ARCHIVED REPORTS_2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WMU-DO1, WMW-D02, WMU-D02 (pan), and FU-03 could not be located or have been buried, while lysimeters LY-E 1 A and LY-E2A were reported to be plugged. Samples were collected by Del-Tech from each sample point containing sufficient liquid and submitted to BC Laboratories (BC) of Bakersfield, California, a state certified laboratory under contract to Forward. During the first quarter 2012 monitoring period, samples were analyzed for the routine monitoring parameters stipulated in RWQCB Order No. R5-2003-0049. Table 2-1 summarizes site monitoring parameters, analytical methods, and monitoring frequency. Water quality samples were also analyzed in the field for oxygen reduction potential (ORP), turbidity, temperature, specific conductance, and pH and recorded on well data sheets. The groundwater monitoring wells and leachate monitoring points were sampled in accordance with the sampling and analysis procedures detailed in Appendix B. The well data sheets, laboratory data, certificates of analyses, and chain-of-custody records for the sampling program are included in Appendix C. The laboratory analyses and field results for groundwater monitoring wells, surface water stations, lysimeter and leachate sampling stations are summarized in Tables 2-2 through 2-6. 2.1.2 QA/QC Results The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)program completed for the first quarter 2012 water quality monitoring event included analyses of one field blank, two trip blanks,two laboratory method blanks, and one duplicate sample. The field and trip blanks were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method 8260 and method blanks were analyzed for all of the analytes included in the monitoring program. The results of the QA/QC program indicate that acetone was detected at an estimated trace concentration (7.29 µg/L) in one of the method blanks during the monitoring period; however, acetone was not detected in any of the primary samples collected. During the first quarter 2012 monitoring event, a duplicate sample was collected from wells MW-18 and labeled DUP. With the exception of arsenic, barium, and strontium, the duplicate sample analyses yielded good correlation(less than 7%relative percent difference). Of note, concentrations less than the practical quantitation limit(PQL) were not included in the comparison since they are estimated values. Review of first quarter 2012 sampling dates and laboratory analytical certificates indicates that all of the laboratory analyses were completed within required holding times. Based on the results of the laboratory QA/QC analyses, it is concluded that the laboratory data generated for the first quarter 2012 monitoring period are generally acceptable and the water quality samples collected from the Forward Unit appear to be representative of water quality at the site. 2.1.3 Groundwater Elevations and Contours Prior to purging and sampling, each well was sounded for water depth using a weighted electronic sounder to an accuracy of 0.01 foot, and the static water level was recorded on a Well Data Sheet(Appendix Q. The groundwater elevations were calculated for each well by subtracting the depth-to-water measurement from the top-of-casing reference c:\20IM025\FA_IQ12.doe 4 Geo-Logic Associates