Fourth Five Year Review Report for Valley Park TCE Superfund Site St. Louis County, Missouri


Fourth Five-Year Review Report for
Valley Park TCE Superfund Site
St. Louis County, Missouri

VW ?

PRO'**'

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7
Lenexa, Kansas

POftM+f'	PfTn/u^

Mary P. Peterson, Director
Superfund Division

Zb)3

Date

-------
Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions			iii

1.0 Introduction		1

Five-Year Review Summary Form	3

2.0 Response Action Summary	3

2.1	Wainwright Operable Unit	3

2.1.1	Basis for Taking Action for WOU	3

2.1.2	Response Actions for WOU	4

2.1.3	Status of Implementation for WOU							5

2.1.4	System Operation and Maintenance for WOU	8

2.2	Operable Unit 2	8

2.2.1	Basis for Taking Action for OU02		8

2.2.2	Response Actions for OU02	9

2.2.3	Status of Implementation for OU02	10

2.2.4	System Operation & Maintenance for OU02	12

3.0 Progress Since Last Review	13

3.1	Protectiveness Statements from the Third FYR	13

3.2	Issues and Recommendations 		14

3.2.1	Issues and Recommendations for WOU	14

3.2.2	Issues and Recommendations for OU02					16

4.0 Five-year Review Process			18

4.1	Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews	18

4.2	Data Review	18

4.2.1	Data Review for WOU		18

4.2.2	Data Review for OU02			22

4.3	Site Inspection	25

4.3.1	Site Inspection for WOU			26

4.3.2	Site Inspection for OU02		26

5.0 Technical Assessment		26

5.1	Wainwright Operable Unit			26

5.1.1	Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?	26

5.1.2	Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives, or RAOs, used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?	28

5.1.3	Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?				30

5.2	Operable Unit 02	30

5.2.1	Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?	30

5.2.2	Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid?		31

5.2.3	Question C: Has any,other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?	33

6.0 Issues/Recommendation	34

7.0 Protectiveness Statement	36

8.0 Next Review			36

i

-------
Appendix A

Five-Year Review Display Ad

Appendix B ^ List of Documents Reviewed
Appendix C	Site Chronology

Appendix D	Figures

Figure D-l Location of Valley Park, Missouri

Figure D-2 Location of Valley Park TCE Source Areas

Figure D-3 Wainwright Property - Treatment Areas from First RI/FS

Figure D-4 Soil Sampling Locations from November 2011 and August 2012 (WOU)

Figure D-5 Soil Sampling Locations from October to December 2016 (WOU)

Figure D-6 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network (WOU)

Figure D-7 Soil Excavation Area (OU02)

Figure D-8 Soil Sampling Locations After Excavation 2006 (OU02)

Figure D-9 Soil Sampling Locations 2014-2016 (OU02)

Figure D-l0 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network (OU02)

Figure D-l 1 Direct Push Groundwater Sampling Locations 2014-2016 (OU02)

Figure D-l2 Vapor Intrusion Area of Interest (OU02)

Appendix E	Tables

Table E-l Soil Sampling Results from November 2011 and August 2012 (WOU)

Table E-2 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 (WOU)

Table E-3 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 for (WOU)

Table E-4 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 for (WOU)

Table E-5 Historical Results of Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling (WOU)

Table E-6 Results of Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2016 (WOU)

Table E-7 Results of Vapor Intrusion Sampling (WOU)

Table E-8 Results of Post Excavation Sampling from 2006 (OU02)

Table E-9 Results of Soil Sampling from 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

Table E-10 Historical Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling Data (OU02)

Table E-l 1 Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

Table E-12 Direct Push Groundwater Sampling from 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

Table E-l3 Vapor Intrusion Sampling Results (OU02)

ii

-------
List of Abbreviations, Acronyms and Definitions

AOC

Administrative Order on Consent

BGS

Below Ground Surface

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

COC

Contaminants of Concern

EPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESD

Explanation of Significant Differences

FYR

Five-Year Review

GETS

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System

IC

Institutional Control

LTRA

Long-Term Response Action

MCL

Maximum Contaminant Level

MDNR

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

MG/KG

Milligrams per Kilogram

MoECA

Missouri Environmental Covenants Act

NCP

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

NPDES

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NPL

National Priorities List

O&F

Operational and Functional

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

OU

Operable Unit

PAH

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon

PCE

Tetrachloroethylene

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

RAO

Remedial Action Objective

RI

Remedial Investigation

RI/FS

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD

Record of Decision

SVE

Soil Vapor Extraction

TCA

Trichloroethane

TCE

Trichloroethylene

HG/L

Micrograms per Liter

UU/UE

Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure

voc

Volatile Organic Compound

wou

Wainwright Operable Unit

111

-------
1.0 Introduction

The purpose of a Five-Year Review, or FYR, is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the
environment. The methods, findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as
this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document
recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, Section 121, consistent with
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan, or NCP, (40 CFR Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.

This is the fourth FYR for the Valley Park TCE Superfund Site. The triggering action for this policy
review is the completion of the previous FYR report dated September 17, 2013. This FYR report has
been prepared due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, or UU/UE. The remedial actions at
the site will achieve UU/UE upon completion.

The site consists of three operable units, or OUs, and all three OUs will be addressed in this FYR report.
OUOl is called Wainwright Remedial Soil; OU02 is called Valley Park Proper; and OU03 is called
Wainwright Remedial Groundwater. OUOl and OU03 are managed as one OU called the Wainwright
Operable Unit, or WOU. The WOU addresses the source of soil and groundwater contamination in an
area within and adjacent to the property formerly owned by Wainwright Industries, Inc., at 224 Benton
Street. OU02 addresses the source of soil and groundwater contamination in an area within and adjacent
to the property currently owned by Valley Technologies, Inc., at 555 St. Louis Avenue. OU02 also
addresses the groundwater contamination not addressed by the WOU.

The Valley Park TCE Superfund Site FYR was led by the EPA remedial project manager, or RPM, Hoai
Tran. Participants included the following members of the EPA site team and representatives from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, or MDNR, and the Missouri Department of Health and
Senior Services, or MDHSS:

Dan Nicoski, Hydrogeologist EPA

Ann Jacobs, Human Health Risk Assessor EPA

Venessa Madden, Ecological Risk Assessor EPA

Elizabeth Kramer, Community Engagement Specialist EPA

Wane Roberts, Project Manager MDNR

Michelle Hartman, Environmental Specialist MDHSS

Wainwright Industries is the responsible party for the WOU and was notified of the initiation of the
FYR. Wainwright Industries no longer owns the site property at the WOU, and the current property
owner was also notified. Valley Technologies is still the current owner and operator of the site property
at OU02 and was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The FYR began on December 12, 2016.

-------
Site Background

The site is located in the eastern portion of the city of Valley Park, approximately 15 miles southwest of
the city of St. Louis, in St. Louis County, Missouri. Valley Park has an area of 3.2 square miles with
6,902 residents (census.gov, 2017). The site is north of the Meramec River and lies within the river 1
floodplain (Figure D-l).

The site consists of two source areas, the former Wainwright Industries and current Valley Technologies
properties, and a commingled, contaminated groundwater plume within the Meramec River alluvial
aquifer (Figure D-2). Both Wainwright Industries and Valley Technologies operated metal processing
facilities that included the use of chlorinated organic compounds as degreasers and cleaning agents in
the production process. Wainwright Industries ceased operations at the facility in 1979, and several other
nonmanufacturing businesses have been housed at the property since then. The current owner operates a
landscaping business on the former Wainwright property. Valley Technologies still operates a metal
processing facility at the OU02 source area.

The current land use for the surrounding areas is residential, commercial, industrial and recreational.
Residents use the Meramec River for swimming and fishing. Future land use is not expected to change.

Historically, the city of Valley Park used the groundwater underlying the site for drinking water, but
discontinued using the aquifer as a public water source in the early 1980s when contamination was
discovered. There is no current residential use of groundwater at the site. Residents receive their water
from Missouri American Water. One commercial well to the south of the former Wainwright property
extracts groundwater for non-potable industrial use. The groundwater from the commercial well is used
as,non-contact cooling water in a closed piped system that prevents exposure to site contaminants. The
nearest drinking water wells are located over a mile to the east of the site in the city of Kirkwood.

The site was placed on the final National Priorities List, or NPL, on June 10, 1986.

-------
Five-Year Review Summary Form

2.0	Response Action Summary

2.1	Wainwright Operable Unit

2.1.1 Basis for Taking Action for WOU

The record of decision, or ROD, for the WOU was prepared by the MDNR on behalf of the EPA and
was issued on September 29, 1994. The WOU ROD identified the following primary contaminants of
concern, or COCs, in soil and groundwater:

3

-------
Primary Contaminants of Concern (WOU)

Soil

Groundwater

Benzo(a)pyrene

Barium

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Manganese

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Methylene Chloride

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

The WOU ROD noted that methylene chloride was detected in only one sample during the remedial
investigation, or RI, and may have been a laboratory contaminant.

Unacceptable direct-contact threats to soils were identified for both residential and industrial settings.
Potential risks associated with exposure to groundwater were attributed to the presence of contaminants
at levels exceeding the federal maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, as defined by the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Unacceptable air exposures were identified due to the potential use of the contaminated
public water supply in showers.

Ecological exposures to contaminants were not fully evaluated during the remedial
investigation/feasibility study, or RI/FS, for the WOU completed in 1994; however, an ecological risk
assessment was performed as part of the third FYR in 2013, and did not find any unacceptable risk to
ecological receptors.

2.1.2 Response Actions for WOU

2.1.2.1 Pre-ROD Activities

Pre-ROD response activities at the WOU include the following:

• In June 1982, the Public Drinking Water Branch of the MDNR found TCE, PCE, and other
volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, in a municipal water well supplying the city of Valley
Park. After contamination was discovered, the city began aerating the municipal water supply to
remove the contaminants.

• In 1988, the city abandoned the wells and connected to the St. Louis County Water Company, a
predecessor to Missouri American Water.

• On August 7, 1990, Wainwright Industries entered into an administrative order on consent, or
AOC, with the EPA to perform a soil removal. Wainwright Industries initiated the soil removal
the following month; however, they discontinued the soil removal in November 1990 because
the magnitude of contamination was greater than anticipated.

• On May 22, 1991, Wainwright Industries entered into an AOC with the MDNR to conduct an
RI/FS. Wainwright Industries conducted the RI/FS from May 1991 to September 1994.

2.1.2.2 Remedial Action Objectives for the Remedy Selected for WOU

The remedial action objectives, or RAOs, for the WOU are: (1) to eliminate the soil source
contaminating the groundwater, and (2) to hydraulically control and eliminate the groundwater
contamination located at the WOU.

-------
The cleanup levels for the primary COCs were established in the WOU ROD. The cleanup levels for soil
were called "performance standards" in the WOU ROD, and based on site-specific calculations for
protection to groundwater and/or the direct contact threat. The cleanup levels for groundwater were the
MCLs.

Soil Cleanup Levels for the WOU

Contaminant of Concern

Protection of
Groundwater (mg/kg)

Direct Contact
Threat (mg/kg)

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.255

52.63

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

0.737

10.64

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

22.8

0.065

Groundwater Cleanup Levels for

the WOU

Contaminant of Concern

MCL
(Hg/L)

Secondary
MCL (jig/L)

Barium

1000

-

Manganese

-

50,000

Methylene Chloride 1

5

-

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

5

-

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

5

-

2.1.2.3 Remedy Components for WOU

The major components of the selected remedy for the WOU include the following:

•	Soil vapor extraction, or SVE, of VOC contaminated soil;

•	Excavation and off-site disposal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, or PAH, contaminated
surface soils;

•	Groundwater extraction and treatment system, or GETS, to hydraulically control the aquifer
underneath the WOU and to restore the groundwater to drinking water MCLs, and air stripping
technology to treat the groundwater before discharging to the sewer system;

•	Air sparging was initially selected, but was never implemented and subsequently removed
through an Explanation of Significant Differences, or ESD, completed in April 1996;

•	A deed restriction on the site properties to prohibit the installation and operation of groundwater
supply wells; and

•	Groundwater monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the remediation.

2.1.3 Status of Implementation for WOU

Following the WOU ROD, the MDNR began negotiations with Wainwright Industries to conduct the
remedial action. During the negotiations, Wainwright Industries and the MDNR, with concurrence from
the EPA, agreed to modify the selected remedy. The WOU ESD was prepared by the MDNR on behalf
of the EPA and issued in April 1996 to document the following modifications:

5

-------
• Treated groundwater could be discharged into the storm sewers rather than the sanitary sewers;

• Air sparging would be eliminated;

• Excavated soils would be treated on-site by ex situ SVE rather than in situ SVE; and

• Soils contaminated with semi-VOCs exceeding the direct-contact risk level would be excavated,
treated and buried on-site or transported to an off-site facility, as opposed to being excavated and
hauled off-site for treatment.

The soil remedy for the WOU consisted of two components or phases. The first phase treated soil in the
areas with the highest concentrations of TCE and PCE and concentrations of semi-VOCs above the
direct-contact exposure cleanup levels. Soil in these areas were excavated, treated by ex situ SVE and
placed back into the excavation once cleanup levels were attained. The second phase treated the
remaining soil with concentrations of TCE and PCE above cleanup levels. Contaminated soil that was
not excavated during the first phase was treated by in situ SVE in the second phase.

The design of the soil remedy was initially approved in September 1998. After presenting it to the
public, the design for the first phase was modified to address concerns associated with potential
flooding. The original design specified treatment of excavated soil by ex situ SVE with a fixed treatment
cell located inside the facility. The modified design changed the treatment process from a fixed
treatment cell to a mobile unit. The change lowered the chances of disruption from flooding by
shortening the time required to complete the first phase from two years to a few months. The second
phase of the soil remedy was unaffected by the changes. The modified design was approved in March
1999.

The first phase of the soil remedy began in April 1999. Approximately 600 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were excavated, treated with ex situ SVE and placed back into the excavation once cleanup levels
were attained. The first phase was completed when the excavation was backfilled in June 1999.

The second phase began while the excavation was still open. Before filling the excavation, portions of
the piping network were installed for the in situ SVE system. The rest of the in situ SVE system was
constructed after the excavation was backfilled, and the in situ SVE system was started in the fall of
1999.

The GETS was constructed and started at the same time as the in situ SVE system in 1999. In December
1999, the MDNR discovered methyl tertiary-butyl ether during routine sampling of the GETS. As a
result, both systems were shut off, and the design of the GETS was modified. The modified design was
approved in July 2003, and the in situ SVE system and GETS were restarted in August 2003.

The remedy at the WOU was constructed in accordance with the requirements of the ROD and ESD, but
the remediation systems are not functioning as designed. On September 29, 2016, the EPA and the
responsible parties for the WOU entered into an AOC to conduct a second RI/FS. The purpose of the
second RI/FS is to fully characterize the nature and extent of soil contamination in areas that were not
addressed in the initial RI/FS and to delineate source soil that is contaminating groundwater. As of this
report, the second RI/FS at the WOU is ongoing and scheduled to be completed in September 2019.

Vapor Intrusion Assessment and Mitigation

A vapor intrusion, or VI, assessment was conducted at the WOU from April 2014 until March 2015 to -
determine if the VI pathway was complete in occupied buildings on the former Wainwright property.
Indoor air samples were collected from a residence, and indoor air and collocated subslab air samples

-------
were collected from the office area and warehouse. The results of the sampling indicated the potential
for adverse impacts through the VI'pathway. As a result, VI mitigation systems were installed to address
the residence and office area in August 2015. The concentrations of TCE and PCE were above the
screening levels in the warehouse; however, mitigation systems were not installed because the
warehouse could be mitigated while occupied using the existing ventilation systems.

After systems were installed, indoor air samples were collected from the residence and office area to
confirm their effectiveness. The most recent indoor air samples collected in July 2016 indicate that the
mitigation systems are effective in reducing concentrations of VOCs to below levels of concern.

Institutional Controls

The WOU ROD required a deed restriction on the WOU properties to prohibit the installation and
operation of groundwater supply wells, as long as the groundwater beneath the WOU properties was
contaminated above MCLs. The contaminated groundwater plume migrating off the WOU properties is
addressed under OU02. In accordance with the WOU ROD, a deed restriction in the chain of title was
placed on the former Wainwright property. However, a deed restriction is not enforceable by the state of
Missouri. Post ROD, the state enacted the Missouri Environmental Covenants Act, or MoECA, that
became effective in January 2008. An environmental covenant through MoECA is more durable than a
deed restriction and is the appropriate institutional control, or IC, to ensure long-term protectiveness at
the WOU. An environmental covenant on the former Wainwright property was filed at the County
Recorder's office in St. Louis County in October 2016.

Summary of P

anned and/or Implemented ICs for WOU

Media, engineered
controls, and areas
that do not support
UU/UE* based on
current conditions

ICs
Needed

ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents

Impacted
Parcel(s)

IC
Objective

Title of IC
Instrument ¦
Implemented
and Date (or
planned)

Prohibit the

installation

and operation
of

Former

groundwater
supply wells
as long as the
groundwater
is

contaminated
above
drinking

water
standards

, Declaration of
Restrictive

Groundwater

Yes

Wainwright
Property

Covenants
(October 6,
2016)

*unlimited use / unlimited exposure

-------
2.1.4 System Operation and Maintenance for WOU

As the responsible party, Wainwright Industries is conducting the operation and maintenance, or O&M,
for the WOU under the MDNR oversight. The O&M plan was approved in May 2003. The primary
activities associated with O&M that were performed during the past five-year period include the
' following:

•	Normal operation and monitoring to ensure effective removal of contamination using both the in
situ SVE and GETS;

•	Equipment monitoring and inspection as part of the normal maintenance procedures and
schedules;

•	Record keeping and reporting requirements including quarterly reporting of operational status,
personnel changes and safety issues; and

•	Sampling and chemical analysis of influent air into the in situ SVE system, influent and effluent
groundwater for the GETS and groundwater monitoring wells.

2.2 Operable Unit 2

2.2.1 Basis for Taking Action for OU02

The EPA issued the OU02 ROD on September 26, 2001 and identified the following primary COCs in
soil and groundwater:

Primary Contaminants of Concern (QU02)

Soil

Groundwater J

1,1 -Dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE)

1,1 -Dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE)

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE)

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

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

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

Vinyl Chloride

1,1,2-T richloroethane (1,1,2-TC A)



Trichloroethylene (TCE)



Vinyl Chloride

Exposures to soil contamination at OU02 were found to not present a direct-contact threat. Potential
risks associated with exposure to groundwater were attributed to the presence of COCs at levels
exceeding the MCLs.

i

Unacceptable air exposures were identified for OU02 due to the potential use of the contaminated public
water supply in showers. In addition, potential unacceptable ambient air exposures were identified due
to industrial use of contaminated groundwater at the Reichhold Chemical and American Safety Razor
(formerly Megas Beauty Care and Absorbent Cotton) properties. However, modeling of air emissions
evaporating from the Reichhold Chemical and American Safety Razor properties indicated that COCs
did not constitute an unacceptable health risk.

!

8

-------
An ecological risk assessment was not conducted at OU02 during the RI/FS completed in 2001;
however, an ecological risk assessment was performed as part of the third FYR in 2013 and did not find
any unacceptable risk to ecological receptors.

2.2.2 Response Actions for OU02

2.2.2.1	Pre-ROD Activities

Pre-ROD response activities at OU02 include the following:

•	Negotiation efforts with Wainwright Industries and Valley Technologies were unsuccessful in
reaching an agreement for those companies to conduct the RI/FS for OU02. As a result, the
MDNR conducted the RI/FS for OU02 using funding and technical support from the EPA.

•	The RI/FS for OU02 began in April 1997 and was completed in September 2001.

2.2.2.2	RAOs for Selected Remedy for OU02

The RAOs at OU02 were: 1) to remediate contaminated soil sources identified at the Valley
Technologies property to eliminate their contribution to groundwater contamination; 2) to restore the
contaminated aquifer for unrestricted use in Valley Park and to remove risk of future contamination at
Kirkwood wells by achieving safe drinking water standards.

The cleanup levels for the primary COCs were established in the OU02 ROD. The cleanup levels for
soil were site-specific soil performance standards based on the protection to_ groundwater. The cleanup
levels for groundwater were the MCLs.

Soil Cleanup Levels for QU02

I

Contaminant of Concern

Cleanup
Level
(ng/kg)

1,1 -Dichloroethylene (1,1 -DCE)

22

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE)

510

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

80

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)

49

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

66

Vinyl Chloride

16

9

-------
Groundwater Cleanup Levels for QU02

Contaminant of Concern

Cleanup
Level (ng/1)

1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)

7

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE)

70

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-DCE)

100

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

5

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

200

1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)

5

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

5

Vinyl Chloride

2

2.2.2.3 Remedy Components for OU02

The major components of the selected remedy for OU02 include the following:

•	On the Valley Technologies property, excavation of shallow soils to a depth of 16 feet or less
and treatment using ex situ SVE;

•	On the Valley Technologies property, in situ SVE to remediate deep contaminated soils below
16 feet;

•	On the Valley Technologies property, groundwater extraction and treatment using air stripping to
hydraulically control the impacted groundwater and to achieve drinking water standards in the
aquifer and reinjection downgradient of treated water to help in preventing migration of
contaminants toward Kirkwood;

•	ICs on the Valley Technologies property and area-wide plume to prohibit the installation and
operation of wells until the aquifer is remediate*!;

•	Groundwater monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the soil and groundwater treatment
systems; and

•	Installation of air emission controls on commercial wells using the contaminated aquifer.

2.2.3 Status of Implementation for OU02

The EPA conducted the fund-lead remedial design for OU02 from November 2003 to April 2005.

Several changes were made to the remedy during the remedial design, and the EPA issued the OU02

ESD in August 2005 to document the following changes:

•	Ex situ SVE treatment of excavated surface soils was replaced with off-site disposal due to the
fact that Valley Technologies had sold the open portion of their property which was required to
implement the ex situ SVE operation.

•	Installation of air strippers on the Reichhold Chemical and Megas Beauty Supply properties was
eliminated based upon air modeling and verification sampling documenting that no unacceptable,
health based risks were present.

•	Treated groundwater from the Valley Technologies property would be discharged to a storm
sewer system pursuant to a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit.
The original decision involved the reinjection of treated groundwater. This change was made
mainly for implementability and maintenance reasons.

10

-------
The EPA began the fund-lead remedial action at OU02 when construction activities were initiated in
October 2005. The soil excavation on the Valley Technologies property was completed in January 2006
with approximately 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils sent to permitted landfills. During the spring
of 2006, construction was completed on the treatment building, in situ SVE wells, groundwater
monitoring wells and the groundwater extraction well. Installation and testing of the in situ SVE wells
and GETS were completed during summer 2006. Prefinal and final construction inspections were
conducted during August 2006. The construction activities were documented in the "Final Closure
Report for OU02," dated January 19, 2007.

After the initial construction, the in situ SVE wells were redeveloped because the system could not pull
air from the subsurface. The additional work was documented in the "SVE Well Development and .
Replacement Report," dated May 29, 2007. The well redevelopment did not fix the issue. The in situ
SVE system has never operated successfully, and has sat idle since the time it.was constructed.

The operational and functional, or O&F, period for the groundwater portion of the OU02 remedy began
in August 2006 with the completion of the GETS and the groundwater monitoring network. The O&F
determination was documented in the "Interim Remedial Action Report for the Operable Unit 2, Soil
and Groundwater at the Valley Park TCE Site," dated September 2008. The date of the report,

September 19, 2008, is the milestone date for the end of the O&F period and the beginning of long-term
response action, or LTRA, for the groundwater remedy at OU02. The EPA has conducted the fund-lead
remedial action during the LTRA period. The LTRA period typically lasts up to ten years and is
scheduled to expire in September 2018.

Since the O&F determination in 2008, the soil remedy has not functioned as designed. The in situ SVE
system is not operational, and a second RI/FS was initiated in April 2014 to characterize and evaluate
remedies for the remaining soil contamination. As of this report, the second RI/FS at OU02 is ongoing
and scheduled to be completed in September 2019.

Vapor Intrusion Assessment and Mitigation

The EPA conducted a VI assessment at OU02 from August 2012 to July 2016 to determine if the VI
pathway was complete in any occupied structures that overlay, or are in proximity of, contaminated soil
and/or groundwater. The sampling design used a phased "step out" approach and separated the
assessment into two phases. The area of interest for Phase 1 was properties that were directly adjacent or
hydraulically downgradient from the two contaminated source areas at the WOU and OU02. Phase 2
evaluated the results from Phase 1 and expanded the area of interest to properties in the direction of
known VI impacts. The area of interest for both phases are shown in Figure D-12.

The VI assessment at OU02 consisted of thirteen total rounds of sampling over two phases. Phase 1
consisted of the first seven rounds of sampling from August 2012 to April 2014. Phase 2 also consisted
of seven rounds of sampling. Phase 2 overlapped Phase 1 in April 2014 and lasted through July 2016.

The EPA sampled a total of thirty-four properties at OU02 for VI. Twenty-four properties were sampled
during Phase 1. Of the twenty-four Phase 1 properties, twenty-one completed four rounds of sampling
and did not warrant further action. One property did not complete four rounds of sampling because the
owner declined sampling after two rounds. Two properties detected site contaminants above levels of
concern and were mitigated. Additional sampling was conducted at these two properties after mitigation
systems were installed to confirm the systems are effective. Ten properties were sampled during Phase
2. All Phase 2 properties completed four rounds of sampling and did not warrant further action.

-------
Institutional Controls

The OU02 ROD required ICs on the Valley Technologies property and area-wide plume to prohibit the
installation and operation of wells until the aquifer is remediated. Post ROD, the state enacted the
MoECA that became effective in January 2008. An environmental covenant on the Valley Technologies
property through the MoECA and land use restrictions, such as zoning or local ordinance, to restrict
groundwater use on wells drawing from the contaminated aquifer are the appropriate ICs to ensure long-
term protectiveness at OU02. An environmental covenant on the Valley Technologies property was filed
at the County Recorder's office in St. Louis County in July 2017. An area wide IC to restrict
groundwater use on wells drawing from the contaminated aquifer has not been implemented.

Summary of Planned and/or Implemented I

Cs for OU02

Media, engineered
controls, and areais
that do not support
UU/UE* based on
current conditions

ICs
Needed

ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents

Impacted
Parcel(s)

IC
Objective

Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)









Prohibit the











installation











and

Declaration of

Groundwater

Yes

Yes

Valley
Technologies
Property

operation of
groundwater
supply wells
until the
aquifer is
remediated

Restrictive
Covenants

(July 5,2017)









Prohibit the











installation











and

City Ordinance or

Groundwater

Yes

Yes

Multiple

operation of
groundwater
supply wells
until the
aquifer is
remediated

Zoning

(Planned
September 2020)

*unlimited use / unlimited exposure

2.2.4 System Operation & Maintenance for OU02

The O&M of the OU02 remedial systems is performed by an EPA contractor who is responsible for the
GETS and the in situ SVE system. The EPA approved the most recent O&M plan for OU02 in
November 2011. The primary activities associated with O&M over the past five years include the
following:

General project management, coordination, invoicing and reporting;
Weekly site visits and system checks;

Miscellaneous alarm response activities;

Major repairs and system modifications with prior agency approval; and
Groundwater sampling of the monitoring well network.

12

-------
3.0 Progress Since Last Review

3.1 Protectiveness Statements from the Third FYR

The EPA deferred the protectiveness determination in the third FYR report, dated September 17, 2013,
for each OU and sitewide due to VI issues. At the time of the 2013 FYR report, a VI assessment had not
been initiated at the WOU. The EPA had initiated a VI assessment at OU02 in August 2012; however, it
was not completed until July 2016.

The EPA issued an addendum to the third FYR report on September 28, 2015, and deferred the sitewide
protectiveness determination again due to VI issues. The addendum deferred the protectiveness
determination until this fourth FYR, but noted the following progress:

For the WOU, the site property includes the former industrial facility, an office building
adjoining the facility and a neighboring residential property. An assessment was
conducted for each area, and the VI pathway was found to be a concern for all three.

Mitigation systems were installed at the office area and the residential property. The
former industrial facility includes a large warehouse, and options for mitigating the area
are being evaluated.

The VI assessment at OU02 began in August 2012. At the time of this addendum, the
agency has collected air quality samples at twenty-four properties. Of the twenty-four, the
agency completed four rounds of sampling at twenty-one properties which did not
warrant further action. The agency did not complete four rounds of sampling at one
property because the owner declined sampling after two rounds. Site contaminants were
above levels of concern at two properties and were mitigated. Two consecutive rounds of
sampling were completed at the two mitigated properties to confirm the systems are
effective.

Additional progress has been made since the EPA issued the addendum to the third FYR report in
September 2015. VI assessments were completed at both the WOU and OU02. VI mitigation systems
were installed in properties that required mitigation, and additional rounds of confirmation sampling
were completed at properties with mitigation systems to ensure that the systems are effective.

Protectiveness Statements from 2013 FYR Report

OU#

Protectiveness
Determination

Protectiveness Statement

WOU

Protectiveness
Deferred

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at the
WOU (OU01 and OU03) cannot be made at this
time until further information is obtained. Further
information will be obtained by completing a VI
assessment and mitigating, as appropriate. It is
expected that these actions will be completed by
September 30, 2015, at which time a protectiveness
determination will be made and documented in a
FYR addendum.

-------
ou#

Protectiveness
Determination

Protectiveness Statement

OU02

Protectiveness
Deferred

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at
OU02 cannot be made at this time until further
information is obtained. Further information will be
obtained by completing a VI assessment and
mitigating, as appropriate. It is expected that these
actions will be completed by September 30, 2015, at
which time a protectiveness determination will be
made and documented in a FYR addendum.

Sitewide

Protectiveness
Deferred

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at the
site cannot be made at this time until further
information is obtained. Further information will be
obtained by completing a VI assessment for both
OUs and mitigating, as appropriate. It is expected
that these actions will be completed by September
30, 2015, at which time a protectiveness
determination will be made and documented in a
FYR addendum.

Protectiveness Statements from 2015 FYR Addendum

OU#

Protectiveness
Determination

Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide

Protectiveness
Deferred

A protectiveness determination of the remedy at the
site cannot be made at this time until further
information is obtained. Further information will be
obtained by completing the ongoing VI assessment
for the WOU and OU02 and mitigating, as
appropriate. It is expected that these actions will be
completed by September 17, 2018, at which time a
protectiveness determination will be made and
documented in the next five-year review.

3.2 Issues and Recommendations

3.2.1 Issues and Recommendations for WOU

The third FYR report identified issues with changed site conditions, remedy performance, monitoring
and ICs at the WOU. Follow-up actions completed to address these issues include: a VI assessment
completed in April 2015; VI mitigation of an adjacent residence and the office area at the former
Wainwright facility completed in August 2015; and an environmental covenant on the former
Wainwright property to prevent exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater recorded at the St. Louis
County Recorder's Office in October 2016.

On September 29, 2016, the EPA and the responsible parties for the WOU entered into an AOC to
conduct a second RI/FS. The purpose of the second RI/FS is to address the remaining issues identified in
the third FYR report by fully characterizing the nature and extent of soil contamination in areas that

-------
were not addressed in initial Rl/FS and delineating source soil that is contaminating groundwater. As of
this report, the second RI/FS at the WOU is ongoing and scheduled to be completed in September 2019.

Status of Recommendations from the 2(

13 FYR Report for WOU

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current Implementation
Status Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

WOU

Nature and
extent of soil
contamination
has not been
adequately
defined.

An RI/FS should
be performed at the
WOU.

Ongoing

The EPA and responsible
parties entered into an AOC
on September 29, 2016, to
conduct an RI/FS at the
WOU. The RI/FS is ongoing.

9/30/2019

WOU

Soil Remedy is
not meeting
RAOs.

Once an RI/FS is
performed,
additional remedial
action should be
performed to
address soil source
contamination at
the WOU.

Ongoing

Once the RI/FS is complete,
a ROD amendment will
select a soil remedy that will
meet RAOs.

9/30/2019

WOU

Groundwater
remedy is not
meeting RAOs.

Once an RI/FS is
performed,
additional remedial
action should be
performed to
address
groundwater
contamination at
the WOU.

Ongoing

Once the RI/FS is complete,
a ROD amendment will
select a groundwater remedy
that will meet RAOs.

9/30/2019

WOU

VI pathway has
not been
assessed.

A VI assessment
should be
performed at the
WOU properties
and mitigation be
implemented, as
needed.

Completed

A VI assessment has been
completed at the former
Wainwright properties.,As a
result, the residence and
office area of the former
Wainwright facility were
mitigated.

8/7/2015

WOU

ICs for the
former
Wainwright
property have
not been
implemented

An environmental
covenant should be
placed on the
former Wainwright
property to comply
with MoECA.

Completed

An environmental covenant
was filed in the County
Recorder's office in St. Louis
County in October 2016.

10/6/2016

-------
3.2.2 Issues and Recommendations for OU02

The third FYR report identified issues with changed site conditions, remedy performance, O&M,
monitoring and ICs at OU02. After further consideration, the EPA determined that the administrative
requirements of the NPDES permit were not required by the NCP for on-site remedial actions at a fund-
lead site. The EPA continues to meet the substantive requirements of the NPDES permit. Follow-up
actions completed to address issues identified in the third FYR report include: completion of the VI
assessment in July 2016; mitigation of two residences completed in July 2013; and an environmental
covenant on the current Valley Technologies property to prevent exposure to contaminated soil and
groundwater recorded at the St. Louis County Recorder's Office in May 2017.

The EPA continues to manage OU02 as a fund-lead project and initiated a second RI/FS at OU02 on
March 17, 2014, to address the remaining issues identified in the third FYR report. Follow-up actions
associated with monitoring have been completed during the second RI/FS, while follow-up actions
associated with changed site conditions and remedy performance will be addressed when the second
RI/FS is completed. As of this report, the second RI/FS at OU02 is ongoing and scheduled to be
completed in September 2019.

Status of Recommendations

'rom the 20

13 FYR Report for OU02

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current Implementation
Status Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

OU02

SVE is not a
viable

technology to
address
contaminated
soil source.

An alternate
remedial action
should be
implemented to
address contaminated
soil source that was
to be addressed by
the SVE system at
OU02.

Ongoing

A fund-lead RI/FS for
OU02 was initiated in
March 2014. Once the
RI/FS is complete, a ROD
amendment will select a
remedy to address
remaining soil
contamination. '

9/30/2019

OU02

Persistent
elevated
contaminant
levels remain
at MW-56.

Investigative work
should be performed
to locate the
contaminant soil
source that is
contributing to the
elevated contaminant
levels at MW-56,
and this soil source
should be
remediated, as
appropriate.

Ongoing

A fund-lead RI/FS for
OU02 was initiated in
March 2014 to locate the
contaminant soil source
that is contributing to the
elevated contaminant
levels at MW-56. Once
the RI/FS is complete, a
ROD amendment will
select a remedy to address
remaining soil
contamination.

9/30/2019

-------
ou#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current
Implementation Status
Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

OU02

VI assessment
has not been
completed.

Complete VI
assessment at
OU02, and mitigate
as needed.

Completed

The EPA completed a VI
assessment in July 2016.
As a result, two
residences were
mitigated.

11/30/2017

OU02

NPDES Permit
has not been
filed.

File NPDES permit
with the Missouri
Water Pollution
Control Branch to
meet administrative
requirements of the
Applicable or
Relevant and
Appropriate
Requirement.

Considered
But Not
Implemented

A NPDES permit was not
required because OU02 is
a fund-lead site. The EPA
continues to meet the
substantive requirements.

5/14/2014

OU02

ICs for the
Valley

Technologies
property.

An environmental
covenant should be
placed on the Valley
Technologies
property to comply
with MoECA.

Completed

An environmental
covenant on the Valley
Technologies property
was filed in the St. Louis
County Recorder's office
in May 2017.

7/5/2017

OU02

ICs for the site
wide

contaminant
plume have not
been

implemented.

Land use

restrictions, such as
zoning or local
ordinance, should
be implemented to
restrict groundwater
use on wells
drawing from the
contaminated
aquifer.

Under
Discussion

The MDNR and the city
of Valley Park are
currently working on an
IC to prohibit
groundwater use for the
site wide contaminant
plume.

9/30/2020

OU02

Monitoring
program not
meeting all
objectives.

Enhance the
monitoring network
and sampling
program to meet
monitoring program
objectives.

Completed

The objectives of the
monitoring program were
achieved by installing
additional wells in
November 2014.

1/14/2015

OU02

1,4 dioxane
identified at
the site

Evaluate nature and
extent of 1,4
dioxane plume.

Completed

The nature and extent of
1,4 dioxane was
characterized and 1,4
dioxane was added to the
monitoring program in
January 2015.

1/14/2015

17

-------
ou#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current
Implementation Status
Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

OU02

Groundwater
plume not -
delineated near
Meramec
River

Complete
comprehensive
groundwater model
for the WOU and
OU02 groundwater
plumes.

Completed

The groundwater plume
near the Meramec River
was delineated by
installing additional wells
between the source areas
and the river November
2014.

1/14/2015

)

4.0	Five-year Review Process

4.1	Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews

A public notice was made available by a newspaper posting in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on November
10, 2017 (Appendix A). The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is a local newspaper that serves the Valley Park
area. The public notice stated that there was an ongoing FYR and invited the public to submit any
comments to the EPA. The results of the FYR and this FYR report will be made available through the
EPA's internet-based information repository, which can be accessed by the public through the following
website:

https://www.epa.gov/superfund/valleyparktce	,

4.2	Data Review

The FYR evaluated data to access the effectiveness of the remedies at the site. Data collected during the
FYR period, October 2013 to present, were analyzed along with historical sampling data to track
progress towards attaining RAOs. The data review evaluated all the COCs for the site, but the discussion
in this section focuses on the primary COCs of TCE and PCE. A list of site-related documents reviewed
during this FYR is provided in Appendix B.

4.2.1 Data Review for WOU

Soil Data

The soil data review at the WOU evaluated the results from soil sampling conducted in November 2011
and August 2012 and soil sampling conducted from October to December 2016. The November 2011
and August 2012 sampling events were to assess the capability of the in situ SVE system. The October
to December 2016 sampling events are part of the second RI/FS. The purpose of the second RI/FS was
to fully characterize the nature and extent of soil contamination in areas that were not addressed in the
initial RI/FS and to delineate source soil that is a continuing contaminant source to groundwater.

The initial RI/FS separated the contaminated soil on the former Wainwright property into three
treatment areas (Figure D-3). Area 1 and Area 2 are soils beneath a former aboveground tank used to
store solvents containing VOCs. Area 1 covers the soil immediately north of the facility and extends
beneath the building foundation. Area 1 is being treated by the in situ SVE system. Area 2 is soil to the
north and east of Area 1 that was excavated to 10 feet bgs, treated by ex situ SVE until levels of TCE
and PCE were below the soil performance standards of 255 |ig/kg and 737 M-g/kg, respectively, and
placed back into the excavation. Area 3 is soil near the northwest corner of the facility. Soil

18

-------
contaminated with PAHs was excavated from Area 3 down to 3 feet bgs and disposed of off-site. Area 3
was backfilled and capped, and a leg of the in situ SVE system runs to. Area 3 to address VOCs.

Sampling locations for,the November 2011 and August 2012 events (Figure D-4) were around the three
treatment areas on the former Wainwright property. The data from the November 2011 and August 2012
soil sampling events are presented in Table E-l, and the highest concentrations of TCE and PCE are
summarized in the following tables:

Highest Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Soil at the WOU
(November 2011 and August 2012)

Sample Location

Sample
ID

TCE
(mg/kg)

Notes

(

West Boundary of Area 1

SB-109

39.6

Area treated by in situ SVE system.

East of Area 1 /South of Area 2

SB-105

up to 47.8

Not detected. Reporting Limit was 47.8
mg/kg.

Under Slab/South of Area 1

SB-107

81.5

Saturated sample. Not used for soil analysis.

Sample Location

Sample
ID

PCE
(mg/kg)

Notes

Northeast Corner of Area 1

SB-104

2360

Area treated by in situ SVE system.

West Boundary of Area 1

SB-109

2350

Area treated by in situ SVE system.

Under Slab/South of Area 1

SB-107

8670

Saturated sample. Not used for soil analysis. -

A second RI/FS was initiated at the WOU in September 2016. Soil samples were collected from October
to December 2016 at locations throughout the former Wainwright property (Figure D-5). The soil
samples were analyzed for TCE and PCE, along with other PCE degradation products. The soil samples
were also analyzed for 1,4-dioxane and total and hexavalent chromium, which were identified as
potential COCs. The data are presented in Table E-2, Table E-3 and Table E-4. The analytical results for
1,4-dioxane and hexavalent chromium were below the reporting limits (up to 0.438 mg/kg and 0.5
mg/kg, respectively). The highest concentrations of TCE, PCE and total chromium are summarized in
the following tables:

Highest Concentrations of TCE, PCE and Total Chromium in Soil at the WOU
(October to December 2016)

Sample Location

Sample
ID

TCE
(mg/kg)

Notes

West of Area 1

SB-314

472

Outside of area treated by in situ SVE system.

Sample Location

Sample
ID

PCE -
(mg/kg)

Notes

East of Area 3

SB-313

1070

Outside of previous excavation and outside of
area treated by in situ SVE system. ^

-------
Sample Location

Sample
ID

Total
Chromium
(rag/kg)

Notes

Under Slab/Storage
Building

SB-311

29:4

Location not previously sampled.

Overall, the results of the soil sampling events conducted in the past five years indicate that the
contaminated soil source is much larger and at higher concentrations than previously assumed and that
the in situ SVE system does not provide sufficient coverage to remediate the entire contaminated soil
source area.

Groundwater Data

The groundwater data review for the WOU evaluated the results from sampling conducted for the
second RI/FS in November and December 2016. Samples were collected from nine monitoring wells
(Figure D-6). One monitoring well (MW-BBB) was damaged and could not be sampled. The
groundwater samples were analyzed for VOCs and 1,4-Dioxane. The data from the November and
December 2016 groundwater sampling events are presented in Table E-6. No VOCs were detected at
four monitoring wells (MW-AAC, MW-44BR, MW-5B or MW-5C). No detections of 1,4-dioxane or
vinyl chloride were found in any of the groundwater samples. The concentrations of TCE and PCE in
groundwater samples above the MCLs are summarized in the following table:

Concentrations of TCE and PCE Above MCLs in Groundwater at the WOU

VOCs

Units

MCL

MW-BBC

MW-17B

MW-17C

MW-101

MW-102

Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE) :

Hg/L

59.0

200

30.6

T richloroethy lene
(TCE)

HR/L

16.6

53.1

10.4

5.4

5.9

The results from the groundwater sampling conducted in November and December 2016 were compared
with historical data (Table E-5) to evaluate attainment of RAOs. TCE and PCE concentrations have
declined near the source area in MW-BBB and MW-BBC and downgradient from the source area at
MW-17B and MW-17C. Concentrations of TCE and PCE were elevated in 2015 when the extraction
well was being replaced but declined to historical levels once the extraction well began pumping again.
Overall, concentrations of TCE and PCE have remained near historical levels throughout the past five
years.

Vapor Intrusion

A VI assessment was conducted at the WOU from.April 2014 until March 2015 to determine if the VI
pathway was complete in occupied buildings on the former Wainwright property. Indoor air samples
were collected from a residence, and indoor air and collocated subslab air samples were collected from
the office area and warehouse. VI sampling was conducted in April 2014, July 2014, December 2014
and March 2015. The data collected during the VI sampling are presented in Table E-7. The
concentrations of TCE and PCE for each area at the WOU are summarized in the following tables:

-------
Summary of TCE and PCE Concentrations at the WOU
	(VI 2014-2015)	

Indoor Air Summary (Resident)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concen

trations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Hg/m3

4

4

0.17

2

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

|ag/m3

4

4

0.11

1.6

Indoor Air Summary (Office)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

|ig/m3

7

11

1.36

22.4

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Hg/m3

6

11

0.645

10.3

Subslab Summary (Office)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

M-g/m3

8

8

1,119

68,000

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

iag/m3

4

8

32.78

300



Inc

oor Air Summary (Warehouse)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

|ag/m3

20

20

10.2

217

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

M-g/m3

12

20

2.4

21.92

Subslab Summary (Warehouse)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

(ig/m3

20

20

2.9

4,103,444

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

M-g/m3

19

20

97.26

617,982

The results of the sampling indicated the potential for adverse impacts through the VI pathway at all
areas sampled. As a result, VI mitigation systems were installed to address the residence and office area
in August 2015. The concentrations of TCE and PCE were above the screening levels in the warehouse,
but mitigation systems were not installed because the warehouse could be mitigated while occupied
using the existing ventilation systems.

After VI mitigation systems were installed, indoor air samples were collected from the residence and
office area to confirm the effectiveness of the systems. The concentrations of TCE and PCE in the most
recent confirmation samples collected in July 2016 are summarized in the following tables:

Summary of TCE and PCE Concentrations at the WOU
	(July 2016)		

Indoor Air Confirmation Sampling (Resident)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Hg/m3

1

1

N/A

1.76

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Hg/m3

1

1

N/A

0.483

21

-------
Indoor Air Confirmation Sampling (Office)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

M-g/m3

1.36

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Ug/m3

0.645

1.3

The most recent indoor air samples collected in July 2016 indicate that the mitigation systems in the
residence and office area at the WOU are effective in reducing concentrations of TCE and PCE to below
levels of concern.

4.2.2 Data Review for OU02

Data analyzed from OU02 include: 1) soil and groundwater samples collected for the RJ/FS; 2) air
quality samples collected for the VI assessment; and 3) performance data from O&M reports.

Soil Data

The soil data reviewed for OU02 were collected during the second RI/FS in September 2014, December
2015 and May 2016. The purpose of the soil sampling was to find the source of contamination that was
responsible for the consistently elevated levels of TCE in groundwater samples at MW-56. MW-56 is
located in the parking lot in an area that was previously excavated. The high levels of contamination in
MW-56 suggests the presence of source soil in the area around MW-56 or upgradient. In this case,
upgradient means radially upgradient from the GETS.

The second RI/FS investigated the source of contamination to MW-56 by delineating soil contamination
at the Valley Technologies property that remained after the excavation in January 2006. The excavation
had been backfilled with clean fill and presumed to still be clean. Soil samples were collected around the
excavation and the in situ SVE wells. Soil samples were also collected in other areas around the Valley
Technologies property that were not previously sampled and may have been overlooked during the first
RI/FS. These areas included locations beneath the Valley Technologies building, along the north, east
and south sides of the building and along Sixth Street. Soil samples were collected from multiple depths
from the surface down to the water table (Figure D-8).

The data from the second RI/FS are presented in Table E-9. PCE \yas not detected in soil at the Valley
Technologies property. The highest concentrations of TCE at OU02 are summarized in the following
table:

Highest Concentrations of TCE in Soil at OU02

(September 201^

, December 2015 and May 2016)

Sample Location

Sample
ID

TCE
(mg/kg)

Notes

Alley South of Excavation

S-5

0.23

Area was previously sampled.

Alley South of Excavation

S-6

0.23

Area was previously sampled.

Beneath Slab

S-ll

0.066

Area was previously sampled.

Northeast Corner of Property

SB-28

8.5

Previously unknown area of soil
contamination.

Northeast Corner of Property

SB-23

2.3

Previously unknown area of soil
contamination.

-------
The results of soil sampling for the second RI/FS found a previously unknown area of soil
contamination on the northeast side of the Valley Technologies building. This newly discovered area of
soil contamination is upgradient from MW-56 when considering that groundwater flow is predominately
towards the GETS at OU02. The location of this newly discovered area of soil contaminaition makes it a
likely source of TCE to groundwater samples collected at MW-56.

Groundwater Data

Groundwater samples were collected from twenty-three monitoring wells as part of routine groundwater
monitoring for OU02 (Figure D-10). Groundwater monitoring is conducted on an annual basis to assess
the performance of the GETS. The results of groundwater sampling conducted at OU02 in April 2014,
January 2015 and January 2016 are presented in Table E-l 1. TCE was mostly non-detect in six of the
monitoring wells (MW-2B, MW-4B, MW-9C, MW-42BR, MW-51 and MW-54), and detected below
the MCL of 5 jj.g/L in another nine monitoring wells (MW-4C, MW-6B, MW-52, MW-58, MW-59,
MW-60, MW-61, MW-62, and MW-63). PCE was mostly non-detect at fourteen groundwater
monitoring wells (MW-2B, MW-4B, MW-4C, MW-9C, MW-42BR, MW-51, MW-54, MW-55, MW-
56, MW-58, MW-59, MW-61, MW-62 and MW-63) and detected below the MCL of 5 |j.g/L at four
monitoring wells (MW-6B, MW-10C, MW-52 and MW-60). The highest concentrations of TCE and
PCE above the MCLs at each monitoring well are summarized in the following table:

Highest Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Groundwater at OU02
(April 2014, January 2015 and January 2016)

Sample
Location

TCE
(WJ/L)

PCE
(Hg/L)

MW-3B

9.6

MW-3C

MW-6C

MW-10C

2.5 UJ

MW-53

130

MW-55

620

19 U

MW-56

610

29 U

MW-57

The second RI/FS collected groundwater samples using direct-push methods. Direct-push groundwater
samples were collected concurrently with soil samples in September 2014, December 2015 and May
2016. Groundwater samples were collected from multiple depths starting from the top of the water table
down to bedrock at 48 locations around and throughout the'site property (Figure D-l 1). The data from
direct-push groundwater sampling was used to delineate the extent of TCE contamination near the
source area. The results of the groundwater sampling of the site property are summarized in Table E-l 2.
The highest concentration of TCE in groundwater at OU02 from direst-push sampling is summarized in
the following table:

Highest Concentrations of TCE in Groundwater at OU02
(September 2014, December 2015 and May 2016)

Sample Location

Sample
ID

TCE
(Hg/L)

Notes

Exterior Bay Door/Northeast
Corner of Building

GW-40

5,900

Beneath previously unknown area of
contamination.

-------
Overall, concentrations of TCE from monitoring wells were highest at MW-55 and MW-56. TCE
concentrations have been elevated at these two monitoring wells historically and remained elevated
during the past five years. Groundwater samples collected by direct-push methods at the site property
did not find elevated TCE concentrations to the north across St. Louis Avenue or along 6th Street, to the
east along St. Louis Avenue or in the alley between St. Louis Avenue and Marshall Road, to the west
along Marshall Road or 4th Street. Direct-push sampling did find elevated TCE concentrations at the
northeast corner of the Valley Technologies property beneath the previously unknown area of soil
contamination.

Vapor Intrusion

A VI assessment was conducted at OU02 from August 2012 to July 2016 by collecting indoor air and
collocated crawlspace or subslab air samples from the residences and businesses that were near or
downgradient to the two source areas. The Valley Technologies building was not included in the
assessment because it is an active facility that continues to use VOCs. The VI assessment at OU02
consisted of thirteen rounds of sampling. The project was separated into two phases. Phase 1 consisted
of the first seven rounds of sampling from August 2012 to April 2014, and Phase 2 overlapped Phase 1
in April 2014 and consisted of seven rounds of sampling through July 2016. To adequately evaluate
spatial and temporal variability in analytical results, the sampling design specified four rounds of
quarterly sampling at each property over the course of one year. The data collected during the VI
sampling is presented in Table E-13.

Twenty-four properties were sampled during Phase 1 of the VI assessment at OU02. Of the twenty-four,
twenty-two properties did not have detections of site contaminants above levels of concern and did not
warrant further action. Two properties detected site contaminants above levels of concern. The TCE and
PCE concentrations for the two properties with detections above levels of concern at OU02 are
summarized in the following tables:

Summary of TCE and PCE Concentrations at OU02
(VI 2012-2016)

Indoor Air Summary (P-05)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

|ig/m3

54.8

160

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

UR/m3

0.86

6.07

Crawlspace Air Summary (P-05)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Hg/m3

45.5

142

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

|ag/m3

0.859

2.74

Indoor Air Summary (P-l 1)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Hft/m3

3.53

13.4

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

iag/m3

1.83

2.36

-------
Subslab Air Summary (P-ll)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Mg/m3

2

2

1,080

1,860

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Hg/m3

2

2

5,390

7,800

The EPA Superfund Removal Program issued an Action Memo on July 13, 2013 for a Time-Critical
Removal Action to mitigate the two properties. Mitigations systems were installed in the two properties
in the summer of 2013. After systems were installed, indoor air samples were collected to confirm the
effectiveness of the systems. The concentrations of TCE and TETRACHLOROETHYLENE (PCE) in
the most recent confirmation samples collected in July 2016 are summarized in the following tables:

Summary of TCE and PCE Concentrations at OU02
	(July 2016)	

Indoor Air Confirmation Sampling (P-05)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Mg/m3

4

4

0.61

1.29

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Mg/m3

1

4

0.537

0.53.7

Crawlspace Air Confirmation Sampling (P-05)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

M-g/m3

1

1

2.98

2.98

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

M-g/m3

1

1

0.645

0.645



Indoor Air Confirmation Sampling (P-ll)

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Mg/m3

1

1

0.542

0.542

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Mg/m3

1

1

1.07

1.07



Subslab Air Con:

Irmation Sampling (P-ll)

\

Chemicals

Units

Number of

Concentrations

Detections

Samples

Min

Max

Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

Mg/m3

1

1

5,590

5,590

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Mg/m3 .

1

1

924

924

The most recent indoor air samples collected in July 2016 indicate that the mitigation systems at the two
properties at OU02 are effective in reducing indoor air concentrations of TCE and PCE to below levels
of concern.

4.3 Site Inspection

An inspection of the site was conducted on December 5, 2017. The purpose of the inspection was to
assess the protectiveness of the remedy. In attendance were:

Hoai Tran, RPM	EPA

Wane Roberts, Project Manager	MDNR

25

-------
Jill Witts, Project Manager
Dave Kinroth, EPA Contractor

EOI (WOU only)

Tetra Tech (OU02 only)

4.3.1 Site Inspection for WOU

The site inspection did not find any new maintenance issues at the WOU. Past issues that persist at
WOU include the GETS running at a reduced flow rate and the general ineffectiveness of the SVE
system. Monitoring wells were in good condition with no maintenance issues. Motors were operating on
the VI mitigation systems, and pressure gauges on the systems indicate effective air removal from the
subsurface to the ambient air above the buildings. All permits and manuals were up to date and kept on-
site. All fences were locked and in good condition.

4.3.2 Site Inspection for OU02

The site inspection for OU02 did not find any maintenance issues at OU02. The GETS and computer
control system were both in good operating condition as was the building that houses the remediation
systems. Monitoring wells were in good condition with no maintenance issues. Manuals were up to date
and kept on-site.

5.0 Technical Assessment

5.1 Wainwright Operable Unit

5.1.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

The selected remedy for the WOU included in situ SVE of contaminated soil, excavation and off-site
disposal of surface soil contaminated with PAHs, groundwater extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater, groundwater monitoring and ICs. The soil excavation to remove PAHs in surface soil was
completed in 1999. The in situ SVE and GETS were constructed and started at the same time in 1999.
The EPA has determined that the in situ SVE system is not effective in remediating subsurface soils.
The GETS continues to operate with significant reduced flowrates. An ongoing RJ/FS will determine the
best strategy to address source soils and expedite groundwater restoration.

Remedial Action Performance

The FYR found that the remedy at the WOU was constructed in accordance with the requirements of
the ROD and ESD, but the remediation systems are not functioning as designed.

After several years in operation, the in situ SVE system was not meeting the RAO to eliminate the soil
source contaminating the groundwater. A soil source assessment to evaluate the effectiveness of the in
situ SVE system was conducted at the former Wainwright property in November 2011 and August 2012.
The results of the soil assessment indicate that contaminated soil source at the WOU is much larger and
at higher concentrations than previously assumed, and the in situ SVE system does not provide sufficient
coverage to address the entire contaminated soil source area.

Since it was initially constructed, the GETS has operated intermittingly and has not consistently
achieved RAOs to hydraulically control and eliminate the groundwater contamination located at the
WOU. Several attempts were made to troubleshoot the original extraction well in January 2006 and
October 2007. In February 2010, a second extraction well was constructed to replace the original one.

-------
The second extraction well initially restored the pumping rate of the GETS, but the pumping rate could
not be sustained and declined shortly afterwards. The second extraction well was eventually shut down.
In 2016, a third extraction well was constructed for the GETS. The GETS was restarted at a reduced
pumping rate and continues to operate.

A VI assessment was conducted at the WOU from April 2014 until March 2015 to determine if the VI
pathway was complete in occupied buildings on the former Wainwright property. Indoor air samples
were collected from a residence, and indoor air and collocated subslab air samples were collected from
the office area and warehouse. The results of the sampling indicated the potential for adverse impacts
through the VI pathway. As a result, VI mitigation systems were installed to address the residence and
office area in August 2015. The concentrations of TCE and PCE were above the screening levels in the
warehouse, but mitigation systems were not installed because the warehouse could be mitigated while
occupied using the existing ventilation systems.

System Operations/O&M

The in situ SVE system and GETS continue to operate at the WOU. The operational issues with the
remedial systems are related to design and soil remediation technology limitations. Although the GET
system is operating at reduced flowrates, recent data indicate that TCE and PCE concentrations have
declined near the source area and downgradient from the source area.

In the last five years, the in situ SVE system was shut off during portions of 2014 and 2015 for testing
and maintenance. Testing was conducted by isolating the different sections of the piping and evaluating
the effectiveness of each section. Maintenance activities included repairing cracks in the pipe manifold
and replacing .multiple relief valves. After completing these activities, the in situ SVE system was
restarted in April 2016 and continues to operate.

The in situ SVE system continues to operate but is not effective in eliminating the soil source
contaminating the groundwater. Soil sampling was conducted at the former Wainwright property in
November 2011 and August 2012 to evaluate the effectiveness of the in situ SVE system. The findings
from the November 2011 and August 2012 sampling were summarized in the third FYR report
completed in September 2013. The data indicated that soil source is much larger and at higher
concentrations than previously assumed and that the in situ SVE system does not provide sufficient
coverage to address the entire contaminated soil source area. The third FYR report stated that the nature
and extent of soil contamination had not been adequately defined and recommended an RI/FS at the
WOU.

On September 29, 2016, the EPA and the responsible parties for the WOU entered into an AOC to
conduct a second RI/FS. The purpose of the second RI/FS is to address some of the remaining issues
identified in the third FYR report by fully characterizing the nature and extent of soil contamination in
areas that were not addressed in initial RI/FS and delineating source soil that is contaminating
groundwater. As of this report, the second RI/FS at the WOU is ongoing and scheduled to be completed
in September 2019.

-------
After the restart, the GETS has operated intermittingly and has not consistently achieved RAOs to
hydraulically control and address the groundwater contamination located at the WOU. Several attempts
were made to troubleshoot the original extraction well in January 2006 and October 2007. In February
2010, a second extraction well was constructed to replace the original one. The second extraction well
initially restored the pumping rate of the GETS, but the pumping rate could not be sustained and
declined shortly afterwards. The second extraction well was eventually shut down. A third extraction
well was constructed for the GETS in November/December 2015, and a new pump was added in
January 2016. The GETS was restarted at a reduced pumping rate and continues to operate.

Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures

The WOU ROD required a deed'restriction on the WOU properties to prohibit the installation and
operation of groundwater supply wells, as long as the groundwater beneath the WOU properties was
contaminated above MCLs. The contaminated groundwater plume migrating off the WOU properties is
addressed under OU02. In accordance with the WOU ROD, a deed restriction in the chain of title was
placed on the former Wainwright property. However, a deed restriction is not enforceable by the state of
Missouri. Post ROD, the state enacted MoECA that became effective in January 2008. An
environmental covenant through MoECA is more durable than a deed restriction and is the appropriate
institutional control, or IC, to ensure long-term protectiveness at the WOU. 'An environmental covenant
on the former Wainwright property was filed at the County Recorder's office in St. Louis County in
October 2016.

5.1.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives, or RAOs, used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in exposure assumption, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs that could
affect the protectiveness of the remedy at the WOU. There have been no changes in the physical
conditions or the land use at the WOU that would affect the routes of exposure and the protectiveness of
the remedy. Land use on and near the WOU is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

Human Health

Changes in Standards and To Be Considereds. or TBCs

• Have there been changes to risk-based cleanup levels or standards identified as applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, or ARARs, in the ROD that call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy? No.

• Are there newly promulgated standards that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Have TBCs used in selecting cleanup levels at the site changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Changes in Exposure Pathways

• Has land use or expected land use on or near the site changed (e.g., industrial to residential,
commercial to residential)? No.

-------
¦ • Have any human health or ecological routes of exposure or receptors changed or been newly

identified (e.g., dermal contact where none previously existed, new populations or species identified
on-site or near the site) that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Are there newly identified contaminants or contaminant sources? No.

• Are there unanticipated toxic byproducts of the remedy not previously addressed by the decision
documents (e.g., by-products not evaluated at the time of remedy selection)? No.

• Have physical site conditions (e.g., changes in anticipated direction or rate of groundwater flow) or
the understanding of these conditions (e.g., changes in anticipated direction or rate of groundwater
flow) changed in a way that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

• Have toxicity factors for COCs at the site changed in a way that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy? No.

• Have other contaminant characteristics changed in a way that could affect protectiveness of the
remedy? No.

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

• Have standardized risk assessment methodologies changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Ecological Risk

Changes in Standards and TBCs

• Have there been changes to risk-based cleanup levels or standards identified as ARARs in the ROD
that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Are there newly promulgated standards that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Have TBCs used in selecting cleanup levels at the site changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Changes in Exposure Pathways

• Has land use or expected land use on or near the site changed (e.g., industrial to residential,
commercial to residential)? No.

• Have any human health or ecological routes of exposure or receptors changed or been newly
identified (e.g., dermal contact where none previously existed, new populations or species identified
on-site or near the site) that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Are there newly identified contaminants or contaminant sources? No.

-------
• Are there unanticipated toxic by-products of the remedy not previously addressed by the decision
documents (e.g., by-products not evaluated at the time of remedy selection)? No.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

• Have toxicity factors for COCs at the site changed in a way that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy? No.

• Have other contaminant characteristics changed in a way that could affect protectiveness of the
remedy? No.

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

• Have standardized risk assessment methodologies changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Are the RAOs still valid

The RAOs for the WOU are: (1) to eliminate the soil source contaminating the groundwater and (2) to
hydraulically control and eliminate the groundwater contamination located at the WOU. The RAOs are
still valid.

5.1.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy at the WOU.
5.2 Operable Unit 02

5.2.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

)

The selected remedy for OU02 included excavation of shallow contaminated soils to a depth of 16 feet
or less, in situ SVE of remaining contaminated soil, groundwater extraction and treatment of
contaminated groundwater, groundwater monitoring and ICs. The EPA began construction activities at"1
OU02 in fall 2005 and completed the final construction inspections in August 2006. The in-situ SVE is
not operational. The GETS continues to operate and is effectively controlling and reducing
concentrations of the primary site contaminants, TCE and PCE, in groundwater. An ongoing Rl/FS will
determine the best strategy to address subsurface soils. The ICs are not fully in place.

Remedial Action Performance

The assessment of this FYR found that the remedy at OU02 was constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the ROD, but not all aspects of the remedy are functioning as designed. The in situ SVE
system is not operational, and a second RI/FS was initiated in April 2014 to characterize and select a
remedy for the remaining soil contamination. The GETS has operated continuously since it was

-------
constructed in 2006 and has shown to be effective in hydraulically controlling and reducing
contamination from the groundwater plume.

The EPA conducted a VI assessment at OU02 from August 2012 to July 2016 to determine if the VI
pathway was complete in any occupied structures that overlay, or are in proximity of, contaminated soil
and/or groundwater. The VI assessment at OU02 consisted of thirteen total rounds of sampling over two
phases. Phase 1 consisted of the first seven rounds of sampling from August 2012 to April 2014. Phase 2
also consisted of seven rounds of sampling. Phase 2 overlapped Phase 1 in April 2014 and lasted
through July 2016.

System Operations/O&M

The GETS continues to operate at OU02. The in situ SVE system has neVer operated successfully and
has sat idle since the time it was constructed. This FYR did not identify any issues regarding O&M at
OU02.

Implementation of Institutional Controls and Other Measures

The OU02 ROD required ICs on the Valley Technologies property and area-wide plume to prohibit
installation and operation of wells until the aquifer is remediated. Post ROD, the state enacted the
MoECA that became effective in January 2008. An environmental covenant on the Valley Technologies
property through the MoECA and land use restrictions, such as zoning or local ordinance, to restrict
groundwater use on wells drawing from the contaminated aquifer are the appropriate ICs to ensure long-
term protectiveness at OU02. An environmental covenant on the Valley Technologies property was filed
at the County Recorder's office in St. Louis County in July 2017. An area wide IC to restrict
groundwater use on wells drawing from the contaminated aquifer has not been implemented. .

5.2.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at
the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no changes in exposure assumption, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs that could
affect the protectiveness of the remedy at OU02. There have been no changes in the physical conditions
or the land use at OU02 that would affect the routes of exposure and the protectiveness of the remedy.
Land use on and near OU02 is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

Human Health

Changes in Standards and TBCs

• Have there been changes to risk-based cleanup levels or standards identified as ARARs in the ROD
that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

-------
• Are there newly promulgated standards that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Have TBCs used in selecting cleanup levels at the site changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Changes in Exposure Pathways

• Has land use or expected land use on or near the site changed (e.g., industrial to residential,
commercial to residential)? No.

• Have any human health or ecological routes of exposure or receptors changed or been newly'
identified (e.g., dermal contact where none previously existed, new populations or species identified
on-site or near the site) that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Are there newly identified contaminants or contaminant sources? No.

• Are there unanticipated toxic byproducts of the remedy not previously addressed by the decision
documents (e.g., by-products not evaluated at the time of remedy selection)? No. .

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

• Have toxicity factors for COCs at the site changed in a way that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy? No.

• Have other contaminant characteristics changed in a way that could affect protectiveness of the
remedy? No.

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

• Have standardized risk assessment methodologies changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Ecological Risk

Changes in Standards and TBCs

• Have there been changes to risk-based cleanup levels or standards identified as ARARs in the ROD
that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Are there newly promulgated standards that call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? No.

• Have TBCs used in selecting cleanup levels at the site changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

-------
Changes in Exposure Pathways

• Has land use or expected land use on or near the site changed (e.g., industrial to residential,
commercial to residential)? No. '

• Are there newly identified contaminants or contaminant sources? No.

• Are there unanticipated toxic by-products of the remedy not previously addressed by the decision
documents (e.g., by-products not evaluated at the time of remedy selection)? No.

Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics

• Have toxicity factors for COCs at the site changed in a way that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy? No.

• Have other contaminant characteristics changed in a way that could affect protectiveness of the
remedy? No.

Changes in Risk Assessment Methods

)

• Have standardized risk assessment methodologies changed in a way that could affect the
protectiveness of the remedy? No.

Are the RAOs still valid

The RAOs at OU02 were: 1) to remediate contaminated soil sources identified at the Valley

Technologies property to eliminate their contribution to groundwater contamination; 2) to restore the

contaminated aquifer for unrestricted use in Valley Park and to remove risk of future contamination at

Kirkwood wells by achieving safe drinking water standards. The RAOs for OU02 are still valid.

5.2.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the

protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could affect the protectiveness of the remedy at OU02.

-------
6.0 Issues/Recommendation

Issues/Recommendations

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): WOU
(OUOl)

Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions

Issue: Nature and extent of soil contamination has not been adequately
defined

Recommendation: The EPA and responsible parties entered into an AOC
on September 29, 2016 to conduct an Rl/FS at the WOU. The RI/FS
should characterize the nature and extent of soil contamination at the
WOU.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2019

OU(s): WOU
(OUOl)

Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: Soil Remedy is not meeting RAOs

Recommendation: Once the RI/FS is complete, a ROD amendment
should select a soil remedy that will meet RAOs.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/30/2019

OU(s): WOU

Issue Category: Remedy Performance

(OU03)

Issue: Groundwater remedy is not demonstrating timely progress towards
restoration RAOs



Recommendation: Once the RI/FS is complete, a ROD amendment
should select a groundwater remedy that will meet RAOs.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

\

EPA

9/30/2019

/

34

-------
OU(s): OU02

\

Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: In situ SVE is not a viable technology to address the remaining
contaminated soil source

Recommendation: A fund-lead RI/FS for OU02 was initiated in March
2014 to address remaining soil contamination. Once the RI/FS is complete,
a ROD amendment should select a soil remedy that will address
contaminated soil source.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

EPA

EPA

9/30/2019

OU(s): OU02

Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions

Issue: Persistent elevated contaminant levels remain at MW-55 and MW-
56

Recommendation: A fund-lead RI/FS for OU02 was initiated in March
2014 to address groundwater contamination. The RI/FS identified
previously unknown soil contamination that is the likely source of
contamination. Once the RI/FS is complete, a ROD amendment should
select a soil remedy that will address contaminated soil source.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

EPA

EPA

9/30/2019

OU(s): OU02

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: No IC for the area-wide contaminated plume

Recommendation: An IC should be implemented to prevent use of
groundwater for the area-wide contaminated plume.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight
Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

State

EPA/State

9/30/2020

35

-------
7.0 Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Statenient(s)

Operable Unit:	Protectiveness Determination:

WOU (OUOl and OU03) Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the WOU currently protects human health and the
environment because the in situ SVE of contaminated soil, excavation and off-site disposal of
surface soil contaminated with PAHs, groundwater extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater, groundwater monitoring and ICs prevent exposure to contaminated soil and
groundwater. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the second
RI/FS at the WOU that is currently being conducted will need to characterize the nature and
extent of soil contamination. Once the second RI/FS is complete, a ROD amendment for the
WOU will need to select a remedy that will address the remaining contaminated soil source and
expedite groundwater restoration.

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:

Protectiveness Determination:

OU02

Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU02 currently protects human health and the
environment because excavation of shallow contaminated soils, groundwater extraction and
treatment, groundwater monitoring and ICs prevent exposure to contaminated soil and
groundwater. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the second
RI/FS at OU02 that is currently being conducted will need to characterize the nature and extent
of soil contamination. Once the second RI/FS is complete, a ROD amendment for OU02 will
need to select a soil remedy that will address the remaining contaminated soil source.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at site currently protects human health and the
environment because remedial actions prevent exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater.
However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, additional remedial actions
at both OUs will need to be selected and implemented to address the remaining contaminated
soil sources and expedite groundwater restoration.

8.0 Next Review

The next five-year review report for the Valley Park TCE Superfund Site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.

36

-------
APPENDICES

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
Appendix A
Five-Year Review Display Ad

PUBLIC NOTICE

, FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW START
Valley Park TCE NPL Superfund Site
Valley Park, St. Louis County, Missouri - November 2017

EPA Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Nine Tribal Nations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 has started the Fourth Five-Year
Review for the Valley Park TCE National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund Site. Five-Year Reviews
are required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) when hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that permit unrestricted use
and unlimited exposure. Five-Year Reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate the site remedy
to determine whether it remains protective of human health and the environment.

The Valley Park TCE NPL Superfund Site is located in Valley Park, Mo., in St. Louis County. EPA is
addressing the pollution at this site, which consists of two source areas and an area-wide
contaminant plume (underground mass of water) polluted by the chemical solvent
Trichloroethylene (TCE).

EPA has assessed the ability of the public to access the Five-Year Review through an internet-
based repository and has determined that the local community has this ability. As a result, the
Fourth Five-Year Review for this site will be available through a website, once completed, by
September 2018. The previous Five-Year Review was completed in 2013 and is available online
at the following website: https://semspub.eDa.gov/work/HQ/181005.pdf

Questions or requests for site information and/or the Five-Year Review process can be
submitted to:

Elizabeth Kramer
U.S. EPA Community Engagement Specialist
Email: kramer.elizabethOepa.pov

Additional site information is available at the following website^
www.epa.gov/superfiindArallevparktce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
11201 Refiner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66201
Toll-free Phone: 1-800-223-0425

oEPA

A-l

-------
/

APPENDIX B

-------
Appendix B
List of Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in completing the five-year review (FYR):

Site Wide

Third Five-Year Review Report for Valley Park TCE Superfund Site, September 2013.

EPA guidance and regulations on conducting FYRs and risk assessments.

Other guidance and regulations to determine if any new applicable or relevant and appropriate

requirements (ARARs) relating to the protectiveness of the response actions that have been developed

Wainwright Operable Unit (WOU)

Final Report on the Removal Action for the Property Located Behind 224 Benton Street,

Valley Park, Missouri, 1991.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for WOU, September 29, 1994.

Record of Decision (ROD) for WOU, September 29, 1994.

Consent Decree with State of Missouri for WOU, February 28, 1996.

Explanation of Significant Differences to WOU ROD, April 1996.

Remedial Action construction documents for WOU, 1996-1998.

Work Plan for Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Pilot Test for WOU, 1999.

Operation and Maintenance Plans for WOU, May 2003.

Results of Soil Sampling and Analysis for WOU, December 13, 2011.

Results of August 29, 2012 Groundwater & Soil Sampling for WOU, November 6, 2012.

Remedial Investigation Work Plan, May 27, 2016.

Groundwater Sampling Report, September 8, 2015.

Draft Focused Remedial Investigation Report for Wainwright Operable Unit (WOU), July 21, 2017.
Quarterly Reports for WOU.

Operable Unit 2 (QU02)

Phase II Remedial Investigation for OU02, June 2001.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report for OU02, September 26, 2001.

ROD for OU02, September 26, 2001.

Remedial Design Investigation Soil Source Definition Study for OU02, February 2004.

ESD for OU02, August 1, 2005.

Remedial Action construction documents for OU02, 2005-2006.

Preliminary Close-Out Report for OU02, September 2006. '

Final Closure Report for OU02, January 19, 2007.

SVE Well Development and Replacement Report, May 2007.

Interim Remedial Action Report for the Groundwater Remediation for OU02, September 2008.

Final Operations & Maintenance Manual for OU02, November 2011.

Soil and Vapor Intrusion Sampling Reports for OU02, 2012-2013.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Chemical Analyses Reports for OU02.

Final Work Plan for a Focused Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Volume 1 - Technical

Approach for Valley Park TCE OU02, May 14, 2014.

Draft Remedial Investigation Report Valley Park TCE OU02, February 6, 2018.

Quarterly Reports for OU02.

B-l

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
Appendix €
Site Chronology*

Event

Date

Site diseoverv

Jul v 1 OSJ

Cit> began treating its water supply

1%:

Final listing mi the National Priorities 1 ist

June 10, 1986

Department conducts limited RFFS

1987

Citv eonneeted to alternathe water supplv source

1988

First Fhe-Year Re\ iew Report

September 2003

Second Five-Year Review Report

September 2008

Notiee of third tl\e-vear re\ iew

August 8. 201 2

Site inspection for third fi\e->ear review

Januar\ 25-24, 2013

Third l ive-Year Review Report

September 2013



Wairm right Operable 1 nit (\\ ()l ):



:

Administrative Order on Consent signed to eondnet soil removal on.
Wainwright Industries' property

August?, 1990

Administrate e Order on Consent sinned lo eonduet RFFS

Max 22. 1991

Human health risk assessment fur \\ Ot" eompleted

December 15. 1993

Rl I S completed

September 29. 1 994

Record ot" Deeision signed for WOC

September 29, 1004

State Consent Decree signed to eondnet remedy

l-ehruan 28, 1 99(>

Original soil and groundwater designs eompleted

eptember 1908

Re\ ised soil design eompleted

March 1999

Ex situ SY1" remedial aetion eompleted

\pril 4-5. 1900

Original GKTS startup

Fall 1990

OF 1 S and SVF sv stem restart

Summer 2003

Conduct in-well treatment for restoring \ teld in extraction well using
chemical eleaning'renioval techniques and electrical and mechanical
well components testing

January 2006 to
October 2007

GliTS and SVK performance monitoring

December 2003 to Present

Construction and development of replacement extraction well

Febritar\ 2010 to
April 2010

Soil definition studs

November 2011

[he I PA and the responsible parties for the WOU entered into an AOt'
to conduct a second RFFS

September 29. 2016

C-l

-------
Operable Unit 2 (<)l 02)



RI/FS conducted

April 17, 1997 to
September 26, 2(101

Record of Decision signed for ()l '02

September 26. 2(H)!

Unsuccessful negotiations with responsible parties

Fall 2001 to Fall 2002

Remedial Design

November 2003 lo
April 2005

Record of Decision change using an ESD

August 1. 2

Remedial action construction

October 2005 to August
2006

Construction completion

Septei

Operational and functional period for GETS

August 20(16 to September
2008

Operational and functional period for SVI system

August 2006 to Present

SVF stud) to identif) problem with as-built s\ stem

No\ ember 200(> to VIa>

2007

! tieotechnical stud\ for SVlr tteatment area

June 2012

Soil sampling event lo address live-year review follow-ups

me 20 .12

Vapor intrusion screening

August 2012 to Present

.Remedy optimization study

December 2012 to
Ma\ 201 ^

1 he 1'TA initiated a second RI/FS at OU02

March 17, 2014

C-2

-------
APPENDIX D

-------
Appendix D
Figures

Figure D-l Location of Valley Park, Missouri

D-l

-------
Figure D-2 Location of Valley Park TCE Source Areas

Wainwngh

Valley Technologist
J(5f. Louis Avenue)

' pp""	 ill	S

talley Technologtes
Marshall Road)

I



D-2

-------
Figure D-3 Wainwright Property - Treatment Areas from First RI/FS

D-3

-------
Figure D-4 Soil Sampling Locations from November 2011 and August 2012 (WOU)

0 SB-,07

SB-101

•



SB-110 I S&105





/





.SB-108

SB-109



SB-111

I



•

i /

/



! /

• /SB-103





0 *

1

1



1

i

SB-106





•

i

¦=] Feet

i

1

\

y o 5 io

D-4

-------
Figure D-5 Soil Sampling Locations from October to December 2016 (WOU)

D-5

-------
Figure D-6 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network (WOU)

Wainwrighi

MW-44BR

MW-4B/C

AAB

&

BBC

MW

101

17B/C

'— Sm

fFormer Reichold Chemicall
(249 St. Louis Avenue)

D-6

-------
Figure D-7 Soil Excavation Area (OU02)

IVTBll

tW-41S|

\TE*

[vtbs

valley Technologies
(555 St. Louis Avenue!

IExcavation Area 2u

mMExcavation Area f|

Legend

C Sotl boring
^ I Soil sampte co> lected Ourrng WtV mstaflaton
B I I Approximate sort excavaron area
Facility & interest

GETS Groundwater extraction
treatment system

MW Monitoring well

[GETS BuUdmgj

|JVTB5|
(M

[Former Valley Technologies?

| ^Marshall Road.lp

r"~

tajpJ

VW) I'm* TCZ Ota OCB V*mt l*w» I
WotMt 19
MaCo*ak> He	20 it

'•Ml l%tTO«iDS Vtfa* l*w* I

D-7

-------

-------
Figure D-9 Soil Sampling Locations 2014-2016 (OU02)

D-9

-------
Figure D-10 Groundwater Monitoring Well Network (OU02)

D-10

-------
Figure D-ll Direct Push Groundwater Sampling Locations 2014-2016 (OU02)

VOCfW KNnUHMIKM 155r 7,

Legend



• Groundwater sample tocaton



C»l Faoirty of interest

JB|L T «^Hpn « ¦# - VH jfl*/aA ' B _^0v^"1r'i \ » \ taJL



\il v-ij| P^5t, diMi v 'g\4'wwn

g 1 \ \ 11, Vtox V \ >



\ p \»— jmBl.-. a " ^r «-n



^^Srii 1 L3jwwTJ\- v • * \|f wm„



«u ?-MSSri' ' y 1B\ LVSr^ Ka-ru.nw-tl I

w'^HiK "%>* iVnnnV'l^^r« \ ' w^ ftMc11
¦IHP^I^BHpw^KMSeEr^ V

¦»_ jl Mi -_v5k ^Jfll^Bfisi^^JIsB-ofl/Gw-a mIgw-35|i ^ira wfl 'l-'A'-?il L , . \

HvifMixllp^IKH'T ' tii™" Arv1 \



trf, : Slpw-34 n jsii y*'



4^R w W f!f „-% iiHi^Jbife¦ AT. ¦. •" ~^'^*"feifcv ¦ ybJjlV" TTgw-33Ui_^B|

m i^n '^?.'.-:-i" ¦ >p^: '\ «t

0**^^ r™^	®	.^QfTVP . I~ . 1 • tli'Llir 1.™

Bj 111 1 V^iley recfino-jogiesr^—• , f^oZ-L r**-—i • % •, "-vLf £ w

f55^S^Locjis Arenciejl\ \|%'fl "2"1 '"""'' ?J ®



^RHBWTT^/>-^ ,e	^ " r?~ '® e u®« l^liaV _' ft - • A'^"%

*?>-% i [gXit| c, v.o^i-^'"' ^- ""jHaj^lfeai<\tigvv-21 *. •»'* .BE;*

\ \ s ^"\ H- >.^/ \ |7T' ^
k \ • 1 • r / A*'1' d^'-yl,'i"-,: •••• i ^fis^r



f^1^* "" !'¦ •• :? - l''|~V-3& Vf>^*

\ jIlJiiV'^B u,., .„( \ .*?. ¦ A , «'

^ *. ^ 1 ^ V-^, rA ^>--1. J Former Valley rechno/ogres^^^^L

• * 1 © ^govV^e 	(Marshall Road>|^^^\ ^



¦ *• ,Wai' f Lt*i

N

A



r\

0 60 t20

#« m B lim ¦IP*" ^Hl 1 V rv i» JB n ™ Lii^ll- ¦ fcR^ *'" ^ >|P

Feet

3M« MHOtta ttr« »Ato
-------
Figure D-12 Vapor Intrusion Area of Interest and Sampling Locations

K; i ,

Completed assessment - no further action	| _ _ Area 1

X	"" — I

Assessment ongoing - no mitigation so far	I _ _ Area 2

Assessment complete - mitigation installed

x

Not assessed - need access

MW-52

MW-53

MW-'X
MW-17A

D-12

-------
APPENDIX E

-------
Table E-l Soil Sampling Results from November 2011 and August 2012 (WOU)

Wainw right Operable Unit

Soil Results Ncn ember 2011 and August 2012

Analyte

Units

IS1PX

RSI

SB-101-20

SB-101 -28

SB-102-4

SB-102-12

SB-102-26

SB-103-8

SB-103-24

S





Industrial 11 'iMI

1

i; " .mi i

! 1 -i Ml 1

; 1

1 i " .Ml 1





IviiuUiknixJhene

nil' kt,

luil ' t» >>(.!«



34.7

2 l(.

:

1" 2





fltei'loi^ltk'HC

tlJE* kil

t«0" • (U112!

0 (6 1

! ^

t "¦>

IM|T "S

:





1 >ivhkn.vthv'»tv.

mg/kg

2300

0.11076

o

< 1.44

< 1.25

0.0143

< 1.91

< 1.5



\ iin 1 ciiloiKk

rag/kg

I -

>052

,i _>n

i 44

¦ ! 25



91

< 1.5



(MI'NR

Siti.L
11 » mi i ;

d')X(.

n M5 1

l • < H i? S

SB-103-,

11/9/201

0022

<	0.0047
ouor

<	0.0047

SB-104-16

I i -i _•« >! 1

	si 1 _

o

< 4.45

<4.45





i sn-\ !

Analyte

Units

RSI





Industrial

Tv.'t< k

. iiiWaiiip (cue

eis-1,2-

PiJiloioi thine	

\ IO\ I Jlioink

10£j>
1111! kg

'lit kM

lllg ku

100

6.00

r>00

1.7

11/9/2011
2360*
K *

<48.?

< 48.7

Spill I
, , , |

uaj*
i !K
2 s

<2.5

SH-10 t 51

i s "II] I
U nTii

<	0.0052

¦> ihi^:

<	0.0052

SB-105-7

7i_>>2< ii

_ !,r

<47.8

4' 8
- J" X

iMONfv

Split)

11/9/2011
<•.>25

<2.5

2.5

SB-105-26

SB-105-32

"Ti/i/ioiT'"

0 SS{

_

0 (Hlhl

< 0,0047

(\tnsK
	Spjuj _

_!

oo:)<> I

I

I i

"Si-

1.52

1.1

Analyte

Units

1 cd.tch km Athene I
11,et.lt iHi'tbonc

ci%-l 2-

l)jd0tm1),.	,

21 v

10	^

• SI Mo

11	70,,

Kirn'
M

0.206
0 00

0 tillH

it :H'2 "

Ml MX S

Ij I,- M' I
4254

1.57

! ^ 3

SI»-1 < >K-1 ?

11/10/2011



< 0.455

0

ll bs



SB-MW-M





M4-< Hi 7

SB-hW M

(\1D.\R

t SB iO^lS

SR 1 ,0 "

(MHK'K





i ..



Split)

1 I M |

i 1 HI 'Hi 1

11/10/2011

11/10/201!

1 1 11. 2>>' i

L

-•

j" 1.04

<1 lilHH

0 W



-.)



<1 111 US





if Hv 1



II (>iOS

O i N11 <

^ imt ~

1 it 1,^

1 <0.17

11 f*0«





















SB-2iH.|h

SB-204-5-

Analyte

Units

USEPA
RSI.

SB-201-

3.5

SB-20J-6.

|u ^

SB-202-2

SB-202-5

SB-202-9

^0l!>

0

Split.





Industrial

X Ml2

K2«i2...12

S2>» ^'12

&M2f>}2

S 20 2i 112 8 2J M12

8 2U 2"! 2

g 2^ ?ii(2

Tvtt.Khii'iivthtne mi' kj

|.)0

< 0.592

0,6 ICs

j

11 N I1' I
'Mic«82 ! HIS?

1



u

i ULhl'tuKilicnt mg k«

6.00

0 ^»2

u 2 >2 | o S">2



(l <(|S

1

Js-1 2- o

l"iKl)loii>elhent n'r

210U



1 4->

(¦v

o ii^tc on

t' "S 1

1.1



\ t tM chloride [ mg/kg

1.7

(¦ 592

oo-il

0 \) liM

<

¦ n«)069

!, ' 1. i

o (05

< 0.25

E-l

-------
Table £-2 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 (WOl)

Aiuhte

Tcfrachloroethcr;

TikUonsethenc

1 vi-—) 2 OicMon'ttlwae
i	hlondc	

Wainwrighf Operable Unit

Volatile Organic Compounds

Units

IISEPA RSL

_ SB-1(10 '

ll-l

SH- HK> ,

D1T-12

9

SB-300

"21



Indus trill

Residential

11 ' 201"

! 1 1 :oi" •

11 1 2016

11 1 2o! {•

ma ku

100

2!

noon |

initio 1

oo;;t



!iw kit

(1 mi

O0J

(Km II '

11 0i lt)0 |



0 02^4

nit! ku ! 2 MH>

.0

0i«'H |

..I'004(1 I

(> OOjtx





1.7

0 O'w

_____ p

0 001H j

0 C04(i

(1 Oil |(i

0-1

JJ J -'i'1

<0.0043
i m >0 h
00041
<0.0017

~+

SB-301

(i

n i 2016
ooon

- o u'ai
0i>(i?X f

<0.001? 1

imjm i

D

"ft 2'11

illliW

)| 004.

0.0072
>,001"

!

Mi-301

12

6 ) 11/1/2016

I V_

i),?56
u.0446

,0019

TcliachkuiVtliLiK'

TnJiMiivthcm _ 	

tivl 2-l)ichk>nxthcne
Vim I chlotido

Units

i»"

nu kg

I M- P \ RSI

Industrial
1 100

! 6.00
my ku ¦ 2300
msi k«	1 "

Reside tiiial

_ :i ~~

_

! hi-
ll I1MJ

Sli-jSH _

	21_	

11/1/2016
(i I
(¦ 7»4

0,0243

I) (Mils

	NB-102	

	

10 51 2° 16_
U o| "5

<0.0046
0 OlMti

0 0H1S

SB- i(0

__

f 21^20 io_
0.0107
0.0055

iQ.004i
:0.0016

sb-'o:

HM t>

_(fir

_ .1 Itw	OS a

CU04 I (>0('i6
(M'lilh j (M>022

sii- ;o: N[i"'|0_

-1 IT ~ Z

1 U 2oS (* is' 2o 2o I
o 121 j

35*

'i

_ sji- >

_ 'i

Jt' 2i> M!t>

_ 2 hS	

1 1.8

it ,H"I	IJ

m»

__

Analvte

_[ tli.k hlpiocthcnc
I nuOoiocthcrK
cis-J 2-lX-nktioetlicie
\ U-312

Industrial

I	 IW_

nyjvg 6 ihi

111;.'

2300

rti-i ks

I.

sJvii:

21

Residential > Io2i.<.2016 . 10 26 2011

0.94
160

II l><9

i M12	

<0.103

I

VB-2H Si!-<2(! SK-"> V'

jh _ y_ ^ _y '-i

10 2*> 2(11(1 Sit 2S 20lo r lo 2"~ 2>

S|i-J20

_ 20_	

|ie> Mfn

^11?

- 0 0088

II K8
-!) 0W

SB-321

SH-'OU	

	 '1

10 2> 2uln	^ 10 2' 201 {>

0 <><*8 '	0 "nj

0 0;Mi '	ejj.-

0 11 Ki(>	-HIS'

iMijtl"	(i 0 ""4;^

1 of 5

Analyte

Jcii at iiloroclhct tc
Tmebl.tioaheiit

els-1 _2-j )»cliktroftheiie
I ^ m> I cliloridi.	

Units

rsrp \ rsi

Imluslrial ' Kesidtnli*!

riM-jif" Sl^r ] _S]i%.!_2i' SB-^21 • NiW

i1. _ ! J" L	1 L 1

l'>2^201»>* lo 2<> !('H> 1 l(i253JhT^ 10 20



.) |K0

<0J042
m> (HM2_
0(>or

0 0041
0 (HCS

iHIO^S

1> I'lHS

Ol'iU?

5.79

>}Uh A

201 *

0

II (UWi

H |

3.2b

0.051

' Sh-i22
— ——

hi 2i« 2< 111« 10 2iH(. 10 r 2ot«

M{,'

'1 1..4

i>21 1

1

1 («<



0 XMl

E-2

-------
Table E-2 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 (WOU)	__

	Wainwriglit Operable Unit

Volatile Organic Compounds

Analyte

Tct i aehlou>o the ne	

"hiohloiiHtlK'iie

cis-1 ]-!)icl)k>n>cihtnc

\ m\ I ditiniJe

Units

nig, kg
"'g-kg

_+. "Ji* kJ

ma ks>

I Si in RSL

Industrial

100

6.00

JJllO

Residential

0 04

0.059

sH-vso

6

SB-330
10

to 2j ?oio io:-'.;iiic

0 0012

poop

0 0012
iMHir

0 tlOlfi
OJMiSO
<0.0046
<0.0018

SB-5 0J
:i _

u ?"¦

_o no _
i) rj_

<0.070

_M<-j3J	

_ 0-f	

111.27 201ft

SB-331

SB-331

_4

0 2'»_
dill

I) ('44-4

JO '? >0lo

! 11')

_'0 121

	• 0 121

12 _
10 27 2016_
0 t>3 _

	y m	

J) 10"	

• il s> i i

SB-331

..

Hi 27 2«)Ul
0 ONS	

~ -£on^_

<0.0135

0 IIIIV)

SB-332

11 r2ni(i

o i v _

IMI.lt

II 0108

<0.0018

Analyte

I otMolilitioctlu'itv

TiichK»ioclhc>k'	

cis-! 2-1 >k'h)nH\i)ici;c
Vimi itfc

Units

mg/kg

rng/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

I SI- I'V RSL

Imlusti uj

100

1	,

2	'0

Residential

'? t

I M>

(I <)W

1 \B 4>2

r^?

11/1/2016
05J *3

DUP-I0

\nalyfr

i etkkliL-itvOieik'

! 'iUlktlOdlkllt.

cis-l ,2-Dichloroethene

Vinvl chloride

Units



mg/kg

mg/kg



USEPA RSL

Imlusti ial_

_

2 *i>i.

Jii'sii>KnlKiH' 	

[ U>-I 2-l'lvhlUHVllKlie
r Vl£\ i chi.HHk 	

Analyte

| kit H.lllt>I,Ulh, DO _
' ^ ijihloiiKllKMit _

i Us 1 ^-l lklll>»l.\lhciic
\ iii\ I ditoiide

, I
I mis [

	L

j

nig kg j
nip kg |

nig kg__

Units

I SEPA RSL

	SB ]4l f

11 0 ?0!tij
4*05 I
>¦ ,i2i
• HK
<0.0493
"SB^SF

Imlustiml ' Residential ' P I ft .V In

100

6.00
2 «)»
I "

24

oo|

160
0.059

I SI I" V KM

_,J'3Lk_e
me kg

2 of 5

mg«g

Industrial Residential^

s (HI |	J.3

0.94
160

1.7 I (i i)59

(¦ 00 J
II 004 3
¦ 0 004<
_____ o iH»r

_ (1
jo < 1;<>u>

<0.0044

<0.0044

<0.0044

<0.0017

ll/Mili*!

0 1is2l> 1

o'i| 18 '

0.0107 [

¦I co] X '

SB-311 ^

t)	j

11 u :oin
<0.0042 I

<0.0042 I
<0.0042
<0.0017 [
SB-1 "

iM <; 20ib
_

Ji

1)0014

<0.0017
Mi-»05
12

JO }| 2

0.206

	o ujj:

<0.0043
<0.0017

SB 1J _
_

) 1 i 2ol6_

!•

"

0.0095

<0.0016

sBJ>2	

~ 20 _
il ; iitifi

MMtl _
in

11 <¦> 2* >! «>

<0.0041
OiH'4!

t.i\x_

¦! .io:
0.047
0 00IS

' SB-112

ii-1
1 1 20 Id

<0.0016
sit- !.i;

_ 2 1 ~
'''

0 !!>(< _
O (l_'l>S
uOO^')
0 002}
Sll-.MH_
20 _
HI M Mil*
ii l'«
0 02M
ODOH
OOOIS

0.538
<0.115
<0.115
<0.046

J.B-l"

i' g2£i!:

0.318
<0.110
<0.110
<0.0439

0-1

I 1 •>

; im.

<0.194
<0.194

sBJli- _ My

' " I IS

11/9/2016
O.OOSI
0 Oo-t2

l« 44
0.0017

SB-MJ

hi
11 "

0.0693
'I OI.4J

<0.0047

<0.0019

SB-Mi

ii I
1 !6 0iId

<0.004

i'Oi>!

<0.004

J"

n <«>o
0 uOfi
0 006
0 01)2 1
sll-OK

~ fOZ

III J_2_i]_lii
n 2_D8	

<0.130
<0.130
-tnii22

	Si--!>' 1

1.1

10 *5! 0Hf>

0.0113
<0.0043

oooli

^ 0 00 i 7

Sll-306

o-i	

ojrOlfe
58

H 'ii )SS

I 0

1 <5jiiT



¦iB «<4

SB-Iol



¦; lu

1



. Ill !) Sil6

1

11. 31 20l(.



'> n| 2(i

0 0212

l> 0OS I











(i inn



<0.004?



o O02



o oo|o



Sli-iO'i

\B-il i

\B- i| t



Hi

0

i:



10 M 2016

l>) 2i 2016

10 2^ 2(0n



o Hi 14

10™0'*

14Kl



O (HI 14



2 32



ti (MM

1 41

-2 12



o Oios

] "

<0.928

E-3

!

-------
Table E-2 Sol Sampling Results October to December 2016 ( WC)l )

Analyte

Analyte
ruvhliuoitticnc

ci>-!.2-i iitliKnoclluiie
\ His I child Ilk

Analyte

FeftaUiknoalk'ue
linliiiiinilii-nc

tis-1 2-i">ichii»ioc!hu«_

\ im I ehloiuk

Analyte

Unrachlim vtocm.

_ 1 i;cliK>nxthenc
_£w-1,--piihk*ti>e(licnc
V ms I oliioiidc

Wainwright Opera We Unit





USEPA RSL

SB-.M3

SB-U 1

sB-314

sB- >14

SB-314

Analvte

Units

1

>/

0-1

7

12

19





lndustiul

Ri'siik ntial

10 25 2i>lo 1

10 24 20)0

10 21 2016

10 21 "MSIn

10 2 1 20H,

1 cliachluoiclhcuc

m-: Ig

loo

24

MHO

(1 7t,M



142"

2h7"

1 nchlonictliciie

ma, kg

0 00

(> 04

1 IS

0 10?

10

218

472*

cis-).2-I)ichloiiK'ihene

nm kg



160

1 4«

0 107

• o 8"»7

4 u

o ri

V ins 1 chliMide

mg/kg

1.7

0 rlSO

<1.78

<0.043

0 ).|i

-1 0

o r ^

n

lt» 21 _'ok

^ J 111_

n 	

0 Hi
II |K([

_ SB:iL\_
o I

Hi 21 20Uj_

^ 2

6 44*	

0 t>2
0 104

Units

USFI'A KM

SR-M-

SB-US

! vliikhl-KiiethiMV

Oil! kt>



rin-hntiiKilkitc

"»S



li—I 2-!)it.hKM>itlIioi)e





\ m\! ohlniiik

ing/kg 1

n» m :ui<2 i?4 2i':i-

0 !f>r>	0 ',.XK

<0.120 | 0J40
-0,120 0,109
0 01 '*_J _ 0 043~

SH-1^_

ii>

0,221

n n^io

<0.0051

<0.002

SB-.-1 i 5

jo :otf

ll 202

_ 0,11

¦ 0 114
•j) 04-;-

sIi-32 *

SB

s|i-<21

sB-321



22

0-

.

> 2^ 20lh

10 201 (>

10 2ol(> j 10 2i 20It)

10 2.5 2o)«

d>i >

2'41

o ox ^ 1 O 2>"



0-121

i, j- (

>,4 ' 10',



0.635

i| i

- O I >044 1 0 lOn

|i !(iO

ii !(<0

1X1

0 00 IK , 0 0424

0 043-

I nits

l»L3 k-J j_

aig/kg
nv: kj

jlltliHll in!

100
6.00

2300

I si r v rsi

Residential

Ils:LkiL

1.7

Is

ti o j
160

0.0S9

12

10 2S 2olo_

_ -rl{ _

<©.W2
c <¦»:

<§397

Units
™£ilL

mpjvg

mg kg

JILte

1 nits,

I Si I' V list

Industrial

Imii	

6.00
__2 100 _

L7

Residential

-_i -I

_ M 'I t

	Itlf

0050

SB

USl'i* V RSI.

__

I	I hidusti tal jtrsiclential_

Ktt t l"'1 i 21

—|	j			I"	—			

niL_k£_ 1		 0 04	

»% kg 21oo	!»>0 __

| mc ke 1 " f o 050

II 1 ^lO

1

i *C

,1 ,itl

sB-r^

il L-1'1 lL

— 4

8 (u-

S]<-<24

_ 21 _

1 ,|_2* 2d Hi

6.09	

-	<< 114

<0.114

-	M

NiU"_

12 	

JL.L-I01'!
0 s u _

	WMI

4 4"
	0 O^Ol

SB-3^

_(> 20S_
 :oju.

0 fi-Oti , OlMKii
(HUM •

. ii ixi j;
0 (101 "

sli-T.n"

¦ LI 2t!)6_

"> _
4J3 _
3

o 201_

*SB-U5

Jil _
11 I 2016

\_ 01	

oji:_
o UJ_

<0.0467

0 irUS

0.0064
<0.0019

sii^sT

_sB-3
6

ill-1! •vU"

o o

o orx

0.107

< HHlP

1/1/2016
o (K^T

<0.0047

0 00 ~?

0	00h>_
SB Vo

20

1	I 20]^
0 (10'S _
0 l«i45

o 0o4S

00018

_ i-:

J.

0(H^2

*

• 0 H0i7

_*>MI021
SB-.v<

"iK"

_M> 004^

•> 0 Oti45
•a, 0*>1,S

i)i r h

h

10	ii :ou>
0 o\'o
i2-r

0lUxN|

0 i.olh

nhI'T^
10

11	I 20 M.

<0.0057
<0.0057
• 0 0(H'

i> mi i

SB U4_
0-1

12/16/2016

<0.0043
<0.0043

<0.0017

Ml-i2_l_
12

10 M 2016

_ - M<" _

2  _

0.116
<0.0018

_MM2i

20

10 3J_2f.SO
Hi

3.12
0.0604
<0.0017

sB:_U£

"5o

11 02
-------
Table E-2 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 (WO 1')

Analyte

I ciiachloi.ttiKiK

1 I iichk>n>cilieitc

' c,^L2i^1ii,u,elhce>"

1 Yin\! Uiloiitk.

Analyte

Units

USEPA RSI.



Industrial

RcMiltnii.il

I UUv-hlorOCttKltC

miz k;j



:4

1 tlOhlofK.thi.tK

Ills* k>>



0 44

cis-1 "•-Utdiloioctliciic

irm kj;

7300

160

| Vm\l oliloixlc

IOSI ki>

1.7

0 05l)

Analyte

Units

USEPA RSL

I



Industrial

kt^idfntml

[ 1 CtldClll Mv'tluik'

mi: kji

too

24

1 tkliloioct'iene

nn: kf ' o 01

11 ''!

Wahm right Operable I nit
Volatile Organic Compounds

SIKU6

tu r Mi6

(H«m
1) OtIS

<0.002

i '>1 _

inr

(i 0(145
!_
0 01)45
iMKtlS

SB-32?



">( M o

_

sii '

_ .1 	

it;'i-iti lo 2

Dt>ii4^ |	

o oo i < _ ooo\/

I t>tM»52
IHItll? I - 0 0021

SB-32?

in r jnih__

0 Oi.'H

'C *""?

. o (Ht;. i
-1) 0015

SB C |

-4 {. Itl

io ;> :uif i i<< m 2oi^
0 tWO_ I 4 > I
It IK)S8_

0 ti04K

0 0014

SB-328

ii tiS i

in ^ |

<0.0907

4)046!

o_U I

00H4S"

Mi VX ^

:i

I.I U'Vtlt

SB 'M

— ? -r- , |

lo:'W £1 '!>!]_

i 0^7

14.4*
0,54

0.0809

Units

inn kii

mg/kg
l!>" ku

lit" l-i'

I sun RSL

Industrial
100
it no

" H'° _

1.7

Residential

24

56-33?

To"
11 ¦>> x<-

(HH)Sl

sp

•I

0.94

160

0.059

ooon

0 (Win

SB-338

0-1
11/9/2016
0.348
0.0071
:Q.004S
0 0019	[_ -tiJH'll>_

I1/9/201/
(< 'it, 1H
OOIUK

o O04S	,

J	—

¦ oo.s? !

• > III) t i
U->0l" !

I

(y	I

rwaoIiTT

j	<

o oo^r
<0.0057
ti oo:s

S8-336
.M *

11/1/20.16
1.29

0.0246

SB-<16

SB-337

.1

11/1/2016
. !

" u!t,~ I

u , <

<0 ,ill7 <00016 <5x0021

/1/2016

I! 00^ *
• II 'I <>

ti-l

1 I U	j

<0.0043	j

<0.0043	I

11 01 i •>

<0.0017	I

sit lis

lb

t I •> io

1 ""*1

0 0'W?

0.0043
<0.0017

mi ; i,s _

20	

11/9/2016
4.04
0.02
0.0167
OiH>h>

_S'?lT,0 I	^

I 1 a 2(«16 I t !

1 i1-
0.0.358
0 if2 ¦

<0,0017

<0,0044
0 osot
0 is:

i> oons

SB <4N

Analyte

I Ui acliliTivtht-iK
I richloiwthoK' _
cis l.?-l>ici)lomuhciK'
Vim I chloride

Analyte

1 cH.nJiIutQCthci'c
I iichloHictheiie
cll" l.^-CtchloHH-thcne
V tm I cliiondt

5 of 5

F-6

-------
Table



Analyte

Tctrachlnrncthcne

['nchUm'cihciic	

cis-1 2-l)ic!ikni»ethene

Vim I eh lunik.'

\Vahm right Operable Unit

1 lilts

IHfi k*>_
ma ki-
ka
my ky

USEPA RSL

Soil Results 2016

Mw44_

0-1

m<-<45

+. —

I? lo'20If- ! 12 'h H'16
0JI045 I
.(i 0045

O004*

0 0(118

"2
0 0226
<0.0045
<0 0114 s
<0 (illus

- •

sn-ut-



0

> in :oi6

P ll. "Old



0 XO«S

(i 0042

• 0 Oi

0 0042

0 0(11"



ootiio





I S( P \ RSL

DUP-15

SB-34<>

Analyte

Units

6

10





Industrial

Residential

12 10 20i6

12 1». 2K.thetie

mg/kg

ll-O

24

0 4-> I OS's



mg/kg

ft.OO

0 «'»

• Out.4 1 ' - 0 ! |s

wis-1 MXhiit'uethene

mg/kg

0



-



V'n> 1 ehit-Hik

LiiiZ

1.7



0 Ot> 1 X



SB >0"
0-i

SB-307

'

_SB-W

10

10 C -01(, I ill ,| 201o , 10 20hi

54

T

o 0(Mh

0 nil*

T

<0.125

0 i> 4%

2_i_

0 '104-.

<0.0018

o km "

SB-307

SB-307 | SB- KSH

20

——		

10/31/2016

LZITZr. i-_

10 31 n010 ; 10 lh 2< 1

>iorj_

<0.004?
<0.0047

i) 1(0)0

0.93
0.0495
0.0865

• n ui!>s

Ii {?

<0.43

932
<0.17

Anilyte

i 1 OlUkhiOKXtK.R."
| I ikl(i(H(K'!hcnc 	

lis I,"" Didil.it ktin.tie
. \ on I ihlvHiJv

I mts

I SI m RSI

mg/kg	100

nig ki; ]	t> ok

tin1 k j |	2iOO

H.ii kt:	1

24
0')»
160

lj (>;w

SB-308

DI.iP-6

\B-»iA _

12

10 ?(. 201ti

lnjii	! Hi >ti 20lo _

0 2"! | 0 2 hi ' 0 2«'i

IHM

1.9
<0.046

Analyte	|	Units

!cti>icl;l«'fiKiheiic	^	iii.1, k«

(nciiloii'cllii'it _ 		,	mi ki'

ih ! 2 [>Rnl.'nntlh'»ie	i	m,1 k_>

1 Sl'.P V, RSL

\ m\ I chloride

Analyte



lilt' kt.

ll Hits

IndustHiil H< sulrtitMl

_ -

£. lt(i	0 lj4^

2:>0ii	loo

I 7	II u50

ISFIHRSL

fmlusltial I Reskietilial

KlKrliloHvlhtnc

my k.j ^

100^

rnchll-R-CtlK'IK

mji ku i

6.00

c;s-l,2-Didi1i'iiKlhcoe

mg/kg

2 31 >n

24

_094_

160

SB ^ I '1

10 '4 20It'

_

_ 0 1 <1
<0.131

«11 us ; ;

_

J_0 2 ! 20 lt>
	 I

_ (1 L"7

<0.12

4

tup

1 JO
Onj
]0 2j_2olfT
0 <52
411 n _
(-in

>) 0|s,<

SB *i.S

*1

10 ' 1 """Hi , 10 24 2016
1 11

SH <08

f 2 4

> iO?n^i>Mi

I 2.95

0 |1>Z_

0 1 >5

0 O05i s

I Mi

O-i

JO 2;"2015

11 nu-
ll 12o

<0.120
0 04 TO



0.091.
0 0056
0 Ot.5(<

(HH41
n Ons(,

SB-309
j»0 _
10 2(- 2010

_

0 258 _
2.28
<0.0451

sB-io«

SH 'o»i

10 :o20its • 10 2(1

0

1

0 ) 00

0 S41



s ¦» >

0.0438

0(01

SH iM

o-l

JO 25 :ol(»
" " 1.51
_

<0.110

SB-31"	j	SB 31 ' _

1	_ __l"

1 (¦ 2J 2_Olo	-J> 24 20 to

"0	J~o2.U

0 004s	iuh-42

0 0045 i-i'o42

(hns	1 0 (Hi r

S!\-M'i_	, >B 
-------
Table E-,

Wahm right Operable Unit

Analyte

1,4-Dioxane (tng/kg)

Units

USEPA RSL

Industrinl

24

Ke\HkntwJ_
s (

SB-305

SB-305

0-1

l,4-I)io\ane

Sii-»u^ ' \B 30*

r

i:

:o

JO 3i 2d i_6

- l

lit 31 , Hi M ;n|h

<0.411

0 4.'!

mmi;

0-1

Ml

SB-305

	34		

lo ij Jolt. f !H 2(v20io " )02n2nJ<"

mi i"l) I 0 414 ' i) t2(i

SB-312





USEPA RSL

sb-ip

SB-317

SB-? 17

Mi-321

SB-321

SB-321

Analyte

Units

t ^

10

21



ft

10 i





Industrial

Kwufrntml

J,014 -nl°

0 nn

10 21 2>tU)

Hi 21 2ut(>

to 2> 2ol(!

HI2V2016

Iti 25 2olo !

1,4-Dioxane (mg/kg)

mg/kg





0411

1! '21

<5,422

<0,418



Mi- ?2 1_

21

!i.VHK 1 IhK Kt

Units

mg/kg

USEPA RSL

Industrial MesMenliil

24

5.3

Mi-
21

to ^ ;oi<-

<0.424

_SB-324

\n\-ic?

o-i

M\\

10, ^5 2o!h 10 2" 2o!« I in " 'din

<0.369

<©,420

-4-

MW-102

\m-i-o i M\\-in* !
_ t~ ,, T

12

io 20i6

_ 0 42m _
_SlM2l~~

"" 1!:' ^

H)_25 2d lf>
0 II t__

~nt I'."

SB-312

\B-«1

SB-(24

8

1" 2> 2(ii6
"v. Il«!

10 26 2ol6
0 I

PfJ'J

8

\B-jU " _

iM	

Id 24,2d 16_
• 0 3>)K	

12

Hi 2> 2(111 , ill ^ 10|r\

on	Ti nil

I0?7 2iMh | jo	Hi | H> ^ 2 2T 2"M>

" j "(i ^'8

H-7

-------
Table E-4 Soil Sampling Results October to December 2016 for (WOli)

Wainwright Operable I nil

Chromium



Units

IJSEPA RSI

SB-307

.SB-307

SB-311

SB-311

SB-M i

SB-314

SB-311

Aiiilyte

04

1

0-1

4



4

0-1





Industrial

Residential

10/31/2016

10/31/2018

1U 20 lh

10/26/2016

10/24/2016

10/24/2016

10/24/2016

{ liiommm, 1 otal

mg/kg

na

na

15.9

19.6

29.4

20.9

1.6

29.2

10.6

( hionmim lie\a\alcnt

nig/kg

,0

0,3

<0.5

<0,5



<0.5

<0,5

15

<0.5

Amiilyte

Chromium lota

Units

Chromium Hc\a\aknt

J I.1SEPA RSL

SB-MS

Dup-2

SK-C3

SB-323

Mi-326

sK-326

>-l



n /

4

0-1

4

i iiuh -iHti! KcMikniial

10/24/2016

10 M :ou.

t;« M "M'h*

10/25/2016

10/24/2016

10/27/2016

,14 Hi!

15,1

i

i ;:

18.7

17.3

:t x

-.0 0.3

<0.5



<0.5

<0.5

5.5

- 0,5

E-8

-------
Table E-51 tsif tried i ll^snUs o}" (i^oinuhvisH-r Mo«ifonnj> %\ vi*. Smnptirm (\\ Or"





Apr-92

ESE 2001

32

1 J

NA



-





ivfay~92



35

ND

ND

,



AAB

23.42-32 42

May-95



1,900

ND

ND

.

-

Dec-98



1RH

wn

ND



.





Sep-99







ND









Dec-99







ND









Apr-92

E&E 2001





NA



-





Mav-92







ND

.

-





May-95







ND



.

AAC

36 05-46 05

Dec-98







ND



-





Sep-99







ND

-









J>A * u <





-

ND



MW-BBC

47 3^ J

Jyn-11

EPA 2014





.

1 74









KU .CO'





ND















H

NA



-









19



ND



-









6.2



ND



.

MW-5B

3085-408

Dec-98

_

ND



ND









S. P » '



">



ND



-





Dec-99



3.56



ND



.







EPA 2014

ND

NP



ND

-





E&E 2001

3,207

646

J



-









620

170





-









1,500

420





.









2,100

700

Ul)



-

MW-178

29.1-39.1





1,500

240

~"1



.





Jl

*>46 I 17-3

216 J



-











0.902
J



•







EPA 2014







ND









I 99







39 7



.









181

74.8

7.52

J



-







EPA 2014

4 28

128



NP

-

MW-44BR

67 93-77.93

i E&E2001

ND

ND

ND



-

ND

ND

ND





Notes:

L	Concentration biased tow

yg/L

e to indicate an analyte concentration or if art analysis for the analyte

was conducted
J	Estimated concentration

ND	Not J*- u i ted t vi' tk>ri 'i,nits provided in parentheses for some

list n'ti
NE	Not

PCE

ICE

Data Sources:

E&E). 2001 Phase 11 Remedial Investigation, Vaiiey Park ICE Site, Operable Unit 2,

Va>lrv' > M \r „ i-

U c 1 on im ot „ i t tun - Agency H'A f-s-i W*>r Summary and Groundwater Data Summary Tables.
t_ fcT,oi)i siv r o^i h U

x PMilij1 s 0 ,f *H
-------
Table E-6 Results of Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2016 (WOI!)

Waifiw right Operable Unit

Groundwater Results* 2016

VOCs

Units

MCL'



MW- \ \i

M\\ -BUR



MW-10I

MW-102

MW-102
Duo



1 2 ? Mli.

NV

o 12nii,



11 ' ^Olo

12: ;ui(i

us-i,M)ichlotoothene

uig/L

0.07

0 (Kb

W

lUWK."



II

- 0 ->

1 ciraciiloKK'thciic

mg/L

0.(105

• fHlth

NS

0.05«>



U OOi

- o otw

1 nchlornclhtik-

mg/L

0,003

i)(HIS

\\

tun 66

i.##54

O.OOfW

0.0059

Yms 1 chKifkk

mg/L

0.002

<1 I'D.

NS

< 0.002

< 0.002

u i*02

* tiling

>\

11/30/2016

1 1 10 ""OH,

12 2 >")(<

i • ^ :oiii

i: i :o!d

i: ? 20It.

us-1 .'-iKhloiocthene

ma l

0,07

n on

0.00*5

< 0.005

< 0.005

0 I IfIs

- (11)05

005

1 Uiaehlmoclhuij

ing i

105

0,2

tU»3»f>

l! 00 s

11 n(iS

h 	 -

0 00s

- 0 (MIS

0 005

1 tichkucunhcik*

nisi'

0.(105

§,0531

0.0104

I) 0!K

< 0 iHn

0 005

O(>0<

• 0 005

\ im 11 hint k)>;

m» L

0,002

< ©.002

0 002

"<002

< 0,002

(">02

< 0,002

•02

>\O< s

RSL**

1 4-i)io\,mt.

mg/L

0.00078

<0.001

< 0,001

< 0.001

< 0,001



NA

NS = Not Sampled

"Maximum contaminant level, as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act

•Regional Screening Level based drinking
water

E-10

-------
Table E-7 Results of Vapor Intrusion Samipltiig (WOU)





Chemicals

1! nits

_

cis-1 2-)>idiloioothene

(.ig/in5



Iciuchlotoetlnluw.-

—.—^—
up 111



'hichloicultj leu.

Lj-



YNaiim right Operable I Hit			

\ apm Infri	oor Vie Sumtnui j_ (Resident)		

Niimbci at	t MiecntKitioiiN ' MTM'tiiti" I «els

Mm " Mux '

023

Detections

Samples

4

4



4

4

	

U,11

1.6

Residential v ISL

mi WHIR

It

0.48

Exceedance

No

No

Yes

V*por Intrusion liuluor Vir < l 1 < oncentriitions
Detections ! Samples Mm Mas

screetiitm I e\ els
Residential \ LSI

Exceedance

ck-l 2-l>iJtkikHthcfie

Hg/m3

1

4 1 0.23 f

o 2 >

no v .titie

No

I eiukhliirtviinlcnc

pg/in5

1

1 | 1.76 1

J

11

No

I rithloiiviln lute

ii.* 'it

1

1 { u tX3 1

t> IS>

«

No

Chemicals

ok 1 .'-I »ichlnti>o(hi.!ic

1 CtniCllIOHKlllUV
I uohli>Hicthcnc

Units

pg/ni3

Hg/m3

Hg/rn'

Vapor Intrusion ¦ hitimir UrSumtiiarj m

'1

20

1.1

1,3

ma

No

"1 eliachloroetlnkiie



2

H)

10.2

217

47

Yes

"1 ticliloioetln 1cm.

(ig/ttr

12



2.4

"*1 "2

3,0

Yes

\ »i»or Intrusion - Silislnb Smiinian (Office)

Chemicals

Units

Number of 1 Concentrations



Screening 1 e> els

Exceedsnee

Detections

Samples j Mm . Mm



Comnierci.il \ ISL

1 etmchlokx'ihviie

pg/ni3

8

8 ! 1 l 1') ] hHOiHl

i i

«>i' 0

Yes

I uctilohK'thetw

Hg/rn3

4

8

16

Yes

Vaimr Intrusion - Subslali Mint mars tW alehouse)

Chemicals

. Number of 1 ( oiicutti minus Seret nine 1 e\ els
l,BrtS 1 Detections : S«,p)es i M„, 1 Commercial VISL

Exceeilaice

ci\-1.2-1 >iehloroeth ! • li.iuit [ 360

¥es

'1 iichluioethene

(111 111 19 f "(l ' u 1 '*> 1 ; lb

Yes

MSI - \ aprti Inlrmioii \cieemiig i CakuWoi il Si I' X M,n ?0iH s«h wijMt t t IPC- chemical of potential concern na = not
applicable, iii> \ 1S1 scieomnji lesd av thou are no |kM.\1v il* v.ilr^s n.nbihc

!.-! I

-------
Table E-8R< *"	'*	"

037

>8 *5| V

-<»d IX i ¦" O

Dee-OS

\U km/K

NA

2.6,1

41

51.1

5 U

038

| Hi>
-)<• IKv'OI

Dee-OS

\kkir!/k'

."•DO).

NA

23 j

310

25 U

25 U

039

<

Dec-05

\k'km/lt
_'00»

NA

NA

85

23 3

25 U

(MO

•>i> m iy,~*

Dec-05

XUknt/ic
200<>

NA

32

32

5 U

5 U

041

iK I iS
->>n H'O-t'

Dec-05

\lckll)/u-
1OlM>

NA

54

170

42

5 (3

042

! ¦*!
IS i.' I.

Dec-05

\ll kill/ic

NA

54

85

48

5 U

043

35.551179,
->M 18'OXi

r»ra-"«

\ K'k i o ''k

NA

100

' 1.100

SOU

2,200

044

<8 Ss | ,so

ut* ts* '14

.... • Mckiti'ic
Dcc-f-i

1

NA

250

35®

25 II

190

045

^ S SS1 | N
.Oti in ;.\ss

' Vc <|S

Mi. kin'iv
•0>H<

NA

3.1 3

62

5 U

500

>S|US51^>»

Dec-05

\!v kiil/tc

NA

5 LI

3.8 J

5 U

970

047

?X ^">1 io?
m) ix t ik i

Dec-05

\k'kl(l/lC

NA

511

5 U

511

270

048

38.551217,
.'h> IX UXO

Dec-05

Xkkm/n.
."•iHln

NA

6.1

33

Sii

340

049

i.S *>>l I'lfi

\»It ix.^ll

Dec-05

\kK in/ic
2006

NA

5 U

5 IS

5 U

69

050

vS | ?"* !

->«( tx;sn

Dec-05

Mckm/ic
200o

NA

130

100

5 U

5 U

051

>K is 12^1
-l)0 IS1S7U

Dec-05

Mckiti/ir

2006

NA

640

180

25 U

25 U

1 of 3

-------
Table E-8

053

1

•><0 !,S i(,2 1

IKs-05

\M\'tl/k

NA

28

24

5 U

12

054

'S 100
«0 45 '.7(,2

IX c-05

Mi km/k-
\i0<>

NA

92.0

27

25 U

2511

055

iS >S|!>X

1 k c-05



NA

13®

18

5 1)

5 U

056

i,S 5M2KO

«>u 48^,12

t kc-05

McKmu ic

2s«i<<

NA

920

190

25 U

25 U

057

1 IS?
>Hl 4sr-u

! kc-05

fvtckin/H'
2(HK>

NA

30

16

5 tl

5 U

059

!X *S]1*7

.1)0 J8.W0<

1 kc-05

McKm/ic

20n<<

NA

8.9

2.5 J

5 U

14

060

58 sqiw-
-w ir-'ts

IK c-05

NkK m/ic
2 i«l

NA

5 U

5 II

5 U

5 U

062

SX 51122')
-lH) 4Xiiw>8

IVc-05

Mckm/ic

Moo

NA

260

160

13 U

13 tl

063

is

-"(I (S^MIS

1 icc-05

Mckill/k

MA

190

140

511

5 U

064

38.551214,-

iH) ISi(i8(

1 iec-OS

NK kiti/ic
2'It Hi

NA

1«0

5U

5 U

5 II

065

?K

-'HI 483tv~

i Kc-05

Mckm/ic

;oo<>

NA

360

25 U

25 U

a,,

066 		



N

2<1H(.

NA



150

25 U

25 11

06?

<) 1S362 *



M.km/ic
2m «>

NA

930

96

25 U

25 U

068

iX >*>111(111
-DO IJUMi'

1 »ee-05

Mckm/ic

2006

NA

1,900
1

170

25 U

2«i 11

069

iS -><<101
-•hi IVni^8

c-05

Mvkm/io

20i <«

NA

7600
E

270

25 U



070

*A i^M'v

-*«! 483h"<<

1-06

M.-km/ie

200i»

NA

38,000

1,000
U

1,000 U

1,000 u

071

IS *%¦> 11>4

i-06

Nk km/ic
20ti«i

NA

1,400

460

25 U

25 U

2 of 3

F-11

-------
Table F.-S Results of Pi

>n Raropliag	t'0IT0:

Bettlii

073

(s s^ior
-<•)() 4S»«8<>

Jan-06

Mcknuie

HOUb

NA

700

230

25 U

450

074

^SlOld

Ian-06

Mckin/ie

NA

420

440

SOU

1,400

075

^\i\22
-wu IS U>S4

Jan-06

McKin/ic

Imx,

NA

3,100
E

980

25 U

1,700

076

*8 ^I0n
vh»

Jan-06

McKinzie
2006

NA

1,400

2SJ

SOU

SOU

077

>8 *5liW
51 lo*

¦l>0 183 4Xi

Jan-06

\kkin/ie
:oti6

NA

140

8.2

5 U

5 U

079

-W (X < 'SI I

Jan-06

Met, m/ic
;ihm,

NA

390

130

2511

1,800

080

5* 1 M

'«) l,SU4«

Jan-06

\kkni/ic

NA

25 U

25 I)

14 J

2,600

081

;s ^mo>\

•1)0 4S < - "

Jan-06

\kkin/ic
?0()(,

NA

21

6

5 IJ

880

082

3fi 10

4(1 18 C

Jan-06

\kkm/ic
2006

. NA

130

26

5 O

970

Notes'

.Ml concentrations are in units of micrograms per kilogram (pgJsg).

I't h^N

NA
ND

Data Qualifiers:

E
J
U

Rct'creuecs

i Mekiti/ie < instruction, Inc. (McKinzie). 2006. Soil Removal Report, Valley Park TCE Site 0112, "Valley Park, Missouri.
Uclolvr 11.

3 of 3

E-14

-------
Son Bonrm j 1 aimua'





*5S-^:5Ss;^X



Sife ;
tresis* '..'



- 	.'....

TCI

¦ ;'7*1*31 . ,

DCS



S-l
S-2

38551034,

6579-1

6579-3

9/15/2014

3

5



6 U

	

6 U

							

-9048 «32

(>574 4 1

26

29



__

6.8 U



S-3

« S5J084

65 79-5

9 15 ,M|4

3

5





5.7 U'



-^>0 4838 16

6~* W-6

22

25





6.7 U



S-4

*8 5510CH1

6*>751015

6571) ,) j

9/15/2014



15





120



-90 4S3d! 1

8579-10

->•>

25





47



S-6

38 551047,

11

9/15/2014

1

- 5





7.1 U



-<¦>0 4X3 t«0

(i5"0.| 2

15

20





39

7.4 U

S-7

38 550991

6 5'» 2 ¦!

9/17/2014

13

15





6.5 U

?> -> I ¦

-«0 483575

6579-21

26

28



6.9 U

6.9 U



S-8

38.551480,
-90.482882

6570. i !-

FD

9/17/2014

3

5



6.3 U

6.3 U

6.3 U

657" 15

3

5



__

7.6 U

76 11





6579 1 S



26







7,1 U

7.1 U

S-9

38.551561,

hi"9-l"i

9/17/2014

4







5 1 I



-90.482123



27







7.2 U

, , (i





6579-17



4



•> 8 1

__

< 8 (i

5,8 I)

S-10

38 55155,

nSW-ls

9/17/2014

26



|.M!

6.5 11

6 5 11

6 11'

-90 481757

e>5?9-18

11)

26

30



7.6 U

7.6 U

7.6 11





0579.10



3

5

6 1 ! 1

6.4 U

17

6.4 11

S-ll

38 551208,

6*79-20

9/17/2014





5 6

5.4 11

_

5.41;

-90 483832

ti57» 21

22



9 1

19U

_

4,9 U





6579-22



15 A



14

+ 8li

50

4.8 U

S-12

38,551255,

657«-2>

9/17/2014

"(

5

(> f> 1

(» 6 1!

6.6 U

6.6 U

-90.482828

6^79-26

25

27

s u

8 U

12

8 1.1





6986-1



0

5

11111

10 LI

10 1

10 U

SB-01

38.551493,

tmh-i

12/15/2015

5

10



6.5 U

6^(1

u

-90.482588

o98ti- !

10

15

8 i 1



8.3 U

8.3 I!





6986-4



15

3



7.1 li



7.1 U





6l>8o-5



i

5

6 0 ' 1

0 V

6 0 ' 1

6.0 U

SB-02

38 551528.

h9X6-f>

12/15/2015

5

10



5 6 1

5 6 I'

5,6 11

-90 482412

698!)-7

10

15



- *1-

5 •> J!

5,7 U





6^86-8



15

20

- 8 1

5.8 11

5.6 U

5,8 I)

1 of 5

E-15

-------
Table E-9 Results of Soil Sampli ' »2014 to 2016 (OU02)



Soil

I atiuule.

/IJitfiplelB"'

;s;:





; f i



:v/

(/iljssndi-

























6086-»



0

5



O ( l r

D -} I

(.4

SB-03

31551545,

OOSh-lD

12/15/2015

5

10

8.7



5 'Mi

5 911

-90,482313

f>08Ml

10

15

7.1



03 (i

t!<|l





om-12



15

20



5 0 (.

5 0li

5 9 11





6i)86-I i



0

5

*>* 1 —l





5 H'

SB-04

38 55)441.

6»86-14

12/15/2015

5

10

4 5 u

1 5 U

4 > I:

4 5 l'

-•W 482221

6m-15

10

15

26

5 8 11

- 8 U

5 8





6«8t>-16



15

20

56



14

5.3 U





<>086-P



0

5

5 (> 11

5 (, I'

U_ s 6

5 t>

SB-OS

38.551383,

(>V8h-lX

12/15/2015

5

10

10 11

I0U



10 U

-90.482210

(NS6-11)

10

15

32

ti 2 1 ¦

«> 2 J'

IJ





00i>6- 20



15

20

7*1

'Mi

-j v

7 .<(1





(,YK6-21



0

5

6 1 1





6.1 U

SB-06

38 551

rW8o-22

12/16/2015

5

10

5.211

5 2 ll



5.2 U

•¦90 482704

(,m-"'3

10

15



5 9 11

U!(l

3 -24



15

20

S 0 I

5 9 I 1

i 9 V

5 9 U





(>^86-35



H 0

5

f> 0 I

6 0 11

h 0 l'

60 U

SB-07

18 551425.



12/16/2015

5

10



hill

6 1 U

h 1 h

-90 4X23 H>

6^80-2 "

10

15

5.3 L

s Mi

¦1 li

5 5 U





<>986- 28



15

20

43) U

! 'Mi

} y(i

40 |l





<>98(>-2«



0

5

4.8 U

4,813

48U

481

SB-08

*8 551 <(-2.

O98M0

12/16/2015

5

10

5.7 U

H 7 1

5 ,M'

5 7 I!

->«) 4S2537

6"8i i-3 i

10

15

5.4 (i

5 4 I 1

•> H'

5-11'





(,<>86-32



15

20

5.7 I)

1 ' n









6»86-M



0

5

5.2 I)



!2 II

5 ' V

SB-09

38 551*12

t>u8(>-34

12/16/2.015

5

10



151

1 M<

4 5 Si

->MI 1X251')



10

15



4 7 1'



4 " I





6086- ili



15

20



6 M I

6 1 1

62 11





WMhf



0

5



100 11



300 1'

SB-10

38.551431

i><-)8f> 18

12/16/2015

5

10

400 Ij

wo 11

<00 I

UK) (1

-90.482107

(>98<>-W

10

15

5 ill 1

-> 011

'

5 |||l





o«to>-40



15

20







5 CM i





(>081-4!



0

5

Q 4 b

•>4 1

9 HI

i) | U

SB-11

38,55l4(tf\

dm-12

5

10

i 8 11

5 8 1

1 8 U

5 8U

-00,482125

(<98o M

1 Z/ 1 OI ZD 1 3

10

15



5.0 U

Mill

^ 0 U





6986-11



15

20



5.5 U

5 5 V

.->5 11

2 of 5

E-16

-------
'! able Mi Results oi S«»jf Sampling from 2«I4 jo 2016 itH



.»() 1K2IM

6>)Hiv 1 '

12/17/2015

ICS

IS





5.0 U





.J





4,5



IS

20

h (i i





(, i i i 1



W.V \J







(i«)S64-J



0

5







5.7 II



5.7 tl

, - .

SB-13

38.551451,



12/17/2015

5

10







> i



-> ; i

>, I

-90,482178

>*»)Xiv \M





U





(i"Si. <¦*



!~ is

20

i I U



11 u





i -





h<>Xn-'\ \



0

5

0



I'M1



i r<(K (-•> 1

12/17/2015

5

10

vM1





5.2 U



* 2 11

5.2 U



!>%(>

10

15

¦< (> I





M»U



5 (> ll

> •> I





t.'iSu *t>



15

20

6.0 U





6.0 U



i< <¦ u

nui





"7



0

5

5.2 U





5 ' 1 i



5.2 U

i i

SB-15

38.551433,

 vs

12/17/2015

5

10

" I





5,7 U



s ; r

"• 1

-90.481968



10

[ ¦>







5.2 U



i 2 !•

n ; j i





h«X<> W)





N'







5.1 U



5.1 U

5.1 U





i.DXii-M



0



t> S 11





•> X 1)



« 1,5 b

SB-16

38 551 .*•}(>,

^>X(>-f-3

12/17/2015

5

10





l 3X

iil»H6 (> 1

10

15







5 1. 11





,6 1





6<>XMi I



15

20

5.3 U





S3 ii





i i 1





t*S





5

y 1 11





^ I 11





5.1 II

SB-17

3K ^il '(*>

'>!>

12/17/2015

5

10

11 u





11 u





11 U

.00 48^10

6~

to

15

¦> l- i ¦





5.6 U





5.6 U









15

20

5,7 LI





5,7 U





5.711





6US().|>>>



0

5

11 0





11 U



<11



SB-18

551 147.



12/17/2015

5

10

5,4 U





5.4 U





> 11

-<¦)(! 4X2X21.

fi'Wo-'l

')

15

6.4 U





6.4 U



6.4 U

(>-!('









15

20

5.6 U





5 t> I





< h ('





7121-1



0

5







5 < I



__

s .1



18

-w 18:117

7121-2







3.7 U





3.7 U







SB-21

"I?! i

-ri "5

5/3/2016

— —

— .—

X

_

V> '4

—

—

3.4 U

3.3	II

3.4	U

-

5 .1 1'







7121-6



y

5







3.5 II



32



SB-22

1X5-1524

I7121-7

5/3/2016

5

10

8.7





; <¦) t



9



-'Hi IX.Ki'O

¦*1 '1-8

10

15

12





3.2 U



3.7













20

mio













3 of 5

E-17

-------
Table E-9 Results of Soil Sampling from 2014 to 2016 (OU02)





















B&iiftfi IP

Latitude, J

S^ssle JD i
Gtei



\«6iiip7

3

ihfifit'ijs)/: '¦

J

: -' ICjSp/l

' ^#P!/VP-

' '

': :m3ES:'i: \

' -' ': 'S :

' 'SfijjC 7
.. /lOfillilKfc





























7121-10
7121-201*







to.











SB-23



5/3/2016

0



5



3.3 U

3.3 U

3.3 U

3.3 U





>

10







< -> i









10

15







-> S i





. , . , , i



15

20













7PI-U



0

5







'J i !

SB-24

38.551455,

:pi-p

5/3/2016

5

10



¦> t



1 I 1

-90.482082

713! -m

10

15



311









7121-17



15

20

3.1.

3 U









"131 IK

"1



0

5

3.1 U

3.1 IJ

3.1 U

3.1 U

SB-25

18 143<
-»t> is:tr;

?P| l<)

5/3/2016

5

10

3MI'

7 « 1'

2.9 U

3 1



;131-,ti



10

15

4 l, 1

3.6 IJ
3.2 U

K







"131 M



15

20

l fi

7S _







'131 13



0

5

!SU

i S I'

? S (i

i 8 I"

SB-26



" P1 -31

5/3/2018

5

10

ISi)

mi

5 X 1

3.8 U

'HI IK31 ir>

7131-31

10

1.5

1111

1 1 u

1 -1 1

4 1 1





"131 ^



15

20

; 1.

J u

\ (1

3 U





7Pl-2<>



0

5

<3 1'

3.2 U

; M'

3.2 U

88-2?

ix i-iw

"PI 3"'

5/3/2016

5

10

3.6 U

3.6 U

;mi

3.6 U

as^o'Hf

">131 38

10

15

nu

3.4 U

ui'

3.4 1.1





7| >)



P

20

\ fU 1

3.8 U

< 8 1

3.8 U





'131-^1



0

5

n

4.2 U

L

4.2 IJ

SB-28

»s ^hin

7121-31

5/3/2016

5

10

P

3.4 U

i lit

1 » I"

»o is:

•P1-S3

10

15

8 Mki

' HI1

•ill)







"13!--



15

20

8 Oild

3.1 U

sin







7121-34



0

5

21

3.6 U

^ ^ i



SB-29

¦>> j

7121-35

5/5/2.016



10

16

3.4 U





>H> 1X7!^

"131-50



1.5

4,1

— f,

, -t •







7] n ; ¦





20

5.8

3.2 U

-> i







717 MS



0

5

22

3.6 II

11> r

< i) l

SB-30

^ "i"1! ">"¦()

""131- •>'<

5/5/2016

5

10

35

¦> 3 1

« 3 I

1 3 1

.<¦>(' IXM-J.S

"131 !'i

10

15

24

3.1 IJ

5 1 II	

! 4 U

n i>





""131-41





20

,

	iii—_

11





-Pi-P



0

5

Mil

3.1 U

LImlZ

mi

SB-31

'<8 >S|(sOI.

7 31 P

5/5/2016



15

: 8 1

| < 8 1

. mi1



•'HI W3062

¦>Pi i!



20

: 4 r

; 3.4 U

11 (

f 141





7121-45





10

< 11!

' 4 I

1 !4I

PI 1

4 of 5

E-18

-------
Table E-9 Results of Soil Sampling from 2014 to 2016 (Ol 02)





/ 1 .£ 1 ~*HJ



0

5

HK i

 * i J ^ ™ i

3,7 U

3 >,'



90,482011

7121-53





20

IS . >81

11

.<



38.55135«

"i:i
7135 ^



0

5

! T i , 1 7 (

< - l

* ~ 1 i

SB-34



5/5/2016

5

10

5 < 1

,,l

< > i



-

"131

10

15

HI ".11

3,1 U

3,1 U



<>0 481970

7121-5?



IS

20

t 1 I , 111'

1 1 S



Notes

Ahhiovialums
Data < Juuhlicis.

ll - !'hc ,iiul\!c vwi\ mil UUcciul at or above lite tc|i»>i(me limit

UJ - The arable was not tkieetcd at or abo\e the teportiif' limit The report limit is an estimate

< Itemu.il

E-19

-------
Table E-10 Historical Groundwater M#s

rig Well Sampling Data (OU02)

25.7-35.7

\1W-X

MW-3B

MW-3C

MW-4B

MW-4C

NA

29.3-39.3

48.15-
58.15

26.3-36.3

42,6-52.6

_U.-v.-*S

Sep ""

I ul":1L

_ lul-x '

_

_\1,<\

oa-y

\CpJM
_1 k-C-VH

J till "1 1
_ Hii-jr

IVf-'l.S
Sep W
JX-C-'K'
_ lull-1 1_
_< k H>*>*
1 K\ •<»$

_ Ion 11
JuW:

_i >cc

Jun-II

i r\ :t?i i

i m jiioi
1 &l Nmi

\n
ND



W)

ND _

nd nd

Ml

33

20

16.7

50 5
5.81

Kd yi>{ "

			

^ lS

78



86



40



53,9



79.6

11* \ :*o14

12.3

1 .11 .'(101_

ND

1 I».\ 201 ?_
I .VI 2!!U1

1 f>\ :tn-s

ND

ND

ND

ND

M>_

ND

\j_2_

":s -

x 1
5.6

11.3

2.92
;s •)

i:o
32
17

.\SJ
1

li»"
Nl)
ND
Nil J
ND
\l>
ND
ND
ND

I' <><

M)

MP

\i)
ND

13

it

14

9.45
36.6

ND

29
325
*18

ND

ND~

ND

_N|)_

_nT>
ND_
ND

I ND

Nl >

\:d



-









ND

Nl i , Nl)



.





-



.

ND

ND

«>

ND

\l>

ND





Nl)

ND

Nl I

.







-



ND

ND

N"1

.

-

....

.

-



Nl>

h__

Nl'



.

...

-





NI)

ND

ND

.

.

,

-





ND

ND

ND

„



.



-



ND

ND

N>»

..



...

.

-

\D

ND

ND

¦







.

.

ND ! ND



Nt>

ND

ND ,



ND

ND

ND

...





i



ND

ND

ND

..



...



-



ND

NI >

Nl)

.







.



ND

ND

ND

-



...

-





ND

ND

M)

.



-



.



ND

ND

ND

...











...

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND





ND

ND

ND

.





.



_ |__nd _

ND

N'D





...



-

i ND

ND

ND

.



•

.





ND

ND

«}

ND

ND

ND

-

ND

ND

ND



-





-

ND

ND

ND









.

, ND 1 ND

ND









„

ND

ND

Ni i















ND

SIP



ND

ND



1 of 8

E-20

-------
! rtbie !I! Historic.*! (^•{jundvvaier	VVtii Saitt|'«ltti^ t>;»ia <(>t:02>

J 5 -.'{• 5 1 70 1 -10&' I 7 1 200 I ME 1 2 f. 5' I 5. f MI





Jul-87

E&E 2001

66.
4

28

wn

2 ">1

ND

4.46

-

.

-

-

-



33.25-

43.25

May-95



8,6

36



\D

ND

ND



.

.

-

.

MW-6B

Oct-97



27

7.4



Kl» ' ND

ND

.

.

.

.

.



I



7.4

ND



ND

ND

ND

.

.

_

.

„





Sep-99



6.4

8

6.4
2



ND

ND

0.72

8 J

-

.

.

.

-

MW-6B

33.25-

Dec-99

E&E2001

6.5
8

6.1

8



ND

ND

ND

.

.

.

-

.

43.25

Jun-11

EPA 2014

3.0
6

2,3
5

-

-

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

-





Jul->T

ii&E 2001





ND



2.47

N SI

ND

-

-

.

.





Mav'»













ND

ND

.

.

.

.





< Kt-r







12





ND

ND

.

.

.

.



51.65-

61.65

> v, -<>X







NI t





r_D

ND

.

.

.

.

MW-6C

Sl p-v^



6.0
8

8.2
2

5,91

ND

ND

1.33

J

1.12

J

.

-

.

.





Da



9.2
ft

8.2
6

8.31

ND

ND

ND

ND

-

.

.

-







EPA 2014

It

8 1





M>

nd

ND

ND

ND

ND









	i





















MW-TB

NA

lul 8."

i iVi :ou)

ND

ND

vn

ND

\l>

ND

"

.

.

,

.





ND



N1 >

NI)

\l '•

ND

"

.

-

_

.





Fiil-S-

> .\i .in,i

ISA



ND

-> s

* N'

31



-

-

-

-





N(.H



FTi



.

\l >

Nil

ND

ND

.



.

.

.





1 W-T



6



t (

N; >

ND

15

_

,

-

.

.

MW-7C

46.0-56.0

•)X



ND

3f>

Nil t

NI <

ND

\l >

,

.

.

.

.









2.9 26.

2 J I 1

4.68 J

ND

ND

6,67

1.12
j

-

-



-





1



6.1

n

42,
8

-> X '

ND

1.51
J



1.19

J

-



-

.

MW-8B

N\

Jul-S"*

i :oni

ND

\D

\n

ND

ND



.

.

.

.

.

MW-8C

NA

Jul-87

I &l 2001

M)

2.6

<

ND

5.52

ND

ND

-

-

-

-

-

mw-vi

27,15-

Jul-87

(XI 2001

M)

NO

ND

ND

ND

ND

„

.

.

.

.

37.15

< )et-9?



ND

\"

ND

ND

ND

ND

.

.

.

.

.

2 nl H

-------
Table E-10:





Dec-99

[.

M)



ND

.

-





Jun-11

i in 2iH i

NO



.

ND



MW-10B



Jul-87

l«.vi :mi|

!,S ?



ND

.

-





iul-S7

f m :oiii

:»8

ir

ND

.







\k\ "5



16

i Id

13

.

-





Oa-)?



180

IX



.

-

MW-10C

52 J-62.1

Dec 08



.54

IV



.

.





Stp



—

10.7



.

-





|)cc-vK>



l) 1 N



i 4 X

l'> 8



.



MW-1IC

40.7-50.7

Oct-97



L_ M>

NT)



.





ND

ND

ND

.

-





i K c-l)S



M>

ND

ND

..



MW -1 X

i MianJt'tied)

l>il-8~

i 



-

MW-14C

44.8-54.8

Mas-1)4'



K'n

ND

ND



-

Oct-97



nd

\D

ND



-





net -»*



ND ; ND

ND



-

M\\ in

NA 1 Jul-87

1 Al .HH>)

ND

ND

ND '

_

M\\-K><

NA

III! 8*

1 A1 .'UOI

xd

\S)

ND i

-



29-31

[ ch-'S

1 ,Vi ^ul

nd

\1)

ND

-



19S

IWl">8



nd

ND

ND

...

-





Sep-lll>



Nl)

ND

ND



-

3 of 8

F-"?9

JL_/ An/ mast

-------
Table E-10 storicaf t#roundsatcr Mommriitg ril S«unf_ilm



Data (O1J02)





Feb-98



120

38





-





Dec-98



8ft

40

6.8



-

21D2

53.7-62,7

Sep-99



3.06 J

4.66
.1

3.55 J

-

.





Dec-99



70.7

32,4

I ^4 .

-

,





Feb-98



ND

ND

4,7

-







Dec-98



26

7

ND

-

-

22S

31-40

Sep-99

E&E 2001

ND

2.08
J

\i i

.

-





Dec-99



ND

2.52
J

1.59 J

-

-





Feb-98



ND

25

10

...

-





Dec-98





ND

\n



-

24D

49-58

Sep-99

E&E 2001

ND

4.03



-

-





1



1,33 J





-

-





1



SM





-

-





Dec 9S



ND

ND ; ND

-



26S

26-35

Scp-W

E&E 2001

ND

ND

0 ,vS8

J



-





1\\ l>»>



SI)

ND

1 -« l

.

-





f cb-t!X





* N

\D



-





i H. v. MS





ND



„

27S

30.7-39,7



E&E 2001

Ml

7 S *:

\n ^

,

-









nd

1.42
J

ND

-

-





KMS



ND

20

I \

-



305

32,7-41.7



E&E 2001

ND

19

ND

-

-

Sep CH1

ND

h>

\D



-





IXv •«





KM

1.59J









1 v'h-'.'K



\n

ND

s





30D

56,5-65,5

t\v-^

E&E 2001

v>



v> _







1.32 J

¦

3.27 J



-









2,421



2.05 1









1 cb ^.S



\n





-

-

33D

43-52

1), ..as

E&E 2(301

\i.



ND



-

vr>-»»





\ «



.





1 ll\







i



.

340

59-68

1

E&E 2001





. M>





1 )cc "8

ND

\' *



-



37D

44-53

1 ch--»,v

E&E 2001

ND

NO

!\,'



-

IVi-"S

ND

NO

\D

-



41S

.i < "V

Sep l*'<

i At 2Out

ND

1 the

1 78

-

-

)?

IV... n,>

ND

I7jI»

i OA /„

.

-

4113

Ml V-

W J> 1

Sip »v'

L&L 2001

ND

7.11

.

.

MW-42BR

IS 7»

Vp *w

E&E 2001

ND

ND



-



•"X 7'i

IVi «>

ND









MW-43BR

7^r„

I Sep sw

E&E 2001

s D

V, •

j 1 .U*+

-

-

K2

i Dec-99



ND

I nd"

-

.

4 of 8

P-2 >

-------
Table E-10 F" slormi! Grot

iorsi!<

. (mm)

Well Niwtlwii\ r Istwsl-

¦	ilif Jilitf

Valley 1 Eric # I













.

-

Valley Park #2

-

JuI-87

E&E 200!

.

-

.

.

.

\ alio I'atk "¦ 1

-

Jul-87

E&E 2001



337

ND

.

.

K hKwihhI »1



liiM"

I a i :m

	,	

f Al -Hi01



1 i

ND



-

"

-vv



\l>

ND

-



kllkWtHiJ •?

.

s /

ND



-

-

kiiKuuoii'!.<

.

Hil-8 "

Uti %0(I|







-

-









M)

Nl)

Nil



.

Kirkwood #4

.

W



S4'

rt



-







1 set -1*'







'1 1

..

.





Jun-11

1 PA 2014



42



\l>

_





lu'-X '





^5 5

ND

-

-

401 \I.it-.hal)
Road (McUif.



Ma\





25

Nl)



-



( k 1 >)"





41

7.5



-

iieaun

NA

ug

i Arl :ooi



17

ND





aic \muican

!i.|Ai| »



Sep •»-



ND

7.99

18.2



.





IK ,'•<»>



8.03

19.1

s 1<>





'01 Mdi.h.il"



Scj -L><



3.42 J

5.02

l •s i



.

Road
(^hii|'m001

ND

160

19

ND

-

VTMW3

29,1-44.1

Aug-01

Philip
"¦Oil)

ND

30

ND

ND

.





l.in-OX



ND

ND

.

\P

ND





\[ii IX



ND

I f\



\D

.





iul-!>S



ND

.

M)







Oct-08



ND



..A*}





Dts OS



ND

i, -D

-

\h





\m 0'»





ND

.

Nl)

MW-51

26.5-57

leb-10

EPA 2014

ND

N'D



ND

.





Ma\ 10





sn

-

ND

.





Aim-10



N'D

ND

-

ND

-





No\-l0



ND

1 00



ND







Mai 1 1



N'l >

t.8"1

-

ND

-





Jim 11



M)

i r

-

ND

-









ND

ND

.

ND



5 of 8

E-24

-------
Table E-10 1Iisfoi'ic;i{ trlroiirttluBicr "vj

- well ;{



MW-52

MW-53

MW-54

M'W-55

25.5-56

26.5-5?

27.5-58

21-61.5

iter Monitoring Well San

tplnif

Data (QU02)

' .Siittttfe . | *fei§fQit2W' ^
. JillS:. : t;. Jlfjpllt

¦' PCE '

•'ICE' •

t i

TCB-

-CMmiie

Dwaiie



&«»»

ttStlOBS

ji iiti&fdgr











2 { NE ;

lan-OK

ND

ND



ND

ND

\|ir-!8

ND

OH.

-

ND



ful-oii |

ND

ND



ND

-

OCHS

0.97

1

-

ND

ND

1 >CC-«'K

ND

ND



N'D







ND

ND

.

ND



1 cb-1"

EPA 2014

ND

ND





.

M.n-10



ND

ND

.

ND

.

\uti-1 (1

ND

ND



NO

.

No\-lu ,

ND

ND

\r>

.

M.ii-1 1 •

ND

ND

\i>

-

-



ND

ND



ND

-

Mll-I 1



M)

ND



ND

-







ND



\0



\pi-iX





N'D



ND

»

iul-US



\n



ND

-

< VH>S





ND



Di.O OH



M <



ND



Nov-09

nd

ND

.





lib in

EPA 2014

M)

\.)



ND



\1a\-lu 1



ND



ND

-



nd

ND

-

\i •



No\ in

ND

N| t





.

Mar-11



ND

ND





-

Jun-ll



ND

ND

,

ND



Jul-12



K<)

N'D



ND



jan-08 1



ND

-



ND

\t)l IK 1

ND

ND



Nl; ~'



iul <>8

ND

ND



ND ~~



(Xn-08 1

ND

ND

' M>

-

j

ND

ND

T NO





ND

ND

NO

-

Feb-10

EPA 2014

ND

ND

i ND



M

1 \D

.

ND

-

\,n-li> 1

ND

\n



ND



Mat 1,

ND

N'D



ND

.





ND

ND



N'D

-





ND

ND

-

ND

-

I.m-OS



ND

5.34





ND

pi 1H

EPA 2014

0.93

30.3



ND

lul-ON

1.02

5.8



ND

< VI-08



1.09

5.82

ND

ND

6 of 8

E-25

-------
Table E-10 lii^ioriciij (it s>usithv;ster vlojiisorifsg Wcii San:piin;

MW-55

MW-56

MW-57

MW-58

7 of 8

21-61.5

Sciccik'd
mien. al

UtketUHl
5 1-til 5
,x 5 >-(> i

27.5-58

25.5-66

lk>e-08_
No\ ul_>_

UMiL

\U>-]0_
'uip-lo
hot, -10
" Mai-11 _
Inn-1 r
mi-i;
Aug-12
l.tn-OX
1 eh-08
\pi-0X

1 >cc-u^
Nm-OQ
I ch-I0_

\»e-W
Nov 10
MH	

i Kt-i'K
I kx-VH
No\ -\ %014

1.1

Nl!

NIL

n'< i
0,97
XI >_

ii r

M>
Nl)

\n
5 -i:
i fvH

1	r

: is
Nl.

f w

(IX!

11
NO

2	5
4.03
ND

ND

EPA 2014

? IX
i 7(,

3.16

? 05
: is

1 UN

.5

II
r tg_

i_

3,31 ~

. r.

L,fi "

s 11
5
4

_t sr

T 130_
•>I0_

*L
w
n

o_

I ¦>!_

L

- i

»

i f.*0_

L

if)
i < i

5.0?

i : "4

I '

nil

L68

• t-

EPA 2014



1.86

IS 7

10.7

<¦ S".

2,4
3.0!

5 1

1.06

Nl)

O v*

ND

I >

t>vT

' 1 t S



* Vi

•n>.|

4.74

Nl»

1 n;

; Data

(QU02)







f#»



ND

6.59



\t»

.



ND

-

..

\n



-

ND

_





.



ND





ND

-

-

Nl >

.



NO

ND

.

^ !

ir

-

q s

h

		1

81.8

1 (>7



V 1

112



\X !

:n



Nl)



-

N D

-



ND





1.36





>



„

Nl >

.

.

S N»







-



ND

219

.

ND

433



ND





ND

3.85







-



-

.

ND





\D



„

\D

.



ND

.



ND

-

.

NO





ND

_

-

ND

-



ND

ND

.

ND

-

.

ND

-



ND

h~ ND







-

ND



K-2<>

-------
Table E-10:

25.5-66

10

J NC



„

ND

.

\1« 11

EPA 2014

M •

1

.

ND

.



1 M>

• i

_



.

•ill I 1

| \!>



.

ND

.

i.

| \p

M>

.

Nl)

ND

\p> I'S

f ND

1.59

_

ND

„

Jul-08

ND

o

.

ND

.

< Vt-.'X



\P

1.6

.

ND

ND





ND

0.92

-

wn

-

1 >ei -OK



ND

1 m

.

.

W
09



ND





.

Feb-10

EPA 2014

Nl >

ND

.

ND

.

May-

| M>

1,78

.

ND

-

Aug-
10



ND

ND

.

ND

-

Nov-

H)



ND

ND

-

ND

.

Mji-I 1



Nl) i Nt>
Nl> • NI>

.

ND

.

Jliil-il



.

ND

.



NP

ND

.



.

8 of 8

Notes:

L

jig/L

!)( \
DCE

E

ftbgs
j

MW

ND

NT
PCI
ft' >\

'in
BR

VTMW

Concentration biased low
pel iner

iiHlK.ikN no il.iu a\ Jlable to indicate an analyte concentration or if an analysis tor the
uiwiue wr'Hulu'ied
I Mehloiiv thune
Pulilinnethene

Wikic exceeds imitation range

i i it ht,U<\\ eH'tiikt

sin iaec

l viimated cone* i>l« ition

Mi»mu»mg well uiscd for permanent 2-inch-diametsr

vtclhl

\ot ileHvtt t) i Jeieetion limits provided in parentheses for some

IllsUmCCs}

\i>! isl.ihhsfkvl
UuachlohvihciK

1 iKliloioeihaue
I nchUiioethciit"

!WJi»ck (well installed in Mississippian-aged limestone

t>edi vk*

\ dilv.\ I vUmoli'iMcs monitoring wells.

fXila H.iuices

1	1 eolt>«-\ am! 1 nvirotinicnt. Ine (!*•'» I'hase II Remedial Investigation, Valley Park TCE Site,

Operable Unit 2. Vallc\ 1'aik. Missihiii kmc

2	I s 1 imioninenlal 1'ioieciion VjtuK-^ it I*\t 2014 Well Summary and Groundwater Data Summary Tables,
Fleet rotten) Iv provided

3	I'hihp Sen ices < \>ip il'hilipt Mt'i sue (n\e-.n«.uiii'i Repnti for the V:ille\ fechnologies Portion of lie
Valle\ I'.iik 111 siie < ipei.ihle I mi? V alies ('ark Mhsouti Novembei h<

E-27

-------
Table K-l 1 Groundwater Montioiring Well Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OU02)



Wt'8-v

1 21 201 ^

M,W-3B

"*01 1 2

1 4 2011>



7332-4

1/22/2017



(iti78 IU

' 7 v"0h~

MW-3C

Ml } <

1/4/2016



7332-5

1/22/2017



<»(»",S- 0

1 26 Ml *

MW-4B

7014-4

l 4 Mlt>



¦Ml? o

1 22 2011





1 M Mils

MW-4C

7014-5
"01 »-¦> I !)

1/4/2016
1/4/2016



~ .'r>2 >

1 2"" 2ur



(,(,78-1 !

!'?(> WI«

MW-5B

7014-6

1 4 2olh



7332-8

i ">r



Of^S-l 1

"j ?«> :o f*

MW-5C

7014-7

1 1 Ml'.



7? O-v

12: mi"



ho 'X-20

I ,<0>l'<

MW-6B

"01 1-1 i

i i :oio



7332-27

1 2> 2ur



o(rx-,i

! "¦(> 2013

MW-8C

,'014 Is"

1 ! 201(1



-7,-1 _"»|f

1 2<"01'

MW-9C

ht.-8-lK

7014-12

1 2tt *oi->
1/4/2016

'2 "Ul7

7*M}

^8

r (-

4 i M

,< r

_jx

.*>!>

39

52

J J 1

¦> t

1.0 U

I h

12

if (,

1^

0 ^ 1
0,5 U
1.0 u

7T<. 11

(i > 11

Toll

0,5 U
0,5 U

1,0 u

JlL

3,9

¦o S
36

M) "
SS it

n i

U 4

17

29

23

22

0.5 1.1
IS 5_1
1.0 II
0.5 t)
0.5 U
0.5 U
JJTU
0

"oJiJ
1,0 u
_0 ^ 1
3 5(.
1,01)

12

24

22

IF

0.5 U

0.5 U
LOU
1.5
1.5
1.7

0 >

l\l

"l.O U
0 > i
0.5 UJ

7 or

2.9

4.7

ZmZ

12
12
7.7
0.5 U

0,5 U

1 of 6

E-28

-------
Table E-ll Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

MW-10C

MW-17B

MW-17C

MW-42BR

MW-44BR

MW-51

MW-S2

J(.J4 H>
7*H-»

hi'* 1 ^

_ 'ni i ,s;

^V.mT

H1

1-1 ;
"SUOO
JX'7V! •

_">0! He

7332-10

Wi rs iii
:;«T. 4^

"*<>! I ,"(i

>4

7332-35

J.C7S 1 i
1

_-oi t-r

••oi-.fr
i n

_70!+;!S
"532 2 >

1

r l/ZJ/ZUl /



.1 A/ V



i a; u

"



i :s> mi-

i? N

17 J



131

_



1 I JOI-i

54

17



12

..



I " 1 >0I •

S 7





4

..

1.0 tl

I >-Vh i i s

33



30



0.85 U

( t Mln



51



36

..

0,5 U

1 r '01 ' , '.x

5.2



3.1



1.0

t 2f> ~111 ->

jfi

19



45

...

0.7 U

! 1/4/2016

53,6

1;

480

91

_

0.5 U

, i 2>u i

V.l



r i

8

_

1.0

! 1/26/2015

t-l <





" * U

_

0.5

1 1/4/2016

5



0.5 U





0.5

1 1/23/2017

54

1.11 u





..

1.0

! I i(..",cr«

.6

U

* 1 I !

<1 "• 1



0.5 U

j 1/4/2016

72.9

0.5 U

i 1

a 11

_

0.5 U

1 1722/201?

73

i n 11





_

1.0 u

1 "S •">)*

5





i \ ! 1

_

0.5 U

i 's mi \

1



0 *¦ 1



..

0.5 U

; •> .mk.

)



1

I'll'

-

0,5 I:

7/5/2016

33





0,5 LI

_

0.5 U

1/24/2017

5



U

1.0 U

_

1.0 u

i :t :oi'

)



!

1.0 u

_

1.0 1'

i r 201«

33



1 U

1II

_

1 u



52

l.KJ U

ii > I

1

„

0.5 I)

1/5/2016

5

>4



0.5 U

..

0.5 l)

1/5/2016

35

0.79

1.8

0.5 II

-

0.5 U

i ¦? :s)id

*\ 1





.i-li

_

U

i

* *s





1

..

1.0 u

1 2tT

47





1 O l i

_

1.0 u

1 I '< M'"

47

1.0 u



1.0 U

-

LOU

2 of 6

I1

-------
Table E-ll Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

MW-53

MW-54

MW-55

'•<> 'X-' '



iJ

u.y u

U.3 I



—

U "* I

m '8 7 s

i r 70 p

s ^

0.5 U

1- > 1



„

n ^ f

70. 1 w

1/5/2016

U

22

130

15





"01 t >0

1/5/2016

V

¦>"»

120

15



O I

'01 {-in

1/5/2016

52

24

120

15

«

U I .¦

t" ^;;"i "

i r* mp

34

1.0 U



1 t<

LOU

«

1 A T T

m.1

1/23/2017

5(





i 0

LOU

-



of.'S >

1/27/24)15

"it



i) -> i

0,5 (J

„





i >-n >

57

l) i 1



o ; {

AC 11

-



7014-27

i * :«mi.



0 S 1



n •'» n







"i'I ION

1 •< »V"(,

53

0.5 U



0.5 U



-



7332-36

i :t **oi1

34

1,0 U



: !• i1

1 ,u u





a

I 74 :oi ?

50

LOU



LOU

I 0 Li

-



6475-1

i .o ;oi i

>

600





150

„



' 6475-2

t 30 Ml 1

5

'i7o



19 0

160

--





1 t

}

(Sii



15 U

93

-



ni— t

i >0 701 1



4401



15 U

83





(V i >--1

1 Ml '01 1

)

j



l i 1







(' t

i ui:o«i

55

1 >') 1



1

72

„



j <> I* 5

4/30/2014



) 1



s ^ r

38





j utrx i

i ^ 7op



19



0 1 1

26

-



! wrx-u

1/28/2015

35

1,3



o

0,68





rui I-1 «>i

1 >, VI6

—

_



_



U



701»-!<)

I c 701(5

35

O



5

29

-

~

701 1-41

),o 7(i11>

53

' S



1.8

2,5



0 "M '

"U2-4S

1 21 7d17

34







73

-



"

1 .U,70P

55





1 o (7

58



1.0 u

;;;,i |0<

i n,7ui;

_

_





-

2.0 U

..

1 FD

-——	—

1 >0P

-

"

-

-

2.0 U

-

3 of 6

p 10
yj

-------
Table E-ll Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OIJ02)



U i s-n

4/iy/2IJi4

JV

iou J

1 t ¦

.] tJ j



Z.J U



t-rs 9

! 4.1 YU

35

340 J

17 U



_

1 1 1 T



io nujon

40

170 J





„





6475-11

4 WOl I

45



¦*0 1



_





6475-12

1 50 Yt 1

)





t 0 1

...





(.4~5 1 !

i S!>.:0! i





IS 11

7)0 '

	





M '1-14

4 30 7011

}



18 I.

-



18 U



6 <>"8-2

1 7K70H

...

_

..

„

_

..

MW-56

6678-37

i :x

36

610

7 I)



..

7 U





i .mi ¦>

5?

580

i " I

rlu

_

4.2 U



7oi i-lns | I (.

..

_

„

...

21

_



701442 1/6/2016

35

"S



46

	

0.5





1/6/2016

5N.9





140

„

0,5



;r,v _

i ^ io! •

.53





36

-

1.0 I'





i ?: mi'







20

_

1,0 u



1

1 2 7 7* 11 *







19



1.0



-101

1 '27 *>01 7

...

..

..

_

3 2

..



(KrX->l

i !nh



0,5 U

U

U

_







i v :o'<

61

0,59

2

0.5 13

„



MW-S7

""Hi 1-71

1/5/2016

36

10

5

4,8

_



"ui ! 27

I -> 2ul s-

53

9,4

5

; i

_

0.5 1





I ?: :or

5

1,0 U



i

_

r 1.0 u



1/22/2017

}

3.4

)

1.4

..

1,0 U

| < i

1/27/2015

51

U

i> ¦ 1

0 5 1

_

u

MW-58

tt'> 'X-*7

r-j- J? ,()(S

5

0.5 U

t>

U •> 1

_

0.5 U

'01

M]i»

35

I 1

ih 1

0 s t

..

0,5 U



"01 i-M

1 •* Mid

M

! '

Oil1

0 < I

	

0.5 U



W.7S ^

1 -01*,



0 73

1

ui4



0.5 U

MW-59

"hi }-; •% 11

9

„

0,5 II

4 of 6

F-31

-------
£-11 Groundwater Monitoring Well Sampling 2014 to 2(1

s

e*

p

c

Ms? I



¦Lsnitik!®

Siiapte IS'

^, list©

¦ Slilltplg

;jcpl!: ill

• , ;J:fcEv

• , lifJB...'"





Maxiiitit! da#

mmmiUml

	







'' *is



MW-59

7332-32

i :> "on

31



1.0 U

l.OU

_



"!.? 1-Ai

,___

51

tor

1.0 u

1,0 I)

_





6678-35

1 2S> 201 s



1 8

A I

1«

„

0 S I



6678-36

! :h ;o! •>

52

1.6

I X

1 !>

_





66 "8 * 0

i 1820;^

35



0.5 U

1 -1

_

0 5 I



'01 1 IS

1 'i 20] 0



o ^ 1

.1,8

(1 \ l>

_

o 5 I

MW-60

7(11 1-W

1/5/2016

52

-



(11 (

o 5 11



"in i-?o
1 l!

1/5/2016

52

0 ^ 1

0.62

„

o > r





i ;j

34

1.1

2.1

1.2

„

l.OU



-io :<>

1/23/2017

-I

1.0 u

1.1

l.OU

_

l.OU



*

i :x :m>.

..

	

	

_



_



11

i ;s '01s ! 35

0 1

U

\ 0.5 U



0 iU



h*>7K~42 1 2K ^0ls

55

0,5 U

0.5 U

u

_

0.5 U



<><»""!(-*i | 1 IS .'III*-

38





_





MW-6I

701 t-105

1 t> 201(. ,

..

_

„



-

701!-<0

) 5 ">0I()

35





1.5



0 5 11



"Oil ^1

l.^OLh

55







_

0 «< 1





i M-iin:

i 2; 2or

32





_

: o (•





52





-

I 0 l



"u:-io:

i 2 T 201"

.

„

_

_

2.0 U

..



1

1 IS ^u!">



_





_

..





1 28 2oH

41

0.5 1.)



0.5 U

_





Mi"X !•<

i ^

1 b 'ill'*

61

1.7

o * r

h 1.2

_





7014-104

..

_

	

..

u



MW-62

7014-12

1 v201(>

s

l.i

u

0.6

..

0.5 U



";p is ' i 2} 2oi;

S(.

1.5

1.0 u

! .0 U

_

l.OU



¦n V-ts-

1 :< 'ntP

56

1,3

1.0 u

LO U

-

l.OU



7u:-itp,

1 2 >201 -

_

_

¦

-

¦>(11

-

5 of 6

I

-------
Table E-ll Groundwater

i¥e 11 Sampling 2014 to 2016 (OU02)

MW-63

i.i r\

indue in



/ 0-+0

i > <¦> u ' i .i



U.J u



Kf.J  U



6678-47

i :x Jul-:

383

3,2



2.8

_

0.5 U



6678-6

i ,\s ;o! i

56.7

_

	

..



..



7014-103

i .'0(0





_

	

U

..



7014-34

15 :oih

41





"• 4

..

0.5



7014-35

I V.lff

61

X



'» ft

...

0.5 U
_





I :< jui •

39

U





_





7332-30-
FD

i s -

39

1.0 u



LOU

-

1.0 u



7332-31

r , ij

59

1- 1 s



U

..

1.01



7332404

i ?i)i ••

..

_

_

..

u

...



7014-44

1 (. ?Uil-.

-

6.9

3.4

16

-

0.50 U

h ul r>

Notes.

All concentrations are micrograms per liter (ng/L).

E-33

-------
Table E-12 Direct Push Groundwater Sams





rroio 201-4 to 2016 (OU02)

• S8ili®l*Pi^ -I-'-- • ' •"""	^.-"V

. ¦	!	"UllpOiHlUS

luiili

GWl

OW2

GW3

GW4

OWS

38.551273,
-90,483390

38 5M222,

-<>(! 4S3 V

38.551158,
-90.483363

3X r>?iot4
-do is.i wo i

(r "l> l,!J_

u\\M3_
(AVI-<3

LP
uftl 43_
i ,V» 1 <3_
c\\ 1 c*3_
3_

UU '-13

i h _
»>\\ 2 *3_

(>i"9- !03

(i\\ '¦ »8

I.U3-43

.,iu:r

1 (,\\ ! M

LP

^ 4 S V\ '

GW4-38

1 < ,\\ i 4 1
S.U I S»_
t,W i-"«4
i n

u\\ IM

3K

-i>o tx3>:i

<<\WU

ciu •<-1;

(r\\ ^-4 r

y\...

G\\* 52""

G\\ vCO



62. S

5 II

5 U

5 U

5 U



a

71

I I"

36

1

9/16/2014

33

65

1 U

34

1 U

43

38

1 u

19

1 u

1



n u

1 1 T

pjj- |

__





2

Tij] i

1 13



Vi

82

33

! H



43

66

1 b

28

! 1

9/16/2014

43

62

1 u

25

1 U



53

6

1 u

2

1 li



63

:

1 u

1

1 u

! <> w MM

t>*

5 u

5 U

5 LI

5 U



38

682
*

2

749 *

1

9/16/2014

43

616
*

3

787 ~

2

53

t>

1 U

2

i r



53

6

1 u

2

1 u



63

¦>

1 u

1

1 u



38

386
*

1

284*

I



44



1 u

242 *

1

9/16/2014

si

5

1 u

4

1



54

6

1 u

4

1



64

6

1 u

7

1 u

i

34

231
~



98

1 u



42

101

1 u

40

11

9/16/2014

42

95

I u

38

11.1



52



III

I

1 U



62

1

I (I

1



1-34

-------
Table E-





GW6-3T



37

5

1 li

1

1 U

GW6

3X 551'37

GW(i

9/16/2014

42

4

1 U

1 u

1 U

-w.48 5534

GW6 ^

52

! 1

! ! !

1 u

t u





GW6 o



62

1 u



1 u

1 13





t>S"*Q |01

9/10/2014

63

5 U



5 U

511





u\v" ;n



38

246

I

47

t U

GW7

3X 551158,
-90 4X3^"'

LD

9/16/2014

38

260

sK

2

53

I U



< i\\ " (i

43

11



2

I u









53

2



1

1 u





11\\ ;



63

3



2

1 13





is 105

9/10/2014

i,;

5 U



5 LI

5 U





u\V 8-58



38

406

U

579

13

GW8



GW8-42

9/17/2014

42

255

10

1.1

43

10 U





GW8-63



63

545

10

LJ

80

11





GW9-43



43

21

10

u

48

10 u

GW9

38.551074,

GW9-43
LD

9/17/2014

43

35

1 u

88

1

-90,483362

GW9-53

53

10

10

u

9

III









64

8

10

13

10

10 u









-n

33

5 U

5" ,1

5 U





<>^)-I07

9/11/2014



17

s I

14 J

5 U





nSTx-inrj





17

5 t)

» 1J

5 LI

GWIO

58 551047,
-m W4v0

C,\\ I-'-1?



42

43

10
LI

55

10 U



t.ft MM3
LD

9/17/2014

42

53

1 u

73

1





utt 111 >?



52

15

10

11

14

10 u





6579"*! 12



37

18





5 U

GW11

38,5507!

lit N 111

0/11/2014











-90.48372

f> s ?«.# <10

52













<1 ~'5 I



a







511

2 of 10

E-35

-------
Table E-C "











27

1 u

5

1 0











15

11

3

1



-W I8.-5 'J.1

(i\\ i i-v j



"f

>



1

1 u







uft 11 f>2





3



I

1 u







 1







IS

9/11/2014

12

5 11

1 < 1

5 U

r~ 5 I)



GWB



6579-11?



t.S

5 U

* 1

5 U

i 11



-'Hi

i.Wl ! 12





1 U

1 u

i t;

I r







u\S 1 : 5?

9/15/2014



1 u

1II

i u

! 1







u\\ I







I u

Tu

1 U







( i













M

1 10

5 U

S31









<^/« ,11

9/11/2014

<1

40

5 U

1; J









<.*74M20



' ?

< 1-

5 U

5 U



GW14

38 >5 IK
-W) 4820IX

?!)•

FD



62

7 4

s (

5 U

5U





. ! i r



17

l\>l •

_

1 0

132

5





GW14-42

9/15/2014

P T

I U



3





CA\ i i-V

¦> /

12

1 II

i ¦*

I U





U\S 14-it*







i u

2

I U

GWiS

4S 181

i1,

9/11/2014

52

2,200

1

'>00

14

<>0 W20~0

			

6579-124

62

ISO



51 J

S U

3 of 10

1-36

-------
GW15

3X 5"^ 184,
-'Mi 4S.V0

GW16

38.550813,
-90.485742

GW17

38.55! 129
-90,485898

GW18

iS *M3X,
¦>m 4xi(w2

idwater S

aiiipliiig'

....... .,.........E..","	,	P..

toih 2014 to

2016

(QU02)

tannic i

¦ •

"Ptfe- ,



v;v....:



52

792 *

1 u

330*

7

(-V, !•> ti2



62

207 •

1 u

53

2

1 »<



:«:>

5 U

7



5 U

1 ^

/12/2014

41



18



5 U

1 ?(>



61

12

5.4



5 U

*>\\ Id-

/16/2014

36

2

6

1 u

1 U

i ! \\ ! ,1- 11

41

7

is

2

1 U

8579-133



36

17

11.0

5 U

5 1.1

6579-132

/12/2014



28

170

9.1

5 U

D^"" 1 «l



12

17

S.2 J

511

;,>'u I h>



61

6.4



5 U

51,
_

u\\ r it,



36

17



4



GW17-41

"716/2014

41

61

331

18

1 D

*!\\ 1 ' M



51

31



11

I c

\ 1 16



41

17



7,4

5M

6579-135

''/12/2014

51

22



9.4 .1

- 1

M7u.J ii

FD













51

21

iitl

9.2.1

5 U





(>[

6.8

26

5 U

5 li

v.W IX-<6



36

14

75

6

1 U

11\\ ! 8- (!

1

9/16/2014

41

20



8

1 U

\\\ If<¦(.!



61

6



3

1

4 of 10

E-37

-------
Table E-12 Direct Push Groundwater Sampling front 2014 t<»201« (Or02)

f ~ : I' 1 '	, i ' ', w ' f	V • |

' *• .* I" 'fcl&tofc I « « w* I :SfiWBP»'' I '	t' ' '•

;; - •' ' r: • "' • ' r ' • I ' " ; ! '.•*'•• • .• Liitir rPC3B'-i	¦'







HlllpI; feWlflHt®













6579-142



36.5

StI

5 U

5 U

s v





6579-141



40,5

5 U

5 U

5U

s I





6579-140



Mil

5 U

5 i

5 V

* I





6579-139



60.5

M'

SI-

5 U

r 5 U

GW19

*s ii

(l\\l <¦!

i 9/16/2014

36.5

1 U

1 U

2

1 U

.1)0 4K.;>M

(>YV I»-

A.i -



40.5

1 U

1 u

1

1 u





(j\\ |M

n> •«



50.5

5

1

3

1 u





GW19-

i)i> i



60.5

5

1

3

1II





6s™1^-1 Hi



34

•» i

* r

5 U

5 U





p^V-1 It



40

nnr

5 U

5 U







6579-144



so

M'

5 U

5 V



GW20

3K <;

11?

9/16/2014

60

5 U

s 1

5i:



sn> wrn

uwm n

34

11,

IU

1 U







U\\2'I 10



40

1 U

1 U

1 u

1 |j









50

I

I 1

i i;

1 V:





(i\\ iO (>0



60

3

i t

l

1 U









(n

Ml

5 U



* (,









50

5 U

=> \

5 !

S 1





H



60

r 5.4

5 U



3 1





<->M 148



70

5 1.1

- 1

. -
5 IJ

5 II

GW21

3K ^so351.

j,^U i I ?

9/16/2014

v.

^TiT"

% l

5U

5 II



ti\\2t an

l,i

1 u

1 U

1 1>

1 U





t,W"l ->0



\U

2

1 0

1 u

1 1





u\\:i i.o



60

10

2

3

1 U





OW21-70



70

1 U

1 II

1 U

1 u







80

riir

1 LI

1 u

1 u

GW22

,., , ,, , 1 u\\ P-M)

9/17/2014

36

130

10

U

48

10 u

»H) »,S3:'l

u\\

36

148

1 11

61

1 [J

5 of JO

E-38

-------
Tabu: iv-!2	Crmtndtvaier Sanjplfiig fnim 2iH4 So 2016 |Cfl;02)

!	i ¦¦ ¦ . . !	V\'»iauU* < 5r^r«ii;;;;

I *	• -r I4^0k: 1'¦#.¦•"•• . -rrV I 3®SfiHC' I SftDSDiS 1&D& I •	>V	W

"	.••{• r;i«ttpfeiD I 'piajp - j ' JlBgg} I	^ C|Mlgo^as ^

|	V | | J- I I	I | .PvC I ' tlll0fciClC



GW22

;s itO



riwTMl

9/17/2014

41

104

10

u

33

10 U

-<>!! IXV-l



u\\2? Ml

51

2

1I7"1

1 l

1 u







G\\ ^ <<(



6!

I U

1 u

1 U

1 u







GW23-33



33

98!

13

(.Ki

j







GW23-39



39

169

10

u



254

10 u



IK -ill OX*

*>o

















GW23



u\\:« vi
1 L>

>/i 7/2014

39

179

1

280

1







t>\\ ,'5-N





19

1 u

7

1 u







liU.M m)





?

1 u

5

I u







( ,\\ 1 i in







1I1

1

1 u

GW24

?S tl



u\\:-s i:

VI7/2014





n





1 u

-v«0 4 S "*<-> 1



o\\ * i-v





)uT



1 u







c;\\?i



0."

1 U

llj[



1 u





T 17



3 /

((!(>

1 u



36

1 u







uU.'^ 1?



42



1 u



38

1 u

GW25

N \



uU >

VI7/2© 14



83

I u

20

1 u





Luw:i-io

62

8

1 u

2

1 u







(t\\

LD



62

7





2

1 u







WW >b <7



r»

23





7

I







< iV\ ?(¦> P







I u



78

4



is ¦"is >

-'HI KhM'l



( ift V. t,1





4

1 u



1

1 0

GW26



6579-163

4/17/2014



17

5 o



6.1

^ 1





1<._< ,





511



7Q

5 U







§ f, s







I I



- 1

5 U







(iS7»-I(^i





i I

N < 1



5 U

5 1 i







(>•* :>) I f>"



a /

'¦» 1

5 IJ



4(1

5 U

GW27

IX «!.?08





i/J 7/2014

42

V

"t 11



13

5 U

<->< 1 ifL'XU





*0



5 \] T

!» S

5 U







03/V .. .





yj

H 1

3.2

5 [i

6 of 10

K~»

-------
Table E-12 Wired Pus Is

GW27

GW'30

GW31

7 of 10

I

S ^>125

38,552111,
-90,482250

i,\\r r

u« >"-<>?

uVs.'x.-;;

LP

uW

u\\ 'x ~:
o\\ :x->?

uVV.'KjO
l.W lX-<> '

_ Js 1 -

(,S"U l(,u

u\\ "i ;~
u\\

iiSXi'

wo.r,

"h

f,S M.|oS

(A\ m "
i.-\\ ii< V
11)

n\\ *o t •

w\\ «/ X'
uVv »0

P_y i

1

il?"*0"'""'

to--» l"!,
«i\\ M 17
U\\ M 4?
ti\\ M-v"
litt *1 o1

9/18/2014

9/18/2014

9/18/2014

9/18/2014

9/18/2014

E-40

-------
Table E-l.





'i._ | -o



37

26

5 0

II

511

GW31

38,55126.

i.r»i rx

'18/2014

42



S U

5 U

5 U

-90,48282



52

, 1

5 U

5 U

5 U





>^-<•1 |



62

6,9

5 11

5 U

5 11





t«w



37

1

I U

1 U

1 U





<>W l»-4'



42

1

1 U



1 V





ti\\



52

1





1 u





GW32-62



62

7

1 0



1 u

GW32

38.551761,

-90.481239

u\\ !' V1
L_

9/18/2014

52

1

111



1 u



»<-». ix;



T7

5 u

< 11

S 1 '

5 U





h •>"*'/ |V





5 u

5 II

5 U

5 U





<>'• ."l-ISI





5 u

5 U

s 1

5 U





o^'MSS



S2

-»t

C 1 1

;) is

SI!





ISH





5 U



5 U

5U









?7

5 U





5 U











5 U





51





6579-184

9/18/2014

62

5 U





< 1



38 551412,
-*¦481410

v.w w r

37

! 1

1



1 I:

GW33

>. t\\ 3 • ^





1

1 11



^ 1 I)



lAVi! :0





2

I



1 U





«;w ; i-4 ¦*





1 U

1



1 u





li\\ 1 t

1 1 n

9/19/2014

57

1

1 u

1 U

1 u





|'
-------
Table E-12 IVtrcct Push <»rowisl» aler Sampjimi from 2iM-i io JOH> {O! vl)

r~"~ —™	^	- - —	¦" ~	<

• .tilBBa

ttagln

S^ipi
:;-IJat6



SB-5/GW-

2

38.551383,
-90.482221

SB-6/GW-
3

38.551375,
-90.482294

SB-7/GW-
4

*8 551136.
-<)(i 4X331(1

SB-8/GW-

5

38.551362,
-90.482537

SB-9/GW-

6

38.551312,
-90.482519

SB-

3KA50M.
¦rn 4825! U

88-
18/GW-8

38.5511.47,
-90.482820

GW-35

3K -51 -«3
-vh> I},:-- W

GW-36

3XS51>n"
-»0 48^1

GW-37

38

.*>•> 481'\Si>

n')K6-[0t>_
oDSd-ld (

<><«<>-1 p>_

(>-108*_

1 I *
fn»Kn-1 I l_
fASM I !-

1 i>

()UK(t.)) <_

11K

6>>So-l P
6l«t.-l lt>_

i ? i_
I3n

I (WH6-1 N

I f>ySt>-124

f1>K(>-I ~3

6986-13 1*

( 1 hi

1 25

____

~ 13 MCI "
iDi-

FD
7111 -104

/131 10*
'PI I Oh
'I ')

i^ffcstels



$:¦ :



¦ i

2 :



35

150

51)

360

16

12/15/2015

45

270

5 (3

92

* I



65_



5 U



5 13



35

92

5 U

28

5 I

12/16/2015

45

"71



3i»

5 I



64

5 4

<5 11

5 U

5 U



35



5 U

17

5 If



45

•7 ¦»

5 II

21

5 U

12/16/2015

45

77

'

21

5 U



_ ^

Mi



% 1 -1

5 U

12/16/2015

35

h)l,

UJ

53 3



45

IS

Mi

74





64

s 7

"> |i







(S

i HI

i i





12/16/2015

45

I »u

¦> 1







63

5 U

> 1

•; t





35

81 J

-i

UJ

16 3



12/P :ni-

45

461

¦s

UJ

11 J

5 UJ



64

8

5 U

51)

5 U

12/17/2015

35

250

s

70 J



45

32



5.8





64

513



5 1'

-



30

5 U

3 U

5 U



- 5/4/2016



5.7

5 U

5 U















52

7.3

5 13

5 U

5 U

- 5/4/2016

30

25

5 U

5 V

5 I

52

38

5U

6,6

5 i;

- 5/4/2016

30

21

513

6,2

I



54

5 13

13



9 of 10

E-42

-------
! yt>it' 2 Direct Push <>r««imlniUcr Sampling from 2014 to 2016

i(«itcd Volatile Otyume
	Compounds

. TCI



GW-38

38.55167,

7121-108

5/4/2016

30

1 < 1

5 if

5 U



-90.481733

7121-10?

52



5 LI

* I

__



38.551348,
-90.481933

7121-110



30



SU

400,1

18

GW-39

7121-109

5/4/2016

52



5 U

280.1

8.4





7121-112



30



5U

1,4001

36

GW-40

38.551509,
-90.482101

7121-111

5/4/2016

52



5 U

1,2®0 J

28





7121-111-
FD



52

] 3,900
| J

5 II

1,300 J

33

Notes

All ooiKontiations ;»c rmcio|>iam.s pot liter (|U\	I uboiaton duplicate

Data Qualifiers:

* j U
UJ

Sample ivncciMiiilinn was above the upper uuamit.itioii imni and is estimated awl biased low. The identification of the analyfe is acceptable; the reported
laluc i> at estimate

1 he ajwi\te wi.s :tot detected ;it m jbsnc (he icsvtttni" limit

The «ah le ih»I JeicUed at « above (he icpoitmi' ltm< I lie reporting limit: is an estimate,
t 'hetmeul Abbreviations

1)11	Dtehloioelbuie

HCb	!Vtr.iehloiier»e

TCA	I ncliloioetlune

TCE	I nchlnroethene

10 of 10

E-43

-------
Table E-13 Vapor

Location

atrusion Sampling Results <()! U2)

Location
Type

Volatile organic i-itntpituikl (micrograms per cubic
meierl

Sample
Type

Sample
End Date

P-Oi

Residential

P-02

Commercial

P-03

P-04

I of 6

P \ Indoor Air Removal Vtioii 1

Indoor Air
Sub-slab

Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air

Sub-slab
Indoor Air

Sub-slab
Sub-slab

Indoor Air
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab_
Indoor Air
Snb-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Sub-slab

Sub-slab

Indoor Air

Indoor Air

Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Indoor Air
Sub-slab
Sub-slab
Indoor Air

Residential

Residential

E-44

-------
e E-13 Vapor

ntrusiwn Sampling

Results (Ol 02)









Location

Location

Sample

Sample

Laboratory

Volatile organic compound (m>ui«t;ram5 per cubic
•iielci t

Type

Type

End Date

Sample ID

Os 1 ! -

1 X i

PCE

TCJE

\ ins 1
{'blonde

EPA Indoor Air Removal \ctiwi Levels

Nl

42

2

NE





• nmi
Sjiatx

11/8/2012

 <

75.5

1.5

O 1 *1 |





tadoorAirj

5999-38

1 UK I

160

6.0?



P-05

Commercial

Crawl
Span.

„\n n«i3

-iHii) ;t)



89

2.74

t> lb I >





Crawl

8/13/2013

6080-1

1 l,S Ii

ii 111)

0,43 IJ

ii 1ft 1

P-06

Residential u >"!? VJ lh

HHkSH \ll



- '—

1%H

1.98 U

11 '< !i n i

i> i: 11 o n i

c It, ('
0 If. 1





sub slab





1.98 U

i: *

0.43 U

0 If



Sub-slab

8/1 i mm ,



3.96 U

r k

0 8t> 1

0 i





Imlooi \u

M'<\" i !

1 il*\ t •>" Id

0.483







sub slab

11/7/2012

W'M In

t ^8 1

in

0.43 U

a i m





liid^ot \n



• >« 1

0.41 II

0 llll

0 K





Indoor Air

2/13/2013

Vjlk) \<>

! U(, j ,

oiTD

0 Sd i I

0,32 U

P-0?

Residential

Mib-Mab

41

, 1

I 75

0 Sb ll

0 t

Imioo- \;i
Sub si ah

5/14/2016

" I!

_

I '>X 1

> » 1 1

A A7S

0.43 U
1 .'<> i:

0 !<> !,
0 48 r





Sub slab

8/13/2013

'>05,'-N

' ')!s I



i> r> r

0 1 (. <





huknn \n

<\ )M' Q

1 '/s 1



mill

f> if.'





Ir.Jixti \u

11/8/2012
2/14/2013

s8 i-ir

1 w) 1

0.41 U 0.43 U

0 it. 1

P-08

Residential

Suh-sljh
InJ^ot \n

¦*S" ;.p

s no t

s OX

(MM
it So 1

o n i





Sab-slab

S>KW IX

« "8 I

? 01

o n i>

(i if. ii





illdooi ,\il

5/15/2013

niir-'is

i I'

i) rs

0.43 U

0 If, II

P-09

Residential

Sub-stab



; i

1.49

0.967

(1 <3 S1

Crawl
Sjvu .•

81 i vn



1 .)M Li

1.42

0.483

0.16 U





!>U!i Hi? Nil



¦lU.Hii J



49

0.43 U

(i H





Itidiioi \<>

11/8/2012

\S"I 1 Ml



0.475

0.43 11



P-IO

Residential

Sub-slab

5871-131



70.8

0,43 1.1



huknn All

1 1 ' />'1 *

V



0.4 1 I!

0.43 U

(! lb 1 1





Suh-slab





34.6

0.43 11

0 lb ll

2 of 6

E-45

-------
Tab e E-13 Vapor Intrusion Sampling Results (QU02)

Volatile organic coiifn'uiH! (micrograms pci cuha
me ki)			

Vinyl

PCE

42

P-10

P-II

P-12

P-13

P-14

3 of 6

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

InJuot vir
Mib->htb_

(nJo-ii \it

1 mil>oi \i>
inikn'i \ii

ImlotH Vir
Sub-s|al»_
Sttb \l,»b

Sub-siab
inA.01 Air
Suh-slah

IniWi \u_

\n

Npb-slab
lndiX»_Aii

Indoor Air

Sub-slab

Sub-slab

Nub slab

llldimj V;i
Sub---Kll'»

IndlHH \ II

IlldoOl \n

Sut"si'^

InJivr \ir

Snb«.Ub_
Sub-slab

N»b->-ldb
J.ldlHM \ll

lllduoi \ll
Indom An
Sub-slab

5/14/2013

s i; ¦•Oil
811 ;mi =

2/13/2013

8/7/2012

11/7/2012

2/12/2013

S/15/2013

8/7/2012

11/7/2012

2/12/2013

5/15/2013

8/7/2012

i i^ui:

M/ 201 t

"

W)V-14_
Wi,Si 1.1'"
<>! 180-I 1
nOXfl-"

S'»K)4j~

FD
SiHW H

-\IIQU_ p.

FD
5740-107

5740-7
5871-107
->k I -'

W.B7- 11
Ml 57 44-

FD

Mli".

6037-35-

I- D
- ~ i(i-1 ON
5740-8

"^s*i imi
?S7i-8~_
>i m s

6037-36

"s*1 til-ID1)
N '4H-1.

>8"l -HM
; in w *

0.949

1 >)K I •

1.98 U

1.98 U

1.98 U

19.8 O

i.m u

m v !

3.69 U
3.96 U

i >>8 r

i i i

1.98 U

70.3

1.02

132

3.53

13.4

1.98 U

9.9 U

19.8 U
1 »8 S
I W (
1 OS .
H>8 I ¦
I l)S 11
1.98 U

1 ''is >

19.8 U

10.4
7.801!
s wo
It'll

liu"

2 1
I) S M "

0X21;

	30

(1X2 U

2.44

4.81

2.05 U

19.8U

1 98 U_
J "8 !J_

J (,xiL
1 *'8 lL
i »817

'i i ¦

0,41 U

jmhj

0.41 U
32.1
0.41 U

1021!

0 61

1? r

0 41 i:_

0 4 i J!_
30 8

TCE

0 41 U
0.43 U
0.43 13
_0 r» I
1 Ni
2.36

2.04

1,860

1.11,Ml

26,9 U

1.13
2.15 U

(i 8'» I'
Kj> I

0	SW

1	• S{> 11

0.43 li
0.43 1.1
2.15 U

2<> •» i '
O *)| !

34 8
jt 4 H _
0 13 1 -
8 <>7
O I H 1
l> s
2MI I

80.7 II

;i n i

U 43 I
0.43 O
II I u
01U

t'liUuiJc

Nl

o IM

O 1(1 1
O if. Li
_ 0 !(_, P _
0 in li

u i<> r
U in 11
0 1C>J_ _
0 i(> n

12 8 t:

0.1613

0 32 I
" o"37ji
_ O Hi I

o" l~2V~

ii l'» r

12 8 1

is iM
O 16 t_
(I 1 fi 1 j
(I 16 l1
(i hi I •
0.1.611
0 16 t
12X1

12 8 1'

(i lit]
ii IM
0 1 f> I f
OI61'

0 1(1 11

E-46

-------
e E-I3 Vapor 1

ntrusion

Sampling

Results

i

§

o











Location

Location

Sample

Sample

Laboratory

Volatile organic eoin|Mi.ml
fluid

i miam-rams per cubic

Type

Type

End Date

Sample ID



PCE



1 Cb



EPA Indooi \u kv moval Action Levels

NE

4?



t

_ Nr

P-14

Residential

Indoor Air

5/14/2013

6037-15



<1 11 t



f

0.16 U

Sut<--.hit

6037-16



"1 I



0 1M

O.K.'





ImWt \>i

8/7/2012

> M-10

1.98 U





ii >

>1 1M '





Silt- -laH

¦."to 1 i'i

19,8 U





> a l

12.8 U





llhltkl! A.I

11/6/2012

n-lu

¦>H l





,» |i .

0.16 U

P-15

Residential

vuli-Nlah

110

1.98 U





liiilJ-1

0.16 U

Indoor Air
Suh-sUtb

2/12/2013

SOlM S

1 1





i

. i -r. u

3 •->>

1.98 b





H4U.

0.16 U





Sib ,!ab

8/7/2012

~"4<< 11/

NS S



>» 1'

12.8 U





llk!> HI! \i!



1 "X (



0.43 U







snb-\l.ib



>8'I )i:

1 *'8<

22.2

0.43 U

0 l<





hut.) hkb

11/7/2012

1-11

1.9811

21.5

0 4111

0.16 U

P-18

Residential

'mittin \n

">S"1 -1 /

; 11

0,41 U



0.43 U



linkxu \n







2.85



0 43 1'







Imloot \»

2/12/2013



1.98 II

0.41 IJ



0 i i ( i

0.16 U





Si.h sl.ih



1 >S 1

L 10 ¦

	r	

12.3 11

o mi

o |<





Stib-^Iab

5/15/2013

win 40

¦•<¦) l)

1 9 t 1

0.32 U





llldii.'I \II



i 1'

I.M I



1 "Ml

4.8 L)







8/7/2012

"UMfn

>M o 1

b S I



SI 8 T

c 1





imiiM, \il

(> *

1.98 U

I) "46



n in

0.16 U

P-17

Residential

Sub si.th

11/6/2012
~2/i2O0t3~



1,98 11

4.47



0.43 U

0.16 U

1 («!""! \'l
Iiukn>i \c



,

¦



nlil

n It. 1





5999. l

, l'h 1





0.43 li

0 1 '1 (





liuhvi Mt

•> h

603? »23

1 u8 11





0 IS !

ii Hi i





IlIlilH" \ >>

Mih",ub

8/7/2© 12

> '*0-1
h,'

i qs r

1 "S t

©.41 U



•) 80f>

__

0 to I
0 It. I

P-18

Residential

hidi>.if \n

11/6/2012

SS-| H «

;i1
] 'IX l

Oil-
21 t.

0.43 U
0.43 U

0 !<> 1

ti If!

liuloi.i \;i
Sub \iab

2/12/2013

J"

i "s t
I WH t

0.41 U



0.43 U	

'1 |!|

0 |(> 1 1

0 1(. 1





Sub-slab

5/14/2013



1 '»!< I

J'1



0.43 U

O H. 11





Imi'KH \;i



i 'is r

,< „i



0.43 U

O |<> 1 '

4 of 6

E-47

-------
Tabic F-13 Vapor Intrusion Sampling Results (Qli02)

Location
Type

Sample
Type

Sample
End Date

Laboratoty

Sample ID

Volatile organic	(micrograms per cubic

nicki \ _ 			_

Vinyl

ICE

EPA Indoor Air Raiim.il Aitim' Levels

Nil

p. 19

P-20

P-21

P-22

Residential

Commercial

Residential

P-23

S ,.| 6

Residential

Indoor Air
ItuWi \n

llHilK't \lt

lintiXit \i<

Indoor Air
^uli--.lah
Mib-slal.
IndiH'i \ir
imliKi \ir
Suh-Miih

Jlhto,)! \ n
Sub-sl.th
Suh-ilnit
Imioot \»

I Klttl
Space
liuloot \tt
I (Jul

Space
\»

Indooi An

1 f jul

_ Space	

IihIiX'I Mr

('tin. I
S(l,Kv 	

Crawl
sna^
[ihKh>i \l<
Craw!

_Sj\K,	

Indoor Air
Indoor Air
Crawl

¦ puv.^

_\ll
t I.ittl
Span
Cnml

SpjLC	

ln io
5999-11
wi.' ">4

~603t5s~

5740-11

vmiT-A i

5871-11
iS"'l 111

vwm Mi
r

_WM 'Oh
MlU.1 '

.*>¦»'MOO
_i"U0 <>

5871-106

I ^ L"h

.VHN i;

5999-13

6037-7

6037-8

M4
S740-4
MM

j

5999-15

6037-3
6037-4

5740-5

19.8 U

I »X il
1 I
1.98 U

1.98 U

% l«>j 1
1.98 U

! i

1.98 U

,(>„ i •

1 *>K 1 >

i m i1
j i >
i os i
1 1
1 %'j
NS U
1.98 U
1 'is I

TiilT

1 "X tj
1 9.S I

1.98 U
I "X 1 f

19.8 U

*"

iWI1

0.949
0.475

olll'
(Mi I
0X? I

" 11 1 _

0.475
28.5
o" 8 t!
_ X MS _

r

9.02
) o->

8.68
2 -\S

33.9 U

1.98 LI

1.98 11

i wgj'
1  I

d'n 1'
0 X<> I
Din

0 13 ll
0 <<<>""
-,4 >4 1

(Utl
18,9

U-li I

5.43
"ill
1.13

26.9 U

(l -13 I i

o4ii;

0 43 C _
.0 HI1

DIM

"iV HI'"
0,43 U

19.81!

1.98 U

1 ID ( 1
>i 54 2

26.9 U

041 I

i' Ml

0.43 U
0 43 I

0 M I

II IU

0.43 U

20 0 I'

0M3

Ni
12.8 U
0 In I1

0 10 I
0 !M _

.1 lt« 1 I

o 32 I
01(1 I '
0 16 t
Old I
0 <2 U
0.16 U
o 10 i

0 It, 1
JH6 I
(I 10 11
0.16 U

12x1'

_o ui i ¦

0 IMi

0.16 U

0.16 U

(MM
'I lo
0.16 U

12.8 U
0 1M

ft io U

n to V

ii It. 1[

0.16 Ll
0 1(1 I
0.16 U

12X1'

t>7or~

E-48

-------
Table E-13 Vapor Intrusion Sampling Results (OIIQ2)

Location

Location Type

Sample

Sample

Laboratory

Volatile organic compound i micntgrams per cubic
me lei i

Tvoe

End Date

Sample ID

i. is -. iN

1 K'l

PCB

TCE



EPA Indooi \ii Rchiia.i! \uien i e\eh

Nt

42

'

nt:





i i ,m 1

space

11/7/2012

5871-105

1.98 U

II !"s

0.43 U

A I £ 1 t





lllllooi All



^ '1-5

1 »H 1



u 4 V







IlxlilOI \I





1 «K I

)1 < i1

'i 13 li



P-23

Residential

fi.ml

Space

2/12/2013

s;

1.98 'U

0.41 U

0 43 I:







Spas, e

5/14/2013

6037-5

i «S (

0.41 U



0.16 U





lnd>K'i \n





* '>6 1«

ii s: 11

o 8(> 11

0.32 U





Mtb-slab



s"U> I l ¦

I'lSU

* <') i1

"N' ^ 1

^T777 '





ImliHH Aa

8/7/2012

5740-13

! U

0 II l

o i> r

C





Smhhn \n



S7I0 1 1-

i n

3.96 U

i ?t>

0.86 U

P i'i

P-24

Residential

St;h slab

11/6/2012

2/12/2013

iH"* i -! > ?

¦ "¦'!< 1

e

'HH

0.16 U

imlaot -\n

|_ s!CI H

1 48 n

(if.si

0 13 I

0 In 1 i





I lido,11 \l,

w>-:k





i' HI

<) Id 1





Suh-sLib

5999-29

1 US 11





0 sot1





Imltuu An

5/14/2013

.rt»ethane

DCE	I 'ichloiiK'tltcnc

PCE	I ctmchluinctbctn.

TCA	I iichlonKlli.ms'

TCE	I nchior.K'thcne

1.-49

-------