Laserfiche WebLink
James Tjosvold <br /> Page 4 <br /> February 7, 1990 <br /> Phase II <br /> Radian submitted Phase II Ambient Air Monitoring on November 30, <br /> 1989 . Samplers were located downwind from Phase I samplers and <br /> at other various boundary locations and Cedar Products (Figure 2 <br /> and 3) . Samples were analyzed for arsenic in inhalable and total <br /> particulates, and for PCP vapor. Seven episodes were collected, <br /> consisting of two days each. The heaviest loaded sample for each <br /> episode was analyzed. The results are shown in Tables 5 through <br /> 11. <br /> Comments <br /> Arsenic (Total) - Samples were collected and analyzed. The <br /> results are listed but not used in risk assessment. <br /> Arsenic (Inhalable) - Detection limits were not low eno3ugh to <br /> meet EPA's one in a million cancer risk value of 0. 2 ng/m . The <br /> detection limit was approximately 3 . 1 ng/m3 based on filter <br /> loading and analysis sensitivity. <br /> Three of the six boundary locations and Cedar Products detected <br /> arsenic above the 10 risk level. The three locations are <br /> located downwind of the process area and treated wood storage on <br /> the west end of the facility. <br /> PCP (Vapor) - Detection limit (approximately 0. 7 ug/m3) was not <br /> low enough to meet DHS AAL of 0. 22 ug/m . Limiting factors were <br /> collection time and analytical sensitivity. <br /> Five of the six boundary locations detected PCP above DHS AAL. <br /> The upwind samples also detected PCP. However, in one case, a <br /> wind shift caused the samples to be downwind 40% of the time. <br /> Site Characteristics - Testing similar to Phase I was conducted <br /> and the results were similar. <br /> Conclusion <br /> Data anomalies exist in the Phase II work. In three cases where <br /> arsenic (inhalable) was detected, the corresponding arsenic <br /> (total) was lower. Total particulate results should be equal or <br /> higher than inhalable. <br /> The second anomaly is that PCP was detected twice in the upwind <br /> samples. A wind shift caused the samples to be downwind from the <br /> process area in one case. The other case is unexplainable. <br />