MDA_L_-_Periodic_Monitoring_Report_for_Vapor_Sampling_-_Second_Quarter_FY11_LA-UR-11-4246.pdf

LA-UR-11-4246

July 2011

EP2011-0211

Periodic Monitoring Report for Vapor-Sampling Activities at Material Disposal Area L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2011

ERID-204889RFP-0000476

Prepared by the Environmental Programs Directorate

Los Alamos National Laboratory, operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396, has prepared this document pursuant to the Compliance Order on Consent, signed March 1, 2005. The Compliance Order on Consent contains requirements for the investigation and cleanup, including corrective action, of contamination at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The U.S. government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this document. The public may copy and use this document without charge, provided that this notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies.

RFP-0000476

Second Quarter FY2011 MDA L Periodic Monitoring Report v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This periodic monitoring report summarizes vapor-monitoring activities conducted during the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2011 at Material Disposal Area (MDA) L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, in Technical Area 54, at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The objectives of vapor monitoring at MDA L are to (1) collect additional vapor samples from vapor-monitoring wells at MDA L and

(2) compare sampling results with previously detected volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations and tritium activities in pore gas beneath and surrounding MDA L.

Vapor monitoring included field screening and collecting vapor samples from 28 and 25 vapor-monitoring wells, respectively. Vapor samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs and tritium. The results of the detected VOCs in MDA L pore gas during the second quarter of FY2011 were similar to previous sampling results. The VOC screening evaluation identified 14 VOCs in MDA L pore gas at concentrations exceeding screening levels that are based on groundwater screening levels. No screening levels were exceeded in the deepest port sampled.

The results of the detected tritium activities in MDA L pore vapor during the second quarter of FY2011 were similar to previous sampling results. Tritium was not detected in the deepest port sampled.

vii

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Site Location and Description

2.0 SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

2.1 Deviations

3.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA

4.0 FIELD-SCREENING RESULTS

5.0 ANALYTICAL DATA RESULTS

5.1 VOC Results and Screening Evaluation

5.2 Tritium Results

6.0 SUMMARY

7.0 REFERENCES AND MAP DATA SOURCES

7.1 References

7.2 Map Data Sources

Figures

Figure 1.1-1 Location of MDA L in TA-54 with respect to Laboratory TAs and surrounding landholdings

Figure 1.1-2 Locations of MDA L vapor-monitoring wells and associated structures and features

Tables

Table 2.0-1 NMED-Approved MDA L Subsurface Vapor-Monitoring Locations, Port Depths, and Corresponding Sampling Intervals

Table 3.0-1 Henry’s Law Constants, Groundwater SLs, and Calculated Concentrations Corresponding to Groundwater SLs for Historically Detected VOC in Pore Gas

Table 5.1-1 Screening of VOCs in Pore Gas at MDA L, Second Quarter FY2011

Appendixes

Appendix A Acronyms and Abbreviations, Metric Conversion Table, and Data Qualifier Definitions

Appendix B Field Methods

Appendix C Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program

Appendix D Field-Screening Results and Detected Volatile Organic Compounds and Tritium

Plates

Plate 1 VOCs detected in vapor samples at MDA L

Plate 2 Tritium detected in vapor samples at MDA L

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This periodic monitoring report (PMR) presents the results of vapor-monitoring activities conducted during the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2011 at Material Disposal Area (MDA) L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, in Technical Area 54 (TA-54), at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory).

These activities are being conducted per the requirements outlined in the MDA L vapor-monitoring plan (LANL 2007, 099372), approved with modifications by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) (2007, 098999), and the revised table of monitoring wells submitted to NMED in May 2008 (McInroy 2008, 104475) and includes results from monitoring well 54-610786 (NMED 2009, 107653).

The objectives of the MDA L vapor-monitoring activities are to (1) collect additional vapor samples from vapor-monitoring wells at MDA L and (2) compare sampling results with previously detected volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations and tritium activities in pore gas beneath and surrounding

MDA L.

This report discusses the results obtained during the latest quarterly monitoring activities; however, for comparison, vapor data from the previous three quarterly PMRs, third and fourth quarters of FY2010 and first quarter of FY2011 (LANL 2010, 110866; LANL 2011, 111587; LANL 2011, 202268), at MDA L are also included in the data evaluation section of this report. Vapor monitoring included field screening and collecting vapor samples from stainless-steel sampling ports and one packer sampling port in vapor-monitoring wells. All pore-gas samples were submitted for off-site analysis of VOCs and tritium.

No regulatory criteria exist for vapor-phase contaminants; therefore, this report presents the results of a screening evaluation of the pore-gas VOC data. This screening evaluation compares maximum concentrations of VOCs in pore gas with pore-gas screening levels (SLs) derived from groundwater SLs.

This conservative screening process evaluates the potential for the observed VOC concentrations to result in contamination of groundwater above applicable regulatory criteria.

Information on radioactive materials and radionuclides, including the results of sampling and analysis of radioactive constituents, is voluntarily provided to NMED in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy policy.

1.1 Site Location and Description

MDA L is located in the east-central portion of the Laboratory (Figure 1.1-1) on Mesita del Buey. It consists of 1 inactive subsurface disposal pit (Pit A), 3 inactive subsurface treatment and disposal impoundments (Impoundments B, C, and D), and 34 inactive disposal shafts (Shafts 1 to 34) (Figure 1.1-2). Although no longer in use, Impoundments B, C, and D and Shafts 1, 13 to 17, and 19 to 34 are considered regulated units under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Pore-gas monitoring has indicated two source areas of the subsurface vapor-phase plume currently being monitored: the eastern source area (Shafts 1 to 28) and the western source area (Shafts 29 to 34) (LANL 2010, 110852).

Area L is relatively flat, and most of the overlying surface is paved with asphalt to house ongoing waste management activities, including storage of chemical, hazardous, and mixed low-level wastes managed within container storage units. The regional aquifer beneath MDA L is estimated to be an average depth of approximately 950 ft below ground surface (bgs), based on water-level data from regional well R-38, which is located northeast of MDA L (Koch and Schmeer 2010, 108926).

2.0 SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES

The following activities were completed at MDA L during the second quarter of FY2011. Vapor-monitoring activities were conducted from January 20 to March 29, 2011. Table 2.0-1 outlines the NMED-approved vapor-monitoring locations, port depths, and corresponding sampling intervals.

Samples were field screened and collected in accordance with the current version of Standard Operating Procedure 5074, Sampling Subsurface Vapor.

Field screening was conducted using a MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor equipped with a photoionization detector (PID) to measure percent carbon dioxide (%CO2), percent oxygen (%O2), and VOC concentrations in parts per million.

Vapor samples were submitted to off-site analytical laboratories in SUMMA canisters for VOC analysis using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method TO-15 and in silica-gel columns for tritium analysis using EPA Method 906.

A total of 182 ports in 28 vapor-monitoring wells (Figure 1.1-2) were field screened for VOCs using the MultiRAE IR PID.

A total of 104 pore-gas samples (84 characterization and 20 quality assurance [QA]/quality control [QC]) were collected for VOC analysis from 84 ports in 25 vapor-monitoring wells.

A total of 104 samples (84 characterization and 20 QA/QC) were collected for tritium analysis from 84 ports in 25 vapor-monitoring wells.

All analytical data were subject to QA/QC and data validation reviews in accordance with Laboratory guidance and procedures. Field duplicate samples were collected at a minimum frequency of 1 for every 10 samples. The QA/QC and data validation reviews for MDA L pore-gas data are presented in Appendix C.

No investigation-derived waste was generated at the time vapor-monitoring activities were conducted at

MDA L.

Further discussion of the field methods used for pore-gas field screening and sample collection is presented in Appendix B. Field chain-of-custody forms and sample collection logs are provided in Attachment D-1 of Appendix D (on CD).

The pore-gas field-screening results are discussed in section 4, and the pore-gas analytical results are discussed in section 5. Any deviations from the scope of activities presented in the approved MDA L vapor-monitoring plan (LANL 2007, 099372), approved with modifications by NMED (2007, 098999), and the revised table of monitoring wells submitted to NMED in May 2008 (McInroy 2008, 104475) are discussed in the following section.

2.1 Deviations

Six ports listed for field screening within Table 2.0-1 were not field screened. These ports were not field screened because of a blockage or sampler error. The ports include vapor-monitoring wells 54-02001 at 180 ft bgs, 54-02016 at 18 ft bgs, 54-02021 at 40 ft bgs, 54-02023 at 60 and 120 ft bgs, and 54-02024 at 120 ft bgs. Field screening of these ports will be attempted again during future vapor monitoring.

Two ports listed for sampling within Table 2.0-1 were not sampled. Tritium and VOC samples were not collected from vapor-monitoring wells 54-02023 and 54-02024 at 120 ft bgs. These two ports were blocked.

3.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA

The Compliance Order on Consent does not identify any cleanup standards, risk-based SLs, risk-based cleanup goals, or other regulatory criteria for pore gas at MDA L. Because the primary pathway of concern for subsurface VOC vapors is migration to groundwater, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential for contamination of groundwater by VOCs in pore gas using SLs based on groundwater SLs. The analysis evaluated the groundwater concentrations that would be in equilibrium with the maximum pore-gas concentrations of VOCs detected at MDA L.

The equilibrium relationship between air (pore-gas) and water concentrations is described by the following equation:

Cwater = Cair / H' Equation 3.0-1 where Cwater = the volumetric concentration of contaminant in water, Cair = the volumetric concentration of contaminant in air, and

H' = the dimensionless form of Henry’s law constant.

If the predicted concentration of a particular VOC in groundwater is less than the SL, then no potential exists for exceedances above applicable regulatory criteria at the vapor contaminant/groundwater interface.

The screening evaluation was based on groundwater standards or tap water SLs and Henry’s law constants that describe the equilibrium relationship between vapor and water concentrations. The source of the Henry’s law constants is the NMED technical background document (NMED 2009, 108070) or the EPA regional screening tables (http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-n/screen.htm). The following dimensionless form of Henry’s law constant was used:

water air

C

C H ' Equation 3.0-2

Equation 3.0-2 can be used to calculate the screening value (SV):

SLH

C SV air

'1000 Equation 3.0-3 where Cair is in units of µg/m3, SL is in units of µg/L, and 1000 is a conversion factor from L to m3. The SLs are the groundwater standards or tap water SLs. The groundwater standards are the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) or New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (NMWQCC) groundwater standard, whichever is lower. If no MCL or NMWQCC standard is available, the NMED tap water SL should be used (NMED 2009, 108070). If no NMED tap water SL is available, the EPA regional tap water SL (http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/rcra_c/pd-n/screen.htm) is used. If EPA SLs for carcinogens are used, they should be adjusted to 10–5 risk. The numerator in Equation 3.0-3 is the actual concentration of the VOC in pore gas, and the denominator represents the pore-gas concentration needed to exceed the groundwater SL. Therefore, if the SV is less than 1, the concentration of the VOC in groundwater would not exceed the SL, even if the VOC plume were to come in contact with groundwater. Table 3.0-1 presents the calculated concentrations of contaminants in pore gas corresponding to groundwater SLs for the latest and previous three monitoring periods.

Results of the pore-gas screening evaluation are presented in section 5. No applicable standards for tritium in pore vapor are available, and the screening analysis described above does not apply to tritium.

4.0 FIELD-SCREENING RESULTS

Field screening for the second quarter of FY2011 was conducted using a MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor equipped with a PID to measure %CO2, %O2, and VOC concentrations in parts per million. Before each port was sampled, it was purged of stagnant air to ensure formation air was being collected. Each sampling port was then monitored until CO2 and O2 readings stabilized at levels representative of subsurface pore-gas conditions. Tables of all field-screening results obtained during the third and fourth quarters FY2010 and first and second quarters FY2011 sampling events at MDA L are provided in Appendix D and sorted by vapor-monitoring well ID and depth. The CO2, O2, and PID field-screening methods and results are discussed further in Appendix B.

5.0 ANALYTICAL DATA RESULTS

All vapor analytical sampling data presented in this report are available at the Risk Analysis, Communication, Evaluation, and Reduction (RACER) website (http://www.racernm.com/). Samples were submitted to off-site analytical laboratories in SUMMA canisters for VOC analysis using EPA Method TO-15 and in silica-gel columns for tritium analysis using EPA Method 906. The VOC pore-gas sampling results, VOC screening evaluation, and tritium sampling results are discussed below.

5.1 VOC Results and Screening Evaluation

VOC results from the second quarter of FY2011 and the previous three vapor-monitoring quarters are summarized in tables and are provided in Appendix D. Plate 1 shows VOCs detected by vapor-monitoring well location during the second quarter of FY2011 sampling. Data associated with the previous three monitoring quarters (third and fourth quarters of FY2010 and first quarter of FY2011) are included for comparison purposes only.

A total of 33 VOCs were detected in MDA L pore gas during the second quarter of FY2011, and the results are similar to previous sampling results. The VOCs consistently detected each quarter and at most locations include carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, dichlorodifluoromethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichlorothene, 1,2-dichloropropane, tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,2-trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), trichloroethene (TCE), and trichlorofluoromethane. All VOC concentrations decrease with depth to total depth (TD) in the deeper ports sampled (332.5 ft bgs in 54-27641, 338 ft bgs in 54-27642, and 354 ft bgs in 54-27643).

The screening evaluation included the 33 detected VOCs in MDA L samples for which there are MCLs, NMWQCC standards, NMED tap water SLs, or EPA regional tap water SLs (Table 3.0-1). Ethanol, 4-ethyltoluene, n-heptane, and tetrahydrofuran were detected but do not have MCLs, NMWQCC standards, or tap water SLs and were not evaluated.

The results of the VOC screening evaluation are presented in Table 5.1-1 and discussed below. Fourteen detected VOCs had SVs greater than 1.

1,2-Dichloroethane was detected in 68 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 60 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 2250 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24240 at 53 ft bgs.

TCE was detected in 83 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 78 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 550 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24240 at 28 ft bgs.

1,4-Dioxane was detected in 1 of 84 samples. All other samples were nondetects. An SV greater than 1 was observed in one sample. The maximum SV calculated was 475 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24241 at 73 ft bgs.

1,2-Dichloropropane was detected in 74 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 59 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 400 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24238 at 64 ft bgs.

Methylene chloride was detected in 54 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 40 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 134 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24238 at 64 ft bgs.

PCE was detected in 83 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 60 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 97.2 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24242 at 25 ft bgs.

TCA was detected in 84 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 68 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 49.6 in vapor-monitoring well 54-02089 at 46 ft bgs.

1,1-Dichloroethene was detected in 83 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 54 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 11.3 in vapor-monitoring well 54-27642 at 175 ft bgs.

1,1,2-Trichloroethane was detected in 5 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 5 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 11.2 in vapor-monitoring wells 54-27642 at 75 ft bgs and 54-24240 at 28 ft bgs.

1,1-Dichloroethane was detected in 80 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 40 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 8.87 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24240 at 53 ft bgs.

Chloroform was detected in 79 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 20 samples.

The maximum SV calculated was 6.13 in vapor-monitoring well 54-27642 at 30 ft bgs.

Benzene was detected in 34 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 12 samples.

The maximum SV calculated was 2.89 in vapor-monitoring well 54-27642 at 175 ft bgs.

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene was detected in 1 of 84 samples. All other samples were nondetects. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 1 sample. The maximum SV calculated was 2.67 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24243 at 25 ft bgs.

Carbon tetrachloride was detected in 66 of 84 samples. An SV greater than 1 was observed in 7 samples. The maximum SV calculated was 1.42 in vapor-monitoring well 54-24241 at 73 ft bgs.

SVs calculated during the second quarter of FY2011 were similar to SVs presented in previous quarterly PMRs. VOCs with SVs greater than 1 decrease in concentration with depth in the deeper ports sampled (332.5 ft bgs in 54-27641, 338 ft bgs in 54-27642, and 354 ft bgs in 54-27643). SVs calculated for the deepest port sampled (579 ft bgs in 54-24399) were all below 1.

5.2 Tritium Results

Tritium results from the second quarter of FY2011 and previous three vapor-monitoring quarters are summarized in tables and provided on CD in Appendix D. Plate 2 shows tritium detected during the latest sampling quarter by vapor-monitoring well location. Tritium activities detected during the second quarter of FY2011 are similar to activities reported during previous sampling events. The maximum tritium activity reported was 166,864 pCi/L in vapor-monitoring well 54-24243 at 75 ft bgs. Tritium was not detected in the deepest port sampled (579 ft bgs in 54-24399).

6.0 SUMMARY

The objectives of the MDA L vapor-monitoring activities are to (1) collect additional vapor samples from vapor-monitoring wells at MDA L and (2) compare sampling results with previously detected VOC concentrations and tritium activities in pore gas beneath and surrounding MDA L. The results of the most recent vapor-monitoring activities are similar to results reported during previous vapor-monitoring activities.

A total of 33 VOCs were detected in the pore gas beneath MDA L. Twelve of the 33 VOCs are consistently detected each quarter and at most locations at MDA L. VOC concentrations decrease with depth to TD in the deeper ports sampled (332.5 ft bgs in 54-27641, 338 ft bgs in 54-27642, and 354 ft bgs in 54-27643).

Fourteen detected VOCs had SVs greater than 1. Similar to previously reported data, the maximum SV calculated was for 1,2-dichlorothane. SVs calculated for the deepest port sampled (579 ft bgs in 54-24399) were all below 1. No regulatory criteria exist for pore gas; therefore, the screening evaluation is a conservative comparison with groundwater SLs to help evaluate any potential for groundwater contamination by VOCs.

Tritium was detected in the pore vapor beneath MDA L. The results are similar to previous sampling results. Tritium was not detected in the deepest port sampled.

7.0 REFERENCES AND MAP DATA SOURCES

7.1 References

The following list includes all documents cited in this report. Parenthetical information following each reference provides the author(s), publication date, and ER ID. This information is also included in text citations. ER IDs are assigned by the Environmental Programs Directorate’s Records Processing Facility (RPF) and are used to locate the document at the RPF and, where applicable, in the master reference set.

Copies of the master reference set are maintained at the NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau and the Directorate. The set was developed to ensure that the administrative authority has all material needed to review this document, and it is updated with every document submitted to the administrative authority.

Documents previously submitted to the administrative authority are not included.

Koch, R.J., and S. Schmeer, March 2010. “Groundwater Level Status Report for 2009, Los Alamos National Laboratory,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-14416-PR, Los Alamos, New Mexico. (Koch and Schmeer 2010, 108926)

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), October 2007. “Interim Subsurface Vapor-Monitoring Plan for Material Disposal Area L at Technical Area 54, Revision 1,” Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-07-7040, Los Alamos, New Mexico. (LANL 2007, 099372)

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), October 2010. “Periodic Monitoring Report for Vapor-Sampling Activities at Material Disposal Area L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2010,” Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-10-6714, Los Alamos, New Mexico. (LANL 2010, 110866)

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), October 2010. “Corrective Measures Evaluation Report for Material Disposal Area L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, Revision 1,” Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-10-6506, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

(LANL 2010, 110852)

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), January 2011. “Periodic Monitoring Report for Vapor-Sampling Activities at Material Disposal Area L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2010,” Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-10-8098, Los Alamos, New Mexico. (LANL 2011, 111587)

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), April 2011. “Periodic Monitoring Report for Vapor-Sampling Activities at Material Disposal Area L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, First Quarter Fiscal Year 2011,” Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-11-2084, Los Alamos, New Mexico. (LANL 2011, 202268)

McInroy, D., May 22, 2008. RE: Clarification NMED Letter Re: MDA L Subsurface V-M Plan Approval w/ Mods. E-mail message to D. Cobrain (NMED) and S. Paris (LANL) from D. McInroy (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico. (McInroy 2008, 104475)

NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), November 8, 2007. “Approval with Modifications for the Interim Subsurface Vapor-Monitoring Plan for Material Disposal Area (MDA) L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, at Technical Area 54, Revision 1,” New Mexico Environment Department letter to D. Gregory (DOE-LASO) and D. McInroy (LANL) from J.P. Bearzi (NMED-HWB), Santa Fe, New Mexico. (NMED 2007, 098999)

NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), September 16, 2009. “Notice of Approval for the Vapor- Monitoring Well Installation Work Plan for Material Disposal Area H, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-004, at Technical Area 54,” New Mexico Environment Department letter to D. Gregory (DOE-LASO) and D. McInroy (LANL) from J.P. Bearzi (NMED-HWB), Santa Fe, New Mexico.

(NMED 2009, 107653)

NMED (New Mexico Environment Department), December 2009. “Technical Background Document for Development of Soil Screening Levels, Revision 5.0,” with revised Table A-1, New Mexico Environment Department, Hazardous Waste Bureau and Ground Water Quality Bureau Voluntary Remediation Program, Santa Fe, New Mexico. (NMED 2009, 108070)

7.2 Map Data Sources

Data sources used in original figures created for this report are described below and identified by legend title.

Legend Item/Type Data Source

LANL boundary LANL Areas Used and Occupied; Los Alamos National Laboratory, Site Planning & Project Initiation Group, Infrastructure Planning Office; 19 September 2007; as published 13 August 2010.

TA boundary Technical Area Boundaries; Los Alamos National Laboratory, Site Planning & Project Initiation Group, Infrastructure Planning Office; September 2007; as published 13 August 2010.

ER projects ER Project Locations; Los Alamos National Laboratory, ESH&Q Waste and Environmental Services Division, 2010-2E; 1:2,500 Scale Data; 04 October 2010.

MDAs Materials Disposal Areas; Los Alamos National Laboratory, ENV Environmental Remediation and Surveillance Program; ER2004-0221; 1:2,500 Scale Data; 23 April 2004.

Paved parking Paved Parking; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 06 January 2004; as published 29 November 2010.

Paved road Paved Road Arcs; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 06 January 2004; as published 29 November 2010.

Dirt road Dirt Road Arcs; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 06 January 2004; as published 29 November 2010.

Road centerlines Road Centerlines; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 15 December 2005; as published 29 November 2010.

Structure Structures; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 06 January 2004; as published 29 November 2010.

Contours Hypsography, 10 and 100 Foot Contour Interval; Los Alamos National Laboratory, ENV Environmental Remediation and Surveillance Program; 1991.

Fence Security and Industrial Fences and Gates; Los Alamos National Laboratory, KSL Site Support Services, Planning, Locating and Mapping Section; 06 January 2004; as published 29 November 2010.

Drainage Modeled Surface Drainage, 1991; Los Alamos National Laboratory, ENV Environmental Remediation and Surveillance Program, ER2002-0591; 1:24,000 Scale Data; Unknown publication date.

Figure 1.1-1 Location of MDA L in TA-54 with respect to Laboratory TAs and surrounding landholdings

Figure 1.1-2 Locations of MDA L vapor-monitoring wells and associated structures and features

S econ d Q uarte r F Y

2011 M D

A L P eriod ic M o nitoring R e port

Table 2.0-1 NMED-Approved MDA L Subsurface Vapor-Monitoring Locations, Port Depths, and Corresponding Sampling Intervals

Vapor- Monitoring Well

ID VOC and Tritium Sampling Port-Depth Intervals (ft bgs)

54-01015a 37.6 (36–46), 165.4 (182–192), 308.3 (340–352), 333.3 (375–385), 377.7 (425–435), 426.5 (480–490), 462.1 (520–530)

54-01016a 30.8 (30–40), 162.2 (178–190), 274.7 (318–324), 336.3 (386–396), 414.3 (473–483), 459.5 (530–540), 517.6 (592–602)

54-02001 20 (17.5–22.5), 40 (37.5–42.5), 60 (57.5–62.5), 80 (77.5–82.5), 100 (97.5–102.5), 120 (117.5–122.5), 140 (137.5–142.5), 160 (157.5–162.5), 180 (177.5–182.5)b, 200 (197.5–202.5)

54-02002 20 (17.5–22.5), 40 (37.5–42.5), 60 (57.5–62.5), 80 (77.5–82.5), 100 (97.5–102.5), 120 (117.5–122.5), 140 (137.5–142.5), 157 (154.5–159.5), 180 (177.5–182.5), 200 (197.5–202.5)

54-02016 18 (15.5–20.5)b, 31 (28.5–33.5), 82 (79.5–84.5)

54-02020 20 (10–30), 40 (30–50), 60 (50–70), 80 (70–90), 95 (90–110), 120 (110–130), 140 (130–150), 160 (150–170), 180 (170–190), 200 (190–210)

54-02021 20 (10–30), 40 (30–50)b, 60 (50–70), 80 (70–90), 100 (90–110), 120 (110–130), 140 (130–150), 160 (150–170), 180 (170–190), 198 (190–210)

54-02022 20 (17.5–22.5), 40 (37.5–42.5), 60 (57.5–62.5), 80 (77.5–82.5), 100 (97.5–102.5), 120 (117.5–122.5), 140 (137.5–142.5), 160 (157.5–162.5), 180 (177.5–182.5), 200 (197.5–202.5)

54-02023 20 (10–30), 40 (30–50), 60 (50–70)b, 80 (70–90), 100 (90–110), 120 (110–130)b, 140 (130–149), 159 (149–169), 180 (170–190), 200 (190– 210)

54-02024 20 (10–30), 40 (30–50), 60 (50–70), 80 (70–90), 100 (90–110), 120 (110–130)b, 140 (130–150), 160 (150–170), 180 (170–190), 200 (190–210)

54-02025 20 (20), 60 (60), 100 (100), 160 (160), 190 (190)

54-02026 20 (20), 60 (60), 100 (100), 160 (160), 200 (200), 215 (215)

54-02027 20 (20), 60 (60), 100 (100), 160 (160), 200 (200), 220 (220), 250 (250)

54-02028 20 (20), 60 (60), 100 (100), 160 (160), 200 (200), 220 (220), 250 (250)

54-02031 20 (20), 60 (60), 100 (100), 160 (160), 200 (200), 220 (220), 260 (260)

54-02034 20 (20), 60 (60),100 (100), 160 (160), 200 (200), 220 (220), 260 (260), 300 (300)

54-02089 13 (13), 31 (31), 46 (46), 86 (86)

54-24238 44 (43–45), 64 (63–65), 84 (83–85)

54-24239 25 (24–26), 50 (49–51), 75 (74–76), 99.5 (98.5–100.5)

54-24240 28 (27–29), 53 (52–54), 78 (77–79), 103 (102–104), 128 (127–129), 153 (152–154)

54-24241 73 (71–74), 93 (92–94), 113 (112–114), 133 (132–134), 153 (152–154), 173 (172–174), 193 (192–194)

54-24242 25 (24–26), 50 (49–51), 75 (74–76), 100 (99–101), 110.5 (109.5–111.5) d Q uarte r F Y

2011 M D

A L P eriod ic M o nitoring R e port

Table 2.0-1 (continued)

Vapor-Monitoring Well ID VOC and Tritium Sampling Port-Depth Interval (ft bgs)

54-24243 25 (24–26), 50 (49–51), 75 (74–76), 100 (99–101), 125 (124–126)

54-24244 plugged and abandoned in January 2010, replaced by 54-610786

54-24399c 550 (550–608)

54-27641 32 (29.5–34.5), 82 (79.5–84.5), 115 (112.5–117.5), 182 (179.5–184.5), 232 (229.5–234.5), 271 (268.5–273.5), 332.5 (330–335)

54-27642 30 (27.5–32.5), 75 (71.5–76.5), 116 (114.5–119.5), 175 (172.5–177.5), 235 (232.5–237.5), 275 (272.5–277.5), 338 (335.5–340.5)

54-27643 30 (27.5–32.5), 74 (71.5–76.5), 117 (114.5–119.5), 167 (164.5–169.5), 235 (232.5–237.5), 275 (272.5–277.5), 354 (351.5–356.5)

54-610786 25 (22.5-27.5), 50 (47.5-52.5), 75 (72.5-77.5), 100 (97.5-102.5), 118.5 (116-121)

Notes: All depth intervals are to be field screened. Depths highlighted in bold denote intervals where VOC and tritium samples are to be collected.

a

Vapor-monitoring well is angled. Port depth is depth below ground surface. Port-depth interval is length along borehole.

b Field screening not performed and/or sample not collected during second quarter FY2011.

c

Open borehole.

Table 3.0-1 Henry’s Law Constants, Groundwater SLs, and Calculated Concentrations

Corresponding to Groundwater SLs for Historically Detected VOC in Pore Gas

VOC

Henry’s Law Constanta

(dimensionless) Groundwater SL

(µg/L)

Calculated Concentrations in Pore Gas Corresponding to

Groundwater Standardb (µg/m3)

Acetone 0.0016 21,800a 34,900

Benzene 0.228 5c 1140

Butanone[2-] 0.0023 7060a 16,200

Carbon Disulfide 0.59 1040a 615,000

Carbon Tetrachloride 1.1 5c 5500

Chlorobenzene 0.13 100c 13,000

Chloroform 0.15 80c 15,000

Cyclohexane 6.1d 13,000d 79,300,000

Dichlorodifluoromethane 14 395a 5,520,000

Dichloroethane[1,1-] 0.23 25e 5750

Dichloroethane[1,2-] 0.048 5c 240

Dichloroethene[1,1-] 1.1 5e 5500

Dichloroethene[cis-1,2-] 0.17 70c 11,900

Dichloroethene[trans-1,2-] 0.38 100c 38,000

Dichloropropane[1,2-] 0.12 5c 600

Dioxane[1,4-] 0.0002 61.1a 12.2

Ethanol naf na na

Ethylbenzene 0.323 700c 226,000

Ethyltoluene[4-] na na na

Hexane 74 876a 64,800,000

Methylene Chloride 0.13 5c 650 n-Heptane na na na

Propylene 8d na na

Tetrachloroethene 0.72 5c 3600

Tetrahydrofuran na na na

Toluene 0.272 750e 204,000

Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane[1,1,2-] 22 59,200a 1,300,000,000

Trichloroethane[1,1,1-] 0.705 60e 42,300

Trichloroethane[1,1,2-] 0.034 5c 170

Trichloroethene 0.4 5c 2000

Trichlorofluoromethane 4 1290a 5,150,000

Trimethylbenzene[1,2,4-] 0.25d 15d 3750

Trimethylbenzene[1,3,5-] 0.36 370d 133,000

Table 3.0-1 (continued)

VOC

Henry’s Law Constanta

(dimensionless) Groundwater SL

(µg/L)

Calculated Concentrations in Pore Gas Corresponding to

Groundwater Standardb (µg/m3)

Vinyl Chloride 1.11 1e 1110

Xylene[1,2-] 0.213 620e 132,000

Xylene[1,3-]+Xylene[1,4-] 0.28 620e 174,000 a Henry’s law constants and SLs from NMED (2009, 108070) unless otherwise noted.

b Derived from denominator of Equation 3.0-3.

c EPA MCL (40 Code of Federal Regulations 141.61).

d Henry’s law constants and SLs from EPA regional screening tables (http://www.epa.gov/region06/6pd/rcra_c/pd-n/screen.htm).

Adjusted to 10–5 risk for carcinogens.

e NMWQCC groundwater standard (20.6.2.3103 New Mexico Administrative Code).

f na = Not available.

Table 5.1-1 Screening of VOCs in Pore Gas at MDA L, Second Quarter FY2011

VOCs Maximum Pore-Gas

Concentration (µg/m3)

Calculated Concentrations in Pore Gas Corresponding to

Groundwater Standard (µg/m3)a

SV

(unitless)b

Acetone 270 34,853 0.00775

Benzene 3300 1140 2.89

Carbon Tetrachloride 7800 5500 1.42

Chlorobenzene 1300 13,000 0.1

Chloroform 92,000 15,000 6.13

Cyclohexane 32,000 79,300,000 0.000404

Dichlorodifluoromethane 130,000 5,524,324 0.0235

Dichloroethane[1,1-] 51,000 5750 8.87

Dichloroethane[1,2-] 540,000 240 2250

Dichloroethene[1,1-] 62,000 5500 11.3

Dichloroethene[cis-1,2-] 2300 11,900 0.193

Dichloroethene[trans-1,2-] 1500 38,000 0.0395

Dichloropropane[1,2-] 240,000 600 400

Dioxane[1,4-] 5800 12 475

Ethanol 1000 nac na

Ethylbenzene 1100 226,100 0.00487

Ethyltoluene[4-] 6700 na na

Hexane 2200 64,824,000 0.0000339

Methylene Chloride 87,000 650 134 n-Heptane 220 na na

Tetrachloroethene 350,000 3600 97.2

Tetrahydrofuran 42,000 na na

Toluene 13,000 204,000 0.0637

Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane[1,1,2-] 2,800,000 1,302,162,162 0.00215

Trichloroethane[1,1,1-] 2,100,000 42,300 49.6

Trichloroethane[1,1,2-] 1900 170 11.2

Trichloroethene 1,100,000 2000 550

Trichlorofluoromethane 28,000 5,152,941 0.00543

Trimethylbenzene[1,2,4-] 10,000 3750 2.67

Trimethylbenzene[1,3,5-] 2800 133,200 0.021

Vinyl Chloride 800 1,110 0.721

Xylene[1,2-] 3200 132,060 0.0242

Xylene[1,3-]+Xylene[1,4-] 5800 174,000 0.0333 a Derived from denominator of Equation 3.0-3.

b Calculated using Equation 3.0-3. If the SV is less than 1, the concentration of the VOC in pore gas does not have the potential to exceed the groundwater SL. Screening values greater than 1 are in bold.

c na = Not available.

Appendix A

Acronyms and Abbreviations, Metric Conversion Table, and Data Qualifier Definitions

FY2009 MDA G Periodic Monitoring Report

A-1

A-1.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

bgs below ground surface

COC chain of custody

DER duplicate error ratio

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)

FY fiscal year

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LCS laboratory control sample

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDA material disposal area

NMED New Mexico Environment Department

NMWQCC New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission

PCE tetrachloroethene

PID photoionization detector

PMR periodic monitoring report

QA quality assurance

QC quality control

RACER Risk Analysis, Communication, Evaluation, and Reduction

RPD relative percent difference

RPF Records Processing Facility

SCL sample collection log

SL screening level

SMO sample management office

SOP standard operating procedure

SV screening value

TA technical area

TCA trichloroethane(1,1,1-)

TCE trichloroethene

TD total depth

TPU total propagated uncertainty

VOC volatile organic compound

FY2009 MDA G Periodic Monitoring Report

A-2

A-2.0 METRIC CONVERSION TABLE

Multiply SI (Metric) Unit by To Obtain U.S. Customary Unit kilometers (km) 0.622 miles (mi) kilometers (km) 3281 feet (ft) meters (m) 3.281 feet (ft) meters (m) 39.37 inches (in.)

centimeters (cm) 0.03281 feet (ft) centimeters (cm) 0.394 inches (in.)

millimeters (mm) 0.0394 inches (in.)

micrometers or microns (µm) 0.0000394 inches (in.)

square kilometers (km2) 0.3861 square miles (mi2) hectares (ha) 2.5 acres square meters (m2) 10.764 square feet (ft2) cubic meters (m3) 35.31 cubic feet (ft3) kilograms (kg) 2.2046 pounds (lb) grams (g) 0.0353 ounces (oz) grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) 62.422 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3) milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 1 parts per million (ppm) micrograms per gram (µg/g) 1 parts per million (ppm) liters (L) 0.26 gallons (gal.)

milligrams per liter (mg/L) 1 parts per million (ppm) degrees Celsius (°C) 9/5 + 32 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)

A-3.0 DATA QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS

Data Qualifier Definition

U The analyte was analyzed for but not detected.

J The analyte was positively identified, and the associated numerical value is estimated to be more uncertain than would normally be expected for that analysis.

J+ The analyte was positively identified, and the result is likely to be biased high.

J- The analyte was positively identified, and the result is likely to be biased low.

UJ The analyte was not positively identified in the sample, and the associated value is an estimate of the sample-specific detection or quantitation limit.

R The data are rejected as a result of major problems with quality assurance/quality control parameters.

Appendix B

Field Methods

B-1

B-1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix summarizes the field methods used during the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2011 sampling activities at Material Disposal Area (MDA) L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, in Technical Area 54 at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory). All activities were conducted in accordance with the applicable standard operating procedures (SOPs), quality procedures, and Laboratory implementation and procedural requirements. Table B-1.0-1 summarizes the field methods used, and Table B-1.0-2 lists the applicable procedures.

B-2.0 FIELD METHODS

All work was conducted according to site-specific health and safety documents and an integrated work document. The field activities conducted according to SOPs are discussed below.

B-2.1 Volatile Organic Compound Pore-Gas Field Screening

All volatile organic compound (VOC) samples were field screened in accordance with the current version of SOP-5074, Sampling Subsurface Vapor. This procedure covers the use of the Brüel and Kjær Type 1302 multigas analyzer and the MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor. All field screening results were recorded on the appropriate sample collection logs (SCLs) in the field logbook and/or in tables and are provided in Attachment D-1 of Appendix D (on CD).

B-2.1.1 MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor

Before each sampling event, each sampling port was purged of stagnant air and then monitored with a MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor until the percent carbon dioxide (%CO2) and percent oxygen (%O2) levels stabilized at values representative of subsurface pore-gas conditions. In addition, VOC concentrations were estimated in parts per million using the MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor equipped with an 11.7-electon volt lamp photoionization detector (PID). Each rented instrument was shipped factory-calibrated to the subcontractor, and the calibration was checked daily.

The MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor can also be calibrated using a two-point process using “fresh air” and a standard gas. The first point calibration is the fresh air calibration that determines the zero point of the calibration curve for lower explosive limit, VOC, and toxic gas sensors. The fresh air calibration uses air containing a 20.9% oxygen concentration and is void of toxic gases and other impurities. The standard gas calibration sets the second point of the sensor calibration curve. The CO, CO2, and O2 sensors are zeroed during this two-point calibration process.

Calibration information is reported below for the MultiRAE IR Multi-Gas Monitor used to generate results presented in this periodic monitoring report.

Unit 2375 was calibrated on January 6, 2011, at Geotech Environmental Equipment, Inc., in Denver, Colorado. The zero points were set for CO2 and O2. Percent oxygen was set to read ambient air at 20.9%.

Oxygen values should be near the zero point for O2. The CO2 reading should be near zero. Readings deviating from the zero points for O2 and CO2 may be because of subsurface conditions or a need for calibration.

B-2

The vapor-sample tubing was purged of stagnant air by drawing sufficient air from the sampling interval through the line. To ensure that the sample collected was representative of the subsurface air at depth, every sampling activity included a purge cycle.

The %CO2 and %O2 screening levels are presented in Appendix D. Values from the second quarter of FY2011 for %CO2 and %O2 ranged from 0% to 4.5% and from 17% to 21.1%, respectively.

VOC screening data using a PID are presented in Appendix D. The VOC concentrations using the PID ranged from 0 to 520 ppm during the second quarter of FY2011.

B-2.2 VOC Pore-Gas Sample Collection

All VOC samples were collected in accordance with the current version of SOP-5074, Sampling Subsurface Vapor.

Upon completion of purging and field screening, VOC samples were taken using a sample train set-up along with a SUMMA canister. Information was recorded on the appropriate SCLs. Field chain-of-custody (COC) forms and SCLs are provided in Attachment D-1 of Appendix D (on CD).

All samples were submitted to the Sample Management Office (SMO) for processing and transport to off-site contract analytical laboratories.

B-2.3 Tritium Pore-Gas Sample Collection

All tritium samples were collected in accordance with the current version of SOP-5074. Water vapor intended for tritium analysis was collected from pore gas by pulling a pore-gas sample through a canister of silica gel (silica-gel column), and the sample information was recorded on the appropriate SCL in Attachment D-1 of Appendix D (on CD). Silica gel was the medium used at the Laboratory to collect moisture from pore-gas samples. The moisture was analyzed for tritium using liquid scintillation counting.

Silica-gel column field duplicate samples were also collected at a frequency greater than or equal to 10% per sampling event in accordance with the current version of SOP-5059.

Silica gel was prepared for sampling by drying it at a temperature above 100°C. Drying removes moisture from the silica gel but does not remove bound water that is accounted for by measuring the bound water percentage in each batch of silica gel. Before sample collection, the amount of silica gel used in each sample was weighed (typically about 135 g). The sample canister with silica gel was also weighed before sampling. SOP-5074 requires that at least 5 g of moisture be collected. After sampling, the sample canister with silica gel was weighed again to verify that 5 g of water vapor had been collected.

The sample (canister plus silica gel) was shipped to the analytical laboratory where it was weighed again.

The silica gel was emptied into a distillation apparatus and heated to 110°C, driving moisture off the silica gel. This moisture was collected and analyzed for tritium by liquid scintillation. The laboratory also weighed the empty canister and calculated the percent moisture of the sample, as the amount of moisture collected divided by the calculated weight of the wet silica gel. The value of the tritium activity and the calculated percent moisture were reported to the Laboratory in the analytical data package and the electronic data deliverable.

B-3

Table B-1.0-1 Summary of Field Methods

Method Summary

General Instructions for Field Investigations

This procedure provides an overview of instructions regarding activities performed before, during, and after field investigations. It is assumed field investigations involve standard sampling equipment, personal protective equipment, waste management, and site-control equipment/materials. The procedure covers premobilization activities, mobilization to the site, documentation and sample collection activities, sample media evaluation, surveillance, and completion of lessons learned.

Sample Containers and Preservation

Specific requirements/processes for sample containers, preservation techniques, and holding times are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance for environmental sampling, preservation, and quality assurance. Specific requirements were met for each sample and were printed in the SCLs provided by the Laboratory’s SMO (size and type of container, preservatives, etc.).

Handling, Packaging, and Transporting Field Samples

Field team members sealed and labeled samples before packing to ensure sample and transport containers were free of external contamination. All environmental samples were collected, preserved, packaged, and transported to the SMO under COC. The SMO arranged for shipping of the samples to analytical laboratories. Any levels of radioactivity (i.e., action-level or limited-quantity ranges) were documented in SCLs submitted to the SMO.

Sample Control and Field Documentation

The collection, screening, and transport of samples were documented in standard forms generated by the SMO. These forms include SCLs, COC forms, sample container labels, and custody seals. Collection logs were completed at the time of sample collection and were signed by the sampler and a reviewer who verified the logs for completeness and accuracy. Corresponding labels were initialed and applied to each sample container, and custody seals were placed around container lids or openings. COC forms were completed and signed to verify that the samples were not left unattended.

Field Quality Control Samples

Field quality control samples were collected as follows:

Field duplicates were collected at a frequency of 10% and at the same time as a regular sample and submitted for the same analyses.

Field blanks required for all field events that include collecting samples for VOC analyses were collected. Field blanks were kept with the other sample containers during the sampling process and were submitted for laboratory analyses.

Sampling Subsurface Vapor

Vapor sampling was performed at 25 monitoring wells in accordance with the current version of SOP-5074, and samples were analyzed for VOCs and tritium. This SOP describes the process of sampling subsurface air from vapor ports in monitoring wells and boreholes. The procedure covers presampling activities, sampling to detect and quantify gaseous organic concentration in air, SUMMA sampling (a passive collection and containment system of laboratory-quality air samples), adsorbent column sampling, and sampling through the packer system (a sampling system that uses inflatable bladders to seal off a desired interval in an open borehole or at the end of a drill casing to obtain a sample from a discrete section), and postsampling activities.

B-4

Table B-1.0-2 List of Applicable General Procedures for MDA L Pore-Gas Monitoring Activities

Document Number LANL Procedure Title

SOP-5055 General Instructions for Field Investigations

SOP-5056 Sample Containers and Preservation

SOP-5057 Handling, Packaging, and Transporting Field Samples

WES-EDA-QP-219 Sample Control and Field Documentation

SOP-5059 Field Quality Control Samples

SOP-5061 Field Decontamination of Equipment

SOP-5074 Sampling Subsurface Vapor

P 101-6 Personal Protective Equipment

SOP-01.12 Field Site Closeout Checklist

SOP-01.13 Initiating and Managing Data Set Requests

SOP-5181 Notebook and Logbook Documentation for Environmental Directorate Technical and Field Activities

SOP-5228 ADEP* Reporting Requirements for Abnormal Events

SOP-5269 Chain-of-Custody for Analytic Data Record Packages

*ADEP= Environmental Programs Directorate.

Appendix C

Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program

C-1

C-1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix presents the analytical methods and summarizes the data quality review for the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2011 pore-gas samples collected at Material Disposal Area (MDA) L, Solid Waste Management Unit 54-006, in Technical Area 54, at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory).

Quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), and data validation procedures were implemented in accordance with the Laboratory’s “Quality Assurance Project Plan Requirements for Sampling and Analysis” (LANL 1996, 054609) and the Laboratory’s scope of work for analytical services (LANL 2008, 109962). The results of the QA/QC activities were used to estimate the accuracy, bias, and precision of the analytical measurements. QC samples, including method blanks, blank spikes, matrix spikes, laboratory control samples (LCSs), internal standards, initial and continuing calibrations, and surrogates, were used to assess laboratory accuracy and bias.

The type and frequency of QC analyses are described in the analytical services scope of work (LANL 2008, 109962). Other QC factors, such as sample preservation and holding times, were also assessed.

The requirements for sample preservation and holding times are presented in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 5056, Sample Containers and Preservation. Evaluating these QC indicators allows estimates to be made of the accuracy, bias, and precision of the analytical suites. A focused data validation was also performed for all the data packages (identified by request number) that included a more detailed review of the raw data. The SOPs used for data validation are presented in Table C-1.0-1.

Copies of the analytical data, laboratory logbooks, and instrument printouts are provided in Attachment D-1 of Appendix D (on CD).

Analytical data were reviewed and evaluated based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Functional Guidelines for organic and inorganic chemical data review where applicable (EPA 1994, 048639; EPA 1999, 066649).