SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e...

36
"._ ^ J TRC Environmentol Corporation Boott S South, 'Foot of John Street ' Lowell, MA 01852 Enrnonwcnial Solution* through Technology -s (508) 970-5600 Fax (508) 453-1995 July 23, 1992 Ms. Mary H. Grealish Regional Project Officer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Division 3 JFK Federal Building, Room 2203 o Boston, Massachusetts 02203 i Reference: Contract No. 68-W9-0003, TES 6 ' ' Work Assignment No. C01117 •-'. 3 Tansitor Electronics ! ^ RI/FS Compliance Oversight ° J |v - ) (Ref. 1-635-205) Subject: Deliverable: Split Sample Comparison Report Dear Ms. Grealish: In accordance with the reporting requirements of the subject Work Assignment, enclosed is one (1) copy of the Split Sample Comparison Report for the Tansitor Electronics site. This submit tal satisfies an additional deliverable requirement for this Work Assignment. Questions regarding this submission should be directed to the TRC Project Manager, Dale Weiss at (508) 970-5757 ext 5140, or me. Sincerely yours, William J. Farino Regional Manager WJF/eg Enclosure cc: Terrence Connelly/EPA Work Assignment Manager Nancy Toy/TES-6 Contracting Officer (letter only) Jack Lewis, Jr./TRC TES-6 Contracts Manager (letter only) Dale Weiss/TRC Project Manager Dan Fenno/TRC Lead Hydrogeologist <5>= QjS Offices in Coliforn o Colorado Connecticut Illinois Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, No'th Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washmatcn Washington D C ana PL'C^O Rico A TRC CO

Transcript of SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e...

Page 1: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

" ._ ^ J TRC Environmentol Corporation Boott S South, 'Foot of John Street

' Lowell, MA 01 852 Enrnonwcnial Solution* through Technology -s (508) 970-5600 Fax (508) 453-1995

July 23, 1992

Ms. Mary H. Grealish Regional Project Officer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Management Division 3 JFK Federal Building, Room 2203 o Boston, Massachusetts 02203 r» i Reference: Contract No. 68-W9-0003, TES 6 ' '

Work Assignment No. C01117 •-'. 3 Tansitor Electronics ! RI/FS Compliance Oversight °J |v-) (Ref. 1-635-205)

Subject: Deliverable: Split Sample Comparison Report

Dear Ms. Grealish:

In accordance with the reporting requirements of the subject Work Assignment, enclosed is one (1) copy of the Split Sample Comparison Report for the Tansitor Electronics site. This submit tal satisfies an additional deliverable requirement for this Work Assignment.

Questions regarding this submission should be directed to the TRC Project Manager, Dale Weiss at (508) 970-5757 ext 5140, or me.

Sincerely yours,

William J. Farino Regional Manager

WJF/eg Enclosure

cc: Terrence Connelly/EPA Work Assignment Manager Nancy Toy/TES-6 Contracting Officer (letter only) Jack Lewis, Jr./TRC TES-6 Contracts Manager (letter only) Dale Weiss/TRC Project Manager Dan Fenno/TRC Lead Hydrogeologist

<5>=

QjS

Offices in Coliforn o Colorado Connecticut Illinois Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, No'th Carolina, Pennsylvania,

Washmatcn Washington D C ana PL'C^O Rico A TRC CO

Page 2: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc
Page 3: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT Rl/FS COMPLIANCE OVERSIGHT TANSITOR ELECTRONICS SITE

BENNINGTON, VERMONT

Prepared for

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Waste Management Division

JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Work Assignment No.: C01117

EPA Region: I

EPA Site/Facility I.D. No.: VTD000509174

Contract No.: 68-W9-0003 (TES-6)

TRC Project No.: 1-635-205-0-1PC3-0

TRC Document No.: A92-904

TRC Project Manager: Dale Weiss

Telephone No.: (508) 970-5757 x 5142

Subcontractor No.: N/A

Subcontractor Project Manager: N/A

Telephone No.: N/A

EPA Work Assignment Manager: Terrence Connelly

Telephone No.: (617) 573-9638

Date Prepared: July 23, 1992

TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Boott Mills South

Foot of John Street Lowell, Massachusetts 01852

(508) 970-5600

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL TRC

Page 4: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A92-904.txt 11

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL rnc

Page 5: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 COMPARISON OF EPA/TRC AND GZA SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYTICAL DATA 1 2.1 Introduction 1 2.2 Quality Control Review of EPA/TRC Data 1 2.3 Split Sample Comparison 3

TABLES

Number Page

1-1 Split Sample Summary for the Tansitor Electronics Site 2 1-2 Summary of Tansitor Electronics Split Samples Displaying Inadequate

Comparability 5

A92-904.txt 111

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL

TRC

Page 6: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A92-904.txt IV

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL TRC

Page 7: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) to provide compliance oversight for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) being performed at the Tansitor Electronics site (site) located in Bennington, Vermont. TRC has performed a comparison of the results of the split sample analysis to the GZA data presented in the Phase 1A Characterization Report (Phase 1A Report) dated March 23, 1992.

2.0 COMPARISON OF EPA/TRC AND GZA SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYTICAL DATA

2.1 Introduction

TRC was directed by the EPA WAM to collect ten water and nine soil/sediment split samples at the Tansitor Electronics site. A list of these samples is presented in Table 1-1. The split samples were obtained in accordance with TRC's EPA-approved Field Oversight Work Plan dated November 27, 1991.

The EPA/TRC samples were analyzed through the EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for volatile organics (including TCL compounds, chlorodifluoromethane, trichlorotrifluoroethane, cyclopentane, N,N-dimethylformamide, methanol), TCL semivolatiles, TCL pesticides/PCBs, inorganics (including TAL metals, palladium, tantalum and total cyanide). The GZA samples were analyzed by similar methods for the above analytes by Aquatec, Inc.

The objective for split sample collection during this effort was to quantitatively compare analytical results obtained by GZA to those from the EPA/TRC samples. Where analytical results were not available from either EPA/TRC or GZA, no data comparison is provided.

Appendix A provides summary tables comparing validated analytical results from the GZA split samples with the validated results of the EPA/TRC split samples. All of the GZA analytical data presented in Appendix A were downloaded from the dBASE compatible diskettes submitted by GZA for the Risk Assessment

2.2 Quality Control Review of EPA/TRC Data

Validation of the EPA/TRC data was performed in accordance with Region I guidance by TRC's subcontractors, Dynamac and Quantalex. All validated EPA/TRC data was previously submitted to EPA. A review of the EPA/TRC data validation reports indicates that although most of the data were acceptable, some data points were estimated and a few data points were rejected due to laboratory quality control problems.

A92-904.txt 1

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL TRC

Page 8: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CN o\ Ov g en

Ov Ov

00 V-i oo oo

tW VO

SJ

oo CM oo OO

CO CO CO CO CO w

CO U vO V

Ov en

O 5Oi :OH

2

U VO oo 00 w

_

oo 00 oo ga CO CO CO SS CO w s en

o I u s H 13

m (3 06

S Ov I

00 CO CO Q! vO VO VO

13

en

c­00 w> 00

11 00

'S 1 13 H 2 CM

V "o.

CO

0.

co CS

00 8 <N o

03 JL UJ 00 00 00 CO CO CO co'oo

8

Page 9: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

2.3 Split Sample Comparison

2.3.7 Comparability Goal

Presently, there is no EPA published guidance pertaining to the quantitative comparison of split samples which are analyzed by two different laboratories. Consequently, TRC has utilized a comparison procedure that calculates the relative percent difference (RPD) of detected compounds in each data set A quantitative comparability goal, which originated from Region I data validation guidance for the evaluation of field duplicates, is then applied to the calculated RPD to evaluate the comparability of the split samples. The comparability goal for organic results is a RPD of 30% for water samples and 50% for soil samples. For inorganic results above five times the contract required detection limit (CRDL), the comparability goal is a RPD of 30% for water samples and 50% for soil samples. For inorganic results where one or both split sample results are below five times the CRDL, the comparability goal is an absolute difference of less than the twice the CRDL for waters and four times the CRDL for soils.

Accordingly, the GZA and EPA/TRC data were quantitatively compared by applying the above criteria to the results of split sample analyses. The quantitative comparison is presented in Appendix A. The Appendix A data tables were also reviewed to determine instances where analytes were detected by EPA and were not detected by GZA.

2.5.2 Comparability Evaluation

TRC further evaluated the Appendix A split sample comparison data tables to determine whether any of the GZA results, which did not meet RPD comparability goals, might still be considered useable. The comparability goals which were applied to the data are based on the expected precision of field duplicate samples analyzed at a single laboratory. However, the split samples evaluated in this report were not analyzed at the same laboratory. Consequently, strict application of the RPD goals , cited above may not be appropriate. Using professional judgement TRC determined that data which did not meet comparability goals should not be considered unusable if the following conditions applied:

• if the analyte was detected by EPA/TRC at a concentration below the CRQL/CRDL and was not detected by GZA;

• if the GZA result was greater than the EPA/TRC result; and

• if one or both results were estimated (flagged with a "J") and the RPD was below a broader acceptance criteria of 67%.

A92-904.txt 3

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL

Page 10: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Table 1-2 presents the results of the data comparability evaluation. Samples identified with an "X" in the table were judged to have inadequate comparability based on the quantitative RPD goals and TRC's professional judgement.

2.3.3 Conclusions/Recommendations

As shown in Table 1-2, 18 of the 57 sample analyses were found to have inadequate comparability. The overall comparability for the two data sets was variable; the organics analyses had adequate comparability, whereas the inorganics water analyses exhibited the most severe comparability problems.

It should be noted that the EPA/TRC samples for pesticide/PCB indicated the presence of some contaminants at levels below the PRP detection limit

From the results of the split sample comparison, TRC recommends the following:

• All analyses exhibiting inadequate comparability be confirmed for accuracy by GZA.

• Due to the discrepancies noted and the large size of the EPA/TRC split sample database, EPA should incorporate the EPA/TRC split samples data into the Risk Assessment.

• Due to the presence of methanol in samples MW-103R and MW-104M, EPA should consider requiring the PRP to add methanol to their analyte list for future analysis of ground water.

• The findings of the split sample comparison should be compared to health based risk criteria such as MCLs or to the results of the risk assessment to evaluate their additional impact.

• EPA should note the analytical discrepancies cited in this report for future users of the GZA data set.

A92-904.txt 4

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL TRC

Page 11: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Table 1-2 SUMMARY OF TANSITOR ELECTORONICS SPLIT SAMPLES DISPLAYING INADEQUATE COMPARABILITY (a)

Sample Bate Volatile SemivolatHe Pesticide/Location Collected MatrC* Grganies Organics FCBs Inorganics

ERM-2S 09/24/91 groundwater X NA X MW-103R 09/24/91 groundwater X L NA X MW-104M 09/24/91 groundwater X NA X ERM-4S 12/05/91 groundwater NA X MW-103R 12/05/91 groundwater NA NA NA MW-108U 12/05/91 groundwater NA X SW-110 08/07/91 surf, water NA X SW-120 08/07/91 surf, water NA X SW-160 11/20/91 surf, water NA X SW-130 11/21/91 surf, water NA SB-1A 07/29/91 soil NA X SSD-5 08/02/91 soil X SSD-1 08/07/91 soil NA SSD-8 08/07/91 soil SB-4M 09/06/91 soil NA SW-110 08/07/91 sediment X NA X SW-120 08/07/91 sediment NA X SW-130 11/21/91 sediment X NA SW-160 11/20/91 sediment X NA

X = The analytical data were not comparable.

NA = A split sample comparison was not performed because one or both split samples were not analyzed or the analytical results were not available.

Page 12: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TIIC

Page 13: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

APPENDIX A

SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON TABLES

A92-904.txt A-1

RECYCLED PAPER ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL

TRC

Page 14: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TRC

Page 15: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

« *

co o co o QL z z z z z z z z z z z z iCC

^ "5 -> CC CC CM —j Z5 ID Z) -^3 3> ID H) Z> Z Z 0) » - o m o » - T - e o i n o i n i n i n oO) i- ••- co CD v in « CM CM Q. f^

OIv! inO

-» CC CC Z> Z> ^ Z3 ID ^ ID Z) ID Z O Zg o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o5J .5

11£ 5* o. m•E UJ <i—

U)CO 3 a.CO o Q §

Qz . Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z o . 1

CC CC i -2E •1 .£Z) ID ID Z) Zv Zv Z) Z) ») Zv Hj Z) Z) Z Z ^o

UJ oo inoin in in in in inminot- i- T- in ffl ^^ » 2nHi £CC

N o 8 *^ g Oi*~ n i- §&

^™ S o i £r W rr Us .» M

< DC CC m ^ 8 SCD 1 gf 8

CC o o o o o o o o o o o o o LU « ?s c i iIII

•§ I • " CL eX 'f 0§ •Bfj-cia: o TJ S C w °- 12 C

• $ "^"F X « i MQ. mQ. •gipS^fi i i |7] i W m f ' S ' S S 1 ®^ - 2 £ < D < 3 - ° ' - r a v " UJ

[4 D)

S 5 = c o » - S c 5 - = E0­

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z § tt Ii»«s!^i OC

e - £"0 S"?"0 SisQ 1

< -> CC CC 8s|^|-i|gH Z oo ino in in i nco in inm inoi- T- T- in

CO ^

oIP (illI IMllfl!

O ISI in ?ll§ll»«

O O -» DC CC i.2-ll*ls1 Mi^lHi*** (0 % (B Q- ~^E3

|gIs CC

ut EP

A/A

llii m O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

t| J|£ifl5iHfjtaa §

D-"* O > Q tt < "I II CD " N " Q. II « CC <Z ) - > D C O C . + z z

CQ CO o ^^ ^ •~ CD ? s "-' C C •"

!2 ccc 2 2 E « 5 o ^ ^ ^ O C D C O o °

CO Ho 111E||| || i f g c o i ^ i o - c ^ — o ) E 2 ^ °

fl> •5. O g > . g g - y - ^ 2 l T ^ o § Q ro ^­

I "co II 1 1 i- i- S s B1 II1 1 1

Page 16: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

OC

0> o (0 Q.

o o i n o i n i n i n i n i n m i n i n o i n r­ *— i­ in

re O O C O P J O O O O O O O N - O i n OT - i - c \ i c o t - t - T - ^ i - ^ T - i - i n r>-o

UJ UJ

1 O

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZ *

UJ

UJ

QC

5

UJ

O -:• EC =d U. O)

^m

Ul

LU

oo ino in in in in in in incN jomcNjo

o o o ^ r o o o o o o o c v j o m oT - i - ' . - i - i - T - T - v - v - i - f - c o i n •*

in oo co

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

8 I

^

|o£ Q-i9 tr « iI

I t 01 •> *

III3 I<A

3 i _C —Q- Csii*5ji?O Q-f? t 0)S to •p *_« o ^ f e nX c p o — - f c o a

» S I "8 S^-fc-s — -S § 2 O.JS K s . e-§ ^ssi .

tO

§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o o o o m o o o o c o o o o o o o o o

o o i n h ~ c o i n i n i n o i n i n i n in

og

lg

i uSP!*5 85 £ R

o o o o o o o o o o o o ^ - i n oi - i - O ' . - o o i - T - O T - i - ^ i n o o r i- o c\j o

in en T- o t-CM CO

- » £•m KA. — ^

? si0? i^" > £ Cl f f <

Q O

» n " o. u ii o: < r> ­> cr cr . + z z

co

p c ^ o ? «

1 g t W

II >. 3

0) n re

o>

"re O

Page 17: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

"5 eo o

« o ^ o co

• * r - o r ^

^ CD

* o•v

O» s Q Q. CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

CC

ECO t

°co ^- in CM'" ' "•r­

CM CO

CO u z '

I\J c3

1 o t-

o£E CC CC 0 Ul

Ul DC o

o>

I0

"^

13 ^ 3 - j -sID - j - j ^ Z - j Z t~t ^*j | | ^ ^ co in cji *~ CM in coT- co ^ co r^

o1— M*.

li

< < CM

to z S

^^

ID CO

S

Ul f in a

_ II

2

83 u. o>

O Q. CC z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

CO 3* JJj DC

£E

T- T- T­ S ^

< ** to ^ t s CO

ftS N o o

u- < O

Z DC 0 0 <2 uj s

13 ZD ^D ^D ^D ""i *™i **^ ^^ ]~ " ~^o o m o L O L O i n i n i n L O L O i o

CC 2 ^D in

CC ^^

< — o. <

§10 >

^

I

w

Q. UJ

9 CM COin CO

Jl

(0 d) O+~ V

.2 c u

as — c 2 "5 c c c fz £ E ^ 3

(0 T-

<

0) X)

,2

0) 3I» 76 c

P .c-cJi: § 2 ? o g Ijo ni§||i u_ : * = < i > a 3 < ! ? - g - g - g £ j E 2 ^ a > . i 2 g — ^ ^ ^ O Q Q o S ' • p 5 n O ^ ' § 2 > % P ^ ' S ' ' ' — ' " - ' o ^ ^ ^ o ^ 16 I < ­' ­- ­' 6 ­• H ® ° Z" H I

Page 18: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

O O) s. Q

0. cc

i

2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2

CC DC

o o i n o m m i n i n c n i n i n i n o1 - 1 - 1 ­ in

m

CO JS O 2^ z

< •«O

o>•*

oE QC DC DC 0 Z ) Z 3 Z ) ! D Z ) ^ D I D Z > ^ Z ) I 3 D 2 Z 2 UJ o o o o o o o o e o o o o

UJ cc

i O:

£ CO

0e .5

Q. LU

I CO <

UJ

£ 55

c 5" o Q. cc Z Z 2 2 2

o

2 2

in

2 2 2 2 2 2

CD « w fc tl s s*|lt:jtf S ' :! oS-s ; c B ~n fl

it o o i n o i n c o i n i n c o t n i n i n o1 - 1 - 1 ­ i- in

DC OC

CO ^ o t — Q. y\co a

N O

in 2i—

U. fi sz soc *" ^j ~" ~~ ~^ ^ ^3 ^3DC OC OC

*") ^5 ^D 2T Z "^ 0 o52 ujCC _j

o i «

O O O O O < D O O i - O O O

0 0 0 > i (A

Q. UJ

CM

<

co Q}

« * 1 i 0> CD <D <1> m CO ­C •c c c c £ ® E « 5

<0

< 0>

CO

0)

lo

ill llli|l| II-g o ^ c ' S ' o ' o ' ^ i ^ ^ 2 2.^ 2 2 — ^ ^ O Q Q Q ' • p S i c u Q ' ? ' ' '

.e ^ ® o ^ r. <H ^ '­I ­c o o - •= «

Page 19: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CO

o O)CO

C M C M C O C M C O C O C O C O C O C D C D C O O C O T- <r­ T- CM

Q.

CC CC

.52 in »— •»— CO CO CD CO CO CO CO CO COT- T- CO

CO

tto LU

to co o

zzzzzzzz zzzzzz o

UJ t - ' r - c o c o c o c o c o c o i n c o i n c o c o c oin co

UJ o> oc o

CC CC

< — i - C O T - C O C O C O C D C O C O C O < D in

Ul ^ r o*

tf). LU

£ s to o111 ui 11el t

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z g * fe-S

<to OTs s s SQ = .

C D C D C V J O C O C O C O C D C O C O O O C O O C O

Q. oto I u. 523 igU)•« III

CC _l

a CO

i n i n c O O C M C M C M C M C M C M C V J C M O C Min T-

CM in

Z H

LU + Z Z

re

I 2 o> o> a? co

Hi. c T 5 5 ;0 o ­

. . . o o o

l ra

•*­'0)

Q>S

o - -

Page 20: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CM CM CO

' " z z z ^ z z z z z ^ z z z CO

"o N

CO O CO CO V­ CM CO O i-at aa. to

CM CO T- CM T- CM CMCM

v-

CC CC C C - ^ C C C C - 5 - > C C C C - 9 - » C C - , Z C C Z c o o c M i n o > c o c \ J C M c o a o i n < o in

o T r m c M i n c o c o c M C Ma> CM

Ill

8 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

§HI

C M C M ( O C M C O ( O ( O ( O C D < O . C O < D O ( O t— T- T- CM

CC o s

C M C M ( O C M ( O ( O t f > ( O C O ( D ( O ( O ' 4 - ( O OT­ v­ •*­ CM CO

ES " S 5 t

« * CO QLU UJ

CO t in

z z z z z z z z z z z z < o to w

S o o o o o o c o o o o o o o C O C O C O C O O C O C M O C O C O C O O C OT­ T­ in T­ o o

7- CD TJ-*- CO

s a CC CC Z Z ) Z

< p (O C M C M C O T r c O t ^ C D t D O C O C D C D *~ *~ *~ ^~ CM

CD

Id O >

. LU tr cc

co s g0) E re

CO TJ g « £

Et o® o =

•5. n

a

Page 21: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z CO

o CO 0) in in o co eo co oo O) i- T- CO •«­a a.

CO UJ

o

Z Z Z Z Z Z

CC CC

i - c o c o o o o o o

oc oc oc Z3 ID 13 Z Z Z

o

in UJ DC Q

CO O UJ UJ -J CO

< o CO W

coSy ?i *§ IP 8§

0)S

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZ

CC CC

^­ ^ co

CC CC OC

o o o o o o o o < o o o o O O O v J C M C M C V I O v J O J O O L O C M C N J C v J

in

CO UJ

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

( O C O O O C O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

OC OC

CO

LU

CO O CD

a>

£ i? 8 CO

J£ - - 03 ' J= 2> Q ­

< 5 > o f f < » »" it " a. u » tr <^> -> tree . + z z

Page 22: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CO

Q

Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z

— » - j - j r J ~ » z ? ~ > ^ j ? r ? ! ! ? r ?

„CO

2 <iS 3

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

5E |jj o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

~~ «p

UJCL

2 UJ

CO

Q

I Q

?r 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2

Uj O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

UJCC

CO s

§

C C f l juj ~ ­

it is: CC DC U. UJ

ul < Q Jj j5 ^5Z

^ - t D O O O O O O O O O O O O

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8s

w i-cI? fefss^ l

Ill-isI! OC Q= i- S

S §W D C

Ul

_ c = *5IE 2T< Os >8S

* .si o

j-

m M>S— 25­ SSj

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5

lfS3

d>

(0 CM

,„

c CD o

V CD t c Q. S

i l l ?! C C QJ

=i § i >• J?r '"?

0)

- . Q-J2 C L L 1 - Q - C D O C Q C Q C D C Q S O Q

Page 23: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Q QL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CCCO

o I D Z ) Z ) Z ) ^ Z ) ^ Z > ^ Z ) ^ Z ) I D Z 3

0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CM

o> CO CD Q. Jj

O

§

ID Z J 3 Z 3 ^ ^ 0 I 3 ^ Z 3 ^ I 5 ^ Z 3 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O re

%*O

* ^f O

si£to UJ <tH 00 + UJ^

Q.

Q Q.1 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z CCO

DC I

0 Z ) ^ ^ O I 3 ^ ^ I 3 Z 3 Z > Z ) I 3 ^ > ^ ) | S

iLU O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I^

LU CM

DC P N ^^ 0 Is

(0 CC H 0 1-!

I I 0>

I£ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o II

-j reLUI 0 ,- c— a.i7 "5-SF-r, cO* Q. ! o.-i-. " °- ui1Q. m sillo •=• t !iUJ

F (£ S g^l*

LU LU O3 • 3E .« w ^il|11UJ <

I f i a -- l^SfQo

. 1 s*n

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 i5 o -S S5 Z CC 1 ig-i-o> S- o -o S

E g o g­8 o S Q­< (0 2 s 5 tr tO Q Z ) I D I D ! D Z 3 Z ) ^ Z ) I D I D Z D Z ) Z 3 Z 3

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O tz l^ll 5 f l « g l^slill

8) o 1 all I0N o S •» 3

S O in IB S ^T

€ JD M <B Z a_J •S ifP F CD

- j o o o o o o o o » - o o o o o o * 8.S< P 'CO ^

2_ Ills

CO ^ >, 2 i2 > < *|5*5 5 yI

Q. § c5 oCD <i^^ tr < ii «P LU DC Q. CD » II « tt II II EC <o co LU LU 3 -j DC OC . -I- Z Z

5 03 ro - c

o i|| 2 g .S - Q- —

re ">» c "c o> =6" i o> x r e r a c u c o

CO CM c||| 5.a)f-i.i.A^-? <c 0 i- _2 ^ ^ Q) -2- S uj S- ^S -2- "x* S 0 5L ? ^ S c 2 c 2 o ) r i i S S S c 2 a "re Q ) Q . Q . Q j O 2 c £ ^ •—• C C C ® C

c c t S z c t L r D ^ m o f i m m m E D a

Page 24: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

o CO

Q. DC zzzzzzzzzz

B CO

o o> 2 3

CD

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

8

8 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

ICM

pto

Q. LU

CO

Q Q. OC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Ul ° oc in o N

O^ CO

<v

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ul

s? o CM

6S LU CO

Eg (O HrII Q

Q. OC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

-I < o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

Q. 7n W g

;° Ul

cc J< o 0- >

O ui O (0 i

0)8 re

Q. LU

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i * s : § 6 ?i!

iS5i » II « CL 3 ­> OC OC

I ill £ f.a.3 J1S3 EC < « •

« OC < + Z 2

0)

a o,

8 1 S g•g o> o> I>.

x re re c o

CO • CM

o cu

re

. £ re re g o ' g H ' o ' c r o ' 0 - 5 ­- C C ^ - 5 N > . C J N N N ^ N*

Page 25: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CO

o

O)s.

CO CO o o

o LU

LU

CO ra

LU

£

LU O E1 CO

isCO g

o p

II Q- >

O LU O CO

8

to

(O

s

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

o o o o o o o o o o o o o ot n t n t n i n i n m i n i n c o m i n m i n m

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o C O ( D C D C O C O ( O ( D ( D C D ( O C O C D ( D ( OCO CO C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O

z z z z z z z z z z z z z z

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C M < M C \ J C \ J C M C \ J C N J C M C \ J C \ J C \ J C M C M C M

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o

o

S2:

o> T5 •

2 «

•>, c c o> =o cT x co ro c. o Q)

o o co C\l llil Isliil^. ­a> 0> o ' o ' o ' f i o' ' ' ' '

N N N l S N > , } . ) 3 ( )

Q . J 2 Z C L U - C L C D O C Q C D C D C Q — CD

Page 26: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

+ +

CO

a0. (Z Z Z Z ZZ

o CN ID r> 13 ­> -»->­» ^ ­> -> ­9 ^ 3 0) O)

£ in co

o o o o o o o O O O O O

N O

<D 3 3 3 - » - 9 - » - » - > 3 - » - 9 - » - » - s

.51 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

to Q. UJ

CO£ (0

o

o Q. cc Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

UJ S o o o o o o o o c o c o o o c o c o o o c o o o c o o o cc o O _ N CO

O CO 5 i# O)< 3

: uj _! S ssIt co

! 2 CO

o CO

~ 5 - 3 ~ 3 ~ 5 ~ 5 - 5 - J - 9 - 3 - 5 - > - » - J - 5 ^ D ^ 3 0 Z » ^ I 3 I D Z ) Z 3 ^ 3 ^ oooooooooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o^••'j-'fTrTj-^-^Trr-'-'tfTr-^-M-Tj­

o oJ= te TJ 75

co d ! O o

Q. CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

Sg oooooo o o o o o o o C O C D C D C O C D < O C O ( D C D CD CD CO CO

CO O N

O

8 ~ J < O Q- >

O ai O CO

s CO

Q. HI

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O k O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O

<x> B «

O CD e

<D

I Q.

?: H <D o

CM

<

0 CD5,

mtill CO

Page 27: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 CO

o CO <D o o o o o o o o o o o o o o C?

5? 5? 5? 5? O) O) O) <7> O) O> O)CO 00 OO CO CO CO 00o o c o o o o o o o c o c o

Q.

<D

(0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ^^^••^•^•^•^•^••^••^•^r^-^r'*

W w o

o zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

8 UJ

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oi r > i o m i n i n i n i n i n i n i n t r ) U ) i n i n DC

§9

P UJ 8 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o S t n m m i n i O k n i n i D i n i n i n m mc o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o c o

§ UJ £ OT

LU

UJ O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

IS**­His

5* 5>g CO

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ~O es

O H22 < DC ^ < O D- >

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •^••^••^••^••i<r'«>-Tr'VTrTj-Tr'>}-TrTr

!i

O UJ O V)

CD

5 CO

CD

c i CD CD c CD O co c c o>

Q! £

CD C ®

CM a> = 9? m C S

Page 28: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

+

Q. 2 2 Z Z Z Z DC 50

T"

d>

£O)

CO CO ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ v *• CO CO CO CO

UJ §1— fCO O

_, _J _J _, ^ _J O

CNJ CM CO CO O CO

j~ oi oi *~ *~ ui *~ o UJ re

rs. cc ^ co UJ

Q ^to a. 1— CO UJ < CO1 + + + + +

UJ X -J2 o a.

Z Z Z 2 Z Z 5 ^ cc O 3

£| ID Z3 ^ ^ ^ UCO Z

UJ UJ CO 00 CO CD CO CO »— i— co co co co -J S

1 UJ550N36 m

5. w O CO Z

O co m - > - » - > - > 3 -» > « S 2

Z O CJ TJ- T- CM CO CO o ^ a> *N 'M CM co •? L * « ? CO UJ £ o o o o E Q re

£? ^ r-­S ^ co "* U •" QCO a.

O QJ

CO LU < » K « a O Q. o -> cc cc

CO T3 'x

a> &

CO 5 ^ UJ Q H

o> o o Q ._ O Q « •$; I S ? S ? 9re CO c a> <D •* c ^

X I TJ- UJ n- •*

Page 29: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

in co co 8 Z Z Z Z ZZ ZZ ZZZZZZ

o> en £

UJ

CO CO o

o oc& UJ

UJ CC gCO

in CM

CC OC C C D D Z Z

cS 10 cjID CM CM

co in Is- T- o co i-

ZZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZZZZ ZZZZZZ

r > ^ r ) Z ) Z ) o c

•t- CM

o

S

a

UJ X

8I CM CM

LU o oc LL.

CO Cn C M C O i J - C M C O ^ - C M e M O>wCU

OJ ? < < £ « < ^ < £ £ ° « < « 2 < < < < < < «

ZZ ZZ Z Z Z ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z

rf O) 33 33 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 C C co a.

t oc 2 uj CO <

o o

OC OC 33 33 3 C C 3 33 3ZZ

c o o o i - o o o r~* o O T j - O f - O C O O O O O O O C D O

RG

IC

S CC CC

- s 3 - j 3 - > 3 Z Z O C M O O C M C O O T j - i n O O O C O O O O O C O O O

- ' O O C M i n o ^ i : , x o ­O T - , . ; i n c n ' r i n c M * ^ o > s CM C\J C M C O ° m C O i­cvi c\j

a

o i o ? o o o o i o i n o o o i n o c o o i n c j o o i n o o o o o o o oo t o - ^ o O i - m c M O o T- <-:•«* o - r - O i - m c M i - o o CM CM in O o oin in in

CO E > , E E 1 g E E E P

.a ca

Page 30: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

• « • * m f*» o> CT> m

„. Q

cc rftf<Trfrf^'^'^<^<!<;<<<<<!<!<^'^tf<!rf z z z z z z z z ^ z ^ z z z z z z z z z ^ z z z

"o CC C C C C C C C C C C CC t r - j C C C C C C - j C C C C C C | C C G C G C CM

0> o>

Z C C Z Z Z C C - » Z Z - > Z - ^ - > Z D Z Z Z 3 Z Z Z - l ) Z Z Z t­ o o o o ^ o o o •<*• m

• ^J CO fyl .' C3 CD «yC if*

s. >0 CMco

^ S*-

^ ^~

ivi

0 ^ 0in

8 CC-s 3cc cc cc

- s D I 3 - > Z Z Z

H

s f 2

re

1 UJ

^_

is

g o c M c o r ^ c o o o o ^ - o ^ o o o c o o o o o o - ^ c o * - ^ * ^^ " * ^^ j — . ( j- T ^J ^^ ^^ ^S ^^ -y^ j ^^ " fhl CO

CM oo m co ^ CM i (ftO

O (S u

O Q. CC

•* co co

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

c c c c c c c c c c c c - ^ c c c c - > c c c c c c - » c c a : c c c c c c c c Z C C Z Z Z C C - > Z Z = 3 Z - > - > Z D Z Z Z D Z Z Z - > Z Z Z

i|

I !! s cc g H UJ X

CC

i

CD

re

,_ T~

O m

OJ

C M O O C M O O O O •* O>

S co 2 d ^ . P P co cb CO ^~ ° CM ° CT

^f CM

^> ­»c o p i - ; c o p p o c q c o p o o o c q o o o o p o o o q c q

'"CM'' ' " ' "CD c \ j ' ~ c o l o c i e N J ' * £>'" O T

rt t­ CM

cc cc cc

*­ Q DC .•ye Tt -J

1 i1! I els

* i tiitil Jg

o «t

SQ_

UJ 2 u. « * « • «

(0 HI _lD. ­2 f­J < o> w 3.

o Q. •"

in i- o •* r«-

z z z z z z z z ^ z ^ ^ z z z z z z z z z ^ z z z

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C - > C C O C C C - > C C C C C C C C C C C C Z G C Z Z Z C C - > Z Z - > Z - j - ? Z r > Z Z Z 3 Z Z Z - > Z Z Z

o^ is asi^isi 5 5 & §u. > o z Z JJJ

eo 9 cc z l /l\

^L ^^ ^5 CC o o o 2

v? ^T

1 CCUJ

< o

8 re ^z ^f

^^ Q. LU

s o i5

^-< s

O O O C D I O O C O ­^ C M * * c3 *w " —• CD CD -­' .•

CO CO 7) p O* f<n ^ > CO ^4in 2 co £] o CD CO CM

o p c q c M - ' t c o o i n c M c o o c o o o o i n o p p o p c o o CD 5>^ ^ O CD T— T— CO CD T— O in —' CM C7) ^ CD ^~ T— r^ c o ^ T- i n c o c o C J C M ^ •F- O> CD i- i-

T- CM T-

cc cc cc

3

... CT

HI*

I ' OL -> CC CC .

< i• <+ z

_i D CC

o o o o i n i n o o o i n o c o o i n c M O O i n o o o o o o o o O C O ^ O O ^ m c M O O t - _ : - » t O - r - O i - i n C M ^ O O CM CM in * - 0 ° 0 0 T­ T­

m in in O

CO

llBE.i|||-.s i 1 & _ -i 1 E i | *1 1 "re

Illllllllsillllllllillilll 3

Page 31: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

o eo 0)D>

< < < < < < Z Z Z Z Z Z

< < < z z z

CO COCM in < < z z

co

< < z z z z

o o

z z z

CV

b CO

CO o

o UJ UJ DC O

o>

re CO

i n p c M p o p o o p p o o q o o o o o o o o o p p p o c M

to •*­ *~ *" T}-

UJ co CM

inCD

•* co r^

in co

O DCU. CO

13 < O) CO =.

5SQ. H CO < U. >

il E ^ Q. O

o o o S

O

CO

O)

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

co

O O C O O O O O O O O O T f O ^ O O O O O O O O O O O C V J

in

o o o o i n i n o o o i n o c o o i n c M o o i n o o o o o o o oo c o ^ - o o i­ in CM o Of— ,­; ^ o »— o » — i n c v i ^ — ooCM ou in i - o c t o o »- i-

in in in

.•git ­1st? ca 8 ™ •2 ^2-3 ss«I£ S 2. 5

S oc

o» JO

0) E >.

Page 32: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

„. s

"5 t . •*

0 Q < < < < < < ' " < < < < < ' " < < < < < < < < • < < < < <

CO CC Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Q.

-. CC C C C C C C CC CC CC ­^ CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Z C C Z Z Z = 3 Z Z O Z Z) Z D Z Z Z ^ Z Z Z = > Z Z Z

O> OO T— O O C O | ^ c\iin

co 25

o^-

• iw o £

• o

co d>

£ to

-; <

S$1 -CO % O 1

o|o UJ

\

•-

^ 8

-9-9 -9-9 -9-9-9 -9-9 - 9 - 9 ' '­9 ­9 ­9 CC CC CC

i n o o c o o o o o o o c r > i - o - * o o r - ~ o o o o o o j g ^ c M i o i - c O g < o c o « n , _ c M g r - . c . o > r s . ' * ' * i | , T - i n r -

UJ CC ob CO

1

S !T S

i D. UJ

5 2 < 2

in •«-

UJ X o

? ^ < < < < < < ' " < < < < < ' " < < < < < < < < < < < < < *S£

s cc Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

CC u. CC C C C C C C C C C C CC CC C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C to Z C C Z Z Z D Z Z D Z Z ) Z Z > Z Z Z Z > Z Z Z Z ) Z Z Z UJ 0 0.0 i - O O f - 't 0

Q. ~£ co ^ 5 d ' ^ - o ' "•r-

- w ^ r m 3 LJ

^o|g CO 3-b cc _J Ul Q. H-

W ^f

S u 2ik ^^ 0S

<

^^O

O

in o>•£

-9-9 -9-9 -9 -9-J -9-9 -9-9 - 9 - 9 - 9 0 C C C C C "8 O Z CO

7t co y £ i *8 olo S

s i

8 re <

Q. LU

00

1 2

O J O O i n o O O O O O C D C D O O O O O O O O O O O

^~ "* "-*" 8 n c o 0 0 0 ^ £ *~ to t- «o

o o o o i n i n o o o m o c o o i n c j o o m o o o o o o o o o CC

PO ' "cvj in'" T- o * ~ °in

oin

*~ o ^ in

^ T- i-

o

E S

0 •5. roS o>

iSSIfSSlIIiiMlllllliliIlI

Page 33: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

•• tco o o c M c n c M c o m c o m O C M C M O

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z CO

0)D> CO Q. c\j

CXJ

UJ

CO (M CD CO •<!• O> O O O (D < r < f i r > T ~ r- •»- CM

- ^ C O T- <O IDCCDD in co

Z z z z z o cc

UJ

Ul JJ: c j c j o m < o o » - f - c v j i - Y -cc CO

o N

CO z

UJ

DI

E

cocsi c o o >c v i ^ < < . < < ^ < < < z z z z z z z z z

CCZ) I3 :D |||^v||8

LIT

S,

Ul CO 'sai i f^i l^iliiil!Q. ^

CO O U. CO s

eo co i-

onco y cc 5 $

cc-,-,-,^

CO CM T-

o o o * LLI

X 2 Q. Q.

O C M C M O t - t - O C M O i n O C O O C O ^ - C O O•* i- •* o i- CM. - :O o o ° o o

C M O C M O ^ f C M O O O i- CM CM o

= 8 _ 55 c .0)

CD

irililil^llllii il lllA ^ c j 2 c o a > r a e D £ O O o c u c o c o ^ - - o a ) =

Page 34: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

CO

o CM 4> O)a a.

eo co •* «> - CM

T r t ^ i o t ^ o o ^ ­10 CM r- 0,

Z Z

CO

< < < < < < < z z z z z z z

0-5 O O - s ­5 ­s O-o - 5 0 0 0 0 - > 0 0 0 o o o i D i - » n o c ! < o c M O O C M O O T j - h . ' t i n T » n c o c M O ' * c o c o

CM

r>-» o o o o o c

CO

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

-j O OC OC O -5 O ODC

CO -

CM

UJ

UJ

o c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c o c c c c c c c t r c c c c c c o c c c c c c c c c c c c c - ? z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z o o c Is; CO co r^

;!^

8&iiCO O

0- d co o U. CO

« CO CC

o i o 5

2 (0

s

UJ

x e Q. a. re

r ^ -co c D C M O i o - t ' - c o o o C M O > co *-' - ' - < < C O ^ V C M ^ ­ T - < T r ' - < < < < T r ' < r < < <

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

O-j - i O C M o o c o o i n o o t O c o O N - O

S ^ ^ ^ CO C D O O C O C J C O c n i o C M C M

CM T-

- > O C C O O C C O O C C

Q /ri /ri ' ' in

CO »-

O C M C M O T - i - O C M O i n O < D O C O T j - C O O i - C M O C M O ^ C M O O• * » - ' * O T - C M _ : O O O o » ­ C M C M

r­ °O ^ O O

o A

CD

E 3

r-l l l i a H l l l l l l l s I l

Page 35: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc

I

n

0)CO CO

z z z z zCC C C C C C CZ =3 Z Z Z

oqCOT-

CM ^™

z z z C C C C C C ZZZ

eo

r­~ CM

i-

CC Z

CM

• * * . ' * < ' * < - ^ . ' * ^ ^ < ^ * . 1 ^ < 1 * < ^ <zzzzzzzzzz

C C C C CC CC CC ­3 GC CC CC Z Z - ? Z Z Z 3 Z Z Z

cp in oo O> CO . O

00 oo

in

CM

•*< ^< ^< zzz

CC CC CC zzz

CC CC DC

r r o o

CO

8 < < < < < < < < < zzzzzzzzz

ir> < < < < < < < < < < < zzzzzzzzzz < < < zzz

o UJ

UJ CC

gCO z

Ul

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Cz ^ z z z z z z z z z z z z c c z z zT- O 00 CO CM 03 in o CM

eo co 10

in

-J ­J ­J ­J ­J - 3 ^ ^ - j o e q c o e v J c n o o c o e q o o c v j o o o e N O t N . c D C D i ^ c q c n

C C C C C C z z z

CC CC CC

S5

ItIL CO

CO ,§,

< i CO O |_ UJ

5 «« Q. d co o U. CO o z

£ O T 0>

CO

r*-

CJ

m^ j -

Z Z

CO

i^oo C M - C O C O C O C M ^ , . ­

o c o

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z

O C M ^ O C M C M

f |'

o o o S CO

x2 o. Q. CO

O O

C M C M

3 0) i « « 5J ­

n CO co

Page 36: SPLIT SAMPLE COMPARISON REPORT, REMEDIAL ...inorganir c results where one or both spli samplt e result arse below fiv timee ths e CRDL th, e comparabilit y goal is an absolute differenc