~WJulu LABORATORY DATA CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ " " Loker Ave. West, SUite 220, Carlsbad, CA Bus: Fax:

Transcription

1 ~WJulu LABORATORY DATA CONSULTANTS, INC. ~ " " Loker Ave. West, SUite 220, Carlsbad, CA Bus: Fax: LC>C Anchor Environmental, LLC 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA ATTN: Ms. Joy Dunay February 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Newtown Creek, Phase 2, Data Validation Dear Ms. Dunay, Enclosed is the final validation report for the fractions listed below. This SDG was received on February 2, Attachment 1 is a summary of the samples that were reviewed for each analysis. LDC Project #33644: SDG# Fraction L Volatiles, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, Total Suspended Solids The data validation was performed under Stage 28 guidelines. The analyses were validated using the following documents, as applicable to each method: Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek, July 2014 US EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, June 2008 USEPA Contract Laboratory National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review, January 2010 EPA SW 846, Third Edition, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, update 1, July 1992; update IIA, August 1993; update II, September 1994; update 118, January 1995; update Ill, December 1996; update lila, April 1998; 1118, November 2004; update IV, February 2007 Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Christina Rink Project Manager/Chemist L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644COV. wpd UL-SF

2 168 pages-sf 1 WEEK TAT Attachment 1 111~~ '~Jfl!~~~~~ii~il~1Ii~~~f~tii~~~'l~il!~a~!j!<!~!i8!~- c2_~ic~~-tim~ht~!i~~~lt'e_,}na-zn~wt<i~t}'g J:~~k.~~f:i6~~~-,3)lf',l:~lllf~~~~c c.',-?~'.."c",~;~i;~~,~-~~ 11 (3) PAHs DATE DATE VOA (8270D Pest. Herbs. TSS DC I SDG# I REC'D DUE (8260C) -SIM) (8081 B) (8151A) (2540D) ri.il~trixl!!w~tt?ris~ai'iner1t _.. s A L otal T/CR 3 I o I 2 I o 0 0 o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I 0 I 8 Shaded cells indicate Level IV validation (all other cells are Level Ill validation). These sample counts do not include MS, MSD, or DUP's. L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644ST -Alpha. wpd

3 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report LDC Report# 33644A 1 Project/Site Name: Collection Date: LDC Report Date: Matrix: Parameters: Validation Level: Laboratory: Newtown Creek Phase 2 January 18, 2015 February 4, 2015 Water Volatiles Stage 28 Alpha Analytical, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): L Sample Identification NCQO??PSWW-B NCQO??PSWW-C NCQO??PSWW-A V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 1

4 Introduction This data review covers 3 water samples listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per EPA SW 846 Method 8260C for Volatiles. This review follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek (July 2014) and a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (June 2008). A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified as P (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. The review was based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U J R NJ UJ A P Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Indicates an estimated value. Quality control indicates the data is not usable. Presumptive evidence of presence of the compound at an estimated quantity. Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:ILOGINIANCHOR\NEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 2

5 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. II. GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Instrument performance was checked at 12 hour intervals. All ion abundance requirements were met. Ill. Initial Calibration Initial calibration was performed using required standard concentrations. Percent relative standard deviations (%RSO) were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. Average relative response factors (RRF) for all compounds were within method and validation criteria. IV. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration was performed at the required frequencies. Percent differences (%0) between the initial calibration RRF and the continuing calibration RRF were within the method criteria of less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds with the following exceptions: Associated Date Compound %0 Samples Flag AorP 1/30/15 Chloroethane All samples in SDG L NA - Freon , 1-Dichloroethene trans-1,2-dichloroethene cis-1,2-dichloroethene Bromochloromethane Cyclohexane Benzene Methyl cyclohexane /30/15 2-Hexanone All samples in SDG L UJ (all non-detects) A 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane UJ (all non-detects) Although the above listed %0 flagged "NA" demonstrates a high bias, the affected compound in the associated samples was non-detected and did not warrant the qualification of the data. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 3

6 The percent differences (%0) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 30.0% for all compounds with the following exceptions: Associated Date Compound %0 Samples Flag AorP 10/30/14 Dichlorodifluoromethane All samples in SDG L NA - Although the above listed %0 flagged "NA" demonstrates a high bias, the affected compound in the associated samples was non-detected and did not warrant the qualification of the data. All of the continuing calibration relative response factors (RRF) were within method and validation criteria. V. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No volatile contaminants were found in the method blanks. VI. Surrogate Spikes Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. VII. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates The laboratory has indicated that there were no matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSO) analyses specified for the samples in this SOG, and therefore matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses were not performed for this SOG. VIII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPO) were within QC limits. IX. Regional Quality Assurance and Quality Control Not applicable. X. Internal Standards All internal standard areas and retention times were within QC limits. XI. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SOG. V:\LOGINIANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 4

7 XII. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. XIII. Target Compound Identifications Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XIV. Compound Quantitation Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XV. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XVI. System Performance Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XVII. Overall Assessment of Data The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. Due to continuing calibration o/od, data were qualified as estimated in three samples. The quality control criteria reviewed, other than those discussed above, were met and are considered acceptable. Sample results that were found to be estimated (J) are usable for limited purposes only. Based upon the Stage 28 data validation all other results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. Data flags are summarized at the end of this report if data has been qualified. V:\LOGINIANCHOR\NEWfOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 5

8 Newtown Creek Phase 2 Volatiles- Data Qualification Summary- SDG L I SDG I Sample I Compound I Flag I AorP I Reason I L NCQO??PSWW Hexanone UJ (all non-detects) A Continuing calibration NCQO??PSWW-C ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane UJ (all non-detects) (%D) NCQO??PSWW-A Newtown Creek Phase 2 Volatiles- Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary- SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:ILOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWfOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A1_AN3.DOC 6

9 LDC #: 33644A 1 SDG #: L Laboratory: Alpha Analytical. Inc. METHOD: GC/MS Volatiles (EPA SW 846 Method 8260C) VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET Stage 28 Date:-dJ/tr Page:LofJ Reviewer: F? 2nd Reviewer:._~=-- The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. I I. II. Ill. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. I ~alidatiao A[ea I I Cammeots Sample receipt/technical holdino times A-,A- GC/MS Instrument performance check.b Initial calibration/icv ll '~'"'"'u ojo ~D ~ 2.0 JO/..:...?JD Continuino calibration Laboratory Blanks Field blanks Surrogate spikes Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates Laboratory control samples Field duplicates Internal standards..,vj.j:., A) A N e-lt e v0\ A \..~1o N ~ c...ctl c::.. zcj "SP ~L_... 0 \ \ - I XII. Compound quantitation RULOQ/LODs N XIII. Target compound identification N XIV. XV. System performance Overall assessment of data N A Note: A = Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate FB = Field blank D = Duplicate TB = Trip blank EB = Equipment blank SB=Source blank OTHER: Client ID LabiD Matrix Date 1 NCQO??PSWW-B L water 01/18/15 2 NCQO??PSWW-C L water 01/18/15 3 NCQO??PSWW-A L water 01/18/ IR Notes L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644A 1 W. wpd 1

10 TARGET COMPOUND WORKSHEET METHOD: VOA A. Chloromethane U. 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 00. 2,2-Dichloropropane Ill. n-butylbenzene CCCC.1-Chlorohexane B. Bromomethane V. Benzene PP. Bromochloromethane JJJ. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene DODD. Isopropyl alcohol C. Vinyl choride W. trans-1,3-dichloropropene QQ. 1, 1-Dichloropropene KKK. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene EEEE. Acetonitrile D. Chloroethane X. Bromoform RR. Dibromomethane LLL. Hexachlorobutadiene FFFF. Acrolein E. Methylene chloride Y. 4-Methyl-2-pentanone SS. 1,3-Dichloropropane MMM. Naphthalene GGGG. Acrylonitrile F. Acetone Z. 2-Hexanone TT. 1,2-Dibromoethane NNN. 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene HHHH. 1,4-Dioxane G. Carbon disulfide AA. Tetrachloroethene UU. 1, 1, 1,2-Tetrachloroethane ,3,5-Trichlorobenzene Isobutyl alcohol H. 1, 1-Dichloroethene BB. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane W. lsopropylbenzene PPP. trans-1,2-dichloroethene JJJJ. Methacrylonitrile I. 1, 1-Dichloroethane CC. Toluene WW. Bromobenzene QQQ. cis-1,2-dichloroethene KKKK. Propionitrile J. 1,2-Dichloroethene, total DD. Chlorobenzene XX. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane RRR. m,p-xylenes LLLL. Ethyl ether K. Chloroform EE. Ethylbenzene YY. n-propylbenzene SSS. a-xylene MMMM. Benzyl chloride L. 1,2-Dichloroethane FF. Styrene ZZ. 2-Chlorotoluene TTT. 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane NNNN. lodomethane M. 2-Butanone GG. Xylenes, total AAA. 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene UUU. 1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane , 1-Difluoroethane N. 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane HH. Vinyl acetate BBB. 4-Chlorotoluene VVV. 4-Ethyltoluene PPPP. 0. Carbon tetrachloride II. 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether CCC. tert-butylbenzene www. Ethanol QQQQ. P. Bromodichloromethane JJ. Dichlorodifluoromethane DOD. 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene XXX. Di-isopropyl ether RRRR. Q. 1,2-Dichloropropane KK. Trichlorofluoromethane EEE. sec-butylbenzene YYY. tert-butanol SSSS. R. cis-1,3-dichloropropene LL. Methyl-tert-butyl ether FFF. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ZZZ. tert-butyl alcohol TTTT. S. Trichloroethene MM. 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane GGG. p-lsopropyltoluene AAAA. Ethyl tert-butyl ether uuuu. T. Dibromochloromethane NN. Methyl ethyl ketone HHH. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BBBB. tert-amyl methyl ether wvv. COMPNDL_ VOA.wpd

11 LDC #: 3 ~G'i'/4 I VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Continuing Calibration METHOD: GC/MS VOA (EPA SW 846 Method 8260C) / Page:_!of_ Reviewer:-'-FT_, 2nd Reviewer: ~... YN ~/A y ln JJ/A ,,_ _,,.. _,,_ - --,.., ~ Finding %0 Finding RRF # Date Standard ID Compound (Limit: <20.0%) (Limit: >0.05) t I j-odj!~ C!..C\1 f) 30. /07fa2- + Ff-c-.0 n - II 3 a 3. oto Cfi:J 7 t H ~'/ Jt.8'/0 If Pf? ;;.y.77oo6 1 ~~~ ;J.. :>. to!?>jr" _f_ PF ~. 7/oS"7 I _±_ e_ y c./ o /Je;car /?...2~. /382.> I + \1 :J-'/. to?j Cj 1,:, I..,. rn~j C '-1 c.jo /u JC ct n.e. a'j. ~ 3e:,yf.p v ( - 2 &../. t,'is Cf }{ - MM ;;. 7. L/~'IS"l- Associated Samples A I] -v Qualifications...,.J I A_d_ef- (o.jj NO \. I,.J J /vtj/a.i/ -- \1)_ CONCAL.wpd

12 LDC #:.3?0 'I 'f-4-/ VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Initial Calibration Verification METHOD: GC/MS VOA (EPA SW 846 Method 8260C) ~e see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A"..,... y f.j rjj/a...,,..., _,. #V..., -.., ,,_ 11'-11""-"1\JII _\JV /U._,; Finding %0 # Date Standard ID Compound (Limit: <30.0%) Associated Samples!o/3o/;_!l ot;:,: reo ttv.jj (oq. h5"fozf.o 41/ Page:~of_/ b Reviewer: 2nd Reviewer: ~ Qualifications J/ /J ckr { (VD) / ICVvoa.wpd

13 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report Project/Site Name: Newtown Creek Phase 2 Collection Date: January 18, 2015 LDC Report Date: February 4, 2015 LDC Report# 33644A2b Matrix: Parameters: Water Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Validation Level: Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): L Sample Identification NCQ077PSWW-A NCQ1077PSWW-A V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC 1

14 Introduction This data review covers 2 water samples listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per EPA SW 846 Method using Selected lon Monitoring (SIM) for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. This review follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek (July 2014) and a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (June 2008). A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified as P (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. The review was based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U J R NJ UJ A P Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Indicates an estimated value. Quality control indicates the data is not usable. Presumptive evidence of presence of the compound at an estimated quantity. Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWfOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC 2

15 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. II. GC/MS Instrument Performance Check Instrument performance was checked at 12 hour intervals. All ion abundance requirements were met. Ill. Initial Calibration Initial calibration was performed using required standard concentrations. Percent relative standard deviations (%RSO) were less than or equal to 25.0% for all compounds. Average relative response factors (RRF) for all compounds were within method and validation criteria. IV. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration was performed at the required frequencies. Percent differences (%0) between the initial calibration RRF and the continuing calibration RRF were within the method criteria of less than or equal to 30.0% all compounds. The percent differences (%0) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. All of the continuing calibration relative response factors (RRF) were within method and validation criteria. V. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon contaminants were found in the method blanks with the following exceptions: V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC 3

16 Extraction Compound Associated Method Blank ID Date TIC (RT in minutes) Concentration Samples WG MB 1/23/15 Naphthalene 2.04 ng/l All samples in SDG L Biphenyl 3.53 ng/l C 1-Dibenzoth iophenes 1.67 ng/l Phenanthrene 2.42 ng/l Sample concentrations were compared to concentrations detected in the method blanks. The sample concentrations were either not detected or were significantly greater (>5X blank contaminants) than the concentrations found in the associated method blanks. VI. Surrogate Spikes Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. VII. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits. VIII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. IX. Regional Quality Assurance and Quality Control Not applicable. X. Internal Standards All internal standard areas and retention times were within QC limits. XI. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. XII Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. XIII. Target Compound Identifications Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. 4 V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC

17 XIV. Compound Quantitation Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XV. Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XVI. System Performance Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XVII. Overall Assessment The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. The quality control criteria reviewed were met and are considered acceptable Based upon the Stage 28 data validation all results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC 5

18 Newtown Creek Phase 2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Data Qualification Summary - SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG Newtown Creek Phase 2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - Summary - SDG L Laboratory Blank Data Qualification No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:ILOGINIANCHOR\NEWfOWNIPHASE 21ALPHA\33644A2B_AN3.DOC 6

19 LDC #: 33644A2b VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET SDG #: L Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. METHOD: GC/MS Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EPA SW 846 Method SIM) oate:.;1.. /r J s Page:_Lof_h Reviewer: ] 2nd Reviewer:~ The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. I I. II. Ill. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. I ~alidatiao A[ea Sample receipt/technical holding times GC/MS Instrument performance check Initial calibration/icv Continuing calibration Laboratory Blanks Field blanks Surrogate spikes Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates Laboratory control samples Field duplicates Internal standards Compound quantitation RULOQ/LODs I I Comments A-tA A A-t-IJ 1)-lo ~[)~~ /d" ~ 3-() A c.c. J!.:!=. 3D svj f) A A Llt;'0/28/- obm~ 10 A /...C".> 1\1 6. N I XIII. Target compound identification N XIV. XV. System performance Overall assessment of data N A Note: A = Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate FB = Field blank D = Duplicate TB = Trip blank EB = Equipment blank SB=Source blank OTHER: Client ID LabiD Matrix Date 1 NCQ077PSWW-A L water 01/18/15 2 NCQ1 O??PSWW-A L water 01/18/ la Notes: L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644A2bW. wpd 1

20 VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET METHOD: GC/MS SVOA A. Phenol T. 4-Chloroaniline MM. 4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether FFF. Di-n-octylphthalate YYY. 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene B. Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether U. Hexachlorobutadiene NN. Fluorene GGG. Benzo(b)fluoranthene ZZZ.. Perylene C. 2-Chlorophenol V. 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol Nitroaniline HHH. Benzo(k)fluoranthene AAAA. Dibenzothiophene D. 1,3-Dichlorobenzene W. 2-Methylnaphthalene PP. 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol Ill. Benzo(a)pyrene BBBB. Benzo(a)fluoranthene E. 1,4-Dichlorobenzene X. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene QQ. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine JJJ. lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene CCCC. Benzo(b)fluorene F. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Y. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol RR. 4-Bromophenyl-phenylether KKK. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene DODD. cis/trans-decalin G. 2-Methylphenol Z. 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol SS. Hexachlorobenzene LLL. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene EEEE. Biphenyl H. 2,2'-0xybis(1-chloropropane) AA. 2-Chloronaphthalene TT. Pentachlorophenol MMM. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether FFFF. Retene I. 4-Methylphenol BB. 2-Nitroaniline UU. Phenanthrene NNN.Aniline GGGG. C30-Hopane J. N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine CC. Dimethylphthalate W. Anthracene 000. N-Nitrosodimethylamine HHHH. 1-Methylphenanthrene K. Hexachloroethane DO. Acenaphthylene WW. Carbazole PPP. Benzoic Acid ,4-Dioxane L. Nitrobenzene EE. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene XX. Di-n-butylphthalate QQQ. Benzyl alcohol JJJJ. Acetophenone M. lsophorone FF. 3-Nitroaniline yy. Fluoranthene RRR. Pyridine KKKK. Atrazine N. 2-Nitrophenol GG. Acenaphthene ZZ.. Pyrene SSS. Benzidine LLLL. Benzaldehyde 0. 2,4-Dimethylphenol HH. 2,4-Dinitrophenol AAA. Butylbenzylphthalate TTT. 1-Methylnaphthalene MMMM. Caprolactam P. Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane Nitrophenol BBB. 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine UUU.Benzo(b)thiophene NNNN. Q. 2,4-Dichlorophenol JJ. Dibenzofuran CCC. Benzo(a)anthracene VW.Benzonaphthothiophene R. 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene KK. 2,4-Dinitrototuene ODD. Chrysene WWW. Benzo(e)pyrene PPPP. S. Naphthalene LL. Diethylphthalate EEE. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate XXX. 2,6-Dimethylnaphthatene QQQQ.

21 . LDC #: ~ -? (o lf tj l+d-h VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Blanks METHOD: GC/MS BNA (EPA SW 846 Method 82700) ease see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A". N N/A Was a method blank analyzed for each matrix? Y N N/A Was a method blank analyzed for each concentration preparation level? Y N N/A Was a method blank associated with every sample? Y N N/A Was the lank contaminated? If yes, please see qualification below. ank extraction date: I 2.~ ~r- Blank analysis date: il~//s ~ ' 'f""' --. ~ ( ' Compound I Blank ID II.b-...';{ Sample Identification :1.. ; ' ~: :;. ; '..,;;, V'/E,7'S7 9r:/-!Vl8 Page:~of / Reviewer:,C? 2nd Reviewer: ~ I -.:) J.. 0 t./ /0.2- /3/ p Ah "" 1 / 0-S3!7 fo s- C, -J ij/he~""<ofhiopfvn~ j-c:j7 g:-.~5"" I tau ""' C<-'/2- tj. I Blank extraction date: Cone. units: Blank analysis date:. Associated Samples: I Compound II Blank ID II Sample Identification I ',.. :.-~~>: CIRCLED RESULTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED. ALL RESULTS NOT CIRCLED WERE QUALIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: Common contaminants such as the phthalates and TICs noted above that were detected in samples within ten times the associated method blank concentration were qualified as not detected, "U". Other contaminants within five times the method blank concentration were also qualified as not detected, "U". BLANKSa.wpd

22 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report LDC Report# 33644A3a Project/Site Name: Newtown Creek Phase 2 Collection Date: January 18, 2015 LDC Report Date: February 4, 2015 Matrix: Parameters: Water Chlorinated Pesticides Validation Level: Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): L Sample Identification NCQO??PSWW-A NCQ077PSWW-A DL V:\LOGINIANCHOR\NEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 1

23 Introduction This data review covers 2 water samples listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per EPA SW 846 Method for Chlorinated Pesticides. This review follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek (July 2014) and a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (June 2008). A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified asp (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. The review was based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U J R NJ UJ A P Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Indicates an estimated value. Quality control indicates the data is not usable. Presumptive evidence of the presence of the compound at an estimated quantity. Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:\LOGINIANCHORINEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 2

24 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. II. GC/ECD Instrument Performance Check Instrument performance was checked at 12 hour intervals. The individuai4,4'-00t and Endrin breakdowns (%80) were less than or equal to 15.0%. Ill. Initial Calibration Initial calibration was performed as required by the method. The percent relative standard deviations (%RSO) were less than or equal to 20.0%. In the case where the laboratory used a calibration curve to evaluate the compounds, all coefficients of determination (r 2 ) were greater than or equal to IV. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration was performed at required frequencies. The percent differences (%0) were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. The percent differences (%0) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. V. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No chlorinated pesticide contaminants were found in the method blanks. VI. Surrogate Spikes Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. VII. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSO) samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPO) were within QC limits. V:ILOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWfOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 3

25 VIII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits. IX. Regional Quality Assurance and Quality Control Not applicable. X. Florisil Cartridge Check Florisil cleanup was not reviewed in this SDG. XI. GPC Calibration GPC cleanup was not reviewed in this SDG. XII. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. XIII. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. XIV. Target Compound Identification Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XV. Compound Quantitation The sample results for detected compounds from the two columns were within 40% relative percent difference (RPD) with the following exceptions: I Sample I Com~ound I RPD I Flag I AorP I NCQ077PSWW-A beta-bhc J (all detects) A Heptachlor J (all detects) 2,4'-DDE 98.4 J (all detects) Dieldrin 61.8 J (all detects) 2,4'-DDD 65.3 J (all detects) 4,4'-DDD 53.9 J (all detects) Mirex J (all detects) Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XVI. Overall Assessment of Data The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 4

26 In the case where more than one result was reported for an individual sample, the least technically acceptable results were rejected as follows: I Sample I Compound I Flag I AorP I NCQ077PSWW-A DL All TCL compounds R A Due to compound quantitation, data were qualified as estimated in one sample. The quality control criteria reviewed, other than those discussed above, were met and are considered acceptable. Sample results that were found to be estimated (J) are usable for limited purposes only. Sample results that were found to be rejected (R) are unusable for all purposes. Based upon the Stage 28 data validation all other results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. Data flags are summarized at the end of this report if data has been qualified. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 5

27 Newtown Creek Phase 2 Chlorinated Pesticides - Data Qualification Summary - SDG L SDG Sample Compound Flag AorP Reason L NCQ077PSWW-A beta-bhc J (all detects) A Compound quantitation Heptachlor J (all detects) (RPD) 2,4'-DDE J (all detects) Dieldrin J (all detects) 2,4'-DDD J (all detects) 4,4'-DDD J (all detects) Mirex J (all detects) L NCQ077PSWW-A DL All TCL compounds R A Overall assessment of data Newtown Creek Phase 2 Chlorinated Pesticides - Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary - SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A3A_AN3.DOC 6

28 LDC #: 33644A3a SDG #: L Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET Stage 28 METHOD: GC Chlorinated Pesticides (EPA SW846 Method 8081 B) Date: t.f, lf /,~ Page:_/_of~ Reviewer:.:S\17., 2nd Reviewer: ~ The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. I I ~alidatico Area I. Sample receipt/technical holding times II. Ill. IV. GC Instrument Performance Check Initial calibration/icv Continuing calibration v. Laboratory Blanks VI. VII. VIII. IX. Field blanks Surrogate spikes Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates Laboratory control samples X. Field duplicates XI. Compound quantitation/ruloq/lods I I Comments PrtA..A L. ft,.a... 2o 2 r..,... (~ ==- 2 cs '2 $, lj A A A 1..'1 61J(J tes fb I XII. Target compound identification )(Ill llhcr<:>ll nfrl<:>b N StA\ Note: A = Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate FB = Field blank D =Duplicate TB = Trip blank EB = Equipment blank SB=Source blank OTHER: 4-1 Client ID NCQO??PSWW-A LabiD L Matrix Date water 01/18/15 2 lbt, w~(s7~ 7/- I 1? L~ Notes. L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644A3aW.wpd

29 VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET METHOD: Pesticide/PCBs (EPASW 846 Method 8081/8082) A alpha-bhc I. Dieldrin Q. Endrin ketone Y. Aroclor-1242 GG. Chlordane B. beta-bhc J. 4,4'-DDE R. Endrin aldehyde Z. Aroclor-1248 HH. Chlordane (Technical) C. delta-bhc K. Endrin S. alpha-chlordane AA. Aroclor-1254 II. Aroclor 1262 D. gamma-bhc L. Endosulfan II T. gamma-chlordane BB. Aroclor-1260 JJ. Aroclor 1268 E. Heptachlor M. 4,4'-DDD U. Toxaphene CC. 2,4'-DDD KK. Oxychlordane F. Aldrin N. Endosulfan sulfate V. Aroclor-1016 DD. 2,4'-DDE LL. trans-nonachlor G. Heptachlor epoxide 0. 4,4'-DDT W. Aroclor-1221 EE. 2,4'-DDT MM. cis-nonachlor H. Endosulfan I P. Methoxychlor X. Aroclor-1232 FF. Hexachlorobenzene NN. Vl iff>( Notes: COMPLST-3S.wpd

30 LDC #: ;..2~&~4-4 ~ VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Compound Quantitation and Reported CRQLs METHOD: -/GC_HPLC Page: _l_of-1- Reviewer: JVG 2nd Reviewer: a-.---= Please see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A". vel IV/D Only N N/A Were CRQLs adjusted for sample dilutions, dry weight factors, etc.? \!-~.!.:N!!..!/A...!.. Did the reported results for detected target compounds agree within 10.0% of the recalculated results?...!...i!~n!!.!/a...!.. Did the percent difference of detected compounds between two columns./detectors ~40%? If no, please I see f m d. mgs b e II OW. # Compound Name Sample ID ' ~ I&>. 2- ~ 12.(p "L PI) ;g.t I (p I~ 8 cv Ctl?.? ~11 ~3.G) ~lod Between Two Columns/Detectors Limit~40%) Qualifications J" ~/'A- \.. \ I\\ v y Comments: See sample calculation verification worksheet for recalculations COMQUA%D.wpd

31 LDC#:?J ~ l'c 4 <1- A '!> tl- VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Overall Assessment of Data Page: _\ of_l Reviewer: JVG 2nd Reviewer:-, METHOD: GC Pesticides/PCBs (EPA SW846 Method 8081/8082) Please see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A". All available information pertaining to the data were reviewed using professional judgement to compliment the determination of the overall quality of the data. ~ N/A Was the overall quality and usability of the data acceptable? # Compound Name Finding Associated sample Qualifications I I fclt ~Gc I c.. cl~ :.~n~ r'f:;t: I ~ I ~/A I Comments: OVR cpd.wpd

32 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report Project/Site Name: Newtown Creek Phase 2 Collection Date: January 18, 2015 LDC Report Date: February 4, 2015 LDC Report# 33644A5 Matrix: Parameters: Water Herbicides Validation Level: Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): L Sample Identification NCQO??PSWW-A V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A5_AN3.DOC 1

33 Introduction This data review covers one water sample listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per EPA SW 846 Method 8151A for Herbicides. This review follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek (July 2014) and a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review (June 2008). A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified as P (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. The review was based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U J R NJ UJ A P Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Indicates an estimated value. Quality control indicates the data is not usable. Presumptive evidence of presence of the compound at an estimated quantity. Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:ILOGINIANCHOR\NEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A5_AN3.DOC 2

34 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. II. Initial Calibration Initial calibration was performed as required by the method. The percent relative standard deviations (%RSO) were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. Ill. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration was performed at the required frequencies. The percent differences (%0) were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds Associated Date Standard Column Compound %0 Samples Flag AorP 1/23/15 WG Col. 2 MCPP 21.4 NCQO??PSWW-A UJ (all non-detects) A Dinoseb 34.2 UJ (all non-detects) 1/22/15 WG Col. 2 MCPP 21.8 WG BLK UJ (all non-detects) A Dinoseb 34.7 UJ (all non-detects) The percent differences (%0) of the second source calibration standard were less than or equal to 20.0% for all compounds. IV. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No herbicide contaminants were found in the method blanks. V. Surrogate Recovery Surrogates were added to all samples and blanks as required by the method. All surrogate recoveries (%R) were within QC limits. VI. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSO) samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPO) were not within QC limits. Since there were no associated samples, no data were qualified. V:\LOGINIANCHORINEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A5_AN3.DOC 3

35 VII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Laboratory control samples were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. Percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) were within QC limits with the following exceptions: LCSID (Associated LCS LCSD RPD Samples) Compound %R (Limits) %R (Limits) (Limits) Flag AorP WG ,3 Dionseb 54 (60-140) 31 (60-140) 54 (S30) UJ (all non-detects) p (All samples in SDG L ) VIII. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. IX. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. X. Target Compound Identification Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XI. Compound Quantitation Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XII. System Performance Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. XIII. Overall Assessment of Data The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. Due to continuing calibration %D and LCS/LCSD %R and RPD, data were qualified as estimated in one sample. The quality control criteria reviewed, other than those discussed above, were met and are considered acceptable. Sample results that were found to be estimated (J) are usable for limited purposes only. Based upon the Stage 2B data validation all other results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. Data flags are summarized at the end of this report if data has been qualified. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A5_AN3.DOC 4

36 Newtown Creek Phase 2 Herbicides - Data Qualification Summary - SDG L SDG Sample Com_l)_ound Flag AorP Reason L NCQ077PSWW-A MCPP UJ (all non-detects) A Continuing calibration Dinoseb UJ (all non-detects) (%0) L NCQO??PSWW-A Dionseb UJ (all non-detects) p Laboratory control samples (%R) (RPD) Newtown Creek Phase 2 Herbicides - Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary - SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:\LOGINIANCHORINEWTOWNIPHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A5_AN3.DOC 5

37 LDC #: 33644A5 VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET SDG #: L Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical. Inc. METHOD: GC Herbicides (EPA SW 846 Method 8151A) Date: s.,lo 4 /,'" Page:_\ of_.l_ Reviewer: :SV t/ 2nd Reviewer: The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. I I ~alidatiac A[ea I. Sample receiputechnical holding times II. Ill. IV. Initial calibration/icv Continuing calibration Laboratory Blanks v. Field blanks VI. VII. VIII. IX. Surrogate spikes Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates Laboratory control samples Field duplicates X. Compound quantitation RULOQ/LODs I I Cam meets A-liT f1,fir ~ :7{) 2 ~la) ~ '2o 2. A ll A. ~\.sw vr~ ij N \...t ;""o 1 "l-8"~- o~ lb (~ p._ - 1\m Cf~~ Sit~ " I 7).. ) XI. Target compound identification N XII. XIII System performance ()w>r"ll """""'""""'"'n+ nf rl<>+<> N Pr Note: A = Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate FB = Field blank D = Duplicate TB = Trip blank EB = Equipment blank SB=Source blank OTHER: Client ID LabiD Matrix Date 1 NCQO??PSWW-A L water 01/18/ kj&7s7c;?f~ l ~Lkfk Notes: L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644A5W.wpd 1

38 LDC#: ~1 (!;ff ~ METHOD:,/c;c _ HPLC ( VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Continuing Calibration Page:_l_of~ Reviewer: JVG 2nd Reviewer: ~ Please see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A". v G!NiA Leve~ Y N N/A) Were the retention times =' for all calibrated compounds within their respective acceptance windows? %0 # Qate Standard ID m Compound (Limit,.; 20.0) RT (limit) '/~"/(~ w <:, 75 7'&91- :? c...t.~ 1\AC PP (: ( ) Pi11~> ~r., c-?j1.y ( ) ( ) ( ) l,h.-z.. fl~ w c., 7'5 7 s ~ - I { ,... lvfcp p (- 2/.g' ( ) P1'11o~h (' "'>-t.7 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Associated Samples All (-Bif< ) ~ l Qualifications._)/lt\J h. f:>llc. ( t-10. JkJ/f\ 1 L ~ CONCALNew-gc.wpd

39 LDC #:? "'?& <f.1 ~ METHOD: (' GC HPLC VALIDATION FINDINGS WORKSHEET Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Page: l::_of_l_ Reviewer: JVG 2nd Reviewer: ~ P ase see qualifications below for all questions answered "N". Not applicable questions are identified as "N/A"....,.~""--'f=/A_,_ Were a laboratory control samples (LCS) and laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD) analyzed for each matrix in this SDG? -'-.!=!::..-'-!!.!./A-'- Were the LCS percent recoveries (%R) and relative percent differences (RPD) within the QC limits? Only Was an LCS analyzed every 20 samples for each matrix or whenever a sample extraction was performed? LCS # LCS/LCSD ID Compound %R (Limits) %R (Limits) RPD (Limits) Associated Samples Qualifications w~ 7~7s-7-+ _ -z..? \/fnh.xb..-4 ( tib-140> ~~ ( 6-1"'()) ( ) AI\ fjd/ J/vt:r/P \..C~ fn -~ ( ) ( ) ~ <?u ) 1- ~.l/ LCSD ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I \ I \ I \ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I \ I \ I \ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I \ I \ I \ LCSNew.wpd

40 Laboratory Data Consultants, Inc. Data Validation Report LDC Report# 33644A6 Project/Site Name: Newtown Creek Phase 2 Collection Date: January 18, 2015 LDC Report Date: February 4, 2015 Matrix: Parameters: Water Total Suspended solids Validation Level: Stage 28 Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. Sample Delivery Group (SDG): L Sample Identification NCQO??PSWW-A V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A6_AN3.DOC 1

41 Introduction This data review covers one water sample listed on the cover sheet including dilutions and reanalysis as applicable. The analyses were per Standard Method for Total Suspended Solids. This review follows the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Phase 2 of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at Newtown Creek (July 2014) and a modified outline of the USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review (January 201 0). A qualification summary table is provided at the end of this report if data has been qualified. Flags are classified asp (protocol) or A (advisory) to indicate whether the flag is due to a laboratory deviation from a specified protocol or is of technical advisory nature. Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. The review was based on QC data. The following are definitions of the data qualifiers: U J R NJ UJ A P Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. Indicates an estimated value. Quality control indicates the data is not usable. Presumptive evidence of the presence of the compound at an estimated quantity. Indicates the compound or analyte was analyzed for but not detected. The sample detection limit is an estimated value. Indicates the finding is based upon technical validation criteria. Indicates the finding is related to a protocol/contractual deviation. None Indicates the data was not significantly impacted by the finding, therefore qualification was not required. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A6_AN3.DOC 2

42 I. Technical Holding Times All technical holding time requirements were met. The chain-of-custodies were reviewed for documentation of cooler temperatures. All cooler temperatures met validation criteria. II. Initial Calibration All criteria for the initial calibration of each method were met. Ill. Continuing Calibration Continuing calibration frequency and analysis criteria were met for each method when applicable. IV. Blanks Method blanks were reviewed for each matrix as applicable. No total suspended solids were found in the preparation blanks. V. Matrix Spike Matrix spike (MS) analysis was not required by the method. VI. Duplicates The laboratory has indicated that there were no duplicate (DUP) analyses specified for the samples in this SDG, and therefore duplicate analyses were not performed for this SDG. VII. Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) Laboratory control samples were not required by the method. VIII. Field Duplicates No field duplicates were identified in this SDG. IX. Field Blanks No field blanks were identified in this SDG. X. Sample Result Verification Raw data were not reviewed for this SDG. V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A6_AN3.DOC 3

43 XI. Overall Assessment of Data The analysis was conducted within all specifications of the method. No results were rejected in this SDG. The quality control criteria reviewed were met and are considered acceptable. Based.upon the Stage 28 data validation all results are considered valid and usable for all purposes. V:\LOGINIANCHOR\NEWfOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A6_AN3.DOC 4

44 Newtown Creek Phase 2 Total Suspended Solids- Data Qualification Summary- SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG Newtown Creek Phase 2 Total Suspended Solids - Laboratory Blank Data Qualification Summary - SDG L No Sample Data Qualified in this SDG V:\LOGIN\ANCHOR\NEWTOWN\PHASE 2\ALPHA\33644A6_AN3.DOC 5

45 LDC #: 33644A6 SDG #: L Laboratory: Alpha Analytical, Inc. VALIDATION COMPLETENESS WORKSHEET Stage 28 Date: 9- L{- fe' Page:.J_of_l Reviewer: MG- 2nd Reviewer: OL..--: METHOD: (Analyte) Total Suspended Solids (SM2540D) The samples listed below were reviewed for each of the following validation areas. Validation findings are noted in attached validation findings worksheets. I. II Ill. IV v VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI Validation ArP-a Sample receipt/technical holding times Initial calibration Calibration verification Laboratory Blanks Field blanks Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicates Duplicate sample analysis Laboratory control samples Field duplicates Sample result verification ()var"ll "'"'o ~mont nf rl"t" A A A A?l3 cj vdy rj N 1/\0-t v--e.q ta "l""" ej... CnmmP-nt~ N c l ~e.ll\-t S" (/ OPC...\ -+ ea l 1--J tj N A \AD+. ' ej v-e--t; u \ V' v Note: A = Acceptable N = Not provided/applicable SW = See worksheet ND = No compounds detected R = Rinsate FB = Field blank D = Duplicate TB = Trip blank EB = Equipment blank SB=Source blank OTHER: Client 10 LabiD Matrix Date 1 NCQO??PSWW-A L water 01/18/ > f8w Notes: L:\Anchor\Newtown\Phase 2\Aipha\33644A6W. wpd