REDACTED EPA RPM REPORT - CERCLA IMMEDIATE ACTION … · Mr. Daniel M. Caplice On-Scene Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 OCT

REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER'S REPORT

CERCLA IMMEDIATE ACTION PROJECT

APPENDICES - VOLUME III OF IV

CONTRACT No. 68-01-6894

ASSIGNMENT No. 6894-05-008

VERONA WELL FIELD

BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

JUNE 1985

0 0 0 0 1 7 7

LIST OF APPENDICES

VOLUME I of IV

APPENDIX AAPPENDIX BAPPENDIX CAPPENDIX DAPPENDIX EAPPENDIX FAPPENDIX GAPPENDIX HAPPENDIX IAPPENDIX JAPPENDIX K

Action MemoAuthorlzaton For Time Period ExtensionPRP Notification DocumentationDelivery Order and ModificationsTDD for TATProgress ReportsCERCLA Dally Summary ReportsDaily Work OrdersPersonnel LogsEquipment LogsChronology of Events

VOLUME II of IV

APPENDIX L •APPENDIX M -APPENDIX N •APPENDIX 0 -APPENDIX P -APPENDIX Q •

1900-55 Forms and SummaryIncident Obligation LogCertified Contractor InvoicesEPA Cost DocumentationTAT Cost SummaryERCS Contractor's Final Project Report

VOLUME III of IV

APPENDIX R -APPENDIX S -APPENDIX T -APPENDIX U -APPENDIX V -APPENDIX W -

PhotographsAnalytical Data and Chain of Custody FormsCarbon Vessel Pressure ReadingsSite Safety PlanCommunity Relations PlanCorrespondence and Conversation Documentation

VOLUME IV of IV

APPENDIX X •APPENDIX Y -APPENDIX Z -APPENDIX AA •APPENDIX BB •APPENDIX CC •APPENDIX DD -

Newspaper Clippings and Press ReleasesFocused Feasibility Study and IRM Record of DecisionAccelerated Column Test and InterpretationPlans, Specifications, and Operation and Maintenance ManualsRiver Discharge CriteriaContractor's Cost Comparison DocumentationTAT Report on Thomas Solvents Cleanup (April 23, 1984)

APPENDIX R

Photographs

1. Purge Wells at the VeronaPumping Station, BattleCreek, Michigan.

2. Backhoe excavating soil touncover water distributionlines in well field.

3. Rubber tired front end load-er used to remove top soil forby-pass water line - to purgewells. Top soil placed on sideto be re-used as cover.

4. Backhoe digging pipe exca-vation. End loader cover-ing pipe after installa-tion.

5. Old Pumping station reser-voir. Note thickness of sidewalls.

6, Excavated well fielddistribution line that wascut and diverted to flowto wet well.

7. Disconnect:ion of 30 serieswells by-pass line.

Ground water filling inexcavation hole in wellfield that was createdduring excavation of by-pass line.

9. Calgon Carbon Vesselson transport.

10. Transfer of carbon unitsfrom transport vehiclesonto cribbing o-f railroadties.

11. Carbon units being filledwith granular activatedcarbon.

12. Technician obtaining levelmeasurements of pipeconnection at northerndiversion point.

13. Fittings installed to re-connect breach pipe toold reservoir building.

14. New connection withvalve to old reservoirbuilding.

15. Excavation of lift stationGroundwater filled liftstation. A sump was usedto remove water frombasement.

16. Stone was added to sandysoil to provide a founda-tion and allow properdrainage of water. Smalldozer used to level area,

17. Stone was channeled andsump installed to preventgroundwater from accumula-ting in excavation.

18. Installation of formsfor lift station concretepad.

19. Installation of dischargemanhole to Battle CreekRiver.

20. Manhole and overflowconnection to BattleCreek River.

21. Wall forms for liftstation.

22. Concrete poured into wallforms.

23. Concrete vibrated intowall forms.

24. Welder cutting steel pipefor header system innearby abandoned equip-ment shed.

25. Piping being installed forCarbon Filtration systemand discharge line.

26. Influent pipe from liftstation being installedusing a crane.

27. Concrete walls and pipingfrom dry well to carbonunits (Influent).

28, Inflow ports from wet welland installation of floorbolts to secure pumps.

29. Pumps installed and inflowports connected to drywell piping system.

30. Concrete walls sealed andfiber board attached.Excavation refilled.

"* 31. Soil compacted into placewith a vibrator aroundexcavation

32. Concrete overflow lineinstalled at dischargemanhole.

33. Installation of overflowline from wet well.

34. Concrete wall of wet veilwas cut to allow properfit of overflow pipe.

35. Area surrounding liftstation was compacted andgraded to allow properdrainage

36. Poured concrete pads be-neath pumps. Dry well

I piping complete.

37. Rusty water from purgewells entering wet well

38. Wet well pumped dry andpurge line rinsed out toprevent rusty water fromentering carbon units andfouling them.

39. City Vactor truck used toremove rusty water 'fromwet well.

41

40. Technician vacuming uprust and sediments fromwet well.

Grating installed on wetwell. Note probes andautomatic controls in wetwell. Dry well roof notyet in place. •*+•

42. Concrete roof beingpoured on dry well.

—•, '-.^jf , ,

'•^&

43. Concrete roof beingfinished.

44. Dishcarge line with wetwell and influent line inbackground.

45. Construction of stainlesssteel screen to preventdebris from touchingautomatic controls.

JBBPWS

46. Installation of screenin wet well.

47. Fifth carbon unit broughtto site to increase capa-city of treatmentsystem.

48. Connecting fifth carbonunit to existing system.

49. Final carbon treatmentsystem piping.

50. Piping to fifth carbonunit.

51. Carbon treatment systemnear old pumping stationgarages.

52.Purge water in wet well.

TII • • 11••IViiilltlll

\.r._ •• - «• " " - .. *»• v -•t-'- Sfc;."*" «t " wmFs^f*\~?9fm- £«*./£*

^ X •^-* -..sUfei

:-: fe4*jSZft~ "• ..?f®97j$-:,... - ^ - .

53. Discharge water at BattleCreek River.

54. Carbon Treatment systemand air stripping towerthat will replace system,

Construction of Vaporphase carbon units to re-nove volatiles; removedbv tower.

56. Air stripper locationadjacent to wet well anddischarge manhole.

57, Construction of air strip-ping unit replaces carbontreatment units.

58. Carbon being transferee!from vessels intoCalgon trailers.

f a l c o n t echn ic i an i r - spcxin^ inside of the carbonvessel a f t e r all carbonlias been removed .

60. Carbon vessel being loadedonto Calgon f la tbed with50-ton crane.

61. Used piping f rom sys temshowing a heavy build-upof iron and iron bacter iaon inner surface .

62. All used system pipingloaded onto semi-trailerfor shipment to scrapvard.

63. Newly installed shed overopening to dry well. Alsoshown are new ventilationshaft and exterior lightand fan switch.

64. Ins id<; j: new i. .e-i overdry well opening shovingnew ship's ladder andsafetv chain.

65. View of site looking southafter piping and carbon vesselhave been removed. Note perma-nent pad mounted transformerin lower left corner.

SIS*

66. View of site after re-moval of units lookingnorth at the air stripperwhich replaced the carbonfilters.

APPENDIX S

Analytical Data and Chain of Custody Forms

Verona Well Field Purge SystemBattle Creek, MI

Sampling Log

Date Time Sampler Bottle Numbers Laboratory

£A /3 C A

/.V.

se <•

7S/tf

ft! 37"*?? p. -rs/

-7

•M ?••<•<?

PE1 ASSOCIATES, INC.fFOPMEPLY: °EDCO ENUIROMHEN"1i499 CHESTER ROAD:iMCINMATI , OHIO 4^24-:

•: _ i Er -T : :J 3 E PAWASTE MANAGEMENT DI1-,'.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

PPCJEC"1" NO:PEQU! E.IT! ON:RECEIVED:

ATTENTION: MR DANON-SITE

MATRIX: tjEPONA

= AMPLE ID

CA*LICECOORDINATOR

WELL WATER

K211 WO 1 ~J*T i- 1 —

INLET A OUTLET rPEC-CO 'O:

1 ,2-r.ICHLOPOE~HENE

~PICHLOROETHENE

fETFACHLC'POETHENE

1 . 1 , >TPICH_:-OE~HAME

1 , l-I 'ICHLCFCETHANE

1 , !-DICHLOPQE~HENE

1 ,2-DIBPGMCETHANE

PH

DWO 7 1

21.6

1.4

13.5

12.3

6 .S

ND

ND

6.0

DWO ^2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6 . 0

DATE SAM-LED: 1C " ! • ; • • :-

REPORTED: 1 0 . - 1T S^

APPROVED: T. i^riÊ =

** 2 1 3 ** 2 i 5^ Pi ^P.|^'' A ~H '^! ~"~ c

\L>'--'-' I! "^3: DI-'-O "~^

ND ND

ND ^-iD

ND MD

ND fiD

ND '•::

ND ND

ND ND

5.0 * , Q

•_:-. _ ITEP Remedisl TiespsnssSection i

QUESTIONS CONCEPMUJG ANALYTICAL RESULTS SHO

-i .i-i . -.fJI'E-S 5 1 "}:-""32-4~'OC

ULD BE PE=EP»ED

P E D C 0 ENUIR ONMENTA L INC .11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT; USEPA

230 SCCHICAG

ATTENTION: MR DAMON-SIT

MATRIX: UERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 , 2 - D I C H L 0 P 0 - ET H'r L EN E

T P I C H L 0 R 0 ET H Y L EH E

TETPACHLOPOETHYLENE

1 , 1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE

1, 2-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-DICHLORQETHANE

1 , 1-D ICHLOROETHYLENE

1 ,2-DIBÔMOETHANE

PH

ND = NOT DETECTED « 1

MANAGEMENT DI'..1,UTH DEARBORN S"0, ILL 60604

CAPLICEE COORDINATOR

WELL WATER

8193 *194INLET A OUTLETDT373 DT874

16.7 ND

1 . 0 ND

9 . 5 ND

9.9 ND

ND ND

4 . 9 ND

1 . 3 ND

ND ND

6.0 6.0

UG/L)

REQUi 3ITI Ore r 1 ISRECEIVED: 10 • ; :. S4

DATE SAMPLED : i 0/9/34

REPORTED: 10, 1 I/ 34

APPROVED: T. 3ANDE-

*195 tt 196A BLANK A INLET 3

DTS75 DT876

ND 1 3 . 9

ND 1 . 1

ND 9 . 4

ND 10 .5

ND ND

ND 5.5

ND 1 . 1

ND NC

5,0 6 . 0

^ - i u U £

RESULTS IN UG/L

'.;T I ' > i 9 8 4Remedial Response

Section I

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SHOULD BE4 .I-'-. JESS 523-732-4700

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.t 1499 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45246(913)782-4700

TELCCOPICR (513)762-4807

October 5, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceOn-Scene CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR230 S. DearbornChicago, IL 60604

OCT 111984Remedial Response

Section I

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

Dear Mr. Caplice:Enclosed please find analytical results for the week of 10/1/84 for thesubject delivery order. Please note no samples were taken for the week of9/24/84 as the carbon units were on standby,

If you have any questions, please contact PEI at 513/782-4700.

Regards,

PEI Associates, Inc.

John M.^Bruck", P.E.Zojiejirogram Manager

JMB/vss

Enclosure

cc: M. C. Hessllng

•RANCH OFFICES

CHMTK* TOWERSOAUA*. TIXAS

OOLOIN. COLORADOCOLUMBUS. OHIO

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 4S2-46LABORATORY WALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT I

ATTENTION!

MATRIX I

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NOi

USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

MR DAN CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR

VERONA

1 ,2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE

,2-DI CHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DI CHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHYLD-JE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

201DT703

BU*IK A

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

199INLET ADT703

20.4

ND

16. 1

14.7

ND

8.7

ND

ND

6.0

PROJECT NO: 1008-19-1REQUISITION: 6094RECEIVEDi 10/3/84

DATE SAMPLED* 10/2/84

REPORTED: ^10/4/84j£r\

APPROVED:

200OUTLET ADT704

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

yO'**202?/INLST BDT706

19.3

ND

17.8

14.3

ND

7.8

ND

ND

6.0

ND-NOT DETECTED«1.U6/L>

OCT 111984Remedial Response

Section I

PEDCO EWIROWENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY AT^LYSIS REPORT

CLIENT! USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORNCHICAGO

ATTENTION! MR DANON-SITE

, ILL 60604

CAPLICECOORDINATOR

ST

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION! 6047RECEIVED: 9/19/84

DATE SAMPLED! 9/18/84

MATRIX! VERONA WELL WATER

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 , 2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLENE

TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


, 2-DI CHLOROETHANE


1, 1-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE IDi

PEDCO NOi

1 , 2-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1 , 2-DI CHLOROETHANE


, I -D I CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

BLANK186

DT379

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

Dl183

DT376

1.9

ND

ND

3.2

ND

2.6

ND

ND

6.0

PI-1183

DT378

12.1

2.1

12.7

14.2

ND

9.4

1.2

ND

6.0

El184

DT377

1.3

ND

ND

3.1

ND

2.3

ND

ND

6.0

REPORTED I

APPROVED t

Al180

DT373

2.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

3.3

ND

ND

6.0

DUPLICATEPI -2 192DT385

11.8

2.0

12.2

ND

9.0

1.5

ND

6.0

a 9/20/84

W\£/S>BI n ci181 U 182

DT374 DT373

5.4 2.4

ND ND

ND ND

10.2 4.2

ND ND

7.0 3.2

ND ND

ND ND

6.0 6.0

|ECEIVE|SEP 2 41984

Remedial RosponseSection I

•NOT DETECTED «1.UO/L>

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.1 1499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 43246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

ATTENTION: MR DAN CARLICEUN-SITE COORDINATOR

PROJECT NO:REQUISITION:RECEIVED:

DATE SAMPLED

REPORTED:

10 0 S60 1 g'='/ 12. 34

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1,2-D I CHLORO-ETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENETETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1-TRICHLOPOETHANE

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1 , 2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:

1 ,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-DICHLOROETHANE


1, 2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

173DT110

BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

170Dl

DT107

1.7

ND

ND

3.3

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

172INLET 1DT 1 0 9

9.9

1 .?

11.5

12.6

ND

7 . S

1 .2

ND

6 . 0

171El

DT10S

1.4

ND

ND

3. 1

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

APPROVED: Sf&S / S"5

167 168 ff 16?Al Bl Cl

DT 1 0 4 DT 1 0 5 DT 1 0 *

1.3 4.S l.S

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

3.2 9.0 3.6

ND ND ND

2.3 6.6 2.7

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

6.0 6.0 6.0

DUPLICATEA2174

1.7

ND

ND

3.6

ND ID) IF I? - "2.5 'd\. .

ND R*mciL. K.ND SeCYi.!

6.0

PEOCO PWI»nNMEMTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

/ U c'-

V

CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SuUTri uEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 „ 2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLENE

TR I CHLOROETHY LENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE



1, 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE



1, 1-D I CHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

160BLANKDS920

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

159INLET 1DS919

10. S

1 .9

8.4

12.3

ND

8.2

ND

ND

6 6

157 165Dl E2

DS917 DS918

1.5

ND

ND

2.7

ND

2.2

ND

ND

6

1.0

ND

ND

2.4

ND

1.9

ND

ND

6

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION: 5938KtCEIVED: 9/5/84

DATE SAMPLED: 9/4/84

REPORTED: 9/7/34

154 155 156Al Bl Cl

DS914 OS'15 DS916

1 . 1 4.4 1.7

NO ND ND

ND ND ND

2.2 8.3 3.0

ND ND ND

1.7 4.9 2.4

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

6 6 - 6

164D2

DUPLICATE

1.6 1

ND IB) I? f- p " r rIn' •— '"•' t • J > " L.ND U\i

2.9 l'''AP >'- ,<! • - - ; 1 |

ND orcr,> -'•'•-' •- "V, '.".,,"toro.ioE l.wA..CK(2.3

ND

ND

6

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORNCHICAGO


, ILL 60604ST

CAPL1CECOORDINATOR

MATRIX: VERONA WELL WATER

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NOi


TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

SM , 1 -TRI CHLOROETHANE




1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE IDt

PEDCO NO:


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1,1 -TR I CHLOROETHANE




1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

147DS417BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

14401

DS414

ND

ND

ND

2.5

ND

2.6

ND

ND

6.0

146INLET 1DS416

6. 1

1,5

9.5

13.3

ND

8.3

ND

ND

6.9

145El

DS415

ND

ND

ND

2.2

ND

1.8

ND

ND

6.0


DATE SAMPLED:

REPORTED: /

APPROVED: /!/{——————————— r*--'

141 142Al Bl

DS411 DS412

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

3.1 6.6

ND ND

2.7 ND

ND ND

1.5 ND

6.0 6.0

DUPLICATED2

DS421

ND

ND

ND

2.6

ND

2.2

ND

ND

6.0

100859650/29/84

8/28/84

8/31/84~\

| • 143t Cl

DS413

ND

ND

ND

2.3

ND

2.1

ND

ND

6.0mmmm^mmmmmm


CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIU.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604



SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1, 2-DICHLORO-ETHYLENE

TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-D I CHLOROETHYLENE

1, 2-D! BRQMOETHANE

PH

134BLANKDS022

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

5

133INLET 1DS021

12.2

2. 1

12. 1

81.6

0.4

1 1 . 1

1.3

ND

6

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION: 5932RECEIVED: 8/22/84

DATE SAMPLED: 8/21/84r

REPORTED: 8/23/84 /«

ANALYST : H.JESS i/ i————————————————————————————————————— J3.

140INLET 1DUPLICATE

3.4

1.3

7.3

9.6

ND

6.6

ND

ND

6

I TV] IS ff? 2 r ri ~ [î ~t L- •. - - . • - ; i;:


CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORNCHICAGO, ILL 40404


CAPLICECOORDINATOR

ST

MATRIX* VERONA WELL WATER

SAMPLE ID 134 133BLANK INLET 1

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1, 1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , l-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE IDs

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , l-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

DS022

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

3

132El

DSQ2Q

ND

ND

ND

2.3

ND

2.6

NO

ND

4

DSC 21

12.2

2. 1

12. 1

31.4

ND

It. 1

1.3

ND

4

135A2

DS023

1.0

ND

ND

3.5

ND

2.1

ND

ND

4


DATE SAMPLED:

REPORTED:

ANALYST s

128 130Al Cl

DS017 DS013

ND 1.0

ND NO

ND NO

1.3 1.8

ND NO

1.3 2.5

ND ND

ND ND

6 4

134B2

DS024

3.9

NO

ND

10.4

ND

7.3

ND

ND

4

100359323/22/34

3/21/34

8/23/34

T . SANDER

131Dl

DS019

1.2

ND

ND

2.7

ND

2.4

ND

ND

4aaaaaaisHsaa

ND»NOT DETECTED «1.UG/L>

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEAKBOKN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

ATTENTION i MR DAN CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR

MATRIX j VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NOt

1 , 2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLD-IE

TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE





1, 2-D I BROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE*




1,1-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

1, 2-DI BROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

121DR940BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.1

118DI

DR937

ND

ND

ND

2.0

ND

i.7

ND

ND

6.4

120INLET 1DR939

7.7

2.0

20.2

14.6

ND

11.6

1.3

ND

6.4

119£1

DR938

ND

ND

ND

1.6

ND

1.8

ND

ND

6.5

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION: 5914RECEIVED: S/ 15/84


REPORTED! 8/16/8449

APPROVED: sVjk**115 123 (j 117Al B2 ~C1

DR935 DR942 DR936

1.2

ND

ND

2.6

ND

2.7

ND

ND

6.4

DUPLICATEA2

DR941

ND

ND

ND

1.8

ND

ND

ND

6.4

3.7 ND

ND ND

ND ND

7.2 1.8

ND ND

5.2 1.7

'ND NDND ND

6.4 6.4

[ff i i f i iJViAUG2U1984

Remedial RW°Section I

ND-NOT DETECTEDC <1.UG/L)

jf>S»***


CLIENT I USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

ATTENTION: MR D^M CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR

MATRIX! VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO i


TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1 -TRI CHLOROETHANE

,2-DICHLOROETHANE


1, 1-D I CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBRCMQETHANE

PH

SAMPLE IDs

PEDCO NO:


TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE




i, 1-DI CHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-OIB»OMO£TH^NE

PH

WELL WATER

108BLANKDR613

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

6.4

105Dl

DR615

ND

ND

ND

1.2

ND

1.1

ND

ND

6.4

107INLET 1DR617

4.6

1.6

10.2

15.2

ND

10.4

1.2

ND

6.4

106El

DR616

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.8

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION: 5888RECEIVED: 8/9/34


REPORTED: 8/10/84

APPROVED: > 2 -S

102 103 //104Al 31 ^ Ci

DR612 DR613 DR614

ND 2.1 ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND 5.3 1.2

ND ND ND

1.3 3.7 1.3

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

6.6 6.4 6.7

DUPLICATED2

DR616

ND

ND

ND

1. 1

ND

1.1

ND

NO

6.4ND-NOT DETECTED «1.UG/L)


:LIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

PROJECT NO:REQUISITION!RECEIVED:

100838393/2/84


MATRIX! VERONA WELL WATER

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

- 1, 2-DICHLORO-ETHYLENE

- TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

—TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

- 1 , 1 , 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE

~ 1 , 2-DI CHLOROETHANE

( I, 1-D I CHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-D I CHLOROETHYLENE

t,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO i


TRICHLQROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1 , 1 , 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE




1,2-OIBROMOETHANE

PH

ALL RESULTS IN UG/LITER

Al *89

DR137a, it

ND

ND

ND

2.0

2.4

ND

ND

ND

6••••mflranv

INLET*94

DR142

13.3

2.1

13.3

18. 1

ND

6.2

1.3

ND

6

Bl *90

DR138

3.17

ND

NO

6.9

ND

ND

ND

6

BLANK*93

DR143

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

6

ND-NOT

REPORTED! 8/3/84

APPROVED: H. JESS/ 77 S~.*JL

Cl »91 Dl *»92 El *93

DR139 DR140 DR141

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

1.7 1.6 1.2

ND ND ND

1.3 1.5 1.2

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

6 6 6

C2 *98

DR146.

ND

ND

ND

1.5

ND

1.6

ND

ND

6

DETECTED (C1UG/LITER)

^

Central Regional LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection Agency536 South ClarkChicago. Illinois 60605 312/353-8370

VOLATILES ANALYSIS SHEET

Study Name: VERONA WELLS Study Number: Sf-586

Lab Sample 1.0. No: 84-MK07S98 Activity Number:' * ^G

PP* CAS#

1. (45V 74-87-32. T6V 74-83-93. i ARV 75-01-44. i 16V 75-00-35. i 44V 75-09-26. 2V) 107-02-87. 67-64-18. (3V) 107-13-19. 75-15-0

!0jB9 29V 75-35-4liW 13V 75-34-3*AV 30V 156-60-513. 23V 67-66-314. 78-93-3EWk-<lflV) 107-06-2«W^ 11V) 71-55-617. 6V) 56-23-518. 108-05-419. 43V 75-27-420. 32V 7R-87-521. 33V 10061-02-6**Z|K^ 87V 79-01-623. 4V) 71-43-224. 51V 124-48-125. 14V 79-00-526. 10061-01-05

*•* &

VOLATILES

chloromethaneb romomet ha nevinyl chloridechioroethanemethylene chlorideacroleln .acetoneacrylonltrllecarbondlsulflde\ ,l-d1chloroetnene "1 ,1-dlchloroethanetrans- 1 .2-ri1chloroethenechloroform2-butanone1,2-dlchloroethane1 .1 tl-tricnioroethanecarbon tetrachlorldevinyl acetatebromodlchloromethane1 ,2-dlchloropropanetrans*l ,3-dichloropropenetricnioroethenebenzentCh 1 o rod 1 b romomet h a neI .l,Z-trlchioroethanecis-1 »3-dlchloropropene

C48100

Concentration(PPB)

4.4U,7U

1.7U -1.5U.5U

26U75U21 U

.411• 5U

3.73.4'

,5U45U

.5U7.2

.5U2.0U

.5U

.5U,5U*5U.5U,5U.5U,5U

1C

K.A.ClttMtM

84-MKD7S98

PPf CAS* VOLATILES Concentration(PPB)

(19V)(47V)

110,75-875-25-2108-10-1519*78-6

2-chloroethyl vinyl etherbromotopm4-methyl-Z-pentanone?-nexanone

,5U,5U

i57U'&v

ISv1QfiU

127-18-479-34-.S10R-88-3

tet racnl oroethene1 .1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethanetoluene

•5U• 5U.5U

7V1 1 08*90-7 cn i orobenzene .su38V) 100-41-4 ethyl benzene .bU

100-42-5 styrene ,4Um-xylene ,5U

95-47-6 o-xylene, p-xylene ,5U

LCOttJ: J

•.A.

Ikrit'fw tut...r——— CMUl *ClttMtM niMfIkli —

f*r. tot Mt wtKtttf. IM valvt U tM

Mt ftflflljrHd f»r «1"

•fiifaui *ttcttM 11.lt «f

/ ^ PEDCO Ef I1-,1 1 RQNMEMTAL I N11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 4524*LAECFpiTORY ANALYSIS RE'

:LIENTI USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIU.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 40604

ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICEON-S1TE COORDINATOR

PROJECT NO:REQUISITION:RECEI»,'Er<:

DATE SAMPLED:

REPORTED:

-:=;4

MATRIX: UEPONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 , 2-DI ".Hi.GÔ-ETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

"rETRACHLOPCETHYLEME

1 , 1 , 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE

i,2-D!CH--OPOET»NE

(^ - , 1-D I CHLOROETHANE


! ,2-DIBPOMCETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1, 1 , 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE

1 ,2-D I CHLOROETHANE

1 , 1-D I CHLOROETHANE


V, 1 ,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

82

BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.2

79Dl

DR043

ND V

ND

ND

1.3

ND

1 .0

ND

ND

ft. 8

SIINLET 1DR045

1 2 , 8

2 . 1

*.7

17. 1

ND

8.0

1 .2

ND

80El

DR044 0

ND

ND

ND

1.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

7 . 2

APPROVED : /f^^}^^)

76 77 // 73A2 B 1 C 1

DP040 DR041 DP 04 2t* i ' 2.~f

ND 2." K:

ND ND ND

ND ND N:

1.4 6.7 1.2

ND ND ND

* • * -^t * .'-'—• * • 1

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

i' . 'i. 7.0 7.2

DUPLICATEB2

•«.<3.3

ND

ND

7.3

ND

_*• _ ^

ND

ND

7.0r I D*N OT D ET E CT E D K 1 . U G/ L)

PCDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPA PROJECT NO:WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUISITION:230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED*

_ CHICAGO, ILL 60604• T DATE SAMPLED:

ATTENTION* MR D«N CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED:

JMATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO i


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETR*CHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1-TRICHLORQETHANE

1,2-D1 CHLOROETHANE



1, 2-DI BROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:

1 , 2-DI CHLOPOETHYLENE

TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1, 1-TRI CHLOROETHANE

1,2-01 CHLOROETHANE



1,2-DIBROMOETHÎE

PH

WELL WATER

69

BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

66Dt

DQ736((?

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.0

ND

ND

6.4

#^*1APPROVED: /rff)———————————————— S-'——rf

63 64 *Al Bl

D0733 r, ., DQ734

ND 1.1

ND ND

ND ND

1.7 5.8

ND ND

1 . 4 -_4.'5

ND ND

ND ND

6.4 6.2

67 70El A2

DQ737 DQ7400

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND 1.5

ND ND

ND 1.3

ND ND

ND ND

6.4 6.2

100858127/ie7/17/84

7/19/84

L***365Cl

DG735

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.2

f

ND-NOT DETECTED«1.UG/L)

I .

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER *0CINCINNATI OHIO 43246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPA PROJECT NOs 1008WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUI SITION: 3812230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED* 7/18

_ CHICAGO, ILL 60604T DATE SAMPLED! 7/17/64

ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICEON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: >/ 19/84

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 , 2-DI CHLORO-eTHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1,1-DICHLQROETHANE

1 . 1-DICHLOPOETHYLENE

1,2-D I BROMOET HAT-IE

PH

WELL MATER

69

BLANK

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.0

APPROVED : /f*&J^*&* -^f

6Q t7

INLETDQ738

12.0

2.4

19.3

17.4

ND

11.3

1.4

ND

6.4


CLIENT: USEPA PROJECT NO: 1008WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUISITION: 5802230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED: 7/11/84CHICAGO, ILL 60604

DATE SAMPLED! 7/10/84ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICE

ON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: X? 7/12/84/v\MATRIX: VERONA WELL WATER APPROVED: /fetytf*?

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


., 2-D I CHLOROETHANE

1, 1-D1 CHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBROMQETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NOi


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1 , 1 , 1 -TR I CHLOROETHANE




1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

56 57A2

BLANK DP68 1

ND ND

. ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

6.1 7.1

53 54Dl ElDP677 DP682

ND NQ

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

6.7 7.0

/r51 V 52Bl Cl

DP6675JO>. DP676

2.2 ND

ND ND

ND ND

4.9 ND

ND ND

.5.: NDND ND

ND ND

6.6 7.0






DATE SAMPLED:

REPORTED:

APPROVED:

100838027/11/84

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

56

BLANK

1,2-DICHLORO-ETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

.,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE

1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1.2-DIBROMOETHANE

PHmmxmmmmvmmmmmmmmmmmmmv

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:^•V^^^MB^^^^ ^ Hfe^^^^ÂBfl

1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE

TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1,1-DICHLOROETHANE

1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1.2-DIBROMOETHANE

55INLET 1DP679

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6. 1

6.5

1.7

12.1

IS. 3

ND

9.6

1.0

ND

7.0

PHND-NOT DETECTED«1.UG/L>

7/A/f/PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RD 'CINCINNATI OHIO 43246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPA PROJECT NO:WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUISITION:230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED:CHICAGO, ILL 60604

DATE SAMPLED:ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICE

ON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: -

MATRIX: VERONA WELL WATER APPROVED: > 5*>\

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

37 38 QAl Bl

BLANK DQ411 DQ412 ^

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

ND ND 5.0

ND ND ND

ND ND 6 .T

ND ND ND

ND ND ND

6.2 7.4 7.0

49Dl E2DQ415 DQ417

ND ND *

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

ND ND

6.6 6.7

100857767/5/84

7/3/84

7/5/84

l trClDQ414

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.8

ND-NOT DETECTED «1.UG/L>


CLIENT:

ATTENTION

MATRIX:

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:



VERONA WELL WATER


DATE SAMPLED

REPORTED:

APPROVED:

100857767/5/84

7/3/84

7/5/84

BLANK

42INLET 1DQ418

3881

DG412ClDQ414

1 , 2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLENE ND

TR1 CHLOROETHYLENE ND

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE ND

1,1, 1-TRI CHLOROETHANE ND

, 2-DI CHLOROETHANE ND

1, 1-DI CHLOROETHANE ND

1 , 1-DI CHLOROETHYLENE ND

1 , 2-DI BROMOETHANE ND

PH 6.2

SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TRI CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE



1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

., 1-DICHLCmuETHYLENE

1, 2-DI BROMOETHANE

21.5

2.9

22.9

2.5

ND

15.8

2.4

ND

6.8

PHND-NOT DETECTED«1.UG/L>

Summary of A1r Testing (7/2 - 3/84)

The data sheet from the Pedco laboratory reported all results In microgramsper tube. All numbers have been converted to ug/m3 based on the pumpcalibration curve for flow rate and the times that the samples were taken.The sample names on Pedco's data sheet should be interpreted as follows:

- Blank * 8 1/4 hour blank- Well Field Wet well * 8 1/4 hour wet well sample- Purge System Blank » 12 hour blank- Purge System Wet well « 12 hour wet well sample

HNU: all readings < 2.00 ppm

Wet well: (one foot above center of wet well)

- (12:00 to 20:15)

1,1,1 TCA 0.57 ug/m3TCE 1.25PCE 2.39

- (20:15 to 8:15)

1,1,1 TCA 1.41 ug/m3TCE 1.11PCE 2.20

Blank: (Next to North wall of Pump Station approximately 250yards from wet well.)

- (12:00 to 20:15)

1,1,1 TCA NDTCE 1.08 ug/m3PCE 2.22

- (20:15 to 8:15)

1,1,1 TCA 0.95 ug/m3TCE 0.86PCE 1.46




MATRIX: VERONA CHARCOAL TUBES

PROJECT NO: 1008REQUISITION: 5777RECEIVED: 7/5/S4


REPORTED: 8/7/84

APPROVED: Jfag (Lss*

TOTAL MICROGRAMS/TUBE //

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE( ;ETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

UNABLE TO ANALYZE FOR

/ ————— YBLANK PURGE SYS WELL FLD PURGE SYS

WET WELL WET WELL BLANKDQ420 DQ421 DQ422 DQ423

ND 0.61

0.32 0.48

0 . 66 0 . 95

ND ND

THE FOLLOWING:

0.17 0.41

0.37 0.37

0.71 0.63

ND ND

1,1-DI CHLOROETHANE




/ c•ul)

———•.. .^, -• — |; M | ; . |

(ALPM) ^:"

swwsonenwvrnTenjflLrc24158 Hoggerty RoodFormlnpton Hills. Mtcrtoan 48O24

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.1 1499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: PROJECT NO:WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUISITION: 5^6*250 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED: 6/29/34CHICAGO, ILL 60604

DATE SAMPLED : 6/23/34ATTENTION: MR DAM CAPLICE

ON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: ^ 7/2/94

MATRIX: UERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TPICHLOROETHYLENE

-ETRACHLOPOETHYLENE

1,1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE

f ,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

1 , 1 - D I C H L 0 R 0 ET H Y L EN E

1 ,2-DIBPjMGETHANE

PH

1 , 2-DI CHLOROETHYLEME

TRICHLOPOETHYLEME

PERCHLOROETHYLENE

1.1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE

1 ,2-DICHLGSCETHiiNE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE

V 1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1 , 2-DI3RQMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

A-l*24

DQ217

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.5

E-l*23

DQ221

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.7

jf^jUZ**A-2 B-l C-// D-lit 1 tt ''•> S tt 5 A & "•' "?TTwl TT -«• TT^,W TTî

DQ224 DQ213,/ DQ219 DQ2205-'

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

ND ND ND ND

ND 2.3 ND ND

ND ND ND ND

ND /jf.7 " ND ND

ND ND ND f-iD

ND ND ND ND

6.5 6.6 6,3 6.3

BLANK*30DQ223

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.6

tonePEDCO ENU IP Of CENTAL INC..114-=? CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPOR

CLIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.230 SOUTH DEARBC'N 3TCHICAGO, ILL 50*04

PROJECT NO:PES Li I SIT I ON:RECEIVED:

MATRIX: UEPONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1,2-DICHLOPOETHYLEME

TPICHLOROETHYLENE

TETPACHLOROETHYLENE


^ i ,2-DICHLOROETHANES - 1, 1-DICHLOPOETHANE


1 ,2-DISRCMCETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

PURGEINLET*!DQ222 <29)

13.3

2.4

17.7

27.9

ND

11.7

1.7

ND

6.4

^ 55

V

7>/\**

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.I 1499 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLIENT: USEPA PROJECT NO:WASTE MANAGEMENT DIM.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO , ILL 60604

REQUI3ITIRECEIVED:

ON :

DATE SAMPLED:ATTENTION: MR DwN

ON-SITE

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLEME

TETRACHLOPOETHYLENE


i,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHAME


1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

CAPLICECOORDINATOR

WELL WATER

BLANK#17 #

A213

OP759 DP760

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.5

ND

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.3

REPORTED:

Bl#12DP754^,

ND

ND

ND

4.4

ND

^.5 "'

ND

ND

6.6

C2#20DP762 ,u

ND

ND

ND

ND

1.6

ND

ND

ND

6.4

1 0 0 357346/22/34

6/21/34

6/26/84

•JO- NOT DETECTED« 1.0 UG/L)

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICALRESULTS SHOULD BE REFERRED TOH.W.JESS 513-732-4700

GROUP SUPERVISOR


CLIENT; USEPA PROJECT NO: 1003WASTE MANAGEMENT D I V . REQU I 3 1 T I ON : 5734230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST RECEIVED: 6,22/34CHICAGO, ILL 60604

DATE SAMPLED: 6/21/34ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICE

ON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: 6/2o/S4

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE IDPEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBRQMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

Dl#14

DP736

ND

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.6

E2#22

DP763

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.7

MD» NOT DETECTED«1.0 UG/L)

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICALRESULTS SHOULD BE RCCFRRED TOH.W.JESS 513-732-4700

APP D BY:

H.tf/JESSORGANIC GROUP SUPERVISOR

V0.V3- PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.11499 CHESTER RD

7O CINCINNATI OHIO 43246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

CLI ENT : USEPA PROJECT NO : 100 3WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV. REQUISITION: 5734230 SOUTH DEAPSORN ST RECEIVED: 6/22/34CHICAGO, ILL 60604

DATE SAMPLED: 6/21/34ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICE

ON-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: 6/26/34

MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NOt

1,2-D I CHLOROETHYLENE

TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE


1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

WELL WATER

PURGE RIVER RIVERINLET 2 OUTLET R2 OUTLET R7DP734 DP766^ DP765 ,-j

11.7 j_'- -; -.3,9

2.6 ND ND

17.4 4.4 4.2

23.6 7.2 6.7

ND ND ND

14.9 ...4.0 _ 3.9

1.3 ND ND

ND ND ND

6.3 6.6 6.5

ND- NOT DETECTED«1.0 UG/L)

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICALRESULT^ SI-iOULD BE REFERRED TOH.W.JESS 313-732-4700

*^y/

GROUP SUPERVISOR

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.1 1499 CHESTER RC>CINCINNATI OHIO 45246LA&ORnTORY ANALYSIS REPORT

L I ENT : US ERAWASTE MANAGEMENT250 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

PROJECT NO:REQUISITION:RECEIVED: 6/16/64

ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLlCEQN-SITE COORDINATOR REPORTED: ^

MATRIX: VERONA WELL WATER APPROVED* ILf/J^f\ *s jSAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHVLENE

TETRACHLOPOETHYLENE1,1, l-TRICHLOROETHANE

1P2-DICHLOROETHANE

, < , 1-DICHLOROETHANE

v 4, 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE

1,2-DIBROMOETHANE

PH

7

DP648

6.6

ND

ND

6.7

ND

6.6

ND

ND

6,6

B

DP649

36.7

1.2

..3.5

^26 . 6

ND

6.5

1.6

ND

*.6

9 VDP 650

9. 1

ND

ND

3.9

ND

5.5

ND

ND

6,6

- tBSSS3XSS:

10

21.0

ND

2.5

20.0

ND

12.5

1.2

ND

-*-»*ND-NOT DETECTED«1.UG/L)

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL INC.1 14*9 CHESTER RDCINCINNATI OHIO 45246LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT

:LIENT: USEPAWASTE MANAGEMENT 01V.230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO, ILL 60604

ATTENTION: MR DAN CAPLICE

PROJECT NO:REOUISITIOfJ:RECEIVED:

Id 0 &5?ie4/16/&4

Of>l-SITE COORDINATOR

MATRIX: VEROfJA WELL WATER

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:

1 ,2-DI CHLORO-ETHYLENE

TPJCHLC'ROETHt'LENE

TETRACHLOROETHVLENE

1,1, 1-TRICHLOPOETHANE

1,2-DICHLOROETHANE

, 1-DICHLOPOETHANE


1,2-DIBROflOETHANE

PH

1

DP642

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NC'

ND

ND

6.4

2

OP643 ,

ND

ND

ND

2.6

ND

3.0

ND

ND

6.4

REPORTED

APPROVED

3

;/i DP644

ND

ND

ND „..

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

tf .6

: faLk$DP645

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6. "4

U^5 6

DPd4tf DPe.47

N:> ND

ND ND

ND 4.4

N:- 20 .0

ND ND

ND ND

ND NO

ND ND

e . €• 6 . 6

NCi-NOT DETECTED«1.UG/L)


Icc8

CLIENT:

ATTENT I ON :



PROJECT NO:REQUISITIONRECEIVED:

REPORTED:

100856896/8/84

6/12/84


SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NO:


TRICHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLEME


( ,2-DICHLCRCETHANE

1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


PH

A

DP466

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.6

6

DP467

ND

. ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.8

C

DP468

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.3

D

DP469

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

6.4

'D» NOT DETECTED«i.O UG/L)

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICALRESULTS SHOULD BE REFERRED TOH.W.JESS 313-782-4700 H.W.J

ORGAN GROUP SUPERVISOR


V



MATRIX: VERONA

SAMPLE ID

PEDCO NOsVff> ———— T'CTTMB'l Wf +*. ' *1,2-DICHLORO-ETHYLENE

TRICHLORQETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE





SAMPLE ID:

PEDCO NO: s.* ««~ » ».


TR I CHLOROETHYLENE

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE

1 , 1 , 1 -TR I CHLOROETHANE


1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE


WELL WATER

DP306

5 — ——ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

at» DP311

%J ........ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

1*

DP307

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

20

DPS 12

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

NlD« NOT DETECTED«1.0 UG/L)

QUESTIONS CONCERNING ANALYTICALRESULTS SHOULD BE REFERRED TOH.W.JESS 513-782-4700


REPORTED

1*

DP308

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

2KDPS 13

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

'nVw .X£ssORGANIC

:

>8DP309

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

26

DP314

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

BY:

^5

GROUP

100356676/2/34

6/5/34

11

DPS 10

ND

1.8

11.5

27.0

58.9

ND

12. 1

21

DP315

15.9

2.0

13.7

37.8

ND

8.2

1. 1

SUPERVISOR

//.'*<£

r/*>/r

DM*ftACTUKHCNMCAi ANALYSIS OF WATER

ft."ft.

miOSUtfHATi TMAKOKffTU

k Foil Offk* —

US MO.

4291

03^7«•*>*•• »*n» ••t*U«iU» Ut fewi

fcavr* of Ink.

*r NWM W

rr

C.J.il.J Af-SMM Arf4rM> CMr «r

D » ~tar Mpplr, A i «rf ...IM. M~

SaMaHna tahrt

A^

*••»••..

D OMthH

r/

O i. nji.h.i

DO HOT WMIC MOW - UMIAIOtr KSUtn

•|HM <• Mi

OrNMUCNULTH

WATER

198* JUN 15 PH 2=32

ITAHYbACfLKIOLOG'CHEMISTRY SECTION ft

irH*otutf*UT» iKAno lonu

"»HO.

4268

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

•- -- -*-- - — -* -- — -«• — -_ - -^ - -iv miBr nHi^^JscrsatrKi

DataH«c«nr«d: ftACTEKKXOGtCAL ANA1YSIS OF WATER

..ANSIMU

W JUN 15 PH 232

i CHFMISTKY SECTIONnHOMMTHAR TKATID tOTTU

laporl

* ^30 S-Poit Oflic*

U0* **t ww ibU form (•* «r*tof wpph;

•hoi MM iy*MM tt untet MM MOfH pufcfa w«Mrplicabl* item* •* farm. Typ«, *r pcint «rMh §»h<»di Mw lob*r«torr wMMn 41 kowri *f f*r wvMf

UMh ML $M

W.N Owner •*._u

W«fl D I. Cfcfa.hua*.

W«ll Paplfc f l.

i iIT wMw M«plr M^ *Mtad MTVM, m

OO NOT WMTC M&OW — lAKMUIOav MSUtTS

Cwmt/100 Mti

OFfMUCHIALTHF2ib torn

MUULUOK ji, OF WATBI

TMOSUIfHATf TUARD •OTIU

UtNO.

1289

T«t

$!•!> g

hnliwclteM: 0* netMM! MM «|FtMM h w»««•>*• !*«•• «n IMM

a

A»-

* ^ ^ ••Paf BVHpL vHE*

Dl.at.

DO NOT WMTf •HOW - UKMATOtT MSUITS

PARTIAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

lltf 15 PrJ I2: 55

CHEMISTRY SECTION '

C*d« (1-3) |

I I I

1965 -

Gi»« ell I•o*-" infoimalion—Typ* er P«irt %vilh Mft bod of block ink LAI NO.

.r». Add,,.. S-f-.

4-*—

Phone No:

2. Bretcn to* At»ely«ii (d»*di*: Q joutio* Q Olh»« (Ottctib* on >*pofole

Supply 0-«,:3 I ULX=U Befd? -

H<C<M MB.

Scmplc Collected o'- SltMl Add(*n:

"Sompl* Colfectad ci- To.l Office (Ml), Zip Cod*5 I

Section No.:

Covfll:

Sompi* CoHKHd by

*(Mete):

TMW—24 hr. FormalHit*

oMjW.BM.

(1-13)

(. Z

No—— ef

» B\UK ID .22 34) 00001

Ok It=9X!

WSSN 114-20-

Min i(21)

DO NOT Wtllt KIOW—1AKMATMY HSUITSCod* 127-30)

U*NO.IRON

< 1) : 13

no UK (*m2KHSlFUKHIOE (ftUKWATED)PH IHYKOCEHIW) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D*i« PARTIAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

J W « 5 FHi255 ?.. 1362

i-« OH fc

4-CHEWSTSY Sei«fo™»o*io«i— IIP. or PriM wi* toft Uad or LAS MO

Sompl* Colinnd ol—KM! OHfc. (Ml). Zip Cod*

DO NOT WWIC KIOW—LAaotAKMnr •BUSSCod* (27-30)

LA* W «4U-llt62 I 1) 13IRON (AUTffMTEt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 2fu/lSOIIUN <AVTI»MfD| - t v - - - - - - - - - - - - » t fclectedNITIATE AS N (MfTDtMTEft) . . . . . . . . . . .iSt KlfCtrtHMMCSS «S C«CW(MnOI»TE0) . . . . . .312N9/1COMUCTIVITT <*BfWWTEf) . . . . . . . . . SMmMCHLMIIE (AUTWWTEI) . . . . . . . . . . . .FLUMIK (MITOMTE») . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N«1PH (HYWOCEM IONI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.4

s

JUW20BW1 OF PUMJC MCM.THJUH20B6H3

PARTIAL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER

messr -CHEMISTRY SECTION

Cue o» Inwwn infoi motion—Type or Print *>ilh toft l*od or block wtl. 1A1 NO.

ieport biwrh **:

StiMt Adcbe**:-&1

foil OfficeS«o*«— Zip Code:

2. tootan far Amrfym («fce«M; JSjotftW D OlfceMOetcribe on MyofoO ifcortiSupply OWMT:

CSample Collected OT- Street Addie**:

Sample O5

ft*'—*Dtt Offke 'Ml), Zip Pod*

Section No.:

IWrfod by IO.M):

Count|r

14 fcf . : (t-13)

'•*>>i***<**H Sow* fcfrd*):WoH.

t( WISH (14-20)

IP (77 DO MOT WOTi ICiOW-iA»O«ATOtT IfSMTS•IkM* (31 -34)

LAS HO S4S6-S1964 ( 1) PROMAN: 13•

IRON (AUTOMATES) ...................1.ina/1SODIUM (AUTOMATES) _^... . . . . . . . . . . .N.t |e tec tedNITRATE AS N (AUTOMATES) . . . . . . . . . . .Net DetectedHARMCSS AS C*C03 (AUTOMATES) ......3ISM/1COMOCTIVm (AUTOMATES) .. c^^S^CHUKIK (AUTOMATES) . -..,,.-aUORISE (AUTOMTES) ..............».lM/]jPH (HTMHXCN ION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 .4

•In >>•••••

-JIW 20 3964 3 MMTH /

"yV^

PARTUU CHEMKAl ANALYSIS OF

rf 12:55 1963&CH-MI3TRY SECTION

Give ell fcnowfi Mrfo.«Kotiwt—lype or Prirr *>>«tti M!I boa1 a* fafecl M Ul MO

V OllMMW r O<*« fflncffco o* *epn»QJe <fcort

DO MOf WMTf KtOW—UMM ATOCT «CSUITS

UBMO. MS6-H963 < 1)

-•M«ll (31-14)

XPROGRAM. 13

IRON (AUTOMATES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K M DetectedSOBIttt (AUTOHATE1) .................Ifnq/lNITRATE AS N (AUTOMTES) . . . . . . . Ntt DetectedHARMCSS AS C*C03 (AUTOMATES) ......298m/lCONDUCTIVITY (AUTOMATES) . . . . . . . . . . 556**CHLMIK (AUTOMATES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??«•/!FLUORIK (AUTOMATES) . . . . . . . . . . . . .S.tM/I'PH (HVMNKEN ION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . 4

JUN20B843

Environmental LaboratoryEngineersPlanners Date: June 1, 1984Econom/sft mvoic. No., H65351.MSc/entfs/s

Subjects'~~Analysis of oil sample received Hay 22, 1984, from *the Varona Wallfiald, Battla Craak, Michigan. Thaaaopla was aaaignad rafaranca No. 3231* Raaulta arain nicrograaa par gra> (parts par million).

ParaaatarPCB'a

< indicatas *la«» than*

All taata ara parforaad in accordance with currant Environ-nantal Protection Agancy guidalina* aj publiahad in thafadaral Ragiatar.The information shown on this aheat i» teat data only and nointerpretation ia intended or implied.Samples will be retained 30 days unless otherwise requested*

Reported byi _____ ________Theresa Bousquet

jam/CVLAB/163-5

CH2MHU.INC. Spokon»Omc» WmtOQlR**nK*AM. Surt* 1240. Spottarm. Washington99201 S09.747.2OOO

d.

+

*'Jf*

EngineersPlannersEconomistsScientists

Environmental Laboratory

Date: May 21, 1984

Project No.: W65351.A1

Subject! Analysis of soil sanple received May 18, 1984 fromRob Edgerton. The sample was assigned referenceno. 3203 and was analyzed when received* Results arein raicrograms per gram (parts per million).

Parameter

PCB's

Found

0.9 Aroclor 1260

All tests aro performed in accordance with current Environ-mental Protection Agency guidelines is published in the FederalRegister.

The information shown on this sheet is test data only and nointerpretation is intended or implied.

Samples will b« ratainod 30 days unless otherwise requested.

Reported by:Theresa

/CVLAB/079-2

CH2M HK.L INC. *X*on»Offlt« Washington 99201 509747.2000

STATE OF MICHIGAN/^j^fc^fcs- jg^

JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH3500 N. LOGAN

P 0. BOX 30035. LANSING. MICHIGAN 46909GLORIA R. SMTH. Ph.D., M.P.H.. F.A.A.N.. Director

March 2, 1984

0450

City of Battle CreekWater DepartmentEast Michigan AvenueBattle Creek, Michigan 49014

Attention: Mr. Larry Osborn

Subject: Results of Inorganic Chemical Analyses

Gentlemen:

Enclosed are the results of the chemical analyse of water samples col-lected on February 16, 1984 at the city of Battle Creek's Verona PumpingStation.

Please note that, where applicable, the standards established by theMichigan Safe Drinking Water Act (Act 399, P. A. 1976) are listed. Theresults of these analyses are within acceptable limits as defined by thestandards.

If there are questions about any of the results, please contact thisoffice.

Sincerely,

'don W. Bloemker, P.E.District EngineerDivision of Water SupplyBureau of Environmental and

Occupational Health

JWB:akEnclosurecc: Calhoun County Health Department

tDCO

rodr>

<T ~7-i-1- *V

12- O-t.n U\n> c

ci/ u..—» oai oQ. rr

f-J t->Ol O"r-'- oi 3

-o tr-^L. n;ft ^r

c-J.r.;

o —i —•r j —- o o >~>x- ;y - — --r

O-' -O Lf*-" X. **irs O- e=

-<l

O

-* T tnH. cr r, CrtCi.«« IB z

Ci p -r-

i— 04 E;

3 =^&

i~< ^

=r in rr-c c.e ^- e.-

ijl ^

01 O~ O~-j -c •OJ c3

i ^. nft-** o-C. «

CO

. 0 3 0ft- rr •-•

•= rr n;

In;

r!*bT

a

Cjt!

-oCO

00 CO

—• OJ

CM .. -a -a=3 UJ 31 OJTO =• *-CO Cl "•"*

• s:a <r3: tx

unro

r*i coOJ

« -r^ w4

iC. C> Io 1-1

- o- CxC3 CT r*>

ai•o

Uic

= o

— n O-Jl C3

=• e» CO

01m

UJ CO

Z O» ». T3 tJtn u js 1. QJ *-tr» t- *- *- w3 ±> -O U Cl QJ

O Cl 31 Ci I—

CO02

UJ

e .

CJ

Ui

<r '-

>- or— 0=

t_ m a.ot in it•— Of l~

tor*.

<ra.

—» >—' CD<E LJ

1X1

ro

PEDC0. ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORYSAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

1 J ---^^^ .

fl. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT VffRotÂ ûfrP <T74T/o/V PN /QO#

Tfe. SENDER x // * 3' oumiER--y //—'*S1anature //ffljfawJ Comoany Kmit4//t&tj*>

Date s?/*' Signature

Sent from $<&%' /J40F.06 BateB/L No.

s

V : -X

4. RECEIVERCourier from DepotSignatureDateLAB CUSTODIANSignatureDateCondition uponReceipt

5. SHIPMENT DESCRIPTION

Number of packages /Sealed (yes or no) #*

sTypes of containers

Condition prior ta \' i 1 1 - - * » -*i—

Go«i-5-/7

•Moment <?<94Âi _ r;.w :•

6. CONTENTSi

Sample I.D. number37 I3* \

• 3^ \-+o4;4^43444-r4^4 1<s-41

-p ——

Type ofsampleI/O***

\i

. *'• ~° "7

Stal SealSeal No. Intact? Seal No. Intact?<*P47404*

••'-

Staled(yes or no)-Jfe/Ub

•

\

F.

f

' - - ' ' \ \

Seal No.1f any

,.

Condition (damaged,loss of liquid, etc.)

-

-

*- • •. - •

-

••»

PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL .SAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

c

€'

")

r7^-,

V. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT \£fpr\o

t. SENDER' Sianature

Date

Sent fromXJffon*. CL-vO^ô^

\lw.fHf* r,-* t , rvii

<

. ?u^ <4«f,on PH ]C05<

3. CARRIERCompany fcd*r*A 2<3trss

Signature

DateB/L No.

. • 8


Number of packages \Sealed (yes or no) u*<

N Types of containers

.Condition prior ta s

Y , * 4- • .

rMi«r/ »i

Moment A^fyii li iiniV- - 4»-~ ' • ^

L ——————————— i ———— . ———— j-i6. CONTENTS f

Sample I.D. number

Ch<n5-30

5HST51T)

,- 5"^^60M41

r • • j '

- — -.. • i

Type ofsamplelyoA

'

•

\L

' /•

- —— i*

4. RECEIVERCourier from DepotSignatureDateLAB -CUSTODIANSignatureDateCondition uponReceipt

*

Seal SealSeal No. Intact? Seal No., Intact?HumHti$\

'

*l "* ^~ iHf

Sealed(yt$ or no)A/O

q*

Seal No.1f any

N.,


ttKJ , , . .u

' ^.

^

\^

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTALSAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

I.

c

J

*»

,_

1. NAME1 OF ESTABLISHMENT \Wnn/w ^mTJ S-hdi o« PN I/W*

2 .-SENDER — ^. 3\ 7 />v x^ \(Signature fyv* fa3Qa )»« C. CARRIERDmpany F*cWa.l f.xbrcss

* Date -7/ |^7 /P'4/ Signature

Sent from DateV*fOY\x 'Pur^fl S-teâk B/L No* £5tl£tl30&*3tUi< Cir*.V .mi


5. SHIPMENT DESCRIPTION'-\ Seal Seal

Number of packages \ Seal No. Intact? Seal No. Intact?Sealed (yes or no) qrs V/56"/Types of containers

Condition prior to i

j

^bolft'•hlpment tflfc

vl '• CONTENTS

SampVe I.D. number636V6ffctf) r /

Utf

loii y 'H /13 /1HIf*/"""*

"TV.-*

^' •

Type ofsampl eVDA

"

Sealed(ye$ or no)

X^)

s-'/

/

Seal No.1f any

*


c#AIt I

1

1I11

1

,\

\

PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL iSAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

c

V

. •**$%fij

\1

-

C*j

1. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT V/^rorvx, 'Puinf 54a+>e,A P» 100$

2. SENDER —— ——— - — - 3. CARRIER^Signature Q\, G OocW«- .Comoany p*WoJ £xpr*ss

pate "Y \^l^V Signature

Sent from DateUf/ov^ ?(1^? -htVr* B/LNo. ^545^153^^rtl* Crr^k. \YTI ••.

4. RECEIVERCourier from Depot -SignatureDateLAB CUSTODIANSignatureDateCondition uponReceipt

\ \\

5. SHIPMENT DESCRIPTION, Seal Seal

Number of packages 1 Seal No. Intact? Seal No. Intact?Sealed (yes or no) w^ ^Qb 2Type* of containers

Condition prior to s

5 V

| fr«o|^ ^063

hlpment fayi0

i* ——— T — ' — J {7fi. CONTENTS ' * * ••-

Sample I.D. number

7L7?Ttf71«o*/fa!3SMs?1kft««

r^ '' •

(r

Type ofsampleUOA

^ /

*

Sealed(yes or no)

VIA

—

~T^

'

V

Seal No.if any

-

(

fi


4w4 —————————————

V"

V

L .PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORYSAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

Ill >NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT \Wor\fc., 9 —————— .-. r* A — | w

•«J. SENDER ^ VwtOT*-*/ Signature!? A7&M»£4-

tDate -7 1 : I If-1-/

Sent from\ / 1* y f iO r V >**i . fY^ J 1 t* ti f> A» x. » •*

CompanyRIEi

roo^p • 5wV ^ PN i 6o3 ^

^,/ ?»<*Signature

DateB/L No. «^?4^^y3


Number of packages |Sealed (yes or no) „•«•.Types of containers

^Condition prior to s

\ fniff

hipment cy>si4{J

6. '"CONTENTSSample I.D. number

/ .j y— .— —ho-('T?^ 7

'iO

^<

0/L

4"?^ 'I

CtO(

/On

'ClL>~' -;.

•* •'-<:

Type ofsampleMf\ X

\

ns

r

* •

* -'

***

4. RECEIVER x v

Courier from Depot /^VSignature \vDateLAB CUSTODIAN x ^Signature \ \ \Date x\V \Condition upon \v\Receipt vV\'\

- \\\\\\A-,.-,\\

Seal .Sâl\\Seal No. intact? Seal No. intact?yo6clm%

i f . v- .__,. —-'- -i-\.-

Sealed(yes or no)

ytn1

f

•

•

Seal No.if any


yf/1

J

-

SAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD1 ^ ; 1 1M.Jr.NAHC/OF 'ESTABLISHMENT , \j^f^t

"H^ SENDER^-.. ~"-:

y Signature P^^fst^*^^^

Date f /-?/<*</

Sent from \/frcr»c\Puw>0 S-faiKc^

Bfi.fr i frT c t k j & l f

*v .rrvT) SWr^n PN /CdS ^

3. CARRIERCompany fvoWoJ t Vprv^

Signature

Date8/L No. f j


Number of packages (Sealed (yes or no) u/*c

J"ypes of containers

-Condition prior to i*sr

i

hipment Jxnctd -^ -fc—

] 6. CONTENTS

Sample I.D. number

IOJI/o3/dV/or/ot/67

/oar/^\IOllf//a//3/;i/

<u-*i

Type ofsampl e

l/cl/V

\/

.5^ rfif 35"V

4. RECEIVER *(Courier from Depot . p*Signature XKDLSDC

ateAB CUSTODIAN -, \ignature \\ \

ate ^V'onditlon upon \,\\

Receipt VVÂ^

V. ^ \\\

N\'V\Seal \ sell V

Seal No. intact? Seal No. tntadt?x

^ \

V&70 \

... ,-. — ~^. _i . -,.,, —— —„ .. -*-_ .

Sealed(yes or no)

ly>v/>

-T.

Seal No.if any


J*/vW

H

_£

»

/

N

\

V\

\

\

SAMPLE SHIPPING/RECEIVING RECORD

,4.

?

*. '"

M»*

rl. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT \/>

1*. SENDER

Jsiqnature '$A C-dsAyvxu*-

Date •fh^lry

Sent from;K^> t^rr.p SkV, -

fit-tfkrriT't Mf

*>** :

1. CARRIESCompany f

^^ ^ b r?' - PH - ., 1

UrJ rw,î ,

Signature

DateB/L No. _^.

•


Number of packages 1Sealed (ves or no) ars

J"ypes of containers

^Condition prior to <

- c - l e - r

.hioment v^d0 '-

6. CONTENTS

Sample I.D. numberii;j,^-'0/ / *iKvOo» 2 (pi

' 05)>OiOL.MS —

^ '-.

->v

Type ofsample\,<M

//

\^

5V 5t 7 3^5"

V1

4. RECEIVER jjrxCourier from Depot -3$TSignature v\x

Date \ \LAB CUSTODIAN \\

\ V\^Signature ^\ \\Date V>s\Condition upon W\

v \0\NNReceipt v\v\

Vv\\\\\^

\ ^N \\Seal \ \V\\

Seal No. Intact? Seal No. MntacrM, , —, \\ \ ^Wlt \\Vtf7J \

^

Sealed(yes or no)

A/3

-t —

Seal No.if any

-

',T

-.'

Condition (damaged,loss of liquid, etc. )

"CM

f //

.'1

1f!

w ,

i

/•''

i. -

)


^^

c

1. ; NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT VfrOrxx TWa Sf*+ n* PN QO8

.P^SENOER 3. "'CARRIERJSianature ft- L <£ea)Uw«~ Company firdtfrxl fyp^css

Date ff*(tr||pM Signature

Sent from .'' Date /ikttWA &>^ S-to-icu} &/1 No./ 95Vfe?V0SL

^* / ^

' * " ' / ,* I

7 7


5. SHIPMENT DESCRIPTION J 'S

. Seal SealNumber of packages 1 -Seal No. intact? Seal No. intact?Sealed (yes or no) U« ^06S

.Types of containers

JJond1t1on prior to <V.**.. ,—— T^. -- a_|- . ——

/ ort * i^ yObvs

n i omen t 01 fip atM.- -^ .. fdJ __ ^ . : _ , . . . .

6. CONTENTS

Sample I.D. number12*1*1I30I3IuaI3JI34orI34I37JS3131HO

/

X

Type ofsampleUOA

\ f

SealedJyes or no)

M)

s /

^''

Seal No.if any

•

/'


qfvrf1

V.

\s-

\

SAMPLE SHIPPING/DECEIVING RECORD

1. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT

Sent from

3. CARRIERCompany federal £ySignature

DateB/L No.

4. RECEIVERCourier from DepotSignature _____DateLAB CUSTODIANSignature __DateCondition uponReceipt ____


Number of packages _Sealed (yes or no)Types of containers

Condition prior to shipment

Seal No

v/a/

Sealintact? Seal No

SealIntact?

CONTENTS

Sample I.D. numberType ofsample

Sealed(yes or no)

Seal Noif any


L/OA Vie

/H/V-7

in15:5 >/

SAMPLE S H I P P I N G / R E C E I V I N G R E C O R DJ

c

d*

|J. NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT [J<

.

^3- SENDER/Signature &46ofc <**0+*.

Date q -*4-£N

Sent fromVôncLûmp

*r/-^ . .'

Or\ ev Mjrrtp STcCHon PN ]()$%

3. CARRIERComoa ny r«u?ra./ f )r3rcSSlgnatur

DateB/L No.

/ .

•r

e

?*•


Number of packages ISealed (yes or no) Ur^

•Jypes. of containers

Conditioner! or- to sIT t i My >j'i M » *

1 roal.*--

hlDment k)ddl>^™' * ™*i ^ lp* "«

-

p™ '6. CONTENTS

Sample I.D. number

/5V/5T/5t757/5-y/Sf/£<?/6/ '*/fi^/^5/Wits/ 0&

\

1 '

Type ofsampleI/O A

\/

i

5S «TtmG-

,••**

\


Seal SealSeal No. Intact? Seal No. Intact?y/jjV03 ' ' ^

-

sSealed

(yes or no)>VO

.

,

N

.

^

,

Seal No.1f any


foxV

\

1

V

/'

-..> >- ;


jC

x^. . i

1.". NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT KrtttJt ,^,,^.**Z. .SENDER,, j 3. CARRIERy$)hro*ttire \^(jC~0&***f Company F/ydLu*]) f xn,^

Date Gt //P'/ftr Signature• i

Sent from DateB/L No. fiS^â

-


Number of packagesSealed (yes or no) LL^Q

\Types of containers

Condition prior to s)__. ..__ .

(J

Cer&s*shipment ^cod

7 V

f"C?" CONTENTS

Sample I.D. number

\8O Ail?t 6l/f i Cl183 Dimy if/££ f ,|

/rt Rio t/3") A?/^ ft3IM c^Ko D^h/ «I13L £i*Jl

.*

a

1 ' ^

; ""

-

Type ofsampl eVOA

v

'<*•

PN 1008

.4. RECEIVERCourier from DepotSignatureDatLAB

sigDat

eCUSTODIAN

naturee

Condition uponReceipt

Seal SealSeal No. Intact? Seal No. Intact?y/3^W?

Sealed(yes or no)

Woi1

I1I1

*\s\

Seal No.1f any


L

•

*

s- -

/ '•T

'N

APPENDIX T

Carbon Vessel Pressure Readings

VERONA WELL FIELD PURGE SYSTEM

Battlf Creek, Michigan

Carbon Vessel Pressure Log

Date TIM Inlet Outlet Recorder

//'JET

r. /C i?.-#tt4t.> ——

( 5 33 3Vy

57 -^ /, -• '-

97 10

r7 7 / £ > 7

3s- 3T

36 3? 37 37r /c /o5-

2i ; r

VERONA HELL FIELD PURGE SYSTEM

Battlt Creek, Michigan

Carbon Vt$$t1 Pressure Log

Dat* TIM inlet outlet Recorder

'31*3 31

#r

9 £ % (

fh'frv -

A

. JO n -Tm*. ' 1.1

fa liH c ' - O /C Pit tvrt-v^x »* /'

-7 n ' £-'U W ' l f

7

0.0- cr

•/r /C

,* fat S"

' A M £ i'^.f.f:»f>t f f ,

OS -7

•

1-2J-8V 1C 50 Cr

*7- Zl /&i

Data


Battlt Crttk, Michigan

Carbon Vassal Prtssure Log

TIM I nutB C D E

2JZ-

Outltt

Coo

Rtcordtr

$l\ ID

°0. f ( -7

. 20 *> O 10

^t *• £2-

' .f

fit,* - " (a PJ

'los 2? -r 7

ai*yn»7f

IQ 22. 20 /f) 10

25 TSf

Co

VERONA NELL FIELD PURGE SYSTEM

Battlt Crttk. Michigan


Date TIM inlet Outlet Recorder

to* 2* -7

O D .«,. /r*~"xiSZ^* /rIC

-720 O /O

orf+

o-** IS 25

JO

1* ^ XI1 MS fa

i 3 TO

-7 rqfalri .23

2-1 27 7 7/3-30 -7 ,'G

-7XD f (D

( 1 ( 5 7 &

II •Xl £ JQ


Battle Creek, Michigan


Date TIM Tnlet Outlet Recorder

O- i

AD ci: te 2-

APPENDIX U

Site Safety Plan

WES7DN SPER

Region ____5____Date 4/25/84TDD# 5-8404-10

SAFETY PLAN

A. I n c i d e n t Descr ip t ion

1. location Upmn* Uoii TM»i,i__________ 2. Date

jirigden Drive______________

Battle Creek, Michigan

3. Type: S p i l l £7 Fire [j HW Site fj Other

I*. S ta tus Groundwater contamination to municipal-well field.

5. Response Objectives To install carbon treatment system.

6. Background Rev iew: Complete /X/ P a r t i a l /_/I f p a r t i a l , v - ^ "

7. H a z a r d Level: High /~J ^ fode^ste / 7 Low /^7 Unknown /__/I n h a l a t i o n / / I n g e s t i o n /X/ Contact / "7 Exte rna l /"/

8. "Site Plan/Sketch Attached Yes £j No

9. Esckground Kater ia l attached Yes / / No JyJ

*

B. Material Description

1- Type: L iqu id /X/ Solid /~7 Sludge /~7 Vapor/Gas A

2i' CKemical [Jsme/Clsss Flammable liquid N .O .S . Solvents

_3. Character is t ics^ Corrosive / / l ^mtab le / / V o l a t i l eToxic y •/ .. . React ive / / Biological Agent

1*. Toxicity: TLV ________________ 1 DLH ' ___________

5. Special Hazards Low level drinking water contamination.____;________

6. Acute Exposure Symptoms Nausea and headache. SEE attached data sheet.

SMG:ss

S11 E_Ctrsc r 1 pt i o_n

\ mile X 1 mile1. S . 2 C

2. Surrounding Population 4Q f QQQ people

3. Buildings/Homes 200 homes

Topography Flat, sloping to river

5. R e c e i v i n g Waters Battle Creek River__iQ-!_

6. Weather Clear and warm_______________

7. U n u s u a l F e a t u r e s Piping and wells belou ground -iarea. No hazards. Typical construction job _ w_itb__sa£e£y_ planinjuries.

8. Site History

D. Personnel Protect I cm

1. Entry Level of Protect ive clothing : A /_/ B / / C /__/ D /X/

2. If not B, why? No documented hazards where construction Is________taking place.____________________________

3. Si te Instrument Readings:

% 02 __________________1 % LELRadioact iv i ty ___________ H»U NONEOVA ____________ Other __

**. Was protective level up or"_dpwngrajjed: Yes_ / / _ No /X/Up or Down graded to: A /_/ B /_/ C /_/ D / /Why ____________________________________________________

A c t u a l Change: *General OS^H construction safety equipirien.tûsedj_____*Hard hats required in areas where overhead equipment used. *Respiratorused if vapors detected.

5. Respi ra tor Protective Equipment:

5CBA ._____________________Gas Kask ____________________ Canister Type _______Ultra Twin XX_______________ Cartr idge Type GMC-DDust Mask •_______________.

6. protect ive Clothing:

Coveralls_________ _iHard_ha±s—————————_ _________

•- Steel-toed boots

*In areas where overhead equipment used,

7. Field Mon i to r ing Equipment and

E. -Decontamination Procedures

1. At tach sketch showing Exclusion Zone, Contaminat ion Reduction Zone,Support Zone end numer! cally labelled Decont ami r.at ion Stat ions.

2. For each decontaminat ion stat ion note procedure and r-.ater I al s neededon an attachment page.

F. General T nforrr.ation _

1„ Team members

Dan Caplice OSC

Tom DeFouw Monitor

2. S i t e Safety Coord ina to r Tom DeFouw

G. Emergency I nforrr.at Ton

1. Have nearby people been evacuated: Yes / / NoIf yes ever how large an area

2. First Aid Ins truct ions Remove victim from area and call for helo.

3. Sources of helpKame Town Phone I-'ot i i

Yes

Fire Battle Creek Fire Department . Battle Creek 616-965-7371Police Battle Creek Police Dep't Battle Creek 616-965-3911Ambulance Battle Creek Fire Dep't Battle Creek 616-968-8108Hospi ta l Leila Hospital Battle Creek 616-962-8551Poison In fo rma t ion 1-800-442-4571AirportHelipor tS i t e Telephone Verona Pumping Stn. Battle Creek 616-966-3494 XKe = rest_Telephone_Verona Pumping Battle Creek 616-966-3494 X

-3-

D^trgtncy Telephone Numbers

VISION Hot t ineUE.STON NPOP. B. lederrr.an - NPMS. H. Gertz - HSOK e d t c a l EmergencyERA - ERT EmergencyChemtrecCentral Disease ControlKatTonal PesticideKealcal Emergency

215-52^-1925 or215^31-0797 or 079B or 632-3030201-665-0359 (Home}215-k&7-5-k1 (Kome)513-^21-3063 (Na t iona l Service) .201-321-6660800-^2^-9300^0^-329-3311 (day) ^0^323-3^^ (night)800-8^5-7633 . %

(Kegaonal Service)

(For HSO Use Only)

Prepared by Tom DeFouwDate &/9S/JM——

Approved byDate

Reviewed and Cor7LT.ents

Action Be,uUed7 Yes H No U If y«. v*.t action

FoUov-rup.carried out? Date

S. 0. Si gna ture Date

SUBSTANCE

Butanol

i-Butyl acetate

Ethyl acetate

DETECTIONMEDIA

MaterialSample

MaterxalSample

MaterialSample

TADLh 3

SUBSTANCES IDENTIFIED THROUGH SAMPLING, IDENTIFIABLE MARKINGS

BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

SAGINAW PAINT COMPANY, SAGINAW, MICHIGAN

SAMPLECONCENTRATION

4-15%(w/v)

9-13%(w/v)

9-15%(w/v)

FLASH lPOINT (°?) '

95-100

.'

72

THRESHOLDLIMIT

VALUE (ppm)

50(Skin)

1' 2 ' 3 '

150

400

IDL1I(ppm)1

BOOO

»2'3 COMMENT:;1

o Dcvncjcrous Cirnemits toxic Cumns.

o Reacts with oxulizcrs.o Trritatino to ryi-s, m)

throat; conical inf lot •nintion; headache; tUzzness; dermatitis; kcr-atitis.

10000 o Dangerous firn hazardwhen exposed to heat orElame.

o Reacts with strongalkalies, among othercompounds.

o Irritating to nyes,membranes, ror.pirntorysystem; heatloche, dconess; narcotic; vnporheavier than ,-n.r.

10000 o Dangerous fire hazardwhon exposed t;o heat orflame.

o Re.icts with strong acirnk 1 A lies, amoncj othercompounds.

o Irritating) to mucus su:fncns; mildly n.ircotir.conjunctunl i re i tat ionconical clouil i ii'i; dorn'.iLltis; congas1; ion of

U

SUBSTANCEDETECTIONMEDIA

SAMPLECONCENTRATION

FLASHPOINT (°F)1»2'3

THRESHOLDLIMIT IDLH

1,2,3,4VALUE (ppm) (ppm)

Ethyleneglycol

DrumMarkings

Unknown 232.240.8 50(Ceiling)

Graphite PackageMarkings

Unknown NA 15 millionparts percubic feet

NA

Isopropylalcohol

Material samples;Saginaw FireDepartment records(tank contents)

4-97%(w/v) 53 400 2QOOO

.cad carbonate, Package Unknown

COMMENTS1'**

liver and kidtvyr.;secondary an»'mi,i;cocytosis; cloudying; Catty c"of viscera.

o Moderate explos ion h.T/-.when exposed LO Clamo.

o Reacts with various copounds.

o Irritating to skin, nmucus membranes; incir",-causes CNS stinulationfollowed by deprnssionkidney damage,possibin

death; highly toxic inparticulate form uponinhalation.

o Tire risk.o Reacts with very stron

oxidizer,o Irritating to oyes;

coughing; dyr,pmi,i; hi isputum; fibroPis; nmpi,scma; lung modulation.

o Dangerous firo risk.0 Reacts with various c< \pounds.

o Mildly irritating to •nose, throat; tlrowsi ivdizziness; hf.icracking ski n;

Ci:.nn:f. ; n

dia r rhea ; n.irc.v. ic,-conical bur r , ' - : • ?damage.

o liich'.y toxic ^ .r

SUBSTANCEDETACTION

MEDIA

cSAMPLE

CONCENTRATIONFLASH

POINT (°F}1/2'3

Till*. .iliOLDLIMIT

VALUE {ppm)]IDLII(ppm] 1,2,3 COMMENT! 1,2,3

Lead sulfate

Methanol

PackageMarkings

(White Lead)

Saginaw FireDepartment records(tank contents)

Unknown

99.9"k(w/v) 52 200

thyl ethylketone

Saginaw FireDepartment records(tank contents)

Unknown 200

Napbha MaterialSamples

40-901(w/v) 78-109 100

— - o Strong irritant to oyi-f.skin, mucus membrane;.,

o Highly toxic.

25000 o Dangerous fire risk.o Hcacts with various com-

pounds .o Irritating to nuicus mri"-

brnncs; affects opticnerves, retina^ withoptic neuritis fnllowrviby atrophy-of opticnerve ; unconsc iour.ness ;sighing r e s p 11: n i; i o n ;cardiac depression;blurred.vision; photo-phobia; conjunctivitis;eye lesions; riry,crackerskin; coma; d'M'jh; oxi<;tion in body forms toxi •by-products fornwtklchyin-form ic acid; cum\ilativi>poison.

3000 o Dangerous firn risk.o Reacts with various com

pounds.o Strong irritant; head-

ache; dizziness; vomit-ing ; affects poripherainervous system, CMS;narcotic.

o Experimental teratogcn.

10000 o Moderate fire hazardwhen exposed Co heat orf l.imc.

o Irritating to py?r., no-.'1,skin; lirjli t hiMtl'-flnon--.;drowsiness,- cii-M--i.it 111 r, -.

r cSUUSTANCE

DETECTIONMEDIA

iitropropane DrumMarkings

Toluene Air monitoring,material samples

Xylene Air monitoring

SAMPLECONCENTRATION

FLASHPOINT ( °F)1 / 2 ' 3

THRESHOLDLIMIT

VALUE (ppm)IDLIIippm)

Unknown 82-96 25 2300

100-365 ppm inair,10-35l(w/v)

200 2000

19-41 ppm inair, 81-90

81-90 100 10000

' 3 COMMENTS1'2'3

drunkcnncsr,; h''.ulaclif.lack of rtppM: i i.i*; :.!*"'•,Inssness; inii n|"M ion;nausea; stenuor lour,breathing ; bin i :-.h L i mto skin; unconso IOUMV-to coma; highly toxic,

o Recognized carctnonm.

o Moderate fire risk, ex-plosion hazard whenshocked or heated.

0 Reacts with amines, i.uacids, alkali or,, oxidi.among othorn.

o Irritating to r-yes, -piratory systom; hcau.inausea; vomi t intj ; d i a r -rhea; anorexia; liverand kidney iiviuries;metiheinoglobincinia;cyanosis.

o Experimental carcinoM1

o Vapors can oxplodc iinxposed to flainn.

O HonctS with strontjoxidizcrs.

o Emits toxic vapoi~ij, \-\noated.

o ,v.ild chronic imL.ni'narcotic.

o Hay contain LOXLC be.impurities.

o Reacts witli strongoxidizcrs.

o Irritating to '"/cs, i,th roa t ; di7.;'.i n - - 1 . : , . n . < -

in Oil C ; d row;; i n,"::, ; i in

vacuolization ; .i

r

SUBSTANCE

Sine chromate

DETECTIONMEDIA

DrumMarkings

SAMPLECONCENTRATION

FLASHPOINT (°l*)l'2'3

Unknown

THRESHOLDLIMIT I D L I I

V A L U E ( p p m ) 1 / 2 ' 3 ' 4 fppm)

0.1 mg percubic meter

3 C O M M E N T S 1 ' 2 ' 3

nausea; vomi i: . i .n<i;abdominal pa in ; der-mat i t is ; a f f r e t s CNS,ryes, GI tr.-ict:, blood,liver, kidnoys, skin .

o Strong irr i tant .o Highly toxic v i ( i i n h a l -

ation, i ng e P t x o 11, i n -travenous routo.

1. SaX, N. Irving/ Dangerous Properties_o£_Industrial Materials^ Fifth Edition, Van Nastrand Reinhold Company,New York, 1979.

2. llawley, Gessner G., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Eighth Edition, Van Nastrand Reinhaold Company, New York, 1971

3. NIOSH, OSIIA, Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, DHEW (NIOSII) Publication No. 78-210, 1901.

A. American Conference of Governmental Hygienists, "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agentsin the Work Environment Adopted by ACGIH for 1983-84," ISBN: 0-936712-45-7, 1983.

Containinant

frequentjjf__0e t ect ed

1.1 Dichloroethane(1,1 DCA)

1.2 Dichloroethane(1,2 DCA)

1,1,1 Trichloroethane(1,1,1 TCA)

cis-1,2 Dichloroethylenetcis 1,2 DCE)

1,1 Dlchloroethylene(1,1 DCZ)

Trichloroethylene(TCZ)

Perchlorethylene(PCE)

gjjg -jciicany Detected

Hethylene Chloride* ;|i^

1,2 Dibromoethane* %,

Chloroform*

Benzene*

Ethylbenzene*

Toluene*

Xylene*

1,2 Dichlorcbutane*

Vinyl Chloride*

trans-1,2-dicliloroethylene*

Table 4-1CONTAMINANT CHARACTERISTICS

HighestObserved Long-Term

Concentration Health AdvisorytUg A) tug/11

ISO

229

11

62

1,000

75 "V

gV-" \ v".ji=

70

100**

Cancer Risk Level.-5 -610"3 (VJg/1) 10 q(Uq/l)

6.0

28.0

9.0

1.9

0.55

1.9

6.7

10.0

0.6

22

0.034

2.6

0.9

0.19

0.055**

0.19

0.67

* Sporadic, generally i-onrecurring con t _UT» in ants observed in sorse Verona wells.** T.-.ese levels '-ere established by the National Acadecy of Sciences. All others vere

taJ'.en fros the USZ?A and the Cancer Assessment Group.

C.7.91/048

1 ' ' " •

Aromatic Solvents

Benzene . . . . . . . .\Toluene . . . . ..;-.. . iXylene . . . . .... '; . '. «t:s • 100 . .. . . , . . . . . <6TS- 150 ; „ . / : . . . .4.TS - 1 . . . . . . . . . .TS . 2 . . . . , ; . . . . .TS - 2B : . . . . . . . . .TS - 3 . . . . . . . . V.3B HAN . . . . . . . . .

Aliphat ic Solvents^Hexane Hi-purity . .' . . £Hexane. . . . . . . . . ^Lfeptane . . . . . . . . £

Kerosene . . . . . . . . Lacquer Dilutent-LD NaphthaMineral Seal OH . . . . . .Mineral Spirits. . . . . . f^Mineral Spirits 66 . . . . AMineral Spirits Odorless. . ^Mineral Spirits LEP . . . ONaphtha- 140° F . . . . APetroleum Either . . . . £jRubber Solvent . . . . . <OTextile Spirits . . . . . . LAVM&P 50 Flash . . . . . AVM&P 260 F . . . . . . VM&P Hi Flash (80 Flash) dVM&P 20£F . . . . . . .VM&P 66 .-?<&. . . . . 4

AlcoholsButyl Alcohol . . . . . . XJ

! iIsobutyl Alcohol. . . . . ./

* A'sopropyl Alcohol 99% . . f-I sop ropy 1 Alcohol 91% . . /.Methanbl . . . . . . . . / -N. Propyl Alcohol . . . . XEthyl Alcohol #190 . . . .£*:thyl Alcohol #200 . . . ^

EstersEthyl Acetate 85%. . . . ./Ethyl Acetate 99% . . . . X* >Isopropyl Acetate . . . . /JV. Propyl Acetate . . '. .* AIsobutyl Acetate . ./.*r.-'<N. Butyl Acetatt . .". . /jAmyl Acetate . . . . ' • , . £GJycocel EE Acetate . . . *£

APIiravity

28.831.031.030.126.037.835.9 •

30.724.6

79.276.571.44356.537.749.4 '50.754.853.048.988.970.975.457.762.856.244.255.5

SPECGravity

0.8830.8700.870 ,0.8750.8980.835 '0.8450.838 «0.872 1.9065

0.672-• 0.6800.6970.81090.7520.82750.7820.7760.7590.7760.7840.6420.6990.6830.74790.72830.7530.8060.757

SPECIFICGravity

20°/20°C

0.8110.8030.786

0.793 .0.8050.8110.791

. •",'-..--. -'. •'. 0.88$j.

0.881 'v .,0-873

•& 0.876'•'' 0.974

LBS.Pw

7.367.257.257.257.486.957.036.997.267.44

5.59-5.665.796.566.266.8906.526.466.336.436.535.365.815.696.226.066.276.706.30

POUNDS

Gal@20°C

6.756.686.546.81

' . 6.60 ".6.70

6.66

7.387.50

.7.267.35

.7.26'•- 7.34

7.298.11

FLASHPt.°F

TCC' '

204084

114147

302781

140133

150

. 270105107128102144-50

526584

20558

D I S T I L L A T I O N °F

IBP <

176.2231282318364214268277355336

152151201.135020251831232534731336997

112149250263282422256

50%

176.4232283325376223276291378380

154152.9203.1420208558338354358332380107192161259273306469265

DP

176.6233285341406' -238302370402500

156157.5207.1525221614385375379347405138273188273284337516285

DISTILLATION RANGE°C

IBP

1171068180.4

• 64967474

72 '75.58595

112122140156

OP

11810783

65988080

787890

103. 119

128150166;

KBVilu*

,117' 105

98'-90

fc,938681

-75-7795

27.82828294424.835.933263532

342937293328.737

FLASHPoint°F

Op«n Cup

9988657660855045

28 .;31- •'.60 -

'•/.;" SB ..

* -06.V,:

A N I L I N EPoint

470m

50m

55.8"1

59.5m

XX

XX

XX

C-51m

144152160m

103179128146184154.0165.0

145.0153.3125158144161140.0

R E L A T I V EEvapt , Rit«

N. ButylAcmit-1

4.501.900.800.370.13

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

8.104.50

XX

3.90XX

0.210.13

XX

0.210.08

XX

8.801.201.000.03

XX

1.00RELATIVE RATE

EvaporationButyl Acstm«l

0.500.621.41.63.71.31.61.9

r : . - : - 4.2•' , 4.1:f': 3.1

2.31.5

• 1.00.70.2

.

k*L~-/>-^~7r,. .-.4/<Êtiiyl Keton.'.. .4; *"'M, uobutyl Ketone. . . .£*

fcffU1)1 .:• . /*Suobulyl Keton. . . . . ^^cetone Alcohol AF ACyclohexanone . . . . . . -^JMIAK . . . . - • • • • • • •Isophorone . . . . . . . . . .

GlycolsElhylene Glycol . . . . . . . .Diethylene Glycol . . . . . . .Propylene Glycol Ind. . . . . .Propylene Glycol USP . . . . .Dipropylene Glycol .'. . -.Hexylene Glycol. . . . . . . .Triethylene Glycol . . . . . . .

Glycol EthersGlycocel EM . . . . . . . . A

* AGlycocel EE . . . . . . . . AlGlycocel EB . . . . . . . .AGlycocel DM . . . . . . . . .Glycocel DE . . . . . . . . .Glycocel DB . . . . . . . . .

Chlorinated SolventsElhylene Dichloride . . . . . £ •Carbon Tetrachloride . . . . . .Methylene Chloride . . . . . .Perchlorethylene. . . . . . . .Trichlorethylene . . . . . . . .1, 1, 1 Trichloroelhane . . . .

Other ChemicalsNi-Par S-30 . . . . . . . . . ADibutyl Phthalate . . . . . ' . .Dioctyl Phthalate . . . . . . .Triethanolamine 99%. . ' . . . .Triclhanolamine 85%. . . . . .Formaldehyde 37% 25/25°C „ :<

7-8%Melhanol . . . . f.( ;'T\12-15% Methanol . . . '* . . !"N. Methyl 2 PyrToIidone ". . . .Styiene Monomer . . . . . . £ .Dimethyl Formamlde DMF . . £.

SPECIFICGravity .

20°/20°C.

0.7.910.8060.8020.8080.940 ,0.984

'' 0.8130.922

1.1151.1191.0381.0381.0240.9221.125

0.965 •0.931-0.902

. 1.028.990.956

.SPECIFICGravity

1.2531.5881.3171.6191.4591.319

SPECIFICGravity

20°/208C

.9221.048.986

1.12401.1220

- 1.111. 1.095.J 1.080y 1.03

0.90760.953

POUNDS-Ptr *

QH920°C .<

-6.66.71 .

,6.67-6.727.82

•7.896.777.68

9.299.328.648.638.527.699.39

8,037.757.508.568.247.53

LBS. PERGat.88°F

10.4513.311,0713.612.2510.97

POUNDSPer

GaH520°C

8.26' 8.72

8.21 .; 9.37

9.379.249.119.02

7.56i 7.92

• DISTILLATION RANGE°C

IBP .

5679

114 .163145154141215

196245.6186 i .186222 .196278

124,132169188198200

DP

6781

117. . 173

172- 156

. 148/ 220

•

206249188188236299300

125136173198204235


IBP

83.576.539.512086.572 : .

; DP

77.139.8122

• 87.988


IBP

119

380360360100. • -9794

204.0146152

DP

133340388.

97 »

204.8

154'

FLASHPoint°F •

Opan Cup

62674

120142130108

- -205

' /

240290225225280215330

115118158200209240

FLASHPoint0 F

Opan Cup

65NoneNoneNoneNoneNone

FLASHPointeF

Opan Cup

101'365. 425

365365177CC156130.' *

90153

RELATIVE RATE• 'Evaporation ..'

Butyl Ac«tat* - ^

7.7 *4.6 ..-.. • :1.60.20.20.230.55

.03

•

- • ' '

0.55 . -0.39

.068

.02

.013

.003

M.A.C..PPM

10025

500200200 '500

RELATIVE RATEEvaporation

Butyl Aeatm - 1

: 0.99

0.26

' lAUvtAftt^M*, fa A"?<-», st j6—*,s~... A

t <fc»i* h Mention the Yellow Pages wên <ou C-n -tie F r - ^ s L.S:?C J-

il

Leila Hospitaland

Health Center

228 BED, FULLY ACCREDITED, ACUTE CARE HOSPITALSPECIAL CARE UNIT OUTPATIENT SURGERYPEDIATRICS UNIT CARDIO-PULMONARYYOUNG ADULTS UNIT CHEMOTHERAPYONCOLOGY UNITSURGERY-RECOVERY PHARMACY

• PATHOLOGY• RADIOLOGY• PHYSICAL THERAPY

ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY • RETINAL PHOTOGRAPHY• RADIATION THERAPY

* EMERGENCY *PHYSICIAN ON DUTY 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK IN EMERGENCY-TRAUMA CENTER

pwtfJ**! 6w«l1>

CONDUCTED BY SISTERS OF MERCY

* VISITING HOURS(14 YEARS OR OLDER)

2PM - 8PM

PEDIATRICS8AM to 12:30PMand 3PM to 8PM

300 NORTH AVENUE - BATTLE CREEK MICHIGAN 49016

phonefor that

Now look

A CONSUMER SHOPPING TIPPrice variation in first quality towels and sheets is often caused bydifferences in styling, such as color and design. When shopping /octowels, remember that more expensive towels are thick, firmly1

woven and usually cue larger than cheaper ones. Source: BetterBusiness Bureau.*MCHM Mtar SmiMa Jfunta

22-3

APPENDIX V.

Community Relations Plan

C86T 'Zl

NVOIHDIW

NVldSNOIXV73H XXINflWWOD

1VNIJ

J.HIHIOJIA

11IHKWIO

r ( > < ) • ) i o »(i'ON DVNINO.)

II 3NOZ

(1IJ W3H)

UOIJP8lJSOAU|

NOISIAKIIOMINO ) IMSSnCKlMVWII

V,•izO

I

III

<

\IIII

IIIIII

L

1L

FINAL

COMMUNITY RELATIONSPLAN

BATTLE CREEK SITEBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

I

L

August 12, 1983

EPA 07.5V51.0

PD224.022.1

CH2MIIHILL

engineersplannerseconomistsscientists

August 15, 1983

W65951.00

Mr. Steve OstrodkaU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 5230 South DearbornChicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Steve:

Subject: Final Community Relations Plan,Battle Creek, Michigan Site

Enclosed are two (2) copies of the Final Community RelationsPlan for the Battle Creek, Michigan site. It reflects thecomments I received from you and Marcia last week.

If you have any questions, please give me a call.

Sincerely,

Nancy R. TuorPlanning Discipline ManagerEnclosures

cc: Mike Harris, GLORick Marotte, DENSteve Hoffman, SEAMary Ryan, EPANancy Willis, EPAAndrew Hogarth, MDNRBob D'Agostaro, WDCDiane Shoup, WDC

PD224.027.1Portland Offie*2020 S.W. Fourth Avenut, 2nd Floor, Portland, Orflfon 97201 503/224-9190 TELEX. 360103 CH2M PTL

r

L1frL

COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANBATTLE CREEK SITE

BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN

The Community Relation* Flan for the Battle Creek site hasbeen prepared in two sections. The first section containsthe community relations assessment, which presents the sitebackground and discusses the objectives and techniques ofthe Community Relations Plan. A community relations assess-ment was first prepared for the Battle Creek site in January1983, based on discussions with U.S. EPA Region 5 and theMichigan Department of Natural Resources. Onsite interviewswere conducted in June, 1983. The following individualswere contacted:

I e Mr. Larry Osborne, City of Battle Creek, Departmentof Public Works

e

j e Ruffin Harris and Tricia Hubbard, Hazardous Wastei j Organizing Alliance

• Russell Clutter, Pennfield Township Supervisor

e Gloria Maichele and Russell Schelles, Emmett Town-ship Staff

• Ted Havens, Calhoun County Health Department

Based on these local interviews, the assessment has beenrevised to reflect current community issues and concerns.

The second section of the Community Relations Plan outlinesimplementation activities, including a work plan, personnelallocations, and schedule. Primary responsibility for im-plementation of the Community Relations Plan will rest withU.S. EPA Region 5.

1.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS ASSESSMENT

1.1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS BACKGROUND

In 1981, during routine testing of private water supplies,the Calhoun County Health Department discovered that thecity water supply was contaminated with volatile hydrocar-bons. Subsequent testing revealed that one-half of the citywells located in the Verona well field and a large number ofprivate wells in the residential area southwest of the wellfield were contaminated. The Verona well field providespotable water to the 35,000 residents of the City of Battle

PD224.004.1

IIIILt

L

Creek, part of the water supply for two major food process-ing plants, the total water supply for a third food process-ing plant and a variety of other commercial and industrialuses.

The predominant contaminants identified were trichloroethy-lene (TCE), Cis-1, 2 dichloroethylene, and per-or tetrachloroe-thylene (PCE). Concentrations of these substances in thecontaminated city wells are generally low (1 to 100 ug/1) ,and wells with contaminant levels approaching 100 ug/1 havebeen shut down. Several of the private wells have contamina-tion levels up to 1,000 ug/1, and one well recorded a dich-loroethylene concentration of 3,900 ug/1.

1.1.1 History of Community Relations Activities

In routine testing, the Calhoun County Health Departmentdiscovered contaminated water in the City of Battle Creekwater supply in August 1981. The Health Department retestedprior to notifying the city of the contamination in September1981. All city wells were then sampled. Contaminated wellswere taken off line and municipal and industrial water needswere supplied from the remaining wells.

In October 1981, the Calhoun County Health Department re-quested assistance from the Michigan Department of PublicHealth to establish a sampling program in the residentialarea southwest of the city well field. This area is servedby private residential wells. Sampling began in October1981, and continued through 1982. Approximately 100 privatewells were tested.

Letters were written to affected residents outlining thesampling results. Residents with contaminated wells wereadvised to refrain from drinking, cooking, or bathing withtheir water. Letters describing the test results were mailedout from late 1981 to late 1982.

The letters prompted calls to the Michigan Department ofPublic Health and the Calhoun County Health Department foradditional information. Residents interviewed in June 1983expressed frustration with their inability to reach the ap-propriate state officials and with the lack of information.Some alarmed residents requested sampling of their privatewells and were reportedly told it would be 6-8 months beforesamples could be taken due to the current workload.

When private well contamination became evident, the City ofBattle Creek offered treatment plant water to affected resi-dents. Due to limited staff, water was available only dur-ing regular working hours (9:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M., Monday throughFriday). Many residents work during the day and were notable to obtain water during those hours.

PD224.004.2

III

ft

In December 1981, Pennfield and Emmett Townships began investi-gating a grant to extend city waterlines into the affectedresidential areas. A grant has since been received and con-struction is scheduled to begin in August, with completionscheduled for November 1983. Since residents of the affectedarea are generally classified as having low to moderate in-comes, a special construction grant allows connection of thewater line to each residence. Residents will be responsiblefor the cost of hook-up to their interior plumbing.

Residents received no further communication from state orcounty agencies until November 1982, when a bottled waterprogram was established by the Michigan Department ofNatural Resources. Mailers were sent to approximately 80households announcing the bottled water program. Slightlyless than half of the affected households chose to parti-cipate in the bottled water program. Some residents believethis was due to the feeling that no real problem existed.They point to the fact that almost a year lapsed between thediscovery of the first contaminated well and the establish-ment of the bottled water program.

The bottled water program was administered by MDNR from late1982 to July 1983. EPA then established an expanded bottledwater program which has been made available to over 200 house-holds.

During late 1982, the Michigan Department of Public Healthmailed a newsletter to approximately 300 households in theaffected area of Emmett and Pennfield Townships. The news-letter provided general information on the contaminationproblem and upcoming activities. Only a few residents re-ported receipt of the newsletter.

In February 1982, the City of Battle Creek formed a taskforce of concerned public agencies and affected industrialwater users. Public members include the Michigan Departmentof Public Health and Department of Natural Resources, theU.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, the Calhoun County Health Department, and the Cityof Battle Creek. Industrial representatives include threemajor cereal-producing companies—Kellogg, Post and RalstonPurina. In June 1983, Nick Mathews, a resident of the af-fected area was placed on the task force at the request ofan ad hoc group that had recently formed in the affectedarea outside the city limits.

In February 1983, the Battle Creek Department of Public Workssponsored a workshop for local officials and the generalpublic on the effect of the contamination on the Verona wellfield. The workshop was announced in the daily newspaper.Attendance was small, primarily limited to members of theCity Commission and the task force.

PD224.004.3

LL

rL

In April 1983, representatives of the Hazardous Waste Organiz-ing Alliance arrived in Battle Creek to organize residentsaffected by the contamination. They have centered theirefforts in the residential area southwest of the well field.An ad hoc group of residents has been organized and has becomeactively involved in the contamination problem. The ad hocgroup began their activities by seeking access to availableinformation and have used the Freedom of Information Act toobtain requested materials. The group has met with the CalhounCounty Health Department, Michigan Department of Public Health,Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Governor's staffwithin the last few months.

On June 10, 1983 about 30 members of the ad hoc group tra-veled to Lansing to demand a meeting with the Governor.Their goal was to receive state assistance in setting upfacilities for community showers since they had been advisednot to use their water for bathing. The Governor did notmeet with them and the group stated their intent to wait inhis office until they could see him. Aides spoke with themduring the day, but were not well received. The group wasremoved from the Governor's office by the Michigan StatePolice.

On June 13, 1983 the Governor visited Battle Creek and walkedthrough the affected area. He met with selected officialsand members of the press. On the same day, State Representa-tive Richard Fitzpatrick set up a meeting between the Governor'sstaff, state and federal agency personnel, and a limitednumber of local residents for Tuesday, June 14th. The meetingresulted in state action to set up acceptable shower facilities.

The ad hoc group, while not representative of all affectedr residents, is active and well organized. They meet frequentlyand are actively recruiting additional members. They havetraveled to Lansing several times to obtain information andto meet with state agency personnel.

Television coverage has been provided by a local station(WVHQ), a Kalamazoo station (WKZO) and a Grand Rapids sta-tion (WVTV). Radio coverage has been provided by stationsWBCK, WKNR and WELL in Battle Creek. The Enquirer and News,a local daily newspaper, has provided extensive coverage.Press and media coverage was heavy when the contaminationwas initially discovered. Little additional coverage oc-curred until the ad hoc group was organized in May 1983.

Recent activities by residents have also prompted interestby U.S. Congressman Howard Wolpey and State RepresentativeRichard Fitzpatrick.

PD224.004.4

IiLILI

rL

1.1.2 Community Relations Issues and Participants

Local Residents

A 2-hour interview was held on June 16, 1983 with members ofthe ad hoc resident group. Two members of the HazardousWaste Organizing Alliance also participated in the inter-view. The issues outlined below are a summary of the topicsdiscussed during that interview. They reflect the percep-tions and attitudes of this group of residents. While thisad hoc group does not represent all of the affected residents,they are the only group that has come forward requestingaction and additional information.

e Control of Decisions that Affect Residents

The group of local residents expressed extreme frustrationwith the slowness of government response and the inabilityto gain access to project information, unless Freedom ofInformation Act requests were made. They believe that thestate's testing program has been very slow and cite caseswhen residents who requested testing were told that it wouldbe 6 to 8 months before their wells could be sampled. Yet,the residents maintain that the earlier bottled water pro-gram was available only after well sampling had occurred.(The residents acknowledge that this problem has been solvedby the recent EPA bottled water program which will provideunlimited bottled water to residents within a larger geo-graphic area.)

This group of residents believes that the contamination pro-blem is a severe one and doesn't understand why it took ayear to set up the original bottled water program. Theyfeel that people have continued to use contaminated privatewells because they don't believe the contamination is serious.They believe that government agencies are responsible forthat lack of concern since the agencies made only limitedefforts to notify people of the possible risks associatedwith the contamination. These residents believe that thelow response to the earlier bottled water program and thecurrent disinterest in hooking up to the city water systemis a result of this lack of communication.

These residents expressed frustration with their inabilityto gain access to information. They believe that theirearly requests for additional information were not takenseriously by state and county officials. The group recountedinstances of unanswered phone calls and unsuccessful tripsto the county health department in their attempts to gainadditional information after the initial well test resultswere received. Their recent efforts to obtain technicalinformation from agency files have been more successful.The residents attribute this success to their willingness touse the Freedom of Information Act.

PD224.004.5

ri

Their perception that the government has been slow to actand has withheld information has resulted in a severe mis-trust of government officials and of the information theyare now providing. As a result, they want a direct link toall data and analysis that is generated during the RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study.

In summary/ this group of residents is skeptical of the in-formation provided by the participating government agencies.They believe that government response has been inadequateand downplays the severity of the contamination problem.These residents believe that the problem is severe and theywant an active role in the selection of the remedial action.

• Health Effects

Residents identified three short-term priorities during theJune, 1983 interview: 1) a comprehensive bottled water pro-gram, 2) an acceptable showering facility, and 3) a healtheffects study. The bottled water program and public showerfacility have since been provided. The Michigan Departmentof Public Health has drafted a health effects survey fordistribution in the affected area. The ad hoc group hasexpressed concern about the content of the survey and be-lieve that it has been designed to prove that no problemexists. The Michigan Department of Public Health held ameeting on August 3rd to discuss the health effects surveywith interested residents. The draft survey has also beensubmitted to U.S. EPA and the Centers for Disease Control.

e Enforcement

The ad hoc group expressed strong concern about the lack ofenforcement action against the pollution sources. They don'tunderstand why the Raymond Landfill, which is unlicensed, isstill operating after 7 years of state attempts to close itdown. They believe this lack of government action furtherdemonstrates a lack of concern. (On August 9, 1983, theowner of the Raymond Landfill voluntarily suspended operationsFinal closure plans are currently being discussed with MDNR.)

• Secondary Contamination Impact

Residents have expressed concern that their interior plumb-ing and appliances (such as washing machines and hot waterheaters) are contaminated and must be replaced. They alsobelieve that the soils are contaminated and that their pro-perty is, therefore, worthless. They are concerned aboutrelease of contaminants when the water pipeline trenches aredug. They fear that older residents and young children mayhave health problems as a result of these potential releases.(At a public meeting held July 19, U.S. EPA agreed to conductair monitoring during construction of the water line.)

PD224.004.6

Based on their understanding of local geologic and ground-water conditions, these residents believe that the Veronawell field must be abandoned. They believe that the citywater is currently contaminated and that construction of anew well field will be required.

City of Battle Creek

Little interest has been expressed by residents of the Cityof Battle Creek. Soon after the contamination was discovered,the city received a number of phone calls from residents.No significant local interest has appeared since a number of

f city wells were taken off-line. In 1982, the City began a[ joint study with the U.S. Geological Survey to determine the

hydrogeological conditions affecting the well field.

Once the affected residential areas have been hooked up tothe city water system, the City of Battle Creek could become

* the focus of their information requests and concerns.

Calhoun County Health Department

The Calhoun County Health Department has been the lead localagency and has, therefore, been the target of much of thelocal residents' frustrations. The County Health Departmenthas worked closely with the Michigan Department of PublicHealth. The county believes that they are now receiving theneeded assistance from MDPH and U.S. EPA and is interestedin maintaining their lead role.

Emmett and Pennfield Townships• ^ • ^ ~~~ " ' - - -• -The affected residential wells are located in Emmett and

i Pennfield Townships. In December, 1981, three months afteri the contamination was discovered, the township supervisors

began to pursue connection of the area to the City of BattleCreek's water system. Construction of that extension beganAugust 8, 1983.r

tThe townships have received information requests and com-plaints from affected residents. They are sensitive to theseconcerns, but feel unprepared to answer the technical questionsThe townships have expressed a need for a technically credibleinformation source to answer the residents' many questions.They are willing to play an on-going role, but feel that abetter information network is needed so that the townshipscan either answer local questions or refer people to reliableinformation sources. (Information repositories have recentlybeen established at the township offices.)

State of Michigan

The Michigan Department of Public Health and Department ofNatural Resources have participated in activities related to

PD224.004.7

the Battle Creek site. All residential well testing hasbeen conducted by the Department of Public Health. A lackof staff resources has impacted their ability to sample allof the potentially affected wells. The Department of PublicHealth is currently preparing a fact sheet that describesthe contaminants that have been found in the residentialwells. They are also preparing a health effects survey.

Industrial Users

Three major cereal producers (Kellogg, Post and Ralston Purina)obtain industrial process water from area ground water sources.

( Due to the presence of low levels of contamination in theirprivate wells, Kellogg'• has now switched to the city watersupply. These industrial users have participated in the

I task force established by the City of Battle Creek. Theyare coordinating their sampling program with the city andwill follow future remedial actions closely.

f In summary, the ad hoc local resident group has identified aI number of issues and concerns which they want addressed by

the participating local, state and federal agencies. Futuref remedial activities need to involve the currently organizedI resident group and all other interested citizens who are

identified during study activities. It is important thatall participants share information so that consistent, fac-

| tual information can be provided to all interested parties.

1.2 COMMUNITY RELATIONS OBJECTIVES AND TECHNIQUES

1.2.1 Community Relations Objectives

e Establish open, two-way communication between thelocal residents and the EPA remedial action team.

e Share technical information among the remedialaction team, residents, affected industries, andparticipating local and state agencies (CalhounCounty, City of Battle Creek, Emmett Township,Pennfield Township, Michigan Department of NaturalResources and Michigan Department of Public Health.)

e Provide a central information source for residentsand local officials to receive information on healtheffects, site activities, project status and relatedquestions.

• Provide residents, affected agencies, elected offi-cials and media with accurate, timely informationregarding the objectives, progress and findings ofthe Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

Lf

PD224.004.8

L

• Provide summaries of technical study results in aform that is useful to residents and elected of-ficials.

e Provide all interested parties an opportunity toreview the Rl/FS and comment on the remedial actionalternatives. A three week public comment periodwill be provided. Two week notice prior to thebeginning of the comment period will be given.

• Identify interested citizens in both the City ofBattle Creek and the affected incorporated areawho wish to be routinely informed of study pro-gress and findings.

e Monitor changes in community concerns as the Re-medial Investigation/Feasibility Study progresses.This will be particularly important if studiesshow a significant potential for long-term con-tamination of the Verona well-field.

1.2.2 Community Relations Techniques

Because of the current level of public interest, initial EPAactions at the site are very important. Early provision ofaccurate information and establishment of two-way communica-tion with residents is essential if a long-term positiveworking relationship is to exist. An early meeting with thead hoc group should occur. However, it is also necessary todetermine whether other residents, both within the City ofBattle Creek and the unincorporated areas, also desire active *involvement. Once the residents northeast of the city areconnected to the city water system, short term concerns shouldbe resolved. However, long-term concerns about the city'swater supply can be expected to remain.

1. Establish Initial EPA Presence and Contacts.

EPA's on-scene coordinator and community relations coordinatorwill visit Battle Creek at the earliest possible time. Theywill meet with interested groups and individuals. Specifically,briefings will be scheduled with the ad hoc group, CalhounCounty, City of Battle Creek, Emmett Township, PennfieldTownship, and the local media.

Representatives from EPA will be prepared to answer ques-tions regarding chemical constituents, health effects, de-tails of hook-up to the city water system, and activitiesplanned during the RI/FS. EPA representatives will also beprepared to discuss specifically how residents and officialscan participate in the upcoming remedial activities.

PD224.004.9

rI:IL

L

2. Establish Central Information Contact and LocalRepositories.

Information on site activities is currently splintered, sinceeach government agency has retained responsibility for dif-ferent activities. This has led to public confusion and aperception that nothing is being done. EPA will set up acentral contact point where residents and officials can obtaininformation. The contact point will be either the on-scenecoordinator or the community relations coordinator. Thisperson will serve as a clearinghouse to ensure that localconcerns are addressed and that requested information isprovided. Coordination with local officials and partici-pating agencies will be necessary to assure that consistentinformation is provided to all interested residents, press,and agencies.

Local information repositories will be set up at the citylibrary, and the Emmett and Pennfield township offices.Existing documents will be placed in the repository, includ-ing the RAMP and other technical reports.

3. Identify Concerned Public and Establish MailingList

A preliminary project mailing list has been prepared by U.S.EPA. This list is composed primarily of people living inthe unincorporated area and will be expanded to include otherinterested residents. A display ad will be placed in thelocal newspaper announcing the start-up of remedial actions.A clip out section will be attached that can be mailed infor addition to the project mailing list. The ad will alsoinclude the EPA contact person and the location of the localrepositories. Currently, interest in the project appears tobe limited to the residents whose private wells have beenaffected. It is important to reach residents within theCity of Battle Creek as well, to ensure them an opportunityto participate in the remedial activities.

4. Information Updates/Newletters

Information updates will be prepared at regular intervalsthroughout the RI/FS process. These updates will provideinformation on upcoming activities, study results, enforce-ment action and other items of interest. The updates willalso be an educational tool to describe the technical issuessurrounding site clean-up. For example, one issue will de-scribe local geologic conditions and how they impact ground-water flow. The purpose of these updates will be two-fold:1) to provide interested residents with information on up-coming activities, and 2) to educate residents on the tech-nical aspects of the project so that they are better preparedto review and comment on the RI/FS results.

PD224.004.10

5. Small Neighborhood Meetings

EPA may schedule small neighborhood meetings to occur through-out the RI/FS process* The purpose of these meetings willbe to share study information and to provide an opportunityfor questions and comments. Attendance will generally includethe EPA on-scene coordinator and community relations coordi-nator. Contractor assistance may also be required to sharespecific technical information. Meetings should be limitedto about 20 persons to allow easy exchange of information.

4 The assistance of active residents will be requested to hostthe meetings and to identify residents who may wish to attend.

I A notice of upcoming meetings will be included in the infor-I mation updates.

6. Public Meetings

I The need for open public meetings may be replaced by thesmall neighborhood meetings outlined above. The need for

f public meetings must be carefully evaluated throughout thei study process. At the outset, it is advisable to hold a

public information meeting to describe upcoming activities,project status and the RI/FS schedule and content. This

i public meeting will be preceded by briefings with residents,L officials and agency staff.

Future public meetings may also be scheduled at the conclu-sion of the Remedial Investigation and the Feasibility Study.The need for these meetings will be determined by the levelof public concern and the appropriateness of this technique.

7. Press Releases

Press releases will be issued as appropriate throughout remedialactivities. At a minimum, press releases will be issued atthe following times:

• To announce the public information meeting, EPAinformation contacts and locations of the informationrepository

e When significant test or study results are avail-able

e At the completion of the feasibility study to iden-tify alternative remedial actions and to announcethe public comment period

Press briefings will accompany press releases when signifi-cant issues are concerned or when highly technical data ispresented. As outlined in Technique 1, initial contact withthe media will occur early in the project.

PD224.004.il

i

[IiI

I

8. Technical Summaries

In order for residents to respond usefully to proposed alter-natives, they must be able to understand the technical infor-mation. This understanding must be built throughout theRI/FS process. A series of technical summaries describingexisting conditions, testing processes and results, and dataanalysis will be prepared and distributed. These summarieswill present the technical information in a way that can beunderstood and evaluated by residents and officials. Tech-nical summaries will be incorporated in information updates.Project documents such as the Remedial Investigation reportand the Feasibility Study will be accompanied by a publicsummary for use by interested parties. These technical sum-maries will be clear, accurate descriptions of study results,prepared in a style and format that encourage public use andunderstanding.

9. Local Briefings

Local officials, agency staff, and representatives of citi-zen interest groups will be routinely briefed on study acti-vities and results. These briefings will occur by telephoneor in person during site visits.

10. Public Comment Period

A three-week comment period will be provided after releaseof the feasibility study. Notice of the comment period andof the availability of the feasibility study will be issuedtwo weeks before the comment period begins. The feasibilitystudy and technical summary will be made available at thelocal information repositories and other locations as appro-priate .

PD224.004.12

rI.IIIL

2.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS WORK PLAN

2.1 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 Comrouni ty Meetings

Meeting A: July 1983. Meetings with ad hoc resident groupto discuss upcoming activities.

Meeting B: Late August-early September 1983. General pub-lic meeting to discuss scheduled RI/FS activi-ties, Superfund program, and related issues.

Meeting C: June, 1984. General public meeting to discussthe outcome of the remedial investigation.

Meeting 0: August, 1984. General public meeting to dis-cuss the results of the feasibility study.

In addition, small information meetings with concerned resi-dents will be held as appropriate. The EPA on-scene coor-dinator will also participate on the Task Force that hasbeen established by the City of Battle Creek.

2.1.2 Press Releases/Advisories

Press Release A: August-September 1983. To announce publicmeeting B.

Press Release B: June, 1984. To announce public meeting Cto discuss the results of the remedialinvestigation.

Press Release C: July-August, 1984. To announce the avail-ability of the feasibility study, thedates of the public comment period, andpublic meeting D.

Other press releases and/or advisories will be issued asappropriate throughout the RI/FS process. Activities whichcould require press releases include on-site activities,test results or enforcement actions.

2.1.3 Information Updates/Newsletters

Newsletter A: August-September 1983. The first issue of anewsletter/information update will be issuedin August or early September 1983. It willdescribe upcoming activities and project status

Newsletters B,C, D, & £: News letters /information updates will be pub-

lished as appropriate during the RI/FS process.

PD224.004.13

ri

rrc

It is estimated that approximately 6 issueswill be published. Publication dates willvary depending upon the available information.

Newsletter F: August-September, 1984. A newsletter/infor-mation update will be published at the con-clusion of the RI/FS to describe the recordof decision and activities associated withthe design phase.

2.1.4 Technical Summaries

Summary A: November, 1983. To describe the hydrogeologicconditions in the area and how they effectground water flow.

Summary B: February, 1984. To describe early test re-sults.

Summary C: May, 1984. To supplement the remedial in-vestigation report.

Summary D: July, 1984. To supplement the feasibilitystudy.

2.1.5 Information Briefings

Ongoing: Keep officials and citizen groups briefed as RI/FSprogresses.

2.1.6 Response to Media and Citizen Inquiries

Ongoing: Respond to questions and inquiries from media andconcerned citizens.

Responsiveness Summary: Provide record of comments receivedand how they were incorporated inthe decision.

2.1.7 Public Comment Period

Period A: July-August, 1984. A three week public commentperiod will be provided for review of the feasi-bility study.

2.1.8 Other Activities

Newspaper Ads

Newspaper Ad A: August-September, 1983. To announce publicmeeting B, to request additions to the proj-ect mailing list and to identify the loca-tion of the information repositories.

PD224.004.14

I

I

Newspaper Ad B: June, 1984. To announce public meeting C.

Newspaper Ad C: August, 1984. To announce the public com-ment period, information availability andpublic meeting D.

Information Repository

August, 1983. Information respositories will be establishedat the Battle Creek City library and at the Emmett and Penn-field Township offices. Reports and other technical materialwill be placed in these repositories as it becomes available.

Project Mailing List

August-September, 1983. A project mailing list will be pre-pared based on the current bottled water program mailinglist and the response to newspaper ad A. The mailing listwill be updated as needed throughout the RI/FS.

Meeting Flyers

As appropriate, meeting flyers will be distributed to notifycitizens and local officials of upcoming meetings.

2.2 STAFFING PLAN

2.2.1 Community Meetings

U.S. EPA Work Hours

Community Relations Specialist 120On-Scene Coordinator 90

Contractor Support

Community Relations Specialist 44Graphics 88

2.2.2 Press Releases/Advisories

U.S. EPA Work Hours

Press Officier 27Community Relations Specialist 3

2.2.3 Information Updates/Newsletters

U.S. EPA


PD224.004.15

T

Contractor Support

Community Relations Specialist 58Graphics 18Clerical 24

2.2.4 Technical Summaries


Contractor Support


2.2.5 Information Briefings

U.S. EPA

Community Relations Specialist—ONGOINGOn-Scene Coordinator—ONGOING

2.2.6 Response to Media and Citizen Inquiries

U.S. EPA

Community Relations Specialist—ONGOINGOn-Scene Coordinator—ONGOINGPress Officer—ONGOING

2.2.7 Public Comment Period

U.S. EPA Work Hours


2.2.8 Other Activities (newspaper ads, informationrepository, project mailing list and meetingflyers)

U.S. EPA Work Hours

Community Relations Specialist 24

Contractor Support Work Hours


PD224.004.16

.-

I

2.2.9 Summary

U.S. EPA Work Hours

Community Relations Specialist 191On-Scenc Coordinator 118Press Officer 27

Contractor Support


PD224.004.17

I

IIL

BATTLE CREEK SITE INITIAL CONTACT LIST

Ted HavensCalhoun County Health Department190 E. MichiganBattle Creek, Michigan616-966-1244

Cyril Bachorik, SupervisorAlvna Maichele, ClerkRussell Schelles, EngineerEmmett Township616-968-0241

Russ ClutterPerm fieId Township Supervisor20260 M (Route) 66Battle Creek, Michigan616-968-8547

Larry OsborneDirector, Department of Public WorksCity of Battle CreekBattle Creek, Michigan616-966-3300

Gordon OliverMichigan Department of Public Health3500 N. Logan, P.O. Box 30035Lansing, Michigan 48909517-373-1376

PD224.004.18

BATTLE CREEK COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLAN SCHEDULE

Activity

CoMMinltyMeetings

Press Release/Advisories

InformationUpdates/Newsletters

TechnicalSummaries

InformationBriefings

Response toInquiries

Public CommentPeriod

Newspaper AdsInformationRepository

Hailing ListMeeting Flyers

_____________1983_______________ ___________________1984___________________July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept,

'small meetings as appropriate—————

•—————as needed—————————————

———— B, C, D, E —— as appropriate --——•—

A B

.—————————————————————————— ON GOING ——

—————————————————————————— ON GOING ——

ON GOING •ON GOING -as needed

Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study

PD224.035.1

APPENDIX W

Correspondence and Conversation Documentation

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME DATE

TYPEQ VISIT

Location of Visit/Confvranct:

(3 CONFERENCE,

rB^TELEPHONEWflNCOMlNG

' ÔUTGOINGNAME OF I»EMSON(S> CONTACTED OR IN CONTACTWITH YOU

OMGANIZATION {Office. t»t*.. bortau, TELEPHONC NO.Me.)

ROUTING

NAME/SrMBOl. i "iN-T

-SUMMARY.•&*

&V-. -• 'r-

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OP PCftftON DOCUMENTING CONVCMSATION SIONATUK DATE

ACTION TAKEN

CONVEMATfOf* RECORD DO>MITMCNT Of DCPCNSC


OTYPE

Q VISIT

Location of V««rt/Corrf»r»net:

Q CONFERENCE [3 TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGÔUTGOING

NAME OF FtMSON(S) CONTACTED OH IN CONTACTWITH VOU

SUBJECT

SUMMARY

ORGANIZATION (Offlo. d*pt.. burwu. TELEPHONE HO.

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL i INT

J?*"^ fS94?iSl/0*S

<3cmr -ta&tr&yACTION REQUIRED su&t/ d& '?^*e&tk'p JtZu* JS02&&

NAME OF rtHSON OOCUMCNTINQ CONVCMUTION DATE

ACTION TAKEN r

I JKMATURI TITU MTC

..... ...... ,......,- CONVDWATIOII RECOMO DCPAKTMCNT OF OCFCNSE


—^TYPE

^"———- I w»*l

VISIT CONFERENCE

Location of Vitit/Conftftnct:

. ^^gf ELEPHONE

Q INCOMING^2?OUTGOING

NAME Of PENSON(S) CONTACT£D Off IN CONTACTWITH YOU

ORGANIZATION (Offlct. dtot.. buraau. TELEPHONE

ROUTING

NAMC/SVMBOL ! INT~

SUMMARY

Zz

ACTION REQUIRED

" C/

NAME OF KMON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION StONATUMC DATE

ACTION TAKEN '

( , loHATUM tint OATt

*°271"101 . , . „- f . 6. P . O .CONVERSATION RECORD OF


o:TYPEQ VISIT

Location of Viftit/Conftranct:

D CONFERENCE TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

NAME OF PERSON (S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACTWITH YOU

SUBJECT

SUMMARY

ORGANIZATION (Offlet. <Mpt.. buruu. TELEPHONE NO.

//*T

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL I INT

?> tif fr*

'

ACTION REQUIRED

jp -•™*r . j *

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIONATUKC

ACTION TAKEN

( . JlNATURK TTTLC DATE

*""-"" .„.,. ...... ,.„.,.,.„„.„, CONVEMATION RECORD 271 («-7«DCPARTMCNT OF DCFENtE

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME

OD VISIT

Location of VfeR/Confmnet:

Q CONFERENCE

NAME OF PEMON(» CONTACTB) Oil IN CONTACTWTTH YOU

TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

JQrOUTQOINGOMAMUATIQN (Office, dvpt- burMU. TCLCPHONC NO1.

SUBJECT

MOUTIHO

NAMC/SYMIOt IMT

SUMMARY

ACTION KCQUIREO

NAMI OF FCMON DOCUMCNTINO COKVEHSATK)H MONATUMC DAT!

ACTION TAKEN

/ ^ llOMATUIIt TTTU MT1

..... ..P... ,.„.,„..,.,.,.. HEOMO DCfMTMOfT Of OCFEMSC


Q VISIT CONFCKCNCE 'TELEPHONE

LouMon o*INCOMINGOUTDOING

NAME Of PERSONA) CONTAGTCD OB IN CONTACTWITH YOU

ORGANIZATION (0*c», d*«t.. TELEPHONE MO:

NAMC/»YMiOL

SUMMARY

(7

6tS/ ^*^

ACTION RCQUIREO

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION StONATUM

ACTION TAKEN '

TUMK nru OATI

......OPTIONAL roam tnji*L9>OP

CONVERSATION RECORD """TYPE \D VISIT rj

Location of Visit /Conftrtnct:NAME Or PCKSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT

^CONFERENCE Q TELEPHONEQ INCOMING[3 OUTGOING

ORGANIZATION (Offict. d«pt.. burvcu.•te.)

TELEPHONE HO.

SUBJECT / ( . yf S] "" £L/&t*&wC' s^^j/j&Zr

&

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

7^ /*?*

& £2**AarjC0Xs&/&* "

ACTION REQUIRED

NAMC Or PCfttON OOCUMCNTING CONVERSATION •WNATURC

"ACTION TAKEN /

>TUM TITLE DATE

8W7I~101 CONVW3AHON RECORD OPTIONAL PO«M 271 (12-76)DEMMTMCNT OF OCFENSC

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME DATC

oTYPEQ VISIT CONFERENCE

Location of Visit/Confvrtnet:Q INCOMING

NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OK IN CONTACTWITH VOO

ORGANIZATION <0ffic*. <Mt>t.. bureau. TELEPHONE NO:

SUBJECT

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL I INT

SUMMARY

#4r

_.. _ ... î- *^-— • / 76 /£&£"&.

7ACTION REQUIRED VNAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE

ACTION TAKEN

TfTU DATE

90271-101 CONVERSATION RECORD OmOMALocnurrwcNT OF OCFENK

o CONVERSATION RECORD TIME

Q VISIT

Locctton of VWC/Conf«r*net:

Q CONFERENCE fTELEPHONEr^

J OUTOOINGNAME OF PEftSOMW) CONTACTED OH IN CONTACTWITH WO

OWMNIZATtON (OHIc*. dt«.. burMu.

SUUCCT *£•

TBJPHONE MO.(&?}

7? 2

SUMMARY

ê^^

ACTION REQUIRED

MAMC Of KHKM OOCUMCNTIN6 COffVCMATIOM •lONATUK DATE

ACTION TAKEN

iTUK trnc DATE

WQ1 ..... ...... ,....,.,..../..„ OP TIOX-TMFENSC

CONVERSATION RECORD fl/77 stf&y ? S?#5i Q VISIT E CONFERENCE t TELCWONE

' Q INCOMINGLocation of Vtett/Coflferanct: QÔUTOOINCMAMC OF KKSONf*) CONTACTfD OH IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION <O*le«, dtpt.. burwu. TtLCPHOKE N».WITH TOO —i > <tej

SUBJECT y-/>^^^7 .

' HOUT1N6

NAMC/STMtOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTION HEQUIKCD

NAWC Of KMON DOCOUCMTIN6 CONVtWATIOH •IONATURC DATE

ACTION TAKEN

iTUKK TTTIX OAtI

..... ......

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.1 1409 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI. OHIO 49246M»u Ifi IQfld' May 18, 1984 <si3) 7*2-4700

TELECOPIER (513) 782-4SO7

Mr. Robert J. BowdenU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEmergency Response Division536 S. ClarkChicago, IL 60605

Re: Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-0008Battle Creek - Verona Well Field

Dear Bob:

As you know, T visited Battle Creek on May 15 to observe progress at the siteand to discuss various aspects of the project with Dan CapHce (EPA's OSC) andMike Hessling (PEDCo's Response Manager). I also had the opportunity to meetJohn Dourjalian (Weston's TAT representative). In short, I was impressed withthe progress to date considering the nature of the pro.iect and the deadlineInitially projected for system startup. Although this scope of work was notanticipated early 1n the contract, as well as our not having (established)many of the personnel, equipment or material fixed rates , the OSC and ERCSteam have performed well 1n system design/construction and expediting systemstartup.

Upon leaving the site, I met with the OSC, Response Manager and TAT represen-tative and made a number of suqgestions, which I prefaced by saying ourinterest is 1n ensuring quality 1n design/construction and expediting systemstartup in the most cost effective manner possible. A summary of these pointsfol1ows:

1. It appeared that a field clerk, assigned specifically to the project,would streamline a lot of the paperwork associated with coordinatingsubcontractors, purchasing and logging personnel and equipment on tothe '55's. At a minimum, I suggest a clerk 1n Cincinnati be providedto assist the Response Manager on an as needed basis.

2. An inspection by the design englneer(s) would ensure acceptabledrawing takeoff's and construction methods. Additionally, DanCapHce noted that he required "as built" drawings, which willrequire onsite v1s1t(s) by the englneer(s).

3. An office trailer and telephone would certainly make field opera-tions more efficient. In my opinion, the fiasco associated withtransporting pumps would have been avoided if direct communicationsInto fas opposed to from) the field were possible. At this point,this suggestion may be Irrelevant; however, 1t 1s worth noting thatthe Response Manager Initially requested this equipment, which wassubsequently disallowed by the OSC.

•RANCH OFFICE*

DALLAft. TEXAS COLUMBUS, OHIOCHESTER TOWERS OOLDCN. COLORADO DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Robert J. Bowden - 2 - May 18, 1984

4. Enforcement of personnel safety at the site appeared lax, a respon-sibility of the TAT, OSC and Response Manager. Of particularconcern were men working "down the hole" (the 12-foot deep excava-tion) with an overhead crane delivering concrete, with no hard hats.Also, the TAT representative directed the unloading of reinforcingsteel from a truck (by pushing 1t with a bulldozer) while 1n tennisshoes. (That activity further concerned me 1n the manner the TATrepresentative conducted himself. He was initially very upset thatthe steel was not "pre-formed", where in fact 1t was ordered anddelivered correctly. He also acted freely In ordering the City ofBattle Creek's bulldozer operator to push the steel from the truck.I seriously question the TAT's role and conduct In this Instance.1

5. The OSC has ordered an accelerated carbon column test to determineprojected operating life of the activated carbon. He has asked thatCalgon perform the work for a cost currently estimated to be $4000,and has waived our requirement to compete this work. It will bebilled as offslte analysis.

6. The OSC is comfortable with the design work that has been done todate, and has made some minor changes during construction which willbe documented during preparation of the "as-built" drawings. Irecommended that an engineer get Involved 1n redesigning the over-flow portion of the wet well, since the current trough design 1sbeing changed to concrete pipe Intersecting the wet well wall. TheOSC indicated that It would be possible to complete the constructionas he envisioned 1t without further involvement by the engineer(s).

7. It was apparent that a number of mechanical components (valves,etc.) had yet to be delivered to the site. Dan Caplice and MikeHessllng will conduct a comprehensive inventory and followup onspecific missing Items.

8. After discussing the schedule 1n detail with Mike Hessllng, Itappeared that the mechanical contractor's (Hunter-Prell) activitieswould be critical In meeting a May ?4 startup deadline. Hunter-Prell's supervisor (Kent Choate) Indicated that as of May 15 hisresponsibilities would require ten (10) full days, and he was notplanning on working May 19 or 20. (Note that even with good weatherand weekend work the schedule would be missed by one day.) Irecommended to the OSC that he strongly consider working the weekendand possibly overtime during the week. He and the Response Managerhave requested an Increased workforce from Hunter-Prell for May 16and 17, and will re-evaluate the schedule then. It appears, how-ever, that finishing the concrete work and starting the electricalwork should both occur on the weekend, which was suggested to andagreed by M1ke Hessllng. He will discuss this Issue further withDan Caplice later 1n the week.

Mr. Robert J. Bowden - 3 - May 18, 1984

9. I also Indicated to Dan tapllce that the ERCS OPO (you) had directedus to receive written authorization from the OSC to continue work inthe OSC's absence. Dan concurred and provided the Response Managerwith authorization and a daily work plan for May 16, when he wouldbe in Lanslng.

Bob, we are confident that, under the circumstances, the objectives of thisdelivery order will be met in a cost effective and timely fashion. BothGeorge and I would like to discuss further with you the TAT's role on ERCSsites, specifically in regard to their authority, safe conduct and actionsaffecting the safety of others. We would like to schedule a meeting with youon May 23, May 31, or June 1 and will call you to firmly set the date. Pleasecall me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

J6hn-Jf. Bruck, P.E.Associate DirectorWaste Management Division

JMB/vss

cc: 0. Caplice (EPA)1^J. Jowett (EPA)0. Britton (EPA)

CONVERSATION RECORD TI*V & **" ^63^TV* Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE ^TELEPHONE

' Q INCOMINGLocation of Vi«n/Conf«r*nct: ÔUTGOINGNAME OF PEMSON(t) CONTACTED Oft IN CONTACT O«ANIZ*TK>N (Ofltct. Ml*- terMu. TCLKFHONE NOWITH TOO _ /*. Me.) 3 . j

SUBJECT s^/&ts&*ff£

ftOUDNG

NAWE/SYM«OL INT

SUMMARY

dr

ACTION MEQUIRED

MAMC Of PCMOH DOCUMCNTIHO COMVCRMTION OATl

ACTION TAKEN

tlONATUftC TIM

. ...... KCOMD wan*

Expressway Commerce Park43412 North 1-94 Service Drive, Belleville, MI 48111 • (313) 697-3510

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE REMOVAL AND PREVENTIONEPA CONTRACT 68-01-6669

Kurt Stimpson, TAILWeston-Sper May 30, 1984Suite 1501Northbrook Office Court TAT-16-F-00024666 Vest Dundee RoadNorthbrook, IL 60062

RE;

Dear Kurt:

On Monday, May 14, 1984, TAT Member John Dourjalian was requested tomonitor the activites at the Verona Pump Station, which had begun onApril 25, 1984. The activities involved the construciton of a liftstation which will pump contaminated groundwater through a series ofcarbon units for pre-treatment prior to its discharge into the BattleCreek River.

Upon my arrival on Monday, May 14, 1984, at 0800, the contractors werecompleting the placement of steel reinforcement rods which had to bedone prior to pouring the conrete pad for the lift station. Arrange-ments for pouring the concrete were made for Tuesday, May 15, 1984.On Tuesday OSC, TAT and FEDCO Response Manager met in the pumpingstation to review the daily 1955 forms. (No forms were submitted forthe period begigoing 5/7/84 and ending 5/15/84.) Contractors .com-pleted the steel reinforcement for the concrete pad and poured the con-crete.

\At the completion of the day's work OSC, PEDCO Deputy Project Manager,TAT and FEDCO Response Manager met at this time and the following topicwas discussed:

SAFETY: Contractors were required to wear hard hatswherever the overhead equipment was being used. Boththe FEDCO Response Manager and TAT verbally remindedthe contractors regarding this matter. Additional con-cerns were expressed regarding the wearing of safetyshoes. On the day in question, neither the PEDCO Re-sponse Manager and PEDCO Deputy Projects Manager norTAT were wearing proper safety shoes. In the interestof safety, it is the opinion of the TAT member that atthe time, a verbal warning should have been issued re-minding those not wearing propery safety shoes as donein the case of the hard hats.

Roy F. Weston, Inc.SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISIONIn Association with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., and ICF Incorporated

Kurt Stlmpson -2- May 30, 1984

TAT INVOVEMENT OF OFFLOADER STEEL BAR FROM A FLATBEDTRAILER: At approximately 1400 a truck carrying steelbars for the reinforcement of the concrete walls ar-rived on site. Attempts to locate the PEDCO ResponseManager by the OSC and TAT to arrange for the removalof the rods from the flatbed proved fruitless. At therequest of the OSC, TAT member arranged to have thesteel bars removed from the flatbed using a city-ownedfron end loader and operator* Approval to use the frontend loader was granted by the Verona Pumping StationManager. TAT assisted in the removal of the braceswhich held the rods in place on the flatbed. The rodswere then removed from the flatbed using the front endloader.

PROJECT COORDINATION: Through the project, numerousdelays occurred when equipment needed to complete theproject did not arrive as scheduled or was not ordered.Additional costs were incurred when unnecessary piecesof equipment were air-shipped.

COST ACCOUNTING: As of Satruday, May 19, 1984, DailyCERCLA 1955 froms were not submitted to the OSC forapproval for the period beginning 5/7/84 and ending5/19/84.

Sincerely,

John DourjalianEnvironmental Engineer

JD:lal

Roy. F. Weston, inc.SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION

In association with ICF, Inc., Jacobs Engineering, Inc., & Tetra Tech, Inc.

oCONVERSATION RECORD ""*//-'#?* "™ ^

TYPE) D VISIT A J CONFERENCE Q TELEPHONE

Q INCOMINGLocation of Visit /Contort net: Q OUTGOINGNAME OF KRSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (Offlc*. Met-, bureau. TELEPHONE NO1

WITH YOU . ate.) /i

n^w^^f * /*&£#SUBJECT (/ //- >1 * .-.

yt&t&rVL* /U£S&fsyt^ >*

'faROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

NAME OF fCRSON DOCUMENT I NO CONVERSATION SIGNATURE DATE

ACTION TAKEN

t Jj MATUM Trot DATE

S™71"101 . . r . n CONVEWATKW HCCORD9U.S. 6 . P . O . MIS.JI1 - 9 2 « / B 1 4 «OPTIONAL FOMN 271 (12-76)DCMMTMCNT OF DEfCNSE

nRECORD OF

COMMUNICATION

CALL (^DISCUSSION D HtLD TBI* QCON««NCE

(Record of Item checked «bovt)TO; MOM: DATE

TIME

SUSJECT

/* //^^^/^SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION

4

3v ^

*^

^^*^ <?<^z£/&,

AL

?*> <<&- A^&£-

'*~)

XT~< £

o INFORMATION COPIESTO:

• PA PWM T3004 (7-721 HKPUACI* CPA HQ FOXM M00>l WHICH MAT » USID UNTIL SUPPLY is EXHAUSTED.


QTYft \_^.Q VISIT jg CONFERENCE Q TELEPHONEn 'NCOMING

Location of Vitit/Conffftnct: Q OUTGOINGNAME Or PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (Office. d*pt.. burwu. TELEPHONE NO.WITH YOU , . / tic-) * y ./ ,.

sf&s&vtyp //t/Pr&e/Kj /*%*&£ / / /**

-r —— * ———ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL 1NT

SUMMARY

,

NAME Or PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVfftSATlON

ACTION TAKEN

TITIC DATE

90371-101»U.I. f i .^.O. l f«S.l«t*5M/t34« CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL MUM 27IJK-76)or OCPCNSE

. \

Hi&IOlT 5 CHIC AGO 2SAffSSEI2EAi. SEEZOT

?HOM

CODS.

r

V3

AfiZS 0*0 FOLLOW,

ALL PAfiES

^ TOT EA.VH Ainr QTinsinoiJS CALL fs-l

ASZ POE TZLPHZDO TOSEES os AOTE DTJTAL

\^-iVif

# *

3,

\-

fe*ai

y^<3^*.


/^\ - n visrrLocation of Visit/Conftrtncv:

Q CONFERENCE7

n INCOMING

NAME OF FCRSONtS) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (Office. tfept.. bureau. TELEPHONE HO.WITH YOU. t y X5 y **•>

V ''^ ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL I IN'T~

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAMC OF MRSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION DATE

ACTION TAKEN

Tim DATE

*B71"1*15 2 f / I I 4 «

CONVCTttTION RECORD ocmurrMCNT OF DEFENSE

PEDCo E & A SERVICES INC.

MEMO

TO: M. C. Hessling DATE: June 18, 1984

FROM: J- Stockwell

SUBJECT: Verona Well Field*Battle Creek, MichiganPEI PN-1008-10-1, PEAS PN-0120-01

J. Stockwell visited the subject site on Wednesday, June 13, 1984,to inspect the installation and to collect data to prepare recorddrawings. The installation is essentially as designed except thatthe arrangement is a mirror image of the plans. This will neces-sitate some redrawing in order to have record drawings.

Several items deserve special comment:

1. If the installation is to be used for more than a few months,we recommend that a pressure gauge be installed on each pumpat the spool piece between the discharge check valve and thebutterfly valve. This should be installed in conjunctionwith a drain valve so that the vertical discharge pipe canbe drained.

2. An electric heater should be installed to maintain the pumproom temperature above freezing since there is always a deadwater leg on the spare pump.

3. The control module which was installed to provide a high andlow level alarm signal will not provide both alarms. It willprovide either high or low level alarm but not both. It issuggested that it be rewired to provide a high level alarm.If the low level alarm is desired, it will be necessary toprovide an additional unit. To wire for high level only,rewire according to Figure 13, which is included with thismemo. This will require removing the wiring between 1 and1C and disconnecting the wiring between the low level probeand INC.

JS/tlbAttachment

TtUlT nA^T ^T f

CONVERSATION RECORD <&/& &*s&/4<zsQ VISIT p CONFERENCE ]J 3pHONE

/ "^ D INCOMINGLocation of VhMt/Conftrwwt: ">Q^pTQOINGNAMK Or PEMOWn CONTACTED OH IN CONTACT*wn< TOU * „

OBOAHIIATION (Omc., <***-. bwrMu. TCLEPHONE NC>.

^ ^VX£&€£3)SUBJECT ^/ A >j

' ItOUTINO

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OP PERSON DOCUMCNTIM CQNVEMIATION SIGNATURE DATE

ACTION TAKEN

•nMATUMC TTTU DATE

"" »,... ...... „.,-,.,..,.,.,.. RECORD OPTIOfWLDCPA1ITUCNT OF

CONVERSATION RECORD TIMC OATC

Q VISIT

Location of Vbft/Confmnc*:

CONFERENCE

NAMC OP PCMONfS) CONTACTCD Oft IN CONTACTWITH TOO

TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

Jig- OUTGOINGOttOAHtZATtON (OfflM. <*•*-. burwu, TCLCPMONC NO:

SUBJECT

NOUTING

NAftll/tYMlOl. (NT

SUMMARY

)

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OP PCmOft DOCUMtffTINQ CONVCMATION •MHATURC DAT!

ACTIOH TAKEN

,TUK Tim MTt

..... .....

ACTION REQUIRED

7r""x/J&1 CtDOCUMENTING CONVCRMTION

ACTION TAKOT

•MNATUM TTTU DAT!

""-101 ..... ...... ,..,.,.,..„/.,.. MEOOKD

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME OATE

TYPEQ VISIT

Location of VWe/Conwwtner

Q CONRKCNCE TELEPHONE^ INCOMING

OUTQOINQNAME OP PtWOHrt) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACTWITH YOU

ORGANIZATION (Office. «*«.. MifMu. TELfPHONCNO:

r—*ROtfHNO

NAME/SYMBOL I NT

SUMMARY

X

^/"^fe^gX? &&4&

>^—7^SOrt^S

ACTION RCQUtREO

NAMK OF KMON OOCUMtNTINO CONVERSATION •MNATUMC DATE

ACTION T

HUE MTV

"m-101 ..... ...... ,...-,.,-.»/.,..

PEDCo E S A SERVICES INC.

MEMO

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

DATE: June 26, 1984M. C. Hessling/I CJ. Stockwell /y. Jl

Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, MichiganPEI PN-1008-10-1, PEAS PN-0120-01

The pumps for the subject plant were selected on the basis of 500gpm at 80 feet of total dynamic head. Four pumps could produce2,000 gpm, which exceeds the 1,700 gpm originally requested.Pressure drop through the .filters was established at 60 feet byCalgon. Twenty feet of head was added for piping loss.

The pumps purchased are Aurora 4 x 4 x 7A Series 340. Pumps wereshipped with impellers trimmed to 5.812-inch diameter. Largerimpellers can be installed without overloading the impellers.

The enclosed pump curve shows the existing impeller in a solidline and the proposed in a dashed line. The proposed impellerscould produce 500 gpm each at a total dynamic head of 115 feetor 50 pounds. Four pu-.:ips pumping 425 gpm for a total of 1,700gpm could work satisfactorily against a total head of 125 feetor 54 pounds.

At this writing, there were seven impellers in stock which couldbe fitted for this duty. If these are sold for other purposes,it will require about 8 weeks to get new impellers from thefoundry.

JS/tlbAttachment

PAGEfEIRUARY 1969 ENCLOSED IMPELLER

WAX. SPHERES -IMP. PAH. NO. -3-1-225CASE PAH. NO. -4500AMIN. IMP. DIA. -4-7/8

MAX. SPHERES -13/16IMP. PATT. NO. -3-7-225CASE PAH. NO. -4500AMIN. IMP. DIA. -4-

200 250 300CAPACITY-6.RM.

AURORA PUMP* UNIT Of OINWtAL *I«MA4, OOfWOIVATION


o™ a™

Location of Vtalt/ConfarvncK

Q CONFERENCE TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

OUTOOINONAME Or rCmOWSt CONTACTED OH IN CONTACT OHQAHIZATIOH (Offlc*. d»pL. bumu, rfELCPHONENO:

HOUTINQ

NAME/SVMBOL INT

SUMMAMY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAMC OP PCIMOM DOCUMENTING CONVEMSATION •MfkATUM DAT1

•MNATUM TTTtE

»u... ..r.o. tM,.,..-tt./.*4. CON«WA710M RECORD

Expressway Commerce Park43412 North 1-94 Service Drive, Belleville, MI 48111 • (313) 697-3510

C

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE REMOVAL AND PREVENTIONEPA CONTRACT 68-01-6669

Dan Caplice, RPMU.S. EPA Region 5 June 57, 19845HR-13230 S. Dearborn TAT-16-F-00027Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Dan,

This letter is a short description of the final contractor reportas discussed in our phone conversation on June 25, 1984. The ERCSResponse Manager should be familiar with writing the final report asit is a requirement of their contract #68-01-6894. The Information isfound on page 26 of their contract, listed as item #5. In the case ofthe Battle Creek Verona Well Field purge system installation, it issuggested that the following information should be addressed in thereport:

1.) The criteria and logic used to design the lift stationshould Include:

-cost justification on dry pumps vs. sub-mersible pumps,-pump specifications indicating why 500 gpmand 80 foot of head replaced the 500 gpmand 100 foot of head pumps as stated by RM,

-and calculations on flow and pump rates,retention time, level control placement,etc.

2.) Problems encountered with the carbon units and solutionsto remedy problems.

3.) Effectiveness of system installed.4.) Future recommedations for site including

-additional corrective actions,-pump maintenance,-and carbon system maintenance.

5.) Transportation costs of equipment and personnel.-Contract Indicates least costly methodshould be used.

6.) Cost justification and bid sheets on purchased material.7.) Justification of why labor costs for subcontractors were

VRoy F. Weston, Inc.SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISIONIn Association with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc., and ICF Incorporated

Dan Caplice -2- June 27, 1984

charged as negotiated rates rather than as subcon-tractor costs as specified in Article XII, para-graphs C and G in the ERGS Contract. The contrac-tors used at the site were not the prime subcon-tractors as specified in Article XXXIV of the ERGSContract.

In general, the report should detail all costs, approaches used inthe Emergency Action, Problems encountered and their solutions.

Yours Truly,

Thomas DeFouwProject Chemist

TD: lal

Roy. F. Weston, Inc.SPILL PREVENTION & EMERGENCY RESPONSE DIVISION

In association with ICF. Inc., Jacobs Engineering, Inc., & Tetra Tech. Inc.

ss

ACTION REQUIMEO

NAME Of MMON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION iKWAniHf DAT!

ACTION TAKEN

TTT1X DATE

1-101V . P . O CONVERMT10N RECORD

o CONVERSATION RECORD Tine

Vl$n'Location of Vw*/Con1»nmct:

T CLEPHONE^ Q INCOMING

2 OUTDOING

(WUT1NO

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

J»f jt£J&Mt

MQUIREO

NMN OP PtMON OOCUtrtMTINO CONVnSATION DATE

ACTON

mu OATl

IMi-»*t-tl«/*S4f CONVEMATION RCOORO DCWWTMOfT Of

rpr CONVERSATION RECORDQ VISIT CONrHCNCC

Lootton of Vtatt/Contaranct:NAHC OP KMON(*> CONTACTD OR ttt CONTACT OROANIZATION (WRca. *«*-. burMU,

[\JELEPHONE^ Q INCOMING

V00UTQOIN8NO:

noun NONAMC/SVMVOL

SUMMARYS*&^4£*£^ £d*»

S 6&V&* 7T&60 -&46&JMT

(#> A**0t^

ACTION WQUIRCD

NAMC OP KMON OOCUMCNTINQ CONVMSAT10N DATE

ACTION TAKCN

nru OATI

»U.t.

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME DAT!

D VISIT

Location of VMt/Conferanc*:

Q CONFERENCEQ INCOMING

NAMC OP KmOMO) CONTACTED OK IN CONTACTWITH YOU

OMAN1XATKW (Office «•*.. buraau.

•UUECT

/

NO".

S MOUTINQ

KAMI/SYMBOL |NT

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

MAMC OF KMON OOCUMCKTINO CONVtMATION ttOMATUM7ha!L^ OATt

ACTKM TAKEN

•MNATUM TTTli DATE

W°' .„... ...... ,.„.,.,-„./.». RECORD

JUt 1 7 1984Mike Hess linyPedco Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester KoadCincinnati, Ohio 45246

iJear Mike,

This letter 1s a follow-up to our telephone conversation of July 9,During that time you stated tnat you would be checking on the following1 tons:

1. As-DulH drawings that were orlyinally to be f inished by 7/2/H4(per our phone conversation of 6/26/84).

2* Oates when the pumps were priced.

3. Information on pricing and availability of vertical turbine pumps.

4. Updating of the operating manual including rewording of section4.2.2, the backwash procedure, and Inclusion of a simple flowdiagram.

5. The Hoffman Brothers soil Dills.

During our conversation you also answered a number of other questionsregarding this project. Briefly, those Hens are as fo l lows:

1* The package which was originally to be sent out 6/27/84 (as perour phone conversation of 6/28/b4) and *nich contains the ACTreport, the anal>t1cal results, the Stockwell letter on Impellers,the 1900-55 forms to date, and the requested puinp information(curves, specifications, operation and nelntalnence schedules) wassent out 7/9/84.

2. The pimps were ordered 5/7/34 fron Faber Pump in Cincinnati orDayton.

3. We will be able to receive 24 hour turn-around on analyticalresults unless there are unforeseen complications.

4. There 1s no need for an electrical operations nanual .

b. The reason the pumps were ordered with 3U feet of head Insteadof 100 feet as ordinally planned (phone conversation of 4/26/84)was due to the fact that Calgon changed tnelr estimates of the re-quired head to operate the carbon units from 7b to 56 feet.Therefore, based on this fact, the eng1n*»rs in your-office believedthat there -*as no need to supply 1UO fset ot nead if Ri) feetwould be sufficient.

Finally, during our conversation I also Informed you of a few tasks thatyou as the response manager need to take care of. These are:

1. There should be no hours shown for Union Electric on the July3, 1984 1900-55 form. D1ck Hook simply took ten minutes whileworking on another project at the site and made the necessarychanges in the alarm system.

2. A purchase order needs to be Issued this week to Rick Goodmanof Battle Creek, Michigan for operation and maintenance of thecarbon units. (Your have two options for filing the 1900-55forms. Option one Is to list Rick as a subcontractor everytwo weeks at $150. Option two 1s to 11st him weekly as a labor-er level 1 working 5 hours per week.)

3. The optional final report called for In Article XVI Section 85of the ERCS contract will be required for this project. Thisreport shall detail the following:

a. The criteria and logic used to design the 11ft stationincluding:

- justification of dry pumps vs. submersible pumps(cost, availability, etc),

- pump specifications indicating why 500 gpm and 80foot of head replaced the 500 gpm and 100 foot ofhead pumps as originally stated by the RM,

- and calculations on flow and pump rates, retentiontime, level control placement, etc. •~ -.

Explanation of the cost justification for materialsand subcontractors along with the savings or added expensesassociated with each. —*

Problems encountered with the carbon units and solutionsto remedy these problems*

d. Effectiveness of the system Installed.e. Future recommedatlons for the site including

- additional corrective actions,- pump maintenance schedules,- and carbon system maintenance.

In general this report shall detail all costs, approaches used,problems encountered, and their solutions.

If you have any questions or comments on any of this information pleasecontact me as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Caplice ' RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

cc: Robert Bowden

UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO. ILLINOIS SOKM

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

5HR-13

M1keHessl1ng JUL 1 9 1984Pedco Environmental Inc.11499 Chester RoadCincinnati, OH 45246-0100

Dear Hike,

In order to effectively finish off the Verona Project, we need to tietogether the remaining lose ends. The Information and work that I amrequesting at this time, along with that which I requested in our phoneconversation of July 9, 1984, should result 1n the completion of the con-struction phase of this project* As you know, a final close-out date will notoccur until the system 1s shutdown and dismantled this fall.Between now and the time that the carbon system goes off-line you will needto do the following:

1. Hard copies of analytical data are to be sent out byUnited States mall to me no later than 60 hours afterthe samples are collected. (In most cases by 5:00 p.m.every Thursday).

2. Updated 1900-55 forms are to be sent out by the lastMonday of each month. All monthly costs to date Includinganalytical costs, response manager hours, and back washand sampling costs, should be Included on forms.

3. A copy of the Calgon report to Pedco which analyzed thefindings of their ACT test should be sent out to me as soonas you receive a copy of 1t.

4. Are the pumps fitted with regreasable fittings? If so, Iwill need to make the appropriate arrangements to have themgreased every 25 days.

5. Any operating and maintenance Information pertaining to allequipment 1n the dry well should be compiled and sent outto me as soon as possible.

v

-2-

Flnally, just for the record, I would like to clarify a misconceptionthat keeps appearing,most recently In the June 26, 1984, memo fcom JoeStockwell to you. It was originally estimated that the five purge wellswould pump 1700 gpm to the treatment system. However, at our originalsite meeting on April 25, 1984, Dave Rich of the City of Battle CreekInformed us that the five wells actually had a combined flow rate of 1950gpm. After that day, If anyone assumed that the system would operate at1700 gpm they would have been committing a gross mistake.

If you have any questions, comments, thoughts and/or suggestions, please letme know.

Sincerely yours,

Daniel M. Capllct, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section Icc: BowHen, 5SCDO

JUL231984UNITED STATES

V ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY5 "WON v* 230 SOUTH DEAMOftN ST.

CWCAOO. IIUNOIS V0604REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

Nike HessllngPedco Environmental11499 Chester RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45246-0100

Dear M1ke,

Enclosed are marked copies of the as-built drawings for the pump facilityat the Verona Well Field In Battle Creek, Michigan. I have marked all areason the drawings where errors were present or where Information was missing.In order to verify the sections dealing with the electrical wiring andcontrols at the facility, I would like you to send a copy of those specificsections to D1ck Hook at Union Electric as soon as possible. As you mayrecall, he found some errors 1n the original plans and then made thenecessary modifications. Because he actually did the work, he 1s familiarwith the system and therefore, he should also review the as-built drawings.I would appreciate 1t 1f these drawings could be corrected and sent outto me within ten days. The first draft which was dated 6/19/84 and6/28/84 was not mailed until 7/12/84. These drawings are needed In orderto complete other work we have continuing at the site, and any further;del ay at this point In time will result 1n costly delays to that project.

If you have any questions or comments pertaining to this letter or themarked drawings, please contact me.Sincerely,

Daniel M. Capl1ce'RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

Enclosures

JUL231984UNITED STATES

», r ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY* HfOtONV

230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.CWCAOO. IUMOIS »oe04


5HR-13Mr. Hike HasslingPedco Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45246-0100

Dear Hike:

I am returning the set of 1900-55 forms that you recently completed andsent to me for my approval. The following are my comments and questionsconcerning these forms along with the necessary changes that need to bemade before I can approve them.June 14. 1984

1. The Insulation of the piping In the dry well was to have beenperformed as a subcontract Item. (In the same manner as JackSaye was for forming the walls and the Kelly Company was forwater proofing the walls). If this task was to have been done

f as a Hne Item as you have shown 1t, then the unit rate forv the Installers would have to have been much less than what

1s shown.2* There was no 2 ton stake bed truck used by Murray Construction.

What they used was a SWAT type equipment van.

June 15. 1984

1. Installation Installers should not be listed as a Hne Item.They were a subcontractor Item.

June 26, 1984

1. I find 1t extremely hard to believe that It took 7 man hoursto specify and order the transformer. On May 11, 1984, 1ndally work order, I Instructed you to place the order forthat transformer. At that time, I also personally Informedyou of the required operating specification (namely: 225 KVaand 8320 to 480).* V fc A

2. The material section for this day 1s unacceptable as 1t nowstands. Dates need to be supplied to show when these Itemsfirst appeared on the 1900-55 forms. Quantities, whereappropriate, need to be supplied. Much greater detailthan just "miscellaneous material" for someone Is necessary.What 1s the sales tax adjustment for, and why are you showing4 additional yards of top soil from Hoffman Brothers?

-2-

3. What 1s the $79.00 Emery A1r Mil for?

4. Why are Me being charged $112.00 to analyze each samplewhen the previous price you quoted me was $100.00

July 9. 1984

1. As-built drawings are only a revision and correction of original drawings.As such, they do not require over 3 man days to complete. The drawingsfor this site are very basic, straight line plans that do not containany complex curves or projections. Unless these drawings were preparedby an untrained draftsman, 1t should not have taken this long to completethem. Therefore, I suggest that you check with Mr. Stockwell, Mr. Gunker,and Mr. Hlldebrandt and verify the actual time each one spent on thistask. If you do this, I am certain that you will find that no more than15 or 16 total hours were necessary to correct the original drawings.

2* The original price quoted for sample analysis was $100.00 per sample, not$112.00.

There 1s also some work which was not Included on these forms, but which wascompleted during this time period. This Item needs to be added to the 1900-55forms before I can approve them and consider them complete. The missing ItemIs Hunter Prell's hours for July 3 and July 5, 1984 when they Installed thepressure guages and taps above each pump.These forms need to be corrected so that they accurately reflect the work whichwas done on this project* Please make all of the necessary changes, additions,and deletions and return the updated forms to me no later than August 1, 1984.If you have any problems doing this work, or 1f you have any questions orcomments, please phone me.

Sincerely yours.

Daniel M. CapUce, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section IEnclosures

CONVERSATION RECORD

OTYH

TIMC DATt

Q VWT

Location of Vtott/Conftmcs:

OONreHtMCE*fltfTELEMONC™ Q INCOMING

NGNAME OF FCRMNO) CONTACTED OR m CONTACTWITH YOU

ORGANIZATION (Offlca. **.. teWMU. NO-.

ItmJCCT

HOUTINQ

NAMC/SVMBOL fNT

•UMMAAY

ACTION MCQUIItfD

NAMC OF F«RSON DOCUMCNTINO CONVERSATION SMNATUM DATE

ACTION

..... .....

OCONVERSATION RECORD ™

ITr* D VWIT D CONFERENCE Jg

Location of Vbtt/Conforanct:NAMC OP KMON(S> CONTACTD OR IN CONTACT OMANHATWN (OHM. «•*. burWITH WMI «lej /J

//IVJ^ DATE / /^*.*#S>>» ^yX /x^V'.vj-^> /°fyrTELEPHONE

Q INCOMING0 OUTDOING

MU. TCUPHONC Nft

\ ^^3->

SUWECT //

KOUTINC

NAMC/SVMIOI. IKT

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAMC OP PtnON DOCUMCNtTNG COHVOWATKW •MikATimc DATE

ACTION TAKEN

TITU OAT1

,„... ...... ,..,.,.,..„„.« eOHVB8»TK)H MOWD DOMTTHtKT OPl fl»-T«l

OBPDItC

GCONVERSATION RECORD

/"** a*1*1" cLocation of Vlsn/CofirafVfm:NAME Or PEMOIKft CONTACTD Off IN CONTACTWTTH VOO . .

] CONPCMNCE

OHQANIIATIOM (Offic*. c

HUE

/ ?/3!5^ ^^ %/?/&!/J TELEPHONE

^^ Q INCOMING[ /OUTQOINQ

M. taTMU. TELEPHONE NO*.

**** V /&40KL-

•OUTING

NAMC/SYMIOL INT

SUMMARY

/.

~? ^Li 3&*#4/&.« #/<w£r s&*?

ACTION RCQUIREO

NAMC Of KmON POCUMCNTINO CONVMMTION MOHA DAT!

ACTION TAKEN /

MQNATWtt nru OATC

..... ..... COHV««TIO« MOMD


CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246August 9, 1984 tsi3)782-4700

TELECOPIER (313) 762-48O7

Mr. Dan CapliceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency5-HR230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008

Dear Dan:

Please find enclosed the analytical data for one flash point sample and fourcharcoal tube samples from the Verona Well field project. The flash pointdata was previously provided to you verbally within 24 hours of our receipt ofthe sample.

As we discussed, PEI was unable to analyze the charcoal tube samples for fourof the eight target compounds due to Interference from the extraction solvent.In order to avoid this problem in the future, it is recommended that Tenaxtubes be.used in place of charcoal. Volatiles can be thermally desorbed fromTenax, thus alleviating the need for an extraction solvent.

With regard to your inquiries pertaining to our method of analysis for 1,2-Dibromoethane, PEI uses method 624 for this work, which is applicable to GC/MSanalysis. Method 601 is intended for use with a simpler gas chromatograph.

If you have any further questions regarding these analyses, please call us at513/782-4700.

Sincerely,

PEI, Inc.

Michael C. HesslingResponse Manager

MCH/vss

Enclosures

•RANCH OFFICES

DALLAS. TDCAt COLUMBUS. OHIOCHESTER TOWERS OOLOCN. COLORADO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

August 21, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency5-HR230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

t 1 499 CHESTER ROAOCINCINNATI. OHIO 45246

(313) 782-47OOTELECOPIER (513) 782-48O7

Subject:

Dear Dan:

ERA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Field Project Remedial Response

Section I

In your letters of July 17, July 19, and July 24, 1984, you requested that PEIundertake several additional tasks relative to the Verona Well Field project.We would like to apprise you of our progress in these efforts to date.

In regard to your letter of July 17, the following information is providedcorresponding to the specific points you raised.

1. As-built drawings were released by PEAS, Inc. on July 9 and forwarded toyou on July 11, 1984. As indicated in our phone conversation of June 26,PEAS had previously indicated that these drawings may be finished asearly as July 2, 1984. Apparently they were held for several dayspending senior engineering review and approval.

2. PEAS, Inc. first presented its preliminary design for a wet well/dry wellsystem including five horizontal centrifugal pumps on Tuesday, May 1.Vendors were contacted on May 2 and 3 and a total of seven bids werereceived, along with available delivery dates. This information wasconveyed to you on May 3, along with our recommendation that Aurora Pumpbe selected as the supplier. Under your specific direction, PEI'sResponse Manager instructed PEAS on Friday May 4 to order these pumps.

3. No documentation has been provided by PEAS, Inc. regarding their effortsto procure vertical turbine pumps for the wet well; however, our notesindicate that the earliest design concepts involved two vertical turbinepumps rated at about 1700 gpm and 100 ft of head each. This approach wasconsidered between Friday, April 27 and Tuesday, May 1 and was replacedby the wet well/dry well design due to the apparent unavailability ofturbine pumps within an acceptable time frame.

4. The Calgon Carbon Corporation has provided, at no charge to the project,a comprehensive operating manual for the treatment system installed inBattle Creek. As we have previously discussed, the backwash and flowdiagram sections of this manual do not effectively meet the needs of theU.S. EPA. In addition, the manual does not reflect certain systemmodifications that were made following the preparation of that text. In

CHESTER TOWERS

•RANCH OFFICES

DALLAS, TEXASOOLOCN. COLORADO

COLUMBUS, OHIODURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Daniel M. Caplice - 2 - August 21, 1984

order to accurately rewrite these sections, and develop a revised systemflowsheet, it will be necessary to visit the site. PEI's ResponseManager is prepared to visit the Verona site to effect the necessarychanges upon your authorization.

5. Please find enclosed documentation of the materials purchased fromHoffman Brothers, Inc. Apparently this item was omitted from the packageof supporting documents sent you in support of our Invoice No. 1008-1.We apologize for any Inconvenience this omission may have caused.

6. During our telephone conversation of June 28, 1984 we indicated thatseveral items, including Mr. Stockwell's letter, complete 1900-55 formsto date, pump curves and specifications, the Accelerated Column Testreport, and as-built drawings would be forwarded to you as soon as theywere available. As we indicated at that time, several of these items hadnot yet been received by our office. The 1900-55 forms were at that timebeing modified daily to Include the additional equipment and materialsinvoices that were arriving daily from our Battle Creek suppliers. Thiscomplete package was sent to you on July 11, 1984.

7. As indicated in our phone conversation of July 9, five horizontal centri-fugal pumps rated at 500 gpm and 80 feet were ordered on Monday morning,1 May 7, from Faber Pump, a manufacturer's representative of Aurora Pump.

8. PEI will continue to provide analysis of all VOA samples within 24 hoursof receipt of the sample. Preparation of computer printed results, alongwith approval/release through our Internal quality assurance programoccasionally causes delays of up to a day in our forwarding the hard-copyresults. Nonetheless, printed analytical results of all samples receivedon Wednesday (as expected) will be mailed to your office no later thanthe following Friday. If necessary, we can also provide these results toyou verbally on Thursday afternoon.

9. We concur with your decision that an electrical operating manual isunnecessary for the Verona System. The electrical drawings provided inthe record set are adequate for the use of an electrician, and normaloperation of the system is sufficiently simple that printed instructionsshould not be required.

10. Preliminary pump specifications calling for 100 feet of head were basedupon early conversations with Calgon, during which they indicated apressure drop of 75 to 80 feet across the adsorber. Subsequent to ourconversation of Aprfl 26, PEI requested that Calgon conduct more precisepressure drop calculations. Calgon engineers responded with a revisedpressure drop estimate of- 56 feet. This provided the basis for Mr.Stockwell's revision of the pump specifications to a less expensive 80feet of head.

Mr. Daniel M. Caplice - 3 - August 21, 1984

11. No charges have been included in the 1900-55 forms for Union Electn'c'sactivities of July 3, 1984.

12. Under your specific direction, Mr. Rick Goodman has been hired by PEI asa laborer to backwash the carbon units and to take VGA samples. Thereare, however, several points relative to this arrangement that must beemphasized. PEI's standard procedure when requested to provide fieldsampling and equipment maintenance personnel is to evaluate the abilityof our subcontract team to respond to the request. In the Verona in-stance, PEI proposed to use trained and experienced personnel from O.H.'sGrand Rapids office, less than one hour from the site.

The ERCS program has also hired local laborers at sites where circum-stances warranted. Such personnel are generally hired by the PEI ResponseManager who also determines the rate and schedule for payment. Yourselection of Mr. Goodman at the substantial rate of S15.00 per hour isnot consistent with PEI's standard hiring policies; however, PEI hasaccepted this arrangement in the interest of maintaining a positiveworking relationship on this project. We are confident that such circum-stances will not arise again.

13. PEI would like to acknowledge at this time receipt of your formal requestfor a project final report. Mike Hessling of PEI and Joe Stockwell ofPEAS have begun documenting the early phases of conceptual system plan-ning and preliminary design. The final report will include a descriptionof the approach used, a summary of all costs, and a discussion of theproblems encountered. This report will be submitted within 30 daysfollowing completion of this project. It is our understanding that thisactivity will be billed to the Battle Creek delivery order at the fixedrates for the labor categories required to prepare the report.

In your letter of July 19, 1984 you noted several items that PEI would beresponsible for prior to the completion of this project. The followingsummarizes our progress to date with respect to these activities.

1. As previously mentioned, PEI will continue to conduct the requiredanalysis within 24 hours of receipt of the samples. Printed copies ofanalytical data will be forwarded to you no later than the following day.

2. A set of 1900-55 forms including all costs not previously submitted isbeing forwarded to you under separate cover. No additional 1900-55 formsshould be required until September 9, when the monthly charge expires forthe carbon units.

Mr. Daniel M. CapUce - 4 - August 21, 1984

3. Please find enclosed another copy of the Accelerated Column Test reportfrom Calgon Carbon Corporation. No additional information has beenreceived from Calgon regarding this test.

4. PEI did not specify regreasable or nonregreasable bearings when orderingpumps. Further, none of the literature provided by the manufacturer isspecific in this regard. It will therefore be necessary to examine thepump casings for grease fittings, which you can perform at -your conveni-ence, or PEI can do when preparing the backwash manual.

5. All operating and maintenance literature provided to us by suppliers tothe Verona Well Field project has previously been forwarded to you.

6. Finally, with regard to the design flowrate for the treatment system atBattle Creek, PEI first learned of the inaccurately reported capacity ofone of the wells through a phone conversation with you on May 2. At thattime we informed you that the system was designed for 1700 gpm but mayhave some additional capacity. You also indicated that the groundwatermodeling for the site had apparently been based upon 1700 gpm and that aslight reduction in flow from 1950 gpm would therefore not impair theeffectiveness of the purge system. On May 26, we examined the 750 gpmwell and determined that partial closure of its gate valve to effect areduction in total flow rate from 1950 to 1700 gpm would be possible.

On June 4, after observing that the system as installed could handle onlyabout 1750 gpm, and that capacity decreased after two days of operationdue to increasing pressure drops across the carbon units, we recommendedthat a fifth adsorber be installed to handle the full 1950 gpm and torelieve the loading on the other four units. At this time, PEI requesteda modification of our delivery order, which specifically requires asystem capable of treating approximately 1700 gpm. Despite the fact thedelivery order has not been modified, PEI ordered a fifth Calgon carbonunit on June 5, and put that unit into service in less than ten days.

In response to your letter of July 24, two sets of marked-up prints of therecord drawings have been forwarded to PEAS, Inc. for revision of the mylaroriginals. A third set of prints, which was forwarded to Union Electric forcomments at your request, has not yet been returned. PEAS will revise andissue a final set of record drawings upon receipt and incorporation of allthree sets of comments. If you need a partially updated set of prints in theinterim, please let us know.

In summary, we understand that our remaining committment on the Verona WelField project is to provide you with:

1. Printed analytical results for eight VOA samples per week to bemailed to you no later than two days from receipt of the samples,and in most cases the following day.

Mr. Daniel M. Cap!ice - 5 - August 21, 1984

2. A final report to include our approach, problems encountered,solutions used, and a summary of all costs.

3. A complete set of 1900-55 forms addressing all costs not previouslysubmitted, and additional forms for September 9 and as needed tocomplete the project.

4. Final record drawings incorporating comments by Dick Hook, MikeHessling and yourself.

5. A revised operating manual for the treatment system at Battle Creek.Revisions will include an improved section on backwashing, a revisedand simplified flow diagram, and modifications to the text toreflect the addition of a fifth carbon unit.

Dan, we trust that the above activities plus demobilization of the carbonsystem will fulfill our remaining requirements under this delivery order. Ifadditional services should be required, please contact me or John Bruck at513/782-4700.

Sincerely,

PEI, Inc.


MCH/vss

Enclosures

cc: J. M. BruckR. J. Bowden

OCONVERSATION RECORD TIME

'"** o vwrr Q CONFERENCE ECJELE

Location of VWt/ConfennccNAMC OP KMONtft) CONTACTD OH IN CONTACTWITN YOU J . .

jrjfe$5//st 4

OKOANIZATION (OMM, d L. bwrMU.

** J> J/43fd£>

DATC ^- / X*/&JW&

n INCOMINGiV™)37>UTBOINQ

ALEPMQNENO:

/&3-^/^^*SUBJECT (/ / J

£s&L&7teL

•OUT1NQ

NAMC/IYMMH. INT

SUMMARY

"

a£-

ACTION MCQUIMED

NAMC OP KIWON OOCUMCNTINO COHVtMATIOW MTK

ACTION TAKEN

TITU OATt

1V1NTOP

OCONVERSATION RECORD TIMg OATt

Q VltIT

LocMion of Vfsit/CofnWvncK

Q CONfERCNCC

NAMC Or FCMOMTO CONTACTD Off IN CONTACTWITH VOU

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

^TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGQt OUTGOING

OftQANIZATtOH (OfllM. ***.. bwrMu. TCLCPHONK MO*.

noun NONAME/SYMBOL IHT

MAftK Or rCMON OOCUMtNTIWO CONVIMATION

ACTION TAKEN

WMUTUM TTTLt flMTI

**" ».... ...... ,..,-,.,.„,.». COHVBWW10N MOWD or

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION

———— R E C E I V E DAugust 23, 1984 ftUG 2*1984

GOO-REMEDIAL ACTION

1TO: Pat McKay, Remedial Action ^\^ *

GrounoVater, Quality Division —v?

FROM: Jeff Braunscheldel, Jackson DistrictSurface Water Quality Division

SUBJECT: Verona Wellfleld, Purgewater Treatment System

Your memo to Steve £1 dredge of August 14, 1984 requested our assistance 1nIdentifying mandatory and reconroended design changes for the referenced treat-ment system. The following are our comments at this time. Further commentsmay. follow after we receive and review the plans for this treatment system.

Wetwell/Drywell

1. It 1s recommended that the trap doors accessing the drywell be removed/ and that this area be enclosed within a shed-type building.

2. This shed, 1f constructed, must Include mechanical ventilation, de-hum1d1f1 cation and heating equipment.

3. If the trap doors are retained and a shed 1s not constructed, theymust have a rubber seal Installed to prevent excessive leakage ofwater into the drywell. Mechanical ventilation, dehum1d1f1 cationand heating equipment must be Installed 1n the drywell if the trapdoors are retained.

4.- In either case, shed or not, a railing must be Installed around theaccess pit and the ladder extended above ground level for Improvedaccess safety.

5. Due to the lack of plans for review, we have no Information as to what •alarms are provided. Both high and low water level alarms must be pro-vided in the wetwell and a high level alarm in the drywell sump, toprotect the pumps and other electrical equipment present.

'6. There must also be an alarm on the wetwell emergency overflow to mini-mize the amount of untreated water discharged to the sewer, / '

* • ' .\ '• it • ' fvm1 \. . „•*•

-2-

Use of Sodium Hypochlorlte

1. Conversations with the Water Quality Surveillance Section Indicate thatdischarging the untreated hypochlorlte* solution would greatly exceedany chlorine limit that might be developed. An alternate method of disposalfor this solution roust be developed. Some examples of acceptable disposalmethods are listed:

a. Provide a storage tank for the used hypochlorlte solution, thenhaul It away for disposal.

b. Provide a storage tank for the used solution, dechlorfnate it,then feed it Into the discharge while the air stripping systemis in operation.

c. Add a dechlorlnatlng agent (sodium sulflte was suggested) whilethe solution 1s still 1n the stripper tower, circulate brieflyto ensure maximum dechlor1nat1on,tnen discharge to the sewer.

If the dechlorlnatlng agent 1s sodium sulflte, it should be keptin mind that this chemical has an Immediate oxygen demand. Thus,the neutralized solution should be aerated prior to dischargeto ensure that all of the sodium sulflte 1s reacted.

*0ischarge of any detectable chlorine 1s unauthorized andwould be considered a permit violation.

2. Has consideration been given to using something other than chlorine fordisinfection? Why was chlorlnation selected?

Miscellaneous

1. Con den sate from the carbon adsorption units should be tested prior to dis-charge into the sewer to ensure that levels of contaminants are not presentthat might cause the discharge to exceed permit limitations. Ideally thiscon dens ate should be directed back to the wetwell, but this may not befeasible.

2. To provide the permit required review and approval of these facilities priorto start of operations, the appropriate plans and specifications must besubmitted. Delays in approval for system start-up will occur if these plansare not submitted in a timely fashion.

VJJB:sdl

OCONVERSATION RECORD DATE

D VI«IT

Location of V)stt/Conf*ranei:

OOHFWtHCE TELEPHONE

NAMK Or PKMON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACTwm* vou

SUMMAftY

ORGANIZATION (OfllM. *•«., bwrMu.

INCOMINGOUTOOtNQ

NOUTING

NAMC/SrMIOL Mr

7M&

5 A *e*c*

ACTION RCQUIKCD

NAME Of KRMN OOCUMKNTINO CONVCRftATlON

£JM

•WfiATURC O.T.

ACTION TAKEN

TTTII DAT!

..... ...... *ECMD

OCONVERSATION RECORD

TV*E Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE

Lootion of VMt/Connjrwwt:NAMf Or KNOWS) COMTACTID OR IN CONTACT OMAMZATtON (OHWITH YOU . •ttrt J

TIME OATt

gy TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGjgrOUTQOINQ

fc*. *ot. burMU. TELEPHONE NO*.

SUBJECT ^

I/&4H&

/, y/fr/&s7 KOVTIMO

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAMC OP rCMOM DOCUMCNTINO CONVCMATION StoMATUM DATE

TIMK imx DAT!

..... ...... REOORO

o CONVERSATION RECORD ™ <?*'<&>*» """ ft^ff-I__ ——— . —————————————————————————————————————— £ ——— ?tf£ ——————— x-^-2 ————— _

Q VISIT p CONFMENCE TELEPHONE^^ Q INCOMING

Location of Visit /Conwvncv! j y OUTQOINGNAMC or fcmoNff) CONTACTID OK IN CONTACT OMANIZATMN (Offea. «w.. MitMu. TCLCPHONC NO-.WITH YOU fc «*J /J > >• S.

X'y^SS/JXd /^&3f& (^&Q/SUCJECT ^

/ ^

•OUTINGNAMe/STMIOL IKT

SUMMARY

/^

ACTION RCQUIII£D

NAMC Of PCMON OOCUMCNTtNO CONVMMTION MQNATUMC DATS

ACTION TAKEN

nru OATt

..... ...... MOMD ecnurrMOtr or

UNITED STATESr ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY*» REGION 5

» 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST^ 4? CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60604

*L w*°r REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

5HR

John BrouckAssociate DirectorWaste Management DivisionPEDCO Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester RoadP.O. Box 46100Cincinnati, Ohio 45246

Dear Mr. Brouck:

During the past month, I have had numerous telephone conversations and I haveissued a number of directives to the Response Manager assigned to the VeronaWell Field Project (Delivery Order Number 0008). All of these dealt withwork and information that needed to be performed and supplied in relation tothis project. To date, much of the work and information requested has notbeen completed or supplied.

Some of the items missing are basic requirements of the ERCS contract and thedelivery order, and much of the information requested was needed in order tokeep our other ongoing work at the site progressing smoothly. The lack ofinformation has had a significant negative impact on this project.

The following are some examples of the problems I have had with Pel:

1. Completion of the daily 1900-55 forms has been routinely days andeven weeks late. There has not been an acceptable 1900-55 fonncompleted since June 14, 1984. (On July 9, 1984, forms were sub-mitted for the period between June 15, 1984, and July 9, 1984.These were unacceptable and were returned for revisions and correc-tions on July 23, 1984. Nothing has been submitted since that date.)

2. The daily work orders of May 11, 15, 16 and 22, 1984, stated that thetransformer was to have been ordered. The order was not actuallyplaced until June 15, 1984. As a result, the delivery and tystallationcould not be completed until August 2, 1984. This resulted in a delayof the testing of the air stripping unit.

3. On June 13, 1984, a PEI Engineer, spent most of the day on-sitecollecting information and doing take-offs so that he could completeas-built drawings of the 11ft station. Those drawingS'Were datedJune 19 and June 28, 1984. They were not mailed to me until July 12,1984. When I reviewed them I found them incomplete, and unacceptable,

- 2 -

so I returned them with my comments on July 23, 1984. To date I havenot received any corrected copies. The main reasons for the as-builtswere to assist contractors doing other work on the site, and to enablethe Michigan Department of Natural Resources to prepare a CooperativeAgreement for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the air strippingunit that will replace the carbon vessels. Construction of the airstripper was completed 1n early August, and currently progress on theCooperative Agreement is stalled pending completion of the O&M Manual,

4. Rick Goodman of Battle Creek was selected in late June to maintainand operate the carbon system and collect weekly samples. He hasbeen performing these tasks in good faith since July 3, 1984; howevar,

. to date, no purchase order has been issued to him for his work.

5. A supply of sample bottles and shipping materials has to be maintainedin Battle Creek. However, on three separate occasions the supply hasbeen exhausted and the materials had to be rushed out at the lastsecond. On each occasion, PEI was Informed in advance that the supplywas running low and that it needed to be replenished immediately.

There have been numerous other problems but 1t would serve no purpose to furtherenumerate them at this time. As a response contractor, PEI has failed to complywith both major and minor provisions of the ERCS contract and the delivery orderfor this project. The firm has also had serious trouble carrying out requests,performing work, and generally managing this delivery order.

While it may be true that most work and information was eventually performedand delivered, the unnecessary delays In accomplishing this has resulted inincreased costs and delays in completion of this project.

There 1s still a great deal of information that is needed and much work thathas to be performed on this project. Some time during the next 3 to 6 weeksthe carbon units will have to be disassembled and arrangements will have to bemade to clean and salvage the pipe and fittings that have been used. Uponcompletion of the field work, all costs and forms will have to be completedand finalized. The final project report, as outlined in my July 17, 1984,letter to PEI, will have to be prepared and submitted in draft form no laterthan 45 days after completion of work at the site.

Unlike most delivery orders that have been submitted under the ERCS contracts,this one has been a very large scale, complex, and demanding project. Becauseof this, the response contractor needs to effectively set priorities to handle

- 3 -

the demands of a project this size. This must be done quickly to come to termswith the demands of this project. The status of this project can no longerremain 1n Its current state of incompleteness and uncertainty.

If you have any questions or coiiwients or 1f you would like to discuss thismatter further, please contact me at*(312) 886-0397.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Caplice, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

CONVERSATION RECORD TIMC OATC — y? <5P»

Q VISIT G CONrCftfNCC TELEPHONE' G INCOMING

Locftfen of VWt/Conftrmct: *£f OUTGOINGNAMC Or FCMOMS) CONTACTID OH IN CONTACT OftQANUmm noo > x «i«o

/7»5, » /

ATION ffMIc*. *•«., bwfMu.

42 / X>^ 1'1 9 {&•€&)

TtLEPHONt NO.

SUBJECT (/

fal*X* S&J*!??-.

HOVHNG

NAMC/SVMIOL INT

SUMMARY

///

ACTION MCQUIMCD

NAMC OP KMON DOCUMCNTlNO CONVCMATION dONATUHC DATE

ACTION TAKIN

HTLK OATt

..... ...... ,....,.,-.,„.... COWEWAT10M MOORD

August 29, 1984

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.1 1 499 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45246<St3) 782-47OO


/

V

Mr. Dan Cap!iceU.S. Environmental Protection Agency5-HR230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

Subject:

Dear Dan:

ERA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Field Project

As directed in your letter of July 24, please find enclosed the 1900-55 formsfor June 14 and 26, July 5 and 9, and August 9 for the subject delivery order.All of these except the July 5 and August 9 forms were previously submitted toyou on July 12, 1984. Please sign these and return the yellow copies to ouroffice at your earliest convenience. The issues raised in your July 24 letterare addressed below.

1. It was our understanding that the insulation of all piping in the drywell would be billed as fixed rate labor and materials per our discussionof June 12. However, per your direction we have modified the 1900-55form for June 14 to show this activity as a reimbursable cost (cost plus3%) subcontract. A copy of the Invoice from Drake Insulation is enclosed,

2. As you indicated in your letter, Murray Construction used a 2-ton paneltruck instead of a stake-bed truck on June 14. This change has beenincorporated into the 1900-55 form for that day.

3. On the 1900-55 form for June 26, we indicated that 7 hours had been spentby PEAS personnel to specify and order the transformer. These hours werein fact spent on several tasks, the most significant of which involvedlocating transformer manufacturers, issuing bid specifications andanswering questions for potential bidders, and finally accepting bids andselecting a vendor. In addition, Mr. Stockwell provided assistance inordering probes to fit our adjusted overflow height, and in reordering aground probe fitting.

4. Please find enclosed copies of supporting documents for all materialscharges included on the 1900-55 form for July 26, 1984. All availableinformation regarding quantities, delivery dates, etc., is included inthese invoices. We have also modified the daily 1900-55 form to providethe additional clarification requested in your July 24 letter. Fouryards of additional top soil were required to bring the surrounding levelof the lift station to finished grade.

•RANCH OFFICES

CHESTER TOWERSDALLAS, TEXAS

GOLDEN. COLORADOCOLUMBUS. OHIO

DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Dan Cap!ice - 2 - August 29, 1984

5. The $79 air freight bill from Emery was for shipment of probes fromElectronics Corporation of America in Manchester, N.H.

6. With regard to our analytical costs, we provided you with a verbalestimate of $100 per sample on May 30, 1984. This estimate includedanalysis of five samples per week for seven chlorinated organics, whichwe discussed at the time of our estimate. In addition, PEI would provideshipping containers, packing materials, standard tags, chain-of-custodyforms, five sample bottles, and round-trip shipping of samples. Sincethat time, you have requested that PEI expand the analytical program toinclude 1,2-dibromoethane and pH. The additional $12.00 per samplesimply covers the additional organic compound and pH,

7. The 1900-55 forms for June 26 and July 9 show a total of 28 hours dedi-cated to the preparation of as-built drawings. During this period thefollowing activities were also undertaken by PEAS personnel.0 A new structural record drawing was developed to replace the 8* x 11

engineering plans and sections which are inappropriate for permanentrecord.

0 Possible methods for increasing pump head were Investigated, and Mr..- Stockwell contacted the manufacturer of the pumps about supplying

\ larger impellers.0 PEAS provided you with a letter explaining the use of large impellers

to increase available pump head. This letter also transmitted pumpcurves which had been highlighted to demonstrate the operatingconditions at the Verona Well Field.

0 PEAS engineers also reviewed possible wiring schemes for the levelcontrols and alarms and determined a method for providing a workableoverflow alarm without purchasing an additional probe, as had beenplanned.

If you have any further questions regarding these 1900-55 forms, pleasecontact me or John Bruck at 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,

PEI, Inc.

Michael C. HesslTngResponse Manager

MCH/vss

Enclosures

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME 0*TC

D VISIT O CONFERENCE ^ f TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

Loeatlon of Vteft/Conf»wict: Jg OUTGOINGNAMC Of PCMON<« CONTACTED Oft (N CONTACT OMANIIATION <Offic«. d t. burMu. TCLCPHONC MC-WITH YOU y/1 y •*e'VV ./ /* \

/pfycSSrfftftf ^$&3$ (_c?t£& JSUUECT 7/ -

/ .Xj* '//&c&*&~ »

ROUTING

NAME/SVMBO). INT

SUMMARY

&ft*

7&

ACTION REQUIRED

NAftW OF FCMOM OOCUMCNTINO CONVCMATION •MHATIMC OAT1

ACTION TAKEN

kTIMC TITU DATE

..... ...... or

OCONVERSATION RECORD "V'yrfi.."^ F/t*O/&*s

Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE [JV LEPHONE7^ Q INCOMING

Location of Vbtt/Confertnct: ÔUTGOINGNAME Or FEMON(t) CONTACTED OH IN CONTACT OMOANtZAMN (Ofltc.. MM.. bufMu, TELEPHONE Nff.WITH VOU > v BteJ ^ j f

SUBJECT /

//&&#*

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

', <?*tr

ACTION RCQUIMCO

NAME OF KH»ON DOCUMfNTlNO CONVERSATION •ONATUHC

TAKEN

tTUME mut DATE

..... ...... ,..,-.., ...,.,„ COHVOWAflOI. RCOMD

250 Srigden Dri veB a t t l e Creek, Mich i i jdnSeptember 7,1934

Mr. Mike HessllngPedco Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester RoadCincinnati, Ohio 45246

Dear Mike:

As you have requested, I have prepared a sunmary of my work expensos tooperate, maintain, and sample the carbon filtration units at the VeronaWell Field site in 3attle Creek, Michigan. The surmary is as follows:

July 1984

4 weeks 0 $75.00 $300.00

August 1984

5 weeks 0 $75.00 $375.00

September 1984 (thru 9/7/84)

1 week tf $75.00 $ 75.ofr

Total (7/1/84 thru 9/7/84) $750.00

I would appreciate it 1f you could approve payment for this work as qu icK lyas possible. I understand that carbon units will only *>e operating forabout three or four more weeks. When the system 1s shut down, my work w i l lbe completed and at that time, I will submit a final breakdown of expenses toyou.

If you have any questions on this subject or if I can he of further a s s i s -tance to you, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rick Goodman

cc: Dan Caplice, U.S. FPA

Remedial ResponseSection I

OCONVERSATION RECORD ™" """ ^ ' // S?g

O vlsn' >C

NAUC OF KMSONW CONTACTED Oil IN CONTACTwrm YOU - . .

rfcONFEWNCt Q TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGQ OUTOOINQ

OHOANIUTION (Offie*. dt*t. tamy. TCLKPHONC NO:

fjfafa&SUBJECT ^ yv.

HOUTING

NAMI/SYMiOt (NT

SUMMARY

NAMC OF FCMON OOCUMCNTINO CONVCMSATION StOMATUMC OATl

ACTION TAKEN /

•ONATUM BATE

..... ...... ,..,.,.,-„./.,„ MOORD

CONVERSATION RECORD TIME DAT!

visrr

Location of VMt/Confortnet:

Q TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGPI OVTQOING

NAME Or PEMMNft) CONTACTED OH IN CONTACTWITH TOU

OMANtZATIOM (Oflk*. d^t. NO1.

•UUCCT

•OUTING

NAMC/SVMBOI.

SUMMAKY

_<fc^_ XO CJ^^-

^ ^_

or nutooH OOCUMCNTINO CONVERSATION

ACTION TAKEN

DATE

»QMATU« TTTU DATt

..... ..... COHVBI«TI«« REOORO


CINCINNATI. OHIO 43246(513) 7S2-47OO

TELECOPIER (51 3) 782-48O7

Remedial ResponseSection I

September 7, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceOn-Scene CoordinatorRemedial Response Section IU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (5-HR)230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

Subject: ERA Contract No. 68-01-6894ERCS Zone IIIDelivery Order No. 6894-05-008

Dear Mr. Caplice:

In response to your letter of August 28, and in confirmation of the telephoneconversation between Messrs. Bowden, Vanderlaan, Jutze, Hessling, you and me,I offer the following comments.

Generally, I think we all agree that considering the "high profile" nature ofthe Battle Creek project, and the technical and timing (particularly) con-straints, the current status of the treatment system is quite commendable.This is due largely to the capabilities and cooperation of all parties in-volved.

The particular "problems" noted in your letter have been resolved, or will beresolved in the performance of the delivery order, as we discussed. We willdiscuss these in more detail with you during our September 11 meeting inCincinnati.

It is important to make clear to you that, 1n our opinion, the conclusionsdrawn in your letter ("As a response contractor, PEI has failed to comply withboth major and minor provisions of the ERCS contract and the delivery orderfor this project. The firm has also had serious trouble carrying out requests,performing work, and generally managing this delivery order.") are unfoundedand unfair. We have fully cooperated with and met the needs of all projectpersonnel, and clearly complied with the provisions of the ERCS contract andthe specific requirements of the delivery order. Any conclusion to thecontrary would be wrong. A retraction of your conclusions would be welcomedand appreciated.

•RANCH OFFICES

CHESTER TOWERSDALLAS. TEXAS

QOLDEN, COLORADOCOLUMBUf, OHIO

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Daniel M. Cap!ice - 2 - September 7, 1984

Dan, I am confident that we can complete the requirements of the deliveryorder satisfactorily, and look forward to our upcoming meeting. Should youhave any questions, especially regarding our position on the conclusionsstated in your letter, please let me know.

Respectfully,

PEI, Inc.

John M: Bruck'7'P-E.Zone- Program Manager

JMB/vss

cc: R. BowdenG. VanderlaanG. JutzeM. HesslingJ. Oowett

/ D. BrittonV

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Reply to:NATURAL RfSOURCfS COMMISSION

THOMASJ ANDERSON ~>*na**' 4^ f| ^ 5 t3t6 OfC.

JAMES J.BLANCHARD, Governor 301 E. Lou1s Q11 ck Hwy

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jackson, MI 49201PAULH WENOLER

HARRY H WHITGLEV RONALD 0. SKOOG. Director

September 14, 1984

CERTIFIED MAIL

Michigan Department of Natural ResourcesGroundwater Quality DivisionRemedial Action SectionMason Bldg., 8th FloorLansing, MI 48909

Attn: Ms. Patricia McKay

Re: Groundwater Treatment'System, Verona Wellfield, NPDESPermit MI0042994

Dear Ms. McKay:

Staff has completed review of the plans and control procedures for theair stripper system and associated wetwell/drywell. Based upon the plans

f and procedures received September 4 and 7, 1984, and conversations with variousk.. state and federal personnel, these plans and control procedures are approved

conditional upon the following iteins:

1. Verification that our concerns have been addressed by submittalof the revised as-built plans for the wetwell/drywell by September28, 1984.

2. Determination as to whether or not protection from harsh weatheris necessary for proper operation of the water level detection probes(by October 5, 1984) and, if necessary, provision for same no laterthan November 30, 1984.

3. Submlttal of draft Operation and Maintenance Manual for the systemby November 30, 1984.

Feel free to contact me 1f there are any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Steve EldredgeJackson District SupervisorSurface Water Quality Division517-788-9598

SE:yscc: _John Dikinis, EPACc:

flt02fl-1

oCONVERSATION RECORD ™3:p.y-f """ 9/>ir£</

TYPE ' S~Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE >^TELEPHONE

' Q INCOMINGLocation of Vitit/Conf*nine«: ^gÔUTGOINGNAME or remoN(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (otric*. dtpt.. burt»u, TELEPHONE NO-.WITH YOU , „ «le.) X^ V .X* \

fZ&AjL&Z&tif "• fo2r@& \—&r?tfS)SUBJECT ^

/r r^f .^Sf^^^^f J^r*m f^^^^f f£SE—^^r

''ROUTINONAMC/SVMBOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME Or PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION WONATUM

ACTION TAKEN '

OHATURf Tine DATC

.«.,. ...... ,..,.,.,.„.,.,.. COHVOHAT10H RECORD OEFARTMCHT OP DCFCNSCiaaCFCN

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.1 1 499 CHESTER ROAD

CINCINNATI. OHIO 49246(913) 782-47OO

TELECOPIER (SI 3) 782-48O7

September 21, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. Cap!iceRemedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (5-HR)230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604 Remedial Response

Section ISubject:

Dear Dan:

EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on September 11 regarding thecurrent status and planned activities on the Verona Well Field project. Inthe interest of assuring that a common understanding is maintained on allissues discussed, we have summarized below the major topics of discussionduring that meeting.

1. Documentation of costs was provided or clarified for the following items:0 Steel grating from Ryerson Steel0 Rebar from Hausman0 The transformer from Vantrans, Inc.

2. A typed copy of all field negotiated rates for this project, as previouslypresented to the contracting officer, was provided.

3. The pumps have been inspected by Kerr Machinery and found to be in goodworking order. Arrangements for periodic lubrication will be madebetween you and the City of Battle Creek, independent of the ERCS con-tract.

4. During the meeting we prepared an additional set of marked up recorddrawings to Incorporate comments by Union Electric and to clarify severaldetails. Since that time we have received one written and two verbalsets of revisions from your office. At this time we anticipate submittalof these drawings to you no later than Monday, September 24. As wediscussed, we will forward four copies to your office by air courier.

•RANCH OFFICES


OOLOEN. COLORADOCOLUMBUS. OHIO


Mr. Daniel M. Cap!ice - 2 - September 21, 1984

5. As you pointed out during the meeting, charges for the Accelerated ColumnTest (ACT) have not yet appeared on a 1900-55 form. We have contactedCalgon regarding this apparent omission and anticipate a reply shortly.If additional charges are pending, they will appear on the October1900-55 form.

6. In order to document the various activities performed by PEAS personnel,it is agreed that our letter to you dated August 29 should be attached asan integral part of all copies of the 1900-55's for June 26 and July 9.

7. As indicated in your letter of July 17, a final report will be preparedfollowing the completion of this project. This report will summarize theapproach used, problems encountered, and solutions to those problems andwill include a summary of all costs on the project. In general, thisreport will address all of the subjects suggested in your letter with theexception of item 3d (effectiveness of the system installed), which willbe handled by your office.

8. It is ancitipated that the carbon treatment system will be placed onstandby on or about September 19, when the air stripping unit is placedin service. These units will remain on standby for a period of about 2to 4 weeks during which the air stripper is evaluated and demonstrated tobe reliable.

. As we discussed, the ERCS contract requires, under Article XXII, thatequipment shall not remain on standby for periods exceeding 14 consecu-tive days without the written approval of the contractor. Such writtenapproval may not present a problem for PEI, provided we do not develop amonthly standby rate for this equipment (under the 14-day constraints ofArticle XXII a monthly standby situation could not occur). The Zone•Program Manager, Mr. John Bruck, will discuss this last issue with thecontracting officer and, 1f possible, will provide the required writtenapproval as appropriate.

9. As you have directed, during the period of evaluation of the air stripperPEI will continue to provide VGA analysis of samples from the Veronasite. We anticipate that 4 samples will be analyzed per week, includingthe inlet and outlet streams, a blank sample, and one duplicate. We willcontinue to provide this analysis on a 24-hour turnaround basis at a costof $112.00 per sample. Sufficient sample bottles, labels, coolers, etc.have been shipped to the site to accommodate four weeks of sampling.

10. Finally, it is our understanding that demobilization of the carbontreatment system is scheduled for the second or third week of October.PEI will make arrangements for the following activities to occur asscheduled during the demobilization week.

Mr. Daniel M. Cap! ice - 3 - September 21, 19840 A piping contractor (probably Hunter Prell) will disconnect the

treatment units and dismantle the piping.0 Calgon Carbon Corporation will provide removal of the carbon and

treatment vessels.0 A representative of Galloup Pipe & Supply will be available to

discuss the salvage value of the dismantled pipe.8 All piping materials will be steam cleaned prior to their removal

from the site.0 The grating over the wet well will be painted to prevent further

rust.0 PEI will provide the following equipment required for system de-

mobilization:

A 150-cfm air compressor200-ft. of fire hoseA steam jennyA paint sprayer and paintA 50-ton crane

In summary, Dan, I believe that the meeting was most productive in improvingour mutual understanding of the project progress to date, the informationalneeds of all parties concerned, and the steps necessary to complete thisproject in a smooth and efficient manner. If any of the above notes orplanned activities do not accurately reflect your understanding from ourmeeting, please contact me immediately to resolve those issues.

Sincerely,

PEI, Inc.


MCH/vss


j;#sn DATE

O n vis*Location of Vrstt/ConftrtnCK

Q CONFERENCEQ INCOMING

J33J0UTGOINGNAME Of KHSON(S) CONTACTED OK IN CONTACTWITH YOU

ORGANIZATION (Office. <»•*.. bwrwu.«*e-l

TELEPHONE NO-.

SUBJECT £/

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL ! (NT

SUMMARY

AT <4440&7.

t*t sWO*** &&143

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OP PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION tlQNATURE DATE

ACTION TAKEN '

TU« TTTLE MTI

10271-101»U.S. G . ^ . O . !»•!.1*1•

CONVCMATION RECORD LOfnWTMENT OP DETENVC

DATE

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION V

SUBJECT: interpretation of the ERCS Contract

c

TO:

Daniel M. CapHce, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section !

&/

Dorothy BrittonContracting OfficerProcurement Section H (PM-214F)

During the past four months there has been a great deal of confusion 1n re-gard to the proper Interpretation of the ERCS Contract {Number 68-01-6894).The primary questions concern the proper and appropriate mode of billingthe various services that the ERCS contractor supplies. The specific areas1n question are Article XI; Article XII and Article XXXIV.

Article XII should provide a clear Interpretation of fixed versus re-imbursable costs that may be Incurred by contractors and subcontractorsduring the performance of work and the contract. The current format of thisarticle allows for a very wide spectrum of interpretations on this subject.

There are primarily two views that are presented depending on who Is doingthe Interpretation. These are as follows:

1. If an Item 1s listed 1n Exhibit C, then Irrespective of the item'ssource, cost, or supplier, according to Article XI and Article XIIparagraphs 8 and C, the Item 1s to be paid for at the rate speci-fied 1n Exhibit C. This point of view effectively eliminates re-imbursable costs which are addressed in Article XII paragraphs F,G, and H.

2. Based on a strict Interpretation of Article XII, the fixed ratesin Exhibit C can only be paid 1f the Items are supplied by theprime contractor (PEI) or one of the sixteen subcontractors aslisted 1n Article XXXIV. When Items are furnished by subcontrac-tors which are not listed 1n Article XXXIV, the costs shall bereimbursable ones, and shall be limited to the actual costsIncurred plus a material and handling change of three percent.

The original purpose of this contract was to provide an effective methodto quickly respond to emergencies arising from hazardous substance re-leases or threats of release. While It may have orglnally been plannedthat this contract would be primarily a fixed rate contract, the pre-sent format of this contract 1s primarily cost-plus.

VAPONM

In order to avoid problems on future delivery orders, a review of thecontract should be conducted as soon as possible. An attorney with agood background 1n contract lav/ should review, modify, and purpose anamendment to the contract. He should be specifically concerned withany area that deals with the subject of fixed versus reimbursible costs.If the original intent was for this to be primarily a fixed rate contract,then it should be revised to correctly reflect this intention. Becausethis contract Is new and because there is a great deal of work that hasyet to be performed, this matter needs to be promptly resolved.

If you have any comments or questions pertaining to this matter, pleasecontact me at FTS 886-0397.

cc: Bowden, 5SCOOBartelt, 5HRTalbert, 5CJowett, WH-548-BMaier, WH-548-B

QCONVERSATION RECORD *

. Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE

Location of VisK/Confervnct:NAMC OP PCHSON(t> CONTACTED OH IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (OffWITH YOU j y * «CO y-1 ,/

SUBJECT 7/ . *

TIMC OATC S S

^ TELEPHONE^^ n INCOMING

^gÔUTGOINGIc*. d»pt.. bur«*u. TCLCPHONC NO1.

HlOUTING

NAMC/SYMBOL INT

SUMMARY

o ^C^<x >£&

GTS

ACTION REQUIMCD

NAMC OP PCHSON OOCUMCrnTINO CONVCMATION•»

DATE

ACTION TAKEN

>TUNC TITLt DATE

1""-"1 ..... ..-.o. ,..,.,.,-.,./.,» CONWiWATIOH KOORO omowu. POMI 2DCnUtTWCNT OF OCPDKC


1 REGION f>• 2.;r SOUTH [jEAfv»v_w. I.T

-~"-"^ *>• \\* K ,\5HR

Mr. John BrouckAssociate DirectorWaste Management Division itr Z7Pedco Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester RoadP.O. Box 46100Cincinnati, Ohio 45246-0100

Dear Mr. Brouck:

After discussing the various problems related to the Battle Creek project 1nour telephone conference call and our September 11, 1984 meeting in Cincinnati,I believe that the status of the project has now been adequately cleared up andshould be able to proceed smoothly through the completion of the delivery order.

As a result of the meeting, most of the information that was missing has beensupplied. However, at this point, there still remain a few Items that need tobe provided and a couple of Issues that need to be resolved. These are asfollows:

1. Competitive pricing documentation on EPA form 1900-51 or on PEI'sInquiry Summary Sheet must be provided ty PEI for wall forming,Insulation of piping, the electrical transformer, and verticalturbine pumps. These forms are to be submitted to the U.S. EPAbefore October 15, 1984.

2. As-built drawings need to be corrected and finalized based on mycomments that were conveyed at the September 11 meeting. The drawingswere to be finalized and four sets were to be mailed out by MondaySeptember 17, 1984.

3. An extension of the Required Work Completion Date must be obtained.This 1s necessary because, even though all field work will be com-pleted before that date (October 25, 1984), work on the final projectreport will not be finished until later this year.

4. The ERCS contract does not allow any items to be billed standby ratesfor longer than two weeks. The carbon units will be idle for almostfour weeks while they act as a backup system for the air stripper when itbegins operation. Some sort of compromise on how the carbon unitswill be billed during that time period must be reached by October 4, 1984

Once the above Items have been supplied and the issues resolved, this projectshould be in good order to address the final phases of work, I am confident

- 2 -

that the plans and proposed schedule for these tasks, which were developed at theSeptember 11 meeting, can be readily met, and that the project can be satisfac-torily completed shortly thereafter.

If you have any further questions or comments pertaining to this project, theconference telephone call, or the September 11, 1984 meeting, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Caplice, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

cc: Bowden, 5SEDBritton, PM-214-FBartelt, 5HRTalbert, 5CJowett, WH-548-BMaier, WH-548-BHessling, PEI

c

250 Brigden DriveBattle Creek, MI 49017October 1, 1984

Mr. Mike HesslinyPedco Environmental Incorporated14499 Chester RoadCincinnati, OH 45246

Dear Mike,

The following is a final breakdown of my work time that was involvedin the operation, maintenance and sampling of the carbon filtrationunits at the Verona Well Field in Battle Creek, Michigan.

Balance as of September 7, 1984 $750.00

September 1984 (9/8 to 9/28)3" weeks 9 $75.00 $225.00

Total Project Cost (7/3/84 thru 9/28/84 $975.00

I would appreciate your prompt approval and payment of this invoice. AsI stated 1n my previous letter, now that the carbon units have been shut

s down, my work on this project 1s complete. As such, you may consider/ this to be my final invoice for this project.*.,.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this project.If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, or If you have anyquestions regarding this invoice, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rick Goodman

cc: Dan Caplice, U.S. ERA

.r: <•-.., UNITED STATES,0 ML ', ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

? **** * REGIONS

,: Z30 SOUTH OEARBORN ST

CHiCAoC ILLINOIS 6060-1

5HR-13

Russ SchulerVerona Pump Station250 Brlgden DriveBattle Creek, MI 49017

Dear Mr. Schuler,

This 1s just to confirm our telephone conversation of September 4, 1984.

At that time I requested you, or some one at the Verona Station, to perform

some brief maintenance of the pumps 1n the dry well of the newly constructed

U.S. EPA 11ft station. Specifically, I requested that pumps one through four

be greased. There are two grease fittings on each pump, and three or four

shots of all purpose grease had to be applied at each fitting. I believe that

this task was performed shortly after we spoke.

Thank you very much for your help on this matter. Your cooperation throughout

this project has been greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. CapUce, RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

CONVERSATION RECORD

( J ™ * * p VISIT Q CONFERENCE

Locrton of VWt/Confaf»nct:NAME Or KMON(S) CONTACTED OH IN CONTACTMBWU VtfUlV * " V W J j^^ y

\7&&?f &to&&t£

™V.' . 0-11 v y ^ ytyzz&y

J tUPHONE* V1^ naif r»iiainjffjj\ HWBB i nu

Q OtmXMNGOMANIZATION COfflet, «•*., bwrMu. TELEPHONE NO-.

SUBJECT ^f&t&rt£i^

' —

ROUTING

NAMC/SYMiOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTIOM REQUIRED

NAMI Of WMON OOCUHCNTINO CONVERSATION SIOMATIMC DATC

ACTION TAKEN

OATC

..... ,..,.,.,....,.». MOORD

PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.1 1 499 CHESTER ROAO

CINCINNATI. OHIO 43246(913) 782*4700


October 2, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceRemedial Project ManagerU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion V (5-HR)230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

Subject: EPA Contract No, 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

R 0:7101964Remedial Response

Section I

Dear Mr. Caplice:

Regarding your letter of September 28, 1984, we have addressed the specificpoints raised relative to the subject delivery order.

1. As you are aware, no price competition was carried out for wallforming, insulation, the electrical transformer or the verticalturbine pumps. The extremely short schedule dictated the use ofavailable equipment and contractors without routine cost competi-tion. This was confirmed five months ago in my May 7 telephoneconversation with you, when we discussed competition of materialsand services and agreed that in most (if not all) cases it would beimpossible. This was later discussed and approved on May 8 and 11with the ERCS DPO, Bob Bowden. Further, we recommended on a numberof occasions that the form and insulation work be performed underthe fixed rate provisions of the contract, thus obviating the needfor competition. These recommendations were disallowed by you.Provision of these services, materials and equipment were clearlyperformed under your direction and approval.

2. As-built drawings, Including all pertinent comments, are finalizedand have been sent to you.

3. An extension of the required work completion date can be obtainedthrough a request from you to the Contracting Officer, Mrs. DorothyBritton. I have discussed this with Mrs. Britton and she is awareof the situation.

•RANCH OFFICES


GOLDEN. COLORADOCOLUMBUS, OHIO


Mr. Daniel M. Caplice - 2 - October 2, 1984

4. We have discussed extension of the standby rates for the carbonunits with Mrs, Britton and have agreed to account for them using aweekly standby rate ($470 per unit) based on the interim weeklyrate. This rate, as in the case of the interim weekly and monthlyrates, will be subject to negotiation between PEI and EPA's ContractOffice following completion of the delivery order.

Should you have any further questions or comments, please let me know.

Regards,


John M. BruckP.E.Zone Program Manager

JMB/vss

cc: D. BrittonJ. JowettR. BowdenJ. Regan

CONVERSATION RECORDQ VISIT

Location of Vlstt/Conftr*nc«:

D CONFERENCE _\QCTE^

LEPHONEQ INCOMING£g^9UTQOING

NAMt OP PtnONW CONTACTID OR IN CONTACT ORGANIZATION (OJRct. ««.. bwrMu.

SUBJECT

SUMMARYX

•^ X^

ACTION REQUIRED

ROUTING

NAME/SYMBOL INT

NAMC OP PtIWON OOCUMCNTlNa CONVCJtSATION •WMATWIC OATt

ACTIOM TAKEN

a_rum TITLC OATt

OCPMrTMOfT OP

CONVERSATION RECORDTime DATt

o™Location of VitK/Conftrann:

Q VISIT D CONFIWNCE•OUTING

Q INCOMING NAME/SYMBOL INT

NAMC Or PCmON(S) eOMTACTCD OR IN CONTACTWITH tOU

ORGANIZATION (Ofltet, ««*.. burwu.

SUMMARY

v-

ACTION REQUIftCD

/ /*

/

MAMC Of WHOM DOCUMENTING CONVCRBATION •tONATUftE OAT1

ACTION TAKEN

TITU DATE

""-101 ».... ...... ,..,.„,-,,.,.„, COHVBWATIOI. RECORD


r\OATt

DLocation of Yitft/Confervnn:

Q CONrERCNCE TELEPHONEQ INCOMING

NAME OF PEMON(t) CONTAOED OH IN CONTACTWCTH TOU —— '

ORGANIZATION (Offict.•1C.)

tfvot.. burMW. TELEPHONEEPHONE NO.

CM)

OOUTING

NAME/SYMBOL I PNT

SUMMARY

,

ACTION MEQUtKED

NAMt Of PCWOM OOCUMCNTING COMVCMATlON •tONATUK OATS

ACTION TAKEN

,TU« OATl

..... ...... „.,-,„.„.,„.. COWHWAT10H RECORD DCMJrrWENT OP DCFENUTlOJ-TDCFEN

oCONVERSATION RECORD

Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE

Location of Vtelt/Conftrtnc*:NAME Or KMSON(I) CONTACTED Oft IN CONTACTWITH YOU y S

"V.IT7 MTT <'0/&/&<sfoÊLEPHONE

^Q OUTOOINGORGANIZATION (Offlc*. (>WC., burMU. TELCPHONE NO*.

SUBJECT / / S

~

f MOOTING

NAMC/ SYMBOL (NT

SUMMARY

ACTION MCQUtRED

NAMK Or PCMOft DOCUMENTING CONVCRSATION

ACTION TAKEN

TITU DATE

..... ...... ,.„.,.,-„.,.». COI«B»AT10H KECORO oewummrr OP271J12-7O


REGION 5

230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST

CHICAGO iLUNO's 600:4a c 3 L r T ;.> ,;:; L.

5HR-13

Mike HessllngResponse ManagerPedco Environmental, Inc.P.O. Box 4610011499 Chester RoadCincinnati, OH. 45246-0100

Dear Mr. Hessling,

This letter Is following-up to our telephone conversation of October12, 1984. At that time we discussed the schedule of activities fordismantling the carbon adsorbtlon/filtration system in Battle Creek,Michigan. The work schedule 1s as follows:

Monday 10/22/84 (8:OOAM EOT)

1. Hunter Prell (HP) workers on site begin dismantling inlet piping.

2. Calgon Carbon (CC), using the HP air compressor, begins emptyingcarbon vessels A and B.

3. When units A and B are empty, HP workers are to begin preparingthe units for shipment.

Tuesday 10/23/84

1. CC is to empty units C and D.

2. HP to finish the preparation of units A and B for shipment.

3. Additional HP personnel are to begin preparing units C andD for shipment.

Wednesday 10/24/84

1. HP helps CC load units A & B on Calgon trucks for transport.(Schweitzer's crane is to be on site by 8:OOAM for loading of unitsA and B.)

2. CC empties unit E.

3. HP is to finish preparing units C and D for shipment.

4. HP is to prepare unit E for shipment after it is empty.

Thursday 10/25/84

1. HP and CC workers load unit C, D and E for transport.

2. HP finishes dismantling remaining system piping.

3. All U.S. EPA piping 1s to be steam cleaned.

Friday 10/26/84

1. Site clean up.

2. If necessary, finish steam cleaning all pipe.

3. Complete all paper work.

This is a tight schedule that can only be met if all parties involvedcooperate with each other and begin on time. Federal and state regulation'sprohibit the carbon units from being transported during the week-end. The carbon units have to be shipped approximately 500 miles,therefore, all of the units must be loaded and ready for transport by Fridaymorning. If there are unnecessary for unexpected delays 1n this schedule,workers may have to work overtime on Thursday to meet the Friday transportdeadline.

The painting that is necessary at the site will be done on Monday orTuesday, and a represenative from Galloup should be on site by Wednesdaymorning to evaluate the materials available for salvage. At the end ofeach work day a complete 1900-55 form is to be submitted to me for approval,and on Monday October 20, 1984 a complete 1900-55 form must be submittedfor tim period of September 12, 1984 through October 21, 1984.

If you have any questions about this schedule, or 1f you foresee anyproblems or complications that may arise, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Caplice RrfWOSCRemedial Response Section I

Vcc: Bowden

ATTACHMENT'

,.fUNITED STATES '

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION B

230 SOUTH DtAXBORN CTCHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604

TO ATTENTION OF.

5HR-13

Mr. John BrouckAssociated Wector FEDCO ENVIRONMENTALWaste Management Division B» _____Pedco Environmental Incorporated ~~ " ————————11499 Chester RoadP.O. Box 46100Cincinnati, OH. 45246-0100

Dear Mr. Brouck,

During my September 11, 1984 meeting with M1ke Hessllng 1n your offices,we discussed and prepared a schedule for the final phase of the BattleCreek project. Before that meeting was concluded, we had both agreedon the schedule. PEI, the primary contractor for this project, wasthen responsible for contacting the various subcontractors Involvedtc Inform them of the schedule so that they could make any necessaryarrangements.

Apparently, PEI dld^notlfythe subcontractors until almost three weeks later.The primary subcontractor^~Calgon Carbon, has Informed me that they did notreceive official notification until late on October 10, 1984. As a result ofthis, tjxe' final phase of this project has now been delayed one week.

Hopefully i 4w1 11 be no Increased costs as a result of this forcedschedule change. This Is representative of the continuing problems wehave had with PEI as the primary response contractor for this project. Iam particularly distressed over this Incident because 1t has occurreddespite our telephone conference call and subsequent meeting.

If you would like to or discuss this further, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. CapHce KPM/OSCRemedial Response Section 1

S

'

<- I **&'&1& ^ IS/*/(-^ ^ s

&&&s j

•--'- ?^>?z*i - X-»

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PKDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.)

1 1499 CHESTER ROAOCINCINNATI, OHIO 45246

(513) 782-4700TELECOPIER (513) 782-4SO7

October 31, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceOn-Scene Coordinator IDU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR |r\\230 S. Dearborn J

Chicago, IL 60604

Subject: ERA Contract No. 68-01-6894 ~r-Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

Dear Mr. Caplice:

In response to your request on the subject project for the reasoning behindour recommendation of a dry well and end suction pumps over a wet well withturbine pumps, we offer the following information.

The original statement of work, as stated in the delivery order, called for afiltration system to handle 1,700 gpm and to remove at least 95 percent of

x volatile organic solvents. Our first thought was that possibly someone made a( package system that would suffice. No such package was available in the formV of a previously designed or off-the-shelf item. To design and build such a

self-contained unit would require several months.

A wet well with two turbine pumps was considered and several vendors werecontacted {see attached list). Each pump would have been powered by a 60- or75-horsepower motor and would have cost about $7,600 each, or $15,200 for thetwo pumps. Delivery on this equipment was quoted to us as 12 to 16 weeks,eliminating them as a possibility for further consideration.

We found end suction pumps available on a 7- to 10-day delivery. Four 20-horsepower pumps would handle 2,000 gpm and a fifth pump could serve as astandby. Smaller motors were more suitable for the stop-start operationanticipated. Total cost for the five pumps was $6,940. The associatedproject costs for these alternatives were probably similar since the turbinepump installation would have required some sort of weather protective build-ing, while the end suction pumps required only a dry well. Further, as theflow rate/pressure drop requirements were increased, the end suction pumpscould adapt easier than turbine pumps, as well as having smaller incrementalstandby requirements. Our final recommendation, however, was determined bydelivery schedule, which was considered urgent at that time.

•RANCH OFFICE*

CHESTER TOW... DALLAS, TEXAS COLUMBUS. OHIO"""• OENVKR. COLORADO DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

Mr. Daniel M. Caplice - 2 - October 31, 1984

Dan, we will assume that this information satisfies the requirements set forthin item No. 1, modification three (3) of this delivery order unless we hearfrom you to the contrary. If you have any further questions regarding thismatter, please contact me at 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,


John M. Bruck, P.E.Zone Program Manager

JMB/vss

Enclosure

cc: J. JowettB. BowdenD. Britton

ATTACHED LIST

PUMP MANUFACTURERS CONTACTEDFOR DELIVERY ORDER 6894-05-008

_______Company_____

t. Aurora Pump Company

2. Goulds Pumps

3. West Pump Company

4. Welssman Pump Company

5. Enpo Cornell

6. Smith Lovelace

7. Fairbanks Morse

8. Plerless

9. Uorthlngton

'r,HIGANRTMENTPUBLIC

HEALTH

TO:

SUBJECT:

MEMORANDUM

Pat McKay, DNR, Hazardous Waste Division,Remedial Action Section

DATE: 11/1/84

FROM: Jack Novak

HeilthEmployee Health Hazard evaluation at the Verona Well Field/Water decontamination project.

The noise level, based upon a walk-around survey with a sound level meter,is 98 dBA (average) inside the room housing the air stripper motor/blower.The Occupational Health MIOSHA standard therefore sets a maximum exposuretime inside the room of 2 hours 45 minutes per 8 hour workshift. The useof ear protection (ear muffs or plugs) could extend the allowable exposuretime. Any other noise exposure above 90 dBA during the same workshift wouldreduce the time allowed inside the room.

If the work activity requirements for the operators turn out to be ascurrently foreseen, it is unlikely that the MIOSHA noise standard willbe exceeded. However, since it is desirable to reduce any employee exposureas much as is feasible, and also desirable to avoid potential communitynoise complaints, this Division advises that substantial noise reductionsmay be attained by retrofitting sound deadening material to the blower airinlet. Give us a call (373-1410) if you want more details.

We also discussed work activities related to the dry well. It will benecessary for employees to periodically enter this area. We considerthe dry well to be a process space the entry of which Is regulated byour confined space entry rule (R3301). Briefly stated, 00 employee —•(without approved safety and respiratory protective devices) may enter fthe dry well without first thoroughly ventilating the space and testing \ *the atmosphere within to verify its resplrability. Minimum testingnormally Includes oxygen content and combustible gases concentration. Inthis case, we recommend also testing for hydrogen sulfide. Our OccupationalHealth Guide "C" is included for your information.

JJN:khEnclosurecc: Fred DeCamp, DNR, Ground Water Quality Division, Land Application

Unitcc: Case file 8174016

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTHDIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH GUIDE C

CONFINED OR PROCESS SPACE ENTRY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTHFor the purpose of this guide the phrase "confined or process space" means

any space which has limited openings for employee entry and exit, unfavorablenatural ventilation which could contain or produce dangerous concentrations ofair contaminants, flanmable gases or vapors, or a deficiency of oxygen, and isnot intended for continuous employee occupancy. Confined or process spacesinclude, but are not limited to: storage tanks, process vessels, bins, boilers,ventilation or exhaust ducts, sewers, underground utility vaults, tunnels,pipelines, and open top spaces more than four feet in depth such as pits, cubs,vaultsi and vessels.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Michigan Occupational Health Standards administered by the Department ofPublic Health include requirements for entry into confined or process spaces.The specific requirements are found in Rules 3301, 3302, and 3303.

The General Industry Safety Standards of the Michigan Department of Labor,Part 1 - General Rules include rules dealing with work in confined or hazardousspaces.

EMPLOYERS' RESPONSIBILITIES

The employer shall comply with all occupational health and safecy rulesand instruct all employees of the hazards involved, the necessary precautionsto be taken, and in the use of protective and emergency equipment required.

ENTRY PROCEDURES

Michigan Occupational Health Standards have specific rules which requireprecautions to be employed before and during employee entry into a confinedor process space. Both the rules and some guidelines are used in the followingstrategy:

tet^^-^'M^r:tt--'2&&'tti• •*< VWV ->(C. ' ..'.V .

Ventilate and Teat

Prior to employee entry, the confined or process space shall be thoroughlyventilated and then tested to determine the presence of a respirable atmosphere.The testing should consist of the determination for the percentage of oxygen,the percentage of possible combustible gases, and the airborne concentration ofany suspected chemicals. Guidelines for determining a minimally acceptablerespirable atmosphere for these three categories are: oxygen, 19.SZ; combustiblegas, SZ of the lower explosive limit (L.E.L.) for each gas; chemicals, theairborne concentration of each chemical present oust be compared vith the MichiganOccupational health limits—Maximum Allowable Concentration. Exposure to aconcentration at or below the established limit would not disable an individualand thereby prevent self-rescue. If any detectable amount of a combustible orchemical gas or vapor is present or the percentage of oxygen is less than 19.5X,proper ventilation should be continued to maintain a respirable atmosphere. Thetesting should be done by a qualified person who is familiar with the Instrumentcalibration and operation and the testing procedures.

c

A tut of th* oonfinsd epoee shallb* mads to dstazmn* the presenceof a respivdbl* atmosphere.

To insure more responsible testing, it is recommended that a permanent log of thetest results and instrument-checks be established and maintained. See Figure 1.

\

Figure 1 — Example of Repeated Fixed Location Entry Log

Confined Space EntryRepeated Fixed Location

XYZ Company Procedures

1. Before personnel are permitted to enter thespace), at location . thewith an oxygen indicator priorwill be required for entry.

2. Before entry of the above de«c;•hall be used to determine tha51 of the lover explosive Umlvapors shall also be determines

3. The confined space will be ideiconditions (1) and (2) above airecorded below and signed by a

4. An air- line respirator with a 1and a safety harness and lifel:

(confined5. Entry will not be made until t!

breathing apparatus and moved jposition over hatch.

Calibration ofIns t rumen t at ionOxygenUnit

Combust,Gas Unit

to entry

ribed spact combust dE. The pi1.itif led a*re satlslitrained iFull faceLne will I•pace) .ie staodb>i portable

(confinedoxygen level shall be measuredA minimum of 19.52 oxygen

:e, a combustible gas indicator.ble vapors are not present above•esence of other toxic gases or

i being acceptable for entry after'led, and this information will beluthorized person,mask and 5- minute escape air supply>e worn by the person entering the

' man has checked out self-containeds winch and lifting line to eyebolt

InstrumentReadings

Location ofSampling Point

Time ofReading*

OxygenPercent

Combust. GasZ L.E.L.

OtherChemical!

AuthorizedPersonnelSignature

i

Ventilation Information

Some dilution ventilation information is contained in the A.C.G.l.H.Manual, Industrial Ventilation (copies of this Information are available fromthe M.D.P.H. upon request). It also contains information about fan types,selection, and inlet and outlet connections. When flexible duct will be usedwith a fan, its extra resistance to airflow (friction loss) must be consideredin sizing the fan. The duct manufacturer should be able to supply friction lossinformation for his products.

After selection and purchase of the ventilation equipment, a test run of theassembly is recommended to check the operation and air volume to prevent possibleproblem* at the site.

Exercise caution to prevent recirculation of the exhaust air or contaminationof the air supplied to the confined or process space. A common contaminationsource is the exhaust from portable gasoline engines operating the ventilationfan or from nearby idling vehicles.

BLOWER

Proper ventilation should be continuously provided tomaintain a respirable atmosphere.

Entry Procedures

Confined or process space entry requires definite procedures. Supervisoryauthorization ffhould be obtained prior to entry. Entry permits have beenadopted by experienced employers for this purpose (see Figure 2). Also, theneed for a personnel check-in/check-out system at the point of entry for a

i-ontined or process space should be apparent (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 — Example of Confined or Process Space Entry Permit

Vessel Entry Permit

This permit must be completed and posted to authorize die ;it"tVi*ti«il fin|>l.<v<vM («enter the stated vessel for cleaning. Inspection, or maliUfnuiuv work. it mu.Mbe prominently displayed ac the entrance of the vessel during the untiru ilmranyone is in the vessel.

This will authorize theTo enter _.__________Location __________From

(building)AM PM to

__ Department personnel.(equipt. name and number)_______ (process/area)

____ AM PMData

Purpose for enteringVentilation required

This permit is valid for only one workshift.

I have personally inspected this vessel and:

1. The vessel (has) (has not) been drained of its contents and allconnecting pipelines (have) (have not) been shut off and (are)(are not) locked out.

2. Ventilation of the vassal has been accomplished (by natural)(by mechanical) means for a time period of ________.

3. Calibrated oxygen meter readings have been taken at the proposed worklevel. _____% of oxygen was detected.

4. Calibrated combustible gas meter readings have been taken at theproposed work level. % of the L.E.L. for ____________was detected.

5. Other chemicals detected

Conclusion

Vessel AtmosphereNot Safe to Enter Without.* Entry Requirements

Continuous mechanical vent.Oxygen/Combust, gac MonitorHarness & LifelineStandby PersonnelSCBA or Escape type Air-line

Vessel AtmosphereSafe to Enter but use

SignatureSafety A Health Officer

Remarks:

Figure 3 — Example of Confined Space Entry Log

Confined Space Entry LogPersonnel and Check-in/Check-Out

LOCATION OF CONFINED SPACEBui Id inn : Pro cess /Area :

DATE OF ENTRY - Person in Charge:Title:

Authorized Personnel to Job Work Location Standby Employee:Enter Confined Space Title In Confined Space 1.

Z.

Calibration ofInstrumentation

OxygenUnit

Combust.Gas Unit

InstrumentReadings

Location of Time of Oxygen Combust. Gas OtherSampling Point Readings Percent S L.E.L. Chemicals

f Authorized Personnel in Confined SpaceSignature of the

PersonnelTime

Into Space Out of Space

Ventilation of Confined So aceProvidedYes No

Time Periodof Violation

Duct DischargeAir Volume

Respiratory Equipment

In the absence of ventilation and testing or if the tests Indicate a non-respirable atmosphere, a person trained in the use of respiratory equipmentshall be authorized to enter the space. He shall be equipped with an escape typeair-line respirator or a self-contained breathing apparatus, a safety harness,and a lifeline before entry. The employee shall also wear protective clothing ifthe contaminant in the confined or process space can cause dermatitis or canbe absorbed through the skin. Smoking should be prohibited when in any confinedor process space.

Written procedures shall be prepared covering the proper use of respiratorsIn normal operations or during emergencies. Personnel shall be familiar withChase procedures and fitted and trained In the use of respirators. Personnelshall also have been examined by a physician to determine If they are able tophysically perform the work while wearing a respirator.

If the ventilation of the space and the tests show oxygen to be less than19,5X, a self-contained breathing apparatus or an escape cype air-line respiratorshall be used. While these respirators with the former Bureau of Mines (BMcode numbers) approval may still be available in some companies, they shouldno longer be used. The Bureau of Mines approval has not been extended beyondMarch, 1980. Respiratory equipment approved Jointly by the National Institutefor Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Mining Safety and HealthAdministration (MSHA) are acceptable. A separate publication, RespiratorSelection Guide, is available from the Michigan Department of Public Health uponrequest.

Safety Concerns

If ventilating a confined or process space opening interferes with vehiculartraffic, appropriate warning sign* cod protective barriers shall be promptly setup before the covers of manholes, hand holes, or vaults are removed. The wordingof a warning sign would depend upon the nature and the location of the hazardsInvolved. Before an employee enters a street opening such as a manhole, it shallbe protected with a barrier, temporary cover, or other suitable guard.

Means shall be provided for quick removal of employees in case of emergency.When a safety harness and lifeline are used, they should be properly attachedto the employee so that his body cannot be jammed in the exit opening.

A standby employee with a pre-planned rescue procedure shall be stationedoutside the entrance to the confined or process space to observe or communicatewith the employee at all time*. The standby employee shall be trained andequipped to initiate rescue operation. It should be realized that a singleperson can seldom raise an unconscious body without a mechanical device.This rule Is interpreted to mean that without such a device, additionalpersonnel muat be within easy summoning distance. It Is also interpreted torequire approved self-contained breathing apparatus or escape type air-linerespirators for the additional personnel who may have to enter the confined orprocess space to perform a rescue.

Communications (visual, voice, or signal line) shall be maintained betweenall individuals present. Under all circumstances, a standby employee mustremain at the entrance to the space to coordinate the rescue and provideadditional assistance.

uif-conmnf» MuntiNC AFMMTUS< KM MM* «t TANK) (TWMT

Proper fnrun.1 of rwui'aft'HtTexxtiry far employer* irunU'rij* in cintfnn't/ \p<iif\

7

A standby employee stationed outside a confined space is vital.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR UNPREDICTABLE SPACES OR SYSTEMS

The above requirements and precautions assume a relatively stable andpredictable situation. However, •one spaces or systems may be consideredunpredictable. Working in an active sever or sump containing organic wastes isone example. A large quantity of dissolved toxic or combustible gases could beliberated in an unpredictable manner. Another example is working in an under-ground pipeline which has been recently covered with soil that happened to containactive aerobic organisms. If the interior cavity of the pipeline has not beensealed from the surrounding soil, the cavity may develop an oxygen deficiency.

As the rules used for confined or process space specify, ventilation andtesting are still required to assure a reepirable atmosphere prior to employeeentry. However, because of the unpredictable nature of these special cases,we recommend continuous ventilation while the employee is in the space and thatthe employee carry portable oxygen and gas detection instrumentation. Analternative recommendation is to provide the employee with a self-containedbreathing apparatus or an escape type air-line respirator and safety harnessand lines.

CONFINED OR PROCESS SPACES THAT CONTAIN BULK OR LOOSE MATERIAL

When an employee is required to enter a confined or process space whichcontains bulk or loose material that could engulf the employee, the followingregulations apply.

8

The employee shall wear an approved safety harness attached to an approvedlifeline. The lifeline shall be strung from the employee overhead and backdown to where it is tied to the employee's "D" ring. The lifeline shall bekept reasonably taut at all times and another employee shall be in sight orwithin hearing distance. When this is not practical, the lifeline shall besnubbed overhead and kept reasonably taut at all times by a person stationedat a safe location who is capable of rendering assistance if required.

Communications, such as visual, voice, or signal line, shall be maintainedbetween the person outside the confined space and all employees in the confinedspace.

If an employee working in a confined space must be lifted vertically to beremoved from the space, there shall be not less than one employee working inthe Immediate vicinity to assist the employee stationed outside the confinedspace, or a mechanical means to lift the employee out of the confined spaceshall be provided before work starts.

The supply of material shsll be shut off, and the discharge shall be shutoff, if feasible.

SUMMARY

Confined or process specs accidents all too often result in death for theperson entering the space and for the untrained, unequipped rescuers as well.Michigan occupational health rules for confined or process space are intendedto prevent such accidents and the resulting fatalities.

The requirements and precautions of this guide for employee entry intoconfined or process space are summarized below:

1. Erect barriers and post warning signs near the entry to the space.2. Thoroughly ventilate the space and then test for the presence of a

respirable atmosphere.3. Issue an entry permit and Include a check-in/check-out system where

applicable.4. Educate ths employees about the type of hazard that may be encountered.5. Take precautions (ventilation or gas monitoring) to prevent the

creation of a non-respirable atmosphere in the space while theemployee Is in ths space.

If s non-respirable atmosphere is found or If the above ventilation andtest procedures are not followed:

1. Erect barriers and post warning signs near the entry to the space.2. Issue an entry permit and Include a check-In/check-cut system where

applicable.3. Follow the written procedures for the proper use of respiratory

protection and educate the employees about the type cf hazard thatmay bs encountered.

4. Equip the trained employee with self-contained breathing apparatusor escape type air-line respirator and a safety harness and lifeline.

5. Assign an equipped and trained standby employer at th* entrance ofthe confined or process space while an employee Is in the space.

NOTE: This guide Is intended for the benefit of the public and may not containall of the Information pertinent to a specific hazard identification and/orcontrol of personnel exposure. For further information, consult the OccupationalHealth Services Division, 3500 North Logan Street, P.O. Box 30035, Lansing, MI48909. Phone 517/373-1410.

OHG-C 9/82

10


*OU™ OEA*«0*N STCHICAGO. ILLINOIS «06O4


5HR-13

Mike HasslingResponse ManagerPedco Environmental, Inc.11499 Chester RoadP.O. Box 46100Cincinnati, OH 45246-0100

Dear M1ke,

Enclosed are the 1900-55 forms for October 24 and 25, 1984 along withthe dally work summary sheets for the same two days from the Hunter-PrellCompany. Also enclosed 1s the check from The Central Iron and MetalCompany for the scrap value of the used pipe which was removed. The1900-55 forms were prepared based on the dally site logs. They reflectthe actual time that the equipment and personnel were used on this pro-ject. Please review these forms, sign and date them, and then returnthe pink and white copies to me. If you should encounter any problems withthem, please contact me.

Once the 1900-55 forms for last week are approved and filed, the onlytasks that will remain for PEI to complete on this project are as follows:

1. Provide the documentation that supports PEI's decision to purchasehorizontal pumps Instead of vertical turbine pumps. According toJohn Bruck's October 2, 1984 letter, that decision was based onavailability rather than cost.

2. Provide documentation to support PEI's decision to purchase thepermanent transformer from VanTran Electric Company Instead ofsome other manufacturer. According to Mr. Brucks October 2, 1984letter, this decision was also based on availability not cost.

3. Provide documentation to support the selection of the Jack SayeCompany as the subcontractor for the forming of the walls. Thisdocumentation should show that either this was a competitive pricefor this work, or that this company was the only one available tothat could perform this work within our time schedule.

4. Prepare and submit a draft copy of the project report (as discussedin our September 11, 1984 meeting) within 30 days of the completionof all field work. All field work was completed on October 26, 1984,therefore, that report should be submitted by November 26, 1984.

5. Provide Invoices as support documentation fop any subcontracted Itemswhich were listed on the 1900-55 forms after September 9, 1984.

The first three Items are necessary for the U.S. EPA's project reportand are also required by Article XII Paragraph I of the ERCS contract.The Information requested in the first three points should be sutmUted tome by November 21, 1984.

If you have questions about any of these subjects, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Cap!Ice RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

cc: BowdenBrltton

Enclosures

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PCOCO ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.)

t 1494 CHESTER ROADNovember 27, 1984 CINCINNATI. OHIO 4sa4*

(513) 782-47OOTELECOPIER (513) 7S2-4SO7

Mr. Daniel M. Cap!iceRemedial Project ManagerOn-Scene CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 'TT- ff •-230 South Dearborn [j-Y £ "•'Chicago, IL 60604 ;j-A,

Subject: EPA Contract 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008 /Verona Well Field (Battle Creek, MI) - ._

Dear Dan:

Confirming our telephone conversation of November 19 regarding the subjectproject, PEI is anxious to provide you with whatever information you requireto completely document the justification of a lift station utilizing horizon-tal pumps over vertical turbine pumps. We would also like to provide you withfurther information relative to utilization of VanTrans, Jack Saye, and DrakeInsulation as subcontractors to this project. Accordingly, we have Includedin the following attachments to this letter, detailed discussions of theserecommendations and the circumstances involved. Attachment 1: PreliminaryDesign, Attachment 2: Procurement of Permanent Transformers, Attachment 3:Subcontracting of Lift Station Wall Forming, Attachment 4: Subcontracting ofPipe Insulation. The first three attachments correspond to items 1 through 3in your November 14 letter to me. While we are hopeful that the materialscontained herein adequately meet your requirements, if additional explanationis deemed necessary, please let us know.

Regarding Item 4 of your November 14 letter, we will submit a draft finalreport, as you suggested on November 19, no later than November 30.

Please find enclosed the white and pink copies of 1900-55 forms for October 23and 24. Additionally, the latest 1900-55 form (dated November 27), includingcosts for Union Electric and Hunter-Prell is also enclosed, along with support-ing documentation for all materials and subcontracts claimed on 1900-55 formssince September 9. PEI will submit our final invoice, which will reflect thedifference between our cost summary report and costs invoiced to date, uponyour approval of the enclosed latest 1900-55 form. Any additional costsincurred will be submitted on further 1900-55's.

Again, we are hopeful that these materials are adequate and meet with yourapproval; however, if additional clarification or documentation is needed wewill be pleased to provide it.

•RANCH OFFICES

TOW... DALLAS. TEXAS COLUMBUS, OHIOrowin. DENVER. COLORADO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

Mr. Daniel M. CapUce - 2 - November ?7, 1984

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact meor John Bruck at 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,



MCH/vss

Attachments

cc: R. BowdenD. BrittonJ. Bruck

ATTACHMENT 1PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Based upon information gathered at the April 25 project planning meetingin Battle Creek, PEI determined that an outside engineering firm should beretained to design the lift station. PEAS, Inc. was selected on April 26 dueto their capabilities, availability and close working proximity to PEI, andMr. Joe Stockwell, P.E., president of PEAS, met with M1ke Hessling on April27. Project requirements were reviewed at that meeting and it was decidedthat a prefabricated lift station and two off-the-shelf turbine pumps wouldoffer the greatest chance for meeting the project's strict schedule. Follow-ing the meeting, PEAS engineer, Bud Wahl, was assigned the task of contactinglikely vendors and locating the required equipment. It should be emphasizedthat the contacts made by PEAS engineers at this point were not solicitationsfor fixed bids, but rather were a search for off-the-shelf turbine equipment,including a pre-fab (package) 11ft station. A list of the companies contactedis included in Table 1.

Another project planning meeting was held on Monday, April 30, at whichtime Mr. Stockwell informed us that our flowrate requirements were too greatfor a package lift station. A new preliminary design for the 11ft station wasdeveloped based upon setting a 12' section of 10' diameter concrete pipevertically upon a poured concrete pad. This new design assumed that a turbinepump would be available, although PEAS engineer Bud Wahl had not yet been ableto locate one.

On Tuesday, May 1, PEAS informed PEI response manager, M1ke Hessling,that, according to information available to us, no turbine pump was available"off-the-shelf" that would meet the project's needs. Manufacturing lead timewas estimated at 12 to 16 weeks by several manufacturers. It was thereforenecessary to design a lift station that could incorporate more common horizon-tal centrifugal pumps. Mr. Hessling contacted Calgon (the carbon filtrationsystem supplier) to determine whether their earlier estimate of 75 ft of headloss across the carbon absorber was a calculated figure or just a guess.Calgon engineer, J. D. Henry, responded with a calculated pressure drop of 56to 58 feet. Allowing 22 to 24 feet for vertical lift and pipe friction, apump delivering 80 feet of head would be adequate.

PEAS engineers, Stockwell and Wahl, presented the current design to PEIon May 2. This design 1s based on a wet well-dry well system and includes 5horizontal centrifugal pumps each rated at 500 gpm and 80 feet of head. Atthe time of this presentation, Bud Wahl had also contacted five suppliers ofhorizontal centrifugal pumps and had located one company which could supplythese pumps 1n 7 to 10 days from receipt of order. Documentation of the bidsreceived from each of the five companies, along with the delivery scheduleavailable from each is included 1n Table 2. This table clearly shows thatAurora Pump, the vendor recommended by PEI, offered both the quickest deliveryand the lowest price.

TABLE 1

PUMP MANUFACTURERS CONTACTEDFOR DELIVERY ORDER 6894-05-008

_______Company_____

1. Aurora Pump Company

2. Goulds Pumps

3. West Pump Company

4. Welssman Pump Company

5. Enpo Cornell

6. Smith Lovelace

7. Fairbanks Morse

8. Plerless9. Worthlngton

TABLE 2

DRY WELL PUMPS (500 gpm @ 80' & 20 HP)FOR DELIVERY ORDER 6894-05-008

Company

Bell & GossettAromac Supply

Worthlngton Pump Company

Goulds Pumps

Well Pump Company

Aurora Pump Company

Price, $

1739

1700

2733

1500

1388

Deliveryschedule3 weeks

3 weeks

2-3 weeks

4 weeks

7-10 days

ATTACHMENT 2PROCUREMENT OF PERMANENT TRANSFORMERS

PEI was directed by the OSC to procure a permanent transformer that wouldmeet the requirements of both the lift station and the planned air stripper.Initially, a 120-kVA transformer was planned; however, following an evaluationby CH2M Hill of their air stripper requirements, combined with PEAS estimateof the lift station's maximum electrical demand, it was agreed that a 225-kVA,8320V to 480/240V pad-mounted unit would be ordered.

PEAS electrical engineer, 01m Kurtz, was directed to obtain bids forrapid delivery of a transfonner meeting these specifications. The results ofMr. Kurtz's contacts, as presented to PEI on June 1, 1984, are shown in Table3. The OSC indicated at this point that delivery of the transformer by August1 was absolutely necessary to avoid delays in the connection and startup ofthe air stripper. Based upon this information, PEI recommended the selectionof VanTrans, Inc., the second lowest bidder overall, and the lowest offeringan acceptable delivery schedule. Prior to acceptance of our order, however,VanTrans required (in lieu of the detailed specifications normally providedfor such an order) several bits of information regarding such items as padshape, location of emergency shutoff switch (inside vs. outside), locking ornonlocking panel door, and other mechanical details. These specificationswere provided through discussion Involving PEAS' electrical engineer, PEI'sresponse manager, the OSC and the foreman from the electrical contractor. Anorder for the transformer was finally placed on June 15 with a guaranteeddelivery date of July 31, 1984.

TABLE 3

PERMANENT TRANSFORMER MANUFACTURERS CONTACTEDFOR DELIVERY ORDER 6894-05-008

Requirements: 225kVA; pad mount; outdoor8320-480 VAC D-D connectedwith primary fuse protection

Vendor

Square D CompanyPhil Postaolski

Power Tech(VanTran)(Alpha)

SylvaniaChallenger

General ElectricDon Oexman

W. M. Baerbalck(Phil Bauer)Hevi-Duty

Bob BiedermanRuss Fineran

Telephone Price, $

931-1870 10,710

800/282-6010

Deliveryschedule

6 weeks

793-6440

530-7235

4,9863,750

9,00017,800

7,436

6 weeks4-5 weeks

8-10 weeks3 weeks

15-16 week

Comments

Dry type

New oil-typeRebuilt (oil)

Normal deliveryRapid delivery

984-5050 6,881 10 weeks Dry type

863-9000 4,697 10-12 weeks Oil type

ATTACHMENT 3SUBCONTRACTING OF LIFT STATION WALL FORMING

Murray Construction Company was selected by PEI to provide the fixed-ratelabor and equipment necessary to construct the concrete lift station. Contraryto what they had originally indicated, Murray did not have the equipment andmaterials necessary to place the steel form work for the walls of the structure,They had intended on subcontracting this activity to Jack Save Poured Walls,Inc., a local wall forming contractor with whom they frequently worked.

It was necessary that wall forming begin immediately, and according toinformation available to the Response Manager and OSC, no other suitable wallforming contractor was available to meet project requirements. (Please notethat the Response Manager and OSC relied in part on recommendations from Citywater works personnel and other contractors.) Foremen from three of thesubcontractors on site recommended Saye as a fast working contractor who couldbe relied upon for quality work. Jack Saye arrived on site on May 16 andindicated that he would prefer to work for a fixed fee rather than time andmaterials. A job price of $10,922.00 was provided by Mr. Saye to the ResponseManager. Nonetheless, at the insistence of the response manager, Saye provideddaily job tickets showing laborers names and hours worked by each. Fixedrates were discussed by Messrs. Saye and Hessling, and conversion of all coststo this format seemed reasonable. After two days of activities, some briefcalculations by the OSC and response manager showed that converting all ofSaye's charges to fixed rates would not appreciably lower the cost of forming,and on this basis the OSC directed that this activity would be handled as areimbursable cost (cost-plus-three percent) subcontracted activity.

ATTACHMENT 4SUBCONTRACTING OF PIPE INSULATION

All of the piping, as designed, approved and installed in the wet well,is schedule 40 carbon steel. The original design for this system did not callfor pipe insulation, although a heating system in the dry well was recommended.Condensation on the outside of the pipes, caused by low water temperature andhigh relative humidity, resulted in a continual stream of water to drip ontothe pumps. It was decided that this could be prevented by insulating thepipes inside the wet well.

Hunter-Prell, the piping contractor for this project, recommended DrakeInsulation as a reputable contractor in the Battle Creek area, and by agreementof the OSC and response manager, rates were proposed so that this work couldbe done under the fixed rate portion of the contract. Labor requirements wereestimated at 3 days work for two men and materials were expected to run aboutone thousand dollars.

Upon review of the 1900-55's showing this activity, the OSC requestedthat the charges be handled as a reimbursable cost subcontracted item (cost-plus-three percent). This change was agreed to by PEI and appears on the1900-55 form dated June 14, 1984.

November 29, 1984

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.)

1 1499 CHESTER ROADCINCINNATI, OHIO 4324*

(313) 782-4700TELECOPIER (513) 782-48O7

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceResponse Project Manager/OSCU.S. Environmental Protection Agency5-HR230 South DearbornChicago, IL 60604

Subject: ERA Contract 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Field Project

Dear Dan:

Please find enclosed two (2) copies of the draft final report for the subjectdelivery order.

We would appreciate any comments or suggested changes you may have relative tothis report. Please note that the cost summary report included herein is indraft form, and will be finalized and reissued separately at a later date.

We look forward to receiving your comments and issuing a final edition of thisreport in the near future.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me or JohnBruck at 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,


i,Michael C. HesslingResponse Manager

MCH/vss

Enclosures

cc: R. BowdenJ. Bruck

1CHESTER TOWER*

• RANCH OFFICES

DALLAS, TEXAS COLUMBUS, OHIODENVER, COLORADO DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

November 30, 1984

TO: Dan O'Neill, Verona Well Field Operators, GWQDFred De Camp, Verona Well Field Operators, GWQD

FROM: Pat McKay, Verona Well Field, Project Manager, GWQD

SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Regarding Treatment Plant Safety Access

I spoke to Ruas Scheuller today regarding use of radios while on site.The City of Battle Creek has radios on site which they are willing tolend us. As a safety precaution) aach operator who enters the sitealona should always check in with the pump station and pick up a radio.(It is also recommended if norm than one person is on site.) Make surethat the radio (and a receiver) are in operational condition beforegoing to the treatment plant. Return the radio to the pump stationwhen exiting the site.

In addition, Russ will provide us with keys to the front gate. Pleasepick them up from him when they are available and distribute to Dan,Fred and me.

Attached are copies of MIOSHA regulations provided by the Health Department,Please read them plus the attached memo. Per the mano, the followingequipment has bean made available.

1. Drager H,3 sample kits(a constant monitor is on order);

2. Oxygen and combustible gas indicator;

3. Ear muffs*

The directions are included with the equipment* The equipment shouldbe left on site for use by all authorized staff. Authorized staffshould be interpreted at this time aa those staff--MDNR, EPA, City,consultants and contractors, WHO AU TRAINED IN THE USE OF THIS EQUIP-MENT. To minimize ventilation problems the ventilation fan to the drywell should be left on aa much at possible.

By copy of this memo, I am informing other people who frequent the siteof the availability of equipment and the need to be aware of site safetyconcerns.

cc: R. Schueller, City of Battle CreekK. Lawless, Clark ConstructionJ. Dikinis, U.S. EPA0. Caplice, U.S. EPA

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.)

1 1409 CHESTER ROADCINCINNATI, OHIO 45246

(313) 7B2-47OOi tnoA TELECOPIER (313) 782-48O7December 7, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceRemedial Project Manager/OSC __U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR n> •- o230 S. DearbornChicago, Il_ 60604

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008 Re..Verona Well Project

Dear Dan:Please find enclosed your copies of the signed 1900-55 forms for October 24and 25 for the subject delivery order. As you requested, we have alsoenclosed a copy of manufacturers literature available for the probes and levelcontrollers installed in the lift station.

Dan, we appreciate your assistance in reviewing the project final report. Wecurrently anticipate issuing a revised edition no later than December 14,1984.

As always, if you have any questions or require additional information, pleasecontact me or John Bruck at 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,


Michael C. HesslingMCH/vss

Enclosures

cc: J. M. Bruck

• RANCH OFFICES

DALLAS. TEXAS COLUMBUS, OHIOCHESTER TOWERS DENVER, COLORADO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY. KANSAS

December 20, 1984

Mr. Daniel M. CapliceRemedial Project Manager/OSCU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR230 S. DearbornChicago, IL 60604

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.)

1 149ft CHESTER ROADCINCINNATI, OHIO 4S2*«

(313) 782-47OOTELECOPIER (513) 782-4807

Subject:

Dear Dan:

EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

Enclosed please find two (?.} copies of final report for the subject deliveryorder. All of your comments and suggested revisions have been incorporated,along with several typographical corrections. If you require additionalcopies of this report, please let us know.

We have also included herein one 1900-55 form dated December 14. This formincludes the fuel and transportation credits that we have discussedpreviously, as well as a few Items that were omitted from previous 55's.

Dan, the cost summary section of this report should still be regarded asdraft. A final cost summary report will be submitted under separate cover toboth you and the contracting officer in the near future. We currently do notanticipate any changes prior to that submittal.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact meat 513/782-4700.

Sincerely,

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.


MCH/vss

Enclosures

cc: J. JowettG. ReganD. BrittonJ. Bruck

CHESTER TOWERS

BRANCH OFFICES

DALLAS. TEXASDENVER, COLORADO

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

COLUMBUS, OHIODURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PEDCO KN VI RON MENTAL, INC.)

January 25, 1985 i MM CHESTER ROADCINCINNATI, OHIO 15246

(313) 702-4700.. n • t u r i • TELECOPIER (913) 7S2-48O7Mr. Daniel M. CapliceRemedial Project Manager/OSCU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR230 S. DearbornChicago, TL 60604

Subject: ERA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project

Dear Dan:

Please find enclosed the revised final report for the subject delivery order.This edition reflects all of the comments and corrections provided and includesa revised cost summary report. As we discussed, we are also enclosing a1900-55 form for cost incurred 1n revising the report, and an invoice for$30,573.19. The costs presented 1n the January 22 1900-55 form are includedin the invoice and CSR, since these had previously been verbally approved.Finally, a reconciliation statement 1s included to explain a few errors thatwere found in the original 1900-55 forms.

By copy of this letter all of the above information is being provided to theProject Officer, Deputy Project Officer and Contracting Officer.

As always, if you have any questions, please contact me or John Bruck at513/7B2-4700.

Sincerely,

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.


MCH/vss

Enclosures

cc: J. BruckJ. JowettG. ReganT. O'Connell

1 • RANCH OFFICE*

DALLAS, TEXAS COt-UMSUS, OHIOCHESTER TOWERS DENVER, COLORADO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS

TABLE 4. COST SUMMARY REPORTERA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6S94

ASSIGNMENT NO. 6894-05-008 - VERONA WELL/BATTLE CREEK, HIJanuary 10, 1985

fV

Labor

Response ManagerChemical Engineer (Level 2)Foreman (Level 3)Foreman (Level 2)Equipment Operator (Level 2)Equipment Operator (Level 1)Concrete Laborer (Skilled)Mason (Concrete Finisher)Pipeser.ter*Pipefitter8

Welder (Level 2)PlumberIron WorkerElectrician (Level 2)Apprentice ElectricianCarpenter (Level 2}r>chanic (Level Z)Laborer (Level 1)Truck Driver (Level 1)Field Cleric/Typist. (Level 1)

Travel and subsistence

realization

None

Demobilization

None

Equipment

Backhoe (Cat 225)Backhoe (Case 5flO)Front-end Idr/wheel (1.5 yd)Front-end Idr/wheel (3 yd}Dump truck (10-20 yd, fix box)Pickup truckStake bed truck (2 ton)Stake bed truck (1 ton}Passenger s*danElec. submersible pump (2 in)Trash pump (2 In) 5A1r compressor capab.Hand toolsDH11 Mg$Carbon filter (20,000 lb)8

Turf tractorCran« (15-ton)*Crane (25-ton),Crane (50-ton]a 22Cutting torch 3Portable welder"Onzer, D-4 (Caterpillar)*Equipment truck fiTransit/level ,Lift truck (30')"Lift truck (50')a .Concrete bucket (1 yd)*Concrete vibratorBand sawGrooving machineLadders*Side grinder*Heat torch*Welding stands?Power threader"

Hours worked RateStraight Overtime

lour

4533201812

614

.58

82111.5.5

716.5

814

2

1

TimeDa/

347

313

37213

371

1391

116212425

14

82

283.0 28.0118.0463.5 44.5

29.0 1.0219.5 19.549.056.0 2.024.0 1.0

135.0 1.0257.0 160.0234.0 72.5

16.040.0

126.0 1.030.0

148.0 3.076.5 0.5

149.0 1.021,0 8.042.0

ustdWeek Month

111

2

11

25(1SSB) 19

3

32

3

,

Hour

68.0032.0047.0047.0030. CO

9.0016.0014.007.00

10.0016.0016.00._-

21.0050.0060.0085.008.00

14.0040.0014.00.

45.0050.00......

8.00

•

Strajaht

S52.5047.3033.RO30.5027.8022.1023.1031.5023.1031.5031.5031.5031.5031.5023.1023.1026.3015.8018.9015.80

Dav

478.00221.00331.00331.00240.00

58.0080.0075.0051.0055.0080.0095.no11.00

446. CC

50.0090.00

295.0090.0035. (W

300.00330.01)35.0030.0020.0045.00

5.00n.oo.15.0020.00

Overtime

S6*.58.44.41.37.31.31.42.31.42.42.42.42.42.31.31.34,21.27.21.

Rate

103010nc3000500050000000000050SO7C503050

Week

2150.992.

1488.1488.960.231.440.315.232.220.315.375.42.

2008.1175....-

440.

440.._.„__

200.20.42..

60.-

00no00cc0000no0000000000000000

00

00

no0000

00

Mon*

6900.3100.4700.4700.2900.

735.1365.950.695.685.945.

1165.126.

6024.3525.

_..-

_-

_._.._....v_-

h

0000CO00000CO00cc000000000000

Extension Total

S16S

17

611

31410

14

322

5

413

1

85

1

1

2

1

,65?. 30,581,40.576.059?5.50

,839.20,082.90,356.60

7Qfl.OO,150.00,815.50,416. no504.00

,260. CO.011.00693.Cn

,513.30.029.30,375.70560.70663. f>n 594,764.05

,479.78 5.479.23

,494.00.940.00,257. CO846.00360.00459.00

,704.00540.00357.00550.00168.00603.00869.00446.00

,775.00168.00

,050.00660.no

,91?. 50636. CO

,228.00935.00958.no210.00960.00

,030. CO70.00

120.0040.00

225.00130.0084.0016.00

300.00-44.00 114,144.50

Non-contract Item.

ABLE 4 (continued)EPA CONTRACT NO. fi8-01-6894

MO. 6894-05-nOB - VERONA WEU/QATTLE CPEE 'T . MIJanuary 10, 1965

/V

M1l«qe No. of miles

Passenger sedan 2240 9 S.16/mi1e

Materials - Mxftd rate Quantity

Activated carbon 100,000 lb

Materials • reimbursable

Alro Steel

Aurora Pump (Faber Pump * Epuipirient)Clark Oil

Cor1ett LumberFSA FabricatingF. 0. Lawrence Electric

Gall cup Pipe & Supply

G. W. Northrop, Inc.Hausman Steel

Hoffnujn Brothers

Huntsr-Prell

J. H. B*11engtr Co.Kilamizoo Foundry

Extension Total

S 3SP.40 S 35fl.dO

Rat*

si.075/ib i07.soo.no 107. 500. no

52.7999.4634.17

7,217.6010.6018. ?5

636.37746, no

77.8512.50

4,001.05227. 5S

*485[96584.71135.78

2,474.634.054.61

283.7480.48

1,324.06536.57271.54199.93431.85

90.421.269.fO

133.0484.08

1.575.60283.90214.34116.11

2.522.21479,70807.30315.2895.58

168.6417.95

327.531,549.68

681. '-5-159.21-267.38-513.12325.31

-835.17

'looioo?74.56390.00

2,005.62112,53

2.449.95117.87

9,43507.78

4.91300.7744.2612.67

333.71294.30

(continued;

24

TABLE 4 (continued)E»A CONTRACT NO. 6fl-Ol-P814

ASSIGNMENT NO. 6894-05-008 - VERONA WELL/BATTLE CHEEK. MlJanuary 10, 1985

Materials - reimbursable (continued)

Kendall Electric

Kendall Industrial Supplies

Modem Transit Mfx

Murray ConstructionNeenan FoundryNorthern Concrete Pipe, Inc.

pEncoRyerson SteelSummit

Underground Pipe & Supply

Union Electric

Van-Trans

Transoor*a*inn

Airborne

A1r CouriersAir WisconsinEmery

Disposal

No re

Analysis

PEI Laboratory

Subcontracts

Calgon

Central Iron & Metal Co.Clark ConstructionConsumers Power Co.

Drake Insulation

Jack SayeWilliam H. Kelly Co.

Handling charge (3T)

Materials - reimbursableTransportationAnalysisSubcontracts

=*

Drawings to MIcMflan Oepartnent of Natural ResourcesDrawings to U.S. EPA/CMcaqoWired non«vRftf. 1200185A1r transportation - pumpsA1r transportation - probes

Oatf Quantity Analysis $ /sample

6/4/84-10/17/84 150 VOA 112.006/15/84 i Fiash point 30.007/5/84 4 Solvents 67.50

Description of service

Accelerated column testRemoval/regeneration of spent carbon 40,000* I* S.12Removal/regeneration Of spent carbon 40,000* 0 S.12Rtfflovat/rtgtntratlon of spent carbon 20,000* 9 $.12Salvaae of pipe 14,540* P SZS/tonInstallation of transformerRental of transformer 5/11-6/11/84Rental of transformer 6/11-7/11/84Rental of transformer 7/Il-3/7/fl4LaborMaterialsWall formsWaterproofing

Amount

$90,731.113.091.07

17.080.0031,604.87

Extension

S 6?B.701.393. BO

97.16229.75

5.101.575.292,548.10

75.40353.32650.25462.91934. 8P853.37

6.081.064.291,519.881, 136.1ft

396.4444.90

2,501.2(117,399.62

66*. !81C?. 58

3.65fi.414,986.00

14,009.00

2.906.259.6fl

73.1479.00

Ifi.flOO.OO30.00

250.00

4,160.004.800.004,800.002,400.00-181.75312.00120.00124. £0124. 80960.00

1.263.0210, 9??. 001,620. no

180.no

2.721,9392.73

H/A948.15

GRAND TOTAL .

Total

$

90.731.11

3,091.07

17,080.00

31,fi04.87'-

3.7R2.81

$468,516.19

25

RECONCILIATION FOR FORM 1900-55's - 6894-05-008 BATTLE CREEK

Date

05/17/84

05/20/84

05/21/84

05/23/84

05/24/84

05/25/84

05/29/84

06/01/84

08/09/84

10/23/84

10/24/84

10/25/84

Item

Side grinders (two)

Side grinders (two)

Grooving machineSide grinders (two)

Addition error In equipmentWrong labor total used for final

Addition error 1n equipmentFuel (Clark 011)Handling charge adjustment

Foreman Level 2 - wrong rateLaborer - wrong rate

Addition error In equipment

Pump starters, etc. (Lawrence Elec)Handling charge adjustment

Materials - 3% handling chargenot addedFuel

Fuel

Subcontract - 3% handling chargenot added

1900-55cost

10.0010.00

11.0011.00

20.0018.00

1407.003104.75

11623.8018.85

201.60126.40

85.00

4067.00

0.00

31.25

12.50

0.00

Actualcost

11.0011.00

9.009.00

45.000.00

687.003514.25

11683.8028.85

183.0094.80

86.00

4091.40

86.37

31.62

12.64

(5.45)

Difference

1.001.00

(2.00)(2.00)

25.00(18.00)

(720,00)409.50

60.0010.00.30

(18.60)(31.60)

1.00

24.40.73

86.37

.37

.14

(5.45)

-177.84

26

c


REGION 5

230 SOUTH DEARBORN STCHICAGO lut'jo's soeoa

•-•.- ••'..i TO

5HR-13

Mr. John BrouclcAssociated DirectorWaste Management DivisionPedco Environmental Incorporated11499 Chester RoadP.O. Box 46100Cincinnati, OH. 45246-0100

Dear Mr. Brouck,

During my September 11, 1984 meeting with M1ke Hessllng 1n your offices,we discussed and prepared a schedule for the final phase of the BattleCreek project. Before that meeting was concluded, we had both agreedon the schedule. PEI, the primary contractor for this project, wasthen responsible for contacting the various subcontractors Involvedto Inform them of the schedule so that they could make any necessaryarrangements.

Apparently, PEI did notify the subcontractors until almost three weeks later.The primary subcontractor, Calgon Carbon, has Informed me that they did notreceive official notification until late on October 10, 1984. As a result ofthis, the final phase of this project has now been delayed one week.

Hopefully, will be no Increased costs as a result of this forcedschedule change. This 1s representative of the continuing problems wehave had with PEI as the primary response contractor for this project. Iam particularly distressed over this Incident because 1t has occurreddespite our telephone conference call and subsequent meeting.

If you would like to or discuss this further, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Cap11ce RPM/OSCRemedial Response Section I

CONVERSATION RECORDTIMC

oDATE

Q VISIT

Location of Vlstt/Conferanc*:

Q CONmCNCeQ INCOMING

NAMC Or PEMONW) CONTACTED Off IN CONTACTWITH YOU

OftOAWZATION (OfllM. <WPt. burwu. TELEPHONE NO:

ROUTING

NAME/SYMOOL INT

NAMC Of FCMON OOCUMINTINQ COMVEMATION OATI

TAKEN

0*Tt

»u.s. •.r.o. tt«».iti-ti*/*>4» CONWWMIWH REOOKO

oCONVERSATION RECORD ^ °*TC &/S?Af

G VISIT G CONPWWCt Q TELEPHONEG INCOMING

Locttton of VWt/Conftranet: G OUTGOINGNAME or rcmoNcn CONTACTD o* IN CONTACT OMANWTION come*, d t. bwMy, TCLCMONK NO-.WITH VOU «tej

SUtJfCT

' HOUTINO

NAUC/SVMBOL INT

SUMMARY

ACTIOM MCQUIMCO

NAMt W KMON OOCUMCNTINO CONVtMSATION

ACTION TAKEN

ITUM TITl* DATK

»u.s

3


D w8"1 CLocation of VMt/Contoranet:NAMC Or mtONO) CONTACTD OH IN CONTACTWITH VOU

] CONHHPICC

QftOANUATION (OBlM. t

TIHK DATE / / /S£y/7f&7

Q TUCPHONED INCOMINQQ OUTOOINQ

M«t. MraM. TCUmOHC NO*.

SUUOT

MMfTINO

NAM(/SVM«OL INT

0*v&T <&

ACTION MCQUIIICO

NAMC OF HDttON DOCUMIMTIHO CONVtMATION

ACTION TAJON

mi* DATC

""" ..... ...... ,..,...,„.,.,.. ewwwMnw. KCOW

CONVERSATION RECORD

O *** Q WIT Q CONFEJKNCE

NAMf OP POnOfKt) OOHTACTIP Off IN CONTACTWITH YOU

MJMCT

OMAHItATKM (OfBc*. 4

TW*

""* '*/'?

Q TELEPHONEQ INCOMINGQ OUTGOING

W%Bt MlCVVllB TCLOHONCNO:

nounNONAMK/SVMWH. INT

•UMMAftY

a>n&r<

ACTION

NAMC Or KMOH OOCUMDfTINa CONVOIMTION OATf

ACTIOM TAKEN

TTTU MTI

(TECOHO


WUgHBF

Q VISIT Q CONFERENCE

Location of Vtott/Contaranet:NAMf OF KMON<*> CONTACTED Off IN CONTACTWITH YOU

TIMC

"" */*/&QTELEWONE

Q INCOMINGQ OUTGOING

OMAMIZATTOM (Oflte*. *pt, burawi.•MJ

TKLEmONKNO:

SUUECT

KOUHNQ

NAMC/SYMKOL INT

•DUMMY

7

ACTION WQUIRCO

NAMC Of PCMOM DOCUMCNniW COUVtWATWN OATB

/*//?,ACTIOf» TAKEN

TffU OAVC

«.u.». tti>.»tfitt/»>4» RECORD

c

October 30, 1984

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC.(FORMERLY PUCO ENVIRONMENTAL. INC.)

1 148* CHESTER ROADCINCINNATI, OHIO 4S24S

(313) 782-47OOTELECOPIER (SI3) 782-4SO7Mr. Daniel M. Cap!ice

On-Scene CoordinatorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR230 S. Dearborn In,Chicago, IL 60604 ;~.\

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-01-6894Delivery Order No. 6894-05-008Verona Well Project ".-'.-.

Dear Mr. Cap!ice:

Regarding your undated letter received by this office on October 22 (copyattached] we, too, are particularly distressed, but for much different reasons.The attached summary of PEI's coordination activities relative to Calgon andother subcontractors shows that your statement regarding notification of theseparties, specifically Calgon, 1s clearly without substantiation. Further, ouragreements with other subcontractors, such as Hunter-Prell, allow shortnotification, including 24 hour-a-day service and response.

It 1s obvious that your evaluation of this situation is incorrect, and to citethis misconception as a "continuing problem" with PEI 1s as unfounded as yourprevious allegations. Regardless, we will continue to do the very best we canto bring this delivery order (which we view as successfully performed by PEI)to rapid conclusion.

Respectfully,


GePres

6AJ/JMB:vss

Enclosure

cc: R. BarteltM. O'NeillP. TalbertS. MaierG. VanderlaanJ. JowettG. ReganB. BowdenD. Britton

M. BrucT; P.E.Zone Program Manager

•RANCH OFFICES

CHMTER TOWER*DALLAS, TEXAS COLUMBUS. OHIO

OBNVER. COLORADO DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

KANSAS CITY. KANSAS

PEI COORDINATION ACTIVITIES(from M1ke Hessllng's personal activity log)

D.O. 6894-05-008

1. During a meeting with Dan Caplice on September 11, 1984, tentativeschedules for removal of the carbon units were discussed. Mr. Caplicesuggested that the units come out either October 8th or 15th. Severalissues had to be resolved prior to finalizing a demobilization date,including: schedule and effectiveness of air stripper startup, PEI'swillingness to provide greater than two weeks of standby, and Mr. Caplice'ssurgery. A detailed outline for the demobilization week was prepared.Note that M. Hessllng's September 21 letter refers (in paragraph 10) to ademobilization schedule of the 2nd or 3rd week in October.

2. Our personal activity log books show telephone conversations with Calgonpersonnel on September 14 (twice) and again on September 21, when M.Hessling spoke with Ward Rogers of Calgon. At that time he informed Mr.Rogers that demobilization would occur on either the 8th or the 15th ofOctober, with the latter week being the most likely. This was agreedupon as a tentative date; pending confirmation to M. Hessling by Mr.Caplice, we were to let Mr. Rogers know if the date changed from the15th.

3. Dan Cap!ice confirmed that schedule to M, Hessling on September 24 bytelephone.

4. M. Hessling called Fred Mendicino on September 26 and told him that wewould be pulling the system out during mid-October. Mr. Mendidno saidany week would be fine, just give them a few days notice to line upvehicles.

5. Called Ward Rogers on October 10 to confirm agreed-upon date of October15th - Mr. Rogers was on vacation and we were advised that a responsibleCalgon employee would respond.

6. Called Fred Mendlcino on October 10 to confirm date for October 15thdemobilization - Mr. Mendicino was out of town. Asked the secretary ifthere was anyone who could handle it and she said she would have someonecall M. Hessling.

7. We received call from Tony Wlerzbowski of Calgon on October 10. He toldM. Hessling we had been scheduled for October 29. Told him it had to bethe 15th. He said he would and try to reschedule for October 15 and letM, Hessling know.

8. Called Fred Mendicino on October 11 - left message (Mr. Mendicino wasstill out of town).

9. Called Mr. Wierzbowski on October 11 - he was in a meeting - left message.

c

10. On October 11, received a call from Mr. John Suposi of Calgon, who is incharge of scheduling mobilization/demobilization. Mr. Suposi said therewas no way for them to demobilize on the 15th and set a schedule for the22nd. M. Hessling asked that billings stop on the 15th, to which Mr.Suposi agreed.

11. On October 11, M. Hessling called Mr. CapUce and informed him of projectstatus. Mr. CapUce said he was going to try to reach someone high up inCalgon. M. Hessling told him we felt we had already done all that couldbe done.

12. On October 11, M. Hessling called Gary Banstone, Director of Marketing atCalgon, and left a message.

13. On October 11, John Suposi called M. Hessling and said he had received acall from Mr. CapUce. He repeated that, as M. Hessling had previouslynegotiated, demobilization would be the 22nd but that billing would stopon the 15th.

14. On October 11, M. Hessling received a call from Mr. CapUce, Indicatingthat he had talked with Mr. Suposi and that he needed an October 15demobilization due to other project committments.

15. On October 11, M. Hessling called Mr. Suposi to find out what it wouldcost (including the use of another transporter) to get the schedulerearranged. Mr. Suposi said 1t just was not feasible.

16. Dan Caplice called M. Hessling again on the morning of the 12th (Friday)and accepted the schedule set for the 22nd. He reviewed with M. Hesslinga detailed schedule for demobilization.

17. M. Hessling called Hunter-Prell and Universal Crane to alert them of thechange and confirmed schedules.

18. On Monday morning, October 15, Ward Rogers called M. Hessling to apolo-gize for the demobilization mlxup. Mr. Rogers indicated that he hadfailed to communicate the schedule to his operations division prior toleaving for vacation.

Documents

REDACTED EPA RPM REPORT - CERCLA IMMEDIATE ACTION … · Mr. Daniel M. Caplice On-Scene Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5-HR 230 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 OCT