Woodward-Clyde Consultants ___ ___ 2:5-83--023- November 8, 1989 88C2076-4M E.I. du Pont de Nemours <5c Co., Inc. Brandywine Bldg., Rm. B-16270 C <5c P Department 1007 Market Street Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Attention: Dr. Alan B. Palmer Dear Dr. Palmer: Re: Data Sufficiency Supplement Du Pont-Newport Site Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) is pleased to submit two copies of the Data SufficiencySupplement as part of the Phase II RI/FS program for the Du Pont-Newport Site. This report serves to document the historical operations investigation and the additional radium-228 data collection required by EPA as a supplement to the previously submitted Data Sufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989). Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Roger T. Gresh, P.G. Project Manager RTG/kcs/WM-44R encl. cc: C. Trmal A. Hirsch Consulting Engineers. Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices ,n Other Principal Cities AR3Q3262
Transcript
Woodward-Clyde Consultants___ ___
2:5-83--023-November 8, 198988C2076-4M
E.I. du Pont de Nemours <5c Co., Inc.Brandywine Bldg., Rm. B-16270C <5c P Department1007 Market StreetWilmington, Delaware 19898
Attention: Dr. Alan B. Palmer
Dear Dr. Palmer:
Re: Data Sufficiency SupplementDu Pont-Newport Site
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) is pleased to submit two copies of theData Sufficiency Supplement as part of the Phase II RI/FS program for the Du Pont-NewportSite. This report serves to document the historical operations investigation and the additionalradium-228 data collection required by EPA as a supplement to the previously submitted DataSufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989).
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Roger T. Gresh, P.G.Project Manager
RTG/kcs/WM-44Rencl.
cc: C. TrmalA. Hirsch
Consulting Engineers. Geologistsand Environmental ScientistsOffices ,n Other Principal Cities AR3Q3262
DATA SUFFICIENCY SUPPLEMENTDU PONT-NEWPORT SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE
Prepared for:
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, INC.Wilmington, Delaware
In accordance with the Consent Order executed by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Du Pont),Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) previously collected data from Phase I and Phase II of theRemedial Investigation (RI) at the Du Pont-Newport Site. Following QA/QC auditing of theanalytical results, WCC evaluated the Phase I and Phase II RI data to determine whether theywere sufficient to meet the data collection objectives. A technical memorandum entitledData Sufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989) was submitted to EPA to document theevaluation of the data sufficiency in accordance with Section 3.2 Data and InformationSufficiency in the approved Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) Work Plan(WCC, July 28, 1988).
EPA issued review comments to the Data Sufficiency Memorandum on June21, 1989 and conducted a meeting with Du Pont on June 29, 1989. Following this meeting asubsequent letter response was provided by WCC, on behalf of Du Pont, on July 25, 1989 andby EPA on August 3, 1989. This document serves as a supplement to the DataMemorandum and, with the exception of the Phase III Wetlands Investigation results,will be suomitted under separate cover, is fully responsive to all EPA data requests and inconformance with all efforts proposed by Du Pont.
To further evaluate potential sources of contamination due to formeroperations at the original Newport Plant (currently owned by Ciba-Geigy Corporation), WCCreviewed all available historical maps, files, and photographs to document the historicalprocesses and materials handling at the Newport Plant. In addition, Du Pont conducted fieldinvestigations to provide supplemental radium-228 data for soil and ground water in thevicinity of the North Disposal site.
In combination with previous Phase I and Phase II RI data, the supplementaldata and historical information are considered sufficient to support the portions of theEndangerment Assessment and the Feasibility Study not related to wetlands issues.Specifically, the source of the metal contaminants detected in the soil and ground water of theoperations area at the Site is considered to be the past production of Lithopone. Based on
AR30326I4
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-2-
available data, the range and distribution of metals concentrations are probably representativeof any location in the former Lithopone operations area.
Similarly, the volatile organic contaminants detected in the soil and groundwater in the operations area are considered to be due primarily to the former production ofCPC, QA, and titanium. Of all the past manufacturing processes conducted in the operationsarea, only QA is still being produced at the Newport Plant. Whether the current production ofQA is contributing to organic contaminant concentrations in the soil and ground water is notknown; but, if any, the current contribution is likely to be relatively small compared to pastoperations. Thus, the available soil and groundwater data are considered sufficient for theoperations area and no additional data collection during the RI is warranted.
Based on the review of existing Du Pont documents and discussions withDu Pont pensioners, the solid wastes from the Thoria Dispersed Nickel program wereapparently buried in accordance with Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) regulations in anarrow band along the Christina River, near the eastern edge of the North Disposal site.Handling practices were also based on AEC guidelines. Great attention was paid to minimizingreleases of thorium-containing material and to careful cleanup and disposal when releases didoccur. No additional investigation of the thoriated waste burial location or handling practicesis considered necessary.
Based on the aerial photographs and the radium-228 analyses of drainagewaysediment samples, neither past nor present-day transport of surface sediments appear to beinvolved in the occurrence of radium-228 at monitoring well SM-4. Likewise, the radium-228analyses of background and upgradient groundwater samples suggest that neither past norpresent groundwater transport of dissolved radium-228 is responsible for the activity levels atSM-4 and that groundwater transport of dissolved radium-228 to the Christina River isunlikely. As presented in the Data Sufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989),groundwater flow at the time of thoria waste disposal could still have been the source forradium-228 at SM-4 if some thoriated metal alloy were colloidal and migrated through theporous medium. Regardless of the transport mechanism, the radium-228 detected in SM-4 isconsidered an isolated locale of only slight previous exceedances of drinking water standardsand no additional radiological data collection is considered necessary for data sufficiency.
In accordance with the Consent Order executed by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. (Du Pont),Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) previously collected data from Phase I and Phase II of theRemedial Investigation (RI) at the Du Pont-Newport Site. Following QA/QC auditing of theanalytical results, WCC evaluated the Phase I and Phase II RI data to determined whether theywere sufficient to meet the data collection objectives. A technical memorandum entitledData Sufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989) was submitted to EPA to document theevaluation of the data sufficiency in accordance with Section 3.2 Data and InformationSufficiency in the approved Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies (Rl/FS) Work Plan(WCC, July 28, 1988).
EPA issued review comments to the Data Sufficiency Memorandum on June21, 1989 and conducted a meeting with Du Pont on June 29, 1989. Following this meeting asubsequent letter response was provided by WCC, on behalf of Du Pont, on July 25, 1989 andby EPA on August 3, 1989. This document serves as a supplement to the Data SufficiencyMemorandum and, with the exception of the Phase II Wetlands Investigation results, which willbe submitted under separate cover, is considered fully responsive to all EPA data requests andin conformance with all efforts proposed by Du Pont.
EPA and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalControl (DNREC) expressed concern for further evaluation of potential contaminant sourcesdue to former operations at the original Newport Plant, which is currently owned by Ciba-Geigy Corporation (Ciba-Geigy). Because this plant is an active operations area, possiblesources cannot be directly remediated. In lieu of additional field investigations in theoperations area, WCC conducted an investigation involving a review of all available historicalmaps, files, and photographs to construct a summary of historical processes and materialshandling at the Newport Plant. The purpose of this investigation was to document formeroperations and to determine if these operations were the source of the contaminants alreadyidentified at the Site during Phases I arid II of the RI.
Also of particular concern were the thorium-related operations, for whichhistorical information was reviewed to confirm the waste burial location and field
AR3Q3269
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
investigations were conducted to provide additional radium-228 data for soil and ground waterin the vicinity of the North Disposal site. Radiological data previously collected by Du Pontwere also compiled and evaluated to establish natural background levels of radioactivity inground water at the Site.
A general chronology with emphasis on products manufactured at the Siteduring certain time periods is presented in Section 2.0. A discussion of procedures used for thehandling of raw materials and products, and the areas in which these materials were handled,is presented in Section 3.0. A review and discussion of historical photographs (including aerialphotography), as they relate to the history of plant operations, are presented in Section 4.0.Contaminant concentrations in the soil and ground water at the Site are reviewed with respectto historical operations in Section 5.0. Conclusions are presented in Section 6.0.
Much of the information presented in this report is based on documentssupplied by Du Pont and conversations with current and former Du Pont employees, for whicWCC is grateful. Dates presented in this report are considered approximate and serve!provide a general chronology of events at the Site.
2.0 PLANT PRODUCTION HISTORY
rich
W
As early as 1900 there was a small "Lithopone" business in the area of present-day Building 47 (see Figure 1). Late in the summer of 1901 Henry J. Krebs broke ground at theNewport Plant to start his Lithopone pigment business. The first major expansion of the Krebsbusiness occurred in 1916 when Buildings 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 30 were built to house thefiltering, drying, storage and powerhouse operations. By 1926 the plant was producing 75 tonsof Lithopone per day.
Following Du Pont's purchase of the Newport Plant from Krebs in 1929, aresearch building (Building 47) was established by Du Pont in 1932 to investigate new pigmenttechnologies. Titanium pigments were already being developed by other manufacturers in theearly 1920's. During the next 20 years from 1932 to 1952, a product transition occurred in
AR303270
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-3-
which Lithopone became less popular and titanium dioxide pigments became more popular inthe trade, ending with Lithopone being shut down in 1952.
Titanium metal was a spinoff of the titanium dioxide development work. In1948 a small unit was producing titanium metal from the research building. In 1949 and 1950,two larger units were constructed in Building 23 for process and product evaluation. This ledto the construction of the "D" Line section of the plant in 1950 involving Buildings 70, 200, and201. The "D" Line section produced titanium on a large scale. The operation to producetitanium metal was again expanded in the "D" line during 1951 and 1952. The production oftitanium metal ceased in 1960.
The year 1948 also saw the construction of facilities (Building 100) tomanufacture blue and green copper phthalocyanine pigment (CPC). In 1958 the production ofquinacridone pigment (QA) was started in Building 27. The QA processes generate a variety ofred shades of pigment. All three of these pigments are known by their trade name"Monastral." The production of CPC ceased in 1984, but QA is still being produced today byCiba-Geigy (see below).
Other historical Du Pont operations at the plant included: a pilot plant for theproduction of thoria dispersed modified metal from 1961 to 1966; high purity silicon,manufactured at the plant about 1942 to 1958; "Ti Pure" finishing operation which yielded aTiO2 white pigment made from TiO2 slurry received from the Edgemoor Plant; and pilot plantor demonstration production role in other new pigment products such as "Afflair" flakepigments (mica coated with titanium oxide). All of the plant facilities related to the aboveooerations at the Newport Plant were sold to Ciba-Geigy in 1984. In addition, Du Pont hasproduced chromium dioxide (powder) at the Newport Site since 1966 and, until 1983,manufactured magnetic recording tape. The original chromium dioxide plant facilities and allthe magnetic tape operation buildings were included in the sale of the Newport Plant in 1984.New facilities were constructed for the chromium dioxide powder production in 1979 and wereretained by Du Pont as the Holly Run Plant, when the remainder of the operations area wassold in 1984.
SR3Q327!
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
3.0 HISTORICAL PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS HANDLING
3.1 LITHOPONE
The "Lithopone" pigment was an inorganic pigment made by blending zincsulfate and barium sulfide together. The raw materials, intermediate products, and finalproduct storage and handling areas at the plant are shown on Figure 1. Buildings presented onthis figure appear in the 1938 aerial photograph and are considered representative of the Siteas it is thought to have appeared throughout the 1930's. Three raw materials were used assources of zinc to make the zinc sulfate:
1) Crude zinc ore (light gray in color);
2) Yellow sludge (from Chambers Works); and
3) Dry ore (red-brown in color). ^^^ ,
These materials were received and handled in the following buildings andareas:
1) Crude zinc ore: Building 68 (dry)Building 51 area (slurry, after wateradded)Building 100 area (outside dry)Building 63 (dry)Building 44 area (outside)
2) Yellow sludge: Building 68
3} Dry Ore: Building 54 (Railroad to bins)
All of the raw materials went to Building 56 where they were mixed withsulfuric acid (H2SO4). Lead acetate was used on filter paper as a detector of hydrogen sulfidegas (H2S).
AR303272
-5-
The raw slurry was pumped from Building 56 to Building 25 (located whereBuilding 121 is today), where it was treated with chlorine to oxidize the iron. The slurry wasthen alkaline precipitated with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and filtered. The filter cake was a"red mud," which was re-slurried and sent to Building 28 then pumped over to the SouthDisposal site. The zinc liquor formed at Building 25 was treated with zinc dust to removeheavy metals. This produced a filter cake which contained sufficiently large concentrations ofheavy metals such as cadmium and nickel that the cake was sold as a product. After thistreatment, the liquor was tested with dimethylglyoxine to determine if it was free of heavymetals. The pure zinc sulfate liquor was then pumped to Building 12.
The raw material used to produce the barium sulfide was barium sulfate(83804) ore- The raw ore was brought in by railroad cars to the area of the present chlorinerailroad spur near Building 63 and stored in piles on the ground where the Building 67 changehouse is currently located (see Figure 1). After loading onto a truck, the ore was taken toBuilding 19, where it was dumped into a grating over a conveyor and pulverized in a grinder.The pulverized barium sulfate was then transferred into upper level bins where it was mixedwith coal. This sulfate-coal mixture was sent by conveyor belt to an oil-fired kiln in Building29, where the BaS04 was reduced to barium sulfide (BaS) and discharged into an open bucketconveyor. The conveyor took the black ash (BaS) to Building 28, where the BaS was leachedout with hot water. The slurry passed through a series of Dorr tanks until a purified BaS("barium liquor") was achieved. The barium liquor was then pumped to Building 12. At the endof a series of Dorr tanks, the undissolved residues were collected in a mud tub andsubsequently pumped across the river to the South Disposal site.
A later process involving BaS was conducted in the area adjacent to Building28, where hydrochloric acid (HC1) was used to leach BaS to produce BaCl2 liquor. The BaCl2liquor was reacted with H2SO4 to form 83804, which was mixed with T5O2 to form "Ti-Bar."
At Building 12 (Whiteside), the pure zinc sulfate and barium sulfide liquorswere combined *o make a slurry. The slurry was decant-washed in Building 11 vats, then driedon festoon dryers in Building 12. The dried pigment was calcined in muffle tubes in Building27, re-slurried, treated, and dried on festoon-type finishing dryers. The dried pigment then
flfl303273
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
went via conveyor belt to hoppers in Building 13, where it was ground and packed for finalshipment from the plant.
From these descriptions of the entire Lithopone manufacturing process, it isreadily apparent that the nearly ubiquitous presence of the basic Lithopone metals zinc andbarium, along with other heavy metals commonly associated with zinc and barium ores (e.g.,cadmium, nickel, lead, mercury, and arsenic), in both the soils and ground water in theoperations area, is due to past Lithopone operations (See Section 5.1.).
3.2 OTHER PROCESSES
3.2.1 CPC AND QA
The manufacture of the organic pigments copper phthalocyanine (CPC) andquinacridone (QA) began in 1948 and 1958, respectively. The CPC's were blue, green andyellow-green color shades, while the QA's were shades of red.
CPC was synthesized from phthalic anhydride, urea and copper chloride inkerosene. The pigment was filtered off and the kerosene was recovered by distillation. Thepigment was blue; the addition of chlorine created a green pigment; the addition of brominecreated a yellow-green pigment.. CPC was manufactured and handled in Buildings 100, 101,103, and 120 initially, and expanded in 1970 to include Buildings 70, 200, and 220 (seeFigure 2).
QA involved the reaction of aniline and diethyl-succinate in "Dowtherm"(registered Dow Chemical Company trademark). The intermediate was filtered from the"Dowtherm" and further reacted. The "Dowtherm" was recovered for recycle by distillation.QA was manufactured and handled in Buildings 6, 8, 27 and, since 1970, in the building complexrelabeled Building 35, and Building 28 (see Figure 2).
The tars from both of the distillation processes (kerosene recovery and"Dowtherm" recovery) were disposed of in the North Disposal site. In the early 1970's a fire
AR3Q3271*
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-7-
occurred in the North Disposal. Although the fire was "extinguished" by covering the areawith a thick layer of soil, subsurface smoldering continued for about a year, despite efforts toput it out. It is believed by the Du Pont pensioners that most of the tars from the productionof CPC and QA were destroyed in this fire.
Several finishing agents were used to control particle size in both the CPCprocess and the QA process. Reactants, solvents, and finishing agents in these processesincluded: tetrachloroethylene (PCE); methanol; ethanol; and orthodichlorobenzene.
CPC operations at the Newport Site were terminated in 1984 when theNewport Plant was sold to Ciba-Geigy. QA manufacturing continues today under Ciba-Geigyownership in the same buildings in which Du Pont conducted operations and using the samechemical processes and materials.
Of the materials used in the CPC and QA processes, only PCE has beenpreviously identified as a TCL parameter of concern at the Site. PCE has been identified inthe shallow groundwater zone (Columbia Formation) in the vicinity of the CPC operations,along with trichloroethylene (TCE). One possible mechanism for the presence of TCE is as adegradation product of PCE. PCE and TCE have also been detected in the intermediategroundwater zone (Potomac Formation) and in soils downgradient from both the CPC and QAproduction areas and adjacent to the QA buildings. However, PCE was also used during thetitanium process in two of the same buildings (Buildings 200 and 70) as CPC, and prior to CPC,as discussed below.
3.2.2 TITANIUM
Titanium metal was produced at the Site from 1948 to the mid-1950's and,after a short period of non-production, again on a smaller scale from the late 1950's to 1960.Production started on the research level in Buildings 47 and 21 with small scale productionunits in place in Buildings 18 and 23 by 1950. Large scale production of titanium began inBuildings 70, 200, and 201 by 1952 (see Figure 3).
SR303275
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Pure titanium metal was produced by the addition of sodium or magnesium toa titanium tetrachloride slurry (TiCl4) received from the Edgemoor Plant. The byproduct ofthis reaction was either sodium chloride or magnesium chloride.
The organic solvent PCE was used in the production of titanium metal as adegreaser of the magnesium in Buildings 70, 200, and 201. Thus, the titanium process couldaccount for the PCE, along with possibly TCE as a degradation product, observed ingroundwater samples from the central portion of the operations area (see Section 5.2.). Noother analytical parameters have been identified in the soil or the ground water at the Sitewhich are known to be attributed to the production of titanium products.
3.2.3 SILICON
Silicon was a specialty metal for semi-conductor research and use. Thequantities produced at the Newport Plant were small (10 to 20 pounds per day). High puritysilicon was produced at the Site from the early 1940's to the late 1950's in Buildings 20floor) and 23 (see Figure 3). Silicon was produced by reacting silicon tetrachloride withmetal. This yielded high purity silicon and zinc chloride. It is thought by Du Pont pensionersthat the zinc chloride went to the North Disposal site. Zinc contamination in the operationsarea from this process is unlikely because of the surface coverage by buildings and asphalt atthe time of production and because of the low amount of product produced.
3.2.4 AFFLAIR
"Afflair" (registered Du Pont trademark) is an extremely inert, insoluble,inorganic specialty pigment consisting of mica coated with titanium oxide. Production of"Afflair" took place in Buildings 11, 12, 13 and 17 during the period from approximately 1966to 1976 (see Figure 3). The waste product derived from this process was off-spec material,which went to the North Disposal site. There is no indication that constituents of this wasteare present in the soil or ground water at the Site.
AR303276
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-9-
3.2.5 RESEARCH METALS
Four specific metals were worked with at the research level: zirconium,hafnium, niobium (Columbium), and tantalum. These metals were worked with during theperiod from approximately 1950 to 1965. The only one of these metals that was produced inany significant amount was niobium (total of several hundred pounds per day). These metalswere very valuable and were handled in a manner as to prevent any loss due to carelessness.The only waste materials from the manufacturing of these metals were incompletely reactedchlorides.
3.2.6 THORIA DISPERSED MODIFIED NICKEL
Thorium-232 was used at the Site during the period from 1961 to 1966 as partof Du Pont's Dispersion Modified Metals program to impart improved high temperatureproperties to metals such as nickel. Thoria Dispersed Nickel (TD Nickel) was the only materialof this type to be produced at the Newport Plant in pilot unit quantities (several hundredpounds per day). The process operations, licensing, and waste disposal for the TD Nickelprogram are described below:
Process Operations: The TD Nickel process consisted of the preparation of acolloidal suspension (a sol) of the thorium oxide (thoria), mixing with a solution of nickel salt(generally nickel nitrate), co-precipitation and filtration of the mixture, and finally drying andthen calcining of the precipitate. The nickel oxide in calcined material was, in turn, reducedto elemental nickel with hydrogen. The thoria remained unchanged. The levels of thoria weregenerally in the range of 2 to 5 percent in the finished material.
The TD Nickel operations were performed in only two buildings at the Site.Small scale operations were conducted in Building 23 and somewhat larger operations wereperformed in Building 72.
The initial thorium for this process was purchased as either thorium nitrate oroxalate. Thorium nitrate is water soluble. Thorium oxalate is insoluble. When the thorium
AR303277
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
nitrate was used as the starting material, it was converted to the insoluble oxalate by mixingwith oxalic acid. Then the thorium oxalate crystal were heated to form thorium oxide. Fromthat point on in the process, the thorium was only present as the insoluble oxide and wasgenerally in a homogeneous mixture with the nickel in the 2 percent to 5 percent range as adispersed metal oxide.
Licensing: Licenses were obtained from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)to handle materials containing thorium. The first license was issued by the AEC in December,1961 and permitted a maximum of only 300 pounds of thorium at any one time. This wasrenewed in 1965, extending to 1968. The renewal license permitted an increase in themaximum usage to 5000 pounds. However, during the period of greatest activity, the licensenot only still restricted the total amount of thorium at any one time to 300 pounds, but alsoplaced restrictions on the amount on hand in each stage of the process:
Raw Materials - 150 Ibs.In Process - 20 Ibs.Semi-finished product - 50 Ibs.Product - 150 Ibs.
Waste Disposal; The AEC license application described the two means ofdisposal and the methods to be used to handle spills. In general, all waste solids containingthorium were to be accumulated, stored and periodically buried in the plant landfill (NorthDisposal site).
All waste solutions or suspensions containing thorium were to be treated toprecipitate the thorium. The precipitate would be accumulated with the other solid waste andultimately buried and the thorium-free liquid would be discharged to the plant sanitary sewer.
An excerpt from operating instructions in the AEC license application isincluded here, which provides guidance on burial procedures and also discusses how liquidscontaminated with radioactive materials were to be treated:
AR3Q3278
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-11-
Solids; "All waste process material, towels, etc., which show a beta plus gamma counton the Geiger Muller counter of over twice background 1-inch from the surface will beregarded as radioactive and placed in a container labeled "Thorium Wastes." Whenfull, this container will be buried. The AEC specifies burial of not over 450kg ofthorium metal per burial. Each burial is to be at least 4 feet deep and 6 feet from thenearest previous burial. Not over 12 burials are to be made per year. L. Hovis will beresponsible for these burials, for notifying H.F. Bartolo in writing of the quantity ofsource material buried, and for making entry of the burial in the log."
Liquids: "All liquid which may be contaminated with radioactive materials will bedumped in a drum located in "A" line. An attempt should be made to precipitate theradioactive material when possible. When the drum is full, it will be carefullydecanted (by siphon) to the sewer using care not to disturb solid material which hassettled to the bottom. Occasionally the solids collected in the bottom of the drum willbe removed, filtered, and added to the storage drum for solid waste. Mr. West will beresponsible for liquid waste disposal."
From discussions with Du Pont pensioners who had worked on the process, thesolid wastes were normally paper towels, gloves, filter cloths, etc., which had been used in theprocess. By far, however, the largest amount of solid waste was material found to be out ofspecification after the calcining step and before reduction. Due to the strict AEC regulations,it is very unlikely that the cleanup and disposal of any spilled materials was not handledproperly. Consequently, it is concluded that due to the stringent materials handlingprocedures, the operations area is not a likely source of radiological contamination. This hasbeen confirmed by the background levels of alpha and beta activity in wells SM-5 and DM-8,adjacent to the former TD Nickel operations main building (Building 72).
Discussions with pensioners also confirmed that an estimated 20 tons of wastecontaining a maximum of 2 percent to 5 percent thorium oxide were buried in the NorthDisposal site. Based on these discussions and a review of extant .maps and drawings, it isconcluded with a high degree of certainty that the burial location was restricted to the areashown on Figure 4. According to the pensioners the waste materials were transported fromBuildings 23 and 72 to the burial area and the burial location of the drums was recorded on aburial log. Except for a small amount of material buried slightly east of the Sodium BurningPad that existed in 1957, all of the wastes were buried immediately to the southwest of thispad in an area about 35 feet wide and 130 feet long, parallel to the river, as schematicallyshown in the burial log on Figure 5. (Figure 5 is a reproduction of the Du Pont
AR303279
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
file burial log required by the AEC license, as excerpted above in the operating instructions.)No additional investigation or documentation of the thoriated waste burial location or handlingpractices is considered necessary.
3.2.7 CHROMIUM DIOXIDE AND MAGNETIC TAPE
Chromium dioxide (powder) has been manufactured at the Newport Site since1966. The original production was in Buildings 20, 21 and 70. The chromium dioxide powderoperations were shifted to the A-300 buildings after the completion of their construction in1979. Some of the chromium dioxide was used during 1967 to 1983 in a pilot productionoperation which made magnetic recording tape (polyester film coated with chromium dioxide)in Buildings 206, 212, and 214. Included in the magnetic tape pilot operation was a solvent andpolymer mixing process, which was done in Buildings 212 and 214, with the actual pilotmagnetic tape production in Building 206. When the Newport Plant was sold to Ciba-Geigy in1984, the chromium dioxide (powder only) operations in the A-300 buildings were retained byDu Pont as the Holly Run Plant in the west end of the operations area at the Site, beyondboundary of the original Newport Plant.
The solvents used in the former magnetic tape operations were evaluatedduring this investigation as possible sources of the organic contamination previously identifiedat the Site. No solvents have ever been used in the production of the chromium dioxidepowder. Consequently, the Holly Run Plant is not considered a source of organic contaminantsat the Site and will not be addressed as part of the "operations area" in the remainder of thisreport. In batch operations of the magnetic tape pilot plant, however, three solvents that arenot on the Target Compound List (TCL) were used from 1967 to 1983: tetrahydrofuran (THF);cyclohexanone; and methyl iso butyl ketone (MIBK). Toluene was briefly used in very limitedquantities for research purposes in Building 212 during a six month period in 1982 to 1983.These solvents were stored at Building 213 (storage shed). None of these solvents areconsidered to be associated with any of the contamination observed at the Site.
Although not directly involved in the magnetic tape batch operations, PCE wasbriefly used in the Building 206 area from 1967 to about 1970 (when PCE became listed as a
AR303280
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-13-
potential carcinogen) for very minor equipment degreasing purposes. Only one drum of PCE ata time was kept on a cradle at Building 213 and distributed in approximately one quart aliquotsfor equipment cleaning. This short term, minor usage of PCE is not considered to havecontributed to the PCE concentrations observed at the Site.
4.0 HISTORICAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Historical aerial and ground level photographs of the Site were reviewed toconfirm written documentation of Site activities and to evaluate the progressive developmentof the landfilling operations at the North Disposal site. The photographs cover the period oftime between 1919 and 1977.
Prior to 1948 Lithopone was the predominant product made at the SiteT Largepiles of barium and zinc ores are easily visible in photos taken up to 1946. Presented below isa discussion of photographs presented as plates in this report. These photographs were takenduring the period of time from 1919 to 1938:
o Plate 1 is a 1919 photograph that shows a pile of material (zinc ore) near thebank of the Christina River approximately where Building 44 is located today.
o Plate 2 is an aerial photograph taken before 1932 (note that Building 47 hasnot yet been built). This plate shows large piles of zinc ore along the river inthe area of the present-day Tank Farm 101. Also shown here are large piles ofbarium ore in the area of present day Building 67. Some kind of processinvolving fluid is apparent behind Building 25 (in area of present day Building203). The locations of ore piles in Plate 2 correspond to the locations wherethe zinc and barium ores were handled (as discussed in Section 3.1).
o Plates 3 and 4 are contiguous photographs taken prior to 1932 in the area ofpresent day Tank Farm 101. These photographs show the generallyuncontrolled handling of the zinc ores in this area. This type of ore handlingprobably occurred over the entire plant. The pond in Plates 3 and 4 is believed
flR30328f
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
to be for water storage prior to construction of the water storage basins to thewest of the ore piles. This assumption is based on Plate 2 (taken after Plates 3and 4), which does not show the water pond shown in Plates 3 and 4, but, doesshow the completed water basins.
Plate 5 was also taken prior to 1932 and is believed to show Building 68, theend of which can be seen on the left-hand side of Plate 3. The pile of materialis probably zinc ore.
Plate 6 is a 1930's photograph that shows the area just south of thePennsylvania Railroad (now the Philadelphia-Baltimore Railroad) in thevicinity of Buildings 63 and 17. These piles are believed to be zinc ore (nearBuilding 63) and possibly coal (behind Building 17). Coal was mixed withbarium ore in the area of Buildings 17 and 19.
o Plate 7 is an aerial photograph of the Site taken September 10, 1938.that Building 47 has been completed and that there is no water pond to theeast of the zinc ore piles along the river. The fluid operation behind Building25 is also no longer in operation. There have been open bins added to the openarea between the barium ore piles to the north and Building 25 to the south, inthe area of the present-day Buildings 103 and 100. These bins probably wereused for the storage of zinc ore, barium ore, coal, or all three.
All seven of the plates discussed above were taken during or prior to 1938 andare on a small and local scale. They were obtained from Du Pont files. In addition to thesephotographs, aerial photographs of the Site taken during the years 1937, 1946, 1954, 1961,1968, and 1977 were reviewed. These photographs were obtained by WCC from the NationalArchives and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Although thesephotographs can not be presented in this report, observations are presented below. Anadditional set of four full size, black and white glossy photographs covering the years 1954through 1977 will be submitted to EPA under separate cover.
AR3G3282
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-15-
The 1937 aerial photograph shows piles of material in the areas of present-dayTank Farm 101, Building 67, and in the area south of Building 67. There is no apparent activitywith respect to fluids behind Building 25 (area of present-day Building 203). The water basinsto the west of present-day Tank Farm 101 are in operation; there is no surface water activ /to the east of this area. This photograph confirms observations made from Plates 2 through 7.
The 1946 aerial photograph shows piles of material stored in the same areas asobserved from the 1937 photograph; however, the piles in the area of present-day Tank Farm101 are much smaller. It appears as though the Lithopone operation was already gearing downby 1946.
During the time period between the 1946 and 1954 aerial photographs, the Sitewas expanded westward from the present-day "Administration Road" to the pres"ent-dayBuilding 211. From 1954 to 1977 the manufacturing area of the Newport Plant does not appearto change in size and remains to have a very clean and orderly appearance. There are nonoticeable piles of material located at the plant in the photographs dated 1954 and morerecent.
The area of the North Disposal site was active from before 1932 to sometimebetween 1968 and 1977. The pre-1932 photograph (Plate 2) shows the northeastern edge of theNorth Disposal site at the bottom of the frame. The 1937 aerial photograph shows thislandfilled area as a strip running along the bank of the Christina River. The landfill is at itssouthwestern-most extent in this photograph. After 1937, the landfilling progressed from thisstrip northwestward away from the river and toward the plant. In 1954, the landfill was a stripapproximately 200 feet wide. The 1961 aerial shows the North Disposal site as it appeared atthe beginning of the six year period of TD Nickel production, with the southwestern end of thelandfill expanded to approximately 280 feet wide. By 1968, the landfill had widened to a stripapproximately 280 feet wide along the entire length of the landfill. The 1977 photographshows no landfilling activity in the North Disposal site with the low areas to the northwesthaving been filled to what is apparently their current topography. This agrees with the factthat the landfill was closed in the early 1970's.
AR303283
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Throughout the development of the North disposal site, there was surfacedrainage from the plant and the landfilled area. Dendritic drainage patterns appear to run tothe west across the entire area to the northwest of the landfill in the 1946 photograph. The1954 photograph (after the westward expansion of the plant) shows a drainage pattern first tothe south from the plant, then to the west across the broad area to the north of the landfill(again dendritic drainage patterns are present). This type of drainage continued until thelandfill was closed. The 1977 aerial photograph shows a well defined drainageway that flowswest along the northern boundary of the North Disposal site and then south along the westernboundary of the North Disposal site. This drainageway configuration, which still exists today,clearly is located in a different position and at a different elevation than the variousdrainageways that existed during and before the 1960's, while the landfilling operations wereactive.
5.0 CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION AND SOURCES
Information on soil and groundwater quality in the operations area of theare available from soil borings and monitoring wells. Soil samples were collected by DuffieAssociates, Inc. for Ciba-Geigy from nine borings (EA-1 through EA-9; shown in Figure 6) atthe Newport Plant during December 1988. These soil samples were analyzed for PriorityPollutant volatile organics plus methanol and ethanol, and Priority Pollutant metals plusvanadium. A summary of the analytical results for the soils are presented, with the permissionof Ciba-Geigy, in Tables 1 and 2. The complete Duffield Associates, Inc. report (Ciba-GeigyEnvironmental Reconnaissance, January 1989) is provided as Appendix A. Federal soil cleanupstandards do not exist. For general comparison purposes, the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection - Bureau of Industrial Site Evaluation (NJDEP-BISE) guidancecleanup levels and published USGS background soil levels are shown in Table 2. (Note: TheseDuffield Associates, Inc. data were not subjected by WCC to any QA/QC audit; their use byWCC does not imply any confirmation of validity.)
Groundwater samples were previously collected in the operations area beforeand during Phases I and II of the RI from monitoring wells completed in the shallow zone(Columbia Formation), intermediate zone (Potomac Formation), and deep zone (Potomac
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-17-
Formation). Complete TCL analyses were conducted on early samples, following ' v TCLvolatile organics and TCL metals analyses on the most recent samples. One groundwatersample was also collected and analyzed for TCL volatile organics and metals from a temporarymonitoring well (DB-2; screened from 35 to 50 feet in the intermediate zone). This temporarycompletion was installed by WCC during the drilling by Duffield Associates, Inc. of ageotechnical boring in September 1988 (see Figure 6). As a convenience, the analytical resultsfor groundwater samples from the shallow and intermediate zone monitoring wells associatedwith the operations area are reproduced in Appendix B. Wells with PCE or TCE detectionsbelow method detection limits (MDL's) are excluded.
Except for the volatile organics results of DB-2, these data from groundwateranalyses have been previously presented and reviewed in the "Data Sufficiency Memorandum,(WCC, April 277 1989). The target parameters used for ground water at the Site are PCE,TCE, barium, cadmium, and zinc. These parameters represent the most common compounds inthe groundwater samples detected above the federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's).The locations for the groundwater monitoring wells that exist in the historical operations areaof the Newport Plant are shown in Figure 6 and analytical comparisons for these wells, inaddition to the soils data, are included in Table 3. Individual categories of contaminants inthe operations area are discussed in the following sections, along with an evaluation of pastand recently collected radiological data.
5.1 METALS
All of the metal contaminants detected in the Ciba-Geigy soil borings aboveNJDEP guidelines, with the exception of antimony, are considered attributable to the formerproduction of Lithopone at the Site. The basis for this statement is the high concentrations ofeach of these metals in samples collected from the Lithopone waste in the South Disposal site(RI/FS Work Plan, WCC, July 28, 1989). Figure 1 shows that the handling of zinc ore, bariumore, and various forms of the Lithopone pigment occurred in the vicinity of, andtopographically upgradient to, all the soil boring locations (Figure 6). There were piles of zincore (Plate 1) in the vicinity of borings EA-1 through EA-3. In addition, borings EA-4 throughEA-9 are in the heart of the former Lithopone production areas.
AR303285
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Based on the above mentioned Lithopone waste analyses, all of the metalsexceeding the MCL's that were detected in the ground water, likewise, are consideredattributable to the past production of Lithopone. Monitoring wells SM-5 and DM-8 are on whatwas once the western boundary of the operations area. SM-1 is located along what was oncethe entrance way to the North Disposal site. The DB-2 location (see Figure 6) is in, anddowngradient to, the former Lithopone operations area. MW-17B is located where large pilesof zinc ore were previously stored (see Figures 1 and 6, plus Plates 1 through 7).
In conjunction with the soil boring and well locations relative to Lithoponeoperation areas, the range and distribution of available metal concentrations are consideredrepresentative of any location in the operations area. Consequently, no additional data formetals in the soil or ground water are considered necessary; existing metals data for soil andground water are sufficient.
5.2 ORGANICS
Only certain volatile organics have been previously identified as orgacontaminants of concern at the Site. PCE, TCE, methanol, and tetrahydrofuran were detectedin soil samples from some of the Duffield Associates, Inc. soil borings drilled in the east end ofthe operations area of the Newport Plant. Methylene chloride, toluene, and acetone were alsodetected in some of these soil samples, but do not appear related to any of the materialsformerly or currently used at the Site. With the exception of these possible laboratoryartifacts, no other volatile organics were detected in these soils samples above the MDL's. Allof these compounds are organic solvents directly or indirectly (assuming that the TCEdetected at the Site is a degradation product of PCE) related to the past operation at the Site.Soil borings EA-4 and EA-5 (Figure 6) were located adjacent to a solvent storage building(Building 49). Soil borings EA-7 (which had the highest PCE concentration, 740 ug/kg) and EA-8 were located in the Building 35 complex, where QA is still being produced (see Figure 2).Soil boring EA-9 was just west of Building 35. Soil borings EA-1 through EA-3 were alsodrilled at locations where the presence of solvents in the soils could be attributable to plantoperations. These boring locations were near the laboratory storage building in this area
AR303286
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-19-
(Building 45) and downgradient from Building 35 (QA manufacturing) and Building 49 (solventstorage).
Based on the vertical distribution of the soil samples and the locations of theborings in the vicinity of, and immediately downgradient to, the QA manufacturing area, thesesoil sample analyses are probably representative of the worst case volatile organic soilcontaminant conditions in the QA and former CPC and titanium process areas where thedetected solvents were historically utilized.
This observation is further supported by the results of the TCL volatileorganics analyses conducted on all the soil samples from the seven test borings drilled acrossthe entire Newport Site during Phase I of the RI (see Volume III, Appendix J in Work Plan,WCC, July 28, 1988). Multiple soil samples were collected in these seven borings from-groundsurface through the Columbia and Potomac Formations into decomposed metamorphicbedrock. Only one test boring, TB-2, had soil samples with PCE .. :d/or TCE. This boring wasdrilled at the cluster location for monitoring wells MW-2A, MW-2B, and MW-2C, which areimmediately downgradient of the former CPC and titanium operations buildings (see Figures 2,3, and 6).
The highest observed concentration of PCE in TB-2 was 767 ug/kg (or 767parts per billion), which is nearly identical to the highest PCE concentration reported for anysoil samples from the Duffield Associates, Inc. borings. As a general comparison it is notedthat these maximum concentration levels are still below the NJDEP-BISE guidance cleanuplevel of one part per million total volatile organics for soils. As in the soil borings, thepresence of the TCE is, again, considered to be the natural degradation product of PCE at thisSite.
No further investigation of organic contaminants in the soils at the Site areconsidered necessary or warranted because PCE and the other solvents have not been utilizedin any other areas of the Site. In combination with the metals analyses, the existing soils dataare considered sufficient for the operations area, as well as the rest of the Site.
SH3G3287
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Regarding groundwater quality, PCE and/or TCE were also detected in theoperations area in samples from monitoring wells SM-5, DM-8, MW-2B, MW-17B, and DB-2.As previously mentioned, PCE was used in the CPC, titanium, and QA processes. Monitoringwells SM-5 and DM-8 are in the immediate area of former CPC and titanium manufacturing(see Figures 2 and 6). MW-17B is located near all three process areas. DB-2 was locatedadjacent to the QA production buildings. The presence of these solvents in the ground waterat these locations is logically attributable to the past manufacturing of CPC, QA, andtitanium. The lower observed concentrations of PCE and TCE in the east end of theoperations area where QA was produced probably reflect the improvement in materialshandling procedures (spill prevention, cleanup, and disposal) over time at the plant. CPC andtitanium operations began in 1948, whereas QA production did not start until 1958. Thus, thePCE concentrations in the QA operations area would be expected to be lower, due to bettercontrol of materials, than in the CPC and titanium areas, as the data indicate.
' As previously discussed in Appendix J of the RI/FS Work Plan (WCC, July 28,• 1988), the cones of depression created by the historical pumpage of water supply wellsI and WW-13 apparently contributed to the introduction of metals and organic compounds i
both the Columbia and Potomac Forir. _tion soils (sediments) and ground water. This1• phenomenon probably proceeded from the time of construction of these two wells until 1980,
when groundwater pumpage ceased. The strongest impact on lateral and vertical contaminanttransport would have occurred in the western and central portion of the operations area whereWW-11 and WW-13 are located.
During the preparation of this report, WCC determined that the earliergroundwater supply wells, predating WW-11 and WW-13, existed in the east-central portion ofthe operations area. The location of each of these wells, labeled WW-1 through WW-10, isshown in Figure 6. The ten wells were drilled (presumably into the Potomac Formation) in the1940's and used until their abandonment in the early 1970's. During this time period, the conesof depression generated by these wells probably also induced some downward and lateralmigration of metals and organics from the operations area into the Columbia and PotomacFormations. This would further explain the presence of the metals and/or organics in the moreeastern monitoring wells, such as DM-8, SM-5, MW-17A, MW-17B, and also DB-2.
AR3G3288
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-21-
It is noteworthy to mention that the 65 ppb PCE and 7 ppb TCE concentrationsreported for DB-2 (see Appendix B) are addressed in this report as probable intermediate zonePotomac Formation groundwater organics concentrations for that location. However, due tothe nature of the temporary screening and sealing procedures used in the continuously openborehole to obtain the groundwater samples, assurances car,not be given that the analyticaldata are representative of only the Potomac Formation without any influence from ColumbiaFormation (shallow zone) groundwater chemistry. Thus, DB-2 was not plotted on thepreviously generated groundwater chemistry contour maps for metals or organics.
In summary, the presence of the volatile organic contaminants in the groundwater and soil in the operations area is most likely due to the past production of CPC, QA andtitanium. By comparison, any contaminants possibly contributed by the other manufacturingprocesses discussed in Section 3.2.3 through 3.2.5 are considered negligible. The- siliconprocess was a tightly-controlled operation that was conducted only on a very small scale.There is no indication of Afflair-related materials in the soil or ground water. The researchmetals manufactured at the Site were valuable, and perhaps more importantly, manufacturedonly on a small scale or research level.
The specific operational areas and the associated chemicals and materialshandling for the various manufacturing processes at the Newport Plant have been establishedduring this investigation. The qualitative and quantitative impacts of these operations on thegroundwater quality are evident in the analytical results from sampling monitoring wellspositioned laterally and vertically across the entire operations area. These availablegroundwater data are considered representative of all the groundwater quality in theoperations area and sufficient to prepare the Endangerment Assessment and to conduct theFeasibility Study. No additional groundwater quality data are considered necessary orwarranted.
5.3 RADIUM-228
Since the original detection of radium-228 activity levels slightly abovefederal drinking water standards (5 pCi/1) in the groundwater at monitoring well SM-4 (see
SR3G3289
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Figure 4), efforts have been made to explain the radioactivity levels at this location adjacentto the North Disposal site. Most of these efforts have been documented in the DataSufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989).
In response to EPA's request for additional data regarding the radiologicalissue at the North Disposal site, Du Pont collected the following samples during August 1989for radium-228 analysis:
1. Groundwater seepage (sample labeled "SEEP") from the southern edge of theNorth Disposal site near monitoring well SM-4;
2. Ground water from SM-4 and upgradient monitoring wells MW-1A, MW-2A,MW-3A, and SM-2; and
3. Surface and subsurface sediments in the drainageway adjacent to thenorthwestern and southwestern side of the North Disposal site.
Four locations in the drainageway along the North Disposal site were sampledat various depth intervals (to a maximum depth of 48-inches at some locations). All of thedrainageway sediments, seepage, and groundwater samples were analyzed by TeledyneIsotopes, Inc. for radium-228. The complete description of the sampling efforts and theradiological results are presented in a report prepared by Du Pont (see Appendix C). Themethodology for radium-228 analysis utilized by Teledyne Isotopes is provided in Appendix E.In the drainageway sediments there appears to be no pattern of radium-228 activity levelswith depth or downgradient position along the drainageway. Along with the radium-228activity levels being in the natural background range for soils (0.2 to 2.0 pCi/g; Hansen andStout, 1968, in Soil Science), these data suggest that the present-day and historic sedimentstransported in the existing drainageway are not responsible for the radium-228 activity levelsobserved in SM-4.
However, after these sediment samples were collected, aerial photographyinterpretation revealed that most of the present-day drainageway was not present during the
AR3Q3290
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-23-
time period of landfilling at the North Disposal site when TD Nickel pilot operations anddisposal were in progress. The topography of the area was different at that time (see Section4.0). The area to the northwest of the landfill was much more gently sloped with runoffcreating dendritic drainage patterns to the south and west. The one exception Is the samplinglocation labeled "Grab-4", which is adjacent to SM-4. Despite its position in both the present-day and historic drainageways, the sediments at Grab-4 were also within the background rangeof radium-228 activity levels. . nis suggests that the sediments transported along historicdrainageways to the SM-4 location are also not responsible for the radium-228 activity levelsobserved in the ground water at SM-4.
To investigate further the possible source of radium-228 at SM-4 and todocument that only natural background levels of radium-228 (except at SM-4) exist in theground water at the Site, all historic radiological groundwater analyses were compiled (seeTable 4 and Appendix D) and evaluated along with the August 1989 round of groundwatersamples. These data suggest that there is no active leaching of radium-228 from the NorthDisposal site or the operations area. Along with the established natural background alpha andbeta activity levels from previous radiological analyses of ground water at monitoring wellsSM-1 and SM-3 adjacent to the buried thorium waste (see Figure 4), these groundwater seepageand upgradient monitoring well analyses also suggest that dissolved radium-228 is not beingtransported to SM-4 by groundwater flow.
Specific emphasis is placed on the below detection limit radium-228 activitylevel in the groundwater seepage sample, collected less than 50 feet from the location of wellSM-4, for two reasons. The undetected level not only focuses on the lack of present-daydissolved radium-228 groundwater transport to the SM-4 location, but also helps to documentthe lack of present-day groundwater transport of radium-228 from the North Disposal site tothe Christina River. This information will be very useful during assessment of risks inpreparing the Endangerment Assessment.
Thus, neither past nor present surface sediment transport of radium-228appear to be involved in the occurrence of radium-228 at monitoring well SM-4. Likewise, theradium-228 analyses of background and upgradient groundwater samples suggest that neither
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
past nor present groundwater transport of dissolved radium-228 is responsible for the activitylevels at SM-4. As presented in the Data Sufficiency Memorandum (WCC, April 27, 1989),groundwater flow at the time of thoria waste disposal could still have been the source foractivity in SM-4 if some thoriated metal alloy were colloidal and migrated through porousmedium. The negligible gross alpha and beta activities measured in SM-3 and SM-1 (seeTable 4) support the random distribution concept associated with colloids in the shallow zoneand further suggest that dissolved radium-228 is not the source of radium-228 activity at wellSM-4. Regardless of the transport mechanism, it appears that the radium-228 activity levelsin the ground water at monitoring well SM-4 represent an isolated locale of only slightexceedances of drinking water standards. In fact, the August 1989 measurement was belowthe 5 pCi/1 standard. Consequently, no additional radiological data collection is considerednecessary for data sufficiency.
ura ^
One remaining radiological issue required by EPA to be addressed is the re-evaluation of the worst case scenario for maximum potential radium-228 activity in the groundwater at the source. Taking an assumed 25 percent soil porosity into account, the estimmaximum potential activity level of radium-228 in the ground water at the buried sou?would be 27 pCi/1, for an original 2 percent ThO2 content in the waste, and 68 pCi/1 for a 5percent ThO2 content. Compared to the calculated 160 pCi/1 theoretical source activityrequired to generate the 5.6 pCi/1 activity previously measured for SM-4, the maximum 68pCi/1 re-calculated activity is still too low. Thus, there is no change in the previous conclusionthat the measured radium-228 activity level in the ground water at well SM-4 is probably not aresult of dissolved radium-228 being transported from the burial location through the shallowgroundwater zone to SM-4.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Historical Du Pont documents, files, and photographs were reviewed duringthis investigation to construct a summary of historical processes and materials handling in theoperations area of the Newport Site. In addition, analyses of soil samples collected for Ciba-Geigy in the operations area were evaluated and field investigations were conducted byDu Pont to provide supplemental radium-228 data for soil and ground water in the vicinity of
AR3G3292
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
-25-
the North Disposal site. In combination with previous Phase I and Phase II RI data, thesesupplemental data and the historical information are isidered sufficient to support theEndangerment Assessment and the Feasibility Study and to meet the other objectives outlinedin Section 3.2 of the approved RI/FS Work Plan (WCC, July 28, 1988). The only exception iswith regards to the wetlands investigation (Section 2.7 of the Work Plan), for which Phase IIIefforts are in progress and results will be submitted under separate cover to EPA.
Conclusions regarding individual subjects of concern at the Site, for whichEPA requested additional evaluations and data are summarized below:
o The source of the metal contaminants detected in the soil and groundwater ofthe operations area at the Site is considered to be the past production ofLithopone. Based on available data, the range and distribution of*metalsconcentrations are probably representative of any location in the formerLithopone operations area. Consequently, the existing data are consideredsufficient and no additional data collection during the RI for metals in the soilor ground water in the operations area is warranted.
o The source of the volatile organic contaminants detected in the soil andground water in the operations area is considered to be, primarily, the formerproduction of CPC, QA and titanium. Of all the past manufacturing processesconducted in the operations area, only QA is still being produced at theNewport Plant. Whether the current production of QA is contributing toorganic contaminant concentrations in the soil and ground water is not known,but, if any, is likely to be relatively small compared to past operations. Basedon their lateral and vertical distribution across the operations area theavailable organics data are considered sufficient for preparation of theEndangerment Assessment and the Feasibility Study. Therefore, no additionalorganics data collection during the RI in the operations area is warranted.
o Based on the review of existing Du Pont documents and discussions withDu Pont pensioners, the solid wastes from the TD Nickel program were
AR3Q3293
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
WM-44R
apparently buried in accordance with AEC regulations in a narrow band alongthe Christina River, near the eastern edge of the North Disposal site.Handling practices were also based on AEC guidelines and great attention waspaid to minimizing releases of thorium-containing material and to carefulcleanup and disposal when releases did occur. No additional investigation ofthe thoriated waste burial location or handling practices is considerednecessary.
Based on the aeriai photographs and the radium-228 analyses of drainagewaysediment samples, neither past nor present-day transport of surface sedimentsappear to be involved in the occurrence of radium-228 at monitoring wellSM-4. Likewise, the radium-228 analyses of background and upgradient
-*groundwater samples suggest that neither past nor present groundwatertransport of dissolved radium-228 is responsible for the activity levels at SM-4and that groundwater transport of radium-228 to the Christina River isunlike! Consequently, the radium-228 detected in SM-4 is considerecisolated locale of only slight previous exceedances of drinking water standa?and no additional radiological data collection is considered necessary for datasufficiency.
er is
dar^T
AR30329I*
Tables
0R303295
82
sic.• Jw E-
— - <3 §oca OT >8- o >.'
3 as
IIslE-
O
5*s
L.OCJ
at_COa.
OJc0
a
Eca"O"oa£<aV)
c i JHo*2.2 i- t_
'-' ~ "o
EL.
O1U
c —.o aaj O* a. — •o *u£ 0
CJco
* D
S
g0 0
1 1ffl ~
ofr-
ojO C
"o c;•— ot-
f- Q5 "O">» *~* ~ .2
1-
i i cw -3 t.
— J= *~
— ."oC01
V^
5_lo C""S "Q oJZ "0*> SJ
n
^ oa.—P «a °OT ®
in in in in in in in in co in in
•— C ^co c*3O «irQ tor- co^^
in 01 in in co „_ __ t~ j _ ^ _ -
V .
t— ro ° c
, , » •, .• \. v
in t*- in in in ^ co in in in in inV , V . .. V .. V
o OD <<rTr in ° in co-* t— CMTTTT ^^i— « ^S M1" ^*m mco
Q CO QQ Q CO"Z 2Z vnOT •z.- ^ 2 Z2
^o oo oo oo ocs ooCDO C3O OCZ> OO OC3 OO
in Gmm mo u"*« mo mm lfii-3i t i T i T i V i f i T
om o-r o^ o^r csJin o«
— » eg n T m oi i i i i TU4 UJ W W UJ ™
Q O CJ C , O UU O U U O O
« u,
5 ~ °-
^- m J^ m
V (
0 0rr to m r:r- -- . °*
'S'c§;•§M oC ""*
to in o m ° *S
fo
IIS =__ ^ o _ .«
03 *"* CM ^ S "c
$1— t~ &^ V *3W * C)
Q Q Q ^3*° 2 2: 2 t- § w
ol5 «CJ W "
181
1 1 1|™^ta
3 K
«CD C
o m in • O
S S S i ~o o o en o
<
r ..."
C- CO OT1 1 1
u (d u x Ja u u ou o o 2;
C ™ en
*"" !Tr>>
•i .5 3
*- o 3y. '.fl *
2 "CJ
1
,
'—
tooCJCJ
^oC3
5o>oJD
3!
-1c w_o ^' L.a oo =• L.~ 0
<u 5^ c
•r" **~ — ao o •-ii«o « >>"S y 0
" « £w £ ao g_~
o o |"tfl= Oc t" OJ Q111"5. o 1
w K •
g^ f^ »
«TS5
HR3G3296
8
III< o
?5
cnm CM— c-«rCMOl ^S-ao C-SOO
O O <— » fj OO tOCM
" S *o co* ? n £ Jn CM" S CM* 2* £ «
co c— CM en co eo r~ eoCIO O> O* CO 00 tOO
to co ^ coco in —*33 O* O* CM*
CM CM
09
CO
cot- c^»r- ooco
. — tfi.2 c *> '-.2 £ 2 g
< < < < < <<<
5|f
-•o''3'cs eo o _ __
^ ^ ^ o J - ^ «^.'3"oOO «-^CM O O —« — O C M C O O C>O O C D ^
» . v v v v Q —< , ,O CJ ^J> e/3
— £2
co £ ^ *~*
rr uo in in oa v eo in "* £ S CM ^ °* v *^ W """ *"" ^ ° ?
°' =15inOO • Q C3O O. O O OO «tO ^^ Ood to' 2 -* t-'r-* co' to* co cots ^ T1^ r-a/J"
^ ,—« -i "*-i tfi 5- ~*O tj «
'.V V '. v V V V "» V L. •« —jy gj - u3'= w S to w"""ill
c o o — to c^^- in m to co co in O O " £
CMCM CM m mco CM —» CTCO cocn o o com^CM CO— CO1"* CMCM CMCM —• r~ <*-> >— — —*
m ^ o <o *> 4) n; S ,Sinin mo . M tn o * rt « "^-5 ° ° in^ ^ ** ^°— ,—c M r - c s j t o C v J i — i c - ) t p * r c - c M — c M c ^ e M c - i *- ^ 5 ?>*ri1 1 i T i i i T 7 i i t i i ' ' C * o S o ^ r hirtin me; mo ^ ° «n ino in in in^iJ *-* <; 2w^I"c/5O*n o'-r ea *** CD^T cMin o'c-9 o o oai w ^
— CM eo
E55& /^ n n ri n n n n n n _^; Q
z
TABLE 3
CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTIONDU PONT NEWPORT SITENEWPORT, DELAWARE
PCE Ba PCE PCE Ba PCETCE TCE TCE ZnBa Cd Zn CdCd CdZn
Notes: PCE = Tetrachloroethylene Cd = CadmiumTCE = Trichloroethylene Hg = , MercuryTetra = ' Tetrahydrofuran Pb = LeadMeth = Methanol As = ArsenicZn = Zinc Cu = CopperBa = Barium Ni = Nickel
1. Parameters presented are volatile organics detected at or above method detectionlimits and metals that exceed available NJDEP BISE Guidance Cleanup Levies for soilwith the exception of those with asterisk which are parameters that exceed meanbackground levels but are below NJDEP BISE levels, if available (Source: DuffieldAssociates, Inc. Jan. 1989).
2. Site target parameters detected above federal MCL values.
This environmental reconnaissance was undertaken at the request ofthe Ciba-Geigy Corporation to evaluate potential subsurface soilcontamination beneath a portion of the Ciba-Geigy Plant in Newport,New Castle County, Delaware. The reconnaissance was initiatedfollowing unusual photoionization detector readings from soilsamples obtained for a geotechnical evaluation performed in thearea of the existing A-35 Building in October 1988. The purposewas to evaluate the environmental guality of shallow depthsubsurface conditions at several locations at the Ciba-Geigy Plantin Newport, Delaware. This work has been performed in accordancewith our agreement dated December 2, 1988.
FIELD EVALUATION
On December 13, 14 and 15, 1988, nine (9) test borings wereperformed at locations designated by Ciba-Geigy in order to collectsoil samples for laboratory analysis. Approximate test boringlocations are shown on the attached Location Sketch.
o Test borings CG EA-1, CG EA-2 and CG EA-3 were located inthe area of the proposed River Building. According toplant personnel, this location has housed, at differenttimes in the past, a cafeteria and zinc storage tanks.
o CG EA-4 and CG EA-5, which were performed in the area ofthe proposed A-21 annex, were located near an existingsolvent storage building.
o CG EA-6 was located in an area designated for the proposedaddition for the A-35 Building.
o CG EA-7 and CG EA-8 were located in the existing A-35Building.
o CG EA-9 was to the west of A-35 Building, in the area ofanother proposed structure.
The test borings were performed using a trailer mounted CME-45drilling rig and hollow stem augers. Soil samples were collectedat 2 foot intervals, using a 3 inch diameter "split spoon" samplingdevice. In general, sample collection at each location included asoil sample from 0.5-2.5 ft. below existing grade and, in locationsdesignated by Ciba-Geigy, a 2 foot soil sample from the approximatedepth of the apparent groundwater-tablt Since the apparent water-table was usually encountered in the fine grained silty soil, thesecond sample at some locations (eg., CG EA-3 and 6) were deepenedinto the underlying sand stratum. Sample locations are depicted onFigure 1, Test Boring Location Sketch. Sample collection intervalsfor each test boring location are as follows:
The split spoon sampler was decontaminated between samples and theauger drilling tools were decontaminated between each test boringby a high pressure steam wash to reduce potential for crosscontamination.
All samples were collected in triplicate. Equal longitudinalsections were collected into appropriate laboratory cleaned samplebottles. One set of samples was submitted by Duffield Associatesto Lancaster Laboratories for analysis of the following parameters:
o Priority Pollutant Metals plus Vanadium
o Volatile Organic Compounds (by GC/MS, EPA Method 624)
- Priority Pollutar.c Volatiles- GC/MS Library Search of unknowns encountered in volatilefraction
- Methanol, Ethanol (by GC, direct injection)
o RCRA Hazardous Waste Characteristics
- Ignitability- Corrosivity (pH)- Reactivity
The other two sets of samples were retained under refrigeration byCiba-Geigy for possible future laboratory analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the testing performed are summarized on Table 1,Data Summary: Volatiles and Table 2, Data Summary: Inorganics.Complete Lancaster Laboratories Analysis Reports are attached inAppendix 1. As requested, the chromatograms, generated during thevolatile organic analysis by the Gas Chromatograph/MassSpectrometer, will be submitted to Ciba-Geigy under separate cover.
None of the samples exhibited the RCRA defined hazardous wastecharacteristics of corrosivity, reactivity or ignitability.Therefore, these results are not tabulated. They are, however,discussed in the Lancaster Laboratories Analysis Reports includedin Appendix 1.
A sample is considered "corrosive" if it exhibits a pH equal to orless than 2, or equal to or greater than 12.5. Soils, obtained forthis evaluation, exhibited a range of pH from 5.53 (CG EA-9, 19.0-21.0 ft.) to 8.58 (CG EA-6, 13.0-15.0 ft.). Twelve (12) of the 16samples analyzed had a pH greater than 7.5. While a pH of 7.5 to8.85 is not corrosive by definition, this range is elevated inrelation to "typical" soils of New Castle County. According toSoil Survey of New Castle County. Delaware. New Castle County soilstypically have a pH in the range of 4.0-6.0. The elevated pHlevels, seen during our limited sampling program, may be related tohistoric uses of caustic material in plant processes. Historicspills or leaks of this material may be' a possible source of theelevated pH.
A sample is considered "reactive" and hazardous if an extractedsolution generates a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm orsulfide exceeding 500 ppm. Cyanide and sulfide were not generatedby any of the samples analyzed.
In our opinion, none, of the samples displayed the RCRAcharacteristics of ignitability. Presently, no EPA approved methodexists to determine if a solid is ignitable. Two methods have beendeveloped for use on solids by Lancaster Laboratories and otheraccredited laboratories - ignitability of the solid., when exposedto air or water or when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.None of the Ciba-Geigy samples were Mignitable" under these testingconditions.
Volatile Organic Compounds
Volatile organic compounds, detected in on-site soils, aresummarized on Table 1, Data Summary: Volatiles.
A total of nine volatile organic compounds were detected throughroutine GC/MS analysis, direct injection or library search forunknowns encountered in the volatile fraction. Compounds detectedincluded:
There is no apparent pattern of detection, related to depth orsample location. Methylene chloride, toluene, 2-propanone(acetone), methanol and tetrachloroethane were detected mostfrequently.
o Methylene chloride was detected in all samples analyzed,ranging from 9 ppb (parts per billion = micrograms perkilogram = ug/1) at CG EA-9 (19.0-12.0 ft.) to 290 ppb atCG EA-3 (12.0-13.5 ft.).
o Toluene was detected at 12 of the 16 sample locations,ranging from 5 ppb at CG EA-1 (0.5-2.5 ft.) to 56 ppb atCG EA-3 (12.0-13.5 ft.).
o 2-Propanone (acetone) was detected in 14 of the 16 samplelocations, ranging from 6 ppb at CG EA-2 (0.5-2.5 ft.) to60 ppb at CG EA-3 (12.0-13.5 ft.).
o Methanol was detected at 6 of 9 boring locations and in 9of the 16 samples. Concentrations ranged from 300 ppb atseveral locations to 1600 ppb at CG EA-9 (0.5-2.5 ft.).
o Tetrachloroethane was detected in 8 of 16 samplelocations, ranging from 6 ppb at CG-EA-8 (0.5-2.5 ft.) to740 ppb at CG EA-7 (0.5-2.0 ft.).
The highest detected individual concentrations of volatilesincluded 1600 ppb methanol at CG EA-9 (0.5-2.5 ft.), 740 ppbtetrachloroethane at CG EA-7 (0.5-2.0 ft.) and 290 ppbmethylene chloride at CG EA-3 (12.0-13.5 ft.).
There are currently no State of Delaware or Federal regulationsgoverning the concentrations of volatiles in soil. However,volatiles are not "naturally occurring" constituents of soil, andtheir presence is assumed to be indicative of a release to theenvironment of these compounds. Some of the compounds detected(eg., carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, tetrachloroethane (PCE),trichloroethene (TCE) and methylene chloride) are known orsuspected animal carcinogens. Their presence in drinking watersupplies is regulated. The presence of these compounds in soilsindicates that they may also be present in the underlyinggroundwater. Therefore, the presence of volatile compounds in on-site soils, at shallow and deep locations, is a cause for concern.
Inorganics
Eleven (11) of the 13 priority pollutant metals and vanadium weredetected at one or more of the sample locations on the Ciba-Geigysite. Results are summarized on Table 2, Data Summary: Inorganics.Beryllium and thallium were the two-priority pollutant metals notdetected in the samples.
Values detected for chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium and zinc arewithin the "naturally occurring" concentration ranges, reported bythe United States Geological Service (USGS) for "undisturbed" soilsof the Eastern United States (see Table 2). However, levels,detected for antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury and zinc in some ofthe samples, exceed the reported range for naturally occurringlevels in soils, suggesting contamination. The elevatedconcentrations are most likely a result of historic site practices.The site has a long history as a pigment or paint manufacturingfacility.
Elevated levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead,mercury and zinc were found in both "surficial" and "deeper"samples, obtained at the site. However, there is no apparentpattern of concentration with depth. At some borings, the deepersamples show greater concentrations of contaminants than theshallow samples (CG EA-6). In other instances, the surficialsamples show higher concentrations than the deeper samples(CG EA-9).
EPA has not published guidelines to define in-place soil as being"clean" or "contaminated," nor has the State of Delawareestablished regulations governing metal concentrations in soils.The only potential guidance is the State of New JerseyEnvironmental Clean-Up Responsibility Act (ECRA), which hasestablished "clean" values for metal contaminants in soils, asindicated on Table 2. Concentrations at or below the listed valuesare considered "clean." As indicated by the table, some of themetals detected in the soils samples are above the ECRA guidelines.
o Antimony was detected in both samples from CG EA-4 at 31ppm [parts per million = milligrams per kilogram] (0.5-2.5ft.) and 86 ppm.(4.0-6.0 ft.) and at CG EA-6 at 11 ppm(12.0-15.0 ft.). These values are elevated in relation tothe range and mean for the Eastern U.S. (<l-8.8 ppm; 0.76ppm) and to the ECRA guidelines of 2 ppm.
o Arsenic was detected at all sample locations, ranging from2.4 ppm, CG EA-7 (0.5-2.0 ft.) to 243 ppm, CG EA-6 (13.0-15.0 ft.). Six of the samples were elevated in relationto the mean for Eastern U.S. soils, and five of thoseexceeded the ECRA guideline of 20 ppm for arsenic in soil:CG EA-5 at 20.2 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.) and 31.1 ppm (5.3-7.3ft.), CG EA-6 at 49.3 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.) and 243 ppm (13.0-15.0 ft.) and CG EA-9 at 40.2 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.).
o Cadmium was detected in 13 of the 16 samples, and whilethe concentration values are within the range of typicalvalues for Eastern U.S. soils, they are elevated inrelation to the mean in 10 of 16 locations. CG EA-6 at11.8 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.) and 12.4 ppm (13.0-15.0 ft.),CG EA-1 sample at 3.6 ppm (5.5-7.5 ft.) and CG EA-9 at31.3 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.) are elevated when compared to theECRA guideline of 3 ppm.
r
fIII
a ;r ^ **•
o Lead was detected in 14 of the 16 samples, with 4 of the16 samples having lead concentrations, which exceed thetop end of the range for naturally occurring leadconcentrations and which are higher than the ECRAguideline of 250 ppm. These locations include CG EA-2 at322 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.), CG EA-6 at 528 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.)and 1545 ppm (13.0-15.0 ft.) and CG EA-9 at 679 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.).
o Mercury was detected in 12 of the 16 samples, ranging from0.4 ppm to 6.4 ppm. The reported mean value for EasternU.S. mercury is 0.12 ppm and the ECRA guideline formercury is 1.0 ppm, indicating that several are elevatedwith respect to the ECRA guideline: CG EA-1 at 1.3 ppm(5.5-7.5 ft.), CG EA-4 at 4.0 ppm (4.0-6.0 ft.), CG EA-6at 6.4 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.) and 2.8 (13.0-15.0 ft.) andCG EA-9 at 6.1 ppm (0.5-2.5 ft.).
To summarize, elevated concentrations of one or more of the listedpriority pollutant metals were detected for all samples analyzed.In some instances, concentrations exceed what is consideredreasonable for undisturbed soils. There is no apparent pattern tothe distribution, although CG EA-6 (0.5-2.5 ft.), CG EA-6 (13.0-15.0 ft.) and CG EA-9 (0.5-2.5 ft.) exceeded the ECRA guidelinesmore, frequently than other samples.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This environmental assessment has determined the following:
o Soil samples on the site do not exhibit the RCRA hazardouswaste characteristics of corrosivity, reactivity orignitability.
o All but two of the samples exhibit a pH greater than 6.0,which is, however, higher than that which is considered"normal" for New Castle County soils; suggesting possiblecontamination (source unknown).
o The volatile organic compounds: methanol,tetrahydrofuran, methylene chloride, trichloroethene,tetrachloroethane, toluene, 2-propanone (acetone),chloroform and carbon tetrachloride were detected in oneor more samples analyzed. There was no pattern, displayedby depth, location or concentration, to suggest a singlesource for these contaminants.
o Elevated concentration of the priority pollutant metals:antimony, cadmium, leaa, mercury and zinc, were detectedin the soil samples from the plant site. There was noapparent pattern to their distribution on the site or inthe soil column.
6 AR303323
r
f
While there are no Federal or State of Delaware regulationsgoverning concentrations of volatiles in soils, their presenceis a cause for concern. These compounds are not naturalconstituents of soils, and their presence is indicative of apotential environmental concern. Based on the New Jersey ECRAguidelines, the elevated levels of metals detected at the site(particularly at CG EA-6 and 9) are also indicative of apotential environmental concern. The elevated metals on thesite are possibly the result of historical, pigment paintmanufacturing on the site. Many of these compounds arecomponents of paint pigments. Potential environmentalconcerns include:
1. Leaching of volatile organics and metals to thegroundwater-table, with subsequent potential for dischargeto the adjacent Christina River. The use of the localgroundwater as a water source is unknown and, therefore,another potential concern, should the groundwater-tablebecome contaminated. The elevated presence of metals inthe 13.0-15.0 ft. sample at CG EA-6 and volatile organicsin the 12.0-13.5 ft. sample at CG EA-3, indicate that thewater-table sands, beneath the site, may already beaffected.
?2. Worker exposure, during earthwork construction for theproposed structures and additions. Excavation forfoundations, utility trenches and other below gradeinstallation will bring construction personnel in contact
m with potentially contaminated soil and will expose those" soils to the atmosphere and to potential human contact.
J3. Disposal of excavated materials. In general, the soilsencountered in the areas of the proposed structures andbuilding addition are not considered suitable for reuse as
{ s t r u c t u r a l backfill, due to their unsuitable engineeringproperties (i.e., miscellaneous fill and wet silts).Therefore, disposal of these materials in conformance with
_ current environmental regulations will be necessary. The1 method of disposal of excavated soils may depend on* discussion of the data contained in this report with State
waste handling/ disposal authorities. The party accepting( t h e waste may also request additional testing be performed
on samples of the excavated materials to more generallycharacterize these soils, since the results reported in
I this evaluation reflect conditions at specific locationsand depths only.
The proximity of the Ciba-Geigy plant site to the nearby DuPontI Newport Landfill, which is a National Priority List (NPL) or» "Superfund" site, may act to enhance regulatory sensitivity to the
contamination, detected at the site. Based on this, DuffieldI Associates recommends that Ciba-Geigy:
AR3G3321*
1. Review the results of this^reconnaissance evaluation withState of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Control (DNREC) to determine theenvironmental risk and need for remedial action at thissite. This may require Ciba-Geigy to obtain additionalsoil samples, to better delimit the extent and characterof the soil contamination, and to implement monitoring ofgroundwater quality and flow at this site.
2. Prior to undertaking any excavation, dewatering, orremoval of soils from the area of this evaluation, it isrecommended that these data be reviewed by an industrialhygienist and supplemented if appropriate to determine anypossible risks to on-site personnel during and afterconstruction. Further, it is recommended that no soilsfrom the area of this evaluation be removed from the siteor disposed of/placed near environmental receptors withoutmore fully defining their environmental characteristics(eg., as a minimum, EP Toxicity characteristic).
In summary, the data obtained, by this reconnaissance exploration,indicate the presence of subsurface soil contamination beneathportions of the Ciba-Geigy plant site which were the subject ofthis evaluation. The potential magnitude, extent and source ofthat contamination and the environmental risk have not beendetermined. Therefore, it appears prudent for Ciba-Geigy toevaluate these unknowns and incorporate environmental awarenessinto the planned expansion and improvements at this site.
This report is based upon the application of scientific principlesand professional judgment of site conditions as represented by oursite visits and soil sampling with resulting subjectiveinterpretations. Professional judgments expressed herein are basedon facts currently available, within the limits of the existingdata, scope of work, budget and schedule. While this evaluationwas performed in an effort to generally characterize siteconditions, this assessment is based solely on conditionsencountered at the time and locations of sampling; conditionsbetween samples are, in fact, unknown. As a result, latentconditions and other contingencies bearing upon environmentalconditions of the site, may become evident in the future. Theinformation provided in this report is intended as guidance and notnecessarily a firm course of action, except where expressly statedas such, and is not to be construed as legal advice. This reportwas prepared for the exclusive use of Ciba-Geigy. The informationand opinions contained in this report are not to be.relied upon byany parties other than Ciba-Geigy without the prior written consentof Duffield Associates.
3R3Q3325
• • .. .. .« • « .. o00 « OO Ox* OO O O OO O O"tf*. - Irt*— O*O N» O *• »•• O K> irt ,. O"* ry80 IA O m O -T IA *•• O tn *— Ki AJ IA
eo o eo —Qk^> ^ <•£• _ __ ,_. _ __ ,, _ . - „ - . _
»- <NJ *- ^> O« »*~ » o m^ V
•oo -j- co «o wa
; g o |
^^ I5x^r- TJ «J C(V —• 3 O•- « C •-— • w
• * "v -~co c^ ^ in co o *^ *t •& o CNJ *~ o o f*« f"*« o Q %^ >.. .. .. .. .» .. . • .. O"*^ « 3 O » 4 >
-*PW OO^ O^~ N-O CD -*t O*O in O OO O r-CO 3Q.— Ct
>» .- o»-oeo •- o«-^-KI oo -ora o o -o o «— ^ .v o o
= •= £ ".§O O O O O O O O O O O - O O O O O 00 ^ 1. . . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .0 O C 4 I MO h^ h^ *O CO *O O O f1^ . ^O ho O O *O O CNJ CO ^ ~^ O O) 3V V V V V V sdr«— V V V v - V V V V i * 4)4t Q . C O
w " a o _EC m t.a a Q. 4)
—• « w 41 • O— 4) O CJE •* z _ IfII II II O O
KI— «0 »- ^- »- O N-.
P J » - O > O > O O - r - O K i m
C 41 •— E in~V TJ 3•o c— <0 C
41 t"&)<£c 9
«co
oc —O J=
in in1v
Oc c0 Oa. ~o
41wa— o-U COo o>
o cp- TJ uin in in in pj — 3v v v v _ 4, c
o *•• 3 K)30 —
41E
C41
O «J- a -Or- <O T- K) Kl O .-•O »- 3C vTKl f\jr*J xT *— PU .—
ON- .— N* ruK» Kt infl P\J •— r-r- »- V
m K» oo mm mm o o o.— ^ « ._V • - « » . - V V V V v T in PJ .a ~ in
— — r- •- a u XQ. 4>
c
o
C XO *- O» 41— o — ~— 41 41— — ta . —'— »> os a.O > B 41 6
41 J3 — Oi. — — D. O41 O En f*- in m inin com mm mm o in o m CL"O B t-• » v v v . — ' v v v v v v " v 4 1 « o•5 A-l .» H-4J B .C 41L. U U I- CB
a 13 4i E t.•-< c j* o— CO 1- D.
41 E O 41C 4) B 3 C a:4> TJ <_ o O 41
o> -i — C elxc. oca st-r mo oin eo*- r»ru .* eg oo 041 *-» o '—
O *f *t «- «- >»O «»in »rm mo CO »- m — jO B •>PJ .- fv — o c X^ « o — —
• -J B1-41 : "DC41 41 <a — T) c *-•^ 41 O U M
W 4 41 41E C U C ~ —
t- .C «-> O T> O
•O O 'D « » «> oo oo mo oo oo oo o o oo < - < • *-(-
Z X X X X X X X X X X U O * ' 4 ! 4 I O— 41 O C. • ~ .OE — C B = 41 n
•- E -i• • • • I C C
C 41 t- 1-O O E « 41frf nw 09 Q. *-*
O v *J to U)c • es o » *> 4i •t > ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 V Z O « e « t ;
oo o o . o o oo oo oo o o oo O M O CrtJK) mm purw rvrxj KIK^ popa *<r *j- oo « ^ « j = cv v v v v v v » — . » . ^ — j
a » —C C « 41 "OO — * \- 41— i- C « jr*< ' O 41 O
mm mo mm ino MKI mo o m mo •> J i 6 T 3 «. . . . .. .. .. . . .. _ C4!"
pjr- PJO pjfo P*JO str* pgm fM pa Pg»- > 4 1 O * - * - 1i i . i i T • • • • i i . • i i i . a . — omm mo mo mo KtKt mo m m mo .0 E > a . 4 i
. .. .. .. .. .. . • •• JO B C 4 1 VOin o>r orsf o*r Pain OK) o o OO < c o u j o c c o
c a »»o
jr 4>~ T3a a
41•ocj
41 O
a. »E B
aUK
CO
O(J
SR303327
I.I.1,I.IP APPENDIX 1
ILIII flR303328
Duffield Associates, Inc.5400 Limestone Road Date Reported 12/23/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Date Submitted 12/14/88
Discard Date 1/23/89CG-EA-1 0.5-2.5 ft Soil Sample Collected by CCollected on 12/13/88 at 1500 by EMH P'°- 973'HD
< •• COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN, Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted146 01963 59.34 040934 Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
Reviewed and Approved by:
*? Rever»« Slde F°r Explanation J^ thf S ' °OS tdyk , B . A .Of Symbol. And Abbreviation* And fl D Q A Q '3r5CSP Leader , GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard T«rm» And Condltiont
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
»*,...<>,> »«.«,,,,.0n
Respectfully SubmittedAMOCJ,,on ,0, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
u-v:.. o-aooraicx*s me
Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Rever*e Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviation* And v 'Our Standard Term* And Condition*
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And a D Q n Q *5 Q iOur Standard Terms And Condition* H ft O U O O O I
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/23/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/23/89
Collected by CCG-EA-1 5.5-7.5 ft Soil Sample P.O. 973-HDCollected on 12/13/88 at 1530 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089001000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000S*Methanol - - 0.3 mg/kg 900110000SEthanol < 1. mg/kg 900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
- & Environment!'
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
146 01963 59.34 0409*34 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
AtYSfSlEPOBT
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/23/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/23/89
Collected by CCG-EA-1 5.5-7.5 ft Soil Sample P.O. 973-BDCollected on 12/13/88 at 1530 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OPVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted-.•>**»AMoc.,,,0-,„, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc..410'. *CC'KJ,lll,0n 'c. ao * »Eo.,,onm«nu! Reviewed and Approved by:..,,
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.& KE£SSS£%« GrouP ^Vu GC/MS Volatiles
_..„__,„ Our Standard Term* And Condition*•*"• -ne-fwCojncao' ~ ^ ^3e ce - *ao(yaicyiei me
Duffield Associates, Inc. DEC 28 1988 —5400 Limestone Road Date Reported 12/27/88sne oaVilmington, DE 19808- 123fti|cc|p| n ACorkr.A-r™ m'* S"bmitted 12/15/88
oUt-HtLD ASSOCIATES, fnc Discard Date 1/27/89CG EA-2 (0.5-2. 5ft) Grab Soil Sample Collected by cCollected on 12/14/88 at 1105 by EMH/DSS 1270-HD
900201 COOS1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
034 01963 25.00 037500 Reviewed and Approved by:
See Revere Side For Expianation rr ? , Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And Abbreviation* 5£d Gr°Up Le* - fiC HS JfolatilesOur Standard Term* And Condition* ~ ^ - - -
I
r
, ANALYSIS REPORT
£dncatierLaboratoriesu -
rrrr
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
' T.f.T "SariinTp"Mn. SU
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (0.5-2.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected On 12/14/88 at 1105 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVGA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And a £) Q ft o r» ,-Our Standard Terms And Condition* f
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/88' 5400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88i Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (4-6ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1125 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089001000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000SMethanol 0.5 mg/kg 900110000SEthanol - < 1. mg/kg 900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
034 01963 25.00 037500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation flrmm T eaHor PP/MC Unlat-llocOf Symbols And Abbreviations And btOUp L*aa«. bUVto VOiatliesOur Standard Terms And Conditions
srs REPORT-
'5 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (4-6ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1125 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
' 9.10.11.12.13.14.15.B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.ASee Reverse Side For Explanation £rmm foa^or rr/Mc:Of Symbols And Abbreviations And br°Up header» «./«!>Our Standard Terms And Conditions flR303333
ANALYSIS REPORT
425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301
LLI ampl| NovSV 1338188
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (4-6ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1125 by EMH/DSS Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions AR3033U{1
___ ANALYSIS REPORT
Lancaster Laboratories. . . „ , , . . . „ • - - -5 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported i2/27/885400 Limestone Road Date 5*^ ted 2/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
CG EA-3 (0.5-2. 5ft) Grab Soil SampleCollected on 12/14/88 at 0950 by EMH/DSS Rel'
RESULT LIMIT OPANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTIONVGA GC/MS Library Search attached UtifcCTIONModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached
-2900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc
034 01963 25.00 038500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader. GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And " ~ " "Our Standard Terms And Conditions
f ANALYSIS REPORT
Laboratories ,,. ma2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (0.5-2.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 0950 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And ^ _ . _Our Standard Terms And Conditions AR3033U3
- lew ~KKxvarm me.
ANALYSIS REPORT
.ancasterLaboratories- ^2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (12-13.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1030 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OPANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089002000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000SMethanol < 0.2 mg/kg 900110000SEthanol < 1. mg/kg 900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
034 01963 25.00 038500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.SS-eR*1Z?*.sl?A<jr plfn"tl2n- GrouP Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And f 'Our Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYS(S REPORT
5 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (12-13.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1030 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OPVGA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
See Reverse Side For Explanation Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And Abbreviations And Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard Terms And Conditions ft fi O H O o I "
H f\ <J (J J j fy J
ANALYSIS REPORT' ' ''
25 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
190
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (12-13.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1030 by EMH/DSS Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted.._ . , Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.s Amemcin Association for *
nJi BiQiogtcai & Environmental' twtmg
034 01963 25.00 037500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And - _. f. .. ~ _ ,Our Standard Terms And Conditions H R OUOOH/
New Holland Pike, Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-4 (0.5-2.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1215 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSS REP.ORT
I]I
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road. Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-4 (0.5-2.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1215 by EMH/DSS Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ancaster Laboratories .2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
II
It
I
i,
I
II
-**r
Duffield Associates, Inc. n .. D5400 Limestone Road °ate ported 12/27/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 nfte Subn]i^ed 12/15/88
Discard Date 1/27/89CG EA-4 (4-6ft) Grab Soil SampleCollected on 12/14/88 at 1225 by EMH/DSS
t ANALYSIS AS RECFTVPn LIMIT °FVGA GC/MS Library Search RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) „ K 089001000S
f Methanol < n , attached 117723000S1 Ethanol < , m*'k* 900110000S
' l- rag/kg 900201000S1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Ii
Respectfully Submitted034 01963 25.00 037500
See Revere Side For Explanation Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And Abbreviations And Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur S1*"*1*"1 Term» And Conditions
1. The data indicated that no significant extraneous peaks vere observed.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
_ „ Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation r-i-r»nn t a-,,-),-.,- /-^/uc T? i »<iOf Symbols And Abbreviations And Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard Terms And Conditions H II J U 3 3 5 i
New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
- . > * i * . ' -%;LLI- Sample-No. SV 1338192- .-.. -/..xn . - -r.-mts.-5»i.«-.V;-«. v -j sasi SjIQJHjjBjHpBja* .
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/88J 5400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/883 Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CJCG EA-4 (4-6ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1225 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OPModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE'Chloromethane < 10. ug/kg 10. 082700000SBromomethane < 10. ug/kg 10. 082800000S
I COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For ExplanafloB Q ft "3 9 Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And AbbreviatlonrWtt*-' \J \J \J \J C.Our Standard Terms And Conditions
_________ ANALYSIS REPORT
Lancaster Laboratories «.«»,„2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster. PA 17601 -5994 (717)656-2301
LLI Samole No. SV
.I*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Uilraington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by C( C G - E A 5 2.3-4.3 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HD
Collected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
. RESULT LIMIT OFI ANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE" VOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089002000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
AlsOC**f'O" f
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
o frFo.roo m., °34 01963 25.00 038500 Reviewed and Approved by:t o' tesnn;
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
-" •
Lancaster Laboratories »5 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 5 2.3-4.3 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OPVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 15 peaks 0. 089800000S
4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Su>-~ittedLancaster Labor. Dries, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Revl?r**s' *.FK<ifExipL*n*tl?n-, Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Term* And Conditions
"AI4ALY$IS REPORT
IIIIIIM"
f
I
f
I
f
f
- —-———————^^LLI
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 5 2.3-4.3 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And
> And :
II
III
Lancaster Laboratories.._..i2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. n k „5400 Limestone Road £ate Reported 12/27/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 ^ate Submitted 12/15/88
Discard Date 1/27/89CG-EA 5 5.3-7.3 Grab Soil Sample rtCollected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD \ ,' 127°-HD
ANALYSIS • ASRRE?PTVPn LIMIT °FVGA GC/MS Library Search KhCEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) , u j 089001000SMethanol n , attached 117723000SEthanol _ f V mg/*Z 900110000S
K mg/k« 90020 1000S1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted034 01963 25.00 037500
See Reverse Side For ExaiJ»aft>fi A Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And Abbreviated0 ° J ° Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard Term, And Conditions
Lancaster Laboratories2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
£:.•*£"•
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/88[ 5 4 0 0 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88
Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89Collected by C
• CG-EA 5 5.3-7.3 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HD| Collected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OF1 V O A GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
15.P B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliottrrrrr
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS REPORT
I
I
ancasterNew Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
'-LtT* Sample 'No SW 1338532. . .-- ._. } yn ; ,Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 5 5.3-7.3 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation ft p O f\ O O CTrflup Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And HnOUwOUUOur Standard Terms And Condition*
I
I
II
III
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 6 0.5-2.5 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1225 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089001000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000SMethanol < 0.2 mg/kg 900110000SEthanol < 1. mg/kg 900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
. . ;''•? fr:-fe'.> ' ANALYSIS REPORT
ancasterLaboratories15 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 6 0.5-2.5 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1225 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 15 peaks 0. 089800000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
CDUDCOooCDRespectfully Submitted j-v-}
oc.ji.cx.tor Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. Q^« «''i°in.K0nm.nu. '' Reviewed and Approved by: s-r*»C testing
See Rever« Side For ExplaWBoft f Jimothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And AbbrevlatSrSQrfU Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS RlPQBT
Lancaster Laboratories -, ^2425 New (Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
--US-Sample -No. SV 1338528i *eHi(KSit&aDuffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Wilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 6 0.5-2.5 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1225 by DSS/DLD Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And
4 „ .. Our Standard Terms And Conditions fl R 3 0 3 3 6
Lancaster Laboratories. .„15 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. n,, „5400 Limestone Road °ate *eP°rted 12/27/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 £?te Subraitted 12/15/88
Discard Date 1/27/89CG-EA 6 13.0-15.0 Grab Soil SampleCollected on 12/15/88 at 1245 by DSS/DLD
ANALYSIS RESULT LIMIT opVOA GC/MS Library Search RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE< 0 2Ethanol _ 2 mgg 900110000S
900201000S1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
i
« Respectfully SubmittedESSr"" 034 01963 7S nn m?snn Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
« r Z*""***™™* ^ U1963 25'00 037500 Reviewed and Approved by:
- ^ T iSfca V co e,. r ^ Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Hr/,wir-»M- see Reverse Side For Explanation, n O n O O C OGrouo Lpari^r rr/MQOf Symbols And Abbreviations AfllR M X .-< h / urouP deader, GC/MSOur Standard Terms And Conditions
••"• : ""-" ANALYSIS REPQRT
Lancaster Laboratories ,.„.„„„2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 1760.1-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 6 13.0-15.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1245 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVGA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 15 peaks 0. 089800000S
I B=detected in method blank J=estimated concentration D=diluted sample
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS R|PC|RT
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 6 13.0-15.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 1245 by DSS/DLD Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Hroim teaH/Of Symbols And Abbreviations And Ur°UP Lead'
- — Councir o -v-c Biw;- Our standard Terms And Conditions-wcxaiones i c
^ : -...• - : •-•" ANALYSIS REPORT
Lancaster Laboratories2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
rrrrrrrrrrrr
,Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 7 0.5-2.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 0940 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089002000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000SMethanol 0.4 mg/kg 900110000SEthanol < 1. mg/kg 900201000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
034 01963 25.00 038500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
« ANALYSI? REPORT
ancdsterLaboratories: ' '. ~~5 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by C| CG-EA 7 0.5-2.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDj Collected on 12/15/88 at 0940 by DSS/DLD Rel.
, RESULT LIMIT OFj VOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE' Volatile compounds 0. 15 peaks 0. 089800000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
See Revere Side For Explanation Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.Of Symbols And Abbreviations And Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ftR303366
> ANALYSIS REPORT
I Lancaster'Laboratories2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
I
I
f
1 pT W|. SV J1338530
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG-EA 7 0.5-2.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/15/88 at 0940 by DSS/DLD Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedO- .s»:.j,.o- ,-.. Lancaster Laboratories, Inc." »;-i«"»';o"3 '05 ..a & t**v»(C"rripi:j - Reviewed and Approved by:* r »
Timoth: S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For ExplanalloE) Q H 3 3 6 7 Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And AbbreviatlonttAHd0 w wSymbolsOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS REPORT
Iff
.ancasterLaboratories,_„25 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301 '
I un^niron^E ^TSaofl 17V Date Submitted 12/15/88^ Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
fCG EA-8 (0.5-2.Oft) Grab Soil Sample p°0 i?™5,™ °Collected on 12/14/88 at 1535 by EMH/DSS Rel'
t RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTIONs Miis.,!, :;;«!£} ™™°™
II
900201000S1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully Submitted
0340,963 25.00 037500
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.. ^ ^ Xj n CO Gr°UP Uader' GC/HS VolatilesOur Standard Terms And Condffldns U v? O D 0
ANALYSfS fiEPQBT
2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
I
I
f
NO. sv
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted .12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-8 (0.5-2.Oft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1535 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFVOA GC/MS Library Search AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVolatile compounds 0. 5 peaks 0. 089800000S
- Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS
New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
V-.ll*
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-8 (0.5-2.Oft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1535 by EMH/DSS Rel.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And flnonOOTrvOur Standard Terms And Conditions H tt O U 0 »5 f (j
mtortes™2425 New HollarWPike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/885400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by CCG EA-9 (0.5-2.5ft) Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1400 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVGA GC/MS Library Search attached 089001000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000SMethanol 1-6 ®g/kg 900110000SEthanol < 1. mg/kg 9002010005
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Ol inlin;
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
034 01963 25.00 037500 Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS Volatilesw 9 ™ * « « * * « ' ,Our St.nd.rd Term. And Condition, ft R 3 Q 3 3 7 I
I Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc*
r Andean Association 'or _. , % , . j iw^v *ccr«o(iai.o« Reviewed and Approved by:'Ci B>oio<j>cai & Environment*)o' testing
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations AndOur Standard Terms And Conditions
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
- .aoc-a'o- ei ">t
B. ' •B IB lt_.. IB IB afllillBaaVaR BI BaV•..•[•• •^•••MM
B L '..,"• "'•-•' "."• VT' -.:.- -t«»-".-. -4?f, «F-''i.., -**•.. - 'J-"-::-t:jjlp:- ''s*?**"™S~f&t' *,:•)''•< 1. •-••>»•!» i«-«r* ,1 IX •-- Ai-JSJ
[If ANALYSIS REPORT 1
if:
IfIIIr
Lancaster Laboratories,1425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (/IT) od6 2301'
__ Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Renort*>H l?/"77/o«| 5400 Limestone Road DUFFIELD ASSOCIATES, Inc. Date Submitted 12/15/881 Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89
Collected by Cf C G - E A 9 19.0-21.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HD
Collected on 12/15/88 at 1635 by DSS/DLD
f RESULT LIMIT OP™frr MQ MK c », AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEVOA GC/MS Library Search attached 089001000SModified Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) attached 117723000S
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
r American Association to, _. . , , . , »'.i»,y Aee,M.ui.on Reviewed and Approved by::•«' Biological 4 Environm«nui)' testing
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesO« Symbols And Abbreviations And .«rt^oo-ic-And Condl«o"« . A R 3 0 3 3 / 5
I
II
I
i
III
'Wl umw+JW' cr swis\sr \svv\ji tis+y •/ nnrcKATF«25 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 12/27/881 5 4 0 0 Limestone Road • Date Submitted 12/15/88
Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 1/27/89Collected by C
CG-EA 9 19.0-21.0 Grab Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HD•' Collected on 12/15/88 at 1635 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OF( M o d i f i e d Purg. EPA 624 (Soil) AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
I
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc,Reviewed and Approved by:
Timothy S. Oostdyk, B.A.See Reverse Side For Explanation Group Leader, GC/MS VolatilesOf Symbols And Abbreviations And . . . - _ _ _Our Standard Terms And Conditions
ANALYSIS REPORT.- 'Ii .._ • • • ' '•£ -
meatierLaboratories *___&»NewtJ6HWit-4?lfe,-U6ncaster. PA 17601-5994> (717) 656-2301 '.""" , "'-
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/10/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/13/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/10/89
Collected by CCG-EA-1 .5-2.5 ft Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/13/88 at 1500 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEMoisture 12.1 % by vt. 0.1 011101100 *
"Moisture" represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at103 • 105 degrees Celsius.
Note:The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.Corrosivity see below 049600000 *
Corrosivity:The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 8.08 indicating
that the waste is not corrosive.A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2
or equal to or greater than 12.5.Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability : see below 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test :alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with other
m., »ttoc.,,icx, ,„, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.,-irv Accreditation _ . , , . ,» B.oiog.c«i i. £nv,ronm.m.i Reviewed and Approved by:tm.ng rr J
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories,_ . , , . ,Reviewed and Approved
rr
, Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.See Reverse Side For Explanation Tnnraanir AnalvoicOf Symbols And Abbreviations And Inorganic^ AnadYS^Our Standard Terms And Conditions HflOUOO / /
1
pppp
„2425New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 1760lN&9$4 * t7T7)'65e-2301 f
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/10/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/13/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/10/89
Collected by CCG-EA-1 .5-2.5 ft Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/13/88 at 1500 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
physical and chemical data available on the waste, can be usea by responsi-ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.
Reactivity see below 11:'.04000 *React ivi ty:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Vaste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn ElliottL
Respectrully Submitted059 01963 30.00 037300
R.ver~ SM. For Exp,.n.Mon Sri™? ', *'? ' "** 'Of Symbols And Abbreviations And inorganic AnalysisOur Standard T«rm« And Conditions flDOAOlirt
HnoUoj/o
I
I
ANALYSIS REPORT
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Y.T.T gam'rOa M^ CTT 1
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/10/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/13/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/10/89
1 Collected by C• CG-EA-1 5.5-7.5 ft Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HD|} Collected on 12/13/88 at 1530 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFI ANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE•i Moisture 22.7 7, by wt. 0.1 011101100 *i "Moisture" represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at1 1 0 3 - 105 degrees Celsius.
Note:The pH vas performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.I Corrosivity see below .049600000 *• Corrosivity:
The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 7.23 indicatingI that the waste is not corrosive.
A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2or equal to or greater than 12.5.
Thallium . < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *I Ignitability : see below 054201000 *• The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.
The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitabili ty"
_ only on liquids. : Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherI the material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,• May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.
This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with other
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.S«« R«v«r«« Sld« For Explanation Inorganic AnalysisOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* And fl D O n O o T r»Our Standard Terms And Conditions AKJU3J79
ANALYSIS REPORT
425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/10/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/13/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/10/89
Collected by CCG-EA-1 5.5-7.5 ft Soil Sample . p.o. 1270-HDCollected on 12/13/83 at 1530 by EMH Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
physical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.
Reactivity see below 112104000 *Reactivity:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Vaste Branch of EPA, July 12, ,?85.
COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
059 01963 30.00 037300 Reviewed and Approved by:
Lee A. Seats. B.S. Mgr.Se« Reverw Sto« For Explanation Inoriranl^ An»1v<H<:Of Symbols And Abbreviations And inorganic AnalysisOur Standard Term* And Condition* a p O A O O O n
fII
r/istwLaboratories2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
No. SV
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported L../895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1105 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEMoisture 32.7 % by wt. 0.1 011101100 *
"Moisture" represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at103 - 105 degrees Celsius.
Note:The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.Corrosivity see below 049600000 *
Corrosivity:The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 7.76 indicating
that the waste is not corrosive.A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2
or equal to or greater than 12.5.Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability see below 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.R*V*TM S4d« For Explanation Inorganic Analysis
Ol Symbol* And Abbreviation* And f\ D Q H Q Q Q IOur Standard Term* And Conditions H U 0 U 0 J D 1
Environmental' tavtmg
I
I
'i
«!I
\
I
I
I
I
2425 New Holland Pjke. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (717)656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1105 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.Reactivity see below 112104000 *
Reactivi ty:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Vaste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
059 01963 30.00 036000 Reviewed and Approved by:
Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.SM RtVtrW Sld« for Explanation Tnnrrranir AnalvHcOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* And inor£an*c jTrf l1 * - Our Standard T«rm* And Condition* HnjQ3382
n
ANALYil REPORT' • •
2425 New Holland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301 bDuffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1105 by EMH/DSS Rel.
No t e :The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.Corrosivity see below 049600000 *
Corrosivity:The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 6.07 indicating
that the waste is not corrosive.A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2
or equal to or greater than 12.5.Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability see below 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.
Our Standard Term* And Condition*
ANALYSIS REPORT
II
II^
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-2 (4-6') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1125 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.Reactivity see below 112104000 *
Reactivity:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This vaste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Waste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
Note:The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 mi'n.Corrosivity see below 049600000 *
Corrosivity:The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 7.51 indicating
that the waste is not corrosive.A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2
or equal to or greater than 12.5.Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability - see below 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed :to air or water.The sample did'not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not .indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-
Respectfully Submitted'•c*nAaaocunonto. Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.!*£S2r.°En__ Reviewed and Approved by:
><* tnuno.
Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.R«V*TM SW« For Explanation Ino rgani c- Analy s i s
UT symbol* And Abbreviation* And r ~ 'A*'" Wr'Our Standard Ttrm* And Condition* 1
INCORPORATED.25 New Holland Pike. Lancaster, PA 17601-5994 (7J7) 656-2301
I
I
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE' 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 0950 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.Reactivity see below 112104000Reactivity:
The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.
I This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Waste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.I of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.
Corrosivity see below 049600000 *Corrosivi ty:
I The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 7.93 indicatingthat the waste is not corrosive.
A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2or equal to or greater than 12.5.
I Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability see below : 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.• The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"
( o n l y on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.
I This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-
__ »o. Respectfully Submittedi ~ n *cc,»oiumon . , . _t ia. BioioaicaiiEnv,,o«n.nui Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
**'"* Reviewed and Approved by:
S«« Rtvtre* Sldt For Explanation . . cAar_ o cOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* ABOX Q H Q 0 , seats, D.a.Our Standard Term* And Condltj riX 0 U O o J u Inorganic Analysis
* .f, «m«ncar> Council™ _aoo,aior«s inc
2425NewHolland Pike. Lancaster. PA 17601-5994 (717) 656-2301
" ————— ULT~SampIe~ No". ~5V~1338173
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, 6E 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-3 (12-13.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1030 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.Reactivity see below 112104000 *
Reactivity:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfideexceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Vaste Branch of EPA, July 12, 19o5.
I COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
*
*
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
S«« R«v«rM Sid« For Explanation n Q n O O n O Lee A S*»ar<s R S MOTOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* fr« J U O O 9 2 T ^eats, B.b. Mgr.Our Standard Term* And Condition* Inorganic Analysis
I
I
/ANALYSIS REPORT
INCORPORATED
2425 New Holland PiK§;tancaster. "PA 17801-5994 (717)656-2301 .
LLI Sample No. SU 1338174
I Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road . Date Submitted 12/14/88Uilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
( C o l l e c t e d b y CCG EA-4 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1215 by EMH/DSS Rel.
I RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEMoisture 22.5 £by w t . O.I 011101100
( " M o i s t u r e " represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at103 • 105 degrees Celsius.
Note:The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
_ of deionized vater) after being stirred for 15 min.I Corrosivity see below 049600000 *" Corrosivity:
The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 8.11 indicatingI that the waste is not corrosive.
A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2or equal to or greater than 12.5.
. Thallium < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *I Ignitability see below 054201000 ** The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.
The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"
H only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherI the material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,• May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.
This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi
* AMocMon to. Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
"""""o" Reviewed and Approved by:
S«« R«*«fM Sid« For Explanation t_ * cear<, R sOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* And bee *• aeais» a-5-AKLJ-k w« dymooi* And Abbreviation* «na rt . « T . . -, t
Jjjr Our Standard Tatm* And CondWo«*o Q $ 9 3 .Inorganic Analysis
I
I
LLI Sample No. SV 1338174
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-4 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1215 by EMH/DSS Rel.
( R E S U L T LIMIT O FANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.f Reactivity see below 112104000 *
Reactivity:The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
_ Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.f This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it does* not generate a. quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfide
exceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established byI the Solid Waste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.
059 01963 30.00 036000 Reviewed and Approved by:RCV.HM Skfr for Explanation fl P *3 fl 'ftfQlA <;«ar« R< MOTOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* And fl ft O U 0 JM9 • Seats, B.S. Mgr
Our Standard Tarm* And Condition* Inorganic Analysis•now* Laoo,arw>w
ANALYSIS REPORT
LLI Sample No. SV 1338174
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 11/895400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-4 (0.5-2.5') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1215 by EMH/DSS Rel.
. , ,Lancaster LaboratoriesReviewed and Approved by:
S«* R*V*KM Sld« For Explanation ^ n o n feQ S CM f«. B SOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* And ft R J Q O 3FJ $' feats, B.S._ __^ — —— Our Standard Term* And Condition* " Inorganic Analysis
•soeoo*™ Laooratorwi Inc
B ^ &*****a BiBiBnBBiBBB9iM5E&' / ^ ^ fffSSU StSSi K SfBii f ^ Si ^ ^ Sfff ^ fm ^ ^ M ^ f Sf»f» rm ^ tfiSifSffSl0S§Bi• aaaaaaVaK ^ fiS Hk. ^ ^ ^ KBHBI BilffiSaBi aiBTOHlBBtHBBi py— * iv '-* ** ar*! tv*Ji • i "i •• *J • • •••••Bif'flalI MffiHBifti j HMBaBiaiHiiffliB jIHflBJj H5 * ^ 5 ^ ^ ^ ^ 5i( ^ iJ iJ ^ M||M| »l i BB B'TBB|>BBBH|
pj /ys a™"•_ ««pfck ______ —————————— -.-—. — -^ j aa a a MMaMaMagEBaaaaaaaaia MiOaKaT
(SIfaMMBMD
. . ——— 7~ — ' —————————— «3P —— ; —— •
fff ' ' ' :•-'/• • •';•• ';•''••' -.'';"'-: "iC'*/ INCORPORATED -- :MM»0_ — J*f,> n ---im<Mlil l»|-»)i • • i i ii .n lUVlh'nIli VII^IMI na» » . .
LLI Sample No. SV 1338175
| Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/89* 5400 Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/14/88
Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89( C o l l e c t e d b y C
CG EA-4 (4.0-6.0*) Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1225 by cMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT, OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEMoisture 21.6 % by wt. 0.1 011101100 *
"Moisture" represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at103 - 105 degrees .Celsius.
Note:The pH was performed on a 1:1 slurry (25 gms. of sample and 25 ml.
of deionized water) after being stirred for 15 min.Corrosivity see below 049600000 *
Corrosivi ty:The pH of a 1:1 slurry (with deionized water) was 7.68 indicating
that the waste is not corrosive.A waste is corrosive if it exhibits a pH equal to or less than 2
or equal to or greater than 12.5.Thallium • < 20. mg/kg 20. 052501300 *Ignitability : see below 054201000 *
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with otherphysical and chemical data available on the waste, can be used by responsi-
ior Respectfully Submitted»°En,,,onm.nu! Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.
Reviewed and Approved by:•dilation
tMting
R»v«r*« Sld« For Explanation nonO'3Q£ T aa A ^aa t-o R <; Mo-rOf Symbol* And Abbreviation* AoH 6 U J 3 " « ^ee A' J»eatS,_ H.i. ngr._^^ .— . — - Our Standard Term* And Conditions Inorganic Analysis
•oenoem Lacxxaiones inc
ANALYSIS REPORT
LLI Sample No. SV 1338175
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/11/895400 Limestone Road • Date Submitted 12/14/88Vilmington, DE 19808-1232 Discard Date 2/11/89
Collected by CCG EA-4 (4.0-6.0') Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDCollected on 12/14/88 at 1225 by EMH/DSS Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODE
ble parties to judge if this sample is ignitable.Reactivity see below 112104000 *
Reactivity:.The sample was extracted by the interim method described in SV 846,
Chapter 7.3. This solution was analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.This waste is not considered reactive and hazardous because it doesnot generate a quantity of cyanide exceeding 250 ppm or sulfide <exceeding 500 ppm. These interim threshold limits were established bythe Solid Waste Branch of EPA, July 12, 1985.
SM R«v«r*« Sld* For Explanation, p o n o O Q "J Lee A. Seats, B.S. Mgr.Of Symbol* And Abbreviation* Aftpfi v/UOU.7/ _ < _ A -i iOur Standard Term* And Condition* Inorganic Analysis
•*»- ••l. L
I
I
I
I
I
I!
\
I
I
ancaser 'amtorm •.__...:,425 New Holland Pike; Lancaster,' PA 17601-5994 "(717) 65S-2301 "
Duffield Associates, Inc.5400 Limestone Road Date Reported 1/11/89Vilmington, DE • 19808-1232 Date Sut>mi<:ted 12/14/88
Discard Date 2/11/89CG EA-4 (4.0-6.0') Soil Sample Collected by CCollected on 12/14/88 at 1225 by EMH/DSS '?' 127°'HD
< 30' m^/kg 30. 052501300 •'1 COPY TO Duffield Associates, Inc." ATTN: Mr. Glenn Elliott
|»«o<:ial,oo lot
Respectfully SubmittedLancaster Laboratories, Inc.Reviewed and Approved by:
S«« R«v*fM side For Explanation ,Of Symbol* And Abbreviation* And Lee A. Seats, B.Sg Mgc.n Q Q Q QOur Standard Tarm* And Condition* Inorganic Analysis^ " J 0 U 3 O
ANALYSIS REPORT
2425 New Holland Pike, Lancaster, PA .17601-5994 . (717) 656-2301
Duffield Associates, Inc. Date Reported 1/12/895AOO Limestone Road Date Submitted 12/15/38Vi1m ing ton, DE L9808-1232 Discard Date 2/12/89
Collected by CCG-EA5 2.3-4.3' Soil Sample P.O. 1270-HDColle.red on 12/15/88 at 1555 by DSS/DLD Rel.
RESULT LIMIT OFANALYSIS AS RECEIVED DETECTION LAB CODEMoisture 29.3 7. by wt. 0.1 011101100 *
"Moisture" represents the loss in weight of the sample after oven drying at103 - 105 degrees Celsius.
The sample did not spontaneously ignite when exposed to air or water.The sample did not ignite when exposed to a Bunsen flame for ten seconds.
Presently, no EPA approved method exists to determine if a solid is"ignitable". The EPA has approved methods to determine "ignitability"only on liquids. Therefore, this test alone does not indicate whetherthe material is ignitable as defined by RCRA in the Federal Register,May 19, 1980, Section 261.21.This test, which shows physical properties of the waste, along with other
Amtr Respectfully Submitted». ,Acc.MnanoT'"' Lancaster Laboratories, Inc.•m Bwlogcn t Envi,onm»ntaJ , . . ," -*1"0 Reviewed and Approved by:
S«« R«v*r*4j side For Explanation Lee A. Seats, B.S, $gr.. Q o Q QOf Symbol* And Abbreviationi.And Inorganic Analysil H o U O 0 2 ?Our Standard Term* And Condition* . a ' "
