA NA 17 7.5 60 D NA NA 0.09 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay l-Oct-90 NA NA NA NA 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay 5-Feb-91 NA NA U 1 16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay 5-Jun-91 NA NA 2J NA 16 NA NA 1 J NA 15 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay l-Ocl-91 NA NA 2.8 1.6 19 NA NA 1.1 NA NA NA NA NA 0.39 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay 4-Feb-92 NA NA 17 3.7 23 NA NA 1.1 NA NA NA NA NA 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Smith 25-Sep-90 NA NA 58 20 330 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Smith 5-Feb-91 NA NA 42 J 23 160 J NA 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-Esst of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Chloromcthane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroelhene Xylenes (total) 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1,1-Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane 1 , 1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon disulfide Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloromethane Bromoform 2-Hexanone Smith 6-Jun-91 NA NA 62 D 26 190 D NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Smith 3-Oct-91 NA NA 56 D 20 250 D NA NA 0.35 J NA NA 0.06 J 0.1J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Smith 5-Feb-92 NA NA 48 D 21 230 D NA NA 0.32 J 0.05 J NA 0.06 J 0.07 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele 25-Sep-90 NA NA 120 48 130 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sleele 5-Feb-91 NA NA 44 12 65 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele 5-Jun-91 NA NA 180 DJ 42 DJ 150 DJ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele l-Ocl-91 NA NA 150 D 29 54 D NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 1J 0.08 J 2.5 NA 0.12J NA NA 0.13J NA NA NA NA Steele 4-Feb-92 NA NA 110 29 55 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.4 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett 2-Ocl-90 NA NA 280 J 56 J 120 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 32 J 17 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett FR 2-Oct-90 NA NA 270 J 47 J 98 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 26 J 12 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett 5-Feb-91 NA NA 200 D 36 100 D NA NA NA 1 NA NA 27 7 NA NA NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA Tillett 5-Jun-91 NA NA 400 DEI 72 DJ 180DJ NA 4 0.9 0.8 J NA NA 3J5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett 2-Oct-91 NA NA 150 38 66 3.6 J NA NA 3J NA NA 71 J 17 J NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyse* were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. r~ -w GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Tillett FR Tillett VIHA I Analyte Date: 2-Oct-91 5-Feb-92 27-Sep-90 Chloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloro methane 1 , 1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon disulfidc Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloro methane Bromoform 2-Hexanone NA NA NA NA NA NA 140 D 23 6 J 35 6.3 NA 63 D 23 5 J 2.7 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.3 NA 2.1J 0.05 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 58 DJ 1 .7 NA 1 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 J NA NA 14 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using VIHA III 26-Sep-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WAPA 6-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.61 0.11 J NA NA NA NA 2.8 NA NA NA NA NA 13 34 NA Deionized Waier 4-Jun-91 0.9 J 1 NA NA NA NA NA 53 D NA 8J NA NA NA 18 NA 1 NA NA NA 5 NA NA Equipment Blank 4-Jun-91 NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7J NA NA NA NA NA 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA 0.1 J NA NA NA 7.6 NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA NA NA NA NA Field Blank 5-Feb-91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 24-Sep-90 NA NA NA NA NA 8 NA NA NA 12 J NA NA NA NA NA 25 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 25-Sep-90 NA NA NA NA NA 7 NA NA 1 J 42 J NA NA NA NA NA 34 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 26-Scp-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4J NA NA NA NA NA 24 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 27-Sep-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16J NA NA NA NA NA NA USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration ranee. 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 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Aiulyte Date: Chlorotn ethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1-Dichloroethane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane 1,1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon diiulfide Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzenc Dibromochloromethane Bromoforrn 2-Hexanonc Trip Blank l-Oct-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 61 NA NA NA NA NA 13 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 2-Oct-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA MA NA 7J NA NA NA NA NA 14 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 4-Feb-91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 5-Feb-91 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 6-Feb-91 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 7-Feb-91 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 4-Jun-91 9J 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 11 J NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 J NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 5-Jun-91 2J 1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blink 6-Jun-91 6J 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 28J NA NA NA NA NA 0.9 J NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 J Trip Blank l-Oct-91 NA NA NA NA NA 0.28 J NA NA 0.1 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.21 J NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 2-Oct-91 NA NA NA NA 0.1 J 0.11 J NA NA NA 3.2 NA NA NA NA NA 0.6 1.4 J NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 3-Oct-91 NA NA NA NA NA 0.25 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.17J 0.25 J NA NA NA NA NA Trip Blank 3-Feb-92 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.29 J 0.57 NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-Eait of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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 10. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Trip Blank Trip Blink Trip Blank Water Blank Analyte Date: 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 3-Oct-91 Chloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Trichloroethene Tetrachloroethene Xylenes (total) 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Chloroform Toluene Acetone 1 , 1-Dichlorocthane Benzene Vinyl chloride Bromodichloromethane 1,1-Dichloroethene Methylene chloride Carbon disulflde Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Dibromochloromethane Bromoform 2-Hcxanone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.33 J 0.23 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.29 J 1.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.33 J 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.05 J NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.26 J 0.73 J NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in rnicrograms per liter (parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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 rer>li<**te of previous sample. NA Nott . e. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Aiulyte Sample ID: Bryan Bryan Dede Dede Dede Demitri Demitri Dench Dench Dench FR Devcon I Devcon I Devcon III Date: l-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 25-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Feb-92 l-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 25-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 5-Feb-91 24-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 24-Sep-90 Chloromethane : Bromomethane ; Vinyl chloride '. Chloroethanc ; Methylene 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 tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichforopropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropenc Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone : 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) iv : :u IV IV >UJ R UJ UJuu u UJ R Uu uuuuu uuuu UJ 2 R UJ UJuu uuu >uj : R : R : R : u : R UJ U U U uu R Uu uu R Uu uuuuuj : R U Uuu uuu IV 0 IV IV IV IVJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 0 R UJ UJ u UJu UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 2 R 2 UJ UJu UJ u UJu .9J 0.5 U : R 0.5 U : R 0.5 U : R 0.5 UJ : v 0.5 u : R 2U UJ 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U 6J 0.5 U R 2U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U R 0.5 U R 0.5 UJ . UJ 2 U : !UJ 2U U 0.5 U R 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U iuj ; IUJ JUJ IVJ IVJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJuj : R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ZUJ R : R : R : 1 U R UJuuu uu Ruu uu Ruu uuuu .uj : Ruuuu uuu u : JUJ JUJ IVJ IUJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ IUJ 2 R 2 UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ >.vj : R R Ru R UJuu UJ u UJ R UJu UJuuu UJ u UJ R Riuj : tUJ 2 u R UJu UJ UJ UJ ivj : R : R : R : u R UJuu UJ u UJ R UJu UJuuu UJ u UJ R R»uj : !UJu R UJu UJ UJ UJ suj R : iv R : tu R 2 iuj R ; UJ R ! R R UJ R UJ R UJ R U R UJ R UJ R R R UJ R UJ R U R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R 2 R R UJ R UJ R UJ R UJ R U R U R U R > U > U > U IV tUJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ U UJ U UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ U UJ U UJ U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration range. J Result is detected below the reportine limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. K Result rejected. FR Field replicate of- GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Devcon III Analyte Dale: 5-Feb-91 Chloromethane 2 UJ Bromomethane R Vinyl chloride R Chloroethane R Methylene chloride 1 U Acetone R Carbon disulfide UJ 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene U 1,1-Dichloroethane U 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) UJ Chloroform U 1,2-Dichloroethane UJ 2-Butanone R 1,1,1-Trichloroethane UJ Carbon tetrachloride U Bromodichloromethane UJ 1,2-Dichloropropane U cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene U Trichloroethene U Dibromochloromethane UJ 1,1,2-Trichloroethane U Benzene UJ trans-l,3-Dichloropropene R Bromoform R 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2 UJ 2-Hexanone 2 UJ Tetrachloroethene 1 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane R Toluene UJ Chlorobenzene U Ethylbenzene UJ Styrene UJ Xylenes (total) UJ EglinI 2-Oct-90 R R R R R R R R R 68 J R R R R R R RR 10 J R R R RR R R 32 J R R R R R R EglinI 5-Feb-91 2UJ R R R 1U R 1UJ 1U 1U 60 J 1U 1UJ R 1UJ 1U 1UJ 1U 1U 8 1 UJ 1 U 1UJ R R 2UJ 2UJ 26 R UJ U UJ UJ J Eglin I 5-Jun-91 R R RR R R R R R 68 DJ R RR R R RR R 10 J R 1 J R R RR R 32 J R RR R RR Eglin I 2-Oct-91 1U 1U 1U 1 U 1.1U 4 U 1 U 1U 1U 45 0.1 J 1U 4 U 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 7.5 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1UJ 4 U 4 U 24 U U U U U U EglinI 3-Feb-92 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 17 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 16 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Eglin H 27-S«p-90 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 10 UJ 5UJ R 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 120 J 5UJ 5UJ R 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 22 J 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 10 UJ R 71 J 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ Eglin II 5-Feb-91 2UJ R R R 1U R 1UJ 1U 1U 72 DJ 1U 1UJ R1UJ 1U 1UJ 1U 1U 19 1UJ 1U 1UJ R R 2UJ 2UJ 34 DJ R UJ U UJ UJ UJ Eglin n 5-Jun-91 R RR R R R R R R 130 DJ R R RR R R RR 19 J R R RR R R R 61 DJ R RR R RR Eglin n 2-Oct-91 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.8U 5U 5U 1.2 U 1.2 U 67 0.12J 1.2 U 5U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2U 18 1.2 U 1.2U 1.2 U 1.2UJ 1.2UJ 5U SU 54 .2U .2U .2U .2U .2U .2U Eglin II 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 16 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Eglin III Eglin III 27-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 10 UJ 2 UJ 10 UJ R 10 UJ R 10 UJ R 10 UJ 1 U 22 J R 5UJ UJ 5UJ U 5U U 52 J 45 J 5U U 5UJ UJ R R 5U UJ 5U U 5UJ UJ 5UJ U 5UJ U 14 1 5UJ UJ 5UJ U 5UJ UJ 5UJ R 5UJ R 10 UJ 2 UJ R 2UJ 44 J 35 5UJ R 5UJ UJ 5UJ U 5UJ UJ 5UJ UJ 5UJ UJ Analyte concentrations in microgramsiper liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. K Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Eglin in FR Analyte Date: 5-Feb-91 Chloromethane 2 U Bromomethane 2 UJ Vinyl chloride 2 UJ Chloroethane 2 UJ Methylene chloride 1 U Acetone R Carbon disulfide UJ 1,1-Dichloroethene U 1 , 1-Dichloroethane U 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) 45 J Chloroform U 1,2-Dichloroethane U 2-Butanone R. 1,1,1-Trichloroethanc U Carbon tetrachloride U Bromodichloromethane U 1,2-Dicnloropropane U cis-l,3-Dichforopropcne U Trichloroethene 3 Dibromochloromethane U 1,1,2-Trichloroethane U Benzene U trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene R Bromoform 1 U 4-Methyl-2-penUuione 2 UJ 2-Hexanone 2 UJ Tetrachloroethene 36 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U Toluene U Chlorobenzcne U Ethylbenzene U Styrene UJ Xylenes (total) UJ Eglin III 5-Jun-91 1 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 0.5 UJ 2UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 69 DJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 15 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 40 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Eglin III 2-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.05 J 51 0.11J 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U 36 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Eglin III 3-Feb-92 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 41 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds I 2-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 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 U 9.8 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.33 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 36 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.22 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 150D 1.2 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.09 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 75 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds II 26-S«p-90 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 25J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ Four Winds II FR 26-Sep-90 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 5UJ 10 UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 61 J 2UJ 2UJ R 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 4J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 5UJ R 18 J 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ Four Winds H 5-Feb-91 2U 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 1U R UJ U U 230D U U R U U U U U : iu u UJ R 1U 2UJ 2UJ 90 D U UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ Four Winds n 5-Jun-91 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 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 12 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 34 DJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Four Winds II 2-Ocl-91 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 20U 20U 5U 5U 190 5U SU 20 U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 25 5U 5U 5U 5UJ 5UJ 20U 20 U 80 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U Four Gaisett Winds H 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-91 2.5 Uj 2 U 2.5 U 2U 2.5 U 2U 2.5 U R 2.5 U 1 U 10 U R 2.5 U UJ 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 130 U 0.5 J U 2.5 U U 10 U R 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.5 U R 15 1 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.7 U 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 10 U UJ 10 U UJ 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.5 U 4 D 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 2.5 U U 0.4 J U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. E Concentration exceeds calibration ranee. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT 003 0013 GERAGHTYtfMIt.LHR.INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Simple Analyte Date: Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chlorocthanc Methylene 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 tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane CM- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichlorocthane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hcxanonc Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) ID: Gaisett 4-Jun-91 2UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 2UJ 10 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Gastett l-Oct-91 0.5 U 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 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Gassctt 4-Feb-92 0.99 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 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 2U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.78 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Gattett FR Hartman II 4-Feb-92 26-Sep-90 0.5 U 2 UJ 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 UJ 2 UJ 0.5 U 1 UJ 2U R 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 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 U UJ UJ UJ J UJ UJ R UJ UJ U UJ UJ J UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 2U 2UJ 2U R 0.5 U 7 J 0.5 U UJ 0.76 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U U 0.5 U U 0.5 U U Hartman n 5-Feb-91 2U 2U 2U 2U 1U R 1UJ 1 U 1 U 5J 1U 1U R 1U 1U 1U 1U R2 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 2UJ 2UJ 9 U U U U U U Hartman II 4-Jun-91 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 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 1UJ 1UJ 7J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Hartman tt l-Oct-91 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 2U 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 2U 2U 4.7 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Hartman II 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U 5.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Hartman III 26-Sep-90 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 3UJ R 1UJ 1UJ 1U 2 1UJ 1UJ R1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1 U 1UJ 1 UJ 2UJ R 1 J 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1UJ Hartnun III 5-Feb-91 2U 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 1U R 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U R1U 1U 1U 1U I U 1U I U I U I U RI U 2UJ 2UJ 1 I U I U I U I U 1UJ 1UJ Hartman III 4-Jun-91 I U I U 1UJ I U 2U 8UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U I U R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U I U I U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Hartman III l-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 2 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.08 J 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 2U 0.83 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 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. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. j All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT 00.14 GERAGHTY & MILLHR. IN( Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Page Sofll Sample ID: Aiulyte Dite: Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulflde 1 , 1-Dichloroethenc 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanonc 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane CM- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichlorocthanc Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-penUnone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) Hartman III 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.08 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 1.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harvey 26-Sep-90 100 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 sou 50 UJ 100 UJ R 890 J 50 UJ SOU SOU SOU SOU 50 UJ Harvey 5-Feb-91 200 U 200U 200 U 200 U 100 U 200 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 160 100 U 100 U 200 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 60 J 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 200U 200 U 1500 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U 100 U Harvey 4-Jun-91 1U 1U 3 1U 7U R 0.5 U 0.5 U 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 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 1U 1U 530 DEI 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Harvey 2-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 38 0.15J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 25 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 670 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harvey 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 39 0.1 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 500 D 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U LaPlace 2-Oct-90 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 RR R R R LaPlace 5-Feb-91 2U 2 U 2U R 1 U R 1UJ 1 U 1U 200 D 1 1U R 1U 1U 1U 1U R 32 1U 1 U 1U 1U 1U 2UJ 2UJ HOD U U U U U U LaPlace FR 5-Feb-91 2U 2U 2U R 1U R1UJ 1U 1U 190 D 1U 1U R 1U 1U 1U 1U R 31 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 2UJ 2UJ 100 D U U U U U U LaPlace 6-Jun-91 1UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 1UJ 3UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 250 DFJ 2 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 31D 0.5 U 5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1 U 1U 88 DJ 0.5 U 4UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ LaPlace FR 6-Jun-91 UJ UJ UJ UJ 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 0.5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 64 DJ 0.5 UJ 3UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ LaPlace 3-Oct-91 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 4.6 10 U 2.2 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 170 D 0.6 J 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 30 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 UJ 2.5 UJ 10 U 10 U 100 D 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U LaPlace 6-Feb-92 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J HOD 0.4 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 2U 84 D 0.5 U 0.11 J 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT 003 001.5 GERAGHTY & MILl.HR. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Analyte Date: Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethanc Methylene 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 tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Tricnloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 1.9 U 0.5 U 0.07 J 140 D 0.41 J 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U B I D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Leonard Leonard 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 2UJ 2U 2UJ 2U 2UJ 2U 2UJ R 2UJ 1U R R 1UJ UJ 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U R R 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ R 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 2 UJ 2 UJ R 2UJ 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U 1UJ U Leonard 6-Feb-92 0.99 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.13J 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Matthias 3-Oct-91 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.9 5U 5U 1.2U 1.2U 19 0.12J 1.2 U 5U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 8.6 1.2U 1.2U 1.2 U 1.2UJ 1.2UJ 5U 5U 81.2U .2U .2U .2U .2U .2U Matthias l-Oct-90 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 9UJ R 1UJ 1UJ 1U 22 1UJ 1UJ R 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 11 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1U 2UJ R 120 J UJ U U U UJ UJ Matthias 5-Feb-91 25U 25U 25 U 25 U 25U 25U 12 UJ 12 U 12 U 21 12 U 12 U 25U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 7J 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 25U 25U 76 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U 12 U Matthias 6-Jun-91 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 2UJ 2UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 36 J 0.5 U 0.5 U R 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 12 0.5 U 4 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 1U 1U 59 DJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Matthias 5-Feb-92 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 17 0.09 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7.5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 60 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Ramsay Ramtay l-Oct-90 5-Feb-91 4 UJ 2 UJ 4UJ R 4UJ R 4UJ R 17 UJ 1 U R R 2UJ UJ 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ J 2UJ U 2UJ U R R 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ R 2UJ 1 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 4 UJ 2 UJ R R 3J 16 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U 2UJ U Ranuay 5-Jun-91 2UJ R R R R 15 J R R R 2J 1 J 1UJ R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 16 R R R R R R Ramsay l-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.8 1.1 0.5 U 2 U 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 2U 2U 19 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or clement analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Resulfrejecfed. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLi-R. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample Analyte Date: Chloromcthanc Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene 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 tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) ID: Ramsay 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Rodriguez Rodriguez 24-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 2 UJ 2 UJ 2UJ 2U 2UJ 2U 2UJ 2U 2UJ 1U R R 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ R 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 2UJ : R 2 UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ U U U U U R U U U U R U U U U UJ U UJ UJ U UJ U U UJ U U Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Smith 25-Sep-90 25U 25 U 25 U 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 12 U 12 U R 12 UJ 25 UJ 25 UJ 330 J 12 UJ 12 U 12 U 12 U~ 12 U 12 U Smith 5-Feb-91 2UJ R R R 1U R 1UJ 1U 1U 42 J 1 U 1U R 1U 1U 1U 1U 1U 23 1U 5 1U fu 2UJ 2UJ 160 J U U U U UJ UJ Smith 6-Jun-91 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 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 1UJ 1UJ 190 D 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Smith 3-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.06 J 56 D 0.35 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 20 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.1 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 250 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Smith 5-Feb-92 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 2U 2U 230 D 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Sleele 25-Sep-90 17 UJ 17 UJ 17 UJ 17 UJ 140 UJ R 8UJ 8UJ 8U 120 8UJ 8UJ R 8UJ 8U 8U 8U 8UJ 48 8U 8U 8U 8UJ 8UJ 17 UJ R 130J 8UJ 8U 8U 8U 8UJ 8UJ Steele 5-Feb-91 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 5U 10 U 5U 5U 5U 44 5U 5U 10 U 5U 5U 5U SU 5U 12 5U 5U 5U SU 5U 10 U 10 U 65 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U SU Sleele 5-Jun-91 1UJ 1U 4 1UJ 0.5 UJ R 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1U 1U 150 DJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Steele l-Oct-91 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 2 U 2U 54 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.13J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [part* per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT 00*17 GERAGHTY & MILL.HR. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample Analyte D«U: Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichlorocthenc (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethanc Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) ID: Steele 4-Feb-92 2.5 Uj 2.5 IT 1.4 J 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 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 29 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 55 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Tillett 2-Oct-90 R R 17 J R R R R R R 280 J R RR RR RR R 56 J R R 32 J R R R R 120 J R RR R R R Tillett FR 2-Oct-90 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 RR R RR Tillett 5-Feb-91 2U 2U 7 2U 1U R 1UJ 1U 1U 200 D 1U 1U R 1U 1U 1U 1U R 36 1U 1U 27 1U 1U 2UJ 2UJ 100 D 1U 1 1U 1 1U 1U Tillett 5-Jun-91 1U 1U 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 3 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 1U 1U 180 DJ 0.5 U 0.8 J 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Tillett 2-Oct-91 2.5 U 2.5 U 17 J 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 150 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 38 2.5 U 2.5 U 71 J 2,5 UJ 2.5 UJ 10 U 10 U 66 2.5 U 3J 2.5 U 17 2.5 U 3.6 J Tillett FR 2-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 11J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 140 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 35 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 58 DJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 63 D 0.5 U 2.1 J 0.2 J 14 0.5 U 2.7 J Tillett 5-Feb-92 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 0.5 U 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U VIHAI 27-Sep-90 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ 2UJ R 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 6J 1UJ 1UJ R 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 1UJ 2UJ R 5J UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ VIHA ni VIHA in 26-Sep-90 5-Feb-91 2 UJ 2 UJ 2UJ R 2UJ R 2UJ R 2UJ 1U R R 1UJ 1UJ 1U 1U 3J 1UJ R 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1U 1U 1U 1U 1UJ 1UJ 2UJ R UJ UJ U U U UJ UJ UJ U U U U U R U U U U R U U U U U U ZUJ R U U U U U U U WAPA 6-Feb-92 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 0.61 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 34 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Deionized Water 4-Jun-91 0.9 J 1U 1 U 1U 1 8J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 53 D 1 R 0.5 U 0.5 U 18 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 5 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1U 1U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enscco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT OO1B GERAGHTY & MILLHR. IN( Table 11. Concentrations of Voktile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U .S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Equipment Equipment Field Blank Blank Blank Analyte Date: Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank 4-Jun-91 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-91 l-Oct-91 24-Sep-90 25-Sep-90 26-Sep-90 27-Sep-90 l-Oct-90 2-Oct-90 3-Oct-90 4-Feb-91 5-Feb-91 Field Blank Chloromelhane UJ 0.5 U 'A Bromomethane UJ 0.5 V : Vinyl chloride UJ 0.5 U ; Chloroethane UJ 0.5 UJ Methylene chloride J 7 Acetone 7J 7.6 Carbon disulfide 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 1,1-Dichloroethene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 1,1-Dichloroethane 0.5 UJ 0.5 U l,2-Dichloroethenc(cis/trans) 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Chloroform 43 UJ 0.5 U 1,2-Dichloroethane 1 J 0.5 U 2-Butanone R 2 U U.l-Trichloroethane 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Bromodichloromethane 14 UJ 0.5 U 1.2-Dichloropropane 0.5 UJ 0.5 U c(s-l,3-DichIoropropcne 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Trichloroethene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Dibromochloromethane 4 UJ 0.5 U 1,1.2-Trichloroethane 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Benzene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U traits- 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Bromoform 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 1 UJ 2 U ". 2-Hexanone 1 UJ 2U J Tetrachloroethene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 1 Toluene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 1 Chlorobenzene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Ethylbenzene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Styrene 0.5 UJ 0.5 U Xylenes (total) 0.5 UJ 0.1J JU 0.5 U : I U 0.5 U ; >u o.su : R 0.5 U : 2 0.5 U R 2U UJ 2U U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU R 2U U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU R O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U 0.5 UJ U 0.5 UJ JUJ 2U >UJ 2U U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU U O.SU ju 2U : ju 2U : >u 2U : iv 2U : 15 J 34 J 2 J 42 J ' UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ R R UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ U 1U UJ 1UJ U 1U UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ 1UJ UJ tUJ UJ 1UJ UJ 2UJ R R UJ UJ UJ UJ U J UJ UJ U U UJ UJ 8 7 juj : iuj ; juj : juj ; J4J u UJ UJ U U UJ UJ R UJ U U U UJ U U U U UJ UJuj : R UJ UJ U U U UJ UJ juj : juj : juj ; juj : 6J R ( UJ UJ U U U UJ R UJ U U U U U U UJ U UJ UJ ZUJ R UJ UJ U U U UJ UJ juj ; iuj : juj ; juj : 3J 5J UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJi UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ JUJ ; juj : juj ; juj : 4J r j UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ IVJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ juj ; JUJ JUJ JUJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ juj : R UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ juj : R R R2 R UJ U U UJ U UJ R UJ U UJ U U U UJ I U IUJ R Rivi : juj : 1 U R UJ U UJ UJ UJ JUJ R R R 3 R UJ U U UJ U UJ R UJ U UJ U U U UJ U UJ R R JU JUJ I U R UJ U UJ UJ UJ Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. j All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. K Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT GERAGHTY & MILLKR. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichloroethene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroclhenc (cis/trans) Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane CM- 1 ,3-Dichforopropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2- Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) Trip Blank Trip Blank 6-Feb-91 7-Feb-91 1J 1J 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2 2 R R 1UJ UJ 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U R R 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U R R 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 2U U 2UJ UJ 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U 1U U Trip Blank 4-Jun-91 9J 1 UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 0.8 J 11J 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 1U 1U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 5-Jun-91 2J 1UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 1UJ R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ U R 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 1UJ 1UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 5UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ 0.5 UJ Trip Blank 6-Jun-91 6J 1 UJ 1UJ 1 UJ 0.9 J 8J 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 1U 0.8 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank l-Oct-91 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.21 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.1 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.28 J Trip Blank 2-Oct-91 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 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 2U 2U 0.1 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J Trip Blank 3-Oct-9l 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.17J 2U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.25 J Trip Blank 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.29 J 2U 0.57 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 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.33 J 2U 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 Trip Blank 5-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.29 J 2U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank Water Blank 6-Feb-92 26-Sep-90 0.5 U 2 UJ 0.5 U 2 UJ 0.5 U 2 UJ 0.5 U 2 UJ 0.33 J 2 UJ 2U R 1 UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 2U R 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U R 0.5 U UJ 2U 2UJ 2U R 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ 0.5 U UJ Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. D E U FR Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. Concentration exceeds calibration range. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. Result rejected. Field replicate of previous sample. TL GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table 11. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Water Blank Water Blank Analyte Date: 3-Ocl-91 4-Feb-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene 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 tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene trans- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone Tetrachloroethene 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.26 J 2U 0.73 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.05 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 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using USEPA Method 524.2. 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. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. i All reporting limits raised cue to high levels of other analytes. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT' 003 O02.1. GERAGHTY & MIU.FR. INC Table 12. Drinking Water Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Compound Current MCL (ppb) Chlorome thane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride 2 Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1,1-Dichloroethene 7 1.1-Dichloroe thane cis 1,2-Dichloroethene * 70 trans 1,2-Dichloroethene * 100 Chloroform 1.2-Dichloroethane 5 2-Butanone 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 Carbon tetrachloride 5 Vinyl acetate Bromodichloromethane * * 1,2-Dichloropropane 5 trans-l,3-Dichloropropene MCL Maximum Contaminant Level, ppb Parts per billion. No MCL established for this compound. * Results reported as sum of cis and trans isomers. * * Sum of trichloromethanes MCL is 100 ppb. TD:ak *PR00801-#2/5thqtr.rpt GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 12. Drinking Water Standards for Volatile Organic Compounds, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Compound Current MCL (ppb) Trichloroethene 5 Dibromochloromethane ** 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Benzene 5 cis-l,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene 5 Toluene 1,000 Chlorobenzene 100 Ethylbenzene 100 Styrene 700 Xylenes (total) 10,000 MCL Maximum Contaminant Level, ppb Parts per billion. No MCL established for this compound. * Results reported as sum of cis and trans isomers. * * Sum of trichloromethanes MCL is 100 ppb. TD:ak *PR00801-#2/5thqtr.rpt GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. •* <•*o £ .s if> CO3 - « g £ 55 CO 1 a g * § •8u. .S 1 oU I E w! c 1 .sen •oc oO .21 o 1 KU •g °3 •g e1 O M i |l o2 ri *"* 4J JO g 82J u & JJ o S §^ 5 = ae ^ S 1 O B 8 O a •> a" 8 £:* " 3 *§ I* S ei ac1 o 13£ c •g a I J5 2£ «D SJ2 T>S SJ2 uu. c« ^ u Ib $ .0u u. ? «5 S£4 2 i£4 S .014 n (JJ <A g •gib Ss J2 i s -g It 4J 1 ^^ 1 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo till! c c_£<3 s Ills! 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 1 o u u £• llllf ^2'c£*£S'5' P cell 2 do CD a CO ir 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo s 1 « Iss. :nzyl phthala oaniline Moroethoxy)i hloroethyljctl ybis(l-C!hlor( x srjf) J< — — ' i O ISHw 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 1 !» f fill J? i? S\ fe u 2222 >L UUUU JJ *«sri^U 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 3333D ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 0 1 ill 18*11 JS « ^* Q O •r-iasl 'B'g 3 0 0 P* 2 rt ••*••« III---' 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 3333D ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 OOOOO 33333 OOOOO 33333 ooooo 33333 ooooo 33333 OOOOO •i_ - 2 2 -g j^U o**"* o — « 6 SPS-sfi -jjjili 03333 o^^oo D3333 O^x-OO P4<S 33333 Ovn^OO 33333 °^<no° H 33333 °£)w>OO 33333 O<O>OOO 33333 S!G!Q2S 33333 Ojnjooo 33333 OVOJQOO 33533 Sa>n2S 33333 Ojq^OO 33333 O<Q,_OO 33333 °JQ«n°o 1 •g. f\ phthalate itro-2-methyl itrophenol itrotoluene itrotoluene j^e c c c tQQQQ aiiiS 3 0 g s 3 0 3o 3 O 3 o 3o 3 o 3 O 3 o 3 o "-» 3 o tyl phthalate «oc 5 H 1 o: UJO §«* -3 .«<•- a111 8* Jspi s | <c<Uctfu. t-r -l-l Q-,3«S: Table 13. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocy clopentad iene Hexachloroethane lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene 2-Nitroanilinc 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Nitrobenzene 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophenol N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol Dede 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U EglinI 3-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Eglinll 3-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U EglinDI 3-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Four Winds n 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Gassett 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U GissettFR 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Hartman n 3-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Hirtman in 3-Feb-92 11U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Harvey 3-Feb-92 55 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U LaPlace 6-Feb-92 680 D 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U LaPUceFR 6-Feb-92 190 D 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT GERAGHTY & MILLHR, INC Om H 2 r™ ;c z oo o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ** ** ^^ ^* ** ***^*^ *^ ^^ ** ^* ** *^ ** *^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^^ ** ^^ ** ^^ ^^ ^^ <t^ *^ ^ 1B^ ** ^^ £ GCSSC CGGCG CGCCG GGGGC GCGGG CCGGG CGGGC O OO^lnO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO G CCSCC CGGGG CGGCG GGGCG CCCCC GGGCG GCCGC o ooKu<5 ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo G GGGGG GGCGG GCCGG CGGGG GGGGG GGGGG CGCGG o oo^Uo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo G GCSCG CGGCC CCGGG CCCCC GCCGG CCGGG GCCGG O OO G O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO GGGGG GGGGG CGGGC CGGGG CCCCC GGCGC o ooUUo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo G GCGCG GGCGG CCCCG CCCCC CCGCC CCCCC CCCCC O OO^tnO OOOOO •OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO C CCSCC GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GCGCG GGGGC GCGGC o S cc VOo&oo ooooo oooo!* ooooo ooooo ooooo c c cc ecccc cccc ccccc ccccc ccecc o ooft&o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo G CGGCC GGCCG GGGCG GGGGC GCGGG CGCGC GGCCG o oouKo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo C GGGGG GCGGG GGGCG GGGCG GGCGG GGGGG CGCCC 1 1 s 1 5-Feb-92 | to i-Feb-92 i 10 £ i ya- I S J s I« to S?1 <re 5" a Matthias p v< | S en 5-' I H I 1 top O| i-l gsr Concentrations of i lands. g Z 1 B>i E; ra X1 O1 5' Oo 1 1 W S'03 1 i1 §"| 5-11 1 c I M •P. » r (• G io 1 S' ( Table 13. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Simple ID: Analyte Date: bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluor enc Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Nitrobenzene 2-Nilrophenol 4-Nitrophcnol N-Nitrosodiphenylamine N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2,4 ,5-Trichlorophenol 2 ,4 ,6-Trichlorophenol Leonard 6-Feb-92 1J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Matthiai 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Ramsay 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Smith 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Steele 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Tillen 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U WAPA 6-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U R R 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U R R 10 U 10 U R 10 U R 10 U 10 U R R Equipment Blink 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Water Blank 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC Table 14. Summary of Detected Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Analyte Di-n-octyl phthalale bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Sample ID: Eglin I Date: 3-Feb-92 U NA LaPlace 6-Feb-92 NA 680 D LaPlace FR 6-Feb-92 NA 190 D Leonard 6-Feb-92 NA 1J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. 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. TUT GERAGHTY & MILLKR. INC . JB f? ^,-j/"\jr«',> B w S»8|8g 28 «?rt&t 38 Om 'TO H pc z *.K)|>U>S> z>8 z> g'Og 5'O trtr illn HZ1^"-** ——MO;" S isVS Vv»ria.'? gfftog 662:^5 irs^B'- o'B'Sp- SS-olo f||o UlU|»~U|»* h^»~U*»«U| *—*-*-*-*- N-»~»~»~»- U|»-»~»~l^ *~M»»~»~»~ »rt»~»~»~tart OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO ccccc ccccc ccccc cccec ceccc eccec eeecc o'o'oo'o ooo'oo' ooooo ooooo o'oooo ooooo ooooo CCCGC GGGGG GCGGG GGGGG GGCGG CGGGG CGGCC 3°ooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CGGGG C£CCC GCGCG ''GGGC CGCG> CGCGC oo'oo'o ooo'oo ooooo ooooo 0*0000 ooooo ooooo CCGGG CGGGG GCCGC GCGCG GCCCG GGCGC GGGCC o'o'oo'o ooo'oo' ooooo ooooo (Soooo ooooo ooooo CGGGC GCGGG GCGCG CGCGC CCCGG CCCGC CCCCC o'o'oo'o ooo'oo' ooooo ooooo o'oooo ooooo ooooo GCCCG CCCCC GCCGC CGCGC CGCGC GCGCC CGCCC o'o'oo'o ooo'oo' ooooo ooooo o'oooo ooooo ooooo GGGCC CGGCC CGCGG CCCCC CGCCC CGCCC CGGCC l/lUl»-UI»~ »~»-UiN-U« »~»-»-»-k^ k~»~»«»~ta~ lA»~»~»-»~ »-»_»_»-»_ »«^»-»^»~ OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO GGGGC GCGCG GCCGC CGCGG GCGCG CGCGC CCCCC Ko oot*o& ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CSCCC CCCCC GCGGC GCGCC >CCCC CCGC3" CGCCC oSo ooSoo ooooo ooooo o'oooo ooooo ooooo GGCGC CCCCG CCGGG CCCCG GCGCG CCCGG GCCCG >Ko ooKob> ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CCCCC CCGCC CGCCC -""CCCG GCCC> CCCCC oSo SoSoS ooooo ooooo o'oooo ooooo ooooo CCGCC CCCCC CCGCG CGCGC CCCCG CCCCG CCCCC ooot* ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo GGCGG CGGGG GGCGG ''CGCG CCCC*1 CCCCC r s> ? I 1 S I 8 5 t 1 •? I s> ii w•« f I 1 i 8 S S - ? 5' i v i5? f 3°a v 51 i s1 3! P ff a B w J? S s 5-II "O no I8.I S N> e M 8' » i o 00 f 5 Efi u vy« ; S. es I 1'^ Om/o Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GCG GCGCC GGGCG CGGCG dCCCG GGCGG Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo oooo'o' ooooo > »GGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGCG GGGGG CGGCG O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOUi OOOoiK OOOOO C GCGGG GGGCG CCCCC CGGCG GCGCC CGCCG Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GGC GGGGC GCGGG GCCGC GGCGG GGGGG Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GGC GGCGC CCGCG GGGGC GCCCC GGCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo1 oooo'o ooooo > »CCC CCCGG GCCCC CCCCC GGCGG GCGGC Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GCG GCCGG GGCCC CCCGC GCGCG GGGGC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo ooooo ooooo > »CCC GCGCC CGCCC GGCCC CGCGC CCCCC o ooooo ooo^o ooooo 00008 00088 ooooo C GCGGG CCC G CGGGG GCCGC CGCGC CGCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo ooooo1 ooooo > »CCC CGCCC CGGGC GGGCC CCCCC CCCCC o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooin ooo8u> ooooo G CCCCC CCCCC CCGCC CGCGC CCGCC GGCGG Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GGC GGGCG GCGCC CCCCG GCGGC CGCGC o ooooo ooooo ooooo 00008 00088 ooooo C GGGCC GGGCG CGGCG CCCGC CCCCC GCCCC r <Tsr $§ 8 </> yi 5 3 r S? £ I- § 3' * 5? y *i ' M a S? " •? § S E V J? 2 1 3- * ? S JP a' 9 § 5' B * ss a E cn I to o >*» Qm g &O Ootnotn OOOOO OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO GCGGG GGGGG GGCGG GGGGC >GGGG CCCC3* GGGGG oo'oo'o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo CGCCG GGGGG GGCGG CGGCG GGGCG GCGCC CCGGC O*S/l*-Ul*- *-N-Vl*-U» N-N-*-N-*- »-N-ta-N-»~ UlN-»-»-»~ **__»«»•»- »-*-»-•—»« OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO CCCCG GGGCC GGGGC CCCCG CCCCG CCCCC GCGCC _ . _ . _ - _ OOOnOUi OOOOO OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO GCGCG GGGGG GGGGC GGGGC •"'CCCG GCCC^ GCCCC oo&ot* ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CCGGC CGCCC GCCCC CCCCC >CGCC CCCC1* CCCCC Ko oot*o& ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CGCCC CGCGC GCCCG CGCGC ^GCGC CCCC*" GCCCC ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo GCCCC CGCCC CGCCC CGCCC CGCGC CGCGC CGCGC Ko oobiot* ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CSCCG CGCGC CCGCC CGGGG -^GGCC CCCC'" GCCCG o'o'oo'o oo^o<5 ooooo ooooo £0000 ooooo ooooo GCGCG GCCCG CCGCG CGCGC CGCGC CCCCC CGGGC ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo GCCCC CCCCG CCCGC >GGCC CCCC3* CGCCC (^U«^-Vt^- »— *-m*-t^» N'^'^'N^^^ ^^^^ta^^'to^ U|^«*^^^l—— I—tl_* *~»~»- h^^«»—— K^l—— OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO CGCCG CGCGG CGCCC CCGGC CCGCG GCCCC CGCCC o&o oo&ot* ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo CGCCC CCCCC CCCCC >CCCC CCCC> CGCGC OOOOO 000*00 0°000 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO CCCCC CGGGG cSCGC GGCGG GCCCC GCGCG GCCGC r crsr O 3 i M1 s £ I §• .' 3 H o S 3H S- sx r i S B i S S <8u o G m 50 -i 2 PC z S \_i-Ca'P ui o o o ~s S- 6lli illK ast-z-**- Bfo^o . liii IlfSf 3" 5:3 o a 2 3 S —3 g rg §3 5 S'l. ••8'g.B'l !! Hfef IIP o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooot* oootxbi ooooo G CCCCC GCGCC GCCGCI GGCCC CCCCC CGCGC Z ZZooo ooooo oo^oo ooooo1 oootSo1 ooooo > »GGG GGGGG GCCGG GGCGG CGGGC GCGGG Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooS oootSo1 ooooo > »GGG GGGGG GGGCG GGGGG GGCGG GGGGG O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO& 555KK OOOOO G GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGGG GGGCG CGGGG o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooot* oootxl* ooooo G GGGGG GGGGG CGGGC CGGCC CCCCC CGCCC o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooot* ooouJK ooooo G GCCGG GGGGG GGGCC CGGGG CCGGG CCGCC Z ZZooo- ooooo 000*00 ooooo1 oooSo1 ooooo > »GGG CGGCG GGGCG CCGCG CCCCC CCCCC O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOVA OOO&& OOOOO G CGGGG GGGGG CCCCG GCGGG GCCGG GGCCG ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo* ooooo ooooo »GGC GCGCG GGGGC CCCCG GCGCC CCCCC O OOOOO OOOO— OOOOO OOOotjn OOoKlA OOOOO C CCGGG GGCGG GGGGC GGGGG CCCCC CCCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo SootSc" ooooo > »CCC CCGCG CGCGC CCCCC CCGCC GGCGG O OOOOO OOOOm OOOOO OOOOm OOOLnS OOOOO G GGGGG GCGGG GCGGG CCGCG CCCCC GCCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 00800 ooooo1 oooSSo1 ooooo > »CCC GCCCC CGGGC CCCGC GCGCC CCCGC r & i t- Ss *< * ; <b I w SC I J ¥ C 8 o >-^ 00 Gm/o H twit if in ffiir urn vi ill! it! fin r ooo ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo eecce GGGGG GGGGG ^GGGG cccc3" GGCGG ooKoK ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo GGGGG CGGGC CGCGG -^CGGC CGCC1*" GGCGC SSoSo ooSoo ooooo ooooo <£oooo ooooo ooooo GGGGG GCCGG CGGGG GCGCG GGGCC GGGGG GGGCG o ooo ooooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo ££CGG GGGGG GGGGC GCGCG >GCGC CCGG3" CCCCC oSooo oocSoo ooooo ooooo Soooo ooooo ooooo GGGGG GGGCG GCGGG CCCCG CCCGC CCCGC GCCCC SoKoK o°ooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo GCCCG CSCGG CCGCC >CGGC CCCG> GGCGG oSo ootSoo1 ooooo ooooo SSoooo ooooo ooooo CCGGC CGCCC CGGCG CGGCG CGCCC CCCGG CGGCC OO&OIA OOOOO OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO CGCGG GCGCC CGCCG GGCGC >CGCC GCGC> CCCGC o^o oo^oS ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo CCGGC CGCCC CGGCG CCCCG GCGCG CCCCC CGGGC ooooo oocSoo1 ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo GCGCG GGCGC GCGCG GGGGG GCGCC CGGGG CCCCC K^otno 3otiot« o°ooo ooooo Zoooo ooooZ ooooo c£cGG CCCCG C£CCC CCCCC >CGCC CGGC> CCCCC o^o oo^oS ooooo ooooo Soooo ooooo ooooo GGCCC GGCCC CGCGG GCGCG CGCCG CCCCC CCCCC O°OOO OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO CGGCC C£CCG CCCCC -^GCCC CCCC*1 CCCCG J i * i I I s a * s s M I * i I i •* ; I C/l •3 § K 1 i N (rt S- 7 •8 -> ab-S. P-B- c-S Om70 7? ^^SPOST WC00BOG 2 f-J^-aS-'g- SSSl'-S ? ft ipgi§ ggg|£ i f «s|~££ ssali I •H O^f» =r- • . •O ^i^S.v.' ™ •o s:g» =• a g-_ o-"O- ;; c C>H 5: ;1K ilig 1 *< n'—*' d^E^rr — — — ET3*0>1^ g g g n H: .i o a iI O OOOOO 000°g OOOOO OOOO1" OOO^lA OOOOO G CGCGC CGCSo GGGGC GCCcS GCGSc GCGCG o ooooo oooo]g ooooo oooo1^ ooo^tn ooooo G GGGCG CCcEo CGCGC GCGcS GCc£c CCGGG Z ZZooo ooooo oo^oo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »CCC CCGCG CGCGC GCGCG CCGGG GGGGG O OOOOO O00 OOOOO OOOO O O O I A OOOOO G CGCGG CCCS GGCGG GGGCS GCGSc GCCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo ooooo ooooo > »GGG GGCCC GCGCG CGCGC GGGCG GCGGG o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooootn ooot^uJ ooooo C CGCCC CGCCC GCGCG GGCGC CCCGG GCCCC Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 0000$ SooSSo ooooo > »CGG GGCCC CCCCC GGGGG GGGGG GCCGC P O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOUt OOOLALn OOOOO G CCCCC CCGCC CGCGC GCGCG GCCCC CCCCG Z ZZooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo > »CCC GCGCC CGCGC CGCGC CGCGC GGGGG Z ZZooo ooooo 00800 ooooo1 ooo'o'o' ooooo > »GCC GCCGG CCGCG CGGGG GGGGG CCCGG O OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO& OOO&t* OOOOO G CCCCC GCGCC CGCGG GGGGG GGGGC GCGCG Z ZZooo ooooo 000*00 ooooo1 ooooo ooooo > »GGG CGGGG GGGGC CCCCG CGCGG GGGCG o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooot* oooKK ooooo C CGCCC CCCCG CCGCC CCCCC CGGCG CCCCC g <T if La Pla S 01i IT to i I i s- <* 3» I S | r | i * •n rigue K 8? (A 5- S y •8o o o 1^££ Iff P §.§ OH ! I I .a H S CTi w 2 33333 .43333 3333< 33333 33333 33333 33333 - - £ ooooo zoooo ooooz ooooo ooooo II 4 2 2 9 I i 33333 ,-3333 3333< 33333 33333 33333 33333 £ OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO OOOOO - --- - - - - - - ^ ^ S! 3333 <3 33 33 <; 3 333 3 33 3333 333 £ a;oooo z°e4o° oo^fl^z Og^ooo ogfoog . — - - — — — -- — | 4 4 a 5 ^ =13333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 ° 5 </) OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO U g ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____io _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ vn—«n_— _>n_>n>rt "3. C0 ^ " g. 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 S Si »j OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO rt H •! __________ __________ ________?) ^^^M^^^H^N ^H*-**H1«>-^ m~*^-*~* -^Irt^^1^^ T) O - 2 33333 <3333 3333^ 33333 33333 33333 33333 S u tL OOOOO ZOOOO OOOOZ OOOOO OOO0O >OO>nOO O<OOV - S3 "Y ^^^^^^^^^H ^M^^^^^M _ * _ _ _ _ _ _ ' ^^^4^4^^^^ v^^M^^^V^ f^v^fsl^MVM .rtf>^VM^ I p I. E * ji 33 33 3 33 33 3 333 3 33 3333 333 Q s & 22*22 B<2'*22 22*^°^* 2*222 2*2e - - - - _ _ _ .a P £? ° i 3 33 3 33 33 3 333 33 3333 333 JB O I P * M g J, 33333 <3333 3333< 33333 33333 33333 33333 ~ b 22SSS ZSSSS 2222^ SSSSS SSSSS J32"">22 SXJSXJ10 1 " 4 ~ ? &• 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 _ a s <? OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO 0000O OOOOO OQ00O 4M^3 S» *^ ^^ ^^ ""* ^" ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^ «^ ^^^if^ ^W*^»N ^^ ^M ^ ^^ ^» ^^ i^ v^to "^ ^^ ^^*ri ^^5>\^* «S-F S a t- I Q£ UUO s g V I Igj w *•• Jell |, [.3-gSJ J | 111 llsis I ..or* — — CQ — 111 llfl-8 Slirll IIHg i?Ill 111 Ifiy ^-is lall^: ::dll nZBC Z_fSrT<2 !r>oT_"Z4 S4rslri rfririQ Table 15. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Dibenzofuran 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Diethyl phthalate 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Fluorene 4-Nitroaniline 4.6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether Hexachlorobcnzcne Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Anthracene Di-n-butyl phthalate Fluoranthene Pyrcnc Butyl benzyl phthalate 3,3 -Dichlorooenzidine Benzo(a)anthracene Chrysene bis(2-Ethylhexyhphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Benzofbifluoranthene Benzomfluoranthene Benzo(a)pyrene IndenoM ,2,3-cd)pyrene Dibenz(a.h)anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9H-Carbazole 2,2'-oxybis(l-Chloropropane) 4-Methylphenol Steele 25-Sep-90 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U SOU SOU 10 U 10 U 10 U SOU 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 20 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA NA Steele 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 2SU 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Tillett 2-Ocl-90 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U sou R R R R R R R R R 10 U 10 U 20 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA NA Tillett FR 2-Oct-90 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U SOU R 10 U 10 U 10 U R 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 20 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA NA Tillett 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U VIHAI 27-Sep-90 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U sou sou 10 U 10 U 10 U sou 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 20U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA NA VlHAffl 26-Sep-90 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U SOU SOU 10 U 10 U 10 U SOU 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 20 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U NA NA NA WAPA 6-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U R 10 U 10 U 10 U R 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U R Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Water Blank 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. D J U RFR NA Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. Result rejected. Field replicate of previous sample. Notr * -•-•- V V TUT 003 GERAGHTY & MILLI-R. INC Table 16. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Date Blank Indentifier Analyzed Associated Sample(s) SBLK01 05-Feb-92 Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin HI, Hartman II, Hartman III, Harvey SBLKO2 19-Feb-92 WAPARE RE Reanalysis. PR00801/TableA4.wt3 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. Table 17. Base Neutral and Acid Enrac table Compound Holding Time Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Well St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Hartman II Harvey Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Steele Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassett Equipment Blank Water Blank Gassett FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tillett Leonard LaPlace LaPlace FR WAPA Matrix Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Aqueous Date Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Date Received 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 Date Extracted 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 Days from Date Collection Analyzed to Extraction 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Days from Extraction To Analysis 11 11 11 11 11 11 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 5 5 5 5 DaysFjceeded from Collection to Extraction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. #PR00801/0409tbE.wlc3 "UT GERAGHTY # MILLER. INC. Table 18. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: Bryan Date: l-Oct-90 149 B 52 U 3UJ 3U 36 4 BJ 54300 7B 18 U 17 BJ 63 BJ 4.6 J 49100 2B R 11U 1000 B 2UJ 7U 283000 R 37 B 30 Dede 25-Sep-90 136 BJ R 3U SB 3BJ 5 23500 16 J 60 J 32 43 B 3.7 J 25600 201 0.2 U 11U 2000 B 1UJ 7UJ 324000 R 21 B 12 BJ Dede 5-F«b-92 235 18.2 U 1U 7.9 B 0.25 U 2U 25100 6.6 B 4.4 B 21.3 B 250 J 2.3 B 27100 364 0.2 U 7.1 U 2410 B 2UJ 9.2 U 357000 3UJ 10 U 6.9 BE Demitri l-Oct-90 163 BJ 52 UJ 3UJ 3UJ 4BJ 3BJ 37500 J 4BJ 18 UJ 17 BJ 115J 2.6 BJ 27800 J 7BJ R 14 BJ 2000 BJ 10 UJ 7UJ 328000 J R 92 J 4UJ Dench 25-Sep-90 278 J R 3U 19 B 4BJ 3B 24200 22 J 44 BJ 52 163 7.8J 25000 545 0.2 U 73 1690 B 1UJ 7UJ 328000 R 28 B 41 J Devcon I 24-Sep-90 139 BJ R 3U 21 B 5BJ 3U 41600 4UJ 18 U 4U 34 B 8.2 J 39500 241 0.2 U 13 B 2970 B 1.6 BJ 7UJ 330000 R 32 B 6BJ Devcon III 24-Sep-90 411 J R 3U 15 B 4BJ 3U 43800 4UJ 59 J 53 40 B 11.8J 41000 91 0.2 U 41 2050 B 1.4 BJ 7UJ 384000 R 20 B 6BJ Eglin I 2-Oct-90 149 B 52 U 3U 3U 4B 3U 35300 12 18 U 14 BJ 20 UJ 2BJ 28700 56R 26 BJ 920 B 10 UJ 7U 190000 R 34 B 13 BJ Eglin I 3-Feb-92 173 B 17.7 U 1.6 B 30.8 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80000 3.9 U 3.4 U 3.6 B 186 J 1.6 BJ 56200 12. IB 0.2 U 9.5 U 1820 B 5.1J 3.3 U 363000 3UJ 30.3 B 25.5 J Eglin U 27-Sep-90 69 BJ R 3U 23 B 3BJ 11 47900 17 J 32 BJ 36 86 B 2.1 BJ 35400 8B 0.2 U 67 1620 B 1.2 BJ 7U 247000 R 47 B 75 J Eglin II 3-Feb-92 134 B 17.7 U 1U 14.3 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80800 4.9 B 4.4 B 3.9 B 232 J 1.6 B 61200 118 0.2 U 9.5 U 1990 B 9.2 3.3 U 338000 3UJ 32.6 B 78. 8 J Eglin ID 27-Sep-90 156 BJ R 3U 57 B 4BJ 3U 81400 10 J 30 BJ 9B 56 B 1UJ 54600 53 0.2 U 24 B 2250 B 1.2 BJ 18 J 398000 R 9B 49 J Eglin III 3-Feb-92 39.5 B 17.7 U 1U 39.7 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 81700 3.9 U 3.4 U 2.8 U 11.7B 1UJ 55800 22.9 0.2 U 9.5 U 2180 B 4.3 BS 3.3 U 396000 3UJ 13. IB 19 B Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. -ri I'1 GERAGHTY^MII.U-R.INC Table 18. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: Four Windi I Date: 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U I B 3.4 B 0.25 U 2U 46600 3.5 U 3.8U 2.7 U 7BJ 3.1 32600 33 0.2 U 7.1 U 8980 2U 9.2 U 232000 3UJ 59.1 8.8 BE Four Winds II 26-Sep-90 162 BJ R 3U 1SB 3BJ 5 46100 32 J 29 BJ 37 55 B 8J 34000 28 0.2 U 36 B 2190 B 1.2 BJ 7UJ 215000 R 75 85 J Four Winds n FR 26-Sep-90 304 J R 3U M B 4BJ 6 54300 14 J 43 BJ 5B 57 B 8.7 J 38800 31 0.2 U 44 2060 B 1UJ 7UJ 249000 R 83 88 J Four Winds II 4-Feb-92 46.4 B 18.2 U 1U L I B 0.25 U 2U 50700 3.5 U 3.8 U 4.8B 61.6 BJ 3.3 36800 6.8 B 0.2 U 7.1U 2350 B 2U 9.2 U 236000 3UJ 59.2 10.4 BE Gauett 4-Feb-92 388 18.2 U 3. IB 23. IB 0.25 U 2.5 B 21700 4.6 B 3.8 U 83.4 R 39.7 S 15300 68 0.2 U 7.1 U 1670 B 2U 9.2 U 160000 3UJ 10 U 178 J Gauett FR 4-Feb-92 231 18.2 U 2.9 B 21.6 B 0.25 U 2.4 B 22200 3.5 U 3.8U 82.7 R 33.3 15500 78.9 0.2 U 7.1 U 1520 B 2U 9.2 U 164000 3UJ 10 U 175 J Hartman II 26-Sep-90 269 J R 3U 12 B 3BJ 8 38100 11 J 30 BJ 34 23B 10.4 J 33400 2U 0.2 U 95 1040 B 1.6 BJ 7UJ 285000 R 52 9BJ Hartman U 3-Feb-92 35.6 U 17.7 U 1U 1.8B 0.53 U 2.1 U 44300 3.9 U 3.4 U 4.2 B 12 BJ 1.6 B 37000 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1230 B 3B 3.3 U 323000 3UJ 24.7 B 1.6U Hartman in 26-Sep-90 278 J R 3U 15 B 4BJ 3U 41100 11 J 25 BJ 30 31 B 1.8 BJ 28300 3B 0.2 U 52 1690 B 1UJ 7UJ 217000 R 124 13 BJ Hartman in 3-Feb-92 54.6 B 17.7 U 1U 0.7 U 0.5 U 2.1 U 46600 3.9 U 3.4 U 2.8 U 36.2 BJ 1U 32300 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1730 B 2U 3.3 U 233000 3UJ 116 2.1 B Harvey 26-Sep-90 1280 J R 3U 35 B 3BJ 3U 53700 18 J 38 BJ 59 3360 32.6 J 46200 191 0.2 U 58 2000 B 1.2 BJ 11J 233000 R 59 248 J Harvey 3-Feb-92 289 17. 7 U L I B 32. IB 0.53 U 2.1 U 62500 3.9 U 3.4 U 5.8B 431 J 3 J 46600 120 0.2 U 9.5 U 2100 B 2.3 B 3.3 U 251000 3UJ 21.6 B 139 J LaPlace 2-Oct-90 146 B 57 B 3U 3 U 4 B 4BJ 41000 8B 18 U 49 J 55 BJ 2.3 BJ 32600 2B R 18 BJ 1140B 10 UJ 7U 250000 R 39 B 13 BJ Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. 003 0040 GERAGHTY <f^ MILI.F-:R. Table 18. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: LaPlace Date: 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U 1U 5. IB 1U 3U 44900 4U 4U 3U 60.4 BJ 1UJ 35100 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 1010 B 2U 4U 268000 3UJ 34.4 B 8.1 B LaPUce FR 6-Feb-92 68.4 B 18 U 1U S.4B 1U 3U 45400 4 U 4 U 3U 46.7 BJ 1UJ 35500 2.9 B 0.23 10 U 1090 B 2UJ 4U 272000 3UJ 36.46 8B Leonard 26-Sep-90 93 BJ R 3U 11B 3BJ 3U 38300 15 J 37 BJ 31 37 BJ 1.8BJ 24400 2U 0.2 U 11U 1210 B 1.4 BJ 17 J 318000 R 135 7BJ Leonard 6-Feb-92 69.9 B 18U 1U 1.5 B 1U 3U 39700 4U 4U 3U 60.3 BJ 1UJ 24700 1.3 B 0.2 U 10 U 997 B 2.7 BJ 4U 341000 3UJ 116 4.1 B Matthiai l-Oct-90 227 52 U 3UJ 6B 3B 3U 36300 5B 18 U 18 BJ 20 UJ 1.8 BJ 34900 2U R 20 BJ 1410B 2UJ 7U 379000 R 21 B 4BJ Matthias 5-Feb-92 9580 J 18.2 U 1U 187 B I B 2U 49500 109 14 B 114 11700 J 1U 46900 269 0.2 U 53.7 6380 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 385000 3UJ 42.6 B 29.8 J Ramsay l-Oct-90 187 B 52 U 3UJ 3U 3B 3BJ 43100 11 18 U 15 BJ 20 BJ 2.6 BJ 34400 2U R 21 BJ 1140B 10 UJ 7 U 209000 R 43 B 7BJ Ramsay 4-Feb-92 145 B 18.2 U 1U 3.7 B 0.25 U 2U 49800 3.5U 3.8 U 5. IB 141 J 1.9 B 37000 2B 0.2 U 7.1U 1070 B 2UJ 9.2 U 240000 3UJ 54.1 12.4 BE Rodriguez 24-Sep-90 58 BJ R 3U SB 3BJ 3U 40000 14 J 34 BJ 22 B SOB 2BJ 38700 122 0.2 U 22B 1610 B 1UJ 7UJ 281000 R 19 B 17 BJ Rodriguez FR 24-Sep-90 431 J R 3U 3U 3BJ 3 U 47400 40 J 39 BJ 29 45 B 12.1 J 41400 129 0.2 U 39 B 1730 B 1UJ 7UJ 298000 R SB 16 BJ Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 196 B 19 B 1U 13.7 B I B 2.1 B 39200 5.2 B 3.8 U 7.8 B 246 J 2.5 B 37400 132 0.2 U 7.1U 2170 B 2UJ 9.2 U 300000 3UJ 10 U 19.4 BE Smith 25-Sep-90 234 J R 3U 15 B 3BJ 3U 50200 14 J 18 U 13 B 158 10.9 J 45500 41 0.2 U 57 1540 B R 7UJ 410000 R 5U 179 J Smith 5-Feb-92 4070 J 18.2 U 1U 86.5 B 0.25 U 2U 43500 48.4 3.8U 48.3 4670 J 3.1 42500 108 0.2 U 18.4 B 3310B 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 396000 3UJ 16.3 B 99.6 J Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (1CP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT' CO 41 GERAGHTY & MILU-R. INC Table 18. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected from September 1990 to February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Simple ID: Sleele Date: 25-Sep-90 492 J R 3U 27 B 3BJ 4 B 44000 9BJ 55 J 21 B 26 B 13.2 J 40500 23 0.2 U 45 1180B 1.4 BJ 7UJ 313000 R 27 B 12 BJ Steele 4-Feb-92 267 18.2 U 1U 19.8 B 0.25 U 2U 46200 3.5 U 3.8U 4.1 B 377 J 1.4 BJ 43800 17.8 0.22 7.1 U 1270 B 2.5 B 9.2 U 334000 3UJ 10 U 6.4 BE Tillett 2-Oct-90 153 BJ 52 UJ 3UJ 43 BJ 4BJ 4BJ 54800 J 8BJ 18 UJ 48 J 953 J 1.5 BJ 38300 J 1260 J R 33 BJ 760 BJ 10 UJ 7UJ 192000 J R 25 BJ 162 J Tillett FR 2-Oct-90 159 B 52 U 4.4 B 40 B 4B 3BJ 48600 7B 18 U 32 J 2660 J 8.5 J 34500 1100 R 15 BJ 1190B 10 UJ 7U 169000 R 50J 124 J Tillett 5-Feb-92 696 J 18.2 U 1U 44.96 0.25 U 2U 52000 11.4 3.8U 12.3 B 901 J 2B 36000 1110 0.2 U 7.1U 3280 B 2U 9.2 U 198000 3UJ 58.5 26.2 J VIHAI 27-Sep-90 154 B 54 BJ 3U 5B 3B 4BJ 49400 10 18 U 10 B 29 BJ 9J 33900 2U R 15 B 2000 B 1.4 BJ 16 J 252000 R 67 J 16 B VIHAIH 26-Sep-90 182 BJ R 3U 14 B 3BJ 3U 43300 5BJ 18 U 29 149 3.7 J 28000 11B 0.2 U 43 1030 B 1.5 BJ 7UJ 162000 R 33 B 17 BJ WAPA 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U 1 U 3.9 B 1U 3U 3390 B 6.1 B 4U 18.4 B 546 J 1BJ 1760 B 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 997 B 2U 4U 18400 3UJ 6.8 B 8.7 B Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 184 B 18.2 U 1U 3.1 B 0.25 U 2U 65.4 B 5.7 B 3.8 U 2.7 U 205 J 1UJ 295 B 3.2 B 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2 U 1400 B 3UJ 10 U 3. 9 BE Water Blank 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U 1U 0.8 U 0.25 U 2U 43 B 3.5 U 3.8 U 2.7 U 20.9 BJ 1U 45.9 U 0.83 U 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2 U 660 B 3UJ 10 U 3. 7 BE Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY^MII.I.IiR. IN( Table 19. Drinking Water Standards for Metals, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Metal Parameter Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc USEPA Drinking Water Standard (ppb) 3 50 2,000 1 5 100 1,300 __ 50 2 100 50 50 0.5 — Type of Standard Proposed MCLG - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Proposed MCL - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Proposed MCLG - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Proposed MCLG - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Current MCL - Primary Level Proposed MCLG USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency, ppb Parts per billion. MCL Maximum contaminant level. MCLG Maximum contaminant level goal (nonenforceable). Primary Level Standards are enforceable, health-based standards. No enforceable standard exists. PR00801-wp2/5thqtr.rpt 003 004.!' GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table 20. Proposed Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters for the Sixth Sampling Event, May 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 Hartman II TCL VOCs Hartman III TCL VOCs Harvey TCL VOCs LaPlace TCL VOCs Matthias 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. All analyses will be performed in accordance with revised Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Plan (SAMP) (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991d). TD:ce:rma #PR00801-#2/5thqtr.rpt TUT OO3 OO44 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC . / _ \-jx--; ' t • • • ' . \\- r 400-^:<^:.->;;>AV v\\^' ^v."^^.-;^) •."••^5^1^;.^-* ^ LEGEND • RESDENTIAL WELL A BRYAN B DEDE C DEMITRI D DENCH E1 DEVCONI E2 DEVCON n (ALTERNATE) E3 DEVCON HI F1 EGLJN I F2 EGLIN H F3 EGLIN HI G FOUR WINDS I H FOUR WINDS H H GASSETT \2 HARTMAN H 13 HARTMAN HI J HARVEY K LaPLACE L LEONARD M LOCKHART (ALTERNATE) N MATTHIAS O RAMSAY P RODRIGUEZ Q SMITH R STEELE S TU-ETT T1 VHAI J2 VIHAin (ALTERNATE) T3 VIHATJI T4 VIHAlE (ALTERNATE) SOURCE USGS QUADRANGLE EASTERN ST.THOMAS,VJ.<1954) WELL SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE SAMPLING ANALYSIS, AND MOMTORMG PLAN, ST. THOMAS, U.ST VlRGfl ISLANDS PDCMXCO fO* TEIC Gcraghty & Miller. Inc. COMPILED 8' DANAHY PAPULA SCALE SHOWN '9/W TUT 003 O045 T/-/34 APPENDIX A DATA VALIDATION SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE TUTU WELLS SITE FEBRUARY 1992 SAMPLING EVENT ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. APPENDIX A DATA VALIDATION REPORT Appendix A includes the data validation summary report and supporting documentation for the analytical data review of ground-water samples collected in February 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 preliminary data review checklist, the data assessment narrative, and the organic regional data assessment form. • Attachment No. 2 - The USEPA SOP No. HW-2 (Revision No. 11) CLP inorganics total review checklist, the data assessment narrative, and the inorganic regional data assessment form. • Attachment No. 3 - Tables and duplicate reporting forms (Form Vis). • Attachment No. 4 - Analytical data packages. The introduction summarizes the (1) 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. The data review checklist guides the data reviewer in evaluating pertinent field and laboratory sample documentation and analytical procedures. TUT (JO 3 0047 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. A-2 By evaluating critical quality control (QC) criteria, the data reviewer is provided with information regarding laboratory performance and sample interferences which may impact data validity and place limitations on data use. In the data review narrative, the data reviewer documents 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. Attachment No. 2 is comprised of the USEPA SOP No. HW-2 (Revision No. 11) CLP inorganics total data review checklist, the data assessment narrative, and the inorganic regional data assessment form. In Attachment No. 3, tabulated data is provided which summarizes any holding time violations or compliance; associated trip blank, field blank,and method blank contamination; and validated analytical data with applied qualifiers. Attachment No. 4 is comprised of the analytical data packages prepared by the laboratory for all samples collected and reviewed for this field investigation. TUT 003 OO48 GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. A-3 INTRODUCTION This report presents the data validation and narrative summary for the following 22 ground-water samples, one equipment blank, and four trip blanks collected in February 1992 at the Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands: Sample Delivery Group 19656 19699 Collection 19736 Sample Identifiers Hartman III, Trip Blank (2/3/92), Hartman II, Harvey, Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III Steele, Ramsay, Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett, Equipment Blank, Water Blank, Trip Blank (2/4/92), Chkan Chkan (Gassett field replicate [FR]), Rodriguez, Dede, Smith, Matthias, Tillett, Trip Blank (2/5/92) Trip Blank (2/6/92), Leonard, LaPlace, Verde (LaPlace FR), WAPA 2/3/92 2/4/92,2/5/92 2/6/92 This case actually consists of four laboratory projects (19656, 19699, 19711, and 19736) that the laboratory has split into three sample delivery groups (SDGs) referred to in the table above. SDG 19699 includes projects 19699 and 19711. All of the samples were analyzed for target compound list (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), TCL semivolatile organic compounds (base/neutral and acid extractable compounds or BNAs), and target analyte list (TAL) total metals. 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). BNAs were analyzed according to methodology contained in the March 1990 USEPA CLP Statement of Work (SOW) for Organics Analysis, TUT' GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. A-4 Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (USEPA 1990a). Metals were analyzed according to methodology contained in the March 1990 USEPA CLP SOW for Inorganics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (USEPA 1990b). The organic data have been evaluated according to USEPA Region II SOP No. HW- 6, Revision No. 8 (USEPA 1992a), in conjunction with the USEPA Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organics Data Review (USEPA 1991) and the appropriate, corresponding methodology. Because the VOC analyses were not performed in accordance with the CLP SOW, the SOP for organic data review is not directly applicable, but the SOP was used, along with 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), so to conform to the USEPA Region II data validation protocol (USEPA 1992b). The inorganic data have been evaluated according to USEPA Region II SOP No. HW-2, Revision No. 11 (USEPA 1992a). All of the data have been tabulated and assigned the appropriate qualifier codes, if required. The validated data tables (including applicable qualifiers) are provided as Tables A-6 through A-11 in Attachment No. 3. TUT 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, 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, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990a. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi- Concentration, SOW No. 3/90 United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 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, United States Environmental Protection Agency, March 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Draft National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration (OLM01.0), United States Environmental Protection Agency, December 1990, revised June 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992a. Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP), Region II Standard Operating Procedure No. HW-2, Revision No. 11, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992b. 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-DV2/22INTRO TUT 003 00'i GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC ATTACHMENT NO. 1 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. HW-6 REVISION NO. 8 TUT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC SOP NO. HW-6 Revision 18 CLP ORGANICS DATA REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY REVIEW BY: -—lx ^ vn.«*~i______________________ Date; Leon_Lazarus,Environmental Scientist and Hazardous Waste Section BY: JKvMsfrLAV— l^<fL^\-4LA-________________ Date George K&ras, Chemist Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section BY: v-<^«^{? ^Jz*<fiZ**-<>''"- *->__________ Date:. Stelios Gerazounls/ Chemist Toxic and Hazardous Waste Section CONCURRED BY: K^nVv UU . V^Xrt V ________ Date: Kevin Kubjjt,—<3fief ^ ir\$ Hazardous Waste Section APPROVED BY: ^.^XffUl'f^ft^ -flZXbfr*——-_____ Date: Robert RunyonV Chief Monitoring Management Branch 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: 19656. 19699. 19711. 19736___________ 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 LAB:Enseco-East [ X] UU uu 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: VOA Data? X __ BNA Data? X __ Pesticide/PCB data? __ X ACTION: Complete corresponding parts of checklist. PART A; VGA ANALYSES 1.0 TRAFFIC REPORTS AND LABORATORY NARRATIVE 1.1 Are the Traffic Report Forms present for all samples? [ X ] __ ACTION; If no, contract lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of samples, analytical problems or special circumstances affecting the quality of the data? _X_ [__] ACTION; If any sample analyzed as a soil, other than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be flagged as estimated (J). If a soil sample other than TCLP contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as unusable (R). ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all Non-Detects "UJ". 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 both VGA vials for a sample have air bubbles or the VGA vial analyzed had air bubbles, flag all positive results "J" and all non-detects "R". 2.0 HOLDING TIMES 2.1 Have any VGA technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of analysis, been exceeded? __ [ X ] __ 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 HCI (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 Narrative) Sample Sample Date Date Lab Date ID Matrix Preserved? Sampled Received Analyzed TUT O03 0056 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 [__] c. MedSoil [__] __ 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 ] __ __ b. Low Soil [__] __ X c. MedSoil [__] __ X 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; Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. 3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk? [__] __ X 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? [__] __ Were method blanks re-analyzed? [__] __ ACTION; If recoveries are > 10% but 1 or more compounds fail to meet SOW specifications: 1. All positive results are qualified as estimated (J). 2. Flag all non-detects as estimated detection limits ("UJ") where recovery is less than the lower acceptance limit. 3. If SMC recoveries are above allowable levels, do not qualify non-detects. If any system monitoring compound recovery is <10%: 1. Flag all positive results as estimated ("J"). 2. Flag all non-detects as unusable ("R"). 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? __ [ X ] __ ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and not errors in the data assessment. 4.0 Matrix Spikes (Form III) 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 [__] b. Low Soil [__] __ X c. MedSoil [__] __ X 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 _Q_ out of 10 N/A out of 10 TUT' 003 GO 5 9 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? Soils 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? [ X ] __ __ 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. TUT 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 chromatographic performance (baseline stability) for each instrument acceptable for VOAs? [ X ] 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 [_ 6.2 Do any field/trip/rinse blanks have positive VOA results (TCL and/or TIC)? X [__] ACTION: Prepare a list of the sample associated with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet). NOTE; All field blank results associated to a particular group of samples (may exceed one per case) must be used to qualify data. Trip blanks are used to qualify only those samples with which they were shipped and are not required for non-aqueous matrices. Blanks may not be qualified i"UT 00 3 0061 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 > CRQL & > lOx blank value Methylene Flag sample result with Chloride a "U" Acetone Toluene 2-Butanone Sample cone > CRQL but < 5x blank Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed Sample cone < CRQL Sample cone > CRQL & is < 5x blank value value & > 5x blank value Other Flag sample result Contain- with a "U" inants Report CRQL & qualify No qualification is "U" needed NOTE; Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria. TU 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 TIC compounds, if the concentration in the sample is less than five times the concentration in the most contaminated associated blank, flag the sample data "R" (unusable) 6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? [__] X __ ACTION: For low level samples, note in data assessment that there is no associated field/rinse/equipment blank. Exception: samples taken from a drinking water tap do not have associated field blanks. 7.0 GC/MS Instrument Performance Check (Form V) 7.1 Are the GC/MS instrument Performance Check Forms (Form V) present for Bromofluorobenzene (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] 7.3 Has an instrument performance compound been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [ X ] ACTION; List date, time, instrument ID, and sample analysis for which no associated GC/MS tuning data are available. TU 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 ] __ ACTION; List all data which do not meet ion abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet). ACTION; If ion abundance criteria are not met, the Region II TPO must be notified. 7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between mass lists and Form Vs? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more). __ [ X ] 7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant figures (two) been reported? [ X ] __ 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 (TCP Analytes 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 uu uu uu uu 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 [ X ] c. Blanks [ X] ACTION; If any data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 8.3 Are the response factors shown in the Quant Report? [__] X 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 8.4 Is chromatographic performance acceptable with respect to: Baseline stability? [ X ] __ __ Resolution? [ X ] __ __ 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/Non-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 ] 8.8 Do sample and standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [ X] Other: ___________ [__] __ X ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the acceptability of the data. 8.5 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of the identified VOA compounds present for each sample? [ X] 0066 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 (TIP 9.1 Are all Tentatively Identified Compound Forms (Form I Part B) present; and do listed TICS include scan number or retention time, estimated concentration and "JN" qualifier? [__] __ X 9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified compounds and associated "best match" spectra included in the sample package for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [__] __ b. Blanks [__] __ ACTION; If any TIC data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. ACTION; Add "JN" qualifier if missing. TUT 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 grater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [__] 9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [__] ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine acceptable of TIC identifications. If it is determined that an incorrect identification was made, change identification to "unknown" or to some less specific identification (example: "C3 substituted benzene") as appropriate. Also, when a compound is not found in any blank, but is detected in a sample and is a suspected artifact of a common laboratory contaminant, the result should be qualified as unusable (R). (i.e. Common Lab Contaminants: Co2 (M/E 44), Siloxanes (M/E 73) Hexane, Aldol Condensation Products, Solvent Preservatives, and related by products - see Functional Guidelines for more guidance). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 10.0 Compound Ouantitation and Reported Detection Limits 10.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I results? Check at least two positive values. Verify that the correct internal standard, quantitation ion, and RRF were used to calculate Form I result. Were any errors found? __ [ X ] 10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture? [ X ] __ ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note errors under "Conclusions". ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of the higher data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" and its associated value on the original Form I and substituting the data from the analysis of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all Form Fs that should not be used, including any in the summary package. 11.0 Standards Data (GC/MS) 11.1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data system printouts (Quant. Reports) present) for initial and continuing calibration? [ X ] 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 any calibration standard data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.0 GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI) 12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI) present and complete for the volatile fraction at concentrations 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 ug/1? Are there separate calibrations for low water/med soils and low soil samples? [ 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? [__] ACTION; If low level soil samples were not heated during purge, qualify positive hits "J" and non-detects "R". 12.3 Are response factors stable for VGA's over the concentration range of calibration (% Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD) <30.0%)? [ 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). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP 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). __ [ X ] 13.0 GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VII) 13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (From VII) present and complete for the volatile fraction? [ X ] __ 13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [ X ] ACTION; List below all sample analyses that were not within twelve hours of the previous continuing calibration analysis. 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 any forms are missing or no continuing calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve hours of every sample analysis, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal. If continuing calibration data are not available, flag all associated sample data as unusable ("R"). 13.3 Do any volatile compounds have a % Difference (%D) between the initial and continuing RRF which exceeds the +. 25% criteria? X [__] __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. ACTION; Qualify both positive results and non-detects for the outlier compound(s) as estimated. When % D is above 90%, reject all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable. 13.4 Do any volatile compounds have a RRF < 0.05? __ [_] X 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 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. ACTION: List all the outliers below. Sample # Internal Std Area Lower Limit Upper Limit YES NO N/A (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, (< 25% or if performance exhibits a major abrupt drop off, flag all associated non-detects as unusable ("R"). TUT OCX 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. 0074 Tin 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? [ X ] ACTION; If no, contact lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or Lab Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of samples, analytical problems or special notations affecting the quality of the data? X [__] ACTION; If any sample analyzed as a soil, other than TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be flagged as estimated ("J"). If a soil sample, other than TCLP, contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as usable (R). ACTION; If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and all non-detects "UJ". 2.0 Holding Times 2.1 Have any BNA technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of extraction, been exceeded? __ [ X ] 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, flag all positive results as estimated ("J") and sample quantitation limits as estimated ("UJ"), and document in the narrative that holding times were exceeded. If analyses were done more than 14 days beyond holding time, either on the first analysis or upon reanalysis, reviewer must use professional judgement to determine the reliability of the data and the effects of additional storage on the sample results. At a minimum, all results should be qualified "J", but the reviewer may determine that non-detect data are unusable ("R"). If holding times are exceeded by more than 28 days, all non detect data are unusable (R). fUT 003 0076 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 ID 3.1 Are the BNA Surrogate Recovery Summaries (Form II) present for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water [ X ] __ __ b. Low Soil [__] __ X ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. 3.3 Were outliers marked correctly with an asterisk? [ X ] 3.4 Were two or more base-neutral OR acid surrogate recoveries out of specification for any sample or method blank? [ X ] If yes, were samples reanalyzed? [ X ] Were method blanks reanalyzed? [__] c. Med Soil [__] __ X 3.2 Are all the BNA Samples listed on the appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summaries for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water [ X ] __ ___ b. Low Soil [__] __ X c. Low Soil [__] __ X TUT 003 00 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 all BNA surrogate recoveries are > 10% but two within the base-neutral or acid fraction do not meet SOW specifications, for the affected fraction only (i.e. base-neutral or acid compounds): 1. Flag all positive results as estimated ("J"). 2. Flag all non-detects as estimated detection limits ("UJ") when recoveries are less than the lower acceptance limit. 3. If recoveries are greater than the upper acceptance limit, do not qualify non-detects. If any base-neutral or acid surrogate has a recovery of < 10%: 1. Positive results for the fraction with < 10% surrogate recovery are qualified with "J". 2. Non-detects for that fraction should be qualified as unusable (R). 3.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Form II? __ [ X ] __ ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 4.0 Matrix Spikes (Form HI) 4.1 Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery Form (Form III) present? [ X ] __ __ 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 4.2 Were matrix spikes analyzed at the required frequently for each of the following matrices: a. Low Water b. Low Soil c. Med Soil ACTION; If any matrix spike data are missing, take the action specified in 3.2 above. 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? [_1 5.0 5.1 Water _Q_ out of 11 Soils 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. Blanks (Form IV> Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present? TUT 003 0079 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 5.2 Frequency of Analysis: Has a reagent/method blank analysis been reported per 20 samples of similar matrix, or concentration level, and for each extraction batch? 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 no confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below. UU [ X] TUT on3 0080 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics 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. X [__] 6.2 Do any field/rinse/blanks have positive BNA results (TCL and/or TIC)? __ [_XJ 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). "LIT 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 & Sample cone > CRQL but < IQx blank is < lOx blank value value & > lOx blank Common Phthalate Esters Flag sample result with a "U" Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed Sample cone > CRQL but < 5x blank Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL is < 5x blank value value & > 5 blank value Other Contaminants Flag sample result with a "U" Report CRQL & qualify "U" No qualification is needed. 6.3 NOTE; Analytes qualified "U" for blank contamination are still considered as "hits" when qualifying for calibration criteria. ACTION: For TIC compounds, if the concentration in the sample is less than five times the concentration in the most contaminated associated blank, flag the sample data "R" (unusable). Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? YES NO N/A 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: 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)? [ X] 7.2 Are the enhanced bar graph spectrum and mass/charge (m/z) listing for the DFTPP provided for each twelve hour shift? [ X] 7.3 Has an instrument performance check solution been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [ X ] ACTION; List date, time, instrument ID, and sample analyses for which no associated GC/MS tuning data are available. DATE TIME INSTRUMENT SAMPLE NUMBERS ACTION; If lab cannot provide missing data, reject ("R") all data generated outside an acceptable twelve hour calibration interval. TUT 003 O083 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 ACTION; If mass assignment is in error, flag all associated sample data as unusable (R). ACTION: If mass assignment is in error, flag all associated sample data as unusable (R). 7.4 Have the ion abundance been normalized to m/z 198? 7.5 Have the ion abundance criteria been met for each instrument used? ACTION; List all data which do not meet ion abundance criteria (attach a separate sheet). 7.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between mass lists and Form Vs? 7.7 Have the appropriate number of significant figures (two) been reported? ACTION: If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 7.8 Are the spectra of the mass calibration compound acceptable? ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine whether associated data should be accepted, qualified, or rejected. YES NO N/A uu uu UU uu _ TUT 003 0084 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 (TCP Analvtes 8.1 Are the Organic Analysis Data Sheets (Form I BNA) present with required header information on each page, for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [ X ] __ __ b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates [ X ] __ __ c. Blanks [ X] __ __ b. Matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates [ X ] (Mass spectra not required) c. Blanks [ X] ACTION; If any data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 8.2 Has GPC cleanup been performed on all soil/ sediment sample extracts? [__] __ X 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 [ X ] __ __ TUT 003 COS5 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? [ X ] Resolution? [ X ] 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/ 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? [ X ] 8.8 Are all ions present in the standard mass spectrum at a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [ X ] Other:__________________ [__] __ X ACTION: Use professional judgement to determine the acceptability of the data. 8.6 Are the lab-generated standard mass spectra of identified BNA compounds present for each sample? [ X] __ __ 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%? [ X ] 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? [__] X 9.2 Are the mass spectra for the tentatively identified compounds and associated "best match" spectra included in the sample package for each of the following: a. Samples and/or fractions as appropriate [ X ] b. Blanks [ X] 0087 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)? X [_] ACTION; Flag with "R" any TCL compound listed as a TIC. 9.4 Are all ions present in the reference mass spectrum with a relative intensity greater than 10% also present in the sample mass spectrum? [ X ] __ 9.5 Do TIC and "best match" standard relative ion intensities agree within 20%? [ X ] 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, UT OO3 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? __ [ X ] __ 10.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, sample moisture? [__] __ X ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of the higher CRQL data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" and it's associated value on the original Form I and substituting the data from the analysis of the diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all From I's that should not be used, including any in the summary package. 11.0 Standard Data (GC/MS) 11.1 Are the Reconstructed Ion Chromatograms, and data system printouts (Quant Reports) present for initial and continuing calibration? [ X ] __ __ ACTION; If any calibration standard data are missing, take action specified in 3.2 above. 12.0 GC/MS Initial Calibration (Form VI) 12.1 Are the Initial Calibration Forms (Form VI) present and complete for the BNA fraction? [ X ] TUT DO3 0089 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. [ _ ] 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. UU 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.) __ [ X ] __ ACTION; Circle errors in red. ACTION: If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and note errors in data assessments. 13.0 GC/MS Continuing Calibration (Form VII) 13.1 Are the Continuing Calibration Forms (Form VII) present and complete for the BNA fraction? [ X ] 13.2 Has a continuing calibration standard been analyzed for every twelve hours of sample analysis per instrument? [ X ] ACTION; List below all sample analyses that were not within twelve hours of a continuing calibration analysis for each instrument used. ACTION: If any forms are missing or no continuing calibration standard has been analyzed within twelve hours of every sample analysis, call lab for explanation/resubmittal. If continuing calibration data are not available, flag all associated sample data as unusable ("R"). TUT 003 0091 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 semivolatile compounds have a % Difference (%D) between the initial and continuing RRF which exceeds + 25.0% criteria? X [_] __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. ACTION; Qualify both positive results and non-detects for the outlier compound(s) as estimated (J). When %D is above 90%, reject all non-detects for that analyte (R) unusable. 13.4 Do any semivolatile compounds have a RRF <0.05? __ [ X ] __ ACTION: Circle all outliers in red. ACTION; If RRF <0.05, qualify as unusable (R) associated non-detects and "J" associated positive values. 13.5 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in the reporting of average response factors (RRF) or % difference (%D) between initial and continuing RRFs? (Check at least two values but if errors are found, check more). __ [ X ] ACTION; Circle errors in red. ACTION: If errors are large, call lab fore explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. TUT" 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 VHP 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? [ 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 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? [ 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 BNA analysis? [ X ] 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. 003 0094 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; PEST1CIDE/PCB ANALYSIS 1.0 Traffic Reports and Laboratory Narrative 1.1 Are Traffic Report Forms present for all samples? [__] __ __ ACTION: If no, contract lab for replacement of missing or illegible copies. 1.2 Do the Traffic Reports or SDG Narrative indicate any problems with sample receipt, condition of the samples, analytical problems or special circumstances affecting the quality of the data? [__] ACTION; If any sample analyzed as a soil, other then TCLP, contains 50%-90% water, all data should be qualified as estimated (J). If a soil sample, other than TCLP, contains more than 90% water, all data should be qualified as unusable (R). ACTION: If samples were not iced upon receipt at the laboratory, flag all positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ". 2.0 Holding Times 2.1 Have any PEST/PCB technical holding times, determined from date of collection to date of extraction, been exceeded? [__] Water and soil samples for PESTS/PCB analysis must be extracted within 7 days of the date of collection. Extracts must be analyzed within 40 days of the date extraction. 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 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 [__] __ __ b. Soil [__] __ __ 3.2 Are all the PEST/PCB samples listed on the appropriate Surrogate Recovery Summary for each of the following matrices? a. Low Water [__] __ __ b. Soil [__] __ __ ACTION: Call lab for explanation/resubmittals. If missing deliverables are unavailable, document effect in data assessments. TUT OO3 GO96 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; No qualification is done if surrogates are diluted out. If recovery for both surrogates is below the contract limit, but above 10%, flag all results for that sample "J". If recovery is < 10% for either surrogate, qualify positive results "J" and flag non-detects "R". If recovery is above the contract advisory limits for both surrogates qualify positive values "J". [__] __ 3.5 Were surrogate retention times (RT) within the windows established during the initial 3-point analysis of individual Standard Mixture A? [__] __ ACTION: If the RT limits are not met, the analysis may be qualified unusable (R) for that sample on the basis of professional judgement. 3.6 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Form II? __ [__] ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal. Make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. TUT 003 0097 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 YES NO N/A Matrix Spikes (Form III) Is the Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Recovery Form (Form III) present? 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. How may PEST/PCB spike recoveries are outside QC limits? [__1 [__] Water out of 12 Soil out of 12 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 003 009B STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; No action is taken on MS/MSD data alone. However, using informed professional judgement, the data reviewer may use the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate results in conjunction with other QC criteria and determine the need for some qualification of the data. 5.0 Blanks (Form IV> 5.1 Is the Method Blank Summary (Form IV) present? [__] __ __ 5.2 Frequency of Analysis: For the analysis of Pesticide/PCB TCL compounds, has a reagent/ method blank been analyzed for each SDG or every 20 samples of similar matrix or concentration or each extraction batch, whichever is more frequent? [__] ACTION; If any blank data are missing, take the action specified above in 3.2. If blank data is not available, reject (R) all associated positive data. However, using professional judgement, the data reviewer may substitute field blank data for missing method blank data. 5.3 Has a PEST/PCB instrument blank been analyzed at the beginning of every 12 hr. period following the initial calibration sequence? (minimum contract requirement). TUT' 003 00 91- 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/PCBs? [__] __ ACTION; Use professional judgement to determine the effect on the data. 6.0 Contamination NOTE: "Water blanks", "distilled water blanks" and "drilling water blanks" are validated like any other sample and are not used to qualify the data. Do not confuse them with the other QC blanks discussed below. 6.1 Do any method/instrument/reagent/cleanup blanks have positive results for PEST/PCBs? When applied as described below, the contaminant concentration in these blanks are multiplied by the sample Dilution Factor and corrected for % moisture when necessary. __ [__] OO3 O1OO STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 6.2 Do any field/rinse blanks have positive PEST/PCB results? __ [__] ACTION; Prepare a list of the samples associated with each of the contaminated blanks. (Attach a separate sheet) NOTE; All field blank results associated to a particular group of samples (may exceed one per case or one per day) may be used to qualify data. Blanks may not be qualified because of contamination in another blank. Field blanks must be qualified for surrogate, or calibration QC problems. ACTION: Follow the directions in the table below to qualify TCL results due to contamination. Use the largest value from all the associated blanks. Sample cone > CRQL Sample cone < CRQL & Sample cone > CRQL but < 5 x blank is < 5x blank value & > 5 x blank value Flag sample result Report CRQL & No qualification with a "U" qualify "U" is needed NOTE; If gross blank contamination exists, all data in the associated samples should be qualified as unusable (R). 6.3 Are there field/rinse/equipment blanks associated with every sample? [__] 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 Calibration and GC Performance 7.1 Are the following Gas Chromatograms and Data Systems Printouts for both columns present for all samples, blanks, MS/MSD? a. peak resolution check [__] __ __ b. performance evaluation mixtures [__] __ __ c. aroclor 1016/1260 [__] __ __ d. aroclors 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254 [__] __ __ e. toxaphene [__] __ __ f. low points individual mixtures A & B g. med points individual mixtures A & B [__] h. high points individual mixtures A & B [__] i. instrument blanks [_] ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. 7.2 Are Forms VI - PEST 1-4 present and complete for each column and each analytical sequence? [_] 7.3 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Forms VI? _ [__] TU-r 003 0102 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 large errors exist, call lab for explanation/ resubmittal, make necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. 7.4 Do all standard retention times, including each pesticide in each level of Individual Mixtures A & B, fall within the windows established during the initial calibration analytical sequence? (For Initial Calibration Standards, Form VI - PEST - 1). [_] ACTION; If no, all samples in the entire analytical sequence are potentially affected. Check to see if the chromatograms contain peaks within an expanded window surrounding the expected retention times. If no peaks are found and the surrogates are visible, non-detects are valid. If peaks are present and cannot be identified through pattern recognition or using a revised RT window, qualify all positive results and non-detects as unusable (R). For aroclors, RT may be outside the RT window, but the aroclor may still be identified from the individual pattern. 7.5 Are the linearity criteria for the initial analyses of Individual Standards A & B within limits for both columns? (%RSD must be < 20.0% for all analytes except for the 2 surrogates, which must not exceed 30.0 % RSD). See Form VI PEST - 2. [_] ACTION; If no, qualify all associated positive results generated during the entire analytical sequence "J" and all non-detects "UJ". When RSD >90% flag all non- detect results for that analyte R (unusable). TUT 003 0103 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. _ [__] - for 4,4' - DDT? _ [__] - for endrin? _ [__] Has the combined % breakdown for 4,4' - DDT/ Endrin exceeded 30.0% on either column? _ [__] (required in all instances) TUT 003 0104 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 % breakdown has failed the QC criteria in either PEM in steps 2 and 17 in the initial calibration sequence (p. D-38/Pest SOW 3/90), qualify all sample analyses in the entire analytical sequence as described below. If any % breakdown has failed the QC criteria in a PEM Verification calibration, review data beginning with the samples which followed the last in-control standard until the next acceptable PEM & qualify the data as described below. 4,4' - DDT Breakdown: If 4,4' - DOT breakdown is greater than 20.%: i. Qualify all positive results for DDT with "J". If DDT was not detected, but DDD and DDE are positive, then qualify the quantitation limit for DDT as unusable (R). ii. Qualify positive results for DDD and/or DDE as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). Endrin Breakdown: If endrin breakdown is greater than 20.0%: 0105 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) [_] T U T 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? [_] __ TUT 010 7 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A 7.14 Are RPD values for all verification calibration standard compounds < 25.0%? [_] __ __ ACTION: If the RPD is >25.0% for the compound being quantitated, qualify all associated positive results "J" and non-detects "UJ". The "associated samples" are those which followed the last in-control standard up to the next passing standard containing the analyte which failed the criteria. If the RPD is >90%, flag all non-detects for that analyte R (unusable). 8.0 Analytical Sequence Check (Form VII1-PEST) 8.1 Is Form VIII present and complete for each column and each period of analyses? [_] ACTION: If no, take action specified in 3.2 above. 8.2 Was the proper analytical sequence followed for each initial calibration and subsequent analyses? (See CLP SOW p. D-39 & D-41/PEST) [_] ACTION; If no, use professional judgement to determine the severity of the effect on the data and qualify it accordingly. Generally, the effect is negligible unless the sequence was grossly altered or the calibration was also out of limits. 9.0 Cleanup Efficiency Verification (Form IX) 9.1 Is From IX - Pest-1 Pest-1 present and complete for each lot of Florisil Cartridges used? (Florisil Cleanup is required for all Pest/PCB extracts.) [_] 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 florisil cartridge check? 80-110% for GPC calibration? Qualify only the analyte(s) which fail the recovery criteria as follows: ACTION; If a R are < 80%, qualify positive results "J" and quantitation limits "UJ". Non-detects should be qualified "R" if zero %R was obtained for pesticide compounds. Use professional judgement to qualify positive results if recoveries are greater than the upper limit. TUT 003 0109 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A NOTE: Sample data should be evaluated for potential interferences if recovery 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was > 5% in the Florisil Cartridge Performance Check analysis. Make note in Contract Problems/Non- Compliance section of reviewer narrative. NOTE; The raw data of the GPC Calibration Check analysis is evaluated for pattern similarity with previously run Aroclor standards. 10.0 Pesticide/PCB Identification 10.1 Is Form X complete for every sample in which a pesticide or PCB was detected? [_] __ __ 10.2 Are there any transcription/calculation errors between raw data and Forms 6E, 6G, 7E, 7D, 8D, 9A, B, 10A. _ [__] ACTION; If large errors exist, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make necessary corrections and not error under "Conclusions". 10.3 Are retention times (RT) of sample compounds within the established RT windows for both analyses? [_] __ Was GC/MS confirmation provided when required (when compound concentration is > 10 ug/ml in final extract)? [_] ACTION; Use professional judgement to qualify positive results which were not confirmed by GC/MS. Qualify as unusable (R) all positive results which were not confirmed by second 003 011O 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 chromatograms for false negatives, especially the multiple peak compounds toxaphene and PCBs. Were there any false negatives? _ [__] TUT 003 0111 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 Quantitation and Reported Detection Limits 11.1 Are there any transcription/calculation errors in Form I results? Check at least two positive values. Were any errors found? _ [__] __ NOTE; Single-peak pesticide results can be checked for rough agreement between quantitative results obtained on the two GC columns. The reviewer should use professional judgement to decide whether a much larger concentration obtained on one column versus the other indicates the presence of an interfering compound. If an interfering compound is indicated, the lower of the two values should be reported and qualified as presumptively present at an approximated quantity (NJ). This necessitates a determination of an estimated concentration on the confirmation column. The narrative should indicate that the presence of interferences has interfered with the evaluation of the second column confirmation. 11.2 Are the CRQLs adjusted to reflect sample dilutions and, for soils, % moisture? [_] __ __ ACTION; If errors are large, call lab for explanation/resubmittal, make any necessary corrections and document effect in data assessments. TUT' O03 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: CLP Organics Data Review and Preliminary Review Date: January 1992 Number HW-6 Revision: 8 YES NO N/A ACTION; When a sample is analyzed at more than one dilution, the lowest CRQLs are used (unless a QC exceedance dictates the use of higher CRQL data from the diluted sample analysis). Replace concentrations that exceed the calibration range in the original analysis by crossing out the "E" value on the original Form I and substituting it with data from the analysis of diluted sample. Specify which Form I is to be used, then draw a red "X" across the entire page of all Form Fs that should not be used, including any in the summary package. ACTION: Quantitation limits effected by large, off-scale peaks should be qualified as unusable (R). If the interference is on-scale, the reviewer can provide an approximated quantitation limit (UJ) for each affected compound. 12.0 Chromatogram Quality 12.1 Were baselines stable? 12.2 Were any electropositive displacement (negative peaks) or unusual peaks seen? ACTION: Address comments under System Performance of data assessment. _ [ 13.0 Field Duplicates 13.1 Were any field duplicates submitted for PEST/PCB analysis? 0113 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. #PR00801-DV3/ORGANIC.DTA TUT ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 CLP DATA ASSESSMENT Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis Case No.N/A SDG Nos. 19656.19699.19736 LABORATORY Enseco-East SITE Tutu Wells DATA ASSESSMENT: The current Functional Guidelines for evaluating organic data have been applied. All data are valid and acceptable except those analytes which have been qualified with a "J" (estimated), "N" (presumptive evidence for the presence of the material), "U" (non-detects), "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. In other words, due to significant QC problems, the analysis is invalid and provides no information as to whether the compound is present or not. "R" values should not appear on data tables because they cannot be relied upon, even as a last resort. The second fact to keep in mind is that no compound concentration, even if it has passed all QC tests, is guaranteed to be accurate. Strict QC serves to increase confidence in data but any value potentially contains some error. Reviewer's f I : C —— J^ Signature: —— ——— *-< - • Date: Verified by: /^JL^^ ^C^-^A^ 7Vl> _________ Date: s fS 19 TUT ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT 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 will be qualified as estimated, "J". The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) will be flagged as estimated, (J). The non-detects (sample quantitation limits) will be flagged as estimated, "J, or unusable, "R", if the holding times are grossly exceeded. The following action was taken in the samples and analytes shown due to excessive holding time: A) Volatile organic compounds All of the samples collected during this sampling event (SDGs 19656, 19699, and 19736 [this case]) were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) within the appropriate, corresponding holding time (seven days from collection for unpreserved aqueous samples and 14 days from collection for preserved aqueous samples). A holding time compliance summary for VOC analyses is provided as Table A-l. B) Semivolatile organic compounds All of the samples in this case were extracted within the specified holding time from sample collection to sample extraction (7 days) and within the specified holding time from sample extraction to sample analysis (40 days). A holding time compliance summary for BNA compound analyses is provided as Table A-2. 2. BLANK CONTAMINATION Quality assurance (QA) blanks, i.e., method, trip field, or rinse blanks are prepared to identify any contamination which may have been introduced into the samples during sample preparation or field activity. Method blanks measure laboratory contamination. Trip blanks measure cross-contamination of samples during shipment. Field and rinse blanks measure cross- contamination of samples during field operations. If the concentration of the analyte is less than 5 times the blank contaminant level (10 times for the common contaminants), the analytes are qualified as non-detects, "U". The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified with "U" for these reasons: 003 0116 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT Summaries of all contaminated blanks and associated samples are provided in Table A-3 and A-4. Only contaminated blanks are discussed in the following section. A) Method blank contamination 1) Volatile organic compounds Method blank VBLK01 (2/5/92) is reported to contain 0.13 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of the common laboratory contaminant, methylene chloride. Samples Eglin III and Harvey are associated with this method blank. Since methylene chloride was detected at a higher concentration in the associated trip blank, the trip blank is used to qualify the associated sample data. Method blank VBLK01 (2/6/92) (same as VBLK02 [2/6/92]) is reported to contain 1.33 ug/L of acetone, 0.12 ug/L of methylene chloride, and 0.05 ug/L of toluene. The sample dilutions (DL) of Eglin III and Harvey (Eglin III DL and Harvey DL) and sample Steele are associated with this method blank. The blank contaminants do not affect the usable data from the sample dilutions, therefore these data are not qualified. Acetone and toluene were undetected in sample Steele so the associated data are not qualified. Since methylene chloride was detected at a higher concentration in the associated trip blank, the trip blank is used to qualify the associated result for Steele. Method blank VBLK01 (2/8/92) is reported to contain 0.14 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples Matthias, Rodriguez and WAPA (Water from Power Authority) are associated with this method blank. Since methylene chloride was detected at a higher concentration in the associated trip blank, the trip blank is used to qualify the associated sample data. Method blank VBLK02 (2/8/92) is reported to contain 0.18 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples Matthias DL and Tillett are associated with this method blank. The blank contaminant methylene chloride does not affect the usable data from the Matthias sample dilution, therefore the associated result is not qualified. Since methylene chloride was detected at a higher concentration in the associated trip blank, the trip blank is used to qualify the associated result for Tillett. 2) Semivolatile organic compounds Method blank SBLK01 (2/5/92) is reported to contain 20 ug/L of the common laboratory contaminant bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and three unknown tentatively identified TUT 003 0117 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT compounds (TICs). Samples Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, and Harvey are associated with this method blank. The associated positive data for bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate are negated and qualified as undetected (U) as outlined in the SOP checklist. Corresponding, associated positive TIC data are rejected (R) according to SOP protocol. Method blank SBLK01 (2/7/92) is reported to contain 4 ug/L of bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, and eight unknown TICs. Samples Rodriguez, Dede, Smith, Matthias, and Tillett are associated with this method blank. The associated positive data for bis (2- ethylhexyl) phthalate are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Corresponding, associated positive TIC data are rejected (R) according to SOP protocol. Method blank SBLK01 (2/10/92) is reported to contain five unknown TICs. Samples Leonard, LaPlace, LaPlace FR, and WAPA are associated with this method blank. Corresponding, associated TIC data are rejected according to SOP protocol. Method blank SBLK02 (2/19/92) is reported to contain 2 ug/L of bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate, and seven unknown TICs. The re-analysis of sample WAPA (WAPA RE) is associated with this method blank. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was undetected in the reanalysis of sample WAPA so the result is not qualified. Technically, the associated data do not require qualification since the data from the original analysis of WAPA are used for this case. B) Field or rinse blank contamination ("water blanks" or "distilled water blanks" are validated like any other sample) 1) Volatile organic compounds The water blank is reported to contain 0.66 ug/L of carbon disulfide and 0.38 ug/L of methylene chloride. The equipment blank is associated with the water blank. The associated result for carbon disulfide in the equipment blank is negated and qualified as undetected (U). The associated result for methylene chloride does not require qualification. The equipment blank is reported to contain the following contamination: Analyte Result (ug/L) Acetone 7.6 Carbon disulfide 0.41 Methylene chloride 7 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT Analyte Result fug/Lt Toluene 0.08 Xylenes (total) 0.1 Samples Gassett and its replicate (Gassett FR) are associated with the equipment blank. Carbon disulfide and toluene results for the equipment blank are negated due to water blank and trip blank contamination; therefore they are not used to qualify the associated sample data. Carbon disulfide and toluene data for Gassett and Gassett FR are negated due to trip blank contamination. Acetone was undetected in Gassett and Gassett FR so these data are not qualified. Methylene chloride and total xylenes data for the associated samples are negated and qualified as undetected (U). There are no field blanks associated with the remainder of the samples in this case since the samples were taken directly from drinking water taps without the use of sampling equipment. C) Trip blank contamination 1) Volatile organic compounds Trip blank (2/3/92) is reported to contain 0.57 ug/L of carbon disulfide and 0.29 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, and Harvey are associated with this trip blank. Carbon disulfide was undetected in all of the associated samples so the associated data are not qualified. All of the associated methylene chloride data are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Trip blank (2/4/92) is reported to contain 0.23 ug/L of carbon disulfide, 0.33 ug/L of methylene chloride, and 0.05 ug/L of toluene. Samples Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett, Gassett FR, Ramsay, Steele, Water Blank, and Equipment Blank are associated with this trip blank. Carbon disulfide data for samples Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett FR, Ramsay, Water Blank, and Equipment Blank are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Carbon disulfide was undetected in samples Gassett and Steele so these data do not require qualification. Methylene chloride data for samples Four Winds I, Gassett, Gassett FR, Ramsay, Steele, and Water Blank, are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Methylene chloride was undetected in sample Four Winds II so this result is not qualified. The equipment blank is reported to contain greater than ten times (> lOx) the methylene chloride concentration detected in this trip blank, so this result also remains unqualified. Finally, toluene data for samples Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett, Gassett FR, and the equipment blank are negated and qualified as undetected (U). TUT' ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT Toluene was undetected in samples Ramsay, Steele, and the water blank so these data do not require qualification. Trip blank (2/5/92) is reported to contain 1.8 ug/L of carbon disulfide and 0.29 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples Dede, Matthias, Rodriguez, Smith, and Tillett are associated with this trip blank. Carbon disulfide was undetected in all of the associated samples so these data are not qualified. Methylene chloride data for samples Dede, Matthias, Rodriguez, and Smith are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Methylene chloride was undetected in sample Tillett so this result is not qualified. Trip blank (2/6/92) is reported to contain 1 ug/L of carbon disulfide and 0.33 ug/L of methylene chloride. Samples LaPlace, LaPlace FR, Leonard, and WAPA are associated with this trip blank. The carbon disulfide and methylene chloride data for sample LaPlace FR are negated and qualified as undetected (U). Carbon disulfide and methylene chloride were undetected in the remaining associated samples so these data are not qualified. 3. MASS SPECTROMETER TUNING: Tuning and performance criteria are established to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper identification compounds, and to some degree, sufficient instrument sensitivity. These criteria are not sample specific. Instrument performance is determined using standard materials. Therefore, these criteria should be met in all circumstances. The tuning standard for volatile organics is bromofluorobenzene (BFB) and for semi-volatiles is decafluorotriphenyl-phosphine (DFTPP). If the mass calibration is in error, or missing, all associated data will be classified as unusable, "R". The following samples shown were qualified with "R" because of tuning: 1) Volatile organic compounds All of the BFB mass calibrations associated with this case have met the acceptance criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification and instrument response. 2) Semivolatile organic compounds All of the DFTPP mass calibrations associated with this case have met the acceptance criteria to ensure adequate mass resolution, proper compound identification and instrument response. o ;" 1 i I 'i ru" 1 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT 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 experimental sequence. The continuing calibration verifies that the instrument is giving satisfactory daily performance. A) RESPONSE FACTOR The response factor measures the instrument's response to specific chemical compounds. The response factor for the VOA/BNA Target Compound List (TCL) must be >_ 0.05 in both the initial and continuing calibrations. A value < 0.05 indicates a serious detection and quantitation problem (poor sensitivity). If the mean RRF of the initial calibration or the continuing calibration has a response factor < 0.05 for any analyte, those analytes detected in environmental samples will be qualified as estimated, "J". All non- detects for those compounds will be rejected ("R"). The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified because of response factor: 1) Volatile organic compounds Response factor QC criteria are not indicated by USEPA Method 524.2, revision 3.0 (USEPA 1989). 2) Semivolatile organic compounds All of the response factors from the initial and continuing calibrations are within the QC limit (> 0.05) indicating adequate instrument response. 5. CALIBRATION: A) PERCENT RELATIVE STANDARD DEVIATION (%RSD) AND PERCENT DIFFERENCE: Percent RSD is calculated from the initial calibration and is used to indicate the stability of the specific compound response factor over increasing concentration. Percent D compares the response factor (RRF) from the initial calibration. Percent D is a measure of the instrument's daily performance. Percent RSD must be <30% and %D must be TUT 003 0121 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT < 25%. A value outside of these limits indicates potential detection and quantitation errors. For these reasons, all positive results are flagged as estimated, "J"; and non-detects are flagged "UJ". If %RSD and %D grossly exceed QC criteria, non-detect data may be qualified "R". For the PCB/PESTICIDE fraction, if %RSD exceeds 20% for all analytes except for the 2 surrogates (which must not exceed 30% RSD), qualify all associated positive results "J' and non-detects "UJ". The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified for %RSD and %D: 1) Volatile organic compounds The above listed criteria were modified slightly to reflect the %D criteria permissible for analyses performed in accordance with Method 524.2, revision 3.0 and as outlined in Appendix A of revised SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1991). As per the method, the %RSD for the response factors from the initial calibration must be <30%, the response factor in the continuing calibration must be within 50% of the mean value measured in the initial calibration, or the response factor in the continuing calibration must be within 30% of the mean value measured in the preceding continuing calibration. The laboratory has provided Form VI and VII equivalents for the VOC initial and continuing calibration using USEPA Method 524.2. All of the %RSDs from the initial calibrations performed for this case are within the corresponding QC limit. The continuing calibration performed February 6, 1992 on instrument HP-V2 has a %RSD > 30% for acetone (34.47%). Samples Eglin III DL, Harvey DL, method blank VBLK02 (2/6/92) (same as VBLK01 [2/6/92]), and Steele are associated with this calibration. This calibration deficiency does not impact the usable data from the sample dilutions. The non-detect data for acetone in sample Steele and VBLK02 (2/6/92) are qualified as estimated (J) or estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). 2) Semivolatile organic compounds The initial calibration performed February 15, 1992 on instrument HP-S4 has %Ds > 30% for hexachlorobutadiene (36.59%) and 2,4-dinitrophenol (34.369%). These compounds were undetected in all of the samples in this case, therefore the data are not qualified. ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT The initial calibration performed February 25,1992 on instrument HP-S4 has a %D > 30% for 2,4-dinitrophenol (36.1%). This compound was undetected in all of the samples in this case, therefore the data are not qualified. The continuing calibration performed February 16, 1992 on instrument HP-SI has %Ds > 25% for the following compounds: Compound %RSD 2,4-Dinitrophenol 66.1 4-Nitrophenol 41.1 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 41.7 Pentachlorophenol 28.2 Di-n-octyl phthalate 27.2 Samples LaPlace, LaPlace FR, Leonard, and WAPA are associated with this calibration. Positive data for di-n-octyl phthalate are qualified as estimated (J). The remainder of the associated, non-detect data are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The continuing calibration performed February 16, 1992 on instrument HP-S4 has a %D > 25% for 2,4-dinitrophenol (31.36%). Samples Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, and Harvey are associated with this calibration. The associated sample data for 2,4-dinitrophenol are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The continuing calibration performed February 16, 1992 on instrument HP-S4 has a %D > 25% for 2,4-dinitrophenol (37.8%). The dilutions of sample LaPlace and its replicate are associated with this calibration, but since this deficiency does not affect the usable data for this case, the associated data are not qualified. The continuing calibration performed February 26, 1992 on instrument HP-S4 has %Ds > 25% for hexachlorocyclopentadiene (53.8%) and 2,4-dinitrophenol (29.0%). Samples Dede, Matthias, Rodriguez, Smith, and Tillett are associated with this calibration. The associated sample data for both of the compounds are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). 6. SURROGATES/SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS (SMC): All samples are spiked with surrogate/SMC compounds prior to sample preparation to evaluate overall laboratory performance and efficiency of the analytical technique. If the ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT measured surrogate/ SMC concentrations were outside contract specifications, qualifications were applied to the samples and analytes as shown below. The following analytes for the samples shown were qualified because of surrogate/SMC recovery: 1) Volatile organic compounds For all of the samples in this case, all of the VOC system monitoring compound (SMC) percent recoveries (%Rs) are within the corresponding QC limits. 2) Semivolatile organic compounds For all of the samples in this case, other than samples Matthias, WAPA, and the equipment blank, the BNA Surrogate %Rs are within the corresponding QC limits. For the equipment blank and sample Matthias, the base/neutral extractable surrogate %Rs for nitrobenzene-d5 (127 and 130%, respectively) exceed the corresponding QC limits (35 to 114%). For sample WAPA and its reanalysis (WAPA RE), three acid extractable surrogates have recoveries below 10%: Surrogate WAPA (%R) WAPA RE Phenol-d5 0 2 2-Fluorophenol 1 4 2-Chlorophenol-d4 2 8 Based on this information, positive sample data for the equipment blank and Matthias are not qualified, but all of the non-detect acid extractable organic data for sample WAPA are unusable and rejected (R). 7. INTERNAL STANDARDS PERFORMANCE: Internal standard (IS) performance criteria ensure that the GC/MS sensitivity and response are stable during every experimental run. The internal standard area count must not vary by more than a factor of 2 (-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 +100%) range of the associated standard, all of the positive results for compounds quantitated using that IS area is < 50%. Non detects are qualified as "R" if there is a severe loss of sensitivity (< 25% of associated IS area counts). ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT If an internal standard retention time varies by more than 30 seconds, the reviewer will use professional judgement to determine either partial or total rejection of the data for that sample fraction. The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified because of internal standards performance: 1) Volatile organic compounds For VOC analysis by USEPA Method 524.2, the window of acceptance for internal standard areas is +_ 30% from the associated continuing calibration standard. All of the internal standard area counts and retention times are within QC limits established by the 12-hour standard from the associated continuing calibration. 2) Semivolatile organic compounds All of the internal standard area counts and retention times are within QC limits established by the 12-hour standard from the associated continuing calibration. 8. COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION: A) VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE FRACTIONS: TCL compounds are identified (GC/MS) by using the analyte's relative retention time (RRT) and ion spectra. For the results to be a positive hit, the sample peak must be within +_ 0.06 RRT units of the standard compound, and have an ion spectra which has a ratio of the primary and secondary m/e intensities within 20% of that in the standard compound. For the tentatively identified compounds (TIC), the ion spectra must match accurately. In the cases where there is not an adequate ion spectrum match, the laboratory may have provided false positive identifications. The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified for compound identification: All of the positive target compound data and usable non-detect target compound data for this SDG were correctly identified and quantitated; for positive results, the RRT of the sample peaks are within 0.06 RRT units (minutes) of the associated standard, and all of the ions present in the standard spectrum at a relative abundancy of > 10% are also present in the sample spectrum. In addition, the relative intensity of the common ion between the sample and standard spectrum agrees within +_ 20% and no sample ion with relative intensity > 10% is unaccounted for in the standard spectrum. There is no evidence of false negative data. ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT The inconsistency of retention times for 1,2-dichloroethene (total) in the VOC calibration standard is due to the varying relative intensity between the cis- and trans-isomer peaks. The retention time of the peak with the higher intensity is listed on the quantitation report. The compound 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (from the volatile TCL) was identified as a BNA TIC in samples Gassett and Gassett FR. Bromoform was identified as a BNA TIC in sample WAPA. These data are unusable and rejected (R). "Identified" TICs were qualified to indicate the presumptive evidence of the compound at an estimated concentration (JN). B) PESTICIDE/PCB/HERBICIDES FRACTION: The retention times of reported compounds must fall within the calculated retention time windows for the two chromatographic columns. The percent difference (%D) of the positive results obtained on the two GC columns should be <_ 25%. The following analytes in the samples shown were qualified because of compound identification: No pesticide, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), or herbicide analyses were performed for this case. 9. MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE, MS/MSD: 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 following analytes, for the samples shown, were qualified because of MS/MSD: For this case, VOC and BNA MS/MSD analyses were performed once for a sample group consisting of 27 field samples (includes four trip blanks). Although the MS/MSD frequency analysis was not met (1:20 ratio), the associated sample data for this case are not qualified. 1) Volatile organic compounds Sample Rodriguez was used to determine whether the sample matrix contributed bias to the analytical results. All of the %Rs and all of relative percent differences (RPDs) between MS and MSD %Rs are within the corresponding QC limits. This is indicative of good analytical precision and accuracy. TUT O03 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT 2) Semivolatile organic compounds Sample Rodriguez was used to determine whether the sample matrix contributed bias to the analytical results. The MS and MSD %Rs for 4-nitrophenol (102 and 104%) are outside of the corresponding QC limits (10 to 80%). All of the remaining %Rs and all of relative percent differences (RPDs) between MS and MSD %Rs are within the corresponding QC limits. Sample data are not qualified based on these data. 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 July 29, 1991. The MDL determination was based on the analysis seven replicates of reagent water fortified at a concentration of 1.0 ug/L with the TCL analytes (ketones at 5 ug/L and 1,2-dichloroethene [1,2-DCE] at 2 ug/L). The laboratory MDL was calculated as the product of the standard deviation of seven replicate analyses and the student's t value for the 99% (alpha = 0.01) confidence level with six degrees of freedom (v = 6) is t = 3.143. 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 - 120% and the %RSD < 20%. In the MDL study performed in support of the June 1991 analyses for the Tutu Wells site, the following analytes did not meet the precision and accuracy criteria required prior to sample analyses: Analvte Mean Accuracy (%\ Methylene chloride 137 2-Butanone 79 Dibromochloromethane 68 trans-l,3-Dichloropropene 70 Bromoform 56 The %RSDs for all of the other analytes are within the QC limit (< 20%). The sample data for this case are not qualified based on the MDL study. TUT ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT B) Laboratory Fortified Blanks As per the QC requirements in USEPA Method 524.2 (USEPA 1989) and the SAMP (Geraghty & Miller, Inc. 1991), a laboratory fortified blank (LFB), to which known quantities of the target analytes are added, is required to be analyzed for every batch of low level samples processed using the method. In the analysis of well samples for the Tutu Wells Site, LFBs were prepared at a concentration of 1.0 ug/L with the TCL analytes (ketones at 5 ug/L and 1,2-DCE at 2 ug/L), and processed prior to the analysis of field samples in accordance with the QC protocol. The LFBs were to be evaluated using equivalent procedural guidelines for the determination of accuracy as stated in the MDL assessment for initial demonstration of precision and accuracy. Furthermore, an assessment of laboratory capability as to achievement of MDL for every sample batch processed was to be derived from the LFB analysis. Based on these evaluations, the laboratory was to continue with sample analyses if all criteria were achieved, or alternatively, remedy deficiencies prior to sample analyses where QC was not within limits (as specified in Method 524.2 Section 10.3). For the purposes of the Tutu Wells Site volatile organic analyses, the QC criteria were modified to assess data quality for analyses performed by Method 524.2 in the following manner: Based on an EPA 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 LFB was expanded to 50 to 150% for ketone compounds and methylene chloride. Based on this guidance and for purposes of validation, for any analyte for which the LFB recovery was < 50%, the associated sample data were rejected and qualified as unusable (R). For LFB analyte recoveries in the range of 50 - 79%, the associated sample data were qualified as estimated (J). Data qualifiers were not applied to any sample result for which the associated LFB analyte recovery was high (> 150%). The LFB analyzed 2/5/92 (Lab ID 2/5/92-D) has a %R outside of QC limits for bromoform (77%). Samples Harvey and Eglin III are associated with this LFB. The associated sample data for bromoform are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The LFB analyzed 2/12/92 (Lab ID 2/12/92-D) has %Rs outside of QC limits for chloroethane (77%) and bromoform (76%). Samples Hartman III, Trip Blank (2/3/92), Hartman II, Eglin II, and Dede are associated with this LFB. The associated sample data for chloroethane and bromoform are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). TUT OO3 O128 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT The first LFB analyzed 2/13/92 (Lab ID 2/13/92-D) has a %R outside of QC limits for chloroethane (77%). Samples Equipment Blank, Trip Blank (2/4/92), Gassett FR, Ramsay, and Smith are associated with this LFB. The associated sample data for chloroethane are qualified as estimated at the quantitation limit (UJ). The second LFB analyzed 2/13/92 (Lab ID 2/13/92-E) has %Rs outside of QC limits for chloromethane (140%) and 1,1,2-trichloroethane (122%). Samples Four Winds I and Gassett are associated with this LFB. The associated sample data for these compounds are not qualified. Finally, the LFB analyzed 2/15/92 (Lab ID 2/15/92-D) has a %R outside of QC limits for chloroethane (78%). Samples Smith DL, LaPlace DL, and LaPlace FR DL are associated with this LFB. Since this deficiency does not affect the usable sample dilution data, the associated sample data are not qualified. C) Field Duplicates Sample CHKAN (Gassett FR) is a blind field replicate of sample Gassett. The relative percent differences (RPDs) between positive data from samples Gassett and Gassett FR are < 20% (acceptable level of precision) for all applicable compounds other than methylene chloride (RPD=36.4%). Methylene chloride data for these samples are negated due to blank contamination, therefore the data do not require qualification. There are no positive BNA compound data for samples Gassett and Gassett FR. Sample Verde (LaPlace FR) is a blind field replicate of sample LaPlace. The RPDs between positive data from samples LaPlace and LaPlace FR are < 20% (acceptable level of precision) for all applicable compounds. There are no positive BNA compound data for samples LaPlace and LaPlace FR. 11. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OVERALL ASSESSMENT (continued on next page if necessary): 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 several QC criteria are 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 who will use the data about the quality and limitations of the data so that the individual can avoid inappropriate use of the data. This review has, therefore, presented all QC factors that may affect the quality of the data. ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT Overall, Enseco-East has presented data of good quality and acceptable completeness. There are no indications that the instrument performance has degraded to a point that would affect the quality of the data for this case. In other words, no abrupt, discrete shifts occurred in the chromatogram baselines and minimal baseline drift is observed; inconsequential shifts in the absolute retention times of internal standards are observed. All of the organic data generated for the samples in this case, aside from the acid extractable semivolatile compound data for sample WAPA, are valid and usable. All of the acid extractable semivolatile compound data for sample WAPA are unusable and rejected due to unacceptably low surrogate recoveries. Sample data for chloroethane and bromoform are estimated at the quantitation limit due to poor LFB recoveries. All of the positive data for methylene chloride, carbon disulfide, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate are negated due to blank contamination. Most of the positive data for toluene and some of the total xylenes are negated due to blank contamination. Some data for acetone, di-n-octylphthalate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, 2,4- dinitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol are estimated at the quantitation limit due to minor calibration deficiencies. Analytes quantitated using a secondary dilution are qualified as such (D). Validated organic data summary tables (including applicable qualifiers) are provided as Tables A-6 through A-9. 12. CONTRACT PROBLEMS (NON-COMPLIANCE): The LFBs did not meet all of the method criteria as required. In accordance with the USEPA Method 524.2, revision 3.0, (USEPA 1989) all deficiencies should be located and remedied prior to sample analysis. The laboratory has failed to provide Form Is for those samples that required dilution in order to accurately quantitate compounds that exceeded the linear range of calibration upon initial analysis. Sample data from secondary dilutions are incorporated into the Form Is that were provided and flagged "D" by the laboratory. In some cases, the laboratory diluted samples prior to the original analysis. 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: TUT 00:5 0130 ATTACHMENT 1 SOP NO. HW-6 DATA ASSESSMENT Some samples in this case required dilution in order to accurately quantitate compounds that exceeded the linear range of calibration. The usable data from the sample dilutions were incorporated into the Form Is provided by the laboratory. Sample WAPA was re-analyzed due to unacceptably low surrogate recoveries. The Form Is for the initial analysis and the reanalysis were provided by the laboratory. #PR00801-DV2/041792/225thOiB CASE NO. N/A ORGANIC REGIONAL DATA ASSESSMENT SITE Tutu Wells Region II LABORATORY Enseco-East NO. OF SAMPLES/ MATRIX____27/Aaueous SDG» 19656. 19699. 19736 REVIEWER (IF NOT ESP) N/A SOW* 3/90 DPO: ACTION FYIX REVIEWER'S NAME Cameron S. Dunnan COMPLETION DATE April 20. 1992 DATA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY 1. HOLDING TIMES 2. GC/MS TUNE/INSTR. PERFORM. 3. CALIBRATIONS 4. BLANKS 5. SYSTEM MONITORING COMPOUNDS 6. MATRIX SPKE/DUP 7. OTHER QC 8. INTERNAL STANDARDS 9. COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION 10. SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 11. OVERALL ASSESSMENT VGA O BNA O_ O M N/A O PEST/PCB N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 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 iifcMS: Chloroethane and bromoform data are estimated due to poor laboratory fortified blank (LFB) spike recoveries. Methvlene chloride, carbon disulfide. toluene, total xvlenes. and bis(2-ethvlhexvl')phthalate data re negated due to blank contamination. Some BNA compound data are estimated due to minor calibration deficiencies (percent difference rftDsIl Analytes quantitated using a secondary dilution are qualified as such CD).______________________ AREAS OF CONCERN: All of the acid extractable semivolatile data for one sample are unusable and rejected due to unacceptablv low system monitoring compound (SMO percent recoveries (%Rs't._____________________ NOTABLE PERFORMANCE: Overall, the majority of the data for these sample delivery groups fSDGs) are valid and usable, with the exception of the acid extractable compound data for samle WAPA. TIT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE NO. HW-2 REVISION NO. 8 TUT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Revision: 11 1.0 Scope 1.1 This procedure is applicable to inorganic data obtained from contractor laboratories working for Hazardous Waste Site Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). 1.2 The data validation is based upon analytical and quality assurance requirements specified in Statement of Work (SOW) 3/90. 2.0 Responsibilities - Data reviewers will complete the following tasks as assigned by the Data Review Coordinator: 2.1 For a total review; 2.1.1 Data Assessment - Total Review - Inorganics" Checklist Appendix (A.1). The reviewer must answer every question on the checklist. 2.1.2 Data Assessment - Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A^) The answer on the checklist must match the action in the narrative (appendix A.2) and Form I's. Do not use pencil to write the narrative. 2.13 Contract Non-Compliance - SMO Report (Appendix A.3) This report is to be completed only when a serious contract violation is encountered, or upon the request of the Data Validation Task Monitor, or Technical Project Officer (TPO). Forward 5 copies: one each for internal files, appropriate Regional TPO, Sample Management Office (SMO) and last two addresses of Mailing List for Data Reviewers (Appendix A.4). In other cases, all contract violations should be appended to the end of the Data Assessment Narrative (Sec. A.2.2). 2.1.4 CLP Data Assessment Summary Forms 2.1.4.1 Appendix A.5 Fill in the total number of analytes analyzed by different analyses and the number of analytes rejected or flagged as estimated due to corresponding quality control criteria. Place an "X" in boxes where analyses were not performed, or criteria do not apply. 0134 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Revision: 11 2.1.4.2 Appendix A.6 Data reviewer is also required to fill out Inorganic Regional Data Assessment form (Appendix A.7) provided by EPA Headquarters. Codes listed on the form will be used to describe the Data Assessment Summary. 2.1.5 Data Review Log:It is recommended that each data reviewer should maintain a log of the reviews completed to include: a. date of start of case review b. date of completion of case review c. site d. case number e. contract laboratory f. number of samples g. matrix h. hours worked i. reviewer's initials 2.1.6 Telephone Record Log - the data reviewer should enter the bare facts of inquiry, before initiating any phone conversation with CLP laboratory. After the case review has been completed, mail white copy of Telephone Record Log to the laboratory and pink copy to SMO. File yellow copy in the Telephone Record Log folder, and attach a xerox copy of the Telephone Record Log to the completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2). 2.1.7 Forwarded Paperwork 2.1.7.1 Upon completion of review, the following are to be forwarded to the Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) located in the Surveillance and Monitoring Branch: a. data package. b. completed data assessment checklist (Appendix A.1, original), c. SMO Contract Compliance Screening (CCS), d. Record of Communication (copy). e. CLP Reanalysis Request/Approval Record (original + 3 copies), f. Appendix A.6 (original). STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Revision: 11 2.1.7.2 Forward 2 copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2) along with 2 copies of the Inorganic Data Assessment Form (Appendix A.6) and Telephone Record Log, if any,: one each for appropriate Regional TPO, and the other one to EPA EMSL office in Las Vegas. The addresses of TPO's and EPA office in Las Vegas are given in Appendix A-4. 2.1.8 Filed Paperwork - Upon completion of review, the following are to be filed within MMB files: a. Two copies of completed Data Assessment Narrative (Appendix A.2) each carrying Appendix A.6. b. Telephone Record Log (copy), c. SMO Report (copy Appendix A-3). d. CLP Reanalysis Request/Approval Record (copy). 3.0 Data Completeness - Each data package is checked by a Regional Sample Control Coordinator (RSSC) for completeness. A data package is assumed to be complete when all the deliverables required under the contract are present. If a data package is incomplete, the RSSC would call the laboratory for missing document(s). If the laboratory does not respond within a week, SMO and MMB coordinator of Region II will be notified. 4.0 Rejection Data - All values determined to be unacceptable on the Inorganic Analysis Data Sheet (Form I) must be lined over with a red pencil. As soon as any review criteria causes data to be rejected, that data can be eliminated from any further review or consideration. 5.0 Acceptance Criteria -In order that reviews be consistent among reviewers, acceptance criteria as stated in Appendix A.1 (pages 4-25) should be used. Additional guidance can be found in the National Inorganic Functional Guidelines of October 1, 1989. 6.0 SMO Contract Compliance Screening (CCS) - This is intended to aid reviewer in locating any problems, both corrected and uncorrected. However, the validation should be carried out even if CCS is not present. Resubmittals received from laboratory in response to CCS must be used by the reviewer. 7.0 Request for Reanalysis - Data reviewers must note all items of contract non- compliance within Data Assessment Narrative. If holding times and sample storage 0136 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Revision: 11 times and sample storage times have not been exceeded, TPO may request reanalysis if items of non-compliance are critical to data assessment. Requests are to made on "CLP Re-Analysis Request/Approval Record". 8.0 Record of Communication - Provided by the Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) to indicate which data packages have been received and are ready to be reviewed. 9.0 Rounding off numbers - The data reviewer will follow the standard practice. "LJT 003 0137 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.1 Contract Compliance Screening Report (CCS) - Present? [_] _ X ACTION: If no, request from RSCC. A.L2 Record of Communication (from RSCC) - Present? [_] _ X ACTION: If no, request from RSCC. A. 13 Trip Report - Present and complete? [_] _ X ACTION: If no, contact RSCC for trip report. A.1.4 Sample Traffic Report - Present? [ X ] _ _ Legible? [JU _ _ ACTION: If no, request from Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC). A. 1.5 Cover Page - Present? [ X ] _ _ Is cover page properly filled in and signed by the lab manager or the manager's designee? [ X ] _ _ ACTION: If no, prepare Telephone Record Log, and contact laboratory. Do numbers of samples correspond to numbers on Record of Communication? [ X ] _ _ TUT 003 0!38 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A Do sample numbers on cover page agree with sample number on: (a) Traffic Report Sheet? [ X ] _ _ (b) Forml's? [X ] _ _ ACTION:If no for any of the above, contact RSCC for clarification. A.1.6 Form I to IX •~ A. 1.6.1 Are all the Form I through Form IX labeled with: Laboratory name? [ X ] _ _ Case/SAS number? [_] _ X EPA Sample No.? [X ] _ _ SDG No.? [X ] _ _ Contract No.? [ X ] _ _ Correct Units? [ X ] _ _ Matrix? [X ] _ _ ACTION:If no for any of the above, note under Contract Problem/Non-Compliance section if the "Data Assessment Narrative". ,,.v-r TUT °0"' STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jaa 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A. 1.6.2 Do any computation/transcription errors exceed 10% of reported values on Forms I-IX for: (Note: Check all forms against raw data.) a) all analytes analyzed by ICP? _ [ X ] _ b) all analytes analyzed by GFAA? _ [ X] _ c) all analytes analyzed by AA Flame?' _ [_] X d) Mercury? _ [ X] _ e) Cyanide? _ [ X] _ ACTION;If yes, prepare Telephone Log, contact laboratory for corrected data and correct errors with red pencil and initial. A.1.7 Raw Data A. 1.7.1 Digestion Log* for flame AA/ICP (Form XIII) present? [ X ] _ _ Digestion Log for furnace AA Form XIII present? [ X ] _ _ Distillation Log for mercury Form XIII present? [ X ] _ _ Distillation Log for cyanides Form XIII present? [ X ] _ _ Are pH values (pH<2 for all metals, pH> 12 for cyanide) present? [_] X _ Percent solids calculation present for soils/sediments? [_] _ X Are preparation dates present on sample preparation logs/bench sheets? [ X ] _ _ .,.,,-,- fVV. 014O i J I -•' '•-• '-•' STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A. 1.7.2 Measurement read out record present? ICP [X ] _ _ Flame AA [_] _ X Furnace AA [ X ] _ _ Mercury [ X ] _ _ Cyanides [ X ] _ _ A. 1.7.3 Are all raw data to support all sample analyses and QC operations present? [ X ] _ _ Legible? [X ] _ _ Properly Labeled? [ X ] _ _ ACTION:If no for any of the above questions in sections A. 1.7.1 through A. 1.7.3, write Telephone Record Log and contact laboratory for resubmittals. A. 1.8 Holding Times - (aqueous and soil samples) (Examine sample traffic reports and digestion/distillation logs) Mercury analysis (28 days)................exceeded? _ [ X ] _ Cyanide distillation (14 days)............exceeded? X [_] _ Other Metals analysis (6 months)..........exceeded? _ [ X ] _ :UT 003 0141 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jaa 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A NO_TE:Prepare a list of all samples and analytes for which holding times have been exceeded. Specify the number of days from date of collection to the date of preparation (from raw data). Attach to checklist. ACTION:If yes, reject (red-line) values less than instrument Detection Limit (IDL) and flag as estimated (J) the values above IDL even though sample(s) was preserved properly. A. 1.8.2 Is pH of aqueous samples for: Metals Analysis >2? _ [ X ] _ Cyanides Analysis < 12? _ [ X ] _ ACTION:If yes, flag the associated metals and cyanides data as estimated. A. 1.9 Form I (Final Data) A. 1.9.1 Are all form I's present and complete? [ X ] _ _ ACTlON;If no, prepare telephone record log and contact laboratory for submittal. A, 1.9.2 Are correct units (ug/1 for waters and mg/kg for soils) indicated on Form I's? [ X ] _ _ Are soil sample results for each parameter corrected for percent solids? [_] _ X Are all "less than IDL" values properly coded with "U"? [ X ] _ _ Are the correct concentration qualifiers used with final date? [ X] _ _ TUT 003 0.142 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jaa 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number. HW-2 Appendix Al: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTIONiIf no for any of the above, prepare Telephone Record Log, and contact laboratory for corrected data. A. 1.9.3 Are EPA sample # s and corresponding laboratory sample ID # s the same as on the Cover Page, Form Fs and in the raw data? [ X ] _ _ Was a brief physical description of samples given on Form Fs? [ X] _ _ Was the dilution of any sample diluted beyond the requirements of the contract noted on Form I or Form XIV? _ [_] X ACTION;If no for any of the above, note under Contract-Problem/Non-Compliance of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A.1.10 Calibration A. 1.10.1 Is record of at least 2 point calibration present for ICP analysis? [ X ] _ _ Is record of 5 point calibration present for Hg analysis? [ X] _ _ Is record of 4 point calibration present for: Flame AA? Furnace AA? [ X ] _ _ Cyanides? [ X] _ _ TUT 003 0143 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A Is one calibration standard at the CRDL level for all AA (except Hg) and cyanides analyses? [ X ] _ _ ACTION;If no for any of the above, write in the Contract Problem/Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A. 10.2 Is correlation coefficient less than 0.995 for: Mercury Analysis? _ [ X ] _ Cyanide Analysis? _ [ X ] _ Atomic Absorption Analysis? _ [ X ] _ ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated. NOTE; The data validator shall calculate the correlation coefficient using concentrations of the standards and the corresponding instrument response (e.g. absorbance, peak area, peak height, etc.). A. 1.10.3 In the instance where less than 4 standards are measured in absorbance (or peak area, peak height, etc.) mode, are the remaining standards analyzed in concentration mode immediately after calibration with ±10% of the true values? [_] _ X ACTIONrlf no, flag the associated data as estimated if standards are not within ±10% of true values. Do not flag the data as estimated in linear range indicated by good recovery of standard(s). TUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number. HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.11 Form II A (Initial and Continuing Calibration Verification) - A. 1.11.1 Present and complete for every metal and cyanide? [ X ] _ _ Present and complete for AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X ACTION: If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone Record Log and contact laboratory. A. 1.11.2 Circle on each Form IIA all percent recoveries that are outside the contract windows. Are all calibration standards (initial and continuing) within control limits: Metals - 90-110%R? [ X] _ _ Hg-80-120%R? [ X] _ _ Cyanides - 85-115%R? [ X] _ _ ACTION; Flag as estimated (J) all positive data (not flagged with a "U") analyzed between a calibration standard with %R between 75-89% (65-79% for Hg; 70-84% for CN) or 111-125% (121-135% for Hg; 116-130% for CN) recovery and nearest good calibration standard. Qualify results <IDL as estimated (UJ) if the ICV or CCV %R is 75-89% (CN, 70-84%; HG, 65-79%). Reject (red-line) as unacceptable data if recovery of the ICV or as unacceptable data if recovery of the ICV or CCV is outside the range 75-125% (CN, 70-130%, Hg, 65-135%). Qualify five samples on either side of verification standard out of control limits. TUT 003 0145 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A. 1.11.3 Was continuing calibration performed every 10 samples or every 2 hours? [ X ] _ _ Was ICV for cyanides distilled? [ X] _ _ ACTION; If no for any of the above, write in the Contract- Problem/Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A.1.12 Form II B (CRDL Standards for AA and ICP) - A. 1.12.1 Was a CRDL standard (CRA) analyzed after initial calibration for all AA metals (except Hg)? [ X ] _ _ Was a mid-range calib. verification standard distilled and analyzed for cyanide analysis? [ X ] _ _ Was a 2XCRDL (or 2XIDL when IDL>CRDL) analyzed (CRI) for each ICP run? [ X] _ _ (Note: CRI for AL, Ba, Ca, Fe, Mg, Na, or K is not required.) ACTION:If no for any of the above, flag as estimated all data falling within the effected ranges. The effected ranges are: AA Analysis - ** True Value ± CRDL ICP Analysis - ** True Value ± 2CRDL CN Analysis - ** True Value +. 0.5 x True Value. *» True value of CRA, CRI or mid-range standard. Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. Compute the concentration of the missing mid-range standard from the calibration range. TUT O03 O146 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.l.12.2 Was CRI analyzed after ICV/ICB and before the final CCV/CCB, and twice every eight hours of ICP run? [_X_] _ _ ACTION:If no, write in Contract Problem/Non-Compliance Section of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A. 1.12.3 Circle on each Form IIB all the percent recoveries that are outside the acceptance windows. Are CRA and CRI standards within control limits: Metals 80 - 120 %R? [_] _JL _ Is mid-range standard within control limits: Cyanide 80 - 120%R? [ X] _ _ ACTION;Flag as estimated all sample results within the affected range if the recovery of the standard is between 50-79%; flag only positive data within the affected range if the recovery is between 121-150%; reject all data within the affected range if the recovery is less than 50%; reject only positive data within the affected range if the recovery is greater than 150%. Qualify 50% of the samples on either side of CRI standard outside the control limits. NotetFlag or reject the final results only when sample raw data are within the affected ranges and the CRDL standards are outside the acceptance windows. I L JT GO 3 0147 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jaa 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.13 Form III (Initial and Continuing Calibration Blanks) A.1.13.1 Present and complete? [ X ] _ _ For both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X Was a continuing calibration blank analyzed after every 10 samples or every 2 hours (which ever is more frequent)? [ X] _ _ ACTIONiIf no, prepare Telephone Record Log, contact laboratory and write in the Contract-Problems/ Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A.1.13.2 Circle on each Form III all calibration blank values that are above CRDL (or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL). Are all calibration blanks (when IDL < CRDL) less than or equal to the Contract Required Detection Limits (CRDLs)? [ X] _ _ Are all calibration blanks less than two times instrument Detection Limit (when IDL > CRDL)? [_] _ X ACTIONtlf no for any of the above, flag as estimated (J) positive sample results when raw sample value is less than or equal to calibration blank value analyzed between calibration blank with value over CRDL (or 2XIDL) and nearest good calibration blank. Flag five samples on either side of the calibration blank outside the control limits. . .vv^; 0148 rin °1--- STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.14 FORM 111 (Preparation Blanlri - (Note: The preparation blank for mercury is the same as the calibration blank.) A. 1.14.1 Was one prep, blank analyzed for: each Sample Delivery Group (SDG)? [ X ] _ _ each batch of digested samples? [ X ] _ _ each matrix type? [_] _ X both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X ACTlON;If no for any of the above, flag as estimated (J) all the associated positive date < 10 x IDLs for which prep, blank was not analyzed. NOTE;If only one blank was analyzed for more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples analyzed do not have to be flagged as estimated (J). A. 1.14.2 Is concentration of prep, blank value greater than the CRDL when IDL is less than or equal to CRDL? _ [ X] _ If yes, is the concentration of the sample with the least concentrated analyte less than 10 times the prep, blank? _ [_] X TU" STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTION:If yes, reject (red-line) all associated data greater than CRDL concentration but less than ten times the prep, blank value. A. 1.14.3 Is concentration of prep, blank value (Form III) less than two time IDL, when IDL is greater than CRDL? [_] _ X ACTION: If no, reject (red-line) all positive sample results when sample raw are less than 10 times the prep, blank value. A. 1.14.4 Is concentration of prep, blank below the negative CRDL? _ [ X] _ ACTION: If yes, reject (red-line) all associated sample results less than lOxCRDL. A.1.15 Form IV (ICP Interference Check Sample) A.l.15.1 Present and complete? [ X ] _ _ (NOTE: Not required for furnace AA, flame AA, mercury, cyanide and Ca, Mg, K and Na.) Was ICS analyzed at beginning and end of run (or at least twice every 8 hours)? [ X ] _ _ ACTION; If no, flag as estimated (J) all the samples for which AL, Ca, Fe, or Mg is higher than in ICS. A.1.15.2 Circle all values on each Form IV that are more than + 20% of true or established mean value. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A Are all Interference Check Sample results inside the control limits (± 20%)? [ X] _ _ If no, is concentration of Al, Ca, Fe, or Mg lower than the respective concentration in ICS? [_] _ X ACTlON:If no, flag as estimated (J) those positive results for which ICS recovery is between 121-150%; flag all sample results as estimated if ICS recovery falls within 50-79%; reject (red-line) those sample results for which ICS recovery is less than 50%; if ICS recovery is above 150%, reject positive results only (not flagged with a "U"). A.1.16 Form V A (Spiked Sample Recovery - Pre-Digestion/Pre-Distillation - (Note: Not required for Ca, Mg, K, and Na (both matrices), Al, and Fe (soil only). A. 1.16.1 Present and complete for: each SDG? [ X] _ _ each matrix type? [_] _ X each cone, range (i.e. low, med., high)? [_] _ X For both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X ACTIONtlf no for any of the above, flag as estimated (J) all the positive data less than four times the spiking levels specified in SOW for which spiked sample was not analyzed. NOTEtlf one spiked sample was analyzed for more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples analyzed do not have to be flagged as estimated (J). "LIT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.l.16.2 Was field blank used for spiked sample? _ [ X ] _ ACTION:If yes, flag all positive data less than 4 x spike added as estimated (J) for which field blank was used as spiked sample. A. 1.16.3 Circle on each Form VA all spike recoveries that are outside control limits (75% to 125%). Are all recoveries within control limits? [_] X _ If no, is sample concentration greater than or equal to four times spike concentration? [_] X _ ACTION;If yes, disregard spike recoveries for analytes whose concentrations are greater than or equal to four times spike added. If no, circle those analytes on Form V for which sample concentration is less than four times the spike concentration. Are results outside the control limits (75-125%) flagged with "N" on Form I's and Form VA? [X ] _ _ ACTION: If no, write, in the Contract - Problem/Non - Compliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative". 003 0152 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.16.4 Aqueous Are any spike recoveries: (a) less than 30%? _ [ X] _ (b) between 30-74%? X [_] _ (c) between 126-150%? _ [ X] _ (d) greater than 150%? _ [ X] _ ACTION: If less than 30%, reject all associated aqueous data; if between 30-74%, flag all associated aqueous data as estimated (J); if between 126-150%, flag as estimated (J) all associated aqueous data not flagged with a "U"; if greater than 150%, reject (red-line) all associated aqueous data not flagged with a "U". A.1.16.5 Soil/Sediment Are any spike recoveries: (a) less than 10%? _ [_] X (b) between 10-74%? _ [_] X (c) between 126-200%? _ [_] X (d) greater than 200%? _ [_] X ACTION:If less than 10%, reject all associated data; if between 10-74%, flag all associated data as estimated; if between 126-200%, flag as estimated all associated data was not flagged with a "U"; if greater than 200%, reject all associated data not flagged with a "U". riJT 003 0153 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number. HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.17 Form VI (Lab Duplicates) A. 1.17.1 Present and complete for: each SDG? [X ] _ _ each matrix type? [_] _ X each concentration range (i.e. low, med., high)? [_] _ X both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X ACTION: If no for any of the above, flag as estimated (J) all the data j>_CRDL* for which duplicate sample was not analyzed. Note: 1. If one duplicate sample was analyzed for more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples do not have to be flagged as estimated. 2. If percent solids for soil sample and its duplicate differ by more than 1%, prepare a Form VI for each duplicate pair, report concentrations in ug/L on wet weight basis and calculate RPD or Difference for each analyte. A. 1.17.2 Was field blank used for duplicate analysis? _ [ X ] _ ACTlON:If yes, flag all data >_CRDL* as estimated (J) for which field blank was used as duplicate. A.l.17.3 Are all values within control limits (RPD 20% or difference[_] X _ STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A If no, are all results outside the control limits flagged with an * on Form I's and VI? [ X ] _ _ ACTlON:If no, write in the Contract - Problems/Non- Compliance section of "Data Assessment Narrative". * Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. NOTE: 1. RPD is not calculable for an analyte of the sample - duplicate pair when both values are less than IDL. 2. If the result of lab duplicate analyzed by GFAA is rejectable due to coefficient of correlation of MSA, analytical spike recovery, or duplicate injections criteria, do not apply precision criteria to metals analyzed by GFAA. A.l.17.4 Aqueous Circle on each Form VI all values that are: RPD > 50%, or Difference > CRDL» Is any RPD greater than 50% where sample and duplicate are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL? _ [ X ] Is any difference" between sample and duplicate greater than *CRDL where sample and/or duplicate is less than 5 times *CRDL? X [_] * Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. ** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jaa 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated. A. 1.17.5 Soil/Sediment Circle on each Form VI all values that are: RPD > 100% or Difference > 2 x CRDL* Is any RPD (where sample and duplicate are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL): > 100%? _ [_] X Is any "difference between sample and duplicate (where sample and/or duplicate is less than 5x*CRDL): > 2x*CRDL? _ [_] X * Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. ** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference. ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated. A.1.18 Field Duplicates A.l.18.1 Were field duplicates analyzed? [ X ] _ _ TUT 003 O156 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTION: If yes, prepare a Form VI for each aqueous field duplicate pair. Prepare a Form VI for each soil duplicate pair, if percent solids for sample and its duplicate differ by more than 1%; report concentrations of soils in ug/1 on wet weight basis and calculate RPDs or Difference for each analyte. NOTE: 1. Do not calculate RPD when both values are less than IDL. 2. Flag all associated data only for field duplicate pair. A.1.18.2 Aqueous Circle all values on self prepared Form VI for field duplicates that are: RPD > 50%, or Difference > CRDL* Is any RPD greater than 50% where sample and duplicate are both greater than or equal to 5 times *CRDL? _ [ X ] _ Is any ** difference between sample and duplicate greater than CRDL where sample and/or duplicate is less than 5 times 'CRDL? _ [ X] _ ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated. * Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. ** Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.l.18.3 Soil/Sediment Circle all values on self prepared From VI for field duplicates that are: RPD > 100%, or Difference > 2 x CRDL* Is any RPD (where sample and duplicate are both greater than 5 times *CRDL): >100%? _ [_] X Is any ** difference between sample and duplicate (where sample an/or duplicate is less than 5x *CRDL): >2x *CRDL? _ [_] X ACTION: If yes, flag the associated data as estimated. A.1.19 Form VII (Laboratory Control Sample) (Note: LCS - not required for aqueous Hg and cyanide analyses.) A. 1.19.1 Was one LCS prepared and analyzed for: each SDG? [X ] _ _ each batch samples digested/distilled? [ X ] _ _ both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACJTlON:If no for any of the above, prepare Telephone Record Log and contact laboratory for submittal of results of LCS. Flag as estimated (J) all the data for which LCS was not analyzed. NOTE:If only one LCS was analyzed for more than 20 samples, then first 20 samples close to LCS do not have to be flagged as estimated. * Substitute IDL for CRDL when IDL > CRDL. * * Use absolute values of sample and duplicate to calculate the difference. A.l.19.2 Aqueous LCS Circle on each Form VII the LCS percent recoveries outside control limits (80 - 120%) except for aqueous Ag and Sb. Is any LCS recovery: less than 50%? _ [ X ] between 50% and 79% _ [ X] between 121% and 150%? _ [ X] greater than 150%? _ [ X ] ACTlON:Less than 50%, reject (red-line) all data; between 50% and 79%, flag all associated data as estimated (J); between 121% and 150%, flag all positive (not flagged with a "U") results as estimated; greater then 150%, reject all positive results. "UT 003 0159 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.l.19.3 Solid LCS NOTE: 1. If "Found" value of LCS is rejectable due to duplicate injections or analytical spike recovery criteria, regardless of LCS recovery, flag the associated data as estimated (J). 2. If IDL of an analyte is equal to or greater than true value of LCS, disregard the "Action" below even though LCS is out of control limits. Is LCS "Found" value higher than the control limits on Form VII? _ [_] X ACTION:If yes, qualify all associated positive data as estimated. Is LCS "Found" value lower than the Control limits on Form VII? _ [_] ACTION:If yes, qualify all associated data as estimated. A.1.20 Form IX (ICP Serial Dilution) - NOTE:SeriaI dilution analysis is required only for initial concentrations equal to or greater than 10 x IDL. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A. 1.20.1 Was Serial Dilution analysis performed for: eachSDG? [ X] _ _ each matrix type? [_] _ X each concentration range (i.e. low, med.)? [_] _ X ACTlC)N:If no for any of the above, flag as estimated all the positive data >, lOxIDLs or >_ CRDL when lOxIDL <. CRDL for which Serial Dilution Analysis was not performed. A. 1.20.2 Was field blank(s) used for Serial Dilution Analysis? _ [ X ] _ ACTION:If yes, flag all associated data >_ 10 x IDL as estimated (J). If lOxIDL <. CRDL, flag all data >_ CRDL. A. 1.20.3 Are results outside control limit flagged with an "E" on Form I's and Form IX when initial concentration on Form IX is equal to 50 times IDL or greater. [ X ] _ _ ACTION:If no, write in the Contract-Problem/Non- Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative". A. 1.20.4 Circle on each From IX all percent difference that are outside the control limits for initial concentrations equal to or greater than 10 x IDLs only. Are any % difference values: > 10% X [_] _ >. 100% _ [X ] _ STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTION:Flag as estimated (J) all the associated sample data >_ lOxIDLs (or _>. CRDL when lOxIDL <. CRDL) for which percent difference is greater than 10% but less than 100%. Reject (red-line) all the associated sample results equal to or greater than lOxIDLs (or >L CRDL when lOxIDL <. CRDL) for which PD is greater than or equal to 100%. NOTE:Flag or reject on Form Fs only the sample results whose associated raw data are >_ lOxIDL (or j> CRDL) when 10xIDL< CRDL). A.1.21 Furnace Atomic Absorption (AA) OC Analysis A. 1.21.1 Are duplicate injections present in furnace raw data (except during full Method of Standard Addition) for each sample analyzed by GFAA? [ X ] _ _ ACTION:If no, reject the data on Form Fs for which duplicate injections were not performed. A. 1.21.2 Do the duplicate injection readings agree within 20% Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) or Coefficient or Variation (CV) for concentration greater than CRDL? [ X ] _ _ Was a dilution analyzed for sample with analytical spike recovery less than 40%? [_] _ X ACTION:If no for any of the above, flag all the associated data as estimated. A. 1.21.3 Is * analytical spike recovery outside the control limits (85-115%) for any sample? X [_] _ * Analytical spike is not required on the pre-digestion spiked sample. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan, 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTIONtlf yes, flag as estimated the affected sample results if the recovery is between 10-84%; if the recovery is between 115-120%, flag the associated positive sample results as estimated; reject the associated sample results if the recovery is less than 10%; reject positive sample results if the recovery is greater than 200%. NQTE:Reject or flag the data only when the affected sample(s) was not subsequently analyzed by Method of Standard Addition. A. 1.22 Form VIII (Method of Standard Addition Results) A. 1.22.1 Present? [ X] _ _ If no, is any Form I result coded with "S" or a "+"? _ [_] X ACTlON:If yes, write request on Telephone Record Log and contact laboratory for submittal of Form VIII. A.l.22.2 Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.990 for any sample? _ [ X ] _ ACTION:If yes, reject (red-line) the affected data. A. 1.22.3 Was *MSA required for any sample but not performed? _ [ X ] _ Is coefficient of correlation for MSA less than 0.995? X [_] _ Are MSA calculations outside the linear range of the calibration curve generated at the beginning of the analytical run? _ [ X ] _ ACTION:If yes for any of the above, flag all T U 7 0 0 3 016 3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A. 1.22.4 Was proper quantitation procedure followed correctly as outlined in the SOW on page E-23? [ X ] _ _ ACTION:If no, note exception under Contract Problem/ Non-Compliance section of the "Data Assessment Narrative", and prepare a separate list. * MSA is not required on LCS and prep, blank. A. 1.23 Dissolved/Total or Inorganic/Total Analytes - A.l.23.1 Were any analyses performed for dissolved as well as total analytes on the same sample(s). _ [ X ] _ Were any analyses performed for inorganic as well as total (organic + inorganic) analytes on the same sample(s)? _ [ X] _ NOTE: 1. If yes, prepare a list comparing differences between all dissolved (or inorganic) and total analytes. Compute the differences as a percent of the total analyte only when dissolved concentration is greater than CRDL as well as total concentration. 2. Apply the following questions only inorganic (or dissolved) results are (i) above CRDL, and (ii) greater than total constituents. 3. At least one preparation blank, ICS, and ICS should be analyzed in each analytical run. A. 1.23.2 Is the concentration of any dissolved (or inorganic) analyte greater than its total concentration by more than 10%? _ [_] X O 0 3 016 4 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTION: If more than 10%, flag both dissolved (or inorganic) and total values as estimated (J); if more than 50%, reject (red-line) the data for both values. A. 1.24 Form I (Field Blank) - Note; Designate "Field Blank" as such on Form I.) A. 1.24.1 Circle all field blank values on Form I that are greater than CRDL, (2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL). Is field blank concentration less than CRDL (or 2 x IDL when IDL > CRDL) for all parameters of associated aqueous and soil samples? [_] X _ If no, was field blank value already rejected due to other QC criteria? [_] X _ ACTION:If no, reject (except field blank results) all associated positive sample data less than or equal to five times the field blank value. Reject on Form I's the soil sample results that when converted to ug/L on wet basis are less than or equal to five times the field blank value in ug/L. OO3 0165 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A A.1.25 From X. XI. XII (Verification of Instrumental Parameters) A. 1.25.1 Is verification report present for: Instrument Detection Limits (quarterly)? [ X ] _ _ ICP Interelement Correction Factors (annually)? [ X ] _ _ ICP Linear Ranges (quarterly)? [ X ] _ _ ACTION:If no, contact TPO of the lab. A. 1.25.2 Form X (Instrument Detection Limits) - (Note: IDL is not required for Cyanide.) A.l.25.2.1 Are IDLS present for: all the analytes? [ X ] _ _ all the instruments used? [_] _ X For both AA and ICP when both are used for the same analyte? [_] _ X ACTION:If no for any of the above, prepared Telephone Record Log and contact laboratory. A. 1.25.2.2 Is IDL greater than CRDL for any analyte? _ [ X ] _ If yes, is the concentration on Form I of the sample analyzed on the instrument whose IDL exceeds CRDL, greater than 5 x IDL. [_] _ X 003 0166 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number HW-2 Appendix A.1: Data Assessment - Contract Revision: 11 Compliance (Total Review) YES NO N/A ACTIONJf no, flag as estimated all values less than five times IDL of the instrument whose IDL exceeds CRDL. A. 1.25.3 Form XI (Linear Ranges) A. 1.25.3.1 Was any sample result higher than high linear range of ICP? _ [ X] _ Was any sample result higher than the highest calibration standard for non-ICP parameters? _ [ X ] _ If yes for any of the above, was the sample diluted to obtain the result on Form I? [_] _ X ACTION:If no, flag the result reported on Form I as estimated (J). A.1.26 Percent Solids of Sediments A. 1.26.1 Are percent solids in sediment(s): < 50%? _ [_] X < 10%? _ [_] ACTION:If yes, qualify as estimated all the results of a sample that has percent solids between 10% - 50% (i.e. moisture content between 50% - 90%). Reject all the results of a sample that has percent solids less than 10% (i.e. moisture content greater then 90%). Reject all the results of a sample that has percent solids less than 10% (i.e. moisture content greater than 90%). NO_TE:Reject or flag (J) only the sample results that were not previously rejected or flaged due to other QC criteria. "UT 003 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.2: Data Assessment Revision: 11 Case# N/A_________ Site Tutu Wells_______ Matrix: Soil SDG# 19656. 19699. 19736 Lab Enseco-East_______ Water X Contractor Geraghty & Miller Reviewer Cameron S. Dunnan Other _ Validation Flags - The following flags have been applied in red by the data validator and must be considered by the data user. J - This flag indicates the result qualified as estimated. Red - Line - A red-line drawn through a sample result indicates unusable value. The red-lined data are known to contain significant error based on documented information and must not be used by the data user. Fully Usable Data - The results that do not carry "J" or "red-line" are fully usable. Contractual Qualifiers - The legend of contractual qualifiers applied by the lab on Form I's is found on page B-20 of SOW ILM01.0. A.2.2 The data assessment is given below: Total metals and cyanide were analyzed and according to methodology contained in the March 1990 USEPA CLP SOW (USEPA 1990b), for the target analyte list (TAL). This validation was performed in accordance with the USEPA Region II checklist for the Evaluation of Metals Data for the CLP (USEPA 1992b). Qualification or rejection of data are based on guidance dictated by the SOP. The following brief discussion presents only those QC criteria (and the appropriate, associated qualification, if required) that do not meet the requirements dictated by the CLP SOW and the SOP. If a particular area of review is not addressed (e.g., calibration), it can be assumed that all applicable QC criteria are met and that the associated data do not require qualification. If it is necessary to qualify data as estimated in the case where the STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.2: Data Assessment Revision: 11 laboratory has already flagged the corresponding data with "E", "N", or "W"; the laboratory qualifier is removed and replaced with the "J" validation qualifier. Laboratory qualifiers are left intact when the associated data are not qualified for validation purposes or in the case when the associated result was determined by the method of standard additions (MSA) and qualified "S". Validated inorganic data summary tables (including applicable qualifiers) are provided as Tables A-10 and A-ll. The technical holding time from sample collection date to cyanide analysis was exceeded by one day for sample delivery group (SDG) 19656. Consequently, all of the non- detect cyanide data for samples Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, and Harvey are unusable and rejected (R). A holding summary for metals and cyanide analyses is provided as Table A-5. The percent recovery (%R) of the contract required detection limit (CRDL) standard for the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) analysis of beryllium (CRI %R for beryllium = 122%) is outside of quality control (QC) limits (80 to 120%). SDG 19736 is associated with this deficiency. Beryllium was undetected in all of the associated sample data, therefore the associated data are not qualified. The %R of the CRDL standard for the graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA) analysis of lead (CRA %R for lead = 73.3%) is outside of QC limits (80 to 120%). Again, SDG 19736 is associated with this deficiency. The lead data for samples LaPlace, LaPlace FR, Leonard, and WAPA are qualified as estimated (J) or estimated at the detection limit (UJ). The spike sample recovery analysis was performed on sample Rodriguez. The spiked sample recovery of thallium (65.2%) is outside of QC limits (75 to 125%). All of the samples in this case (SDGs 19656, 19699, and 19736) are associated with this deficiency. All of the associated data for thallium are qualified as estimated at the corresponding detection limit (UJ). The laboratory duplicate analysis was performed on sample Rodriguez. The difference between the original and duplicate analysis for iron exceeds the QC criterion (_+. CRDL). All of the samples in this case are associated with this QC deficiency; therefore all of the data for iron are qualified as estimated (J). TUT 003 0169 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.2: Data Assessment Revision: 11 For the ICP serial dilution analysis performed on sample Gassett (SDG 19699), the percent difference (%D) between results for aluminum (%D = 22.5%) and zinc (%D = 15.3%) exceed the corresponding QC limit (10 %D). SDG 19699 (includes Enseco-East Projects 19699 and 197711) is associated with these deficiencies. All of the associated aluminum data that are greater than ten times (> lOx) the instrument detection limit (IDL) for aluminum are qualified as estimated (J). The associated zinc data greater than the CRDL (for zinc) are qualified as estimated (J). In the case where the associated zinc data are < CRDL, the laboratory "E" qualifier is not removed. The correlation coefficient (r) from the first MSA analysis for selenium (0.993) for sample Eglin I is outside of the QC limit (< 0.995). The analysis was performed again yielding an acceptable coefficient of correlation. The results obtained from each MSA analysis were averaged by the laboratory and reported as such. The sample result for selenium has been corrected by the data reviewer to reflect the result obtained from the second MSA analysis for sample Eglin I, which yielded an acceptable correlation coefficient (r = 0.999). The following table summarizes the post-digestion spike %Rs outside of QC limits (85 to 125%) for the indicated samples and parameters: Sample Identifier Lead (%R) Selenium (%R) Thallium Eglin I 71.0 - 73.5 Eglin II -- -- 78.5 Eglin III 75.5 -- 62.5 Harvey 80.5 - 77.0 Hartman II -- - 76.0 Hartmanlll -- -- 73.5 Steele 79.5 - 63.5 Ramsay -- 78.0 69.5 Four Winds I -- -- 68 Four Winds II -- -- 70 Gassett -- -- 69.5 Gassett FR -- -- 62 Rodriguez -- 79.0 61 TUT OO3 O17O STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program Appendix A.2: Data Assessment Date: Jan. 1992 Number: HW-2 Revision: 11 Sample Identifier Dede Smith Matthias Tillett LaPlace LaPlace FR Leonard WAPA Lead (%R) Selenium (%R) Thallium (%R) 78.0 74.0 60.0 84 84 62 67.5 60.5 66.5 72 69.5 63.5 67.5 All of the sample data associated with the spike recovery outliers are qualified as estimated (J) or estimated at the detection limit (UJ). The field blank (sample Equipment Blank) is reported to contain 205 micrograms per liter (ug/L) of iron and this result is not negated or rejected based on other QC criteria. Therefore, all of the positive, associated data for iron in samples Gassett and Gassett FR, for which the concentration is detected <5x the concentration detected in sample Equipment Blank, are unusable and rejected (R). Sample CHKAN (Gassett FR) is a blind field replicate of sample Gassett and sample Verde (LaPlace FR) is a blind field replicate of sample LaPlace. The RPDs between results from the field replicate analyses are summarized in the Form VI equivalents which are provided at the end of Attachment 3 (Tables). The metals and cyanide data for this case do not require qualification based on the information obtained from the field replicate analyses. 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 several QC criteria are 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 who will use the data about the quality and limitations of the data so that the individual can avoid inappropriate use of the data. This review has, therefore, presented all QC factors that may affect the quality of the data. TUT STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.2: Data Assessment Revision: 11 Overall, Enseco-East has provided data of acceptable quality and completeness. There are no indications that the instrument performance has degraded to a point that would affect the quality of the data for this case. All of the metals and cyanide data generated for the samples in this case, aside from a proportion of sample data for iron and cyanide, are valid and usable. The cyanide data for SDG 19656 are unusable and rejected because the technical holding times (from collection to analysis) were exceeded. In addition, the iron data for samples Gassett and Gassett FR are unusable and rejected due to excessive iron contamination in the field blank (sample Equipment Blank). All of the valid iron data are estimated as a result of poor precision in the laboratory duplicate analysis. Most of the inorganic data derived from GFAA analyses are estimated due to poor post-digestion spike recoveries. All of the thallium data are estimated due to low sample spike recovery. Some data for aluminum and zinc are estimated due to poor reproducibility in the ICP serial dilution analysis. Validated inorganic data summary tables (including applicable qualifiers) are provided as Tables A-10 and A-ll. A^3 Contract-Problem/Non-Compliance: The pH values (pH < 2 for all metals, pH > 12 for cyanide) are not included on the Form XIIIs (preparation logs), although the pH values are documented in the raw data. MMB/ESAT Reviewer: ________m — ^________ Date:. Signature Contract Review: ( _^'«».. «^yyC3C/>Cx-^^-^^ Date: Signature"" : SJ X7 Verified by: /^M-y^ ntJjuyu*. AVJ\ Date: Signature^ " ' ' ' '"UT 003 017 ;•• STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Date: Jan. 1992 Contract Laboratory Program Number: HW-2 Appendix A.3: Contract Non-compliance Revision: 11 (SMO Report) CONTRACT NON-COMPLIANCE (SMO REPORT) Regional Review of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Site Contract Laboratory Data Package CASE NO. The hardcopied (laboratory name) ______________________________ Inorganic data package received at Region II has been reviewed and the quality assurance and performance data summarized. The data reviewed included: SMO Sample No.:_______________________________________ Cone. & Matrix:_________________________________________ Contract No. (______) requires that specific analytical work be done and that associated reports be provided by the contract to the Regions, EMSL-LV, and SMO. The general criteria used to determine the performance were based on an examination of: Data completeness - Duplicate Analysis Results Matrix Spike Results - Blank Analysis Results Calibration Standards Results - MSA Results Items of non-compliance with the above contract are described below. Comments:___________________________________________ Reviewer's Initial Date STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program Appendix A.4: Mailing List for Data Reviewers Date: Jan. 1992 Number: HW-2 Revision: 11 DPO/DRILLING LIST FOR DRILL REVIEWERS USEPA Region I (BSD) 60 Wesrnew Street Lenngton, MA 02173 Oil Sure (617) 861-4312 CT, ME, MA, NH, Rl, V} CAA, Resource Analysts. York EJI. Skinner. TMA USEPA Region III (CRL) 836 Bestgale Road Annapolis. MD 21401 Chuck Sands (301) 266-9180 DE, MO, PA, VA, WA, DC Cantec, Mitrah, JTC, MACK. VERSAR ITAS. Wenon, MIS, EA Engineering Subject Tech. Key PA USEPA Region V (ESD) 536 Sand Clark Street Tenlh Floor, CRL Chicago. IL 60605 Pal Chanle (312) 353-9087 IL, DL, MC, MN, OH, Wl NI, 1AC/EPC USEPA Region VII Laboratory 23 Funston Road Kansas City, KS 66113 Detara Moray (913) 236-3831 ID. KS, NB. MO Wilson, Kansas City Scientific Enterprises. Eagle Pitcher USEPA Region DC (ESD) QA Management Section 213 Frernom Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Kent Kitchingman (415) 974-0924 AZ, CA. Ml. NV, American Samoa Quam Trust Territories of Pacific Islands, Wake Island AU. CAL Weston, 5-Cubed. IT-CA, Vegas Carla Dempsey - (D6-230) USEPA 401 'M- Street, S.W. Washington. DC 20460 FTS 362-5746 Sample Management Office V1AR and Company P.O. Box 818 Alexandria, VA 22117 USEPA Region II (ESD) Woodbtidge Avenue Edison. New Jersey 08837 (201) 321-6676 NJ, NY, PR, VI Century, Chenuech. US Trust. ETC. Gadaon, EMS, Gallon. ICM USEPA Region IV (ESD) Analytical Support Branch College Station Road Athens, GA 30613 Tom Bennett, Jr. (404)546-3112 AL, FL, GA, ICY, MS, NC, SC, TN, Compucbem, EPS, ESI, EPS, ESI, PRS67, Triangle Labs USEPA Region VI (ESD) Monterrey Park Plaza. Bldg. C 6608 Honwood Drive Houston. TX 77074 David Stoekton (713) 953-3425 AR. LA, NM, TX, OK. ANACON, RADIAN, SPECS, ELS. Clocber Research Inc. SPL Inc. SMR1, Allied. Key TX, EIRA USEPA Region VIII Laboratory Box 23366 Denver Federal Canter Ukewood. CD 80223 Eva Hoflman (303) 236-7371 CD, ND, SD, UT. WY, Ml ACCL; CSMRI, Data Cbem, Canref USEPA Region X Laboratory PO Box 549 Manchester, WA 98383 Gerald Muth (206)442-0370 AX ID, OR. WA, Lauchs Testing Labs, Century Testing Labs lor (VOA Only). Weyerhauser Co. Columbia Testing, Silver Valley 12. Edward Kanlor USEPA DMSL-LV 944 E. Harmon Avenue 60x93478 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Ti IT O174 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program Appendix A.5 CLP Data Assessment Summary Form (Inorganics) Date: Jan. 1992 Number HW-2 Revision: 11 CLP DATA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FORM riNQRGANICS) Scope of Review: Total SDG: 19656. 19699. 19736 Reviewer's Initials: CSD Date: April 1992 Case#: N/A Lab Name: Enseco-East Number of Samples: 23 l_ o> 'Flame AA Furnace AA Mercury Cyanide Total Holding Times 414 X 92 23 23 552 Ci librae ion 485 X 19 17 19 540 Prep Blank 72 X 12 4 4 92 Field Blank 18 X 4 1 1 24 Inter- ferences 36 X X X X 36 Spike f f|MJ*« X X 4 X X 4 Spike Recovery 14 X % 1 1 112 Duplicate Lab Field 54 X 12 3 3 72 Duplicate Limits 54 X 12 3 3 48 LCS 54 X 12 4 4 74 Serial Dilution 54 X X X X 54 MSA X X 3 X X 3 Total Analytet 1255 X 266 56 58 1635 Rejection 2 X 0 0 6 8 Anatjtes Flagged at Estimated (J) Due to Exceeding Criteria For: ICP Flame AA Furnace AA Mercury Cyanide Total Holding Tunes X X X X 6* 6 Calibration X X X X X 0 Prep Blank X X X X X 0 Field Blank 2' X X X X 2 Inter- ferences X X X X X 0 Spike Limits X X 32 X X 0 Spike Recovery X X X X X 32 Duplicate Lab Field 23 X X X X 23 Detection Limits X X X X X 0 LCS X X X X X 0 Serial Dilution 11 X X X X 11 MSA X X 1 X X 1 Total Anarytes 36 X 33 0 6 75 Rejection 2 X X X 6 8 Asterisk (') Indicates additional exceedances of renew criteria. 'TUT' 003 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Program Appendix A.5 CLP Data Assessment Summary Form (Inorganics) Date: Jan, 1992 Number HW-2 Revision: 11 CASE NO. N/A INORGANIC REGIONAL DATA ASSESSMENT _______ SITE Tutu Wells Region II LABORATORY Enseco-East NO. OF SAMPLES/ MATRIX 23/Aaueous SDG# 19656. 19699. 19736 REVIEWER (IF NOT ESD)_N/A_ SOW# ILM.01. March 1990 DPO: ACTION F Y I X REVIEWER'S NAME Cameron S Dnnnan COMPLETION DATE April 1992______ DATA ASSESSMENT SUMMARY ICP AA CYANIDE M tr HOLDING TIMES 2. CALIBRATIONS 3. BLANKS 4. ICS 5. LCS 6. DUPLICATE ANALYSIS 7. MATRIX SPIKE 8. MSA 9. SERIAL DILUTION 10. SAMPLER VERIFICATION 11. OTHER QC 12. OVERALL ASSESSMENT O = Data has 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: All of the valid iron data are estimated due to poor precision in the laboratory duplica*? analysis. Most of the data derived from atomic absorption analyses are estimated due to poor post-digestion spike recoveries. All of the foflU'M"1 dflta frrc e$t'mflted due to poor reproducibilitv in the inductively coupled plasma fICP) serial dilution ^n^lysk,_________________ bla,"k The associated AREAS OF CONCERN: Iron was detected above the contract required detection limit data for iron are rejected (Ri__________________________ TABLE PERFORMANCE: Overall. Enseco-East has provided data of good quality and acceptable completeness. »PR00801-DV/lDorgan.du TUT ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TABLES TUT 003 017/ GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-1. Volatile Organic Analysis HoldingTime Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Trip Blank Harman II Harvey Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Steete Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds 1 1 Gassett Equipment Blank Water Blank Trip Blank Gassett FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tillett Trip Blank Trip Blank Leonard LaPlace LaPlace FR WAPA Matrix aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous Preserved yes yes yes no yes yes no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes no no yes yes yes yes yes no Date Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Date Received 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 Days from Date Collection Analyzed to Analysis 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 7-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 09-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 9 9 9 2 9 9 2 2 9 9 3 9 9 10 9 9 3 7 8 3 4 9 8 8 8 8 2 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. # PR00601 AMOSt bl 1. wks run GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. A-2. Semivolalile Organic Analysis Holding Time Compliance Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Harman II Haney Eglin I Eglin II Eglin III Steele Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds 1 1 Gassett iment Blank Water Blank Gassett FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tilletl Leonard LaPlace LaPlace FR WAPA Matrix aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous aqueous Date Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Dale Received 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 Date Extracted 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb~92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 Days bom Date Collection Analyzed to Extraction 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 16-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 25-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 26-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 15-Feb-92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 Days from Extraction To Analysis 11 11 11 11 11 11 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 5 5 5 5 Days Ejceeded from Collection to Extraction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Days Holding Time Exceeded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR Field replicate. #PR00601/0409tbD.wk3 TUT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-3. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Volatile Organic Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Blank Identifier Date Sampled Date Analyzed Associated Sample(s) Equipment Blank 04-Feb-92 Trip Blank 03-Feb-92 Trip Blank 04-Feb-92 FR Field replicate. DL Dilution. N/A Not applicable. PROWOljUbteaJ.wkJ 13-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 13-Feb-92 Gassett, Gassett FR Eglin I.Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hart man III, Harvey Four Winds I, Four Winds II, Gassett FR Ramsay, Steele, Water Blank, Equipment Blank Trip Blank Trip Blank VBLK01 VBLK01 VBLK01 VBLK02 VBLKQ2 Water Blank 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 04-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 08-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 09-Feb-92 14-Feb-92 Dede, Matthias, Rodriguez, Smith, Tillett LaPlace, LaPlace FR, Leonard, WAPA Eglin III, Harvey Steele Matthias, Rodriguez, WAPA Eglin III DL, Harvey DL Matthias DL, Tillett Equipment Blank 0130 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-4. Summary of Contaminated Blanks and Associated Samples from Semivolatfle Organic Analyses for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Blank Indentifier Date Analyzed Associated Sample(s) SBLK01 05-Feb-92 Eglin I, Eglin II, Eglin III, Hartman II, Hartman III, Harvey SBLKO2 19-Feb-92 WAPARE RE Reanalysis. PROCB01/TableA4.wk3 TUT GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table A-5. Metals and Cyanide Holding Time Summary for the Fifth Sampling Event, February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample Identifier Hartman III Harman II Harvey EglinI Egfin II Eghn III Steele Ramsay Four Winds I Four Winds II Gassetl Equipment Blank Water Blank jasselt FR Rodriguez Dede Smith Matthias Tiltett Leonard LaPlace LaPlaceFR WAPA Dale Collected 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 03-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 04-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 06-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (AA) ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 20-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (ICP) 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 12-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 19-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 ll-Feb-92 Date Analyzed (Mercury) 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 05-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 07-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 10-Feb-92 Days from Date Collection Analyzed to Analysis (Cyanide) (AA) 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 18-Feb-92 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 14 14 14 14 Days from Collection To Analysis (ICP) 9 9 9 9 9 9 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 5 5 5 5 Days from Collection To Analysis (Mercury) 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 Days from Collection To Analysis (Cyanide) 15* 15* IS- IS* 15* 15* 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 AA Atomic absorption. ICP Inductively coupled plasma. FR Field replicate. * Cyanide holding time exceeded by one day. #PR00801/tWa-5.wk3 TIP GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC. Table A-6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Pagel of 3 Sample ID: Dede Eglin I Eglin II Analyte Date: S-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichlorocthcne 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1 ,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane Irani- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloro methane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 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 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 17 20 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7 6.7 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 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 16 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 0.5 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 Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using Eglin III 3-Feb-92 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 41 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Wind. I 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.22 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 150 D 1.2 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.09 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 21 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 75 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Four Winds II 4-Feb-92 2.5 Uj 2.5 \f 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 10 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 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 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 0.4 J Guwtt 4-Feb-92 0.99 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.78 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U duett FR 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 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 0.07 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.76 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U HtrtnunD 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 4.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 5.3 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Hirtman III 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.08 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 1.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Harvey 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.2 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.06 J 0.5 U 39 0.1 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 2U 2U 0.5 U 500 D 0.06 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U LaPlace 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.06 J 140 D 0.4 J 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 23 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.15J 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 0.5 U 84D 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U U Place FR 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 1.9 U 0.5 U 0.07 J 140 D 0.41 J 0.5 U 2U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 81 D 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U USEPA Method 524.2. D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. J Result is detected below the reoortine limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. k All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. Field replicate of previous sample. TUT O183 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC' Table A-6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Chloro methane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chloroethane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichloroethcne 1 , 1-Dichloroethane Sample ID: Leonard Matthias Ramsay Date: 6-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 0.99 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 0.13J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 1 ,2-Dichlorocthene (cis/trans) 0.5 U 17 17 Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane trans- 1 ,3-Dicnloropropenc Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2- Trichloroethane Benzene cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 0.5 U 0.09 J 1.1 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 7.5 3.7 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 60 D 23 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using D Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Smith 5-Feb-92 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 230 D 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Steele 4-Feb-92 2.5 Uj 2.5 IT 1.4 J 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 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 29 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2,5 U 2.5 U 10 U 10 U 2.5 U 55 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U 2.5 U Tillett 5-Feb-92 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 0.5 U 23 0.05 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U WAPA 6-Feb-92 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 0.61 0.5 U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 2.8 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 13 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 34 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.11 J 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 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 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 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.1J Trip Blank 3-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.29 J 2U 0.57 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 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 4-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 UJ 0.33 J 2U 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 Trip Blank 5-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.29 J 2U 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 2U 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U Trip Blank 6-Feb-92 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.33 J 2U 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 2U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U 0.5 U USEPA Method 524.2. J Result is detected below the reportine limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. k Field if other analytes. Tin GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC' Table A-6. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Water Blank Analyte Date: 4-Feb-92 Chloromethane Bromomethane Vinyl chloride Chlorocthane Methylene chloride Acetone Carbon disulfide 1 , 1-Dichlorocthene 1 , 1-Dichloroethane 1 ,2-Dichloroethene (cis/trans) Chloroform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2-Butanone 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Carbon tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1 ,2-Dichloropropane trans- 1 ,3-Dicnloropropene Trichloroethene Dibromochloromethane 1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane Benzene cis- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene Bromoform 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2-Hexanone 1, 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethene Toluene Chlorobenzene Ethylbenzene Styrene Xylenes (total) 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 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 0.5 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 Enseco-East of " ' » • - - - - • - - - - - - D J U k of Sornerset;New Jersey; using USEPA Method 524.2. Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. All reporting limits raised due to high levels of other analytes. Field replicate of previous sample. UT o i a 5 GERAGHTY & MILIJ-R. INC Table A-7. Concentrations of Tentatively Identified Volatile Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Unknown C6H14 Isomer C6 Cyclic Hydrocarbon ten-Butyl Methyl ether Hydrocarbon Hydrocarbon Record 1 Hydrocarbon Record 2 C-3 Benzene C-4 Benzene Sample ID: Eglin III Date: 3-Feb-92 12 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Gasaett 4-Feb-92 NA 27 J 8J NA NA NA NA NA NA Gaiaett FR 4-Feb-92 NA 12J 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA La Place 6-Feb-92 NA NA NA 40 JN NA NA NA NA NA Matthias 5-Feb-92 NA NA NA 4JN NA NA NA NA NA Smith 5-Feb-92 34 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele 4-Feb-92 25J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett 5-Feb-92 2J NA NA 28 JN 11 J 6J U 2J 1 J Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 NA 24 J 9J NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. iU'T GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC a I CO 3 M COI 3 a I .5 1I 8o .SI o O .2 O o .1 ! UJ2 op •iu1 S!i i e s 1 i 5 <* H ? • .O II i B .5 He I I iff " .g u. a» I 2 </> o DDDDD DDDDD DDDDD DD3DD 33DS3 3DDDD ooooo ooooo S D3333 333D3 3D3PD 3D33D DP3DD OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO - o DDDDD DDDDD DDSDD DDD3D D3SDD PDDDD DDgDD D ooooo ooooo SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SjQ»nSS S DDSDD D3DDP DDDDD DD3DD S3DD3 3DD3D SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS Sr)jo DDD3D D33DD 3DDPD DDDDD PPD3D PDDDD SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS S£)vo£ 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS Sr3<QSS S 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS Sr3<3SS S 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OV]«OOO O V4 «• ^« ^ ^ ••« ^ ^^ ^^ r* ^M ^ ^ ^ •* ^^^^^^»M ^^^M^^^^v^ ^-lv^«M^^M ^^^|fs|v^^^ ^^ 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O«OV)OO O 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33^33 3 SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS S?MSS S 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33^33 3 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OW)._OO O 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33^33 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO Ow-1,,-00 ""* 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33333 33^33 3 SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS SSSSS 2222° 222°° StQ<o°S ° I «$ u! I flf fa 1 i. Illit Lfl! 14 la U 1!W 111 ins ffifi nl i»ti m ifc nffl i 1 9 S —^W S .2.2.2.2 8 S s-^/Srt SQS * |CQ §U's^ri UOUU^ .•S.-S.AfSt'i ^fo^.H . _ _ . _ _ ._ '•» «4S2<s" 4<srWU QQQ—"—r —"nWOts" QVrTisri' Q 5'.S.S.S.S lOQQQ 5 I 'Lo 55 -3 III- ^>•H \ atIDU o— U42 I Q333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 SOOO OOOOO OOOOV) <ft>r\OO<n OO.-.OO OO«r>O »2 ^H ~^ »* ^M^^^H^N^^ v* v* v* ^ f*4 M^*™*^*.^ ^^^H^I^H^* ^*»^f>j^^ «s •S 8 2 Q333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 S S. £ 9OOO OOOOO OOOOV) wiwiOO,.. OO.-OO OO£»O •2 «j ' a*™""*™ _-»_.-« — — —. — .-c^ (Sr4__^j __jy__ __<-.)_. CO «s J- 2 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 f £ tnOOO OOOOO OOOOV) <OV)OO<O OO<OOO OO<OO U ^p |^ *M v^ ^ M*^ «M^^ ^ ^H ^ ^N «^^i| f^fS) v^^^C*4 ^H ^ P^ ^N ^^ »^ ^^|^N X " Co e * 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 — OOO OOOOO OOOO>0 <n<OOOV) OO<OOO OO>OO _g ^ ————— —————— —————c4 rir4——H ——H—— -^rJ- a „ '- 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 2222 2S222 22223 33223 22322 2232 • fi S .o 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 .!> oooo ooooo 22223 33°23 °2322 °232 .5 _ 2 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 ° » s oooo ooooo oooo*n 33°23 °°32° °23° o . . - - - . .- — . ° i 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 •^ S"S i£ oooo ooooo oooovt <n<r)oo>n oo>ooo oo^io .5 isr - ~ "•" 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 S 5 s " - 2222 22222 22223 33223 22322 2232 M1 I « a ^ 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 ~ '" 2222 22222 22223 33223 22322 2232 t3" *^ o H 2 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 J? j= i£ oooo ooooo oooovn 33°°3 oo«noo oo«oo I 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 o .S £ OOOO OOOOO OOOOV) wMnOOV} OO«oOO OOvoO •ji >*• _ _ _ _ ___H__ __«n^4 ^^j^^^i MMr4«^ ___c-4_ •g cs -g 3333 33333 33333 33333 33333 3333 u. 2S22 2o222 22223 33223 22322 2232 S- » I & li "^.J 2 "° oa" 9"^^ o-9 •—•• llllf lllfl T" *^ *T* » * *!i *J> _L ^ -Ji •/. — *^ - • -j- II- g-ig i*i( feg-i |i|j Izli 22,£ii Z O.CL. > III ! Ill U oHfi:^ I Oi UJO 3-2 JB n W«j^^ ^ ^1 Q^: 3*0-0 73 z ? I K s I M • ^^ *? ^Z M—— N^ P* '^ ^M »•* ^ ^d ^—— ^—— ^—— ^— ^^ H* t---! ^ ^* ^^ *^ N^ ^ ^* ^* ^^ ^ t , ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^— ^— Wl W »^ .9 =; o — ° oo^^o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo -rt S f S-S' 5?5 £ GCSSC CGGGG GCCCC GGGCG GGGGG GGCGC CGGGG 8- | S ll> ||- 8 * 3 2 B" i° Z3 5 oo^KS ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 7 §. L5" ^o; G GC£CC CGGCC GGCGC GCGCG CCGCC GCCCG CCGCC 7 s~ & I «| S ^ - ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ f V s 5 OO&K5 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO <P 3 — C CCCCG CGCCC CGCGG GGCCC GGGCG GCGGC GCCCC 7 S n 8 ^ S * O It __ __ , 1 i.. >o 3 SS^KS OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO <? 3 P § S C GCSCG CGGCG GCCCC CGCCG GCCCG GCGCC GGCGG 7 <j§ | £> 5 8 "8 8 _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ y, » & " 3 oo""t*o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 3* I: S G CCSCC GGGGG GGGCC GGGGG GCGGG CCGGG GCGGG 7 g> 3 4 - __ . __„ -™- __„ ™- ———- . __ ^ » ^ 3 o SSKiAO ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 7 * G CGGCG GGCGC CGCGC GGGCG GCCCG GCCCG GCCCG J W pD O f S _ --Kl>J- __ __ __ __ __ __ - * •a o oo Ko ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo 3 C CC£CC CGGGC CGCCG GGGCG GCGCG CCCGC CGGCG ^* •.- I _ _ _ . . . . . . _____ ____ _____ _____ _____ . ^ 5' ° oo^s/Oo ?oS?°oo ooooo oooo>3 ooooo ooooo ooooo 31 IQ £ CC C G CG GCGCG CGCG CCCGC GGGCC CCCCG 7" > * _ _>|___ |____^ _____ _____ |_|___ _____ *> BP 3 OotntnO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO G GGGGG GGGCG CGGCG GCCGG GGGGG GCGGG GGCCC G " & ^ s ^ 50 _ _MK>N_ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ f Wf o ooKD«o ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ? g.ff M C CGGCC CGGCG GCGCC GGGGC CCGGC GCCGC GCCCG 7 "• H S o 2 r £ c M I 5" Table A-8. Concentrations of Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Aiulyte Date: bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno( 1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene 2-Nitroaniline 3-Nitroaniline 4-Nitroaniline Nitrobenzene 2-Nitrophenol 4-Nitrophcnol N-Nitrosodiphenylaminc N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene 1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol Leonard 6-Feb-92 1 J 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 25 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Matthias 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Ramsay 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Smith 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U Steele 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Tillett 5-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 UJ 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U WAPA 6-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U R R 10 U 25U 25U 25U 10 U R R 10 U 10 U R 10 U R 10 U 10 U R R Equipment Blsnk 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Water Blank 4-Feb-92 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 25 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U 10 U 10 U 10 U 25U 10 U Analyte concentrations in microgramsiper liter (parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. D U R FR Analyte identified at a secondary dilution. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. Result rejected. Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILU-R, INC Table A-9. Concentrations of Tentatively Identified Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Antlyte Dtte: Unknown Record 1 Unknown Record 2 Unknown Record 3 Unknown Record 4 Unknown Record 5 Unknown Record 6 Unknown Record 7 Unknown Record 8 Unknown Record 9 Unknown Record 10 Unknown Record 1 1 Unknown Record 12 Unknown Record 13 Unknown Record 14 Unknown Record 15 Unknown Record 16 Unknown Record 17 Unknown Amide Record 1 Unknown Amide Record 3 Unknown Amide Record 2 Unknown Amide Record 4 Unknown Amide Record 5 Unknown Amide Record 6 Unknown Amide Record 7 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record2 Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record 1 Substituted 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record2 Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record 1 Dede 5-Feb-92 4J 8J 6J 19 J 14 J 5J 5J 8J 9J 4J 23J 110J 3J 3J 6J 4J 3J R R 15 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA EglinI 3-Feb-92 13 J 2J 3J R R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 J 30 J 2J 4J 4J 42 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglinll 3-Feb-92 R 3J R 5J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19 J 28 J 2J 3J 8J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Eglinin 3-Feb-92 20 J 22 J 24 J 3J 4J RR 8J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 18 J 3J 2J 43 J 6J 67 J 7J NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Windt I 4-Feb-92 R 4J 4J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R 2J R 49 J 5J 5J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Four Winds D 4-Feb-92 2J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R NA R 3J 3JR NA NA NA NA NA NA Gaiaett 4-Feb-92 14 J 3J 3J 41 J R 57 J 7J 71 J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R R 2J 4J 6J NA NA R 20J 12 J 2J NA NA Gtssett FR 4-Feb-92 R 160 J 2J 2J R 48 J R 6J 63 J 7J 78 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R NA NA NA 22 JN 14 JN Hirtnunll 3-Feb-92 2J R5J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11 J 31 J 2J 4J 4J 45 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Haitman in 3-Feb-92 2J R 5J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 J 4J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Harvey 3-Feb-92 2J 3J 4J 4J R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2J 27 J 23J 3J 8J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Li Place 6-Feb-92 11 J R R 6J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2J NA 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA LaPlice FR 6-Feb-92 10 J 12J R 3J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl Phosphoric acid ester NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5JN NA NA Analyteconcentrationi in microgramsper liter [parts per billion (ppb)l. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previo'- --mole. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY & MILLtR. INC Table A-9. Concentrations of Tentatively Identified Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Sample ID: Dede Eglin I Eglin n Eglin in Four Four Gaaaett Gaaaett FR Hartman n Hartman Harvey LaPlace LaPlace FR Winds I Windi n IH Dale: 5-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 Substituted 1,2-benzenedicar Record NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3J NA NA Substituted 1,2-benzenedicar Record NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 6J NA NA Hexadecanoic acid NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3J 3J Hydrocarbon Record 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hydrocarbon Record 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bromoform NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cyclohexanone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cyclohexanone, 2-hydroxy- NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA -0 Kl Analyie concentrations in microgrami per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enscco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. GERAGHTY#MILLHR.IN( Table A-9. Concentrations of Tentatively Identified Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Isknds. Sample ID: Analyte Date: Unknown Record 1 Unknown Record 2 Unknown Record 3 Unknown Record 4 Unknown Record 5 Unknown Record 6 Unknown Record 7 Unknown Record 8 Unknown Record 9 Unknown Record 10 Unknown Record 1 1 Unknown Record 12 Unknown Record 13 Unknown Record 14 Unknown Record IS Unknown Record 16 Unknown Record 17 Unknown Amide Record 1 Unknown Amide Record 3 Unknown Amide Record 2 Unknown Amide Record 4 Unknown Amide Record S Unknown Amide Record 6 Unknown Amide Record 7 1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethanone, l,l'-(l,n-phenylene)bis- Record2 Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record 1 Substituted 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid Ethanone, l,l'-(l,n-phenylene)bis- Record 2 Ethanone, 1, !'-(!, n-phenylene)bis- Record 1 Leonard 6-Feb-92 R R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Matthiai 5-Feb-92 R 4J 4J R 5J 5J 7J R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20J RR R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ramsay 4-Feb-92 3J R R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 R 3J 3J 4J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 201 RR R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Smith 5-Feb-92 24 J 28 J 29 J R R 3J 3J 3J 7J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7J NA R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Steele 4-Feb-92 20 J 23J R 5J R 6J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Tillett 5-Feb-92 10 J 11 J 12 J 12 J 16 J 2J 35 J 4J 4J 4J 5J 5J 5J 57 J 7J 7J 8J 10 J R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA WAPA 6-Feb-92 11J 11 J 13 J 18 J 2J 2J R 3J 3J 33 J 4J 5J 5J 6J 6J 7J 9J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 3J 4J R R R 3J 2J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3J 8J 8J R R 4J R NA NA NA NA NA NA Water Blank 4-Feb-92 R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3J R 2J R R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl ester Phosphoric acid NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Analyte concentrations in microgramsper liter [part* per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or U an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. TU" 0193 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table A-9. Concentrations of Tentatively Identified Base Neutral and Acid Extractable Organic Compounds in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Sample ID: Leonard Matthias Ranuay Rodriguez Smith Steele Tillett WAPA Date: 6-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 Equipment Water Blank Blank Substituted 1,2-benzenedicar Record NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 Substituted 1,2-benzenedicar Record NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 Hexadecanoic acid NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hydrocarbon Record 1 NA 2 J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Hydrocarbon Record 2 NA 3J NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bromoform NA NA NA NA NA NA NA R NA NA Cyclohexanone NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 11JN NA NA Cyclohcxanone, 2-hydroxy- NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 JN NA NA Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. N Presumptive evidence to make a tentative identification. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. NA Not applicable. TUT 003 0194 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table A-10. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: Dede Dale: 5-Feb-92 235 18.2 U 1U 7.9 B 0.25 U 2U 25100 6.6 B 4.4 B 21.3 B 250 J 2.3 B 27100 364 0.2 U 7.1 U 2410B 2UJ 9.2 U 357000 3UJ 10 U 6.9 BE EglinI 3-Feb-92 173 B 17.7 U 1.6B 30.8 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80000 3.9 U 3.4 U 3.6 B 186J 1.6 BJ 56200 12. IB 0.2 U 9.5 U 1820 B 5.1 J 3.3 U 363000 3UJ 30.3 B 25. 5 J Eglinn 3-Feb-92 134 B 17.7 U 1 U 14.3 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 80800 4.9 B 4.4 B 3.9 B 232 J 1.6 B 61200 118 0.2 U 9.5 U 1990 B 9.2 3.3 U 338000 3UJ 32.6 B 78. 8 J Eglinlll 3-Feb-92 39.5 B 17.7 U I U 39.7 B 0.53 U 2.1 U 81700 3.9 U 3.4 U 2.8 U 11.7B 1UJ 55800 22.9 0.2 U 9.5 U 2180 B 4.3 BS 3.3 U 396000 3UJ 13. IB 19 B Four Winds I 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U 1 B 3.4 B 0.25 U 2U 46600 3.5 U 3.8 U 2.7 U 7BJ 3.1 32600 33 0.2 U 7.1 U 8980 2U 9.2 U 232000 3UJ 59.1 8. 8 BE Four Wind. II 4-Feb-92 46.4 B 18.2 U I U M B 0.25 U 2U 50700 3.5 U 3.8U 4.8 B 61.6 BJ 3.3 36800 6.8 B 0.2 U 7.1 U 2350 B 2U 9.2 U 236000 3UJ 59.2 1Q.4 BE Gauett 4-Feb-92 388 18.2 U 3. IB 23. IB 0.25 U 2.5 B 21700 4.6B 3.8U 83.4 R 39.7 S 15300 68 0.2 U 7.1U 1670 B 2U 9.2 U 160000 3UJ 10 U 178 J GawettFR 4-Feb-92 231 18.2 U 2.9 B 21.6 B 0.25 U 2.4 B 22200 3.5 U 3.8 U 82.7 R 33.3 15500 78.9 0.2 U 7.1 U 1520 B 2U 9.2 U 164000 3UJ 10 U 175 J Hartmanll 3-Feb-92 35.6 U 17.7 U I U 1.8B 0.53 U 2.1 U 44300 3.9 U 3.4 U 4.2 B 12 BJ 1.6B 37000 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1230 B 3B 3.3 U 323000 3UJ 24.7 B 1.6U Hart man in 3-Feb-92 54.6 B 17.7 U I U 0.7 U 0.5 U 2.1 U 46600 3.9 U 3.4 U 2.8 U 36.2 BJ I U 32300 0.91 U 0.2 U 9.5 U 1730 B 2U 3.3 U 233000 3UJ 116 2.1 B Harvey 3-Feb-92 289 17.7 U L I B 32. IB 0.53 U 2.1 U 62500 3.9 U 3.4 U 5.8B 431 J 3 J 46600 120 0.2 U 9.5 U 2100 B 2.3 B 3.3 U 251000 3UJ 21.6 B 139 J U Place 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U I U 5. IB I U 3U 44900 4 U 4 U 3U 60.4 BJ 1UJ 35100 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 1010 B 2U 4U 268000 3UJ 34.4 B 8.1 B UPlace FR 6-Feb-92 68. 4 B 18 U 1 U 5.4 B 1 U 3U 45400 4U 4U 3U 46.7 BJ 1UJ 35500 2.9 B 0.23 10 U 1090 B 2UJ 4U 272000 3UJ 36.4 B 8B Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. B Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). E Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. J Result is detected below the reportine limit and/or is an estimated concentration. S Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. TUT GERAGHTY & M1LLFR. INC Table A-10. Concentrations of Metals in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S Virgin Islands. Aiulyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Sample ID: Leonard Date: 6-Feb-92 69.9 B 18 U 1U 1.5 B 1U 3U 39700 4 U 4 U 3U 60.3 BJ 1UJ 24700 1.3 B 0.2 U 10 U 997B 2.7 BJ 4U 341000 3UJ 116 4. IB Matthiai 5-Feb-92 9580 J 18.2 U 1U 187 B I B 2 U 49500 109 14 B 114 11700 J 1U 46900 269 0.2 U 53.7 6380 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 385000 3UJ 42.6 B 29.8 J Ramsay 4-Feb-92 145 B 18.2 U 1U 3.7 B 0.25 U 2U 49800 3.5 U 3.8 U 5. IB 141 J 1.9 B 37000 2B 0.2 U 7.1 U 1070 B 2UJ 9.2 U 240000 3UJ 54.1 12.4 BE Rodriguez 5-Feb-92 196 B 19 B 1U 13. 7 B I B 2.1 B 39200 5.2 B 3.8 U 7.8 B 246 J 2.5 B 37400 132 0.2 U 7.1 U 2170 B 2UJ 9.2 U 300000 3UJ 10 U 19.4 BE Smith 5-Feb-92 4070 J 18.2 U 1U 86.5 B 0.25 U 2U 43500 48.4 3.8U 48.3 4670 J 3.1 42500 108 0.2 U 18.4 B 3310B 2.6 BJ 9.2 U 396000 3UJ 16.3 B 99.6 J Steele 4-Feb-92 267 18.2 U 1U 19.8 B 0.25 U 2U 46200 3.5 U 3.8 U 4.1 B 377 J 1.4 BJ 43800 17.8 0.22 7.1 U 1270 B 2.5 B 9.2 U 334000 3UJ 10 U 6.4 BE Tilled S-Feb-92 696 J 18.2 U 1U 44.9 B 0.25 U 2U 52000 11.4 3.8 U 12.3 B 901 J 2B 36000 1110 0.2 U 7.1 U 3280 B 2U 9.2 U 198000 3UJ 58.5 26.2 J WAPA 6-Feb-92 76.9 B 18 U 1U 3.9B 1U 3U 3390 B 6.1 B 4U 18.4 B 546 J 1BJ 1760 B 2.8 B 0.2 U 10 U 997B 2U 4U 184OO 3UJ 6.8 B 8.7 B Equipment Blank 4-Feb-92 184 B 18.2 U 1U 3. IB 0.25 U 2U 65.4 B 5.7 B 3.8 U 2.7 U 205 J 1UJ 295 B 3.2 B 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2 U 1400 B 3UJ 10 U 3.9 BE Water Blank 4-Feb-92 35.5 U 18.2 U 1U 0.8 U 0.25 U 2U 43 B 3.5 U 3.8U 2.7 U 20.9 BJ 1U 45.9 U 0.83 U 0.2 U 7.1 U 810 U 2U 9.2 U 660 B 3UJ 10 U 3.7 BE Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. BE JS U R FR Reported value is between contract required detection limit (CRDL) and instrument detection limit (IDL). Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) serial dilution result not within control limits or furnace atomic absorption (AA) interference present. Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. Reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions (MSA). Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. Result rejected. Field replicate of previous sample. 'LIT 0196 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC Table A-ll. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Sample ID: Dede Eglin I Eglin II Eglin m Four Four Gauett Gauett FR Hirtnun II Hartman Harvey LaPlace UPlace FR Winds I Winds tt VI Analyte Date: 5-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 3-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 Total Cyanide 5U R R R 5U 5U 5U 5U R R R 5U 5U Analyte concentrations in microgramsiper liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC' Table A-ll. Concentrations of Total Cyanide in Ground-Water Samples Collected in February 1992, Tutu Wells Site, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Analyte Simple ID: Leonard Matthiai Rinuay Rodriguez Smith Sleele Tillett WAPA Date: 6-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 5-Feb-92 6-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 4-Feb-92 Equipment Witer Blink Blank Total Cyanide 5U 5U 5U 5UJ 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U 5U Analyte concentrations in micrograms per liter [parts per billion (ppb)]. Analyses were performed by Enseco-East of Somerset, New Jersey, using March 1990 Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols. J Result is detected below the reporting limit and/or is an estimated concentration. U Compound or element analyzed for but not detected. R Result rejected. FR Field replicate of previous sample. GERAGHTY & MILLHR. INC U.S. EPA - CLP 6 DUPLICATES Lab Name: Enseco - East Contract: Geraghty & Miller EPA Sample No.: Gassett Lab Code: Enseco Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.: 19699 Matrix (soil/water): Water Level (low/med): Low % Solids for Sample: N/A % Solids for Duplicate: N/A Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): ug/L Analyle Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Control Limit 200 . 10 200 - 5 5000 10 - 25 . 5000 15 . . 5000 - . . . - - - Sample (S) 388 17.7 3.1 23.1 0.5 2.5 21700 4.6 3.4 83.4 39.7 15300 68 0.2 9.5 1670 2 3.3 160000 3 3.4 178 5 C U B B U B B U U U B U U U U U Duplicate (D) 231 17.7 2.9 21.6 0.5 2.4 22200 3.7 3.4 82.7 33.3 15500 78.9 0.2 9.5 1520 2 3.3 164000 3 3.4 175 5 C U B B U B U U U U B U U U U U RPD 157 0.2 1.5 0.1 500 0.9 0.7 17.5 200 10.9 150 25 1.7 Q R S J J M P P F P P P P P P P P F P P CV P P F P P F P P AS FORM VI - IN TUT O03 0199 U.S. EPA - CLP 6 DUPLICATES Lab Name: Enseco - East Contract: Geraghty & Miller EPA Sample No.: LaPlace Lab Code: Enseco Case No.: SAS No.: SDG No.: 19736 Matrix (soil/water): Water Level (low/med): Low % Solids for Sample: N/A % Solids for Duplicate: N/A Concentration Units (ug/L or mg/kg dry weight): ug/L Analyte Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc Cyanide Control Limit 200 - 10 200 . - . . . - 100 . - 15 0.2 . 5000 - - - . 50 20 - Sample (S) 76.9 17.7 1 5.1 0.5 2.1 44900 3.9 3.4 2.8 60.4 1 35100 2.8 0.2 9J 1010 2 3.3 268000 3 34.4 8.1 5 C B U U B U U U U U B U B U U B U U U B B U Duplicate (D) 68.4 17.7 1 5.4 0.5 2.1 45400 3.9 3.4 2.8 46.7 1 35500 2.9 0.23 9.5 1090 2 33 272000 3 36.4 8 5 C B U U B U U U U U B U B U B U U U B B U RPD 8.5 0.3 1.1 13.7 1.1 0.1 0.03 7.6 13 2.0 0.1 Q J J J J M P P F P P P P P P P P F P P CV P P F P P F P P AS FORM VI -IN . ...... ,")••? 0( IftTH: J.. -l-t IT * H > - - > '" 19736.cht TUT ATTACHMENT NO. 4 ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGES (The contents of this attachment have been provided separately to the USEPA) 00,- f -' 0201 GERAGHTY & MILLER. INC.