SDMS US EPA Region V200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 4700 * Chicago, IL 60601 * (312) 856-8700 * FAX (312) 938-0118 December 30, 2002 Mr. Kenneth Theisen On-Scene Coordinator Emergency

SDMS US EPA Region VImagery Insert Form ____

Document ID: II 179936

Some images in this document may be illegible or unavailable inSDMS. Please see reason(s) indicated below:

Illegible due to bad source documents. Image(s) in SDMS is equivalent to hard copy.

Specify Type of Document(s) / Comments:

Includes X COLOR or ___ RESOLUTION variations.X II Unless otherwise noted, these pages are available in monochrome. The source document page(s) is more legible than the

images. The original document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records Center.

Specify Type of Documents) / Comments: ___ __

FIGURES: A1, A3, A4.A6

Confidential Business Information (CBI).This document contains highly sensitive information. Due to confidentiality, materials with such information are not available

in SDMS. You may contact the EPA Superfund Records Manager if you wish to view this document.

Specify Type of Documents) / Comments:

JUnscannable Material:Oversized x or __ Format.Due to certain scanning equipment capability limitations, the document page(s) is not available in SDMS. The original

document is available for viewing at the Superfund Records center.


FIGURES: A2, A5A, A5B (ITEMS ARE PARTIALLY SCANNED) JDocument is available at the EPA Region 5 Records Center.


J

Rev. 07/10/02

Page 1

Tetra Tech EM Inc.200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 4700 * Chicago, IL 60601 * (312) 856-8700 * FAX (312) 938-0118

December 30, 2002

Mr. Kenneth TheisenOn-Scene CoordinatorEmergency Response BranchU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 577 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604

Subject: Site Investigation ReportGroundwater ContaminationTownship of Pines, Porter County, IndianaTechnical Direction Document No. S05-0204-013Tetra Tech Contract No. 68-W-00-129

Dear Mr Theisen:

The Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) issubmitting the enclosed site investigation report for the groundwater contamination site in the Townshipof Pines, Porter County, Indiana.

If you have questions or comments regarding the report or require additional copies, please contact me at(312) 946-6475 or Thomas Kouris at (312) 946-6431.

Sincerely,

Chad GibsonTetra Tech START Project Manager

cc: Lorraine Kosik, U.S. EPA START Project Officer (letter only)Thomas Kouris, Tetra Tech START Program Manager (letter only)

contains recycled fiber and is recyclable

FINAL SITE INVESTIGATION REPORTGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

TOWNSHIP OF PINES, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

Prepared for:

, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY—' Region 5 Emergency Response Branch

77 West Jackson BoulevardChicago, IL 60604

TDD No.: S05-0204-013Date Prepared: December 30, 2002Contract No.: 68-W-00-129Prepared by: Tetra Tech EM Inc.START Project Manager Chad GibsonTelephone No.: (312) 946-6475U.S. EPA On-Scene Coordinator: Ken TheisenTelephone No.: (312)886-1959

CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 SITE HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1.1 Residential Well Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1.3 Soil, Surface Water, and Leachate Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.1 Residential Well Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.2 Monitoring Well Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2.3 Soil, Surface Water, and Leachate Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 SITE GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.0 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix

A FIGURESB TABLESC MONITORING WELL SAMPLING SHEETSD WELL INSTALLATION REPORTE VALIDATED ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Tetra Tech EM Inc. TDD: S05-0204-013 (Groundwater Contamination Site)i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Tetra Tech EM Inc. Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) prepared thissite investigation report in accordance with the requirements of Technical Direction Document (TDD)No. S05-0204-013 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The scope of thisTDD was to perform a site reconnaissance and conduct sampling activities at the groundwatercontamination site located in Township of Pines, Porter County, Indiana (see Figure A-l). START wastasked to prepare a health and safety plan; document on-site conditions through written logbook notes andphotographs; conduct soil, groundwater, and surface water sampling activities; perform analytical datavalidation; conduct a hydrogeologic investigation; collect geographic coordinates using a globalpositioning system (GPS); generate geographic information system (GIS) figures to illustrate extent ofcontamination; perform oversight of groundwater well installation; and attend public meetings.

This report consists of four sections besides this introduction (Section 1.0). Section 2.0 discusses the sitebackground, Section 3.0 discusses sampling activities (and results), Section 4.0 discusses the site geologyand hydrogeology, and Section 5.0 summarizes the site investigation. References used to prepare thisreport are listed after Section 5.0. This report also includes five appendixes. Appendix A presents sitefigures, Appendix B presents data summary tables for the site investigation, Appendix C presentsmonitoring well sampling sheets, Appendix D presents the well installation report, and Appendix Eprovides all validated analytical data packages for die groundwater contamination site.

Tetra Tech EM Inc. TDD: S05-0204-013 (Groundwater Contamination Site)

2.0 SITE BACKGROUND

This section provides a description of the groundwater contamination site and discusses its location andhistory.

2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The groundwater contamination site consists of a collection of private residences in the Township ofPines, Porter County, Indiana (see Figure A-l in Appendix A). The Township of Pines is locatedapproximately 5 miles west of Michigan City, Indiana, and 2 miles south of Lake Michigan. Thegroundwater contamination site area is bordered by U.S. Highway 12 (Dunes Highway) to the north,Maine Avenue to the east, South Railroad Avenue to the south, and Pine Street to the west (see

Figure A-2 in Appendix A). Directly south of the residential neighborhood is the Yard 520 restricted

waste site (hereafter referred to as Brown's Landfill) consisting primarily of buried fly ash from Nicor.

2.2 SITE HISTORY

In April 2000, the Drinking Water Section of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management(IDEM) received a complaint of foul tasting water from a resident of the Township of Pines.In May 2000, IDEM collected samples from the resident's well. Sampling results indicated the presenceof several volatile organic compounds (VOC), including benzene at concentrations above the U.S. EPAmaximum contaminant level (MCL). IDEM conducted follow-up sampling at this and other nearbyresidential wells. During the follow-up sampling, benzene was detected in all wells sampled. IDEMprovided carbon filters to residents whose well water exceeded the benzene MCL.

In September 2000, IDEM sampled 29 private wells in the site area, including previously sampled wells,to determine if additional wells were impacted. Results indicated that (1) two additional wells containedbenzene at concentrations above the MCL, (2) one well contained arsenic at concentrations above theMCL, and (3) eight wells contained elevated concentrations of manganese. Manganese does not have anMCL but has an U.S. EPA removal action level (RAL).

Tetra Tech EM Inc. TDD: S05-0204-013 (Groundwater Contamination Site)2

In January 2001, IDEM requested U.S. EPA to conduct a site assessment to determine the extent ofcontamination at the groundwater contamination site. U.S. EPA obtained permission from home andbusiness owners in the site area to collect well samples. Four rounds of sampling were conducted athomes and businesses in the groundwater contamination site area. Sampling results confirmed IDEM'sprevious sampling results and indicated elevated levels of methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE). Allresidents having wells containing contaminants at levels exceeding MCLs were provided with carbonfilters.

In July 2001, IDEM collected samples from approximately 30 private wells in the site area to determine ifcontamination was affecting additional wells. Sampling results revealed that three additional residentialwells contained elevated levels of lead. IDEM provided carbon filters to these residents.

In September 2001, IDEM conducted an expanded site investigation, which included the collection ofsamples from residential wells and monitoring wells installed around Brown's Landfill. Elevated levelsof boron, manganese, and molybdenum were detected in all wells. In February 2002, IDEM requestedthat U.S. EPA consider adding the groundwater contamination site to its Superfund cleanup program.

In April 2002, IDEM requested U.S. EPA to investigate the presence of boron and manganese in thegroundwater contamination site area. The presence of these contaminants had not previously beeninvestigated. Boron and manganese are associated with fly ash, which is currently present in Brown'sLandfill (Robertson 2000). In May 2002, U.S. EPA began conducting additional sampling of residentialand monitoring wells, surface water, and soil in the site area.


3.0 SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS

Sampling activities conducted by U.S.EPA and START at the groundwater contamination site includedthe collection of groundwater samples from residential and monitoring wells, soil samples from propertiesadjacent to Brown's Landfill, and surface water samples from Brown's Ditch. The samplingmethodology and sample analytical results are discussed below.

3.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

The following sections describe the sampling methodology for residential wells; groundwater monitoringwells; and soil, surface water, and leachate at die groundwater contamination site.

3.1.1 Residential Well Sampling

From May 2002 through September 2002, START collected samples from 91 residential wells in theTownship of Pines during eight sampling events (see Tables B-l and B-3 through B-10 in Appendix B).Samples were collected to determine the extent of metals contamination in the site area. Table B-l inAppendix B lists the sample numbers and corresponding resident addresses. IDEM also collectedsamples from 40 residential wells in the site (see Table B-2 in Appendix B). All residences in the sitearea were geographically located using a GPS for generating GIS figures to illustrate the extent ofcontamination. Based on analytical results from the residential well samples, U.S. EPA elected to providebottled water to residents whose well water exceeded the RALs for boron and manganese. Table B-l 1 inAppendix B lists the residences provided with bottled water.

Prior to sample collection, all residents were contacted by U.S. EPA to gain approval for well sampling.Samples were collected from approving resident's wells using the procedures summarized below.

1 . The water was turned on at an outside spigot and allowed to purge for approximately 10 to 1 5minutes. If no outside spigot was available, water was turned on inside the home for 10 to 15minutes after ensuring that the water was not being filtered or otherwise treated by an in-homewater softener or other treatment system.


2. After the residential well was purged, a 1-liter plastic sample bottle pre-preserved with nitric acidwas filled for total metals analysis. At select locations, two 40-milliliter sample bottles pre-preserved with hydrochloric acid were filled for VOC analysis. The water was then turned off.

3. The sample bottles were labeled using an alphanumeric system that identifies the project, sampletype, sampling date, and sample number. An example of a sample label is "P-GW-0627-02,"where "P" represents Pines; "GW" represents groundwater; "0627" represents the sampling dateof June 27; and 02 indicates that the sample was the second sample collected that day.

4. The sample bottles were placed on ice in a cooler and stored at 4° Celsius.

5. After all samples were collected, a chain-of-custody form was filled out for all samples collectedthat day.

6. Samples were shipped to EA Group Laboratories in Mentor, Ohio, for analysis.

Quality control (QC) samples, including field duplicate samples and matrix spike and matrix spikeduplicate (MS/MSD) samples, were collected to ensure data quality. Field duplicate samples werecollected for approximately 10 percent of the samples and are identified with a "D" at the end of thesample number. MS/MSD samples were collected at an approximate S-percent rate and were designatedon the chain-of-custody form for MS/MSD analysis.

3.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling

Thirteen groundwater monitoring wells are located around the perimeter of Browns' s Landfill and onewell in the center. The landfill owner contracted Weaver, Boos, & Gordon Inc. (WB&G), to installanother seven additional sets of nested wells north of the landfill along U.S. Highway 20. Each nestedwell consists of one well intersecting the water table and one well screened at the bottom of the upper

aquifer. Figure A-3 shows the locations of all monitoring wells.

Two sampling events were conducted at the groundwater monitoring wells (see Table B-13 inAppendix B). The first event took place on May IS, 2002, and consisted of collecting groundwatersamples from monitoring wells MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7, MW-8, and MW-1 1 for analysisfor total metals. Samples were collected using the low flow-rate sampling procedures detailed below.


1. The depth to water was measured using an electric-sounder water level meter to determine thev / equilibrium water level.

2. A Tygon® tube was gently lowered into the well to a depth of 3.5 feet below the equilibriumwater level or 2 feet below the top of the well screen (whichever was greater). The tube wassecured to the outer well casing with tape.

3. Each well was purged using a peristaltic pump. Purging was initiated slowly and increasedgradually to a rate of approximately 0.15 liter per minute. Purge water stabilization parameters,including pH, temperature, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity, weremeasured after a minimum of 1 liter was purged and recorded on monitoring well sampling sheets(see Appendix C). Purge water was discharged into a graduated bucket, and the volume of waterpurged was also measured and recorded on monitoring well sampling sheets (see Appendix C). Ifthe drawdown of the water level was 0.3 foot or greater at that pumping rate, Steps 4 through 7below were initiated. If the water level drawdown was less than 0.3 foot at that pumping rate andthe water level was stable, the rate was increased to the maximum rate at which a static waterlevel could be obtained (up to 0.25 liter per minute), and Steps 6 and 7 below were initiated.

4. When drawdown was more than 0.3 foot at a pumping rate of 0.15 liter per minute, a modifiedlow-flow purge protocol was attempted by increasing the pumping rate to a maximum of 1 literper minute until the water drawndown level was 1.5 to 3 feet below the equilibrium water level.

5. The pumping rate was then adjusted within the range of 0.1 to 0.25 liter per minute until thewater level in the well was stable and the recharge rate matched the discharge rate.

6. The well was considered stabilized after the collection of a minimum of eight water qualitymeasurements (8 liters purged) and three successive measurements of each of the stabilizationparameters.

7. After stabilization parameters were met, the samples were collected, labeled, and shipped inaccordance with the procedures discussed in Steps 3 through 6 above for residential wellsampling.

The second groundwater sampling event took place on October 16, 2002. WB&G collected groundwatersamples from all wells surrounding the landfill and newly installed nested wells north of the landfill usingthe traditional sampling technique of purging three well volumes with a bailer prior to sampling. Sampleswere analyzed for metals and VOCs, and in selected wells, fecal coliform (wells MW-13S, MW-15S,MW-17S, and MW-19D, only).During the same sampling event, START collected split samples from selected wells with WB&G andcollected samples from the same wells using the low flow-rate sampling techniques discussed above to


determine if metals concentrations are sensitive to sampling technique. The wells selected for split^w/ sampling included MW-15S, MW-15D, MW-18S, and MW-3, which were chosen based on their position

downgradient from the landfill. The split samples were collected by filling sample bottles at the sametime and using the same equipment as WB&G. The split samples were analyzed for filtered metals andfor total suspended solids (TSS). The metals samples were filtered in the field using 0.45-micron, in-linefilters. The same four wells sampled using die low flow-rate techniques were analyzed for total metalsand TSS. The low flow-rate samples were collected before the split samples because the traditionalpurging technique disturbs the water column and may resuspend sediments in the aquifer; however, splitsamples were collected within 24 hours of the low-flow samples.

START also analyzed samples from MW-18S and MW-16S for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, andxylenes (BTEX). These two wells were sampled for BTEX because they are closest to the residence atwhich BTEX constituents had been previously detected.

QC samples, including field duplicate samples and MS/MSD samples, were collected during both eventsto ensure data quality.

, 3.1.3 Soil, Surface Water, and Leachate Sampling

Soil samples were collected from Pines Park north of Brown's Landfill (see Figure A-4 in Appendix A).IDEM had previously collected samples from the park and identified trace concentrations of totalchromium. START collected six grab soil samples from the park on May 1, 2002, beginning in thenortheast corner moving southwest at approximately ISO-foot intervals (see Table B-14 in Appendix B).Samples were collected to determine if hexavalent chromium is present in surface soil and to determinetarget analyte list (TAL) metals concentrations. Geographical coordinates were collected for each soilsampling location using the GPS. The procedures detailed below were used to collect the soil samples.

1. At each soil sampling location, composite samples were collected using a five-point pattern. Thecomposite points formed an "X" pattern around the central sampling location approximately8 feet apart. At each point, soil from the top 6 inches was placed into a stainless-steel bowl.

2. The soil in the bowl was homogenized by mixing and placed into a sample jar.


3. Samples were collected, labeled, and shipped in accordance with the procedures in Steps 3through 6 above for residential well sampling.

On May 15 and 16, 2002, START collected surface water and leachate samples from Brown's Ditch,which runs along the southern and eastern borders of Brown's Landfill (see Figure A-4 in Appendix A).Three surface water samples and one leachate sample were collected to determine if metals from thelandfill had leached into the ditch (see Table B-15 in Appendix B). Samples were collect at bothupstream and downstream locations. Surface water and leachate samples were collected using proceduresdetailed below.

1. At each sampling location, surface water quality readings were collected prior to samplecollection. Water quality parameters included pH, temperature, electrical conductivity, turbidity,dissolved oxygen, and TSS.

2. For surface water, a clean sample container was lowered into the surface water and was used tofill a 1-liter plastic sample bottle pre-preserved with nitric acid for TAL metals analysis. Forleachate, a clean sample container was lowered beneath the outfall and was used to fill a 1-literplastic sample bottle pre-preserved with nitric acid for TAL metals analysis.

3. The samples were collected, labeled, and shipped in accordance the procedures in Steps 3 through6 above for residential well sampling.

No QA/QC samples were collected for soil, surface water, or leachate samples.

3.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS

The following sections discuss analytical results for the residential well; groundwater monitoring well;and soil, surface water, and leachate samples collected at the groundwater contamination site. The tablesin Appendix B provide data summaries. Validated analytical results for all samples are provided inAppendix E.

3.2.1 Residential Well Analytical Results

Tables B-3 through B-10 in Appendix B summarize analytical results for the residential well samplescollected. Samples were analyzed for TAL metals. Sample concentrations were compared to U.S. EPARALs established for metals in groundwater. Boron and manganese concentrations exceeded their RALs


(0.9 and 0.2 milligrams per liter [mg/L], respectively) most frequently and are the contaminants ofconcern for the groundwater contamination site. Figures A-5a and A-5b illustrate the extent of boron andmanganese contamination in the site area. These figures show both current data and data that IDEMcollected over the last year. IDEM data were deemed usable after current samples were collected fromsome of the same residential wells and yielded comparable results.

3.2.2 Monitoring Well Analytical Results

Table B-13 in Appendix B summarizes analytical results for the two groundwater monitoring wellsampling events. Samples were analyzed for TAL metals and TSS, and select samples were also analyzedfor VOCs. Sample concentrations were compared to U.S. EPA RALs established for metals ingroundwater. During the first sampling event on May IS, 2002, boron, manganese, and molybdenumconcentrations exceeded the RALs most frequently.

The second sampling event was conducted on October 16 and 17, 2002. START collected split sampleswith WB&G and also collected samples from the same wells using low flow-rate sampling techniques.The primary objectives of the second sampling event were (1) to determine if independent samplingconducted by the owners of Brown's Landfill is yielding accurate and defensible analytical results and(2) to assess whether the analytical results depend on the sampling technique used. Split samples formetals analysis were field filtered using 0.45-micron in-line filters; samples collected using low flow-ratesampling techniques were not filtered.

The split sample results presented in Table B-12 verify that the laboratory used by Brown for routinemonitoring to comply with their landfill permits is producing reliable results. The START team collectedsplit samples from four monitoring wells (MW3, MW-15S, MW-15D, and MW-18S) sampled at the sametime and using the same sampling technique as the samples collected by Brown, and submitted thesamples for analysis to a different laboratory. The data presented in Table B-12 shows that the twolaboratories produced results that were essentially identical for most compounds of concern, with routinesmall errors associated with the analytical techniques.


Although concentrations of the key compounds of concern were essentially identical in the split samples,several compounds that are not key compounds of concern at the site exhibited significant differencesbetween the split samples. These included aluminum, barium, iron, manganese, and strontium in wellMW-3; calcium in well MW-15D; and aluminum and iron in well MW-18S. Both the START and theWB&G split samples were passed through a 0.45 micron filter before analysis for metals. Although TSSresults are not available for the WB&G split samples, the differences may be associated with differentamounts of suspended particles with diameters less than 0.45 microns. For example, aluminum isessentially insoluble under most pH conditions, therefore when aluminum appears in water samples, itusually signifies presence of suspended particles. The fact that selected metals were consistently higherin one sample than the other when aluminum concentrations were higher in that sample suggests thatparticles were present in the sample with the higher aluminum concentration, and that the elevatedconcentrations of aluminum and other selected metals are associated with the particles. The relativelyhigh TSS concentrations (greater than 1,000 mg/L) in filtered samples indicates that significant amountsof very fine particles are present in the samples collected using traditional sampling techniques.

Analytical results for the second sampling event show that for most metals, the traditional samplingtechnique and the low flow-rate sampling technique produced comparable results. As expected, ironproved to be sensitive to sampling technique. Iron is a significant component of colloids and humic acidsin groundwater, which may have dimensions greater than 0.45 microns and would therefore have beenremoved by filtering. Manganese results were biased slightly higher in the filtered samples, suggestingthat manganese may be associated with very fine (less than 0.45-micron) particles that become suspendedby the traditional purging and sampling technique but not by the low flow-rate sampling technique. Otherinorganic contaminants, including boron and molybdenum, did not appear to be sensitive to samplingtechnique.

BTEX was not detected in either of the wells sampled for BTEX, indicating that the BTEX detected in theresidential wells in 2000 is either geographically restricted to a different area or was a short-term problemthat no longer affects the upper aquifer in the vicinity of these wells. The presence of BTEX-free wellsbetween the landfill and the affected residences indicates that the landfill is not the source of the observedBTEX contamination.


3.2.3 Soil, Surface Water, and Leachate Analytical Results

Table B-14 in Appendix B summarizes analytical results for soil samples collected from Pines Park. Thesamples were analyzed for TAL metals. Sample concentrations were compared to U.S. EPA Region 9preliminary remediation goals (PRG) for the ingestion route of exposure. No sample concentrationsexceeded the laboratory detection limit for hexavalent chromium. Sample P-SS-0501-01 contained24 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of arsenic, which slightly exceeds the PRG of 22 mg/kg. All othersamples exhibited trace concentrations of several metals; however, none were detected at concentrationsabove their respective PRGs.

Table B-15 in Appendix B summarizes analytical results for surface water and leachate samples collectedfrom Brown's Ditch. The samples were analyzed for TAL metals. Surface water results indicated higherlevels of boron and molybdenum in downstream samples compared to upstream samples. Leachateresults indicated higher levels of various metals especially concentrations of boron, manganese, andmolybdenum. These results indicate that metals from Brown's Landfill are leaching to groundwater,which ultimately discharges into nearby surface water.


4.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

The Township of Pines and surrounding area lie within the Calumet Lacustrine Plain, which contains aseries of sand dune ridge complexes oriented parallel to the shore of Lake Michigan, which separate low-lying, poorly drained wetland areas. The Township of Pines also lies on the Calumet dune ridge complex,and Brown's Landfill is south of the township in the interdunal area between the Calumet and theGlenwood dune ridge complexes known as the Calumet-Glenwood wetland (Shedlock and Harkness1984). Brown's Ditch is the primary drainage feature in the vicinity of the Township of Pines. Brown'sDitch runs east-northeast through the approximate center of the Calumet-Glenwood wetland turns sharplynorth just east of Brown's Landfill, and cuts through the Calumet dune ridge complex near LibertyAvenue. Brown's Ditch is a modified drainage feature that was dredged in 1983. In 1982 the ditch wasrelocated from its original course through what is now the center of the landfill to its current course alongthe approximate southern and eastern landfill boundaries of the landfill before the landfill was created.Water in Brown's Ditch flows east and then north past the landfill.

The site geology and hydrogeology are discussed in more detail below.

4.1 SITE GEOLOGY

At the Township of Pines, a thick sequence of unconsolidated glacial, glacio-lacustrine, and eoliandeposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age overlie an eroded bedrock surface of Devonian-aged AntrimShale (Shedlock and others 1994; Schneider and Keller 1970). Based on a bedrock surface elevation of525 feet above mean sea level at the Township of Pines (Shedlock and others 1994), the unconsolidatedmaterials are approximately 80 to 100 feet thick in the site area

Eolian and lacustrine sand are the uppermost unconsolidated materials at the site. These sands overlie aless permeable unit consisting of interbedded glacial till and glaciolacustrine clays (Shedlock and others1994) that form a clay-rich aquitard. The elevation of the top of the aquitard dips northeast so that theelevation of the aquitard surface is about 20 feet higher at the southwest corner of Brown's Landfill than


at the northeast corner. Because the ground surface elevation increases to the north, the thickness of theuppermost sand unit is about 12 to 14 feet thick along die southern and eastern perimeters of the landfill,about 30 to 35 feet thick along the northern perimeter of the landfill, and about 45 feet thick north of U.S.Highway 20 near nested wells MW-16, MW-18, and MW-19.

The aquitard has not been fully penetrated by most monitoring wells and borings; instead, most boringsterminate after penetrating the unit a few feet Borings that penetrated the unit include MW-3A andMW-4A, where the clay-rich unit was 20 to 22.5 feet thick (ATEC Associates 1989), and MW-12, wherethe clay-rich layer was 9 feet thick (WB&G 2001).

4.2 SITE HYDROGEOLOGY

Depth to groundwater at the Township of Pines and the landfill ranges from about 5 to 25 feet belowground surface. The near-surface sands that comprise the surficial aquifer extend from the surface to11.5 to 33 feet below grade and are underlain by a clay-rich aquitard. The thickest sequence of sands arepresent near the north-central boundary of Brown's Landfill, in the vicinity of the intersection of HickoryStreet and U.S. Route 20.

Low-relief groundwater mounds in the surficial aquifer beneath the dune ridge complexes cause localgroundwater flow away from the axes of the ridges and toward the interdunal low-lying areas andwetlands (Shedlock and others 1994). Surface features, such as the low-permeability landfill cap, areexpected to modify this flow pattern locally. To better define the groundwater flow in the area north ofthe landfill, Brown Incorporated installed 14 new monitoring wells at seven locations along U.S. Route20, including one well screened to intersect the water table and a second well screened at the bottom ofthe surficial aquifer. Tetra Tech independently logged the lithology in these wells and observed wellinstallation and development (see Appendix D).

To define the local groundwater flow pattern in the vicinity of the landfill, Tetra Tech measured waterlevels in existing wells around the landfill and the newly installed wells on September 3,2002. On thesame day, a licensed professional surveyor surveyed die locations and elevations of all of the monitoringwells. Table B-16 in Appendix B lists surveyed elevations, depths to well bottoms, depths to watermeasured on September 3, 2002, and corresponding groundwater elevations. The elevations of the


existing wells around the landfill as surveyed on September 3, 2002 were consistently approximately\^ 0.25 to 0.5 foot lower than previously surveyed elevations, suggesting that modest subsidence has

occurred in the interval between the surveys.

Comparison of water levels in collocated wells indicates that significant vertical gradients are presentwithin the surficial aquifer. For example, the water elevation in well MW-13S was more than 1 foothigher than the level in well MW-13D, which is located only a few feet away. The well screen forMW-13D is about 17.5 feet deeper than that of MW-13S, and the well nest exhibits a strong downwardvertical hydraulic gradient of 0.06. The lithologic logs for this and other well nests that also exhibitedstrong downward gradients do not show an obvious lithologic reason for the observed vertical gradients.

Figure A-6 is a potentiometric surface map illustrating interpreted groundwater flow directions onSeptember 3, 2002. Because strong vertical gradients are present, only groundwater elevations fromwells screened at or near the water table (designated as shallow wells in Table B-16) were used to createthe potentiometric surface map. Groundwater elevations in the deeper wells are not included in thepotentiometric surface map. The map shows that groundwater flow across the landfill is generallysoutheast or south-southeast except in a small area in the northwest comer of the landfill, where

, , groundwater flow is directed to the northeast into the Township of Pines. The potentiometric surfaceprovides clear evidence that the landfill is the likely source of the elevated boron concentrations detectedin residential wells in the area where Maple, Hickory, and Walnut Streets meet U.S. Highway 20.

Groundwater elevations in wells screened at the bottom of the surficial aquifer show similarnortheastward flow into the Township of Pines. For example, the groundwater elevation in MW-12(13.45 feet above mean sea level) is higher than the groundwater elevations in MW-17S (12.99 feet abovemean sea level) and MW-18D (10.28 feet above mean sea level), indicating that groundwater in both thetop and base of the surficial aquifer flows northeast in the area around the northwest corner of the landfill.

START also examined residential well logs obtained from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources(IDNR) water well record database (http://www.ia.gov/dnr/water/ground water/well database/) todetermine if variations in screened intervals could account for some of the observed variations incontaminant concentrations for chemicals associated with the landfill, such as boron. Most of theresidential wells have 5-foot-long well screens and are screened in the shallow aquifer at depths


beginning at 25 to 50 feet below ground surface. Analysis of boron concentrations versus well screenelevations revealed no consistent pattern. For example, samples from wells at both Willow Street(screened from approximately 578 to 583 feet above mean sea level) and Walnut Street (screenedfrom approximately 604 to 607 feet above mean sea level) contained comparable boron concentrations.Samples from wells at Hickory Street (screened from approximately 582 to 585 feet above mean sealevel) contained approximately half of the boron concentration detected in a sample collected from a wellat the nearby residence at Hickory Street (screened from 580 to 585 feet above mean sea level).There is little evidence that boron contamination in the surficial aquifer is vertically stratified.Geographic location relative to the landfill appears to be the dominant factor controlling boronconcentrations in residential wells, based on analysis of data from a limited set of residential wells.


5.0 SUMMARY

The groundwater contamination site is located in a residential area in the Township of Pines, PorterCounty, Indiana. In April 2002, U.S. EPA was asked to investigate the presence of boron and manganese,which had not been previously investigated, at die site. U.S. EPA collected residential well samples from91 residents from May through September, 2002. Groundwater samples were also collected frommonitoring wells surrounding Brown's Landfill, and soil samples were collected from Pines Park.Surface water and leachate samples were collected from Brown's Ditch and runoff from the landfill.

Analytical results from the residential well samples indicate significant boron contamination ingroundwater in the Township of Pines. A potentiomentric surface map from September 3, 2002, indicatesthat groundwater flows from the northwest comer of the landfill northeast toward the Township of Pines.Analytical results from monitoring wells and surface water samples combined with results from thehydrogeological assessment indicate that leaching from the northwest corner of Brown's Landfill is thelikely source of boron and other metals detected in residential wells in the Township of Pines.


REFERENCES

ATEC Associates. 1989. Logs of Soil Borings No. MW-3A and MW^tA.

Robertson, B. J. 2000. "Recycling Fly Ash as an Agricultural Lime." Nova Scotia Agricultural College.June 30.

Shedlock, R. J., and W. E. Harkness. 1984. "Shallow Groundwater Flow and Drainage Characteristics ofthe Brown Ditch Basin Near the East Unit, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, 1982."U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4271.

Shedlock, R. J., and others. 1994. "Hydrogeology and Hydrochemistry of Dunes and Wetlands Alongthe Southern Shore of Lake Michigan, Indiana." USGS Open File Report 92-139.

Schneider, A. F., and S. J. Keller. 1970. "Geologic Map of the lo x 2o Chicago Quadrangle, Indiana,Illinois, and Michigan, Showing Bedrock and Unconsolidated Deposits." Indiana GeologicalSurvey Regional Geologic Map Number 4.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1990. 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Map of Michigan City West,Indiana, Quadrangle.

USGS. 1998. Aerial Photograph of Michigan City Northeast, Indiana.

USGS. 1998. Aerial Photograph of Michigan City Northwest, Indiana.

o

USGS. 1998. Aerial Photograph of Michigan City Southeast, Indiana.

USGS. 1998. Aerial Photograph of Michigan City Southwest, Indiana.

Weaver, Boos, & Gordon Inc. (WB&G). 2001. Log of Soil Boring TW-12.


APPENDIX A

FIGURES

FIGURE A-l : SITE LOCATION MAP

A-2 : SITE LAYOUT MAP

A-3 : MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS

A-4 : SOIL, SURFACE WATER, AND LEACHATE SAMPLINGLOCATIONS

A-5A : RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION DISTRIBUTION

A-5B : RESIDENTIAL WELL CONTAMINATION DISTRIBUTION

A-6 : SEPTEMBER 3,2002 POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP

y-J >———^jtU. *---'-V i, S'nrTi^ I*'I n •!•--, . iĴ .u. • •

0 1000 2000

SCALE IN FEET

SOURCE: MOCNREO FROM USO3 1MO

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITETOWNSHIP OF PINES. PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

TDD NO. S05-0204-013

FIGURE A-1SITE LOCATION MAP

PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY:

EPA TETRA TECH EM INC.

PIPil̂ ^

BROWN'S LANDFILL

500 250 0 500 1,000 Feet

SOURCES: MODIFIED FROM USGS 1998

iGROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE

TOWNSHIP OF PINES, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANATDD NO. S05-0204-Q13

FIGURE A-2SITE LAYOUT MAP

PREPARED FOR: BY

TETRA TECH EM INC

LEGEND—— ROAD

RAILROAD

BROWN DITCH

WELL DEPTH

o SHALLOW WELL

• DEEP WELL

A NESTED WELL

220 110 220 440 Feet


GROUNDWATEP CONTAMINATION SITETOWNSHIP OF PINES, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

TDD NO. S05-0204-013

FIGURE A-3MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS

PREPARED FOR: BY.

SEPA TPTRft TFCH EM INC

SNOIlVOCn DNIIdWVS3ivHov3i QNV 'U31VM aovduns "iios

VNVIQNI 'AiNnOO H3idOd 'SBNid dO dIHSNAAO31IS NOI1VNIWV1NOO H3iVMQNnOU9

lllddNVl S.NMOda

H01IQ S.NMOdQQVOdllVd ———

NOI1VDO1 ONHdWVS H31VM 30VddnS W

NOiiVOOl ONildlAiVS 1IOS V

NOIlVOCn ONMdlAIVS 31VHOV31

QN3O31

lo*

ABOVE SCREENING LEVEL

U.S. ERA SAMPLE RESULT WITH MANGANESEAND BORON ABOVE SCREENING LEVELS

BROWN'S LANDFILL

RAILROAD

BROWN'S DITCH

220 110 0 220440 Feet

SOURCES. MODIFIED FROM USGS 1998

GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITETOWNSHIP OF PINES, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

TDD NO. S05-0204-013

FIGURE A-5ARESIDENTIAL WELL

____CONTAMINATION DISTRIBUTION| PREPARED FOR. BY:

TETRA TECH EM INC

ABOVE SCREENING LEVEL

U.S. ERA SAMPLE RESULT WITH MANGANESEAND BORON ABOVE SCREENING LEVELSU.S. ERA SAMPLE RESULT WITH MOLYBDENUMABOVE SCREENING LEVEL

RAILROAD

BROWN'S DITCH

220 110 0 220 440 Feet


GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE"OWNSHIP OF PINES, PORTER COUNTY, INDIANA

TDD NO. S05-0204-013

FIGURE A-5BRESIDENTIAL WELL

CONTAMINATION DISTRIBUTIONPREPARED FOR: BY:

&EPA TETRA TECH EM INC.

*.'-

.,z m m

O 33 O 33 W33 > O O C

ig 3D > i

APPENDIX B: TABLES

RESIDENTIAL WELL DATA AND SAMPLING

HAS BEEN REDACTED – 34 PAGES

CONTAINS POTENTIAL PERSONALLY- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

APPENDIX C

MONITORING WELL SAMPLING SHEETS

(Four Sheets)

Monitoring Well No.:_

Personnel: i

TETRA TECH EM, INC.

MONITORING WELL SAMPLING SHEET

Date: 'l

Organic Vapor Concentration TOC:__

Depth to Well Bottom: "5/ • ̂ >_____ft

Depth to Water:____2^ • lO_____ft

Water Column:_____£ "

TETRA TECH EM, INC.


Monitoring Well No.: A> K/-^

Personnel: £

TETRA TECH EM, INC.


- it,Monitoring Well No.:_Personnel: L^'T^/^f^

Date: iC

Organic Vapor Concentration

Depth to Well Bottom:.

Depth to Water:___i

Water Column:___j

TOC: ppm Breathing Zon pom

ft

ft

ft

Well Volume:

Well Volume:

2-inch well = water column x 0.163 gal/ft3-inch well = water column x 0.367 galVft4-inch well = water column x 0.652 gal/ft

eal

Time Vol. Purged Water Level EHConductivity(imhos/cm)

Temperature°C/°

TurbidityNTU

DOmg/L

/ «?.

1.&0

. toSt-

J-3-.U/

(6 4 0

LL,i 7- i 5 7 L.

Begin Purge:,

End Purge:_

-- f7 ^ a. . f c . I

Method of Purging

Purged Dry? t^o

0Pu

Total Volume Purged:,

mp

How Measured?

Bailer

QA/QC Sample Collected Here? D Duplicate D Matrix Spike D Equip. Blank [j No QA/QC Sample

Date and Time of Sample Collection: ' c ' ' ' c ^- i 2 ?O Sample Number (s):

Comments:

S:\rik\sample.frm.doc

TETRA TECH EM, INC.


Monitoring Well No.:_

Personnel: Pi f,

Date: !$/(,

Organic Vapor Concentration TOC: '—

Depth to Well Bottom: ?8.4/_____ft.

Depth to Water: X&fr/ i ? • *** ft

Water Column: ^^? 2 /. ̂ ft

Time Vol. Purged Water Level pH

'*« O ,T .*S 7.??

DDm Breathing Zone: ppm

Well Volume: 2-inch well = water column x 0.163 gal/ft3-inch well = water column x 0.367 gal/ft4-inch well = water column x 0.652 gal/ft

Well Volume: eal

Conductivityftimhos/cm)

Temperature

It** / L.

7. > 6

11*1.'/>_ 67

it .£

TurbidityNTUO

r

DOmg/L

LL, t/

1L

Begin Purge:,

*. ?f f . C

Mo.

End Purge:__l_

Method of Purging

Purged Dry?__M?

L^PumPump

Total Volume Purged:,

D Bailer

How Measured? * *- ^»-

QA/QC Sample Collected Here? D Duplicate O Matrix Spike D Equip. Blank L^No QA/QC Sample

Date and Time of Sample Collection: 'CJ>tfC~L f:'^f Sample Number (s):_

Comments:

APPENDIX D

WELL INSTALLATION REPORT

(One Page)

WELL INSTALLATION REPORT

Tetra Tech EM Inc. Dave Franc, August 5 through 7,9 and 12,2002Oversight Representativesand Oversight Dates; ________.̂ ______^^^^_^____^^^^^^^_

As requested by die U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech)performed oversight of well installation activities at die groundwater contamination site in the Township ofPines, Porter County, Indiana. During oversight, Tetra Tech observed die following activities at Brown'sLandfill in die site area: (1) continuous soil sampling of groundwater well locations using a geoprobe,(2) installation of shallow and deep wells at each location, and (3) well development. Weaver, Boos,& Gordon, Inc. (WBG), the landfill owners' representative, selected Envirodynamics, Inc., (Envirodynamics)as its contractor for performing Geoprobe sampling activities and subcontracted Midway Drilling (Midway)to install die groundwater wells.

This report includes a copy of Tetra Tech's boring logs (see die Attachment). Oversight observations aresummarized below.

August 5,2002: Tetra Tech arrived on site at 0745 and met witii WBG and Envirodynamics. At 0830,Envirodynamics began to Geoprobe at location MW-14. Each boring was advanced to die top of die stiff claylayer, which ranged from 34 to 47 feet below ground surface (bgs), and sampled continuously. LocationsMW-13 and MW-15 were sampled in similar fashion. Midway drilled wells MW-14S andMW-14D using hollow-stem augers. The 10-foot-long screens were placed approximately 3 feet above thesaturated zone (observed during sampling) and at the top of die stiff clay of die upper aquifer (eee boring logsin die attachment for more details). Tetra Tech left die site at 1700.

August 6,2002: Tetra Tech arrived on site at 0715. Envirodynamics sampled locations MW-16, MW-18,and MW-19. Midway continued installing wells at locations previously sampled. Tetra Tech left the site at1700.

August 7, 2002: Tetra Tech arrived on site at 1430. Envirodynamics sampled location MW-17. Apetroleum odor was noted at 24 to 31 feet bgs. Headspace readings from 24 to 28 feet bgs (6 parts permillion [ppm]) and from 28 to 30 feet bgs (16 ppm) were taken using a photoioniztion detector. Tetra Techleft the site at 1645.

August 9,2002: Tetra Tech arrived on site at 0800. Midway continued installing wells at locationspreviously sampled. Well screens for location MW-17 were placed throughout the saturated zone (at 16to 26 and 26 to 36 feet bgs). Tetra Tech left die site at 0900.

August 12,2002: Tetra Tech arrived on site at 1500. Midway purged developing wells using asubmersible pump. WBG personnel were on site to take readings and verify adequate well development.Envirodynamics was sampling north of die landfill to determine die lateral extent of fly ash in diesubsurface. Tetra Tech left die site at 1600.

D-l

ATTACHMENT

BORING LOGS

(24 Sheets)

Project: Pines Well#TW-13 "̂"IftLocation: Pines, IN |BH| • |jjjj[H

Date: 8002 ^^A^QField Personnel: Franc ^̂ ^MHIH^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

S

0-

-1-

2J

-3-

~

4-\

5--/

-7-

:

o

I

£Si£8

I%*i1iji3i

â:;ii•«p41

fe5is-i:l

9-

10-

11-

12^

13-:

15-

si»t|?1I£s

^

P?Si f c §is*n^Cim?*r»*

1f'PiM

1g»SM.-JSjn.fii

3P$£:|

1

(̂y»iiiii$jX

i1

Description

Ground SurfaceSandYellow, fine-grained, with0.5-foot organic layer atsurface, dry

SandTan, fine-grained, dry

SandLight brown, fine-grained,saturated

g

1

1 i

S||

|^|||||^

1;

i

1WJ

I

?^>: ?

: • >

I j |: : 5: )

M|: : ^i ; ]: i J

!!| ||• • 5: 5

• '* ^

_.

m

Remarks

Top of screen for TW-1 3S

Driller: Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.

Drill Method: Direct Push Sheet: 1 of 3Randolph, Suite 4700 Chicago,IL 60601

Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02

Field Personnel: Franc

Well#TW-13

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

DescriptionRemarks


i i»

SandGray, wet, some peat

Sandy loamGray, wet

Bottom of screen for TW-13S

30-

Top of screen for TW-13D

Driller: Envirodynamics

Drill Method: Direct Push

Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 2 of 3

Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.Randolph, Suite 4700 Chicago,IL 60601

Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

I

Remarks

35-

36-

ClayGray, stiff

Bottom of screen for TW-13D

41

42-?

44-

45-

End of Borehole

Driller Envirodynamics


Hole Size: 2*

Sheet: 3 of 3


Project: Pine. We// # ̂ ^ ^j^

Location: Pines, IN HC^9

Date: JWW02 ^̂ *J!IjField Personnel: Franc ÎH^̂ Hiî ^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Q.a0-

1-_

2~

3-

-

5-:

_

I£!*M

1>i

>:>£•$mw>&&V]}

J^

1̂13^a

3$14-

15-

'1/J.lC

sMwW»*rt

|p'̂:{

:«JC8iillIIItt!cf^Sft!&$

1S^fj tEvi.iiFK•'/•*'£.

iiit̂ l

II

Description

Ground SurfaceSandYellow, fine-grained, with0.5-foot organic layer atsurface, dry

SandTan, fine-grained, dry


g|

i 1«iiis1«S

s\

|^

1|S1

^

)II1iIIîiî̂i*Sss$: I1i \

• » ^1

'•• \

\l\

1I

x

K

Remarks

Top of screen for TW-14S

IDriller: Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.

Randolph, Suite 4700 Chicago,f Drill Method: Direct Push Sheet: 1 of 3 I L 60601

Project: Pines ^e// # ̂ ^ ^Hjĵ ^

Location: Pines, IN ^ • •

Date: 8/6/02 ^^A*J

Field Personnel: Franc ^^^^^Bî ^^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

•c .§8- 1

Description

Q o> :

qj'ljUJTJiJj Light brown, fine-grained,16Hî i%|: saturated

17Jip||iSp ]̂IPS

18 |̂1$ }'£•«>*:•!

19^pffi|

Ip!$

«-̂ l-sps;-•(jfeft^21qill

_*.*-!?f '̂7:.*. . A*. tt..:

^P

^

™~wJJ0JM25llfp26w

Sandy clay\Gray, wet /

Sandy loamGray, wet

~$$h_y&vyyyj_./>V/Voi~'5v!XJyi/i

28 — Z/ZSA/I— XloyOVy_^v/v/>_.O>yyy^(j

f2Q~XSJLfZ/— y>5xyy5~4/wVyi_/vOooy6f_oSyV/v>j

30 -fffffi\7M7A

c

1I o§ 0

.. V

! ||

: :: ̂

• ^: :?' w:LJ:!s§^̂

^1

^X

^^

1|

|

|

1i:i:i:i:i:t:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:

Remarks



Driller: Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well # TW-14

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

31

32-

37-

39-?

40-

41

ClayGray, mixed with sand seamsless than 0.5-foot thickness

§

w

I

Sand and GravelGray, wet

42-

43-«

ClayGray, stiff

•L45-

End of Borehole

Remarks




Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 3 of 3


Project: Pines Well # TW-15 fiHH^Location: Pines, IN LH • ^H

Date: 8/6/02 ^^^^1 ^^\

Field Personnel: Franc ^B^̂ MH^̂ ^

£0>Q

--

1 -

2-

3-

I$5$>fi:i?M$

HI••*v/ ••%•'£Hi'If!

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

.1Description 'G

Ground SurfaceSandBlack and gray mixed with

N gravel /SandLight brown, fine-grained, dry

s îiSi6-;7~

-

9-;

-

g l̂fSsiiSmliliSSj?!

î8sifi

12ill

14-

15-

ill"î ^?;l|wH:l

vfj&


= 11

Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-15

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

i

Remarks

16-

17


21

22

25-

SandLight brown, grading to gray,wet,


SandGray, wet




Hole Size: 2*

Sheet: 2 of 3


Project: Pines Well#TW-15 ^"^ALocation: Pines, IN IBM • HI

Date: 8/6/02 ^^A_^Field Personnel: Franc ^̂ ^̂ MBH^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

1 1

"1m^-Ww3jw

-a"J r̂scyy1

Iw

44^

45-

Description

Sandy loamGray, wet

ClayGray, stiff

End of Borehole

c

i ii:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:

i •

i :i :

i :i :i :

i :

i •i :

Remarks

Bottom of screen for TW-1 5D

Drillen Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2' Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well # TW-16

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

CO

DescriptionRemarks

Ground Surface

14-if15-H

SandYellow, dry, first 0.5-foot organic §

————————————————'(Sand |Light brown, fine-grained, dry |

SandLight brown, fine-grained, dry



Hole Size: 2*

Sheet: 1 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-16

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

EI

Description

I

Remarks

SandLight brown, fine-grained, dry

17HS

J!!*••>•*&

20

21-

22-

23

:•>;

26

27

28^

29


sfi

SI'J.-IV1





Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 2 of 4


Location: Pines, IN ^H • ^H

Field Personnel: Franc ^̂ ^HH^̂ ^F

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

0£ -°

s

Project: Pine. ^ # ̂ .̂ M^^

Location: Pines, IN LM • ••

Date: 8/UQ2 ^^A^JField Personnel: Franc ^HHH^̂ ^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

1

46^

48^

49 "I

50-

51-

52-

53-

54-

55^

56^

57-

58-

59-

60-

|Description

ClayStiff, gray

End of Borehole

Wel

l

Cons

tructi

on Remarks

Driller Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.


"*""*- WeHtTW-,7 ^HimLocation: Pines, IN LH • 1H

Date: 8/6/02 ^^A^JField Personnel: Franc ^HMBMBî ^

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

£Q.

S

0-

1-~

2-

o

I

*

Ii

"ii?iistt* ftsi*^fr1s_ ^Sifejsl3T#r$JS

4T-

5-

6-

:--

Q-

-

9-

10I_

H:

"-.

15^

m̂Si

1;Jj1'a

1

1

1|1&

1'i

"i-A3lfa

1X'-PiiC*'crtsi

1iipexj'ĵ t;

î lm.!i|

s8

1spi1

1

ilĵ lif

Description

Ground SurfaceSandLight brown, fine-grained, with0.5-foot gravel and organiclayer at surface, dry

%

'Ef

1 1

jj

|$j§1

'*&!?>!%

1|

&

11§

\1

1

|

^iSjSIIiiI|îwjS

1^viîiiiiiiN>

i

1iIiiiiii

__Remarks

Driller Envirodynamfes Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.


Project: Pines Well#TW-17 •̂•ALocation: Pines, IN MM • jfm

Date: 8/6/02 ^^A^J

Field Personnel: Franc ™HHBMB»~̂

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

f8

16-

17-;

18-

19-

^îw(1

:»

IIfji

liJ3)

is>21-1

22 H|11

23-J

24 -J

25^^

26-

27-

28 ~

29-

_

30-

•S

I1?>

1

$&:]PSfi'to-cK.rii

!1!«.!?)

|i'r*?

01

1

1

Description

SandBrown, fine-grained, saturated

:|̂ il|i

ill

g1

I I||• ' ^

i 11 1

'. 'I V

1 SJ

'• V

'• V1 «• V1 w

'* N

illi|H

L_i .̂

x

1

•t>

ii••i•;

Remarks

Top of screen for TW-1 7S

Petroleum odor noticed 25.5-31 feet bgs

Bottom of screen for TW-1 7STop of screen for TW-1 7DPID reading = 6 ppm

PID reading = 16 ppm

Driller Envirodynamics Hole Size: 2" Tetra Tech EM, Inc. 200 E.


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well # TW-18

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

I

Remarks

Ground SurfaceSandBrown and yellow, dry, first0.5-foot organic

SandYellow, fine-grained, dry

"'



Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 1 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6102


Well#TW-18

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

I

Remarks

SandYellow, fine-grained, dry

18-

19-

20-

21

22-


30-

Sfii





Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 2 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-18

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

31

32-

45-1

Description


Sandy LoamGray, wet

SandGray, wet

I

Remarks




Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 3 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-18

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

I

Remarks

ClayStiff, gray


51-

52-

53-

54

55-

56-

57-

58 -_

59-

60-

End of Borehole

1Driller Envirodynamics


Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 4 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-19

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

I

Remarks

Ground SurfaceSandYellow, dry, first two inches

13-1ft*

i14-

1Driller: Envirodynamics


Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 1 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-19

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description

i

Remarks


27-

28-

29-





Hole Size: 2*

Sheet: 2 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-19

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

Description


33-

34-

Sandy LoamGray, moist

SandGray, moist

ClayStiff, gray

I

Remarks



1



Hole Size: 2'

Sheet: 3 of 4


Project: Pines

Location: Pines, IN

Date: 8/6/02


Well#TW-19

SUBSURFACE PROFILE

IL&

_

I

Description

"HH Clay• stiff, gray

47--

48-

49-

50-

51-

52 ~.

53-

54-

55^

56-

57-

58-

59-

60-

End of Borehole

g|

1 1

Remarks

Driller. Envirodynamics


Hole Size: 2"

Sheet: 4 of 4


APPENDIX E

VALIDATED ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Tetra Tech EM Inc.200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 4700 * Chicago. IL 60601 * (312) 856-8700 * FAX (312) 938-0118

MEMORANDUM

Date: 05 Jun 02

To: Brad White, Project Manager, Tetra Tech EM Inc. (Tetra Tech) Superfund TechnicalAssessment and Response Team (START) for Region 5

From: Harry Ellis, Chemist, Tetra Tech START for Region 5

Subject: Data Validation forPines Groundwater ContaminationPines, IndianaAnalytical Technical Direction Document (TDD) No. SOS-0204-014Project TDD No. S05-0204-013

Laboratory: EA Group Laboratories (EA), Mentor, OhioWork Orders No. 0205-00042 and 0205-00043Metals Analysis of 18 Groundwater Samples and 7 Soil Samples, and Hexavalent ChromiumAnalysis of 7 Soil Samples

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Tetra Tech START for Region S validated metals analytical data for 18 groundwater samples and7 soil samples and hexavalent chromium analytical data for 7 soil samples collected on 01 May 02 duringa site assessment of the Pines Groundwater Contamination site in Pines, Indiana. The water sampleswere analyzed under Work Order No. 0205-00042 by EA using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA) Methods 200.7,200.8,245.2, and 273.1 for metals analyses. Soil samples were analyzedunder Work Order No. 0205-00043 by EA using U.S. EPA SW-846 Methods 6010A and 7471A formetals analysis and 7196A for hexavalent chromium analysis.

The data were validated in general accordance with U.S. EPA's "Contract Laboratory Program NationalFunctional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review" dated Feb 94. Inorganic data validation consisted of areview of the following quality control (QC) parameters: holding times, initial and continuing calibrations,

contains recycled fiber and is recyclable

Data Validation forPines Groundwater ContaminationAnalytical TDD No. S05-0204-014Project TDD No. S05-0204-013Page 2

blank results, laboratory control sample (LCS) results, and matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate(MS/MSD) and matrix duplicate results.

Section 2.0 discusses the results of the inorganic data validation, and Section 3.0 presents an overallassessment of the data. The attachment contains EA's summary of analytical results as well asSTART'S handwritten data qualifications where warranted.

2.0 INORGANIC DATA VALIDATION RESULTS

The results of START'S data validation are summarized below in terms of the QC parameters reviewed.The following data qualifiers were applied to the sample analytical results where warranted (see theattachment).

• J - The analyte was detected. The reported numerical value is considered estimated for QCreasons.

• UJ - The analyte was not detected. The reported sample quantitation limit is consideredestimated for QC reasons.

• R - The result is rejected. The analyte may or may not be present.

2.1 HOLDING TIMES

All samples were analyzed within the holding time limits of 6 months for metals other than mercury,28 days for mercury, and 24 hours after extraction for hexavalent chromium.

2.2 INITIAL AND CONTINUING CALIBRATIONS

The results for all initial and most continuing calibrations were within the QC limits of the variousmethods. A few results were outside their respective recovery limits for continuing calibrations. Samples

Data Validation forPines Groundwater ContaminationAnalytical TDD No. S05-0204-014Project TDD No. S05-0204-013Page3

were reanalyzed so that all results are associated with acceptable calibration data; therefore, noqualifications are warranted.

23 BLANK RESULTS

Initial calibration blanks, continuing calibration blanks, and preparation blanks were run with each

analytical batch. Target analytes were not detected in the blanks above the laboratory reporting limitsexcept for antimony in some of the continuing calibration blanks for Method 6010A, which the laboratory

ascribed to carryover from the immediately preceding continuing calibration verification samples. Noantimony was detected in the associated field samples; therefore, no qualifications are warranted.

2.4 LCS RESULTS

An LCS and an LCS duplicate were analyzed with each analytical batch. Most LCS results, including all

those with the aqueous samples, were within (be QC limits specified by the laboratory. In the soilanalyses, both aluminum recoveries were within QC limits (82 and 114 percent recovery, respectively,versus the QC limit of 80 to 120 percent) but the relative percent difference (RPD) between the results(33 percent) exceeded the QC limit (20 percent). All aluminum results in the soil samples were flagged"J" as estimates because of this variable analytical response.

2.5 MS/MSD AND MATRIX DUPLICATE RESULTS

MS, MSD, and matrix duplicate analyses were performed as required, and most recoveries wereacceptable. In the aqueous MS/MSD analyses, which used sample P-GW-0501-10, calcium, magnesium,

potassium, and sodium results were not usable because the field sample contained much higherconcentrations of these metals than the spike concentrations for these metals. No qualifications arewarranted for this data gap. Recoveries were as follows for the compounds listed: aluminum at 69 and68 percent, potassium at 82 and 71 percent, and silver at 40 and 42 percent. These recoveries are all

Data Validation forPines Groundwater ContaminationAnalytical TDD No. S05-0204-014Project TDD No. S05-0204-013Page 4

below the laboratory QC limit of 80 to 120 percent. All results for aluminum, potassium, and silver in theaqueous samples were flagged "J" or "UJ" as appropriate as estimates, biased low.

In the soil MS/MSD analyses, which used sample P-SS-0501-01, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,manganese, potassium, and zinc results were not usable because the field sample contained much higherconcentrations of these metals than the spiking levels. No qualifications are warranted for this data gap.However, recoveries were as follows for the compounds listed: antimony at 23 and 17 percent,phosphorous at 147 and 158 percent, selenium at 60 and S3 percent, silver at 86 and 60 percent, andsodium at 89 and 146 percent These recoveries are all outside the laboratory QC limit of 80 to 120. Thesilver and sodium results also exceeded the RPD QC limit of 20. Post-digestion spikes yielded acceptablerecoveries for all of these metals, thus demonstrating mat matrix interference was the cause of theirregular recoveries. Because of the very low recoveries, all soil results for antimony (which werenondetected) were flagged "R" as rejected; antimony may or may not be present in these soil samples.All soil results for phosphorous, selenium, silver, and sodium are considered estimated and were flagged"J" or "UP' as appropriate.

3.0 OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF DATA

The overall quality of the data generated by EA is acceptable for use as qualified except for the rejectednondetect results for antimony in soils. It is not unusual for soil samples to have such matrix interferencewhen antimony is analyzed for using inductively-coupled plasma emission methods, such as U.S. EPAMethods 200.7 and 6010A. If the presence of antimony is important in evaluating the site, the soilsamples must be reanalyzed using atomic absorption methods, such as U.S. EPA Methods 204.1,204.2,7040, and 7041.

ATTACHMENT

EA SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS

(30 Pages)

IEA GROUP

201ANWVBtSMT1982-2002

eEAGROUP

^CAG Workorder: 0205-00042

Client Project: Pines Groundwater

EAGID: 0205-00042-1 Client ID:

ParameterAntimony: EPA 200.8Thallium: EP \ 200.8

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-01

ResultO.OOiO

o.ooosAluminum: EPA 200.7 mium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7

Magnesium: EPA 200.7

Manganese: EPA 200.7

Mercury: EPA 245.2

Molybdenum: EPA 200.7

Nickel: EPA 200.7

Phosphorous as

Potassium: EPA

P: EPA 200.7

200.7

Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200

Strontium: EPA

Tin: EPA 200.7

^ dium: EPA

.7

200.7

200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

O.010

0.181

O.OOIO

1.S8

O.0050

69.6

&^m VJ*^V^rv^l

201ANMVfllSAlY1982-2002

"^EAG Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterSodium: EPA 273. 1

EAGID: 020S-00042-2 Client ID:

ParameterAntimony: EPA 200.8Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic. EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7

-yllium: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7

Phosphorous as P: EPA 200.7

Potassium: EPA 200.7

v_>emum: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

e3EAGROUP

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-01Sample

ReportingResult Limit

849 100

P-GW-0501-02Sample

ReportingRemit Limit

EAGROUP

AMMVIRSMY'1982-2002

V_

EAGROUP-iCAG Workorder: 0205-00042 Laboratories

Client Project: Pines Groundwater Contamination

EAGID: 0205-00042-2

ParameterStrontium: EPA 200.7

Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 273.1

EAGID: 0205-00042-3

ParameterAntimony: EPA 200.8

Ilium: EPA 200.8

Client ID: P-GVV -0501-02

Result1.93

EAGROUP

201ANMVERSAKY1982-2002

^~£AG Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterPhosphorous as P: EPA 200.7


Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7

Strontium: EPA 200.7

Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

^^GID: 0205-00042-4 Client ID:


Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7

Beryllium: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200 7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

^sd: EPA 200."


eEAGROUP

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-03Sample


EA GROUP)

201ANNIVtRSAinr1982-2002

^£AG Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterManganese: EPA 200.7

Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7

" ^ntium: EPA 200.7

tuv EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7



Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

,^>mium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

/Q

EAGROUPLaboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-04Sample

ReportingResult Limit0.828 0.050

EAGROUP

201ANNIVERSARY1982-2002

^-tAG Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterCopper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7


" issium: EPA 200.7

Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 273.1



Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200 7

,^j\]\\jm: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200.7

eEAGROUP

LaboratoriesContamination

P-GW-05tI-05Sample

ReportingItoalt Limit

EAGROUP

201ANMVMSMV1982-2002 EA GROUP

Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterCadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



' -cury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 273.1

EAGID: 0205-00042-7


^^lium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Client ID:

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-05D

Result

EAGROLT

201982-2002 EA GROUP



EAG ID: 0205-00042-7

ParameterArsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

I EPA 200.7

Leaci: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

Laboratories

Kater Contaminatioa

Client ID: P-GW-0501-06

Remit

EAGROLT

201ANMVfRSAftr1982-2002 EA GROUP





Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Banum: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

lEA GROUP]

20iAMMVUSMY11982-2002

^TfAG Workorder: 0205-00042



ParameterZinc: EPA 200.7



Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200. 7

Barium: LiPA 200 .7

•Ilium: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt. EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7

Phosphorous as P- EPA 200.7


X_^fiium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

eEAGROUP

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-OSOl-07Sample


iEAGROLT!

201ANMVtRSAlY

! 1982-2002

/^

EA GROUPfcAG Workorder: 0205-00042 Laboratories


EAGID: 0205-00042-9

ParameterSodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

EAGID: 0205-00042-10


Ilium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7

Magnesium: EPA 200."

Manganese: EPA 2"'i.~

Mercury: EPA 245.2

x_

iEA GROUP

201ANWVtRSARr1982-2002

eEA GROUP

S^G workorder: 0205-00042 Laboratories


EAGID: 0205-00042-10

ParameterPhosphorous as P: EPA 200.7


Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7

Strontium: EPA

Tin: EPA 200.7

200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

3 ID: 0205-00042-11


Thallium: EPA 200.8


ResultO.IO

7.59T

O.020

O.0050

75.6

0.150

O.050

0.020

0.020


RemitO.0010

0.0005Aluminum: EPA 200.7

EA GROUPWorkorder: 0205-00042



ParameterManganese: EPA 200.7

Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7

-mtium: EPA 200.7

"im: EPA 200.7

Vanadium. EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

EAGID: 0205-00042-12


Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

v^yomium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Client ID:

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-10

Result

EA GROUPWorkorder: 0205-00042



ParameterCopper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7

Phosphorous as P: EPA 200.7r ^ssium: EPA 200.7

Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

EAG ID: 0205-00042-13


Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 2U0.7

Barium: EPA 200.7

»^_^tlium: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200 7

Client ID:


P-GW-OS01-I1

Result

! EAGROUP

201AMNtVHSARY1982-2002 EAGROUP



EAGID: 0205-00042-13

ParameterCadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



cury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

EAGID: 0205-00042-14


v_^llium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Laboratories

ater Contamination


Result

iEAGROUP

201I ANNIVERSARY1982-2002 EA GROUP



EAG ID: 0205-00042-14 Clie

ParameterArsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

' r EPA 200.7

bead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium F P A 2 0 0 7

Zinc: EPA 2U0.7


it ID: P-GW-0501-13

Result

EAGROUPSeAG Workorder: 0205-00042




Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

C" "romium. EPA 200.7

bwfalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury EPA 245.2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



Selenium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7

Sodium: EPA 200.7

Strontium: EPA 200.7T EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Laboratories

Contamination

P-GW-0501-14

Result

EAGROUP'

201ANMVfRSAKY1982-2002

eEAGROUP

^AG Workorder: 0205-00042 Laboratories


EAGID: 0205-00042-15

ParameterZinc: EPA 200.7

EAGID: 0205-00042-16


Thallium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7

yllium: EPA 200.7

Boron: EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7



Mercury: EPA 245. 2


Nickel: EPA 200.7



v^nium: EPA 200.7

Silver: EPA 200.7


Result

• IEAGROLTi

201ANNIVIIKMY1982-2002! EAGROUP



EAGID: 0205-00042-16

ParameterSodium: EPA 200.7


Tin: EPA 200.7

Vanadium: EPA 200.7

Zinc: EPA 200.7

EAGID: 0205-00042-17


Ilium: EPA 200.8

Aluminum: EPA 200.7

Arsenic: EPA 200.7

Barium: EPA 200.7


Boron. EPA 200.7

Cadmium: EPA 200.7

Calcium: EPA 200.7

Chromium: EPA 200.7

Cobalt: EPA 200.7

Copper: EPA 200.7

Iron: EPA 200.7

Lead: EPA 200.7

Magnesium: EPA 200."

Manganese: EPA 200."

Mercury: EPA 245.2

-v_xybdenum: EPA 200.7

Nickel: EPA 200.7

Laboratories

ater Contamination


Result16.9

0.719

EAGROUP1

yggj1982-2002

vrEAGROUP

^-£AG workorder: 0205-00042 Laboratories


EAGID: 0205-00042-17 Client ID: P-GW-0501-15D

Parameter ResultPhosphorous as P: EPA 200.7

EAGROLT

201AMNVItSMY,1982-2002 EA GROUP


Client Project: Pine