HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSHW-2024-007484 RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan For
Solid Waste Management Unit
233
Prepared for:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Prepared by:
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
Promontory Facility
UTD009081357
July 2024
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................2
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................2
2.2 LOCAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .........................................................2
3.0 SWMU DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................................3
4.0 DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION .......................................................7
4.1 SAMPLING PROCESS ...............................................................................7
4.2 SAMPLING METHODS .............................................................................7
4.3 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES ............................................................8
4.4 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES ...................................................8
4.5 SITE SURVEY CONTROL ........................................................................9
4.6 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY ..................................................9
4.7 ANALYTICAL METHODS .....................................................................10
4.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES ...............10
4.8.1 Field Quality Control Samples.......................................................10
4.8.2 Laboratory Quality Control............................................................11
4.9 DATA MANAGEMENT...........................................................................11
5.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY ...........................................................12
5.1 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION .....................12
5.2 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS ...........................12
6.0 DECISION STATEMENT ....................................................................................13
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Promontory Facility Location Map
Figure 2 – SWMU 233 Location Map
Figure 3 – SWMU 233 Approximate Sample Location
TABLES
Table 1 – Analytical List
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 1 July 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) has been developed for an abandoned waste
burning grounds (233) Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) to comply with the requirements
outlined in Module VI of the ATK Launch Systems Inc. Promontory Post Closure Permit. ATK
Launch Systems Inc is owned by Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation.
The purpose of this SAP is to present methodologies that will be used for investigation
and closure of SWMU 233 according to Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R315-101. R315-101
and R315-7-14 (which incorporates 40 CFR 265.114 and 265.197, by reference) which outline
the processes necessary to evaluate potential risks and options for closure. Once this SWMU has
been characterized, it is anticipated that a risk-based closure under a residential scenario will be
selected. The final closure solution for the SWMU will be discussed with the Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (the Division) as the SWMU has been characterized for
contamination from constituents of probable concern (COPC), human-health and ecological risk,
and soil to groundwater migration potential.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 2 July 2024
2.0 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The following sections discuss the general facility and local conditions around SWMU
233.
2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Facility is located about 18 miles northwest of the Corinne, Utah, and 14 miles
southwest of Tremonton, Utah (Figure 1). The Facility operates as a solid-rocket propulsion
research, development, testing, and production facility. Additional information regarding
production and waste-handling activities at the Facility are provided in a RCRA Facility
Investigation Phase 1 (Phase 1 RFI) of the Promontory Facility prepared for the Utah Division of
Solid and Hazardous Waste (2000), now the Division of Waste Management and Radiation
Control (the Division). SWMU 233 is located along the south end of the South Plant adjacent to
Building M-303. The location of SWMU 233 within the Facility is shown on Figure 2. The
location of SWMU 233 was based on the 2000 Phase 1 RFI and Google Earth.
2.2 LOCAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
SMWU 233 ranges from approximately 30 to 50 feet above groundwater. SWMU 233 is
located on a western flank of the Blue Springs Hills. This area is comprised of horst and graben
block fault system with two major fault trends: north15 degrees east and east-west. The Blue
Springs Hills at this location consists of Paleozoic carbonate units covered with a thin veneer of
Quaternary alluvium. The valley is filled with Tertiary and Quaternary sediments which include
older fluvial and lacustrine sediments, alluvial fan deposits, Lake Bonniville sediments, and
recent alluvium. SWMU 233 is located on a gentle slope of moderately large alluvial fan.
Sediments consist of unconsolidated gravels, sands, and clays of colluvial (debris flow), fluvial,
and alluvial depositional environments.
Groundwater has a general western gradient within the Blue Springs Hills. However,
within the valley, flows are generally south towards the Great Salt Lake.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 3 July 2024
3.0 SMWU DESCRIPTIONS
SWMU 233 is an abandoned burning ground with approximate dimensions of 700 feet by
300 feet, based on historic photographs, see Figure 3. This burning ground operated from 1959
to 1964 and only burned small quantities of waste daily during those years. During the 2000
Phase 1 RFI ten sample locations with samples collected at 2 feet and 5 feet in depth.
During the 2000 Phase 1 RFI NGSC asked for closure of SWMU 233 with no further
action. April 5, 2024, the Division sent a letter numbered DSHW-2024-005542. The following
concerns were asked to be addressed:
1. The SWMU 233 old burn ground was used for open burning of waste reactive materials
consisting primarily of waste propellant, propellant contaminated waste, and potentially
waste solvents at the ground surface. Therefore, the highest concentration of constituents
related to the open burning activities is likely to be in the surface soils. The RFI Report
says samples were collected at the two-foot below ground surface (bgs) and five-foot bgs
depths at each location. The surface exposure pathway has not been evaluated.
Additionally, most sample locations (eight out of ten) were selected from the center line of
the burn trench. The remaining two sample locations were chosen at random. Sample
locations at the center of the burn trench may potentially represent the worst-case scenario
(and therefore the highest concentrations); however, the extent of lateral contamination
has not been delineated.
Please conduct additional sampling to characterize surface soil and to define the lateral
extent of potential contamination.
2. The RFI Report states that the soil sample analysis was performed by Thiokol’s
environmental laboratory using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved
methods but does not list the specific analytical methods used. Please include the analytical
methods used to analyze the soil samples in the report.
3. The SWMU 233 RFI Report compares analytical data to EPA Preliminary Remediation
Goals from 1999, EPA Proposed RCRA Corrective Action Levels from 1990, United States
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 4 July 2024
Geological Survey (USGS) Background concentrations of Elements in Soils from 1984, and
EPA Soil Screening Levels dilution attenuation factor (DAF) 20 from 1997. The Division
acknowledges that the SWMU 233 RFI Report was prepared years ago when these
screening levels were current.
Please note the following information applies to all current and future investigations:
-Analytical data shall be compared to current applicable screening levels.
-While the Division acknowledges that soil metals contamination
concentrations were historically compared to USGS National Background
Ranges, the comparison of soil metals contaminant concentrations to
either site-specific or the default county-specific background threshold
values for Utah should be conducted, in accordance with the Technical
Guide for Risk Assessments: Utah Administrative Code R315-101 (TGRA).
-It is appropriate to compare maximum contaminant concentrations to a
background threshold value (BTV) (typically the 95% upper tolerance
limit derived from the background dataset) or the default county-specific
BTV.
4. The RFI Report states that xylene was the only constituent within the area of concern
that exceeded the range found in Thiokol (ATK Promontory) background soil. While this
appears to be true based on the scatterplots and boxplots provided in the report, the
median concentration of xylene appears to be higher than the background xylene
concentration. Xylene is also not a naturally occurring compound in the environment.
Unless the xylene concentrations detected in the background soils can be attributed to
something other than the activities conducted at the ATK Promontory facility, xylene
should be retained as a contaminant of potential concern (COPC).
Additionally, the cadmium concentrations in the interquartile range (25% to 75%) within
SWMU 233 exceeds the concentrations in the background soil interquartile range – even
though the highest concentrations were detected in the background soils. In fact, the two
interquartile ranges do not overlap, which indicates that the cadmium concentrations in
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 5 July 2024
SWMU 233 may in fact differ from the background. A quantile-quantile plot may be useful
for comparing the two distributions.
Please note that any constituent concentrations that are site related must be retained as a
COPC, unless they are representative of background.
5. The RFI Report states that the old burn ground was used for open burning of waste
reactive materials consisting primarily of waste propellant and propellant contaminated
waste and may also have included waste solvents. Based on this information, the
constituents of concern have been identified as volatile organics, metals, HMX, and
nitroglycerin. However, propellants are commonly mixed with perchlorate containing
oxidizers to increase performance. The samples were not analyzed for perchlorate. Please
include perchlorate analysis in the analytical suite or provide documentation to show that
perchlorate was not treated at this unit. Additionally, open burning of waste explosives and
propellant may produce dioxins, furans, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) –
depending on the specific characteristics of the waste streams. The samples were not
analyzed for these constituents. Please include dioxin/furan and PAH analysis in the
analytical suite.
6. The RFI Report states that other organic constituents were reported in low parts-per-
billion (ppb) concentrations (<10 grams per kilogram, g/kg) in at least one sample. All
results were qualified as estimated as they were less than the reporting limit. Many of the
results for these organic chemicals were also qualified as being detected in the laboratory
blank. Based on this, the results were not considered to be positive results and were
eliminated from further consideration.
The data should be included in the RFI Report as qualified rather than simply eliminated
from consideration. Please follow the 2018 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
regarding data evaluation for current investigations.
Due to the sites historic use and the Division comments mentioned above, specifically
comment 5, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methods 314.0, 6010, 6021,
7471, 8260,8270, 8280/8290, and 8330 will be used to detect perchlorate, metals, volatiles, semi-
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 6 July 2024
volatiles (PAHs), dioxins/furan, and nitroglycerin and HMX, respectively. A drawing showing
the layout and location of SWMU 233 is shown in Figure 3.
A direct push drill unit or backhoe will be used to collect soils samples. Additionally,
enough samples will be collected to create a statistically significant mean value of contaminants
of potential concern (COPC). The EPA has created a computer model (ProUCL) that allows for
calculating a mean value with a 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL). This model typically
uses 16, or more, values to create a 95 percent UCL mean.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 7 July 2024
4.0 DATA GENERATION AND ACQUISITION
4.1 SAMPLING PROCESS
The objective of sampling the SWMU 233 will be to assess the nature and extent of
contamination and exposure point concentrations of the COPC. Eight of the sample locations
will be based on the 2000 Phase 1 RFI. These are the locations that were believed to be along
the centerline of the burn trench. Three cross trench samples will be collected with the samples
collected 20 feet adjacent to the trench and then 40 feet, 80 feet, and 120 feet. The sample
locations will be as shown on Figures 3. Some adjustment may be made in the field as needed.
4.2 SAMPLING METHODS
Sampling using a direct push rig is anticipated for the site. However, a backhoe may be
used as needed. Sampling with a direct push rig will commence by pushing a polyethylene-
lined, stainless-steel sample probe to 5 feet in depth. In the event that refusal of the direct push
probe is encountered at the selected location, the rig may be moved slightly from the original
location if debris or rock cause refusal in the probe advancement. After collection of subsurface
samples, the liner will be laid on a table where the site geologist/engineer will visually inspect
the collected soils.
The sample material remaining in the sleeve. A sample hole will be drilled into the
sleeve at approximately 2 feet and 4 feet in depth. A sterile syringe will be used to collect 5 to
10 grams of soils from these drilled holes. This soil will be immediately discharged into a 40 ml
VOA with DI and a magnetic stirrer. Acid preservation of soils is not effective as soils at the
Facility are alkaline and react with acids. The sleeved will then be cut open, and the top portion
and bottom portion of soils will be placed in separate stainless-steel bowls and mixed prior to
placement into four-ounce or eight-ounce glass jars as specified by the laboratory.
All information collected during the field investigation will be maintained in a field log.
Field documentation will consist of the information provided in Section C.5.1.4.2 of the RFI
Work Plan QAAP, as appropriate.
If a backhoe is used for sampling, a small pit will be dug to expose the subsurface soil.
This soil will also be logged and inspected for signs of staining or obvious odors. The soil on the
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 8 July 2024
pit wall will also be observed for signs of staining. At least three samples will be collected for
analysis from each sampling location: one form the surface (0 to 6 inches), one from 1 to 3 feet,
and one from 3 to 5 feet. All soil will be examined for visual, olfactory and other observations,
such as whether the soil is native or fill, to determine which depth interval is the most likely to be
contaminated. If observed, this depth interval will be selected.
If the side slopes are too steep or the ground is too soft for a direct push drill unit or
backhoe, then a hand auger or bucket auger will be used to collect the samples. The material will
be placed in a stainless-steel bowl for compositing. The composite sample will be handled as
described in the following section.
4.3 SOIL SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Sampling at SWMU 233 will be conducted by collecting soil samples from 0 to 6-inch
depth using a stainless-steel spoon or trowel for surface samples only. Where samples that
include surface and deeper samples to a depth that non-impacted soils are found will use a bucket
auger, direct push unit, or backhoe. A list of constituents to be analyzed along with the analytes
method detection limit (MDL), estimated quantitation limit (EQL), and minimum reporting limit
(MRL) in Table 1.
4.4 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES
Prior to and following the collection of each sample, any sampling equipment coming in
contact with the soil will be cleaned with a non-phosphate detergent (e.g., Liquinox®), rinsed
with tap water, and final rinsed with distilled water. Wastewater generated during field
decontamination will be collected and properly disposed. Since direct push technology recovers
soils by pushing a sample liner directly into the subsurface, no cuttings will be generated. If
hand auguring, auger drilling, or backhoe sampling methods are used, the cuttings generated will
remain within the boundary of the respective site. Any portion of the soil not submitted to the
laboratory will be logged and either left within the respective site boundary or stored by NGSC.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 9 July 2024
4.5 SITE SURVEY CONTROL
Following collection of the soil samples, each sample location will be staked or flagged.
If needed, then a sub-meter GPS unit or standard survey equipment will be used to record
locations. This will allow sample sites to be re-accessed in the future if necessary.
4.6 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY
Sample containers will consist of glass jars, with Teflon-lined lids, supplied by a
laboratory supplier. The sample will be pressed into the jar in a manner that minimizes air
pockets. Only decontaminated stainless steel or clean disposable gloves will contact a sample
during placement in a bottle. Disposable gloves will be worn at all times during sample handling
to prevent cross contamination between samples and skin contract with potential contaminants.
These gloves will be disposed of between each sample.
Sample bottle will be placed on ice in waterproof chests for delivery to the analytical
laboratory. Glass sample bottles will be placed in protective foam or bubble-pack sleeves if
needed. All sample bottles will be placed in re-closable plastic bags to provide protection from
other samples and sample handlers in the event of sample-container breakage. Sample labels
will be used to identify the samples. These labels will be sufficiently durable to remain legible
when wet and will be marked with indelible ink and affixed to the sample container.
A chain-of-custody form will be completed to trace sample possession from the time of
collection through laboratory analysis. One chain-of-custody form will accompany each
shipping container of samples. While the samples are in the custody of the collector, they will
not be left unattended at locations where the samples may be tampered with. The analyses to be
performed will be indicated on the chain-of-custody form, including the quantity and types of
containers that comprise each sample. The completed chain-of-custody form will be sealed in a
re-closable plastic bag and placed inside the shipping container. The shipping container will
then be securely closed and delivered to the analytical laboratory.
All filed data will be recorded in a log book. Information to be recorded in the log book
will included the date, time, and depth of sample collection, descriptions of the soils encountered
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 10 July 2024
at each sampling location, reasons for field decisions concerning sample intervals, reasons for
departures from prior plans, general observations, etc.
4.7 ANALYTICAL METHODS
All soil samples will be analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 314.0, 6010, 6021,
7471, 8260,8270, 8280/8290, and 8330 (see Table 1). This table also includes anticipated
method detection limits and method reporting limit or estimated quantitation limits. Unless
interferences preclude attainment of the detection limits, the detection limits are sufficiently low
to ensure that RSL values can be appropriately evaluated. Constituents will be reported on dry-
weight basis. All non-detects will be treated as recommended by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ProUCL Model.
Samples will be analyzed by the Northrop Grumman Environmental Laboratory at the
Promontory Facility (M-53) and Chemtech-Ford (Chemtech) located in Sandy, Utah. A copy of
their quality assurance plan is on file and available upon request.
4.8 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
All Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) soil samples will be analyzed for the
constituents listed in Table1, except as noted below. QA/QC samples will consist of equipment
blanks, field duplicates, and trip blanks.
4.8.1 Field Quality Control Samples
Equipment Blanks are designed to verify the effectiveness of procedures for cleaning
the sampling equipment between individual samples.
Several equipment blanks will be collected during the sampling event, following the
collection of each field duplicate sample. These blanks will be analyzed for the same
constituents as the soil samples-of-record.
Equipment Blanks are designed to verify the effectiveness of procedures for cleaning
the sampling equipment between individual samples. Several equipment blanks will be collected
during the sampling event, following the collection of each field duplicate sample. These blanks
will be analyzed for the same constituents as the soil samples-of-record.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 11 July 2024
Field Duplicate samples are analyzed to check the reproducibility of sampling and
analytical results of samples collected from same location. Field duplicates (representing about
10% of the total samples sent for analysis) will be collected for COPC analysis from randomly-
selected locations during the sampling campaign. However, in cases where no or COPC are
suspected in the sample field duplicates maybe biased toward locations where COPC will be
present. A subsurface sample selected for duplication will be obtained by removing half of the
sample following mixing. The duplicate sample will be given a designation that will
differentiate the duplicate from the original sample. The field duplicates will be submitted to the
laboratory for analyses of the same constituents for which the original sample is being analyzed.
All field duplicates will be delivered to the laboratory under chain-of-custody as outlined.
Trip Blanks will be included with this investigation. Trip blanks are only used to
evaluate the possible contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during field work
or transport of samples. These blanks are then analyzed for VOCs. A trip blank will accompany
each sample set that will be analyzed for VOCs.
4.8.2 Laboratory Quality Control
Internal laboratory quality control checks will be performed in accordance with best
practices.
4.9 DATA MANAGEMENT
Field data (e.g.visual observations, lithologic information, etc.) will be recorded in a field
log-book. These data will be maintained in project files for future reference. Hard copies of
laboratory data will be maintained in project files and will be entered into a Microsoft-based
spreadsheet and/or database to aid in evaluation. Electronic data will be stored indefinitely.
Hard-copy data will be maintained for a period of at least 3-years.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 12 July 2024
5.0 DATA VALIDATION AND USABILITY
5.1 DATA REVIEW, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION
Data review, verification, and validation will occur as outlined in Section C.5.1 of the RFI Work
Plan QAPP (ATK, 2010). All data will be provided to the Division in a searchable Excel format.
5.2 RECONCILIATION WITH USER REQUIREMENTS
Data will be reconciled as outlined in Section C.5.2 of the RFI Work Plan QAPP (ATK, 2010).
Data that does not meet the accuracy and precision goals as presented will be qualified and
flagged.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Page | 13 July 2024
6.0 DECISION STATEMENT
In accordance with R315-101-6, the decision rule for this site will involve clean closure,
corrective action, and/or site management. To provide the information needed to make this
decision, the UCL will be calculated for each contaminant identified during sample collection
activities, where adequate data is available. Each sampling location will be evaluated
individually. Calculation methods and selection of an appropriate UCL will be in accordance
with guidelines published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016).
The data will be evaluated for the COPCs. The Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for
Contaminants of Concern at Superfund Sites, May 2024, or the most up to date RSLs, will be
used under for residential land-use scenario to screen the data collected for potential risk to
human health.
If the analytical results for the soil confirmation samples report concentrations less than
the published RSLs for the residential land-use scenario, then NGSC may elect to approach the
Division for a No Further Action determination.
If the analytical data indicates that corrective action is required to meet the selected
closure criteria, NGSC will submit a corrective measures plan after concurring with the Division.
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
FIGURES
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
TABLES
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List
COPC
(EPA Method
6010/6020/7471)
M-53
EQL
(mg/kg)
M-53
MDL
(mg/kg)
M-53
EQL
(mg/kg)
M-53
MDL
(mg/kg)
Arsenic 2.0 0.7 2.0 0.7
Barium 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1
Cadmium 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1
Chromium 1.5 0.06 1.5 0.06
Lead 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.3
Mercury 0.02 0.006 0.02 0.006
Selenium 1.5 0.86 1.5 0.86
Silver 1.0 0.16 1.0 0.16
COPC (EPA Method 8260) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg)
Acetone 10.7 2.13 10.7 2.13
Acrolein 10.7 5.5 10.7 5.5
Acrylonitrile 10.7 2.2 10.7 2.2
Allyl Chloride 10.7 0.55 10.7 0.55
Benzene 10.7 0.959 10.7 0.959
Bromobenzene 10.7 0.959 10.7 0.959
Bromochloromethane 10.7 0.64 10.7 0.64
Bromodichloromethane 10.7 0.64 10.7 0.64
Bromoform 10.7 1.28 10.7 1.28
Bromomethane 10.7 3.3 10.7 3.3
1-Butanol 53.3 21.3 53.3 21.3
2-Butanone 10.7 1.81 10.7 1.81
n-Butylbenzene 10.7 1.28 10.7 1.28
sec-Butyl Benzene 10.7 1.07 10.7 1.07
tert-Butylbenzene 10.7 0.959 10.7 0.959
Carbon Disulfide 10.7 0.746 10.7 0.746
Carbon Tetrachloride 10.7 0.64 10.7 0.64
Chlorobenzene 10.7 0.64 10.7 0.64
Chloroethane 10.7 1.81 10.7 1.81
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether 10.7 2.24 10.7 2.24
Chloroform 10.7 0.64 10.7 0.64
Chloromethane 10.7 0.746 10.7 0.746
Chloroprene 10.7 0.533 10.7 0.533
2-Chlorotoluene 10.7 1.17 10.7 1.17
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List (Continued)
COPC
(EPA Method 8260B)
M-53
EQL
(ug/kg)
M-53
MDL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MRL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MDL
(ug/kg)
4-Chlorotoluene 10.7 1.28 1.0 0.3
Cyclohexanone 10.7 5.44 20 20
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 10.7 2.35 1.0 1.0
Dibromochloromethane 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 10.7 1.17 1.0 0.3
Dibromomethane 10.7 1.28 1.0 0.3
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 10.7 0.959 1.0 0.3
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 10.7 1.07 1.0 0.3
Trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene 10.7 2.13 NA NA
Dichlorodifluoromethane 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
1,1-Dichloroethane 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
1,2-Dichloroethane 10.7 0.959 1.0 0.3
1,1-Dichloroethene 10.7 0.64 1.0 0.3
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
1,2-Dichloropropane 10.7 0.959 1.0 0.3
1,3-Dichloropropane 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
2,2-Dichloropropane 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
1,1-Dichloropropene 10.7 1.07 1.0 0.3
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10.7 1.17 1.0 0.3
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
1,4-Difluorobenzene NA NA 1.0 0.3
Ethyl Acetate 10.7 2.24 1.0 1.0
Ethylbenzene 10.7 0.659 1.0 0.3
Ethyl Ether 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
Ethyl Methacrylate 10.7 0.959 NA NA
Freon 113 10.7 1.17 NA NA
Hexachlorobutadiene 10.7 2.13 1.0 0.3
2-Hexanone 10.7 1.81 NA NA
Gasoline Range Organics NA NA 10 10
Isobutanol NA NA 20 20
Isopropyl Alcohol 53.3 21.3 10 0.3
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List (Continued)
COPC
(EPA Method 8260B)
M-53
EQL
(ug/kg)
M-53
MDL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MRL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MDL
(ug/kg)
Isopropylbenzene 10.7 0.959 1.0 0.3
4-Isopropyltoluene 10.7 1.28 1.0 0.3
Isobutyl Alcohol 53.3 21.3 NA NA
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 10.7 1.81 10 10
Methylene Chloride 10.7 0.746 20 2.0
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 10.7 2.13 10 10
Methyl-tert-butyl ether NA NA 1.0 0.3
Methacrylonitrile 10.7 1.92 NA NA
Methyl Iodide 10.7 2.13 NA NA
Methyl Methacrylate 10.7 1.07 NA NA
Naphthalene 10.7 2.6 1.0 0.3
n-Butyl Alcohol 21.3 53.3 20 20
Nitrobenzene NA NA 20 20
2-Nitropropane 10.7 2.24 10 10
n-Propyl Benzene 10.7 1.07 1.0 0.3
Propionitrile 10.7 4.26 NA NA
Styrene 10.7 1.6 1.0 1.0
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 10.7 0.959 1.0 0.3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 10.7 1.71 1.0 0.3
Tetrachloroethene 10.7 1.39 1.0 0.3
Toluene 10.7 1.07 1.0 0.3
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 10.7 1.17 1.0 0.3
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 10.7 1.39 1.0 0.3
Trichloroethene 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 10.7 0.746 1.0 0.3
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 10.7 0.853 1.0 0.3
Trichlorofluoromethane 10.7 1.07 1.0 0.3
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 10.7 2.35 1.0 0.3
1,1,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane NA NA 1.0 0.3
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 10.7 1.28 1.0 0.3
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 10.7 1.28 1.0 0.3
Vinyl Acetate 53.3 21.3 NA NA
Vinyl Chloride 10.7 0.64 1.0 0.3
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List (Continued)
COPC
(EPA Method 8260B)
M-53
EQL
(ug/kg)
M-53
MDL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MRL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MDL
(ug/kg)
Xylenes, total 10.7 2.13 1.0 0.3
COPC (EPA Method 8270) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg)
Acenaphthene 330 70 100 10
Acenaphthylene 330 70 100 10
Aniline NA NA 200 20
Anthracene 330 30 100 10
Azobenzene NA NA 100 10
Benzo(a)anthracene 330 30 100 20
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 330 20 100 20
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 330 30 100 20
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 330 50 100 20
Benzo(a)pyrene 330 40 100 30
Benzoic Acid NA NA 400 40
Benzyl Alcohol NA NA 100 10
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane 330 80 200 30
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 330 100 200 30
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether 330 90 100 20
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 330 30 100 50
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether 330 40 100 40
Butylbenzylphthalate 330 40 100 20
Carbazole 330 30 100 20
4-Chloroaniline 330 50 100 20
2-Chloronaphthalene 330 70 100 20
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 330 90 100 10
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 330 30 200 20
2-Chlorophenol 330 70 200 30
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether 330 60 100 80
Chrysene 330 30 100 10
di-n-Butylphthalate 330 30 100 40
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 330 60 100 20
Dibenzofuran 330 70 200 40
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List (Continued)
COPC
(EPA Method 8260B)
M-53
EQL
(ug/kg)
M-53
MDL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MRL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MDL
(ug/kg)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 330 100 100 30
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 330 90 100 10
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 330 70 200 30
2,4-Dichlorophenol 330 60 400 40
2,6-Dichlorophenol NA NA 200 40
2,4-Dimethylphenol 330 110 100 30
Diethylphthalate 330 30 100 10
Dimethylphthalate 330 60 100 30
2,4-Dinitrophenol 330 70 400 60
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 330 80 400 150
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 330 40 200 70
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 330 60 200 40
di-n-Octylphthalate 330 40 100 20
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine NA NA 100 20
Diphenylamine NA NA 100 20
Fluoranthene 330 30 100 20
Fluorene 330 60 100 20
Hexachlorobenzene 330 40 100 20
Hexachlorobutadiene 330 90 100 30
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 330 50 200 40
Hexachloroethane 330 90 100 20
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 330 50 100 20
Isophorone 330 90 100 10
2-Methylphenol 330 60 200 20
4-Methylphenol 330 50 400 100
2-Methylnaphthalene 330 90 100 40
Naphthalene 330 100 100 3.2
2-Nitroaniline 330 40 100 20
Nitrobenzene 330 90 200 30
3-Nitroaniline 330 40 100 40
4-Nitroaniline 330 50 100 10
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used
RCRA Facility Investigation
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SWMU 233
Table 1
Analytical List (Continued)
COPC
(EPA Method 8260B)
M-53
EQL
(ug/kg)
M-53
MDL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MRL
(ug/kg)
Chemtech
MDL
(ug/kg)
2-Nitrophenol 330 80 400 40
4-Nitrophenol 330 30 400 80
n-Nitrosodimethylamine 330 100 200 60
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 330 30 200 40
n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine 330 80 200 40
Pentachlorophenol 330 30 200 30
Phenanthrene_x 330 20 100 10
Phenol_x 330 30 400 40
Pyrene 330 40 100 20
Pyridine 330 70 200 40
COPC (EPA Method 8330) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg)
HMX 0.21 0.04 LNU LNU
RDX 0.21 0.11 LNU LNU
Nitroglycerin 0.21 0.06 LNU LNU
COPC (EPA Method 314.0) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg) (ug/kg)
Perchlorate 4.44 1.11 LNU LNU
NA = Not Analyzed
LNU = Laboratory Not Used