HAZARDOUS SITK CONTROL DIVISION Remedial Planning Field Investigation Team (REM FIT) ZONE II CON I R AC I \(). 0 l-()()*)2 CHj.\ \HHILL Lc:olo^y& Environment TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM PHASE II WATER QUALITY SAMPLING VERONA WELL FIELD BATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN May 17, 1985
89
Embed
Planning Field TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM … SITK CONTROL DIVISION Remedial Planning Field Investigation Team (REM FIT) ZONE II CON I R AC I \(). 0 l-()()*)2 CHj.\ \HHILL Lc:olo^y& Environment
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
HAZARDOUSSITK CONTROL
DIVISION
RemedialPlanning
FieldInvestigation
Team(REM FIT)
ZONE II
CON I R AC I \().0 l - ( ) ( ) * ) 2
CHj.\ \HHILLLc:olo^y&
Environment
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPHASE II WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
May 17, 1985
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPHASE II WATER QUALITY SAWM.ING
VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
May 17, 1985
0003071
May 17, 1985 TC-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose and Scope 1
B. Phase I Investigation Errata 2
C. General 2
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 3
A. General Procedures 3
B. Special Sampling Methods 6
C. Decontamination Procedures 6
D. Tracer Test 7
E. Chain of Custody 9
F, Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review 9
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION 10
A. Groundwater Flow 10
B. General Water Quality Results 11
C. Off-Site Volatile Organic Results 15
1. Southern Plume 16
2. Eastern Plume 20
D. Thomas Solvent's Volatile Organic Results 22
1. Thomas Solvent's Annex 22
2. Thomas Solvent's Raymond Road Facility 25
SUMMARY 29
CLOSING REMARKS 29
REFERENCES 30
0003075
flay 17, 1985 -1-
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPHASE II WATER QUALITY SAMPLING
VERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGAN
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
This technical memorandum describes the methods and results of the Remedial
Investigation, Phase II Water Quality Sampling at the Verona Well Field,
Battle Creek, Michigan. This report Includes the work efforts described in
Subtask 6-8 of the July 3, 1984 Work Plan Revision, Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study and In part satisfies the technical memorandum described
in Subtask 6-10. The technical memorandum titled "Phase II Drilling and
Sampling, Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, Michigan" describes the well
installation, development procedures and other work efforts described in
Task 6. The purpose of the water quality sampling was to obtain a second
round of samples from selected wells sampled in the Phase I investigation
and to sample recently Installed wells in areas which required further
characterization of the horizontal and vertical extent of contaminated
groundwater. The sampling program encompassed water sampling within the
well field, at two Thomas Solvent facilities, within the Grand Trunk Western
Railroad's (GTWRR) Marshaling Yard, and other monitoring wells and private
wel ls within the study area.
The discussion of the results of this Investigation relies In part on the
general discussion of the hydrogeology as described In the technical memorandum
titled "Phase II Drilling and Sampling, Verona Well Field, Battle Creek,
0003076
May 17, 1985 TC-2
Page No,LIST OF TABLES ———
Table 1 - Phase II Sampling Sequence 4
Table 2 - General Water Quality Parameters 13
Table 3 - Results of Sampling While Drilling at Well W-2I 22
Table 4 - Selected Volatile Organics - Thomas Solvent's 24Annex
Table 5 - Results of Sampling While Drilling at Well B-8I 25
Table 6 - Chlorinated Ethenes and Ethanes - ThomasSolvent's Raymond Road Facility 28
Mlchigan". A brief update of the groundwater flow direction using the most
recent water table maps is provided for clarity. The water table maps are
presented in the Phase II Drilling and Sampling Technical Memorandum.
3. Phase I Investigation Errata
Two Technical Memorandums were issued presenting the results of the Phase I
investigation, Phase I Drilling and Soil Sampling, and Phase I Water Quality
Sampling. Several cross sections were presented 1n these reports which had
minor errors In scale. Appendix G contains a new set of drawings for the
Technical Memorandum Phase I Drilling and Soil Sampling and Appendix H contains
a new set of drawings for the Technical Memorandum Phase I Water Quality
Sampling. Results of the investigation or discussion presented in the text
of these Technical Memorandums are basically unaffected.
C. General
The water quality sampling took place between August 7 and August 15, 1984.The sampling methods followed the plans outlined In the August 3, 1984 updated
sampling plan. Water samples were collected from wells as shown in Table 1(see Figure 1 for well locations). A summary of the volatile organic results
is 1n Appendix A and a summary of the general water quality results are
included in Appendix B. Appendix D contains analytical results of water
samples collected during drilling. The results of these samples provide
additional data as to the vertical distribution of the contaminants. The
methods used to collect these samples is contained in the Phase II Drilling
and Soil Sampling Technical Memorandum.
0003073
May 17, 19&5 -3-
The selected private wells, located In the subdivision north of Emmett Street
and west of the GTWRR Marshaling Yard, included three wells that had previously
shown high concentrations of contaminants identified in the well field and
two private wells located west of the private wells previously shown to be
slightly affected.
All laboratory results, quality control information and chain of custody
records are included 1n a separate document titled Support Documentation,Phase II Investigation, Remedial Investigation, Verona Well Field, BattleCreek, Michigan. The Information In that document is summarized 1n this
Technical Memorandum and 1s not essential for review of this TechnicalMemorandum.
METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
A. General Procedures
The depth to groundwater was measured using a clean, fiberglass measuring
tape with a sounding device. Water levels were recorded to within -0.02
feet. Groundwater depth measurements were referenced to the top of thesurveyed well pipe. All tools and devices were decontaminated before
attached to cleaning rods. The equipment was then doused 1n the clean water
0003082
May 17, 1985 -7-
receptacle and placed on clean polyethylene sheeting. Immediately prior to
introduction to the well, equipment was given a final rinse with clean water
directly from glass bottles. All wash water, rinse water, and purge water
was held in 300-gallon tanks for disposal at the end of the day. This water
was disposed into a sanitary sewer at the corner of Brlgden Drive and Darlene
Street.
D. Tracer Test
A tracer test was conducted between Municipal Wells v-31, and V-27 and v-28with the intent to aid in determination of the aquifer dlsperslvity between
these wells. A sodium bromide tracer was injected Into Mundpal Uell V-31
on August 11, 1984, then Municipal Wells V-27 and V-28 were monitored for
the breakthrough of bromide through time. Sampling 1s still being conducted.
A water truck, previously used for clean drilling water, was filled from
a hydrant outside of the Verona Well Field pumphouse. A 1-Hter sample was
collected from the tank to prepare a standard of 1.29 grams of sodium bromide
mixed with 1000 mllliliters of water. The specific conductivity of the
standard was measured as 1839 umhos at 25° C. A predetermined mass (11.4
pounds) of MalHnckodt analytical grade sodium bromide was slowly poured
into 1000 gallons of water while the water was being mixed with a centrifugalpump. The sodium bromide solution was mixed until specific conductlvy
measurements were observed to be within 10 percent of the standard. Results
of analysis of the tank samples showed the concentrations of the injected
water was 1002 mg/1 and 1028 mg/1 for Tanks 1 and 2, respectively.
0003033
May 17, 1985 -8-
The sodium bromide solution was then pumped into Municipal Well V-31 by way
of an Injection hose coupled to the 3/4-inch diameter airline hole in the
well head. The 1000-gallon solution was pumped at a rate of approximately
20 gallons per minute.
Before mixing a second tank load, the tank was rinsed with hydrant water to
flush out any residual sodium bromide solution. A second tank load was mixed
as before and Injected Into Well V-31. A total of 2000 gallons with an average
concentration of 1015 ppm sodium bromide salt was injected into Well v-31.
Concurrent with Injection into Well V-31, background sampling was performed
at Municipal Wells V-27 and V-28. The line of purge wells (V-20, Y-22, V-25,
V-27 and V-28) were pumped continuously throughout the duration of the test.
Municipal well sampling Is still being conducted (March, 1985) (see Appendix c
for results of this sampling).
Review of the data indicates that the bromide was not detected at the down-
gradient municipal wells. This could be due to any one or combination of
the following reasons:
• The dilution of the bromide *as larger than expected;
• Variations In background were too high to detect the bromide plumeat the downgradient municipal wells; or
• The plume migrated to other municipal wells, due to unknown localheterogeneities within the aquifer
The latter reason 1s not supported by the groundwater flow direction shown
by the August and November, 1984 water table maps.
0003084
May 17, 1985 -9-
E. Chain of Custody
All samples were subject to rigorous chain of custody procedures In the field.
In general, the procedures followed CHgM Hi l l 's Chain of Custody Procedures.
The specific details are as follows;
1. All sample bottles were labeled at the well using stick-on labels.Information provided on the label included the sample number, dateand time collected, and the samplers initials;
2. The sampler maintained custody of the sample by keeping it inhis/her possession or In a locked vehicle in an iced cooler;
3. The samples were returned to the field station (the Verona UellField Pumping Station) frequently, and there relinquished to thepreparation area technician (PAT). The PAT accepted sample custody;
4. Sample preparation Included the paperwork, affixing labels tosample jars, and packing them into coolers with vermiculite andice;
5. Samples were shipped on the same day they were collected to theappropriate laboratory via Federal Express for overnight delivery.
Documentation of the chain of custody 1s contained In the document titled
"Support Documentation, Phase II Investigation, Verona Well Field, Battle
Creek, Michigan".
F. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Review
The EPA's Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Review is contained in
the document titled "Support Documentation, Phase II Investigation". A
memorandum summarizing the data's quality control and how the data can be
used is contained in Appendix E. In general, the QA/QC for the volatile
organlcs analyses indicates the volatile compounds identified and reported
concentrations can be reliably used quantitatively.
0003085
May 17, 1985 -10-
RESULT5 OF INVESTIGATION
A. Grounowater Flow
The hydrogeology, including the direction of groundwater flow in the
vicinity of the Verona Well Field, is discussed in detail in previous
Technical Memorandums. However, a brief summary of the groundwater flow
system 1s necessary within this report to properly interpret the water
quality data.
Water level data were collected on August 11 and November 1, 1984. The
corresponding water table maps are presented on Figures and 5 and 6,
respectively, of the Phase II Drilling and Sampling Technical Memorandum.
The August water table map Indicates two cones of depression centered on
Municipal Wells B-14 through B-16, and on Wells V-20, V-22, V-25, V-27,
V-28, V-39 and V-40. These wells were being pumped during the period water
levels were obtained. No data was available in the vicinity of MunicipalWells V-51, V-52 and V-53 which were also pumping at this time. Locally,
the cones of depression cause groundwater flow within the aquifer to be
toward the pumping municipal wells.
The November water table map Indicates two cones of depression located southof the river and centered on Wells V-20, V-22, V-25, V-27, V-28, V-39 and
Wells V-51 and V-52. No cone of depression is shown by the selected contour
interval west of the river because of the low drawdown associated with low
pumpage rates in.that area (Well V-14 was the only pumping well).
000308G
May 17, 1985 -11-
The Thomas Solvent Annex facility is located above a broad groundwater divide.
The divide separates flow north, to the well field, and flow northwest toward
the Battle Creek River. Groundwater 1n the vicinity of the Thomas Solvent 's
Raymond Road facility Is primarily toward the northwest to the well field.
The GTWRR Marshaling Yard Is located on the southeastern flank of the well
field cone of depression. Flow is generally toward the northwest in the
direction of the well field.
3. General Water Quality Results
Groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds ( V Q C ' s ) at
all sampled wells and all the following general water quality parameters
were analyzed on samples from the selected wells, as shown below:
Appendix B contains a summary of the general water quality parameters and
Appendix A contains a summary of the volatile organic analyses. The following
discussion covers the general water quality parameters.
Specific conductance and pH were analyzed shortly after sample collection, in
the field laboratory, at most existing and Phase II monitoring wells to:
000308
May 17, 1985 -12-
a) Determine if there are Impacts on water quality due to wellconstruction (for example, grout invasion which may result inhigh pH and high conductivity); and
b) Obtain an indication of general water chemistry in the area.
The pH of water samples ranged from 6.65 (Well W-16S) to 7.65 (Well W-8S).
Conductivity values ranged from 240 umhos/cm at Well W-8S to 2880 umhos/cm
at Well W-3S. Most samples had a conductivity of 1000 umhos/cm or less
(excluding W-3S, W-13S, W-16S, B-18 and B-21). This range of pH and
conductivity 1s within the normal range for this aquifer and does not
indicate a problem with grout Invasion. The source of the high conductivity
at Well W-3S Is unknown. The source of elevated conductivity at the other
locations 1s discussed below.
The results of pH, the nitrogen series, sulfate, sulflde and alkalinity are
within normal range for these parameters in sand and gravel and sandstone
aquifers. In addition, these parameters do not present a recognizable trend
within the area.
Conductivity, chloride and TOC present recognizable trends within the area.
In the vicnlty of Thomas Solvent's Raymond Road facility, Wells B-17, B-18
and W-16S indicate levels of all three parameters substantially over the
average of the remaining samples as shown 1n Table 2.
0003083
May 17, 1985 -13-
TABLE 2
GENERAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Conducti vi ty Chlorlde TOG(umhos) (mg/1) (mg/1)
B-17 910 92 6.4
B-18 1160 122 324
W-16S 1360 193 650
T-9 865 77 2.4
E-7 755 52 3.9
Mean of all samples 742 33 2.8Excluding B-17, B-18 and W-16S
Standard Deviation (unbiased) 360 24 1.3Excluding 8-17, B-18, W-16S
Upgradlent of the facility, Wells E-7 and T-9 have substantially lower
concentrations of conductivity, chloride and TOC Indicating the Raymond Road
facility Is the probable source of these elevated parameters. The elevated
TOC Is correlated directly with the volatile organic contaminants.
Between Wel ls B-18 (on the Raymond Road site) and W-16S (a short distance
downgradlent), there Is a decrease In chlorine associated with volatile
organlcs (62 mg/1), and an Increase In chloride concentration (71 mg/1).
This is reasonably good agreement, and may be fortuitous, but taken together
with other data, there Is good reason to believe that the Increased chloride
concentrations may be a result of the degradation of chlorinated organlcs by
reductive dehalogenatlon (e.g., removal of cl from trichloroethene to form a
0003089
May 17, 1985 -14-
cHchloroethene). Conductivity has a similar trend to chloride and appears
to be directly related to the source of chloride. Chlorinated compounds
which were handled on the site include tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene and methylene chloride. Substantial decreases in concentration
for these substances (except methylene chloride) were observed between We l l s
B-18 and W-16S. (See the detailed description of the observed organic
compounds contained in subsequent sections.) Substantial increases in
probable degradation products, Including dlchloroethanes, dichloroethenes,
and vinyl chloride, were observed between these same two locations.
Degradation of organlcs by microorganisms is reported to take place in anoxic
or anaerobic environments, when there Is another more readily biodegradable
carbon source available. Some of the observed water quality data are consistent
with biological activity and development of anoxic conditions. Under these
conditions, one would expect lower concentrations of oxidized species of
nitrogen and sulfur. Between Wells 8-18 and W-16S, reductions 1n nitrate,
nitrite, and sulfate were observed. One would also expect a carbon source
attributable to non-halogenated organlcs. Among the volatiles, there are
several aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene) and ketones
(acetone, 2-butanone, 4-methy1-2-pentanone), present at B-18, which all show
lower concentrations at W-16S. In addition, there Is organic carbon, not
associated with the volatHes, at both locations. Analysis of the TOC data
shows an increase In TOC between Wells B-18 and W-16S, from 324 mg/1 to 650
rng/1. At these same locations, the organic carbon associated with the
volatiles was calculated to be 148 mg/1 and 60 mg/1, respectively, using
molecular formula stolchlometry and the data in Appendix A. The volatile
organlcs data therefore shows a decrease In total organic carbon between
0003090
May 17, 1985 -15-
Wells B-18 and W-16S, attributable 1n large part to the decrease in non-
halogenated volatile* (aromatlcs and ketones). At both locations there
appears to be a substantial carbon source in addition to the VOC's, to support
mlcrobial growth.
C. Off-Site Volatile Organic Results
The results of the volatile organic analyses indicate distinct contaminant
plumes within and upgradlent of the well field. The discussion In this
section describes the condition of the plumes in terms of the general source
areas and distribution downgradlent of the sources. Specific contaminant
distribution on the two Thomas Solvent facilities is discussed in the section
"Thomas Solvent Volatile Organic Water Quality Results".
The volatile organic analyses used to develop this groundwater quality
discussion Include:
a) Sampling performed at monitoring wells and selected private watersupply wells during August, 1984; and
b) Results from sampling of Municipal Wells by Michigan Department ofPublic Health (MDPH).
c) Results from groundwater sampling performed concurrent withwell drilling;
Isoconcentratlon maps of 1,2-DCC (Figure 2) tetrachloroethene (Figure 3} and
total chlorinated volatile* (Figure 4) were developed from samples collected
during August, 1984. The contours of these maps are based on the highest
concentration observed at each well nest or inferred to be 1n the aquifer.
The values for municipal wells represent samples collected at approximately
the same time as the monitoring well samples or represent a range from samples
collected before and after the monitoring well samples.
0003091
May 17, 1985 -16-
The results of the August, 1984 sampling confirm the general contaminant
distributions as shown by the Phase I {February, 1984} Investigation. AS
discussed In the Technical Memorandum, Phase I Water Quality Sampling, two
contaminant plumes are present, a southern plume and an eastern plume. These
two plumes were distinguished based on contaminant types and distribution.
Briefly, the southern plume originates south of the well field, extends
throughout the central and western portion of the well field and is dominated
by the compound 1,2-DCE. As pointed out in Phase I, the two Thomas Solvent
facilities are sources of the southern plume. The eastern plume was identified
in the eastern portion of the well field and 1s dominated by tetrachloroethene
and 1,1,1-trlchloroethane. The Phase I Technical Memorandum did not identify
a specific source of the eastern plume.
1. Southern Plume
The southern plume, as characterized by 1,2-DCE, 1s similar in areal extent
to the plume described in the Technical Memorandum, Phase I Water Quality
Sampling.
The contaminant distribution beneath the two Thomas Solvent facilities 1sdescribed in more detail 1n the section, "Thomas Solvent Facilities Ground-
water Quality". The following discussion of the southern plume focuses on
two areas where the Phase II data fills In areas where the Phase I data was
inconclusive.
0003092
May 17, 1985 -17-
As stated 1n the Phase I Water Quality Technical Memorandum, the water
quality between Well U-5S and Well Nest W-8 was inferred because Well W-5S
1s a shallow well and previous private well sampling in the area indicated
contamination. Phase II investigation sampled five functional private
wells within the residential area. No drilling logs were available for
these wells, however, they are assumed to be deeper than Monitoring Well
W-5S (40 feet deep). The 1,2-DCE concentration at Private Wel ls H-l (9.40
ug/1), H-2 (680 tig/1) and H-4 (570 ug/1) were relatively high compared to
Well W-5S (below detection) Indicating the plume is probably at a greater
depth than the 40-foot deep shallow monitoring well in the area. Therefore,
on Figure 2 the 10 ug/1 contour line extends beyond Well W-5S to account for
the plume which appears to be at a greater depth.
The Phase I data was also Insufficient to characterize the southern plume
between Well W-9S and Well Nest T-6/W-10I. Wells W-16S and W-16I were located
based on the soil gas sampling In this area and the flow system described
in Phase I. 1,2-DCE was not detected at Wells W-9S, T-6 and W-10I for both
the Phase I and Phase II samplings. However, Well W-16S has a 1,2-DCE
concentration of 40,000 ug/1. Figure 2 Indicates a high concentration
1,2-DCE plume leaving the Thomas Solvent's Raymond Road site and migrating
past W-16S, 1n « narrow width between Well W-9S and Well Nest T-6/W-10I.
The l,2-OCE'plw» exhibited a change from the Phase I sampling time (Feburary,
1984) to the Phase II period (August, 1984) in the area north of the purge
wells (Wells V-20, V-22, V-25, V-27 and V-28). After startup of the purge
wells, concentrations decreased north of the purge line. This change is
manifest when comparing the Phase II, 1,2-DCE isoconcentratlon map (Figure 2)
0003093
May 17, 1965 -18-
wlth the 1,2-OCE map from Phase I (see Figure 2 of the Phase I Water Quality
Sampling Technical Memorandum). The detection limit contour line has been
pulled back to the line of purge wells (Wel ls V-20, V-22, V-25, V-27 and
V-28) from Its position extending to the north end of the well field in
February, 1984 (Phase I). However, south of the purge line, the 100 ug/1
concentration contour line is In approximately the same location in both
Phase I and Phase II maps. Therefore, the purge system appears to be blocking
contaminant migration from the southern plume north of the purge well line,
while overall concentrations of 1,2-DCE south of the purge line are not
substantially different as shown In the monitoring wells.
The distribution of other volatile organic parameters 1n the southern plume
generally shows a similar but less extensive distribution than 1,2-DCE. These
parameters Include tetrachloroethene (Figure 3), trlchloroethene, and to a
lesser extent, I,l-d1chloroethane, 1,1,1-trlchloroethane, and l,2-d1chloroethane
The tetrachloroethene plume (Figure 3) 1s presented to Illustrate the similar,
but less extensive plume distribution, as well as to distinguish the southern
plume from the eastern plume.
An Isoconcentratlon map of total chlorinated volatlles (Figure 4) Is also
Included to present a composite view of the southern plume's components. The
southern plume, however, does overlay the eastern plume, as shown by this map
in the vicinity between Wells V-32 and V-25.
0003094
May 17, 1985 -19-
Flgure 5, Cross Section G-G', presents the concentration contours for 1,2-DCE
1n cross section. The section Is drawn from Well T-9 upgradlent of the Thomas
Solvent Raymond Road Facility, approximately through the centerllne of the
1,2-DCE plume. The section generally follows a flow line from the facility
Into the well field and Is oriented to provide a clear representation of the
vertical distribution of 1,2-DCE between the Thomas Solvent's Raymond Road
facility and the well field.
Inspection of Figure 5 Indicates that the deeper Piezometer B-18I, showed a
1,2-OCE level below detection while the shallow water table well (well B-18)
showed a level of 4200 ug/1 1n the composite sample. This indicates that
the vertical extent of the 1,2-DCE plume 1s limited to less than 33 feet
below the water table surface In the vicinity of the Thomas Solvent Raymond
Road facility, consistent with the water quality collected during drilling
Well B-18I (see Appendix D for results). This sampling shows that the 1,2-DCE
concentration dropped from 14,000 ug/1 at a depth of 23.5 feet to below
detection at a depth of 48-53 feet.
A similar situation occurs downgradient of the Raymond Road facility at Well
Nest W-16S/W-16I. Piezometer W-16I Indicates a 1,2-OCE level below detection
while the shallow water table well (Well W-16S) indicates a 1,2-DCE level of
40,000 ug/1. Sampling perforned while drilling Well W-16I also indicated
1,2-OCE was below detection at the 39 to 52 foot depth sample. However, the
tetrachloroethene 1s shown to extend Into the bedrock aquifer at this location
(540 ug/1 at 39-52 feet and 280 ug/1 at 52-60 feet). This well nest Is
important in determining both the vertical and horizontal extent of the
plume downgradient of the Raymond Road facility.
0003095
nay 17, 1985 -20-
Cross Section G-G (Figure 5) indicates that the deeper portions of the bedrock
aquifer are uncontamlnated directly below the Raymond Road facility, however,
downgradlent of the facility the plume deepens progressively so that at Well
Mest W-4, the center!ine of the plume is at least 45 to 50 feet beneath the
water table. Nearby Municipal Well V-35 1s similarly a- -:ted.
The 1,2-DCE, tetracnloroethene and total chlorinated volatile plumes are
inferred in the vicinity of Well Nest T-1/W-12D. As shown on Cross Section
G-G' (Figure 7), the wells are placed at the top and near the base of the
aquifer. As shown at Well Nests W-6 and W-4, on the same section, the center
line of the plume is 1n the middle of the aquifer. Therefore, the plume on
the isoconcentration maps (Figures 4, 5 and 6) and Cross Section G-G' (Figure
7), is shown to extend through this area.
2. Eastern Plume
Figure 3, the August, 1984 tetrachloroethene Isoconcentration map indicates
two separate plumes, an eastern and southern plume. The eastern tetrachloro-
ethene plume, as shown by this data, 1s centered 1n the eastern portion of
the well field and extends upgradient to Wells W-13S and W-14S. Results of
the August, 1984 sampling confirms results of the Phase I Investigation
which indicated that the eastern plume 1s characterized by tetrachloroethene,
1,1,1-trlchToroethane, I,l-d1chloroethane and I,l-d1chloroethene, 1n that
order of predominance. The eastern plume does not have trichloroethene,
1,2dlchloroethene, or l,2-d1chloroethane 1n significant concentrations.
000309G
May 17, 1985 -21-
The locations of W e l l s W-13S and W-14S were based on the soil gas investigation,
observations at the site and through information obtained from discussions
with GTWRR employees. Well W-14S is located adjacent to the highest soil gas
reading, and in the vicinity where GTWRR employees indicated waste liquids
had been disposed of. Wel l W-13S is located outside the "paint roon" of the
GTWRR Car Department Building.
Based on discussions with GTWRR employees, DOWCLENE* was used for at least 12
years in the area and stored in the Car Department Building's "paint room".
Its use was discontinued approximately 2 years ago (discussions held on July 19,
1984 with GTWRR employees by investigation team leader). DQWCLENE* consists
of 75* 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 25% tetrachloroethene (a product specification
sheet is included in Appendix F).
It appears the GTWRR Car Department Building Area is the source of the eastern
plume, based on:
1. The distribution of tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane;
2. The use and probable disposal of these materials (DOWCLENE®) inthe area of Wells W-13S and W-14S;
3. The presence of these compounds in the soils above the water table(see Phase II, Drilling and Sampling Technical Memorandum); and
4. The apparent absence or low concentrations of these compoundsupgradlent of the GTWRR Car Department Building (at Well T-7).
Based on concentrations of tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
1,1-dichloroethane, it appears that the centerllne of the plume downgradient
of the GTWRR Car Department Building progressively deepens so that at Well Nest
W-2 it is at a depth of approximately 40 feet below the water table surface.
0003097
May 17, 1985 -22-
Analyses at shal low well W-2S did not detect these three parameters while
It appears that the affected groundwater 1s limited mainly to within 37-49
feet below the water table surface at this location (50 to 62 feet below
ground surface).
2. Thomas Solvent's Raymond Road Facility
As shown on the Total Chlorinated Volatile map (Figure 6), the Raymond Road
facility is a major source of contamination to the southern plume. The
contaminants on this site Include the same chlorinated ethenes and ethanes
(see Table 6) and the non-chlorinated solvents acetone, toluene and xylene
as at the Annex. The Raymond Road site also contains methylene chloride,
2-butanone (methyl-ethyl-ketone) and 4 methyl-2-pentanone (isopropylacetone
or methyl isobutylketone), not present at the Annex. Thomas Solvent handled,
by name, all tne compounds present in the groundwater at the facility except
the dichloroethenes, dichloroethanes, chloroform and 4 methyl-2-pentanone.
Benzene and ethyl benzene are both components of diesel fuel and are commonly
found as constituents of (e.g. VMP Naptha), or as impurities in the other
0003101
May 17, 1985 -26-
solvents handled on the property. The dichloroethenes and dichloroethanes
have been shown in recent studies to be degradation products of the higher
chlorinated compounds. (Cline and Viste, 1984, Parsons, et al. 1984).
iThe occurrence of organic compound degradation is supported by the following
observations:
1. The presence of "parent" compounds such as the products used on-site(tetrachloroethene, trlchloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane) on theproperty and the virtual absence of the degradation products on thesite (dichloroethenes, vinyl chloride, and dichloroethanes);
2. The presence of the degradation products off site, downgradient ofthe facility; and
3. The presence of degradation by-product chlorine, 1n the presence ofchlorides, In approximately the mass predicted by the degradation ofparent compounds to daughter compounds (See discussion in 6. GeneralWater Quality Results).
The highest concentration on the property has been Identified at Well B-18,
both in the oil phase (NAPL - Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid) and water phase.
The NAPL layer contains high concentrations of compounds found in wells at
the facility with the addition of benzene and ethylbenzene. The analytical
results from sampling the NAPL are designated as B-18A and are contained in
Appendix A. The NAPL at Well B-18 was of similar thickness and concentration
as observed In the Phase I Investigation. Since the Phase I investigation,
Thomas Solvent's consultant has been monitoring wells in the vicinity and
removing the oil phase when it builds up in Well B-18. Records of thismonitoring and removal have been sent to EPA.
0003102
May 17, 1985 -27-
The vertical distribution of contaminants on the Raymond Road site at Wel ls
B-18 and B-18I 1s discussed along with the southern plume 1n the Off-Site
Volatile Organic Analysis Results section of this report. The results at
Wells B-17 and B-17I are similar.
The horizontal distribution of each of the contaminants on the property
has generally been described through discussion of Cross Section G-G' .
The highest concentration occurs at Well B-18, and lower concentrations
upgradient at Wells 6-14 and 8-21. Wells B-22, and W-16S. installed in
Phase II, confirm the inferrence In Phase I, that a major plume 1s leaving
to the northwest, between Well W-9S and Well Nest T-6/W-10I. Results of the
Soil Gas Investigation, described In the Technical Memorandum Phase II
Drilling and Soil Sampling, indicates a portion of the tetrachloroethene
plume may be migrating undetected in the groundwater through the area of
Well T-6. Because Well T-6 1s open at a depth of 30 to 39 feet, approximately
15 feet below the water table, this appears unlikely, but possible. However,
the total volatlles soil gas results are generally consistent with the
groundwater quality results, in that the major plume is migrating northwest
of the facility.
0003103
TABLE 6
Parameter/Wen
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Dlchloroethene(1,1 and 1,2)
Total ChlorinatedEthenes
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Dlchloroethane(1,1 and 1,2)
Total ChlorinatedEthanes
CHLORINATED ETHEMES AND ETHANESTHOMAS SOLVENT'S RAYMOND ROAD FACILITY
(ug/1)
B-14
1,300
BDL (50)
BDL(50)
1,300
BDL (50)
BDL(50)
B-17
75,000
710
BDL(500)
75,710
570
BDL (500)
B-171
BDL(l)
BDL(l)
BOL(l)
BDL
BDL( l )
BDL(l )
B-18
25,000
53,000
6,200
84,200
37 ,000
5,400
B-181
93
11
BDL(l)
104
BDL(l)
BOL(l)
B-18 A(Oil)
35X106
35xl06
BDLC(IxlO6)
70xl06
20X106
BDL(IxlO6)
B-19
210
190
6
416
220
B D L ( l )
B-20
510
400
15
925
350
BDL(5)
B-21
32,000
1,400
11,000
44,400
10,000
BDL (500)
B-22
170
110
65
345
270
8
BDL 570 BDL 42,400 BDL 20xl06 220 350 10,000 278
ooin
1IV)001
BDL - Below Detection Limit with Detection Limit Shown In Parentheses
ooCO
[blc-65-12]
May 17, 1985 -29-
SUMMARY
Based on this discussion of the Phase II Water Quality Sampling Results, the
following points can be made:
1. Results of this Investigation has further defined the extent of thesouthern and eastern contamination plumes.
2. The southern plume Is limited to within approximately 20 to 25 feetbelow the water table surface In the vicinity of the Thomas SolventRaymond Road facility and Annex. The plume deepens progressivelydowngradlent of these two facilities.
3. The eastern plume appears to originate near Wel ls W-13S and W-14S1n the vicinity of the car department building on the GTWRR MarshalingYard property. This plume also appears to be concentrated atthe water table at the source area and to deepen downgradlent.
CLOSING REMARKS
This Technical Memorandum has summarized the Phase II Water Quality Sampling
investigation conducted In August, 1984. Results of this Investigation will
be integrated Into the total site analysis in the Remedial Investigation Report.
Respectfully submitted,
UARZYN,ENGINEERING INC.
Kenneth J. Qufnn, CPGSProject Manager
AJS/KJQ/cac/DRVCblc-65-12]
0003105
May 17, 1985 -30-
REFERENCES
CHne, P.V.; and V1ste, D.R. 1984. Migration and Degradation Patterns ofVolatile Organic Compunds. In 5th National Conference on Managementof Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, HMCRI, November 1984.
Parsons, F., Wood, P.R., and OeMarco, J. Transformation of Tetrachloroetheneand Trlchloroethene 1n Microcosms and Groundwater, JAWWA, February1984, P. 56-59.
[UMIIM ««» OF « MO I lltKI Kill HOMHCI l¥ CHICMO MIM IMrtI IKMMWI 10M «• MOtflMOI).LOUIIOM OF * uiiu mis Mill m uiuiwi wr MOVIMB•t M cm 01 Mini OKU.I.E. Ml ( 1MKS Hill. MB MU* H MB Ml IOU!IO» MMU MU.S.fi.I. MUUHMIt MtUU MK MB "Mil* FiIOM.
SCALE200i 1600
800 2000
M/ARZYN
FIGURE 1STUDY AREAREMEDIAL INVESTIGA!1UNVERONA WELL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MIGUbAHDRAWING NO. Cll lBb-ti lu
000310
r
*»-' MOM IN KMK Or JIM >.). Of • 10.KH "•/'
ODJWO MCM lIFttMO. <-l«CI«HS HLOM HlttTIQH)
> Mill lOWIIOH MO MMU H1IN COEWMIIOI !• .«/!
«IF(JI 10 FIBM I (OHHMC W. C111M -lit) f•ttli DM LKM.CUCUIMIIM OMIOMU «KIN MWKEI HUMMUS! « KM*
»l«€i! CWCMIMIKH
M ML MHIKWIM Kill W F«M *Hill* MMttl r , 1M4 TO WGHH IS . IM4.>*IH M •-!• ii ret cavosin iMvit.•ligtS AT »-!(«] (1 UtLll Mi KIMIS FKH TIC rUIODJULT 11 • MQKI ».1M4.«-S£llEi Will MMKIl It N.O.F.M. MO UUN. Mi OTHtKoi WSIM canMcr
FIGURE 4TOTAL CHLORINATEDISOCONCENTRATION HAPAUGUST.1984REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONVERONA HUL FIELDBATTLE CREEK, MICHIGANDRAWING NO. C11185-B32
tie HO.otic w«i uciioH ut UREMI. » MIWE MO u>«H rtMKM 10 M W EUC1 KnuUHHOl Of SU1UVKC
OETKU HUMS.1. MSTIM NMK$ MDCtH ««0tl( Win 1NBIUTEI WE MHKT
II MttMEI.}. *I (MM GMMUNMfl MNITMM UELl 01 ttVOCIC OM1NG IK
lOCATUM M OQHUt l« II MtUMIElt lOCAHl HITH MSMCI1» NMIIOI1M. IKJIIIOi MB (UIICM BETTM Of tfdOCIC Win.DC ««M!C Win NM KM OUEMllItl. KMIIEB KtCOir-T1«M Mi MIKKTU W M MM IOB II M KOWMfHCnn Mwsciin.
*. *U CHUKIC WIT CCHIICn MD DC MIEI IMU UWKt MEMOW to M cum or iw MM iac. M.I MIIWIM tisiMcnMf WtUOC* HIM KIKtl » M CUTE! Of E*U MIW tM.
*. MU KPTM M» ICMIOtO 01 OHN inEklKLI Mt MOW ffl*ItLWItallN fWMKt. MfEOUCE KN*T WHMICES fOk HEllCOniOKIMi KHIlt tm OWING IOSS rot KCUT H * ISEMItl KLII Km OOtlOBI. WHICINL «Ll IOB •!»!*» f««TIC CIK «F MHU COfU.
Broaofor*fir o«od i cb J oroM CbancFluorotrichloroMthancCh 1 or odlbroMwc thaneTetracbloroethuwTolueneTrichloroctbcn*Vinyl Chlorid*Acetone2-EtutanoneCarbond i a u if ide .2-Hexanonc4-MethyJ-2-PentanoneStyreneVinyl AcetateTotal XylenexTotal Volatile*Total Chlorinated Volatilea
23
19
17
15 1213
4424
4223
13B
316
1919
ooo00
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF GENERAL HATER QUALITY ANALYSES
WAftZVftl
0003120
WARZYPJ
ENGINEERING INC
_ ,*nm run
DATE SAMPLED: 8/7/84
Sample No.W7ST7T9E7
DATE SAMPLED: 8/8/84
W10IT6MUDTl 6-808W5S81TlW13S-808145-808
DATE SAMPLED: 8/9/84
W2IW2S824
825W1IW3S
B23T5
W12D
W1STil
APJAUYTICAU UABORATORY "NRESUUTS n ^ r o 5 p r p w p H . g /7 - 1 5 /34
» -M Verona Well Field ' Project NO: C 1 1185 . jbheet I i of 3 1
_. Total Chlorinated Volatile* 40 691 312 14t~p OTHER COMPOUNOS(NO-TOTAL UC/LtOCSCO
& HO iNt 7000 UC/L•"" DUP - FIELD DUPLICATECO NDb - HOT DETECTED BECAUSE OF tJLANK CONTAMINATION
APPENDIX E
QA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
WAMEVM
March 14, 1985C 11185
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Kenneth J. Quinn
From: ,'lichael J. Llnskens
Re: Phase II Battle Creek Results: QA Rev iew
All results of Phase II volatile testing for 122 soil and water samples areacceptable under the ERA QA/QC review process. All results are consideredQuantitative. A more in-depth discussion of QA/QC as it relates to each ofthe individual contract laboratories used during Phase II is provided in thefollowing paragraphs.
All 16 soil samples collected in Phase II were sent to EnvlroOyne Engineers(EE) for analysis. The EPA review process found surrogate and matrix spikerecoveries to be within the acceptable limits for all samples. An unusuallylarge number of volatile compounds were found at significant concentrationsin laboratory analysis blanks. Since the procedure for the volatile methodfor son analysis Involves subsampHng the soil and addition of 5 mis oflaboratory blank water, followed by the normal purge and trap procedure,these laboratory contaminants were found in all samples. The results of fourlaboratory analysis blanks were provided by EE and the following compoundswere found to be laboratory contaminants in the concentration range given.
Results reported within five times (EE used 1 gram sample size; normal 5 grans)of the highest contamination level shown for the above compounds may be dueto laboratory contamination. All 16 soil samples {listed below with theirOrganic Traffic Report (OTR) numbers) seem to be contaminated at significantlevels by at least one of the above compounds.
WAPZYN
0003136
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM -2- "arch 14, 19S5Phase II Battle Creek Results: C 11185
A field duplicate was collected at sampling location W14SA-S4. The naincompound of interest, tetrachloroethene, did not reproduce well : 116 ppbversus 458 ppb. Poor replication 1n soil samples for volatile analysis isnot unusual.
Twenty-seven (27) water samples were sent to Environmental Research Group(ERG) for analysis. The surrogate recoveries were generally good for thesedata. Those surrogate recoveries outside of the contract quality controllimits were found to be slightly above the limits. Matrix spike and matrixspike duplicate results were found to be outside of the contract limits forfour out of five compounds. No data was provided for ERG laboratory analysisblanks. The field blank (Sample Field Number 010, OTR number E7328) sent toERG with these samples was found to have trace contamination for the compoundsmethylene chloride, chloroform, fluorotrlchloromethane and 2-butanone. Otherfield blanks (listed later) sent to different contract laboratories were alsofound to contain trace levels of these compounds as contaminants. Seven (7)samples, listed below, analyzed by ERG were not properly diluted.
For exanple, sample WHS was found to contain 10,500 ppb tetrachloroetheneand not diluted at all. A proper dilution for this amount of compound wouldbe 1 to 20 or 1 to 50. Results for these seven samples that exceed 200 ppb(the upper limit of the instrument standard curve for an undiluted sample)nay be biased somewhat high or somewhat low depending upon the compound ofinterest and the instrument used for analysis. It was noted 1n the EPA CA/QCreview that several compounds were quantified on a secondary ion basis, anindication of the above problem.
WARZYN
0003137
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM -3- Varch 14, 1965Phase II Battle Creek Results: C 11185
QA Review
The remaining 79 water samples were analyzed by IT Corporation. The data forthese samples appear to be excellent as far as precision ana accuracy. Allsurrogate and matrix spike duplicate recoveries *er« found to be within the£PA contract control limits. Results, for seven sets of field duplicates(W1I, B17I, B20, VJ4I, W9S, R18 and W7I) reinforce the excellent QA/QC reportgiven by the EPA review process. Results for each of the seven duplicatesets replicated well. Mine laboratory analysis blanks were provided by ITand only inethylene chloride was found (less than 10 ppb) as a contaminant.Field blanks (Sample Field Numbers Oil, 012, 014, 015 and 016) analyzed byIT again showed trace levels of chloroform, methylene chloride, acetone and2-butanone contamination.
MJL/cac[cwl-74-6]
WARZYN
000313
APPENDIX F
PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEETDOWCLENE*
WAffZYN
0003133
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE 22697SALES SPECIFICATION
WATER CONTENT, MAX. PPMCOLOR, APHA, MAX. PT-CONON-VOLATILE RESIDUE, MAX, PPM——TYPICAL PROPERTIES——DISTILLATION RANGE @760MM, IBP-DP CRELATIVE DENSITY (SPECIFICGRAVITY) 8 25/25 C
PI: 1423409 SAMPLEPI: 1013218 55 GAL DRPI: 1015213 BULK
SALES NOTE:(1) IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT MATERIAL MEETING THE LIMITS IMPOSED
UNDER 'TEST ITEMS' UILL FALL WITHIN THE LIMITS INDICATED. THESEARE NOT ROUTINE TEST ITEMS.
(2) OTHER,BLEND RATIOS CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE BASIS OF A CUSTOMERSPECIFICATION.
READ-PRECAUTIONARY INFORMATION AND MATERIAL SA.FETY DATASHEETS. THIS PRODUCT IS SHIPPED IN COMPLIANCE WITH AP-PLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS REGARDING CLASSIFICATION,PACKAGING, SHIPPING, AND LABELING.
(R) INDICATES A TRADEMARK OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANYLAST PAGE
0003140
M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T PAGE: iOQUI CHEMICAL U.S.A. MIDLAND MICHIGAN 48640 EMERGENCY PHONE: 517*636-4400
EFFECTIVE DATE: 2? MAY 34 DATE PRINTED: 26 OCT 34 PRODUCT CODE: 2269?
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND HAZARDS: SELF-CONTAINED, POSITIVEPRESSURE RESPIRATORY EQUIPMENT.,
i'ECTION 3 . REACTIVITY DATA
STAEHLITY' AVOID OPEN FLAMES, WELDING ARCS, OR OTHER HIGHfEhFERATIJRE SOURCES WHICH INDUCE THERMAL DECOMPOSITION. .
INCOnPATIBILITY: WATER-SLOW HYDROLYSIS PRODUCES CORROSIVE ACID. AVOIDPROLONGED CONTACT WITH OR STORAGE IN ALUMINUM OR ITS ALLOYS.^ METALLICALUMINUM AND ZINC POWDERS SHOULD BE AVOIDED.
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION*PRODUCTS: HYDROGEN CHLORIDE AND VERY SMALLAMOUNTS OF PHOSGENE AND CHLORINE.
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR.
SECTION 4 SPILL. LEAK, AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES
.'-iCnuN JO fAKE FOR SPILLS' SMALL SPILLS - MOP UP. WIPE UP OR SOAK UPliiiMEDlAiELr. REMOVE TO OUT-OF-DOORS,LiUVG£ SPtLLS - EVACUATrT. AREA, CONTAiN LIQUID. TR'ftNSFEP TO CLOSED METAL
000314I
M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T RAGE' "DOU CHEMICAL U.S.A. MIDLAND MICHIGAN 48640 EMERGENCY RHONE: 517-63-6-4400
EFFECTIVE DATE: 29 MA/ 34 DATE PRINTED: 26 OCT 34 PRODUCT CODE- 6?7PRODUCT (CONT'D): DOUCLENE (R> EC SOLVENT MSD: 0077
SECTION 4 SPILL, LEAK, AND DISPOSAL PROCEDURES (CONTINUED)
ACTION TO TAKE FOR SPILLS: (CONTINUED)CONTAINERS. KEEP OUT OF WATER SUPPLY.
DISPOSAL METHOD: WHEN DISPOSING OF THE UNUSED CONTENTS, THE PREFERREDOPTIONS ARE TO SEND TO LICENSED RECLAIMER, OR TO PERMITTED INCINERATORS,IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS INCLUDINGSUBTITLE C OF THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT. DUMPING INTOSEWERS, ON THE GROUND, .OR INTO ANY BODY OF WATER IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGEDAND MAY BE ILLEGAL. CONSULT THE DOU CHEMICAL COMPANY FOR FURTHERINFORMATION.
SECTION 5 HEALTH HAZARD DATA
EYE: MAY CAUSE PAIN, AND SLIGHT TRANSIENT IRRITATION. VAPORS MAYIRRITATE EYES.
SKIN CONTACT: PROLONGED OR REPEATED EXPOSURE MAY CAUSE SKIN IRRITATION.MAY CAUSE MORE SEVERE RESPONSE IF CONFINED OR SKIN IS ABRADED.REPEATED CONTACT MAY CAUSE DEFATTING OF SKIN.
SKIN ABSORPTION: A SINGLE PROLONGED SKIN EXPOSURE IS NOT LIKELY TORESULT IN ABSORPTION OF HARMFUL AMOUNTS. THE LD50 FOR RABBITS IS>30,000 MG/KG.
INGESTION: SINGLE DOSE ORAL TQXICITY IS LOW. THE LD50 FOR RATSIS 14.35 G/KG. IF ASPIRATED, MAY CAUSE RAPID ABSORPTION THROUGHTHE LUNGS WHICH MAY RESULT IN SYSTEMIC EFFECTS.
INHALATION: MINIMAL ANESTHETIC OR NARCOTIC EFFECTS MAY BE SEEN OVER 500 PPMPROGRESSIVELY HIGHER LEVELS OVER 800 PPM MAY CAUSE EYE OR NASAL IRRI-TATION;" DIZZINESS, DRUNKENNESS; CONCENTRATIONS IN EXCESS OF 3,000 PPMCAN CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND DEATH. IN CONFINED OR POORLY VENTILATEDAREAS, VAPORS WHICH READILY ACCUMULATE CAN CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS ANDDEATH. THESE HIGH LEVELS MAY. ALSO CAUSE CARDIAC ARRHYTHMIAS(IRREGULAR HEARTBEATS).
SYSTEMIC & OTHER EFFECTS: REPEATED EXPOSURES MAY CAUSE LIVER.ANDKIDNEY EFFECTS. ' THE PREPONDERANCE OF INFORMATION INDICATESPFRCHLQROETHYLENE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE A CARCINOGEN IN MAN ALTHOUGH ONELIFETIME STUDY WITH TOXIC DOSES OF PERCHLOROETHYLENE GIVEN BY STOMACHTUBE INDICATED A CARCINOGENIC RESPONSE IN LABORATORY MICE. BUrNOT INRATS EXPOSED BY INGESTION OR INHALATION.
SECTION 6 FIRST AID
EYES: IRRIGATE IMMEDIATELY WITH WATER FOR AT LEAST 5 MINUTES.
SKIN: WASH OFF IN FLOWING WATER OR SHOWER. WASH CONTAMINATEDCLOTHING BEFORE REUSE.
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 )(R) INDICATES A TRADEMARK OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
000314
M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S M E E T PAGE' 3DOU CHEMICAL U.S.A. MIDLAND MICHIGAN 43640 EMERGENCY PHONE- 517-436-4400
EFFECTIVE DATE: 29 MAY 84 DATE PRINTED- 26 GCT 84 PRODUCT CODE 697PRODUCT (CONT'D): DOWCLENE <R> EC SOLVENT rtSD: 0077
SECTION 6 FIRST AID (CONTINUED)
INGESTION: DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING- CALL A PHYSICIAN AND/OR TRANSPORT TOEMERGENCY FACILITY IMMEDIATELY.
INHALATION: REMOVE TO FRESH AIR. IF NOT BREATHING, GIVE MOUTH-TO-MOUTHRESUSCITATION. IF BREATHING IS DIFFICULT. GIVE OXYGEN. CALL APHYSICIAN.
NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: BECAUSE RAPID ABSORPTION MAY OCCUR THROUGH LUNGS IF ASPIRAAND CAUSE SYSTEMIC. EFFECTS, THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO INDUCE VOMITINGOR NOT SHOULD BE MADE BY AN ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. IF LAVAGE IS PERFORMED,SUGGEST ENDOTRACHEAL AND/OR ESOPHAGEAL CONTROL. DANGER FROM LUNG ASPIRA-TION MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST TOXICITY WHEN CONSIDERING EMPTYING THESTOMACH. EXPOSURE MAY INCREASE 'MYOCARDIAL IRRITABILITY'. DO NOT ADMIN-ISTER SYMPATHOMIMETIC DRUGS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. NO SPECIFICANTIDOTE. SUPPORTIVE CARE. TREATMENT BASED ON JUDGMENT OF THE PHYSICIANIN RESPONSE TO REACTIONS OF THE PATIENT.
SECTION 7 SPECIAL HANDLING INFORMATION
EXPOSURE GUIDELINE(S) : 1 , 1 , 1 -TRICHLOROETHANE - OSHA STANDARD IS 350 PPM ANDCURRENT ACGIH TLV IS 350 PPM (450 PPM STEL ) ; PERCHLOROETHYLENE - OSHASTANDARD IS 1 OO PPM AND CURRENT ACGIH TLV IS 50 PPM.
VENTILATION: PROVIDE GENERAL AND/OR LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION TO CONTROLAIRBORNE LEVELS BELOW THE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: APPROVED ORGANIC VAPOR-TYPE RESPIRATOR REQUIRED INABSENCE OF PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL. FOR EMERGENCIES, APOSITIVE-PRESSURE BREATHING APPARATUS OR A FULL-FACE RESPIRATOR WITHAN APPROVED ORGANIC VAPOR CANISTER IS RECOMMENDED.
PROTECTIVE CJ.OTHING: NO SPECIAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING NEEDED. HOWEVER,FOR FREQUENT OR PROLONGED CONTACT, USE GLOVES MADE OF VITON,NEOPRENE, OR POLYVINYL ALCOHOL; BOOTS AND APRON DEPENDING UPONTME EXTENT jftND SEVERITY OF EXPOSURE. LIKELY.
EYE PROTECTION: SAFETY GLASSES. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN EYE-WASHSTATION BE AVAILABLE.
SECTION 3 SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: AVOID PROLONGED ORFREQUENTLY REPEATED SKIN CONTACT. AVOID BREATHING VAPORS. STORE INA COOL PLACE. VAPORS OF- THIS PRODUCT ARE HEAVIER THAN AIR AND WILLCOLLECT IN LOW AREAS SUCH AS PITS, DEGREASERS, STORAGE TANKS, ANDOTHER CONFINED AREAS. DO NOT ENTER THESE AREAS WHERE VAPORS OF .THIS PRODUCT ARE SUSPECTED UNLESS SPECIAL BREATHING APPARATUS IS USEDAND AN OBSERVER IS PRESENT FOR ASSISTANCE.
1 ,1 , i --TRICHLOROETHANE PRODUCTS SHOULD NOT BE PACKAGED IN ALUMINUMAEROSOL CANS OR WITH FINELY DIVIDED ALUMINUM OR ITS ALLOYS IN ANAEROSOL CAN.
(CONTINUED ON PACE 4 0003143
M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T PAGE 4-*OW CHEMICAL U.S.A. MIDLAND MICHIGAN 43640 EMERGENCY PHONE: 517-636-4400
EFFECTIVE DATE: 29 MAf 84 DATE PRINTED: 26 OCT 84 PRODUCT CODE; 22697PRODUCT (CONT'D): DOtdCLENE (R) EC SOLVENT MSD: 0077
SECTION 3 SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED)
•RECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: (CONTINUED)
ALUMINUM IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE MATERIAL OF CONSTRUCTION FOR PUMPS,MIXERS, FITTINGS, STORAGE TANKS FOR 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE PRODUCTSOR FORMULATIONS. METALLIC ALUMINUM AND ZINC POWDERS SHOULD BEAVOIDED.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON TOXICITY, HANDLING PRECAUTIONS, ANDFIRST AID, REFER TO CHLORINATES SOLVENTS LITERATURE FORM NO. 100-5792.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: REVISED SECTIONS: 2 AND 4.
LAST PAGE(R) INDICATES A TRADEMARK OF THE DOU CHEMICAL COMPANY*HE INFORMATION HEREIN IS GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH, BUT NO WARRANTY,iXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE. CONSULT THE DOU CHEMICAL COMPANYFOR FURTHER INFORMATION.
000314]
APPENDIX G
REVISED DRAWINGSFOR
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMPHASE I DRILLING AND SOIL SAMPLING
WAftXYN
0003145
rl ^ ^I i - V- f.1
[Li VAT IMS
JOVTH DOCK
TANK TRUCK UNLOADING ARC*P———
tAST DOCK UNOERCKHMO TANK AREA
••11 I IB
1. Sit FIGURES ii 10 FOR GCNEML NOUSAND ltO.HO.
2. VAiUES INDICATE TOTAL CHLORINATED VOLA1ILEOfUWIC COMPOUNDS RESULTS FROM SOIL ANALYSIS(bG/KC). Stl APPENDICES FOR DETECTION LIMITSAND SPECIFIC RESULTS.